R Magic Brow

On Monday, in a Provo, Utah, courthouse, a preliminary hearing got under way for Tyler Robinson, who is accused of killing Charlie Kirk on the campus of Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025. Charlie Kirk's YouTube channel is carrying the hearing live. You can watch via the video embed below: Blaze News will have updates on the hearing. Editor's note: The image used is from a June 12, 2026, hearing in Utah.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A small city on the outskirts of Toronto has become an unlikely front line in the debate over free speech and government power — a debate increasingly familiar to Americans as well.Pickering Councillor Lisa Robinson, one of Canada's most controversial municipal politicians, is seeking the mayor's office even as she faces fresh restrictions on her participation in council proceedings and yet another clash with the city's integrity commissioner.'And it's kind of like a group-think mentality over there.'Robinson has become a cause célèbre among conservative and libertarian activists after repeated clashes over free speech, Pride displays, government transparency, and municipal governance. Her critics say she has harassed city employees and spread misinformation; her supporters say she is being punished for asking uncomfortable questions and refusing to conform.Reagan inspirationThe latest dispute marks another chapter in a political battle that has already cost Robinson nearly two years of pay and raises a larger question: Are public institutions increasingly treating dissent on politically sensitive topics as misconduct rather than disagreement to be answered through debate?Asked what motivates her, Robinson reaches for one of Ronald Reagan's most famous observations."Well, you know, Ronald Reagan once said that government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem, and I can honestly now say that I agree with that statement 100%," Robinson told Blaze Media."So I'm running for mayor to return City Hall back to the people. As you know, during my tenure [as] city councillor, I've witnessed so many things — I've witnessed firsthand extortion, corruption, lying, a ['rules for thee but not for me'] attitude, a lot of wasteful spending [of] the taxpayers' dollars." Outsider mentalityRobinson's latest controversy stems from a YouTube video in which she questioned the narrative surrounding the alleged discovery of "mass graves" at the former residential school in Kamloops, British Columbia. Robinson argued that politicians and media outlets transformed preliminary ground-penetrating radar findings into claims that hundreds of children's remains had been discovered.Her remarks prompted another complaint to the city's integrity commissioner and renewed accusations that she was spreading misinformation and causing harm to indigenous communities. The dispute has become emblematic of a broader argument in Canada and the United States over where to draw the line between controversial political speech and conduct that public institutions deem harmful.The controversy is only the latest in a long-running conflict between Robinson and Pickering's political establishment.She says she first encountered that establishment mentality when a senior municipal official advised her that she should stop thinking of herself as an outsider."With all due respect, Councillor Robinson, you are no longer an outsider looking in," she recalls being told."That really stuck with me. I guess they just figured that I was going to just follow along with the status quo and just ... go along with everything that they said, no questions asked."And it's kind of like a group-think mentality over there, and the moment that you start asking questions, that you start going on your own ... any time that you start to push back against the establishment, then you know you're going to get the reception that I have received over the last four years of docking my pay."RELATED: Will Alberta leave Canada? Either way, Premier Danielle Smith is feeling the heat NurPhoto/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesThe price of speechRobinson says she has effectively gone nearly two years without receiving a salary from the city because of repeated suspensions.Her vision for Pickering, she says, is straightforward."When I'm mayor, I want to create a utopia here: Stop the rising taxes, protect the people, protect their properties, [and] give children the ability to thrive here in Pickering."She says the city has allowed prime farmland to be gobbled up by "the greedy hands of developers" who have created a "senseless" urban sprawl."So it's my whole entire campaign: I'm basically running to return City Hall to the people."Robinson says she once lost three months' pay after suggesting she would use strong mayoral powers to overhaul City Hall."[I said] I would go into City Hall; I'd get rid of the [chief administrative officer], the city solicitor, and a bunch of the directors, because corruption does start at the top. I would tear it down, build it back up from the bottom, and give it back to the people. And I lost three months' pay for that."The city sees the matter differently. An independent workplace investigation commissioned by Pickering concluded that Robinson's statements and actions toward staff constituted workplace harassment and created a "poisoned work environment." Robinson disputes those findings, saying she has never threatened city employees and that criticizing government decisions and public officials is not harassment but democratic accountability.'Standing my ground'Despite the sanctions and controversies, Robinson says she has no regrets."I have done nothing illegal. All I have done is speak the truth and try to make people know what happens in your local politics."Asked what she considers her proudest accomplishment as a city councillor, despite often serving without pay, Robinson's answer is simple."I guess it would have to be just standing my ground, staying with my morals and my integrity, fighting as hard as I can for the people. Even if I'm not successful, I know that I have done everything that I can thus far to help the people."Whether Robinson is ultimately viewed as a victim of institutional overreach or an elected official who repeatedly crossed the line, her battles with Pickering have turned one municipal council chamber into a test case for a question increasingly confronting democracies on both sides of the border: When does dissent become misconduct?

Americans all over the country celebrated the 250th anniversary with fireworks, barbecue, and friends and family. Still others celebrated by joining one of the most patriotic-looking events — which was joined by United States Marines. On Sunday, the day after Independence Day, dozens of Marines joined hundreds of enthusiastic runners for a remarkably patriotic run in the heart of New York City. 'It does not matter who gets in our way. We will tell them we love them, and we'll keep it pushing anyways.'Video from the run shows rows of uniformed Marines running through Central Park, followed closely by hundreds of proud Americans carrying American flags of various sizes. The group that organized the run, Unify USA, is on a mission to run with the American flag in all 50 states, uniting the country "one step and one smile at a time."RELATED: What are the odds? America's birthday is full of incredible coincidences One of the co-founders, Teagan McCoy, spoke at the event, holding a large American flag as he addressed the enthusiastic crowd of runners in Central Park."We are out here to spread patriotic positivity!" he said. "I expect to lose my voice at every event because I'm so passionate about this."He added that it doesn't matter which state anyone is in because there are patriots all over the country: "I don't care where you're at. There are Americans who care in this country, and we are here to exemplify that." Teagan's brother and group co-founder, Koston McCoy, also addressed the crowd, emphasizing the message that Unify USA is seeking to promote: Every single day we have to wake up and decide: Are we going to do what we have to do to unify America one step and smile at a time? Are we gonna continue to ignore that there's division in this country? And are we gonna stand proud for the flag that we hold in our hands today — and not only for today, but for the weeks, months, years, and for the rest of our life say we are proud to be Americans?"It does not matter who gets in our way. We will tell them we love them, and we'll keep it pushing anyways." Unify USA started at the end of last year and has gained traction as the 50-state tour has progressed. Its six-pillar mission includes restoring patriotism in the communities they visit, leading more people to heaven, supporting our veterans, and giving back to others.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

California regulators say they're trying to save drivers money.Their latest proposal would establish energy-efficiency standards for replacement tires, with the state arguing that more efficient tires will reduce fuel consumption, lower emissions, and save consumers money at the pump.Imagine walking into a grocery store and being told certain products are no longer available because government officials decided another option was more efficient. On paper, it sounds reasonable.But it raises a much bigger question: Why should Sacramento decide which tires Americans are allowed to buy in the first place?And if you think this will stay in California, think again. New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and several other states have a long history of following California's automotive regulations.Where the rubber meets the roadSupporters argue that many replacement tires are less efficient than the original equipment tires that came on a vehicle, causing drivers to spend more on fuel.The problem is that regulators are making an assumption that simply isn't true: that the factory tire was somehow the best tire available.Anyone who has spent time in the automotive industry knows better.Automakers don't choose tires based solely on fuel economy. Tire selection is a compromise involving cost, supplier relationships, ride quality, handling, noise, durability, availability, production requirements, and corporate agreements.Sometimes, the factory tire is excellent. Sometimes, it's merely adequate. Sometimes, it simply helped the manufacturer hit a cost target.That's why the replacement tire market exists.Different prioritiesDrivers have different priorities. Some want a quieter ride. Others want longer tread life, better snow traction, improved handling, or simply a less expensive option than the tire that came from the factory.California's proposal elevates fuel economy above all of those considerations.Ask someone in a snowy climate whether they care more about winter traction or a small improvement in fuel economy. Ask a family on a tight budget whether they'd rather spend less on tires today or save a few dollars at the pump years from now. Ask a Mustang, Corvette, or Porsche owner whether maximum fuel efficiency was the reason they bought the car.Different drivers have different priorities because they live different lives.That's why this debate isn't really about tires. It's about who gets to make decisions.The state believes regulators should determine which tradeoffs are acceptable. Consumers traditionally believe they should make those decisions themselves.RELATED: Spinning out at Discount Tire's Treadwell test track Discount TireWho decides?Imagine walking into a grocery store and being told certain products are no longer available because government officials decided another option was more efficient. Maybe the alternative is perfectly acceptable. Maybe it isn't. The point is that somebody else made the decision for you.The state insists consumers aren't losing all choice because multiple tire brands will still be available. But that's not the issue. The issue is that government is narrowing the menu of options based on criteria regulators have prioritized over consumer preference.Drivers replace tires for all kinds of reasons. They move to different climates, switch to all-season or winter tires, buy used vehicles that need affordable replacements, or prioritize tread life, comfort, or performance over fuel economy.Those aren't edge cases. They're everyday realities.California projects that consumers will save money through improved fuel efficiency. But that calculation only works if the additional cost of compliant tires doesn't outweigh the fuel savings.That's a major assumption.Tires are already expensive, and specialty and performance tires can cost hundreds of dollars each. If regulations reduce competition and eliminate lower-cost alternatives, consumers could face fewer choices and higher prices.Let the market workThe replacement tire market works because it allows consumers to compare tradeoffs. Companies such as Tire Rack have built their reputations helping drivers evaluate those tradeoffs, and their testing routinely shows that no single tire is best at everything.A tire with excellent fuel economy may not offer the best performance. A tire with exceptional tread life may sacrifice handling. A high-performance tire may give up efficiency in exchange for grip.That's not a flaw. That's the point of a competitive marketplace.Then there's another question worth asking: Who benefits?The answer isn't some giant conspiracy theory involving tire manufacturers. But history shows that complicated regulations often favor larger companies with the engineering resources, testing facilities, and compliance departments necessary to navigate new requirements. Smaller competitors frequently face greater challenges.That may not be the intent. But it is often the outcome.California officials argue the program will help achieve broader environmental goals and reduce fuel consumption statewide. That's a legitimate policy objective.The question is whether those benefits justify restricting the choices available to millions of consumers.Basic questionsBefore regulators decide which tires Americans should be allowed to buy, they should answer a basic question: If a driver understands the tradeoffs and is spending their own money, why should Sacramento decide that fuel-efficiency targets matter more than that consumer's personal preferences?The California Energy Commission is conducting this rulemaking through Docket 26-TIRE-01 using authority granted under Assembly Bill 844, legislation passed in 2003.Think about that.A law enacted more than 20 years ago could soon help determine which replacement tires Americans can buy in the future.That's not speculation.That's public record.Go read it.