Wobbewrong to not understand these beardy fish.

Two sarcophagi were found and the identity of one body, found with the skull sawn off, has remained a mystery for years.

On the Fox Business show Varney & Co. MRC founder and president Brent appeared to discuss media coverage of the campaign, including the Trump assassination attempts and Kamala Harris's aversion to interviews. Varney began: “The Media Research Center broke down the coverage of Trump's second assassination attempt. In the 72 hours following that incident, 95% of the coverage from ABC, CBS, and NBC was negative. Brent Bozell joins me now. Brent, I find that shocking. The man nearly lost his life, and they go at him.” Bozell replied: "There was only one CBS report that featured only one Trump supporter that said something nice about Donald Trump." ABC and NBC had nothing. Twenty of 21 Trump evaluations were negative. Then Bozell shared a new poll from Scott Rasmussen, that "28% of Democrats believe that the world would have been better off if Trump had been killed. 24% aren't sure. 51% don't believe he should get any more security. 49% believe Trump himself was involved in the assassination or his campaign. 21% are very likely believers in that. But here's the point: Words have consequences. The reason Democrats think this is twofold. The Democratic machine has been pushing this. The media have been pushing this narrative of hostility and hate for Donald Trump." He said the poll represented a bunch of people in the "news" media: "Don't think there weren't reporters who after Butler said, 'Darn it, he missed!'"    Varney moved on: "It's been 60 days since Harris became the nominee. Since then she and Tim Walz have only taken part in seven interviews. Trump and J.D. Vance have done more than 70. The suspicion is she's afraid. You don't break out to higher polling numbers if you're scared of facing voters directly and often. Do you agree with that?" Bozell replied yes: “When she's asked questions, she really doesn't know the answers, and that's why the word salads come out, because she's just struggling to come up with something. But this is friendly media coverage. Even then, where are the media stories on her? They don't need her to do an interview to do a story on her, and this is where I really fault the press. This is where the press are aiding and abetting in this basement strategy of hers by saying 'go ahead and stay in the basement, we're not even going to report that you're in the basement.'" He concluded that they should be investigating her alleged flip-flops to more moderate views and asking people on the left and the right if they believe she has truly shifted.

In the immediate aftermath of the second attempt on Donald Trump’s life you would think the media would show some restraint and “lower the temperature” in their attacks on him.  Nope.  An MRC study reported that in the first 72 hours after the shooting, the anti-Trump spin — on the broadcast evening news programs  — was 95% negative to just five percent positive. It wasn’t just ABC, CBS and NBC that were horrible in the first few days after the assassination attempt. CNN and MSNBC also filled their programs with criticism of Trump and Republican “rhetoric.”  The following are just some of the most heinous examples of broadcast and cable hosts, reporters and pundits actually criticizing Trump in the immediate days after the second attempt on the President’s life:   I’m Not Saying It’s Trump’s Fault…But It Is      CNN contributor and presidential historian Tim Naftali: “I remember so well July 13th. And I remember the conversations in the days that followed. I remember President Biden’s speech about toning down the rhetoric, and I saw the rhetoric toned down on both sides and then 20 minutes into his acceptance speech, Donald Trump turned up the volume. I’m not blaming him for what happened, of course.”... CNN contributor Scott Jennings: “So, you think it’s Trump’s fault that he got shot?”... Naftali: “That’s not what I said. There is no place in this country for violence. But let’s be honest about why we have so much tension in this country. When you dehumanize people, you are using the rhetoric of the ’30s…..You make it easier for disturbed minds to do the wrong thing.”— CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip, September 16.    There Was Just An Attempt on Trump’s Life, Shouldn’t He Tone Down the Rhetoric? “We do not know, again, the source of any gunshot or gunshots. We don’t know who is responsible for this. The whole thing has yet to be 100 percent confirmed from start to finish, how this all played out. But do you expect to hear anything from the Trump campaign about toning down the rhetoric? Toning down the violence? Or would that be atypical of the former president?”— MSNBC anchor Alex Witt during live coverage of the second assassination attempt on Trump, September 15.   We Should All “Lower the Temperature,” Now Let Me Raise It On “Hitler” Trump      “We should all be trying to lower the temperature….but for Donald Trump and his folks to say — and J.D. Vance — to say that it’s Democrats who are causing this….He’s [Trump] called everyone who works in this building the ‘enemy of the people.’...If Donald Trump wants people, wants Kamala Harris and others to say — to stop saying that he is a threat to democracy, then he should stop threatening democracy. Perhaps he shouldn’t be overturning, trying to overturn elections, overthrow the government and inciting insurrections.”— Former CNN host Don Lemon on CNN’s Erin Burnett Outfront, September 16.   It’s Good Trump Is Safe But He’s the One That “Inspired Violence”      Co-host Willie Geist: “So thank God Donald Trump is safe. Thank God he was not assassinated in July or this week. But, my gosh, there is no comparison on the rhetoric.”MSNBC host/Politico White House bureau chief Jonathan Lemire: “Not even close. And to be clear, there’s no place in this country for any sort of political violence. There shouldn’t be any place for political threats of political violence, even. But it is rank hypocrisy and just truly rich to hear from Donald Trump, of all people, suggesting that the other side is responsible for inciting violence….We don’t know what’s in the mind of this suspected suspect who was arrested in Florida. Nor do we know what happened with the individual who….who shot at former President Trump in Pennsylvania back in July. There’s sort of incoherent ideologies for both. But what is clear, and we know this, that Trump has inspired violence.”— MSNBC’s Morning Joe, September 17.   Blaming Trump’s “Inflammatory Rhetoric”      “You’ll remember after a would-be assassin targeted him in July, Trump briefly called for unity, but after this week’s scare in a new interview overnight, Trump is blaming his political opponents, telling a Washington Post columnist, ‘I really believe that the rhetoric from the Democrats is making the bullets fly.’...Trump is not backing down from inflammatory rhetoric, telling Fox News that President Biden and Harris are ‘people that want to destroy our country. It’s called the enemy from within. They are the real threat,’ he said.”— Correspondent Peter Alexander on NBC’s Today, September 17.     “The public partisan finger-pointing exploded right out of the gate in the wake of what we saw Sunday with Donald Trump. And as you could see, J.D. Vance was going there, and saying that it’s blaming Democrats for rhetoric that he says is escalating this. But it does seem to me that it is impossible to pull apart what we have seen from Donald Trump, the level of the rhetoric that he has injected into this campaign, and the actual events we have seen in terms of how the levels of violence in our political system have risen in recent years.”— Host Kasie Hunt on CNN This Morning, September 18, 2024.   Thank You Selina For Doing My Job For Me ABC News senior White House correspondent Selina Wang: “Donald Trump blamed President Biden and Vice President Harris for the latest assassination attempt against him. He claimed, without evidence, that their rhetoric is causing them to be quote ‘shot at.’ How is the White House responding to those comments?”White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre: “Well, I love that you added ‘without evidence.’”— White House press briefing, September 18.   Trump Is the “Inspiration” and “Target” of “Political Violence” “And so it goes in 2024. In the space of less than a week, the once and possibly future commander in chief was both a seeming inspiration and an apparent target of the political violence that has increasingly come to shape American politics in the modern era. Bomb threats and attempted assassinations now have become part of the landscape, shocking and horrific, yet not so much that they have forced any real national reckoning.”— Correspondent Peter Baker in a September 17 front page New York Times story headlined: “The Anger That Defines And Threatens Trump Outrage Dominates Political Landscape.”    The View: Trump and Vance Have Got to Watch What Comes Out of Their Mouths!     Co-host Whoopi Goldberg: “J.D., clearly you’ve not been to one of your boss’s rallies, because you believe this insanity….He has been inciting violence since 2016 telling them to beat up hecklers, threaten to shoot looters and migrants….You have to really take a look in a mirror to see the reflection….Quit blaming folks until you decide to take a look at what’s coming out of your mouth!”...Co-host Joy Behar: “The political violence is a prelude to fascism. That happens in every country….It’s time for [Ted] Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Mike Johnson, and Mitch McConnell to step up and be men. Robert de Niro was on television the other day….He said the mob has a code of ethics. These people do not even have that!...These people need to step up. They have the power to do something.”...Goldberg: “Let’s stop this both-sides stuff because it's not correct! It is not both sides! It is one clear side!...You have to pull it back! This is not us or them! This is you got to stop doing what you’re doing, J.D.! And what you’re doing Mr. T.!”— ABC’s The View, September 17.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is pushing an alternative reality.On Wednesday, the former House speaker asserted that Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic Party's presidential nominee after she "won" an "open primary."For the party that squawks about democracy, Harris was elevated unchallenged via a closed process. There was nothing 'open' about it."We had an open primary, and she won it. Nobody else got in the race because she was politically astute, and that was the thought," Pelosi said."People could have jumped in. There were some people who were sort of preparing, but she just took off with it. And actually, it was a blessing because there wasn't that much time between then and the election, and it sort of saved time," Pelosi went on to say. "It wasn't that we didn't have an open process. It's just that nobody got in because she had a running start."Unfortunately, the journalist with whom Pelosi was speaking, Semafor's Kadia Goba, declined to push back on Pelosi's claims. Instead, the reporter followed up with a question about Jan. 6. — (@) Pelosi's account is, at best, revisionist history. At worst, it's an outright lie.Not only did the Democratic Party not hold an open primary to select President Joe Biden's successor, but Harris did not win a single vote in the Democratic presidential primary.Moreover, to describe any of this year's Democratic processes, whether the primary or replacing Joe Biden on the ballot, as "open" is perhaps a bridge too far. The Democratic Party, in fact, fought to keep Democrats not named Joe Biden off the primary ballots. In many states, for example — including North Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alaska, New Hampshire, Indiana, Montana, Delaware, and Florida — Biden essentially ran uncontested. In those states, the Democratic Party used legal technicalities to prevent voters from having more options.Meanwhile, when Pelosi and other Democratic Party bosses finally apparently pushed Biden out of the race in mid-July after weeks of pressure following his disastrous debate performance, Democrats, donors, and party delegates promptly switched their allegiance to Harris, essentially blocking the possibility of an accelerated open primary. It's not clear why presumptive candidates — like Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, among others — quickly fell in line behind Harris. All Americans know is that following the June 27 debate between Biden and Donald Trump, there seemed to be a strong behind-the-scenes campaign in the Democratic Party to oust Biden, followed by an intense push to solidify party support behind Harris.For the party that squawks about democracy, Harris was elevated unchallenged via a closed process. There was nothing "open" about it. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump held a campaign rally on Wednesday in Uniondale, New York, during which he stated that he soon plans to visit Springfield, Ohio, and Aurora, Colorado.Both cities are currently under media spotlight for their communities' ongoing battle with the Biden-Harris administration's illegal immigration crisis.During Trump's packed rally at the Nassau Coliseum on Wednesday, he stated, "It is truly an invasion, and we're not going to let it happen. We're going to take those violent people, and we're going to ship them back to their country. And if they come back in, they're going to pay a hell of a price.""This is not sustainable by any country," Trump continued, adding that tens of thousands of immigrants have moved into Springfield. "This is a little beautiful town. No crime. No problem. Thirty-two-thousand illegal immigrants come into the town, 32, so they almost double their population in a period of a few weeks," he said.Trump declared, "I'm going to go there in the next two weeks. I'm going to Springfield, and I'm going to Aurora."He vowed to solve the immigration crisis in the country.Trump then took a bit of a swipe at Springfield Mayor Rob Rue (R), saying, "I think he's a very nice person, but instead of saying, 'We're getting them all out' ... he says, very simply, 'We're hiring teachers to teach them English.' Can you believe it?"Rue responded to Trump's announcement about his plans to visit the city, stating that he would rather the former president skip the stop."It would be an extreme strain on our resources. So it'd be fine with me if they decided not to make that visit," Rue stated, according to NBC News.Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) said that a visit by Trump would be "generally very, very welcomed.""I have to state the reality, though, that resources are really, really stretched here," DeWine added.Trump's running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance (R), told reporters on Tuesday that he has not yet decided if he will make the trip to Springfield. "I think, obviously, the president and the president's team would talk to the local officials in Springfield to make sure that already precious law enforcement resources weren't stressed by a visit," Vance explained."I don't think that there's anything firm just yet," he continued. "I haven't made plans to go just in the last few days. I know the president would like to go but also hasn't made any explicit plans."According to WABC-TV, more than 60,000 tickets were requested to attend Trump's rally on Long Island. The venue's capacity is 16,000. Many of Trump's supporters who could not get into the event gathered outside the building to watch his live speech on screens.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

What should have been a straightforward order for the District of Columbia National Guard to quell rioting at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 turned into an hours-long debacle ensnared by concerns over “optics” and interference by Pentagon officials who were not even in the Guard’s chain of command. Those conclusions were reached by former D.C. National Guard Col. Earl G. Matthews, three additional former Guard members who testified before a U.S. House subcommittee on April 17, and a senior civilian Army official who spoke to Blaze News. They say the National Guard was wrongly blamed for the delay when it was senior Pentagon officials who interfered with the deployment and then covered up their role in the snafu in congressional testimony and accounts to the Department of Defense Inspector General. 'For the first time in its 219-year history, the DC National Guard was not allowed to respond to a riot in the city.' “There’s no reason why the Guard should not have been deployed immediately,” said Casey Wardynski, former assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and Reserve affairs. “They were both trained and equipped for it, and they were offered up ahead of time.” The career officers at the Pentagon were more concerned with politics than ensuring that the National Guard made it to the Capitol, said Wardynski, a 30-year U.S. Army veteran who served former President Donald Trump at the Pentagon from 2019 to 2021. “Instead of looking after what’s best for the country, they were looking to cover their asses and do what was best for their careers and for the perception of their favorite institution, the Army,” he said. Matthews, who served as staff judge advocate for D.C. National Guard commanding Maj. Gen. William Walker, said what played out on Jan. 6 left D.C. National Guard leaders, soldiers, and airmen dumbfounded. Four former D.C. National Guard officials, Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Brooks, Col. Earl Matthews, Brig. Gen. Aaron Dean, and Capt. Timothy Nick, testified as whistleblowers before the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight April 17, 2024.U.S. House of Representatives “Every leader in the D.C. Guard wanted to respond and knew they could respond to the riot at the seat of government,” Matthews said. “They sat stunned watching in the Armory while for the first time in its 219-year history, the D.C. National Guard was not allowed to respond to a riot in the city.” U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, said information uncovered by his investigators was ignored by the now-defunct Jan. 6 Select Committee and left out of the Pentagon inspector general report issued in November 2021. “It took too long for the D.C. National Guard to arrive at the Capitol. The 113th Wing Capital Guardians have a proud history protecting our nation’s capital and serving our nation’s leadership. Nevertheless, the New Jersey State Police from nearly 150 miles away responded to the Capitol before the D.C. National Guard.” The embarrassing three-hour abeyance saw a Guard quick-reaction force stationed just blocks away, unable to deploy while some 1,700 law enforcement officers from around the region rushed to the Capitol under a mutual-aid agreement. On one side of the issue was the U.S. Army staff at the Pentagon, whose story seemed entirely disconnected from the planning and actions of the D.C. National Guard. These officials included former Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy, Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt, and Gen. Charles Flynn. The D.C. National Guard — then under the command of Maj. Gen. Walker — took a completely different view, claiming the Pentagon brass were more concerned about “optics” than responding to the desperate call for help made at 1:49 p.m. by Capitol Police Chief Steven A. Sund. Wardynski said the Pentagon brass got away with blaming the D.C. National Guard. “Earl Matthews was very upset at the way the Guard got treated. The active Army tried to lay off on them that they weren’t ready. That it would take them forever to get ready,” Wardynski said. “That’s not my impression at all. I think they were ready and ready to go, and they were trained to have a good idea of what they’d be doing. But the Guard kind of comes in for lumps. They got away with making the Guard look bad.” 'Pelosi will never go for it.' Walker said the request for help was very clear. “At 1:49 p.m. I received a frantic call from then Chief of U.S. Capitol Police Steven Sund, where he informed me that the security perimeter at the Capitol had been breached by hostile rioters,” Walker testified in a 2021 Senate hearing. “Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion, indicated that there was a dire emergency on Capitol Hill and requested the immediate assistance of as many Guardsmen as I could muster.” No matter who was at fault, however, the result was likely the same. Sund was denied the assistance of hundreds of riot-gear-clad Guardsmen during the time the Capitol was overrun and a 35-year-old San Diego woman was shot to death by Lt. Michael Byrd near the House of Representatives. Sund said the response to his urgent request for help was “absolutely abysmal,” noting that by the time Guard members arrived at the staging location near the Capitol, they were no longer needed. “They could have not shown up and it wouldn't have changed a thing,” Sund told Blaze News. Sund added that the blame for that does not lie with the men and women who were sitting on buses ready to deploy once authorization came through. As the soldiers and airmen got off of their buses at Lot 16 at dusk on Jan. 6, they were “damned near in tears," Sund said, “because they could have made a difference if sent sooner.” The Guard-Pentagon saga that played out over several hours on Jan. 6 was in addition to the resistance Sund encountered earlier that day and in the days leading up to Jan. 6. The House and Senate sergeants at arms refused Sund's Jan. 3 request for National Guard help because, as one said, “Pelosi will never go for it.” The role of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) came into sharper focus in recent weeks after the U.S. House released more video of her shot for the HBO documentary, “Pelosi in the House.” Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, then commander of the DC National Guard, testifies before a US Senate hearing on March 3, 2021, in Washington, DC.Photo by Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images In the eye-opening video clips, Pelosi blamed herself for the Capitol not having National Guard coverage on Jan. 6 — “I take the full responsibility” — a stark contrast from her public statements across more than 44 months. “I am stunned by the repeated statements by Pelosi about there not being any National Guard deployed to the Capitol in advance of the attack on January 6,” Sund told Blaze News Aug. 29, “when it was her sergeant at arms for the House of Representatives who denied my request for support on January 3, and then again repeatedly for 71 minutes while we were under attack on January 6.” The House sergeant at arms is appointed by and reports to the speaker. Under rules in force at the time, the police chief could not even request National Guard help without permission from the Capitol Police Board. Voting members of the board include the House and Senate sergeants at arms and the architect of the Capitol. Sund was an ex-officio member. Sund’s initial request to House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving and the Capitol Police Board for National Guard help was made at 1:09 p.m. on Jan. 6. Sund said he made repeated calls to Irving for updates and was told a decision was forthcoming. Pelosi did approve Irving’s request to go to the Pentagon for Guard help. That decision was relayed to Sund from the Police Board at 2:10 p.m., three minutes before the Capitol was breached at the Senate wing door entrance. Key meetings aired Pentagon misgivings Two virtual meetings loomed large in the saga once Sund’s request for the Guard landed at the Pentagon. On a conference call that ran from 2:30 to 2:55 p.m., Piatt and Flynn expressed reservations about the Guard being sent to the Capitol, according to notes kept by Col. Matthews and Capt. Timothy Nick, aide de camp for Walker on Jan. 6. “Both LTGs Piatt and Flynn stated that the optics of having uniformed military personnel deployed to the U.S. Capitol would not be good,” the Matthews report said. Wardynski said he wanted to know where McCarthy was. “And somewhere early on, I said, ‘Where's the secretary of the Army?’ And the answer was, ‘He’s left the building with his security detail. And he’s kind of out of touch.’ And I'm like, ‘Well, that's not great.’” Wardynski said the Pentagon officers didn’t like the optics. “Optics were a big thing to these guys. They didn’t like the optics of the Army being involved, and I remember thinking to myself, ‘This isn’t a military thing, and your best military advice isn’t worth a damn thing right here. This is civilian, this is political.’” Capt. Timothy Nick, who served as aide de camp to Maj. Gen. William Walker on Jan. 6, 2021, testifies before the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight on April 17, 2024.Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images “They were worried about ‘cosmetics and optics and appearances’ and things like that. And you know, that's not really a military thing,” Wardynski said. “Military things are like: What’s the right force, what are the rules of engagement, what task force are we putting together? Who are they going to collaborate with? The Guard, with police or federal or whatever the hell. Those are military questions. We weren’t asking any military questions.” The resistance from the Pentagon angered Metropolitan Police Department Chief Robert Contee, who threatened to go public, Matthews reported. “Chief Contee then stated that he would inform the mayor [D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser] that the Army was refusing to send the National Guard to the Capitol and that he would ask her to convene a press conference to make this refusal known,” the report said. Ironically, Bowser had refused in writing the advance offer of extra National Guard troops made by President Trump in his Jan. 3 authorization for up to 20,000 National Guard troops for use across the country. The only Guard members approved in advance for the District performed traffic duties. Army secretary incommunicado A key figure missing from both the 2:30 p.m. conference call and a follow-up video meeting between Maj. Gen. Walker and the Pentagon was Army Secretary McCarthy, who had gone to meet with acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller. According to his sworn congressional testimony and statements to the inspector general, Miller ordered McCarthy to deploy the National Guard to the Capitol at 3:04 p.m. That order “gave McCarthy the approval and guidance he needed to mobilize the DCNG,” Miller said. However, it still took more than two hours for the final deployment order to go out and nearly a third hour to put boots on the ground at the Capitol. McCarthy apparently felt he didn’t have the needed authority, since he traveled to MPD to develop his own deployment plan that duplicated advance plans already in place at the D.C. National Guard. “In actuality, the assertion that the DCNG required the secretary of the Army to provide tactical-level planning and coordination support to DCNG personnel preparing to deploy to the Capitol is patently absurd,” Col. Matthews wrote. “DCNG maintained a Joint Task Force, led by [Brig. Gen.] Robert K. Ryan at the D.C. Armory to plan and conduct domestic operations in the city.” According to Maj. Gen. Walker’s testimony before a joint Senate hearing in March 2021, McCarthy on Jan. 5 had approved use of 300 Guard troops for traffic control on Jan. 6, but that didn’t include use of a 40-member “quick-reaction force” equipped with riot gear. “The secretary of the Army’s Jan. 5 letter withheld authority for me to employ the Quick Reaction Force,” Walker testified. Any use of the QRF required Walker to submit an advance “concept of operation” plan. Wardynski said word came in that National Guard units from Virginia and Maryland were on the way to the Capitol. “There’s a reason the Guard in D.C. belongs to the president, and there’s a reason that there’s no end of military bases around Washington, D.C. It’s called the National Capital Region for a reason,” Wardynski said. “It's a big deal, and having state-level armies enter the Capitol seemed a little odd, and it didn’t seem to excite the military guys. But there wasn’t any information.” Sund said in his view, Gen. Walker could have deployed Guard troops to the Capitol right away under emergency authority outlined in “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” a 162-page Department of Defense policy last issued in October 2018. Fallout from the National Guard saga has continued into 2024. Col. Matthews filed a whistleblower complaint with the Department of Defense claiming the Pentagon retaliated against him for his critical views of Piatt and Flynn and his challenging the November 2021 inspector general report. Despite scoring high on Army Reserve evaluations and coming with strong recommendations, the complaint said, Matthews has been denied promotion to brigadier general in the U.S. Army Reserve. Not listed in the Matthews report’s 36 pages, or in recent public hearing testimony, was the fact that the one death at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 was Ashli Babbitt, a six-year veteran of the 113th Wing of the D.C. Air National Guard and a 14-year Air Force veteran. Despite attempts by leftward media to portray her as a Jan. 6 rioter, video evidence clearly shows Babbitt used her Air Force military police experience outside the Speaker’s Lobby to seek backup for overwhelmed Capitol Police officers and eventually to isolate the chief rioter, Zachary Jordan Alam. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Donald Trump has just survived a second attempt on his life by a disgruntled Democrat voter — yet, the Democrats have found a way to blame the former president instead. “They’ve been talking about justified violence against Trump because he is a ‘fascist dictator threat to democracy’ for a very long time,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” comments. “If that’s the case, why wouldn’t you want him to be harmed? As other people have pointed out, it’s either one or the other. Either he’s not really Hitler and you’re relieved that he’s unharmed, or he is basically like Hitler and you’re not really relieved that he’s unharmed,” she continues. After the assassination attempts, the mainstream media reflected a sentiment of the latter. Politico published an article with the headline, “Republicans Outraged over Possible Assassination Attempt: ‘They are going to keep trying to kill Trump.’” The Washington Post published an article with the headline, “Another Chance for Trump to Frame Democrats as Dangerous Has Emerged,” and Intelligencer published one that claimed, “Donald Trump Is a Threat to Democracy, and Saying So Is Not Incitement.” Another article published by the Cincinnati Enquirer claimed that “Donald Trump brings a lot of this stuff on himself.” Lester Holt of NBC News also regurgitated these claims, telling his audience, “Today’s apparent assassination attempt comes amid increasingly fierce rhetoric on the campaign trail itself.” “Mr. Trump, his running mate JD Vance, continue to make baseless claims about Haitian immigrants in Ohio,” he added. “That’s even worse than, ‘Well what was she wearing?’” Stuckey says. “I mean, these were the people who championed ‘me too,’ who rightly said there is never any justification for a man assaulting a woman no matter what she did.” “But in this case, it’s Trump’s fault that he has been almost murdered in the past two months because why? Because he is welcoming explicitly this violence? No, because he has different opinions than Democrats,” she adds. 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.

There are some games it feels like literally everyone has played - or at least heard of. Half-Life. Portal. Left 4 Dead 2. Mafia. The list goes on, and on, and on. But despite their popularity and status as PC gaming icons, new data from SteamIDFinder shows that the videogames we call classics are largely sitting collecting dust in our Steam libraries and, quite honestly, I feel slightly called out right now. Continue reading Here are some of the best rated Steam games that too few have played MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Whatever happened to Half-Life 3?, Best old games, Best FPS games

Zombies and gaming go together like cacodemons and shotguns. They’re almost intrinsically linked, with the walking dead providing a perfect implacable foe you can still mow down on their thousands, giving you some of the good old ultra-violence along with a terrifying threat. If you’re a fan of trying to survive in the zombie apocalypse, you can grab The Last Stand Aftermath for free. Continue reading Zombie apocalypse sim The Last Stand Aftermath can be yours for free MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best zombie games, Best apocalypse games, Best roguelike games