A new digital ad in the Nebraska Senate race is bringing revelations from the Epstein files to the campaign trail. Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) released an ad pointing out Independent Dan Osborn’s canceled fundraiser with high-level Democratic strategist Dana Chasin, whose name was referenced in an email in the files for allegedly moving children on a plane for Jeffrey Epstein. Chasin has strongly denied any allegations, according to Politico. “Even after that information was public, Osborn continued to raise money with Chasin until he got caught,” the ad states. Although the fundraiser was scrapped, the ActBlue link to donate with Chasin’s name on it as part of the host committee was still up until Monday morning. After The Daily Wire reached out to the Osborn campaign about the active ActBlue link with Chasin’s name mentioned, it was taken down. A screenshot of the ActBlue link for Dan Osborn’s canceled fundraiser with Dana Chasin as of Monday morning. Chasin, who’s part of the Rockefeller family, told Politico that he’s “never owned or rented a prop plane, or any plane for that matter.” “I stand with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and their pursuit of justice and accountability,” he added. The Osborn campaign said on background that the claims made against the candidate in the ad are “categorically false,” and underscored that the fundraiser was canceled after they were made aware of Chasin’s alleged Epstein ties. In terms of donations, the campaign said that Chasin did not donate to Osborn’s 2026 race and that the campaign gave $3,300 to an anti-human trafficking charity to serve as an equal counteraction to Chasin’s 2024 donation. “Pete Ricketts is a member of the Epstein Class, and has spent his time in the Senate doing everything he can to protect them, including voting against the release of the Epstein files,” an Osborn spokesperson said in a statement. The Epstein Files Transparency Act passed the Senate with unanimous consent in November, but many Senate Republicans received pushback in September for scrapping a Democrat-backed amendment to a defense bill that would have triggered the release of the files, according to NBC News. “Dan Osborn was notified that an attendee of an event was cited in the files and immediately upon knowing, canceled the event,” the spokesperson continued. “Pete Ricketts is lying because he’s scared of Dan Osborn, and the working people’s movement to take down the Epstein class.” The Cook Political Report currently ranks the Senate race as “Solid Republican.” Osborn ran against Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) in the 2024 election, garnering 46.5% of the vote compared with just over 53% for the Republican. “Dan Osborn built his brand on moral outrage over Epstein. But when a wealthy Democrat donor named in the Epstein files offered to host a fundraiser, that outrage disappeared fast. Fake Dan Osborn chose campaign cash over the values he pretends to stand for,” Will Coup, Ricketts for Senate communications director, said in a statement to The Daily Wire. The ad serves as another example of how the release of the Epstein files has created a global political shakeup, including the arrests of former Prince Andrew and former British ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson in the United Kingdom.

Plea for grace was quickly dismissed

Mike Johnson said officials in the House are “trying to work out logistics"

'Sadly, Americans are likely to see a lot more violence before the end of this year'

A gold-standard scientific trial revealed an existing mosquito control method works not only to reduce insect numbers, but also the diagnoses of dengue fever in the area. Dengue, also known as “breakbone” fever, is a severe viral infection spread by mosquitoes that can be debilitating when caught, and lethal if caught again. In Singapore, populations […] The post Infecting Mosquitoes with Natural Bacteria Lowered Dengue Risk by 70% in Citywide Experiment appeared first on Good News Network.

News The X-Files Ryan Coogler’s X-Files Is Happening at Hulu, With Danielle Deadwyler to Star I want to believe the show will make it beyond the pilot By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on February 23, 2026 Credit: Ian Watson/HBO Max Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Ian Watson/HBO Max Ryan Coogler’s X-Files reboot is definitely, officially happening! Well, at least a pilot episode. It’s been almost three years since we first heard news that the Sinners and Black Panther writer-director was working on a reimagining of the iconic series, and today Hulu announced (via Deadline) that the show is moving forward with Danielle Deadwyler (pictured above in Station Eleven) set to play one of the show’s two leads. Here’s the official logline: “Two highly decorated but vastly different FBI agents form an unlikely bond when they are assigned to a long-shuttered division devoted to cases involving unexplained phenomena.” Coogler will be writing and directing the pilot, and Jennifer Yale (Legion, Outlander, The Copenhagen Test) is on board as showrunner. The original X-Files, of course, starred Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny as two FBI agents tasked with investigating cases that seem unexplainable. One of them, Duchovny’s Mulder, was a true believer that many of their cases involved extraterrestrials, while Anderson’s Scully was the agent more focused on science. Coogler has said he’s especially excited about this project, in no small part because his mom is a fan of the franchise. “My mom means the world to me… so this is a big one for me,” he told Variety in October 2025. “I want to do right by her and the fans. My mom has read some of the stuff I wrote for it. She’s fired up.” There’s no news on when the pilot will go into production or even if it will make it beyond that first episode. I want to believe, however, that we’ll see it on Hulu sooner rather than later. [end-mark] The post Ryan Coogler’s <i>X-Files</i> Is Happening at Hulu, With Danielle Deadwyler to Star appeared first on Reactor.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of a segment from today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes. Sami Winc: Two things that came together for me. One was [New York Mayor Zohran] Mamdani’s 9.5% increase in the property tax for New Yorkers, but not that alone. I’m sure our audience has read about that. But I was looking at Power Line. I always like to give a shout out to them because they have some great articles, and they were comparing New York State’s budget versus Florida’s budget. And they came up with, well, it’s only half at the state level. So I thought, well, let’s look at the city level, New York City versus Miami. And while the billions that each of them has to spend is not meaningful in and of themselves. So, for example, New York City’s budget is $127 billion while Miami’s is only $3.4. But that being said, per citizen, what has to be paid into these cities. And so, for Mamdani, each of his citizens has to pay $14,431 in for his budget. And in Miami it’s just half of that, at just under $7,000 per citizen. Victor Davis Hanson: And it’s more disproportionate because in New York, the number of people who are actually paying taxes is a much smaller percentage than in Miami. He inherited the city that was this blue chip financial market, this cultural, financial capital of the world, and the first thing he did was raise spending by $11 billion. Second thing he did was prove that he couldn’t get the trash or the snow off the street during the storm. Third thing he did, it was very hard to find an appointee who somewhere in their dark history had not issued or written something antisemitic. All he does is smile and try to be … basically, his message is: I’m not Lenin, and Trotsky or Stalin. I’m the nice, happy faced communist, and you’re going to like me, and you’re going to like my communism. We’re all going to get along. I mean, if you’re in New York, if you’re in California, you got a choice. If you’re in California and this billionaire tax passes, and you’ve got to come up with $50 million, you’re going flee. If you’re in New York, and they’re going to raise your property tax on these multi multimillion dollar buildings, you’re talking what could be $20 or 30, 40, 50 million more a year, then you’re going to flee, get out. If you don’t, they’re just going to keep doing it. They’re going keep targeting you because they have an idea. I don’t think people realize that. The socialist mind … I knew a lot of socialists in the universities and some friends of mine, and they always think … The whole core of socialism is I work hard, and no one knows how I suffer at my job as a nurse, as a farmer, whatever. And I believe in the labor theory of value. Why is it that when Victor had a PhD but he was pruning vines, he was only making $4 an hour—I was for three years—and then all of a sudden, five years later, he is an academic, and he is sitting in between classes and having coffee and he’s making $50 an hour. That’s not fair. And so, they don’t think about supply and demand, expertise, education, nothing. And somebody would say, “Well, when Victor was pruning vines, a lot of people could not only prune them, they could probably prune them better.” When he was teaching a particular Greek literature class, and they thought that was an important class to offer. Questionable, but that’s what they said. Very few people could do it. They don’t accept that. And so they run on this envy that we work hard, and we get up, and we do things, and therefore we should be compensated. And that’s what a socialist is, and they’re going keep raising taxes. The other thing about it is when they raise taxes, they don’t ever say, thank you. Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, even Diane [Feinstein], they’re all wealthy, but they never said, “We want to thank the people in California that are the 1% that are paying 50% of the income tax.”And by the way, the 50% of the income tax in California, there’s only about, I don’t know what there is, 250 billionaires? They usually pay capital gains tax. They pay at about, I don’t know, 28%. The people in that 1% of Californians are highly compensated professionals and small business people who make a million or two million, three million dollars, and then they get hit with a 13.3% tax rate, plus their federal plus Medicare. So they’re paying 55% of their income and nobody ever says, “Thank you for doing that, you people, we have a very skilled elite that allows us to have this huge budget.” They don’t. The attitude is always, “They have to. They have to pay more.”I remember in 1991 there was a fiscal crisis in California and the state was broke. Well, it’s always broke. It always has a deficit, but this was a really bad deficit. So, they decided to go after all state agencies, and one of them was the California State University system. In the past you always could lay off part-time lecturers. But then they got the idea, “We exploit those people so well. We pay them so little that by laying them off—we really reduce about 40% of our classes, which are big money earners. And they don’t cost us anything. We exploit them. No benefit. But the ones that really are the high-priced assets, if you’re going to go after budget cuts, are the tenured full professor, top step in fields that we feel are not essential. I disagreed with that. So they started laying off Russian professors, classics professors—I was on leave that year—dance professors, which was bad. It was really bad. But when you listen to them, and I knew them very well, they’d say, “Well, these people can pay. Why aren’t we taxing more? Why don’t we raise taxes?”I said, “We already have the highest income tax.” Well, they have a lot of money, or they wouldn’t be able to pay what they do. But they never made the connection that their job was dependent on somebody being willing. So they had just contempt for the people that were already paying their salaries. And some of these classes had three and four people in them. But it was just outrage. It was never, “Why don’t we cut our expenses and save the taxpayer?” It was always, “Ah, they owe us. They owe us. And that’s the attitude of the Left.” We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post ‘They Never Say Thank You’: Mamdani and California Want to Take More and More From Rich appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Justices heard arguments Monday in two disputes involving U.S.-Cuba relations that could be worth more than $1 billion. Oil giant ExxonMobil is a plaintiff in one of the cases, while major cruise lines, led by Royal Caribbean, are defendants in the other. A majority of justices seemed poised to side with ExxonMobil, while both conservative and liberal justices seemed skeptical about the claim against the cruise companies. The cases are based on the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, also known as the Helms-Burton Act, which formalized the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. Title III of the law allows for lawsuits in U.S. courts against entities that traffic in property confiscated by the Cuban government after the communist revolution of 1959. However, only recently did a president allow for lawsuits to proceed under the law. President Donald Trump lifted the suspension of lawsuits in 2019 that led to about 40 complaints.  Presidents Bill Clinton, who signed the law, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all suspended Title III, seeking to avoid diplomatic conflicts with U.S. allies such as Canada and Spain that are heavily invested in Cuba. Obama also expanded relations with Cuba during his second term. This is the first time the high court has ruled on the 30-year-old law.  ExxonMobil is seeking more than $1 billion in compensation for oil and gas assets seized by a Cuban state-owned company CIMEX. It filed the lawsuit in federal court in 2019 in the District of Columbia, CNBC reported.   ExxonMobil wants the high court to reverse a 2024 lower court ruling that this was a foreign sovereign immunity matter, meaning a foreign government could not be sued. CIMEX has countered that the lower court ruling safeguards congressional intent for a sensitive foreign issue. The defense referred to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted the 1996 law seemed to defer such questions to the president.  “Why would Congress have put that toggle switch in giving the president the opportunity to turn on and off liability if it weren’t concerned there would be international law possible concerns, and it was essentially saying, we’re not doing the FSIA?” he asked.  CIMEX lawyer Jules Lobel argued that “Title III violated international law, extended U.S. territorial jurisdiction in many different controversial ways.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh later followed: “The president has a huge role in the statute. That’s looking at the text. Then you look at the real world of what’s happened since the enactment of the statute, and the president has been front and center. That effect was that those suits couldn’t go forward. The president is the person who can weigh all of that.”  The second case, with the cruise lines as the defendants, is entirely a dispute among private companies, lacking any sovereign immunity questions.  The question is whether a plaintiff must establish a present-day property interest if the assets in question were not monetized. The plaintiff is Havana Docks, a U.S. company that built docks in Havana’s port before the Cuban revolution. The Castro regime revoked the company’s legal right to the docks.  In 2019, the docks company sued four cruise companies that used the confiscated docks from 2016 through 2019; these companies were Royal Caribbean, Carnival, Norwegian Cruise Line, and MSC Cruises.  A lower court found the cruise companies were liable for $440 million. The companies appealed, arguing that they followed the U.S. government’s lead on reopening travel to Cuba, part of the Obama administration’s overtures to Cuba.  Justices both liberal and conservative expressed skepticism toward the docks company, since it was talking about a lease rather than property as traditionally defined.  Justice Clarence Thomas asked what property the plaintiffs were claiming.  “We’re treating it as essentially ownership of a leasehold,” the company’s lawyer Richard Klingler responded. “The facilities themselves are what was seized and are set off limits, but that’s the underlying property. We don’t own the docks other than in the sense of having held a leasehold interest in relation to them.” Thomas asked, “But you normally don’t think of someone as confiscating a lease.”  Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson followed, “It seems to me that property is a defined term here and that the statute itself includes the kinds of interests that you’re talking about.” The post $1 Billion on the Line as Supreme Court Could Rewrite US–Cuba Lawsuits appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Gov. Shapiro Claims Squatters' Rights Over Neighbors' Land

Don't Wreck My Column, You Hoser