“Pints with Aquinas” host Matt Fradd released a special Christmas episode on DailyWire+ on Wednesday, as he prepares to officially join The Daily Wire’s stacked podcast lineup in January. Fradd was joined by Dr. Scott Hahn, a renowned theologian and Catholic apologist, and the two dove into many theological topics, ranging from the prophecies of Christ, to the story of the nativity and the importance of Mary. Their discourse started out by addressing the awe-inspiring fact of Jesus Christ choosing to become fully human and beginning his earthly journey as an unborn child. WATCH: Christmas with Dr. Scott Hahn | Tracing the Fulfillment of Prophecies “I was thinking about the scandal of the manger and I was reminded of St Augustine’s words,” Fradd said. “[Augustine] says, ‘He whom the heavens cannot contain the womb of one woman bore. She ruled our ruler. … She gave milk to our bread.’” Hahn agreed that the concept is often overlooked by Christians. “Because it’s not just the scandal of the cross that Saint Paul speaks of in First Corinthians 1 and 2. It’s also the scandal of the incarnation that God becomes man, that God becomes a zygote, that God becomes an embryo, a newborn child, God in the manger, you know, and I can hear my Christian friends saying, ‘So what’s what’s the problem?’” Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships “And I would suggest that they ought to go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and maybe stop by Bethlehem because you’re surrounded by Jews and Muslims. And if you’re just wondering… what’s the scandal of God becoming flesh, God becoming a baby in the womb of the Blessed Virgin? You know, look at it through their eyes… we’re not even made in [the image and likeness of Allah] according to Islam.” “And so we recognize in the Christian faith, especially in the Advent season, leading up to Christmas, that we’re dealing with a God who is personal, who is concerned about us as persons,” he added. “And it’s almost not fitting for a God that immense.” Fradd and Hahn also discussed how people can celebrate a beautiful Christmas with their families. “In Advent and Christmas I would say start small,” said Hahn. “I mean, when I think back to what we’ve done as a family, what my parents did as non-practicing Christians, every once in a while we began with an Advent wreath with the four candles … and then to gather around it each evening and  sing an Advent song or a Christmas carol.” Hahn suggested reading scripture together and keeping it short, especially for parents with small children. “That has been an anchor for us as a family, and that is the Advent wreath,” he added.

It’s been hard to miss the ongoing effort to rewrite America’s history, to cast the United States as a kind of international supervillain. Just a couple of weeks ago, I spent the better part of an hour dissecting the 25,000-hour documentary from Ken Burns about The Revolutionary War, which told a flagrant lie (either explicitly or by implication) every ten minutes or so. The point of the documentary, of course, was to convince young people — many of whom will be forced to watch the film in public school — that America is a terrible country founded by racist misogynists who stole all their ideas from the Indians. As it turns out, according to Ken Burns, the Indians were philosophers on the level of Plato or Aristotle. You see, when they weren’t busy converting human beings into stew, or arranging beads into flamboyant patterns because they were too primitive to come up with a written language, the Indians were basically giving Ben Franklin all of his ideas, under the table. Correcting the historical record with our own projects — on the scale of Ken Burns’ work — could not be any more urgent, which is why, very soon, I intend to do that. But in order to understand the extent of the propaganda we’re up against, it’s important to recognize that Leftists are not simply rewriting our history. They’re also attempting to rewrite some of the most classic expressions of American culture — including films and books that are widely read by children. In particular, there has been a very well-coordinated and well-funded effort to propagandize children into believing that evil does not exist — and that any individual who seems to be evil is, in fact, a very misunderstood victim of circumstance.  To illustrate what I’m talking about, listen to this musical number from the 1961 Disney film “One Hundred and One Dalmatians.” It’s sung by Roger about the villain of the story, Cruella de Vil — much to the delight of the family’s pet Dalmatian Pongo. See what you notice about the lyrics: Credit: Walt Disney Productions If you’re watching the video podcast, the first thing that probably jumped out at you is the quality of the animation. This was clearly put together by artists who cared about what they were creating. That’s why it holds up, more than 60 years later. It’s clearly superior to the CGI slop that we’re all used to. And it certainly looks a lot better than the modern remake of this same story, which we’ll get to in a second. But the important part, for now, is the lyrics. He says, “If she doesn’t scare you, no evil thing will. To see her is to take a sudden chill.” Then he compares Cruella de Vil to vermin and says she’s an “inhuman beast” who “ought to be locked up and never released.” Nothing in the film ever contradicts these statements. They’re obviously true. Cruella de Vil is a genuinely horrible person. Her goal is to steal puppies and murder them. In her first appearance in Roger’s home, she puts out a cigarette in his wife’s muffins — which, to be clear, is not a euphemism. She flicks her cigarette over the coffee. She openly mocks Roger and his home. Watch: Credit: Walt Disney Productions At no point in this scene, or in this entire film, does Cruella de Vil display a hint of humanity. So, for any child watching this, the lesson is unmistakable. Disney is telling its young audience that evil exists — and that some people are so evil that they belong in prison for the rest of their lives. You shouldn’t interact with them. If you do, they will take advantage of you. They will destroy everything you care about. They will defile your baked goods. They will walk around your house like Hillary Clinton from that meme. The one where she’s in that house in East Harlem, visibly shocked that it’s not up to her standards. They will make their contempt for you as clear as they possibly can. They have no redeeming qualities. They are a pure negative for you, and for society at large. Disney didn’t dilute this message in any way because, in 1961, no one was worried about being called a racist for teaching basic, fundamental life lessons to children. And religion was much more important to most Americans than it is today. A Christian nation is capable of recognizing that some people will receive eternal damnation because they are evil. They don’t deserve any of our time or sympathy. But the modern remake of this film, called “Cruella,” delivered a very different message. It was released back in 2021. And it completely rewrites the character of Cruella de Vil to make her the hero. And it begins with this origin story, in which Cruella’s mother is killed by Dalmatians right in front of her, while she looks on in horror. This is one of the worst scenes I’ve ever had to look at, and now I’m going to make you endure it as well. This is completely real. Watch: Credit: Walt Disney Productions Before we even get into how dumb this scene is — just look at it. The quality isn’t in the same universe as the animated film that was released six decades earlier. The sky in the background is clearly fake. The weather is clearly fake. The Dalmatians are clearly fake. But, unlike with the animated film, they’re not “fake” in a way that’s visually appealing or interesting or artistic. It looks like the graphics you might see in a mall arcade, or a game on the original Playstation. There’s no sense that any artist cared about how it looked, or spent any amount of time on it. And appropriately enough, along with this aesthetic decay, the messaging of the film has fallen apart, as well. In “Cruella,” we’re told that Cruella isn’t actually a bad person. Instead, she suffered a horrible personal tragedy as a child. Her mother died right in front of her, because CGI dogs ran after her, as you just saw. And we later learn that those dogs were secretly ordered to attack via a dog whistle by another character, called the Baroness. So Cruella spends the rest of the movie getting vengeance on the Baroness, who killed her mother. But the big twist — spoiler alert — is that the Baroness is Cruella’s actual mother, and the woman who was pushed off the cliff by the Dalmatians was a maid who was told to raise Cruella from a young age. So to recap: In the original film, Cruella is evil and belongs in prison. It’s pretty simple. But in the re-make, Cruella’s mother killed Cruella’s stepmother using Dalmatians who can be ordered to commit murder via dog whistle, and Cruella was horribly scarred by this. So Cruella plots revenge against her own mother, has the police arrest her, and then gives some Dalmatians away as a gift to her friends, since she’s now conquered her Dalmatian phobia. In other words, moral clarity — not to mention narrative clarity — is completely absent from the “remake.” The message for children in the remake is — what exactly? Is the message that your mother may not actually be your mother? Maybe she’s a secret murderer. Or maybe the message is that evil characters who are literally named “Cruel Devil” are actually misunderstood, and have simply internalized a lot of emotional trauma from freak accidents that occurred in their past. When this film came out, it was tempting to dismiss it as a terrible film, and move on with your life. That’s what most people did. But it’s actually part of a much larger trend. For the past decade, Hollywood has continued to follow this exact same template. They’ve taken an obviously, unequivocally evil classic character. And then they’ve come out with a new film or show, which makes the case that actually, that character was the good guy all along.  The most recent example of this tactic is the upcoming animated film “Steps,” which is due out next year from Netflix. Credit: Netflix/Paper Kite Productions Here’s how Netflix’s official promotional blog describes the idea behind this new film. This is a pitch that feels like it was produced by Chat GPT, and then Netflix automatically hit the green light, without making any revisions whatsoever.  Here it is. Think you know Cinderella’s ‘evil’ stepsisters? Think again! When misunderstood Lilith is blamed for hijacking the Royal Ball with a stolen magic wand, she accidentally turns her sister Margot into a frog and allows the kingdom to fall into the hands of a prince-obsessed mean girl. Now Lilith must team up with Cinderella (and a surprisingly dreamy troll) to save the kingdom, repair the fractured fairy tale, and prove that even so-called villains deserve a shot at happily ever after. So the villains are actually good. They don’t deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison. They’re not vermin. They “deserve a shot at happily ever after,” no matter what they’ve done. And the new villain, to take the place of the stepsisters, is a “prince-obsessed mean girl.” For her part, Cinderella is teamed up with a “surprisingly dreamy troll.”  They’re really sticking it to the patriarchy, in other words. It’s a bit like that Snow White remake no one watched, where Rachel Zegler described Snow White as a strong independent woman, who doesn’t need any prince.   This is the kind of assembly-line scriptwriting that, for the past decade, has defined pretty much every major Hollywood remake of a classic. And every time they do it, these filmmakers convince themselves that they’re doing something brave and transgressive. Here’s a quote from the director of this new Netflix Cinderella movie. This story is, at its core, about two very different sisters — one who fits perfectly into this fairy tale kingdom and one who doesn’t — realizing they’re more alike than different. It’s such a personal story for me because, growing up as an awkward, artsy Taiwanese kid in suburban New Jersey, I often felt like an outsider, like ‘happily ever after’ wasn’t meant for me. I wanted to create a film for everyone who has ever felt like they didn’t belong — and show how a single act of kindness can change everything.’ The most obvious response to this, of course, is that this particular Netflix director — a woman who, according to her website, specializes in “classical piano, ballet, fine art, classical violin, graphic design, and more” — is a pathological narcissist. She’s convinced herself that she’s a victim because she was “awkward” and “artsy,” whatever that means. Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that rich Taiwanese kids in suburban New Jersey are an oppressed demographic. And now, as a result of that oppression, she’s going to force Netflix subscribers to watch her “personal story,” even though she’s not working on a documentary or biography about her own life. She’s making a Cinderella movie — allegedly. But really, this director’s job is not to create anything. Her job is to erase the Cinderella story that everyone’s familiar with — the one where the stepsisters are complete garbage. At one point, lest we forget, the stepsisters destroyed Cinderella’s dress and assaulted her, to the delight of Lady Tremaine, the stepmother. Watch: Credit: Walt Disney Productions As a kid in the 1950s, if you saw this, you’d recognize that the stepmother and the stepsisters are not good people. And the film doesn’t suggest otherwise, at any point. There are no excuses for their behavior. There’s no sob story about how Dalmatians somehow murdered their mother. They’re just bad people. And in the end, they lose — and that’s a moment to celebrate, because it’s good when bad people lose. When you make Cinderella a story about how the evil stepsisters really aren’t so bad — and in fact, how they’re really the heroes of the story — then you aren’t simply producing another generic DEI slopfest. You’re also trying to confuse children about good and evil. And you’re trying to erase the Christian themes of the Cinderella story, which were particularly evident in the Grimm Brothers’ version of the story in the 1800s. In the Grimm Brothers’ version, the stepsisters suffered a biblical, Old Testament-style punishment in the end. In the end, during [the] wedding, as she walks down the aisle with her stepsisters as her bridesmaids, the doves fly down and strike the two stepsisters’ eyes, one in the left and the other in the right. When the wedding comes to an end, and Aschenputtel and her prince march out of the church, the doves fly again, striking the remaining eyes of the two evil sisters blind, a punishment they had to endure for the rest of their lives. This was the way it worked in old fairy tales. The villains were very evil, and in the end, very bad things happened to the very evil people. In the Disney version, the ending wasn’t quite so graphic. They dialed down the Old Testament references a little bit. But even so, the stepsisters didn’t win in the end. But now, less than a century later, Netflix has decided that the stepsisters are indeed the heroes. They “deserve a shot at happily ever after,” we’re told. Imagine being a child raised in a culture where everything — including basic biology and fundamental tenets of morality and Christianity — is subjective. That’s the point here. The idea is to convince the youth that evil isn’t a legitimate concept, so that they can indoctrinate them into supporting — and committing — acts of evil. Works that have overt Christian and right-coded themes are particularly under attack. Take the “Rings of Power” series by Amazon. I haven’t seen it, but from what I can tell, the show has decided to portray the Orcs as sympathetic figures — even though Tolkien did the exact opposite, for a reason. This is from a website called “Bounding Into Comics.” In the opinion of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power showrunners, their Season 2 decision to ‘humanize’ the Dark Lord’s orc armies is far from controversial because not only does the change provide better opportunities for storytelling, but it also falls directly in line with Tolkien’s writings. …  The Orcs in The Rings of Power are shown as brutal but oppressed foot soldiers, their lives concerned not just with war and pillaging, but also achieving a future where their families can exist as more than tools for Lord Sauron to use in service of his ambitions. So they’re claiming Tolkien would’ve humanized the orcs — he just never got around to doing it. But fortunately, we have the Amazon show runners to swoop in, decades later, to tell us what Tolkien meant to say, in an extremely heavy-handed fashion. There’s this line of dialogue in the Amazon show, for example, from an Orc named Glug. The preparations are nearly complete, Lord-father. But…we are safe here. We have a home. Must we go to war again? You told me Sauron was dead. Let us leave him that way. It’s enough to make you shed a tear for the orc hordes. And then there’s this scene, where we get to see an Orc family, lamenting the prospect of more war: Watch: Credit: Amazon MGM Studios At this point, they might as well throw in a scene where an Orc goes postal because his health insurance claim is denied. They’re committed to taking you out of the world that the author created, and shoe-horning all of the most cliched scenes imaginable into the plot. And they don’t seem to care about the fact that they’re completely undermining everything the author was intending to do. They’re making this story entirely indistinguishable from every other show on television. And in some cases, it’s a commercially successful approach. We can’t deny that. “Wicked” — a story that’s billed as a kind of prequel to the Wizard of Oz — was one of the biggest box office hits of the decade. And it was successful because it took the same “edgy” and “subversive” angle, where the villain is actually a misunderstood hero. And for good measure, they’ve thrown in some transparent political messaging. Watch: Credit: Universal Pictures/Mark Platt Productions Wickedness is “thrust upon” some people, we’re told. In particular, in this case, wickedness is thrust on a black woman by the white guy (Jeff Goldblum) and the Asian woman (Michelle Yeoh). The non-black characters use their institutional power to demonize an innocent person of color, as they so often do. The message, once again, is that, contrary to what you learned in “The Wizard of Oz,” “wickedness” isn’t actually a legitimate concept. Instead, it’s a way to scapegoat minorities. The South Side of Chicago isn’t more dangerous than Iraq because wicked people live there. It’s more dangerous than Iraq because the government is scapegoating those poor people. That’s the takeaway. And if you’re 10 years old, which describes much of the audience for this film, you’ll fall for it. There are too many more examples of this phenomenon to mention, from the new Joker movies, Dracula, the show Lucifer, and so on. But we’ll finish with how the 1959 film “Sleeping Beauty” has been defiled by Hollywood. This is a scene from the film “Maleficent,” which came out around a decade ago. This is where the evil fairy appears and puts a curse on the newborn child. Watch: Credit: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures/Joe Roth Films As you can tell, the fairy isn’t messing around. She wants the kid dead. And she’s upset because she wasn’t invited to the party. That’s it. She’s an evil fairy. There’s nothing more to it. But in the live-action film, there’s a lengthy backstory. The fairy has been betrayed in some horrible way by the king. And so the fairy shows up to place the curse on the child. But it’s not the same curse. Watch: Credit: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures/Joe Roth Films/ Credit: @lordphoenix2138/YouTube.com Again, the CGI and the acting are horrible, to the point that it’s distracting. It’s much harder to watch than the cartoon from the 1950s. But they also added a completely new part of the curse. Now the fairy offers an “out” to the child. She needs to find true love to lift the curse. And what do you know? In the end, the evil fairy Maleficent comes to love the child, and saves the child’s life. It’s impossible to overstate how universal this trope has become, particularly in children’s entertainment. The term “psy-op” is overused, but it’s hard to think of another way to describe this. It’s a full-court press that’s intended to convince children that objective morality does not exist, and that Christian ethics is a simplistic and outdated approach in a very diverse, “complicated” world. In response, you might be tempted to say, well, Hollywood is really just out of ideas. So they’re going through all of these classics, and inverting the villains, as a way of generating some new content. But if that’s the case, where are the Right-wing ret-cons? Why aren’t we getting a follow-up to “Beauty and the Beast,” where Gaston is vindicated as the hero he actually was? All he did was work out, eat eggs every day, and defend the town — and a vulnerable woman — from a rampaging, magical beast that came out of nowhere. And he did it all in style. Watch: Credit: Walt Disney Pictures I’ve made the case before that Gaston is really the hero of the story. In fact I argued that a number of Disney villains were really the heroes. I meant it as a joke at the time. But Disney doesn’t see it as a joke, apparently. Admittedly, even though you could make an argument for Gaston — even jokingly —  it’s not the easiest argument to make, if you watch the original “Beauty and the Beast.” So it’s ripe for a full-on, Right-wing follow-up that flips the script. Where’s our big-budget Netflix animated film called “Gaston,” with a consulting credit to that guy Raw Egg Nationalist, where Gaston bravely defends his village from a marauding, foreign beast? As Netflix said, every villain deserves a happy ending, or whatever. So where’s Gaston’s happy ending? When is that coming out? We all know the answer to that question. Gaston’s not getting a redemption arc because he’s not an insufferable shrew, or a jealous stepsister, or a demented terrorist who paints his face, or a literal witch, or an old hag who’s jealous she didn’t get invited to a party, to the point that she’ll murder a child. In short, Gaston’s not getting a redemption arc because, in that “modern remake” that humanizes him, he’d be a normal white guy who takes pride in himself and his community. Those are the values that Hollywood abhors. And those are the values that Hollywood doesn’t want your children to learn. This is a relatively new phenomenon, and it’s important to distinguish it from the general trend towards anti-heroes. I’m aware that the whole “anti-hero” thing became really popular back with “Breaking Bad,” “Sopranos,” et cetera. It’s still going strong. But there are several key differences here. For one thing, those shows aren’t aimed at children. For another, they’re actually good shows. They’re not unimaginative and boring, complete with generic and unwatchable CGI. They also have stakes and tension — which these remakes lose entirely, by making the villains seem sympathetic at heart. But most importantly, those shows are original. They aren’t transparent attempts to rewrite our culture and reprogram the morality of an entire generation. It’s now very evident that, above all else, that is Hollywood’s goal. They want your children to believe they live in a world without villains, and where no individual can truly be described as evil. So ask yourself this question: What kind of person or institution benefits when an entire generation is raised to believe that morality is entirely subjective? And what does it mean when those people or institutions have billions of dollars, and control of the entertainment industry? Every day we hear another story about some violent vagrant criminal released from jail — or never jailed at all — by some judge — almost always a female — who wants to see the good in the evil scumbag and give him a second (or 10th or 30th) chance. I’m not saying those judges were influenced by a bad “101 Dalmatians” remake. I’m saying they’re part of the same cultural trend. Reflecting and driving it at the same time. This means that, as a parent, you’re up against some very powerful — and very sinister — forces. It also means that, before they’re taken offline, you should pull up some of the Disney films from the 1950s and 60s that I mentioned. Screen them for your kids. It’s an entire era that everyone in the entertainment industry would rather you forget about. But good and evil do exist. And it’s never been more important that your children understand that. Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships

Little girls often dream about what their wedding will be like someday. They imagine a white gown, beautiful flowers, and maybe even the perfect venue. Sometimes they dream really big. Even though some of their most secret wishes may never come true, it’s still fun to fantasize. Emily Emby married her husband, Joel, at The Breakers in Palm Beach on December 6. Emily’s a huge Ellie Goulding fan and chose How Long Will I Love You for their first dance. Emily expected the dance to be romantic, but she had no idea just how special the night would become as the music started. View this post on Instagram A post shared by People Magazine (@people) Ellie Goulding performed the Song Live Not only did the couple dance to Ellie Goulding’s music, but the pregnant singer was also live at the reception. “I was hysterically crying!” Emily told People. “I had been talking about Ellie since high school!” Emily said it wasn’t just her. The entire reception erruputed whe Ellie hit the statge. “Everyone was screaming,” she said. Emily’s father had the big idea and texted the wedding planner, Jennifer Pear, to see if they could get Ellie at the reception. “He thought he might have a lead to her team, but it turned out he didn’t, so I immediately told him that I actually did have a direct connection and could start the process right away,” Jennifer told People. “From there, it became our little secret mission. At first, it was just between the two of us, and once we had some momentum, we looped in Emily’s mom.” She added that watching the whole secret plan come together was so amazing. “Watching it all come together, from the initial idea to contacting her team to securing the performance, was incredibly special,” Jemmifer said. “He had the dream, and together we found the path to make it happen.” Emily said she’s a “big daddy’s girl” and getting Ellie Goulding at the reception is totally in his wheelhouse. He’s “always the guy to pull off big surprises.” This story’s featured image can be found here.

'Puts Beijing on notice'

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. We’re having a big discussion in this country about immigration, both legal and illegal, and one of the themes has been whether a person came legally or illegally, what was their attitude about the country they came to, and did they show appreciation or gratitude? And that could be defined as obeying our laws or professing a love for this country, aside from showing gratitude by becoming legal. And this came up in a variety of context. We had a great number of licenses here in California, 17,000, that were issued to people who were illegally in the United States, and they weren’t even residents of California. We had a lot of drunk driving incidents and violence, murders from people who came across the border. In the south, we had people on campus from the Middle East who were overtly expressing support for Hamas, Hezbollah, antisemitic sloganeering. And most importantly, in Minnesota, during the COVID-19 years, the Somali community got a billion dollars or multibillion-dollar grants—we don’t really know the depth of this scandal—supposedly to supply food and meals, and even in some cases, health services to indigent people or people who were impacted negatively by COVID-19 and apparently, under the nose of Gov. Tim Walz, under the nose of Attorney General Keith Ellison, under the nose of the point person for the Somali community, Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Minnesota congresswoman. This fraud went on and on and on. And it was only due to a federal attorney who uncovered it because it was a matter of—much of it was a federal matter because the funds came from Washington, and there have been indictments and they’re still occurring. But what’s interesting is nobody in the Somali community who was a political representative or supposedly told us what a great community that this was ever bothered to see what they were actually doing. There were a variety of state and local laws that were violated, but there were no prosecutions. Walz cannot explain why the feds had to step in and why he never even investigated this until the media and the Trump administration drew his attention to it. Keith Ellison allegedly has talked about expecting campaign contributions from the Somali community in some kind of quid pro quo fashion. Ilhan Omar’s on a video where she points to one of the restaurants in question, allegedly for serving these fraudulent—I shouldn’t say serving, not even serving the meals at all. But this opened a larger question. If you were an immigrant and you came to the United States from a war-torn, impoverished, and dangerous place, like Somalia, shouldn’t you express gratitude? Ilhan Omar came here, to take one example, and she’s the most prominent example of this controversy right now. She came here at 13 and she was given every benefit of being a U.S. resident and then a U.S. citizen. She was given a generous scholarship to go to college. She was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives. She was elected to Congress. I think she’s a four-term congresswoman. She insisted, even though she was an American citizen, to wear the traditional Somali hijab, even though there was a rule in the House, an old rule, that people don’t wear headwear or gear or hats inside the Capitol chambers when Congress is in session. They made a special exception just for her. But I mention this because she has a long line of indiscretions, and they form a pattern. She said that the United States was a trashy country. She said that the dictatorship in America, i.e., the Trump administration, was not much different from the one that she left in Somalia. She said that Charlie Kirk, right after his death, was a scholastic terrorist. I don’t know if that means a random terrorist or just an incidental terrorist or habitual terrorist, but that was a terrible thing to say right after his death. She also said that it’s the Benjamins, baby, when she was making the argument that, as she put it, we in the Congress don’t have to have an allegiance to a foreign country and implying that Jewish members put Israel ahead of the United States. And so, she’s been part of “the squad” and she’s had to apologize for some of her antisemitic rhetoric. She’s expressed overt criticism of the country that befriended her and allowed her to be educated at mostly at public cost, to be a representative of Congress, to write a book with a major New York publisher. She’s also, she put on one of her financial disclosures that she almost had a zero net worth. Now, after her marriage to Tim Mynett, who seems to have made quite a lot of money through his association with politicians, she now says that her, in her financial disclosure, that their net worth may be as great as $30 million. There’s also an accusation that, allegedly, allegedly, that she may have formalistically married her brother to ease his citizenship application, and then that marriage was legal and then it was dissolved as she married again. And we don’t know if that’s true, but one thing we do know, it’s true, she’s never said under oath, “I didn’t do that. I did not do that. I swear under oath that I never married my brother. And this is the proof.” So, at least we don’t have a testimony of that. She may have said it informally, but I don’t think in a court of law she said that. My point is that, in this greater discussion about the fraud that goes on in Minnesota and our worry about immigrants on campus, behind the wheel of a semi-truck, administering a fraudulent food program, coming across the southern border, and then committing acts of violence, maybe, just maybe, we should ask of our immigrants a little gratitude, that they left and voted with their feet to come to the United States. And in this whole nexus, Ilhan Omar stands out as a person for two reasons. As an immigrant example, this country has lavished no more benefits on anyone than her. Every imaginable opportunity was extended to her, and yet, in reciprocity for that, she’s attacked the president of the United States, she suggested that the country was trashy, she said that Charlie Kirk was a terrorist, she said 9/11—she said something happened on that day, something happened. No, not something happened, 3,000 Americans were murdered. And now she’s mysteriously a multimillionaire. And we still don’t know how the entire story of how citizenship was attained, from her brother and whether, as some people charge, she actually married him, which would be immigration fraud. And so, Ilhan Omar is an example of what’s wrong with legal and illegal immigration, that we allow people from countries that are, I don’t want to use the word “Third World,” but are in chaos, in tumult, they come as refugees, they’re extended every benefit, and very soon they realize that their advance or their success politically hinges on the degree to which they express themselves as victims or as hard leftist or as ingrates. And she’s done all of that. And it’s no surprise that she’s very prominent among the hard-left politicians, and she’s a quite wealthy woman. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post COVID-19-Era Grants Show How Identity Politics Can Shield Corruption appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The worst thing that has ever happened to the Capitol Building? “Air conditioning,” says Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn. Burchett joined ”The Signal Sitdown” at the Republican Study Committee’s new media row to discuss how a group he calls the “war pimps” came to dominate Washington—and what he’s doing to try to stop them. Installing air conditioning in the Capitol, Burchett said, gave members of Congress the wrong impression: “These guys think they need to be year round,” he said, “I do more work when I’m at home, brother. This is a show up here.” Burchett explained that “a war pimp is somebody who profits off war and or that enjoys war because it furthers their career.” And this advancement is not only political, but financial. Members of Congress like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have often been criticized for trading stocks while going about their work on Capitol Hill drafting and passing legislation that will have large economic impacts, leading to massive returns. Perhaps nowhere is this behavior better demonstrated than with members of Congress who are charged with appropriating defense funds while being invested in defense companies. A report published by Sludge in September 2024 found that “more than 50 members of Congress own stock in defense contractors whose profits are soaring from giant Pentagon budgets and supplemental weapons packages.” The analysis found that the two defense companies members of Congress were most invested in, in 2023, were Honeywell and RTX (formerly Raytheon). Honeywell is known for its sensors and missile guiding technology, which is used by the Israelis. RTX, meanwhile, makes missiles for Israel’s Iron Dome. It’s not just the war in Gaza or aid to Israel, however. The war pimps don’t care what war it is, they just want their cut. “Look at Ukraine,” Burchett told The Daily Signal. “Under Biden, we gave Ukraine our missile defense system … then you turn around and you have to replenish our missile defense system, which is a multi-billion dollar no bid contract.” “Members of Congress own stock in that missile defense company, and apparently some of them bought it as soon as a couple of weeks before the president officially made that announcement,” Burchett continued. “So you’re in that dadgum committee and you get that information, you buy stock in it.” Burchett, however, said he is trying to end the practice on Capitol Hill with a bill that would ban members of Congress from owning or trading individual stocks. “Congress is infinitely broken and we are crooked as a dog’s leg.” The post GOP Congressman Exposes Practice That Makes Congress ‘Crooked As a Dog’s Leg’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Regulations from Obamacare and under the Biden administration not only increased the cost of health care, they’ve also making it more difficult to advance artificial intelligence and other technology in medicine, experts told a House panel Wednesday.  The regulations amount to “layers of permission” for health data, said Dr. Ziad Obermeyer, Blue Cross of California Distinguished Associate Professor of Health Policy and Management at the University of California, Berkeley.  “When I started this work, it was so difficult to get the data that we needed here in the United States that I ended up doing this research in Sweden,” Obermeyer said at a joint hearing of two House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittees. “That process took 10 years, but it was still faster than doing it here, despite European data regulations.” “The major culprit here is the many layers of permissions and approvals required to touch health data,” Obermeyer continued.  During the hearing, Rep. Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., asked Obermeyer, “If artificial intelligence becomes significantly integrated into medical practice, what impact should we expect on the health care workforce?” Obermeyer said it would change the nature of work, but wouldn’t have the negative impact some anticipate.  “What we’ve learned from the history of automation and technology adoption is that it doesn’t necessarily eliminate jobs—it actually changes the nature of those jobs,” he said. “So, doctors will start to need to interact with these tools and learn from them. And I think they’ll start to augment the capabilities of especially nurses, community health workers, and others who can now have access to cutting edge technology applied to the data from patients to help them make better decisions.” Donalds asked, “Do you think that the Affordable Care Act’s regulatory framework allows for this type of internal innovation in the health care system?” Obermeyer said he couldn’t speak directly to Obamacare, but could talk about regulation more broadly.  “I think right now there are not very strong incentives for a lot of health systems to adopt this AI technology,” he said. “I think the access program that was recently announced from [the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services] is a good start in that direction by incentivizing preventive care, augmented by technology.” He said AI technology could “drives lower costs” and “detects the kinds of fraud, waste and abuse that you mentioned earlier.” The two panels were the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs and the Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, asked Chris Jacobs, founder of Juniper Research Group, about the Affordable Care Act. “Obamacare was sold to the American people as a program that would drive down premiums,” he said. “I think the number that was thrown out by President Obama at the time was $2,500. Has that promise come to fruition?” Premiums on individual health insurance policies on the Affordable Care Act more than doubled in the law’s first four years, Jacobs said.  “That’s primarily because of the regulatory mandates that the law imposed,” Jacobs told the House panel. “And prices have continued, premiums have continued to increase substantially, and they continue to increase substantially, more so on the exchanges than for employer sponsored coverage.” Gill followed, “So you would say that Obamacare didn’t slow the growth of premiums in any meaningful way?” Jacobs said, “If anything, quite the contrary.” The post How Obama, Biden Regulations Slowed Technology Growth in Health Care appeared first on The Daily Signal.

US Seizes Oil Tanker Off the Coast of Venezuela

Can Tweens TikTok From a Land Down Under? As Of Today ...

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) has launched her campaign for the U.S. Senate, and BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales couldn’t be happier — especially after seeing her first official campaign ad.The ad features Crockett staring straight ahead and blinking while a voice-over of President Donald Trump insulting her plays.“How about this new one they have, their new star, Crockett? How about her? She’s the new star of the Democrat Party, Jasmine Crockett. They’re in big trouble,” Trump begins.“She’s a very low-IQ person. Somebody said the other day she’s one of the leaders of the party. I said, ‘You got to be kidding,’” he said as Crockett stared blankly into the camera.“Almost a minute long of Donald Trump calling you retarded with no context, and you’re like, ‘Yeah, Trump called me stupid. Vote for me.’ Like, what? I don’t know who she paid to do this. I don’t know how much money she spent. I would say if she spent more than $5 on that ad, it was a total waste of money,” Gonzales comments, laughing.“I am elated,” she says. “I can’t wait for the rest of these ads. I can’t wait for the rest of these press conferences.”Gonzales, who points out that Crockett once said, “Just because someone has committed a crime, it doesn’t make them a criminal,” believes her run for Senate is a “gift from God.”Not only because Crockett is a source of entertainment for Gonzales, but because her presence will ensure a Republican victory, as her ideas are so bad that almost no one could take them seriously.In one interview, Crockett even floated the idea of black people not paying taxes “because then again, that puts money back in your pocket, but at the same time, it may not be as objectionable to some people about actually giving out dollars.”“It’s all so crazy,” Gonzales laughs. “I love this. This is, like, the best Christmas present.”Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.