Washington Democrats will make residents PAY and provide fingerprints just to shop for a gun



Although unable to void the Second Amendment, Democrats in Washington state appear keen to make it costly and difficult for residents to exercise this unalienable right.

As the result of legislation introduced last year by a Seattle-based Democrat, passed by the state legislature in party-line votes, then ratified by Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson, Americans in the Evergreen State will soon have to pay for the supposed privilege of shopping for a firearm.

'If you have to ask for permission, it’s not a right.'

House Bill 1163, which Ferguson characterized as a "common sense" reform, created a permit-to-purchase system for firearms in Washington. Starting May 1, 2027, prospective buyers must first obtain a five-year permit through the Washington State Patrol.

In order to secure a permit, applicants must submit personal information including their name, email, phone number, address, driver's license or state ID number, race, and sex to a state firearms background check program, along with a complete set of fingerprints and a recent certificate of completion of a certified firearms safety program or proof of exemption.

Not only must Washington residents jump through these hoops — they must pay to do so.

RELATED: Democrats don't just want to take your firearms. They want your kids' BB guns too.

CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP/Getty Images

According to the Washington State Patrol's "Permit to Purchase Portal," the cost of a new permit — which includes the fingerprint processing fee — is $126. The cost of renewal is $90, and to replace an expired permit is $126.

Costs associated with the firearm training mandated by the permit process are not factored into this total.

It could take up to 30 days for eligible applicants to receive their permit. Individuals who are denied a permit to purchase a weapon will not have these fees refunded.

While the WSP estimated that the program could cost over $20 million in the 2027-2029 budget cycle, a state fiscal analysis suggested that the corresponding fees might offset the cost of implementation during the same period, reported the Washington State Standard.

After Gov. Ferguson gave this shakedown the greenlight, the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action stated that the permit-to-purchase program "establishes an illegal government registry of firearm owners and their personal information." However, the group added that the program "will do nothing to address Washington’s crime problem, but it will make firearm ownership nearly unobtainable, both practically and financially."

Republican state Sen. Phil Fortunato previously emphasized that "this is not just bad policy; it's unconstitutional."

"The government cannot convert a fundamental right into a privilege that must be bought, licensed, and approved by bureaucrats," continued Fortunato. "If you have to ask for permission, it’s not a right."

Franklin County Sheriff Jim Raymond, among the many enduring critics of this program, told the Center Square last month, "I think this is insane."

"It’s another level of control," added the sheriff, who figures the program may ultimately face a legal challenge.

William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, suggested to "The Ari Hoffman Show" last month that legal action hasn't been taken because Washington residents must first be impacted by the law. Once it takes effect, he anticipates that legal action will be taken by "some private entity Second Amendment organizations, your Second Amendment Foundations, Gun Owners of America, things like that."

Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank stated after Ferguson signed H.B. 1163 into law that the program was unconstitutional and his office "will not enforce it."

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

Three cops changed DJ Daniel’s life with a slice of pizza



In 2017, as Hurricane Harvey battered Houston, three police officers found DJ Daniel and his brothers wandering through a shelter. The boys had gone looking for snacks. The officers reunited them with their father and took them upstairs for pizza. DJ still remembers that meal — and the officers who helped his family through a frightening time.

That small act of kindness gave DJ a dream. He wanted to become a police officer so he could help others the way those officers helped him.

Three officers had no way of knowing how far their kindness would travel. They simply saw a family who needed help and acted.

Nearly a decade later, DJ has been sworn in by about 4,400 law enforcement agencies across the United States and abroad. In March 2025, President Donald Trump recognized him during an address to Congress, when the Secret Service director made him an honorary agent. A boy inspired by three officers and a slice of pizza had found a professional family numbering in the thousands.

That journey inspired our new children’s book, “Special Agent DJ.” We wanted to tell a story about courage, family, service, and the impression one good deed can leave on a child. We also wanted young readers to understand something practical: When they need help, police officers can be people to turn to.

A child becomes separated from a parent in a crowded store. A youngster gets lost in a park or feels frightened and does not know who to ask for help. Officers help reunite families, respond to emergencies, and protect neighborhoods. Children should learn to recognize when to seek help. DJ learned that lesson firsthand.

His determination has been tested in ways most adults can barely imagine. Diagnosed with brain and spinal cancer as a young child, DJ has undergone 13 brain surgeries. He has lived for years beyond an initial prognosis that gave him only months. Reading has also presented difficulties, yet he helped turn his experience into a book for other children.

RELATED: You can medicate despair. You can’t manufacture meaning.

Merovingian/Getty Images

DJ’s father, Theodis, has been by his side throughout the journey. He has driven him across the country, stood with him at ceremonies, and encouraged him through grueling days. During the book’s development, he helped us work through illustrations, story ideas, and revisions by phone. His steady support helped make the project possible.

We brought “Special Agent DJ” together in roughly four months. That schedule was ambitious for a children’s book, but we had a reason to move quickly: We wanted DJ to hold the finished book, see what he had helped create, and enjoy the accomplishment himself.

A badge or a ceremony may seem like a small thing to someone watching from a distance. For DJ, every welcome from a police department has reinforced the kindness he encountered as a child. Each officer who embraced his dream helped him carry it a little farther.

Parents and educators teach children many lessons about safety. Knowing when and how to ask a police officer for help deserves a place among them. A positive encounter can shape a child’s understanding of public service long after the immediate trouble has passed.

DJ’s story began with a slice of pizza in a hurricane shelter. It grew into thousands of honorary swearing-in ceremonies, recognition in Washington, and a book he can share with children he has never met. Three officers had no way of knowing how far their kindness would travel. They simply saw a family who needed help and acted.

That is the lesson we hope readers take from "Special Agent DJ": A small gesture can change the course of a life.

The kindness con: Fraudsters exploit America’s safety net



Governments have been handing out public work since men were laying stones on the Appian Way. And wherever government hands out money, people line up to get some.

Abraham Lincoln was said to have faced so many office-seekers and applicants for government favors that he finally complained, in his usual earthy fashion, that “there are too many pigs for the teats.”

The Democratic Socialists of America do not own the word ‘kindness.’

The pigs have multiplied.

During the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt dramatically expanded Washington’s role in the economy. His administration also strengthened organized labor. The Wagner Act of 1935 guaranteed workers the right to organize and bargain collectively, and unions became a central pillar of the Democrat coalition that dominated American politics for decades.

The same political pattern appeared again during the War on Poverty.

Michael Harrington’s 1962 book, “The Other America,” helped force poverty onto the national political agenda. Lyndon Johnson’s anti-poverty task force later brought Harrington to Washington as a consultant.

The federal government also needed a way to measure poverty. That measure was developed principally by Mollie Orshansky, an economist at the Social Security Administration, whose thresholds became the basis of the official federal poverty measure.

Then came the Great Society: Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance, housing programs, and a vast expansion of Washington’s responsibility over Americans’ lives and livelihoods.

The political argument over those programs has raged ever since. But one fact should not be controversial: Americans have transferred staggering amounts of wealth through government because they believe people in genuine need should be helped.

That is kindness on an industrial scale. And wherever kindness operates on an industrial scale, thieves notice.

The Government Accountability Office estimates that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion every year to fraud, based on data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022.

That is not “waste” in the loose political sense. The GAO is estimating losses from deliberate fraud.

Look around the country. In Minnesota, the House Oversight Committee says at least $300 million was stolen through the Feeding Our Future child-nutrition scandal. The committee also says federal prosecutors estimate that fraud involving several high-risk Medicaid programs could total billions.

RELATED: The government would like to discuss your allowance

Erhui1979 / Getty Images

In New York, federal prosecutors charged 15 defendants in health care schemes involving more than $10.6 billion in fraudulent billings to Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

Arizona’s Medicaid system was hit by another grotesque scheme aimed at programs serving Native Americans struggling with addiction. The state attorney general says losses from the wider scandal reached into the billions. In one recent federal case alone, an addiction-treatment operator was sentenced to 14 years after fraudulently billing Medicaid more than $69 million.

In California, Paul Richard Randall orchestrated a scheme that submitted nearly $270 million in false Medi-Cal claims for expensive medications that were often unnecessary or never provided. Medi-Cal actually paid about $179 million. Randall got 30 years in federal prison.

Across seven Southeastern states, the Justice Department this summer announced 17 cases involving more than $350 million in intended losses involving SNAP, housing benefits, Small Business Administration loans, and tax fraud.

This thieving from American kindness is nationwide.

The Trump administration has now made federal fraud a major target. This month, the government canceled Affordable Care Act policies covering roughly 760,000 people whose enrollments it says were fraudulent or otherwise ineligible. The administration projects about $2.2 billion in savings.

It turns out that industrial-scale redistribution creates industrial-scale opportunities for fraud.

The Biden-era immigration surge adds another political argument. The Congressional Budget Office estimates net immigration at roughly 1.5 million people in 2021, 2.8 million in 2022, 3.3 million in 2023, and 2.7 million in 2024. Much of that increase fell into the CBO’s “other foreign national” category, which includes people who entered without lawful status as well as others admitted under temporary authorities.

But illegal immigrants are generally barred from SNAP, nonemergency Medicaid, SSI, TANF, and most federal housing assistance. States can choose to spend their own taxpayers’ money anyway. California sure does, to the tune of $22 billion a year.

And immigration has a political consequence separate from voting. The census counts residents, not merely citizens, for congressional apportionment. Illegal aliens count in those population totals just like everyone else living in the country.

When Washington spends money on a colossal scale, responsibility becomes diffuse. A federal agency sends money to a state. The state sends it to a provider. The provider bills a program. A nonprofit administers another piece. Somewhere along that chain, the pigs find the teats.

Then everybody expresses shock.

RELATED: Can a $1.2 trillion giveaway become a fiscal bargain?

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Perhaps the 50 states should shoulder far more responsibility for caring for their own poor. Perhaps Washington should stop pretending that every human problem requires another federal funding stream.

The alternative is industrial-scale socialism accompanied by industrial-scale fraud.

Something else eventually gets stolen, too: trust. Every dollar stolen from Medicaid makes taxpayers more suspicious of Medicaid. Every fake food-benefit claim makes it harder to defend assistance for the family who actually needs groceries. Every crooked nonprofit feeds the suspicion that “compassion” has become a business model.

That may be the most destructive theft of all.

The Democratic Socialists of America do not own the word “kindness.” Neither does any political party. Americans who work, pay taxes, and agree to help their neighbors have every right to demand that their money reach the people it was intended to help.

And they have every right to be furious with the pigs at the teats who steal it.

Bern notice: Sanders’ AI plan puts Washington in charge of tomorrow



Americans should pay close attention to a new artificial intelligence proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a democratic socialist, and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas).

Sanders and Casar recently announced plans to introduce the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act. Their proposal is designed to prevent the creation of artificial intelligence systems that become more intelligent than human beings or develop capabilities that could threaten humanity.

Overseeing frontier AI would be more difficult than running a railroad or postal network.

The dangers they identify deserve to be taken seriously. But their proposed solution would also place extraordinary power over one of the most consequential technologies in human history in the hands of the federal government.

According to a summary released by Sanders’ office, the proposal would permanently prohibit the development and deployment of artificial superintelligence, including systems that surpass human intelligence, threaten governments, or evade human control. It would also pause advanced AI development until a new federal regulator establishes safety rules and a process for reviewing models.

That is only the beginning. Sanders and Casar want to establish a new Cabinet-level agency responsible for regulating advanced artificial intelligence. The agency would monitor frontier AI systems throughout their development, oversee the removal of capabilities deemed dangerous, and supervise the destruction of prohibited artificial-superintelligence systems.

The proposal also contemplates severe penalties. People who violate or circumvent its restrictions could face up to 20 years in prison. Companies could face what Sanders’ office calls the “corporate death penalty.” The United States would also pursue international agreements, export controls, and allied coordination intended to prevent artificial superintelligence from being developed elsewhere.

Without a doubt, advanced AI could pose serious threats to human freedom and security. A system capable of evading human control, conducting sophisticated cyberattacks, helping develop biological weapons, or manipulating critical infrastructure would present risks unlike almost anything governments have confronted. Sanders’ office cites reported incidents involving advanced AI systems as evidence that the technology is becoming increasingly difficult to control.

The key question is whether giving Washington sweeping regulatory authority would solve more problems than it causes. The federal government does not exactly have an impeccable record managing complicated institutions.

RELATED: Anthropic entrusts its AI oversight to globalist cronies — prioritizing the world over you

Rudall30/Getty Images

The Postal Service reported a $9 billion net loss in fiscal year 2025. Amtrak, despite record ridership and revenue, reported a $598.4 million adjusted operating loss for the same fiscal year. The federal government had accumulated a $2 trillion deficit through the first 11 months of fiscal 2026.

Those comparisons do not prove that a federal AI regulator would fail. Running a railroad or postal network is obviously different from regulating artificial intelligence. If anything, overseeing frontier AI would be more difficult. But the government’s record raises a legitimate institutional question: How confident should Americans be that Washington can successfully oversee technology that even its developers acknowledge can be difficult to understand and control?

Another danger deserves even more attention: politicization.

Under the Sanders-Casar proposal, a Cabinet-level agency would determine which advanced AI systems may proceed, establish safety rules, review models, monitor their capabilities, require developers to remove features deemed dangerous, and supervise the destruction of systems that cross the government’s line.

Those are immense powers. Government officials could use them to limit lawful activity, favor politically connected companies, or advance particular ideological causes and special interests.

Artificial intelligence will increasingly shape how Americans receive information, communicate, work, conduct research, educate their children, and participate in the economy. A regulatory structure powerful enough to determine which advanced AI models may exist could therefore exercise tremendous influence over American life.

There is also a serious federalism debate that should not be overlooked. Congress possesses substantial constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, while states retain broad traditional regulatory powers. AI regulation could therefore involve authority at both levels of government rather than belonging exclusively to either one.

A state-centered model offers an important structural advantage: It disperses power.

States can adopt different approaches, experiment with different safety standards, and correct mistakes without necessarily imposing the consequences of those mistakes on the entire country. Regulatory capture can occur in state governments, too, but capturing one state regulator is different from capturing a single federal agency controlling advanced AI nationwide.

RELATED: Silicon Valley is building a god in its own image

Gremlin/Getty Images

Supporters of federal regulation can reasonably respond that a patchwork of 50 state systems would create serious compliance problems for technology that routinely crosses state boundaries. A national regulator could also impose consistent rules on developers whose products operate throughout the country.

That is a serious argument. But so is the danger of allowing one centralized authority to micromanage breakthroughs in AI. A mistake, political abuse, or act of regulatory capture at the federal level could affect the entire country at once.

The proposal has been announced but not yet formally introduced, so its precise statutory language remains unknown. Based on the summary released by Sanders’ office, however, it would create a Cabinet agency capable of stopping AI development, ordering systems destroyed, imposing potentially existential penalties on companies, and sending people to prison for decades.

Before Congress considers such an extraordinary framework, Americans should decide how much authority any single government agency should possess over the development of artificial intelligence — and what safeguards would prevent that authority from being abused.

The GOP has mastered the art of wasting a majority



Republicans seek office while Democrats seek power. That explains our politics in a nutshell. It also explains why nothing ever changes — at least not for the better.

The four years of Biden’s presidency were among the most miserable in recent American history in terms of culture, affordability, freedom, and America’s standing in the world. But any critically thinking person should ask: Why didn’t we enjoy the residual effects of Trump’s first term?

Republicans warn voters that Democrats will wield power aggressively if they win, while demonstrating that Republicans themselves are reluctant to wield it while they have it.

On the surface, that observation sounds sophomoric. Of course Biden countermanded policies from Trump’s first term. That was to be expected. But dig deeper and you realize that nearly every auspicious conservative policy was implemented through executive action rather than codified into law. It could therefore be reversed by a succeeding administration or challenged in court.

That is why every ounce of Trump’s political capital should have been focused on codifying his core campaign promises into must-pass legislation so we would not repeat the same history when the pendulum eventually swings back toward Democrats.

Instead, Republicans have blown through nearly the entirety of what is likely Trump’s second and final governing trifecta with almost none of their core immigration or economic promises codified into permanent law. Now they are canceling most of the remaining legislative days before the election under the guise of giving members more time to campaign for another term in a majority they are struggling to defend.

They are also staging a first-of-its-kind midterm convention to scare Republican voters about Democrats — all while ignoring, and in some cases relinquishing, the power they currently possess.

What is the point of campaigning to retain power while you hold it but refuse to use it? What changes after the election even if Republicans retain the House? And why, with the party facing serious political headwinds, would Trump and congressional Republicans not use every remaining legislative day to focus on popular issues that could inject some momentum into an otherwise listless campaign?

Last week, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced that the House would return for only a one-week session in mid-September and then adjourn until after the election. That leaves House lawmakers just four more legislative days before November 3.

I suppose one could argue that given how bad they have been, it is better to keep them out of Washington.

But if that is our attitude, why should anyone vote to send them back?

RELATED: Washington must not forget the grassroots

Leon Neal/Getty Images

It didn’t have to be this way. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling on birthright citizenship, Republicans could have used the budget, the National Defense Authorization Act, or reconciliation to try to prohibit federal funding for citizenship documents issued under circumstances they oppose. They could have pursued legislation changing how noncitizens are treated in congressional apportionment. They could have attempted to defund sanctuary jurisdictions or restrict programs that allow foreign workers to compete with Americans for jobs.

In other words, they could at least have attempted to use their final legislative days before the election to fulfill their mandate. That itself would have been a stronger campaign message than the languid narrative they currently offer.

After all, what is the point of clearing the schedule for extra campaign days if you have nothing positive to campaign on?

Instead, Republicans returned last week and quickly passed a continuing resolution funding the government through December 11 with virtually none of the immigration or economic reforms conservatives spent the past two years demanding. The House passed it 370-48.

“Well, they don’t want to rock the boat close to the election, so they opted for a clean CR,” you might retort.

Except it was not really clean in the sense conservatives usually mean when they use that term.

The bill contained at least two significant policy provisions. One delays new restrictions on intoxicating hemp-derived THC products that Congress enacted last year. The restrictions were scheduled to take effect November 12 and would have barred many products containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC or other intoxicating cannabinoids per container. The CR now pushes that deadline to December 11.

The hemp industry lobbied heavily for that reprieve, and the White House supported the delay. Republicans who objected argued that Congress was postponing restrictions aimed at increasingly potent and easily accessible products.

Unfortunately, Trump is well-connected to the hemp and marijuana industries, so naturally he is willing to fight for them more than any of his immigration or economic promises.

RELATED: Dallas is the GOP’s last chance to remember why Trump won

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

The continuing resolution also temporarily blocks the Office of Management and Budget from finalizing a proposed rule that would significantly change federal grant-making by giving political appointees greater authority over grants and allowing agencies broader power to modify or cancel awards.

That reform cuts to the heart of one of the central complaints conservatives have made about the administrative state: Federal grant-making often finances organizations, universities, nonprofits, and programs that advance ideological priorities long after the voters who elected the current administration have changed course.

Yet Republicans allowed the stopgap bill to block one of the administration’s more consequential attempts to bring that grant-making under direct political control.

Why?

This is the recurring problem. Republicans routinely decline to codify their own executive actions, then permit temporary spending deals to constrain the executive authority they actually possess.

Meanwhile, they campaign for more power.

The larger record is difficult to ignore. Republicans have controlled the House for 24 of the past 32 years. Yet many of the policy victories conservatives celebrate remain vulnerable to the next president, the next court case, or the next appropriations fight because Congress never secured them in statute.

Holding office becomes the achievement.

The irony is almost perfect. Republicans warn voters that Democrats will wield power aggressively if they win, while demonstrating that Republicans themselves are reluctant to wield it while they have it.

Then they leave Washington to campaign for another chance.

To err is human. To owe $40 trillion is Washington.



Caregiving has taught me to ask a simple question before making a consequential decision: “Is this healthy?” Will this solve today’s problem by consuming what we may need tomorrow? Does it respect the resources entrusted to me?

After 40 years as a caregiver, I have learned that money, time, strength, and even goodwill are finite. Wanting something does not make it wise, and good intentions do not eliminate consequences. A caregiver who confuses desire with capacity can hurt the very person he is trying to help.

We are financing today’s promises with tomorrow’s labor, then congratulating ourselves for our generosity.

Caring describes an intention. Stewardship requires an accounting. By that standard, Washington has failed spectacularly.

The United States has now crossed $40 trillion in national debt. The figure barely communicates anything. Forty trillion sounds like something a third-grader says when trying to name the biggest number in the world.

The national debt is what Washington has accumulated through borrowing. The annual deficit is how much more it spends than it collects each year. The debt is the hole. The deficit is how much deeper we dig it.

The Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.9 trillion federal deficit for fiscal year 2026. Congress has looked into a $40 trillion hole and concluded that what it needs is more digging.

Democrats invoke compassion to justify spending money the government does not have. Republicans campaign on fiscal restraint, win office, and then discover that their preferred spending somehow does not count. One party calls it caring. The other calls it necessary. Both send the bill to our children.

Each party points furiously at the other while passing the national credit card back and forth. Both help start the fire, then pass the collection plate while arguing over who bought the gasoline.

Now we enter election season, when, as Lloyd Christmas might say, the promises flow like the salmon of Capistrano. Candidates will tell us how deeply they care about families, seniors, veterans, national defense, and taxpayers. They will demonstrate their concern for one group by promising it money borrowed from all the others. A politician can always appear compassionate by promising benefits with other people’s money.

RELATED: It took 200 years to reach $1 trillion in national debt. 2026 said, ‘Hold my beer.’

Mandel NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

Stewardship asks harder questions: How much will this cost? Who will pay for it? What has the existing program accomplished? What happens if your projections are wrong? If this is worth doing, why must we borrow the money?

Those are not cruel questions. They are the responsible ones.

Government cannot create resources by attaching the word “federal” to them. There is no government money. Government either collects money from today’s citizens or borrows against tomorrow’s taxpayers.

We are financing today’s promises with tomorrow’s labor, then congratulating ourselves for our generosity. There is nothing generous about giving away the money of someone not yet born. That is taxation without representation on a generational scale.

Stewardship does not require government to spend nothing or never incur debt. Families and nations face genuine emergencies. Caregivers understand that. Medical catastrophes rarely consult the household budget before arriving.

But caregivers often do without. Congress seems far more comfortable assigning sacrifice than accepting any. I have also learned that an emergency cannot become a permanent governing philosophy.

At my kitchen table, I cannot promise everything, spend without limit, blame someone else when the bills arrive, and then congratulate myself for caring. Yet Washington does just that.

RELATED: Scott Bessent is the secret weapon for Trump’s economic plan

Ludovic MARIN/AFP/Getty Images

Over the next few months, commercials filled with flags, farms, hard hats, classrooms, and concerned expressions will flood the airwaves. Recorded voices will warn that civilization depends upon our response before midnight.

As the onslaught escalates, keep asking one question: Is this candidate a good steward? Not only of public money, but of public trust, constitutional authority, and the extraordinary inheritance of self-government.

To our national shame, we may not be able to answer yes about many of them. That does not excuse us from voting. It makes our responsibility more sobering.

Ronald Reagan popularized “trust, but verify” when dealing with the Soviet Union. Washington has now given us $40 trillion reasons to apply it to our own government. We must choose the better steward and then hold that person accountable.

Campaign season is when politicians sell. Election Day is when we buy. Tax Day reminds us what we paid. Better hang on to the receipt.

After April 15, we begin to learn whether they can manage what they were so eager to sell.

Around my kitchen table, math eventually gets the final vote. At $40 trillion in debt, one wonders whether math even applies in the halls of Congress.

It’s Past Time For USED To Pull Taxpayer Funds From Schools That Secretly Trans Kids

There are only so many warnings the Education Department can give before it starts taking action against noncompliant states.

Activists RAGE against Democrat who admits hiding LGBTQ+ support to appease Muslims



A Muslim Democrat running for Washington’s 9th Congressional District has admitted to obscuring her support for LGBTQ+ to appease her Muslim supporters.

Melissa Chaudhry, 34, is facing the ire of the LGBTQ+ mob over the comments, which she made in an interview with the Stranger.

'LGBTQ+ rights are not optional. They are foundational to any candidate seeking Democratic support.'

She was asked why LGBTQ+ rights were not mentioned on her campaign website despite her claiming to support the issue.

"Because a lot of Muslims do not feel that way, unfortunately," she responded.

Among the LGBTQ+ activist groups excoriating Chaudhry was Washington Stonewall Democrats Chair Andrew Ashiofu.

"Our community is not expendable. LGBTQ+ rights are not optional. They are foundational to any candidate seeking Democratic support,” wrote Ashiofu.

His group followed up with its own scathing statement.

"She avoids talking about LGBTQIA+ issues so as not to offend her Muslim supporters," the group said. "What a privileged statement to make, creating misinformation to cause chaos between two oppressed demographics. One would think she would apologise and move on. Again, thinking rationally is not something all candidates possess, as proven by Melissa."

Chaudhry responded to Ashiofu in a lengthy statement on social media.

"If you are queer, and you are wondering if you and your rights are safe with me, I assure you from the bottom of my heart, you are, you have always been, and you always will be," she wrote.

RELATED: LGBTQ groups FURIOUS at CA county ending Pride Month display at library — over a bookmark

"I have supported full equality for LGBTQ+ people my entire life, not since this campaign started, my entire life," she added.

Her campaign appeared to add LGBTQ+ issues to her website after the outrage ensued.

In a post on YouTube, she accused the Washington Stonewall Democrats of being bigoted against her because she wears the hijab.

Chaudhry also caused consternation among Democrats after indicating that she planned to switch to the Green Party once she got into office.

"I don’t want you to publish this," she said during the explicitly on-the-record interview with the Stranger.

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

Trump fires US attorney minutes after activist judges installed him, leaving Patty Murray in tatters



A gang of federal judges installed a past appointee of former Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee in the role of U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington state on Wednesday. President Donald Trump made sure, however, that the judges' pick didn't last long in the position.

"District court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. Attorney, and POTUS can fire them," acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. "WDWA judges abandoned the time-honored process of consultation with the administration so that the selected U.S. Attorney is qualified to serve in the administration."

'Glad he was fired right away.'

Quick background

The Biden Department of Justice announced on March 1, 2021, that it had appointed Tessa Gorman as acting U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington. Shortly after retaking office, President Donald Trump kicked Gorman to the curb.

In October, Trump named a notoriously tough immigration judge, Charles Neil Floyd, as the new attorney. U.S. attorneys are normally nominated by the president, then confirmed by the Senate. In the case of Floyd, Trump never forwarded the nomination to the Senate.

Interim U.S. attorneys are allowed to serve for only 120 days if not confirmed by the Senate or extended indefinitely by the district court for the district concerned. The Trump administration took steps, however, to ensure that Floyd would remain the top dog in the Western District by keeping the top post vacant, then having the DOJ appoint Floyd first assistant U.S. attorney on Feb. 2.

Federal judges in Seattle, who already announced that they would seek to fill the position of the Western District's U.S. attorney, began taking applications in March.

One-hour appointment

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington — comprising 17 federal judges, 10 of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents — issued an unanimous order on Wednesday naming Roger Rogoff as the U.S. attorney for the district.

RELATED: Justice Amy Coney Barrett describes SWATTING attack against her family

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Neil Floyd. U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington.

The order — which was signed by David Estudillo, a U.S. district judge appointed by former President Joe Biden — claimed that the intent behind Rogoff's appointment was to "ensure the integrity and effective administration of justice in this district."

Rogoff was sworn in before 8 a.m. at the federal courthouse in downtown Seattle on Wednesday, then went to meet with Floyd, reported the Associated Press. Rogoff told KING-TV that by 8:34 a.m., he had received an email informing him that he had been removed from the post per the president's instruction.

Blanche announced at 5:11 p.m. ET that "Roger Rogoff has been fired by the President."

This turn of events ruffled the feathers of Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

Murray lashed out at the administration on X, writing, "Within an HOUR after being legally appointed by the federal judges as Western WA's top prosecutor, Trump fired Roger Rogoff. Not because he isn’t qualified (he is), but because the President wants a sock puppet who puts Trump above the rule of law."

Murray noted further in a release, "Roger Rogoff’s [sic] is eminently qualified — throughout his career, he has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to public service, and he was appointed legally by the federal judges in the Western District of Washington. He should have never been fired, but the president wants to appoint an out-of-touch extremist who will put Trump over the rule of law."

Keith Swank, the sheriff of Pierce County, Washington, took Murray's characterization of Rogoff as "qualified" as a clear indicator "he's a political hack."

"Glad he was fired right away after the stunt the leftist judges did," wrote the Republican sheriff.

Rogoff, who told the Associated Press he is considering suing over his termination, said, "The fact that the judges of this district — most of whom I’ve spent my career appearing in front of, or trying cases against, or working with — believed that I was the right person to do this work is just really humbling and amazing."

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

Is Mitch McConnell still fit to serve? Glenn Beck investigates Washington's silence



Senator Mitch McConnell was confirmed to have been hospitalized on June 14 for an unknown condition — but that was now weeks ago, and the people of Kentucky have received no meaningful updates about his condition.

Now, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is asking questions that Washington refuses to answer.

“Here are the rumors. And they’re rumors. If they’re true, they’re tragic. If the rumors are false, then somebody needs to step up and tell the American people the truth. Either way, this is not how a constitutional republic is supposed to function,” Glenn says.


According to these rumors, it’s been three weeks since the people of Kentucky have heard about the condition of Senator Mitch McConnell.

“His office has issued really carefully worded statements. He’s recovering. He appreciates everyone’s support. They don’t say what happened. They don’t say when he’s going to return,” Glenn explains. “They don’t answer even the basic question every citizen has a right to: Can he still do the job?”

“Is he still thinking? And this is not a cruel question, but the guy is a sitting senator, and it’s a question that matters, because this is bigger than Mitch McConnell. We watched America do this with President Biden,” he continues.

“Republicans are now the mirror image of the people they criticized,” he says. “You know, if your party has spent years demanding honesty about the president’s health, you kind of have an obligation to demand honesty about your own leader in your own GOP.”

“This is not about left or right. This is about representation,” he adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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.