With just a few days left on the Today Show, Hoda Kotb is going out with a bang and a surprise here and there. She’s spending her final week making a lasting impression on viewers and guests. Christina Wong and Dean Kahn tried adopting a baby for years, but things didn’t go as planned. Hoda sat down with the couple and shared her own adoption story. She said, “I have to say, I remember so vividly when I got the call. It was so magical and amazing when you get a phone call. I remember mine like it was yesterday. The phone rang, and I was in my office, and I answered the phone,” she said. Hoda Kotb Gave The Couple A Huge Surprise The Today host continued to share her story with Christina and Dean. “And they said, ‘Hoda.’ I said, ‘Yes?’ And she said, ‘It’s a girl.’ And I go, ‘Oh my God, it’s a girl.’ That’s what I thought. And I just want to have the privilege of telling both of you in this moment that it’s a girl. You guys have been matched with a baby,” she announced. “Oh my God,” Dean said. “I want to meet her and I want to love her,” Christina added. The couple returned to Today on January 7 to introduce Hoda to their baby girl, Jacqueline. Hoda asked how parenthood was going, and Christina said, “A whirlwind.” Dean added, “It’s been amazing. I mean, she’s been everything we hoped for and more. It’s just so surreal, like you think perfect’s not possible and then this happens.” The family called Hoda Kotb’s surprise a “dream come true.” “I really wanted to soak it in, but it was overwhelming in every good way possible,” Christina said of her parenting journey. Hoda is certainly making the best of her last minutes on Today, and we love it all. This story’s featured image is by Nathan Congleton/NBC via Getty Images. The post Hoda Kotb Gives Couple Huge Surprise As She Prepares To Leave “Today” appeared first on InspireMore.

'Tremendous demand on our system'

Parents have a 'fundamental right'

'His poll numbers tanked'

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—A major California city is suing the state over its sanctuary law, arguing that it violates the Constitution and prevents local officials from protecting their community. The City of Huntington Beach filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against SB 54, otherwise known as the California Values Act, which dramatically restricts how local and state law enforcement can cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The lawsuit argues that the policy not only violates the Constitution, but also directs city officials to violate federal immigration laws. “We are fighting the Sanctuary State Law because it obstructs our ability to fully enforce the law and keep our community safe,” Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns said in a public statement. “When the stakes are currently so high, with reports of increases in human trafficking, increases in foreign gangs taking over apartment buildings in the U.S., killing, raping, and committing other violent crimes against our citizens, we need every possible resource available to fight crime, including federal resources.” “Huntington Beach will not sit idly by and allow the obstructionist Sanctuary State Law to put our 200,000 residents at risk of harm from those who seek to commit violent crimes on U.S. soil.,” Burns continued. The California Values Act was signed into law by then-Gov. Jerry Brown in 2017, which into effect the following year and has since remained controversial. The law—which was viewed at the time as an act of resistance by California Democrats against President Donald Trump’s first administration—placed limitations on state and local law enforcement’s ability to help deportation officers enforce immigration violations. “As a matter of law, the State’s ‘Sanctuary State Law’ is unconstitutional and violates other Federal laws; as a matter of enforcement policy, it is a clear and present danger to the health, safety and welfare of the City of Huntington Beach,” reads a section of the city’s lawsuit, which went into on to identify rising crime in the state since 2018, the year the statewide sanctuary law went into effect. This isn’t the first time California has been sued over the law. The Trump administration filed a lawsuit against the state in 2018, also arguing that the sanctuary law violated the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which would render invalid any state law that conflicts with federal law. However, that challenge was ultimately struck down in court. “The Attorney General is committed to protecting and ensuring the rights of California’s immigrant communities and upholding vital laws like SB 54,” a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated to the Voice of OC. “Our office successfully fought back against a challenge to SB 54 by the first Trump administration, and we are prepared to vigorously defend SB 54 again.” The California Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation. Brown, now retired from public office, defended SB 54 during a sit-down interview in December, noting that it made a number of exceptions for heinous criminals. However, the former governor also distanced himself from a number of sanctuary cities in the state that, he suggested, have taken anti-ICE policies too far since he signed his original state-wide bill into law. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The post California Slapped with Lawsuit Over ‘Unconstitutional’ Sanctuary Law appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of the accompanying video from noted historian Victor Davis Hanson. Have you noticed recently that Donald Trump has both issued threats to our existential enemies abroad and that he’s called for peace as well?  In other words, he’s told Hamas: “You better let the hostages go by the time that I’m president or else.” And yet he’s also said, at the same time, we don’t want these 2,000 Americans in Syria. It’s a mess. The country’s destroyed. Get them out before they get killed. This brings up kind of a dichotomy that’s been discussed: Is the [Make America Great Again] agenda and Donald Trump in particular isolationist? That’s what the accusation is, that under no circumstances will we slay dragons abroad, looking for them. Or is he a neoconservative, and he wants to intervene everywhere. And I think the answer, of course, is neither. It was Walter Russell Mead, a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, who coined—he didn’t coin it—he rebooted the word “Jacksonian” in reference to Andrew Jackson, the hero of the battle of New Orleans, a [two-term] American president. And what that really means is that America will be second to no one, preeminent military abroad. We will be no better friend to our allies and no worse enemy to our enemies. More importantly, we don’t have to be perfect to be good abroad. We just act as Americans, and if we’re better than the alternative, that’s fine. How does this boil down, though, to actual policy. After all, Donald Trump at one point was reported to have told [Russian President] Vladimir Putin, “Don’t go into Ukraine or I’m going to look at the Kremlin”—meaning, he might even attack the Kremlin. And now he’s saying, “This is one of our endless wars and we want to get out of it.” So how do you square that circle of restoring deterrence lost during the Biden administration and yet not getting bogged down in nation-building and ground wars in the Middle East? And I think the answer is partly to be found in his first term. Remember what he did? During the Cold War of some 75 years, we didn’t really ever kill Russian soldiers. We may have, as pilots, as Russian pilots were flying in North Korea or Vietnam, but not knowingly and deliberately. Yet, when the Wagner group, some 500 soldiers strong, swarmed an American installation in Syria, they were devastated by U.S. airpower. He did kill [Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi], the creator of ISIS. He killed Qassem Soleimani—the greatest Iranian terrorist, Gen. Soleimani—in the Middle East that was the architect of supplying weapons to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. And he also put a maximum pressure policy against Iran. But, but, he did not get in a war, even when he threatened North Korea. So, what is the MAGA approach to foreign policy? It’s Jacksonianism. He’s a Jacksonian … that is, he builds up the military to ensure that it can deter anybody, but he does it not to use it, but to not use it. Unfortunately, he’s inherited a world that has lost U.S. deterrence after the Kabul [Afghanistan] fiasco, the greatest military humiliation … in American history, but surely in the last 50 years since we had helicopters flying off the [U.S.] Embassy in Saigon in 1975. Then we had the Middle East fiasco, where some days we supported Israel; some days we didn’t. Some days we said that Hamas, we can negotiate, some days we didn’t, we wanted to get back in the Iran deal. It was a complete mess, complete mess. So, when Donald Trump takes office on Jan. 20, he is going to have to restore deterrence to make a calmer world. But he can’t get in an endless bogged-down war. So, he has to be very careful, because that is one of the keystone premises of the Make America Great Again movement. We do not want another Afghanistan, two decades. We do not want 10 years in Iraq. We do not want to create chaos in Libya. We don’t want to be in the tribal infighting in Syria. But we want the world at peace. And so, I think, what we should look for is that, at particular places, at particular times, when the use of force favors the United States; that is, without getting in house-to-house fighting or terrorism, tit for tat, in the streets of Baghdad … type of endless engagements, we will use overwhelming force to send a signal that we can destroy you without having to fight your type of war on your ground. And I don’t think you’ll have to do very much of it to restore U.S. calm and deterrence. And it will not be neoconservative interventionism, and it won’t be isolationism. It will be Donald Trump-MAGA Jacksonianism. Thank you. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Complexities, Nuances of Trump’s Jacksonian Approach to Foreign Policy appeared first on The Daily Signal.

UK Parliament Votes NOT To Investigate Pakistani Abuse Gangs

PANAMA CITY, FL -- U.S. Navy veteran and Plaintiff Zachary Young continued his testimony Wednesday in the $1 billion defamation trial against CNN. The morning’s testimony featured the jurors being shown fairly damaging messages between Young and CNN reporters Katie Bo Lillis and Alex Marquardt. The messages showed Young was lied to about the nature of CNN’s reporting and Young warning them what they were about to air on TV was factually inaccurate. They jurors looked on intently and were taking copious notes. The jury was first shown how Lillis made contact with Young under the false pretenses that she was doing background research on the situation in Afghanistan. "Please let me know if I can assist with any Afghan evac requirements," he told her. "Is CNN involved with rescue efforts..." he asked wondering if they wanted to sponsor an evacuation. Lillis said CNN wasn't interested in his service but rather "working on some reporting related to ongoing efforts to help get at-risk Afghans out of the country..." Young testified that he thought she was doing "general reporting" about the situation. As a "quiet professional," Young said he was more than willing to talk with her off the record. Lillis ominously told him she wanted to talk and allow him "the opportunity...to make your case to keep your name out of it." "I'm a straight shooter, I'll be frank with you about where we are," she claimed.     That was a lie. CNN ended up blindsiding Young and publishing their allegedly defamatory report, giving him only two hours to respond, which came up later with Young’s interaction with Marquardt. "To me it feels like something is being hidden," Young said of his mind set at this point in their conversation, seemingly picking up on the deception. "We've been doing a series of stories on evacuations and the various different models folks are following...and just want to talk about the lay of the land," Lillis lied to Young. "I would have been happy to [talk off the record]," Young reiterated. "No Afghan is expected to pay for evac costs, none would ever be able," he told Lillis in a text message. He also told her it was "a highly unstable environment." Young told Lillis that whoever brought him to her attention had their own motivations for doing so. As noted yesterday, that person was CNN's source Jill Kornetsky, who accused Young of being a mercenary and “pocketing” millions, without evidence.     "As you proceed, I would just appreciate if you would take the time to make sure you have your facts right to avoid libel," Young warned Lillis. Young testified that at that time he was not aware that CNN was working on a story targeting him. That would come later with his interaction with Marquardt. The jury was shown messages from Marquardt where he falsely told Young he "tried calling you last week but you didn't pick up." "We are going to be running a piece in which we detail your interactions with people inquiring about your services..." Marquardt ambushed Young and again lying about previously reaching out.     "Hi Alexander. Please provide a list of questions, as well as the facts and assertions about me you intend to publish. I will need some time to review and provide comment," Young wrote back. When Marquardt said Young only had two hours to respond, Young warned him: "That’s definitely not a realistic deadline. In any case, i can tell you for sure, some of your facts/assertions for [sic] not accurate, and if they are published, i will seek legal damages." The jurors appeared to be studying the text messages intently when they were shared on the TV screen.     All six jurors and two alternates watched intently as Young’s lead counsel Vel Freedman showed them teasers from Jake Tapper’s show The Lead, where he told viewers they would hear a news report about people who "preyed" on Afghans and want them to "pay up big time to get out." In a second teaser, Tapper falsely claimed Afghans need to "pay the price" for evacuation. There was similar language used against Young in all six airing of Marquardt’s report, both domestically and internationally on CNN International. All of them claimed Young was operating a "black market" operation. One CNN International anchor said people like Young were "unscrupulous." Multiple jurors took notes about how often CNN played the allegedly defamatory report from Marquardt; and the repeated use of "black market." One juror also didn't seem to appreciate CNN's lead counsel David Axelrod calling comments on CNN's Facebook video of Marquardt's report "irrelevant." Young testified he had a "breakdown" after the report aired. "Panic was like a snowball rolling downhill," he told the jury. Recalling his training about "getting off the X" in a combat zone, Young testified he deleted a bunch of his posts and things that led back to him. The jury was also shown a post from James Daniels, a purported math and history professor who falsely claimed Young sent him a computer virus and was "masquerading as a Navy vet." Young testified that he never interacted with Daniels. During cross-examination, Axelrod claimed to the jury — without evidence such as timestamps — that the Daniels post was made prior to the CNN report, and held up the negative opinion of Young. But again, the post also falsely claimed that Young was not really a Navy vet; bringing into question the veracity of the whole post.     Following lunch, things would get heavy after that point as Young got emotional while explaining how the CNN story "completely destroyed" him and was rough for his aging mother. Freedman asked his client "Have you worked since the CNN broadcast?" and "Have you made any money since the CNN broadcast?" To both, Young answered "no." Young testified he was having "multiple panic attacks a day" and barely slept after CNN's report aired. He wanted to hide and stop all the hate he was getting from "trolls" online who were tracing him down and harassing him. "I know I'm not the same man that I was. I'm not the man that my wife married," Young said, withemotion in his voice. "I feel like a total failure." The emotion overtook Young as he admitted it had harmed the “intimacy” with his wife. “I'm the rock, I've always been the rock. It's not that way any more," he added. "I have to rely on her for that. It shouldn't be that way." In addition to talking about how he’s now on antidepressants and other strong medications, Young added further: I stopped taking care of myself … I was wearing the same clothes for three to four days at a time. I stopped using deodorant, I stopped showering … I don’t believe myself … I feel like I have just been completely destroyed, embarrassed and emasculated … I'm still in psychotherapy. It's not something improving or getting better...this is my life. CNN’s cross-examination took up the rest of the day and didn’t seem to go well for them judging by the reactions from the jury.     Axelrod spent a lot of time going over Young's tax returns and the large carry over of losses in the years prior to the CNN report. Only a couple of the jurors were taking notes during that dense conversation and a couple more were glancing around the room, one of them even yawned. A lot of that conversation revolved around Young's classified work for the U.S. government as a contractor, which the jury was not privy to, thus it was filled with allusions to what was in documents. Some of the jurors seemed confused as they tried to keep up. Some were trying to take notes. Toward the end of the day, the cross-examination seemed to be dragging and, from inside the courtroom, it was evident in the body language of the jury with a few rocking in their chairs. Another had a hand over their eyes; that juror also yawned. The cross-examination of Young will continue on Thursday.

Adam Corolla Tells How DEI Policies Took Seven Years for the LA Fire Department to Call

Ghana Have to Explain This! LA Mayor Karen Bass Traveling in Africa While Her City Burns