Afroman turns police raid into a win: ‘Blessing in disguise’ after free speech victory
Last month, American rapper Afroman (real name Joseph Edgar Foreman) won a defamation lawsuit against Ohio sheriff’s deputies who raided his home in 2022. Acting on a tip about drugs and kidnapping, the deputies kicked down his door with guns drawn, ransacked the house, and seized some cash — all captured on his home security cameras.
No drugs or evidence was found, and no charges were filed. Afroman then turned the raid footage into viral parody videos, including the hit “Lemon Pound Cake,” which prompted the deputies to sue him for defamation. On March 18, an Ohio jury ruled in his favor on the grounds of free speech.
Now he joins Matt Kibbe, BlazeTV host of “Kibbe on Liberty” to discuss the raid, the lawsuit, and what the victory means for free speech in America.
Afroman, who’s currently on tour, says that the incident with the Ohio deputies has turned out to be “a blessing in disguise,” as people have been showing their support like never before.
“We got way more people than I usually have, and man, you can feel it. I’'s something new in the air. Man, I’m back like Tina Turner after ‘What’s Love Got to Do With It,’” he laughed.
But before the victory, life was feeling dark, he admits.
“You start questioning your manhood when people come to where your family live and they kick the place in. ... It’s outrageous for people to come to your house and tear it up — especially when they got all their information wrong,” he tells Kibbe.
Even after the cops found nothing in Afroman’s home, the arrogance and ill will they carried into the raid lingered throughout the lawsuit, he recounted. “They were unapologetic and sarcastic and kind of delighting in the fact that they did vandalize my property.”
The trial, he says, was “set up in the police officers’ favor.”
“They dismissed my claims before I even went to court, so I was just in court to discuss how much money I was going to pay, you know, the vandals and thieves,” he recounts, adding that the warrant used to access his home had many “flaws,” but the court refused to address it.
However, Afroman nonetheless won the case. The jury ruled that his videos, which he says he made to help “pay for the damages” caused by the deputies, were protected under his free speech rights.
“Ultimately, in a nutshell, the police officers lost the case, and freedom of speech prevails in America,” he says triumphantly.
But freedom of speech wasn’t the end of Afroman’s victory. The lawsuit ended up drawing unprecedented attention to his album and music videos.
“[Those cops] did more for my social media in three days than I could do for myself in 15 years,” he says, noting that he gained “800,000 followers” in a matter of days because of the lawsuit.
But the biggest victory remains the protection of the First Amendment.
“Some countries, you can’t say nothing. You got to shut up. You can’t speak out against the government. ... But one of the beautiful things about America is, you know, you can speak,” he says.
“So, thank God I have it, and it’s the one thing that brought me justice.”
To hear the full interview, watch the video above.
Want more from Matt Kibbe?
To enjoy more of Matt's liberty-defending stance as he gets in the face of the fake news establishment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
'Dr. Lockdown': Ohio Democrat governor candidate's COVID tyranny comes back to haunt her — but she still may win
Amy Acton, the physician who served as director of the Ohio Department of Health in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, is running as a Democrat in hopes of succeeding her former boss, Gov. Mike DeWine (R).
Although the Republican governor has attempted to shield his former underling from blame over her efforts to curtail basic liberties during the pandemic in the name of public health, critics appear unwilling to forgive or forget, especially with the election shaping up to be a close race.
'Amy Acton shut down our society.'
The Ohio Republican Party, for example, recalled on Tuesday that Acton "installed an order during COVID to lock down nursing homes," adding that "visits were deemed permissible for loved ones and patients based on whether or not they were 'grieving.' Truly sickening."
The state GOP noted in a previous post that Acton — who has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio and the Ohio Federation of Teachers — also saw to the closure of bars, restaurants, gyms, theaters, playgrounds, museums, libraries, fitness centers, and small businesses.
"She deemed her allies 'essential' — and left the rest to fend for themselves," said the Ohio GOP.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, with whom Acton is poised to face off in November's general election, has dubbed her "Dr. Lockdown" and blasted the Democrat for her role in closing Ohio public schools — which she insisted in an interview last year was necessary — and businesses.
RELATED: Damning study of over a million kids finds myocarditis only in the vaccinated
Hours before Ohioans were supposed to begin casting ballots in the state's March 2020 presidential primary, Acton ordered the closure of the polling locations. On the day of the punted vote, she ordered the closure of all Ohio bars and restaurants.
Days later, Acton issued a stay-at-home order, forbidding virtually all public and private gatherings occurring outside a single household; closing all "places of public amusement" including playgrounds; and prohibiting Ohioans from leaving their homes except for "Essential Activities, Essential Governmental Functions, or to participate in Essential Businesses and Operations."
Acton's actions prompted state lawmakers to introduce multiple bills aimed at reining in her power.
In the face of immense backlash and possible curbs on her authority, she resigned in June 2020.
"Amy Acton shut down our society," Ohio Senate President Rob McColley (R) tweeted on Thursday. "Then she walked away when Ohioans pleaded for help in getting back to normal. She quit on Ohio once and we won’t give her a chance to do it again."
Acton's campaign declined a request for comment from Blaze News about Republicans' recent criticism.
A Quantus Insights survey conducted last week found that 45.9% of respondents signaled support for Acton, 44.9% signaled support for Ramaswamy, nearly 6% said they were undecided, and 3.3% signaled support for some other candidate.
According to the survey, a plurality of respondents placed the economy, inflation, and the cost of living as the most important issues facing the state.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The next fight over freedom will run through AI models
When it comes to artificial intelligence, the Trump administration has made its position clear: America will not choke innovation with red tape.
That instinct is understandable and, in many ways, correct. AI is moving fast, and heavy-handed regulation could do real damage. If the United States cripples its own companies, China will gladly take the advantage. And no one on the right wants blue-state politicians using AI rules to smuggle “woke” ideology into the next generation of powerful models.
The goal should be straightforward: Build an American AI future in which freedom is embedded from the start, and constitutional guardrails shape the systems that will increasingly shape us.
As White House AI adviser David Sacks recently put it, “We don’t like seeing blue states trying to insert their woke ideology in AI models, and we really want to try and stop that.”
Fair enough.
But what happens when resistance to bad regulation hardens into resistance to any regulation at all?
That question is now surfacing in Utah, where the White House is reportedly opposing a Republican-sponsored AI transparency bill. The fight may sound parochial, but it raises a much larger question: Do conservatives have the discipline to protect constitutional liberty in the AI age?
Utah isn’t California
The Utah proposal is not a European-style crackdown. It would not impose speech codes, mandate ideological compliance, or try to centrally plan the AI economy.
At its core, the bill focuses on transparency and accountability. It would require frontier AI companies to disclose serious risks, plan for safety in advance, report major problems, and protect whistleblowers who raise alarms.
That’s far from radical.
If the administration’s AI strategy is to stop progressive states from embedding political orthodoxy into algorithms, Utah’s bill does not belong in that category. The measure is about making sure the companies building extraordinarily powerful systems acknowledge the risks up front and take responsibility when things go wrong.
Treating that effort as if it were blue-state social engineering confuses two very different problems. There is a real difference between using AI regulation to enforce ideology and asking powerful firms to level with the public about systems that could reshape society.
The myth of an ‘unregulated’ AI market
Another uncomfortable truth lurks beneath this debate: AI is not operating in anything like a free-market vacuum.
The European Union has already enacted its sweeping AI Act. That regulatory regime will not stop at Europe’s borders. American companies that operate globally will feel its force, and American users will feel the downstream effects.
If the United States adopts a posture of total federal non-engagement, it will not preserve a neutral market. It will hand the regulatory initiative to Brussels.
That would be a serious mistake. Europe does not regulate with American constitutional principles in mind. It regulates through a bureaucratic worldview that prizes centralized control over freedom. If Washington refuses to establish clear guardrails rooted in our own constitutional tradition, foreign regulators and multinational firms will fill the void.
Power without constitutional guardrails
AI is quickly becoming part of the infrastructure of modern life. These systems increasingly shape how information flows, how public opinion forms, and how daily choices get nudged.
That is power.
We have already watched major corporations use private power to shape public life. Social-media companies moderated, suppressed, and curated speech in ways that tilted public debate. Large firms adopted ESG frameworks that embedded political priorities into lending, hiring, and investment. In both cases, powerful institutions pushed ideological outcomes without a vote being cast or a law being passed.
Nothing suggests AI will escape those pressures.
RELATED: If AI isn’t built for freedom, it will be programmed for control
The companies building frontier systems carry their own assumptions, incentives, and cultural biases. If those assumptions get baked into foundational models — and those models then get integrated into education, finance, media, hiring, and governance — ideological influence will move from the margins to the infrastructure of society.
Yes, clumsy central planning would hurt innovation and weaken America’s position against China. But the answer cannot be blind faith that market incentives alone will protect liberty. That asks a great deal of institutions that have already shown a willingness to steer political and cultural outcomes in their preferred direction.
The real challenge is making sure extraordinary technological power develops inside a framework that respects constitutional rights, individual liberty, and personal autonomy.
A pro-liberty AI framework
The Trump administration is right to resist ideological manipulation in AI models and to oppose sweeping regimes that would handicap American innovation while China races ahead.
But someone will shape the boundaries of this technology. The only real question is whether those boundaries reflect American constitutional principles or the preferences of foreign regulators and corporate boards.
Red states such as Utah should be treated as allies in that effort, not obstacles. They can serve as proving ground for approaches that protect transparency, due process, free expression, and individual autonomy without strangling innovation.
Artificial intelligence will shape the next century more than any single statute. Total non-engagement may sound pro-growth, but in practice it leaves the foundational rules of the AI era to someone else.
The goal should be straightforward: Build an American AI future in which freedom is embedded from the start, and constitutional guardrails shape the systems that will increasingly shape us.
Thomas Massie’s viral Epstein poll reveals stunning top belief: He lives
Conspiracy theories continue to swirl around Jeffery Epstein’s controversial death. Many are unwilling to accept the FBI’s official ruling that the convicted sex offender committed suicide in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City on August 10, 2019.
The most widespread theory is that Epstein, believed by many to be a keeper of dark secrets, was murdered.
Now, however, another conspiracy theory is ramping up. In the wake of the Department of Justice’s publication last month of over 3 million additional pages, 2,000 videos, and 180,000 images from the Jeffrey Epstein files — some of which provided more insight into the event of his death — a new wave of online speculation has surged.
According to this hypothesis, which is fueled by unsubstantiated viral claims and AI-doctored photos on social media, Epstein is alive and well and living in Israel.
To gauge how many people were entertaining this theory, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) conducted his own experiment by posting a poll on X inviting users to vote on which Epstein outcome they believe is true. The responses, of which there were nearly 150,000, were telling:
During a recent interview with Massie, Matt Kibbe, BlazeTV host of “Kibbe on Liberty,” asked the Kentucky congressman to share his thoughts on the poll’s results.
“Three percent of the 147,000 people who took this poll think Jeffrey Epstein killed himself,” Massie says.
“Forty-some percent said that he’s still alive, and 30-some percent say that he’s dead, but he was murdered,” he adds, calling these numbers “surprising.”
Massie notes that he included the fourth option — “just show the results” — because some people fear that “Mossad might be watching the traffic on that poll.”
The ultimate question, he says, is: “Is [Epstein] the kind of guy who thought he was cornered and there was no way out?”
“I don't think so,” Massie says. “Like, Jeffrey Epstein, to me, seemed like the kind of guy who was just waiting for them to come and unlock the key and take him back to one of his mansions.”
“He knew, just like with the first conviction, he just would have to wait for a while and play his cards right, and I think he was that arrogant,” he adds. “That kind of arrogance is built because you got away with it before, and then you got away with it a thousand times, and you got so much dirt. He’s probably thinking, ‘If I can get back to my hard drive, this is all over with.’”
Kibbe wonders if perhaps Epstein was secreted away, not necessarily because of the “dirt” he had on others, but rather because he was “indispensable.”
“He was the guy that fixed problems for this elite class of financiers and politicians,” he says.
Massie acknowledges this possibility, recalling Epstein’s advice to former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak: “Think of all the people who owe you something, and then start from there.”
“Those were his words to Ehud Barak. That’s what he had to be thinking in the jail cell,” he says.
While Massie initially thought the FBI’s suicide conclusion was “reasonable and plausible,” now that the released files show “the full color of who he was and the kinds of things he did and what he got away with,” he rejects that ruling.
“I’m not in that 3%,” he says.
To hear more, watch the video above.
Want more from Matt Kibbe?
To enjoy more of Matt's liberty-defending stance as he gets in the face of the fake news establishment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Valley Forge Park Preserves A Crucible Of The American Revolution
Valley Forge is a testament to the dedication of the thousands who sacrificed themselves for liberty, their homeland, and their posterity.Biden's faith attacks backfire: Support for religious liberties soars to record high under Trump, new report shows
Against a backdrop of mounting attacks on churches, the Biden administration worked ardently to curb religious liberties wherever they came into conflict with the left's radical agenda.
For example:
- the Biden Equal Employment Opportunity Commission implemented a rule requiring employers — including Christian organizations — to accommodate workers' efforts to abort their unborn children;
- the EEOC attempted to force Christians to pay for employees' sex-rejection mutilations;
- the Biden Department of Health and Human Services attempted to bar Christian providers who hold biblical and scientifically grounded views about sex and marriage from the foster-care system; and
- under Biden, a Catholic, the FBI characterized conservative Catholics as potential domestic terrorists and proposed to infiltrate Catholic churches as "threat mitigation."
It's clear from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's latest Religious Freedom Index that unlike the administration voted out of power in 2024, the American people overwhelmingly — and increasingly — support religious liberties.
'Our nation still believes that our first freedom belongs at the heart of our culture; not as a source of conflict, but as a foundation for overcoming it.'
Over the past six years, Becket has tracked public opinion on religious freedom. The legal group's index for 2025 published on Friday registered the highest cumulative score for public support of religious freedom to-date — 71 on a scale from 0 to 100 where 0 indicates complete opposition to religious liberty and 100 indicates robust support.
This amounts to a dramatic shift, especially when compared to 2020, when the composite score was 66.
Whereas in 2020, 52% of respondents agreed that religious freedom is inherently public and that Americans should be able to share their faith in public spaces, that number jumped to 57% in the latest RFI.
There was an even bigger shift when it came to support for parents' ability to opt out of public school curricula they believe to be inappropriate — a jump from 63% in 2021 to 73% in 2025.
RELATED: 6 ways I'm using 2026 to deepen my relationship with God
When asked specifically about the Supreme Court's June 2025 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, 62% of respondents signaled support for the high court's decision to side with the Maryland parents who wanted to protect their children from LGBT propaganda in Montgomery County Public Schools.
On the question of whether public funding for education should be available to all families, including those who choose religious schools, 77% of respondents said they were mostly or completely in favor.
The report noted that "although this year's Index found that Americans have cooled on the benefits of religion to society and are skeptical of institutions, they unify around the simple principles of religious freedom for all, even in difficult cases that invite scrutiny or controversy."
A clear majority, 58%, of Americans said they support the right of a Christian baker to decline to make cakes that conflict with her sincere religious views.
Sixty-one percent of respondents said that the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion should protect Catholic priests from having to break the seal of confession as would have been required by Washington state Democrats' now-enjoined Senate Bill 5375.
There was markedly less support for the Christian counselor in the case Chiles v. Salazar who challenged Colorado's prohibition on so-called "conversion therapy" for non-straight youth. Only 47% expressed support for her ability to provide talk therapy to children to help them overcome their gender dysphoria.
"Year after year, the Index has made clear that religious liberty remains one of our most cherished values," Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News.
"Even amid deep divisions, our nation still believes that our first freedom belongs at the heart of our culture; not as a source of conflict, but as a foundation for overcoming it," continued Rienzi. "The work before us is to see that freedom protected for our children and theirs in the years to come."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Aristotle’s ancient guide to tyranny reads like a modern manual
In “Politics,” Aristotle explains that political rule comes in three basic forms: rule of one, rule of the few, and rule of the many. Each form has a healthy and a degenerate expression. Monarchy and tyranny describe rule by one. Aristocracy and oligarchy describe rule by the few. Polity and democracy describe rule by the many.
What separates the good from the bad in each category is not structure but motive. A king governs for the common good. A tyrant governs for himself.
Despite the millennia that separate us from Aristotle, the philosopher’s portrait of tyranny feels uncomfortably contemporary.
Aristotle does more than classify regimes. He explains, in cold and unsentimental terms, how tyrants preserve power once they seize it. His warnings, written more than 2,000 years ago, read less like ancient theory and more like a field manual.
The tyrant begins by eliminating rivals. He fears competition, especially from men of spirit and competence. Anyone admired for virtue, courage, or leadership poses a danger because excellence inspires imitation. Such men are removed through exile, execution, or disgrace.
Next the tyrant attacks institutions that allow citizens to form bonds. Aristotle lists common meals, clubs, educational gatherings, literary societies, and discussion groups. Any shared practice that fosters trust, loyalty, or independent thought threatens despotic rule. Organization creates solidarity, and solidarity creates resistance.
The tyrant also forces citizens to live publicly. Privacy breeds conspiracy. Public life enables surveillance. Aristotle describes rulers who compel their subjects to remain visible so that dissent never escapes notice. Long before Bentham’s panopticon, Aristotle understood that constant observation disciplines behavior.
Surveillance alone does not suffice. Tyrants cultivate networks of informers to uncover thoughts that cannot be seen. Citizens learn to treat one another as potential threats. Suspicion replaces trust. Speech becomes guarded. Silence becomes safety.
Aristotle could not have imagined digital surveillance, but he would have recognized its function. Technology merely perfects a strategy the ancients already understood.
Social bonds must then be weakened. The tyrant sows discord between neighbors, friends, and families. These relationships form the first line of resistance to centralized power. When trust dissolves at the most intimate level, organized opposition becomes nearly impossible.
Poverty also serves the tyrant. Aristotle observes that despots deliberately exhaust their populations with endless labor. The goal is not productivity but distraction. Citizens too busy to rest or reflect lack the energy to conspire.
He cites the construction of the Egyptian pyramids as an example of forced labor designed less to achieve a purpose than to consume a people’s strength. The task glorifies the ruler while leaving the population depleted.
War further strengthens despotism. Constant external threat convinces citizens that they need a strong ruler to survive. Crisis suspends normal limits. Emergency justifies control. Under perpetual conflict, organization becomes treason.
Aristotle claims that tyranny, the degenerated rule of one, borrows from the worst features of democracy. Despots empower groups unlikely to organize independently against them. He mentions women and slaves not as moral judgments but as political calculations within the ancient world.
The logic remains familiar. Tyrants elevate those dependent on the regime and hostile to existing social hierarchies. Dependence fosters loyalty. Resentment supplies enforcement.
Flattery plays a crucial role. Tyrants surround themselves with sycophants who inflate their ego and confirm their righteousness. Men willing to abase themselves rise quickly. Men of honor refuse to flatter and therefore remain dangerous.
Flattery becomes a sorting mechanism. Those who value dignity exclude themselves. Those who crave favor advance.
Aristotle adds that tyrants prefer foreigners to citizens. Citizens possess memory, tradition, and moral expectation. They know how things once were and how they ought to be. Foreigners lack these attachments, and they are happy to flatter the ruler who elevated them.
This arrangement benefits both sides. The tyrant gains enforcers without local allegiance. The foreigner gains status, wealth, and protection. Without the ruler, he has nothing.
RELATED: Do you want Caesar? Because this is how you get Caesar.
Despite the millennia that separate us from Aristotle, his description of tyranny feels uncomfortably contemporary. Surveillance now operates through algorithms and cellphone cameras rather than forcing everyone to live at the city gates, but the purpose remains unchanged. Security replaces liberty. Total observation replaces trust.
Our institutions remove ambitious and virtuous individuals while elevating compliant managerial drones. Debt binds the population to endless labor. Work consumes life without building independence. Citizens remain busy, anxious, poor, and isolated.
Cultural and political authorities weaken family, denigrate religion, and discourage independent association. Community dissolves into administration. Loyalty transfers from neighbors to systems.
Ruling classes increasingly rely on populations with little connection to national history or tradition. These groups have no reason to defend inherited norms and every incentive to please those who grant them status.
Some details differ but the formula for tyranny does not. Aristotle understood tyranny because he understood human nature. His analysis endures because the same impulses govern power in every age.
There is nothing new under the sun.
www.theblaze.com
www.breitbart.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com