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

Abdul El-Sayed Would Freeze the Bill of Rights in the 18th Century: The Second Amendment is not confined to 1780s technology.

Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan’s Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, is the latest politician to suggest that the Second Amendment might shield the right to bear arms, but only those that existed at the time that it was adopted: namely, flintlock muskets. It’s a not-so-clever way of trimming back the Constitution’s protections. The argument’s flaws should be clear: the U.S. Supreme Court has already dismissed that line of reasoning, and a world in which the Bill of Rights applies only to 18th century technology would be one where freedom exists only in museum exhibits.

“I’m gonna swear an oath to the Constitution. The Constitution has a Second Amendment in it, but the Second Amendment, just so we all are clear, even the most conservative folks, they hew to this idea called originalism, and originalism is the idea that you should interpret the Constitution in the context in which the Constitution was written,” El-Sayed insisted at a campaign rally. “When they promised the right to bear arms, they had muskets. So, yeah, everyone should have equal rights to a musket.”

So clever. The Bill of Rights passed in the 1780s, so it must only apply to 1780s things. Except that the courts have thoroughly dismissed that ridiculous line of reasoning.

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). “We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications…and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search…the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

The reason for this should be obvious. The founders were not unaware of progress. Many of them were scholars and innovators. They were certainly aware of (and enthusiastic about) continuing advancements in technology. During the then-recent revolution, American troops had faced off against a small unit of redcoats armed with Ferguson breech-loading rifles. A decade before the Bill of Rights was adopted, the 22-shot Girandoni repeating air rifle was introduced, one of which was later sent along on the Lewis and Clark expedition. And Kalthoff and Lorenzoni repeating flintlock firearms had existed for well over a century.

Not to mention, the founders made extensive use of printing presses to distribute pamphlets and official government documents, including the new Constitution, rather than having them hand-copied as they would have been a few centuries earlier. Technology marches on.

That last point illustrates the foolishness of the only-1780s-tech argument, as Scalia pointed out. What use is a First Amendment that applies only to hand-cranked printing presses and unamplified voices? That would leave the internet, television, radio, telephones, and all post-revolutionary means of communications unprotected from government censorship.

By the same token, a Fourth Amendment stuck in the 18th century might shield us from government agents kicking in the door and rifling through our papers. But it would have nothing to say about wiretaps, computer searches, surveillance cameras, thermal imaging, and the like.

Founders who were well aware of innovation and often contributed to it themselves (think Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson) knew that science and technology constantly advance—because they helped it do exactly that—as would the government’s intrusive capabilities. And they believed they were creating protections for broad natural rights against limited government, not small carve-outs from the authority of an all-powerful state.

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others,” Jefferson wrote in 1819. “I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

The Bill of Rights isn’t an ancient artifact to be applied only to a snapshot of life as it existed around 1789. Its amendments are intended to protect timeless individual rights, however those rights might be expressed in an always-evolving world.

El-Sayed went on, in his increasingly incoherent monologue, to acknowledge that the Bill of Rights was intended “to protect people from government tyranny,” and “the idea was that you had the right to bear arms against your government should they become tyrannous.” He floated the idea, for some reason, that “the Coast Guard, and state militias” are how this idea was implemented. I don’t want to delve too deeply into whatever argument is being presented here, because I’ve sacrificed enough brain cells by listening to him speak.

But kudos to El Sayed for admitting the Bill of Rights is intended to protect us from government. The only way that can possibly work is if, as government’s capabilities become increasingly sophisticated, the protections of the Constitution’s first 10 amendments extend to safeguarding our rights from ever more advanced potential intrusions.

The Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights don’t preserve a snapshot of life in the 1780s. They were written to protect eternal principles of individual liberty. And they’re certainly not limited to muskets.

J. D. Tuccille, Reason.com

By WILL POTTER

An Ohio pastor stunned her church congregation as she announced that her self-proclaimed ‘prophet’ husband had married a second wife.

Lydia Ford, 45, the pastor of LifeWorks Church in Cleveland, Ohio, revealed to her flock that she and her husband Israel Ford, 47, had begun a polygynous marriage with another minister at their church, Shakayla Talley, 28.

‘And I want to share that, know, Prophet and I, you know, we are living even right now in what we would call a polygynous marriage,’ Lydia told her church.

‘My husband, our prophet, he has a second wife. Y’all know her. Y’all love her. Y’all benefit from her ministry every week.’

Lydia then welcomed her ‘sister in marriage’ onto the stage, and Talley admitted to the congregation that she understood they would have ‘questions.’

She described the reveal as an ‘elephant in the room’ as the church sat silently, and conceded that she could tell ‘people have comments and concerns.’

‘But I want to address that it is amazing to know that this is the will of God,’ she said, as Israel and Lydia stood around her, adding that the trio are ‘family.’

The LifeWorks Church was founded by Israel, real name James, in 2009, and the self-described ‘prophet’ claims to give his followers ‘deliverance and miraculous healings.’

It is unclear if Israel officially married Talley or if his references to her being his ‘wife’ were meant as a ceremonial opening up of his marriage.

In Ohio, state law prohibits entering into another marriage while a previous legal marriage remains in force in the eyes of authorities.

Polygyny differs from polygamy, which is the umbrella term for marriage involving multiple spouses, in that it refers specifically to one man married to multiple wives at the same time

After footage of the polygynous reveal went viral, Israel took to social media to defend the ‘unpopular’ move with his followers.

‘As a nation we have been taught that a man should have one wife only. This is unbiblical,’ he wrote.

‘I understand that this is an unpopular truth that we have gotten away from and many Pastors will not preach. I have no plans to choose pleasing man over what God has revealed. 

‘People may not accept this and choose to disconnect, and that is ok! This life will be over soon and we can all laugh about it in Heaven. Until then, God bless.’ 

In July, Lydia also shared a gushing social media post about her ‘chosen little sister’ Talley, describing her as ‘a very special person in my life.’

Sharing the post before she announced Talley had joined her marriage, Lydia wrote that Talley had ‘shined’ at an event called ‘So, you wanna be a wife?’ run by the church.

‘The event that so many were blessed by could not have been what it needed to be without her help… the eagerness to help without any need for mentions or special attention,’ she wrote.

The posts were met with outrage and ridicule by the church’s followers, with one responding to the clip of the polygyny reveal in the church: ‘Where is the cross to fall on top of them?’ 

‘This is an abomination,’ responded pastor and TV host Tim Walker. 

The Daily Mail has contacted LifeWorks Church for comment.  

Will Potter, Daily Mail

BREAKING: Brazil’s election could be annulled, according to the New York Times.

Electoral lawyers say Brazil’s current situation is “extremely serious” and a “critical situation.”

The NYT reports that confusion over a last-minute voting extension by Justice Cristiano Zanin, who was appointed by Lula, could lead to the election being annulled.

“This is an extremely serious, critical situation,” said electoral lawyer Priscilla Sodré Pereira to the New York Times.

When Zanin made the last-minute decision to extend voting hours, some polling stations had already closed and shut down their voting machines. They could not reopen.

“Fernando Neisser, an electoral law professor at Fundação Getulio Vargas, a Brazilian research institute, said the election could be annulled if the margin is very narrow and it is shown that polling stations stayed open longer in areas that strongly favor one candidate,” the NYT reported.

Wow.

Collin Rugg, X