Editor’s note: This week, we’re reprinting some of our best stories from the past year. In this piece, originally published in June, former college president Greg Salsbury recounts the cost of California’s failed leadership. * * * Perhaps it is fitting that legendary Beach Boy and California native son Brian Wilson would pass away in the same year that a New York Times headline would ask, “Is the California Dream a Mirage?” The social, environmental and economic disaster that is California has been mushrooming for decades now, with any improvements in the near term looking about as likely as a working bullet train from the north to the south in that state. The litany of negative facts emerging for the state is accompanied by descriptors such as “worst,” “first,” “record,” “ballooning,” “unsustainable,” “disaster,” and “mismanagement.” These ills are detailed in the myriad articles pointing to California’s failed leadership. Consider the overall economic situation. California went from a state budget surplus of $100b to a deficit of $73b in just three years. This was driven in part from its decision in February of 2020 to escalate spending significantly while it was losing jobs, and for the first time since receiving statehood in 1850, population. Between 2010 and 2023, the state saw 9.3 million people leave while only 6.7 million arrived — with a disproportionate number of the “leavers” in the high-income, high-tax-paying category. California had the distinction of being rated as the very worst state in which to do business by Chief Executive magazine — for ten years in a row. Others were more positive with The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council seeing them as only the second worst state, and the Cato Institute placing them at 48th out of 50 for entrepreneurs. The California Policy Center concludes: “For anyone operating a business in California – small, medium or large – the experiences of the last twenty years have been challenging, and it gets worse every year. California’s regulatory environment, its high taxes and exorbitant fees, and the overall cost of doing business are the toughest in the nation. Many businesses have voted with their feet, moving their operations to more welcoming business environments.”  According to WalletHub.com’s report “Best & Worst Places to Retire (2025),” which examined 182 cities across the U.S., four out five of the worst cities in which to retire are in California. The story is equally daunting in a host of other arenas for the state — education, illegal immigration, water, violent crime, theft, housing, insurance, energy, environment, assorted taxes and fees, cost of living, state employee pensions, healthcare, and more. ConsumerAffairs, a consumer news and advocacy organization, compared all 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. across five categories: affordability, economy, education and health, quality of life, and safety. California ranked as the single least desirable state to move to. Their conclusion might have been influenced by seeing that, compared to all other 49 states in the nation, California has the: Highest poverty rate Highest top marginal state income tax rate Highest median home price Highest gasoline tax Highest number of federal welfare recipients Highest amount of unemployment benefit fraud Highest number of illegal immigrants Highest percentage of high school dropouts Highest rates of human trafficking Highest homeless population Highest level of state pension shortfall Highest level of net exodus from the state Highest cost for kilowatt hours in the continental U.S. While many folks have wryly referred to California as, “the most expensive weather in the world,” an increasing number of people are rethinking that cost — especially when the weather itself is now regularly accompanied by wildfires, mudslides, and earthquakes. The Hampton Global Business Review concludes, “The allure of California’s beaches and innovation hubs might not be enough to counteract the growing disenchantment among its residents and business leaders.” While all of this is more than sobering, contrary to the popular narrative, the untenable situation in which the state now finds itself cannot be blamed solely or even largely on the handful of people who have occupied the top leadership roles or even the few thousand in mid-tier management/political roles for the state. To be sure, many of those people have largely been far worse than feckless; they have been actively counterproductive — perhaps even maleficent. But blaming leadership is like blaming guns for shooting homicides. They could not have performed this disservice without the active support of the California voters. Time and time again, California voters continue to check the box for more of the same people who continue to inflict damage on them for decades now. But more importantly, they knowingly do so. No objective observer can credibly argue that Californians have been fooled or misled by their leaders or the outrageous decisions they have made, or failed to make. The great scholar, author, and life-long California resident Dr. Victor Davis Hanson has for years detailed the disastrous results of many of these decisions — from eliminating fire-preventing forest management, to not only failing to build appropriate dams but blowing up existing dams and eliminating reservoirs, to promoting unchecked and mass illegal immigration. There was likely no more clarifying moment of truth on this point than when Governor Gavin Newsom faced a recall. His record was damning. There was the bungled and hypocritical mismanagement of the COVID virus response — complete with vaccine shortages, maskless French Laundry dinners with friends, and arbitrary business closure guidelines, a budget deficit that was more than double his own projection, and most importantly, the ignoring or exacerbation of most of the long list of the aforementioned maladies destroying the state. Not only did the recall effort fail miserably, with Newsom receiving a convincing approval mandate of 62% of the vote, but he was then solidly re-elected in 2022 with nearly that same margin. California voters, no doubt painfully aware of all of these issues essentially said, “Yes, yes, yes! Give us more of this!” But suppose for just a moment that Newsom had been recalled, that perhaps he had skewered one of the sacred cows big enough to motivate his ouster. Perhaps he drove a diesel car, or contended that there is something wrong about allowing a 250lb biological male athlete to compete with women, or suggested that maybe the unpunished shoplifting limit should be reduced from $950 to say $500, or publicly stated that illegal immigrants are not entitled to the same rights as U.S. citizens. Who would voters have suggested take his place? It almost certainly would have been another entity not dissimilar to Newsom in any significant way. All of this is exacerbated by the fact that so many logically thinking, hard-working, patriotic Americans are leaving California if they can. With each passing year, the state is left with an increasingly left-leaning voter base — and they like it that way.  Thus, it is folly to believe that California’s ills can be solved as simply as replacing a few, key incompetent leaders. California’s failed leadership is not nearly as problematic as its failed follower-ship. And that is a far harder nut to crack. Brian Wilson made a career writing songs about the abundant fun, fun, fun available in the Golden State. Were he with us today, begrudgingly or not, he would have to admit that clearly, daddy took the T-Bird away. * * * Greg Salsbury, Ph.D. is former president of Western Colorado University and Board of Advisor member for STARRS.US. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Amanda Nguyen, one of the women aboard the so-called first female space flight, says she experienced depression due to the “tsunami of harassment” following the highly publicized Blue Origin ride. Besides Nguyen, pop singer Katy Perry, CBS anchor Gayle King, and Jeff Bezos’ fiancée Lauren Sánchez were among the six women who flew to the edge of space on the Amazon founder’s Blue Origin spacecraft in April. Their flight was touted as historic and important by many major outlets, but critics mocked the circus surrounding the 11-minute space tourism flight. Nguyen, a bioastronautics research scientist, said backlash to the flight affected both her career and mental health. The 34-year-old posted about it on her Instagram on Tuesday, describing it as “another dream turned into a nightmare.” She said the news coverage and social media reactions were “unprecedented,” and argued that even a “small fraction of negativity becomes staggering.” Nguyen also noted that her accomplishment of becoming the first Vietnamese woman in space was “buried under an avalanche of misogyny.”   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Amanda Nguyễn (@amandangocnguyen) “It amounted to billions of hostile impressions,” she wrote, “an onslaught no human brain has evolved to endure.” “I did not leave Texas for a week, unable to get out of bed. A month later, when a senior staff at Blue [Origin] called me, I had to hang up on him because I could not speak through my tears,” Nguyen went on. “In my moments of deep grief this year, I reached back out to a familiar place, to her – my survivor self – who found the strength to fight. How horrible that I needed to deploy that skill once again,” she said. The space flight participant said only recently that the “fog of grief has started to lift.” “Vietnam saved me … You all saved me,” she went on.  Blue Origin is a private space company founded in 2000 by billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. The all-female space flight was criticized by social media users and celebrities for being over-promoted for what it turned out to be. Actress Olivia Munn said as much on an episode of “Today with Jenna and Friends,” as The Daily Wire previously reported. “What’s the point? Is it historic that you guys are going on a ride? I think it’s a bit gluttonous,” Munn said. “Space exploration was to further our knowledge and to help mankind. What are they gonna do up there that has made it better for us down here?”

In a move that has sparked intense criticism for its timing and lack of transparency, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie quietly signed the city’s highly controversial Reparations Bill just two days before Christmas. The ordinance establishes a dedicated reparations fund, creating a legal framework to address what they deem to be historical systemic harms against the city’s black community, including a proposal that could eventually grant eligible residents lump-sum payments of $5 million. The timing of the signing — tucked away during the peak of the holiday season — has been characterized by critics as a calculated attempt to avoid public scrutiny and bypass the inevitable backlash associated with such a divisive policy. San Francisco journalist Erica Sandberg and conservative activist Richie Greenberg were among the first to sound the alarm, with Sandberg noting the hypocrisy of making such a “unilateral decision” that appears fundamentally at odds with general public sentiment. The bill stems from the 2023 report by the African American Reparations Advisory Committee (AARAC), which outlined over 100 recommendations. Beyond the $5 million payments, the plan suggests debt forgiveness, city-funded homes for $1, and a guaranteed annual income of $97,000 for qualifying black residents. Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships While the Mayor’s office emphasized that the bill currently allocates no taxpayer dollars and serves only as a “structure” for future city or private funding, the legislative move signals a massive potential shift in city policy. In 2023, the Hoover Institution estimated the cost, “presented on a per-household basis, will be nearly $600,000 per non–African American San Francisco household.” Lurie defended the quiet signing by citing the city’s dire financial situation, noting a looming $1 billion budget deficit that prevents immediate funding. He suggested that the city “stands ready” to facilitate private donations instead. However, the “sly” nature of the passage has reignited concerns regarding the city’s history of financial mismanagement. Critics have pointed to the “Dream Keeper Initiative” — a similar program plagued by allegations of “grift and cronyism” — as a cautionary tale of how such funds can be mismanaged by local officials. Even the local NAACP expressed skepticism, calling the $5 million figure “arbitrary” and warning that the Mayor’s quiet endorsement of the framework may be providing residents with “false hopes” while avoiding the difficult public debate such a massive proposal requires.

A Minnesota mother claims Governor Tim Walz branded her son a “white supremacist” after the young man exposed alleged fraud in a state program, revealing how political retaliation may silence whistleblowers through character assassination. Mother Speaks Out Against Governor’s Alleged Retaliation Brooke Shirley stepped forward with explosive allegations against Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, claiming he deliberately smeared her son’s reputation with false accusations of white supremacy. According to Shirley, this character assassination occurred specifically after her son, Nick Shirley, exposed what he believed to be fraudulent activities within a state-run program. The timing suggests a coordinated effort to discredit a potential whistleblower through one of the most damaging labels in modern political discourse. The gravity of such accusations cannot be overstated in today’s political climate, where being labeled a white supremacist can destroy careers, relationships, and futures. If true, this represents a calculated use of inflammatory rhetoric to neutralize someone who dared to question government operations. The Fraud Exposure That Triggered the Response Details surrounding the alleged fraud remain central to understanding why such extreme retaliation might occur. Shirley’s son apparently uncovered evidence of misconduct serious enough to warrant public attention, yet instead of investigating the claims, officials allegedly chose to attack the messenger. This pattern reflects a troubling tendency among some politicians to sidestep substantive issues by undermining the credibility of those who raise uncomfortable questions. Here is the full 42 minutes of my crew and I exposing Minnesota fraud, this might be my most important work yet. We uncovered over $110,000,000 in ONE day. Like it and share it around like wildfire! Its time to hold these corrupt politicians and fraudsters accountable We ALL… pic.twitter.com/E3Penx2o7a — Nick shirley (@nickshirleyy) December 26, 2025 Government accountability depends on citizens being willing to expose wrongdoing, regardless of political consequences. When public officials weaponize character assassination against potential whistleblowers, they create a chilling effect that protects corruption while silencing legitimate oversight. The decision to deploy such extreme rhetoric suggests the exposed information posed a significant threat to established interests. Political Weaponization of Extremist Labels The strategic deployment of “white supremacist” accusations has become increasingly common in political warfare, often applied to individuals whose actual beliefs bear no resemblance to genuine extremism. This devaluation of serious terms undermines efforts to combat real threats while providing convenient weapons for character destruction. When governors allegedly engage in such tactics, it represents an abuse of the public trust and authority granted by voters. The broader implications extend beyond individual cases to the health of democratic institutions. Citizens must feel secure in their ability to question government without facing coordinated smear campaigns from those they elected to serve them. The apparent willingness to destroy reputations rather than address legitimate concerns reveals a disturbing prioritization of political protection over public accountability and transparency.

Swarmed

'Lowest number of homicides'

She unapologetically shook her ass to spite her haters

'Been known to the state for decades'

THE CENTER SQUARE—The U.S. House Oversight Committee called on Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to testify regarding alleged fraud throughout the state.  Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., called on Walz and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to testify at a hearing scheduled for Feb. 10.  “American taxpayers demand and deserve accountability for the theft of their hard-earned money,” Comer said. “Congress has a duty to conduct rigorous oversight of this heist and enact stronger safeguards to prevent fraud in taxpayer-funded programs, as well as strong sanctions to hold offenders accountable.” Fraud allegations first surfaced in November when reports stated millions of taxpayers’ dollars were stolen from the state’s welfare system and sent to a Somali-based terror group.  The allegations intensified last week when independent journalist Nick Shirley posted a video that claimed to reveal $110 million in fraud at Minnesota child care centers.  The committee will also convene a hearing Jan. 7 with Minnesota Reps. Kristin Robbins, Walter Hudson and Marion Rarick, Republicans in the state House of Representatives. Comer said these state lawmakers issued warnings about the alleged fraud in Minnesota but were ignored by the Walz administration.  “Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison have either been asleep at the wheel or complicit in a massive fraud involving taxpayer dollars in Minnesota’s social services programs,” Comer said. “American taxpayers demand and deserve accountability for the theft of their hard-earned money.” The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Tuesday that it has frozen the sending of taxpayer dollars to Minnesota day care centers. The department sends $185 million each year to child care centers in Minnesota.  “This misconduct cannot be swept aside, and Congress will not stop until taxpayers get the answers and accountability they deserve,” said Comer. Originally published by The Center Square. The post Oversight Committee Calls Walz to Testify on Suspected Minnesota Fraud appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—A new report confirmed on Wednesday that President Donald Trump cut ties with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after he pressured a young employee at Mar-a-Lago for sex in 2003. Trump said in July that he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago in the early 2000s because he “stole” spa staffers, while other reports suggested that Epstein was removed for making advances toward another member’s teenage daughter. A report by The Wall Street Journal claimed that Trump permanently removed Epstein from the premises after an 18-year-old beautician told her managers that Epstein had made sexual advances toward her. The beautician told the managers that Epstein had made advances during a personal house call, which prompted one of them to fax Trump about the allegations and urged him to ban Epstein, according to The WSJ. Trump said it was a good letter and said that Epstein should be removed. Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t just a frequent visitor to Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The club was also sending spa employees—usually young women—to Epstein’s nearby mansion for massages, manicures and other spa services, according to former… pic.twitter.com/6Aj3TW2LYf— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 31, 2025 Former employees also said that the allegations were also reported to the human resources teams, but not to the police, according to The WSJ. The Palm Beach police began investigating Epstein two years later, when a parent reported that Epstein molested a 14-year-old from a local high school. Authorities arrested Epstein in 2006 and charged him with soliciting prostitution. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told The WSJ that Trump kicked Epstein out for being a “creep.” “No matter how many times this story is told and retold, the truth remains: President Trump did nothing wrong and he kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of Mar a Lago for being a creep,” Leavitt said. Employees sent on house calls, including the 18-year-old beautician, were typically licensed by state board of cosmetology or massage therapy, according to The WSJ. Another former Mar-a-Lago employee, Virginia Giuffre, left to go work for Epstein when she was 16 years old. She alleged that Epstein’s former business partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, recruited her to perform sex acts. Giuffre died by suicide in April. Four other Mar-a-Lago employees were listed in Epstein’s address book, which was obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2009, according to The WSJ. The Department of Justice (DOJ) was in the process of releasing documents related to Epstein to comply with The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Trump signed into law in November. The agency said some of the files contain “untrue and sensationalist claims” about Trump that were submitted before the 2020 presidential election. In a 2020 email, a federal prosecutor claimed Trump “traveled on Epstein’s private jet many more times than previously has been reported,” citing at least eight flights between 1993 and 1996. The documents showed that Mar-a-Lago was subpoenaed in 2021 as part of the case against Maxwell. Maxwell told Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in August that Trump had always been a “gentleman in all respects” and never committed any illegal wrongdoing. Several of Epstein’s victims told NBC News in September that they never witnessed or heard of Trump doing anything wrong. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The post New Report Confirms Trump Kicked Epstein Out of Mar-A-Lago After He Pressured Young Employee for Sex appeared first on The Daily Signal.