Blog

Las Vegas Cops Refuse To Release Violent Repeat Offender, Defying Judge’s Order

Las Vegas Metro police are refusing to release a violent repeat offender, in defiance of a local judge’s order.

The career criminal, 36-year-old Joshua Sanchez-Lopez, has been arrested 35 times, with a rap sheet that includes involuntary manslaughter, drugs and car theft, according to the New York Post.

The legal standoff began in January, when police arrested Sanchez-Lopez on a warrant for grand larceny of a motor vehicle.

Justice Eric Goodman set Sanchez-Lopez’s bail at $25,000 and ordered his release with an ankle monitor once he posted bond.

The program allows defendants to leave jail and wear an ankle bracelet. Various levels of the program require different levels of confinement. Goodman ordered Sanchez-Lopez to high-level electronic monitoring, which Dickerson described as house arrest. About 450 defendants are in the program at a time.

Sanchez-Lopez reportedly posted bail on January 24, but the Las Vegas police refused to place him in the program, given his history of failing to comply with the rules. Attorneys for Metro filed a petition last week challenging the judge’s authority to release him, arguing that the Department has the authority to declare a defendant too dangerous to release.

In a letter to the court, the department gave three reasons for refusing the judge’s order.

  1. Sanchez-Lopez’s history of failing to appear in court
  2. His previous bench warrants
  3. His past violations of electronic monitoring rules

Police cited a case in 2020, where Sanchez-Lopez, armed with a gun, ran from the cops and later joked about his ankle monitor on Snapchat and gloated about being “chased again.”

“We have to take a look at that and say, ‘Is this somebody who our electronic supervision program can monitor safely in the community?” Mike Dickerson, assistant general counsel for Metro police, told KLAS. “This is an issue of public safety.”

Keep reading

Declassified Doc Confirms China Did, in Fact, Breach US Election Security Leading up to 2020 Election

With Republicans working to pass the SAVE America Act in the Senate to safeguard election integrity, a new report out of Washington is highlighting a potential danger to American elections that Democrats don’t want to talk about.

And it turns out there’s a good reason for that — since it could cast a shadow over Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 vote that has never quite set right with the American right.

It’s a danger that comes from the People’s Republic of China — the United States’ most dangerous enemy on the global stage.

According to a document obtained by Just the News, and confirmed with officials who had knowledge of the investigation, Beijing was able to electronically infiltrate unidentified American election systems as part of a cyber-espionage campaign.

“[Redacted] Chinese intelligence officials analyzed multiple U.S. states’ [Redacted] election voter registration data, [Redacted] to conduct public opinion analysis on the 2020 US general election,” a portion of an April 2020 National Intelligence Council document stated.

The memo, titled “Cyber Operations Enabling Expansive Authoritarianism,” was “quietly declassified” in 2022, but received no attention from either President Joe Biden’s administration or from the establishment media.

“That means six years later that the U.S. intelligence community has yet to fully inform the American people or the Congress on the breadth of evidence it possesses of China’s actions, how Beijing got the data, and what operations it has taken or contemplated,” wrote Just the News founder John Solomon and chief investigative correspondent Jerry Dunleavy.

Keep reading

The $3 Trillion Private Credit Crisis Nobody Is Talking About

Blackstone raided its own balance sheet to cover record $3.8B in redemptions. Blue Owl froze withdrawals. PE stocks down 25-61%. Steve Eisman and forensic accountant Tom Gober say the insurance industry is the missing piece of the next financial crisis.

Sup, freaks.

The private credit market is cracking in real time. Blackstone just had to raid its own balance sheet and its employees’ wallets to cover a record wave of redemptions from its flagship $82 billion credit fund. Blue Owl permanently froze redemptions on a retail fund two weeks ago. Private equity stocks are down 25% to 61% from their highs. And the man who called the 2008 crisis, Steve Eisman, just sat down with a forensic accountant who says the insurance industry is the missing piece of the puzzle. This is a story that should be front page news but isn’t. Today we dig in.

Keep reading

The World’s Worst Environmentalist Alarmist Just Died, and One Viral Clip Shows How Evil He Really Was

Paul Ehrlich died last week. I doubt he would have minded, considering he thought there should have been a lot fewer people on earth. Really, if he wanted to put his money where his rhetoric was, he should have checked out a bit earlier.

Ehrlich, who passed away at the age of 93 on Friday, was a Stanford University biologist best known for his 1968 book “The Population Bomb.” The thesis was effectively in the title — overpopulation would kill us all.

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now,” he wrote in the book, predicting that four billion humans would die.

Well, this didn’t work out as planned. In his obituary, The New York Times did put an “austere religious scholar” twist on his legacy, noting in the subtitle that “he faced criticism when his predictions proved premature.”

I guess they figured that was defensible because there are over eight billion people on the planet now and they’ll all die eventually, if not writhing from hunger due to that pesky population bomb that never happened.

There are plenty of reasons to loathe both Ehrlich himself and the legacy he leaves behind, but this clip from 1970 making the rounds should neatly demonstrate why we oughtn’t lament the loss.

Ehrlich was being asked what the government should do to control the population. He said he was “against government interference in our lives” to start with, which turned out to be just as much of a lie as the rest of his life’s work.

“The very first thing the government should do is try and take the pressure off to reproduce,” Ehrlich said. “There’s a lot of pressure in our society now to reproduce.”

“If you’re single, people try and push you into getting married,” he added. “The idea is that nobody should escape. So there’s pressure to get married.”

“Young couples, if they don’t have children, people say, gee, they must be sterile,” he continued. “They never say, gee, maybe they like good wine and going to the theater and so on. They prefer that to scraping diapers. So there’s pressure to have children.”

At least in that respect, Ehrlich has succeeded, although not through government intervention: We’ve convinced an entire generation that they should care about fleeting pleasures more than the greatest joys in life, although we’ve made them feel guilty about that, too. (Wine has a carbon footprint, after all!)

However, Ehrlich wanted more — he wanted White House intervention.

“The president ought to say, from now, here on out, no intelligent, patriotic American family ought to have more than two children, preferably one, if you’re starting a family now,” Ehrlich said. “Not any law, but just say this is what responsible people do.”

And then he said there should be a law — of the most ridiculous sort.

“He ought to make the FCC see to it that large families are always treated in a negative light on television, wherever they appear,” Ehrlich continued. “There ought to be a tremendous amount of television time devoted to spot commercials, the sort we’ve had against smoking. But ones in the middle, say, in the middle of ‘The Beverly Hillbillies,’ you get a scene which shows Los Angeles in the smog and it just says, ‘This city has a fatal disease. It’s called overpopulation.’ So long.”

Keep reading

Identity Politics over Public Safety on the Chicago Transit Authority

Chicago’s transit chaos shows the cost of a grievance-driven politics: when enforcement is always racist, everyone else just gets less safe.

The Legacy of Jesse Jackson Makes All of Us Less Safe

If you ride the trains or buses in Chicago with any regularity, you don’t worry about microaggressions.

You worry about being maced, mugged, or shoved onto the tracks—or, in one grotesque recent case, set on fire.

That’s the lived experience of Chicagoans navigating the Chicago Transit Authority and Metra. Not academic theory. Not seminar-room sociology. Reality.

So naturally, when a modest pilot program is introduced allowing the transit agencies to suspend individuals who assault conductors, spit on drivers, punch random riders, or otherwise turn public transportation into a Thunderdome audition, what does the Chicago Tribune decide is the story?

Not whether the program works.

Not whether it can be enforced.

Not whether it deters crime.

No.

The story, apparently, is that it’s racist.

Because roughly 90 percent of the approximately 40 individuals suspended under the program are black or Hispanic.

Forty people. In a city of nearly three million. On a transit system carrying hundreds of thousands daily.

That’s the scandal.

Keep reading

The Most Obvious Question Liberal Media Refuses to Ask About the Iran War

Doubtless, the war launched by US President Donald Trump is not popular among ordinary Americans.

According to the latest public opinion poll, only a minority of Americans—part of the dwindling core of Trump’s supporters—believe that the US-Israeli aggression against Iran has merit.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in early March 2026, only 27 percent of Americans approve of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran—while 43 percent disapprove and 29 percent are unsure.

This pro-war constituency is likely to remain supportive of Trump until the end of his term in office, and long after.

However, the war on Iran is not popular, and it is unlikely to become popular, especially as the Trump administration is reportedly fragmented between those who want to stay the course and those desperate for an exit strategy. Such a strategy would allow their president to save face before the midterm elections in November.

Mainstream media—aside, of course, from the pro-war chorus in right-wing news organizations, podcasters, and think tanks—also recognize that their country has entered a quagmire.

If it continues unchecked, it will likely prove worse than the war in Iraq in 2003 or the long war in Afghanistan, which lasted 20 years and ended with a decisive American defeat in August 2021 following the withdrawal of US forces and the collapse of the Afghan government.

Both wars have cost US taxpayers an estimated $8 trillion, including long-term veteran care and interest on borrowing, according to the Brown University Costs of War Project.

Iran is already promising to be even more costly if the insanity of the war—instigated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war-crazed government—does not end very quickly.

Many Americans may understand the difficult situation in which Trump’s unhinged behavior and his unexplained loyalty to Netanyahu have placed their country. What they rarely confront is the moral dimension of that crisis.

Though they speak of the war’s failure—the lack of strategy, the lack of preparation, the absence of an end goal, and the confusion surrounding its objectives—very few in mainstream media have taken what should have been the obvious moral position: that the war itself is criminal, unjustifiable, and illegal under international law.

Keep reading

TDF opposes continued use of discriminatory hiring practices in Government and Academia

New research finds the vast majority of Canadian university job postings include DEI criteria that restrict applicants based on race, gender, or sexuality.

Recent media reports indicate that many Canadian universities engage in targeted discriminatory hiring practices that restrict eligibility, among other things, based on race, sexuality and gender. For example, the University of Toronto restricted applications for an associate professor to women, gender minorities, Indigenous peoples, or persons with disabilities.

The University of Waterloo restricted the hiring of several science, technology, engineering and mathematics research chairs to candidates who “self-identify” as women or another gender minority.

There are many other recent examples.

A 2025 study by the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy found that all 10 sampled universities (which accounted for 477 of the 489 job advertisements reviewed) employed some form of DEI requirement or strategy when filling academic vacancies. It reported that “98 percent of the academic postings directly or indirectly discriminated against candidates and/or threatened academic freedom.” 

These “DEI” policies require hiring committees to exclude people based on gender, race, religion and/or sexuality. In practice, this often means discriminating against straight men and/or Jews and Christians of European ethnic background. The policies are based on the false premise that past discrimination can be remedied by present discrimination. 

While Canadian courts have, unfortunately, found that some of these policies may not offend the Charter or human rights legislation, they are immoral and corrosive to civil society. In a multicultural society such as Canada, they racially divide and antagonize people, incentivize them to identify tribally and encourage sectarianism. The federal and provincial governments should reverse these policies and prioritize merit-based hiring.

Keep reading

New Orleans ‘Anti-Police’ Defense Attorney Indicted for Wire Fraud

An ‘anti-police’ New Orleans defense attorney was indicted for wire fraud on Friday.

Tanzanika Ruffin allegedly stole $250,000 from a client and used the money to fund a lavish lifestyle.

This is not the first time that Ruffin has been accused of criminal conduct.

She was fired from as an assistant district attorney in 2004 for extortion allegations.

“Ruffin was fired from the DA’s office more than 20 years ago for extortion allegations. The DA’s office later dismissed the allegations, and the Bar suspended her license for a short period,” WDSU reported.

Per the Justice Department:

On Friday, March 13, 2026, a Federal Grand Jury indicted TANZANIKA RUFFIN (“RUFFIN”), age 48, for wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, announced U.S. Attorney David I. Courcelle.

According to the indictment, RUFFIN defrauded approximately $250,000 from her clients’ family. RUFFIN made numerous misrepresentations to the family regarding the $250,000.

RUFFIN falsely told her client and his family that they had to compensate a New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) officer for various fictitious injuries and harms that the officer had allegedly suffered.

RUFFIN also falsely represented that she had confected a “Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement” (“NDA”) with the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office and the NOPD officer.

According to RUFFIN, this fabricated NDA required her client’s family to keep confidential any discussions about a financial settlement.

In truth and in fact, no such NDA existed. Instead, RUFFIN spent all the money on personal and unauthorized expenditures and did not give any funds to the NOPD officer.

If convicted, RUFFIN faces a maximum penalty of twenty (20) years of imprisonment, up to three (3) years of supervised release, a fine of up to $250,000, and payment of a mandatory $100 special assessment fee.

Keep reading

The Explosion Inside Trump’s War Machine: Joe Kent Resigns

Joe Kent’s resignation is not an anomaly but an alarm: elite dissent is surfacing early because this war is built on deception.

Joe Kent’s resignation is shocking, but not for the obvious reason.

It is not shocking simply because it comes from within the Trump administration. Any administration of that size, stretching across thousands of officials, operatives and career personnel, will contain people who, despite the surrounding culture, still draw moral lines of their own.

Even an administration defined by blunt militarism, racialized rhetoric and an unapologetic embrace of force is not morally monolithic. There is always room, however narrow, for someone to say: enough.

What makes Kent’s resignation important is something else entirely: the language, the timing, and the political location from which it emerged.

When other officials resigned over Gaza, they established a standard of ethical clarity that still matters. Former UN human rights official Craig Mokhiber resigned on October 28, 2023, warning that “we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes” and describing Gaza as “a textbook case of genocide.”

Former State Department official Stacy Gilbert, who resigned in May 2024 over a government report on Israeli obstruction of aid, put it just as bluntly: “There is so clearly a right and wrong, and what is in that report is wrong.”

These were not carefully lawyered exits. They were moral positions.

Kent belongs in a different political universe than Mokhiber or Gilbert. That is precisely why his resignation carries such force.

He was not some liberal holdout inside a hawkish administration. He was the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, confirmed in July 2025, a former Green Beret, a former CIA paramilitary officer, and by every normal measure a deeply embedded figure within the national security state.

He was also a Trump-aligned Republican whose confirmation battle was shaped by ties to far-right figures and conspiracy politics, according to AP. In other words, this was not an outsider recoiling from empire. This was a man from within that machinery saying he could no longer justify this war.

And he did not mince words.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” Kent wrote. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

That sentence alone is politically explosive. It does not merely criticize tactics. It indicts the rationale of the war itself.

Then Kent went further.

“Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran,” he wrote.

And then the bluntest line of all:

“This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war.”

This is not bureaucratic dissent. This is a direct accusation of manipulation, deception, and foreign-policy capture.

That is what makes this resignation different.

Keep reading

The Truth About Cuba

Not distracted by the war on Iran, on March 3, President Trump, once again, warned that Cuba was in its “last moments.” The next day, he said, “It may be a friendly takeover. It may not be a friendly takeover. It wouldn’t matter because they are down to, as they say, fumes” before admitting that the U.S. has caused a humanitarian disaster in Cuba.

Trump’s rhetoric has continued to escalate. On March 17, Trump said,  “I do believe I will be having the honor of taking Cuba. Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it. I think I can do anything I want with it. They’re a very weakened nation right now.” The Trump administration is reportedly pursuing a policy of removing  President Miguel Díaz-Canel from power while keeping in place his government. They have communicated to Cuba that no deal can be negotiated while he is leader.

The U.S. has cut Cuba off. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has said that he is “extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation in Cuba” and warned that it “will worsen, if not collapse,” if the U.S. does not ease its chokehold. But as the humanitarian catastrophe unfolds, while the world looks on, there are three enduring American myths about Cuba that need to be dispelled.

The Trump administration has cut Cuba off from its energy lifeline: “THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA – ZERO!, Trump announced. “I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.” With that threat, Trump declared a “national emergency” and signed an executive order imposing tariffs on any country that sends oil to Cuba. “Now there is going to be a real blockade. Nothing is getting in. No more oil is coming,” the U.S. Charge d’Affairs in the U.S. Embassy in Havana told his staff.

And, with the exception of a trickle of aid from Mexico and the promise of a drop of aid from Canada, nothing is getting in. “There’s no oil, there’s no money, there’s no anything,” Trump boasted. There is no longer enough oil in Cuba to guarantee your car, generator or hot water will run. There is not enough electricity to keep the lights on. Classes have been cancelled at many schools, and many hospitals have cut services. Tourism, the economic lifeblood of Cuba, is drying up. Cuba has announced that international airlines can no longer refuel there due to fuel shortages. On Monday, a “complete disconnection” caused a blackout across all of Cuba.

The American embargo has gotten so successfully out of hand that, after the leaders of Cuba’s Caribbean neighbours expressed alarm over the suffering of Cubans, the U.S. has relented a little and now says it will loosen some restrictions and let some Venezuelan oil into Cuba.

Foundational to the American embargo on Cuba are three myths that need to be undermined: the hostility to Fidel Castro and Cuba has been going on longer than expressed in the official narrative, the hostility was never about communism, and the intent of the embargo has always been to starve the Cuban people.

The hostility toward Cuba stretches back two years and one administration further than told in the official narrative. Though the embargo, the Bay of Pigs and Operation Mongoose’s determination to assassinate Castro are all attributed to Kennedy, they all need to be deposited in Eisenhower’s foreign policy account.

Keep reading