Category: Conservative Review
![COMER BRINGS RECEIPTS: Oversight Chair Punches Back After Jeffries Calls Him ‘Stone-Cold Liar’ [WATCH]](https://hannity.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/GettyImages-2234508403-300x200.jpg "House GOP Leadership Speaks After Weekly Conference Meeting")
Burisma, Meet Your Brother Binance
WASHINGTON — I’ll admit it: I’ve held President Donald Trump to a different standard than former President Joe Biden when…
Ceremonial Puck Drop Turns Into Player Getting Bitten By Police Dog At Hockey Game
Of course, this happened in Russia
House Republicans Strike Back Against Crippling Biden-Era Energy Schemes
‘climate alarmists and activist bureaucrats’
Vance Urges Republicans To ‘Have Our Debates’ But ‘Focus on the Enemy’
Vice President J.D. Vance addressed the ongoing fights within the Republican Party in an interview on Thursday, giving his lengthiest answer to date on the debates raging on the right about whether to welcome racists and anti-Semites traditionally marginalized by the GOP into the coalition. While Vance encouraged debate, he also urged the GOP to focus on unity against opponents on the left.
The post Vance Urges Republicans To ‘Have Our Debates’ But ‘Focus on the Enemy’ appeared first on .
‘A House of Dynamite’: Netflix turns nuclear war into an HR meeting
Netflix’s thriller “A House of Dynamite” very much wants to teach us something about the folly of waging war with civilization-ending weapons. The lesson it ends up imparting, however, has more to do with the state of contemporary storytelling.
The film revolves around a high-stakes crisis: an unexpected nuclear missile launched from an unspecified enemy and aimed directly at Big City USA. We get to see America’s defense apparatus deal with impending apocalypse in real time.
It seems the best Ms. Bigelow, Mr. Oppenheim, and the team at Netflix can offer up is a lukewarm ‘nukes are bad, mmkay?’
Triple threat
“Revolves” is the operative word here. The movie tells the same story three times from three different vantage points — each in its own 40-minute segment. From first detection to the final seconds before detonation, we watch a bevy of government elites on one interminable red-alert FaceTime, working out how to respond to the strike.
This is the aptly named screenwriter Noah Oppenheim’s second disaster outing for the streamer; he recently co-created miniseries “Zero Day,” which features Robert De Niro investigating a nationwide cyberattack.
That series unspooled a complicated and convoluted conspiracy in the vein of “24.” “A House of Dynamite” clearly aims for something more grounded, which would seem to make accomplished Kathryn Bigelow perfect for the job.
And for the film’s first half-hour she delivers, embedding the viewer with the military officers, government officials, and regular working stiffs for whom being the last line of America’s defense is just another day at the office … until suddenly it isn’t. The dawning horror of their situation is as gripping as anything in “The Hurt Locker” or “Zero Dark Thirty.”
Then it happens two more times.
On repeat
In Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night,” Duke Orsino laments a repetitive song growing stale: “Naught enters there of what validity and pitch soe’er, but falls into abatement and low price.”
Or put another way, the tune, not realizing its simple beauty, sings itself straight into worthlessness.
And somehow, this manages to be only part of what makes “A House of Dynamite” so unappealing. Our main characters — including head of the White House Situation Room (Rebecca Ferguson), general in charge of the United States Northern Command (Tracy Letts), and the secretary of defense (Jared Harris) — offer no semblance of perspicacity, stopping frequently to take others’ feelings into account before making decisions, all while an ICBM races toward Chicago. From liftoff to impact in 16 minutes or less, or your order free.
Missile defensive
So thorough is this picture of incompetence that the Pentagon felt compelled to issue an internal memo preparing Missile Defense Agency staff to “address false assumptions” about defense capability.
One can hardly blame officials when, in the twilight of the film, we’re shown yet another big-screen Obama facsimile (played by British actor Idris Elba) putting his cadre of sweating advisers on hold to ring Michelle, looking for advice on whether his course of action should be to nuke the whole planet or do nothing. The connection drops — she is in Africa, after all, and her safari-chic philanthropy outfit doesn’t make the satellite signal any stronger. He puts the phone down and continues to look over his black book of options ranging “from rare to well done,” as his nuclear briefcase handler puts it.
And then the movie ends. The repetitive storylines have no resolution, and their participants face no consequences. The single ground missile the U.S. arsenal managed to muster up — between montages of sergeants falling to their knees at the thought of having to do their job — has missed its target.
Designated survivors — with the exception of one high-ranking official who finds suicide preferable — rush to their bunkers. The screen fades to black, over a melancholy overture. Is it any wonder that audiences felt cheated? After sitting through nearly two hours of dithering bureaucrats wasting time, their own time had been wasted by a director who clearly thinks endings are passé.
No ending for you
If you find yourself among the unsatisfied, Bigelow has some words for you. In an interview with Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, she justified her film’s lack of a payoff thusly:
I felt like the fact that the bomb didn’t go off was an opportunity to start a conversation. With an explosion at the end, it would have been kind of all wrapped up neat, and you could point your finger [and say] “it’s bad that happened.” But it would sort of absolve us, the human race, of responsibility. And in fact, no, we are responsible for having created these weapons and — in a perfect world — getting rid of them.
Holy Kamala word salad.
RELATED: Phones and drones expose the cracks in America’s defenses
Photo by dikushin via Getty Images
Bigelow-er
For much of her career, director Kathryn Bigelow has told real stories in interesting ways that — while not always being the full truth and nothing but the truth — were entertaining, well shot, and depicted Americans fulfilling their manifest destiny of being awesome.
That changed with Bigelow’s last film, 2017’s “Detroit,” a progressive, self-flagellating depiction of the 1967 Detroit race riots (final tally: 43 deaths, 1,189 injured) through the eyes of some mostly peaceful black teens and the devil-spawn deputy cop who torments them. “A House of Dynamite” continues this project of national critique.
But what, exactly, is the point? It seems the best Ms. Bigelow, Mr. Oppenheim, and the team at Netflix can offer up is a lukewarm “nukes are bad, mmkay?” This is a lecture on warfare with the subtlety of a John Lennon song, set in a world where the fragile men in charge must seek out the strong embrace of their nearest girlboss.
It’s no secret that 2025 carries a distinct “end times” energy — a year thick with existential threats. AI run amok, political fracture edging toward civil conflict, nuclear brinkmanship, even the occasional UFO headline — pick your poison. And it’s equally obvious that the internet, not the cinema, has become the primary arena where Americans now go to see those anxieties mirrored back at them.
“A House of Dynamite” is unlikely to reverse this trend. If this is the best Hollywood’s elite can come up with after gazing into the void, it’s time to move the movie industry to DEFCON 1.
Trump and Elon want TRUTH online. AI feeds on bias. So what’s the fix?
The Trump administration has unveiled a broad action plan for AI (America’s AI Action Plan). The general vibe is one of treating AI like a business, aiming to sell the AI stack worldwide and generate a lock-in for American technology. “Winning,” in this context, is primarily economic. The plan also includes the sorely needed idea of modernizing the electrical grid, a growing concern due to rising electricity demands from data centers. While any extra business is welcome in a heavily indebted nation, the section on the political objectivity of AI is both too brief and misunderstands the root cause of political bias in AI and its role in the culture war.
The plan uses the term “objective” and implies that a lack of objectivity is entirely the fault of the developer, for example:
Update Federal procurement guidelines to ensure that the government only contracts with frontier large language model (LLM) developers who ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down ideological bias.
The fear that AIs might tip the scales of the culture war away from traditional values and toward leftism is real. Try asking ChatGPT, Claude, or even DeepSeek about climate change, where COVID came from, or USAID.
Training data is heavily skewed toward being generated during the ‘woke tyranny’ era of the internet.
This desire for objectivity of AI may come from a good place, but it fundamentally misconstrues how AIs are built. AI in general and LLMs in particular are a combination of data and algorithms, which further break down into network architecture and training methods. Network architecture is frequently based on stacking transformer or attention layers, though it can be modified with concepts like “mixture of experts.” Training methods are varied and include pre-training, data cleaning, weight initialization, tokenization, and techniques for altering the learning rate. They also include post-training methods, where the base model is modified to conform to a metric other than the accuracy of predicting the next token.
Many have complained that post-training methods like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback introduce political bias into models at the cost of accuracy, causing them to avoid controversial topics or spout opinions approved by the companies — opinions usually farther to the left than those of the average user. “Jailbreaking” models to avoid such restrictions was once a common pastime, but it is becoming harder, as corporate safety measures, sometimes as complex as entirely new models, scan both the input to and output from the underlying base model.
As a result of this battle between RLHF and jailbreakers, an idea has emerged that these post-training methods and safety features are how liberal bias gets into the models. The belief is that if we simply removed these, the models would display their true objective nature. Unfortunately for both the Trump administration and the future of America, this is only partially correct. Developers can indeed make a model less objective and more biased in a leftward direction under the guise of safety. However, it is very hard to make models that are more objective.
The problem is data
According to Google AI Mode vs. Traditional Search & Other LLMs, the top domains cited in LLMs are: Reddit (40%), YouTube (26%), Wikipedia (23%), Google (23%), Yelp (21%), Facebook (20%), and Amazon (19%).
This seems to imply a lot of the outside-fact data in AIs comes from Reddit. Spending trillions of dollars to create an “eternal Redditor” isn’t going to cure cancer. At best, it might create a “cure cancer cheerleader” who hypes up every advance and forgets about it two weeks later. One can only do so much in the algorithm layer to counteract the frame of mind of the average Redditor. In this sense, the political slant of LLMs is less due to the biases of developers and corporations (although they do exist) and more due to the biases of the training data, which is heavily skewed toward being generated during the “woke tyranny” era of the internet.
In this way, the AI bias problem is not about removing bias to reveal a magic objective base layer. Rather, it is about creating a human-generated and curated set of true facts that can then be used by LLMs. Using legislation to remove the methods by which left-leaning developers push AIs into their political corner is a great idea, but it is far from sufficient. Getting humans to generate truthful data is extremely important.
The pipeline to create truthful data likely needs at least four steps.
1. Raw data generation of detailed tables and statistics (usually done by agencies or large enterprises).
2. Mathematically informed analysis of this data (usually done by scientists).
3. Distillation of scientific studies for educated non-experts (in theory done by journalists, but in practice rarely done at all).
4. Social distribution via either permanent (wiki) or temporary (X) channels.
This problem of truthful data plus commentary for AI training is a government, philanthropic, and business problem.
RELATED: Threads is now bigger than X, and that’s terrible for free speech
Photo by Lionel BONAVENTURE/AFP/Getty Images
I can imagine an idealized scenario in which all these problems are solved by harmonious action in all three directions. The government can help the first portion by forcing agencies to be more transparent with their data, putting it into both human-readable and computer-friendly formats. That means more CSVs, plain text, and hyperlinks and fewer citations, PDFs, and fancy graphics with hard-to-find data. FBI crime statistics, immigration statistics, breakdowns of government spending, the outputs of government-conducted research, minute-by-minute election data, and GDP statistics are fundamentally pillars of truth and are almost always politically helpful to the broader right.
In an ideal world, the distillation of raw data into causal models would be done by a team of highly paid scientists via a nonprofit or a government contract. This work is too complex to be left to the crowd, and its benefits are too distributed to be easily captured by the market.
The journalistic portion of combining papers into an elite consensus could be done similarly to today: with high-quality, subscription-based magazines. While such businesses can be profitable, for this content to integrate with AI, the AI companies themselves need to properly license the data and share revenue.
The last step seems to be mostly working today, as it would be done by influencers paid via ad revenue shares or similar engagement-based metrics. Creating permanent, rather than disappearing, data (à la Wikipedia) is a time-intensive and thankless task that will likely need paid editors in the future to keep the quality bar high.
Freedom doesn’t always boost truth
However, we do not live in an ideal world. The epistemic landscape has vastly improved since Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter. At the very least, truth-seeking accounts don’t have to deal with as much arbitrary censorship. Even other media have made token statements claiming they will censor less, even as some AI “safety” features are ramped up to a much higher setting than social media censorship ever was.
The challenge with X and other media is that tech companies generally favor technocratic solutions over direct payment for pro-social content. There seems to be a widespread belief in a marketplace of ideas: the idea that without censorship (or with only some person’s favorite censorship), truthful ideas will win over false ones. This likely contains an element of truth, but the peculiarities of each algorithm may favor only certain types of truthful content.
“X is the new media” is a commonly spoken refrain. Yet both anonymous and public accounts on X are implicitly burdened with tasks as varied and complex as gathering election data, creating long think pieces, and the consistent repetition of slogans reinforcing a key message. All for a chance of a few Elon bucks. They are doing this while competing with stolen-valor thirst traps from overseas accounts. Obviously, most are not that motivated and stick to pithy and simple content rather than intellectually grounded think pieces. The broader “right” is still needlessly ceding intellectual and data-creation ground to the left, despite occasional victories in defunding anti-civilizational NGOs and taking control of key platforms.
The other issue experienced by data creators across the political spectrum is the reliance on unpaid volunteers. As the economic belt inevitably tightens and productive people have less spare time, the supply of quality free data will worsen. It will also worsen as both platforms and users feel rightful indignation at their data being “stolen” by AI companies making huge profits, thus moving content into gatekept platforms like Discord. While X is unlikely to go back to the “left,” its quality can certainly fall farther.
Even Redditors and Wikipedia contributors provide fairly complex, if generally biased, data that powers the entire AI ecosystem. Also for free. A community of unpaid volunteers working to spread useful information sounds lovely in principle. However, in addition to the decay in quality, these kinds of “business models” are generally very easy to disrupt with minor infusions of outside money, if it just means paying a full-time person to post. If you are not paying to generate politically powerful content, someone else is always happy to.
The other dream of tech companies is to use AI to “re-create” the entirety of the pipeline. We have heard so much drivel about “solving cancer” and “solving science.” While speeding up human progress by automating simple tasks is certainly going to work and is already working, the dream of full replacement will remain a dream, largely because of “model collapse,” the situation where AIs degrade in quality when they are trained on data generated by themselves. Companies occasionally hype up “no data/zero-knowledge/synthetic data” training, but a big example from 10 years ago, “RL from random play,” which worked for chess and Go, went nowhere in games as complex as Starcraft.
So where does truth come from?
This brings us to the recent example of Grokipedia. Perusing it gives one a sense that we have taken a step in the right direction, with an improved ability to summarize key historical events and medical controversies. However, a number of articles are lifted directly from Wikipedia, which risks drawing the wrong lesson. Grokipedia can’t “replace” Wikipedia in the long term because Grok’s own summarization is dependent on it.
Like many of Elon Musk’s ventures, Grokipedia is two steps forward, one step back. The forward steps are a customer-facing Wikipedia that seems to be of higher quality and a good example of AI-generated long-form content that is not mere slop, achieved by automating the tedious, formulaic steps of summarization. The backward step is a lack of understanding of what the ecosystem looks like without Wikipedia. Many of Grokipedia’s articles are lifted directly from Wikipedia, suggesting that if Wikipedia disappears, it will be very hard to keep neutral articles properly updated.
Even the current version suffers from a “chicken and egg” source-of-truth problem. If no AI has the real facts about the COVID vaccine and categorically rejects data about its safety or lack thereof, then Grokipedia will not be accurate on this topic unless a fairly highly paid editor researches and writes the true story. As mentioned, model collapse is likely to result from feeding too much of Grokipedia to Grok itself (and other AIs), leading to degradation of quality and truthfulness. Relying on unpaid volunteers to suggest edits creates a very easy vector for paid NGOs to influence the encyclopedia.
The simple conclusion is that to be good training data for future AIs, the next source of truth must be written by people. If we want to scale this process and employ a number of trustworthy researchers, Grokipedia by itself is very unlikely to make money and will probably forever be a money-losing business. It would likely be both a better business and a better source of truth if, instead of being written by AI to be read by people, it was written by people to be read by AI.
Eventually, the domain of truth needs to be carefully managed, curated, and updated by a legitimate organization that, while not technically part of the government, would be endorsed by it. Perhaps a nonprofit NGO — except good and actually helping humanity. The idea of “the Foundation” or “Antiversity,” is not new, but our over-reliance on AI to do the heavy lifting is. Such an institution, or a series of them, would need to be bootstrapped by people willing to invest in our epistemic future for the very long term.
‘You’re a piece of s**t’: Nancy Mace and Cory Mills clash in heated exchange after failed censure
Florida Rep. Cory Mills (R) evaded another censure effort Wednesday night, but not without some heated criticism from a Republican colleague.
Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina forced a censure vote on Mills Wednesday over “alleged stolen valor, arms deals he’s under investigation for and alleged abuses toward women.” Mace also went after Mills after a handful of Republicans blocked the censure of Democrat Delegate Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands, who colluded with Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing.
‘The more we learn about this guy and his purported activities, the worse it is.’
Mace alleged that Plaskett’s censure failed because Mills cut a “backroom deal” to suppress his own censure. Similar allegations were made toward Mills back in September when he was the deciding vote to protect Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s censure for the insensitive comments she made following Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
“Another backroom deal so Cory Mills can’t get censored [sic] for Stolen Valor,” Mace said in a post on X. “I have the General who ‘recommended’ him for the Bronze Star on record saying he never wrote it, never read it and never personally signed it. This. Is. Washington.”
hoto by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
The two Republicans reportedly had a heated exchange on the House floor Wednesday night, with Mace calling Mills a “disgrace” and mouthing the words, “You’re a piece of s**t.”
Mace later addressed these outbursts in a post on X, saying the real scandal is Mills’ track record.
“While Rep. Cory Mills is worried about my ‘mean’ words on the Floor last night — I’m worried about our national security and what sort of arms deals he or his companies have with foreign countries. I’m worried about how court records show he abuses women and had to have a restraining order set against him for it. I’m worried about how stealing the stories of other soldiers constitutes STOLEN VALOR and spits in the faces of veterans who gave it all Hold your tongue and sit this one out Mr. Mills.”
The censure vote ultimately failed 310-103, with 204 Republicans and 106 Democrats defending Mills.
Only eight Republicans — Reps. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Kat Cammack of Florida, Joe Wilson of South Carolina, and Mace — voted to advance the censure measure.
Although the censure failed, Mace still called the effort a win.
Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images
“Last night was a win with either outcome of the vote,” Mace said in a post on X. “Now the Left can’t do any more backroom deals with Mills or use Mills as a bargaining chip whenever a Republican moves to censure another. And his investigation has been formally referred to an Ethics Subcommittee.”
“However, I pray leadership will remove Mills from his committees until Ethics is done with Mills. The more we learn about this guy and his purported activities, the worse it is.”
Blaze News reached out to Mills’ office for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Democrat support for jailing Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro could blow back on Clintons
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) issued deposition subpoenas in August to failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton requiring their testimony “related to horrific crimes perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein.”
Comer made clear on Tuesday that the Clintons risk criminal exposure should they continue not to comply with the subpoenas — and that he is willing to make use of the precedent set in recent years by Democrats.
‘They’re the one group in this investigation that’s never had to answer questions … from attorneys or members of Congress.’
The chairman noted in his Aug. 5 letter to Bill Clinton that owing to the former president’s past relationships with Epstein and child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, the committee believed him to have information regarding their activities relevant to the investigation.
“By your own admission, you flew on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane four separate times in 2002 and 2003. During one of these trips, you were even pictured receiving a ‘massage’ from one of Mr. Epstein’s victims,” wrote Comer.
“It has also been claimed that you pressured Vanity Fair not to publish sex-trafficking allegations against your ‘good friend’ Mr. Epstein, and there are conflicting reports about whether you ever visited Mr. Epstein’s island,” continued the chairman. “You were also allegedly close to Ms. Ghislane Maxwell, an Epstein co-conspirator, and attended an intimate dinner with her in 2014, three years after public reports about her involvement in Mr. Epstein’s abuse of minors.”
Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
Comer noted in his letter to Hillary Clinton that her testimony was of interest to the panel not only because of her husband’s relationship with the dead sex offender but because of her links to Maxwell, whose nephew worked for Hillary Clinton’s first failed presidential campaign, then later for the State Department while Clinton was secretary of state.
The Oversight Committee compelled Hillary Clinton to testify on Oct. 9, but she didn’t show up.
When Bill Clinton’s Oct. 14 deposition date came around, a committee spokesperson announced that it would be delayed as the panel was “having conversations with the Clintons’ attorney to accommodate their schedules.”
Republicans on the committee are apparently still trying to settle on a date with the Clintons’ attorneys, a source familiar with the matter told ABC News.
“We expect to hear from Bill and Hillary Clinton,” Comer told “Just the News, No Noise” on Tuesday. “Donald Trump answered questions for years about Jeffrey Epstein. Every day he gets asked questions about Epstein, and he answers them in front of the American people. We’ve subpoenaed Republicans and Democrats.”
“Other Democrats have sent letters saying they knew nothing about Epstein, which would hold in court if something ever comes out that they did know something, then they’ve committed perjury there,” continued the chairman.
“But the Clintons have never responded. They’re the one group in this investigation that’s never had to answer questions in front of a credible reporter, and they’ve never certainly answered questions from attorneys or members of Congress,” added Comer.
Comer, evidently tired of the Clintons’ avoidance, added, “So we expect the Clintons to come in, or I expect the Clintons to be met with the same fate that Bannon and [Peter] Navarro were met with when the Democrats were in control.”
Democrats would likely condemn the Clintons’ visitation by legal consequence over their refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas — but such criticism would amount to rocks thrown from a glass house.
Eric Holder, Obama’s attorney general, was held in contempt of Congress in a decisive 255-67 vote in 2012 for refusing to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal.
The Obama Justice Department rewarded Holder for keeping the Democratic president’s documents from the American people’s elected representatives by refusing to prosecute.
House Republicans voted last year to hold former Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas for audio recordings of former President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.
The Biden Department of Justice revealed on June 14, 2024, that it would not bother prosecuting Garland.
Although keen to shield their own from consequence, Democrats held Republicans to a different standard.
The Democrat-controlled House voted 229-202 in 2021 to hold former Trump adviser and “War Room” host Stephen Bannon in contempt for defying a subpoena issued by the Jan. 6 committee.
Whereas the Biden DOJ would later let Garland off the hook for the same charge, the same outfit energetically prosecuted Bannon, securing a conviction and recommending that he serve at least six months in prison and pay a $200,000 fine. Bannon ended up languishing in prison for four months.
The president’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro, received similar treatment for not complying with a subpoena from the Jan. 6 committee. Navarro, who figured he was bound by executive privilege when he defied the subpoena, served a four-month prison sentence.
Navarro noted in a speech last year at the Republican National Convention, “I got a very simple message for you: If they can come for me, if they can come for Donald Trump, be careful. They will come for you.”
Comer’s apparent threat came a week after President Donald Trump directed the Justice Department and the FBI on Friday to “investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton” and others, and “determine what was going on with them, and him.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
