Prosecutors have charged Elias Rodriguez with federal and local counts related to a terror attack in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday evening. Rodriguez, 31, allegedly shot and killed Israeli Yaron Lischinsky, 30, and American Sarah Lynn Milgrim, 26, outside an event for Jewish professionals at the Capital Jewish Museum. The victims were soon to be engaged and were members of the Israeli Embassy staff. The suspect will face three federal counts: murder of foreign officials, causing the death of a person through the use of a firearm, and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence. He has also been charged with two counts of first degree murder, according to an FBI affidavit. Rodriguez admitted to killing the young couple to police, according to the FBI. “[Rodriguez] spontaneously stated on scene to MPD, ‘I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza, I am unarmed.’ [Rodriguez] was holding a red scarf identified by one witness as a ‘Kaffiyeh.’ As MPD officers were escorting [Rodriguez] from the Museum, he shouted ‘Free Palestine,’” the affidavit says. Rodriguez walked past the couple and several others before turning around, pulling a gun from his waistband, and shooting Lischinsky and Milgrim in their backs, the affidavit says. Milgrim attempted to crawl away before she was shot several more times. “Once the decedents fell to the ground, [Rodriguez] is captured on the video advancing closer to the decedents, leaning over with them with his arm extended, and firing several more times. As [Milgrim] attempted to crawl away from [Rodriguez], he followed behind her and fired again. After a brief moment, [Rodriguez] appeared to reload his firearm. At the same time, [Milgrim] sat up. Once he reloaded, [Rodriguez] fired several times at [Milgrim],” the affidavit says. Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Washington Jeanine Pirro condemned the shooting as a “horrific crime” and said that more charges against Rodriguez may be coming. “Violence against anyone based on their religion is an act of cowardice. It is not the act of a hero. It is the kind of case that we will vigorously pursue,” Pirro said at a Thursday press conference. “Antisemitism will not be tolerated, especially in the nation’s capital. We are going to continue to investigate this as a hate crime and a crime of terrorism and we will add additional charges as the evidence warrants.”

New polling shows Georgia Republican Rep. Mike Collins within “striking distance” of incumbent Democrat Sen. Jon Ossoff in a hypothetical matchup for one of the Senate seats representing the Peach State. The Cygnal poll, conducted from May 15 to May 17 among 800 likely voters, found Ossoff leading Collins 45.7% to 43.3%—well within the survey’s 3.41 percentage point margin of error. ??NEW POLL: @MikeCollinsGA within striking distance of Jon Ossoff in latest #GASEN poll. Has highest level of definite support among Republicans. #gapol pic.twitter.com/FO0MvDD8gS— Corbin Keown (@keown_corbin) May 22, 2025 The poll is more good news for Collins, 47, a second-term lawmaker who also garnered the most support in recent testing by the Trafalgar Group among four potential Republican candidates in a Senate primary in Georgia.  The remarkably strong polling comes despite the fact that Collins has not even formally entered the 2026 race. Ossoff, a liberal Democrat in his first term, is seen as vulnerable in a state that boasts both a Republican-majority state General Assembly and a popular Republican governor. Gov. Brian Kemp announced May 5 that he would not seek the Senate seat. “Mike was able to get two bills signed into law under two presidents, under two parties, in two years,” a source familiar with the race told The Daily Signal, adding, “He’s a workhorse. You can’t stop him, and the state of Georgia has recognized that, too.” As a freshman congressman, Collins sponsored the TRANQ Act, which was signed into law by President Joe Biden in December 2023. The legislation directed the National Institute of Standards and Technology to support research on xylazine, which is a nonopioid tranquilizer drug, and other synthetic opioids. When xylazine is mixed with fentanyl, it has grisly effects, including creating wounds that refuse to heal, which has earned it the street moniker of the “zombie drug.” The move came as drug overdose deaths in the U.S. have skyrocketed over the past two decades. The bill’s passage made Collins the first freshman member of the 118th Congress to have legislation signed into law.  Collins was also the sponsor of the Laken Riley Act. That bill, which was signed into law by President Donald Trump in January, requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain illegal aliens “who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.” The legislation was named after Laken Riley, an Augusta University nursing student who was killed by an illegal alien while she was out jogging on Feb. 22, 2024. Collins graduated in 1990 from Georgia State University, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in business. He subsequently ran a trucking company employing more than 100 people and became chairman of one of Georgia’s largest credit unions. Public service runs in Collins’ family. His father was Republican Rep. Mac Collins, who represented Georgia’s 3rd and then 8th Congressional Districts from 1993 to 2005. The post GOP Rep. Collins Within Striking Distance of Democrat Sen. Ossoff in Georgia, Poll Finds appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A leftist terrorist attack in Washington, D.C., leaves two dead. Secretary of State Marco Rubio hits the House of Representatives. More on the assault charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., and the Biden cover-up scandal. The House of Representatives passes Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget bill by the narrowest of margins. Army Lt. Col. Jim Whaley of Mission Roll Call joins us to talk about what President Donald Trump is doing for the troops. Subscribe to “The Tony Kinnett Cast” and never miss an episode. “The Tony Kinnett Cast” is a product of The Daily Signal, produced by Nick Alvarado, Daniel Elmore, Allison Lemons, and Lou Scataglia. The post WATCH: The Rallying Cry Crippling the Democrats appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Somewhere deep in the bowels of Lionsgate’s marketing division, a whiteboard probably reads: “No negativity until after we’ve sold the tickets.” That’s the working thesis behind their latest shenanigan, a press censorship stunt disguised as an embargo policy, involving Ballerina; the upcoming John Wick spinoff movie that’s already had more facelifts than a Beverly Hills trophy wife. The studio has apparently decided that letting critics critique is a little too dangerous. According to the terms of engagement, shared with Reclaim The Net, they allow early social media reactions beginning May 22, but with specific limitations. Posts must avoid spoilers (as is usual) but are also expected to convey enthusiasm. Any content containing “critical social sentiment,” including balanced or negative commentary, is embargoed until June 4, nearly two weeks later. This structured rollout means early discussion will likely lean positive, as more substantive or critical opinions are restricted during the initial promotional window. Early reaction embargoes vs full review embargoes are nothing new but here Lionsgate is explicitly allowing “enthusiasm” to be posted early and “critical” responses are to be delayed. The messaging sent to critics invited to see From The World of John Wick: Ballerina, as shared with Reclaim The Net. Embargoes have always been a weird handshake between studios and press: “We’ll let you see the movie early, but don’t spoil it.” Fine. Reasonable even. But what Lionsgate is doing with Ballerina isn’t about spoilers. It’s about quashing criticism. This is media manipulation with a velvet glove and a club behind its back. The press isn’t being asked to wait. They’re being told: chirp on command, or shut your mouth until we’re done selling opening weekend. The rules are naked in their intent. Social media posts are allowed, but only if they’re stripped of anything that might suggest a thought was formed. No negative impressions, no critical analysis. Just good vibes and emojis. Formal reviews? Wait in the corner for nearly two weeks, by which time the hype train will have left the station. This is the culmination of a slow, deliberate erosion of press freedom in the entertainment sphere. The arrangement is now simple: if you want the early screening, you don’t get to be honest. You get to be enthusiastic. That’s the cost of admission. And if you don’t like it? Don’t worry, you won’t be invited next time. Journalists, especially the independents not tethered to some mega-conglomerate, are learning to dance around these policies like they’re stepping through a minefield. The result? The early coverage is glowing, not because the film always deserves it, but because it’s been rigged to be. Positivity isn’t always organic, it’s sometimes an obligation. Ballerina is not simply another action flick. It’s a film that practically begs for scrutiny. Reports indicate the original director, Len Wiseman, was quietly shuffled off the project and the bulk of the movie was reworked under Chad Stahelski. Actor Ian McShane tried to be diplomatic but still let the mask slip, calling the changes not “reshoots,” but “new shoots.” That’s Hollywoodese for “we scrapped most of it and prayed the second version doesn’t stink.” But the movie might be good and, just when you might want a professional critic to weigh in on whether Ballerina is a salvage job or a miracle, Lionsgate slaps duct tape over their mouths. By the time the embargo lifts, the only thing left to review might be the box office projections and a stack of influencer posts describing the movie as “awesome! movie of the year!.” This isn’t just about one movie. It’s about a pattern. The whole landscape has shifted. Studios used to at least try to earn good buzz. Now they build it in a lab. Social media, which once offered raw, spontaneous reactions, is now another tool in the PR war chest. The first wave of posts sets the tone. The delay in dissent makes critical voices seem like sour grapes. And let’s not forget the psychological trick at play here: by frontloading positivity and burying criticism under a heap of embargoes, anything less than praise, later on, reads like betrayal. It’s not just “The movie wasn’t great,” it’s “Why are you being negative when everyone loved it?” This is what press censorship pressure looks like when it’s draped in lanyards and hashtag campaigns. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Ballerina Wants Applause Not Opinions appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Video Shows Judge Dugan Helping Criminal Migrant Escape Courthouse

What Did You Think 'Globalize the Intifada' Meant, Anyway?

California leaders are battling to impose the state's radical, costly emissions standards on Americans — potentially across the country.California's regulatory power, large market, and partnerships with other aligned states give it significant influence over national vehicle emissions standards. 'We need to hold the line on strong emissions standards and keep the waivers in place, and we will sue to defend California's waivers.'On Thursday, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) announced that the state plans to file yet another lawsuit against President Donald Trump.The announcement follows a morning U.S. Senate vote, 51-44, to pass a measure that would revoke three of California's vehicle emissions waivers approved last year under the Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency. RELATED: Newsom dips into massive anti-Trump legal fund to sabotage tariffs Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty ImagesTwo of the waivers concern tailpipe emissions for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and truck smog requirements. The third requires all new vehicle sales in California to be zero-emissions by 2035. The state standards are more strict than the federal regulations.The Clean Air Act granted California the ability to set more stringent standards. However, Republican lawmakers contended that the Congressional Review Act gives Congress the authority to overrule measures implemented by federal agencies like the EPA. Senate Democrats argued that the Government Accountability Office and Senate parliamentarian found that the act does not give Congress the power to revoke the waivers. Bonta accused Senate Republicans of "bending the knee" to Trump as the president attempts to slash red tape and unleash American energy."The weaponization of the Congressional Review Act to attack California's waivers is just another part of the continuous, partisan campaign against California's efforts to protect the public and the planet from harmful pollution," Bonta continued. "As we have said before, this reckless misuse of the Congressional Review Act is unlawful, and California will not stand idly by. We need to hold the line on strong emissions standards and keep the waivers in place, and we will sue to defend California's waivers."RELATED: Trump challenges California's emissions standards dictatorship Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesNewsom called the Senate's vote "illegal.""Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won't stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China. We're going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court," Newsom remarked. Since January, California has taken legal action against Trump's administration 22 times. Newsom set aside $50 million in taxpayer funds to file lawsuits against the administration. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily granted a motion from the Trump administration to allow the firing of two federal officials who said they were improperly terminated. The court voted 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration, with liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent. 'He may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions ...' The two former employees of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board argued that they could only be fired for cause and that no qualifying cause was given. The case also touches on the larger debate over how much power the executive has over agencies set up to be "independent" by Congress. "Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President," the ruling said, "he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents ..."The ruling went against lower-court rulings that said Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris could not be fired summarily by the president from the NLRB and the MSPB, respectively. The decision went on to say that the court was not ruling on whether the NLRB and the MSPB fell into an exception to the rule and said the issue would be decided "for resolution after full briefing" and argument. "The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty," the ruling concluded. RELATED: Appeals court reinstates Dem labor board members Trump fired Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images The Trump administration did not argue that the limitations on the executive were unlawful but instead said that the agencies under consideration had grown in power to the extent that they went beyond the intention of a 1935 decision related to hiring policies. "The president should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the administration's policy objectives for a single day — much less for the months that it would likely take for the courts to resolve this litigation," wrote Solicitor General John Sauer. The application was made to Chief Justice John Roberts, who referred it to the whole court. Union advocates contend that if the Supreme Court sides against the workers that it would dramatically expand the powers of the executive beyond what the founders intended. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The fact that Blizzard is already showing off what’s coming in Diablo 4 Season 9 gave me a bit of a jumpscare - time can’t be zipping by that quickly, can it? Then I remembered that Season 8 was always meant to be an unusually short season. Consider my existential crisis halted, for now. It looks like it’s going to be a spicy season as well, because alongside the usual influx of seasonal content, Nightmare Dungeons are getting some new features. Plus, a boss we slayed in Diablo 4’s campaign is coming back with a vengeance. Continue reading Diablo 4 Season 9 spices up Nightmare Dungeons and revives a major boss MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Diablo 4 builds, Diablo 4: Vessel of Hatred review, Diablo 4 classes

'Are You BLIND?!' Chris Van Hollen Insists South African White Genocide Is 'Fake News' (WATCH)