Searchable News & Info From Reliable Online Sources.
Latest Real News From 140 News Sites Updated Every 15 Minutes.
- Man in Michigan synagogue attack lost family members in Israeli airstrike in Leb...
A man with a rifle who crashed into a large Michigan synagogue in what federal officials are saying was an attack had lost four family members in an Israeli airstrike in his native Lebanon last week, an official said Friday. [TheTopNews] Read More.5 hours ago - Yet Again with the Heckler’s Veto in a Government Employee Speech Case
From Judge Glen Davidson's opinion Wednesday in Stokes v. Boyce (N.D. Miss.): On September 10, 2025, well-known podcaster Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during an event at a university in Utah. That same evening, the Plaintiff, who worked at the University of Mississippi as the Executive Assistant to the Vice Chancellor for Development, reposted on her personal social media account a statement regarding Kirk. For decades, yt supremacist and reimagined Klan members like Kirk have wreaked havoc on our communities, condemning children and the populace at large to mass death for the sake of keeping their automatic guns. They have willingly advocated to condemn children and adult survivors of SA to forced pregnancy and childbirth. They have smiled while stating the reasons people who can birth children shouldn't be allowed life-saving medical care when miscarrying. They have incited and clapped for the brutalizing of Black and Brown bodies. So no, I have no prayers to offer Kirk or respectable statements against violence. The statement garnered a great deal of attention and was widely commented upon and negatively received. The Plaintiff removed the statement from her account four and one-half hours later and posted an apology…. Stokes was fired, and the court concluded the firing likely didn't violate the First Amendment: The Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. balancing test [applicable to government employers' decisions to fire or discipline employees based on their speech -EV] requires courts to weigh both the "the individual and societal interests that are served when employees speak as citizens on matters of public concern and to respect the needs of government employers attempting to perform their important public functions." The Supreme Court has further explained that "[a] government entity has broader discretion to restrict speech when it acts in its role as employer, but the restrictions it imposes must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity's operations." In conducting this balancing test, the Court considers "whether the speech was likely to generate controversy and disruption, impede the defendant's general performance and operation, and affect working relationships necessary to the defendant's proper functioning." The Supreme Court has also previously recognized as pertinent considerations "whether the statement … impedes the performance of the speaker's duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise." Ultimately, the Court must weigh the Plaintiff's rights to speak on matters of public concern versus "the effective… [TheTopNews] Read More.5 hours ago - How the Iran War Threatens the Global Food, Energy and Other Supplies
Beyond its effects on oil and gas, the unfolding war in the Middle East is roiling shipping and airfreight, threatening the availability of a vast range of goods. [TheTopNews] Read More.5 hours ago - U.S. targets high oil price by allowing Moscow to sell sanctioned oil
The Trump administration doubled down on efforts to prevent the rising cost of oil becoming a full blown oil price shock by relaxing Russian sanctions [TheTopNews] Read More.5 hours ago - Trump and Vance Promised ‘No New Wars.’ What Happened To That?
MAGA's philosophical twists and turns are hard to follow given that whenever Donald Trump changes his mind his supporters have three go-to approaches. First, they claim his latest notion is part of a 3D chess game even if, by all appearances, Trump would struggle to play one-level tic-tac-toe. Second, they distract our attention: Didn't Barack Obama do this, too? Third, they get with the program and shamelessly back whatever the president is doing. Sometimes MAGA-supporting influencers with their own agendas and philosophies take issue with some Trump policy. But rank-and-file MAGA always follows the Dear Leader even if it means contradicting some Deeply Held Principle they espoused weeks ago. The closest MAGA has to a firm belief set—outside of scapegoating immigrants—involves war and peace. I figured MAGA supporters were halfway serious about their often-touted goals of noninterventionism. Then, boom—quite literally. MAGA cheered as Trump deposed the Venezuelan dictator to promote "freedom," although the administration bypassed the democratic resistance and replaced him with another authoritarian. They high-fived as Trump vowed to take over peaceful Greenland. Now "anti-war" paleoconservatives sound like the pro-war neoconservatives they've long criticized after the United States and Israel attacked Iran for a still-unclear purpose. And don't you dare bring up congressional war-powers authorization, as the Constitution requires. Trump has long touted himself as the peace candidate. Before 2020, he warned that Joe Biden might start World War III. White House adviser Stephen Miller posted that "KAMALA WILL SEND YOUR SONS TO WAR" if she won. We know the president's determination to receive a Nobel Peace Prize—even a second-hand one—and his joyful acceptance of the international soccer league's toddler-appeasing peace prize, which seemed like something lifted from "Idiocracy." Vice President J.D. Vance has also pivoted repeatedly to serve a man he once called America's Hitler. Nevertheless, Vance is unquestionably smart and, more than perhaps anyone else in this kakistocracy-like administration, has carefully detailed the case for opposing America's endless international interventions. I always thought his foreign-policy views, though often misguided, were at least heartfelt. In a Wall Street Journal column in 2023, then-Sen. Vance argued Trump would break the consensus where U.S. officials tossed out "slogans about 'freedom' and 'democracy' while starting world-historic catastrophes in the Middle East." He preferred "reminding leaders in both parties that the U.S. national interest must be pursued ruthlessly but also carefully, with strong words but great restraint." Well, so much for restraint. As the New York Times reported, Vance… [TheTopNews] Read More.5 hours ago
« Previous
1
…
32
33
34
35
36
…
111
Next »
A man with a rifle who crashed into a large Michigan synagogue in what federal officials are saying was an attack had lost four family members in an Israeli airstrike in his native Lebanon last week, an official said Friday. [TheTopNews] Read More.
5 hours ago
From Judge Glen Davidson's opinion Wednesday in Stokes v. Boyce (N.D. Miss.): On September 10, 2025, well-known podcaster Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during an event at a university in Utah. That same evening, the Plaintiff, who worked at the University of Mississippi as the Executive Assistant to the Vice Chancellor for Development, reposted on her personal social media account a statement regarding Kirk. For decades, yt supremacist and reimagined Klan members like Kirk have wreaked havoc on our communities, condemning children and the populace at large to mass death for the sake of keeping their automatic guns. They have willingly advocated to condemn children and adult survivors of SA to forced pregnancy and childbirth. They have smiled while stating the reasons people who can birth children shouldn't be allowed life-saving medical care when miscarrying. They have incited and clapped for the brutalizing of Black and Brown bodies. So no, I have no prayers to offer Kirk or respectable statements against violence. The statement garnered a great deal of attention and was widely commented upon and negatively received. The Plaintiff removed the statement from her account four and one-half hours later and posted an apology…. Stokes was fired, and the court concluded the firing likely didn't violate the First Amendment: The Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. balancing test [applicable to government employers' decisions to fire or discipline employees based on their speech -EV] requires courts to weigh both the "the individual and societal interests that are served when employees speak as citizens on matters of public concern and to respect the needs of government employers attempting to perform their important public functions." The Supreme Court has further explained that "[a] government entity has broader discretion to restrict speech when it acts in its role as employer, but the restrictions it imposes must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity's operations." In conducting this balancing test, the Court considers "whether the speech was likely to generate controversy and disruption, impede the defendant's general performance and operation, and affect working relationships necessary to the defendant's proper functioning." The Supreme Court has also previously recognized as pertinent considerations "whether the statement … impedes the performance of the speaker's duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise." Ultimately, the Court must weigh the Plaintiff's rights to speak on matters of public concern versus "the effective… [TheTopNews] Read More.
5 hours ago
Beyond its effects on oil and gas, the unfolding war in the Middle East is roiling shipping and airfreight, threatening the availability of a vast range of goods. [TheTopNews] Read More.
5 hours ago
The Trump administration doubled down on efforts to prevent the rising cost of oil becoming a full blown oil price shock by relaxing Russian sanctions [TheTopNews] Read More.
5 hours ago
MAGA's philosophical twists and turns are hard to follow given that whenever Donald Trump changes his mind his supporters have three go-to approaches. First, they claim his latest notion is part of a 3D chess game even if, by all appearances, Trump would struggle to play one-level tic-tac-toe. Second, they distract our attention: Didn't Barack Obama do this, too? Third, they get with the program and shamelessly back whatever the president is doing. Sometimes MAGA-supporting influencers with their own agendas and philosophies take issue with some Trump policy. But rank-and-file MAGA always follows the Dear Leader even if it means contradicting some Deeply Held Principle they espoused weeks ago. The closest MAGA has to a firm belief set—outside of scapegoating immigrants—involves war and peace. I figured MAGA supporters were halfway serious about their often-touted goals of noninterventionism. Then, boom—quite literally. MAGA cheered as Trump deposed the Venezuelan dictator to promote "freedom," although the administration bypassed the democratic resistance and replaced him with another authoritarian. They high-fived as Trump vowed to take over peaceful Greenland. Now "anti-war" paleoconservatives sound like the pro-war neoconservatives they've long criticized after the United States and Israel attacked Iran for a still-unclear purpose. And don't you dare bring up congressional war-powers authorization, as the Constitution requires. Trump has long touted himself as the peace candidate. Before 2020, he warned that Joe Biden might start World War III. White House adviser Stephen Miller posted that "KAMALA WILL SEND YOUR SONS TO WAR" if she won. We know the president's determination to receive a Nobel Peace Prize—even a second-hand one—and his joyful acceptance of the international soccer league's toddler-appeasing peace prize, which seemed like something lifted from "Idiocracy." Vice President J.D. Vance has also pivoted repeatedly to serve a man he once called America's Hitler. Nevertheless, Vance is unquestionably smart and, more than perhaps anyone else in this kakistocracy-like administration, has carefully detailed the case for opposing America's endless international interventions. I always thought his foreign-policy views, though often misguided, were at least heartfelt. In a Wall Street Journal column in 2023, then-Sen. Vance argued Trump would break the consensus where U.S. officials tossed out "slogans about 'freedom' and 'democracy' while starting world-historic catastrophes in the Middle East." He preferred "reminding leaders in both parties that the U.S. national interest must be pursued ruthlessly but also carefully, with strong words but great restraint." Well, so much for restraint. As the New York Times reported, Vance… [TheTopNews] Read More.
5 hours ago
The Searchable USWebDaily.com and TheTopNews NewsBank Helps You Be Better Informed, Faster! Spread The Word.
