Country music artist Morgan Wallen was caught on video last week throwing a cell phone across the stage during a show. The incident occurred during a Pittsburgh stop on his “Still the Problem” tour Friday. A concert attendee recorded Wallen gesturing to the phone before walking away, then walking back and ripping the phone out of the guard’s hand. The country star proceeded to dramatically throw the phone across the stage. A TikTok user posted a video of the incident, writing in the caption, “I get it … security should be doing security things, but …” The TikTok poster also said the phone was given to the security guard by another fan to record.  Wallen canceled the second of his two planned stops in Pittsburgh, blaming weather and later referencing what he described as “nonsense” rumors about him. “This morning, my team walked on my bus and told me they had been consulting with local officials and that I should cancel my show in Pittsburgh tonight and I said, ‘Why?’” Wallen said in the video posted to his Instagram Stories. “They said that there was going to be strong winds in the area, and I said, ‘OK.’ So, that is what I did and that was the information I had in the moment, and I trusted my team,” Wallen said. “I understand that wind hasn’t gotten to Pittsburgh yet. … The truth of the matter is, I have a large stage that, in those conditions, could become fatal to a lot of folks around it. So, I did the best I could with the information I had in that moment.” “I’ve been seeing a lot of nonsense about me that is simply not true, and I just wanted to clear the air,” he added. “I think my true fans know that that’s not how I operate in general, but I had to say it. Y’all take care.” His fans were questioning this explanation, speculating that it had to do with the prior night’s incident and not with the weather at all.  “Morgan wallen [sic] cancelling his show last night is just hilarious because i walked outside after my shift at 11pm and my car was completely dry,” one X commenter claimed. “No rain in sight. that man was already on his way back to tennessee [sic].” “…he hates his fans and his job and they eat it up,” the person continued.  Wallen previously made headlines for flipping a piano during a performance last month. 

For years, the mainstream medical establishment has pushed a predictable, one-size-fits-all narrative: if you want to lower your cancer risk, just cut the fat out of your diet. But a revealing new study reveals that the reality is far more complicated — and it turns the conventional wisdom about “healthy” fats entirely on its head. The groundbreaking study, published in Cancer Discovery by researchers at the Yale School of Medicine, found that the specific type of fat you consume matters far more than the total amount. Most shockingly, scientists discovered that oleic acid — the primary monounsaturated fatty acid found in olive oil, a staple of the heavily praised Mediterranean diet — actually acts as fuel for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), one of the deadliest forms of cancer. In genetic mouse models mirroring human pancreatic cancer, diets rich in oleic acid sped up tumor growth. The culprit is a biological process called ferroptosis, a type of cell death driven by lipid oxidation. While polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) — like omega-3s found in fish oil — make cancer cells highly vulnerable to oxidation and trigger a massive 50 percent reduction in disease, monounsaturated fats like olive oil shield the cancer cells, protecting them from dying. “Depending on the type of fat that you consume, it can go completely different ways,” explained lead author Dr. Christian Felipe Ruiz. But while the dietary news is a wake-up call, a series of massive medical breakthroughs offer unprecedented hope in the fight against a disease that currently carries a dismal 13 percent five-year survival rate. First, researchers at the Mayo Clinic have validated an artificial intelligence model, known as REDMOD, capable of detecting pancreatic cancer on routine CT scans up to three years before a clinical diagnosis. The AI analyzes microscopic tissue patterns invisible to the human eye, successfully flagging 73 percent of pre-diagnostic cancers. By catching the disease while it is still curable, the technology could radically alter the current reality, where 85 percent of cases are diagnosed only after metastasis. Furthermore, a revolutionary “triple-threat” drug combination developed by the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO) has achieved what was once thought impossible: the complete and permanent elimination of pancreatic tumors in experimental models. By simultaneously blocking three independent signaling pathways (RAF1, EGFR, and STAT3), the therapy — combining daraxonrasib, afatinib, and SD36 — effectively trapped the cancer cells and prevented them from developing resistance. Between precision nutrition science, early-detection AI, and aggressive new multi-drug therapies, science is finally flipping the script on one of medicine’s most lethal foes.

The Justice Department is expected to announce Monday an effort to denaturalize 17 foreign-born individuals with significant rap sheets. The naturalized citizens include fraudsters, sex offenders, and drug traffickers, who the Trump administration is targeting as part of a larger effort to strip the citizenship of certain offenders. “Gaining U.S. citizenship is a privilege and under the steadfast leadership of President Trump, this Department of Justice maintains a zero-tolerance policy for the abuse of this process,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. “We continue to work around the clock with our interagency partners to make sure U.S. citizenship is granted to those who truly deserve it,” Blanche added. In its latest pursuit, the Justice Department is seeking the denaturalization of Cuban-born U.S. citizen Delmas Garcia, 54, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud after she admitted to running 30 physical therapy clinics in Florida that fraudulently billed an insurance company $36,728,595 for services that were not medically necessary or that were never actually provided. The Trump administration has also set its sights on Haitian-born Jean Claude Alfred, 68, who was sexually abusing his minor daughter while he was applying for his American citizenship, according to the Justice Department. Alfred began abusing his daughter in September 1993, roughly one month before he applied for citizenship, and “repeatedly” did so as he waited to become naturalized. During his application process, Alfred denied having committed any crime for which he hadn’t been arrested, the Justice Department said. A jury in Florida ultimately convicted Alfred in 1996 of attempted sexual battery of a child in a familial relationship and lewd, lascivious, and indecent assault upon a child under the age of 16. Alfred became a U.S. citizen in 1994, sparking the Justice Department’s latest action accusing him of lying during his application process in order to obtain naturalization. Another target of the latest denaturalization push is Colombian-born Fernando Cristancho, 69, a Roman Catholic priest who used his position in the church to sexually groom and abuse a minor parishioner from age 11 to 13. Cristancho later pleaded guilty to his crime and received a 22-year prison sentence. The Trump administration alleged that Cristancho concealed his crime from immigration officials in order to obtain his citizenship while also having failed to demonstrate good moral character required for naturalization. The federal government is also working to denaturalize the daughter of a major Colombian drug trafficker, Andrea Marroquin, 44, who inherited her father’s riches when he died. Marroquin first got a green card by hiding her bigamous marriage to an American citizen, according to the Justice Department. Between 2003 and 2011, she used her father’s drug proceeds to make fraudulent real estate transactions in Miami, the Department of Justice alleged. She allegedly concealed her crimes when she became an American citizen in 2009. Last June, the Justice Department instructed U.S. attorneys across the country to “prioritize” and “pursue” denaturalization cases against citizens who may “pose a potential danger to national security.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials received guidance in December to “supply Office of Immigration Litigation with 100-200 denaturalization cases per month,” according to The New York Times. The denaturalization effort is also part of the Trump administration’s “war on fraud,” USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser said in a previous statement.

Dozens of people died and over 200 were injured on Monday after a 7.8 magnitude earthquake slammed the Philippines.  The earthquake hit south of the island of Mindanao, and at least 22 million people were impacted by severe or moderate shaking. At least 32 people have been confirmed dead, over 200 people were injured, and hundreds of thousands displaced in the strongest earthquake to hit the country in nearly 40 years, according to reports.  The quake led to tsunami warnings, but American officials quickly confirmed there was no threat to Hawaii. Tsunami warnings were issued for multiple nearby islands including Taiwan, Japan, Guam, and Papua New Guinea. “The national government is moving and we will not leave Mindanao behind,” said Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. “I am in constant communication with our regional offices and local chief executives on the ground.” Mindanao is the second biggest island in the Philippines and home to over 27 million people. Earthquakes frequently strike the area, with the U.S. Geological Survey noting that there have been at least 35 earthquakes measuring over 7 magnitude since 1900.    Photo by Omar Zaghloul/Anadolu via Getty Images.   Marcos Jr. added that he ordered “the suspensions of all classes in all levels across affected areas in Mindanao until further notice. The safety of our children comes first.” He also called for people to pay attention to the tsunami warnings, telling them to “move to higher ground now. Do not wait. Your life is more important than anything left behind.”   The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there would be a 42% chance that there would be between 10-100 fatalities and a 32% chance the fatalities would be between 100 and 1,000. It also gave a 39% chance that the economic damage would be between $100 million and $1 billion. The agency added that the quake occurred because of thrust faulting, when the upper block on a thrust plane moves up and over the lower block.  One local told the New York Times that he ran for higher ground with his young daughter after the earthquake hit.  “I was very scared, my knees were trembling,” Julius Golez said. “We were crying; so many other people were also crying.”

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. *** Much has been written about how great the new independent horror movie “Obsession” is. With a budget of just $750,000, it’s already earned $224 million. The success is entirely deserved; it’s a phenomenal film. Yet, the most important thing about it is not what it shows, but what it says. “Obsession” resonates because it combines two deeply human tropes. The first is this: A character gets the thing he’s been striving after for so long, and it doesn’t satisfy him the way he thought it would. Be careful what you wish for, the grass is always greener on the other side, and all that. The second is unrequited love. The pain of falling for someone who doesn’t like you back is something that most people experience. There’s a reason why it’s been fodder for so many stories and so much art. If there’s a moral to “Obsession,” it’s this: When you have feelings for someone who isn’t willing to give you a shot, the best place for them isn’t with you. The film follows “Bear” (Michael Johnston), a 20-something man who’s shy and deeply in love with his coworker and friend, Nikki (Inde Navarrette). Unable to admit his feelings for her and ask her on a date, he goes to a crystal shop and buys a “One Wish Willow,” which advertises that it will grant one wish upon being broken. When Bear does so and wishes that Nikki would love him more than anything in the world, her demeanor immediately changes. The love of Bear’s life finally loves him back, and everything is great — until what’s actually happened becomes apparent: This Nikki isn’t quite who Bear thinks she is. Many have suggested that Bear is the villain of the story. That goes too far. Bear did what so many of us do: He inadvertently meddled with another person’s feelings without regard for how it would affect her and was completely unprepared for the consequences. Yet he did so by doing what so many of us have also done: by hoping against hope that our special someone really does like us back. He reacted to Nikki’s seeming about-face how you’d expect a shy guy who had the girl of his dreams throwing herself into his arms would act: shock, confusion, and stopping her advances to see if she’s okay. Only when she seems to indicate that she really does want him does he relent. While we, the audience, know that there’s this magic spell that’s been put on her, the characters of “Obsession” seem to inhabit the same sort of world as ours and treat magic the same way we would. So it’s understandable, at least at first, that Bear doesn’t quite comprehend or accept that what he’s dealing with is something other than sudden-onset true love. If Bear has moral fault, it’s not so much for the willow itself but for the reasoning he displays. There is a deliberate shot of him looking at the toy immediately after Nikki’s behavior changes. It’s clear that he has a growing suspicion that something is very wrong, but he’s so taken by the situation that he doesn’t examine it too closely until it becomes unignorable. This is somewhat defensible at first, but Bear eventually does become fully culpable for his choices. Courtesy of Focus Features This is exemplified when Bear asks pseudo-Nikki if her dad really does have cancer. This was the story she told to get him to stay with her the night he made the wish and is therefore foundational to their entire relationship. After her “no, no, no, I thought we were having a nice date” reaction that’s gone viral on social media, pseudo-Nikki says, “What does it matter?” Tellingly, Bear agrees. That’s the question that’s at the heart of “Obsession.” It matters because it’s the truth. The truth about whether Nikki really does like Bear matters, but Bear seems not to want to question his seeming good fortune. If there’s one point where Bear slides into the wrong, it’s when he has a conversation with the “real” Nikki, who’s briefly able to slip out. She begs him to kill her, and it’s apparent she’s suffering a lot. Bear doesn’t kill her, and there are good reasons for that. There still might be a way to break the spell, and also because, as far as the world would see, he would just be murdering his devoted, if slightly odd, girlfriend while she slept. No, what’s bad is not what Bear does, but what he says. Specifically, he asks, “What’s so bad about being with me?”  It’s at this moment that many might wonder why Bear is making this about himself. Nikki is the one suffering here, and Bear caused it. At the same time, it’s a very human thing to wonder. I wish I could say I had never uttered any variation of Bear’s question before. Nikki’s response, the real Nikki’s response, is the perfect counter: “I’ve never been with you.” It’s not that loving Bear would have been bad, it’s that Nikki didn’t love him. Loving Bear was simply not compatible with Nikki, so what’s happened instead is that Nikki has been possessed by this demon who is obsessed with Bear. What makes the tragedy worse is that Bear had other options: He seemed to have real chemistry with another character, Sarah. But by pursuing Nikki, he foreclosed what would have probably been a good relationship. When pseudo-Nikki tells Bear that everything is all his fault, she’s not wrong. His fundamental moral flaw is passivity. Had he just told her how he felt early on, he would have gotten the “no” he didn’t want but definitely needed, and none of this would have happened. But he was scared. That’s a very human feeling: There’s a reason why 45% of young men have never asked out a woman in person before. Candidly, I saw a lot of my younger self in Bear. Funny enough, the film taught me something in real time. As I was sitting down in the theater, I noticed that just about everyone else was sitting in twos. Even in the pitch darkness, I felt very conspicuous. Great, I thought. Everyone here has their person, and I don’t. Why didn’t I have someone who loved me who was by my side? But I, too, was indulging in the misunderstanding that I would see enacted on screen. When pseudo-Nikki breaks the willow to make Bear obsessed with her in the finale, she knows very well what she’s doing. It shows that while she’s obsessed with him, she doesn’t actually love him. Or rather, she has the same superficial understanding of what love means that many of us do, in a more intentional, malicious way. Love isn’t just wanting affection from someone. It’s wanting the best for them. And pseudo-Nikki doesn’t want what’s best for Bear. In fact, when she realizes that he doesn’t feel about her the same way she feels about him, she’s perfectly willing to use the willow on him. She’s fine with making him suffer in order to get the validation that she thinks she needs from him. You could call that a lot of things, but it’s not love. While Bear did the same thing earlier, he did it with the same sort of misunderstanding that a lot of us do. It came from loneliness and wishful thinking and from not really understanding the consequences of what he was asking. As a sort of vague yearning, wanting somebody to love you is human and earnest and largely harmless. However, what the film shows us is that if you’ve ever wanted your unreciprocated crush to love you back, no you don’t — because this is what it would look like. Love is not something you can manufacture, and if it were, the consequences would be horrifying. Bear would have really benefited from hearing the old saying, “if you love something, set it free.” *** Stephan Kapustka is a writer at the American Spectator. Follow him on X @SteveKapustka.