We’ve known about the triumphant return of Monopoly to McDonald’s for a while. But that darn Ronald and his pals kept the details wrapped tighter than a cheeseburger. The restaurant finally spilled the beans. They will be bringing back all the nostalgia for McDonald’s Monopoly fans in 2025. It’s hard to believe it’s been almost a decade since the last time we played the game. The time has come, and we cannot wait. McDonald’s explained in a release that the game will feature peel-off pieces, just like the original, and will incorporate the app because “two chances to win are always better than one.” “Our fans have been clamoring for the return of MONOPOLY at McDonald’s, and we’re thrilled to bring it back with a modern, digital spin,”  Alyssa Buetikofer, Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing and Customer Experience Officer of McDonald’s USA, said in a release. “This game is a core memory for so many customers, and we’re excited that those memories can now be shared across generations.” View this post on Instagram A post shared by McDonald’s (@mcdonalds) Fans Can Play Monopoly Two Ways At McDonald’s When a guest makes a purchase, they will peel off the Monopoly sticker from select items and log that piece in the McDonald’s App. Other select menu items have a digital playing piece that players will log on the App. Either way, McDonald’s encourages players to play the bonus game in the app for a chance to win from October 6 to November 2. WE don’t know about you, but we can’t wait. “MONOPOLY has been a cornerstone of play for nine decades, bringing families and friends together for fun and connection. This iconic promotion captures that same spirit,” Brian Baker, Senior Vice President, Board Games, NERF and PLAY-DOH at Hasbro shared. “Fans have been eagerly awaiting its return – and we can’t wait for them to experience the unforgettable excitement that MONOPOLY at McDonald’s delivers.” For more information, the full prize list, and official game rules, visit playatmcd.com. This story’s featured image is by Tim Boyle/Getty Images. The post McDonald’s Monopoly Game Is Back… With One Major Change appeared first on InspireMore.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM If your social feeds are suddenly filled with mason jars packed with onions, garlic, citrus, and fiery peppers, you’ve officially entered fire cider season. This pungent, spicy vinegar tonic has made its way from herbalist circles to viral TikTok fame, with creators claiming it’s “the best thing that’s going to keep you from getting sick this winter.” But is it truly the immunity elixir it’s made out to be, or just another wellness trend in a pretty jar? Let’s take a closer look at what fire cider is, how it’s made, and whether it’s actually worth sipping. What exactly is fire cider? Fire cider is a homemade herbal tonic that starts with apple cider vinegar as its base and includes a powerful blend of ingredients like onion, garlic, ginger, horseradish, and cayenne. Depending on who you ask (or what TikTok you watch), it might also feature turmeric, rosemary, lemon, orange, or spicy chiles like jalapeños. It’s traditionally steeped in a glass jar for several weeks, strained, and sweetened with honey. The end result is a bold, sinus-clearing shot that’s meant to be taken daily during cold and flu season. The good: there are some healthy ingredients in the mix There’s no denying that the individual components of fire cider can offer health benefits. “Apple cider vinegar contains blood-sugar-balancing acetic acid, garlic is naturally antiviral, and ginger supports digestion,” says Anthea Levi, MS, RD, a Brooklyn-based dietitian and founder of Alive+Well Nutrition. She adds that citrus fruits like lemon and orange bring a dose of vitamin C to the mix. And that’s not nothing: vitamin C is a known antioxidant that supports immune function by helping your cells fight off pathogens. The catch: you can get the same benefits in better ways According to Levi, fire cider isn’t a magic potion, and you don’t need to drink it to reap its ingredients’ rewards. “They don’t necessarily have to be ingested in this form,” she explains. “In fact, they may provide additional benefits when consumed in more pleasant ways.” For example, eating an orange gives you not only vitamin C but also fiber, which supports gut health (and by extension, immunity). And that raw garlic? It may be even more potent when crushed and eaten with olive oil and fresh tomatoes on toast. Translation: bruschetta might do your immune system more good than a vinegar shot that tastes like rocket fuel. The risks: mold, reflux, and enamel erosion Levi also points out a few legitimate concerns when it comes to brewing and drinking fire cider. First, there’s food safety: “If the ingredients aren’t fully submerged in the vinegar, there’s potential for risky mold growth,” she says. And unless your equipment is squeaky clean, you could be introducing bacteria into the mix. Second, the fiery nature of the drink could spell trouble for your gut and teeth. “For people prone to acid reflux, downing ACV infused with citrus and cayenne could be a recipe for discomfort,” Levi notes. The acidic combo can also erode tooth enamel over time. Because of these issues, fire cider may not be a smart choice for those who are pregnant, immunocompromised, or dealing with GI conditions. So, does it prevent colds? Short answer: not really. While fire cider is “one way to get immune-friendly nutrients into your system,” Levi says, it’s not a proven defense against viruses. Even vitamin C, which has more research behind it, only slightly reduces the length of a cold once it hits. That means fire cider might make you feel proactive, but it’s not a substitute for evidence-backed prevention strategies like flu shots, handwashing, and adequate rest. The final verdict If you like the ritual and don’t mind the burn, there’s no harm in sipping fire cider occasionally, as long as you prep it safely and your body tolerates it. But if you’re not into steeping roots in vinegar or risking enamel erosion, you can still support your immune system with a solid diet, good sleep, and yes, maybe a little garlic toast. As Levi puts it: “There are plenty of ways to obtain the same health benefits from fire cider’s ingredients that don’t come with potential food safety concerns or the risk of adverse side effects.” So this season, maybe skip the trending tonic and opt for a vitamin-packed plate instead. Your gut and your taste buds will appreciate it.The post What is fire cider: immune booster or overhyped health trend? first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

Senate Democrats blocked a clean extension of government funding late Tuesday evening, but a handful of Democrats bucked Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in an effort to avert a looming government shutdown.  Three members of the Democratic caucus — Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Angus King of Maine — […]

The Senate failed to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government open, putting the country on a path to a government shutdown that will begin at midnight. The measure fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage by a 55 to 45 vote, with 43 Senate Democrats opposing the legislation. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also voted against the bill. Fifty-two Republicans voted to fund the government. They were joined by Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., and Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., as well as Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who caucuses with the Democrats. “Democrats shut down the government demanding taxpayer funded healthcare for illegals, extension of fraud-riddled COVID era Obamacare subsidies, and turning back the clock on President Trump’s victories for the American people. Their demands are completely unreasonable, rejected by Americans at the ballot box, and they will not win,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told The Daily Signal. The bill, known as the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, would have kept the government open until Nov. 21. The legislation had passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives by a vote of 217 to 212. It would have kept government spending at the current levels, plus added funding for security for federal officials in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said to The Daily Signal that “House and Senate Republicans voted for a simple, clean, bipartisan bill that funds the government.” “Unfortunately, Senate Democrats voted no and are instead demanding more than $1 trillion in unrelated, left-wing spending—including healthcare for illegal aliens and climate change programs overseas. For the sake of the country, I encourage Senate Democrats to put aside their hatred of the President and fund the government,” Cotton continued. The government will now enter a period of shutdown where nonessential federal workers will be furloughed, federal buildings such as the Smithsonian Institution museums and National Zoo will close to the public, and potentially thousands of government employees will no longer be receiving compensation. Federal workers will receive back pay when the shutdown ends, a figure estimated to be about $400 million per day of the shutdown.  Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., noted that the shutdown would hurt Americans in a comment to The Daily Signal. “Tonight, Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats showed their true colors when they blatantly ignored the best interests of the American people and voted to shut down the federal government. Shutdowns do nothing but hurt our country—our brave servicemembers will not get paid and millions of Montanans will lose access to services they depend on. This shutdown is nothing but an attempt by Senate Democrats to score political points from their radical base, but the American people see right through it. I’ll keep fighting to re-open the government, so we can get back to work delivering wins for Montana and the nation,” Daines explained. In the weeks leading up to the shutdown, congressional Republicans blamed their Democrat colleagues of playing political games and acquiescing to the demands of their left-wing base.  “Democrats are voting to shut down the government, and it’s nothing but a giant political stunt. They had no problems passing clean CRs when Biden was President. Many of them voted for this same CR just a few months ago. What changed is they now have a radical leftist base demanding they do anything to obstruct President Trump’s success—even if it means our troops going without pay,” Rep. Riley Moore, R-W.Va., wrote on X.  “This shouldn’t be a food fight. Senate Republicans put forward a clean bill to keep the government open: a bill similar to what Democrats have voted for 13 times in the past. Democrats now have a choice: work with us, or explain the fallout to working Americans. In West Virginia, we have always done what’s right: we mind the store, put our people first, and use common sense to make decisions. Democrats ought to wake up and work with us, because a closed government this doesn’t benefit anybody,” Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.Va., told The Daily Signal. “This is something that has been done routinely–as I said, 13 different times–when the Democrats had the majority. But we are not going to be held hostage for over $1 trillion in new spending on a continuing resolution. Nor are we going to be held hostage to allow illegals to get free health care in a continuing resolution,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters on Tuesday at a press conference. The post BREAKING: Here’s How Many Democrats Voted to Shut Down Government appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Now that Democrats have shut down the government by voting against a clean continuing resolution that would have kept funding at Biden-era levels, President Donald Trump needs to fulfill his threat to fire more bureaucrats. While Republicans offered to keep funding the government at Biden levels until Congress can pass annual funding legislation, Democrats have unreasonably demanded that Congress continue generous COVID-19-era Obamacare subsidies and reverse the Medicaid reforms in the One Big Beautiful Bill passed earlier this year. Since funding legislation requires 60 votes to pass the Senate, Republicans needed at least seven Democrats or Independents to help pass the resolution, and they only got three. Last week, the White House Office of Management and Budget released a memo, telling federal agencies that if the government were to shut down, they should consider engaging in Reductions in Force to begin the process of laying off employees in projects that are not funded during the shutdown or that are inconsistent with Trump’s priorities. Democrats who marched alongside federal government unions in protesting Trump’s efforts to cut the size and scope of the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency should have considered this when voting against funding the government. What Happens in a Shutdown? A senior administration official told The Daily Signal that the administration has engaged in hundreds of phone calls preparing for a shutdown, and the process will be normal, but will also feature the RIFs. A government shutdown means the normal appropriations from Congress cease, so only a few government functions still operate. Some government functions receive other forms of funding—such as the Internal Revenue Service that collects money through taxes or the patent examiners who are funded through patent fees. Other government functions are deemed too essential to be put on hold, such as the military and Secret Service protection for the president and others. Many government functions are considered not “essential,” and therefore, they will cease. Agencies will furlough many employees—ordering them not to work because there is no funding for their functions. Most of these bureaucrats will return to work when the funding has been restored, often with backpay. Statutorily mandated government functions do not end permanently, and they must be resurrected when funding returns. The administration has a fair degree of latitude when it comes to deciding what is and is not essential, however. In the 2013 shutdown, for example, President Barack Obama made a show of roping off national parks. Rangers even closed the parking lots at Mount Vernon, the home of George Washington, despite the fact that a private organization, not the federal government, owns the property. Similarly, Trump has a fair amount of latitude in determining what counts as essential, and the functions he deems non-essential may highlight areas the administration should trim. As Don Devine, President Ronald Reagan’s personnel director, told The Daily Signal on Tuesday, the fact that many federal bureaucrats are considered not “essential” in a shutdown “presents a real opportunity.” Fundamentally, the administration aims to do more with less. The premise of these shutdown RIFs is the same premise as DOGE—the government can fulfill its statutorily-mandated duties with fewer, better-trained staff and more up-to-date tools, and the same kind of creative destruction that helps private sector businesses thrive will help the government become more effective. Standing Up to Unions On Tuesday, the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal government union, filed a lawsuit aiming to block the OMB memo, claiming that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The lawsuit claims that the memo misstates the law and that any work to carry out a reduction in force is not authorized under the Antideficiency Act, which stipulates how the government should operate during shutdowns. Importantly, the AFGE press release warns that the OMB memo involves “directing agencies to issue mass RIF notices that could strip employees of back pay rights, violate agencies’ statutory duties, and even target workers whose jobs are essential to protecting life and property during a shutdown.” Yet no agency has published a RIF notice, and until such notices come, this statement relies on speculation about harms. Furthermore, when an agency announces a reduction in force, that does not result in immediate termination. Reductions in force involve a notice period during which staff will examine each employee, look at their rights, where they will likely be able to find their next job, and provide further notice if the employee is over 40. Of course, the legal challenge is no surprise. The AFGE has filed multiple lawsuits against the Trump administration, seeking to block the president’s reforms, particularly on DOGE. The Trump administration should follow the law and abide by any lawful court orders to come out of this case. However, it should not be cowed by a federal employee union’s opposition to further reforms to streamline the federal government. Fundamentally, another round of reductions in force is good for the federal government, and this government shutdown presents an opportunity for agencies to clean house. The post Trump Must Carry Out His Threat to Implement DOGE 2.0 During This Government Shutdown appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Trump Says a Deal with Harvard is Close

During an interview with Dr. Abdul el-Sayed -- a Democrat running for the Senate from Michigan -- on Monday's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough sounded like a Democrat chiding Republicans for cutting taxes on the wealthy and cutting spending on health care at the same time. And none of the other panel members pushed back on any of their Democrat guest's other wild claims, such as accusing the U.S. of funding "genocide" in Gaza or suggesting that it's legal for anyone to buy any gun they want. After starting the segment by playing an ad by Sayed in which he compared the wealth of billionaires to a ridiculously tall cheeseburger, co-host Mika Brzezinski introduced him as part of a "new class of candidates embracing economic populism," and touted an early endorsement by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), whom she declined to label as a socialist. Scarborough began the questioning by asking what the Michigan Democrat would do about "gun violence," leading him to declare that "The Second Amendment doesn't mean any gun for anyone, anywhere, anytime," even though it has long been illegal for many criminals and mentally ill people to possess guns. After co-host Jonathan Lemire asked if Michigan Arabs regret voting for Donald Trump because of the war in Gaza, Sayed claimed: The last point I want to make here is every dollar that we send to Benjamin Netanyahu to subsidize a genocide is a dollar that's not spent to provide food for children in our community -- schools for our children in our community -- health for folks in our community -- and I think we -- folks understand that. I've been across the state, and no matter where I go -- rooms that are not in Dearborn -- folks understand that reality, and they know they're getting a bum deal. Toward the end of the segment, the Democrat candidate pushed for more regulations on big businesses and the strengthening of labor unions, and then pushed to raise taxes on the wealthy: I built a program that provided tens of thousands of pairs of glasses for free, and one of the things people ask is, "How are you going to pay for that?" Well, I kind of think in a moment of deep inequality we should have a billionaire tax. Maybe if you make 100 million bucks, you could pay a little bit more so that the kids in your community have glasses so that the infrastructure in community actually works. Those are all concrete things that we could do if we chose to do them, but not under a system that allows corporations and billionaires to buy off politicians to do their bidding. Scarborough followed up by cuing up his Democrat guest to further push for more taxes and spending: I want to ask you, as you go around Michigan and you talk to working Americans, what is -- what is their reaction to the fact that Republicans have cut a trillion dollars in health care spending on this side, and, over here they've cut taxes for billionaires -- for multinational corporations -- for billionaires who run monopolies? They're allowing the consolidation of corporations instead of, like you said, breaking up these monopolies. What are you hearing from people on the ground when you knock on doors and talk to voters? After Sayed blamed the wealthy for poor people having not enough access to health care, Brzezinski wrapped up the segment without anyone arguing that more government regulation would ration health care even further. This is why people call the channel "MSDNC." Transcript follows: MSNBC's Morning Joe September 29, 2025 9:24 a.m. Eastern Dr. ABDUL EL-SAYED (in ad): Trump's terrible economy is driving inflation from everything from housing to health care to food. And all of it goes back to one thing: greed. While you're struggling to build the basics, billionaires and corporate CEOs -- they're stacking and rigging the rules to build theirs ever higher. Look, nobody needs $100 billion just like nobody needs a 12-stack cheeseburger. It's not even like you could even enjoy it. (Abdul el-Sayed is seen on screen with a very tall cheeseburger next to a shorter one.) MIKA BRZEZINSKI (joking about the size of the huge cheeseburger with co-host Joe Scarborough): Well, I think you would argue with that, but I get the point. A new class of candidates is embracing economic populism and making waves shaking up the Democratic party. And that includes the candidate in the political ad you just saw, Abdul el-Sayed. He is running for the Senate in Michigan after incumbent Democratic Senator Gary Peters announced he would not seek reelection. The seat is seen as crucial for Democrats for the chamber's balance of power in next year's midterm elections. Since launching his campaign in April, el-Sayed has held more than 100 public events and has visited nearly 60 cities across the state of Michigan. He also got a major boost to his campaign earlier this year when he was one of the first candidates that independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont endorsed for the 2026 midterms. And Abdul Sayed joins now. He is a physician, epidemiologist, and the former health director of Wayne County, Michigan. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Doctor, thank you so much for being with us. Let's talk about the tragedy coming out of your state yesterday. It's one more place where a house of worship is attacking. We have of course seen it with synagogues across the country -- we've seen it, vandalism and shootings at mosques across the country, including a member killed in New Jersey last year. We've seen it in Christian houses of worship. We saw it yesterday at a Mormon church. Talk about that, your concerns, and what in the world can we do to stem this tide of gun violence? (...) Dr. ABDUL EL-SAYED (D-MI), SENATE CANDIDATE: ... I know that when you have a scourge of a thing that harms people, you have a responsibility to start asking, "How do you actually solve that?" And you look at all of the string of violence that we've seen, and they tend to have something in common. I think we have a responsibility as a country to stand together -- to stand up for our children, for our elders, for folks just going to church on a Sunday, to say that "Enough is enough -- we need to have a conversation about gun violence," right? The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean any gun for anyone anywhere anytime. It means that we understand that there was a space for this, but not this, not that people walk into a church on Sunday and get gunned down, and so we need to have that conversation. We need to have it urgently. I'm hoping to sit down with folks -- everyone including gun owners to folks who are victims of gun violence to ask, "Where is the way forward?" because this -- this here ain't it. BRZEZINSKI: So, Doctor, we have a lot of issues to think of as a candidate you could focus on -- guns being one of them, the weaponization of the Department of Justice being another one. The National Guard going into our cities potentially across the country being yet another one of them. So where does affordability across the board play a role in terms of your message as a candidate pointing back to your political ad that we came in with? (Dr. ABDUL EL-SAYED) JONATHAN LEMIRE: So, Abdul, you're facing a crowded primary field for an important Senate race next year, but also of course Michigan looms large as a presidential swing state. Highly contested last year, Donald Trump won it again after losing it in 2020. Polling suggests that for a lot of Michigan residents in Dearborn and other places, the war in Gaza was a significant issue, and many of them broke for Trump or stayed at home because they were angry about how President Biden was handling that issue. Was your sense, as you talk to that community, do people regret that vote? And how do you see that playing into next year's campaign as the war simply continues, and Israel has only picked up their offensive under Donald Trump? SAYED: I think all of us ought to regret the circumstances that led to that. I endorsed Kamala Harris down the stretch not because I agreed with the administration's handling of Gaza, but because I believed that whether you see this from the eyes of a child in Detroit or the eyes of a child in Gaza, that Trump would have been a disaster. And we're seeing that play out right now. So everybody is deeply frustrated, but it shouldn't have had to be this way. Imagine we had the conversation last summer that we had this summer about the realities on the ground -- 18,500 kids dead -- I think we might have been in very different circumstances. And so I think the only way forward is for us as a party to stand up. This has become a Rorschach test on values -- like, you say you want to stand up for democracy, you say you want to take on the pharma CEOs that are making prescription drugs too expensive, and yet you can't call out the enforced wisdom in your own party about 18,500 people dead? I just think that it is time for truth. It's time for us to address the circumstances as it -- as it -- as it lays. The last point I want to make here is every dollar that we send to Benjamin Netanyahu to subsidize a genocide is a dollar that's not spent to provide food for children in our community -- schools for our children in our community -- health for folks in our community -- and I think we -- folks understand that. I've been across the state, and no matter where I go -- rooms that are not in Dearborn -- folks understand that reality, and they know they're getting a bum deal. LEMIRE: So the headline today has the President meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu -- headline tomorrow potentially government shutdown. If you were in the Senate now, what would your vote be? And do you have faith in the leadership of Minority Leader Schumer? Would you want his support for your campaign? (SAYED) AL SHARPTON: Doctor, you're running for a seat Gary Peters had who had built some strong relationships around the Michigan community. As you may know, I have a chapter of National Action Network, Reverend Williams, strongly in Detroit, so I'm familiar with Michigan politics. ... A, what would be -- how do you propose as U.S. Senator to deal with the affordability issue in a concrete way? And how do you build a coalition? Because there's been tensions there. There are no black members of Congress now from Michigan, first time in decades. How do you build that with other communities -- the Arab American community which is substantial, progressive white community and black community which has had some tension. Not total breakup, some tension. (...) SAYED: You asked about affordability. How do you do it? Right now, we are watching as corporations have amassed more power than they've ever had since the Gilded Age. We need a Federal Trade Commission under folks like Lina Khan who is going to stand up and actually bust trusts again. We need to instead of subsidizing huge corporations, we should subsidize small businesses. They're the ones who actually make jobs in our economy. We need strong unions -- we need to pass the PRO Act and empower unions to both form and build across sectors in our country. And, finally, folks say -- when you said -- I built a program that provided tens of thousands of pairs of glasses for free, and one of the things people ask is, "How are you going to pay for that?" Well, I kind of think in a moment of deep inequality we should have a billionaire tax. Maybe if you make 100 million bucks, you could pay a little bit more so that the kids in your community have glasses so that the infrastructure in community actually works. Those are all concrete things that we could do if we chose to do them, but not under a system that allows corporations and billionaires to buy off politicians to do their bidding. SCARBOROUGH: Doctor, I wanted to ask you about that. I mean, you know, for years we've heard about -- since Bill Clinton's victory, we've heard about Macomb County and how Macomb County swings back and forth -- but it was really more of a symbol for working Americans. I want to ask you, as you go around Michigan and you talk to working Americans, what is -- what is their reaction to the fact that Republicans have cut a trillion dollars in health care spending on this side, and, over here they've cut taxes for billionaires -- for multinational corporations -- for billionaires who run monopolies? They're allowing the consolidation of corporations instead of, like you said, breaking up these monopolies. What are you hearing from people on the ground when you knock on doors and talk to voters? SAYED: Joe, I appreciate that question because folks feel deeply betrayed, and they feel like they voted for somebody who said that he was going to unlock the system for them, and all he's done is he's locked it up even further and thrown away the key. And I was in Sault Ste. Marie in the upper part of the Upper Peninsula, and they were telling me there's a 2,000-person wait list to see a dentist -- to see a dentist. And the crazy thing is, I've served in Detroit and in Wayne County, and there are very long lines of dentists there, too. I think the real axis of our politics isn't right or left. It's: Are you locked out of the system or are you one of the ones doing the locking out? And so folks are curious, and they're interested in something that's a little bit different -- something that doesn't look like politics as usual. And they want access to the basic means of a dignified life -- a good job that pays a living wage, ability to afford your home, to ever believe you could own a home if you're over 40, the ability to buy a little extra to make some burgers on the weekends. These are basic things that folks don't have. And in a moment -- in a time when 68 percent of people are going bankrupt just for getting cancer, we can solve our problems if we're willing to do that. And that means you've got to build a movement around unlocking the system that's going to take people who voted for Kamala Harris, people who voted Donald Trump, but people who are voting for their future. BRZEZINSKI: Democratic candidate for Senate in Michigan, Abdul el-Sayed, thanks you very much for coming on the show today.

When Secretary of War Pete Hegseth first announced the unorthodox step that he would gather all generals and admirals at Marine Base Quantico on short notice, many speculated that this could be a sign that we might be heading toward another war. Hegseth did declare war, but not in the way many pundits expected. He’s going to war against declining standards in the military.In every respect, this was a historic speech. The convening itself was historic, but more significantly, Hegseth’s speech carried the weight of history. Hegseth’s purpose was to align all of the flag officers around one mission, as he put it, "The only mission of the newly restored War Department is this: warfighting.”For too long, side quests have taken the military’s focus off lethality. Military standards were changed to accomplish partisan distractions.By contrast, Hegseth’s predecessor, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III, oriented the military around climate change, social justice, and other side quests. For example, in 2021, Austin declared, “We face all kinds of threats, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. The climate crisis does."War on wokenessThe Pentagon’s mission under the Biden administration was to fight a war on the weather, even going so far as to prioritize climate plans over the duty to build warships. These side quests weakened our military and our nation.Even worse, Austin’s leadership ushered in an era of politically motivated promotions that prioritized sex and skin color characteristics over merit. To this end, retired Air Force Gen. C.Q. Brown, who served as the 21st chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Biden administration’s final years, famously wrote a memo mandating racial and sex quotas. This firmly committed our military away from promotions based on wars won and lives saved toward a process infused with the radical agenda of the left.Warrior ethos restoredThis was the context of Hegseth’s speech. Within the Pentagon, competing priorities eclipsed the primal imperative of being prepared to kill the enemy before they kill us. The woke agenda pushed by the radical left caused a slow rot that shifted focus from warfighting to social engineering, greatly frustrating many senior military officials.Hegseth vowed to excise this type of decay inflicted by “foolish and reckless politicians.” He outlined several concrete steps to do just that, including restored grooming standards, stricter enforcement of physical training requirements, leadership and accountability reforms, and changes to training to focus on core warfighting elements.But if the meeting was only about outlining these seemingly mundane reforms, why gather these high-ranking generals and admirals in one place? Couldn’t the content of his speech have been sent in an email? No, it could not. This was far more important than updating senior leaders on reforms; this was a cultural moment for military leadership. The era of hiding behind systemic racism and sexism to undermine the mission of the military while projecting woke platitudes as a defense of those actions is officially over.Hegseth understood the mission, which was tough talk to tough people to prepare them for tough times. Some will whine that it’s uncouth for a secretary of sar to say, “No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. ... We are done with that s**t.”The whiners need to realize that many warfighters have prayed that someone would say this to their senior leaders. Hegseth did exactly that. This can’t be captured by a mere email.Symbolically and practically, it’s meaningful that the secretary of war said this directly to their faces, immediately reinforced by a speech from the commander in chief. Saying this face-to-face is not hostile; it’s a sign of respect among tough people.Hegseth’s admonitions, from calling out fat generals to reminding them that personnel is policy, are best summed up in this statement: “It's like the broken windows theory of policing. It's like when you let the small stuff go, the big stuff eventually goes. So you have to address the small stuff.” This principle should be understood by our military leadership, but it became a vestigial sentiment that was no longer actively practiced.Aligned for lethalityFor too long, side quests have taken the military’s focus off lethality. Military standards were changed to accomplish partisan distractions. Whether it was diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives or the climate agenda, the leaders in the Quantico audience accomplished these side missions ruthlessly and effectively — to the detriment of their primary purpose.RELATED: Pete Hegseth just ended the era of woke brass in the military Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty ImagesGoing forward, this speech empowered the military to fight against the entropy of distractions and declining standards. Whether they wear five stars or one, all of our star-ranked officers have been aligned to a new standard: lethality. This means effectively and ruthlessly accomplishing the only mission that matters: warfighting.History, which favors winners, will view this as the moment the U.S. military was made great again. This will be remembered as the day the Trump administration aligned the stars, one in which our senior military officials were liberated to align their leadership with basic common sense.

In the middle of conducting man-on-the-street-style interviews for her YouTube channel, “Her Patriot Voice,” pro-life advocate Savannah Craven Antao was attacked by a woman named Brianna Rivers — and New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg just dropped all charges against her.“She’s out there on the streets. This woman walks up and the interview — I don’t know, I’m going to say it escalated very quickly,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales comments.Antao asked basic questions about Rivers’ beliefs surrounding abortion, to which the woman answered that if a woman doesn’t want a baby, she should “just get rid of it.”“What happens in an abortion?” Antao asked.“They literally suck the life out of you. They’re going to take the whole baby out. And as they should, because I shouldn’t be a taxpayer paying child support and food stamps,” Rivers replied, audibly yelling.“You should be a taxpayer paying for abortions?” Antao asked again.“Exactly. For a woman who didn’t want the baby in the first place, that doesn’t make sense to me. Don’t ever sit here and lock yourself down with a man who already told you he doesn’t want to be with you,” Rivers said.“But you don’t get to kill the baby just because their dad didn’t want that,” Antao replied.“You can,” Rivers said, to which Antao replied, “Should we kill the kids in foster care?”“Why not!” Rivers screamed.When Antao brought up that the woman appeared to be okay with killing not only unborn babies but babies in foster care, Rivers punched her in the face.Antao was faced with stitches and $3,000 in medical bills, and Rivers was charged with second-degree assault.“But it was dropped because Alvin Bragg’s office apparently is full of DEI hires, I guess. I don’t know. They missed a key filing deadline, and they didn’t even turn over evidence to the court in time,” Gonzales says. “Imagine letting the real criminals, the violent criminals, run free because you can’t be bothered to hit your deadlines.”Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A New York Times report published on Monday claimed that at least 15 American citizens have been “arrested or detained and questioned” by law enforcement officials as part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. The Department of Homeland Security rejected the Times’ accusations in a press release obtained exclusively by Blaze News.The Times claimed that the DHS has “roamed the streets, courthouses and workplaces demanding proof of citizenship from residents,” particularly in Southern California communities. 'Any US citizens arrested are because of obstructing or assaulting law enforcement.'The DHS rejected the Times’ accusation, emphasizing that its operations are “highly targeted” and do not result in the arrest of U.S. citizens.“We do our due diligence,” the department explained. “We know who we are targeting ahead of time. If and when we do encounter individuals subject to arrest, our law enforcement is trained to ask a series of well-determined questions to determine status and removability. ICE does not arrest or detain U.S. citizens.”The Times further reported that Americans had been detained overnight in immigration facilities without access to a lawyer or a phone call. The DHS stated this was not true, noting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers have higher standards "than most U.S. prisons that hold actual U.S. citizens.”RELATED: Pam Bondi issues zero-tolerance order on violence against federal officers Photo by BENJAMIN HANSON/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images “Any claim that there are subprime conditions at ICE detention centers are false,” the DHS said. “All detainees are provided with proper meals, medical treatment, and have opportunities to communicate with lawyers and their family members,” the DHS continued.The Times highlighted several cases, including those involving Kenny Laynez-Ambrosio, Jason Brian Gavidia, Javier Ramirez, George Retes, and Leonardo Garcia Venegas. The outlet reported that all the individuals were American citizens who were unjustly targeted by the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement. According to the news outlet, Laynez-Ambrosio, 18, was riding in his employer’s truck with his co-workers in May when the Florida Highway Patrol pulled them over. After Laynez-Ambrosio and the other vehicle occupants refused to exit the vehicle, troopers forcibly removed them, the Times reported. Laynez-Ambrosio was allegedly held at a nearby Border Patrol facility for roughly six hours, despite repeatedly telling officials he was a U.S. citizen.The DHS argued that Laynez-Ambrosio, who was in the vehicle with “several adult male illegal aliens from Guatemala,” resisted arrest during the traffic stop. Border Patrol agents, who were responding to a request for assistance from the FHP, arrested the illegal aliens. Law enforcement officials detained Gavidia, 29, and Ramirez, 32, after conducting an operation at their place of business in East Los Angeles in June. The Times claimed that both were American citizens who were improperly targeted. “Gavidia was arrested for assaulting a law enforcement officer and interfering with agents performing their duties,” the DHS stated. “Javier Ramirez was detained on the street for investigation for interference and released after being confirmed to be a U.S. citizen with no outstanding warrants.”RELATED: Pot farm raid update: Trump's DHS found convicted rapists and kidnappers working near migrant kids Glass House Farms protest. Photo by BLAKE FAGAN/AFP via Getty ImagesThe Times reported that law enforcement agents unjustly detained Retes, a 25-year-old U.S. Army veteran, in July. During the detainment, officers allegedly broke his windshield and pepper-sprayed him after mistakenly identifying him as an unruly protester. Retes was on his way to work as a security guard for Glass House Farms, a marijuana farm in California. At the time of the incident, the farm was the site of a federal law enforcement operation, which sparked an anti-ICE demonstration.The DHS claimed that Retes “became violent and refused to comply with law enforcement” while they were executing criminal search warrants at the farm. “He challenged agents and blocked their route by refusing to move his vehicle out of the road. CBP arrested Retes for assault,” the department said.The Times reported that authorities wrongfully targeted Venegas while he was working at a construction site. He began recording the officers after witnessing them push his brother, who is an illegal immigrant, to the ground, according to the news outlet. An officer allegedly tackled Venegas and kept him handcuffed for hours. “During a targeted worksite operation, Garcia Venegas attempted to obstruct and prevent the lawful arrest of an illegal alien,” the DHS wrote. “He physically got in between agents and the subject they were attempting to arrest and refused to comply with numerous verbal commands. Anyone who actively obstructs law enforcement in the performance of their sworn duties, including U.S. citizens, will of course face consequences which include arrest.”DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated, “We have said it a million times: ICE does NOT arrest or deport U.S. citizens. Not even a week after the terrorist attack targeting ICE in Dallas, the media is once again shamefully peddling a false narrative, attempting to demonize our DHS law enforcement agents, who are already facing a 1,000% increase in assaults against them.”“Any U.S. citizens arrested are because of obstructing or assaulting law enforcement,” McLaughlin declared.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!