The Heritage Foundation is kicking off its “America. The Beautiful” campaign this weekend to mark the 250th anniversary of the United States.  The campaign is also focused on the principles America must uphold for the next 250 years, with a strong emphasis on the American family. The full campaign will run through July 31, as July 4 marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence..  A 60-second TV ad will run through April, and will air this weekend during NFL playoff games, during the College Football Playoff championship game on Monday, and on major cable networks going forward.  “Heritage is taking a very forward-looking view in celebrating America’s 250th anniversary,” Tony Johnson, director of membership at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.  “There is a lot that needs to be done,” Johnson added. “We are focusing on the enduring principles that will make the next 250 years possible, with gratitude for the past and optimism for the future.” The ad features the evolution of the American way of life, with a focus on families and passing traditions on to the next generation.  The ad depicts families sitting at the dinner table throughout generations, beginning with the founding era. It says, “Some things never change. The commitment of husband and wife, the importance of passing along our values to our children, the rewards of service to the community and country, the faithfulness of God.”   “I’m proud of Heritage’s campaign to refocus America on what is true, good, and beautiful in our country, especially as we celebrate our nation’s 250th birthday,” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said in a public statement.  “The message in our ad serves as a powerful reminder that our nation has flourished because of its traditional values grounded in faith, marriage, and family,” Roberts continued. “As long as we keep these commitments first in our lives, America’s future will long endure.”  The TV ad running through April will be seen on networks such as TBS, TNT, USA, TV Land, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN U, Golf, FS!, Fox News, Fox Business, Newsmax, Cooking, GAC Family, Hallmark, Magnolia, GSN, GRIT, INSP, and AHC. The campaign will have an expansive presence on social media channels, along with targeted digital ads. The post Heritage Launches ‘America the Beautiful’ Campaign to Mark USA’s 250th Birthday appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This year’s midterm elections could decide the balance of power in Washington, as well as the ideological direction of the Democratic and Republican parties Swing states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will again be political battlegrounds. But other states could prove just as decisive. Here are three you need to be watching. Texas On March 3, Republican and Democrat primary voters in the Lone Star State will go to the polls to determine their nominee for the state’s Senate race, which could play a significant role in determining the future of both parties. On the Republican side, Sen. John Cornyn, an incumbent of over two decades, faces primary challenges from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt. Both candidates have presented themselves as politically to the right of Cornyn. Neither Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, nor President Donald Trump have made an endorsement in the primary. Democrat primary voters will also decide between state Rep. James Talarico and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, both young candidates with a major social media presence. In the Texas primary system, if no candidate receives over 50% of the vote in a primary election, that would trigger a May 26 runoff election between the top two primary candidates.  In the House of Representatives, several major Texas members are not seeking reelection, such as former foreign affairs chairman Michael McCaul, budget chairman Jodey Arrington, and freedom caucus member Chip Roy.  These departures, combined with a recent redistricting bill that could flip around a half dozen seats to Republicans, will amount to a transformation of the Texas delegation. Maine New England is a reliable liberal stronghold, but it features plenty of races this year that are important for determining both parties’ power in Congress. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is the only Republican member of Congress from the region, and she is up for reelection in 2026.  Having represented the state for three decades in the Senate, Collins has established herself as an independent Republican, voting against the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and opposing a Republican-backed budget reconciliation bill in July. She holds significant influences in the Senate as the top Republican appropriator. President Donald Trump recently said Collins “should never be elected to office again” after her vote to rein in his military powers in Venezuela.  Currently, the Cook Political Report rates the Maine Senate race a “toss-up” for 2026. Democrat competition has already lined up to challenge Collins for her seat.  Gov. Janet Mills and Graham Platner, a Bernie Sanders-endorsed candidate who appeals to the left-wing of the Democratic Party, are the Democrat frontrunners.  This Democratic primary itself encapsulates major tensions within the party, as Mills, a 78-year-old established party figure, faces off against Platner, a 41-year-old who has accused Israel of “genocide” and advocates highly interventionist economic policies. Platner, however, announced this week he will step away from campaign activities to accompany his wife to Norway to seek IVF treatment. He said his campaign team will remain active in the state, according to WMTW. Maine also presents opportunities for Republicans in the House of Representatives. Democrat Rep. Jared Golden is not seeking reelection in 2026, presenting Republicans an opportunity in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, which Golden won by fewer than 3,000 votes in 2024. Stepping up to the plate for Republicans is Paul LePage, who served as governor of Maine from 2011 until 2019. New Hampshire Another New England state to watch is New Hampshire, where Republicans control every branch of power on the state level but Democrats hold all federal offices. Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is not seeking reelection in 2026, and Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., is running for her seat. Republican John Sununu, who held the Senate seat from 2003 to 2009, has launched a bid to retake his old seat.  Sununu has received the endorsements of dozens of sitting Republican senators, including Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming. Scott Brown, a former Republican Senator for Massachusetts who now lives in New Hampshire, has entered the Granite State primary as well. Cook Political Report rates New Hampshire as a “lean Democrat” seat. What’s more, as the 2028 presidential election cycle approaches, candidates will likely be eager to woo New Hampshire voters, as the state will likely hold early primaries for Republicans and Democrats. The post Three States You Need To Watch in 2026 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “fixed” a biased and greatly misleading headline published by the BBC Thursday in its coverage of a shooting in Minneapolis during violent anti-ICE protests on Wednesday. In a X.com post, ICE provided a screenshot of a BBC headline declaring: “Federal agent shoots Minneapolis man in leg after shovel attack, officials say” ICE then notes a critical fact the BBC left out in its mischaracterization of the incident: “Your ‘Minneapolis man’ is a criminal illegal alien from Venezuela.” “Fixed your headline for you as well, @BBCWorld,” ICE writes, providing a graphic editing BBC’s headline by: Changing “Minneapolis man” to “Venezuelan criminal illegal alien.” Changing “after shovel attack” to “after three criminal illegal aliens ambush an ICE officer.” BBC eventually changed its headline, moving the word “Minneapolis” to indicate that the incident took place in Minneapolis and remove the insinuation that it was a “Minneapolis man” (instead of an illegal alien) who had been shot: “Federal agent shoots man in leg after Minneapolis shovel attack, officials say” Details in the BBC News (World) post on X.com linking to the same story were, and continue to be, even more sparse, insinuating that a legal citizen of Minneapolis was shot by the ICE officer without provocation: “ICE agent shoots Minneapolis man in the leg” “BBC’s ‘Minneapolis man’ is a criminal illegal alien from Venezuela who, along with 2 other perpetrators, mercilessly beat a federal law enforcement officer with snow shovels and broom handles,” Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin explained in a separate post shared by ICE. Your "Minneapolis man" is a criminal illegal alien from Venezuela. Fixed your headline for you as well, @BBCWorld. https://t.co/IblFCbDgmw pic.twitter.com/WtLsg2Dz5H — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (@ICEgov) January 15, 2026   The BBC has a legacy of exhibiting animus and bias regarding Donald Trump, going back to his first term in the White House when it maliciously edited video of comments he made during his January 6, 2021 speech delivered before the riot at the U.S. Capitol. As Fox News explains, President Trump sued the BBC last December for $10 billion for defamation and violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act as a result of the edited video, which was part of a 2024 BBC documentary: “The documentary omitted Trump urging his supporters to protest ‘peacefully’ and instead spliced two separate comments made nearly an hour apart, making him appear he was calling for violence. "‘We're gonna walk down to the Capitol. And I'll be there with you. And we fight — we fight like hell,’ the documentary showed Trump saying. “In reality, Trump said, ‘We're gonna walk down to the Capitol. And we're gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.’  It wasn't until 54 minutes later that Trump called on his supporters to ‘fight like hell’ for election integrity.”    

So far, in 2026, ABC’s Sunny Hostin has shown America why she was no longer a federal prosecutor: claiming everything she didn’t like was “illegal” despite proper procedure being followed. After repeatedly claiming the arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro was “100 percent illegal” (despite the warrant), on Friday’s episode, she insisted that the bipartisan congressional subpoena of the Clintons by the House Oversight Committee in their Epstein investigation was “illegal,” and defended the Democratic couple’s refusal to appear. Leading into their first “Hot Topic” discussion of the show, Friday moderator Joy Behar tried to make the Clintons’ contempt of Congress about President Trump, which got approval from Hostin: BEHAR: To be clear, Bill Clinton hasn't been accused of wrongdoing, and he denies having any knowledge of Epstein's crimes. Both the Clintons keep saying they have no information that's relevant to the investigation. But should they just testify to clear up any suspicions and get the last word in on this? You know, Bill should just say to Trump, ‘I'm more than happy to testify. You first.’ HOSTIN: Correct. Hostin picked it up from there, initially whining that the committee still wanted the Clintons to appear while others submitted affidavits. “There have been about nine people subpoenaed, and out of those nine people, eight people provided sworn affidavits and those subpoenas were released,” she huffed.   Sunny Hostin (former fed prosecutor) defends Clintons refusing a congressional subpoena: "I think that, you know, the Clintons have done as much as everyone else that has been subpoenaed. There have been about nine people subpoenaed, and out of those nine people, eight people… pic.twitter.com/dCjMBsk83F — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 16, 2026   Omitting the fact that the subpoena by the committee was unanimous, Hostin tried to frame situation as just the committee’s Republicans targeting them: “Now, of course, the Clintons are the Clintons and I think that they are -- because of their positions as former secretary of state and senator and president of the United States, the Republican Oversight Committee really wants them there.” Further in the segment, Hostin defended the Clintons’ contempt of Congress by claiming that the subpoena was somehow “illegal,” and dabbled in expert whataboutism: BEHAR: So why are they saying “no” do you think? HOSTIN: Their position is that the subpoena itself is illegal and is not valid because it doesn't have legislative purpose, a true legislative purpose. And that’s why generally, I would agree with you and I would agree with you, you do not defy a congressional subpoena. There are -- that's why Peter Navarro spent four months in prison. (…) Why aren't they subpoenaing the President of the United States Donald Trump? Although, he has denied any wrongdoing? Why not Melania Trump?   Hostin backs up the Clintons' suggestion that the congressional subpoena is "illegal" and suggests one against would be legal just because: "Generally, I would agree with you and I would agree with you, you do not defy a congressional subpoena. There are -- that's why Peter… pic.twitter.com/FpoASV6FTT — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 16, 2026   Hostin’s support for the Clintons to defy the congressional subpoena was a master example of her politically motived hypocrisy. The week prior, she had gotten into an intense argument with co-host Ana Navarro over the arrest of Maduro, with Hostin defending the dictator. She repeatedly yelled at her co-hosts about how the arrest supposedly broke “international law” (which didn’t exist) and decried how they didn’t care. Speaking of Navarro, she openly lamented how she had to put aside their decades of friendship and insist that the Clintons testify before Congress: You know, I have known Bill and Hillary Clinton for over 20 years. They were very good friends of my ex, and they would come down to Miami and stay at his hotel all the time. So, it's very hard for me and, you know, it's not a comfortable place for me to say that I want them to show up and I want them to testify. But here's the thing, I want us as a society to hold the people that we like to the same standard that we hold the people that we don't like.   Ana Navarro admits to her personal relationship with the Clinton and she begrudgingly says they should testify before Congress: "You know, I have known Bill and Hillary Clinton for over 20 years. They were very good friends of my ex, and they would come down to Miami and stay at… pic.twitter.com/cWmoSE9cxM — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 16, 2026   Navarro would later complain about the pictures of Clinton released from the Epstein files that showed him enjoying Jeffrey Epstein’s property: But let’s remember when the pictures came out in December, late December, Clinton, Bill Clinton asked that every item that involves him, that everything about him be released, because it feels like they cherry-picked what are the most salacious pictures. Right? There's pictures of Bill in a pool. It was because of that obviously cozy relationship between the Clinton and Epstein that had co-host Sara Haines demanding the Clintons testify (Click “expand”): I'm someone who wants to see everything in the Epstein files and want every single person held accountable. I think the Clintons should show up. It was a unanimous vote to subpoena them and regardless of these affidavits or anything else, I think when people don't show up, it makes them look guiltier than they are. Clinton -- President Clinton has showed up in tons of pictures with no wrongdoing but images that have been released in the files that - and we've known of the friendship for years. And two years after Epstein got his sweetheart deal, Ghislaine Maxwell was invited to Chelsea's wedding. So, there are some associations there that I think you put everything out there. Let it be public. Let people hear. Because otherwise, you give them the bait to say, well, you're not doing it, we're not doing it. This person is not doing it. No, if you want the Epstein files and you want every held accountable, they show up and they do it.   Sara Haines says the Clintons should testify before Congress: "I'm someone who wants to see everything in the Epstein files and wants every single person held accountable. I think the Clintons should show up. It was a unanimous vote to subpoena them and regardless of affidavits… pic.twitter.com/sCp4gkVwMR — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 16, 2026   “And I just personally don't believe that congressional oversight is something that should be optional to people,” co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin argued. “I've testified before Congress, never under subpoena. I was asked to and I showed up. And I never have seen a Congressional subpoena as optional.” She was the first to admit that Trump allies had been sent to prison for defying congressional subpoenas. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View January 16, 2026 11:02:42 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: To be clear, Bill Clinton hasn't been accused of wrongdoing, and he denies having any knowledge of Epstein's crimes. Both the Clintons keep saying they have no information that's relevant to the investigation. But should they just testify to clear up any suspicions and get the last word in on this? You know, Bill should just say to Trump, ‘I'm more than happy to testify. You first.’ SUNNY HOSTIN: Correct. [Cheers and applause] BEHAR: Okay. Go ahead. HOSTIN: You know, I agree with that. I think that, you know, the Clintons have done as much as everyone else that has been subpoenaed. There have been about nine people subpoenaed, and out of those nine people, eight people provided sworn affidavits and those subpoenas were released. Now, of course, the Clintons are the Clintons and I think that they are -- because of their positions as former secretary of state and senator and president of the United States, the Republican Oversight Committee really wants them there. They have also provided and what Comer is not saying, they've provided affidavits, sworn affidavits. So, this is the same or very close to the same as already having testified. They've also written him a four-page letter explaining their position. And so my question is, where is the energy for -- that same energy for the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, who has not released, I think, 99 percent of the Epstein files? Why don't they call her and subpoena her and have her testify about what’s happening. [Cheers and applause] SARA HAINES: I'm someone who wants to see everything in the Epstein files and want every single person held accountable. I think the Clintons should show up. It was a unanimous vote to subpoena them and regardless of these affidavits or anything else, I think when people don't show up, it makes them look guiltier than they are. Clinton -- President Clinton has showed up in tons of pictures with no wrongdoing but images that have been released in the files that - and we've known of the friendship for years. And two years after Epstein got his sweetheart deal, Ghislaine Maxwell was invited to Chelsea's wedding. So, there are some associations there that I think you put everything out there. Let it be public. Let people hear. Because otherwise, you give them the bait to say, well, you're not doing it, we're not doing it. This person is not doing it. No, if you want the Epstein files and you want every held accountable, they show up and they do it. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: And I just personally don't believe that congressional oversight is something that should be optional to people. I've testified before Congress, never under subpoena. I was asked to and I showed up. And I never have seen a Congressional subpoena as optional. I would remind folks that Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon both defied congressional subpoenas and then did jail time for defying those congressional subpoenas during the January 6 investigation. (…) 11:06:28 a.m. Eastern ANA NAVARRO: You know, I have known Bill and Hillary Clinton for over 20 years. They were very good friends of my ex, and they would come down to Miami and stay at his hotel all the time. So, it's very hard for me and, you know, it's not a comfortable place for me to say that I want them to show up and I want them to testify. But here's the thing, I want us as a society to hold the people that we like to the same standard that we hold the people that we don't like. (…) 11:07:55 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: So why are they saying “no” do you think? HOSTIN: Their position is that the subpoena itself is illegal and is not valid because it doesn't have legislative purpose, a true legislative purpose. And that’s why generally, I would agree with you and I would agree with you, you do not defy a congressional subpoena. There are -- that's why Peter Navarro spent four months in prison. But in this case, it feels very political rather than legal. Why aren't they subpoenaing the President of the United States Donald Trump? Although, he has denied any wrongdoing? Why not Melania Trump? Why did they let eight people who were also subpoenaed provide the same kind of affidavits that the Clintons did, why did they then allow that to happen without them showing up? HOSITN: If it were purely legal, I would be – HAINES: But were the Clintons the biggest names of those affidavits? Cause I think Clinton being a former president, that it has more power to go in there and sit down and say -- HOSTIN: But it makes it more political. HAINES: Sadly this whole administration is political. NAVARRO: But let’s remember when the pictures came out in December, late December, Clinton, Bill Clinton asked that every item that involves him, that everything about him be released, because it feels like they cherry-picked what are the most salacious pictures. Right? There's pictures of Bill in a pool. [Crosstalk] BEHAR: Okay. So, then why are they now subpoenaing the Clintons? Is it to distract from something yet again? HOSTIN: Because they have not released the files! BEHAR: We'll be right back.

Over the past year and a half, public broadcasting and the late night comedy shows have formed an alliance. Some comedians hold fundraisers or advocate for public media on their shows. Public media then in turn hosts the comedians on their own shows and honors them by giving them awards. The latest development in this exercise in mutual liberal back-patting came on Thursday as ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel gave PBS an idea for a new tote bag. On his Wednesday show, Kimmel reported how PBS’s Threads account has had to inform people that just because the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has shut down does not mean that PBS has ceased to exist. To that end, he played a satirical ad from PBS: Masterpiece Theater, Sesame Street, News Hour, Austin City Limits, 22,000 hours and counting of Ken Burns footage. The show with people bringing [bleep] from their garage, and the one where white people find out they're black. PBS. Check your local listings. We're still here, bitch! News Hour anchor Amna Nawaz approved and replied with “Nailed it” and a bullseye emoji, but the main PBS account suggested there could be new merchandise to be sold, “Shout out to @jimmykimmel for our new tote bag design,” followed by a picture of the PBS logo and the tagline “we’re still here, bitch.” Of course, the tote bag is not real, but for a supposed news organization, PBS’s Threads account is devoid of any news content and instead full of various memes about how they are still here or what day of the week it is. Meanwhile, PBS’s X account has not tweeted since April 8, 2023, after their feud with Elon Musk. Now that PBS has lost its taxpayer money, if it wants to post silly memes on its social media accounts or partner with liberal comedians, that is its prerogative, but it should not expect to get that money back.

On the timeline of making America great again, two dates in 2015 stand out for anyone who backed Donald Trump before it was safe to do so.On June 16, 2015, Trump came down the escalator in New York City and announced his run for president. The political class laughed. Conservative pundits mocked him. Commentators treated the whole thing as a stunt. A lifelong Democrat running as a Republican? A celebrity billionaire developer? Please. What a “clown.”Scott understood something most people never learn: Bad reviews from bad people are good reviews. He also understood how to grieve with honor instead of self-pity.Then came August 13, 2015.That day, Scott Adams — the creator of “Dilbert” and a best-selling personal development author — published a blog post that reframed the entire race in a single phrase:Usual frame:Donald Trump is a clown.Reframe:Donald Trump is a clown genius.That was Adams’ title: “Clown Genius.” And his point was simple: Trump wasn’t improvising. He was persuading. Adams wrote that Trump’s “value proposition” was to “Make America Great,” which meant selling the world on America again — what Adams called “good brand management.”It sounds obvious now. It didn’t sound obvious then.Adams became one of the first major nonpolitical public figures to say out loud what millions of Americans were starting to suspect: Trump wasn’t a joke. The joke was the people pretending they couldn’t see what was happening. “Clown Genius” by Scott Adams, accessed via the Internet ArchiveThat post didn’t just defend Trump. It gave people permission. It gave tens of millions of everyday Americans cover to voice support for the one candidate the establishment of both parties hated more than anyone they had seen in decades. Adams called it before the polls did, and he kept calling it.And, in the process, he helped change the course of human history.He later packaged Trump’s persuasion methods into a book-length case study, “Win Bigly.” And famously, he assigned Trump a 98% chance of winning in 2016 — at a time when most of the media treated the idea as laughable.Adams paid for that courage.When he backed Trump in 2015, he didn’t just lose polite invitations. He lit his career on fire. He traded lavish speaking fees, safe corporate fame, and establishment approval for permanent exile from respectable opinion.In October 2025, Adams described the price in stark terms:When I decided ... to back Trump … I sacrificed everything. I sacrificed my social life. I sacrificed my career. I sacrificed my reputation. I may have sacrificed my health. And I did that because I believed it was worth it. … I’m really happy I lived long enough to see it. It was worth it. … It was worth it to be right.Independent journalist and filmmaker Mike Cernovich made the point even more bluntly. Adams could have kept quiet, kept the corporate speaking gigs, and died richer. Instead, he chose the lonely road and earned something bigger than money. He became a legend.For millions, Scott Adams was more than a cartoonist or a commentator. Worldwide, listeners of Scott’s daily show, “Coffee with Scott Adams,” knew him as our “internet dad.” If Trump is the father of MAGA, Scott is its honorary stepfather.People didn’t just read him. They listened to him. They learned from him. They built confidence from his willingness to say what others wouldn’t.President Trump made America great again. Scott Adams made Candidate Trump plausible in the first place.After a long, public battle with prostate cancer, Scott Adams died on Tuesday, January 13. He was 68.President Trump responded with a tribute that said more than many will admit. — (@) “Sadly, the Great Influencer, Scott Adams, has passed away. He was a fantastic guy, who liked and respected me when it wasn’t fashionable to do so. He bravely fought a long battle against a terrible disease. My condolences go out to his family, and all of his many friends and listeners. He will be truly missed. God bless you Scott!”I’m one of those listeners and friends. More than that, I was Scott’s editor, and I remain the publisher of the Scott Adams library. He brought me on as a contributing editor for “Reframe Your Brain,” a book that has helped thousands of readers apply his signature “reframes” to work, money, relationships, and even faith.As of this writing, “Reframe Your Brain” is the No. 1 best-seller on Amazon.RELATED: Glenn Beck remembers Scott Adams: ‘A philosopher disguised as a stick-figure artist’ Phil Velasquez/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty ImagesNear the end of his life, Scott also made a quiet but meaningful choice. He accepted Pascal’s Wager — the simple risk-reward logic that faith in Jesus Christ is worth the bet. He pinned that profession to the top of his X.com profile in his final statement.Scott was a father figure to me in the most practical sense. I asked his advice the way a son asks his dad. He was happy to oblige. That’s who he was: sharp, funny, and eager to be useful.Now critics will rush in to re-litigate his controversies, including the 2023 livestream that helped get “Dilbert” pulled from newspapers. I wrote the truth for Newsweek at the time, after his remarks triggered an organized effort to kill his book deal and erase him from public life.I worked with an author on a not-quite-banned book recently. Dilbert creator and bestselling author Scott Adams had his long-running comic strip ended by multiple newspapers and his forthcoming book contract canceled over some hyperbolic remarks on race that were intended to stir up discussion. Scott Adams’ books were twice banned, but Amazon reversed the decision. … Adams then went to his audience and let them know that there were people who didn’t want his book published, and they responded by buying it, en masse. Sales shot up.Scott understood something most people never learn: Bad reviews from bad people are good reviews.He also understood how to grieve with honor instead of self-pity. As he wrote in “Reframe Your Brain”:When you experience the death of a loved one, your instincts push you into feeling tragedy, loss, and pain. Once you have had enough of that, and when you are ready, start tossing these five words around to release some of the pain: Gratitude. Respect. Honor. Privilege. Service.Scott Adams lived those words. And now he belongs to the ages.Scott won bigly.Thank you, Scott.

As Minnesota begins to resemble its 2020 self after the Immigration and Customs Enforcement shooting of Renee Nicole Good and widespread Somali fraud, a discussion of Trump invoking the Insurrection Act has been circulating — and BlazeTV host John Doyle is a fan.“Sometimes you can use power in ways that are counterproductive obviously. However there are also absolutely instances where it is counterproductive to not use power, when it is necessary to use power. I believe this is one of those cases,” Doyle explains.“If the left is allowed to run wild, it is only going to embolden them. These are people who are entropic by nature, and it’s going to just create more public resistance to mass deportations, everything’s just going to get uglier,” he continues.However Doyle points out that if the Trump administration actually cracks down on what he calls a “criminal resistance,” the left will have to “realize that it’s not winning.” “It’s going to lose energy. These people are paper tigers. Like, if the average left-wing dysgenic freak is scared to interfere with ICE, having seen so many of his, like, gay, race, communist comrades getting arrested, getting pepper-sprayed, physically harmed, whatever, he’s going to have second thoughts about doing this whole revolutionary larp,” Doyle says.And Doyle believes the movement is already losing energy.“Where was the resistance, right, when Trump won in 2024? You remember when Trump won in 2017, 2016? They had fires in D.C. ... they were burning stuff in D.C. at the Inauguration. Where was that in 2024? Where were all the Antifa riots during his campaign rallies?” Doyle asks.“What about after he won, you know, throughout the city? Where was our women’s march? Like the energy just is not there. The radical left, of course, is still around because these people are on welfare. They’re taking hormones. Like their job is to be that,” he continues.“They do maintain a sort of presence, right? However, it’s not as prominent as it used to be. That is good, as it would turn out. You actually win by winning,” he adds.Want more from John Doyle?To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The supergroup's setlists have included Alice Cooper and Aerosmith tracks while also paying homage to many departed rockers with a variety of covers. The post Hollywood Vampires (Cooper, Perry, Depp) Set 2026 Tour, First in 3 Years appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

Bro, Take the L! Adam Schiff's BIG Karoline Leavitt Smackdown Turns Into HUMILIATING Crash and Burn

Jacob Frey Asks GOP to Join Dems in Fighting 'Unconstitutional Federal Actions' (Who Wants to Tell Him?)