'we are also proud to be a sanctuary city'

The leftists on social media have hilariously caricatured CBS News under new Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss as “CBS Newsmax,” like it’s lurched dramatically to the right. But if you’re monitoring CBS in real life, there’s plenty of evidence that “classic CBS” is still operating. In recent days, CBS has proven to be worse than ABC and NBC in its tilt to the left. A new NewsBusters study of 10 days of evening news coverage of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents after the death of Renee Good found that CBS statements on ICE were 96% negative, compared to 91% on ABC and NBC. On CBS, 26 of the 27 sound bites were critical of (or, more often, outright hostile toward) ICE. Both ABC and NBC aired 21 such sound bites, versus each offering only two that were positive. CBS never explicitly admitted that Good hit ICE agent Jonathan Ross with her car moments before he fired at her. ABC and NBC did so only once each. CBS reporter Nicole Sganga even described this event as the “murder” of Good, despite no charges being filed yet. When it came to Sunday’s invasive leftist protest at an evangelical church in Minneapolis, none of the networks wanted to pay much attention. But CBS only gave it 13 seconds (before any arrests), while NBC aired 99 seconds, in part because NBC’s Maggie Vespa offered a platform to protest leader Nekima Armstrong. On Sunday night, Sharyn Alfonsi’s crusading leftist “60 Minutes” report against President Donald Trump deporting some illegal aliens to a “notorious” prison in El Salvador aired without a single edit—although there was window dressing offering some Trump comment surrounding the segment. The elitist media treated a delay of Alfonsi’s segment as Democracy Dying in Darkness, so maybe that’s why it was aired in its propagandistic entirety. There are some examples of a better CBS—Minnesota-based Jonah Kaplan is the only broadcast TV reporter explaining the massive Somali fraud in that state. New “Evening News” anchor Tony Dokoupil’s interview in Detroit with Trump was firm but respectful. The “CBS Newsmax” scolds would prefer classic CBS, where Dan Rather yelled at George H.W. Bush about ruining America in the eyes of the world. Later, Rather’s interviews would basically kiss the Clintons on both cheeks. Everyone knows the entrenched leftists at CBS mock Weiss for having no experience in TV news and making some rookie mistakes. But none of these “CBS Newsmax” people objected when NPR hired Katherine Maher, a CEO with no newsroom experience and a pile of crazy anti-Trump tweets. The issue isn’t the experience on your resume—it’s the perceived ideological tilt. So there is a rash of panicky stories quoting anonymous leftists inside the network—the ones who don’t care about staying in third place for decades as long as they’re airing their rages—describing Weiss and Dokoupil’s arrival as a complete disaster. The Ringer literally cartooned Weiss’ CBS as “pancaked, Wile E. Coyote-style, against the side of the mountain.” Variety’s CBS sources described the network being on the verge of “a death spiral” that is “hard to reverse.” In real life, in 1980, Walter Cronkite’s “CBS Evening News” ruled the roost with 53 million viewers. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the same show under John Dickerson and Maurice Dubois drew 4 million viewers. A lot of that dramatic decline is the changing nature of media consumption. But don’t miss that in that fourth quarter, ABC’s “World News Tonight” drew 7.8 million viewers to CBS’s 4 million—almost two to one. Apparently, the classic CBS types aren’t unhappy with that in any way. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal The post In Real Life, There’s No New ‘CBS Newsmax’ Under Bari Weiss appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Narrative™ Is Being Set on Minneapolis Shooting; Trump: INSURRECTION

Pennsylvania Dairy Farmers Celebrate the Whole Milk Act

On Friday, prominent politicians and religious leaders joined thousands of people gathered in the cold as they marched for the most basic of civil rights. However, for the Friday evening and Saturday morning news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, the 53rd annual March for Life in Washington might as well have not even happened, as they devoted no time to it. Instead, they continued to hype anti-ICE protests in Minnesota. Continuing with the Friday theme of tying the protests in with the case of 5-year-old Liam Ramos, who was taken by ICE after he was abandoned by his father and not claimed by his mother despite ICE's promises she would not be taken into custody, CBS Saturday Morning co-anchor Adriana Diaz introduced reporter Nicole Sganga, “Tensions are rising in Minnesota after ICE agents detained a five-year-old boy in Minneapolis on Tuesday. We're told he's being held with his father, but this image of Liam Ramos and his Spider-Man backpack surrounded by ICE agents around his home has people asking a lot of questions. The family’s lawyer and school say the boy was used by ICE as quote “bait,” but the Department of Homeland Security calls that “a horrific smear.” Nicole Sganga is in Minneapolis with more.” Sganga began her report by highlighting how, “Thousands braved subfreezing temperature in the Twin Cities to protest ICE with businesses declaring Blackout Friday. Dozens of clergy were arrested in demonstrations outside of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.”   The networks continued to hype anti-ICE protests in Minnesota on Saturday, but all continued to act as if the March for Life didn't happen. pic.twitter.com/FbfvargJFE — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) January 24, 2026   As the media loves to cite religious leaders, including Catholic cardinals, to go after the Trump administration, Pope Leo’s address to the March for Life was considered far less interesting even though Trump sent in a video message and Vice President JD Vance addressed the crowd in person. Back on NBC, Today co-anchor Laura Jarrett hyped another development coming out of Minnesota, “But we’re going to turn now to some other breaking news out of Minnesota, where those protests have raged for weeks after the fatal shooting of a woman who was protesting ICE raids there. Now an FBI agent involved in the investigation into that shooting has stepped down. NBC's Camila Bernal is in Minneapolis with the very latest. Camila, good morning.” After reporting how this FBI agent didn’t approve of the investigation being “focused more on Renee Good and her partner and their actions instead of the officer in this case,” Bernal turned to the protests, “This as the largest protest since this shooting took place in the city with thousands of people out in freezing temperatures. And their message is they want ICE out of this city. They do not want to see detention of people in their neighborhoods and especially not the detention of children. One of the school districts in this area said at least four children were detained this week. Here's some reaction from one of the protesters.” The protestor was then shown wondering, “What is wrong with you? That you would do that to a child?...It just fills me with sadness for the children, for the families.” NBC not covering the March for Life while covering left-wing alternatives is not new. In 2024, they skipped the pro-lifers in order to cover pro-abortion high school activists. Meanwhile, over on ABC’s Good Morning America, co-host Whit Johnson was more matter-of-fact, “We do move on now to Minneapolis, a massive anti-ICE protest in subfreezing conditions. Thousands of people filling the streets in what organizers called a no work, no school, no shopping blackout. Hundreds of businesses closing for the day and some museums also shutting their doors, the action coming two weeks after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good in her car in Minneapolis.” Due to the weather or pre-scheduled teacher workdays, several Minnesota schools were already closed, but when you decide to cover one side’s protest but not the other, such details tend to just get in the way. Here are transcripts for the January 24 shows: ABC Good Morning America 1/24/2026 7:11 AM ET WHIT JOHNSON: We do move on now to Minneapolis, a massive anti-ICE protest in subfreezing conditions. Thousands of people filling the streets in what organizers called a no work, no school, no shopping blackout. Hundreds of businesses closing for the day and some museums also shutting their doors, the action coming two weeks after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good in her car in Minneapolis. *** CBS Saturday Morning 1/24/2026 8:21 AM ET ADRIANA DIAZ: Tensions are rising in Minnesota after ICE agents detained a five-year-old boy in Minneapolis on Tuesday. We're told he's being held with his father, but this image of Liam Ramos and his Spider-Man backpack surrounded by ICE agents around his home has people asking a lot of questions. The family’s lawyer and school say the boy was used by ICE as quote “bait,” but the Department of Homeland Security calls that “a horrific smear.” Nicole Sganga is in Minneapolis with more. NICOLE SGANGA: Thousands braved subfreezing temperature in the Twin Cities to protest ICE with businesses declaring Blackout Friday. Dozens of clergy were arrested in demonstrations outside of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. *** NBC Today 1/24/2026 7:13 AM ET LAURA JARRETT: But we’re going to turn now to some other breaking news out of Minnesota, where those protests have raged for weeks after the fatal shooting of a woman who was protesting ICE raids there. Now an FBI agent involved in the investigation into that shooting has stepped down. NBC's Camila Bernal is in Minneapolis with the very latest. Camila, good morning. CAMILA BERNAL: Hey, Laura, good morning. So, we now know this FBI agent was a supervisor here in the Minneapolis office and resigned because this investigation was focused more on Renee Good and her partner and their actions instead of the officer in this case. This as the largest protest since this shooting took place in the city with thousands of people out in freezing temperatures. And their message is they want ICE out of this city. They do not want to see detention of people in their neighborhoods and especially not the detention of children. One of the school districts in this area said at least four children were detained this week. Here's some reaction from one of the protesters. PROTESTOR: What is wrong with you? That you would do that to a child? [jump cut] It just fills me with sadness for the children, for the families.

If you are a big fan of English Muffins, this is the bread for you! It is absolutely delicious! ❤️WHY WE LOVE THIS RECIPE We have always been big fans of our Homemade English Muffins and thought bread might be delicious. We were right, it is wonderful, especially toasted with butter and jelly. This recipe...

The Supreme Court’s latest delay in its tariff case is fueling speculation that justices are trying to craft a behind-the-scenes compromise to avoid market shock — even if it means quietly curbing presidential trade authority.But Daniel Horowitz explains that the tariff ruling may be less important than the remedy itself, especially as another crisis tightens its grip on Americans: a frozen, inflated housing market that government policy continues to prop up instead of letting it reset.“I think what they’re trying to do is two things. ... One is, they want to do it with as little disruption as possible. So they’re trying to think how that remedy works. And number two, I think particularly maybe for Thomas and Alito, they’re trying to figure out how not to get involved in a political question,” Horowitz tells BlazeTV host Steve Deace on the “Steve Deace Show.”“And that’s really where I am. As you well know, I don’t believe the court should ever be the arbiter of a fundamental political disagreement. If it’s a problem, Congress should oppose and deal with it,” he continues.Trump has also announced his plan to go after residential homes being bought up by global corporations like BlackRock, which sounds great to everyday Americans, but Horowitz believes the solution is even simpler.“It was announced, no more, you know, BlackRock owning of homes, residential, you know, mass production of, or acquisition, I should say, of residential homes, things of that nature,” Deace says.“This is a primary thing that the young male demographic that voted our way in the last election cares about. It’s a primary driver of the current situation in the economy. Not to mention the fact it’s the greatest source for individual liquidation that exists right now to the average American,” he continues.“We’re sitting on all this liquid that could go back into the economy if we can get the housing market moving. What should they be doing, do you think?” Deace asks.“Very simple. Let the bubble pop. And I know it sounds very simplistic, but it’s something that they refuse to do, and everything that they’re proposing will further fuel it. Corporate ownership is a symptom of the problem, not the problem,” Horowitz responds.“The president needs to be honest with people. The biggest problem with the president economically is he doesn’t understand the mutual exclusivity of things. So, he wants insurance to cover everything, but he wants premiums to go down, right? He wants the welfare state, but he doesn’t want inflation. He wants seniors to have a checking account in the form of fake housing on unrealized gains, but he wants young people to be able to afford them,” he continues.“If you want to actually get the economy back to what we all said we did, which is a broad-based income economy rather than an asset bubble, you’ve got to pull the plugs on all the things doing this. And it’s the exact opposite of what the president is saying,” he adds.Want more from Steve Deace?To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

As President Trump proposes a ceasefire-in-place to stop the meat grinder in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin appears to be doing what he does best: stalling. With the U.S. busy juggling Iran, Venezuela, and even Greenland, Putin likely figures he can drag this war out long enough to wear Ukraine down and force a surrender through attrition.Meanwhile Volodymyr Zelenskyy is brooding over not getting Tomahawk cruise missiles — weapons that could strike deep inside Russia.The goal is irritation, disruption, and humiliation — repeated so often that people start cursing the Kremlin for creating this mess.But instead of fixating on Tomahawks, Zelenskyy should look at the position Putin is now in. It has a historical parallel worth taking seriously.Putin resembles Czar Nicholas II in 1917.In both cases, Russian treasure has poured into a black hole while generals kept ordering “meat attacks” that chewed through manpower by the hundreds of thousands. In 1917, the loss of blood and money turned the nobility against the czar and set the stage for the Kerensky Revolution.Putin’s oligarchs now sit where the czar’s nobility once sat: close enough to power to profit and close enough to disaster to panic.Ukraine should exploit that.A weapon of mass disruptionThe goal shouldn’t be a dramatic strike that makes Russians rally around “Mother Russia.” A Tomahawk barrage would do exactly that. It would unify the country behind Putin and hand him the cleanest propaganda gift imaginable.Ukraine needs something else: a way to transfer the misery and frustration of war to the Russian public — especially in Moscow and other major cities — without creating a patriotic surge.Russia’s population is insulated by propaganda. Ukraine should attack the insulation, not the borders.Winter brings slower movement and fewer offensives. That gives Ukraine an opening to run a low-cost, high-annoyance campaign modeled on a little-remembered British operation from World War II.RELATED: Pressed on Greenland, Trump tells Davos the US has weapons he ‘can’t even talk about’ Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesThe British Royal Navy called it Operation Outward. Today strategists would call it a “cost-imposing” campaign: something cheap to launch that forces the enemy to spend far more to stop it.The Royal Navy released nearly 100,000 weather balloons. About half carried incendiary bomblets. The rest dragged long wire strands designed to short out power lines and cause disruption across the German electrical grid. German forces had to waste time and resources trying to counter a swarm of cheap devices drifting across their territory.Because winds in the northern hemisphere generally move west to east, the Germans couldn’t retaliate in kind.(The Japanese later tried something similar against the United States with the Fu-Go balloons, launching roughly 9,300 of them toward the U.S. and Canada. They forced America to divert resources even though the overall damage remained limited.)Ukraine’s geography makes this concept even more attractive. Ukraine sits southwest of Russia. That means a balloon campaign drifting into western Russia would give Moscow no easy, low-cost way to respond with the same trick.And unlike the World War II version, Ukraine wouldn’t need incendiaries. The point isn’t to burn Russian cities or kill civilians. The last thing Ukraine needs is to create martyrs and rally Russians around Putin.The goal is irritation, disruption, and humiliation — repeated so often that people start cursing the Kremlin for creating this mess.The cost mathPeter Rosato of Kaymont Consolidated Industries, a major weather balloon manufacturer, estimates that an eight-foot diameter balloon costs about $5 to $7. A hydrogen generator could inflate them for only pennies more.Using the British model, the balloon could carry a simple ballast mechanism that slowly lowers it while trailing a long tether: roughly 700 feet of hemp cord, tied to a thinner steel wire around 300 feet long. That wire drags across power infrastructure and can short out lines, forcing repairs and outages.The British saw real success disrupting the German electrical grid. They also forced the Nazis to waste valuable fighter flight hours trying to shoot down balloons — an expensive response to a cheap threat.Ukraine could buy 100,000 balloons at roughly $5 each and — even after adding wire and other components — build a unit for under $1 million.Unlike the British, Ukraine also wouldn’t need the same complex altitude-control system used to guide balloons across the English Channel, France, and the Low Countries into Germany. A long, contiguous border allows Ukrainian launches to drift into Russian territory without the same navigation demands.To improve the results, Ukraine could tweak the design. A better unreeling mechanism might outperform a simple trailing wire. A Ukrainian electrical grid specialist and a meteorologist familiar with conditions in the northeastern border region near Shostka could help optimize launch times for maximum impact.Make it a war Russians can’t ignoreThis isn’t just disruption. It’s information warfare.The point is not only to knock out power lines but to make the disruption visible — balloons everywhere across western Russia, especially near Moscow — as proof that Putin cannot protect his own people from the consequences of his war.Modern realities require modern execution. Ukraine couldn’t run this from fixed-launch sites. Russian reconnaissance drones would find them, and artillery or kamikaze drones would destroy them.The operation would need to move.A vehicle-borne launch system makes the most sense: military trucks large enough to carry inflated eight-foot balloons, gas tanks, uninflated balloons, payloads, communications gear, a generator, and basic workshop tools.And for safety, Ukraine would likely need to use helium instead of hydrogen. Hydrogen is cheaper, but the risk of accidental detonation inside a truck is too high.RELATED: The fastest way to stop Iran’s killers ... without firing a single shot Antonina Satrevica / Getty ImagesNight launches would also matter. To avoid detection, the trucks and equipment would need to be compatible with night-vision operations.Now picture the outcome.Imagine 1,000 yellow-and-blue balloons drifting into Russia every day, dragging wires across electrical lines.Imagine the manpower, equipment, and aircraft Russia would have to divert from the front to hunt them down — at night — every night — for the next hundred nights.And for the final touch, imagine the optics when Russian crews find one of these balloons in daylight, wires draped across a shorted power line, with a huge portrait of Vladimir Putin half-naked on a horse and the Russian phrase for “I did that!”That kind of mockery lands differently when you’re freezing in the dark because of Putin’s war.Ukraine doesn’t need Tomahawks to hit Russia where it hurts. It needs a cheap, persistent campaign that turns irritation into anger — and turns anger into political pressure on the regime that started this catastrophe.

In 1968, Mary Bell of Newcastle, England was only 10 years old when she strangled her first victim, a four-year-old named Martin Brown, then left haunting confession notes for his family. Two months later, Bell killed and mutilated a three-year-old named Brian Howe. Meanwhile, she tried to strangle several other children and made it clear in her notes that she wanted to keep killing. She wasn’t able to, however, after police quickly apprehended her. Having committed her crimes at a shockingly young age, Mary Bell was still just 23 years old when she was released from prison after serving a 12-year sentence for the two killings. Ever since, she’s walked free. This is the disturbing story of Mary Bell. Mary Bell’s Harsh Upbringing Before The Murders Public DomainIn December 1968, 11-year-old Mary Bell was convicted of strangling two boys to death in the Scotswood suburb of Newcastle upon Tyne, England. Mary Flora Bell was born on May 26, 1957, to Betty McCrickett, a 16-year-old sex worker who reportedly told doctors to “take that thing away from me” when she saw her daughter. Things went downhill from there. McCrickett was often away from home on “business” trips to Glasgow — but her absences were periods of respite for the young Mary, who was subject to mental and physical abuse when her mother was present. McCrickett’s sister witnessed her trying to give Mary away to a woman who had been unsuccessfully trying to adopt; the sister quickly recovered Mary herself. Mary was also strangely accident-prone; she once “fell” from a window, and she “accidentally” overdosed on sleeping pills on another occasion. Some attribute the accidents to Betty’s determination to rid herself of an encumbrance, while others see the symptoms of Munchausen syndrome by proxy; Betty longed for the attention and sympathy her daughter’s accidents brought her. According to later accounts given by Mary Bell herself, her mother began to use her for sex work when she was just four years old — though this remains uncorroborated by family members. They did know, however, that Mary’s young life had already been marked by loss: she had seen her five-year-old friend run over and killed by a bus. Given all that had happened, it did not surprise them that by age 10, Mary Bell had become a strange child, withdrawn and manipulative, always hovering on the edge of violence. But there was a lot they didn’t know. A Growing Obsession With Death — And Her First Murder Evening Standard/Hulton Archive/Getty ImagesMary Flora Bell, pictured nearly 10 years after she was sentenced to life in prison for the murders of Martin Brown and Brian Howe. For weeks before her first murder, Mary Bell had been acting strangely. On May 11, 1968, Mary had been playing with a three-year-old boy when he was badly injured in a fall from the top of an air-raid shelter; his parents thought it was an accident. The following day, three mothers came forward to tell police that Mary had attempted to choke their young daughters. A brief police interview and a lecture resulted — but no charges were filed. Then on May 25, the day before she turned 11, Mary Bell strangled four-year-old Martin Brown to death in an abandoned house in Scotswood, England. She left the scene and returned with a friend, Norma Bell (no relation), to find they’d been beaten there by two local boys who had been playing in the house and stumbled upon the body. Police were mystified. Besides a bit of blood and saliva on the victim’s face, there were no apparent signs of violence. There was, however, an empty bottle of painkillers on the floor near the body. Without further clues, police assumed Martin Brown had swallowed the pills. They ruled his death an accident. Then, days after Martin’s death, Mary Bell appeared on the Browns’ doorstep and asked to see him. His mother gently explained that Martin was dead, but Mary said she already knew that; she wanted to see his body in the coffin. Martin’s mother slammed the door in her face. Shortly after, Mary and her friend Norma broke into a nursery school and vandalized it with notes taking responsibility for Martin Brown’s death and promising to kill again. Police assumed the notes were a morbid prank. For the nursery school, this was just the latest and most disturbing in a series of break-ins; they wearily installed an alarm system. Public DomainNotes left by Mary and Norma Bell proclaiming their motives. Several nights later, both Mary and Norma were caught at the school — but as they were simply loitering outside when the police arrived, they were let off the hook. In the meantime, Mary Bell was telling her fellow classmates that she had killed Martin Brown. Her reputation as a show-off and a liar prevented anyone from taking her claims seriously. That is, until another young boy turned up dead. The Grisly Killing Of Brian Howe Public DomainBefore she was caught, Mary Bell was referred to in the press as “The Tyneside Strangler.” On July 31, two months after the first murder, Mary Bell and her friend Norma killed three-year-old Brian Howe by strangulation. This time, Bell mutilated the body with scissors, scratching his thighs and butchering his penis. When Brian’s sister went looking for him, Mary and Norma offered to help; they searched the neighborhood, and Mary even pointed out the concrete blocks that hid his body. But Norma said he wouldn’t be there, and Brian’s sister moved on. When Brian’s body was finally found, the neighborhood panicked: two little boys were now dead. Police interviewed local children, hoping someone had seen something that would lead to a suspect. They were shocked when the coroner’s report returned: as Brian’s blood had cooled, new marks appeared on his chest — someone had used a razor blade to scratch the letter “M” onto his torso. And there was another disturbing note: the lack of force in the attack suggested Brian’s killer might have been a child. Mary and Norma did a poor job of disguising their interest in the investigation in their interviews with the police. Norma was excited and Mary evasive, especially when police pointed out that she had been seen with Brian Howe on the day of his death. On the day of Brian’s burial, Mary was spotted lurking outside his house; she even laughed and rubbed her hands together when she saw his coffin. They called her back for a second interview, and Mary, perhaps sensing investigators were closing in, made up a story about having seen an eight-year-old boy hit Brian on the day he died. The boy, she said, had been carrying a pair of broken scissors. That was Mary Bell’s big mistake: the mutilation of the body with scissors had been kept from the press and the public. It was a detail known only to investigators and one other person: Brian’s murderer. Both Norma and Mary broke down under further questioning. Norma began cooperating with police and implicated Mary, who herself admitted to being present during Brian Howe’s murder but tried to place the blame on Norma. Both girls were charged, and a trial date was set. The Trial of Mary And Norma Bell Hulton Archive/Getty ImagesChild murderer Mary Flora Bell aged 16, circa 1973. At the trial, the prosecutor told the court that Mary Bell’s reason for committing the murders was “solely for the pleasure and excitement of killing.” Meanwhile, the British press referred to the child murderer as “evil born.” The jury agreed that Mary Bell had committed the murders and handed down a guilty verdict in December. Manslaughter, not murder, was the conviction, as court psychiatrists had convinced the jury that Mary Bell showed “classic symptoms of psychopathy” and could not be held fully responsible for her actions. Norma Bell was regarded as an unwilling accomplice who had fallen under a bad influence. She was acquitted. The judge concluded that Mary was a dangerous person and a serious threat to other children. She was sentenced to be imprisoned “at Her Majesty’s pleasure,” a British legal term that denotes an indeterminate sentence. What Happened After The Murders And Where Is Mary Bell Now Apparently, the powers that be were impressed with Mary Bell’s treatment and rehabilitation after 12 years, and they let her out in 1980. She was released on license, which meant that she was technically still serving her sentence but was able to do so while living in the community under strict probation. Mary Bell was given a new identity to provide her with a chance at a new life and protect her from tabloid attention. Even still, she was forced to move several times to escape hounding by tabloids, newspapers, and the general public, which somehow always found ways of tracking her down. Things grew worse for Bell after she had her daughter in 1984. Bell’s daughter didn’t know about her mother’s crimes until she was 14 and a tabloid paper found Bell’s common-law husband to track them both down. Soon, a slew of journalists surrounded her house and camped out in front of it. The family had to escape their home with bedsheets over their heads. Today, Mary Bell is in protective custody at a secret address. Both she and her daughter remain anonymous and are protected under court order. Still, along with the likes of Myra Hindley and Joanna Dennehy, she remains among the most infamous female killers in the modern history of the UK. Some feel she doesn’t deserve the protection. June Richardson, the mother of Martin Brown, told the media, “It’s all about her and how she has to be protected. As victims we are not given the same rights as killers.” Indeed, Mary Bell remains protected by the British government today, and court rulings protecting the identities of certain convicts are even unofficially referred to as “Mary Bell orders.” After learning about Mary Bell and the gruesome murders she committed as a child, read the story of the teenage serial killer Harvey Robinson. Then, have a look at some of the most chilling serial killer quotes. The post The Chilling Story Of Mary Bell, The 10-Year-Old Murderer Who Strangled Two Boys appeared first on All That's Interesting.

TwitterCanadian wrestler Owen Hart, who tragically died in a dramatic fall at the age of just 34. On May 23, 1999, Canadian wrestler Owen Hart, known by his stage name The Blue Blazer, fell to his death off-camera during a pay-per-view event as he prepared to make a stunt entrance from the rafters of the Kemper Arena in Kansas City, Missouri. The next evening, wrestling fans tuned in to an atypically somber, quiet episode of Raw is War. Rather than being greeted with WWE’s (then WWF) usual in-your-face pyrotechnics and high-energy aggression, viewers saw almost the entire roster of WWE wrestlers in grief, gathered together on the entrance ramp for a 10-bell salute. The night of Owen Hart’s death was one that changed wrestling forever. According to Sports Illustrated, announcer Jim Ross addressed the audience directly, promising 10 matches for the evening as well as “the candid and very, very real sentiments” of the WWE stars who worked alongside Owen Hart. The typical bombast of professional wrestling had, for a moment, faded away, revealing that beneath the makeup and flashy suits, the people performing outrageous stunts on television were still very much human. This is the story of Owen Hart, his devastating death, and the legacy he left behind. Owen Hart: Born To Wrestle The Hart wrestling family, or the Hart Dynasty, had been a name long known in the wrestling world by the time Owen James Hart was born on May 7, 1965. His parents, Stu and Helen Hart, were the owners and operators of Stampede Wrestling, and Stu had been an amateur and professional wrestler for years himself. Together, Stu and Helen had 12 children, eight of whom were boys. Owen Hart was the youngest. TwitterHelen and Stu Hart, the heads of the Hart wrestling family. Given their upbringing, it’s not surprising that at least some of the Hart children would find their way into the wrestling world. In fact, all eight of the Hart sons would go on to become wrestlers. But it was Bret and Owen who would rise to considerable fame inside the World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment). Owen Hart got his start wrestling in high school and continued the sport into college at the University of Calgary. However, as his wife Martha would later explain in her book Broken Harts, her husband didn’t initially intend for wrestling to be his career. But as fate would have it, nothing else quite panned out for him, and he found himself training with his father in the famed “Hart Dungeon.” By 1987, Owen Hart was one of the hottest up-and-comers in wrestling, and Pro Wrestling Illustrated named him Rookie of the Year. The Rise Of The Blue Blazer Not long after, Hart joined Vince McMahon’s WWE as the Blue Blazer. The Blue Blazer wore a mask and was a sort of superhero of the wrestling mythos during a time when wrestling very much revolved around “heroes” and “villains.” Unfortunately, matches were set up so that the Blue Blazer beat other newcomers with relatively little trouble but was relegated to defeat against wrestling’s biggest stars. In 1989, Hart wound up leaving the WWE after a match against Mr. Perfect, who, in the eyes of McMahon, had more star power. The Blue Blazer lost the match and subsequently abandoned the company, opting instead to participate in competitions around the world. TwitterOwen Hart with fellow High Energy team member, Koko B. Ware. In 1993, however, Owen Hart would return to the WWE, wrestling alongside his brothers Keith, Bruce, and Bret in a match against Shawn Michaels and the Knights. And to great surprise, the match ended with Owen being the only member of his family to be eliminated — before re-entering the ring to confront Bret, kicking off a family feud that would become the focal point of his career. The Hart Brothers’ Rivalry Became One Of The Greatest Wrestling Stories Of All Time In November 1993, Bret Hart was the top babyface in the WWE. A former WWE champion, Bret suggested a year-long narrative that would see him facing off in a sibling rivalry against his brother Owen. Beginning with Survivor Series 1993, in which the four Hart brothers squared off against Shawn Michaels and the Knights, the captivating saga would see Owen Hart transform from a masked superhero to an embittered villain. TwitterOwen Hart and Bret Hart with Ric Flair, considered one of the greatest wrestlers of all time. In January 1994, Owen and Bret teamed up once again, this time for a Tag Team Championship match against the Quebecers. During the match, Bret sustained an injury to his knee but would not tag Owen in. Eventually, with Bret unable to continue and Owen stuck on the sidelines, the referee called the match in favor of the Quebecers. Frustrated, Owen kicked Bret’s leg out from beneath him and stormed out of the ring. The brothers eventually settled the score at WrestleMania X when they went toe-to-toe in the ring. The match ended with Owen Hart victorious over his brother in his greatest career win to date. From Owen Hart Went From Hero To Villain And Back Again Over the course of the next two years, the Harts continued to face off against one another, with Owen officially making the transition from hero to villain. Owen Hart eventually teamed up with fellow villain Yokozuna to win a tag team championship match against the Smoking Guns and joined the villainous WWE faction “Camp Cornette,” solidifying himself as one of the top villains in the company. TwitterOwen Hart and Yokozuna in their championship tag team match against the Smoking Gunns. Owen Hart quickly established a new rivalry in the company with Shawn Michaels, the Heartbreak Kid. Hart bested Michaels in a November 1995 match and frequently reminded fans that he had been the one who sidelined the Heartbreak Kid. But in February 1996, Michaels struck back with a vengeance and scored a win against Hart, putting an end to their rivalry. Hart’s villainous streak in WWE continued for another year until Owen once again reunited with his brother Bret, this time to re-establish the Hart Foundation, which would become the most hated act on any U.S. WWE show. This hatred, however, was a boon to the WWE, as the Hart Foundation made for excellent villains and kept fans coming back for more. But by 1999, Owen Hart was tired of playing the villain and decided to make a comeback as the Blue Blazer. Of course, wrestling had changed by then, and his heroic costume seemed like a gimmicky callback to a bygone era of the sport. Hart, to his credit, leaned heavily into the gimmick, turning a cringeworthy revival into an endearing and entertaining performance. Unfortunately, the Blue Blazer’s over-the-top showmanship led Hart to attempt the stunt that ultimately led to his death. How Owen Hart Died And What Caused It Roughly 75 minutes into a WWE pay-per-view event at Kemper Arena in Kansas City, Missouri, Owen Hart prepared to descend from the arena rafters as his match was introduced. Hart had performed the stunt before. He was to be hooked to a cable and lowered into the ring. Instead, witnesses in attendance saw Hart fall 78 feet and hit his head. At first, fans thought it was part of the act. They quickly discovered that it wasn’t. TwitterShortly before his death, Owen Hart had told a magazine that he planned to retire when his contract ended. “We thought it was a doll at first,” 15-year-old fan Robert McCome told CNN. “We thought they were just playing with us. We were really shocked when we found out that it was no joke.” Some witnesses reported seeing the cable snap, while others said it seemed as if Hart had never even been hooked in the first place. Some said they saw Hart’s head snap backward when he smacked against one of the ring’s padded turnbuckles. Medics rushed into the ring to perform CPR on Hart before he was transferred to Truman Medical Center in Kansas City, where he was pronounced dead. He was 34 years old. “I didn’t see it, but from what I can gather, somebody slipped up,” Stu Hart said. “You don’t get up 60 or 70 feet in the air without being properly anchored down. I haven’t talked to Vince McMahon yet, but somebody was careless or missed something or else Owen would still be here.” A subsequent investigation into the accident determined that a subtle movement may have triggered his quick-release harness to unhitch. Still, whatever the cause, the result was the same: WWE start Owen Hart had died, just a couple of years before he planned to retire. As WWE’s president Vince McMahon said, Owen Hart’s death was “the worst thing to ever happen in the business, to the nicest guy who ever was in the business.” To this day, he is remembered as one of the company’s all-time best wrestlers and performers. For more stories from the world of wrestling, read about Abraham Lincoln’s surprising career as a wrestling champion. Or, read about the death of Chris Benoit, the WWE star who killed his family and then himself. The post Inside The Tragic Death Of Owen Hart, The Wrestling Star Who Fell 78 Feet During A Live Event appeared first on All That's Interesting.