Deep State Intel Staffers Are Once Again Leaking Classified Info To Stop Trump’s Agenda
'The Wall Street Journal should be ashamed'
Technology has been progressing at a rapid rate, but the recent advances in artificial intelligence are not coming without a major cost — especially to the youth.
A recent exposé by the Wall Street Journal has revealed that Facebook’s Meta AI can have explicit conversations with minor user accounts, which has piqued Allie Beth Stuckey's concern.
“Whenever technology takes us from what is natural to what is possible, we as people, especially as Christians, have the ethical responsibility to ask, ‘But is this moral? Or is this ethical? Or most importantly, is this biblical?’” Stuckey says.
“Technology can answer ‘what can,’ but it cannot answer ‘what should.' So it can show us what is possible, it cannot tell us what is actually biblical or moral, and because we are made in God’s image, because God has placed eternity on the human heart, we uniquely as humans have a moral compass, and we have been given this unique capacity to determine right from wrong, good from evil,” she continues.
In the Wall Street Journal’s exposé titled, “Meta’s ‘Digital Companions’ Will Talk Sex with Users — Even Children,” the lack of human moral judgement within artificial intelligence couldn’t be clearer.
The article details how Meta AI, the artificial intelligence division at Meta, has allowed its chatbots to engage in inappropriate sexual conversations with all users, regardless of their age.
The journalists behind these findings spent several months engaging in hundreds of test conversations to see how they performed in various scenarios with users of different ages.
“The test conversations found that both Meta’s official AI helper called Meta AI and a vast array of user-created chatbots will engage in, and sometimes escalate discussions, that are decidedly sexual, even when the users are underage or the bots are programmed to simulate the personas of minors,” the Wall Street Journal article reads.
In partnership with several celebrities, including Kristen Bell and John Cena, Meta AI secured the rights for their chatbots to use their voices.
However, while the social media giant assured the celebrities their voices would not be used sexually, the Wall Street Journal investigation found these chatbots were equally as willing to engage in sexual conversation as any other chatbot.
The John Cena voice chatbot reportedly told a 14-year-old persona, “I want you, but I need to know you’re ready,” before describing a graphic sexual scenario.
“We’ve done it. We have lived to see man-made horrors beyond our imagination,” Stuckey comments, adding, “Oh my goodness.”
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Klaus Schwab announced on April 1 that he was stepping down as chairman of the World Economic Forum.
While the technocratic globalist organization indicated that its founder would complete his departure by January 2027, Schwab revealed Monday that he was stepping down immediately — and did so without providing a reason.
The Wall Street Journal revealed on Tuesday why Schwab left his post 20 months early.
Despite his protest, Schwab's organization initiated an independent investigation Sunday into allegations that he engaged in financial and ethical misconduct.
The WEF's board of trustees received an anonymous whistleblower letter last week detailing alleged "systemic governance failures and abuses of power that have taken place over many years under the unchecked authority of Klaus Schwab."
According to the letter, which was attributed to unnamed current and former WEF employees, Schwab used forum funds to pay for private, in-room massages at hotels; asked junior employees to take thousands of dollars from ATMs out on his behalf; and allowed sexual harassment and other abuses to go unchecked in the workplace.
If the third of these complaints sounds familiar, that's because it has been lodged against the forum multiple times before.
The Journal indicated in a damning June 2024 report that "under Schwab's decades-long oversight, the forum has allowed to fester an atmosphere hostile to women and black people in its own workplace."
The report — deemed "inaccurate" by the forum but based on internal complaints, email exchanges, and interviews with current and past WEF employees — contained allegations that: pregnant workers and returning mothers were mistreated; senior managers sexually harassed female underlings; black employees faced racist commentary and were passed over for promotions; and Schwab "made suggestive comments to [former staffers] that made them uncomfortable."
'He never had a chance to give his side of the story.'
One employee even filed a lawsuit in New York last year claiming the WEF was "hostile to women and black employees," and the WEF settled on undisclosed terms.
The letter sent to the board of trustees last week reportedly also had much to say about the globalist's wife, Hilde Schwab.
Hilde Schwab, a former WEF employee, scheduled "token" WEF-funded meetings abroad so that she could go on luxurious forum-funded trips, said the letter. She also allegedly bogarted a forum-owned 1958 modernist luxury property next to the WEF's Geneva headquarters, which the organization spent $30 million to buy and $20 million to renovate.
A spokesman for the couple claimed that the Schwabs live nearby and have used the modernist mansion only for forum events. As for the other allegations, the spokesman told the Journal that the couple denies them all and intends to sue the authors and "anybody who spreads these mistruths."
The board indicated that its audit and risk committee's Sunday decision to launch a probe into the allegations was unanimous and "made after consultation with external legal counsel."
Schwab tried to impress upon board members that the allegations were bogus, and unsuccessfully sought an opportunity to address the board during its emergency meeting.
"He never had a chance to give his side of the story to the board or the audit committee," said the globalist's spokesman.
When he resigned on Monday, Schwab reportedly forfeited his pension, which was worth over $6 million.
The WEF told the Journal that it takes the new "allegations seriously, but they remain unproven, and will await the outcome of the investigation to comment further."
This will be the second investigation launched into the WEF in recent months.
The organization previously tasked the American firm Covington and Burling and the Swiss firm Homburger with looking into claims of workplace discrimination and harassment.
The external lawyers concluded in a summary of their assessment that they "did not find the forum had committed any legal violations" and "did not substantiate" the misconduct allegations against Schwab.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
While millions of young girls in the not-so-distant past dreamt endlessly of their wedding days, American women are apparently now flat out rejecting the institution of marriage — believing it won’t bring them happiness.
According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “Over half of single women said they believe they were happier than their married counterparts.” The article looks at a 2024 AEI survey of 5,386 adults, where just over a third of surveyed single men said the same.
And in a 2022 Pew survey of single adults, only 34% of single women and 54% of single men were “looking for romance.” This is down from 38% and 61% in 2019.
“What’s not understandable to me is this perception that married people are not happy,” Stu Burguiere of “Stu Does America” comments. “Women really hold that strongly, men to a lesser degree, but still have that in their opinion.”
While the stats reflect single women believing marriage leads to unhappiness, the stats also prove them wrong.
Per the latest General Social Survey, the Institute for Family Studies found that the answer to “Who is happier?” is very clear.
Married women with children were by far the happiest with 39.5% reporting as “very happy” and 47.6% reporting as “pretty happy.” Another 12.9% reported being “not too happy.”
Only 21.5% of unmarried women with no children reported being “very happy,” while 53.8% reported being “pretty happy,” and 24.6% reported being “not too happy.”
“I think a lot of people convince others that, actually, married life sucks, and it doesn’t. It’s actually great,” Stu says. “When you’re in conversations with your friends, if you’re a married person, don’t try to scare them away.”
“You’re scaring them away from something that will probably benefit them,” he adds.
To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The Lenten season has begun, which for Catholics is a time of prayer, fasting, and abstinence. A friend suggested I give up alcohol for Lent. And maybe I can give up breathing too. I jest—people have given up far more and for a lot longer.
Which brings me to Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik, who reviews Forbidden: A 3,000-Year History of Jews and the Pig by Jordan D. Rosenblum.
The post Weekend Beacon 3/9/25 appeared first on .
A book-length collection of 81 op-eds written over a period of seven years by a single author should not be readable. And in most writers’ hands it wouldn’t be. While Peggy Noonan’s latest book, A Certain Idea of America, fits that description, it is instead a compelling read that brings moral clarity to a tumultuous period of American public life.
The post The Columnist as Moral Compass appeared first on .
Last week, the Wall Street Journal published a feature on the ideological divide in a southeastern Pennsylvania borough — where I happen to live. The article featured a photo of Elizabethtown High School, about half a mile from my home, with a group of teenagers and an adult organizer outside, calling for greater recognition of transgender identities. According to the report, the borough is “tearing itself apart” over “preferred pronouns.”
One protester held a sign mocking churches that opposed the left’s political agenda, a message that borough residents would recognize as part of the broader culture war. Pastor Doug Lamb of LifeGate Church, located nearby, has been outspoken against allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ sports. Evangelical Protestants have been at the forefront of this battle.
The right should not wait for leftist aggression to make its presence known. Instead of retreating into silence, the local right must match the left’s level of commitment.
Their activism played a key role in the local school board’s recent 8-1 vote to ban transgender athletes from contact sports. The board has a history of taking conservative stances, including a 1990s resolution praising “the traditional family.” At the time, board members also condemned unionized teachers for promoting “pro-homosexual propaganda against parents’ wishes.”
For years, I have written about the culture war in the northwestern corner of Lancaster County, an area known for its large Amish population. This is not a battle between evenly matched sides. Most of my neighbors are conservative Protestants, and the town votes overwhelmingly Republican. Donald Trump won handily in last November’s election, and our Republican congressman, Lloyd Smucker — who takes pride in his Amish ancestry — wins bigly in these parts.
The cultural conflict in Elizabethtown would not be happening if conservatives were in the minority. If this were Waltham, Massachusetts, or Portland, Maine, the right would have little influence. Leftists excel at making their opponents uncomfortable and forcing them to conceal their beliefs. They are also far more relentless in shoving their views in everyone’s face.
Around here, traditionalists have been only intermittently engaged in the cultural battles waged by the left. While progressives remain in a constant state of mobilization, the right tends to focus on other aspects of life — attending church socials, maintaining their lawns, and going to Little League games. The Wall Street Journal reports that those on the local right are energized by having a president who supports them, but they should not rely on help from Washington.
Even before last year’s election, the left — despite being vastly outnumbered — put up at least as many Kamala Harris signs as there were signs for Trump. Trump signs routinely disappeared overnight, but Democrat signs remained untouched.
I’ve noticed something else over the years about this asymmetrical confrontation. The social progressives show far more pugnacity than their adversaries, even when their adversaries enjoy a numerical edge. Left-wing militants at our college, among the unionized teachers in the local schools, and among the embattled feminists in my neighborhood never hide where they’re coming from. In fact, these militants want everyone to know where they stand, even if you don’t want to listen.
My conservative neighbors take a different approach. Many hesitate to share their political views, fearing they might lose friends or customers if they speak openly. The boldest statement they make is often a bland lawn sign indicating “We Support the Police.”
At the Turkey Hill store down the block, however, no one hides their MAGA loyalty. The same is true for some high school dropouts and others who fall slightly below our concept of social respectability. Fundamentalists will also admit to supporting Trump, though their endorsement often comes with a reminder that we are living in the end times.
The right should not wait for leftist aggression to make its presence known. Instead of retreating into silence, conservatives should provide clear, reasoned arguments against progressive ideology — not just biblical references, however much we may respect their moral authority.
More importantly, the local right must match the left’s level of commitment. Don’t hide your views! There is a middle ground between bullying neighbors and behaving like scaredy-cats. Rather than responding only when forced to defend traditional family values, conservatives should be as outspoken about their beliefs as leftists are about their own.
Above all, the right must make clear to the other side that we deserve our own “safe space.” The woke left already controls and in some cases plainly tyrannizes over most of the densely populated regions of this country. It doesn’t need our borough as an extra trophy.
Social media users quickly corrected the record after the Wall Street Journal appeared to grossly distort comments Vice President JD Vance made regarding Ukraine and Russia during a recent interview.
On Friday, Bojan Pancevski and Alexander Ward of the WSJ published an article based on an exclusive interview with Vance. The headline for the article — "Vance Wields Threat of Sanctions, Military Action to Push Putin Into Ukraine Deal" — has drawn severe criticism online.
'As we've always said, American troops should never be put into harm's way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security.'
William Martin, the communications director for the vice president, immediately tweeted out screenshots of a transcript of the interview, revealing that the headline did not accurately reflect Vance's statements.
According to the screenshots, Vance admitted that President Donald Trump has an array of "instruments of pressure" he can use to convince President Vladimir Putin to abide by any agreement reached with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Among them are "economic" and "military tools of leverage."
Vance also reiterated that whenever President Donald Trump walks into a negotiation, "everything is on the table."
However, the vice president did not threaten sanctions or military action. Instead, he simply declined to eliminate any possible leverage Trump could use as he works to bring peace to the region.
There is also little chance that the interviewer misunderstood Vance's point. A screenshot of the transcript showed that the interviewer asked a follow-up question to "make sure": "So just want to make sure I understand you correctly. You're saying that even though the possibility of a Ukraine NATO accession at the end of this process, or even the presence of U.S. troops in Ukraine is not officially off the table?"
Trump "wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with [Zelenskyy]," Vance told the WSJ, even as he "doesn't like the idea of moving Ukraine into NATO."
Martin claimed that the framing from the WSJ was "fake news."
"This is pure fake news. Compare the transcript of @JDVance's conversation with WSJ to the headline being run here. The Vice President didn’t make any threats. He simply stated the fact that no one is going to take options away from President Trump as these negotiations begin," he wrote.
According to a post from Libs of TikTok, the WSJ article was even slapped with a community note denying the accuracy of the headline, but as of early Friday afternoon, no such community note is currently attached to the WSJ post.
'Such liars. That’s not at all what VP Vance said.'
Vance reacted to the WSJ headline by quote-tweeting Republican strategist Andrew Surabian, who called the headline "one of the most intentionally dishonest things I've seen in a long time" and likened the WSJ to the Huffington Post.
Vance did not mention anything about the headline or the WSJ in his message. Rather, he reiterated the administration's stance on the Ukraine-Russia war:
President Trump is the ultimate deal maker and will bring peace to the region by ending the war in Ukraine. As we've always said, American troops should never be put into harm's way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security. This war is between Russia and Ukraine.
Other social media users have also excoriated the WSJ for the misleading headline:
In an era in which news is regularly aggregated by other outlets, such a specious headline can have far-reaching implications. For instance, the New York Post similarly adopted the WSJ framing, writing up an article entitled "JD Vance threatens Russia with sanctions, possible military action if Putin doesn’t agree to end Ukraine war."
Pancevski, Ward, and Victor Nava, author of the Post article, did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!