Metropolitan Police Drop Non-Crime Hate Incident Investigations

That AWS Outage Was a Big Pain in the Neck

The New York Times came out with a story on rising car payment delinquencies that at first glance would make readers think it was President Donald Trump’s fault. But — as always — the devil’s in the details: This issue was a lingering carry-over from the Biden administration.  “Lower-Income Americans Are Missing Car Payments,” Times business reporter Sydney Ember’s October 20 headline read. She wrote that “Inflation and a tough job market are making it harder for some people to pay back the car loans they signed in better times.” Sounds pretty bad, unless you’re a political opportunist looking to whack Trump with any political cudgel you can get your hands on. But the hidden plot twist would make anyone paying attention do a double-take: “The share of subprime auto loans that were 60 days or more past due reached a high of nearly 6.5 percent in January and has lingered near that level, according to Fitch Ratings.” Hmm, who was president for most of January? Because it certainly wasn’t Trump. Ember never mentions Biden at all — of course —and proceeded to keep her story devoid of the necessary context: [T]he weakness in the auto market is one of the clearest indications that low- and middle-income families — the economy’s foundation — could be starting to buckle. Because many Americans need their cars to get around, auto loan delinquencies can be a telling gauge of financial hardship. But this has been an inflationary problem that long preceded Trump’s administration. NewsNation reported in March that “Americans owed a record $1.66 trillion in auto loan debt at the end of 2024, up 20% since 2020.” In 2023, the Institute for Energy Research estimated that “the average new car loan now has a monthly payment of over $750, with an interest rate of 9.5 percent. For used cars, the average car interest rate is 13.7 percent” in Biden’s America. In fact, the IER directly attributed the phenomenon to Biden's climate change-obsessed regulatory crackdowns: "As Biden continues with his net zero carbon policies, his regulatory costs are skyrocketing and prices reflect that."  Readers wouldn’t know until the 23rd paragraph of Ember’s piece that “newer auto loans appear to be performing better than loans that originated in 2022 and 2023. That could be because lenders have tightened their loan requirements, preventing low-credit-score borrowers from securing risky loans so freely.” See what’s going on here? It shouldn’t surprise anybody that The Times is attempting to cover up the mess that Bidenomics created over the past four years, given that it endorsed both Biden and his lefty former heir apparent Vice President Kamala Harris. But it’s an even bigger slap to the face when everybody and their mother knows where a major economic problem originated from and the supposed newspaper of record tries to pretend it doesn’t exist.

CBS’s Monday installment of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert featured some blue-on-blue fireworks as the eponymous host welcomed former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre to discuss her new book, Independent, the merits of leaving the Democratic Party and President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 race. Colbert began by warning of people following KJP’s path, “Do you recommend everyone leave the party, and if so, where do they go? Because organization is how you face tyranny. Freelancing isn’t going to get anybody anything done.”     KJP insisted she is merely “trying to start a conversation” because “the two-party system is not working.” If anyone thinks KJP’s new independent status is because of a newfound respect for centrism and moderation, she quickly proved that isn’t the case. After Colbert asked what that failure is, KJP said of the Democratic Party, “I don't think there's any teeth, there's no fight, where's the soul?... when I left the administration this year on January 20th this year I was minding my business going to the supermarket, going to pick up my kid, going to the coffee shop and people would come up to me in tears, most of them, and say to me, 'What's happening? Why is the Democratic leadership not fighting? What's happening? We need more. How are we going to get out of this?'"  Colbert had a possible solution: socialism, “Let’s talk about Democrats who are getting people excited, excited, like, Bernie Sanders is getting people excited. He’s a democratic socialist. AOC, she’s a democratic socialist. Zohran Mamdani, democratic socialist. Doesn't that say there are fundamental needs of the working class in America that are not being addressed by either party, and if they don't change their ways, they are going to cut themselves off at the knees by toadying to special interests and corporations.” KJP interrupted to claim Colbert was making her point because Sanders is technically an independent before adding, “The Democratic Party needs to be a big tent party, the big tent party that I loved and appreciated and felt seen in. And what’s happening—you just mentioned three people who are, you know, democratic socialists, independents, who are very much exciting people, but what's happening with more of the leadership/Democratic Party's side of things, they’re actually throwing people under the bus who are vulnerable and need protection.”     She further claimed, “As a black woman who has walked through the walls of the White House and been part of this party for a very long time, I believe, and this is my personal opinion, that we get forgotten and by large part the Democratic Party does not see us. And for me especially in this past year, I needed to make a statement and to make a point… Millions of people who voted in 2020 for the Biden-Harris ticket did not come out in 2024, we have to figure out why. What happened there?” For Colbert, the answer to that question was Biden’s lousy debate performance. However, KJP asserts that the effort to push Biden out of the race was an act of betrayal. Colbert claimed, “I think all of that, everything you're saying, I cannot fault the factual basis of what you're saying or your feelings about it, but what happened was the debate performance. Everything is downstream of that.” For her part, KJP claimed, “And no one is saying the debate performance wasn't shocking, wasn't a disappointment, no one is saying that—”     Colbert objected to the “light” description of the debate, “It was harrowing. Okay, look, listen we’re never going to agree on this other than the fact that I’m glad you came here tonight and they’re telling me to wrap over there. Would you like to say one more thing before we go?” KJP was able to end on a note of agreement about democracy itself being at risk, “And I appreciate that, but I do think that this is a moment, really truly, what this book is about, for me, is the moment that we’re in, and we have to continue to fight for our democracy and we have to do that every day. One thing that the president used to say is we are a very—this is an experiment, our democracy, this is an experiment we are in and if we do not fight for it every day, we will lose it, and that is my concern. That is my concern.” Even The Late Show has a political debate; both participants end up being wrong. Colbert omits Harris’s flaws in blaming everything on Biden, KJP continues to insist Biden was fine, and both are cozying up with the party’s far-left crazies. Here is a transcript for the October 20-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 10/21/2025 12:25 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Do you recommend everyone leave the party, and if so, where do they go? Because organization is how you face tyranny. Freelancing isn’t going to get anybody anything done. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: So, here’s the thing: I'm not telling everybody to be an independent. I'm telling—I’m trying to start a conversation. I'm not saying that we need a third party. I am saying that right now the two-party system is not working.  COLBERT A lot of people are dissatisfied, a lot of Democrats or people who identify as Democrats are dissatisfied— JEAN-PIERRE: Exactly. Exactly COLBERT: — with the party right now. Where do you think the major failure is, what are they not doing? JEAN-PIERRE: Well, right now, in this moment, which is why I actually wrote the book, to give people a road map, I don't think there's any teeth, there's no fight, where's the soul?  When I left the Democratic Party -- the Democratic Party -- when I left the administration this year on January 20th this year I was minding my business going to the supermarket, going to pick up my kid, going to the coffee shop and people would come up to me in tears, most of them, and say to me, "What's happening? Why is the Democratic leadership not fighting? What's happening? We need more. How are we going to get out of this?"  And I talk about that in the book and that's what created, for me, an opportunity, as a private citizen now, to say okay, how do we focus on where we are today, how do we move forward, and what’s a road map that people can follow to get engaged. I think it’s really important to get involved and to get engaged and that’s what this book is about. COLBERT: Let’s talk about Democrats who are getting people excited, excited, like, Bernie Sanders is getting people excited— JEAN-PIERRE: He’s not— COLBERT: He’s a democratic socialist. JEAN-PIERRE: I was about to say. He’s an independent. COLBERT: AOC, she’s a democratic socialist. Zohran Mamdani, democratic socialist. Doesn't that say there are fundamental needs of the working class in America that are not being addressed by either party, and if they don't change their ways, they are going to cut themselves off at the knees by toadying to special interests and corporations— JEAN-PIERRE: I totally agree. COLBERT: Both—okay, go ahead, you’re agreeing. JEAN-PIERRE: You’re speaking my language. COLBERT: I accept your apology.  JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no, here’s the thing. The Democratic Party needs to be a big tent party, the big tent party that I loved and appreciated and felt seen in. And what’s happening—you just mentioned three people who are, you know, democratic socialists, independents, who are very much exciting people, but what's happening with more of the leadership/Democratic Party's side of things, they’re actually throwing people under the bus who are vulnerable and need protection.  As a black woman who has walked through the walls of the White House and been part of this party for a very long time, I believe, and this is my personal opinion, that we get forgotten and by large part the Democratic Party does not see us. And for me especially in this past year, I needed to make a statement and to make a point.  I am trying to start a conversation. People are not going to agree with me, people are going to disagree, people are going to want and I'm hoping they are going to want a conversation with me about my decision, because we are under attack. Our democracy is slipping through our fingers, and this is the time—this is the time I believe we have conversations like this because we have to do better. Millions of people who voted in 2020 for the Biden-Harris ticket did not come out in 2024, we have to figure out why. What happened there? … COLBERT: I don’t think anyone questioned his heart or his policy but it takes more than that to be the president of the United States and in a moment of great pressure on stage, we saw someone shock us and worry us and nothing could assuage that worry. I don't think it was necessarily a betrayal of Joe Biden as other people saying, "we don’t think we were shown the Joe Biden you saw." JEAN-PIERRE: I disagree, I saw every day, a really ugly assault on someone who had 50-plus years of experience and who, again, objectively had done a good job as president of the United States and it was heartbreaking to see that type of behavior. COLBERT: I think all of that, everything you're saying, I cannot fault the factual basis of what you're saying or your feelings about it, but what happened was the debate performance. Everything is downstream of that. JEAN-PIERRE: And no one is saying the debate performance wasn't shocking, wasn't a disappointment, no one is saying that— COLBERT: Disappointment to such a light term. JEAN-PIERRE: I use your words! I use your words! COLBERT: It was harrowing. Okay, look, listen we’re never going to agree on this other than the fact that I’m glad you came here tonight and they’re telling me to wrap over there. Would you like to say one more thing before we go? JEAN-PIERRE: And I appreciate that, but I do think that this is a moment, really truly, what this book is about, for me, is the moment that we’re in, and we have to continue to fight for our democracy and we have to do that every day. One thing that the president used to say is we are a very—this is an experiment, our democracy, this is an experiment we are in, and if we do not fight for it every day, we will lose it, and that is my concern. That is my concern. COLBERT: This is true.

On Sunday's Velshi show, frequent MSNBC guest Elie Mystal charged that Chief Justice John Roberts is the "biggest enemy towards black people" on the Supreme Court since the pro-slavery Dred Scott decision from1857. His typically hyperbolic attack on Justice Roberts came during a segment devoted to fretting over the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down legal precedents that for decades have required that oddly shaped congressional districts be drawn to ensure the existence of black-majority districts, mostly filled by black legislators. Host Ali Velshi suggested that a conservative court ruling would be as bad as taking voting rights back to 1964 as he posed his first question to the race-obsessed justice correspondent for the far-left The Nation magazine. Here's Velshi: I have a lot of specific questions, including questions about how this case is going to end up, but I first just want your take on this because, for a lot of people, this has become like the air we breathe, right? The Voting Rights Act was something, they thought certain things were fixed, and now we are literally going back to 1964. On the Left, your "voting rights" are somehow compromised if blacks don't get to elect someone of their own skin color. Mystal excoriated Justice Roberts: Before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, this is an apartheid nation where black people are not allowed political power and representation in the country. After the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we are something approaching a democracy. So that is the demarcation line, and John Roberts has been an enemy of the Voting Rights Act -- as you pointed out in your opening -- for his entire career. John Roberts is the biggest enemy towards black people that this court has seen since Chief Justice Roger Taney, who authored the Dred Scott decision. Factually, this is Pants On Fire. Mystal then took a shot at conservative Justice Sam Alito as he added: Now, white media generally doesn't talk about him like that because he's a genteel man, you know -- he's not running around letting his flag fly like Sam Alito. But, make no mistake, whenever black people are asking to have equal representation of their -- in this country, John Roberts is the man standing at the door telling us no. He is the problem, and we're going to see that play out in Louisiana v. Callais when that decision comes down later this -- later next year. So in this fictional narrative, the chief justice evokes Alabama Democrat George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door. A bit later, even though there are currently several black members of Congress or Senators who represent white majority districts or states, including in Southern states, Mystal asserted: And the math in Louisiana and, quite frankly, across the South, shows, that even white Democrats will not vote for a black candidate. White Democrats would rather vote for a white Republican than a black Democrat in Louisiana and all across the South and, in general, all across this nation.  So if black people are to have representatives that look like us, whether those representatives be Republican or Democrat, you kind of need to have majority minority districts because white people won't vote for a person of color no matter what party they're running in, generally speaking. And that is one of the reasons why you need two minority majority districts in Louisiana to counteract that problem. He soon added: "The core of the conservative argument is that you can use race if it's helping white folks, but you can't use race if it's stopping white folks from taking advantage and disenfranchising black people." Transcript follows: MSNBC's Velshi October 19, 2025 10:30 a.m. Eastern ALI VELSHI: I have a lot of specific questions, including questions about how this case is going to end up, but I first just want your take on this because, for a lot of people, this has become like the air we breathe, right? The Voting Rights Act was something, they thought certain things were fixed, and now we are literally going back to 1964. ELIE MYSTAL, THE NATION: The Voting Rights Act is the most important piece of legislation in American history. It is the thing that makes the promise of America -- the idea that we are a fully fair and equal society with equal political participation -- it is the thing that makes that idea real. Before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, this is an apartheid nation where black people are not allowed political power and representation in the country. After the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we are something approaching a democracy. So that is the demarcation line, and John Roberts has been an enemy of the Voting Rights Act -- as you pointed out in your opening -- for his entire career. John Roberts is the biggest enemy towards black people that this court has seen since Chief Justice Roger Taney, who authored the Dred Scott decision. Now, white media generally doesn't talk about him like that because he's a genteel man, you know -- he's not running around letting his flag fly like Sam Alito. But, make no mistake, whenever black people are asking to have equal representation of their -- in this country, John Roberts is the man standing at the door telling us no. He is the problem, and we're going to see that play out in Louisiana v. Callais when that decision comes down later this -- later next year. (...) The lawyer defending Louisiana's maps argued that, "Well, if the people that we were disenfranchising had been white Democrats, then everything would be the same. Louisiana would have done the same thing. We were discriminating based on party, not based on race." That was a key argument from Louisiana because John Roberts has previously said it is okay to discriminate based on party, but not necessarily okay to discriminate on race, right? And -- but, again, Ali, we had math here, right? And the math in Louisiana and, quite frankly, across the South, shows, that even white Democrats will not vote for a black candidate. White Democrats would rather vote for a white Republican than a black Democrat in Louisiana and all across the South and, in general, all across this nation. So if black people are to have representatives that look like us, whether those representatives be Republican or Democrat, you kind of need to have majority minority districts because white people won't vote for a person of color no matter what party they're running in, generally speaking. And that is one of the reasons why you need two minority majority districts in Louisiana to counteract that problem. VElSHI: There's this weird concept that goes around that somehow the Founding Fathers and the document that they produced -- the Bill of Rights and the Constitution -- were colorblind. That's absolutely, actually not true. That's gaslighting. But it now persists in this issue of affirmative action and now this case in that you can't use -- you can't consider race to adjust for racism. MYSTAL: The core of the conservative argument is that you can use race if it's helping white folks, but you can't use race if it's stopping white folks from taking advantage and disenfranchising black people. And here you mentioned section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That's the thing that is currently on the chopping block and most likely will be taken away. One of the really important functions of section 2 is that it doesn't require a showing of intent, which is to say, if we can look at a state, a map, a gerrymandered situation that has the outcome of discriminating against black people, we don't have to also prove that that's what Louisiana or some other state intended to do, right? They don't -- they don't have to say, like, "We trying to do some racism today," before they -- we can just look at the results and say, look, you know what, Louisiana might say, "I don't have a racist bone in my body" -- doesn't matter. If the outcome is racist, then section 2 is allowed to operate. And that is the core of what they're taking away. One of Roberts's -- one of the pegs he always hangs his hat on is that unless litigants are in his courtroom openly saying they intend to be racist, Roberts pretends that racism doesn't exist. What you literally have to -- at one point, Janai Nelson -- who was arguing the case for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund -- Janai Nelson said that the Voting Rights Act requires neither a confession nor an admission. White people don't have to confess to what they're doing, nor admit it -- we can just look at the outcomes. And that is exactly at the heart of what Roberts is trying to rip out here. He's trying to say that unless there is intent, unless white people self-report as being racist, you cannot use laws to stop them.

Someone apparently taught the liberal ladies of The View a new vocabulary word overnight because they kept throwing around the word “nihilist” to describe President Trump during Tuesday’s episode. The cast was up in arms about the construction of the White House’s new ballroom; claiming that it was evidence that Trump thinks “he is a king” and a “one-man wrecking ball” with “no purpose other than an impulse to destroy” (it’s unclear how that squared with building something new). “It's a very bad look right now to be building and demolishing and all this gold tacky crap that he loves!” shouted co-host Joy Behar. She also described Trump as a “one-man wrecking ball.” It was Behar who got the notation to look up “nihilist” and teach it to the rest of them. Despite the fact the demolition of a small part of the White House was being undertaken to build something more, she bloviated about how Trump was only interested in destruction: But I looked up the word nihilist, while I had a free moment. And that's what he is. He annihilates. And this is one of the definitions: A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties and no purpose other than an impulse to destroy. And that is what we are seeing right now in our country. It is not funny.     At one point, Behar even seemed to think Trump should be in prison for building the ballroom, whining that people were letting him “get away with it.” “Why do they let him get away with it? He has all these people that let him get away with whatever he wants to do,” she decried. They even had a problem with the ballroom being built without taxpayer funds. “A ballroom is a symbol of excess and opulence,” pretend independent Sara Haines bellyached. “And this was like a wealthy ballroom paid for by wealthy people for wealthy people to come and dance in a ballroom. And like I know this was price funds. But I can't help but imagine how far $250 million could go for families can't put food on their table.” Co-host Sunny Hostin, who experiences chronic racial grievance, tried to cope with the ballroom by throwing as many insults at it as she possibly could. “That's what struck me, the $250 million project. And it's going to be tacky and gaudy…this tacky gaudy nasty ballroom,” she proclaimed.     The producers put up an image of the concept art and that triggered more insults: HOSTIN: It's tacky! See?! GOLDBERG: It looks like a casino ballroom. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: It looks like Mar-a-Lago. HOSTIN: It looks like Mar-a-Lago, which is tacky! “[T]he first thing that came to mind was that this is a metaphor for what's going on in our country. He is tearing down the house! He is tearing down the people's house! He's an annihilist [sic]. I think he does seem to think that it's his house, that he is a king,” Hostin shrieked. The ballroom really triggered moderator Whoopi Goldberg, who kicked off their conversation by angrily shouting, “That is not your building! You don't own that building! … You don't own that building! That is the people's building! [Claps her hands together] You don't own it!” She dabbled in a little false equivalency by suggesting it was like her going to Trump Tower and installing a disco.     Things really got unhinged when Behar and Goldberg started singing about how Trump doesn’t own the White House: BEHAR: Let’s sing it! [Starts singing and dancing in her seat] You don’t own it! GOLDBERG: You don't own it. You cannot take it down. You don't own it. Take your behind to another town! Unfortunately for them, faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin had to give them a little bit of a reality check. “Presidents technically have the authority to do this. Traditionally they would run it before a presidential planning commission, so they’d adhere to the architectural integrity of it,” she noted. She also admitted there was a need for it: There is not a room in the White House right now that can host a giant state dinner. We usually do it in the East Room or the State Room. The capacity is about 200 people. Trump has cared since his first term that if you go to the U.K. or something you can have these sweeping huge dinners.     Goldberg and Hostin pounced on the mention of the U.K. (despite the show’s love of covering the royal family), with Goldberg noting those dinners were held at Windsor Castle. “You mean the king's castle!” Hostin shouted, as if it was evidence of Trump thinking himself a king. Behar would go on to claim that the construction of the ballroom was some sort of tell of Trump’s ulterior motives: “Somebody who is building something like this does not intend to get out of office.” Just more inciting rhetoric from ABC News. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View October 21, 2025 11:03:05 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Okay. Okay. That is not your building! You don't own that building! [Cheers and applause] That would be like me going over to Trump Tower and saying I'm going to build a disco! You know? They've wanted a disco in Trump Tower for hundreds of years. I mean, come on. You don't own that building! That is the people's building! [Claps her hands together] You don't own it! [Applause] JOY BEHAR: Let’s sing it! [Starts singing and dancing in her seat] You don’t own it! GOLDBERG: You don't own it. You cannot take it down. You don't own it. Take your behind to another town! [Cheers and applause] BEHAR: Very good. So the guy -- The guy is like a one-man wrecking ball. Seriously. (…) 11:04:28 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: It's a very bad look right now to be building and demolishing and all this gold tacky crap that he loves! But I looked up the word nihilist, while I had a free moment. And that's what he is. He annihilates. And this is one of the definitions: A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties and no purpose other than an impulse to destroy. And that is what we are seeing right now in our country. It is not funny. [Applause] SARA HAINES: Joy, what you're alluding to is kind of what struck me. A ballroom is a symbol of excess and opulence. And we're living in a time where those optics just are flying in the face of the reality of the majority of this country. When you look up- you know, he won on making cost of living better but inflation's up three percent. 74 percent of Americans say they've seen household prices increase by at least $100. The unemployment rate is at a four-year high right now. People are struggling to eat. And this was like a wealthy ballroom paid for by wealthy people for wealthy people to come and dance in a ballroom. And like I know this was price funds. But I can't help but imagine how far $250 million could go for families can't put food on their table. [Applause] SUNNY HOSTIN: That part! That's what struck me, the $250 million project. And it's going to be tacky and gaudy. You know that. BEHAR: And people are losing their health care. To give tax breaks to multimillionaires. HOSTIN: And to billionaires who probably are some of the private donors for this tacky gaudy nasty ballroom. And the thing that you said, Whoopi, was the first thing that came to mind. [Concept image of the ballroom is shown] It's tacky! See?! GOLDBERG: It looks like a casino ballroom. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: It looks like Mar-a-Lago. HOSTIN: It looks like Mar-a-Lago, which is tacky! And I think for me, Whoopi, the first thing that came to mind was that this is a metaphor for what's going on in our country. He is tearing down the house! He is tearing down -- BEHAR: He's a nihilist. HOSTIN: -- the people's house! He's an annihilist [sic]. I think he does seem to think that it's his house, that he is a king. (…) 11:07:21 a.m. Eastern FARAH GRIFFIN: The last major renovation of the White House was 1948 when Harry Truman added the Truman balcony which we all know on the South Portico. Presidents technically have the authority to do this. Traditionally they would run it before a presidential planning commission, so they’d adhere to the architectural integrity of it. I have fears that this might look more like a Florida country club than the White House as we know it. HOSTIN: It's going to be tacky! FARAH GRIFFIN: But to me – Listen. This is what I will say in defense of him but let me finish my point before you interrupt. There is not a room in the White House right now that can host a giant state dinner. We usually do it in the East Room or the State Room. The capacity is about 200 people. Trump has cared since his first term that if you go to the U.K. or something you can have these sweeping huge dinners. So if you want to -- GOLDBERG: But remind everybody were they're having the sweeping -- FARAH GRIFFIN: True. GOLDBERG: It's in the castle. FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes, exactly. GOLDBERG: It's in Windsor castle. HOSTIN: You mean the king's castle! FARAH GRIFFIN: So that's why he wants to build it. (…)

The attorney general of Florida is adding to the list of legal defenses that are piling up for video gaming company Roblox.Roblox, a gaming platform with more than 40 million children playing on it, was accused by Republican James Uthmeier in a scathing video posted on Monday.'We prohibit the sharing of images and videos in chat.'Uthmeier posted the video on X, along with the accusation that Roblox has "become a breeding ground for predators to gain access to our kids.""Our office will be issuing criminal subpoenas to the online children's gaming company Roblox," Uthmeier said. "Roblox profited off our kids while exposing them to the most dangerous of harms. They enabled our kids to be abused."The Florida AG added that the subpoenas are meant to "gather more information" for prosecutors about the criminal activity allegedly taking place on Roblox's platform, as well as to compile "evidence on the predators.""We will stop at nothing to fight to protect our kids," he concluded.In response, Roblox told Return that the allegations are simply not true.RELATED: Kentucky sues Roblox over Charlie Kirk 'assassination simulators' — (@) "Attorney General Uthmeier's claims about Roblox are false," a spokesperson told Blaze News. "The suggestion that illicit image sharing is happening on Roblox demonstrates a lack of understanding of our platform's functionality. In fact, we prohibit the sharing of images and videos in chat, use filters designed to block the exchange of personal information, and our trained teams and automated tools continuously monitor communications to detect and remove harmful content."The representative was likely referring to Uthmeier's press release, which said investigations not only revealed predators were using Roblox to "access, communicate with, and groom minors," but that the platform has allowed "sexually explicit material to evade filters and circulate within the platform."Roblox said it is working to implement "age estimation," which Blaze News previously reported includes verification through selfie-videos, "facial age estimation," ID, or verified parental consent."We share the AG's commitment to keeping kids safe, and we will continue to assist his office in their investigations. We have a strong record of working with law enforcement and investing in advanced safety systems to help protect our users and remove bad actors," Roblox added.RELATED: 'Ginger ISIS member' has terror plot thwarted by Roblox user: 'I cannot agree with the term terrorist' Photo by INA FASSBENDER/AFP via Getty Images The Florida press release also said reports suggest that predators are using the in-game currency Robux to "bribe minors into sending sexually explicit images of themselves."In 2024, Blaze News reported on at least two instances where two individuals were charged for soliciting sexual content from minors. One man was from Florida, and the other was a registered sex offender in Michigan. Both allegedly bribed children with Robux.In 2025, a man from Bakersfield, California, was sentenced to three years in prison for crimes related to a sexual relationship he had with a 14-year-old girl he met through Roblox.The subpoenas come as a multitude of social media platforms are being targeted for massive lawsuits over their alleged addictive nature and the promotion to minors. This includes Snap Inc. (which owns Snapchat), Meta, ByteDance (TikTok), and Alphabet (YouTube). Roblox was not noted in reports surrounding the litigation.Roblox has reinforced that it has "rigorous safety features" which are "purposely stricter than those found on social networks."It does not allow image sharing via chat and "constantly" monitors all communication for "critical harms."Roblox is currently facing a lawsuit in Kentucky that accuses the platform of allowing Charlie Kirk "assassination simulators."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Much ink has been spilled in the mainstream media and by Democrats after the Department of Homeland Security acquired new jets for top officials within the agency to use for travel, but a deeper dive shows the purchases are not only standard but also a matter of safety.Liberals such as David Axlerod have characterized the aircraft as "luxury jets" and bewailed their hefty price tag.However, while two used Gulfstream jets added to the Coast Guard air assets cost $172 million, the Coast Guard has been using Gulfstream aircraft for travel for its leadership since the early 2000s.The plane the new long-range Gulfstream V jet replaced was also 20 years old. The New York Times noted that the acting commandant of the Coast Guard told Congress back in May that the "avionics are increasingly obsolete, the communications are increasingly unreliable."The need to modernize the air fleet was again emphasized by Admiral Kevin Lunday in a press release on Saturday."The timing of this investment underscores the Coast Guard’s vital need to modernize its command and control capabilities to meet today’s rapidly evolving operational demands. As maritime activity increases and national security challenges grow more complex, maintaining reliable air mobility is essential to ensuring continuity of operations and mission success," Lunday said.The two airplanes were costing nearly $10 million per year to maintain at the time.Since January 2025, the plane that is being replaced has experienced 30 days of unplanned maintenance, with six missions requiring unplanned cancellation.RELATED: Kristi Noem hammers Zach Bryan over apparently anti-ICE song — singer says he's 'scared' by negative reaction Kristi Noem hammers Zach Bryan over apparently anti-ICE song — singer says he's 'scared' by negative reaction Photo (left): James Smith/Sam Snap/Getty Images; Photo (right): Klaudia Radecka/NurPhoto via Getty Images The Coast Guard under former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas facilitated the acquisition of a new C-37B long-range command and control aircraft from Gulfstream in June 2022."The aircraft’s overall mission is to operate as a command and control platform anywhere in the world for the secretary of Homeland Security, the commandant of the Coast Guard, and other top DHS leadership. The LRCCA is equipped with a broad range of commercial and military communications systems, providing secure voice and data capabilities as well as the capability to perform routine administrative duties in-flight worldwide," the press release said about the purchase at the time.Going back to fiscal year 2021, a Coast Guard report found maintenance for the service's long-range aircrafts was costing millions of dollars per year due to the mileage and age. The two airplanes were costing nearly $10 million per year to maintain at the time.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Colombian President Gustavo Petro appeared to call for the ousting of President Donald Trump in an interview with MRC Latino on October 20. Addressing the tensions between the U.S. and various South American nations over the Trump administration's deportation efforts and drug crackdown, Petro said, "Humanity has a first off-ramp, and it is to change Trump in various ways. The easiest way may be through Trump himself." Petro went on to say that the second option would be to "get rid of Trump." 'US government officials have committed murder and violated our sovereignty.'President Trump has been highly critical of Petro, calling him "an illegal drug leader" in a post on Truth Social on Sunday. Trump went on to say in the post that the production of illegal drugs "has become the biggest business in Colombia, by far, and Petro does nothing to stop it." He called Petro "a low rated and very unpopular leader" and said that if Petro does not stop the drug routes to the U.S., "the United States will close them up for him, and it won't be done nicely."On September 16, the U.S. military carried out a drone strike that destroyed a submarine reportedly carrying drugs in international waters off the coast of Colombia.RELATED: 'Illegal drug leader': Trump accuses Colombian president of doing worse than nothing about drug cartels Photo by Omar Havana/Getty ImagesLast week, Petro stated on X that "U.S. government officials have committed murder and violated our sovereignty in territorial waters." He went on to say that the submarine was a fishing vessel in distress and demanded an explanation from the United States about the strike.In response, Trump announced that he would end all U.S. funding to Colombia, cutting off hundreds of millions in economic, military, and humanitarian aid. Speaking to reporters, Trump went after Petro, calling him "a lunatic who's got a lot of problems. Mental problems." He added that the funding cuts were in response to Colombia's unwillingness to combat the drug trade: "They are a drug-manufacturing machine, Colombia, and we're not going to be part of it. So we're going to drop all money that we are giving to them."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

What HE Said: James Woods Has BRUTAL Words of Wisdom After Jennifer Welch Calls Stephen Miller a Nazi