Scott Adams, the creator of the iconic workplace comic strip Dilbert, has died at the age of 68.

His death was announced Tuesday morning by his former wife, Shelly Miles, during his online program.

“He’s not with us anymore,” Miles told listeners, confirming the passing of a cartoonist whose work once defined office satire for millions of readers worldwide.

Earlier this month, Adams had publicly acknowledged that his health was rapidly failing. Speaking candidly on his podcast Real Coffee with Scott Adams, he revealed that doctors had given him no hope of recovery.

“I talked to my radiologist yesterday, and it’s all bad news — the odds of me recovering are essentially zero,” Adams said at the time. “I’ll give you any updates if that changes, but it won’t.”

He went on to explain that his condition had left him partially paralyzed and struggling with heart failure, making everyday breathing difficult. “There’s no chance that I’ll get feeling back in my legs,” he said, adding that January would likely be “a month of transition, one way or another.”

Adams first disclosed his prostate cancer diagnosis in May, telling his audience that he had been in constant pain and reliant on a walker for months. “If you’re wondering if I’ll get better, the answer is no,” he said then. “It will only get worse. There’s only one direction this goes.”

Born in 1957, Adams launched Dilbert in 1989, drawing on his own experiences working in corporate America. The strip quickly struck a nerve, lampooning office bureaucracy, incompetent management, and the quiet absurdities of white-collar life. By the late 1990s, Dilbert was syndicated in thousands of newspapers across dozens of countries, spawning best-selling books, calendars, merchandise, and a short-lived animated television series.

For decades, Adams was celebrated as a sharp observer of workplace culture, often described as giving voice to the frustrations of ordinary employees. However, his public reputation shifted dramatically in later years as he became increasingly known for provocative political commentary.

In early 2023, hundreds of newspapers dropped Dilbert after Adams made racially charged remarks on his show, effectively ending the strip’s mainstream newspaper run. In response, Adams relaunched the comic independently as an online, subscription-based project titled Dilbert Reborn, which he described as “uncensored and spicier,” aimed at a smaller but loyal audience.

Adams’ death closes the chapter on a career that spanned more than three decades — one marked by extraordinary commercial success, cultural influence, and later controversy. Regardless of how his legacy is ultimately judged, Dilbert remains one of the most recognizable and influential comic strips in modern American history.

House GOP Moves to Hold Bill Clinton in Contempt After He Defies Epstein Subpoena

House Republicans are sharply escalating their investigation into the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, moving to initiate contempt of Congress proceedings against former President Bill Clinton after he flatly refused to appear for a legally issued congressional deposition.

Oversight Chairman James Comer said Clinton’s failure to show up Tuesday was not a misunderstanding or scheduling conflict — it was defiance.

“This committee issued a lawful subpoena,” Comer told reporters. “We gave President Clinton multiple opportunities over months to comply. Instead, his legal team stalled, delayed, and ultimately ignored Congress.”

Republicans say that behavior leaves them no choice but to invoke contempt — a rarely used but powerful enforcement tool meant to prevent witnesses from simply running out the clock.

Subpoenas Are Not Optional

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have informed the committee they believe the subpoenas are “invalid and legally unenforceable,” according to correspondence cited by The New York Times. Comer strongly rejected that claim, arguing that no individual — including a former president — has the authority to decide whether a congressional subpoena applies to them.

Hillary Clinton is scheduled to appear Wednesday. Comer warned that if she also refuses, the committee will move to hold her in contempt as well.

The Clintons have offered to submit sworn written statements instead of testifying in person. Republicans say that proposal undermines Congress’s constitutional oversight power and would allow witnesses to avoid direct questioning.

Months of Delays

The subpoenas were issued in August as part of a broader investigation into Epstein’s network and the government’s handling of his case. Depositions were first set for October, then postponed to December after Bill Clinton cited a funeral. Comer agreed to the delay but said Clinton’s attorneys refused to provide alternative dates.

After weeks of silence, the committee rescheduled the depositions for this week — again without confirmation the Clintons would comply.

Bill Clinton did not appear.

Epstein Ties Under Scrutiny

The Justice Department recently released the first batch of Epstein-related records, which included photographs of Bill Clinton. Clinton has denied wrongdoing but has acknowledged flying on Epstein’s private jet during Clinton Foundation trips in the early 2000s, before Epstein was formally charged.

Other officials subpoenaed in the probe include former FBI Director James Comey.

Real Consequences — Or Political Test?

Criminal contempt of Congress carries penalties of up to one year in prison and fines up to $100,000. While prosecution is not guaranteed, Republicans point to recent cases where contempt charges resulted in jail time, including Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro.

By contrast, former Attorney General Merrick Garland was held in contempt in 2024, but the Justice Department declined to prosecute — a disparity Republicans say exposes selective enforcement.

What Comes Next

If the Oversight Committee approves the contempt citation, it will move to the full House for a vote. If passed, the referral goes to the Justice Department, which will decide whether to pursue criminal charges.

For Republicans, the issue goes beyond Epstein.

“This is about whether Congress still has the power to compel testimony,” Comer said. “If former presidents can simply ignore subpoenas, then oversight becomes meaningless.”

The next few days may determine whether congressional subpoenas still carry real force — or whether political power places some witnesses above the law.

Could the Firing of a Popular Florida Meteorologist Ripple All the Way to Washington?

 

The sudden firing of Matt Devitt, a trusted chief meteorologist at WINK News, has ignited more than viewer outrage in Southwest Florida. What began as a local media controversy is now bleeding into a high-stakes Republican primary — and could ultimately influence who ends up representing Florida in Washington, D.C.

Devitt, who spent a decade at WINK and became a household name during Hurricane Ian, announced Jan. 10 that he had been unexpectedly let go from his role. In a social media post that quickly went viral, Devitt said the decision was a “complete shock” and that he was not given the opportunity to say goodbye to viewers.

Within hours, the backlash exploded.

Public outrage and political fallout

Devitt’s post has since drawn more than 74,000 reactions and nearly 27,000 comments, while a petition calling for his reinstatement has surpassed 1,500 verified signatures. Many supporters credit Devitt’s calm, continuous coverage during Hurricane Ian with helping them make life-saving decisions.

The controversy quickly caught the attention of national Republican figures. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich publicly demanded answers, writing that WINK “owes all of us an explanation” for Devitt’s firing. Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis echoed that sentiment, calling weather broadcasters “first responders” during disasters.

But the storm intensified when the firing became entangled with an already crowded GOP primary.

A weapon in a crowded primary race

The controversy has landed squarely in Florida’s 19th Congressional District Republican primary, where more than a dozen candidates are competing to succeed Rep. Byron Donalds. A recent October 2025 poll showed no candidate polling above 9%, with 67% of voters undecided — a volatile environment where even nontraditional issues can sway outcomes.

Congressional candidate Catalina Lauf seized on the moment, accusing her primary opponent, media executive Jim Schwartzel, of being responsible for Devitt’s removal. Lauf alleged that Schwartzel’s leadership reflected poorly on his fitness for office, framing the firing as evidence of elitism and political disconnect.

Schwartzel serves as president of Sun Broadcasting, which shares facilities and resources with WINK News through a Shared Services Agreement. While WINK is operated by the Fort Myers Broadcasting Company, the arrangement has drawn scrutiny from rivals questioning whether Schwartzel exerted influence over personnel decisions.

To date, Schwartzel, WINK management, and Devitt have declined to comment on the allegations.

Colleagues urge restraint as tensions rise

Amid the uproar, WINK meteorologist Lauren Kreidler appealed directly to viewers for compassion, emphasizing that the weather team had no role in the decision and was still processing the abrupt change.

Her message underscores a key reality: while political actors debate motives and influence, newsroom staff remain caught in the crossfire.

Can a local firing shape national politics?

On its face, the firing of a television meteorologist might seem unlikely to affect Washington. But in a low-information, high-volatility primary — especially one dominated by undecided voters — emotionally charged issues tied to trust, leadership, and community safety can carry outsized weight.

If the controversy continues to define perceptions of Schwartzel among Republican voters, it could reshape the primary field and, by extension, who ultimately represents Southwest Florida in Congress.

What is clear is this: a personnel decision made behind closed doors in Fort Myers has triggered a political storm that now reaches far beyond the newsroom — and may yet echo in the halls of Washington, D.C.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Accuses Both Parties of Covering Up Corruption on House Floor

WASHINGTON — Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) delivered a rare bipartisan rebuke on the House floor this week, accusing both Democratic and Republican leadership of cutting backroom deals to shield members of Congress from public scrutiny and accountability.

Speaking during her allotted time and broadcast live on C-SPAN, Luna directly challenged House leadership, questioning why what she described as “back-end deals” are being made to suppress investigations and transparency surrounding alleged corruption.

“I was wondering if the Speaker of the House of Representatives can explain why leadership on both sides, both Democrat and Republican, are cutting back-end deals to cover up public corruption in the House of Representatives,” Luna said from the floor.

Her remarks stood out in a chamber often defined by partisan finger-pointing. Rather than targeting one party, Luna framed the issue as a systemic failure within Congress itself, accusing leadership across the aisle of protecting members at the expense of public trust.

While Luna did not name specific lawmakers or cases during her remarks, her comments appeared to echo growing frustration among some rank-and-file members over ethics enforcement, internal investigations, and what critics describe as a culture of impunity on Capitol Hill.

House leadership did not immediately respond to Luna’s accusations, and it remains unclear whether her challenge will prompt formal discussion or action. Still, the moment quickly circulated online, drawing praise from supporters who say Congress needs greater transparency, and criticism from detractors who argue her claims lack specificity.

The speech adds to a broader national debate over congressional ethics, accountability, and whether lawmakers are willing to police their own. For now, Luna’s remarks serve as a blunt reminder that distrust in government institutions is no longer confined to party lines — and that calls for reform are increasingly coming from inside the chamber itself.

Israel Bombs One of Christianity’s Oldest Churches as Civilians Sheltered Inside

Saint Porphyrius Church Strike Exposes Israel’s Disregard for Civilian and Religious Life

Israel’s assault on Gaza crossed another moral and legal red line when an Israeli airstrike destroyed part of the compound of the Church of Saint Porphyrius, one of the oldest Christian churches in the world, killing at least 18 Palestinian civilians and injuring many more.

At the time of the strike, around 450 displaced Palestinians—mostly Christians—were sheltering inside the church compound, believing the site would be protected under international law. Instead, the compound became another target in Israel’s campaign of overwhelming force against Gaza’s civilian population.

This was not a battlefield. It was a place of refuge.

A Protected Religious Site Turned Into a Mass Grave

Saint Porphyrius Church, founded in the 5th century, is a sacred Christian landmark that has survived empires, wars, and centuries of upheaval. What it did not survive was Israel’s modern military doctrine, which has repeatedly treated civilian infrastructure as expendable.

The strike collapsed a building within the church compound, trapping families beneath rubble. Women and children were among the dead. Survivors described chaos, screams, and bodies pulled from the wreckage of what was supposed to be a sanctuary.

International humanitarian law is clear: religious sites sheltering civilians are protected objects. Striking them—especially with full knowledge of civilian presence—constitutes a serious violation of the laws of war.

Israel’s claim that the destruction was “unintentional” rings hollow in a campaign marked by repeated strikes on hospitals, schools, refugee shelters, and now churches.

A Thousand Years of Coexistence—Destroyed in Weeks

For more than 1,000 years, Saint Porphyrius Church stood unharmed under successive Muslim governments. Gaza’s Christian community lived and worshiped openly through Byzantine, Islamic, and Ottoman eras.

That long history of coexistence makes the church’s destruction under Israeli bombardment impossible to dismiss as inevitable or accidental.

Images now circulating globally show the stark reality:

• Over a millennium of Muslim rule—church intact

• Decades of Israeli control—church compound destroyed

This is not an argument about theology. It is an indictment of modern military violence and occupation.

Israel’s War Is Erasing Palestinian Christians

Palestinian Christians are not outsiders or recent arrivals. They are indigenous to the land, descendants of one of the world’s oldest Christian communities. Yet Israel’s war on Gaza is accelerating their erasure.

Church leaders warn that if the assault continues, there may soon be no Christians left in Gaza at all—not because of religious persecution by neighbors, but because Israel’s bombs make no distinction between faiths.

Muslims and Christians are dying together under the same airstrikes.

Western and Evangelical Silence Speaks Volumes

The bombing of one of Christianity’s oldest churches should have triggered outrage across Western Christian institutions. Instead, the response—especially from evangelical leaders who loudly champion Israel—has been muted or nonexistent.

This silence has exposed a painful contradiction: Palestinian Christians are seemingly invisible when their suffering conflicts with political loyalty to Israel.

Faith, critics argue, has been subordinated to geopolitics.

A Crime Against History and Humanity

The destruction at Saint Porphyrius Church is not just collateral damage. It is a symbol of Israel’s widening war against civilian life in Gaza—one that now includes the bombing of ancient Christian sanctuaries filled with refugees.

A church that survived for centuries was damaged in a single night by modern weapons.

That fact alone demands accountability.

Fourth Amendment Clash: ICE Can’t Enter Your Home Without a Judicial Warrant

Minneapolis surge of ICE operations draws lawsuit, protests — and questions about when agents can enter homes

MINNEAPOLIS — Federal immigration enforcement activity in Minneapolis and the broader Twin Cities area has exploded into a full‑blown crisis this week, after a federal officer fatally shot a woman during an operation and authorities deployed thousands of agents to the region. The spike in enforcement has prompted a lawsuit from state and local officials, mass protests, and intense debate over whether agents entering private homes are acting lawfully.

What happened, and what officials are doing

On Monday, Minnesota and its two largest cities filed suit against the federal government, aiming to halt what they describe as an aggressive immigration enforcement surge. The lawsuit followed last week’s deadly shooting of a Minneapolis resident by an ICE officer, an incident that ignited widespread outrage and demonstrations. (AP News)

The Guardian reported that Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced the lawsuit, alleging excessive force, warrantless arrests and the targeting of sensitive community spaces — all tied to a surge involving thousands of Department of Homeland Security agents in the state. (The Guardian)

Adding to the spotlight, Reuters reported that the Department of Homeland Security would send hundreds more officers after the fatal shooting, noting that roughly 2,000 federal officers had already been dispatched to the Minneapolis–Saint Paul area, described by DHS as its largest operation ever. (Reuters)

The warrant controversy at the heart of the outrage

A central legal clash is over the type of warrant ICE and other immigration agents use when they carry out arrests — especially when those arrests occur at private homes.

An AP investigation explained that most immigration arrests nationwide rely on administrative warrants, issued internally by immigration authorities rather than by a judge. These administrative documents authorize arrest of a specific individual but do not permit officers to forcibly enter private homes or other non‑public spaces without consent. Only judicial or criminal warrants signed by a judge carry that authority. (AP News)

The same AP reporting noted that the distinction became urgent in Minneapolis after agenwasts raided a private home under an administrative warrant. Legal experts point out that without a judge‑signed warrant, forced entry into private property is generally not lawful absent narrow exceptions. (AP News)

Community response and volunteer monitoring

The enforcement push has fueled broad fear and activism. Local leaders have condemned federal tactics as civil‑rights violations and pushed for an end to the surge. Protesters and volunteers have taken to the streets, often trying to document or warn others of enforcement activity.

A Washington Post report described volunteers who monitor ICE operations in Minneapolis, noting how the fatal shooting of Renée Good has brought new attention to such efforts. Volunteers patrol, record, or warn neighbors while stressing they do not want to escalate or obstruct. (The Washington Post) The piece also highlighted debates over what activists can legally do while observing or following agents. (The Washington Post)

Legal and procedural context: arrests, entries, and exceptions

To understand what residents may legally face, it helps to unpack two key ideas:

1. Arrests can occur without a judge‑signed warrant in public places, but entering a private home without consent generally requires a judicial warrant, unless very limited exigent circumstances apply. AP analysis of the warrant distinction makes clear that administrative warrants do not authorize forced entry, whereas judicial warrants do. (AP News)

2. Limited exceptions exist—for example, if someone is in danger, officers are chasing a suspect, or other urgent scenarios. But experts say these exceptions typically do not apply to routine immigration arrests. (AP News)

These questions about authority and procedure lie at the crux of the lawsuit and the public outcry. As enforcement operations continue, each door‑knock encounter raises not only legal but also moral and political questions about how far and how fast federal power should reach into communities.

---

What residents should know about their rights and warrants when ICE shows up

Two main types of warrants to watch for at the door

1) Judicial warrants

• Issued by a court and signed by a judge or magistrate.

• Authorize law enforcement to enter a home or private property to search or arrest, even without the owner’s consent.

• Represent the strongest legal authority for forced entry into private property for purposes of arrest or search.

2) Administrative warrants

• Issued internally by immigration authorities, not by a judge.

• Commonly used for immigration arrests.

• Do not legally authorize forced entry into private homes or other non‑public spaces without consent.

• As reporting explains, these are emblematic of most immigration arrests, but they carry limited authority compared to judicial warrants.

Practical steps if agents appear at a home

• Do not immediately open the door. Ask to see the warrant first.

• Ask that the warrant be shown clearly or slipped under the door so you can read it; look for whether it is judicial or administrative, whether the address is correct, and whether the named individual matches what the document specifies.

• You have the right to remain silent and the right to consult with an attorney. Public discussions and legal guidance from advocacy groups reinforce these protections, especially when tensions are high.

• Recording the interaction is often possible, as long as it does not impede or interfere with officers’ exact activities—this is a common recommendation from legal observers and activist trainings, as seen in reporting on volunteer monitors.

What if agents only have an administrative warrant?

• Based on the reporting’s explanation of legal limits, residents can refuse consent to enter if officers have only an administrative warrant and no judicial warrant is presented.

• However, do not physically resist or use force against agents—doing so can escalate the situation or lead to criminal charges. The recommended approach is calm, verbal assertion of rights, and contacting an attorney immediately if there is concern about compliance or legality.

Narrow exceptions can change the calculus

• Exigent circumstances such as imminent danger, destruction of evidence, or hot pursuit can sometimes allow law enforcement to cross a threshold without a judicial warrant. But these are narrowly defined and not expected for routine immigration arrests.

• Because enforcement conditions and scenarios vary, legal counsel can help interpret whether an exception might apply, especially after the fact if an entry has already occurred.

---

Why this matters now

The aggressive federal crackdown, the fatal shooting that sparked protests, and the lawsuit from Minnesota and Minneapolis have turned a technical legal distinction into a live battleground. Residents, volunteers, civil‑rights lawyers, and federal officials are all interpreting the same constitutional and statutory lines—and the answers they reach could shape what happens at every front door in the city in the days ahead.

As the case proceeds, the question of whether ICE agents are entering homes lawfully without judicial warrants will remain central — not only for the lawsuit, but for the safety and confidence of communities under watch.

Popular Florida Meteorologist Fired By WINK News could be FMLA violation

The sudden departure of longtime meteorologist Matt Devitt from WINK News has sparked growing controversy in Southwest Florida, drawing reactions from viewers, media observers, and even national political figures — including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as the story spreads nationwide 

Reports Surrounding Devitt’s Exit

Devitt, who served for nearly a decade as WINK’s chief meteorologist, has said his departure was unexpected and not something he agreed with. He thanked viewers for their trust and reiterated that his focus was always public safety, particularly during hurricanes and other severe weather events.

Beyond Devitt’s public remarks, reports from media observers and local reporting indicate the dispute that led to his dismissal centered on a scheduling request related to family responsibilities.

According to those reports, Devitt asked for a longer dinner break so he could help his wife

care for their newborn child. The request was not for reduced work hours. He reportedly offered to come in earlier to fully compensate for the time and continue meeting all professional expectations.

Management, according to these accounts, rejected the request, and the disagreement ultimately contributed to his termination. WINK News has not publicly disputed these reports or provided a detailed explanation for the decision.

Potential Legal Questions Raised

Labor and media observers have noted that, depending on the specific circumstances, the situation may raise questions under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The federal law is designed to protect eligible employees from retaliation or termination when requesting reasonable accommodations or leave related to childbirth, newborn care, or family medical needs. While no court or regulatory body has ruled on Devitt’s case, legal experts often caution that disciplinary action following family-related scheduling requests can expose employers to scrutiny, particularly when alternative accommodations were offered.

At this stage, no legal violation has been formally established, and no lawsuit has been announced. However, the reports have added another layer of concern to an already controversial decision.

Public Reaction and Viewer Backlash

The absence of transparency surrounding Devitt’s exit quickly fueled backlash from viewers, many of whom relied on his calm, non-sensational forecasting during major storms.

The fact that the dispute allegedly involved new-parent accommodations intensified public reaction, with many questioning why a veteran meteorologist would be dismissed over a request tied to family care — especially after offering to make up the time.

Newt Gingrich Weighs In

The controversy drew national attention after Newt Gingrich publicly criticized WINK’s handling of the situation.

Gingrich said the station “owes the public an explanation” and later argued that senior management should be held accountable. In

follow-up remarks, he suggested Devitt should be reinstated with back pay, framing the issue as both a management failure and a broader workplace fairness concern.

Unanswered Questions for Local Media

As of now, WINK News has not issued a detailed public statement addressing:

• The reported scheduling request

• Whether family-related accommodations were considered

• Or why a trusted on-air meteorologist was removed without an on-air farewell

Devitt has continued communicating with viewers through his own platforms, where public support remains strong.