‘No Kings’ is the clown show covering for a coup



In June, the left launched its “No Kings” protest to denounce the horrific “authoritarian dictatorship” of Donald Trump. Deporting illegal alien gang members, preventing the mutilation of children, and punishing criminals all became proof of Trump’s incipient “fascism.”

Now that Trump has deployed National Guard troops to stop violent leftist mobs from attacking ICE officers, Democrats and the left have decided to stage a sequel on Saturday. The whole thing will look like farce — clever signs, bad folk music, and stale slogans — but behind the clown show, the left is radicalizing shock troops preparing to do real violence.

The ‘No Kings’ spectacle will fill news segments and late-night monologues, but it’s just camouflage.

No myth runs deeper in American life than the idea that peaceful protest drives reform. Boomers grew up believing that singing folk songs, waving witty signs, and smoking pot were powerful tools of change. The media sanctified the calm resolve of civil rights marches and the flower-child theatrics of the anti-war movement as the true engines of progress. As usual, Hollywood left out the ugly parts.

Those movements also produced riots, rapes, arson, bombings, and murders. The violence was so widespread that Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign ran one of the most famous ads in political history promising to restore law and order. The peaceful demonstrators made for good television, but it was the violence that moved the needle. No one likes to say it aloud, but the violence worked.

The first round of “No Kings” protests had respectable turnout but achieved nothing. Leftists filled the streets to mock Trump and chant about freedom, but no policies changed, and no momentum followed. Trump’s approval may have slipped to the mid-40s, but Democrats still wallow in the low-30s. Americans may be weary, but the protests haven’t persuaded them that the Democrats can govern.

Violence has been far more effective. The assassination of Charlie Kirk has made conservative campus events nearly impossible. Universities now demand absurd security fees or simply cancel appearances outright, citing “safety concerns.” The threat doesn’t come from the speaker — it comes from the activists university officials refuse to restrain. Several conservative commentators are stepping in to finish Kirk’s tour, but the assassin’s veto has reshaped the landscape.

Violence also brought Jimmy Kimmel back to late-night television. After he lied about Kirk’s assassination, sponsors complained, and two major affiliates refused to run his show. Sinclair Broadcasting even planned to air a Kirk tribute in his slot. Then came bomb threats, followed by gunfire targeting an ABC station in California. Sinclair folded, scrapped the tribute, and restored Kimmel to the lineup. Terrorism works. It succeeds where boycotts fail.

RELATED: Evil unchecked always spreads — and Democrats are proof

Blaze Media Illustration

Mob action has disrupted immigration enforcement too. Leftists have assaulted ICE officers, blocked arrests, surrounded vehicles, and tried to plant explosives. One would-be assassin aimed for agents but only killed detainees. Trump’s Justice Department has begun cracking down, but the left keeps escalating. They’ve learned that violence yields results.

It’s hard to take Democrats seriously when they wail about “authoritarianism.” They jailed Trump officials, abortion protesters, meme-makers, and even the president himself. They don’t fear power — they crave it. What they hate is losing it.

Organizers claim that more than 2,000 “No Kings” protests are set for the weekend. The biggest ones will draw crowds, mostly aging Boomers reliving their youth. They’ll march, sing, and pretend to matter. But the real movement isn’t in the drum circles. It’s with people like Jay Jones, the Virginia attorney general candidate who still enjoys Democratic support despite texting fantasies about murdering the children of conservatives. That’s the true face of the modern left. They’re not waving signs — they’re plotting.

The “No Kings” spectacle will fill news segments and late-night monologues, but it’s just camouflage. Behind it stands an organized, violent movement convinced that terror is legitimate politics. These people don’t want debate. They want obedience — and they’re willing to bleed us for it.

It’s Time To Stop Live Streaming Church

Streaming removes us from the sacred and has become an excuse to avoid fellowship, while presenting numerous safety and privacy concerns.

UATX An Outlier Among Colleges In Expressing Opposition To Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

The dean of UATX wrote to students and faculty describing security measures in place and reaffirming UATX’s commitment to free speech.

Washington, D.C., Feels Neither Safe Nor Clean Because It’s Not

When your daily life in a city is marked by a series of fearsome conversations, signs of squalor, and dangerous encounters, no rational person can call it safe.

The same people who took your shoes now want your face



The Trump administration recently ended the Transportation Security Administration’s outdated shoe-removal rule — a long-overdue rollback of post-9/11 security theater. But at the same time, it’s resisting a bipartisan push to rein in something far more intrusive: the agency’s unregulated use of facial recognition technology at airports.

The Traveler Privacy Protection Act — co-sponsored by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) — would set limits on the TSA’s biometric surveillance program at airports.

Facial recognition checkpoints are already being piloted at major airports. TSA officials have made clear that their goal is to replace traditional IDs altogether.

Here’s what the bill does:

  • Restores consent: Manual ID checks would become the default again. Passengers would have to opt in to facial recognition. The TSA would be required to notify travelers clearly that they can opt out.
  • Limits retention: Most biometric data would have to be deleted within 24 hours.
  • Restricts sharing: The TSA could no longer hand over biometric data to other federal agencies or private entities, except in very narrow circumstances.

The legislation follows a bipartisan letter sent in November 2023 to the Department of Homeland Security inspector general, requesting a full audit of the TSA’s biometric collection, retention, deletion, and cybersecurity protocols. The letter was co-authored by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

“TSA has not provided Congress with evidence that facial recognition technology is necessary to catch fraudulent documents, decrease wait times, or stop terrorists from boarding planes,” the senators wrote.

Despite that, the TSA appears to be quietly lobbying against the bill.

When asked directly whether the TSA was fighting the legislation, Kennedy said: “The short answer is yes; the long answer is hell yes.”

Behind-the-scenes pressure

The Senate Commerce Committee had planned to mark up the bill just before the August recess. But at the last minute, the legislation was pulled from the docket.

Officially, the travel industry raised concerns. But Politico reported that behind the scenes, TSA leadership — backed by political appointees — played a central role in derailing the bill. Republican staffers familiar with the process said the agency helped coordinate opposition that ultimately killed the markup.

It’s not hard to see why TSA brass would resist oversight.

Acting TSA Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill previously served as TSA chief of staff during part of Trump’s first term. After leaving government, she joined BigBear.ai, a company specializing in facial recognition and identity verification powered by artificial intelligence. She eventually became the firm’s president.

Now she’s back — nominated to lead the TSA for the duration of Trump’s administration.

AI, contracts, and civil liberties

Under McNeill’s leadership, the TSA has pushed to expand its use of AI-powered surveillance tools. In 2023, officials openly discussed plans to eliminate boarding passes and photo IDs altogether in favor of biometric scans.

“Imagine embarking on a journey where the seamless orchestration of technology transforms traditional security checkpoints,” said Kristin Ruiz, the TSA’s deputy chief information officer, at an AI summit last year. “AI-powered advancements signify an evolution driven by data science, analytics, and intelligent automation.”

That vision may sound efficient. But it’s also a red flag for anyone who doesn’t want American airports to become nodes in a Chinese-style surveillance state.

The TSA isn’t alone. The Department of Homeland Security has been inking massive contracts with tech companies specializing in surveillance.

Palantir Technologies, co-founded by Trump ally Peter Thiel, has landed a $1 billion contract with the DHS. The company also has similar contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Pentagon, now worth a combined $10 billion.

RELATED: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal

Photo by DAVID MCNEW/AFP via Getty Images

Palantir’s market cap now exceeds $400 billion — bigger than Home Depot or Coca-Cola. Since its first DHS deal was announced in April, the company’s stock price has jumped 131%.

It doesn’t need a marketing team. The federal government is its customer.

Palantir has also benefited from the revolving door.

  • Gregory Barbaccia, Palantir’s former head of intelligence, now serves as the chief information officer of the federal government.
  • Clark Minor, a longtime Palantir employee, now holds the same role at HHS.
  • Jacob Helberg, a senior adviser to Palantir CEO Alex Karp, was appointed to lead the State Department’s economic and trade policy.

This is the ecosystem driving the TSA’s resistance to reform: private contractors, political insiders, and intelligence bureaucrats profiting from biometric surveillance — at your expense.

The stakes

Facial recognition checkpoints are already being piloted at major airports. TSA officials have made clear that their goal is to replace traditional IDs altogether. And if this bill fails, there may be no legal limit to how far the agency can go.

Congress has a choice: Protect passengers or protect the Big Tech-Big Government industrial complex.

At the very least, senators should not confirm McNeill without hard, enforceable commitments: clear opt-outs, data deletion requirements, and strict limits on sharing and retention. The federal government should not be harvesting and storing your face just so a contractor can hit its quarterly earnings target.

You don’t build a free society by handing over the keys to Big Tech and hoping the companies don’t abuse them.

Anonymous, Gun-Themed Website Targeting Rep. Hageman Referred To The FEC

The website's cookies can see you, but you can’t communicate with it or know anything about the humans behind it.

'You can come here': Secret Service officer allegedly compromises White House security, mocks Trump to woo stranger



President Donald Trump was struck by a would-be assassin's bullet this time last year in an attack that injured two others and claimed the life of Corey Comperatore. The U.S. Secret Service has since been under intense scrutiny.

Two reports released over the weekend highlighted the agency's deadly failures in Butler — saying nothing of the agency's other potential failures with regard to the alleged attempt on Trump's life 64 days later at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach.

The first report, which was requested by U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and released by the Government Accountability Office on Saturday, highlighted numerous USSS procedural and planning errors that helped set the stage for the July 13 shooting.

'I'm liberal, voted that way since I was 18.'

The second report, released Sunday by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, described the events at the bloody Pennsylvania rally as a "cascade of preventable failures that nearly cost President Trump his life" and emphasized that the "consequences imposed for the failures so far do not reflect the severity of the situation."

Project Veritas provided a damning indication this week that the USSS has yet to learn its lesson and shape up.

According to the investigative journalism outfit, an officer violated Secret Service protocol, possibly compromised White House security, and disparaged the president, all in an apparent attempt to woo a stranger he met on a dating site who turned out to be an undercover reporter.

RELATED: Secret Service suspends 6 agents over Trump assassination attempt — but some argue the real story is who didn't get punished

Amanda Andrade-Rhoades for the Washington Post via Getty Images

The Bold.pro profile for Marc Hendrickson Jr. indicates that he is a USSS uniformed division officer who "provides protection and access control for all White House events to include official state visits and state dinners, congressional events, bilateral meetings, bill signings, receptions, daily tours etc." and whose protectees include the president, the first lady, the vice president, and Cabinet members.

Hendrickson has supposedly been with the agency since July 2021.

Project Veritas alleges that Hendrickson, without knowing the identity of the female journalist, invited her on a dating app — which appears to be Bumble — to "come here" and see him at the White House; sent a photo from the White House, boasting that he works there "every day"; disclosed potentially sensitive operational details; and denigrated the president.

'Nothing is more important to the Secret Service than the safety and security of our protectees.'

Hendrickson allegedly texted, "If you want, I can show you where I am right now for work," then shared a picture taken on the White House South Lawn.

In another message, the agent confirmed that he was at the White House.

Hendrickson allegedly stated in another message thread, "I'm liberal, voted that way since I was 18."

When the female journalist later wrote, "I can't stand the felon in office," Hendrickson allegedly responded, "Yeah he's doing a lot of whacky [sic] s**t right now," adding, "It seems like everyday [sic] it's something new."

— (@)

"Hendrickson's reckless actions — inviting an unknown individual to the White House, sharing sensitive photos, and disclosing operational details — expose a severe lapse in judgment and a dangerous breach of security," said Project Veritas. "This behavior reveals how easily he could be compromised or manipulated by adversaries, potentially granting hostile actors critical access or intelligence that jeopardizes the safety of President Trump and the nation."

The USSS reportedly told Project Veritas that the matter is under review.

Blaze News has reached out to the White House, to the USSS, and to the Department of Homeland Security for comment.

"Nothing is more important to the Secret Service than the safety and security of our protectees," Secret Service Director Sean Curran said in a statement last week. "As director, I am committed to ensuring our agency is fully equipped, resourced, and aligned to carry out our important mission each and every day."

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

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal



Picture your local leaders — the ones you elect to defend your rights and reflect your values — stripped of the power to regulate the most powerful technology ever invented. Not in some dystopian future. In Congress. Right now.

Buried in the House version of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a provision that would block every state in the country from passing any AI regulations for the next 10 years.

The idea that Washington can prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.

An earlier Senate draft took a different route, using federal funding as a weapon: States that tried to pass their own AI laws would lose access to key resources. But the version the Senate passed on July 1 dropped that language entirely.

Now House and Senate Republicans face a choice — negotiate a compromise or let the "big, beautiful bill" die.

The Trump administration has supported efforts to bar states from imposing their own AI regulations. But with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act already facing a rocky path through Congress, President Trump is likely to sign it regardless of how lawmakers resolve the question.

Supporters of a federal ban on state-level AI laws have made thoughtful and at times persuasive arguments. But handing Washington that much control would be a serious error.

A ban would concentrate power in the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats and weaken the constitutional framework that protects individual liberty. It would ignore the clear limits the Constitution places on federal authority.

Federalism isn’t a suggestion

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states or the people. That includes the power to regulate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

For more than 200 years, federalism has safeguarded American freedom by allowing states to address the specific needs and values of their citizens. It lets states experiment — whether that means California mandating electric vehicles or Texas fostering energy freedom.

If states can regulate oil rigs and wind farms, surely they can regulate server farms and machine learning models.

A federal case for caution

David Sacks — tech entrepreneur and now the White House’s AI and crypto czar — has made a thoughtful case on X for a centralized federal approach to AI regulation. He warns that letting 50 states write their own rules could create a chaotic patchwork, stifle innovation, and weaken America’s position in the global AI race.

— (@)

Those concerns aren’t without merit. Sacks underscores the speed and scale of AI development and the need for a strategic, national response.

But the answer isn’t to strip states of their constitutional authority.

America’s founders built a system designed to resist such centralization. They understood that when power moves farther from the people, government becomes less accountable. The American answer to complexity isn’t uniformity imposed from above — it’s responsive governance closest to the people.

Besides, complexity isn’t new. States already handle it without descending into chaos. The Uniform Commercial Code offers a clear example: It governs business law across all 50 states with remarkable consistency — without federal coercion.

States also have interstate compacts (official agreements between states) on several issues, including driver’s licenses and emergency aid.

AI regulation can follow a similar path. Uniformity doesn’t require surrendering state sovereignty.

State regulation is necessary

The threats posed by artificial intelligence aren’t theoretical. Mass surveillance, cultural manipulation, and weaponized censorship are already at the doorstep.

In the wrong hands, AI becomes a tool of digital tyranny. And if federal leaders won’t act — or worse, block oversight entirely — then states have a duty to defend liberty while they still can.

RELATED: Your job, your future, your humanity: AI just crossed the line we can never undo

BlackJack3D via iStock/Getty Images

From banning AI systems that impersonate government officials to regulating the collection and use of personal data, local governments are often better positioned to protect their communities. They’re closer to the people. They hear the concerns firsthand.

These decisions shouldn’t be handed over to unelected federal agencies, no matter how well intentioned the bureaucracy claims to be.

The real danger: Doing nothing

This is not a question of partisanship. It’s a question of sovereignty. The idea that Washington, D.C., can or should prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.

If Republicans in Congress are serious about defending liberty, they should reject any proposal that strips states of their constitutional right to govern themselves. Let California be California. Let Texas be Texas. That’s how America was designed to work.

Artificial intelligence may change the world, but it should never be allowed to change who we are as a people. We are free citizens in a self-governing republic, not subjects of a central authority.

It’s time for states to reclaim their rightful role and for Congress to remember what the Constitution actually says.

Every Church Needs A Security Plan Fortified By The Second Amendment

Until Jesus comes back, churches should anticipate the persistence of crime, tragedy, and death and arm themselves accordingly.

After The Terrorist Attack In Boulder, Congress Must Reform Visitor Visas

Nearly half of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. initially entered legally with visitor visas and then overstayed their permitted time.