America is now playing by Corkins’ rules — unless we stop it



Floyd Lee Corkins. That name should ring louder than it does.

In 2012, Corkins stormed into the Family Research Council’s Washington, D.C., offices armed and intent on mass murder. A security guard stopped him before he could carry out a massacre. He became the first person convicted of domestic terrorism in the District of Columbia.

Corkins came once. His successors will come again. ... The question is what we’re prepared to do about it.

Yet you probably don’t recall him right away. Why not? Probably because the propaganda leaflets against Chick-fil-A and Christians found in his car tied back to groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center — and the press played down the obvious connection. They helped bury what Corkins meant to announce in blood: that political rhetoric backed by violence was the new normal.

I’ve long warned that when legitimate authorities fail to punish evil, someone eventually decides to take matters into his own hands. Corkins is the left’s demonic version of that. His case teaches a simple lesson: If you’re going to call conservatives Hitler, sooner or later someone will start acting on the metaphor.

That same logic drove the 2017 shooting at a congressional baseball practice, where a Bernie Sanders supporter nearly assassinated a swath of House Republicans. Rhetoric became ammunition. Talking points became bullets.

Fast-forward to 2025. The demons are autographing their shell casings. They want everyone to know exactly who wants us dead. And the corporate left-wing press winks and nods along.

Enter Jimmy Kimmel, a late-night host with fewer viewers than Glenn Beck can pull in an impromptu X Spaces session.

Kimmel should have been irrelevant years ago. But his network kept him on the air. Why? Not because he draws ratings or ad revenue — he doesn’t. He survives because of affinity advertising: the corporate and philanthropic subsidy system that props up “the right people” no matter how much red ink their shows spill. Pfizer, Disney, the Soros family — they all bankroll the propaganda they want in circulation, audience or no.

As the Joker explained while burning an enormous pile of cash, “It’s not about the money. It’s about sending a message.”

That’s why Kimmel could stand on stage and smear conservatives, even after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and still be untouchable. His words carry the same function as Corkins’ bullets: intimidation dressed up as entertainment.

RELATED: Violence gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back

Blaze Media Illustration

The danger isn’t just one unfunny comedian. It’s the ecosystem that shields him. Advertisers and networks subsidize the message, the media excuses it, and the extremists absorb it as permission. That’s how rhetoric becomes carnage.

We face two choices. We can enforce the law, punish violent actors and those who materially enable them, and protect the marketplace of ideas. Or we can accept the Corkins rules: a culture where calling people Hitler is step one and shooting them is step two.

The notion that we can run in place like Mike Pence, emasculating ourselves for the sake of “proper tone” or one last bow to decorum, is a funeral march. Some may find comfort in that tune, but I will not bind my children’s future to it.

Corkins came once. His successors will come again. Kimmel’s sponsors and allies want you to think this is inevitable. It isn’t. The question is what we’re prepared to do about it.

What if Johnny Carson turned MLK’s murder into a punch line?



What if, in 1968, after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Johnny Carson opened “The Tonight Show” with jibes about how one of King’s own supporters had pulled the trigger? What if he followed with a gag suggesting that President Lyndon Johnson didn’t care much about losing a friend? Or how maybe we need to keep up the pressure on conservatives who think free speech includes engaging those who disagree with them in civil dialogue?

Does anyone believe NBC executives would have shrugged and said, “Let Johnny talk — free speech, you know”? Does anyone think Carson’s 12 million nightly viewers would have treated it as harmless banter and tuned in the next night with curiosity about what he might say next?

Jimmy Kimmel needs to ‘grow a pair,’ take his lumps, and find another venue.

When the members of the first Congress wrote the First Amendment, enshrining freedom of speech, they did it within the context of the words of John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

St. Paul puts it this way: “‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say — but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’ — but I will not be mastered by anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12).

Sadly, I was included in an email from a dear relative who chided anyone who did not protest Jimmy Kimmel’s firing, citing the First Amendment. My relative felt very strongly about this. In his own words, if you didn't loudly defend Kimmel, you needed to “grow a pair.”

My wife and I had just finished watching the entire eight-hour-long, beautiful, uplifting, and spirit-filled memorial service for Charlie Kirk. Before I went to sleep, I decided to clear out my email inbox for the day. Unfortunately, I opened the email from my relative (thinking it was just the usual newsy missive) and read his thoughts.

He had written his opinions before the service, so I am not sure if he would have sent the same message; he made it clear that what happened to Charlie was certainly serious and evil.

No buts about it

My relative used words I had heard before from those who want to virtue signal, while also insisting that doing bad things is not acceptable. It was a variation of this: Yes, what happened to Charlie Kirk was wrong, terrible! But ...

If you hear people on the left — or even people who consider themselves rational, reasonable people “in the middle” who like to play the both-sides-are-wrong card — you need to push back. Comparing the temporary suspension of a mediocre, inconsequential talent like Kimmel to the assassination of a beautiful, influential man like Kirk — well, they are not in the same arena.

Since I was the only one on the email thread who knew Charlie personally (we had been colleagues at Salem Radio), I felt my comments would carry more weight.

I highlighted the Martin Luther King Jr.–Carson comparison and then focused on the “free speech” aspect from a purely business standpoint.

Jimmy Kimmel loses tens of millions of dollars for the network annually. It's been said that his viewership was so low that if you posted a video on X of your cat playing the piano, you could attract more viewers than Kimmel gets on any given night.

Moreover, the claim that Kimmel was denied his First Amendment rights is simply untrue. Kimmel remains free to say whatever he wants anywhere else. For example, when Tucker Carlson (who had the hottest show on Fox, making millions for the network) was canceled for speaking the truth politically, he launched his own “network.”

The funny thing is (no, not jokes from Kimmel’s opening monologues), unsuccessful shows hosted by people with varying degrees of talent get canceled all the time in the world of television. If that were not so, we would all be subjected to the 59th season of “My Mother the Car,”starring Jerry Van Dyke.

RELATED: I experienced Jimmy Kimmel’s lies firsthand. His suspension is justice.

Photo by Tommaso Boddi/Getty Images for UCLA Jonsson Cancer Center Foundation

Lackluster shows are replaced by something for which the viewing public actually cares to tune in. The public had clearly tuned out of Kimmel’s show a long time ago.

What Jimmy Kimmel needs to do is “grow a pair,” take his lumps, and find another venue. Nevertheless, Kimmel has (viola!) returned after all, because I suppose the network figures it still hasn’t lost enough money — or influence.

Prove Him wrong

Young Charlie Kirk paid the ultimate price for standing against the obvious evil he saw in plain sight. And in the days, weeks, months, and years ahead, many more, unfortunately, may join him.

My relative closed out his email challenging those of us who didn't agree with him to respond à la Charlie: “Prove me wrong,” he wrote.

I closed my email response to him in a way I think the humble Charlie Kirk might have done: “Jesus said, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me'” (John 14:6).

“Prove Him wrong.”

Violence gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back



Last week, ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel told a big lie on national television. He claimed Charlie Kirk had been assassinated by a conservative MAGA supporter. This wasn’t a bad joke — it was a deliberate attempt to cover for left-wing violence and deceive millions of people.

After a campaign pressuring advertisers and affiliates, ABC suspended Kimmel, saying he wouldn’t immediately return to the air. Progressives screamed about “cancel culture” and circulated petitions, apparently more concerned about a millionaire losing his low-rated show than about a murdered father.

The right, paralyzed by fear of bad press, has given the left a free pass. That timidity has only encouraged more bloodshed.

Then came the threats. Violent warnings poured into ABC affiliates, culminating in a leftist shooting up a station in Sacramento. Shortly afterward, ABC announced that Kimmel would return to the air. The lesson for the left was simple: Violence and terrorism work.

The Trump moment

When Donald Trump was shot on stage in Butler, Pennsylvania, last year, the entire world held its breath. His supporters didn’t flee; they froze, waiting to see if their leader had been killed. If a leftist assassin had succeeded, civil war was on the table. Then Trump stood and raised a defiant fist, and the nation exhaled. Not only because he had survived, but because the darkest path had been narrowly avoided.

That moment should have been a turning point. Trump entered office with energy, issuing a flurry of executive orders. But he never confronted the left-wing groups and the institutions that had normalized violence. He wanted a stable economy and secure borders, but left-wing radicals continued to act as if they had a special right to political violence. By letting them get away with assassination attempts and street terror, Trump ensured that another wave was inevitable.

Excuses and celebrations

After Kirk’s assassination on Sept. 10, some progressives mouthed words about lowering the temperature. Almost all of them hedged by smearing the victim or blaming “both sides.” Meanwhile, a disturbingly large faction openly celebrated the murder. Their message was clear: They would never abandon violence as long as it kept paying dividends.

Even Kimmel’s brief firing — for telling a malicious lie that threatened ABC’s broadcast license — was more than they could tolerate. For perspective: When an unknown addict overdosed while in police custody, the left torched American cities for months. In contrast, a prominent conservative was assassinated, and the only cost extracted from the left was one failing talk show host and some TikTok blabbermouths losing their jobs. Even that tiny price triggered outrage.

Violence pays

When FCC Chair Brendan Carr flagged Kimmel’s violation, progressives shrieked about “fascism” and “the end of free speech.” The irony was grotesque: Kirk had just been killed for exercising his free speech.

Meanwhile, major Democrats piled on. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) smeared Kirk’s character before he was buried. Keith Olbermann threatened to kill CNN commentator Scott Jennings before issuing a flimsy apology. Left-wing influencers rushed to declare allegiance to Antifa, a group with a long record of violence. Whatever pretense of unity had existed collapsed in less than 24 hours.

Soon threats flooded ABC affiliates. One man — a former teachers’ union lawyer! — even sprayed bullets into a station window. That was enough for Sinclair Media, ABC’s largest affiliate group, to pull a planned Kirk tribute and restore late-night programming. ABC then confirmed that Kimmel himself would return in that slot. The terrorists had won.

A partial retreat

Credit where due: After another wave of pressure, Sinclair and Nexstar, another major affiliate group, refused to air Kimmel until he apologized. Together they represent about 70 of ABC’s 250 affiliates, including major markets such as Washington, Seattle, and Portland. That is significant — but still insufficient.

Reports indicate that Kimmel could have resolved the issue early simply by apologizing. He refused. He bet that his Hollywood allies and violent extremists would clear a path for his return. He was right.

RELATED: I experienced Jimmy Kimmel’s lies firsthand. His suspension is justice.

Photo by Randy Holmes/Disney via Getty Images

Incentives matter

Every parent knows what happens if you don’t punish bad behavior: It repeats and often escalates. The same holds true in politics. When the left sees it can assault conservative speakers, burn cities, threaten opponents, shoot presidents, assassinate leaders, and face no serious consequences, it learns the obvious lesson: Violence works.

The right, paralyzed by fear of bad press, has given the left a free pass. That timidity has only encouraged more bloodshed.

Now Trump has signed an executive order declaring Antifa a terrorist organization. JD Vance and Stephen Miller have pledged to dismantle the networks funding leftist extremism. That is overdue but necessary. If justice is not swift and severe, the killings will continue — because the killers believe they are entitled to keep winning.

I experienced Jimmy Kimmel’s lies firsthand. His suspension is justice.



ABC announced last week that it was indefinitely pulling “Jimmy Kimmel Live.” The network cited his dishonest remarks about MAGA and the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk. Then on Monday, the network reversed itself. Kimmel is expected to return to the air on Tuesday night.

The original decision outraged the left. Activists immediately claimed it was a violation of free speech, pretending Kimmel was a victim of “cancel culture.” The network’s change of heart likely won’t please anyone, except for Kimmel and his staff. The irony? Kimmel himself cheered when others lost their platforms.

I still live with the fallout of his lies. Many others do too. For once, at least, Kimmel faces consequences.

This isn’t a man who deserves sympathy. I know from experience.

How Kimmel targeted me

Five years ago, while working for the California Republican Party, I promoted the party’s legal ballot collection efforts online. That one tweet turned into a smear campaign. Politicians and left-leaning groups smeared and defamed me. My own employers abandoned me.

Media figures amplified the false narrative. None did more damage than Jimmy Kimmel. Days after the controversy began, he ran a segment featuring my full name and photo. He falsely claimed my work was illegal and added a grotesque line suggesting that someone should stuff me into a ballot collection box. The box was too small to fit a person. The implication was obvious.

He wasn’t joking. The segment was a televised incitement that smeared my reputation and put my safety at even greater risk.

Living with the fallout

The consequences came fast. Threats filled my inbox. Law enforcement advised me to leave my apartment and lay low. Police guarded my parents’ home after they were harassed.

When my short-term contract with the California Republican Party ended, I couldn’t find work. Despite my clean record, military service, and two master’s degrees, doors kept closing. They still do. Kimmel wasn’t the only one who defamed me, but his national broadcast magnified the lies and hardened the damage.

Unlike Kimmel, I didn’t have millions in the bank or a network behind me. I was a junior staffer, recently out of the military, scraping by on less than $60,000 a year. His words carried a weight mine never could.

Kimmel’s hypocrisy

In 2023, NFL star Aaron Rodgers joked that Kimmel didn’t want the Epstein client list released. Kimmel threatened to sue him. Yet when Kimmel broadcast falsehoods about me — and encouraged violence against me — no apology ever came.

Kimmel even lectured Rodgers from his monologue: “When I do get something wrong, which happens on rare occasions, you know what I do? I apologize.” That’s an obvious lie. He certainly never apologized to me.

And I’m not the only one. He has encouraged vandalism against Tesla owners and, most recently, pushed the outrageous lie that Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin was a MAGA Republican — a smear made after evidence proved otherwise.

RELATED: The market fired Jimmy Kimmel

Randy Holmes/Disney General Entertainment Content via Getty Images

Why ABC pulled the plug

Contrary to the left-liberal narrative, ABC’s move was not political interference. It was business. Kimmel’s audience had been shrinking for years. Just this month, his ratings fell another 11%. His rant about Kirk’s assassination would only have accelerated the collapse.

Networks have every right to act when a host becomes a liability. The First Amendment does not entitle Jimmy Kimmel to ABC’s airwaves.

Consequences at last

So, in reality, Kimmel’s return to late night may be short-lived. His career decline is his own making. But unlike his targets, he’ll be fine. He will walk away with a $50 million net worth. He’ll find plenty of work again.

I, on the other hand, still live with the fallout of his lies. Many others do too. But for a moment, at least, Kimmel faced consequences. And to borrow a favorite line from his liberal supporters: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Locked up for a joke. It can’t happen here ... can it?



A comedian lands at Heathrow and finds himself met by officers as though he posed a terrorist threat. His offense? A social media joke about trans people. He’s released on bail on the condition he doesn’t post on X.

Another man prays silently outside the “safe zone” of an abortion clinic and is hauled off, given a two-year conditional discharge, and fined £9,000 (just over $12,000).

We hope Britain pulls up from its nosedive, but let’s not delude ourselves. America faces the same temptations.

A third man waves the Union Jack at a pro-Palestinian march in England — only to be arrested. Reuters quickly ran interference: not for the flag, they said, but for a “racially aggravated public order offence” and “homophobic abuse.” As if that makes it better.

And we’re still not mentioning the Islamic child-rape scandal that grows worse with every new revelation. The United States watches Britain collapse into a kind of Reformation-era persecution, this time in the name of Islam, paganism, and sexual license. Americans shake their heads, maybe reassure themselves: We fought a revolution to escape this. Charles II jailed Christians. Charles III praises Islam. And we have the First Amendment. Case closed.

Not so fast. We may be on the same road. Once you begin policing speech to protect feelings, the end point looks very much like the UK. And we have plenty of warning signs.

The university test case

Universities may be the clearest early indicator. Professors tell us every profession must “look like” society — except their own. If a field is 97% male, they call it systemic bias. But in the academy itself, where atheists and leftists dominate, they see no problem.

The numbers don’t lie. At Arizona State University, a December 2024 survey found just 19 Republicans among 544 faculty members. At the University of Arizona, only eight Republicans out of 369. Entire departments lacked a single Republican. A 2023 Harvard Crimson study found only 2.5% of Harvard faculty identify as conservative. If any other profession looked this skewed, professors would scream about bias. In their case, they call it “normal.”

And the consequences? They’ll defend freedom of speech for burning an American flag. Burn a trans flag, and suddenly you’ve committed a hate crime. That is one step removed from Graham Linehan’s arrest in the UK for an X post.

Censorship in practice

Students already know what this means. A 2022 FIRE survey found they self-censor in class. They parrot leftist slogans on gender and race, not because they believe them, but because they want the grade. We are teaching them to lie to advance. No one is being asked to confess Christ; they are being asked to confess Ibram Kendi and John Money.

I’ve seen it firsthand. At ASU’s Honors College, faculty blocked Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, and Robert Kiyosaki from speaking, smearing them as “white supremacists.” That label alone was enough to push the event off campus. These professors weren’t interested in argument. They wanted silence.

RELATED: Why the English flag now terrifies the regime

Blaze Media illustration

Truth vs. lies

How do they justify it? With “hate crimes.” Not crimes that incite violence, but crimes of opinion. Disagree with LGBTQ ideology? That’s hate. Straight to jail. Professors sleep well at night because we’ve accepted their framework: society divided into oppressors and oppressed. Bad outcomes aren’t the result of choices, but of systemic injustice. Victims must be coddled, even at the expense of truth.

Once you accept that, feelings erase the First Amendment.

We need a spine. Sexual sins are real and destructive. Abortion ends a life. A comedian may say this through jokes; a philosopher may say it through essays. Either way, it’s the truth. The mob can gnash its teeth, plug its ears, strip away free speech, and jail comedians, but reality doesn’t change.

We hope Britain pulls up from its nosedive, but let’s not delude ourselves. America faces the same temptations. We must pray for the end of abortion, speak plainly about the damage sexual ideology inflicts on children, and reject the false frame of “oppressors and oppressed.” The real categories are truth and lies. Choose wisely, while you still can.

The genocide that isn’t: How Hamas turned lies into global outrage



Extraordinarily effective Hamas propaganda has delegitimized Israel’s right of self-defense by confirming for a world that scorns Israel that its demon is engaged in genocide. It is not, but the same cannot be said of Hamas — the aggressor that has largely avoided that opprobrium.

According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 5.5 million Palestinians live in the Palestinian territories, principally the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The bureau estimates that in the last 12 months, Gaza’s population declined by 15,423 to 2,114,201. Meanwhile, “Palestine’s” total population grew by 1.17% in 2024 and is projected to grow by another 1.75% in 2025. According to the bureau, the principal factors in Gaza’s population decline were emigration, war casualties, and a declining birth rate.

If leftists prevent Israel from fighting an aggressor who has pledged to destroy it, targets civilians, and takes and murders hostages, who is complicit in genocide?

Though the Gaza Ministry of Health’s war casualty reports are statistically implausible and quietly rejected by the United Nations, the world’s media uncritically repeat the lies. Most recently, the media disseminated the ministry’s claim that war deaths exceed 60,000, reducing Gaza’s population by 10%. The actual comparison was to “projected growth”; 60,000 represents a 2.6% decline.

Peddling lies

Many outlets presented the ministry’s disinformation and malinformation as their objective reporting. For example, PBS explained:

The ministry is staffed by medical professionals. The United Nations and other independent experts view its figures as the most reliable count of casualties. … Israel’s offensive has destroyed vast areas of Gaza, displaced around 90% of the population and caused a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, with experts warning of famine.

The report added:

Israel’s offensive and its blockade have also gutted Gaza’s health system, with several hospitals having shut down and others only partially functioning as they receive waves of war-wounded.

Jaundiced by radical ideologies and anti-Semitism, and empowered by Hamas’ misdirection, at least 38 countries, the European Union’s second-ranking official, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, 14 members of Congress, and many others accuse Israel of genocide.

If Goebbels had Hamas propagandists on his side, we might all be shouting “Heil Hitler!”

In November, a U.N. special committee found Israel’s operations in Gaza “consistent” with genocide, including its alleged use of “starvation as weapon of war.” In July, the U.N. dishonestly announced that Gaza met two of the three criteria for famine. To reach that conclusion, the U.N., which has battered Israel for years, rigged the numbers.

On July 27, the World Health Organization warned that “malnutrition is on a dangerous trajectory in the Gaza Strip,” with 74 malnutrition-related deaths so far in 2025, most occurring in July. According to the WHO, “The crisis remains entirely preventable. Deliberate blocking and delay of large-scale food, health, and humanitarian aid has cost many lives.”

But just one week later, a U.N. agency reported that Palestinian mobs and terrorists are stealing 89% of aid shipments. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee added that “Hamas made half a billion dollars last year stealing food [and] selling it on the black market in order to finance their activities.”

Rigging stats

On August 22, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, a partnership of 25 organizations including U.N. agencies, announced that “reasonable evidence” exists of famine in Gaza since August 15. An Israeli response observed that “the declaration was issued not only without evidence that would justify it under the IPC’s own criteria, but also in contradiction to more recent data that was publicly available.” Although the IPC report cited the interception of aid, it justified that as the “desperation” of residents.

Other studies (including the U.N.’s) have not found widespread famine, a deliberate starvation strategy, or systematic attacks by Israel on civilians. Severe pre-existing medical conditions cause most deaths attributed to malnutrition.

RELATED: Why does the mainstream media keep blaming Israel for Gaza’s humanitarian crisis?

Photo by Ahmed Jihad Ibrahim Al-arini/Anadolu via Getty Images

Hamas propaganda deceives with pictures that are staged, taken in other countries, taken years ago, or taken of children with genetic defects. It also promotes fabricated claims of Israeli attacks on Gazans seeking aid, including the untrue tale of a Gazan boy allegedly killed by the IDF at an aid distribution site.

Except for an approximately three-month blockade, Israel has facilitated aid. It warns civilians of pending attacks, set up hundreds of food distribution centers and aid packages, and supports airdrops of up to 130 tons of food per day. Last month, Israel announced additional actions, including lengthy combat pauses to coordinate aid delivery with the U.N. and other organizations.

The U.N. charter guarantees the “inherent” right of defense. The U.N. Genocide Convention defines “genocide” as killing “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” If Israel wanted to destroy the Palestinian people, it would have done so.

Instead, the claimed dead, including Hamas’ human shields and those executed by Hamas, total under 1.1% of Gaza’s population, which continues to grow. According to West Point’s John Spencer, the leading expert on urban warfare, no military has ever done more than Israel to avoid civilian casualties. Israel’s increasingly precise targeting of combatants has achieved a lower civilian death rate than most wars over the last 100 years.

Double standards for Hamas

The Hamas charter states that Israel must be “obliterated” and that “Moslems must fight Jews and kill them.” Hamas targeted civilians on Oct. 7, 2023, and has launched thousands of rocket attacks since then.

If leftists and anti-Semites prevent Israel and Jews from fighting an aggressor who has pledged to destroy them, targets civilians, and takes and murders hostages, precisely who is complicit in genocide?

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Whitlock: Lies are far more dangerous than guns



A mass shooting carried out by the trans-identifying man Robin Westman has revealed that lies are far more dangerous than guns — despite the left’s unwavering belief that the two are flipped.

“A lot of people are evaluating the transgender angle of this, and it’s worthy of evaluation, but it’s really just a symptom of a much larger problem. And it’s a larger problem of the lies that we have introduced into American society, the lies of convenience that we tell in the name of tolerance, in the name of inclusion,” BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock explains on “Fearless.”

“Lies are actually the source of wickedness and evil. Lies are what got America in this place. Lies are more dangerous than guns,” he continues.

And Whitlock points out that in Minnesota, those who thrive on leftist lies are in control.


“Minnesota is a crazy place. ... But trust me, if we were willing as Christians — so-called, self-professed Christians — if we were willing to live out the truth and the wisdom expressed in the Bible, Jacob Frey, George Floyd ... this new guy from Somalia, Muslim that’s running for mayor, Ilhan Omar ... they wouldn’t exist. Their lies would be intolerable to us,” Whitlock says.

“These lies are the slippery slope that will create tragedy after tragedy after tragedy. Our children will be more unsafe. We’re going to create more evil, wicked nutjobs and not get them the help that they need. And the help that they need is the truth,” he continues.

The truth for Robert Westman — who had changed his name to “Robin” Westman — is that he was not a woman and would never be one.

But the left refuses to point out the lie.

“These lies that we keep telling ourselves fuel a culture of deceit. And if Jesus Christ and the Bible are the source of truth, anything that stands in the way of truth is evil and wicked. It’s the antithesis of a biblical Christian obedient worldview,” Whitlock says.

“This is so obvious,” he continues, “but it’s also very dangerous because once you go down this path, once you start having this conversation and you start evaluating things from like, okay, are we serving Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior? And if we’re not, what are we really doing? And who are our real allies?”

“People don’t want to have these discussions because it could cost them money," he says. "It could cost them reputation in the world."

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

How Christians Can Engage In The Spiritual Warfare That Drives The Culture Wars

Attempts to interact with demons are growing as formerly Christian nations apostasize and invite mass immigration of peoples who worship gods that the Christian Bible says are demons.

The Russia hoax and COVID lies share the same deep-state fingerprints



“Conspiracy theory” is the go-to smear against those of us who questioned any aspect of the government’s authoritarian response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But as the great Austrian economist Murray Rothbard once observed, the smear serves one purpose: to divert the public’s attention away from the truth.

“An attack on ‘conspiracy theories,’” Rothbard writes in “The Anatomy of the State,” means that the subjects of a regime “will become more gullible in believing the ‘general welfare’ reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions.”

The democratization of information means that censorship just doesn’t work as well as it used to.

“A ‘conspiracy theory,’” he continues, “can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the state’s ideological propaganda.”

The more I dig into the origins of the COVID pandemic, the more “despotic” our state seems to become — and the more “conspiratorial” I get.

Unsettling the system

I am trying to put together the final pieces of the puzzle of what I consider among the greatest public policy scandals of my lifetime — not only who did it, but more importantly, why would they do it?

A few months ago, I spent a day with Matt Taibbi, the iconoclastic muckraker and “Twitter Files” reporter, for the latest episode of my BlazeTV investigative series, “The Coverup.”

As he dug through the trove of emails and texts, Taibbi discovered the conspiracy to blacklist and silence Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the subject of the first episode of “The Coverup” and now the head of the National Institutes of Health. Taibbi soon learned that the same tactics and tools — and even many of the very same deep-state actors — have their fingerprints all over both the Russia collusion hoax and the COVID cover-up.

A precedent for censorship

Recently released documents from Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard reveal that the so-called Russia collusion hoax wasn’t just wrong — it was deliberate. The Obama administration orchestrated the fabrication, pushing U.S. intelligence agencies to leak a report suggesting Vladimir Putin had helped Donald Trump steal the 2016 election.

That leak, repeated endlessly by the press, fueled a national narrative branding Trump’s presidency as illegitimate — despite those same agencies having already dismissed the claim.

This kind of manipulation would be outrageous if it weren’t so familiar.

Five years after the COVID lockdowns stripped millions of Americans of basic liberties, we’re still uncovering how the deep state used propaganda to silence dissent. Throughout the pandemic, scientists and doctors raised alarms about the damage lockdowns would cause — and did cause. Some of the world’s most respected experts signed the Great Barrington Declaration to oppose the government’s heavy-handed response.

But the public never heard from them. Bureaucrats and media allies moved swiftly to smear, suppress, and sideline these voices using one of the oldest authoritarian tactics: control of information.

In fairness, public health agencies didn’t have to twist many arms. The legacy media followed their lead willingly — even when the guidance contradicted itself or defied basic logic.

But unlike the days of Project Mockingbird, when the CIA could shape coverage by nudging the New York Times or CBS, controlling the old guard wasn’t enough. The rise of social media — decentralized, fast-moving, and open to anyone with a computer or phone — posed a new challenge. The administration needed a more aggressive strategy to dominate the narrative.

Strong-arming social media

In episode 5 of “The Coverup,” I ask Taibbi how they pulled it off. As one of the first journalists to dig into the Twitter Files, Taibbi exposed the machinery behind the censorship regime. Americans suspected that platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube were suppressing dissent during COVID. But the Twitter Files confirmed what many feared: They weren’t acting alone. They took orders from the FBI directly.

And these weren’t polite requests, either. When the government “suggested” something, tech companies treated it as a command.

It all traces back to — surprise, surprise — the Russia hoax.

In 2017, Congress hauled tech executives into hearings and accused them of letting Russian disinformation run wild. Essentially, they were given an offer they couldn’t refuse: Allow the government to play a role in content moderation or prepare to be regulated into submission.

RELATED: On the 9th anniversary of Russiagate, the hoax is finally crumbling

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Their surrender gave U.S. intelligence agencies de facto control over what Americans could say online. The feds told platforms which posts to delete, which users to silence, and how to suppress the rest. You could post your opinion — as long as no one could see it. “Shadow bans” became the preferred method of censorship: clean, quiet, and deniable.

The silver lining

Thanks to Taibbi — and a handful of journalists who still value truth over access — we now see how the government sold Americans on fiction. Russia hacked the election. COVID came from a bowl of bat soup. Question either and you’d vanish from the digital public square.

Millions believed these lies. And under their influence, they did real damage — locking down schools, closing businesses, and sowing doubt about fair elections.

But truth has a way of leaking out.

It’s taken time, but the lies are unraveling. And that’s the silver lining. In a world where information moves faster than censors can keep up, suppression doesn’t work like it used to. So long as we have truth-tellers willing to dig and defy — like Taibbi — the regime won’t have the last word.

We won’t get fooled again.

Episode 5 of “The Coverup” premieres Thursday, July 31.

Trust the FBI? Not until it tells us about Thomas Crooks



During a press conference last week in the Oval Office, a reporter asked President Trump how it’s possible that we know more about a couple from a Coldplay concert just hours after their extramarital affair was exposed on social media than we do about Thomas Crooks more than a year after he came within centimeters of killing the president in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Despite thousands of interviews and hundreds of hours combing through photos and videos, the public still knows very little about the would-be assassin. Not his motive, not how he gained access to a nearby rooftop, not even how he built two remote-detonated bombs he ultimately never used.

Until any of us are given reason to believe transparency in any particular case is harmful to the constituents we serve, our duty is to demand it at every juncture.

Trump responded that he believed the FBI when the organization told him investigators didn’t find anything, clarifying that his conversation was with the “new” FBI leadership, not the corrupt organization led by James Comey or Christopher Wray — leadership he would never trust.

Old rot, new clothes

Though Trump has placed widely trusted figures within the FBI, six months is hardly enough time to place faith in the same institution that has been weaponized against him for nearly a decade. Institutional rot undoubtedly runs deeper than its top brass.

The ambiguity surrounding Trump’s failed assassin should be met with absolute scrutiny. The lack of information about Crooks is not an anomaly — it’s the signature of a bureaucracy that hoards information from the public under the pretext of “national security” or “ongoing investigations.”

This culture of concealment has infected Washington for decades. Bureaucratic elites, along with their stakeholders, have presumed the authority to decide what the public should know — if anything — and release only information that suits their agenda.

Americans have been promised transparency and accountability across generations. They almost never get it. Such entrenched power calls into question who truly holds the keys to power in Washington.

A history of ambiguity

Consider the John F. Kennedy assassination. For more than 60 years, the public has doubted the official narrative pushed by the intelligence community — and rightly so. Just days after President Kennedy’s funeral, a Gallup poll revealed that a majority of Americans didn’t believe that the shooter acted alone. The lack of transparency that still persists decades following the case has only fueled speculation.

In one of my first hearings on the Task Force on Declassification of Federal Secrets, experts confirmed what President Trump’s March declassification made undeniable: The CIA repeatedly lied to Congress about its ties to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Just days ago, the agency tacitly admitted that its 1963 testimony — claiming to have had only limited knowledge of Oswald — was a lie. Newly released documents show that the CIA’s liaison to Congress, George Joannides, not only concealed an “off-the-books” anti-Castro operation that had interacted with Oswald, but he also earned the CIA’s Career Intelligence Medal for stonewalling Congress’ investigation.

For nearly 62 years, a bureaucratic agency commissioned by Congress, funded by Congress, and subject to congressional oversight lied to Congress. And not only did it get away with it, it was rewarded.

CIA gone rogue

If the body that created the CIA can’t hold the agency accountable, who can?

Not even the executive branch has succeeded. Republican and Democratic presidents alike have failed to force full compliance with the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act. Under Trump’s first term, the public was given the familiar excuse from the intel community: “It’s a national security concern.”

Do the American people have to wait six decades — and for all involved to be long dead — before knowing the truth about what their supposed representative government has done? Who decides when and what we get to know? If not the people, if not Congress, if not the president — then who?

RELATED: The CIA’s greatest failure: Intelligence

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

This is why the Jeffrey Epstein case matters to the public and why it can’t be swept under the rug. The “files” and our inability to even learn who was involved in the crimes that placed Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in jail are a testament to the ugly truth: In the words of James Madison, “A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both.”

Transparency is our duty

The American people have become several steps removed from the decision-making power in Washington. Information and the means of acquiring it — and thereby, the ability to even know whom to hold accountable — have been almost entirely lost. Perhaps our government is, as Madison asserts, “a prologue to a farce or a tragedy.”

As members of Congress, it is our duty to do everything in our power to uphold the Constitution and deliver to the American people the transparency that sustains trust in our democratic Republic. Until any of us are given reason to believe transparency in any particular case is harmful to the constituents we serve, our duty is to demand it at every juncture.