When Dems refused to clap for THIS issue, they proved to the country they are NOT the party of the people



Democrats love to wave their “party of the people” banner, but their behavior during President Trump’s speech on Tuesday night proved to the nation that they are actually against the American people.

When President Trump broached the subject of lowering taxes, which are currently crushing taxpaying citizens, many of whom are struggling to keep food on the table, the Democrats donned deadpan faces and refused to stand or clap.

“The tax situation in this country has to change, because it is flat-out immoral and wrong and … just government theft,” says Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed.”

However, when President Trump brought up solutions, including eliminating taxes on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security, all of which would help American populations struggling the most to make ends meet, the Democrats, who claim to champion the least of us, sat in stony silence.

Pat can’t understand how they can be opposed to eliminating something like taxes on Social Security when it’s a double tax.

“If you tax Social Security, that itself was a tax that we already paid! So when you get just a tiny little portion of it back, you gotta be taxed on that again!” he exclaims.

The good news is that the nation got to see firsthand what these “pro-working-class” Democrats really value. It’s not the American people.

To hear Pat and the “Unleashed” panel’s humorous commentary on America’s egregious tax situation, watch the clip above.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Connecticut Can’t Refute Estimate Showing It Spent $1.3B On Illegal Immigration In One Year

It’s time for Connecticut’s officials to commit to an audit of government spending and honor state and federal law by prioritizing those living here legally.

Congress Must Crack Down On The Improper Payments That Cost Your Family $14,000 Every 10 Years

In the last decade alone, the federal government has sent $1.9 trillion of improper payments to the wrong people in the wrong amounts.

A child’s guide to why billionaires should, in fact, exist



Americans have largely rejected the left’s silly, childish push for communist ideology over the past 15 years or so. But some of these folks refuse to move on.

In a recent post on X, Melanie D’Arrigo, the executive director of the Campaign for New York Health and vice president of legislation at the New York National Organization for Women, repeated several long-debunked talking points:

If we capped wealth at $999,999,999 we could invest almost $5.9 trillion into improving our country.
And if you’re upset at transferring wealth down, why are you ok with how we pass laws to transfer wealth up— from the working class to billionaires?
Billionaires shouldn’t exist.

Since this is the equivalent of a toddler’s rant, I thought I would provide a toddler’s guide to why billionaires should, in fact, exist.

Mommy, why are there billionaires?

The label of “billionaire” is nothing more than an accounting of the net worth that someone has. But most billionaires aren’t swimming around in a room full of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck (which would be impossible anyway). They have most of their net worth tied up in owning a valuable business.

Typically, billionaires have established businesses that employ other people and provide goods and services that others want. Because consumers find those goods and services worthwhile, the business becomes more valuable. Based on the value at any point in time, the founder or manager’s share of that business could be “worth” a billion dollars or more. If it stopped providing value, it could be worthless.

Why should you or anyone else get to decide that someone has 'too much' wealth?

Billionaires exist most of the time because they created a lot of value for others, as well as themselves.

But aren’t billionaires bad?

Creating value is never a bad thing. Generating jobs and providing essential goods and services play a crucial role — arguably more important than most of what the government does these days!

Why can’t we just take away their money?

Taking someone’s money away is theft. Theft is wrong and a violation of your property rights, honey. Someone can’t just come in here and say you have too many toys and take some of them away. One can’t say that your room is too big and others need shelter, so you have to let strangers sleep in your room.

As Thomas Sowell said, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” It sounds like you are the one being greedy, sweetie!

But why can’t we just cap their money at $999,999,999?

You just made up that number. And the word you’re looking for is wealth. Why should you or anyone else get to decide that someone has “too much” wealth?

Also, incentives drive outcomes, so if you cap wealth, you limit the incentives for others to make investments, to innovate, and to provide important value to the world.

That money could help other people!

Wealth isn’t just other people’s money. In many cases, it isn’t money at all. Businesses provide value that benefits others.

More government funding hasn’t led to better results. Spending has increased over time, yet the only clear beneficiaries are government cronies!

America remains one of the most generous nations, donating more to charity than any other country in the world.

But it’s almost $6 trillion!

If you tried to take away billionaires' business stakes, the value of those businesses would go down, so you would never see the $6 trillion, and it would hurt the wealth of middle-class Americans whose pensions and 401Ks are invested in the stocks of those companies.

Also, the U.S. government spent almost $7 trillion last year, so taking that money wouldn’t fund the government for even a year, and then where would the government get money the next year?

Your arguments truly make no sense — which I guess is understandable since you are a toddler.

I don’t care! Billionaires shouldn’t exist!

Adults who use toddler logic shouldn’t exist, but here we are. Now, go eat your vegetables.

I hope this guide proves useful when Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich, Melanie D’Arrigo, or someone else presents a toddler-level argument about billionaires.

Liberal TikTokker calls for Elon Musk's assassination, brags about not paying taxes for years. Top DC prosecutor fires back.



A liberal TikTok user called for the assassination of Elon Musk while also bragging about not paying taxes for years. Now, D.C.'s top prosecutor hinted that he was launching an investigation into the social media commentator.

The popular Libs of TikTok account on the X social media platform shared a video from a woman advocating for the assassination of Musk.

'Death threat and admission of multiple counts of tax fraud.'

"I promised myself I would avoid the news,” says the woman, who goes by the username "sarahcroberts" on the since-deleted TikTok account. "But obviously, I haven’t. Here’s my one thought — I mean, I have many thoughts."

“Elon Musk: Like, we need to X him,” she declares while pausing to make a throat-slitting gesture. “And by X, I mean formally known as assassination.”

"And it’s a warning ... the FBI is going to f**king show up," she then seemingly states. "... You don’t have enough people to even investigate me at this point."

The woman admits to allegedly not paying taxes in years. "I haven’t filed my taxes in like eight years," she confesses with a smirk. "And yet no one’s come for me."

The liberal TikTokker then doubles down on her violent threats. "So I’m going to f**king say it — let’s assassinate some motherf**kers," she proclaims at the end of the video.

Libs of TikTok posted the video to the account's more than 4 million followers, which caught the eye of Musk.

"Death threat and admission of multiple counts of tax fraud," Musk wrote in the replies to the Libs of TikTok post and tagged Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Martin responded on X by writing, "Duly noted. Thanks for letting us know. We’ll put you in the system. Talk soon, ma’am."

Martin ended his post with the hashtag "No one is above the law."

Last week, Martin reportedly wrote an internal memo to federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., to prioritize investigations into threats against public officials.

The memo highlighted a purported threat against Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), according to CBS News.

"One of the most abhorrent examples was when Senator Charles Schumer led a rally to attack U.S. Supreme Court justices," Martin wrote in the memo.

Schumer declared at a pro-abortion rally in March 2020, "I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

Martin also noted a potential threat against Musk that was uttered by Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) earlier this month.

As Blaze News previously reported, Garcia made a call to take up "actual weapons" in an "actual fight for democracy."

"I think [Musk is] also harming the American public in an enormous way," Garcia asserted. "And what I think is really important and what the American public want is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy, for the future of this country."

Musk has drawn the ire of liberals after leading efforts to cut financial waste from the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency.

According to the official DOGE website, the agency's efforts have saved an estimated $65 billion through a "combination of fraud detection/deletion, contract/lease cancellations, contract/lease renegotiations, asset sales, grant cancellations, workforce reductions, programmatic changes, and regulatory savings."

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

Dems loved IRS audits for you — and now fear accountability for themselves



As promised during the election, Elon Musk was appointed head of the Department of Government Efficiency to combat government waste and fraud. In typical Washington fashion, such an initiative would normally produce a polished report after 18 months, with little real action. But Musk and his team have taken a different approach, actively dismantling the worst areas of taxpayer abuse in a matter of weeks.

Predictably, those who oppose real reform — including Musk’s critics, Trump’s enemies, and those losing access to their slush funds — are in full meltdown mode.

That’s the real crisis hurting working Americans; the middle and working class are the ones paying the price.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has spent years in government overseeing this waste, took to Musk’s own platform, X, to express her outrage:

Elon Musk and Donald Trump are trying to drive a wrecking ball through our government. The people who will pay a real price are the hard-working families who are just trying to make it to the end of the month. We must use every tool to fight back.

That’s rich coming from Warren. Under the senator’s watch, the government’s debt has soared past 120% of GDP, nearing $36.5 trillion and climbing. In recent years, Congress has run wartime deficits of nearly 7% of GDP, fueling reckless spending. These policies helped drive historic inflation, crushing the finances and balance sheets of working Americans.

Warren knows all about wrecking balls — because that’s exactly what government policies have done to the nation’s finances while she has been in office.

That’s the real crisis hurting working Americans; the middle and working class are the ones paying the price.

So what exactly is Warren “fighting back” against? The same business-as-usual policies that are driving Americans and the government toward a fiscal cliff? Calls for responsibility and transparency? Efforts to root out fraud and waste?

If you love America, there’s nothing to fight against. Dismantling Congress’ “legal” money-laundering schemes is exactly what voters demanded. Americans want the wrecking ball aimed at government corruption — not at them, as has been the case throughout Warren’s time in office.

Democrats like Warren have pushed for more IRS agents and audits on $600 Venmo transactions. So why the panic when the government, which controls trillions of dollars, is finally put under a microscope?

Because Warren and company feel threatened that their power — and shenanigans — will be exposed.

Being “under new management,” as one of my X followers has called it, is a wrecking ball for the old regime, for corruption, for waste, and for fraud.

And it’s exactly what Americans want.

Leftists cry as Trump obliterates their patronage network



After securing a decisive electoral mandate and launching his second presidential term with a flurry of executive orders, Donald Trump has overwhelmed his liberal opposition. Progressives have struggled to find a compelling narrative against the real estate billionaire but have now focused their attacks on foreign aid spending cuts.

One of Trump’s executive orders placed a 90-day hold on foreign aid. In response, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency identified the U.S. Agency for International Development as a prime candidate for elimination. Democrats and their media allies attempted to frame the cuts as an act of cruelty by wealthy elites indifferent to poor Africans being denied AIDS medication. But that strategy has backfired. As more Americans learn about USAID, they are discovering how much of their tax money has been siphoned into questionable projects abroad.

USAID’s funding is not merely wasted on political favors — it is actively used to support some of the most heinous projects imaginable.

Most Americans value generosity but recognize the importance of attending to domestic needs first. Foreign aid is easier to justify in times of prosperity, but when infrastructure is crumbling, housing is unaffordable for young people, and food prices are soaring, spending tax dollars overseas becomes a lower priority.

Democrats have warned that millions of lives could be lost if USAID is cut, but their alarmist rhetoric has triggered the Streisand effect. As scrutiny of USAID increases, Americans are beginning to see the agency not as a lifeline for the poor but as a massive slush fund for progressive ideological projects.

While progressives are committed to their ideology, they understand that politics ultimately revolves around rewarding friends and punishing enemies. Patronage is the lifeblood of politics, and progressives integrate it into every institution they build and every action they take. One can either accept or reject this reality, but it remains a fundamental aspect of American politics. The fact that progressives embrace patronage while conservatives often recoil from it helps explain the left’s political dominance in the United States. USAID is no exception.

Progressives have transformed the agency into a vehicle for rewarding their domestic allies and cultivating a network of ideologically aligned organizations abroad. While the U.S. foreign aid budget may assist some in need, its primary function is to fund a global progressive agenda while treating American taxpayers as little more than a revenue source.

Diverting tax dollars from American families to fund political allies would be troubling enough, but the reality is even worse. Democrats, the media, and the foreign policy establishment portray USAID as a critical tool of diplomacy. In practice, however, the agency’s funding is not merely wasted on political favors — it is actively used to support some of the most heinous projects imaginable.

Politico, which presents itself as an independent media outlet in the United States, has received more than $8 million from USAID and other federal agencies. BBC Media Action, the charitable arm of British state media, lists USAID as its second-largest contributor. The American government’s funding of both domestic and foreign media presents an obvious conflict of interest, yet this is only the beginning.

USAID has integrated LGBTQI+ ideology into all its development programs, particularly in children's education. The agency has allocated $45 million in scholarships to influence the governing elite in Burma. It has also spent $500,000 to promote atheism in Nepal, $32,000 to distribute transgender children's books in Peru, $70,000 to fund a DEI musical in Ireland, and another $70,000 to support a transgender opera in Colombia. In 2016, USAID directed $300,000 toward LGBTQ+ education initiatives in Macedonia, a predominantly Christian nation. Additionally, U.S. tax dollars have funded DEI seminars in Serbia, leftist publications in Poland, and transgender advocacy groups in Bangladesh — part of a broader effort costing tens of billions of dollars.

Progressives are not merely subsidizing allies abroad; they are using American tax dollars to pressure foreign governments and organizations into adopting their ideological agenda. The American public is gradually realizing that a well-funded global influence campaign has been carried out in their name. The worldwide spread of progressive politics was neither organic nor inevitable — it was a deliberate, taxpayer-funded initiative orchestrated by the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

Democrats have framed Elon Musk’s proposal to eliminate USAID as the cruel overreach of an unelected billionaire and his technocratic allies. That argument rings hollow, given that the Democratic Party relies heavily on funding from billionaires like George Soros and elevates figures like Anthony Fauci to near-reverential status. Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign gained significant support from Musk, in part due to the SpaceX founder’s commitment to identifying and cutting wasteful or politically motivated government programs like USAID.

As Trump takes decisive executive action, some conservatives urge caution. They warn against moving too quickly, dismantling too many institutions, and disrupting the established order. This is misguided advice. Progressives are struggling to counter Trump’s ability to control the narrative, and their attempts to push back have only drawn attention to the corruption within the Washington bureaucracy. The president has the electoral mandate, moral justification, and executive authority to enact lasting change. He should continue to press on while momentum is on his side.

Niccolò Machiavelli advised that when harming an enemy, one must do so decisively to prevent reprisals. If the goal is to restore governance that serves the American people, the transformation must be complete. Trump is not just dismantling the global leftist patronage network because of its abuses — he is eliminating its ability to target conservatives. The agencies of the U.S. government must either be restructured to serve the nation or dismantled entirely. Leaving them weakened but capable of retaliating would be the greatest strategic blunder imaginable.

‘It’s Gonna Be Taxes’: Kamala Struggled To Explain Funding For $3 Trillion Giveaway In Off-Camera CBS Footage

Then-Democrat Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris appeared stumped when asked to explain how she would pay for her economic policies aside from taxes in a portion of the unedited CBS News interview that occurred only after the cameras stopped rolling. During the interview that aired to the public, Whitaker noted how the Nonpartisan Committee for Responsible […]

Massachusetts Gov. Healey's tax-heavy budget targets candy, tobacco, and charitable deductions



Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey (D) unveiled her $62 billion fiscal year 2026 budget proposal, which contains numerous tax increases, including on candy and tobacco.

Healey's proposed budget, introduced in January, amounts to a 7.4% increase in the state's overall spending compared to the previous year.

'Governor Healey's priorities are clear: higher taxes and higher spending.'

A new tax on candy is expected to generate $25 million for the state.

Healey claimed that it "isn't about a new tax," arguing that "the purchase of candy does not align with our public health goals, especially for our youth."

"What this is doing is simply saying, when you go to the grocery store, instead of having candy treated like a purchase of bread and eggs and milk, you know, essential groceries, that candy is now going to be treated in the same way as when you go to the bakery, the back of the grocery store, and pick up cupcakes for your kids," the governor stated. "We think that makes sense."

Healey is also seeking to raise tobacco taxes and expand them to include synthetic nicotine products such as Zyn pouches.

Additionally, Healey's proposed budget includes a limit on charitable donation deductions: a cap of $10,000 for joint filers and $5,000 for individual filers. The state estimates that the new limits could generate another $164 million.

On Friday, Healey filed legislation allowing cities and towns to raise local taxes from 6% to 7% on hotel stays in "most communities" and .75% to 1% on meals. Municipalities could also implement a 5% surcharge on motor vehicle excise bills.

Healey claimed that her Municipal Empowerment Act would allow elected officials to "avoid raising property taxes" on Massachusetts residents "who are already struggling with the high cost of housing."

"Importantly, the ideas in this bill come directly from engagement with local officials across the state. They asked for improved fiscal stability, operational efficiency, and flexibility," the governor wrote.

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) approved of Healey's local tax increase options.

"Cities and towns depend on support from the commonwealth to diversify our revenues, build schools, and cut the red tape on buying goods and services from local businesses. Thank you to Gov. Healey and Lt. Gov. Driscoll for your ongoing partnership with the City of Boston and all our municipal governments," Wu stated.

Paul Craney with the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance told Blaze News that Healey is "relying on new taxes to fund her dramatic increase in state spending."

"Essentially, the governor has a slew of tax hikes that will act like Healey tariffs for the taxpayers," Craney stated. "Among her targets are candy, charities, and local taxes."

"Right before Valentine's Day, Healey wants to impose a 6.25% sales tax on all candies, which will cost Massachusetts taxpayers $25 million dollars every year," he continued. "The governor also wants to add a backdoor tax hike by capping deductions taxpayers can take when they give to Massachusetts charities. This backdoor tax hike will cost the taxpayers $164 million dollars a year. The governor's appetite for higher taxes doesn't stop there. She is also proposing allowing local towns and cities the ability to raise taxes on hotels and take-out food and a 5% increase on the annual vehicle tax."

"Governor Healey's priorities are clear: higher taxes and higher spending," Craney declared.

Anything else?

On Monday, Healey torched a memo from President Donald Trump's U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy that directed the agency to prioritize programs in communities that have marriage and birth rates that exceed the national average.

Healey stated, "I got to be honest, I've really tried here, but I do not see a connection."

"We're a state that's very serious about ensuring that our residents and our businesses have access to the highest-quality public transit in the entire country," she added.

"It's concerning to governors around the country because people rely on transportation just like they rely on child care and infrastructure," Healey continued. "I'm focused on fixing roads and bridges and building out the kind of transit system that we need, and we need a federal partner who's rowing in that direction."

According to 2022 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Massachusetts had a fertility rate of 48.7 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. Only five states had a lower fertility rate. The national average was 54.4 births per 1,000 women.

From 2019 to 2022, Massachusetts had a marriage rate of 5.1 per 1,000 residents, matching New Jersey and Delaware. Only four other states reported lower marriage rates, while the national average was 6.2 marriages per 1,000 population.

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

FACT CHECK: Viral X Post Makes False Claim About Taxes, Child Support

A viral post shared on X claims President Donald Trump has proposed a new child support law where only the individual paying child support can claim a child on their taxes. Trumps NEW CHILD SUPPORT LAW will be crazy. Basically if you put someone on child support you will no longer be able to claim the […]