I bet simps everywhere were losing their minds

I think the 1990s rock scene was not appreciated at first, as well as it should have been by ’70s rock fans. For many of us who graduated high school in the ’70s, by the time the ’90s rolled around, we were raising young families, and our attention wasn’t as focused on music as it used to be. As you’re trying to pay for diapers, baby formula, and all the other situations that you’re thrown into as a young parent, sometimes music gets put on the back burner. For many of us, we kind of just missed how powerful this The post 10 Perfect Rock Albums From The 1990s appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

In the fall of 1987, toy shelves were glowing…literally. Amid the neon slime, transforming robots, and sword-wielding warriors of the decade, Tonka introduced a line that felt like it crawled out of a haunted comic CONTINUE READING... The post Toy Stories: Supernaturals appeared first on The Retro Network.

“The stakes couldn’t be higher,” Jay Jones, the Virginia Democrat running for state attorney general, said Monday in an X post. It was an ironic post, coming 10 days after National Review reported numerous violent text messages Jones sent to a colleague in the Legislature about a Republican lawmaker. Jones fantasized about urinating on the graves of political opponents as well as shooting then-Virginia House Speaker Todd Gilbert with “two bullets to the head.” He also texted that he hoped Gilbert’s wife, Jennifer, would one day hold one of her children as they died. He followed that post with the same tropes used against all Republicans about “saving our democracy” and accusing incumbent Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares of being someone “who takes directives from [President] Donald Trump.” So what makes the stakes higher in this local election? Is it character? There is none evident here. How can he tell voters he has the comportment to govern? And how hard is it for Virginia Democrats to demand that he face consequences for his behavior? Where are Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Tim Kaine, D-Va.? Gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger and lieutenant gubernatorial nominee Ghazala Hashmi? Yes, they have tepidly called Jones’ texts inexcusable. As for consequences? Well, they all still endorse him. One Democrat they didn’t support after a major scandal was former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam. They tried very hard to drive him out of office in 2019 when it was unearthed that he appeared in blackface in a college yearbook in the 1980s. It didn’t work. He stayed, defying all the pressure. At the time, Warner and Kaine said in a joint statement, “We no longer believe he can effectively serve as the governor of Virginia and that he must resign.” So did every major national Democrat, from former Vice President Kamala Harris to former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe to former President Joe Biden. Yet there is no call for Jones to exit the race. Perhaps it is because Democrats know it is too late to replace him on the ballot. Early voting has already started, and perhaps they don’t want the Republicans to score a win in the off-year cycle. Or, perhaps, and this is the worst possible scenario, the Democrats are secretly OK with what Jones texted. Jones has a host of other problems as well. He was stopped by law enforcement in 2022 for going 116 mph in a 70-mph zone, an infraction that could have resulted in jail time for reckless driving. Instead, his lawyer and the commonwealth’s attorney worked out a deal by which Jones was only required to do 1,000 hours of community service, the bulk of which was performed by Jones for his own political action committee in lieu of jail time. Virginia Democrats come across looking as though murder and gaming the system are not issues that deserve consequences. They aren’t going to stick their necks out to make Jones leave the race. This story has totally blown up the race. However, the lingering question remains about the mindset of the Virginia Democrats, and indeed the mindset of national Democrats. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Unconscionable Loss of Conscience for Virginia Democrats appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Scott Wiener to Challenge Nancy Pelosi for Congress

When the pharmacy shelves are empty or medical care becomes inaccessible, your backyard might be the salvation you’re looking for.  Not for the vegetables, but for the medicinal plants quietly growing between your tomatoes and beans. Yes, you could grow plants that have kept humans alive for millennia before and take care of your health […]

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) continued his attacks on the inexperience of his leftist opponent, Zohran Mamdani, in the second and final New York City mayoral debate. The far-left candidate was blaming Cuomo for the housing crisis under his watch as governor and received loud applause from the audience. Then Cuomo fired back and leveled Mamdani over his record as a New York state assemblyman. 'You had the worst attendance record in the Assembly, and you gave yourselves the highest raise in the United States of America ... and then you never showed up for work!'"He says that taking five years to build affordable housing is the sign of an incompetent government — by his own words, that means he must have led an incompetent government. That is what we are seeing because that is the record that is actually on offer!" said Mamdani. "I understand my friend doesn't really understand government," Cuomo responded. "The governor doesn't build housing in New York City," said Cuomo. "Not if it's you!" Mamdani interrupted. "No!" Cuomo yelled back. "Legally there are jurisdictions. The governor doesn't pick up trash. He doesn't run the fire department. That's what the mayor does. The mayor builds housing. The state allocates funding for localities, and I allocated more funding for housing than any governor in the history of the state of New York!" Cuomo also got loud applause from his supporters in the audience. "All right? I did things! You have never had a job. You’ve never accomplished anything," he continued."There is no reason to believe you have any merit or qualification for eight and a half million lives! You don't know how to run a government, you don't know how to handle an emergency, and you've literally never proposed a bill on anything that you're now talking about in your campaign!" Cuomo said. "You had the worst attendance record in the Assembly, and you gave yourselves the highest raise in the United States of America. You went from $110,000 to $140,000, and then you never showed up for work, and you missed 80% of the votes!" he said empathically. "Shame on you! Shame on you!""It is always a pleasure to hear Andrew Cuomo create his own facts at every debate stage," Mamdani replied. He did not dispute Cuomo's characterization of his time in the Assembly and instead counterattacked on Cuomo's housing record. Mamdani and Cuomo argued and talked over each other before they were quieted by a moderator to let Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa respond to both. RELATED: Cuomo strikes at Mamdani while Sliwa goes on the attack in fiery NYC mayoral debate Photo by Hiroko Masuike-Pool/Getty Images "I heard the both of them, again fighting like kids in the schoolyard," said Sliwa. "Zohran, your resume could fit on a cocktail napkin, and Andrew, your failures could fill a public school library in New York City!" One of Mamdani's most popular policies among New York City voters is his promise to freeze rents in an attempt to ease the high cost of living in the city. Housing experts say that rent freezes almost always backfire by leading to fewer housing units by making them unprofitable. Most polling has Mamdani ahead of Cuomo, which has caused some to call on Sliwa to drop out of the race in hopes of swinging the advantage to Cuomo. The mayoral election is less than two weeks away. The entire debate can be viewed on the YouTube channel for Spectrum News. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Last month, the Trump administration issued a proclamation targeting the abuse of the H-1B visa program. Though some confusion about the order ensued, the effects of this first attempt at reform are beginning to be felt at some major companies that have historically used H-1B workers, who hail primarily from India. The proclamation, signed on September 19, 2025, was the first of what many hope to be multiple reforms of the H-1B visa program. 'No current or future sponsorship is available.'The proclamation introduced a $100,000 fee for the sponsorship of new H-1B applications for those outside the United States. According to a White House fact sheet, the primary goals of the proclamation are to protect American jobs, combat H-1B abuses, and prioritize American workers.This high price to pay for foreigners has caused some companies to rethink their hiring practices.RELATED: Supreme Court rejects case that would reconsider H-1B-related visas Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty ImagesThe San Francisco Chronicle reported that major companies such as Walmart, Deloitte, and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation have shied away from extending sponsorships for new H-1B applicants.Recent job postings dated after the proclamation in mid-September confirm that companies have changed their policies. Deloitte says in one post that qualified applicants for a software automation developer must not need employer sponsorship "now or at any time in the future." Deloitte did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News. Recent Walmart job postings also have an advisory to the same effect: "No current or future sponsorship is available," an October 2 job posting for a software engineer reads. A Walmart spokesperson told Blaze News, "Walmart is committed to hiring and investing in the best talent to serve our customers, while remaining thoughtful about our H-1B hiring approach."In a post from October 22, a Cognizant job opening has a similar message: "Cognizant will consider applicants for this position who are legally authorized to work in the United States without the need of employer sponsorship."In a statement to Blaze News, a Cognizant spokesperson said, "Cognizant has built a resilient business model that attracts top talent locally and globally. Over the past several years, we have significantly reduced our reliance on visas, using them only for select technology roles that supplement our U.S. workforce. We employ thousands of American citizens nationwide and have invested heavily in creating a robust local talent pipeline."The recently announced proclamation is expected to have limited near-term impact on our operations. Cognizant’s scale and global footprint provide multiple levers to continue to serve our clients in the U.S. and globally," the Cognizant spokesperson continued.According to its website, Cognizant employs over 300,000 people around the globe, many of whom are employed in the United States through visa programs, particularly the H-1B visa.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

America again stands on the edge of betrayal, watching mobs assault federal officers while judges call it “restraint.”This is not new. Between 1876 and 1878, the same script played out as those sworn to uphold the law were branded as tyrants and those undermining it claimed the mantle of freedom. When the federal government lost the will to enforce its own laws, violence filled the vacuum.How the first ‘Redemption’ workedAfter the Civil War, Republican coalitions in the South — freedmen, poor whites, and Northern reformers — were crushed by white Democrats who called themselves “Redeemers.” They promised “home rule” but delivered a racial caste system enforced by terror and political exclusion.The Redeemers invoked ‘home rule’ to dismantle Reconstruction. Today’s Democratic left invokes ‘human rights’ to paralyze national defense.The last obstacle to that counterrevolution was federal protection of black voters. During the disputed 1876 election, President Ulysses S. Grant stationed troops at polling sites across the South to deter fraud and Ku Klux Klan violence. Democrats in South Carolina vowed to “wade in blood knee-deep” if necessary to reclaim power.Those troops were the only shield between freedmen and their former masters. But in the Compromise of 1877, federal forces were withdrawn to buy political peace. Reconstruction governments collapsed, schools for freedmen closed, and voting rights vanished. As W.E.B. Du Bois wrote, “The slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery.”Southern Democrats soon made that withdrawal permanent. Wrapping themselves in the rhetoric of liberty and “local control,” they pushed the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, criminalizing use of the Army for domestic law enforcement except when Congress expressly authorized it.The narrative was set: Federal troops at the polls meant “tyranny”; “home rule” meant “harmony.” In truth, the act cemented the collapse of Reconstruction and led to the birth of Jim Crow, which paralyzed federal defense of civil rights for nearly a century.RELATED: Stop pretending Posse Comitatus neuters the president Photo by Interim Archives/Getty ImagesThe rhetoric of reversalDebates over the Posse Comitatus Act dripped with moral inversion. Southern Democrats like Rep. John Atkins of Tennessee and William Kimmel of Maryland denounced President Rutherford B. Hayes as a “monarch” who preferred bullets to ballots. Federal soldiers protecting black voters were smeared as bloodthirsty brutes and “tools of despotism.”In that twisted language, enforcing the law became tyranny, while mob rule became freedom.It was early information warfare: delegitimize the protectors, vindicate the aggressors, and freeze lawful authority into submission. Photo by Transcendental Graphics/Getty ImagesThe new paralysisA century and a half later, the pattern repeats. Democrats, left-wing activists, and their media allies now use essentially the same language to delegitimize immigration enforcement. ICE and Border Patrol agents, upholding laws passed by Congress, are branded as “fascists.” Federal defense of government facilities is denounced as “militarization.”Judges cite the Posse Comitatus Act to block National Guard deployments meant to protect ICE offices from violent assaults. In Illinois, U.S. District Judge April Perry ruled that deploying the Guard could “add fuel to the fire that they started,” claiming no evidence of impending “rebellion.” The ruling came days before No Kings Day demonstrations.The Department of Homeland Security had extended fencing around its Broadview facility after earlier attacks — rioters hurling fireworks, bottles, and tear gas while local officials looked away. When the DHS finally reinforced its defenses, the courts ordered them torn down.Since June, ICE and Border Patrol have endured shootings, arson attempts, and coordinated ambushes. In Dallas, a sniper targeted an ICE field office. In suburban Chicago, federal agents were rammed and pinned by cartel-linked drivers before returning fire. Local police en route to assist were told to stand down.Within hours, left-wing outlets and activist networks declared the clash proof of “authoritarianism.” The strategy is deliberate: manufacture chaos, provoke a lawful response, then cite that response as evidence of tyranny.This is a textbook reflexive control operation — using perception to paralyze power. The Redeemers of 1878 called federal troops “despots” and “usurpers.” Their descendants call federal agents “fascists.” The aim is identical: Erode public trust in lawful authority and make enforcement politically impossible.Citizenship as the battlefieldThen, as now, the real fight centers on citizenship itself.In the 19th century, freed black Americans embodied the principle that allegiance and equality before the law, not race or birth, define membership in the republic. That ideal shattered the old Southern order, so Redeemers destroyed it.Today, citizenship threatens a different order — the globalist one. Citizenship implies borders, duties, and distinctions. So progressives seek to redefine it as exclusionary or immoral. Illegal aliens become “newcomers.” Enforcing the law becomes oppression. The federal obligation to protect citizens morphs into a liability.What began as Redeemer propaganda has evolved into a post-national orthodoxy: Sovereignty is shameful, and the citizen must yield to the “world citizen.” The result is the same — federal paralysis, selective law enforcement, and mobs empowered by moral cover.RELATED: A president’s job is to stop the burning if governors won’t Photo by Minh Connors/Anadolu via Getty ImagesLessons from the first betrayalThe parallels are precise. The Redeemers invoked “home rule” to dismantle Reconstruction; today’s left invokes “human rights” and “de-militarization” to paralyze national defense.The Posse Comitatus Act was never a sacred constitutional barrier — it was a political tool of retreat. Then it left freedmen defenseless; now it hinders protection of federal agents, citizens, and borders. By turning law into spectacle and restraint into virtue, it leaves our republic unguarded.History teaches a blunt lesson: Retreat invites terror. When the state retreats, mobs rule. When courts mistake optics for justice, defenders become defendants. The same moral inversion that once enslaved men through “home rule” now threatens to enslave the republic through lawfare.To survive, America must recover what it lost in 1877 — the courage to act as a nation. Withdrawal is not peace. Compromise, in this instance, is not order. The freedman of this century is the American citizen himself — and the question, once again, is whether the nation that freed him will defend him.