News Frozen Frozen: The Hit Broadway Musical Sings Its Way Onto Disney+ Let it go… to streaming. By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on June 20, 2025 Credit: Disney+ Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Disney+ The success of the original Frozen film has gone beyond its sequel, the third animated feature in production, and the numerous shorts that have occupied my child’s attention for three to seven blissful minutes at a time. The story of Anna and Elsa (and Olaf, and Sven, and I guess Kristoff) has also thrived onstage via a Broadway musical production. A taping of that show, Frozen: The Hit Broadway Musical, is now available for all to see on Disney+. It’s a live filming of the play at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane in London’s West End, and features Samantha Barks as Elsa and Laura Dawkes as Anna. The stage production features twelve new songs written by Frozen composers Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez. The original bangers—“For the First Time in Forever,” “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” and “Let It Go”—are also unsurprisingly part of the show. In addition to Barks and Dawkes, the musical stars Craig Gallivan as Olaf, Jammy Kasongo as Kristoff, Oliver Ormson as Hans, Richard Frame as Weselton, Ashley Birchall as Sven, Mikayla Jade as Sven, Martha Bailey Vine as Young Anna, Elizabeth Lyons as Young Elsa, Ben Irish as Pabbie, Lizzy-Rose Esin-Kelly as Bulda, Jak Skelly as Oaken/Bishop, Jacqui Sanchez as Queen Iduna, and Ashley J Daniels as King Agnarr. Check out the trailer below to get a taste of the production. The full two-hour experience is now streaming on Disney+.[end-mark] The post <i>Frozen: The Hit Broadway Musical</i> Sings Its Way Onto Disney+ appeared first on Reactor.

80's Phones We Dreamed Of! #80s #nostalgia

1970s Things Kids Don't Do!

That Whole 'Death to America' Thing Is Really No Big Deal, You Know

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes joined NBC’s Late Night host Seth Meyers on Thursday for his third visit to a late night comedy show since the start of the year. As Hayes sees things, it is not Democratic politicians pulling stunts trying to get a viral moment in their interactions with ICE or DHS, but rather the Trump Administration, and this should lead people to be both “enraged and freaked out.” Meyers recalled, “There's, you know, obviously the scarier stuff that is happening. You know, we saw a couple of, you know, elected officials in this country, mayoral candidate Brad Lander, here in New York City, he got detained by ICE. And you talked to him right afterwards. Like, I mean, was he still—was he shocked by what had happened.”     Hayes replied that, “He was pretty shocked. I mean, one of the things I think that's important context for the comptroller, Brad Lander, was he's been doing this for weeks.” While not referencing California Sen. Alex Padilla by name, it was clear who Hayes was referring to when he added, “So, there's this story that ICE and DHS, and the Trump folks want to tell of, like, these Democratic politicians are trying to pull stunts. Like, he's been going and doing this for weeks. And what's clear is, I think, they like the show of force and the spectacle of physically restraining and detaining members of Congress. I really do think that is part of it. And people should be both enraged and freaked out by that, which I think, you know, at least the people in this room are.” Back on Earth 2, liberal politicians are constantly finding ways to get themselves arrested because they think it helps their brand because they know they will be released, just like Padilla was, and there is no actual risk. Here is a transcript for the June 19-taped show: NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 6/20/2025 1:05 AM ET SETH MEYERS: There's, you know, obviously the scarier stuff that is happening. You know, we saw a couple of, you know, elected officials in this country, mayoral candidate Brad Lander, here in New York City, he got detained by ICE. CHRIS HAYES: Yeah. MEYERS: And you talked to him right afterwards. Like, I mean, was he still—was he shocked by what had happened? Yeah. HAYES: He was pretty shocked. I mean, one of the things I think that's important context for the comptroller, Brad Lander, was he's been doing this for weeks. MEYERS: Right. HAYES: So, there's this story that ICE and DHS, and the Trump folks want to tell of, like, these Democratic politicians are trying to pull stunts. Like, he's been going and doing this for weeks. MEYERS: Right. HAYES: And what's clear is, I think, they like the show of force and the spectacle — MEYERS: Right. HAYES: —of physically restraining and detaining members of Congress. MEYERS: Yes. HAYES: I really do think that is part of it. And people should be both enraged and freaked out by that, which I think, you know, at least the people in this room are.

Earlier, we noted former CNN White House screamer Jim Acosta's appearance on Tuesday at a panel at the Center for American Progress -- where Democrat officials go to work between Democrat administrations -- with the provocative title "Democracy on the Line: Standing Up to the Trump Administration’s Attacks on Free Speech." But it's still worth isolating Acosta's remarks on how there should be a big cash infusion into PBS and NPR, to make them "too big to fail." The Left sees them as wonderful gemstones of Democrat messaging, as opposed to those dictator-coddlers and misinformers at Fox News and so on. Look at the way Trump has gone after PBS and NPR. In no way, in the United States of America, should public broadcasting be subject to the whims of somebody who just wants to be a dictator in this country. Public broadcasting should be separate and secure from those kinds of rantings and ravings. Trump's White House put out a long list of NPR and PBS bias, and Acosta dismisses all the evidence as dictatorial rantings. Sounding like an anti-corporate Bernie Bro, Acosta thinks America should be more like England or Canada, where the state-supported media dominates:  And one of the things we should see in this country is sort of a departure from corporations running these big news organizations. And I think, a real investment made in public broadcasting. I’d love to see PBS and NPR sort of be too big to fail in this country, sort of like we see in the BBC, or like what we see in Canadian Broadcasting.  I think that, If you could see Democrats, progressives, the center, maybe center-right  make those sort of investments down the road, you could, I think, protect the way people receive information in the country. Speaking like a liberal who's never been to Flyover Country, he suggests the hayseeds and bumpkins don't have any real news except for PBS and NPR, and they're falling for the analysis of the "far right":  Because right now, folks are just, you live in the heartland. You live in certain parts of the country where your NPR station might be under attack. Your PBS station’s getting underfunded. Or your broadcast stations are being threatened by the White House. Where in the hell do they get information in this country right now? I mean, this whole thing needs to be rebuilt, in my estimation, and it has to be done quickly. A lot of folks are just being left to the sort of Joe Rogans and, you know, Fox News and the other folks on the far right. What they control right now, in terms of their media presence, we forget the old days where people would describe the liberal media and so on. In many ways it is a media that is in large part under the influence of the Right in this country because of the way Trump has his thumb on these corporations and the way public broadcasting has been sort of taken apart. It's fascinating that when Democrats censor conservative speech, it's for "democracy," and when they want to double and triple the taxpayer money for "public" broadcasting (that often smears conservatives without rebuttal," its the flowering of quality information and "free speech." 

The "one big, beautiful bill” received a draft proposal last week from the Republican Utah Senator Mike Lee-led Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which would mandate the sale of between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of public land owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service in the American West.While Lee has framed the proposal as a means to increase affordable housing, critics claim it would do little to aid in the housing crisis and instead would just bar the public from beautiful land they now still can enjoy.Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck doesn’t share their critique.“What we mean by ‘affordable housing’ is if you take a look at the percentage of land that is owned in some of these states, you can’t live in a house in some of these states, close to anything, for less than a million dollars. Because there’s no land,” Glenn explains on “The Glenn Beck Program.”“Can we just look at the perspective here? The federal government owns 640 million acres. That is nearly 28% of all land in America. How much land do we have? Well, that’s about the size of France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined,” he continues.“They own and hold pristine land that is more than the size of those countries combined, and most of that is west of the Mississippi, where the federal control smothers the states, shuts down opportunity, and turns local citizens into tenants of the federal estate,” he adds.With less land available for citizens, there are higher prices and less state taxes paid on land.“We’re not talking about selling Yellowstone or paving over Yosemite or anything like that. We’re talking about less than one-half of one percent of federal land that is remote, hard to access, or mismanaged,” Glenn says.“This is really important,” he continues. “The federal government is, what, $35 trillion in debt, or are we $45 trillion now? I’m not sure. Our entitlement programs are all strained, infrastructure crumbling, and yet we’re still clinging to millions of acres of land that the federal government can’t maintain.”Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A Marquette Law School poll published late last month revealed that 63% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party. Polling by the Economist and YouGov indicated that the disapproval rating for the party as a whole was 58.3% as of May 25.Democratic lawmakers evidenced their commitment to driving up these numbers and alienating the majority of normal Americans with their hysterical response to the U.S. Supreme Court's Wednesday 6-3 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's ban on sex-change genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors.Not only is Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 lawful, as confirmed by the high court, but such laws reflect the sensibilities of the vast majority of Americans.A Washington Post-KFF poll found in 2023 that 57% of Americans say gender is biologically determined; 68% oppose the use of puberty blockers by children; and 58% oppose hormonal treatments for teens.Polling conducted ahead of the 2024 election by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Los Angeles Times found that 54% of Americans favor laws to prevent minors from receiving sex-change drugs or surgeries.A Center Square Voter's Choice Poll revealed last month that only 29% of voters think doctors should be allowed to prescribe puberty blockers to kids with parental consent. Forty-seven percent of respondents said puberty blockers should not be prescribed to minors under any circumstances.RELATED: God's justice doesn’t sleep — and the Supreme Court just proved it Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesDemocrats appear to be fully aware of the American public's majoritive revulsion over the mutilation and sterilization of confused children.In the immediate aftermath of the 2024 election and just prior to stepping down as Texas Democratic Party chairman, Gilberto Hinojosa emphasized to Democrats that their messaging was not resonating with everyday Americans.'Hate won.'"You have a choice as a party," said Hinojosa. "You can support transgender rights up and down all the categories where the issue comes up, or you can understand that there's certain things that we just go too far on, that a big bulk of our population does not support."An American Principles Project poll looking at the impact of campaign ads on various transvestite-related issues in the 2024 election found that 52% of voters who were made aware of failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris' support for sex changes for minors were more likely to vote for President Donald Trump.APP president Terry Schilling concluded, "There should be no question now that Democrats' gender insanity is a massive political vulnerability for them that Republicans should continue to exploit."Schilling then urged Republicans "not to forget the main lesson from the election and to keep the pressure on Democrats for as long as they continue to defend their extreme agenda."Despite the unpopularity of gender ideology, the collapse of its core narratives, and the growing list of victims now speaking out about their mutilation, Democrats are leaning into their support for gender ideology, particularly for child sex-change mutilations."Hate won," complained Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the Democrats who begged the Supreme Court in an amicus brief last year to strike the Tennessee law. "The far-right justices of the Supreme Court endorsed hate and discrimination by delivering a win for Republicans who have relentlessly and cruelly attacked transgender Americans for years."'The fight isn't over.'Other Democrats followed a similar script.Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), whose approval rating according to a recent Harvard-Harris poll was 26%, said in response to the high court's ruling in Skrmetti, "Republicans' cruel crusade against trans kids is all an attempt to divert attention from ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans. We'll keep fighting and we'll keep marching on.""Today the Supreme Court chose to cast transgender children in the shadows, deciding they are not entitled to the protections of the Equal Protection Clause," wrote Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.). "By upholding Tennessee's ban on medical care for transgender children the Court has legitimized discriminatory treatment of children."Booker suggested further that the protection of children in over 24 states from irreversible sex-change procedures is not only a "violation of the constitutional protections every child is entitled to" but puts kids "in danger."Rep. Sarah McBride (Del.), the cross-dressing Democrat formerly known as Tim McBride, claimed that the ruling in Skrmetti "undermines doctors in delivering care to some of the most vulnerable patients in our country.""As the proud grandma of a young trans man, I know that gender-affirming care can help trans youth live openly and authentically," wrote Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). "The fight isn't over."RELATED: Sacrificing body parts and informed consent to the sex-change regime Photo by Bob Riha, Jr./Getty ImagesMassachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, one of the Democratic lawmakers who has received a fortune in donations from the pharmaceutical industry, stated, "Trans kids suffer when they don't get medically-necessary care. This is a brazen political decision by the Supreme Court."Contrary to Warren's suggestion, so-called "gender-affirming care" does not ameliorate confused kids' suffering. Rather, it makes matters a whole lot worse.'Protecting children from making permanent, life-altering decisions about their bodies should be a bipartisan issue.'Britain's National Health Service in 2020 appointed Dr. Hilary Cass, a British medical doctor who previously served as president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, to lead an independent investigation into the efficacy of sex-change procedures on minors. Blaze News previously reported that Cass' 388-page multi-year report revealed that:the "systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence"; puberty blockers compromise bone density and have no apparent impact on "gender dysphoria or body satisfaction"; there is "insufficient and/or inconsistent evidence about the effects of puberty suppression on gender dysphoria, mental and psychosocial health, cognitive development, cardio-metabolic risk, and fertility";there is "a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormones for masculinisation or feminisation in adolescents with gender dysphoria or incongruence and few studies that undertake long-term follow-up"; and so-called gender-affirming care is "an area of remarkably weak evidence."Prior to the release of the Cass Review, a peer-reviewed study in the esteemed quarterly journal BMJ Mental Health revealed that "medical gender reassignment does not have an impact on suicide risk."Journalist Mia Hughes revealed in a report published last year by Michael Shellenberger's think tank, Environmental Progress, that prominent members of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health — the organization that literally wrote the book on "transgender" care — have themselves raised issues with the drugs and procedures that Markey, Schumer, Booker, McBride, Schakowsky, Warren, and other Democrats are desperate to protect. — (@) WPATH members quoted in Hughes' report discussed the inability of minors to comprehend the long-term consequences of sex-change procedures, the debilitating side effects of such procedures, and problems with obtaining informed consent.RELATED: 'Neither scientific nor medical': Leaked WPATH files shed light on the horror show that is 'gender-affirming care' Luis Soto/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty ImagesAlleigh Marre, executive director of the American Parents Coalition, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News, "Sadly, many on the left have been captured by radical gender activists and appear determined to allow children to be the subject of irreversible and experimental gender interventions.""Protecting children from making permanent, life-altering decisions about their bodies should be a bipartisan issue," continued Marre. "This ruling establishes important precedent in states seeking to end or regulate gender practices for minors, which have unfortunately become increasingly easy to obtain.""Democratic leaders would do well to recognize that the Skrmetti decision is not a judgment against any group, but a vital affirmation of common sense, parental rights, and biological reality," Kelsey Reinhardt, president of CatholicVote, told Blaze News. "These are principles that the American people have consistently supported."The Republican National Committee noted on X, "Democrats want taxpayers to fund sex changes for MINORS! SICK!"Attorney General Pam Bondi applauded the SCOTUS decision, encouraging "other states to follow Tennessee’s lead and enact similar legislation to protect our kids." Tennessee is one of the 25 Republican states that have laws on the books protecting children from sex-change procedures.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The effect of artificial intelligence language models on the brain was studied by MIT by comparing the brain waves of different participants in an essay-writing contest. For those that relied on AI to write their content, the effects on their brains were devastating.The study, led by Nataliya Kosmyna, separated 54 volunteers (ages 18-39) into three groups: a group that used ChatGPT to write the essays, a second group that relied on Google Search, and a third group that wrote the essays with no digital tools or search engine at all.Brain activity was tracked for all groups, showcasing mortifying results for those who had to rely on the AI model in order to complete their task.'Made the use of AI in the writing process rather obvious.'For starters, the ChatGPT users displayed the lowest level of brain stimulation of the groups and, as noted by tech writer Alex Vacca, brain scans revealed that neural connections dropped from 79 to just 42. "That's a 47% reduction in brain connectivity," Vacca wrote on X.The Financial Express pointed out that toward the end of the task, several participants had resorted to simply copying and pasting what they got from ChatGPT, making barely any changes.The use of ChatGPT appeared to drastically lower the memory recall of participants as well.RELATED: ChatGPT got 'absolutely wrecked' in chess by 1977 Atari, then claimed it was unfair Over 83% of the ChatGPT users "struggled to quote anything from their essays," while for the other groups, that number was about 11%.According to the study, English teachers who reviewed the essays found the AI-backed writing "soulless," lacking "uniqueness," and easy to identify."These, often lengthy, essays included standard ideas, reoccurring typical formulations and statements, which made the use of AI in the writing process rather obvious," the study said.The group that received no assistance in research or writing exhibited the highest reported levels of mental activity, particularly in the part of the brain associated with creativity.Google Search users were better off than the ChatGPT group, as the search for the information was far more stimulating to the brain than it was to simply ask ChatGPT a question.RELATED: Big Tech execs enlist in Army Reserve, citing 'patriotism' and cybersecurity Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images Blaze Media's James Poulos said that while some producers and consumers of AI considered it a good thing to increase human dependency on machines for everyday thinking, "the core problem most Americans face is the same default toward convenience and ease that leads us to seek 'easy' or 'convenient' substitutes in all areas of life for our own initiative, hard work, and discipline." Ironically, Poulos explained, this can quickly lead to overcomplicating our lives where they ought to be straightforward by default."The bizarre temptation is getting stronger to build Rube Goldberg machines to perform simple tasks," Poulos added. "We're pressured to think enabling our laziness is the only way we can create value and economic growth in the digital age. But one day, we wake up to find that helplessness doesn't feel so luxurious anymore."In summary, the "brain‑only group" exhibited the strongest, widest‑ranging neural networks of the three sets of volunteers.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican Rep. Max Miller of Ohio described on social media an alleged death threat against him and his family that he claimed was made by a man waving a Palestinian flag. Miller, who is Jewish as well as a U.S. Marine veteran, posted a video describing the incident where an anti-Israel man tried to get his attention as he was driving and then ran him off the road. 'Some unhinged, deranged man decided to lay on his horn and run me off the road when he couldn't get my attention to show me a Palestinian flag.'"Let's make something abundantly clear to anyone who needs to see this, which apparently, is a lot of people," said Miller. "If you have an issue with a legislator, your city councilman, your mayor, anyone like that, the appropriate thing to do is to reach out to them for a phone call to set up a meeting at one of our district offices. What is not OK is to assault anyone, whether you're a member of Congress or anybody else within our district, while you are driving to work," he added. "This morning as I was driving to work, some unhinged, deranged man decided to lay on his horn and run me off the road when he couldn't get my attention to show me a Palestinian flag," Miller said, "not to mention, 'Death to Israel,' death to me, that he wanted to kill me and my family!" He went on to thank God that no one else was in the vehicle to experience the incident, including his daughter. "We know exactly who you are. I have gone about my day. I have carried on my meetings. And we will not hide, and I will continue to fight against anti-Semitism, islamophobia, and all other forms of hate," Miller added. In the post, he said that he had filed a report with the U.S. Capitol Police as well as local law enforcement. "We know who this person is and he will face justice," he wrote. RELATED: Trump admin calls for Columbia University's accreditation to be pulled Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images The leadership of House Democrats issued a joint statement to condemn the alleged attack. "We condemn in the strongest possible terms the attack on Congressman Max Miller and his family and are thankful they are safe," the statement read. "The rise in political violence in this country is unacceptable. This is a moment of crisis that requires Congress to act decisively in order to ensure the safety of every single member who serves in the People’s House."The reported incident is especially concerning only a week after two Minnesota state lawmakers and their spouses were brutally attacked at their homes by a man dressed up like a police officer. One lawmaker and his wife were killed, while the other couple narrowly survived. The suspect has since been captured, and much of the evidence in the case points to a political motivation for the attacks. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!