The legacy media feverishly concern-mongered about COVID-19 and then tried unsuccessfully to generate similar hysteria over the gay-spread monkeypox virus.

Clearly desperate for a new health scare — especially after America formally rejected the World Health Organization — outlets seized upon reports of a deadly outbreak of hantavirus last month among passengers and crew of the MV Hondius, a Dutch cruise ship carrying 147 souls embarking from the southern tip of the Andes mountains in South America to the Canary Islands off the coast of Morocco.

‘We should shy away from making bold pronouncements that may prove dangerously misleading weeks or months later.’

While some publications rushed to attack emerging theories about the nature of the virus, including the notion that it was cooked up in a lab — narrative attacks that neglected to mention a recent gain-of function experiment involving hantaviruses — others pushed alarmist headlines such as:

“Is hantavirus the next COVID? Is the U.S. response on point? An outbreak update” — NPR“Why hantavirus is giving us a ‘sinking feeling,’ despite experts’ reassurance” — Canadian state media“Fears rat virus has spread to seven countries” — The Telegraph“Could human-transmitted hantavirus be the next pandemic threat?” — The Week“Hantavirus: Many unknowns surround an ‘unprecedented and worrying’ outbreak” — Le Monde

Despite provocative headlines and framing, many media outfits and experts have acknowledged that it is extremely unlikely that there will be a hantavirus epidemic, let alone a pandemic — though a news article at CNN cautioned against “calm-mongering” over hantavirus lest “post-COVID anxiety” be triggered.

A new article in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, for instance, emphasized that while the suspected variety of hantavirus on the MV Hondius “can cause severe disease, high case fatality, and intense public anxiety when they emerge in mobile or closed settings,” such “outbreaks are not frequent” and are “unlikely to become a global outbreak.”

Hantavirus is a family of potentially deadly single-stranded RNA viruses that are naturally found in rodents. Only 890 cases of hantavirus were reported in the U.S. between 1993 and 2023, 35% of them fatal.

RELATED: Bizarre academic paper about releasing ticks resurfaces amid surging bites

The MV Hondius. Omar Havana/Getty Images

When spread to humans, hantaviruses can cause two diseases: hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome — a condition affecting the kidneys — and hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, which affects the lungs.

The hantavirus affecting people on the MV Hondius, the HPS-associated Andes strain, is unique.

Whereas other strains leap from rodents to humans, the Andes virus — symptoms of which appear anywhere from four to 42 days after exposure — has been reported to transmit from person to person via saliva droplets and other oral fluids, although this transmission theory has not been definitively proven.

The breakout on the cruise ship, which has so far claimed the lives of three people, is hardly unprecedented in terms of alleged mass human transmissions of the disease — at least where South America is concerned.

From November 2018 through February 2019 in Chubut Province, Argentina, there was, for instance, a person-to-person outbreak that resulted in 34 confirmed infections and 11 deaths.

Amid continued uncertainty over the genesis of the latest outbreak and media fearmongering, a wide range of theories have emerged about the rodent-borne virus.

Having heard for years about the various efforts to enhance the transmissibility, virulence, or host range of certain viruses, some have speculated that human-to-human transmission of hantavirus points to gain-of-function experimentation.

While there’s been nothing yet to suggest that the virus responsible for the breakout on the Hondius was the result of intentional genetic meddling, scientists have previously modified viruses incorporating hantavirus components and increased their viral fitness in a lab setting. This is similar to the controversial work done on bat coronaviruses at the lab in Wuhan, China.

Hantaviruses are considered a bioagent requiring Biosafety Level 3 containment for research and viral propagation. Consequently, BSL-2 laboratories won’t cut it.

However, a peer-reviewed study funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in 2019 by the American Society for Microbiology describes how researchers developed a work-around for conducting hantavirus research in a lower biocontainment-security BSL-2 laboratory.

Researchers tried to make a safer chimeric virus — which is a hybrid virus created by piecing together parts of two different viruses. They used a relatively weaker virus, vesicular stomatis virus, as the main body, and then attached the entry proteins from the more dangerous hantavirus to the outside so that it could infiltrate and infect cells.

This new recombinant virus — the result of an artificial mash-up of genetic material — apparently started acting just like a real hantavirus and underwent a series of mutations to become more infective:

Serial passage of the rescued rVSV-HTNV Gn/Gc virus markedly increased its infectivity and capacity for cell-to-cell spread. This gain in viral fitness was associated with the acquisition of two point mutations: I532K in the cytoplasmic tail of Gn and S1094L in the membrane-proximal stem of Gc. Follow-up experiments with rVSVs and single-cycle VSV pseudotypes confirmed these results. Mechanistic studies revealed that both mutations were determinative and contributed to viral infectivity in a synergistic manner.

The lead researcher on the 2019 study declined Blaze News’ request for comment.

This study is anything but a smoking gun. Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have originated in the neighborhood of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where dangerous gain-of-function experiments were being conducted on coronaviruses, the Hondius outbreak seemingly took place a world away from this ostensibly low-danger hantavirus study.

Still, researchers have yet to provide a comprehensive and satisfying explanation for how the Andes virus spreads, prompting speculation that members of the scientific community that possibly manufactured the SARS-COV-2 virus are again not being entirely forthright about what they know and don’t know regarding the Hondius outbreak.

“Public health officials have to be more honest and more humble about how this virus actually spreads,” noted Joseph Allen, professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “An essential lesson from COVID is that officials should be candid about communicating that we are often learning in real time, and we should shy away from making bold pronouncements that may prove dangerously misleading weeks or months later.”

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

​Andes strain, Andes virus, Argentina, Epidemic, Gain in viral, Gain of function, Gain-of-function, Hantavirus, Hondius, Liberal media, Media, Outbreak, Outbreaks, Research, Rodent, Scaremongering, Science, Strain, Virus, Wuhan, Wuhan institute of virology, Politics 

Meta was one of the first tech giants to bring smart glasses to the mainstream market, thanks to a partnership with Ray-Ban. Unfortunately, Meta’s reputation for spying on users just landed a vicious blow to its hardware ambitions. According to a former business partner, Meta is secretly recording and saving everything its users see through its Meta Ray-Ban glasses, from simple outings to much more intimate encounters.

Sama says Meta is watching

The claim comes from Sama, a Kenyan-based AI company that partnered with Meta starting in 2017. According to its website, Sama helps train AI and machine learning models by annotating, validating, and evaluating large swaths of data. It’s also part of the Everest Group, an organization recognized by former President Clinton and the Clinton Foundation for outsourcing jobs to “underserved communities.” During their partnership, Sama provided moderation services to Meta that are no longer part of its business portfolio.

Privacy is more at risk now than ever.

In 2022, Sama filed a lawsuit against Meta over poor working conditions, unreasonable pay, poor mental health support for employees, and infringement on employee privacy. As part of their moderation partnership, some employees were forced to view and flag distressing content on Meta’s platforms, including murder and sex crimes involving minors. However, the companies continued to work together for many years, leading up to this year.

In April 2026, Sama employees filed new complaints expressing that they reviewed intimate footage captured by customers’ Meta Ray-Ban glasses. While not as graphic as the scenes from 2022, content included users visiting the bathroom, undressing in their bedrooms, and even engaging in private adult relations.

Weeks after these details emerged, Meta severed its contract with Sama, forcing its former partner to fire more than 1,000 staff members to account for the financial loss.

The worst part

It’s honestly hard to pick out the worst part of this story. Is it Meta’s alleged negligence of Sama’s employees? Is it the illegal content that requires human moderation on Meta’s platforms? Is it the fact that Sama continued to work with Meta, despite the poor conditions?

It’s all terrible. But looking at the story from a tech angle, it’s particularly disturbing that Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses captured footage and uploaded it directly to Meta’s servers to be saved and reviewed, especially when users weren’t aware this was happening. The news is a clear violation of user privacy, and it highlights Meta’s blatant lie that “you’re in control of your data and content.”

Clearly not.

RELATED: Trump phones begin shipping as liberal media melts down: ‘You got scammed’

Avishek Das/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

Meta’s privacy policies

The marketing drivel Meta pushes on a webpage is one thing though. What do its legally binding privacy policies say? Several times, the original policy mentions that humans may review user content for various purposes, especially to “combat harmful or unlawful behavior,” including scenes deemed to be troubling until a person reviews it and decides otherwise. The page reads:

The Meta products are designed to research and help ensure the safety, integrity, and security of those services and those people who enjoy them, on and off Meta products. We process information we have associated with you and apply automated processing techniques and, in some instances, conduct manual (human) review.

A second policy specifically for “supplemental Meta platforms” includes AI-powered smart glasses like Meta Ray-Ban. Under the photos, videos, and audio section, it states:

You can use the AI Glasses to take photos and video recordings with audio. … We will process your Media when you turn on cloud processing on your AI Glasses, interact with the Meta AI service on your AI Glasses, or upload your Media to certain services provided by Meta (i.e., Facebook or Instagram). You can change your choices about cloud processing of your Media at any time in Settings.

In other words, Meta Ray-Bans may process footage on Meta’s servers when cloud services are turned on, and this feature can be disabled in settings. Unfortunately, the only thing that mentions human review in the policy references audio processing for Meta VR products, like the Meta Quest. That means, as far as the supplemental privacy policy is concerned, Meta employees should not have the right to review footage captured on Meta Ray-Ban glasses.

Yet, Sama says it does.

Maybe don’t trust that camera on your face

Smart glasses are a niche product that haven’t fully caught on with the general public, and no one’s exactly sure how to feel about them. On one hand, smart glasses can be used for noble causes, like making the streets safer from illegal aliens and criminals. On the other, it opens Pandora’s box for mass surveillance of the American people. Clearly, Meta is choosing the latter, even if it doesn’t say it out loud.

The moral of the story is that Meta Ray-Ban glasses can’t be trusted, whether you wear a pair yourself or you know someone who does. These devices can record everything they see, with that footage accessible to third-party contractors and Meta employees.

Of course, this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone familiar with Meta’s business practices. The company has found itself in plenty of privacy-related legal trouble over the years, from WhatsApp’s questionable encryption to its now-defunct Onavo Protect VPN data-tracking scandal, and more.

At their core, Meta Ray-Bans are intrusive with huge privacy implications for their users and the people around them. This is the same problem Google Glass faced more than a decade ago, and now that extended reality glasses are on the rise again, privacy is more at risk now than ever.

​Meta, Ray-ban, Surveillance, Privacy, Tech 

Incumbent Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass bewildered many when the Democrat made an impassioned statement about fixing the rotting teeth of methamphetamine addicts.

Bass made the comments while campaigning for re-election at a candidate forum on the homelessness crisis.

‘They don’t have teeth. Why? Because meth rots your teeth!’

“How many people who are unhoused that you meet have no teeth at all? They don’t have teeth. Why? Because meth rots your teeth,” she said.

“You can’t succeed without teeth,” she added. “So there needs to be comprehensive health care provided to people.”

Bass was immediately hounded by critics who saw the crazed comments as emblematic of Democratic policies.

“Yes, we want our f**king taxes paying for dope heads to get teeth. How could this get any worse? God please, intervene,” reads one response on the X platform.

“Once they get those new choppers, they will become successful, gainfully employed, model citizens. It’s like Magic Teeth. If only we had known this sooner,” another user replied.

“Think of all the people in LA that aren’t drug addicts that need dental care and she’s not doing anything for them,” another critic said.

Homelessness was a main focus of the mayor’s main competitor, former reality TV star Spencer Pratt.

In a popular clip from the mayoral debate, Pratt mocked the homeless policies espoused by Bass and far-left candidate Nithya Raman, a former ally to Bass and a city councilwoman.

“The reality is, no matter how many beds you give these people, they are on super meth. They are on fentanyl,” Pratt explained.

RELATED: TMZ tries to nuke Spencer Pratt’s mayoral campaign — and gets bitten in the Bass

“The DEA statistic says 93% of this is a drug addiction problem,” he added. “I will go below the Harbor Freeway tomorrow with [Raman], and we can find some of these people she’s going to offer treatment for. She’s going to get stabbed in the neck!”

While the most recent polling showed Bass still in the lead, Pratt is firmly in second place, and he received the greatest gain among all candidates since the last polling in March.

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

​Karen bass, Rotting meth teeth, Spencer pratt, Los angeles mayoral election, Politics 

A particular species of Christian now flourishes in America. I call him the “wet noodle Christian.”

He is easy to recognize. He attends Bible studies, laments the moral collapse of the nation over coffee after church, and speaks with deep concern about the culture. But ask whether Christians should publicly oppose evil or contend for the moral direction of society, and he recoils as though you had proposed human sacrifice.

When Jesus taught believers to turn the other cheek, he addressed personal vengeance, not civilizational surrender.

“Oh, I don’t get involved in politics,” he says.

Or: “The world is supposed to get worse anyway.”

Or, with special confidence: “Jesus told us to turn the other cheek.”

He says all this as though Christian ethics can be reduced to the consistency of warm pudding.

This attitude springs partly from biblical illiteracy, partly from a successful Marxist strategy, and entirely from sin.

Biblical confusion

Christians often invoke the crucifixion as though Christ’s death requires believers to become passive spectators while evil marches through every institution of society. That confuses the unique work of Christ with the ordinary duties of Christians.

Christ’s death was the once-for-all atoning sacrifice of the Lamb of God. No Christian is called to redeem the world by offering himself as a substitute for sin. That office belongs to Christ alone. Nor did Christ go unwillingly or by force.

During his earthly ministry, Jesus rebuked sin, denounced hypocrisy, drove money changers from the temple with a whip, and told adulteresses to stop sinning. Hardly the behavior of a celestial yoga instructor murmuring therapeutic affirmations beside a Himalayan stream.

When Jesus taught believers to turn the other cheek, he addressed personal vengeance, not civilizational surrender. The command restrains sinful retaliation. It does not abolish justice, civil authority, or moral responsibility.

The same Christ who taught mercy also stands behind Romans 13, where the civil magistrate bears the sword as a minister of God against evil. The same Jesus appears in Psalm 2 as the enthroned king while rebellious rulers “take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed.”

The biblical picture is one of advance, not retreat.

In the Great Commission, Jesus does not tell Christians to preserve their private religious feelings until death mercifully arrives. He commands them to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that he has commanded.

One searches the text in vain for the line: “Go therefore and quietly lose every institution while avoiding conflict.”

And here the second problem appears: Marxists understood the wet noodle instinct long before many Christians did.

RELATED: Adults are refusing to grow up, and their children are paying the price

Matt Stroshane/Walt Disney World Resort/Getty Images

Marxist subversion

For roughly 70 years, leftist media, academic institutions, and entertainment industries have carefully catechized Christians into believing that public Christianity is somehow immoral.

Christians were told that bringing moral convictions into public life is divisive. They were taught that the First Amendment requires a functionally atheist public square, though this alleged neutrality somehow never excludes progressive secular dogmas. The Christian could privately believe whatever he wished, provided he kept it quarantined like a contagious disease.

Meanwhile, the left marched through the institutions with all the subtlety of Sherman marching through Georgia.

One suspects many Marxists privately thought: “I cannot believe how easy this is.”

They taught Christians that offending anyone is the supreme moral evil, that strength itself is suspicious, that certainty is oppressive, and that masculinity is toxic. They insisted public Christianity was dangerous, and most Christians agreed to stop speaking publicly.

The remarkable thing is not that Marxists advanced their agenda. The remarkable thing is that so many Christians surrendered before the battle even began.

Part of this surrender also comes from bad eschatology, the notion that Christians should expect inevitable defeat in history. If collapse is certain, why resist anything? Why build institutions? Why fight corruption? Why educate children? Why preserve civilization?

This mentality looks far more like ancient Israel than faithful Christianity.

The Old Testament repeatedly shows Israel absorbing the gods and practices of surrounding nations, surrendering covenant distinctiveness, and then coming under divine judgment. Defeatism was never treated as humility. It was treated as faithlessness. One can almost hear an ancient pagan telling his Israelite neighbor that the Temple sacrifices and the Law of Moses are simply not nice.

The New Testament continues the theme. Hebrews 12 reminds believers that God disciplines his people for their good, though “for the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant.” Divine chastening does not mean abandonment. It means fatherly correction.

Perhaps America is living through precisely such discipline now.

RELATED: New book from Eric Metaxas shares the American Revolution’s forgotten Christian roots

ericmetaxas.com

Recovering the truth

Many Christians anxiously avoid offending anyone while ignoring Christ’s explicit command to disciple the nations. They have become highly obedient to a command Jesus never gave — be inoffensive at all costs — while neglecting the one he did give.

Christians often speak as though courage belongs to secular revolutionaries, while faith belongs to timid people waiting for evacuation. But biblically, faith grounds courage because faith rests on the certainty of Christ’s victory.

Christ will have the nations as his inheritance. The gospel will go into all the world. Faith lives here and now in light of what we know will be then and there.

The Great Commission is not a suggestion to attempt cultural survival until the batteries die. It is a declaration of conquest grounded in Christ’s authority: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Matthew 28:18).

All authority. Not partial authority pending polling data.

The remedy for the wet noodle Christian, therefore, is not anger, resentment, or partisan hysteria. It is the courage of faith.

Christians must recover confidence that truth is true, that Christ reigns now, and that obedience does not become optional simply because it provokes pushback. They must stop confusing passivity with holiness and cowardice with kindness.

Above all, they must understand the strategy that has been used against them. The first step in losing a civilization is convincing its defenders that defending it is somehow unchristian.

​Marxists, America, Jesus christ, American christians, Christians, First amendment, Great commission, Bible, Opinion & analysis 

After winning the 2024 Republican primary for Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District, Rep. Thomas Massie cleaned up in the general election, securing 99.6% of the vote. Yet his political career still may not survive 2026.

The MIT-trained engineer proceeded to force the issue of the Jeffrey Epstein files’ release, speak out against the joint U.S.-Israeli entanglement in Iran, and pad his 86.79% lifetime Turning Point Action score. He also managed to once again draw the ire of President Donald Trump, who faulted Massie for being “an automatic ‘NO’ vote on just about everything.”

Months after vowing in March 2025 to “lead the charge” against Massie, Trump officially named his champion: Navy SEAL veteran Ed Gallrein.

The final polls conducted before the primary election indicate the race is virtually deadlocked.

Gallrein — who not only enjoys the president’s backing but the support of numerous powerful individuals and organizations, including War Secretary Pete Hegseth, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — is now poised to possibly oust Massie from the congressional seat he has held since 2012.

As he is running on a platform textually similar to Massie’s, Gallrein has endeavored to distinguish himself from his competitor online and in rallies — but not in a debate — largely in terms of his relationship with Trump.

RELATED: Massie takes aim at AIPAC with new bill about Nazi-era law

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

Gallrein has called Massie both a “turncoat” and a “roadblock to the America First agenda,” noting, for instance, that Massie:

Opposed the U.S. entanglement with Iran; Voted against a stopgap spending bill to keep the government funded; Voted against a resolution the congressman said would unhelpfully equate “anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism”; and Voted against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which the congressman said would “significantly increase U.S. budget deficits in the near term, negatively impacting all Americans through sustained inflation and high interest rates.”

Gallrein has shared a graphic stating that Massie also voted against the SAVE America Act, even though the congressman voted against a particular rule then ultimately voted to pass the legislation.

Unlike Massie, who has apparently failed to toe the line and has been characterized in attack ads as “cheating with ‘the Squad’ on the America First movement,” Gallrein has emphasized he will alternatively “stand with President Trump and put American first.”

Vice President JD Vance has likewise said that Massie ultimately is not helpful for the Republican Party.

“Being independent, having your own opinions is one thing,” Vance said at a TPUSA event six months ago. “Voting against the party on every single issue, you’re eventually going to make too many enemies. And that is the problem that Thomas has had. It’s not one issue. It’s not three or four issues. It’s that every time that we’ve needed Thomas for a vote, he has been completely unwilling to provide it.”

The final polls conducted before the primary election indicate the race is virtually deadlocked.

A Neighborhood Research poll published on Friday found that the candidates were tied but that Gallrein “seems to be surging as the election comes to a close.”

The poll found that Massie enjoyed a dominant 47-30 advantage among voters under 50, whereas Gallrein was leading 46-17 among women ages 50 and older. Men in the older cohort were split evenly between the two candidates.

The Public Polling Project also released a poll on Friday, this time finding that Massie led Gallrein among all likely voters 50.6% to 49.4%.

According to AdImpact, the battle between Gallrein and Massie for Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District is the most expensive House primary on record, with $32.6 million spent on advertising.

The Republican Jewish Coalition has reportedly spent $4 million on ads supporting Gallrein. The AIPAC super PAC United Democracy Project has spent another $2.6 million helping Trump’s champion.

In light of injections of cash into the primary battle by these and other pro-Israel groups, Massie has framed the race as a referendum on whether “Israel gets to buy seats in Congress.”

Massie and pro-Massie groups Kentucky 4th PAC and Kentucky First PAC have also dumped a fortune into ads, including an ad accusing Gallrein of being “bought and paid for by the LGBTQ mafia.”

A victory of Gallrein over Massie would be another scalp for Trump, who just in the past few weeks has seen crushing primary defeats for the Indiana state senators who defied him on redistricting and for Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who voted to convict Trump on impeachment articles related to January 6.

Trump noted in a Truth Social post on Monday, “The Great People of Kentucky are wise to Massie — He only votes against the Republican Party, making life very easy for the Radical Left. Unlike ‘lightweight’ Massie, a totally ineffective LOSER who has failed us so badly, CAPTAIN ED GALLREIN IS A WINNER WHO WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN.”

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

​America first agenda, Donald trump, Jeffrey epstein files, Pete hegseth, Republican primary, Thomas massie, Israel, Aipac, Kentucky, Congress, Congressional, Politics, Ed gallrein 

As Britain cracks down on free speech and heightens surveillance measures, it’s becoming a cautionary tale for the rest of the Western world — one that Tommy Robinson has experienced firsthand.

“They wanted us isolated, they wanted us alone, wanted total control, which they had. Total control. I was invisible,” Robinson tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, explaining that the media in the U.K. has branded him as one of the “far-right, racist, extremist agitators who are intent on violence.”

“You couldn’t even mention my name … deleted from society for daring to show — and what was I showing? The problems of mass open-border immigration,” Robinson says.

“Why do they want to hide it?” he asks. “Because it lays at their feet.”

And U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s latest ad is only proving Robinson right.

“This is our country with a majority who share those values. A majority who may not always be as loud but must always define who we are. So my government will not stand in the way of peaceful protest,” Starmer said, adding, “But we will act decisively against hatred.”

“We will use the full force of the law when that hatred manifests as violence. And we will ban those coming into the U.K. who seek to stir it up as we have done already because this country belong to all of us, and I will not tolerate anyone who seeks to stand in the way of that,” Starmer finished.

Robinson notes that Starmer has already made his last few points in the video crystal clear.

“After the 2024 riots … he politicized the judiciary, weaponized the media, and he sent mothers to jail for 31 months for tweets. He sent Peter Lynch, a grandfather, to jail, who has died in jail. He sent innocent people to jail,” he explained, noting that Starmer did it to “instill fear in the British public.”

“The problem he’s got is he didn’t instill fear. It lit a fire in the heart of us. … This is a battle for the soul of this nation, and it’s a battle he’s going to lose. He’s losing,” he continues, adding, “They’re losing. We’re winning the hearts and minds of the public whether he likes it or not.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Ban, Britain, Country, Extremist, Far right, Free speech, Hatred, Immigration, Judiciary, Keir starmer, Law, Media, Protest, Racist, Surveillance, The glenn beck program, Tommy robinson, Uk, Violence, Western world 

A major media company wants to expand while making a clearer commitment to free speech. You would think that would cheer any American who still believes in the First Amendment.

Instead, Democrats are furious.

That authoritarian impulse, not Ellison’s support for Trump, is the real free-speech crisis in America.

In April, Paramount CEO David Ellison hosted a dinner celebrating the First Amendment. That was no coincidence. Paramount, and Ellison in particular, have long signaled support for free expression. Yet Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) responded by branding Ellison an “oligarch” and vowing to break up “anti-consumer” media companies “into pieces.”

Apparently, supporting free speech while maintaining ties across the political divide now qualifies as anti-consumer.

The real source of Democratic outrage is not some abstract concern for consumers. It is Paramount’s planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. That deal could create a stronger competitor to Netflix and other streaming giants while opening more space for content that does not conform to left-wing orthodoxy.

That possibility has set off alarms on the left.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), fresh off the permanent closure of Spirit Airlines after helping sink its proposed merger with JetBlue, posted on X last week that “we need to block this merger and break up monopolies everywhere.” Reps. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) both members of the House Financial Services Committee, tried to pressure Paramount out of the deal. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said his office would launch a “vigorous” investigation into Paramount and WBD.

None of this should surprise anyone. Democrats routinely use regulatory power to punish people and companies that support free speech.

The Biden administration pressured Facebook and what was then Twitter to suppress content that challenged Democratic talking points. Censored subjects included election integrity and the origins of COVID-19.

Elon Musk bought Twitter, renamed it X, and made it more open to speech the left dislikes. Democrats came after him too, including efforts to strip him of federal contracts. Meanwhile, criminals set Tesla vehicles on fire and torched dealerships in several states. This is the same Tesla that, as the Associated Press noted, “was once the darling of the left.”

The pattern extends well beyond social media and corporate regulation.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry complained that the First Amendment is “a major block” to stamping out so-called disinformation.

RELATED: The trial lawyers come for online free speech

BigNazik/iStock/Getty Images

On college campuses, the divide is even clearer. A 2017 Cato Institute study found major differences between Democrats and Republicans on allowing controversial or offensive speakers to appear on campus. Even on issues where Republicans might be expected to take greater offense, Cato found that Democrats were still more likely to support canceling the speaker.

That result fits the broader Democratic instinct. Free speech is welcome only when it serves the approved narrative. Once it threatens left-wing control over public discourse, it becomes dangerous, irresponsible, or anti-consumer.

That is what this fight over Paramount and WBD is really about.

If the merger succeeds, Paramount Skydance could become a more serious rival to the dominant streaming platforms. That competition could improve content and lower prices. But none of that matters to Democrats if Ellison is politically aligned with Trump and if the merged company might distribute material that leans right.

The left does not fear monopoly in principle. It fears losing its monopoly on the narrative.

Democrats have been losing ground at the ballot box and in the arena of ideas for years. Rather than examine why, they blame “disinformation” and target companies that refuse to toe the line.

That authoritarian impulse, not Ellison’s support for Trump, is the real free-speech crisis in America.

​Ballot box, Biden administration, Chris murphy, College campuses, Disinformation, Elizabeth warren, Elon musk, First amendment, John kerry, Opinion & analysis, Paramount skydance, Social media, Tim huelskamp, Warner bros discovery 

The Democratic members of the city council in Portland, Maine, lamented with the mayor that their sanctuary city policies were powerless to actually stop federal agents.

Democratic Portland Mayor Mark Dion touted the city for its previous efforts to protect illegal immigrants before admitting that they were limited legally from stopping Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations completely.

‘They don’t have any sense of what they’re supposed to do; they just go out and do things impulsively and destructively.’

Video of the meeting from May 4 resurfaced on social media and went viral.

Dion opposed a new proposal that would put the obligation of opposing ICE on city employees, but he said his opposition had nothing to do with partisan politics.

“Where I do have a fundamental disagreement is the nature of our employees,” the mayor said. “My sense of it [is] if they want to come, they’re coming.”

He went on to call the new policy “magical” thinking that would stop ICE.

“There’s a supposition that if we have this as an ordinance, that somehow ICE is gonna move on. That’s silly,” the mayor said.

“In my mind, that’s an interesting magical thought. My conclusion is they don’t have any sense of what they’re supposed to do; they just go out and do things impulsively and destructively,” he added. “The existence of this particular couple of sentences is not gonna change their equation. I’m confident of that.”

Dion was pressured by City Councilman Pious Ali, the Democratic author of the motion, that they had not done enough to protect staff as well as immigrants from ICE.

“If we don’t have a very strong protection for our staff and our community, nobody can predict what they can do,” Ali said.

The mayor disagreed.

“If that’s the case, if in your heart you understand that ICE is gonna do what ICE is gonna do, then why do we have to have our staff controlled under the guise of an order and an ordinance, other than for political purposes?” Dion continued. “As a pragmatic purpose, it’s not gonna deter ICE.”

Despite the mayor’s exhortations, the order passed 7-1.

“There you go,” the mayor said.

RELATED: Man served time for threatening to kill Trump — then gets arrested for more alleged threats against Trump

While Portland City Council members don’t have to designate their political affiliation, none are registered Republicans. All council members that have a political affiliation are either Democrats or democratic socialists.

Portland officials previously expressed their outrage at ICE operations in the city, and Councilman Wes Pelletier went so far as to call it a “war of terror” on immigrants. Pelletier is a member and leader of the Democratic Socialists of America.

The full video of the city council meeting from May 4 can be viewed on the Portland city website.

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

​Portland maine city council, Portland mayor mark dion, Democrats vs ice, Sanctuary city policies, Politics 

The remains of a 23-year-old Alabama woman who had been missing for more than a week were found Saturday, and a male was charged with abuse of a corpse in connection with her death, AL.com reported.

Karen Deann Hollis vanished May 8 from Northport, the outlet reported, adding that Hollis was last seen around midnight in the area of 43rd Avenue in Northport.

‘Multiple search warrants were executed, and a great deal of physical, witness, and electronic information was obtained.’

Northport police said Hollis at the time of her disappearance was believed to have been living with a condition that could impair her judgment, AL.com added.

The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency issued a missing person alert in connection with her disappearance, the outlet said.

Tuscaloosa Violent Crimes Unit Capt. Jack Kennedy said the initial investigation led detectives to believe that foul play may have been involved, AL.com reported, adding that the violent crimes unit and Northport police have been working together on the case.

A person of interest was developed last week, but the victim still had not been located, AL.com reported.

But family and friends located Hollis’ remains on Saturday while searching an area determined to be of interest based on information received from an electronic device, the outlet said.

Kennedy said Hollis’ remains were recovered in Greene County, AL.com reported, adding that the Greene County Sheriff’s Office, Greene County District Attorney’s Office, and Greene County coroner assisted in the recovery of the remains.

“The investigation has been a priority for both agencies,” Kennedy said, according to the outlet. “Multiple search warrants were executed, and a great deal of physical, witness, and electronic information was obtained.”

The male identified last week as the person of interest — 44-year-old Randall Lendell Dejourney — was taken into custody, the outlet said.

RELATED: Manhunt under way for man seen dragging a body away before woman was found stabbed to death, police say

Dejourney is charged with abuse of a corpse, AL.com reported, adding that he was booked into the Tuscaloosa County Jail with a bond set at $15,000. A jail official on Monday afternoon told Blaze News that Dejourney was still behind bars.

Kennedy said Hollis’ remains have been sent to the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences for an autopsy to determine the cause and manner of her death, AL.com reported.

The investigation is ongoing, and more charges could be brought following the autopsy results, the outlet added.

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

​Alabama, Missing woman, Remains found, Abuse of corpse, Arrest, Crime