You never know what a baby’s experience will be like at a theme park. For example, while some enjoy the beloved character actors, others are frightened by them. Vanessa Vice’s daughter, on the contrary, couldn’t love them more. While visiting Disney World, this adorable little girl showed excitement over lots of things, but Tigger may have gotten the biggest reaction of them all. This precious moment took place at a popular restaurant within the park: The Crystal Place. Here, guests can meet Winnie the Pooh and a number of his beloved friends. Now, without further ado, experience the secondhand joy of this sweet baby meeting the Tigger! @vanessaavalenciaa Whoever said, don’t bring your baby to Disney because they won’t enjoy it -don’t listen to them #characterdining #magickingdom #thecrystalpalace #disneyworld ♬ original sound – V ♡ “Whoever was in that costume was probably smiling so hard,” someone points out in the comments. Others add, “I have literally never seen a baby so happy and excited” and “[Tigger] went and told the other cast that there’s an excited baby outside.” This Baby’s Pure Joy Over Meeting Tigger at a Disney World Restaurant is Contagious Perhaps the actor for Tigger did spread word of this adorable baby. In any case, Mom made sure to introduce her to as many of the characters as possible. In doing so, she learned that her baby’s love goes well beyond Tigger. Below, you’ll see her meeting Piglet! @vanessaavalenciaa Almost had Piglet for dinner #magickingdom #disneyworld #characterdining #thecrystalpalace #winniethepooh ♬ original sound – V ♡ Notice that, in both interactions, this excited baby tried to “bite” the character actor. Turns out, biting is a super common way for little ones to interact with the world. They do so for a variety of reasons, and that includes being so darn excited they can barely contain themselves! In other words, it’s no surprise Mom has no regrets about this vacation. “Whoever said, don’t bring your baby to Disney because they won’ t enjoy it,” Vanessa writes, “don’t listen to them.” You can find the source of this story’s featured image here! The post Baby Has Absolutely Precious Reaction To Meeting Tigger At Disney World appeared first on InspireMore.

We've got Kansas City on Kansas City violence

From Chicago’s South Side blues clubs to the hallowed stages of Newport and Woodstock, the Paul Butterfield Blues Band rewrote the rules of American music between 1963 and 1971. Founded during the summer of 1963 in Chicago by harmonica virtuoso Paul Butterfield, this pioneering ensemble became one of the first racially integrated blues bands to achieve mainstream success, bridging the gap between traditional Chicago blues and the emerging rock counterculture. Throughout their eight-year existence, the band released six studio albums that peaked progressively higher on the Billboard charts, with The Resurrection of Pigboy Crabshaw reaching their highest position at number The post Complete List Of Paul Butterfield Blues Band Members appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

The Independence Day edition of the PBS News Hour, guest-anchored by John Yang, featured two liberal Supreme Court experts sympathetically discussing Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee whose votes have trended leftward of late, pleasing liberals and disappointing conservatives. Besides using left-wing lingo on transgender issues, the panelists also discussed conservative death threats against Barrett without mentioning the left-wing assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. After discussing with left-leaning SCOTUS blog co-founder (now PBS Supreme Court analyst) Amy Howe about how “the court's conservative majority delivered a string of legal victories for President Trump, many of them in emergency appeals….” The topic switched to Trump-nominated Justice Amy Coney Barrett and New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor's recent favorable profile of Barrett, the left's latest heroine. Anchor John Yang: Jodi, the majority opinion on the case involving nationwide injunctions was written by, who's gotten a lot of attention, some skepticism from conservatives. You took a deep dive into Barrett's jurisprudence and the criticism about her. What did you find? Jodi Kantor, The New York Times: She's very much the justice of the season for several reasons. She's part of the fulcrum of the court right now, the center of the court, along with Chief John Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh. This is a court where the power is really concentrated in those three people. Those are the three people you have to convince. Kantor continued by spotlighting the revolting threats made against Barrett, while crowning her a "beacon of hope for liberals." ...Earlier this year, there was a series of extraordinary attacks and threats against her by MAGA figures. Remember, she was appointed by President Trump. A lot of these statements were way over the line. They were personal. They were about her family. Like many other federal judges, she was getting some very scary threats. At the same time, she became something of a beacon of hope for liberals who began to notice something we were able to quantify in numbers, which is that she was showing signs of leftward drift. Then, as you say, she wrote the birthright citizen opinion, which was remarkable for a relatively junior justice to take on.... As usual, conservatives are blamed for instigating a "culture war" started by the left, in this case transgender issues and the misnomer of "gender-affirming care" (i.e. genital mutilation surgery) for teenagers. John Yang: And, Amy, one of the other issues or the areas that the court got into this year was the culture wars. Talk about some of those cases. Amy Howe: Yes, so there were a couple of those cases. The court in December heard a challenge to Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care. And by a vote of 6-3, the justices upheld the Tennessee law…. The topic then turned to threats made against Supreme Court justices. Yang: Jodi also talked about the threats that have gone against some of these justices. The day after the court's term ended, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at a judicial conference in North Carolina and addressed the rising criticism and threats….Jodi, in your story about Justice Barrett, you found threats not only against her, but against her family. Kantor’s mid-June piece on Justice Barrett included anecdotes of threats and pointed the finger at “Mr. Trump’s allies.” PBS left the implication that the only violent threats against the Supreme Court come from the left. There was no mention of the assassination attempt on a conservative justice loathed by the media, the June 2022 attempt on the life of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This slanted segment was brought to you in part by BNSF Railway. A transcript is available, click "Expand." PBS News Hour 7/4/25 7:08:39 p.m. (ET) John Yang: As the Supreme Court headed into its summer break, the justices gave President Trump a big win, saying that district court judges do not have the authority to issue the sort of nationwide injunctions that had blocked administration policies. It capped a term in which the court's conservative majority delivered a string of legal victories for President Trump, many of them in emergency appeals, what's called the shadow docket. Earlier, I spoke with two court watchers about the term just ended and what could be coming next. PBS News Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe is the co-founder of SCOTUSblog, and Jodi Kantor, a New York Times investigative reporter who's covered the justices and the court in depth. Amy, how unusual is the administration's use of emergency appeals? Amy Howe: It's really unusual. And when I think back at this term that's just ending, that's really what we're going to remember, because it wasn't the kind of historic decisions on the merits that we had in past terms on issues like abortion and gun rights and administrative law, but the administration came to the Supreme Court over and over again on its emergency appeals dockets. And these are the cases that the Supreme Court is generally deciding without oral argument and sometimes without written decisions or even knowing how all of the justices voted. And in fact the Trump administration in the first 5.5 months or so of — since the inauguration on January 20 has already come to the Supreme Court on the emergency docket more than 20 times, which is more than twice as many, just to put it into context, than the George W. Bush administration and the Obama administration combined in 16 years. John Yang: And how have they done? What's their success rate, as it were? Amy Howe: Their success rate is high. I mean, the biggest victory was the victory on the universal or nationwide injunctions. That was a case in which the Supreme Court did hear oral argument and issue a written decision on the merits. But they have had a lot of success on other issues, including immigration and the president's efforts to remake the federal work force. And although these are theoretically temporary rulings that pause lower courts' orders while the litigation continues in the lower courts, they can have permanent repercussions if you're talking about firing federal employees, about deporting people or separating transgender service members from the military. John Yang: Jodi, the majority opinion on the case involving nationwide injunctions was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who's gotten a lot of attention, some skepticism from conservatives. You took a deep dive into Barrett's jurisprudence and the criticism about her. What did you find? Jodi Kantor, The New York Times: She's very much the justice of the season for several reasons. She's part of the fulcrum of the court right now, the center of the court, along with Chief John Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh. This is a court where the power is really concentrated in those three people. Those are the three people you have to convince. Earlier this year, there was a series of extraordinary attacks and threats against her by MAGA figures. Remember, she was appointed by President Trump. A lot of these statements were way over the line. They were personal. They were about her family. Like many other federal judges, she was getting some very scary threats. At the same time, she became something of a beacon of hope for liberals who began to notice something we were able to quantify in numbers, which is that she was showing signs of leftward drift. Then, as you say, she wrote the birthright citizen opinion, which was remarkable for a relatively junior justice to take on. I mean, this is a decision that does some reordering of our legal system. And we can start to hear her voice clearly, more clearly than ever before, and to see that, really just five years after coming onto the court, her influence is very much rising. John Yang: And, Amy, one of the other issues or the areas that the court got into this year was the culture wars. Talk about some of those cases. Amy Howe: Yes, so there were a couple of those cases. The court in December heard a challenge to Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care. And by a vote of 6-3, the justices upheld the Tennessee law. And this will affect similar laws in a number of other states. This was a case in which Justice Barrett actually joined the six-justice majority and then wrote a concurring opinion and said — in which she would have gone further and reached an issue that the majority didn't address, whether or not transgender people are a suspect or a protected class. And then they issued a decision in a case out of Montgomery County, Maryland, in the Washington, D.C., suburbs. They ruled that parents have a right to opt their children out of instruction using LGBTQ-themed storybooks. John Yang: Amy, you heard Jodi say that Justice Barrett is in the center of the court, along with the chief justice, John Roberts, and Justice Kavanaugh. What does it say about the ideological spectrum or ideological shift of this court that these three would be in the middle? They're not moderates, are they? Amy Howe: They're definitely not moderates in any definition of the word. It just says that the center of the court has shifted to the right. John Yang: Jodi also talked about the threats that have gone against some of these justices. The day after the court's term ended, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at a judicial conference in North Carolina and addressed the rising criticism and threats. JOHN ROBERTS, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: The danger, of course, is somebody might pick up on that. And we have had, of course, serious threats of violence and murder of judges just simply for doing their work. Threatening the judges for doing their job is totally unacceptable and people should be careful about doing that. John Yang: Jodi, in your story about Justice Barrett, you found threats not only against her, but against her family. Jodi Kantor: Exactly. We actually obtained the police report about a bomb threat to her sister in South Carolina. The language is really menacing. It's really specific. It was an empty threat. There was no bomb. But it is a truly scary sign of the times that it's not just the jurists who are being threatened. It's their extended families. John Yang: And you also say that her youngest son asked why mommy has a bulletproof vest. Jodi Kantor: She conjured up this really memorable moment in a recent speech. She talks about being at home and her young son spies the bulletproof vest lying somewhere in the house and asks her, what is this? Why do you have it? John Yang: Amy, how are the justices coping with this? Amy Howe: It's hard to say exactly. The court does not comment on the justices' security. I have been going to the Supreme Court for a long time. There was visibly more security at the Supreme Court when the court is in session and then surrounding the justices when they are out and about in the public. But I imagine it has to really weigh on them. John Yang: Amy Howe, Jodi Kantor, thank you both very much. Amy Howe: Thank you. Jodi Kantor: Thank you.

President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act just sent a jolt through America’s automotive industry — and this time, it’s not about subsidies or mandates. It’s about getting Washington out of the driver’s seat.Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025, the legislation is packed with major changes that will affect your next car, your fuel bill, and maybe even your job. Gas-powered vehicles are poised for a strong comeback. With emissions penalties gone and EV credits phasing out, automakers are incentivized to focus on what already works.Whether you’re a mechanic, a car dealer, or someone simply trying to afford a reliable ride, this bill deserves your full attention. It dismantles a decade of EV favoritism, slashes penalties for automakers, and puts gas-powered vehicles squarely back in the spotlight.Let’s break it down — without the fluff — and explain exactly why this matters to you.USPS fleet unpluggedThis legislation starts by hitting reverse on the U.S. Postal Service’s $9.6 billion push to electrify its fleet, which began in January 2024 with the purchase of 7,200 Ford E-Transit electric vans, developed especially for the USPS. Now that this entire program has been marked "return to sender," USPS can get back to delivering mail instead of testing environmental policy. While an earlier version of the bill called for the USPS to sell off the electric vans, that provision was missing from the final document. Hard reset on EPA overreachNext up: the Environmental Protection Agency.This bill takes direct aim at overreaching green energy policy eliminating California’s ability to set its own tougher vehicle emissions standards. California’s EPA waiver had long allowed the state to push automakers into building more EVs and hybrids — regardless of what the rest of the country wanted. That’s over. And with it, the ripple effect on nationwide vehicle standards could collapse.More importantly, the bill removes the penalties automakers faced for missing fuel economy targets. Companies like Stellantis paid nearly $191 million in fines during just one two-year window (2019–2020) under CAFE standards. Now, those penalties are set to zero.This gives automakers breathing room — and the ability to focus on building vehicles Americans actually want to buy: SUVs, trucks, and gas-powered cars with real utility or hybrid vehicles. Not battery-powered compliance boxes.EV tax credits ending soonerHere’s the part that really flips the EV market upside down: The tax credits are going away — and sooner than expected.The $7,500 tax credit for new EVs and the $4,000 credit for used EVs will vanish after September 30, 2025 — a full three months earlier than the House originally planned. And it gets more aggressive: Leased EVs from non-U.S. automakers lose their credits immediately. The EV charger tax credit also ends in June 2026.What remains? A manufacturing tax credit for U.S.-built EV batteries, but even that excludes any company with links to China.This is a major economic pivot. With EVs costing an average of $9,000 more than gas-powered vehicles, losing these incentives could price many buyers out of the market. Analysts are forecasting a 72% drop in projected EV sales over the next decade, along with a possible loss of 80,000 U.S. jobs and $100 billion in expected investment.Tesla may survive the fallout. But other automakers — like Ford and Hyundai — will likely delay or scale back future EV development. Expect fewer EV ads, slower rollouts, and more conventional models hitting showrooms.More choice, more questionsSo what does all this mean for you, the driver?Gas-powered vehicles are poised for a strong comeback. With emissions penalties gone and EV credits phasing out, automakers are incentivized to focus on what already works. Expect more variety, lower prices, and vehicles designed for the actual demands of American families and businesses.RELATED: WATCH LIVE: Trump kicks off 250th anniversary of the US with patriotic rally Fuel demand is expected to stay high — and that’s good news for domestic energy production. Oil and gas industries have long warned that EV policy was artificially distorting the market. Now, that distortion is being corrected.The bill also helps car buyers more directly with a proposed tax deduction for buyers saddled with auto loan interest — a nod to the growing number of Americans financing vehicles in a high-rate environment. It’s a way to offer relief without distorting the product landscape.And while an annual $250 EV road-use fee didn’t make it into the final bill, don’t be surprised if that resurfaces in the next round of negotiations. Right now, gas drivers pay federal fuel taxes that help fund roads and infrastructure. EVs pay nothing. That imbalance may not last. This fight could be taken up by the EPA or the Department of Transportation.Winners and losersThis legislation favors automakers willing to build vehicles Americans want — not those chasing regulatory credits. It’s a win for traditional manufacturers, oil and gas workers, and dealers in heartland states where EV demand has always been low.It’s a loss for global automakers betting big on electric growth in the U.S. market — especially those with heavy investment in Chinese battery supply chains. And it’s a headache for urban planners, utilities, and environmental groups counting on mass EV adoption to hit clean energy targets.The National Automobile Dealers Association, CarMax, and others were pushing for a longer transition period. They feared a sudden market disruption. Meanwhile, critics of the bill claimed it jeopardizes climate goals, raises future utility bills, and hands the EV lead to countries like China.Why you should careThis isn’t just a debate about cars or clean air — it’s a fight over how much control government should have over your choices, your money, and your mobility.Do you want a vehicle that fits your life, your budget, and your needs? Or do you want a central planner in Washington — or Sacramento — dictating your options? That’s the question this bill forces us to ask.By pulling back mandates, cutting artificial market manipulation, and letting consumers — not bureaucrats — drive the demand, this bill aims to restore sanity to an industry that’s been distorted by politics and ideology for too long.It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.So think carefully about what this means, not just for the next car you buy — but for the future of freedom on America’s roads.For more, check out my video here.

Vice President JD Vance tore into the Democratic rising star Zohran Mamdani in a Sunday night speech over his apparent ingratitude and disregard for American tradition as he vies to helm the United States' largest city. During his keynote speech for the Claremont Institute on Sunday, Vance methodically detailed how Mamdani's mayoral candidacy insults the very culture, history, and generosity of the country that allowed him to succeed, according to a transcript exclusively obtained by Blaze News. Mamdani, whose family fled political persecution in Uganda, won the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City and is shaping up to be the front-runner in the contested race against current NYC Mayor Eric Adams (independent). "If our victory and President Trump's victory in 2024 was rooted in a broad, working- and middle-class coalition, Mamdani's coalition is almost the inverse of that," Vance said. 'Hatred ... this is the animating principle of the American far left.'RELATED: 'White, well-educated' Democrats are demanding lawmakers 'get shot' to prove they're anti-Trump as deadly violence rises Photo by Adam Gray/Getty ImagesAlthough he campaigned on progressive policies that are typically targeted toward "underprivileged" and protected classes, Mamdani won high-income, college-educated voters. He also did particularly well in New York City's gentrified neighborhoods, like Ridgewood and Bushwick. At the same time, he struggled among black voters and voters without a college degree. "That's an interesting coalition," Vance noted. "Maybe it works in the New York Democratic primary. I don't think it works particularly well in the United States at large." "His victory was the product of a lot of young people who live reasonably comfortable lives but see that their elite degrees aren't really delivering what they expected," Vance added. "And I say that not to criticize them, because I think that we should care about all the people in our country. ... But we have to be honest about where its coalition is. It is not the downtrodden. It's not for Americans. It is not about dispossession. It's about the elite." Vance describes Mamdani and his supporters' progressive worldview as ultimately paradoxical, uniquely motivated by a disdain for the American tradition. "How could privileged whites march around with a straight face and decry white privilege?" Vance asked. "How could progressives pretend to love conservative Muslims despite their views on gender and sexuality? The answer is obvious. ... The radicals at the far left, they don't need a unifying ideology of what they're for, because they know very well what they're against.""What unites Islamists; gender studies majors; socially liberal, white urbanites; and Big Pharma lobbyists? It isn't the ideas of Thomas Jefferson or even Karl Marx," Vance added. "It's hatred ... this is the animating principle of the American far left." RELATED: Bombshell internal docs reveal the extent of Team Biden's political miscalculations Photographer: Christian Monterrosa/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesVance takes issue with the progressives' disregard for American history and, by proxy, for American values. In Mamdani's case, Vance criticizes his ungrateful attitude toward the very country that welcomed him and allowed him to prosper."The person who wishes to lead our largest city had, according to multiple media reports, never once publicly mentioned America's independence today in earnest," Vance said. "But when he did so this year, this is what he said, an actual quote: 'America is beautiful, contradictory, unfinished. I am proud of our country, even as we constantly strive to make it better.' There is no gratitude in those words, no sense of owing something to this land and the people who turned its wilderness into the most powerful nation on Earth.""I wonder, has he ever read the letters from boy soldiers in the Union army to parents and sweethearts that they'd never see again?" Vance asked. "Has he ever visited the grave site of a loved one who gave their life to build the kind of society where his family could escape racial theft and racial violence? Has he ever looked in the mirror and recognized that he might not be alive were it not for the generosity of a country he dares to assault on its most sacred day? Who the hell does he think that he is?"Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The fact-free, malicious attacks constitute one of the more poisonously stupid episodes of the Trump years.

In an excerpt from her new book, journalist Salena Zito, an eyewitness to the near assassination, writes about the importance of place in American politics.

We hope the world is watching.

Cornell and its new president are in the Trump administration’s crosshairs for alleged civil rights violations.