Around 10:00 a.m. on Friday, a man named Rodney Hinton went to his lawyer’s office in Ohio and watched body camera footage of his son’s death. In particular, the footage shows Hinton’s 18-year-old son, Ryan, emerging from a stolen vehicle while carrying a handgun. At one point, Ryan drops the gun, then picks it up. Soon afterwards, he’s shot and killed by a police officer. None of these facts are in dispute. The video makes it all very clear. Watch: The reason the Hinton family was watching this footage in an attorney’s office is that, of course, they were contemplating a lawsuit against the city for wrongful death. That was certainly what their attorney was thinking about. In fact, even after viewing this footage, the family’s lawyer — who incidentally works for “The Cochran Firm,” as in the late Johnny Cochran’s firm — maintained that they had a case. Here’s what the family’s lawyer said, as a way of arguing that the police officers were somehow responsible in this scenario: Being in a stolen car, having a firearm, firearms—we’re in Ohio, you know, so you can open carry in Ohio, so that’s not a death penalty. Admittedly, it’s not quite as catchy as “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” but it’s still a pretty remarkable line of argument from the Cochran Firm, all things considered. After watching the footage of Ryan Hinton exiting a stolen car with a handgun, then dropping the handgun and picking it up as police chased him, and then turning towards the officers, the conclusion from these lawyers is that Ryan Hinton was murdered simply for open-carrying a firearm. He got the “death penalty” for doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Even though his gun wasn’t holstered, and even though he was waving it around while committing a felony, and even though all of this is recorded, we’re supposed to conclude that Ryan Hinton was “open-carrying.” This is a level of shamelessness that, in another era, would lead to a flurry of lawyer jokes on late-night television. But it’s not a joke to millions of people at the moment. It certainly wasn’t a joke to Rodney Hinton, the father of the teenager who was killed. Just hours after he viewed the body camera footage of his son’s death, Rodney Hinton got in his car with the intent of executing a police officer. He saw it as an act of revenge. And ultimately, he found a target: He ran over a recently retired sheriff’s deputy who was directing traffic outside the commencement ceremony at the University of Cincinnati. The slain officer, a Hamilton County deputy named Larry Henderson, had never met his killer before. They never exchanged words. Watch: Rodney Hinton knew that police were justified in killing his son because he had just watched the body-camera footage. He knew that the police did nothing wrong. If the father wanted revenge on anyone for causing his son’s death, he should have taken revenge on himself. If your 18-year-old son is out with a gun stealing cars, it means you failed as a father. Even a minimal amount of fatherly guidance would have been enough to avoid this situation. But instead of taking revenge on himself, Rodney Hinton decided to kill a police officer who was directing traffic. This should be an open and shut case, in every sense. The father is a murderer. His “revenge” obviously cannot be defended legally. Any hope of defending it morally is destroyed by the fact that, for one thing, the shooting of Ryan Hinton was justified. And secondly, the cop he killed had nothing to do with it anyway. This is not a Gary Plauche situation, where a father ambushed and killed the man who kidnapped and molested his son. This is an act of premeditated, cold-blooded murder against a random white cop. WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show And yet — stop me if you’ve heard this one before — this murderer is being lionized and defended on social media. The father who just executed a sheriff’s deputy, in order to avenge his criminal son who flashed a gun at the cops, is the latest celebrity in certain corners of social media. The viral clips defending this murderer are all over TikTok. Here’s just one example: He gets the age of the so-called “kid” wrong, as he’s showing the sympathetic photos in the background. Ryan Hinton was 18, not 16, when he jumped out of the stolen car with a firearm. But the bigger issue with this video is the claim that the father “took justice into his own hands” by murdering a random police officer. Notice how there’s no pretext here, about how the officers did something wrong, or violated procedure, or any of that. There’s no explanation of how it’s “justice” to kill a random traffic cop — or to “un-alive” a traffic cop, as this guy puts it. It’s just assumed that killing a random white police officer is an appropriate response to the death of a black criminal. And millions of people find this reasoning persuasive at the moment. That’s the situation we’re now in. For the past half-century or so, every aspect of American civic life has been devoted, at least superficially, to preventing a situation like this. If you spend trillions of dollars enacting a regime that rigidly enforces the seemingly laudable goal of “racial equality,” then surely, eventually, you’ll arrive at a point where all men are judged based solely on the content of their character. That is the grand experiment we’ve all been participating in for our entire lives. And with each passing day, it is becoming more and more clear that this experiment is crashing down all around us. We are heading, very directly, towards open and overt racial conflict. To that end, here’s another similar video, which has more than 20,000 likes on TikTok. We’ll mute the audio because it’s obnoxious rap music. But here’s what it looks like: It shows Rodney Hinton in court, in a jumpsuit, surrounded by a bunch of police officers. And there’s the caption that the uploader has added: “They really try to use over 30 deputies to intimidate Rodney Hinton but he kept his head up.” Again, this post has more than 20,000 likes. This is not some random troll that didn’t get any attention. It’s one of the most popular posts about Rodney Hinton’s arrest. And people are responding to it because they genuinely believe that Hinton is a hero. There’s no rational argument that he’s innocent, or that he was justified, or that his son was innocent. This is pure racial resentment, spilling right out into the open. Another post, with roughly 70,000 likes on TikTok, describes Rodney Hinton as a “mourning father,” complete with somber music. We’ll play part of that: Look around any social media platform, and you’ll find plenty of posts like this. It’s not just TikTok. On X, here’s a post with roughly 700 likes: Rodney Hinton had no criminal record before he killed an Ohio  cop in retaliation for the cops killing his son . The police department brought 30 cops to his hearing to intimidate him. So apparently, you get to kill a cop if you have no prior criminal record. And the police aren’t allowed to guard you, either, even after you’ve just murdered someone. Then there’s this post, with more than a thousand likes: All I’m saying is this. If a cop killed my son…I’m airing out the precinct. Rodney Hinton Jr. is a saint and a hero. Yesterday we discussed the story of Shiloh Hendrix, the woman who has now raised hundreds of thousands of dollars after using a racial slur at a playground. What’s happening now with Rodney Hinton is yet another example of why Shiloh Hendrix has raised all of that money. If you’re saying that “justice” is somehow served by the execution of a random white police officer, in the name of defending a thug who stole a car and flashed a gun — and many people are saying this — then you don’t get to clutch your pearls because of Shiloh Hendrix. The standards are so wildly out of whack that it’s just not sustainable. “It’s okay if we kill people but not okay if you use naughty language” is not just a double standard. It’s flat out madness — a kind of moral schizophrenia. It’s an unsustainable approach. And with every day, it becomes more and more apparent that we simply can’t continue on this trajectory. People are tired of it.  If large numbers of black people are openly defending and cheering for actual murderers who kill white people in cold blood, then you cannot tell white people that they have to make a big show of condemning a woman who says a bad word. That’s especially true as more and more white people are executed, without any media attention whatsoever. For example, you probably haven’t heard the story of a 22-year-old woman named Logan Federico in South Carolina. Here she is, on the left: According to the authorities, Logan Federico was, “randomly murdered by a career criminal” who was “on a spree of thefts, break-ins and credit card fraud.” That career criminal, 30-year-old Alexander Dickey, allegedly “broke into a neighboring home around 3:00 a.m. and stole a firearm, credit and debit cards, and keys to a vehicle. … [He] then allegedly entered the house where Federico was staying, entered her room, and shot her, before fleeing the scene in a stolen vehicle.” Somehow that story didn’t get much national attention. Neither did this one, involving the execution of Tara and Taylor Jones in front of their home in the affluent neighborhood of Wellington Florida last year: Screenshots: YouTube.com Surveillance footage shows that Tara and Taylor Jones were shot to death by a 63-year-old mechanic named Norman Scott, without any provocation of any kind. Again, there was no outrage. There was no public show of support for these victims. Instead, we’re now at the point where three cold-blooded killers in the span of a few months have found large cheering sections on social media, including Rodney Hinton, Karmelo Anthony and Luigi Mangione. In fact, one of these viral TikTok videos supporting Rodney Hinton — with more than 20,000 likes — actually brings up Luigi Mangione in this context. Watch: There’s one useful aspect of this TikTok video, which is that it makes the point that this situation isn’t all about race. Luigi Mangione was obviously white, and plenty of people justified his actions too. In fact, as you probably recall, some people who call themselves “conservatives” also justified Luigi Mangione’s actions. And that tells us that we’re witnessing a general breakdown of law and order, on top of the racial violence. Decades of justifying and excusing criminality have led us to a point where people who commit blatant first-degree murder are celebrated, at least if they’re viewed as allies of the political Left. Again: we’ve now had three of these cases in five months. As you continue to hear the high-pitched outrage over Shiloh Hendrix, keep in mind that nothing she did, in any universe, could ever end your life or the life of anyone you care about. The people cheering the execution of an innocent police officer or a CEO or a white high school student at a track meet, on the other hand, are actually dangerous. They’re the ones you should be hearing about, nonstop. They’re the actual threat to you and your family. They’re the ones who are trying to bring about a complete breakdown in law and order. They’re the ones who want racial conflict. And as the execution of this police officer in Cincinnati once again demonstrates, even if they can’t destroy someone like Shiloh Hendrix, they will still do everything in their power to destroy you.

'Terrorist Infrastructure'

'Angry pitbull-adopting lesbians'

'Best-performing economy in the world'

'The United States are put through the wringer with inspections and the foreign sites get off easy'

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. At the end of President Donald Trump’s first 100 days, there were a number of polls that came out. Most of them were liberal and most of them were negative. And as we mentioned and have mentioned in the past, some of them who have a much more reliable history—such as the Rasmussen poll, the Insider Advantage poll, the Trafalgar poll—they all had Donald Trump, at the end of 100 days, with either roughly 50-50 approval ratings or even slightly above that, 48-46, 50-49. But my point is, in one of the daily Rasmussen polls, they had an astonishing figure, that they broke down Donald Trump’s support by ethnic category. And there were 39% of black Americans that expressed support for Donald Trump. That’s an astonishing number. Given that 95% of the news coverage, according to the Media Research Center, has been negative. And yet here is a traditional Democratic constituency where 4 out of 10 people like what’s been going on. But even more astonishing is the ethnic constituency that expressed the highest approval of Donald Trump’s first 100 days was the Hispanic community. In fact, far above the so-called white community. How can that be possible? The Democratic Party had told us that closing the border and stopping the illegal entry of 10 to 12 million illegal aliens during the Biden administration—that was deeply unpopular to the Hispanic community. And then, the deportations of illegal aliens like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, for example, or Eduardo Flores-Ruiz that was in Judge Hannah Dugan’s courtroom, whom she tried to hide. He was the assaulter of three people, including women. This was supposed to be deeply unpopular. But it actually has the opposite effect. And why would that be? The reason is that when 12 million people come in illegally and they gravitate to certain constituencies or enclaves, they usually feel more at home with fellow Spanish-speaking Americans. And where is that? That is along the Rio Grande Valley. That is in Texas. That is in parts of New Mexico. That is in the San Joaquin Valley. What am I getting at? What I’m getting at is that a group of elites in the Biden administration, for particular political purposes—and I’ll be frank here—I think they did want people to come in, both to serve as future constituents under the lax rules and protocols of early and mail-in voting, and also to grow the government and have more constituencies on welfare. But in any case, the price, the cost, the toll fell most heavily on Hispanic communities. These were the ones that were trying to get competitive Advanced Placement programs in their schools. And suddenly they have English as a Second Language programs again. They were the ones at dialysis clinics, at emergency rooms that were swarmed with people who in some cases had never been to a doctor. And so, they bore the greatest brunt of it. They were in cities where the Biden administration flew people in at night from Mexico and then dispersed them in Hispanic communities. And so they were very angry. And why would so-called white people poll much more negatively against Trump’s first 100 days than Hispanics? It’s because the white elite had created an agenda under the Biden and Obama administration that was elitist. By that I mean—let’s face it—Sen. Bernie Sanders had to take out the word “millionaires” from his usual castigation of millionaires and billionaires. And it wasn’t just because he’s a millionaire now. That is the trademark of the professional bicoastal classes. And they’re interested in issues that are not existential—at least not everyday existential. By that I mean global warming, the Green New Deal, transgendered men in women’s sports, international organizations—the U.N. But they’re not interested in what the Hispanic working classes are interested in. And that’s affordable gasoline, affordable power bills, good-paying jobs, schools that allow their children to be competitively educated, safety in their neighborhoods. And the idea that they should have some natural antipathy for illegal aliens just because they share the same language and maybe ethnic background—they don’t. They’re just like anybody else that’s trying to make a living and has been ignored and shunned by the grandees of the Democratic Party. And so, they’re expressing support for an administration that is trying to get affordable energy prices, that is damning the high rise in crime, that is seeking to close the border and secure it, that is calling account the elite universities that gouge the federal government. All of that appeals to people who have to work with their muscles. And many of the Hispanic community, they’re contractors or small business people. Many of them are professionals. But they have a more realistic, as all immigrant communities do, a realistic appraisal of what’s important and what’s peripheral. And right now, the Democratic Party is peripheral to the Hispanic community in general. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post President Trump’s Most Loyal Supporters: The Hispanic Community appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A Colorado state senator appeared to belittle the faith of critics by referring to “trans Jesus” amid debate on HB 25-1312, after he and his party amended the bill beyond recognition in the wee hours of Monday night, two days before the end of the Colorado legislative session. HB 25-1312 drew national scrutiny after a Colorado Democrat compared concerned parents to the Ku Klux Klan. The bill originally mandated courts to consider “deadnaming” and “misgendering” as forms of “coercive control” in custody disputes, meaning that parents who dissent from gender identity could lose their children. Following loud backlash, Senate Democrats substantially altered the measure after it passed the Colorado House of Representatives. “This email says, basically, ‘I’m accountable to almighty God, because I’m standing up for equality, that my decisions, one day, I will stand before him and be accountable,'” state Sen. Chris Kolker, a Democrat and sponsor of the bill, said on Tuesday. “Well, this is what I believe: Have you ever seen that movie ‘Talladega Nights?’ You see that section where they’re talking around the dinner table, and they’re talking about what their favorite version of Jesus is?” he asked. “Baby Jesus, I love baby Jesus. I love Lynyrd Skynyrd Jesus when angels are behind him and the choir is singing and he’s playing ‘Free Bird.'” “Well, on my day of judgment, I might be standing in front of trans Jesus, I don’t know,” Kolker quipped. No, this isn't a parody video.?A Democrat did literally invoke "trans Jesus" on the floor of the Colorado Senate. Yet the legal maneuvering of Chris Kolker and his party in that chamber is even worse.?1/10https://t.co/TbLbjr1hxt pic.twitter.com/jlDQnxIDPI— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 6, 2025 Kolker’s remarks came amid confusion as Republicans and Democrats in the legislature considered the new version of HB 25-1312. “We just asked the House sponsor, and she doesn’t even understand what her bill does anymore,” Rep. Brandi Bradley, a Republican, told The Daily Signal in an interview Tuesday. “So, I’m just trying to wrap my head around it if the sponsor—the original sponsor of the bill—doesn’t even understand what the bill does.” Bradley warned, however, that the bill represents “a worse attack on parental rights.” While the original version of the bill focused on “deadnaming” and “misgendering,” the new version allows minors to change their names on a birth certificate, cutting out parents in some circumstances. The Republican lawmaker claims the change would allow a court-appointed guardian to change a child’s name if the state removed the child from his or her parents’ custody for disagreeing with the child’s transgender identity. “The statute clearly says that a legal representative can now sign,” she noted. “This is outrageous for parents in Colorado. We need to sound the alarms.” “Colorado’s HB 1312 remains an open assault on parent’s rights and free speech,” Kristen Christensen, Colorado state director for the conservative lobbying group Heritage Action, told The Daily Signal. “This legislation still includes school dress code language, adds to the anti-discrimination act, and muddies up legal documents with ‘sex’ changes. Heritage Action will continue the fight against this awful legislation.” Law Enforcement Concerns Bradley noted that the bill also has a specific section allowing “individuals not lawfully present” in the U.S. to amend a sex designation on their identification documents up to three times. She warned that allowing such changes would frustrate law enforcement’s ability to carry out background checks, prevent mortgage brokers from checking a person’s credit, and enable sex offenders to avoid detection. “How do we know that we’re not giving a job to a sex offender?” she asked. “This is horrific for the health care industry, for the mortgage industry, for the gun industry, for public safety,” adding: “How many sex offenders are going to be working with children as teachers? How many health care workers will be going into senior living?” “How do you background-check people if they change their license three times and they’re here illegally?” The bill would also extend Colorado’s legal provisions protecting illegal aliens in certain contexts, and grant them certain benefits. Critics say that makes Colorado a “sanctuary state,” though Centennial State Democrats contest that characterization. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced last month that authorities had arrested more than 100 illegal aliens in a multiagency raid at an “underground nightclub” in Colorado Springs. The U.S. Justice Department recently sued Colorado over “sanctuary” policies. What Will It Cost? Bradley also noted that an earlier version of the bill, which included the driver’s license changes, was projected to cost $14.1 million. When those provisions were removed, the cost dropped to zero. Now, with the provisions brought back, the bill is projected to cost $15,689. “No, give me a break. It’s not true,” she said. “They’re lying.” Neither Kolker nor representatives for the House and Senate Democrats responded to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment. The post Democrat Invokes ‘Trans Jesus’ After Amending Gender Bill Out of Recognition in Middle of Night appeared first on The Daily Signal.

ABC: DoJ Now Investigating 2022 Abrego Garcia Trafficking Stop

A federal judge ruled against the Trump administration and ordered for 12,000 migrants to be allowed entry and resettlement in the U.S. after the government objected to an injunction from a prior ruling. The Trump administration had estimated that the injunction would apply to only about 160 people, but U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead accused them of "interpretative jiggery-pokery" to exempt thousands. 'The government is not free to disobey statutory and constitutional law — and the direct orders of this court and the Ninth Circuit.' The migrants had their travel approved under the United States Refugee Admissions Program, but President Donald Trump ended the program with an executive order when he got into office in January. Whitehead had issued a preliminary injunction against the administration ending the programs, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially ruled against him, saying that the Trump administration had the authority to determine immigration law. The court said that the ruling would not apply to migrants conditionally accepted to travel before the Jan. 20 order. However, since the appeals court did not define what conditional acceptance meant, the government concluded that it only applied to 160 people, while Whitehead said it applied to more than 12,000 people. “It is surprising that there could be any disagreement about the meaning of a judicial order that articulates three specific criteria in plain, straightforward language,” Whitehead wrote after the court clarified three conditions to meet the standard. He also said the government was "hallucinating new text" into the appeals court order. “This court will not entertain the government’s result-oriented rewriting of a judicial order that clearly says what it says,” the judge added. “The government is free, of course, to seek further clarification from the Ninth Circuit. But the government is not free to disobey statutory and constitutional law — and the direct orders of this court and the Ninth Circuit — while it seeks such clarification.”Whitehead issued specific benchmarks that the government needed to meet in the coming weeks to fulfill his order to allow the migrants in question to settle in the U.S. The refugee program was instituted in 1980 and is separate from the immigration policy that allows migrants to seek asylum in the U.S. Judge Whitehead was appointed to the court by former President Joe Biden in 2023.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

After years of lying to the American public that Joe Biden was as “sharp as a tack,” former White House staff and the legacy media are now quietly admitting that our suspicions were right all along — Biden was as sharp as a soap bubble. From former White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain to numerous media voices, the narrative has been corrected. People knew. Former Biden press secretary Jen Psaki just addressed the former president’s mental acuity on a recent episode of Semafor Media’s “Mixed Signals.” Pat Gray plays the clip. “I left in May of 2022 ... and I have seen Biden once since then, when I took my daughter to the holiday party this last December after he had lost. And so I hadn't seen him in person during that period of time. I never saw that person — not a single time, and I was in the Oval Office every day — that was on that debate stage,” Psaki doubled down. “Were things that people saw during that period of time that were similar to that or would have been in a category of that? I don't know. Possibly,” she then caveated. “Were they actively covering it up? Were they sort of in denial? Or was that just a bad debate?” Semafor editor in chief Ben Smith asked. “Cover-up is a very loaded term. ... Cover-up is often, like, a crime,” Psaki said defensively. “People use that term as they relate to Watergate. ... It’s a bit of a dangerous term.” “Yes, this is much worse than that,” says Stu Burguiere, calling “cover-up” an “accurate term.” “Yes, it's the truth. People covered up for him, and they're admitting that now,” agrees Pat. “To me, that borders on treason when you're talking about the chief executive of this country.” However, even if we were to give Psaki’s story the benefit of the doubt, it would still fall flat because “before [Biden] was even elected, he had lost a step (or 12).” “We saw it all during the campaign in 2020,” says Pat. Even back then it was clear that “he was not the same guy he was back in 2008 when he ran.” To hear more of the conversation and see the footage of Psaki’s interview, watch the clip above. 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.