A truly legendary band are going to be joined by a modern titan and one of the best heavy bands of this century in Bristol next Summer

Nine states allow food stamps to be spent in restaurants, and two more are in the process of allowing it. The fact that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is buying taxpayer-funded meals at establishments like McDonald’s has triggered one Republican senator to introduce a bill to stop it. More than half a billion dollars in taxpayer money went to paying for the indigent to dine out through the Restaurant Meals Program between June 2023 and May 2025, a new investigation by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) found. “While franchises like McDonald’s are making McMillions off of SNAP RMP, allowing fast food to be purchased with food stamps is an idea that is a few fries short of a Happy Meal,” she wrote. “The ‘N’ in SNAP stands for ‘Nutrition,’ and we all know fast food isn’t exactly nutritious,” she continued, alongside photos of Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and KFC locations advertising that they accept government benefit cards. “McSCUSE ME?” Ernst added on X. “The amount of SNAP being spent at fast food should be $0 not McMillions.” The Federal Agriculture Department, which funds the food stamp program, allows states to optionally allow food stamp recipients to spend their money at restaurants if they are 60 years or older, disabled, the spouse of such a person, or homeless. Ernst has introduced the “McStopping Chains from Using SNAP EBT to Make Entrees Act,” or the McSCUSE ME Act, that would allow the elderly or disabled to get hot, prepared meals from deli counters and hot bars of grocery stores, but not from fast food chains. It would also remove spouses of qualified people from eligibility. The SNAP program was already under scrutiny for allowing the indigent to purchase nearly anything edible, such as candy and soda, even as poor people are more likely to be obese than starving, leading to expensive medical care that is also paid for by taxpayers. Nearly 5,000 stores with words related to “liquor” or “tobacco” in their names accept food stamps, a Daily Wire review of government data found. Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday. In the last year, conservative states have initiated bans on the purchase of soda — a move that states like New York have also pursued over the years, only to be blocked by the federal government, which must issue a waiver. Yet liberal states are moving in the opposite direction, with some newly adding fast food to the menu. Oregon is running a “SNAP Restaurant Meals Program” pilot based on a bill its legislature passed in 2024. It will apply to anyone 60 or older or who has a disability, as well as the homeless. Illinois is piloting a restaurant meals program with the same criteria, except that it also extends eligibility to the spouses of people who are disabled or over 60. Restaurants must sign up with the state to accept food stamps. Other states allowing food stamps at restaurants are Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia, though the vast majority of the spending is in California. The move to curtail free soda was met with a lobbying campaign by lobbying groups representing soda and candy manufacturers, who rake in billions of dollars from the program. Ernst’s bill could be met by a similar move from fast food chains. Twelve conservative states have announced plans to ban taxpayer-funded soda, while Kansas’s Democrat governor vetoed a bill passed by the state legislature to do so. Related: Why Can Food Stamps Buy Junk Food? How DOGE Could Save Billions And MAHA

Thanksgiving is a time when families thrive, and our conservative movement can learn key lessons from this uniquely American tradition as we move forward together. Let’s begin with what’s best about the day: a shared table, familiar laughter, and the quiet grace of gratitude. Gratitude is not the fruit of harmony; it is the seed. Traditions renew; children grow up knowing the laugh of a cousin; and an uncle regales with stories of where the family came from. The mystic chords of memory, those invisible threads that bind generations, grow stronger and endure. Thanksgiving is meant to be practiced. The meaningful work of breaking bread with people who vote differently, pray differently, and have different points of view preserves more than a holiday tradition. Amongst people you don’t always like but with whom you share a deep bond is where public deliberation starts — a practice foundational to American self-government. We keep the muscle memory of belonging to something larger than ourselves. What’s true for our families is, of course, also true for our conservative movement and the nation we all endeavor to save. Ronald Reagan is often remembered for saying, “All great change in America begins at the dinner table.” What is left out, however, is the line that follows: “So, tomorrow night in the kitchen, I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven’t been teaching you what it means to be an American, let ’em know and nail ’em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.” Let the talking begin this week — and let our conversations be an invitation to those we love to once again find unity in our purpose, first as families and then as a nation. At Heritage, we’ve started this family conversation, centered around four questions plain enough to ask around the dinner table and significant enough to guide a movement and save a republic: What does it mean to be a flourishing American family? What does it mean to honor the dignity of work and secure the future of free enterprise? What does it mean to have true national security? What does it mean to be an American citizen? At Heritage, we have a point of view, confident in our thinking and our institution’s 52 years of robust intellectual history. We believe that united, good-faith conservatives will engage in this discussion. We are also certain we know what a restored America looks like: Marriage and family celebrated, not ignored or mocked. Work dignified, wages rising, and two incomes a family choice, not a necessity. Borders secure, military strong, enemies deterred. Children learning truth — not ideology — in educational institutions that parents control. Faith respected, civic virtue restored, patriotism the norm. Government limited, debt shrinking, freedom expanding. We call this Heritage 2.0 inside our organization, where every colleague contributed to its creation. We present it to you as our battle plan to save America. Let there be no mistake; we are taking back Washington to save America. That puts a target on us — from the uniparty, the entrenched bureaucracy, and the deep state. Now may be a suitable time to reiterate with clarity our message to the purveyors of the status quo: Bring it on. We sweat not for the elites, but for everyday Americans. We toil not to be keyboard warriors but to chart a course of national renewal. The future of conservatism — a fusion of old and new right — will succeed when we return power to the people. Today’s populism didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It arose from failed leadership, calcified institutions, and elites who prioritized bureaucracy over everyday Americans. The people aren’t seeking minor fixes; they’re challenging the very credibility of the system, and often, they’re spot on. This ought to inspire our movement! The clearest path to returning power to the people is through a wholehearted rejuvenation of federalism. We will never lose sight of the many millions who feel the weight of the world on their shoulders. More than any organization across the country, Heritage is fully engaged in the work required to ensure a free, self-governing people can raise families and engage in community and commerce with peace, principles, and prosperity. Of course, the people will decide our future, as President Trump last week noted, appealing to the beauty of our American system. We are clear-eyed that our effort comes at a time of cultural and civic strain. But we’ve been here before. My friend and predecessor Ed Feulner wrote in his book The March of Freedom that conservatism is “a broad social movement of diverse but reinforcing beliefs, gathering travelers on the same journey — pilgrims who argue over the topography of their promised land but move in the same direction.” As Vice President Vance also said, the forces arrayed against conservatives of all stripes have massive resources, and there is a point where infighting becomes counterproductive. So, let us pull up chairs at the family table. Let us channel that turbulent passion and refine it with cool reason through public deliberation. Let us all be builders of a better America. Just as we will nurture the family tree through open dialogue, let us build America’s next 250 years under a thriving canopy of vibrant, interconnected branches rooted in self-governance. Our Heritage is our future. Through it, together, we will save the republic and secure its future. * * * Kevin Roberts, Ph.D., is president of the Heritage Foundation. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire. * * * Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday.

Since October 1, PBS isn’t taxpayer-funded, but the radical leftist spirit of PBS remains unchanged. When it comes to transgenderism, for example, the discussion cannot have two sides. In a 2023 study of seven months of the PBS News Hour, the libertine left drew 90 percent of the air time. It was even worse for in-studio guests. It was 19 to one -- and the one unsolicited utterance that opposed the left-wing position came from gay tennis star Billie Jean King, who dared to suggest that men shouldn't compete in women's sports once it came to advanced competitions like the Olympics. On November 24, the News Hour guest was Alejandra Caraballo, a trans woman who works at Harvard’s Cyberlaw Clinic. Caraballo exemplifies the acidulous leftist vitriol on Bluesky, the leftist alternative to Twitter. Caraballo posted this on June 18, after the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-denying mutilations for children: “I honestly don’t care anymore if this country destroys itself and burns down to the ground. The current form of the United States is incompatible with democracy or human rights. It no longer has any legitimacy to govern and I’ll dance on its grave. Let something better rise from the ashes.” This is the guest PBS picked -- the ones currently pretending to love America with Ken Burns bringing the DEI spirit to The American Revolution. Interviewer William Brangham waited until the last question to posit: “You have faced your own share of criticism for some of the things you have written on social media. Where do you see the boundaries in terms of how to have this debate, especially as it pertains to people who are near and dear to you?” There were no quotes on screen of her many wild swings on Bluesky, like this new one on the Elissa Slotkin “illegal orders” video: “Hot take but the president openly calling for the murder of his political opposition should be grounds for immediate impeachment and removal for office [sic].” Caraballo claimed this is systemic: “I think about this a lot in terms of the incentives of social media and how it can incentivize a certain style of engagement. But I think, in general, one of the things I have always tried to say and repeat, the quote is, 'be brutal to systems, kind to people.'" But when it comes to opponents in the trans debate, from Riley Gaines to Bari Weiss, there’s no kindness from Caraballo. Before that, Brangham’s most challenging question was this: “Back during the election, political analysts point to that notorious [notorious!?] set of ads that the president ran against Kamala Harris, she's for they/them, he's for you, as both being divisive and effective as an ad campaign. And, as you know, there are polls that show that somewhere around half of Americans approve of what the president is doing vis-a-vis trans people. How do you explain that? How does that sit with you?” Caraballo found that “incredibly troubling,” and underlined that Republicans running in off-year races pushed the trans/sports issues and lost, like in Virginia, where Winsome Earle-Sears spent a lot of money on “some extremely heinous anti-trans ads.” Heinous!? What Caraballo demonstrates is that radical trans activists don’t believe in democracy. They want an autocracy where no one can oppose their dictates. It’s not my way or the highway – it’s my way or “burn America down to the ground.” This is the kind of wacko that PBS is platforming. They also don’t believe in democracy, or they would allow someone on their show to oppose this hate-engulfed male. 

Dominica Mosby appeared before a judge on Thursday morning at the Shelby County Criminal Court to face a first-degree charge of murder in the death of a 3-year-old boy.The 29-year-old woman allegedly admitted to horrible abuse of Kevin Horton, the son of her boyfriend, according to court documents. The boy was found beaten to death by police at a residence in Memphis, Tennessee, on Nov. 5.'I get to the house; she's standing outside. ... I go in there to see my son. He's ice cold.'Judge Taylor Bachelor ordered Mosby to undergo a mental health evaluation in the hearing that lasted only minutes.Police said they were called to the residence on Beacon Hills Road by the boy's father, who found him unresponsive. The boy was declared dead at the scene.Mosby initially told police that she had the boy go to bed after he got sick, according to investigators. She later allegedly admitted that she burned the boy's genitals and ear with a lit cigarette after he urinated on the floor.Mosby said that when the boy disobeyed her, she hit him on the head and chest and stomped on him.An autopsy report said the boy had a lacerated liver, internal bleeding from his stomach, bruising on his torso, as well as burns to his ear and genitals. A medical examiner determined the cause of death to be homicide."I get to the house; she’s standing outside," recalled the boy's father, Keith Horton. "I have the fire department all in the house. I go in there to see my son. He's ice cold; he's purple. He had been dead."Mosby was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated child neglect."I feel bad because we loved him. I loved him like he was mine. Like I had him. Like I love my oldest son," the boy's grandmother said to WHBQ-TV.RELATED: Man sentenced to 50 years for 'staggering' torture of daughter, including force-feeding laxatives She is being held without bond.A GoFundMe page was set up by the boy's aunt, who claimed that his biological mother was incarcerated and that some of the funds were needed to bond her out so she could attend the funeral.Mosby is scheduled to appear in court next on Dec. 11.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Anyone who attends a university event, browses a college website, or strolls through a city park has likely heard a Native American land acknowledgment. These statements now function as the incense of the modern academy — burned at the start of a ceremony, meant to signal moral clarity, and producing the intellectual equivalent of secondhand smoke.Arizona State University, where I teach philosophy, posts these statements on the webpages of the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and the Hayden Library. The library even affirms that “we are on Akimel O’odham land, and that always needs to be at the forefront of our thinking.”Pluralism, the real kind, permits disagreement and debate. What we have now resembles stage-managed pluralism: You read the script you are handed, or you stay quiet.The implication is clear: U.S. sovereignty becomes an open question. That is the point. These acknowledgments aim to “problematize” the legitimacy of the United States, a central goal of the academic decolonization movement.For six years, ASU’s New College has required faculty to listen to one at the start of every meeting.A harmless ritual? A gesture of respect? A symbolic nod?I wondered the same — until I conducted a small experiment.A revealing reactionAt last week’s New College faculty meeting — a meeting of state employees conducting public business — I asked a straightforward question.“Given our commitment to diversity, may I also read a land acknowledgment of my own before each meeting?”My acknowledgment was not provocative. It thanked the generations of settlers, farmers, builders, capitalists, and families who transformed the Salt River Valley into a place capable of supporting a world-class university. It affirmed that we serve all students and help them prosper.I made a motion.Discussion required only a second. Not approval. Not endorsement. Only a willingness to debate the proposal.Not one person seconded it.I did not ask colleagues to agree with my acknowledgment. I asked only to read it. In fact, I would gladly see everyone read their own. Let every faculty member present a statement, a grievance, or a cause they feel compelled to highlight. Why limit the practice to one perspective?Yet the official record now shows that not one faculty member at ASU’s New College would second a motion to expand diversity.Appearance vs. realityThe episode highlights a distinction philosophy once taught clearly — the distinction between appearance and reality. Faculty preach diversity in language that collapses into ideological uniformity. Many cannot describe a competing view without reducing it to a script: oppressed versus oppressor. Anyone who falls outside their categories becomes a threat.My request challenged the boundaries of that framework. To the decolonization mindset, my acknowledgment represents the wrong category — heritage tied to “settler guilt” or “oppressor identity.” The ideology cannot imagine anything beyond that narrow frame.Pluralism, the real kind, permits disagreement and debate. What we have now resembles stage-managed pluralism: You read the script you are handed, or you stay quiet.The academic left rose to influence by praising inclusivity and toleration. Once in power, it exempts itself from those principles because tolerance, in its view, cannot extend to anyone labeled “bigot” and inclusion cannot extend to anyone lumped into the category “fascist.” Only the Marxist dialectic survives the screening.The ideology behind the scriptSome readers may think these acknowledgments amount to harmless gestures. They are not. They originate in decolonization theory, rooted in works like Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang’s “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor,” which defines decolonization as the overturning of settler society. Practitioners describe their own project as Marxist; that is the label they choose.Land acknowledgments do not describe history; they advance ideology. They treat land as permanently tied to racial or ethnic groups, a “blood and soil” logic the same theorists claim to reject. They question private property, Western legal concepts, and American national legitimacy.Seen through that lens, the reaction to my request becomes predictable. The ideological system divides the world into oppressed and oppressor. My acknowledgment, in their view, inserts the “oppressor” and threatens the narrative.Hypocrisy becomes impossible to miss. Faculty who go along to avoid conflict now face an uncomfortable truth: The ideology they tolerate openly rejects the pluralism a university claims to defend.RELATED: Antifa burns, the media spin, and truth takes the hits Photo by: Spencer Jones/GHI/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesAcademic reasoning is outOne hopes university professors — presumably trained to evaluate arguments — could step outside ideological commitments long enough to examine their assumptions. The job once required that. But critical theory, as taught in many departments, closes off that possibility. It demands that every fact, dispute, or policy fit into a predetermined narrative of oppression.Herbert Marcuse, in “One-Dimensional Man,” argued that intellectuals must not describe reality as it is but reshape society toward liberation from capitalism and Christian tradition. That approach leaves little room for honest debate.The real remedyCritical theory teaches that man is a victim of systems and structures. Scripture teaches that man is a sinner in need of redemption. Marxist theorists believe society must be remade. Christians believe the heart must be reborn.Jesus told Nicodemus, “You must be born again” — a direct claim about the human condition. Our deepest problem is not a defective system but a corrupted heart. No bureaucratic revolution can fix that. Ideologies that promise liberation from greed or power often create something worse when handed authority.The human dilemma runs deeper than political structures, and the solution rises higher than any academic program. Here is the acknowledgment I would like to hear at our university: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”