Searchable News & Info From Reliable Online Sources.
- JUST IN: ICE Agent Shoots and Wounds Man in Austin, Per Authorities
Screenshot An ICE agent shot and wounded a man in Austin, TX, Sunday afternoon, and the man was being transported to a hospital for treatment, according to officials. There was no word yet on the extent of the man’s injuries. The shooting occurred in the 7000 block of West Anderson Lane near U.S. 183 and Research Boulevard, reported The Austin American-Statesman. At the scene, the Statesman reporter observed a blue Toyota Corolla parked under an overpass “with damage to its passenger-side door and what appeared to be bullet holes.” The shooting happened near W Anderson Lane and US 183. People are lining up along the caution tape around the scene, visibly upset.@cbsaustin https://t.co/oX6HeQxEtw pic.twitter.com/rpCPLvZgei — Vinny Martorano (@VinnyMartorano) September 20, 2026 The Statesman reported “a large law enforcement presence” at the scene, including Austin police and officials with the Texas Department of Public Safety. CBS Austin reporter Vinny Martorano posted, “People are lining up along the caution tape around the scene, visibly upset.” The shooting happened near W Anderson Lane and US 183. People are lining up along the caution tape around the scene, visibly upset.@cbsaustin https://t.co/oX6HeQxEtw pic.twitter.com/rpCPLvZgei — Vinny Martorano (@VinnyMartorano) September 20, 2026 Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), who represents the East Austin area where the shooting occurred, wrote on X, “The horror has come to our city: ICE has shot a person in Austin this morning.” “As the facts emerge, I am demanding a full, independent investigation, immediate release of the body camera footage, and accountability for any ICE officer who broke the law,” Casar wrote. “Over and over, ICE has shot people and then lied about what happened. We can see the lies with our own eyes. We will demand truth, transparency and accountability.” The horror has come to our city: ICE has shot a person in Austin this morning.As the facts emerge, I am demanding a full, independent investigation, immediate release of the body camera footage, and accountability for any ICE officer who broke the law.Over and over, ICE has… — Congressman Greg Casar (@RepCasar) September 20, 2026 The Statesman reported that ICE has faced “heightened scrutiny” in the area in recent days. “In January, Austin police responding to a disturbance call notified U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after identifying a woman with an administrative immigration warrant,” the report said. “Federal agents took the woman and her… [TheTopNews] Read More.13 hours ago - More from Jacob Mchangama on Frederick Douglass’s Views on Free Speech
A short excerpt from Prof. Mchangama's Sept. 3 post (though the whole thing is much worth reading): Frederick Douglass was a frequent target of vilification and smears—not to mention hostile mobs, stones and rotten eggs. His enemies—and sometimes even erstwhile allies—used press and pulpit to counter the growing influence of his oratorical genius and editorial prowess. Douglass' primary weapon consisted of words—but what to do when opponents turned this weapon against him? Was counterspeech a sufficient remedy, or should legal redress also be an option? What rules—legal or moral—should guide newspaper editors with power to shape public opinion? And as Douglass became an influential speaker, editor and publisher himself, did he practice what he preached? Douglass the Defamed "Nigger" and other racial epithets were routinely hurled at Douglass. But far more damaging than crude racist attacks were various allegations of sexual depravity, of lying about his life story, of being a paid anti-American agitator and of being a cowardly co-conspirator in the attack on Harper's Ferry…. To Douglass, the proper response to attacks on reputation and ideas was reciprocal counterspeech. Ideally the venue of attack would provide the target equal access to respond. When reciprocity was denied, press freedom provided a corrective mechanism. Media pluralism increased the chances that a fair-minded newspaper would give voice to those denied a right of reply elsewhere…. Two things underwrote Douglass' conviction that the law should protect the pen rather than restrain it: an extraordinary confidence in counterspeech, and a demanding conception of what press freedom required. A newspaper worthy of being called the "palladium of liberty" did not protect readers from controversy. It enabled accusations to be answered, exposed its own claims to adversarial testing and gave truth a chance to prevail over falsehood. Douglass did not merely preach that ideal. Across more than half a century of vilification, he practiced it with a record that—if not unblemished—was impressively consistent. And, likewise, from his Sept. 11 post, which I likewise highly recommend: As in the previous installments, the harder test is whether Douglass extended his principles to his enemies. Did an antislavery crowd get a pass when it silenced a defender of human bondage? Douglass's defense of free speech extended to one of slavery's most powerful political allies. In an October 1854 speech in Chicago, he addressed the recent shouting down of Senator Stephen A. Douglas (no relation and no ally), the… [TheTopNews] Read More.13 hours ago - Fast-food chains are chasing the specialty drink boom. Inside Sonic’s stra...
As restaurant chains increasingly turn to specialty beverages to attract customers beyond the traditional meal, Sonic Drive-In believes a business model built around drink customization gives it a head start.Marion Campbell, Sonic's vice president of integrated marketing and communications, told FOX Business that the quick-service restaurant industry is still figuring out how to make specialty beverages a bigger part of its business, while Sonic has spent years building customization into its operations."I think that the market is just getting started. And QSR in particular is just figuring out a way to serve these types of beverages to their guests and make it a pivotal part of their DNA. It's already a part of our DNA," Campbell said.The competition for beverage customers comes as restaurant brands experiment with specialty drinks, customization and limited-time flavors to give consumers additional reasons to visit. Rival fast-food chains McDonald's, Taco Bell and Jack in the Box each offer their own versions of dirty sodas.The nonalcoholic beverage market generated $264.1 billion in consumer spending at U.S. foodservice establishments in 2025, accounting for 23% of industry-wide sales, according to data from Technomic. The data also showed that cold beverage spending in 2025 climbed 3.4%, compared with a 1.2% rise for hot beverages, with Technomic saying that "innovation and consumer preference are driving cold beverages to the forefront of market growth."KRAFT HEINZ UNVEILS NEW PHILADELPHIA CREAM CHEESE FLAVORS TO WIN BACK SHOPPERSFor Sonic – which operates more than 3,400 restaurants and generates $5.2 billion in annual system sales – drinks can bring customers through its drive-ins even when they aren't looking for a burger, hot dog or other full meal."A beverage-only guest is a very frequent guest. So beverage is always going to play a pivotal role because of the frequency it drives for the business versus just a check driver," Campbell said.She added that beverages can also increase how much a customer purchases when paired with food.The company's customization infrastructure has also allowed the chain to capitalize on the popularity of dirty sodas, which typically combine soda with additions such as cream and flavored syrups.The dirty soda trend has exploded over the past two years, with case volume at quick-service restaurants jumping 318% during that time, according to data from market research firm Circana.MAJOR BURGER CHAIN IN-N-OUT CHANGES TWO KEY INGREDIENTS, SENDING FANS INTO A FRENZY"I think dirty sodas is a place we've actually played long before… [TheTopNews] Read More.14 hours ago - Top Senate Republican Tells NBC’s Welker That Trump Is Not Violating The Const...
Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-WY) stood firmly with Donald Trump when NBC News’s Kristen Welker asked about the president’s ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House. On Sunday’s Meet The Press, Welker asked Barrasso if he agreed with Trump’s action. “We all respect and value the freedom of the press, it’s in the Constitution. The president, remember, in his first term he was banned from Twitter, he was banned from Facebook, and I didn’t see people come to his defense. So, it goes both ways,” Barrasso said. “The press has an obligation to report fairly. The president doesn’t see it happening that way. Every politician wants fair treatment from the press, as do I, as does the president.” “No president has ever thought they’ve gotten fair treatment from the press, to be fair,” Welker said. “As you know, senator, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. Courts have barred the White House from banning access over their coverage. Do you believe he is violating the Constitution with this ban, senator?” Barrasso flat-out answered, “No.” He continued: I believe the press has an obligation to report fairly. When you take a look at this president, and you take a look at the Hunter Biden laptop, if you want to really get into things where the press ignored the reality for a long period of time, said it was a Russian hoax. The bottom line on all of this is, this is not going to have an impact on an election 44 days from now. People are going to go to the voting booth, they’re going to make a decision based on their life, their future, what they believe is best for them and their families. My point is that they’re going to choose between common sense Republicans and crazy Democrats. I think when they make that decision they will say in the long-term, for their lives, they’re going to be better with Republicans, which is why your polling shows the Democrats in such dire straits as they’re even less popular right now than Republicans. Welker played a clip of Trump in 2025 saying, “I have stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America. It’s back.” She asked Barrasso again if the president’s actions amounts to “government censorship?” “You know, I think I’ve answered. You’ve asked the question a couple of… [TheTopNews] Read More.14 hours ago - Which Side Is Ed Sheeran On?
Ed Sheeran opened his Philadelphia show Saturday night by admitting to “making mistakes”—maybe not quite the apology some people were hoping for. It was the star musician’s first performance since billionaire Robert Kraft pressured Sheeran and his team to remove Macklemore from his stadium tour over the rapper’s pro-Palestinian comments onstage. Sheeran, who seemed to be reading from a teleprompter, told the audience he has tried to avoid being an “activist musician” or “a political commentator of any kind” throughout his career because he wants his music to be “about unity, not division, about humanity, not politics.” He said he recognized that the October 7 Hamas attack and “what is happening in Gaza,” which he called “catastrophic and unjustifiable and disproportionate,” was a “humanitarian issue.” “This concert is still a place where everyone is welcome and everyone here can stand beside people that have opposing views,” Sheeran continued. “I am deeply worried about the idea that venues pre-approve content performers,” he said. “It should never happen in the free world.” He did not mention Kraft by name or comment on the billionaire’s reasoning for demanding Macklemore’s removal. In a statement last week, Kraft wrote in part: “Based on Macklemore’s recent actions, material shared from the stage during Ed Sheeran’s shows in New Jersey, and a broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery that we believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community, we determined that his participation in the September 25th and 26th concerts at Gillette Stadium would cross that line.” Kraft has a long history of donating to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, an organization that raises funds for IDF soldiers, veterans, and families, and the United Democracy Project, a super PAC backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to elect pro-Israel candidates. During shows at MetLife Stadium earlier this month, Macklemore advocated for Palestinian freedom and called Israel’s actions “genocide”—a designation most scholars of the subject would agree with. Shortly after Macklemore was taken off Sheeran’s tour, all four of the remaining opening acts withdrew out of solidarity. Just before starting his Saturday show, Sheeran said that the recent developments put him “in the middle of an important and passionate argument about freedom of speech and the most complex political issue on the planet.” His comments, which echoed a social media statement he made last Tuesday, are unlikely to… [TheTopNews] Read More.14 hours ago - Fox News Host Says He Won’t ‘Shed a Tear’ Over Trump Banning CNN, MS NOW a...Fox News’s Joey Jones said he won’t “shed a tear” over President Donald Trump banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House — while adding that the president’s action may not be completely justified. During Saturday’s The Big Weekend Show — the only Fox News opinion show to address the ban since it was announced late Friday — Guy Benson asked Jones if he was sympathetic to the view that, “Trump’s right. These are not news outlets. They just hate him all the time. It is not a violation of the First Amendment.” “I’m absolutely sympathetic to it,” Jones answered, continuing: I understand it because, I’m not a journalist. I didn’t go to school for journalism. I didn’t take classes on the ethics of reporting a story and being able to do anonymous sources. You look at these two networks specifically, you know, just trove after trove of ‘anonymous source says,’ and then all of this scuttle, all of this gossip. It’s a constant stream. They’ve made it the brand of their networks. It’s their identity to be anti-Trump. Does that justify this action? Perhaps not. Am I going to shed a tear over it, worry about it, wring my hands, [unintelligible]? No, not at all. “There are a ton of media outlets still in that press pool that write negative stories and ask tough questions,” Jones continued. “These two specific networks in my opinion have made it their mission to have this war with President Trump. I don’t think it lasts for a long time. And I’m not going to go support it, or advocate for it. But I’m also not going to shed a tear over it because I do understand it. On the commonsense level, I understand it well.” Benson, in response, argued Fox News “would be screaming” about being banned from the White House if the shoe were on the other foot. And co-host Anita Vogel agreed with Benson’s assertion. “I don’t think this is a great look for the White House, and if you go back to 2009 when Barack Obama tried to exclude Fox, it lasted about a day,” Vogel said. “So, I don’t know how long this will last. And it is true President Trump gets incredibly negative coverage from these outlets, but it’s a bad look, and I don’t think it will last long.” Saturday’s Big Weekend Show… [TheTopNews] Read More.14 hours ago
The Searchable USWebDaily.com and TheTopNews NewsBank Helps You Be Better Informed, Faster! Spread The Word.
