Democrats Are Lying to Themselves About Why Their Party Is Collapsing
Democrats now find themselves in an approval death spiral because their strategy invariably emphasizes style over substance.Democrats now find themselves in an approval death spiral because their strategy invariably emphasizes style over substance.From Obama to CNN: How the liberal media helped facilitate the 'treasonous conspiracy' about Russian collusion
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has released a treasure trove of evidence revealing how former President Barack Obama and his national security Cabinet members had, as many long suspected, apparently "manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump."
Both before and after the 2016 election, the understanding among intelligence officials appears to have been that Russia had likely not interfered, particularly by using cyber means, to influence the outcome.
Gabbard revealed, however, that before this conclusion could be delivered to the American public, the Obama White House seemingly intervened to set an alternative narrative — a narrative largely based on the Steele dossier, a political opposition research report paid for in part by the Clinton campaign, which the intelligence community knew to be devoid of credibility.
'They weren't in Russia; they never made a phone call to Russia; they never received a phone call.'
This false narrative, which was initially fed piecemeal through leaks to the liberal media and then officially advanced through a reworked intelligence assessment published on Jan. 6, 2017, served "as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high-level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened U.S.-Russia tensions, and more," Gabbard said.
The success of what Gabbard characterized as a "treasonous conspiracy" was largely reliant on the participation of the liberal media, whose assistance took on various forms but in some cases was as simple as framing unnamed partisan sources from the previous administration not only as credible but noble.
For instance, in March 2017, the New York Times explained away Obama officials' eagerness to push the Russian collusion narrative before President Donald Trump took office not as an attempt to "make an excuse for their own defeat in the election," as then-White House spokesman Sean Spicer put it, but rather as a heroic effort to protect legitimate intelligence from obfuscation or destruction:
Mr. Trump has denied that his campaign had any contact with Russian officials, and at one point he openly suggested that American spy agencies had cooked up intelligence suggesting that the Russian government had tried to meddle in the presidential election. Mr. Trump has accused the Obama administration of hyping the Russia story line as a way to discredit his new administration. At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump's statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.
This explanation was followed paragraphs later by the claim that Obama directed none of the efforts.
One month prior, Trump — whose transition team emphasized early on that the intelligence agencies alleging Russian interference were "the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction" — called the Russia narrative a "scam."
"You can talk all you want about Russia, which was all a, you know, fake news, fabricated deal, to try and make up for the loss of the Democrats, and the press plays right into it," Trump said during a Feb. 16, 2017, press conference. "In fact, I saw a couple of the people that were supposedly involved with all of this — that they know nothing about it; they weren't in Russia; they never made a phone call to Russia; they never received a phone call."
The Poynter Institute's PolitiFact, among the publications that made good use of the reworked intelligence assessment, leaned on the apparently Obama-skewed document when insinuating that Trump's remarks at the press conference were false.
The Washington Post, which was among the biggest media proponents of the hoax, readily and routinely leaned on the input and framing of fierce Trump critics, including those apparently involved in the manufacture of the Russian collusion hoax, such as ex-CIA Director John Brennan.
In its long-standing effort to portray Trump as guilty and defensive, the paper also tracked how many times the president and those in the White House denied Russian collusion.
'The integrity of our democratic republic demands that every person involved be investigated and brought to justice to prevent this from ever happening again.'
Unhinged Trump critics such as Anne Applebaum, the writer who smeared as propagandists early proponents of the pandemic lab-leak theory and wasted ink last year imagining parallels between Trump and various 20th-century dictators, kept Washington Post readers' hope alive that they were getting closer to "direct evidence" of collusion, while over at CNN commentators worked as if it there were proof that Russia interfered to get Trump elected.
Former CNN editor at large Chris Cillizza suggested in a 2018 piece that Trump's refusal to play along with the hoax was a likely sign that Moscow had compromising information on the president. This, for Cillizza, made more sense than the notion "in Trump's mind [that] any talk of Russian interference in the election is an attempt to undermine the 'brilliant campaign' (his words) he ran in 2016 and somehow invalidate his victory."
Days later, CNN's Marshall Cohen identified "10 ways Trump has strayed from his own intelligence agencies on Russian meddling" — a piece that now serves to memorialize the media's misplaced faith in the intelligence community and to vindicate Trump's skepticism.
While the newly released documents from the DNI both salt the remains of the Russian collusion hoax and justify Trump's use of the term "fake news" in reference to numerous publications, the documents could prove far more impactful for those who constructed the false narrative. After all, Gabbard referred the documents to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution.
"These documents detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate," Gabbard wrote.
The director of national intelligence added, "The integrity of our democratic republic demands that every person involved be investigated and brought to justice to prevent this from ever happening again."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!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
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!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com