A digital strike instead of a shooting war with Iran



Iran has once again violated its obligations under the International Atomic Energy Agency, thumbing its nose at the international community and inching the world closer to open conflict.

In the past, such provocation might have triggered a kinetic military response. But what if President Trump had another option — one that avoids American bloodshed, leverages international law, and puts the mullahs on the defensive using the very tools they rely on to maintain power?

President Trump doesn’t need to invade Iran to change it. He needs only to interrupt it.

Rather than ordering a strike package or putting boots on the ground, Trump could pursue a bold diplomatic gambit.

Under Article 41 of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council can authorize measures “not involving the use of armed force” to enforce its will. These include the “complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication” (my emphasis).

In other words, an embargo. But not just the old-fashioned kind.

A new kind of war

Time is a critical variable in any conflict. Traditional embargoes — naval blockades, sanctions regimes — require months or years to produce meaningful results. But a digital embargo, launched under the auspices of Article 41, could produce near-instantaneous effects on Iran’s command and control, propaganda apparatus, and internal cohesion.

Imagine this: Iranian cell networks silenced. Internet access throttled or shut down entirely. Satellite links disrupted. State television (or what’s left of it) cut off from its viewers. Social media — so often used as a tool of repression and misinformation — rendered inert.

This isn’t science fiction. These capabilities exist. And with international backing, their coordinated use against the Iranian regime would amount to a strategic information offensive — precisely the kind of campaign envisioned by the pioneering concept of SOFTWAR.

The battle for perception

SOFTWAR — short for soft warfare — is the doctrine of using information systems, media, and psychological operations to degrade an adversary’s will and capacity to fight without firing a single shot. The term isn’t just rhetorical flourish. As the progenitor of the U.S. military’s first “virtual unit” — a joint team of California Air and Army National Guardsmen tasked with exploring information dominance — I’ve seen the possibilities firsthand.

In this case, combatant commanders could employ SOFTWAR principles to carry out a tailored, non-kinetic campaign: degrading Iran’s internal communications, disrupting regime propaganda, and flooding the digital space with content that inspires dissent and destabilizes the theocracy’s grip on power.

Article 41 doesn’t just permit such actions — it provides the legal basis for them. The operative word in the U.N. Charter is “interrupt.” That grants flexibility. “Interruption” can mean anything from throttling bandwidth to flipping the narrative script. Every act of suppression by the Iranian regime could be met with a counterstroke that undermines its legitimacy and erodes public confidence.

RELATED: Israel’s strategy now rests on one bomb — and it’s American

Photo by Mehmet Yaren Bozgun/Anadolu via Getty Image

Bursting Iran’s reality bubble

Iran’s clerical regime depends on a tightly controlled narrative to survive. Interrupt that narrative — inject confusion, sow doubt, and amplify internal frustrations — and you begin to unmake the regime from within.

Television broadcasts could be co-opted to present alternative visions of Iranian life. Disaffected youth could receive direct messages from the free world. Clerical edicts could be ridiculed, refuted, or simply drowned out.

In the digital age, perception is reality — and controlling perception is a form of power more potent than many realize.

If executed with precision, coordination, and the right legal cover, such a campaign could avoid the mass casualties, blowback, and open-ended commitment of a traditional military operation. It could also mark a new chapter in U.S. strategy — one that prioritizes data dominance over deadweight tonnage.

A unit ahead of its time

The 1st Joint SOFTWAR Unit (Virtual), which I had the honor of organizing, was established to explore exactly these kinds of strategies. Though the unit now sits in bureaucratic limbo, its mission has never been more urgent — or more applicable — than in the current standoff with Iran.

President Trump doesn’t need to invade Iran to change it. He needs only to interrupt it.

With the Security Council’s approval and the backing of U.S. information forces, he could do just that — and rewrite the rules of engagement for the 21st century.

Woke wordplay warps language — and the meaning of freedom



Someone just sent me a Passover greeting that traced the arc of tyranny from the ancient pharaohs to our current “dictator” in the White House. The message left little to the imagination: Donald Trump, apparently, is the modern-day pharaoh.

The sender works, unsurprisingly, in our state bureaucracy in Harrisburg. She was happy as a lark during Joe Biden’s “compassionate” presidency, but now seethes at his swamp-draining successor.

This isn’t a debate over rights. It’s a collision between incompatible worldviews.

In the past, I might have written her back. I might have reminded her who actually weaponized the federal government against political opponents. I might have pointed to the sweeping executive orders, the censorship collusion, and the criminalization of dissent that flourished under the true despotism of President Joe.

Unlike Biden and his handlers, Trump has made his intentions clear — and he’s doing what he promised. Transparency used to matter in politics. Apparently not any more.

I might also have noted the waste, incompetence, and embedded corruption in the federal bureaucracy, including the office that cuts her checks. The Department of Government Efficiency was not a stunt. It was a necessary start. And its housecleaning is long overdue.

Different ideological universes

I’ve come to realize that trying to debate this acquaintance would be pointless. We’d only talk past each other. Words don’t mean the same thing to both of us. It’s not that I believe in “freedom” or “constitutional government” and she doesn’t. It’s that the definitions we assign to those words are so radically different that even if we used the same language, we wouldn’t truly agree.

This insight came into focus while reading A. James Gregor’s “The Ideology of Fascism,” a book that sheds valuable light on political semantics. Gregor notes that fascists and communists genuinely believed in their own concepts of “democracy” and “freedom.” They weren’t just twisting the language — they inhabited entirely different ideological universes. And so, certain political divisions can’t be bridged. The terms are familiar, but the meanings diverge.

To the woke left, for instance, it seems entirely reasonable to remove children from parents who “misgender” them or who insist on using biologically accurate pronouns. In their framework, punishing such offenses against identity isn’t oppressive — it’s the fulfillment of authentic freedom. The law, they argue, is merely shielding the vulnerable from unnecessary psychological harm.

This isn’t a debate over rights. It’s a collision between incompatible worldviews.

A new left lexicon

It’s apparently ignorant — or worse — to define “fascism” narrowly, as something confined to the interwar European dictatorships. According to today’s progressive orthodoxy, fascism now flourishes wherever LGBTQ guidelines aren’t strictly followed or wherever anyone dares to advocate for a less “compassionate” form of government — say, one that distinguishes between citizens and undocumented migrants.

The logic, such as it is, goes something like this: Germany once drew sharp legal lines, and look where that led — tyranny and genocide. Ergo, any policy that establishes firm national boundaries or citizenship norms must be a step toward fascism.

Meanwhile, “oligarch” no longer refers to the mega-wealthy class in general. As I’ve gathered from watching MSNBC, an oligarch is now anyone who donates to MAGA Republicans or refuses to get rid of a Tesla after learning that Elon Musk is a “fascist.”

Likewise, the label “white nationalist” has been repurposed to apply to any MAGA-aligned Republican who fails to support the Democrats’ latest campaign against “white nationalism.” Trump’s support for voter ID laws or efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens? Those too, we’re told, reek of white nationalism — never mind that many of the ICE agents enforcing those policies have dark skin. That detail is irrelevant because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

What many on my side view as a sprawling, wasteful, and unconstitutional bureaucracy, our political opponents treat as the very embodiment of constitutional government. The Constitution they revere is not the one written in Philadelphia. It is a “living document” — one that demands a constantly expanding class of civil servants to fulfill the goals of “democracy,” which now include identity politics, lifestyle diversity, and environmental dogma.

Trump, in their view, is a modern pharaoh not because he consolidates power but because he makes life harder for the benevolent bureaucracy. He obstructs the compassionate machinery of the state. Worse, he sows “chaos” — unlike the Democrats, who have dutifully welcomed millions of illegal migrants to enrich America with fresh waves of sanctioned diversity.

Liberty’s language hijacked

None of this is to say that millions don’t cynically exploit these twisted definitions of political virtue. Nor am I suggesting a moral relativism. I know where I stand. But it’s clear that large numbers of voters have swallowed these ideological rebrandings whole. And when basic political terms no longer mean the same thing to both sides, meaningful debate becomes nearly impossible.

Western Europe now offers a sobering example. Countries across the continent have begun curtailing freedom of expression — not in spite of democracy but in its name. To those driving this trend in what we still, somewhat naively, call the “free world,” there is no contradiction between repression and the preservation of liberty.

Even European governments that our own vice president has scolded for their illiberal tendencies insist they are safeguarding democracy and freedom. Against what? Against such “reactionary” threats as national sovereignty, religious conviction, and traditional gender norms.

Even worse, a growing number of voters in both Europe and the United States agree. The language of liberty has been hijacked to justify its opposite. And for now, the hijackers have no shortage of passengers willing to go along for the ride.

Boris Johnson blows up Trump-Russia narrative, silencing CNN's Jake Tapper



CNN talking head Jake Tapper gave former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson an opportunity this week to help the American media establishment advance its latest Trump-Russia smear.

Johnson, whose time as prime minister and foreign secretary overlapped Trump's first four years in the White House, not only proved unwilling to cosign the narrative but highlighted President Donald Trump's historic efforts to keep Russia in check — something the Biden-Harris administration has alternatively had difficulty with.

Johnson went on CNN to promote his new memoir, "Unleashed." While nominally interested in discussing the former prime minister's book, Tapper appeared far more intent on exploring some of the more sensational allegations in Bob Woodward's forthcoming book, particularly the disputed claim — from yet another unnamed source — that Trump has spoken to Putin as many as seven times since leaving the White House.

'None of ... these made-up stories by Bob Woodward are true.'

Democratic operatives and the liberal media are desperate to make something of this allegation. Former Obama U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, for instance, gladly leaped to the conclusion Tuesday that Trump had violated the Logan Act, thereby committing a crime.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has also given the rumor oxygen, claiming, "If it is true, it is indeed concerning."

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told The Hill, "None of ... these made-up stories by Bob Woodward are true," adding that Woodward "suffers from a debilitating case of Trump derangement syndrome."

Woodward might have a chip on his shoulder on account of the president's $50 million lawsuit for releasing audio recordings of their interviews without consent.

"CNN is also reporting that in Woodward's book, according to a Trump aide, there have been multiple phone calls between former President Trump and Vladimir Putin. Maybe as many as seven since Trump left the White House in 2021," said Tapper. "What's your reaction to that?"

"I don't know if that's true, and I'm certainly not privy to the contents of those sorts of conversations," said Johnson.

"What I can tell our viewers is that when I had dealings with President Trump over Russia, like when the Russians poisoned people in the U.K., it was actually the Trump administration that really ... exceeded expectations. They expelled 60 Russian spies. It was the Trump administration that actually gave Ukrainians lethal weaponry — the Javelin missiles to use against Putin's troops."

After Russian former double agent Sergei Skripal and his adult daughter were poisoned in 2018, Trump ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats whom his administration identified as intelligence agents. He also had the Russian consulate in Seattle closed.

'Had he been president in 2022, there would have been no Russian invasion of Ukraine.'

As for the Javelins, Trump approved a plan to send the anti-tank missile systems to Ukraine in December 2017 — a step that former President Barack Obama had avoided, even when Russia annexed Crimea under his watch.

There was a pregnant silence after Johnson concluded his defense of Trump's record on Russia. Tapper then awkwardly changed the topic to the prime minister's book.

This is not the first time in recent days that the former prime minister has defended Trump.

In a recent interview with Britain's Times Radio, Johnson suggested Putin would not have invaded Ukraine on Trump's watch.

"I happen to believe that when Donald Trump says that had he been president in 2022, there would have been no Russian invasion of Ukraine, my view is that that is a credible assertion. I really do think that's credible," said Johnson.

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

Democrats on FCC approve Soros' purchase of 200+ radio stations without national security review of foreign cash



The Democrat-controlled Federal Communications Commission has officially given leftist billionaire George Soros what he wanted: effective control and foreign ownership of over 200+ American radio stations ahead of the 2024 election — including stations that presently run shows from Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Erick Erickson, Sean Hannity, and Dana Loesch.

While some initially cast doubt on whether Audacy will be actually controlled by Soros, the FCC's Monday memo reveals a Soros entity will hold a "controlling, attributable interest in the reorganized company, holding 57% or greater" of Audacy.

All three Democratic appointees on the FCC supported the final decision both to approve the assignment of licenses previously under the control of a Texas bankruptcy court to the reorganized Audacy and to spare the company from having to comply with Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act, which prohibits foreign owners from having a stake in a radio station license exceeding 25%.

Trump-appointed FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said in his dissenting statement, "The Commission’s decision today is unprecedented."

"Never before has the Commission voted to approve the transfer of a broadcast license — let alone the transfer of broadcast licenses for over 200 radio stations across more than 40 markets — without following the requirements and procedures codified in federal law," continued Carr. "Not once."

Carr previously told nationally syndicated radio host and Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, "Foreign company ownership of U.S. radio stations is not supposed to exceed 25%. But Soros took foreign investment to make his bid, and then he asked the FCC to make an exception to the usual review process."

'Who controls FPR? Well, Google it.'

"We have a very clear process at the FCC that we set up — it could take six months, it could take a year — to go through to [the national security] review the foreign ownership at issue here," Carr told Beck. "But for reasons that are not sort of plain to me, the FCC ... for the very first time ever, has skipped that process for the benefit of this Soros-backed group."

— (@)

Carr noted in his statement of dissent Monday that the applicants have provided the FCC with "virtually no information at all about their plans to wall off the unvetted foreign interests."

Commissioner Nathan Simington, the other Republican appointee on the FCC, like Carr, was shocked by his Democratic peers' willingness to fast-track the deal without bothering to investigate which foreign interests are involved, writing:

A Commission eager to fast-track a billion dollar broadcast media reorganization, disregarding foreign ownership concerns, is the same Commission that has gone back to the well several times to impose and re-impose foreign sponsorship identification rules on our smallest independent broadcast license holders every time they place local church content on the air. Just saying.

Despite years of concern-mongering about foreign interference, Democrats do not appear the slightest bit bothered.

Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, among the three commissioners who green-lit the takeover, suggested that everything was above board and business as usual, adding that "to suggest otherwise is cynical and wrong."

Simington, apparently in the cynical minority who still value longstanding laws and FCC conventions, pointed out that the reorganized Audacy will be controlled by Laurel Tree Opportunities Corporation and that LTOC will own and control a majority (57% or more) of the voting stock of the reorganized company.

"Who controls LTOC? It's not a particularly complicated structure: Fund for Policy Reform. And who controls FPR? Well, Google it," wrote Simington.

The Fund for Policy Reform, founded in 2009 and affiliated with George Soros' Open Society Foundations, holds 100% of the voting and equity interest of FPR Capital, which is the sole voting shareholder of LTOC, according to the FCC's Monday memo.

'This reckless, unprecedented move will impact radio stations reaching millions of listeners across the U.S.'

Fund for Policy Reform is governed by a four-member board of trustees: Alexander Soros, the apparent heir to the Soros empire and chair of Open Society Foundations; Leonard Banchon; Maryann Canfield, asset manager for OSF; and Michael Vachon of Soros Fund Management, a longtime mouthpiece for the leftist billionaire.

A week ahead of securing the power of greater narrative control over American airwaves, Alexander Soros hosted Kamala Harris' running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, at his New York City apartment.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) office said of the news, "This reckless, unprecedented move will impact radio stations reaching millions of listeners across the U.S. — handing off our airwaves to foreign interests."

Roy, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-N.Y.) were among the only lawmakers in the nation's capital who actually spoke out in recent months about Soros' apparent strategic play for narrative dominance.

Roy personally noted that this FCC action underscores why the November election "matters so much. We need [President Donald Trump] to put the right people on FCC and stop this takeover!"

Dana Loesch, among the conservative voices whose voice on the radio might soon be silenced, wrote, "Being a rich Democrat means Democrats will exempt you from laws regulating sales to foreign entities. Marxists never follow the laws they demand others follow."

Mike Davis of the Article III Project suggested, "The federal courts must immediately enjoin this illegal fiat."

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

Foreign collusion? FCC moves with 'unprecedented' speed to approve Soros' capture of 200+ radio stations with foreign cash just before election



Leftist billionaire and Democratic mega-donor George Soros has been leaning on the Democrat-controlled Federal Communications Commission for months in hopes of fast-tracking his group's acquisition of over 200 radio stations in over 40 markets — including stations that run shows from Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Erick Erickson, Sean Hannity, and Dana Loesch.

On Wednesday, the FCC reportedly adopted an order to approve the purchase, meaning that in a matter days, Soros will likely take control of communications to over 165 million Americans with the help of unvetted foreign investors whom Democrats have spared from the FCC's customary national security review process.

National syndicated radio host and Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck asked Trump-appointed FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Tuesday about the Democratic FCC commissioners' apparent willingness to cosign Soros' latest play for narrative dominance.

Carr made clear that "it's an unprecedented decision for the commission" that would not have alternatively been accepted were Soros a partisan of another stripe — a decision that comes amid a broader "weaponization of government power ... against free speech."

Background

Audacy filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Texas on Jan. 7 to reduce its debt.

Months later, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas approved the company's reorganization plan, paving the way for an equitization of over 80% of the company's debt.

In February, Soros Fund Management acquired roughly $414 million of Audacy's debt — nearly 40% of the company's senior debt — emerging as the company's primary shareholder.

'Soros took foreign investment to make his bid.'

Audacy asked the FCC to approve the transfer of its broadcast licenses to the reorganized company.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and other critics noted, however, that such a transfer would be problematic as the reorganized company would exceed legally acceptable foreign ownership limits. Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act prohibits foreign owners from having a stake in a radio station license exceeding 25%.

Media Research Center noted in its April petition to deny the "special Soros shortcut" that "the Soros group expressly states in their FCC filing that they have determined that the aggregate level of foreign ownership in the company when it emerges from bankruptcy will exceed the 25 percent limit specified in Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act due to the various entities that it expects to hold voting or equity interests."

Audacy requested that the five-member FCC, which has a Democratic majority, take the unprecedented step of not only waiving the foreign ownership restriction in order to allow the purchase to move forward but of putting off a national security review of the stations' foreign-interest holders.

Democrat-anointed foreign takeover

Following a New York Post report stating that the three Democrats on the FCC voted Wednesday to approve Audacy's reorganization plan, Commissioner Carr spoke to Glenn Beck about what happens next.

"Now, the vote came down in the FCC. It was partisan. Three Democrats voting for it. Two Republicans voting against it," said Beck. "But here's the real problem: According to existing FCC rules, foreign company ownership of U.S. radio stations is not supposed to exceed 25%. But Soros took foreign investment to make his bid, and then he asked the FCC to make an exception to the usual review process."

Carr said, "I've been very outspoken on this particular issue for the reasons that you talked about. We have a very clear process at the FCC that we set up — it could take six months, it could take a year — to go through to [the national security] review the foreign ownership at issue here. But for reasons that are not sort of plain to me, the FCC ... for the very first time ever, has skipped that process for the benefit of this Soros-backed group."

"It's an unprecedented decision for the commission," added Carr.

When Blaze News asked how the Soros group dodged the Communications Act prohibition, Carr said:

What happened here was that the Soros group came in and said, 'Look, approve our takeover of these stations now. We will wall off the foreign interest holders from any sort of significant, relevant decision-making authority for the time being, then we'll come back to you down the road and file the petition and go through the petition process.'

Apparently, that was good enough for the Democratic commissioners.

"Usually, you don't let the people get the licenses first until we go through the foreign ownership. I would imagine that they're going to have to come back to the FCC and run this foreign ownership process," continued Carr. "And if that does uncover — and I'm not saying it's likely — but if that does uncover some untoward level of foreign influence, then the FCC should have the full tools available to it to take action."

'This is sort of the reverse side of a pattern that we've been living under the last couple of years.'

While remedies might be as simple as further walling off of investors or selling off an interest, Carr indicated that the FCC could "go so far as to reconsider the grant of a license," although he does not anticipate revocation being necessary.

Rules for thee

Carr alluded to what the implications of this decision might be, noting that the affected radio stations are not just playing classic rock but in a number of cases have conservative talk shows and news.

When Beck suggested the reverse wouldn't fly, Carr indicated that conservative buyers were shut down in the past when trying something similar.

"Not too long ago — a year ago — there was a group of conservative buyers that wanted to purchase some South Florida radio station," said Carr. "And a number of Democrats spoke up very loudly and said the FCC cannot allow these conservative outlets to buy these radio stations because, in the Democrats' view, it can cost them an election in South Florida."

Carr contextualized this hypocrisy in a broader trend of Democrats seeking to "weaponize the government to go against conservative speech."

"This is sort of the reverse side of a pattern that we've been living under the last couple of years — of weaponization of government power, in my view, frankly, against free speech."

When asked whether there has been any pushback on the Soros takeover from Democrats, Carr laughed, telling Blaze News the only lawmakers who came to mind in terms of raising alarm were Cruz, Roy, and Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-N.Y.).

— (@)

Motive

Beck asked Carr why Soros might want to invest this kind of money in what appears to be a "dying medium."

'Maybe there's a business case there that they're smart enough to see, that everyone doesn't see.'

"It's a good question," said Carr. "I don't know a lot of billionaires right now that, with all the options for where they're going to place their money, sit around saying, 'You know what really kicks off a lot of cash right now are local radio stations.' Maybe."

"We're seeing a flight of capital from local broadcasting because it's so challenged right now with competition from social media companies and over-the-top providers," continued Carr. "So maybe there's a business case there that they're smart enough to see that everyone doesn't see."

NPR president Katherine Maher, a censorious alumna of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader program who previously worked at the National Democratic Institute, which is primarily funded by George Soros' Open Society Foundations, provided a possible clue as to why her fellow travelers might want to take control of American radio stations.

Maher, who toured the ground zeroes of various regime changes in recent years as they were unfolding, penned a December 2010 NDI blog post, titled, "Can a Radio Station Govern a Country?"

The article concerned an electoral crisis in the Ivory Coast that led to civil war and the desire by one faction to seize control of the state broadcaster, Radiodiffusion Television Ivoirienne.

Maher quoted her friend who suggested:

Control over RTI has become a flashpoint in the crisis precisely because information is both severely limited and crucial to building legitimacy, however tenuous, with the public. In the absence of a robust private media to report on the election controversy, the state-run broadcaster may effectively have as much power to declare the ultimate winner as the electoral commission formally tasked with doing so.

Maher concluded, "Control over the flow of information in a closed society can be tantamount to control over the state."

— (@)

Carr told Beck that after the FCC releases its final decision, Soros' control over hundreds of American radio stations will be "instantaneous."

Rikki Ratliff-Fellman, director of programming at Blaze Media, suggested on X, "The Harris-Biden admin doesn't actually care about 'foreign malign influence' in our elections. If they did they would object to Soros' takeover of the 2nd largest chain of U.S. radio stations made possible by foreign investment and Democrat blessing."

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

Texas Democrat who defended sex changes for kids suggests it's un-Christian to support Trump



Democrats spent years claiming that President Donald Trump and his supporters constituted threats to democracy. This narrative has been used to excuse the various attempts to throw Trump in prison and to remove him from the ballot.

It appears that the party may now be trying out a new narrative. After all, its nullification of Democratic primary voters' collective will and President Joe Biden's corresponding ouster from the race demonstrated that democracy's health was never really a concern.

The new line: Voting for Trump is un-Christian.

Democratic Texas state Rep. James Talarico told MSNBC's Katie Phang Saturday that "too many Christians have forgotten all about Jesus and now worship at the feet of Donald Trump — a business cheat, a pathological liar, a serial adulterer, a twice-impeached insurrectionist, a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist."

"I guess it's hate the sin, elect the sinner. That seems to be the new motto of too many Christians in this country," added Talarico.

Talarico, deemed "deeply religious" by Politico last year, is a pro-abortion Democrat with a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood Texas Votes who regards the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms as "deeply un-Christian," concern-mongers about so-called "Christian nationalism," and voted last year against sparing children from sex-change mutilations as well as against keeping men out of girls' sports.

In past speeches, Talarico has suggested it is not "Christlike" to vote against various Democratic policies including the admittance of illegal aliens, stressing that "you can't call yourself a Christian and reject the stranger seeking asylum at our southern border."

Talarico told Phang Saturday, "I just try to ask myself a simple question when I engage in this democracy, in the political process: 'What would Jesus do?'"

"I'll just speak for myself," continued Talarico. "My faith leads me to support Vice President [Kamala] Harris and Governor [Tim] Walz in this election, out of love for my neighbors."

Phang emphasized in the interview, "I'll speak frankly: Sunday Christians — they exist, right? But real people of faith that really ascribe to the principles that come from the Bible, they don't actually stand for what Donald Trump stands for."

While it remains unclear what Harris stands for, it appears that Trump stands for border security, ending inflation, onshoring labor, "prevent[ing] World War III," and "end[ing] the weaponization of government against the American people."

Talarico's insinuation that Jesus would support a candidate who personally targeted an activist for exposing the trafficking of butchered babies' remains comes just weeks after the New York Times' self-identified evangelical David French did his best to characterize a vote for Harris as the way to "save conservatism."

Contrary to Talarico's suggestion on MSNBC and again, textually, on X, Trump was not adjudicated a rapist. Blaze News has reached out to the Trump 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!

Ezra Klein reveals Democrats never really believed what they were saying about a certain 'existential threat'



Democrats, media personalities, and other individuals with uneasy relationships with the truth have spent years suggesting that President Donald Trump is "an existential threat to our democracy."

The suggestion that the majority decision by American voters to elect a candidate disliked by the political establishment would mean the end of the very system by which they elected him has also been repeated on numerous occasions by the very man most likely to benefit from this narrative: President Joe Biden.

Shortly after a Biden official's group successfully got the Democratic incumbent's top rival temporarily removed from the primary ballot in Colorado late last year, Biden tweeted, "Trump poses many threats to our country: The right to choose, civil rights, voting rights, and America's standing in the world. But the greatest threat he poses is to our democracy."

'All these, you know, kind of phrases that are thrown about ... on the op-ed pages of the New York Times and on MSNBC.'

All this work to paint Trump as a threat to democracy has effectively been undone.

Ezra Klein, the leftist founder of Vox, revealed to a fellow traveler at another leftist blog Wednesday that Biden was not the only Democrat who appears not to have really believed in the existential threat narrative.

Tim Miller of the Bulwark told Klein on his podcast that he frequently encounters "this 'democracy is at threat,' 'it's an existential threat,' all these, you know, kind of phrases that are thrown about ... on the op-ed pages of the New York Times and on MSNBC where I frequent."

Klein later explained how top Democrats, cognizant of the likelihood Biden will suffer a humiliating defeat in November, can justify not asking him to exit the race despite their peers having floated this existential threat as a likely consequence.

'Unlike Biden and many others, I refuse to participate in a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our democratic system.'

"Top Democrats believe that if Joe Biden is on top of the ticket, he will lose, but are also not coming out and calling on him to resign. I think there are a lot of ways to say it, but I think one thing that is being revealed is that ... whatever they believe intellectually, they certainly do not believe Donald Trump is an existential threat to American democracy," said Klein.

Klein suggested he respected Democratic Maine Rep. Jared Golden's recent op-ed in the Bangor Daily News, which signaled this understanding among Democrats that Trump does not pose a risk to democracy.

Golden wrote, "While I don't plan to vote for him, Donald Trump is going to win. And I'm OK with that."

"Democrats' post-debate hand-wringing is based on the idea that a Trump victory is not just a political loss, but a unique threat to our democracy. I reject the premise. Unlike Biden and many others, I refuse to participate in a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our democratic system," continued Golden. "I urge everyone — voters, elected officials, the media, and all citizens — to ignore the chattering class' scare tactics and political pipe dreams. We don't need party insiders in smoke-filled back rooms to save us. We can defend our democracy without them."

"Golden was unusual in saying that, but I think that if you look at how a lot of these Democrats are acting, that is sort of what they believe," Klein told Miller. "People are, like, weighing this set of things, like, 'It would be quite unpleasant for me personally to come out against the president as an elected official in a Democratic Party' and weighing what will happen if Donald Trump wins and saying ... 'I can live with Donald Trump winning.' And I've had people say that to me off the record, to be fair."

"Really?" asked Miller.

"I've had top Democrats say to me basically something like, 'I don't know why all these Democrats who think Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy are acting the way they are. But the reason I'm acting the way I am is because I don't think that,'" said Klein.

"Who the f*** is this?" responded Miller. "Out your sources, Ezra! I'm about to be in leaking-text mode over here myself. Like, that is crazy."

"I find it maddening," said Klein. "But I do find it consistent. Look, you can say this is true in a lot of things, right. It's a charge Republicans always throw at liberals, which is that if they really believe climate change is a problem, they wouldn't fly on planes."

While Klein's admissions helped kill the existential threat narrative, it was already on life support thanks to Biden's recent interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos asked Biden, "If you stay in [the race] and Trump is elected, and everything you're warning about comes to pass, how will you feel in January?"

Biden answered, "I'll feel, as long as I gave it my all and I did as goodest as I know I can do, that's what this is about."

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

JD Vance shreds liberal host's narrative and backs Trump's proposal to have Biden investigated



Former President Donald Trump noted in January that if he was ultimately denied presidential immunity in his election interference case, "Then Crooked Joe Biden doesn't get Immunity, and with the Border Invasion and Afghanistan Surrender, alone, not to mention the Millions of dollars that went into his 'pockets' with money from foreign countries, Joe would be ripe for Indictment."

Trump added, "By weaponizing the DOJ against his Political Opponent, ME, Joe has opened a giant Pandora's Box."

In subsequent months, various Republicans raised the possibility that President Joe Biden and his allies might soon get a taste of their own medicine.

For instance, a fundraising email circulated by Rep. James Comer's (R-Ky.) campaign in March noted, "When President Trump returns to the White House, it's critical the new leadership at the DOJ have everything they need to prosecute the Biden Crime Family and deliver swift justice."

'Joe Biden has done exactly that for the last few years and has done far more in addition to that to engage in a campaign of lawfare against his political opposition.'

While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on July 1 that Trump and other presidents have "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within [their] conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) appears more than happy to keep alive the fear among Democrats that upon turning the tables, a Trump administration might similarly engage in lawfare.

On Sunday, Kristen Welker of NBC News' "Meet the Press" showed Vance year-old footage of Trump stating, "I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family."

Insinuating such action would be unprecedented, Welker pressed Vance on whether he would support such an initiative as Trump's vice president.

Vance, on Trump's shortlist of potential running mates, answered, "I find it interesting how much the media and the Democrats have lost their mind over this particular quote. Donald Trump is talking about appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Joe Biden for wrongdoing. Joe Biden has done exactly that for the last few years and has done far more in addition to that to engage in a campaign of lawfare against his political opposition."

"I think what Donald Trump is simply saying is, 'We ought to investigate the prior administration.' There are obviously many instances of wrongdoing," continued Vance. "The House Oversight Committee has identified a number of corrupt business transactions that may or may not be criminal. Of course, you have to investigate to find out."

Vance underscored that Trump's desire to investigate Biden is a "totally reasonable thing for him to do and frankly, the Biden administration has done far worse."

"If you think that what Donald Trump is proposing is a threat to democracy, isn't what Biden has already done a massive threat to our system of law and government?" added the Ohio Republican.

After a hurried attempt to distance the Biden White House from the prosecutions against Trump — entirely sidestepping at least one case wherein prosecutors reportedly met with elements of the White House before taking action against Trump — Welker asked Vance once more whether he would back Trump should he seek justice for Biden.

"I would absolutely support investigating prior wrongdoing by our government. Absolutely. That's what you have to have in a system of law and order," said Vance. "But I have to reject the premise here."

Vance torpedoed Welker's intimation that lawfare would be unprecedented and that Biden had nothing to do with the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith, noting that Attorney General Merrick Garland — who made the appointment — was not only handpicked by Biden but "answers to Joe Biden [and] can be fired by Joe Biden."

After indicating Biden's fingerprints were on the appointment of the special counsel who brought two indictments against his political opponent, the Ohio senator continued poking holes in the talking head's narrative framework.

Vance noted that one of the "main guys" engaged in the prosecution of Trump in New York "was a Department of Justice official in the Biden administration who jumped ship to join a local prosecutor's office to go after Donald Trump."

Vance was referencing Matthew Colangelo's migration from a senior position in the Biden DOJ — acting associate attorney general, then principal deputy associate attorney general — to a supporting role going after Trump in New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office.

Welker immediately went on the defensive, suggesting, "That happens all the time."

After indicating Welker's claim that such strategic migrations were common was rubbish, Vance reiterated that Trump's proposal is aimed at "merely reinforcing our system of law and government."

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

Instagram urges users to reconsider following Tucker Carlson in 'insane warning'



Tucker Carlson has over 3.7 million followers on Instagram. On X, he has nearly 13 million followers. While his following on X is likely far more significant because it is the ostensibly less censorious platform where Carlson routinely uploads episodes of his new show, there may be another reason to account for the delta.

Ashton DeGroot, Blaze Media's social media content coordinator, observed Monday that following Carlson is no easy feat on the Meta platform.

A perfunctory search for Carlson failed to turn up his verified account. Instead, impersonators and fan accounts flooded the results. After multiple tries, it appeared clear that Carlson's verified account would only appear if his exact handle, @TuckerCarlson, was entered into the search bar.

Upon finding Carlson's account, DeGroot found that Instagram put up one last barrier to engagement, imploring prospective followers to reconsider.

The pop-up reads, "Are you sure you want to follow tuckercarlson?"

"This account has repeatedly posted false information that was reviewed by independent fact-checkers or it went against our Community Guidelines," added the pop-up.

Blaze News did not encounter similar warning messages when test-following the accounts of various liberal personalities and publications, which have been outed peddling falsehoods and manufactured narratives.

'Luckily, people are on to this.'

The question is not, for instance, posed to potential followers of Newsweek, despite its loose relationship with the truth. Just last month, Newsweek falsely reported that Tucker Carlson had partnered with a Russian state-owned news channel, when in fact the outlet had effectively appropriated footage of Carlson's without legal permission.

Users will not similarly encounter this warning when attempting to follow Jussie Smollett, who lied incessantly about being attacked by Trump supporters in Chicago when in fact he had paid two Nigerian-born brothers to stage a fake hate crime.

"I have never seen this warning before on any account," DeGroot told Blaze News. "I was following a lot of people for [a Blaze Media account], and out of the 100+ that I followed, Tucker was the only one for whom this came up."

Screenshots taken 6/24/2024.

When asked for comment about Instagram's apparent suppression effort, Neil Patel, co-founder and CEO of the Tucker Carlson Network, told Blaze News, "Tucker has one of the largest audiences in all of media. Millions of people rely on him because they know he's trying his best to tell the truth."

"This combination of scale and independence is a serious threat to established power," continued Patel. "That is the only reason why people can't even go to a Tucker Carlson birthday post on Instagram without some insane warning."

"Luckily, people are on to this," Patel added, noting that they've elected to sidestep "big tech censors" like Instagram altogether and go straight to Tucker Carlson's website.

DeGroot similarly suspects that Instagram's efforts to dissuade people from hearing Carlson out will strike a contrarian nerve in people already familiar with him. However, "for someone who is on the fence, this could be an effective tool to keep them away."

'Today it's Tucker; tomorrow it's Blaze Media.'

"Ultimately, this is a manifestation of what Glenn [Beck] has been saying for years: The left will push conservative voices out of the public square and into the digital ghetto," continued DeGroot. "We are seeing that now with this. You will not stumble upon Tucker's content, and one day you will not stumble upon Blaze Media's content because it goes against the approved narrative and it makes the lives of those in power harder when more people hear our side."

"As a someone who works in social media and has seen the weekly, sometimes daily, changes that have taken place within Meta as we have gotten closer to the election, I feel confident in saying that this is just the beginning of the silencing of conservative voices," said DeGroot. "Today it's Tucker; tomorrow it's Blaze Media. This is why we implore the listener to become a subscriber. When you subscribe, you have direct access to the content. There is no middle man getting in the way — for now, that is.

Blaze News requested comment from Facebook on specifics related to the alleged false information Carlson shared or the guidelines he allegedly violated warranting the pop-up warning on his account. Blaze also asked about the efficacy of such suppression attempts but did not receive a reply by deadline.

This is hardly the first time Instagram or its parent company has erroneously labeled Carlson a peddler of falsehoods.

When still at Fox News in 2020, Carlson interviewed Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan, who suggested that COVID-19 "is not from nature." While the federal government has since acknowledged the strong likelihood that the virus was made in a lab, specifically the Wuhan lab where researchers took ill in late 2019 while conducting dangerous experiments on coronaviruses, Instagram rushed to label Carlson's interview "False Information" on its platform.

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

Stanford outfit that helped Biden admin 'monitor and censor Americans' online speech' is disintegrating



The Stanford Internet Observatory is the narrative curation outfit at Stanford University that reportedly worked hand-in-glove with the Biden administration and social media organizations to flag and clamp down on undesired speech, especially regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election.

Despite having proven their value to the powers that be, the key players at the SIO have recently abandoned ship. The newsletter Platformer, citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter, revealed this week that ship is now all but sunk.

Background

The SIO was founded in 2019. It took the lead on the so-called Election Integrity Partnership, which was created in July 2020 to tackle perceived wrongthink on the right in the lead-up to the presidential election and subsequently launched the Virality Project, an initiative to tackle "the dynamics specific to the COVID-19 crisis."

The narrative curation outfit received a $748,437 grant from the National Science Foundation in 2021 "to support research into the spread of misinformation on the internet" after having demonstrated its capabilities in the lead-up to the 2020 election.

The SIO features in the Twitter Files as well as in a controversial case soon to be decided concerning some of the Biden administration's First Amendment violations.

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on whether the Biden administration violated the Constitution when it leaned on social media companies to censor and suppress Americans' protected free speech in an effort to advance preferred narratives during the pandemic and in the years since.

The case in question,Murthy v. Missouri, got kicked up to the high court after Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana blocked various entities and personalities within the Biden administration from pressuring social media companies to censor "protected free speech" on their platform."

Having observed that the Biden administration "seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth,'" Judge Doughty also prohibited further governmental collaboration with the "Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or any like project or group for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content posted with social-media companies containing protected free speech."

According to the ruling, the SIO and its narrative-curation spin-offs worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and other elements of the federal government.

'Stanford and others, in collaboration with the federal government, established the EIP for the express purpose of violating Americans' civil liberties.'

Renee DiResta, a Truman National Security Project fellow who long served as research manager at the SIO and allegedly worked for the CIA, allegedly admitted that the EIP was designed to "get around unclear legal authorities, including very real First Amendment questions" that would arise if CISA or other government agencies were to monitor and flag information for censorship on social media.

The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government indicated in a November report that "Stanford and others, in collaboration with the federal government, established the EIP for the express purpose of violating Americans' civil liberties: because no federal agency 'has a focus on, or authority regarding, election misinformation originating from domestic sources within the United States,' there is 'a critical gap for non-governmental entities to fill.'"

"EIP's managers both report misinformation to platforms and communicate with government partners about their misinformation reports," said Doughty's ruling. "Social-media platforms that participated in the EIP were Facebook, Instagram, Google/YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, Reddit, Nextdoor, Discord, and Pinterest."

In the 2020 election cycle, the EIP processed 639 "tickets," 72% of which were related to delegitimizing the election results. Overall, social-media platforms took action on 35% of the URLs reported to them. One "ticket" could include an entire idea or narrative and was not always just one post. Less than 1% of the tickets related to "foreign interference."

The tickets "encompassed millions of social-media posts" and sometimes flagged as "misinformation" truthful reports "that the EIP believes 'lack broader context.'"

The EIP usually targeted content on the political right and allegedly "called for expansive censorship of social-media speech into other areas such as 'public health.'"

The Virality Project assumed this role when it came to the pandemic.

Matt Taibbi indicated on the basis of exposed SIO emails that after the "2020 election, when EIP was renamed the Virality Project, the Stanford lab was on-boarded to Twitter's JIRA ticketing system, absorbing this government proxy into Twitter infrastructure — with a capability of taking in an incredible 50 million tweets a day."

Taibbi highlighted that in one email, the Virality Project recommended that social media platforms take action even against "stories of true vaccine side effects" and "true posts which could fuel hesitancy."

The Virality Project, whose final 2022 report listed DiResta as principal executive director, apparently called for "more aggressive censorship of COVID-19 misinformation ... for more federal agencies to be involved through 'cross-agency collaboration,' and ... for a 'whole-of-society response.'"

"The Virality Project also targeted the alleged COVID-19 misinformation for censorship before it could go viral," said the ruling.

The ruling noted that like the EIP, the Virality Project predominantly targeted American content, in many cases without any evidence of it being false. Tucker Carlson, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Alex Berenson were among the Americans the Virality Project branded as purveyors of misinformation.

According to Taibbi, the SIO-Twitter relationship amounted to the "ultimate example of the absolute fusion of state corporate, and civil society organizations." He dubbed the result the "Censorship Industrial Complex."

Jumping ship

Platformer indicated that DiResta left the SIO last week after her contract was not renewed. Another staff member's contract apparently expired, while others at the outfit have been allegedly told to find employment elsewhere.

SIO's founding director and EIP co-founder Alex Stamos jumped ship in November, just months after he gave testimony in a transcribed interview before the House Judiciary Committee.

According to Platformer, what remains of SIO will be "reconstituted" under the lab's faculty sponsor, communications professor Jeff Hancock. The outfit's Journal of Online Trust and Safety and corresponding conference will apparently continue, thanks in the former case to the funding of the Omidyar Network.

The university has attempted to put a positive spin on the organization's ostensible dismantling, telling the newsletter in a statement, "The important work of SIO continues under new leadership, including its critical work on child safety and other online harms, its publication of the Journal of Online Trust and Safety, the Trust and Safety Research Conference, and the Trust and Safety Teaching Consortium."

"Stanford remains deeply concerned about efforts, including lawsuits and congressional investigations, that chill freedom of inquiry and undermine legitimate and much needed academic research — both at Stanford and across academia," added the university.

The House Judiciary GOP account suggested on X that this turn of events is a "BIG WIN," and Elon Musk said it was "progress."

While many free speech advocates and victims of censorship similarly celebrated the news that SIO may be winding down, others indicated similar initiatives will crop up.

Bret Weinstein noted, "The enemies of freedom will morph, and regroup, of course. We should expect them — and the natural immunity we now have should shut them down whenever and wherever the infection re-emerges."

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