Ryan Routh will die in federal prison. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon sentenced the convicted would-be assassin to life without parole plus seven years on Wednesday in Fort Pierce, Florida, closing the book on one of the most brazen assassination attempts against a political figure in modern American history.
According to The Hill, Routh was convicted on all five counts — trying to assassinate a major presidential candidate, using a firearm in furtherance of a crime, assaulting a federal officer, possessing a firearm as a felon, and using a gun with a defaced serial number. The other sentences will run concurrently.
Judge Cannon did not mince words:
"Your plot to kill was deliberate and evil. You are not a peaceful man. You are not a good man."
On Sept. 15, 2024, while Donald Trump played golf at his West Palm Beach country club, Routh positioned himself in the shrubbery with a rifle. He had spent weeks plotting the attack. A Secret Service agent spotted him before Trump came into view — and when Routh aimed his rifle at the agent, the agent opened fire. Routh dropped the weapon and ran without firing a shot.
That a Secret Service agent's vigilance stood between a presidential candidate and a bullet is the kind of detail that should keep every American up at night. The system worked — barely.
Prosecutors laid out a portrait of a man consumed by obsession. Routh had a large online footprint demonstrating disdain for Trump. He self-published a book in which he encouraged Iran to assassinate Trump and wrote that, as a former Trump voter, he bore part of the blame for electing him. He had multiple previous felony convictions, including possession of stolen goods — meaning he was already barred from possessing firearms under federal law. The gun he carried had a defaced serial number.
Every layer of this story reveals another law broken, another guardrail ignored.
Routh treated his sentencing hearing like a stage. He read from a rambling, 20-page statement — so disconnected from the proceedings that Judge Cannon broke in and gave him five more minutes. She told him none of what he was saying was relevant.
Before sentencing, Routh had filed a motion that included this line:
"Just a quarter of an inch further back and we all would not have to deal with all of this mess."
And this:
"but I always fail at everything (par for the course)."
Cannon called the motion a "disrespectful charade" that made a mockery of the proceedings. She was right. Routh also offered to trade his life in a prisoner swap and invited Trump to "take out his frustrations" on his face. None of this is the behavior of a man grappling with what he did. It is the behavior of a man performing for an audience — any audience.
This was not Routh's first eruption. When the jury found him guilty on all counts in September, the courtroom descended into chaos after he tried to stab himself. He had represented himself for most of the trial, with former federal public defenders serving as standby counsel. Judge Cannon had signed off on that arrangement last summer, though she said she wanted to err on the side of legal representation. Sentencing was initially set for December, but was moved back after Routh decided to use an attorney during the sentencing phase.
Defense attorney Martin L. Roth asked for 20 years plus the mandatory seven for the gun conviction. His argument hinged on one claim:
"At the moment of truth, he chose not to pull the trigger."
He chose not to pull the trigger because a Secret Service agent shot at him first. Framing a failed assassination as an act of restraint takes a particular kind of legal creativity.
Roth went further:
"He's a complex person, I'll give the court that, but he has a very good core."
A good core. A man who plotted for weeks to kill a presidential candidate, aimed a rifle at a federal agent, previously encouraged a foreign adversary to assassinate on his behalf, and carried an illegally possessed firearm with a defaced serial number. Defense attorneys are obligated to advocate for their clients. But words still mean things, and "good core" does not mean what Roth needed it to mean.
In a filing, Roth argued:
"The defendant is two weeks short of being sixty years old. A just punishment would provide a sentence long enough to impose sufficient but not excessive punishment, and to allow defendant to experience freedom again as opposed to dying in prison."
Judge Cannon disagreed. Unanimously and permanently.
Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley framed the case in the terms it deserves:
"American democracy does not work when individuals take it into their own hands to eliminate candidates. That's what this individual tried to do."
This is not a complicated proposition. When a man with a rifle camps out near a golf course to kill a candidate, the political system itself is under threat. It does not matter which candidate. It does not matter which party. The act is a repudiation of self-governance.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated X, reinforcing the point:
"Ryan Routh's heinous attempted assassination of President Trump was not only an attack on our President — it was a direct assault against our entire democratic system."
Bondi thanked prosecutors for ensuring Routh will never walk free again.
Routh is the second person who attempted to assassinate Donald Trump during the 2024 campaign. That fact alone should command sustained national attention. Two assassination attempts against the same presidential candidate in a single election cycle is not a footnote — it is a crisis.
Yet the cultural response has been curiously muted. The rhetoric that frames one side of the political aisle as an existential threat — not merely wrong on policy, but dangerous to human life — has consequences. When political opponents are described in apocalyptic terms, unstable individuals hear permission. Nobody forced Ryan Routh to pick up a rifle. But the temperature of the national conversation is not set by the most dangerous people in the room. It is set by the most powerful.
Routh himself acknowledged this dynamic in his own warped way, writing that as a Trump voter, he felt he bore responsibility. His logic was deranged. But the emotional pathway — from consuming heated political rhetoric to concluding that violent action is justified — is one that institutions, media figures, and political leaders have a duty to interrupt rather than accelerate.
Routh stood before the court and said:
"I did everything I could and lived a good life."
Judge Cannon — nominated by Trump in 2020 — saw it differently. Life without parole. No ambiguity. No second chance. No freedom, ever.
The prosecutors who built this case, the Secret Service agent who spotted a rifle barrel in the bushes before it was too late, and the judge who refused to treat attempted assassination as a complex personal journey all did their jobs. Routh spent weeks planning to end a man's life and alter the course of an election. The system caught him, tried him, convicted him, and locked him away forever.
Ryan Routh wanted to change history. Instead, he will spend every remaining day of his life in a cell, forgotten by the country he tried to wound. That is justice — not performative, not negotiated, not hedged. Final.
Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) just dropped a serious revelation about the Clintons and their connections to Jeffrey Epstein on national television.
On Wednesday, Burlison appeared on Newsmax’s “Bianca Across the Nation” to discuss Bill and Hillary Clinton’s alleged relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Burlison claimed the Clintons had significant involvement with Epstein and urged them to honor their agreement to testify before the House.
After facing threats of contempt of Congress for delays, Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state, is set to testify on Feb. 26, with Bill Clinton scheduled for the following day.
Burlison didn’t mince words, alleging a deep link between the Clintons and Epstein’s world. He pointed to specific claims, including interactions with victims and even a photograph of Bill Clinton receiving a massage from one of them, according to ABC News.
“With Bill Clinton, for example, there have been three victims who have publicly stated that they had interactions with Bill Clinton,” Burlison stated on Newsmax. It's important to note that no Epstein victim has said Clinton did anything inappropriate or abusive.
Burlison also emphasized how Bill Clinton’s prominence might have silenced those harmed by Epstein. The mere presence of a former president could intimidate victims, preventing them from speaking out. This “chilling effect” demands a closer look at how power protects itself.
“The fact that he was present gives a chilling effect to any of these victims to coming forward or trying to report their activities with Epstein,” Burlison argued. If true, this paints a troubling picture of influence shielding wrongdoing.
Further allegations from Burlison suggest the Clintons’ involvement didn’t end with Epstein’s conviction. He claimed interactions continued through Ghislaine Maxwell, described as an Epstein co-conspirator, hinting at a web of connections still unexplored. This isn’t a closed chapter—it’s a lingering question mark.
The Clintons only agreed to testify when a contempt of Congress vote loomed just days away, per Burlison. Such reluctance doesn’t inspire confidence in their willingness to come clean. It’s hard not to wonder what they’re so eager to avoid discussing.
Burlison also tied the Clinton Foundation to Epstein, calling it an idea born from the disgraced financier. This level of entanglement, if proven, could reshape how we view their public endeavors. Scrutiny here isn’t optional—it’s essential.
Adding to the skepticism, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA ) commented on Newsmax’s “National Report” that same day. Perry accused the Clintons of dodging accountability for months, predicting they’ll say as little as possible under oath. This gamesmanship frustrates those hungry for the truth.
Victims, as Burlison noted, feel let down by law enforcement and the Department of Justice. Their pain underscores why these hearings on Feb. 26 and the following day matter so much. We can’t let bureaucratic failures bury their stories again.
The public deserves to know if Bill Clinton, as Burlison alleges, enabled Epstein’s illegal activities through his association. Even the appearance of complicity from someone of his stature erodes trust in our institutions. This isn’t about politics—it’s about justice.
Burlison’s push for tough questions signals a broader conservative frustration with elites skating by on privilege. The idea that power can insulate against accountability grates against the principle of equal justice under law. It’s a fight worth having.
As the testimony dates approach, all eyes will be on whether the Clintons provide meaningful answers or hide behind evasions. Perry’s warning of them “playing” investigators only heightens the stakes. Conservatives will be watching, and they won’t settle for half-truths.
Ultimately, this story isn’t just about the Clintons or Epstein—it’s about whether our system can still hold the powerful to account. Burlison and Perry are right to demand clarity, especially for victims who’ve waited too long for justice. Let’s hope Feb. 26 brings revelations, not roadblocks.
Washington, D.C., just got a hardline reminder that carrying a firearm within its borders could land even the most law-abiding citizen behind bars.
On Monday, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro delivered a clear message to gun owners during an interview with FOX News. She stated that anyone bringing a gun into the District, regardless of licenses held elsewhere, faces jail time.
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) pushed back, affirming he holds carry licenses from both Florida and D.C. and intends to keep carrying for personal protection. Pirro’s warning wasn’t just a casual comment; it was a deliberate shot across the bow while she highlighted a historic drop in D.C. homicides under President Trump’s tenure.
Her words were blunt:
“If you bring a gun into the District, you mark my words, you’re going to jail.”
According to Breitbart News, she doubled down, making it clear that out-of-state permits or a clean record elsewhere won’t save anyone from consequences.
This isn’t about nuance for Pirro; it’s about enforcing D.C.’s strict rules with an iron fist. She even suggested that gun owners might not get their firearms returned after arrest.
Enter Rep. Greg Steube, who isn’t backing down from this challenge. He’s armed with licenses from both his home state of Florida and D.C. itself, and he’s not about to surrender his right to self-defense.
Steube declared he will “continue to carry” to safeguard himself and those around him. His follow-up was a direct dare to anyone trying to stop him:
“Come and take it!”
Steube's words are a stand for every American who believes in the right to bear arms, especially in a city where danger can lurk despite declining crime stats.
The debate here isn’t merely legal—it’s a cultural flashpoint. Pirro’s hardline approach signals a broader push to clamp down on gun rights in liberal strongholds like D.C., where the Second Amendment often feels like an afterthought.
For many law-abiding citizens, this feels like a slap in the face. Why should someone with a spotless record and valid permits elsewhere be treated like a criminal just for crossing an invisible line?
Steube’s defiance resonates with those fed up with overreach from bureaucrats who seem to prioritize control over common sense. His stance is a reminder that rights aren’t negotiable, no matter the zip code.
Zoom out, and this skirmish reflects a deeper battle over how far cities can go in restricting freedoms. D.C.’s strict laws have long been a thorn in the side of gun owners, and Pirro’s rhetoric only sharpens the divide.
What’s next could be telling—will Steube’s pushback inspire others to challenge these rules, or will Pirro’s warnings scare off even the most determined? The outcome might set a precedent for how much power local officials wield over constitutional rights.
One thing is certain: this isn’t the last we’ll hear of this fight. Gun owners across the nation are watching, and they’re not likely to sit idly by while their liberties are chipped away in the name of supposed safety.
The Trump administration has taken a bold stand, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to back Catholic preschools in Colorado seeking public funds while maintaining their faith-based admissions policies.
The Justice Department filed an unsolicited brief in support of the Archdiocese of Denver and two Catholic parishes, which are challenging a federal appeals court ruling.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver previously rejected the schools’ argument, upholding Colorado’s nondiscrimination rules for its tuition-free preschool program. The state requires participating schools, including private and faith-based ones, to provide equal enrollment opportunities regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity of a child’s family.
The case has the appeals court considering the balance between religious liberty and so-called nondiscrimination mandates. Supporters of the Catholic schools argue that the state’s rules trample on the free exercise of faith by forcing institutions to abandon core beliefs, according to USA Today.
Colorado’s preschool program, designed to offer free early education statewide, allows both public and private schools to participate if they meet specific standards like teacher qualifications and class sizes. Yet, the Archdiocese of Denver, overseeing 36 preschools, instructs its schools to exclude families who reject Catholic teachings on marriage and biological sex. This policy clash has led to a sharp decline in enrollment as parents face thousands in fees without state subsidies.
The Trump Justice Department, in a rare uninvited move, contends that if Colorado permits nonreligious admissions preferences—like prioritizing low-income or special-needs children—then faith-based preferences should also stand. Solicitor General John Sauer emphasized the urgency, stating, “The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the free exercise of religion.” This isn’t just legal posturing; it’s a pushback against a creeping overreach that seeks to erase religious identity from public life.
Last year, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit dismissed the comparison between nonreligious admissions priorities and excluding families based on parental sexual orientation. Judge Richard Federico sharply noted, “It is farcical to say that non-disabled children are being discriminated against by being denied special education designed for disabled students.” His ruling framed the state’s policy as neutral, not targeting religious practices but ensuring universal access to funded education.
The Archdiocese, backed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—a group with a winning track record at the Supreme Court—argues this isn’t neutrality but coercion. Scott Elmer, chief mission officer for the Archdiocese, declared, “All we ask is for the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that are available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.” For many faithful parents, this is about preserving a sacred space for their children’s upbringing.
Colorado has until March 2 to respond to the appeal, while a spokesman for the state attorney general’s office stayed silent on the Justice Department’s filing. This hush suggests either strategic caution or a lack of coherent defense for policies that seem to cherry-pick which freedoms matter. The state’s program, after all, actively encouraged faith-based schools to join—only to bind them with rules that clash with their doctrine.
Since 2017, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states offering private education subsidies cannot outright exclude religious institutions. The appeals court, however, claimed Colorado’s setup is different since it welcomes faith-based schools and allows religious teaching, provided they adhere to nondiscrimination rules. This distinction feels like a legal sleight of hand to sidestep clear precedent.
For conservatives, this case is a litmus test for whether religious liberty still holds weight in a culture obsessed with enforcing ideological conformity. The Justice Department’s hard line under Trump signals a refusal to let faith be steamrolled by progressive mandates masquerading as fairness. If the Supreme Court takes this up, it could redefine how far states can go in meddling with religious institutions.
The Becket Fund’s involvement adds firepower, given their history of securing victories on religious issues, including a 2025 ruling allowing parents to opt children out of certain classroom materials. Their track record suggests this isn’t a long shot but a fight with real teeth. For now, the nation watches as Colorado’s policies face scrutiny at the highest level.
Beyond legalese, this battle cuts to the heart of parental choice and the right to raise children according to deeply held beliefs. Catholic families in Colorado aren’t asking for special treatment—just the same shot at free preschool that others get without strings that choke their faith.
If the Supreme Court sides with the state, expect a chilling effect on religious schools nationwide, as enrollment drops and parents are priced out of faith-based education. Conversely, a win for the Archdiocese could embolden other institutions to stand firm against policies that demand they bow to secular orthodoxy.
This isn’t just about preschools; it’s about whether the government can dictate the soul of private institutions under the guise of equity. As the debate unfolds, one thing is clear: the Trump administration’s uninvited brief isn’t a mere footnote—it’s a rallying cry for those who believe religious freedom isn’t negotiable.
Has Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the self-proclaimed socialist from Queens, turned her back on the far-left crowd that once cheered her every move?
Criticism is now mounting from Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members against AOC for endorsing moderate Democrats in the upcoming midterms. The controversy centers on her support for Rep. Julie Johnson in a heated primary race for Dallas’s redrawn 33rd district, as well as her backing of Mary Peltola for U.S. Senate in Alaska just weeks prior. DSA members are questioning whether AOC’s recent moves signal a shift away from their ideological principles.
The issue has sparked heated debate among the socialist faithful, who see AOC’s actions as a betrayal of their cause. Her endorsement of Johnson, posted in a social media video on January 23, has particularly riled up the DSA base.
“We can’t let the GOP gerrymander one of our strongest fighters out of Congress,” AOC declared in the video, praising Johnson’s opposition to what she called ICE overreach and MAGA extremism, the New York Post reported. Her words might sound noble to some, but they’ve fallen flat with those who expected her to champion their unyielding agenda.
Let’s be clear: AOC endorsing a politician like Johnson, who voted for $3.3 billion in military aid to Israel earlier this month, doesn’t sit right with a crowd that’s pushed hardline anti-Zionist resolutions. The DSA’s national chapter even yanked their endorsement of AOC back in 2024 over her support for a resolution affirming Israel’s right to exist, though her local NYC chapter still backs her. This latest move has some whispering about outright expulsion.
DSA frustration isn’t just about policy—it’s personal. One member vented on a party discussion board, calling out AOC’s trajectory with biting words.
“I think it is obvious that AOC is a career opportunist,” the DSA member posted, pointing to her support for President Biden long past his viability and her justifications for aid to Israel. That’s a damning critique from a group that once saw her as their shining star.
And it’s not just Johnson’s Israel vote that’s raising eyebrows. Her active trading in stock tied to Palantir—a company linked to Trump-era immigration enforcement—has drawn sharp rebukes from the same socialists now questioning AOC’s judgment. If you’re trying to burnish your anti-establishment creds, this isn’t the way to do it.
AOC’s second moderate endorsement in just 10 days, following her support for the pro-gun, pro-drilling Peltola in Alaska, suggests a pattern to many on the left. Some DSA attendees speculate she’s cozying up to the Democratic Party machine, perhaps eyeing bigger prizes like a Senate seat or even the presidency. That kind of ambition doesn’t jive with the purity tests of the far-left crowd.
Political scientist Lonna Atkeson from Florida State University sees it as a calculated pivot. She argues AOC is prioritizing winnable candidates over ideological loyalty, a move reminiscent of establishment figures like Nancy Pelosi. It’s a pragmatic play, but one that risks alienating her original base.
Meanwhile, Johnson’s primary battle against former Rep. Colin Allred, who previously held the neighboring 32nd district for six years, is no cakewalk. Polls show Allred leading by over 20 points ahead of the March 3 contest. AOC’s backing might be a Hail Mary, but it’s not looking like a game-changer.
For conservatives watching this unfold, it’s a popcorn-worthy spectacle of the left eating its own. AOC’s apparent shift toward the middle exposes the fault lines in a movement that often demands absolute conformity. If she’s building goodwill with party insiders, as her critics claim, she might be playing a longer game—one that could backfire with her grassroots supporters.
Here’s the kicker: while the DSA fumes, everyday Americans might see this as a rare moment of sanity from AOC, stepping away from the radical fringe. But don’t hold your breath—her endorsements still prop up Democrats who push policies far from the common-sense values many hold dear. It’s less a transformation and more a reshuffling of the same tired deck.
Johnson’s race in the 33rd district will be a litmus test. If AOC’s support can’t close the gap against Allred, her influence might take a hit, even among moderates she’s courting. For now, the socialist wing’s grumbling is just noise—but it’s loud enough to make you wonder if her “Squad” cred is on borrowed time.
Minneapolis is reeling from a controversy involving a high-ranking Border Patrol official whose alleged comments on a federal prosecutor's faith have ignited public outrage.
Gregory Bovino, dubbed the Border Patrol's Commander-at-Large, reportedly made derogatory remarks about Minnesota U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen's Jewish faith during a phone call on January 12, as reported by The New York Times, citing sources. Bovino is said to have mocked Rosen, an Orthodox Jew who observes Shabbat, with a snide reference to the "chosen people" and complaints about reaching him on weekends. This incident comes amid Bovino's prominent role in the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts in Minnesota, further complicated by backlash over his statements following the deaths of two individuals, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both 37, earlier this month.
The issue has sparked intense debate over the boundaries of professional conduct and the handling of immigration enforcement under the current administration. While Bovino has been a key figure in pushing for stricter policies, his alleged remarks and subsequent actions have drawn sharp criticism from various quarters. The timing, following tragic events in Minneapolis, only adds fuel to an already heated discussion.
Turning to the specifics, Bovino's alleged comments during the January 12 call weren't just offhand—they were pointed, according to sources. He reportedly questioned whether Rosen understood that even Orthodox Jewish criminals don't take weekends off, a jab that reeks of unnecessary cultural insensitivity. It's hard to see this as anything but a misstep in an already tense environment, as Daily Mail reports.
Rosen, nominated by President Donald Trump, delegated the conversation to a deputy, though prosecutors from his office were still on the line. The fallout was swift—six federal prosecutors in Minnesota resigned the very next day in protest over the Department of Justice's handling of related matters, including the death of Renee Good. That kind of mass exit speaks volumes about the depth of discontent.
Bovino wasn't just talking faith—he was pushing Rosen to slap tougher charges on demonstrators he believed were hindering immigration operations. This aggressive stance on enforcement is par for the course in the administration's approach, but mixing personal barbs with policy pressure is a risky game. It muddies the waters between legitimate security concerns and petty grievances.
Before this call, Bovino was already under fire for his response to the January 7 shooting of Renee Good, a mother of three, by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis. Good was killed after allegedly refusing to open her car door during a demonstration, and Bovino called her vehicle a "four-thousand-pound missile" aimed at the agent. That kind of language paints a picture of imminent danger, but it also sidesteps the human cost of such a tragic loss.
Bovino doubled down, saying, "Hats off to that ICE agent," and expressing relief that the agent survived to return to his family. While it's understandable to support law enforcement in perilous situations, framing the incident as a clear-cut victory feels tone-deaf when a life was lost. Public sentiment demands more nuance than a simple pat on the back.
Then there's the death of ICU nurse Alex Pretti, also 37, where Bovino's remarks again stirred controversy by claiming Pretti "put himself in that situation." Suggesting Pretti aimed to "massacre" federal agents seems like a stretch without ironclad evidence, and it risks turning law enforcement into the sole victim narrative. These statements alienate communities already skeptical of heavy-handed tactics.
The backlash wasn't just local—leading Democrats, like California Governor Gavin Newsom, slammed Bovino's demeanor with harsh comparisons to historical authoritarian imagery. While such critiques may overreach, they reflect a broader unease with the tone set by enforcement leaders. The criticism isn't about policy alone; it's about how it's delivered.
Amid mounting pressure, President Trump pulled Bovino from Minneapolis this week, replacing him with border czar Tom Homan. Homan acknowledged that "certain improvements could and should be made," a rare admission that suggests even within the administration, Bovino's approach raised eyebrows. It's a shift, not a dismissal, as initial reports of firing were corrected by DHS assistant press secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
McLaughlin defended Bovino on Monday, calling him a "key part of the President's team and a great American." That loyalty underscores the administration's commitment to its enforcers, even under scrutiny. But it also begs the question of whether defending the man overshadows addressing the underlying issues.
Immigration enforcement is a lightning rod, and Bovino's role in Minnesota put him at the forefront of a necessary but divisive mission. Protecting borders and enforcing laws aren't negotiable for many, yet the way it's done—especially when lives are lost, or faiths are mocked—matters immensely. A heavy hand without a steady head risks losing public trust.
The administration's crackdown has supporters who see it as long-overdue accountability, but incidents like these highlight the tightrope of maintaining order without overstepping into personal or cultural disrespect. Bovino's alleged remarks about Rosen's faith aren't just a footnote; they feed into a narrative of insensitivity that can derail even the most defensible policies. It's a reminder that optics and empathy aren't just progressive buzzwords—they're practical necessities.
As Homan steps in, the hope is for a recalibration that keeps enforcement firm but fair, without the collateral damage of inflammatory rhetoric. The stakes in Minneapolis, and across the nation, are too high for anything less. Let's see if this change in leadership can strike that balance.
In a stunning courtroom decision, a judge in Newport News, Virginia, has upheld a jury's verdict awarding $10 million to a teacher shot by her own student.
WAVY reported that Abigail Zwerner, a former first-grade teacher, was injured in January 2023 when a 6-year-old student shot her in her classroom, with the bullet passing through her hand and striking near her left shoulder. A jury in November awarded her $10 million, finding former assistant principal Ebony Parker negligent in the incident.
On Friday, a judge denied motions to overturn this verdict, affirming the substantial compensation for Zwerner’s injuries and trauma, as reported by WAVY in Newport News.
The ruling has cemented a significant judgment, with Zwerner’s attorneys issuing a statement urging the City of Newport News to support her recovery. Zwerner herself has spoken of the profound impact, stating in earlier proceedings that the trauma forced her to abandon her dream of teaching.
Her legal team highlighted ongoing physical injuries and emotional struggles expected to persist for life.
The issue has sparked intense debate over responsibility in schools and the safety of educators. While the facts are clear, the implications of holding administrators accountable for such incidents raise questions about the broader system.
Parker’s attorney, Matthew Fitzgerald, argued, “The job of a first-grade teacher does carry the risk of being attacked by a young student.” Well, that’s a bold take—implying teachers should just expect violence as part of the gig. But isn’t the real issue a failure to address warning signs before a child brings a weapon to class?
Zwerner’s attorney, Jeffrey Breit, countered with confidence in the ruling, saying, “Getting the judge to admit that you were wrong in all your rulings, and the jury was out of their minds to reach this verdict … that’s a really hard burden, and I expected the judge to do what he did today.” There’s a sharp point here: the judiciary isn’t easily swayed by second-guessing a jury’s careful deliberation. It’s a win for sticking to principle over bureaucratic pushback.
The jury’s finding of negligence against Parker isn’t just a personal failing—it points to a deeper problem of oversight in schools. When a 6-year-old accesses a firearm and uses it, shouldn’t there be mechanisms to prevent such tragedies long before they unfold?
Now, Parker faces a separate criminal case with eight felony charges of child abuse, set for trial in May. This adds another layer of scrutiny to her actions that day. It’s a grim reminder that accountability doesn’t stop at civil verdicts.
Zwerner’s attorneys didn’t hold back in their Friday statement, pressing the City of Newport News to step up and support her rather than drag out delays. They’ve got a point—why prolong the suffering of someone already victimized by a system that failed her?
The human cost here is staggering—Zwerner’s life has been upended by physical scars and emotional wounds. Her dream career is gone, replaced by a lifelong recovery process. How many more educators must face such risks before policies catch up to reality?
Progressive agendas often push for more focus on student rights and less on strict discipline, but where’s the balance when teachers become collateral damage? Safety protocols shouldn’t be an afterthought, dismissed as too inconvenient or costly. Zwerner’s case is a wake-up call for prioritizing security over idealism.
Look at the City of Newport News—critics might argue it’s dodging responsibility with delays and denials, as Zwerner’s legal team pointed out. If a jury and judge both affirm this verdict, isn’t it time to stop stonewalling and start solving?
The broader lesson here isn’t just about one teacher or one administrator—it’s about a culture that too often overlooks the safety of those on the front lines of education. Teachers aren’t soldiers; they shouldn’t be expected to dodge bullets in the classroom.
While Parker’s pending criminal trial will likely bring more details to light, the civil judgment already sends a message: negligence has a price. Schools must be proactive, not reactive, in protecting their staff and students.
On a tense Monday evening in Maple Grove, Minnesota, a protest outside the Spring Hill Suites hotel turned into a clash with law enforcement, resulting in multiple arrests.
The demonstration, led by a group described as leftists, targeted Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, believed to be staying at the hotel. Tensions escalated as protesters allegedly damaged property and threw objects at responding police officers, prompting authorities to declare an unlawful assembly.
Thirteen individuals were taken into custody, with reports later revealing that some of those arrested have prior criminal records.
Video footage from that evening shows a rapid escalation outside the Spring Hill Suites, according to Breitbart News. What began as a demonstration quickly spiraled as property was reportedly damaged and objects were hurled at officers. Such behavior not only endangers law enforcement but also undermines the message of any cause.
Authorities had little choice but to step in, declaring the gathering an unlawful assembly. The decision to arrest 13 individuals reflects a firm stance against violence, a position echoed by Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino during a recent press conference. His words cut through the noise with clarity on the consequences of crossing legal lines.
“If you obstruct a law enforcement officer or assault a law enforcement officer, you are in violation of the law and will be arrested,” Bovino stated. That’s a no-nonsense reminder that actions have accountability, regardless of the cause behind them. It’s a line that must hold if order is to prevail over chaos.
Among those arrested, several have documented criminal histories that add a layer of complexity to the narrative. Justin Neal Shelton, charged with obstructing legal process on Monday, previously pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated robbery in 2007 for a violent car theft attempt involving a pregnant woman, though her baby was unharmed, per Fox News, citing the Pioneer Press. This past raises eyebrows about the company's response during such volatile protests.
Abraham Nelson Coleman, another arrestee, has convictions for theft, felony theft, and property damage. Then there’s John Linden Gribble, 40, with prior convictions for misdemeanor DWI and operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. These records don’t define the protest’s purpose, but certainly color public perception of the event.
Other arrestees include a University of Minnesota Law School student, an anti-Israel activist, and a birth assistant from a Minnesota birthing center. While their backgrounds vary, their involvement in an event that turned destructive prompts questions about the motivations and methods at play. It’s a mixed bag that deserves scrutiny without rush to judgment.
This incident doesn’t stand alone but fits into a pattern of unrest tied to immigration enforcement in Minnesota. Breitbart News reported on a separate “pot-banging demonstration” in Minneapolis last week, where leftists attempted to disrupt Vice President JD Vance at his hotel, only to find he’d already left. It’s almost comedic, except the underlying issues are anything but funny.
“The pot-banging demonstration happened as leftists have been protesting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arresting criminal illegal aliens in the city and other areas of the state,” Breitbart News noted. While the frustration with ICE policies is palpable for some, targeting individuals or disrupting public spaces with noise and destruction rarely wins hearts or minds. It’s a tactic that alienates more than it educates.
Moreover, the U.S. Department of Justice recently arrested 16 individuals in the state for allegedly rioting and assaulting ICE officers, according to Breitbart News. This string of events suggests a growing tension over immigration enforcement, a deeply divisive policy debate. Yet, resorting to violence or property damage only muddies the waters of legitimate discourse.
The right to protest is a cornerstone of a free society, but it comes with the responsibility to respect the safety and rights of others. When demonstrations devolve into property destruction or attacks on law enforcement, they risk losing public support and derailing meaningful conversation. Maple Grove’s incident is a case study in this delicate balance.
Border Patrol and ICE remain lightning rods for criticism, especially among progressive groups opposed to strict immigration measures. Yet, the focus should remain on policy solutions—debating detention practices or border security—rather than personal confrontations outside hotels. It’s a pivot that could elevate the discussion beyond street-level skirmishes.
Ultimately, the arrests in Maple Grove serve as a reminder that actions carry consequences, no matter the passion behind them. Law enforcement must protect public order, just as protesters must channel their energy into constructive dialogue. If both sides dig in without compromise, Minnesota risks becoming a battleground for noise rather than progress.
President Donald Trump has sent a stark message to Iran, signaling that time is dwindling for a nuclear agreement as a formidable U.S. naval force approaches.
On Wednesday, Trump announced that a significant naval fleet, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, is heading toward Iran. He urged Tehran to negotiate a nuclear deal, warning of severe repercussions if it fails to engage. This follows heightened tensions, including a past U.S. military operation on June 22, 2025, known as Operation Midnight Hammer, and recent regional complications with allies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates refusing to support potential U.S. military actions.
The issue has ignited intense debate over U.S. foreign policy and the best path to ensure stability in the Middle East. While some see this as a necessary stand against a regime with a troubling track record, others question the risks of escalation. Let’s unpack the layers of this high-stakes showdown.
Trump didn’t mince words on Truth Social, describing the fleet as “moving quickly, with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose,” as reported by the New York Post. That’s a clear signal of intent, and it’s hard to ignore the weight of such a statement from a leader who’s never shied away from bold action. One has to wonder if Tehran is truly listening or just doubling down.
The President also emphasized that this armada dwarfs the force previously sent to Venezuela, hinting at a readiness for serious confrontation. He stated the fleet is “ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary.” If that’s not a wake-up call, what is?
Referencing past strikes during Operation Midnight Hammer, Trump warned that a future U.S. response could be far more devastating. That operation saw B-2 bombers and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles targeting key Iranian nuclear sites like Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. It’s a reminder of what’s at stake if diplomacy fails.
Iran’s response has been a confusing blend of defiance and faint openness to talks. Their U.N. mission quickly fired back on X, claiming the U.S. “squandered over $7 trillion and lost more than 7,000 American lives” in past conflicts. Such rhetoric feels like a tired distraction from their own internal struggles and refusal to fully commit to peace.
While Iran’s mission spoke of dialogue based on “mutual respect and interests,” their military leaders, like Gen. Mohammad Pakpour, boasted of being “more ready than ever” to act. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi echoed this, asserting readiness to counter any aggression. This saber-rattling hardly builds confidence in their supposed willingness to negotiate.
Adding to the tension, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian warned that any move against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would trigger an “all-out war.” Such statements, paired with reports of Khamenei retreating to a fortified bunker, paint a picture of a regime more paranoid than poised for peace.
Complicating matters, key regional players are stepping back from supporting U.S. military moves. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have both declared they won’t allow their airspace or territory to be used for strikes on Iran. This reluctance could hamstring operational plans and signal a fracture in unity against Tehran’s provocations.
Meanwhile, U.S. Central Command insists the Abraham Lincoln’s deployment aims “to promote regional security and stability.” Yet, with allies hesitant and Iran escalating its rhetoric, one questions whether stability is even on the horizon. The mixed messages from all sides only deepen the uncertainty.
Inside Iran, the regime faces unprecedented weakness, with U.S. intelligence noting internal dissent and economic collapse since the 1979 revolution. Reports of a brutal crackdown, including a two-day massacre possibly claiming over 36,000 lives, reveal a government lashing out amid chaos. Such actions hardly scream “ready for dialogue.”
As unrest spreads, Iranian officials deflect blame, with the judiciary vowing to “pursue” and “punish” Trump through legal channels. Accusations of U.S. and Israeli meddling in their crises feel like a convenient scapegoat for self-inflicted wounds. It’s a classic move—point fingers outward while crushing dissent at home.
The stakes couldn’t be higher, with Trump’s ultimatum clear: negotiate now or face consequences worse than the 12-day war’s brutal strikes. Tehran’s mixed diplomatic signals and military posturing suggest they’re playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship. Will they come to the table, or are we on the cusp of another catastrophic clash?
One thing is certain—this isn’t just about nuclear ambitions; it’s about a regime’s survival versus a resolute U.S. stance. The clock is ticking, and the world watches as this naval armada closes in. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail before “far worse” becomes reality.
Washington is locked in a fierce battle over immigration enforcement funding as a critical deadline looms.
Democrats in Congress have pushed to halt funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill, but their efforts have so far been unsuccessful.
This clash intensified after the tragic shooting of Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen and intensive care nurse, by a Border Patrol agent in Minneapolis over the weekend. With a potential partial government shutdown on the horizon, Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have vowed to oppose the DHS funding measure unless significant reforms to immigration enforcement are included.
The incident involving Pretti has heightened scrutiny of ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) operations across the country. Senate Democrats, alongside figures like Texas Rep. Greg Casar, have demanded policy changes, including pulling federal immigration agents from Minneapolis and launching independent probes into deaths involving federal agents.
Despite these calls, ICE and CBP are expected to continue operations uninterrupted, even if parts of the government shut down, due to their classification as essential services with carryover funds.
The issue has sparked intense debate over the broader implications of the DHS funding bill. While Democrats argue for limits on immigration enforcement, Republicans have refused to separate DHS funding from a larger spending package.
This standoff risks halting critical services like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which supports 12 states under disaster declarations, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), already grappling with major travel disruptions, the Daily Caller reports.
Let’s be clear: the DHS bill isn’t just about border security; it’s a lifeline for Americans in crisis. Democrats’ push to rework the bill over ICE policies, while rooted in genuine concern after the Pretti tragedy, ignores the collateral damage to unrelated agencies. Holding up funding for disaster relief or airport security over ideological battles seems like a misstep.
Back in July, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, funneling a staggering $170 billion into immigration enforcement and border security, with $75 billion directly boosting ICE. That makes ICE one of the most heavily funded law enforcement agencies in the nation. Even with a shutdown looming, ICE agents, deemed “excepted” workers, will keep working thanks to last year’s Trump-era appropriations carryover.
The catalyst for this showdown was the heartbreaking death of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. This incident has understandably fueled calls for accountability, with Democrats like Rep. Casar insisting on nonnegotiable reforms to ICE operations as a condition for supporting any DHS funding bill. Their demands, voiced as early as Jan. 13, include halting similar operations in other cities.
But here’s the rub: ICE isn’t going anywhere, shutdown or not. With substantial carryover funds and essential status, their operations won’t skip a beat. While the grief over Pretti’s death is real, using it to leverage a broader defunding agenda feels like a stretch when other vital services hang in the balance.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to social media on Saturday, declaring Democrats would withhold votes on the DHS bill without revisions addressing ICE practices. That’s a bold stand, but it risks painting Democrats as willing to grind government to a halt over a single issue. Where’s the compromise for the greater good?
A spokesperson for Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune, as reported by the Daily Caller, pointed out the hypocrisy in the Democratic stance. “Democrats themselves have said for weeks that ICE would still continue its operations during a shutdown. But the DHS bill includes so much more than that — FEMA, with 12 states under disaster declarations, and TSA, while airports are dealing with the most cancellations since the Schumer shutdown, will be greatly impacted,” the spokesperson noted.
They’ve got a point. Democrats were part of negotiating these appropriations, and some even backed homeland security funding in the House despite past controversies. Now, using a tragic event to demand sweeping policy shifts feels less like principle and more like political theater.
Late Sunday, the White House and Republicans reached out to Senate Democrats, but no viable solutions have emerged, per a PBS News report citing an anonymous Senate Democratic aide. Both Schumer’s and Thune’s offices stayed silent when pressed by the Daily Caller for updates on these talks. This gridlock only deepens the risk of a shutdown impacting everyday Americans.
Let’s not lose sight of what’s at stake beyond immigration debates. Failing to pass the DHS bill could cripple essential services unrelated to border enforcement, leaving disaster-stricken states and stranded travelers in the lurch. That’s a high price for a standoff over agency reforms.
The frustration is palpable: why let a funding fight over one agency jeopardize so many others? While the concern over ICE and CBP operations after Pretti’s death deserves attention, solutions shouldn’t come at the expense of Americans relying on FEMA or TSA. It’s time for cooler heads to prevail and find a way forward before the deadline hits.