In an unexpected twist, Californians, often stereotyped for their penchant for frappuccinos and progressive politics, have emerged as the nation’s most confident contenders in a hypothetical brawl with a professional UFC fighter. According to a recent survey, California tops the list of states where residents are most convinced they could either survive or best a UFC athlete in combat.

A surprising 25% of respondents from the Golden State confidently claim they could endure a punch from a UFC heavyweight without buckling. This bold assertion highlights a disconnect between confidence and reality — one that may prompt head-scratching across the nation.

The study, conducted by EsportsGG and surveying 2,000 adults across the United States, posed two intriguing questions. Participants were asked whether they believed they could withstand a direct hit from a UFC fighter without being knocked out and whether they could deliver a knockout blow themselves if granted the first punch.

Californians led the “fighting confidence” ranking, with 25% affirming their ability to take a punch, surpassing the national average of 13.7%. This data reveals a striking level of self-assuredness among those from the West Coast.

The audacity continues with 26.8% of Californians believing they could deliver a knockout blow to a UFC fighter with an unchallenged first hit. This unabashed self-belief paints a picture of a state willing to punch above its weight — quite literally.

Lee Mitchell, a personal trainer who has worked with professional MMA fighters, explained why the results show just how off the mark California’s veggie-happy fruit loops’ opinions of their own strength — along with anyone who thinks they can survive a power-packed blow from a champ — really are.

“A UFC heavyweight’s punch isn’t just about power, it’s about how fast and precisely it’s delivered,” Mitchell said. “Most people have never taken a real punch in their life, let alone one from someone whose entire career is built around years of training in ways to hurt you efficiently.”

He compared the experience of enduring such a blow to “stepping in front of a moving car.”

Nevada came in second with 21.7% believing they could take the hit, with another 17.4% thinking they could knock out a pro fighter if given the first punch.

Texas placed third, with 18.2% confident they could withstand the punch and 21.8% believing they could deliver a knockout blow.

Georgia followed at 17.9%, ahead of Colorado at 15.2%, Arizona at 15.1%, North Carolina at 14.9%, Washington at 14%, New York at 13.9% and Louisiana at 12.8%.

Michigan proved considerably more realistic with only 7.1% willing to step into the imaginary Octagon.

The remaining states seemed to have their heads on straight — not enough answering “yes” to even rank.

In Prince Harry’s recent unanticipated return to Britain, one cannot miss the shadow cast by a significant figure. This return was marked by a masterstroke of both surprise and boldness.

Prince Harry is unwavering in his belief that, irrespective of potential fallout, this decision was imperative.

The enduring presence behind Harry’s actions is none other than Princess Diana. Her legacy shines brightly for him, especially as both Harry and Prince William prepare to commemorate the 30th anniversary of her untimely demise next year.

For Harry, the passage of time seems only to strengthen his mother’s influence. The daring nature and strategic timing of his announcement were deftly crafted to captivate the nation and jolt his family from their peaceful summer respite at Balmoral.

This evokes memories of Diana’s discreetly recorded interview with BBC’s Panorama, a moment that, even after 31 years, continues to send ripples through the Royal Family.

Harry gave his father three days’ notice of his and Meghan’s intentions to relocate from California. 

Diana announced news of her interview eight days after it had been shot and a week before its screening. It blindsided everyone.

For both mother and son, each announcement was a fait accompli, not subjects for discussion but matters of fact.

Here, too, Harry, like Diana, has made another calculation – but in the Duke of Sussex’s case it is infinitely riskier.

It is the issue of forgiveness and that for all his past mistakes he can rely on the British public’s sense of fair play – or at least mercy.

Diana escaped unscathed from the Panorama fiasco, despite massive establishment anger over her airing of dirty laundry in general and her criticism of her then husband Prince Charles’s ability to become an effective monarch.

It barely dented her image, and her popularity – especially among women – soared with a public who identified with her dramatic account of how her marriage had been destroyed by the presence of Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles, now the Queen.

Like Harry, the princess also collaborated with a tell-all book, about the unhappiness of her life with Charles and difficulties with being a member of the Royal Family.

Again, whatever the truth of the matter, the public sided with a young woman they judged had been cruelly treated by cold and hostile in-laws.

There are, however, some essential differences that Harry would be wise to consider. Diana never broke with the royals and, whatever her frustrations about public duty, continued to be a much-valued and effective working member of the family.

Harry quit and was scathing about the country and institution he walked away from. His and Meghan’s departure was littered with accusations of racism and resentment with attacks that blighted the last months of the lives of both of the prince’s grandparents, the Queen and Prince Philip.

Was Harry’s head turned during his brief visit to Britain in July when he impressed during engagements with a public that was briefly swayed by his natural charm, a reminder of the carefree pre-Meghan days? 

Until this point, both his and Meghan’s popularity had been on the floor, with approval ratings only marginally better than the disgraced former Prince Andrew.

Remember too, that however deep her dissatisfaction with the royals, Diana did not make ad hominem attacks on wider family members as Harry has.

The rift between Harry and William is deeper and strategically more damaging for the monarchy than any of Diana’s quarrels, which largely were patched up.

One other key factor is the lack of any sign of regret from Harry. He may see himself as the returning prodigal son but without any measure of repentance, that return looks distinctly shaky.

For her part, Diana did have regrets and admitted mistakes. She acknowledged she went too far in some of her remarks to reporter Martin Bashir, an interview, remember, that we now know she was tricked into.

It is not just the confessional of the book and broadcasting where Harry is following his mother’s footsteps, but also in her unpredictability. 

The princess had an uncanny ability to divine the public mood on matters of national importance. Her decision to attend a Remembrance Sunday service in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, six years after the IRA’s Poppy Day bomb killed 11 people, was just such a moment.

She and Charles had visited the town in the aftermath of the 1987 attack, and she kept up a long correspondence with the families of the victims of terror and of other tragedies. And she chose unfashionable causes to champion.

But while this guaranteed her huge support, it did not make her popular within the Royal Family, whom she was repeatedly accused of upstaging. This eventually was to chip away at her confidence.

I understand that Harry has told friends he feels his late mother’s presence, that she is guiding him and that she comes to him.

This undoubtedly is affecting. Diana’s death has cast a long shadow over Harry’s life and the poignancy of him following the coffin at her funeral, aged 12, is seared into the national memory.

But Harry is not the sole custodian of the princess’s legacy. It is shared with William. He too, overwhelmed by sadness, was part of that funeral party. Both brothers have acknowledged their mother in aspects of their lives. 

Their daughters Charlotte and Lilibet share Diana as a middle name; their wives wear her jewellery; and their Spencer family cousins are woven into their lives as godmothers to their children.

Weddings and christenings have included references to the mother they lost. And both princes continue to cite her influence. But Harry is far more public about it and has sought ownership of that legacy in a way William never has.

Should Harry now attempt to stake further claims on his mother’s inheritance it is unlikely to be welcomed by William.

Rumours abound that part of the reason for Harry coming home concern his plans – thought to be well advanced – to make a documentary about Diana for screening next year. Friends and family have been approached but it is not clear whether they include William or indeed whether he would even consider it.

Ten years ago, the brothers joined forces to contribute to two documentaries on their mother for the 20th anniversary of her death. The idea of co-operating together on such a project today seems scarcely credible.

So, can there ever be a reconciliation? William was outraged by the claims of racism which, according to Harry and Meghan, had sprung from family discussions about the likely skin colour of their unborn son Archie. 

Claims which were broadcast to the world in the Sussexes’ Oprah interview. The brothers are not thought to have spoken for four years. 

When they were forced to come together – with Catherine and Meghan – to meet wellwishers at Windsor after Queen Elizabeth’s death, the Princess of Wales confided to a family member that it was the ‘hardest thing’ she’d ever had to do.

No wonder William looked grim-faced as he emerged at the wheel of a car at Balmoral yesterday. If anyone has been blindsided, it is him and Kate. 

With talk of a rival court emerging around his brother, William has every reason to fear that all the work he has done to stabilise the monarchy in the wake of both Megxit and the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor scandal may be disrupted.

Can he rely on assurances that there will be no gradual return to public duties by the Sussexes? And what about red carpet events? With Meghan apparently set on resuming her acting career, there will surely be glamorous public-facing engagements that could diminish coverage of his and Kate’s working lives.

Then there is the crucial issue of trust. William needs to be certain that private family matters are not leaked to US networks and Sussex-friendly magazines.

Despite the public notion of a Royal Family doing everything together, they lead largely separate, self-contained lives, only coming together on set-piece occasions.

And one is already looming. What will happen at Christmas? Having been deprived of the company of his Sussex grandchildren for years, the King will surely want them at Sandringham. Don’t be surprised if William exercises his right to spend this Christmas with his Middleton in-laws.

At the same time, Harry may be inclined to take another page out of his mother’s playbook. 

After her separation from Charles, Diana spent the bare minimum of time with the Royal Family at such gatherings, arriving late on Christmas Eve and leaving after church on Christmas Day. Time – just – for her to see the joy on her sons’ faces when they opened their presents.

For Charles, Harry’s homecoming may be mixed: thrilled to have his entire family back in Britain but wary too. He has found the family breach sad and exhausting. As he told a friend: ‘My mother had 70 years to look after her family, I don’t have that luxury.’

No one knows more about the vicariousness of popularity than the King. As Prince of Wales, he was mercilessly criticised for his treatment of Diana and lampooned for his cranky views. But as King he has become a much-loved figure.

‘He will have told Harry that we in Britain will forgive and forget,’ says one close figure. ‘Don’t forget he too wrote a book criticising his parents, made a television programme, and admitted adultery. All that now is in the past.’

Whether the public will extend that same courtesy to his son remains to be seen.

It’s true that the monarchy has survived other family crises. But the reintegration of Harry and Meghan may be its toughest test yet.

In a disturbing development from upstate New York, 35-year-old Jessica Bowie has been slapped with terrorism charges. Authorities claim she converted to Islam, pledged her loyalty to the Islamic State group, and was hatching a plan to bomb the State Capitol. The arrest comes just as the nation approaches the 25th anniversary of the catastrophic September 11 attacks.

The FBI reveals that five years ago, Bowie adopted Islam and changed her name to Aisha Saif, embarking on a path that would lead her into the crosshairs of law enforcement.

Bowie’s arrest unfolded in dramatic fashion after she unwittingly recruited a circle of confidential informants, convinced they were members of ISIS prepared to assist her. Believing they would convert her acquired bomb-making supplies into a functional explosive and arm her with a handgun, she was instead cornered by the FBI.

Court papers reveal a chilling detail: Bowie allegedly expressed admiration for the 9/11 attackers who orchestrated the tragedy that claimed 2,977 lives on September 11, 2001.

While the federal complaint is scant on Bowie’s alleged terrorist activities prior to May 2026, investigators pinpoint her radicalization to online influences. This case underscores the persistent threat of internet-fueled extremism.

She had also allegedly lost multiple social media accounts for violating their terms of service with her posts, according to the criminal complaint — in separate posts in May, she allegedly wrote about poisoning “infidels” and “praise be to Allah for September 11th.” By the end of the month, she’d allegedly sworn allegiance to ISIS.

“The key with these sorts of cases is the initial lead,” said Paul Mauro, a retired NYPD inspector and Fox News contributor with experience working counter-terrorism cases. “This can come in a number of ways. We criticize social media plenty, but the fact that she was repeatedly banned on these platforms could have been a crucial pointer.”

By July, according to the complaint, she was allegedly using encrypted apps to post support for radical Islamic terror and anti-American rhetoric.

On July 16, she allegedly told an FBI informant that she had begun thinking about “Jehad” more seriously over the past several months. She was also allegedly posting online about how she was sharing ISIS propaganda and attempting to recruit.

In July and August, Bowie allegedly made five visits to scout the State Capitol.

On Aug. 5, photos released by the Justice Department allegedly show her buying bomb-making materials at a Rensselaer Home Depot store, including a large bucket of nails that was allegedly meant for shrapnel. “We definitely want to make sure the senators get killed for sure,” she allegedly told an informant.

On Aug. 13, she allegedly asked an FBI informant whom she thought was an ISIS operative for help obtaining a handgun, according to the complaint.

On Aug. 19, the FBI arrested her after she allegedly gave $350 to a pair of FBI informants and got out of their vehicle carrying an inert handgun and dummy explosive that they’d given her, according to the complaint.

“There’s no helping me,” she allegedly told the FBI after being read her Miranda rights. “You guys know enough…I’m going to prison for the rest of my life.”

She added that she’d already looked up potential sentences online.

“Material support is up to 20 years in prison,” she said, according to the complaint. “I already googled it before. I know I’m going to jail.”

Earlier that day, she allegedly told an FBI informant that she had grown from “a little girl waving an American flag after 9/11 to now having stickers of the falling towers.” She was 10 years old on Sept. 11, 2001.

Bowie, who also has addresses listed in Schenectady, allegedly planned to hide a bomb in a DoorDash delivery bag at the New York State Capitol, according to the complaint.

“I want to destroy as much of the building as possible and kill the senators while they are meeting,” she allegedly told an informant. “I want them to lose a lot of important documents as well”

Then she allegedly wanted to escape to Syria before returning to the U.S. in the future for more attacks.

A woman who picked up a call to the number listed for Bowie’s mother hung up when contacted by News Media Friday.

In a surprising announcement, the renowned Bonnaroo Music and Arts Festival is set to take a much-needed pause next year.

Traditionally held every year on the expansive 700-acre Bonnaroo Farm in Manchester, Tennessee, the festival revealed last Friday that it will cancel its 2027 event. This decision comes after consecutive years of severe storms wreaking havoc on its grounds.

“After much deliberation, we’ve made the tough decision for Bonnaroo to take a vital year off in 2027,” festival organizers shared in a public statement.

“Reaching this conclusion wasn’t easy, nor did we make it lightly, but deep down, we believe this hiatus will ultimately enhance the Bonnaroo experience,” they added.

Organizers elaborated that with the limited time available to recover from two consecutive years of storm damage, including a particularly torrential rainstorm this past Sunday, the Farm, especially its main venue, is in dire need of a rest to recuperate and rejuvenate.

The festival had invested heavily in the property ahead of this year’s event, making improvements intended to help it withstand severe weather, but they weren’t enough to prevent more disruptions.

“As you know, we spent a great deal of effort and money working to improve the campgrounds and Centeroo in the months leading into the 2026 festival,” the statement continued.

“That included improved drainage, 4.5 miles of new roadways, and 135 acres of new grass, all which strengthened The Farm’s resiliency to Mother Nature.”

More wet weather is expected in the area early next year as El Niño strengthens, according to the Tennessean.

This year’s festival went ahead June 11-14, with The Strokes, Noah Kahan, “Weird Al” Yankovic and Kesha among the artists who performed.

But severe weather disrupted the final day, forcing Aly & AJ, Trombone Shorty and TV Girl to cancel their sets.

While Bonnaroo was canceled in 2025 after one day due to flooding, the 2021 festival was also called off after being postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and later threatened by Hurricane Ida.

The only other year Bonnaroo didn’t take place was 2020, when the live music industry shut down during the pandemic.

Founded in 2002, Bonnaroo has hosted some of music’s biggest names over the years, including Paul McCartney, Billy Joel, Radiohead, Beyoncé, Bruce Springsteen, U2, Eminem and Elton John.

The event typically draws around 80,000 fans to Manchester each year, making it one of the country’s biggest music festivals.