A brave hero appeared out of nowhere to save a young woman and her dog who were being attacked by a larger dog. And the whole scene was caught on camera. The confrontation happened outside Las Vegas when Lauren Ray saw a dog roaming around the neighborhood. It seemed friendly enough‚ even coming over and... The post Woman screams when pitbull attacks but you’ll never believe who swoops in to save them appeared first on Animal Channel.

After initially maligning Alabama Republican Senator Katie Britt for her less-than-stellar rebuttal to President Biden’s State of the Union address on Friday‚ the vicious liberals of ABC’s The View were back to attacking her on Monday. They decried Britt’s focuses on Democratic Party open-border policies and arguing it led to migrant women getting raped along the journey. And despite the fact that The View chose to talk about Britt again‚ moderator Whoopi Goldberg hypocritically whined that it kept them from talking about the real violence in Haiti and Africa. The View’s biggest problem with Britt’s focus on migrant rapes‚ and where they tried to put the most distance between Democratic open-border policies and their consequences‚ was that they supposedly only happened outside the United States‚ which somehow made them not as big of an issue as they otherwise should be. “Just in that interview [Britt] said‚ ‘I'm talking about real things that happen with women in the cartels in Mexico‚’ but your speech is about here and President Biden‚ like‚ what?” co-host Sara Haines scoffed. As part of her self-inflicted wound‚ Britt cited a rape incident that happened under President George W. Bush‚ but faux-conservative co-host Ana Navarro also echoed Haines’s suggestion that a migrant being raped on their journey to the border didn’t count as a consequence of open-border policies.     “And she was trying to blame Joe Biden for something that happened 20 years under George W. Bush‚ in a different country. So‚ the level of misleading that this lady did‚ you know‚ just has -- and she's shameless about it‚” Navarro huffed. The woman in question‚ Carla Jacinto “testified in front of Congress about this” (as noted by Navarro) and the other faux-conservative‚ Alyssa Farah Griffin whined that Britt “didn’t have permission to” tell the story. Farah Griffin admitted that “there is a very real problem of women being sexually assaulted during journey of coming across the U.S. border‚” but The View obviously didn’t want to talk about it and preferred to bash the Republican instead. “But that was not the story she told!” Goldberg shouted. “Exactly. So‚ it undermines the actual suffering of women that happens as part of this dysfunctional border process and it undermined the efforts‚” Farah Griffin agreed. “What this lady [Britt] did was she tried to push a narrative that was not so‚” Goldberg continued to shout. “What you did was you tried to piss people off about something that was not happening here!” The likes of Goldberg‚ Haines‚ and Navarro would have viewers believe that the rapes of migrant women were “not happening here” in the U.S.‚ but the fact was they were. According to a Daily Mail report‚ “rape trees” (covered in women’s undergarments) were not an uncommon sight along on the American side of the border. “The trees have been spotted up and down the border. Academics talk of them as warnings or trophies in the brutal symbolism of violent gangs‚” the paper noted. The View deliberately chose to talk again about Britt’s four-day-old speech‚ but that didn’t stop Goldberg from hypocritically whining that it kept them from talking about other important stuff. “[W]e could be talking about what's going on in Haiti. We could be talking about what's going on in Africa‚”{ she whined. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 11‚ 2024 11:21:29 a.m. Eastern (…) ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Here’s what stood out to me in this: This will go down as one of the worst State of the Union responses in history. SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah. FARAH GRIFFIN: The worst part to me was not the silly‚ performative nature it was the story. She didn't talk to the victim of it. So‚ the victim learned through media reports that her story was told‚ and there is a very real problem of women being sexually assaulted during journey of coming across the U.S. border. CBS: Migrants are being raped at Mexico’s border as they await entry; New York Times: Hidden nightmare of sexual violence at the border – WHOOPI GOLDBERG [Interrupting]: But that was not the story she told! FARAH GRIFFIN: Exactly. So‚ it undermines the actual suffering of women that happens as part of this dysfunctional border process and it undermined the efforts. And by the way‚ terrible staff work. No one even fact checked it? SARA HAINES: Yeah‚ but she said “I was – Just in that interview she said‚ “I'm talking about real things that happen with women in the cartels in Mexico‚” but your speech is about here and President Biden‚ like‚ what? FARAH GRIFFIN: And she framed it as the U.S. where it was happening. HOSTIN: She did frame it. She did frame it. ANA NAVARRO: And she was trying to blame Joe Biden for something that happened 20 years under George W. Bush‚ in a different country. So‚ the level of misleading that this lady did‚ you know‚ just has -- and she's shameless about it. The part that's really bothersome is she gets caught and she's‚ like‚ [puts on a raspy voice] “a woman. I spoke to a woman. A woman.” HAINES: But she didn't even speak to her‚ is the thing. FARAH GRIFFIN: Well‚ she didn't say she was going to share her story and she didn’t have permission to. NAVARRO: I think that when she went down to the border – the woman – her name – and the woman's name is Carla Jacinto‚ and she testified in front of Congress about this. HOSTIN: She did. GOLDBERG: The information is out there. That was not -- HOSTIN: She didn't seem like that. She made it seem like it was one on one. [Crosstalk] GOLDBERG: What this lady did was she tried to push a narrative that was not so. HOSTIN: Yeah. GOLDBERG: It just wasn't true‚ and if you are going to win and you want to grab people‚ at least tell them the truth so they have a reason to be angry. What you did was you tried to piss people off about something that was not happening here! And if you are going to do that‚ you know‚ we could be talking about what's going on in Haiti. We could be talking about what's going on in Africa. If you really want to upset people and tell them what's going on in those countries‚ but unless you're going to do that‚ stick to the truth because it's too easy to check. (…)

In December 2023‚ the Colorado Supreme Court‚ in a 4-3 decision based on the “insurrection” clause of the 14th Amendment‚ ruled former President Donald Trump ineligible to appear on Colorado’s 2024 presidential primary ballot. Never mind that Trump has never been indicted for‚ let alone convicted of insurrection. Immediately after this jaw-dropping decision‚ I tweeted: “Even 3 out of 7 Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court justices said using the 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrection’ clause to keep Trump off the ballot is absurd. Imagine how many SCOTUS justices strike down the ridiculous Colorado decision. It could even be 9-0.” This is exactly what happened. On March 4‚ the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Colorado court 9-0. Before the Supreme Court decision‚ about 30 states agreed with Colorado‚ making the same “Trump is an insurrectionist” argument. They‚ too‚ considered Trump ineligible to appear on the ballot in their states. This means more than half the country disagreed with all nine SCOTUS justices‚ including left-wing Justices Sonia Sotomayor‚ Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. And there certainly is no love lost between Trump and Sotomayor. In her scathing dissent in the 5-4 decision upholding the legality of the Trump travel restrictions‚ often inaccurately referred to as a “Muslim ban‚” Sotomayor flat out called Trump a bigot. She wrote: “Taking all the relevant evidence together‚ a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was driven primarily by anti-Muslim animus‚ rather than by the Government’s asserted national-security justifications. Even before being sworn into office‚ then-candidate Trump stated that ‘Islam hates us‚’ warned that ‘[w]e’re having problems with the Muslims‚ and we’re having problems with Muslims coming into the country‚’ promised to enact a ‘total and complete shut down of Muslims entering the United States‚’ and instructed one of his advisers to find a ‘lega[l]’ way to enact a Muslim ban. The President continued to make similar statements well after his inauguration‚ as detailed above.” Don’t expect Trump and Sotomayor to exchange Christmas cards anytime soon. Yet even Sotomayor said “no” to Colorado. After the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision‚ former federal judge J. Michael Luttig‚ generally described as “conservative‚” applauded the ruling in an appearance on MSNBC. Luttig said‚ “Yesterday’s decision by the Colorado Supreme Court was masterful. It was brilliant‚ and it is an unassailable interpretation of the 14th Amendment.” He added: “This is the most pressing constitutional question of our time. And it will be a test of America’s commitment to its democracy‚ to its Constitution and to the rule of law for all the reasons that are coming to the forefront this morning.” “Masterful”? “Brilliant”? “Unassailable”? Tell that to the nine justices. Consider the consequences had the Supreme Court ruled against Trump. For starters‚ how many Republican state attorneys general believe President Joe Biden engaged in treason or insurrection by reversing the Trump border policies to allow nearly 8 million illegal aliens to enter the country in the last three years? How many Republican state attorneys general believe that Biden violated the Constitution by reintroducing another student loan debt forgiveness plan after the 6-3 Supreme Court case striking down the administration’s previous program? How many Republican state attorneys general believe Biden has been compromised by the money Biden family members received from foreign actors? True‚ Biden has not been charged with bribery. But Trump‚ as mentioned‚ was not charged with insurrection. Yet 30 states consider him an insurrectionist. What’s to stop Republican state attorneys general from refusing to allow Biden to appear on their state ballot based on their belief that Biden has been compromised? What’s to stop Republican state attorneys general from refusing to allow Biden on their ballot by invoking the presidential disability amendment to claim Biden unfit given his obvious mental decline and his refusal to take a cognitive test? How many state attorneys general consider Biden in violation of the Constitution based on what they perceive as a two-tiered justice system? Biden‚ they could contend‚ illegally possessed documents in clear violation of the law. Yet Biden‚ unlike Trump‚ escaped criminal charges. That things could get ugly and fast explains why it was imperative for the Supreme Court to rule as it did — and to do so unanimously. Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder‚ or become an “Elderado‚” visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on Twitter @larryelder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists‚ visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Hannah Barron — a social media star known for fishing and hunting — delivered what is being described as a perfect response to a former beauty pageant contestant who claimed that her Southern accent should be outlawed and that "American women are basically men."As Blaze News reported on Saturday‚ a beauty pageant contestant turned cultural commentator made disparaging remarks about the social media star known for hunting and fishing. Political commentator Sameera Khan said of the Alabama-based social media star‚ "This accent needs to be illegal and women should be banned from doing manual labour like this. There is NOTHING feminine about American women. American women are literally men."Khan added‚ "Lebanese women are literally perfect. And they are actually feminine‚ unlike estrogen-deficient American women who hold the record for highest testosterone levels in the world."Khan criticized Barron for helping to build a house with her father and boyfriend as well as for noodling — fishing with bare hands.Khan stated on the X social media platform‚ "High-value American men should become passport bros. Don’t they deserve better than the filth they are limited to in their own country ... ? Do you agree or disagree? What are your thoughts?"The former beauty pageant contestant wrote on her X account with more than 232‚000 followers that the United States is under a "tomboy occupation."Khan claimed that any man attracted to Hannah "would be embarrassed to be seen with her in public." — (@) Barron gracefully responded to the criticisms on her massively popular social media accounts — where she has more than 2.1 million followers on TikTok and 1.4 million followers on Instagram.Barron began‚ "Apparently‚ I'm trending on Twitter right now because some girl said that my accent should be illegal‚ women shouldn't do manual labor‚ American women are basically men‚ and she just said that I'm not feminine." "And I would tell y'all this girl's name‚ but I can't remember it because I don't have a clue who she is‚" Hannah said. "So‚ that should tell you how relevant this person is.""But I think it's just hilarious because I grew up as the weird kid in high school‚ who hunted and fished too much because back then it wasn't cool for women to hunt or fish or the whole country lifestyle‚" she recalled‚ then added‚ "And I'm so proud of all the women in the outdoors now who are making that more cool or popular‚ so proud of us. I think we're doing great."Barron noted that she has been helping her father build houses since she was 15 and taught fellow classmates how to weld when she was a senior in high school. Hannah admitted that she doesn't consider what she does to be "manual labor‚" but she helps out as best as possible and finds it fun. "There's a lot of blue-collar women out there who are also feminine‚" Barron continued.She advised‚ "And so I just think that you should embrace your own individuality. Be yourself. And don't worry about what anybody else said because these folks talking about me and think they're going to offend me — that ship sailed a long time ago."Barron said the affronts from Khan were nothing because she's been "picked on her whole life." "So‚ don't be scared to build your own box‚ and don't try to fit in anybody else's‚" Barron encouraged. "Be your own person‚ and you'll be happier in the long run because of that‚ and don't worry about what anybody else has to say."In less than a day‚ Barron's response on Instagram garnered more than 75‚000 likes. Khan replied by saying‚ "Yes‚ make a video responding to an 'irrelevant' critic and then whine about being bullied in high school for completely legitimate reasons?" View this post on Instagram A post shared by Hannah Barron (@hannahbarron96) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Journalist Steve Baker was arrested by the FBI on March 1. He was placed in handcuffs and leg irons and transported by armed agents to be arraigned on charges the Justice Department refused to disclose until he turned himself in and presented himself in court.The extraordinary circumstances and security surrounding Baker’s arrest‚ as it turned out‚ pertained to four federal misdemeanors stemming from the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6‚ 2021. Baker was on the scene as a journalist‚ though without a press pass. Only a few reporters have expressed outrage — or any level of concern — over the government’s blatant assault on the freedom of the press.Images of reporters being arrested‚ handcuffed‚ and imprisoned by governments for their reporting should evoke thoughts of totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union and communist China. But now we are witnessing this scene in the United States of America‚ and it seems that most of the mainstream media are complacent. The media haven’t ignored Baker’s arrest completely. Some media outlets have eagerly reported it‚ with some nearly praising the Justice Department for pressing charges. Incredibly‚ only a few reporters have expressed outrage — or even any level of concern — over the government’s blatant assault on the freedom of the press.In other recent and past cases‚ the corporate media’s reaction was quite different. Righteous outrage poured out — and continues — over the arrest and imprisonment of American reporter Evan Gershkovich in Russia. In 2018‚ that same justifiable outrage followed the murder of Jamal Khashoggi‚ a Saudi dissident journalist and contributor to the Washington Post who was brutally murdered in Turkey because of his reporting.Reporters Without Borders published a report in 2021 detailing the number of journalists being persecuted worldwide‚ finding a 20% increase year over year. “This exceptional surge in arbitrary detention‚” the group concluded‚ “is mostly attributable to three countries whose governments are indifferent to their citizens’ yearning for democracy.” Emphasis added.For nearly 250 years‚ America has been a safe haven for journalists fleeing authoritarian regimes around the globe. Freedom of the press was considered by our founders to be one of our greatest weapons against tyranny. James Madison said a free press is “one of the great bulwarks of liberty.” Alexander Hamilton even argued in Federalist 84 that there was no need to include freedom of the press in the Constitution because the federal government had no power to regulate it. In 1931‚ the Supreme Court upheld the freedom of the press in Near v. Minnesota‚ confirming that the First Amendment includes even speech the public may find despicable. Again‚ in 1971 the high court upheld the freedom of the press in New York Times Co. v. United States‚ siding with the newspaper’s right to publish leaked government documents. In 2015‚ journalists across the country decried the Obama administration for spying on two reporters at the Associated Press in an effort to stop internal leaks. To my knowledge‚ this gross violation of freedom of the press was never challenged in court. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence‚ but many of the same players involved in Obama’s unconstitutional treatment of journalists are again in powerful positions in the Biden administration‚ and we are again seeing the freedom of the press violated. Steve Baker was an independent journalist when he went to Washington‚ D.C.‚ on January 5 and 6‚ 2021‚ to cover the various rallies planned for those days. On January 6‚ more than 60 other journalists and photographers were also in the crowd at the Capitol. Like many of them‚ Baker went with the flow of events all the way into the building. He filmed what he was witnessing and later turned over his footage to the FBI. With so many members of the press at or inside the Capitol Building on January 6‚ why is the Justice Department singling out Steve Baker? And why now? They say it’s because he made some political and derogatory comments about members of Congress‚ mostly in the days following January 6. I’ve seen the charging documents. While I don’t agree with some of the comments Baker made‚ nor would I use some of his colorful language‚ in this country‚ words and opinions are not crimes. Or at least they are not supposed to be.A more likely explanation for this sudden decision to bring charges is that Baker has recently been digging into certain incidents of January 6 and subsequent investigations by the FBI. He recently broke major stories about the RNC and DNC pipe bomb investigations and potential perjury by witnesses who testified in cases the Justice Department brought against protesters. Like any good reporter‚ Baker is working to get to the truth. But it raises serious questions when his arrest came shortly after his investigation uncovered potential corruption in the FBI and January 6 cases prosecuted by the Justice Department. It is even more suspicious that Baker was singled out from among dozens of journalists at the Capitol that day and that this indictment has popped up suddenly three years after the fact. John F. Kennedy once said‚ “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” Every freedom-loving American‚ and especially every member of the press‚ should be alarmed by the persecution and prosecution of a journalist doing his job. But in the state of our current society‚ one thing is clear: January 6 and Donald Trump have changed the journalistic landscape. The media will rally fervently to defend the freedoms of speech‚ press‚ and assembly — except when the journalist dares to question the Biden-Pelosi narrative of January 6.

An online bookstore originally dedicated to fighting censorship and providing "a store for all stories" has now yanked the titles of several books authored by high-profile conservatives.Allstora is a new online bookstore that morphed out of the 2022 LGBTQ+ bookstore ShopQueer.co. Co-founded by LGBTQ+ activist Eric Cervini; his partner‚ Adam Powell‚ a noted drag performer; and celebrity cross-dresser RuPaul‚ Allstora was created to be an "independent bookstore committed to sharing all stories and sharing profits fairly."Not only did Cervini‚ Powell‚ and RuPaul initially insist on giving authors a higher share of the profits from their books‚ but they also took a hard stance against censorship. "At Allstora‚ we believe that the censorship of any book‚ perspective‚ or story is incompatible with the survival of democracy‚" its website said as recently as March 6. "We cannot fight the ideologies of hate if we lack the ability to study‚ understand‚ and react to them."That "decision to carry all books" angered many leftists‚ especially those who identify somewhere along the LGBTQ+ spectrum. LGBTQ Nation railed that Allstora dared to carry books written by "anti-LGBTQ+ extremists‚" such as the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh; Chaya Raichik‚ better known on social media as Libs of TikTok‚ whom LGBTQ Nation called a "hate monger"; and Abigail Shrier‚ described as "transphobic." Others objected to Allstora selling books by former President Donald Trump and billionaire X owner Elon Musk‚ the Daily Wire reported.Allstora tried to quell their concerns by flagging certain titles that "are contrary to our core values." The store even promised to donate all proceeds from sales of those titles "to fight book bans."But the leftist onslaught continued unabated‚ and Allstora folded to pressure within days. On March 9‚ Cervini released a full-page statement that chronicled his rapid transition from anti-censorship advocate to mob apologist."We envisioned a bookstore that split its profits with all authors: not just queer and trans storytellers‚ but also Black‚ Brown‚ disabled‚ neurodiverse‚ everyone‚" Cervini wrote. "A place where all the infinite intersections of humanity could find their books‚ their people.""As a historian‚ I understood that even the most hateful of books can have educational value‚" he continued. "I knew that to dismantle prejudice‚ we must examine its illogic. We must study history so as not to repeat it‚ and we must understand hatred if we are to destroy it."But in his attempt to understand his enemies‚ Cervini said he soon realized that he had unwittingly created an "unsafe" platform where "queer or trans youth" might "accidentally stumbl[e] upon a harmful book.""I confused my duties as an academic and a bookseller‚ and I brought pain instead of joy into the world. And for that‚ I am sorry‚" he said.Cervini then noted that "the most harmful books" had been removed from Allstora's catalog and invited shoppers to "continue to report any instances of hateful material on our site.""As we continue to grow‚ I’m committed to doing a better job of listening and learning from the communities that we hope to nurture. With hard work‚ I hope we can rebuild your trust‚" his statement concluded.RuPaul did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Neither Donald Trump nor RFK Jr. was impressed by Biden’s State of the Union address. Both candidates took to social media to share their initial responses‚ which were equally disapproving but radically different. Trump chose to focus on Biden’s lies: “Joe Biden is on the run from his record and lying like crazy to try and escape accountability for the horrific devastation he and his party have created. All the while they continue the very policies that are causing this horror show.” “Joe Biden's sad excuse for a State of the Union address aside‚ here are the facts: When I left office‚ we gave Joe Biden the most secure border in U.S. history‚ we gave him ‘Remain in Mexico’ ... safe third agreements‚ the Asylum Ban‚ Title 42‚ 571 miles of border wall‚ rapid deportations‚ and much more‚” but “as soon as he got in‚ crooked Joe and his radical left lunatics deliberately dismantled each and every one of those policies.” “Over the past three years‚ Biden has actively aided and abetted the importation of millions and millions of illegal alien migrants and resettled them into your communities.” To Trump’s response‚ Pat Gray says‚ “Good stuff‚” adding that everything the former president said “is true.” RFK Jr.‚ on the other hand‚ chose to ignore Biden’s flaws and rather focus on getting back to the greatness that was once America: “I grew up in an America that seemed to have achieved its promise as an exemplary nation. ... We had become the City on the Hill. We were a moral authority around the globe; our government‚ institutions‚ our Congress‚ the court‚ the regulatory agencies‚ and even the American press were renowned for their integrity‚ and they were revered worldwide.” “Other nations wanted our American leadership. They knew the difference between leadership and bullying‚ which is something our current leaders seem to have forgotten. We were the template of liberty‚ proof that for a country to thrive its people must be free — free to speak‚ free to worship‚ free to build great companies‚ free to start small businesses. We were the freest country in the world‚ and by no coincidence‚ the most prosperous.” “Working Americans could provide for their families on a single salary‚ they could buy a home‚ raise a family‚ save for retirement without mountains of debt. We made the best music; we made the best movies; we made gold standard automobiles that everybody in the world wanted; we made blue jeans; we reconstructed Europe; we put men on the moon; we has the world's healthiest‚ best educated children." “Our productivity‚ ingenuity‚ our ‘can do’ spirit were the envy of the world. We had confidence in our strength‚ our capacity‚ and the limitless potential of our country.” “Wow! That’s good; that was inspirational‚” says Pat. “What do you disagree with in that?” Now we’re curious what you think. Who had the better response to Biden’s SOTU address? Donald Trump of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? Leave us a comment below. Want more from Pat Gray?To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.

Last week‚ Democrats spent quite a bit of energy criticizing President Joe Biden for daring — amid his State of the Union address — to characterize Laken Riley's suspected murderer as an "illegal." You know‚ as opposed to being outraged over the murder itself — and for policies that allowed the suspect to roam across the U.S. border in the first place.Biden‚ of course‚ dutifully walked back his "illegal" characterization during an interview with MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart over the weekend: "I shouldn’t have used 'illegal.' It’s 'undocumented.'" When Capehart asked Biden if he regretted using the "illegal" term‚ Biden replied‚ "Yes."It wasn't always that way.Let's flash back to another MSNBC clip that's been making the rounds on social media since left-wing undergarments got in a twist over Biden's ghastly "illegal" utterance.It's a 2006 video of then-U.S. Sen. Biden telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews that "illegal aliens" need to "learn to speak English‚" among other requirements for getting to reside in the U.S.In the clip‚ Matthews kicks things off with — count 'em — three "illegal" references in one question as he asks Biden if there's "a Democratic Party position which accommodates the need to stop illegal entry‚ punish people who hire people with cheap wages illegally‚ and also gives hope to people who live here illegally and people who want to come here right now?"After some back and forth‚ Matthews asks Biden if you can "scare an employer in this country‚ whether he's an agricultural worker or a housewife‚ into not hiring an illegal because the punishment's so high that if you get caught‚ it's a huge embarrassment to your family‚ and you may just ... get hit with a fine that'll kill you?"Biden replies‚ "Absolutely you can‚ and that's what we should do. I think we should do that."From there‚ Biden remarks that Democrats understand that "illegal aliens ... have to have a way to earn their way into the deal. This isn't amnesty." He also says that "they pay a fine‚ they gotta learn to speak English‚ they gotta pass tests."Matthews chimes in on the importance of encouraging illegal immigrants to learn English‚ even adding that "English is gonna unite this country potentially. It always has in the past."Biden then observes that "I can't think of a country that has two languages as their accepted languages that is doing all that well‚ including Switzerland and/or Canada."Matthews says that having multiple languages in the U.S. "divides us. You can't talk to each other."Oh‚ how times have changed. Check it out: See on Instagram Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A sergeant who spent decades in law enforcement passed away suddenly after sustaining attacks from two suspects outside an upstate New York casino.Shortly after midnight on Sunday morning‚ security noted a disturbance in the bar area of Batavia Downs racetrack and casino complex in Batavia‚ New York‚ located about halfway between Buffalo and Rochester. Sgt. Thomas Sanfratello‚ a 32-year veteran of the Genesee County Sheriff's Office‚ was on special assignment at the complex that evening and joined security guards in confronting the unruly patrons.According to reports‚ Michael Elmore‚ 33‚ and Lyndsey Jean Wilcox‚ 39‚ both of Batavia‚ got into a verbal altercation and were asked to leave the premises but had refused. Sanfratello and members of the security detail then intervened and managed to relocate the suspects outdoors.Once outside‚ Wilcox allegedly began attacking Sanfratello‚ but he and the security guards were eventually able to place her under arrest. Unfortunately‚ the arrest of Wilcox seemed to upset Elmore‚ who then allegedly began attacking Sanfratello as well. The sergeant reportedly attempted to taser Elmore‚ but the suspect allegedly continued to assault him. Sanfratello collapsed during the altercation. Though others on scene attempted to administer CPR‚ Sanfratello never revived and was pronounced dead at the scene. He was 54.Elmore has since been charged with first-degree aggravated manslaughter‚ aggravated assault upon a police officer‚ and burglary‚ while Wilcox faces charges of burglary and attempted assault. Both were assessed bond but whether either has paid it is unclear. They are both scheduled to appear in court again on Tuesday.Though no cause of death has yet been reported in Sanfratello's case‚ a statement from the Batavia Police Department claimed that "Elmore intended to cause serious physical injury to Sgt. Sanfratello and Sgt. Sanfratello died as a result of the encounter." The investigation into the incident remains ongoing."Words cannot describe the loss our Office feels with the passing of Sergeant Sanfratello‚" said a Facebook statement from the sheriff's office. "May he rest in peace."Sanfratello began his career at the sheriff's office as a dispatcher in the early 1990s. He was promoted to deputy in 1996 and then sergeant in 2007.The casino complex was initially evacuated and then closed temporarily. It has since reopened.In a statement‚ Henry Wojtaszek‚ president and CEO of Batavia Downs‚ expressed condolences to Sanfratello's family and claimed that the casino "rarely" experiences such incidents‚ "in large part due to the incredible efforts of people like Sergeant Sanfratello." He claimed that he and his staff would continue to cooperate in the investigation.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republicans have advanced legislation in Florida and Iowa aimed at protecting children and empowering parents with regard to their social media use. House Bill 3 in Florida and House File 2523 in the Hawkeye State both appear to be meaningful efforts by lawmakers to ensure that parents have a say in whether giant companies can enter into contracts with their kids‚ collect data about their kids‚ and subject their kids to potentially harmful content. Big tech lobbyists and leftist activists have once again expressed their displeasure over such efforts to help families shield children from well-documented online harms. Iowa's HF 2523 The "Social Media Parental Authorization Act" passed the state House with bipartisan support in a 88 to 6 vote on March 6. The bill would preclude social media companies from allowing minors to be account holders on their platforms unless they have received prior express parental authorization. Social media companies would also be required to allow "a parent or guardian who has provided parental authorization to revoke or rescind the grant of parental authorization upon request at any time." Facebook‚ TikTok‚ and other similar companies would be forbidden from collecting data on minors whose accounts were not created with the blessing of their parents. Under the proposed law‚ social media companies would further be required to provide authorizing parents with a password or some other means to access their child's account so that they they can view posts and private messages; manage time spent on the platform; and adjust privacy settings. The state attorney general would be empowered to bring civil action against social media companies found in violation of the proposed law and slap offenders with penalties of at least $10‚000 per violation. The Des Moines Register reported that its recent polling found that 55% of Iowans support the bill‚ 3% indicated they were unsure‚ and 42% signaled opposition to the bill. Support for the legislation is even stronger among parents with minor children‚ 57% of whom expressed favor for HB 2523. It garnered the support of 61% of Republican respondents‚ 39% of Democratic respondents‚ and 57% of independent respondents in the Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll. "I think the intent of this bill is very good‚" said state Rep. Sami Scheetz (D). "As somebody who grew up during the age of social media‚ I know firsthand some of the harms that can have on the mental health of children in our state." Florida's HB 3 HB 3 is the second attempt in recent weeks at an online child protections bill in the Sunshine State. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) vetoed an earlier version of the online protections bill on March 1‚ noting that "the Legislature is about to produce a different‚ superior bill." DeSantis wrote on X‚ "Protecting children from harms associated with social media is important‚ as is supporting parents' rights and maintaining the ability of adults to engage in anonymous speech. I anticipate the new bill will recognize these priorities and will be signed into law soon." Whereas the previous version would have required various social media platforms to bar anyone under 16 from creating an account‚ HB 3 — passed by the House in a 109 to 4 vote — would require social media companies to obtain parental consent before allowing users ages 14 and 15 onto their platforms. If ratified by DeSantis‚ HB 3 will require social media platforms to: Bar minors under the age of 14 from entering into a contract to become an account holder; Terminate any account held by persons under the age of 14 and provide 90 days for the user to dispute such termination; Allow for users under 14 to request to terminate their accounts; Permanently delete all information held by the platform associated with such terminated accounts; and Terminate accounts for 14- and 15-year-old users if they fail to obtain parental consent. Just as in Iowa‚ violations could land social media companies significant penalties. HB 3 also requires commercial entities operating websites that contain "a substantial portion of material harmful to minors" to use anonymous or standard age verification to ensure users are 18 or older. News‚ news gathering organizations‚ internet service providers‚ search engines‚ and cloud service providers are exempt. Florida's Voice News reported that critics of the bill‚ including Democratic state Rep. Angie Nixon‚ have suggested the bill is unconstitutional and will inevitably be challenged in the courts. The ACLU of Florida suggested that HB 3 amounts to a "censorship bill aimed at stifling freedom of expression online by requiring all users‚ including adults‚ to verify their age by providing age verification documentation before using existing social media accounts or creating new ones." "The age-verification requirements in HB 3 place barriers between users‚ whether they're adults or minors‚ and their constitutional right to speak online‚" said Kara Gross‚ legislative director of the ACLU of Florida. NetChoice — a Big Tech lobby group representing Facebook‚ TikTok‚ and X — called on DeSantis to veto the bill‚ claiming in a March 7 letter that HB 3 "would violate minors' First Amendment rights by imposing a blanket restriction on access to constitutionally protected speech for anyone who is either under the age of 14 or refuses to comply with its parental consent requirements." Republican state Rep. Tyler Sirois‚ who filed the House version of the bill with Rep. Michel Rayner (D)‚ said‚ "We must end this experiment on our children. Members‚ we are not opening a Pandora's box‚ we're closing one." Republican Speaker Paul Renner stressed the legislation will prove life-saving‚ reported the Associated Press. "We know that social media is the main platform for sexual crimes against children‚" said Renner. "We know that it's a place where they are bullied online‚ where their self-image is torn down online. It leads to major mental health issues‚ contemplation of suicide‚ acts of self-harm‚ spikes in anorexia‚ and the list goes on and on and on." Broader context Similar laws have recently been passed with mixed success in other red states. Utah passed SB 152 last year requiring social media companies to obtain parental consent before allowing minors to maintain or open an account. As of March 1‚ 2024‚ the state also requires age verification when opening a social media account; curfew settings on children's social media accounts; and minor accounts to be hidden from search results. Arkansas similarly sought to protect children with SB 396‚ which Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) ratified in April 2023 and was supposed to go into effect on September 1‚ 2023; however‚ an Obama-nominated federal judge granted NetChoice a temporary injunction against the law in August. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!