The post Read This Now‚ Thank Me Later appeared first on Prepper Website.

An 11-year-old boy died in a attack while trying to protect his mother from an ex who was released from prison the day prior, officials in Chicago said.

Those hoping for more open discourse on matters of national concern should not await the Supreme Court‘s decision in Murthy v. Missouri with much optimism.  During Monday morning’s oral arguments in the case‚ the justices sounded unlikely to restrict the White House’s ability to control content moderation on social media platforms such as Facebook despite evidence that the Biden administration browbeat and coerced the platforms to suppress dissenting views on issues ranging from COVID-19 to election integrity.    Murthy v. Missouri was the second time in a month that the Supreme Court heard arguments centering on the roles of government and social media in our national discourse. Like the two NetChoice cases argued a few weeks ago‚ Murthy v. Missouri is about government efforts to control the information published on social media platforms; it also is about what the platforms euphemistically called “content moderation”; and it stems from the suppression of views dissenting from those espoused by the federal government.  But there end the similarities between these cases.  The NetChoice cases concerned state‚ rather than federal‚ efforts.  When Florida and Texas attempted to regulate social media‚ they did so through the legislative process‚ tailoring their efforts to promote the broad dissemination of viewpoints.  In Murthy‚ by contrast‚ the federal government used back channels between White House officials and social media executives to suppress views‚ even factually supported ones‚ at odds with the positions taken by the Biden administration.  The White House’s barrage of demands came paired with intimations that the administration would pursue increased antitrust enforcement against the platforms should they resist the government’s desires.   Courts Aghast The parties affected by the executive branch’s effort and who brought the case include the states of Louisiana and Missouri as well as epidemiologists Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff‚ famous for the Great Barrington Declaration that criticized mass lockdowns and advocated for targeted prevention strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs uncovered reams of emails demonstrating the lengths to which executive branch actors went to ensure that views contrary to the White House’s would not be disseminated online.  The lower courts were aghast.  Having reviewed the large evidentiary record‚ District Judge Terry Doughty deemed the White House’s effort “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history‚” and broadly enjoined executive branch agencies from communicating with the platforms.  On appeal‚ the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of Doughty’s injunction‚ but affirmed that‚ by threats and encouragement‚ the executive branch had coopted the social media platforms’ content moderation process‚ making the downgrade or deletion of plaintiffs’ posts a form of state action that violated the First Amendment.  The case received a markedly different reception at the Supreme Court‚ where the value of a public discourse informed by broad participation was not much discussed; nor were the implications of allowing officials with law-enforcement power to dampen speech because it disagreed with their own. Instead‚ the object of greater solicitude by the justices was government speech‚ the ability of officials to persuade the public to act in the manner the government thinks best.  That speech is not guaranteed by the First Amendment; rather‚ it is incidental to the federal government’s sovereign status. Public officials‚ after all‚ must communicate with the public‚ and it is naturally expected they will promote their own views of what constitutes good policy.  Lengthy Harangues Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher‚ arguing for the federal government‚ maintained that persuasive speech is all that the government used when seeking to have vaccine- or lockdown-skeptical posts deplatformed.  That may be a creative recharacterization of the lengthy harangues‚ neither mild nor persuasive in tone‚ emailed multiple times a week by White House officials to executives at Facebook‚ Google‚ and X (formerly Twitter). Nevertheless‚ Fletcher’s interpretation of these messages met with little skepticism from the bench‚ save for a few probing questions from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.  Two justices with past White House experience‚ Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh‚ noted that contact between executive officials and media outlets is frequent and (in their view) generally untroubling.  Kagan‚ a veteran of the Clinton White House‚ stated (only half-jokingly) that she had extensive experience encouraging others to suppress their views‚ opining that it happens in some form or another “literally thousands of times a day in the federal government.”  Kavanaugh‚ an alumnus of the George W. Bush White House‚ worried that restrictions on government speech would inhibit the executive’s ability to demand that news outlets not publish information that put national security at risk.  Similarly‚ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed her concern that plaintiffs would be “hamstringing the government in the most important time periods.” Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguinaga tried to assuage these concerns by pointing out that the government could restrict speech constitutionally where it demonstrated a compelling interest and used means narrowly tailored to that interest. That concession‚ though necessary‚ bought Aguinaga little support.  The justices continued to mire themselves and Aguinaga in hypotheticals not presented by the case before them.  Could the government order platforms to censor recruitment posts for terrorists? What about viral social media challenges in which children jump from windows? That one was the product of Jackson’s fertile mind.  Of course‚ hypotheticals are a mainstay of Supreme Court arguments because they aim at uncovering the principles behind the particular facts of the case at hand.  More so than lower courts‚ the Supreme Court must take a long view and anticipate the future cases to which its holdings will give rise.  Still‚ one gets the sense that justices occasionally invoke hypothetical difficulties to avoid resolving the concrete difficulties before them.  A listener paying attention to Monday’s proceedings might fairly draw that conclusion.    Resolving the Tension As often has been the case this Supreme Court term‚ the issues animating public interest in Murthy v. Missouri are unlikely to be the basis for the court’s ultimate decision.  The high court may not even need to resolve the tension between government speech and First Amendment speech if it decides that the plaintiffs don’t have standing to bring the case. This was a route several justices‚ including Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett‚ seemed inclined to take.  Standing is a legal doctrine that ensures a case is litigated by a proper party with a concrete injury traceable to challenged conduct and fixable by a favorable decision. Although the plaintiffs in this case suffered past harm‚ they seek to stop the government from coercing the platforms in the future. So‚ they must demonstrate the probability of their own future injury. Because the White House laundered its censorship through nongovernment entities and because some of the content moderation policies specific to COVID-19 have lapsed since‚ plaintiffs will struggle to make that showing.  Were the high court to hold that plaintiffs lack standing‚ it would not answer the First Amendment questions.     One need not be naïve about the typical quality of online discourse to lament the Supreme Court’s now likely refusal to restrict the federal government’s role as censor-by-proxy. It is perhaps sad‚ but hardly an exaggeration‚ to call the constellation of major social media platforms the “modern public square.” Should the executive branch have free rein to determine what flourishes and what dies in that information ecosystem?  Contrary to Kagan’s comment during arguments that it “seems hard to overbear Facebook’s will‚” there is no mystery to the formula for coercing cooperation from major social media platforms. The record in the Murthy case tells us as much.  The market dominance of the major social media platforms is the product of government largesse and government-granted preferences. They are‚ thus‚ uniquely vulnerable to the loss of government favor. Reform to laws such as the Communications Decency Act or renewed interest in the enforcement of antitrust laws would be‚ as Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg put it‚ “an existential threat.”  Threaten either of these‚ as the Biden administration did repeatedly‚ and the platforms will likely bend over backward to comply with whatever standard of censorship the White House can devise.  Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Advocates of Open Debate Online Struggle to Overcome Government Speech appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Three blind cats came to a home seeking help. The family brought them in and realized one of the cats was pregnant. Red SonjaJenA family found three blind cats (one girl and two boys) at their property‚ scrounging around for food and shelter.They worried the cats couldn't fend for themselves outside‚ so they brought them in and gave them food and water. As they scheduled to get them fixed‚ they discovered that the female cat was pregnant.They contacted their local animal rescue‚ City Kitties DC‚ hoping to place the young mom in the capable hands of a foster family. JenJen and Ian‚ who are experienced in caring for blind cats‚ welcomed the mama into their home. They set up a comfortable nursery with all the amenities in preparation for the birth.When they least expected it (as there was no sign of labor just moments ago)‚ Jen heard the sound of kittens crying in the foster room. Mama needed help with this brown tabby when he was bornJenThe mom had given birth to a litter of four‚ and three survived. Jen came into the room just in time to help a baby who was cold and weak. After drying and warming the little one‚ Mama began to care for him.The cat‚ Red Sonja named after a brave and mighty fictional warrior‚ cradled her precious three after a long day of nursing and cleaning. JenHer blindness seems to be hereditary as she was born without eyes‚ and Jen believed some of the babies could also be blind. "We won't know until they are around 2-3 weeks old. Sighted or not‚ we absolutely love them all‚" Jen shared.One of the male blind cats needed a lot of socialization and was taken in by another foster family experienced with blind cats. The rescue also offered to assist the family (who found the cats) with the remaining blind cat. JenRed Sonja is doing an outstanding job catering to her kittens' needs. The three‚ Sheena‚ Dread Pirate Roberts‚ and Falkor‚ are wiggly and active‚ making steady gains every day.Dread Pirate Roberts‚ the brown tabby who barely made it out of his first hour‚ has caught up in weight with his siblings. His sister‚ Sheena‚ is the biggest and loudest of the bunch. Jen"She's currently the leader of the pack and was the first one to open her eyes. She's ready to explore and take over the world‚ but she hasn't quite figured out her little limbs yet."Falkor‚ the sweet and gentle ginger boy‚ likely has the same condition as Mama. "He doesn't have normal eyeballs behind his eyelids. His ocular area is sunken in." The ginger kitten is likely going to be blind like MamaJen"He's a lucky little boy‚ and we can tell he's going to have a sweet disposition‚ just like his namesake."Red Sonja likes to stay in her nest whenever Jen comes in. She craves attention and head scratches and allows her foster mom to weigh her babies. Jen"I keep speaking to her so she knows where I am. I don't want to catch her by surprise."Red Sonja has mapped out the foster room and navigates it like a pro. Whenever she needs a break to refuel or use the litter box‚ she hops out of the "den" effortlessly. She loves to play with toys and can navigate the place without troubleJenJen has seen Mama run around and play with toys through the foster room camera. Despite her blindness‚ Red Sonja can do anything like a sighted cat. JenThe beautiful family of four is thriving in foster care. Red Sonja will never have to spend another day outside‚ and her kittens will only know the comfort and warmth of indoor life. JenShare this story with your friends. More on the feline family and Jen and Ian's fosters on Instagram and City Kitties DC on Instagram.Related story: Cat Makes Guy His Forever Human by Standing on Him After Waiting Nearly Half a Year for a Home

The Cartels Have Gotten in on The Drone Wars

Bwa Kale: In Haiti‚ Vigilante Justice Has Become the Only Option

Some songs are immediately seared into your mind. The beat immediately grabs you and sticks with you. Sometimes a song is so good even an animal can’t deny it. When you hear “dancing horse‚” you’re likely imagining a fancy show-pony‚ prancing around in a renaissance fair‚ adorned in finery‚ while a squire belts out “Ye... The post Horse duo raise the bar in dance challenge with their hilarious spin on it appeared first on Animal Channel.

Sunday’s edition of PBS News Weekend ran yet another propagandistic take on how the lack of access to abortions and treatment of related pregnancy complications was the fault of Catholic hospitals: “Investigation finds policies at Catholic-run hospitals restrict reproductive health care.” (That’s progressive-speak for “abortion.”) From the introduction by weekend anchor John Yang: Tonight on PBS News Weekend‚ with hundreds of thousands of Americans relying on Catholic hospitals‚ why some people are facing barriers to reproductive health care…." Aren’t “people” who get pregnant generally referred to as women? Yang later got specific with the silly woke terminology‚ a religious bow to the trans movement as well as denial of 5th-grade biology: “Pregnant people.” (And Yang has done it before.) Yang: Every year‚ more than 3.6 million babies are born in the United States. And according to KFF Health News‚ more than a half million of them are about 16 percent are delivered in Catholic run hospitals. In most cases there no complications and the birth is much like one in any hospital. But if there's an emergency‚ pregnant people can find themselves caught between accepted medical standards and the religious-based policies of Catholic-run facilities. KFF Health News found that for nearly 800‚000 Americans‚ there’s little choice. They have only Catholic or Catholic-affiliated birth hospitals within an hour’s drive. KFF Health News reporter Rachana Pradhan is one of the writers of the story…. (Would PBS prefer no Catholic hospitals – i.e. no care -- at all?) Pradhan‚ a reporter for KFF Health News‚ relayed a hard case from her reporting. Rachana Pradhan: ….One in particular involves a nurse midwife who spoke with me who used to work‚ do deliveries at a Catholic hospital in Maryland .She encountered a woman who showed up at this hospital because her water had broken before her fetus was viable‚ so the baby would not survive outside of the womb. And what she told us was‚ this patient expressed a desire to terminate the pregnancy because she knew that there was little chance of survival. And what happened was‚ as this nurse midwife told us‚ the doctor said that they couldn't do anything‚ because there were still detectable fetal-heart tones. And so their hands were totally tied. That is not often what would happen in a non-Catholic hospital‚ and goes against accepted medical standards for treating that kind of pregnancy complication. Yang: What are some of the sort of the range of medical choices that clinicians and healthcare providers would want to make or have wanted to make at a Catholic-run hospital but have not been allowed to because of the hospital’s policies? Pradhan: ….what we found based on talking to clinicians‚ reading research‚ and also talking to patients are that these very fraught and difficult situations in which someone's pregnancy goes awry‚ in which a complication happens that’s quite serious and could obviously threaten the viability of that baby. In situations like that‚ these ethical and religious directives that apply to Catholic health-care facilities‚ essentially‚ what they say is that these hospitals are prohibited or limited in doing certain procedures that the Catholic Church finds to be immoral….Because these Catholic health-care standards‚ the baby is still alive. And so that would constitute an abortion and they are obviously opposed to abortions. Prodded by Yang‚ Pradhan noted the Catholic Health Association “took issue with our story. After it came out‚ they released a statement that said that it perpetuates myths about Catholic health care.” Pradhan “stood by her reporting.” Yang forgot the required LGBTQ recitation for a second. Yang: For women who feel that they were not treated properly or didn’t receive the proper medical treatment at these hospitals‚ is there any legal recourse for them? What ever happened to “pregnant people”? This segment was brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available‚ click “Expand.” PBS News Weekend 3/17/24 7:05:36 p.m. (ET) JOHN YANG: Every year‚ more than 3.6 million babies are born in the United States. And according to KFF Health News‚ more than a half million of them are about 16 percent are delivered in Catholic run hospitals. In most cases there no complications and the birth is much like one in any hospital. But if there`s an emergency pregnant people can find themselves caught between accepted medical standards and the religious base policies of Catholic run facilities. KFF Health News found that for nearly 800‚000 Americans‚ there`s little choice. They have only Catholic or Catholic affiliated birth hospitals within an hour`s drive. KFF Health News reporter Rachana Pradhan is one of the writers of the story‚ which is the product of almost two years of reporting. Rachana‚ you talked to a lot of women who had complications while being treated in Catholic run hospitals. What did they tell you? What is there a story‚ one particular story that sort of emblematic to you? RACHANA PRADHAN‚ Reporter‚ KFF Health News: Absolutely‚ John. And I will say that‚ in particular‚ talking to clinicians‚ like physicians and nurse practitioners and other medical clinicians that treat patients in these hospitals‚ really were the ones that shared incredible stories with us. One in particular involves a nurse midwife who spoke with me who used to work‚ do deliveries at a Catholic hospital in Maryland‚ she encountered a woman who showed up at this hospital because her water had broken before her fetus was viable‚ so the baby would not survive outside of the womb. And what she told us was‚ this patient expressed a desire to terminate the pregnancy because she knew that there was little chance of survival. And what happened was‚ as this nurse midwife told us‚ the doctor said that they couldn`t do anything‚ because there were still detectable fetal heart tones. And so their hands were totally tied. That is not often what would happen in a non-Catholic hospital‚ and goes against accepted medical standards for treating that kind of pregnancy complication. JOHN YANG: What are some of the sort of the range of medical choices that clinicians and healthcare providers would want to make or have wanted to make at a Catholic general hospital but have not been allowed to because the hospitals policies? RACHANA PRADHAN: I think‚ in particular‚ what we found based on talking to clinicians‚ reading research‚ and also talking to patients are that these very fraught and difficult situations in which someone`s pregnancy goes awry‚ in which a complication happens that`s quite serious and could obviously threaten the viability of that baby. In situations like that‚ these ethical and religious directives that apply to Catholic health care facilities‚ essentially‚ what they say is that these hospitals are prohibited or limited in doing certain procedures that the Catholic Church finds to be immoral. So overarchingly what this can affect is care during pregnancy complications‚ it can affect birth control the availability of birth control at these facilities. And in situations like the one I just talked about‚ it means that the pregnancy terminations may not be offered. Because these Catholic healthcare standards‚ the baby is still alive. And so that would constitute an abortion and they are obviously opposed to abortions. JOHN YANG: Do these hospitals have any policies on referrals‚ referrals to other facilities that might be able to do those things? RACHANA PRADHAN: Yes. So the Catholic health directives do address referrals. And this doesn`t only apply to pregnancy terminations‚ but other types of care too‚ namely‚ procedures that can prevent pregnancy. So both men and women‚ frankly‚ vasectomies‚ or let`s say‚ a woman who wants to get her fallopian tubes removed because she does not want to have any more children. They`re also restricted from making referrals. Because in the eyes of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops‚ which is the organization that crafts these directives‚ and the church‚ a physician referring for a procedure or care that they have deemed immoral‚ that also goes too far. And so it can limit the ability for a patient to receive care at another facility‚ or at the very least‚ they have to take it much more upon themselves to figure out where they might be able to go because the Catholic health care facility cannot get so involved. JOHN YANG: to the church leaders like the diocesan Archbishop`s‚ did they have a role in the medical policies of hospitals? RACHANA PRADHAN: So the ethical and religious directives are really broad guidelines. And what we learned is that‚ depending on a particular Bishop of a particular diocese‚ sometimes policies will apply more strictly in certain places than others. And so I think that`s actually‚ at least based on the conversations we have with clinicians‚ I think that`s actually part of the frustration is that these things are not black and white. And they can change depending on who essentially is in charge. And the bishops obviously have a role in this. They`re not based on what we learned. They`re not the ones who are making these difficult calls in certain situations to provide health care‚ but they are responsible for overseeing enforcement of the directives broadly. JOHN YANG: What do Catholic hospitals say? Or how did they they responded or reacted to your reporting? RACHANA PRADHAN: Well‚ the Catholic Health Association‚ who we spoke with for our story before it published‚ they say that the ERDs‚ as they are known‚ do not prevent physicians from providing medically indicated care‚ especially in these situations involving very serious potentially life threatening pregnancy complications. And they also took issue with our story. After it came out‚ they released a statement that said that it perpetuates myths about Catholic health care. I will say that we stand by our reporting‚ as you noted‚ we worked on this for nearly two years and talk to many‚ many‚ many people‚ including patients‚ doctors‚ nurse practitioners‚ midwives‚ and others who have really studied this field a lot‚ and could very clearly state what the impacts are on patients. JOHN YANG: For women who feel that they were not treated properly or didn`t receive the proper medical treatment at these hospitals. Is there any legal recourse for them? RACHANA PRADHAN: So broadly speaking‚ most of the states in the country‚ we found have liability shields for hospitals‚ when they refuse to perform certain types of care because of moral or religious objection. And those laws exist all over the US. And they apply to at least some hospitals in every not every state‚ but really the vast majority. For other types of medicine for a whole host of procedures‚ you could potentially take up a medical malpractice case against an individual provider or a hospital. But in these situations‚ basically what state law says in the states is that the hospitals are shielded from being held liable in these types of situations. JOHN YANG: Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News‚ thank you very much. RACHANA PRADHAN: Thank you‚ John‚ for having me.

Published Sunday online and on the front page of Monday’s print edition‚ our friend Jennie Taer at the New York Post dropped a bombshell that an illegal immigrant recently detained at the border told Customs and Border Protection officials only is he a member of the Lebanon-based‚ Iranian-linked Islamic terrorist group Hezbollah‚ but he wanted to travel New York to carry out a terror attack with a bomb. Not surprisingly‚ none of this was mentioned on Sunday night or Monday morning by the major broadcast networks of ABC‚ CBS‚ and NBC on their flagship morning or evening news shows. On Monday evening‚ it was the same story with ABC and CBS‚ but NBC Nightly News broke ice -- albeit with a short‚ 45-second report. The Post’s Taer explained that the 22-year-old named Basel Bassel Ebbadi “was caught by the US Border Patrol on March 9 near El Paso‚ Texas” and “[w]hile in custody‚ he was asked what he was doing in the US‚ to which he replied‚ ‘I’m going to try to make a bomb‚’ according to a Border Patrol document exclusively obtained by The Post.” According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement documents‚ Ebbadi claimed to have “trained with Hezbollah for seven years” and “guard[ed] weapons locations for another four years.” In a bizarre caveat‚ Taer noted that‚ citing more ICE documents‚ Ebbadi said “he had been trying to flee Lebanon and Hamas because he ‘didn’t want to kill people’ and said ‘once you’re in‚ you can never get out.’” Taer also explained Ebbadi apparently hop-scotched his way around the world by using a fake birthday and name as well as fake countries of orIgin‚ but “didn’t have documents when he entered the US‚ claiming he was robbed ‘with a knife’ in Costa Rica”. She also sadly said his future is uncertain in terms of where he’d be deported to and that‚ in just “the first four months of 2024‚ 59 people have been apprehended‚ according to federal data” with “98 encounters with terror watchlisted individuals at both the northern and southern borders in fiscal year 2022‚ and almost twice as many‚ 172‚ in fiscal year 2023‚ which ends Sept. 30.” While the flagship network morning shows kept this hidden from viewers‚ one of ABC’s overnight shows curious had it as one of their top stories and gave it a tease off the top. The half-hour show America This Morning made this the third story covered‚ after spring break shootings and the ongoing collapse of Haiti.     Fill-in co-host Derek Dennis and ABC News multimedia reporter Perry Russom had the details (in a piece that ended with Trump’s “animals” line from Saturday about some illegal immigrants)‚ but declined to give Taer and the Post credit for the first report (click “expand”): DENNIS: New security concerns along the southern U.S. border after a migrant from the Middle East was taken into custody with alleged ties to a foreign terrorist organization. ABC's Perry Russom is here with the details. Perry‚ good morning to you. RUSSOM: Derek‚ good morning. The migrant detained at the border claims he was heading to New York to make a bomb. And he allegedly said he was trained by the militant group Hezbollah. This morning‚ ABC News has confirmed a Lebanese man apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol has acknowledged being a member of Hezbollah‚ considered one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in the world. ABC NEWS PRODUCER QUINN OWEN: We don't know for sure‚ what level of threat this individual may pose. There may be mental health concerns at — at issue here. RUSSOM: Documents show the man tried to cross into Texas from Mexico March 9‚ telling border authorities he was heading to New York‚ where he hoped to‚ “make a bomb.” According to internal documents‚ the 22-year-old was slated for deportation‚ but it was unclear where to. OWEN: These types of unauthorized migrants are detained by federal authorities‚ often referred for further investigation or even prosecution‚ if warranted and that whole process can take time.  RUSSOM: Texas governor Greg Abbott blamed president Biden's policies‚ calling them “a magnet for this type of terror.”   PRESIDENT BIDEN [on 03/07/24]: What are you against? RUSSOM: Biden has defended his immigration policy‚ blaming House Republicans for killing a bipartisan security deal. FBI Director Christopher Wray just last week warned of dangerous people crossing the border.  FBI DIRECTOR CHRIS WRAY: [on 03/11/24]: There is a particular network‚ that has — where some of the overseas facilitators of the smuggling network have ISIS ties that we're very concerned about. In contrast‚ there was plenty of attention on cable with multiple mentions on the Fox Business Network‚ the Fox News Channel‚ Newsmax‚ and especially NewsNation. To NewsNation’s credit‚ they not only cited Taer’s story on Sunday night‚ but they mentioned it on four of their shows on Monday (as of this blog’s publication). For example‚ the 9:00 a.m. Eastern edition of NewsNation Live with Marni Hughes had a full‚ two-minute-and-41 second report from Hughes and correspondent Dray Clark.     Along with Hughes saying this was “an alarming arrest” who “had some pretty disturbing plans”‚ Clark stated the obvious that this “raised eyebrows because this was a self-proclaimed terrorist who said he wanted to pull off an attack here in New York City.” Clark pointed out NewsNation had been able to independently confirm Taer’s details (click “expand”): CLARK: [M]ultiple Custom Border Protection sources tell NewsNation Ebbadi wanted to use that bomb right here in New York. Sources also telling us that he claimed to be a member of the terrorist group Hezbollah and trained with the group for seven years. Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed terror group who‚ like Hamas‚ recently launched missile attacks against Israel and Ebbadi told investigators he used fake names and documentation in other countries while making his way to the U.S.-Mexico border. However‚ investigators did not say if his name is on the terror watch list. Meanwhile‚ Border Patrol agents arrested 169 people on the watch list in 2023 at both the southern and northern borders. And so far this year‚ there have been 49 apprehensions. Now‚ this was a statement from Customs and Border Protection: “If an individual poses a potential threat to national security or public safety‚ we deny admission‚ detain‚ remove‚ or refer them to other federal agencies for further vetting‚ investigation and/or prosecution as appropriate.” Now‚ the authorities here in New York say they certainly are aware of this arrest‚ but they are not immediately alarmed mainly because that suspect is now in custody in Texas‚ being held in isolation. We also know that‚ at some point in time‚ Ebbadi will be deported. As to what country that will be‚ we’re not exactly sure at this point‚ Marni. HUGHES: Yeah. Just glad that they were able to get him and hopefully learn more information in the process. While these networks (and Taer) were doing their jobs‚ ABC’s Good Morning America was too busy promoting President Biden’s executive order on women’s health‚ CBS Mornings had a recap of Sunday’s NAACP Image Awards‚ and NBC’s Today had not one (as ABC and CBS did) but two segments on the latest tea surrounding the British royals photo scandal. Thankfully‚ NBC decided to have the wherewithal to cover this. Acting as though viewers had already heard of this story‚ Nightly News anchor Lester Holt announced a segment on “that alleged Hezbollah bombmaker caught crossing the southern border who said he wanted to travel to New York.” Justice correspondent Julia Ainsley outlined the basic details of what Taer‚ NewsNation‚ and the rest had confirmed hours earlier before acknowledging “[o]fficials I've spoken to said it is highly unusual for someone to voluntarily disclose that information.”     And while it’s unknown whether “Ebbadi was on the terrorist watch list‚” Ainsley added “[o]ver 160 migrants crossing the border last year were on that list” and has thus “been a major criticism of Biden border policies by Republicans.” UPDATE‚ 8:39 p.m. Eastern: This post has been updated from its original publication at 6:27 p.m. Eastern to include coverage from Monday’s NBC Nightly News.