In February 2024, Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., received a devastating phone call from a sheriff in his home district while attending a Trump rally in South Carolina. The sheriff informed Collins that Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student enrolled at Augusta University’s College of Nursing, had been murdered while jogging on the University of Georgia campus in Athens on Feb. 24. The gruesome murder set off almost a year of policy debates and political calculus that culminated in President Donald Trump signing the Laken Riley Act into law. Collins, the leading House Republican on that piece of legislation, joined “The Signal Sitdown” to give a behind-the-scenes look at how Republicans got this major legislative accomplishment across the finish line. When Collins received that call in February 2024, he had a feeling the perpetrator was a criminal illegal alien. “I said, ‘Oh God, don’t tell me what you’re gonna tell me next,’” Collins recalled. In response, the sheriff told Collins, “Well, I can’t confirm it, but I can assure you.” The illegal alien murderer, 26-year-old José Antonio Ibarra of Venezuela, was arrested the day after the heinous crime. Riley’s murder could have easily been prevented if America had anything close to a sane immigration system. Ibarra, who was found guilty of all charges in November 2024, was apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection after illegally entering the United States in September 2022, but he was released on parole while awaiting further immigration proceedings. A year later, Ibarra was arrested in New York City and charged with acting in a manner to injure a child under 17 but was released back onto the streets. A month later, Ibarra and his brother were arrested in Athens, Georgia, for shoplifting at a local Walmart. He was released while awaiting court proceedings, proceedings for which he failed to appear.  Soon after learning about Riley’s murder, Collins said he “made a phone call to the family and told them that we were gonna be on top of this.” The product was the Laken Riley Act, which Collins introduced in the last Congress on March 1, 2024. The legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain illegal immigrants arrested for a number of crimes, such as theft, rather than letting criminal illegal immigrants out on the street and hoping they do not strike again. The bill passed out of the Republican-controlled House with some Democrat support, but “when it got to the Senate, it just fell into that big black hole over there,” Collins said. “I told the family, uh, we talked after it went over there and I was told there’s no way it’s coming up,” Collins recalled. “And I told them it had gotten personal. I told them that I couldn’t let it go.” “No matter what, we were gonna get this passed if it’s the last thing that I ever do,” Collins said. The strategy was straightforward: Say her name. “We were sitting around [thinking] how do we do this? We make sure that we keep this in the public, we make sure that we keep this in the media. We make sure that Laken Riley’s name becomes the face of this problem,” Collins told The Daily Signal. “We do that, we’ll be able to get some legislation that’ll impact and make a change.” Democrats only changed their tune on legislation like the Laken Riley Act after thoroughly getting embarrassed in the November election. Collins went door to door on Capitol Hill to try to whip the votes in both the House and Senate to get the Laken Riley Act on Trump’s desk. Some Democrats, however, threatened to undermine the effectiveness of the bill while still taking credit for it, Collins said—even elected officials from his own state. “[Sen. Jon Ossoff] told me he was gonna dismantle the whole bill, make it his bill.”  “That ought to tell you where people stood right then,” he recalled. “It wasn’t about the policy, it was about the politics. Because he’s up for reelection and he knows he’s in trouble.” Collins and Republicans managed to keep the bill intact and apply enough pressure so that Democrats caved. The House voted in favor, 264-to-159, and the Senate, 64-to-35. Collins was with Riley’s family when Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law on Jan. 29, 2025. Collins recalled Riley’s mother asked to speak at the signing event, turning to him and saying, “Mike, I get pretty emotional,” Collins recalled. “I said, yeah, me too,” Collins replied, “but when I do, I just take in a deep breath, and when I do that, I can continue talking.” During her speech, “it was getting emotional,” Collins said. “She paused, and I could see out of the corner of my eye, President Trump … put his hand on her shoulder.” ”You think about how that young lady fought for her life,” Collins said, “she fought to her last breath, and that’s the least that we could do for her.” The post Inside the Fight to Pass the Laken Riley Act appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The past couple of weeks has seen a lot of drama within the Make America Healthy Again movement. Much of the commotion surrounds President Donald Trump’s new Surgeon General nominee, Dr. Casey Means along with her brother, Calley, a special adviser to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. A few members of the wider MAHA coalition have cited concerns over their involvement in biotech companies, while others condemn their lack of emphasis on vaccines. Predictably, the far-left media is having a field day, running stories better suited to the E! network than serious media outlets. Amidst all the distractions, however, major MAHA wins are flying under the radar. FDA Wins Not only did the FDA mandate that three of the most controversial food dyes be removed from processed food, but the agency will also be conducting a post market review of all added food chemicals. In a recent press release, the FDA announced measures to “increase transparency and ensure the safety of chemicals in food.” According to the press release, the FDA will roll out a modernized, evidence-based prioritization scheme for reviewing existing chemicals, initiate a final, systematic post-market review process, and expedite its review of chemicals currently under review. Barely any legacy media outlet covered these stories, much less applauded them. In a contentious hearing before the House last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had to toot his own horn to Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who was blasting Kennedy for his consolidation efforts at HHS. “Congressman DeLauro, you say that you’ve worked for 20 years on getting food dye out. Give me credit! I got it out in a hundred days!” He repeated his now popular charge, “There’s no such thing as Republican children or Democratic children. There’s just kids and we should all be concerned with them.” In response to the changes at the FDA, many companies are fast-tracking efforts to comply with new standards. Recently, Tyson Foods announced it will be eliminating petroleum-based dyes by the end of the month. In addition, last week Kennedy ordered the FDA to conduct a complete review of the popular abortion pill, mifepristone. According to insurance data, one in ten women experienced a serious adverse event within 45 days of taking the pill, including sepsis, infection, and hemorrhaging. According to the report, “the real-world rate of serious adverse events following mifepristone abortions is at least 22 times as high as the summary figure of “less than 0.5 percent” in clinical trials reported on the drug label. Vaccine Recommendation Changes The FDA plans to introduce a new review system for future vaccines that would require placebo testing, a huge victory for MAHA supporters. FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary signaled his support for the move. “We want to see vaccines that are available for high-risk individuals,” Makary said. “And at the same time, we want some good science. We want some good clinical data.” The agency is focusing on the good data it already has. Years of failed COVID policy preceded years of underreported mRNA side effects and needless injections. Finally, health officials are doing something about it. On May 20, Makary, along with Dr. Vinay Prasad, announced that federal agencies will no longer recommend COVID shots for children and teenagers. Furthermore, officials have limited recommendations for ongoing shots to high risk and older individuals. It’s a small step, but it represents a historic reversal of the CDC vaccine schedule for kids, which, with only one exception, always grows and never shrinks.  For many years, Trump touted his first-term health campaign, Operation Warp Speed, as a huge success. As a result, many speculated that the president would stymie efforts by Kennedy and others to re-assess the COVID vaccines. But every relevant public statement by the president supports Kennedy’s efforts, even if it means rethinking past policies in light of new evidence. Earlier this year, Kennedy also suggested HHS would review the entire childhood vaccine schedule, though, at the moment, this remains a promissory note. End of Gain-of-Function Research Another MAHA success came on May 5, when Trump signed an executive order to ban federally funded gain-of-function research on biological agents and pathogens in foreign “countries of concern.”  Kennedy called the move “a milestone and historic development.” Though the executive order was quite narrow, it’s clear that leading health officials recognize the problems with this research wherever it is conducted. “There’s no laboratory that does this right, there’s no laboratory that’s immune from leaks,” the HHS secretary commented during the signing.National Institute of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya stated, “The conduct of this research does not protect us against pandemics as some people might say. Any nation that engages in this research endangers their own population as well as the world as we saw during the COVID pandemic.” “Gain-of-function is an area of science where scientists really play God,” Kennedy told “The Record With Greta Van Susteren.” “They’re taking pathogenic viruses and they’re making them more transmissible, they’re making them more virulent, and they’re making them more deadly.” Some in the MAHA movement have complained that these policies are too modest—and that may be true. But each represents a reversal of policies that, until recently, elite influencers treated as settled. Among fans of MAHA, the more charitable interpretation is that Kennedy, Makary, and Bhattacharya are wisely choosing an incremental approach. It’s easy to forget that they have held their positions for only a few months. Like much of President Trump’s agenda, it’s been hard to keep pace with these major health policy reforms. However, if the MAHA coalition can stay focused and disciplined, we have every reason for hope that the Trump-Kennedy vision of making American healthier will succeed. The post Drama Shadows Recent MAHA Wins appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Left Inevitably Embraces Terror

Hmmmm: DoJ Opens Probe Into Cuomo Over COVID-19 Testimony

When Mars seems to shine, like you've had too much wine (robot lubricant), that’s a-Deimos.

Chances are you've never seen this incredibly widespread species.

Coelacanths were once thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

It’s one of the three largest coastal boulders known to be moved by such forces, and the only one this size that started on a high cliff.

The director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement flatly denied the idea that refugees from South Africa were being welcomed to the United States because of their race.Director Tom Homan spoke to BlazeTV host Glenn Beck on Wednesday, the same day that President Donald Trump welcomed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to the White House.'There's no color to refugees.'Trump pressed the South African leader about the mistreatment, and sometimes murder, of white Afrikaner farmers in his country. Trump even showed Ramaphosa a horrifying video that featured gravesites and a stadium full of South Africans singing about shooting white people.Beck asked Homan if he had any comment about the "debacle" in the media where left-wing outlets criticized the Trump administration's decision to bring 59 white South Africans to the U.S."There's no color to refugees," Homan plainly stated. "We don't base refugee status on color. We base it on the law. ... It's not based on color. I know, I read a lot of media stories, and a lot of the media is basically, you know, 'because they're white.' Refugee status isn't based on color."RELATED: Tom Homan to Glenn Beck: Tim Walz 'disgusting' for comparing ICE to 'Gestapo' — Eric Swalwell not 'above the law' — (@) Homan added that refugee status in relation to race is "not the way the law is written" and assured Beck, "That's not the way we're doing things."When it came to illegal immigration, Beck and Homan also discussed the CBP Home app, a program designed to help illegal immigrants self-deport back to their home country."It's been good," Homan explained. "I mean, several thousand signed up. We just did our first flight where we hosted that flight and sent them home."Homan was likely referring to a flight of 65 illegal immigrants who accepted a free plane ticket to their home country on the condition they would receive $1,000 upon landing.The director revealed that there had been around 4,500 additional sign-ups, and when a group of illegal migrants at a detention center had been presented with the option recently, about 50% of them volunteered."'You want to go home? We'll make arrangements. Go home, and you get $1,000 for going.' And just about half of the population raised their hands," Homan said.RELATED: 'Self-deport' flights begin as some illegal migrants take advantage of Trump's tempting offer: Report Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty ImagesHoman's conversation with Beck also included responses to politicians like Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D), both of whom made strong statements about the Trump administration and Homan's department.Walz had referred to ICE agents as a "modern-day Gestapo" that is "scooping folks up off the streets," while Swalwell had claimed that the Trump administration had been prosecuting its political enemies.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

I was skimming through Substack the other day looking for something of interest to read when I came across an article titled “Where Is Today’s Michelangelo?” It was a thought-provoking piece about the depleted state of modern society’s artistic soil thanks to the eradication of ideals and objective truth, the rise of mass consumerism, and the decline of humanism. David’s story is one worthy of the blessed hands of Michelangelo, a story worthy of a legacy that lasts all of human history. The author argued that we’ve yet to see Michelangelo’s equivalent not because he or she doesn’t exist, but rather because our culture no longer knows how to nurture artists capable of reaching such heights. To give an analogy, the world’s fastest man might be hiding in a village right now, but if that village is plagued with famine and he cannot eat properly, his muscles will not thicken, his bones will not harden, and his potential will die entirely untapped. The same principle applies to the Michelangelo-level artist, who requires certain specific nourishment to develop his talent fully. Contrapposto counterfeit The article got me thinking about a work of art recently unveiled smack in the middle of Times Square to great acclaim — at least from some circles. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Titled “Grounded in the Stars,” this 12-foot bronze sculpture portrays an overweight, average-looking black woman in casual clothing, standing with hands on hips. The artist, Thomas J. Price, sculpted her in contrapposto as a nod to the Renaissance king’s “David” — arguably the most beloved sculpture to ever exist. A glance at the two works side by side, and it’s easy to see that “Grounded in the Stars” is indeed inspired by “David” — the poses, the intense visages, the prowess both aim to convey. Yet “Grounded in the Stars” will never — could never — dwell in the same divine orbit as “David.” And nobody with an inkling of sense would ever claim otherwise. My question, and I think it’s an important one, is why? Why would nobody dare argue that Price’s bronze woman could ever ascend the same Olympian heights as Michelangelo’s “David”? Sculpture on easy mode Is the answer purely technical? It's true that "David” is more anatomically detailed, with his veined hands and subtly tensed muscles, than “Grounded in the Stars,” which employs a smoother, more stylized surface. And the technical mastery displayed by “David” is all the more impressive considering the rudimentary tools Michelangelo had at his disposal. He painstakingly hewed his statue by hand from a single block of marble (and a flawed one at that). Michelangelo had zero room for error. Price, by contrast, may have relied on digital modeling and other modern tools that allowed him to fix mistakes and refine details before casting. Are these disparities in craftsmanship what creates the gap between these two works? It doesn’t take an artist or an art critic to know that’s only a fraction of the answer. “David” is hallowed — immortalized in the artistic canon — for reasons that go beyond its objective beauty and precise craftsmanship. But while the vast majority of people instinctively know "David" is the superior of the two sculptures, I think many, if asked, would struggle to articulate what precisely makes it so. They would likely stutter through generalities — he’s an important part of biblical history; he was created by the great Michelangelo; he’s seen millions of visitors for hundreds of years. All true, yet shallow and incomplete. I think as a society we’ve forgotten the elements of greatness. We recognize objectively great art when we see it, but our understanding hardly reaches beyond physical sight. It’s like looking at water but not knowing that hydrogen and oxygen are what make it up. We know “David” is an emblem of artistic excellence to the highest degree and that “Grounded in the Stars” is not, but do we know the deepest reasons this is true? If we did, perhaps then we’d be erecting something far better in Times Square today. For that to be a possibility, though, modern culture has to relearn the chemical makeup of greatness. Comparing these two statues is as good a place as any to start. Virtue in stone The Renaissance, the period in which Michelangelo sculpted “David,” was a revival of classical antiquity — specifically the art, literature, philosophy, and culture of ancient Greece and Rome. This culture came with certain ideas about artistic legacy and permanence, ideas that drove Greece’s Parthenon sculptors as much as the artists of Augustus’ Rome. Just as you and I tend to measure the impact of digital content by its virality (how widely it spreads), Renaissance artists understood that their works, if they achieved excellence, would endure in human history. Generations of people would come and go, ages would wax and wane, empires would rise and fall, and yet their art would survive it all — save natural disasters and angry mobs. And so when Michelangelo took on the herculean task of “liberating” David from the 18-foot block of Carrara marble that had already been deemed unworkable by two other sculptors, he knew the weight of his task. He wasn’t just creating a stone replica of a historical figure. He was making history himself. He understood that “David” would transcend the moment of his creation; like all great religious art of the Renaissance, "David" was intended to guide the consciousnesses of spectators for centuries to come. And the sculpture has done exactly that. It’s been 521 years since the completion of "David," and the figure still receives several thousand visitors per day. But why? What is it that makes it worthy of such a legacy? "David" is inarguably beautiful; in fact, Michelangelo carved him to represent the ideal male form — a concept rooted in Renaissance humanism. But this is not solely what gives “David” his longevity. There’s a reason beauty and truth always seem to go hand in hand. It is, of course, the virtues “David” represents that immortalize him. "David" is marble courage, heroism, and moral resolve. His narrative is one of civic virtue, triumph over tyranny, and unwavering faith in God. He originates and exemplifies the victorious underdog — a concept we are still cheering millennia later. We do this because we are all underdogs in some capacity. Goliath looms in our homes, our workplaces, even our own hearts; Philistine armies are always rising up and casting shadows. Each of us has been a shepherd caught up in a war we didn’t ask for. David’s courage to say I will go imbues us (even those of us who reject the God from whom David’s courage came) with fortitude to face our own giants. In this way, David’s story is all of our stories. And as long as there are giants and people with the will to challenge them, it will live on. Tokenism in bronze Whose story does “Grounded in the Stars” tell? The title certainly connotes beauty, strength, and legacy. But no — this is no one’s story. The artist has told us so himself. “The work is a composite fictional character, unfixed and boundless, allowing us to imagine what it would be like to inhabit space neutrally without preconceived ideas and misrepresentation,” Price said of his sculpture. So not only is this a statue of nobody with no story to tell, that is precisely the point. Price urges us to reject excellence and instead celebrate mediocrity — to cheer not because someone is virtuous, heroic, saintly, or accomplished, but because she is supposedly marginalized. What a hopeless message. The art of victimhood For the truly marginalized, the statue doesn’t speak to their sense of strength or resilience; it doesn’t encourage them to rise above circumstance, carry their burdens with courage, or to even hope for better days. It says the opposite — sit in your victimhood; let it crystalize into bitterness. Wear it like a badge of honor; wield it as a weapon. Such a message robs marginalized people of the very tools needed to emerge from the station they want to escape. It’s tokenism packaged as empowerment, keeping them down but convincing them they’ve risen. And to those who would be considered privileged, the statue is a condemning lecture — a “shame on you,” finger-wagging political rant in the form of a looming bronze woman that looks and feels like a modernized idol from ancient days. If the goal is to help the fortunate see the plight of the downtrodden, this does the opposite, sowing more divisiveness and resentment. No one ever comes to see the light through shame. An example for the ages And here’s my biggest question: Which statue better honors the marginalized? Before he was king, David was a shepherd — one of the lowliest groups in biblical history, barely above beggars and outcasts. Remote field work kept shepherds on the literal fringes of society, far removed from urban centers. Their status as humble laborers ensured that they lacked power and influence. They were poor, uneducated, and dirty from working with animals. On top of that, David was young at a time when a man’s age was indicative of his worth, especially as a warrior. From every angle, he was unfit to face Goliath. But no matter. Faith and courage rooted in God would be his wings. And they were, from the moment he slung the fatal stone to the moment of his crowning as the king of Israel. There is no better story of a marginalized person rising to greatness than David’s. It’s a story worthy of the blessed hands of Michelangelo, a story worthy of a legacy that lasts all of human history. Price’s nameless bronze woman, by contrast, is rooted in the fleeting values of modern DEI and identity politics, unlikely to outlast her creator. Planned obsolescence Come June, the statue will be removed from its temporary post in Times Square and whisked away to some private gallery or worse — to storage. There, it will meet the same sad fate as the majority of contemporary art. Its impact will be but a ripple in a pond that quickly fades and is forgotten. But I don’t necessarily place the blame on Price. To quote the article I mentioned above, “a culture starved of deep convictions is shallow soil, unconducive to the growth of great artists.” If we want to produce great art again, we have to cultivate values that strengthen the human spirit, calling us out of darkness and into light — whether we are marginalized or privileged. Only then will we create art that is truly grounded in the stars.