This Yale professor thinks patriotism is some kind of hate crime



Timothy Snyder has built a career trying to convince Americans that Donald Trump is a latter-day Adolf Hitler — a fascist demagogue hell-bent on dismantling America’s institutions to seize power. Last week, the Yale historian and author of the bestselling resistance pamphlet “On Tyranny,” briefly changed course. Now, apparently, Trump is Jefferson Davis.

In a recent Substack post, Snyder claimed Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg amounted to a call for civil war. He argued that the president’s praise for the military and his rejection of the left’s historical revisionism signaled not patriotism but treason — and the rise of a “paramilitary” regime.

Trump doesn’t want a second civil war. He wants the first one to mean something.

No, seriously. That’s what he thinks.

Renaming Fort Bragg

Trump’s first alleged Confederate offense, Snyder said, was to reinstate the military base’s original name: Fort Bragg. The Biden administration had renamed it Fort Liberty, repudiating General Braxton Bragg’s Confederate ties. Trump reversed the change.

The Biden administration had renamed the base Fort Liberty, citing General Braxton Bragg’s service to the Confederacy. Trump reversed the change. But he didn’t do it to honor a Confederate general. He did it to honor World War II paratrooper Roland L. Bragg, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth explained.

Snyder wasn’t buying it. He accused the administration of fabricating a “dishonest pretense” that glorifies “oathbreakers and traitors.”

That charge hits close to home.

My grandfather Martin Spohn was a German Jewish refugee who fled Nazi Berlin in 1936. He proudly served in the U.S. Army. He trained with the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Bragg before deploying to Normandy. Like thousands of others, he saw the base not as a Confederate monument but as a launchpad for defeating actual fascism.

Restoring the name Fort Bragg doesn’t rewrite history. It honors the Americans who made history — men who trained there to liberate Europe from tyranny.

That’s not fascism. That’s victory over it.

Deploying the National Guard

For Snyder, though, Trump’s real crime was calling up the National Guard to restore order in riot-torn Los Angeles. That, he claimed, puts Trump in the same category as Robert E. Lee.

According to Snyder, the president is “preparing American soldiers to see themselves as heroes when they undertake operations inside the United States against unarmed people, including their fellow citizens.”

Let’s set aside the hysteria.

Trump didn’t glorify the Confederacy. He called for law and order in the face of spiraling violence. He pushed back against the left’s crusade to erase American history — not to rewrite it but to preserve its complexity.

He didn’t tell soldiers to defy the Constitution. He reminded them of their oath: to defend the nation, not serve the ideological demands of woke officials.

Snyder’s claims are as reckless as they are false.

He smears anyone who supports border enforcement or takes pride in military service as a threat to democracy. Want secure borders? You’re a fascist. Call out the collapse of Democrat-run cities? You’re a Confederate.

This isn’t analysis. It’s slander masquerading as scholarship.

The real division

But this debate isn’t really about Trump. It’s about power.

The left has spent years reshaping the military into a political project — prioritizing diversity seminars over combat readiness, purging dissenters, and enforcing ideological loyalty. When Trump pushes back, it’s not authoritarianism. It’s restoration.

The left wants a military that fights climate change, checks pronouns, and marches for “equity.” Trump wants a military that defends the nation. That’s the real divide.

Over and over, Snyder accuses Trump of “trivializing” the military by invoking its heroism while discussing immigration enforcement. But what trivializes military service more — linking it to national defense or turning soldiers into props for progressive social experiments?

RELATED: The real tyranny? Institutional groupthink disguised as truth

Photo by Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

And Trump isn’t breaking precedent by deploying the National Guard when local leaders fail. Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson used federal troops during desegregation. Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights marchers. The Guard responded during the 1967 Detroit riots, the 1992 Los Angeles riots, and the Black Lives Matter and Antifa upheavals of 2020.

Trump acted within his authority — and fulfilled his duty — to restore order when Democrat-run cities descended into chaos.

A House divided?

Snyder’s rhetoric about “protecting democracy” rings hollow. Trump won the 2024 election decisively. Voters across party lines gave him a clear mandate: Secure the border and remove violent criminals. Pew Research found that 97% of Americans support more vigorous enforcement of immigration laws.

Yet Snyder, who constantly warns of creeping authoritarianism, closed his post by urging fellow academics to join No Kings protests.

Nobody appointed Timothy Snyder king, either.

If he respected democratic institutions, he’d spend less time fearmongering — and more time listening to the Americans, including many in uniform, who are tired of being demonized for loving their country. They’re tired of being called bigots for wanting secure borders. They’re tired of watching history weaponized to silence dissent.

Snyder invokes Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address to condemn Trump. But it was Lincoln who paraphrased scripture when he said, “A house divided cannot stand.”

Americans united behind Trump in 2024. Snyder’s effort to cast half the country as fascists or Confederates embodies the division Lincoln warned against.

Here’s the truth: Trump doesn’t want a second civil war. He wants the first one to mean something.

He wants a Union preserved in more than name — a Union defined by secure borders, equal justice, and unapologetic national pride.

If that scares Timothy Snyder, maybe the problem isn’t Trump.

Perhaps, the problem lies in the man staring back at him in the mirror.

A president’s job is to stop the burning if governors won’t



In response to widespread rioting and domestic disorder in Los Angeles, President Trump ordered the deployment of National Guard units. More than 700 U.S. Marines from the Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms were also mobilized on Monday to protect federal property around the city.

As expected, critics pounced. They claim Trump’s orders violate American tradition — calling them anti-constitutional, anti-federal, and an authoritarian misuse of executive power. They say Trump is turning the military into a domestic police force.

In moments like this, the republic must defend itself.

But that argument isn’t just wrong — it’s nonsense on stilts.

The U.S. Army Historical Center has published three comprehensive volumes documenting the repeated and lawful use of federal military forces in domestic affairs since the founding of the republic. From the Whiskey Rebellion to civil rights enforcement, history shows that federal troops have long been a constitutional backstop when local authorities fail to maintain order.

Certainly, the use of military forces within U.S. borders must be limited and considered carefully. But the Constitution explicitly grants this authority. Article IV, Section 4 states: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.”

That clause isn’t a suggestion — it’s a command. A republican government exists to safeguard life, liberty, and property. The First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, but it does not shield acts of arson, looting, or assault. When rioters threaten the public, federal intervention becomes not just permissible but, in this instance, necessary.

Article II empowers the president, as commander in chief of the Army, Navy, and National Guard (when called into federal service), to act decisively against both foreign and domestic threats. That includes quelling insurrections when state leaders fail to uphold public order.

The National Guard is not the “militia” the founders discussed. That distinction was settled with the passage of the Dick Act in 1903, which clarified the Guard’s federal identity in relation to state control. Since then, the Guard has operated under dual federal and state authority — with federal control taking precedence when activated. Once federalized, the National Guard becomes an extension of the U.S. military.

Congress codified this authority in 1807 with the Insurrection Act. It authorizes the president to use military force when ordinary judicial proceedings fail. This provision enabled presidents throughout history to deploy troops against domestic unrest. During the 1950s and ’60s, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy used it to enforce desegregation orders in the South.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush relied on the same statute to deploy Army and Marine forces alongside the California National Guard during the L.A. riots following the Rodney King trial verdict. That was done without sparking cries of dictatorship.

RELATED: Why Trump had to do what Gavin Newsom refused to do

Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Those accusing Trump of violating norms by acting over a governor’s objection should revisit 1957. After Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus (D) defied federal orders to desegregate Little Rock Central High School, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent in the 101st Airborne Division. Democratic Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia decried the move, comparing the troops to Hitler’s storm troopers — a reminder that hysterical analogies are nothing new.

Americans have sought to limit military involvement in domestic life. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was designed to do just that — restrict the use of federal troops in civil law enforcement without explicit authorization. But even that law has historical nuance.

The concept of “posse comitatus” comes from English common law. It refers to the authority of sheriffs to summon local citizens to restore order. In early American history, federal troops often supported U.S. Marshals. They enforced the Fugitive Slave Act, stanched the bleeding in Kansas, and helped capture John Brown at Harpers Ferry.

After the Civil War, the Army played a key role in enforcing Reconstruction and suppressing the Ku Klux Klan under the Force Acts. Southern Democrats opposed this use of federal power. But by the 1870s, even Northern lawmakers grew uneasy when soldiers were ordered to suppress railroad strikes under direction of state and local officials.

The Army eventually welcomed Posse Comitatus. Being placed under local political control compromised military professionalism and exposed troops to partisan misuse. Officers feared that domestic policing would corrupt the armed forces.

I’ve long argued for restraint in using military power within U.S. borders. That principle still matters. But lawlessness, when left unchecked, can and will destroy republican government. And when local leaders fail to act — or worse, encourage disorder — the federal government must step in.

President Trump has both the constitutional and statutory authority to deploy troops in response to the violence unfolding in Los Angeles. Whether he should do so depends on prudence and necessity. But the idea that such action is unprecedented or somehow illegal has no basis in law or history.

If mayors and governors abdicate their duty, Washington must not. The defense of law-abiding citizens cannot hinge on the whims of ideologues or the cowardice of local officials. And in moments like this, the republic must defend itself.

The real tyranny? Institutional groupthink disguised as truth



Timothy Snyder’s “On Tyranny” has become a pocket-size gospel for progressives in the age of Trump — a secular catechism of 20 rules to resist looming fascism. It’s pitched not just as a historical analysis but as an urgent survival guide, borrowed from the dark lessons of the 20th century. The message is clear: Authoritarianism is always just one election away, and Donald Trump is its orange-faced harbinger.

Such moral urgency unmoored from historical context tends to collapse into political theater, however. “On Tyranny” is not a serious book. It is an emotive pamphlet that relies less on the actual historical complexities of rising tyranny than on the reader’s willingness to conflate MAGA hats with brownshirts.

Snyder believes a tyrant is always the populist outsider, never the insider who manages democratic decline in a suit and tie.

Such historical flattening is the first and most obvious flaw in Snyder’s argument. He leans heavily on the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia to suggest that Trump’s rise follows the same trajectory. But this is not serious analysis — it’s emotional manipulation. It’s one thing to warn against patterns; it’s another to flatten every populist movement into a prequel to genocide.

Snyder, a Yale historian, surely knows better. But “On Tyranny” depends on your feeling like you're living in 1933 — whether or not such historical parallels are actually true. And they’re not.

A democratic mandate

Snyder warns against the rise of a single leader claiming to represent the will of the people and establishing a one-party state — equating the 2016 Republican sweep of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Hitler’s consolidation of the Third Reich. Such a comparison isn’t just blatantly false; it’s a cruel dismissal of the democratic will of the people for merely voting in Republican candidates.

Surely Snyder didn’t accuse Barack Obama of fascist one-party rule when he and the Democrats swept the White House and Congress in 2008. Such electoral outcomes aren’t a harbinger of fascism. No, no! That was a mandate from the American people, democratically spoken, demanding change from the status quo. Voters sent that message loud and clear in 2008 — as well as in 2016 and 2024.

Snyder’s false equivalency counts on fear rather than critical thinking — any semblance of which would entice Democrats to pause for a moment of self-reflection and listen to what the American people are saying through the electoral process. But Snyder’s one-sided alarmism silences the electoral voice — merely because it rallied behind Trump.

Civic theater

Snyder’s advice to citizens reads like a secular sermon: “Defend institutions.” “Stand out.” “Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.” On the surface, it sounds noble — defiant, even. But strip away the aesthetic of resistance, and what’s left is a deeply superficial understanding of civic virtue.

What exactly are we defending when we’re told to “support the press” or “protect truth”? In practice, Snyder’s rules amount to an uncritical loyalty to legacy institutions that have forfeited public trust — media outlets that gaslight, bureaucracies that bloat, and experts who contradict themselves while silencing dismissive voices.

Snyder dismisses the possibility that institutions can rot from within, that the loudest defenders of “truth” are often its gravest opponents. Instead, he offers something simpler: the feeling of resistance while catering to the institutional elites.

The real culprits

The irony of “On Tyranny” is that the tactics Snyder warns against — censorship, moral panic, political conformity — have not come from MAGA rallies but from the very institutions Snyder holds up as guardians of democracy. It wasn’t Trump who quashed dissenting speech on COVID-19 or colluded with social media companies to throttle viewpoints that didn’t conform with the government’s narrative. It was the political elite and their complicit peddlers in the mainstream media and social media companies.

Unfortunately for Snyder’s brand, tyranny doesn’t always wear a red hat. Sometimes it comes in the name of “safety,” or “science,” or “social justice.” Sometimes it cancels you over a social media post, not because you’re dangerous, but because you’re not sufficiently obedient.

If Snyder were genuinely concerned with authoritarianism in all its forms, he might have warned against this progressive impulse to control thought and punish deviation. Instead, he gives it cover — because the real threat, in his mind, is always the populist outsider, never the insider who manages democratic decline in a suit and tie.

Less performance, more courage

Snyder is right about one thing: democracies don’t die overnight. But they do die when fear replaces thought, when virtue becomes branding, and when citizens outsource their moral judgment to bureaucracies and mainstream news.

“On Tyranny” offers the illusion of courage but none of the substance. It is performance art disguised as resistance. To preserve freedom, we should defend institutions and champion truth. But that requires holding corrupt actors in such institutions accountable, whether it be within the federal government or legacy media. That was the democratic mandate communicated loud and clear in 2024, and if Snyder were genuinely concerned about defending democracy, he would listen.

A bomb threat exposes the dark reach of authoritarian regimes



Growing up under the Islamic Republic of Iran, I know firsthand how authoritarian regimes target those who are fortunate enough to flee their tyranny, and that is precisely what happened at the Kennedy Center last week.

For decades, authoritarian regimes have deployed tactics of intimidation to silence voices of resistance and reshape societies in their own image. The recent bomb threat at the Kennedy Center is not simply an isolated attack on a Shen Yun performance; it is a deliberate assault on the very fabric of American identity and a clear message to those, like myself, who have taken refuge here.

I witnessed firsthand how state-sponsored violence is wielded to suppress freedom and control populations.

Our nation’s cultural institutions are not just buildings — they are symbols of resilience, creativity, and freedom. When threats like these emerge on our soil, they are designed to disrupt an event and instill fear among those who embody the spirit of dissent and free expression.

When the Chinese Communist Party or any other despotic regime or their proxies dare to employ bomb threats on American soil — even if aimed at cultural events that attract those who have escaped their tyranny — it is an attack on America itself. This tactic of psychological warfare is far too familiar for those who have experienced the consequences of authoritarian rule firsthand.

Living in Iran and later serving in the U.S. military, I witnessed firsthand how state-sponsored violence is wielded as a tool to suppress freedom and control populations. In regimes like Iran and China, fear is systematically used to stifle dissent and maintain power. The bomb threat is a stark reminder that such tactics are not relics of distant lands — they can and do manifest on U.S. soil. This notion should alarm every American who values liberty.

Why target cultural institutions?

The Kennedy Center is more than just a performance venue. It stands as a bastion of American culture, a place where art and expression converge to celebrate the ideals that make this nation unique. Attacks on such institutions send a chilling message: The guardians of our cultural heritage and free expression are not safe from the reach of authoritarian intimidation. Whether intended to silence a performance or to intimidate those who dare to defy despotic regimes, these actions threaten to erode the pillars upon which our society is built.

This incident is emblematic of a broader strategy — a campaign designed to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among freethinkers and cultural dissidents. When acts of intimidation are normalized, the very notion of dissent becomes dangerous. If we allow such tactics to go unchecked, we risk not only the safety of individuals but also the erosion of a collective national identity that has long been a beacon of hope and freedom.

An antidote to intimidation

The Kennedy Center bomb threat should serve as a rallying cry for every citizen who cherishes freedom. When free expression is threatened, the assault is not confined to a select few — it strikes at the heart of our national identity.

We must not allow foreign authoritarian forces to use terror as a tool to undermine our national values. Instead, we need to unite in the face of intimidation and reaffirm our commitment to free expression, open debate, and protecting our cultural institutions.

Damning study reveals what DEI does to people — and unsurprisingly, it's really bad



Few public and private institutions proved resistant in recent years to infection by the race-obsessive ideology underpinning the diversity, equity, and inclusion movement. The body politic appears, however, to be experiencing a belated immune response.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard/UNC, for instance, helped pave the way for the dismantling of DEI on college and university campuses nationwide. Lawsuits and federal civil rights complaints targeting companies' DEI initiatives immediately followed. Likely keen to avoid similar legal challenges and facing pressure from normalcy advocates, multiple American organizations once captive to the race-obsessed program, including Ford, Harley-Davidson, Tractor Supply, Jack Daniel's, and Walmart, have abandoned DEI.

A study published Monday by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University provided strong justification for why Americans should dismantle the remainder of the DEI regime sooner rather than later, noting that race-obsessed programming is divisive, counterproductive, and helps create authoritarians.

'Some DEI programs not only fail to achieve their goals but can actively undermine efforts.'

The study, titled "Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias," noted at the outset that a Pew Research Center study found in 2023 that over half of American workers have DEI meetings or trainings at work.

While the re-education that the majority of American workers are compelled to undergo is supposedly intended to increase empathy in interpersonal interactions, cultivate inclusive environments, and maximize diversity on the basis of immutable characteristics and sexual preferences, the study indicated that there is evidence to suggest "that some DEI programs not only fail to achieve their goals but can actively undermine efforts."

"Specifically, mandatory trainings that focus on particular target groups can foster discomfort and perceptions of fairness," said the study. "DEI initiatives seen as affirmative action rather than business strategy can provoke backlash, increasing rather than reducing racial resentment. And diversity initiatives aimed at managing bias can fail, sometimes resulting in decreased representation and triggering negativity among employees."

The researchers collected various DEI education materials used across three groupings — race, religion, and caste — in "interventional and educational settings," excerpted rhetoric from the materials, then employed the excerpts in psychological surveys "measuring explicit bias, social distancing, demonization, and authoritarian tendencies." Participants in the study were also tasked with reviewing the materials or neutral control materials.

The results were damning.

The researchers found that across all three groupings, participants "engendered a hostile attribution bias, amplifying perceptions of prejudicial hostility where none was present, and punitive responses to the imaginary prejudice."

In one test, researchers split 423 Rutgers University students into two groups. One group read an apolitical control essay about American corn production while the other read an essay incorporating racist CRT propaganda from Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo.

After each group completed reading their assigned materials, participants were presented with a "racially neutral scenario" — where a student's application to an elite East Coast university was rejected following his interview by an admissions officer — and asked questions about their perceptions of racism in the interaction. The scenario did not mention the race of either the hypothetical student or the admissions officer.

'Exposure to anti-oppressive narratives can increase the endorsement of the type of demonization and scapegoating characteristic of authoritarianism.'

The group previously provided with propaganda from Kendi and DiAngelo reportedly "developed a hostile attribution bias ... perceiv[ing] the admissions officer as significantly more prejudiced than did those who read the neutral corn essay."

According to the researchers, "Participants exposed to the anti-racist rhetoric perceived more discrimination from the admissions officer (~21%), despite the complete absence of evidence of discrimination. They believed the admissions officer was more unfair to the applicant (~12%), had caused more harm to the applicant (~26%), and had committed more microaggressions (~35%)."

Simply put, Kendi and DiAngelo had students seeing racism and unfairness that wasn't there.

In the other groupings, participants provided DEI materials similarly turned out nastier than the control group.

For instance, in the caste study, Adolf Hitler quotes resonated with participants who were exposed to DEI materials when the word "Jew" was swapped out for "Brahmin."

"These findings suggest that exposure to anti-oppressive narratives can increase the endorsement of the type of demonization and scapegoating characteristic of authoritarianism," wrote the researchers.

"When DEI initiatives typically affirm the laudable goals of combating bias and promoting inclusivity, an emerging body of research warns that these interventions may foster authoritarian mindsets, particularly when anti-oppressive narratives exist within an ideological and vindictive monoculture," said the study. "The push toward absolute equity can undermine pluralism and engender a (potentially violent) aspiration of ideological purity."

The paper concluded, "The evidence presented in these studies reveals that while purporting to combat bias, some anti-oppressive DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment."

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

'This is Canada, not Gaza': Cops drag away conservative reporter for supposedly 'trespassing' in Toronto's public square



A Canadian reporter for one of the northern nation's only conservative media outfits was arrested Sunday and carted away for doing his job faithfully on public property.

Rebel News reporter David Menzies, who local and federal officials appear keen to shut up and lock away, confirmed to Blaze News that he was charged for alleged breach of the peace and trespassing for daring to pose questions to anti-Israel protesters outside Toronto City Hall.

Menzies indicated that he will be suing the Toronto Police Service over this incident just as he is suing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for a similarly rough arrest earlier this year.

Background

Thousands of people gathered outside Toronto City Hall on Sunday for "6 Months in Hell," an event centered around demands for the release of those remaining Israeli captives who have suffered at the hands of Islamic terrorists since Hamas waged its unprovoked Oct. 7 attacks on the Jewish nation.

Footage of the event outside Toronto City Hall shows a peaceful crowd waving Canadian and Israeli flags at Nathan Phillips Square while various speakers take the stage, including Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre.

Poilievre, the parliamentarian poised to steamroll Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the 2025 federal election, called on "friends of humanity — Jews, gentiles, people of all backgrounds, Canadians, all people of decency — to stand against the homicidal, genocidal death cult that is Hamas, a death cult that must be destroyed so that we can free the hostages and restore peace for all."

— (@)

Anti-Israel demonstrators flocked to the scene in an apparent effort to counter the anti-terrorist sentiment expressed by Poilievre and others.

Menzies told Blaze News he ventured over "as a journalist in the public square doing public service journalism ... to find out why these people were there trying to crash this event."

"Incredibly, there was a protest of a few dozen people — the pro-Hamas types — which was particularly gross because to me this was like crashing a funeral," Menzies told Blaze News. "They're spouting their rhetoric, which by the way includes calls for genocide like, 'from the river to the sea,' and 'intifada.'"

Footage shows a number of the anti-Israel protesters crowding Menzies outside Toronto City Hall as he attempts to conduct impromptu interviews with his phone and microphone in hand. The mob presses the reporter up against a wall, shoving him with flag poles and sneaking in jabs. Other protesters can be seen attempting to block the view of Menzies' cameraman with flags and placards.

Menzies indicated that police looked on as protesters not only assaulted him but illegally used amplifying devices to push their vitriol and drown out calls for the hostages' releases.

A masked Toronto Police Service officer can finally be seen swooping in, grabbing Menzies, and separating him from the crowd.

Menzies tells the officer, "They can chant genocide in the street, and I can't cover that? Obey your oath. Officer, obey your oath."

The TPS officer can be seen grabbing Menzies' wrist and tossing his camera onto the ground. Additional cops crew around as the officer handcuffs the reporter, then carts him away.

The arresting officer announces Menzies was "under arrest for refusing to leave [the] premises."

"It's a public place!" responds Menzies in an apparent state of disbelief. "This is literally the public square."

The officer begins to explain his actions, but Menzies interrupts, noting, "They assaulted me and you did nothing."

The police drag him over to a van, ostensibly banging Menzies' head against the rear door before tossing him inside.

Rebel News subsequently indicated that Menzies suffered a cut on his head from when the officers "roughly threw David into the back of a police truck, knocking his head against the roof. They also tightly forced his shoulders back, deeply aggravating a previous injury."

Menzies told Blaze News that "in the department of perverse irony," he was ultimately held at TPS 52 Division, one block away from the Art Gallery of Ontario where "pro-Hamas" protesters shut down a reception between Trudeau and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

The reporter found some dark humor in the notion that whereas he sat in holding for asking questions on public property, the radicals "got away with shutting that down."

BREAKING: David Menzies has been arrested for reporting on the anti-Israel counter protest against the rally for the remaining hostages detained by Hamas on October 7th. \n\nhttps://t.co/VGU2262Brn to help his legal fight. Updates to follow.
— (@)

When speaking to Menzies hours after his release, Ezra Levant, the publisher of Rebel News, surmised the police had gone after the reporter because it would have alternatively required more effort to deal with the actual aggressors.

"They took the coward's way out, which is, 'If we try and arrest this mob of Hamas hate marchers, they're going to get handsy with us. But we know Menzies won't, so let's take him out,'" said Levant.

Menzies told Blaze News, "Bottom line, right now in Toronto — and I would argue in other cities around the world, Western democracies — law enforcement is now about, not enforcing the law, but keeping the peace. Keeping the peace means bending the knee to the violent mob. 'If keeping the peace means arresting an independent journalist for potentially asking insensitive questions to the mob, then so be it.'"

The Canadian reporter suggested that this style of policing is prompting the mob to become "more and more emboldened," noting that among the anti-Israel radicals proudly demonstrating Sunday was a woman who allegedly speared a police horse last month but was evidently spared jail time.

Levant suggested that the TPS has a "personal vendetta" against Menzies.

After all, Menzies has repeatedly been targeted for abuse while working for Rebel News, one of the few media outfits in Canada that does not receive funding from the Trudeau government.

He was allegedly assaulted by Trudeau's bodyguards in 2021; roughed up by an RCMP officer, then carted away by York Regional Police after asking Trudeau's deputy minister questions in January; and arrested by Toronto Police officers last month for asking questions of pro-Palestinian protesters nearby an event featuring Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

How bad is it in Canada?\n\nRebel News reporter David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) was "arrested for assault" for asking Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland questions.\n\nYou can clearly see David did not "assault" Freeland. It's arguable that never even made physical contact.\n\nWorse yet, Justin\u2026
— (@)

Blaze News previously reported that the apparent antipathy for the conservative outlet is shared by more than just city officials. Trudeau and his Liberal Party have denied Rebel News accreditation to cover political debates; accused its reporters of spreading vaccine misinformation; and suggested it was increasing polarization in the country amid draconian COVID lockdowns.

"That's Toronto police showing total cowardice towards actual criminal gangs but abusing and punishing a peaceful journalist," wrote the publisher. "I'm sick of it. We're going to defend against the bogus charges today. But when those charges are thrown out, we're not done."

When vowing to sue the Toronto Police, Levant indicated his aim would be "to teach them that they just aren't allowed to beat up Canadian journalists. This is Canada, not Gaza."

Menzies indicated they also filed a lawsuit last month over the Freeland incident, which they will use as the "template" for two suits against the TPS, one for the incident last month and another for the arrest Sunday.

Blaze News reached out to the Toronto Police Service and Pierre Poilievre for comment but did not receive replies by deadline.

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

BREAKING: David Menzies Released From Jail | Police Smashed His Headyoutu.be

Survey: Two-Thirds Of Elites Say There’s Too Much Freedom In America

A recent survey found American elites hold startling authoritarian opinions widely divorced from the rest of the American electorate.
How '1984' Has Failed.
play icon

How '1984' Has Failed.

Democratic Sens. Bennet and Welch seek to create new federal agency that would regulate speech and behavior online



Undeterred by the American people's rejection of the Biden administration's Orwellian disinformation governance board last year, leftist Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) are seeking to form a new federal agency to regulate speech and behavior online.

How has it been pitched?

The Democratic senators introduced an updated version of Bennet's 2022 "Digital Platform Commission Act" on May 18, which would grow the state, further interfere with Americans' interpersonal engagements online, regulate speech, and altogether police digital platforms.

Bennet said in a statement, "We should follow the long precedent in American history of empowering an expert body to protect the public interest through common sense rules and oversight for complex and powerful sectors of the economy."
The Colorado leftist likened the proposed Federal Digital Platform Commission to the extant Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Nancy Watzman, advisor at the Colorado Media Project, indicated this latest statist venture might serve as a remedy for undesirable speech online, noting "misinformation about the pandemic, public health, elections and more are polluting our online spaces and having real-world negative impacts in our communities."

"Stronger oversight institutions, such as the commission proposed in the Digital Platform Commission Act of 2022, have the potential to strengthen the government’s capacity to promote safe, just, and innovative digital products," said Scott Babwah Brennen, head of online expression policy at the Center on Technology Policy, UNC-Chapel Hill.

"It’s time to establish an independent agency to provide comprehensive oversight of social media companies," added Welch.

What does the bill say?

Bennet outlined some of the digital problems he reckons tomorrow's unelected technocrats could remedy, including "the collapse of trusted local journalism"; "harms to the mental health of the people of the United States"; "disinformation and hate speech"; and digital platforms "radicalizing individuals to violence."

To address these supposed problems, the bill deems it necessary for the FDPC to be "equipped with the authorities, tools, and expertise to regulate digital platforms to ensure their operations remain consistent, where appropriate, with the public interest."

The FDPC would comprise five commissioners, all appointed by President Joe Biden and approved by the Democrat-dominated U.S. Senate. Each commissar would get a five-year term or hold on to power until the confirmation of a successor.

The hypothetical FDPC would establish a "Code Council," which would in turn develop "proposed voluntary or enforceable behavioral codes, technical standards, or other policies" for social media sites and other digital platforms.

This council of 18 members would include several "disinformation" experts.

It is unclear whether these disinformation councilmen would clamp down on communications undesirable to the state or actual false claims as well — such as Sen. Bennet's suggestion on Twitter in 2019 that Jussie Smollett was the victim of a "despicable attack," which the Colorado Democrat linked to homophobia and racism.

The commission would also wield authority to impose rules on digital platforms that it has designated "systemically important."

For instance, if Biden-appointed commissars aren't pleased with how Elon Musk is running Twitter, they might determine that his platform is "systemically important," designate it as such, then impose upon it whatever rules it can get away with.

After all, Twitter, like Meta and other big platforms, would satisfy all of the mandatory criteria stated in the bill.

The FDPC would ultimately be conferred the power not only to investigate the management of the business of digital platforms but the power to extract from businesses and "from persons directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by, or under direct or indirect control with, those platforms full and complete information necessary, including data flows."

It appears as though the commission would work in unison with other coercive arms of the state when imposing or curing undefined "democratic values" online.

Extra to the host of new taxpayer-funded regulators, the commission "may recruit and train volunteers to help monitor violations of this Act or regulation."

Harmeet K. Dhillon, a lawyer and former Republican National Committeewoman, tweeted, "This is unconstitutional, also evil and stupid," adding, "How stupid do you need to be, in America, to introduce legislation that violates the Constitution?"

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

Fox News Silenced My Conversation With Tucker Carlson On The Topic Of Silencing

More people must understand that destructive agendas depend upon the human impulse to self-censor.