Google’s game-changer: How to END the mainstream echo chamber

Five simple steps are all it takes to reclaim control of your news feed.

Gone are the days when you type hot-button topics — say “latest on border security” or “ICE protests” — into Google and are forced to sift through the same list of mainstream left-wing propaganda while the sources you trust are intentionally buried.

In an act nothing short of miraculous, Google recently handed power back to the user with a new tool called the Preferred Sources feature. With a few clicks of a button, you can personalize your news-related search results so that your most pressing questions are met with the unfiltered answers you value.

Ready to make it happen? Here’s how to flip the script on Google’s algorithm, transforming it from gatekeeper to your personal servant in just five simple steps.

Step 1: Go to google.com and sign in using your Google account information. Note: You must have a Google account to use the Preferred Sources feature.

Step 2: Search a current news topic (e.g. Iran protests, Trump tariffs, border security updates). You will see articles from mainstream sources, like CNN, NPR, USA Today, AP, Reuters, etc.

Step 3: Directly to the right of the “Top Stories” header at the top of your Google search page, you will see an icon that looks like overlapping boxes with a star in the middle. Click or tap that icon to open the Preferred Sources pop-up.

Step 4: In the text box, type theblaze.com. When it appears in the results, check the box next to it and click “Reload results.”

Step 5: Refresh your Google page — you’ll start seeing boosted results from Blaze News where relevant.

You can add as many sources as you want (no limit) and remove them any time by unchecking the boxes in the same menu.

Stick it to Big Tech and its echo chambers by utilizing Google’s Preferred Sources feature. The power to choose who you listen to has always been rightfully yours, but those who seek to shape and steer the narrative have kept it hidden behind algorithms designed to favor certain voices over others — until now.

Add your trusted sources today, and experience news that serves you.

The Blaze

Tyranny is Tyranny

The government has no business running these [auto] companies because the government does not know how to run these companies. That’s not government’s job.”

–Carly Fiorina, businesswoman and former CEO of Hewlett-Packard

How refreshing–and true!

I would only add: Government has no moral right to run these companies. In other words, government has no right to force some members of the population to work for the sake of others. Tyranny is tyranny, whether it’s forcing people who have health care to pay for the medical care of those who don’t, or whether it’s forcing people who don’t have gold-plated benefits to work to pay for those who demand they continue to get them (which is what federal ownership of the once private American auto companies is all about).

Bottom line? Government has no right to force some to live for the sake of others.

It’s either a free country, or it’s not. If we’re all free, then government stays out of the business of business. Until or unless the time comes when both political leaders and voters get this, our slide into socialism, and ultimately dictatorship, will continue.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Politics of Disorder

For much of modern political history, the most dangerous words in public policy have not been shouted slogans but soothing reassurances. They are the claims that certain policies are “compassionate,” “progressive,” or “humane,” offered without any serious accounting of how they actually affect the people forced to live under them. This pattern is particularly evident in the agenda of today’s Democratic Party, whose policy choices increasingly produce chaos and danger while being marketed as moral advances.

The central flaw is not malice so much as indifference to consequences. The pursuit of ideological purity has replaced the traditional liberal concern for social order, public safety, and the rule of law. The predictable result has been a deterioration of civil society — one that falls most heavily on those with the least ability to protect themselves.

Consider first the party’s enthusiastic support for “criminal justice reform” in the form of progressive prosecutors and judges who are openly hostile to enforcement. Across major cities, voters have been urged to elect district attorneys who treat incarceration as a moral failure rather than a necessary tool of public safety. These officials routinely decline to prosecute entire categories of crimes, downgrade felonies to misdemeanors, or release repeat offenders back into the communities they have already victimized.

The human cost of this experiment is rarely discussed by its advocates. It is not the affluent professionals living behind security systems and gated communities who bear the brunt of rising crime. It is working-class neighborhoods, disproportionately minority, where small businesses are looted, elderly residents are assaulted, and parents fear letting their children walk to school. When law enforcement retreats, predatory behavior does not politely stand down. It fills the vacuum.

Closely related is the push for cashless bail. The theory is appealing: no one should be jailed simply for being poor. But the reality is that bail exists not as punishment but as a mechanism to ensure court appearance and to protect the public from demonstrably dangerous individuals. When bail is eliminated or sharply restricted, judges are often forced to release offenders with lengthy arrest records — individuals who quickly reoffend, sometimes violently.

Again, the costs are borne by ordinary citizens, not by the policymakers who champion these reforms. A person assaulted by someone who should never have been released receives little comfort from learning that the system was trying to be fair. Fairness without safety is a luxury belief — affordable only to those insulated from its consequences.

California’s move to eliminate life without parole through measures such as the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act illustrates the same pattern. The idea that violent criminals should automatically be given new chances based on age or shifting social theories ignores a fundamental reality: some individuals have demonstrated, repeatedly and conclusively, that they are a permanent threat to others. A legal system that refuses to recognize this is not enlightened; it is reckless.

Public safety is further undermined by sanctuary city policies and categorical opposition to immigration enforcement. The claim is that shielding illegal immigrants from federal authorities fosters trust. But in practice, it has meant protecting criminal illegal aliens — people who have already violated immigration law and then gone on to commit additional crimes.

Here again, the victims are overwhelmingly members of minority communities. When a repeat offender is released because local officials refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement, it is not an abstraction. It is a real person harmed, often by someone who had already been identified and could have been removed. To describe this as compassion is to redefine the word beyond recognition.

At the same time, the Democratic Party has embraced policies that deliberately blur long-standing boundaries in the name of social progress, such as allowing biological males into women’s private spaces. This is presented as a matter of inclusion, but it requires dismissing legitimate concerns about privacy, safety, and fairness — particularly for women and girls. A society that refuses to acknowledge obvious biological differences in policy design is not advancing justice; it is indulging ideology at the expense of reality.

Perhaps most revealing is the party’s response — or lack thereof — to the surge of antisemitic harassment and intimidation on elite university campuses. Jewish students have been threatened, blocked from facilities, and subjected to rhetoric that would be instantly condemned if directed at any other protected group. Yet institutional leaders and many elected officials have responded with moral ambiguity, procedural evasions, or outright silence.

This selective outrage exposes the underlying principle at work. Victimhood is not determined by harm suffered but by ideological alignment. Groups deemed politically inconvenient are afforded fewer protections, even when facing open hostility.

All of this unfolds alongside a relentless push for gun control legislation that would leave law-abiding citizens more vulnerable, not less. Criminals, by definition, do not obey gun laws. Disarming potential victims while simultaneously weakening policing and sentencing is not a safety strategy — it is an invitation to predators. The right to self-defense is most meaningful precisely when the state fails to provide protection. To curtail that right while engineering such failures is a profound moral contradiction.

What explains this pattern? One possibility is ideological romanticism — the belief that crime, violence, and disorder are primarily products of social injustice and that removing constraints will somehow redeem human behavior. This view has been repeatedly falsified by history, but it remains attractive to those insulated from its costs.

Another explanation is political calculation. Chaos can be useful. Social disorder creates dependency, fear, and a demand for centralized control. A population that feels unsafe is more easily persuaded to surrender liberties in exchange for promises of protection, even when those promises have already proven empty.

There is also a deeper cultural shift at work: a growing hostility toward the very idea of standards. Law enforcement, borders, prisons, sex distinctions, and even moral clarity are treated as relics of an oppressive past. But a society that abandons standards does not become freer — it becomes governed by force, often exercised by the least scrupulous.

The lesson is an old one. Good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes. Policies must be judged by what they do, not by how virtuous they sound. A political movement that consistently produces more crime, more fear, and more fragmentation while claiming moral superiority deserves skepticism, not deference.

Order is not the enemy of justice. It is its prerequisite. And a society that forgets this lesson will relearn it the hard way — at the expense of its most vulnerable citizens.

Jim Cardoza is the author of The Moral Superiority of Liberty and the founder of LibertyPen.com. Read more of his essays there.

We are in a bizarro world where doctors and lawyers feel compelled to mislead the public on who is a woman

By Kirsten Fleming

For years, activists have used language to create an alternative reality, one rewired to suit the transgender minority.

One where non-trans people are “cisgender” and gender is “assigned at birth” by physicians — a phrase so outrageous, it evokes the image of doctor with a cigarette dangling from his mouth, pulling an F or M out of a bingo spinner.

It’s been a full scale effort from the left to blur the sex binary and subjugate anyone daring enough to call it out as nonsense. In fact, the act of “misgendering” once resulted in bans from Twitter. (Those censorious polices are what led Elon Musk to buy the platform in 2022.

During her 2022 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to define “woman.”

“No, I can’t … I’m not a biologist,” Brown said without an ounce of shame. She knew she was risking alienating the base.

Wielding control of cultural institutions and corporate culture, activists as well as also regular old well-intentioned liberals tried to create a new reality in which sex is not immutable and identity takes priority over science.

The goal is just to establish a biological reality,” Hawley said. “You just said a moment ago that science and evidence should control, not politics. So let’s just test that proposition. Can men get pregnant?”

The doc, who presumably knows a thing or two about the reproductive system in humans, dug in — to the detriment of her reputation.

For years, activists have used language to create an alternative reality, one rewired to suit the transgender minority.

One where non-trans people are “cisgender” and gender is “assigned at birth” by physicians — a phrase so outrageous, it evokes the image of doctor with a cigarette dangling from his mouth, pulling an F or M out of a bingo spinner.

It’s been a full scale effort from the left to blur the sex binary and subjugate anyone daring enough to call it out as nonsense. In fact, the act of “misgendering” once resulted in bans from Twitter. (Those censorious polices are what led Elon Musk to buy the platform in 2022.)

During her 2022 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to define “woman.”

“No, I can’t … I’m not a biologist,” Brown said without an ounce of shame. She knew she was risking alienating the base.

Wielding control of cultural institutions and corporate culture, activists as well as also regular old well-intentioned liberals tried to create a new reality in which sex is not immutable and identity takes priority over science.

But this isn’t 2022 anymore. No one fears the social-justice mob or cancellation. Call us transphobes. Call us bigots. Deployed to dismiss a point of view and avoid a conversation about real facts that would disrupt their worldview, these labels have zero impact.

Our society is no long buckling under the tyranny of the pronoun police.

If the left wants to continue to wander the political desert for another four years, rudderless and obsessively clinging to a fantasy, by all means.

One cannot change their sex, nor can a man give birth. Only those with common sense are willing to admit it.

Who Funds the Groups Harassing ICE Agents in Minnesota

Law Officer

Who funds the groups harassing ICE agents in Minnesota?

The left’s premier foundations and dark money networks have given millions, records show.

(A.J. Colores – Unsplash)

January 18, 2026

Law Officer

byLaw Officer

Share and speak up for justice, law & order…

(The Washington Free Beacon) — When the Trump administration sent some 2,000 immigration agents to the Twin Cities area, they were met by activists who trailed their movements and harassed them outside their hotels. The activists are members of radical groups that together have received millions of dollars from the left’s premier foundations and dark money networks, including George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a Washington Free Beacon review found.

At the center of the unrest is the Sunrise Movement, a left-wing group founded to fight climate change that has since directed its local chapters to fight the Trump administration. For Sunrise Twin Cities, that means tormenting ICE agents on the ground. The group holds in-person “action trainings” on how to “stop ICE & build a revolution.” It also maintains a running list of the Twin Cities hotels housing ICE agents and organizes late-night “noise demonstrations” aimed at making it “impossible” for those hotels to operate.

Unidos, an “immigrant-led, BIPOC majority, multiracial, state-wide organization,” leads a “rapid response” network through its affiliate group, Monarca. That network includes a 24/7 hotline that Twin Cities residents can call to report ICE activity. The group’s trained “responders” are then dispatched to the area in an attempt to prevent ICE agents from making arrests. Like Sunrise, Unidos is backed by the Ford Foundation, which sent the group $400,000 in 2024. The left-wing dark money juggernaut Sixteen Thirty Fund sent Unidos $150,000 between 2021 and 2022, tax filings show.

Sunrise is bankrolled by a who’s who of deep-pocketed left-wing organizations. Open Society Foundations has sent it $2 million since 2019, according to its grant database. Half of the money supported general “social welfare activities.” The Ford Foundation contributed $150,000 in 2024 and $550,000 in 2025, while the MacArthur Foundation—the 12th-largest private charity in America—gave $250,000 in 2024, according to tax filings and grant disclosures. Sunrise says it generally rejects “checks that come with expectations of input on our strategy.” It also says donations go to support its local chapters with “materials, housing, technology, food, travel, training expenses, and more.”

Sunrise Twin Cities has collaborated with two other local groups to drive anti-ICE demonstrations: Unidos MN and Defend the 612.

Law Officer

Who funds the groups harassing ICE agents in Minnesota?

The left’s premier foundations and dark money networks have given millions, records show.

(A.J. Colores – Unsplash)

January 18, 2026

Law Officer

byLaw Officer

Share and speak up for justice, law & order…

(The Washington Free Beacon) — When the Trump administration sent some 2,000 immigration agents to the Twin Cities area, they were met by activists who trailed their movements and harassed them outside their hotels. The activists are members of radical groups that together have received millions of dollars from the left’s premier foundations and dark money networks, including George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a Washington Free Beacon review found.

At the center of the unrest is the Sunrise Movement, a left-wing group founded to fight climate change that has since directed its local chapters to fight the Trump administration. For Sunrise Twin Cities, that means tormenting ICE agents on the ground. The group holds in-person “action trainings” on how to “stop ICE & build a revolution.” It also maintains a running list of the Twin Cities hotels housing ICE agents and organizes late-night “noise demonstrations” aimed at making it “impossible” for those hotels to operate.

Sunrise is bankrolled by a who’s who of deep-pocketed left-wing organizations. Open Society Foundations has sent it $2 million since 2019, according to its grant database. Half of the money supported general “social welfare activities.” The Ford Foundation contributed $150,000 in 2024 and $550,000 in 2025, while the MacArthur Foundation—the 12th-largest private charity in America—gave $250,000 in 2024, according to tax filings and grant disclosures. Sunrise says it generally rejects “checks that come with expectations of input on our strategy.” It also says donations go to support its local chapters with “materials, housing, technology, food, travel, training expenses, and more.”

Sunrise Twin Cities has collaborated with two other local groups to drive anti-ICE demonstrations: Unidos MN and Defend the 612.

Unidos, an “immigrant-led, BIPOC majority, multiracial, state-wide organization,” leads a “rapid response” network through its affiliate group, Monarca. That network includes a 24/7 hotline that Twin Cities residents can call to report ICE activity. The group’s trained “responders” are then dispatched to the area in an attempt to prevent ICE agents from making arrests. Like Sunrise, Unidos is backed by the Ford Foundation, which sent the group $400,000 in 2024. The left-wing dark money juggernaut Sixteen Thirty Fund sent Unidos $150,000 between 2021 and 2022, tax filings show.

Defend the 612 offers similar “ICE Watch Welcome & Orientation” trainings for those in the Twin Cities interested in “documenting ICE activity.” It also offers “Community Response Resources” that provide guidance on “Tracking Federal Agents.” This includes a list of known ICE vehicles operating in the Twin Cities—or a list of “License Plates of Abductors,” as Defend the 612 describes federal immigration agents.

The group accepts donations through Cooperation Cannon River, a Minneapolis-based “social and environmental justice” nonprofit that has received funding from Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, the left-wing dark money giant Tides Foundation, and the Solutions Project, a grantmaking organization founded by actor Mark Ruffalo.

Another group that operates its own ICE sighting hotline, Copal MN, has received $50,000 from the Tides Foundation and an additional $185,000 from the Sixteen Thirty Fund.

The groups’ funding sources underscore the extent to which Democratic billionaires prop up some of the more radical left-wing activism across the country.

Such activism surged in Minneapolis after the Jan. 7 death of 37-year-old Minneapolis resident Renee Good. Good was blocking a neighborhood road when agents ordered her to get out of her SUV. Instead, she drove forward. An ICE agent positioned in front of her car fired three shots, killing her.

Good’s wife, Becca Good, was on the scene and told Good to “drive” as the agents approached the SUV. Becca Good reportedly followed an Instagram page, “MN Ice Watch,” that describes itself as an “autonomous collective documenting & resisting against ICE, police, & all colonial militarized regimes.”

Last June, the page posted training slides that it described as a “basic introduction to de-arresting,” a tactic in which activists pressure police to release arrestees. One slide calls for “totally surrounding the officers who have the arrestee or otherwise blocking them and/or their vehicle and chanting ‘Let them go!’ and the like until the LEOs [law enforcement officers] cave to the mounting pressure.” A second slide calls for “pulling and pushing an officer off of an arrestee and/or breaking their grip on an arrestee,” a move the slide says is “probably the most risky as it requires physical contact with an officer.”

MN Ice Watch does not appear to be organized professionally and does not list a fundraising page. But it does maintain ties to Sunrise Twin Cities, Unidos, and Defend the 612. Sunrise Twin Cities and Defend the 612 tagged MN Ice Watch in a post listing local hotels that house ICE agents. Unidos, meanwhile, is one of the 184 accounts MN Ice Watch follows on Instagram.

The State of Minnesota has also promoted Unidos through its Minnesota Council on Latino Affairs, a state agency that includes the group on its list of “community resources.” But Monarca, the “rapid response network” led by Unidos, has attempted to lower its profile amid increased national attention—it recently set its website to private.

Sunrise, Unidos, and Defend the 612 did not respond to requests for comment. Nor did the Ford Foundation, Tides Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, or the Sixteen Thirty Fund. An Open Society Foundations representative said the group stood by its grantmaking decisions.

“The Open Society Foundations support the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, including the rights to free speech and peaceful protest that are hallmarks of any vibrant democracy,” a spokesperson said.


This article was originally published by The Washington Free Beacon and reprinted here with permission

Supreme Court unlikely to overturn Trump tariffs, his ‘signature economic policy’: Bessent

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Sunday said it’s “very unlikely” that the Supreme Court will overturn President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, with a potential decision from the court looming as early as this week.

“I believe that it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule a president’s signature economic policy,” Bessent said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “They did not overrule Obamacare, I believe that the Supreme Court does not want to create chaos.”

In June, the Supreme Court upheld a key Affordable Care Act provision that set up a panel to recommend preventive care services that insurers must provide at no cost to patients.

Bessent’s comments come one day after Trump said he would impose a new slate of tariffs on goods coming from Europe until “a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”

Trump did not specify in his Truth Social post which statute he was invoking to impose the tariffs, though the move appears to mirror the “liberation day” duties he has imposed on dozens of nations under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The tariffs on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland will begin at 10% on Feb. 1, Trump said. They will then escalate to 25% on June 1, Trump said.

The Supreme Court is set to rule on Trump’s use of the IEEPA to impose tariffs before the end of its term, but a decision could come as soon as this week. IEEPA gives the president wide latitude to use economic tools in response to an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

Bessent said Trump’s new tariffs on Europe regarding Greenland are a response to an emergency.

“The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency,” Bessent said. “It is a strategic decision by the president … he is able to use the economic might of the U.S. to avoid a hot war.”

Trump has long sought to acquire Greenland, the Arctic territory of Denmark, and has ratcheted up his pressure campaign for a U.S. takeover of the island in recent weeks. Leaders in Greenland, Denmark and across Europe have widely rejected Trump’s demands to take over the island.

European leaders of countries targeted by the new tariffs responded on Sunday.

“Tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral. We will continue to stand united and coordinated in our response,” the leaders of Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom said in a joint statement.

“We stand in full solidarity with the Kingdom of Denmark and the people of Greenland. Building on the process begun last week, we stand ready to engage in a dialogue based on the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that we stand firmly behind,” the statement read.

Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Greenland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Vivian Motzfeldt at the White House last week in a meeting that Rasmussen described as “frank but constructive.”

After the meeting, the group said the U.S. and Denmark would establish a high-level working group to chart Greenland’s future.

The Trump administration claims that a U.S. acquisition of Greenland is critical to national security to counter the expansion of Russia and China in the region.

CNBC has reached out to the White House and the Treasury Department to clarify what statute Trump is using to impose the new European tariffs.

CORRECTION: Vivian Motzfeldt is Greenland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. A previous version of this article misstated her title.

This story is developing. Please check back for updates.

Garrett Downs, CNBC

Chaos by Design

Jerry Rogers, American Greatness

ICE isn’t creating chaos; politicians and activists are—by turning routine detentions into viral outrage, provoking mobs, escalating encounters, and manufacturing danger for political gain.

Over and over again, we’re told to be outraged.

An individual is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He is later released. And before the facts can catch their breath, Democratic politicians and activist megaphones are already screaming ‘abduction’, ‘fascism’, and ‘state violence’. Cue the mob. Cue the cameras. Cue the chaos.

It plays out over and over again.

Remember the viral video of a woman screaming ‘I’m a U.S. citizen’ as ICE agents pulled her from a car in the Florida Keys? The media and politicians pounced – ICE ‘arrested an American citizen’. Turns out this person was detained by ICE because she refused to identify herself and was driving her boyfriend’s vehicle. Afterwards, reports disclosed that the boyfriend was in the country illegally. She chose not to comply. Perhaps she wanted the situation to escalate? Much of the debate about ICE has become political theater.

Let’s slow this down and apply something increasingly rare in modern politics: the facts.

ICE detains individuals pursuant to its lawful authority. That happens every day. Sometimes people are held. Sometimes they’re released. Detention and release are not evidence of wrongdoing by law enforcement—they are the process. But in today’s political climate, process doesn’t matter. Optics do. Rage does. And outrage is politicized and monetized.

What does make these encounters dangerous is not ICE. It’s the reckless rhetoric that surrounds them.

When Democratic elected officials tell people that law enforcement officers are ‘kidnappers’ or ‘stormtroopers’, when they suggest citizens have a moral duty to interfere with federal agents, they are not encouraging peaceful protest—they are inciting confrontation. And when mobs take that cue and physically obstruct officers doing their jobs, the risk to everyone involved skyrockets.

This is not complicated.

What happens? Lawful orders are given. They’re ignored. Resistance follows. A crowd interferes. Officers are forced to manage a volatile situation that never needed to exist in the first place.

If individuals simply comply with lawful commands—no dramatics, no resistance, no posturing—these could be routine encounters. No drama; no chaos, no violence. If the mob allows officers to do their work instead of inserting themselves into a federal enforcement action, there would be no spectacle, no video clips, no political fundraising emails.

But compliance doesn’t trend on social media.

What we’re witnessing is a dangerous feedback loop. Politicians inflame tensions with extreme language. Activists show up looking for confrontation. Law enforcement is placed in an impossible position. Then, when things escalate—as they predictably do—the very people who lit the fuse rush to the microphones to condemn the explosion.

That’s not leadership. That’s negligence.

No one is above the law, but justice isn’t served when the law is deliberately obstructed either. ICE officers are not free agents; they operate under rules, supervision, and due process constraints. Pretending otherwise may be politically useful, but it is factually false—and dangerously so.

If Democrats truly cared about safety, about de-escalation, about justice, they would stop encouraging resistance and obstruction. They would tell their supporters the truth: you don’t get to decide, in the moment, which laws you’ll obey and which officers you’ll recognize as legitimate.

These incidents don’t have to happen. They are not inevitable. They are manufactured—by irresponsible rhetoric, by mob interference, and by a political class more interested in chaos than consequences.

And the next time it happens—and it will—remember who made it dangerous.

1.6 Billion Barrels Of Oil And 28.3 Trillion Cubic Feet Of Gas Believed to Be in Texas, New Mexico

The U.S. Geological Survey said a new assessment shows the Permian Basin in Texas contains an estimated 1.6 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and 28.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Woodford and Barnett shale formations. The findings highlight major untapped energy potential deep beneath West Texas and southeastern New Mexico.

According to the USGS, the two formations could also yield about 813 million barrels of natural gas liquids. At current consumption levels, the oil alone would supply the United States for roughly 10 weeks, while the natural gas could meet national demand for about 10 months.

The Woodford and Barnett shales lie far deeper than many other Permian formations, in some areas as deep as 20,000 feet below the surface. While these depths once made development difficult, advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have made production increasingly viable.

“The U.S. economy and our way of life depend on energy, and USGS oil and gas assessments point to resources that industry hasn’t discovered yet,” USGS Director Ned Mamula said. “In this case, we have assessed that there are significant undiscovered resources in the Woodford and Barnett shales in the Permian Basin.”

USGS geologist Christopher Schenk said modern drilling techniques have transformed what is possible. “The shift to horizontal drilling with fracking has revolutionized oil production, and we’ve changed with it,” he said.

The Permian Basin already accounts for more than 40 percent of U.S. oil production. Industry analysts say targeting deeper formations like the Woodford and Barnett could extend the basin’s lifespan as shallower areas mature.

Major producers including ExxonMobil, Diamondback Energy, Occidental Petroleum, and SM Energy are already testing or developing wells in these formations. The USGS noted the resources remain “undiscovered,” meaning they have not yet been confirmed by drilling but are considered recoverable with current technology.

Belaaz HQ

Greenlanders Speak Out Against Danish Rule After Decades of Forced Sterilization

Greenlanders speak out against Danish rule after decades of forced sterilization, poor living conditions: ‘They stole our future’

NUUK, Greenland — Native Greenlander Amarok Petersen was 27 years old when she learned the gut-wrenching truth about why she couldn’t have children — and that Denmark was to blame. 

Suffering from severe uterine problems, a medical doctor discovered an IUD birth control device in her body that she didn’t know she had. 

Danish doctors had implanted it when she was just 13 as part of a population control program for thousands of native Greenlandic girls and women. 

“I will never have children,” Petersen told The Post, with tears of anger and sorrow welling in her eyes. “That choice was taken from me.”

While the government of Denmark officially apologized last year for decades of forced sterilization of Indigenous women and girls, the horrific mistreatment has cast a long shadow on the island that has become the center of an international ownership fight.

This week, the Danes hosted European troops for military exercises on Greenland, asserting they are protecting the island from outside powers — particularly the United States. But for many Inuit, Denmark itself has long been the real threat.

Even in adulthood, medical decisions were made without Petersen’s consent. Plagued with problems after the IUD, she had repeated surgeries for unexplained pain. It wasn’t until years later that doctors informed her that her fallopian tubes had been removed in one of the operations in the early 2000s.

Her family also suffered under Denmark’s so-called “Little Danes experiment,” in which Greenlandic children were forcibly sent to Denmark for adoption or institutional care — often permanently separated from their families, she said.

The program, which ran from the 1950s through the 1970s, was part of Denmark’s broader effort to assimilate Greenlandic children, often without parental consent.

It happened to her mother’s brother, Petersen said. Other relatives were subjected to medical experimentation, she added.

Her family also suffered under Denmark’s so-called “Little Danes experiment,” in which Greenlandic children were forcibly sent to Denmark for adoption or institutional care — often permanently separated from their families, she said.

The program, which ran from the 1950s through the 1970s, was part of Denmark’s broader effort to assimilate Greenlandic children, often without parental consent.

It happened to her mother’s brother, Petersen said. Other relatives were subjected to medical experimentation, she added.

“They wanted us smaller,” she said. “Easier to manage.”

Denmark announced in December compensation for victims of forced sterilization, but Petersen called the payments another insult. The women are being offered about $46,000 in reparations.

As the United States renews interest in Greenland — with President Trump recently expressing a desire to buy the island — Danish officials have repeatedly emphasized that “Greenland is not for sale.” But many Greenlanders argue that slogan masks a deeper truth: Denmark still governs Greenland, not Greenlanders themselves.

“They think we are worth pennies,” she said. “They destroyed generations, and now they say, ‘Here — be quiet.’”

‘Greenland is for Greenlanders’ — but controlled by Denmark

Greenlanders interviewed by The Post said they are not ready to swap Denmark for US ownership, as Trump has prioritized; they want independence after years of what some described as generations of trauma, displacement and economic exploitation that still shape daily life across the island.

“People say ‘Greenland is for Greenlanders,’” Petersen said. “But that’s not reality. Denmark speaks for us. Denmark decides. They don’t let us speak.”

That imbalance was visible recently in Washington, where the Danish foreign minister dominated nearly the entire press conference following talks with US officials on purchasing the island, while the Greenlandic foreign minister was largely sidelined.

Foreign Minister Lars Rasmussen of Denmark insisted the roughly 56,000 Greenlanders wouldn’t be bought off by payments from the US or vote in a referendum to become American. 

“There’s no way that US will pay for a Scandinavian welfare system in Greenland,” he told Fox News. 

For many Greenlanders, US interest has been uncomfortable — but also clarifying. Not because they want annexation, but because it exposes how little autonomy Greenland actually has.

“It was colonial,” Petersen said of Rasmussen’s assertions. “You could see it in his body language. He didn’t want her to speak.

“If Denmark really believed Greenland belongs to Greenlanders,” Petersen said, “they would let us decide our own future.”

That lack of control extends into everyday economic life. 

Karen Hammeken Jensen, a Nuussuaq resident who moved from South Greenland seeking better opportunities for her children, said basic living conditions remain poor.

She lives in a government-owned apartment block built decades ago — cramped, aging and plagued by black mold — while the rent alone consumes most of her household’s income.

“These buildings were never modernized,” Jensen said, speaking to The Post from her living room, cold from poor insulation. “They were built for Inuit, and then forgotten.”

Local fish markets that sell directly to consumers can charge up to $12.50 per kilo — proof, Lunge said, that Greenland could support its own processing industry if companies would build facilities on its shores.

“This shouldn’t even be a debate,” he said.

The human cost of colonial rule

Behind the anecdotes and statistics are lives marked by trauma, addiction and despair — conditions many Greenlanders link directly to colonial policies.

Jensen described seeing alcoholism, drug abuse and violence daily in her Nuuk neighborhood — symptoms of what she called “generations” of broken systems.

“People don’t see a way out,” she said. “And when no one listens, nothing changes.”

Petersen agreed, explaining that many Greenlanders simply lose hope. The island has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, according to researchers, with an estimated 81 per 100,000 people annually killing themselves.

“They took our resources. They took our bodies. And then they told us to thank them,” she said of Danes. “How do you thank someone who stole your future?”

Petersen doesn’t want to stay quiet as her critics argue the Danes “protect” Greenland from Trump.

Speaking out against the atrocities isn’t anti-Danish, but simply what is needed to heal, make change and get independence, she said.

We never colonized anyone,” she said. “We never stole children. We never sterilized another people. But they did that to us.”

While Greenlanders are divided on the timing and logistics of independence, many agree on one thing: the current system is unsustainable.

Petersen does not see Trump as a savior — but she does see his interest as an opportunity.3.7K

What do you think? Post a comment.

“At least he challenges Denmark’s control,” she said. “That conversation was never allowed before.”

For her, independence is not about choosing between Denmark and the US — it is about finally being treated as human beings with the right to decide.

“We are only 55,000 people,” Petersen said. “If someone truly cared, this would already be fixed.”

Instead, she said, Greenland remains spoken for — but rarely listened to.

“They talk about our land,” she said. “They just never talk to us.”

Kaitlin Dornboos, New York Post

White Liberal Women Really Are Bat Poop Crazy, and This Proves It

Earlier this week, Kevin Downey Jr. wrote about what he calls “affluent white liberal women,” or AWFLs, pegging them as the biggest internal threat to America. Not foreign enemies. Not terror cells. Just well-off women with pronouns in their bios and too much time on their hands. He described them as attention-seeking harpies who push extreme gender ideology, drag their kids to medicalized gender clinics, and parade them at sexualized drag shows labeled as “family-friendly.” These are the same people, he argued, who want to defund the police, defend criminals no matter how violent or foreign, and censor anyone who steps out of line with their diversity-and-inclusion gospel.

KDJ wasn’t exaggerating. In fact, recent polling from Cygnal supports his thesis in a significant way. According to the poll, around 24% of Americans overall think criminal action, including violence, is acceptable to stop federal immigration enforcement. The broader picture shows most Americans rejecting this lunacy. Nearly 70% disagree with using illegal or violent tactics against ICE, and opposition runs especially deep among Republicans, who clock in at around 80% opposition. Democrats are the only major group where there is significant approval, but even so, a majority, 57%, still disagrees. Independents side with Republicans at about 72% opposed. Conservatives reject this radical fringe behavior at rates above 80%, and even moderates oppose it by wide margins. Liberals obviously show the most tolerance, but even among them, disagreement still outweighs agreement.

But drill down to white liberal women ages 18 to 44, and that number explodes to 61%. Six in ten.

That means an overwhelming majority of young white liberal women are fine with lawbreaking and violence if it means blocking ICE from doing its job.

So what makes white liberal women so uniquely terrible?

Turns out they’re miserable. The 2024 American Family Survey found that 37% of conservative women and 28% of moderate women between 18 and 40 reported being “completely satisfied” with their lives. For liberal women in the same age group, that figure collapses to just 12%. Liberal women are almost three times more likely than conservative women to experience loneliness multiple times a week, 29% compared to 11%.

Depression among liberal high school girls has surged over the last decade and a half, and much more so than for other high schoolers, especially conservatives. The ideological effect on young women’s happiness holds up even when you control for age, education, race, and income. Liberal young women are less likely to be integrated into core American institutions such as marriage and religion, which give meaning, direction, and a sense of solidarity to women’s lives. In short, they’re lonelier, angrier, more negative, and disconnected from the very things that might actually make people happy.

The problem is that their unhappiness doesn’t stay internalized. It spills out into politics and social justice causes. That’s why people such as Renee Good felt justified in attacking an ICE officer. Was she thinking about her family? Her children? No. She was yet another unhappy liberal woman who took solace in her social justice causes over anything else, and was willing to use her car to attack a federal agent without giving a hoot about the consequences.

Want to support fearless journalism that exposes the left and tells the stories the media won’t? PJ Media delivers the truth and holds the powerful accountable. Become a VIP member today—your support fuels our mission and unlocks exclusive content, podcasts, an ad-free experience, and more.

He’s a great columnist. I think he’s terrific.”  – Mark Levin

Matt Margolis is a conservative commentator and columnist. His work has been cited on Fox News and national conservative talk radio, including The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Mark Levin Show, and The Dan Bongino Show. Matt is the author of several books and has appeared on Newsmax, OANN, Real America’s Voice News, Salem News Channel, and even CNN. You can also subscribe to his newsletter for free!