Singer-songwriter Talay Riley, who worked with Dua Lipa, Britney Spears and Zendaya amongst many others, has died after he was stabbed in London. He was 35.
The post Talay Riley, Grammy-Winning Singer-Songwriter, Stabbed to Death in London appeared first on Breitbart.
An actor who has long been rumored as the next James Bond has finally put his cards on the table.
During an interview in GQ, Idris Elba stopped talking about how hates interviews long enough to discuss the future of the iconic franchise.
'In realistic terms, some markets just don't go for that.'
The 53-year-old Brit began by addressing the more than a decade of speculation that he would take over the role from Daniel Craig — making him the first-ever black 007.
"It was never legit. It was always just a rumor," Elba told the outlet.
License to chillThe London-born Elba, whose mother and father hail from Ghana and Sierra Leone, respectively, said that fans simply took the rumor and ran with it.
"I've always felt that it's not a realistic thing," Elba continued. "James Bond was written how he was written for a reason. But I was complimented by it."
Elba suggested that for many fans, Bond's white, Anglo-Saxon ancestry is part of what makes him Bond.
"[S]ome markets just don't go for that," he said. "Bond is big all over the world. And [audiences] won't [all] go for a black male, an African male, playing Bond. That's not what they like in their culture. Period."
While Elba — whose full legal name is Idrissa Akuna Elba — said he was not opposed to other attempts to revamp Bond to appeal to modern audiences, he said he would draw the line at anything "woke."
RELATED: Iconic actress tells 'James Bond' star to his face: 'James Bond has to be a guy'
Mike Marsland/Getty Images/Omega
Shaken, not stirred"Bond is so unrealistic, so a hint of reality is good, but let's not try and make it woke," Elba told the magazine. "I think you've got to be pure to what it is: escapism. Don't try and answer the world's taste. Just be Bond."
Elba is far from the only A-lister to come to Bond's defense. Last year, while doing press for "The Thursday Murder Club" with former Bond actor Pierce Brosnan, Helen Mirren shut down his musing that it was time for a woman to take on the role. "I'm such a feminist, but James Bond has to be a guy. You can't have a woman. It just doesn't work," said Mirren.
Brosnan, who played the spy in four films from 1995 to 2002, had previously suggested the recasting in September 2019. "Get out of the way, guys, and put a woman up there," Brosnan said at the time.
RELATED: Top 5 women who fought back when coming face-to-face with crooks
Keith Hamshere/Getty Images
Agents of changeMuch of the impetus to change Bond's sex or ethnicity seems to come from the white males who have played him.
In 2008, just two years into his tenure as Bond, Daniel Craig opined that the next actor to play the spy should be black.
"If we can have a black U.S. president, we can have a black James Bond," Craig said after Barack Obama's election, per the Daily Mail.
Craig, who went on to play Bond for another 13 years, presumably meant when he was finished with the role.
The most recent actor to portray James Bond was Irishman Patrick Gibson, who portrayed and voiced the video game character of Bond in 007 First Light (2026).
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Where's Kamala Harris braying, "We did it, Joe!"
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — the law that allows the government to spy on foreign targets overseas, including their communications with Americans — has a looming deadline.
Supporters call it essential to national security. Critics call it "Big Brother."
'FISA needs serious reform. Full stop.'
The House Freedom Caucus launched a #DontSpyOnMe campaign, demanding, in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, a warrant before the government can query Americans' data in Section 702 collection.
Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas), one of the effort's loudest voices, was blunt on X: "The government has no right to your private communications without a warrant. FISA needs serious reform. Full stop."
"The Freedom Caucus is America First more than anyone else, as far as I'm concerned," Self added.
RELATED: The FBI should get a warrant before reading your messages
Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images
For most Democrats, the objection isn't about the law itself — it's about who Trump tapped to oversee the intelligence agencies involved with it.
On June 2, Trump named Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence — the official who oversees all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies. Pulte replaces Tulsi Gabbard, who announced she was resigning effective June 30. Confirmed as Federal Housing Finance Agency director in March 2025, Pulte will hold both roles simultaneously.
When pressed on Pulte's lack of any intelligence or national security experience, Trump was unfazed. "I think he does, actually, because he's smart," he said. "I wasn't greatly experienced in national security, and I think I've done a really great job with it."
At the FHFA, Pulte referred several anti-Trump Democrats and government officials — including New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), and Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook — to the Justice Department for alleged fraud.
The Government Accountability Office opened an investigation into whether Pulte misused federal authority to do so. As DNI, critics argue, he would have far more power to continue targeting Democrats.
The backlash to his appointment was swift and bipartisan. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) put it plainly: "We don't need a weaponized DNI. We need professionals there," and the Senate voted 47-52 against a motion to proceed on the FISA extension, with six Republicans crossing the aisle to kill it.
Punchbowl News reported that Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) privately warned Thune: no Pulte withdrawal, no Democratic votes for FISA.
Trump, for his part, has pushed for a clean extension — but finds himself boxed in on all sides.
Congress has already passed two short-term extensions of the surveillance program this spring — the last one, in April, bought just 45 days.
Something has to give before June 12 — the White House blinks on Pulte, the Freedom Caucus gets its warrant requirement, or Congress slaps on another emergency patch.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Rob Reiner’s son Nick Reiner is seeking unpaid money from a trust his parents established for him, saying he needs it to help in his defense against charges that he killed them.
The post Nick Reiner Demands Access to $1.5 Million Trust Fund to Hire Lawyer as He Faces Charges of Murdering His Parents appeared first on Breitbart.
British lawmakers have condemned the apparent attempted beheading on the streets of Belfast as "sickening", "barbaric", and "medieval" as police announced the arrest of a man thought to be from Somalia.
The post Lawmakers Condemn ‘Medieval’ and ‘Barbaric’ Belfast Attack, Leftists Warn of ‘Far-Right’ Backlash appeared first on Breitbart.
The Department of Justice has now launched an investigation into Arizona State University over its “diversity, equity, and inclusion” practices. The probe will examine whether ASU has subjected students to illegal discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin through its DEI policies in admissions, recruitment, scholarships, tutoring, and educational support.
That news did not surprise me.
Universities constantly speak the language of ‘inclusion,’ but they do not want disagreement. They want compliance.
For years, many of us who work inside higher education have watched American universities become captive to a worldview that divides human beings into permanent categories of oppressor and oppressed. These ideologies present themselves as enlightened and compassionate, but underneath the slogans is something much uglier.
They claim to fight racism, in effect, by being racist.
That is not rhetorical excess. It is the actual logic of these programs. If you are told that your moral standing is shaped by your race, if students are sorted into categories of guilt and grievance based on ancestry, if “equity” means treating people differently because of their race, then the old evil has simply been repackaged in new academic language.
I know this from experience.
The Arizona Supreme Court has now agreed to hear my case against Arizona State University and the Arizona Board of Regents over ASU’s required DEI training. My challenge began because ASU forced employees to take its “inclusive communities” training.
The training, in some cases produced by Starbucks (I kid you not), told employees how to think about race, guilt, power, and identity, and it required assent to predetermined “correct” answers. I could not in good conscience affirm teachings that judged people by skin color, ethnic identity, gender, religion, and geography.
The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to hear my case goes to the heart of whether state universities can force employees into ideological training that violates state law and basic principles of equal treatment. Arizona law prohibits public schools, including universities, from using curriculum that engages in race blame.
The issue is technical in legal form, but simple in moral substance: When a public university imposes unlawful race-based ideology, does anyone have the right to challenge it?
RELATED: The left doesn’t like it when minorities think for themselves
Jemal Countess/Getty Images for MoveOn
That question should never have had to be asked. But that is where our universities are.
The takeover has been so comprehensive that many campuses no longer even recognize dissent as legitimate. Faculty culture is overwhelmingly leftist (97% at ASU identify as left-wing). The ideological imbalance among professors is staggering. Conservatives, Christians, and others who reject the reigning orthodoxy are rarely hired, and when they are hired, they are often isolated or pressured into silence.
Universities constantly speak the language of “inclusion,” but they do not want disagreement. They want compliance.
When someone objects, the mask slips. The same faculty and administrators who preach compassion suddenly become contemptuous when the dissenter is someone outside the progressive fold. The slogans about empathy disappear and the sneering begins.
That is because DEI is not really about inclusion. It is about power.
Its basic framework is the old Marxist oppressor-oppressed dialectic, merely translated into race, gender, and sexuality categories. Students are taught to see the world through this lens from their first days on campus. The university no longer helps students pursue truth. It trains them to become activists for a ready-made ideology.
The ugly irony at the center of it all is that students are charged tens of thousands of dollars in tuition to sit in classrooms where they are instructed by self-appointed champions of the oppressed, many of whom enjoy comfortable salaries and taxpayer support while lecturing others about systems of injustice.
The university administrator or professor who denounces oppression does so while cashing a government-backed paycheck and enforcing ideological conformity inside a vast institutional bureaucracy.
That is not liberation. It is a racket.
The federal investigation into ASU is important not only for Arizona but for the whole country. The era of automatic deference to DEI bureaucracies may be ending.
If government investigators are asking whether ASU’s programs have crossed the line into unlawful discrimination, then other universities should be asking themselves the same question. How many scholarships, support programs, admissions initiatives, and training sessions around the country are doing precisely what civil-rights law was supposed to forbid?
The answer, I suspect, is many.
American universities have largely abandoned the idea that education is the pursuit of truth, beauty, and goodness. In its place they have installed a therapeutic political religion in which redemption comes through identity confession, public denunciation, and endless activism.
The categories of the system are fixed: Someone must be blamed, someone must be oppressed, and the institution itself must always pose as the righteous mediator.
RELATED: The answer to university decline is hiding in plain sight
Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
The ideology has spread far beyond the office door. It lives in the curriculum, in hiring, in faculty trainings, and in the language administrators use to describe their mission. It is the very institutionalized bigotry that it claims to oppose.
What is needed now is moral reform and clarity.
Public universities should not be in the business of teaching students or employees to judge one another by race. They should not use tax dollars to promote theories that blame individuals for the sins of categories. And they certainly should not punish or marginalize those who object.
The Justice Department’s investigation into ASU and the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to hear my case are both signs that resistance is possible. But much more is needed.
Americans must recover the courage to say plainly what too many in higher education have forgotten: Racism does not become justice when wrapped in the language of equity, and discrimination does not become virtue when blessed by a university bureaucracy.
Police have arrested a Sudanese male on suspicion of attempted murder after what has been called an attempted beheading.
The post ‘Sudanese’ Male Arrested After Attempted ‘Beheading’ in Belfast appeared first on Breitbart.
Recently, The Wellness Company announced a first of its kind human observational study of the off-label use of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in the treatment of cancer was published by the Anticancer Research Journal.
The post Major Cancer Research Breakthrough: Ivermectin Study Published in Anticancer Research Journal appeared first on Breitbart.
Bill Maher slammed the establishment press for "mischaracterizing" what slain conservative icon Charlie Kirk actually believed. "I liked him as a person," Maher said of Kirk. "I do not think he was a monster."
The post Bill Maher Slams Mainstream Media for ‘Mischaracterizing’ Charlie Kirk: ‘I Liked Him, I Don’t Think He was a Monster’ appeared first on Breitbart.