“The Ramsey Show” co-host and financial literacy personality George Kamel blasted news agencies and influencers for urging Americans to withdraw Social Security early. Recently, the Social Security Administration announced in the 2026 Trustees Report that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund reserves “will become depleted” in 2032, and afterwards, “the fund’s reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 78 percent of total scheduled benefits.” The Congressional Budget Office also previously warned that this would result in a direct cut in retirement benefits, stating, “because the government would not have the legal authority to make payments in excess of receipts, it would no longer be able to pay the full amounts scheduled or projected under current law.” News organizations took on the story about Social Security reaching its end, with Fox Business reporting that “Social Security has less than 10 years before reserves are exhausted.” Online financial influencers then started to call on their followers to take out their benefits early at 62 before Social Security goes ‘bankrupt.’ In an interview with Fox News, Kamel called the Fox Business headline and similar headlines in other outlets “classic fearmongering” that are not “based in reality.” “There’s a lot of context left out,” Kamel added. “But when you see ‘depletion 2032 Social Security,’ it’s like the toilet paper rush during COVID — everyone’s like ‘I gotta go to the store. Let’s clear the shelves. There’s not going to be any left for me.’” Kamel debunked the idea that Social Security is going to go bankrupt by noting that the last time Social Security reserves were expected to dry out in 1983, Congress and the Reagan administration did “several small tweaks” to fix the system. “A worst-case scenario is a 22% cut in monthly benefits,” Kamel said. “That’s a far cry from it going to 0, to bankruptcy. There is a lot of emotion here, and fear is a bad reason to grab it at 62.” “I don’t see a world where, in 2032, we’re all going, ‘Where’s our money? We’re all going to retire broke.’” Kamel added.  Kamel also mentioned that taking Social Security at 62 gives a 30% deduction in benefits, whereas waiting until 70 gives a 24% bonus. But he then noted that there is no “magic age” for taking Social Security. “There [are] a lot of factors that come into play when you decide to take Social Security, and it really depends on your life, your health, your income, your family situation,” Kamel said. Kamel advised listeners to take control of their finances rather than relying on the government. “I call it Social insecurity, because if you’re relying on it, you don’t have that security, you don’t have that control,” Kamel said. “So I want to let people know that you are your best shot at great retirement. It’s not the government’s job, it’s not Washington’s job, it’s not a headline, it’s not a trust fund aid, you control the controllables.” 

A secluded U.S. national park requires all parkgoers to show a valid passport or birth certificate to enter. The National Park of American Samoa is a unique sanctuary situated in a remote location and spread across three islands: Tutuila, Ofu, and Ta‘ū. The national park is surrounded by the South Pacific Ocean and located 2,600 miles Southwest of Hawaii.  Visitors to the park arrive at the Pago Pago International Airport, according to Fox Weather. The limited transportation options to the islands mean that visitors must prove their United States citizenship or nationality by showing their valid passport or certified birth certificate for entry, according to the Department of the Interior. The park is open year-round, and there are no fees to enter. This national park’s unique climate involves regular rainstorms during the wet season from October to May. The dry season, from June to September, is the ideal time for outdoor activities, such as hiking or enjoying the beaches. Visitors should also be prepared for humidity and warm temperatures year-round, according to the National Park Service (NPS) website. The islands are home to diverse wildlife and span over 4,000 acres of underwater landscape. There are 800 types of fish, 200 types of coral, humpback whales, sea turtles, and other native creatures, including flying foxes, according to the NPS. Across the three islands, the park offers scenic mountain trails, beautiful coastal views, Samoan villages, rainforest hikes, white sand beaches, and snorkeling through coral reefs. The NPS also provides a list of packing and safety tips for visitors while at the park. “Visiting the National Park of American Samoa is a unique and unforgettable experience,” it writes. “By following these tips, you’ll have a safe and enjoyable visit while helping to preserve the natural and cultural wonders of the park for future generations.” 

Move over, Leonardo Da Vinci. There’s a new Renaissance humanist on the block — at least, according to the internet. You might know her as the global pop star Dua Lipa, and she wants you to read banned books. This past week, the “Levitating” singer unveiled her new “Manifesto Library” in Portugal, which features hundreds of books she claims were once banned or otherwise controversial. Posing with a copy of Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a book that has now sold more than 10 million copies worldwide, she tells her 650K+ “Book Club” followers that her initiative opens up “conversations around censorship, resistance and the importance of preserving voices that challenge power and refuse to be silenced.”  There’s only one problem. None of the books in her library were ever “banned” or “censored” in the first place.  Among the other titles in Dua Lipa’s library are George Orwell’s “1984,” a book that has sold over 30 million copies as of 2024, and J.D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye,” a novel that is read in virtually every single high school English class across the country. I don’t necessarily disagree with Dua Lipa that we all should read these great books, but calling “1984″ and “The Catcher in the Rye” “banned” books is like calling “Game of Thrones,” one of the world’s most widely watched TV shows, a “banned” show. As I pointed out the other day on X, you can call anything a “banned book” as long as it was removed from an elementary school library that one time in 1978.  That hasn’t stopped the political Left from co-opting the term “banned books” to create an imaginary controversy around censorship. Slapping the label onto virtually any novel with a remotely political bent, the Left frequently pretends conservatives are responsible for instituting Nazi-era book bans and for silencing leftist voices. Walk into any indie bookstore in a blue state, for instance, and you’ll immediately be met with a “banned books” display featuring carefully curated titles promoting a certain political agenda. One such display making the rounds on X contains Frantz Fanon’s “Black Skin, White Masks” (a far-leftist call to violence against “colonizers”), Sally Rooney’s “Normal People” (a novel she herself has called “Marxist propaganda”), and Maia Kobabe’s “Gender Queer” (I will let that one speak for itself).  Nor is the “banned books” trend a recent invention. Back in 2023, for example, the American Library Association referred to an effort to remove sexually explicit content from school libraries as a demand to “censor library books.” These books, meanwhile (the aforementioned “Gender Queer” among them), contained “graphic depictions of how children can masturbate,” as well as “cartoons of homosexual activity,” according to a Daily Wire report. And while these titles were removed from certain school libraries, they remain widely available for purchase on Amazon or your local bookstore.   One can only conclude that the “banned books” trend is nothing more than a convenient way for leftists to promote books with certain ideological messages over others.  Because the same people crying so vehemently about “banned books” when the books promote leftist ideologies are the very people quietly banning conservative-leaning books from ever hitting our shelves in the first place.  You can lament the removal of “Gender Queer” from an elementary school library all you want, but the fact is that the novel continues to enjoy mainstream institutional backing. The same goes for Sally Rooney’s Marxist BDSM fantasy “Normal People” and Caro Claire Burke’s “Yesteryear,” the internet’s latest literary fad attacking conservative Christian “tradwives.” Other recent celebrated titles include Pulitzer Prize finalist “Stag Dance,” which depicts a “Vegas transfeminine gathering” and NPR’s best book of the year “Bellies,” a trans romance that everyone’s favorite celebrity Elliot Page has called “smart, hilarious, and deeply moving.” I am not here to argue that these books shouldn’t be published in the first place. But it is undeniable that the publishing industry consciously prioritizes far-leftist stories, creating a homogenous reading culture in which contemporary fiction has become synonymous with far-leftist ideology.  Don’t believe me? Publishing professions can tell you themselves.  Before a book reaches the shelves of your local Barnes and Noble, it must first go through several stages of the editorial process, the first of which entails the procurement of representation from a literary agent. While several non-fiction literary agencies still (thankfully) devote themselves to conservative authors — someone has to publish Ben Shapiro, after all — the fiction world has become so ideologically captured by the “banned books” mob that it is now virtually impossible to get a book with a more “traditional” message published in the first place. I’m not even talking about books with overtly Christian themes or Zionist protagonists, though those are most certainly no-gos. Literary agents now explicitly declare that they will not even consider “dated ideals of partnership or relationship.” How come the “banned books” advocates are the same people making these lists that effectively ban certain books…? pic.twitter.com/aW3JNcnxFP — Liza Libes (@pensandpoison) July 15, 2026 I don’t speak leftist very well, but I’m pretty sure that means that this agent won’t look at a book that positively depicts marriage between a man and a woman.  One could argue that if these were just the preferences of a single agent, then we wouldn’t have a problem on our hands. But when an entire literary establishment begins declining certain morals and themes, then an entire publishing institution effectively institutes a soft ban on certain books.  Indeed, other agents decline to review “copaganda,” “protagonists who are aligned with American police or military,” or even “morality stories.” Meanwhile, one independent press warns that book submissions “must have a Muslim protagonist,” while a children’s editor at Hachette requests books that “center marginalized voices, especially related to queer women and femmes.” Editors at Macmillan’s Flatiron — the same imprint that publishes Elliot Page and Joe Biden — request “contemporary fiction that centers Black and queer voices” and “literary fiction that explores music and art, friendship, gender, and progressive politics.”  A single editor’s “preference” for progressive fiction and antipathy towards traditional messages does not constitute a book ban, but when large swaths of literary agents and editors across an entire industry begin parroting the same message, then it becomes clear that conservative fiction — or simply books with traditional moral messages in the vein of “The Brothers Karamazov” or “Anna Karenina” — are no longer welcome on our shelves.  The irony is impossible to ignore: the same people who have built an entire cultural identity around “banned books” are often the very people deciding which books never get the chance to exist in the first place. No, conservative books aren’t being banned in public squares or ritually burned at the stake. They are simply being filtered out long before they ever get the chance to find an audience in the first place.  Banned books are in. But they’re not the banned books that Dua Lipa wants you to read or the books that do not belong in elementary school libraries. They are the books with great moral messages that we once venerated as a society but whose contemporary iterations will be forever lost on us because they never made it to our shelves. That’s the book ban that should worry us the most.  *** Liza Libes is a writer and the founder of Pens and Poison. She holds degrees in English from Columbia University and writes about literature and culture at pensandpoison.org. Follow her on X @pensandpoison. This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

Bruce Springsteen thinks the best way to love your country is to slam it from one concert stage to the next. Aaron Lewis would rather sing about the values that make America great: Faith. Resilience. Pride in the country. And gratitude that seems to elude The Boss on the latter’s 2026 No Kings tour. Lewis, the Staind lead singer who segued into country stardom with the 2011 EP “Town Line,” pours out his patriotism on his new album, “Give My Country Back.” And yes, the title track is as fiery as expected. Lewis shreds Americans eager to fundamentally transform the freest country in the world. Now we’re standing on the shoulders of the ones that went before Proud of what they did to make it all worth dying for Yeah, you bite the hand that feeds you And it ought to be a crime You wave a flag from somewhere else while you’re burning mine Lewis, 54, tells The Daily Wire his sixth solo album extols a value that’s in short supply today: accountability. “You don’t have to look very far in either direction to see hundreds of examples of there being no accountability left in this world,” Lewis says. That, and a lack of gratitude for the country’s many blessings, can’t help but stick in the singer’s craw. “I’m very lucky. I’ve been able to travel all over the world with the job I’ve had for 30 years … this is the most amazing country on the face of the planet without a close second,” Lewis says. “If you’re 50 years old and older, it’s now your responsibility for your grandkids and children to receive from you a better country than you received from your grandparents and your parents,” he adds. “We’re the only country where it works that way.” “Give My Country Back” finds Lewis weighing in on issues of gratitude and love of country, steeped in his textured vocals and an old-school country spirit. You can smell the leather and grit on his honky tonk tracks. You won’t miss his message, but he says the delivery method for most of his material isn’t meant to push anyone away. “I’m never trying to hit anybody over the head with it … nobody wants to get screamed in their face,” he says. “When you start that, they stop listening.” And he shares his deeply held opinions for a reason. That said, the title track is getting a live reaction akin to his biggest hits, think “Am I the Only One” and “Country Boy.” “I usually know pretty quickly that I did something right,” he says of the live audience feedback. He describes other new tracks, like “Bad Thing To Be Good At,” as an example of an older, wiser musician “owning all of my s***.” The new album, produced by Sol Philcox-Littlefield, finds Lewis collaborating on many of the tracks. It’s a different writing process from the one he embraces with Staind music, and it’s one that took some time to process. “It’s just a different culture in the country world,” he says. “It honestly felt good at first … it took all the onus and weight off my shoulders.” The singer co-wrote five of the album’s 10 tracks, working with veteran collaborators like Jeffrey Steele, Bobby Pinson, Travis Meadows, and Casey Beathard. The difference is in the level of satisfaction he finds when he harnesses a personal outlook, which isn’t quite the same here – “it almost feels like I’m cheating,” he quips. He might return to a more personal approach for his next country release. Lewis maintains a dual strategy for his career. He has fall tour dates planned with Staind while currently bringing “Give My Country Back” to concert venues nationwide. He still draws a clear distinction between projects. “I’ve never pulled any punches whatsoever … I’ve really just said whatever the f*** was on my mind,” he says, an approach that applies to his solo music. With Staind, he follows a different course. “I don’t say anything during the entire [live] Staind show, and at the end I say, ‘goodnight,’” he says. “I do all of my talking … all of my opinions or thoughts or whatever it may be, only when it’s my name on it. I have put in quite a bit of effort to ensure that there is a separation.” Call Lewis the “anti-Boss.” And, since the interview wasn’t for a Staind project or tour, he weighed in on Springsteen’s hard-Left pivot. “He has been a member of the elite class for so long,” Lewis said of the New Jersey rocker, whom he dubs “disconnected” from the working class. Springsteen has taken heat in recent years for his sky-high concert ticket prices, something he has defended rather than addressed, all while he keeps railing against President Trump on stage and off. “Everything he stands for is bulls***.  It’s all just anti-American bulls***. I don’t have any tolerance for it,” Lewis says. The Rutland, Vermont native has straddled two major genres over the past 15 or so years, and he’s not against stretching some more. He envisions another side of his musical life, a trippy, electronica sound that has caught his attention. He’s already mastered two genres. Why not another? He says he’d like to duck away with a collaborator well versed in that style and “just see what comes out of it.” *** Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. He’s also the host of The Hollywood in Toto Podcast. Follow him at @HollywoodInToto. 

Some on the Right have spent the last several months complaining about Christopher Nolan’s “Odyssey.” The controversy has largely centered on two things: transgender-identifying Elliot Page playing a male soldier (but not Achilles, as rumors suggested) and the race-blind casting, particularly the choice to feature black actress Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy. X owner Elon Musk tweeted in May that “Chris Nolan desecrated the Odyssey.” Earlier this month, the Twitter account Wall Street Mav, which has over a million followers, predicted “financial disaster.” Just a day after its release, “The Odyssey” is already proving haters wrong. Forget the critics’ score (though that is hovering at 95%). On Rotten Tomatoes, audiences gave the film an even higher 97% score. It earned $17.6 million on Thursday, the day before its official release, and the numbers keep growing.  Online outrage doesn’t always translate to the real world. And in this instance, perhaps the legendary “Interstellar” and “The Dark Knight” director knew a thing or two about what audiences were craving.  “As a filmmaker, you’re looking for gaps in cinematic culture, things that haven’t been done before,” Nolan said in an interview last year. “And what I saw is that all of this great mythological cinematic work that I had grown up with — Ray Harryhausen movies and other things — I’d never seen that done with the sort of weight and credibility that an A-budget and a big Hollywood, IMAX production could do.” In a year dominated by sequels — the year’s top films so far have been “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” and “Toy Story 5” — Nolan’s “Odyssey” revives a classic story for a new generation who, if we’re being honest, probably were never going to thumb through a copy of “The Odyssey” (even the Emily Wilson translation favored by liberals). It’s become popular internet slang to respond to a lack of pop culture knowledge by saying “we’re losing the ancient texts.” But when it comes to stories such as “The Odyssey,” we actually are. This means Nolan’s “Odyssey” comes at the perfect time. The archetypes, the themes, and the drama of Homer — it’s all there. Nolan raised some eyebrows by marketing the film with the tagline “defy the gods.” If you know anything about “The Odyssey,” you should know that you cannot, in fact, defy the gods. But in the actual film, Nolan makes that clear.  “The Odyssey” is a big, glorious summer blockbuster based on a pillar of the Western canon. It explores mercy, hospitality, vengeance, family bonds, honor, and, of course, homecoming. The score is bracing, the 60-foot puppet cyclops is nightmare-fuel, and Robert Pattinson is particularly chilling as the suitor Antinous.  That said, Page’s role as Sinon (a character from Virgil’s “Aeneid”), does distract from the narrative. Nolan worked with Page on “Inception” in 2010 (a decade before she began identifying as a man), and he likes to recast actors he’s worked with before. But with just a few minutes of screen time, Sinon’s brief appearances can’t distract from the greatness of the rest of the film.  The race-blind casting, on the other hand, allows for some stellar performances, mostly notably Zendaya as Athena and Himesh Patel as Odysseus’ second in command, Eurylochus.  With the “Odyssey” controversy, conservatives are getting hung up on the details (some more troublesome than others) when the headline is that one of Hollywood’s best directors just made a three-hour long film about a father returning home to his family, facing terrifying monsters and deftly wielding his bow and arrows on the way. It’s beautifully shot, it has mass appeal, and there’s little in the film itself to subvert Homer’s epic tale, which is now reaching a new audience.  Ignore the performative “Odyssey” hate, and go enjoy the film. *** This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.