The media’s misinformation machine is built to last — here’s why



Liberal bias in the legacy press is nothing new, but conservatives rarely delve into the “how” and “why” behind it all. With the 2024 election — and the elite-media interference that accompanied it — behind us, the legacy press has shifted from protecting the Democratic Party to attacking it in certain cases. Three books on liberal media bias explain why the media elite’s misinformation machine may never cease.

Though it’s nearly 25 years old, Bernard Goldberg’s “Bias” remains a valuable resource. It was one of the first books to address this issue and gets to the heart of the problem within the journalism industry. The book, subtitled “A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News,” recounts Goldberg’s experience as a 28-year veteran reporter at CBS. He was fired after airing complaints to the Wall Street Journal about CBS’ growing leftward drift, including that of his boss, Dan Rather.

There is no fairness, balance, or impartiality — only straight advocacy for a hard-left agenda.

Goldberg recalls his years at CBS and elsewhere, noting that the industry attracts people who want to “change the world.” Conservatives, who value religion, heritage, nation, and family and generally do not seek to upend ancient institutions, are unlikely to fit this mold. This might explain what a friend recently told me: his graduating class of 100 at a top journalism school had about “two and a half conservatives,” himself included.

Goldberg writes that these “change the world” types don’t see themselves as biased when attacking conservative policies or opinions. They view their preferences as simply “common sense” — a phrase Rather used in a conversation with Goldberg. But considering how sheltered journalists’ lives are, far removed from 99% of America, the question is: common with whom?

Goldberg notes that his colleagues were fine with lying to their audience if they believed it would draw attention to an important cause and lead to “positive change.” One example of what he calls a “noble embellishment” involved reporters in the 1980s and '90s attempting to portray heterosexuals as equally susceptible to AIDS. This tactic, designed to alarm straight people, ignored the reality that AIDS was primarily a problem among gay males. Goldberg points to an article headlined “40% of AIDS sufferers are heterosexual.” But the story failed to acknowledge that most of the 40% were intravenous drug users, with few actually contracting the disease through heterosexual sex.

“Bias” does an excellent job of exposing media do-gooders’ moral blindness. Goldberg recounts how Rather and his colleagues were furious after he accused CBS News of bias in the Wall Street Journal. One of them even compared reading the piece to discovering his wife had been raped. Such sensitivity is, of course, rich coming from an industry that supposedly supports whistleblowers and whose entire existence revolves around interfering with other industries — never mind invading people's private lives. Consider former Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz, who cried after being criticized for doxxing the social media influencer "Libs of TikTok."

Manufacturing discontent

Matt Taibbi’s 2019 book “Hate, Inc.” also exposes the media’s hypocritical oversensitivity. While on the campaign trail in 2004, for example, Taibbi recalls receiving a complaint from the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz after apparently breaking an unwritten rule by taking video of the press section without permission. Once again, the media establishment feels aggrieved over something it does all the time.

Taibbi’s book, subtitled “Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another,” shifts from the media’s fake alarmism over liberal causes to the newer, more damaging phenomenon of “manufacturing discontent” between Republicans and Democrats. Taibbi describes this as “selling siloed anger” to attract more clicks and views. He writes that today’s mass-media consumer is often given content that simply confirms their prejudices, “about whatever or whoever the villains of the day happened to be: foreigners, minorities, terrorists, the Clintons, Republicans, even corporations.”

Taibbi harshly criticizes figures like Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow (each featured on his book’s cover). He especially criticizes Maddow, a former friend, for pushing the “Russiagate” conspiracy theory to cope with Donald Trump’s 2016 win. Taibbi’s friend Glenn Greenwald has commented on the seriousness of pushing such a pernicious lie, noting that it likely still fuels Democrats’ bloodlust for Russia’s defeat in its conflict with Ukraine.

It’s all activism now

Outlets like Maddow’s MSNBC essentially sell a “consumer product” to people, Taibbi notes. They offer viewers a “political safe space” that aligns with a specific political party. Media studies professor Andrey Mir explores this in his 2020 book “Postjournalism and the Death of Newspapers,” where he details how the media’s business model has changed in the post-internet era, altering how news is selected and reported.

Previously, leftist media analysts like Noam Chomsky argued that the establishment press skewed coverage to placate the wealthy elite (advertisers’ most coveted demographic). Now, the press skews coverage to cater to its activist readership. With advertisers moving to more efficient technologies like Facebook and Google — which control 80% of the advertising market — newspapers have turned to what Mir calls paid-up “members” and donors for revenue. These people, like everyone else, can read the news online for free but choose to give their money to outlets because they like what they say.

Treating such outlets as advocacy groups, Mir explains, means that only the largest publications — such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, the ones most capable of spreading the message — will attract support. What these “advocacy group members” are paying for, then, is not just to stay informed, but to push the outlet’s message and shape public opinion in the way they want it to be.

Previously beholden to corporate advertisers (again, Chomsky’s view), the legacy press is now dependent on the activists who fund it. As a result, daily story selection is driven by “the most resonating pressing social issues that could justify fundraising and stimulate readers to donate.” This process incentivizes journalism to “mutate into propaganda.” There is no fairness, balance, or impartiality — only straight advocacy for a hard-left agenda.

What it means for “save-the-world” types to now work for other “save-the-world” types is that expectations for the elite media to change should be even lower. To any conservative expecting the corporate left-wing media to come to their senses after Kamala Harris’ recent defeat and perhaps reduce their bias: It’s unlikely to happen any time soon.

Leftists cry as Trump obliterates their patronage network



After securing a decisive electoral mandate and launching his second presidential term with a flurry of executive orders, Donald Trump has overwhelmed his liberal opposition. Progressives have struggled to find a compelling narrative against the real estate billionaire but have now focused their attacks on foreign aid spending cuts.

One of Trump’s executive orders placed a 90-day hold on foreign aid. In response, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency identified the U.S. Agency for International Development as a prime candidate for elimination. Democrats and their media allies attempted to frame the cuts as an act of cruelty by wealthy elites indifferent to poor Africans being denied AIDS medication. But that strategy has backfired. As more Americans learn about USAID, they are discovering how much of their tax money has been siphoned into questionable projects abroad.

USAID’s funding is not merely wasted on political favors — it is actively used to support some of the most heinous projects imaginable.

Most Americans value generosity but recognize the importance of attending to domestic needs first. Foreign aid is easier to justify in times of prosperity, but when infrastructure is crumbling, housing is unaffordable for young people, and food prices are soaring, spending tax dollars overseas becomes a lower priority.

Democrats have warned that millions of lives could be lost if USAID is cut, but their alarmist rhetoric has triggered the Streisand effect. As scrutiny of USAID increases, Americans are beginning to see the agency not as a lifeline for the poor but as a massive slush fund for progressive ideological projects.

While progressives are committed to their ideology, they understand that politics ultimately revolves around rewarding friends and punishing enemies. Patronage is the lifeblood of politics, and progressives integrate it into every institution they build and every action they take. One can either accept or reject this reality, but it remains a fundamental aspect of American politics. The fact that progressives embrace patronage while conservatives often recoil from it helps explain the left’s political dominance in the United States. USAID is no exception.

Progressives have transformed the agency into a vehicle for rewarding their domestic allies and cultivating a network of ideologically aligned organizations abroad. While the U.S. foreign aid budget may assist some in need, its primary function is to fund a global progressive agenda while treating American taxpayers as little more than a revenue source.

Diverting tax dollars from American families to fund political allies would be troubling enough, but the reality is even worse. Democrats, the media, and the foreign policy establishment portray USAID as a critical tool of diplomacy. In practice, however, the agency’s funding is not merely wasted on political favors — it is actively used to support some of the most heinous projects imaginable.

Politico, which presents itself as an independent media outlet in the United States, has received more than $8 million from USAID and other federal agencies. BBC Media Action, the charitable arm of British state media, lists USAID as its second-largest contributor. The American government’s funding of both domestic and foreign media presents an obvious conflict of interest, yet this is only the beginning.

USAID has integrated LGBTQI+ ideology into all its development programs, particularly in children's education. The agency has allocated $45 million in scholarships to influence the governing elite in Burma. It has also spent $500,000 to promote atheism in Nepal, $32,000 to distribute transgender children's books in Peru, $70,000 to fund a DEI musical in Ireland, and another $70,000 to support a transgender opera in Colombia. In 2016, USAID directed $300,000 toward LGBTQ+ education initiatives in Macedonia, a predominantly Christian nation. Additionally, U.S. tax dollars have funded DEI seminars in Serbia, leftist publications in Poland, and transgender advocacy groups in Bangladesh — part of a broader effort costing tens of billions of dollars.

Progressives are not merely subsidizing allies abroad; they are using American tax dollars to pressure foreign governments and organizations into adopting their ideological agenda. The American public is gradually realizing that a well-funded global influence campaign has been carried out in their name. The worldwide spread of progressive politics was neither organic nor inevitable — it was a deliberate, taxpayer-funded initiative orchestrated by the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

Democrats have framed Elon Musk’s proposal to eliminate USAID as the cruel overreach of an unelected billionaire and his technocratic allies. That argument rings hollow, given that the Democratic Party relies heavily on funding from billionaires like George Soros and elevates figures like Anthony Fauci to near-reverential status. Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign gained significant support from Musk, in part due to the SpaceX founder’s commitment to identifying and cutting wasteful or politically motivated government programs like USAID.

As Trump takes decisive executive action, some conservatives urge caution. They warn against moving too quickly, dismantling too many institutions, and disrupting the established order. This is misguided advice. Progressives are struggling to counter Trump’s ability to control the narrative, and their attempts to push back have only drawn attention to the corruption within the Washington bureaucracy. The president has the electoral mandate, moral justification, and executive authority to enact lasting change. He should continue to press on while momentum is on his side.

Niccolò Machiavelli advised that when harming an enemy, one must do so decisively to prevent reprisals. If the goal is to restore governance that serves the American people, the transformation must be complete. Trump is not just dismantling the global leftist patronage network because of its abuses — he is eliminating its ability to target conservatives. The agencies of the U.S. government must either be restructured to serve the nation or dismantled entirely. Leaving them weakened but capable of retaliating would be the greatest strategic blunder imaginable.

Wikipedia blacklists Blaze News and other right-leaning sources, ensuring it's a one-stop liberal propaganda shop



Wikipedia maintains that articles on its site "should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered."

A new study by Media Research Center Free Speech America highlighted that Wikipedia has discounted right-leaning sources as reliable and prohibited their citation in articles, all but guaranteeing that the site is little more than a repository for liberal propaganda.

It's no secret that Wikipedia's volunteer editors are predominantly ideological myopes favorable to leftist causes, ideas, and personalities and antipathetic to conservatives of various stripes.

For instance, editors at Wikipedia, whose parent company blew 29.2% of its 2023-2024 budget on race-obsessive DEI programs, tried to hide Vice President JD Vance's military accomplishments in the lead-up to the 2024 election; strategically eliminated any mention of Kamala Harris' appointment as border czar on the list of executive branch czars; advocated deleting the entry detailing the mass killings executed by communist regimes, citing an anti-communist bias; labeled Elon Musk's temporary suspension of journalists who allegedly violated his platform's terms of service as the "Thursday Night Massacre"; and gaslighted readers about the history, existence, and nature of cultural Marxism, characterizing the well-defined and well-chronicled offshoot of Marxism as a a "conspiracy theory."

'Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead.'

A 2024 study published in Online Information Review found that Wikipedia — now run by the former chief operating officer for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and previously run by a censorious alumna of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader program who stated that "our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that is getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done" — suffers a "significant liberal bias in the choice of news media sources."

The Dutch researchers noted further that "this effect persists when accounting for the factual reliability of the news media."

Wikipedia, which now deals primarily in "propaganda" and exists only to "give an establishment point of view" according to co-founder Larry Sanger, has apparently leaned harder into its bias.

The new MRC study noted that Wikipedia editors are permitted to cite a variety of leftist publications that have a reputation for pushing false narratives and fake news, including Jacobin, Mother Jones, NPR, and Rolling Stone, but are precluded from citing publications not similarly staffed by liberal activists.

Citing the Wikipedia page on reliable and perennial sources, the study highlighted that numerous reputable right-leaning publications have been blacklisted.

Wikipedia states, for instance, that Blaze News, the Daily Wire, the Daily Caller, the Epoch Times, Fox News, ZeroHedge, the Washington Free Beacon, the Federalist, RedState, the Media Research Center, and the Alexander Hamilton-founded New York Post "should normally not be used" as sources and "should never be used for information about a living person."

"Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate," added the Wikipedia entry on reliable sources.

'It is now only reliable for pushing a radical narrative.'

Whereas most right-leaning publications were flagged as "generally unreliable," Breitbart News appears to have been among the few singled out for a formal blacklisting. Wikipedia alleged that the "site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact" and complained that the publication had revealed the identity of multiple Wikipedia editors.

The New York Times qualifies as reliable despite falsely accusing President Donald Trump of lying about Democrats' abortion ambitions; characterizing the suggestion that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan lab that conducted dangerous experiments on coronaviruses as a "fringe" "conspiracy theory lack[ing] evidence"; printing false Hamas propaganda; pushing the Russian collusion narrative; and misleading readers on various other issues.

Rolling Stone, which has paid out millions in the past for false and defamatory reporting, appears not to have learned its lesson, lying, for instance, in recent years about an imagined Florida book ban and smearing Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire. It was also characterized as "generally reliable."

Politico similarly received a reliable rating despite — or perhaps as a result of — its willingness to help a cabal of former intelligence officials interfere with the 2020 election by mischaracterizing the New York Post's reliable Hunter Biden laptop story as "Russian disinfo," and to mislead Americans about the working relationship between former President Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for the benefit of the former vice president's campaign.

According to the MRC study, only 16% of left-wing media sources were unable to secure Wikipedia's stamp of approval. Meanwhile, 100% of right-leaning sources were effectively blacklisted.

The MRC study noted further that the predicable result is that "conservatives, Republicans, and Trump appointees are smeared, maligned, and slandered by the most popular online source for information about people."

Christopher Bedford, senior editor for politics and Washington correspondent for Blaze Media, noted, "You've got to remember, none of this — none of it — is based in fact. We were right about COVID, right about Biden, right about immigration, right about trans. We were right about virtually every major contested issue impacting this country for the past 10 years, while over and over again outlets from the New York Times to PolitiFact were embarrassingly wrong."

"They can't handle that, and so the ideologues ban us," continued Bedford. "It's pathetic, but it's also dangerous, and every penny you give to support this project is a penny given against speech and truth."

Dan Schneider, MRC vice president, noted, "There used to be a joke about how Wikipedia could not be relied on by historians and academics. Wikipedia has now become the joke."

"Its radical editors and staff reveal their contempt for conservatives in almost everything they inject into descriptions," continued Schneider. "It was never something people could rely on for accurate information. It is now only reliable for pushing a radical narrative."

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

Trump to cut off South Africa over land confiscation law likely to be weaponized against white farmers



Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa's socialist president, ratified legislation on Jan. 25 enabling the government to seize land without compensation. With white farmers still possessing a great deal of land, the ruling coalition apparently figures the new law for a means of redistributing property to members of a state-preferred racial group.

Citing the Expropriation Act of 2024 as cause, President Donald Trump noted on Truth Social Sunday that he "will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!"

Last year, the U.S. reportedly committed to over $323 million in foreign assistance to South Africa. The U.S. Agency for International Development, which Trump appears poised to shutter, directed the bulk of the funding. In 2023, America poured over $439 million into funding for the African nation.

"South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY," wrote Trump. "It is a bad situation that the Radical Left Media doesn't want to so much as mention. A massive Human Rights VIOLATION, at a minimum, is happening for all to see. The United States won’t stand for it, we will act."

Under the controversial law, which abrogates the Expropriation Act of 1975, the state can seize land in the name of the "public interest," which is defined to include "the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources in order to redress the results of past racial discriminatory laws or practices," or in the name of "public purpose," which is a flexible term effectively meaning any purpose the state could suggest is "for the benefit of the public."

Although the state could compensate an owner for expropriated property under the law, the state is permitted to pay "nil" if it determines doing so is "just and equitable." When stealing property from landowners, the state must indicate that it has attempted without success to reach an agreement for the acquisition of the property on terms it deems "reasonable."

'Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?'

From the time landowners are informed their property is being stolen to the time they lose possession, they "must take all reasonable steps to maintain the property." Failing to do so, the landowner set to lose their property could also end up on the hook for the perceived amount of the loss in value.

Zsa-Zsa Boggenpoel, a professor at South Africa's Stellenbosch University, recently hinted that the law will be a tool wielded in a racist manner, stating:

In South Africa's colonial and apartheid past, land distribution was grossly unequal on the basis of race. The country is still suffering the effects of this. So expropriation of property is a potential tool to reduce land inequality. This has become a matter of increasing urgency. South Africans have expressed impatience with the slow pace of land reform.

While South Africa's Marxist-Leninist political party, the Economic Freedom Fighters — whose leader and members routinely chant about murdering white farmers — suggested the law does not go far enough to redistribute land from white farmers to black citizens, other political parties said an earlier draft of the legislation was unconstitutional, reported Bloomberg.

Ramaphosa noted in a statement early Monday, "The recently adopted Expropriation Act is not a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the constitution."

Responding to Trump's threat, the socialist added, "The US remains a key strategic political and trade partner for South Africa. With the exception of PEPFAR Aid, which constitutes 17% of South Africa's HIVAids programme, there is no other funding that is received by South Africa from the United States."

Elon Musk, who was born and raised in South Africa, subsequently asked Ramaphosa, "Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?"

The Free Market Foundation, a libertarian think tank based in Johannesburg, is among the groups critical of the law. Martin van Staden, head of policy at the think tank, noted Monday, "The patriotic thing for South Africans to do is to oppose the government's attempts to implement expropriation without compensation, not to get upset when foreign actors point it out."

"Concealing the absence of compensation in appeals to 'nil' compensation does not cure the Expropriation Act of its confiscatory nature or unconstitutionality," added van Staden.

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

White House demands apology from top Dem for threatening to take 'fight' against Trump agenda to the streets



House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) apparently participated in a longstanding Democratic tradition Friday, threatening violence to achieve a political aim.

During a Friday press conference with New York Rep. Yvette Clarke (D), Jeffries complained about his Democrat-run state's high cost of living, President Donald Trump's attempted federal funding freeze, and the proposed tax cuts in the so-called "extreme MAGA Republican agenda."

Jeffries, who stated in April that "threatening political violence is not a sign of strength" but rather an "indication of weakness and insecurity" and noted in September that "political violence has no place in a democratic society," told reporters that when it comes to the Trump agenda, "We are going to fight it legislatively, we are going to fight it in the courts, and we're going to fight it in the streets."

The House minority leader was met with immediate backlash over his remarks.

'Will Democrats and the media denounce this incitement of violence?'

The White House issued a statement asking whether Jeffries will "apologize for this disgusting threat? Or will he double down on the same calls for violence that have plagued the country for years?"

Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the GOP majority whip, said Jeffries "should promptly apologize for his use of inflammatory and extreme rhetoric. President Trump and the Republicans are focused on uniting the country; Jeffries needs to stop trying to divide it."

The X account for the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee wrote, "Will Democrats and the media denounce this incitement of violence?"

Christie Stephenson, a spokeswoman for Jeffries, suggested on X that Republicans were projecting and that when he called for fighting on the streets, the Democratic leader meant "nonviolent protest."

Stephenson told Fox News Digital, "The notion that Leader Jeffries supports violence is laughable. Republicans are the party that pardons violent felons who assault police officers. Democrats are the party of John Lewis and the right to petition the government peacefully."

This is hardly the first time a Democrat has issued an apparent call to violence only to later suggest they meant something entirely different.

When speaking at a gala for non-straight youth in 2017, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said, "I will go and take out Trump tonight."

In 2018, Waters told radicals outside the Wilshire Federal Building to harass officials in the Trump administration, stating, "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out, and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere."

'Those in power who incite violence should be held accountable.'

Years later, during former police officer Derek Chauvin's murder trial, Waters gave marching orders to prospective rioters just in case Chauvin was found not guilty in the death of George Floyd.

"Well, we got to stay on the street," said Waters. "And we've got to get more active. You've got to get more confrontation. You got to make sure that they know we mean business."

In 2018, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) told activists to "go to the Hill today. Get up and, please, get up in the face of some congresspeople."

When discussing the policy of separating minors from adults when dealing with illegal aliens at the border, California Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) stated that same year, "I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be when people realize that this is a policy that they defend. It's a horrible thing, and I don't see any prospect for legislation here."

In 2020, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) threatened U.S. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh outside the high court, saying, "You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

Jeffries noted in 2020 that "those in power who incite violence should be held accountable to the full 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!

DNC chair candidates unanimously reveal the party's not done accusing Americans of racism and misogyny



The Democratic National Committee will pick a new chair on Saturday to replace Jaime Harrison. Ahead of the party's election, MSNBC co-hosted an event Thursday with Georgetown University affording potential replacements with an opportunity to discuss their proposed messaging strategies and how they might win back the multitudes of voters the party has done its apparent best to alienate.

All eight candidates for chair — among whom Minnesota's Ken Martin and Wiconsin's Ben Wikler are reportedly the front-runners — made abundantly clear during the forum that the Democratic Party will not jettison the failed identity-centered thinking and messaging that helped them lose the White House and both chambers of the U.S. Congress.

MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart, who with former Biden campaign official Symone Sanders and former Biden press secretary Jen Psaki put questions to the candidates whenever the crowd was able to refrain from interrupting, asked, "How many of you believe that racism and misogyny played a role in Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat?"

All the candidates raised their hands.

"That's good. You all pass," said Capehart, who then stated as though it were a fact that President Donald Trump "consistently employed racist and misogynistic rhetoric on the campaign trail."

— (@)

Blaming racism and misogyny may have been an easy way to account for Harris' relative unpopularity; however, doing so deterred Democrats from addressing the issues actually driving voters away, such as their candidate's radicalism; Harris' positional weakness on important matters such as the cost of living, the fallout of open-border policies, and crime; her monomaniacal focus on attacking Trump; her choice of running mate; her candidacy's reliance on the effective voiding of the Democratic primary elections; the strength of her competitor's pitch; and the sense that a Harris administration would simply continue failing where former President Joe Biden left off.

'This DNC chair race is important for sending a signal to voters that Democrats have learned a lesson and will do things differently going forward.'

For instance, rather than figure out why Harris' promise of legal dope wasn't enough to win over black male voters or why the very suggestion might come across as deeply offensive, former President Barack Obama presumed the once-reliable Democratic voting bloc just wasn't "feeling the idea of having a woman as president."

Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost (Fla.), seeing similar polls indicating an aversion to Harris, suggested in October that "there's still a lot of this bigotry in this country in terms of sexism, in terms of racism, and we still have to work at getting over that."

Democrats' allies in the media have played the same losing game.

Ahead of her first failed presidential run, Harris suggested America might not be "ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States of America."

ABC News dutifully raised the question, "Is Kamala Harris proof that America isn't ready for a woman of color as president?"

Alicia Jones, a black Howard University alumna, told the liberal outfit at the time, "I didn't vote for Barack Obama just because he was black. I voted for him because he was smart. I voted for him because he had a record that showed me the things that he did. It didn't matter that he was only a senator for five minutes."

"I think that what she did was dirty. And I think she's way beyond and way above what she did," Jones added, referring to Harris' statement.

Following Harris' crushing defeat last year, Fox News resident Democratic commentator Juan Williams said, "I'm not sold on this idea that it was the cost of eggs."

"I worry that it was, 'Well, I'm not voting for this woman.' Or 'I'm not voting for this black woman,'" said Williams.

Williams' fellow panelists pointed out that the identity-centered explanation for Harris' loss was undercut by various factors, including Trump's simultaneous drop in support among whites and increase in support among black men and Hispanics, and by black male voters' stated reasons for ditching Democrats.

Disputing German economist Isabella Weber's assertion that "many working Americans felt that Democrats had abandoned them with respect to their pocketbook struggles and ended up casting a ballot for Trump," the Nation's race-obsessive "justice correspondent" Elie Mystal adopted a similar line to Williams, claiming that Harris' loss was "not the economy, stupid. Trump ran on pure, unadulterated white identity politics and hate, and white-hot hate won."

"This DNC chair race is important for sending a signal to voters that Democrats have learned a lesson and will do things differently going forward," Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told the Guardian. "If it sends a signal that we stand for the status quo and want to do everything the same, that will be a turnoff both to the Democratic base and to swing voters who want to see that Democrats are doing something different."

By the candidates' show of hands, it appears that Democrats are keen to keep attributing past and future losses not to remediable messaging and policy issues but to imagined bigotry.

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

Trump, Milei, and Orbán lead a conservative resurgence worldwide



Over the past several years, global political ideologies have shifted dramatically from left to right. Across Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Africa, nations that once embraced progressive policies have experienced a surge in right-leaning populism and conservative movements.

Liberal politicians aligned with the Davos-driven global agenda are being replaced by nationalists putting their countries first. Leaders like Javier Milei in Argentina, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Donald Trump in the United States have transformed the political landscape, leaving traditional elites scrambling.

The current shift to the right has ushered in Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. A successful Trump presidency could sustain this momentum for decades to come.

This trend continues. Governments in Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom face mounting pressure from right-leaning factions. In the United States, even liberal figures like New York Mayor Eric Adams are echoing Donald Trump’s rhetoric, while progressive prosecutors, such as San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, backed by George Soros, have been voted out of office.

This shift reflects more than political realignment. It signals a broader societal transformation driven by economic instability, cultural upheaval, unchecked immigration, and the political fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. The failed Biden administration serves as a clear example of the transformation underway.

Economic instability

The fiscal and monetary policies of the Biden administration led to the highest inflation rate in decades, going from 1.4% when Joe Biden took office in January 2021 to a peak of 9.1% in June 2022. On average, prices were up approximately 20% during the Biden presidency. People could not afford to put gas in their cars, fill their grocery carts, or make their mortgage payments. Americans’ credit card debt reached record levels, topping $1.1 billion in February 2024.

The Biden administration’s answer was to tell the American people that inflation was transitory and that Americans had it better than the rest of the world. Not much help to a single mother trying to afford to feed her children and pay the rent.

Trump understood this and promised to return America to the economic success it realized during his first term as president. Vowing to Make America Great Again ... again.

Social and cultural upheaval

During the Biden administration, the United States experienced a cultural transformation as private companies and government agencies put diversity, equity, and inclusion over profits and efficiency.

Controversial decisions, such as using a transgender influencer as a spokesperson for Bud Light and Target’s introduction of “tuck-friendly” swimsuits for transgender teens, led to consumer backlash, boycotts, and significant revenue losses.

The White House hosted Pride Month celebrations, where some transgender attendees paraded topless. The administration also flew the transgender flag at the White House and U.S. embassies around the globe and supported policies allowing biological men to compete against biological women in sports.

Working Americans perceived these moves as a threat to traditional values and their children’s well-being. With a struggling economy, many found it difficult to support a president who, in their view, prioritized cultural debates, like access to bathrooms, over addressing pressing financial issues.

Trump capitalized on this discontent, opposing policies that allowed men to compete against women in sports, keeping boys out of girls’ bathrooms, and emphasizing unity by celebrating all Americans rather than dividing them into groups. As the newly elected president, Trump has gone further, declaring it U.S. policy to recognize only two sexes. He also mandated that only the American flag be flown at government buildings, embassies, military bases, and on government websites.

Illegal immigration

Trump made immigration and building the wall a central focus of his first presidential run. Then, Biden made a joke out of the nation’s borders by allowing unchecked illegal immigration and forbidding organizations such as ICE from deporting those illegal aliens who committed violent crimes.

An estimated 10 million people — at minimum — entered the country illegally since January 2021. Violent crimes committed by illegal aliens became a central part of the 2024 election, partly due to the brutal murder of nursing student Laken Riley at the hands of a Venezuelan national in the country unlawfully.

Trump promised the most massive deportation effort in American history of those in the country illegally. It resonated, especially with legal immigrants, with Trump winning a record number of Hispanic votes.

The COVID response

The response to COVID-19 underscored the stark divide between left-leaning and conservative leadership. Democratic governors in states like New York, Michigan, Illinois, and California imposed strict lockdowns, confining residents to their homes and forcing businesses to close. Meanwhile, Republican governors in states like Texas and Florida kept their economies open, allowing their states to thrive.

President Biden mandated that military personnel receive the experimental COVID-19 vaccine and attempted to use OSHA to enforce a nationwide vaccine requirement for workers. The Supreme Court ultimately struck down the mandate. In contrast, Donald Trump opposed such mandates, a stance that resonated with many Americans who rejected forced vaccinations. Trump leveraged his opposition to COVID mandates to bolster his support for smaller, less intrusive government, continuing his “drain the swamp” message from 2016.

Sometimes called the “people’s billionaire,” Trump demonstrated a keen understanding of Americans’ frustrations during his successful 2024 presidential campaign. By addressing hot-button cultural issues such as men in women’s sports and illegal immigration, Trump appealed to voters alarmed by perceived negative changes to America’s values and culture. His promises to restore the economy, dismantle DEI initiatives, and reduce government interference in daily life resonated with middle-class voters seeking to provide for their families, keep more of their paychecks, and simply be left alone.

Political influence tends to swing between left and right over time. The current shift to the right has ushered in Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. A successful Trump presidency could sustain this momentum for decades to come.

Pulitzer journalist’s anti-Trump rant backfires spectacularly



Helene Cooper, a black female former refugee from Liberia, remained in the United States unlawfully after her visa expired. She would have been deported if not for the sheer coincidence of being included in Ronald Reagan’s 1986 mass amnesty.

Now, 39 years later, she is a prize-winning journalist and a U.S. citizen. Yet, she has become an unrelenting elitist ingrate, attacking the legitimacy of the same United States government that once rescued her from the threat of imprisonment, servitude, or death.

Retired US officers who have not resigned their commissions can be called back to active duty at any time. Cooper might find that idea worthy of another tear-filled op-ed.

Her latest diatribe in the New York Times not only attempts to undermine the authority of a freely elected president but also highlights her significant misunderstanding of how the military operates.

Although Cooper won a Pulitzer Prize for her reporting on the Ebola virus, she has no military experience. It’s no surprise, then, that she expresses shock — complete shock! — at President Trump’s dismissal of Coast Guard Commandant Linda Fagan and the removal of General Mark Milley’s portrait from the Pentagon.

In the military, all service members serve at the pleasure of the president, who has the authority to relieve anyone at any time.

So Helene, instead of focusing on your Liberian autobiography or chronicling Liberia’s first female president, consider reading up on how the U.S. military operates. If you can spare some time from your overly sentimental reporting, you might start with Abraham Lincoln’s firing of George McClellan, Harry Truman’s dismissal of Douglas MacArthur, or Jimmy Carter’s spanking of Jack Singlaub. Or maybe just skim Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

As for Milley, whose actions as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were at best disloyal and at worst treasonous — actions now irrelevant due to ex-President Biden’s blanket pardon — Trump’s removal of Milley’s portrait is a minor gesture.

If Trump wanted to, he could take far stronger actions against Milley. Retired U.S. officers who have not resigned their commissions can be called back to active duty at any time. Cooper might find that idea worthy of another tear-filled op-ed.

Imagine it: President Trump could summon Milley to serve as “assistant to the president for Military Affairs.” Once reinstated to active duty, Milley might be required to always appear in civilian attire and work from an office repurposed from a West Wing broom closet.

Reflecting further, the president could permanently revoke Milley’s security clearance, reducing his responsibilities to reading hard copies of military magazines and submitting daily typed reports to the Oval Office. (Without clearance, of course, Milley would be issued an IBM Selectric II typewriter, complete with correction tape and copy paper, as electronic devices would be off-limits.)

As commander in chief, Trump would personally draft Milley’s officer efficiency reports, potentially demoting him for spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.

Imagine four years in a broom closet — no phone, no computer — working six days a week, 9 to 5, or longer if the president required it. At least Milley could admire his famous portrait, conveniently displayed just outside his office ... right above the first urinal.

Alternatively, Milley could resign his commission, leaving the military behind to fully embrace his new role as citizen Milley, the mouth who roared.

California secretary of state sets stage for vote on leftist secession from US following Trump's first week



California Secretary of State Shirley Weber announced Thursday that she cleared the proponent of a secessionist movement to begin collecting petition signatures. Should Marcus Ruiz Evans and his CALEXIT team secure 546,651 signatures by July 22, then the proposal will be put to a vote on California's 2028 election ballot.

If at least 50% of registered voters participate in the election and 55% of voters say yes to the question, "Should California leave the United States and become a free and independent country?" then the result would register as a statewide vote of no confidence in the U.S. and an "expression of the will of the people of California" to become an independent country.

According to the California secretary of state's office, the no-confidence vote would not trigger an immediate change in the state's current government or relationship with the union. It would instead result in the formation of a commission to report on the Golden State's viability as an independent country.

The commission might consider the impact of losing free trade with the remaining states in the union; losing over 762,000 full-time jobs with U.S. national security agencies along with tens of billions of dollars annually from national security activity in the state; and no longer having the federal government cover roughly 50% of Californians' medical costs.

The CALEXIT campaign claims on its website that California — which is struggling to deal with the biggest homeless population in the nation, brutal crime, resource strains resultant from illegal alien populations, drought, wildfires, a housing crisis, and various other problems even with the help of the federal government and over $143 billion a year in federal aid — would be better off on its own, in part, because it could foster its leftist values "without facing ridicule or opposition from states with differing ideologies."

In addition to helping make the state an incubator for a single worldview, the CALEXIT campaign claims that independence would enable California to tear up constitutional protections for gun owners as well as to go all-in on climate alarmism and failed immigration policies.

'US Constitution includes neither a mechanism for a state to secede from the United States nor a provision for a single state to be an autonomous nation.'

The campaigners appear to have been emboldened by polling data indicating a sizable portion of the population wanting to abandon the United States of America.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll published around the time President Donald Trump took office in 2017 found that 32% of respondents supported California's withdrawal from America. A March 2017 statewide poll conducted by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California Berkeley also found that 32% of residents supported secession — but that 68% were opposed.

According to a YouGov poll commissioned by the Independent California Institute ahead of Trump's second inauguration, 61% of respondents indicated that peaceful secession from the U.S. would make Californians' lives better. However, 62% of respondents suggested that secession was impossible.

This sense of impossibility is well-founded. After all, Section 1 of Article III of the state Constitution provides that California "is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land."

The state's Legislative Analyst's Office noted in 2017 that the "U.S. Constitution includes neither a mechanism for a state to secede from the United States nor a provision for a single state to be an autonomous nation within the United States."

Even though secession is a leftist pipe dream, that doesn't mean the state won't waste millions of dollars learning the lesson.

The California secretary of state's office noted that an estimate of the fiscal impact on state and local government will cost taxpayers roughly $10 million in one-time election-related costs. The formation of a commission on California nationhood would cost another $2 million annually to operate.

Evans, the key CALEXIT campaigner, previously worked with Louis Marinelli on the Yes California campaign, which similarly advocated for secession. Marinelli was exposed for having ties to Russia — which apparently was a fan of the secession idea — and told supporters he was seeking permanent residence in Russia because of his "frustration, disappointment and disillusionment with the United States," reported CBS News. Evans later noted in a 2019 blog post that he had become a "useful idiot" for the Russian government.

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