It’s not a ‘power-grab’ — it’s a rescue mission for higher ed



Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the State Department had revoked more than 300 student visas. The move allows the Trump administration to deport noncitizens who participated in pro-Palestinian protests at universities across the country.

Rubio defended the decision when asked about concerns over free speech — specifically, whether protesting or writing about foreign policy issues could justify a visa revocation.

No serious nation should defend the rights of foreign nationals actively working to harm it under the banner of ‘free speech.’

“If you are in this country on a student visa and are a participant in those movements, we have a right to deny your visa,” he said. “We are not going to be importing activists into the United States. They’re here to study. They’re here to go to class. They’re not here to lead activist movements that are disruptive and undermine our universities. I think it’s lunacy to continue to allow that.”

Rubio is right.

Whether someone supports Israel, supports the Palestinian cause, or criticizes both, that debate is beside the point.

No one has a right to a U.S. visa — student or otherwise. If a visa-holder engages in speech or activism that violates the terms of the visa — such as promoting violence, disrupting public order, or engaging in unauthorized political activity — the government has the authority to revoke the visa and deport the individual.

A free people's suicide

The Trump administration has made this position clear, particularly in cases involving pro-Palestinian protesters who have expressed support for Hamas, which the United States designates as a foreign terrorist organization.

But the issue of foreign student activism extends beyond the Israel-Hamas conflict.

An analysis by the Capital Research Center found that many “pro-Palestinian” groups share ties with broader movements that oppose the United States and the West in general. These groups frequently advocate violence to achieve their goals, including the destruction of the U.S., which they label an imperialist “settler-colonial” state.

Revoking the visas of foreign students who disrupt public order or seek to undermine American society is both legal and necessary. But the issue goes beyond campus protests. With hundreds of thousands of student visa-holders from adversarial nations like China, the threat is not just ideological — it’s also a national security concern.

No serious nation should defend the rights of foreign nationals actively working to harm it under the banner of “free speech.”

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to a U.S. education. Attending an American university is a privilege, not a right.

Ideological takeover

Understanding the difference between rights and privileges is essential — especially considering the influence universities have on shaping American political discourse. While student visas are intended for academic study, today’s universities increasingly promote ideological activism over traditional education. And that shift is happening at the same time as the number of international students in the U.S. has grown to over 1 million annually.

At Columbia University, more than 55% of students are foreign nationals — an 18% increase between 2017 and 2022. NYU’s student body is 42% international, up 24% over the same period. This trend is just as pronounced at the graduate level. In 2023, international students made up 42% of Princeton University’s graduate program.

As foreign student enrollment rises alongside campus political activism, the Trump administration has the authority and obligation to respond decisively to the growing influence of ideological movements within universities.

In a series of aggressive actions, the administration has withheld hundreds of millions in federal funding from institutions like Columbia University for what it calls “inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” It has also launched investigations into other universities over allegations of race-based segregation and transgender athletic policies. Through executive order, the administration has taken steps to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education — a long-standing goal for many conservatives since the department’s establishment in 1979.

Whose ‘political will’?

Unsurprisingly, the left has responded with swift opposition, deploying both legal challenges and familiar media outrage.

Several academic groups have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration to stop the deportation of foreign students. Teachers’ unions have sued to block the administration’s move to revoke federal funding from Columbia University, while others have challenged its attempt to shutter the Education Department.

Mainstream media outlets have framed these actions as an “authoritarian power-grab,” accusing the administration of trying to “impose its political will on American universities, which foster curiosity and independent thought.”

Some critics have gone even further, likening Trump’s efforts to confront anti-American activism on college campuses to the Nazi-era program of Gleichschaltung — a system of totalitarian “social control.”

While American universities may be called many things, bastions of “independent thought” are not among them. Claims that Trump is seeking total “social control” are difficult to take seriously, given how heavily university faculty skew left.

A 2023 Harvard Crimson survey found that just 0.4% of Harvard faculty identified as “very conservative,” while 31.8% described themselves as “very liberal.” A broader study of 51 leading liberal arts colleges revealed a 10.4-1 ratio of Democrat to Republican faculty, underscoring a deep ideological imbalance.

This dominance of progressive ideology on campus doesn’t stay confined to the classroom. It flows into national politics, funding Democratic candidates and fueling an activist pipeline that often promotes anti-American narratives.

According to OpenSecrets, Democrats have received more than 70% of all political donations from the education sector in every election cycle since 2002. In 2018, donors from the education industry gave over $64.5 million to Democrats and just $7.8 million to Republicans.

Teachers' unions show an even sharper tilt. In the 2024 cycle, the National Education Association contributed 98.48% of its donations to Democrats and only 0.79% to Republicans. Employees of the U.S. Department of Education gave zero dollars to Republican candidates.

Rooting out radicals

Given the dominance of left-wing ideology on college campuses and the steady stream of campaign donations from the education sector to Democratic politicians, it’s no surprise that Democrats are fiercely defending what functionally operate as their institutions. Trump’s actions threaten not just campus activism but a political pipeline that helps sustain the left’s long-term dominance.

Far from representing an “authoritarian power-grab,” the Trump administration’s efforts mark one of the first serious attempts by the political right to challenge a system that has traded education for progressive indoctrination.

If the country hopes to reclaim its universities — a goal critical to the republic's long-term health — rooting out radical activism and defunding ideological strongholds must continue and accelerate. Republicans cannot afford to hand over the nation’s future to those who openly disdain it.

Climate hysteria sets stage for suicidal behavior: Study



Climate alarmists are future-oriented in their activism. It turns out, however, that their obsession may, in some cases, ensure that they will never meet the imminent world they tried to shape with demonstrations, public tantrums, ruinous leftist policies, and vandalism.

A paper by European and Canadian researchers published Friday in the journal Nature Medicine examined the "associations between climate-related hazards and the spectrum of suicidal behaviors, from suicidal ideation to self-harm and suicide mortality."

Citing previous studies, the researchers noted that, unsurprisingly, people directly exposed to extreme weather events may experience an increased risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Slow-moving albeit similarly devastating environmental phenomena appear to similarly have an emotionally destabilizing impact on some individuals — the Indian farmer, for instance, who is driven to despair by drought, low crop yields, and the prospect of destitution or even starvation.

The study suggested, however, that individuals who are not directly impacted by changing weather patterns have also been observed getting bent out of shape to the point of depression and suicidality.

"Negative psychological responses related to the observed and anticipated impacts of climate change, such as climate anxiety, eco-anxiety and climate-related guilt have also emerged as a potential risk factor for poor mental health and suicide-related behavior," said the study, adding that international surveys have indicated "concern about climate change is associated with feelings of despair, hopelessness, anger, frustration, and guilt, especially among younger populations."

'Exposure to the report had a weaker association with perceived threat and climate change concern among politically right-leaning individuals.'

A study published in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources noted that while so-called climate change "has long been seen as psychologically distant from many people and therefore as a rather non-emotional problem," this view has changed in recent years, partly as a consequence of climate alarmist propaganda pushed in the media and in schools — propaganda that inevitably oversells bad news and overlooks good news, such as carbon emissions' greening of the planet.

"Many people experience climate change and other global environmental problems indirectly, or vicariously, through media representations rather than from direct exposure," said the study. "Exposure to climate change information through the media plays an important role in determining how worried people are about climate change."

A 2019 study found that Norwegians' exposure to an alarmist United Nations report on climate change was associated "with greater perceived threat from climate change and increased climate change concern."

The induction of concern worked particularly well with left-leaning individuals:

Exposure to the report had a weaker association with perceived threat and climate change concern among politically right-leaning individuals, compared with their left-leaning counterparts, and there was no association between exposure to the report and climate change concern among individuals who self-identified as being on the far-right end of the political spectrum.

These manufactured concerns can turn malignant and metastasize.

A 2020 American study published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology found that climate change anxiety is not uncommon, particularly among younger adults, and is correlated with emotional responses — responses that apparently drive some victims of propaganda to swear off having children. A 2021 Lancet-published survey of 10,000 youths ages 16-25 indicated that 39% of respondents expressed hesitancy about procreating on account of climate change.

The study published last week in Nature Medicine identified various pathways from "climate-related hazards to suicidal behaviors."

For those in the camp of the indirectly impacted, such as the Norwegian cohort confronted with the U.N. concern-mongers' report, chronic, vicarious exposure to climate change can result in lowered well-being, which in turn sets the stage for suicidal behaviors.

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

Colorado Democrats advance bill qualifying 'deadnaming,' use of reality-based pronouns as child abuse



Fresh off suggesting that their state could save money by funding abortion and killing 30% more unborn babies, Colorado Democrats are advancing legislation that would classify "misgendering" and "deadnaming" as child abuse.

Should the legislation pass the Democrat-controlled state legislature, parents who dare to refer to a transvestic child using the child's given name or reality-based pronouns — "he" and "him" in reference to a boy, "she" and "her" in reference to a girl — could lose custody.

Lorena García, one of the Democrats seeking to make all taxpaying Coloradans financially complicit in abortion, joined Democratic state Sens. Faith Winter and Chris Kolker and fellow state Rep. Rebekah Stewart in introducing House Bill 1312 on Monday.

State law requires that courts making child custody decisions in accordance with the best interests of a child must consider reports of "coercive control" lodged against the parties involved. House Bill 1312 would modify the definition of one type of "coercive control" and add another.

'Democrats are the party of delusion and child grooming.'

Among the forms of "coercive control" that courts overseeing custody battles must consider are threats "to publish the individual's, or the individual's child's or relative's, sensitive personal information, including sexually explicit material, or make reports to the police or authorities."

The proposed legislation would modify this definition to include as an offense the publication of "material related to gender-affirming health care services."

The bill would also add "deadnaming or misgendering" as another form of "coercive control."

An example of "deadnaming" would be to call Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) by his original name, Tim.

In addition to putting those parents grounded in reality at a disadvantage in custody hearings, the Democratic bill would also:

  • prohibit local education providers from enforcing sex-based dress codes;
  • prohibit Colorado courts from "applying or giving any force or effect to another state's law that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from the child's parent or guardian because the parent or guardian allowed the child to receive gender-affirming health-care services";
  • define "deadnaming and misgendering" as discriminatory acts in the "Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act";
  • ban the use of transvestites' original names and real pronouns in places of public accommodation; and
  • require public entities to use an individual's chosen name on all forms if provided with the individual's legal name.

The bill was assigned to the state House Judiciary Committee for its first hearing, where it was advanced Wednesday in a 7-4 party-line vote.

Republican state Rep. Jarvis Caldwell, one of the four Republicans who voted against the bill's progression, underscored that the legislation is "radical."

Referring to the proposed requirement that Colorado courts ignore the laws and court decisions of other states, Caldwell asked, "How does HB25-1312 not violate the 'Full Faith & Credit Clause,' Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution?"

Kristi Burton Brown, a Republican member of the Colorado State Board of Education, suggested that the bill amounted to "insanity."

Libs of TikTok noted, "Every Democrat voted for this, while every Republican opposed this. Democrats are the party of delusion and child grooming."

Colorado Democrats previously voted against a bill making indecent exposure to children a felony, in part because it could supposedly be used to "target" transvestites. Last year, state Democrats killed a bill that would have mandated minimum sentences for predators who buy children for sexual exploitation.

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

Woke Yale professor FLEES to Canada to escape Donald Trump



Once every four years, liberals across the country threaten their fellow citizens with a devastating loss if their presidential candidate fails to secure the White House — that loss being themselves.

And one man is setting the example for all those who have posed these threats by following through on his.

“It’s a very sad day, it’s a sad week really, and you know, my fellow Americans, I’m here to tell you why. And the reason why is there’s a man, a very intelligent, well-lettered man, by his own admission, named Jason Stanley,” Matthew Peterson of “Blaze News Tonight” explains, adding, “And he’s decided to leave this country.”

Stanley first made it onto Peterson’s radar in 2021, when he posted on X his lengthy list of credentials before claiming that people who don’t share his level of expertise have no right to discuss “wokeness and academia.”


While Stanley mainly uses X to talk about himself and his credentials, he also uses it to attack people like Peterson himself.

In his own post on X, Peterson quote-tweeted Tim Carney’s post that said, “We need to teach natural law in the public school.”

Peterson wrote, “It’s not enough to ban CRT. We must replace it with natural law.”

Stanley screenshotted the exchange and wrote his own post that simply said, “White Christian Nationalism.”

“He actually called teaching natural law ‘White Christian Nationalism,’” Peterson says. “A bunch of people came in and pillared him, and then this happened many times. The beautiful thing about afterwards, when myself and others just gave it to him, is that he did the right thing and he left.”

“The sad thing is, he has actually decided to not just leave Twitter like he has in the past, he’s now going to leave the country,” Peterson adds.

Stanley claims “the decision was entirely because of the political climate in the United States.”

“I’m happy he’s leaving,” Peterson says. “He has the courage of his convictions, he should take more with him, but also, we’re all going to miss you.”

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'The Left is completely out of control': New Mexico GOP headquarters torched in 'horrific attack'



The Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque was set ablaze and defaced with graffiti early Sunday morning in what the party characterized as a "horrific attack, fueled by hatred and intolerance."

Firefighters with Albuquerque Fire Rescue and Bernalillo County Fire Rescue were dispatched to the scene at 5:56 a.m. following a report of a structure fire. Fire devoured the entryway while smoke filled the building. Firefighters were able to subdue the blaze within five minutes of their arrival.

New Mexico GOP Chairwoman Amy Barela confirmed that no one was harmed in "what could have been a tragic and deadly attack" and indicated that the party is presently working with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, local law enforcement, and federal investigators to help "bring those responsible to justice and ensure they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law"

"Those who resort to violence to undermine our state and nation must be held accountable, and our state leaders must reinforce through decisive action that these cowardly attacks will not be tolerated," Barela said in a statement. "The Republican Party of New Mexico will not be silenced."

In addition to its apparent firebombing, the headquarters was defaced with spray paint. A message painted on the exterior wall read, "ICE=KKK."

'The Left is completely out of control.'

Weeks before the attack, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced the arrest of 48 illegal aliens in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Roswell who "either remained in the country despite being ordered removed by an immigration judge or were charged or convicted of serious crimes while they were illegally present in the United States."

Twenty of the illegal aliens captured had previously been arrested or convicted on serious offenses including murder, rape, domestic abuse, aggravated battery, drug trafficking, burglary, driving under the influence, and shoplifting.

While Republicans' support for ICE and its effective enforcement of the law may have rankled some potential attackers, Republican state Rep. John Block indicated that Democratic rhetoric may have also played a role.

'This is not an isolated incident.'

"Yesterday @TeresaForNM told her radical followers to 'agitate,'" tweeted Block. "This morning, the @NewMexicoGOP HQ was firebombed. Coincidence? No. Her loyal followers also continue to attack Teslas at dealerships on tribal land."

U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.) spoke about fighting the Trump administration's deliverance on campaign promises and urged fellow Democrats at a town hall in New Mexico hours before the firebombing to "agitate," reported the New Mexican.

Fernandez denounced the arson attack in a statement Sunday and suggested that she was speaking about "love in action" at her Saturday town hall.

The Democratic Party of New Mexico similarly condemned the firebombing, underscoring that peaceful discourse and organization constitute the only ways to resolve political differences in the United States.

The New Mexico GOP noted in a statement, "This is not an isolated incident. It is part of a disturbing pattern of politically motivated violence that has plagued our country — fueled in part by the silence and implicit encouragement from progressive leaders who refuse to condemn these acts."

While leftists have repeatedly targeted pro-life pregnancy centers, churches, and conservative lawmakers in recent years, radicals have begun attacking Tesla vehicles, charging stations, and dealerships in response to Elon Musk working for the Trump administration — attacks Attorney General Pam Bondi recently deemed "domestic terrorism."

GOP Chairman Michael Whatley stated, "Whether it's vandalizing Tesla dealerships or burning GOP HQs, the Left is completely out of control. Every Democrat who doesn't condemn violence like this is responsible for it."

"Let us not forget: it was the Democrat Party that once supported the formation of the KKK, pushed Jim Crow laws, and defended slavery. Today, we see the same dangerous tendencies play out in new forms — attempts to suppress free speech, silence dissent, and use fear to control the political narrative," said Barela. "Our fight is not just for our party — it's for every New Mexican who wants a safer, freer, and more accountable state. We will never back down."

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

Trump flushes woke programs at Smithsonian museums, orders return of leftist-targeted statues



The left's long march through the institutions was a resounding success. Numerous businesses, churches, libraries, law enforcement agencies, schools, and other organizations have for decades served as incubators for radical activists and amplifiers for pernicious ideologies.

Leftist marchers are, however, now being routed.

Conservatives and other normalcy advocates have in recent years undertaken a reconquest, enjoying success with certain academic institutions such as the New College of Florida as well as major businesses including Walmart, Harley-Davidson, and John Deere.

President Donald Trump — who has taken an axe to DEI, critical race theory, and gender ideology in the federal government and in federally funded organizations — continued his D.C.-focused purge of radicalism on Thursday, this time taking aim at the nation's premier museums.

Trump intends to rid the Smithsonian Institution, its 21 museums and 14 education and research centers, and the National Zoo of radical leftist programs, policies, and installations.

In an executive order titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," the president noted, "Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth."

'Museums in our Nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination.'

"This revisionist movement seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light," continued Trump. "Under this historical revision, our Nation's unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed."

Trump slammed the Biden administration for advancing this "corrosive ideology" and cited the following as examples of the anti-American propaganda at issue.

  • The Smithsonian American Art Museum's exhibit "The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture," which represents that "[s]ocieties including the United States have used race to establish and maintain systems of power, privilege, and disenfranchisement."
  • The National Museum of African American History and Culture's assertions that the nuclear family, rugged individualism, self-reliance, prioritization of work over play, emphasis on rational linear thinking, punctuality, decisiveness, and a future-oriented outlook are "aspects and assumptions of whiteness and white culture in the United States."
  • The "forthcoming Smithsonian American Women's History Museum plans on celebrating the exploits of male athletes participating in women's sports."

The Smithsonian also enraged conservatives in recent years with the National Museum of American History's Hispanic exhibit portraying religion and history through a Marxist lens and the Smithsonian Institution's 2020 "Girlhood" exhibit featuring the racist founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, and a medical transvestite.

Trump directed Vice President JD Vance to work with senior staffers to "remove improper ideology" from the Smithsonian Institution and its museums, education and research centers, and the National Zoo.

Trump also tasked Vance and Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, to work with congressional lawmakers to ensure that Congress avoids bankrolling exhibits or programs at the Smithsonian Institution that "degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy."

Cognizant and critical of the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum's initiative to feature male cross-dressers in future exhibits, Trump also insisted that the museum does "not recognize men as women in any respect."

"Museums in our Nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history," said Trump's order.

In addition to flushing leftist radicalism out of the Smithsonian museums, Trump — whose administration has been reverting the names of federal lands and military bases to what they were before Joe Biden took office — set his sights on a restoration of that which the iconoclasts of yesteryear chose to eliminate from the public consciousness.

Radicals both inside and outside government committed to a campaign of destruction and deracination in the wake of George Floyd's death in 2020, digging up graves, toppling statues, renaming animals, melting down busts, and knocking out church windows.

Trump directed Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to figure out whether public monuments, memorials, statues, or other properties within the Interior Department's jurisdiction were removed or changed during this radical campaign "to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures, or include any other improper partisan ideology."

The president demanded further the reinstatement of pre-existing monuments that were removed.

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

Colorado Democrats: State can save money by funding abortion, killing 30% more babies



Colorado Democrats are more than willing to blow taxpayer money on programs for illegal aliens; however, when it comes to coverage for American mothers and their unborn babies, they will apparently appeal to lethal ways to reduce spending.

State Democrats are advancing legislation that would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution; require the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to fund abortions for Medicaid and Child Health Plan Plus program participants using taxpayer dollars; and force public employee insurance plans to fund abortions for plan members — something they are not presently required to do.

Senate Bill 183 — a consequence of Colorado voters' overwhelming support last year for Colorado Amendment 79, which set the stage for the use of public funds for abortion — passed the state Senate in a 22-12 party-line vote on March 12.

Prior to the bill passing the committee on health and human services on Tuesday, Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie (D), a prime sponsor of the legislation, indicated that the use of taxpayer funds to kill babies could save the state a little bit of money.

"That savings comes from the averted births that will not occur because abortions happened instead," McCluskie said in a video shared to social media. "So a birth is more expensive than an abortion — so the saving comes in Medicaid births that will not occur."

"This bill will actually decrease costs for our health care policy and financing department, our Medicaid expenditures, in both this year and out years as the savings from averted births outweigh the costs of covering reproductive health care for all Coloradans," continued McCluskie, who was endorsed last year by Planned Parenthood.

'Abortion care services represent a one-time expenditure.'

While the Colorado House speaker indicated the state will initially see an "increase to general fund of $1.5 million," over time, the taxpayer-subsidized elimination of human life will ultimately lead to "cost savings."

McCluskie was referencing a state fiscal analysis that made the following assumptions and assertions:

  • 333,330 women ages 15 to 44 will be enrolled in Medicaid or the Child Health Plan Plus program in fiscal year 2025-2026;
  • 1.67% of members from this cohort will seek abortions each year;
  • 50.4% of abortions will be performed "procedurally" and 49.6% will be chemical abortions;
  • "abortion procedures are assumed to be reimbursed at a rate of $1,300, and medication abortions are assumed to be reimbursed at a rate of $800";
  • taxpayer-funded abortions through Medicaid/CHP+ will increase the number of unborn babies killed by 30%; and
  • the average reimbursement cost for child birth is $3,850, which is funded by state and federal programs.

According to Democrats' calculus, abortions will not only save the state on total reimbursement costs for the delivery of children but will likely also spare the state from having to deal with additional costs that might arise in relation to human beings whose lives they failed to "avert."

"Medicaid-covered births typically involve additional social safety net impacts for the child, whereas abortion care services represent a one-time expenditure. These impacts have not been addressed in this fiscal note," said the fiscal note on SB 183.

"On net, the bill will decrease costs for HCPF by about $286,000 in FY 2025-26 and $573,000 in FY 2026-27 and ongoing," continued the fiscal note. "These impacts are the net result of increased costs for abortion services and decreased costs from averted births."

State Rep. Kenneth G. DeGraaf (R) tweeted, "Holy Human-Haters, Batman! 'Killing people is less expensive than caring for them' coming soon from a eugenicist near you."

"Paying for abortions for low income women will save our state millions of dollars on 'averted births,'" wrote Republican state Rep. Brandi Bradley. "Margaret Sanger would be so proud."

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

San Francisco rolls out Newsom-approved program fining speeders based on income



San Francisco recently became the first city in California to install speed cameras as part of a broader program aimed at reducing speeding, improving traffic safety, and preventing traffic-related fatalities.

While the initiative had the makings of an inoffensive program purposed around making high-injury thoroughfares and school zones safer, the state Democrats behind it apparently permitted their ideology to corrupt the novel Speed Safety System Pilot Program, transforming it into a three-tier equity-attuned penalty system.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) ratified legislation in 2023 authorizing San Francisco and a handful of other cities in the state to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program.

Under the program, clearly identified speed cameras can be positioned on streets approved for enforcement. These cameras, which must be placed at least 500 feet after signs stating both the speed limit and "Photo Enforced," take photos of the rear license plates of vehicles traveling 11 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit. The vehicle's registered owner subsequently receives a citation.

'A designated jurisdiction shall reduce the applicable fines and penalties by 80 percent for indigent persons.'

SF Gate reported that the cameras, operated by the Arizona-based transportation company Verra Mobility, will not use facial recognition.

According to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 33 cameras have been installed across the city.

Well over half of the cameras are not currently operational. Those actively snapping pictures are more or less warming the public up to the idea of their presence as the law justifying it requires that participating cities issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for speeding offenses detected within the first 60 days of the program.

Real fines will be issued for violations after this grace period with the exception to individuals subject to criminal penalties for the same act. Violations recorded by the cameras will result only in contestable civil penalties and, according to the legislation, "shall not result in the [Department of Motor Vehicles] suspending or revoking the privilege of a violator to drive a motor vehicle or in a violation point being assessed against the violator."

The Democratic legislation that produced this speed-trap scheme states that "a designated jurisdiction shall reduce the applicable fines and penalties by 80 percent for indigent persons, and by 50 percent for individuals up to 250 percent above the federal poverty level."

Accordingly, a driver caught traveling in a vehicle going 26 miles per hour over the posted speed limit must pay $200, unless of course they qualify for the "low-income fee," in which case they must pay only $100. Those on public assistance traveling at over 100 mph would be hit up for only $40.

For San Franciscans 251% above the federal poverty level or higher, the fines can reach $500.

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

Jasmine Crockett admits she's not focused on lawmaking; recommends violence against Ted Cruz



The Democratic Party is setting all-time records with its unpopularity. According to a recent NBC News survey, only 27% of voters have a positive view of the party.

Rather than deliver legislative victories to improve upon this embarrassing statistic, some Democrats instead appear committed both to engaging in violent rhetoric and preventing President Donald Trump from delivering on his promises to the American public.

Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett made clear in a recent interview that she is one such Democrat.

Since rolling up to Congress in 2023, Crockett has introduced a few bills and partisan resolutions, including a bill that would direct the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to launch a pro-abortion propaganda campaign; a bill designating the month of August as "National Black Business Month"; and a bill ensuring that convicted criminals can vote nationwide.

KXAS-TV's Phil Prazan asked Crockett in an interview released Sunday whether she was trying to pass any legislation in the 119th Congress.

"'Trying to pass.' Uh, no," said Crockett. "You know, I should probably be a better politician and tell you, 'Yes, we've got all this amazing legislation that I can absolutely imagine Donald Trump signing into law.' I'm just not gonna lie."

'We've gotta get comfortable with letting our hair down a little bit.'

"I think that right now it is about preserving our basics and getting back some of the norms — the norms that make sure that people have food on the table; the norms that make sure that people aren't going through any extra layer of stress when it comes to figuring out education for their kids," continued Crockett. "So right now, I can tell you that, unfortunately, I am not working towards very much that I would consider being the progress train. I am working to make sure that I can minimize the regress train."

If Crockett's recent conduct and commentary serve as any indication, then the minimization of the "regress train" involves publicly rooting for foreign nations engaged in trade disputes with the U.S.; telling radicals that Elon Musk must be "taken down" amid firebombs; characterizing Republican voters as stupid; issuing racist remarks; mocking the handicapped; and dubbing the commander in chief "an enemy to the United States."

During the interview, Gromer Jeffers from the Dallas Morning News asked Crockett how she plans to "resist Trump's policies."

"The reality is that we're dealing with an administration that is lawless and disrespectful," said Crockett. "The idea that we're still going to be nice and friendly and kind and try to look for some sense of normalcy when we are literally living in a time that is anything but normal, I think that we've gotta get comfortable with letting our hair down a little bit."

"We clearly play ourselves by being like these, like, do-gooders, right," said the congresswoman. "It just needs to be clear that we're not weak. And I don't know that anybody believes that we're not weak."

Apparently desperate to make clear that she is neither friendly nor a do-gooder, Crockett appeared to advocate for violence against at least one Republican lawmaker.

When asked about how to win an election in Texas, Crockett said, "You punch. I think you punch. I think you're OK with — you OK with punching."

Crockett then referenced failed Colin Allred's electoral defeat last year by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and suggested the Democrat should have been more combative with his Republican opponent, saying, "I mean, like, this dude [Cruz] has to be knocked over the head, like, hard, right. Like, there is no niceties with him — like, at all. Like, you go clean off on him."

While Crockett's violent rhetoric was likely enough to confirm for critics her commitment to unfriendliness as a hands-off legislator, her mockery of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in a speech Saturday at a LGBT activist event in Los Angeles — calling him "Governor Hot Wheels" on account of his wheelchair — helped seal the deal.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) stated, "Jasmine Crockett is despicable."

Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R) noted, "FYI to the new spokeswoman for the Democrat party— @GregAbbott_TX became paralyzed after a huge oak tree fell on him, crushing his spine. But sure, go with 'hot wheels.'"

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

How leftists think — and how you can change their minds



Doesn’t it seem like Donald Trump has been president for longer than seven weeks?

The administration has accomplished so much in such a short time that it’s easy to forget “we’ve only just begun.” So far, most of the changes that are de-wokifying American life are coming in the form of executive orders.

I never believed a man in a dress was a woman, and really, no one else does either. ... [But] I was afraid that not believing it would make me a morally bad person.

The most consequential moves — for example, protecting children from chemical and surgical abuse in the form of “sex changes” — need to be codified in laws passed by Congress.

Conservatives are celebrating the death of woke; I’m one of them. But if woke is on the wane, it is not dead. It may be in the process of dying, but actual death has not occurred. And its death may be much farther off than it looks.

Right now, less than two months into the Trump presidency, we’re seeing what I call an unveiling. Some call it an “extinction burst,” the idea that people act out their behaviors even more flagrantly just before the social environment changes enough to make their behaviors “go extinct.”

Whatever you call it, we’re seeing the depth of derangement in the woke minds of Democrats and leftists even more starkly than before.

The media is hyperventilating that free speech leads to Nazi pogroms. Leftists are gnashing their teeth over the deportation of noncitizen Mahmoud Khalil, acting as though he has a fundamental right to agitate against U.S. interests while he’s here as our guest (no concern at all for the effect of his agitation on their own countrymen, of course).

Democrat lawmakers shocked by the new reality that people are not going to call mentally ill men “women” any more just because they say they’re women are melting down in emotional tantrums in House committee hearings.

Inside the leftist mind

Here you are, a conservative, wondering just what these people are thinking. Why do they believe what they believe? Do they, in fact, actually believe what they say they believe?

I have these same questions, but I think I also have some of the answers.

Before a years-long process of changing my mind about politics and culture, I was one of them. The backstory that got me to being a leftist Democrat is a backstory shared by millions of people like me. It won’t describe everyone, but the generalizations I’m going to make are drawn from my own experience, and they do describe a large number of leftists and the woke-minded.

The first and most important generalization? Look into the past of any given leftist, and chances are you'll find some variation of ...

Fatherlessness

This is the single biggest factor that predisposes a child to mental troubles and leftist “people are victims of societal forces” ideology.

Not only is fatherlessness damaging to a kid’s normal ability to relate to the sexes, to regulate his emotions, and more, but it tends to coincide with single mothers with feminist attitudes. I never met my father, and my mother married a violent child molester by whom she had two more children.

She kicked him out after he tried to kill her, and the die was cast. To my mother, and by osmosis to me, all men were lazy deadbeats and scum. All the men in her life had victimized my poor, innocent mother, and nothing could be laid at the feet of her own choices.

Thus, the male feminist version of me was born, nurtured by those two companions of fatherlessness ...

Single motherhood and welfare dependency

One day in 1983, a college student stopped my mother on her way into the grocery store asking for her signature on a petition to end welfare fraud. My mother haughtily raised her nose, pointed at us three children, and said, “Do you see any welfare fraud here?”

At home, she’d scream at the television when Ronald Reagan spoke of “welfare queens,” saying there was no such thing and that Reagan was an abusive scum for trying to reform welfare. We were taught that our poverty was the fault of the government and that the government was cruel to give so little to single mothers like mine.

Thus was born my anti-capitalist sentiment that would flower into protesting against “greedy corporations,” my support for absurdly high minimum wages, and more.

As I discussed in my recent review of Adam Coleman's forthcoming book "The Children We Left Behind," modern America gives single moms the “you go girl/slay kween” treatment. We’ve made them heroines who cannot be criticized.

Of course, spending your whole life feeling like a victim of "the system" lets you justify all sorts of ...

Bad adult choices

Children who grow up in neglect and abuse as I did are far more likely to gravitate toward the left because the left embraces victimhood, hedonistic behavior, and self-centered, narcissistic choices dressed up as “self-care” and “self-love.”

As a young adult, I took up the stereotyped behaviors of abused children, living a promiscuous party life, becoming an alcoholic, and blaming all of this on anything but my own choices. Naturally, I surrounded myself with similarly damaged people. Every single one of them, to a man or a woman, was a leftist, socialist, or proud Marxist.

Once you realize the emotional disorder that leads people to adopt these beliefs, you might ask yourself ...

Do they really believe what they’re saying?

Democrat/leftist beliefs are so extreme and absurd in the 21st century that it baffles non-leftists. It’s been eight years since I started changing my mind to what it is today (conservative, anti-woke).

Even though I can remember when I was one of them, today’s leftists have gone farther than I ever did. For example, take the beliefs surrounding ...

Transgenderism

Do they actually, literally believe that a man claiming to be a woman makes him a woman?

Yes and no.

No, not in a literal sense, even though they claim very loudly that they do. The emotional urgency of their claims is used to cover up the fact that deep down, they know it’s insane.

I know this because it used to be me. I never believed a man in a dress was a woman, and really, no one else does either. So why did I say I believed it? Because I was afraid that not believing it would make me a morally bad person.

You see, children from abusive homes are forced into an adult role when they’re still little, trained to become emotional surrogate spouses to their damaged parent. So we grow up believing we are morally obligated to fuss and coo over any person who presents herself as a victim.

No, I didn’t believe these men were literally women. But I did believe I had a moral duty (it works as a religion because it is one) to say that I believed it and to act as if it were true. Fortunately for me, this cognitive dissonance was so severe that I didn’t keep this stance for long.

“Trans” was the first chink in the armor of my leftism. But rejecting it didn't mean letting of my conviction that ...

America is an exploitative, racist, misogynist hell

I’m afraid I did believe this in the literal sense. Looking back, I laugh at myself. How was it possible to believe that blacks in America were just as bad off after the civil rights era as they were during slavery? Given the reality that women in the U.S. can do anything they want for a career and enjoy absurdly generous legal protections and quotas, how could I believe we lived in a “misogynistic patriarchy”?

I'll tell you how: because the crowd around me believed these things.

Who made up this crowd? A disproportionate number of people with personality disorders. Pathological levels of narcissism, extreme emotional instability, and a victim stance toward the world.

Feminism and leftism preferentially attract the personality-disordered because they give mean, lazy, self-centered people excuses to act the way they do and blame their bad actions on outside boogeymen. Capitalism. Men. Colonialism. Heteronormativity. White people.

The point I’m trying to get across is that the beliefs held by people captured in a leftist frame of mind don’t, and don’t have to, have any relationship to reality.

You can’t break these beliefs by presenting objective facts, because these people don’t believe that objective facts exist. Or they do so only when those facts are convenient for their emotional goals.

This is why they get angry or tearful, or scream at you when you offer an article that questions their belief in vaccines, or in "the patriarchy," or in the idea that black people are systematically killed by police.

A deep part of their mind knows that what you’re saying is true, but that is intolerable. Therefore, they punish you with tantrums and reputational smears that get you kicked out of social groups or cost you your job.

Once you understand it as a social contagion, it's only natural to ask ...

Is there a cure for leftism?

The answer is also yes and no. Frustratingly, there’s no technique you can use on your leftist son, or wife, or best friend that will snap them out of it. Human mentation and emotion do not work that way.

We’re not dealing with ordinary political disagreements that we remember from a more collegial past. These leftists are in an actual cult. The same rules apply as do for any cult. They’re not tethered to facts, their commitment is entirely emotionally driven, and no presentation of facts will make any difference.

No one could have “changed” me from a leftist lunatic into a (I hope) saner conservative. I had to face the wall on my own, so to speak. I had to hit rock bottom, as we say of alcoholics.

For me, that came from a confrontation with the reality of how disturbed and morally depraved my own mother was, a confrontation that happened in 2016. A lifetime of abuse I’d rationalized away could no longer be excused. I saw my mother for what she really was — an unstable, vicious narcissist who exploited her loved ones — and my false but well-constructed view of the world started to crumble.

It kept crumbling. After I saw the truth about my family, I saw the truth about my chosen friends and political circle. Surprise! The same resentments, exploitation of others, false claims of being a victim when one is actually the perpetrator — all of these that I saw in my mother, I now saw in the social and political world I’d lived in all my adult life.

Becoming a small business owner dependent only on myself for my livelihood, and moving to the country, cured the last bits of anti-capitalism I had left.

As someone who made it out, I want the same for every poor brainwashed member of the leftist cult — especially people I care about. But experience has taught me that they have to want to be helped first.

In other words, when it comes to your leftist loved ones, the best practice is to ...

Be available, but don't tolerate abuse

Make it clear that you'll be there when and if they’re ready to talk. Be willing to explain your point of view, and offer them articles or videos that demonstrate why you believe as you do.

This may seem rather passive; unfortunately, it's really all you can do. You can’t make them have that final confrontation with reality. That either happens for them or it doesn’t.

At the same time, I urge you not to tolerate their abusive behavior. Expect the same level of respect and civility from them that you expect of anyone and that they demand from you (while giving you no respect in return).

If they won’t do it, stop talking to them. Tell them, “I will not be spoken to this way. We’re not going to talk until you’re willing to behave like a reasonable adult.” Then stop answering the texts, block their numbers, do not respond to attempts they make to engage you or provoke you.

They may be misguided, and many of them are indeed at least temporarily psychologically disturbed. But that is not an excuse for their bad behavior.

If we are to get society back on track, we conservatives have to be the adults who hold boundaries. Narcissistic, awful behavior needs to be objected to in front of others. We need to chastise those who take advantage of our loving feelings in order to treat us badly. We must dis-incentivize the greedy, grasping, histrionic emotional distortions of leftists if want this bulls**t to stop.

Good luck.