Wajahat Ali says quiet part out loud in attack on Trump's re-migration plan: 'Mistake that you made is you let us in'



President Donald Trump announced on Nov. 27 that he will "permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries," "remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country," and "deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization."

The announcement — which came hours after Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom's death, allegedly at the hands of an Afghan, and days after the publication of a report detailing the extent of the corruption in Minnesota's Somali community — enraged Democrats, open-border activists, and other radicals including Wajahat Ali, a former columnist at the Daily Beast and contributor to the New York Times.

'We're a breeding people — and the problem is you let us in in 1965.'

Ali launched into an anti-white, anti-MAGA tirade on a recent episode of his podcast, "The Left Hook," suggesting that Trump's proposed effort to rid the country of antipathetic foreign elements is a lost cause. In all his rage, however, the former Al Jazeera host appears to have unwittingly justified Trump's plan as well as lent additional credibility to the so-called great replacement theory.

Early in his rant, Ali:

  • sang the praises of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the quota system that favored immigrants from Britain and Northern Europe and apparently enabled his fraudster Pakistani parents to migrate to the U.S.;
  • ranted about past policies that prioritized the interests of native-born Americans over those of foreign-born interlopers;
  • claimed that by "Western Civilization," Trump is referring only to white Christians;
  • defended the Afghan horde admitted into the United States without proper vetting by the Biden administration; and
  • suggested that National Guardsmen Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe were deployed in Washington, D.C., illegally when an Afghan allegedly shot them both.

After working himself up, Ali reached his central thesis: "We're not going back. I want all the hatemongers who watch this — and I hope they do watch this because I know they hate-watch us — you've lost. You have lost. You lost. The mistake that you made is you let us in in the first place."

"See, that's the thing with brown people, and I'm going to say this as a brown person. There's a lot of us. Like, a lot. There's like 1.2 billion in India. There's more than 200 million in Pakistan. There's like 170 million in Bangladesh. Those are just the people there," continued Ali.

"There's a bunch of us, and we breed. We're a breeding people — and the problem is you let us in in 1965."

RELATED: Noncitizen Kansas mayor accused of voter fraud has cast dozens of ballots since 2000, documents show

Photo by Pete Marovich/Getty Images

Ali suggested that it comes down to a numbers game — that migrant communities from the Indian subcontinent, Asia, and Latin America can't be removed en masse because they are too numerous and enjoy too strong a foothold in the U.S. owing to chain migration, miscegenation, and their fecundity.

'Heritage is an enduring aspect of identity that a multiple-choice civics quiz cannot immediately overcome.'

After framing the immigration debate in racial and religious terms — making sure in the process to indicate that his Muslim religiosity is on the winning side of the equation — Ali characterized Trump supporters as "crazy-ass whites" and "white supremacists," then suggested their survival was dependent upon imported minority populations and that their music, food, and culture "suck."

Normalcy advocate Robby Starbuck said in response to Ali's rant, "People on the left like Wajahat just hate White people and they couldn’t be more clear about it. At this point it’s our fault if we keep importing this hatred, not his for telling the truth about it. Also people like him didn’t use DEI for equality, they used it for supremacy."

RELATED: Jean Raspail’s notorious — and prophetic — novel returns to America

Photo by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement via Getty Images

"Mass immigration is a form of revenge and conquest. Just ask Wajahat Ali," wrote senior Federalist contributor Adam Johnston.

Conservative commentator Michael Knowles noted that Ali "perfectly exemplifies the problems of immigration. On the one hand, he's a standard American lib: graduated Berkeley, bloviates in frivolous outlets, dresses sloppily, etc."

"And yet," continued Knowles, "he express[es] tribal hostility toward the native population of the country to which his parents fled. Almost as if, even in the best of circumstances, heritage is an enduring aspect of identity that a multiple-choice civics quiz cannot immediately overcome."

Ali later suggested on X that he wasn't anti-white but rather "just anti white supremacist."

While Ali wants "hate-mongers" to "embrace the halal meat" and to abandon their efforts both to reform the American immigration system and to kick out bad actors, the Trump administration has already begun to take action on the president's orders.

Joe Edlow, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, noted last week that at the direction of the president, he has "directed a full scale, rigorous reexamination of every Green Card for every alien from every country of concern."

USCIS has also paused all asylum decisions.

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

Here are North America's top 5 fake Indians



The post-colonial grievance industry successfully infected the worlds of academia, entertainment, and politics over the past century with its anti-Western brand of revisionist victim politics. As a result, various middling individuals who were not personally injured by perceived historical injustices found it possible and even lucrative to exploit the guilt of the faultless many.

Following the recent revelation that the Sacramento native dubbed by Canadian state media as "one of the most influential indigenous writers and scholars of his generation" was never an Indian to begin with, Blaze News has finalized its top-five list of fake Indians in North America.

1. Thomas King

Since obtaining his doctorate in English/American studies from the University of Utah in the late 1980s, Sacramento-born Thomas King has made his supposed Cherokee heritage the center of his identity and output.

He taught native studies courses across the United States and Canada; lectured extensively on the subject of Native American identity, rights, history, and grievances; penned numerous books on theme, including "The Inconvenient Indian," "The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative," and "A Short History of Indians in Canada"; had a comedy radio show on Canadian state radio where he periodically mocked white people and their supposed misconceptions about Indians; and spent decades engaged in Indian-related political activism.

For his efforts, King has been showered with numerous lucrative awards — including the National Aboriginal Achievement Award — and government grants. He was not only made a member of the Order of Canada but promoted to companion of the Order of Canada for exposing "the hard truths of the injustices of the indigenous peoples of North America."

The 82-year-old writer turns out to have been of European stock all along.

Late last month, King, whose mother's side of the family is Greek, told the Globe and Mail that in a Nov. 13 meeting with the director of the North Carolina-based Cherokee group Tribal Alliance Against Frauds and a supposedly Indian professor at the University of British Columbia, he was confronted with genealogical evidence indicating there was no Cherokee ancestry on either side of his family.

RELATED: The campus left’s diversity scam exposed in 30 seconds flat

Thomas King, an influential writer of European heritage. Photo by Ulf Andersen/Getty Images.

"I didn't know I didn't have Cherokee on my father's side of the family until I saw the genealogical evidence," said King. "As soon as I saw it, I was fairly sure it was accurate. It's pretty clear."

'Indians don't cry.'

King indicated he had previously heard rumors that he was not an Indian but that nothing came of them.

"No Cherokee on the King side. No Cherokee on the Hunt side. No Indians anywhere to be found," King subsequently noted in an op-ed. "At 82, I feel as though I’ve been ripped in half, a one-legged man in a two-legged story. Not the Indian I had in mind. Not an Indian at all."

2. Iron Eyes Cody

The group Keep America Beautiful's iconic "Crying Indian" anti-litter public service announcement, which debuted on television in 1971, shows a supposed Indian, Iron Eyes Cody, dressed in beaded moccasins and buck-skin attire paddling his canoe down a river, past a dockyard, and onto a beach covered in garbage, where he sheds a tear at the sight of a vehicle passenger throwing a paper bag full of fast food out a car window.

This was hardly the first or only time Cody wore his feathers in front of cameras.

Iron Eyes Cody with President Jimmy Carter. Getty Images.

Cody, who the New York Times indicated initially resisted doing the commercial because "Indians don't cry," played an American Indian in numerous movies, engaged in Indian-related activism, and long maintained that he was the genuine article.

Although Cody claimed he was born in Oklahoma territory to a Cherokee Indian father and a Cree mother, he was in fact the son of Italian immigrants, Francesca Salpietra and Antonio DeCorti, who arrived in the U.S. two years before his birth in Louisiana. His original name was Espera DeCorti.

According to Snopes, he changed his name from DeCorti to Cody after moving to Hollywood in the 1920s and began masquerading as an American Indian.

3. Sacheen Littlefeather

Sacheen Littlefeather, Marlon Brando's stand-in at the 1973 Academy Awards, refused the Oscar for Best Actor on behalf of the "Godfather" star, citing "the treatment of American Indians today by the film industry ... and on television in movie re-runs, and also with recent happenings at Wounded Knee."

RELATED: No more stiff upper lip: My fellow Brits are fed up with 'diversity'

Sacheen Littlefeather. Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images.

Throughout her life, Littlefeather claimed that she was an Apache Indian. Her sisters revealed, however, that Littlefeather, who died in October 2022, was the daughter of a Spanish-American and a woman of European descent.

The activist's real name was Marie Louise Cruz.

'Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess.'

Jacqueline Keeler, a member of the Navajo Nation who undertook genealogical research for Cruz's sister, reportedly found that "all of the family's cousins, great-aunts, uncles, and grandparents going back to about 1880 (when their direct ancestors crossed the border from Mexico) identified as white, Caucasian, and Mexican on key legal documents in the United States."

4. Buffy Sainte-Marie

Buffy Sainte-Marie is an Academy Award-winning folk singer who has claimed Native American heritage since the early 1960s.

In her agitprop and activism, Sainte-Marie has spoken from what Teen Vogue called an "indigenous perspective," repeatedly condemning colonization and referring to America's founding and the supposed erasure of American Indians as "genocide." She also has touted herself as a "survivor" of an allegedly racist government welfare program that placed certain Native American kids in foster homes.

After five decades of claiming to have Indian heritage — at one stage claiming she was a "full-blooded Algonquin Indian," at another that she was "half-Micmac by birth," and finally that she was Cree, born on the Piapot First Nation reserve in Saskatchewan — she was outed by Canadian state media as a fraud.

Documents obtained by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, including her birth certificate, revealed that Buffy Sainte-Marie was born in Stoneham, Massachusetts; that her original name was Beverly Jean Santamaria; and that her parents were Albert and Winifred Santamaria, who were of Italian and English backgrounds, respectively.

The singer's sister stated, "She's clearly not indigenous or Native American."

Sainte-Marie, who like Thomas King had been made a member of the Order of Canada, had her membership revoked after it was revealed she was another fake Indian. She was also stripped of her Juno Awards and Polaris Music Prizes, although she was reportedly able to keep the substantial cash prizes they came with.

5. Elizabeth Warren

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is another affluent liberal woman who masqueraded for decades as an American Indian for apparent personal gain, going so far as to contribute five recipes to a 1984 cookbook characterized as "recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families" called "Pow Wow Chow."

Warren told reporters in 2012, "Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess, since the day I was born."

While working at the University of Texas School of Law, Warren not only claimed "American Indian" status on her State Bar of Texas registration card but listed herself in the Association of American Law Schools annual directory as a minority law professor. Since she did not bother correcting her minority identification after the release of the 1986-1987 edition, it appeared that way in the next eight editions, reported the Boston Globe.

Just after she began formally identifying as a minority in the late 1980s, Warren landed a full-time job offer from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Three years after securing the job, university records reportedly indicated that Warren leaned on the university to ensure that her ethnicity was listed as "Native American" instead of "white."

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

UPenn's April 2005 Minority Equity Report clearly lists Warren was a "minority." According to the Boston Globe, for at least three of the years Warren taught at the law school, she was listed as the solitary American Indian female professor.

In the 1990s, Warren moved on to work at Harvard Law School, which was sure to note her supposedly Indian heritage. The Globe indicated that Harvard Law School used Warren's fake minority status to justify not hiring more minorities.

'I am a white person who has incorrectly identified as native my whole life.'

In 2018, President Donald Trump, who had long derided Warren as "Pocahontas," challenged the senator to get a DNA test to prove she was Native American. The test results came back showing that she was only 1/1,024th Native American if at all.

When Warren ran unsuccessfully for president in 2020, over 200 Cherokee and other Native Americans signed an open letter to the senator noting, "Whatever your intentions, your actions have normalized white people claiming to be native, and perpetuated a dangerous misunderstanding of tribal sovereignty. Your actions do not exist in a vacuum but are part of a long and violent history."

Dishonorable mentions

Among the others who have benefited greatly from pretending to be Indians are:

  • Jamake Highwater was an award-winning writer and journalist who penned over 30 books, including "Anpao: An American Indian Odyssey" and "The Primal Mind: Vision and Reality in Indian America," usually from an American Indian perspective. Highwater led the public to believe that he was born to an illiterate Blackfoot mother and a Cherokee father, who dumped him in an orphanage, where a couple in Southern California picked him up and raised him. However, Assiniboine activist Hank Adams and Washington Post columnist Jack Anderson exposed Highwater as another fraud. Highwater's original name was Jackie Marks. He was apparently the Jewish son of a Russian mother and a father of Eastern European descent who worked as an actor in Hollywood.
  • Elizabeth Hoover is an associate professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who long claimed to be of Mohawk and Mi’kmaq descent. Hoover admitted in May 2023, "I am a white person who has incorrectly identified as native my whole life." The Berkeley professor confirmed that had she not been "perceived as a native scholar," she may not have received some academic fellowships, opportunities, and material benefits. Despite admitting to causing harm and benefiting from her fraudulent identity, she did not resign.
  • Heather Rae is an award-winning producer who served on the Academy of Motion Pictures' Indigenous Alliance and previously led the Sundance Institute’s Native American program. She was accused by the Tribal Alliance Against Frauds in 2023 of lying about being Cherokee. Rae told the Hollywood Reporter in a puff piece that appeared to vex the Tribal Alliance Against Frauds, "I think there's a lot of nuance to this identity."
  • Joseph Boyden is a prominent Canadian novelist who was regarded at one point as "arguably the most celebrated indigenous author in Canadian history." His writing largely centered on Indian characters and their experiences. Boyden, the recipient of numerous awards and grants, claimed over the years that there was Métis, Mi’kmaq, Ojibway, and/or Nipmuc blood in his family's mix. In one instance, when buying a significant portion of land, he reportedly claimed to be Metis and showed a photocopied tribal card. When he was first exposed as another fraud in 2016, he claimed that his family's Indian roots had been "whitewashed" due "to the destructive influences of colonialism." While Boyden later admitted he was a "white kid from Willowdale," he maintained that he had "native roots" on his Irish Catholic father's side as well as on his mother's 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 torches Nashville-hating Democrat for string of scandals: 'How the hell can you elect a person like that?'



President Donald Trump is weighing in ahead of a high-stakes special election in Tennessee.

Constituents in Tennessee's 7th congressional district will cast their last votes on Tuesday to replace retired Republican Rep. Mark Green, choosing between Trump-endorsed Matt Van Epps and scandal-ridden Democrat Aftyn Behn.

'She hates Christianity. ... She hates country music.'

"Matt Van Epps, he's a winner," Trump said over the phone during a rally with Speaker Mike Johnson. "He's going to be great. Don't let this stuff fool you. The Democrats are spending a fortune."

Apart from party affiliation and policy platform, Trump pointed to two main reasons why Tennesseans should turn their backs on Behn.

RELATED: It gets worse for Nashville Democrat who 'hates' her own city: 'Burning down a police station is justified'

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

"She said two things above all else that bothered me," Trump said.

"Number one, she hates Christianity. Number two, she hates country music," Trump said. "How the hell can you elect a person like that?"

Trump is referring to just some of Behn's many scandals that have plagued the Democrat's campaign, including a number of notorious comments and erratic displays. Behn infamously expressed her hatred for Nashville, the very city she is running to represent, and in at least one instance refused to walk it back.

"I hate the city, I hate the bachelorettes, I hate the pedal taverns, I hate country music, I hate all of the things that make Nashville, apparently, an 'it' city to the rest of the country," Behn said. "But I hate it."

RELATED: 'Do I have to stay until I'm assassinated?' Marjorie Taylor Greene lashes out over calls to finish her term

On a separate occasion, Behn was confronted for past tweets condoning the burning down of police stations during the 2020 riots, which she also failed to apologize for.

One of these tweets read, "Good morning, especially to the 54% of Americans that believe burning down a police station is justified."

If Behn's past podcast episodes or deleted tweets didn't come back to haunt her enough, another video resurfaced showing the Democrat state legislator storming into Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee's office in 2019 before being forcibly removed by security. This video put Behn's capacity to govern on full display, showing her kicking, screaming, and later sobbing on the floor as she was removed by Lee's security.

Blaze News reached out to Behn's campaign for comment.

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

Trump sounds off again on Ilhan Omar — says why she should be thrown 'THE HELL OUT of our country'



President Donald Trump leaned into his criticism of Somalia and its apparent top spokeswoman in Congress, telling reporters on Air Force One why America is better off both without asylum-seekers from the failed African nation and without Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar (D).

America First versus Somalia First

Trump announced on Nov. 21 that he was terminating the Temporary Protected Status designation for Somalia following a report detailing instances of alleged and confirmed fraud perpetrated by numerous members of the Somali community in Minnesota as well as the alleged direction of stolen taxpayer funds by members of the Somali community to terrorists abroad.

'If that's true, she shouldn't be a congressman.'

"Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State, and BILLIONS of Dollars are missing," Trump noted on Truth Social. "Send them back to where they came from. It's OVER!"

Omar, a native of Somalia who claimed last year that the "U.S government will do what [Somali-Americans] tell the U.S. government to do," did not take the news well.

The Democrat ethno-nationalist wrote on Bluesky, "I am a citizen and so are majority of Somalis in America. Good luck celebrating a policy change that really doesn’t have much impact on the Somalis you love to hate. We are here to stay."

Omar then held a press conference with Minnesota state Democrats in which she claimed Trump lacked the authority to terminate Somalia's TPS designation, suggested that the corruption referred to by the president was not systemic among Minnesota's Somali community, and accused Trump of endangering Somalis across the United States.

RELATED: 'Send them back': Somalia First pitted against America First in Minnesota as Ilhan Omar attacks Trump over special status

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Image

Following the fatal attack on National Guard members in the national capital last week, allegedly by an Afghan shooter, the president not only revealed that he was cutting off the flow of migrants to the U.S. from third-world backwaters such as Afghanistan but laid into Omar and rogue actors among the Somali community once again.

Trump noted in his lengthy announcement on Truth Social:

Hundreds of thousands of refugees from Somalia are completely taking over the once great State of Minnesota. Somalian gangs are roving the streets looking for “prey” as our wonderful people stay locked in their apartments and houses hoping against hope that they will be left alone.

After suggesting that "the seriously retarded Governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz," had failed to tackle the problem, Trump turned his sights on Omar, who he claimed "does nothing but hatefully complain about our Country, its Constitution, and how 'badly' she is treated," adding that Omar "probably came into the U.S.A. illegally."

Family matters

When asked on Sunday about how long he intends to block asylum claims from various nations into the U.S., Trump told reporters, "I think a long time."

"We don't want 'em. We don't want those people. We have enough problems. We don't want those people," said the president.

"You know why we don't want 'em? Because many have been no good, and they shouldn't be in our country."

Trump clarified that by "those people," he meant "people from different countries that are not friendly to us and countries that are out of control themselves — countries like Somalia that have virtually no government, no military, no police. All they do is go around killing each other. Then they come into our country and tell us how to run our country. We don't want them."

After using Somalia as an example of a nation whose asylees the U.S. could do without, Trump suggested that Omar "supposedly came into our country by marrying her brother."

"Well, if that's true, she shouldn't be a congressman. And we should throw her the hell out of our country," said Trump.

Omar has long been accused of immigration-related marriage fraud and bigamy.

Years after coming to the U.S. as a refugee, Omar reportedly took out a marriage license to marry Ahmed Hirsi. While she married Hirsi in a Muslim ceremony and had children with him, she did not initially marry him legally.

After supposedly separating from Hirsi, Omar formally married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi — a British-Somali national reportedly identified by numerous Somalis as Omar's brother — in 2009. Over the next few years, she would separate and secure a legal divorce from Elmi, then reunite and have another child with Hirsi.

Omar called the allegations "absolutely false and ridiculous" in a 2016 statement, adding that "insinuations that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is my brother are absurd and offensive."

Despite Omar's denial of the allegations, an individual identifying as one of her friends, Abdihakim Osman, told the Daily Mail in 2020 that Omar had confirmed that Elmi was her brother and that she married him so he could remain in the United States.

Osman indicated that in the early 2000s, "People began noticing that Ilhan and Southside [Hirsi] were often with a very effeminate young guy."

"He was very feminine in the way he dressed — he would wear light lipstick and pink clothes and very, very short shorts in the summer. People started whispering about him," said Osman. "[Hirsi] and Ilhan both told me it was Ilhan's brother and he had been living in London, but he was mixing with what were seen as bad influences that the family did not like."

"So they sent him to Minneapolis as 'rehab,'" claimed Osman.

After Omar married Elmi, he started school at North Dakota State University, where he graduated in 2012.

Osman told the Mail that following their wedding, Omar and Elmi moved to Fargo and began attending university together.

"She said she needed to get papers for her brother to go to school," said Osman. "We all thought she was just getting papers together to allow him to stay in this country."

"Once she had the papers, they could apply for student loans," continued Osman. "They both moved to North Dakota to go to school, but she was still married to [Hirsi]. In the Somali way, the only marriage that mattered was the one in the mosque."

Omar's office did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

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

Joy Reid flips the script, wants men OUT of women’s locker rooms



Leftists have infamously fought for men infiltrating women’s spaces — including locker rooms and bathrooms — despite it making women feel unsafe.

And until now, most left-wing talking heads have maintained the talking point that transgender women, or biological men, deserve to share women’s spaces. And which woman broke the trans-positive trend on the topic is shocking, to say the least.

“There would be women walking around with their boobies dangling, swinging in the breeze. And it’s not even, like, perky boobies, just boobies drooping to their knees. They kicking their boobies down the street and then want to walk up and have a conversation with you,” ex-MSNBC host Joy Reid began on her show, “Reid This Reid That.”


“And I’m like, don’t walk up to me with no clothes on and talk to me. I don’t want to talk to you. I would be disturbed. I’m telling you, I would be alarmed. I’m alarmed enough when I see a woman with her dangling boobies,” she continued.

“If I saw a penis in the ladies’ locker room, I would freak out too,” she said.

“This is nothing against trans anybody. What it’s saying is, if I turn around and I see a pee-pee, a penis, in front of me, inside of the room, I would probably go to management and say, ‘Wait a minute,’” she added.

Reid pointed out that it would be concerning from a “safety standpoint” and a “privacy standpoint.”

“This is what we’ve said a million times,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray says, astonished. “Why are the women’s sensibilities completely discounted here? It doesn’t make any sense for people who purport to care about women. It’s unreal.”

Democrat INFIGHTING: Progressives blast congresswoman for opposing leftist’s apparent rigged succession scam



The Democratic Party, whose unfavorability rating is 58% according to the RealClearPolitics poll average, appears to be consumed by internal squabbles. In the latest, one Democrat's campaign to shame a colleague has prompted retaliation from other radicals on her side of the aisle.

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.) introduced a House resolution on Monday to formally rebuke one of her Democratic colleagues, Illinois Rep. Jesús "Chuy" Garcia, for allegedly "undermining the process of a free and fair election."

Garcia filed to run for re-election on Oct. 27. Days later — after the deadline for candidates to file to run for Illinois' 4th congressional district had passed — Garcia announced his retirement and indicated that he would be withdrawing his nominating petitions.

'Some people need to learn how to stay in their lane.'

What appears to have really rankled Perez and other Democrats was that while Garcia failed to provide anybody else with a heads-up about his real intentions, he apparently tipped off his chief of staff, Patty Garcia, who managed to file to run in the district at the last minute, ensuring herself an opposition-free Democratic primary. Rep. Garcia subsequently endorsed his chief of staff.

Perez's resolution, which was also supported by Democratic Maine Rep. Jared Golden, claimed that Garcia's "actions are beneath the dignity of his office and incompatible with the spirit of the United States Constitution."

Garcia's office stated, "He followed every rule and every filing requirement laid out by the State of Illinois."

"It's not fun to call out a member of your own party," Perez told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday. "But I think it's important that we're consistent."

"Election subversion is always wrong. That's not how we run things in this country, and that’s not the party that I want to be a part of," added Perez.

RELATED: Socialism 'will f**k you': Bill Maher warns Democrats the radical left is leading party to ruin

US Rep. Jesus 'Chuy' Garcia (D-Ill.). Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

Perez attempted last week to have Garcia punished for his underhanded succession play, prompting scorn from Garcia's Progressive Caucus ally Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), who said of the Washington congresswoman, "Some people need to learn how to stay in their lane."

Unswayed by the criticism of her peers, Perez made the case for his reprimand on Monday, stating on the House floor, "No one has the right to subvert the right of the people to choose their elected representatives."

The House advanced Perez's resolution as the motion to table it failed in a 211-206 vote.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) defended Garcia on Monday, telling reporters, "I do not support this so-called resolution of disapproval, and I strongly support Congressman Chuy Garcia. He has been a progressive champion in disenfranchised communities for decades."

Congressional Progressive Caucus members, all of whom reportedly stood up on Monday to condemn Perez, are reportedly now working to punish the Washington Democrat for championing transparency and choice in Democratic politics.

A lawmaker and a senior aide familiar with the matter told Axios that Progressive Caucus members are considering a resolution that would accuse Perez of lying about not taking corporate PAC donations.

Last year, End Citizens United, a group that endorsed and backed Perez's congressional campaign, claimed that while then-Republican congressional candidate Joe Kent had supposedly taken money from corporate PACs, "Perez has continued to abide by her pledge to reject corporate PAC contributions."

The National Republican Congressional Committee noted, however, that the Perez campaign had received numerous corporate PAC donations.

Sources told Axios that the resolution targeting Perez would reference reporting that her campaign and PAC accepted donations from various corporate sources, including the American Petroleum Institute PAC and American Forest and Paper Association PAC.

A spokesman for Perez did not respond to Axios' request for comment.

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

Damning social media footprint suggests man who shot Trump was another 'they/them' radical



Social media comments attributed to Thomas Matthew Crooks, the dead man who attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump last year, suggest that he may have been yet another shooter captive to gender ideology and other genres of sexual perversion.

Crooks fired eight shots at Trump during a campaign rally on July 13, 2024, in Butler, Pennsylvania. While he managed to strike only the ear of the man whom Democrats characterized as a "clear and present danger," the failed assassin killed heroic former fire chief Corey Comperatore and severely injured David Dutch and James Copenhaver, who were seated behind the president.

'The threat wasn’t hidden.'

The FBI has long suggested that Crooks' motives were unclear.

Days after former FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to Congress that "a lot of the usual repositories of information have not yielded anything notable in terms of motive or ideology," then-FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate revealed that hundreds of comments had been found on one social media account believed to be associated with the dead shooter in the 2019 to 2020 timeframe.

"There were over 700 comments posted from this account. Some of these comments, if ultimately attributable to the shooter, appear to reflect anti-Semitic and anti-immigration themes, espouse political violence, and are extreme in nature," said Abbate.

Days after Tucker Carlson shared various screencaps of posts allegedly made by Crooks, the New York Post's Miranda Devine suggested on Monday that Abbate neglected to inform Congress that a significant portion of Crooks' online interactions from January to August 2020 signaled that "he did an ideological backflip and went from rabidly pro-Trump to rabidly anti-Trump and then went dark, never seeming to post again."

RELATED: Groomed for violence? The dark world of furries and transgenderism in America's classrooms

Blaze Media illustration

"The danger Crooks posed was visible for years in public online spaces," a source who apparently uncovered the shooter's hidden footprint told the New York Post. "His radicalization, violent rhetoric and obsession with political violence were all documented under his real name. The threat wasn’t hidden."

After reviewing Crooks' interactions across various platforms and pages including YouTube, Snapchat, Discord, GooglePlay, and Quora, the source concluded that the official narrative claiming that Crooks operated alone without a clear motive or ideology was bogus.

The shooter "was not simply some unknowable lone actor," said the source. "He left a digital trail of violent threats, extremist ideology and admiration for mass violence. He spoke openly of political assassination, posted under his real name, and was even flagged by other users who mentioned law enforcement in their replies. Despite this, his account remained active for more than five years — and was only removed the day after the shooting."

In 2019, Crooks allegedly made a number of pro-Trump, anti-Democrat remarks online, suggesting, for instance, that the president was "the literal definition of Patriotism" and stating, "MURDER THE DEMOCRATS."

In early 2020, Crooks apparently changed his tune and began deriding Trump and his supporters, defending draconian COVID-19 lockdowns, and lambasting Republicans over voter-fraud concerns, while in some instances being cheered on by an apparent member of a Norwegian neo-Nazi group.

Crooks allegedly suggested in a Feb. 26, 2020, post that Trump supporters were too "brainwashed to realize how dumb you are" and accused Trump of being a "racist" in a separate post the same day.

'This is a five alarm fire.'

Within months of his political about-face, Crooks was reportedly advocating for "terrorism style attacks" and political assassinations. At some point, Crooks also reportedly began associating with furries online.

According to the Post, Crooks reportedly began referring to himself using "they/them" pronouns on DeviantArt, an "online social network for artists and art enthusiasts" that teems with "furry" imagery depicting sexualized and anthropomorphized animals.

RELATED: Trans-identifying teen agrees to plead guilty to plotting Valentine's Day massacre at high school

A demonstrator holding an image of Crooks. Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images.

The histories of two DeviantArt accounts linked to Crooks' primary email address indicate he possibly had a furry fetish, obsessing over cartoon characters with male anatomies and female heads.

Trump's failed assassin would hardly be the first radical in recent years who was immersed in trans and/or furry subcultures.

Charlie Kirk's suspected assassin was reportedly not only in a homosexual relationship with a transvestite, who on at least one occasion dressed up in a furry outfit, but was himself possibly active on a furry fetish website.

An engraving on a bullet casing linked to Kirk's assassination made reference to gay furries.

There was also the:

  • trans-identifying man who shot up a Catholic church full of children in Minneapolis on Aug. 27, killing two children and injuring 30;
  • male-identifying woman who planned to shoot up an elementary school and a high school in Maryland in April 2024 but was stopped in time by police — then later convicted;
  • trans-identifying teen who stalked the halls of a school in Perry, Iowa, on Jan. 4, 2024, ultimately murdering a child and an adult and wounding several others; and the
  • trans-identifying woman who stormed into a Presbyterian school in Nashville on March 27, 2023, murdering three children and three adults.

Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet said of the news of Crooks' possible trans-identification and furry fetish, "This is beyond correlation, this is a five alarm fire."

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

'I'm going to get myself in trouble': Hunter Biden urges Democrats to race to 'the bottom faster' after Kirk's assassination



Hunter Biden emphasized in a recent interview that his allies on the "leaderless" left should not tone down their extreme rhetoric in the wake of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk's assassination — but rather ramp it up against the MAGA movement.

After Biden suggested to "Wide Awake Podcast" host Joshua Rubin that Kirk was a representative of hate and should not be posthumously honored, the former president's son was asked whether it was time for the left and right to tone down their rhetoric.

'We need people to see ... it for what it is.'

"Do you think the conversation should be about turning the temperature down completely on both sides?" asked Rubin.

"What I haven't seen is people going, 'We need to look at extremism in general and turn down the temperature.'"

"Yeah, no," said Biden. "That's not going to happen, Josh."

Biden — whose father let him off the hook last year for his felony conviction on gun charges, his felony tax offenses, and whatever else he may have been involved in between January 2014 and December 2024 — prefaced his accelerationist proposal with, "I'm going to get myself in trouble for saying this."

"We need to turn the temperature up," continued Biden. "We need to turn the temperature up, and we need people to see ... it for what it is."

RELATED: The Antifa mob at Berkeley showed us what evil looks like

Leftists staged mock executions of an effigy of the president at a No Kings rally in Chicago. Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images

Recent polling suggests the temperature is sufficiently high on the left, where Democrat politicians such as Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett seem to freely recommend and/or downplay violence against their opponents.

A survey conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University's Social Perception Lab revealed in April that 55% of respondents who identified as left of center said that assassinating Trump would be at least somewhat justified.

When asked by pollsters about the September 2024 attempt on the president's life at his golf course in Florida, 28% of Democrats told RMG Research it would have been better if Trump had been gunned down.

A recent Marist Poll found that 28% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "Americans may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track."

"I do not believe that we are going to get to the bottom until we get to the bottom," said Biden, whose father smeared his political opponents as "extremists" and dubbed President Donald Trump's supporters "garbage."

Hunter Biden added, "I want to get to the bottom faster rather than through this slow kind of process of just being picked apart, a death by a thousand cuts here."

After clarifying that he was "100% not saying that it needs to be violence," Biden castigated liberal talking heads such as CNN's Jake Tapper for supposedly not being antagonistic enough to the Trump administration.

Biden appeared desperate to suggest that political extremism is predominantly a right-wing issue, casting doubt on whether Charlie Kirk was assassinated because of his beliefs and and whether the assassin was a leftist and suggesting that Kirk's killer was a disciple of right-wing commentator Nick Fuentes.

A recent Center for Strategic and International Studies report indicated that the first half of this year was marked by a significant increase in left-wing terrorist attacks and plots in the United States — and that those attacks are set to hit 30-year highs. While leftist terrorism is on the rise, right-wing incidents have dropped precipitously.

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 wants to ‘reclaim’ the American flag; did they run out of lighter fluid?



In 2018, I was canvassing for a Republican candidate in a local race here in Portland, Oregon. A bunch of us were knocking on doors in the suburbs, seeking out Republicans by using data printouts that indicated which households were aligned with which party.

But those printouts were not always correct. People had moved. Or there were split households. Sometimes the homeowners had changed parties.

In the early 1900s, the color red was the color of communists, subversives, and anarchists.

As the election grew near and we shifted into maximum efficiency mode, our field boss sent out the word: Only go to houses flying the American flag.

That was the easiest way to focus on the most loyal Republicans. In 2018, the two most common flags you saw at people’s houses were the Pride flag (Democrats) and the Stars and Stripes (Republicans).

(The “We Believe in Science” signs had not yet proliferated.)

The funny thing was, we door-knockers were already doing that. I certainly was. I loved canvassing mostly because I liked meeting people. And the best people were always the ones with a big American flag hanging majestically beside their front door.

That was then, this is now

Fast-forward, and I’m at a recent No Kings protest. These protests had drawn huge crowds of leftists and progressives. I wanted to see for myself what these demonstrations looked like.

Imagine my surprise when the first person I encountered was a small elderly woman with a kind face and a big bundle of American flags.

These were 8" by 12" flags. The kind little kids might wave at a parade. She approached me and offered me one.

Naturally, I was confused. Was she a Republican? No, she wasn’t. She explained that these were Democrat flags now. The left was taking the flag back. Progressives were patriotic too!

They were? I thought to myself. Since when?

But I was in enemy territory, so I just smiled and took a flag. She showed me the little note that was attached. (Of course, the left can’t give you an American flag without adding their own anti-Trump commentary.)

The note said: “MAGA is trying to claim the American flag as exclusively their own. It is time we reclaim our flag. It is our national promise of freedom, and rightfully belongs to ALL Americans. Wave it proudly.”

I carried it with me as I watched the Trump derangement parade later that day. Multiple American flags were flown. By leftists.

RELATED: Yes, Trump’s flag-burning executive order is constitutional

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The red and the blue

This isn’t the first time the left has tried to steal symbols or images (or flags) from the right. They also stole the color blue.

Throughout Europe, in the 1800s, revolutionaries and malcontents were associated with the color red. Monarchs and aristocrats were represented by the color blue.

In the early 1900s, the color red was the color of communists, subversives, and anarchists. During the Russian Revolution of 1917, “The Reds” overthrew the czar and started a civil war.

In China, when Chairman Mao Zedong instigated his own revolution in 1949, the flag, books, and symbols were always colored bright red.

This made sense. The color red suggests anger, revolt, defiance.

While blue — the color of the sky — is the color that indicates calmness, stability, order.

So what did the American left do as they consolidated their power in the late 1900s?

They switched the colors! With the help of their allies in the media, the left managed to STEAL the color blue from conservatives.

So now we call Republican states “red” and Democratic states “blue," which is the reverse of what the colors should be.

Never mind that the Democrats are still the party of chaos and upheaval. They wanted the prestige of the color blue. They want people to think of them as rational, calm, regal. So they changed the colors to favor themselves.

Capture the flag!

Regarding this theft of our flag: Does the left think we don’t remember five years ago? During the BLM riots, they were burning the flag all over the country.

In Portland, during the “Summer of 100 Riots,” they burned the flag as a nightly ritual.

Think back even further: The left has been burning the flag since the Vietnam War. It’s one of their most predictable political reactions. If anything happens that they don’t like, the American flag goes up in flames!

And aren’t these the same people who tore down the statues of our founders, who created that flag? Founders like George Washington?

In Portland, leftists toppled a large statue of George Washington. They left the statue right where it fell, with George Washington face down in the mud!

And these people think the American flag belongs to them? That they are now the patriots? That they should be anywhere near our beloved Stars and Stripes?

I don’t think so.

The good news is, it probably won’t work. Even if their strategists decide to embrace the flag, your average Joe anarchist won’t be able to help himself. They see an American flag, and they reach for their lighter.

But either way, we must reject this movement. Don’t let them have the flag. They don’t deserve it. They haven’t earned it. And they don’t love it. Not like we do.

Karine Jean-Pierre's humiliating book tour is even worse than you think



Karine Jean-Pierre has been hawking a new book in a desperate attempt to cash in on her time as White House press secretary — and it's not going well.

Whereas fellow lesbian and propagandist Rachel Maddow of MSNBC suggested that the book was a "truly new and valuable contribution to our understanding of the Biden presidency," the Washington Post shredded "Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House Outside the Party Lines," noting that it was a "fascinating book for all the wrong reasons."

'Sorry, I'm not trying to be dense. I'm a little unclear about what this has to do with Democratic leaders.'

The reviewer — confronted with 180 pages' worth of Jean-Pierre's thoughts "written in the outmoded register of one of those lawn signs proclaiming that 'in this house, we believe kindness is everything'" — expressed amazement "that someone who writes in such feel-good, thought-repelling clichés was hired to communicate with the nation from its highest podium."

The Post concluded on the basis of the book that Jean-Pierre is a "blinkered" establishmentarian whose recent departure from the Democratic Party and identification as an independent "seems to be less of a strategy than a style"; whose "thinking remains so decidedly in the box"; and who "appears to have little authentic understanding of why her erstwhile party’s approval rating has cratered."

Journalist Matt Taibbi's review of the book for the Free Press was similarly damning, dubbing it "history's most incoherent memoir."

"Jean-Pierre had over a year to think about what to say about all this, and instead of writing the book the whole world wanted, the true story (complete with photos of Biden’s used-bib collection and pictorial toilet guides) of her frustration at having to be the public face of one of the most obvious and legally perilous cons in American political history, she denied there was anything to cover up, much less that she had responsibility for it," wrote Taibbi.

RELATED: Black lesbian former White House press secretary says Democrats lost because they ignored black women

Photo by Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images

In the book, Jean-Pierre reportedly rejects the obvious justification for Biden's ouster — the mental and physical decrepitude that had him tumbling, mumbling, and bumbling — and claims that she "saw Biden every day and saw no such decline." As for Biden's humiliating performance in his TV debate with President Donald Trump, Jean-Pierre blamed a cold and travel-related exhaustion.

Perhaps worse than the reviews for the book are Jean-Pierre's efforts to sell it on tour.

For instance, Jean-Pierre befuddled a sympathetic journalist with a series of word salads in her recent interview with the New Yorker.

Isaac Chotiner repeatedly pressed Jean-Pierre on her explanation for how and why the Democratic Party supposedly undermined former President Joe Biden ahead of the 2024 election.

When asked the second time why the Democrats had it out for Biden, Jean-Pierre said — in an interview the New Yorker indicated was edited for length and clarity — that:

they believed that he needed to step aside. There’s more to this than just that period of time. This is very layered, right? There’s a period of time that I questioned what was happening and how do we treat our own, how do we treat people who are decent people. And then you also have to think about how I’m thinking about this as a black woman who is part of the LGBTQ community, and living in this time where I also don’t think Democrats right now, Democrats’ leadership, is protecting vulnerable people in the way that it should.

The interviewer responded, "Sorry, I'm not trying to be dense. I'm a little unclear about what this has to do with Democratic leaders and many Democrats in the country thinking that Joe Biden was going to lose to Donald Trump — which was what the polls all showed — and therefore thinking that he should be replaced."

After Jean-Pierre launched into a rant about how "nobody knows" about what could have alternatively happened, Chotiner indicated that he had no idea what the former Biden spox was trying to say.

Toward the end of the viral interview, Jean-Pierre — who had made sure to mention her LGBTQ status and race numerous times and suggested the subtitle of her book, "Inside a Broken White House," was referring to the Trump White House — accused Chotiner of pushing Democratic Party talking points.

David Weigel, a political writer for Semafor who was among the multitude of critics awestruck by how badly the interview went, said, "Turns out you can do a career-ending interview even after your career is over."

Even Jean-Pierre's interview with Stephen Colbert — a liberal propagandist who helped raise millions for Biden's campaign last year — went off the rails when the CBS late-night host proved unwilling to buy what the former White House spox was selling.

Colbert, like Chotiner, asked Jean-Pierre to explain how the Democratic Party betrayed Biden. Even though that's a core claim in the former press secretary's book, she appeared unable to answer, launching into a speech about Biden's perceived accomplishments and how he was still "engaging, understood policy, and was always putting the American people first."

The late-night host pointed out that "it takes more than that to be the president of the United States, and in a moment of great pressure on stage, we saw someone shock us and worry us. And nothing could assuage that worry. So I don't think it was necessarily a betrayal of Joe Biden as other people saying, 'We don't think we were shown the Joe Biden that you saw.'"

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