Coincidences happen every day, but when they become part of the historical record, they take on a whole new meaning. From the intersection of John Adams’ and Thomas Jefferson’s deaths to a novelist writing the story of the Titanic two decades before it sank, American history is full of coincidences so unlikely some have even given rise to conspiracy theories.   1. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams Died on the Same Day Leaders of the Continental Congress—John Adams, Morris, Hamilton, Jefferson, by A. Tholey, 1894. Source: Library of Congress   July 4 is known to Americans as Independence Day, but it also marked the day that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died within hours of each other in 1826.   Jefferson and Adams had a tumultuous relationship with ups and downs over their lifetimes. The two men first met and became friends in 1775 when the Continental Congress convened for the first time. Their teamwork in drafting the Declaration of Independence brought them closer, but that relationship would sour when Jefferson beat Adams to become president in 1801. Jefferson identified as a Republican, and Adams as a Federalist. They stayed estranged for nearly a decade.   In 1812, however, nearly 40 years after the United States became a nation, Jefferson and Adams rekindled their friendship and remained friends for nearly 15 years. This reversal took Jefferson’s retirement from the presidency in 1809, the intervention of a mutual friend by the name of Dr. Benjamin Rush, and an admission by Adams. A neighbor of Jefferson’s visited Adams and heard him say, “I always loved Jefferson, and still love him.” The neighbor then reported back to Jefferson, who asked Dr. Rush to urge Adams to renew their exchange of letters. Finally, Jefferson and Adams began to write to each other again about both political and personal issues of the past, present, and future.   By 1826, both men had entered their twilight years; Jefferson was 83, and Adams was 90, so each had lived a long life. On the 50th anniversary of the birth of the nation, Jefferson died at his home in Monticello just after lunchtime. Adams followed soon after, passing away in Massachusetts just hours later. Though it is common knowledge today that Jefferson and Adams both died on July 4, 1826, at the time, breaking news traveled much slower than it does today. Neither man knew of the other’s death, nor did the nation until some time later.   2. The Civil War Started and Ended on Wilmer McLean’s Property Undated photograph of Appomattox Courthouse, Appomattox County, VA. Source: Library of Congress   How many Americans can say that their property bookended the deadliest war fought on American soil? The answer is exactly one: Wilmer McLean.   The Civil War began on July 18, 1861, when a cannonball exploded through a house owned by McLean. McLean, however, was not the target of the attack, which had been commandeered by Confederate General Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard. This sudden attack began what is today called the Battle of Bull Run. Despite the battle taking place so close to home, McLean was still happy to host Beauregard because McLean himself was a retired militia officer and felt a sense of duty to the General. By August 1862, the Second Battle of Bull Run began on the same property, and McLean, unhappy with the violence and danger, finally moved his family to southern Virginia.   From 1862 to 1865, the McLean family knew peace—until Robert E. Lee’s aide, Charles Marshall, approached McLean in early April of 1865. Marshall was looking for a location for two generals to meet, and yet again, McLean reluctantly offered his home to the cause. Thus, on April 9, 1865, Robert E. Lee met another general by the name of Ulysses S. Grant for the purpose of surrendering the Confederate Army, thus ending the Civil War. After a short conversation on the warm afternoon of April 9, the Civil War ended in McLean’s Appomattox Court House home, just under four years after it had begun in his previous Manassas home.   3. Halley’s Comet Marked Mark Twain’s Birth and Death Mark Twain, three-quarter length portrait, seated, facing slightly right, with cigar in hand, by A.F. Bradley, 1907. Source: Library of Congress   Mark Twain, born Samuel Langhorne Clemens, was born on November 30, 1835. Twain is best known for his novels The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, but his travel literature was quite popular with American audiences as well. The author’s birthday was marked by a once-in-a-lifetime astronomical event. Twain’s birth came just two weeks after Halley’s Comet passed by Earth in 1835.   Halley’s Comet passes Earth every 75 years, give or take, which means most people will only have one opportunity to view Halley’s Comet in their lifetime. Halley’s Comet is also an important astronomical discovery because it was the first comet that scientists realized could pass by Earth more than once. By the time Halley’s Comet passed in 1835, scientists had known for over 100 years that the comet had visited in 1531, 1607, and 1682. The comet and following meteor showers were the same comet, not different ones each time. Indeed, scientists can trace observations of the comet back over 2,000 years.   This, taken on its own, is an interesting fact but nothing groundbreaking—until you learn what passed again before Twain died. In 1909, Twain commented on Halley’s Comet, saying, “[We] came in together, [we] must go out together.” One year later, Twain died on April 21, 1910, just one day after Halley’s Comet again passed Earth on April 20. Twain indeed both came in and went out with Halley’s Comet.   4. The Tale of Two Jims Twins separated at birth, Jim Springer and Jim Lewis. Source: Ripley’s   Many people, at least once, have wondered what it might be like to be reunited with a long-lost twin. Some anticipate seeing the matching physical characteristics, such as hair and eye color. Others go further and wonder if their estranged twin would have the same medical conditions, if they also wore glasses, if they were also right- or left-handed. What happens when that daydream actually comes true—and not only that, but you realize you and your long-lost twin have lived nearly identical lives?   A pair of twins born in 1940 spent just four weeks together before being adopted by two different Ohio families. However, when twins James Arthur Springer and James Edward Lewis—their matching names just a hint at their similarities—were reunited in 1979, the overlap between their lives, despite growing up in different families and environments, was shocking.   The Jims shared surprising similarities, including marrying and divorcing a woman named Linda, taking a second wife named Betty, naming their childhood dog Toy, growing up with an adopted brother named Larry, vacationing at the same beach in Florida, and working as part-time deputy sheriffs in Ohio.   Coincidences did not stop with the twins themselves either; they spilled over to their families, too. Springer named his son James Allan, while Lewis named his son James Alan. It seems that the Jim twins could not have led more identical lifestyles, even if they had grown up together.   5. Morgan Robertson Predicted the Titanic Sinking TITANIC, to be launched, unknown photographer, 1911. Source: Library of Congress   In 1898, American author Morgan Robertson published a novel called Futility, or The Wreck of the Titan. Robertson spun the tale of a ship called the Titan that had three fantastic qualities: it is the world’s longest, fastest, and only unsinkable ship. Unfortunately, the ship collides with an iceberg on its maiden voyage, splits in two, and sinks in the middle of the ocean. Over 2,000 passengers lost their lives because there were not enough lifeboats.   Sound eerily familiar? Indeed, nearly two decades before the unsinkable Titanic sank in 1912, Robertson published the grim tale of the world’s most impressive ship sinking after a collision with an iceberg. Here are a few more qualities that the fictional Titan and real-life Titanic shared:   Both ships were about 800 feet long Each ship weighed roughly 70,000 tons and used triple-screw propellers to move Capacity on both ships was 3,000 passengers Rich individuals from both U.S. and European high society were aboard Both ships sank in April   Cover of Robert Morganson’s novel Futility. Source: Royal Museums Greenwich   Save for the conspiracy that Robertson was a time traveler who witnessed the sinking of the Titanic, there is no explanation for the similarities between the fictional and real tragedies. One of the most likely explanations behind Robertson’s harrowing tale would have been an interest in sailing and maritime technological developments—alongside the author’s impressive creativity and storytelling.

November 21, 2025 — Today's Conservative Cartoon

Celebrities spent years singing “love yourself” from the stage and lecturing all of us about radical body acceptance. But then, a funny thing happened: weight loss drugs hit the scene. Now, some members of Hollywood have lost half their body weight and have been scrubbing the evidence from their feeds, rewriting the script about what “self-love” actually looks like. It’s all been very revealing for fans who fell for their lies about being happy at any weight. Because the second a quick-fix, injectable weight loss solution came along, these celebs dropped the “fat can be beautiful” act like a loaded baked potato. One prime example is Amy Schumer. The comedian recently wiped her Instagram clean, deleting every pre-transformation post and replacing it with a single shot of her newly thinned-down physique, which included the caption, “Who’s proud? I’m feeling good and happy. Deleted my old pics for no reason.” View this post on Instagram A post shared by @amyschumer The Instagram sweep came on the heels of a very public weight-loss journey and candid interviews about her struggles with GLP-1 drugs. Schumer admitted having a “horrible experience” when she tried Ozempic at first, saying the shots left her bedridden and vomiting. The comedian said while Ozempic was a no-go, she had very different results after switching to another popular drug, Mounjaro. Fans complained, saying it was one thing to be outspoken about your health journey, but that deleting those old photos felt like trying to erase the past. Schumer addressed the controversy by insisting she was justified in scrubbing her socials. “I didn’t delete my old photos because they were pre me losing weight. That’s a narrative you created. I’m proud of how I’ve looked always,” she insisted. “I have been working to be pain-free and I finally am,” the comedian explained. “My endometriosis is better. My back is healing. I no longer have Cushing syndrome so my face went back to normal. I am grateful to be strong and healthy especially for my son.” But the social media purge itself said something different. No matter how she tried to play it, deleting those photos sent a clear message: Who I was before is not who I am now. All praise Mounjaro! Perhaps the most egregious example of this phenomenon is pop singer Meghan Trainor, who built her whole career around worshipping her curvy body and rejecting the thin-is-best messaging. Her 2014 hit single “All About That Bass” includes the line, “Yeah, it’s pretty clear, I ain’t no size two.” But then Trainor discovered weight loss drugs and with it, a newfound appreciation for, well, being a size two. During a performance in May 2025, Trainor swapped that lyric for “I got some new boobs” and received a ton of heat for rejecting her status as a curvy role model for the masses. @1027kiisfm #MeghanTrainor is playing ALL the hits!!! ??✨ #WangoTango #iheartradio ♬ original sound – 102.7 KIIS FM Like Schumer, she’s openly discussed using weight loss drugs. “I’ve been on a journey to be the healthiest, strongest version of myself for my kids and for me,” Trainor wrote in a lengthy Instagram post. “I’ve worked with a dietician, made huge lifestyle changes, started exercising with a trainer, and yes, I used science and support (shoutout to Mounjaro!) to help me after my 2nd pregnancy. And I’m so glad I did because I feel great.” Fans were annoyed, and as she stated recently, the pop singer could not understand why. One popular TikTok comment under the video of Trainor singing the new version of her hit song said, “‘Big is beautiful until you’re rich enough to change it.’ — story of the entertainment industry.” Another person agreed, writing, “She has every right to change and nobody is hating on her. But because her body was a little more relatable it hit with a specific audience. Now it doesn’t hit the same. No shade just is what it is.” Trainor spoke about the backlash during a conversation with iHeartRadio’s Kayla Thomas on November 14. “I’m getting a lot of hate online just posting who I am. Everyone’s just being like, ‘Why are you thin now? You were ‘All About That Bass’ girl,’” she said. “I was 19 when I came out with that song, and I’ve been on a fitness journey since I got healthy,” Trainor added. “It started when I was pregnant. I had gestational diabetes. I was like, ‘Oh, I gotta learn about health and fitness. If I wanna tour forever, I wanna be at my strongest. If I wanna lift up my kids from their crib and not pull out my back.’” “So now I’m strength training three times a week in the gym and I am so focused on health,” she went on. “But I got a lot of hate for being thinner. That confused me, rattled me, so I wrote the song ‘Still Don’t Care,’” she added. The phrase “fitness journey” keeps coming up. While these celebrities admit to using Mounjaro, they credit the weight loss to good habits and better workout schedules. Lizzo’s case is different, but also egregious. She’s the most vocal pop star version of the body positivity movement, with many songs praising her voluptuous figure. When rumors first started circulating that she’d used Ozempic following some noticeable weight loss, she pushed back publicly, but what she said wasn’t exactly a denial. “I’ve tried everything,” Lizzo said. “It’s just the science, for me, calories in vs. calories out. Ozempic works because you eat less food.” “It makes you feel full. So, if you can just do that on your own and get mind-over-matter, it’s the same,” she added. Interestingly, Lizzo also credited eating meat after being vegan as helping her shed pounds. “What did it for me was — actually it was not being vegan,” Lizzo said, as The Daily Wire previously reported. “Because when I was vegan, I was consuming a lot of fake meats. I was eating a lot of bread. I was eating a lot of rice, and I had to eat a lot of it to stay full. But really I was consuming like 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day.” “So for me, when I actually started eating whole foods and eating, like, beef and chicken and fish, I was actually full and not expanding my stomach by putting a lot of, like, fake things in there that wasn’t actually filling me up,” she continued. Lizzo addressed some of the backlash in a May 2023 TikTok video. “Once I started working out for mental health, to have balanced mental health or endorphins, so that I don’t look at myself in the mirror and feel ashamed of myself, and feel disgusted with myself, exercise has helped me shift my mind, not my body,” she said at the time. “My body is gonna change, everyone’s bodies change. That’s life.” Shaming people for making healthier choices is never a good idea. But when celebrities build their brands on body positivity and then do an about-face after discovering drugs that promote weight loss, it’s fair to call out the gap between what they said and what they’re doing. The central complaint from fans is about consistency. If “body positivity” means unconditional acceptance of fatness, then it’s not fair to start slimming down and pretending their past selves never existed. Right or not, fans absorb messages from influencers and pop stars. These public figures oscillating between “love the body you’re in” and “I changed my body for confidence” lead to frustration for their followers, who believe whatever they say. One solution is just being honest from the start and admitting that being overweight is not an ideal to aspire to. Then, when weight loss happens, everyone can celebrate the accomplishment instead of being mad at the blatant hypocrisy.

Though the government shutdown has ended, the fight over Obamacare is still raging. Democrats want to extend and renew the Affordable Care Act’s expanded COVID-era subsidies, which are set to expire on December 31. Doing so would cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. Republicans want to let the subsidies lapse, and find a way to reform America’s healthcare system. Ryan Long, Senior Research Fellow at the Paragon Health Institute, told The Daily Wire that the expanded subsidies have created zero-dollar insurance plans that have sparked widespread fraud and abuse. “There’s upwards of 6 million people who aren’t actually within that income category that are claiming credits as if they were in that income category,” he explained. “In certain states, there are three to four times as many people enrolled in a 100 to 150% of poverty in these $0 plans than there are people actually in those income brackets.” “So these COVID credits have just produced massive amounts of fraud,” he said. “The federal government’s paying, you know, upwards of $27 billion to $30 billion in fraudulent payments.” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz echoed this concern last week. “Today, it’s over 11 million people who have Obamacare, never use their policies … which means they often don’t know that they have it,” he said. “Yet we’re stuck with the bill.” Obamacare is also making health insurance more expensive. Obamacare plan premiums have climbed a whopping 169% since 2013. The increase is far steeper than that of employer-sponsored insurance, because when prices rise, the government is paying most of the cost, so insurers can keep raising them without people feeling the impact, Long explained. “What we’ve seen is since the [ACA] was established or implemented in 2014, employer-sponsored premiums have gone up about 68%. ACA premiums have gone up 129%,” he said. “So that can’t be a function of just prices going up. There’s something truly wrong here.” Healthcare costs and wait times have not improved since the implementation of Obamacare, either. So, where is all this money going? Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) told The Daily Wire in an interview this week that a lot of this money is going to insurance companies. “The largest carrier of exchange policies is UnitedHealthcare,” he said. “Their stock price has gone up 1,177 % since the invitation of Obamacare. Of the top seven carriers, the smallest amount of stock increases — I think, 414%. A lot of money into the insurance companies, a lot of money into the hospitals. There’s no doubt about it that we’ve got rural hospitals that are in trouble, but the big city hospitals making money hand over fists.” “There is nothing about Obamacare that created incentives to save money,” he emphasized. “All the incentives are to increase the money spent on healthcare so everybody gets their cut, everybody gets to make their profit. Non-profit hospitals, take a look at the pay of CEOs —some of them are making over $30 million a year in total compensation.” “Money is flowing into the medical establishment, they’re making money hand over fists; the tabs are being picked up by the American taxpayer,” the senator told The Daily Wire. Democrats’ solution to the healthcare crisis is to continue to extend and expand subsidies. “We had a provision that was ready to be signed, that we know would’ve decreased premiums by 10 to 15%,” Long said. “Senate Democrats objected to it — the same policy that they were saying we had to do back in 2018. And so I think that they’ve just said, ‘Hey, the horse is outta the barn, we’ll just, you know, paper over any mistakes with more subsidies.’” Johnson said Democrats are insisting on extending the COVID-era subsidies “to paper over to hide the fact that Obamacare has just been a miserable failure.” “It caused premiums to skyrocket, as opposed to … President Obama saying that he would reduce premiums by $2,500 a year by family — again, that’s a total lie,” he added. Johnson also pushed back on Democrats’ claims that premiums will double for millions and millions of Americans if the subsidies aren’t extended. “Twenty-two million of the 24 million people will still get their subsidies, the original Obamacare subsidies, which subsidize the insurance at 91 % of the premiums,” he explained. “So their premiums won’t double.” “Now, you can argue that people that went from paying a negligible amount to zero premiums, they’re going to have to pay another negligible amount,” Johnson said. “But again, going from zero to a negligible amount is an infinite increase. You can’t put that as ‘doubling premiums.'” “The people we’re talking about, the 1.6 million people whose subsidies completely go away — I’m willing to work with Democrats on that,” the senator added. “But again, it’s simply false to say that most people are gonna see their premiums double and triple. Now, the gross premium has more than doubled and tripled since Obamacare, but that’s because of Obamacare.” The GOP believes that deep reforms need to be made — or Obamacare needs to be scrapped entirely. President Donald Trump has proposed HSA-style accounts for Americans, allowing them to purchase their own healthcare plans, opening up the market, and bypassing insurance companies. “I am calling today for insurance companies not to be paid,” Trump said last week. “But for this massive amount of money to be paid directly to the people so they can buy their own healthcare. They’re gonna buy their own healthcare, and we’re gonna forget this Obamacare madness.” ? WOW! President Trump has the Democrats TOTALLY CORNERED on Obamacare “I am calling today for insurance companies NOT to be paid. But for this massive amount of money be paid DIRECTLY to the people so they can buy their own healthcare!” “Their stocks have gone up 1,000%!… pic.twitter.com/V8gWK8RdSo — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 13, 2025 Republicans seem to be on board with the proposal. In fact, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said last weekend that he’s drafting legislation to put this idea into action. Long said this could be a good move for Americans. If Congress were to adequately fund Cost-Sharing Reductions (CSR) — which are supposed to help people pay for things like deductibles and copays — that could drastically lower premiums and cut tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, he explained. And, as Trump proposed, sending that money straight to Americans rather than insurance companies would only empower patients. “One thing that we’ve advocated for is if you appropriate those CSR subsidies, which is one of the twin pillars of the subsidy structure from the ACA, you’ll reduce premiums by 10 to 15%,” he explained. “Two, you’ll lower federal spending by about $30 billion. You’ll give patients more power and choice. And we think with that power and choice, you’ll also have the effect of them being better shoppers, and that will lead to more competition and choice.” “So one thing that you could do is appropriate those CSR subsidies, and instead of giving those CSRs straight to the insurance company, you can give those to people in an HSA, where they can have more power to shop around for more valued services or better-priced services,” he elaborated. “Again, you’ll have the twin effects of lowering premiums, lowering federal spending, and empowering patients, which we think is sort of a triple winner.”

In this episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Victor Davis Hanson and Sami Winc discuss whether President Donald Trump just didn’t want the distraction of the Epstein files, was protecting Republican donors, or was luring Democrats into a trap. Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to VDH’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.  Sami Winc: Well, Victor, let’s turn to what we talked about last week, and you judiciously veered off into talking about the economy, and that’s the Epstein files, and I thought that was a judicious move last week because we should be talking about the economy, but the Epstein files are everywhere in the news this week. It’s everything from Democrat [Del.] Stacey Plaskett, who was texting [Jeffrey] Epstein in real time during congressional meetings, to [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene, who says Epstein files have ripped MAGA apart, and even [former Harvard President] Larry Summers now has stepped down from public life. And so, we’ve got everything on all sides of the political spectrum. What’s your thoughts? Victor Davis Hanson: Well, Plaskett was not even a congresswoman. She was a representative from the Virgin Islands, and the reason that she was getting instructions how to—I think it was Michael Cohen, his former lawyer—how to bring him out and embarrassed [President Donald] Trump was that he had one of his sexual mansions in the Virgin Islands. So, he has a prior relationship with her. In the political, he is probably a donor or supporter of her. So, he was intimate with Plaskett. So, she gets up there. And basically, he’s texting her in real time because he hates Trump. So, what’s the point of all this? The point of all this: They had these Epstein files for four years and they didn’t release them. Given what they did to Trump, and they coordinated with five lawsuits, 91 indictments, they would’ve leaked anything out. OK? So, they didn’t wanna release that. So, the question is, why, if they’re the Democrats? And we know the answer, that there’s going to be people like Larry Summers or [former President] Bill Clinton coming up, or this representative that we’re on very close terms with Jeffrey Epstein. So, then it comes to Trump and everybody says, “Well, we’re going to let it out.” [Attorney General] Pam Bondi says, “I have the whole file.” And they didn’t. Now, why didn’t they? And everybody on the Left said, “Well, it’s because of Donald Trump.” That was the stupidest thing in the world because they would’ve released it because they hate Trump. That’s the one thing that guides [them]. That’s their North Star. They hate Trump, but they didn’t. And so, there was nothing really in there. Yes, there were things like Trump didn’t fall for it, or Ms. [Virginia] Giuffre was there for a little while, but there was no pedophilia. Now Trump has it, and he thinks it’s a distraction from his economic news. OK? So, there’s pressure and they’re saying, “We’re getting killed by the Democrats. Release them.” Trump says, “No.” Then the question is, why did he say no? I have a feeling that he said no because there were some prominent Republican donors on that list. He didn’t want to embarrass them, and legally, it’s kind of strange. These are sealed court documents, and you’re leaking all these names and you don’t know to what degree. … Larry Summers’ career has been ruined. And apparently, it’s because he asked Jeffrey Epstein, how do I get vertical with this young woman? It didn’t really have incriminating evidence yet that he had gone to the island and had relations with underage girls, but he’s done for. And that’s a good example of what’ll happen to anybody that comes up in that. Then the question, finally, is to what degree is Trump playing four-dimensional, five-dimensional chess? Did he know all the time that he was not incriminated? Yes, he knew that they would make a mountain out of a molehill, but he probably did not go to the island. He did not do these things that other people did, or they would’ve leaked it. So, now he has all this stuff and he’s saying: I don’t wanna leak it. I don’t wanna leak it. Now, is that because primarily he’s, as I said, protecting a donor or is he luring them into a Trump ambush? So, then they said: No, no, he’s stonewalling. Marjorie Taylor Greene even agrees with us. And then bam, he’s going to let it out. And the first couple of things we learned is a big Democratic former secretary of the treasury, former president of Harvard, boom, his whole life has exploded. And then this Plaskett woman, this representative from the Virgin Islands—I mean, that is pretty incriminating. Can you imagine a Republican congressman? And he’s interrogating a witness, and he knows Jeffrey Epstein so well that Jeffrey Epstein is giving him real-time instructions? And she says, at one point: Slow down a minute, I’m coming up next for the question I need to get [more information]. What does this mean? What does this term mean? So, she was like a puppet. And she’s a Democrat. And there’s gonna be more of it. So, I don’t know to what degree there will be Republican donor collateral damage, but I think the Democrats stepped in it. And that’s what happens when you are driven ideologically. Their ideology is Trump Derangement Syndrome. Anything he does, we’re going to [attack]. So, he knew that. So, at some point he thought: OK. They’re distracting from my economic good news and my investment from overseas, and they think they’ve got something on me, and they think I won’t release them because there’s donors. But you know what? They started it, so I’ll just blow it all up. And if I have donors that get hurt, I’ll say they did it, they forced it, and they’re gonna have more exposure. Basically, Jeffrey Epstein was a person on the left, and he wanted to be a player. He had two purposes in life. He was a high school teacher. He knew nothing about economics. He wasn’t a financial adviser. He was a blackmailer and he was slick. And with Giselle Maxwell, they had a team. She was the daughter of a former media magnate. She understood public relations. He wanted to be an intellectual, he wanted to know all the celebrities, so he started out by getting these young girls and then making a web, and he was a spider. And then a celebrity or a big CEO would get entrapped, and he would say to him: Oh, I don’t know. It’s gonna get out. You had sex. I didn’t know it. That girl that happened to be visiting just for a few hours, did you know she was 15 that you had relations with? And then he probably let it be known it was on tape. Then he said: I tell you what I’ll do. I will manage your financial portfolio. And he probably got just an average seven or eight, and they didn’t lose money, but he got money that way. He got a fee for that. So, he was managing over a billion dollars. That’s how he ended up worth about half a billion dollars. And then he got to say, I know the Israelis, I know the U.N., I know the president of Harvard. And then that would be a resume, and then that would get another resume. And finally, he was meeting the presidents of the United States. We don’t know to what extent these young girls were part of it, but I hope to God, excuse the expression, that they do not, they do not, pardon his partner, Maxwell. From what we can tell from some of the affidavits, she was knee-deep in the sexual exploitation. Winc: She went out and recruited. That’s what I’ve read anyway, that she went out around, found girls that could be easily manipulated. Hanson: According to this memoir [by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre], she was aging, she felt, to remain on a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, her task was to bring women for two purposes: for his sexual gratification and for this shakedown that they were being enriched by. And then they had a relationship, but she was sexually involved in lesbian relationships sometimes with these young girls. Megyn Kelly got in big trouble because she said that the girls were teenagers and, therefore, were not completely victims. Her point was it was not pedophilia, which she would define as sexual relations with children that had not reached puberty. That’s an ancient distinction. In the ancient world, a pedophilia was having sexual relations with somebody beneath the age or younger than puberty. After that, until adulthood, it was called pederasty. They used the word instead “philia,” which means love or can mean sex, “asty” pederastia is actual sexual congress. I don’t know if she made that distinction, but the law does not make the distinction in modern times. Each state sets the age of consent. I think it’s 14 in one or two states, 15, 18. Usually it’s 18. Anything below that, we call it pedophilia. But actually, in classical terms, that’s pederasty. Just because a girl is at the age of 16 or 17, sexually aware, she’s had sexual partners, she’s manipulative, she uses her youth, doesn’t nullify the idea she can be a victim. What does anybody know at 17? I didn’t know anything at 17 or 18. So they’re easily manipulated and it’s the responsibility of adults not to take advantage of them as Jeffrey Epstein did, much less humiliate them and make them basically be prostitutes. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Victor Davis Hanson: Did Trump Just Not Want the Epstein File Distraction, or Did He Lure Democrats Into a Trap? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Monday afternoon, a pregnant mother was walking her 9-year-old son home from his Chicago school when a group of kids started chasing after the mother and son, calling them names and taunting them.In video footage of the attack, the children were beating the mother and her son against a fence outside the school and dragging them to the ground before the pair were taken to the hospital.“It’s a very sad story. Anytime you see a mother trying to protect her child and then being totally beaten by a group of children, that is one of the most unfortunate things that you could witness,” Pastor Corey Brooks tells BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock on “Fearless.”However, Brooks noticed something interesting when he looked at all the news footage surrounding the incident.“One of the things that I’ve noticed as I looked through a bunch of video footage and I’ve looked at a lot of interviews is that there’s only one father that I’ve seen that’s been present, and that’s the father who was standing behind the sister that was beaten,” Brooks explains.“I know that father because they’re members of my church. I know the young boy that was beaten because they’re in our after-school program. His grandmother is also a part of our church. So, I’m very familiar with that family,” he continues.“But one of the sad things about it is that none of these other fathers of these children who beat this woman have spoken out or said anything. I’ve seen interviews with the mothers, with some of their children, but no fathers,” he adds.And this is not just an issue in Chicago, but black families everywhere.“I think that is a major problem that we’re faced with in our community, the lack of presence of fathers,” he says. “And anytime you get to a point to where the kids can get it, it’s a sad day.”Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.