Leave it to the comedians to see what was hidden in plain sight… Leave it to the comedians to see things differently than everyone else, and then once you see it it seems so obvious. Here is comedian Pete Holmes brilliantly explaining why atheism is hilariously nonsensical: !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src=”https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2oodx”+(arguments[1].video?’.’+arguments[1].video:”)+”/?url=”+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+”&args=”+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, “script”, “Rumble”); Rumble(“play”, {“video”:”v7b0l92″,”div”:”rumble_v7b0l92″}); Backup here if needed: Which reminds me so much of Norm Macdonald’s take on atheism. Have you ever seen this? BRILLIANT: Norm Macdonald on Atheism"You will never see an atheist argue God doesn't exist because Scientology is absurd. They will ALWAYS pick Christianity. So they choose the God they decide doesn't exist…which means they're really choosing the God they think exists!" pic.twitter.com/KdXJA1rYM7 — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) January 24, 2023 It’s so true, right? Share with your friends… And while I’m here, I can’t do a Norm post without showing you perhaps his most famous bit ever….the 4 minute Moth Joke. Enjoy: Backup: Ok, here’s one more of Norm Macdonald driving the ladies from The View crazy back when Babs was still running it: This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post WATCH: Comedian Has Brilliant Take On Atheism appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

Federal campaign records are supposed to tell voters where political money came from. In Elizabeth Waffle’s case, they have created a mystery so large that nobody should be allowed to wave it away as a clerical hiccup. Waffle is an 88-year-old Michigan widow. She lives on a modest pension in a trailer after losing her house in a fire. She owns an old pickup truck. She does not own a computer. Yet a newly reported federal paper trail links her name to nearly 15,000 political donations totaling more than $150,000. Her reaction was immediate. “One hundred and fifty thousand? Hell no. I don’t have that kind of money.” LeDuff put the paperwork in front of Waffle and recorded the moment she saw what the government database says: Is El-Sayed’s Campaign Funded by Elderly Fake Donors? ActBlue says an 88-year-old widow has given over $150k to Dems over the past five years, but she says that’s not possible By Charlie LeDuff @Charlieleduff pic.twitter.com/NiCPPARtMR — Michigan Enjoyer (@mich_enjoyer) July 22, 2026 Michigan Enjoyer reporter Charlie LeDuff says federal contribution data compiled by Bob Cushman attributes 14,696 donations to Waffle over five years. That works out to roughly eight donations every day, with an average gift of $9.18. Waffle does not deny making political donations and says she has given a few dozen small amounts through ActBlue. What she denies is the staggering volume and total attached to her identity. The paperwork reportedly lists contributions from both her trailer and an apartment she briefly rented after the fire. Some dates show activity tied to both locations on the same day, while other entries name out-of-state candidates she did not recognize. The records also attribute 47 contributions to Abdul El-Sayed, whom Waffle says she supported, but not 47 times. The Federal Election Commission’s public receipts database contains thousands of raw entries under the name Elizabeth Waffle in Milan, Michigan. A direct Schedule A query for that exact name, city and state currently returns more than 16,000 raw entries across committees. Restricting the search to ActBlue’s federal committee still returns more than 13,000. Those figures are a database check, not a verdict. Raw FEC results can include amended reports, and the ledger is not a bank statement or an automatic count of unique, cleared transactions. Even with that limitation, the scale is staggering. The exact line count can move as filings are amended, but the central mismatch between the public record and Waffle’s account remains. Then there is Abdul El-Sayed. That detail lit up X: In one notable example, an 88 year old woman who lives in a trailer and has no computer is listed as having donated over $150K to Dem campaigns. Including 47 times to @AbdulElSayed ‘s Senate campaign. Where is this money really coming from? Needs to be investigated. pic.twitter.com/2E0WR4QfFr — AG (@AGHamilton29) July 22, 2026 El-Sayed has made small-dollar fundraising central to his political brand. His campaign announced on July 14 that it raised more than $4.5 million in the second quarter and repeatedly ranked among ActBlue’s top five campaigns for weekly donations. The campaign calls that proof of grassroots momentum. Its announcement credits an expanding statewide operation built around individual supporters rather than corporate money. It also says El-Sayed rejects corporate donations and has built an operation with thousands of volunteer sign-ups and hundreds of events across Michigan. Small donors are not a side note in his pitch. They are the moral center of it, which makes an unexplained donor record especially relevant. The records do not establish misconduct by El-Sayed, and a transparent audit is still the obvious response. This is where the facts require discipline. Nothing in the public reporting establishes that El-Sayed personally directed, knew about or participated in an unauthorized donation. Waffle also acknowledges that she did make some legitimate gifts through ActBlue. High-frequency giving alone does not prove a crime, either. Recurring solicitations, amended filings and conduit-reporting rules can all create complicated records. But none of that erases the central problem. A donor says the amount attributed to her is financially impossible, while the federal database carries thousands of entries under her exact name and location. Those two things cannot both be left standing without a serious reconciliation. The FEC explains that a conduit such as ActBlue must report both the original contribution and the later disbursement to the intended recipient. Unlike ordinary committee itemization, that conduit reporting requirement has no minimum-dollar threshold. That is why tiny online gifts can produce such a detailed public trail. It also means the same political dollar can appear in records serving different reporting functions. Amended filings can add another layer, and a search result is not the same thing as a bank statement. The way through that complexity is not to dismiss the donor. It is to match the reported entries against transaction identifiers, payment instruments, recipient records, refunds and amendments until every line has an explanation. It is also why accuracy matters so much. A system designed for transparency becomes a liability if a donor cannot recognize the money listed in her name. ActBlue says it operates an industry-leading compliance system that evaluates more than 140 fraud indicators. It also says it blocks contributions associated with foreign mailing addresses, foreign IP addresses and foreign bank identification numbers. The platform says donors selecting a non-U.S. country face passport prompts, and it argues that its restrictions are so aggressive that some American citizens living or serving abroad cannot donate. The organization has accused Republican investigators of politicizing their oversight and says it has cooperated extensively with congressional requests. ActBlue says it voluntarily produced documents, complied with subpoenas and continued reviewing later requests. Its position is that the company protects small-dollar donors while its political opponents try to cripple Democratic fundraising. Those defenses deserve to be included. They do not answer Elizabeth Waffle’s case. The dispute lands while ActBlue is already under intense federal scrutiny. In April 2025, the White House announced that President Trump had directed the attorney general to investigate allegations involving straw donors and foreign money moving through online political fundraising platforms. The memorandum followed congressional claims that ActBlue had detected at least 22 significant fraud campaigns, nine with a foreign connection. The White House also cited 237 donations from foreign IP addresses using prepaid cards during one 30-day period in the 2024 cycle. Those are allegations cited by the administration, not criminal judgments against every donation processed by ActBlue. The Justice Department was ordered to investigate and report back, which is precisely why a new donor dispute should be documented carefully instead of inflated beyond the evidence. The Waffle records raise a different but related question: whether small contributions reported under a real American’s identity were actually authorized by that person. At a June 2026 hearing, the House Administration Committee questioned ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones about the company’s fraud controls and foreign-donation safeguards. Wallace-Jones repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right. Invoking the Fifth Amendment is a constitutional protection. It is not, by itself, proof of guilt. The committee said internal materials told employees to look for reasons to accept contributions and not reject a payment over one suspicious characteristic. Lawmakers also pressed Wallace-Jones about foreign-origin transactions and ActBlue’s past practice of processing online gifts without requiring a card verification value. ActBlue disputes the investigators’ broader narrative and says its controls are stringent. That clash is now part of the public record, but it still leaves one basic test untouched: when a named donor says the amount is impossible, somebody must produce the transaction-level explanation. Still, the questions surrounding Waffle are concrete and answerable. How many listed transactions actually cleared from a payment method she controlled? How many entries reflect amendments or duplicated reporting? Which recipient committees received the money, and were any funds refunded? Will ActBlue and the campaigns involved conduct a line-by-line audit with the donor whose name appears in the records? An 88-year-old widow should not need a forensic accountant to prove that $150,000 did not leave a bank account she says never held that kind of money. The burden belongs to the people and platforms that processed, received and reported the contributions. Until every dollar is reconciled, “grassroots” is not an answer. It is the reason the accounting must be airtight. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post Federal Records Link An 88-Year-Old Widow To Nearly 15,000 Democrat Donations — Her Response Is Blunt appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

Colorado has spent years expanding a college-benefit system for students who are in the country illegally. President Trump’s Justice Department just put that system in front of a federal judge — and the price gap described in the government’s complaint is impossible to ignore. At the University of Colorado Boulder, the newly filed complaint says the estimated cost for one academic year is about $35,456 for a resident and $66,500 for a nonresident. That is a difference of $31,044. The comparison at the Colorado School of Mines is nearly as stark: approximately $46,480 for a resident and $71,470 for a nonresident, according to the complaint. An eligible illegal alien who meets Colorado’s in-state requirements can receive the lower rate. An American citizen arriving from another state generally cannot. That is the disparity at the center of the Justice Department’s July 23 lawsuit against Colorado. The department sued the state, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, the Colorado Department of Higher Education and its executive director, JB Holston. It is asking the court to declare the challenged laws invalid and permanently block their enforcement. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said Congress has made the rule clear for nearly three decades and tied the case to President Trump’s pledge to stop illegal aliens from receiving benefits denied to American citizens. Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate called it a simple matter of federal law. The Justice Department announces its lawsuit challenging Colorado’s in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens. — U.S. Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) July 23, 2026 The legal argument is straightforward, even if the politics surrounding it are not. Federal law says a state cannot grant an unlawfully present alien a postsecondary education benefit based on state residence unless the same benefit is available to every U.S. citizen without regard to residence. Colorado may offer a resident rate. The Justice Department’s position is that it cannot extend that residence-based rate to illegal aliens while withholding it from American citizens who live in the other 49 states. This is still an allegation in a newly filed civil case, not a final court ruling. Colorado will have the opportunity to dispute the government’s interpretation and defend its laws. But the 19-page federal complaint shows why the administration believes this is bigger than one tuition category. Filed in federal court in Denver as United States v. State of Colorado, it lays out four Supremacy Clause counts and traces more than a decade of legislative changes. Colorado enacted its ASSET law in 2013, allowing certain students without lawful immigration status to qualify for in-state tuition if they met Colorado school-attendance and graduation requirements. In 2019, the state expanded access to state financial aid, adding another layer of taxpayer-backed benefits to the resident rate. The state loosened the rules again in 2022. The complaint says lawmakers cut the Colorado high-school attendance requirement from three years to one and removed a rule requiring students to enter college within 12 months of graduation. Then came another change in 2025. According to the complaint, Colorado repealed the requirement that an eligible student sign an affidavit promising to seek lawful immigration status. The Justice Department says the current system has no lawful-presence requirement at all. The benefits extend beyond the sticker price. Colorado operates the CASFA, an alternative financial-aid application for students who cannot use the federal FAFSA, including undocumented students. Qualifying students can also receive the state’s taxpayer-funded College Opportunity Fund stipend. Colorado’s own CU Boulder admissions guidance for undocumented applicants directs eligible students to the in-state tuition program and says undocumented Colorado residents may qualify for need-based grants. The federal complaint says eligible students at CU Boulder may receive up to $10,300 a year in university grants and scholarships. It also says Colorado School of Mines evaluates ASSET-eligible undocumented students for merit awards. None of that means every recipient receives every listed benefit, and it does not mean the $66.5 million awarded through a separate Colorado scholarship initiative went exclusively to illegal aliens. It does mean the case is about far more than a line on a tuition bill. The administration is challenging an interconnected system of discounted rates, stipends, grants and scholarships. Denver7 reports on the Justice Department’s challenge to Colorado’s in-state tuition and financial-aid laws. — Denver7 News (@DenverChannel) July 23, 2026 Colorado’s defenders will argue that these students attended high school in the state, built lives there and should not be locked out of an affordable education because of their immigration status. That argument may carry emotional force. It does not answer the federal government’s central question: Why should unlawful presence be treated more generously than American citizenship when two students cross the same state line? Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said Congress settled that question nearly three decades ago. He accused Colorado of subsidizing benefits for illegal aliens at taxpayers’ expense while denying the same treatment to the nation’s own citizens. The Justice Department says this is its 14th lawsuit targeting state tuition benefits of this kind. It points to favorable outcomes in Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Nebraska while other cases remain pending. Colorado is therefore not being singled out in isolation. It is the newest front in a deliberate national effort to force states into compliance with the federal rule. The left will call the lawsuit cruel. That is easier than defending a system under which an out-of-state American family can face a bill tens of thousands of dollars higher than a similarly situated family whose student is in the country illegally. A court will decide whether Colorado’s statutes survive. For now, the numbers have stripped away the slogans. Colorado calls it opportunity, but the lawsuit asks who receives the discount, who is forced to pay more and why American citizenship is not enough to get the same deal. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post DOJ Just Sued Colorado Over Illegal-Alien Tuition — Look What Out-Of-State Americans Pay appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

by Aaron Gentzler If you voted for Trump… or you’re just skeptical about politics… You know many people are furious. A year-plus into Trump’s second term… We’ve seen ZERO insiders arrested. Not a single deep state crony. Or member of Biden’s team. The question is – why? We just met up with a 50-year Washington insider who has a wild theory on what’s really going on… and what will happen next. “Behind the scenes,” he told us, “the Trump team has been planning a counter-attack unlike anything we’ve seen since the Civil War.” And it won’t just re-shape Washington… He added: “The last time anything like this happened, the stock market lost more than half of its value. And by the time it hits the headlines, it will be too late for most people to prepare.” That’s why we sat him down and got the whole thing on camera — his theory, the counter-attack he says is coming, and what it could mean for your money. We’ve made it free to watch, while there’s still time to react. You can see it for yourself, right here. (Note: Thank you for supporting businesses like the one presenting a sponsored message in this article and ordering through the included links, which benefits WLTReport. We appreciate your support!  MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!) This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post The Real Reason Trump “Went Easy” On The Deep State – And What’s Coming Next appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

America’s B-1 Lancer has returned to the fight over Iran. U.S. officials say the long-range bomber struck Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps targets on Tuesday after taking off from an air base in Britain. Tehran’s answer was aimed beyond the United States. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards warned that British bases could be hit, putting one of Washington’s closest NATO allies directly in the regime’s sights. President Trump is still weighing how far to take the campaign as Iran keeps threatening commercial shipping and attacking American positions across the region. The latest mission gives him one of the heaviest conventional strike options in the U.S. arsenal. BREAKING: B1 BOMBERS JUST DROPPED 2,000 LB PAYLOADS INTO IRAN… WOAH! Iran just THREATENED to HIT British bases—Good luck! Our F16s are LOCKED AND LOADED EU Diplomats ORDERED TO EVACUATE IRAN… they know SOMETHING Iran BEGS at the table, but TRUMP says NO DEAL.… pic.twitter.com/rgfDvwU0am — Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) July 24, 2026 The embedded post describes 2,000-pound payloads being dropped. That specific loadout has not been confirmed by the official or independent reporting available so far. The confirmed facts still mark a serious escalation. According to Axios, U.S. officials confirmed that a B-1 struck IRGC targets on Tuesday. It was the first mission involving that bomber since fighting with Iran resumed 12 days earlier. The aircraft launched from an air base in the United Kingdom and was visible on public aviation websites. Central Command did not identify the B-1 in its statement about Tuesday’s strikes. A B-1 can carry as many as two dozen 2,000-pound bombs or dozens of cruise missiles. It can also fly faster than the speed of sound at low altitude while hauling the largest conventional bomb load of any U.S. bomber. The exact target, weapon load and comparative effect of Tuesday’s mission remain undisclosed. The verified picture is still stark: the B-1 flew, it struck IRGC targets, and it departed from British soil. That combination gives the mission a significance far beyond a single sortie. The B-1 is a heavy bomber built to carry a lot of firepower over a long distance. Launching it from Britain also makes the alliance supporting the operation visible to Tehran. The Iranian regime noticed. Reuters says Britain declared its armed forces ready to defend the country after the IRGC warning over American bombers flying from British bases. The British government’s current Iran advisory shows how sharply the security picture has deteriorated. London says its agreement with Washington permits defensive U.S. operations from British facilities against Iranian missile capabilities used to threaten ships in the Strait of Hormuz. British officials have described that authority as limited and defensive. Britain says the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force are maintaining a layered defense alongside NATO allies. That response puts real military weight behind the message that an attack on British bases would be met by forces already on alert. The official advisory confirms that UK diplomatic staff were temporarily withdrawn from Iran while the embassy shifted to remote operations. It advises against all travel to Iran, but it does not establish the broader evacuation of European Union diplomats described in the embedded post. The distinction sharpens the picture. A NATO ally allowed its runway to support an American strike. Tehran answered by naming that ally’s bases as possible targets. Meanwhile, the air campaign has continued without a pause. Central Command said U.S. forces began another round of strikes at 6:45 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, marking the thirteenth consecutive night of attacks against Iranian military targets. U.S. forces started another night of strikes against Iranian military targets at 6:45 p.m. ET today. This is the 13th consecutive night of strikes aimed to hold Iran accountable and diminish threats from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to commercial shipping. — U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) July 23, 2026 The stated objective is to reduce the IRGC’s ability to threaten commercial shipping, especially around the Strait of Hormuz. That chokepoint is the pressure point running through the entire fight. Iran has used threats against ships, bases and allied infrastructure to raise the cost of every American move. The B-1 mission answers that pressure with reach. It shows that the United States can launch a heavy bomber from Europe, strike inside Iran and fold the aircraft back into a campaign already operating night after night. Tehran may hope that threatening Britain will fracture the coalition or make London reconsider access to its bases. It could have the opposite effect. Every warning aimed at a NATO country reminds allied capitals that Iran’s strategy reaches well beyond a dispute with Washington. The B-1’s return also gives President Trump another lever as negotiations continue. Iran now has to calculate whether threatening the country that hosted the bomber makes a deal more likely, or brings even more American firepower into play. One detail remains classified: exactly what the bomber carried. Another is already public: where it came from and who Tehran threatened next. The runway was British. The bomber was American. Tehran made sure Britain received the next warning. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post B-1 Bomber Returns To Iran Fight As Tehran Threatens NATO Ally That Opened Its Runway appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.