Category: blaze media

Camp Lejeune was a Marine Corps base in North Carolina where Virginia Robinson dedicated 25 years of her life to working and raising her family — unaware that they were drinking, bathing, and living with poisoned water the entire time.

But the government knew, and despite the sickness that plagued the inhabitants, they never told them.

“I had three cancers I was fighting at one time,” Robinson tells BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan on “Back to the People.”

Robinson not only had three cancers at the same time, but she also survived leukemia, colon cancer while pregnant, and two separate diagnoses of breast cancer. And she wasn’t the only one in her family affected.

Her husband passed away in 2014, her daughter followed shortly after, and her father was diagnosed with Parkinson’s. Another daughter of hers was born with a spinal tumor and died young from bladder cancer.

All of them were exposed to Camp Lejeune’s water.

“What kind of levels of toxicity were in the water? Was it trace amounts or were there periods where there were large dumps and increases of contamination?” Shanahan asks.

“There was dumping involved, because there’s some videos. I don’t know where they’re at. My brother told me about them because he’s been doing a lot of research about this, and he said there was sites where there was trucks going on base and dumping from the laundromat,” Robinson explains.

“We’re talking about levels, Nicole, that are 10 times, 30 times, 50 times, 150 times EPA limits. We’re not talking about trace amounts of these chemicals. We’re talking about, as you would expect, the kind of amounts that are causing way elevated risks of a whole host of conditions,” she continues.

And unfortunately, when Robinson has gone to the government for help, it has turned her away.

“I have no doubt that they caused your cancer, your pain and suffering, the deaths, just horrific lives, right? Because they’ve done it to millions of Americans through faulty vaccines,” Shanahan says, adding, “I don’t know if there is justice in this country or we have a real justice system.”

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

To enjoy more of Nicole’s compelling blend of empathy, curiosity, and enlightenment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sharing, Free, Video phone, Camera phone, Video, Upload, Youtube.com, Back to the people with nicole shanahan, Back to the people podcast, Nicole shanahan, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Camp lejeune, Marine corps, Poison, Toxic chemicals, Poisoned marines, Poisoned water supply, Cancer, Disease, Birth defects 

Five years ago, misleading narratives regarding policing and racism were waiting at every turn. And even then — in the midst of COVID-19 lockdowns and craziness — Charlie Kirk was out fighting to make the truth known.

“Three hundred eighty-five million police interactions happen every single year in America; 385 million. And 15 unarmed black men die. Fifty-two police officers were killed last year in 2019. Twice as many black police officers have died in the last two weeks than unarmed black men,” Kirk told BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

Kirk then named two police officers, David Dorn and David Patrick Underwood — two men, one a police officer and one a federal security officer.

“Do you think Black Lives Matter activists know those two names? Do you think they know the names of the 179 individuals that have been shot due to black-on-black crime in Chicago, Atlanta, and Philadelphia?” Kirk asked.

“So I think if we’re serious about having this conversation about unjust death in America, we can’t allow an entire emotive quasi pathological conversation to hijack the entire narrative in our country,” he continues. “And I think it’s very dangerous, and also, it leads us to a place that does not create good public policy and divides the country unnecessarily.”

However, when people bring up statistics to prove their point, it’s often met with accusations and personal attacks from the left.

“Something I’ve been really sad about is seeing women, and especially Christian women, say that it is callous to talk about those facts and to talk about the statistics or to bring up the side of the police officers at all, the good police officers, because it is not showing proper compassion or it’s not showing enough sadness surrounding the tragedy,” Stuckey said.

“But what I want people to understand is that you don’t bring up statistics to say, ‘Oh, no bad people exist or no bad cops exist or we can’t talk about racism ever.’ It’s because exactly what you said. If we allow narratives to go unchecked without talking about statistics or facts, that’s how people, especially on the left, build public policy,” she continues.

When the left can run with these false narratives, Kirk explains that it becomes the “Ferguson effect.”

This was when the media lied and said, “Michael Brown put his hands up and said, ‘Hands up, don’t shoot.’ Never happened. Did not happen. And it’s been proven through witness testimony and also through an autopsy,” Kirk explains.

“But still, that lie became a narrative within the media, and the Ferguson effect in Ferguson, Missouri, ensued, which essentially is the police retreated,” he continues.

“People said, ‘We don’t want the police.’ Fine. Crime went up, rapes went up, violent arrest went up, violent crime, I should say, went up,” he says, adding, “Every sort of category of crime went up imaginable.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sharing, Free, Video, Video phone, Camera phone, Upload, Youtube.com, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Charlie kirk, Charlie kirk assassination, Black lives matter, George floyd, Ferguson, The ferguson effect, Blm, 2020, Police brutality 

When Jeffrey Clark was tapped to lead the second Trump administration’s chief regulatory review office, it marked an astonishing redemption.

For years, congressional investigators and prosecutors had pursued the former Department of Justice official primarily over an unsent letter he drafted in support of President Donald Trump’s 2020 election challenge, calling for Georgia to consider launching a last-minute legislative session to review its results.

The president’s adversaries who weaponized the justice system through ‘lawfare’ have opened another front in their war through ‘barfare.’

Trump’s return to power has not ended Clark’s troubles. Washington, D.C.’s legal disciplinary authority has recommended that he be disbarred over his conduct from five years ago. Lawyers for Clark claim that the effort seeks to punish “thought crime” regarding their client’s belief in potential irregularities in an election that authorities declared devoid of widespread fraud.

Even as Trump’s critics now claim he is engaging in retribution against a wide range of past assailants, including former FBI Director James Comey, his supporters say Clark’s case reveals there is an ongoing, politically motivated push to punish MAGA advocates. In their telling, the president’s adversaries who weaponized the justice system through “lawfare” have opened another front in their war through “barfare.”

The rise of barfare

Since 2020, Democrat officials and progressive groups established specifically to target conservatives have lodged bar complaints against dozens of Trump-allied attorneys such as Clark. While supporters of these efforts say they are trying to hold officeholders and advocates accountable for actions that betrayed the canons of ethical legal practice, conservative opponents say the push to punish their political foes via bar complaints, often brought in politically partisan jurisdictions, threatens not only the ability of presidents to receive counsel but the American legal system itself.

“The most politicized situations are the ones where the bar should be the most reticent” to consider punishing attorneys over their work, James Burnham, former DOGE general counsel, said during a recent panel discussion on alleged bar weaponization hosted by the right-leaning Federalist Society. “That’s when lawyers are supposed to be the most creative and the most aggressive. … But it’s not the kind of situation where we want lawyers to be afraid to even engage in advocacy in the first place.”

The Clark complaint concerned his activities in the final weeks of the first Trump administration, while he served in part as acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division. Clark, an environmental and regulatory lawyer by background, believed that there were potentially election-altering fraud or irregularities in Georgia and other states, requiring resolution before the fast-approaching January 6, 2021, election certification date.

In response, he wrote a draft letter dated Dec. 28 and addressed to Georgia leaders recommending that the state legislature convene a special session to further probe potential irregularities and take remedial steps as necessary if they impacted the election outcome.

Clark circulated the letter to acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, who were responsible for probing 2020 election issues. Rosen and Donoghue disagreed with its thrust — especially the suggestion that there was potentially election-altering fraud — and declined to sign and deliver it.

Trump gets wind

As Trump’s election challenge proceeded, he got wind of Clark’s views. Apparently finding an ally, the president floated the idea of making Clark acting attorney general. Clark allegedly offered to decline any such appointment if Rosen would sign off on the letter, the then-Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee would later report — an allegation Clark would flatly deny. In opposition to a possible appointment, Clark’s superiors convened a Jan. 3, 2021, meeting with Trump and other officials, at which several said they and other colleagues would resign en masse should the president elevate him.

Ultimately, the president backed off, and Clark’s letter was consigned to the dustbin of history — until one or several ex-Trump administration officials leaked word of its existence and contents to the New York Times. The Times wrote about Clark’s efforts in a Jan. 22 article titled “Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General.”

RELATED: Democrats’ lawfare is on a collision course with hard reality

Photo by CatLane via Getty Images

A flurry of probes pertaining to the president’s election challenge followed. Clark — a Harvard- and Georgetown-educated litigator who had spent the bulk of his career as a partner at white-shoe law firm Kirkland & Ellis — spent the next several years facing the scrutiny of congressional committees, including the Democrat-dominated Jan. 6 Committee, and prosecution in cases brought by Fani Willis in Fulton County, Georgia, and special counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C. In June 2022, he was forced to wait outside his home in his undergarments while federal investigators searched his suburban Virginia residence, seizing electronic devices in connection with their January 6 probe.

In July 2022, in response to a complaint lodged by the then-Democrat-led Senate, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility charged Clark with violating the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. It accused him of engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty” by drafting the letter the board alleged contained false statements and for “attempt[ing] to engage in conduct that would seriously interfere with the administration of justice.”

The allegations against Clark rested in part on the argument that because his superiors disagreed with his views on potential election fraud in Georgia, Clark’s assertions in the letter were fraudulent.

Unprecedented case

In his defense, Clark invoked a slew of privileges and raised myriad procedural and substantive arguments — including that the local D.C. disciplinary board lacked jurisdiction over Clark’s conduct as a federal lawyer providing counsel to the president; that Clark enjoyed immunity from liability while rendering advice to the president; and that the purported false statements were merely proposed Justice Department positions for consideration by superiors — positions largely consistent, as his lawyers noted, with those raised by several U.S. Supreme Court justices and nearly 20 state attorneys general.

Clark’s lawyers argued during his trial that “no one has ever been charged by the D.C. Bar with attempted dishonesty in a draft letter that recommended a change in policy or position where that document was not approved and never even left the office.”

His lawyers made the point that sanctioning him for such conduct would lead to a limitless array of disciplinary actions against attorneys over private or internal deliberations on behalf of clients should they hold contrarian views.

Government “lawyers will be afraid to give their candid opinions for fear of losing their careers. Likewise, lawyers will not join government for the same reason,” Harry MacDougald, one of Clark’s lawyers, told RealClearInvestigations.

On July 31, 2025, despite acknowledging “that there are no factually comparable prior disciplinary cases,” a majority of the board recommended that Clark be disbarred. While rejecting Clark’s arguments, including that he was protected as a government lawyer giving advice, the nine-member board said that the charges against him “focus on the truthfulness of the factual assertions” in the letter that he authored.

Those who believe the bar is being weaponized against those who hold disfavored viewpoints — namely on the right — say corrective action is required.

Although Clark’s superiors had testified that Clark had “sincere personal concerns” regarding the integrity of the election, the board said, “they also agreed that the Justice Department had not identified potentially outcome-determinative issues in Georgia or other states.”

Therefore, his continued efforts to press officials to send the letter “constituted an attempt to make intentionally false statements about the results of the Justice Department’s investigation,” the board said.

The tribunal added that Clark “should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated.”

The disbarment decision is pending before the D.C. Court of Appeals, which has final say over such decisions in the nation’s capital.

Claims of unequal justice

In an August 2025 filing with the appeals court obtained by RealClearInvestigations detailing Clark’s exceptions to the board’s order, his counsel contrasted the disciplinary tribunal’s treatment of the Justice Department lawyer with that of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. He received just a one-year suspension for doctoring a document submitted to the FISA Court supporting the government’s FISA warrant application that enabled surveillance of Trump adviser Carter Page.

“The disciplinary process in the D.C. bar is radically disparate according to the political affiliation and views of the respondent attorney,” Clark’s lawyers charged.

A preliminary review of public records indicates that a majority of the board that made the Clark recommendation was composed of registered Democrats, individuals who had contributed to Democrat candidates, or public advocates of progressive causes. Only one board member was publicly identifiable as a Republican.

The board recommendation followed a trial before a separate three-member panel, at least two of whom were registered Democrats and had contributed financially to Democratic Party candidates, public records show.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which handed down the original charges against Clark and effectively prosecutes such cases, is also headed by an attorney, Hamilton P. Fox III, who, according to public records, is a Democrat.

“D.C. voted Democrat more than 90% against Trump all three times he was on the ballot — the most lopsided margin in the country to have [its] own Bar,” MacDougald noted on X in a response to the disciplinary authority’s decision.

Many prominent Republicans also took issue with the actions of Trump and his confidants in challenging the 2020 election. This includes the sole publicly identifiable Republican board member, Margaret M. Cassidy, a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association who concurred in the recommendation that Clark be disbarred.

After the panel handed down its recommendation to disbar Clark, MacDougald told RealClearInvestigations that “the reason Jeff has been singled out is lawfare — straight-up political persecution.”

With the Clark disbarment decision now in the hands of federal judges, the lawyer may have just gotten a big boost. On Sept. 25, three former attorneys general submitted an amicus brief in support of his case. William P. Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Michael Mukasey — all Republican-appointed prosecutors, but not all supportive of Clark’s conduct — echoed his arguments in writing.

“The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility … has no business — indeed, no authority whatever — in policing internal deliberative discussions and documents exchanged within the federal Executive Branch for containing purportedly ‘dishonest’ (yet somehow also ‘sincere’) ideas or assertions,” they said.

They added that “immunity for top advisors is necessary to ensure that the President may receive candid and necessary advice prior to acting.”

“Although we are not persuaded by Mr. Clark’s proposed legal strategy, and former Attorney General Barr has publicly criticized it in no uncertain terms, disbarring or otherwise disciplining Mr. Clark for those actions would set a dangerous precedent that would significantly interfere with Executive Branch functions,” while sending a “biting chill throughout the federal government,” they concluded.

Not alone in the dock

On the same July day that the D.C. tribunal formally made its recommendation to disbar Clark, three current Justice Department officials were hit with ethics complaints lodged with the bar disciplinary authorities where they are licensed to practice.

The parallel complaints — targeting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton, special counsel Brad Rosenberg, and trial attorney Liam Holland — allege they made “intentionally and materially misleading statements” in litigation over the Trump administration’s attempt to curtail the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The complaints note that presiding Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the D.C. District Court upbraided the lawyers over certain representations made to the court.

Several ex-Justice Department staff members have defended their colleagues, writing that “our former colleagues took immediate steps to correct the record in response to plaintiffs’ evidence,” while noting that “leaving any such inquiry in the first instance to the court and the parties, who have intimate knowledge of the facts and circumstances that state bar authorities lack, would be a far better approach for determining whether sanctionable misconduct occurred.”

The Justice Department did not respond to RealClearInvestigations’ inquiries regarding the complaints against its employees.

The three complaints were filed by the Legal Accountability Center. The advocacy group’s executive director, Michael J. Teter, has said its efforts are aimed at “going on offense in defense of democracy” at a time when “the rule of law is under direct assault.” The organization maintains it is merely seeking to hold to account “attorneys who abuse their power and violate professional conduct rules.” Its financials are unavailable. A broken web link appears to tie the nonprofit to progressive tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund.

Among the Legal Accountability Center’s initiatives is the 65 Project. The “dark money” outfit was launched in the wake of the 2020 election to “shame” lawyers who represented Trump in some 65 lawsuits challenging the election and “make them toxic in their communities and their firms,” according to Democrat operative David Brock, founder of the partisan watchdog group Media Matters, who is one of the group’s advisers.

Billed as a bipartisan effort, the 65 Project is led by staffers with ties to Democratic Party campaigns and causes. Teter, who also serves as its managing director, has worked for candidates including John Kerry and counseled the liberal American Civil Liberties Union. Its senior adviser, Melissa Moss, is a former Clinton appointee and finance director of the Democratic National Committee.

The 65 Project was originally run through another nonprofit, Moss’ Law Works, which achieved notoriety for hosting a stage adaptation of the Mueller Report performed by Hollywood stars. According to archived websites, the 65 Project was sponsored by the Franklin Education Forum, a supporter of progressive causes previously chaired by Brock and a grant recipient of Omidyar’s Democracy Fund.

Neither Teter nor the organizations with which he is affiliated responded to RealClearInvestigations’ inquiries in connection with this story.

Justice or harassment?

More senior officials, as well, have gotten hit with bar complaints in recent months. In September, the center filed a bar complaint against Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, claiming, among other things, a conflict of interest in his interviewing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It also filed a complaint against Ed Martin, the former U.S. attorney for D.C., asserting he had abused his position and conduct rules by engaging in politically motivated investigations, among other matters.

Martin, now a Justice Department special attorney, also faces scrutiny from the D.C. disciplinary body. During his tenure as U.S. attorney, he had requested information of that office, citing in part the Clark case, indicating his concern that it might be biased against conservatives.

Elected Republican officials around the country, including Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Lawrence VanDyke, the former solicitor general in Montana and Nevada and a current judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have also been targeted.

RELATED: Meet the evil mastermind targeting Trump with lawfare

Photo by hapabapa via Getty Images

Judging by their disposition, most of these accusations were of dubious legal merit. A recent analysis of nearly 80 complaints filed by third-party organizations like the 65 Project against attorneys who represented Trump or related causes — many of them Republican state attorneys general — found that in only three instances did attorneys face public discipline.

The conservative group America First Legal filed a bar complaint against Teter last fall for his 65 Project work, claiming he was abusing the bar disciplinary process in targeting attorneys associated with Trump. It is unclear whether the Utah Bar, which received the complaint, has taken any action.

De-weaponizing the bar discipline process

Those who believe the bar is being weaponized against those who hold disfavored viewpoints — namely on the right — say corrective action is required. They assert that beyond pursuing arguments regarding the immunity that federal lawyers ought to have from state and local authorities, there is a First Amendment right to viewpoint diversity that quasi-governmental entities, such as state bar associations, are currently violating.

Some, such as Michael Francisco, an appellate litigator who formerly clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, believe that “attorneys are not capable of regulating themselves.”

America First Legal’s Gene Hamilton echoed these remarks, adding during the Federalist Society panel: “I really do think that each of the state bar associations need to take a really hard look at the rules and to modify them to prevent abuses of the disciplinary process.”

Clark’s lawyer, MacDougald, told RealClearInvestigations that ultimately, lawyers advocating for Republican and Democrat causes will be losers if the weaponization of discipline doesn’t end.

“Lawyers have a job to do and should be allowed to do it,” he said. “State legislatures and state bar associations must reform themselves and commit to political neutrality, or they will destroy themselves and the profession.”

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

​Opinion & analysis, Lawfare, Barfare, Weaponization, Weaponized justice, Weaponization of the federal government, Jeffery clark, Ethics complaint, Washington dc, Democrats, Department of justice, Donald trump 

Being a writer, I lived for many years in New York City. During that time, I always enjoyed watching the local news. I liked the tough, hard-nosed style of the local anchors. They didn’t mince words. Muggings, murder, mayhem: They gave you the news, and they gave it to you straight.

They also didn’t play favorites politically. They reported on conservative mayors like Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg the same way they covered liberal mayors like Bill de Blasio and Eric Adams.

Now, it’s common to see female reporters focusing on the psychological effects of news events. How do people ‘feel’ about the fire/robbery/bridge collapse?

The local TV broadcasters treated all politicians the same. There was a kind of disciplined professionalism in their coverage. You got the feeling if they showed any kind of consistent bias, the highly intelligent New York audience would cry foul.

The green, green grass of home

During my New York years, when I would travel home to my parents’ house in Portland, I would enjoy watching the local news there, since it was so different. Portland, being a low crime/high trust city for most of its existence, didn’t have much news to report.

And so I would sit and chuckle to myself as I watched stories about a bake sale at the senior center, or a feel-good piece about a disabled person who learned to ski, or maybe there was a fire and the local firemen rescued the neighborhood’s favorite cat.

And of course, the local newscasters were folksy and upbeat. This was the Pacific Northwest. There was always a hiking story. Or a fish story. Or the opening of a new artisanal coffee shop story.

In terms of politics, our TV news was always respectful of whoever was the governor or mayor, regardless of their political orientation. That was expected. It was the right thing to do.

Besides which, the only politicians anyone noticed in Portland were eccentric amateurs like Mayor Bud Clark, who was a popular tavern owner and made a famous poster of himself: “EXPOSE YOURSELF TO ART,” it said and showed him naked in a trench coat flashing a statue outside an art museum.

I sigh just thinking about it. Portland, when it had a sense of humor.

The winds of change

Now, in Portland, there is a firm and obvious left-wing bias in all the local TV news. When did that happen?

I remember when Trump was first elected, there was a big push by the national media to vilify the new president in every way possible. But Trump was such an unusual president, it seemed to come with the territory.

I assumed the hysteria would die down eventually and that Trump would get the same treatment as Ronald Reagan. Attacked as a crazed “authoritarian” at first, but eventually, the media and his detractors would see that he was just a normal conservative.

At the same time, I fully expected my local media to not take sides. Their beat wasn’t Washington, D.C. They would continue with their cat stories and their ski reports.

George Floyd did nothing wrong (or did he?)

It was the George Floyd incident that began the politicizing of the local news in Portland. When we were told that Floyd was murdered by an evil white policeman, the local media felt obligated to express some form of outrage.

This was no time for nuance or objectivity. George Floyd was the victim of horrible police abuse (supposedly). So even the local news people, who didn’t know anything about the case or what actually happened, felt obligated to join in, with emphatic denouncements of police brutality.

Who can be in favor of police brutality?

Interestingly, when the summer riots of 2020 began in Portland, the local news stations returned to a more objective perspective.

Every night, they would send reporters downtown to check on the wild skirmishes and nocturnal riot-subculture that dominated Portland during the “100 Nights of Protest.”

Much of this reporting was genuinely objective. What was odd though, was that these local newsrooms almost exclusively sent women downtown to report on the violence. That always seemed strange to me. Not that women can’t withstand tear gas and flash bombs and being hit by flying objects. I’m sure they can.

But I noticed this, because it was another example of progressive values permeating the local TV news establishment.

These outlets were so determined to demonstrate their belief in equity and equality, they were willing to send young, inexperienced female reporters into the midst of a professional riot.

RELATED: Portland police spark outrage after ‘wrongful’ arrest of journalist Nick Sortor, allegedly victimized by Antifa; DOJ to investigate

Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images

Not your grandpa’s local news

Twenty years ago, the lineup of most local news programs was fairly uniform. A one-man/one-woman team of anchors, with a woman doing the weather and a man doing sports. Usually, it was men out in the field, covering crime, death, and car accidents.

Now though — at least in Portland — we are in an era of mostly female anchors, men doing the weather, sports being co-ed (we have a lot of women’s sports teams), and sending mostly female reporters into the field.

These female reporters are different from male reporters in that they tend to ask victims and eyewitnesses about their emotional response to whatever has happened to them.

The “emotionalization” of the news seems to have happened at all levels of the news business. Now, it’s common to see female reporters focusing on the psychological effects of news events. How do people “feel” about the fire/robbery/bridge collapse?

This new approach to news, emphasizing emotions over facts, also seems to suggest an increasingly leftist-oriented local media.

Trump’s invasion

Lately, Portland is in the news again, with Trump threatening to “send in the troops” if our local authorities can’t stop the attacks on ICE agents and clean up Portland’s dystopian streets.

Though our local news programs make half-hearted attempts to appear neutral, they are quick to amplify the idea that Trump’s plan to send troops is an “invasion.”

They further promote their leftist version of the situation by never mentioning the presence of Antifa or even calling them by name. This creates the impression that the people harassing and attacking the ICE officers are just concerned citizens, though it is pretty obvious from the news footage that they are not.

And of course, for every one interview they show of people supporting Trump’s plan, they show three interviews of people denouncing him and claiming that Portland is doing just fine. (It’s not.)

No, in Portland the local news is now an appendage to our leftist establishment. And you know that in those newsrooms, in those studios, there are plenty of people who don’t agree with the continued destruction of Portland. But they have to go along with it, or they’ll lose their jobs.

‘Portland Strong’

The craziest thing of all is that the new catchphrase being pushed by the left is “Portland Strong.” This is hilarious, considering Portland is the most touchy-feely, socialistic, nanny city in the country.

The last thing Portland is is “strong.” If we were strong, we wouldn’t have drug addicts, the homeless, and anarchist radicals in total control of our streets.

​Portland, Lifestyle, Culture, Local news, Progressivism, Essay, Men and woman, Emotionalization, Boob tube 

When 20-year-old loner Thomas Matthew Crooks ascended a sloped roof in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and opened fire, he unleashed a torrent of clichés. Commentators and public figures avoided the term “assassination attempt,” even if the AR-15 was trained on the head of the Republican Party’s nominee for president. Instead, they condemned “political violence.”

“There is absolutely no place for political violence in our democracy,” former President Barack Obama said. One year later, he added the word “despicable” to his condemnation of the assassin who killed Charlie Kirk. That was an upgrade from two weeks prior, when he described the shooting at Annunciation Catholic School by a transgender person as merely “unnecessary.”

Those in power are not only failing to enforce order, but also excusing and even actively promoting the conditions that undermine a peaceful, stable, and orderly regime.

Anyone fluent in post-9/11 rhetoric knows that political violence is the domain of terrorists and lone wolf ideologues, whose manifestos will soon be unearthed by federal investigators, deciphered by the high priests of our therapeutic age, and debated by partisans on cable TV.

The attempt to reduce it to the mere atomized individual, however, is a modern novelty. From the American Revolution to the Civil War, from the 1863 draft riots to the 1968 MLK riots, from the spring of Rodney King to the summer of George Floyd, the United States has a long history of people resorting to violence to achieve political ends by way of the mob.

Since the January 6 riot that followed the 2020 election, the left has persistently attempted to paint the right as particularly prone to mob action. But as the online response to the murder of Charlie Kirk demonstrates — with thousands of leftists openly celebrating the gory, public assassination of a young father — the vitriol that drives mob violence is endemic to American political discourse and a perpetual threat to order.

America’s founders understood this all too well.

In August 1786, a violent insurrection ripped through the peaceful Massachusetts countryside. After the end of the Revolutionary War, many American soldiers found themselves caught in a vise, with debt collectors on one side and a government unable to make good on back pay on the other. A disgruntled former officer in the Continental Army named Daniel Shays led a violent rebellion aimed at breaking the vise at gunpoint.

“Commotions of this sort, like snow-balls, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them,” George Washington wrote in a letter, striking a serene tone in the face of an insurrection. James Madison was less forgiving: “In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob,” he wrote in Federalist 55. Inspired by Shays’ Rebellion and seeking to rein in the excesses of democracy, lawmakers called for the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787.

Our current moment of chaos

If the United States Constitution was borne out of political chaos, why does the current moment strike so many as distinctly perilous? Classical political philosophy offers us a clearer answer to this question than modern psychoanalysis. The most pointed debate among philosophers throughout the centuries has centered on how to prevent mob violence and ensure that most unnatural of things: political order.

In Plato’s “Republic,” the work that stands at the headwaters of the Western tradition of political philosophy, Socrates argues that the only truly just society is one in which philosophers are kings and kings are philosophers. As a rule, democracy devolves into tyranny, for mob rule inevitably breeds impulsive citizens who become focused on petty pleasures. The resulting disorder eventually becomes so unbearable that a demagogue arises, promising to restore order and peace.

The classically educated founders picked up on these ideas — mediated through Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, and Montesquieu, among others — as they developed the structure of the new American government. The Constitution’s mixed government was explicitly designed to establish a political order that would take into consideration the sentiments and interests of the people without yielding to mob rule at the expense of order. The founders took for granted that powerful elites would necessarily be interested in upholding the regime from which they derived their authority.

Terror from the top

History has often seen disaffected elites stoke insurrections to defenestrate a ruling class that shut them out of public life. The famous case of the Catilinarian Conspiracy in late republican Rome, in which a disgruntled aristocrat named Catiline attempted to overthrow the republic during the consulship of Cicero, serves as a striking example.

In the 21st century, we face a different phenomenon: Those in power are not only failing to enforce order, but also excusing and even actively promoting the conditions that undermine a peaceful, stable, and orderly regime.

The points of erosion are numerous. The public cheerleading of assassinations can be dismissed as noise from the rabble, but it is more difficult to ignore the numerous calls from elites for civic conflagration. Newspapers are promoting historically dubious revisionism that undermines the moral legitimacy of the Constitution. Billionaire-backed prosecutors decline to prosecute violent crime.

For years, those in power at best ignored — and at worst encouraged — mob-driven chaos in American social life, resulting in declining trust in institutions, lowered expectations for basic public order, coarsened or altogether discarded social mores, and a general sense on all sides that Western civilization is breaking down.

Without a populace capable of self-control, liberty becomes impossible.

The United States has, of course, faced more robust political violence than what we are witnessing today. But even during the Civil War — brutal by any standard — a certain civility tended to obtain between the combatants. As Abraham Lincoln noted in his second inaugural address, “Both [sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God.” Even in the midst of a horrific war, a shared sense of ultimate things somewhat tempered the disorder and destruction — and crucially promoted a semblance of reconciliation once the war ended.

Our modern disorder runs deeper. The shattering of fundamental shared assumptions about virtually anything leaves political opponents looking less like fellow citizens to be persuaded and more like enemies to be subdued.

Charlie Kirk, despite his relative political moderation and his persistent willingness to engage in attempts at persuasion, continues to be smeared by many as a “Nazi propagandist.” The willful refusal to distinguish between mostly run-of-the-mill American conservatism and the murderous foreign ideology known as National Socialism is telling. The implication is not subtle: If you disagree with me, you are my enemy — and I am justified in cheering your murder.

Fellow citizens who persistently view their political opponents as enemies and existential threats cannot long exist in a shared political community.

“Democracy is on the ballot,” the popular refrain goes, but rarely is democracy undermined by a single election. It is instead undermined by a gradual decline in public spiritedness and private virtue, as well as the loss of social trust and good faith necessary to avoid violence.

The chief prosecutors against institutional authority are not disaffected Catalines but the ruling class itself. This arrangement may work for a while, but both political theory and common sense suggest that it is volatile and unlikely to last for long.

The conditions of liberty

Political order, in general, requires a degree of virtue, public-spiritedness, and good will among the citizenry. James Madison in Federalist 55 remarks that, of all the possible permutations of government that have yet been conceived, republican government is uniquely dependent upon order and institutional legitimacy:

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.

In short, republican government requires citizens who can govern themselves, an antidote to the passions that precede mayhem and assassination. Without a populace capable of self-control, liberty becomes impossible. Under such conditions, the releasing of restraints never liberates — it only promotes mob-like behavior.

RELATED: Radical killers turned campus heroes: How colleges idolize political violence

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

The disorder of Shays’ Rebellion prompted the drafting of the Constitution, initiating what has sometimes been called an “experiment in ordered liberty.” That experiment was put to the test beginning in 1791 in Western Pennsylvania. The Whiskey Rebellion reached a crisis in Bower Hill, Pennsylvania, about 50 miles south of modern-day Butler, when a mob of 600 disgruntled residents laid siege to a federal tax collector. With the blessing of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and Federalist co-author John Jay, President George Washington assembled troops to put down the rebellion.

Washington wrote in a proclamation:

I have accordingly determined [to call the militia], feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit.

Washington left Philadelphia to march thousands of state militiamen into the rebel haven of Western Pennsylvania. The insurrectionists surrendered without firing a shot.

Our new era of political violence rolls on, with Charlie Kirk’s murder being only the latest and most prominent example. Our leaders assure us they will ride out into the field just as Washington once did. Whether they will use their presence and influence to suppress or encourage “so fatal a spirit” remains an open question.

Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Mob rule, Rob, Riots, Riots and anarchy, Founding fathers, Federalist, Shays rebellion, Freedom of speech, Free speech, First amendment, Incitement, Law and order, Thomas matthew crooks, Donald trump, Assassination, Political violence, Rhetoric, George floyd, James madison, George washington, Plato, Republic, Civil war 

If you’re looking for reliable information, Wikipedia is the last source you should consult. Branded as a free online encyclopedia of verifiable information, the website is actually a tangle of lies and left-wing bias, hence why it’s been embroiled in numerous scandals.

Recent controversies include a U.S. congressional investigation into organized manipulation of politically sensitive articles, exposés on Big Law firms hiring anonymous editors to scrub their pages, allegations of undisclosed paid editing by government agencies, and documented anti-Israel bias campaigns led by coordinated editor networks tied to pro-Hamas groups.

“This is information warfare that’s happening on Wikipedia,” says Liz Wheeler, BlazeTV host of “The Liz Wheeler Show.”

Investigative journalist and editor of NeutralPOV Ashley Rindsberg, who has extensively reported on Wikipedia’s recent scandals, concurs: “It’s information warfare conducted by ideological actors, by state-aligned propagandists, by groups that are tied to foreign terror organizations across the board.”

“It only takes about a dozen, maybe, dedicated editors to completely conquer or infiltrate a topic area and implant their own viewpoint on it and spread these kinds of falsehoods freely,” Rindsberg says.

One of the most alarming reports he has done on Wikipedia exposes a group of editors “acting on behalf of the Iranian regime,” who are “removing mentions of Hamas crimes, including terror attacks,” “whitewashing Hezbollah,” and “removing human rights abuses listed.”

For example, “one of these editors removed any mention of Hamas’ genocidal 1988 charter from dozens of Wikipedia articles,” he tells Liz.

This has helped shape the global narrative around Iran and its terrorist proxies. Once information is put on Wikipedia, it then gets “pulled into ChatGPT, into Gemini, into every frontier AI model,” says Rindsberg. “It basically populates all of Google on a topic search. It is what feeds into Alexa, into Siri, and what becomes ground truth for most of us without us actually ever knowing that.”

“As it relates to domestic politics here, who’s behind the Wikipedia editor efforts?” Liz asks.

Unfortunately, anonymity is one of Wikipedia’s greatest weapons. Rindsberg explains how anonymous Wikipedia editors can push biased narratives — like labeling Trump a fascist using far-left sources — without anyone knowing their identities or motives. This allows a small group to shape public views on major issues while the site enjoys trust and tax benefits as a “neutral” resource.

The other issue, he says, is that “a significant portion of the money that Wikimedia Foundation receives from donations … about $185 million in income a year — a lot of that money gets passed through to radical left-wing NGOs.”

“The other piece here is that there’s significant ties between Wikimedia Foundation and Hillary Clinton and also with George Soros,” he says.

“A lot of Soros’ most senior people were put into or came to Wikimedia Foundation in 2017, which is right at the time Wikimedia Foundation redefined the mission of Wikipedia from just being an online encyclopedia into becoming a social justice movement powered by DEI.”

“I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at this point,” sighs Liz. “These radical leftist NGOs funded by billionaire leftists like George Soros or Roy Singham — they are behind everything.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

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.

​The liz wheeler show, Liz wheeler, Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Ashley rindsberg, Blazetv, Blaze media, George soros, Hilary clinton 

The controversy over a migrant who allegedly lied his way into a very high-paying, cushy job at the Des Moines Public Schools in Iowa is growing by the minute.

On Friday the Department of Homeland Security released a detailed list of the criminal offenses allegedly committed by Ian Roberts, the man arrested by federal officials on Sept. 28.

ICE said Roberts was a migrant from Guyana, was present in the US. illegally, and had committed numerous other offenses during that time.

“He should never have been serving in a role overseeing children in Iowa’s largest school district,” read a statement from the press release.

Roberts tried to speed away when he was confronted by ICE, but he was later apprehended with the help of the Iowa State Patrol.

“At the time of arrest, a loaded handgun, hunting knife, and $3,000 cash were found in his vehicle. On Oct. 2, he was charged with being an illegal alien in possession of firearms,” read the statement from ICE.

Many on the left initially defended Roberts, and one official even called for “radical empathy” to protect him from the consequences of his actions, but those voices have quieted after more evidence surfaced.

ICE said Roberts was a migrant from Guyana, was present in the U.S. illegally, and had committed numerous other offenses during that time.

Some of the greater hits included:

July 1996: Charges related to criminal possession of narcotics with intent to sell. Nov. 1998: One charge for third-degree unauthorized use of a vehicle in Queens, New York, that was later dismissed. Nov. 2012: Convicted for for reckless driving, unsafe operation, and speeding in Maryland.Feb. 2020: Charges related to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. Jan. 2022: Conviction of unlawful possession of a loaded firearm in Pennsylvania. Sept. 2025: Arrested by ICE officers. Oct. 2025: Criminal charge of being an illegal alien in possession of firearms.

In addition, Roberts’ lengthy history of interactions about his immigration status was released.

1994: He entered on a non-immigration visa and departed, but returned before his first arrest. 1999: He entered through San Francisco on a student visa and departed. 2000: ICE approved a work authorization request for Roberts. 2001: His green card request was rejected. He applied three more times though 2018 and was rejected each time. 2020: He was given a notice to appear before an immigration judge. 2024: He was ordered in absentia to be removed by a Texas judge. April 2025: An immigration judge ruled against reopening his case. Sept. 2025: He was arrested by ICE officials.

ICE said he was in custody of the U.S. Marshals and would be prosecuted for his most recent crimes.

RELATED: Online outrage erupts over video of illegal alien’s arrest in DC — then the horrific charges against him are revealed

The school officials involved in approving Roberts’ hiring are now under intense scrutiny and suspicion since discovering that Roberts lied about having a doctorate and other credentials.

On Tuesday a small group of students protested for Roberts’ release at the Iowa Capitol. Some held signs reading, “Radical Empathy.”

“I don’t think anyone really cares about the fact he’s illegal,” said a 17-year-old who helped organize the protest. “We’re just sad about the fact that an extremely nice man that supported us heavily and really strongly is now taken away from us.”

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

​Ian roberts, Des moines public schools, Long criminal history, Dhs immigration, Politics 

The house of cards is starting to fall.

Stellantis, one of the world’s biggest automakers, just pulled the plug on its all-electric Ram 1500 REV pickup. Chrysler is scaling back its EV-only promises. Jeep is leaning back into hybrids and even reviving the Hemi V8.

The reality is simple: People want options. Some may choose EVs. Others will stick with hybrids or V8s. That’s how a free market works.

What’s happening here isn’t just a business decision. It’s a rebuke of the political agenda that tried to force Americans into an all-electric future, whether they wanted it or not.

For years, Washington, D.C., Sacramento, and Brussels dictated what automakers “must” build. Billions of taxpayer dollars were funneled into subsidies and charging infrastructure. Regulations made gas-powered engines harder to produce, and deadlines were set for their elimination. Automakers fell in line — publicly touting bold EV promises, while privately worrying that the market wasn’t there.

Now the truth is impossible to ignore: Consumers aren’t buying the vision.

Ram jammed

Ram’s 1500 REV was supposed to be the brand’s answer to the Ford Lightning and Chevy Silverado EV. But months of delays, weak demand, and slow sales across the full-size EV pickup segment forced Stellantis to cut its losses.

Instead of an all-electric truck, Ram is pivoting to a range-extended version — essentially a hybrid that can drive on gas when the battery runs out. The “Ramcharger” name is being dropped, and the range-extended truck will simply carry the 1500 REV badge.

Congrats to Ram for finally admitting that the electric pickup fantasy doesn’t match the real-world needs of truck buyers.

Hemi roars back

Stellantis made headlines earlier this year when it admitted it “screwed up” by killing the Hemi. The replacement, a turbocharged inline-six called Hurricane, might have been efficient, but it lacked the soul, sound, and the brute force that Ram owners expect.

Even customers of the high-performance RHO complained. Stellantis listened. The Hemi is coming back, and Ram partnered with MagnaFlow to offer aftermarket exhausts that restore the roar that regulators tried to silence.

Truck buyers demanded power and personality, and Stellantis is delivering it, even if it flies in the face of government mandates.

RELATED: Can a new CEO save Stellantis from bankruptcy?

Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Jeep hedges bets

Chrysler had once promised to go fully electric. Not anymore. Its 2027 crossover, built on the STLA Large platform, will now offer hybrid options instead of being EV-only.

Jeep is doing the same. The Cherokee is returning as a hybrid, the Grand Wagoneer will get range-extending tech, and the brand is reintroducing the Hemi across multiple models. Even with its new Wagoneer S EV, Jeep isn’t gambling everything on one technology.

This is Stellantis choosing consumers over politicians.

Survival mode

Antonio Filosa, the new Stellantis CEO, is making a strategic shift: Forget rigid EV deadlines, and instead build flexible platforms that can support gas, hybrid, electric, or even hydrogen drivetrains.

It’s a survival move. EV mandates weren’t written with consumers in mind; they were written by regulators trying to engineer a market from the top down. But when customers walked into showrooms, they didn’t buy the hype. They saw higher prices, long charging times, weaker towing, and shorter range.

The politicians assumed the public would play along with their games. They didn’t.

White flags

Stellantis isn’t the only automaker waving the white flag. Ford has slashed production of the F-150 Lightning. GM has delayed the Silverado EV and rethought its timeline. Even Tesla’s Cybertruck (hyped as a revolution) is struggling to gain traction.

Billions in subsidies can’t change the fact that EVs still don’t deliver what most Americans need. And now, automakers are being forced to admit it.

Drivers take the wheel

The moral of the story? Automakers can’t build cars for regulators and expect consumers to fall in line. Politicians can’t legislate demand into existence.

The EV mandates weren’t about innovation — they were about control. But control only works until consumers push back. And now they are, with their wallets.

Stellantis may have “screwed up,” but its decision to return to engines, hybrids, and flexibility shows it learned a lesson that Washington still refuses to hear: The future of driving should be decided by drivers, not bureaucrats.

​Stellantis, Lifestyle, Ford, Ev mandate, Hemi, Auto industry, Tesla, Evs, Align cars 

BlazeTV host Pat Gray had high hopes for the new Pope Leo, but after he blessed a block of ice at a climate change event and made questionable comments toward pro-lifers, he isn’t so happy with the choice.

Leo made his stance on pro-lifers clear when asked by a reporter how he feels about Cardinal Cupich giving an award to Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is for legalized abortion.

“Some people of faith are having a hard time with understanding this because he is pro, or rather, he’s for legalized abortion. How would you help people right now decipher that, feel about that?” the reporter asked.

“I’m not terribly familiar with the particular case. I think that it’s very important to look at the overall work that a senator has done during, if I’m not mistaken, 40 years service in the United States Senate,” Leo responded.

“I think, as I myself have spoke in the past, it’s important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the church. Someone who says, ‘I’m against abortion,’ but says, ‘I’m in favor of the death penalty,’ is not really pro-life,’” he continued.

“So, someone who says that ‘I’m against abortion, but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States,’ I don’t know if that’s pro-life. So, they’re very complex issues. I don’t know if anyone has all the truth on them,” he added.

“There goes any hope I had for the new pope,” comments Keith Malinak, executive producer of “Pat Gray Unleashed.”

“Drawing that equivalency between killing an innocent baby and a murderer who has killed maybe multiple people — that’s the same thing? You’re not pro-life if you don’t support one and reject the other? What?” Gray agrees.

“I mean, that is a far-left talking point, and it has been for years,” Malinak adds.

Want more from Pat Gray?

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

​Video, Free, Video phone, Sharing, Upload, Camera phone, Youtube.com, Pat gray unleashed, Pat gray, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Pope leo, Climate change, Climate change alarmism, Pro life, Death penalty, Leftism, Pope leo leftist 

A feud appears to have broken out between Donald Trump, the president of the most powerful country on Earth, and the vice president of an international sports tournament.

Trump suggested last week that some of the World Cup matches would need to be moved away from cities that he deemed unsafe.

‘Football is bigger than them, and football will survive their regime and their government and their slogans.’

The matches are scheduled for many major U.S. cities including Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Kansas City, Miami, and in New Jersey.

When a reporter asked the president about the possibility of moving the soccer matches from Seattle and San Francisco, he said he would consider the idea.

“Well, that’s an interesting question … but we’re going to make sure they’re safe,” said Trump.

He added that the two cities were “run by radical left lunatics who don’t know what they’re doing.”

On Wednesday, FIFA Vice President Victor Montagliani issued a defiant statement about the threat at a sports business conference in London.

“It’s FIFA’s tournament, FIFA’s jurisdiction; FIFA makes those decisions,” he said.

RELATED: Social media erupts after US Women’s soccer player trolls England in World Cup semi-finals victory

Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

“With all due respect to current world leaders, football is bigger than them, and football will survive their regime and their government and their slogans,” he added. “That’s the beauty of our game is that it is bigger than any individual and bigger than any country.”

Trump also indicated that he would consider moving the events for the 2028 Olympic games in Los Angeles.

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

​Fifa vs trump, Trump world cup, Victory montagliani, Moving fifa matches, Politics 

The Hamas terror group has agreed to a deal negotiated by President Donald Trump to release all of the remaining hostages in captivity from the heinous attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

The president has been trying to secure peace in the Gaza Strip after Israel responded to the attack with military operations intended to target and dispose of Hamas terrorists.

‘This can be done the easy way, or it can be done the hard way.’

On Friday the terror group said it would agree to the deal and signaled that it was ready to discuss the details, according to Reuters. If approved, Hamas will release the hostages who are alive and deliver the remains of those who have died.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his support for the latest deal negotiations.

“This can be done the easy way, or it can be done the hard way,” Netanyahu said during a joint press conference with Trump at the White House. “But it will be done. We prefer the easy way, but it has to be done.”

“If Hamas rejects the deal, Bibi, you will have our full backing to do what you have to do,” Trump responded.

RELATED: ‘Let all hell break out’: Trump issues dire warning to Hamas over threats to delay hostage release

Critics of Israel and the U.S. backing its ally have accused the nation of committing genocide and indiscriminately targeting civilians in Gaza. Supporters of Israel counter that the nation was justified in seeking to destroy Hamas after the attack on its citizens.

This is a developing story.

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

​Trump gaza deal, Hamas terror group, Israel operation in gaza, Trump deal victory, Politics 

The left’s latest immigration martyr, former Des Moines superintendent Ian Roberts, was lauded as a hero — but just like many left-wing heroes before him, Roberts isn’t the man he was sold to be.

Several dozen students even gathered at the state capitol calling for Roberts’ release from the Sioux City jail where he’s currently being held, holding signs reading, “Radical empathy,” which is a tagline he supposedly used frequently.

A group of his supporters even hung a banner from a bridge above the interstate that read, “Free Dr. Roberts,” while cars honked in support.

Roberts, a native of Guyana, with an existing weapons charge from 2020, is facing deportation by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

“Innocent man, never did a thing wrong,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere says sarcastically. “Just the tyranny of the Trump administration is what you should take from this. … This is the poster boy of the left. If his story falls apart, then maybe the whole immigration case falls apart.”

“This is a little bit you need to know about our Dr. Ian Roberts, the poster boy of immigration for the left. Ian Roberts, who immigration authorities say was living and working in the U.S. illegally … claimed in his 2023 application that he received a doctorate in urban educational leadership from Morgan State University in 2007, according to documents the Associated Press obtained through a public records request,” Burguiere explains.

“Although Roberts was enrolled in that doctorate program from 2002 to 2007, the school’s public relations office confirmed in an email that he didn’t receive that degree,” he continues.

Roberts also has MIT Sloan School of Management listed among the schools where he studied, but a university spokesperson claimed there are no records of Roberts attending.

But that’s not all.

The director of human resources for the Millcreek Township School District, Melody Ellington, “claimed that she faced unspecified unlawful treatment after she was hired and worked for Roberts from July 1, 2021, through September 30, 2022.”

According to a settlement agreement, Ellington claimed “that she was unfairly pushed out of her job and that she had ‘threatened litigation,’ while district administrators denied wrongdoing.”

The district later agreed to pay her $250,000.

Then when Roberts was approached by ICE in late September, he sped away in his vehicle.

“Now, that’s not the normal behavior of a person who’s the superintendent of a large city’s school district, but okay,” Burguiere says, noting that Roberts’ car was later discovered abandoned.

“Again, you don’t typically speed away from cops and abandon your vehicle, not normally,” he adds.

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu’s lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video, Free, Video phone, Sharing, Upload, Camera phone, Youtube.com, Stu does america, Stu burguiere, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Ian roberts, Immigration, Illegal immigration crisis, Ice, Ice raids, Mit, Mit sloan, Illegal immigrant, Leftism, The left, Liberals, Liberal delusion 

Hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs on Friday faced a judge in a Manhattan federal courtroom and learned his fate after a pair of convictions over the summer for sordid sex crimes.

At the hearing, which lasted the entire day, U.S. District Court Judge Arun Subramanian sentenced Combs to 50 months in prison, NBC News reported, a total of four years and two months behind bars.

‘The government equates Sean Combs with a pimp. I want to be clear: Mr. Combs is not a pimp.’

ABC News reported that Combs gets credit for time served; he’s been behind bars since his arrest in September 2024.

“You abused the power and control with women you professed to love,” the judge said, according to the news network. “You abused them physically, emotionally, and psychologically.”

Just prior to the sentencing, an apologetic Combs spoke in court and blamed himself and drugs for his “disgusting, shameful and sick” behavior, NBC News reported.

“I was sick, sick from the drugs. I was out of control, I needed help, and I didn’t get the help, and I cannot make no excuse …” he said, according to NBC News.

Combs also addressed the judge, NBC News said: “I can’t change the past but can change the future. I ask your honor for mercy. I beg your honor for mercy, to be a father again, a son again and be a leader in my community again and get the help I desperately need.”

Combs was acquitted in July of sex trafficking and racketeering charges in connection with accusations that he operated a criminal enterprise that coerced women into sordid, sexual marathons now infamously known as “freak-offs” with “dozens” of prostitutes.

But the jury of eight men and four women convicted him on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution — flying people around the country for sexual encounters, including his girlfriends and male sex workers, which the AP said is a violation of the federal Mann Act.

Also during Friday’s hearing, Judge Subramanian said Combs failed to express remorse for the charge of transporting people for prostitution, which the judge said is inconsistent with reality and accepting responsibility, NBC News reported.

What’s more, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik blasted Combs for scheduling upcoming speaking engagements, NBC News said, adding that a Miami nonprofit in a letter filed with the court Thursday said Combs has speaking engagements set for Oct. 14, 17, 23, 25, and 29.

“That is the height of hubris; that is the opposite of the rule of law,” Slavik said during Friday’s hearing, NBC News noted.

RELATED: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs accused of raping 13-year-old girl with another celebrity as female star watched, new lawsuit claims

Photo by Phillip Faraone/Getty Images for REVOLT

But defense lawyer Xavier Donaldson pushed back Friday against the prosecution’s characterization of the Miami dates, saying they are “teaching engagements” if the court lets Combs walk free, NBC News noted.

Donaldson added that “the government equates Sean Combs with a pimp. I want to be clear: Mr. Combs is not a pimp,” Donaldson said during the hearing, NBC News said, adding that “a pimp is in the business of subjugating women; therefore he should not and cannot be considered a pimp.”

Combs’ defense had asked for a 14-month sentence — which NBC News said is basically time already served — but prosecutors asked the judge to sentence him to a 135-month prison term, or 11 years and three months. The news network said the probation department recommended a sentence of seven years and three months behind bars.

The judge had denied bail, NBC News said, and Combs has remained behind bars. He was arrested in connection with the original charges — to which he pleaded not guilty — in September 2024.

Combs on Thursday night in a letter to Subramanian said “how sincerely sorry I am for all of the hurt and pain that I have caused,” NBC News added.

“I lost my way,” he added in the letter that asked for mercy, the news network said. “I got lost in my journey. Lost in the drugs and the excess. My downfall was rooted in my selfishness.”

In addition, Combs’ defense team prepared a nearly 12-minute video to be played in court that depicts him in a positive light. The following report includes a snippet of the video.

RELATED: Loaded guns, lube, and sex toys: Homeland Security agent reveals what was found in Diddy’s room

Combs’ defense attorneys in their pre-sentencing filing added letters from 70 family members, music collaborators, and other supporters — including fellow inmates at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, who said Combs has been a role model who helped them improve their lives, NBC News said.

However, Combs’ former girlfriend — R&B singer Casandra “Cassie” Ventura — also wrote a letter to the judge. In it she called the 55-year-old Combs an abuser who has “no interest in changing or becoming better,” NBC reported. Ventura also asserted in the letter that Combs “will always be the same cruel, power-hungry, manipulative man that he is.”

RELATED: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs sexually assaulted 10-year-old boy after drugging him during ‘audition,’ shocking new lawsuit claims

Sean “Diddy” Combs with then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura at the Clive Davis and Recording Academy Pre-GRAMMY Gala in New York City, Jan. 27, 2018. Photo by Steve Granitz/Getty Images

Ventura in May testified that Combs beat her — “he would bash me on my head” — as she also detailed the “freak-offs.”

Also during May’s hearings, Ventura stated she suffered from medical issues after a “freak-off” orgy, including sores on her mouth, stomach problems, and “very painful” urinary tract infections. Ventura also alleged that Combs raped her in 2018 after their 11-year relationship ended.

As Blaze News reported in 2024, a disturbing video surfaced allegedly showing an “extremely intoxicated” Combs brutally assaulting Ventura in the hallway of a Los Angeles hotel in 2016.

Combs in court Friday personally apologized to Ventura and her family, NBC News reported.

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

​Sean combs, Sean diddy combs, Hip-hop mogul, Mann act, New york city, Federal court, Sentenced, Manhattan, Entertainment, Crime 

A man defended his family’s home when an intruder was found in the living room.

Henny Rojas was staying at his sister’s house while she and her husband were in Miami last weekend; Rojas was there supervising his teenage nephew.

‘Protect your family because the demon is outside.’

On Saturday morning, the teenager allegedly called his mother in a panic while trying to wake up his uncle, Rojas, to tell him there was a stranger in the living room.

“Uncle, uncle, wake up. Wake up!” Rojas recalled his nephew saying.

WPEC-TV reported that the man had forced his way into the home, but Rojas, who has allegedly trained in mixed martial arts for three years, met him with a pummeling.

“I’m prepared. It’s not my first time,” Rojas declared. “I don’t feel [feel] any pain, nothing.”

According to WPEC, witnesses reported that as the encounter escalated, Rojas used boxing, wrestling, and kicking techniques to subdue the suspect.

“I don’t like guns. I don’t [go] looking for a knife or nothing. Only God and my hands. That’s it,” Rojas reiterated.

After police subdued the suspect, he said his intrusion into the home was a simple mistake.

RELATED: Dana White shuts down absurd question about ‘toxic masculinity’ from CBS host who can’t define it

The suspect, 31-year-old Austin Caresani, arrived in court with visible bruises all over his face; one of his eyes was swollen, while the other was black and purple.

Caresani told police he had been drinking at a nearby club and only accidentally entered the residence. He claimed he was actually trying to get a friend’s house.

In court, Caresani invoked his right to remain silent before a judge revealed that he had been charged with home invasion. The suspect was reportedly still in jail as of Wednesday.

RELATED: Bouncer caught on video smashing male’s head through car window, putting him in chokehold. But cops get a break in the case.

Rojas said he would not have changed a single thing about what happened that night, but provided parting words for the viewers at home.

“Protect your family because the demon is outside. A lot of crazy people. He don’t believe in God. He only looking for damage,” he said.

Rojas did not appear to have any formal MMA fighting history when his name was searched on multiple MMA athlete-tracking sites.

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

​Mma, Fearless, Crime, Mixed martial arts, Florida, Home invasion, Intruder, Self defence, Sports 

A conservative activist was physically confronted by a woman in Washington, D.C., a viral video appears to show. However, the incident had an unexpected twist for the suspect.

The video is said to show an ugly incident involving the physical attack on conservative activist Cam Higby on Wednesday night near Union Station in Washington, D.C.

‘It took four federal police officers to hold her down, and finally they loaded her into the back of the police car.’

Higby — a conservative activist, political commentator, and journalist — was holding a public debate during a recent stop on his Fearless Tour, inspired by late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.

WTTG-TV reported that officers with the U.S. Park Police responded to a “dispute” outside Union Station at around 8 p.m. on Wednesday.

“A leftist decided to physically attack me at Union Station tonight,” Higby wrote on the X social media platform.

Higby told Fox News of the female suspect, “At some point, she dropped to her knees, intentionally … and she started yelling at us and started touching us. I told her to back up and stop touching me, and she lunged at me and attacked me.”

Higby uploaded video on social media of the confrontation with the woman, who appears to try to steal his “Make America Great Again” hat off his head. While attempting to thwart the suspect from taking his MAGA hat, Higby is seen on video being allegedly pushed to the ground from his chair because of the altercation.

The video shows the woman appear to steal the MAGA hat and then hurl it at Higby.

The woman then falls into a bush while saying, “Dumb, stupid b***h.”

Higby pepper-sprayed the suspect, which he stated was in self-defense. Video shows the suspect struggling to walk after being pepper-sprayed.

The U.S. Park Police reportedly arrived at the scene, and she allegedly attempted to resist arrest.

“At this point now, she’s struggling with federal police, and then they tried to arrest her,” Higby explained. “Her dad is yelling at us, ‘Why did you spray my daughter?’ as she’s actively fighting with federal police. In my head, I’m thinking, ‘This is why she got sprayed.'”

Higby stated, “It took four federal police officers to hold her down, and finally they loaded her into the back of the police car.”

In another video, the woman is seen shouting at Higby, “You’re evil and you’re violent. You’re not Christians.”

As she is being handcuffed, the woman is heard screaming, “You will get what you f**king deserve! I mark it on my f**king grave!”

The U.S. Park Police told WTTG that the suspect had been “charged with multiple charges,” but did not specify what the charges were. The U.S. Park Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News about the arrest, including the identity of the suspect and the charges.

RELATED: Portland police spark outrage after ‘wrongful’ arrest of journalist Nick Sortor, allegedly victimized by Antifa; DOJ to investigate

Higby noted that he carries Mace spray with him “at all times.”

“I think I show incredible restraint with the points at which I use my Mace, because I personally think after four verbal warnings not to touch me, it would have been perfectly valid to use it. … The roles are reversed, and I’m overly criticized because it’s a woman, but I don’t know what she has on her, and I’m not going to throw a punch at her. I think that using Mace is [a] way better [alternative],” Higby added.

Higby was recently targeted with political violence. As Blaze News previously reported, Higby was attacked by a left-wing activist in June at an anti-ICE protest in downtown Seattle, Washington.

Video allegedly shows three men attacking Higby, attempting to rip off his tactical gear, and punching him. Higby said he used pepper spray in self-defense.

Higby had to be transported to the emergency room for his injuries. Higby said he suffered a concussion and head trauma despite wearing tactical gear and a helmet.

Jeremy Lawson, 33, was arrested and charged with felony assault in the second degree.

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

​Leftists, Political violence, Cam hiby, Charlie kirk, Maga, Maga attack, Make america great again, Cam higby, Cam higby attack, News 

Senate Democrats stubbornly kicked the can down the road, voting Friday to keep the government shut down.

The government shutdown will continue through the weekend after 44 Democrats voted against the Republicans’ clean continuing resolution. However, more Democrats voted with Republicans on Friday than on Tuesday, as New York Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s coalition begins to crumble.

‘The Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity.’

Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Democrat Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine joined 51 Republicans in voting to reopen the government on Friday. Notably, these are the same three senators who initially bucked their party and voted with the GOP. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the lone “no” vote of his party.

“We could be considering bipartisan appropriations bills through regular order, but instead we are stuck in a shutdown mess of Democrats’ making,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said. “And the American people are suffering as a result.”

RELATED: Trump trolls leftists as shutdown presents key opportunity to cut ‘Democrat Agencies’

Annabelle Gordon/Bloomberg via Getty Images

“Republicans are about to vote (again) to reopen the government and every Democrat outside of a few sensible moderates will vote to keep it shut,” Vice President JD Vance said ahead of the vote. “This is the basic fact of the shutdown, and no one can deny it.”

Schumer and his fellow Democrats have backed themselves into a corner. Rather than passing the same continuing resolution Democrats have voted for over a dozen times in past spending fights, Schumer is attempting to leverage the shutdown to force Republicans to negotiate on Obama-era health care subsidies.

Democrats even proposed their own competing funding bill, which boasts a $1.5 trillion price tag and would effectively reverse every legislative accomplishment from Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In contrast, the Republican-led bill is a clean continuing resolution with a funding anomaly to boost security spending for politicians in light of Charlie Kirk’s horrific assassination.

RELATED: Vance makes Jeffries a hilarious promise if Democrats end the shutdown

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

To Democrats’ dismay, their negotiating tactics have proven ineffective. Although the White House has reiterated that the administration would rather reopen the government, President Donald Trump and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought are seizing the opportunity.

Ahead of the shutdown, Vought notified federal agencies to begin drafting reduction-in-force notices in anticipation of mass layoffs. Trump and Vought also met Thursday to identify which “Democrat Agencies” would be cut, and tens of billions of dollars’ worth of projects have already been halted by the administration.

“I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity,” Trump said in a Truth Social post Thursday. “They are not stupid people, so maybe this is their way of wanting to, quietly and quickly, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

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

​Chuck schumer, Donald trump, Jd vance, Hakeem jeffries, Mike johnson, John thune, Russ vought, Russell vought, White house, Trump administration, Schumer shutdown, Government shutdown, Democrat shutdown, Spending fight, Senate democrats, Senate republicans, Mass layoffs, Reduction in force, Office of management and budget, Omb, Politics 

The Democratic mayor of Seattle, Washington, made an astounding claim about his policies related to repeat criminal offenders during a debate against his progressive challenger for the mayor’s office.

Mayor Bruce Harrell was asked by a reporter whether Seattle was too lax on repeat offenders given that the city had the fourth-highest crime rate among major cities, according to FBI statistics. The debate from Thursday was moderated by Hana Kim of KCPQ-TV.

‘So when this person is committing 6 or 7 crimes, I don’t know his or her story. Maybe they were abused as a child, maybe they’re hungry. So my remedy is to find their life story. I have no desire to put them into jail.’

Harrell said he wasn’t sure how to answer the question before launching into a bizarre answer.

“That’s an interesting question,” he said. “I don’t know how to answer that question — too lax? I don’t know how you gauge that.”

He told Kim that he understood that it was necessary to catch people “in the act” of doing bad things.

“I have all the faith in my police department, [who use] the best practices in terms of using force,” he said. “I need 1,500 officers. I need constitutional arrests. I need people who are killing themselves with drugs to get help, to get treatment. So I’m not going to give an opinion on the attitude of my officers.”

He said that he wanted to hire “culturally competent” officers after the death of George Floyd, which he called a murder.

“We created the Care Department, which is an unarmed response, the largest city in the country to do this,” Harrell said. “So whether they’re lax, in all due respect, is just not the question. The question is, ‘Are they effective?’ and they are very effective.”

He went on to blame the “defund the police” movement for demoralizing his police department but said that the department is receiving 10 applications a day for new officers.

“So to me the question is, ‘Are they effective?’ and they are very effective, when given the resources,” he concluded.

The moderator continued to press Harrell on the question of repeat offenders, even with minor offenses. At that point, Harrell’s remarks really went off the rails.

“So let me make something very clear. I was the one that sponsored the ‘Ban the Box’ legislation when everyone opposed because the criminal system has had a disparate impact on black and brown communities. Let me lead with that,” Harrell responded.

“So when this person is committing six or seven crimes, I don’t know his or her story. Maybe they were abused as a child; maybe they’re hungry. So my remedy is to find their life story to see how we could help first. I have no desire to put them in jail,” he added.

RELATED: Son of former Seattle mayor admits to downloading child porn while on weekend cocaine ‘benders,’ police say

“But I need to protect you, and that’s the calibration that we have,” he continued. “I’ve put police officers on the stand. I’ve cross-examined them. So whether they commit seven or eight crimes to me is not the issue. The issue is, why are they committing these crimes?”

He went on to claim that his “health-based strategy” was the best way to balance protecting the public and finding criminals’ life stories.

His challenger, Katie Wilson, criticized Harrell from the left and accused him of defunding diversion programs for offenders. When challenged about the lack of effectiveness of the program, she said she was not sure about the issue.

The entire debate is available for viewing on the YouTube channel for KCPQ.

Blaze News’ requests for comment from Harrell and Wilson were not immediately answered.

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

​Mayor bruce harrell, Seattle law enforcement, Lax liberal law enforcement, Repeat offenders, Politics 

The Trump administration confirmed a Justice Department investigation into the arrest of a conservative journalist at an anti-ICE riot in Portland and suggested the city might face a steep price.

Left-wing protesters have been rioting outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland for months, but the issue came to a head on Thursday when conservative journalist Nick Sortor was arrested during the protest.

‘We will not fund states that allow anarchy. … Law and order will prevail, and President Trump will make sure of it.’

“President Trump will end the radical left’s reign of terror in Portland once and for all,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a media briefing Friday. “The president has directed Secretary [of War Pete] Hegseth to provide all necessary troops to protect war-ravaged Portland and any ICE facilities under siege from attack by Antifa and other left-wing domestic terrorists.”

She said that Antifa militants have been attacking the ICE field office in south Portland since mid-June.

“This is not peaceful protesting. This is left-wing anarchy that has been destroying this great American city for years, leaving police officers battered, citizens terrorized, and business properties damaged,” Leavitt said.

“These radical left-wing lunatics have violently breached the ICE facility by using a stop sign as a battering ram,” she added, “hurled explosives and other projectiles at law enforcement, repeatedly assault and doxx officers, berate their law-abiding neighbors, and have even rolled out a guillotine in front of the ICE facility.”

She went on to cite the circumstances surrounding Sortor’s arrest as evidence of the failure of local officials to combat the leftist violence.

“Instead of arresting these violent mob members night after night after night after night who are ravaging this community, the police arrested a journalist who was there trying to document the chaos, and everyone in this room should be extremely concerned about that,” she added.

Leavitt said the Justice Department spoke with Sortor and was launching “a full investigation into his arrest.”

RELATED: Hilarious video shows Portland officers enraging anti-ICE protesters by blaring out order in Trump’s voice

“This incident is part of a troubling trend in Portland where left-wing mobs believe they get to decide who can visit and live in their city. It is not their city. It is the American people’s city, and President Trump is going to restore that,” Leavitt continued.

Leavitt said the president was being advised on what potential federal funds could be cut from Portland over the lawlessness allowed on the city’s streets.

“We will not fund states that allow anarchy,” she said.

“Law and order will prevail, and President Trump will make sure of it,” she added.

She added that additional ICE and enhanced resources from Customs and Border Protection were going to be rerouted to Portland.

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

​Nick sortor arrest, Portland antifa attack, Anti-ice rioting, Karoline leavitt, Politics 

On Thursday, a man rammed his car into a crowd of people and proceeded to go on a stabbing spree outside a synagogue in Manchester, England. While several casualties were originally reported, Greater Manchester Police have released new details that cast a different shadow on the atrocity.

Police have since reported that examination of the bodies has revealed that Jihad Al-Shamie, the named perpetrator of the attack, did not cause all of the injuries in the incident.

‘This injury may sadly have been sustained as a tragic and unforeseen consequence of the urgently required action taken by my officers to bring this vicious attack to an end.’

In a statement published at 10:35 a.m. local time, less than an hour after the Thursday attack, police reported: “Shots were fired by Greater Manchester Police firearms officers at 9:38am. One man has been shot, believed to be the offender.”

Additionally, this first report indicated that four people were injured, stating that there were “currently four members of the public with injuries caused by both the vehicle and stab wounds.”

In the wake of the attack, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham wrote on X: “We condemn whoever is responsible and will do everything within our power to keep people safe.”

RELATED: Man with apparent ‘explosive device’ kills 2, injures 4 in Manchester synagogue attack

Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham, Secretary of State for the Home Department Shabana Mahmood, and Chief Constable Sir Stephen Watson visit the scene at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue.Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

In a another report timestamped at 12:10 p.m. local time, police confirmed the deaths of two victims of the attack. The offender was also believed to be dead, but police did not confirm his death at that time over safety issues due to “suspicious items on his person.”

The other report varied from the first report in the number of injured victims, saying that there were only “three other members of the public … in a serious condition.” It did not mention a fourth injured person.

It is unclear what led to the discrepancy in the number of injured people in the reports, particularly because the next update returned to reporting that four were injured.

In a report timestamped at 15:56, or 3:56 p.m. local time, police stated that “four further people remain in hospital, having suffered a variety of serious injuries and their treatment is ongoing.”

Police also added that two additional suspects were arrested and in custody at that time.

The statement added that those inside the synagogue were kept safe because of the heroic actions of those inside, who barricaded the entrance to prevent the attacker from gaining entrance: “All those inside were safely contained until police were able to confirm that it was safe to leave the premises.”

The 15:56 report suggested that the police identified the suspect but said it was “premature” to reveal his identity at that time.

In a report timestamped at 21:05, nearly 12 hours after the attack, police provided new, substantive information, including the arrest of three total suspects, two men in their 30s and a woman in her 60s, and the identity of the attacker, 35-year-old Jihad Al-Shamie, “a British citizen of Syrian descent.”

One of the victims in the hospital likewise ‘suffered a gunshot wound, which is mercifully not life-threatening.’

The statement once more confirmed the deaths of two innocent men and the serious injury of only three men, varying once again from previous reports.

As was established in the first report from 10:35 that morning, the victims sustained injury from the car ramming into the crowd as well as stab wounds, the 21:05 report said. The report gave more information of the nature of the injuries: “Three other men remain in hospital with serious injuries. One sustained a stab wound and a second was struck by the car involved in the attack.”

Police then gave the first indication of a new development in the story: “The third man later presented himself at hospital with an injury that may have been sustained as officers stopped the attacker.”

The following morning at approximately 10:54 local time, Chief Constable Sir Stephen Watson provided another update on X about the perpetrator and the deceased victims, suggesting that police were responsible for one of the deaths and one of the severe injuries: “The Home Office Pathologist has advised that he was provisionally determined, that one of the deceased victims would appear to have suffered a wound consistent with a gunshot injury.”

“This injury may sadly have been sustained as a tragic and unforeseen consequence of the urgently required action taken by my officers to bring this vicious attack to an end,” Watson continued, adding that one of the victims in the hospital likewise “suffered a gunshot wound, which is mercifully not life-threatening.”

The report further ruled out the possibility that Jihad Al-Shamie shot any victims. He was “not in possession of a firearm and the only shots fired were from GMP’s Authorised Firearms Officers as they worked to prevent the offender from entering the synagogue and causing harm to our Jewish community.”

The deceased victims were named as Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz in a police update on social media.

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

​Politics, Manchester synagogue attack, Manchester england, Jihad al shamie, Adrian daulby, Melvin cravitz, Uk, Andy burnham 

Iconic comedian Dave Chappelle was among those who chose to perform at the controversial Riyadh Comedy Festival in Saudi Arabia, and he further enflamed criticism with his comments about the U.S.

The comedy festival includes many comedians who have made left-wing statements in the past but are unlikely to criticize the host country for its decidedly authoritarian policies regarding women’s rights and religious freedom.

‘They’re going to do something to me so that I can’t say what I want to say.’

During Chappelle’s performance, he claimed that speech is freer in Saudi Arabia than it is in the U.S.

“Right now in America, they say that if you talk about Charlie Kirk that you’ll get canceled,” said the comedian, according to the New York Times.

“I don’t know if that’s true, but I’m gonna find out,” he added. “It’s easier to talk here than it is in America.”

He also reportedly added later, “They’re going to do something to me so that I can’t say what I want to say.”

Chappelle’s comments were especially ironic given that the comedians were restricted from criticizing the Saudi royals or any religion at the festival, according to an order posted by one of the comedians.

The comedian was lambasted on social media for the comments.

“Hey, Dave … How about — if you’re so concerned about free speech, you go ahead and talk s**t about the royals in Saudi Arabia … No? Crickets? Huh! Enjoy the blood money,” replied writer Patrick Read Johnson.

“That a**hole Dave Chappelle took the money from Saudi Arabia — which executes people w/no due process, which sawed journalist Jamal Khashoggi up alive — and joked that it’s easier to speak freely there than the U.S. (while adhering to written rules about what NOT to say there),” said writer Matthew Rettenmund.

“Pretty remarkable that the entire time Chappelle was raging against cancel culture in the U.S. he was actually just auctioning himself off to the highest bidder,” replied sports analyst Luke Thomas.

RELATED: Dave Chappelle responds to transgender outrage: ‘I am not bending to anybody’s demands’

Photo by Theo Wargo/Getty Images for The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

“Chappelle is a disgrace and a liar! I’ve always said he was a ghetto slime who made it big and he is proving it now,” responded another critic.

Others who performed at the Riyadh Comedy Festival included Bill Burr, Pete Davidson, Jimmy Carr, Louis CK, Wayne Brady, Kevin Hart, Tom Segura, and Chris Tucker.

They were reportedly paid between $375,000 and $1.6 million each.

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

​Dave chappelle, Riyadh comedy festival, Comedians free speech, Saudi arabia, Politics