Eighty-six is more than just a number. It is slang that for roughly a century has meant “to get rid of” or “to throw out.”

When used in reference to a person, 86-ing can mean the person’s termination of employment or denial of service. To “86 someone” does, however, have another widely understood meaning: to kill that person.

‘Any threat against the president is taken very seriously.’

Just weeks ahead of the primary America250 celebrations in the national capital and days ahead of the UFC match at the White House, a massive “86 47” appeared etched or possibly chemically burned into the grass on the National Mall, just east of the World War II memorial.

The numbers 86 and 47 — the latter an apparent reference to the 47th president, Donald Trump — were still visible on Friday in the live images taken by EarthCam’s camera, which is mounted atop the Washington Monument.

Members of the National Guard and U.S. Park Police responded to the scene of the vandalism, which was reported around 11:30 a.m. on Thursday. The area was promptly roped off by National Park Service workers.

Park Police said that grass samples have been collected for testing.

“The deranged vandalism on our National Mall will not be tolerated,” the U.S. Department of the Interior, which manages national parks like the National Mall, said in a statement obtained by NBC News. “Any threat against the president is taken very seriously by the department, and our U.S. Park Police will investigate this incident and hold those responsible accountable.”

White House spokesman David Ingle condemned the act, stating, “Anyone who engages in or endorses political violence or assassination culture must be condemned in the harshest terms possible.”

RELATED: Texas radical charged with making terroristic threats against Erika Kirk

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Just days ago, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss — an appointee of former President Barack Obama — barred the National Park Service from preventing an anti-Trump group from waving an “86 47” flag around in the area.

The radical group in question, Accountability Now USA, has volunteers calling nonstop for the president’s ouster and protesting the Trump administration near the George Meade statue on Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C. The group was notified in April by an NPS agent that the display of “unprotected obscenity” was “not protected by the First Amendment and is therefore prohibited and a violation of law.”

The Obama judge evidently didn’t share the NPS’ concerns about the group’s inflammatory messaging targeting a man whom assassins have attempted to murder on at least three occasions. Moss wrote, “The term ’86’ is used far more often to mean ‘throw out’ than ‘kill,’ and it appeared at a demonstration that was focused, of all things, on the constitutional impeachment and ‘removal’ of the President.”

The unknown radical or radicals behind the vandalism at the National Mall and Accountability Now USA’s flag-bearers are hardly the only individuals who have used the numbers to publicly call for Trump’s elimination of one kind or another.

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted in late April over his since-deleted social media post featuring an image of seashells arranged to form the numbers “86 47.” Comey was charged with threatening the life of the president and transmitting in interstate and foreign commerce a communication that contained a threat to kill the president.

While she has not similarly been indicted, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) faced backlash in 2020 during Trump’s first term for conducting an interview with a pin displayed behind her that read “8645.” Trump was then the 45th president.

The Trump War Room account said at the time, “Whitmer is encouraging assassination attempts against President Trump just weeks after someone sent a ricin-laced packaged to the White House.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​James comey, Donald trump, Assassination, Murder, Leftism, National mall, National park service, Secret service, Gretchen whitmer, Politics 

Fans have shelled out hard-earned cash for 007: First Light, making it a smash hit for developer IO Interactive.

But with more than 3 million sales in the first two weeks, there are still questions about the game’s profitability and, of course, its ideological direction for James Bond.

‘We are well above our forecasts at this point.’

The truth is, the James Bond video game franchise has chugged along like a broken locomotive for the better part of 20 years, with First Light being the first console release for the iconic brand since 2012’s 007: Legends, which was viewed quite unfavorably.

However, with help of IO Interactive, Bond has been ported from a mostly nonexistent gaming environment to a fairly good and playable game.

Your gameplay, Mr. Bond

First Light looks and feels an awful lot like the Hitman games — which IO Interactive makes — utilizing stealth elements and interactive characters as its bread and butter. Where the titular hit man has in his repertoire multiple costume changes and the use of closets or containers to dump dead bodies, 007 employs gadgets and persuasion.

On to the game. After getting through a gigantic user license agreement, followed by an exhaustive privacy policy, fans eventually get to find out how Bond became 007.

Gamers will love the fly-by introductory sequence that breezes through game mechanics in a fun way, making it feel like the opening montage of a movie.

However, this introduction eventually turns into several boring training missions where Bond is forced to make decisions in the dreaded “mash X or Y” style to work through scenarios that don’t really matter. For example, after being poisoned, Bond must choose to inject one syringe or another; the antidote or something else. The game prompts you to press both at the same time; if you don’t, nothing happens. Bond injects both anyway, and the story continues.

The unfortunate beginning is the game’s worst part. Soon some mission freedom is allowed. After making their way through forced many forced pathways, gamers eventually land on an extremely James Bond-esque title screen, complete with a Lana Del Rey theme song and a (PG) sex scene. It’s once again an immersive, movie-like environment.

Once the story moves into actual missions, though, the game settles in to remind you of Hitman in all the best ways. You can beat up anyone you please, wander around the mission looking for secrets, and, in very Bond ways, manipulate enemies.

Fake surrenders, radio frequency poisonings, and malfunctioning vacuum cleaners are just some of the dynamics at play as Bond infiltrates rooms and gets key intel, satisfyingly providing multiple pathways to complete a mission.

RELATED: Idris Elba: Black James Bond was never ‘realistic’ possibility

Jeff Spicer/Getty Images

Diversity or nothing

While the game is the best we’ve seen from Bond in more than a decade, one can’t help but notice that certain elements do feel like an Amazon-backed tribute to diversity, equity, and inclusion was force-fed into the game.

The first stirrings come courtesy of Moneypenny, played by Kiera Lester. Instead of going with how Lester looks in real life, her appearance is warped into a heavily androgenized and non-feminine version of herself, complete with baggy “boss lady” suit pants.

Moneypenny sassily introduces you to M, the leader of British secret service, MI6. This role is now played by British actress Priyanga Burford, a Sri Lankan woman who was significantly de-aged for the role.

Burford previously played MI6 scientist Dr. Symes in 2021’s live-action “No Time to Die,” which of course makes no sense in the game context unless her character took a huge pay cut and became a scientist later in life.

Yet the rest of the game, including all of Bond’s fellow spies, puts the woke away, delivering instead the classic English personalities we have all grown to love. You have to relish the drab disgust with Bond that wafts off of “Walking Dead” actor Lennie James’ John Greenway.

Any trace of what would otherwise seem like typical progressive-style diversity is reserved for nondescript MI6 scientists and background characters, all of whom are given slapstick one-liners and buffoonish behaviors.

The player therefore gets an impression that the DEI-scented British government roles are there to quietly make a point. Moneypenny long served as Bond’s flirtatious counterpart, but since she is now emptied of any feminine charge, the flirting moves to fellow secret agent Cressida, who is quickly framed up as a possible love interest.

RELATED: iPhone’s debut crushed young women’s fertility, new study says

A pretty penny

As reported by Game Developer, IO Interactive CEO Hakan Abrak has said he’s “very confident” the game will be profitable for the studio, after reports that it had an eye-popping production cost north of $200 million.

“We are well above our forecasts at this point,” Abrak said.

Yet Steam charts, often used as a barometer for game performance, had First Light peaking around 71,000 concurrent players on PC, which reportedly represented about a third of the game’s sales.

This does not look good for a game of this magnitude or budget. Current players have been floating around 19,000 for the past few days at the time of this writing. These figures have First Light barely breaking the top 100 of the charts.

Nevertheless, when all is said and done, 007: First Light represents a significant step forward for the franchise, marking the first game of its kind worth talking about in around a quarter-century. All it took was kind of copying another successful game.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Video games, James bond, Dei, Diversity, Tech 

I’m a huge basketball fan. I grew up watching the NBA, arguing about players who retired before I was born, and wasting hours on a no-look pass nobody had asked for. But if basketball is a passion, soccer is something deeper.

I have supported Manchester United since I was old enough to go to the bathroom unsupervised. My father, meanwhile, is a diehard Liverpool supporter. Growing up, our house was less a home and more a demilitarized zone. United against Liverpool was the closest my family came to civil war. If United won, I floated around the house for days. If Liverpool won, my father suddenly became the world’s most insufferable human being.

That rivalry taught me why soccer is special. Half the beauty of soccer is the madness. The missed chances. The terrible refereeing decisions. The goalkeeper who slips at the worst possible moment. The defender who accidentally turns a routine clearance into an own goal.

Perhaps when it’s too late, you realize perfection is often sterile.

Human error is a part of the beautiful game.

For most of soccer’s history, fans accepted that referees would occasionally get things wrong. Sometimes those mistakes hurt. Sometimes they helped. Sometimes they became legendary stories repeated decades later in pubs, living rooms, and stadium parking lots. Then came VAR.

From helper to master

For anyone unfamiliar, VAR stands for video assistant referee. In simple terms, it is soccer’s version of instant replay on AI-infused steroids. A team of officials watches the game through cameras and can tell the referee to stop play and review decisions involving goals, penalties, red cards, and offside calls.

The idea sounds reasonable enough. Use technology to make the game fairer.

The reality has been something rather different.

A striker scores. The crowd erupts. Fans hug strangers. Drinks fly through the air. Somewhere, a man loses his glasses and another loses his mind. Then everyone waits. And waits. And waits.

A group of officials in a room filled with screens begin examining freeze-frames as if they were analyzing evidence from a murder investigation. Lines appear on the screen. Angles are checked. Pixels are interrogated. The striker’s left nostril may have wandered two millimeters beyond the last defender.

Two minutes later, the goal is disallowed. The stadium goes silent. What was once one of the most emotional moments in sports now comes with a mandatory waiting period. Every goal feels like it must survive an IRS audit before it can officially exist. VAR arrived to correct errors and corrected the joy out of the game instead.

RELATED: Top companies admit humans cost less than AI — but still want more bots

L-R: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg/Getty Images; Timothy Hurst/MediaNews Group/Denver Post/Getty Images

The suspense is gone. The spontaneity is gone. Fans now celebrate goals with the enthusiasm of someone waiting for a bank transfer to clear. Nobody knows whether they should cheer immediately or wait for the algorithmic overlords in the replay bunker to issue a ruling.

And now something similar may be coming to basketball.

Like clockwork

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver recently discussed plans to use AI-powered camera systems to automatically make certain officiating decisions, particularly objective calls like out-of-bounds plays. Cameras would surround the court, instantly determining who touched the ball last.

Many will argue that this will eliminate mistakes. Maybe. But sports are rarely damaged by too much humanity. If anything, they are usually damaged by too little. The danger isn’t that AI gets calls wrong, but that it gradually turns the game into a laboratory experiment in which every action is measured, verified, and approved by machines.

Today, it’s out-of-bounds calls. Tomorrow, it’s automatic travel violations. Next year? AI-generated foul probabilities. A few years after that, an algorithm to calculate whether a defender’s facial expression suggested illegal contact. At some point, the referee becomes less an official and more a highly paid hall monitor standing near a very expensive computer.

Basketball fans should pay attention, because technology rarely arrives with a modest appetite. Name one piece of tech that hasn’t colonized everything around it. Even something that began as small as a step counter now grades how you sleep. VAR will not be the exception.

The NBA undoubtedly has officiating problems. Every fan knows it. Every playoff game seems to produce a new controversy. But there’s a real difference between improving officiating and outsourcing the soul of the game.

Sports are compelling because humans play them and humans judge them. Players make mistakes. Coaches make mistakes. Referees make mistakes. Fans make mistakes too. I once bet a ridiculous sum on a United academy prospect I was sure would be the next Ronaldo. Last I checked, he was playing for a third-tier side somewhere in East Asia.

Perfection sounds appealing. Then one day, perhaps when it’s too late, you realize perfection is often sterile. This risk, now facing soccer and basketball, ultimately menaces all our sports. In our obsession with eliminating every error, we seem bent on eliminating everything that makes sports feel alive: all its unpredictable moments. Arguments, controversies, the stories people remember for decades.

Yes, once every decision is handed to a machine, the games may become more accurate. They will also become a lot less interesting, because they’ll be so much less human.

To me, at least, a world where nobody can scream at the referee from the couch hardly sounds like progress at all.

​Tech 

A 12-year-old boy and his 11-year-old sister were traumatized by two thugs who robbed their lemonade stand after threatening them with a gun, according to the kids’ father.

David Byrne said his two children were selling lemonade in their south Boston neighborhood when they were approached by two juveniles at 4:40 p.m. on Wednesday.

‘This is appalling; this is grotesque. This is something that should not happen to young kids.’

The juveniles said they wanted to buy lemonade but walked away after claiming they didn’t have any money. A few minutes later they returned, and one flashed a black gun in his waistband.

“My kids immediately just put their hands up and said, ‘Take whatever you want.’ So, I’m proud of my kids for that, and I’m proud of them for basically protecting each other but also being smart in that bad situation,” Byrne said to WBZ-TV.

The juveniles allegedly took all of the cash that the children had earned and fled on foot.

“This is appalling; this is grotesque. This is something that should not happen to young kids,” the father said to WHDH-TV.

“Can’t have a gun and can’t be robbing lemonade stands. It’s as easy as that,” he added.

He went on to say that the children were sad and a little bit disturbed by what happened.

Boston police said they were searching for the juveniles and that no arrests had been made. They did release video and images of suspects they believed to be the juveniles responsible for the armed robbery.

RELATED: Video captures man walking up to kids’ lemonade stand and running away after snatching their money

Boston Police Dept.

Residents of the neighborhood expressed their shock at the incident.

“It’s awful and scary and definitely something you don’t want to come home to after a night. It’s disappointing. I didn’t expect it on our street,” Suzanna Ruotolo said.

RELATED: Sponsor pulls out of Boise Pride Festival after outrage over ‘Drag Kid’ show with children as young as 11 years old

Boston City Councilor Ed Flynn said the residents were getting together to make sure the lemonade stand would reopen with the support of the community.

“Let’s show them how much love and support the Southie community has for them. It is also our understanding that 50% of proceeds will be donated to a local organization working to prevent gun violence,” Flynn said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Lemonade stand, Armed robbery, Boston, Juvenile crime, Crime 

“Accuracy comes before speed.” That was California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s message to voters in a press release issued two days after officials began counting ballots from June’s primary. In the same release, she reminded voters that the count could continue for up to 30 days after Election Day.

Weber argued that California is “taking the time to do this work correctly” to protect voters’ rights and ensure election integrity.

After 2022, 2024, and this year’s primary, the problem no longer looks like a glitch. It looks like a pattern created by poor policy choices.

She is right about one thing: Accuracy matters.

Every lawful ballot should be counted. Every voter should be confident that election officials will get the count right.

But a week after Election Day, California was still processing 1.4 million ballots under a system that routinely extends vote counting for days and sometimes weeks after voters cast their ballots.

That raises a question California’s leaders seem increasingly unwilling to answer: Why are voters repeatedly told they must choose between accurate elections and timely results?

This is not the first time California has found itself in this mess.

In 2022, several California congressional races remained unresolved long after Election Day while control of the U.S. House hung in limbo. Two years later, California took 38 days to certify its election results. Now in 2026, Californians are again waiting weeks after Election Day for final results.

The details change. The outcome does not. Californians keep waiting.

So why does this keep happening?

The answer starts with California election law. According to CalMatters, the delay is due in part to policies California adopted to make voting easier after the COVID-19 pandemic: Every registered voter receives a mail ballot, and ballots remain valid as long as they are postmarked by Election Day and arrive at county elections offices within seven days.

Election law expert Hans von Spakovsky has argued that California’s slow vote count is not an isolated incident or unexpected complication. It is the way the state’s election system is designed.

RELATED: ‘Fraudster’s paradise’: Feds plan to file election fraud charges in California

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

In other words, California is not experiencing an unexpected delay. It is experiencing the predictable results of the laws it chose.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) helped cement those policies in 2021 when he signed AB 37, making universal vote by mail permanent. His office promoted the law as “landmark elections legislation” that would expand vote by mail and strengthen election integrity.

Yet, Californians are now being sold the idea that waiting days or weeks for election results is simply the reality of modern elections.

It is not. It is the reality of California elections.

Timely results are part of election integrity. The longer ballots remain uncounted, the longer election officials must maintain secure chains of custody, verification systems, and storage. Delay does not automatically mean fraud. But delay does create more opportunities for confusion, suspicion, and avoidable controversy.

If California leaders want faster results, they should examine the policies that slow them down.

Instead, voters are told these delays are the unavoidable cost of administering elections in a large state. That explanation falls apart under scrutiny.

Look at Florida. The 2000 presidential election exposed serious weaknesses in that state’s election system. Legislators responded by reforming the state’s election administration and ballot-processing procedures.

Today, Florida is one of the fastest states in the country to report election results.

Florida allows election officials to begin processing mail ballots before Election Day, giving counties a head start on verification. The state also requires most mail ballots to be received by Election Day rather than days afterward. Voters whose signatures are missing or do not match generally have a much shorter window to fix those problems than California voters do.

Florida proves that accuracy and speed are not mutually exclusive.

California has chosen a different approach.

This is about more than administrative efficiency. In five months, Californians will return to the polls for the midterm election. Voters deserve confidence that the results will be accurate. They also deserve confidence that those results will arrive on time.

RELATED: Homeless people on Skid Row claim they were paid to vote — and not for Spencer Pratt

Mel Melcon/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Lawmakers should examine whether ballots should continue arriving after Election Day and still be counted. They should review whether lengthy ballot-curing timelines help voters or simply extend uncertainty. Election officials should also receive every opportunity to process ballots before Election Day so results can be reported faster once polls close.

Most important, California leaders should stop pretending accuracy and speed are enemies. Florida proves they are not.

Weber says accuracy comes before speed. California voters should ask why they cannot have both.

After 2022, 2024, and this year’s primary, the problem no longer looks like a glitch. It looks like a pattern created by poor policy choices.

California built an election process that can take a month after Election Day to resolve.

Voters should stop accepting that as normal.

​Accuracy, Ballots, California, Confidence, Election day, Florida, Primary, Secretary of state, Speed, Voters, Shirley weber, Fraud, Gavin newsom, Elections, Hans von spakovsky, Mail, Karen bass, Spencer pratt, Steve hilton, Los angeles, Tom steyer, Xavier becerra, Justice department, Investigation, Opinion & analysis 

The only things certain in life are death, taxes, and the permanence of a government program. But what happens when a private company turns its agenda into a government program?

You cannot build a more financially secure business model than permanence. That helps explain why OpenAI is now reportedly in discussions with the Trump administration about a possible public equity stake in the company.

Unlike the dot-com bubble, whose infrastructure later supported real economic growth, rotting data centers will not leave behind comparable public value.

After all, what else is a company with $1.4 trillion in obligations and only $14 billion in revenue supposed to do?

Why was OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Capitol Hill last week? According to the Financial Times, he was effectively selling Americans the rope to hang themselves. The plan proposed by OpenAI and other companies would reportedly create a sovereign-wealth-style fund into which AI companies would contribute equity so that the public could share in the sector’s soaring valuations.

That sounds generous until one remembers that this is still a loss-making sector built on staggering capital demands.

What is the rationale? Asked about equity stakes on Air Force One, President Trump suggested that “pieces” of AI companies could be “given to the American public” to quell growing alarm over the rapid rollout of the technology.

In other words, Americans are being asked to surrender farmland, neighborhood continuity, and the reliability of the electric grid to cloud-based, surveillance-enabling chatslop. In return, they may receive the honor of owning the losses from an insolvent business model.

The president confirmed the idea at a press conference on Wednesday, saying he would soon meet with “the top 12 or 15 executives” about “giving back something to the public.” He promised that “the public will become very rich.”

That promise should terrify everyone.

Once generative AI becomes a public project, the industry will move beyond “too big to fail.” Whatever happens to the companies or the broader sector, their success will become artificially and inextricably tied to the economy. Every government favor, subsidy, guarantee, and bailout will then be justified as necessary to protect the public’s stake.

RELATED: The AI boom is turning public meetings into crime scenes

Natalie Behring/Getty Images

Last November, OpenAI’s chief financial officer let the cat out of the bag when she said the company would need the government as a “backstop” for its business model. Sarah Friar later denied seeking a bailout. But a leaked 11-page letter from OpenAI to the Office of Science and Technology Policy urged the government to provide “grants, cost-sharing agreements, loans, or loan guarantees” to build America’s AI industrial base — all, naturally, to “compete with China.”

Fast-forward six months, and “backstop” now appears to mean a public “stake” in the company.

Everyone knows OpenAI’s generative AI model is unsustainable. It is built on unfathomably expensive capital expenditures for every token of AI usage.

Companies such as JPMorgan are reportedly finding that employees, after being pushed to use generative AI platforms such as ChatGPT and Claude, are spending more on tokens than their individual salaries. Uber’s chief technology officer said last month that the company burned through its entire 2026 budget for Claude Code and Cursor in just four months. In the irony of ironies, Microsoft itself reportedly told engineers in a major division to stop using an AI coding tool because the cost-to-utility ratio was not there.

The reality is that AI would work better through localized edge computing with low latency than through cloud-based hyperscale data centers that require unsustainable amounts of land, capital, resources, and power while causing other harms. China is producing cheap open-source AI. America is pouring concrete.

But the scale of that concrete — and all the materials, inputs, and power needed to support it — is unsustainable. Everyone knows it. Google, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle issued 47% more debt in the first five months of this year than they did from 2020 through 2024 combined. Total spending per capita now exceeds spending on the railroads in 1859, which at least served a clear public need that could be monetized over time.

RELATED: After fierce debate, Trump opts for federal controls in AI development

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

There is no amount of monthly household or business subscription fees that will make this investment break even. The costs will only increase because the model depends on a resource-stripping industrial footprint and GPUs that have few other useful functions and depreciate within a few years.

Unlike the dot-com bubble, whose infrastructure later supported real economic growth, rotting data centers will not leave behind comparable public value.

The tech companies, land developers, and venture capital firms understand that this is a Ponzi scheme. They are racing to take these companies public so that they can be folded into indexes, ensuring that trillions in pension funds are funneled into an unsustainable business model. Once that happens, even if a more efficient approach to AI becomes obvious, the economy and government will already be too dependent on the data center model to let it fail.

That is why these companies are also seeking federal land for their projects, a favor not extended to ordinary industries. SoftBank, the Japanese investment company trying to underwrite much of OpenAI’s speculative build-out, is reportedly pushing for a federal land project in Ohio to reduce costs. But banks are already balking at these ventures after SoftBank failed to secure a $6 billion loan for OpenAI.

Green energy taught us a simple lesson: When the only path to profitability runs through government favors, we should not start down that path.

OpenAI does not need a public stake. It needs public skepticism.

Americans should not be asked to subsidize a speculative industry, sacrifice land and power, and then call the bailout wealth creation. If AI companies cannot survive without government backstops, loan guarantees, public land, and pension-fund capture, then they are not building the future.

They are building the next permanent government program.

​Amazon, Artificial intelligence, Bailout, Chatgpt, China, Claude, Data centers, Debt, Economic growth, Electricity, Google, Grants, Loans, Meta, Microsoft, Openai, Opinion & analysis, Oracle, Ownership, Public property, Sam altman, Socialism, Softbank 

As election integrity debates continue to rage across California, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck believes state leaders are making a dangerous mistake: treating skepticism as a threat instead of addressing the concerns behind it.

“What’s happening in California is dangerous, and … if you can be reasonable and you can listen without the lens of your tribe, there is a way to an answer here. But nobody seems, especially on the left, nobody seems to want to actually fix the problem,” Glenn says.

“And so what do they want to do? They want to shut you up,” he adds, explaining that Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill that “said fines and jail time [for] three years if you are interfering with the election.”

“This particular penalty is aimed at people who physically walk off with boxes of ballots,” Glenn explains. “Listen to the language around it.”

“The governor wrote a letter telling his officials to ‘count fast’ so the ‘election lies’ don’t take hold. Stop and think about that for a second. Wait a minute. The chief executive of the largest state in the union has appointed himself the man who decides which doubts are lies,” he says.

“And in the same season, his allies pass a provision that tells election observers they may no longer challenge the signatures on the ballot they’re watching get counted. So, they didn’t criminalize your doubt. They did something quieter,” he continues. “They turned down the lights in the room where the counting happens. And you’re told it’s a conspiracy theory to ask, ‘Why did it get so dark?’”

Glenn explains that a glaring issue with this is that the government cannot ever “be the arbiter of truth.”

“Especially when the question on the table is about the government itself. You cannot let the accused run the evidence room,” he says.

“You’re accusing California of having fraud, and what do they do? They say, ‘No, we’re in charge.’ Right? You’re the one that everybody’s saying is causing the fraud, and they’re saying, ‘No, you can’t question because there’s no fraud,’” he continues. “That doesn’t help anything.”

“This is not a conservative idea or a liberal idea. It’s just how you keep a free people free,” he adds.

​Glenn beck, The blaze, Gavin newsom, California, Spencer pratt, Nithya raman, Karen bass, Governor, Mayor, Election fraud, The glenn beck program