Less than a year after Ford announced it would increase production of the all-electric F-150 Lightning‚ the motor company has reportedly decided to cut that projected boost in half beginning in 2024.  Earlier this year‚ Ford planned to produce around 3‚200 F-150 Lightinings per week at its Rouge Electric Vehicle Center in Dearborn‚ Michigan‚ which assembles all of the electric pickup trucks produced by Ford. Beginning in January‚ however‚ Ford will drop its production of the F-150 Lightning down to 1‚600 per week‚ CNBC reported‚ citing a source familiar with the decision.   A memo sent to suppliers and obtained by Automotive News said the EV production cuts are due to “changing market demand.” A Ford spokesman simply told CNBC that the company would “continue to match production with customer demand.”  The reported cuts come in the wake of Ford slashing $12 billion in EV investments as the motor company struggles to sell its all-electric vehicles to consumers who still appear to have concerns about transitioning from gas to electric‚ especially as retail prices for most EVs remain high.  So far‚ Ford has sold more than 20‚000 F-150 Lightnings this year‚ up 54% from last year‚ according to CNBC. The increase in sales was bolstered by the motor company’s decision to slash the F-150 Lightning’s price by $10‚000 over the summer‚ meaning the most affordable version of the truck is now $50‚000. Meanwhile‚ drivers can purchase a gas-powered F-150 SuperCrew for around $40‚000.  Ford’s planned cuts to EV production also come on the tail end of a $9.2 billion loan from the Biden administration intended to help construct three electric vehicle battery plants as the federal government under Biden continues to push American companies and consumers toward electric alternatives in the name of fighting climate change.  CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Ford has projected it will lose $4.5 billion on EVs this year‚ and the motor company said it lost around $32‚000 for every EV it sold during the second quarter of 2023. Ford is also delaying production at a battery plant in Kentucky and significantly reduced its commitment to a battery plant in Michigan‚ cutting 800 jobs and more than $1 billion.

Rep. Elise Stefanik’s (R-NY) office released a statement this week ripping into the NBC sketch comedy show “Saturday Night Live” for its widely-panned cold open on the recent congressional hearing on anti-Semitism on college and university campuses across the country. Notably‚ Saturday’s cold open bizarrely attacked Stefanik for asking about students’ calls for Jewish genocide while almost entirely backing off the university presidents‚ whose disastrous testimonies have already culminated in at least one resignation. “Elise did not watch it‚” Stefanik senior advisor Alex DeGrasse told the New York Post. “However‚ her office was flooded with messages from thousands of Americans across the political spectrum — Democrats and Republicans — who were appalled and disgusted by the antisemitic trash spewed by unfunny‚ morally bankrupt ‘comedians.'” “SNL made history with the worst cold open ever because everyone knows there is absolutely no humor in the vile answers from the university presidents regarding their failure to condemn calls for the genocide of the Jewish people‚” DeGrasse added. During the hearing‚ University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill refused to acknowledge that calling for the genocide of Jews violates UPenn’s code of conduct on bullying and harassment. She resigned from her position on Saturday‚ mere hours before the SNL sketch aired‚ The Daily Wire reported. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP In the same hearing‚ Harvard University President Claudine Gay was similarly questioned about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s codes of conduct. She responded by saying that it depends “on the context.” Gay added that calling for genocide is “at odds with the values of Harvard” and that when that kind of “speech crosses into conduct‚ that violates our policies.” The sketch‚ however‚ portrays Stefanik as unhinged for pressing the collegiate leaders on the issue‚ while those in academia were handled by the SNL team with kid gloves and largely presented as reasonable. Conservatives online quickly reacted to the SNL sketch. Conservative Emily Zanotti‚ for example‚ posted on X‚ “I mean‚ I get that SNL is typically a mess‚ but how do you watch that hearing and come out of it thinking Stefanik was the right target of satire?” Radio host Rob Carson commented‚ “If there is no truth in satire‚ it’s not funny. This isn’t funny.” “How to explain SNL siding with Ivy league (sic) neo-racists? Wondering what colleges their writers attended‚” Fox News host Greg Gutfeld wrote. Related: ‘A New Low’: SNL Wrecked For Skit Mocking Elise Stefanik In College Anti-Semitism Hearing

Users on X hit former President Barack Obama over a viral clip from an apocalyptic Netflix film‚ which he executive produced alongside Michelle Obama‚ where one of the main characters warns about trusting others‚ “especially white people.” In the movie “Leave The World Behind” — based on Rumaan Alam’s book — two families are forced to live together after some kind of technology blackout leaves them cut off from the outside world‚ Newsweek reported. The Obamas signed on to produce the film last year through their Higher Ground production company‚ Vanity Fair noted. Director Sam Esmail told Vanity Fair he consulted the former president on the script. He said Obama “had a lot [of] notes about the characters and the empathy we would have for them. I have to say he is a big movie lover‚ and he wasn’t just giving notes about things that were from his background. He was giving notes as a fan of the book‚ and he wanted to see a really good film.” NEW – Netflix’s “Leave the World Behind” cyber apocalypse movie warns about “white people” if “the world falls apart.” pic.twitter.com/YRQ2Vh9roT — Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) December 11‚ 2023 In the scene that’s gone viral‚ a father comforts his teenage daughter who is upset about the circumstances that have forced them to live with this other family‚ who are white. She tells her dad‚ “I’m asking you to remember that if the world falls apart‚ trust should not be doled out easily to anyone‚ especially white people.” Following the film’s Friday release on the streaming site‚ people took to social media to blast the “racist” scene. “Netflix film called ‘Leave The World Behind’ produced by the Obamas includes a scene demonizing white people‚” Libs of TikTok wrote. “White people are the only group you’re allowed and celebrated to be racist towards and it will be put into movies by the most influential people.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Another added‚ “The Obamas are two of the most influential people on the planet. Politics aside‚ you have to agree that their potential power to create good in the world is monumental. That’s why seeing that power used to promote racial hatred is deeply disappointing.” While a third person wrote‚ “White people why would you even watch this Obama made movie on Netflix? The Movie ‘Leave the world behind’ that was produced by the Obamas is clearly against White people….just listen to this taken right out of the Movie.” “Shame on you Netflix for promoting this garbage against White people who are most likely your biggest audience‚” the person added. “It is time to treat them like Bud Light as Netflix clearly didn’t get the message.”

Without a lot of fanfare‚ a movement has been underway in this country for some time to outlaw the idea of “fat phobia‚” which literally means “fear of fat people.”  Of course‚ like most of the other new “phobias” that have been discovered in the past fifteen minutes or so‚ “fat phobia” is a misnomer. No one’s really afraid of fat people‚ just like no one’s afraid of people who call themselves transgender. People are afraid of being fat‚ however‚ which makes sense. A fear of being fat is really just a fear of heart disease and early death.  Which are both things that a normal person is afraid of‚ or at least interested in avoiding. But this is still not a fear of other people who are fat.  Now it’s true that many Americans have‚ let’s say‚ an aesthetic aversion to morbid obesity. But this is also understandably. For lots of deeply ingrained biological reasons‚ humans have come to value traits like physical fitness. We also tend to prefer that women look like women‚ and men look like men‚ because that’s how the species propagates itself. This is human nature. The only way to outlaw this is to outlaw humanity. And increasingly‚ it looks like that’s indeed the goal.  Earlier this year‚ in New York City‚ fat activists successfully campaigned to enact a law that makes it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their weight. What this means‚ in practice‚ is that every employer that fires a fat person in the city of New York can look forward to an investigation from the city’s Commission on Human Rights. Watch: There are “still gaps” in the bill‚ remarks the fat activist. And if there’s one thing fat activists want to ensure‚ it’s that there are no gaps anywhere. They want to fill that space‚ they want to fill every space. And they’re going to expand their ranks until they’ve accomplished that objective. They certainly don’t want anyone to lose weight. They don’t want to reduce the number of people who die due to obesity in this country‚ which is one-in-six‚ by some estimates. That would make too much sense. The last thing they want is to encourage Americans to become less obese. Instead‚ as you just heard‚ they want to re-order all of society so that we “accommodate” the morbidly obese. To that end‚ the New York legislation bans discrimination on height and weight in the areas of housing‚ the workplace‚ and public accommodation. The only real exception is for jobs where (in the eyes of New York city politicians) it’s “essential” for people to be physically fit. What does that mean‚ exactly? And how often have people been fired for being fat in New York? Those are good starter questions when you’re talking about passing a sweeping new law like this‚ which has ramifications for every business in the city. And yet‚ no one has the answer to either of them.  WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show What little data we do have doesn’t seem very credible. For example‚ there’s one study on fat phobia that was cited by the Washington Post recently. Using data from 1979‚ this paper concludes that‚ “a woman’s hourly pay can drop by almost 2% for every one-unit increase in BMI.” It’s the standard story. We’ve all heard it. A woman gets called into the boss’s office and told that she’s getting a pay cut because she’s too fat. It happens all the time‚ except for the fact that it never happens. If it did‚ by the way‚ lots of people in this country would be getting paid negative $50‚000 a year at this point. They would be charged money to go to work. The whole premise is absurd‚ and yet‚ as the Daily Mail reports this week‚ these laws against fat phobia are becoming increasingly common. Even Colorado — which is the thinnest state in the entire country — the one that’s presumably less “fat phobic” than any other state — is now about to pass a law outlawing discrimination on the basis of weight. This would be the first time a law like this has been passed statewide in decades. Michigan apparently passed a law banning discrimination based on weight around 50 years ago‚ followed by Washington state. Now Vermont‚ Massachusetts‚ and New Jersey are looking to do the same. But Colorado is unique because it’s a state that‚ even accepting these fat activists’ standards‚ needs these protections the least. Their obesity rate is just 25%‚ which is‚ sadly‚ quite low by U.S. standards. But they’re about to get some new regulations for the benefit of the morbidly obese.  According to The Hill‚ “The law aims to prevent landlords from denying rentals based on weight limits and to implement workplace accommodations for overweight Americans.” You’re supposed to accept that explanation of the law on face‚ but it raises a couple of obvious questions. First of all‚ how big do you have to be to exceed the weight limit for an apartment building? Second‚ what kind of “accommodations” are workplaces supposed to make for fat people exactly? It’s hard to get straight answers to these questions‚ but if you look around on social media‚ you’ll find some specific proposals. You might have seen this TikTok video that was everywhere a few weeks ago. It features Jaelynn Chaney‚ a self-described travel and lifestyle creator based in Vancouver. Here she is‚ to give you some idea of what these fat activists want:   So Chaney is basically demanding that every hotel and restaurant in the United States be razed to the ground‚ and rebuilt with new‚ super-wide hallways and wide bathrooms and elevators. She also wants to make life worse for everyone else‚ including by removing chairs with arm rests in rooms and common areas.  Separately‚ she’s also demanded that airlines provide extra free seats to obese people‚ so they have room to spread out: “As plus-size travelers‚ my partner and I have unfortunately experienced discrimination and discomfort while flying‚” she says. She doesn’t care about the discomfort she caused non-obese passengers on the plane. Really‚ what she’s saying is she doesn’t want those people on the plane at all. She wants their seat for free. And she’s not alone. The D.E.I. website Femin-uity assembled a list of similar demands on behalf of fat activists. Here are a few of them: “Communal spaces like dining areas‚ conference rooms‚ and relaxation rooms should have furniture like chairs‚ desks‚ sofas‚ and tables that are inclusive of fat people. It’s best to avoid stools‚ tiny benches‚ or chairs with rigid armrests. Creating a fat-inclusive office also means re-thinking every inch of the space. Avoid tight corners. …” Yes‚ rethink every inch of space — remodel your entire office building — for the sake of people who have eaten so much that they can no longer comfortably walk down the hallway or sit in a chair. These are the demands‚ and they are actually being met. In London a few years ago‚ the mayor banned ads featuring attractive women in swimsuits from appearing on public transit. One of the ads asked‚ “Are you beach body ready?” That’s hate speech in London‚ evidently. Tens of thousands of people signed a petition to get the ads removed. They even vandalized it with graffiti. And ultimately they succeeded.  In this country‚ the school of public health at the University of Illinois Chicago recently proposed banning the word “obesity” entirely. As The Independent reported‚ the university claims that weight discrimination remains‚“one of the only forms of discrimination actively condoned by society”. Which is just not remotely true. And the University of Illinois knows it’s not true‚ because they had an affirmative action plan‚ which discriminates against whites and Asians in all aspects of admissions and hiring. That’s one of the worst imaginable forms of discrimination‚ because it’s based on something people can’t control. But they condone it. In fact they practice it. That’s the thing about alleged discrimination against the obese. Most of these examples of discrimination are made up and ridiculous. But even if there was some discrimination going on‚ it wouldn’t be in the same ballpark as discrimination based on something like race. Obesity is a choice. It is the result of a deliberate lifestyle. Obesity is a consequence of behavior. If you are 500 pounds and feeling discriminated against‚ you put yourself in that position — and the good news is that you can get yourself out of it. A white man facing affirmative action discrimination cannot do anything to be not-white. But an obese person can‚ and should‚ and for his own health must‚ do something to make himself not-obese. Obese people have become the next big victim group in America‚ but they are — like so many of the new‚ modern victim groups — victims of their own behavior. That’s why this has is such a growing and popular victim group — because anyone can eat their way into it. Just lie on the couch and gorge yourself on Pringles and very soon you‚ too‚ will be able to recast any criticism of you as bigotry. You‚ too‚ will be handed a “get out accountability” free card. You‚ too‚ can claim that anyone who upsets you or disagrees with you is some kind of -ist or -phobe. In this way‚ the fat acceptance movement is no different from any other faux-victimhood movement. But it does stand apart‚ to some extent‚ as perhaps the most farcical example of modern society’s “me-first” ethos. The whole idea behind the movement is that the world should rearrange itself for the sake of making room for the morbidly obese. And they mean that literally — we need to literally rearrange the furniture so that these people can fit in the room. It’s on-the-nose to the point of absurdity. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP   Of course‚ the much easier‚ more cost effective‚ fairer‚ and more sane approach is for the morbidly obese to make some simple lifestyle changes so that they can more easily be included. But that puts the onus on the individual. That requires willpower and sacrifice. That can never be allowed. In our age‚ everyone else must sacrifice so that the individual sacrifices nothing. The self reigns supreme. All must bow to the self. Society must change for the sake of the self. Civilization must re-order itself. The world must stop on its axis and spin the opposite direction‚ if that is what the self demands. The self must be required to do nothing‚ and the world to do everything. The problem‚ of course‚ is that every individual is part of “the world‚” which is how you end up with self-serving laws that hurt the people they’re supposedly trying to help. When you try to have a society where each individual is a god whose wishes‚ proclivities‚ and demands trump the good of humanity and of society‚ you end up with a predictable mess. You end up with decay and collapse and confusion. We’ve seen this confusion for a while now. A decade ago‚ New York banned large sodas in order to make everyone skinnier. Now they’re mandating that everyone treat obesity as if it’s natural and healthy. No matter what the one thing politicians don’t want to do‚ because it would diminish their power‚ is to let people make their own choices. That includes the freedom to eat and drink to extraordinary excess. But also‚ more importantly‚ it includes the freedom to criticize those who do.

Oberlin College has suspended a long-controversial professor who called for the elimination of Israel after sexual harassment allegations against him came to light. The private Ohio liberal arts college just outside of Cleveland has put tenured professor Mohammad Jafar Mahallati on indefinite administrative leave and scrubbed him from the school’s website. “Professor Mahallati was placed on indefinite administrative leave on November 28‚” an Oberlin spokeswoman confirmed to Fox News. Mahallati taught religion as well as Middle East and North Africa studies and has previously called himself a “professor of peace.” However‚ Mahallati is accused of supporting the Palestinian terror group Hamas‚ giving students credit for writing anti-Israel blogs‚ and telling his classes in 2016 that “Israel is a colonialist state” and “Israel is an apartheid state.” Oberlin made the call to suspend Mahallati after decades-old allegations that he once demanded sex in exchange for good grades surfaced. Court papers from the 1990s obtained by the Middle East Forum and given to the New York Post allege that when Mahallati was an adjunct professor at Columbia University‚ a graduate student 11 years younger than he accused the 43-year-old married father of giving her good grades in exchange for sex. Mahallati allegedly invited the woman to his home‚ supposedly to interview her for a research assistant position‚ but then “made repeated sexual advances” and promised good grades for sexual favors‚ she claimed. The two then had sexual encounters at his office as well as at his Manhattan apartment for 15 months‚ she alleged. Mahallati allegedly threatened to withhold her grade if she did not stay silent‚ and when she did go to Columbia’s administration‚ he accused her of fraudulently submitting the same paper twice‚ the woman claimed. The woman‚ a 32-year-old Palestinian Christian‚ sued both Mahallati and Columbia at the time‚ accusing the professor of trying to damage her reputation and academic career. Mahallati denied the claims at the time in 1997 and tried to claim diplomatic immunity even though he had not been Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations since 1989. “We take all allegations of sexual harassment and abuse extremely seriously‚” a spokeswoman for Oberlin told the New York Post. “We would not hire a faculty member who we knew to have a history of sexual harassment of a student‚ colleague or staff member.” Mahallati‚ 71‚ has also taught at Georgetown and Princeton. In September‚ the Department of Education launched a federal anti-Semitism probe into Oberlin College over Mahallati. The investigation is examining whether Oberlin violated Title VI‚ which protects students from discrimination based on race or national origin. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP The probe could result in Oberlin losing some of the millions in federal funding it receives every year — last year the school received $5 million in federal grants. While Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations‚ Mahallati is also accused of defending the Supreme Leader of Iran’s fatwa calling for the assassination of the novelist Salman Rushdie over Rushdie’s novel‚ “The Satanic Verses.” Rushdie was stabbed in 2022 by a supporter of the Iranian regime while speaking at an event in upstate New York. Also while Iran’s ambassador‚ Mahallati said at the United Nations in 1989 that Palestinian-controlled land’s “occupation by Zionist usurpers is a transgression against all Muslims of the world and its liberation is therefore a great religious obligation and commitment.” Mahallati’s classes at Oberlin were canceled in the spring. Previously‚ students boycotted and protested the professor’s classes‚ alleging that he covered up crimes against humanity in Iran in the 1980s.

President Joe Biden appears to have outdone himself with the latest in a long series of tall tales — that range from minor exaggerations to partial fabrications — telling a crowd that the late President Ronald Reagan had once made him an extraordinary offer in an effort to save his life. Biden was referring to the brain aneurysm he suffered in February of 1988‚ and he credited Reagan with offering him the use of “Air Force — Helicopter One” to make sure that he was able to get the emergency medical care that he needed. WATCH: Biden claims Ronald Reagan sent "Air Force Helicopter One" to take him to the hospital when he had a brain aneurysm in the 1980s. His story "is not supported by either his own autobiography or by Reagan’s daily presidential diary‚" according to @stevennelson10. pic.twitter.com/hJ9aSy0cud — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 11‚ 2023 Biden told the story as part of his opening remarks on Monday congratulating the city of Philadelphia for receiving a “SAFER Grant Award to Fund the Philadelphia Fire Department:” I — I would not be here were it not for my local fire company in Wilmington‚ Delaware. They saved my life. I had a cranial aneurysm. I wasn’t — it was the middle of a snowstorm. Not a joke. I couldn’t figure out how they were going to — President Reagan was nice enough to send Air Force — Helicopter One to take me down‚ but it couldn’t fly.  And so‚ my fire department — my fire department came up‚ put me in the back‚ and took me on — in a snow — in a heavy snow on the day I went down to Walter Reed‚ because that’s where I had to get for this operation. I got there for a nine-hour operation that saved my life. I — not a joke. My firefighters — the guys I grew up with — they saved my life. And while the story about the aneurysm was true — Biden did have two separate lifesaving surgeries to correct aneurysms‚ one on each side of his brain — the rest of his story appears to be at least partially fabricated. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP The New York Times reported that Biden was transferred to Walter Reed from St. Francis Hospital in Wilmington‚ Delaware — and as The New York Post’s Steven Nelson noted‚ neither Biden’s own autobiography nor Reagan’s presidential diary made any mention of any other transport being offered by the White House at the time. According to a report from The New York Post‚ Reagan’s notes from that day did mention Marine One — the name given to any helicopter on which the president is traveling — but only to say that inclement weather had prevented even Reagan himself from using it that morning. Biden’s account of his trip to Walter Reed — given in great detail in his 2007 autobiography‚ “Promises to Keep” — also made no mention of any offer from the White House. “Weather conditions made a medevac helicopter flight too dangerous. I had no idea what time it was‚ but I found myself on a gurney‚ my test results strapped to my chest‚ being wheeled out the doors of Saint Francis [hospital in Wilmington‚ Del.] toward a waiting ambulance‚” Biden wrote at the time. Biden went on during Monday’s remarks to repeat the often exaggerated tale of the small kitchen fire that took place in his Delaware home — which firefighters reportedly contained in under 20 minutes — saying that the fire department had saved his wife and his home (and his beloved ’67 Corvette).

In a move that has ignited conversations across the nation‚ a new film has been released on Netflix that delves into the chaos of a cyber apocalypse. The movie‚ titled “Leave the World Behind‚” is not just another addition to the streaming service’s extensive library of thrillers; it carries with it a contentious message that has raised eyebrows and tempers alike. The film‚ co-produced by former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama‚ has quickly climbed the ranks to become Netflix’s number one picture globally. It has garnered attention in 85 countries and outperformed other major releases in viewership within the first few days of its release. With such a broad audience‚ the impact of its underlying themes is far-reaching. Netflix's "Leave the World Behind" cyber apocalypse movie warns about "white people" if "the world falls apart." Barack and Michelle Obama are producers on the film. pic.twitter.com/HRV7oO96sa — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) December 11‚ 2023 “Leave the World Behind” stars notable actors such as Julia Roberts and Kevin Bacon and follows the story of a white family vacationing in a rented house on Long Island. Their peace is shattered when a cyber attack plunges the United States into darkness. The plot thickens when the vacation home’s owner‚ G.H. Scott‚ and his daughter Ruth arrive at the house amidst the crisis. A particular scene has become the focal point of much of the discussion surrounding the film. In this moment‚ Ruth expresses a sentiment that has sparked controversy: “If the world falls apart‚ trust should not be doled out easily to anyone‚ especially white people.” This line has led to accusations that the film is promoting a divisive and potentially harmful narrative. Wow Cyber apocalypse movie produced by Barack and Michelle Obama that warns about "trusting white people if the world falls apart” No surprise they’re also intentionally fear mongering about Tesla FSD and Elon Musk by proxy So blatantly obvious what they’re doing. Sad! https://t.co/zg9RbJ7sJJ — Ashley St. Clair (@stclairashley) December 12‚ 2023 Critics argue that the inclusion of such a statement is indicative of a larger trend where it is deemed acceptable‚ even celebrated‚ to harbor and express racially charged sentiments‚ provided they are directed towards certain groups. They contend that the film’s message is emblematic of a societal double standard when it comes to discussions of race and trust. Supporters of the film might say that it is merely a reflection of the characters’ perspectives and fears within a fictional scenario. However‚ detractors are concerned about the implications of such a message being disseminated by influential figures through a widely consumed medium like Netflix. The debate over the film’s message has extended beyond the realm of entertainment‚ touching on broader issues of race relations and the role of media in shaping public perception. Some see it as a cautionary tale‚ warning of the dangers of a breakdown in global communications‚ while others view it as a vehicle for programming societal attitudes towards race and trust. As the conversation continues‚ “Leave the World Behind” serves as a stark reminder of the power of film to influence and provoke. Whether it will lead to constructive dialogue or further polarization remains to be seen‚ but one thing is clear: the film has struck a nerve‚ and its reverberations are being felt across the cultural landscape. The post Controversial New Netflix Film Sparks Debate Over Racial Trust in Apocalyptic Scenarios appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

’Once-in-a-generation talent’