Home Blog Page 168

Michigan Church Shooters Concerning Past 

Image via Canva

The attack at a Mormon church in Grand Blanc, Michigan has left families grieving and a community stunned, as disturbing new details surface about the shooter’s past. The Michigan church shooter—identified as Thomas Sanford—rammed a truck into the building before opening fire on congregants.

His father, also named Thomas Sanford, expressed deep remorse in an interview with the Detroit Free Press. “I feel terrible about all the families that have been hurt and they’re under the same crap that I’m going under, that my wife and I are going under,” he said. “I apologize for that.”

Neighbors described the situation as a “nightmare,” while investigators continue searching for a motive. Some believe Sanford’s alleged anti-Mormon prejudice may have played a role. Local city council candidate Kris Johns told Fox News that just days before the attack, Sanford called Mormonism “the anti-Christ.”

That prejudice seemed to stand in stark contrast to his past. Sandra Winter, who knew Sanford when he lived in Utah, said he once dated—and nearly married—a Mormon woman. “He was considering joining the Mormon church in order to further his relationship,” she recalled, adding the woman’s family was “pretty gung ho about the idea.”

This tragic act of hate highlights the ongoing threat posed by extremists who target Americans of faith. As his father’s apology makes clear, families and victims alike are left to shoulder the devastating consequences of his actions.

Rogan Blasts Progressives for Cheering Charlie Kirk’s Death

joe rogan
Screenshot via Twitter/@MythinformedMKE

Joe Rogan has denounced self-identified progressives who celebrated the public assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, calling their behavior “evil” and deeply disturbing. Speaking on his podcast, Rogan said he was shocked to see ordinary Americans—“teachers, bank workers, housewives”—cheering the murder of someone simply for holding opposing views. He warned that this kind of reaction reflects a disturbing societal shift.

Rogan stated he didn’t always agree with Kirk’s politics but emphasized that celebrating his death crosses a moral boundary no civilized society should tolerate. “You don’t have to agree with him,” Rogan said, “but you’re cheering a public execution?” He added that such reactions reveal how political hatred is dehumanizing opponents to the point of justifying violence.

The assassination of Kirk, a prominent conservative figure and frequent target of left-wing activists, has ignited broader conversations about rising political tensions in the U.S. While many conservative leaders have mourned Kirk’s death, reaction from the progressive left has included not only silence, but in some cases, overt approval.

Rogan’s remarks cut across political lines, calling for basic decency and accountability. He warned that political polarization is creating a culture where violence is no longer universally condemned. “This is a scary line to cross,” Rogan said. “And a lot of people just crossed it.”

His comments have drawn support from conservatives and free speech advocates who argue that the progressive left is increasingly embracing extremist rhetoric. Critics say this kind of response to political violence shows how far some corners of the left have strayed from civil discourse.

Yelling Match Erupts in Senate Hearing Over ‘Two‑Spirit’ Safe Spaces

Josh Hawley
Senator Josh Hawley (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

A heated showdown unfolded during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing when Sen. Josh Hawley (R‑MO) and former Biden administration gun violence official Gregory Jackson Jr. clashed over policies promoting “two‑spirit” safe spaces. Hawley pressed Jackson to define the term and challenged his group’s advocacy for diverting funds from policing toward programs centered on “two spirit, trans, and gender‑nonconforming” communities.

When Jackson stammered, “I’m not completely aware of the language,” Hawley shot back forcefully: “Your record is there in black and white … it’s a disgrace.” Jackson retaliated, invoking his own experience surviving a shooting: “I take offense that you’d think the last 13 years weren’t focused on reducing violence.” Hawley retorted that Jackson refused to answer questions and defended “absurd” policies.

Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R‑IA) eventually slammed his gavel, admonishing, “I don’t think we’re getting any place.” The exchange underscores deep tensions over identity politics, public funding priorities, and transparency in language used in federal social programs.

David Cross Slams Comedians, Including Dave Chappelle, over Riyadh Festival Support

chingraph/Getty via Canva Pro

Comedian David Cross issued a harsh rebuke toward fellow stand‑ups—especially Dave Chappelle—for participating in the Riyadh Comedy Festival in Saudi Arabia. Cross said he was “disgusted, and deeply disappointed” that comedians he once admired would “condone this totalitarian fiefdom … for what, a fourth house? A boat? More sneakers?”

Cross’s criticism came in an open letter that named several performers who accepted invitations to the Saudi‑sponsored event. He accused them of enabling an oppressive regime and participating in what many see as a public relations strategy to whitewash Saudi Arabia’s human rights record.

The controversy centers on the fact that festival contracts reportedly include strict censorship clauses. Comedians were barred from making remarks that criticize the Saudi government, royal family, religion, or legal system. Critics argue the event gives authoritarian regimes a veneer of cultural legitimacy—even while silencing dissent.

The backlash has divided the comedy community. Some performers—like Marc Maron, Shane Gillis, Atsuko Okatsuka, and others—refused to attend on moral grounds. Meanwhile, performers like Chappelle and Bill Burr defended their participation, citing contractual terms and financial incentives as justification.

Cartel Member Says Trump Made Criminal Activity ‘More Difficult’

Mexican
Mexican flag (Jorge Aguilar/Unsplash)

A masked operative from Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel admitted during a CNN interview that President Trump’s enforcement policies have made it harder to conduct illegal operations. Speaking anonymously to CNN correspondent David Culver, the cartel member confirmed that the Trump administration’s efforts have increased pressure on drug trafficking networks. “Oh yeah… it’s becoming more difficult,” he said when asked if Trump’s actions made his job tougher.

President Trump has formally designated the Sinaloa Cartel as a foreign terrorist organization and expanded the authority of U.S. agencies to target cartel infrastructure using military assets, intelligence coordination, and cross-border cooperation. The administration’s approach includes drone surveillance, enhanced border enforcement, and direct strikes on cartel supply routes. These measures are part of a broader campaign to dismantle drug operations and reduce fentanyl trafficking.

The cartel operative’s comments drew strong reactions from conservative circles, with many pointing to the statement as unintentional validation of Trump’s border and national security agenda. Rather than merely symbolic, the policies appear to be directly impacting the operations of one of the world’s most dangerous criminal organizations. Law enforcement advocates argue that public confirmation from within the cartel reinforces the need for continued pressure, not retreat.

Republicans Confident Voters Will Blame Democrats for Shutdown

Republican, Democrat (Kelly Sikkema/Unsplash)

Republican lawmakers are expressing confidence that the American public will blame Democrats for the impending government shutdown. With funding set to expire, Senate Republicans argue their proposed stopgap measure was a “clean” bill aimed solely at keeping government operations running through November. The bill failed to advance after Senate Democrats refused to support it, citing the exclusion of additional spending priorities including health care subsidies and Medicaid protections.

Senator Bernie Moreno (R‑OH) accused Democrats of “holding the government hostage” over partisan demands, while Senator John Cornyn (R‑TX) pushed back on claims that Republicans would take the political hit. “This is a clean bill, and everyone knows it,” Cornyn said. Senator Chuck Grassley (R‑IA) pointed to previous instances where Democrats supported similar short-term funding resolutions, calling the current opposition politically motivated.

A recent poll cited by GOP lawmakers shows that 65% of voters believe Democrats should not shut down the government even if their policy demands are not met. Republicans are using the data to argue that public sentiment is already turning against Democrats as the shutdown nears. Senator Schumer dismissed the polling and warned Republicans that they would ultimately be held accountable, though many Democrats privately concede that the optics are not favorable.

With President Trump focusing on foreign policy wins and economic messaging, Republicans hope to contrast their governance with what they call “Democrat dysfunction.” The GOP is now preparing to campaign on this budget failure as an example of partisan overreach and misplaced priorities.

White House Declares Shutdown Inevitable After Senate Fails to Pass Funding Bill

Congress
Capitol Hill (Joshua Sukoff/Unsplash)

The White House officially acknowledged that a federal government shutdown is imminent after the Senate failed to advance a Republican-backed continuing resolution to fund federal operations through November 21. The vote stalled at 55–45, falling short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has instructed federal agencies to execute their shutdown plans, signaling widespread disruptions ahead. Thousands of federal employees may be furloughed, some will work without pay, and many government services could be paused.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune criticized Democrats for refusing to support the clean funding bill, claiming bipartisan cooperation would avert the shutdown. The Democrats, however, opposed the proposal largely because it excluded extensions to health care subsidies and reversed cuts to Medicaid.

Vice President J.D. Vance echoed concerns, stating the country is “headed to a shutdown.” He blamed Democrats for blocking the legislation. Senate Democrats countered that the GOP measure was too partisan and neglected healthcare protections that many Americans rely on.

If the shutdown begins as expected, nonessential services will be suspended, and many federal workers will face uncertain weeks ahead. Essential operations—like national security, air traffic control, and border enforcement—are likely to continue, but staff may go without pay until funding is restored.

President Trump Gives Hamas 3-Day Ultimatum: Accept Peace Deal or Face ‘Very Sad End’

Trump Daddy
(Photo by Omar Havana/Getty Images)

President Trump has given Hamas three to four days to accept a U.S.-backed 20-point Gaza peace plan or face severe consequences. The President stated the plan has already been approved by Israeli and Arab leaders, leaving Hamas as the only remaining obstacle. Trump made clear there would be no negotiation beyond the proposed terms, warning that failure to comply would result in a “very sad end.”

The proposal, developed under the Trump administration and endorsed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calls for an immediate ceasefire, full release of all hostages within 72 hours, demilitarization of Hamas, formation of a transitional government in Gaza, and a phased Israeli withdrawal. International partners would provide oversight and funding for rebuilding efforts, contingent on security guarantees.

President Trump, speaking to reporters on September 30, said, “Hamas is either going to be doing it or not. And if it’s not, it’s going to be a very sad end.” He emphasized that the deal reflects the consensus of regional leaders and represents Hamas’s final opportunity to avoid escalation. Trump added that there is “not much” room for discussion beyond what has already been offered.

Hamas officials, who were not consulted during the drafting of the proposal, have expressed skepticism. One unnamed senior figure reportedly called the plan “completely biased to Israel” and “unrealistic,” though the group has stated it will formally review the proposal before responding.

Despite the diplomatic push, the Israeli military has continued its operations in Gaza City, intensifying both airstrikes and ground movements. No signs indicate a pause in the offensive while Hamas deliberates on the offer.

Arab states, many of which have previously supported Palestinian causes, appear aligned behind the Trump plan, signaling waning patience with Hamas’s leadership. With regional consensus and U.S. backing in place, the pressure now rests entirely on Hamas to prevent further conflict.

Startup Founder Gets 7+ Year Sentence for Massive JPMorgan Fraud

(Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

Charlie Javice, founder of the student‑aid startup Frank, was sentenced Monday to 85 months (just over 7 years) in prison for defrauding JPMorgan Chase in a $175 million acquisition deal.

Prosecutors proved Javice grossly overstated Frank’s user base—claiming more than 4 million users when the real number was closer to 300,000. The exaggerated numbers induced JPMorgan to acquire the startup in 2021; after the acquisition, attempts to contact purported users failed, exposing the deception.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein imposed the sentence, ordering in addition $287.5 million in restitution, plus forfeiture of $22 million tied to salary, stock, and bonuses. Post‑prison, she will serve three years of supervised release.

In court, Javice accepted the jury’s verdict and “take full responsibility,” according to Fox Business. Her defense sought leniency by pointing to past achievements, arguing the deal’s faults also lay with JPMorgan’s failed due diligence. Judge Hellerstein noted, however, that “fraud remains fraud” regardless of a victim’s oversight.

Javice’s co‑defendant, Olivier Amar (former chief growth officer of Frank), was also convicted and is scheduled for sentencing in October.

Florida Professors Lose Court Battle Over DEI Ban—Judge Allows Only One Claim to Proceed

Florida
Flag of Florida (Karl Callwood/Unsplash)

A federal judge has dismissed the majority of a lawsuit filed by Florida university professors challenging the state’s 2023 law banning public funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The court ruled that most plaintiffs failed to show legal standing or injury. Only one professor’s First Amendment claim remains active.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued the decision on September 25. The lawsuit, filed by multiple faculty members, attempted to overturn SB 266, a law signed by Governor Ron DeSantis that prohibits state universities from funding DEI initiatives. The plaintiffs claimed the law violated free speech and academic freedom protections.

Judge Walker rejected most of these arguments. He stated that the professors failed to demonstrate a concrete or particularized injury. The court also dismissed claims that the professors had a right to have their courses included in Florida’s “general education” offerings, calling that assertion unsupported by the Constitution.

The court did, however, allow one portion of the case to proceed. University of Florida political science professor Sharon Austin alleges she was denied travel funding to attend a 2024 inclusion-focused conference and anticipates being denied again. Judge Walker found her claim credible, noting a real and ongoing funding relationship potentially affected by the law.

As a result, Austin’s First Amendment claim will continue, while all other plaintiffs’ challenges were dismissed.

Florida’s DEI ban is part of a broader push by conservative-led states to defund programs that promote identity-based political activism in higher education. Supporters of the law argue it restores academic neutrality and curbs ideological indoctrination. The decision reinforces the state’s authority to set public university funding guidelines while narrowing future legal challenges.