A Department of Homeland Security employee out walking her dog was brutally murdered in Georgia — by a man naturalized under former President Joe Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said Wednesday.  Mullin said that Olaolukitan Adon Abel, the 26-year-old man suspected of killing 40-year-old DHS employee Lauren Bullis in Dekalb County was naturalized by the Biden Administration in 2022. Abel was born in the United Kingdom and has an extensive criminal history including convictions for sexual battery, battery against a police officer, obstruction, and assault with a deadly weapon, and vandalism, Mullin said.  “He has also been arrested for the murder of an unidentified woman whom he reportedly shot outside a Checkers, before randomly shooting a homeless man multiple times outside a Kroger in Brookhaven,” Mullin said. “These acts of pure evil have devastated our Department and my prayers are with the families of the victims.” On Monday, a DHS employee, Lauren Bullis, was brutally shot and stabbed to death by Olaolukitan Adon Abel, a 26-year-old, born in the United Kingdom, who was naturalized by the Biden Administration in 2022. Since President Trump took office, @USCIS has implemented measures to… — Secretary Markwayne Mullin (@SecMullinDHS) April 15, 2026 Abel has been charged with two counts of murder and aggravated assault, in addition to multiple gun charges.  Police have described the attacks as random, with the first beginning at 12:52 a.m. Monday morning and the second at around 2:00 a.m. Bullis was attacked at around 6:50 a.m. and died after being stabbed and shot.  Mullin said that the Trump administration was working to ensure that only those with good character could attain American citizenship.  “Since President Trump took office, [U.S.] Citizenship and Immigration Services] has implemented measures to ensure individuals with criminal histories and who otherwise lack good moral character do not attain citizenship,” Mullin said.  Bullis worked in the office of Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security. “She was a respected colleague whose contributions and presence will be greatly missed. We extend our heartfelt condolences to her family and friends, as well as to the families, friends, and communities of the additional victims. We strongly condemn this act of violence,” the department said. “We will cooperate with the ongoing investigation but will not comment further on the suspect or the nature of the case.” Her family said that she “deeply loved her family and found joy in running, reading, and traveling,” and that her “generosity touched everyone surrounding her.

In a recent Morning Note newsletter, Tucker Carlson Network told subscribers: “The people in charge don’t want you to know this, but Muslims love Jesus.” The post highlighted Islam’s reverence for “Isa” as a major prophet and miracle-worker who will one day return to defeat the Antichrist. It even linked this supposed common ground to Iran’s president Masoud Pezeshkian’s outrage over a painting depicting Donald Trump as the Son of God. This is classic Tucker: contrarian, anti-elite framing designed to expose what “they” don’t want you to know. But it collapses under scrutiny. It peddles an interfaith platitude that flattens irreconcilable theology, whitewashes 1,400 years of conquest and subjugation, and ignores the systematic, ongoing slaughter of Christians in Muslim-majority nations — facts documented year after year by credible monitors. Carlson, who built his brand exposing cultural rot and elite lies, is here recycling the very “religion of peace” trope he once mocked. Worse, his recent comments reveal a broader pattern of downplaying radical Islam as a threat while Christians die for the faith he claims to defend. Tucker appears to sympathize with Muslims (as individuals or against “hate”) more than he spotlights their brothers and sisters in Christ being hunted. The doctrinal chasm makes true “love” impossible. Islam does revere “Isa,” but the Quran’s version is a human prophet, not divine. He never claimed godhood, never died on the cross for sins, and never rose from the dead. Explicitly: “They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them so” (Surah 4:157). The Trinity is condemned as polytheism (Surah 5:73). Isa is a forerunner to Muhammad, not the eternal Son of God whose blood atones. To say Muslims “love Jesus” while stripping Him of deity, crucifixion, and resurrection is like praising Abraham Lincoln while insisting he never opposed slavery. It is not the biblical Christ. Core Islamic texts treat Christianity as corrupted and superseded. The dhimmi system (Quran 9:29) codifies Christians and Jews as second-class subjects paying jizya tax in humiliation — protected only insofar as they submit. Apostasy from Islam carries the death penalty in traditional jurisprudence. Individual Muslims can be kind neighbors — especially as minorities in the West. But when Islamic ideology holds power, the pattern is subjugation or elimination, not “love.” The data from Open Doors’ World Watch List 2026 is unambiguous and devastating. More than 388 million Christians, one in seven globally, face high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith. In the top 50 countries alone, over 315 million endure very high or extreme levels. During the reporting period (October 2024 to September 2025), 4,849 Christians were killed specifically because of their faith. Nigeria alone accounted for 3,490 of those deaths — an increase from 3,100 the previous year. Sub-Saharan Africa saw 93 percent of all faith-related Christian killings worldwide. After North Korea (No. 1, the only non-Islamic state at the top and it has held that spot for 24 years), the list is dominated by countries where Islamic extremism is the primary driver: Somalia (No. 2), Yemen (No. 3), Sudan (No. 4), Eritrea (No. 5), Syria (No. 6), Nigeria (No. 7), Pakistan (No. 8), Libya (No. 9), and Iran (No. 10). Open Doors identifies Islamic extremism as the main source of persecution in roughly 40 of the top 50 nations. In Nigeria, Boko Haram, ISWAP, Fulani militants, and other jihadist groups have made the country the deadliest place on earth for Christians. Villages are burned, churches razed, and families slaughtered with near-total impunity — attackers have been recorded declaring their intent to destroy Christians. In Pakistan, blasphemy laws rooted in Islamic doctrine trigger mob lynchings and death sentences over alleged insults to Muhammad or the Quran. In Iran, Christian converts face arrest, torture, or execution. The pattern holds across the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia: wherever Sharia influence grows, Christian populations shrink or vanish. This is not ancient history — it is 2024–2025 reality, and the numbers show Muslim-majority nations and Islamist groups are the world’s leading perpetrators of violence against Christians. History confirms the incompatibility. Christianity was once the majority faith across the Middle East and North Africa. After the 7th-century Islamic conquests, jizya taxes, legal discrimination, church destruction, and periodic violence reduced it to scattered minorities. Christians comprised 13–20 percent of the region’s population a century ago. Today, they are roughly 5%. In Iraq alone, the Christian population fell from about 1.4 million before the 2003 U.S. invasion to between 300,000 and 500,000 now. North Africa’s once-thriving churches were virtually erased. This was gradual attrition under institutionalized inferiority — exactly what dhimmi status and apostasy laws enforce. When Muslims achieve demographic or political dominance, the ideology produces the outcomes Open Doors documents annually. Carlson’s framing is especially disappointing because it mirrors the Left’s reflexive defense of Islam while ignoring the body count. But it’s jarring from him. In a December 2025 interview with The American Conservative, he dismissed fears of radical Islam in the United States as an “Israeli government psyop” pushed by “its many defenders and informal employees in the United States.” He stated flatly: “I don’t know anyone in the United States in the last 24 years who’s been killed by radical Islam.” He added that he sees “millions of Americans being destroyed, and none of it is at the hands of radical Islam,” and has called hostility toward Muslims “disgusting.” He has defended Muslims against anti-Islam rhetoric, praised Christian-Muslim “harmony” in places like Jordan, and criticized Protestant and evangelical leaders harshly while downplaying threats from Islamist ideology. Tucker appears to prioritize anti-Israel/anti-neocon rhetoric. As an Episcopalian who calls himself Christian, ignoring that “Isa” rejects Christ’s core claims — and that real followers of the real Jesus are being slaughtered — undermines the very faith he invokes. The Iranian president’s offense at a Trump-as-divine painting is trivial next to the daily reality: Actual followers of Jesus are hunted, beaten, and murdered across the Islamic world. Scripture demands we discern spirits and false prophets, not pretend incompatible faiths “love” the same Lord. The data, doctrine, and history are not “Islamophobic,” they are simply facts. Ignoring them helps no one, least of all the persecuted. *** Bethany Miller is the Director of Communications at NRB, Managing Editor of The Conservateur, and a Senior Fellow at Concerned Women for America.

Former Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC), who previously had a controversial tenure as governor of South Carolina and challenged President Donald Trump for the 2020 presidential nomination, announced his comeback congressional bid on Tuesday. Sanford continues to face political pushback over his June 2009 decision to leave the state for roughly a week to see his mistress in Argentina, which he lied about and instead said that he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. He did successfully return to Congress from 2013 to 2019, but lost the 2018 primary to Republican Katie Arrington. “I’m running for Congress because I believe our country is at a tipping point,” he said, saying if the national debt is “left unaddressed, that debt will crush our economy.” “If you believe as I do, I’m asking you join us in this fight,” he added. He most recently made major headlines with unverified accusations that he had a relationship with journalist Olivia Nuzzi while she was covering his 2020 presidential bid, as she later left Vanity Fair as a result of that and possible improper ties with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The seat is currently held by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who is running for governor of South Carolina in a crowded Republican primary. The congressional district is rated “Solid Republican” by the Cook Political Report. Although it was known that he would enter the race since late last month, his announcement triggered some negative reactions on X. “Appalachian Trail is a thing because of you,” conservative commentator Dana Loesch wrote. “Launching today of all days?” CBS News Political Correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns tweeted, presumably a nod to Rep. Eric Swalwell’s (D-CA) resignation on Tuesday over multiple sexual misconduct allegations, including two individuals accusing the Democrat of sexual assault. Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) also resigned on Tuesday following an affair scandal involving a female staffer who later ended up committing suicide. However, some individuals on Facebook were more complimentary. “People look at the bad mistakes made not what the Governor has done for the state. This man can cut a budget in half. He will always always have my vote and I will always always have Marks back. Vote for the future people not the past,” one user wrote. “If I still lived SC I would certainly vote for you. I lived in SC when you were Governor and thought you did an absolutely wonderful job,” another individual posted. His decision to challenge Trump in 2020, although he suspended his campaign before any primaries, centered around the national debt. “I’m suspending my race for the Presidency because impeachment has made my goal of making the debt, deficit, and spending issue a part of this presidential debate impossible right now,” Sanford stated at the time, according to NBC News. The primary is on June 9.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** “Younger customers are gravitating toward CDs, looking to curate collections of the music they grew up with,” explained the owner of She Said Boom, a local music and used bookstore in downtown Toronto. Sales are now divided roughly equally between CDs and LPs, he told me. While vinyl remains strong, CDs have seen a notable resurgence in recent years, driven both by rapidly rising record prices and by a new customer base that came of age in the waning years of the compact disc and now wants to recreate that era. Similar experiences were echoed in Montreal’s Cheap Thrills, where the owner buttressed the rebounding CD market: “If you’re a young person looking to build a music collection, you can buy over five CDs for every record. It’s a no brainer.” This trend isn’t merely anecdotal. The Guardian reported a 74% increase in CD player sales in 2025 — a notion that, in the 2010s, would have seemed inconceivable. It is an intriguing development and a reminder that cultural trends are often cyclical, pleated trousers and all. Millennials, after all, were the generation that revived vinyl from the dustbin of obsolescence, ironically turning the LP into something between a viable listening format and a Pinterest decor piece. Vinyl’s quixotic appeal has always depended in part on ritual, but that same ritual has also made it costly. The running joke among vinyl enthusiasts is that “the two things that really drew me to vinyl are the expense and inconvenience.” Vinyl is expensive to manufacture, and niche formats do not benefit from the economies of scale that once made mass-market physical media cheap. In the United States, vinyl revenue reached about $1.4 billion in 2024, the highest level since 1984. Yet even now, the format remains well below its 1970s commercial peak. Millennial hipsters have also helped turn the used market into a racket, driving prices to such absurd levels that one can now encounter a battered copy of “Born in the U.S.A.” selling for $20 and a digitally sourced reissue at Urban Outfitters for $40. And so the compact disc, largely ignored in the early phases of the physical-media revival for lacking analog’s romantic mystique, begins to look appealing again for reasons that are almost embarrassingly practical. The same qualities that helped CDs overtake vinyl in the 1980s now commend them to younger listeners confined to shoebox apartments: They are lighter, smaller, more durable, free of vinyl’s dreaded static, and capable of excellent sound quality. I remember an electrical engineering professor from my undergraduate days giving a lengthy explanation of digital sampling and why CDs suffer no meaningful auditory disadvantage next to their analog counterparts. She was explaining the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, but I had the guitar solo from “Whole Lotta Love” ringing through my ears. In a market where vinyl increasingly veers toward luxury, CDs remain a democratic and accessible format. The same instinct seems to be animating renewed interest in DVDs. Bay Street Video, a local film store in Toronto, has experienced profound growth in the past five years. Visiting the local establishment felt like a throwback to the 2000s, when we would visit Blockbuster as a family and pick out movies for the weekend, a nostalgic ritual replaced today by aimlessly scrolling Netflix and wondering why we pay for a service where nothing seems remotely interesting. Bay Street Video, meanwhile, was so bustling and busy that I could not in good conscience waste the cashiers’ time without making a purchase. Perusing the aisles, from Criterion classics to modern releases, I realized I did not even own my favorite movie. And so, with a copy of “Casablanca” (yes, I am that cliché) in hand, I spoke with the owner, who gleefully confirmed recent reporting that has suggested out-of-control streaming prices and fragmentation have been a boon for his business. It is a dizzying exercise to keep up with the proliferation of streaming services and the endless reshuffling of their catalogs. Not only are movies and shows scattered across a dozen competing platforms, but the services themselves seem to rename and rebrand on a whim. Is it HBO Max, just Max, HBO Plus, or my pitch for the next iteration, HBO: Supreme Streamer? The other night I wanted to watch Wes Anderson’s “Moonrise Kingdom.” Netflix had a slew of Anderson’s other titles, but not that one. Amazon Prime had it, but only to rent for an extra fee. It was available via Crave, a Canadian streaming service operated by Bell, but we were on Rogers. To watch a mid-budget film from 2012, one had either to subscribe to the correct corporate silo, pay extra, or resort to piracy. Streaming was once sold as a utopian alternative to cable television: a frictionless content paradise unburdened by ad breaks, fixed schedules, and bloated bundles. That idyll never arrived. Prices have steadily risen (Netflix just raised its prices for the second time this year), even lower-priced tiers now wedge advertisements between scenes, and the supposed liberation from cable has merely given way to a more diffuse and annoying system of digital toll booths. The lesson is increasingly hard to ignore: unless you own a physical copy of a movie, a record, a book, or any other artistic work, you do not really own it at all; streaming effectively translates to perpetually paying for temporary and conditional access.   Even watching the ten Best Picture nominees from the 2026 Oscars now requires a minor subscription portfolio: Peacock ($10.99), Apple TV+ ($12.99), Netflix ($8.99, with ads), Max ($9.99, more ads), and Hulu ($11.99, also with ads) would run at least $54.95 a month before tax, and that still would not cover the two titles available only to rent or buy, or take into account the myriad passwords one must keep memorized as though working for the CIA. That may be the deeper appeal of physical media for younger consumers. Vinyl, CDs, DVDs — and printed books for that matter— are not merely retro affectations or Instagrammable lifestyle props. They are a means of reclaiming permanence in a culture that increasingly offers only licensed access, temporary catalogs, and inevitable subscription fatigue. Recorded physical media was one of the great democratizing achievements of the 20th century. Art had always been capable of extraordinary power and beauty, but before recording, even the most moving performances were ephemeral. If Puccini’s “Vissi d’arte” left you in tears as Tosca leapt to her death, you could not simply replay the aria at home; you had to wait until some future season when the opera company staged it again. Recorded music, and later film, changed that, bringing art into ordinary homes and allowing people not merely to encounter it, but to live with it. More recently, we chose to mortgage that hard-won intimacy for the sake of convenience and space, paying for temporary access to recordings we neither control nor truly own. In the process, we forfeited something more significant than shelf space: a sense of possession over art itself. Sometimes it takes losing something we took for granted to realize how valuable it was. *** Harry Khachatrian (@Harry1T6) is a film critic for the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a software engineer, holds a master’s degree from the University of Toronto, and writes about wine at BetweenBottles.com.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** “Ladies, leggings are not pants,” local man Dale Partridge preached on X, unwittingly nailing the reason why your favorite pair of Lulus leads a $440 billion activewear industry that has every fit chick, supermom, and It Girl singing its praises. Yeah, buddy, leggings aren’t pants. That’s why we love ‘em! They’re flattering, forgiving, easy to dress up, and just as perfect with flip-flops. But is the stretchy pants era hanging on by a thread?  I’m preemptively dabbing my eyes with the nearest pair of Lululemon Align No Line High-Rise 25” Smoothie Wash Blueberry Multi leggings. I’m also suddenly wondering if Britney Spears’ “Toxic” was about Spandex this whole time: “With a taste of the poison paradise, I’m addicted to you, don’t you know that you’re toxic?” Luckily, it’s not you, it’s the pants. And it’s not the concept of leggings (phew); it’s the toxic chemicals used to make them. Still wearing your go-to black yoga crops from 10 years ago? Maybe, like me, you’ve never stopped to really consider what buttery-soft “Nulu,” “PowerLu,” or “Everlux” even is, and, instead, you’ve been much more focused on that flawless contour and how $130 leggings cost just seven cents a day over the course of five years, which is rounded down to free! Girl math for the win. Spoiler alert, leggings don’t just magically last forever. And this freakish longevity could be thanks to synthetic compounds called “forever chemicals” (aka perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS), which in turn might be leaching into your skin. They’re known for sweat-wicking, quick-drying, stain-resisting performance. But these types of compounds get their nickname because they never break down. Just like leggings.  When we signed up for Zumba, we were hoping for a rush of feel-good endorphins, dopamine, and a smoothie afterward — not toxic residue from an Indonesian clothing factory. No wonder more of us are talking about ditching synthetics that mess with our hormones in favor of activewear made with natural fibers. It seems that once we latched onto contouring pants that hold our keys, phone, and booty all at once, it wasn’t long before we realized we were no longer cool with being contaminated by athleisure. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton just announced he is taking on Lululemon. With an investigation into the wellness brand’s product manufacturing, restricted substances list, and supply chain, he’s hoping to uncover whether the brand is misleading its loyal followers — basically all of America — by making us think we’re buying a product that’s less toxic than it is. “[Lululemon] markets itself as a wellness-focused lifestyle brand emphasizing sustainability and performance,” an official statement from his office read. “However, emerging research and consumer concerns have raised questions about the potential presence of certain synthetic materials and chemical compounds in their apparel that may be associated with endocrine disruption, infertility, cancer, and other health issues.”  Lululemon publishes a restricted substances report covering its sustainability practices, packaging, footwear, and fashion. But a quick scan reveals a 50-page list of chemicals sprinkled with images of happy workout people and their incredible abs. Okay, even if it’s legal for a company to sell us leggings with up to 1,000 parts per million of diisobutyl phthalate, do we want something known as “plasticizer” seeping into our pores? One time during a kickboxing class, someone else’s sweat flew into my mouth. This sounds worse. And it’s not just Lululemon. They might not be facing Texas justice, but certain leggings from brands such as Athleta, Gaiam, Old Navy, and Yogalicious also tested positive for forever chemicals. Still, before you panic-chuck all your leggings, you’ve probably already been exposed to PFAS today. These chemicals can be found in drinking water, food packaging, non-stick cookware, makeup, and shampoo, along with all sorts of fabrics. This very second, according to science, most of us would test positive for PFAS in our blood. Just like we are what we eat, we can also form a long-term toxic relationship with plastics in our clothes. Over time, PFAS build up in our tissue, and after a few decades spent wearing leggings loaded with chemicals every day, you could see damage to your thyroid, liver, kidneys, immunity, and reproductive system.  I’m in full savasana (corpse pose) just thinking about how many years I’ve been wearing synthetic leggings. Yes, stretchy pants have been around since men first wore them in 1300s Scotland, but I blame early-2000s Lindsay Lohan for popularizing the No. 1 alternative to hard pants.  Good news, though: We don’t have to die of leggings. Keep the opaque, lifted, buttery breathability and eliminate the junk from the ol’ activewear stash with a low-tox brand for your next workout slash coffee run. You might not see a huge cut in cost, but not accidentally poisoning yourself during Pilates? Priceless.  Skip the plastics with mainstream favorite MATE the Label, which sources toxin-free organic cotton and just 8% spandex to provide stretch for leggings, sports bras, skorts, and socks. Made of 100% alpaca wool, Arms of Andes leggings feel soft, wick moisture, and regulate temperature in any season. And Jungmaven’s super stretchy hemp blend leggings will have you thinking, “Lulu who?” Other highly rated user recommendations include BRANWYN, Pact, Happy Earth, Boody, PAKA, Cottonique, and Wellicious. And non-toxic, vegetable-dyed organic cotton brand Groceries obviously understood the assignment based purely on its name.   It might take a minute for larger brands to adapt to customer preferences. But we can “be the change” by voting with our wallets and leaving the toxic content to the gym bros on TikTok.