This week‚ the Biden administration took the first step toward what appears to be an inevitable break with Israel in Israel's war to extirpate the terrorist group Hamas from the Gaza Strip. Since Hamas' vicious terror assault on Israel on Oct. 7 -- an attack that killed at least 1‚200 Israelis and left 250 Israeli hostages in Hamas' hands -- Israel has taken extraordinary measures to protect civilian life in Gaza while destroying Hamas' military capacity. In the process‚ Israel has lost nearly 300 of its own soldiers‚ with thousands wounded. Despite total air superiority‚ Israel's care on the ground has meant a successful terrorist-to-civilian kill ratio unprecedented in the history of modern warfare. Nonetheless‚ the Biden administration has been champing at the bit to hamstring Israel in its efforts to defend itself. In the last two weeks‚ the Biden White House has activated Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to call for the ouster of the sitting Israeli government; deployed Vice President Kamala Harris to publicly warn Israel about the dangers of a military operation in the last Hamas stronghold‚ Rafah; and abstained from a United Nations Security Council resolution separating calls for a ceasefire from calls for a hostage release. None of this makes sense if the United States wishes Israel to finish off Hamas. It all makes perfect sense if the Biden administration is seeking to placate its far-left wing‚ particularly the pro-Hamas voters in Dearborn‚ Michigan. Biden is currently losing Michigan handily to Republican nominee Donald Trump. If he loses Michigan‚ he almost certainly loses the election. And Biden believes that he cannot win if he does not outperform among the state's approximately 200‚000 Muslim American voters. By polling data‚ 49% of Muslim Americans believe Hamas' rationale for the Oct. 7 terror attack was valid; 21% of Muslim Americans approve of the Oct. 7 attacks themselves. But Biden isn't losing Michigan because he's losing Muslim American voters. Those voters will overwhelmingly vote for him‚ because the alternative is the most pro-Israel president in American history‚ Donald Trump. Not only that: Michigan is home to approximately 105‚000 Jewish voters‚ and millions of Christian voters‚ many of whom Biden is risking by undercutting Israel in its existential war. But Biden has been captured by his left flank. He has been told that he must pander to the most radical members of his coalition‚ getting them out to vote‚ rather than reaching out to political moderates and independents. That's idiocy. The real reason he's losing Michigan isn't his lack of popularity among blue-collar voters -- the same lack of popularity that explains his lagging poll numbers in states with lower Muslim populations like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Nevada. All of this foolish political manipulation is the result of a Democratic myth fostered by Barack Obama's successful 2012 campaign: the myth that Democrats can win simply by appealing to their minority coalition‚ along with hard-left white women in the suburbs. Obama was able to push that coalition to victory because he was a unique candidate; Democrats ever since have been attempting to mimic that strategy‚ to their electoral detriment. Here's the reality: Joe Biden will never be a favorite among leftist radicals. It was his supposed moderation that lifted him to victory in 2020. Abandoning that moderation likely means that he will find himself out of a job come January 2025.

Democratic strategist James Carville was spinning his wheels on NewsNation Monday night as he tried to defend President Biden’s callus neglect of slain NYPD officer Jonathan Diller who was being laid to rest not far from his star-studded‚ elitist fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall. In trying to defend Biden from the rather tame criticism from host Chris Cuomo and correspondent at-large Geraldo Rivera‚ Carville proclaimed it would be “idiotic” for Biden to do anything in response to the officer’s death that evening. After literally laughing at Rivera’s criticism of Biden‚ Carville proclaimed it “idiotic” for Biden to think about modifying his plans for the fundraiser. His reasoning? He had money to collect and cops get shot all time: Well‚ I think I think it’s idiotic. And I'll tell you why. They have a fundraiser scheduled. They have Radio City Music Hall‚ they’re out there raising money‚ they got guest lists‚ they got everything‚ done. Unfortunately‚ it happens about 120 times a year‚ a police officer was shot. And you’re really saying they just should un-ring the entire bell? Okay. Interestingly‚ on Tuesday‚ NewsNation highlighted a 2024 press release from the National Fraternal Order of Police that put the number of officers shot in the line of duty in 2023 at more than triple Carville’s estimate. “Instead‚ 378 officers were shot in the line of duty in 2023‚ the highest number the FOP has ever recorded‚” the press release said.     Carville was determined to paint critics as unreasonable; putting words in Cuomo and Rivera’s mouths by suggesting the only solution was to just call of the fundraiser entirely. Cuomo pushed back by noting how easy of a “layup” modifying his plans would have been‚ but Carville had a meltdown: CARVILLE: So‚ you really think that should just call the fundraiser off? Just called it off? It’s insane. Of course not. CUOMO: No‚ no‚ no‚ James. That was an easy one. It’s a layup. The answer is both. You stop by. You see the family. You give them some private moments. You get back in the car. You go to the fundraiser. That's the that's not a stretch. And I get it. I get why they didn’t do it. I get it James‚ I get it. CARVILLE: I profoundly disagree. I understand. CUOMO: I totally get it. CARVILLE: You’re a free speech guy. You want your guests and free speech. I think the entire thing about the fundraiser and a transgender thing is just borderline idiotic. Certain events – you have confluence events campaigns don’t control everything. Rivera’s “minimal effort” idea didn’t even involve Biden going to see the family‚ but just sharing his condolences at the fundraiser‚ which he didn’t care to do either. “It would have been so easy. James‚ you could have crafted it easily‚” he tried to stroke Carville’s ego. Carville bizarrely retreated to using the number of cops killed in the line of duty as some sort of morbid defense. “Again‚ unfortunately‚ it is not uncommon for peace officer to be killed in the line of duty. Okay?” he huffed. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: NewsNation’s Cuomo April 1‚ 2024 8:10:30 p.m. Eastern (…) CHRIS CUOMO: James. When you're done laughing. JAMES CARVILLE: Well‚ I think I think it’s idiotic. And I'll tell you why. They have a fundraiser scheduled. They have Radio City Music Hall‚ they’re out there raising money‚ they got guest lists‚ they got everything‚ done. Unfortunately‚ it happens about 120 times a year‚ a police officer was shot. And you’re really saying they just should un-ring the entire bell? Okay. And this whole thing about March 31st every year it's on March 31st. And I think there this whole outrage machine and this whole false equivalency machine that says we – [indiscernible noises]. By the way‚ when you get mocked Saturday Night Live‚ I don't know Geraldo‚ that a pretty culturally significant program to me. (…) 8:12:27 p.m. Eastern CUOMO: It is April Fool's Day‚ and I have to tell you I never thought— CARVILLE: So‚ you really think that should just call the fundraiser off? Just called it off? It’s insane. Of course not. CUOMO: No‚ no‚ no‚ James. That was an easy one. It’s a layup. The answer is both. You stop by. You see the family. You give them some private moments. You get back in the car. You go to the fundraiser. That's the that's not a stretch. And I get it. I get why they didn’t do it. I get it James‚ I get it. CARVILLE: I profoundly disagree. I understand. CUOMO: I totally get it. CARVILLE: You’re a free speech guy. You want your guests and free speech. I think the entire thing about the fundraiser and a transgender thing is just borderline idiotic. Certain events – you have confluence events campaigns don’t control everything. I don't even think anyone knew about the transgender proclamation. I worked in the mayor's office‚ they have proclamations every other day. Same thing in the White House. I mean‚ that's just not the way the world works. And the idea a sleet Biden is come kind of cultural liberal. CUOMO: James‚ it has to be the way the world works because it's happening right now. [Crosstalk] GERALDO RIVERA: Stephen Colbert – Here’s how you fix it with minimal effort and you make people feel better. Stephen Colbert opens the program‚ “New Yorkers are in mourning now we have lost one of finest. We obviously we didn't know this tragedy was going to happen when we scheduled is event. But President Biden‚ do want to say something about law and order‚ crime and punishment‚ the risk that police officers and their families endure?” It would have been so easy. James‚ you could have crafted it easily. CARVILLE: I – you know – Again‚ unfortunately‚ it is not uncommon for peace officer to be killed in the line of duty. Okay? That's just one of these – Actually‚ think it's a little bit down now‚ but I looked at the statistics and it doesn’t happened every day but – [Crosstalk] CUOMO: But James‚ it was an opportunity. CARVILLE: Okay. All right. Seriously‚ were outrage is missed – You know‚ I can tell Stephen Colbert how to do its job. [Stammering] CUOMO: James‚ you’re among friends. CARVILLE: I think the whole thing – CUOMO: You’re welcome to disagree. CARVILLE: I understand. CUOMO: I am happy that you are disagreeing. CARVILLE: But I am totally unpersuaded that there was anything wrong with this. That’s all. CUOMO: I understand. CARVILLE: We’ll agree to disagree. CUOMO: Perception is reality. (…)

Front Page Magazine says tech giant Google was censoring the outlet for reporting on Islamic terrorism. Daniel Greenfield‚ journalism fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center‚ revealed in the organization’s flagship publication how Google AdSense was unusually explanatory when rejecting the Center’s application for the ad program. The Big Tech company reportedly cited a Front Page article discussing a terrorist attack and the radical Islamic beliefs of the perpetrators as objectionable. Google’s rejection of the application‚ wrote Greenfield‚ “told us what we could do to make our way into the good graces of the company that dominates online search and advertising‚ controlling what much of the country and the world sees.”  Specifically‚ Greenfield continued‚ “[a]ll we had to do was stop talking about Islamic terrorism.”  Google first accused Front Page‚ and especially Horowitz‚ of generally writing and hosting “dangerous or derogatory content.” Google referenced the 2021 piece‚ “Remember The San Bernardino Fourteen” by author Lloyd Billingsley. The piece provided details about a devastating and deadly 2015 terror attack in California‚ but also argued that the terrorists’ radical Islamic beliefs were a key factor. The article also criticized Kamala Harris‚ then California attorney general‚ for claiming the attack was not to be blamed on Islam‚ joined by terrorist-linked organization CAIR. Greenfield rebuked Google for effectively defending radical Islamists: “Google would rather that you not remember the 14 victims or the Islamic terrorists who killed them.” Instead‚ wrote Greenfield‚ Google “has told us that we ‘must fix’ this and numberless other articles that it objects to. But what would it like us to ‘fix’ here? What else except the truth about Islamic terrorism[?]” “Billingsley’s article laid out the complicity of other family members of the Muslim terrorists in the attack‚ and the silence of Biden and Kamala about Islamic terrorism‚ and closed by urging‚ ‘remember the 14 innocents murdered by Islamic terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik on December 2‚ 2015‚ in San Bernardino‚ California‚ USA.‚’” Greenfield wrote. Apparently‚ such framing was verboten for Google.  Google not only accused the San Bernardino Fourteen piece of being “derogatory” and “dangerous” but also containing “unreliable and harmful claims.” But Greenfield pointed out Google and other tech companies have a sordid history of foolish censorship‚ such as when Martin Luther King Jr.’s  “Letter From Birmingham Jail” was allegedly and ludicrously suppressed for containing the “n word.”  Running cover for radical Islamists and others considered protected groups by leftists appears to be par for the course for Google. MRC Free Speech America caught Google covering for jihadis as well‚ including its Gemini AI originally downplaying evidence of Hamas-inflicted rape. In a previous Supreme Court case‚ Gonzalez v. Google‚ Google argued that it could not be held liable for its YouTube algorithms promoting content from jihadis because of Section 230 immunity‚ yet Google appears to be actively covering for jihadis. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Google at 650-253-0000 and demand it be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Brian Flood at FoxNews.com reports on how Trump 2020 campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh discusses his scrapping with CNN and MSNBC hosts in his new book‚ Swing Hard in Case You Hit It. First came CNN host Brianna Keilar‚ who in June 2020 pressed Murtaugh on Trump's remark that they should slow down COVID testing to get fewer positive results. "I think it would be accurate to conclude that Keilar had decided that she didn’t like me before I ever appeared on her show." Murtaugh claimed Trump was joking‚ and he said Keilar responded that over 120‚000 Americans had died from COVID before asking‚ "I do not think that is funny. Do you think that is funny?" Murtaugh wrote that "Keilar decided that she would claim moral superiority and declare humor off limits‚ while dishonestly suggesting that the president and his campaign were laughing at the people who were dying of COVID-19." "The whole thing was a reminder that I needed to anticipate their partisanship more and treat them as though they were the political opposition‚ because they clearly were‚" Murtaugh concluded. Then there was CNN anchor Jim Sciutto‚ a former Obama administration official‚ a fact Murtaugh liked to remind CNN viewers about. "Every time I appeared on his show‚ he attacked aggressively from the very first word. He quite clearly viewed me as a political adversary and conducted interviews in what I felt was a condescending and accusatory manner." (Alex Christy captured it for NewsBusters.) "One day in August 2020‚ I appeared on his show‚ and he repeatedly asked me if President Trump accepted responsibility for all the American deaths attributable to COVID-19. This‚ obviously‚ was an unanswerable question in a political sense‚ which is exactly why he asked it‚" he recalled. "If I said that the president did accept responsibility‚ then I would have agreed with the false narrative that Trump was responsible for the effects of a virus that came from China. Additionally‚ I’d have handed CNN the very soundbite it was looking for‚" he wrote. "If I said he did not accept responsibility‚ it might sound callous and inconsistent‚ because we were simultaneously looking for credit for the president’s overall response to the pandemic‚ and so we would be wanting the good without taking the bad." Murtaugh explained that "any observer could see clearly that CNN’s goal was not to be a mere journalistic outlet covering current events‚ but that it wanted to be an active participant in the political campaign." In October of 2020‚ Murtaugh wrote‚ he was scheduled to do an interview with MSNBC’s Katy Tur‚ but they "demanded" he wear a mask during the live shot. "Mind you‚ it was a bright and sunny day‚ and I was standing outside‚ easily more than six feet away from any crew the network could have been concerned about. Tur herself was in a studio somewhere else. After it was confirmed that the mask was a condition of the live shot‚ I huddled over the phone with some of the campaign team back in Virginia to discuss whether I should proceed. As a group we decided that it was better to participate in the hit than to skip it‚ so I went through with it‚" he wrote. Murtaugh recounted that Tur cited the names of people who had recently died from COVID in order to criticize a tweet Trump had sent that said‚ "Don’t be afraid of COVID. Don’t let it dominate your life." (She started with video of Amanda Kloots‚ whose husband died from the disease‚ calling Trump "beyond hurtful.") "That wasn’t journalism. It was the ghoulish exploitation of the deaths of real people so that Katy Tur could thrill the MSNBC audience by attacking someone from the Trump campaign. It was juvenile and a bad-faith effort to specifically blame one person—President Trump—for deaths caused by a global pandemic that began in China‚" Murtaugh wrote. Not every cable-news host was thoroughly hostile. Murtaugh said then-CNN host Chris Cuomo came across as sincere when he told the Trump spokesperson‚ "I respect your effort because that’s the game‚" after a fiery interview in which Murtaugh mocked the anchor’s infamous on-air COVID antics with his brother Andrew‚ then governor of New York. Nick Fondacaro wrote about one of those interactions.

There’s an online game I find myself playing way too much of‚ and I hate it. I would love to never play this game again‚ but its existence is a consequence of the deep structure of social media‚ so if I’m going to argue about things on the internet‚ then playing it is unavoidable. I call this game‚ “Where Is the Discourse?” It goes something like this: Alice opens with a few examples of an argument (or point of view‚ or sentiment‚ or whatever) that she doesn’t think much of and would like to refute. Bob counters that nobody who matters is making that argument and that Alice’s examples are cherry-picked (or “nutpicked” to use the old “blogosphere” term from the mid-2000s). Alice responds to Bob by highlighting the credentials of the people behind a few of her examples. Maybe they have large social media followings or notable institutional affiliations. Or maybe the person is a total rando‚ but the tweet or screen-cap or Forbes article with the person's byline on it has tons of shares. Bob then works his way through Alice’s response by picking apart‚ in detail‚ the qualifications and standing of each of the people she has put forth. (Optional step): Alice rebuts Bob with a defense of each individual’s standing as a qualified participant in the Discourse‚ and both parties drift further into the weeds of credentials‚ metrics‚ and bona fides. By the time they get to move #4 in this game‚ the debate has shifted entirely from a fight over the merits of the argument Alice sought to refute to a squabble over whether or not this specific list of individuals is representative of any larger group‚ movement‚ or way of thinking. In other words‚ Alice and Bob are now fighting over the location of the Discourse. Where is it? Who is and is not a participant in it? Which bylines‚ institutional affiliations‚ follower counts‚ or engagement metrics qualify an individual as a bona fide participant in the Discourse? Back in the bad old days of media monopolies‚ everyone knew where the Discourse was. If you had a local monopoly on one or more scarce channels of distribution — a slice of the electromagnetic spectrum‚ newsstand‚ library shelf space‚ or print facilities plus a fleet of delivery vehicles — then you were definitionally a site of the Discourse and could gatekeep who participated and who did not. But now that everyone with smartphone access has the ability to publish text‚ images‚ sound‚ and video instantly for the entire planet to see‚ our society has collectively lost track of the location of the Discourse in the space of about a decade and a half. No new discursive Schelling point has emerged to replace the now-dead radio‚ TV‚ and print monopolies. We are adrift. Perhaps the most corrosive effect of “Where Is the Discourse?” on our collective intellectual life is the way it reduces even the loftiest issues down to petty fights over credentials. I’m reminded of the adage‚ “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” The discourse game‚ then‚ is a powerful mechanism for turning every discussion of ideas into a discussion of people‚ thereby shrinking the mind of each player by two sizes.

New York business owners are fed up with state Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D) after he refused last week to back Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul's plan to strengthen penalties for violent shoplifters‚ the New York Post reported.In an effort to curb rampant theft‚ Hochul's budget proposal called for increased sentences for shoplifters who assault retail workers. Heastie rejected the plan‚ claiming that it would not be effective at preventing retail theft‚ Blaze News previously reported. "All the other times that we've raised penalties on different classes of people‚ that hasn't stopped assaults. We still need to get to the root issues of what's going on. We'd be open to talking about the organized crime rings that people have‚ but I just don't believe raising penalties is ever a deterrent on crime‚" Heastie stated last week. "You can stop anybody in the street and ask them what is the penalty for assaulting anybody‚ and they probably won't be able to give you an answer.""I don't want to make it sound like we're not concerned about stemming what's happened to retail workers‚" he continued. "We care very deeply about that. We just have other ideas of how to get there."Heastie's refusal to implement tougher jail sentences for violent shoplifters ignited outrage among New York City business owners battling the retail theft crisis.Nelson Eusebio‚ who heads the National Supermarket Association and Coalition to Save our Supermarkets‚ told the Post‚ "How do you deter crime except by penalty?""Our workers are on the front line dealing with shoplifters and criminals‚" Eusebio added. "It's open season on retail workers in the city."A CVS retail worker explained to the news outlet that the thieves were "not taking one or two" items but "taking the whole shelf.""Nobody wants to deal with it‚" the employee stated‚ noting that even "low-price products" are being locked up."Now the items get locked up‚ and the people don't‚" the worker added.Kenneth Giddon‚ co-owner of Rothman's New York in Union Square‚ told the Post on Monday that a violent flash mob targeted his clothing store twice over a three-week period in December 2021. He called Heastie's stance on increased penalties "ridiculous.""I'd be glad to talk to him so he can learn what it's like firsthand dealing with these problems and getting the same people who come back over and over and over again to rob us‚" Giddon told the news outlet. "He's completely out of touch.""We've had employees punched during shoplifting instances‚" he added. "Retail jobs are important for the economy‚ but why should people work in a dangerous situation and not be protected?""Common sense says that stiffer penalties deter crime‚" Giddon continued. "People believe now that they can shoplift and not be punished for it‚ and that is really‚ really bad for our society. So what's the next crime that you're not going to be punished for?"New York retailers lost approximately $4.4 billion in 2022 due to rampant shoplifting and organized retail theft rings. Former Governor David Paterson (D) told WABC that he was "kind of surprised" Heastie did not support Hochul's plan to boost criminal sentencing."These are people who are not high wage earners. Most of them are not unionized. … When people come in to rob the stores … that there should be any leniency for this type of thing‚ I really don't understand that‚" Paterson said. "People like myself who have always been advocates for a fair trial for people — not let the deck get stacked against them as it used to be in the past — are having to recognize that there's going to have to be a greater sense of punishment than there is right now."Heastie did not respond to the Post's request for comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hit pop signer Shakira is not a fan of the movie "Barbie."The 2023 film‚ which has grossed nearly $1.5 billion and won numerous awards‚ received critical acclaim. But the movie was also controversial because of its political overtones and its progressive view of men and women. The script‚ according to the Wall Street Journal's review of the movie‚ "is like a grumpier-than-average women's studies seminar."That progressive — woke‚ even — view of men and women is why Shakira's sons "hated" the movie‚ she told Allure in a new interview."My sons absolutely hated it. They felt that it was emasculating. And I agree‚ to a certain extent‚" Shakira revealed. "I'm raising two boys. I want 'em to feel powerful too [while] respecting women‚" she explained. "I like pop culture when it attempts to empower women without robbing men of their possibility to be men‚ to also protect and provide. I believe in giving women all the tools and the trust that we can do it all without losing our essence‚ without losing our femininity. I think that men have a purpose in society and women have another purpose as well. We complement each other‚ and that complement should not be lost."Shakira's perspective is not politically correct. But it's also not a surprise. The "Hips Don't Lie" singer was raised Catholic‚ and she spent her early life in Colombia‚ where she was born. She is Hispanic‚ and Hispanic culture is generally more conservative and traditional‚ honoring and celebrating the differences between men and women.Indeed‚ her traditional view of gender roles was solidified in a follow-up question from an Allure reporter."Just because a woman can do it all doesn’t mean she should?" that reporter asked Shakira."Why not share the load with people who deserve to carry it‚ who have a duty to carry it as well?" the singer responded.For most of human history‚ this view of men and women was perfectly acceptable; it was the norm‚ in fact. But only in an age when American culture finds it difficult to define‚ "What is a woman?" can Shakira's perspective be labeled "problematic."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hillary Clinton is lecturing voters again.Speaking with "The Tonight Show" host Jimmy Fallon on Monday‚ Clinton scolded voters upset about the forthcoming rematch between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump."Get over yourself! Those are the two choices‚" Clinton lectured.The twice-failed presidential candidate then justified her position by offering a comparison of Biden and Trump. "One is old and effective and compassionate‚ has a heart‚ and really cares about people‚" Clinton said‚ referring to Biden."And one is old and has been charged with 91 felonies‚" she continued‚ referring to Trump. But notice what Clinton didn't say — because it's more important than what she did say: Clinton did not persuade undecided voters to support Biden based on his accomplishments. That is telling. Perhaps the reason why Clinton did not try to persuade voters to support Biden on the basis of his presidential record is because polls have showed consistently that a majority of voters do not view Biden's record favorably. In fact‚ they believe the country is headed in the wrong direction‚ and they believe Biden and his policies are to blame.A recent Fox News poll‚ for example‚ found that Biden's top accomplishment to be "nothing." Later in her interview‚ Clinton fear-mongered about the "existential" nature of the 2024 election‚ suggesting that Trump threatens the existence of our republic.She said:I don't understand why this is even a hard choice. Really. I don't understand it. But we have to go through the election and hopefully people will realize what’s at stake because it's an existential question: What kind of country we're going to have; what kind of democracy we're going to have. And people who blow that off are not paying attention because it's not like Trump‚ his enablers‚ his empowers‚ his allies are not telling us what they want to do. I mean‚ they're pretty clear about what kind of country they want.It's the same existentialist rhetoric we hear from politicians every four years. And yet: American democracy always prevails.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Several illegal aliens‚ including one man accused of attempted murder‚ were apprehended in a recent raid of a home in the Bronx.Around 10 p.m. last Wednesday‚ NYPD received a call about a man wielding a firearm at a home on Hull Avenue in the Norwood section of the Bronx. When officers arrived‚ they spotted an armed suspect dash downstairs.A pursuit of the suspect revealed a rather chaotic scene: Eight adults and a 7-year-old child were gathered in a room in the basement of the building. In the area‚ police reportedly also found at least two other loaded weapons‚ a "ghost gun‚" ammunition‚ and a bag of ketamine mixed with cocaine.The following suspects‚ all of whom are believed to be foreign nationals‚ were arrested: Javier Alborno of Venezuela‚ 22; Johan Cardenas Silva‚ 35; Hector Desousa-Villalta of Venezuela‚ 24; Yerbin Lozado-Munoz‚ 25; Yojairo Martinez‚ 42; Jefferson Orlando Abreau‚ 39; Yoessy Pino Castillo‚ a 20-year-old female; and Miguel Vaamondes-Barrios‚ 31.All were charged with criminal possession of a weapon‚ criminal possession of a controlled substance‚ and acting in a manner injurious to a child. Neighbors say the group has been a nuisance in the area for a while. "They're squatters and the owner has been trying to get them out of the apartment for the longest period of time‚" said Alfred Munoz. "They came‚ they were a disruptive force mainly because there were a lot of them. You didn't know who was staying‚ not staying there‚ and the owner of the building had a hell of a time trying to get them out."Many of them are already well known to law enforcement as well. Some are suspected of being involved in a string of robberies in Bergen County‚ New Jersey‚ though they have not yet been charged. Vaamondes-Barrios has been accused of committing retail theft in Pennsylvania and New York. He had been held on $25‚000 bail in one of those cases and may face extradition.Alborno‚ who allegedly attempted to flee the Bronx apartment with a gun when the cops arrived‚ was also arrested last September for allegedly carrying a loaded firearm. Though the prosecutor in that case requested Alborno be held on $10‚000 bond‚ the judge released him.And in an apparently violent culmination of an argument over a woman in Yonkers‚ Desousa supposedly shot a fellow illegal immigrant in the leg last August. While Desousa was later charged with attempted murder‚ the victim later reportedly refused to cooperate in the investigation.NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell claimed that the cases against Desousa and Alborno remain "open."Desousa and Alborno now both remain in custody in connection with the most recent charges‚ but the others apprehended during the Bronx raid were released without bail.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A middle school in New Mexico was forced to implement lockdown measures multiple times in recent weeks after groups of illegal migrants entered campus while attempting to find a place to hide from Border Patrol agents‚ KFOX reported.Refugio Corrales‚ a spokesperson for Customs and Border Protection’s El Paso sector‚ stated that illegal migrants are wandering onto Gadsden Independent School District property while attempting to avoid arrest. “The Santa Teresa Middle School is one of the areas where these migrants jump into without thinking of where they’re going through because they’re trying to evade arrest‚” Corrales explained.According to the CBP agent‚ the department has ramped up officer presence during school hours to provide additional security.The El Paso Border Patrol sector stated that six migrants were apprehended outside of the middle school by Border Patrol agents on March 27. “Agents were able to locate the individuals after being advised by another law enforcement agency on site. The Santa Teresa Middle School was temporarily placed on a secure status as a precautionary measure when they observed our agents and other law enforcement in the school's proximity‚” CBP remarked. “It is common for Border Patrol Agents to receive calls from the community in the Sunland Park‚ NM area‚ especially those impacted by migrants who often conceal themselves inside of properties‚” CBP’s statement continued. “This is due to the proximity of the border and as such‚ many migrants attempt to evade arrest from the U.S. Border Patrol. Agents are always mindful of the safety and wellbeing of not only migrants but the public at large‚ especially in and around schools in this area.”Two Sunland Park officers stayed on campus for the remainder of the school day.According to Gadsden ISD Superintendent Travis Dempsey‚ groups of migrants have wandered onto the school’s property twice within a one-week period‚ KFOX reported.“It is concerning and it does at some level interrupt our educational process when we do things of this nature‚” Dempsey noted.He added that the school uses security cameras to monitor for migrant crossings.During the initial incident‚ which occurred on March 20‚ the middle school was instructed to “get inside and lock outside doors‚" according to the district‚ KTSM reported.The school district thanked the Border Patrol agents and Sunland Park Police Department for their “swift and professional response to this situation.” Parent Maria Gallegos told KFOX‚ “We’re a little nervous because with the fear and nerves migrants have of being caught by immigration officials‚ we don’t know if they’d do something to our students.”Lorenzo Gandara‚ a grandparent of a student‚ told the news outlet that the border crisis is out of control.“It's really bad because we’re with the concern that something could happen to the kids‚” Gandara said.KFOX reported that the middle school has a resource officer on campus. If migrants are observed on school property‚ the police officer immediately reports them to Border Patrol.In fiscal year 2023‚ the El Paso sector experienced more than 427‚000 recorded migrant encounters‚ according to CBP data. From October 2023 through February 2024‚ there were more than 119‚000 encounters.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!