Search This Blog

Monday, June 2, 2025

CO terror suspect planned mass shooting, stopped from buying gun due to immigration status

 The suspect in Sunday’s antisemitic terror attack in Colorado hoped to pull off a mass shooting, but his immigration status prevented him from buying a gun —  and he now faces up to 624 years behind bars if convicted in the horror, officials said Monday.

Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, admitted to a detective that he initially planned on gunning down his victims, even taking a concealed-carry class where he learned how to fire a weapon, authorities said.

But the Egyptian national was blocked from purchasing the weapon because his US visa had expired, Judicial District Attorney Michael Dougherty said at a press conference Monday afternoon in Boulder.

Boulder District Attorney Michael Dougherty said on Monday that Mohamed Sabry Soliman initially planned a mass shooting before Sunday’s Molotov cocktail assault.Getty Images
Dougherty said that the Egyptian national was blocked from purchasing the weapon because his US visa had expired.

Soliman appeared in Denver court for a brief appearance Monday afternoon dressed in an orange prison jumpsuit with white bandages wrapped around his head.

He responded yes when asked by the judge whether he understood the orders of protection against him involving the 12 victims.

Authorities said they increased their initial victims count from eight when four witnesses later came forward and had also minor wounds from the attack.

Two of the 12 people hurt are still hospitalized, including one in critical condition.

Dougherty said Soliman is facing 16 attempted murder charges for the attacks against the victims — for which he could land up to 384 years in prison if convicted.

Soliman is also facing a sentence of 48 years for using two Molotov cocktails, and 192 years for “attempted use” of the 16 unused incendiary devices investigators found near where he was arrested, officials said. He was also hit with federal hate crime charges.

Mark Michalek, the FBI special agent in charge in Denver, said that while it appears Soliman acted alone in the attack, officials are still investigating all possibilities and pursuing all investigative leads.Getty Images
Egyptian national Mohamed Sabry Soliman in a mugshot released by the Boulder Police Department.Boulder Police Department

Mark Michalek, the FBI special agent in charge in Denver, said that while it appears Soliman acted alone in the attack, officials are still investigating all possibilities and pursuing all investigative leads.

“If we uncover evidence that others knew of this attack or supported the subject in this attack, rest assured that we will aggressively move to hold them accountable to the fullest extent of the law,” Michalek said.

The suspect was not on the feds’ radar before Sunday’s attack, authorities said.

According to court documents, Soliman stalked and targeted a local pro-Israel walking group, Run For Their Lives, which has organized weekly strolls in solidarity with Israeli hostages being held by Hamas since the Oct. 7, 2023 terror attacks.

Dougherty said Soliman is facing 16 attempted murder charges for the attacks against the 12 victims.X/@OpusObscuraX via REUTERS
Soliman told investigators he wanted to “kill all Zionist people” and “wished they were all dead.”

He told investigators he wanted to “kill all Zionist people” and “wished they were all dead.” He said he found out about the group — including the stops on their latest walk event — on their Facebook page and set himself up to ambush them on Boulder’s highly trafficked Pearl Street.

He used an improvised flamethrower device he fashioned from a garden hose full of 87 octane gasoline and a lighter in the fiery attack, as well as lobbing two Molotov cocktails.

His arrest warrant states he believed he would die in the attacks, telling detectives “several times” that “he wanted to be dead” in interviews, the warrant said.

Soliman, a father of five who lived in Colorado Springs — around 100 miles south of Boulder — left notes for his family hidden in a desk drawer at their house. His relatives are cooperating, authorities said.

The suspect is originally from Egypt but spent 17 years in Kuwait, officials said.

He moved to Colorado Springs in 2022, after entering the US through California on a tourist visa.

His next court date is Thursday.

https://nypost.com/2025/06/02/us-news/boulder-terror-attack-suspect-planned-mass-shooting-but-was-stopped-from-buying-gun-due-to-immigration-status/

Is Birthright Citizenship A National Suicide Pact?

 by Frank Miele via RealClearPolitics,

On the day of his second inauguration, President Donald Trump issued an executive order entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

Sounds innocent enough, right? But this is the infamous order declaring that birthright citizenship does not extend to children of parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily.

Not so fast,” said attorneys for illegal aliens and their children. “Our clients snuck across the border fair and square and they want the prize promised them by the Constitution – U.S. citizenship for all children born after they crossed the border.”

But is that really what the Constitution says? Here are the words from the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

As President Trump noted in his executive order, the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” have always been used to exclude certain classes of people from birthright citizenship. That included, for instance, children of diplomats, who enjoy immunity in their host country. For several decades, it also included Native Americans of certain tribes that had entered into treaties that provided at least partial sovereignty. Those exclusions are not in the Constitution, but they are in the law. So why can’t there be an exclusion for illegal immigrants?

Trump’s executive order correctly recognizes that the higher purpose of the 14th Amendment was to guarantee citizenship for the children of former slaves, who had not only been subject to the jurisdiction of the American government, but even subject to sale. They had earned citizenship through hardship, pain, and suffering – not through an accident of birth. Obviously, the authors of the amendment recognized the high value of citizenship, and it seems unlikely they would just hand it out willy-nilly.

Which brings us back to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Were citizenship to be granted simply on the basis of where you were born, that phrase would not have been necessary. Yet there it is. As a matter of law, there is no formal, writ-in-stone definition of what “subject to jurisdiction” means. And that’s what the Trump administration hopes will provide enough ambiguity that the Supreme Court will agree that the president has the authority to declare under his executive powers that the children of illegal immigrants should not be considered birthright citizens because they fail the jurisdiction test.

Three district court judges have already ruled against Trump and issued “temporary nationwide injunctions” to prevent the executive order from being carried out. On May 15, the Supreme Court heard the case, partly to resolve whether district courts should have the authority to apply their rulings nationwide and, ultimately, to make its own determination on the legality of the executive order.

But even if the high court should reject presidential authority to interpret the Constitution, the argument does not end there. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment provides that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” In other words, the rare trifecta of a Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican president offers a once-in-a-lifetime chance for Congress to establish once and for all that U.S. citizenship does not hinge on the ability of one’s parents to sneak past the Border Patrol before you are born.

Unfortunately, the Senate’s current filibuster rules would not allow for a simple majority to define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in such a way that it excludes the children of illegal immigrants. But since senators in recent years have allowed filibuster exemptions for confirmation of presidential nominations and for votes on budget “reconciliation” bills, there is no reason why some smart parliamentarian could not carve out a new exception narrowly tailored to allow a simple majority to define citizenship.

If that seems like using brute force to impose a nation-changing mandate upon the American people, so be it. As Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote in 1963, the Constitution is “not a suicide pact.” Yet allowing the children of well over 20 million illegal immigrants to become citizens of a country whose customs they ignore, whose language they often don’t understand or choose to learn, and whose laws their parents broke even before they were born, is an invitation to chaos and collapse.

If that’s not a national suicide pact, I don’t know what is.

Frank Miele, retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Mont., is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His book “The Media Matrix: What If Everything You Know Is Fake” is available from his Amazon author page.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/birthright-citizenship-national-suicide-pact

Global Tobacco Use Is Steadily Declining

 More than 60 years ago, on January 11, 1964, the Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service, Luther L. Terry, M.D., published the first comprehensive report on the effects of smoking on health.

A committee was appointed to review and evaluate existing research on the topic in order to “reach some definitive conclusions on the relationship between smoking and health in general.”

And, as Statista's Felix Richter reports, while it may seem absurd from today’s point of view that the adverse effects of smoking were ever in doubt, 60 years ago the “tobacco-health controversy” was exactly that: a controversy.

After consulting more than 7,000 articles about the relationship between smoking and disease, the committee did come to a definite conclusion, however, making its report “Smoking and Health” a landmark study in the fight against smoking.

On the basis of prolonged study and evaluation of many lines of converging evidence, the Committee makes the following judgement: Cigarette smoking is a health hazard of sufficient importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial action.

 (Smoking and Health, 1964)

The report found that smoking is a cause of lung cancer and laryngeal cancer in men, a probable cause of lung cancer in women, the most important cause of chronic bronchitis and a contributing factor to cardiovascular diseases, resulting in a higher death rate from coronary artery disease among male cigarette smokers. After its release, it dominated newspaper headlines for days and was later ranked among the top news stories of 1964.

And while some tobacco control measures, such as warning labels on cigarette packs, were implemented promptly, cigarette sales in the U.S. continued to rise until the early 1980s, which is when they peaked at more than 630 billion cigarettes per year.

Infographic: Has Smoking Lost Its Cool? | Statista


Over the past four decades, measures to discourage smoking and protect the public from second-hand smoke have become more and more strict and wide-ranging, resulting in falling tobacco use prevalence in the United States and large parts of the world. Looking at the U.S., the CDC considers the antismoking campaign a “public health success with few parallels in history”, as it achieved its goal despite “the addictive nature of tobacco and the powerful economic forces promoting its use.”

Infographic: Global Tobacco Use Is Steadily Declining | Statista


According to WHO estimates, 21.7 percent of all people aged 15 and older used tobacco in 2020, down from 32.7 percent at the turn of the millennium. As the cvhart above nicely illustrates, the tobacco use rate is highest among 45- to 54-year-olds at 27.5 percent, while it’s just 13.8 percent among 15- to 24-year-olds and 13.5 percent among those aged 85 and older.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/global-tobacco-use-steadily-declining

DHS Removes Sanctuary City List After Criticism From Sheriffs

 by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on June 1 removed a previously published list of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States, which were accused of failing to comply with federal immigration law.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speaks in Washington in a file photograph. Manuel Balce Ceneta/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

The move comes following criticism from a national sheriffs’ group that has mostly been supportive of Trump’s tough-on-crime policy approach.

In a statement, National Sheriffs’ Association President Sheriff Kieran Donahue said, “This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation. Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label.”

On May 29, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, acting under the direction of President Donald Trump, published a list encompassing jurisdictions across 35 states—including city, county, and state government—that Noem said were “endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens.”

Following the criticism, the page where the list had been published was taken offline.

According to Donahue, DHS and other officials had not provided sufficient details on the methodology and criteria used to determine which jurisdictions qualified as sanctuaries.

The publication of the list “has not only violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement, but it also has the potential to strain the relationship between Sheriffs and the White House administration,” the statement said.

During meetings between the group and administration officials, “no political appointee for the administration could explain who compiled, proofed, and verified the list before publication,” Donahue said.

The list came in response to an April 28 executive order signed by Trump requesting that the DHS produce “a list of States and local jurisdictions that obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.” Jurisdictions identified as sanctuaries could be eligible to lose federal funding.

In some cases, entire states were marked sanctuaries, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.

Some of the jurisdictions labeled sanctuaries fell in traditionally Republican states.

These include Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta and surrounding counties; Boise, Idaho; Monroe County, Indiana; Douglas County and Lawrence, Kansas; Louisville, Kentucky, and four counties in the state; New Orleans; 10 counties in Nebraska; five counties in North Carolina; seven counties in North Dakota; and Nashville and one county in Tennessee.

Other states identified as having at least one county or city in violation of federal law include Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Trump’s earlier executive order called for department chiefs and other relevant officials to “identify appropriate federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, including grants and contracts, for suspension or termination, as appropriate.”

It also called on the attorney general and DHS secretary to “pursue all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures to end these violations and bring such jurisdictions into compliance with the laws of the United States.”

The push to strip these jurisdictions of federal funds aligns with a long-held Republican objective to tighten border security and enforce immigration law.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dhs-removes-sanctuary-city-list-after-criticism-sheriffs

Lower Blood Pressure Targets for Type 2 Diabetes: Changing Practice?

 Today I am going to discuss a recent paper on intensive blood pressure control in people with type 2 diabetes. This was a big study. It included over 12,000 participants who were older than age 50, and had type 2 diabetes and an increased risk for cardiovascular disease; either they'd had a prior cardiovascular event, had two or more risk factors, or had a reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

The study was performed in China and it was really done to determine, potentially once and for all, what the target should be in treating patients with type 2 diabetes. The ACCORD trial tried to answer this question, but it didn't show overall improvement in outcomes with blood pressure reduction, although when they did subset analysis, they did show benefit in certain groups. It still didn't have that definitive feel, and I think this study does.

They were looking only at systolic blood pressures, and they wanted to target a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg in the intensively treated group; in the standardly treated group, the blood pressure target was a systolic of less than 140 mm Hg. The primary endpoint was nonfatal stroke, nonfatal MI, treatment or hospitalization for heart failure, or death from cardiovascular disease causes.

In this study, 45% were women. The average age was 63.8 years. Body mass index was 26.7 and 25% smoked. The baseline blood pressure was 140/76 mm Hg and the mean blood pressure over approximately 4 years of follow-up was 121.6 mm Hg in the intensively treated group vs 133.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group.

You basically began to see a difference between the two in terms of the primary endpoint after about a year, so you started to see this split. At the end of the study, there was a very significant difference in terms of the primary endpoint between the two groups.

I want to point out that, in my brain, those blood pressure targets that were reached are actually fairly standard. The intensively treated group was about 120 mm Hg, and that's compared with the standard treatment group, which was around 130 mm Hg.

I must say that, in my own practice, given all the changes that we've seen over the years in blood pressure targets, the results from this study have actually motivated me to lower my systolic target, at least in terms of how I treat patients in clinic, because I think they may get further benefit.

That then begs the question of how did they measure blood pressures in this study? I get patients who have what's called white coat hypertension. They come into my office, their blood pressure is higher, and then I have them test at home and it's better. 

In this study, they tried to take away some of that interference. They had patients come into clinic having had no exercise, no coffee, and no cigarettes for at least 30 minutes before their appointment. The patients had 5 minutes of seated rest, and then they had three blood pressure measurements, each done 1 minute apart. There was no talking or joking around. They just sat there and had their blood pressures measured in the appropriate way.

The average systolic blood pressure was used of those three readings to determine whether treatment was changed. They followed pretty standard treatment regimens for hypertension, which are the ones we use in our ADA guidelines for the management of hypertension.

People in the intensive group ended up on one or two additional medications compared with those in the standard group. The overall rate of severe adverse events was equivalent in both groups, but there was more symptomatic hypotension and hyperkalemia in the intensively treated group.

As I said, this has actually changed how I'm treating my patients. The difference between 120 mm Hg and 133 mm Hg isn't that big in my brain, and yet there does seem to be a difference in terms of outcomes, primarily cardiovascular outcomes, as the primary endpoint.

I think that, if a patient can tolerate a lower blood pressure without symptomatic hypotension, I am going to be treating them down to a lower target. I think this was a well-done study that actually will probably inform practice and guidelines in the future because I think it helps inform us of what is potentially the best target for our patients.

Anne L. Peters, MD

Professor of Clinical Medicine; Director, Clinical Diabetes Programs, USC Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California

Anne Peters, MD, has the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a advisor for: Medscape; Vertex
Received research grant from: Insulet; Abbott; Zucara


https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/lower-blood-pressure-targets-type-2-diabetes-changing-2025a1000cz9

ImmunityBio Receives FDA Expanded Access Authorization for Treatment of Lymphopenia

 

  • Authorized expanded access for ANKTIVA to treat lymphopenia, a life-threatening immune deficiency induced by chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy with depletion of natural killer (NK) and CD4+ CD8+ T cells (lymphocytes)

  • Expanded Access includes all patients with solid tumors who have failed first-line treatment on chemotherapy, radiotherapy or immunotherapy and exhibit low Absolute Lymphocyte Counts (ALC <1,000/μL)

  • Presentation at ASCO Annual Meeting 2025 of lymphopenia treatment in patients with 3rd to 6th line metastatic pancreatic cancer significantly prolongs overall survival