A Brazilian soccer star accused pop singer Chappell Roan of bringing his 11-year-old daughter to “tears” after the diva’s security ridiculed and berated the child at a Sao Paul hotel...

CBS radio shows in the 1950s & '60s had news, comedy, drama and sports -- and they basically invented the formats we still love today.

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Tell us how you really feel, Eddie. The post Eddie Vedder thanked Malcom McLaren for being an “ego-driven f*ck” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Last week’s article dealt mostly with Chabad’s history and involvement in fierce resistance to the great Western tyrannies in Russia and Germany. This resistance was not shallow, and while it was certainly political in that it addressed fundamental political issues, particularly freedom of religion, it always came to the political issues from a religious base. Politics as religion is disastrous. Politics that recognizes the sacredness and primacy of our relationship with God is a blessing. The kind of politics that results in a First Amendment is a blessing we all need. The state places religion beyond the control of government while simultaneously disallowing religion to enshrine itself at the helm of state power. The government is a civil authority, and its citizens will bring their religious inspiration and insight to their civil engagement, for good governance is itself a divine concern. After the bloody wars surrounding the Reformation, and the attempt of all sides to forcibly establish their version of the true religion as supreme, the West brought forth a new view that embraced an ever-stronger concept of religious freedom. It was powered by thinkers who read widely and found inspiration and practical guidance in many sources. This was not new. The very small educated class of medieval Europe engaged in scholarly exploration across the boundaries of the warring faith communities. The Christian Scholastics knew and valued not only the ancient Greek and Roman thinkers, but also Muslim thinkers such as ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Farabi, and ibn Rushd (Averroes) as well as great Jewish philosophers such as Maimonides and Gersonides. What was new in post-Reformation Europe was the engagement with the rabbinic/Talmudic tradition. For a thousand years, Christian thought treated rabbinic thought as worthless at best, fiendishly dangerous at worst, so that on several occasions, the Talmud was seized and burnt. But for Christian thinkers like Pico della Mirandola, Joahnnes Reuchlin, Hugo Grotius, and John Selden, rabbinic legal and mystical traditions opened up a new door which they were eager to pass through. These people and those influenced by them led the way to the First Amendment. They had stopped looking at those outside their own tradition as caricatures of evil and found that such mythology hindered the development of personal moral accountability that is the cultural sine qua non for self-governance. We realize God’s wisdom and will are meant to be internalized, accepted as the deepest expression of who we really are. And so, when formerly trusted political commentators have suddenly embraced spiritual and political atavism, it is time to show how inadequate that response is to the challenges of today. The goal here is to continue to contrast Tucker Carlson’s viciously shallow caricature of a Jewish movement with a brief summary of some of its central religious ideas. The aim is to contrast Carlson’s approach with that of the scholarship that made the West’s greatness possible. The goal is not to escape from any criticism, much less to censor anyone. It is rather to allow readers to see for themselves and judge for themselves what criticism is constructive and valid and results from a deep and caring insight into those it criticizes and what criticism is destructive, not in good faith, and unwilling and afraid to see beyond bias and self-serving caricature. The most important of Chabad’s ideas lie in the deep insights of the Jewish mystical tradition into the nature of God’s creation. In the language of the 16th century Tsefat school of Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, before there was a creation, before there was time, before there was a “before,” there was only the Infinite Light of God. No boundaries or delimitations existed, no definitions, as nothing was defined, as there was no finitude, only the infinite. How could a world of individuation come to exist when there could be no boundaries? Every particular thing would be overwhelmed by infinity. But limitlessness means as well that there was no boundary to stop God from choosing to limit Himself in order to make a world that could endure and enter into a relation with God blessed by Him with a consciousness and an identity. These are the preconditions of love. The world was created by God choosing to make love possible by making space to bring the beloved into being. It is this world that God loves. He sees it as He creates it and calls it good, again and again. He sustains it by choosing again and again to make the space for His beloved creatures to know themselves and then to know Him. God becomes greater in this way than any being trapped in stasis, imprisoned in infinity. God informs us in His word that we humans are created in His image and that He has put the world within us, enabling us both to work it and preserve it. We can become deputized creators, created in His image, making the world become better and preserving its ancient good, the way it has always been in God’s mind, which sees through to the end from the beginning. We learn that we become great through making room for others — not by compulsion, for God is uncompelled — but by choice. We become greater through submitting to love, through choosing to limit our fixation with the infinite realm of our private self to willingly love our fellows and make space for them in every meaningful way, even to the last full measure of devotion. We realize God’s wisdom and will are meant to be internalized, accepted as the deepest expression of who we really are. Thus, we learn to govern ourselves not because of some superior outside force that makes it a bad bet to misbehave, but because we detach ourselves thereby from the very core of our life, our liberty, and our happiness. It is about being self-governing in order to be fully human. It is about teaching those closest and everyone in one’s network of life how to do so as well — not by external compulsion but by being a compelling example, modeling this self-governance in the divine model so that it resonates with others. This is an epitome of a large and deep literature and tradition. There is a vast library from these 250 years of Chabad that touches on law, philosophy, theology, language, aesthetics, and the vast range of topics that help to make real the wonder and marvel of the world God has made and the humanity with which we have been blessed. Chabad was very early present online and its flagship website, Chabad.org, contains a motherlode of material, whether books, lectures, videos, or what have you. Some literature requires context, as there is a vast difference in the world we inhabit in 21st century America and the world of Tsars where Chabad began. But anyone with even modest skills in the online world will be able to easily find much of interest and of value. As the world goes through one more cycle of this vile fantasy with its unique track record of horror and evil, immunize yourself through replacing noxious mythology with knowledge. Help make our American discourse great again. READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Choose Life, Not Blame When Democracies Grow Up Too Late Head of State, Not Head of Faction  

A Catholic priest in Iceland is facing a potential prison sentence for upholding the Catholic Church’s moral teaching on homosexuality. According to EWTN News, the French-born Fr. Jakob Rolland caused a bit of an uproar when he was interviewed for a radio program and chose to defend the Church’s age-old moral teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the Blessed Sacrament. When asked if those engaging in homosexual activity could receive Holy Communion, Rolland replied, If a person has a tendency or inclination toward homosexuality, that’s not a sin. It becomes a sin when such an inclination is lived out in a sinful manner. First, one must undergo conversion, go to confession, and truly consider the possibility of changing one’s life and living in chastity in order to receive Communion. The priest himself operates a ministry to assist those with homosexual desires and inclinations to live their lives chastely. He added, “Of course, we are there to help people.” Now, LGBT organizations are clamoring for Rolland’s arrest, pointing to a 2023 Icelandic law criminalizing “conversion therapy.” While the priest noted that his ministry does not necessarily attempt to change an individual’s sexual desires or inclinations, but rather seeks to convert the heart and encourage and equip others to live chastely, some LGBT activists have argued that even providing support to those who struggle with unwanted homosexual inclinations could be a violation of the law. The matter has even been raised in Iceland’s Parliament. But where leftism promises pleasure and delight and power and riches, Christianity offers the cross. “I must fight for the Lord,” Rolland said when confronted with the potential for criminal charges and imprisonment. “If we don’t speak up, no one does. Everyone is afraid to do so even if they disagree due to the laws and prevailing mindset here in Iceland; and because the country is so isolated, the outside world remains unaware of what is happening,” he continued. “I believe we have a duty to speak the truth and to protect children. That’s the great danger in Iceland: People are sleeping amidst a dictatorship. They don’t dare to speak out.” What a double standard the Left maintains. Those who struggle with unwanted homosexual thoughts and desires are to be denied help and simply told, “This is who you are, deal with it.” But those who identify as transgender are afforded drugs and surgeries and every protection imaginable in order to reinforce their delusion. Then again, it may not be such a cognitively dissonant double standard after all: both are broken psyches, wounded souls, and the Left denies both the help and healing they so desperately need. Leftism, as I’ve maintained for years, is not a mere political force; its chief aim is to be a spiritual force, a religion. Leftism is the favored instrument of Hell at the present moment in human history. Where Christianity recognizes that all men are bestowed with inherent human dignity since they were made in the image and likeness of God, leftism awards human dignity only to those who remake themselves in its own Luciferian image. Where Christianity honors a long list of Saints who spent their lives remaking (often painfully) their own wills in the image of Christ, leftism canonizes those who follow in Lucifer’s footsteps and declare themselves to be God. But where leftism promises pleasure and delight and power and riches, Christianity offers the cross. Ultimately, the road to Calvary is the road to healing. A  man who loathes and detests his own biological body and psyche will not find healing in horrifically mutilative genital surgeries and a lifetime playing dress-up. But if he were to take Christ as his example and tread the harsh road to Calvary, he may find death waiting, certainly — death to his own self, to his own desires, to his own self-hatred, to his own pain — but the promise of Christ means that the cross is not the end: it is rather the gateway to new life, to life everlasting. In this respect, leftism can never imitate or ape the offerings of Christ. READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: The Emerald Revival: Catholicism Surges in Modern Ireland In Defense of Mass Deportations The Church’s Misguided Mercy

After the digital age begat Twitter and Facebook mobs, the paper of record bid a fatal farewell to objectivity. On the Iran war “all the news that’s fit to print” roots for the regime. Commercial catchphrases are not meant to be taken at face value. McDonald’s, “I’m lovin it” is ultra catchy but hyped. “Red Bull gives you wings” is designed to be zany. But here’s the thing. The legacy media can’t plug a promise they don’t keep without repercussions. Taunts of fake news made CNN rebrand with the taglines “Facts first” or “Go there.” Not so the “Old Grey Lady.” Steadfastly she treats her tagline as tamper proof. The Times coined a celebrated motto in 1897, and there it is today on the masthead. People are free to believe in, “All the news that’s fit to print,” but let the buyer beware. “Fit to print” for whom? For subscribers, or the Sulzberger family, or investors, or advertisers, or how about all of the above? Linguistics Professor Noam Chomsky, more cited than any living author, once nailed the media’s business model to the masthead. In Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media he makes the owners paramount. Audiences (subscribers, site visitors, clicks, etc) are treated as products and sold to advertisers. In the Times’s case it comes down to keeping the owners in clover by the production of news and views “fit to print.” The Sulzbergers would scan results for two metrics: 1) Bottom line profit and 2) news content and opinion conforming to their own progressive bias. Israel’s wars with Iran and its proxies are reported with the staple narrative that Israelis can’t be victims of terrorism. That’s how little the accuracy of news matters. Provided audience stats keep climbing the newsroom is free — indeed duty-bound — to filter progressive narratives into news reports. Hence the paper of record and language hoopla are soul mates. Describing the barbarity of Oct. 7 as an “attack” — not even that breached the borderline of bias. Looking back one can usually pinpoint the birth of a new era. In the early 1930’s a prodigy and a portent made landfall. Until then “fit to print” was a commitment to accurate and even-handed content. Then holocaust denial broke the symbiosis. During 1932 and 1933 Stalin, wanting to resettle Russians in Ukraine, methodically starved the population to death. During what became known as the “Holodomor,” cannibalism reached the point where authorities deigned to plaster signs on walls, “To eat your own children is a barbarian act.” Moscow correspondent for the Times, Walter Duranty, filed dispatches denying everything.  Americans read that the Holodomor, Ukraine’s holocaust, was a stunt. People, he wrote, were “hungry but not starving.” His reports on “hardship” won Duranty a Pulitzer prize for “dispassionate reporting.” A half century too late the rogue journo, the artist of fake, got the name he’d earned: “Stalin’s apologist.” The Times had endorsed his reports and dismissed the famine as “bunk,” even with Duranty’s greasy quip, “You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.” Jokes and a big fraudulent Prize! Max Frankel, Executive Editor until 1994, was cool about winning it. “The revelation doesn’t seem to qualify as news. It’s really history and belongs in history books.” Nor did it bother Howell Raines, Executive Editor until June 2003 when he resigned over — what else — an outbreak of journalistic fraud. He conceded that, Though the paper’s slogan is All the News That’s Fit to Print it is patently flawed. Important news slips by because our coverage reflects blind spots that we recognize only in retrospect … We know we make mistakes, but as long as they are intellectually honest and promptly corrected …   Blind spots! The paper was not honest then, nor has it been since — unless declining to return the Pulitzer Prize was the moral thing to do. Fake news has no excuse. Bias on the other hand may have legit business motives, despicable though they be. During WWII the Times publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, did not deny the Holocaust, but downplayed it. Loath to alienate the powers that be, in government and business, AH desired to avoid the impression that the paper was Jewish owned. Hence the plight of European Jewry was buried on inside pages. Laurel Leff cites many cases. The Times emasculated the Warsaw ghetto revolt by making Jews into “Poles” or, even sillier, “Warsaw patriots.” The massacre of Italian and Austrian Jews failed to make the front page.  Four columns buried on page 12 reported that half a million Hungarian Jews had been exterminated. The truth is that the Sulzbergers fit the mold that Howard Jacobson would later label “ASHamed Jews” in his 2010 novel The Finkler Question. The family were not keen Zionists either. They liked Israel no more than a chronic carbuncle.  Hence Middle East correspondents and opinion writers have to be hostile to Israel. Opinion lapses into news until readers give up distinguishing one from the other. “News Analysis” on the front page turns out to be Democrat talking points — and bashing Trump, it goes without saying. On the Iran war, “all the news that’s fit to print” is relentlessly bad, and it got the President’s back up. “We are totally destroying the terrorist regime of Iran, militarily, economically, and otherwise, yet, if you read the Failing New York Times, you would incorrectly think that we are not winning,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Telling the truth “without fear or favor” has long ceased to be the job description for the newsroom. Telling the truth could well cost your job. “Twitter is not on the masthead of the New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor,” Bari Weiss wrote in her resignation letter. Israel’s wars with Iran and its proxies are reported with the staple narrative that Israelis can’t be victims of terrorism. No more can American Jews. Witness the way the Times reported the latest attack on a synagogue. “The attacker who drove into Temple Israel in West Bloomfield Michigan, a 41-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, is dead. The man who rammed his truck into a synagogue on Thursday had recently lost family in an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon, officials say. Dearborn Heights Mayor Mo Baydoun said that the suspect, Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, recently suffered “devastating and personal losses overseas” but that it was “not an excuse” for the attack. No staff or children at the synagogue and attached school were hurt. Although a motive remains unclear, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer said earlier in the day that the attack was antisemitism and “hate, plain and simple.” The Times conveyed the news with the staple narrative contortions. The headline angled in on the grievance of the terrorist, portraying him as a tragic figure. Israel had killed his family, hadn’t it.  A Community Struggles to Understand Why Their Neighbor Attacked Synagogue “Days before the antisemitic violence, an imam recalled seeing Ayman Mohamad Ghazali at a service for his relatives who had been killed in the war in Lebanon.” Which is half true — they were targeted while fighting alongside Hezbollah forces. Where does it leave the celebrated Times motto? Not so far off the mark, as it happens. One word out, another in would change it from “ALL the news that’s fit to print” to “ONLY the news that’s fit to print.” Readers could then grin over the content, sure it is consistent with the family’s progressive bias. READ MORE from Steve Apfel: The Line That Held on Iran When Hatred Topples Nations When Fighting Antisemitism Becomes a Spectacle  

Nick Freitas — former Army Special Forces veteran, Virginia state senator, two-time congressional candidate, and current podcast host — has taken a careful, frustrated, and ultimately skeptical look at Joe Kent’s resignation from the National Counterterrorism Center. Freitas isn’t dismissing Kent. He endorsed him for Congress, had him on his show, and congratulated him on the appointment. His frustration is more personal than political: the Joe Kent in that resignation letter doesn’t match the Joe Kent he knew. In a recent podcast episode, Freitas spends considerable time walking through Kent’s own public record on Iran and it’s damning to the resignation letter’s central thesis. As recently as 2024, Kent was posting that “Iran has been after Trump since January 2020,” that Iran was “conducting coordinated attacks across the region,” and that Trump’s killing of Soleimani was entirely justified. In 2021 he wrote, “I stand firmly with Israel against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Islamism is a threat to Western civilization.” In 2020 he wrote, “I personally think we should have crushed their ballistic and nuke capabilities.” Freitas isn’t playing gotcha. He acknowledges people’s views can evolve and new intelligence can change assessments. But his challenge is direct: “What new information became available to lead you to the conclusion that everything can now be explained by Israel pulling all the strings?” He never gets a satisfying answer because Kent never addressed the contradiction publicly. The most underreported moment in the episode comes when Freitas pulls the actual Foreign Agents Registration Act data on foreign lobbying in the United States from 2016 to 2025. The top ten countries by total lobbying dollars spent are, in order: China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Liberia, South Korea, Marshall Islands, Bahamas, Qatar, UAE — and Israel comes in tenth. Dead last on the list. Freitas doesn’t call Kent a liar…. But he sees a man whose public record directly contradicts his resignation letter. Qatar, which was literally harboring Hamas leadership until Iran attacked them and flipped their allegiances, outspends Israel significantly. Saudi Arabia comes in third. “If you’re saying you don’t like that Israel has poured over $220 million into lobbying the United States, okay,” Freitas says. “Are you equally concerned about the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia? Just checking.” He also notes that when he asked Grok to list the top ten foreign countries providing funding to U.S. universities from 1986 to 2025, Israel didn’t appear on that list either — Qatar topped it. His point isn’t that foreign lobbying isn’t a problem. It’s that the selective outrage is intellectually dishonest. “I’m not asking anybody to not be concerned about foreign influence. I’m asking people to look at this proportionally.” Freitas’s sharpest critique isn’t about the substance of Kent’s concerns, but rather it’s about the execution. He argues Kent could have resigned in a way that was both principled and strategically effective. “Had Joe gotten out there and said, Mr. President, I don’t see any way we achieve our strategic objectives in Iran without the deployment of significant ground forces, and I can’t be part of that — I would have said, I get it.” That kind of resignation would have been a warning shot about escalation without torching the broader America First coalition or handing Democrats a weapon heading into the midterms. Instead, Kent wrote a letter that reduced every complex dynamic in the Middle East to a single explanation — Israel — and then went straight to Tucker Carlson’s show. “Nope, it’s all about Israel,” Freitas says sarcastically. “Is it though? I don’t think the evidence bears that out.” Freitas doesn’t call Kent a liar. He doesn’t dismiss the concerns about gatekeepers around the president or the role of the Israeli lobby. But he sees a man whose public record directly contradicts his resignation letter, whose timing couldn’t have been worse for American interests, and whose argument mirrors a pattern he’s spent years fighting on the left — where one explanation accounts for everything and anyone who pushes back is either bought or blind. “Foreign affairs are far more complex than that,” he says. “And I’m never going to be in that camp.” READ MORE from Tyler Rowley: Broadly Speaking, the Iran War Is About China Michael Knowles: Coalitions Over Policy How Thomas Sowell Changed Coleman Hughes’s Mind About Human Nature Tyler Rowley is a Catholic author and founder of Right Mic, a newsletter that curates the most recent and relevant conservative podcasts.