The ISIS flag flies again in Raqqa, thanks to the man who drove them out a decade ago. The post The Two Mr. Trumps appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

A Manhattan comedy club canceled Israeli comedian Guy Hochman’s show on Tuesday night after pro-Hamas groups protested outside of the venue. “The owner of the place was afraid and canceled the show,” Hochman told Jewish Insider, referring to Broadway Comedy Club, located near Times Square. City College of New York’s Students for Justice in Palestine […] The post Manhattan comedy club cancels Israeli comedian after threats by pro-Hamas groups in Mamdani’s NYC appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Several A-list celebrities are backing a new campaign launched Thursday to protest the “theft” Artificial Intelligence allegedly engages in to generate output. An organization called the Human Artistry Campaign debuted the “Stealing Isn’t Innovation” initiative. “America’s creative community is the envy of the world and creates jobs, economic growth, and exports. But rather than respect and protect this valuable asset, some of the biggest tech companies, many backed by private equity and other funders, are using American creators’ work to build AI platforms without authorization or regard for copyright law,” the web description says. “​Artists, writers, and creators of all kinds are banding together with a simple message: Stealing our work is not innovation. It’s not progress. It’s theft — plain and simple.” Their plight earned signatures from major celebrities including Scarlett Johansson, Cate Blanchett, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Fran Drescher, Jennifer Hudson, Kristen Bell, Michele Mulroney, Olivia Munn, Sean Astin, and “Breaking Bad” creator Vince Gilligan, to name a few. The list of 700 supporters also included musicians such as Cyndi Lauper, LeAnn Rimes, Martina McBride, Rob Thomas, Gavin DeGraw, MGMT, One Republic, R.E.M., plus best-selling authors Jodi Picoult and Jonathan Franzen. The Human Artistry Campaign puts forth the suggestion that AI companies should take the “ethical” route and pay to license the material they’re using. They also argue that creators should have the choice to opt out and not have their work included in AI generated content. “Real innovation comes from the human motivation to change our lives. It moves opportunity forward while driving economic growth and creating jobs,” Human Artistry Campaign senior advisor Dr. Moiya McTier said in a statement, per The Hollywood Reporter. “But AI companies are endangering artists’ careers while exploiting their practiced craft, using human art and other creative works without authorization to amass billions in corporate earnings.” “America wins when technology companies and creators collaborate to make the highest quality consumer and enterprise digital products and tools. Solutions like licensing offer a path to a mutually beneficial outcome for all,” McTier concluded. The argument over the use of AI in Hollywood is heating up, with industry players taking radically different approaches to the technology. Some creators are embracing it, teaming up with AI companies to prepare for what’s next in the industry. But others are going on record as vehemently opposed to advances such as AI-generated actors.

At last year’s Golden Globes telecast, Nikki Glaser spoke the ugly truth. The awards host called the star-studded crowd famous, talented, and powerful. “I mean, you could really do anything … I mean, except tell the country who to vote for.” That joke landed for all the right reasons. The 2024 presidential election proved that everyday Americans tune out political advice from their celebrity betters. Even Legacy Media outlets admitted as much, suggesting that star endorsements may have actually hurt Vice President Kamala Harris’s White House dreams. Somehow, even pop superstar Taylor Swift couldn’t sway Americans to vote for Harris. Some predicted Hollywood stars would downgrade their political activism moving forward. And, for the first few months after President Donald Trump’s election, and following Glaser’s spot-on joke, the stars mostly kept quiet. No longer. Celebrities are louder than ever. And so are their “Be Good” activist pins. Michael Tran / AFP via Getty Images They’ve weighed in on ICE arrests, the overthrow of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, and the Epstein Files. Just once or one thousand times. But why? If their endorsements and social media posts aren’t moving the electoral needle, why bother sharing them in the first place? Aren’t they hurting their own cause? For one, it’s the ultimate virtue signal in a relentlessly progressive industry. Sharing the “correct” views will never hurt one’s career, even if the average movie or TV fan cringes in response. That’s hardly the only reason. These missives could actually help their careers at a critical time. Hollywood jobs have rarely been this insecure. Theatrical attendance is shrinking. Major streaming platforms are struggling to make ends meet. Late-night TV is going the way of the pager and the 8-track tape. Quality films often come and go without so much as denting the pop culture zeitgeist, even with the biggest stars attached. Last year, a gangster flick with not one but two Robert De Niro performances earned $6 million at the domestic box office. For stars, spouting off about “Gestapo”-style ICE agents is a way to signal to fellow progressives. I’m like you. I vote like you do. And, if you happen to know of an upcoming gig, please keep me in mind. Consider it virtual networking. Chances are, it works more often than it doesn’t. Plus, legacy media outlets love sharing progressive stars and their political missives. The aforementioned Mr. De Niro rages against President Trump early and often, a real dog-bites-man news story. Yet every time he does so, it inspires a fresh wave of news articles. Most, if not all, publicity is good publicity. CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP via Getty Images In the dog-eat-dog world of Tinsel Town, every advantage should be taken to secure future work. It explains why prominent liberal stars like Matt Damon and Ben Affleck just sat down with Joe Rogan for the comic’s rebel podcast. The stars may still be mad about Rogan endorsing Trump at the end of the 2024 presidential election. Or, they could resent Rogan’s subversive take on the COVID shot that their friends and neighbors insisted everyone take … or else. And yet, they still understand if they want more eyeballs on their new Netflix original film, “The Rip,” they’d better hide those hard feelings and make nice with the former “Fear Factor” host. Progressive stars still won’t drop by the set of Fox News’ “Gutfeld!” They don’t need to promote their films and TV shows that badly, apparently. The secret to their political commentary? Supporting the right, or approved, causes. Anything that smacks of an anti-Trump sentiment is held dear to their hearts. The stars stayed silent during the worst woke cancellations. They ignored the rise of sensitivity readers influencing what words can and can’t be shared in fiction. No anti-Trump or anti-GOP angle to exploit. Yet when Jimmy Kimmel got suspended for insinuating MAGA Nation killed Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, they rose up en masse to protect Kimmel’s “free speech” rights, presuming without evidence that President Trump had benched the far-Left broadcaster. The lack of a Trumpian angle may explain why the Israeli women who endured brutal sexual assaults, and worse, during the October 7 atrocities didn’t get support from Hollywood’s MeToo activists. More recently, Hollywood gathered for the latest Golden Globes soiree as Iranian protesters squared off against their tyrannical government. Once again, the Hollywood elite couldn’t spare a syllable to support those risking their lives for freedom. After all, President Trump had the Iranian people’s back, so it wasn’t worth sticking their neck out to support the cause. There are always exceptions to the political celebrity rule. Two recent examples spring to mind.   Manny Carabel/Getty Images Actor Billy Bob Thornton of “Landman” fame told Joe Rogan last November that you won’t find him lecturing fans from any awards show podium. “I’m very strong in my opinions, but my opinions don’t belong to any political party. I just look at what makes sense, and I think we need a common sense party in this country. That’s actually what I think we need. Just figure it out. It’s pretty easy to figure out what this is all about.” And Claire Foy went from admonishing President Trump several years ago to declaring politics off limits in her promotional efforts. “What I believe and who I am and where I stand on things is constantly in flux, as much as it is for everyone else, and I have absolutely no authority to discuss or proclaim about anything other than what I do as an actor. “If you’re just making noise for the sake of it, then you should probably shut up – so I tend to shut up.” Actors, by and large, will never shut up. Nor should they. If they actually practiced some consistency with their political activism, they might start changing some hearts and minds after all. * * * Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic, and editor of HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at HollywoodInToto.com. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Special counsel Jack Smith testified in a fiery, hours-long House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, where he faced questions about whether or not the investigations into President Donald Trump were politically motivated. Smith was the top prosecutor in the indictments of President Donald Trump over his alleged role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and a classified documents case. He was appointed to preside over the two investigations in November 2022 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland during the Biden administration. Republicans questioned Smith on his investigation processes, while Democrats largely praised the work done by the prosecutor. “Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused Jan 6, that it was foreseeable to him, and that he sought to exploit the violence,” Smith said in response to questions from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA). “We followed the facts and we followed the law. Where that led us was to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme to block the peaceful transition of power,” he added. Johnson asked if the charges could be resurrected after Trump leaves office, however, Smith said “they were dismissed without prejudice” and said he cannot speak on whether the charges could be brought back. Republicans took aim at the reported use of phone records of lawmakers, like Kevin McCarthy, in the investigation. For example, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) said that his phone records were “indeed targeted” because of his communications with Rep. Scott Perry, which Smith said happened before he took over the investigation from his understanding. Roy asked if there were any limits to Smith’s investigation, saying it unfairly targeted conservatives and people who backed the president. “To what end, would conversations between the Speaker of the U.S. House, second in line to be the president, and the president, on what basis would it be any of your business other than you believe there was a conspiracy without conspiracy as a basic premise?” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) said to Smith. “You, like the president’s men for Richard Nixon, went after your political enemies. Maybe they’re not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they? They were Harris’ political enemies. They were the enemies of the president and you were their arm, weren’t you?” he added. During Thursday’s hearing, while being questioned by Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT), Smith claimed he believes that the Justice Department will try to indict him in retaliation. Smith later said that the president wanted to “prey on party loyalty.” “Our investigation involved interviewing and subpoenaing records of Republicans because that’s who Donald Trump sought to prey on to stay in office,” Smith said. When The Daily Wire reached out to the White House for comment on the hearing, they referred to a Truth Social post from the president during the hearing. “Deranged Jack Smith is being DECIMATED before Congress. It was over when they discussed his past failures and unfair prosecutions. He destroyed many lives under the guise of legitimacy. Jack Smith is a deranged animal, who shouldn’t be allowed to practice Law,” Trump wrote. “If he were a Republican, his license would be taken away from him, and far worse! Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he’s done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me. The whole thing was a Democrat SCAM — A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our Country through!” he continued. Other lines of questioning from Republicans also commented on perceived political bias in the investigations. “You [were] unconstitutionally appointed. You breached the 60-day rule releasing this very partisan attack against the president right before the election. You tampered with evidence in the Mar-a-Lago case that you admitted to in court filings. You subpoenaed members of Congress and their phone records in violation of the Constitution, of current statute, you didn’t even let the court know these were members of Congress. How are we to assume otherwise this wasn’t political? Because it absolutely was,” Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC) said at one point. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) fired back against the use of claims from Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon, calling her “completely lawless.” In addition, Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) slammed the witness testimony of former White House staffer Cassidy Hutchinson, saying, “That’s the degree the Left and Democrats were willing to go to get President Trump. Putting on the witness stand somebody everybody knows is making it up.” Smith said Hutchinson’s claims were “secondhand” accounts. Smith spoke with lawmakers last month in a closed-door deposition. At the end of the hearing, Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) suggested calling Smith back regarding “Volume Two” of his report, saying that the order from Judge Cannon may be lifted, allowing him to answer questions regarding that case.

The House Oversight Committee voted on Monday to hold former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas — and eight Democrats voted against the measure. The eight Democrats who voted against — meaning they voted to allow the Clintons to ignore the subpoenas without penalty — were Reps. Wesley Bell (D-MO), Shontel Brown (D-OH), Robert Garcia (D-CA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Kweisi Mfume (D-MD), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA), and James Walkinshaw (D-VA). George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley laid out his thoughts on the situation, naming the Democrats who voted against efforts to hold the Clintons to account. …Here were the eight Democrats who voted to allow the Clintons to disregard lawfully issued subpoenas from the Committee: Wesley Bell; Shontel Brown; Robert Garcia; Ro Khanna; Kweisi Mfume; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Suhas Subramanyam; and James Walkinsaw. — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 22, 2026 The Clintons were issued subpoenas after some of the most recent photos and documents released pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act shed a rather unflattering light on former President Clinton’s associations with the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. As some noted, Rep. Ro Khanna has been particularly insistent on getting to the bottom of everything and getting a full release of the Epstein documents — a fact that caused several eyebrows to raise when he was also among the Democrats suggesting it was fine for the Clintons to disregard congressional subpoenas on the matter. The Clintons responded to the subpoenas with a lengthy letter explaining why they should not have to comply with requests to submit to the legal process. The Clintons said in the letter that they believed the subpoenas to be “invalid” and had already given Congress all the information they had. “There is no plausible explanation for what you are doing other than partisan politics,” the letter said. Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) made it clear that he was not impressed, saying, “They have had five months to comply with this … We expect to hear from Bill Clinton, he is not above the law.”

Indiana quarterback Fernando Mendoza continues to impress even after leading the Hoosiers to their first College Football Playoff National Championship title in school history. The Heisman winner took to LinkedIn to share what he learned from Monday’s title game in a lengthy post that has already garnered quite the response from the corporate world. “Monday night, my teammates and I had the honor of raising the National Championship trophy and bringing a CFB title back to Bloomington, Indiana, for the first time in history. With the guidance of our coaches and the unwavering support of Hoosier Nation, our band of brothers made the unbelievable believable,” Mendoza wrote. The MBA student continued to share what winning has taught him about putting his major to use: Here’s what winning a National Championship taught me about B2B sales ? (kidding…kinda) 1. Believe in yourself: Four years ago, I was a two-star recruit playing high school football 30 minutes from Hard Rock Stadium with a dream of playing at the highest level. Two days ago, I became a National Champion in that same stadium, surrounded by the family who never stopped believing in me. 2. Take the risk: When it’s 4th and 5 at the 12-yard line, go for it. 3. Remember who got you there: Thank you to my teammates, coaches, support staff, professors, and everyone behind the scenes who helped make this happen.” This isn’t his first update on the networking app. After winning the Heisman Trophy in December Mendoza shared the news on LinkedIn and updated his Honors and Awards section to reflect college football’s highest achievement. This weekend, I was incredibly honored to be named the 2025 Heisman Trophy recipient. To the Heisman Trophy Trust, the voters, and the legendary winners who have come before me, it is a privilege to be recognized alongside such an esteemed fraternity. Of course, now the awards section reflects winning the College Football Playoff National Championship. LinkedIn is showing the world what Mendoza can do off the field. His football skills include insane runs on 4th and 5 that result in touchdowns, setting Indiana’s single-season touchdown record, and a nation-leading 33 passing touchdowns on the year. But off the field, he lists the following skills on his LinkedIn profile: Microsoft Excel, Accounting, Commercial Real Estate, Event Management, to name just a few. There shouldn’t be a need to add the common LinkedIn headline “Open to work” to Mendoza’s profile. For someone who is projected to be the number one overall pick in the 2026 NFL Draft, Mendoza keeps his LinkedIn job-interview ready. The Raiders, who desperately need a franchise quarterback and have the number one pick, sent executives to Miami to watch Mendoza ball out on college football’s biggest stage. With a degree from Cal and Indiana, the football star has his business-to-business sales experience to fall back on if, for some reason, the whole NFL quarterback thing doesn’t work out. Either way, his 55,000+ followers on LinkedIn will eagerly await a profile update.

President Trump did something extraordinary in Davos. He gave a speech targeting our European allies, telling them that they need to up their game in terms of defense, economics, and their own national sovereignty. Then he pried a deal away from Denmark with regard to Greenland. The markets were very concerned about the possibility that President Trump was going to hit all of Europe with these gigantic tariffs based on a desire for sovereignty over all of Greenland. But that is no longer the case. A deal has been cut. The really big story here is how the President of the United States is calling on Europe to stand up for itself. The president said that his goal in saying all of this wasn’t just to dunk on the Europeans. Obviously, his goal was to revitalize what he called a “precious” culture, shared by Americans and Europeans. “The explosion of prosperity and conclusion and progress that built the West did not come from our tax cuts,” he stated. “It ultimately came from our very special culture. This is the precious inheritance that America and Europe have in common. We share it. But we have to keep it strong. We have to become stronger, more successful, and more prosperous than ever. We have to defend that culture and rediscover the spirit that lifted the West from the depths of the Dark Ages to the pinnacle of human achievement.” He also suggested that Europeans have failed themselves in pursuing a green energy-based economy. When the man’s right, the man is right. The real message the president was there to deliver is that the Europeans ought to be both independent, but also recognize that they are reliant on the United States. In that vein, he went after Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada. Carney gave a peculiar address with regard to the United States in which he suggested that the era of American dominance was over. And Trump basically said, well, that’s weird, since if it weren’t for us, your continent would be a little bit more at risk. We are your defensive shield. We’re building a golden dome that just by its very nature is going to be defending Canada. “Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way,” Trump said. “They should be grateful also, but they’re not. I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn’t so grateful. They should be grateful that Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.” The president also articulated the favorite line of those of us on the Right, which is that if it had not been for the United States’ involvement in Europe, everyone would be speaking German and Japanese. “The problem with them, though, is that we’ll be there for them 100%,” he said. “But I’m not sure that they’d be there for us if we gave them the call.” You can see why the Europeans are feeling a bit peevish right now. We’ll have to see how they react to everything that’s going on. Are we again entering a period of a multipolar world order, or is the president just flexing American muscles a little bit more than usual in an attempt to get everybody back on the same pro-America, pro-Western page? That remains a bit of an open question. All of this ties into what the broader American orientation is toward the world. Is it America First, or is it America Alone? Is it a multipolar world order, or is it an American-led world order where we are more muscular in pursuit of our own interests, and we expect more from our allies in helping us out with those interests? That remains the big question coming out of Davos. It was the big question going in. I’m not sure that the question has been fully answered at this point in time.

By now, Daily Wire readers are probably familiar with children’s entertainer Ms. Rachel’s history of anti-Israel activism. Things reached a fever pitch this week when Ms. Rachel “accidentally” liked an Instagram comment calling to “free America from the Jews.” She claims the like was accidental, and insists that she remains a neutral child advocate. In this piece, Vanessa Santos — a mother of two and D.C. public relations guru — explains why she doesn’t let her kids watch Ms. Rachel. As Vanessa explains, it’s not about protesting someone with objectionable views, but taking care about who you let your children grow to trust. If you’re a parent, you’d do well to consider her compelling case. — Tim Rice *** Like many parents of young children, I spend a lot of time thinking about what enters our home. I’m careful about what my kids eat, who they learn from, and especially what they watch. Children absorb authority long before they understand ideas, which makes early media choices far more consequential than we like to admit. That is why my kids don’t watch Ms. Rachel. The popular children’s entertainer, whose real name is Rachel Griffin Accurso, burst on the scene with her “Songs For Littles” videos, which help children develop speech with songs and puppets. It’s like Sesame Street for the YouTube age, and it became a sensation during the coronavirus pandemic as parents scrambled to support isolated children falling behind. But in recent years, Ms. Rachel has become known for something else entirely: her criticism of Israel and defense of Hamas in Gaza. Accurso claims that she’s a neutral humanitarian who uses her platform to advocate for children everywhere. But her actions tell a different story. This week, the “Free Palestine” activist came under fire for liking an Instagram comment that said “Free America from the Jews.” Accurso said she liked the comment by accident, mistakenly tapping the like button while trying to delete the comment. Her apology, which included a disavowal of antisemitism, satisfied some of her fans. I’m not convinced. Whether or not she “accidentally” liked the comment, it’s hardly the first time that she’s cozied up to antisemitic interests. In an August interview with Peter Beinart, she repeated disputed casualty claims and framed Israel as uniquely responsible for the suffering of children in Gaza, while omitting Hamas’s role in initiating and sustaining the war. This was not an impulsive post. It was a deliberate media appearance in which a children’s entertainer used her credibility with parents to promote one-sided war messaging. She campaigned for and has frequently appeared with Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who declined to renew New York City executive orders addressing antisemitism and boycotts of Israel, raising concerns among Jewish organizations. These appearances do not exist in isolation. Ms. Rachel frequently uses her platform to criticize Israel and repeat false claims about the war in Gaza. Antisemitism today rarely announces itself outright. It moves through selective outrage, euphemisms, and moral posturing that excuse violence against Jews. When a children’s entertainer begins to deal in this kind of rhetoric, it’s up to parents to take notice. This is not about canceling a YouTuber. It is about boundaries. There are countless ways to teach language development without bringing activism into the playroom. Parents can choose content creators who are focused on children, not politically charged activism. Children don’t need to understand antisemitism for it to harm them. They form trust in authority figures before they’re capable of evaluating what those figures stand for. We’ve all seen how much children love Ms. Rachel. The 43-year-old isn’t going anywhere, and her brand is only growing. The children who love her videos now will grow with her and continue looking to her as a trusted source, much as previous generations looked to Mr. Rogers. One day, these children will hear her talk about Israel. And that’s where the problem starts. That’s why my children don’t watch Ms. Rachel. I don’t trust her to help shape their moral understanding. I won’t invite someone with these abhorrent views into my home. Pressing play is not a neutral act. It is an invitation into our homes and into our children’s developing sense of authority, and that access carries responsibility. Influencers are not entitled to parental trust. They earn or lose our trust by what they say and do. Ms. Rachel has certainly lost mine. *** Vanessa Santos is the founder and president of Renegade DC, a Washington, D.C.-based communications firm. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.