Part of an FBI criminal investigation

'Jeremy Carl’s nomination should go no further'

'Days going by before they let them into the fold'

This Olympics has been nothing but drama, drama, drama, and here we go again

News The Mist Mike Flanagan to Tackle Film Adaptation of Stephen King’s The Mist The movie will be distributed by Warner Bros. By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on February 10, 2026 Mike Flanagan photo credit: Kevin Payravi, CC BY-SA 4.0 Comment 0 Share New Share Mike Flanagan photo credit: Kevin Payravi, CC BY-SA 4.0 Mike Flanagan and Stephen King are working together once again. Flanagan has already adapted or is in the process of adapting several of King’s works, including Gerald’s Game, Doctor Sleep, Carrie, The Dark Tower, and The Life of Chuck. Today, we have another one to add to the list: The Mist. (Before we get into The Mist, can we just acknowledge that Flanagan seems to have a ton of projects on his plate? Besides Carrie and The Dark Tower still in development, he’s also working on an Exorcist movie; when does he find time to sleep?!) The Mist is a 1980 novella by King where an eerie mist filled with terrifying murderous creatures takes over a small Maine town. In 2007, Frank Darabont adapted the story into a film starring Thomas Jane. Its ending is different than the book’s and is… a downer (not that the ending of King’s novella is all roses). In 2017, Spike TV also aired a television series adaptation that is best left unremembered. According to Deadline, Flanagan will write and direct this new feature adaptation. It’s not clear where this project will fit into Flanagan’s schedule, and it will be interesting to see how he tackles King’s source material, and how that differs from Darabont’s. Hopefully we’ll find out more details soon. [end-mark] The post Mike Flanagan to Tackle Film Adaptation of Stephen King’s <i>The Mist</i> appeared first on Reactor.

FBI Releases Video of Nancy Guthrie Kidnapping Suspect

I Just Got Kicked Off Of X. Whodunit?

Despite not having had the broadcast rights to Super Bowl LX, Monday’s CBS Mornings spent a heaping 14 minutes and 35 seconds fawning over Bad Bunny’s halftime performance as “a heartfelt message of togetherness and love,” “dope,” filled with “electricity,” “spectacular,” and full of “unity...and we are one America” and smeared those who disliked it as opposing those character traits and “one of the most unifying performances” in Super Bowl history. From the get-go, featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers boated he “didn’t understand the words, but I understood the message, the vibe, the feeling, the electricity.” Co-host Nate Burleson touted Bad Bunny in his report on the Super Bowl itself amid soundbites from the halftime show: “[N]obody brought the house down like Bad Bunny...In a Super Bowl first, the global superstar sang almost exclusively in Spanish...He closed the show with a heartfelt message of togetherness and love...holding a football emblazoned with ‘together, we are America.’” Saturday co-host Adriana Diaz opened the 7:30 a.m. half-hour with dedicated Bad Bunny recap, which she called “a landmark moment for Latino culture, filled with surprise guest appearances, tons of Puerto Rican pride.” Throughout the show, Diaz and the rest of the team insisted he drew “more than 135 million viewers,” but nothing was even definitive on Monday and rather, at best, guestimates.  Far-left podcaster Alana Casanova-Burgess made an appearance as well, gushing over Bad Bunny handing a Grammy to a young boy, which she and others saw as “parallels between that little boy and Liam Conejo Ramos” even though he wasn’t, in fact, Ramos. Other leftists insisted he was, proving some believe all Hispanics look the same (which one would consider...racist). Diaz obviously celebrated the end with Bad Bunny looking to redefine “God bless America” to mean not the United States of America but North, Central, and South America. Burleson agreed and said the real-life marriage during the show as an analogy for how marriages can endure “even in the bad times” (i.e. America right now because....Trump) (click “expand”): DIAZ: And then closed out the show, shouting out every country across the America, marching with all their flags in front of a jumbotron that read, “The only thing more powerful than hate is love.” An alternative halftime show viewed by more than five million people was headlined by Kid Rock. Bad Bunny’s set drew a record breaking 135 million viewers and tens of thousands in person. SUPER BOWL ATTENDEE: I love the fact that everybody was like bringing culture together, and he was just trying to mend things. SUPER BOWL ATTENDEE: I think music should be universal, and it was absolutely         fantastic. (....) BURLESON: And then on top of the actual vibe and the music and the energy, the symbolism like Adrianna was pointing out, was special...And then the wedding, the wedding is more than just a romantic, officially, legally binding ceremony. I believe it’s also a way to understand what a wedding means as it pertains to this country. It means commitment, sticking together for better or for worse, and understanding even in the bad times, we can still heal up and move forward in a special place together. I just thought it was dope all the way around. “All the way around...[T]he love was clearly the message last night, which is what Bad Bunny was saying all along about his performance,” King replied. They then pivoted to President Trump’s disgust with the show, painting it as the skunk at the garden party and thus dismayed with the idea anyone would reasonably disagree with them. White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe joined the fray (click “expand”): KING: I want to be Puerto Rican! How do I do that? DUTHIERS: Where Bad Bunny was saying, we are all Americans, right? DIAZ: Yes. KING: That is also true. Well, there is at least one person who did not like Bad Bunny’s message. DUTHIERS: I wonder who that is. KING: That was President Trump, who has made that clear from the very beginning, he was not a fan. He blasted the performance on social media after a weekend of controversy over a racist video that he reposted, so that sparked a lot of bipartisan backlash, but he is still refusing to apologize. Ed O’Keefe has more on all of this. Ed, good morning. But let’s start with Bad Bunny’s performance. What did the President have to say? We knew going in that he was — he did not want to see this show happen.     O’KEEFE: No, he did not, Gayle. Buenos dias. Good to see you. From the sidelines of a Super Bowl party at Mar-a-Lago, the President took to Truth Social and without mentioning Bad Bunny by name, the President decried the halftime show as one of the worst ever and an affront to the greatness of America, adding, “Nobody understands a word this guy is saying, and the dancing is disgusting, especially for young children that are watching.” O’Keefe also made a tongue-in-cheek jab at Trump before noting Bad Bunny’s tour didn’t include a stop inside a U.S. date “out of concern fans attending his concerts could be targeted by immigration agents”: “I am going to let the President in on a little secret, even those of us who speak Spanish sometimes don’t entirely understand what Bad Bunny is saying, but it’s about the music.” There was yet another Bad Bunny segment in the second hour, kicked off by King saying Bad Bunny “look[ed] so confident, so cool.” Variety’s Jam Aswad replied it was “spectacular” and “top three, top five all-time” since “[o]n every level — performance, the musical performance, the production, eye candy, spectacle and some sly messaging as well.” Monday's 'CBS Mornings' and a Variety editor fawned over Bad Bunny as focused on "unity" and "love," "one of the most unifying performances we've ever seen in the Super Bowl," and one of the greatest halftime shows in Super Bowl history while trashing the @TPUSA alternateive… pic.twitter.com/hfaR4MJhKb — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 9, 2026 Even though he acknowledge the little boy was not the one from Minneapolis the left has clung to, Aswad said the child actor “looked an awful lot like Liam” and the wider “message was all about unity and togetherness and we are one America.” Duthiers scoffed at anyone who disagreed: “[T]here were some people who tried to portray this as divisive, but if anything, that performance came off as one of the most unifying performances we’ve ever seen in the Super Bowl.” “I mean, how much harder could he have hammered it, you know? We are one America. Love is stronger than hate. And that’s not the message you’re hearing from a lot of other places,” Aswad added to multiple interjections of agreement from King, again showing their opposition to Trump and MAGA. King took her own pot shot at those who weren’t ebullient like the CBS Mornings crew: “I didn’t understand the language. But what was so cool about it is...you still felt something about this performance...[t]here were a lot of tsk, tsk naysayers about why are we having this person perform — this global superstar, by the way, perform at a major football game.” Aswad swooned Bad Bunny’s show “was so joyful,” “a celebration,” and “so much fun” and no way “menacing” or “threatening.” Following a brief celebration of Green Day’s anti-ICE smear at a recent performance and their song choice in the pregame as a veiled attack at Trump, they mocked Turning Point USA’s All-American Halftime Show (click “expand”):  DUTHIERS: So, let’s talk about Turning Point USA, the All-American Halftime Show featuring Kid Rock. It looked to me, you can confirm this, but it looked to me like he was lip syncing half the time. ASWAD: You think? DUTHIERS: Okay, I just want to be — you know, I just want to be sure that I’m out there. ASWAD: Unquestionably. Now, the second song he performed, which was a cover, a pretty religious song, actually, that he was definitely singing live or almost definitely. But his hit, Bawitdaba — I think that’s how you say it — unquestionably lip-sync, and not really trying. DUTHIERS: Yeah. ASWAD: He looked like he was — DUTHIERS: Yeah, he took it — he looked like he was moving it in. ASWAD: — yes, yes, very much. DIAZ: So, I’m sorry, go ahead. ASWAD: Oh no! I was just going to say — it was, you know, it was very different. It was certainly counter programming. But it was, you know, it was almost — it was almost more southern rock than country music, a lot of it and again, it’s — you know, sort of like red-meat, rock sound of the early aughts and even the 70s. If that’s what somebody wanted, they got it. Fast-forwarding to the final half-hour and the “Talk of the Table” segment was almost entirely Bad Bunny. First up, Duthiers celebrated Bad Bunny’s focus on the Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America alongside the United States and specifically how someone they all knew from Oprah Daily was emotional because the list included his native Ecuador. King and Diaz then celebrated the real-life wedding as another example of the show having been “a celebration of love on so many different levels.” To see the relevant CBS transcript from February 10, click here.

While insisting that they’re not snowflakes, the liberal elitists of ABC’s The View spent yet another show whining about someone criticizing Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl Halftime performance, this time it was former Real Housewives star Jill Zarin. On Tuesday’s episode, their animosity boiled over as they lashed out toward average Americans for not wanting to be multi-lingual. They also suggested they were better than average Americans because they attended the opera where Italian and French were sung. Co-host Sunny Hostin, whose family brought slaves to Bad Bunny’s home of Puerto Rico, lashed out at those who dared not to like the all-Spanish-language performance. According to Hostin, you needed to shut up because the Macarena was very popular at one point (despite the fact the lyrics didn’t play a role in its popularity) Hostin convulsed wildly while mocking those who liked doing the dance. Of course, she singled out Carnival cruise enjoyers: Well, you know what, I'm sorry, everybody was down with the Macarena when it came out and they were all on the Carnival cruises and they were doing all of this and they’re doing all of this and everybody was fine with it!   Sunny Hostin says you should shut up about Bad Bunny performing at the Super Bowl in Spanish because the Macarena was a popular once. pic.twitter.com/MrE5El76MZ — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) February 10, 2026   She went on to decry how average Americans were not multi-lingual and she seemed to embrace replacement theory, something The View had insisted wasn’t happening: You know, I think what's so interesting to me is, you know, this country seems to be one of the only countries in the world that is so proud of being mono lingual and not being able to communicate in more than one language! And, the fact of the matter is, in about 20 years multi-ethnic people will be the majority in this country! So, if you don't understand Spanish, maybe start taking a little Duo Lingo course! Co-host Joy Behar was in full agreement and proclaimed American have “a misplaced set of values” because average Americans didn’t attend the opera like they did. “These are not exactly the same people that go to the opera where they speak Italian and French,” she chided.   The View lashes out at Bad Bunny critics for being uncultured plebs who only like speaking English and don't go to the opera: SUNNY HOSTIN: This country seems to be one of the only countries in the world that is so proud of being mono lingual and not being able to communicate in… pic.twitter.com/VIVdOUAAtV — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) February 10, 2026   Toward the end of the segment, moderator Whoopi Goldberg went out of her way to scold those average Americans who dared to express criticisms of Bad Bunny’s performance. Moreover, despite most of the stadium not dancing, she insisted those with a negative opinion were a loud minority of viewers who didn’t have jobs: The truth of the matter is, you're not a large majority. And that's the mistake we make. You are not a large majority. You're loud, but you're not the largest majority. (…) Those are not the majority of people. The majority of people are doing the work they need to do to take care of their families.   "You are not a large majority" Whoopi scolds them. "You're loud, but you're not the largest majority." Adding: "You are the most snowflakian people. Everything bothers you." pic.twitter.com/0514Vlvhvh — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) February 10, 2026   The entire segment was predicated on The View having an unhealthy reaction to someone else expressing an opinion they didn’t like; but according to Goldberg, those people were the snowflakes who needed to “grow up”: They are not snowflakian because real people don't have time to be snowflakes. Okay? Y'all, on the other hand, you are the most snowflakian people I’ve ever seen. Everything bothers you. ‘Oh no, that’s not the true - that's not the real history. We shouldn't tell the truth about -- People would be mad at us.’ Grow up. “It is a wonderful term because people always say, ‘oh, you're such snowflakes.’ It ain't us, babe. No, no, no, it ain't us,” Goldberg huffed at their critics.   Sunny Hostin was having a normal one today. pic.twitter.com/M5mIZEdMfi — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) February 10, 2026   Sure, Whoopi. Sure. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 10, 2026 11:16:19 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: And her [Jill Zarin] major complaint was, you know, ‘it was in Spanish and I didn't understand any of it.’ Well, you know what, I'm sorry, everybody was down with the Macarena when it came out and they were all on the Carnival cruises and they were doing all of this [dances] and they’re doing all of this and everybody was fine with it! You know, I think what's so interesting to me is, you know, this country seems to be one of the only countries in the world that is so proud of being mono lingual and not being able to communicate in more than one language! And, the fact of the matter is, in about 20 years multi-ethnic people will be the majority in this country! So, if you don't understand Spanish, maybe start taking a little Duo Lingo course! JOY BEHAR: These are not exactly the same people that go to the opera where they speak Italian and French. But let’s not go there. The country, in my opinion, has a misplaced set of values. (…) 11:17:50 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: If you didn't get anything, that's okay. All those things are okay. The truth of the matter is, you're not a large majority. And that's the mistake we make. You are not a large majority. You're loud, but you're not the largest majority. BEHAR: Who are you talking to? GOLDBERG: I'm talking to the people who say, ‘well, this is not an American thing. This is not this. You shouldn't be doing this.’ Those are not the majority of people. The majority of people are doing the work they need to do to take care of their families. They are not snowflakian because real people don't have time to be snowflakes. Okay? Y'all, on the other hand, you are the most snowflakian people I’ve ever seen. Everything bothers you. ‘Oh no, that’s not the true - that's not the real history. We shouldn't tell the truth about -- People would be mad at us.’ Grow up. BEHAR: You've coined a term: Snowflakian. I like it. GOLDBERG: It is a wonderful term because people always say, ‘oh, you're such snowflakes.’ It ain't us, babe. No, no, no, it ain't us. We'll be right back.

For nearly three decades, Washington has insisted that America’s immigration chaos stems from outdated laws, insufficient authority, or humanitarian necessity.Last week, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shattered that narrative.For the first time in decades, a federal court treated immigration law as law, not a suggestion.In Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, a divided panel did something radical by modern standards: It enforced immigration law as Congress wrote it. The result ranks as one of the most consequential immigration rulings in a generation — and a direct rebuke to the legal fiction that has shielded millions of illegal aliens from mandatory detention for decades.What the court actually saidThe case turned on a simple question with enormous consequences: Do illegal aliens who entered the United States unlawfully — often years ago, without inspection or lawful admission — get discretionary bond hearings while in removal proceedings?The Fifth Circuit answered no.Writing for the majority, Judge Edith H. Jones, joined by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, held that any alien present in the United States who has not been lawfully admitted is, by statute, an “applicant for admission.” Congress supplied that definition in 1996.Under the law, applicants for admission who cannot show they are “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” shall be detained pending removal proceedings.“Shall” means mandatory. It leaves no room for discretionary bond hearings. It applies regardless of how long the alien has remained unlawfully in the country.Physical presence does not confer the legal status or constitutional entitlements that accompany lawful admission, much less citizenship.This ruling rejects the long-standing practice of treating interior illegal aliens as governed by the bond statute. As the Fifth Circuit panel made clear, that statute applies after lawful admission. It does not override Congress’ command for those who were never admitted at all.No other federal appellate court has squarely held that mandatory detention applies not only to recent border crossers but also to long-term illegal aliens living in the interior who entered without inspection years — even decades — ago.Long-delayed enforcementNothing in the Fifth Circuit’s decision turns on novel statutory interpretation. Congress enacted this framework in 1996 to eliminate incentives for evading inspection and remaining unlawfully in the United States.What changed was not the law but the willingness to enforce it.After the Board of Immigration Appeals acknowledged the plain meaning of the disputed section in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, DHS implemented a policy treating illegal entrants as Congress defined them: applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention.The response was immediate and predictable. District courts across the country rushed to block the policy, issuing a wave of rulings restoring bond eligibility.The Fifth Circuit is the first appellate court to say what should have been obvious all along: Courts do not get to rewrite immigration statutes because enforcement is politically uncomfortable.RELATED: We escaped King George. Why do we bow to King Judge? Photo by Pierce Archive LLC/Buyenlarge via Getty ImagesAsylum is not a loopholeOne of the most persistent myths in immigration discourse claims that filing for asylum legalizes illegal entry. It does not.Congress made illegal entry a federal misdemeanor. The statute contains no asylum exception. Illegal entry remains a crime even for those who later request asylum.Asylum also does not create a “right to remain.” It is discretionary relief from removal.Federal law allows an alien to apply for asylum after illegal entry. That provision does not cure inadmissibility, erase criminal violations, or entitle the applicant to release from custody.When an alien crosses the border illegally — between ports of entry — the alien violates federal law and becomes inadmissible for lack of valid entry documents. That inadmissibility triggers expedited removal.The law allows an alien to request asylum after unlawful entry, but it does not legalize the entry, erase inadmissibility, or prevent removal. In this posture, asylum is defensive. The alien raises it after DHS initiates removal proceedings, and the alien receives it, if at all, as discretionary relief — not as a right to remain.Aliens who enter without valid documents remain inadmissible and subject to detention or removal.Mandatory detention applies to many asylum seekers. Under the statute:Illegal entrants go into expedited removal unless they establish a credible fear.When an alien claims credible fear, the alien remains detained pending final adjudication.Release runs through limited DHS parole authority, not judicial bond hearings.The Supreme Court confirmed this framework in Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018), holding that the statute mandates detention and does not allow courts to invent bond hearings where Congress declined to authorize them.Law on the books vs. law in practiceThe detention statute does not suffer from ambiguity. The conflict lies elsewhere.Congress criminalized unlawful entry without exception. Congress also enacted the asylum provision through the Refugee Act of 1980, permitting any alien “physically present” in the United States or arriving at the border to apply for asylum regardless of manner of entry. That provision does not exempt such individuals from prosecution, detention, or removal. It does not repeal the detention mandate.The Refugee Act incorporated aspects of the U.N. Refugee Convention and Protocol, including Article 31’s discouragement of “penalization” for unlawful entry in limited circumstances. Article 31 does not prohibit detention, prosecution, or removal. It confers no right to unlawful entry or release pending adjudication. Nothing in the treaty framework — or U.S. law — displaces Congress’ mandatory detention commands.RELATED: Federalism cannot be a shield for sanctuary defiance Photo by John Moore/Getty ImagesOver time, however, executive agencies — and sometimes courts — expanded a limited non-penalization principle into a broader immunity regime. Officials treated asylum eligibility as a basis to avoid detention, delay removal, and suspend enforcement mandates Congress never repealed.That is not discretion. It is dereliction. It nullifies the statute Congress enacted.Until Congress revisits asylum law or alters treaty commitments, that structural tension will invite exploitation — regardless of what the detention statute requires.Why this ruling mattersBy enforcing the law as written, the Fifth Circuit restored a foundational principle of sovereignty: Illegal entry does not generate superior legal rights.The dissent warns that enforcing the statute could produce large-scale detention. That warning is not a legal argument. It is a policy objection rooted in disagreement with the statute Congress enacted.This ruling binds only Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi — for now. Other circuits have signaled resistance. A split is coming. Supreme Court review seems likely.When that moment arrives, the court will face a question it has avoided for years: Does immigration law mean what it says — or only what politics permits?The Fifth Circuit has answered.For the first time in decades, a federal court treated immigration law as law, not a suggestion.