'You are on notice!' Don Lemon backs anti-ICE radicals who stormed Saint Paul church — but DOJ vows reckoning



Ex-CNN talking head Don Lemon joined other radicals in storming a Christian church on Sunday in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

The White House and the Department of Justice indicated that those who disrupted the service, intimidated churchgoers, and screamed incessantly at the altar about Renee Good — a subversive who died driving her SUV into a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent — may soon face a reckoning.

Rushing the altar

Radicals from Racial Justice Network, Black Lives Matter Minnesota, and BLM Twin Cities assembled on Sunday for a so-called "ICE Out Action." Rather than interfere with ICE operations like the woman whose name was on their lips, they rushed into Cities Church and did their best to drown out sounds of worship.

'A house of worship is not a public forum for your protest!'

Nekima Levy Armstrong, founder of the Racial Justice Network and former president of the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP, claimed responsibility for the disruption and indicated that Cities Church was targeted because "David Easterwood is a Pastor at this church and the Acting Field Director for the ICE office in St. Paul."

Footage from an October Department of Homeland Security press conference appears to feature the same David Easterwood who is pictured on the church's website. Blaze News has reached out to ICE and Cities Church for comment.

"It's time for judgment to begin," said Armstrong.

The mob refused requests from church officials to leave the premises and instead screamed and chanted in the aisles and pews.

In one video of the mob action, Armstrong yells, "Someone who claims to worship God, teaching people in this church about God, is out there overseeing ICE agents. Think about what we experienced. The murder of Renee Good at the hands of ICE. A Venezuelan national shot by ICE."

RELATED: Don Lemon calls for 'black people, brown people' to take up arms against ICE

Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty Images

After alluding to two individuals who were shot, one fatally, while allegedly attacking federal agents, Armstrong yelled, "How dare you claim to be a pastor of God? ... You are involved in evil in our community."

In another potentially incriminating video that BLM Minnesota shared online, radicals can be seen blocking the altar, yelling Renee Good's name, and pressing parishioners individually to answer whether they support ICE. One pair of visibly upset churchgoers can be seen in the video comforting one another while the radicals angrily condemn members of law enforcement.

Don Lemon, posing as a journalist on the scene, advocated for the mob action, stating, "There's nothing in the Constitution that tells you what time you can protest. You can protest at any time. That's the whole point of it — is to disrupt, is to make uncomfortable, and that's what they're doing, and that's what I believe when I say everyone has to be willing to sacrifice something. You have to make people uncomfortable in these times."

Lemon — who suggested in October that "black people, brown people" should take up arms against ICE — lectured lead Pastor Jonathan Parnell after Parnell said the mob action was "unacceptable" and that it was "shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship."

RELATED: Blocking ICE with 'micro-intifada': Good's group taught de-arrest, cop-car chaos before her death

Photo by Jason Alpert-Wisnia/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images

"There's a Constitution and the First Amendment to freedom of speech and freedom to assemble and protest," Lemon told Parnell, excusing the mob's interference and intimidation tactics.

Federal response

"President Trump will not tolerate the intimidation and harassment of Christians in their sacred places of worship," said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. "The Department of Justice has launched a full investigation into the despicable incident that took place earlier today at a church in Minnesota."

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon indicated that her office was looking into potential violations of the the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act "by these people desecrating a house of worship and interfering with Christian worshippers." Dhillon noted further that the FBI had been "activated too!"

Although liberally and primarily used by the previous administration to lock up pro-life activists, the FACE ACT also prohibits the use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.

Violations can result in prison time and hefty fines as well as civil lawsuits.

— (@)

Dhillon said in response to Lemon's defense of the mob action, "A house of worship is not a public forum for your protest! It is a space protected from exactly such acts by federal criminal and civil laws! Nor does the First Amendment protect your pseudo journalism of disrupting a prayer service. You are on notice!"

After speaking with Pastor Parnell and Dhillon, Attorney General Pam Bondi stated, "Attacks against law enforcement and the intimidation of Christians are being met with the full force of federal law."

"If state leaders refuse to act responsibly to prevent lawlessness, this Department of Justice will remain mobilized to prosecute federal crimes and ensure that the rule of law prevails," added Bondi.

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

Slate smear fails: DHS torpedoes anti-Trump agitator's 'lazy lie' about infiltrating ICE



Slate magazine published a hit piece by an anti-Trump propagandist on Tuesday suggesting that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement does such a poor job of screening applicants that "trigger-happy" criminals — or even subversive Antifa apologists — could find themselves with badges.

"A few months ago, ICE hired me," Laura Jedeed, the self-identified "anti-ICE journalist" behind the piece, noted in a summary of her article on X. "I didn't sign and submit any paperwork. I'm real outspoken about my opinion of the Trump administration, and I am extremely googlable[.] And yet, there it was, in plain English. 'Welcome to ICE!'"

'ICE had officially hired me.'

Liberal rags such as the Guardian and Democracy Now! rushed to amplify Jedeed's tale, along with her suggestion that if she made it through the recruitment process, then pedophiles, rapists, white supremacists, and other unsavory characters might similarly be securing ICE jobs.

The Department of Homeland Security stated, however, that the Slate article's core claim was "a lazy lie."

This response was met in turn with a community note on X casting doubt on the agency's denial.

After corresponding with both parties, Blaze News learned that contrary to the 38-year-old leftist's suggestion, ICE neither hired Jedeed nor sent her a final offer.

In her article, Jedeed claimed she spoke to a recruiter and submitted her resume at an ICE career expo in Texas last August, working under the presumption that her time serving in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, her repeat deployments to Afghanistan, and her civilian analyst work might "tantalize a recruiter for America's Gestapo-in-waiting."

RELATED: Trump threatens Insurrection Act after ambushed ICE agent shoots illegal alien: 'Put an end to the travesty'

Photo by Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images

Jedeed indicated that on Sept. 3, she received a tentative offer instructing her to log on to USAJobs, fill out a declaration for federal employment, and submit several documents, including driver's license information, an affidavit that she never received a domestic violence conviction, and a form consenting to a background check.

'I never received an emailed final offer.'

Despite supposedly doing "exactly none of these things," she allegedly received an email three weeks later indicating that she had confirmed her intention to continue with the hiring process and asking her to complete a pre-employment drug test.

The leftist suggested that she subsequently traveled to her local LabCorp, underwent a drug test with THC potentially coursing through her system, and then — nine days later — discovered that "ICE had apparently offered me a job."

"According to the application portal, my pre-employment activities remained pending. And yet, it also showed that I had accepted a final job offer and that my onboarding status was 'EOD' — Entered On Duty, the start of an enlistment period," she wrote. "I moused over the exclamation mark next to 'Onboarding' and a helpful pop-up appeared. 'Your EOD has occurred. Welcome to ICE!'"

In a video Jedeed shared online, the ICE recruitment portal appears to indicate that she was in the fifth and final stage of onboarding for the role of deportation officer, despite indications that she not yet completed the drug or physical fitness tests. The video also appears to show the ICE portal state welcome Jedeed to ICE and specify that her EOD was on Sept. 30.

"By all appearances, I was a deportation officer. Without a single signature on agency paperwork, ICE had officially hired me," Jedeed wrote. "Perhaps, if I’d accepted, they would have demanded my pre-employment paperwork, done a basic screening, realized their mistake, and fired me immediately."

While the DHS did not comment on the authenticity of Jedeed's video, a spokesperson told Blaze News, "This individual was NEVER offered a job at ICE. Applicants may receive a Tentative Selection Letter following their initial application and interview that is not a job offer."

The agency's careers page states that "following receipt of a tentative selection letter, you must complete per-employment requirements. These requirements vary by position. All positions require security vetting and drug test. You may also be required to pass a medical exam, fitness exam and oral board interview."

The page notes further that "a tentative selection letter remains tentative until all pre-employment requirements are met for the position."

RELATED: Blocking ICE with 'micro-intifada': Good's group taught de-arrest, cop-car chaos before her death

Photographer: Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images

When asked about the DHS statement to Blaze News, Jedeed said, "I did not receive a final offer, nor did I accept one."

Jedeed noted in a follow-up email, "To clarify: I did not receive a final offer in the mail."

"I never received an emailed final offer — the portal indicated that I had already accepted that offer, as you can see from the screen capture posted on X," she wrote.

When asked whether she suspected or had any reason to believe that the system would have barred her from proceeding upon hitting the accept button, Jedeed told Blaze News:

I do not know what would have happened had I hit that accept button on the ICE portal. It's possible they would have asked for the paperwork — I certainly hope so. But the fact I already had an EOD date before filling out paperwork which the tentative job offer described as mandatory for proceeding to the next phase of the hiring process (final offer, onboarding), and the fact that my background check showed up as completed, are reasons for concern.

While she was not hired, did not receive a final offer, and has conceded that perhaps what she experienced on the ICE recruitment portal was "some kind of computer glitch," Jedeed nevertheless suggested in her Slate piece that her recruitment experience is indicative of a broader problem at the agency — a problem that set the stage for Renee Nicole Good's death.

"How are we to trust ICE's allegedly thorough investigations of the people they detain and deport when they can't even keep their HR paperwork straight?" Jedeed wrote. "And if they're not going to screen me out, what hope is there of figuring out which recruit might one day turn into a trigger-happy agent who would forget that law enforcement officers are trained not to stand in front of vehicles, get jumpy, and shoot a 37-year-old woman to death on the streets of Minneapolis?"

Jedeed, like her fellow travelers in the media, neglected to mention that Good — whom Jedeed claimed was murdered — was shot while driving her SUV into an ICE agent after ignoring multiple lawful orders and interrupting a federal law enforcement operation.

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

Woman who died plowing into ICE agent extolled by same liberal media that vilified Ashli Babbitt



A 37-year-old Colorado native was fatally shot in Minneapolis on Wednesday while apparently attempting to ram a federal agent with an SUV.

Renee Nicole Macklin Good's death and the moments leading up to it were captured on video from multiple angles. Footage clearly shows Good, whose SUV appears to have been strategically stopped to block traffic amid a federal immigration operation, disobeying repeated orders from law enforcement to exit her vehicle, then driving in the direction of the federal agent, who ultimately drew his sidearm and opened fire.

'You can accept that this woman's death is a tragedy while acknowledging it's a tragedy of her own making.'

The liberal media that rushed five years ago to vilify Ashli Babbitt following her fatal shooting by Michael Byrd at the U.S. Capitol was quick on Wednesday to pen hagiographies about Good, portraying her as a blameless victim of a callous federal agent.

The Associated Press — a publication whose relationship with the truth has shown significant signs of strain in recent years — helped bolster this narrative with an article titled, "Woman killed by ICE agent in Minneapolis was a mother of 3, poet and new to the city."

The article doesn't bother mentioning that Good tried to ram a federal agent until the eighth paragraph, and even then it insinuates that was how "Trump administration officials painted" the incident.

Prior to getting to why the woman may have been killed in front of her lesbian partner, the AP noted:

  • "She was a U.S. citizen born in Colorado and appears to never have been charged with anything involving law enforcement beyond a traffic ticket."
  • "In social media accounts, Macklin Good described herself as a 'poet and writer and wife and mom.' She said she was currently 'experiencing Minneapolis,' displaying a pride flag emoji on her Instagram account."
  • "A profile picture posted to Pinterest shows her smiling and holding a young child against her cheek, along with posts about tattoos, hairstyles and home decorating."

After both suggesting Good had simply "pulled forward" when a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot her and casting doubt on the Trump administration's characterization of her as a domestic terrorist, the AP made sure that readers knew Good was a "devoted Christian" who "loved to sing."

RELATED: Tim Walz says Minnesota is 'at war' with the federal government after fatal ICE shooting

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

The same publication took a markedly different approach when writing about the death of Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt in January 2021, accusing Babbitt of amplifying "false allegations" on social media in the opening sentence of its write-up.

While Babbitt may not have been a "poet" like Good, she bravely served her country in Afghanistan and Iraq. The AP glossed over that fact. Instead, the AP focused on Babbitt's social media posts, claiming they were "profane" and contained "unsubstantiated views."

The AP is hardly the only publication now painting Good as a martyr after painting Babbitt as a kook or a radical.

The difference in approach at NBC News is particularly striking.

The title for the network's Jan. 7, 2021, article about Babbitt is "Woman killed in Capitol was Trump supporter who embraced conspiracy theories." The title for its Wednesday article about Good is "Woman fatally shot by ICE agent identified as resident 'out caring for her neighbors.'"

Vice President JD Vance said of Good's death on Wednesday, "You can accept that this woman's death is a tragedy while acknowledging it's a tragedy of her own making. Don't illegally interfere in federal law enforcement operations and try to run over our officers with your car. It's really that simple."

While Democrats joined the liberal media in ignoring the vice president's advice and characterizing Good as the victim of a malevolent federal agency, President Donald Trump, Vance, and other Republicans defended ICE.

"I have just viewed the clip of the event which took place in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is a horrible thing to watch," Trump wrote on Truth Social, "The woman screaming was, obviously, a professional agitator, and the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense."

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

Trump sues BBC for billions over 'deceptive and defamatory' edit of his Jan. 6 speech, blasts foreign election interference



President Donald Trump filed a massive defamation lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Corporation on Monday over an edit of his Jan. 6, 2021, speech that appeared in a BBC "Panorama" documentary.

The lawsuit claims that the BBC's "deceptive and defamatory distortion, doctoring, manipulation, and splicing damaged President Trump in his occupation, damaged his professional reputation, and portrayed him as engaging in supposed calls for rioting and violence that he never actually made."

'The FAKE NEWS "reporters" in the UK are just as dishonest and full of s**t as the ones here in America.'

The complaint notes further that the "aggressively anti-Trump" documentary, which aired shortly before the 2024 presidential election and painted Kamala Harris as an optimal candidate, constituted "a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election's outcome to President Trump's detriment."

A tale of two speeches

Trump originally said at 12:12 p.m. in his speech on Jan. 6, 2021:

Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Any one you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back our country with weakness.

The president noted nearly an hour later after first raising concerns about voting irregularities and potential fraud in the 2020 election, "Most people would stand there at nine o'clock in the evening and say, 'I want to thank you very much,' and they go off to some other life, but I said, 'Something's wrong here, something's really wrong — can't have happened.' And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."

The "Panorama" documentary spliced and reorganized Trump's remarks to make it appear as though he said, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."

In addition to creating a false narrative by coupling two parts of the speech that were divided by over 50 minutes' worth of content and omitting Trump's call for supporters to behave "peacefully," the documentary showed flag-waving men descending on the Capitol after the president spoke — despite the video having been recorded before Trump's speech.

RELATED: 'Enemy of Europe': Liberal globalists attack Trump over recognizing 'civilizational erasure' in Europe

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The Telegraph obtained and reported on a whistleblower memo earlier this year revealing that there were concerns at the BBC over the apparently deceptive work.

The whistleblower memo noted that the "mangled" footage made Trump "'say' things [he] never actually said" and insinuated, with the help of the footage of men marching on the Capitol, that "Trump's supporters had taken up his 'call to arms.'"

Too little, too late

Last month, the BBC came under fire both in the United States and in the United Kingdom.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told the Telegraph, "Trust in the media is at an all-time low because of deceptive editing, misleading reporting, and outright lies. This is yet another example, of many, highlighting why countless Americans turn to alternative media sources to get their news."

Donald Trump Jr. tweeted, "The FAKE NEWS 'reporters' in the UK are just as dishonest and full of s**t as the ones here in America!!!"

"This is a total disgrace. The BBC has doctored footage of Trump to make it look as though he incited a riot — when he in fact said no such thing," wrote former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. "We have Britain’s national broadcaster using a flagship programme to tell palpable untruths about Britain’s closest ally. Is anyone at the BBC going to take responsibility — and resign?"

In the face of mounting pressure, the BBC issued a retraction, and the director-general of the BBC, Tim Davie, and Deborah Turness, the head of BBC News, both resigned in disgrace.

"Like all public organizations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent, and accountable," Davie said in statement. "Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made, and as director-general I have to take ultimate responsibility."

Turness similarly assumed some responsibility for the fiasco, noting the controversy had "reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC" and adding that "the buck stops with me."

'The BBC had no regard for the truth.'

Turness suggested, however, that the broadcast corporation was not biased.

"In public life, leaders need to be fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down," said Turness. "While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong."

Samir Shah, the chair of the BBC, subsequently sent a personal letter to the White House apologizing for the edit; however, the network refused to pay compensation, claiming that there was no basis for Trump's defamation claim.

Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss encouraged Trump to take legal action against the BBC, suggesting in a Nov. 15 interview that the network's apology was insufficient "because they keep doing it again and again. They have painted a completely false picture of President Trump in Britain over a number of years. They've done the same thing about conservatives in our country."

Pay the piper

Trump's lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and demands judgment against the BBC for at least $5 billion in damages, states:

The lack of any effort by the BBC to publish content even remotely resembling objective journalism, or to maintain even a slight semblance of objectivity in the Panorama Documentary, demonstrates that the BBC had no regard for the truth about President Trump, and that the doctoring of his Speech was not inadvertent, but instead was an intentional component of the BBC's effort to craft as one-sided an impression and narrative against President Trump as possible.

A spokesperson for Trump's legal team told the Guardian that "President Trump’s powerhouse lawsuit is holding the BBC accountable for its defamation and reckless election interference just as he has held other fake news mainstream media responsible for their wrongdoing."

A spokesperson for the network said in a statement, "As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case."

A spokesperson for the prime minister's office noted that while Downing Street will always "defend the principle of a strong, independent BBC as a trusted and relied-upon national broadcaster reporting without fear or favor," the prime minister's office has "also consistently said it is vitally important that they act to maintain trust, correcting mistakes quickly when they occur."

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

Lebanese Democrat sues over her ouster as US immigration judge as Trump admin fires 8 more



Immigration courts are not part of the judicial branch but rather part of the executive branch, where they are housed under the Department of Justice — meaning the Trump administration doesn't have to take any guff or tolerate suboptimal performances from those warming their benches.

In the interest of maximizing efficiency and fulfilling the president's promises to the American people, the Trump DOJ has made a series of changes to the courts under its purview. The bulk of these changes concern personnel, namely judges.

'All of the judges are now sitting speculating about whether they’re next.'

The administration has sacked or accepted the resignations of at least 100 immigration judges across the country while simultaneously onboarding what the DOJ refers to as "deportation" judges — those keen to earn over $159,000 making "decisions with generational consequences" and ensuring "that only aliens with legally meritorious claims are allowed to remain."

The Justice Department added eight more names to its triple-digit tally of ousted immigration judges on Monday, this time in New York City.

The latest firings — which were confirmed to the New York Times by an official at the National Association of Immigration Judges and a DOJ official — reportedly included Amiena Khan, assistant chief immigration judge at 26 Federal Plaza.

Khan, a former NAIJ president who donated on multiple occasions to Democratic campaigns, previously criticized the first Trump administration's efforts to speed up the deportation process as well as immigration courts' embrace of a "law enforcement ideology."

Olivia Cassin, an appointee of former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch, told the Times, "The court has been basically eviscerated."

RELATED: Federal judge limits warrantless detentions by ICE in Colorado — White House fires off defiant response

Photo by Bryan Cox/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement via Getty Images

Cassin, who got fired at another New York City courthouse last month, added, "It feels like a Monday afternoon massacre."

Carmen Maria Rey Caldas, a Spanish-born immigrant who became an immigration judge in 2022 after criticizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during Trump's first term, complained to the Times that "all of the judges are now sitting speculating about whether they’re next and the impact that that may have in their ability to remain impartial and do their jobs fairly."

Rey Caldas was fired from her job as immigration judge in August.

The DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review declined to comment to the Times about the dismissals.

Amid the latest slew of terminations, one disgruntled former immigration judge, a U.S.-Lebanese dual citizen named Tania Nemer, sued the DOJ, claiming she was the "victim of unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII and the First Amendment."

Nemer, who ran unsuccessfully for a judicial office in Ohio as a Democrat before becoming an immigration judge under the Biden administration, accused the DOJ of firing her because of her sex, national origin, and partisan activities, despite acknowledging that no reason was given for her termination.

"The lightning-fast, precipitous timing indicates that the incoming administration's decision was made — not as part of a careful evaluation of Ms. Nemer's qualifications or fitness for office — but instead as part of a rushed attempt by the new administration to target disfavored civil servants," the Democrat said in a complaint.

According to her lawsuit, Nemer filed the complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Office, which dismissed it, saying the termination was a "lawful exercise" of the removal power possessed by President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

"What happened to Tania Nemer is a disgrace," Nemer's attorneys said in a statement. "For more than 50 years, Title VII has prohibited discrimination in the federal workforce. The Department of Justice had a legal obligation to investigation [sic] Tania’s termination. But now the government is asserting a constitutional right to override the law and engage in discrimination. That is wrong. Title VII is unquestionably constitutional."

Blaze News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

The Trump administration appears keen to have a different caliber of immigration judge sit on cases across the country.

In September, War Secretary Pete Hegseth approved sending as many as 600 military lawyers to the DOJ to serve as immigration judges.

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

Liberals' twisted views on Charlie Kirk assassination, censorship captured by a damning poll



It has long been abundantly clear that there is a strong appetite for political violence and ideological uniformity on the left. A new Young America's Foundation poll released on Tuesday indicated that this is indeed an intergenerational problem.

Shortly after the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, Echelon Insights conducted a YAF survey of 1,021 registered voters ages 18-29 nationwide.

On the topic of Kirk's murder on Sept. 10, respondents were asked which of the following two statements they agreed with more: "There is absolutely no justification for murdering someone over their viewpoints" or "Kirk's viewpoints mean he brought this violence upon himself to an extent."

Seventy percent of respondents answered that there was no justification for murdering a person over his views. While 90% of conservatives and 75% of moderates answered that there was no justification, 42% of self-described liberal respondents suggested that Kirk had it coming.

'Three in ten young voters, however, say violence might be justified in some instances to shut those types of speech down.'

Young liberals' responses to a follow-up question helped clarify that a great many just don't want conservatives to be able to articulate their views in public.

When asked whether they believed "we are better off when strongly conservative viewpoints are able to be voiced and shared in the public square," 53% of liberals said conservative viewpoints should be "shut down or kept out of the public square."

RELATED: Blue cities reject law, reject order — and reject America

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Only 49% of all respondents supported expressions of conservative viewpoints in public. The statement lacked majority support in part because only 75% of conservatives indicated that society was better off when their viewpoints were not shut down in public.

Although young liberals majoritively favor censorship, YAF noted that a significant percentage of all respondents are far from absolute in their support for free speech.

"Fewer than half of young voters think that negative statements toward racial or ethnic groups or celebrating acts of violence should be protected as free speech — 42% and 48% respectively — and roughly 60% believe such expression should be reportable to employers," noted YAF spokesman Spencer Brown. "Three in ten young voters, however, say violence might be justified in some instances to shut those types of speech down."

Other polls in recent months and years have similarly highlighted the violent and censorious mentality that possesses so many on the left.

A Marist Poll conducted in late September found that 10% of Democrats strongly agreed and another 18% agreed with the statement that "Americans may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track."

A survey conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University's Social Perception Lab revealed in April that 55% of respondents who identified as left of center said that assassinating Trump would be at least somewhat justified.

RMG Research asked American adults in the wake of the September 2024 attempt on President Donald Trump's life whether the country would "be better off if Donald Trump had been killed last weekend?" While 69% of respondents said no, 28% of Democrats answered "yes."

The desire on the left to see consequence visited upon those who refuse to ideologically fall in line was also manifested during the pandemic, when a poll found that 45% of Democrats strongly or somewhat favored "having federal or state governments require that citizens temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine."

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

New head of US Catholic Bishops said he would deny communion to pro-abortion politicians



Archbishop Paul S. Coakley is not in favor of giving politicians preferential treatment.

Coakley, archbishop of Oklahoma City, was elected as the next president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in a secret ballot on Tuesday and will serve a three-year term as president.

'I think in many cases it becomes the right decision and the only choice.'

Coakley has set a strong precedent for supporting the denial of communion to certain politicians that dates back more than a decade.

Most recently, in 2022, Coakley spoke in support of Archbishop Salvatore Joseph Cordileone of San Francisco. As reported by Life News, Cordileone decided to withhold communion from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the time after she backed the Democrats as they blocked a vote on a bill to stop infanticide at least 80 times.

As Pelosi's district encompasses San Francisco, Cordileone informed Pelosi she would be denied communion following her repeated dismissal of the archbishop, who attempted to speak with her about supporting "grave evil."

Coakley supported the decision, saying, "I applaud the courage of Archbishop Cordileone and his leadership in taking this difficult step. Let us continue to pray for Abp. Cordileone, priests of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, Speaker Pelosi, for the protection of the unborn, and for the conversion of hearts and minds."

The new USCCB president has remained consistent, and the proof is showcased in an interview he gave in 2014.

RELATED: They think 'Christian AI' will hasten Christ's second coming — and now they're building it

— (@)

After Coakley said that many Catholic politicians have been at the forefront of "fostering so-called abortion rights," he was asked about denying them communion due to the "severity" of their support for abortion.

Coakley replied, "I think one has to determine yet at what point it can be determined that they have come to that state of obstinate refusal to desist from that condition of manifest, grave sin."

He told Life Site News, "I think we have an obligation as bishops, as pastors, to try to work with them to bring them to a change of heart and refusing them communion would be, not the first, but more than likely, the last stage in a serious [sic] of steps."

The outlet then clarified, asking if it was something he would rule out or not.

"Oh, absolutely not," Coakley reiterated. "I think it is something that Canon Law sanctions and that I think many bishops find themselves with no other choice but to make that decision. I think in many cases it becomes the right decision and the only choice."

RELATED: Protestant pastor says polygamy is biblical: 'He divinely ordained it'

VATICAN - 2022/06/29: US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (R), with her husband, Paul Pelosi (C), attend a Holy Mass for the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul lead by Pope Francis in St. Peter's Basilica. (Photo by Stefano Costantino/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Upon accepting his new role, Coakley wrote a statement on X about being "put out into deep waters" in his new position.

"Once again, the Lord is inviting me," he wrote. "Please pray that I may be a faithful steward and a wise servant of unity and communion with our Holy Father, Pope Leo, and with my brother bishops."

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

President-elect of Oxford Union reaps the whirlwind for celebrating Charlie Kirk's assassination



The leftist who was elected president of the Oxford Union in June was among the radicals who rushed to celebrate Charlie Kirk's assassination. Like others before him, George Abaraonye has learned the hard way that there are consequences for such depravity.

How it started

Abaraonye wrote in a now-deleted Instagram post, the authenticity of which he confirmed to the Oxford student newspaper Cherwell, "Charlie Kirk got shot loool."

'Where is the belief in free speech, the tolerance for opinions, the empathy?'

While Abaraonye treated Kirk's murder as a laugh-worthy matter, Kirk treated Abaraonye courteously when they debated just months earlier at the Oxford Union.

Abaraonye, a philosophy and politics student who has served also as a "racial and ethnic minorities rep" for the university's junior common room, later suggested to Cherwell that he had made the remark in a "moment of shock"; however, he reportedly made similarly depraved remarks in a WhatsApp group chat with other students.

Abaraonye wrote, for instance, "Charlie Kirk got shot, let's f****** go," reported the Telegraph.

The Oxford Union president-elect's apparent delight at seeing a political assassination on a university campus prompted outrage on both sides of the Atlantic.

RELATED: 'No longer welcome': State Dept. revokes visas of foreigners who celebrated Charlie Kirk's death

JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP via Getty Images

Speakers who were scheduled to join the Oxford Union for debate began canceling, including Liora Rez, executive director of the U.S.-based watchdog group Stop Antisemitism, and Josh Wolfe, co-founder of Lux Capital.

Stop Antisemitism noted to the Oxford Union that "employees will not be engaging with your debate society due to safety concerns and your President elect's pro violent stance."

Wolfe noted that he would not attend "until cultural leadership from the top celebrates peace + coexistence + civil discourse + denounces violence."

Among those who wondered aloud about what had happened to the Oxford Union was Claire Coutinho, a Conservative member of Parliament, who stated, "The Oxford Union is meant to be one of the best student debating chambers in the world. Where is the belief in free speech, the tolerance for opinions, the empathy?"

The Oxford Union finally piped up with a condemnation, expressing sympathy for Kirk's family and stressing that Abaraonye's views "do not represent the Oxford Union's current leadership or committee's view."

Abaraonye decided ultimately to paint himself as the victim, suggesting in a statement to Cherwell published September 11 that his heinous remarks were "shaped by the context of Mr. Kirk's own rhetoric" and that he is now the target of "racist comments and a myriad of threats."

How it's going

Several weeks after Valerie Amos, the radical Labour Party politician who serves as master of University College, Oxford, defended Abaraonye and announced that no disciplinary action will be taken against him, the Oxford Union scheduled a vote of no confidence in the president-elect.

The in-person poll took place on Saturday, and the results were published on Monday.

Of the 1,746 ballots ultimately cast, 1,228 members voted to oust Abaraonye; 501 members voted to keep the radical; and 17 members spoiled their ballots. Having passed the required two-thirds threshold of 1,164, the majority spared the Oxford Union from having the radical as their leader.

Abaraonye — who previously suggested that a vote against him was a victory for hate — cried foul after his visitation by consequence, releasing a statement characterizing the vote as "compromised" and the result as invalid.

The statement says the radical "is proud and thankful to have the support of well in excess of a majority of students at Oxford, who voted to have a safe election and resist attempts to subvert democracy."

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

Teacher's assistant arrested in connection with Turning Point USA attack ahead of Alex Stein event at Illinois State Univ.



The Sept. 10 assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk failed to scare the conservative group off college campuses. The fact that students across the country have stood their ground and continue to hold events has evidently enraged leftists.

On Friday, a 27-year-old teaching assistant at Illinois State University allegedly attacked a TPUSA booth where students were advertising their group as well as their Oct. 20 event featuring BlazeTV host Alex Stein.

'The left has no impulse control.'

Footage of the incident seems to show the man-bunned teaching assistant Derek Lopez of El Paso, Illinois, confront student members of the conservative group — one of whom appears to have been smashed in the face with a pie — and motion toward their table stating, "Jesus did it. So you know I gotta do it, right?"

A pinned tweet on an X page that appears to belong to Lopez states, "A reminder to students who see TPUSA chapters on their campus: those are Nazis."

Lopez can be seen in the footage apparently yanking the table, then turning it over, then later yanking down flyers for the event. Lopez apparently admitted to flipping over the table in an Instagram post.

RELATED: ‘Grandpa was Antifa’ may be the dumbest meme of the decade

Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images

Hours after the incident, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon noted, "This is outrageous anti-speech conduct by a state employee. What's up @IllinoisStateU?!"

The following day, the university told Dhillon that the institution "recognizes the diverse perspectives represented on our campus," and indicated that Lopez, confirmed to be a graduate student and teaching assistant at the university, was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and criminal damage to property.

Chief Aaron Woodruff of the Illinois State University Police Department said in a statement, "We are committed to protecting the First Amendment rights as well as [the] safety of everyone in our campus community. We encourage all members of our community to learn more about free speech rights and responsibilities at Illinois State University, including constructive ways to respond when encountering speech they may disagree with."

According to campus police, Lopez could face additional charges and university disciplinary action over the incident.

Blaze News has reached out to Lopez for comment.

Alex Stein, who was himself viciously attacked over the weekend by unhinged liberals at a No Kings protest, told Blaze News, "It's sad that it's not even surprising anymore when something like this happens."

"Radical leftists have made sure to infiltrate the education system so they can try and radicalize more students, and then want to get violent/physical when they see something they don't agree with," continued Stein. "It's obvious at this point the left has no impulse control. I'm looking forward to my event tonight at Illinois State and am proud of the students who stood their ground against the student teacher."

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

After years of woke land acknowledgments, some Canadian homeowners may soon be evicted



Liberals and others keen to signal their adherence to post-colonial theory for years started their meetings and conferences in Canada with land acknowledgments, thanking the descendants of those warring semi-nomadic, Stone Age peoples present at the time of European civilization's exportation to North America "for allowing us to meet and learn together on their territory."

Owing to a consequential court ruling on Aug. 7, some Canadians in Richmond, British Columbia, might ultimately have to acknowledge that their land is no longer legally their own — and get packing.

'The judge doesn't seem to have fully considered the panic her judgment would cause.'

Members of the Cowichan Tribes, an Indian band in B.C. comprising around 5,500 souls, brought a legal action several years ago against the Canadian federal government, the Province of British Columbia, the City of Richmond, and other parties, seeking a declaration of aboriginal title to 1,846 acres of land in Richmond.

After a 513-day trial with hearings spanning over 11 years, Justice Barbara Young of the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that:

  • the Cowichan have aboriginal title to the land in question;
  • the Crown grants of basic property ownership in the area, "and the Crown vesting of the soil and freehold interest in certain highway lands in the Cowichan Title Lands, unjustifiably infringe the Cowichan's Aboriginal title";
  • "Canada and Richmond’s fee simple titles and interests in the Cowichan Title Lands are defective and invalid"; and
  • members of the Indian band have a right to fish the south arm of the Fraser River for food.

While the judge did not order restitution, she tasked the federal and provincial governments with negotiating "in good faith towards reconciliation of Canada's fee simple interests in the area with Cowichan Aboriginal title."

This decision — which has been appealed by the province, the City of Richmond, and a pair of other Indian bands — could have major implications for those landowners in the area as well as for similar land disputes across the country.

RELATED: Ashes and accountability in the aftermath of Canada's unmarked Indian graves sham

BC Premier David Eby. Photographer: David Kawai/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Dwight Newman, a professor of law at the University of Saskatchewan and author behind the Law for Breakfast Substack, told Blaze News that the full implications are "not yet certain."

"The 'Supreme Court' in B.C. is a confusingly named trial-level court, and the decision is being appealed. If appellate courts maintained the same thing, it would directly mean that some City of Richmond land and some federal land in the city would be owned by the Cowichan," said Newman. "Indirectly, though, the decision implied that private property within aboriginal title areas was also vulnerable. That has widespread implications in areas where treaties have not resolved land claims, which differs in different parts of Canada."

While the Cowichan plaintiffs successfully sought a declaration that the land ownership titles held by Canada, the city, and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority were invalid, they did not seek the same declaration with respect to privately owned lands.

The Times Colonist reported that the court did, however, indicate that the Crown's granting of private property ownership rights needs to be resolved through negotiation, litigation, or purchase.

Newman told Blaze News that while the plaintiffs in the case have "tried to give the impression" that they would not evict residents from the disputed territory, "if the law from this decision were maintained, it would be possible for them to pursue a claim against private residents too. Private residents might have some different defenses, but we don't know how that plays out."

When asked what could change for non-Indian homeowners on the affected parcel of land, Newman said, "The fact I can't give you an answer with any certainty is maybe the most concerning part. This could all play out in various ways."

"That's an uncomfortable situation for non-indigenous homeowners," continued Newman. "The judge doesn't seem to have fully considered the panic her judgment would cause."

Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie noted in a recent letter to homeowners in the area that the decision "could negatively affect the title" of their properties — echoing the judge's statement that "a declaration of Aboriginal title may give rise to some uncertainty for the fee simple title holders and it may have consequences for their interests in land."

Referring to the map contained within the B.C. court's ruling highlighting the Indian band's territorial claim, Brodie wrote, "For those whose property is in the area outlined in black, the Court has declared aboriginal title to your property which may compromise the status and validity of your ownership — this was mandated without any prior notice to the landowners. The entire area outlined in green is claimed on appeal by the Cowichan First Nations."

"I believe it is one of the most consequential rulings in the history of the country," the mayor told CTV News on Sunday, adding that it potentially "undermines the entire land system that we have in this province, and for much of the country itself."

Brodie noted further that the homeowners in the area are "just starting to wake up to what is going on."

Blaze News has reached out to the Cowichan Tribes and to Brodie's office for comment.

John Rustad, leader of the Conservative Party of B.C., asked the province's leftist premier, David Eby, in an Oct. 19 letter to "immediately pause all negotiations between the Province of British Columbia and First Nations until the Supreme Court of Canada has provided clarity."

Rustad emphasized that continuing negotiations, especially in the absence of clarity about the property rights of landowners in the affected area, "risks compounding the harm and further deepening public division."

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