HOW SHARIA LAW VIOLATES EVERYTHING OUR COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON!!!

Loving our neighbors does not mean compromising truth.

From the moment I first studied the United States Constitution through the lens of scripture, I’ve been struck by how carefully our founders embedded God-given liberty into the fabric of our nation. Freedom of conscience, equality before God, and protection from government overreach are not just political ideas; they are biblical principles.

The more I study, the clearer it becomes that Islamic systems like sharia law, enforced as government policy abroad, stand in sharp contrast to both the freedoms our Constitution guarantees and the liberties scripture upholds.

Christians must be informed, discerning, and proactive in defending freedoms that allow people to come to God freely.

Sharia law, when enforced as government policy, conflicts with constitutional freedom and biblical principles of liberty, including protections for personal conscience, speech, and moral choice.

Sharia law vs. constitutional liberty

Sharia law is a system derived from Islamic religious texts, guiding personal conduct and societal governance.

In countries where it is enforced, it often dictates punishments, civil law, and social norms based on religious authority rather than individual liberty. This approach contrasts sharply with the U.S. Constitution, which separates church and state, ensuring that government does not dictate religious belief or practice.

Scripture emphasizes the importance of freedom in Christ. Galatians 5:1 reminds us, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” The Constitution mirrors this principle, protecting Americans from coercion in matters of conscience, ensuring that individuals may follow God freely without fear of government reprisal.

Real-world examples of sharia governance

When we examine Muslim nations governed by sharia-based systems, the consequences for personal freedom are clear.

In countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan, civil and criminal codes often derive directly from religious texts. These laws enforce strict moral codes, restrict freedom of speech, and impose severe punishments on offenses such as theft, adultery, or apostasy.

Punishments include public lashings, stonings, and even amputations for certain crimes. LGBTQ individuals face particularly harsh treatment, including imprisonment, corporal punishment, or death. Women’s rights and freedom of expression are often restricted as well.

These policies illustrate a system in which government enforces religious conformity, which directly conflicts with the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution. The U.S. founders recognized that human governments are fallible; they designed laws to protect liberty and allow people to make moral and spiritual choices voluntarily rather than under coercion.

The biblical perspective on liberty and government

Scripture provides a firm framework for understanding liberty. Romans 13:1-4 teaches that governments are instituted to punish wrongdoers and maintain order, but within limits. Civil authority is meant to restrain evil while upholding justice, not to enforce religious orthodoxy.

John 8:32 reminds us, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” True freedom, in both spiritual and civil contexts, comes from the ability to choose God and live according to His moral order voluntarily.

The Constitution’s protections for freedom of religion, speech, and equal protection under the law reflect these same biblical principles. They ensure that no one is coerced into adherence to a particular religious code, preserving liberty and human dignity.

Sharia-based governance, when implemented as law, replaces personal conscience with mandatory religious observance, undermining the freedoms that God and the founders intended.

How Christians should respond

Loving our neighbors does not mean ignoring the truth about systems of governance. But discernment calls us to distinguish between individuals and systems of law that impose religious authority on entire societies.

Christians are called to defend freedom and truth, speaking boldly yet compassionately.

Understanding the differences between sharia-based governance and constitutional liberty is not purely academic; it’s practical. Nations that merge religion and state often face suppression of speech, persecution of minorities, and human rights violations. Christians must be informed, discerning, and proactive in defending freedoms that allow people to come to God freely.

Practical engagement may include:

Praying for wisdom to navigate cultural and political issues.
Educating others about the value of freedom of conscience.
Participating in civic discourse in ways that honor God while upholding liberty.

Sharia law and the protection of minorities

One area that starkly highlights the contrast is treatment of LGBTQ individuals. In sharia-governed regions, homosexuality is often criminalized, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to corporal punishment, even death. Theft or other criminal offenses can result in amputations, and adultery may be punished by stoning.

Christians are charged to uphold liberty, educate themselves on systems that restrict freedom, and advocate for policies that reflect God’s justice while protecting human conscience.

These practices illustrate the deep conflict between enforced religious law and personal freedom, especially for vulnerable minorities.

In contrast, the U.S. Constitution protects all citizens, ensuring legal equality, freedom of conscience, and due process. The biblical principle that every person is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) supports the need to defend dignity and liberty for all.

Historical lessons and modern implications

History demonstrates that societies enforcing religious law as government policy often struggle with oppression and instability. By embedding freedom and separation of powers, the U.S. Constitution creates space for citizens to practice faith voluntarily, without fear of legal coercion.

As Christians, we can see how these principles align with biblical teaching and recognize why coercive religious legal systems are incompatible with God’s design for human freedom.

Standing for freedom with compassion

Understanding these contrasts calls us to vigilance, prayer, and action. Christians are charged to uphold liberty, educate themselves on systems that restrict freedom, and advocate for policies that reflect God’s justice while protecting human conscience.

Loving our neighbors does not mean compromising truth; it means defending freedom in a way that is rooted in Christ’s example of compassion and moral clarity.

By examining Islam as a governance system, we see clearly the importance of constitutional and biblical liberty. Freedom of conscience, protection of minorities, and the ability to choose God freely are not negotiable — they are foundational to both faith and the American experiment.

Standing for these freedoms is an act of love, truth, and obedience to God.

This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Arch Kennedy’s blog.

GLUTEN, THE “MANUFACTURED” FEAR ALLERGY THAT PEOPLE THINK THEY HAVE

Study Shows Vast Majority Who Think They Have Gluten Issues Really Don’t

For over a decade, gluten has been the bogeyman of modern diets — blamed for everything from fatigue to brain fog to mysterious stomach aches. Supermarkets built entire aisles around “gluten-free” products. Restaurants rushed to label their menus. Millions swore they felt better once they ditched bread. But new research suggests much of the panic was misplaced — and perhaps, orchestrated.

According to a new analysis published this week, the vast majority of people who believe they have gluten sensitivity actually don’t. Researchers found that only a small fraction of self-diagnosed “gluten intolerant” individuals display any measurable physiological reaction to gluten itself. For most, the culprit appears to be something else entirely — often the carbohydrates known as FODMAPs (fermentable short-chain carbohydrates) found in wheat and other foods, or even psychological conditioning from years of health scare marketing.

In short: many people have been avoiding bread for no reason.

The Gluten-Free Gold Rush

The study’s findings expose an uncomfortable truth: gluten-free living became a billion-dollar industry built on hype, not hard science. In the early 2010s, “gluten” became synonymous with poison. A handful of small studies and a wave of celebrity endorsements — from Gwyneth Paltrow to Tom Brady — helped cement the narrative that gluten caused inflammation, bloating, and mental fog.

But the science never quite caught up with the marketing. Celiac disease, a genuine autoimmune disorder triggered by gluten, affects only about 1% of the population. Yet surveys show up to 30% of Americans have tried a gluten-free diet, and nearly 10% claim to be gluten-sensitive. That’s tens of millions of people rejecting bread, pasta, and beer — often substituting heavily processed “gluten-free” alternatives that are lower in nutrients and higher in sugar.

Who benefited? Food conglomerates, health influencers, and pharmaceutical giants selling “gut repair” supplements. It was an easy narrative to sell: your body is broken, but we can fix it — for a price.

The Psychology of Manufactured Fear

Researchers now believe the “nocebo effect” — the negative counterpart of the placebo effect — plays a major role in perceived gluten intolerance. When people believe a substance will harm them, their body often produces real symptoms in response.

While about 10% of adults worldwide report bloating, fatigue or gut pain after eating foods containing gluten, only 16% to 30% of those cases show true gluten-specific reactions, the paper found.

For years, media outlets, wellness gurus, and even government-backed dietary guidelines fed this hysteria by emphasizing “food sensitivity” as a kind of catch-all diagnosis. It dovetailed perfectly with the modern health anxiety complex — a digitally fueled obsession with self-diagnosis, symptom tracking, and purity.

By the time the gluten-free movement peaked, it wasn’t just about health — it was about identity. Going gluten-free became a badge of awareness, a quiet rebellion against Big Food, and a form of social signaling. Ironically, it was Big Food itself that made it profitable. Even more ironically, the movement pushed many Americans deeper into ultraprocessed food consumption to achieve their gluten-free lifestyles.

The Real Issue May Be the System, Not the Wheat

If gluten isn’t the true villain, what is? The new study suggests many of the symptoms blamed on gluten may stem from something deeper: the industrialization of food itself.

Modern wheat is genetically modified, heavily treated with herbicides like glyphosate, and processed in ways that strip it of natural enzymes and micronutrients. Our gut health — devastated by antibiotics, processed oils, and chemical additives — is far less resilient than it was a generation ago. So while “gluten” might not be the sole trigger, the entire ecosystem around our food has changed.

In other words, people may not be reacting to gluten — they may be reacting to modern food. This is especially potent in western society’s addiction to heavily processed carbohydrates.

That’s a much harder problem to fix, because it implicates everything from corporate agriculture and seed monopolies to chemical regulators and profit-driven nutritionists. It’s easier to sell a gluten-free muffin than to reform a broken food system.

From Gluten Panic to Food Control

There’s also a darker angle here — one that fits the pattern of how health trends can be weaponized for profit and control. Just as “fat-free” and “low-sodium” campaigns of past decades laid the groundwork for processed food empires, the gluten-free wave served as a psychological and logistical trial run for centralized dietary influence.

Each new food scare — cholesterol, sugar, gluten, meat — helps train the public to comply with authority over their own choices. Every few years, a new “enemy ingredient” emerges. And every time, the same players — the food industry, the media, and government regulators — profit from the fear they spread.

Perhaps the deeper truth is this: gluten wasn’t the problem. Control was.

When you strip away the marketing, the fake science, and the fear campaigns, you’re left with something simple — human beings disconnected from the foods that once sustained them. Real bread made from stone-ground wheat, naturally fermented and free of chemical residue, doesn’t make people sick. It nourishes them. The sickness comes from a system that’s forgotten what food even means.

GERMANY IN PANIC MODE DUE TO MUSLIM MIGRATION FAILURE

The official results are in: Germany’s ‘Muslim Miracle’ was a catastrophic failure…

Germany’s mistake is a warning for every nation. Help Revolver keep sounding the alarm before it’s too late.

Germany’s grand “Muslim Miracle” was supposed to save the country’s future. Instead, it broke it into a million pieces.

About ten years ago, German leaders sold their citizens on a utopian plan: import millions of young Muslims to flood the workforce, rescue a collapsing pension system, and secure the nation’s prosperity for generations. The theory sounded far-fetched and absurd, but Germans bought into it. However, the reality was a total disaster.

Fast-forward to today, and Germany is now raising its retirement age to 70.

The German people were lied to.

Speaking on the ARD public broadcaster, Jens Spahn explained that as life expectancy rises, people will need to work longer to maintain the sustainability of the pension system without overburdening future generations.

He noted that the increase will happen gradually over the next 30 years, initially year by year and then month by month. While specific political discussions are not yet planned, Spahn stressed that the public must be informed about the long-term sustainability challenges of the system.

The plan to rebuild the workforce through mass immigration didn’t just fail; it cratered. It didn’t revive the economy; it created a whole new group of Muslim welfare mooches, and now everybody’s worse off for it.

Germany lost its culture and its financial stability. The Germans are now forced to work longer and pay more… but not for their future. They’re doing it to keep Muslim families afloat. Speaking of that, did you know “Mohammed” is the most popular name among German welfare recipients?

Go figure…

Germany’s welfare statistics have reignited the debate over migration and integration after new figures revealed that ‘Mohammed’ and its many spelling variants have become the most common first name among recipients of Bürgergeld, the country’s basic income support.

The revelation emerged after a follow-up parliamentary enquiry by AfD MP René Springer, who demanded clarification of earlier figures published by the federal government.

In the initial release, names were listed separately according to spelling, meaning that common variants of the same name appeared much further down the ranking. For example, ‘Mohammad’ was counted separately from ‘Mohamed’ or ‘Muhammad.’

Once all variations were grouped, Mohammed came first, with nearly 40,000 recorded entries across 19 different spellings. That total put it well ahead of ‘Michael’ (including Michel, Mischa, and Maik) with about 24,600 entries, and ‘Ahmad’ (including Achmet and Amed) with just over 20,600.

By comparison, traditionally German names such as Andreas and Thomas fell back in the rankings, despite their high frequency in single forms.

At the end of 2024, 5.42 million people in Germany received Bürgergeld, of whom 52% were German citizens and 48% foreign nationals. Officials emphasised that first names do not necessarily reveal a person’s nationality or migration status.

It’s the perfect irony. A country tried to fix its problems by outsourcing the responsibility to Muslims and ended up erasing its identity and paying the price for foreign bums.

This should be a warning to every Western nation flirting with the same failed idea. If you want to rebuild your country, do it with your own people. At least then, if things go wrong, you’ll still recognize the place you’re fighting for.

Maybe New York City should heed this warning?

What’s happening in New York right now has a lot of Americans on edge, and rightfully so. A massive group of Muslims gathered and publicly claimed the city for Islam. People who watched it unfold aren’t being “bigots” for feeling uneasy. They’re watching their country’s biggest city slip further from the culture that built it, just days after electing a Marxist mayor.

This issue is about assimilation, or the lack of it. New York City doesn’t belong to any Muslims, and stunts like this don’t create peace or understanding. They create fear, resentment, and deeper divides. Imagine if a group of Christians went to a Middle Eastern capital and declared it “for Christ”; the outrage would be global.

This is the real problem in America right now. We’re not demanding people assimilate to western culture. We’re watching competing groups publicly reject the very culture that made this country so amazing and calling it “diversity.”

A US Muslim Warns the people of America: “We Will Not Stop Until Islam Enters Every Home, Say it as if the Ummah Depends on This.

There is no denying it; Islam intends to dominate all other people and religions.

We’ll leave you with this very spot-on X post that pretty much sums up the entire “diversity drive” perfectly.

ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ARE MOVING ONTO ARMY BASE HOUSING TO HAVE SECURITY AND AWAY FROM CRAZY LIBERAL PROTESTERS

Top Trump Officials Are Moving Onto Military Bases

Stephen Miller, Marco Rubio, Kristi Noem, and others have taken over homes that until recently housed senior officers.

toy soldiers stationed in front of a house — Illustration by Akshita Chandra / The Atlantic

The former White House adviser Katie Miller—mother of three young children, and wife of the presidential right-hand man Stephen—walked out of her front door one Thursday morning last month and was confronted by a woman she did not know.

When she told this story on Fox News, she described the encounter as a protest that crossed a line. The stranger had told Miller: “I’m watching you,” she said. This was the day after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. It also wasn’t anything new.

For weeks before Kirk’s death, activists had been protesting the Millers’ presence in north Arlington, Virginia. Someone had put up wanted posters in their neighborhood with their home address, denouncing Stephen as a Nazi who had committed “crimes against humanity.” A group called Arlington Neighbors United for Humanity warned in an Instagram post: “Your efforts to dismantle our democracy and destroy our social safety net will not be tolerated here.”

The local protest became a backdrop to the Trump administration’s response to Kirk’s killing. When Miller, the architect of that response who is known for his inflammatory political rhetoric, announced a legal crackdown on liberal groups, he singled out the tactics that had victimized his family—what he called “organized campaigns of dehumanization, vilification, posting peoples’ addresses.”

Stephen Miller soon joined a growing list of senior Trump-administration political appointees—at least six by our count—living in Washington-area military housing, where they are shielded not just from potential violence but also from protest. It is an ominous marker of the nation’s polarization, to which the Trump administration has itself contributed, that some of those top public servants have felt a need to separate themselves from the public.

These civilian officials can now depend on the U.S. military to augment their personal security. But so many have made the move that they are now straining the availability of housing for the nation’s top uniformed officers.

Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, moved out of her D.C. apartment building and into the home designated for the Coast Guard commandant on Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, across the river from the capital, after the Daily Mail described where she lived. Both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth live on “Generals’ Row” at Fort McNair, an Army enclave along the Anacostia River, according to officials from the State and Defense Departments. (Rubio spent one recent evening assembling furniture that had been delivered to the house that day.)

Although most Cabinet-level officials live in private houses, there is precedent for senior national-security officials, including the defense secretary, to rent homes on bases for security or convenience. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, whose family is in Washington only part-time, now shares a home on Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, a picturesque site next to Arlington National Cemetery.

His roommate is another senior political appointee to the Army. (When Driscoll moved in, his washing machine wasn’t working, so for the first few weeks of his stay on base, he lugged his laundry over to the home of the Army chief of staff, General Randy George.)

Another senior White House official, whom The Atlantic is not naming because of security concerns related to a specific foreign threat, also vacated a private home for a military installation after Kirk’s murder. In that case, security officials urged the official to relocate to military housing, according to people briefed on the move, who like many others who spoke with us for this story were not authorized to do so publicly.

So many senior officials have requested housing that some are now encountering a familiar D.C. problem: inadequate supply. When Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s team inquired earlier in Donald Trump’s second term about her moving onto McNair, it didn’t work out for space reasons, a former official told us.

There are scattered examples from previous administrations of Cabinet members residing on bases. Both Robert Gates, defense secretary under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and Jim Mattis, Trump’s first Pentagon chief, lived in Navy housing at the Potomac Hill annex, a secure compound near the State Department. Mike Pompeo, CIA director and secretary of state during Trump’s first term, lived at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall.

The grand homes they occupied, some of which date back more than a century, offer officials an additional layer of security and ample space for official entertaining.

But there is no record of so many political appointees living on military installations. The shift adds to the blurring of traditional boundaries between the civilian and military worlds. Trump has made the military a far more visible element of domestic politics, deploying National Guard forces to Washington, Los Angeles, and other cities run by Democrats.

He has decreed that those cities should be used as “training grounds” in the battle against the “enemy within.”

Adria Lawrence, an associate professor of international studies and political science at John Hopkins University, told us that housing political advisers on bases sends a problematic message. “In a robust democracy, what you want is the military to be for the defense of the country as a whole and not just one party,” Lawrence told us.

But the threat assessment has also changed in recent years. Trump has survived two attempted assassinations; Iran has stepped up its efforts to kill federal officials; and political violence—such as the June shooting of two Democratic Minnesota lawmakers, the murder of Kirk in September, and the shooting at a Texas immigration facility two weeks later—is a real danger.

The result is straining the stock of homes typically allotted to senior uniformed officers on Washington-area bases. Some of those homes, designed for three- and four-star generals, lack sufficient bedrooms for families with young children. Many have lead-abatement issues and require significant repair.

The Army notified Congress in January that it planned to spend more than $137,000 on repairs and upgrades to Hegseth’s McNair home before he moved in. Both Hegseth’s predecessor, Lloyd Austin, and Austin’s State Department counterpart, Antony Blinken, faced protesters at their northern-Virginia homes, which were not on bases. Gaza protesters who set up camp outside Blinken’s house, where he lived with his young children, spattered fake blood on cars as they passed by.

Robert Pape, a political-science professor at the University of Chicago, told us that the threat of political violence is real for figures in both major parties. He noted that Trump has revoked the security details for several of his critics and adversaries, including former Vice President Kamala Harris and John Bolton, the former national security adviser from Trump’s first term who has been the target of an Iranian assassination plot.

“The correct balance would be: Trump should stop canceling the security detail of former Biden officials,” said Pape, who is also the director of the university’s Chicago Project on Security and Threats. “The issue is both sides are under heightened threat; therefore the threat to both should be taken seriously.”

In most cases, the civilian officials pay “fair market” rent for their base home, a formula determined by the military. Hegseth, in keeping with a 2008 law that aimed to make Gates’s Navy-owned housing arrangement more affordable, pays a rent equivalent to a general’s housing allowance plus 5 percent (in this case, totaling $4,655.70 a month).

The moves, however, can also save the government money. In some cases, base living can reduce the cost of providing personal security to officials, one person familiar with the relocations told us, because protective teams do not need to rent a second location nearby as a staging area.

Base living—in the unofficial Trump Green Zone—has also become something of a double-edged status symbol among Trump officials. No one wants to deal with threats; both the Millers and the unnamed senior official were not looking to leave their homes.

But the secure housing does confer upon the recipient a certain sheen of importance that sets them apart from all of the other officials ferried about in armored black SUVs. Administration officials now find themselves vying for the largest houses, not unlike the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that has long played out among senior military officers.

The isolation of living on a military base, at least for civilians, has also created a deeper division between Trump’s advisers and the metropolitan area where they govern.

Trump-administration officials, who regularly mock the nation’s capital as a crime-ridden hellscape, now find themselves in a protected bubble, even farther removed from the city’s daily rhythms. And they are even less likely to encounter a diverse mix of voters—in their neighborhoods, on their playgrounds, in their favorite date-night haunts.

After the Kirk assassination, the Trump administration designated antifa a domestic terrorist organization, even though there is no centralized antifa organization, no organizational ties have been established to Kirk’s alleged killer, and the category of domestic terrorist organization has no meaning in federal law. The identities of the activists behind the harassment campaign that helped persuade the Millers to leave their home have not been publicly disclosed.

Arlington Neighbors United for Humanity—ANUFH, pronounced, they say, enough—has organized protests near the homes of Miller and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. Its website calls for “strategic, nonviolent action,” and its efforts appear to have stopped short of making any explicit threats of violence. (A representative of the group declined to comment, as did the Millers.)

But the protests were designed to make the Miller family take notice. Stephen Miller has been an architect of Trump’s deportation policy, invoking a centuries-old law to send migrants to a Salvadoran prison and urging immigration-enforcement officers to aggressively find and arrest as many immigrants as possible.

He regularly derides Democrats with inflammatory language, calling judicial rulings against the administration a “legal insurrection” and calling the Democratic Party “a domestic extremist organization.”

“Will we let him live in our community in peace while he TERRORIZES children and families? Not a chance,” ANUFH captioned one Instagram post in July that shows a photograph of the Millers and their children.

(The Millers have both posted family photos online that show their children’s faces.) Weeks later, the group took credit for covering the sidewalk near the Miller home with chalk messages such as Miller is preying on families, although it said in a post that it had spoken with Stephen Miller’s security beforehand to make sure that the group wasn’t violating any laws.

Katie Miller responded with an Instagram post of her own, a video of the chalked words STEPHEN MILLER IS DESTROYING DEMOCRACY! being washed away with a hose. She argued in a subsequent appearance on Fox News that although the protesters may not be violent themselves, they were inciting the kind of violence that killed Kirk. “We will not back down. We will not cower in fear. We will double down. Always, For Charlie,” Katie Miller wrote, echoing her husband’s rhetoric.

“WE ARE PEACEFULLY RESISTING TYRANNY,” ANUFH responded in a post. “GUNS KILL PEOPLE. CHALK SCARES FASCISTS.”

Earlier this month, the Millers put their six-bedroom north Arlington home on the market for $3.75 million. The listing promised “a rare blend of seclusion, sophistication, and striking design.”

How Shohei Ohtani Made $102 Million in 2025

October 24, 2025 8:00am

Shohei Ohtani has been a baseball unicorn since he joined MLB in 2018. Even when he stayed off the mound in 2024, he started a new 50-50 club (home runs and steals) on his way to a third MVP by unanimous vote. Last week, his unique skill set was on display again, with three home runs at the plate and 10 strikeouts over six shutout innings on the mound, clinching the Los Angeles Dodgers’ return to the World Series.

For all his baseball talents, Ohtani might be a bigger unicorn off the field.

Ohtani is on track to earn $100 million this year through endorsements, merchandise and licensing. The tally is 10x what the No. 2 athlete in baseball, Bryce Harper, is set to make. The only other instance of a similar disparity between the top two athletes in a major sport over the past 30 years was when Usain Bolt was at his peak, making $30 million a year, 10x anyone else in track and field.

Ohtani’s off-field haul made it an easier decision to defer 97% of his record-breaking $700 million Dodgers contract without interest. He earns $2 million a year in playing salary for 10 years and then will collect $68 million annually between 2034 and 2043.

Before Ohtani, endorsement earnings for MLB players topped out at around $10 million for Derek Jeter and Ichiro Suzuki. Ohtani’s $100 million from sponsors is a threshold reached by only three athletes ever: Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Stephen Curry, who each did it once.

Ohtani added a half-dozen companies this year to his endorsement portfolio, along with several renewals after his inaugural season with the Dodgers elevated his global standing even further. His existing major sponsors included Ito En, Kowa, Kosé and Seiko, and he added Beats, Epic Games and Secom for 2025. Ohtani is the first MLB player to be included in Epic’s Fortnite video game.

He has more than 20 brand partners, divided almost evenly between being companies headquartered in the U.S. versus Japan, but almost all the brands use him globally. New Balance is his biggest pact, where his deal is more akin to a global NBA superstar shoe deal than anything in baseball. He has his own clothing and shoe lines.

“What we’re doing with him has never been done in the game of baseball,” Nez Balelo, Ohtani’s agent at CAA, said at Sportico’s Invest West event in May. Balelo said they are strategic with Ohtani and constantly eschew deals from reputable brands. “We have to make sure we don’t overexpose him,” Balelo said. “We have to make sure we don’t put him in a situation that is too heavy of a lift.”

Ohtani ranked second among baseball’s highest-paid players this year at $102 million; Juan Soto finished on top at $129 million after signing his 15-year, $765 million free-agent deal with the New York Mets that included a $75 million signing bonus.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARABS AND MUSLIMS! OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD

Arabs are an ethnic-linguistic group, while Muslims are followers of the religion of Islam. The two are not synonymous—many Arabs are not Muslim, and most Muslims are not Arab.

Here’s a breakdown to clarify the distinction:

🗣️ Arabs: An Ethno-Linguistic Identity

Definition: Arabs are people who identify with the Arabic language and cultural heritage.
Geography: Primarily from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), including countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Morocco.
Language: Arabic is their native or ancestral language.
Religion: While many Arabs are Muslim, there are also Arab Christians, Druze, and other religious minorities.

🕌 Muslims: A Religious Identity

Definition: Muslims are individuals who follow Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion founded in the 7th century CE.
Global Reach: Islam is practiced worldwide, with large populations in Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Iran, and sub-Saharan Africa—many of which are not Arab.
Diversity: Muslims come from diverse ethnic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds. Being Muslim does not imply any specific ethnicity.

🌍 Overlap and Misconceptions

The confusion often arises because Islam originated in the Arabian Peninsula, and the Qur’an is written in Arabic.
However, only about 20% of the world’s Muslims are Arab.
Conversely, not all Arabs are Muslim—for example, Lebanon and Egypt have significant Arab Christian populations.

Understanding this distinction helps avoid stereotypes and better appreciate the rich diversity within both Arab and Muslim communities.

AI BEAUTIFUL ACTRESSES WILL REPLACE THE SPOILED CRY BABIES OF HOLLYWOOD FAME…FINALLY! GOODBYE TO POINTLESS MILLION DOLLAR SALARIES AND UNION MEMBERSHIP AND STRIKES!

Hollywood hits back as AI actress is hailed as ‘the next Scarlett Johannson’ BTW….”SCARLETT IS REALLY NOT PLEASANT LOOKING OR PRETTY AT ALL!”

Tilly Norwood (Picture: Tilly Norwood/Facebook) — This is not a real woman (Picture: Tilly Norwood/Facebook)

The woman you see above might look as real as any other human, but she’s not.

She’s actually an artificial intelligence-generated actress named Tilly Norwood who, after a short time on the scene, has sparked interest among talent agents who are keen to hire her.

As such, she’s been hailed as ‘the next Scarlett Johansson or Natalie Portman’, sparking outrage from big names in Hollywood, who are branding it ‘gross’ and expressing rage towards the agencies who wish to sign her.

This has led to the creator of Tilly firing back, insisting that the digital actress is not a ‘replacement’ for a human being.

Taking to Instagram, comedian and technologist Eline Van der Velden wrote: ‘To those who have expressed anger over the creation of my AI character, Tilly Norwood, she is not a replacement for a human being, but a creative work – a piece of art.

‘Like many forms of art before her, she sparks conversation, and that in itself shows the power of creativity.’

Tilly Norwood Instagram 22 July 2025 tillynorwood Sat outside pretending I?m in a French film and not just avoiding my to-do list. What?s your ultimate coffee shop comfort order? #CafeCornerThoughts — Tilly Norwood is an AI-generated actress who’s already causing a stir in Hollywood (Picture: Tilly Norwood/Instagram)

Van der Velden added: ‘I see AI not as a replacement for people, but as a new tool, a new paintbrush. Just as animation, puppetry, or CGI opened fresh possibilities without taking away from live acting, AI offers another way to imagine and build stories.

‘I’m an actor myself, and nothing – certainly not an AI character – can take away the craft or joy of human performance.’

She said that ‘creating Tilly has been, for me, an act of imagination and craftsmanship, not unlike drawing a character, writing a role, or shaping a performance’.

‘It takes time, skill, and iteration to bring such a character to life,’ Van der Velden argued. ‘She represents experimentation, not substitution.

‘Much of my work has always been about holding up a mirror to society through satire, and this is no different.’

Tilly Norwood Actor | London | Particle6 Productions https://www.tillynorwood.com/ — The creator has insisted she is not meant to replace humans (Picture: Tilly Norwood)

She also believes that ‘AI characters should be judged as part of their own genre, on their own merits’, not compared directly to human beings.

‘Each form of art has its place, and each can be valued for what it uniquely brings,’ she wrote.

Concluding on an optimistic note, the creator shared her hopes that ‘we can welcome AI as part of the wider artistic family’ and simply as ‘one more way to express ourselves, alongside theatre, film, painting, music, and countless others’.

‘When we celebrate all forms of creativity, we open doors to new voices, new stories, and new ways of connecting with each other.’

TESLA NOW OFFERS DRIVE-IN BURGERS, ROBOTS AND SUPERCHARGERS

Watch out, McDonald’s—Tesla now serves EVs, burgers, and fries. What the Tesla Diner could mean for drivers

Want fries with that? Tesla’s new diner features robots, EV charging, and all-day breakfast.

The Tesla Diner features 80 Supercharger stalls.
The unique charging location serves food and includes a drive-in theater.
CEO Elon Musk says the Diner is the first of many (if it proves to be successful).

Tesla is one of the most dynamic automakers in the industry, particularly when it comes to debuting innovative technology. The company produces electric vehicles and has recently launched a robotaxi service. It is also developing a humanoid robot named Optimus. Tesla has evolved into much more than just an automaker. The Tesla Diner is the latest in a long line of surprises from this clean energy and EV pioneer.

Tesla’s California diner is a retro-futuristic diner that allows patrons to charge their EVs and grab a bite, according to Eater. The diner opened its doors at 4:20 PM on July 21 and amassed a huge crowd. So, what’s the diner’s purpose and what does it serve?

What is the Tesla Diner?

The Tesla Diner offers 24/7 dining and classic diner options like burgers, fries, milkshakes, and breakfast all day long. Tesla drivers can order from their car’s infotainment systems and food is served in Cybertruck-shaped boxes.

The Tesla Diner includes a whopping 80 Supercharger stalls and solar canopies. It also features a drive-in theater component with two 45-foot screens.

Elon Musk says the innovative diner will keep improving. The Supercharger stalls at the diner are available to all North American Charging Standard-compatible electric vehicles, not just Tesla models. Additionally, the diner is open to the general public.

Are more Tesla Diner locations coming to the U.S.?

Tesla will establish similar locations in “major cities around the world” if the first location is successful, according to an X post from Musk. The CEO calls it “an island of good food, good vibes, and entertainment, all while supercharging”. It’s located at 7001 West Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood, California.

What does the Tesla Diner mean for the EV space?

The Tesla Diner is the “largest urban Supercharger in the world” according to an X post from the company. Tesla hosts one of the largest electric vehicle charging networks on the planet with over 70,000 global Superchargers. These chargers are capable of replenishing up to 200 miles of driving range in just 15 minutes.

Tesla’s Supercharger network has become so useful that several major automakers partnered with the company to offer Tesla Supercharger compatibility to non-Tesla EV owners. This is a net-positive for the EV space because charging infrastructure in North America has a long way to go.

Research from the Harvard Business School says that EV drivers are “dissatisfied with EV charging station pricing models”. Additionally, the research concluded that EV chargers are generally less reliable than gas stations, so Tesla’s Supercharger network addresses a major pain point for automakers looking to produce competitive EVs.

BLOATED GOVERNMENT WORKERS SET FOR MASS RESIGNATIONS…FINALLY!

SHUT IT DOWN! Mass Federal Resignations Coming This Week

More than 100,000 federal workers stand ready to submit their resignations this Tuesday if the government shutdown cannot be averted, setting a record for the single largest exodus from government service in American history. This wave comes as part of the Trump administration’s deferred resignation program, which has already prompted around 275,000 departures through various voluntary and mandatory measures. The move aims to trim excess from the federal bureaucracy, with the White House estimating annual savings of $28 billion once fully implemented.

At the heart of this program lies a strategy to reshape the workforce without immediate disruptions. Participants receive full pay and benefits for up to eight months while on administrative leave, a setup that has drawn scrutiny for its $14.8 billion price tag but is defended as a cost-neutral bridge to long-term efficiencies.

White House spokesperson explained the rationale plainly: “In fact, this is the largest and most effective workforce reduction plan in history and will save the government $28bn annually,” adding that there was “no additional cost to the government” since these salaries would have been paid anyway.

This approach reflects a push toward an at-will employment model, similar to private sector norms, where the Office of Personnel Management has long argued that outdated job protections hinder adaptability.

Workers who opted into the program often describe a mix of relief and regret, rooted in years of mounting pressures. One longtime employee at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) captured the sentiment: “Federal workers stay for the mission. When that mission is taken away, when they’re scapegoated, when their job security is uncertain, and when their tiny semblance of work-life balance is stripped away, they leave. That’s why I left.”

Such accounts reveal how entrenched routines in federal agencies can erode purpose over time, especially when layers of red tape slow down responses to crises like natural disasters. By streamlining staff, the administration seeks to refocus efforts on core duties, potentially allowing remaining teams to operate with greater speed and accountability—much like how private disaster relief organizations prioritize rapid deployment over bureaucratic hurdles.

The broader context includes threats of a government shutdown if Congress fails to approve funding by the deadline, with the Office of Management and Budget instructing agencies to prepare for mass firings via reduction-in-force procedures. This could push total reductions beyond 300,000 by year’s end, surpassing any single-year drop since World War II. Agencies like the Internal Revenue Service have already shed 25% of their staff through layoffs and buyouts, a change that could ease the burden on taxpayers by curbing overreach in audits and enforcement.

Another USDA worker, who faced probationary firing and reinstatement earlier this year, noted: “At that point, I felt they could terminate me at any time. It’s hard to focus on your work when they can just send you an email and you can be gone, and they completely changed the terms of my work. I was hoping things would stabilize and there would be an opportunity to go back, but now it doesn’t look like there will be an opportunity.”

The federal government is way too big. Just about any reductions in size and scope, whether forced or voluntary, would benefit the nation. We can easily recover from the vast majority of job roles being eliminated. We may not be able to survive the bloated and growing government.

8000 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES MAKE MORE THAN THE PRESIDENT, SOME OVER $1 MILLION!

More than 8,000 public employees get paid MORE than the president

Nearly 300 getting paychecks for $1 million and up

By Jeremy Portnoy, Real Clear Wire

Topline: The President of the United States has the most important government job in the country, but even with a $400,000 salary, he is far from the highest paid. There were 8,752 public employees at the federal, state and local levels that earned $400,000 or more in base salary in 2024, according to thousands of open records requests filed by Open the Books.

Key facts: The list of employees includes researchers, doctors, university professors and many more. In total, the 8,752 employees earned just over $4.76 billion in base salary. There were 290 people with salaries of at least $1 million.

The top 10 highest-paid employees are all football coaches at public universities. Kirby Smart at the University of Georgia earned the most with a $12.2 million base salary, far more than Thomas Allen in second place at Indiana University.

Every state except Delaware and Montana had at least one person making more than $400,000. California had the most such employees with 890 people earning $465.8 million in total, but Texas spent the most on its high earners with $538.4 million paid to 806 people.

Florida (533 people), Utah (525) and Ohio (488) were the other states with the most $400,000 earners.

The federal government has 995 people on the list — all doctors, most of whom work for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Alexander Nyerges, director of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, was the top-paid public employee not affiliated with a university. He made $1.2 million.

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com.

Background: Open the Books’ auditors file over 60,000 open records requests each year to capture every salary paid to public employees across the nation.

Our list of top earners does not include employees whose base salaries are below $400,000 but boosted their earnings in other ways.

For example, one of Los Angeles’ top firefighters had a base salary of $232,603 but collected $644,456 of overtime last year. Ferry workers in New York City earned overtime payments of up to $500,000. Several major cities have reported only their base salaries in response to Open the Books’ open records requests, and not their other sources of compensation, making a comprehensive list of other top earners impossible.

Summary: As taxpayer-funded salaries across the country continue to rise every year, how long will it be until a $400,000 payout is commonplace?