Category: Blaze Media
Exposing the dark truth: Communism, Satan, and government power
The government has one biblical purpose: to protect the innocent and punish evil. But America’s leaders have abandoned this duty, as many have done in the past.
And Dr. Frank Turek points out to BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey that instead of protecting the people from evil, corrupt governments often wield evil.
“It’s interesting, Allie. Our mutual friend James Lindsay is an agnostic atheist, and about a year before Charlie died, he texted Charlie and he said, ‘Charlie, I’m starting to believe in Satan,’” Turek tells Stuckey.
Turek recalled Lindsay explaining that this happened when he dove into the history of communism.
“And so Charlie texted him back, ‘If Satan, then God,’ and James texted back, ‘That would follow,’” he says.
“In other words, it’s the point that if there’s evil, there has to be good because evil is not a thing in itself. It’s a lack in a good thing. It’s like cancer,” he continues.
And in order to prevent evil from rapidly spreading and hurting them, people trust the government to help stop it.
“We need a force to protect innocent people from evil and to punish wrongdoers,” he says. “And when governments cease to do that, they cease to become legitimate governments.”
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Justice Alito delivers win to Texas GOP, temporarily restores Republican congressional map
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered Texas Republicans some good news on Friday, temporarily reinstating the Republican-friendly congressional map they passed in August.
After Texas Republicans surmounted weeks of obstruction by their Democratic colleagues, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ultimately signed the “One Big Beautiful Map into law” on Aug. 29, leaving the Lone Star Sate with a congressional map that could net the GOP five extra seats in the midterm elections.
‘Radical left-wing activists are abusing the judicial system to derail the Republican agenda and steal the U.S. House.’
However, the adoption of the new map prompted hand-wringing among liberals and a successful Democratic gerrymandering campaign in California — as well as a legal challenge from several race-based groups of plaintiffs led by the League of United Latin American Citizens.
The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the map was the result of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and asked a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to block use of the map for the 2026 elections.
The court on Tuesday ruled 2-1 in favor of the liberal advocacy groups, finding that the challengers likely would be able to prove that it was racially gerrymandered.
RELATED: Yet another state’s districts found to be racist, resulting in new map for 2026 midterms
Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images
“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” wrote Judge Jeffrey Brown in the ruling. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) was among the liberals who celebrated the ruling, noting that “Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned — and democracy won. This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.”
But the celebration proved premature as Abbott and other Texas officials promptly appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement, “Radical left-wing activists are abusing the judicial system to derail the Republican agenda and steal the U.S. House for Democrats. I am fighting to stop this blatant attempt to upend our political system.”
Justice Alito stayed the lower court’s ruling Friday and gave GOP map opponents until Monday to respond to his order.
The Republican map is back in play pending the outcome of the state’s appeal before the high court.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Islamist groups in Texas rake in $13M in taxpayer-funded grants amid Abbott’s battle against Sharia law
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has taken aggressive action this week against Sharia law, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Yet critics are demanding to know why, during his time in office, millions in taxpayer-funded grants have been allocated to alleged Islamist organizations based in Texas.
Abbott announced on Tuesday that he had designated the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as foreign terrorist and transnational criminal organizations. The following day, Abbott urged local district attorneys to investigate potential Sharia “courts” operating in Texas and defying state and federal laws to push Islamic codes.
‘Unlike the previous administration, recipients of grants will no longer be permitted to use federal funds to … empower radical organizations with unseemly ties that don’t serve the interest of the American people.’
Despite Abbott’s recent actions, some have faulted the governor for allowing taxpayer dollars to be used to fund the uptick in Islamic mosques in Texas, citing a June report from the Middle East Forum. The article claimed Texas gave “over $13 million of federal and state monies to mosques and community groups aligned with Islamist movements such as Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Jamaat-e-Islami, as well as hostile foreign regimes.”
Of the 18 organizations that received funds, a dozen were said to have “extremist links.”
“While a few thousand dollars in the state government’s data consists of the return of escheated funds, the vast majority of the millions spent appear to be the result of direct state grants, subsidy programs, and federal sub-awards managed by the Texas state government,” the Middle East Forum wrote.
The Texas governor’s office told Blaze News that the funding referenced in the Middle East Forum’s report was not state tax dollars but rather federal funds distributed by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Nonprofit Security Grant Program.
As part of that program, since 2016, roughly $63 million in federal funds have passed through Texas to nonprofit organizations, including $55 million to churches and synagogues, and a smaller portion went to mosques, according to Abbott’s office.
RELATED: Secret Sharia ‘courts’ in Texas may be quietly overriding state law — Abbott calls for investigation
Photo by RONALDO SCHEMIDT/AFP via Getty Images
The governor’s office contended that organization-vetting for this DHS and FEMA grant program is performed by these federal agencies, not by the state.
Sam Westrop, the director of Islamist Watch and the author of the Middle East Forum report, disputed this claim, arguing that the state was responsible for screening these grant applications and had the authority to exclude applicants.
Westrop told Blaze News that “only a small number” of the $13 million came from the DHS’ Nonprofit Security Grant Program.
“However, many of the grants we identified, while not all from DHS, were in fact paid for from federal funds; and are thus subawards,” Westrop stated. “But by serving as the primary grantee, the Texas state government is required by the federal government to vet and assess risk. Subawards are discretionary, and the primary grantee may exclude a subawardee.”
“So these grants may be financed by federal dollars, but the monies are distributed through and at the discretion of the Texas state government, much by the governor’s office itself,” Westrop added.
The Nonprofit Security Grant Program seeks to provide financial support to nonprofit organizations that are considered “high risk” of a terrorist attack. These nonprofits can include places of worship, educational facilities, and medical facilities, among other 501(c)(3) organizations. The funds are intended to support security enhancements, such as installing cameras, alarms, and fences. The grant can also be used toward security planning and training, as well as cybersecurity.
RELATED: No Sharia law in Texas: Abbott draws a hard line against radical Islam
Photo by Ilana Panich-Linsman for The Washington Post via Getty Images
According to FEMA, the State Administrative Agency in each state is “the only eligible applicant” for this grant and “responsible for handling the federal award.” Therefore, churches and other places of worship seeking funds through the Nonprofit Security Grant Program are “subapplicants that must apply through the SAA in the state or territory where the applying facility is physically located.” The nonprofits cannot apply directly to FEMA.
The applications are first “scored by the SAA in coordination with its state.” Then the SAA submits “a prioritized list of [investment justifications] with all scores to FEMA.”
FEMA notes that a facility’s local SAA may have its own requirements to apply for the grant. Texas’ SAA contact is the Homeland Security Grants Division under the Texas Office of the Governor.
These now-archived grant opportunities from Texas’ eGrants website state that the “Office of the Governor will screen all applications to ensure that they meet the requirements included in the funding announcement.” However, it notes that FEMA “makes final funding decisions.”
While it remains disputed whether Texas could have blocked these grants from going to alleged Islamist organizations, FEMA has made it clear that the DHS, under Secretary Kristi Noem, has significantly increased the vetting at the federal level.
“Under Secretary Noem’s leadership, FEMA conducted a critical evaluation of all grant programs and recipients to root out waste, fraud, and abuse and deliver accountability for the American taxpayer,” a FEMA spokesperson told Blaze News. “For Fiscal Year 2025 grant awards, DHS and FEMA worked together to vet grant recipients and ensure that every dollar spent strengthens the nation’s resilience.”
“Unlike the previous administration, recipients of grants will no longer be permitted to use federal funds to house illegal immigrants at luxury hotels, fund climate change pet projects, or empower radical organizations with unseemly ties that don’t serve the interest of the American people,” the spokesperson added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Marjorie Taylor Greene calls it quits after ‘traitor’ branding by Trump
Georgia U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) announced her resignation Friday night, citing a desire to spare her family from further danger and her district from a “hurtful and hateful” Republican primary.
While her current term does not end until Jan. 3, 2027, Greene indicated she will instead leave office on Jan. 5, 2026.
In both her video and written statements, Greene highlighted her historic support for President Donald Trump, her conservative voting record — the New Americans’ Freedom Index gives her a lifetime rating of 97% and the Conservative Review’s Liberty Score gave her a 100% rating — and her subjection over the years to constant “personal attacks, death threats, lawfare, ridiculous slander, and lies.”
‘All I see ‘Wacky’ Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN!’
“When the common American people finally realize and understand that the Political Industrial Complex of both parties is ripping this country apart, that not one elected leader like me is able to stop Washington’s machine from gradually destroying our country, and instead the reality is that they, common Americans, The People possess the real power over Washington,” wrote Greene, “then I’ll be here by their side to rebuild it.”
Her resignation announcement comes just days after Greene suggested that the latest series of threats against her life were due to her recent loss of favor with Trump.
The president noted in a lengthy Nov. 14 post on Truth Social that he was withdrawing his support for the “ranting lunatic” Georgia congresswoman and would give “unyielding” support to whomever opposes her in next year’s primary.
“All I see ‘Wacky’ Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN! It seemed to all begin when I sent her a Poll stating that she should not run for Senator, or Governor, she was at 12% and didn’t have a chance (unless, of course, she had my Endorsement — which she wasn’t about to get!),” wrote Trump.
RELATED: Marjorie Taylor Greene says she has received violent threats — and blames Trump
Photo by ALLISON ROBBERT/AFP via Getty Images
When asked days later about the threats against Greene — the Rome Police Department confirmed in an emailed statement to Blaze News that they received reports about them — Trump told reporters, “Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Greene. I don’t think her life is in danger. … Frankly, I don’t think anybody cares about her.”
Greene subsequently noted, “President Trump’s unwarranted and vicious attacks against me were a dog whistle to dangerous radicals that could lead to serious attacks on me and my family.”
Since taking office in 2021, Greene has been the victim of numerous swatting attacks — attacks that various lawmakers have suggested are tantamount to attempted murder and domestic terrorism.
The congresswoman alleged that whereas the swatting attacks and death threats she had previously experienced came from the left, she said Trump labeling her a “traitor” made her a target for attacks by individuals on the right.
‘Many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well.’
“… President Trump has called me a traitor, which is absolutely untrue and horrific,” wrote Greene, adding that “this puts blood in the water and creates a feeding frenzy. And it could ultimately lead to a harmful or even deadly outcome.”
The response to the news that Greene is leaving office has been mixed.
Trump — whom Greene criticized in recent months for his June airstrikes on Iran and his Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files — told ABC News’ Rachel Scott, “I think it’s great news for the country. It’s great.”
Trump commented further Saturday morning — calling her “Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Brown” — and saying Greene “has decided to call it ‘quits'” due to “PLUMMETING Poll Numbers, and not wanting to face a Primary Challenger with a strong Trump Endorsement (where she would have no chance of winning!) …”
After Trump also dinged Kentucky Republicans U.S. Sen. Rand Paul and U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie — and suggested Greene “went BAD” because he didn’t return her phone calls — the president thanked the Georgia congresswoman for her service.
Laura Loomer — who has advocated for the ouster of various elements of Trump’s 2024 coalition in recent months — tweeted that “Traitor Greene is a terrible person. I get a lot of joy in watching my enemies fall.”
Shawn Harris, a Democrat hoping to flip Greene’s seat in the midterm election, also welcomed the news, writing, “Get ready Georgia! Teachers, farmers, veterans, EVERYONE, I need your support.”
But some politicos expressed displeasure with Greene’s resignation announcement.
Former Cobb County GOP Chairwoman Salleigh Grubbs said she was “heartbroken,” noting that Greene “put it all on the line time after time. She fought for her district and put America First. What more could anyone have wanted? A sad day in America.”
Indiana Rep. Victoria Spartz (R) said “there’s a lot of truth to what Marjorie had to say” and added that she can’t “blame her for leaving this institution that has betrayed the American people.”
Cenk Uygur, the far-left CEO of the Young Turks, wrote the following to Greene: “I would have never imagined saying this, but … don’t go. Stay and fight. Even though we still disagree on so many things, you were one of the very few honest people in Congress. Stay and fight!”
But Greene noted in her Friday statement, “I refuse to be a ‘battered wife’ hoping it all goes away and gets better. If I am cast aside by MAGA Inc and replaced by Neocons, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Military Industrial War Complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor class that can’t even relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well.”
The disenchanted Republican added, “There is no ‘plan to save the world’ or insane 4D chess game being played.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Is a tariff a tax?
Is a tariff a tax? Many Americans have forgotten that this question, which has been in the news more or less all year, was fundamental to the American Revolution. And among American Patriots, or Whigs, meaning those who supported the colonists’ claims against Parliament, there was almost universal consensus that they were different things, constitutionally speaking.
Throughout the Imperial Crisis of 1763 to 1776, the consensus among the colonists was that Parliament had the right to regulate trade in the British Empire but had no right to tax the colonists. And they recognized that a regulation of trade might take the form of a duty imposed upon, for example, molasses imported from French colonies to favor molasses imported from British colonies.
The founding generation believed in the separation of powers.
In the colonists’ view, the Sugar Act of 1764 was an unconstitutional innovation. The Act was quite explicit, stating at the top that it was passed for the purpose of “applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said act, towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations.” It was the first trade act to do that.
Townshend’s overreach
The Stamp Act of 1765, and the reaction to it, made the protest against the 1764 Sugar Act less conspicuous. The result of the actions taken against the Stamp Act was that many in Parliament did not grasp the American argument against the Sugar Act. Hence, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in 1767, imposing duties on lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea to raise revenue. When the colonists complained, many in Parliament accused the colonists of moving the goalposts.
The charge was not accurate, but it did reflect what they believed. And, like many today, many members of Parliament were unable to grasp the difference between a duty imposed for the purpose of trade regulation and a duty imposed for the purpose of raising revenue.
The most famous criticism of the Townshend Acts, and the most popular writing of the era until Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in January 1776, was John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.” In the second letter, Dickinson made the consensus Patriot argument logically, clearly, and eloquently.
There is another late act of parliament, which appears to me to be unconstitutional, and as destructive to the liberty of these colonies, as that mentioned in my last letter; that is, the act for granting the duties on paper, glass, etc.
The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain, and all her colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and her colonies; and necessary for the common good of all …
I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the Stamp Act administration.* All before, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire. … The raising of a revenue thereby was never intended. … Never did the British parliament, till the period above mentioned, think of imposing duties in America for the purpose of raising a revenue. …
Here we may observe an authority expressly claimed and exerted to impose duties on these colonies; not for the regulation of trade; not for the preservation or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire, heretofore the sole objects of parliamentary institutions; but for the single purpose of levying money upon us.
This I call an innovation; and a most dangerous innovation.* It may perhaps be objected, that Great Britain has a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her exports.
That so many people today don’t seem to understand this distinction is a sign that the American bar seems to have gone Tory. The founding generation’s way of thinking about tariffs, and perhaps law in general, is in danger of being rendered foreign to our public policy discussion, perhaps even to constitutional discussion, even among people who mistakenly think of themselves as originalists.
This way of thinking, of course, says little about the current case, as the purpose of the law itself must be understood in light of the thinking of the men who passed it. But it is also true that the way of thinking that Dickinson represented, and which was broadly shared in the founding generation, might have something to say here.
Delegation’s limits
The founding generation believed in the separation of powers. The founders recognized, as “The Federalist” notes, that in practice the powers will inevitably overlap and sometimes clash. But they did operate within a way of legal and constitutional thinking that took it as a given that in order to guard the separation of powers, any delegation of legislative powers to the executive had to be limited and focused.
There is a difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable delegation of powers, just as there is between a tax and a regulation of trade, even if, in both cases, money is raised at customs houses. The kind of delegation the Trump administration is asserting in this case is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reconcile with the practice of separation of powers. Congress has no right to abdicate its obligation to set trade policy via legislation.
RELATED: Read it and weep: Tariffs work, and the numbers prove it
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
The Trump administration’s assertion that it has the right to set tariffs worldwide, claiming unlimited emergency power based on a law designed to delegate to the president a narrow emergency power, resembles the kind of expansive, arbitrary interpretation that the founders’ legal heroes fought.
In the 1630s, King Charles claimed the right to collect “ship money” throughout England. By tradition, the king had the right to raise money, without Parliament’s consent, in port towns in time of war, or if war was imminent.
King Charles asserted a living constitution interpretation: Given modern circumstances, he claimed a general right to raise taxes if a war emergency was imminent. Dickinson mentioned the case in the first Farmer’s Letters, suggesting there was a connection between the logic of the one argument and the other.
Our difficulty recognizing the limits of the nondelegation doctrine — and our confusion about the difference between a duty imposed to raise revenue and one imposed to regulate trade — shows how much work remains if we want to understand the Constitution as the framers did. That understanding requires grappling with the ideas about human nature, government, and law that justified ratification in the first place and that still anchor our constitutional order.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Video: Female bully towers over and beats up elderly woman on Florida bus. Victim is left ‘battered and bruised’: Sheriff.
Law enforcement in Florida is looking for a female seen on video inside a bus beating up an elderly passenger last month.
A 70-year-old woman on Oct. 21 took a seat in the disabled section of a transit bus, the Broward County Sheriff’s office said, adding that “her ride would end with her battered and bruised after being attacked by a fellow bus rider.”
‘This is repulsive. This is something that should never happen; it should not happen in any type of civilized society. What this woman did is absolutely unacceptable.’
Detectives said the attacker, who was standing, bumped into the victim several times due to the movement of the bus, officials said.
The victim asked the attacker to give her some space, officials said, after which a verbal argument ensued.
With that, officials said the attacker “intentionally and forcefully pushed her body into the victim several times. The attacker then grabbed a grocery bag and struck her in the face with it.”
At one point during the assault, video appears to show the feisty elderly woman issuing a middle finger to her attacker.
The sheriff’s office said the victim used her cane to defend herself, and the attacker punched the victim multiple times in the head.
Officials said several bystanders on the bus came to the victim’s defense and separated her from the attacker.
The bus driver saw the incident and stopped the bus in the 4100 block of West Oakland Park Boulevard in Lauderdale Lakes, officials said, and that’s where the attacker and a woman with her fled.
The victim suffered bruising on her forehead but declined to be transported to the hospital, officials said.
“Fortunately the victim did not suffer any major injuries. She was treated on scene,” sheriff spokesperson Carey Codd told WFOR-TV.
Codd added, “This is repulsive. This is something that should never happen; it should not happen in any type of civilized society. What this woman did is absolutely unacceptable.”
Broward Sheriff’s Office Violent Crimes Unit detectives released video of the attack in hopes of identifying the woman who pestered the elderly woman before punching her repeatedly. You can view the sheriff’s office video here.
Those with information on the identity of the attacker or the woman with her are asked to contact BSO Violent Crimes Unit Detective Andres Lopez at 954-321-4915 or submit a tip through the SafeWatch app, officials said.
Those wishing to remain anonymous and be eligible for a cash reward can contact Broward Crime Stoppers at 954-493-TIPS (8477), submit a tip online at browardcrimestoppers.org, or dial **TIPS (8477) from any cell phone in the United States. If your tip leads to an arrest in this case, you are eligible for a reward of up to $5,000, officials said.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The imperial judiciary strikes back
So far, more than 100 federal court judges have ruled against the Trump administration in hundreds of lawsuits filed by states, unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals.
While some of these rulings are fairly grounded in the Constitution, federal law, and precedent, many are expressions of primal rage from judges offended by the administration and moving at breakneck speed to stop it.
Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges substitute ‘frequently’ for ‘sometimes.’ The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.
According to a Politico analysis, 87 of 114 federal judges who ruled against the administration were appointed by Democratic presidents, and 27 by Republicans. Most of the lawsuits were filed in just a few districts, with repeat activist judges leading the opposition.
Lawsuits against the administration may be filed in the District of Columbia and, often, also in other districts. Initially cases are randomly assigned. Plaintiffs focus on districts with predominantly activist, progressive judges. Because related cases are usually assigned to the same judge, later plaintiffs file in districts in which related cases were assigned to friendly activists.
Conservative judges generally believe they should interpret the law and avoid ruling on political questions, while liberals tend to see themselves as protectors of their values. After 60 years of domination by activist liberals, the Supreme Court and conservative appeals court judges are finally demanding that district court judges respect the Constitution. The Supreme Court is also re-evaluating precedents established by far-left justices who substituted their values for the words and intentions embodied in the Constitution.
To date, the Supreme Court has reversed or stayed about 30 lower court injunctions blocking the administration, and appeals courts have reversed or stayed another dozen. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson imposed an administrative stay on a district court decision requiring the immediate resumption of SNAP payments.
Federal judges who oppose Trump’s agenda are openly opposing the Supreme Court. In April, D.C. Chief Federal Judge James Boasberg sought to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for violating an order the court had vacated. In May, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho criticized the court’s demand that district courts act promptly on administration requests. In a September ruling, Boston Federal Judge Allison Burroughs challenged the court for expecting lower courts to treat its emergency orders as binding legal precedent.
Ten of 12 federal judges interviewed by NBC News in September, and 47 of 65 federal judges responding to a New York Times survey in October, thought the court was mishandling its emergency docket. They described orders as “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.”
Deservedly so. Though the Supreme Court and appeals courts judges have rebuked district court judges for ignoring higher courts and abusing their authority, they continue to do so with rulings focused on identity politics and a progressive lens on the woes of immigrants, minorities, women, and workers. They likely expect to be reversed on appeal, but they secure wins by causing delay and creating fodder for progressive activists to rally their supporters.
There is little that can be done about these judges. Removal requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. With Democrats supporting these judges, those votes are unrealistic.
RELATED: Who checks the judges? No one — and that’s the problem.
Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images
Just a few of the dozens of examples of politicized judicial decisions:
In May, Myong Joun, a Biden appointee in Boston, enjoined layoffs at the Department of Education in a decision featuring an encomium to its anti-discrimination mission. The Supreme Court stayed his injunction.
Despite this precedent, Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, issued a nationwide injunction barring the administration from firing union employees during or because of the government shutdown. Ignoring settled law, she bemoaned the “trauma” of workers who had been under “stress” ever since Trump’s election. Illston gambled correctly that the shutdown would end before her order could be reversed.
Indira Talwani, a federal district court judge in Boston, went further. Declaiming her fear that defunding Planned Parenthood would deprive women of access to abortions, she elided Article I of the Constitution, which requires all federal spending to be approved by Congress, nullifying a duly enacted statute that suspended funding of large abortion providers for a year. By the time she is reversed, the suspension will have expired.
In June, after San Francisco Federal Judge Charles Breyer enjoined Trump from federalizing the California National Guard, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously stayed his order, explaining that on military matters, the president’s judgment stands unless it is dishonest. Nonetheless, Oregon Federal Judge Karin Immergut subsequently blocked deployments in Portland, substituting her assessment of the situation for the president’s.
An Obama-appointed judge recently interviewed by NBC explained, “Trump derangement syndrome is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”
Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges, who self-reverentially believe progressive technocrats and judges are democracy’s guardians, substitute “frequently” for “sometimes.” The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.
Two Texans allegedly plotted to kill men on island with homeless mercenary force and take women and children as sex slaves
Federal prosecutors revealed a shocking indictment of two men from Texas who are accused of planning to assault the inhabitants of an island near Haiti and enslave the women and children.
Gavin Rivers Weisenburg, 21, of Allen and Tanner Christopher Thomas, 20, of Argyle allegedly plotted a coup d’état on Gonâve Island, which is a part of the Republic of Haiti.
Prosecutors said the two intended the plot to indulge their ‘rape fantasies.’
The plan involved recruiting and training homeless people from the Washington, D.C., area to build a mercenary force to attack the island inhabitants, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Texas.
“Weisenburg and Thomas intended to murder all of the men on the island so that they could then turn all of the women and children into their sex slaves,” the press release reads.
The pair partially completed many parts of their plan, including learning the Haitian Creole language, recruiting others into the scheme, and making operational and logistical plans. They intended to purchase firearms, ammunition, and a sailboat.
Prosecutors said the two intended the plot to indulge their “rape fantasies.”
Weisenburg enrolled at the North Texas Fire Academy in Rockwall in order to gain skills for the endeavor, while Thomas enlisted in the U.S. Air Force for the same reason.
The two are also charged with coercing a minor to commit sex acts on camera in August.
The pair allegedly plotted the island invasion from Aug. 2024 until July 2025.
There are about 87,000 inhabitants living on Gonâve Island, which measures about 266 square miles.
Weisenburg and Thomas face life in prison if convicted of federal conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country, and they face between 15 and 30 years in prison for charges of production of child pornography.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Elon Musk to reveal flying car next year
Elon Musk says the next Tesla Roadster might fly. Not figuratively — literally.
Imagine an all-electric supercar that hits 60 mph in under two seconds, then lifts off the pavement like something out of “The Jetsons.” It sounds impossible, even absurd. But during a recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Musk hinted that the long-delayed Tesla Roadster is about to do the unthinkable: merge supercar speed with vertical takeoff.
If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big.
As someone who has test-driven nearly every kind of machine on four (and sometimes fewer) wheels, I’ve seen hype before. But this time, it’s not just marketing spin. Tesla is preparing a prototype demo that could change how we think about personal transportation — or prove that even Elon Musk can aim too high.
Rogan reveal
On Halloween, Musk told Joe Rogan that Tesla is “getting close to demonstrating the prototype,” adding with his usual flair: “One thing I can guarantee is that this product demo will be unforgettable.”
Rogan, always the skeptic, pushed for details. Wings? Hovering? Musk smirked: “I can’t do the unveil before the unveil. But I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveil ever.”
He even invoked his friend and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who once said, “We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters.”
Musk’s response: “I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one.”
That’s classic Elon — part visionary, part showman. But underneath the bravado lies serious engineering. Musk hinted at SpaceX technology powering the car.
The demonstration, now scheduled for April 1, 2026 (yes, April Fools’ Day), is meant to prove the impossible. Production could start by 2027 or 2028, but given Tesla’s history of optimistic timelines, it may be longer before any of us see a flying Roadster on the road — or in the air.
Good timing
Tesla’s timing isn’t accidental. The company’s Q3 2025 profits fell short due to tariffs, R&D spending, and the loss of federal EV tax credits. With electric vehicle demand cooling, Musk knows how to recapture attention: promise something audacious.
Remember the Cybertruck’s “unbreakable” windows? The demo didn’t go as planned — but it worked as a publicity move. A flying Tesla Roadster could do the same, turning investor eyes (and wallets) back toward Tesla’s most thrilling frontier.
Hovering hype
So can a Tesla actually fly? It may use cold-gas thrusters — essentially small rocket nozzles that expel compressed air for brief, powerful thrusts. The result could be hovering, extreme acceleration, or even short hops over obstacles.
There’s also talk of “fan car” technology, inspired by 1970s race cars that used vacuum fans to suck the car to the track for impossible cornering speeds. Combine that with Tesla’s AI-driven Full Self-Driving systems and new battery packs designed for over 600 miles of range, and the idea starts to sound just plausible enough.
The challenge? Energy density. Vertical flight consumes enormous power, and even Tesla’s advanced 4680 cells may struggle to deliver it without sacrificing range. And if the Roadster truly hovers, it will need reinforced suspension, stability controls, and noise-dampening tech to keep your driveway from turning into a launchpad.
Sky’s the limit
Musk isn’t the first to chase this dream. The “flying car” has tempted inventors since the 1910s — and disappointed them nearly as long.
In the optimistic 1950s, Ford’s Advanced Design Studio built the Volante Tri-Athodyne, a ducted-fan prototype that looked ready for takeoff but never left the ground. The Moulton Taylor Aerocar actually flew, cruising at 120 mph and folding its wings for the highway — but only five were ever built.
Even the military tried. The U.S. and Canadian armies funded the Avrocar, a flying saucer-style VTOL craft that could hover but not climb more than six feet. Every generation since has produced new attempts — from the AVE Mizar (a flying Ford Pinto that ended in tragedy) to today’s eVTOL startups like Joby and Alef Aeronautics, the latter already FAA-certified for testing.
The dream keeps coming back because it represents freedom — freedom from traffic, limits, and gravity itself.
Got a permit for that?
Here’s where reality checks in. The Federal Aviation Administration now classifies electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft under a new category requiring both airplane and helicopter training. You would need a pilot’s license, medical exams, and specialized instruction to legally take off.
Insurance? Astronomical. Airspace? Restricted. Maintenance? Complex. In short: This won’t replace your daily driver any time soon. Even if the Roadster hovers, the FAA isn’t handing out flight permits for your morning commute.
RELATED: You can now buy a real-life Jetsons vehicle for the same price as a luxury car
Image provided to Blaze News by Jetson
Free parachute with purchase
Flying cars sound thrilling until you consider what happens when one malfunctions. A blown tire is one thing; a blown thruster at 200 feet is another. Tesla’s autonomy might help mitigate pilot error, but weather, visibility, and battery reliability all pose major challenges.
NASA and the FAA are developing new air traffic systems to handle “urban air mobility,” but even best-case scenarios involve strict flight corridors, automated control, and years of testing.
In short: We’re closer than ever to a flying car — but not that close.
Sticking the landing
So will the Tesla Roadster really fly? Probably — at least for a few seconds. Will it transform personal transportation? Not yet.
But here’s the thing: Musk doesn’t have to deliver a mass-market flying car. He just has to prove that it’s possible. And that may be enough to reignite public imagination and investor faith at a time when both are fading for the EV industry.
If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big. If it flops, it will join the long list of “flying car” fantasies that fell back to Earth.
Either way, we’ll be watching — because when Elon Musk says he’s going to make a car fly, the world can’t help but look up.
John Doyle’s Trump year-one victory lap: Border sealed, millions self-deporting, DEI dead, J6 pardons, Gaza peace & beyond
Donald Trump hasn’t even reached the end of his first year back in office, and John Doyle, Blaze Media’s newest TV host, says that already his “most optimistic expectations have been exceeded.”
“I’m looking forward to seeing what the administration does with its subsequent three years. However, it’s also undeniable that the first year of Trump’s second term has more Ws in it than, like, literally any year in his first term,” he says.
On this episode of “The John Doyle Show,” Doyle recaps the MAGA king’s biggest accomplishments.
Immigration crackdown
“Immigration is the most important issue,” considering that “under Joe Biden’s administration, literally tens of millions of illegals just waltzed right into the country,” Doyle says.
Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump turned off the spigot by declaring a national emergency at the southern border, directing 10,000+ military personnel to stop the influx. On the same day, he signed multiple executive orders to secure borders, end “catch and release,” and block most asylum entries at the southern border.
In the months that followed, he reinstated and expanded Remain in Mexico, signed the Laken Riley Act mandating detention for migrant criminals, dramatically ramped up ICE arrests and deportations (hundreds of thousands removed, with over a million self-deporting), and achieved the lowest illegal border crossings in decades — plummeting over 90% from prior peaks and delivering the most secure border in modern history.
Because of these efforts, Doyle says, “border crossings do not even exist anymore; they are a fable.”
He acknowledges, however, that what’s needed next is the “mass deportations” we were promised. “They must remove themselves or be removed from the balance sheet peacefully, very legally … and there’s no way around that fact.”
Bye-bye DEI
President Trump has “racked up pretty substantial wins when it comes to anti-white racism,” Doyle says. Previous administrations “spent trillions of dollars” building a “civil rights regime” that ironically “wound up just being this entity to discriminate against specifically white people as a matter of policy.”
In just months, President Trump has dismantled the federal DEI machine built over decades by Democrats. He eliminated all DEI programs, offices, positions, and preferences across the federal government; revoked longstanding affirmative action requirements for federal contractors; and directed agencies to combat illegal DEI practices in the private sector to restore merit-based opportunity and enforce colorblind civil rights laws.
“And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. … He signed an executive order banning anti-white indoctrination in K-12 schools; he signed an executive order in April to crack down on disparate impact in the federal government,” Doyle says.
On top of that, “the Trump administration also launched a major investigation into the entire University of California system for race- and sex-based hiring quotas,” Doyle continues. “It opened investigations into 45 universities, including Ivy League schools, over illegal racial preferences in student fellowships, academic programs, admissions practices.”
“The list goes on and on,” he adds.
Honorable mentions
Doyle praises Trump for issuing “a sweeping pardon” of January 6 protesters, “[directing] multiple federal agencies to investigate Antifa,” and “[adding] a $100,000 fee to the H-1B visa.”
He also convinced Israel “to accept a much earlier peace deal in Gaza than it would have liked to do. … He managed to avoid freaking war with Iran, freaking World War III, like everybody thought was going to happen,” Doyle says.
“The progress this administration has made has been remarkable, and we still have three years left to go.”
Want more from John Doyle?
To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
