And the Left is apoplectic about it. The post Trump, Vance Shut Down Zelensky in Jaw-Dropping White House Confrontation appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

'I think that this is an open wound now'

“We’ll see you in court,” Maine Gov. Janet Mills told President Donald Trump at a Feb. 21 gathering of the National Governors Association at the White House. But Mills, a Democrat, should be careful what she wishes for, because Trump wasn’t bluffing when he said Mills and Maine would be the big losers if she refused to comply with his Feb. 5 executive order conditioning receipt of federal education dollars on prohibiting transgender faux females from invading girls and women’s interscholastic athletics. Trump disputed Mills’ assertion that she is “complying with state and federal law” and reminded her that his office represented that federal law. “Good. I’ll see you in court,” Trump retorted. “I look forward to that. That should be a real easy one.” It was not an idle threat. Within hours of the White House event, Trump ordered his Department of Education to determine whether Mills and Maine were in violation of Title IX, the landmark 1972 federal civil rights law prohibiting sex-based discrimination at any school or any other education program, including in athletics, that receives federal funding. The Trump-Mills confrontation and the ensuing Education Department probe came just days after an interscholastic athletic competition in Maine that showed this fight is not over hypotheticals—or what could happen, but over what is in fact happening—and not just in Maine, but across the country, albeit mostly in blue states. Just four days earlier, on Feb. 17, a boy from Cumberland, Maine, who “identifies” as a “girl” won the girls’ high school Class B state championship pole-vaulting competition. His jump of 10-feet-6-inches was eight inches higher than the female runner-up. (Last year, competing against other boys, he finished fifth.) That was just two days after Feb. 5, when Trump was joined by a phalanx of female athletes as he signed his campaign-promised “No Men in Women’s Sports” executive order at the White House. Unmoved by parental and Republican state lawmakers’ protestations of the inherent unfairness of the pole-vaulting competition, or by the risk of losing $250 million in federal funding, a defiant Mills released a statement on Feb. 21 vowing not to follow Trump’s order, asserting, “The state of Maine will not be intimidated by the president’s threats.” But the Trump vs. Mills bout is shaping up to be akin to a fight pitting Mike Tyson against Dylan Mulvaney. “If the president attempts to unilaterally deprive Maine schoolchildren of the benefit of federal funding, my administration and the attorney general will take all appropriate and necessary legal action to restore that funding and the academic opportunity it provides,” Mills fumed. That’s just it, however. It wouldn’t be unilateral. Mills will have brought it upon herself and her state by putting the interests of an estimated .003 of 1% of the population that “identifies” as transgender ahead of 51% of the population; namely, real girls and women (of whom Mills reportedly is one). Mills, 77, had no children, but perhaps if the granddaughter of a close friend or relative lost an athletic medal, trophy, or scholarship to one of these faux females, she might be a bit more empathetic to those who have. There are in fact many girls and women athletes who indeed have lost out to these transgender interlopers. The website SheWon.org meticulously tracks such things, and according to its current tally, 791 female athletes have been deprived of 1,121 awards in 545 competitions across 43 different sports. As such, it can’t be blithely dismissed as a rare, isolated phenomenon. Does Mills really want to spend her political capital—to say nothing of Maine taxpayers’ dollars and state Attorney General Aaron Frey’s time—fighting on an issue on which she is going against the sentiment of nearly 80% of the population? A New York Times/Ipsos survey released in January found the vast majority of Americans—including fully two-thirds of Democrats, even—don’t think these make-believe females should be allowed to compete in girls and women’s sports. “Thinking about transgender female athletes—meaning athletes who were male at birth, but who currently identify as female—do you think they should or should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports?” the NYT-Ipsos survey asked. Of the 2,128 respondents, 79% said biological males who identify as girls or women should not be allowed to take part in female athletics. Of the 1,025 people who identified as Democrats or leaning Democrat, 67% said transgender athletes should not be allowed to compete against XX-chromosomed girls and women. In Maine, where I lived for 30 years, there is no lieutenant governor, and the attorney general is not elected, but instead is selected by a majority vote of the Legislature. As such, Frey, a former Democratic state lawmaker himself, would ordinarily be the heir apparent to the term-limited Mills, a former state attorney general whose second term as governor ends in January 2027. But if Frey aspires to succeed Mills and run for governor next year, he should think twice—or three times—before taking on this quixotic and viscerally unpopular losing battle. Is this really the political hill that Mills, Frey, and other Democrats want to die on? Have Democrats learned nothing from Kamala Harris’ presidential loss in November, which was due in no small part to Trump’s barrage of attack ads exposing her support for federal taxpayer funding of sex-change operations, even for federal prisoners—a stance she was unwilling or unable to disavow? Apart from being a blatant violation of Title IX, how is allowing delusional boys and men to compete against real females not a real “war on women”—unlike the phony one Democrats have for decades falsely accused Republicans of waging? Originally published by The Washington Times The post Maine’s Governor Picks Fight She Won’t Win With Trump Over Trans Athletes Invading Women’s Sports appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A kitten is determined to bounce and run around again, believing he can do anything. SebastianBestFriendsFelinesA kitten named Sebastian arrived at Best Friends Felines last month, hoping for a chance at a better life. "From the moment his foster carer picked him up, he hasn't stopped purring or making little biscuits," the rescue shared.He was originally surrendered to a vet clinic, needing medical care for a fractured leg. "Sebastian is an absolute trooper, and he doesn't even seem to realize he has such a serious injury."All he wanted was affection and snuggles, never letting anything slow him down or dampen his happy-go-lucky spirit. BestFriendsFelinesUnder the doctor's orders, Sebastian had to be on crate rest for a while to keep him safe. Though he wasn't thrilled, he made the most of the snuggle plushie he was given for company."He loves to snuggle up for naps with his carer in a carefully constructed pillow fort." BestFriendsFelinesAfter a week of tender loving care, they received great news from a specialist: Sebastian's leg could be saved without any major surgery. With his limb adjusted and cast, the kitten was well on his way to a full recovery."He struggled to come to terms with his zoomies being hindered for the first 24 hours, resulting in a sleepless night with lots of reassuring cuddles." BestFriendsFelines"Since then, he's been the perfect patient, and we are blown away by his ability to adapt."Even with his cast on, Sebastian was determined to run and play (under careful supervision). When he tired out from all his adventures, he'd happily nestle into the crook of his foster mom's neck for a well-earned snooze. BestFriendsFelines"He's been milking all the extra attention by going to work with his carer every day for extra close care. He's going to be an incredible companion for a very lucky family in the future. He's a confident, resilient, loving, and affectionate bundle of energy."Sebastian enjoys going on walks with his foster mom and riding in his very own chariot (a baby stroller). BestFriendsFelinesHe continued to make daily strides with his foster mom by his side, showering him with affection. "He has truly mastered the art of playing and doing zoomies in his cast. He is still a super snuggler and loves cuddles more than anything else."They discovered his love for other cats was just as strong as his love for people. "He showed no reservations when it came to playing and snuggling with them." BestFriendsFelines"Like everything life has thrown at him so far, he's taking it all in stride. He is starting to put weight on his repaired leg when walking and has been the perfect patient every step of the way."This week, Sebastian went cast-free and got the green light to run wild and unencumbered. "He's certainly making up for lost time." BestFriendsFelinesIt's hard to believe that just a few weeks ago, he had a fractured leg. Now, he's bouncing around, jumping on perches, climbing onto the bed, and engaging in all sorts of playful kitten antics."He's tearing around the house with impressive speed, climbing, jumping, and playing with his foster brother like a kitten his age should be." BestFriendsFelinesThanks to the care of compassionate volunteers, Sebastian's leg has healed beautifully. He loves getting into trouble with his feline friend but never misses out on a snuggle session with his people. BestFriendsFelinesShare this story with your friends. More on Sebastian and Best Friends Felines on Instagram and Facebook.Related story: They Thought They Would Adopt a Cat and One of Her Kittens But Walked Out with Sweetest Outcome Possible

Bret Baier Interviews Zelensky After Today's White House Disagreement

The Bill's Adding Up for Los Angeles

MSNBC’s staggering lack of self-awareness was in rare form Thursday. That night on The 11th Hour, Marty Baron, former executive editor of The Washington Post, opined on the Post’s recent espousal of personal liberty and free market views. Baron was outraged that the paper had taken positions he happened to dislike, and called the move “undemocratic,” suggesting, ironically, that the free press was in danger. Ruhle began with the heavy pronouncement, “It is a challenging time to be a journalist in America.” She then explained that the previous day Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos had adopted a new policy of endorsing “personal liberties and free markets” in the paper’s opinion section. “What do you make of what’s happening right now(…)?” she asked Baron. Baron nebulously said he was “very concerned about it because of what it represents.” “I actually don't know any columns that ran in The Washington Post that were against personal liberties,” he huffed, not explaining what the problem was. He then claimed that it was somehow a form of “cancel culture” of “liberal opinions,” which sounded like a tacit admission that liberal opinions were antithetical to personal liberties. Baron went on to imply that the press was becoming a propaganda wing of the Trump administration, claiming America was following in the footsteps of Hungary, where he alleged Prime Minister Viktor Orban to be an “aspiring autocrat,” who had “marginalized the independent press there, and limited its reach.” “[T]hat's exactly what this administration is trying to do,” he added.      Ruhle asked Baron what the future of American journalism might look like, claiming that many journalists were now “[W]aking up scared. They're scared to do their jobs, they're scared they're going to get fired, they're scared they're going to get sued, they're scared the government is going to go after them, just for being journalists.” “Well, we need to keep doing our job. That's why we have an independent press in this country,” Baron declared, calling it the founders’ “original assignment” for them: That is exactly why the founders of this country wanted to have an independent press. It is, in my view, the original assignment that was given to the press in this country. And I think that remains our assignment today, and we need to continue doing that job.  It was pretty rich, and quite noticeable, that Baron was invoking the constitutional right to free speech to attack Bezos and The Washington Post’s exercise of that very right, in the political positions they had chosen to endorse. In fact, he was calling their exercise of their constitutional right “undemocratic,” and a threat to that very same constitutional right. Of course, absent from Baron’s bloviating about an “independent press” was the Post employees’ protest over Bezos’s order to not endorse a candidate for president. Baron, though, appeared oblivious to his own logical incoherence, and to all appearances Ruhle didn’t notice, either. As though Baron had offered some profound words of wisdom, she gushed, “Marty, I am so glad you joined us tonight. I really appreciate it.” To view full transcript, click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s The 11th Hour 02/27/2025 11:39 PM [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: BEZOS OVERHAULS WASHINGTON POST OPINION SECTION] STEPHANIE RUHLE: It is a challenging time to be a journalist in America.  This week, The Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos revealed its opinion section will now be dedicated to advocating for, quote, ‘personal liberties and free markets.’ Viewpoints opposing those topics, he says, will be left to be published by others.  The section's editor, David Shipley, reportedly spent weeks trying to convince Mr. Bezos to change his mind, but when he refused, David Shipley resigned. Marty Baron, former executive editor- famed former executive editor- of The Washington Post, joins me now. He's the author of the book Collision of Power: Trump, Bezos, and The Washington Post.  Marty, you worked at the Post for nearly a decade, some of the most important, successful years. You once praised Jeff Bezos for how he stood up for the Post during your tenure. What do you make of what's happening right now, yesterday's move? FORMER WASHINGTON POST EXECUTIVE EDITOR MARTY BARON: Well, I'm very concerned about it because of what it represents.  You know- Jeff talked about standing for personal liberties. I actually don't know any columns that ran in The Washington Post that were against personal liberties.  But the personal liberty that I often think about, is one that's embedded in the First Amendment, and that is free expression. And one of the ways that news organizations honored free expression and promoted public debate was to have a wide variety of opinions on their opinion pages. And now Jeff Bezos is saying, ‘there will be a limited set of opinions on the opinion pages, in fact, it will be limited to opinions that are in line with my own.’ And I find that- basically undemocratic. It's a kind of a form of- cancel culture, actually- canceling liberal opinions.  And- I think that's against the- that runs counter to the heritage of The Washington Post, runs counter to the principles of The Wash- the long-standing principles of The Washington Post, and is really an undemocratic move on his part. RUHLE: Let's talk about what's happening at the White House. Because, a week ago, the President tossed out the Associated Press for not calling it the ‘Gulf of America.’ Now, they want to handpick the press pool. What do you think of these moves? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: WHITE HOUSE SAYS IT WILL HANDPICK PRESS POOL, ABANDONING DECADES OF PRECEDENT] BARON: Well, I actually expected the worst from this administration with regard to its posture toward the press. But I'm discovering that the worst is worse than I thought.  This is a constant attack on the press. It's an effort to marginalize an independent press, to undermine an independent press, to destroy its economic sustainability.  And- these are the kinds of moves that you see in- regimes- in- in autocratic regimes, or where some- the leader- is an aspiring autocrat. You can see this all around the world.  And you see- I think- that Trump is- modeling himself after Viktor Orban, in Hungary. And they have- not entirely destroyed an independent- independent press, but they've certainly marginalized the independent press there, and limited its reach. And I think that's exactly what this administration is trying to do. RUHLE: So how should the White House Correspondents’ Association, how should the news media respond to this? Right?  Yesterday I spoke to a member of Trump's first administration, and he said the most important hour of Donald Trump's day is when he talks to the press. If- if the White House press pool didn't show up for a week, it would be worse for Trump than it would be for them.  But if they were to make a move like that, that is a scary game of chicken, given how important it is to cover this White House. What should they do? BARON: Yeah, it's really hard.  You know, this is an administration that constantly talks about how the traditional press is ‘irrelevant,’ and yet they're completely obsessed about the traditional press, which would suggest to you that we're not irrelevant, that they care a lot about what we do, because the reporting really matters and it can have a big impact, and it still does.  How to respond to this is a really difficult thing. Certainly, I think we should have the spirit of ‘one for all, all for one.’ I don't know that that necessarily means we have to boycott events and pull reporting on- on Trump. But- I do think that the news organizations that are covering Trump should share all of their information, all of their video, all of their still images, everything that they have, among themselves, and say that if any one of us is excluded, they get all of the material from all of us.  And- that that- they need to get beyond the idea of just being completely competitive, and say that we're all standing together. RUHLE: What's your message to journalists?  Or- or where do you think the news media is headed? You spent decades in it, and right now people are waking up scared. They're scared to do their jobs, they're scared they're going to get fired, they're scared they're going to get sued, they're scared the government is going to go after them, just for being journalists. BARON: Well, we need to keep doing our job. That's why we have an independent press in this country.  Keep in mind- that- we have the First Amendment, and why we- and I think it's important to keep in mind why we have the First Amendment. And James Madison, one of our founders, was the principal author of the First Amendment, and when he talked about it, he talked about the need for freely examining public characters and measures.  And I emphasize the word ‘examining'. Examining means that we are not stenographers, that we have to go beyond that, we need to look behind the curtain and beneath the surface, and we need to hold the powerful to a- to account.  That is exactly why the founders of this country wanted to have an independent press. It is, in my view, the original assignment that was given to the press in this country. And I think that remains our assignment today, and we need to continue doing that job.  We need to report, we need to dig, we need to find out what is happening in government, we need to know what powerful individuals and powerful institutions are doing, and we need to tell the public as straightforwardly and as directly and as frankly as we possibly can, what we've learned to be true. RUHLE: Marty, I am so glad you joined us tonight. I really appreciate it. BARON: Thanks very much for having me.      

In the grand arc of human history, there has been an unmistakable shift away from the direct use of our hands. I don’t think that’s an accident. The artistry of the written word, once an act of both intellect and muscle memory, has been flattened into an effortless, thoughtless process. I think it’s the product of a long-standing agenda, one that has unfolded gradually, spanning centuries. The satanic transhumanist movement, led by our technocratic overlords, seeks to sever humanity’s most fundamental connection to the world: the human hand. A world made by hand There was a time when human beings relied on their hands for everything. The connection between the mind and the hand was supreme. We built, farmed, carved, wove, and forged the world around us through direct physical engagement. Our hands weren’t just tools. They were extensions of our intellect, will, and creative spirit. A sacred cycle Leonardo da Vinci understood this better than most. To him, painting was not just an art. It was a science, a direct manifestation of human intellect and soul. He saw the painter’s process as a sacred cycle: through the eyes, the world enters the mind, and through the hands, the mind translates that knowledge onto canvas. This, for da Vinci, was the highest form of mental discourse, a discipline that fused experience, perspective, and universal knowledge into a tangible reality. J.G. Vibert's "The Science of Painting" outlines da Vinci's five principles of painting: La macchina della visione (the mechanics of vision) Figurare il corpo umano (representing the human body) Ombre, lumi e colori (shadows, light, and colors) La prospettiva aerea (aerial perspective) La mente universale del pittore (the universal mind of the painter) These principles highlight how deeply the mind-hand connection is embedded in our capacity for creation. A broken bridge For da Vinci, the hand was not merely an instrument but an extension of our divine faculties, a bridge between thought and material reality. But as time has passed, we’ve seen that bridge get dismantled. The Enlightenment, while expanding intellectual horizons, emphasized the abstract over the tangible. Knowledge became something to be studied rather than experienced. Then the Industrial Revolution introduced automation, stripping individuals of the necessity to cultivate their hands as tools of creation. The once-intimate bond between thought and touch was diluted. Machines took over the role of shaping the physical world, and the human hand was relegated to monotonous, mechanical tasks. Despite this, we still maintained some level of engagement with our hands. Writing, for instance, required the physical act of holding a pen, dipping a quill in ink, and forming letters with intention. This preserved a fragment of the mind-hand link. Digitless digital But in our present digital era, even this has been taken from us. Now we just tap glass screens with our thumbs. The artistry of the written word, once an act of both intellect and muscle memory, has been flattened into an effortless, thoughtless process. And now, we stand on the precipice of the final transformation. The rise of brain-computer interfaces — such as Neuralink or Apple Vision — threatens to sever the mind from the hand entirely. Soon, we won’t even type. We will think and the machine will produce the words for us, bypassing our physical selves completely. This is the ultimate goal of the transhumanist movement: the destruction of the sacred link between mind, body, and soul. Its proponents seek to remove the hand’s divine role in creation, mediation, and interaction with the material world. A gift from God The human hand is a gift from God, an instrument of His glory. It allows us to shape reality, our spirits to interface with the physical world. In many ways, our hands are what allow us to exercise our mediation between God and flesh. Leonardo da Vinci’s vision of art as the ultimate mental discourse stands in direct opposition to this dystopian trajectory. His philosophy teaches us that creation is not merely an intellectual act — it is an embodied one. The hands must engage with the world for the mind to fully realize its potential. Without them, thought remains inert, unfulfilled, trapped in abstraction. To take away the use of the hand is to take away one of our last connections to the divine. It is to turn us into passive consumers of experience rather than active participants in creation. It is to weaken our ability to interact with the world in the way God intended. If we are to resist this transformation, we must reclaim the use of our hands. We must build, write, craft, and create. We must reject the fully automated life and embrace the physical world as something meant to be engaged with, not merely observed. To keep our connection to God intact, we must keep our hands in motion, not just for the sake of productivity, but for the sake of our humanity itself.

In an exciting development, Blaze News senior editor for politics Christopher Bedford has just become the first-ever new media reporter permitted into the White House press pool. And so he’s now able to dispel the narrative that Elon Musk is “in charge.” “Elon Musk was sitting along the outside wall, he wasn’t sitting at the main Cabinet table, he’s not a member of the Cabinet or someone who’s at Cabinet level, there’s a lot of different people along the back,” Bedford tells Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson of “Blaze News Tonight.” “And when he was called upon by the president, who he called the ‘commander in chief’ in his remarks, when he was called upon to answer questions that were specific to what he was working on and he was advising on, then he gave answers,” he continues. “So this is a narrative that reporters, like many narratives, and many reporters, walked in with. They decided Elon Musk is in charge of this Cabinet meeting. Neither in seating, nor in his deferential treatment, nor in the way he responded, nor in the way he answered questions, was that the case,” Bedford explains. While Musk was clearly not “in charge,” he did offer Bedford an answer to one of his questions. He asked Musk about an email the DOGE had sent to all government employees, which asked workers to list just five things they had accomplished over the previous workweek. "About half of the government employees so far appear to have responded to your request for what they've been doing over the past week. Is there a timeline in place for next moves, for people being fired? When can the American people expect to see results from that?" he asked. "To be clear, I think that email was perhaps misinterpreted as a performance review, but actually it was a pulse-check review," Musk answered. "If you have a pulse and two neurons, you can reply to an email. I think this is not a high bar," he continued, adding, "Anyone could accomplish this." Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.