More than 76,000 Canadians have been killed through MAID. One province has had enough.



The Canadian federal government under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau legalized medically assisted suicide nationwide in 2016.

As critics predicted, the state-facilitated suicide program — referred to as medical assistance in dying — was grossly liberalized in a short of period of time, maximizing both the number of accepted rationales and the number of those killed.

The province of Alberta appears keen to rein in Canada's sick experiment and protect its would-be victims, especially ahead of the Carney government's planned MAID eligibility expansion next year.

Background

In its first year, MAID offed 1,108 Canadians. That number tripled the following year, and by 2021, the number of Canadians killed by their government had climbed to over 10,000 in a single year.

'MAID should not be a substitute for robust health care.'

The Canadian government revealed in its latest MAID report that a total of 16,499 people were euthanized under the program in 2024, accounting for over 5% of all deaths in Canada that year. Of those euthanized, at least 4.4% nationally were not terminally ill. In Alberta, the number was 4.6%.

By the end of 2024, the number of Canadians who have died through MAID crested 76,000.

Originally, MAID applicants had to be 18 or older and suffering from a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" causing "enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable" to them.

Within years, the country's eugenicist-founded health care system had given the green light to effectively execute those struggling with anxiety, autism, depression, economic hardship, PTSD, and other survivable issues.

RELATED: Canada’s conservative challenger Pierre Poilievre wins big on Joe Rogan's podcast

Mininyx Doodle/Getty Images

Persons suffering solely from a mental illness will be eligible for MAID beginning March 17, 2027.

Alberta takes action

Alberta Attorney General Mickey Amery, who is also the justice minister of the ruling United Conservative government, introduced legislation last month — the Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act — that would "increase oversight, introduce necessary safeguards, and provide greater clarity around eligibility requirements for medical assistance in dying ... in the province."

The bill would, among other things, prohibit MAID in Alberta for: persons under 18; persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness; individuals lacking the capacity to make their own health care decisions; and advance requests.

It would also prohibit euthanasia for individuals whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable; restrict the display of MAID propaganda; empower health practitioners and institutions to refuse participation in the euthanasia regime; and bar Alberta health professionals from referring individuals for MAID eligibility assessments outside the province.

The legislation would also introduce penalties for doctors and nurses who violate the proposed provincial rules.

"Canada has the fastest growing death rates in the world when it comes to MAID. Far from being an option of last resort, MAID is now the fifth leading cause of death in Canada," Amery told the Alberta Legislature last week. "The country is currently projected to reach its 100,000th death by MAID in June, becoming the first nation in the modern era to measure its total assisted deaths in the six figures, more than the totals of any other jurisdiction with some form of legal, doctor-assisted death."

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said in a statement, "Those struggling with severe mental health challenges need treatment, compassion and support, not a path to end their life at what may be their lowest moment. In Alberta, a patient whose sole underlying condition is mental illness will not be eligible for MAID."

'The state refusing to fund and provide a killing service is the baseline.'

Rebecca Vachon, health program director for the Canadian think tank Cardus, said in a statement, "We support the adoption of these enhanced protections for Albertans and urge all legislators to work collaboratively to implement them."

While the Catholic Bishops of Alberta underscored that "the Church teaches that 'euthanasia and assisted suicide are always the wrong choice,'" they similarly characterized the bill as an important step in the right direction, stating, "A just society is one that protects the vulnerable, upholds the dignity of every person, and chooses to accompany them in times of illness and dying. The Alberta government is taking some significant steps that respect these necessary values."

Gabrielle Peters, a disabled writer and co-founder of Disability Filibuster, recently noted in a piece for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute,

The state refusing to fund and provide a killing service is the baseline we build from. Without that, there is simply no foundation. If disability — and only disability — makes one killable, then why would a state build the infrastructure, policies, and programs necessary to support disabled life? Particularly when one is an expense and the other represents considerable cost-saving?

Some euthanasia advocates have joined state media in framing the life-affirming legislation in negative terms.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, for instance, suggested that the legislation "would significantly restrict access to medical assistance in dying ... and undermine constitutionally protected rights."

Michael Trew, Alberta's former chief addiction and mental health officer, recently wrote that the bill "amounts to taking away choice from many who are fully competent" and that "this loss of choice INCREASES pain and suffering."

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

How Spanberger managed to hit record-low approval rating in 80 days



House Democrats' loss of 14 seats to Republicans in the 2020 election was apparently an eye-opening experience for then-Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger (D), who blamed the ease and effectiveness with which critics branded her party as a bunch of radical leftists.

"We need to not ever use the word 'socialist' or 'socialism' ever again," Spanberger said on a post-action House Democratic Caucus phone call. "Because while people think it doesn't matter, it does matter, and we lost good members because of that."

Years after acknowledging the importance of concealing radical impulses from voters, the former undercover CIA officer who participated in the anti-Trump "resistance" after the 2016 election ran for governor of Virginia, campaigning in 2025 as an even-keeled and unifying pragmatist. The liberal media then forwarded that narrative.

'She's just a bot for the Democratic Party.'

It is now painfully obvious, however, that the supposed moderate who defeated former Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears (R) in November in a landslide is — as the GOP of Virginia and others had warned — not as advertised.

A damning new Washington Post-Schar School poll revealed on Monday that Virginians, realizing only too late how Spanberger really operates, have largely soured on the Democratic governor. In fact, her approval rating is so low, it set a record in Post polling.

When asked how Spanberger is handling her job as governor, 47% of respondents signaled approval, 36% signaled disapproval, and 7% expressed no opinion. The Post noted that approval rating is 13 percentage points lower than the average for Spanberger's predecessors going back to the 1990s.

Political analyst Larry Sabato told WJLA-TV, "A drop of that margin is stunning, and it should be greatly disturbing to the governor and the governor's staff if it's repeated in other surveys."

There is no shortage of clues in the poll's cross tabs as to why the people of the Old Dominion are less than enthused about their new governor.

When asked about the supposed moderate's views, a plurality of respondents — 45% — said they were "too liberal." Broken down by party affiliation, 91% of Republicans, 44% of independents, and 6% of Democrats said so. Nearly 10% of Virginians who voted for Spanberger were among those who rated her as "too liberal."

For starters, Spanberger dropped the moderate mask in her approach to immigration.

Weeks after rescinding former Gov. Glenn Youngkin's order requiring state law enforcement agencies to cooperate more fully with federal immigration authorities, Spanberger directed state police and other state agencies to terminate any such agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Department of Homeland Security Deputy Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis grouped Spanberger with those "sanctuary politicians" who have "tried to slow ICE down and chosen to release criminals from their jails into our communities to perpetrate more crimes and create more victims."

Virginians are already dealing with the fallout of Spanberger's virtue-signaling.

The DHS noted on Monday that "so far in 2026, illegal aliens have allegedly committed 75% of all murders" in Fairfax County, Virginia.

The supposed moderate also committed all state agencies to rejoining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a regional cap-and-trade program covering power sector emissions that Youngkin — who completed his term with a 50% approval rating — removed Virginia from and dubbed a hidden tax on ratepayers.

While previously a critic of partisan gerrymandering schemes, Spanberger has come out in support of a proposed constitutional amendment that would all but ensure that 10 out of the state's 11 congressional seats go to Democrats, thereby disenfranchising Republican voters in Virginia.

RELATED: Parents enraged over adult illegal alien allegedly molesting Virginia high school girls

Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Although consistent on the issue of abortion — she routinely voted in Congress to deprive the unborn of protections and to advance abortion ideology — her continued activism as governor may read as "too liberal" for some residents.

In February, for instance, she signed a partisan constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters later this year, would codify the "right to reproductive freedom, including the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one's own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care."

In addition to taking an extreme approach to so-called reproductive rights, Spanberger is expected to help her fellow Virginia Democrats in waging war on the Second Amendment. She did, after all, vow not to veto gun-grab laws as Youngkin had and express support for a ban on sales of so-called assault-style weapons.

Among the various gun-control bills awaiting her signature are bills that would:

  • Ban gun possession within 100 feet of locations used for election-related activities;
  • Require a "handgun shooting" course as opposed to an NRA-affiliated safety course;
  • Create a Class 1 misdemeanor for anyone who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers a so-called assault firearm or magazines that hold over 15 rounds;
  • Prohibit the carrying of loaded "assault firearms" in public spaces;
  • Bar anyone convicted of a misdemeanor "hate crime" assault from possessing or carrying any firearm; and
  • Prohibit Americans younger than 21 from buying a handgun or "assault firearm."

Spanberger faces an April 13 deadline to ratify these and other gun control bills.

Gregory Roddy, a self-identified independent voter from Fairfax County, told the Post that while always skeptical of Spanberger's presentation as a bipartisan candidate, it was clear once she was elected that "she's just a bot for the Democratic Party."

Mason Necci, another independent voter, this time from rural Culpeper County, suggested that Spanberger is attempting "to make herself into a Democratic icon."

"Virginia is already regretting electing a governor who stands for illegal immigrants over her constituents," Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) wrote. "Spanberger's alarming disapproval rating is telling. And she's been in office a mere three months."

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

Radicals train for massive May Day protests at public schools, thanks to America's largest teachers' union



Defending Education, an advocacy organization that combats leftist indoctrination in K-12 public schools, recently obtained documents outlining the talking points and marching orders being fed to radicals ahead of leftist May Day protests planned across the country.

Among the leftist outfits poised to train would-be protesters is the Midwest Academy, a liberal activist-grooming center that has reportedly received over $1.7 million in recent years from the National Education Association.

'Congress should revoke the NEA’s federal charter.'

The Midwest Academy, joined by the the NYU Metro Center and organizers from Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools member groups, is coordinating a four-week training series titled "Four Weeks of Power" with the purported aim of building "a broader, stronger base of parents, educators and students taking action to defend and transform public schools."

Although organized by the NEA-backed outfit, sessions will be provided by the leftist organization Free the Future, part of the NEA-aligned Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools network.

Free the Future will start off the sessions by providing "an introduction to community organizing in the context of the rising authoritarianism we’re seeing in real time." Free the Future will conclude the sessions by helping fellow travelers "better understand power mapping and targets, understanding which actions make sense for our team and community, and the logistics of planning a successful action."

RELATED: Why Johnny still can’t read: The curriculum cartel doesn’t want reform

Dominic Di Palermo/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Free the Future is evidently keen to train up radicals with the NEA-backed group in time for mass protests on May 1. Free the Future has partnered with May Day Strong "to plan hundreds of actions in the streets" next month.

May Day Strong's tool kit reveals that radicals are reskinning their No Kings protests for May Day.

The tool kit recommends not only protesting outside lawmakers' offices and "one of the many corporate targets we need to take on," but that radicals stage "school walk-ins" and rally outside schools.

Hilton Hotels, Chevron, Citgo, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car are the corporations targeted by May Day Strong.

The organizers have furnished would-be protesters with a template press release that contains the following talking points:

  • "Tax the rich so our families, not their fortunes, come first."
  • "No ICE, NO War. No private army serving authoritarian power."
  • "Expand democracy, not corporate rule. Defend free and fair elections."

NEA's official May Day 2026 "Solidarity Toolkit," which is greatly similar to the May Day Strong tool kit right down to the advocacy for school walk-ins, states, "This May Day will be a day of rallies, marches, teach-ins, labor actions, and a refusal of business as usual — because when those at the top rig the system, collective action is how we set it right."

According to NEA's tool kit, "walk-ins" seem to involve a school invasion:

During school walk-ins, parents, educators, and students, along with neighbors and community leaders, gather in front of their school 30-45 minutes before the school day begins. We rally and listen to a few speakers discuss what they want for the school, and then we all walk into the school together. Walk-ins can be used to celebrate your school, collaborate with school officials, or protest harmful school conditions and policies.

Rhyen Staley, director of research at Defending Education, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News, "This is yet another example of how activists and teachers' unions view schools as a tool to advance their political agenda."

"It should be deeply concerning that one of the suggested tactics is to enter schools to protest against policies they don’t like," continued Staley. "Putting children's education and safety at risk for political gain is unethical and immoral."

Corey DeAngelis, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Center for Education Policy, told Blaze News, "Congress should revoke the NEA’s federal charter or at least bar them from engaging in political activity altogether."

DeAngelis noted further, "These radicals are providing free advertising for homeschooling, showing us exactly who they are, and parents need to pull their kids out of these institutions."

Becky Pringle, the Democrat NEA president who reportedly made over $500,000 while fighting to keep schools closed at kids' expense between September 2020 and August 2021, made clear in her keynote address at last year's National Education Association convention that her union is committed to undermining the Trump administration.

"We must use our power to take action that leads, action that liberates, action that lasts," Pringle said in her speech.

At the convention, the NEA adopted a resolution declaring its support for mass movements against the government, including No Kings protests and anti-ICE rallies.

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

Why nationwide No Kings protests literally don't matter: ‘Extremely bleak for them’



No Kings protests have been popping up all over the country in protest of President Trump and the United States’ involvement in the Iran war, and of course, the mainstream media has covered these protesters as if they’re a real force to be reckoned with.

However, BlazeTV host John Doyle attended one of the protests in Dallas and explains that the reality on the ground tells a much different story.

“If you Google it, ‘No Kings 2026,’ there are all of these leftist outlets — be those local, national, even on CNN, MSNBC, all the usual suspects — trying to just put all of this out there, put the imagery out there, to let people know that this is definitely a thing that is very real and very threatening and certainly happening,” Doyle says on “The John Doyle Show.”


“The people who actually mobilize and show up to these Democrat quote-unquote ‘protests,’ these are the revolutionary class. This is an inherently sort of kinetic group of people, which is to say a people who are motivated almost chiefly by resentment against just normal American patriots,” he continues.

Doyle explains that these protesters also “always need to be out on the streets causing problems, feeling as though they are pushing back against some force.”

“It is this kind of 'Handmaid’s Tale' LARP for them. They really do enjoy the interaction with law enforcement, feeling as though they’re being freaking persecuted,” he says.

And the visuals Doyle caught at the protest in Dallas only prove his point.

“It’s extremely, extremely bleak for them,” he says, before showing a picture of one of the protesters.

“It was this extremely obese creature, and it was occupying a mobility scooter, like how you see at Walmart. And there was a sign mounted on the mobility scooter … that said ‘#FreakingNoKings,’” Doyle recalls.

“And then you have old people and then foreign people and then foreign old people, and everybody’s dying. It’s like, what? I’m not intimidated. I’m not even having fun. I just feel bad. I used to go in there and felt like I was in a lion’s den, you know? Do a little sparring with the people who want me killed,” he continues.

“I had a smile on my face, a pep in my step. You’ve all seen it. I just felt bad,” he says.

Want more from John Doyle?

To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Infinite diversity': Actress in canned 'Star Trek' series warns against 'whitewashed' sci-fi



The most notably progressive "Star Trek" series will be canceled by CBS Studios and Paramount+, prompting one of its actors to demand the show's lore nevertheless become more "woke."

Studios were so supportive of "Star Trek: Starfleet Academy" that Paramount+ picked it up for a second season before the show even aired; but that will be all.

'The world is still not ready to hear the message of love, peace, [and] infinite diversity.'

The show's demise began when it launched for free on YouTube — an already bad sign — garnering just over 85,000 views in the first 24 hours; not good for a show with an estimated budget of $10 to $20 million per episode.

Nothing could prepare audiences for the show's trajectory though. The new series boasted polyamorous refugee Klingons, Stephen Colbert, and gender activist Tig Notaro playing a teacher pushing DEI ideology on cadets.

Progressivism certainly flowed through the series' actors. Case in point, Gina Yashere, who played Lura Thok.

Yashere took to Instagram after the show's cancelation to declare that audiences aren't ready to hear about love and tolerance and that future iterations must avoid becoming too white.

RELATED: New 'Star Trek' DEI disaster flops despite airing for free: A 'huge, gay, glee club middle finger'

"Obviously, the world is still not ready to hear the message of love, peace, infinite diversity, acceptance, the eschewing of violence and senseless wars," she said in a video, first reported by Fandom Pulse.

She added, "And 'Star Trek' will be back stronger than ever. And preferably with the same message and not completely whitewashed."

In her written caption, Yashere made it abundantly clear she was proud of the show's woke ideology as well.

"Be safe out there peeps. Stay woke. Wokeywoke. Wokest of the woke. Wokeyliscious. A cacophony of woke."

The show's messaging was never left for interpretation either. Its actors and showrunners will have to come to terms with the fact that they fully presented their intent, and it was not viewed favorably.

RELATED: Polyamorous refugee Klingons: New 'Star Trek' writer makes 'three-parent household' a priority

Photo by Michael Tullberg/Getty Images

When the show first aired, series creator Alex Kurtzman said he was "not slowing down on representation in any way," while characterizing "representation" as being the "beating heart" of the show.

Karim Diane, who played the aforementioned Klingon who wore a skirt and dress, said back in January that his character would have his sexuality "explored."

This manifested in a Klingon/human love story the character had with an allegedly "nonbinary" person.

Diane has since promised the second season is "basically just Season 1 turned all the way up."

In a statement to Variety, both CBS and Paramount said that while they were "incredibly proud of the ambition, passion, and creativity" the series showcased, it will not receive a third season.

Variety also reported that "Starfleet Academy" failed to secure a significant audience and did not rank among Nielsen's Top 10 charts for streaming viewership.

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

Welcome to the new high-school activism: One side chants, the other gets punished



For weeks, students at hundreds of schools across the country have walked out of class to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions. At Rincon High School in Arizona, leaders of the Latino Student Union organized a walkout to oppose the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

The next week, some of those same students demanded the removal of a Turning Point USA club from the Tucson Unified campus. Members of the Latino Student Union petitioned the school board to bar the conservative club from meeting on school property, claiming its presence made them feel “unsafe” and accusing it of a “track history of presenting hate and presenting fear.”

As American life grows more polarized, young people face mounting pressure to treat opposing speech not as something to answer, but as something to silence.

Arizona was not a one-off.

Last fall, students at Royal Oak High School in Michigan walked out over the formation of a Turning Point chapter. One protest organizer complained that the club “spreads conservative views ... and those aren’t things that we promote in our school.”

That statement tells you plenty. Students increasingly invoke the language of safety and inclusion not to protect their own right to speak, but to suppress the speech of others.

Royal Oak Schools says the district aims to provide “an inclusive, diverse, safe, and student-first environment” in which students will be “embraced, accepted, challenged, and prepared.” Yet schools cannot claim to challenge and prepare students while teaching them that disagreement itself amounts to harm.

These incidents may still be relatively few, but they point to a broader problem: the spread of speech intolerance from college campuses into K-12 education.

A report released in September by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression found alarming attitudes on college campuses. Among roughly 70,000 students surveyed, 34% said violence to stop someone from speaking can be acceptable, while 72% supported shouting down speakers in rare cases.

College pathologies do not stay on college campuses for long.

Through social media, ethnic-studies curricula, school speech codes, and the influence older students exert on younger ones, the campus habit of treating dissent as danger has moved into elementary and secondary education.

The results have already turned ugly.

RELATED: How liberals let America’s colleges collapse into illiberalism

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

After a walkout at Hayes High School in Ohio in February, one senior said the protest “went as peaceful as it could have gone with the amount of anger that we have.” In reality, an altercation between several protesters and one dissenter ended with three students charged with disorderly conduct. The confrontation appears to have begun when walkout participants repeatedly blew whistles in the student’s face.

In Kansas, student counterprotesters from Olathe Northwest High School were attacked while demonstrating across the street from an anti-ICE protest. Their offense? They merely supported the administration and current immigration enforcement.

Thankfully, these incidents remain uncommon. But the trend should concern parents, teachers, and communities. As American life grows more polarized, young people face mounting pressure to treat opposing speech not as something to answer, but as something to silence.

Whatever one thinks of school walkouts, defenders of these protests usually justify them as exercises in civic engagement and First Amendment expression. Fine. But civic engagement does not mean demanding a microphone for yourself and a muzzle for everyone else.

Students need to learn that free speech cuts both ways. They have every right to voice their convictions. They also have a responsibility to defend the rights of people whose views they dislike, distrust, or even find offensive.

If they do not learn that lesson now, student activism will become less about persuasion than coercion. And young Americans will be trained not to practice liberty, but to imitate the tyranny they claim to oppose.

Leftists are already politicizing Chuck Norris’ legacy after death



Following the death of action legend Chuck Norris, what might have been a moment of shared cultural reflection has quickly turned contentious. Leftists are already scrutinizing Norris’ film legacy through a political lens — something BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is tired of.

“Democrats never waste an opportunity to make everything about politics, make death about politics. ... This guy was a Hollywood icon, a meme legend, and you would think that we could all just be like, ‘Oh, that’s sad that he died,’” Gonzales says.

One article published by Variety magazine makes this clear, with the headline reading, “Chuck Norris Was a Great Action Star — but Politics May Overshadow His Legacy.”


“Yes, he was a Republican, but he didn’t really wear that with a badge on his shoulder or anything, but weirdly, this isn’t even what the article is taking shots at him about,” Gonzales comments, before reading a paragraph from the article.

“Was Norris a brilliant athlete and top-shelf star? Yes. But there’s no denying that his roles were part of a body of work used to show American strength, might, and the pernicious attraction of taking the law into one’s own hands — something that seems less fun in a year in which our country is funneling money into bombing Iran and ICE agents are acting like one-man militias,” the author, William Earl, wrote.

“Given our nation’s divisions in morality, information literacy, and overall sense of reality, it’s easier to see Norris’ characters as justification for a fringe conspiracy movement rather than a moral standing,” he continued.

Earl went on to ask the question that’s on no one’s mind: “When a star is the poster boy for American exceptionalism and might, at what point does his legacy transition from escapism to dangerous propaganda?”

“What an absolute freaking loser,” Gonzales comments.

“The Democrats make everything unfun. They are unfun, miserable, ghoulish people,” she continues. “But you know what? That leaves us with no shortage of things to talk about.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Michigan’s El-Sayed Said He Did 'Time' After His Arrest at a Minimum Wage Protest. He Got a Ticket, Records Show.

The left-wing candidate in the Democratic primary for Michigan’s open Senate seat, Abdul El-Sayed, told a labor union audience last month that he put his "body on the line" and did "time" after being arrested at a minimum wage protest in 2018. Police records show that he was briefly detained in a police van and promptly released with a misdemeanor ticket—and the charges were dropped a few months later.

The post Michigan’s El-Sayed Said He Did 'Time' After His Arrest at a Minimum Wage Protest. He Got a Ticket, Records Show. appeared first on .

Insane far-left Democrats OBLITERATED in Illinois primary



A major political shake-up unfolded in Illinois as progressives whose views align with those of "the Squad" were dealt a decisive blow in recent Democratic primaries.

According to BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere, the losses highlight growing fractures within the Democratic Party, particularly between establishment figures and the party’s far-left flank associated with the likes of Jasmine Crockett, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“What we saw in Illinois was a situation where you’ve got obviously a bright, bright, bright blue state, right? This is the bluest of the blue basically where, you know, you can kind of do whatever you want if you’re a Democrat,” Stu begins.

“So, you have these factions of the Democratic Party warring with each other. They’re fighting, they’re going back and forth trying to take control. Of course, one of the big groups that is trying to do that is the sort of Squad left,” he continues.


“The Squad left,” Stu explains, is the “AOC left.”

“Someone who’s very, very socialist leaning, very, very anti-Israel, very, you know, pro-abortion and trans, everything as far as you can go,” he says.

“And they had a play here in Illinois. They had a chance to do something. They had a chance to move the needle a little bit, and it did not work,” he says, referencing an article by Axios titled, “The ‘Squad’ left suffers complete wipeout in Illinois.”

“The left suffered a virtually total collapse in the Illinois Democratic congressional primaries on Tuesday night — even in races where the AIPAC-backed candidate lost,” the article reads.

“It’s a bad sign for the dozens of insurgent Democrats running in congressional races across the country, both in open seats and as primary rivals to older or more establishment-oriented incumbents,” it continues.

“AIPAC is like, I don’t know, they’re supposedly the ultimate villains of all the world right now because, you know, a lot of people even on the right, certainly plenty on the left, are blaming them for pushing us into war with Iran and, you know, all sorts of different things,” Stu explains.

Stu notes that AIPAC was “very excited” about Illinois’ results, as “they put a lot of money into these races to try to stop very hardcore anti-Israel candidates from winning those primaries.”

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.