Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on Tuesday called for an end to Democrats’ obstruction of President Donald Trump’s nominees as he elaborated on his plan to accelerate the rate at which those nominees are confirmed in the Senate. “This is a business model that does not work when it comes to running and operating the government, and that’s why it’s got to be fixed,” Thune declared. The Senate majority leader explained at a Tuesday press conference that he is moving forward with an effort to change the Senate rules to allow batches of Trump nominees to be confirmed together. The hope is that the Senate rules reform will allow the scores of presidential nominations waiting for confirmation votes in the upper chamber to get through the Senate. Those appointments are critical to giving President Donald Trump the necessary personnel to enact his agenda—and to allow the upper chamber to focus on other priorities. “As the Senate spends more of its time working on nominations, this leaves less time for legislating on issues that are important to the American people,” Thune noted in a floor speech Monday. The South Dakota senator also said on Tuesday that without a reform of the Senate rules, the legislative body would have to cast more votes in the remaining 3-1/2 months of the calendar year than senators had since they began their current legislative session in January. And that effort would be to simply clear out the backlog of Trump nominees under consideration by the Senate. It would likely be compounded by any new nominees Trump could send to the upper chamber during that time. Senate Republicans have faced an arguably unprecedented level of obstruction from Senate Democrats when it comes to getting Trump’s nominees confirmed. At this point, there have been zero civilian nominees appointed by Trump during his second term that have been confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent. Another option on the table for Senate Republicans if the batch method still doesn’t push through all of the president’s administration picks is recess appointments. The Senate could recess itself for at least 10 days, allowing the president to make recess appointments to fully staff his administration. That idea has been supported by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. Recess appointments are not subject to Senate confirmation votes and can in certain instances last for about two years. Johnson discussed the need for Senate action in an interview with The Daily Signal’s Tony Kinnett in July. “And so I think the easiest way out of this is, literally, go into recess and have President Donald Trump do recess appointments. Once he’s done that, when we come back in, we can just do those confirmations in the normal course of business, but we would get these people in place. They can serve for a year. That would be pretty significant versus leading these agencies without their political appointees,” the Wisconsin senator explained. Even accounting for persistent Democrat obstruction, as of Tuesday, the Senate had confirmed 138 civilian nominees, which is a greater number than at the same point during the first Trump presidency. Thune has also managed to confirm all of the president’s Cabinet officials that lead executive departments and pass the budget reconciliation bill that secured funding for border security and defense.  There are about 1,300 positions in the federal government that necessitate confirmation by the Senate. According to The Washington Post and the Partnership for Public Service, 253 nominees of the 822 government jobs it is tracking were under consideration by the Senate as of Sept. 5. The post ‘It’s Got to Be Fixed’: Thune Weighs Moves to Sidestep Dems, Confirm More Trump Nominees appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. If you were looking for a tutorial in how not to govern, Nepal’s ruling class has generously offered a new lesson plan. Step one: shut down social media because it makes you feel insecure. Step two: pretend the resulting nationwide meltdown is a fluke. Step three: watch your approval rating turn into a riot and your parliament building go up in flames. What began as a bureaucratic tantrum over unregistered apps spiraled, almost immediately, into a full-blown generational uprising. The uprising kicked off when Nepal’s Ministry of Communication had the bright idea to demand that social media companies register under new regulations, rules so vague they could have been written by someone trying to criminalize sarcasm. When the platforms didn’t register, the state did what all cornered bureaucrats do: they pulled the plug. The geniuses in Kathmandu decided that banning Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and WeChat, because they would not censor, would somehow bring digital order to the country. Instead, they triggered the kind of public explosion normally reserved for collapsing currencies or rigged elections. It’s important to make clear that the social media blackout may have lit the match, but the country was already soaked in gasoline. For most of the people in the streets, the platform bans weren’t the whole problem. They were the final insult. The real list of grievances reads like a greatest hits album of government failure. Start with corruption, a national tradition at this point. The 2017 Airbus deal, where Nepal Airlines managed to misplace $10.4 million in public funds without even delivering entertaining excuses, became a case study in how to lose money in government without really trying. No one went to jail. No one even got demoted. But the public remembered. They always do. Then there is the economy, or what’s left of it. Officially, youth unemployment hit 20 percent in 2024. Unofficially, it’s worse, depending on how you define “employment” and whether you count selling SIM cards on a sidewalk as a career. One in every thirteen Nepalis works abroad just to keep their families from sinking, sending back enough remittances to prop up a government that thanks them with platitudes and zero policies. For young people still stuck in Nepal, the message has been clear: there is no future here unless your dad is on a party committee. The government hasn’t so much failed to create jobs as it has outsourced hope entirely. Add to that the political circus. Since 2008, when the monarchy was finally shelved, Nepal has cycled through 14 different governments. Not one of them finished a full term. The entire concept of political continuity in the country has been reduced to a punchline. Voters aren’t even surprised anymore. They just check the news to see who’s getting fired this week. And when the people want to speak out and air their grievances, the government tries to censor the social media platforms. That was a big mistake. Police are struggling to contain the protesters. By Tuesday morning, the government caved. Access to all 26 banned platforms has been restored. Officials framed it as a thoughtful policy revision. Everyone else recognized it for what it was: a full-speed backpedal from a policy that went up in smoke the moment it hit the street. Nobody outside the ruling class was surprised when the blackout turned ugly. What was surprising was the speed and scale of the blowback. By Monday, Kathmandu looked like a city prepping for regime change. Crowds breached a security post near Parliament. Protesters have taken to the streets in major cities. Witnesses described scenes of live ammunition mixed with rubber bullets and water cannons. At least 19 people are confirmed dead. Hundreds are injured. Emergency rooms are stacked. The situation is still active. Eventually, someone in the cabinet remembered what year it was and realized cutting off Instagram might not be the win they thought it was. And what exactly are these “demands”? According to the kids holding the line in the streets, it’s not just about the apps anymore. They want resignations. Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli was at the top of the list, trailed closely by a conga line of officials accused of corruption and a fondness for authoritarian stunts. The Prime Minister did resign, with no clear successor in place, shortly after his home was torched by protesters. The outrage didn’t stay bottled up in Kathmandu, either. It spilled out across the country: Pokhara, Chitwan, Janakpur. Nepali Congress MP Rajendra Bajgain finally emerged to deliver a soundbite: “If the Congress government cannot protect democracy, it must immediately step down.” But among younger Nepalis, this wasn’t about party politics. This was about basic survival. Social media platforms aren’t luxuries; they’re oxygen. That’s how people earn, learn, and stay connected to relatives wiring home money from Qatar or Malaysia or wherever else Nepali labor is exported to keep the country’s GDP from flatlining. So when the apps disappeared, so did a lifeline. WhatsApp storefronts went dark. Online tutors were suddenly out of business. Whole families lost touch. And the kids took it personally, because it was personal. It’s economic sabotage. But it’s also something else: a class marker. Because the people making these decisions, funnily enough, aren’t the ones relying on WhatsApp to get paid or Messenger to call their mom abroad. A dense crowd of protesters on a city street holding up placards. A solid chunk of those who charged the barricades on Monday were students who were still in class earlier that morning. Some probably still had homework due. That’s the level of disillusionment the Nepali state has managed to achieve in an instant: students walking out of chemistry class to take on a censorship system their teachers are too scared to criticize. Embassies from the US, France, and five other countries released a tidy joint statement reminding Nepal that free expression is still, technically, a thing. And that brings us back to the big picture. Nepal, which once got a gold star for being the region’s plucky democratic experiment, was trying to join the regional authoritarian club, just without the efficiency. Since abolishing its monarchy in 2008, the country has bounced between dysfunction and disillusionment like a pinball machine nobody wants to unplug. This time, though, the government’s attempt to control the conversation detonated. The apps are back, sure. But trust? That’s still offline. What started as censorship has ballooned into something larger: a hard look at who gets to decide how people live, speak, and survive. The kids aren’t logging off. And the state, despite reconnecting the internet, may have finally disconnected from its last thread of legitimacy. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Nepal Tried To Censor The Internet. The People Set Parliament on Fire. appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

On Tuesday, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor made an appearance on CBS Mornings to promote the release of her new children’s book, Just Shine!: How to Be a Better You. The anchors for CBS found it appropriate to repeatedly badger a Supreme Court Justice with off-topic questions concerning Monday’s ruling on illegal-immigration ICE raids in California and for her thoughts about America’s future. Co-anchor Tony Dokoupil briefly acknowledged the intended purpose of Sotomayor’s presence on the morning program, but rushed towards her recent dissent: DOKOUPIL: I want to get to the beautiful ideas in this book. It’s a tribute to your mother. It's about seeing others, helping them be their best. But I think a lot of our viewers are going to be wondering about this case yesterday, about enforcement actions in Los Angeles. You say it opens the door to what amounts to racial profiling. Your colleague, Justice Kavanaugh, says it’s just common sense to look in the areas where immigration violations are most likely. What he says is common sense, you say is unconstitutional. Help us understand that. SOTOMAYOR: I can't and I won't. It's a pending case right now. And as a result, I don't talk about pending cases for the Supreme Court. We’ve decided this one issue but the case is going back down. There will be further proceedings in the court below. And so, you have to rely on the public reading, what we write. Democratic Party groupie and co-anchor Gayle King refused to be satisfied by the Justice’s deferral and doubled-down on the scrutinizing, pressing her to share her “concerns” for America with their viewers (Click “expand”): KING: Do you think the words speak for themselves, what you said? SOTOMAYOR: Oh, I think so. I think I’m—I tried to be as clear as possible to explain to people as I think I did in the opinion. The reasons why I believe it's unconstitutional. And many of my reasons are based solely on the precedents that have established what reasonable cause for police to stop individuals are. KING: Can you talk about what concerns you? SOTOMAYOR: No, because the opinion does that. KING: Okay. SOTOMAYOR: But what I can say is I often ask people when they react to an opinion, they do so on the basis of newspaper reports. And I encourage them to educate themselves and read the actual decisions. Don't take snippets. But try to understand what the logic of each side is. Rather than simply accept Sotomayor’s unusually succinct and rational response and move on from the subject, Dokoupil further pushed the tangent into new territory by asking a more specific question: “May I ask just one process question? So you do write in the opinion that this is a misuse of the emergency docket […] sometimes called the ‘shadow docket.’ Why is this a misuse of that docket?”     Sotomayor politely obliged by explaining how emergency docket cases sidestep the normal process of being brought up and accepted by the Court: You’re starting at the wrong starting place. […] It’s a situation in which you’re trying to bypass the decisions of the lower court, before they are finished. You want the Supreme Court to intervene early in the case. That's why it's called an emergency docket. Not because it's an important issue as such. But because it’s bypassing a normal process. And so when someone says it's a misuse of that process, they’re talking about whether it's right for the court to intervene at that moment. And so— King resumed the dogpiling by interrupting Sotomayor and asking if America was headed in the right direction. The Justice’s patience clearly drew thin by King’s added persistence. Sotomayor deflected by emphasizing the importance the people’s opinions and actions and tied a bow on the topic by pivoting to her new book: You know, I don't think whether I'm concerned matters. I think what matters is how-whether people are concerned. Alright? Because I’m a Supreme Court justice. I get to decide individual cases. I get to speak my mind about them. Alright? In the end, I don't change what exists. People change what they don't like. Or they support what they do like. But either way the power of change is in people. That’s the message of Just Shine!  After wasting over two full minutes of air time, the anchors relented and gave due attention to Sotomayor’s original purpose for her appearance. Rather than show the Justice respect by saving the politics for another day, CBS pounced upon the opportunity to press Sotomayor for answers on her dissent. The transcript is below. Click "expand" read: CBS Mornings September 9, 2025 8:09:59 a.m. Eastern (…) TONY DOKOUPIL: Beautiful picture there from the first page of the book, and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor joins us first on CBS Mornings. Justice, thank you very much for being here. I want to get to the beautiful ideas in this book. It’s a tribute to your mother. It's about seeing others, helping them be their best. But I think a lot of our viewers are going to be wondering about this case yesterday, about enforcement actions in Los Angeles. You say it opens the door to what amounts to racial profiling. Your colleague, Justice Kavanaugh, says it’s just common sense to look in the areas where immigration violations are most likely. What he says is common sense, you say is unconstitutional. Help us understand that. JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR (U.S. Supreme Court): I can't and I won't. It's a pending case right now. And as a result, I don't talk about pending cases for the Supreme Court. We’ve decided this one issue but the case is going back down. There will be further proceedings in the court below. And so, you have to rely on the public reading, what we write. GAYLE KING: Do you think the words speak for themselves, what you said? SOTOMAYOR: Oh, I think so. I think I’m—I tried to be as clear as possible to explain to people as I think I did in the opinion. The reasons why I believe it's unconstitutional. And many of my reasons are based solely on the precedents that have established what reasonable cause for police to stop individuals are. KING: Can you talk about what concerns you? SOTOMAYOR: No, because the opinion does that. KING: Okay. SOTOMAYOR: But what I can say is I often ask people when they react to an opinion, they do so on the basis of newspaper reports. And I encourage them to educate themselves and read the actual decisions. Don't take snippets. But try to understand what the logic of each side is. DOKOUPIL: May I ask just one process question? So you do write in the opinion that this is a misuse of the emergency docket. It gets a little technical for people, but basically there are two tracks for a Supreme Court case. There’s one that goes through oral arguments, and then you get kind of a vote and decisions. And then there’s this emergency docket, sometimes called the “shadow docket.” Why is this a misuse of that docket? SOTOMAYOR: You’re starting at the wrong starting place. Cases start in the lower courts. District court, then circuit court. If you disagree with what the one judge decides on the district court, you can go to a panel of judges which is called the court of appeals. And from there you go to the Supreme Court. The emergency docket is just that. It’s a situation in which you’re trying to bypass the decisions of the lower court, before they are finished. You want the Supreme Court to intervene early in the case. That's why it's called an emergency docket. Not because it's an important issue as such. But because it’s bypassing a normal process. And so when someone says it's a misuse of that process, they’re talking about whether it's right for the court to intervene at that moment. And so— KING: I heard what you said about not being able to talk about specific cases, and the words speak to-for themselves. But broadly speaking, are you concerned about the direction the country’s going, as you sit on the Supreme Court? Can you talk about your feelings about that? Where we are at this moment in time. SOTOMAYOR: You know, I don't think whether I'm concerned matters. I think what matters is how-whether people are concerned. Alright? Because I’m a Supreme Court justice. I get to decide individual cases. I get to speak my mind about them. Alright? In the end, I don't change what exists. People change what they don't like. Or they support what they do like. But either way the power of change is in people. That’s the message of Just Shine! In the end for me, the power of changes in the hands of children. When you think about parents, we as parents—I don't have children, but I have a lot of god children, and I love children in my life. We’ve really messed up the world. Haven't we? We have two world wars going— KING: A lot of people agree with you about that. SOTOMAYOR: Regional difficulties, health, education, environmental problems. The world is filled with difficulties. Who is going to change that if we’re not? KING: But in-in your book— SOTOMAYOR: It’s kids. KING: In your book, The World of Change [sic], Celina, one thing was change for her was by showing love in all different forms. SOTOMAYOR: Yes. KING: That’s the crux of who this little girl—your mother was. By showing love in all of its different forms and many different ways. Is that your message for all of us? SOTOMAYOR: It's not just love. It's attention and caring. Because love is--we often have children who misbehave. KING: Yes. SOTOMAYOR: We don’t like their bad habits. KING: Yes. NATE BURLESON: Yeah. SOTOMAYOR: But we still like them, right? BURLESON: Yeah. KING: Yes. We wouldn't send them back. SOTOMAYOR: And we wouldn’t send them back. KING: Right. SOTOMAYOR: Although there are moments when we think about it. But, we don't do it. Okay? KING: Uh huh. SOTOMAYOR: And we don't do it because what love means to me, and it did to my mother, is caring about people. Caring and understanding them. Listening. BURLESON: Yeah. SOTOMAYOR: Showing your love by showing them the best side of themselves. BURLESON: Yeah. SOTOMAYOR: And that's what this book is trying to show kids. That they can make the world light up. BURLESON: Yeah. And in these times we need sagacious voices—like yours—to inspire the next generation. But also, there are lessons within this book that adults can take away— SOTOMAYOR: Yes. BURLESON: That our leaders can take away. What larger message are you sending to those that aren't just kids? SOTOMAYOR: Well, if you read the story, you realize that I didn't come to-to recognize that my mother was my greatest teacher until she passed. KING: Yeah. SOTOMAYOR: When people ask you, “Who was your favorite teacher?” Everybody responds with a school-based person, right? KING: Yeah. BURLESON: Yes. SOTOMAYOR: Nobody ever says my mother, my father. BURLESON: Right. SOTOMAYOR: It is parents who are your first teacher— KING: Yeah. SOTOMAYOR: And the longest lasting teacher— KING: Yep. BURLESON: Yeah. SOTOMAYOR: - in terms of the in terms of the lessons you take. KING: That's where you get the foundation. For sure. SOTOMAYOR: And parents set the example. And so for me, in reading this book— BURLESON: Yeah. SOTOMAYOR: I hope parents are paying attention that my mother was leading by example. BURLESON: Thank you for setting the example. DOKOUPIL: Thank you— KING: And now you are setting an example. DOKOUPIL: And thank you for being here. And I hear you loud and clear. You say read the opinions and read the books. SOTOMAYOR: Exactly. (…)

“Today, the BLS released the largest downward revision on record proving that President Trump was right,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday, noting the significance to Americans of a new employment report issued by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Statistics. According to the BLS’s preliminary revision released Tuesday, there were actually 911,000 fewer people employed in nonfarm jobs in March than initially reported – the largest revision on record. “BLS Revisions Show President Trump Was Right – Again,” the White House declared in a post on its website explaining how the massive downward revision supports Trump’s positions: Trump inherited a much weaker economy from his predecessor, Joe Biden, than was initially thought. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is unreliable and in need of reform. The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy is far too restrictive and interest rates remain too high. The Trump Administration’s pro-growth policies, such as lower taxes, are vital to creating good-paying American jobs. The -911,000 revision is an indictment of the Biden economy, the White House said: “Job growth was lackluster under Biden, with initial revisions from the last two years showing job growth was overstated by roughly 1.5 million workers — showing the Biden economy was propped up by illegal immigrants, poor data, government handouts, and a flood of Federal spending.” The 0.6% revision to total nonfarm employment for March 2025 announced Tuesday is three times greater than the 0.2% average revision over the past 10 years, BLS notes. “This should give the Fed more impetus to restart its cutting cycle,” Nationwide Financial Market Economist Oren Klachkin said, explaining that the revision suggests lower interest rates lie ahead. “The revision adds more evidence that the economy was already slowing even before President Donald Trump’s sweeping new tariffs and immigration policies squeezed costs for many businesses,” The Washington Post conceded Tuesday in an article reporting on the BLS revisions. In its statement, the White House stresses the need for Congress to confirm Pres. Trump’s nominee to head the BLS: “The stark revisions underscore the urgent need for Congress confirm E.J. Antoni, President Trump’s nominee for BLS commissioner, and begin the major reforms needed to restore Americans’ trust in the data after years of inaccuracy that has misled policymakers and eroded confidence.”

Therapists have historically seen patients in an intimate, in-person setting. Since COVID shutdowns, however, impersonal meetings have become more frequent and normalized, on top of what was already an increasingly remote, digital world.The mental health sector has been incredibly affected by these changes, spawning online therapy outlets like Talkspace and BetterHealth. Conceivably, a patient could conduct an online video call with a licensed therapist, who could diagnose the patient or talk through issues without ever being in the same room. As it turns out, therapists also could be cheating.'Here's a more human, heartfelt version with a gentle, conversational tone.'A recent report by MIT Technology Review featured some eye-opening testimonies of online-therapy consumers who have caught their practitioners cutting corners in terms of their mental health care.One patient named Declan was having connection trouble with his therapist online, so the two decided to turn off their video feeds. During this attempt, the therapist accidentally started sharing his screen, revealing he was using ChatGPT to procure his advice."He was taking what I was saying and putting it into ChatGPT and then summarizing or cherry-picking answers," Declan told the outlet. "I became the best patient ever," he continued, "because ChatGPT would be like, 'Well, do you consider that your way of thinking might be a little too black and white?' And I would be like, 'Huh, you know, I think my way of thinking might be too black and white,’ and [my therapist would] be like, ‘Exactly.’ I'm sure it was his dream session."While Declan's experience was right in his face, others noticed subtle signs that their therapists were not being completely honest with them.RELATED: Chatbots calling the shots? Prime minister’s recent AI confession forebodes a brave new world of governance MIT Tech Review's own author Laurie Clark admitted in her article that an email from her therapist set off alarm bells when she noticed it was strangely polished, validating, and lengthy.A different font, point-by-point responses, and the use of an em dash (despite being in the U.K.) made Clark think her therapist was using ChatGPT. When confronted by her concerns, the therapist admitted to using it to draft her responses."My positive feelings quickly drained away, to be replaced by disappointment and mistrust," Clark wrote.Similarly, a 25-year-old woman received a "consoling and thoughtful" direct message from a therapist over the death of her dog. This message would have been helpful to the young woman had she not seen the AI prompt at the top of the page, which was accidentally left intact by the therapist."Here's a more human, heartfelt version with a gentle, conversational tone," the prompt read.More and more people are skipping the middle man and heading straight to the chatbots themselves, which of course, some doctors have advocated against.RELATED: ‘I said yes’: Woman gets engaged to her AI boyfriend after 5 months For example, the president of the Australian Psychological Society warned against using AI for therapy in an interview with ABC (Australia)."No algorithm, no matter how intelligent or innovative we think they might be, can actually replace that sacred space that gets trudged between two people," Sara Quinn said. "Current general AI models are good at mimicking how humans communicate and reason, but it's just that — it's imitation."The American Psychological Association calls using chatbots for therapy "a dangerous trend," while a Stanford University study says AI can "lack effectiveness compared to human therapists" but also contributes to the use of "harmful stigma."Blaze News asked ChatGPT if AI chatbots, like ChatGPT, are better or worse than real-life therapists. It answered:"AI chatbots can offer support and guidance, but they are not a substitute for real-life therapists who provide personalized, professional mental health care."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The murder of 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska has sparked concerns about crime in the U.S. from conservatives around the country — but others, like the mayor of Charlotte, don’t seem as concerned.“Charlotte’s Democratic mayor, Vi Lyles, thanks the media for not sharing the attack video,” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey comments, disturbed.“The video of the heartbreaking attack that took Iryna Zarutska’s life is now public. I want to thank our media partners and community members who have chosen not to repost or share the footage out of respect for Iryna’s family,” Lyles wrote in a post on X.“In her statement, Mayor Lyles did not mention the victim by name or discuss any specific measures that the Charlotte area transit system or police are taking to address safety in public transit. She focused on the suspect and urged others not to demonize homeless people,” Stuckey says.“She said the suspect appeared to have struggled with mental health and suffered a crisis,” she adds.Lyles also stated, “We will never arrest our way out of issues such as homelessness or mental health.”“Mental health disease is just that — a disease like any other that needs to be treated with the same compassion, diligence, and commitment as cancer or heart disease,” she added.“So basically, this person shouldn’t be held responsible for his cold-blooded murder because he apparently was mentally unwell,” Stuckey comments, shocked — though his “mental health” and homelessness status are far from the only reason she believes the suspect is receiving special treatment.“Stop being afraid to talk about crimes just because of the color of the person that committed them. The facts are the facts, and the fact is this: A white person is statistically far more likely to be killed by a black person than the reverse, despite the fact that white people make up about 60% of the population and black men make up about 7% of the population,” Stuckey explains.“Now, we should never condemn any one race and glorify another race. People are individuals. That is absolutely true. ... But the facts do matter, which is why the opposite collective judgment is also wrong,” she continues.“This is exactly what the media does — glorifies one race and condemns another, assumes that one race is guilty and that the other is completely abdicated of any responsibility. This is what progressives do,” she adds, connecting it to the death of George Floyd.When George Floyd died, she explains, “all of your favorite apolitical pastors not only expressed outrage about that publicly, but they connected his death to the complicity of all white people, the racism of all police, and the racial injustice embedded in all of America.”“But never, ever did or do we see the same people talk about a crime like this — one, because this kind of crime happens too often.”Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

An NFL legend wrote a letter to Pope Leo XIV, hoping his holiness would grant him one request.When Robert F. Prevost became pope in May, a hard-fought territorial battle was waged in the sports world over who could claim the Catholic leader as their own. In the end, it was determined that the papacy's fandom resides in baseball with the Chicago White Sox (not the Chicago Cubs).This led to a tribute to the pope at the White Sox's Rate Field, followed by Mass with Leo XIV via video at the stadium in June.All of this fanfare encouraged one retired athlete to think that maybe the pope is a football fan, too.'It's you. It's Tiger Woods. It's Bradley Cooper. It's President Bush.'Hall of Fame quarterback and two-time Super Bowl winner Peyton Manning revealed on Monday that he sent a handwritten note to both Pope Leo XIV and his executive assistant."Look at these two handwritten letters I wrote," Manning told his brother Eli on ESPN 2's "ManningCast.""Handwritten. I made the effort," Manning comically continued, before explaining what his letter was all about.He then looked into the camera and said, "These are handwritten letters, and if you're watching, your holiness, this is an open invitation."RELATED: Chicago White Sox celebrate Pope Leo XIV as one of 'South Side's own' Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images Manning was, hilariously, inviting Pope Leo XIV to come onto the ESPN 2 show where the brothers are joined by guests to swap football stories and analyze an NFL game from Monday Night Football."Come on the show anytime," Manning reiterated. The former University of Tennessee star then disclosed that the pope was on a shortlist of his viewers' most-desired guests."It's you. It's Tiger Woods. It's Bradley Cooper. It's President Bush. It's Larry David," he rattled off. "Y'all are our most-wanted on that list for the 'ManningCast.' Come anytime.""We'd love to have you, your holiness," Manning cordially concluded.RELATED: Could Pope Leo XIV lose his American citizenship? Photo by Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images Always one to self-deprecate, Manning said he failed in getting the pope on the show, "Kinda like I failed to recruit Randy Moss to Tennessee.""I couldn't close the pope, but I made the effort Eli," he told his brother. "That's the kind of effort we make here at ESPN 2. I tried my hardest."The same episode included iconic comedian and actor Bill Murray, though, along with Hall of Fame receiver Randy Moss and current Philadelphia Eagles star Saquon Barkley.Maybe the "ManningCast" is not yet pope-worthy, but it is certainly delivering big stars to the program.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Alongside these five structures unearthed on the island of Gökçeada, researchers also found the remains of crops like wheat and peas as well as animals like sheep and pigs. The post Archaeologists In Turkey Just Uncovered 8,800-Year-Old Houses That Were Part Of The Oldest Farming Settlement In The Aegean Islands appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Getaway Stowaway: TDS-Stricken Ana Navarro ‘Brings’ Trump with Her on Month-Long Greek Vacation

Poverty for Thee but NOT for AOC: AOC BUSTED Living Oligarch Life While Protesting Against the Oligarchy