Details emerge about deadly shooting at US Air Force base



Details have begun to emerge about a shooting at an Air Force base in New Mexico that resulted in at least one death.

On Tuesday, one person died and one person was injured after a suspect open fired near the Shoppette at Holloman Air Force Base in Otero County in southern New Mexico.

The injured victim and the deceased 'were not married.'

In a press release on Wednesday, base officials identified the injured party as "an active-duty service member assigned to Holloman AFB" and claimed the individual was in "stable condition." Officials said the individual's identity will not be released.

The press release stated that the deceased individual was a "civilian" who had previously been a service member once "stationed" at the base.

RELATED: Retired Air Force major allegedly trained Chinese military fighter pilots — and is linked to spying, hacking network

Photo by Jon Cherry/Getty Images

On Friday, base officials confirmed the identity of the deceased individual: Ashanti Stewart. The latest press release claimed that Stewart committed suicide after shooting the active-duty service member. She was declared dead at the scene, officials said.

Officials have characterized the shooting as an "isolated incident" related to some kind of "domestic" issue. However, the injured victim and the deceased "were not married," officials noted.

A lockdown order was issued at the base around 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday following reports of an active shooter, a press release on Tuesday said. That order was soon lifted after authorities determined that the scene was "safe." Officials later said that there was "no ongoing threat."

The shooting remains under investigation.

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

Paying Out Retirement For Trans-Identifying Veterans Is The Right Thing To Do

Separate transgender-identifying members from the armed forces, but give them the option of early retirement.

'Rebellion'? Democrat lawmakers urge federal agents to resist Trump agenda in cringe video



Despite internal fractures in their own party, Democrats have rallied on one issue: resisting President Donald Trump and his agenda. On Tuesday, a Democrat senator posted a distressing exhortation titled "Don't give up the ship."

The six Democrats in the video, whose shared experience represents intelligence agencies, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, delivered a forceful message addressed directly to "members of the military and the intelligence community."

'You can refuse illegal orders.'

"Americans trust their military. But that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens."

RELATED: 'The counteroffensive begins': Report exposes Soros' Open Society funding of alleged pro-terror leftist groups

Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

"Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home."

Repeating the statement for effect, they continued, "You can refuse illegal orders."

"No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. ... But whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back," they said.

They did not identify any allegedly illegal orders issued by President Donald Trump or members of his administration.

The video ended with the final demand: "Don't give up the ship."

Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), and Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) delivered the message.

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and homeland security adviser, called out the video on X, saying, "Ten years after the Deep State Russia Hoax, top Democrats openly appeal to CIA and military officials to engage in rebellion against their Commander-in-Chief."

"Do not underestimate how dangerously radicalized the Democrat party has become," Miller added.

Slotkin's post of the video garnered 6.7 million views on X by Wednesday.

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

Troops in orbit? US dominance demands Space Force 'guardians,' ex-military brass claim



A group of former military officers says human Space Force missions could tilt the scales against America's enemies.

In a new report, the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies advocated the integration of man in space as the next step required to gain a tactical edge.

'Astronaut guardians may be necessary to execute and secure missions that cannot be accomplished through remote operations.'

The Mitchell Institute calls itself an "independent, nonpartisan research organization" and consists of a plethora of retired military personnel. This includes a former Air Force brigadier general, general, and lieutenant general. Notably, the staff boasts retired Space Force Colonel Charles Galbreath, who serves as a director and senior resident fellow for space studies.

It was Galbreath who concluded the recent study that determined dynamic space operations with the Space Force will need to encompass orbital and terrestrial links, and establish space infrastructure in the future.

One of the most important areas of focus, Galbreath wrote, should be the need for crewed missions.

Labeling humans as the "most flexible system ever launched into space," the former Space Force colonel said that "guardians in space" may be essential for future operations.

RELATED: Why Mars is America’s next strategic imperative

— (@)

"Today, the Space Force does not have guardians operating in the space domain for military missions. However, as humanity’s interests in space go further from the Earth, astronaut guardians may be necessary to execute and secure missions that cannot be accomplished through remote operations," Galbreath wrote.

The adaptability of human decision-making could present "fundamental challenges" to enemy decision-making procedures, he argued. For example, adding humans into a spacecraft would "raise the threshold" of acceptable hostile actions from foreign governments.

"Harming an uncrewed satellite is one thing; harming a space station with military crew on it is a completely different risk calculus for an adversary to consider," Galbreath hypothesized.

RELATED: Comet or alien? NASA-led group ramping efforts to track mysterious city-size object in our solar system

As reported by Defense One, John Shaw, the former deputy leader of U.S. Space Command, recently appeared on a virtual event for the Mitchell Institute, where he expressed skepticism about putting troops in space in the immediate future.

"It's probably when we're projecting power across great distances, and it's probably so they can be closer to an intense command and control capability where you need humans in the decision-making," Shaw said.

Describing the placement of guardians in space as "inevitable," Galbreath said during the same event that it's going to take about 10 years to get the idea into practice due to the time it takes to develop the pipeline and training that would enable such a program.

"We can't wake up one day and say, ‘My gosh, we need guardians in space.' ... We needed to make that decision 10 years ago," Galbreath claimed.

According to the Mitchell report, there also exists a need for the Space Force to use alternate forms of propulsion, conduct in-space assembly, and create a supply chain for parts and infrastructure in order to fix satellites, for example.

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

Hegseth restores warrior ethos after years of woke Pentagon rot



When Secretary of War Pete Hegseth first announced the unorthodox step that he would gather all generals and admirals at Marine Base Quantico on short notice, many speculated that this could be a sign that we might be heading toward another war. Hegseth did declare war, but not in the way many pundits expected. He’s going to war against declining standards in the military.

In every respect, this was a historic speech. The convening itself was historic, but more significantly, Hegseth’s speech carried the weight of history. Hegseth’s purpose was to align all of the flag officers around one mission, as he put it, "The only mission of the newly restored War Department is this: warfighting.”

For too long, side quests have taken the military’s focus off lethality. Military standards were changed to accomplish partisan distractions.

By contrast, Hegseth’s predecessor, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III, oriented the military around climate change, social justice, and other side quests. For example, in 2021, Austin declared, “We face all kinds of threats, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. The climate crisis does."

War on wokeness

The Pentagon’s mission under the Biden administration was to fight a war on the weather, even going so far as to prioritize climate plans over the duty to build warships. These side quests weakened our military and our nation.

Even worse, Austin’s leadership ushered in an era of politically motivated promotions that prioritized sex and skin color characteristics over merit. To this end, retired Air Force Gen. C.Q. Brown, who served as the 21st chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Biden administration’s final years, famously wrote a memo mandating racial and sex quotas. This firmly committed our military away from promotions based on wars won and lives saved toward a process infused with the radical agenda of the left.

Warrior ethos restored

This was the context of Hegseth’s speech. Within the Pentagon, competing priorities eclipsed the primal imperative of being prepared to kill the enemy before they kill us. The woke agenda pushed by the radical left caused a slow rot that shifted focus from warfighting to social engineering, greatly frustrating many senior military officials.

Hegseth vowed to excise this type of decay inflicted by “foolish and reckless politicians.” He outlined several concrete steps to do just that, including restored grooming standards, stricter enforcement of physical training requirements, leadership and accountability reforms, and changes to training to focus on core warfighting elements.

But if the meeting was only about outlining these seemingly mundane reforms, why gather these high-ranking generals and admirals in one place? Couldn’t the content of his speech have been sent in an email? No, it could not. This was far more important than updating senior leaders on reforms; this was a cultural moment for military leadership. The era of hiding behind systemic racism and sexism to undermine the mission of the military while projecting woke platitudes as a defense of those actions is officially over.

Hegseth understood the mission, which was tough talk to tough people to prepare them for tough times. Some will whine that it’s uncouth for a secretary of sar to say, “No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. ... We are done with that s**t.”

The whiners need to realize that many warfighters have prayed that someone would say this to their senior leaders. Hegseth did exactly that. This can’t be captured by a mere email.

Symbolically and practically, it’s meaningful that the secretary of war said this directly to their faces, immediately reinforced by a speech from the commander in chief. Saying this face-to-face is not hostile; it’s a sign of respect among tough people.

Hegseth’s admonitions, from calling out fat generals to reminding them that personnel is policy, are best summed up in this statement: “It's like the broken windows theory of policing. It's like when you let the small stuff go, the big stuff eventually goes. So you have to address the small stuff.” This principle should be understood by our military leadership, but it became a vestigial sentiment that was no longer actively practiced.

Aligned for lethality

For too long, side quests have taken the military’s focus off lethality. Military standards were changed to accomplish partisan distractions. Whether it was diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives or the climate agenda, the leaders in the Quantico audience accomplished these side missions ruthlessly and effectively — to the detriment of their primary purpose.

RELATED: Pete Hegseth just ended the era of woke brass in the military

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Going forward, this speech empowered the military to fight against the entropy of distractions and declining standards. Whether they wear five stars or one, all of our star-ranked officers have been aligned to a new standard: lethality. This means effectively and ruthlessly accomplishing the only mission that matters: warfighting.

History, which favors winners, will view this as the moment the U.S. military was made great again. This will be remembered as the day the Trump administration aligned the stars, one in which our senior military officials were liberated to align their leadership with basic common sense.

Senate Confirms Matthew Lohmeier As Next Under Secretary Of The Air Force

In a 52-46 vote, the U.S. Senate confirmed former Space Force Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier as the next under secretary of the Air Force. The vote came along partisan lines, with Republicans supporting Lohmeier’s nomination and Democrats opposing. Sens. Katie Britt, R-Ala., and Andy Kim, D-N.J., did not vote on the nomination. “Congrats to Hulett, […]

Report: Sen. Banks Imposes Hold On Air Force Nominee Who Backed DEI-Based Promotions

Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., is blocking the promotion of an Air Force colonel who supported race- and gender-based promotions in the service, according to a new report. On Thursday, Breitbart News’ Bradley Jaye revealed that Indiana’s junior senator has placed a hold on Air Force Col. George H. Sebren, who “authored a 2017 research paper lamenting […]

Trump Needs A Massive Drone Fleet To Defend U.S. Interests And Deter Its Enemies

A core component of future strength will not be a dozen or even hundreds of drones ready for war. The future is hundreds of thousands.