Catégorie oBox : OBOXMA

Controversial broadcaster Alex Jones, infamously known for claiming the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax and that victims and families were actors, delivered what he described as his final Infowars broadcast from inside his own studio bar, marking a dramatic turning point in a years-long legal saga. Forced out following a prolonged court battle tied to his company’s bankruptcy, Jones now faces the consequences of the $1.4 billion in defamation judgments awarded to Sandy Hook families. Those rulings opened the door for the satirical outlet The Onion to pursue control of the Infowars brand, aiming to transform it into a parody of itself.

The situation escalated when The Onion confirmed its involvement publicly, signaling an unusual next chapter for the controversial platform. Tim Onion wrote on X, «With the help of the Sandy Hook families, The Onion has reached a long-awaited deal to take over InfoWars.» The move represents a symbolic reversal for the conspiracy-driven outlet, once used to spread misinformation about one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. The acquisition effort is being facilitated through bankruptcy proceedings, where Jones’ assets have been scrutinized as part of efforts to compensate victims’ families following years of legal battles.

«A state court just blocked the little rat, confessed-Satanists from coming in to wear our skin.»

Controversial broadcaster, Alex Jones

The announcement came after a previous attempt to transfer control was temporarily blocked by an appeals court, giving Jones a brief legal reprieve. Reacting to that development, Jones lashed out at his opponents, stating, «A state court just blocked the little rat, confessed-Satanists from coming in to wear our skin.» His rhetoric remained consistent with the inflammatory tone that has defined his public persona for years. Despite the legal setbacks, Jones framed the moment as a temporary victory, even as the broader trajectory of the case continues to move against him.

In a video released shortly after the court decision, Jones attempted to rally his audience, presenting the ruling as a major win. «I have breaking exclusive news that just warms my heart,» he said, before adding that the development restored his faith «in America and our legal system.» He went further, accusing his opponents of political motivations, declaring, «The Onion backed by the Democrats and Bloomberg for the second time in the year and a half, after fraudulently claiming they own and run Infowars, another giant hoax, has had their attempt to take us over slapped down by the Third Texas Court of Appeals.»

Jones concluded his remarks with a tone of triumph, stating, «This is a massive victory.» However, the celebratory message contrasted sharply with the operational reality facing Infowars. Despite the temporary legal relief, Jones acknowledged that he would still be forced to leave his studio due to mounting financial constraints. «This is the last official Infowars show,» he said, explaining that The Onion «He’s not paying the bills, like the rent or the Internet, the satellite, so we have to shut down.» The statement underscored the financial collapse of the operation following years of litigation.

«With the help of the Sandy Hook families, The Onion has reached a long-awaited deal to take over InfoWars.»

Tim Onion, on X

The legal battle remains far from over. Although Jones secured a partial win at the Texas appeals court level on Wednesday, attorneys representing Sandy Hook victims swiftly escalated the matter, filing an appeal with the Supreme Court of Texas the following day. The case now hinges on whether the higher court will allow the transfer of Infowars assets to proceed, potentially finalizing a takeover that would mark a historic and symbolic end to Jones’ control. Until then, the future of Infowars—and its transformation—remains uncertain.

On April 29, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth was made to testify in front of Congress regarding the US’s costly War on Iran. Since the US’s initial attacks on February 28, more than 6,000 people have been killed by the conflict, with more than 95 per cent of the fatalities in Iran and Lebanon. The deadly conflict started without congressional approval, with Donald Trump claiming the attacks are ‘military operations’ and that the US is not currently at war with Iran, and has now cost US taxpayers more than $25 billion. Donald Trump has proposed a massive increase in military spending for 2027, increasing the country’s total from 2025 by more than 40 per cent. Trump aims to spend $1.5 trillion on his military in 2027.

Congressional hearing

The hearing on April 29 was the first time Hegseth had been forced to testify in front of Congress regarding the Iran War. Hegseth has reportedly been dodging the hearing with the aid of Donald Trump’s influence. The hearing was mostly focused on Trump’s military spending plans, with the Republican congresspeople present expressing their support for Trump’s War on Iran. The Democrats, however, grilled Hegseth on the cost of the Iran War, both in regard to financial cost and the depletion of military resources. Hegseth was also asked about the Iranian elementary school that was bombed on the first day of the conflict, killing 120 children and 26 teachers, all of whom were women. It was quickly discovered that a US Tomahawk missile was responsible for the bombing.

Hegseth eats his own words

If one thing was clear during the exhaustive six-hour hearing, it’s that Pete Hegseth was woefully unprepared. Hegseth has continually demonstrated his emotionality when pressed, and it was on full display during the hearing. Hegseth lost his cool dozens of times, raising his voice at lawmakers and throwing insults at Democrats seemingly every other sentence. Unfortunately for Hegseth, when emotion takes over, poise leaves.

New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander was one of the most effective Democratic critics in the room, asking Hegseth multiple questions that he fumbled. After Hegseth had bragged about his ‘crack economic team’ earlier in the hearing, Goodlander tested him, asking whether he knew the average cost of gas on February 28. Hegseth (who clearly did not know the answer) replied snarkily: ‘If you lived in California, it was 8 bucks’ (this is not true; the average price of gas in California was $4.44 at that point). Goodlander ignored Hegseth, stating the national average was $2.83. She then asked him if he knew the average gas price today, to which Hegseth made another crack at California prices. Goodlander smirked and told him the price of gas on April 29 ($4.23).

Mr. Hegseth, you said you’ve got a crack economic team that’s looking at the impact of this war on the American taxpayer, and you can’t answer this basic question – that should shock the conscience of every American.

At the end of her time, New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander asked Hegseth whether he agrees with the statement “the military won’t follow unlawful orders.” Hegseth immediately showed his annoyance with the question, snapping, “I do but understand what you’re insinuating at a partisan point.” Goodlander replied with a smile and revealed that she was actually quoting Hegseth, not a Democrat talking point. Luckily for Hegseth, her time was over after the question. Goodlander took to X to criticize Hegseth after the hearing.

Today’s hearing confirmed what we all know to be true: Pete Hegseth has no business serving as our Secretary of Defense. pic.twitter.com/bCciLiwxek

— Maggie Goodlander (@MaggieG603) April 30, 2026

Hegseth asked to justify War

The newly named ‘Secretary of War’ was asked to justify the existence of the Iran war by Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, the committee’s ranking Democrat. With his questioning coming later in the hearing, he had assembled a list of Hegseth’s statements over the last few hours to quiz him on. Smith began with the nuclear question.

“We had to start this war, you just said 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat. [Today] you’re saying that it was completely obliterated? »

Hegseth responded that apparently Iran has ‘not yet’ given up their nuclear ambitions, and that the country still has thousands of missiles, even after 60 days of war. Smith smiled to himself and responded, “So [this war] left us at exactly the same place we were before. »

Hegseth doubled down on the idea of ‘ambition’. Claiming that all of Iran’s facilities have been destroyed, but their ambition hasn’t. There is no precedent for starting a war to ‘kill a country’s ambition’.

Rep. John Garamendi of California also took Hegseth to task, accusing him of misleading the American public. He called the war a ‘geopolitical calamity, a ‘strategic blunder,’ and a ‘self-inflicted wound to America.’

“Secretary Hegseth, you have been lying to the American public about this war from day one, and so has the president.”

-Rep. John Garamendi

Hegseth replied in the most dramatic fashion possible, asking Garamendi Who are you cheering for? Your hatred for President Trump blinds you [to the war’s success]”.

Hegseth asked about military firings

Secretary Hegseth was also asked about the revolving door of military officials since his appointment in January. Since Pete Hegseth took over the newly named ‘Ministry of War’, more than a dozen senior military officials have either been fired or forced to retire from their positions. The list includes Randy George: Army Chief of Staff, Jeffrey Kruse: Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, John C. Phelan: Secretary of the Navy, David M. Hodne: Commander, Army Futures/Training Command, William Green Jr: Chief of Chaplains. All of these senior officials were forced out of their roles by Hegseth, resulting in a serious restructuring of military leadership. Hegseth claimed the personnel changes were made to build a ‘warrior culture’ at the Pentagon. Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina defended Hegseth, claiming he should fire ‘anyone who gets in his way’.

While Hegseth’s comments didn’t shed a whole lot of light on the US military’s decision-making, they did confirm two things. Pete Hegseth is emotional and quick to anger, and he will never be able to respond to criticism with poise and respect. This is your Secretary of War, folks.

Link to full Congressional Hearing

Donald Trump is not a particularly mature President. Baseball caps, cheesy slogans, weird meme-tapes about the military, and strange AI photos have all defined Trump’s second term. None of which are particularly ‘presidential’. Donald Trump is clearly fascinated with the power of visual AI generation, giving him the ability to circulate his image without having to rely on photos that show his declining health and rapid aging. Trump will release an AI video of just about anything, whether it be bombs in Iran, Trump riding a lion, or Trump dropping loads of human feces onto New York City protesters from a fighter jet (yes, all three of those are real photos and videos posted either by The White House X account or Trump’s own Truth Social account).

Trump responds to Iran

This particular post, while not the most egregious, is certainly immature and unpresidential. Trump’s rhetoric surrounding this war has been aggressive and disrespectful from the start, claiming he would ‘send Iran back to the stone age’, claiming ‘a population will be eliminated’, and calling Iran ‘the loser of the Middle East’. Trump also released a profanity-laden message on social media early in April, stating ‘Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy ba***rds, or you’ll be living in H*ll – JUST WATCH!” Compared to some of those examples, his post on April 29^th is tame, but in its simplicity, it seems even more threatening.

Instead of using all-caps like normal, Trump’s message comes off cold and detached. “Iran can’t get their act together. They don’t know how to sign a non-nuclear deal. They better get smart soon.” The photo underneath the posts pictures Trump wearing Ray-Ban-style glasses and holding an assault rifle. Behind Trump are the burning ruins of what is implied to be Iran, specifically appearing as military outposts in the desert.

Reasons for the post

With the post coming just a day after Donald Trump publicly rejected Iran’s latest ceasefire proposal, it’s a safe bet that the post is in direct response to Iran’s proposal. Trump reportedly rejected a ceasefire proposal from Iran on April 28^th, claiming it was unacceptable. Iran’s proposal failed to include plans to end its nuclear programme until the war has reached a final conclusion. But Trump wants the nuclear programme to be dismantled now, not later. In a post on Truth Social, Trump revealed some of the contents of Iran’s message, and his message was impressively positive. Trump claimed that Iran informed him they are in a ‘state of collapse’ and that they want the US to open the Strait of Hormuz as Iran finds a new leader.

According to Reuters, the proposal carried by Iran to Islamabad over the weekend envisioned talks in stages, not a blanket agreement like Trump wanted. A first stage would require an end to the war, including guarantees that the US cannot restart it afterwards. Negotiators would then resolve the U.S. Navy’s blockade of Iran’s trade by sea and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran aims to reopen under its control. Only then will Iran be willing to look into negotiations regarding other items, including its nuclear programme. A potential disarming of the programme could look similar to the 2015 nuclear deal between the US and other global powers.

“Iran can’t get their act together. They don’t know how to sign a non-nuclear deal. They better get smart soon.”

-U.S. President, Donald Trump on Truth Social

With Trump’s post clarifying that “They don’t know how to sign a non-nuclear deal,” it seems clear that Trump’s post is in direct response to Iran’s ceasefire proposal. What remains to be seen is how Iran will respond. New leader Mojtaba Khamenei is another hardline conservative like his father, and his cabinet is now filled with other hardline believers. The US and Israel have killed most of Iran’s leadership, but in doing so, they unintentionally replaced moderate leaders with hardline war supporters. Experts theorize that Iran’s leadership regime is now more hardline than it was on February 28 when the war started. With Iran pushing for ceasefire talks without agreeing to nuclear disarmament, talks continue to stall.

War on Iran

On February 28, 2026, the US government and Israel undertook a joint operation in Iran, with the US subsequently declaring it was at war with the country. The attacks triggered retaliatory strikes from Iran, targeting US and Israeli military bases across the Middle East. According to Donald Trump, there is no timeline for this war, and the US will continue its operations in the country until it sees a significant regime change, as well as an end to Iran’s supposed nuclear program.

US and Israeli strikes killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, on Day One of the war, completing Trump’s supposed goal. Khamenei has been using deadly violence against civilian protesters in Tehran, and his killing has been the only positive piece of Donald Trump’s illegal intervention. Donald Trump changed his reasoning for attacking Iran after Khamenei’s death, instead claiming he attacked Iran because he had certain information that Iran was going to attack Israel and the United States. Israel calls the strategy ‘forward defence’. Now, after 51 days of war, both Iran and the US continue to posture and are engaging in a standoff surrounding the Strait of Hormuz. Donald Trump needs to alleviate pressure on oil markets in order to further commit financially to the War, and Iran is trying to balance its own exports while putting pressure on the West. The result has been overwhelmingly negative for all civilians involved.

OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman are facing a lawsuit over ChatGPT’s alleged role in the Tumbler Ridge school shooting, described as the deadliest school shooting in Canada. The attack involved an 18-year-old woman who killed eight people and wounded dozens, according to the legal filing. Investigators later found that she had engaged in extensive conversations with ChatGPT in the months leading up to the attack, including repeated discussions involving scenarios surrounding gun violence. The lawsuit claims these exchanges contributed to her actions, alleging that ChatGPT «deepened the Shooter’s violent fixation and pushed» the woman «toward the attack», describing the outcome as «the predictable result of a design choice OpenAI made to let ChatGPT engage with users about violence in the first place.»

According to the complaint, internal concerns were raised within OpenAI prior to the attack regarding the nature of the user’s conversations. The lawsuit alleges that multiple employees recommended contacting Canadian law enforcement after reviewing the exchanges, which reportedly included detailed and recurring references to violent scenarios. However, those recommendations were overruled by company leadership. The filing claims executives determined that the conversations did not meet the threshold of «‘credible and imminent’ risk of physical harm», a standard often used to assess whether intervention is required. This internal decision is now central to the legal case, with plaintiffs arguing that earlier action could have prevented the attack.

The case has drawn attention to how artificial intelligence systems handle sensitive or potentially harmful user interactions. The lawsuit argues that ChatGPT’s design allowed it to continue engaging with the user despite repeated references to violence, raising questions about safeguards and monitoring systems. It alleges that the chatbot’s responses contributed to reinforcing harmful ideas rather than interrupting or redirecting them. The plaintiffs maintain that this interaction pattern played a role in escalating the situation, framing the technology not as a passive tool but as an active factor in the lead-up to the shooting. The legal arguments focus on responsibility, foreseeability, and the obligations of technology companies when dealing with high-risk content.

«I am deeply sorry that we did not alert law enforcement to the account that was banned in June.»

-CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman

OpenAI has not publicly detailed its defense in the case, but the lawsuit places significant emphasis on internal processes and decision-making. The claim suggests that the company had opportunities to intervene or escalate concerns but chose not to act based on its internal risk assessment criteria. This aspect of the case is expected to be closely examined in court, particularly regarding how companies define and apply thresholds for reporting potential threats. The outcome may have broader implications for the tech industry, especially as artificial intelligence tools become more widely used and increasingly involved in complex human interactions.

In the aftermath of the attack, Sam Altman issued a public letter addressed to the community of Tumbler Ridge, acknowledging the tragedy and expressing regret. In the letter, Altman wrote: «The pain your community has endured is unimaginable. I have been thinking of you often over the past few months.» He also stated: «I want to express my deepest condolences to the entire community. No one should ever have to endure a tragedy like this. I cannot imagine anything worse in this world than losing a child. My heart remains with the victims, their families, all members of the community, and the province of British Columbia.» The letter marked the first formal response from the company’s leadership following the lawsuit and the public attention surrounding the case.

«The pain your community has endured is unimaginable. I have been thinking of you often over the past few months.»

-CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman

Altman also addressed the company’s internal handling of the situation, writing: «I am deeply sorry that we did not alert law enforcement to the account that was banned in June.» He added that «While I know words can never be enough, I believe an apology is necessary to recognize the harm and irreversible loss your community has suffered.» In closing, he stated: «I reaffirm the commitment I made to the Mayor and the Premier to find ways to prevent tragedies like this in the future. Going forward, our focus will continue to be on working with all levels of government to help ensure something like this never happens again.» The letter concludes with his signature, marking a formal acknowledgment of the events and the company’s response.