We sat down for an interview on May 2 with one of NPR’s most recent hires, Jude Joffe-Block. The purpose of the conversation was to discuss our bombshell story, which exposed flyers encouraging illegal aliens to vote for Joe Biden at an invasion staging camp in Mexico. The meeting was only conducted after a written agreement that it would be recorded. NPR now refuses to share the interview recording. Here’s why. Joffe-Block attempted to question the authenticity of the flyer using the same extreme talking points already employed by the New York Times, pushing the regime media agenda and gaslighting the public by acting like the invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border is not a threat. We easily debunked these points by pointing to additional evidence we had on the matter, including a sworn statement under the penalty of perjury.How could someone who worked for an organization rife with corruption remain so skeptical about the possibility of voter fraud elsewhere?We asked Joffe-Block whether she was concerned about illegal aliens voting in elections. That should have been a softball, but she refused to answer the question. Throughout the interview, Joffe-Block maintained the position that she could not understand the link between mass illegal immigration and the potential for widespread voter fraud, even after we laid out the feverish efforts of some left-wing activists to maintain vulnerabilities to our election systems so that illegal aliens can more easily vote.The most shocking part of the interview was when we questioned Joffe-Block about her past affiliation with the defunct left-wing organization known as ACORN. When asked whether she used to work for ACORN and whether she helped register illegal aliens to vote, Joffe-Block admitted that she had worked with ACORN to register voters but then went silent and abruptly ended the meeting.We had obviously touched a nerve. ACORN was a corrupt left-wing organization that championed causes such as affordable housing and voter registration. It was shut down after it was caught on tape giving advice on how to commit tax fraud and even helped set up underage prostitution rings.ACORN was accused of engaging in voter registration fraud during the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election. The organization faced allegations including submitting duplicate registrations and falsifying information, such as registering fictional characters like Mickey Mouse and Dallas Cowboys players. The group’s endorsement of Barack Obama raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and favoritism, especially since Obama had a prior legal connection with the group. Finally, multiple ACORN workers across multiple states were convicted of voter fraud. This further fueled suspicion about the credibility of individuals associated with the organization.How could someone who worked for an organization rife with corruption remain so skeptical about the possibility of voter fraud elsewhere? How could she be assigned to cover a story about voter fraud? Moreover, if Joffe-Block doesn’t actually support illegal aliens voting, why did she refuse to say so?It’s impossible not to suspect she knows perfectly well that illegal aliens are being guided to the polls by ACORN’s successors on both sides of the border and is happy to stay silent about it.However, given the recent accusations of bias at NPR, demonstrated by Uri Berliner’s resignation attesting to the outlet's prolific left-liberal slant, Joffe-Block’s suspicious behavior should not come as a surprise. The allegations are so serious that NPR CEO Katherine Maher has been requested to appear before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for a hearing on Wednesday to explain her organization’s policies.But we don’t need to wait. We already have all the information we need. Because if NPR was unbiased, it would release the full recording of our interview. Of course, it can’t do that because the video recording would show exactly how radical its reporters are.Worse still, NPR is a publicly funded organization. So, Jude Joffe-Block and her superiors aren’t simply being bad journalists, they're betraying their duty as public servants while pocketing your tax dollars.

Litigation against pharmaceutical giant Merck regarding one of its common childhood vaccines has lingered in the court system for more than a decade even though there has been seemingly little dispute about the veracity of the fraud claims against it. Blaze News reviewed court documents related to the Merck cases and spoke with one attorney as well as several individuals who have put together a feature film, "Protocol 7," about the allegations made in them. According to this evidence, it appears that Merck knew about problems with the mumps component of its measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, often referred to as MMR II, in the 1990s and has spent significant resources in the decades since to cover up those problems rather than admit the truth or improve the vaccine's quality. Merck's attorneys did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment. A 'voice to children who have none': Context of 'Protocol 7' The allegations dramatized in "Protocol 7" were first made by Merck employee whistleblowers in 2001 and in a federal complaint under the False Claims Act filed under seal in 2010 and made public in 2013. In 2024, questioning the government pitch about vaccines is no longer taboo, thanks in large part to the controversial COVID-19 vaccines. But skepticism about vaccines was not always so socially acceptable. Just ask Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a British former physician and the writer, director, and executive producer of "Protocol 7." Wakefield was stripped of his medical license and shunned by many in the medical community as a "disgraced anti-vaxxer" after he suggested in the 1990s that children take separate vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella, perhaps a year apart, because of a possible link between MMR and autism. Wakefield told Blaze News that he doesn't much mind the attempts to ostracize him. "My production team and I have both moral and professional obligations to give voice to children who have none," he said. "Contrived and dishonest allegations against me only serve to strengthen my resolve." Wakefield now lives in Austin, Texas, and recently appeared on BlazeTV's "Sara Gonzales Unfiltered" to talk about his experiences promoting vaccine safety and informed consent. A portion of that interview can be viewed below. Subscribe to BlazeTV for other such original content. 'Like a cold': Children and the mumps virus Between measles, mumps, and rubella, a mumps vaccine would likely be the hardest to sell to parents if there were no MMR II on the CDC's childhood immunization schedule. For one thing, a mumps infection is rare and poses only a low risk to children. Children who do contract the disease likely experience swollen glands, muscle pain, and a fever for a week or less. Even the CDC website admits: "Some people who get mumps have very mild symptoms (like a cold), or no symptoms at all and may not know they have the disease." Of course, low risk does not mean risk-free, and one of the most significant risks mumps presents to children is deafness. According to Dr. Robert Malone, who became a household name in recent years because of his public criticism of the COVID vaccines but who also lent his expertise to the whistleblowers in the Merck case, "Mumps has historically been one of the leading causes of childhood deafness." Dr. Wakefield told Blaze News that, though deafness is a frightening possibility with childhood mumps, such incidents are "rare." Once children go through puberty, however, a mumps infection becomes considerably more dangerous. Males may develop an inflammation of their testes, increasing their chances of sterility. Women who contract mumps while pregnant have "a spontaneous abortion rate of up to 25%," Malone said. In rare cases, adults who contract mumps may even develop meningitis or encephalitis, otherwise known as inflammation of the brain. '96%' effective: Merck's MMR II vaccine The dramatic increase in risk that mumps poses once children have aged into and beyond puberty is precisely why Wakefield calls Merck's alleged fraud regarding its MMR II vaccine so "insidious." Before 1968, nearly every child experienced a case of mumps, he said, most of which were mild and "easily treated with antibiotics." Such infections also caused children to naturally develop mumps antibodies that fortified them against re-infection in the future. In theory, a mumps vaccine would accomplish the same end, but Wakefield, the Merck whistleblowers, and others believe that MMR II has not lived up to its billing regarding mumps. In fact, Wakefield told Blaze News that MMR II has largely been "impotent" and "ineffective" at creating sufficient mumps antibodies in children, thus leaving them at risk of a more severe mumps infection as adults. Nevertheless, Merck first received a license for a composite measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in 1978 and began manufacturing it en masse to sell those vaccines to the CDC, which then added MMR to its list of recommended childhood immunizations. Merck and the CDC both recommend that the first dose be administered when a child is between 12 and 15 months, and a second dose should be given when the child is between 4 and 6 years old. According to Merck's MMR II product insert, updated within the last year, "96%" of the children who were injected with MMR II in its "clinical studies" exhibited "neutralizing antibodies" for the mumps virus. In other words, the vaccine is 96% effective at guarding recipients against mumps infection, the company asserts. Screenshot of Merck product label 'Out of compliance': Signs of trouble By the mid-1990s, though, Merck allegedly learned that the MMR II vaccine could not maintain minimum potency throughout its advertised two-year shelf life. According to whistleblowers' allegations in court documents filed last November, Merck employees admitted at some point that MMR II was "misbranded," "out of compliance," and needed "immediate corrective action" to avoid a product recall. What followed was a clinical trial that allegedly involved unethical and illegal interventions to doctor the testing and data in a failed attempt to maintain the 96% efficacy threshold. This clinical trial became internally known as Protocol 007. The fraud allegedly perpetrated by Merck employees during Protocol 007 was brought to light by Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, former Merck virologists who came forward as whistleblowers. Constitutional lawyer and adviser to the "Protocol 7" film Jim Moody noted that Krahling and Wlochowski are more than just whistleblowers. In court documents, they are referred to as relators, and Moody told Blaze News that as insiders who closely observed the fraud, their testimony carries significant weight in court. "A paradigmatic relator is a close or a firsthand observer of the fraud," Moody told Blaze News. "... The courts like these firsthand relators [because these] people were in on it, if you will, saw it." Such direct witness testimony "resolves issues about credibility" regarding the accusations because they are based on eyewitness testimony rather than, say, a "statistical analysis" of big data in state or national records, Moody explained. 'The callousness [of] this fraud': Protocol 007 According to the allegations made by Krahling and corroborated by Wlochowski, Protocol 007 quickly devolved into a series of attempts to cook the data to justify the assertion that MMR II was at least 95% effective at creating mumps antibodies in children. Wakefield told Blaze News that independent testing puts the number somewhere between 60% and 70%, and such reduced effectiveness would almost certainly end the CDC's continued purchase of MMR II, which amounts to about $100 million per year. To avoid such financial and reputational catastrophe, the first step some Merck scientists allegedly took was to increase the sensitivity of the plaque reduction neutralization tests, which are commonly used to determine vaccine efficacy. They reportedly achieved this increased PRNT sensitivity by testing MMR II against a weakened, lab-generated strain of the mumps virus, even though a naturally occurring and more potent strain was required by law. Even with the more sensitive PRNTs, however, the Merck team apparently could not verify that the MMR II vaccine was 95% effective even against the weakened mumps strain. The next move Merck researchers allegedly made was to inject rabbits with human antibodies and then take blood from these rabbits to create a glue that would then be added to the PRNTs, a kind of blood and antibody laundering, if you will. The glue apparently worked — in fact, it worked too well because it created an additional problem: pre-positives on the test plates. In this case, pre-positives are samples of blood taken from children who have never been exposed to the mumps disease or received a dose of the vaccine and thus should have no mumps antibodies but who appeared to exhibit such antibodies nonetheless. As these pre-positive blood samples have already demonstrated antibodies before receiving a vaccine injection, they cannot help but verify vaccine efficacy. At this point in Protocol 007, either out of frustration or desperation, some Merck employees allegedly decided to stop monkeying with the tests and instead change the numbers recorded in the data to reflect the desired result. A Merck supervisor cited in court documents reportedly testified: "My goal and my understanding ... was to have [a test] that would allow us to have the capability of measuring 95 percent seroconversion ... without considering the impact on accuracy." This alleged fraud was not just minor tweaking, court documents showed. Nor was it the result of carelessness or haste. "Relator Joan Wlochowski testified that she witnessed counting sheets being discarded by lab staff" in connection with Protocol 007, and one Merck lab executive admitted under oath that he discarded many of the Protocol 007 testing plates before "anyone from quality assurance" could verify that they had been properly recorded, Dr. Malone noted in his report. Indeed, a transcript from a 2017 deposition shows that the lab executive testified: "As best I recall, my understanding of this was that retention of the plates was not a requirement. That the plaque counting sheet was the primary source of the data and the [testing] plates were not -- wasn't required to retain them as the primary data source." Dr. Wakefield told Blaze News that to add interest and intrigue to the movie "Protocol 7," he and the other writers actually added a "moral quandary" for the character representing this Merck lab executive that he might not have experienced in real life. Otherwise, Wakefield said they risked audiences becoming suspicious that the malfeasance of the Merck figures had been exaggerated. Moody, legal adviser to the film, indicated to Blaze News that Merck's culpability cannot be overstated. "The case itself revealed multiple instances, repeated instances of over and over and over again of other frauds," he insisted. "... It's just the callousness by which this fraud was done that makes [Merck], in my view, the extent of the villain that they are." 'Raw data is being changed': The FDA inspects Merck lab As the licenser of vaccines, the FDA has a keen interest in vaccine data and efficacy as well. In August 2001, Krahling, one of two relators in the cases against Merck, contacted the FDA to report the fraud he had allegedly witnessed, even though his superior had reportedly threatened him with termination, and he was also allegedly threatened with possible jail time if he came forward. The FDA then alerted Merck about possible deficiencies in the data collected in the Merck executive's lab, court documents said. The FDA also made an "unannounced" visit to the lab within days of Krahling's report, though Wakefield and his fellow filmmakers indicated that an FDA source may have tipped Merck off about the visit. In any case, the result of the visit was damning for the company. "Raw data is being changed with no justification," said an FDA Form 483 signed by Debra Bennett and Dr. Kathryn Carbone, according to court documents. An FDA Form 483 is issued "when an investigator(s) has observed any conditions that in their judgment may constitute violations of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and related Acts," the agency's website states. In addition to problems with the raw data, that FDA form also noted potential problems with the Merck executive's lab, the "spreadsheets used to determine questionable results and retesting of clinical samples," and the "notebooks" that logged the individuals "performing each task." 'Materiality': Merck litigation focused on money Despite the alarming report from the FDA, Merck continued to manufacture MMR II and sell it to the CDC. So in 2010, nearly a decade after the FDA inspection at the Merck lab, relators Krahling and Wlochowski sued Merck under the False Claims Act, which relates to occasions in which the government may have been monetarily defrauded, Moody — a false claims lawyer — told Blaze News. The case has languished in the court system for the past 14 years, but both sides eventually tried to propel it toward a resolution by filing a summary judgment, which allows one or both sides to argue to a judge that they are entitled to win without submitting the case to a jury because there is allegedly no dispute on the facts or law. A summary judgment hearing was then held in the Merck case in January 2023, but Merck's legal team did not really seize the opportunity to defend the company against the allegations of fraud. Instead, the "most obvious and undisputable ... reason to grant summary judgment for Merck," Merck attorney Jessica Ellsworth argued at the hearing, was "materiality," a transcript showed. Ellsworth explained materiality in this case to be whether the "CDC would have made different purchasing choices in the Vaccine for Children Program" had it known about the alleged problems with MMR II. Ellsworth claimed plaintiffs offered "no non-speculative evidence that CDC would have made any different purchasing choices related to M-M-R II based on Relators’ opinions about a research study known as Protocol 007." She also called any suggestion to the contrary "speculation" and "innuendo." District Judge Chad Kenney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agreed, ruling last July that "considering the totality of the circumstances, no reasonable jury could conclude that the alleged false claims were material to the CDC’s purchasing decisions." That failed False Claims Act case as well as a separate antitrust class action against Merck are now both in the hands of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and will be decided jointly. Oral arguments in the appeals cases could be held as early as next month. Lead attorneys for relators Krahling and Wlochowski did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment. 'Vigorously dispute': Merck issues a formal response While Merck's attorneys focused on materiality as the basis of their defense of Merck in court and have never actually responded to the allegations of fraud publicly, Merck has issued a defense of sorts for MMR II and its research and development. That defense came in response to allegations from former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler, who served as an expert witness for relators Krahling and Wlochowski. In addition to restating concerns regarding Protocol 007, in a letter dated August 2019, Kessler expressed concerns about incidents of "low mumps potency" MMR vaccinations. In the four short years between 1995 and 1999, Merck reportedly estimated that it had issued 23 million such "low mumps potency" MMRs. After analyzing the same data based on "Merck's methodology for identifying the 23 million doses," Kessler claimed he found that the number was actually closer to 60 million. Kessler, who described himself as "a strong proponent of vaccines," worried that 60 million "doses of potentially sub-potent vaccine" might "shake the public's confidence in vaccines generally and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine specifically." Nonetheless, Kessler recommended that Merck and/or the government inform patients that they had received an ineffective mumps vaccine, undertake further studies and medical monitoring, and consider developing a new mumps vaccine. In return, Merck issued a letter that boasted about MMR's overall success at reducing measles, mumps, and rubella infections. The letter also indicated that many of the alleged potency problems associated with the vaccines manufactured before September 1999 could be attributed to a change in "interpreting the potency label claim." "This change was not related to product performance, nor did it present a clinical issue or otherwise create a basis for clinical concern," Merck asserted. Screenshot of Merck letter Elsewhere in its response letter, Merck did mention Protocol 007, claiming to "vigorously dispute[] each and every one of Dr. Kessler’s contentions about the propriety of Protocol 007" and insisting that such contentions were based on "plaintiffs’ complaint in the pending litigation." Not only has the FDA known about "concerns" regarding Protocol 007 since at least 2010, Merck's letter claimed, but the FDA had actually "examined" those concerns "in detail ... while Protocol 007 was being designed, performed, analyzed, and supplied to support a Prior Approval Supplement." Composite screenshot of Merck letter Wakefield told Blaze News that such assertions still do not explain "the multiple outbreaks of mumps in highly vaccinated populations." Merck's attorneys did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment. 'As many as 94 percent of those who contracted the illness had been vaccinated" While cases against Merck have lumbered about in the court system, mumps outbreaks have made a minor resurgence in America. In 2016 and 2017, a period that a 2021 NBC News article called the "peak" of this resurgence, 37 states and Washington, D.C., experienced small pockets of outbreaks that resulted in 9,000 reported mumps cases, a tremendous jump from the 231 cases reported in 2003. NBC News further noted that two-thirds of all reported mumps cases between 2007 and 2019 occurred in people who had aged beyond adolescence — meaning the disease put them at acute risk — and "as many as 94 percent of those who contracted the illness had been vaccinated." Though no direct link has been made between possible issues with the MMR II vaccine and the increases in mumps cases, Dr. Wakefield and the rest of the "Protocol 7" team believe that because Merck allegedly altered so much key data decades ago, without testing, it's nearly impossible now to determine whether adults who received MMR II as children since the time of Protocol 007 continue to have immunization against mumps — if they ever had immunization in the first place. According to Wakefield, those children who received an ineffective dose of MMR II would be "in danger of catching mumps as a teenager and older, when mumps is a much more serious disease." The CDC recommends that "adults who do not have presumptive evidence of immunity should get at least one dose of MMR vaccine." Some may require two doses, the agency says. While the CDC continues to recommend and purchase MMR II from Merck, the agency has quietly put a competing MMR from GlaxoSmithKline on the schedule and is starting to switch purchases, the "Protocol 7" team told Blaze News. 'Doubts ... cannot be allowed to exist': Big Pharma set up for success Like all major pharmaceutical companies, Merck seemingly enjoys the benefit of the doubt from the U.S. government. Since at least the early 1980s, the federal government has been openly worrying about public trust in vaccines manufactured by Merck and others, claiming that such vaccines are the safest way to achieve herd immunity for many dangerous diseases. A June 1984 federal register discussing the polio vaccine went so far as to say that "any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives." The polio immunization program "depends on" "maintaining public confidence," the register continued, so the FDA ought not to revoke the polio vaccine license based on "deficiencies in the lots" used to test the polio vaccine's efficacy. Screenshot of federal register Within a few years of that federal register about the polio immunization program, pharmaceutical manufacturers like Merck gained the added benefit of immunity against vaccine injury tort liability in most individual cases, thanks once again to the federal government. U.S. Code provides that "no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings." Critics of the COVID vaccines released at the tail end of the Trump administration pointed to even broader protections granted to the industry under the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act and the COVID emergency declarations, noting that because of such far-reaching immunity, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson likely would never be held financially responsible for injuries and death caused by the COVID vaccines. The only exception the PREP Act offers against this blanket immunity is "willful misconduct." 'That's winning': Finally, open dialogue about vaccines The sharp divide regarding the efficacy of the COVID shots stands in stark contrast to the general acceptance of MMR in most parts of the Western world. But even though billions of doses of COVID shots have been administered worldwide in the past few years, Dr. Wakefield still sees the controversy over COVID vaccines as, in some respects, a victory for vaccine safety and open debate more broadly. "The majority of adults, certainly in [America], will not get any booster," he told Blaze News. "They said, 'We're done. We're not doing any more.' ... So we now have gone from a handful of people ... who've tried to talk about [vaccine safety] to a majority of the adult population, certainly in this country and essentially the world. "And that's winning." However, Moody noted somberly that the change in discourse came in large part because of "constantly shifting and evasive government positions, outright lies, and a near-complete lack of transparency and cover-up of injury and death data." Still, millions of American children have received the MMR II vaccine without experiencing any adverse side effects or ever developing mumps. Wakefield, Moody, and the others who spoke with Blaze News reiterated that they are not against all vaccines. They simply want consumers, especially parents, to have all the information they need to make the best decisions for themselves and their families and to be able to make these decisions without pressure or coercion from the government, the manufacturers, or the public. They also call for a repeal of blanket immunity for vaccine manufacturers and swift and generous no-fault compensation for all the victims of what they call "the war against disease." In Wakefield's words, "It's all about informed choice." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Are you better off now than you were, say, five years ago? Is our country better than it was five years ago? These are the questions that really matter heading into the November election. If we judged the state of the nation solely by what Joe Biden says, we would think we are living in the greatest years of American history. The economy is booming. Jobs are up. Diversity is on the rise. We can’t let Donald Trump come back and ruin all the incredible things Biden has accomplished. Has that been your experience? These politicians govern at your consent, and we are the ones who must live downstream from Washington, D.C.’s effects while the political elites shield themselves from their own policies. What kind of a report card would you give our leaders for the past five years? Do you want another four years of our current path? If so, there's a reckoning coming. Don’t say you weren’t warned.Are we more stable than we were five years ago? Is the world closer to world peace or closer to world war — or even nuclear war? Are we more respected in the world today than we were five years ago? Do our foreign adversaries fear us more or less? Is our military more or less prepared for a major war? These foreign policy questions should concern you. Our problems don’t stop with our international reputation, however. What about the challenges in our own backyard? Are our streets safer than they were five years ago? Are police more respected? If someone commits a crime, are they more or less likely to go to jail? Do you have more trust or less trust in our justice system?If you don’t trust the justice system, the police, or the government, where or to whom will you go when you have a problem? It used to be that you could go to the media. The media would expose the bad guys, and the government would intervene and take care of it. If the bad guys were the government, then the people would take care of business. Do you have more faith in the government or the media to have your back than you did five years ago?High inflation foreverThen there is our fiscal policy — or lack thereof. Do you have trust that our Treasury and our Federal Reserve have your best interest at heart? Is inflation better or worse than it was five years ago? Do you know our new target for inflation is now 3%? That means the target is 3% of additional inflation every single year.Inflation doesn’t reverse. A drop in inflation doesn't mean prices have gone down. It means that the growth of price increases has slowed. That means the Federal Reserve’s goal is to have inflation increase 3% per year. Are you on board with that? How about its track record so far? Over the last three years, official inflation was around 12%. It’s probably closer to 20% in reality. If all goes according to plans, inflation will be at least 15% higher by the time the next president’s term ends. Is that in the right direction? Are gas prices better or worse than they were five years ago? How about the cost of insurance? Is it easier or harder for you to find a house? From your mortgage rate to your grocery bill, I think the answer is clear. Let’s consider the future we are building for our children. Do you feel our children are more or less safe in their schools than they were five years ago? It was about three years ago when we started finding critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion indoctrination in our kids’ classrooms. Has that given you more or less confidence in your kids' school? Are our children better educated now than they were five years ago? Are our children more stable mentally than they were before this woke agenda erupted into the open? Change course or failI can't think of a category that has gotten better. Can you? Every category doesn’t point to health, growth, or flourishing in any way, shape, or form.A reckoning is coming. When our country goes this far off from securing your freedom and the fundamentals of our Bill of Rights, a reckoning is inevitable. It’s like telling your kids that they’re getting bad grades in school and warning them that they are going to flunk if they don't change course. You can offer to help. You can get them a tutor. But if your kid does not change, the time will come when it’s too late. They’re going to fail. That's a reckoning, and it’s a natural response to harmful ideas being implemented constantly and without any regard to consequences or any thought of changing course. Until we change our ways, the reckoning will come, and it will be devastating. Right now, we're just moving the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. We can discuss symptomatic issues all the while heading straight for the iceberg. If we don't change, we will crash. November is the opportunity for us to change the leadership that has been leading us down our current course. Do you want another four years of our current path? If so, there's a reckoning coming. Don’t say you weren’t warned.Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Porn actress Stormy Daniels was called to the stand on Tuesday by the prosecution in the New York criminal case against former President Donald Trump.Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) charged Trump with 34 felony counts for allegedly falsifying business records in an attempt to conceal a $130,000 so-called "hush money" payment to Daniels, who claimed the two had an affair. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and denied Daniels' allegations.On Tuesday, Daniels told the jury that she "blacked out" during the alleged sexual encounter with Trump."I just think I blacked out. I was not drugged. I was not drunk. I just don't remember," Daniels testified. "I told very few people that we had actually had sex, because I felt ashamed that I didn't stop it."Daniels also claimed that there was an "imbalance of power" because Trump was "bigger" than her. She noted that she "was not threatened verbally or physically."Trump's legal team requested a mistrial Tuesday, claiming that during her direct examination, Daniels told a story that differed from her previous public statements, Blaze News previously reported."How can DA Bragg possibly rely on the testimony of Daniels, who is herself guilty of fraud and recently falsifying business records to cover-up a crime?" Michael Avenatti questioned.Todd Blanche, an attorney for Trump, told acting Justice Juan Merchan, "A lot of the testimony that this witness talked about today is way different than the story she was peddling in 2016.""She talked about a consensual encounter with President Trump that she was trying to sell ... and that's not the story she told today," he stated. "But now we've heard it. And it is an issue. How can you unring the bell?"Merchan rejected the request for a mistrial but agreed that Daniels had provided unnecessary details.During the cross-examination, Trump's attorney Susan Nucheles asked Daniels, "Am I correct that you hate President Trump?""Yes," she replied.Following Daniels' testimony, her former attorney Michael Avenatti posted a scathing statement on X. Avenatti, who had been disbarred and is currently serving time in a federal penitentiary, claimed Daniels had committed the same crime Trump was being accused of in the case.He explained that he was contacted last year by a producer working on a documentary about Daniels. He had considered participating in the documentary until he learned that Daniels was getting paid for it, calling it "a clear indication to me that the project lacked integrity, would be one-sided, and controlled by Daniels."Additionally, Avenatti claimed that the producer told him that Daniels was going to be "secretly paid" to hide the money because "she owed Trump hundreds of thousands of dollars" following a defamation suit. "Among other things, [the producer] told me that they had fictionally 'optioned' the rights to Daniels' book and then routed the money Daniels demanded through a fabricated 'trust' that had been set-up in the name of Daniels' daughter — all to hide the money from Trump and avoid paying the judgment," Avenatti wrote.He added that if the information he was told was accurate, "How can DA Bragg possibly rely on the testimony of Daniels, who is herself guilty of fraud and recently falsifying business records to cover-up a crime (i.e. fraudulent transfer and wire fraud)?""Further, will DA Bragg or others be promptly filing criminal charges against Daniels or others involved in this scheme?" Avenatti asked.The producer did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News.There are three court orders demanding Daniels pay Trump $560,000 in legal fees. During her testimony on Tuesday, she told Trump's legal team that she had "chosen not to pay while it's still pending."Avenatti told the New York Post last month that he would be willing to testify for the defense. He stated that he has been in talks with Trump's attorneys."I'd be more than happy to testify, I don't know that I will be called to testify," he told the Post.Avenatti is currently serving a 19-year jail sentence for extortion, tax evasion, fraud, embezzlement, and other federal offenses."There's no question [the trial] is politically motivated because they're concerned that he may be reelected," he told the Post. "If the defendant was anyone other than Donald Trump, this case would not have been brought at this time, and for the government to attempt to bring this case and convict him in an effort to prevent tens of millions of people from voting for him, I think it's just flat out wrong, and atrocious.""I'm really bothered by the fact that Trump, in my view, has been targeted. Four cases is just over the top and I think there's a significant chance that this is going to all backfire and is going to propel him to the White House," Avenatti continued. "Depending on what happens, this could constitute pouring jet fuel on his campaign."He further claimed that Daniels is "going to say whatever she believes is going to" help her and allow her to put "more money in her pocket."Avenatti stated that he wished he never met Daniels."If Stormy Daniels lips are moving, she's lying for money," he added.In response to Avenatti's comments to the Post, Daniels told the news outlet that the disbarred attorney is a "lunatic" and a "scumbag.""I was about to say that I also wish I'd never met him but I'm actually glad because I'm the one that helped convict him so he couldn't steal from even more unsuspecting clients," Daniels told the Post.During Tuesday's cross-examination, Trump's attorney asked Daniels whether it is true that she is "hiding" her assets to avoid paying the judgment against her. She denied the claim and denied setting up a trust for her daughter.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

An 18-year-old adult male in Washington, D.C., has been granted home arrest even though he allegedly fired dozens of shots on a city street, severely endangering the public.Just before 2:30 a.m. on April 22, 18-year-old Amonte Moody apparently ran out of his residence and onto an area of Independence Avenue SE located about a mile and a half east of the U.S. Capitol. Moody, who was reportedly carrying an AR-15, then fired many shots down the street, footage from two Ring cameras indicated.Though camera footage does not show the suspect's intended target, reports suggest that Moody was aiming at a vehicle carrying four passengers. Thankfully, no one was injured in the incident.When police arrived, they reportedly recovered 26 empty shell casings on the street and a disassembled AR-15 stowed away in the ceiling of Moody's residence. Moody was then arrested and later charged with felony endangerment with a firearm and possession of a firearm with a crime of violence.Despite the violent nature of the incident and the incriminating evidence collected by investigators, on May 3, Magistrate Judge Lloyd Nolan granted Moody pre-trial release and home arrest in nearby Maryland. Nolan ordered Moody to wear an ankle bracelet and to avoid all contact with the vehicle passengers he allegedly tried to harm.In an interview with Blaze News, Denise Krepp — a D.C.-area attorney who once served as the chief counsel for the U.S. Maritime Administration under President Barack Obama — called Nolan's decision to release Moody "insanity."Krepp also told Blaze News that D.C. judges have the discretion to remand violent suspects to jail but, all too often, they opt to release them, placing their personal interests above public safety."Where are the grown-ups?" Krepp asked rhetorically about the D.C.-area justice system. "Where are the real grown-ups?"The U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. is likewise outraged at the judge's decision. On Monday, prosecutors requested an emergency hearing in hopes of reversing the decision to release Moody."The defendant unloaded an AR-15 into the middle of a public, residential street. The defendant fired 26 rounds, littering the street with shell casings. Anyone who happened to walk into that street at that moment could have been killed as an innocent bystander. Everyone in the car the defendant targeted was at risk. Every resident of that street was at risk," the USAO's filing read in part.A hearing regarding Moody's pre-trial status has been scheduled for Tuesday.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A woman in the country illegally attempted to hire a hitman to murder two witnesses who cooperated in a case against her son, who was convicted of a fatal stabbing, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office stated on Tuesday.Josefina Cardona-Cardona, 43, was arrested by Florida law enforcement authorities after she tried to “solicit someone to murder two cooperating witnesses in her son’s case,” the department wrote in a recent post on X.The defendant “agreed to pay an undercover agent to carry out the crime,” PBSO stated.Cardona-Cardona’s son, Manuel Marcos Cardona, is currently serving 10 years in prison, according to the sheriff’s office, after he pleaded guilty to fatally stabbing a man in 2022. Marcos Cardona was 14 years old when he committed the murder but was charged as an adult, WPTV reported. After his sentence, he will be subject to deportation.An arrest report from the June 2022 killing revealed that a fight broke out between adults while attending a child’s birthday party. The victim attempted to break up the melee but was stabbed five times. According to WPTV, the victim was also beaten by Marcos Cardona and his parents. The victim was transported to a local hospital but succumbed to his injuries and passed away the following day.Marcos Cardona and his parents attempted to flee the state but were intercepted by the sheriff’s office. On Tuesday, PBSO wrote, “We have arrested a mother for attempting to solicit someone to murder two cooperating witnesses in her son’s case. In April, we learned that the mother of Manuel Marcos Cardona was planning a heinous act. Our detectives, along with undercover agents, conducted a thorough investigation, during which the defendant, Josefina Cardona-Cardona, agreed to pay an undercover agent to carry out the crime.”The PBSO claimed that Cardona-Cardona offered the undercover hitman $8,000 to kill the witnesses.A spokesperson for the sheriff’s office told WSVN, “These are obviously very serious and egregious charges.”“The circumstances, had they been different and it was not reported and an undercover agent became involved, the likelihood is two people would’ve been dead,” the spokesperson added.The sheriff’s office stated that Cardona-Cardona is facing two counts of solicitation to commit murder. She is being held on $550,000 bond. After her prosecution, she will be subject to deportation. We have arrested a mother for attempting to solicit someone to murder two cooperating witnesses in her son\u2019s case. In April, we learned that the mother of Manuel Marcos Cardona was planning a heinous act. Our detectives, along with undercover agents, conducted a thorough\u2026 — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Entrepreneur and author Greg Autry said the Chinese government is incredibly close to setting up operations on the moon after the country successfully launched a lunar probe.Autry, a space policy expert who has been touted as one of the key architects of U.S. space policy during the Trump administration, spoke to Blaze News about the commercialization of space during what he described as a second Cold War."I want people to understand we are not 'militarizing' space. We've been there all along.""The Cold War 2.0, which has clearly emerged whether you like it or not with the U.S. versus China/Russia, is very reminiscent of what drove us into space race 1.0," Autry said. "Those same factors are playing out. Governmental space budgets in the U.S. in particular are increasing rapidly, the Space Force budget's been increased by the Biden administration, more than double since Trump founded it. There's money pouring in for a lot of different reasons," Autry continued.After the recent launch of the Chang 'e-6, it is clear that the Chinese government has sent a message the United States with where the rocket will land.Targeted for an early June 2024 arrival on the moon, the lander will settle in a crater called Apollo, an area of the moon's south pole which is know as a "resource rich area" with "access to water ice," Autry revealed. That access is very important to being able to operate on the moon. The region contains different metallic and rare Earth elements, as well."The Chinese chose a crater called Apollo — which is named in commemoration of America's great lunar achievement — and the craters inside and adjacent to the Apollo crater are named after individual deceased NASA employees and astronauts," Autry explained. "I don't think there's any mistake. The Chinese don't make diplomatic protocol mistakes. They're putting their lander in that particular crater and are going to raise their their little Chinese, communist flag; it actually is going to pop up from the lander. That's a message to us [and] we should take it seriously." Your browser does not support the video tag. Commercially, Autry said it would be about a decade before private companies started bringing anything other than small payloads of moonrocks back to Earth, which he insisted were nothing to "scoff at" given their legitimate commercial value.Even though there are "no property rights in space," Autry said that he "wouldn't be surprised to see China put some sort of scientific experiments, as they might call them, in various places around the most resource-rich areas" on the moon.This could happen in "the next three to five years" he said, with China then declaring an "exclusion zone" around the operations to prevent any countries from interfering."Even though the resources won't be creating revenues for some time in the future that the areas could be excluded from, this plays well to China's hands. They think far, far ahead. They're thinking decades or centuries of long-term commitment to owning the universe, basically."Pointing toward private Israeli and Japanese companies that are looking to land on the moon, there is also an interest in mining asteroids, but it would be much more difficult, Autry said."There are asteroids out there which can be mined and the rules are essentially the same but there's a lot of individual asteroids and we'd be unlikely, probably, to end up working the same one. The area that's of interest right now is the Moon. The Moon is only three days away whereas those asteroids are months or years away, and the energy required to get to and from the Moon is a lot less than than the amount of propellent required to to move things from asteroids." Your browser does not support the video tag. Autry's new book, "Red Moon Rising," with fellow policy expert Peter Navarro touches on this race to space commercialization. But from a militaristic standpoint, China is looking to gain superiority in fields like communication. The solution is for the Space Force to get a bit more focused and a bit more practical in its leadership."I want people to understand we are not 'militarizing' space. We've been there all along. With that said what Trump was looking to do on the advice of myself and other people that were involved in the transition team ... is take and create a more nimble, focused organization where the leadership from the top down cares and understands space."Noting that generally, the Air Force has high-ranking, former fighter pilots, Autry said the top priority has historically been toward focusing on fighter jets and air superiority."The Air Force procurement system is notoriously inefficient (to use a nice word), and so getting space out of there called Space Command and a group called Space Systems Command into their own organization was easier to manage." Why spend money in space when we have problems here on Earth?\n\n45 critical sec. of my Senate testimony, 11/10/20 \n#AmericaCanAffordAFuture #InsteadOfGoingToMars — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor, believes Stormy Daniels' testimony went "quite poorly" for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.On Tuesday, the former porn actress took the witness stand in Donald Trump's hush money trial, testifying for hours about her relationship with Trump. At one point, Trump's attorneys called for a mistrial — a move that New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan rejected — because Daniels provided salacious details about her relationship with Trump, even suggesting their sexual encounter was nonconsensual. Trump's attorneys argued such testimony was "extraordinarily prejudicial.""Prosecutors went too far in the details they elicited."Reacting to the testimony on CNN, Honig said that Daniels' answers on cross-examination were "disastrous" for the prosecution."Her responses were disastrous. I mean, 'Do you hate Donald Trump?' Yes, of course she does. That's a big deal. When the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake? That's a big damn deal," Honig explained."And she's putting out tweets fantasizing about him being in jail? That really undermines the credibility," he noted. Not only does Honig believe that Daniels' undermined her credibility as a witness, but he explained how Daniels may have shown that she doesn't respect the legal system."The fact that she owes him $500,000," Honig said. "She, by order of a court, owes Donald Trump a half-million dollars, and said, 'I will never pay him, I will defy a court order'? The defense is going to say, 'She's willing to defy a court order. She's not willing to respect an order of a judge, why is she going to respect this oath she took?'""So, I thought it went quite poorly on cross-exam. At the end of direct, I thought, 'OK, they got what they needed.' But I think the cross is making real inroads," he explained.Honig also believes prosecutors damaged their case by taking "cheap shots" during Daniels' testimony.Those cheap shots, he explained, are the questions that prosecutors asked Daniels to extract "extraneous detail about the sexual encounter" between Daniels and Trump. "Prosecutors went too far in the details they elicited," Honig said. "I think, yes, it was the right move by Donald Trump's team to ask for a mistrial."Daniels is expected to take the witness stand again on Thursday.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

An illegal alien is allegedly responsible for a recent car crash in Maine that left one woman dead and her husband critically injured.Around 8:40 a.m. on April 26, 23-year-old Oguzhan Cildir, a Mexican national in the U.S. illegally, was allegedly driving a Toyota Prius on I-95 in Wells, Maine, just south of Kennebunkport, when he suddenly crashed into a minivan and a pickup truck. The pickup truck then "rolled over several times," a police report said, before coming to a stop.Outlets reporting on the fatal crash described Cildir as a Massachusetts resident, but the Maine Wire reported that the agents who arrested him at the scene immediately contacted a local Customs and Border Protection official because of Cildir's immigration status. The driver, 53-year-old Gloria Cascio of Albion, Maine, was pronounced dead at the scene. Her husband, 60-year-old Vincent Cascio, who had been sitting in the passenger seat, was soon flown to a hospital via helicopter in critical condition. His current condition remains unclear.Cildir was likewise taken to the hospital with injuries described by the Maine Wire as "non-life-threatening." The driver of the minivan sustained minor injuries. A fourth car was also involved in the crash, but the driver was not injured. The following short clip shows the crash scene as well as the helicopter that transported Vincent Cascio to the hospital: The Maine Wire reported that at least five witnesses told police that Cildir had been driving "erratically" just before the crash, weaving in and out of traffic. Moreover, Cildir reportedly does not have a driver's license. How he came into possession of the Prius and who it's owner might be are both unclear.Multiple outlets reporting on the fatal crash described Cildir as a Massachusetts resident, but the Maine Wire reported that the agents who arrested him at the scene immediately contacted a local Customs and Border Protection official because of Cildir's immigration status. He is believed to have crossed from Mexico into the U.S. illegally sometime in January.Cildir has been placed in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement Removal Operations "for further processing and potential detainment," the Maine Wire reported.The Maine Wire also indicated that York County District Attorney Kathryn Slattery may be hesitating to charge Cildir in connection with the crash because he is an illegal alien who would likely be deported if convicted.On Monday, Slattery told the Maine Wire in an email that her office "has not received a final report" on the crash and that it "remains under investigation." She added that she could not comment further on the incident.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A Georgia grand jury has officially indicted the man police say killed college student Laken Riley in February. An indictment filed on Tuesday in Clarke County charged 26-year-old illegal immigrant Jose Ibarra with 10 crimes: three counts of felony murder, one count of malice murder, kidnapping with bodily injury, aggravated assault with intent to rape, aggravated battery, obstruction or hindering a person making an emergency telephone call, and tampering with evidence. They described the horrific murder as a "crime of opportunity." The indictment included another charge for a totally separate, yet disturbing, allegation: Ibarra was charged with one count of being a "peeping tom." According to the indictment, Ibarra went to an apartment complex at the University of Georgia on the same day he allegedly killed Riley "for the purpose of becoming a peeping tom in that he did peep through the window and spied upon and invaded the privacy" of the occupant. That victim is a university employee, WAGA-TV reported. The indictment includes other shocking allegations. Prosecutors allege that Ibarra killed Riley "by inflicting blunt-force trauma to her head and by asphyxiating her." The indictment alleges that Ibarra "seriously disfigured" Riley "by striking her head multiple times with a rock." Police have said that Ibarra did not know Riley. Rather, they described the horrific murder as a "crime of opportunity." Ibarra, an immigrant from Venezuela, has been living in the U.S. since September 2022 when he entered illegally near El Paso, Texas. After entering illegally, Ibarra was taken into custody and then paroled. Immigration officials say Ibarra later moved to New York City, where he had encounters with police. Last September, Ibarra was charged with a felony for "acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17 and a motor vehicle license violation," but he was released from jail before Immigration and Customs Enforcement could lodge a detainer against him. New York City is a "sanctuary city." Ibarra then moved to Georgia last fall. Tragically, ICE was able to lodge a detainer against Ibarra only after Riley's murder. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!