Category: blaze media

So far, more than 100 federal court judges have ruled against the Trump administration in hundreds of lawsuits filed by states, unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals.

While some of these rulings are fairly grounded in the Constitution, federal law, and precedent, many are expressions of primal rage from judges offended by the administration and moving at breakneck speed to stop it.

Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges substitute ‘frequently’ for ‘sometimes.’ The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.

According to a Politico analysis, 87 of 114 federal judges who ruled against the administration were appointed by Democratic presidents, and 27 by Republicans. Most of the lawsuits were filed in just a few districts, with repeat activist judges leading the opposition.

Lawsuits against the administration may be filed in the District of Columbia and, often, also in other districts. Initially cases are randomly assigned. Plaintiffs focus on districts with predominantly activist, progressive judges. Because related cases are usually assigned to the same judge, later plaintiffs file in districts in which related cases were assigned to friendly activists.

Conservative judges generally believe they should interpret the law and avoid ruling on political questions, while liberals tend to see themselves as protectors of their values. After 60 years of domination by activist liberals, the Supreme Court and conservative appeals court judges are finally demanding that district court judges respect the Constitution. The Supreme Court is also re-evaluating precedents established by far-left justices who substituted their values for the words and intentions embodied in the Constitution.

To date, the Supreme Court has reversed or stayed about 30 lower court injunctions blocking the administration, and appeals courts have reversed or stayed another dozen. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson imposed an administrative stay on a district court decision requiring the immediate resumption of SNAP payments.

Federal judges who oppose Trump’s agenda are openly opposing the Supreme Court. In April, D.C. Chief Federal Judge James Boasberg sought to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for violating an order the court had vacated. In May, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho criticized the court’s demand that district courts act promptly on administration requests. In a September ruling, Boston Federal Judge Allison Burroughs challenged the court for expecting lower courts to treat its emergency orders as binding legal precedent.

Ten of 12 federal judges interviewed by NBC News in September, and 47 of 65 federal judges responding to a New York Times survey in October, thought the court was mishandling its emergency docket. They described orders as “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.”

Deservedly so. Though the Supreme Court and appeals courts judges have rebuked district court judges for ignoring higher courts and abusing their authority, they continue to do so with rulings focused on identity politics and a progressive lens on the woes of immigrants, minorities, women, and workers. They likely expect to be reversed on appeal, but they secure wins by causing delay and creating fodder for progressive activists to rally their supporters.

There is little that can be done about these judges. Removal requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. With Democrats supporting these judges, those votes are unrealistic.

RELATED: Who checks the judges? No one — and that’s the problem.

Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Just a few of the dozens of examples of politicized judicial decisions:

In May, Myong Joun, a Biden appointee in Boston, enjoined layoffs at the Department of Education in a decision featuring an encomium to its anti-discrimination mission. The Supreme Court stayed his injunction.

Despite this precedent, Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, issued a nationwide injunction barring the administration from firing union employees during or because of the government shutdown. Ignoring settled law, she bemoaned the “trauma” of workers who had been under “stress” ever since Trump’s election. Illston gambled correctly that the shutdown would end before her order could be reversed.

Indira Talwani, a federal district court judge in Boston, went further. Declaiming her fear that defunding Planned Parenthood would deprive women of access to abortions, she elided Article I of the Constitution, which requires all federal spending to be approved by Congress, nullifying a duly enacted statute that suspended funding of large abortion providers for a year. By the time she is reversed, the suspension will have expired.

In June, after San Francisco Federal Judge Charles Breyer enjoined Trump from federalizing the California National Guard, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously stayed his order, explaining that on military matters, the president’s judgment stands unless it is dishonest. Nonetheless, Oregon Federal Judge Karin Immergut subsequently blocked deployments in Portland, substituting her assessment of the situation for the president’s.

An Obama-appointed judge recently interviewed by NBC explained, “Trump derangement syndrome is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”

Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges, who self-reverentially believe progressive technocrats and judges are democracy’s guardians, substitute “frequently” for “sometimes.” The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.

​Gop, Federal judiciary, Supreme court, Opinion & analysis, Judicial supremacy, National injunction, The courts, Judicial overreach, Federal court, Lawsuits, Donald trump, Maga, America first, Leftists, Judicial activism, Congress, Nullification 

Law enforcement in Florida is looking for a female seen on video inside a bus beating up an elderly passenger last month.

A 70-year-old woman on Oct. 21 took a seat in the disabled section of a transit bus, the Broward County Sheriff’s office said, adding that “her ride would end with her battered and bruised after being attacked by a fellow bus rider.”

‘This is repulsive. This is something that should never happen; it should not happen in any type of civilized society. What this woman did is absolutely unacceptable.’

Detectives said the attacker, who was standing, bumped into the victim several times due to the movement of the bus, officials said.

The victim asked the attacker to give her some space, officials said, after which a verbal argument ensued.

With that, officials said the attacker “intentionally and forcefully pushed her body into the victim several times. The attacker then grabbed a grocery bag and struck her in the face with it.”

At one point during the assault, video appears to show the feisty elderly woman issuing a middle finger to her attacker.

The sheriff’s office said the victim used her cane to defend herself, and the attacker punched the victim multiple times in the head.

Officials said several bystanders on the bus came to the victim’s defense and separated her from the attacker.

RELATED: Insane video shows female beating up city bus driver before crash into restaurant — and then she actually keeps attacking him

The bus driver saw the incident and stopped the bus in the 4100 block of West Oakland Park Boulevard in Lauderdale Lakes, officials said, and that’s where the attacker and a woman with her fled.

The victim suffered bruising on her forehead but declined to be transported to the hospital, officials said.

“Fortunately the victim did not suffer any major injuries. She was treated on scene,” sheriff spokesperson Carey Codd told WFOR-TV.

Codd added, “This is repulsive. This is something that should never happen; it should not happen in any type of civilized society. What this woman did is absolutely unacceptable.”

Broward Sheriff’s Office Violent Crimes Unit detectives released video of the attack in hopes of identifying the woman who pestered the elderly woman before punching her repeatedly. You can view the sheriff’s office video here.

Those with information on the identity of the attacker or the woman with her are asked to contact BSO Violent Crimes Unit Detective Andres Lopez at 954-321-4915 or submit a tip through the SafeWatch app, officials said.

Those wishing to remain anonymous and be eligible for a cash reward can contact Broward Crime Stoppers at 954-493-TIPS (8477), submit a tip online at browardcrimestoppers.org, or dial **TIPS (8477) from any cell phone in the United States. If your tip leads to an arrest in this case, you are eligible for a reward of up to $5,000, officials said.

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

​Physical attack, Florida, Female attacks elderly woman on bus, Broward county sheriff’s office, Crime 

Is a tariff a tax? Many Americans have forgotten that this question, which has been in the news more or less all year, was fundamental to the American Revolution. And among American Patriots, or Whigs, meaning those who supported the colonists’ claims against Parliament, there was almost universal consensus that they were different things, constitutionally speaking.

Throughout the Imperial Crisis of 1763 to 1776, the consensus among the colonists was that Parliament had the right to regulate trade in the British Empire but had no right to tax the colonists. And they recognized that a regulation of trade might take the form of a duty imposed upon, for example, molasses imported from French colonies to favor molasses imported from British colonies.

The founding generation believed in the separation of powers.

In the colonists’ view, the Sugar Act of 1764 was an unconstitutional innovation. The Act was quite explicit, stating at the top that it was passed for the purpose of “applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said act, towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations.” It was the first trade act to do that.

Townshend’s overreach

The Stamp Act of 1765, and the reaction to it, made the protest against the 1764 Sugar Act less conspicuous. The result of the actions taken against the Stamp Act was that many in Parliament did not grasp the American argument against the Sugar Act. Hence, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in 1767, imposing duties on lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea to raise revenue. When the colonists complained, many in Parliament accused the colonists of moving the goalposts.

The charge was not accurate, but it did reflect what they believed. And, like many today, many members of Parliament were unable to grasp the difference between a duty imposed for the purpose of trade regulation and a duty imposed for the purpose of raising revenue.

The most famous criticism of the Townshend Acts, and the most popular writing of the era until Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in January 1776, was John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.” In the second letter, Dickinson made the consensus Patriot argument logically, clearly, and eloquently.

There is another late act of parliament, which appears to me to be unconstitutional, and as destructive to the liberty of these colonies, as that mentioned in my last letter; that is, the act for granting the duties on paper, glass, etc.

The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain, and all her colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and her colonies; and necessary for the common good of all …

I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the Stamp Act administration.* All before, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire. … The raising of a revenue thereby was never intended. … Never did the British parliament, till the period above mentioned, think of imposing duties in America for the purpose of raising a revenue. …

Here we may observe an authority expressly claimed and exerted to impose duties on these colonies; not for the regulation of trade; not for the preservation or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire, heretofore the sole objects of parliamentary institutions; but for the single purpose of levying money upon us.

This I call an innovation; and a most dangerous innovation.* It may perhaps be objected, that Great Britain has a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her exports.

That so many people today don’t seem to understand this distinction is a sign that the American bar seems to have gone Tory. The founding generation’s way of thinking about tariffs, and perhaps law in general, is in danger of being rendered foreign to our public policy discussion, perhaps even to constitutional discussion, even among people who mistakenly think of themselves as originalists.

This way of thinking, of course, says little about the current case, as the purpose of the law itself must be understood in light of the thinking of the men who passed it. But it is also true that the way of thinking that Dickinson represented, and which was broadly shared in the founding generation, might have something to say here.

Delegation’s limits

The founding generation believed in the separation of powers. The founders recognized, as “The Federalist” notes, that in practice the powers will inevitably overlap and sometimes clash. But they did operate within a way of legal and constitutional thinking that took it as a given that in order to guard the separation of powers, any delegation of legislative powers to the executive had to be limited and focused.

There is a difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable delegation of powers, just as there is between a tax and a regulation of trade, even if, in both cases, money is raised at customs houses. The kind of delegation the Trump administration is asserting in this case is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reconcile with the practice of separation of powers. Congress has no right to abdicate its obligation to set trade policy via legislation.

RELATED: Read it and weep: Tariffs work, and the numbers prove it

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The Trump administration’s assertion that it has the right to set tariffs worldwide, claiming unlimited emergency power based on a law designed to delegate to the president a narrow emergency power, resembles the kind of expansive, arbitrary interpretation that the founders’ legal heroes fought.

In the 1630s, King Charles claimed the right to collect “ship money” throughout England. By tradition, the king had the right to raise money, without Parliament’s consent, in port towns in time of war, or if war was imminent.

King Charles asserted a living constitution interpretation: Given modern circumstances, he claimed a general right to raise taxes if a war emergency was imminent. Dickinson mentioned the case in the first Farmer’s Letters, suggesting there was a connection between the logic of the one argument and the other.

Our difficulty recognizing the limits of the nondelegation doctrine — and our confusion about the difference between a duty imposed to raise revenue and one imposed to regulate trade — shows how much work remains if we want to understand the Constitution as the framers did. That understanding requires grappling with the ideas about human nature, government, and law that justified ratification in the first place and that still anchor our constitutional order.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

​Tariffs, Trump, Trade policy, Taxes, Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, American founding, Townsend act, Sugar act, Trade, Emergency powers 

Federal prosecutors revealed a shocking indictment of two men from Texas who are accused of planning to assault the inhabitants of an island near Haiti and enslave the women and children.

Gavin Rivers Weisenburg, 21, of Allen and Tanner Christopher Thomas, 20, of Argyle allegedly plotted a coup d’état on Gonâve Island, which is a part of the Republic of Haiti.

Prosecutors said the two intended the plot to indulge their ‘rape fantasies.’

The plan involved recruiting and training homeless people from the Washington, D.C., area to build a mercenary force to attack the island inhabitants, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Texas.

“Weisenburg and Thomas intended to murder all of the men on the island so that they could then turn all of the women and children into their sex slaves,” the press release reads.

The pair partially completed many parts of their plan, including learning the Haitian Creole language, recruiting others into the scheme, and making operational and logistical plans. They intended to purchase firearms, ammunition, and a sailboat.

Prosecutors said the two intended the plot to indulge their “rape fantasies.”

Weisenburg enrolled at the North Texas Fire Academy in Rockwall in order to gain skills for the endeavor, while Thomas enlisted in the U.S. Air Force for the same reason.

The two are also charged with coercing a minor to commit sex acts on camera in August.

RELATED: UK woman said she wanted to be tortured and killed on fetish site — her body was found in shallow grave in the US

The pair allegedly plotted the island invasion from Aug. 2024 until July 2025.

There are about 87,000 inhabitants living on Gonâve Island, which measures about 266 square miles.

Weisenburg and Thomas face life in prison if convicted of federal conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country, and they face between 15 and 30 years in prison for charges of production of child pornography.

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

​Texas island plot, Haitian island rape plot, Homeless mercenary force, Plot to attack island, Crime 

Donald Trump hasn’t even reached the end of his first year back in office, and John Doyle, Blaze Media’s newest TV host, says that already his “most optimistic expectations have been exceeded.”

“I’m looking forward to seeing what the administration does with its subsequent three years. However, it’s also undeniable that the first year of Trump’s second term has more Ws in it than, like, literally any year in his first term,” he says.

On this episode of “The John Doyle Show,” Doyle recaps the MAGA king’s biggest accomplishments.

Immigration crackdown

“Immigration is the most important issue,” considering that “under Joe Biden’s administration, literally tens of millions of illegals just waltzed right into the country,” Doyle says.

Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump turned off the spigot by declaring a national emergency at the southern border, directing 10,000+ military personnel to stop the influx. On the same day, he signed multiple executive orders to secure borders, end “catch and release,” and block most asylum entries at the southern border.

In the months that followed, he reinstated and expanded Remain in Mexico, signed the Laken Riley Act mandating detention for migrant criminals, dramatically ramped up ICE arrests and deportations (hundreds of thousands removed, with over a million self-deporting), and achieved the lowest illegal border crossings in decades — plummeting over 90% from prior peaks and delivering the most secure border in modern history.

Because of these efforts, Doyle says, “border crossings do not even exist anymore; they are a fable.”

He acknowledges, however, that what’s needed next is the “mass deportations” we were promised. “They must remove themselves or be removed from the balance sheet peacefully, very legally … and there’s no way around that fact.”

Bye-bye DEI

President Trump has “racked up pretty substantial wins when it comes to anti-white racism,” Doyle says. Previous administrations “spent trillions of dollars” building a “civil rights regime” that ironically “wound up just being this entity to discriminate against specifically white people as a matter of policy.”

In just months, President Trump has dismantled the federal DEI machine built over decades by Democrats. He eliminated all DEI programs, offices, positions, and preferences across the federal government; revoked longstanding affirmative action requirements for federal contractors; and directed agencies to combat illegal DEI practices in the private sector to restore merit-based opportunity and enforce colorblind civil rights laws.

“And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. … He signed an executive order banning anti-white indoctrination in K-12 schools; he signed an executive order in April to crack down on disparate impact in the federal government,” Doyle says.

On top of that, “the Trump administration also launched a major investigation into the entire University of California system for race- and sex-based hiring quotas,” Doyle continues. “It opened investigations into 45 universities, including Ivy League schools, over illegal racial preferences in student fellowships, academic programs, admissions practices.”

“The list goes on and on,” he adds.

Honorable mentions

Doyle praises Trump for issuing “a sweeping pardon” of January 6 protesters, “[directing] multiple federal agencies to investigate Antifa,” and “[adding] a $100,000 fee to the H-1B visa.”

He also convinced Israel “to accept a much earlier peace deal in Gaza than it would have liked to do. … He managed to avoid freaking war with Iran, freaking World War III, like everybody thought was going to happen,” Doyle says.

“The progress this administration has made has been remarkable, and we still have three years left to go.”

Want more from John Doyle?

To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The john doyle show, John doyle, Blazetv, Blaze media, Trump wins, Trump year one, Immigration, Dei, Ceasefire, Donald trump 

Elon Musk says the next Tesla Roadster might fly. Not figuratively — literally.

Imagine an all-electric supercar that hits 60 mph in under two seconds, then lifts off the pavement like something out of “The Jetsons.” It sounds impossible, even absurd. But during a recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Musk hinted that the long-delayed Tesla Roadster is about to do the unthinkable: merge supercar speed with vertical takeoff.

If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big.

As someone who has test-driven nearly every kind of machine on four (and sometimes fewer) wheels, I’ve seen hype before. But this time, it’s not just marketing spin. Tesla is preparing a prototype demo that could change how we think about personal transportation — or prove that even Elon Musk can aim too high.

Rogan reveal

On Halloween, Musk told Joe Rogan that Tesla is “getting close to demonstrating the prototype,” adding with his usual flair: “One thing I can guarantee is that this product demo will be unforgettable.”

Rogan, always the skeptic, pushed for details. Wings? Hovering? Musk smirked: “I can’t do the unveil before the unveil. But I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveil ever.”

He even invoked his friend and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who once said, “We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters.”

Musk’s response: “I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one.”

That’s classic Elon — part visionary, part showman. But underneath the bravado lies serious engineering. Musk hinted at SpaceX technology powering the car.

The demonstration, now scheduled for April 1, 2026 (yes, April Fools’ Day), is meant to prove the impossible. Production could start by 2027 or 2028, but given Tesla’s history of optimistic timelines, it may be longer before any of us see a flying Roadster on the road — or in the air.

Good timing

Tesla’s timing isn’t accidental. The company’s Q3 2025 profits fell short due to tariffs, R&D spending, and the loss of federal EV tax credits. With electric vehicle demand cooling, Musk knows how to recapture attention: promise something audacious.

Remember the Cybertruck’s “unbreakable” windows? The demo didn’t go as planned — but it worked as a publicity move. A flying Tesla Roadster could do the same, turning investor eyes (and wallets) back toward Tesla’s most thrilling frontier.

Hovering hype

So can a Tesla actually fly? It may use cold-gas thrusters — essentially small rocket nozzles that expel compressed air for brief, powerful thrusts. The result could be hovering, extreme acceleration, or even short hops over obstacles.

There’s also talk of “fan car” technology, inspired by 1970s race cars that used vacuum fans to suck the car to the track for impossible cornering speeds. Combine that with Tesla’s AI-driven Full Self-Driving systems and new battery packs designed for over 600 miles of range, and the idea starts to sound just plausible enough.

The challenge? Energy density. Vertical flight consumes enormous power, and even Tesla’s advanced 4680 cells may struggle to deliver it without sacrificing range. And if the Roadster truly hovers, it will need reinforced suspension, stability controls, and noise-dampening tech to keep your driveway from turning into a launchpad.

Sky’s the limit

Musk isn’t the first to chase this dream. The “flying car” has tempted inventors since the 1910s — and disappointed them nearly as long.

In the optimistic 1950s, Ford’s Advanced Design Studio built the Volante Tri-Athodyne, a ducted-fan prototype that looked ready for takeoff but never left the ground. The Moulton Taylor Aerocar actually flew, cruising at 120 mph and folding its wings for the highway — but only five were ever built.

Even the military tried. The U.S. and Canadian armies funded the Avrocar, a flying saucer-style VTOL craft that could hover but not climb more than six feet. Every generation since has produced new attempts — from the AVE Mizar (a flying Ford Pinto that ended in tragedy) to today’s eVTOL startups like Joby and Alef Aeronautics, the latter already FAA-certified for testing.

The dream keeps coming back because it represents freedom — freedom from traffic, limits, and gravity itself.

Got a permit for that?

Here’s where reality checks in. The Federal Aviation Administration now classifies electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft under a new category requiring both airplane and helicopter training. You would need a pilot’s license, medical exams, and specialized instruction to legally take off.

Insurance? Astronomical. Airspace? Restricted. Maintenance? Complex. In short: This won’t replace your daily driver any time soon. Even if the Roadster hovers, the FAA isn’t handing out flight permits for your morning commute.

RELATED: You can now buy a real-life Jetsons vehicle for the same price as a luxury car

Image provided to Blaze News by Jetson

Free parachute with purchase

Flying cars sound thrilling until you consider what happens when one malfunctions. A blown tire is one thing; a blown thruster at 200 feet is another. Tesla’s autonomy might help mitigate pilot error, but weather, visibility, and battery reliability all pose major challenges.

NASA and the FAA are developing new air traffic systems to handle “urban air mobility,” but even best-case scenarios involve strict flight corridors, automated control, and years of testing.

In short: We’re closer than ever to a flying car — but not that close.

Sticking the landing

So will the Tesla Roadster really fly? Probably — at least for a few seconds. Will it transform personal transportation? Not yet.

But here’s the thing: Musk doesn’t have to deliver a mass-market flying car. He just has to prove that it’s possible. And that may be enough to reignite public imagination and investor faith at a time when both are fading for the EV industry.

If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big. If it flops, it will join the long list of “flying car” fantasies that fell back to Earth.

Either way, we’ll be watching — because when Elon Musk says he’s going to make a car fly, the world can’t help but look up.

​Elon musk, Tesla, Flying cars, Lifestyle, Auto industry, Align cars 

A Campbell’s Soup executive was allegedly recorded mocking the company’s customers and making racial comments against its Indian employees, according to a lawsuit from a former employee.

Robert Garza of Monroe, Michigan, says that he was fired from the company after complaining about the comments made by the executive in an hour-long rant he recorded from a meeting at a restaurant.

‘I don’t buy Campbell’s products barely anymore. It’s not healthy now that I know what the f**k’s in it. … Bioengineered meat — I don’t wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3D printer.’

The executive, Martin Bally, is now the vice president of the company.

“He has no filter,” Robert Garza said to WDIV-TV. “He thinks he’s a C-level executive at a Fortune 500 company and he can do whatever he wants because he’s an executive.”

Garza was hired as a remote security analyst in September 2024 for the company’s headquarters in Camden, New Jersey. He said he recorded the conversation with Bally because he felt there was something off about his former supervisor.

“We have s**t for f**king poor people. Who buys our s**t? I don’t buy Campbell’s products barely anymore. It’s not healthy now that I know what the f**k’s in it. … Bioengineered meat — I don’t wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3-D printer,” said the man identified as Bally by Garza on the recording.

He also derided the workers from India at the company.

“F**king Indians don’t know a f**king thing,” the man said on the recording. “Like they couldn’t think for their f**king selves.”

Garza said he felt “pure disgust” after hearing the rant. He says that Bally admitted to being high on marijuana edibles on the job as well, which is included in the filing.

In Jan. 2025, Garza went to his supervisor to complain about the comments, but Garza says he was fired weeks later.

“He reached out to his supervisor and told the supervisor what Martin was saying, and then out of nowhere, my client was fired,” said Garza’s attorney, Zachary Runyan.

“He was really sticking up for other people,” Runyan continued. “He went to his boss and said, ‘Martin is saying this about Indian co-workers we have. He’s saying this about people who buy our food — who keep our company open, and I don’t think that should be allowed.’ And the response to Robert sticking up for other people is he gets fired, which is ridiculous.”

Garza said he was shocked at the decision because Bally had praised his performance during the meeting.

“He had never had any disciplinary action; they had never written him up for work performance,” Runyan added.

RELATED: FDA announces ban on red food dye over cancer concerns

The lawsuit accuses the company of maintaining a racially hostile work environment by firing Garza in retaliation. He says that he never received a follow-up from Human Resources or from the company, and it took him 10 months to find another job.

The company released a statement to WDIV about the lawsuit.

“If accurate, the comments in the recording are unacceptable,” the statement reads. “They do not reflect our values and the culture of our company. We are actively investigating this matter.”

The lawsuit names vice president and chief information security officer Martin Bally and supervisor J.D. Aupperle as defendants in addition to the Campbell Soup Company.

The Campbell Soup Company employs more than 144K employees and has more than $10.3 billion in net sales annually, according to its website.

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

​Campbell’s soup vp, Highly processed food, Bioengineered meat, Anti-indian racism, Politics 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is getting renewed scrutiny after Democrats tried to use the program as a cudgel to beat down Republicans during the government shutdown.

Some Republicans are calling for new restrictions on SNAP to decrease program spending and cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse.

‘I hate to be the one to say McSCUSE ME, but something needs to be done because taxpayers are not lovin’ it.’

According to Republican U.S. Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa, $524 million was spent “almost exclusively on fast food, in nine states” over two years. The figure comes from spending through the Restaurant Meals Program option that allows select SNAP beneficiaries to use their funds on participating restaurants, including fast food shops.

“The ‘N’ in SNAP stands for nutrition — not nuggets with a side of fries,” Ernst said in a statement accompanying the press release. “I wish I was McRibbing you, but $250 million per year at the drive-through is no joke and a serious waste of tax dollars. I hate to be the one to say McSCUSE ME, but something needs to be done because taxpayers are not lovin’ it.”

The RMP option varies by state but is intended to help those who have problems preparing their own meals, including people with disabilities, the elderly, and homeless people.

While fast food eats up millions in benefits, according to a previous report on SNAP spending, about 23% of the funds are redeemed on sugary drinks like soda and other snacks.

In 2024, the federal government spent about $100 billion on SNAP, which means that about $23 billion was spent on sugary drinks and snacks. That includes about 10% on soda, which would represent about $10 billion worth of taxpayer funds.

Ernst’s McSCUSE ME Act would revise the RMP standards and impose additional restrictions to lessen spending on fast food restaurants.

RELATED: Woman goes viral after admitting to being on SNAP benefits for 3 decades

The Restaurant Meals Program was implemented in 1977.

Despite the effort to make SNAP more efficient, it is a drop in the bucket of total federal spending. Even if the entire program was ended and all food aid was canceled, it would only represent a 1.5% decrease in the budget.

About 41.7 million people in the U.S. receive SNAP benefits, which is about 1 in every 8 people in the country.

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

​Snap spent on fast food, Welfare on fast food, Snap benefits, Welfare on snacks, Politics 

An elderly New York City man has been sentenced to prison after he fatally shot a career criminal who allegedly lunged at him in 2023 — and for a reason many will find infuriating.

Charles Foehner, 67, pleaded guilty Thursday to one count of criminal weapons possession in a deal to end his case more than two years after he fatally shot would-be thief Cody Gonzalez, who charged at him near his Kew Gardens home in Queens, the New York Post reported.

‘If we respected people’s constitutional right and provided practical means for citizens to exercise that right, Mr. Foehner would not be in the position he is in today.’

More specifically, Foehner will spend four years in prison after admitting to carrying an unlicensed revolver, the paper said, adding that Foehner’s attorney blasted the city’s “draconian” gun laws.

The Post said the Queens District Attorney’s Office decided not to prosecute Foehner — a retired doorman — for Gonzalez’s killing after he told police that he defended himself from a mugger who lunged at him late at night holding what looked like a knife, except it was a pen.

More from the paper:

But prosecutors slapped Foehner with a slew of weapons raps for the unlicensed handgun and for an arsenal of illicit handguns, revolvers and rifles inside his home in the quiet neighborhood.

Foehner took the plea deal to avoid a trial, where he faced 25 years in prison on gun charges that are not hard to prove, said his attorney Thomas Kenniff after Thursday’s hearing in Queens Supreme Court.

Kenniff called Foehner a “hero” who was put in an “impossible position” by what he called “draconian” Big Apple gun laws that make it difficult for “law-abiding citizens” to obtain permits to carry firearms.

“If this was a state and a city that had its affairs in order, Mr. Foehner would be getting a plaque, not a prison sentence,” Kenniff told reporters on the courthouse steps, the Post said.

Foehner’s attorney added that lawmakers in New York City and the state capital have “repeatedly frustrated the rights of law-abiding Americans, New Yorkers, that possess firearms,” the paper reported.

The Post said attorney Kenniff is known for successfully defending Marine veteran Daniel Penny from charges of fatally choking a homeless man who threatened New York City subway passengers in May 2023.

“If we respected people’s constitutional right and provided practical means for citizens to exercise that right, Mr. Foehner would not be in the position he is in today,” Kenniff also said, according to the paper.

RELATED: 7-Eleven hands down unthinkable punishment to clerk after she shoots knife-wielding thug who attacked, strangled her

Following his arrest on the heels of the 2 a.m. fatal shooting in a driveway near his home at 82nd Avenue and Queens Boulevard, Foehner told police he had been carrying the gun in question to protect himself from crime in New York City, the Post noted.

More from the paper:

Security footage showed the alleged robber Gonzalez — who had at least 15 arrests dating back to 2004 and a record of mental illness — continuing to charge at Foehner even after the senior pulled his gun.

Foehner took the deal Thursday with the understanding that he’d be sentenced to four years in prison at his sentencing date Jan. 14, his lawyer said.

Until then, he’ll remain “at liberty” and will be able to celebrate Christmas with his wife, Judge Toni Cimino ruled — over objections from the Queens DA’s Office, which had pushed for him to spend the holidays at Rikers Island.

“While we very much respect DA Melinda Katz and the fine prosecutors she assigned to this case, we were disappointed that the DA’s Office sought to have Charlie remanded before sentencing,” Kenniff noted Thursday, according to the Post. “We are grateful that Judge Toni Cimino agreed to let Charlie rejoice with his wife in the light of this Christmas season before he begins his sentence.”

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

​Crime thwarted, 2nd amend., Guns, Gun rights, New york city, Elderly man, Fatal shooting, Jail sentence, Unlicensed gun, Attempted robbery, Career criminal, Self-defense, Queens, Senior citizen, Crime 

Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas very confidently claimed on the House floor that Republicans, including EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, had taken money from Jeffrey Epstein. However, that Jeffrey Epstein was not the Jeffrey Epstein.

Crockett boomed into the microphone that Mitt Romney, the NRCC, Lee Zeldin, George Bush, WinRed, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Rick Lazio took money from a man named Jeffrey Epstein.

And in a segment on CNN, Crockett tried to spin her mistake when Kaitlan Collins asked about her defense of Democrat House Delegate Stacey Plaskett, who had been exposed for texting Jeffrey Epstein.

“You mentioned Lee Zeldin there. He’s now a cabinet secretary. He responded and said it was actually Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, who’s a doctor that doesn’t have any relation to the convicted sex trafficker. Unfortunate for that doctor, but that is who donated to a prior campaign of his,” Collins said.

“Do you want to correct the record?” Collins asked.

“I never said that it was that Jeffrey Epstein,” Crockett responded. “Just so that people understand, when you make a donation, your picture is not there, and because they decided to spring this on us in real time, I wanted the Republicans to think about what could potentially happen because I knew that they didn’t even try to go through the FEC.”

“So, my team, what they did is they Googled. And that is specifically why I said, ‘a Jeffrey Epstein.’ Unlike Republicans, I at least don’t go out and just tell lies, because it was not the same one,” she continued.

“But when Lee Zeldin had something to say, all he had to say was it was a different Jeffrey Epstein. He admitted that he did receive donations from a Jeffrey Epstein. So at least I wasn’t trying to mislead people,” she added.

Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is not buying it.

“You clearly were smearing,” Glenn laughs.

“She’s trying to say, ‘Well, I didn’t lie,’” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere chimes in. “Like that’s your defense in theory, right?”

Burguiere also points out that Crockett was proud of adding an “a” in front of “Jeffrey Epstein,” but she shouldn’t be.

“She knew she was lying. She knew there was a good chance this wasn’t Jeffrey Epstein,” he says.

“She’s insane,” Glenn adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video phone, Upload, Sharing, Camera phone, Free, Video, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Jasmine crockett, Jeffrey epstein, Jasmine crockett is dumb, Epstein files, Lee zeldin 

A Democratic mayoral candidate in Rhode Island declared that his disturbing criminal history does not disqualify him from running for office.

Providence voters will decide on their next mayor in 2026. Incumbent Mayor Brett Smiley and state Rep. David Morales, both Democrats, are the current leading candidates in the race.

A third Democratic candidate, 54-year-old Michael English, has announced his candidacy. However, a Tuesday report from the Providence Journal raised some concerning details about English’s past.

‘If I haven’t showed how to go from nothing to something again, then no one will.’

English’s campaign website describes him as a “blue-collar Democrat” who believes “leadership, honesty, [and] integrity is the best policy.” The mayoral candidate states that he is “committed to protecting the most vulnerable members of our city.”

In an open letter to the citizens of Providence, English admits to having a criminal record.

“I will not deny that in 1996, while running for House District 4, I made immature decisions that led to my arrest and a period of incarceration coupled with I dropped out of Hope High School in 1990 and, simply put, I failed to live up to my potential,” English wrote.

RELATED: Eric Swalwell launches anti-Trump gubernatorial campaign amid criminal referral to DOJ

Providence Mayor Brett Smiley. Photo by John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

He stated that after completing his sentence, he has dedicated himself to self-improvement.

“I earned my GED, received my paralegal certificate, and continued this disciplined path, ultimately earning a [sic] two Bachelor’s, two Master’s, and a Doctor [sic] degree,” English continued.

English was convicted of child molestation against a 13-year-old girl in 1998, the Providence Journal stated. He reportedly served 15 months in prison, despite the attorney general’s office recommending a 40-year sentence, with seven years to serve. The court required English to register as a sex offender, but only for 10 years.

He served another 19 months a decade later, after the victim accused him of violating a no-contact order by driving to her home and suggesting they go out for coffee.

English told the Providence Journal that he was living across the street from the victim at the time.

RELATED: Senate Democrats insist the shutdown was ‘definitely’ worth it despite fully surrendering to Republicans

Rhode Island state Representative David Morales. Photo by Suzanne Kreiter/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

He argued that people who believe his criminal history should disqualify him from running for mayor are “wrong, legally.”

“They also should calculate what did I do from then,” he told the news outlet. “If I haven’t showed how to go from nothing to something again, then no one will.”

English stated that neither of the other candidates running for mayor is “good for our city.”

“What we’ve got right now is a socialist and then Mayor Smiley,” he told the Providence Journal. “I know I’m the non-favorite in theory, but right now if I play my cards right, I think I could win.”

“If I’m the bad guy here, God help you all,” English added.

While English’s conviction was not expunged or judicially sealed, the file has been marked “confidential” under a decades-old court policy that purports to protect child victims. The Providence Journal noted that the outdated policy has shielded potentially important details about this case and others from the public.

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

​News, Rhode island, Providence, Brett smiley, David morales, Michael english, Rhode island mayoral race, Mayoral race, Child predators, Child predator, Child molester, Politics 

Platinum-selling artist Pras has been sentenced to prison following charges related to illegal foreign lobbying and conspiracy.

Prakazrel Samuel Michel, member of the huge 1990s group the Fugees, has been trapped in legal turmoil for years surrounding apparent attempts to influence presidential elections and administrations.

‘There’s a possibility that I’m going in while I’m fighting.’

The Fugees’ 1996 album “The Score” went seven-times platinum in the United States, and even though the record hit No. 1 in seven countries, it was the group’s last original release.

Michel was charged in 2019 and began his trial four years later in 2023. The three-week trial that included testimony from actor Leonardo DiCaprio was focused on multiple money-laundering schemes related to Malaysian financier Jho Low, a Billboard report revealed.

First, Michel was accused of secretly funneling $2 million from Low to Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign. The donations were allegedly made through straw donors. In 2023, Michel said he received $20 million from Low, but it was only to help him get a photo with Obama. These figures were part of a $120 million total Michel received from Low, WCBV reported.

Secondly, Michel was accused of funneling money from Low to a lobbying campaign that had the goal of convincing President Trump’s administration to drop an investigation into Low in 2019.

RELATED: Why the post-Pelosi Democratic Party seems directionless

Pras Michel arrives at U.S. District Court on March 31, 2023, in Washington, D.C. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Michel was recently ordered to forfeit over $64 million after he was found guilty for his attempts to influence the Trump administration.

‘Next chapter’

A representative named Erica Dumas told Variety, “Throughout his career Pras has broken barriers. This is not the end of his story. He appreciates the outpouring of support as he approaches the next chapter.”

Pras had previously told the outlet that he planned to appeal the outcome of the case, saying he was “going to fight” and “going to appeal.”

“But there’s a possibility that I’m going in while I’m fighting,” he said. “It’s just the reality.”

RELATED: Grammy-Winning Singer Headed to Prison for Failing to Pay $1 Million Owed in Taxes

Wyclef Jean (L), Pras Michel (C), and Lauryn Hill (R) attend the 24th Annual American Music Awards at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles, California, January 1997. Photo by Vinnie Zuffante/Getty Images

Tumultuous trio

The other Fugees members went on to have careers worthy of feature film.

In 2010, Wyclef Jean attempted to run for president of Haiti after a hurricane ravaged the island. He was eventually dropped from the ballot, presumably because he did not meet the country’s residency requirements. It was also revealed in the process that Jean had been claiming he was three years younger than he actually was, admitting he was 40 years old, not 37.

In 2013, Lauryn Hill spent three months in prison for failing to pay around $1 million in taxes. At the time, she compared her experience in the music industry to slavery.

“I am a child of former slaves who had a system imposed on them,” she claimed. “I had an economic system imposed on me.”

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

​Align, Fugees, Rap, Rappers, Embezzlement, President, Trump, Obama, Malaysia, Campaign finance, Entertainment 

President Donald Trump and New York City’s Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani cracked jokes during a surprisingly cordial meeting in the Oval Office on Friday.

Mamdani arrived at the White House Friday afternoon for his highly anticipated meeting with Trump, leaving many to speculate if their interactions would be friendly or fiery. After the meeting, both politicians maintained that the meeting went well with a common focus on affordability, with Trump even slipping in a few jokes to lighten the mood.

‘I met with a man who’s a very rational person.’

Mamdani was confronted by a reporter about his previous characterizations of Trump as a “despot.”

“I’ve been called much worse than a despot,” Trump quipped. “So it’s not that insulting. I think he’ll change his mind after we get to working together.”

RELATED: Trump warns Mamdani ahead of high-stakes Oval Office meeting: ‘He has to be careful’

Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP via Getty Images

Trump also interrupted Mamdani with a lighthearted comment on another occasion when Mamdani was pressed about calling the president a “fascist.”

“That’s OK, you can just say yes,” Trump said, patting Mamdani on the shoulder. “That’s easier than explaining. I don’t mind.”

Mamdani promptly agreed with Trump and refrained from elaborating on his past comments.

RELATED: Zohran Mamdani becomes first openly socialist mayor of New York City

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Alongside the many moments where the two joked about contentious remarks they’ve made about each other, both Trump and Mamdani agreed on key issues like affordability and cost of living. Trump acknowledged that their solutions to these issues would likely be different, but he cordially praised Mamdani as a “rational person” who sincerely wants New York City to succeed.

“I met with a man who’s a very rational person,” Trump said. “I met with a man who really wants to see New York be great again.”

“I’ll be cheering for him.”

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

​Donald trump, Zohran mamdani, Socialist, Fascist, Affordability, Oval office, Cost of living, White house, Trump administration, New york city, Politics 

George Soros has long been an advocate of open borders (against sovereignty), and BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler has always wondered why. But it wasn’t until she stumbled on old interviews of Soros, where he admitted that he did not believe in God, where she understood.

“Open borders is just a tool. It’s the means,” Wheeler tells students while speaking at Hillsdale College, before asking, “But what is the end?”

“Well, once you do dilute the culture, once you do destroy the institutions and the norms, then suddenly the country begins to change,” she explains, using Dearborn, Michigan, as an example.

“The Muslim mayor of Dearborn, Michigan, Abdullah Hammoud, he has mosques with loudspeakers attached to the top, and they play Muslim prayer hours publicly in the city, changing the culture of that area,” Wheeler says, noting that the reason he’s able to do this is because “our culture has been diluted.”

“It’s been under assault. The underlying hatred of those on the left who claim to just hate capitalism, they claim to maybe hate our definition of liberty. That’s not the underlying cause of it. It’s the hatred of our creator, hatred of the true founder, or the founder of the truth on which our nation is based,” she continues.

“And when you recognize that, the plot to overthrow America that is happening as I speak to you tonight becomes chillingly clear,” she adds.

Wheeler explains that this “plot to overthrow America” is made up of four pillars.

“The first pillar is diluting a culture through an attack on borders, through an attack on sovereignty. Opening the borders, letting hordes of people with no intention of assimilation coming into our country and changing the fabric, changing our norms and our traditions and our institutions,” she explains.

“The second pillar is electing radical politicians who hate our nation and for what we stand. The third pillar is changing the voting electorate,” she continues, pointing out that the voting electorate is changed through indoctrination.

“If you walk through the doors of a traditional four-year university in this country, you are very likely, if you walked in politically apathetic, to walk out a hardened Marxist revolutionary because that is the purpose of most universities in this country,” she adds.

The other way to change the voting electorate is through importing voters who “do not love the country to which they have been allowed to live.”

“And then the fourth pillar,” she says, “is fomenting violence in the streets of America in order to condition people for a violent revolution.”

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video phone, Video, Upload, Free, Camera phone, Sharing, Youtube.com, The liz wheeler show, Liz wheeler, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, George soros, Islamification, Islamification of america, Islam, Open borders, Indoctrination 

Leftists have infamously fought for men infiltrating women’s spaces — including locker rooms and bathrooms — despite it making women feel unsafe.

And until now, most left-wing talking heads have maintained the talking point that transgender women, or biological men, deserve to share women’s spaces. And which woman broke the trans-positive trend on the topic is shocking, to say the least.

“There would be women walking around with their boobies dangling, swinging in the breeze. And it’s not even, like, perky boobies, just boobies drooping to their knees. They kicking their boobies down the street and then want to walk up and have a conversation with you,” ex-MSNBC host Joy Reid began on her show, “Reid This Reid That.”

“And I’m like, don’t walk up to me with no clothes on and talk to me. I don’t want to talk to you. I would be disturbed. I’m telling you, I would be alarmed. I’m alarmed enough when I see a woman with her dangling boobies,” she continued.

“If I saw a penis in the ladies’ locker room, I would freak out too,” she said.

“This is nothing against trans anybody. What it’s saying is, if I turn around and I see a pee-pee, a penis, in front of me, inside of the room, I would probably go to management and say, ‘Wait a minute,’” she added.

Reid pointed out that it would be concerning from a “safety standpoint” and a “privacy standpoint.”

“This is what we’ve said a million times,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray says, astonished. “Why are the women’s sensibilities completely discounted here? It doesn’t make any sense for people who purport to care about women. It’s unreal.”

​Free, Upload, Video phone, Sharing, Video, Camera phone, Youtube.com, Pat gray unleashed, Pat gray, The blaze, Blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Joy reid, Transgenders, Men in women’s locker rooms, Men in women’s spaces, Men in women’s bathrooms, Trans women in women’s locker rooms, Msnbc, Leftist, Womens rights 

A pair of Virginia brothers are facing charges related to an alleged plot to attack U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as retaliation for their enforcement of the law.

Mark Bennett, 59, and his younger brother John Bennett, a 54-year-old assistant principal at Virginia Beach’s Kempsville High School, were arrested on Wednesday at Norfolk International Airport and each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit malicious wounding.

‘Our ICE law enforcement is now facing an 8,000% increase in death threats against them.’

While having lunch at a pho restaurant in Virginia Beach on Nov. 15, an off-duty Norfolk police officer allegedly overheard the brothers discussing “how ICE agents are kidnapping individuals and that they needed to do something about it,” said the criminal complaint obtained by WTKR-TV.

Mark Bennett allegedly indicated during the conversation that he was planning to link up with like-minded people in Las Vegas and return with “enforcement ideas and plans.” He also allegedly indicated that he recently purchased a so-called assault rifle because “it utilizes the explosive rounds that are needed to penetrate the vests.”

The complaint claims that John Bennett said that he wanted to “go hunting” and signaled interest in flying to Vegas with his older brother.

While detectives confirmed that Mark Bennett was scheduled to make the flight on the day of his arrest, it’s unclear whether his brother similarly had a ticket to fly.

RELATED: Ramming attacks on ICE spike, endangering agents as Democrats continue to spew hateful rhetoric

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

“These allegations of violence against law enforcement, the very ones who protect and serve our communities, are incredibly alarming,” Virginia Beach Police Chief Paul Neudigate said in a statement. “We are grateful this information was brought to our attention. VBPD was able to work with various law enforcement agencies to assess the credibility of the information, leading to today’s arrests, ensuring the safety of both our law enforcement community and the public at large.”

Neither ICE nor Kempsville High School responded to Blaze News’ requests for comment by deadline.

Virginia Beach City Public Schools told WTKR that Bennett has been with the district since 2009 and is currently on leave.

During the brothers’ bond hearing on Thursday, the Bennetts’ attorneys claimed that the conversation overheard at the restaurant amounted to hearsay, that they were just joking around, and that neither brother posed a threat to the community, reported WVEC-TV.

The attorneys suggested further that the purpose of Mark Bennett’s trip to Las Vegas was to attend a Formula 1 race with his two sons.

The Bennetts were granted $25,000 bond but are confined to their homes and barred from contacting each other or possessing firearms.

ICE agents have faced an alarming number of threats and attacks in recent months. In some case, such as the sniper shooting in September at a Dallas facility, the attacks have proven deadly.

The Department of Homeland Security revealed this week that since Jan. 20, there have been 71 vehicular attacks against Customs and Border Protection agents and 28 vehicular attacks against ICE, amounting to 58% and 1,300% increases, respectively, of such attacks over the same period last year.

“Our ICE law enforcement is now facing an 8,000% increase in death threats against them while they risk their lives every single day to remove the worst of the worst,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said late last month.

“From bounties placed on their heads for their murders, threats to their families, stalking, and doxxing online, our officers are experiencing an unprecedented level of violence and threats against them and their families,” continued McLaughlin. “Make no mistake, sanctuary politicians are contributing to the surge in violent threats and assaults of our officers through their repeated vilification and demonization tactics, including gross comparisons to the Nazi Gestapo.”

The agency noted that concerned citizens can report doxxing and harassment against ICE officers by calling 866-DHS-2-ICE (866-347-2423) or by completing ICE’s online tip form.

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

​Crime, Mark bennett, John bennett, Kempsville, Norfolk, Virginia, Virginia beach, Us immigration and customs enforcement, Department of homeland security, Dhs, Illegal aliens, Illegal immigration, Deportation, Ice, Politics 

An attack on a Texas federal facility has led to five people admitting to offering support for terrorism as members of an Antifa cell.

It is the first time that criminal suspects admitted to being involved in an Antifa cell, contradicting claims from many on the left that Antifa does not exist as an organization.

‘Antifa is a militant enterprise that advocates insurrection and violence to affect the policy and conduct of the US government by intimidation and coercion.’

Seth Sikes, Joy Abigail Gibson, Lynette Read Sharp, Nathan Baumann, and John Phillip Thomas each agreed that they had planned “to provide resources and personnel” before the July 4th attack intentionally knowing that “they would be used to carry out acts of terrorism.”

The agreement allows them to limit their possible prison time to 15 years rather than face decades of imprisonment.

An officer was shot in the neck in the attack at the Prairieland Detention Facility after confronting a suspicious individual who appeared to be carrying a firearm. “Multiple suspects” fired upon the officer, according to the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office.

The officer was treated at a hospital and released.

The expansive investigation into the incident led to charges being filed against a total of 18 people. Gibson, Baumann, and Sikes were present the night of the attack, while Sharp and Thomas helped the accused shooter evade authorities.

Baumann agreed to stipulated facts about the plot in his plea deal.

“Baumann found that others who participated in the acts against Prairieland adhered to an Antifa, revolutionary anarchist or autonomous Marxist ideology that is anti-law enforcement, anti-immigration enforcement, and calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and the system of law,” the deal read. “Antifa is a militant enterprise that advocates insurrection and violence to affect the policy and conduct of the U.S. government by intimidation and coercion.”

The five who agreed to a plea deal are also facing state charges from Johnson County prosecutors. The rest of the 18 suspects are facing numerous local and federal charges.

“The charges the Grand Jury has leveled against these defendants, including material support for terrorists, address the vicious attack perpetrated by an anti-ICE, anti-law enforcement, anti-government, anarchist group,” said acting U.S. Attorney Nancy Larson in the press release.

RELATED: Anti-ICE messaging on bullets at shooting scene of ICE facility in Dallas

An attorney for another suspect named Elizabeth Soto said she pleaded not guilty and would contest the accusations in court.

Some of the defendants and their attorneys said that they intended to protest the immigration policies of the Trump administration but did not intend for shots to be fired.

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

​Prairieland attack, Ice facility attack, Antifa terror convictions, Antifa cell plea deals, Politics 

It seems some male basketball players are tired of having their skill levels compared to WNBA players.

After a former NBA player said the 2025 WNBA champions could beat an NBA team, a group of ballers decided to set the record straight with brutal honesty about how a matchup between the two sets of pros would play out.

‘I wish this would stop being a conversation.’

NBA players Michael Porter Jr., Lonzo Ball, and former pro LiAngelo Ball brought up the comparison of NBA players versus WNBA players on a recent episode of the “Ball in the Family Podcast.”

In just the second episode of the show’s existence, Porter decided he would contribute to its newsworthiness by asking the panel if they had heard that WNBA star Paige Bueckers claimed she could beat an NBA player head-to-head.

“Did you see when she said that she would beat Josh Hart one-on-one?” Porter asked.

“No chance,” the panel unanimously agreed, stating there was too big of a skill gap between Hart, who has averaged more than 10 points per game in his career, and a female pro.

The group then discussed what the age-appropriate matchup between a male and female basketball player would be, prompting the panel to drop brutal truths.

“Probably eighth grade,” Porter theorized, revealing he had actual experience playing against female college players as a teen.

“My sisters went to University of Missouri, and I was still a young dude, and they had me playing on the scout team, and they had a few WNBA players on their team, like Sophie Cunningham and a couple others. I think I was in seventh or eighth grade,” Porter continued.

He noted that he did indeed crush his female competitors at that time.

“It’s just a difference. I wish this would stop being a conversation because it should be common sense. But like, it’s just not,” he said.

Any viewers who thought the other panel members would jump to the defense of female players at this point were sorely mistaken. Particularly Lonzo Ball pulled no punches.

RELATED: Toronto Raptors’ Jontay Porter banned from NBA for life after disclosing info to bettor for $1.1 million bet

“I mean this as respectfully as possible, but ninth-grade Lonzo Ball in the WNBA is going crazy,” he said, speaking in third person.

Ball then brought out the measuring stick:

“In ninth grade, I was over six feet and dunking. I’m coming through the lane. No girl in the WNBA is doing that. I’m going backdoor, ‘Throw it up!’ I’m looking like Jordan out there,” he said.

Ball is no slouch in the NBA, and his 11-points per-game career average gives him the basis to make these claims.

“I mean this so respectfully. Middle school [and] down,” he added.

Earlier in the podcast, Porter outed his pro team for having reprimanded him in the past for talking about the differences between male and female players.

He explained that even within the Brooklyn Nets organization, “We’ve had conversations. They would appreciate if I stayed clear of certain topics, you know what I mean? That’s why the WNBA thing, that’s just a topic that kind of — it’s so sensitive nowadays. So I try to be aware of that.”

According to OutKick, Porter had previously strongly implied that if the WNBA All-Star team or the women’s Team USA basketball squad played the best male high school basketball players in the country, the boys would easily beat the women.

“It’s one of them things, bro. You can’t dance around it. In high school, when I was in high school … if we played the WNBA All-Star team, that, no disrespect, bro. No disrespect. I’m not even gonna say it,” Porter reportedly said.

RELATED: ‘They’re all hot garbage’: Whitlock goes NUCLEAR on the WNBA

Las Vegas Aces holds up the championship trophy after winning Game Four of the 2025 WNBA Playoffs finals at Mortgage Matchup Center on October 10, 2025, in Phoenix, Arizona. Photo by Chris Coduto/Getty Images

In early October, 12-year NBA veteran (now retired) Pat Beverley said in an X post that the WNBA champion Las Vegas Aces could give an NBA team a run for their money on the court.

“Idk if it’s the [wine] but i really believe this Aces team could beat a NBA team,” Beverley wrote.

The recent podcast panel reacted strongly to that claim with multiple guests simply responding, “That’s crazy.”

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

​Fearless, Wnba, Women’s sports, Battle of the sexes, Basketball, Nba, Men’s sports, Sports 

​Culture, Humor, Quick draw, Tucker carslon, Ben shapiro, Leftists, Politics, Culture war 

Despite numerous setbacks, President Donald Trump remains committed to ending the war between Russia and Ukraine — a war that has resulted in over a million casualties and turned much of Eastern Ukraine into drone-netted wasteland.

To this end, his administration has drafted a 28-point peace plan that would give both warring parties something they want: for Russia, concessions to much of the land it presently occupies in Eastern Ukraine; and for Ukraine, a NATO-style security guarantee from the United States.

‘We’re back to square one.’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy initially expressed a willingness to work with the administration on the plan, which was presented to him in writing on Thursday by U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, but he has since joined others in casting doubt on its workability.

The plan

Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted on Wednesday evening, “Ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of serious and realistic ideas. And achieving a durable peace will require both sides to agree to difficult but necessary concessions.”

“That is why we are and will continue to develop a list of potential ideas for ending this war based on input from both sides of this conflict,” Rubio added.

RELATED: Zelenskyy’s hold on power uncertain as criminal charges reach his inner circle

Photo by Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The following day, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged that Rubio and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff “have been working on a plan quietly for about the last month.”

“They have been engaging with both sides, Russia and Ukraine equally, to understand what these countries would commit to in order to see a lasting and durable peace,” Leavitt continued. “That’s how you get to a peace negotiation.”

The plan’s 28 points as of Thursday are as follows, according to Axios and Agence France-Presse:

Ukraine’s sovereignty will be affirmed.A comprehensive non-aggression agreement between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe will be established, thereby settling all ambiguities of the last 30 years.The expectations that Russia will not invade neighboring countries and that NATO will not continue its expansion will be codified.A U.S.-mediated dialogue will be scheduled between Russia and NATO in order “to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.”Ukraine will receive an explicit security guarantee — apparently from the United States.Ukraine’s military will be limited to 600,000 personnel.Ukraine will codify in its constitution a prohibition on its joining NATO, and NATO will agree to statutorily forbid Ukraine’s admission in the future.NATO will agree not to station troops in Ukraine.European fighter jets will be stationed in neighboring Poland.The U.S. will receive compensation for its guarantee; invalidate the guarantee if Ukraine invades Russia or fires a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg without cause; and revoke recognition of the new territory and respond both militarily as well as with global sanctions if Russia invades.Ukraine will be eligible for membership to the European Union and enjoy special access to the European market in the meantime.The U.S. and other parties will help rebuild Ukraine.Russia will be reintegrated in the the global economy.Frozen Russian assets will be poured into American-led efforts to rebuild Ukraine — a venture from which the U.S. will receive 50% of profits.A U.S.-Russian working group on security issues will be established to ensure compliance with all provisions of the agreement.Russia will codify a policy of non-aggression toward Europe and Ukraine.The U.S. and Russia will “agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.”Ukraine will agree not to acquire or develop nuclear bombs.The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency and distribute electricity equally between Russia and Ukraine.In addition to both nations implementing educational anti-discrimination programs and guaranteeing the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education, Ukraine will deal with its Nazi infestation and adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.The U.S. will recognize Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk as de facto Russian; Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be divided along the current line of contact; Russia will cede other territories under its control outside the five regions; and Ukrainian forces with abandon the part of Donetsk Oblast currently under their control, which will become a neutral demilitarized buffer zone.Once the territorial arrangements are settled, neither Russia nor Ukraine will attempt to change them by force.Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnieper River for commercial activities, and agreement will be made on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea.A humanitarian committee will be established to deal with prisoner exchanges as well as the return of remains, hostages, and civilian detainees. A family reunification program will also be implemented.Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.All parties involved in the conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to consider any complaints in the future.The agreement will be legally binding, and sanctions will be imposed for violations.The ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to agreed points and begin implementing the terms of the agreement.

Flies in the ointment

European diplomats and other establishmentarians immediately began clutching pearls over the plan, apparently convinced that there is yet a better way to resolve or win what is effectively an 11-year-old war.

“We’re back to square one,” one senior European official told the Financial Times.

Another European diplomat working on a response to Trump’s plan said, “It basically means capitulation [to Moscow].”

“For any plan to work, it needs Ukrainians and Europeans on board,” said European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. “We haven’t heard of any concessions on the Russian side.”

RELATED: Orbán emphasizes to Trump that Hungary survives today as Christian ‘island of difference in a liberal ocean’

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said, “Peace cannot be a capitulation.”

‘Our red lines are clear and unwavering.’

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for instance, suggested that the plan was a “surrender agreement,” adding that “Ukrainian courage and patriotism should not be betrayed by Americans growing tired of stopping evil.”

Douglas Murray, a gay neoconservative who complained last year that the West was “drunk on peace,” wrote in his New York Post column, “Perhaps this is just an opening gambit, but it must be clear to any observer that these are not terms that any Ukrainian government could agree to.”

The Institute for the Study of War said that “the stipulations of the reported 28-point Russia-U.S. peace plan amount to Ukraine’s full capitulation to Russia’s original war demands.”

Zelenskyy, whose presidential term officially ended 18 months ago, initially broke from the naysayers, tweeting on Thursday, “Our teams — of Ukraine and the United States — will work on the provisions of the plan to end the war. We are ready for constructive, honest and swift work.”

However, in a 10-minute address on Friday to his beleaguered nation, Zelenskyy framed the choice of accepting the peace plan in dire terms.

“Now the pressure on Ukraine is one of the most difficult. Now Ukraine may find itself facing a very difficult choice: either the loss of dignity or the risk of losing a key partner,” Zelenskyy said. “Either [Trump’s] 28 points or an extremely difficult winter, the most difficult and further risks — life without freedom, without dignity, without justice.”

The previous day, Zelenskyy stated, “It is important that the outcome be a dignified peace.”

Kristina Gayovishin, Ukraine’s deputy permanent representative to the U.N., effectively told the globalist body’s security council that concessions to Moscow and military reductions were off the table.

“While Ukraine stands ready to engage in meaningful negotiations to end this war, our red lines are clear and unwavering,” Gayovishin said. “There will never be any recognition, formal or otherwise, of Ukrainian territory temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation as Russian. Our land is not for sale.”

“We will not accept any limits on our right to self-defense or on the size and capabilities of our armed force,” the Ukrainian diplomat continued. “Nor will we tolerate any infringement on our sovereignty, including our sovereign right to choose the alliances we want to join.”

Gayovishin added, “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. And nothing about Europe without Europe.”

American officials have emphasized that the 28-point peace plan is a working document and therefore prone to change.

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

​Zelenskyy, Ukraine, Russia, War, Peace plan, President donald trump, Trump, Europe, Intervention, Forever war, Conflict, Politics