Netflix is up to its old feminist tricks with the new show “Adolescence” — a miniseries that initially appears to be a crime thriller but ultimately unfolds into blatant propaganda that paints white men in a negative light.
The story centers around a young white boy accused of murdering one of his female classmates, who cyberbullied the young boy and called him an “incel.” The term, meaning “involuntary celibate,” orbits around the online “manosphere” and red-pill movements.
“I don’t like the demonization of any group based on skin color, and I don’t like the denial that the demonization of white men and white people and particularly white evangelicals is going on globally, and we can see it right here in this miniseries that Netflix has put on,” Jason Whitlock of “Fearless” comments.
While the entire series is clear in its anti-man message, episode two is where Whitlock says, “They play a big card.”
That is, it brings Andrew Tate into the show by name.
“You’ve got this murder of a young teenage girl by a 13-year-old boy, and the next thing you know, halfway through episode two, they’re basically saying, ‘Well, you know what the motive is? He was radicalized by Andrew Tate,’” Whitlock explains, noting that this is where the show quotes the online red-pill accounts that say 80% of women are attracted to only 20% of men.
While Whitlock abhors much of what Tate has done or said in the past, he’s not on board with a “four-part series that basically says Andrew Tate is the driving force of this.”
“This all connects to the demonization of white men, ‘cause that’s what this miniseries is about, that the patriarchal ways of Western civilization have clearly outlived their usefulness, and that the solution to fixing angry young men is bowing, submitting to female leadership and more female involvement in everything,” Whitlock says.
“They’ve set up Andrew Tate as the scapegoat, as the distraction. The manosphere, the red-pill movement, all these angry men that reject feminism, they’re the problem,” he adds, noting that they’ll never go after the real problems plaguing society.
Which is why Whitlock is taking the conversation to one of the greatest conservative voices out there today on Friday, May 2.
“I just want to set the table for a conversation I’m going to have with Tucker Carlson,” Whitlock says. “Because it’s important. The demonization of white men that’s going on in global culture. Netflix, the U.K., everywhere. Everybody’s doing the Macarena on white men.”
To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Forget about the woke left. Conservatives have a new, homegrown movement on their hands that Jason Whitlock of “Fearless” calls the “woke lite.”
“The conservatives who think and operate and literally have seized power and want things to run in the exact same way that leftists ran things. They want people canceled,” Whitlock explains. “They don’t want any kind of discussion that makes people uncomfortable or contradicts their narrative.”
“I’m not surprised that people seize power and then want to act in the exact same fashion as everyone else, the people they were complaining about to get power. I’m not shocked at all,” he continues, noting that Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Candace Owens have all recently been targeted by the “woke lite” for their willingness to speak to anyone regardless of their opinions.
“So to see conservatives feel like, ‘Oh my God, Tucker Carlson’s beyond the pale, Candace Owens is beyond the pale, Joe Rogan, beyond the pale, Daryl Cooper, beyond the pale,’ doesn’t surprise me at all. Most people talk a game that they don’t actually want to live,” he adds.
Which, Whitlock notes, is exactly what the left has done in the past and still do now.
“A lot of these black activists, they’re not anti-racist; they want to benefit from racism,” he says, explaining that voices like Stephen A. Smith have insinuated that Tucker Carlson is racist only to benefit himself. But it goes both ways. “Conservatives, they don’t want free speech, they want to control speech. They want to censor speech. They want it all their way," he says.
Whitlock has also been a target of the kinds of attacks levied at Rogan, Carlson, and Owens, which is another reason why he knows that most of the attacks are likely empty.
“I don’t believe the things that have been said about me, and that’s why I’m suspicious of the things that are being said about them,” he says.
To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The mainstream media's left-wing bias is far from a brand-new topic.
Blaze News readers may recall a fairly big story in the fall of 2021 when Netflix employees staged protests in Hollywood against their company's decision to stream Dave Chappelle's comedy special "The Closer" due to what they characterized as his "transphobic comments" in it.
'The Fake News losers at CNN tried to fact check President Trump saying Biden spent $8 million on "making mice transgender," but President Trump was right (as usual).'
Amid the outrage, a prominent Netflix showrunner quit in protest; the company suspended three employees — including a queer trans worker — for crashing an executive meeting focused on Chappelle; and Netflix fired the organizer of a planned walkout for leaking confidential data related to Chappelle's special.
But during that very walkout, a big surprise took place: One guy showed up amid the furor to defend Chappelle. He's pictured below:
As you might guess, the protesting militants tried to intimidate him and shut down his free speech, but it didn't work.
Not so surprising was that the Associated Press got the idea that the Chappelle supporter was the one screaming profanities at protesters — and Variety actually called him the aggressor. Well, both outlets eventually admitted their reporting errors and walked things back.
Fast-forward to President Donald Trump's March 4 address to a joint session of Congress and his eye-popping claim that among the long and still-growing list of governmental waste is "$8 million for making mice transgender."
On cue, CNN initially said Trump's claim was false, adding that it couldn't determine where the president came up with the $8 million figure. Soon, though, the article was corrected to say the claim "needed context" and deleted the content calling it false.
"An earlier version of this item incorrectly characterized as false Trump's claim about federal money being spent for 'making mice transgender.' The article has been updated with context about the spending, which was for research students on the potential human health impacts of treatments used in gender-affirming care," the article read.
The two versions were posted to social media by the popular Libs of TikTok account, and many mocked CNN over the error — and then the White House joined in on its official social media account: "The Fake News losers at CNN tried to fact check President Trump saying Biden spent $8 million on 'making mice transgender,' but President Trump was right (as usual)."
The same left-wing media bias and the same result.
The following are a number of other recent examples of when the mainstream media's left-wing bias costs them credibility:
Joe Rogan slammed MSNBC for “deceptively editing” a video clip that made it appear that the massively popular podcaster was praising then-Vice President Kamala Harris when he actually was talking about Tulsi Gabbard.
Here's how it went down: During an episode of "The Joe Rogan Experience" podcast with guest Michael Malice that aired July 30, Rogan torched Democrats for not embracing Gabbard as a presidential candidate, and he touted Gabbard as "a strong woman." MSNBC posted the clip on its TikTok page and edited it to make it appear that Rogan was referring to Harris rather than to Gabbard.
Gabbard on Aug. 2 posted the MSNBC clip on her X with the caption: "MSNBC is again EXPOSED as a propaganda machine for the Democrat Elite, and how they will brazenly try to deceive the American people." She described the MSNBC clip as "completely false."
MSNBC has since replaced the questionable clip and issued a correction: "We have removed an earlier version of this post that incorrectly implied Joe Rogan was talking more about Vice President Kamala Harris. He was referring to Tulsi Gabbard."
Rogan also commented on the edited MSNBC clip during a podcast episode, saying the news network "took a clip of me talking about Tulsi Gabbard, and they edited it up and made it look like I was saying great things about Kamala Harris." Rogan added, "They just deceptively edited the things I was saying."
Rogan blasted MSNBC: "They don’t care about the truth; they just want a narrative to get out there amongst enough people because most people are just surface readers."
“We’re in a very weird time with media, and I think truth is super important," he continued. "I think someone that’s willing to do something like that — that’s a real offense. It's a real offense. It's not a small thing. It's a real lie, and it’s a lie that changes other people's opinions."
The Associated Press on Jan. 3, 2024, took plenty of heat for three tidbits it published.
Elon Musk, among the AP's many critics, responded to one of the awkward instances, writing on X that "the @AP has the woke mind virus growing out of its head like a giant mushroom!"
Blaze News detailed the first instance, noting the AP covered the resignation of Harvard President Claudine Gay with the following headline: "Harvard president's resignation highlights new conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism."
But the AP's corresponding post on X was flagged with Community Notes emphasizing the absurdity of the title and the article's premise. Later in the day, the AP changed the headline to "Plagiarism charges downed Harvard's president. A conservative attack helped to fan the outrage." This alteration was executed without an editorial note.
The AP ultimately told Blaze News why it had made the change: "The initial story didn't meet our standards, so we updated it."
Also in its article about Gay, the AP's Collin Binkley and Moriah Balingit highlighted a tweet from Christopher Rufo that reads, "SCALPED," in response to the news that Gay had resigned. The AP claimed Rufo's tweet was written "as if Gay was a trophy of violence, invoking a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists who sought to eradicate Native Americans."
But Musk opined, "Woe, the @AP hasn't merely drunk the woke Kool-Aid, they are swimming in it!" He added, "Somehow, indigenous peoples went from being referred to almost exclusively as baby-killing savages to almost exclusively being referred to as noble, peace-loving ecologists! In reality, all peoples back then did terrible things by modern western standards. Slavery, for example, was standard practice worldwide, including within Africa, until a few hundred years ago and was stamped out by force primarily by the British."
Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' press secretary Jeremy Redfern asked Balingit and Binkley for a response after sharing an image of a white man who had been scalped as a boy by Sioux Indians. Finally, the AP edited the paragraph about Rufo — without an editorial note — to read: "On X, formerly Twitter, he wrote 'SCALPED,' as if Gay was a trophy of violence, invoking a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists who sought to eradicate Native Americans and also used by some tribes against their enemies."
The AP also on that day published an article titled, "Things to know about Minnesota's new, non-racist state flag and seal," which concerns the final decision on a new state flag from the Minnesota Emblems Redesign Commission. The AP apparently concluded that the old flag — which depicts an Indian riding a horse and a farmer plowing his field — is racist. The new flag by 24-year-old white designer Andrew Prekker is a minimalist, starred tricolor. Facing additional criticism, the AP changed the headline to "Things to know about Minnesota's new state flag and seal."
Blaze News staff writer Joseph MacKinnon noted: "The AP is evidently cognizant of its embarrassing errors, granted it has been desperately attempting to correct them. However, this corrective effort has been made all the more difficult by the fact that myriad publications across the nation routinely regurgitate the AP's articles — meaning those errors continue to live on coast to coast despite the agency's centralized efforts to make stealth edits and title changes."
Esquire magazine published an article late last year that ripped Republicans' criticism of then-President Joe Biden for pardoning his son Hunter because, the piece said, former Republican President George H.W. Bush pardoned his own son Neil.
"Nobody defines Poppy Bush's presidency by his son's struggles or the pardons he issued on his way out of the White House," read the subheading of Dec. 3 article by Charles P. Pierce. "The moral: Shut the f**k up about Hunter Biden, please."
The problem? Bush never issued such a pardon. Soon, the humiliating falsehood was discovered, and Esquire issued a correction: "Editor's note: This story has been updated. An earlier version stated incorrectly that George H.W. Bush gave a presidential pardon to his son, Neil Bush. Esquire regrets the error." Before long, the magazine deleted the story altogether — but the publication was raked over the coals:
In early November 2024, CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan repeated false accusations suggesting that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump threatened former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.), prompting then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to correct the record.
It all started after Rubio argued that Trump would promote safety and security in the U.S. and abroad, after which Brennan said Trump spoke of "training guns on the face of Liz Cheney." Rubio shot back, "That's not what he said."
Brennan initially defended her assertion because, according to her, CBS producers had played a "sound bite" of Trump accusing Cheney of being a so-called chicken hawk. But CBS played only a sound-bite of Trump's remarks — not the full context.
"Donald Trump doesn't talk like someone who's been in Washington for 30 years," Rubio defended. "Training guns on her face?" Brennan replied, after which Rubio shot back, "He doesn't say it the way I would have said it, no, but that's not what he said, Margaret. You guys know that. Come on. I mean, everybody knows exactly what he was saying."
Brennan wouldn't concede, telling Rubio, "We played the sound-bite." But Rubio answered her with the facts: "No, you played a piece of the sound-bite, because, in another piece of it, he said he would give her a gun to go stand in conflict as well. You don't normally give a gun to someone that is going to be facing a firing squad, which is what much of the media made it sound like. The point he was making is not a new point. It is a point that has been made by people in both parties for decades. And that is: You're all for war, and it's easy to be for war when you're in some fancy building, and you're safe and sound in Washington, D.C." Only after that did Brennan give up defending her faulty point.
In late January, Brennan tried her tactics with newly elected Vice President JD Vance, trying to corner him over the Trump administration's immigration policy and suggesting that removing illegal aliens and ending birthright citizenship is anti-American. "This is a country founded by immigrants," she declared.
Vance shot back, saying, "Just because we were founded by immigrants doesn't mean that 240 years later, we have to have the dumbest immigration policy in the world" and that "America should actually look out for the interests of our citizens first."
Brennan changed course and pressed Vance on the administration's moratorium on refugee admissions, insinuating hypocrisy on the part of the vice president. After more of her attempts to poke holes in Trump's immigration policies, Vance cut off Brennan and famously said, "I don't really care, Margaret. I don't want that person in my country, and I think most Americans agree with me."
Finally, Brennan was back interviewing Rubio last month and actually suggested that free speech set the stage for the Holocaust. Of course, Rubio wasn't having any of it, and he eventually told Brennan, "I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews, and they hated minorities, and they hated those that they — they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews."
Remember when then-presidential candidate Donald Trump put on a McDonald's apron and handed out french fries from a drive-thru window last October? Remember when Newsweek tried to "debunk" Trump's obvious stunt, designed to mock his opponent, Kamala Harris, for claiming without evidence that she once worked at a McDonald's?
Newsweek's headline actually read, "Rumors have been circulating on social media that former President Donald Trump's visit to the popular fast-food chain was staged." You don't say!
As you might guess, critics mocked Newsweek's article into oblivion:
A mere five months prior to Newsweek's mock-worthy piece on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump working the drive-thru window at a McDonald's, the magazine published a story claiming Tucker Carlson had launched a show on Russia 24 — a state-controlled Russian media outlet. Newsweek cited as its source a newspaper owned and controlled by the Russian government.
The story quickly spread online, leading to accusations that Carlson was "quite literally, a mouthpiece of the Russian state" and that Carlson "has now embraced his master," a reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Of course, Newsweek's report was shown to be false, and the magazine updated and corrected its story. The false claim appears to have originated from Ukraine’s Institute of Mass Information and Ukraine Pravda.
In March 2024, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof posted a bizarre claim from an NPR report against Israel amid its war with Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip — and both NPR and Kristof were mercilessly ridiculed for it on social media.
Kristof reposted an outlandish detail from the NPR report — that there were an impossibly large number of relief trucks that Israel was holding up: "[Jane Arraf] of @NPR quotes a Jordanian official as saying that 30,000 aid trucks are stuck at the Egypt/Gaza border, waiting for Israeli approval to enter Gaza, with some Jordanian trucks stuck there for the last two months. Meanwhile Gaza kids starve."
Critics on social media immediately took Kristof and NPR to task for circulating such a ridiculous figure.
"Nick, I realize you’re an idiot, but does that sound right to you? 30 THOUSAND trucks?" responded Jonathan Greenburg, who went on to calculate that 30,000 trucks would take up 271 miles of street space. He added, "That’s twice the distance from Kerem Shalom to Amman, where @janearraf’s idiot source is feeding her fake statistics because he knows hacks like you are dumb and malicious enough to believe anything you’re fed." Greenburg also said, "They don’t even try to make their propaganda believable and the all stars in the Western media lap it up because OF COURSE the Jews have kept a line of trucks visible from Mars waiting at the Gaza border!"
Other responses:
Kristof eventually deleted the tweet.
NPR on April 17 issued the following "clarification" at the bottom of its story: "On March 27, NPR quoted a Jordanian official claiming there were as many as 30,000 aid trucks held up at the Rafah crossing with Egypt to enter Gaza. We were subsequently unable to confirm this figure and no longer believe it is accurate. Ahmed Naimat, spokesman for Jordan's National Center for Security and Crisis Management, said he based the number on satellite images but did not provide them. NPR's own analysis of later satellite images does not support that figure. Most aid groups currently estimate that as of early April 2024 there were generally between 3,000 and 7,000 trucks waiting to be allowed into the Gaza Strip pending Israeli security-related inspections."
NBC News issued a December 2022 report contradicting the official narrative of then-President Joe Biden concerning the government's prisoner swap with Russia — then the news network changed its original story without saying it had done so. Only after being met with online criticism and a request for comment from Blaze News did NBC News publish a correction.
In its Dec. 8 prisoner swap with Russia, the Biden administration exchanged Viktor Bout, who conspired to kill Americans, for pro basketball player Brittney Griner.
The White House suggested the Biden administration never had a choice to bring home former Marine Paul Whelan from Russia — that "the choice became to either bring Brittany home or no one." But NBC News, citing a senior U.S. official, first reported that the "Kremlin gave the White House the choice of either Griner or Whelan — or none."
Rikki Ratliff-Fellman, director of programming at Blaze Media, noted a significant discrepancy between NBC News' original report and its revised article. Without issuing an editorial note, NBC News made a stealthy change to the article, such that it now reads, "The Kremlin ultimately gave the White House the choice of either Griner or no one after different options were proposed."
Some food for thought: then-White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Griner is "an important role model; an inspiration to millions of Americans particularly the LGBTQI+ Americans and women of color."
What's more, a paragraph was added to the NBC News article concerning Whelan's notification in prison about the "outcome of the negotiations" — and without an editorial note.
Blaze News reached out to NBC News, asking why it originally failed to highlight the change with an editorial note, whether someone at the White House asked for the change, whether its original source had recanted or stood by its initial claim, and whether it continues to stand by its source.
NBC News then issued a correction saying that "an earlier version of this article misstated the choice the Biden administration was given over hostages. It was to swap for Griner or no one, not a choice between Griner or Whelan."
Still, Whelan's lawyer Vladimir Zherebenkov indicated that the deal involved a choice and implied that it was between his client and Griner. The lawyer said the exchange was a "one to one" and that "choosing Griner appeared 'more humane' because she is a woman and an Olympic champion, while Whelan was in the military and it is 'easier for him to be in custody.'"
After the beginning of his detention in Russia in 2018 and his espionage conviction by a Moscow court in 2020, Whelan finally was set free Aug. 1, 2024. Griner — who refused to stand for the American national anthem during home openers in 2020 — was arrested in February 2022 on smuggling charges after traveling to Russia with cannabis oil in her luggage.
Daily Wire host Michael Knowles during his 2023 CPAC speech stated, "For the good of society ... transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level."
Knowles also said, "There can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism. It is all or nothing. If transgenderism is true, if men really can become women, then it's true for everybody of all ages. If transgenderism is false, as it is, if men really can't become women, as they cannot, then it's false for everybody, too. And if it’s false, then we should not indulge it."
However, multiple left-leaning media outlets ran false reports saying Knowles called for the eradication of transgender people.
The Huffington Post published a piece originally titled, "At CPAC, A Call For Trans People To Be 'Eradicated' Gets Big Cheers." The Daily Beast ran a story originally titled, "Michael Knowles Says Transgender Community Must Be 'Eradicated' at CPAC." Rolling Stone — which has paid out millions for false reporting and defamation — ran a piece with the headline, "CPAC Speaker Calls for Transgender People to Be 'Eradicated.'"
Knowles immediately called out the leftist outlets and demanded retractions.
The Huffington Post changed its headline to read, "CPAC Speaker’s Trans Comments About ‘Eradication’ Sound Downright Genocidal." The story itself had claimed, "There are an estimated 1.6 million trans people in the United States. Knowles told the CPAC crowd that these people should not have a right to exist." The word "essentially" was added so that the sentence reads, "Knowles essentially told the CPAC crowd that these people should not have a right to exist."
The Daily Beast changed the headline of its article to "Michael Knowles Says Transgenderism Must Be 'Eradicated' at CPAC."
Rolling Stone changed its headline to "CPAC Speaker Calls for Eradication of ‘Transgenderism’ — and Somehow Claims He’s Not Calling for Elimination of Transgender People" and provided an editorial note stating, "This post has been updated to include statements from transgender rights activists and additional comments from Knowles."
The augmented Rolling Stone piece contains commentary by Erin Reed, a male transgender activist, on Knowles' demand for a retraction, suggesting that it's "an absurd distinction. There is no difference between a ban on 'transgenderism' and an attack on transgender people." Reed also claimed, "They are one and the same, and there's no separation between them."
Following the changes, Knowles tweeted, "I’m pleased to see that both @thedailybeast and @RollingStone have at least partially admitted their dishonesty by changing their libelous headlines. I look forward to seeing the other outlets that are defaming me follow suit!"
U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) commented, "It is indeed libelous. It’s an example of how a bad Supreme Court ruling from 1964 (NY Times v. Sullivan) has created a monster—giving the news media a license to lie about any public figure who can’t prove that the reporter acted with 'actual malice,' which is nearly impossible."
The Canadian Press issued three retractions after publishing an October 2023 story saying Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre blamed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for poor relations with India.
"BREAKING: Canadian Press forced to retract three separate 'erroneous statements' from one story alone," Poilievre wrote on his X page. "It was another false hit piece now thoroughly discredited. Remember that next time they attack me."
The Canadian Press issued a retraction at the bottom of its story two days after the piece was first published admitting that the headline included comments attributed to Poilievre that he didn't say: "Note to readers: This is a corrected story. In a headline on an earlier version of the story, The Canadian Press erroneously reported that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre cited Sikh aggression toward Indian envoys when blaming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for Canada's poor relations with India. In fact, Poilievre did not mention Sikhs during his interview with Namaste Radio Toronto, which was the basis for the story."
The retraction continued: "The Canadian Press also erroneously reported that Poilievre blamed Trudeau for 'aggression shown to ... Indian diplomats at public events.' In fact, Poilievre did not link those remarks to Trudeau." In addition, the retraction stated, that "the story erroneously reported the World Sikh Organization of Canada had argued that Poilievre was indirectly pointing the finger at Sikhs. In fact, the group's lawyer Balpreet Singh had argued that Poilievre was wrong to point the finger at anyone other than the Indian government."
Readers of Blaze News likely will recall a viral story just a week earlier about Poilievre casually eating an apple while giving simple answers to a reporter's dubious line of questioning. The reporter noted that "a lot of people" had accused Poilievre of "taking a page out of the Donald Trump book," after which Poilievre asked, "Which people would say that?" The reporter replied, "Well, I'm sure a great many Canadians, but ..." after which Poiliere shot back, "Like who?" The reporter soon changed his line of questioning.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
In case you missed it, Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R) was caught on a hot mic telling BG News reporter Steven Edginton that he would kill conservative pundit Tucker Carlson if he ever crossed paths with him.
“If I ever meet him, I’ll f**king kill him,” he said.
When Edginton laughed off the statement as a joke, Crenshaw doubled down, reiterating his desire to kill Tucker.
When backlash sparked, Crenshaw played his spiteful statements off as a joke. To Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R), who asked him on X if he had just threatened her friend, Crenshaw insolently retorted, “lol, no.”
— (@)
Glenn Beck says Crenshaw’s threat, be it legitimate or hyperbolic, is unacceptable and warrants consequences.
“That's not something I want to hear from a former Navy SEAL” — someone who “knows how to kill people,” he says. Crenshaw’s threat “is not just reckless; it's obscene for a guy like that to wield those words so casually.”
“I suggest we don’t brush this off,” Glenn continues, adding that “it's not about parties or party lines; it's about a congressman threatening to murder a private citizen who's just asking questions.”
In addition to his unhinged threat against Tucker, Crenshaw is also a neocon.
“He’s a big-state advocate; he's a war hawk; he's a player in the globalist agenda, like the World Economic Forum and ESG policies,” says Glenn.
“His voting record clashes with the limited government ideals that conservatives actually hold dear. He's a defender of the national security state, backing surveillance and military overreach every time,” he continues, noting that “in 2021, [Crenshaw] opposed the warrant requirement for government access to data — your data,” and “in 2020, he co-sponsored a carbon tax bill.”
“I think we need to demand accountability. I think you should send a letter in to your congressman and the House Ethics Committee. I think they should probe this threat,” especially considering that Crenshaw is up for re-election next year, says Glenn.
To hear more of his commentary, watch the clip above.
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R), who is currently under fire for apparently threatening to kill Tucker Carlson, was recently paid a visit by BlazeTV host and king of trolls Alex Stein.
Crenshaw, or “Eye-Patch McCain,” as Tucker likes to call him, was none too pleased with Alex’s public confrontation. His reaction to being called out on his globalist agenda, weak conservative values, and uniparty politics can only be described as unhinged.
“Dan, you’re just such a little loser,” said Alex, following Crenshaw down the street.
Crenshaw then lunged forward to slap the camera.
“Look, you’re too slow!” laughed Alex, before making fun of Crenshaw for being smaller than him.
“You’re a sad little boy,” Alex said.
A heated exchange then commenced in which Alex accused Crenshaw of “giving more money to Ukraine” when “we have so many issues here in America,” especially “an invasion at our border.”
“You’re disgusting!” said a ruffled Crenshaw.
“He cares more about Ukraine than he does about America, so you're a globalist. Why don't you take care of America? You don't care. That's your problem, Dan — you don't care about America; you don't care about Texas,” Alex fired back, continuing to follow Crenshaw down the street.
“You’re a globalist; you’re a traitor; you’re a dwarf,” Alex said, when Crenshaw refused to address any of the legitimate issues he brought up.
And that’s when the Capitol Police stepped in.
To see the footage, watch the clip above.
To enjoy more of Alex's culture jamming, comedic monologues, skits, and street segments, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
A conservative watchdog group filed an ethics complaint Tuesday against Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R) over his apparent suggestion that he would kill Tucker Carlson should the two ever meet in person — something Crenshaw claims was clearly "hyperbole."
The American Accountability Foundation indicated Tuesday that it penned a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives' Office of Congressional Ethics requesting an immediate investigation into Crenshaw's remarks. According to the watchdog group, which is led by a former legislative director of Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Crenshaw may have violated House rules by engaging in conduct unbecoming of a member of Congress.
Blaze News previously reported that GB News' Steven Edginton interviewed Crenshaw at the 2025 Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in Britain last week, asking the congressman about American global leadership, the "neocon" label often applied to him, and the war in Ukraine.
When Edginton mentioned Tucker Carlson's criticism of American aid to Ukraine, Crenshaw declared, "Tucker doesn't know what he's talking about."
'No, seriously, I would kill him.'
After the interview, Edginton casually asked Crenshaw with the camera still rolling, "Have you ever met Tucker?"
In footage that did not originally air on GB News but went viral Monday on social media, Crenshaw seemingly responded, "We've talked a lot on Twitter. If I ever meet him, I'll f**king kill him."
Edginton, who indicated that the footage was genuine, suggested on X that when he laughed off the remark, Crenshaw doubled down, stating, "No, seriously, I would kill him."
When later asked on X by Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) whether he threatened to kill Carlson, Crenshaw wrote, "lol, no."
The AAF suggested that a failure to sanction Crenshaw over his apparent threat of a member of the press would "send a message to Members that they are free to threaten reporters they disagree with and more importantly send a message to reporters that they need to worry for their safety when they report on Members of Congress."
'I have absolutely no desire to harm him.'
"There is no reasonable construction of creditable behavior which includes threating [sic] innocent journalists simply for disagreeing with a Member," the AAF noted in its complaint.
"As Representative Crenshaw frequently points out, he is a former Navy SEAL, so one should reasonably assume that his threats to kill someone should be taken seriously, since he has received significant military training in the application of lethal force," added the AAF.
When pressed for comment, a spokesman for Crenshaw directed Blaze News to the congressman's Wednesday KRIV-TV interview, where Crenshaw stated, "I caught that video myself after I saw all the outrage online, and I have got say, that's the lamest 'death threat' that I've ever seen. I think it's pretty clear that is a non-literal turn of phrase."
"I think anyone seriously watching and being honest with themselves knows that was hyperbole, said in private, and no, Tucker has nothing to worry about. I have absolutely no desire to harm him," added Crenshaw.
The congressman told KRIV that he will not accept Carlson's invitation to sit down for an interview, noting, "I don't want to be in the same room with him."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) was apparently caught on a hot mic last week threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. When confronted online by peers and critics about his remark, footage of which went viral Monday, the congressman suggested that he had said no such thing.
Crenshaw attended the 2025 Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in Britain, which ran from Feb. 17 to 19. At the conference, he sat down for an interview with GB News' Steven Edginton to discuss American global leadership, the "neocon" label often applied to him, and the war in Ukraine.
Toward the end of the interview, Edginton referred to the hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. has given to Ukraine, then said, "I know that people like Tucker Carlson would make the argument that there's a real opportunity cost there. You know, we could have spent that money on the border or fixing, you know, issues in America."
When asked whether the money provided to Ukraine might have been better spent helping Americans, Crenshaw said, "You can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. ... We spend 75%, 80% of our budget on a welfare state in America — on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I would love to ask Tucker what he thinks that $100 billion should be spent on, if he would vote for it as a conservative."
'I wonder who he will threaten to kill next?'
"Tucker doesn't know what he's talking about," continued Crenshaw. "Tucker likes to visit Moscow and talk about how great the grocery stores are, so I don't really take his advice very seriously."
Additional footage has appeared online showing Edginton asking Crenshaw after the interview, "Have you ever met Tucker?"
"We've talked a lot on Twitter. If I ever meet him, I'll f**king kill him," the congressman seemingly answered.
Edginton indicated on X that when he laughed off the remark, Crenshaw doubled down, stating, "No, seriously, I would kill him."
The video of Crenshaw's apparent threat went viral Monday, prompting significant backlash.
Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R), for instance, asked Crenshaw, "Did you threaten to kill my friend @TuckerCarlson?"
Crenshaw responded, "lol, no."
'I'll send you my address.'
The congressman's denial prompted more criticism and scrutiny, as well as a community notes clarification on X.
Federalist CEO Sean Davis noted, "You know there's a video of you saying otherwise, right?"
Turning Point USA journalist Savanah Hernandez cited Crenshaw's denial as a prime example of "how carelessly our politicians lie to us."
Podcaster Shawn Ryan asked, "I wonder who he will threaten to kill next? Has anyone checked on Tucker?"
Elon Musk posed the question, "Why is Crenshaw homicidal regarding Tucker?"
Tucker Carlson evidently took the threat in stride. Responding to Musk's question, Carlson extended an interview request to Crenshaw.
"Why don't you come sit for an interview and we'll see how you do?" wrote Carlson. "I'll send you my address."
Crenshaw and Carlson have long had an antagonistic long-distance relationship.
The congressman, who is running for re-election next year, has characterized Carlson as a "know-nothing elitist," a "click-chaser," and a "mindless" contrarian who seeks to "defend America's enemies" and "sow doubt and paranoia and false narratives."
Carlson, on the other hand, has called Crenshaw "eye patch McCain" — a "neocon" who engages in "Soviet-style politics" and attacks "moms who are worried about baby formula as pro-Russia." Carlson has also suggested that Crenshaw is a liberal Republican who should be "bagging groceries at Walmart" and a "liar."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com