“Enter Sandman,” exit politics.

During a recent show at the Sphere in Las Vegas, Metallica front man James Hetfield assured fans that the band had come to play music, not deliver a political message.

‘Metallica is not here, like some other entertainers, to influence you with their bulls**t.’

Nothing else matters

Metallica recently kicked off a 24-date residency at the Sphere that runs through March 2027. During Saturday night’s performance, Hetfield paused to thank fans for making the trip.

“Unless you live in Vegas, you’ve come a long way to spend some time with Metallica. We’re grateful for that,” Hetfield began in a clip that’s since gone viral. “Your travels, the money you spent, the time it took. Thanks for coming to celebrate with us.”

Then he made clear what fans could expect from the band.

“And I just got to say, Metallica is not here, like some other entertainers, to influence you with their bulls**t, OK? We are here — no bulls**t — we’re here to forget about all the outside s**t, OK? Metallica’s agenda is love, energy, and heavy music, baby!”

The 63-year-old has held this position for years, declining to share his political opinions even when directly asked.

RELATED: 50-year-old rock star tears up at MLB playoff game — only Millennials will understand

Ride the lightning

In a 2017 interview with Chilean newspaper La Tercera, Hetfield was asked his opinion of President Donald Trump, then in his first term.

“Everyone has one, but I keep mine to myself,” Hetfield replied, according to a translation of his remarks.

“I am an artist, a singer who plays guitar in a band,” he explained. “I hate politics. I don’t want to talk about politics. It separates people, and I want to connect them with music.”

Hetfield worried that taking political sides would alienate fans.

“If I say ‘I love Trump’ or ‘I hate Trump,’ someone can say, ‘Then I don’t like his music anymore,’ which is very silly,” he said.

RELATED: Country singer Kacey Musgraves unleashes foul-mouthed rant against ‘loser’ Christopher Columbus – conservatives fire back

Mike Lewis Photography/Redferns

Shill ’em all

Other musicians have been more than happy to bring politics to the forefront of their performances.

Bruce Springsteen recently criticized Trump and ICE agents during a concert in Maryland. Paramore singer Hayley Williams has also repeatedly attacked Trump supporters, calling MAGA fans “pieces of s**t” at a recent show in New Orleans.

Rapper Macklemore went even further, delivering a pro-Palestinian speech while opening for Ed Sheeran on a stadium tour. The remarks prompted objections from stadium operators, and Macklemore was subsequently dropped from the tour.

Sheeran, who said the decision belonged to the tour’s promoter, defended his own reluctance to bring politics into his concerts, explaining that fans don’t come to his shows expecting a political forum.

It seems Hetfield agrees.

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

​Metallica, Macklemore, Hayley williams, Bruce springsteen, Donald trump, Entertainment 

In the viral Cornell 7 case, a series of text messages have drawn ire regarding how the alleged sexual encounter at Cornell University was initially described — and how the woman’s account changed nearly two weeks later.

BlazeTV host Pat Gray calls it “a crazy story.”

“I’ve kind of avoided talking about it, because what do you say about it? … I mean, it’s such a risque story from start to finish. It’s hard to even know what to say about it. But there was a little incident involving a woman and a bunch of men,” he says on “Pat Gray Unleashed.”

“And initially, supposedly, according to her even, it was all consensual,” he adds.

Gray explains that originally, one of the accused was texting “Jane Doe” and apologized for things getting “a little out of control.”

“And she was basically telling him not to worry about it. It was all fine,” Gray says, noting that in the text messages, she even called what happened “not illegal.”

“And if I’m not mistaken, rape is illegal. So it apparently wasn’t that,” he continues.

“She said a lot of things that would seem to exonerate them, but then, as time went on, she started feeling differently about it. And I’m guessing she got some heat from people around her. I don’t know,” he adds.

In one exchange, Newell tells Jane Doe, “You’re an amazing person and I genuinely hope you’re not catching as much heat from this as we are. We’ve been shutting down any stories we’ve heard, but again, I’m so sorry.”

Jane Doe responded “Ah, Jonathan, I really appreciate this text. My memory’s super clouded too. I think we were all way too freaking drunk and high.”

Thirteen days later, Jane Doe’s story flipped when she claimed that “90% of the night was not consensual.”

“But did she say ‘no’? We don’t even know that because they were all drunk and on ketamine. And now, I guess that releases anybody from any responsibility whatsoever if you’ve taken ketamine or you’re drunk,” Gray comments.

“There’s no personal responsibility on your part because you’re the one who took it. So now, you can use that as an excuse for everything that transpired afterward.”

“No means no, we all agree with that. But we don’t even know that she ever said no,” he 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.

​Cornell university, Text messages, Jane doe, Cornell 7 case, Jonathan newell, Pat gray, Blazetv show 

District of Columbia U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro revealed that her office is investigating Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

In an interview on Fox News, Pirro opined about the possibility of criminal charges for Omar after Homeland Security Investigations agents performed a targeted raid on her residence Monday in Washington, D.C.

‘It doesn’t matter what the House does. It doesn’t matter what this agency or that does. We’re looking at the facts. Based upon the facts, we’ll follow them wherever they take us.’

“What you have is Homeland Security. They do everything from narcotics to immigration. They got a warrant signed by a federal judge,” Pirro told Fox anchor John Roberts on Tuesday.

“So you’ve got the executive branch through HSI going to a federal judge, who is cognizant of the Fourth Amendment rights of any target, who said, ‘You have the right to search this person’s house,'” she added. “Based upon that execution of that warrant, we will see what comes of it.”

“But you had to have probable cause, right?” Roberts asked.

“There’s no question that that judge would not have signed that warrant unless there was probable cause — and probably more than that, given the individual who’s involved and given the fact that we’re in the nation’s capital with judges in the nation’s capital,” she replied.

“But more than that, it is upon the execution of the warrant that we will see — are we dealing with civil immigration issues? Because they’ve made it clear this is about immigration from the warrant itself. Are we dealing with criminal immigration issues?” Pirro said.

“There are several investigations going on, and I don’t think there’s any question, but if there’s a crime that was committed, it will be prosecuted,” she added.

Roberts then asked about allegations of financial misconduct against Omar related to apparent discrepancies on political disclosures. He pointed out that the Office of Congressional Conduct voted 5-1 to recommend dismissal of the allegations to the Ethics Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“That doesn’t matter,” Pirro responded.

“I can tell you that is subject to an investigation as well,” she added. “And it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter what the House does. It doesn’t matter what this agency or that does. We’re looking at the facts. Based upon the facts, we’ll follow them wherever they take us.”

“This is your office that’s doing this?” Roberts asked.

“Yes,” she replied.

RELATED: ‘He’s been saying some dumb s**t’: Ilhan Omar MELTS DOWN when reporter presses her on Homan probe into brother

A Blaze News request for comment to Pirro’s office was not immediately answered.

Omar resubmitted a 2024 financial disclosure filing in April 2026, and her lawyer claimed accountants had provided incorrect valuations for companies owned by her husband. The old valuations “did not take into account the liabilities of each of the companies,” the lawyer said, according to the Minnesota Star Tribune.

She has denied any wrongdoing and accused the Trump administration of abusing the powers of government to attack its political opponents.

She has also previously asserted that the value range for her assets reflects the full value of the businesses and not the lower value of the percentage of the business that is actually owned by her husband.

On Monday, she responded to the DHS raid on her home.

“I’m ok. Make no mistake: this is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement. For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation in his campaign of political intimidation,” she wrote on social media.

“I will not be silenced,” Omar concluded.

Omar’s office and campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Blaze News.

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

​Homeland security investigations, Ilhan omar, Jeanine pirro, Politics 

Ask some voters why they support a candidate, and you might get a detailed explanation of his policies. Ask supporters of Michigan Democrat Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed why they support him, and you get “everything.”

In a recent man-on-the-street-style interview, the interviewer asks a group of women what their favorite thing is that the Michigan Senate hopeful is campaigning on.

“Everything! How can you not like what he’s for? I mean, it’s like we need it. We’re in bad shape,” one woman responded.

“What’s your one favorite, though? What stands out the most?” the interviewer asked.

“Health care for all,” another woman chimed in, before another woman agreed, “That’s mine too, health care.”

“And how are we going to give health care to everyone? How are we going to pay for that?” the interviewer asked again.

“We’re going to tax the rich,” a woman answered.

“What’s kind of scary about that,” Alex Stein tells BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales, “is when I think of Michigan now, like Dearborn, and I think it’s all Muslim. Those were like upper-middle-class white women. You know, they look like they have fine health care.”

“They almost look like they were Lindsay Clancy fans on a bunch of different prescription drugs,” he jokes.

“It is suicidal empathy,” he continues, though he doesn’t believe El-Sayed is as likely to win as his base seems to think he is.

“I think actually Mike Rogers is going to do better than people are predicting, though,” he adds, noting that Sayed “barely won” in the primary despite being projected to “win by 10 points.”

Gonzales agrees, pointing out that whatever the result is, “it’ll be really interesting to see because … Michigan is a flash point.”

“This will tell us,” she says, “is Michigan too far gone or is it not?”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Abdul el-sayed, Michigan, Senate, Voters, Alex stein, Sara gonzales, Blazetv show 

Women at the gym might be upset with Shane Gillis, but they’re still watching.

The comic’s latest hosting gig at “Saturday Night Live” delivered one of the show’s biggest YouTube audiences in nearly a year.

‘I’d be Sharia on her.’

Magic mic

His opening monologue has drawn more than 2.7 million views, ranking second among “SNL” monologues posted since November 2025.

Gillis took the stage on Saturday night and stirred up online controversy with two observations about big-city gyms: They’re filled with the “hottest gay guys you’ve ever seen,” and “women just dress like whores now.”

Only Ryan Gosling’s early March monologue has drawn more views over the same period, with 3.04 million. The only other monologue to surpass 2 million was actor Connor Storrie’s late February appearance, with 2.08 million.

Gillis’ previous appearances have drawn even bigger audiences. His jokes about President Biden and President Trump in 2025 garnered almost 4.5 million views, while his 2024 appearance drew 7.26 million.

That appearance — his first time back since being fired from the show five years earlier — also generated controversy over his use of the words “gay” and “retarded.”

RELATED: ‘He’s right about gym girls’: Former ‘SNL’ star backs Shane Gillis as liberal celebs ‘gasp’ in shock

Will Heath/NBC/Getty Images

Good egg

Gillis also made himself a target in the latest monologue, joking about his weight and his comedian pals describing him as a “gas station egg.”

Some women responded by mentioning Gillis by name in their gym videos — after he had joked about being the creepy guy in the background of just such a video.

He already played a version of that guy on his show “Tires.”

In a clip Netflix promoted in August, Gillis’ character is caught leering at a woman at the gym by a content creator disgusted by his behavior. Gillis’ character tells the man not to let his girlfriend leave the house unless she’s wearing slacks or a burqa.

“I’d be Sharia on her,” he tells the man.

RELATED: Actor MELTS DOWN over jokes about women in Shane Gillis’ ‘SNL’ monologue

The natural

Some “SNL” alumni praised the monologue as it aired.

Victoria Jackson, a cast member from 1986 to 1992, said Gillis looked “skinny/handsome!”

“He’s right about gym girls dressing like ‘whores,’” Jackson said. “When did ‘camel toe’ become acceptable gym fashion and grocery shopping attire?”

Jeff Richards, a cast member from 2001 to 2004, called Gillis a “really funny guy” and an “obvious natural.”

Among his most vocal critics was “Schitt’s Creek” actor Dan Levy, son of beloved sketch-comedy performer Eugene Levy.

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

​Shane gillis, Saturday night live, Ryan gosling, Entertainment 

On October 10, marking World Day Against the Death Penalty, Pope Leo XIV ignited controversy when he posted the following on X:

The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption. #NoDeathPenalty

BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, a Catholic, dove into this heated debate on a recent episode of “The Liz Wheeler Show.”

“This entire conversation started with the announcement [on October 8] from the Trump administration that on December [3] of this year … a firing squad will execute former Major Nidal Hasan,” says Liz. “He’s a former Army major who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood in the name of Islam. He is an Islamist terrorist.”

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced that the execution would take place at Fort Hood, where Hasan carried out his crime, and would be livestreamed, although President Trump said he would make the final call on whether or not to publicize the event.

Liz, who believes the livestream is unlikely to happen and calls the desire to watch an execution “bloodlust,” believes that Pope Leo’s comments about the death penalty make sense.

She explains that for most of the Church’s history, popes affirmed that the state has the right to use capital punishment for grave crimes. Since the late 20th century, however, popes such as John Paul II and especially Francis (who revised the Catechism to call it “inadmissible” as an attack on human dignity) have taken a far more restrictive or abolitionist stance, which Leo XIV has continued — creating ongoing debate about whether this is a development of doctrine or a departure from prior teaching.

“[The death penalty] differs from what the Church declares to be an intrinsic evil. … Abortion would be the best example,” says Liz.

“But [intrinsically evil] is not the phrase that Pope Leo or Pope Francis before him used to describe the death penalty. ‘Inadmissible’ is the word used not only by Pope Leo but by Pope Francis,” she continues, explaining that the word “inadmissible” is a “synonym for unacceptable.”

Citing senior apologist at Catholic Answers Jimmy Akin, she explains that Pope Francis amended the Catechism because in light of society’s current circumstances (i.e. “modern prisons that were intended to hold large numbers of people”), there are no longer situations that require the death penalty.

“There may be societal circumstances where [the death penalty] is necessary or admissible, but not any more in our modern society,” Liz says.

“You can agree or disagree with this, but I have to say this does make sense. It’s not inconsistent with the long-standing teaching of the Church, nor does it contradict the Bible,” she says.

But the question remains: “Is this pastoral teaching from Pope Leo, which we are respectfully free to disagree with, or is this authoritative teaching, which we are required to assent to our mind and will?”

To answer this question, Liz speaks with Catholic Answers staff apologist Joe Heschmeyer.

To hear their 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.

​Liz wheeler, Pope leo xiv, Death penalty, Catholic church, Blazetv show 

Flock Safety has spent the better part of 2026 trying to convince people that its cameras aren’t mass surveillance tools used to track the whereabouts of anyone who drives by. Lawmakers aren’t buying it, though, as legislators push back to the point that the company is starting to collapse. Here are the latest updates on the Flock camera controversy.

The public first took notice of Flock Safety’s dubious activity as early as 2024, when the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that Flock cameras were being used for more than reading license plates. According to datasets that the group received, Flock cameras tracked various protests and activist groups and even monitored civilians suspected of breaking local laws.

‘Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.’

Flock cameras may read license plates, but to say that this is all they do is a severe mischaracterization. Countless stories have emerged of police officers abusing the network. In the case of five officers in Georgia, they were caught inputting specific license plate numbers into the search system to track the location of specific individuals over time.

When pressed about the growing concern over Flock camera abuse, company CEO Garrett Langley gave a stunning response: “When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise.” He continued, “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”

For most liberty-loving Americans, there is no room for balance. There is only freedom or mass surveillance. Or, as my favorite Benjamin Franklin quote goes, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

First, cities noticed the public outcry. Local bans went into effect as Flock cameras were either covered, disabled, or removed from municipalities like Tempe, Arizona; Oviedo City, Florida; and St. Charles County, Missouri. Others simply let their contracts with the company lapse, as was the case with Knox County, Tennessee, and Stow, Massachusetts. So far, 214 cities and counties have de-Flocked their communities, though the number may be more since this report from August.

As local backlash continued, politicians stepped in to examine the situation. Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley issued a letter on his X.com account, declaring an investigation into Flock Safety over the “recent examples of abuse and misuse of personal data reveal the woeful lack of safeguards in these systems,” as a result of the St. Charles County situation. In his post, he wrote:

Americans do not surrender their privacy rights when they drive to work, drop their kids off at school, or go to church.

Weeks later, Hawley broadened his national surveillance investigation to include several other camera companies, such as Motorola Solutions Inc., Verkada Inc., and Axon Enterprise Inc.

RELATED: We’re winning the fight against Flock — but the surveillance isn’t going away that easily

The Washington Post/Getty Images

Around the same time, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued a similar cry on X. “Newer Flock cameras do not just record vehicles,” he insisted. “They record people. Flock’s AI system can combine images of you and your vehicle with databases of phone numbers, relatives and court records to find out who you are, where you’re going and why.”

The issue has quickly become a bipartisan concern, with both sides of the aisle scrutinizing Flock Safety more than ever, and the company is starting to flounder under the pressure.

Despite its rapid rise to infamy, Flock Safety is still a newer startup company, which makes it susceptible to rapid changes in its industry. Following the backlash and canceled accounts, it has already begun to downsize.

According to Reuters, Flock is offloading up to 270 employees via a voluntary buyback program, and all terminations will be finalized by the end of October. With 1,500 employees currently on the payroll, this shift will impact 18% of Flock’s workforce.

In late September, Hawley introduced a new bill called the Stop Flock Abuse Act. As the name suggests, the bill includes several key points meant to protect citizens and also quell concerns:

Local governments can’t sell collected data to third parties.Users must receive written approval to conduct data searches.All searches must be logged and preserved for regular audits.Collected data must be encrypted, and it cannot leave the United States.Collected data must be deleted every 10 days, unless it is involved in an active criminal investigation.All hardware and software used with Flock cameras must be domestically sourced.Use of facial recognition technology with Flock is prohibited.

If successful, the bill could be a huge boon to both citizens and Flock Safety. The former would get back their peace of mind knowing that they aren’t being tracked, and the latter would get to continue to operate as a business without the specter of mass surveillance haunting future partnerships.

Everybody benefits. But first, the bill has to pass.

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

​Flock safety, Investigation, Liberty, License plates, Privacy, Privacy rights, Safety, Surveillance, Facial recognition technology, Flock cameras, Flock, Tech 

A man who entered the U.S. illegally and gained legal status went on to illegally vote in 15 elections — and maybe more, claims the Department of Homeland Security.

The DHS told Blaze News that Homeland Security Investigations agents arrested Andres Garcia on Oct. 6 after he was charged with two counts of voting by an alien.

‘Let this be a message to any noncitizens out there who are thinking about voting in our elections: If you illegally vote, we will arrest you and you will be charged.’

Garcia is a lawful permanent resident from Cuba but is not a citizen and not allowed to vote in elections. He was charged for allegedly voting in the 2022 election as well as the 2024 election.

The man even allegedly registered to vote in Cass County, Missouri, in 2004 before he gained his legal status under the Obama administration, according to the DHS.

The DHS also claimed that Garcia is suspected of having voted at least 15 times in the past two decades. “Despite knowing he was not a United States citizen, Garcia claimed to be one when registering to vote in 2004, and did so again in 2013,” the DHS added.

“This alien from Cuba has been arrested and charged with illegally voting in multiple elections,” said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

“He illegally entered the country in 1969 and was then granted legal status by the Obama administration. Now, thanks to the hardworking men and women of HSI and our partners at the Department of Justice, this alien will have to answer for repeatedly interfering in our elections,” he added.

“Let this be a message to any noncitizens out there who are thinking about voting in our elections: If you illegally vote, we will arrest you and you will be charged. Only American citizens should be electing American leaders.”

The Department of Justice announced on Monday that 16 people had been charged with election crimes, including an illegal alien and several others who had legal status.

RELATED: FBI now investigating alleged election fraud among homeless in Skid Row of Los Angeles

After the arrest of Garcia, HSI Kansas City Acting Special Agent in Charge Rick Sabatini reiterated the point.

“Election integrity is nonnegotiable. Individuals who knowingly violate federal voting laws undermine public trust in the democratic process and will be held accountable,” he said.

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

​Department of homeland security, Department of justice, Election fraud, Election integrity, Obama administration, Politics 

After President Trump made it a point to declare banking rights as guaranteed and fair for Americans, the government actually went to work.

Now, a federal agency has revealed that major U.S. banks were guilty of limiting or denying access to financial services to citizens based on their beliefs or business activities, and the evidence is shocking.

A payment processor owned by one bank closed the account of a merchant that sold Make America Great Again merchandise.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released a scathing report detailing its intention to review potential de-banking activities at the nine largest banks in the country and whether or not they had been improperly limiting access. This was in direct response to President Trump’s executive order to guarantee fair banking for all Americans.

The report declared that between 2020 and September 2025, all nine banks had policies in place that do so.

The OCC identified two categories that presented an “elevated risk of ‘encouraging’ or ‘otherwise influencing'” institutions to deny access to financial services: reputation risk practices and industry specific practices.

The first can be summarized as a potential for “adverse” brand impact resulting from negative public perception, while the latter is an alleged bias toward certain industries or sectors unrelated to financial or operational concerns.

The practices affected both sides of the political aisle. For example, in February 2023, one bank declined to provide public services to an educational organization because it solely endorses Democrat candidates.

In February 2021, a payment processor owned by one bank closed the account of a merchant that sold Make America Great Again merchandise.

These policies reportedly negatively affected industries like firearms, oil and gas, coal mining, prisons, and tobacco.

RELATED: The fight over prediction markets is hitting the Supreme Court — and dragging in the NFL

Image courtesy Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

In the report, the OCC said it observed Citibank using an “environmental and social risk management policy” that restricted it from entering into a business relationship with customers that did not have policies that align with Citibank’s firearm standards.

“This included, for example, limitations on the sale of high-capacity magazines and restrictions on firearm sales to individuals under the age of 21.”

In February 2021, TD Bank was making decisions regarding a Paycheck Protection Program loan based on its own reputation risks, the report claimed.

“TD’s decision is based on public statements about immigrants made by [the organization] or people affiliated with your organization, including social media activity, leading up to and following the November 2020 election. These statements are inconsistent with TD’s values,” the bank wrote, per the federal government.

All nine banks were cited in the report as having conducted biased practices based on their perceived reputational risk or simply their policy regarding whether or not they wanted to do business with people based on their industry or their activities.

RELATED: Guess which secretive former president has big ideas about how AI should control you

Another example included Capital One flagging a religious organization, in multiple client reviews, for stances on abortion, LGBTQ rights, and “ties to the world of conservative politics.”

The OCC has suggested making changes to the client complaint process, forcing increased transparency, and redefining how it considers politicized or unlawful de-banking.

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

​Banks, The office of the comptroller of the currency, Tech, De-banking