Canada caved on its digital services tax, proving once again that strong American leadership gets results. The decision, announced Sunday night, came after President Donald Trump slammed the brakes on trade talks with Canada over the tax, which targeted U.S. tech giants like Amazon and Google, as CNBC reports. Ottawa’s retreat signals a win for fair trade and a rebuke to woke tax schemes.
The reversal scraps a planned 3% levy on tech firms, enacted last year but applied retroactively to 2022, set to collect $2 billion. The tax, first floated in 2020, aimed to close a so-called taxation gap for big tech earning Canadian revenue. Trump’s weekend announcement to halt trade negotiations forced Canada’s hand, with payments originally due Monday now canceled.
The tax’s introduction in 2020 was sold as a way to level the playing field for tech companies profiting in Canada. Yet it disproportionately hit American firms, sparking U.S. objections. Canada’s claim of working with international partners on a multilateral tax agreement rings hollow when its unilateral move smacked of anti-American bias.
Trump’s bold move to pause trade talks exposed Canada’s tax as a discriminatory cash grab. U.S. goods trade with Canada, valued at $762 billion last year, gave Trump leverage to demand fairness. Ottawa’s quick capitulation shows that economic strength, not diplomatic niceties, drives results.
“We disagree [with the tax], and we think that they discriminate against U.S. companies,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC. His sharp critique cuts through Canada’s pretense of neutrality. The tax’s retroactive nature, unlike European digital taxes, was a sneaky way to fleece American firms for billions.
Bessent’s comments highlight a key point: Canada’s tax wasn’t just bad policy -- it was a deliberate slight. “Several countries within the European Union have digital service taxes. None of them have done those retroactively,” he said. Canada’s attempt to rewrite history with backdated taxes reeks of progressive overreach.
Canada’s Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne tried to spin the retreat as a step toward prosperity. “Rescinding the digital services tax will allow the negotiations of a new economic and security relationship with the United States to make vital progress,” he said. Nice try, but this is about dodging Trump’s trade hammer, not some noble quest for jobs.
Earlier this month, Canadian officials dug in, insisting the tax would proceed despite U.S. protests. Their sudden about-face reveals a government more interested in posturing than principle. It’s a classic case of woke policies crumbling under real-world pressure.
The tax’s retroactive application to 2022 was particularly galling, targeting revenue already earned. This wasn’t about fairness—it was a shakedown of successful American companies. Canada’s excuse that it was simply closing a tax gap falls flat when the policy punishes innovation and free markets.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney tied the tax reversal to upcoming trade talks. “Today’s announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month’s G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis,” he said. Translation: Canada is folding to save face before the G7 deadline.
The G7 summit in Kananaskis established a clear timeline for resuming trade negotiations, putting pressure on Canada to take action. Trump’s refusal to negotiate while the tax loomed forced Ottawa to prioritize economic reality over ideological crusades. It’s a lesson in how strong leadership exposes weak policies.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, tasked by Bessent to probe the tax’s impact, was poised to uncover its harm to American firms. Canada’s preemptive surrender spared Greer the effort. The message is clear: discriminatory taxes won’t stand under America’s watchful eye.
Companies such as Meta, Google, and Amazon faced a $2 billion retroactive hit from Canada’s tax. The levy’s cancellation protects these engines of innovation from being penalized for their success. It’s a victory for free enterprise over bureaucratic overreach.
Canada’s claim of collaboration on a multilateral tax agreement never justified its go-it-alone approach. The tax’s design -- hitting both domestic and foreign firms but disproportionately affecting Americans -- betrayed its anti-U.S. bent. Trump’s intervention stopped this progressive pet project in its tracks.
This episode underscores a broader truth: globalist tax schemes often mask resentment of American success. Canada’s retreat proves that standing firm against unfair policies pays off. Here’s to more victories for common-sense trade and fewer woke experiments fleecing U.S. companies.
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling is a gut punch to judicial overreach. On Friday, a 6-3 decision, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, clipped the wings of district judges issuing sweeping universal injunctions, as the New York Post reports. This isn’t just a legal win -- it’s a signal that the Constitution still matters.
The court tackled a challenge to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order narrowing the application of birthright citizenship, a move that three lower courts had blocked as potentially unconstitutional. The majority didn’t touch the order’s legality, focusing instead on curbing judges’ power to halt executive actions nationwide. It’s a victory for checks and balances, not judicial fiat.
Trump’s order sparked the case, aiming to redefine who qualifies for citizenship under the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of naturalization for those born on U.S. soil. Lower courts cried foul, claiming it violated constitutional bedrock. But Barrett’s opinion sidestepped that debate, zeroing in on judicial overreach instead.
Justice Barrett, at 53, the court’s second-newest voice, wrote with surgical precision. “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent,” she declared. Her words expose the dissent’s shaky ground, rooted more in emotion than law.
Barrett didn’t stop there, accusing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of “embracing an imperial Judiciary.” That’s a polite way of saying Jackson’s vision would turn judges into unelected kings. The majority’s clarity contrasts sharply with the dissent’s hand-wringing.
The ruling strengthens Trump’s ability to govern without lower courts playing veto-by-injunction. It’s a win for executive authority, not a blank check. Progressive judges can’t just wave a gavel to block policies they dislike.
Justice Jackson, 54, penned a separate dissent, while 71-year-old Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote another dissent. Jackson’s focus wasn’t legal nuance but “practical ramifications,” as if feelings trump precedent. Her omission of traditional dissent phrases like “I dissent” raised eyebrows, signaling a break from decorum.
“May a federal court order the Executive to follow the law?” Jackson asked, framing the issue as a moral crusade. It’s a loaded question that dodges the real issue: judges aren’t emperors. Her rhetoric sounds noble but crumbles under scrutiny.
Jackson warned that “executive power will become completely uncontainable,” painting a dystopian future. Yet her solution -- unrestrained judicial power -- flips the constitutional order on its head. It’s the kind of logic that makes conservatives wary of activist benches.
Barrett’s response to Jackson was a masterclass in restraint and rebuke. “Justice Jackson would do well to heed her admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law,’” she wrote. That zinger reminds us: judges aren’t above the rules either.
Barrett criticized Jackson’s dismissal of judicial limits as “mind-numbingly technical.” It’s a fancy way of saying Jackson cherry-picks principles to suit her narrative. The majority’s fidelity to precedent stands in stark contrast.
“That goes for judges too,” Barrett added, a subtle but pointed jab at Jackson’s judicial philosophy. The line underscores a truth conservatives cherish: no one gets a free pass to rewrite the Constitution. It’s a call for humility, not hubris.
Republican Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird called the ruling rare, noting, “It’s not something that we see every day.” Her understatement captures the decision’s weight. Courts rarely slap down their own so publicly.
Attorney Kostas Moros was less restrained, posting on X: “Holy s—, this is about as brutal as I’ve ever seen SCOTUS be on one of their own.” The reaction suggests Jackson’s dissent alienated even her colleagues. It’s a sign of deeper rifts on the bench.
X user Shipwreckedcrew speculated that “Jackson has alienated her colleagues” with her approach. The majority’s willingness to call her out hints at frustration with her legal reasoning. For conservatives, it’s a reassuring sign the court won’t bow to progressive grandstanding.
Dr. Li-Meng Yan’s escape from China in April 2020 blew the lid off a covert Beijing operation. The Qingdao-born scientist alleges Chinese researchers in the U.S. are bound by government contracts to pilfer intellectual property for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Her claims, once dismissed as fringe, now fuel a Trump administration crackdown on foreign scientists, as Just the News reports.
Yan's defection in 2020 exposed a scheme in which Chinese scientists, posing as visiting scholars, allegedly sign deals with Beijing to swipe U.S. research. Evidence from a U.S. intelligence agency, suggesting COVID-19’s lab origins, bolsters her early warnings. The NIH, once lax under Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, now faces scrutiny for its role in granting visas to suspect researchers.
Yan's allegations point to a chilling strategy: Chinese scientists, she says, are CCP agents tasked with grabbing U.S. tech and data. “Scientists getting a visa from China… have signed the contract with the Chinese government,” Yan told Just the News. This isn’t scholarship -- it’s espionage dressed in lab coats.
The FBI’s alarm bells rang when two Chinese-born researchers, Yunqing Jian and Zunyong Liu, were caught trying to smuggle Fusarium graminearum, a toxic fungus, through U.S. customs. This “potential agroterrorism weapon” wreaks havoc on wheat, barley, and maize. Both worked at a University of Michigan lab funded by over $7.6 million in NIH grants.
Another Chinese researcher was nabbed attempting to smuggle crop-destroying roundworms. Yan warned the FBI about CCP agents posing as researchers smuggling deadly fungi and worms. These aren’t isolated incidents but part of a biosecurity nightmare threatening U.S. agriculture.
“The CCP’s quiet infiltration… is a direct threat,” said Erica Knight, an FBI adviser. Her words underscore the stakes: unchecked, these schemes could cripple America’s food supply. The FBI’s leadership is now on high alert, rattled by the national security risks.
The NIH, under previous leadership, had a notoriously weak vetting process for foreign scientists. Up to 1,000 researchers, mostly from China, are now under review by the agency’s intelligence security office. The Government Accountability Office has long warned about such vulnerabilities, issuing six reports in a decade.
A 2021 GAO report flagged foreign conflicts of interest at NIH-partnered universities. Loose screening allowed potential CCP agents to infiltrate sensitive research. The Trump administration’s new vetting process, launched weeks ago, aims to plug these gaping holes.
“China uses these people… that is China’s national strategy,” Yan told Just the News. Her words expose a calculated plot to exploit America’s open research ecosystem. Beijing’s endgame? Dominate global tech and agriculture while weakening the U.S.
Yan's claims about bioweapons targeting agriculture -- “the poor people’s nuclear weapons” -- raise chilling questions. Fusarium graminearum and roundworms could devastate crops, spiking food prices and sparking chaos. The CCP’s playbook, she alleges, thrives on such asymmetric warfare.
Concerns about Chinese infiltration extend beyond labs. Gordan Chang, speaking with Just the News, noted “packs of Chinese males” crossing the open border, especially late in the Biden administration. These groups, often equipped with identical gear, hint at coordinated efforts.
“There is an uptick… in illicit surveillance of our infrastructure,” Chang said. His warning ties border security to the lab scandals, painting a broader picture of CCP aggression. The U.S. faces a multi-front assault on its sovereignty.
The smuggling cases, coupled with Yan’s revelations, have jolted FBI leadership. The NIH’s review of 1,000 scientists signals a long-overdue reckoning. Past complacency under Collins and Fauci left America’s research ecosystem exposed.
Beijing’s alleged use of scientists as CCP pawns demands a robust response. “The US government must treat it as… [a] national threat,” Yan urged. Her call to action resonates with a public weary of foreign exploitation.
The Trump administration’s vetting push is a start, but the stakes are sky-high. From lab leaks to crop-killing fungi, the CCP’s schemes threaten America’s security and prosperity. Time to lock the lab doors and guard the border -- before it’s too late.
The Trump administration is locked in a fierce legal battle, accusing a district court of thumbing its nose at the Supreme Court’s green light for deporting immigrants to third countries, as SCOTUS Blog reports. The dispute, centered on a group of immigrants stranded in Djibouti, exposes the left’s relentless push to obstruct immigration enforcement. It’s a classic case of judicial overreach clashing with executive authority.
The Supreme Court on Monday authorized the administration to deport immigrants to countries not listed in their removal orders, a win for border security. This ruling followed a botched deportation attempt to South Sudan, leaving eight men detained on a U.S. military base in Djibouti. The administration’s now fighting to move forward, while progressive lawyers cry foul.
Back on April 18, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued an order demanding protections against torture for immigrants facing deportation to third countries. He argued the government must ensure no harm comes to those being removed. Sounds noble, but it’s a bureaucratic handcuff on lawful deportations.
Murphy doubled down on May 21, ruling that the Trump administration violated his April 18 order by attempting to deport the eight men to South Sudan. He claimed the government skipped proper procedures, leaving the men stranded in Djibouti after their plane landed there. This smells like a judge playing immigration cop, not interpreter of the law.
The immigrants’ lawyers, ever eager to stall, argue the administration ignored Murphy’s April 18 order by rushing the South Sudan deportation. They claim the government failed to provide notice or a chance to invoke the Convention Against Torture. It’s the usual sob story, weaponizing international law to clog the system.
“The lives and safety” of the Djibouti detainees “are at imminent risk,” the immigrants’ attorneys whined to the Supreme Court. Risk? They’re on a secure U.S. military base, not a war zone. This hyperbolic plea is just another tactic to delay justice.
On Monday night, Judge Murphy insisted his May 21 order still stands, untouched by the Supreme Court’s decision. His defiance prompted U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer to fire back, calling it “unprecedented defiance.” Sauer’s got a point -- when did district judges start overriding the highest court?
Sauer, not one to mince words, urged the Supreme Court to “make clear beyond any doubt” that the government can proceed with deporting the Djibouti group. He’s fighting for clarity, not chaos, in a system already bogged down by activist judges. The administration’s patience is wearing thin, and rightly so.
The immigrants’ lawyers countered, claiming Murphy’s May 21 order was a necessary fix for the government’s violation of the April 18 ruling. They argue the administration can’t “evade the ordered remedy” just because it dragged its feet. Translation: they want endless legal loopholes to keep deportations on ice.
The lawyers for the Djibouti detainees insist the Trump administration’s South Sudan violated Murphy’s order by skipping torture protection claims. “Does not change the fact” that the government acted unlawfully, they argued. This is legal nitpicking dressed up as moral outrage.
The Convention Against Torture, a favorite of the open-borders crowd, is being used to tie the administration’s hands. The lawyers’ argument hinges on “meaningful notice” and “opportunity” for claims—bureaucratic buzzwords that grind deportations to a halt. It’s a playbook to frustrate enforcement, plain and simple.
Sauer’s filing on Tuesday demanded that the Supreme Court clarify its ruling to allow third-country removals, especially for the Djibouti group. He’s pushing for a system where the law, not activist judges, calls the shots. The administration’s not asking for a free pass -- just the right to govern.
The immigrants’ attorneys are banking on Murphy’s orders to keep their clients in limbo, arguing the government must comply with every judicial hoop. Their strategy is clear: delay, obstruct, repeat. It’s a tired tactic that undermines national sovereignty.
This legal tug-of-war isn’t just about eight men in Djibouti—it’s about who controls immigration policy. The Supreme Court’s ruling was a step toward restoring executive power, but Murphy’s resistance shows the left’s desperation to cling to influence. The administration is fighting for a secure border, not a judicial dictatorship.
As the Supreme Court weighs Sauer’s request and the immigrants’ response, the nation watches. Will the rule of law prevail, or will progressive judges keep rewriting the rules? The Trump administration’s ready to act, if only the courts get out of the way.
House Democrats tripped over their own feet Tuesday, squabbling about a doomed impeachment vote against President Donald Trump. Rep. Al Green (D-TX) sparked the chaos with his push to impeach Trump for ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities without congressional approval. The move exposed the party’s fault lines, with progressives cheering and moderates fuming, as Axios reports.
Green’s five-page resolution accused Trump of trampling Congress’s war powers, but 128 Democrats, including heavyweights such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, joined Republicans to squash it. Only 79 Democrats, mostly progressives from safe districts, backed the effort. The vote laid bare the party’s struggle to balance its activist base with a broader, less impeachment-hungry electorate.
The lawmaker, undeterred, crowed, “I don’t have one scintilla of regret” about forcing the vote. That’s cute, but his stunt was less about principle and more about grandstanding for the X crowd. His measure was so flimsy that even some Democrats called it weaker than a prior impeachment attempt by Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI) in May.
The strikes on Iran, which targeted nuclear facilities, had Democrats clutching their pearls over constitutional war powers. Green’s resolution claimed Trump’s actions violated the separation of powers by bypassing Congress’s authority to declare war. Yet, the “fiercely contested” debate over legal grounds left many Democrats skeptical of impeachment’s validity.
“Not even clear the courts would uphold” it, one Democrat anonymously told Axios. That’s a polite way of saying Green’s legal argument was thinner than a campaign promise. The courts aren’t a slot machine for progressive wish lists, and this vote was more theater than substance.
Only a few Democrats, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, openly argued the strikes justified impeachment. “This president should be impeached,” Thanedar echoed, doubling down on his own failed impeachment bid. These voices, loud on X, drowned out the party’s more pragmatic wing, which saw the vote as a distraction.
Jeffries and Pelosi weren’t having it, voting firmly against Green’s resolution. “A completely unserious and selfish move,” one Democrat anonymously scoffed to Axios. When your own party calls you out for chasing clout, maybe it’s time to rethink the strategy.
“It puts people in a difficult situation,” another Democrat griped. Green’s vote forced moderates to choose between appeasing grassroots activists and appealing to swing voters who’d rather see results than impeachment reruns. The progressive wing’s obsession with symbolic gestures risks alienating the very electorate they need.
“There are a lot of other things we should be focused on right now,” a fifth Democrat told Axios. No kidding -- perhaps tackling inflation or border security might resonate more than another impeachment flop. Democrats seem more interested in viral moments than governing.
Green, unfazed by the backlash, doubled down: “It does not in any way cause me any degree of consternation to be criticized.” Bold words for someone whose measure crashed and burned spectacularly. His defiance might thrill his base, but it’s a losing bet in a divided Congress.
“Do we really want to give this president the power to take over 300 million people to war without consulting with Congress?” Green asked. It’s a fair question, but his impeachment push was more about headlines than serious oversight. If Democrats want to check Trump’s power, they’d need a stronger case and better math.
“My constituents have been calling for articles of impeachment knowing we don’t have the votes to pass them,” Rep. Emily Randall (D-WA) admitted. That’s not leadership; it’s pandering. Catering to a vocal minority while ignoring political reality is how elections are lost.
“What a message to China and Russia -- after we take military action, we try to impeach the president,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) warned. He’s right: Green’s stunt sends a signal of weakness, not strength, to global adversaries. Democrats’ infighting only emboldens those watching from afar.
“This kind of motion is premature ... I just don’t think it’s ripe,” a seventh Democrat told Axios. Translation: Green’s timing was as off as a broken clock. With bigger fish to fry, Democrats can’t afford to waste time on doomed crusades.
The vote highlighted Democrats’ ongoing identity crisis -- caught between a progressive agenda and the need to govern responsibly. Green’s impeachment gambit, while a flop, exposed the party’s inability to unite on strategy or substance. If they keep chasing stunts over solutions, they’ll be handing Trump another win.
President Donald Trump’s bold ceasefire between Israel and Iran, meant to halt a deadly 12-day clash, teetered on collapse within hours as both sides traded missile strikes. On June 13, Israel ignited the conflict with attacks on Iranian nuclear and military sites, prompting Iran’s retaliatory barrages and drawing Trump's ire, as CBS News reports. The saga exposes the fragility of Middle East diplomacy when trust is thinner than a woke politician’s principles.
Israel’s initial strikes killed 974, including 387 civilians, per Human Rights Activists in Iran, while Iran’s missiles claimed 28 Israeli lives, per Israeli officials. Trump, brokering peace through Qatar, announced a “Complete and Total CEASEFIRE” on Monday night. The deal staggered implementation: Iran would pause at midnight ET Tuesday, Israel at noon, with peace by Wednesday midnight.
Qatar’s Emir and Vice President JD Vance ironed out details after Iran struck a U.S. base in Qatar, a reckless jab at American resolve. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed no “agreement” existed, a dodge as transparent as a progressive’s tax plan. Direct talks followed Iran’s attack on Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base, showing Trump’s team meant business.
Tuesday morning saw Iran launch a missile at Beersheba, killing four and wounding 20, per Netanyahu’s office. Israel retaliated at 3 a.m. local time, hammering Tehran’s regime targets and killing hundreds of Basij forces. Both nations pointed fingers, each claiming the other violated the ceasefire first.
Trump, en route to a NATO summit, posted on Truth Social at 1 a.m. ET, urging compliance: “IS NOW IN EFFECT. PLEASE DO NOT VIOLATE IT!” Iran’s state-run Press TV denied post-ceasefire strikes, a claim as credible as a campus DEI report.
At 7:06 a.m. and 10:25 a.m. At Israel time, Iran fired three more missiles, intercepted or landed harmlessly, per Netanyahu. Israel’s Air Force obliterated a Tehran radar array in response. The tit-for-tat proved neither side was ready to ditch decades of enmity for a handshake.
Trump’s call with Netanyahu was “exceptionally firm,” a White House source said, demanding Israel recall warplanes. “Drop those bombs,” Trump reportedly warned, “and it’s a MAJOR VIOLATION.” Netanyahu, grasping the “severity,” complied, sparing lives and showing Trump’s clout.
Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, vowed to “continue the intense activity of attacking Tehran” after Iran’s missile launches. “In light of Iran’s complete violation,” Katz said, the IDF would hit hard. Such resolve mirrors Trump’s no-nonsense approach to global hotheads.
Iran’s “parting shot” of multiple strikes before the ceasefire, per state media, was a middle finger to diplomacy. Araghchi’s vague promise to halt by 4 a.m. Tehran time, if Israel stopped “aggression,” it lacked commitment. Iran’s indecision smells like a regime stalling for leverage.
Before the ceasefire, Iran fired over a dozen missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar, mostly intercepted, with no injuries. The U.S. had already struck three Iranian nuclear sites that weekend, a move Iran called “devastating” but Trump dismissed as “very weak.” Trump’s gratitude for Iran’s “early notice” saved lives, a rare diplomatic nod.
Drones hit Iraqi bases like Camp Taji on Tuesday, damaging radar, while U.S. and Iraqi forces intercepted others near Baghdad. Iraq’s army called the attacks “treacherous,” a sentiment shared by anyone tired of Iran’s proxies stirring chaos. The region’s volatility underscores Trump’s ceasefire as a high-stakes gamble.
Netanyahu’s office boasted strikes on “the heart of Tehran,” a flex that risks escalation. Israel’s government agreed to Trump’s ceasefire “in light of achieving the objectives,” but vowed to “respond forcefully” to violations. This balance of strength and restraint aligns with MAGA’s America-first ethos.
IAEA director Rafael Grossi welcomed the ceasefire, urging Iran to resume nuclear talks. “Resuming cooperation with (the IAEA) is key,” Grossi posted, eyeing a diplomatic off-ramp. Yet Iran’s refusal to confirm ceasefire compliance suggests they’re more interested in missiles than meetings.
Trump, to reporters, blasted both sides: “I’m not happy with Israel. Not happy with Iran, either.” His frustration with nations “fighting for so long that they don’t know what the f*** they’re doing” cuts through diplomatic fluff.
The ceasefire, wobbly but holding after Trump’s intervention, proves his deal-making prowess in a region where peace is as elusive as common sense in a faculty lounge. Israel recalled warplanes, and Iran’s missiles slowed, but mutual distrust lingers. Trump’s push for calm, backed by strength, offers hope -- if both sides can resist the urge to reload.
Gunfire shattered the peace at CrossPointe Community Church in Wayne, Michigan, when a troubled man turned a Sunday service into a scene of chaos, the AP reported on Monday.
Brian Anthony Browning, 31, unleashed a hail of bullets outside the church, where children were singing their final vacation Bible school song. This wasn’t a random attack, but a calculated act by someone who’d sat in those pews before.
Browning, who’d attended services a few times with his mother, opened fire, injured one, and was stopped by a heroic church member and armed staff. The incident unfolded in Wayne, a city of 17,000 about 25 miles west of Detroit, leaving roughly 150 worshippers shaken but miraculously spared. Pastor Bobby Kelly, who’d met Browning late last year, said the man seemed to hear voices from God, hinting at a mental health crisis.
Last year, Browning’s mother brought him to CrossPointe, though she wasn’t a regular member. “He seemed to really have some thoughts that were not threatening,” Kelly said, reflecting on their first meeting. Those divine whispers, however, turned deadly when Browning returned alone, armed and unhinged.
Sunday’s service was alive with children leading worship when gunfire rang out. Kelly mistook the first shots for a jackhammer, but by the third, a security team member burst in, shouting for evacuation. The progressive obsession with “safe spaces” clearly didn’t account for real threats like this.
“C’mon, everybody to the back!” a woman yelled as livestream footage captured worshippers shielding children and fleeing. The panic was palpable, yet the congregation’s swift response showed the strength of community over chaos. Unlike the left’s reliance on bureaucracy, these folks acted decisively.
Browning, wearing a tactical vest, exited his recklessly driven car with a rifle and handgun. He fired at the church, spraying bullets as if auditioning for a Hollywood villain. His rampage screamed of a man lost to inner demons, not political manifestos.
A late-arriving church member became an unlikely hero, plowing his pickup truck into Browning as he shot at the building. “He is a hero,” Kelly said, crediting divine guidance for the man’s bold action. This wasn’t government intervention—it was a citizen stepping up when seconds mattered.
At least two church staff members, armed and trained, returned fire and killed Browning. Their quick response stopped what police called a potential “large-scale mass shooting.” Contrast that with the left’s gun-control fantasies, which would’ve left this church defenseless.
One security team member was shot in the leg, underwent surgery, and remains stable. No other injuries were reported, a miracle given the 150 people inside. The woke crowd might call this luck, but Kelly saw it as God’s protection.
Wayne Police found no prior criminal history for Browning, but his Romulus home—five miles south—held a chilling arsenal. Rifles, handguns, and heaps of ammunition painted a picture of a man preparing for war. Mental health, not politics, seems to be the root here, despite what agenda-pushers might claim.
“We were definitely protected by the hand of God,” Kelly said, noting the church’s decision to hold services indoors that day. Months earlier, he’d scrapped plans for two outdoor June services, a choice that likely saved lives. Divine intervention, not diversity training, made the difference.
Police Chief Ryan Strong praised the staff’s heroism, saying they “undoubtedly saved many lives.” His words cut through the noise of anti-gun rhetoric, proving armed citizens can stop evil. The left’s push to disarm law-abiding Americans ignores realities like this.
Worshipper Wendy Bodin saw the chaos unfold, initially thinking Browning was hurt before realizing the danger. “Oh my, call 911!” another woman shouted, as the congregation rallied to protect one another. This wasn’t a government program—it was neighbors looking out for neighbors.
Kelly, a pastor for a decade, had met Browning when he seemed merely eccentric, not dangerous. Now, he’s left grappling with how a man who once worshipped among them could turn so violent. The answer lies not in woke policies but in addressing mental health crises head-on.
The church’s security team, trained and vigilant, proved the value of preparedness in a world where evil doesn’t RSVP. As Wayne recovers, this incident underscores the need for real solutions—strong communities, armed defenders, and faith—over the left’s empty promises. CrossPointe’s story is one of resilience, not victimhood.
Starbucks’ latest menu overhaul, driven by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is brewing a storm among loyal customers, as the Daily Mail reports. Earlier this week, Kennedy met with company CEO Brian Niccol to push for healthier recipes, but fans are steaming over the changes. The “MAHA-ization” of America’s coffee giant smells to many more like government overreach than a fresh roast.
Kennedy and Niccol huddled to discuss slashing sugar and adding health-focused ingredients like protein powder to Starbucks’ offerings. This follows the chain’s earlier moves to ditch artificial dyes, flavors, and high fructose corn syrup, as Kennedy proudly noted. Yet, with nearly 17,000 stores nationwide, these top-down tweaks risk alienating a customer base already grappling with declining sales.
“Pleased to learn that Starbucks menus already avoid artificial dyes, artificial flavors, high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, and other additives,” Kennedy said. Sounds noble, but when your Summer Skies berry drink packs 26 grams of sugar per 16 ounces, it’s hard to call that a health win. The American Heart Association begs for less, capping daily sugar at 36 grams for men and 25 for women.
Starbucks’ recent test of a sugar-free vanilla latte with protein banana cold foam signals where this is headed. Earlier in 2025, stripping sugar from matcha powder spiked matcha drink sales by 40%t, proving that customers might bite. But forcing protein powder into lattes feels like a lecture, not a choice.
A Starbucks spokesperson chirped, “At Starbucks, we believe choice should come with confidence.” Confidence? When a Summer-Berry Lemonade Refresher hits 33 grams of sugar per 16 ounces, that’s a choice most would rather not swallow.
The chain’s also nixed the 80-cent nondairy milk surcharge, a rare customer-friendly move amid the health push. But with ingredients like Maltodextrin and Xanthan Gum -- linked to higher colon cancer risk—lurking in items like the sausage, cheddar, and egg sandwich, the menu’s hardly a beacon of wellness. Ammonium sulfate, a fertilizer, in your breakfast? Pass.
X users aren’t sipping the Kool-Aid -- or the cold foam. One commenter raged, “Sir. Why are you doing this? There are 81 grams of sugar in Starbucks’ most popular drink.” They’re not wrong; dressing up a sugar bomb as health food is a tough sell when chronic disease is the real cost.
Another X voice piled on: “Mr. Kennedy, that’s all great and all, but you do realize those drinks have an enormous amount of calories.” Calories, sugar, and now government meddling -- Starbucks fans feel like they’re being force-fed a cause. The backlash is louder than a morning espresso machine.
The meeting was called “productive” by Starbucks, but details of the recipe reformulations remain under wraps. That secrecy only fuels suspicion that Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda is more about control than care. When did coffee become a federal health project?
Starbucks isn’t alone in this health pivot; Kraft Heinz and General Mills are also purging artificial colors by 2027. It’s a corporate domino effect, with MAHA’s fingerprints all over it. But when the largest coffee chain in the US starts tinkering with recipes, it’s not just a trend -- it’s a cultural shift.
Niccol’s plan to cut sugar and boost “health-promoting” ingredients might sound good in a boardroom, but it’s souring the customer experience. Starbucks’ diverse menu was supposed to empower choices, not preach nutrition. Now, every sip feels like a government-approved sermon.
The chain’s sales are already slipping, and this health crusade could pour cold water on customer loyalty. Forcing protein powder into drinks while ignoring the sugar overload is like rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Customers want coffee, not a chemistry experiment.
Kennedy’s vision might align with MAHA’s goals, but it’s clashing with what makes Starbucks a daily ritual for millions. The chain’s transparency on calories and ingredients is commendable, but it’s not a free pass to overhaul menus under federal pressure. Choice, not mandates, should rule the counter.
X commenters are right to call out the hypocrisy of celebrating dye-free drinks while ignoring caloric excess. If Starbucks wants to win back trust, it needs to listen to its customers, not its bureaucrats. Health is a personal journey, not a corporate edict.
This menu meddling is a microcosm of a broader problem: government overreach dressed up as progress. Starbucks’ 17,000 stores shouldn’t be a testing ground for Kennedy’s health utopia, critics suggest. They would rather see Americans enjoy their coffee without a side of MAHA dogma.
President Donald Trump is eyeing strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, and the FBI is not taking chances with Tehran’s operatives on U.S. soil. Law enforcement is ramping up surveillance of Iran-backed cells, especially since Israel’s Operation Rising Lion kicked off, as CBS News reports. The move signals a no-nonsense stance against Tehran’s threats.
Trump is weighing hits on Iran’s nuclear facilities, while the FBI tracks potential Hezbollah sleeper cells linked to Iran. This escalation follows Israel’s recent offensive and heightened fears of Iranian retaliation. The White House stays tight-lipped, but the message is clear: America is watching.
Concerns about Iran’s reach in the U.S. spiked after Trump ordered the 2020 killing of General Qasem Soleimani. That bold strike put Iran on edge, and now, with possible attacks on their uranium enrichment site at Fordo, Tehran’s itching for payback. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
FBI Director Kash Patel is doubling down on monitoring domestic threats tied to Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy. The effort intensified this month, aligning with Israel’s campaign against Iranian targets. Patel’s not messing around with America’s safety.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is no stranger to U.S. law enforcement’s radar. Late last year, federal prosecutors nabbed an IRGC operative and two Americans plotting to silence Iran’s critics on U.S. soil. The scheme allegedly included plans to target Trump himself.
The IRGC operative claimed his bosses in Tehran pushed for an attack on the former president. That’s the kind of audacity that keeps U.S. intelligence up at night. Iran is not just bluffing -- its leaders are playing a dangerous game.
U.S. officials have long worried about Iran’s ability to orchestrate attacks stateside, especially post-Soleimani. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security are pouring resources into countering these threats. No one is underestimating Tehran’s resolve.
Prosecutors have also charged plotters targeting Trump’s former adviser John Bolton and journalist Masih Alinejad, both vocal critics of Iran. Bolton got Secret Service protection in 2021, though Trump pulled it this year. That decision’s raising eyebrows, but the focus remains on Iran’s schemes.
Iran’s threats aren’t new, but it's leaders' boldness is. The regime’s promise of retaliation if Trump greenlights strikes on their nuclear program. It’s a classic Tehran tantrum, but the U.S. isn’t blinking.
Trump is mulling strikes on Iran’s Fordo facility, syncing with Israel’s ongoing campaign. The move would kneecap Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it’s a high-risk play. Tehran’s already rattling sabers, and the U.S. is bracing for blowback.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called talks with Iran “a substantial chance of negotiation.” That’s diplomatic fluff -- Trump’s team knows Iran’s not keen on chatting when missiles are on the table. The administration is betting on strength, not wishful thinking.
The FBI’s surveillance surge is a direct response to Iran’s post-Soleimani grudge. Hezbollah’s sleeper cells could be Tehran’s wildcard, and Patel’s making sure they’re boxed in. It’s a smart move in a tense standoff.
Iran’s history of plotting against U.S. figures like Bolton and Alinejad shows they’re not afraid to cross lines. The IRGC’s reach is long, but the FBI’s is longer. Tehran’s learning that America’s resolve doesn’t waver.
With Israel hammering Iran’s military sites, Trump’s team is coordinating to keep domestic threats in check. The synergy between U.S. and Israeli efforts is a slap in the face to Iran’s bluster. Tehran is on notice: no funny business.
Trump’s approach -- strike hard, watch closely -- is classic MAGA: protect America, ditch the woke appeasement. Iran’s threats may loom, but the U.S. is ready to hit back harder. No one is sleeping on this watch.
Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee launched a bombshell hearing to dissect Joe Biden’s mental fitness, nearly six months after he vacated the White House. The June 18, 2025, session aimed to expose what GOP senators claim was a carefully hidden decline during Biden’s presidency, as the Associated Press reports. Democrats, predictably, boycotted the event, dismissing it as a partisan stunt.
The hearing, the first of several planned for 2025, scrutinized Biden’s cognitive capacity, spurred by his faltering debate performance against Donald Trump last summer, which forced his exit from the presidential race. Witnesses included Sean Spicer, Theodore Wold, both first term-Trump administration figures, and law professor John Harrison, none of whom worked under Biden. This lineup drew criticism for lacking firsthand insight, yet Republicans pressed forward.
Last summer’s debate debacle, in which Biden’s stumbles shocked viewers, ignited questions about his age and sharpness, questions that lingered into 2025. Republicans leaned on fresh reports to justify their probe, alleging a cover-up by Biden’s inner circle. The absence of Democrats, who skipped the hearing entirely, only fueled GOP claims of a dodge.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas vowed to “shine a light” on Biden’s White House, insisting the issue transcends his departure from office. His call for transparency rings hollow to Democrats, who see this as a distraction from pressing concerns. Yet, Cornyn’s point stabs at a truth: the public deserves clarity on who was steering the ship.
The hearing showcased clips of Democrats defending Biden’s mental acuity while he was in office, a montage Republicans used to mock their rivals’ denial. Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri slammed Democrats for boycotting, accusing them of ignoring Biden’s decline then and now. The empty Democratic seats spoke louder than any rebuttal could.
Meanwhile, the House Oversight Committee upped the ante, subpoenaing Biden’s former staff and White House doctor for a June 27, 2025, hearing on an alleged cognitive cover-up. This move signals Republicans’ intent to dig deeper, undeterred by Democratic stonewalling. The subpoenas aim to unmask what GOP lawmakers call an orchestrated effort to prop up Biden’s image.
President Trump, fresh off his November 2024 victory, amplified the scrutiny with claims that Biden’s team forged his signature and acted without his knowledge. He ordered White House and Justice Department lawyers to investigate, a bold move that thus far lacks concrete evidence but resonates with his base. Such allegations, while speculative, keep the spotlight on Biden’s tenure.
Republicans also questioned Biden’s alleged use of an autopen for signing pardons, executive orders, and other documents, with Trump claiming this undermines their legitimacy. The autopen issue, though technical, feeds into broader doubts about Biden’s capacity to govern. It’s a clever jab, turning a bureaucratic detail into a symbol of distrust.
Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama took aim at the media, questioning how to hold outlets accountable for allegedly ignoring Biden’s decline. Her point cuts deep in an era of declining trust in journalism, where many feel the press cherry-picks narratives. The media’s silence, Britt suggests, enabled a facade of competence.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois scoffed, calling the hearing an exercise in “arm chair diagnosing” a former president. His quip, meant to deflate the GOP’s case, instead highlights Democrats’ refusal to engage. Dismissing the probe as frivolous doesn’t answer the lingering questions about Biden’s fitness.
The witnesses -- Spicer, Wold, and Harrison -- offered perspectives shaped by their distance from Biden’s administration, a fact Democrats seized on to discredit the hearing. Yet, their testimony, rooted in public observations and legal analysis, aimed to frame Biden’s decline as a national security concern. The GOP’s choice of outsiders underscores the challenge of piercing Biden’s inner circle.
Republicans’ focus on Biden’s mental state, months after his exit, reflects a broader strategy to tarnish his legacy while rallying their base. The hearings, paired with Trump’s investigations, keep Biden’s perceived weaknesses in the headlines. It’s a calculated move to contrast Trump’s vigor with Biden’s frailty.
The boycott by Democrats, as Schmitt noted, mirrors their past defenses of Biden, which now look like deflections. Playing those old clips was a masterstroke, exposing what Republicans call a pattern of denial. The contrast between Democrats’ past praise and Biden’s debate collapse is hard to ignore.
With more hearings planned, including the House’s upcoming session, Republicans show no signs of letting up. The subpoenas for Biden’s former aides and doctor signal a willingness to escalate, even if answers remain elusive. This persistence keeps the narrative alive, framing Biden’s presidency as a cautionary tale.
The saga of Biden’s questionable mental fitness, amplified by Trump’s return to power, underscores a divided nation’s struggle to trust its leaders. Republicans argue that uncovering the truth, however inconvenient, is a public service. As the probes continue, the question remains: will Democrats engage, or keep running from the spotlight?
