Aggregator

House Votes to End DHS Shutdown

6 days ago
After weeks of delay, the House voted Thursday to fund much of the Department of Homeland Security, but not its immigration enforcement operations, and send the bipartisan package to President Donald Trump to sign, ending the longest agency shutdown in history. The White ...

Jimmy Kimmel doubles down on Melania ‘widow’ jab — will this be the nail in his coffin?

6 days ago


On April 23, just two days before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Jimmy Kimmel released a skit parodying the event, during which he joked that Melania Trump had "a glow like an expectant widow.”

Of course, at the actual WHCD, President Trump and others in the administration were victims of yet another assassination attempt.

But instead of apologizing for his comment, which Melania called “hateful and violent rhetoric” and cause for his firing, Kimmel doubled down.

“[It] obviously was a joke about their age difference and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together. It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he's almost 80 and she's younger than I am,” the late-night host said. “It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination, and they know that.”

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales isn’t buying Kimmel’s excuses. This time, she argues, he may have pushed his luck too far.

- YouTube

“Jimmy Kimmel: His time might finally be up,” says Sara, pointing to Kimmel’s history of making deliberately inflammatory comments.

In September 2025, immediately following the murder of Charlie Kirk, Kimmel made a comment many viewed as insensitive or politicizing the killing, sparking massive backlash, threats from the FCC chairman, affiliate stations pulling his show, and ABC temporarily suspending “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”

“After everything had happened and after all of the blowback that he had had, has he learned anything?” asks Sara. “The answer is no. They never do.”

She highlights the left’s glaring double standard when it comes to humor.

“They are outraged any time President Trump ever tells [a joke]. ... In fact, nobody on the right can ever tell a joke without them being just horrified, without them clutching their pearls,” she rails.

Sara also makes fun of the left’s obsession with cancel culture, only to turn around and whine about it when it affects one of their own.

“The left has never engaged in cancel culture and called for people to be fired. They only created the damn game,” she scoffs, pointing to recent headlines from CBS News, People, and Poynter defending Kimmel against calls from President Trump and Melania for his firing.

But despite mainstream media coming to his rescue, Sara is hopeful that Kimmel will actually be canned this time.

“There is a new sheriff in town at Disney,” she says, referring to Josh D’Amaro, who replaced Bob Iger as CEO of Disney in March this year.

D’Amaro, she says, may do things differently to avoid the scandals that pushed Iger out the door.

“This is going to be his first test of going head-to-head with President Trump, and the same sort of drama took down a former Disney CEO, so … you would imagine he’s going to want to stay on President Trump’s good side,” she speculates.

But on top of playing nice with Trump, there’s also the issue of Kimmel’s unpopularity.

“I mean, when you look at his ratings, he doesn't seem to be worth saving,” says Sara, displaying a chart of Kimmel’s cataclysmic fall from peak popularity in 2015 to all-time lows in 2026.

“I'm just trying to will [Kimmel’s firing] into existence. … Can you blame me?” she asks. “I just want these people to … have a taste of their own medicine.”

To hear more and watch the Kimmel clips, check out the video above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

BlazeTV Staff

'The Epstein of Indian Country': 'Dances with Wolves' actor learns fate for sexually assaulting women, girls for years

6 days ago


"Dances with Wolves" actor Nathan Chasing Horse — once hailed as a spiritual healer — learned his fate after he was found guilty of sexually abusing girls and women for years.

Nevada 8th Judicial District Court Judge Jessica Peterson on Monday sentenced Chasing Horse to life in prison, the Associated Press reported, adding that he'll be eligible for parole after 37 years.

'He took away my sense of safety, even within my own mind.'

Chasing Horse's defense attorney argued for the statutory minimum of 25 years to life, according to USA Today.

Craig A. Mueller, Chasing Horse's lawyer, told TMZ he plans to appeal.

The 49-year-old actor maintained his innocence during the sentencing hearing: "I did not do these things. This is a miscarriage of justice."

But Judge Peterson told Chasing Horse, "You preyed on these women's trusts and their spirituality, and you manipulated them for your own personal gratification," the AP reported.

As Blaze News previously reported, a Nevada grand jury indicted Chasing Horse in February 2023.

The actor — best known for playing the "Smiles a Lot" character in the Oscar-winning Kevin Costner film "Dances with Wolves" — pleaded not guilty to all of the 21 charges against him.

However, a jury in January 2026 convicted him of 13 charges related to sexual assaults.

KTNV-TV reported that Chasing Horse was found guilty of 10 counts of sexual assault of a minor under 16, one count of open/gross lewdness, one count of sexual assault, and one count of possession of visual presentation depicting sexual conduct of a child.

RELATED: 8 arrested on rape, sex trafficking charges in case of 14-year-old girl suffering '25 days of hell'

Deputy District Attorney Bianca Pucci told the jury that Chasing Horse "spun a web of abuse" for nearly 20 years, according to PBS.

Pucci told the courtroom that Chasing Horse previously manipulated a 14-year-old girl named Corena Leone-LaCroix by weaponizing his status as a purported Lakota medicine man with spiritual influence.

Pucci alleged that Chasing Horse told the girl the spirits wanted her to give up her virginity to him in order to save her mother who had been diagnosed with cancer.

Pucci said Chasing Horse sexually assaulted her and told her that if she told anyone, her mother would die, according to PBS.

The Las Vegas Sun reported that Leone-LaCroix recalled Chasing Horse telling her, "A life for a life."

"That is the promise he made me make all those years ago when I didn't understand the extent of what he was asking me. I think it's only fitting that you ask the same of him here today," Leone-LaCroix told the judge.

"There is no way to get back the youth, the childhood loss, my first time, my first kiss, the graduation I never got to have," Leone-LaCroix said, according to PBS. "The life that little girl could have lived has been taken from me forever."

The survivor's mother, Melissa Leone, called Chasing Horse "the Epstein of Indian Country."

The mom told Judge Peterson, "The crimes he has been convicted of, like Epstein, are not even the tip of the iceberg."

Siera Begaye, another victim of Chasing Horse, told the jury she suffered from trauma caused by his "psychological control," according to USA Today.

"He took away my sense of safety, even within my own mind. I believe I didn't have privacy in my own thoughts," Begaye stated. "Living with that kind of psychological control has had lasting effects on my ability to trust others and to fully express myself."

Begaye added, "The trauma delayed important parts of my life."

Chief Deputy District Attorney William Rowles and Pucci told KSNV-TV:

We think it was very important to ensure that each victim was represented separate and distinct in the sentence. We are very happy the judge agreed with the assessment as each victim survived their own trauma. The defendant should be held accountable for each victim separately. We want to thank Judge Peterson for her professionalism throughout the trial, particularly in the way she conducted herself in balancing the rights of a defendant and the privacy rights of sexual assault survivors.

The Press Democrat reported that Chasing Horse also has been charged in Canada, and prosecutors in British Columbia said once he has exhausted all of his appeals in the United States, they will move forward with assessing next steps for a 2018 sexual assault charge in Keremeos — a village about four hours east of Vancouver.

Chasing Horse has six acting credits to his name, and his last acting appearance was in the 2007 HBO film "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee," which won six Emmys.

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

Paul Sacca

'Friends' star calls out beloved sitcom's leering, verbally abusive writers: 'Can't the b***h read?'

6 days ago


Beloved '90s comedy "Friends" may have been one big lovefest on screen — but behind the scenes, it was a toxic stew of verbal abuse and sexual harassment.

At least, this is according to one of the stars of the blockbuster ensemble sitcom, which ran on NBC from 1994 to 2004.

'We know that back in the room the guys would be up late discussing their sexual fantasies.'

Gag orders

Apparently, the same writers who came up with now-iconic lines like, "We were on a break" and "How you doin'?" had brutally high standards for how their work was performed — and weren't afraid to say so in profanity-laden tirades.

"Don't forget we were recording in front of a live audience of 400, and if you messed up one of these writers' lines or it didn't get the perfect response, they could be like, 'Can't the b***h f**king read? She's not even trying. She f**ked up my line,'" actress Lisa Kudrow told the Times.

Kudrow also claimed that the male writers openly leered over her comely co-stars.

Central perks

"We know that back in the room the guys would be up late discussing their sexual fantasies about Jennifer [Aniston] and Courteney [Cox]. It was intense," she stated.

Kudrow added that the dozen or so writers making up the staff were "mostly men."

"Oh, it could be brutal, but these guys — and it was mostly men in there — were sitting up until 3 a.m. trying to write the show, so my attitude was, 'Say what you like about me behind my back because then it doesn't matter.'"

RELATED: California doles out over $100M in taxpayer money to massive film studios

Jim Smeal/Ron Galella Collection/Getty Images

Don't call it a 'Comeback'

Kudrow made the comments while promoting the third season of her HBO series "The Comeback," which depicts the humiliating misadventures of a washed-up sitcom actress trying to reignite her career.

Kudrow said that when it debuted in 2005, HBO worried that viewers would reject its unsparing depiction of its desperate protagonist — and the pathetic lengths to which she'd go for a shot at success.

"That was news to me, because I thought women could be just as ambitious as men. But a producer on another show said it's like making jokes about disabled people. Obviously you don't do it, and at that time, women were seen as victims."

"The Comeback" was canceled after one season but returned for another in 2014.

MeToo soon?

The current season may surprise viewers with scenes mocking "gender-inclusive" language and a reference to making "illegal" jokes, but Kudrow explicitly denied that the show was hitting back at "woke" comedy or the MeToo movement.

RELATED: 'Against the Machine' offers playbook for battling leftist lies

Gary Null/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal/Getty Images

"No, because the MeToo movement was great," she said, although she did allow that "there came a point where you couldn't joke about anything. It felt like comedy was dying."

Kudrow may not always have enjoyed making "Friends," but the massive residuals she earns would put a smile on anyone's face.

The Times reported Kudrow and her castmates each still earn approximately $20 million per year.

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

Andrew Chapados

Meet the 'femosphere': Angry young women who love to hate men

6 days 1 hour ago


"Family Guy" does a spoof of "Return of the Jedi" that always makes me laugh. The characters travel the universe to meet with Rebel Alliance leader Mon Mothma, who they are surprised to discover is female.

"Hey, check it out," says Han Solo. "Another chick! The only other chick in the galaxy!"

Princess Leia looks her over, folds her arms, and says, "I don’t like her."

Feminism promised freedom; instead, it has left many woman imprisoned by their own high expectations and simmering resentment.

It’s a throwaway gag, but it nails a fundamental truth that rarely makes it into polite conversation: Feel-good female solidarity is often just a cover for fierce intra-sexual competition.

Frenemies forever

A few weeks ago, I was sitting in a pub with a friend when a group of young women came in to celebrate one of them landing her dream job.

As soon as the newly employed girl went to the bathroom, the "friends" morphed into mean girls, and the gossiping began.

Understanding Gen Z colloquialisms is hard at the best of times, let alone in a noisy pub, but they were loud enough that we came to understand much about the young woman's lack of fashion sense as well as her proclivity to sleep her way into job opportunities.

The woman returned from the toilets in tears; had she somehow sensed she was being discussed? No, it turned out another "friend" had posted something nasty about her in a private group chat. Comforting words quickly ensued.

Anyone who witnessed such dynamics in the wild would not be surprised by recent findings from the British think tank Demos that half of all "misogynistic" X posts are authored by the fairer sex.

Mad about you

But this isn’t just about women being catty in bars or nasty on social media. There’s a deeper, more corrosive issue at play: a generation of women who have been indoctrinated to be angry toward everyone — especially men.

This cultural shift was recently brought to light by the left-wing New Statesman in its April cover story, “Meet the Angry Young Women.” The investigation, for which the magazine commissioned the polling firm Merlin Strategy, explores an emergent counterpart to the much-discussed manosphere: the "femosphere," in which hostility toward men is not just accepted, but encouraged.

According to the Gallup World Poll, women have been getting steadily angrier for a decade, with the gap between the sexes widening every year. But this isn’t just about righteous fury against a glass ceiling — it’s about a generation of women who have been sold a feminist dream, only to find themselves in a nightmare of their own making.

Chromosomal cartel

This transformation is clearly reflected in the latest data from King’s College London and Ipsos. The research highlights a staggering generational divide: Gen Z women are now significantly more likely to identify as feminists than any previous generation. In America, this divide is particularly acute, with 53% of Gen Z women identifying as feminists, compared to just 32% of their male counterparts. This 21-point gap — the largest of any generation in America — indicates a fundamental breakdown in the ability to find peace with the opposite sex.

We are witnessing the birth of two distinct tribes that no longer speak the same language. While young men are retreating into digital enclaves, young women have secured the high ground in the institutional capture of culture. A major study of the American publishing industry found that women hold 74% of editorial roles, 78% of literary agent positions, and 71% of publishing jobs overall, with women occupying six in 10 jobs at the executive level.

This chromosomal cartel has fostered a monoculture, leaving young male writers increasingly sidelined in an industry that often demonizes masculinity. The result? A literary and cultural landscape dominated by an embittered female perspective.

The Merlin Strategy data shows that only 35% of women under 25 have a positive opinion of men. For the youngest cohort — those under 25 — this figure drops to just 11%. Let that sink in: Nine out of 10 young women view half the population with suspicion or outright disdain.

RELATED: Did feminism create wokeness?

SOPA Images/Getty Images

Dating disaster

Feminism’s reach is now so pervasive that relationships are routinely sacrificed on the altar of political purity. According to the Merlin data, 74% of Gen Z women say they would find it difficult to date someone who did not share their views on social justice. By turning politics into a prerequisite for romance, women are effectively shrinking their dating pool to a puddle. They self-select for loneliness, then wonder why the good men have vanished into the ether.

Meanwhile, young men are reacting to this hostility by checking out entirely. The KCL data supports this: 57% of Gen Z men believe efforts to promote women’s equality have gone so far that they now discriminate against men. This isn’t incel rhetoric, it’s a rational response to a culture that treats their very existence as a problem — something to be either avoided or mocked and ridiculed into obsolescence. Additionally, the data shows a shift back to traditionalism, with 31% of these young men now agreeing that a "wife should always obey her husband."

While the media wrings its hands over this supposed "right-wing" turn, it misses the reality: This is a counterreaction. If progressive women offer only self-righteous lectures and open hostility toward men, is it any wonder men are seeking the stability of traditional social contracts?

Man down

Or even opting out of the market entirely. “Men, Where Have You Gone?” asked a middle-aged woman lamenting her paltry dating life in the New York Times last year. For many men, the essay suggested another rhetorical question in response: Why attempt to woo someone who sees you as a born oppressor?

The irony is painful. Feminism promised freedom; instead, it has left many woman imprisoned by their own high expectations and simmering resentment. Told that their anger is a source of power, they are coming to realize it can also be a force of destruction.

If it’s a truism that men need women as a civilizing influence, we spend far less time acknowledging the cruelty that can run unchecked in all-female spaces. Men and women need each other. They are natural allies — and the further apart they drift, the more disordered things become.

Noel Yaxley

Obama, Mamdani, other Democrats throw ugly tantrums after SCOTUS strikes racial gerrymander

6 days 1 hour ago


Former President Barack Obama is among the many liberals who had conniptions Wednesday over the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in Louisiana.

While such critics have largely spun the ruling as a setback for racial minority representation in American politics, it appears they are chiefly concerned with how the ruling might affect Democrats politically in the the midterm elections and beyond.

How it started

Louisiana adopted a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 consensus, which then-House Speaker Pro Tempore Tanner Magee (R) claimed honored "traditional boundaries."

'This is one of the most consequential and devastating rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st century.'

Dissatisfied that only one of the Bayou State's six congressional districts had a black majority, a group of black voters sued the state, alleging that the new 2022 congressional map diluted black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

A federal judge appointed by Democrat former President Barack Obama ruled that the map likely violated the VRA and ordered the Louisiana legislature to add a second majority-black district.

Pursuant to this ruling, which was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Louisiana created a map with a second majority-black district — this time prompting a legal challenge by "non-African American" voters who recognized the new map both as a racial gerrymander and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Their case, Louisiana v. Callais, ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled on Wednesday that "because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State's use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."

RELATED: 'Trump is racist' arguments seem to fall on deaf ears at SCOTUS TPS hearing about Haiti and Syria

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Beyond striking down the racial gerrymander in its 6-3 decision, the court provided some much-needed clarity on "whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting."

Justice Samuel Alito noted in the opinion for the court, for example, that "interpreting §2 of the Voting Rights Act to outlaw a map solely because it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the Amendment does not protect. And such an interpretation would run headlong into the Act’s express disclaimer against racial proportionality."

Alito noted further that "§2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race."

Although the court's clarifications appear aimed at providing states with guidance on how to comply with Section 2 of the VRA without unduly discriminating on the basis of race and violating the U.S. Constitution, Justice Elena Kagan alerted fellow travelers in her dissent — which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — that the ruling will supposedly impact "racial equality in electoral opportunity."

"The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter," wrote Kagan.

"If other States follow Louisiana’s lead, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. And minority representation in government institutions will sharply decline."

Alito found Kagan's dissent to be "unabashedly at war with key precedents."

How it's going

Obama, a champion of Virginia's recent legally dubious gerrymander whose appointee's decision in 2022 unwittingly set the stage for the SCOTUS ruling, complained on social media, "Today's Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities — so long as they do it under the guise of 'partisanship' rather than explicit 'racial bias.'"

Obama accused the Supreme Court's conservative majority of "abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach" and hinted that the decision could affect the upcoming midterms.

He added that "such setbacks can be overcome" but only if "citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers."

Twice-failed Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris similarly bemoaned the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it "an outrage" that "turns back the clock on the foundational promise of equality and fairness in our election systems" and that is "part of an agenda that conservatives set in place decades ago to steal power from everyday people."

'This will embolden lawmakers in former slave-holding states.'

Like Obama, Harris expressed concern about the midterm elections and the possibility that red states will "rush to redraw districts" before voting begins.

Democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York City also threw a fit online, calling the decision a "direct assault on the promise of the Voting Rights Act" that threatens to disenfranchise "millions of Americans along racial lines."

Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York, a Democrat who said in 2021 that her district needs to bring in migrants to increase the population in time for redistricting, claimed in a joint statement with other members of the Congressional Black Caucus that "with the stroke of a pen, this rogue, unaccountable Court has effectively signed the death certificate of the Voting Rights Act, undoing decades of Black progress."

"Not since Jim Crow have we seen this level of systematic disenfranchisement of Black voters," said the joint statement.

Failed Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams — the founder of a voter turnout group slapped last year with what the Georgia State Ethics commission said was the largest fine it has ever imposed — said in an alarmist op-ed for MS NOW that the ruling was a "direct hit" to the "fragile promise that every American's vote should carry equal weight."

"This is one of the most consequential and devastating rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st century," whined NAACP general counsel Kristen Clarke.

"This will embolden lawmakers in former slave-holding states to target and eradicate districts that have provided Black Americans a fair opportunity to elect candidates of choice, and they will do so with the blessing of this Court."

Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, characterized the 6-3 decision as "cruel" and a "significant setback for our multiracial democracy."

Rep. Cleo Fields, a Louisiana Democrat who benefited from the Bayou State's racially gerrymandered map struck down by the Supreme Court, condemned the ruling and suggested that while Louisiana now has the authority to adopt a new map, "redrawing maps at this stage would not be prudent."

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

Sen. Tillis: Will Oppose Trump AG Noms Downplaying Jan. 6

6 days 1 hour ago
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., after forcing an end to a Justice Department investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, is now warning President Donald Trump's administration that he will oppose any attorney general nominee who downplays the events of Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol.