How Stephen Miller Can Bypass A Democratic Congress For The Next Two Years

With Democrats taking Capitol Hill, the White House has a deep bench of existing authority, discretionary funding, and regulatory levers ready to deploy.

The Second Amendment has become a security blanket



During a speech three days after the Democrats’ 2026 midterm victory, Michigan’s U.S. Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed told an Arab-American gathering in Virginia, “I’m honored to be the next United States senator from the great state of Michigan, which of course I know we’re here in D.C., which of course is the capital of the United States of America, but Michigan is the capital of Arab America.”

El-Sayed is far from the first to boast about the rising concentration of Arab and Muslim populations in states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Texas. Americans have routinely criticized Europeans for their lack of action as their homelands are transformed by Muslim immigration. They have often stated that a similar phenomenon could never happen here because Americans are well armed thanks to the Second Amendment.

Despite the bluster around owning firearms, the Second Amendment seems to have done little to halt America’s own demographic transformation.

Despite these confident declarations, Americans are watching passively as Muslim politicians win elections. Conservatives are using the Second Amendment as a security blanket to comfort themselves as they slowly lose control of their own country.

People often talk about their “red-pill moment” when they recognized that politics was not what it seemed. For me, that moment was the migrant crisis that swept Europe in 2015. The fallout from Middle Eastern conflicts destabilized several countries, and refugees sought new homes in Europe. At first, many Western countries welcomed the arrivals, but the migrants were not simply women and children fleeing war. Nearly three-quarters of asylum-seekers were male, and 42% were men ages 18 to 34. Many did not stop at the first safe country they entered but continued traveling until they reached the European countries where they preferred to settle.

In addition to the economic burden, Europeans discovered that their new immigrant populations were not always ideal guests. Many had no desire to integrate, while Islamist activists pushed for separate justice systems under Sharia law. Britain’s grooming-gang scandals exposed the rape and abuse of girls and repeated failures by police and other authorities to protect them. The general population of countries like Germany and the United Kingdom had initially been welcoming, but many were souring on immigration they increasingly understood to be an invasion.

Voters may have come to the realization that mass immigration did not benefit their countries, but politicians refused to listen. Leaders shamed their populations as xenophobic and Islamophobic bigots. In the grooming-gang scandals in particular, officials avoided confronting crimes and uncomfortable facts about perpetrators. They punished Englishmen who dared to defend their daughters.

Voters in country after country attempted to elect politicians who would reject mass immigration but were routinely betrayed by the candidates they supported. It seemed increasingly clear that there were no political solutions to the invasion.

RELATED: Muslims organize openly. Why do Christians act like they can’t?

Blaze Media Illustration

As English girls were abused, American conservatives responded, “That’s what you get for giving up your guns. That will never happen here because we have the Second Amendment.” Even when Europeans attempted to stand up against mass immigration and their own governments, they remained disarmed and unorganized. It seemed like exactly the kind of hopeless situation the Bill of Rights was written to avoid.

Despite the bluster around owning firearms, the Second Amendment seems to have done little to halt America’s own demographic transformation. After 9/11, George W. Bush was joined by the establishment GOP in warning Americans not to blame Islam for the attacks. Even after terrorists murdered thousands in the name of Islam, Republican leaders treated proposals to restrict Muslim immigration as taboo.

During his first term, Donald Trump restricted entry from several majority-Muslim countries. Critics dubbed the policy a “Muslim ban.” The measure had overwhelming support from his base but was hated by establishment Republicans and the media. It was altered after several court injunctions, and a revised version was upheld by the Supreme Court. Joe Biden revoked the policy in 2021. Trump reinstated country-based travel restrictions in 2025, expanding it to include Chad and the Republic of the Congo.

Republicans spent much of the 2026 midterms warning about Muslim immigration. Yet no major GOP candidate made banning Muslim immigration a central campaign issue. No one ran on expanding the travel ban to more Muslim countries, increasing deportations, or attempting to restrict naturalization.

When it came to growing Muslim political power in major cities or mosque construction in Texas, the GOP had little to say. New York City, which suffered the largest terrorist attack in American history in the name of Islam, now has a foreign-born Muslim mayor. The Second Amendment did nothing.

RELATED: This is what existential politics looks like

Blaze Media Illustration

The right to bear arms is core to the American identity, and I fully support it. I would always prefer to have the option to defend myself, no matter the situation.

But the Second Amendment has become an excuse for political impotence among conservatives. The idea that one can always fall back on armed defense has become an excuse to avoid meaningful political action. Once Muslims vote their way into power, they will not let you vote them out, but conservatives can always tell themselves they have the right to bear arms as a last resort.

The cowardice of conservatives during the COVID lockdown regime should tell you that the guys with guns do nothing when tested. They close their churches, put on masks, and sit at home like loyal subjects. Or Europeans.

Many will say that rejecting immigrants based on their religion violates the First Amendment, and I could not care less. No one has an inherent right to become an American, and Americans have every right to reject immigration they believe threatens their way of life.

If the United States does not take action to defend itself against Muslim immigration now, then the Second Amendment will not protect us from our failures. Gun owners will sit at home as city after city, state after state, is conquered through demographics and the ballot box.

DON'T MENTION THE ISLAM: John Cleese versus Britain's new sacred cows



For generations of American comedy fans, John Cleese has embodied a certain idea of Britain. His long face, angular features, and stiff, vaguely aristocratic bearing suggested the quintessential Englishman: formal, reserved, faintly pompous, easily befuddled, and perpetually irritated by the stupidity of everyone around him.

He rode that comic persona to international fame, first as a member of Monty Python, whose surreal sketches became a cult phenomenon on American public television in the 1970s, then in the troupe's hit films "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" and "Life of Brian." In 1988, he found mainstream Hollywood success with "A Fish Called Wanda," playing a stuffy English barrister opposite Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline. Back home, he was also Basil Fawlty, the permanently exasperated hotelier of the classic sitcom "Fawlty Towers."

In 2019, Cleese took to Twitter to declare that London was "no longer an English city," repeating an observation he had first made in 2011.

Now, at 87, Cleese has become a symbol of a very different Britain — one in which the absurdities he spent his career ridiculing have acquired new forms and where his criticism of Islam has prompted someone to report him to the government's counter-extremism program, Prevent.

For decades, Cleese made a living mocking the conventions of a Britain that was insular, socially conservative, and fiercely protective of its traditions. Its stuffy manners, rigid hierarchies, and reverence for authority provided endless material for Monty Python.

A very British blasphemy

In their first original feature film, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," the Pythons sent up Arthurian legend, medieval superstition, and religious ritual. But when they turned their attention more directly to Christianity in "Life of Brian," they discovered something surprising: Jesus wasn't particularly funny. They had initially considered making a comedy about Christ himself, but the more they read about him, the less material they found. As fellow Python Michael Palin explained in 1979, there was very little in Jesus' life worth ridiculing.

Instead, they invented Brian, an ordinary fellow living in Roman-occupied Judea who is mistaken for the Messiah. The film satirized human gullibility, religious zealotry, and political factionalism. As Reg, the revolutionary leader, Cleese memorably spoofed left-wing factionalism. Asked if he belonged to the Judean People's Front, he replied: "F**k off! … Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea!"

Christian critics failed to see the distinction. In a notorious 1979 BBC debate, Cleese and Palin defended the film against Malcolm Muggeridge and Mervyn Stockwood, the Bishop of Southwark, who accused them of mocking Christ. The Pythons insisted they were making fun of people who misunderstood religious teaching.

The controversy proved enormously profitable. The film was banned in Ireland and Norway, while some British councils prohibited screenings. But protests only increased public interest. "Life of Brian" became Britain's fourth-highest-grossing film of 1979, and Cleese later joked that the protesters had made him rich.

Nearly half a century later, the stakes appear considerably higher. What was once a cultural controversy, fought out in cinemas, newspapers, and television studios, now threatens to become a matter for the state. The guardians of public morality have changed, and so have the means at their disposal.

Yelling at clouds?

To his critics, Cleese's increasingly outspoken views are simply the predictable grumblings of an old man drifting toward conservatism. In a 2019 Independent column, Caspar Salmon lamented that the comedian who once delighted in mocking English pomposity and small-mindedness had become reactionary himself. Comedy thrives on undermining the status quo, Salmon argued, but successful comedians can eventually become part of it.

It's a familiar accusation, but it overlooks something rather important: The status quo itself has changed beyond recognition.

Christianity remains fair game for British comedy, to say the least. The second season of the acclaimed BBC series "Fleabag" featured its sexually adventurous heroine falling for — and eventually seducing — a Catholic priest. But when the subject turns to Islam, the boundaries of acceptable ridicule become considerably more contentious.

These changing sensitivities have accompanied a staggering demographic transformation. In 2001, White British residents accounted for 59.8% of London's population. By the 2021 census, that figure had fallen to 36.8%. Over the same period, the capital's Muslim population more than doubled, from approximately 607,000 in 2001 to 1.32 million in 2021, rising from 8.5% to 15% of Londoners.

Cleese has been marking the changes for years. In 2019, he took to Twitter to declare that London was "no longer an English city," repeating an observation he had first made in 2011.

For his crime of noticing, he was slammed by the usual suspects. Mayor Sadiq Khan likened him to Basil Fawlty, while fellow comedian Dom Joly called his remarks — you guessed it — "very racist."

Opposing 'Anglophobia'

Cleese has rejected the predictable charges of Islamophobia, insisting that his objections are cultural rather than racial, and wondering whether practices including stoning, halal slaughter, wife-beating, and Sharia courts could themselves be considered a form of "Anglophobia."

"The UK has always been based at the deepest level on Christian values, regardless of dogma," he posted on X in March. "Despite the many mistakes made by churches, for centuries British people have been influenced by Christ's teaching. If these values are replaced by Islamic ones, this will not be Britain any more."

In another post, he wrote: "I personally prefer a culture that does not approve of FGM [female genital mutilation], Child Marriage and Killing Infidels."

This distinction has not been enough to keep Cleese in the good graces of Britain's reigning cultural commissars. Indeed, these were among the posts cited in the complaint that landed him in his current predicament.

That complaint, publicized by the Muslim news website 5Pillars, accused Cleese of a sustained pattern of anti-Muslim rhetoric. His social media posts, the complainant alleged, portrayed Muslims collectively as violent and criminal, potentially contributing to radicalization and communal tensions.

The irony is that Prevent was originally established to combat Islamist radicalization. It has since expanded to other forms of extremism. Now a program conceived to prevent Islamist terrorism has received a complaint about a comedian criticizing aspects of Islam.

Cleese responded with characteristic good humor. "One of the proudest moments of my life," he wrote on X. "I would like to thank everyone concerned."

The episode comes amid a broader effort by the British government to define and combat hostility toward Muslims. In March, it adopted a new definition of anti-Muslim hostility. Although non-statutory and explicitly protecting criticism and even ridicule of Islam, critics fear it could be used to suppress legitimate debate through institutional pressure — effectively creating a new blasphemy taboo without passing a blasphemy law.

Don't mention the war

The changes Cleese objects to aren't confined to immigration or religion. Even his own comedy has fallen foul of modern sensitivities.

In 2020, BBC-owned UKTV temporarily removed "The Germans," one of the most celebrated episodes of "Fawlty Towers," from its streaming service because of offensive language. Cleese publicly attacked BBC management, calling its decision-makers "cowardly and gutless and contemptible." The episode was subsequently reinstated with a content warning.

For Cleese, the absurdity was obvious. Major Gowen was supposed to be an old fool, and the audience was laughing at his prejudices, not being invited to share them. That such a distinction needed explaining to television executives was itself worthy of a Monty Python sketch.

For Cleese, the absurdity was obvious. Basil Fawlty was supposed to be an idiot. The audience was laughing at his prejudices, not being invited to share them. That such a distinction needed explaining to television executives was itself worthy of a Monty Python sketch.

Cleese can sometimes seem like the last bastion of resistance to the BBC's crusade to appoint itself the nation's chief comedy censor. In September 2026, the corporation cut 11 sketches from "That Mitchell and Webb Look" for its release on iPlayer, including sketches satirizing racism. The same month, it emerged that the BBC had also removed an entire episode of the children's educational sketch show "Horrible Histories" featuring slavery in ancient Rome and the exploitation of Victorian child workers. Those cuts, the BBC clarified, had actually been made seven years earlier to comply with its guidelines for children's programming.

RELATED: ‘Outrageous anti-British scheme’: UK universities to offer Muslims interest-free Sharia student loans

Laurel Chor/Getty Images

Romanes eunt domus

This pathological fear of offending extends into everyday life. A 2021 survey found that more than half of Britons under 30 had stopped talking to someone over their political opinions. And according to research published by the BBC in 2026, 37% of 16- to 24-year-olds said they couldn't be friends with someone who held different views.

Against this backdrop, Cleese's transformation from self-described "slightly left of centre" Liberal Democrat to public supporter of Rupert Lowe's Restore Britain party looks less like the predictable crankiness of old age than a response to a country that has changed around him.

To his credit, Cleese has refused to retreat into comfortable retirement as a national treasure. In 2023, he hosted "The Dinosaur Hour," a GB News talk show filmed in a 12th-century castle, complete with wandering cats, actors dressed as nuns, and other Monty Python-esque absurdities.

The title was a joke at his own expense. Cleese pitched the show to the unfashionable and out of touch, a demographic he cheerfully counted himself among. Given complete creative freedom, he spent the hour discussing everything from politics and the press to creativity and religion with guests including Stephen Fry, Trevor McDonald, and Lionel Shriver.

Although "The Dinosaur Hour" ended after 10 episodes, Cleese has hardly withdrawn from the fray. In 2026, he returned to British theaters with a tour celebrating the 50th anniversary of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," introducing screenings and fielding questions from audiences. He has already announced more dates for 2027, under the suitably Cleese-like title "Still Not Dead (Yet)."

In a country where police made more than 12,000 arrests under laws governing offensive and malicious communications in 2023 alone, it's refreshing to see a near-nonagenarian with the gumption to give the establishment a kick up the arse — two replacement hips and an artificial knee be darned. Those of us Britons born after Monty Python's heyday could stand to follow his example.

No, Latino Voters’ Swing To Democrats Was Not Because Of ‘Deportations’

To suggest that Latinos, who voted for Trump and his immigration platform in 2024, turned on the GOP due to ICE alone is a lie.

Send ICE to Harvard

For weeks now, striking graduate students affiliated with the United Auto Workers union have been disrupting classes at Harvard while the administration stands idly by. Non-tenure track faculty joined the strike on Tuesday, rallying to chants of “shut it down!” The “it” in question is the university. 

At a faculty meeting on Tuesday, according to the Harvard Crimson, faculty members demanded a more forceful response to the mayhem. History of Science professor David S. Jones, whose students could not concentrate on a midterm exam that was interrupted by protesters chanting into a megaphone and blasting an air horn, beseeched administrators to “help faculty and students who remain committed to undergraduate education.” 

The post Send ICE to Harvard appeared first on .

Democrats And The Media Will Always Hate Trump. He Shouldn’t Forget That

President Trump sometimes just says things for the sake of making news, so it’s impossible to immediately know how serious he was in any number of the alarming answers he gave in a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday. But he should remember one thing: No matter what he does, Democrats and the dying national news […]

GOP Lost Gen Z In The Midterms. These Young Voters Say Amnesty Deal Would Lose Even More

'As soon as his popularity takes a dip, we're seriously talking about reversing one of his major campaign promises -- that's a big letdown. That's a real disappointment.'

Steve Deace lays out three reasons Trump may be dangling amnesty — and one could change everything



President Donald Trump’s suggestion that he wants to work with Democrats on immigration could have enormous consequences for the Republican Party — and BlazeTV host Steve Deace believes it may become the defining moment of the 2028 election.

“If he cuts a deal for amnesty of any kind, it will irreparably split our base. It will irrevocably split it for the future,” Deace warns, noting that it has “become the number-one issue for our base.”

And while young men ages 18 to 29 are among the strongest Republican voters against amnesty, Deace explains that “Millennials are young men too” who “have families” and are “the ones working a lot of the jobs right now.”

“This is their number-one issue,” he says.

Deace believes that’s what could happen if Trump “really means it.”

But he also points out that Trump has offered Democrats a deal like this before.

“He did offer the Democrats a Dreamer amnesty, remember, in 2019, which they didn’t take, and it shut the government down. People got so pissed off, the government got shut down over something that was pretty obvious to them that Democrats backed away. They still didn’t take the amnesty deal,” he says.

That’s why Deace says it's “also entirely possible that this is a shrewd and clever move.”

“Save your stupid never-Trump 4D chess. Some of you act like Trump is not permitted to have a triple-digit IQ. He’s been way more successful in life than 99.99% of you,” Deace says.

“It’s entirely possible that this is an attempt to entrap Democrats, to show that, ‘Hey, they promised you that they were going to run on fixing your issues, but they’re the same communist radicals they’ve always been. I offered them a deal, even ticked off my own base to do it, man,’” he continues.

“And Democrats still wouldn’t take the deal,” he adds.

Deace also sees a third possibility: that “Trump is facing real impeachment.”

“And I think the president cares greatly about not being the only president ever removed from office. So it’s entirely possible that he threw this out there as an olive branch to several limp-wristed, you know, low-T Republicans that he is worried will vote with Democrats to have him removed from office to make an example out of him,” he explains.

However, while Trump’s comment may mean “one of those three things today,” Deace says that could change.

“We’re just going to wait and see what it means, because ultimately, we’ll find out,” he says. “You know a tree by its fruit, right?”

“We’ll find out by what the president does with this, and that will tell us what it means,” he continues. “If it means he sold out his base, it’ll take us years to recover from this.”

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

7 illegal aliens and 7 others charged after horrific deaths of 7 migrants, including a child



Fourteen people have been charged with numerous crimes related to an apparent smuggling scheme that resulted in the deaths of seven migrants, including a 14-year-old child.

The alleged smugglers loaded up seven migrants into a Conex shipping container on a stationary train in the Del Rio, Texas, area on or about May 9, according to a Monday press release from the Department of Justice, citing court documents.

'These defendants showed no regard for the value of human life and put people in harm’s way to pad their own pockets.'

The smugglers allegedly used red bolt cutters to cut the lock on the shipping container and then closed the door after leaving the migrants inside, the press release said.

The shipping container had no ventilation or cooling system, and the migrants were inside when outside temperatures reportedly reached 88 to 92 degrees Fahrenheit. "It was secured from the outside and could not be opened from the inside," the press release said.

When the container arrived in San Antonio, the smugglers allegedly discovered the migrants in distress and fled the scene, the press release continued. They even allegedly left the body of a deceased migrant near the railroad tracks.

On May 10, a worker at the rail yard in Laredo saw a human leg sticking out of a container, and a subsequent search of the container found the remains of six deceased migrants. San Antonio law enforcement then found the body of the seventh migrant victim that had been left on the tracks.

Four of the deceased migrants were from Mexico, while three were from Honduras.

Twelve of the defendants were charged with conspiracy to transport aliens resulting in death. They may face life in prison if convicted.

The 14 defendants face numerous other serious charges related to their alleged part in the smuggling scheme. Some of the charges carry a sentence of decades in prison.

Seven of the 14 defendants are illegal aliens, four are U.S. citizens, and three are non-citizens, said the Justice Dept.

The smugglers were paid between $1,500 and $10,000 for each smuggled migrant to be brought into the U.S., court documents said.

RELATED: Illegal alien arrested for brutal murder of Virginia mom had been released under Biden: DHS

"By allegedly orchestrating this deadly human smuggling scheme, these defendants showed no regard for the value of human life and put people in harm’s way to pad their own pockets," read a statement from Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva.

"Seven people are dead as the result of another callous alien smuggling scheme," read a statement from U.S. Attorney Justin Simmons. "To those alien smuggling organizations like the one responsible for these seven deaths, your date with American justice will come, and when it does, we will hold you accountable to the fullest extent of the law."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump Learned The Wrong Lesson On Immigration From The Midterm Wipeout

In an interview with '60 Minutes,' Trump backs away from the one successful policy of his administration thus far: immigration enforcement.