Humiliation of TV Libs Continues, and it Is Glorious

Hmmm: Danish Navy Corners Chinese Vessel After Baltic Telecom Cable 'Sabotage'

A series of images have revealed the beauty and turmoil of our local star.

Unless you're a tuna-obsessed college student, your risk of mercury poisoning is low.

The figure of Capricornus was invented by ancient Mesopotamians over 4,000 years ago.

Last night, the CBS drama FBI used open borders language about "migrants" and free housing during an episode in which a pro-illegals protester is killed. The episode, "Pledges," begins with FBI agents preparing to enter a university campus building occupied by protesters. Agents believe a prominent speaker has been taken hostage there. "Housing is a human right!" riotous students scream as the FBI moves in. They find the woman they thought was a hostage, but she tells them that she is there voluntarily. She explains that students had offered to escort her out safely, but she stayed with them in support of their beliefs. In the midst of their mission, agents discover a dead student in the building who was hit over the head. Back at FBI headquarters, Agent Valentine (Jeremy Sisto) details the case to staff. "All right, so Hudson University's campus riot just claimed the life of 21-year-old honor student Jacob Aquino who was bludgeoned to death practicing his First Amendment right to protest the university's refusal to house migrants in their available dorms, and there is a chorus of people demanding answers, the students and administrators at the front of that line." It turns out Aquino (Aaron Alcaraz) died hours before police entered the building. Since this is network television, the rest of the episode just becomes a mystery about which bad white guy committed the murder. Suspicion first falls on a bad white guy who tossed Aquino's protest flyers and yelled in his face earlier in the day. This particular bad white guy is also a veteran. Agent Valentine: Okay, look at this one. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This guy. Analyst Taylor: Looks like a counter-protester. Agent Castille: Can we get an id? Agent Valentine: Looks too old to be a student, yeah? Analyst Moran: Right, well, a lot of the counter-protesters were just people from the neighborhood that didn't want migrants housed in their backyard. Analyst Taylor: Okay, Frank Dorman, 36, Iraq War vet, accused of killing two noncombatants in Baghdad, though the allegations were never substantiated. He was discharged from the army. Analyst Moran: Based on his socials, he's passionate about securing the nation's borders. Agent Valentine: Okay, so Dorman wouldn't take kindly to an immigrant student leading the charge to bring more immigrants into his neighborhood. So what, they fight? Then Dorman finds his way into the building and finishes the job? Agent Castille: Let's bring him in. They bring Dorman (Andrew Hovelson) in for questioning and an agent tells him that protesters "want migrants to be housed humanely." The episode never uses the word "illegal" even though the "migrant housing issue" that has rocked New York City is a result of illegal immigration. Dorman: Snowflakes, activists. I don't even know what they want. Agent Scola: They want migrants to be housed humanely. Dorman: You know what I was doing when I was their age? Eating RPG fire in Fallujah. Agent Scola: This isn't Iraq, Mr. Dorman. And yet you were armed for a fight. Dorman: The blood on the knife is from a white-tailed deer, in case you were curious. Hunting license and permits are in the glove, which I'm sure you already found. Agent Scola: How about this kid? You got a permit for what you did to him? Dorman: That kid? He's some entitled brat. Agent Ortiz: That is scholarship student Jacob Aquino. And he's dead. You don't seem surprised. Dorman: What, do you think I killed him? Agent Scola: You tell us. Looks like you two got into it. Dorman: Yeah, we had some words. He called me names. I threatened to teach him some manners, respect people who sacrificed to defend the freedoms he enjoys. And then I returned to my car, where I remained. Check my dash cam. Dorman is eliminated as a suspect after agents check his dashcam. The episode then turns to a bad white fraternity guy as a suspect. Dashcam video of the sidewalk shows bad white frat guy yelling in Aquino's face. White guys do that a lot on Dick Wolf series like FBI and Law & Order. In the end, it turns out that white frat boys were dealing drugs on campus and Aquino opposed their activities. Therefore, a wealthy white fraternity student bludgeoned the poor student immigrant to death. Wealthy white fraternity guys are so dangerous, unlike illegal immigrants who never commit crimes and should be housed for free on a college campus. Tune in to FBI next week to see which bad white guy did another horrible thing to a woman or minority. Or you could just save yourself the trouble and never watch Dick Wolf dramas again.

Two themes the late night comedians have tried to hammer away at recently are that President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, Matt Gaetz, is a sex pest and that Trump himself is a threat to the rule of law who has been emboldened by the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Therefore, the worst possible guest they could interview would be former President Bill Clinton, but that is exactly what CBS’s Stephen Colbert did on Tuesday’s installment of The Late Show. First, Colbert had to let Clinton know that he is a fan, “Sir, it's a pleasure to see you again. I've had a chance to talk to you a few times over the years, and the last time we saw each other was on stage at Radio City for a massive fundraiser for Joe Biden's re-election campaign, and that didn't continue, but it was an amazing night. Did you have a good time that night?”     After Clinton affirmed that he did, Colbert agreed, “Yeah, me too. I thought I would be, like, before I went on stage, everyone’s like, ‘You're going to go interview three presidents. It’s going to be the sitting president, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton. How are you feeling?’ And I’m like, ‘I'm fine, you know, I've talked to all three of these guys before. We’ve had a good time together before, and it wasn't until I was sitting on stage in front of 4,000 people and the three of you gentlemen in front of me that I went, ‘Holy [bleep].’” Further along in the interview, Colbert wondered, “The Supreme Court, since you left, has said that the president enjoys broad immunity for his actions. If you had known that when you were in office, is there anything you would have changed? Would someone really wanted to have started Newt Gingrich's car for him or anything like that? Was there anything you would've done differently with that freedom of knowing that if you do it, it must be legal?” Bill Clinton committed and was impeached for perjury, so a better question would have been: did lying to Kenneth Starr about Monica Lewinsky constitute an official presidential act? Instead, Clinton warned that the Court has basically suspended the Constitution and the rule of law, “Well, let me just say that opinion, in my opinion, should be repealed or drastically confined. Drastically. And if you want it changed, you probably just have to elect somebody else in the next election and the Supreme Court will change it so fast it will make your head swing. I'm pretty sure that if something really grievous happened, the Supreme Court would make a different distinction; otherwise, our Constitution has essentially been suspended and we wouldn't have a rule of law.” When he was president, Clinton unsuccessfully argued that the Secret Service should not have to testify about the Lewinsky affair, “I think [the ruling] will raise some serious questions and present a whole new array of problems for managing the presidency and for the Secret Service managing their responsibility.” Apparently, Clinton wants one set of rules for himself and another for Trump. Here is a transcript for the November 19-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 11/20/2024 12:05 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Sir, it's a pleasure to see you again. I've had a chance to talk to you a few times over the years, and the last time we saw each other was on stage at Radio City for a massive fundraiser for Joe Biden's re-election campaign, and that didn't continue, but it was an amazing night. Did you have a good time that night? BILL CLINTON: I did. COLBERT: Yeah, me too. I thought I would be, like, before I went on stage, everyone’s like, “You're going to go interview three presidents. It’s going to be the sitting president, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton. How are you feeling?” And I’m like, “I'm fine, you know, I've talked to all three of these guys before. We’ve had a good time together before," and it wasn't until I was sitting on stage in front of 4,000 people and the three of you gentlemen in front of me that I went, "Holy [bleep]." CLINTON: You did fine. … COLBERT: The Supreme Court, since you left, has said that the president enjoys broad immunity for his actions. If you had known that when you were in office, is there anything you would have changed? Would someone really wanted to have started Newt Gingrich's car for him or anything like that? Was there anything you would've done differently with that freedom of knowing that if you do it, it must be legal? CLINTON: Well, let me just say that opinion, in my opinion, should be repealed or drastically confined. Drastically. And if you want it changed, you probably just have to elect somebody else in the next election and the Supreme Court will change it so fast it will make your head swing. I'm pretty sure that if something really grievous happened, the Supreme Court would make a different distinction; otherwise, our Constitution has essentially been suspended and we wouldn't have a rule of law.  You know, I was raised in the Baptist church and I believe in deathbed conversions. So I still think, you know, President Trump could be like Paul on the road to Tarsus and think how wonderful that would be. Really. COLBERT: That would be lovely. That would be lovely.  

Over the weekend, Vivek Ramaswamy, who is poised to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency alongside Elon Musk, met with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo to elucidate their plans to slash federal agencies regardless of Deep State opposition. Dave Rubin plays the clip of their conversation. “Are you expecting to close down entire agencies?” Bartiromo asked, referring to Trump’s claims that he intends to shut down the Department of Education. “We expect mass reductions; we expect certain agencies to be deleted outright; we expect mass reductions in force in areas of the federal government that are bloated; we expect massive cuts among federal contractors and others who are over-billing the federal government — so yes,” was Ramaswamy’s blunt answer. Bartiromo’s next question was how he plans to get around “the Deep State.” “Didn't President Biden put in plans to ensure that you're not going to be able to fire those people at all? How do you get around that?” she asked. “President Biden has made a lot of changes trying to entrench the administrative state,” Ramaswamy confirmed, noting that the “Supreme Court has slapped them on the wrist numerous times” for this. However, granted that we have “a president of the United States like Donald Trump elected with the mandate he's been given, both chambers of Congress belong to Republicans, a 6-3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court,” he’s hopeful that major change will happen. “If we don't downsize the federal government now, it's never going to happen in the future,” he told Bartiromo, adding that “the key is to move quickly, to move effectively." “Have you thought about moving some of these departments or agencies out of Washington?” Bartiromo asked next. “Yes,” Ramaswamy stated, noting that they should be able to drastically cut federal agents by simply requiring employees to report to work in person. “A lot of them won’t want to do that,” he said. Further, they intend to “move many of [the agencies] out to be where they're more accountable to the people.” While the plan sounds brutal, Ramaswamy said that their intention “is not to be cruel.” “Most of them … are individually good people, and we want to be compassionate and generous in how we handle this transition, but the real issue is there's just too many of them,” he explained. “We shouldn't have 4 million civil servants who aren’t even elected or can’t be removed from their positions. It’s anti-democratic.” Dave can’t wait to see Ramaswamy and Musk “find all the missing money and the ridiculous inefficiencies." “Not only will businesses really start flourishing, but you will have more money in your pocket," he says. Further, the DOGE plans to be 100% transparent in weeding out unnecessary agencies. In a recent tweet, Elon Musk outlined the DOGE's plans to be transparent. “All actions of the Department of Government Efficiency will be posted online for maximum transparency. Any time the public thinks we are cutting something important or not cutting something wasteful, just let us know! We will also have a leaderboard for most insanely dumb spending of your tax dollars. This will be both extremely tragic and extremely entertaining.” “This is what we’ve all wanted!” says Dave. To hear more about the plans for the DOGE, watch the clip above. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Before relinquishing power in January, President Joe Biden may turn America's proxy war with Russia into a direct nuclear conflict. Elements of the Biden administration, various lawmakers from both major parties, Ukrainian officials, and others appear convinced that attacks on Russia using American long-range missiles might put Kyiv in a better bargaining position should the Eastern nations ever sit down to negotiate an end to the war, which has lasted over 1,000 days and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Critics have suggested not only that the move might protract the war, which the majority of Ukrainians now want to end with immediate negotiations, but that it might trigger a nuclear holocaust or at the very least prevent — by design — President-elect Donald Trump from brokering peace upon taking office. Missiles fired After authorizing Ukraine's use of long-range missile systems against targets in Russia — a move long resisted by U.S. officials concerned about escalation and identified by Russian President Vladimir Putin as a trigger for war between Washington and Moscow — Kyiv launched six U.S.-made Army Tactical Missile System missiles Tuesday morning at a weapons depot in Karachev, a Russian city 70 miles inside the country, in the Bryansk region. 'We must not fear doing more now.' According to CNN, Russian air defenses allegedly shot down five of the ATACMS supersonic missiles, and the sixth was damaged. Pieces of the damaged missile rained down near a military facility, causing a fire but resulting in neither death nor damage. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed the attempted missile strikes and suggested that these and subsequent long-range missile strikes would be interpreted as U.S. military actions. Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, said in a statement, "The [Russian] president mentioned this several times. If long-range missiles are going to be applied from Ukraine into Russian territory, it will also mean that they are operated by American experts, military experts, and we will be taking this as a qualitatively new phase of the Western war against Russia and will react accordingly." In his Tuesday address to the European Parliament, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said, "We must not fear doing more now." "While some European leaders think about, you know, some elections or something like this at Ukraine's expense, Putin is focused on winning this war. He will not stop on his own. The more time he has, the worse the conditions become," said Zelenskyy. The Institute for the Study of War indicated that as of June, Putin had captured roughly one-fifth of Ukraine, with Russian forces occupying 75% of the total area of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts. "Today is the best moment to push Russia harder, and it's clear without certain key factors Russia will lack real motivation to engage in meaningful negotiation," added Zelenskyy. Hours later, Russia reportedly conducted missile strikes on Kharkiv, Dnipro, Chernihiv, and Sumy, as well as drone attacks inside Ukraine. The U.S. embassy in Kyiv announced Wednesday morning that it was shutting its doors, citing the potential of a "significant air attack." Nuclear, mine policies updated Russian state media indicated that Moscow revised its nuclear doctrine this week in hopes of "making conventional warfare unachievable," qualifying attacks by a non-nuclear state in conjunction with the support of a nuclear state as a joint attack, satisfying the need for for nuclear deterrence. Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of the Russian Federation's security council, noted on X, "Russia's new nuclear doctrine means NATO missiles fired against our country could be deemed an attack by the bloc on Russia. Russia could retaliate with WMD against Kiev and key NATO facilities, wherever they're located. That means World War III." Russian President Vladimir Putin signaled that he would also respond with nukes to conventional attacks on Russia or Belarus. Russia has over 5,000 nuclear warheads and boasts a supersonic missile with a range of 625 miles. Sergey Naryshkin, director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, claimed that the West realizes "the revisions Putin outlined have largely undermined the attempts by the United States and NATO to achieve a strategic defeat of our nation. Furthermore, the expanded criteria for using nuclear weapons essentially rule out the possibility of defeating the Russian Armed Forces on the battlefield." U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller told the Associated Press, "I'm unfortunately not surprised by the comments the Kremlin has made around the publication of this new, revised document," adding that Russia has routinely sought to "coerce and intimidate both Ukraine and other countries around the world through irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and behavior." The U.K. and other NATO members condemned the "irresponsible rhetoric" and reiterated their support for Ukraine. The Biden administration had a policy update of its own. Citing unnamed U.S. officials, the Washington Post reported that Biden authorized the provision of antipersonnel land mines to Ukraine. "When they're used in concert with the other munitions that we already are providing Ukraine, the intent is that they will contribute to a more effective defense," said one of the officials. While the U.S. is not one of the 164 parties to the Ottawa Convention, also known as the Mine Ban Treaty, Biden reportedly resurrected an Obama-era policy in 2022 banning the transfer and use of American antipersonnel land minds outside Korea. Reactions Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck suggested that the Biden administration is painting Russian President Vladimir Putin "into a corner." "A man who is a bloodthirsty killer — you don't keep backing him into a corner, or what happens? Eventually he says, 'I'll have absolutely no credibility' [with] his people who have just been bombed with U.S. missiles, which he just said two days ago will be an act of war," said Beck. "We have entered a moment of madness. What Joe Biden did is impeachable." 'Americans do not want World War III.' A day prior to the ATACMS strikes, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) insisted that Biden had committed "an unconstitutional Act of War" that qualified as an impeachable offense. — (@) Texas Rep. Keith Self (R) penned a letter to Biden Tuesday, challenging his decision to authorize Ukraine's use of ATACMS against Russia. While Self suggested the missile systems might have proved strategically useful earlier in the conflict, at this stage in the war, their use is "counter-productive to President-elect Donald J. Trump's stated goal towards a negotiated peace." 'This is the faceless power of failing experts in action.' "If this desperate move by your administration represents an attempt by deep-state operatives to hamstring the incoming Trump presidency, it's a dangerous miscalculation," wrote Self. "I am very concerned that this miscalculation could have catastrophic results. Americans do not want World War III." "January 20 can't get here fast enough," Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told Fox News' Laura Ingraham. "It looks like a green light for escalation on the part of Ukraine. ... What would happen if Russia would launch and retaliate missiles into the territory of a NATO member? Then our treaty obligations would be triggered. Then we're talking about a full-scale war." Hawley noted further that the man who authorized the use of the long-range missiles against a nuclear power was considered too decrepit by his own party to stay in the presidential race earlier this year. Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson stressed that "what is happening in regard to Russia and Ukraine while we have no functional President is one of the last, most reckless and outrageous acts from the supposed 'adults in the room' who have consistently driven our nation towards the cliff the last four disastrous years." "This is not 'democracy,'" continued Peterson. "This is the faceless power of failing experts in action: thwarting the will of the people in the midst of the final 'lame duck' period of an aging dementia patient of a President. This is a form of masochistic, suicidal recklessness enacted by weak men." Peterson added on "Blaze News Tonight," "There is really something that I think that is despicable about the self-assured foreign policy expert in this country. Of all the different sectors of government experts who get degrees, foreign policy people dress themselves up in the suits and in the trappings of -isms and -istics, and, 'We know all this stuff and we have domain knowledge that you don't have.' They're consistently the most evil, dangerous, and really foolish sector of the entire government complex." — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Bucks County Board of Commissioners Chair Diane Ellis-Marseglia (D) is backpedaling on her pledge to count illegal ballots in the Senate election between Democratic incumbent Bob Casey and Republican challenger Dave McCormick.While multiple news outlets declared McCormick the winner, Casey has refused to concede the race, instead demanding a recount since the results were within the 0.5% margin that could trigger such a review.'Misinterpretation of [an] inartfully worded statement on my part.'The recount has sparked concerns about election integrity after Ellis-Marseglia basically admitted she planned to defy the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's order not to count undated or misdated mail ballots."People violate laws any time they want," Ellis-Marseglia stated. "So, for me, if I violate this law it's because I want a court to pay attention. There's nothing more important than counting votes." Again, on Monday, the state's Supreme Court ruled that undated and misdated ballots cannot be counted.Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley accused Democrats of "brazenly trying to break the law by attempting to count illegal ballots" to "steal the seat" from the Republican candidate."The RNC has filed four lawsuits over this already and will fight for as long as necessary," Whatley said. "This is the exact kind of left-wing election interference that undermines voter confidence."On Monday, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) broke his silence on the matter, claiming that there was "a lack of legal clarity surrounding undated mail-in ballots that caused significant confusion and put counties in a challenging legal position."He stated that county officials "were damned if they did and damned if they didn't — likely facing legal action no matter which decision they made on counting.""As we move forward, I want to be clear: any insinuation that our laws can be ignored or do not matter is irresponsible and does damage the faith in our electoral process," Shapiro stated, presumably referring to Ellis-Marseglia's previous statement."The rule of law matters in this Commonwealth, and as I have always said, it is critical for counties and officials in both parties to respect it with both their rhetoric and their actions," he added.Whatley called Shapiro's statement "better late than never.""Heartening to see. Once Democrats came to the conclusion that even ignoring the Pennsylvania Supreme Court can't scrape up enough ballots to win ... Governor Shapiro suddenly discovers that he stands with the rule of law," Whatley said.Later that day, Ellis-Marseglia appeared to backpedal on her previous comments, according to a report from the Philadelphia Inquirer.She blamed a "misinterpretation of [an] inartfully worded statement on my part.""I apologize for all the upset and confusion it caused," she said.Ellis-Marseglia claimed that the court's reaffirmed ruling on Monday provided some much-needed clarity."This is exactly what I was hoping for, for the court to weigh in and give us clarity," she said. "We were under a stay, and now we have full clarity."Blaze News reached out to Bucks County District Attorney Jennifer Schorn to determine whether her office plans to open an investigation into the matter. However, Schorn did not respond to a request 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!