'Why do kids f*cking go to school?'

'How quickly people have forgotten'

China will give the World Health Organization $500 million, but “in terms of the contribution, the WHO is a cheap date,” Brett Schaefer says.   “The Chinese donation is reportedly $500 million over five years,” Schaefer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Signal. “According to U.N. Chief Executives Board data, in 2023, the U.S. provided $374 million in voluntary contributions above its $113 million in assessed contributions.”  China will now be the largest donor to the World Health Organization after President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the WHO in January, citing concerns over its response to the COVID-19 pandemic and failure to implement reforms.   “The world is now facing the impacts of unilateralism and power politics, bringing major challenges to global health security,” Chinese Vice Premier Liu Guozhong told the World Health Assembly on Tuesday in the announcement of China’s pledge to the WHO.   “China strongly believes that only with solidarity and mutual assistance can we create a healthy world together,” the Chinese official said.  Beijing’s influence in the WHO is not new, according to Schaefer, an expert on the United Nations and international organizations.  “Based on the effort that the WHO made to excuse China’s lack of transparency and cooperation in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic and the organization’s unwillingness to press China about the increasing evidence that the disease originated from a lab leak, it is hard to conclude that the WHO is not already compromised by Chinese influence,” he said.   While it is in the U.S. interest to support global health, there are other methods for doing so, outside of the World Health Organization, Schaefer said, adding that it could have adopted reforms to maintain U.S. involvement, but chose instead to “resist reform and settle for far less in Chinese support.”  When the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO was announced, the White House said that it had continued to “demand unfairly onerous payments” from the U.S., especially when the amount the U.S. paid was compared to China’s contribution.   “China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300% of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO,” the White House said in January.    Robert Moffit, a senior research fellow in the Center for Health and Welfare Policy at The Heritage Foundation, says it’s unclear whether China’s financial pledge will change anything at the WHO.   “During the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO failed miserably in its mission to try and keep the world safe. As congressional investigators proved, it caved to communist China at the very inception of the pandemic,” Moffit told The Daily Signal.   Instead of relying on the WHO, America—along with our friends and allies—needs to create an alternative and reliable international health monitoring system, sooner rather than later,” Moffit said.  The post ‘WHO Is a Cheap Date,’ Expert Says of China’s $500 Million Pledge appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. President Donald Trump just wrapped up a very successful tour of the Middle East Gulf states and touched upon the tense negotiations with Iran, touched upon the Russian/Ukraine war, in addition. And he took that occasion of being overseas, quite irregular, to blast the prior administrations. I think he was talking specifically about the George W. Bush administration as a faulty foreign policy administration, in the sense that they were nation-building. He blasted neoconservatism. He said that they tried to interfere in the internal affairs of traditional societies. There’s all an element of truth to that. But it elicited a lot of criticism. Elliott Abrams has been blasting Trump. Rich Lowry has been blasting Trump. What is their criticism? Their criticism is that his traditional Jacksonian foreign policy—no better friend, no worse enemy; intervening on the behalf of allies; trying to win over neutrals; punishing enemies; not engaging in optional Middle East wars; retaliation only, as in the first term, get rid of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, get rid of Qassem Soleimani, get rid of the Wagner Group, etc., but not insert troops on the ground—that has morphed, according to his critics, now into a mercantile foreign policy where the chief element is to make money and not to have any idealistic element. But I would say that just because Donald Trump didn’t mention idealism and that we were supporting democratic institutions, doesn’t necessarily mean he’s not doing that. What he’s emphasizing is that there is a common bond in the world. And that common bond is in the heart of everybody. They want peace and they want prosperity and they want security. That’s not necessarily antithetical or exclusionary of freedom because, obviously, economic ability—the ability to make money and the ability to be secure—often has an element of what? Freedom. And so, Donald Trump’s idea about foreign policy I think is the following: If you get people to agree on particular elements, barometers of peace, and you engage with them economically, then they will see that it’s to their advantage not to commit terrorism or war but to try to mutually profit. And how does that work throughout the world in these conflicts? One: In the Ukrainian war, he’s suggesting there be a DMZ between the two sides that are now fighting. They disengage. There’ll be a commercial corridor where foreign entities have concessions to mine rare earths and sanctions are lifted. And then Russia and Ukraine stop this insane war where there’s 1.5 million casualties and counting aggregate on both sides. In the Middle East, he’s saying to the Middle East: Under the Abraham Accords, if you make a deal with Israel, it’s gonna be beneficial for everybody. You will tap into Israeli expertise, technology. Your oil money will be able to purchase artificial intelligence, biotech, genetic engineering, all of these wonderful things. And you have a Western country right near you. And he is telling Iran—and this is where the criticism arises: We don’t have any preconditions. All you have to do is stop subsidizing a now-defunct Hezbollah and Hamas. That should be easy for you. You’ve lost your concession in Syria. The Houthis are now under duress. Just stop it. And you don’t need to enrich uranium because you have a hundred years’ supply of conventional fossil fuels for electricity production. But he didn’t mention that the Gulf countries must reform. And they must democratize. And they must honor human rights. I think it’s implicit that he wants them to, but he didn’t say explicitly. And that’s where the criticism came. But let me just finish by asking, I don’t believe in a Manichean foreign policy, but what’s the opposite of that? We had then-President Joe Biden go over to Saudi Arabia and beg during the 2022 midterms that the royal family begin to pump oil. And why did he do that? Because he insulted them and said that they were basically “a rogue dictatorship” because of the incident where a person—they had a critic killed, Jamal Khashoggi, in the Turkish Embassy, etc. What was the net result? Did we have better relations? Was there greater peace? And he’s criticized the Netanyahu government—Biden did—and said that they had to have a coalition government, they were not democratic enough. What was the net result? Did that make us closer with Israel? Did it moderate Israel? Israel’s already a democracy. And to be frank, Donald Trump has been much more critical of the Zelenskyy government than Biden and the Left have. Donald Trump has said the following: “You have outlawed a free press. You have outlawed habeas corpus, in most cases. You haven’t had free elections. And you’ve banned opposition parties. And yet you criticize Israel. And you make demands and try to remove the Netanyahu government.” So, what am I getting at? The Left is not consistent in their advocacy of human rights because they give a complete pass to Ukraine. What Donald Trump is trying to say is: Let’s just not get into politics. Let’s not get into offending foreign leaders. Let’s just start with a blank slate. And when we see hot spots around the world, we want to help our friends, win over our neutrals, punish our enemies if they won’t change. And one way that we can do that is not to lecture them but to create economic matrices, nexuses, in which people find that it’s in their vested interests to profit rather than to kill people. Should he mention human rights from time to time? Yes. Should he say that the United States’ realist policy is more than just mutual property? Yes. But it doesn’t change the actual fact: He’s had more success getting to a ceasefire in Ukraine and more success in the Middle East than the prior administration under whose watch two theater wars broke out and we had the disaster in Afghanistan. I don’t need to go back to prior administrations. But I don’t think people feel, in retrospect—even as a reaction to 9/11, which was needed—that the Afghan War and the Iraq War, in a cost-benefit analysis or humanitarian analysis for either us or for the people we tried to help, were a success. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Trump Is Doing What Neocons Wouldn’t in the Middle East appeared first on The Daily Signal.

With one broad stroke, Democrat Hillary Clinton called all conservative women “handmaidens” in remarks at an event in New York City earlier this month.  “Well, first of all, don’t be a handmaiden to the patriarchy, which kind of eliminates every woman on the [Republican] side of the aisle, except for very few,” Clinton, 77, said when asked what advice she would give to the first female president.  Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., are among the “few” Republican women who don’t bow down to the patriarchy, according to Clinton. Clinton made the comment during a discussion at New York City’s 92nd Street Y on May 1, adding that the U.S. electing a female president is “so much harder than it should be.” Video of the event wasn’t posted till two weeks later on May 15, according to The Daily Caller. “If a woman runs who I think would be a good president, as I thought Kamala Harris would be and as I knew I would be, I will support that woman,” Clinton said, who lost her 2016 bid to become the country’s first female president.  This is what modern leftist feminism has become: a mean girls’ club where you’re only “empowered” if you follow their script. No thanks. https://t.co/MY5E37n6vw— Crystal Kate (@crystalkatetx) May 20, 2025 Clinton’s comments reveal a bizarre strategy on the political Left—bash anyone who thinks differently than she does, and then act surprised and play the victim when the same people you berated don’t support you.  Speaking as conservative women who have worked hard to earn countless opportunities from male and female bosses alike who also happen to be conservative, it’s both insulting and laughable to call women who believe in traditional values and protecting the unborn “handmaidens to the patriarchy.”  On this week’s edition of “Problematic Women,” we discuss our “oppression” as conservative women and take time to celebrate the women who, unlike Clinton, are acting as powerful voices for all women, regardless of political views.  Also on today’s show, ahead of Memorial Day, the Trump administration has announced an investigation into the disastrous U.S. pullout from Afghanistan in 2021 and a proposed “Golden Dome” to protect the U.S. against missile attacks.  Plus, we breakdown some of the latest pop culture news as singer Lorde equates ditching birth control as “right wing.” And President Donald Trump says Taylor Swift is no longer “hot.” Is he right?  Watch the show above or listen to the podcast below. The post If You’re a Conservative Woman, You’re Probably a ‘Handmaiden to the Patriarchy,’ According to Hillary Clinton appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Lucy Connolly: It's Safe to Be Anything But an Outraged Brit in Starmer's Police State

Ohio police say that a 24-year-old Venezuelan migrant was caught pretending to be 16 years old in order to attend a high school and was living with a couple who housed exchange students. Anthony Emmanuel Labrador Sierra was accepted to attend a high school in Perrysburg, Ohio, in Nov. 2023 after claiming to be homeless and an immigrant from Venezuela, according to City of Perrysburg Police. His alleged scam began unraveling when a woman contacted the Melfreds to tell them that Labrador was 'actually a 24-year-old and he was the father of her child.' He also claimed to be a victim of human trafficking and presented the school with a birth certificate from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela that showed a birthdate in 2007. He started attending the school in Jan. 2024, according to police. Then in March, Kathy and Brad Melfred agreed to house Labrador, as they accepted exchange students and had foster children as well. The Melfreds helped Labrador obtain a Social Security number and an Ohio driver's license after being appointed his permanent guardians. His alleged scam began unraveling when a woman contacted the Melfreds to tell them that Labrador was "actually a 24-year-old and he was the father of her child." She presented them with another birth certificate showing Labrador to be instead a 24-year-old man as well as photos from Facebook showing him and a small child. RELATED: Trump admin revokes protected status extension for Venezuelan nationals Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images When police reached out to U.S. Border Patrol, the agency confirmed that Labrador had an actual birthdate from 2001 and an expired work visa. Border Patrol also said that Labrador was considered a visa overstay. Police arrested Labrador on Monday on felony forgery charges. Republican U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio blamed the Temporary Protection Status policies of former President Joe Biden for the incident and said that there's evidence Labrador might have had "a relationship with a minor.""Unreal. Thanks to Joe Biden’s abuse of TPS, a 24 year old illegal alien was caught on a fake asylum claim pretending to be a teenager at a high school in Ohio," said Moreno on social media. "Today, I am calling for a full investigation into this scandal and what is being done to keep our children safe," he added.In a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel, Moreno called for an investigation into the incident to root out whether the migrant had committed sexual misconduct. Online records indicate that Labrador was given a bond of $50,000. Labrador had joined the junior varsity soccer and swim teams at the high school. The district said it reported the incident to the Ohio High School Athletic Association.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Department of Homeland Security revealed shocking details about the "barbaric, dangerous" illegal aliens who were placed on a deportation flight to South Sudan. The Trump administration was accused of violating a federal order when it was discovered that the administration was flying illegal aliens to war-torn Sudan. On Wednesday, the administration released details about the convictions of the deported. 'No country on earth wanted to accept them because their crimes are so uniquely monstrous and barbaric.' "We conducted a deportation flight from Texas to remove some of the most barbaric, violent individuals illegally in the United States," read the statement from the DHS. "No country on earth wanted to accept them because their crimes are so uniquely monstrous and barbaric." Among those listed were Enrique Arias-Hierro, a Cuban national who had a criminal history including "convictions for homicide, armed robbery, false impersonation of official, kidnapping, robbery strong arm," according to the DHS. Laos citizen Thongxay Nilakout was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery and sentenced to life confinement. Mexican national Jesus Munoz-Gutierrez was convicted of second-degree murder and also sentenced to life confinement. His booking photo appears to show him with "216" tattooed on his neck. RELATED: Trump admin yanks South Sudan visas until nation accepts deportation flights Photo by John Moore/Getty Images Dian Peter Domach, a citizen of South Sudan, was convicted of "robbery and possession of a firearm, of possession of burglar’s tools and possession of defaced firearm and driving under the influence." Burmese citizen Kyaw Mya was convicted of lascivious acts with a child victim less than 12 years of age and sentenced to 10 years of confinement. Another Burmese citizen, Nyo Myint, was convicted of first-degree sexual assault involving a victim mentally and physically incapable of resisting. Myint was sentenced to 12 years' confinement. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy intervened in deportations to Libya based on the humanitarian crisis there, and those conditions are also true of South Sudan. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Simply due to the huge volume of them these days, and the constant flow of newcomers joining the pile, I have to admit that I’m getting a little bit burnt out when it comes to roguelike deckbuilders. Some of the greatest PC games ever reside in this strategic, highly replayable genre, but it’s certainly a saturated market. However, it’s hard not to get invested in Monster Train 2. Launching exactly five years on from its predecessor - one of the best rated and reviewed roguelike deckbuilders ever - it’s finally arrived, and it’s already meeting players’ lofty expectations. Continue reading The sequel to a beloved roguelike deckbuilder, Monster Train 2 is finally here MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best roguelike games, Best card games, Best indie games

We don’t know who is behind them, but undermining Israel in its struggle against Iran should be no one’s idea of ‘America First.’