'Full cooperation'

Usually when scientists announce the discovery of a new species, it’s some small brown frog, a gnarly spider in a rainforest you’ll never visit, or a new sea-something. But Earth still has some curveballs to throw at us—like a new species of manta ray, just the third known in the world. These large fish belong […] The post Scientists Identify a New Manta Ray Species, Just the Third Known in the World appeared first on Good News Network.

A group of 80 pastors—Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and more—are taking a stand against Kroger. The coalition of clergy sent a letter to interim Kroger CEO Ronald Sargent with an ultimatum: Drop the LGBTQ+ agenda or face a boycott. Kroger is already closing 60 stores over the next year and a half, so it’s bad timing for the grocer. 2025-CLERGY-LETTER-TO-KROGERS-OVER-WOKISM-1Download But is the boycott warranted? Well, Kroger has a long history of going head over heels on LGBTQ+ issues. On the company’s website, it plainly states, “We proudly stand with our LGBTQ+ associates, customers and vendors in making our company brighter and better” on a page dedicated to “LGBTQ+ brands” or products with rainbow packaging and an admonition to “join us in celebrating the LGBTQ+ community with fun pride apparel, rainbow food ideas and much, much more.” The company also touts its “strong alliances” with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and array of rainbow and Pride-themed merchandise. A video from 2019 still on its website shows Kroger’s first float in the Cincinnati Pride Parade. Kroger’s headquarters is in Cincinnati. The Ohio pastors’ letter points to other examples and warns, “As you may not be aware, these radical ‘woke’ positions are divisive and contrary to orthodox biblical teaching and in many cases, contrary to federal law.” One Million Moms has also launched a petition rallying mothers to refuse to shop at Kroger until the company stops celebrating Pride Month, like other companies that have decided to ditch the rainbow. Kroger is an American grocery store chain with a large customer base in red states and rural areas. In fact, that’s the bulk of their customer base. Kroger is not Whole Foods in Washington, D.C., or Trader Joe’s in Manhattan. It’s Kroger. So, how is a store with a conservative customer base getting away with the LGBT push? Well, maybe they aren’t anymore. We’ll see. Target certainly learned the hard way. Here is the pastor’s warning, from the letter: “Mr. Sargent, out of respect to your company’s founder, please consider directing your company to not pick sides and to exit the culture war. With the closure of 60 underperforming Kroger’s stores nationwide over the next 18 months, we believe your company would benefit by not ‘upsetting the applecart.’ “As 80 lead clergy, we are looking after our congregants [who] happen to be your potential customer base. We are also hopeful Kroger’s as an employer can prosper; However, with the current radical ‘woke’ policies in place, Kroger will not succeed. The Bible says, ‘And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you.’ (1 Thessalonians 4) “For what it’s worth, please stay out of politics and do not alienate your customer base, otherwise your customers may just walk out the door and never come back.” Originally published by The Washington Stand We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. >>>Editor’s note: Kroger owns a variety of other supermarket brands across the United States. Some of the most well-known include Ralphs, Dillons, King Soopers, Fry’s, OFC, and Harris Teeter. It also operates under the names City Market, Owen’s, Jay C, Pay Less, Pick ‘n Save, Metro Market, and Fred Meyer. Additionally, Kroger owns Foods Co. and Food 4 Less grocery warehouses. The post Supermarket Giant Faces Backlash for Long History of Embracing LGBTQ Agenda appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As Many as 1 Million Kids Will Have School Choice This Year

New York Times columnist David Brooks may have officially lost it. On Friday’s PBS News Hour, Brooks reached back over 100 years into the time machine to pull out an analogy that says what President Trump and Texas are doing on redistricting is the equivalent of the German use of mustard gas in World War I. Moderator Amna Nawaz asked if politics is now nothing more than a power struggle, “David, as you know, the Democratic argument here is, you can't do anything unless you win, right? So, do what you need to do now by any means necessary, so to speak, to win political power, so you can pass through Democratic agendas and Democratic priorities. Is this just where we are now?”     Brooks replied, “I understand the argument. But let's do a little ethical experiment here. You're in World War I. The Germans use mustard gas on civilians, and it helps them. Do you then decide, okay, we're going to use mustard gas on civilians? The — what Trump ordered Abbott to do in Texas is mustard gas on our democracy. Some people would feel, okay, that was terrible. We have to fight that. It's horrible. It's horrible. But we're going to fight back. It's just — that's war.” Turning to California, Brooks continued lamenting the state of affairs, “Gavin Newsom is leaping into this with both legs. And, to me, there's a moral stain that will accompany anybody who does this, because basically they are destroying our democracy. You don't let politicians pick voters. You let voters pick politicians. And the people who oppose gerrymandering are — they're the ones defending democracy. And so what's going to happen is that we're going to have a race to the bottom we're in the middle of.” The lamps may have gone out in Europe in 1914, but Brooks was about to show they have also gone out on anything that still resembles common sense at PBS, “And I fully grant you that Trump started it. So I'm not saying it's totally morally equivalent. But there's a moral stain. And what's going to happen is, people are going to say, it's those politicians.” What Brooks is really objecting to with such a statement is not really gerrymandering, but mid-decade gerrymandering. If it was simply gerrymander per se, he would say that blue states started it because they are already more gerrymandered than Texas. Brooks wrapped up, “And loss of faith in the system, loss of faith in democracy, and legit — literally less democracy, because, if you are a Texas voter or a California voter, or if New York does it or if Missouri does it, whoever — all the states that are going to do this, you are literally disenfranchising people, because you can pick the district so carefully that the voters don't matter so much.” The irony is that if Texas and California both have their way, Texas will still end up with twice as many Democrats as California has Republicans despite Texas being the smaller state. Here is a transcript for the August 15 show: PBS News Hour 8/15/2025 7:29 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ: David, as you know, the Democratic argument here is, you can't do anything unless you win, right? So, do what you need to do now by any means necessary, so to speak, to win political power, so you can pass through Democratic agendas and Democratic priorities. Is this just where we are now? DAVID BROOKS: I understand the argument. But let's do a little ethical experiment here. You're in World War I. The Germans use mustard gas on civilians, and it helps them. Do you then decide, okay, we're going to use mustard gas on civilians? The — what Trump ordered Abbott to do in Texas is mustard gas on our democracy. Some people would feel, okay, that was terrible. We have to fight that. It's horrible. It's horrible. But we're going to fight back. It's just — that's war. Gavin Newsom is leaping into this with both legs. And, to me, there's a moral stain that will accompany anybody who does this, because basically they are destroying our democracy. You don't let politicians pick voters. You let voters pick politicians. And the people who oppose gerrymandering are — they're the ones defending democracy. And so what's going to happen is that we're going to have a race to the bottom we're in the middle of. And I fully grant you that Trump started it. So I'm not saying it's totally morally equivalent. But there's a moral stain. And what's going to happen is, people are going to say, it's those politicians. And loss of faith in the system, loss of faith in democracy, and legit — literally less democracy, because, if you are a Texas voter or a California voter, or if New York does it or if Missouri does it, whoever — all the states that are going to do this, you are literally disenfranchising people, because you can pick the district so carefully that the voters don't matter so much.

The president of the Utah Senate, J. Stuart Adams (R), is embroiled in controversy after he put in motion legislation that ultimately became law and that appeared to benefit a member of his family. Though Adams has denied wrongdoing, some Republican allies have expressed misgivings about the origins of the law and the appearance of impropriety, while others are staunchly defending Adams and the new policy.The caseIn February 2024, Adams and 19 of his state Senate colleagues voted to pass S.B. 213, which made some criminal justice modifications. A few weeks later, Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed it into law.Within six months, that law was mentioned in the sentencing hearing for a criminal defendant who was later identified as Adams' step-granddaughter. The details of her case are disturbing.When the defendant was an 18-year-old high school student, she "had sexual intercourse" as well as oral sex with a 13-year-old boy on two consecutive days in April 2023, charging documents said. According to the victim, "the Defendant was aware that he was 13 years old at the time."'But for the age of one of the participants.'Originally charged with four first-degree felonies regarding child rape and sodomy of a child, the defendant later pled guilty to aggravated assault, a second-degree felony, and three counts of sexual battery, a Class A misdemeanor. Speaking through tears, she told the court at her sentencing hearing on September 18, "What I did was horrible and I won't be able to take that back, and so I'm very sorry to the victim and his family, and I take full responsibility of what I did."During that hearing, the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney — all women — each made reference to S.B. 213, which no longer compels adult offenders still in high school at the time they had "unlawful adolescent sexual activity" to register as sex offenders, so long as there was no force or coercion involved. All three also noted that the law was intended to apply to future cases only, not retroactively, even as they were openly discussing it in reference to this case."You saw the legislative change, just adding that if you're in high school, 18 and in high school ... the legislative intent was someone in her situation would not have to register as a sex offender, and it would be a third-degree felony under the adolescent sexual activity," said defense attorney Cara Tangaro, who was also directly involved in crafting the relevant provision in S.B. 213."The state has taken into a lot of things in consideration of this plea agreement and negotiations, especially the legislative intent behind the changing of the law," added Davis County prosecutor Tamara Basquez. "... No matter what, the law at the time was that an 18-year-old is responsible, and there are consequences for criminal actions.""I think both counsel recognize that this is a challenging case, and I think that's reflected in some part in the plea deal that was reached here," noted Judge Rita Cornish. "The fact that this is a challenging case, I think, is reflected in the fact that the legislature has addressed this in a prospective way rather than a retroactive one ... and had to grapple with that."The judge confirmed during the proceedings that the defendant did not have to register as a sex offender. "She would not be required. So Group A sex offender conditions, to the extent that that grouping includes registration, she is exempted from it," Cornish clarified.No one with the defendant's name is currently listed on the Utah sex offender registry.RELATED: Utah requires app stores to verify ages in trailblazing child safety law EyeEm Mobile GmbH/Getty ImagesCornish went on to say that while the victim "was legally incapable of giving consent to sex, period, full stop," he and the defendant were members of the same "friend group" and that the victim "engaged in the activity willingly but not with consent" on account of his age.The judge further characterized the defendant as "immature," perhaps "too immature to understand the gravity of her actions," and noted that an expert who evaluated the defendant determined that her risk of re-offending was "in the very low range."Judge Cornish then seemingly attempted to summarize the full context of the situation but instead ended up reiterating the purpose of statutory rape laws in the first place: "What I'm faced with here, in my view, is that I had two young people both in school that engaged in what would've otherwise been consensual sexual activity but for the age of one of the participants."President Adams and his wife, Susan, submitted a letter to the court, the judge also said, presumably on behalf of the defendant.The defendant was sentenced to time served of 420 days of home confinement plus four years of probation, a $1,500 fine, and 120 hours of community service. She spent eight days in jail after her initial arrest in April 2023.'It didn't NEED to be retroactive to have retroactive effect.'The victim's mother, who did not appear at the sentencing hearing, indicated that the sentence was a miscarriage of justice. "I feel like [the 18-year-old] just got special treatment … and nobody was going to say anything about it," she told the Salt Lake Tribune.Basquez stated at the hearing that the victim's family believed more jail time was appropriate in this case.They understand that eight days for a young individual in jail is difficult, but to them, looking at the overall crime, even though she was released on home confinement, they kept seeing things being whittled away, that she was still allowed to go out and do activities with her family and different things like that, that they felt like that's not appropriate consequences for the conduct and the consequences that the victim has had now, because those consequences are very, very severe and he will have that going on. He's had it this entire time, and it will be longer.Basquez reiterated the psychological trauma that the victim has relived since the sexual incidents with the defendant, though the judge doubted whether the ongoing trauma was the result of the incidents or of the legal process that ensued."I don't know that I'm going to get any more clarity on that," Cornish said with resignation.According to the charging documents, the victim told the defendant the day after their second encounter that he "was stressed out about what had happened and he didn’t go to school."Both the defendant and victim have shown symptoms of suicidal ideation, the attorneys suggested at the hearing.The Davis County Attorney's Office did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.Tangaro told the Salt Lake Tribune that, despite her involvement with the legislation, it "was not retroactive and did not directly affect this client’s case."Political falloutSen. Adams and other supporters of S.B. 213 have been under fire ever since the Tribune published a report on August 2, claiming in the headline that "Utah’s Senate president prompted law change that helped a teen charged with child rape."Adams admitted to the outlet that he was "surprised by the severity of the charges" in the case but denied any involvement in pushing the legislation along. "I did not request the legislation and did not intervene or give input on the drafting of the bill," he said.'We can debate intentions, tactics, and who knew what and when, but that the bill was branded with leadership influence is a given.'Sen. John Johnson (R-North Ogden), who also voted for the bill and who took to social media to defend Adams, told Blaze News that Adams was the last to vote on the bill and that he otherwise "removed" himself completely from the legislative process."I didn't know this was attached to his relative at all," Johnson said. "He never put any pressure at all on people. I looked at the bill itself, and I just felt like that the judge should have a choice in the matter. Simple as that."The Tribune noted that Utah legislators took up the bill "based on an initial suggestion from" Adams, who conveyed his step-granddaughter's situation to Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore (R-Cottonwood Heights). Cullimore acknowledged to the outlet that Adams asked him to look into the issue, and Cullimore did ultimately sponsor S.B. 213 in the state Senate.When Blaze News asked Cullimore whether he would have sponsored the legislation if not for the case involving Adams' family member, Cullimore replied that the bill addressed a "disparity" in the law brought to lawmakers' attention through "a real-world example.""Like many legislative ideas, this one came from a real-world example that exposed a potential problem in existing law. That’s not unusual — in a citizen legislature, personal experiences, constituent stories, and observed injustices often bring problems to light," Cullimore told Blaze News."I believe the current policy is fair, proportionate, and consistent with other legislative actions Utah has taken to treat high school students who are 18 the same as their 17-year-old peers for certain non-violent offenses," he continued."This was always about the broader policy, not a single defendant."Others emphasized that S.B. 213 did not apply to the case involving Adams' step-granddaughter since it did not apply retroactively. But even with a prospective stipulation in the law, it still has impacted the case, as Robert Gehrke, who wrote the Tribune article, said in an X response to Johnson."It wasn't retroactive but it is standard practice when a law is changed to benefit the defendant, to apply that to the defendant's case. It didn't NEED to be retroactive to have retroactive effect," Gehrke argued.A source familiar with the matter likewise told Blaze News, "The court transcript discloses that the new law was taken into consideration in plea negotiations. The senator simply cannot say it had no impact on the outcome of his family member's case."Kim Coleman, a former Utah state representative, added, "It is well understood that when a member of the leadership team is the sponsor, it is by definition and self-evidently 'a leadership bill.' There are unspoken implications of that. It doesn’t mean everyone falls in line, and leadership bills can struggle and fail, but one cannot claim there was no political influence when leadership carries it. We can debate intentions, tactics, and who knew what and when, but that the bill was branded with leadership influence is a given."RELATED: LGBT activists find devious way to hoist their colors despite flag bans in Salt Lake City, Boise Photo by Richard Cummins/Corbis via Getty ImagesEven in his statements to the Tribune, Adams appeared to try to create distance between himself and his step-granddaughter's case, describing it as "the case I was made aware of involving the high school senior." When asked about the peculiarity of this description, Johnson hesitated to speak for Adams but said he could "certainly understand his frame of mind.""I wouldn't be eager to point the finger at my granddaughter," Johnson told Blaze News. "I think I would try to keep that particular thing out."'It simply provides prosecutors and the courts an avenue for 18-year-old high school students to be treated the same as their 17-year-old classmates.'It is unclear whether the relevant provision in S.B. 213 has yet affected any other case in Utah.Blaze News reached out to Adams for comment, but staff at his office said they would need more time to reply to our questions due to unforeseen circumstances unrelated to this issue. Blaze News will update this article if and when his office provides a statement.A possible repealThough state Rep. Karianne Lisonbee (R-Clearfield) sponsored S.B. 213 on the floor of the Utah House last year, she now says that she was not fully informed about every aspect of the bill and that she regrets sponsoring it because of the provision related to high school students who have sexual relationships with adolescents."All of my other work in the criminal justice space underscores that if I had known that the proposed language was intended to potentially lower the penalty for the crime of rape of a child, I would have held or amended the bill to remove that section," Lisonbee told the Tribune.She also pledged to "immediately add a repeal of that language" to an open bill file. Sources told Blaze News that Lisonbee intends to file that repeal next week. However, Gov. Cox would need to add it to the agenda for the legislature to consider it during the special session.Lisonbee and Cox's office did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.RELATED: Utah judge, fire chief defendant — both accused of child sex crimes — allegedly discussed pedo fantasies, had sex TW Farlow/Getty ImagesSen. Johnson indicated to Blaze News that he would consider voting to repeal but that he would have to see the bill first."I would certainly entertain the new bill. I don't know what the new bill would look like. If it was a strict repeal, I think ... that that's certainly something we should debate. I don't have a problem with that," he said.Majority Leader Cullimore said he would also consider reviewing possible repeal legislation but nevertheless stands by the current law as is."The provision does not change the age of consent, does not apply to cases involving force, coercion, or aggravated sexual assault, and does not excuse criminal conduct. It simply provides prosecutors and the courts an avenue for 18-year-old high school students to be treated the same as their 17-year-old classmates in very narrow, non-coercive circumstances, rather than being subjected to penalties designed for predatory adults decades older," Cullimore told Blaze News."The core question here is whether we believe a student’s birthdate should be the deciding factor between a third-degree felony and a first-degree felony with a 25-years-to-life sentence. I don’t believe that makes sense, and I think most Utahns — once they know the facts — agree."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Camille Zapata Revealed to Be the 'Genius' Behind Gavin Newsom's Social Media Accounts

California's 'Independent' Redistricting Commission Is a Total Sham, and I Have the Receipts