Just like many of us, Chick-fil-A is ready for the holiday season. There’s nothing quite like a tasty holiday treat to get us in the spirit. Chick-fil-A announced the return of a very Christmasy flavor, and fans can’t wait. Beginning November 10, peppermint shakes and beverages will be available at Chick-fil-A restaurants nationwide. The menu includes the beloved Peppermint Chip Milkshake, Peppermint Chip Frosted Coffee, and Peppermint Iced Coffee. The cool hint of mint makes it feel like we’re in the North Pole helping Santa and the Elves get ready for the big night. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Chick-fil-A, Inc. (@chickfila) Peppermint Isn’t The Only Big Thing Coming To Chick-fil-A This Holiday Season How would you like to sip your Chick-fil-A Peppermint Chip Frosted Coffee while wrapped up in a wearable cow print blanket? Well, now you can. Chick-fil-A’s holiday merch line will launch on November 10, right along with the peppermint offerings. The product line includes everything from waffle fry earrings to a cow print pickleball set and serval other clever gift ideas. In addition to peppermint treats and new Chick-fil-A merch, the restaurant will also add new holiday content in the Chick-fil-A play app. “Throughout the holiday season, the Chick-fil-A Play App offers families even more ways to connect and celebrate together, whether on Christmas Day, traveling to gatherings or just enjoying entertainment at home,” Chick-fil-A shared. It’s all part of a bigger plan. “At Chick-fil-A, we want to help Guests slow down, come together and enjoy great food with even more ways to connect amid the holiday hustle,” Khalilah Cooper, vice president of brand strategy, advertising and media at Chick-fil-A shared in a news release. “This year we’re offering even more ways to make the season easier — and more meaningful — from shareable menu favorites and seasonal treats to new family content and thoughtful gifts. However Guests choose to celebrate, we hope to help them slow down and savor their time together.” This story’s featured image is by Summer_Wind via Shutterstock. The post Chick-fil-A Brings Back Beloved Holiday Treat And New Holiday Merch appeared first on InspireMore.

The commissioners of the poll offered variations of two hypothetical laws to thousands of poll respondents, only altering the endorsements of the law in each variation

Virginia and New Jersey, the two states that voted for governor in 2025, both voted for then-Vice President Kamala Harris over then-candidate Donald Trump by 52%-46% margins in 2024. Democrats ran significantly better in both states on Tuesday. One reason is that Trump Republicans, as an increasingly downscale party, see their turnout sag in off years than when the presidency is up. But that wasn’t their only problem this time. In Virginia, Democrat Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA officer and congresswoman, won 58%-42%, well ahead of her standing in most polls. Republicans who dismiss this result as reflecting the weakness of nominee Winsome Earle-Sears should note that Democrat Jay Jones beat incumbent Attorney General Jason Miyares 53%-47%, despite the Oct. 3 revelation of Jones’ text messages that he’d like to murder a colleague and see his children die in their mother’s arms. Some 46% of Virginia voters said this was disqualifying, but even some of them voted for Jones. Its evidence that hatred of Trump’s party runs deep among many Democrats. The most significant swing from 2024 was in northern Virginia, part of metropolitan Washington, which cast 33% of the state’s votes. That’s a highly educated, upscale community with a high percentage of federal and government contractor employees, but Republicans would be unwise to dismiss the Democrat gains as just a response to the government shutdown. It could be a forecast of what’s in store for them in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania; Oakland County, Michigan; and Waukesha County, Wisconsin. In New Jersey, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-New Jersey, a Navy veteran, beat Republican Jack Ciatarelli 56%-43%, a big improvement on incumbent Gov. Phil Murphy’s, D-New Jersey, 51%-48% squeaker against Ciatarelli four years ago. Sherrill’s majority looked much like the 57%-41% Democrat advantage in the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, which caused it to seem a solid blue state. The big difference is that Ciatarelli was unable to duplicate the big gains that Trump made among Hispanic voters. Trump carried heavily Hispanic Passaic County with 50%—it voted only 42% Republican this year. Similarly, in Virginia, even Miyares, despite his Hispanic ancestry, won only 37% in heavily Hispanic Prince William County. New Jersey and Virginia also have large Asian populations. But Ciatarelli won only 37% in heavily South Asian Middlesex County, behind Trump’s 44%, and in heavily Asian Loudoun County, Virginia, Republican Winsome Earle-Sears’ 35% was below Trump’s 40%. Has the Trump administration’s rough-and-ready immigration enforcement hurt his fellow Republicans? Or are we just seeing sags in turnout from low-propensity voters in low-propensity constituencies, as we have in previous contests a year after their side wins, as Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini suggests? A possible crosscurrent: The Republican percentages held up pretty closely to Trump’s 2024 percentage in Monmouth and Ocean counties on the Jersey Shore, whose demographics are similar to much of Florida’s, and in rural Southside and southwest Virginia. Then there is New York City, similarly sized (8 million-plus) to New Jersey and Virginia, whose record (since 1969) turnout of 2 million-plus was nonetheless lower than each of those states’ 3 million-plus. Since he won the June primary, the young socialist Zohran Mamdani—he turned 34 last month—has held wide leads in polls. His cheerful demeanor and clever ads, plus his emphasis on cost-of-living issues (free buses, city-owned grocery stores), have naturally produced sympathetic coverage from most media. These media outlets have been happy to gloss over his positive attitudes toward terrorist-sponsoring Hamas and his immediate reaction to its Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. They weren’t bothered by his protracted stubbornness in renouncing the “globalize the intifada” slogan, which means kill Jews everywhere, he once embraced. For months, he had wide leads in the polls thanks to split opposition from widely disliked former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa. But the results, with 93% of the votes in, have been somewhat different. In a city that voted 68%-30% for Harris over Trump, Mamdani is leading Cuomo by a decisive but far from overwhelming 50%-42%, with just 7% for Sliwa. While Democrats improved on Harris’ performance in Virginia and New Jersey, Mamdani far underperformed Harris in New York City. One-quarter of New York’s Harris voters supported the Republican or the candidate endorsed by Trump. Mamdani’s core constituency is highly educated, lower-income singles who congregate in central cities and university towns—what I’ve called the barista proletariat—a large bloc in New York City and decisive in the 2023 mayoral race in Chicago, but a small segment of the electorate in most of America. As the Democrat nominee, Mamdani ran better among black people in central Brooklyn and southeast Queens than he had in the primary, and ran well below but still carried Puerto Rican and Dominican neighborhoods in the Bronx and northern Manhattan and, narrowly, heavily Mexican Corona. And he lost heavily Asian parts of Queens, though not quite as lopsidedly as Italian neighborhoods in Staten Island and Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn. Mamdani’s weakness among some Democrat constituencies does not represent a danger for the party across the country generally. But it does suggest that the socialist wing of the party, and those Democrats whose antipathy to Israel can verge on antisemitism, are far from a majority force nationally. It underlines the importance, in my view, for conservatives to follow the example of Ronald Reagan and William Buckley in denouncing those such as Tucker Carlson who have provided a friendly forum for the Nazi sympathizer Nick Fuentes. In the meantime, Trump faces a tough constituency today: the Supreme Court. Will the justices, including those he appointed, accept his claim that the gauzy language of a 1977 law gives him the power to raise and lower his beloved tariffs singlehandedly? There’s a serious chance the majority-Republican-appointed court may reject that claim, as a totally Democrat-appointed court in 1952 rejected Harry Truman’s claim that he could seize the steel mills in wartime. A Supreme Court rebuff to Trump could turn out to be a political gift to the Trump Republican Party. Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs in April thrust his job approval downward, and 3% inflation, which, though low, can be plausibly linked to continuing tariffs, provides a basis, as Mamdani has shown, for Democrat campaigns. Also, should Trump acquiesce to an adverse Supreme Court decision, as Truman did 73 years ago, voters’ fears of an authoritarian presidency will be mitigated. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Bad News for Republicans, Warnings for Both Parties appeared first on The Daily Signal.

An Open Letter to Our Friends at the Heritage Foundation

The media world has changed. Once upon a time, if you worked in Washington as a press secretary to a Senator or powerful Congressman and you wanted to get your boss some TV coverage from one of the Big Three networks of the day - ABC, CBS or NBC - the formula was simple. First you got warmed up to a print journalist, preferably for The New York Times. Once The Times ran your story, it was a certainty that the newsies at one if not more than one of the Big Three TV networks would see the story as The Times was must-reading.  In the 1960’s and beyond one could safely count on the fact that, say, CBS’s Walter Cronkite read The Times every day. And if the story was good enough for The Times readers, it was, went the thinking, more than good enough for the CBS or ABC or NBC audience. Times have changed. Now, in today’s 21st century world where everyone starting with your Uncle Ed has a computer and online capability, the task of getting attention for your news has changed. Now the world is awash in what is known as the “podcast” - a development that lets you, your Uncle Ed or anybody else take a seat in their own quarters, wherever that might be, and broadcast away. Living room? Kitchen? Home office? Other? Hey. Whatever works. And work it does.  This very week’s example is provided by former Fox host Tucker Carlson. Sitting in his residence in rural Maine, Tucker invited one Nick Fuentes, described over at The New York Times as “a 27-year-old white nationalist” to sit for an interview on Tucker’s podcast, the aptly named “The Tucker Carlson Show.” Fuentes cooperated, did the interview, and, understandably, to understate, all h…e…double “L”  broke loose. I’ll leave it to others to analyze the Tucker, Fuentes interview and the substance of their talk. Although I have to say that giving a self-professed Nazi any attention at all, knowing all the utter evil that Naziism has been responsible for in history, is wildly not a good idea. Particularly when it comes from someone of Tucker’s stature. But this is a media column, and it is very safe to say that, while not much is focused on the fact, one very interesting and unremarked fact here is how this story made so much serious news to begin with. Its reverberations reaching all the way back to roil the massive, conservative quarters of The Heritage Foundation in Washington. The obvious here? Podcasts have changed the media world. Anyone, anywhere - Tucker Carlson in this case - can sit out in the figurative or even literal woods, talk into a home microphone or microphone and camera combination and let loose with their take on the latest events in the world. A computer button is pressed and - wham! His or her views on whatever have just gone viral, thanks to the wizardry of the 21st century podcast. The inevitable question old timers in the media world will have is - is this a good thing? Wasn’t the world better off when the editors of The New York Times chose what did-or did not - appear in its pages? Wasn’t the world better off when the revered “Uncle Walter” (as he was nicknamed) Cronkite decided what did or did not make the national TV news after he had read whatever story in The Times? And if something went wrong with that old formula?  In fact, something did go wrong - just like that! -  over at ABC on the day President Reagan was shot in a 1981 assassination attempt by would-be assassin John Hinkley. Reagan had given a speech at the Washington Hilton Hotel and as he emerged from the hotel, Hinckley, blended into the scrum of reporters covering Reagan, pulled his gun and fired. Both Reagan, his press secretary Jim Brady, a Secret Service agent and a DC police officer were hit, with all surviving if wounded. Suffice to say, this was decidedly live news for the television anchors of the day, who instantly interrupted their network’s normal day schedule of soap operas and such to report what they knew. Here is the Wikipedia description of what followed with ABC anchor Frank Reynolds. Reynolds was erroneously given to understand that Brady had been shot - and had died. So Reynolds reported what he had been told - only to find out that Brady had survived.  The rest went like this, bold print for emphasis supplied: Upon learning that the information regarding Brady was incorrect, Reynolds suddenly appeared noticeably upset and, looking around at staffers in the background, angrily burst out: 'Let's get it nailed down ...somebody ...let's....find out! Let's get the word here, let's get it straight so we can....we can report this accurately!' Such was the problem of live television in the middle of a seriously real, ongoing national crisis. There was no time for a well-vetted report in The New York Times. And now? In the 21st century land of the podcast? There can easily be no editor at all other than the podcaster himself or herself. Suffice to say, in this recent situation, Tucker Carlson was comfortable in letting Fuentes speak for himself, uninterrupted. And while Tucker is catching heat for this, the fact of the matter is that in the world of 21st century podcasting media, what has just happened with this situation is normal. The podcaster is the editor.  Back in the wayback of the Watergate scandal, when the history books of the episode were written, it became clear that the ace young Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were closely supervised by editor Ben Bradlee. And if Bradlee thought there was not enough hard fact in their latest reporting, he adamantly refused to run it, arguments from his two young reporters be damned. Bradlee was the editor - the guy in charge of these type of decisions - and he famously let them know it. All which is to say, the media world has changed - and thanks to the 21st century media of the podcast, it has changed big time. Which is exactly why Tucker Carlson’s Fuentes interview is everywhere.  The podcast, edited or unedited by the podcaster as he or she chooses, is here. It has taken over - and it’s here to stay. Whether anyone else likes it - or not.

True grassroots communist revolutions are a myth, says Mark Levin. These political uprisings are always orchestrated by privileged, educated elites who romanticize poverty and oppression while living comfortably.It’s a theme that echoes throughout history. Revolutions rarely start in slums or sweatshops; they start in lecture halls, cafés, and salons where theory outweighs experience.Take China’s Mao, Russia’s Lenin, Cuba’s Castro, or Germany’s Marx as examples. All were brought up in well-to-do families, educated, and set up for success. They preached justice for the working man, pretending the whole time that their ivory towers were actually trenches.New York City’s new Democrat mayor, Zohran Mamdani — a self-described socialist — is no different. “His family is worth millions. … The mother, funded in part significantly by Qatar; the father secretes himself into Columbia University, where he makes a good salary as a radical professor promoting anti-Westernism, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and terrorism,” says Levin, calling Mamdani “a trust-fund baby” who married a woman even “richer than he is.”Mamdani’s socialist supporters — primarily Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) — have similar stories. Neither grew up in impoverished homes or worked much in the private sector before rising to political prominence. And yet they push socialist reform to the masses as if they knew the taste of poverty.Levin then highlights his own blue-collar beginnings and decades of conservative activism as proof that he understands real work and therefore real America.“I was a litigator. I was a lawyer for a nonprofit organization. We wouldn't have school choice in this country but for Landmark Legal Foundation and the battles that we fought in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. … We are the ones who went after the NEA. … We're the ones that went after the Environmental Protection Agency that was trying to push out a zillion regulations right before Donald Trump took office,” Levin recounts.“'76 — the Reagan campaign. '80 — the Reagan campaign. The Tea Party movement … that’s where I met Donald Trump. He was very interested in the Tea Party movement,” he adds.“[The Convention of States movement] was started by Mark Meckler and me with my book ‘The Liberty Amendments.’ ... It's now 5, 6 million members.”“I'm [sharing] this to explain that when I come to you and I talk about these things on this platform, on Fox, on my radio show, where I write about them, it's not esoteric. It's not theory. It's from experience,” says Levin. “So when I see Marxist Islamists doing what they're doing, I take them on. I expose them.”“We do not want these poisonous people destroying what our ancestors have worked for — our founders.”But that’s exactly what’s about to unfold in New York City under Mayor Mamdani, with his socialist agenda poised to wring the city’s capitalist core from the nation’s economic capital.Levin warns: “It matters what happens in New York because [Marxist Islamists] are organizing in the states and in the cities across the country.”The plan doesn’t end with New York City. It won’t stop until America herself — and everything that makes her exceptional — is erased.To hear more of Levin’s commentary, watch the clip above.Want more from Mark Levin?To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Price of Food/Drinks at Mamdani's Victory Party Could Be a Sign of Socialist 'Affordability' to Come

Letitia James Plays Victim Card in Mortgage Mess Cover-Up

A speeding car fleeing police slammed into a crowded bar early Saturday, killing four people and injuring 11 in a historic district of Tampa, Florida, known for its nightlife and tourists.

Whether you love or hate AI has a lot to do with how your brain processes risk and trust.