The arrest of an illegal alien influencer has turned into a circus after a tow truck driver towed away a vehicle used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents during the operation, but officials got the last laugh.

The incident from Aug. 18 unfolded on numerous videos, including the live stream of influencer Leidy Tatiana Mafla-Martinez, a 24-year-old illegal alien from Colombia. Critics of the administration say she was targeted because she was using her platform to warn illegal immigrants about the presence of ICE officials.

‘Now he can laugh behind bars while he faces justice.’

In one recording, the officers run after the vehicle as it is towed away while Mafla-Martinez is detained on the ground.

On Monday, acting U.S. Attorney General Bill Essayli said on social media that the tow truck driver, identified as Bobby Nunez, had been arrested.

“Bobby Nunez is now under arrest for brazenly towing an ICE vehicle. He is charged with theft of government property,” said Essayli.

“Apparently he thought it would be funny to interfere with our immigration enforcement operations,” he added. “Now he can laugh behind bars while he faces justice. Nunez is looking at up to 10 years in federal prison if convicted.”

Essayli included the video of the vehicle being towed away as well as a video of the arrest of Nunez.

The vehicle had a gun in a gun safe when it was towed away, according to the criminal complaint. Prosecutors said that Nunez was laughing as he towed the car and was live streaming himself. Investigators were able to track him down through his TikTok account.

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

An attorney for Mafla-Martinez said that she did not cooperate with the officers’ commands because they had refused to present the warrant for her arrest.

“The reason she didn’t come out is, these are, these are masked men, and they said they had a warrant. She just wanted them to display it, ‘Show me the warrant,’ and they never displayed anything,” said her attorney Carlos Jurado.

A spokesperson for the White House said she had been arrested over a prior DUI conviction. Her attorney did not deny the conviction but claimed the real motivation for the arrest was her online activism against ICE.

“We believe, at this point, based on things that have been said to her, is that, because she was out filming ICE activities, she was targeted,” Jurado added. “There has been nothing that’s been stated to her by the arresting officers that stated that it was because of the DUI.”

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

​Ice vehicle towed, Anti-ice tow truck driver, Tatiana mafla-martinez arrest, Ice influencer arrest, Politics 

For months, Americans were warned by the media about a global economic trade war that would begin in the wake of President Trump’s tariffs — but it hasn’t happened.

“All the fearmongering was totally wrong,” the Heartland Institute’s Justin T. Haskins tells BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler on “The Liz Wheeler Show.” “It was just totally and completely wrong.”

“As of right now, the data that we have clearly shows that the tariffs that have gone into effect have not dramatically increased prices for consumers. We obviously are not in the midst of an economic catastrophe or something like that,” he continues.

Haskins also points out that “revenues are up” and “tax revenues are up.”

“That’s a good thing because we have a gigantic deficit problem in this country and a gigantic government debt problem long-term, and this could be a potential solution to that,” he explains, though he notes that the mainstream media is not reporting any of the good.

“If you just were to Google this story and look around the internet, you’ll see people say that the tariffs are causing lots of inflation. You’ll see it in headlines all over the place, and I just want to give real data from the government that proves that that’s not the case,” Haskins says.

Haskins points to the CPI inflation rate, which is the standard used for measuring inflation.

“In July, the 12-month inflation rate from July 2024-2025, 2.7%, is basically the same as in June. That’s less than what it was in December and in January before Trump was even president. So at that point it was around 3%,” Haskins explains.

“So the inflation has actually gone down over the past eight months, if you’re just comparing it in that way. If you start looking at individual numbers, parts of the economy prices, CPI prices in specific parts of the economy where you would expect to see tariffs causing inflation, if tariffs do cause inflation, you’re not seeing it,” he says.

One example Haskins uses is with clothing, of which, he explains 97% is not made in the United States.

“We are seeing prices actually go down … so if tariffs are causing inflation, then you would think that would be one area where you’d expect to see prices soaring, and we’re not seeing that.”

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

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

​Video, Camera phone, Sharing, Upload, Video phone, Free, Youtube.com, The liz wheeler show, Liz wheeler, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Inflation, Trump tariffs, Tariffs, Trade war, Justin haskins, Justin haskins blazetv, Inflation rate, Lowering inflation, Taxes, Taxpayer money 

Heritage Foundation president Dr. Kevin Roberts emphasized in his Tuesday speech at the National Conservatism conference in Washington, D.C., that America’s true source of greatness is the family and that conservatives unapologetically oppose that which serves to weaken it — even if championed by fair-weather friends within the Trump coalition — and defend that which serves to strengthen it.

Roberts, whose organization’s so-called Project 2025 caused so much consternation on the left last year, further stressed the need for conservatives both to get “uncomfortably honest about our present crisis” and to reject the “temptation to separate the personal from the political, to believe that our private lives are of no concern to our public work,” as “that separation is a lie.”

‘The family’s decline is not a law of nature; nor is it an unstoppable force.’

Roberts, among the first speakers at this year’s NatCon, noted at the outset of his speech that whereas the stability of the great empires of yesteryear’s Europe rested on the monarchs’ bloodlines and on the strength of their thrones, America “bet her future on something humbler yet infinitely stronger” — “on what Chesterton called ‘the most extraordinary thing in the world’: an ordinary man and an ordinary woman bound in covenant love, passing on their faith and virtue to ordinary children.”

“We staked it all on the American family,” continued Roberts. “The family is the seedbed and safeguard of our grand experiment in ordered liberty — the source and summit of our political order, the true origin of our exceptionalism.”

Roberts noted that whereas America’s political architecture is still outwardly intact — “the Constitution that gives our body politic its structure remains in its glass case at the National Archives” — “the American family, the spiritual heart and soul that animates that Constitution, has grown weak, fractured, and hollow.”

RELATED: Family or fallout — experts assess the threats now facing the nuclear family

Photo by Lambert/Getty Images

The Heritage Foundation president noted that the weakening of American families — evidenced by a declining marriage rate, delayed marriages, an all-time low fertility rate, a staggeringly high number of abortions, and crushing loneliness among young Americans — was no accident but rather “the result of a deliberate campaign to uproot the most fundamental institution of human life.”

“You can call this campaign liberalism or enlightenment, rationalism or modernity — the name doesn’t matter,” said Roberts. “What matters is realizing that our current crisis has been centuries in the making.”

Roberts indicated that American conservatives are now in a position to do something about this crisis, which was brought about with the help of radical feminists and industrialists who dragged the mother out of the home; eugenicists like Margaret Sanger who promoted the notion that “children are a burden”; and educational activists like John Dewey who “shifted children’s formation from home and church to state institutions.”

“The family’s decline is not a law of nature; nor is it an unstoppable force,” said Roberts. “It’s the product of human choices — and human choices can change.”

“The American people have entrusted us with the power of government. They are asking us to make America great again. They are urging us to usher in a new golden age in American life. To honor their request, we have one clear task,” said Roberts. “We must do intentionally what the founders did instinctively: stake our future on virtuous and ordinary mothers and fathers.”

‘[Prudence] demands that we ask of every policy, every proposal: Will this strengthen the American family?’

Roberts suggested that it’s not enough to seek an end to DEI and Pride flags; to combat the “uniparty” interventionists’ prioritization of the “family of nations” over the families of Americans; and to rethink policies that work on the assumption that “maximizing GDP is an overriding and unspoken goal.”

Conservatives must take back their homes and live by example — entering into marriage, embracing its commitments, and remaining faithful through its trials; welcoming children into the home and giving them the love, discipline, and kitchen-table education they need to prosper; and ruling with prudence, which Roberts noted is the “opposite of ideology.”

Roberts noted that prudence “recognizes that the interest of the family and the national interest are not merely aligned — they are one and the same. [Prudence] demands that we ask of every policy, every proposal: Will this strengthen the American family? Will it advance the common good of the American people? Will it cultivate the virtues without which liberty cannot endure?”

RELATED: ‘Woke right’ smear weaponized by liberal interlopers against MAGA conservatives, populists — and Arby’s?

Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images

“If the answer is no,” continued Roberts, “even if the proposal aligns with some past ideological commitment, prudence requires that we reject it.”

‘Prudence is not a retreat from conviction.’

Tariffs, for example, may have been imprudent years ago but, based on the needs of the family today, may be prudent now, suggested Roberts. He suggested further that conservatives ruling with prudence may simultaneously demand the deregulation of certain industries such as construction — in the interest of helping young couples afford homes — but greater regulation of other industries, such as pornography, sports betting, and social media, which adversely impact children and the family.

“Prudence is not a retreat from conviction. It’s the application of conviction to reality,” stressed Roberts. “In this moment, conviction and reality both tell us the same thing: The surest test of any policy, any law, any reform is whether it fortifies the institution upon which the future of our nation stands.”

Roberts’ apparent willingness to upset libertarians and strike at the liberal status quo is par for the course at the National Conservatism conference, a project of the Edmund Burke Foundation chaired by Israeli-American philosopher Yoram Hazony.

The project defines “national conservatism” as “a movement of public figures, journalists, scholars, and students who understand that the past and future of conservatism are inextricably tied to the idea of the nation, to the principle of national independence, and to the revival of the unique national traditions that alone have the power to bind a people together and bring about their flourishing.”‘

There have been several NatCon conferences in recent years both at home and abroad. Past guests and speakers include Vice President JD Vance, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.), Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), elements of Blaze Media, and a host of international leaders of various political stripes.

The momentum and influence enjoyed by elements of the national conservatism movement have not gone unnoticed by liberals, who have lashed out in various ways, some more forceful than others.

Last year, for example, police stormed the NatCon conference in Brussels on the orders of a leftist mayor who appeared eager to shut down the event.

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

​National conservatism, Natcon, Natcon 5, Kevin roberts, Heritage, Heritage foundation, Conservatism, Conservatives, Coalition, Maga, Trump, Donald trump, Jd vance, Politics 

A recently discovered medieval document is being hailed as the earliest written mention of the Shroud of Turin. Its author, Nicole Oresme, the learned Bishop of Lisieux, writing around 1370, claims the Shroud is a forgery. Some have rushed to seize on this fragment as if it were a fatal blow to the Shroud’s authenticity.

But is it?

To treat this new discovery as proof that the Shroud is a forgery means ignoring the massive wealth of evidence that indicates its authenticity.

Historian Nicolas Sarzeaud’s recent article uses Oresme’s passage as basis for rejecting the Shroud. However, the facts reveal more fallacy than forgery.

In the ongoing debate about the Shroud’s authenticity, the question is what this discovery actually means. Imagine a set of scales. On one side rests the enormous weight of historical, scientific, and forensic evidence pointing to the Shroud’s authenticity. On the other side, we now place this solitary note from a skeptical medieval bishop.

So does this new discovery tip the balance? The answer is a resounding no — and here’s why.

Reason 1: The inexplicable image

Picture yourself in 1370. You live in a pre-scientific, pre-photographic world, and your thoughtful approach to faith makes you skeptical of the mania for relics at that time. You hear reports of a mysterious cloth bearing the image of a crucified man, said to be Jesus.

What would you think? Most likely, your first reaction would be, “Someone must have painted it.” And as a product of his time, that is exactly what Oresme assumed.

But Oresme had no access to modern science — or to the groundbreaking work of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project.

After an exhaustive investigation, STURP concluded that the image was not created by pigment, stain, dye, paint, or any known artistic method. In fact, the image itself isn’t made of any substance that rests on top or is embedded in the weave of the cloth — it is a discoloration of the linen fibers themselves. When the Shroud is backlit, the image disappears, something no painting could replicate. Even more remarkably, the image is not the result of brush strokes; it is a photographic-negative-like image encoded with three-dimensional information.

This means that whatever makes the image was not deposited on the cloth and that the image was not made by contact with a body, statue, or brush.

Oresme had no framework for scientific thought and how to interpret such a phenomenon. In his world, images came only from the hand of an artist. The Shroud has revealed itself as an exception to the rule. In our world, the Shroud has defied every artistic or technological explanation. What seemed “obvious” in the 14th century has proven scientifically untenable today.

And for historian Sarzeaud, the use of Oresme’s comments strikes me as strained, particularly when they are presented as if they were direct references to the Shroud itself. The move from a general critique of relics to the assumption that he meant the Shroud is more conjecture than evidence.

Just as telling is Sarzeaud’s reliance on a modern interpretive framework while failing to engage seriously with the textile, historical, and iconographic data that challenge his conclusions.

Reason 2: Corrupt corroboration

In Sarzeaud’s assertion that the Shroud is a forgery, he relies heavily on the previously oldest known mention of the Shroud, which is known as the d’Arcis Memorandum, written around 1390, in which Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, claimed the Shroud was painted. He includes the entire memo as evidence that the Shroud was considered a forgery as soon as it was first exhibited 35 years earlier. Although this is corroboration, Sarzeaud presents the memo without mentioning the controversy surrounding it.

Sarzeaud fails as a historian and treats this as if it were a straightforward confirmation of Oresme’s skepticism. But the reality is far murkier.

RELATED: Shroud of Turin debunked? Not even close — here’s the truth

claudiodivizia/iStock/Getty Images Plus

First, there isn’t just one memo. Calling it “the memo” is misleading, since there are two surviving drafts that differ in tone and detail. The French scholar Ulysse Chevalier, who published the d’Arcis memo in the early 20th century, conflated the two versions into a single document — and then asserted, without proof, that it had been sent to Pope Clement VII. No such record exists in the Vatican archives, and there is no evidence that it was ever sent to the pope.

Second, even within the memorandum, d’Arcis admits that his charge was based on hearsay: His predecessor supposedly knew the name of the forger but never revealed it. Modern scholarship has highlighted these inconsistencies, but Sarzeaud neglects to mention them. In other words, what he presents as solid corroboration rests on fragile ground.

As historians, we must do better and not overreach in presenting the evidence as Sarzeaud has done.

Reason 3: Earlier does not equal better

We share Oresme’s skepticism of relics. I’ve visited the Saxony hometown of Johann Tetzel (1465-1519), the Dominican friar infamous for selling indulgences in the early 16th century. He was commissioned to raise money for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Tetzel became notorious for a jingle he reportedly used in his preaching to stir people to buy indulgences: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”

Orsme was thinking, writing, and standing firm for Christian truth in a time rife with spiritual manipulation, and this influenced his overreaction to the Shroud. By the 14th century, Europe was rife with dubious relics. Skeptical observers like Oresme often dismissed any new devotional object as fraudulent.

But what Oresme lacked — and what we now possess — is the benefit of centuries of scientific progress.

It is true that Oresme’s fragment pushes the written record of the Shroud back to around 1370. And yes, having a mention of the Shroud so close to when it first appeared in Europe is noteworthy. But it doesn’t mean it carries more weight than other evidence.

In fact, given the advent of the age of science and the technological advances since Oresme’s day, there is far more and far better evidence now than there was then.

Think of it this way: Knowledge accumulates like compound interest. Every decade of careful research into the Shroud — microscopy, spectroscopy, blood chemistry, pollen analysis, and digital imaging — adds layers of data. To elevate a lone medieval opinion over the wealth of evidence gathered since 1978 is to confuse proximity with authority. Oresme’s comment is historically interesting, but evidentially it is a footnote, not a verdict.

Sarzeaud does appeal to the 1988 radiocarbon test that dated the Shroud to 1260-1380 to support the claim that the Shroud is medieval. Once again, however, he does not mention the fierce debate surrounding the results or the work done since then that casts serious doubt on its validity.

The very latest state of the evidence is the richest; we only gain more knowledge. To treat this new discovery as proof that the Shroud is a forgery means ignoring the massive wealth of evidence that indicates its authenticity. The new find only has force when isolated from the overwhelming contextual evidence.

Reason 4: The ‘forgery’ claim falls apart

The fatal flaw in relying on this new document and the d’Arcis Memorandum as proof that the Shroud is a forgery is that the dots don’t connect.

If the Shroud were obviously painted, as Oresme assumed, then why have the best scientists in the world — equipped with electron microscopes, chemical analysis, and cutting-edge imaging technology — failed to detect any paint, pigment, or dye responsible for the image?

RELATED: New evidence indicates Shroud of Turin shows EXACT moment of resurrection

Stefano Guidi/Getty Images

Dr. John Jackson, physicist and leader of the STURP team, cataloged 17 unique characteristics of the image on the Shroud — features that any genuine explanation must account for. Countless attempts to reproduce the image have fallen short. Photographs, paintings, and scorchings may imitate some features, but none replicate them all.

The Shroud’s image remains, scientifically speaking, an unsolved phenomenon.

This is the Achilles’ heel of the forgery theory: What was “obvious” to a 14th-century skeptic has been thoroughly disproven by modern analysis. The image is not a painting. The claim collapses under scrutiny.

Weighing the evidence

Nicole Oresme was right about one thing: Popular religious claims should be subjected to rigorous testing. As Sarzeaud himself quotes, Oresme insisted that such claims be examined through Scripture, credible testimony, and reason.

Sarzeaud concludes, “For Oresme, popular beliefs must be critically examined through methodical analysis, using Scriptural authorities, credible testimonies, and arguments grounded in reason, with significant weight being given to the latter.”

Yet in holding Sarzeaud to his own standard, his argument and conclusion fail. He has failed to critically examine the new Oresme passage with methodical analysis by ignoring the problems with the d’Arcis Memorandum. He has ignored the credible testimony of the scientific evidence and the compelling historical evidence of the Shroud’s existence in history prior to appearing in Europe. He has overlooked the historical evidence placing the Shroud well before the 14th century.

When all the evidence is placed on the scales, this newly found fragment does not tip the balance. Instead, it reminds us of an enduring truth: Skepticism is not new.

From the beginning, voices have attempted to dismiss the Shroud as forgery or fabrication. But 2,000 years of history and a century of scientific inquiry testify otherwise. And by appealing only to selective evidence that agrees with his premise, Sarzeaud fails to ground his arguments in reason, but rather commits the fallacy of special pleading.

The one thing Sarzeaud succeeds in is generating headlines by making something from nothing. Sarzeaud’s article may generate headlines, but it does not overturn the evidence.

In the end, the Shroud continues to confront us with the same, unyielding mystery: the image of a crucified man, unlike any other in human history — a discovery that refuses to be explained away.

​Shroud of turin, Jeremiah johnston, Christianity, Christians, Jesus, Jesus christ, Nicole oresme, Nicolas sarzeaud, Faith 

Witnesses have given conflicting stories surrounding the axe-wielding Scottish girl whose story has captured headlines.

After a 12-year-old Scottish girl was charged with weapons possession, rumors swirled that she was fending off the pursuit of an unruly migrant, forcing her to wield both an axe and a large knife.

Now, the accused immigrant has spoken out and provided a conflicting account that seemingly reveals one side is not telling the truth.

‘She has a severe concussion and swelling inside of her head.’

“I never touched her. I didn’t hit her, I swear on my life, I have a baby now. I would never hurt someone,” Fatos Ali Dumana told the Daily Mail.

Dumana, a 21-year-old Bulgarian immigrant, wondered why the 12-year-old girl was “messing” with him while possessing weapons.

“If I did hurt the girl, why didn’t the police arrest me? They have done nothing to me,” Dumana insisted. “They saw from the CCTV cameras from Farmfoods [supermarket] that she was stopping me go on my way to the shop.”

Dumana also alleged that another bystander witnessed him being attacked and labeled a “f***ing migrant.”

“I did not hit them; I am a human not an animal,” he added.

Police Scotland had previously told Blaze News through spokeswoman Lisa Smith that “no adults” were “arrested or charged” in relation to the same incident.

However, a reporter claiming to have spoken to the 12-year-old girl’s family, as well as another alleged independent witness, has provided an incredibly contradictory take on what happened that day.

RELATED: Scottish police blame axe-wielding girl for altercation, reveal nationality of migrant

An X user who goes by the name Aesthetica claimed to have spoken to and worked directly with the family in order to set up a fundraiser for to pay for the hospital bills of one of the girls allegedly present at the scene.

According to the story attached to the fundraiser, the 12-year-old in question is named Lola and was accompanied by her sister Ruby, 13, and friend Mayah, 13. The story describes “foreign nationals” directing “inappropriate sexual remarks at Lola.”

After telling the “migrants” to leave them alone, one of the girls was “viciously attacked” by an adult female, the story alleged, who pulled her to the ground by her hair as “both migrants proceeded to kick Ruby in the head on the ground.”

It was at this point Lola allegedly retrieved an axe and knife to scare off the attackers, prompting the “foreign national” to film the aftermath.

Ruby was allegedly hospitalized after the attack with a “severe concussion,” but the migrants were not arrested, even though Lola was, leaving her as the alleged 12-year-old girl who was charged by Scottish police.

Days later, a young girl purporting to be Mayah posted videos on TikTok corroborating the story from the fundraiser.

RELATED: 14-year-old girl charged in UK after allegedly defending herself from migrant harasser

— (@)

TikTok user Mayah Anderson said she, Ruby, and Lola were present when a man made inappropriate remarks toward the 12-year-old. They told the man to stop, as he was speaking to a minor.

As the altercation escalated, the alleged witness said that the man’s sister attacked Ruby, allegedly causing head injuries.

“This is his sister. For everybody saying his wife, it’s not his wife,” the young girl claimed. “His sister then grabs my friend Ruby from behind, and both of them, the male and the female, jump on my friend, start kicking her in the head, punching her in the face. And she actually had to get sent to hospital. She has a severe concussion and swelling inside of her head.”

The girl claimed that the man told police and stated on social media that the woman is his sister.

Anderson said that after she called police, Lola pulled out her weapons — which she had, unbeknownst to the group — and soon fled.

The teen also alleged that the man in question acted violently while in police custody and even spit on them.

X user Aesthetica told Blaze News that the family, including mother Elaine Thomson, has received threats and now fears speaking out publicly. The family has also run into problems obtaining hospital records, Aesthetica claims.

Blaze News has reached out to Scottish police and asked about the claims regarding a man assaulting police and the child’s alleged hospitalization, as well as access to any CCTV footage.

Police Scotland had previously told Blaze News that revealing any information from the police report would violate Scottish law.

Blaze News also attempted to contact Mayah Anderson, but the messages were not deliverable through social media.

The fundraiser has reached over $115,000 USD at the time of this writing.

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

​News, Scotland, United kingdom, Uk, Axe girl, Axe and knife, Migrants, Illegal immigrations, Immigration, Bulgaria, Politics 

The transgender Minneapolis shooter may have had anti-Semitic writing as well as a threat to “kill” President Trump scrawled all over his weapons — but ex-CNN anchor Don Lemon isn’t letting that stop him from believing the shooter could be conservative.

“The Minneapolis shooter is reportedly trans, and now the right, MAGA, is losing their minds over it, making it a big deal, an issue. Here’s where the ignorance comes in. They’re so ignorant, because trans people can be of any different, many different political persuasions,” Lemon said in a selfie video uploaded to social media.

“We need sensible gun legislation in this country that goes along with mental health issues. You can be a trans person and have mental health issues just like you can be a straight white man, who it usually is doing these things, and have mental health issues as well.”

“Trans people can also be conservative. Could be trans and it could be a trans conservative person. I actually know trans conservative people, I have interviewed one,” Lemon continued, before showing a video of him interviewing a transgender woman who claimed to be a Trump supporter.

“It’s a safe bet to say that the trans person is probably a Democrat,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray argues on “Pat Gray Unleashed. “Especially when it had ‘kill Trump’ on the rifle and ‘Jews’ that he used.”

“Come on. That’s not a Republican. I mean, have you even looked into the Don?” he adds.

Lemon’s proof that the shooter could be conservative came in the form of a man-on-the-street-style video he did once where he interviewed a transgender conservative.

“I walked away from the Democrat plantation. I had to. Just ‘cause I’m transgender doesn’t mean I need to be a Democrat,” the man told Lemon.

“She absolutely played him,” Jeffy comments.

“Absolutely,” Gray 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, Camera phone, Upload, Free, Sharing, Video phone, Youtube.com, Pat gray unleashed, Pat gray, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Transgender shooter, Minneapolis shooter, Trans conservative, Transgender agenda, Lgbtq agenda, Lgbtq activism, Trans shooters, Don lemon, Donald trump 

With the 2026 midterms looming on the horizon, one Republican senator has announced she will not be seeking re-election.

On Tuesday, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) confirmed the rumors that have been swirling for months and officially announced that she will not seek a third term. She made the announcement in a video posted to X.

‘Protecting life and the most vulnerable among us is the most important measure of any society.’

“It has been an honor to dedicate my life to the service of our great state and country. Having been raised in a family who has given me so much love and support, now as our family ages and grows, it’s my time for me to give back to them,” Ernst said in the video.

The Senate Leadership Fund quickly responded to the news. “We want to express our gratitude to Senator Joni Ernst for her dedicated service to our nation and the people of Iowa, both in the U.S. Senate and serving in the armed forces,” executive director Alex Latcham said in a statement obtained by Blaze News. “Senator Ernst has been a steadfast conservative leader throughout her time in office, and we wish her the very best in her retirement. We are confident that Iowans will once again choose a strong fighter to represent them in the U.S. Senate next fall.”

RELATED: Liberal media spins Sen. Ernst’s town hall death reminder while Iowa Democrats make their play

— (@)

Ernst, 55, was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2014, making her the first woman ever elected to federal office from the state of Iowa.

Since then, she has been a reliable Republican vote. As an Iraq War veteran, Ernst has advocated for servicemen and women. She even ruffled feathers in her own party after President Donald Trump’s re-election win last fall when she initially lobbied against the nomination of Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense following allegations of sexual misconduct. However, she ultimately voted to confirm him.

She has also been a staunch supporter of the pro-life movement, voting for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and to defund Planned Parenthood. “Protecting life and the most vulnerable among us is the most important measure of any society,” she says on her website.

While Iowa has some of the strongest restrictions on abortion in the country, a recent Des Moines Register poll indicated that a solid majority of Iowans, 64%, say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

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

​Joni ernst, Pro-life, Abortion, Unborn, Veterans, Iraq war, Pete hegseth, Politics 

The families of the murdered and injured in the heinous Minneapolis Catholic church shooting can rest well knowing that NBC News is going the extra distance to avoid “misgendering” the deceased murderer.

Investigators say that 23-year-old Robin Westman fired at children and others praying inside Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, killing two and injuring 17. Westman died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the church.

‘Children were slaughtered. … But NBC made sure the pronouns were right.’

Investigators say that Westman identified as a transgender person, and the messages he left behind have provided some insight into his possible motivation for the shooting. Westman also expressed regret for becoming transgender in one post.

NBC issued the correction after using male pronouns when referring to Westman.

“A previous version of this article used the wrong pronoun for the shooter. She used female pronouns,” it read.

Many on social media excoriated NBC News for taking care to observe the preferred pronouns of a heinous murderer of children.

“Children were slaughtered. Catholics targeted. But NBC made sure the pronouns were right,” responded communications strategist Erica Knight.

“Ahh, the sickness of all these people is so deep in the media that at some point after these kids get murdered maybe we the majority will turn them off and watch the sponsors pull their hair out. We need another brand of news outlet over the air waves,” read one response.

“In an evil premeditated way, this beast plotted and tracked elementary school age kids, trapped them in a room and shot them with automatic weapons. NBC is worried about his pronouns?…How about a pronoun for NBC… A**holes!…Can’t hate them enough!” read another response.

RELATED: Catholic schools begged Tim Walz to increase security before horrific shooting — he did nothing

“The lame stream media, corrects pronouns for a savage killer of innocent children who is now dead,” said one detractor.

“I don’t think the main stream media in this country is even trying to be unbiased anymore. It’s all out in the open,” replied writer Clara Winslow.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that investigators are trying to determine whether transitioning drugs possibly taken by the shooter might have been at least partly to blame for the attack.

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

​Nbc news, Misgendering shooters, Annunciation catholic shooting, Robin westman pronouns, Politics