“We are also starting to consult federal workers on how to do some blocking inside the govt agencies during emergency situations — but please do not put that on the form.” —Eric Manton, of the DRG

They put it on the form, though, cuz somebody screwed up. Oopsie. . . .

Get this: the reason that a color revolution is underway at all in America is not really political anymore — if it ever even was. It’s because a whole lot of people have committed crimes against this country. And with each wave of attempted sedition, they have compounded their crimes with more seditious acts, arrant hoaxes, lawfare, election fraud, censorship, and wholesale looting of taxpayer dollars to keep themselves out of prison.

That’s what USAID was all about, and why it was taken down early in Trump 2.0. It was a nexus of racketeering and the home-base of the Deep State’s foot soldiers, bureaucrats who actually managed the money streams to NGOs that ran everything from election rigging operations to vast social services fraud in blue states, in concert with a Democratic Party that had nothing but rackets to keep it going.

That’s how the USAID’s defunct office of Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) has morphed into the new Democracy Renewal Group (DRG). This new DRG operates under another project called Branch-4 — as in a fourth branch of government, the permanent bureaucracy — and Branch-4 operates under an NGO called the Action Center on Race and the Economy Institute (ACRE Institute), a 501(c)(3) public charity based in Chicago (EIN 82-1199695). Note, the ACRE Institute’s primary funders include the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. You see how byzantine this is, echoing exactly the hyper-complex administrative workings of government bureaucracy itself?

And so, that’s why, for instance, one Eric Manton, a former USAID employee now working with DRG said, “. . . we are also starting to consult federal workers on how to do some blocking inside the govt agencies during emergency situations.” Blocking? What they mean by that is federal employees lodged in the official agencies should “help run out the clock. . . develop selective hearing. . . forgetfulness. . . or blame your workload” for whatever it takes to block enforcement of any executive action proposed by the Trump administration.

Those tactics are explicitly proposed by another org, the Federal Workers Alliance for Democracy (FWAD formerly known as Federal Workers Against DOGE), which is affiliated with DRG primarily as a partner in the Renew American Democracy (RAD) strategy and through the broader Branch-4 ecosystem. Confused yet? You should be. The flak-storm of acronyms is beloved by Lefty-leftists for exactly that purpose.

RAD is run by Danielle Reiff, a 20-year veteran of USAID color revolution programs in Europe and Africa. Her co-coordinator at RAD is one Paul Zeitz, an osteopath and rabbi who worked previously for USAID in Africa and for the State Department as Director of the Data Revolution for Sustainable Development, whatever that was. FWAD is led by one Beverly Schreiber

You might ask: why has the FBI not paid a visit to Beverley Schreiber to assess how she is organizing her members to “block” actions that the chief executive orders agencies to carry out? The Federal Workers Alliance for Democracy must have a membership list. If their mission is to block the work of their agencies, as explicitly directed by FWAD, shouldn’t they be fired from their jobs?

And let’s not leave out a few other sketchy orgs and their leaders: Erica Chenoweth, who operates the United Democracy Alliance (UAD) out of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, which likewise operates under the “umbrella” of the Horizon Project, led by Maria J. Stephan and Julia Roig. Stephan was lead foreign affairs officer in the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (whatever that means), roughly 2009–2014. She was also co-director the Future of Authoritarianism Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which is funded by George Soros’s Open Society org. Julia Roig was President and CEO of PartnersGlobal, funded by USAID, the State Dept., the Ford Foundation, and George Soros’s Open Society Foundation.

What you see is a concoction of intertwined subversive endeavors with more gears and escapements than a Schwarzwald cuckoo clock, all operating under the banner of “Our Democracy,” by which they really mean their prerogative to run your world (and punish you for objecting). This includes running a coup against the current chief executive of the USA. Much of this information has been uncovered by the tireless and diligent researcher Jennica Pounds, known as Data Republican on X. She remarked Monday morning: “What makes 2026 different is that it’s the first time we know of that we found an operational, short-term plan to actually do a coup.”

Coincidentally, weird, coup-ish events played out yesterday in the Brazilian election. A judge who had been President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s personal lawyer ordered the polls to stay open an additional two hours until enough votes were “found” to haul Lula across the victory line over his opponent, Flavio Bolsonaro, a Trump ally. Chalk one up for the Globalists. Call it a DoorDash color revolution. Bolsonaro has refused to concede and is officially contesting the election. Expect street demonstrations by Bolsonaro supporters over this caper. Perhaps riots. Maybe Lula getting strung up Mussolini-style.

American coupsters will point to that as evidence that Trump supporters will riot after the US midterms. It’s all a giant mindf**k. Meanwhile, our coupsters have been outed. We know who they are and what they’re up to. And we are all waiting to see what federal law enforcement aims to do about it.

James Howard Kunstler

The person they picked on was about as vulnerable as they come’ ↗

Dementia patient kidnapped so investors could steal his home, authorities sayDementia patient kidnapped so investors could steal his home, authorities say

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. — Two real estate investors, plus a realtor and a notary, are all accused in a scheme to defraud a dementia patient out of his Hollywood home. Investigators said the realtor kidnapped the victim and dumped him in Miami Gardens as part of the scam.

Leer en español

According to a news release from the office of Broward County Property Appraiser Marty Kiar, the quartet now faces a combined 15 charges.

In a news conference on Monday morning, officials identified the victim as Thomas Hegarty, 71.

“His home was taken from him,” Hollywood Police Department Detective Theo Defreze said. “He lost all of his possessions ― belongings, cars. I mean, he lost everything.

Officials said the investigation began after one of Hegarty’s sister-in-law contacted Hollywood police, concerned about the senior’s “deteriorating mental condition and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the transfer of his longtime residence of over 25 years,” in the 2200 block of Mayo Street.

Investigators said the group “took advantage of the victim’s deteriorating mental state to obtain his signature on a power of attorney document and warranty deed,” which was “falsely notarized” by Derek Enrique, 43, of Tamarac, “and used to purportedly transfer ownership of the home,” to a company called Cash4Keys South Florida.

That company, authorities said, was controlled by 25-year-old investors Brandon Lee Miguel and Jordy Luis Perez.

Officials said the home was worth about $300,000 but sold for only $191,000.

“We haven’t found any evidence that (Hegarty) got any of that money,” Kiar said Monday.

Authorities said the duo then arranged to have realtor Monica Elizabeth Castelli, 56, of Margate, remove Hegarty from his home “and abandoned at a dilapidated rooming house in Miami Gardens.”

Officials said on Monday that Hegarty was distraught and crying, so Castelli picked him up and dropped him off again at Memorial Regional Hospital in Hollywood. That’s when staff notified his sister-in-law about what happened.

“Once the victim was removed from his home, they were able to gain entry and are alleged to have removed all of his personal property which was subsequently reported missing, including three vehicles that belonged to the victim,” Kiar’s office stated in the release.

Miguel and Perez, who were arrested in Miami-Dade County, now face charges including first-degree grand theft, elderly exploitation, organized fraud and mortgage fraud.

Castelli also faces an elderly exploitation charge, as well as a charge of kidnapping with intent to facilitate the commission of a felony.

Enrique faces a charge of false or fraudulent acknowledgements.

“It’s very upsetting, very sad, and what really bothers me is the person they picked on was about as vulnerable as they come and that really is what makes this case a case that’s very sad,” Kiar said on Monday. “I’m very glad that people have have been arrested and they will have their day in court.

Authorities said the investigation into the four involved multiple agencies; besides Kiar’s office and Hollywood police, the Broward Sheriff’s Office, Broward State Attorney’s Office and the Florida Department were also involved.

Kiar said Cash4Keys still controls Hegarty’s home, saying his family has now hired an attorney in an attempt to get it back.

Local 10 TV

Former President Barack Obama sharply criticized the Department of Homeland Security’s raid on Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar’s home, saying “it is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target an individual simply because it believes that the person has committed a crime. But that’s exactly what the Trump Administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. Think about that. The full weight of the federal government is being brought down on a law-abiding elected official because she has dared to criticize the president. This should outrage all Americans, regardless of how they feel about Congresswoman Omar’s political views.”

US Attorney General Todd Blanche pointed out that “this wasn’t done out of some spur-of-the-moment whim. A federal judge approved our warrant request for the raid based on our presentation of probable cause. As I recall, when he was President Obama his IRS spied on members of the TEA Party movement and denied them the same kind of tax-exempt status enjoyed by liberal-leaning groups. As for the government waging lawfare on an individual, no one has been harassed as much as Donald Trump. Finally, whether Rep. Omar is law-abiding is the question that our investigation seeks to answer.”

Apprised of Blanche’s remarks, the former President Obama pointed out that “the TEA Party was a dangerous anti-government movement. Their TEA acronym stood for Taxed Enough Already. This posed a threat to my pledge to transform America. There is a historic precedent for what I did. FDR had similarly used the IRS to spy on and intimidate his political opponents. Both FDR and I were pursuing progressive policies. Preventing anti-progressive opponents of these policies from undermining our policies was a defense of our democracy against the enemies of our democracy.”

“As for Trump being the most harassed person, Mr. Blanche should be asking himself why,” Obama added. “It wasn’t just the Biden Administration that was after Trump. Trump was successfully prosecuted by New York Attorney General Letitia James and successfully sued by E. Jean Carroll. It seems to me that these successes prove that Trump was guilty. Right now, there is no proof that Rep. Omar is guilty of anything. So, I say leave her alone.”

In related news, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich) says she wants to scare people who might seek employment in the Trump Administration. “When Democrats take back the majority in Congress we’re going to give Trump Hell,” she promised. “There will be investigations, impeachments, and indictments for sure. But I also want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration? Like that sounds fun. I might get an opportunity.’ I want them to be like, ‘Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want, and so let me avoid participating in that.’ I want that deterrence message.”

John Semmens

It seems to me the height of hubris — not self-esteem, but arrogance — to think you could stop someone who wanted to kill himself from doing so. It’s not easy — logistically or otherwise — to end your life. If you succeed in doing so, it’s probably evidence that you really wanted to die.

If you say, “But if this person only knew I cared about his existence, then he would have gone on living.” Doesn’t this assume that YOU are reason enough for him to live? That he needed no other reason to live other than the fact you cared about him? That seems like you’re overstating your importance just a little bit, doesn’t it?

One reader replied: “Because of this. Hope springs eternal.

The majority of people who survive suicide experience regret regarding their attempt, either instantly or after a period of reflection.”

I don’t know that we know for sure it’s the majority, but that could be true. However, the people who successfully complete a suicide may have a different perspective from those who botch it. They are probably, as a group, more determined to die. And we can’t speculate too much on their state of mind, because they’re gone.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

President Donald Trump vowed Tuesday to ban the term “artificial intelligence” after lashing out at The Wall Street Journal in a Truth Social post.

Trump posted to his social media platform complaining that the the news organization had yet to adopt his preferred term, “super intelligence:”

When will The Wall Street Journal start calling Artificial Intelligence (AI), a very bad and inaccurate name, SI (Super Intelligence), the name which virtually everyone else is using, or soon will be. In short order, we will be officially BANNING the term, “AI/Artificial Intelligence,” in all relevant documents, and everything else, due to its inaccuracy. Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

When asked how the government could ban a term given the Constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, the White House Press Office replied, “refer to the TRUTH.”

It’s unclear what banning the term “artificial intelligence” “in all relevant documents, and everything else” specifically means.

Trump began touting the phrase “super intelligence” in a poll last month on Truth Social, then proclaimed Chinese leader Xi Jingping liked the term as well.

The president ran three different polls with new names for AI: Super Intelligence, Extreme Intelligence, and Supreme Intelligence.

By early October he also claimed anyone still using the term artificial intelligence was “the enemy,” even though the White House itself had been slow to make the change.

“The White House considers anyone that uses the term, ‘Artificial Intelligence,’ as opposed to the highly accepted new and more accurate term, ‘Super Intelligence,’ THE ENEMY!” Trump had written on Truth Social.

At least one artificial intelligence expert ripped Trump for trying to use the term super intelligence.

“He’s taken a technical term which has a very clear meaning and then reused it,” said University of Toronto Professor Geoffrey Hinton. “Superintelligence means smarter than people, and has been around for at least 20 years. It’s got a very clear meaning. And now he says we’re going to call AI ‘superintelligence’. You can’t make it smarter than people just by calling it smarter than people.”

Kathianne Boniello, Mediaite

Robert Spencer

October 26, 2026 6:36 PM

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mogadishu) is a premier member of the leftist establishment, and so she is unlikely to suffer any serious penalties for her misdeeds, but the evidence for those misdeeds is piling ever higher. Omar has not handled this very well, responding “Not to my knowledge” when asked if she actually married her brother in order to commit immigration fraud and playing her torn and frayed “racism” and “Islamophobia” cards against other allegations, and now she has gone even farther in her efforts to project a serene and untroubled business-as-usual front. This time, however, her gambit could easily backfire.

Fox News reported Monday that the marginally embattled Somalia-First congresswoman “is set to share the stage with far-left streamer Hasan Piker on Monday night despite mounting opposition from fellow Minnesota Democrats, some of whom have publicly urged the congresswoman to cancel the appearance just eight days before the midterm elections.”

Indeed. Some Democrats are getting quite nervous: “Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., has called Piker’s rhetoric ‘polarizing and dangerous’ and said embracing him is ‘a mistake,’ while Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s gubernatorial campaign called a number of his past statements ‘reckless and unacceptable.’ Other Democratic officials and party groups have gone further, calling on Omar and state Sen. Omar Fateh, who is hosting the sold-out Minneapolis event, to cancel the appearance.”

Yet it looks as if the event is going to go on, and it’s easy to see why. From the standpoint of the two-tier justice system, brazen-it-out far left, Omar’s critics are being small-minded and unimaginative. They look at Piker’s remarks about how America deserved 9/11, his open support for Hamas, his support for lynching black people, his claim that the U.S. is more murderous than al-Qaeda and all the rest of it, and they see political suicide. Ilhan Omar, however, sees political redemption.

How can that possibly be? Omar is testing the limits of what the leftist establishment will put up with from her, and betting that there aren’t actually any limits at all. The establishment needs her, and she knows that very well. To throw a black Muslim female congresswoman under the bus, well, that’s what Republicans would do, but not the party of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd and Al Sharpton and the rest of the rogues gallery.

Omar must know how much trouble Piker has caused Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who has nevertheless steadfastly refused to disavow one of his most influential supporters, and she has doubtless noticed that El-Sayed still has a very good chance of becoming the first Marxist Sharia-adherent Muslim in the United States Senate. She sees how top Democrats are sticking with El-Sayed, knowing that to abandon the party’s most energized, determined vanguard would be tantamount to political suicide.

Omar also likely reasons that the more she appears as if none of the increasingly damning allegations against her have troubled her in the slightest, the more people will believe that it’s all just an exercise in Trumpian fascism, in his inexcusable weaponizing of the Justice Department against his political enemies. She likely knows that to appear with Hasan Piker himself is a textbook example of brazening it out, and she is very much aware that the Democrats always stick by their own; the circular firing squad is a Republican game.

Nevertheless, not every leftist is as carefree as Ilhan Omar is trying to appear to be. Fox notes that “the controversy is exposing a divide among Minnesota Democrats in the closing stretch of the midterms over whether Piker’s enormous following among younger progressives outweighs the political liability of his past rhetoric. University of Minnesota political science professor Larry Jacobs told FOX 9 the event would ‘create a split within the DFL,’ arguing it could distract statewide Democrats from their closing message and put candidates in a difficult position with moderate and Jewish voters.”

Maybe. It’s much more likely, however, to convince any Democrats who might be jittery over the hot water Omar appears to be in, what with the growing evidence that she married her brother in order to help him get into the country and committed immigration fraud also when she herself entered the country, that there is really nothing to worry about. If Ilhan Omar is so certain of her political future that she is appearing with Hasan Piker, no leftist should lose a moment’s sleep over the allegations against her. The deep state will, as always, pull her through.

Editor’s Note: The Democrat Party has been infected by socialism, and it’s spreading FAST. Democrats are claiming there’s nothing to worry about, but we know the truth.

Robert Spencer

Intellectually, people almost always agree with me when I claim, “You cannot control anybody else’s actions.” Yet, on the emotional level there is almost always resistance — in a few cases, even hostility. It’s always a red flag when a person cannot answer your point, but still resists it emotionally.

Why do so many people agree that control of others is impossible, while the great majority still seek to control others? I’m not only talking politics and government. It’s true that nearly every political movement in history, past and present, rests on the attempt to control others — whether on a wide

and totalitarian scale, or on an authoritarian scale (as in the lost republic of the United States.)

Politicians who seek to control are simply mirroring what people do in their private lives. Nearly everyone has someone in his or her life that he or she wants to control.

“My husband won’t quit smoking. What can I do to stop him?”

“My sixteen-year-old isn’t trying hard enough in school. How can I make his grades go up?”

“My daughter isn’t interested in college. How do I make her more ambitious?”

“My boyfriend isn’t sensitive. How do I make him get more in touch with his — and others’ — feelings?”

Each of these questions rests upon a hugely flawed assumption: That the person asking the question can make the change.

The question is not: How do you stop your husband from smoking? The question is: Will your husband stop smoking? Why or why not? If you’re married to someone, he’s obviously very important to you. If you love him and want him to be around a long time, of course you’re concerned that he smokes. But he knows the risks of smoking as well as you and everyone else on the planet. It’s possible for him to stop smoking. People stop smoking all the time. He might stop, someday; or he might not. The question right now is: Why does he smoke?

The most likely answer is: He has chosen to take his chances. Maybe he doesn’t care about living a long life. Maybe he does, but he doesn’t care to think about that now. Maybe he only thinks short-range, and not long-range. Or maybe he thinks long-range about all kinds of things — too much, even — and allows himself this one short-range pleasure as a treat. There are many different possible explanations. The point is: He knows what he’s doing, and he chooses to do it. There’s no mystery.

You cannot control your husband’s decision to smoke. You can reason with him, but his decision to smoke is not based on reason. If it were, he would have stopped. While it’s true you cannot make him stop, you can do anything you want in response to his smoking. Extreme case, you can even divorce him. If such a drastic step isn’t worth it to you, that’s fine. There are a successive series of less drastic steps you can take, if you want. Will any of these things make him quit? Absolutely not. There’s nothing anyone can do to make him quit. Even if the government passed a law jailing people for smoking, he’d simply do it in secret — just as pot smokers do now. You can do whatever you wish to protest, and it might make a difference in your life. But there’s nothing you can do to eradicate his own free will. You cannot get into his mind, like a ghost or a computer program, and exercise particular judgments for him.

The same applies to your young adult children. They have free will, too. You cannot make their choices for them. When they make choices you don’t like, this is no reflection on you. How could it be? You disagree with your daughter’s decision to eschew higher education. Her decisions are based on her own beliefs and views, not yours. Wishing that she had different beliefs will not make it so — not when she’s sixteen, and not when she’s sixty-six.

I bring all this up for the mental sanity of the person wanting to control. The definition of mental health is serenity. Serenity means being at peace with that which you cannot control. Something like smoking, or your kid’s decisions, separates the “men from the boys” on the issue of serenity. You can fret, fume, get ulcers, cry, scream and be miserable — while others in your life continue to make their own decisions; or, you can be serene — while others in your life continue to make those exact same decisions and choices.

If you think that crying and fretting changes anything, it doesn’t. Adults usually do what they want, and they generally know what they’re doing. Their actions don’t always make sense, but to some people making sense isn’t the goal. “I’m doing this because I can,” is a common human motive. No, it’s not the most rational or mature one. But it’s the driving motive of many people, including, most likely, some people you love.

Get used to it.

Michael J. Hurd

In response to my last column, several people wrote in and asked: “Is pity an emotion of contempt?”

My reply is that yes, pity is an emotion filled with contempt. Pity is not genuine empathy or compassion. Pity is based on the premise: “Your vulnerability allows me an opportunity to be superior.” The person feeling pity for another is not doing the object of the pity any favors. Why do you think that most people don’t want to be pitied? It’s because they sense, quite accurately, the truth of what I’m asserting here.

Sometimes pity is a private matter, and often it’s a public matter. When pity is public, the person feeling the pity wants at least one

other person to know about it. “Look at me. I’m feeling compassion for this other person and want you to know it.” This enhances the feeling of superiority. “I’m feeling pity and I have at least one witness. This proves I’m a compassionate person. I’m SO good.”

Genuine compassion needs no such public attention. If you really feel something for someone, then that’s that — and you don’t need anyone else to know, not even the person towards whom you’re feeling the compassion or empathy.

Sometimes pity is more private. The person feeling the pity wants the object of the pity to know — but not necessarily anybody else. This doesn’t change the fact that pity is based on contempt. The person feeling pity wants the object of pity to know about it, as if to seal the deal on the experience of being superior to another.

Pity can be a response to someone who brought the problem on himself, or not. It doesn’t really matter, because the point of the pity is, as I’ve been saying, to feel superior. If I have an unhealthy need to feel pity, then I’ll feel it towards an innocent victim of a natural disaster or crime, or someone who is chronically irresponsible.

Pity and compassion are not the same. Compassion involves a sense that, “That could be me.” It doesn’t imply superiority or contempt. This is not to say that compassion is always rational. Sometimes people feel compassion erroneously. They feel badly for another because, “It could be me,” when in fact no such thing is true. Someone loses his job, doesn’t look for a new one, decides to live off the government — and as a result soon goes bankrupt. “That could be me. I could lose my job or business too.” Well, maybe I could, but I wouldn’t necessarily handle it the same way. This sort of compassion is misplaced compassion. It happens all the time. Still, it’s not the same as the contempt of pity.

Pity (as well as misplaced compassion) arises from a deeper error people make regarding the subject of ethics. Nearly everyone believes or assumes that the definition of being moral is service or sacrifice to others. The alternative to this ethic is survival, self-responsibility and rational self-interest. The more you take care of yourself, the less harm you do to others and the more you’re able to give to others, if you want to do so. But the central purpose of life is the achievement of one’s own happiness. This is why the virtues of rationality, productivity and self-responsibility are so important.

Unfortunately, while some proponents of ethics support these ideas, they don’t define them as the nature of ethics. The purpose of your life, we’re all told, is to live for others. How ridiculous. How can I live for others without caring for myself? And even if I can somehow pull that off, aren’t others benefiting from my sacrifices for them? By making their lives easier, aren’t they selfishly benefiting — and how does that square with the notion that all self-interest is bad?

If the dominant view about ethics changed, there’d be a lot less pity, along with the contempt that it implies.

Michael J. Hurd

“This is a segregated event,” former Illinois state rep says. “If you’re LGBTQIA++ and you’re BIPOC, fine, you can come in. All others, it’s closed to. I mean, that’s pretty alarming.”

====================================================================

(The Center Square) – Aplanned race-restricted event at a public park in Geneva is raising questions about anti-discrimination policies, with former Illinois state representative and Breakthrough Ideas CEO Jeanne Ives urging local officials to examine whether such gatherings comply with the law after an LGBTQ organization postponed a bonfire advertised for “Black, Indigenous and people of color.”

The event, organized by Belong Fox Valley and described as a “Queer BIPOC Bonfire,” was scheduled for Oct. 16 at Peck Farm Park in Geneva. The free, adults-only gathering was advertised as open exclusively to members of the LGBTQIA+ community who are Black, Indigenous, people of color or multiracial.

“This is a segregated event,” Ives told The Center Square. “If you’re LGBTQIA++ and you’re BIPOC, fine, you can come in. All others, it’s closed to. I mean, that’s pretty alarming.”

The event drew backlash over its race-based attendance restrictions. Belong Fox Valley subsequently announced on social media that it was postponing the bonfire because of safety concerns.

“Keep an eye on our social media and website for info about the new plans when we have them. Be safe and kind to one another, friends,” the organization said.

Geneva Park District Executive Director Nicole Vickers told Kane County Reporter that organizers had decided not to proceed with the “Queer BIPOC Bonfire” scheduled for Oct. 16 at Peck Farm Park.

The Center Square did not receive a response to requests for comment from the park district or Belong Fox Valley.

Ives acknowledged that public parks routinely rent facilities to private parties that are not open to the general public, including family gatherings and political events.

“The truth is, this public facility also rents out space to private parties,” Ives said. “You could even have your own family party there.”

Ives said that distinction may give the park district grounds to allow the gathering under existing rules, but argued that the organization’s attendance restrictions warrant scrutiny.

“This should be something that the community should be aware of, that this group is hosting,” she said.

Asked whether park districts should ensure private events held on public property comply with anti-discrimination requirements, Ives said officials could review their policies

“I would think that they should,” Ives said. “They could probably rewrite their rules to ensure that all events are compliant with federal discrimination laws.”

She said residents should consider raising the issue with both the organization and the park district, including asking officials to examine whether similar events could legally be held in the future.

Ives also addressed the organization’s stated safety concerns, saying threats or violence against the group would be unacceptable while questioning what evidence supported the decision to postpone the event.

“No organization should be threatened by this,” she said. “I’d like to see the proof of that. I’d like to understand exactly how they were threatened and what was said in the threatening messages because I think a lot of times these groups say one thing and they read into stuff.”

Ives said she would also want to know whether the organization filed a police report if it received threats.

The controversy raises broader questions about how Illinois park districts and local governments handle permits for events organized around particular identities. Supporters of identity-based gatherings may argue they provide a space for historically marginalized communities, but Ives said that rationale does not justify racial exclusion.

“This is 2026. We don’t do that anymore,” Ives said. “We learned a long time ago that we don’t do anymore. We have laws written so that you don’t racially discriminate against anybody.”

Ives said the key issue is whether an event’s restrictions violate applicable anti-discrimination laws, rather than whether an organization is holding a private gathering or hosting an event focused on a particular community.

“The problem here is when it comes to race or sex discrimination of any sort that would be in violation of the Constitution,” she said. “I think that that’s more of the issue than anything.”

The postponement leaves the bonfire’s future uncertain. Belong Fox Valley said followers should monitor its social media and website for information about its new plans.

Katrina Barker, Just the News

A Michaels arts and crafts store is facing accusations of political discrimination after an employee reportedly refused to frame a photograph of President Donald Trump, patriotic artwork and even a newspaper commemorating the historic Apollo moon landing.

The confrontation, captured on video and shared on social media, has sparked questions about whether the national retailer allows employees to reject custom framing orders based on political content.

. @MichaelsStores refused to custom frame three things for me: my favorite image of President @realDonaldTrump, a @McNaughtonArt piece, and an original moon landing newspaper.

Apparently “custom framing” now means the clerk approves your art first.

Is that corporate policy, or… pic.twitter.com/ThYKFf8Ydz

— Chaos Coordinator (@idontexistTore) October 25, 2026

According to Daily Beltway, the customer brought three items to the store: a photograph of Trump, artwork by conservative artist Jon McNaughton and an original newspaper documenting America’s moon landing.

The employee reportedly cited a company policy against framing political materials. However, the existence of such a policy has not been independently verified.

However, Michaels announced on social media that they don’t have any policy banning Trump photos.

“Michaels does not have a policy prohibiting the framing of political items, and we strive to welcome every customer,” the company said in a statement. “We’ve reached out directly to discuss your experience and ensure your project needs are met.”

The customer blasted the refusal in an October 25 post on X.

“Apparently ‘custom framing’ now means the clerk approves your art first,” the customer wrote.

“Is that corporate policy, or just one employee’s politics?” the customer asked.

The controversy raises questions about whether individual employees can refuse to handle artwork depicting political figures.

It is not the first time Michaels has faced such accusations.

In November 2024, a customer at a Michaels store in Sequim, Washington, said employees refused to frame the iconic photograph of Trump raising his fist following the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.

According to radio host Jason Rantz, one employee reportedly told the customer, “I do not feel comfortable framing this print.”

Michaels subsequently characterized that incident as a “misunderstanding” and offered to complete the order.

Original reporting: Daily Beltway, October 26, 2026. The latest incident is based on the customer’s account and has not been independently corroborated.

SMG Newswire