Anyone who has committed themselves to a significant health and lifestyle change will probably tell you it takes a lot of work. Changing your food and exercise habits can be difficult for your body and mind. The physical and psychological changes are not easy. But the benefits often outweigh the challenges, even if it can be overwhelming. Home Improvement‘s Richard Karn and his wife, Tudi Roche, changed their diet last year, and he lost 30 pounds. He told Fox News Digital the couple does their best to maintain healthy habits “as much as we can.” View this post on Instagram A post shared by Richard Karn (@officialrichardkarn) Richard Karn Won’t Follow A Super Regimented Diet Richard Karn told Fox News Digital if the diet is going to work, he has to have flexibility. “When something’s that strict, it can’t, for me, become a whole lifestyle,” he said. “I mean, you have to go, ‘Well, you know what? I really would enjoy this piece of cake, or I would like a slice of pizza.'”  He added, “So it’s like everything within moderation, obviously. I mean Oscar Wilde said anything worth doing is worth doing to excess. But I think that can get a lot of people in trouble. It becomes manic in a sense, but you do feel better. Your doctor is happier, and your clothes fit better when you do pay attention to certain things.” Richard Karn also had a warning forthose thinking of starting a new diet and exercise plan. Even though we know water is the best drink, Richard said to watch it. “You can get in trouble with drinking too much water,” he said. He explained, “That flushes out some of the salts and things in your system, so when you take things too far, you just have to pay attention, kind of like with your yard.”  Richard Karn clearly knows his stuff and his diet of moderation has been quite a success. Congratulations to him! This story’s featured image is by Michael Tullberg/Getty Images. The post ‘Home Improvement’ Star Richard Karn Shares Warning After Losing 30 Lbs appeared first on InspireMore.

Alijah Arenas is in an induced coma following a serious car crash

'Our work is really in convincing senators that this is the appropriate thing to do'

'Voluminous pages of PowerPoint slides'

'Creating a climate of fear'

'Deep partisan divide'

'Highly increases the likelihood that non-citizens will be registered to vote'

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. Where are we in the trade wars, the tariff wars? The stock market recently has recovered somewhat. We’re about where it was in August. I didn’t think it was too bad in August of 2024. It’s recovering 1% to 2%, on occasion. And why is that? Because Donald Trump has announced that JD Vance and his wife, who is of Indian legacy—her family was born in India—met with the Indian government officials, and there may be a trade deal. Japan has been talking with us. They both want—us and Japan—want a deal. Japan says we moved the goalpost. We say, “They’re not serious.” But there’s going to be a deal there. And more importantly, Donald Trump said he was willing to lower tariffs on China. Now the Left says, “Oh, he’s caving, he’s caving. This was all unnecessary.” You could interpret it that way. But it’s more likely “Art of the Deal.” In other words, “We’re going to invade Panama,” but we’re not going to invade Panama. We just want Panama to let American companies run the exit and the entry to the canal—and that’s probably going to happen. “Canada’s going to be the 51st state.” No. It’s not going to be the 51st state. But Canada should defend themselves and pay 2% of their GDP, and they need to address a $65-$100 billion deficit. But, “We want to absorb Greenland.” No. We don’t. We want Denmark—a colonial power with this huge North American colony—we want them to help them a little bit. And indeed, they’re starting to put Greenland on their imperial flags, and they gave them a billion dollars, and the base is secure. And the Greenland people, 50,000 or so, will want U.S. security. So, that is the “Art of the Deal.” And to get China to come and reduce its $300 billion trade surplus with the United States, Donald Trump talked about these huge tariffs. Now, he will talk down and we’ll probably get a deal in an “Art of the Deal” fashion. We saw that with NATO. He harangued them in 2018. They were furious. Said he might not come to their aid. They haven’t met their 2%, 2014 promises. And guess what? They started to spend more in defense. Timely so, because when the Ukraine war broke out, Europe had spent a billion dollars more on defense expenditure. And more importantly, they had Finland and Sweden, two of the most muscular of all the European nations in terms of munitions and defense readiness, now both part of NATO. That worked. And I think the same thing is happening with trade. Here’s the dynamic: the Europeans detest Donald Trump more than they see their self-interest. In other words, they would rather be on the outside of these trade negotiations and punish Donald Trump than they would be with the Asian powers and make a deal and profit, mutually with the United States. And partly that’s because they’re akin to the American Left. And, as we saw with Jamie Raskin, a representative in the Congress, he said to each country, “If you cut a deal with this administration [the Trump administration] we’re going to remember that.” So, the EU people want to help the American Left, and one of the ways they think they can is to stonewall and watch the bond and stock market go down. And then they could come in later with more favorable concessions from the United States. The problem with that thinking is that if India cuts a deal and South Korea cuts a deal—and now they’re talking about Japan, Taiwan, Australia—the Trump administration has already established, openly, transparently, that those countries that are first to cut a deal will get the most favorable terms. And so, the more people that come in and have a reciprocal agreement with the United States—I’m not saying it’s going to be parity. I’m not saying we’re going to get down to zero deficits—but if we cut this trillion-dollar deficit by half, that will be a considerable achievement. The Europeans, then, will see that they’re left out. And especially if we come to an accord in the next month or so with China—not that we’re going to be able to force China to have no tariffs on their part. But we might be able to lower them and then make them buy American products to reduce that $300 billion—If that were to be true, then Europe has missed the boat. The bottom line. The trade war, or tariff war was never really a war. It was just an effort to stop a 50-year-cycle of chronic American trade deficits that had harmed the industrial interior. There’s one caveat I would like to leave you with, and it’s this: as long as Donald Trump talks about parity and the desirability of lowering our trade deficits and the unfairness of our trade partners, and a idealized goal of no tariffs, he’s got a winning issue. However. Caveat. If he starts talking about tariffs in pre-1913 terms, before the income tax, when tariffs were the primary source of American revenue. In other words, if he thinks, “I’m going to get all this money coming into the United States from these countries that are going to have to give us this money. And then I can cut taxes on tips, I can do this…” that’s not going to work. No country will wanna make a deal when they think that we’re doing tariffs, not in pursuit of fairness, but in pursuit of gouging, whether true or not. So, as long as he talks about any other aspect of tariffs except revenue raising—that is a losing political issue. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Method Behind the Madness of Trump’s So-Called Tariff Wars appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This Week in Tesla Vandalism

Thursday was apparently a slow day for the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View since they occupied their first segment by hyperventilating about people who expected former First Lady Michelle Obama to show the office of the president respect and attend President Trump’s second inauguration. The View cast were eager to blame it on sexism and suggested women uniquely had to deal with people putting pressure on them to attend events they didn’t want to. “So, former First Lady Michelle Obama used her latest podcast episode to take on all the misinformation about her decision, HER DECISION to skip the last inauguration,” moderator and friend to the Obamas, Whoopi Goldberg huffed. After playing a soundbite of Obama on her podcast, Goldberg shouted: “My question about all of this is why does she owe anybody an explanation? … Why is it my business?! She didn't go!” “Well, there were rumors that she was having trouble in her marriage. She’s clearing it up,” Behar defended Obama. Later quipping: “If I have to listen to Trump babble on for two hours I'd have menstrual cramps too.” Co-host Sunny Hostin took a break from blaming everything on racism and instead chose to blame this sexism, which drew wide agreement from the rest of the cast: HOSTIN: You know why -- I think it's because women are always expected to say “yes,” and expected to do things even when they don't want to do them. I remember in my 20s and my 30s I didn't know the power of “no.” I just -- expected -- people expected me to say ‘yes” to almost everything. BEHAR: Is that how you got pregnant all those times? HOSTIN: Yeah, pretty much! Yeah! Pretty much! [Laughter] But in your 40s and certainly now in my 50s I say “no” when I don't want to do anything and it comes with wisdom and it comes with -- BEHAR: Age. SARA HAINES: Time. BEHAR: It comes with age for me. HOSTIN: And time. And freedom. It gives you.     Goldberg refused to acknowledge the fact that former presidents and their spouses were expected to attend the inauguration of their predecessors if they’re medically able to. “I don't understand why you would go somewhere and be uncomfortable. See, I don't want to be uncomfortable. If I know I'm going someplace and it's not a good thing for me, I don't do it because it’s not good for me!” Goldberg continued to shout. Pretend independent Sara Haines argued that Obama didn’t have any obligations because she was no longer the first lady. “[W]hen you're the acting first lady I think the obligations are different and probably should be different. But when you are out of office, you are out of office, peace,” she proclaimed while holding up the peace sign. Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin agreed that sexism played a role, declaring: “But people often, if a woman decides to make a decision and a public figure they're going to jump to the worst possible conclusion.” Goldberg was so desperate to argue that there was some kind of double standard at play in the situation that she ridiculously claimed that no one in the media had ever made an issue out of Melania Trump not appearing somewhere with her husband. Her assertion was so insane that both Behar and Hostin had to admit that they’ve mocked the Trumps about it on the show: GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this because I notice and maybe I'm just making stuff up but I noticed when Melania doesn't go anywhere, people don't flip out the way they been flipping out here. HOSTIN: No, they talk about it too. GOLDBERG: Well, we joke about it but we – But she is not obligated. She is not obligated to explain why she doesn't go and I don't understand why one and not the other. BEHAR: Well, it’s all over Twitter when she doesn’t – they think she's in witness protection. Yes, Whoopi, you were “just making stuff up.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 24, 2025 11:03:19 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: So, former First Lady Michelle Obama used her latest podcast episode to take on all the misinformation about her decision, HER DECISION to skip the last inauguration. (…) 11:04:09 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: My question about all of this is why does she owe anybody an explanation? I don't understand why -- JOY BEHAR: Well, there were rumors that she was having trouble in her marriage. She’s clearing it up. GOLDBERG: But, again, this is the fourth time she's had to do this and I don't understand why if she says I didn't go, why do I have to know, do I -- Why do I have to ask you, what did you get your friend this month or did you not go because -- why is it my business?! She didn't go! BEHAR: If I have to listen to Trump babble on for two hours I'd have menstrual cramps too. [Laughter and applause] SUNNY HOSTIN: You know why -- I think it's because women are always expected to say “yes,” and expected to do things even when they don't want to do them. I remember in my 20s and my 30s I didn't know the power of “no.” I just -- expected -- people expected me to say ‘yes” to almost everything. BEHAR: Is that how you got pregnant all those times? HOSTIN: Yeah, pretty much! Yeah! Pretty much! [Laughter] But in your 40s and certainly now in my 50s I say “no” when I don't want to do anything and it comes with wisdom and it comes with -- BEHAR: Age. SARA HAINES: Time. BEHAR: It comes with age for me. HOSTIN: And time. And freedom. It gives you. GOLDBERG: Really? See, I must be a freak of nature because HAINES: Well, you’re different. GOLDBERG: Because “no” -- I don't understand why you would go somewhere and be uncomfortable. See, I don't want to be uncomfortable. If I know I'm going someplace and it's not a good thing for me, I don't do it because it’s not good for me! HOSTIN: Were you always like that? GOLDBERG: Always. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But see, she doesn’t go and then there’s people jump to the worst conclusion that her marriage was falling apart. And I literally just on Instagram the other day saw pictures of – or video of her and President Obama on a date in Georgetown holding hands and out together. But people often, if a woman decides to make a decision and a public figure they're going to jump to the worst possible conclusion. GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this because I notice and maybe I'm just making stuff up but I noticed when Melania doesn't go anywhere, people don't flip out the way they been flipping out here. [Applause] [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: No, they talk about it too. GOLDBERG: Well, we joke about it but we – But she is not obligated. She is not obligated to explain why she doesn't go and I don't understand why one and not the other. BEHAR: Well, it’s all over Twitter when she doesn’t – they think she's in witness protection. [Laughter] HAINES: Yeah, but I would say it actually brings you to one of my points, which is when you're the acting first lady I think the obligations are different and probably should be different. But when you are out of office, you are out of office, peace [hold up peace sign]. Like, she is allowed to. HOSTIN: Did you say peace?! GOLDBERG: Did she just do? HAINES: Peace. BEHAR: How do you do it? HAINES [while making peace sign]: Peace. Peace. Peace. [Laughter] HOSTIN: Peace out. GOLDBERG: You are scaring me! HAINES: I know. I know. But I think that it's kind of what Sunny said – thank you – he power of “no” that drawing your boundaries, that we are kind of preprogrammed, it's not just expected of us, I think it's in us to just -- that's how we please. That's how we succeed. That's how she show up. To let go of those “what you should do” [uses air quotes] takes decades, it takes wisdom, purpose, time. GOLDBERG: Do you realize if you live by what you should do, by other people's standards, you will never move forward. HOSTIN: Yeah. HAINES: Right, but I think it takes you – for me, not for you, it took me a long time to even hear that I was doing what I should – I had dimmed my vice so much that I was autopiloting things that was, like, why does this not feel good? FARAH GRIFFIN: You take the path of least resistance often even if it's not the best thing for you. I definitely fell to that. HOSTIN: Same. BEHAR: There’s such a thing as obligation and family. GOLDBERG: Well, that’s different obligation is different. She was not obligated to go to this and I – HAINES: Maybe you should tell her. GOLDBERG: Well, I do. I say to people. HOSTIN: You did say that. GOLDBERG: It's important that we recognize that, not just women, but just as human beings. We are not obligated to do those things which are harmful to us or that do not help us go forward. HOSTIN: Or cause discomfort. GOLDBERG: Yes, you're not obligated. And what you do sometimes is you teach your children to do that, so maybe that's something we have to remind people to stop doing, because it's not – What other people think of you is not as important as what you think of yourself. HOSTIN: Absolutely. GOLDBERG: Because nobody can kick your behind like you can kick your own behind. HOSTIN: Absolutely.