Residents of a previously serene Albuquerque neighborhood are criticizing city officials’ response to the surge in crime allegedly related to renters that built an underground bunker.

The neighbors say there was a rise in stolen cars, stolen packages, and other nuisances after the newest renters moved in. Some of the incidents have been caught on video.

‘There was concrete. There were bricks inside. It was pretty large. That was built into the backyard of the house that led into the joining arroyo.’

The Esquibels have been in the neighborhood for several years but noticed the change in the last year.

“We moved here originally because we loved it,” Alandra Esquibel said to KOAT-TV. “We thought the location was great.”

The couple caught one person urinating near their property through surveillance video.

“You could see them coming in with bags, thuggish and homeless people,” Joshua Esquibel said.

Police records show that there were nearly 50 calls to the neighborhood in the last year before code enforcement discovered a tunnel leading to an underground bunker.

“It was a large dug-in tunnel network. It had support structures,” said Commander Chris Patterson of the Albuquerque Police Department. “There was concrete. There were bricks inside. It was pretty large. That was built into the backyard of the house that led into the joining arroyo.”

Police believe the bunker was being used by criminals as a hideout.

“There’s definitely some auto thefts that we’ve been able to track back to it,” Patterson continued. “Some property crimes, porch packages being stolen from porches, luggage items taken from people’s cars, so some auto break-ins. And then obviously we think there’s probably also a drug nexus as well.”

Despite all of the incidents, the renters were allowed to stay at the home.

The Esquibels and others question why city officials haven’t used a provision that allows them to condemn a property that has three criminal acts in the span of three months.

RELATED: Transient man pleads guilty to sex crimes against 16-year-old with special needs who was found in his camper after going missing

A code enforcement official said the division did not trigger the nuisance ordinance because it did not know about the police calls.

The tunnel has been filled in, but the residents worry there will be more crime if the renters aren’t moved out.

“This community is super scared because of the fact that they’re still there,” Alandra Esquibel said. “Maybe they’re renting out the bunker? I have no idea.”

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

​Albuquerque police, Tunnel and underground bunker, New mexico crime surge, City officials ignore crime, Crime 

Anti-ICE rebels aren’t simply “protesters.” Protest is public dissent: signs, slogans, marches, chants, petitions. It aims to persuade. It does not ram police with cars, swing fists at agents, loot businesses, or try to provoke violence.

When anti-ICE activists get detained or arrested, many shout “First Amendment” as if those two words erase everything that happened before the cuffs went on. The First Amendment protects speech, publication, and peaceful assembly. It does not give anyone a license to threaten people, incite lawless action, commit assault, trespass, vandalize property, or participate in criminal conspiracy and intimidation.

Clinical language can clarify motives, but it should not excuse crimes.

That distinction matters because many of today’s mobs don’t merely “speak.” They physically interfere with law enforcement. They obstruct operations. They harass officers and targets. They try to create fear.

We used to teach children to respect the rule of law and the people tasked with enforcing it. Today, many activists treat authority as the enemy by definition, and they feel entitled — sometimes obligated — to attack it.

Not every person in a crowd acts from the same motive. Still, the behavior patterns repeat often enough that clinical language can help explain what we’re seeing. I have divided these anti-ICE “rebels” into seven categories — not as formal diagnoses for individuals I have not examined, but as recurring profiles that show up in chaotic group behavior.

Trump derangement syndrome

Some rebels treat ICE as an extension of President Trump and react accordingly. In my view, this presents as an irrational, disproportionate fixation that can resemble “quasi-psychotic” hostility toward anything associated with Trump — spilling over to people and institutions that have little to do with him, including federal agents doing their jobs.

Celebrity worship syndrome

Some activists take cues from entertainers and influencers and translate slogans into action. This is an obsessive-addictive disorder more than mere fandom. Celebrity messaging can nudge fans from passive agreement to performative activism, especially when the cultural reward system prizes outrage. Public denunciations from stars can energize followers who want to prove loyalty through escalating conduct.

Mad hatters

Some participants display the impulsivity, defiance, and hostility toward authority that clinicians associate with oppositional-defiant disorder or conduct disorder. In its more destructive form, the behavior resembles conduct-disorder traits: aggression, property destruction, and contempt for basic social rules.

Lost souls

Some people arrive lonely, purposeless, or adrift. A mob offers identity, belonging, and a mission. The cause becomes a substitute for meaning, and the group’s adrenaline becomes a substitute for inner stability.

Regressed rioters

Some adults regress under stress and excitement into adolescent defiance — or younger. Think “terrible twos.” They seek confrontation, throw verbal tantrums, and act on impulse, not reason. They perform outrage as if outrage itself justifies whatever follows.

Mr. and Mrs. Personality

Certain personality disorders show up frequently in chaotic movements: paranoia, grandiosity, emotional volatility, hostility, and disregard for others’ rights. These traits can thrive in crowds because the crowd rewards extremity and dilutes individual accountability.

Substance abusers

Alcohol and drugs lower inhibition and increase risk-taking. For some, a riot becomes a party with a political soundtrack — an excuse to seek thrills while claiming a moral cause.

RELATED: ‘How low can they go?’ Maryland Democrat seeks to punish Trump-era ICE agents for doing their job

Getty Images

These categories help explain how a crowd can form so quickly, swing into panic, and turn predatory. People mirror each other. They feed on fear and moral fervor. They swarm, then strike.

Clinical language can clarify motives, but it should not excuse crimes. Anyone who assaults officers, obstructs enforcement, destroys property, or threatens people should face arrest, prosecution, and due process. Speech receives protection; violence does not.

ICE agents enforce federal law. They face danger, hostility, and organized intimidation. A society that treats mob coercion as “protest” abandons the rule of law — and endangers everyone.

​Opinion & analysis, Mental health, Mental illness, Trump derangement syndrome, Neurosis, Anti-ice protests, First amendment, Freedom of speech, Intimidation, Law and order, Obstruction, Celebrity worship, Obsessive compulsive disorder, Addiction, Oppositional defiant disorder, Rules, Social norms, Personality disorders 

A leaked undercover recording has exposed one State Department official saying the quiet part out loud: Demographics determine elections, which is why the powers that be are so focused on changing America’s.

“We actually have a guy from the State Department on tape saying, ‘Yeah, this is the purpose of this. This is the Democrats. This is what they’re doing. They’re using the Great Replacement to rig elections. They want the country to be less white because white people vote Republican. White people are conservatives,’” BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre says on “The Auron MacIntyre Show,” before sharing the clip from Project Veritas.

In the clip, the State Department official claims that “they want to change the demographics of the United States.”

“Project Veritas has an undercover guy speaking with a State Department official, and he comes out and says, ‘Look, it’s really simple. White guys in Nebraska, they’re not leftists. They’re conservatives. They’re naturally conservative,’” MacIntyre explains.

“And they’re not going to vote for radical leftist policies. They don’t want it. So, what do you do in a liberal democracy? What do you do if you’re the Democrats and you need to push this radical progressive agenda, but the native population isn’t really interested? And the answer is, you replace them,” he says.

“And by the way, this has been the policy of the left for basically ever. They’ve recognized this dynamic for a long time. Leftism cannot win in America. It is not sustainable in America without replacing the population,” he continues.

“They want to replace you because of your race,” he adds. “They want to replace you because of the color of your skin.”

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist’s commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video, Free, Sharing, Camera phone, Upload, Video phone, Youtube.com, The auron macintyre show, Auron macintyre, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze originals, Blaze online, State department, Demographics, Voting, Politics, Leftists, Rig elections, Rigged election, The great replacement theory 

What do you call an official who claims the final say over the limits of his own power — and everyone else’s? Someone who can slap a “yes” on anything the elected branches do, or a “no” on anything they attempt, and treat his decree as the last word? That kind of power would have shocked America’s founders. In practice, it can exceed anything King George III exercised over the American colonies. Yet we keep granting it to federal judges by treating their overreach as binding even when Congress has said otherwise.

The founders worried most about the branches that wield force and money. The president commands the sword. Congress holds the purse. Both stand for election. Judges do not. Life tenure exists to protect judges while they decide cases, not to hand them an independent mandate to run the country. Judges possess no army and control no appropriations. Their influence depends on the political branches giving lawful effect to their rulings.

No individual right exists to use the courts as a substitute legislature to remain in the country. Judges cannot confer amnesty by injunction.

Those lawful bounds are not mysterious. Congress established the lower federal courts, and Congress defines their jurisdiction. Even the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to congressional regulation. Article III, Section 2 makes it subject to “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Justice Clarence Thomas put it plainly in Patchak v. Zinke: “When Congress strips federal courts of jurisdiction, it exercises a valid legislative power no less than when it lays taxes, coins money, declares war, or invokes any other power that the Constitution grants it.”

Immigration offers the clearest test case because it sits at the heart of sovereignty. Over no issue do the political branches hold more constitutional authority than determining which foreigners may enter and remain.

As Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in Galvan v. Press (1954), policies on entry and removal are “peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government,” and Congress’ exclusive control over them has become “about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.”

Congress, then, holds plenary authority over immigration policy and sweeping authority over federal court jurisdiction — especially the lower courts. Yet now, every loser district judge routinely grants standing to illegal aliens to challenge detention and removal, even when Congress has restricted review.

RELATED: The courts are running the country — and Trump is letting it happen

cherezoff via iStock/Getty Images

Take Temporary Protected Status. The Ninth Circuit ordered the Trump administration to continue TPS for Venezuelans, despite the Supreme Court staying the original injunction. Another district judge issued a similar mandate for Haitians — 16 years after Haitians received that “temporary” status under President Obama. What often goes unsaid: Congress barred judicial review over TPS determinations. Federal law states, without qualification: “No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination” of DHS “in granting or withdrawing TPS.” Other provisions restrict review of many deportation-related challenges — limits judges often treat as suggestions.

Over the past year, judges who view themselves as latter-day Martin Luther Kings have used legal fog to hear cases Congress barred, even after signals from the Supreme Court. That brings the Trump administration to its decision point.

Administration officials argue — correctly — that courts lack authority to issue certain orders. But judges have neither force nor will beyond what the executive supplies. The executive’s job includes enforcing the jurisdictional limits Congress enacted. A court that lacks jurisdiction cannot establish it by decree.

If this judicial coup runs to its logical end, any district judge becomes the final arbiter of any political question: grant standing to any plaintiff, announce standing rules that override statutes, take jurisdiction Congress withheld, then command the elected branches to act. That is not the Supreme Court’s role, let alone a trial judge’s.

It also outstrips anything King George could do at the founding. He needed Parliament for matters like citizenship. We are now told a judge can dictate immigration policy regardless of the law.

Waiting on the Supreme Court to clean up the mess is a fool’s errand. District judges return with a slightly modified case and restart the process. During Trump’s first term, an immigration lawyer summed up the strategy: “May a thousand litigation flowers bloom.”

The numbers tell the story. In Minnesota alone, federal court sees an average of one habeas petition filed every hour. A judge even ordered a previously deported alien brought back. These petitions do not claim Immigration and Customs Enforcement mistakenly detained U.S. citizens. They aim to use courts to stall enforcement in bulk.

RELATED: The imperial judiciary strikes back

Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images

Finality binds parties in cases; it does not bind the political branches into permanent policy submission. Lincoln drew that distinction in his 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas. Courts may decide individual cases. But if courts try to turn those decisions into national political rules, elected officials should not treat them as binding “political rules” that forbid any measure that does not “concur” with a judicial decision.

Lincoln practiced that view as president. His attorney general, Edward Bates, explained the judiciary’s proper scope: Judicial power is ample for justice “among individual parties,” but “powerless to impose rules of action and of judgment upon the other departments.”

Applied to immigration, the point is simple: No individual right exists to use the courts as a substitute legislature to remain in the country. Judges cannot confer amnesty by injunction. Congress has not passed a legislative amnesty in four decades for a reason: It requires majorities in both houses and the president’s signature, and the politicians who vote for it must face the voters. Yet the current judicial pattern grants amnesty through procedure — without hearings, without votes, and without accountability. Life tenure was designed for the opposite purpose.

No shortcut exists. The political branches must stop treating lawless judicial opinions as if they carry the force of law — especially when those opinions ignore statutes, exceed jurisdiction, and attempt to seize control of core sovereign functions.

​Opinion & analysis, Article iii, Constitution, Immigration, Immigration and customs enforcement, Deportations, The courts, Rogue judges, President, Congress, King george iii, Imperial judiciary, Judicial overreach, Abuse of power, Jurisdiction, Amnesty, Clarence thomas, Patchak v. zinke, Temporary protected status, Citizenship, Supreme court, Abraham lincoln, Edward bates, Sovereignty 

Turning Point USA’s “All-American Halftime Show” drew millions of viewers Sunday night as a digital alternative to the official Super Bowl LX halftime performance, drawing a sharp contrast with the Apple Music show headlined by Bad Bunny.

The TPUSA event streamed across YouTube, Rumble, and partner networks including the Trinity Broadcasting Network. According to the New York Times, the livestream peaked at 6.1 million concurrent viewers on YouTube.

‘At least 20 million people tuned in.’

By Monday afternoon, the uploaded replay had surpassed 20 million views on YouTube, with Turning Point USA officials saying total viewership across platforms exceeded that figure and continued to climb.

The performance featured Kid Rock alongside Brantley Gilbert, Lee Brice, and Gabby Barrett.

RELATED: ‘Holy racism you dumb f**k’: Left-wing influencer peddles false narrative about Bad Bunny halftime show — and gets obliterated

Photo by Jason Howard/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images

The roughly 40-minute pre-recorded concert opened with a dedication reading, “This one’s for you, Charlie,” followed by an electric-guitar rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” The show included a tribute to Charlie Kirk, the organization’s founder who was assassinated in September 2025.

Kid Rock closed the performance with a cover of Cody Johnson’s “’Til You Can’t.”

TPUSA spokesman Andrew Kolvet described the event as a success, citing viewership numbers and engagement across platforms.

“At least 20 million people tuned in,” Kolvet said, adding that the organization plans to repeat the event next year.

Reaction from conservative audiences was largely positive. Social media users highlighted the livestream’s audience size and praised the show’s patriotic and faith-focused themes.

“The best moments in broadcast so far this year? Jelly Roll at the Grammys & Kid Rock at the @TPUSA’s All-American Halftime Show!” House Speaker Mike Johnson raved.

“I was incredibly skeptical about the @TPUSA Halftime Show. … but I have to say, they crushed it. Over 5 MILLION people streaming it, just on YouTube. Excellent artists, insanely good vocals and amazing talent. 10/10,” Matt Von Swol added.

By contrast, Bad Bunny’s halftime show drew widespread criticism online, with viewers describing it as low-energy, unengaging, and disconnected. Donald Trump criticized the performance on Truth Social, calling it “absolutely terrible” and “one of the worst.”

TPUSA’s event relied exclusively on digital platforms rather than traditional television, underscoring the growing role of online counter-programming during major cultural events.

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

​Politics, Tpusa, Badbunny, Nfl, Superbowl 

A federal judge ruled against the ban on masks for federal agents passed by Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom after finding it to be unconstitutional.

Newsom signed the “No Secret Police Act” in September after rioting broke out from protesters against Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Los Angeles.

‘These federal agents are harassed, doxxed, obstructed, and attacked on a regular basis just for doing their jobs. We have no tolerance for it.’

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder said the law discriminated against federal agents by excluding state police from the ban.

However, she upheld the similar “No Vigilantes Act,” which requires all law enforcement officers operating in California to display identification, including their name or badge number as well as their agency. It was signed at the same time as the secret police act.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the ruling in a post on social media.

“ANOTHER key court victory thanks to our outstanding @TheJusticeDept attorneys,” Bondi said.

“Following our arguments, a district court in California BLOCKED the enforcement of a law that would have banned federal agents from wearing masks to protect their identities,” she added. “These federal agents are harassed, doxxed, obstructed, and attacked on a regular basis just for doing their jobs. We have no tolerance for it.”

Snyder’s ruling allows for the possibility of rewriting the law without the exemption for state police.

RELATED: Gavin Newsom says California is overwhelmed with migrants after funding social programs for illegal immigrants

“We will continue fighting and winning in court for President Trump’s law-and-order agenda — and we will ALWAYS have the backs of our great federal law enforcement officers,” concluded the statement from Bondi.

Snyder was appointed to the court by former President Bill Clinton.

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

​Judge strikes down newsom ban, Newsom ban on masks, Mask ban for ice agents, Newsom fails in court, Politics