Category: Blaze Media
Jon Stewart shuts down liberal journalist’s Joe Rogan complaints
Comedian Jon Stewart shut down liberal journalist David Remnick for accusing Joe Rogan of recklessly platforming “Nazi curious” guests.
In a sit down interview, Stewart recounted his positive experiences appearing on Rogan’s show over the years. Remnick pushed back, criticizing Rogan’s massively popular podcast and protesting past guests who he claims cozy up to Nazis. Stewart flipped the script on Remnick, telling him to “beat him at their own game” instead of just complaining.
‘Then do it better. Beat them at their own game.’
“I enjoyed being on Rogan,” Steward said. “I think he’s an interesting interviewer. There are rightwing weaponized commentators whose sole purpose is to manipulate things to the benefit of the Bannon project or the Project 2025. Rogan is not that guy.”
“That guy is a curious comic who fell into this thing that got f***ing enormous,” Stewart said of Rogan. “Maybe has opinions all over the political spectrum, but has tendencies that people on the left do not fit the aesthetic.”
RELATED: CNN brutally fact-checks Jasmine Crockett for peddling debunked ballroom hoax
Photo by Eugene Gologursky/Getty Images for The New Yorker
Remnick followed up by claiming Rogan has hosted guests that are “Nazi curious,” which Steward dismissed with a hilarious comeback.
“I’ve interviewed Kissinger, and he was carpet-bomb curious,” Stewart said. “I don’t know what to say. It’s very easy to castigate those where we are like, ‘But he had an opinion a few years back that’s corrosive.'”
Stewart’s point didn’t seem to resonate with Remnick, who replied by claiming Rogan is problematic because he hosts controversial guests on his show.
“The difference is when [Kissinger] was carpet-bomb curious, you didn’t say, ‘Oh yeah, that’s awesome,'” Remnick said. “And what happens with Rogan sometimes is that he’ll hear somebody that’s on the dangerous end of the spectrum, and he’ll just kind of soak it in.”
RELATED: Reporter humiliates Kamala Harris over Biden health cover-up: ‘That is a world-class pivot’
Photo by Eugene Gologursky/Getty Images for The New Yorker
Remnick went on to say that part of his concern is that he doesn’t have as big of an audience as Rogan does, which he sees as an ideological barrier.
“Then get it,” Stewart retorted. “Then go on that show and do those things. It’s not acceptable to just say, ‘Well, I don’t like what he does.’ Then do it better. Beat them at their own game. It’s not enough to just complain that, ‘That guy got a platform,’ and, ‘Don’t platform that guy.’ There’s no one in this world that isn’t platformed.”
“Get out there. Fight.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Hot take: Michael Jordan’s new show is HURTING the NBA
While Jason Whitlock respects and celebrates Michael Jordan, he thinks the six-time NBA champion is actually doing more harm than good to the league right now. “Jordan is the black shadow that hovers over the NBA like a dark cloud, and he’s a constant reminder of how things suck right now,” he says.
Jordan, who has mostly stayed out of the public eye since his 2003 retirement, has recently re-entered the NBA as a special contributor. His new show, “MJ: Insights to Excellence” — a prerecorded miniseries of interviews where Jordan shares basketball wisdom and personal reflections with host Mike Tirico — airs weekly during certain NBA games in the 2025-2026 season.
Fans and players have been soaking in Jordan’s wisdom and the tidbits of information he shares about his personal life, but Jason says this focus on the NBA’s “good ol’ days” when Jordan was the face of the league isn’t doing anything positive for the already hurting association. If anything, Jordan’s show is a reminder of how “lazy” today’s NBA players are.
On Tuesday night during the postgame show following the New York Knicks vs. Milwaukee Bucks game, episode two of “MJ: Insights to Excellence” aired. Tirico asked the GOAT his thoughts on “load management” — the strategic practice of resting healthy players during games or limiting their minutes to prevent injuries, manage fatigue, and extend careers.
Jordan, who was notorious for playing through injury and fatigue all 82 games of a season, pulled no punches: “[Load management] shouldn’t be needed … I never wanted to miss a game because it was an opportunity to prove.”
“You have a duty that if [fans] are wanting to see you, and as an entertainer, I want to show,” he added.
While Jordan’s work ethic and commitment to the game will forever be admirable, the fact that it remains unmatched over two decades later only highlights how far the NBA has fallen.
“This is not a criticism of Michael Jordan. It’s really a criticism of Adam Silver and the executives and ownership in the NBA. They can’t come up with a solution for what’s wrong with the NBA, and so they’re allowing Michael Jordan and the media to mostly drive the discussion about what’s wrong with the NBA,” says Jason.
NBC, which recently inked an 11-year, $76 billion media rights deal to broadcast NBA games, is “using the greatest player of all time to basically subtly take a dump on the NBA,” he explains.
“Fearless” contributor and basketball aficionado Jay Skapinac agrees that Michael’s words are true — load management is a reflection of how soft NBA players have become — but the NBA highlighting this is only “undermining the current product.”
If the NBA wants to move into a new era, where grit and passion define the league again, it needs to ditch LeBron James, who he says “is the only player that has left the game worse than the one that he inherited,” and “move forward with these new, bright, rising young stars in the NBA” instead of “focusing on the greatest player that ever existed in the sports history.”
To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.
Want more from Jason Whitlock?
To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Trump ramps up vetting of foreign workers to combat Biden’s lax policies
The Trump administration is taking measures to reduce the flood of inadequately vetted foreign labor entering the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security introduced an interim final rule, effective Thursday, that ends the automatic extension of employment authorization for many foreign nationals.
‘All aliens must remember that working in the United States is a privilege, not a right.’
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services stated that the move aims to prioritize “the proper screening and vetting of aliens before extending the validity of their employment authorizations.”
Foreign nationals who file for employment authorization renewals on or after Thursday will not receive an automatic extension.
USCIS contended that the change will allow for “more frequent vetting” and enable it “to deter fraud and detect aliens with potentially harmful intent” for potential removal.
The final rule notes that it aligns with President Donald Trump’s executive orders “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” and “Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.“
Photographer: Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images
“Ending the practice of providing automatic extension of employment authorization documents enhances benefit integrity in adjudications of work authorization requests and will better protect public safety and national security by ensuring that aliens are properly vetted and determined to continue to be eligible, and when applicable, merit a favorable exercise of discretion, for employment authorization before such authorization is provided to the alien,” the interim final rule reads.
The new regulation does not apply to those with Temporary Protected Status, as those authorizations are governed separately.
RELATED: Supreme Court rejects case that would reconsider H-1B-related visas
Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
“USCIS is placing a renewed emphasis on robust alien screening and vetting, eliminating policies the former administration implemented that prioritized aliens’ convenience ahead of Americans’ safety and security,” USCIS Director Joseph Edlow stated.
“It’s a commonsense measure to ensure appropriate vetting and screening has been completed before an alien’s employment authorization or documentation is extended,” Edlow continued. “All aliens must remember that working in the United States is a privilege, not a right.”
Center for Immigration Studies stated that the new regulation may allow the administration “to more quickly enforce immigration laws, particularly with regard to those who entered the United States illegally but were given work permits.”
The interim final rule repeals a Biden administration regulation, issued in December, that increased the automatic extension period for some applicants from 180 days to 540 days from the expiration date, CIS reported.
“The Biden administration facilitated an invasion of our southern border and abused its parole, asylum, and work authorization authorities. President Trump has a mandate from the American people to stop the invasion and bring common sense back to America’s legal immigration system. Since taking office, President Trump and Secretary Noem have rescinded parole for almost half a million illegal aliens, implemented a new parole fee, and ended decades-long Temporary Protected Status. Now, we are focusing on those who have no right to work here,” a USCIS spokesperson told Blaze News.
“Biden’s automatic extension of Employment Authorization Document (EAD) for aliens posed a security risk that allowed bad actors to continue to work in this country,” the spokesperson continued. “The Trump administration’s interim final rule will ensure that aliens will be properly vetted and screened before USCIS extends their work authorization.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Why Mars is America’s next strategic imperative
Space is the defining strategic frontier of the 21st century. America’s space leadership depends on harnessing the private sector to create wealth and focusing the public sector on limited yet critical security and scientific objectives.
While achieving supremacy in cislunar space (the region between Earth and the moon, including the moon’s surface) must be our immediate aim, it lacks the strategic coherence to sustain American leadership over the long term.
America’s commercial space sector provides the capability and incentives to make Mars exploration both symbolically and economically rewarding.
We need long-term goals to define success and clarify tradeoffs. A manned mission to Mars can do both.
China and Russia, our near-peer competitors in space, pose serious challenges. Beijing openly pursues dominance in the Earth-moon system while accelerating toward Mars, with an ambitious sample return mission scheduled for 2028. Russia maintains formidable military capabilities in space, alongside proven Mars science achievements.
If our authoritarian rivals prevail, the world’s free nations may find their ability to access and use space significantly curtailed.
This is why the United States needs a unifying long-term vision that focuses and directs near-term commercial, military, and scientific objectives. We must also research and develop technologies for sustained living in space. A smart Mars strategy provides the needed framework, creating the technological roadmap and institutional durability to win the cislunar competition and position America for permanent space premiership.
Unleash the private sector
America’s commercial space revolution offers a compelling model for space exploration that our competitors cannot match. Most obviously, market forces have been essential for reducing launch costs. SpaceX has already demonstrated that private initiative can outpace government bureaucracies, slashing launch costs from $18,000 per kilogram during the Space Shuttle era to roughly $2,700 for today’s reusable Falcon 9.
A healthy ecosystem of suppliers, including Blue Origin, proves this success isn’t limited to one company. Cheaper launches mean increased launch cadence, which is necessary to keep space habitats provisioned. This is a prerequisite for conducting the research and tests for a journey to Mars.
China’s approach offers an instructive contrast. While Beijing tolerates private sector participation, it ultimately remains under state control. This creates strategic coherence but sacrifices the agility and inventiveness that drive transformative breakthroughs.
Chinese private space companies operate as tools of the state. Precisely because the Chinese Communist Party subordinates the information-generating and incentive-aligning features of markets, they will never enjoy the full benefits of space commerce.
Preparing for Mars missions will yield new technologies with dual-use applications. On-orbit refueling, advanced life support systems, radiation shielding, nuclear propulsion, and autonomous manufacturing capabilities developed for Mars will flow back into energy production, medical devices, artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing here on Earth. It will also bolster military preparedness through advancements in basic and applied sciences. All this redounds to national security by increasing the resilience of our space assets.
These developments promise substantial job creation across skill and education levels. While Mars missions certainly demand high-tech expertise and advanced degrees, they also require skilled technicians, machinists, and assembly specialists. Going to Mars will help revitalize America’s industrial base while broadly distributing economic prosperity.
Winning the long game
While a single Mars mission could take 30 months or longer, a Mars program will likely span decades, requiring support from multiple Congresses and presidential administrations.
Avoiding the start-stop cycles that have plagued space programs — from Apollo to Constellation — requires building institutional and political durability at the outset. The foundation must be bipartisan, framing Mars leadership as a matter of national security and economic competitiveness.
Bold endeavors define our national character. Amid social and political fragmentation, undertaking something even greater than a moonshot is an opportunity for national solidarity.
Private-sector anchoring creates a robust foundation. Expanding milestone-based public-private partnerships ties American industry to Mars logistics and operations. When companies and workers nationwide have a stake in space exploration, political support becomes geographically broad and resilient across electoral cycles. Ultimately, mission success offers the best defense against annual appropriations turbulence.
The federal government’s role must remain limited and focused. Agencies should help finance foundational research and development through mission-oriented programs. Public-private agreements should be structured to maximize flexibility. Renting services rather than purchasing equipment ought to be the government’s default approach.
We must also maintain a predictable regulatory environment that protects property rights and resists bureaucratic mission creep. The government’s comparative advantage is setting long-term national objectives and coordinating industry on best practices. While public values channeled through the political process set our destination, private initiative and the profit motive serve as our most powerful engine.
Leveraging alliances
Integration with existing programs maximizes efficiency. The groundwork for future Mars missions should complement, not duplicate, the Space Force’s cislunar operations and NASA’s Artemis lunar architecture. On the international stage, the U.S. should leverage its alliances while ensuring American leadership in setting exploration norms through frameworks such as the Artemis Accords.
Building on our success with the Artemis Accords, we should actively pursue partnerships with the European Union and Japan. We should also deepen space ties with India, which may induce it to align with the free world instead of Russia and China. History has shown our allies will help shoulder the burdens of freedom if America has the courage to lead.
Strategic signaling to allies and competitors augments the framework. A stable, legislated Mars roadmap reassures international partners while deterring rivals, ensuring program continuity.
To the Red Planet!
Mars represents the next great test of American resolve. Bold endeavors define our national character. Amid social and political fragmentation, undertaking something even greater than a moonshot is an opportunity for national solidarity.
The strategic necessity is clear, the economic logic is compelling, and the technological pathway is feasible. What Mars demands now is the political will to harness America’s asymmetric advantages for humanity’s greatest adventure.
RELATED: China is on the brink of beating us back to the moon
Photo by Yang Guanyu/Xinhua via Getty Images
Getting to Mars requires the fortitude to sustain multiyear missions alongside the business discipline to achieve them cost-effectively. America’s commercial space sector provides the capability and incentives to make Mars exploration both symbolically and economically rewarding. Situating our cislunar activities within a Mars plan makes the payoffs even clearer. The moon and Mars are complements, not substitutes.
The choice before us is to either lead a free, rules-based expansion of human civilization beyond Earth or cede the final frontier to authoritarianism. If we fail, we relegate ourselves to the status of a nation in decline. We cannot accept red flags on the Red Planet.
Editor’s note: This article was published originally in the American Mind.
Tolkien’s forgotten lesson: Evil wins when good men refuse to rule
Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Auron MacIntyre, BlazeTV host of “The Auron MacIntyre Show,” has been calling for conservatives to get serious about crushing left-wing violence. Inaction, he’s warned, will only invite escalation. That’s why as a political party, we must insist that the Trump administration dismantle Antifa, impose severe consequences on those inciting or celebrating murders, and wage economic war via regulatory and legal levers against complicit media.
In other words, the Trump administration needs to use its power to obliterate left-wing chaos.
Auron gets quite a bit of pushback for this stance. Many will use J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy to argue against the use of power to quell evil. “The one ring is dangerous. … You must reject the call of power because ultimately power corrupts and destroys and divides,” they say.
But Auron says this is a “shallow reading” of the father of modern fantasy’s three-volume series. “Ultimately, while yes, there is a message about power in there, there’s also a message about right authority. The last book is, of course, called ‘Return of the King,’ and this is seen as a good thing,” he counters. “So it doesn’t look like Tolkien is ultimately rejecting the use of power, but he does have some very important things to say about the nature of power.”
To discuss this important distinction, Auron speaks with Evan Cooney, the host and creator of “The Middle-earth Mixer” — a popular podcast that dives into J.R.R. Tolkien’s lore, themes, and Middle-earth universe.
For starters, Tolkien was adamantly opposed to allegory, meaning that the one ring cannot be said to symbolize power alone. Further, in the books, “There is lawful use of lawful authority, which translates to power, that many characters have and have permissions to do so by the creator god Ilúvatar, and then there are characters who commit unlawful use of unlawful authority, and Sauron creating the one ring would be a perfect example of that,” says Cooney.
Auron points to Aragorn, the rightful king of Gondor, as an example. Initially, Aragorn, using the name Strider, runs from his destiny. “And because he’s not in that position of the true king, there are others who are less worthy who are ruling in his place,” says Auron. This is seen by characters and readers alike as a bad thing. Aragorn must wear the crown and wield the sword and scepter, as this is what pushes back darkness and brings order to Middle-earth.
Cooney, unpacking Aragorn’s lineage all the way back to Isildur, who initially took the ring of power from Sauron, says, “This shirking of responsibility from everyone involved and [Arvedui’s, the last king of the North] inability to take power created the political disaster that made for why men were so weak by the time you get to the ‘Fellowship of the Ring.”’
“Ultimately, Tolkien recognizes that power will exist, that this void will be filled, and if it’s not filled with the appropriate people, the worthy people, those who belong in the line … you will be ruled by inferior men,” says Auron. “It’s not that you won’t be ruled; it’s that the stewards are there instead of the kings.”
In the kingdom of Gondor, Denethor — a steward charged with holding the throne in trust until the king returns — is consumed by pride and despair. He refuses to rally with allies, distrusts Aragorn’s claim to the throne, and abandons the city in its darkest hour.
In Rohan, however, King Théoden, who Cooney says is Denethor’s character foil, shows us what it looks like to wield power rightly. With the help of Gandalf, he exiles his corrupt adviser, Gríma Wormtongue — “the quintessential archetype for the sneaky government bureaucrat,” says Cooney — and rides out and meets Sauron’s army in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.
The exile of Gríma, says Auron, is a lesson for our current government: “The council [of bureaucrats] is paralyzing. It’s meant to be paralyzing. It’s meant to stop you from taking your rightful authority and taking the honorable action, and you have to remove that influence.”
Once evil advisers have been banished, the next step is to step fully into the role of rightful power. After Gríma is exiled, the first thing Gandalf has Théoden do is pick up his sword. “Your fingers would remember their old strength better, if they grasped your sword,” he tells the old king.
“It’s a very moving symbol,” says Auron.
“What stirs the king back to a noble action is he has to feel the weight of the instrument of his office. The rightful sword he has been entrusted with as the civil magistrate has to be felt in his hand before he can once again truly return to who he is and behave honorably.”
To hear the full conversation, watch the episode above.
Want more from Auron MacIntyre?
To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist’s commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
This city bought 300 Chinese electric buses — then found out China can turn them off at will
A city had a rude awakening when it tested its electric buses for security flaws.
Some cities have gone all-in on their dedication to renewable energy and electric public transportation, but discovering that a jurisdiction does not actually control its own public property likely was not part of the idea.
‘In theory, the bus could therefore be stopped or rendered unusable.’
This turned out to be exactly the case when Ruter — the public transportation authority for Oslo, Norway — decided to run tests on its new Chinese electric buses.
Approximately 300 e-buses from Chinese company Yutong made their way to Norway earlier this year, with outlet China Buses calling it a “core breakthrough” in Chinese brands’ global reach.
Yutong offers at least 15 different types of electric buses ranging from 60- to 120-passenger capacity.
As reported by Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten on Tuesday, Ruter conducted secret testing on some of its electric buses over the summer. It decided to look into one bus from a European manufacturer, as well as another from Yutong, to address cybersecurity risks.
The test results were shocking.
RELATED: Cybernetics promised a merger of human and computer. Then why do we feel so out of the loop?
Photo by Li An/Xinhua via Getty Images
Investigators discovered that the Chinese-built buses could be controlled remotely from their homeland, unlike the European vehicles.
Ruter reported that the Chinese can access software updates, diagnostics, and battery systems remotely, and, “In theory, the bus could therefore be stopped or rendered unusable by the manufacturer.”
The details were described by Arild Tjomsland, who helped conduct the tests. Tjomsland is a special adviser at the University of South-Eastern Norway, according to Turkish website AA.
“The Chinese bus can be stopped, turned off, or receive updates that can destroy the technology that the bus needs to operate normally,” Tjomsland reportedly said. He additionally noted that while the buses could not be steered remotely, they could still be shut down and used as leverage by bad actors.
Pravda Norway described the situation as the Chinese government essentially being able to decommission the buses at any time.
Photo by Lyu You/Xinhua via Getty Images
Norway’s transport minister praised Ruter for completing the tests and said the government would initiate a risk assessment related to countries “with which Norway does not have security policy cooperation.”
Ruter’s CEO, Bernt Reitan Jenssen, said the company plans on working with authorities to strengthen the cybersecurity surrounding its public infrastructure.
“We need to involve all competent authorities that deal with cybersecurity, stand together, and draw on cutting-edge expertise,” Jenssen said.
As a temporary fix, Ruter revealed the buses can be disconnected from the internet by removing their SIM cards to assume “local control should the need arise.”
There was no word as to whether the SIM cards are upsized for buses.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Republican candidate narrows the gap in NJ governor race with the help of key Dem endorsements
Democrats were expected to sail through the New Jersey gubernatorial race, but preliminary polls show the GOP candidate is narrowing the gap.
Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli was at a nine-point disadvantage behind Democratic candidate Mikie Sherrill back in August, according to RealClearPolling. In a matter of weeks, Ciattarelli has managed to narrow Sherrill’s advantage from nearly double digits to just 3.6 points.
‘He is the right person to lead New Jersey in the right direction.’
Ciattarelli secured an endorsement from President Donald Trump, who called him “a terrific America First Candidate.” At the same time, the Republican has earned endorsements from local Democrats, which may have helped Ciattarelli close in on Sherrill’s lead.
“Why would anyone vote for New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Candidates, Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger, when they want transgender for everybody, men playing in women’s sports, High Crime, and the most expensive Energy prices almost anywhere in the World?” Trump asked in a recent Truth Social post. “VOTE REPUBLICAN for massive Energy Cost reductions, large scale Tax Cuts, and basic Common Sense!”
RELATED: Kelsey Grammer endorses Republican in dead-heat NJ governor race
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Although securing support from the MAGA base is key, New Jersey’s traditionally blue voting record makes bipartisan endorsements key in the gubernatorial race.
Ciattarelli recently received an endorsement from New Era Democrats President Celia Iervasi, who emphasized the issue of affordability and taxes.
“As life continues to become unaffordable for the working class, and New Jersey continues to be one of the highest-taxed states in the country, Jack is the right person that is needed to make life more affordable for the residents of the Garden State,” Iervasi said. “We look forward to joining a coalition of organizations that are supporting Jack in the upcoming election and know that he is the right person to lead New Jersey in the right direction.”
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Iervasi is just one of several Democrats and Democrat supporters who have thrown their support behind Ciattarelli. Democrats like North Bergen Mayor Nick Sacco, North Bergen Commissioner Allen Pascual, Dover Mayor Jim Dodd, Branchville Mayor Anthony Frato, Branchville Councilman Jeff Lewis, and former Hudson County Democratic Organization Chair Anthony Vainieri have all come out in support of the Republican candidate.
Garfield Mayor Everett Garnto also endorsed Ciattarelli as he announced that he was changing his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican.
“It’s not just Republicans who are crying out for change,” Ciattarelli told a crowd following Garnto’s endorsement. “It’s unaffiliated, independent voters and yes, even moderate Democrats who’ve come to the realization that this current administration has failed.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Democrat holds a healthy lead for Virginia governor, but one scandal could throw downballot races
Early data indicates Democrats are currently enjoying a lead in Virginia’s gubernatorial race, but one notorious scandal might cost them the attorney general race.
Polling has consistently shown Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger with a comfortable advantage over her Republican challenger, Winsome Earle-Sears, who has served as Virginia’s lieutenant governor since 2022. Spanberger is averaging 7.4 points ahead of Earle-Sears, according to RealClearPolling, with some polls even putting the Democrat at a double-digit lead.
‘Do you really want to elect that person as a law enforcement officer in your state?’
However, this advantage has not translated to the Virginia attorney general race, where Democratic candidate Jay Jones has fallen behind Republican candidate Jason Miyares.
Miyares’ newfound momentum came at the beginning of October after Jones’ leaked texts revealed he was privately fantasizing about putting “two bullets” in the head of a political opponent and about the man’s kids dying in the arms of their mother.
Photo by Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post via Getty Images
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), who himself survived a politically motivated shooting, warned that Jones’ rhetoric revealed skewed judgment.
“Do you really want to elect that person as a law enforcement officer in your state?” Scalise asked in response to the texts. “Should other elected officials be accepting and condoning and endorsing that, or should they denounce it, which I did? Everybody should denounce it, and yet some won’t for political reasons.”
“I think it’s a gut check for people’s integrity,” Scalise told Blaze News. “If you’re willing to accept a call to violence because you’re more worried about a political party advancing than you are worried about civility in this country, that’s a real big concern for alarm.”
RELATED: Earle-Sears’ campaign bus bursts into flames days before election for Virginia governor
Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
It’s clear that extreme rhetoric is unpopular with Virginians. In the lieutenant governor’s race, Republican candidate John Reid has hammered Democratic candidate Ghazala Hashmi’s radical track record, including the time she boasted about teaching children books that were banned for containing explicit material.
“One of my concerns is violence. We seem to focus on sexually explicit material,” Hashmi said in a video obtained by Blaze News. “I don’t really care about that.”
“We teach the books that other people try to ban,” Hashmi said.
Even still, polling puts Reid and Hashmi within striking distance of each other. The latest polling shows Hashmi at a two-point advantage over Reid, although notably 7% of surveyed voters remain undecided.
“Ghazala Hashmi’s words speak for themselves,” Reid told Blaze News. “Any public official who says they ‘don’t really care’ if children are exposed to sexually explicit material in schools is completely out of touch with Virginia parents.”
“Parents deserve to know what’s in their kids’ classrooms — and when I’m lieutenant governor, they’ll have a voice and a seat at the table.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
John Leguizamo’s ‘The Other Americans’ puts art before activism
“Do you know John?”
Yeah, LinkedIn. I know John Leguizamo.
LinkedIn
There is no way John Leguizamo knows me, but following the professional networking platform’s suggestion, I went ahead and sent an invitation to the actor/producer to connect.
I grew up in Queens; my family has a butcher shop in Spanish Harlem. If you think Latinos are so united, see what happens when you call a Puerto Rican a Mexican.
I haven’t kept up with Leguizamo’s career. The only times I see him pop up now is when he’s complaining about the lack of Latino representation in show business. In fact, when it comes to complaining about representation, John Leguizamo is overrepresented.
‘Liquor Store Gunman’
I read in Variety that early on in his career, Leguizamo “felt humiliated” playing the role of “Liquor Store Gunman” in Mike Nichols’ “Regarding Henry” (1991).
“I shoot this white guy [Harrison Ford],” Leguizamo explains. “It was like, ‘Oh my God, I’m perpetuating what they want to see,’ which is negative Latino images.”
It’s interesting that Leguizamo felt humiliated playing a Latino stereotype in “Regarding Henry” but managed to put that humiliation aside a couple years later to play a Latino stereotype in “Carlito’s Way.” To be fair: Latino gangster Benny Blanco from the Bronx is a far more memorable character than Liquor Store Gunman. (What kind of last name is “Gunman” anyway? It ain’t Latin.)
When not at the mercy of other screenwriters and casting agents for roles, Leguizamo, a one-man-show-making machine, made a career out of performing his own Latino characters — which are not all necessarily negative images but certainly stereotypical in many respects. I mean, this is the same artist who made “Freak,” “House of Buggin’,” and “John Leguizamo’s Spic-O-Rama,” which is not to be confused with generic Spic-O-Rama.
In an interview with “NBC Nightly News,” Leguizamo declares, “We’re almost 20% of the population, I want 20% of the executives, 20% of the stories, 20% of the principal leads, then I’ll be quiet.”
Regarding ‘us’
By “we,” of course he means Latinos — which includes me (even though, again, John doesn’t know me).
I doubt a perfectly equitable distribution of roles in show business along ethnic lines will quiet Leguizamo though. Even a world where an Al Pacino can’t swoop in to capture the leading Cuban and Puerto Rican roles will shut Leguizamo up.
Notice Leguizamo isn’t making this appeal for equity when it comes to other industries. Can you picture John Leguizamo showing up to a farm or construction site, demanding fewer Latinos — legal or undocumented — because they’re overrepresented?
So in the year 2025, we’re about 20% of the population, but looking back at the “Regarding Henry” year of 1991 — can you imagine if that were the movie that defined 1991! — Latinos were only about 9% of the population.
In the year of Benny Blanco from the Bronx, 1993, it jumped to about 9.5%. The further you go back, the fewer Latinos there are in the United States. To expect to see yourself represented when there are so few of you out there is quite something. Narcissistic, you might call it. Perfect for a talent like Leguizamo — who has made a lot of work for and about himself. Albeit a lot of good, original, entertaining, and funny work, I must say.
Hate-watch interrupted
Which brings me to his new play, “The Other Americans,” at the Public Theater — which I only heard about because of Leguizamo’s media appearances that come across like he’s on a grievance tour.
So from a marketing standpoint, the Colombian American’s promotional shtick worked. I bought a ticket — but to hate-watch his play.
I don’t like going into a show expecting it to suck — let alone wanting it to suck. I tried to shake those intentions as best as I could. One thing I made sure not to do before the show was to read Leguizamo’s “note from the playwright” that’s printed in the playbill. I don’t know if it really made a difference, because once I stepped into the Anspacher Theater at the Public Theater, he’d won me over.
I had a seat center-stage in the second row. The set looked like an authentic house in Forest Hills, Queens, with a fenced-in backyard and even an above-ground pool that the neighbors could see from their second-story windows. If the Jeffersons had been Latinos, this is what moving on up from Jackson Heights would look like.
The change in neighborhoods is a punch line, as is the pool. One of the first arguments in the play is whether the above-ground pool is a real pool or not, because real pools are in-ground, you know. Yes, an above-ground is kind of trashy, but it still holds water.
RELATED: Bill & Ted share absurdist adventure in new ‘Waiting for Godot’
Bruce Glikas/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images
Crowd-pleaser
Leguizamo plays Nelson Castro, a Colombian American laundromat owner, and from his first entrance onto the stage, I’m all in, whether it’s watching him mix a drink or listening to him curse into his cell phone — in English and Spanish. When his wife, Patti (played by actress Luna Lauren Velez), arrives, they’re soon dancing, like a stereotypical Latin couple. The audience loves it.
It feels like I’m on the set of a mult-cam sitcom. The live audience laughs, oohs and aahs. At one point in the play, an audience member caps one of Patti’s lines with what I think was a, “You go, girl!”
I remember Leguizamo saying he was out to create “a new type of American drama” — but what we’re presented with at first is something I could see running on network TV. They’d have to clean up the language and cut back on the Spanglish, but even the plot is perfect pilot material.
Complicated portrayal
Nelson and Patti are preparing for their daughter Toni’s wedding as well as the return of their son, Nick, who’s been gone for some time. Mami’s so nervous she keeps burning the sofrito!
During one of their dance passes in the living room, I notice a run in Patti’s stocking. That image — whether the wardrobe department meant for it to be there or not — has stuck with me.
It turns out their son is coming home after being hospitalized for a nervous breakdown — which his therapist attributes to his family not addressing the trauma he experienced when he was brutally beaten by a group of white boys his last year of high school.
The attack happened at one of his family’s ’mats. The perpetrators even tried to stuff him into one of the washing machines “to wash the brown off of him.” (I guess the racist white boys succeeded? Because the actor who plays Nick, Trey Santiago-Hudson, is rather pale-skinned.)
Nick is in pain and while Nelson wants a do-over with him, the Latin father is not equipped to deal with it. Imagine asking your son who was just released from a mental institution what he has to be anxious about?
It’s in these moments where Leguizamo really shines. He plays such a great dick! Although I don’t think “shines” is the right word for a performance that has so much darkness to it. Nelson is not just a flawed man — in many respects, he’s a wicked man.
The plot to “The Other Americans” is so well-crafted that I don’t want to risk revealing too much, but in one exchange, a family member compares Nelson to Sisyphus of Greek mythology. It’s a setup to a perfect sitcom punch line, where Nelson assumes it must be a real Greek guy from Astoria. But while Nelson shares some traits with Sisyphus, I think he’s even more like Tantalus.
Who’s ‘we’?
In his note from the playwright, John Leguizamo writes:
I wanted to write a play about race, and I wanted it to be complicated. I didn’t want it to be a morality play, but rather I wanted to show life as we Latino people experience it. We don’t always see the microaggressions, or the systemic road blocks in effect. Even though there’s a subtle tokenism at work around us, we often witness the macroaggressions: those obvious, in-your-face type moments. We Latinos experience racism through poverty, the schools in which we are allowed to enroll, and the geographical areas in which we are packed. In New York City, we are equal to the white population, yet you never see us on the cover of newspapers and magazines.
There’s more to his note, but I think this bit above is worth addressing. Firstly, this “we” stuff has got to go. Latinos are not a monolith. I grew up in Queens; my family has a butcher shop in Spanish Harlem. If you think Latinos are so united, see what happens when you call a Puerto Rican a Mexican.
Secondly, in the play Nelson is the one who blames “the system” (which is synonymous with racism) for his lot in life — for example, the failure of his laundromats. “The toxicity of the American dream” is another way I’ve seen it described. But as Nelson’s secrets are revealed, what becomes clear is that he, a tragic figure, is the one responsible for his and his family’s downfall.
The system — if there is one — has actually been very good to the Castros. Just like in real life, the system has been very good to Leguizamo.
With “The Other Americans,” Leguizamo fails to make his political statement but succeeds in making a powerful piece of art. ¡Bravo, hermano! Please accept my invitation on LinkedIn.
Rebuild the republic one classroom at a time
The shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University puts an exclamation point on the degraded state of reasoned debate in America.
Like many in the last month or so, I’ve found myself doing a deep dive into Kirk’s YouTube channel, watching debate after debate. You learn something from watching them in full: Kirk was willing to talk to anybody, and he always brought liberals to the front of the line.
We must teach our students to be virtuous, both individually and politically.
He was pugnacious at times, but always civil. His interlocutors sometimes resorted to ad hominem attacks, and their arguments often collapsed under a steady stream of his questions and retorts. Time after time, these students lost the debate with Kirk because they simply didn’t know enough.
‘Action civics’
What causes a person to stake out a position with such confidence before mastering the evidence to support it? For many of the students who challenged Kirk, the answer is “action civics.” This pedagogical theory holds that the highest form of civic participation is protest rather than discussion. Its result is thoughtless grandstanding or worse. The antidote to this state of affairs is classical education rightly understood.
When it comes to civics, knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. Civic life requires more than a grasp of American history and government, as important as those things are. It requires us to be people formed by practice in the habit of reasoned deliberation — people who know how to disagree and be disagreed with and who are willing to change their opinions when they learn something.
Political speech — reasoned discussion about the good within a regime — allows us to improve our opinions by sharing them with others and refining them through conversation and disagreement. Civic education divorced from these practical virtues produces either performative activism or feckless intellectualizing.
These virtues can be cultivated within the classroom through classical education. Reading and discussing works from Aristotle to the Federalist allows students to wrestle with enduring questions about justice, rights, and the good life. They learn not only to discern what is right but also to pursue it amid the complexities of a changing world.
Yet the real formation comes in seminars and Socratic discussions, which are laboratories of civic practice.
After years outside of the classroom, this semester I began teaching a course on moral and political philosophy to 11th graders. These students are young, but after years in a classical school, they have some real learning under their belts. The task this year is to develop within them the habits necessary for a real seminar conversation, with Socratic discussion three days a week and a full-blown seminar on the other two.
Running a seminar
In a well-run seminar, teachers merely provide a question about a great work of literature, history, or philosophy, intervening to guide the discussion only rarely. As in life, no authority swoops in to give the right answer and make decisions for everyone else. It’s the students who lead and who learn to find their way together.
A properly run seminar allows students to disagree and be disagreed with. They are forced to humble themselves before an author and a text, to scrutinize their own opinions, and to discard error in favor of knowledge.
But it isn’t a lawless environment. Students in a well-run seminar know that they are to speak about the text and only the text. Every comment must respond to the previous speaker. Non sequiturs are not allowed, and the students don’t interrupt each other (we are still working on that last one).
If we want a citizenry capable of sustaining liberty, we cannot settle for activist training without understanding, nor abstract lectures without practice.
When they do speak, they have to ground their statements in an argument drawn from the text. If they don’t have an interpretation of the text to offer, they can ask a thoughtful question, which is often just as beneficial to the conversation as a well-reasoned argument.
Disagreement in the seminar room is an opportunity to learn that disputing someone’s argument doesn’t mean impugning their character. Most teenagers are terrified to disagree with someone their own age and even more terrified to be disagreed with. But after a few weeks, they develop thicker skin. They learn to think more about the substance of their argument and less about their social standing.
RELATED: How Charlie Kirk’s life shows the power of self-education
skynesher via iStock/Getty Images
When the arbiter of the debate is the text itself, everyone knows that success means advancing the clearest and most correct reading. And when the text is rich and deep, it takes time, conversation, and disagreement to interpret it well.
Disagreement is an opportunity for clarification. In a well-developed seminar, it’s welcomed. What matters is not superficial civility, but the willingness to examine and revise our opinions in light of reason and fact, to argue from truth rather than feeling, and to labor toward a common understanding.
Dare to disagree
In a way, these classroom discussions on Plato and Virgil, Swift and Shakespeare, are a crash course in practical civics. Not protest, not theory, but character formation through dialogue, study, and experience — all preparing students not only to understand their country but to participate in it responsibly. In a way, classical education creates more people like Charlie Kirk.
If we want a citizenry capable of sustaining liberty, we cannot settle for activist training without understanding, nor abstract lectures without practice. We must teach our students to be virtuous, both individually and politically. Only then will they be capable of self-government — not as activists or spectators, but as citizens.
Editor’s note: This article was published originally at the American Mind.
