The raid that Democrats can’t wave away



On Columbus Day, Homeland Security Investigations showed up before dawn at Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar's Washington, D.C., residence with a court-authorized search warrant. That fact does not prove Omar committed a crime, and it does not by itself answer the Democrats' charge that politics infected the investigation. It does mean the Justice Department put enough evidence before a judge to establish probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found there.

That is not nothing.

The standard should be simple: No political enemy gets convicted by press release, and no member of Congress gets sanctuary by title.

We are still short on details, which is normal at this stage. The Justice Department has confirmed only that the search was part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Multiple reports say the probe concerns immigration paperwork connected to Omar's family, but the government has not publicly laid out its theory or disclosed what agents were seeking.

The investigation has a long history. In September, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said there was an ongoing probe and claimed, “We know that she married her brother to try to bring him into the United States.” Omar has long denied that allegation, and the government has not publicly produced evidence establishing it. Mullin also suggested investigators were looking more broadly at the family's immigration history.

Omar's finances have drawn separate scrutiny. A 2024 congressional disclosure appeared to value assets tied largely to her husband's businesses at between $6 million and $30 million. Later disclosures and corrections put the couple’s assets dramatically lower, with Omar's office blaming an “accounting error” that overstated the value of the businesses. Fox News reported revised figures between roughly $18,000 and $95,000. Quite a discrepancy.

In January, the Oversight Project flagged more than $1 million in earmarks pushed by Omar and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) for Minneapolis nonprofits whose operations raised serious questions. The money was removed from the spending bill, and Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) asked the Justice Department to investigate.

So now we wait. But whatever investigators presented was enough to get a warrant. To borrow Omar's much-debated 2019 phrase about 9/11 and the civil liberties backlash that followed, “some people did something.” Here, the Justice Department did something more concrete: It put its evidence before a court and got permission to search.

House Democrat leaders immediately called the raid “corrupt weaponization” and a “rogue abuse of power.” They are certainly free to make that case. But Trump's hostility toward Omar does not make evidence disappear. The proper test is the evidence, not the defendant's politics or job title.

I have been a tough critic of the Department of Homeland Security for failing to deliver the mass-deportation agenda voters were promised. If Monday’s search is part of a legitimate criminal case, the DHS deserves credit for pursuing it without treating a member of Congress as untouchable.

A broader political problem also extends beyond Omar: the rise of socialism. Too many elected officials increasingly treat ethnic identity and foreign attachment as competing sources of political allegiance, while attacking the institutions charged with enforcing immigration law.

RELATED: The right is building its own lawfare defense machine — finally

Arturbo/Getty Images

Take Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.). Last year, after remarks she delivered in Spanish in Mexico City, we argued that she had put Guatemalan identity ahead of American allegiance. She has now gone farther in policy terms: pushing mass amnesty and gutting enforcement. Her Reimagining Safety Act would dismantle the Department of Homeland Security and abolish ICE while moving some existing functions into a new department.

Or look at Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), who faces federal charges arising from a confrontation at the Delaney Hall immigration detention facility. She argued that congressional oversight and the Speech or Debate Clause insulated her from prosecution. In August, the Third Circuit blew that argument out of the water. McIver denies wrongdoing, but the legal theory that a member's oversight role makes ordinary criminal law disappear has already failed in court.

Republicans are not immune from this politics either. Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) recently released an ad attacking Trump's immigration enforcement as having “gone too far” and warned that Hispanic voters who backed him in 2024 “feel betrayed.” It is yet another example of a politician speaking as representatives of an ethnic voting bloc first and as advocates of a uniform immigration law second.

RELATED: The mass-deportation promise is disappearing

PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP/Getty Images

Congress should respond to this problem carefully, not with ticky-tack retaliation over political speech. Disagreeing with America's immigration laws, criticizing ICE, or invoking an ethnic heritage are not crimes. Declaring allegiance to a foreign country and flagrantly violating constitutional oaths is another matter.

That is why Monday's search should be treated neither as a conviction nor as a meaningless political stunt. A warrant is not a verdict. If the investigation ultimately produces evidence that Omar committed immigration fraud, made material false statements, or engaged in other serious criminal conduct, Congress should act under its own rules rather than hide behind the slow pace of criminal litigation.

Committee assignments and access to sensitive government information are privileges Congress controls. Due process does not require institutional paralysis. The standard should be simple: No political enemy gets convicted by press release, and no member of Congress gets sanctuary by title.

Blue States Are Redefining Religious Freedom To Stop Christians From Practicing Christianity

A faith that may be freely exercised only within the church is a faith the state has already succeeded in controlling.

Polyamorists Are Following The Gay ‘Marriage’ Playbook For Forced Normalization

Polyamory is having its day. Ever-liberal Christian Century says 'alternatives to monogamous marriage are going mainstream.'

Nick Freitas says America needs real men again



Who better to write a book called “The Man Book” than BlazeTV host Nick Freitas, a former Green Beret and Virginia legislator, husband, father, and — let’s be honest — an undeniably rugged, manly looking guy?

Freitas has built a huge social-media audience with dry humor and blunt observations about politics, culture, marriage, and family. His Instagram following recently crossed 2 million. More important, he offers young men an alternative to influencers peddling a hollow parody of masculinity built on conquest, self-promotion, and obsessive image management.

National renewal begins when men accept that calling at home and live in a way their wives, sons, and daughters can trust.

I have argued for years that real masculinity is not toxic. The one-dimensional brute whom the left beats like a cheap piñata is a cartoon caricature. Toughness, discipline, and endurance can make a man a better father, husband, and protector.

Freitas’ book makes much the same case. Published this spring, “The Man Book” — subtitled “A Point-by-Point Guide to Sucking It Up and Getting the Job Done” — reached the New York Times bestseller list and peaked at No. 6.

Appearing recently on A.J. Rice’s “Dangerous Laughter” podcast, Freitas said national renewal begins with men who accept responsibility, build strong families, and transmit faith, character, and durable values to the next generation.

“I am 100% absolutely convinced that the way you're going to save the country and the way you're going to save our politics is through godly families that are strong, that are cohesive, and that are transferring their values to future generations,” Freitas said.

His political career grew out of frustration. Freitas served two combat tours in Iraq and later said he became fed up with political leaders imposing rules of engagement that, in his view, constrained warfighters in the field. After leaving the Army, he entered politics and served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 2016 to 2026.

“The real problem,” Freitas told Rice, “was our side had kind of given up making the argument on what we believed and why. And to the extent that we did make the argument, it was always kind of this stuffy, overly academic, esoteric argument, instead of actually just talking to people and maybe — God forbid — adding a little bit of sense of humor and sarcasm to it.”

That direct style eventually migrated from politics to questions about marriage, fatherhood, Christianity, and manhood. The questions Freitas received changed too. Young men wanted to know how to become good husbands and fathers. Young women wanted to know how to recognize one.

RELATED: Before you ask us to trust again

AscentXmedia/iStock/Getty Images

The central distinction in “The Man Book” is between masculinity and its counterfeits. A good man is neither passive nor recklessly aggressive. He is strong but disciplined, capable but humble, protective without being domineering, and willing to use force when necessary without making violence an identity.

Freitas argues that progressive politics has alienated many men by treating qualities they naturally want to cultivate — strength, courage, competitiveness, competence — as suspect. Attempts to manufacture a politically acceptable masculinity therefore ring false. Aggression can imitate strength, but violence without self-command, responsibility, and moral purpose is not manhood.

“There’s no pinnacle that you achieve with respect to manhood,” Freitas said. “There’s just things that you go through and experiences that you develop and character that you develop that helps shape you and turn you into the sort of a godly man that other men want to follow and look up to and that your son can follow and look up to.”

That formation requires doing hard things. Freitas encourages fathers to create rites of passage and even to give their sons what he calls a “violent hobby” — learning to shoot or fight, for example — not as an invitation to recklessness but as a way to develop competence, courage, and self-command.

“The problem is that when you get to a critical mass where there’s enough men that don’t know how to do the difficult things,” he said, “you end up in a society where you remember very quickly why you needed men that could do difficult things.”

Theodore Roosevelt made much the same argument more than a century ago: “We need ... the iron qualities that must go with true manhood,” including resolution, courage, indomitable will, and the ability to do “the rough work that must always be done.” Roosevelt immediately added that strength without moral purpose becomes little more than force and cunning.

“You’ll be your son’s hero until you prove to him that you shouldn’t be,” Frietas told Rice. A boy’s natural admiration gives his father an extraordinary advantage — and an obligation to become worthy of imitation.

“Part of being a man is doing hard things that hurt — that may make you tired, that may make you frustrated — and developing the emotional and intellectual maturity and the intestinal fortitude to push through in order to keep your word and take care of the people that you love.”

RELATED: The Christian counterculture is already here

RyanJLane/iStock/Getty Images

That means bringing sons into real work instead of relegating them to passive entertainment. The invitation tells a boy he belongs and that his contribution has value.

“You will never understand how important it is to your little boy to be included on projects dad is doing,” Freitas said.

A father’s example matters just as much to daughters. His strength, honesty, presence, and affection establish their earliest standard for honorable manhood. “Understand that you are the first vision to your daughters of what a good man looks like,” Freitas said.

That is where the interview moves beyond a book about masculine habits. Its larger claim is that politics reflects culture, and culture is formed most powerfully in families. Strong nations require men who can govern themselves, do difficult things, protect others, and transmit faith and virtue to their children.

National renewal begins when men accept that calling at home and live in a way their wives, sons, and daughters can trust.

Biotech promises perfect babies. The family hangs in the balance.



Emma Waters is a proud, Christ-centered patriot. The 28-year-old bioethics researcher at the Heritage Foundation lives by a strict six-word mantra: "Love God, get married, have babies."

She married young and recently welcomed her third daughter while working from home in Pennsylvania. When she’s not raising her kids, Waters devotes her time to exposing what happens when human reproduction stops being a natural byproduct of family life and becomes a high-tech engineering project.

The problem arises when tech shifts from restoring nature to overriding it entirely.

Waters has made it her mission to expose one of the most seismic shifts in modern medicine. Doctors have moved beyond merely helping desperate couples conceive; now clinics try to control which children are (and aren’t) born, who carries them, and what traits they possess. Waters consistently raises alarms about commercial surrogacy, embryo selection, and a fertility business that treats parenthood like a shady concierge service. Her concern is justified.

The most fascinating fight over this issue isn't between traditionalists and the iconoclastic, often idiotic left. The real battle line lies squarely on the political right, dividing old-school social conservatives from Silicon Valley's tech-driven pronatalists. And the battle is growing increasingly ferocious.

Can babies be solved?

Both sides agree that falling birth rates pose an existential threat to America. But while traditionalists want more babies born into married homes, tech titans want to manufacture them using IVF, surrogacy, polygenic embryo screening, and artificial wombs. Essentially, Silicon Valley wants to code a way out of demographic winter. Traditionalists think the answer lies in simple, un-automated human commitment.

Silicon Valley wants to solve the fertility crisis in the lab. Traditionalists want to solve it with marriage. And in truth, the traditionalist approach makes far more sense. If young people stop getting married, inventing ever more sophisticated ways to make babies only treats the symptom while leaving the family crisis untouched.

Technology itself isn't inherently evil, nor is every fertility treatment misguided. Modern medicine performs genuine miracles by healing broken minds and bodies. The problem arises when tech shifts from restoring nature to overriding it entirely.

The pitch of the modern fertility industry is pure, unadulterated control. If a couple can’t conceive, technology intervenes. If a woman wants to delay motherhood, she freezes her eggs. If parents want to select specific embryos, technicians run tests. If adults want someone else to carry the burden, they hire a surrogate.

RELATED: They met top tech experts behind closed doors. Now these religious leaders are urging Congress to act.

doidam10/Getty Images

The cultural message has shifted dramatically over two generations. Society used to tell young people that the biological clock actually ticks and that building a life with a special someone matters early on. Modern culture now tells them not to worry because science will grant extra decades. That promise sells a dangerous illusion. It tricks people into believing they can outrun the human body's limits forever. And once people believe technology can overcome every natural limit, the next question becomes obvious.

Why stop at conception?

When parents screen, rank, and discard embryos based on calculated disease risk, physical attributes, or predicted intelligence, parental love starts looking like a trip to an online retail shop. Historically, a child arrived as a gift to be welcomed and cherished unconditionally. The tech-enabled model treats a child like a product customized before checkout.

For 50 years, Western society systematically dismantled the traditional family structure. Contraception severed physical intimacy from reproduction. Abortion severed pregnancy from parenthood. IVF severed conception from marriage. Donor eggs and surrogacy severed genetics from motherhood.

Now society is facing the consequences of that perverse experiment. Reproduction is becoming an expensive, institutionalized service completely independent of marriage and even pregnancy.

The demographic crisis facing the United States and the West is, in many ways, the logical result of modern incentives. Long-term commitment is treated as an unnecessary drag on personal mobility; marriage is now delayed until every career milestone is unlocked; and having children is viewed as something between a hindrance and a hazard. Silicon Valley can build all the productivity tools it wants, but innovation can't offset a society increasingly uninterested in its own continuation.

Eugenics on demand

The tech industry naturally focuses on the paying customer, including the adults writing six-figure checks for surrogates and genetic testing. Nobody asks what the child wants. An infant doesn't choose anonymous genetic donors, years spent in a cryo-preservation freezer, or half-siblings scattered across three continents. The fertility lobby endlessly preaches reproductive freedom for adults, completely ignoring the basic rights of the person being created.

No Nazi uniform is required to revive eugenics. Simply give parents enough data, enough options, enough cash, and a well-stocked dish of embryos, and biological selection quickly becomes good parenting.

Eventually, this dynamic introduces a brand-new form of inequality, far more consequential than the type blue-haired liberals whine about. Wealthy urban couples will screen hundreds of embryos to secure cognitive and physical advantages for their offspring, while working-class families struggle to afford baby formula. The political left spent half a century agonizing over income gaps, but conservatives ought to ask what happens when the stinking rich can literally buy superior genetics at a boutique clinic.

It’s a question occupying Waters’ mind, and the answer should concern anyone who cares about the future of America.

How Boomers Can Save What’s Left Of America For Younger Generations

The Baby Boomers grew up in a completely different world than their children and grandchildren live in today. They need to know that and respond.

Gay Atlantic writer whines to Bill Maher that LGBT extremism is blowing up support for homosexual 'marriage'



Popular support for homosexual "marriage" is plummeting — and liberals are beginning to panic.

James Kirchick, a gay liberal contributor to the Atlantic, suggested on Friday's episode of "Real Time with Bill Maher" that this waning popularity is in response to years of LGBT extremism.

'Gay men purchasing babies didn't help.'

A lesbian bar in Massachusetts recently made headlines after it became a target of local LGBT leftist hatred after operators announced on Aug. 31 that they were waiving the establishment's mask requirement just one night a week.

Maher highlighted the LGBT attacks on Greenfield's Last Ditch lesbian bar as yet another example of leftist intolerance. Kirchick said the story also illustrated the "growing divide between gay and lesbian people, and queer people."

"To be gay or lesbian is a sexual orientation. That's it," continued Kirchick. "To be 'queer' is to embrace a whole political orientation. There are straight people who identify as queer. It's about deconstructing gender, which is how you get in that [bar] story a lesbian who uses 'he/him' pronouns."

The Atlantic writer provided an example of the political and conformist nature of those in the "queer" camp, referencing California Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener's apparent excommunication over his lukewarm support for Israel.

When he tried to join the Trans March in June, Wiener — a radical homosexual activist who previously claimed that "the word groomer is categorically an anti-LGBTQ hate word," advanced a law that made California a sanctuary state for child sex-change mutilations, and advocated for exempting some adults who had sex with minors from automatically registering as sex offenders — was told, "You stopped being queer the moment you started supporting Israel," reported the San Francisco Chronicle.

RELATED: 'There is no mama': How a viral video accidentally exposed the true cost of gay adoption

PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP/Getty Images

"There was a poll done two years ago, and it was a poll of the LGBT community — who identifies as what within the LGBT community," Kirchick told Maher. "About 15% identify as lesbians. About 21% identify as gay. Fifty-six percent identify as bisexual. ... 0.5% of LGBT people identify as queer."

Kirchick unironically asked, "Why are we allowing this 0.5% of the community to speak for all of us?"

"All this queer, trans extremism is having a real impact," he continued. "I mean, support for gay marriage has started going down."

According to a Gallup poll conducted in May, support for homosexual "marriage" is down six percentage points from the peak in 2022 and 2023.

The percentage of U.S. adults who said that same-sex "marriages" should be valid rose from 27% in 1996 to 71% in 2022, where it remained for another year. In 2024, however, the percentage dropped to 69%, and it has been declining in the years since.

The percentage of U.S. adults who say that gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable has similarly begun to decline, dropping from 71% in 2022 to 62% this year.

The decline has largely been driven by changing attitudes among Republicans. Whereas 55% of Republicans said that they favored homosexual "marriage" in 2021 and 2022, the number is now 37%.

The liberal writer speculated that this decline in support is a "backlash to this queer extremism. And as a gay man, it's something I really worry about, frankly."

Katy Faust, founder and president of children's advocacy group Them Before Us, said in response to Kirchick's observation, "Queer definitely poisoned the well. But gay men purchasing babies didn't help."

Kirchick is hardly the only liberal concerned about declining support for homosexual "marriage."

Andrew Sullivan, an LGBT activist who has written for the New York Times, wrote in a July blog post, "On all questions gay and trans, the Dems are now entirely controlled by trans and 'queer' extremists."

Referencing the recent Gallup data, Sullivan added, "As someone who played a part in bringing those Republicans and moderates around to gay marriage, it’s distressing to see what the queer overreach has done — especially in red states."

Last month, Log Cabin Republicans dropped the "T" from its LGBT advocacy, recognizing the reputational damage that trans-radicals have done to the cause of their fellow non-straight activists.

Ross Hemminger, the president of the Log Cabin Republicans, argued that support for homosexual "marriage" is waning because many voters' "view of the gay community is based on today’s radical transgender activists with their unnecessary and discomfiting focus on America’s youth."

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

Twice As Many Men Are Single Than Married Today. Are Women To Blame?

Young men look at dating culture and see women who are prepared to choose husbands but less prepared to become wives.

Gay Dad’s Disturbing Diary Illuminates Dysfunctions Of Buying Babies

The diary's author has told us exactly what the modern family prioritizes: adult appetite over child need. We should believe him.

GOP Contempt For Trump Helping Married Families Is Political And Civilizational Suicide

The Trump administration has recognized that the affordability crisis is real and hurting our voters the most. Help is finally on the way.