Category: Blaze Media
Here are North America’s top 5 fake Indians
The post-colonial grievance industry successfully infected the worlds of academia, entertainment, and politics over the past century with its anti-Western brand of revisionist victim politics. As a result, various middling individuals who were not personally injured by perceived historical injustices found it possible and even lucrative to exploit the guilt of the faultless many.
Following the recent revelation that the Sacramento native dubbed by Canadian state media as “one of the most influential indigenous writers and scholars of his generation” was never an Indian to begin with, Blaze News has finalized its top-five list of fake Indians in North America.
1. Thomas King
Since obtaining his doctorate in English/American studies from the University of Utah in the late 1980s, Sacramento-born Thomas King has made his supposed Cherokee heritage the center of his identity and output.
He taught native studies courses across the United States and Canada; lectured extensively on the subject of Native American identity, rights, history, and grievances; penned numerous books on theme, including “The Inconvenient Indian,” “The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative,” and “A Short History of Indians in Canada”; had a comedy radio show on Canadian state radio where he periodically mocked white people and their supposed misconceptions about Indians; and spent decades engaged in Indian-related political activism.
For his efforts, King has been showered with numerous lucrative awards — including the National Aboriginal Achievement Award — and government grants. He was not only made a member of the Order of Canada but promoted to companion of the Order of Canada for exposing “the hard truths of the injustices of the indigenous peoples of North America.”
The 82-year-old writer turns out to have been of European stock all along.
Late last month, King, whose mother’s side of the family is Greek, told the Globe and Mail that in a Nov. 13 meeting with the director of the North Carolina-based Cherokee group Tribal Alliance Against Frauds and a supposedly Indian professor at the University of British Columbia, he was confronted with genealogical evidence indicating there was no Cherokee ancestry on either side of his family.
RELATED: The campus left’s diversity scam exposed in 30 seconds flat
Thomas King, an influential writer of European heritage. Photo by Ulf Andersen/Getty Images.
“I didn’t know I didn’t have Cherokee on my father’s side of the family until I saw the genealogical evidence,” said King. “As soon as I saw it, I was fairly sure it was accurate. It’s pretty clear.”
‘Indians don’t cry.’
King indicated he had previously heard rumors that he was not an Indian but that nothing came of them.
“No Cherokee on the King side. No Cherokee on the Hunt side. No Indians anywhere to be found,” King subsequently noted in an op-ed. “At 82, I feel as though I’ve been ripped in half, a one-legged man in a two-legged story. Not the Indian I had in mind. Not an Indian at all.”
2. Iron Eyes Cody
The group Keep America Beautiful’s iconic “Crying Indian” anti-litter public service announcement, which debuted on television in 1971, shows a supposed Indian, Iron Eyes Cody, dressed in beaded moccasins and buck-skin attire paddling his canoe down a river, past a dockyard, and onto a beach covered in garbage, where he sheds a tear at the sight of a vehicle passenger throwing a paper bag full of fast food out a car window.
This was hardly the first or only time Cody wore his feathers in front of cameras.
Iron Eyes Cody with President Jimmy Carter. Getty Images.
Cody, who the New York Times indicated initially resisted doing the commercial because “Indians don’t cry,” played an American Indian in numerous movies, engaged in Indian-related activism, and long maintained that he was the genuine article.
Although Cody claimed he was born in Oklahoma territory to a Cherokee Indian father and a Cree mother, he was in fact the son of Italian immigrants, Francesca Salpietra and Antonio DeCorti, who arrived in the U.S. two years before his birth in Louisiana. His original name was Espera DeCorti.
According to Snopes, he changed his name from DeCorti to Cody after moving to Hollywood in the 1920s and began masquerading as an American Indian.
3. Sacheen Littlefeather
Sacheen Littlefeather, Marlon Brando’s stand-in at the 1973 Academy Awards, refused the Oscar for Best Actor on behalf of the “Godfather” star, citing “the treatment of American Indians today by the film industry … and on television in movie re-runs, and also with recent happenings at Wounded Knee.”
RELATED: No more stiff upper lip: My fellow Brits are fed up with ‘diversity’
Sacheen Littlefeather. Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images.
Throughout her life, Littlefeather claimed that she was an Apache Indian. Her sisters revealed, however, that Littlefeather, who died in October 2022, was the daughter of a Spanish-American and a woman of European descent.
The activist’s real name was Marie Louise Cruz.
‘Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess.’
Jacqueline Keeler, a member of the Navajo Nation who undertook genealogical research for Cruz’s sister, reportedly found that “all of the family’s cousins, great-aunts, uncles, and grandparents going back to about 1880 (when their direct ancestors crossed the border from Mexico) identified as white, Caucasian, and Mexican on key legal documents in the United States.”
4. Buffy Sainte-Marie
Buffy Sainte-Marie is an Academy Award-winning folk singer who has claimed Native American heritage since the early 1960s.
In her agitprop and activism, Sainte-Marie has spoken from what Teen Vogue called an “indigenous perspective,” repeatedly condemning colonization and referring to America’s founding and the supposed erasure of American Indians as “genocide.” She also has touted herself as a “survivor” of an allegedly racist government welfare program that placed certain Native American kids in foster homes.
After five decades of claiming to have Indian heritage — at one stage claiming she was a “full-blooded Algonquin Indian,” at another that she was “half-Micmac by birth,” and finally that she was Cree, born on the Piapot First Nation reserve in Saskatchewan — she was outed by Canadian state media as a fraud.
Documents obtained by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, including her birth certificate, revealed that Buffy Sainte-Marie was born in Stoneham, Massachusetts; that her original name was Beverly Jean Santamaria; and that her parents were Albert and Winifred Santamaria, who were of Italian and English backgrounds, respectively.
The singer’s sister stated, “She’s clearly not indigenous or Native American.”
Sainte-Marie, who like Thomas King had been made a member of the Order of Canada, had her membership revoked after it was revealed she was another fake Indian. She was also stripped of her Juno Awards and Polaris Music Prizes, although she was reportedly able to keep the substantial cash prizes they came with.
5. Elizabeth Warren
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is another affluent liberal woman who masqueraded for decades as an American Indian for apparent personal gain, going so far as to contribute five recipes to a 1984 cookbook characterized as “recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families” called “Pow Wow Chow.“
Warren told reporters in 2012, “Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess, since the day I was born.”
While working at the University of Texas School of Law, Warren not only claimed “American Indian” status on her State Bar of Texas registration card but listed herself in the Association of American Law Schools annual directory as a minority law professor. Since she did not bother correcting her minority identification after the release of the 1986-1987 edition, it appeared that way in the next eight editions, reported the Boston Globe.
Just after she began formally identifying as a minority in the late 1980s, Warren landed a full-time job offer from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Three years after securing the job, university records reportedly indicated that Warren leaned on the university to ensure that her ethnicity was listed as “Native American” instead of “white.”
Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
UPenn’s April 2005 Minority Equity Report clearly lists Warren was a “minority.” According to the Boston Globe, for at least three of the years Warren taught at the law school, she was listed as the solitary American Indian female professor.
In the 1990s, Warren moved on to work at Harvard Law School, which was sure to note her supposedly Indian heritage. The Globe indicated that Harvard Law School used Warren’s fake minority status to justify not hiring more minorities.
‘I am a white person who has incorrectly identified as native my whole life.’
In 2018, President Donald Trump, who had long derided Warren as “Pocahontas,” challenged the senator to get a DNA test to prove she was Native American. The test results came back showing that she was only 1/1,024th Native American if at all.
When Warren ran unsuccessfully for president in 2020, over 200 Cherokee and other Native Americans signed an open letter to the senator noting, “Whatever your intentions, your actions have normalized white people claiming to be native, and perpetuated a dangerous misunderstanding of tribal sovereignty. Your actions do not exist in a vacuum but are part of a long and violent history.”
Dishonorable mentions
Among the others who have benefited greatly from pretending to be Indians are:
- Jamake Highwater was an award-winning writer and journalist who penned over 30 books, including “Anpao: An American Indian Odyssey” and “The Primal Mind: Vision and Reality in Indian America,” usually from an American Indian perspective. Highwater led the public to believe that he was born to an illiterate Blackfoot mother and a Cherokee father, who dumped him in an orphanage, where a couple in Southern California picked him up and raised him. However, Assiniboine activist Hank Adams and Washington Post columnist Jack Anderson exposed Highwater as another fraud. Highwater’s original name was Jackie Marks. He was apparently the Jewish son of a Russian mother and a father of Eastern European descent who worked as an actor in Hollywood.
- Elizabeth Hoover is an associate professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who long claimed to be of Mohawk and Mi’kmaq descent. Hoover admitted in May 2023, “I am a white person who has incorrectly identified as native my whole life.” The Berkeley professor confirmed that had she not been “perceived as a native scholar,” she may not have received some academic fellowships, opportunities, and material benefits. Despite admitting to causing harm and benefiting from her fraudulent identity, she did not resign.
- Heather Rae is an award-winning producer who served on the Academy of Motion Pictures’ Indigenous Alliance and previously led the Sundance Institute’s Native American program. She was accused by the Tribal Alliance Against Frauds in 2023 of lying about being Cherokee. Rae told the Hollywood Reporter in a puff piece that appeared to vex the Tribal Alliance Against Frauds, “I think there’s a lot of nuance to this identity.”
- Joseph Boyden is a prominent Canadian novelist who was regarded at one point as “arguably the most celebrated indigenous author in Canadian history.” His writing largely centered on Indian characters and their experiences. Boyden, the recipient of numerous awards and grants, claimed over the years that there was Métis, Mi’kmaq, Ojibway, and/or Nipmuc blood in his family’s mix. In one instance, when buying a significant portion of land, he reportedly claimed to be Metis and showed a photocopied tribal card. When he was first exposed as another fraud in 2016, he claimed that his family’s Indian roots had been “whitewashed” due “to the destructive influences of colonialism.” While Boyden later admitted he was a “white kid from Willowdale,” he maintained that he had “native roots” on his Irish Catholic father’s side as well as on his mother’s side.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
White House names names in new ‘media bias tracker’ in wake of ‘seditious’ Democrat video
Last month, several Democrat lawmakers appeared in a video calling for intelligence and military personnel to “refuse illegal orders” from President Donald Trump’s administration. Last week, the White House launched a new page to explicitly call out the media in the wake of some of its misleading coverage about the “seditious” video.
The bias tracker website names the Boston Globe, CBS News, and the Independent as the “media offender of the week.”
‘The president has never given an illegal order. These people know what they are doing.’
Alyssa Vega, Andrew Feinberg, Eric Garcia, and Nancy Cordes are called out by name for their coverage of the video and of Trump’s response.
It also shows a clip of the original video from Democrat lawmakers. The video is edited to label the Democrats as “seditious” after they demand defiance of supposedly “illegal” orders. A narrator then adds, “The president has never given an illegal order. These people know what they are doing.”
RELATED: ‘SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR’: Trump demands arrest of ‘traitor’ Democrat congressmen for ‘dangerous’ video
Photo by Pete Marovich/Getty Images
The same can be said of the media, the White House argues.
“The media misrepresented President Trump’s call for Members of Congress to be held accountable for inciting sedition by saying that he called for the ‘execution,'” the site states under “the Offense” section.
The White House website also includes an “offender hall of shame” with a long record of what it calls media bias. The hall of shame lists stories, publications, and reporters under various categories of offense, including “bias,” “malpractice,” “lie,” “omission of context,” and “left-wing lunacy.”
The media bias tracker currently lists more than 30 stories and 20 publications.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), and Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) delivered the original “seditious” message last month. The FBI has reportedly sought to interview Sen. Kelly and the other Democrats who appeared in the video.
Kelly’s office told NBC News, “Senator Kelly won’t be silenced by President Trump and Secretary Hegseth’s attempt to intimidate him and keep him from doing his job as a U.S. Senator.”
Rep. Goodlander, who is married to Joe Biden’s former national security adviser Jake Sullivan, has spoken out publicly in the days following the video as well: “It is the basic principle that our service members follow lawful orders and lawful orders only. And that should not be a threat. Any other president of the United States in all of our history would absolutely agree with this principle. And that the President has become so unglued by it, I think unfortunately really is telling.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Team Mace hits back at former top adviser for bashing governor hopeful over Trump disloyalty: ‘Didn’t raise a dime’
Republican Rep. Nancy Mace’s South Carolina gubernatorial campaign set its sights on a former consultant after he took to social media to air his grievances.
Austin McCubbin, a longtime Republican operative and former adviser to Mace’s campaign, dramatically exited her team on Monday, accusing the candidate of being disloyal to President Donald Trump. In a lengthy post on X, McCubbin claimed Mace “decided to turn her back on MAGA” only to “hug the political cactus that is the Rand Paul + Thomas Massie wing of the Party.”
‘When he demanded $10,000 a month for “services” and was told no, he ran straight to X.’
“My name has been used publicly, while going back on her word to pay me, to trade on my Team Trump status and to work on her behalf with the White House, and I am 100% breaking with her campaign out of loyalty to the President,” McCubbin said.
Mace’s campaign strongly pushed back and painted a much different picture than what McCubbin was claiming.
“Mr. McCubbin didn’t raise a dime for the campaign or, better yet, never even bothered showing up,” a spokesperson for Mace’s campaign told Blaze News. “When he demanded $10,000 a month for ‘services’ and was told no, he ran straight to X. Good luck with that.”
RELATED: ‘You’re a piece of s**t’: Nancy Mace and Cory Mills clash in heated exchange after failed censure
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images
“Nancy Mace has stood with President Trump since Day ONE. Mr. McCubbin said it himself: ‘Nancy Mace will be the most pro-Trump and America First Governor in the country.'”
Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Mace reiterated this narrative on social media, calling McCubbin “tone-deaf” and “out of touch.”
“The feeling when a political ‘consultant’ demands $10k per month to give you bad advice you’ll never use… and they cry on social media when you turn them down…” Mace said. “Those who rely on the elite. The powerful. The establishment. Are completely out of touch. Tone Deaf. To the needs of the powerless.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
‘Chatbot Jesus’ is a digital fake — and churches are falling for it
Artificial intelligence now offers “Chatbot Jesus,” personalized prayers, AI-generated sermons, and even virtual pastors charging monthly fees. Some see these tools as a lifeline for shrinking congregations. Others claim they offer new ways to evangelize.
The church must speak plainly: We are not called to relevance. We are called to righteousness. Scripture commands believers to “test all things; hold fast what is good.”
People are not abandoning faith because the church lacks modern technology. They are leaving because they are starving for truth in an age of deception.
Technology itself is neither holy nor wicked. The printing press, radio, livestreaming, and Bible apps have all served ministry. AI that organizes calendars, translates languages, or answers simple questions is just another tool.
Crossing a biblical line
Trouble begins when technology imitates divinity. An app that invites people to “talk with Jesus” steps into territory Scripture reserves for the living God alone. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice” (John 10:27). Only the Lord speaks with the authority of Matthew 24:35: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.”
No chatbot can make that claim.
The danger becomes obvious when apps offer simulated “conversations” with Judas or Satan. God forbids consulting spirits, mediums, or conjured voices (Leviticus 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Why would the church encourage digital re-creations of what Scripture calls an abomination?
Convenience or relevance cannot override explicit biblical commands.
You can’t outsource the Holy Spirit
Some pastors now admit they use AI to help write sermons. Others market “avatar” versions of themselves. But ministry has never centered on polished prose. It has always centered on God’s power — His breath, His Spirit, His Word.
Paul wrote, “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power” (1 Corinthians 2:4).
You cannot automate the power of God. You cannot outsource the voice of the Holy Spirit. You cannot download anointing.
A sermon is not literary content to be refined by software. It must be birthed in prayer, wrestled through in Scripture, and delivered in obedience. As Jesus said, “Apart from Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). That includes preaching.
Tech won’t save us
Axios reported that up to 15,000 churches may close this year and that 29% of Americans now claim no religion. That trend calls for actual spiritual renewal, not AI simulations of Jesus.
People are not abandoning faith because the church lacks modern technology. They are leaving because they are starving for truth in an age of deception. The early church grew because believers “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship … and fear came upon every soul” (Acts 2:42-43). They witnessed repentance, signs, wonders, and transformation — none of which machines can produce.
True revival begins where the early church began: holiness, unity, prayer, obedience, and the power of the Holy Spirit.
A distortion of Christ
False voices proclaiming truth are not new. The only novelty is that they are now automated. The central danger of “AI spirituality” is doctrinal corruption. What sources shape these chatbots? What ideology trains them? If systems learn from shallow teaching or progressive theology divorced from Scripture, they will preach a distorted Christ.
When AI “hallucinates” — and all current systems do — it can hand users outright lies.
Jesus warned, “Beware of false prophets … you will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-16). Paul warned that if anyone preaches “any other gospel … let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). From Genesis onward, the devil has counterfeited God’s voice. AI can and will preach an “other gospel” if it draws from anything other than Scripture.
RELATED: God-tier AI? Why there’s no easy exit from the human condition
gremlin via iStock/Getty Images
Believers must remain discerning. “Do not be deceived” (1 Corinthians 15:33). “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit” (Colossians 2:8). Those who build their faith on machine-generated counsel risk building a house on sand rather than the Rock (Matthew 7:24-27).
A servant, not a shepherd
Tools can organize schedules and streamline communication. They can assist brainstorming. But preaching, prayer, prophecy, discipleship, deliverance, and counsel belong to the life of the Spirit — not the cold logic of machines.
Technology must remain a servant. It must never become a shepherd. Only the good shepherd, Jesus Christ, leads His people.
Jesus said, “I am the door of the sheep,” “I am the good shepherd,” and “I lay down My life for the sheep” (John 10). No AI pastor and no “Chatbot Jesus” can claim any of that.
Revival will not come from faster processors or stronger large language models. It will come when God’s people “humble themselves,” pray, seek His face, and turn from their wicked ways (2 Chronicles 7:14).
The world does not need a digital imitation of Jesus. It needs the real Jesus — the one who, as Hebrews 13:8 tells us, “is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
It’s not ‘racist’ to notice Somali fraud
Last week, my colleague Ryan Thorpe and I broke a story about widespread fraud committed by Somalis in Minnesota. Members of the state’s Somali community allegedly participated in complex schemes related to autism services, food programs, and housing, which prosecutors estimate have stolen billions of taxpayer dollars. Even worse, some of the cash has ended up in the hands of Al-Shabaab, a terrorist organization in Somalia.
The story quickly reached the White House. Within days, President Trump announced that he was revoking Temporary Protected Status for all Somali migrants in Minnesota.
Progressives have suggested that our reporting and the subsequent policy change were “racist.” While many of those indicted in these schemes are Somali, these critics argue, the federal government should not hold Minnesota’s Somali community corporately responsible for the actions of individuals.
Little Mogadishu in Minneapolis has a real problem, and it is about time that our government began facing it.
This criticism is superficially appealing, but it isn’t persuasive on closer inspection.
First, a description of the facts should not be measured as “racist or not racist,” but rather as “true or not true.” And in this case, the truth is that numerous members of a relatively small community participated in a scheme that stole billions in taxpayer funds. This is a legitimate consideration for American immigration policy, which is organized around nation of origin and, for more than 30 years, has favorably treated Somalis relative to other groups. It is more than fair to ask whether that policy has served the national interest. The fraud story suggests that the answer is “no.”
Second, the fact that Somalis are black is incidental. If Norwegian immigrants were perpetrating fraud at the same alleged scale and had the same employment and income statistics as Somalis, it would be perfectly reasonable to make the same criticism and enact the same policy response. It would not be “racist” against Norwegians to do so.
Further, Somalis have enormously high unemployment rates, and federal law enforcement has long considered Minneapolis’ Little Mogadishu neighborhood a hot spot for terrorism recruitment. We should condemn that behavior without regard to skin color.
The underlying question — which, until now, Americans have been loath to address directly — is that of different behaviors and outcomes between different groups. Americans tend to avoid this question, rely on euphemisms, and let these distinctions remain implied rather than spoken aloud. Yet it seems increasingly untenable to maintain this Anglo-American courtesy when the left has spent decades insisting that we conceptualize our national life in terms of group identity.
The reality is that different groups have different cultural characteristics. The national culture of Somalia is different from the national culture of Norway. Somalis and Norwegians therefore tend to think differently, behave differently, and organize themselves differently, which leads to different group outcomes. Norwegians in Minnesota behave similarly to Norwegians in Norway; Somalis in Minnesota behave similarly to Somalis in Somalia. Many cultural patterns from Somalia — particularly clan networks, informal economies, and distrust of state institutions — travel with the diaspora and have shown up in Minnesota as well. In the absence of strong assimilation pressures, the fraud networks aren’t so surprising; they reflect the extension of Somali institutional norms into a new environment with weak enforcement and poorly designed incentives.
The beauty of America is that we had a system that thoughtfully balanced individual and group considerations. We recognized that all men, whatever their background, have a natural right to life, liberty, property, and equal treatment under the law. We also recognized that group averages can be a basis for judgment — especially in immigration, where they can help determine which potential immigrant groups are most suitable and advantageous for America.
RELATED: Chip Roy’s immigration blitz hits the lawless left and the squish right
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
These principles are in tension but not in contradiction. As a sociological matter, a policy of equal rights for all individuals will result in unequal outcomes among groups. This is not a sign of injustice per se. It is an inevitability. No two groups are the same, and therefore, no two groups will have the same outcomes in a system of individual liberty and equality.
The firestorm around the Somali fraud story was so intense precisely because it forced this question into the spotlight. For decades, America has given Somali immigrants special privileges through TPS. We have expected Somalis to play by the rules, contribute to the country, and assimilate into the culture. Some individuals have certainly done so, but as the fraud story suggests, many others have not. A rational government would amend its policies accordingly.
We can see the same process playing out in other parts of the world. In the United Kingdom, mass immigration from incompatible cultures is creating a civilizational crisis. Rather than replicate the policies of our sister country, we should accept reality and adopt a more thoughtful policy, which recognizes cultural norms as a reasonable measure of capacity to assimilate and to contribute.
The president should stand firm. Little Mogadishu in Minneapolis has a real problem, and it is about time that our government began facing it.
Editor’s note: This article appeared originally on Substack.
Leftist war on pro-life pregnancy centers faces Supreme Court reckoning
Women across America want real choices. Unfortunately, pro-abortion advocates have spent decades determining what “choice” women should want — while attacking pregnancy resource centers that offer women what they need.
For the past three decades, it has been my privilege to serve as a volunteer and board member at Aid for Women, a network of pregnancy centers and maternity homes in Illinois. The success of pregnancy resource centers like ours in offering women genuine support and resources has made us targets for pro-abortion smear campaigns, lawfare, and even physical attack.
Pro-abortion activists don’t seem to care if women, children, and families are cut off from the support they need.
On Dec. 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that perfectly encapsulates the targeting and harassment organizations like ours have suffered for years.
The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, will determine whether the New Jersey attorney general can arbitrarily demand private donor lists and other confidential information from First Choice Women’s Resource Center without cause.
It’s critical that the Supreme Court rule favorably toward First Choice Women’s Resource Centers and send a warning to those targeting pro-life work nationwide.
Pro-abortion attacks on pregnancy resource centers have escalated in recent years.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, pro-abortion radicals unleashed a summer of rage that included physical violence on nearly 100 pregnancy resource centers nationwide. These attacks were shocking to those of us stepping up to meet the need post-Dobbs, especially after fresh polling revealed that 60% of post-abortive women said they would have preferred to parent if they had more resources and support.
We were baffled why anyone would want to cut off support networks for women, many of whom clearly wanted to choose life, at a time when increased limits on abortion made our work more essential than ever. Even in blue states that do not have a single restriction on abortion, pro-abortion politicians have striven to strangle our support networks and shut us down.
Those of us at Aid for Women felt each of these attacks personally. Even still, we had no idea that we would soon experience pro-abortion “rage” firsthand.
This past August, our center staff served countless babies and moms, oblivious to the Democratic National Convention that was being held in our state.
At that convention, former Vice President Kamala Harris’ Democrat nomination acceptance speech fearmongered about President Trump’s abortion agenda, alleging that Trump and his allies would endanger women and their rights.
Just hours later, one of Aid for Women’s Chicago pregnancy centers was badly vandalized, with doors cemented shut and red paint thrown on the windows, graffiti reading, “Fake Clinic! The dead babies are in Gaza.” The political vitriol from the DNC undoubtedly inspired the physical attack on our center.
Unfortunately, the vandals only succeeded in hurting the very women they claim to champion.
The following day, a dozen pregnant mothers who had booked prenatal appointments at Aid for Women were unable to be seen by the organization’s physician and nurse practitioners due to the vandalism. Dozens more could not visit to pick up the diapers, formula, infant and maternity clothing, and household supplies that Aid for Women provides — all free of charge and all without any government assistance. Every service and item given to pregnant women is provided through the generosity of donors.
RELATED: The FDA’s deadly betrayal of pro-life America
STEFANI REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images
What those attacking our center failed to realize is that many of our clients live below or just skimming the poverty line. Some have housing insecurity. And their inability to access our center for the care that they needed likely affected them dramatically.
Unfortunately, pro-abortion activists don’t seem to care if women, children, and families are cut off from the support they need.
As we approach oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Center, Inc. v. Platkin, the attacks on centers like ours serve as a powerful reminder that those offering alternatives to abortion have become punching bags of abortion extremists that will do anything to stop lifesaving work and promote abortion.
For example, the New Jersey attorney general is alleged to have singled out First Choice Women’s Resource Center because of its pro-life and Christian views. New Jersey officials allegedly have spent months harassing First Choice with crippling administrative requirements, threatening legal sanctions if the organization refused to produce private donor records and other private information — all of which is confidential to protect those involved from the very real threat of pro-abortion retribution.
Compounding this injustice was the shocking truth that New Jersey officials did not have a just cause for this burdensome lawfare and still have not submitted any evidence of wrongdoing by First Choice or any of its associates.
Despite this, donors and volunteers engaging in charitable work face the possibility of intimidation and retribution for putting their money — and their time — where their mouths are.
It’s critical that the Supreme Court end this unfair lawfare against First Choice and draw a line to stop pro-abortion attacks on pregnancy resource centers once and for all.
Joe Rogan gets the aliens wrong — and the danger right
Joe Rogan wants the truth — the truth that’s “out there,” the one Mulder and Scully chased for 11 seasons and two movies. According to filmmaker Dan Farah, who visited Rogan’s podcast last week to promote his documentary “The Age of Disclosure,” that moment has arrived. Farah claims to have firsthand testimony from government officials, with “years of receipts,” showing the federal government spent more than $1 trillion trying to reverse-engineer alien technology.
A trillion dollars! That’s enough to fund several more DEI directors at Harvard.
Demonic influence is not a science-fiction plot. It’s a timely warning: Reconcile with God through Christ, the true and only source of wisdom — not ‘from out there,’ but from above.
Farah insists this program involved “thousands of ordinary people,” the kind who sit next to you at your kid’s baseball game. Apparently half of Little League moonlights in Area 51 while parents compare batting averages. You’re just not in the inner circle.
The surprising part? Rogan and Farah talk as if the existence of nonhuman intelligences would be a revelation. They’re eager for someone — anyone — to tell them we’re not alone.
Christians knew
But Christians have never needed the Pentagon’s confirmation. We have always known nonhuman intelligences exist.
Start with God: infinite, eternal, unchangeable mind. All intelligence comes from Him, because unintelligent matter cannot, after any number of billions of years, spontaneously generate intelligent minds. Zero intelligence multiplied forever remains zero.
Then consider the finite nonhuman intelligences scripture describes: angels and demons. No need for wormholes, gray abductions, or Jack Parsons and L. Ron Hubbard attempting to open a Crowleyan portal in Pasadena during the 1940s.
“Close encounters” sound exactly like old accounts of demonic encounters: gray, genderless beings with dark, soulless eyes examining humans in sterile rooms. And for creatures supposedly traveling across eons, their décor could use work. Not a single family photo from last summer’s reunion on Alpha Centauri.
Science breaks the UFO narrative
Yet Rogan and Farah ask us to imagine intelligent beings evolving hundreds of light-years away, building starships, crossing the void, and arriving here to perform intergalactic medical internships while mutilating cattle on the weekends. The story collapses under basic science.
First, the materialist timeline breaks the theory. On the materialist view, the universe hasn’t existed long enough for an advanced civilization to evolve millions of years ahead of us. Life, according to that timeline, barely had enough time to form at all. The standard narrative demands amino acids to mix into proteins struck by lightning, producing a single cell that survives and evolves — a process requiring vast time and even more credulity.
After mocking intelligent design, Richard Dawkins famously speculated that life on earth might have been seeded by aliens from a more advanced civilization. That explanation is still intelligent design, just with extra steps. Where did those aliens come from? An even older alien civilization, of course.
Second, interstellar travel requires absurd time spans. From the nearest star system, the trip would take tens of thousands of years. Wormholes won’t help. They can move particles, not starships. Even if the grays enjoy long lives, this demands millennia of travel with no sign of civilizational collapse, boredom, or mutiny.
Third, space debris makes large spacecraft nearly impossible. Only needle-thin craft could survive without being obliterated by debris. At near-light speeds, even tiny collisions would be catastrophic. Current dreams of laser-sail propulsion can only accelerate gram-scale probes to a fraction of light speed. They cannot carry bodies — especially not the grays of rural Oregon fame.
Once you eliminate the impossible under materialism, what remains?
Start by clearing out hoaxes, attention-seeking stunts, lies, and simple misidentifications. During an ordinary Southwest flight, I once thought I saw the classic cigar-shaped alien vessel Erich von Däniken loves to describe. A slight bank changed the angle of light. It was an American Airlines jet.
What remains looks far more like demonic activity than extraterrestrial biology.
Beware the occult instinct
The strangest feature of UFO mythology is the insistence that these beings are benevolent and wiser than we are. Hence Farah’s claim that the U.S. government spent trillions trying to reverse-engineer their technology. Yet if these creatures were truly advanced and benevolent, why make us run a trillion-dollar scavenger hunt? Why not offer the owner’s manual? Strange manners for enlightened space travelers.
This is where the old religious instinct surfaces. The script about “inter-dimensional watchers” helping humanity tracks perfectly with occult traditions. Talk about portals for nonhuman intelligences is simply updated language for communicating with demons.
RELATED: Pentagon psyop exposed: Military reportedly cooked up tales of alien technology in weapons cover-up
Jacob Wackerhausen via iStock/Getty Images
Humans have chased that temptation since the beginning. Scripture alone forbids contacting spirits. Every other religion, philosophy, and esoteric school has sought “nonhuman intelligences” for hidden wisdom. The Bible warns this practice is idolatrous and dangerous because these spirits are malevolent, rebellious, and deceptive.
Eden sets the pattern: The serpent cast doubt on God’s word and promised greater wisdom. Humanity has listened to similar offers ever since.
Modern UFO mythology blends effortlessly with New Age fantasies about “ascended masters” and “star beings.” They promise secret knowledge, cosmic clubs, and spiritual advancement — with a credit card bonus of 50,000 light-year miles after your first payment.
Should we be surprised that governments attempt to communicate with “nonhuman intelligences”? Ancient Babylon, Egypt, and Canaan tried the same. The New Testament describes demoniacs opposing the gospel. And modern reports often note that alien encounters stop when the name of Christ is invoked. Demons flee; extraterrestrials supposedly mastering physics do not.
Angels obey God’s commands. They don’t stage UFO conferences or probe farmers after midnight.
The real disclosure we need
Joe Rogan has shown increased interest in Christianity in recent months. Yet he also loves to describe DMT trips in which he meets “nonhuman intelligences” promising hidden wisdom. He wonders if government officials meet the same beings. His soul sits at the center of a very old conflict.
Demonic influence is not a science-fiction plot. It’s a timely warning: Reconcile with God through Christ, the true and only source of wisdom — not “from out there,” but from above. God reveals His way plainly. No secrets required.
14-year-old girls that went missing from sleepover were forced into prostitution by men they met online, police say
Three teenage girls were rescued by family members from a sex trafficking ring after they went missing from a sleepover in Connecticut, according to police.
The 14-year-old girls left the sleepover on May 1 with friends and ended up at a home in Hartford, where police said they were sexually assaulted by 19-year-old Donovan Dunn and four other men.
‘We can’t tell people how many of these cases start with grooming online.’
The girls were dropped off at another location and later ended up at a Super 8 motel, where they were allegedly sexually assaulted by two men, according to a criminal complaint.
Police said a 36-year-old man named Ahmad Compton later arrived at the motel and raped the girls. He told them he would get them business. That man took them to an apartment on Nelton Way.
The girls were given alcohol and drugs during the ordeal that lasted three days.
Families of the girls reported them missing and started canvassing the neighborhood looking for them.
A witness called them to tell them that he had seen one of the girls at the Nelton apartment, and the families were able to rescue them.
The girls were taken to the Connecticut Children’s hospital for evaluation.
Seven men were arrested for their alleged involvement in the sex trafficking of the underage girls. They were charged with numerous counts, including sexual assault, kidnapping, risk of injury to a minor, and illegal sexual contact with a minor.
One of the girls is said to have called the incident a “joyride gone bad.”
“This is a difficult crime that not only impacted these young girls, but also their families and the community, and it’s a reminder that human trafficking does occur and it’s devastating when it does,” said Hartford State’s Attorney Sharmese Walcott.
Krystal Rich, executive director of the Connecticut Children’s Alliance, told WVIT-TV that families need to monitor carefully what their children are doing on social media and other online platforms.
“We can’t tell people how many of these cases start with grooming online,” Rich said. “It takes an entire community — be vigilant, come together, making sure you’re seeing the warning signs, reporting what you see, so that we can keep everyone safe.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Texas bans Muslim Brotherhood from buying land — but is there more to the story?
It’s election season in the state of Texas, and Governor Greg Abbott (R) is kicking it off by getting tough on the issues that Texans care about — but BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales isn’t buying it.
“Greg Abbott’s policy is basically shaped by licking his finger and putting it up in the air to determine which direction the wind is blowing, and then making the most politically advantageous call to him that he thinks he could make in that time,” Gonzales says, pointing out that he’s historically been soft on the Islamification of Texas.
But now, he’s publicly taking a stand against it.
“Today, I designated the Muslim Brotherhood and Council on American-Islamic Relations as foreign terrorist and transnational criminal organizations. This bans them from buying or acquiring land in Texas and authorizes the Attorney General to sue to shut them down,” Abbott wrote in a post on X.
“So, yes, that is good policy. Yes, it’s a great social media post. It racked up all of the likes and the views. A lot of people outside of Texas are like, ‘Wow, Governor Abbott is so conservative. This is huge,’” Gonzales comments.
“First of all, … CARE is now suing. So, we’ll see how that plays out. Of course, I do trust in our great attorney general, Ken Paxton, to be able to defend the state of Texas in these things. But it’s just, like, the biggest problem that I have is that we’re getting mixed messaging from Greg Abbott,” she continues.
Gonzales points out that while Abbott is saying he’s banning the Muslim Brotherhood from buying land in the state of Texas, he’s also helping fund the mosques and organizations that represent the Muslim Brotherhood with government grants.
“Explain to me how those things track. It’s almost like we’re in an election season, and in election seasons, we get real tough about the things that we hear people are really mad about, but we don’t actually care about — we don’t actually plan on following through,” Gonzales says.
“Because if you truly believe that these organizations are a problem, you will not only cut off all funding to any organization, any mosque, any association — I don’t care what it is. If it has ties to these organizations — Muslim Brotherhood, CARE, Hamas, and other organizations like it — you should not only cut off the funds; you should do literally everything within your power to shut these organizations down,” she continues.
And it’s not hard to see what these organizations are doing, as it’s happening “right in front of our faces.”
“They’re just doing it in broad daylight and expecting you to be too scared to say something for fear of being called an Islamophobe or a racist or a xenophobe,” Gonzales says.
“That’s what they’re expecting from you,” she adds.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Judges break the law to stop Trump from enforcing it
Nearly 30 years ago, Congress recognized that the country could not litigate its way out of an immigration crisis.
As part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, bipartisan majorities created expedited removal for anyone who failed to prove two years of physical presence in the United States. Anticipating a cottage industry of defense attorneys forcing the government to prove duration of unlawful stay, Congress also stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to review expedited removal orders.
At some point, the executive must defend not only its own authority but Congress’ authority to restrain the courts.
Three decades passed with little enforcement. Now, after that long dormancy, federal judges have begun reviewing cases they have no statutory authority to hear and are attempting to block President Trump from using expedited removal nationwide.
Over the line
On November 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit refused the Justice Department’s request for a stay in Make the Road New York v. Noem. The case challenges Trump’s policy expanding expedited removal to illegal aliens apprehended anywhere in the country, provided they cannot prove two years of continuous presence. Administrations since the 1990s ignored the statute and limited expedited removal to aliens caught at or near the border.
A district judge, despite clear statutory limits, reviewed the case and issued an injunction against most uses of expedited removal. That move set the stage for this week’s order from the D.C. Circuit — another step in a long pattern of courts seizing authority Congress explicitly withheld.
A watershed moment
The Supreme Court recently upheld the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to quickly remove alien gang members. That ruling helped, but it cannot resolve the broader problem: Most illegal entrants do not fall into the “enemy combatant” category. If every non-gang-member can exhaust layer after layer of due process after invading our country, immigration enforcement collapses under its own weight.
But the central issue in this dispute is not due process at all. The decisive point is that IRAIRA explicitly authorizes expedited removal anywhere in the country and explicitly bars the federal courts from issuing “declaratory, injunctive, or other equitable relief” in any action challenging an expedited removal order.
The lone exception applies to aliens who can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they possess a lawful right to remain — such as a granted asylum application. Even then, Congress set a firm 60-day window to bring such a claim. The plaintiffs in this case missed that deadline.
This challenge does not implicate the validity of an executive action. It represents a double violation of statute: courts ignoring the law that authorizes expedited removal and ignoring the law that strips them of jurisdiction to review it. Congress anticipated this exact scenario and barred it.
What Congress must do
Congress holds plenary authority over immigration and total authority over the structure and jurisdiction of federal courts. Only adjudication of a specific case lies beyond congressional reach. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Patchak v. Zinke, “When Congress strips federal courts of jurisdiction, it exercises a valid legislative power no less than when it lays taxes, coins money, declares war, or invokes any other power that the Constitution grants it.”
If judges can decide every political question, define the scope of their own power, override Congress’ limits, and bind the executive even when Congress lawfully precludes them from hearing a case, the separation of powers collapses. At some point, the executive must defend not only its own authority but Congress’ authority to restrain the courts.
RELATED: The imperial judiciary strikes back
Photo by ClassicStock/Getty Images
Just say ‘no’
Many of us have called for broader statutes stripping courts of jurisdiction over deportation. But that effort means nothing if judges can simply declare those statutes unconstitutional. Judicial supremacism has no end when the executive enforces judicial usurpation against itself.
That dynamic played out again last week. A federal judge ruled that ICE may not arrest illegal aliens solely for being in the country unlawfully unless agents obtain a warrant or prove a specific flight risk — an order that contradicts decades of law. In another case, Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes in California certified a class granting relief to migrants who “have entered or will enter the United States without inspection” as well as those not initially detained after crossing the border.
A government that treats judicial decrees as binding even when Congress denies jurisdiction invites a permanent veto from judges over immigration enforcement. It won’t stop until the president simply says no.
