Do they hate Trump — or do they just hate America?



Do the protesters angry about Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s death hate America — or do they hate the fact that Donald Trump pulled it off?

The question sounds simple. Nobody outside Khamenei’s supporters can mourn his death. The answer becomes more difficult because the protesters in question rarely limit their hatred to one target.

Trump’s return tore off the mask. When America acts like America again, the people who resent America stop hiding behind the language of peace.

Almost 15 years ago, U.S. Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Bin Laden led Al-Qaeda, which carried out terrorist attacks against the United States and others for years. The worst came on Sept. 11, 2001, when Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four American airliners, flew three into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and crashed the fourth in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people died.

When President Obama announced bin Laden’s death, he said: “Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, Al-Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.”

Nobody marched in grief for bin Laden — at least not publicly outside Al-Qaeda’s circles, which included Iran.

Khamenei’s record goes further. Under his rule, Iran financed terrorism across the region and around the globe. The U.S. State Department reported in 2020 that Iran “has been the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” and for more than 40 years, its “malign behavior and support for terrorist proxies has spread across the region.”

Iran’s clients form a who’s-who of the heinous: Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Shiite militias in Iraq, and others. For nearly half a century, Iran’s regime threatened Iranians first, then the Middle East, then the United States and Israel.

The beneficiaries of that system were predictable: regime insiders, terrorist networks, and pariah states that profit from chaos — Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela — along with China, which seeks advantage from the disorder Iran helped sow.

So who, exactly, shows up in America to lament Khamenei’s death and denounce U.S. strikes as illegitimate?

The protests arrived quickly in familiar cities: New York, Minneapolis, Portland.

The left-wing Guardian observed that New York’s rally was sponsored by a host of left-wing groups that included the ANSWER Coalition, National Iranian American Council, 50501, American Muslims for Palestine, the People’s Forum, Palestinian Youth Movement, Code Pink, Black Alliance for Peace, and Democratic Socialists of America. Organizers called Trump’s strikes “unprovoked” and “illegal,” warned of “unthinkable death and destruction,” and promised to take to the streets.

RELATED: Hegseth just delivered a precision strike on the legacy media

Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

They did not explain how action against a regime that has sponsored terrorism for decades and chants “Death to America” qualifies as “unprovoked.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) went further, calling the strikes a “catastrophic escalation in an illegal war of aggression,” then added: “Bombing cities. Killing civilians. Opening a new theater of war.”

He ignored the war Iran has waged for years through its proxies. He also ignored the brutality Iran’s regime has inflicted on its own people. Reports from within and outside Iran have described mass crackdowns, large death tolls, and systematic violence against dissent. The precise numbers vary — it could top 30,000 — and the regime itself manipulates information, but nobody disputes the core point: Tehran kills its own citizens to preserve power.

Minneapolis offered the same posture. Minnesota Public Radio quoted Andrew Josefchak of the Minnesota Anti-War Committee saying: “These wars don't benefit ordinary people in the U.S., and they certainly don't benefit ordinary people in countries like Venezuela or Iran.” That claim dodges the obvious. Iranians have risked their lives for decades against this regime. Many celebrated Khamenei’s death because they know what his rule meant.

In Portland, a protest organized by Portland for Palestine featured signs reading “U.S. hands off Iran” and “Stop the war on Iran now.” Hamas, Iran’s most prominent Palestinian client, tells you plenty about the moral framing at work.

The sympathies here are not hard to locate. The protesters show little concern for the victims of Iran’s terror machine, whether in Israel, Iraq, or inside Iran itself. Their energy targets the United States — and Trump.

If that judgment sounds harsh, consider a post from a Columbia University group that has organized activism since 2024. Columbia University Apartheid Divest posted “Marg bar Amrika” on X.com — “Death to America” in Persian — then later wrote that the platform forced deletion to regain account access but that “the sentiment still stands.”

RELATED: Conservatives can’t barbecue their way through national collapse

Blaze Media Illustration

That brings the question into focus.

Iran chanted “Death to America” long before Trump entered politics. The chant softened in elite American spaces when Washington adopted a posture of accommodation. Under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the United States projected restraint even as Iran financed proxies and pushed its nuclear program forward. Now with Trump back in office and Khamenei dead, “Death to America” appears on social media feeds tied to elite American campuses.

So what do these protesters hate more: America or Trump?

They carry plenty of hate for both. The better answer may be that Trump’s return tore off the mask. When America acts like America again, the people who resent America stop hiding behind the phony language of peace.

When ‘be nice’ becomes the whole ethic, we’re in trouble



The appeal to pity is the modern left’s favorite fallacy.

In logic, it is called argumentum ad misericordiam. Instead of showing that a policy is just or true, the speaker points to suffering and insists compassion requires agreement. It works because it weaponizes one of the strongest moral instincts in the American people: mercy.

Deep empathy does not sneer at suffering. It refuses to treat feeling as the foundation of ethics.

The person making the appeal to pity is not merely expressing concern. He is using your compassion to secure special treatment, expanded power, or ideological conformity. And because America remains culturally shaped by Christianity — a faith that commands love of neighbor — the tactic often succeeds.

Allie Beth Stuckey and Joe Rigney have warned about what they call the weaponization of empathy. Empathy, properly understood, is the act of feeling the pain of another. It differs from sympathy, which acknowledges suffering without necessarily taking it on. Empathy attempts to enter another person’s emotional state.

But empathy rests on feeling, and feelings fluctuate. They can be misinformed. They can be manipulated. They can even be built on fiction.

Yet in the modern West, empathy has increasingly become a substitute for ethics. Moral reasoning gets reduced to a simple script: Identify the oppressed, feel their pain, then reorder society accordingly. The equation becomes: Empathy plus an oppression narrative equals moral righteousness.

This framework now gets handed to American students as a moral catechism. Under Marxist-inflected professors, they learn to “problematize” and “deconstruct” Western institutions, to “decolonize” structures of power — all in the name of empathy. The moral energy driving the project does not come from reasoned argument about justice or human nature. It comes from cultivated emotional identification with those cast as victims of “systemic oppression.”

Question this framework, and you run into another trick: the motte-and-bailey.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy works like this: Someone advances a controversial claim (the bailey). When challenged, he retreats to a safer, more defensible position (the motte). When the pressure eases, he returns to the controversial claim.

You see it constantly. A progressive activist claims America’s land ownership is illegitimate because it rests on historic injustice. Challenge that sweeping conclusion — raise questions about legal continuity, generational distance, competing claims of sovereignty — and the response shifts: “Why do you not care about the suffering of indigenous peoples?”

RELATED: My school’s AI challenge raised a scary question: What do students need me for?

Andrei Apoev / Getty Images

That maneuver does not answer the question. It changes the subject. It turns a dispute about political legitimacy into a moral indictment: You lack empathy.

Under this logic, questioning policy becomes questioning compassion. Questioning compassion becomes moral failure.

Elon Musk recently offered a useful distinction: superficial empathy versus deep empathy. Whatever one thinks of Musk, the distinction clarifies the problem.

Superficial empathy reacts to appearances. Someone suffers, so someone else must be guilty. Someone lacks wealth, so the wealthy must have acquired it unjustly. Someone feels distress, so society must immediately reorganize itself to relieve that distress.

Superficial empathy has no patience for causes. It wants to relieve visible pain fast, typically by redistributing power. It externalizes blame and treats suffering as primarily the product of oppressive structures. Push back and you become the villain — a heartless person unmoved by human pain.

Deep empathy asks a harder question: What is truly good for a human being?

It recognizes that not all suffering comes from injustice. It acknowledges suffering can arise from folly, moral disorder, and the limits of living in a fallen world. It understands immediate relief is not always ultimate good. Tears do not decide what is right.

Deep empathy does not sneer at suffering. It refuses to treat feeling as the foundation of ethics.

Ethics cannot rest on the shifting landscape of emotion. It must rest on something objective and enduring. For Christians, that foundation is the law of God — the revealed moral order that defines justice, righteousness, and human flourishing. Love of neighbor is not a free-floating sentiment. God’s commands give it shape.

RELATED: Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘philosophy’ wasn’t deep — it was dirty

Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP via Getty Images

The Marxist professor tells students that love of neighbor means feeling empathy for economic deprivation. Biblical love makes heavier demands. It cares for the body, yes, but also for the soul. It refuses to affirm what destroys a person morally or spiritually, even if such affirmation might reduce discomfort in the short term.

Superficial empathy says: Remove suffering at all costs. Deep empathy says: Pursue the true good of the person, even when that path requires discomfort, responsibility, or repentance.

The irony is that the left’s empathy-driven politics often produce policies that entrench dependency, dissolve personal responsibility, and weaken the institutions — family, church, community — that sustain long-term human flourishing. It feels compassionate in the moment. It proves destructive in the end.

America does not need less compassion. It needs a deeper understanding of it.

The question is not whether we feel. The question is whether our feelings answer to truth.

Empathy can be a virtue. But it can become a dangerous master.

When compassion detaches from objective moral order, it becomes an easy tool for anyone seeking power. When appeals to pity replace rational debate about justice, a free people grows vulnerable to emotional coercion.

If we want to preserve liberty and genuine love of neighbor, we must recover a moral framework deeper than sentiment — one rooted in enduring truth.

The next fight over freedom will run through AI models



When it comes to artificial intelligence, the Trump administration has made its position clear: America will not choke innovation with red tape.

That instinct is understandable and, in many ways, correct. AI is moving fast, and heavy-handed regulation could do real damage. If the United States cripples its own companies, China will gladly take the advantage. And no one on the right wants blue-state politicians using AI rules to smuggle “woke” ideology into the next generation of powerful models.

The goal should be straightforward: Build an American AI future in which freedom is embedded from the start, and constitutional guardrails shape the systems that will increasingly shape us.

As White House AI adviser David Sacks recently put it, “We don’t like seeing blue states trying to insert their woke ideology in AI models, and we really want to try and stop that.”

Fair enough.

But what happens when resistance to bad regulation hardens into resistance to any regulation at all?

That question is now surfacing in Utah, where the White House is reportedly opposing a Republican-sponsored AI transparency bill. The fight may sound parochial, but it raises a much larger question: Do conservatives have the discipline to protect constitutional liberty in the AI age?

Utah isn’t California

The Utah proposal is not a European-style crackdown. It would not impose speech codes, mandate ideological compliance, or try to centrally plan the AI economy.

At its core, the bill focuses on transparency and accountability. It would require frontier AI companies to disclose serious risks, plan for safety in advance, report major problems, and protect whistleblowers who raise alarms.

That’s far from radical.

If the administration’s AI strategy is to stop progressive states from embedding political orthodoxy into algorithms, Utah’s bill does not belong in that category. The measure is about making sure the companies building extraordinarily powerful systems acknowledge the risks up front and take responsibility when things go wrong.

Treating that effort as if it were blue-state social engineering confuses two very different problems. There is a real difference between using AI regulation to enforce ideology and asking powerful firms to level with the public about systems that could reshape society.

The myth of an ‘unregulated’ AI market

Another uncomfortable truth lurks beneath this debate: AI is not operating in anything like a free-market vacuum.

The European Union has already enacted its sweeping AI Act. That regulatory regime will not stop at Europe’s borders. American companies that operate globally will feel its force, and American users will feel the downstream effects.

If the United States adopts a posture of total federal non-engagement, it will not preserve a neutral market. It will hand the regulatory initiative to Brussels.

That would be a serious mistake. Europe does not regulate with American constitutional principles in mind. It regulates through a bureaucratic worldview that prizes centralized control over freedom. If Washington refuses to establish clear guardrails rooted in our own constitutional tradition, foreign regulators and multinational firms will fill the void.

Power without constitutional guardrails

AI is quickly becoming part of the infrastructure of modern life. These systems increasingly shape how information flows, how public opinion forms, and how daily choices get nudged.

That is power.

We have already watched major corporations use private power to shape public life. Social-media companies moderated, suppressed, and curated speech in ways that tilted public debate. Large firms adopted ESG frameworks that embedded political priorities into lending, hiring, and investment. In both cases, powerful institutions pushed ideological outcomes without a vote being cast or a law being passed.

Nothing suggests AI will escape those pressures.

RELATED: If AI isn’t built for freedom, it will be programmed for control

gorodenkoff / Getty Images

The companies building frontier systems carry their own assumptions, incentives, and cultural biases. If those assumptions get baked into foundational models — and those models then get integrated into education, finance, media, hiring, and governance — ideological influence will move from the margins to the infrastructure of society.

Yes, clumsy central planning would hurt innovation and weaken America’s position against China. But the answer cannot be blind faith that market incentives alone will protect liberty. That asks a great deal of institutions that have already shown a willingness to steer political and cultural outcomes in their preferred direction.

The real challenge is making sure extraordinary technological power develops inside a framework that respects constitutional rights, individual liberty, and personal autonomy.

A pro-liberty AI framework

The Trump administration is right to resist ideological manipulation in AI models and to oppose sweeping regimes that would handicap American innovation while China races ahead.

But someone will shape the boundaries of this technology. The only real question is whether those boundaries reflect American constitutional principles or the preferences of foreign regulators and corporate boards.

Red states such as Utah should be treated as allies in that effort, not obstacles. They can serve as proving ground for approaches that protect transparency, due process, free expression, and individual autonomy without strangling innovation.

Artificial intelligence will shape the next century more than any single statute. Total non-engagement may sound pro-growth, but in practice it leaves the foundational rules of the AI era to someone else.

The goal should be straightforward: Build an American AI future in which freedom is embedded from the start, and constitutional guardrails shape the systems that will increasingly shape us.

Ilhan Omar freaks out over arrest of her radical State of the Union guest



Rep. Ilhan Omar's attempts on Tuesday to sabotage President Donald Trump's State of the Union did not go particularly well.

Not only did public support for the president's agenda reportedly spike while the Minnesota Democrat was screaming during his speech, but Omar's anti-ICE guest was hauled away by U.S. Capitol Police.

'All State of the Union tickets clearly explain that demonstrating is prohibited.'

The Somali-born ethno-nationalist announced on Monday that among the radicals she was bringing as guests to the SOTU was Aliya Rahman, an autistic non-straight activist who, though born in America, grew up in Bangladesh and has championed leftist causes since returning to the United States.

Omar made no secret that she chose to bring Rahman because of the woman's hostility toward U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, noting that "Rahman is now calling for ICE to face legal accountability for their aggression against civilians."

Trouble with the law

Rahman, 43, was arrested in Minneapolis on Jan. 13 after allegedly impeding federal law enforcement agents by blocking traffic with her vehicle.

While later claiming that she was on her way to a doctor's appointment and was seeking to avoid a chaotic scene, footage appears to show that Rahman wasn't in a rush to go anywhere. Despite ample room to drive forward and away from the scene, she appears to be idling in the intersection, blocking traffic, and yelling at federal agents.

Footage also shows Rahman failing to comply with repeated orders before being pulled out of the vehicle and carted away.

RELATED: 'You should be ashamed': Ilhan Omar melts down when asked to support Americans

Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP via Getty Images

The Department of Homeland Security noted that the radical "clearly had enough room to move herself and her vehicle out of the way. Officers even walked away from her vehicle, thinking she was going to leave the scene."

"Instead, she remained at the location, continued to impede our officers, and found out the hard way," continued the DHS. "18 U.S.C. § 111 criminalizes impeding or interfering with federal officers."

Rahman — who has likened herself to George Floyd as well as to Silverio Villegas Gonzalez, an illegal alien who was fatally shot on Sept. 12 after reportedly driving his vehicle into an ICE officer — quickly became a symbol of supposed ICE brutality for Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Reps. Robert Garcia (Calif.) and Yassamin Ansari (Ariz.).

Another arrest

Omar complained on Wednesday that Rahman had yet another arrest, this time after a run-in with the Capitol Police on Tuesday.

"My guest, Aliya Rahman, stood up silently in the gallery during the president’s speech for a short period of time, part of which other guests were also standing," alleged Omar. "For that, she was forcibly removed, despite warning officers about her injured shoulders and ultimately charged with 'Unlawful Conduct.'"

Rahman reportedly stood up in protest during the part of President Donald Trump's speech where he called on Democrats to restore DHS funding and allegedly refused to sit when asked by police.

"The heavy-handed response to a peaceful guest sends a chilling message about the state of our democracy," added the Minnesota Democrat.

Rahman told Democracy Now! on Wednesday, "The only reason I can think that they thought me standing silently there was a protest is because this point, my body, unafraid, even if broken, standing and looking at these people in their face, well that must be a protest to you."

The radical claimed that the sergeant at arms told her she was being detained for "standing up silently. No buttons, no facial expressions, no gestures, no signs. Not one sound. Standing up."

Capitol Police painted a different picture of the scene, noting in a statement obtained by CNN, "All State of the Union tickets clearly explain that demonstrating is prohibited."

"At approximately 10:07 p.m., a person in the House Gallery started demonstrating during tonight's State of the Union Address," continued the statement. "The guest was told to sit down, but refused to obey our lawful orders."

The Capitol Police added that "it is illegal to disrupt the Congress and demonstrate in the Congressional Buildings, so 43-year-old Aliya M. Rahman of Minneapolis, MN, was arrested for D.C. Code §10-503.16 - Unlawful Conduct, Disruption of Congress."

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

‘Tax The Jews’: Anti-Capitalist DSA Protest Erupts Into Anti-Semitic Chants

A "tax the Jews" chant erupted Wednesday during an anti-capitalist protest in San Francisco organized by the local Democratic Socialists of America chapter.

The post ‘Tax The Jews’: Anti-Capitalist DSA Protest Erupts Into Anti-Semitic Chants appeared first on .

The most unhinged liberal videos you'll see this week



The outside of the Kennedy Center and Lincoln Memorial became a stage this Presidents’ Day for a group of dancers protesting the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers — and a clip of the performance is giving BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales “secondhand embarrassment.”

“That’s what they will pass off as art. It’s why you shouldn’t let your kids major in liberal arts. They’ll end up on the steps of the Kennedy Center performing that bulls**t,” Gonzales comments.

“I just have to wonder how many hours they spent working on that, rehearsing that all for this big moment that led them to absolutely nothing. Like great, you got the social media video. How many hours of your life did you waste that you could have been actually working?” she asks, adding, “Actually, we know liberals don’t work.”


But that’s not the only ridiculous video Gonzales came across this week.

In another clip, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) claims that the left is now guilty of being racist to her alongside the right.

“The thing that is not normal is for me to be attacked from the left. That is the, like, new wild card in this scenario. But it’s just interesting. And you know, I’ve been asked a couple of times, a couple of things about it,” Crockett began.

“I look at this specifically as a civil rights lawyer, and I see when they’re sending out ads, and they’re darkening my skin, and I’m just like, ‘I know what this is,’ right? And the reality is that yes, I woke up a black woman. I was born a black woman. I know I’m a black woman, for everybody that didn't think I didn’t know. Just FYI,” she continued.

“But I am not running on the fact that I’m a black woman. I am running on my credentials,” she added.

“That’s all you talk about,” Gonzales comments.

“Jasmine Crockett cannot go five minutes without telling someone, ‘I’m a strong independent black woman,’” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

Here's why Trump's State of the Union might be more civilized, have empty seats



Democrats never miss an opportunity to don costumes, throw tantrums, and protest while President Donald Trump is addressing Congress.

For instance, some of the Democrats who refused to clap for Trump during his Jan. 30, 2018, State of the Union address also signaled their protest by wearing Kente cloths — the garb of a slave-trading African tribe. At the February 2019 SOTU, some Democrat women wore white to protest the president's support for the unborn and other positions congressional feminists apparently find intolerable. At the president's joint address to Congress last year, some Democrats wore pink in protest and/or booed the president.

While Trump derangement syndrome might still be colorfully displayed Tuesday evening, at least 30 Democrat lawmakers are planning to take their circus outside — which might make for a more peaceable State of the Union.

'I don’t think that what we saw in Congress last year was particularly helpful.'

The leftist organizing group MoveOn and the propaganda outfit MeidasTouch are hosting a "counterprogramming" rally at 8 p.m. on the National Mall.

Democrat Sens. Ed Markey (Mass.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Tina Smith (Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), and Adam Schiff (Calif.) are planning to attend, along with a horde of House Democrats including Reps. Yassamin Ansari (Ariz.), Becca Balint (Vt.), Greg Casar (Texas), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), and anchor-baby Rep. Delia Ramirez (Ill.).

Merkley suggested that attendance at the SOTU would serve Trump's supposed effort to "tighten his authoritarian grip."

Van Hollen, among the Democrats who stuck to a similar script, claimed, "Trump is marching America towards fascism, and I refuse to normalize his shredding of our Constitution & democracy."

RELATED: Those who 'take a knee' to Trump will be 'held accountable' when Democrats seize control, Susan Rice threatens

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

"He uses his speeches to pillory his political enemies and spread lies — not to mention they're long and boring," complained Smith.

Schiff recycled similar talking points and added, "This isn't business as usual."

The organizers for the "counterprogramming" event hinted that Democrats will concern-monger about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents' execution of their duties, the termination of public health workers, rising costs, and other matters.

"Trump wants the attention and the ratings, but we cannot treat this year’s State of the Union like business as usual," said MoveOn program chief Sara Haghdoosti. "That’s why MoveOn is hosting the People’s State of the Union, where we will hear directly from the people facing the consequences of Trump’s disastrous administration."

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) may be relieved that his colleagues are planning to rage remotely on Tuesday.

After all, their booing and incivility were so bad at Trump's address to the joint session of Congress last year that one lawmaker, Rep. Al Green of Texas, was later censured. Most Democrats also remained seated while Trump honored a cancer-stricken Texas boy, Devarjhaye "DJ" Daniel, and announced his deputization as a U.S. Secret Service agent.

Jeffries made clear last week to his fellow Democrats that they had two options — and more ugly protests in Congress aren't one of them.

"The two options that are in front of us in our House [are] to either attend with silent defiance or to not attend and send a message to Donald Trump in that fashion, which will include participation in a variety of different alternate programming that is going to take place in and around the Capitol complex," Jeffries said on Wednesday, reported The Hill.

Jeffries is not alone in wanting his colleagues to exercise some restraint.

"I don’t think that what we saw in Congress last year was particularly helpful. I think it made us the story," Rep. Sarah McBride (Del.), the cross-dressing Democrat formerly known as Tim McBride, told NOTUS. "I think this president's unpopular policies should be the story, not sort of gestures from our side."

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

Trump CIA torpedoes Biden-era CIA assessment accusing white women with traditional values of grooming extremists



CIA Director John Ratcliffe revealed last year that there were "multiple procedural anomalies" in the production of the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment — a document created at former President Barack Obama's urging that served as the cornerstone of the Russia collusion hoax.

Ratcliffe emphasized that ex-CIA Director John Brennan sacrificed "analytical soundness" for "narrative consistency."

The CIA evidently did not limit its prioritization of political agenda over fact to just the one document.

After the President's Intelligence Advisory Board determined that dozens of analytical CIA assessments were similarly infected with political bias, Ratcliffe announced on Friday that he had ordered retractions or substantial revisions of 19 intelligence products.

"The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned," the CIA director said in a statement.

To provide some insight into the extent of the political perversion and suboptimal quality of past CIA products, Ratcliffe published three redacted versions of reports that the agency indicated "exhibit substantial deviations from the President's expectations that CIA's workforce remains independent from a particular audience, agenda, or policy viewpoint."

'We owe it to the American people to correct the record.'

One of the reports, published in October 2021, is titled "Women Advancing White Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist Radicalization and Recruitment."

The report:

  • Concern-mongers about white women who "may not openly advocate violence but amplify white [racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist] narratives regarding their perceptions of racial and ethnic hierarchy, as well as perceived threats from those they see as advocating multiculturalism and globalization";
  • Complains that some white women "have produced blogs, videos, or other online content under the guise of cooking tutorials, which feature discussions about the importance of organic food alongside subtle narratives about racial purity and the defense of white European heritage";
  • Haphazardly blurs the lines between bona fide white supremacists and individuals who've amplified the so-called conspiracy theory that "the white population is decreasing because of increasing immigration and birthrates among non-white groups";
  • Notes that supposed radicals have dared to celebrate "motherhood and homemaking as women's most important responsibility";
  • Leans heavily on left-wing media reports; and
  • Advocates modeling future messaging on the best practices from the Expert Center on Gender and Right-Wing Extremism, part of a leftist German NGO led by anti-white former Stasi collaborator Anetta Kahane.

One of the other redacted reports released last week, an assessment published in July 2020 titled "Worldwide: Pandemic-Related Contraceptive Shortfalls Threaten Economic Development," similarly evinced an unmistakably leftist worldview.

RELATED: Where in the Constitution is ‘the interagency’ anyway?

Photographer: Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images

As its title suggests, the report concern-mongered about the impact of pandemic-era supply chain disruptions on the third world's access to abortions and contraceptives.

It warned that an uptick in babies "in African and other developing countries would perpetuate poverty, strain household budgets, and limit disposable income for consumer goods, including U.S. exports."

The document relied heavily on propaganda from the International Planned Parenthood Federation as well as the Guttmacher Institute, an NGO that advocates expanding abortion practices around the world.

"There is absolutely no room for bias in our work and when we identify instances where analytic rigor has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record," Ratcliffe said. "These actions underscore our commitment to transparency, accountability, and objective intelligence analysis."

CIA Deputy Director Michael Ellis, whose internal review confirmed that the documents "did not meet the high standards the American people expect from the CIA's elite analytic workforce," tweeted, "When we fall short of our standards, we owe it to the American people to correct the record."

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) commended Ratcliffe "for correcting the record and ensuring that the CIA's analysis is free of any political bias," adding, "I've been sending these kind of reports back to the CIA for years and observing that they contain no intelligence."

"Our intelligence agencies have too often missed critical national-security developments to waste time on, for instance, how 'pandemic-related contraceptive shortfalls threaten economic development,'" Cotton continued. "Honestly."

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) noted that Ratcliffe "has done a tone [sic] of work behind the scenes. Well done director!"

Not all were pleased with the attempt to remedy the agency's ideological capture.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) suggested that the retractions and revisions were "part of a broader and deeply troubling pattern in this administration: sidelining career experts, undermining inconvenient intelligence assessments, and allowing political considerations to override professional judgment."

"When political appointees appear to dictate what analysis is valid, it threatens the credibility, reliability, and independence of the Intelligence Community itself," Warner added.

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

'Pure bigotry': CNN fearmongers about 'Christian nationalism' in election-narrative tease



Democrats, the liberal media, and activist outfits have concern-mongered for years about the imagined threat posed by "Christian nationalism," a catchall term used to describe their ideological foes who also happen to be Christian in a nation almost entirely founded by Christians and where today over six in 10 adults are Christian.

CNN appears keen to revive the left's moral panic on-theme ahead of the midterm elections with an hour-long documentary titled "The Rise of Christian Nationalism."

'If you’re worried about Christians radicalizing then maybe you should stop shooting up our schools, churches and now hockey rinks.'

Newly released teaser videos and a corresponding press release hint at the documentary's apparent political purpose: to instill fear in viewers over a supposed movement that host Pamela Brown claims is "working to redefine America as a Christian nation in the home, in a marriage, in schools, and in government" — a movement that Brown reckons is supercharged and unified in the wake of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk's assassination.

The network noted in its overview for the documentary, which airs Sunday, that:

Brown examines the growing influence of Christian nationalism, an ideology rooted in the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that its laws and institutions should reflect Christian values. Through immersive reporting and on-the-ground access, the episode explores how a movement once largely confined to the margins of white evangelical culture has gained new visibility and political power.

Brown apparently believes she gleaned generalizable insights into "Christian nationalism" by chatting with critics and kicking around Christian communities linked to Pastor Doug Wilson, a theologian credited by the Wall Street Journal months ago with leading the rise of "Christian nationalism" under President Donald Trump.

"We embedded with a community under Pastor Wilson’s umbrella and spoke to women who have left the church and are now sounding the alarm," said Brown. "No matter where you live or what you believe, what we learned is especially consequential at this moment."

RELATED: Blue-state city leans into battle against ACLU over archangel Michael statue honoring police

Photo by Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

In one preview, Matthew Taylor — a specialist in "Muslim-Christian dialogue" who wrote a book sounding the alarm about imagined Christian threats to democracy — tells Brown that Kirk's memorial service "was one of the most potent examples of this shift in our culture that we're experiencing right now, where a large segment of American Christians are being activated by these ideas, radicalized by these ideas that say that they are the persecuted ones and that they need to stand up for Christians' rights."

Despite his intimation to the contrary, the ideas Taylor figures for radicalizing are based in fact. Christians, persecuted around the globe, are frequently targeted in the U.S., where radicals have not only sought to legislatively curb religious liberties but attacked churches and the faithful.

Brown, referencing a clip in which Taylor suggests that Christians take Trump for an "anointed figure" because he survived the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, said that "this is just one example of why Christian nationalists are having such a moment right now."

While some viewers might suspect that these alleged "Christian nationalists" are simply followers of Christ who also vigorously support their nation, definitions and criteria vary.

Brown defines "Christian nationalism" as "an ideology rooted in the belief that our country was founded as a Christian nation and that our laws and institutions should reflect Christian values."

The CNN host appears to be casting a big net granted a 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that six in 10 American adults said the founders intended America to be a Christian nation.

The Public Religion Research Institute, a group that has in recent years characterized Christian nationalism as "a major threat to the health of our democracy," has a slightly less vague understanding and can supposedly deduce if someone is a Christian nationalist on their responses to the following five statements:

  • "The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation."
  • "U.S. laws should be based on Christian values."
  • "If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore."
  • "Being Christian is an important part of being truly American."
  • "God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society."

In the wild, "Christian nationalist" appears in many cases to be a term externally applied, not chosen.

Vice President JD Vance, for instance, doesn't check all of the PPRI's boxes, having indicated that Americans don't have to be Christian but that "Christianity is America's creed." Nevertheless, he is frequently branded as a "Christian nationalist."

Despite stating in 2024 that "Christian Nationalism" is "a boogeyman they've invested to silence you," and having made a point of noting months before his murder that he had never described himself as a Christian nationalist, Kirk is branded as such in Brown's CNN documentary.

Patriotic Christians were quick to lambaste Brown and CNN over the documentary and the timing of its release.

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts noted that "it's no accident that Pamela chose the first week of Lent to release this. The world saw one of the most prominent voices on the Right martyred by a radical leftist, with his death celebrated by the Left at large — but it’s conservative Christians you need to worry about."

"This is pure bigotry from an increasingly anti-Christian, anti-American Left that tolerates all kinds of dogmas influencing people’s politics — except those of conservative Christians," added Roberts.

Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, stated, "If you’re worried about Christians radicalizing then maybe you should stop shooting up our schools, churches and now hockey rinks. Killing Charlie and the 'this is what you get' messaging from the media was pretty radicalizing too."

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

The left’s effort to mobilize kids against ICE: ‘Evil and ghoulish behavior’



BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales warns that a long-standing boundary in American politics has collapsed — and that is leaving the kids out of it.

“Looking at how the left manipulates children, like the depths of their evil and ghoulish behavior, just there’s no floor,” Gonzales comments.

“There used to be this understanding that whatever your political differences, it was like, leave the kids out of it, right? If you’re an adult, you’re fair game. Leave the kids out of it. Don’t bring them into this nonsense. Don’t use them as political pawns,” she continues.

The left stopped listening to that long ago, and it’s only getting worse. Specifically, the left is now trying to get children to protest ICE.


“For some reason, children should be very upset that the Trump administration is trying to remove illegal criminals from our cities. Now, don’t waste your time or your brain power trying to make out why that is,” Gonzales says.

And in a recent article from Fox News, it’s reported that an Antifa-linked organization was even passing out material to K-12 students.

“It’s a 25-page document, and it focuses on mobilizing youth against what it describes as a regime. ‘It’s a regime and a system captured by billionaires,’” Gonzales mocks the group.

“Now, far be it from me to point out the hypocrisy of this being funded by George Soros of all people, but, like, when it’s billionaires that we don’t agree with, it’s bad. And when it’s billionaires that we do agree with, it’s good. And when it’s billionaires we don’t agree with, it’s dark money. And when it’s billionaires we do agree with, it’s just a generous political donation,” she continues.

Gonzales explains that the material “urges students to walk out of classrooms and boycott businesses to try to prove that the country cannot function without their cooperation.”

And it’s not an isolated incident.

In a video shared by Beth Bourne on X, a principal is seen chaperoning students as they chant, “Brown and proud,” and hold anti-ICE protest signs.

“Now, first of all, as a parent, it’s like, OK, this doesn’t need to be school-sponsored. This doesn’t need to be on taxpayer time, right? The school principal is there. It’s clearly school-sponsored. That’s not a thing that you need to be doing,” Gonzales says.

“Secondly, I just very much worry about that generation, that we’re still pretending like the color of your skin has anything to do with this. Like, ‘Brown and proud, brown and proud.’ ... These people are here illegally. That is the problem. The problem has nothing to do with the color of your skin,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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