Owens initially agreed to attend

'We can’t vaccinate our way out of an imperfect health care system'

'Expensive and unreliable energy'

'harder and harder to afford the necessities, as well as luxuries'

'Despite multiple verbal warnings'

News Star Wars The Original 1977 Star Wars (Yes, That Version) Is Returning to Theaters in 2027 The details are as fuzzy as the movie’s surviving prints, but you will be able to see the original version of Star Wars in theaters again. By Matthew Byrd | Published on December 5, 2025 Photo: Lucasfilm Comment 0 Share New Share Photo: Lucasfilm Earlier this year, we learned that 1977’s Star Wars will be returning to theaters in 2027 as part of a massive 50th anniversary celebration. At that time, though, we had no idea which version of that movie was going to be shown in theaters. There are quite a few, you see, and the arguments over which version is best and which should be considered the “standard” are as long as they are annoying. However, against considerable odds, it appears that the version of Star Wars that is returning to theaters is the original, original version of the movie. Yes, the version of the movie that has been softly buried for quite a few years and remains the subject of much discourse in a fandom that hasn’t exactly shied away from discourse. According to StarWars.com, a “newly restored version of the classic Star Wars (1977) theatrical release” will “play in theaters for a limited time” starting on February 19, 2027. The wording of their update was fairly vague, though it certainly seemed to suggest that they were referring to the original version of the 1977 movie rather than any of the recent remasters of that film that feature quite a few updates and changes. Well, io9 has since confirmed with Lucasfilm that the version of the movie that will be released in theaters in 2027 is indeed the original theatrical cut of the film. Again, Lucasfilm has said that this will be a “newly restored version of the classic Star Wars (1977) theatrical release,” which means that you can likely expect there to be some visual and audio upgrades to the original print. There is also a rumor that the original movie will be updated for a limited IMAX release, which would obviously include quite a few format specific alterations. For now, though, it seems like the idea is to keep the core of the original theatrical version of the film intact. Whether or not that’s a good or bad thing depends on the extent of the updates and your preferences. To play devil’s advocate, many of the changes made to Star Wars over the years were done to fix continuity errors, technical issues, and other such problems. A quick glance at a list of those changes reveals that many of them make sense and honestly exist to preserve the experience and intent of the original movie rather than the movie exactly as it was when it was released. But that’s not what we’re talking about, is it? For many, the joy of this experience will come from getting to see Star Wars as it was before some of the more significant and controversial changes to the film were made. No more additional Stormtroopers facing off against Han Solo, no more CGI lizards awkwardly dropped onto Tatooine, and, though it pains me to still be saying this in 2025, Han will indeed shoot first in this version of the movie. It’s going to be fascinating to see how this version of the movie actually plays. Reports from a recent, incredibly rare screening of an original print of Star Wars suggested that version of the movie was in far rougher shape than people remember, though some will certainly argue that the rough edges should be part of this experience. Perhaps this new version of the movie will find a happy middle ground that will allow people to experience the biggest “missing” beats of the original film without having to lower their technical expectations quite so much. Then again, one shouldn’t hold out too much hope for the sudden silencing of the debates in the Star Wars community. For now, though, let’s all take a moment to consider that it’ll be nice to simply have this option rather than constantly having to ask why one of the most culturally significant movies ever made has been so damn hard to watch in its (roughly) original form for so long. [end-mark] The post The Original 1977 <i>Star Wars</i> (Yes, That Version) Is Returning to Theaters in 2027 appeared first on Reactor.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on President Donald Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship. The high court announced Friday that it will hear arguments regarding Trump’s executive order that would revoke the automatic guarantee that any child born on U.S. soil—even to an illegal immigrant parents—would be an American citizen. Trump’s order has not gone into effect, and was previously stopped by lower courts. This has the potential to overturn a Supreme Court precedent going back to 1898, when the majority upheld birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, which was enacted to grant citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War. Several left-leaning immigration groups, along with 22 states, sued to overturn Trump’s executive order that he signed on the first day of his second term.  In one sentence about the case, the court issued an order Friday saying, “Trump, president of the U.S. et al. v. Barbara, et al. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted.” Oral arguments will be held next year, with a ruling likely by the end of June.  The provision of the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The point of contention in the case is the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued was misinterpreted by the court’s late 19th century ruling.  More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants’ rights groups have sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and “unprecedented.” This is a breaking news story. Please return for updates. The post BREAKING: Supreme Court Takes Trump Birthright Citizenship Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The judge who presided over Thursday’s hearing regarding a National Public Radio (NPR) lawsuit against the Trump administration is skeptical of President Trump's executive order ending funding for public media – and could strike it down without a trial, NPR reported Friday. Since the start of his second term in the White House, a host of activist judges have intervened to block Pres. Trump’s Constitutional authorities to implement his America First agenda. In its article, NPR reported that Judge Randolph D. Moss is a “skeptical judge” who criticized the executive order’s premise during Thursday's summary judgement hearing: “A skeptical judge “The presiding U.S. district court judge, Randolph D. Moss, seemed skeptical. ‘You'd be on much firmer ground if the president had simply said, 'We just want to get out of the news business.’” After hearing arguments from both sides on Thursday, Judge Moss can now either rule in favor of the Trump administration, grant a judgement in favor of NPR, or order that a trial be held to decide the lawsuit. In May, Trump issued the executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidy of Biased Media.” In it, he called for an end to all taxpayer funding of news media, prompting NPR’s lawsuit. NPR argues that the First Amendment gives it the right to be biased, while Trump attorneys contend that the president also wants to defund all taxpayer-funded media, regardless of content. As further evidence that Judge Moss sides with NPR, the article notes that he proposed a deal Thursday to Justice Department lawyers that could permanently ensure NPR receives taxpayer funding. In a previous case involving the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), Judge Moss criticized termination of a contract providing $36 million to NPR (“Judge Moss had explicitly told the CPB's lawyers that he did not find their defenses for the reversal credible.”). Under the settlement reached, NPR was awarded the full amount of the contract. On Thursday, Judge Moss suggested that the settlement be expanded to permanently restrict the federal government: “Government deflects judge's suggestion “The judge also appeared to offer the government a way out for a major part of the case, dangling the prospect that it might enable him to avoid ruling that Trump's executive order was illegal. “Moss suggested that the U.S. government could formally agree that the CPB settlement with NPR was binding on the federal government too — that it would never seek to prevent CPB from sending money to the radio network if federal subsidies were to be somehow restored.” The Justice Department’s lawyers rejected Judge Moss's proposal, so both sides now await impending Judge Moss's ruling.

On Thursday, members of the House and Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees viewed video of the U.S. military's controversial "second strike" on a boat which was allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean back in September. This story has become an obsession of Democrats, and their friends in the leftist media, many of whom have called this action a "war crime." During Thursday's edition of CNN's The Arena, host Kasie Hunt led her show with the story, and was not close to being fair and impartial, while hiding the military credentials of  Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) who said the strike was justified. Hunt began her opening segment, by referring to the video of the strike which was shown to Congress, by cringing, as she led into a clip from Congressman Jim Himes (D-Conn.), who was reacting to what he saw. Hunt's intro was, "Right now -- (facial cringe) -- there's a tape." Himes claimed "What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service." Hunt underlined the statement and the Himes resume:  HUNT: That was Congressman Jim Himes there.  He is, of course, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He's served in Congress for nearly two decades. And he says that video that shows a follow up strike on survivors of an initial hit, was one of the most troubling things he's seen during his time in Washington... This was a classified briefing, and the only thing that everyone could agree on is the deep respect and admiration for U.S. Service members.  Hunt then introduced a clip of Republican Tom Cotton, the Chairman of The Senate Intelligence Committee giving his take on the video, speaking in support of the strike and more. COTTON: First strike, the second strike, and the third and the fourth strike on September 2nd were entirely lawful and needful, and they were exactly what we would expect our Military Commanders to do. I didn't see anything disturbing about it. What's disturbing to me is that millions of Americans have died from drugs being run to America by these cartels. Here comes the difference. Following the Himes clip, Hunt repeated what he said, and pointed out that he's served in Congress for nearly two decades (starting in 2009) She said NOTHING about Cotton following his clip (who joined Congress in 2013). Here's some of what she left out, according to his official bio: "Tom served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne and in Afghanistan with a Provincial Reconstruction Team. Between his two combat tours, Tom served with The Old Guard at Arlington National Cemetery. Tom’s military decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge, and Ranger Tab." Do you think that's relevant, considering we are discussing a military issue? Maybe she didn't want to give his opinion any gravitas. Hunt then played a clip of President Trump from Wednesday, being asked if he'd be releasing the second strike video. REPORTER: You released video of that first strike on September 2nd, but not the second video. Will you release video of that strike so that the American people can see for themselves? TRUMP: I don't know what they have, but whatever they have we'd certainly release, no problem." Hunt responded by shrugging, shaking her head, holding out her hands, and mimicking Trump with, "No problem...let's see it! She then introduced her panel, which included CNN's Senior Military Analyst Admiral James Stavridis (Ret.), who hasn't seen the video. Stavridis was vetted as a potential vice president by Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016. STAVRIDIS:... I'll close with this. You showed us Jim Hines and Tom Cotton. I know them both. I respect them both. I'm really looking to hear from the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee... The ranking member, of course, is (Democrat) Jack Reed, a West Point graduate, the Chairman of the SASC (Senate Armed Services Committee) is Roger Wicker, a former Air Force JAG Officer, Lieutenant Colonel (Retired.) Those are two voices I'm waiting to hear from. Hunt responded with, "A really good point on that score." Hello, that would have been a perfect time to recite Cotton's military credentials to Stavridis and the viewers, especially after hiding them after his clip played earlier, but nope, not a word.  Making faces, shaking your head, making it clear which side of the issue you are on is bad enough if you call yourself a "journalist." Not informing your viewers of the military credentials of the one voice that you presented to that point, that had an opposing point of view on this military issue, demonstrates a bias toward the Democrats....which is another afternoon on CNN. 

During President Trump' s first term, Americans were forced to wake up and realize that immigration was a serious problem — and that we were losing who we were and what we stand for as a country.“And then Biden gets in, who’s this — he’s not even a person. He’s this just sort of like empty vessel ... and what they do immediately with him is not just like turn the immigration spigot back on, it’s supercharged,” BlazeTV host Jonathan “Lomez” Keeperman tells co-host Christopher Rufo on “Rufo & Lomez.”“OK, we get in Biden’s four years, the equivalent of 12 years of immigration. The preceding 12 years combined ends up equaling what Biden does — another like eight million illegal immigrants,” Lomez says.“Millions of these get away, they’re not even processing people at the border. ... Alejandro Mayorkas just decides unilaterally, we’re going to start taking in people from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, Venezuela, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people basically flying illegal immigrants, paying to fly illegal immigrants into the country to be resettled by these refugee programs,” he continues.“They’re getting hundreds of millions of dollars from DHS to do this. You have hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors, OK? We’re just taking in the world. We’re taking in the entire world.”“And when I say we, I mean Alejandro Mayorkas, who should frankly be in jail and tried for sedition,” he adds.Want more from Rufo & Lomez?To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.