A sad video that shows a little boy getting puberty blockers is gaining lots of traction online. It’s a heartbreaking clip‚ and viewers are calling out the transgender ideology for what it really is: "pure evil." The video was in response to another video that Libs of TikTok shared in which a doctor explained that transgender “care” for kids is “lifesaving.” The video about the little "girl" now has close to 2 million views.  In it‚ a mother and her 11-year-old son Joseph‚ who they refer to as “Josie‚” visit a transgender specialist named Dr. Olsen‚ who insists that "Josie" is at a “perfect place” to begin puberty blockers to stop the young boy’s body from going through male puberty. Research has shown that puberty blockers can and do slow or completely stop the development of a child’s reproductive system‚ as well as the child’s brain and his or her bones. They can cause irreversible damage‚ but none of that seemed to alarm Josie's mother enough to not go through with the procedure. During the video‚ Josie gets the blockers implanted in his arm and cries out in pain from the injection.  Doctor tells 11 year old girl she is in the “perfect place” to begin taking puberty blockers to become TRANS. Should this doctor be sent to prison for child abuse?pic.twitter.com/zV2POGwHiH — Oli London (@OliLondonTV) February 1‚ 2024 To make matters worse‚ the doctor insisted that she promised to get Josie on estrogen shots in two years when the child turns 13. Related: Judge Revokes Parents Custody After CPS Kidnapped &; Transitioned 14-Year-Old Josie’s mother was thrilled.  “A lot of time it strikes me that‚ had this happened 20 years ago‚ I wouldn’t have been able to give her blockers and she would’ve had to go through male puberty. That terrifies me. I don’t know that she would have survived male puberty‚” the child-abusing mother confessed.  People on X couldn’t agree less.  “This BOY is being abused by the doctor and his mom. They both belong behind bars‚” one user wrote. “The mom is 100% a total enabler‚” another insisted while one more called it “pure evil.” Even Elon Musk commented an explanation mark to widen the reach of the heartbreaking video. The video was part of a three-part segment by NBC News back in 2012 detailing how Josie’s parents began his transition around six years old when he was “diagnosed” with gender dysphoria. According to a Reddit thread‚ Josie has since  changed his name to "Sadie" and is still attempting to convince people that he’s a she. On Instagram‚ Sadie is now 21 years old and adds “#trans” to many of his posts.  While this video is old‚ it’s important to continue bringing to light as these practices have become even more popular and accepted. Transitioning minors is “pure evil” and children who experience it‚ just like Joseph/Josie/Sadie‚ are victims of child abuse. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: Cutting Off Genitals &; Songs About Pronouns Does anyone else feel like the pool of crazies is getting larger? These wackos are doing their best to make that argument for us. pic.twitter.com/syyaJuFPY2 — MRCTV (@mrctv) January 30‚ 2024

On Thursday‚ the Pentagon press corps were able to question Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin for the first time since his secret December hospitalizations and prostate cancer diagnosis he hid from the American public and President Biden until early January. There were plenty of tough questions‚ but most notable was NBC’s Peter Alexander (pinch-hitting for Pentagon correspondent Courtney Kube‚ who was reporting from Qatar). Better yet (and unlike with tense White House press briefing exchanges)‚ Alexander’s hardballs to Austin on both his lack of transparency and whether the Biden administration bears responsibility for allowing Iranian proxies to kill U.S. soldiers last weekend made it onto both Thursday’s NBC Nightly News and Friday’s Today.     Alexander first asked about the cancer bout‚ which arguably became a scandal in and of itself. The NBC White House correspondent was extremely blunt on the double standard between Austin keeping his job without repercussions and if someone else in the military had done this: [Y]ou were hospitalized for days before you informed the White House or the commander in chief of your condition and your absence. Anyone else within the military chain of command would have faced reprimand or even dismissal. Why shouldn’t that same standard apply to you‚ sir? Austin shrugged it off‚ reiterating from earlier in the briefing that “we didn’t get this right” and “I take full responsibility for — for the department’s actions.” As for why he didn’t tell the President or his team‚ he insists “that information was available‚ I’m not sure‚ at this point‚ what exactly happened‚ but I think details will play out as a review is — is conducted.” On Iran‚ Alexander pointed out there had “been more than 160 strikes on American targets across the region‚ as you noted‚ since October‚” so what’s the U.S. doing “wait[ing] until American service members were killed to escalate its response.” Austin again downplayed matters by insisting “we’ve responded a number of times and taken out” targets and that the past attacks by Iranian proxies were “ineffective” with the U.S. able to bat them down. To NBC’s credit‚ they gave Alexander the dignity of running his cancer hardball on both flagship newscasts. So often‚ the press will grill this administration at a briefing‚ then either downplay or flip the script and suck up to them when it comes time for when viewers actually tune in. As mentioned‚ the briefing had other tough questioners. The Wall Street Journal’s Gordon Lubold acknowledged to Austin that even though “you didn’t direct your staff to hide this truth or lie‚” he wondered if this instead was a case of “creat[ing] a culture of secrecy that then the staff kind of interpreted your desires or your intentions when it came to you getting sick.” Austin rejected that because while some “may perceive that they’re doing things in my best interests‚” he wouldn’t “speculate” other than to assert “I have a great staff‚ and they always want to‚ intend to do the right things”. A few minutes after both Alexander and a softball from The New York Times’s Helene Cooper about whether his silence “reinforces this culture of secrecy among black men about prostate cancer‚” PBS’s Nick Schifrin made himself useful on behalf of taxpayers with a brutal question to Austin about “how could you possibly think that it was okay” to keep this under wraps (click “expand”):  SCHIFRIN: Mr. Secretary‚ I’ve seen what you’re going through up close‚ among loved ones. So‚ again‚ we wish you a full recovery and I know it is possible‚ so thank you. You described this as a gut punch‚ your instinct to privacy. But if I could ask you bluntly‚ you had nearly a month between the time you learned of your cancer and the time that this came out to inform the President‚ how could you possibly think that it was okay not to tell him‚ if I could be blunt? (....) AUSTIN: So‚ my diagnosis was made‚ the doctor highlighted you have a finite window of time to actually get this done. If you go beyond that — that window‚ then you’ll have a problem. Christmas holiday’s coming up. For me‚ to be as little impact on — on what we’re doing in the department‚ Christmas was a time for me to take a look at getting that done. It was a tough decision for me and I did not decide until‚ you know‚ very close to when the procedure was done to actually do the procedure. In terms of informing the President‚ again‚ I admit that that was a mistake to not talk to him about that early on. The President of the United States‚ you got a lot of things on your plate. And so putting my personal issue on — adding to his — all the things he’s got on his plate‚ I just didn’t feel that was — that was a thing that I — I — I should do at the time‚ but‚ again‚ I recognize that that was a mistake‚ and I should have done that differently. To see the relevant transcript from February 1‚ click “expand.” Pentagon press briefing [via MSNBC] February 1‚ 2024 10:44 a.m. Eastern GORDON LUBOLD: Mr. Secretary‚ you say you didn’t direct your staff to hide this truth or lie‚ but did you create a culture of secrecy that then the staff kind of interpreted your desires or your intentions when it came to you getting sick? DEFENSE SECRETARY LLOYD AUSTIN: Yeah‚ I — I — I don’t think I’ve created a culture of secrecy. I think there will be security officers — there will be other staff members who may perceive that they’re doing things in my best interests. And‚ you know‚ I can’t — I can’t predict or — or determine or ascertain what those things may be. I just know what I said and did not say. And‚ of course‚ you know‚ I have a great staff‚ and they always want to‚ intend to do the right things‚ but in terms of what one may or may not have perceived at any one point in time‚ I won’t speculate on that. (....) 10:46 a.m. Eastern LUIS MARTINEZ: And a question on your recovery‚ sir. At any point did you feel that your situation had caused you to consider possibly resigning given all of the political attention that had developed as a result of it? AUSTIN: In terms of resignation‚ the answer is no. (....) 10:49 a.m. Eastern HELENE COOPER: You mentioned during your opening statement this is an opportunity to talk about prostate cancer‚ especially in the black community. I wonder‚ though‚ do you have any regret that your silence on this reinforces this culture of secrecy among black men about prostate cancer? AUSTIN: Yeah — and you mentioned that — and it’s probably not an issue of secrecy as much as it is an issue of privacy. And this is — this is a very‚ cancer‚ period‚ is — is very private‚ and there may be cancer survivors amongst us in this room right here and I know there is at least a couple. There are at least a couple‚ but — but you know how private that — that is‚ and — and you know what the initial diagnosis feels like‚ and so‚ among the black community‚ though‚ it’s — it’s even more a thing that people wanna — wanna to keep private. And‚ again‚ it is more about privacy than secrecy. In my case‚ I should have informed my boss. I did not. That was a mistake. And — and again‚ I apologize to him for not doing so. (....) 10:52 a.m. Eastern PETER ALEXANDER: Mr. Secretary‚ first of all‚ we wish you good health and thank you for taking your questions. And we hope you have a quick recovery. I have two questions. First on your hospitalization‚ you were hospitalized for days before you informed the White House or the commander in chief of your condition and your absence. Anyone else within the military chain of command would have faced reprimand or even dismissal. Why shouldn’t that same standard apply to you‚ sir? AUSTIN: Well‚ let me just say that — thanks for the question — that — that we didn’t get this right. And‚ as I said‚ I take full responsibility for — for the department’s actions. In terms of why on the second notification was — was not made to the White House‚ that information was available‚ I’m not sure‚ at this point‚ what exactly happened‚ but I think details will play out as a review is — is conducted. ALEXANDER: And if I can follow-up about the situation overseas right now‚ and the deliberation in regards to strikes. There have been more than 160 strikes on American targets across the region‚ as you noted‚ since October. Why has the U.S. waited until American service members were killed to escalate its response? AUSTIN: Well‚ as you know‚ we’ve responded a number of times and taken out — first of all‚ their attacks‚ many of them‚ most of them are going to be ineffective. And most of them we're going to defend ourselves against. And whenever we conduct a strike‚ we're going to hit at what we're aiming at‚ we're going to take away capability‚ we're going to do what we're desiring to do. And so‚ this — this particular attack was egregious in that it‚ you know — the attack was on a sleeping area of one of our base. And‚ again‚ we have — we’ve — Kataib Hezbollah and — and other elements continue to‚ you know‚ attack our troops and‚ again‚ I think at this point we should — it’s time to take away even more capability than we have taken in the past. And in terms of the — you use the term escalation. We’ve not described what our response is going to be‚ but we look to hold the people that are responsible for this accountable and we also look to make sure that we continue to wait — take away capability for them as we go forward.  (....) 11:03 a.m. Eastern NICK SCHIFRIN: Mr. Secretary‚ I’ve seen what you’re going through up close‚ among loved ones. So‚ again‚ we wish you a full recovery and I know it is possible‚ so thank you. You described this as a gut punch‚ your instinct to privacy. But if I could ask you bluntly‚ you had nearly a month between the time you learned of your cancer and the time that this came out to inform the President‚ how could you possibly think that it was okay not to tell him‚ if I could be blunt? (....) 11:03 a.m. Eastern AUSTIN: So‚ my diagnosis was made‚ the doctor highlighted you have a finite window of time to actually get this done. If you go beyond that — that window‚ then you’ll have a problem. Christmas holiday’s coming up. For me‚ to be as little impact on — on what we’re doing in the department‚ Christmas was a time for me to take a look at getting that done. It was a tough decision for me and I did not decide until‚ you know‚ very close to when the procedure was done to actually do the procedure. In terms of informing the President‚ again‚ I admit that that was a mistake to not talk to him about that early on. The President of the United States‚ you got a lot of things on your plate. And so putting my personal issue on — adding to his — all the things he’s got on his plate‚ I just didn’t feel that was — that was a thing that I — I — I should do at the time‚ but‚ again‚ I recognize that that was a mistake‚ and I should have done that differently.

Former president and current GOP frontrunner Donald Trump emphasized the dangers of artificial intelligence in a new interview. Despite experts’ warnings on the serious risks posed by artificial intelligence (AI)‚ including for free speech‚ Big Tech companies have been scrambling to develop and expand their AI offerings. But Trump didn’t mince words when speaking to Fox News host Maria Bartiromo. Trump said AI could be “the most dangerous thing out there” because “there’s no real solution.” AI development continues to hurtle on‚ even as the risks to free speech‚ jobs and other key societal aspects increase. Bartiromo asked Trump about the dangers of central bank digital currency (CBDC)‚ a type of government-tracked digital form of exchange many governments have aimed to implement. Even the Biden administration has issued an executive order to explore the “infrastructure and capacity needs” for the “potential” development of a U.S. CBDC. In China‚ digital currency enables the government to track and enforce financial censorship via a social credit system. “Very dangerous. It’s very dangerous. One day you don’t have any money in your account. It can be a very dangerous thing‚” Trump described CBDCs. He has pledged to reject a CBDC if elected. Trump then brought up another digital threat: AI. “And the other thing that I think is maybe the most dangerous thing out there of anything‚ because there’s no real solution — the AI‚ as they call it. It is so scary‚” Trump emphasized. “Something has to be done about this‚ and it has to be done fast‚” or AI will present a severe security risk‚ he added. The presidential candidate noted that AI can distort various media‚ including videos‚ images and voices‚ to spread confusion. “I saw somebody ripping me off the other day where they had me making a speech about their product‚” Trump explained. “I said‚ ‘I’ll never endorse that product.’ You can’t even tell the difference. It looks like I’m actually endorsing it.”  AI is likely to play a key role in the online information and censorship battle heading into the 2024 election. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Blaze Media podcast host Allie Beth Stuckey went after a disturbing World Economic Forum (WEF) plan to isolate and choke out purveyors of so-called misinformation. Stuckey discussed the dire threat of leftists weaponizing public-private partnerships to silence and impoverish conservatives with Justin Haskins‚ director of the Socialism Research Center at The Heartland Institute‚ on the Jan. 25 edition of her podcast Relatable. Stuckey referenced comments by Jeanne Bourgault— the president and CEO of Internews‚ an anti-disinformation international non-profit—who embraced “lists and guides for advertisers” to dictate which organizations advertisers should spend money with and which were purveyors of so-called disinformation.  “This is a concerted effort‚” Stuckey alerted. “There are already companies that do this. There are left-wing companies that try to target advertisers of shows like this one‚ advertisers and try to scare them into pulling their advertiser dollars away from a show.”  Stuckey warned of a coming “international collective effort to ensure that shows like mine‚ conservative shows don’t have any advertisers and therefore‚ just can’t afford to be produced.” She added‚ “That is a strategy that they are going to employ or want to employ just to make sure there are no dissenting voices‚ and that’s pretty scary.” Haskins agreed‚ saying “This is what the ‘Great Reset’ is all about. It is about using money through the private sector—financial institutions‚ banks‚ insurance companies‚ things like that—to starve all of the people who are enemies of the elites of capital‚ right? So if you can’t get access to capital‚ you can’t get access to banking services‚ you can’t get access to insurance‚ then you can’t function.” Haskins highlighted that proponents of censorship wouldn’t need governments or laws to do their bidding and silence conservatives‚ if they simply made it impossible for conservatives to run a business. Haskins warned Stuckey and her audience about proposed rules in the European Union that could have an international impact and push extreme ESG requirements even further in the United States‚ a “mandatory European social credit-scoring system.” Haskins said‚ “The whole point of this thing is to impose social credit scores on not just corporations in the European Union‚ but any corporation that does business above a certain threshold in the European Union.”  Haskins went on to point out the harrowing truth that this would include not only major American companies but also the companies in the supply chains of major American companies. “Those companies that are forced to report under this mandatory ESG guideline‚ they are responsible for making sure that all the companies they do business with are also adhering to these rules that are being created in the European Union.”  Haskins hypothesized that large American companies like Ford could be subjected to the EU’s “mandatory ESG social credit scoring system.” Stuckey elaborated that this would ultimately lead to “racial quotas” and measures to eliminate gas-powered cars in favor of electric vehicles.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand government agencies and Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

A video clip from an NBC News "Dateline" story about a young boy transitioned by his mother into a transvestite at the age of 6‚ then put on a cocktail of sterilizing chemicals just years later has gone viral once again‚ prompting renewed outrage about the medicalization of children and the insidious rhetoric used by sex-change advocates in support of child mutilation. The video begins midway through a 2012 NBC News special entitled‚ "Living a Transgender Childhood‚" showing Johanna Olson-Kennedy of the Children's Hospital in Los Angeles discuss sex-change possibilities with Vanessa Romero and her young son Joey Romero — referred to in the video as Josie and who now reportedly goes by Sadie Croft. "You are in the perfect place to begin on [puberty] blockers‚" says Olson-Kennedy‚ who runs the L.A. hospital's Center for Transyouth Health and Development. The narrator indicates that Olson-Kennedy‚ who has elsewhere compared teen girls cutting off their healthy breasts to taking the SATs‚ "promises to begin giving [the boy] estrogen‚ female hormones‚ in two years." "You're not going to develop breast buds on the blockers‚ but you're not going to wait until 16 to start‚ you know that‚" adds Olson-Kennedy. The footage jumps ahead to the boy sobbing as sterilizing puberty blockers are surgically stuffed into his arm. The boy's mother tells NBC News in an aside‚ "A lot of times it strikes me that had this happened just 20 years ago‚ I wouldn't have been able to give her blockers and she would have had to go through male puberty. That terrifies me. I don't know that she would have survived male puberty." According to the mother's apparent LinkedIn page‚ she began work as a "TransParent Support Group Coordinator" in Tuscon‚ Arizona‚ "facilitating safe and healthy environments for gender creative children and their families through education and support‚" years before putting her son on puberty blockers. In response to the renewed interest in the Romero case‚ Dr. Jordan Peterson noted that the "clinical literature shows the high probability that the parents of such children and often the mother are characterized by so-called Cluster B psychopathology." "We're diagnosing and 'treating' the wrong people in such cases‚" continued the clinical psychologist. "It isn't that children are 'born in the wrong bodies' but placed in the hands of deeply confused and too-often narcissistic parents and the enabling professionals only too-willing to experiment on children. Unforgivable." — (@) Libs of TikTok captioned the recirculated video‚ "What you're watching is one of the greatest medical scandals in modern history. Thousands of kids &; adolescents sold the lie that they're born in the wrong body and if they permanently alter their body they can be be happy. This video should infuriate you." Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) wrote on X‚ "In some ways this video reminds me of German scientists who tortured victims to satisfy their own‚ cold curiosity. Some were even driven by a perverse belief that they were advancing the cause of humanity. Children have no capacity to consent to such things. Sheer cruelty." Lee added in a subsequent post‚ "What civilized nation even allows for — much less celebrates — such barbarism?" Sage Steele‚ the former ESPN "SportsCenter" anchor who drew the ire of radicals for her criticism of vaccine mandates‚ former President Barack Obama‚ and transvestites in women's sports‚ stressed that the so-called transitioning of children "is abuse and we must speak up." Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) similarly wrote‚ "This is child abuse!! Congress must pass my bill Protect Children's Innocence Act to make it illegal to perform this on children!!!" The Idaho GOP wrote‚ "Deranged parents misguiding their own children‚ enabling mental instability and subjecting innocent kids to permanent lifelong mutilation. This must stop. This is criminal." In the full "Dateline" episode‚ Vanessa Romero suggested that doctors told her Joey's "temper tantrums" at age 3 were indicative of depression. Their prescription: "14 different medications" including Prozac and drugs for sleeping issues‚ ADHD‚ Tourette syndrome‚ and anxiety. The boy's mother apparently complied‚ subjecting her child to 17 doses of different pharmaceuticals every day. "My child was broken and there was something really wrong‚" said Vanessa Romero. "I just wanted it fixed." The idea that an entirely different set of pharmaceuticals could be the solution didn't occur to Vanessa Romero until a doctor told her Joey might have "gender identity disorder." The doctor apparently made his diagnosis solely off of a single instance when he saw the boy pretend to breastfeed a doll. Once the seed was planted‚ Vanessa Romero told NBC News she turned to online "support groups" to learn more about her son's alleged condition. In short order‚ she replaced his wardrobe entirely with girls' clothing and encouraged him to cross-dress. According to the NBC News report‚ after the boy began wearing girls' clothing‚ his parents took him off all the medication that he was previously taking‚ then concluded the transvestism had been the cure to his supposed depression. This respite from pharmaceuticals was short-lived. As the boy began to mature into adolescence‚ he began to suffer renewed identity issues. After all‚ his male attributes were incompatible with the persona his mother championed. Vanessa Romero claimed that the boy's mounting anxieties over his body prompted him to contemplate cutting off his penis. Apparently that job was best left to those Los Angeles surgeons paid to do it. NBC News included shocking commentary from Dr. Margaret Moon‚ director of the department of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine‚ that might not have been admitted on the network years later. Moon indicated that puberty blockers might be helpful in "extreme cases" but was alarmed at Joey's age‚ especially as "the changes are irreversible and include rendering the child sterile‚" according to the report. "Any change you make that is irreversible is harder to justify when the child is young‚" said Moon. "It's potentially an over-diagnosis issue." Vanessa Romero ultimately took 9-year-old Joey to Los Angeles in September 2010 to start the process of his sex change‚ even though he admitted on camera‚ "I'm a boy inside and a girl outside. ... Sometimes I think I'm a boy‚ sort of." Ahead of his irreversible transmogrification‚ Joey also hesitated on camera when his mother asked him whether he would admit to her that he wanted to grow up to become a man after all. "Would you love me if I'm a boy?" he asked uncertainly. — (@) Vanessa Romero told NBC News‚ "The thought of her having made such a huge decision in her life all based on what she thought I wanted‚ that would be traumatic for me." The mother evidently took the risk anyway. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A reporter standing outside the Senate chamber on Thursday morning told me that after four months of secrecy‚ “the Firm™️” plans to release the text of the $106 billion supplemental aid and border security package‚ possibly as soon as Friday. Wasting no time‚ she then asked‚ “If you get the bill by tomorrow‚ will you be ready to vote on it by Tuesday?” The Firm’s methods are un-American‚ uncivil‚ uncollegial‚ and really uncool. The words “Hell‚ no!” escaped my mouth before I could stop them. Those are strong words where I come from. (Sorry‚ Mom.) The reporter understood immediately that my frustration was not directed at her. Rather‚ it was directed at the law firm of Schumer &; McConnell (aka “the Firm”)‚ which is perpetually trying to normalize a corrupt approach to legislating. Here’s how it works. The Firm spends months drafting legislation in complete secrecy. It aggressively markets that legislation based not on its details and practical implications (good and bad)‚ but only on its broadest‚ least controversial objectives. It then allows members to see the bill’s text for the first time only a few days (sometimes a few hours) before an arbitrary deadline imposed by the Firm itself‚ always with a contrived sense of urgency. And then it forces a vote on the legislation on or before that deadline‚ denying senators any real opportunity to read‚ digest‚ and debate the measure on its merits‚ much less introduce‚ consider‚ and vote on amendments to fix any perceived problems with the bill or otherwise improve it. Whenever the Firm engages in this practice‚ it largely excludes nearly every senator from the constitutionally prescribed process in which all senators are supposed to participate. By so doing‚ the Firm effectively disenfranchises hundreds of millions of Americans — at least for purposes relevant to the legislation at hand — and that’s a great shame. It’s also un-American‚ uncivil‚ uncollegial‚ and really uncool. So why does the Firm do it? Every time the Firm uses this approach‚ and a bill passes — and it nearly always does — the Firm becomes more powerful. The high success rate is largely attributable to the fact that the Firm has become highly adept at enlisting the help of the (freakishly cooperative) news media‚ exerting peer pressure in a way that makes what you experienced in middle school look mild by comparison‚ and rewarding those who consistently vote with the Firm with various privileges that the Firm is uniquely capable of offering (committee assignments‚ help with campaign fundraising‚ and a whole host of other widely coveted things that the Firm is free to distribute in any manner it pleases). It’s through this process that the Firm passes most major spending legislation. It’s through this process that the Firm likely intends to pass the still-secret‚ $106 billion supplemental aid and border security package‚ which the Firm has spent four months negotiating‚ with the luxury of obsessing over every sentence‚ word‚ period‚ and comma. I still don’t know exactly what’s in this bill‚ although I have serious concerns with it based on the few details the Firm has been willing to share. But under no circumstances should this bill — which would fund military operations in three distant parts of the world and make massive‚ permanent changes to immigration law — be passed next week. Nor should it be passed until we have had adequate time to read the bill‚ discuss it with constituents‚ debate it‚ offer amendments‚ and vote on those amendments. There’s no universe in which those things will happen by next week. Depending on how long it is and the complexity of its provisions‚ the minimum period we should devote to this bill after it’s released should be measured in weeks or months‚ not days or hours. Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally as a thread on X (formerly Twitter).

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg‚ along with other big tech giants‚ have come under fire for failing to install protective measures on their platforms that prevent children from coming into contact with inappropriate material. This past Wednesday‚ Zuckerberg and others were reprimanded in a congressional hearing. One of the people leading the questioning was Texas Senator Ted Cruz‚ who was far from impressed with Zuckerberg’s answers. Dave Rubin plays a clip of the hearing. “Instagram also displayed the following warning screen to individuals who were searching for child abuse material‚” Cruz said‚ displaying the following. “You gave users two choices: get resources or see results anyway. Mr. Zuckerberg‚ what the hell were you thinking?” Cruz fired at the CEO. “Alright Senator‚ the basic science behind that is that when people are searching for something that is problematic‚ it’s often helpful to‚ rather than just blocking it‚ to help direct them towards something that could be helpful for getting them to get help‚” Zuckerberg said before Cruz cut him off. “I understand ‘Get resources‚’ but in what sane universe is there a link for ‘See results anyway?’” Cruz shot back. “Well‚ because we might be wrong. We try to trigger this warning (or we tried to) when we think that there’s any chance the results might be wrong‚” was Zuckerberg’s justification. “Let me ask you: How many times was this warning screen displayed?” Cruz asked‚ but Zuckerberg’s only response was‚ “I don’t know.” “Zuckerberg‚ they got you‚” says Dave. To see more of Ted Cruz laying into the tech mogul‚ watch the clip below. 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.

The City University of New York pumped $6‚000 into a linguistics study with the intent to determine whether or not transgender or non-binary individuals speak or write with a "transgender accent." The research grant was provided to Theodore Manning‚ who describes himself as a "Linguist‚ Grad Student‚" and "Menace‚" using the pronouns "hän/hänet/hänen‚" which are Finnish. According to YAF‚ the researcher has been asked by the University of Colorado Boulder to present the findings of the 16-month investigation. Manning's research reportedly involved contacting nearly 100 "transgender and non-binary people" to request that respondents participate in the study called "MapLemon." The demographic study is steeped in identity politics and stated that the data from "minority backgrounds" is analyzed by "people from those same backgrounds‚ so that the data is properly handled and understood." The study authors claim that their methodology is a concept that is a response to outcry from "Queer communities and Native American communities" and could help prove "prevalent Queer Theory ideas" including the field of "Trans Linguistics." The study's activity has participants write and verbally communicate directions for a fictional character named "Chad LemonLover" to a get a fictional lemonade stand. Then‚ participants were asked to provide "detailed instructions for making lemonade." The participants are then asked to fill out a questionnaire that includes age‚ gender identity‚ "sex assigned at birth‚" race‚ languages used‚ and more. The data provided is allegedly used to "better understand the effects that educational‚ cultural‚ regional‚ and socioeconomic background" have on a respondent's answers. Participants were given $5 for their participation. Manning reportedly collaborated with graduate students at Harvard‚ Duquesne‚ and the University of Pittsburgh to analyze the responses. The study claimed that the writing results from "Transgender Men (FTM) and Transgender Women (MTF)" seemed to be indicative of a "transgender accent." It also determined "cisgender men" and "masculinity" to be the most "'exclusive' gender presentation." The University of Colorado Boulder stated that the study's findings have included "groundbreaking" discoveries "about the possibility of a transgender accent." It also claimed that the study yielded results that lend to the suggestion that transgender and non-binary people "write most similarly to their gender as opposed to their sex assigned at birth." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In bed‚ you drag the slider down until your phone's brightness is at its lowest. You type z-i-l-o-w in the search box‚ too lazy to correct yourself. Google knows; it says‚ Do you mean Zillow? and there it is‚ the familiar website‚ its logo a home with a Z cutting across it‚ like a signature‚ like a haphazard check mark. Hovering over its search box is its motto‚ a command: Find it. Tour it. Own it. You type your town and press enter too soon; the first search yields results in Florida‚ not Vermont. You type it again‚ add VT this time‚ and press enter. You move through the filters quickly: For sale‚ 2+ bd‚ 2+ ba‚ Houses. When you sort them‚ you sort by Newest. You see familiar cover pictures‚ know which ones you've scrolled through already. There's one at the top that's only been active for a few days‚ and it catches your eye‚ not because of the picture‚ but because of its price‚ which is close to $1 million. Hm. Your town is a town that's not known for million-dollar homes – no‚ leave that to the tourist hubs‚ to Burlington‚ Stowe‚ Woodstock. But here? Naturally‚ you're curious. You want to see this house and how these million-dollar sellers live. In the world of window-shopping‚ especially for houses‚ you're selective; your taste changes as soon as you click. So you click. You scroll through the pictures languidly‚ letting your eyes adjust to each one. A clear bowl of red apples sits next to one of two sinks in the kitchen. In the dining room‚ a blue paddle overlooks the table. In the living room‚ large‚ curtainless windows make way for a view of the back yard‚ the lawn so green and the sky so bright that you squint. You shrug; the house is nice. But it also seems to be in the middle of an identity crisis: a picture of the lower floor‚ its dark wooden staircase‚ and its wall adorned with antique portraits remind you of the property's early-1900s construction date. They clash with pictures close to the end of the listing of the new steel balcony railing and of the office‚ filled with sharp and shiny edges. They want to sell this for $1 million? Good for them. But you've lost interest. Your thumb swipes back to the main page. You type the next town's name‚ then the next‚ then the next. Soon‚ you've gone through the entire county‚ and none of the houses are – how would you say it‚ just right? In the world of window-shopping‚ especially for houses‚ you're selective; your taste changes as soon as you click. For example‚ when you scroll through listings‚ you look past houses that say New Construction. You want something with history; you emphasize this word even in your head; you want it to be lived in and have the markings of a home that was loved for a long time before the new owner came along. But when you look at older houses‚ you swipe past pictures that might hold these memories and swipe instead toward the kitchen‚ the laundry room‚ and the bathrooms‚ where you take an inventory of the older appliances and the outdated fixtures. You begin renovating it‚ removing this and that‚ before shrugging it off and clicking on a different house again. You're impatient; you swipe with a frenzy. Too spacious‚ too crowded‚ too colorful‚ not colorful enough‚ too bare‚ too furnished. You move through the houses with rejection already on your mind. You drag the map from one side of the screen to the other. Click to see all homes‚ a text box says‚ and sometimes you do‚ all of the red dots coming alive‚ the ones you've already looked at a lighter shade as if faded from frequent use. Sometimes‚ you draw a boundary‚ choosing locations at random‚ zooming in‚ and drawing uneven circles: here‚ by the lake; here‚ around the islands; here‚ close to the border. Sooner or later‚ you return to typing‚ returning to familiar places grouped neatly together: Montpelier‚ Barre‚ Northfield. As you get closer to your husband's hometown‚ the search becomes more intimate; you look at houses you've probably driven past‚ houses his friends probably grew up in‚ and think about how far each one might be from his parents. You think of his childhood‚ of the memories he tells you: This is where we had that car accident‚ and I had to run to football practice. This is where my friend's car got stuck‚ and we had to walk a few miles to the nearest house. This is where he and his friends would drive around as teenagers‚ speeding along the back roads‚ where their siblings and their parents still live now‚ so everywhere you look‚ you find someone who has a story of him when he was younger‚ someone who laughs and says‚ Did he tell you about this? You become nostalgic‚ even though you're not from here. Priced out of homes‚ we spend time digitally searching for the dream imaginima/Getty So instead of looking through more listings or typing‚ say‚ Woodstock or Rutland‚ you type San Jose‚ California. The map moves west‚ and there it is: home. You look at the cluster of bright red dots overlapping each other‚ reminding you of heat‚ of suffocation. You zoom in until you see East San Jose and the prices: $1.46M‚ $1.22M‚ $1.85M. There's Tully‚ Holly Oaks‚ Quimby. You trace the route from your middle school to your aunt's house‚ the house you and your parents lived in before you moved north‚ and you look at the large‚ red $1.50M marker at the corner of the neighborhood: a four-bedroom‚ three-bathroom‚ two-level house whose price decreased by $99‚000 only a few weeks ago. Across the street is your cousin's house‚ where another marker boasts a $1.40M list price: another two-level with five bedrooms and three bathrooms‚ some fixtures updated and others remnants of 1988‚ its construction date. You realize that you've kept the same filters from the earlier search – of course‚ why not? This search came out of nowhere. So you reduce the numbers‚ putting‚ instead‚ For sale‚ 2+ bd‚ 1.5+ ba. You start sorting the results by Price (Low to High). Gone is the particularity with which you looked through the houses in Vermont‚ the absent-mindedness with which you looked at their prices. In California‚ specificity and reality grip you. How many hours of work to save up for a down payment for one of the houses near Boggini‚ where you used to run around with your cousins during the summer‚ or near Eastridge‚ where you and your friends spent whole days meandering from store to store and taking group pictures at the photo studio? You change the location‚ switch to Antelope‚ then to Roseville‚ dragging the map‚ again‚ between the neighborhoods where you spent your high school years: Here is the park where you and your friends hung out during each summer; here is where you watched your friend jump the high wall after setting off the alarm at the new Kohl's; here is where you and your friends stood in the mornings waiting for the school bus. And again‚ price markers‚ like warnings now‚ show up each time you move: $525K‚ $595K‚ $675K. Can you decrease the number of bedrooms and the number of bathrooms? You're less familiar with the neighborhoods‚ even though you spent most of your time walking through them with friends. Where are you? You are distracted; you can't stop thinking about your goal‚ the goal you have‚ when you think of answering the question‚ What do you want to do when you grow up? You think of your parents‚ of what that achievement would look like: When I grow up‚ I want to buy Ma and Pa a house. You argue with yourself: A voice says‚ There are houses in Vermont less expensive and larger than these‚ only for another voice‚ a louder voice that always wins‚ to reply: But what about the rest of the family? What about their friends? What about the community they spent the last twenty years building? You want to tear them away from that? It's not that easy. It's not that easy. Your search devolves from here‚ like it always does‚ when you move your search to California: You change the filters‚ looking at inns for sale‚ at farms for sale‚ at land for sale‚ imagining now a place here that would resemble what your family once had in the Philippines: property‚ large enough to hold all of you – your parents‚ your aunts and uncles‚ your cousins‚ and your own families. No longer are you firmly in Zillowland; now you toggle between Inn Shopper‚ Land Watch‚ California Outdoor Properties‚ and you toggle between moods‚ scoffing at the $800‚000 list price of a bed and breakfast in Mariposa (for only five guest rooms and no back yard?) and nodding at the list price of a ranch in Shasta County‚ $16M‚ yes‚ of course‚ for 3‚000 acres‚ that makes sense‚ and look at that pond‚ that house – yes‚ $16M is more than reasonable. It's always at night when you do this‚ always when you're curled up in bed‚ getting ready to fall asleep. When the room is dark and all you can hear is the fan's hum‚ it's so easy to insert yourself‚ fantasize with each property listing‚ and think‚ Do you think they'll like this? You blink and check the time. 1 a.m. Yes – very reasonable.

If you believe that Taylor Swift’s injection into the current NFL season has been a month-long psyop to inflate the pop star's profile and influence in order to sway the 2024 election — at least be mad at the right people. “Focus your angst at the race pundits‚” Jason Whitlock says‚ adding that “they baited the Ravens into one of the biggest choke jobs we’ve seen in recent sports history.” “Jackson and the Ravens fell for a race hoax‚” Whitlock continues‚ explaining that this is what has catapulted the Kansas City Chiefs and Taylor Swift to the Super Bowl. However‚ it’s not the Chiefs' first time heading to the Super Bowl. It’s the fourth time in the last six years. “If anything‚ it appeared the NFL wanted Lamar Jackson to advance to his first Super Bowl‚” Whitlock continues."Ever since draft day 2018‚ Jackson has been the lead actor in the league’s diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion narrative.” Whitlock believes that Jackson was the NFL’s chance to have “the first authentic black quarterback to win a Super Bowl.” “Unable to be provocative‚ interesting‚ insightful‚ or useful on any topic beyond shouts of ‘white supremacy‚’ black media elites have used Lamar and black assistant coaches as fodder and ammunition to justify their own existence in the media‚” he says. “Lamar Jackson is just the latest victim of this pattern‚” Whitlock adds. “Taylor Swift‚ a feminist liberal influencer‚ benefited from the Ravens' meltdown. No surprise.” Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture‚ faith‚ sports‚ and comedy with Jason Whitlock‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.