'Illegal toll'

'The steel is staying here.'

'I do not it believe DEI has anything to do with this situation but instead a lack of personal discipline'

'Drive men away'

When a massive loggerhead sea turtle was hit by a boat and admitted to a Florida veterinary hospital, the doctors didn’t know what to do. They needed to ascertain the extent of her injuries, but the CT scanner at the Loggerhead Marinelife Center in Juno Beach was too small. ‘Pennywise’ as they named her, was […] The post Vets Borrow a Horse’s CT Scanner to Fit Giant, 302-Pound Sea Turtle and Get a Nice Surprise appeared first on Good News Network.

News kung fury Dragonlord: Dinos, Humans & Robots Live Together in Film from Kung Fury Director No news yet on whether David Hasselhoff will make an appearance. By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on May 27, 2025 Screenshot: LaserUnicorns Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: LaserUnicorns It’s been ten years since Kung Fury graced Cannes. The featurette by writer-director David Sandberg (pictured above in the short, which he also starred in) was popular (it even featured a cameo by David Hasselhoff!). Ernie Cline at the time also hailed it as “the most perfect parody of ‘80s action films that I’ve ever seen.” Its success spawned a sequel that is sadly languishing in post-production limbo due to legal issues with the company that backed it financially. While it’s not clear whether we’ll ever see that sequel, Sandberg is now working on a new movie called Dragonlord, which he described to Variety as “tonally similar” to Kung Fury. “It’s such a crazy mishmash of stuff,” he added. “There’s no movie that I can think of that’s exactly like it. But yeah, it’s a like He-Man mixed with Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and Mad Max and also Ninja Turtles… but it’s definitely gonna feel super different, I think, from anything.” The film centers on a treasure hunter named Dragonlord (played by Sandberg), who is best friends with a video game-loving Tyrannosaurus Rex named Blaze. Poor Blaze, however, gets kidnapped by the villainous Dreadmancer for reasons unknown, and Dragonlord must assemble a team to save him. Other characters, according to Variety’s interview with Sandberg, include “the Dread Riders (‘like the Stormtroopers of our world’), a tech guy called Quantum Cobra, Sword Lord (‘who used to work for Dreadmancer but fell in love with his unicorn so is now one of the good guys’), someone called Titanus whose name people keep pronouncing as ‘Tight Anus,’ and Budgie, who is a ‘like a bird man who shits acid.’” Sounds like a fun movie to me! The script is still in development, but Sandberg plans to start production in spring 2026. No news yet on when Dragonlord will make its way to your eyeballs.[end-mark] The post <i>Dragonlord</i>: Dinos, Humans & Robots Live Together in Film from <i>Kung Fury</i> Director appeared first on Reactor.

Once again, Harvard and the Trump administration find themselves in a dispute, this time over whether Harvard can enroll foreign students without providing information demanded by the administration on whether those students are complying with visa rules. The Department of Homeland Security recently stripped Harvard of its ability to enroll international students, but Harvard has since obtained a temporary restraining order blocking that action (set to start in the fall) from taking effect until the courts can consider the matter. On the merits, Harvard shouldn’t be allowed to enroll foreign students unless it can agree to reforms that ensure it will handle that privilege responsibly in the future. But even if Harvard were to achieve a legal victory without reaching an agreement on reforms, it would lose more from a legal battle than it would suffer from simply coming to terms with the Trump administration. International students are guests in our country, and they must abide by certain rules if they wish to remain. If foreign students break laws, violate the civil rights of their fellow students, are suspended from school, or provide support for designated terrorist organizations, they can have their visas revoked. Many people wrongly believe that free speech protects the ability of foreign students to chant, “Globalize the Intifada,” “We are Hamas,” or other terrorist slogans. But foreign students don’t have the same free speech rights as U.S. citizens. The Immigration and Nationality Act specifically states, “Any alien – who endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization … is inadmissible.” Foreigners who support Hamas can be blocked from entering the U.S.—and if they are discovered to support Hamas after they arrive on campus, they can be removed. There is good reason to believe that foreign students at Harvard and other elite universities have been violating these conditions but are being shielded from the consequences. Acting as if they were “sanctuary cities,” several elite universities have refused both to have law-breaking students arrested and to suspend or expel rule-breaking students. As a result, they’re failing to protect the civil rights of students whose education is being disrupted by misbehaving fellow students. MIT’s president explicitly acknowledged that protesting students who occupied the main academic building were not suspended from classes because of “serious concerns about collateral consequences for the students, such as visa issues.” At Columbia University, officials have detained for deportation foreign students that the Trump administration accuses of leading protests. The extent of such violations of visa requirements at Harvard is unclear. That’s because the university has generally refused to arrest or discipline their students engaged in rule-breaking protests. Of dozens of Harvard students who were referred for disciplinary action, a U.S. House Committee report found that “Harvard failed to impose any formal discipline on any students.” This refusal to arrest or suspend rule-breaking students hides from federal authorities whether foreign students have engaged in this misconduct and should be deported—a fact that’s led the Department of Homeland Security to demand Harvard turn over disciplinary records of all foreign students, along with videos of protests that would allow identification of rule-breaking foreigners. Harvard objects that this information has not previously been required and that providing it would violate student privacy. Ultimately, the courts will decide whether Harvard must turn over this information to remain eligible to enroll foreign students. But even if Harvard prevails and remains eligible for the foreign student program, the Trump administration can delay or deny visas for students planning to study at Harvard or other institutions with problematic track records. Because of the doctrine of “consular nonreviewability,” courts are unable to reverse administration decisions about who is denied a visa to enter the US. Even if Harvard wins in court, it will lose in reality. The longer these disputes drag on, the more Harvard suffers financially, reputationally, and operationally. Highly qualified students and faculty are already beginning to decide that they’d be better off elsewhere. Rhetoric about solidarity among universities is just empty talk—other institutions are eager to offer attractive packages for relocating research labs and enrolling talented students fleeing Harvard’s troubles. The vast majority of foreign students who follow the rules can remain in the United States. They just may not be able to enroll at Harvard. And no productive research projects have to be shuttered. They’ll just continue at some place other than Harvard. None of Trump’s actions harm U.S. universities writ large. They only harm Harvard—while helping every other university that can manage to provide a proper educational environment. Harvard is not all of academia. The more the public learns about Harvard’s rampant antisemitism, how it prioritizes the interests of foreign students over those of Americans, and how it otherwise enables student misconduct, the worse Harvard looks. It took centuries for Harvard to build its reputation—but that could all be gone in just a few years. Harvard’s leaders should be seeking to reach an agreement with the Trump administration to stop the bleeding. The post Harvard, Please Enforce Rules for Foreign Students appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If negotiations between the U.S. and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program were to break down, reports indicate Israel might strike Iran. But without the U.S., Israel doesn’t have the capability to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, according to a national security expert at The Heritage Foundation.   The U.S. “alone has the capability, really, to significantly delay Iran’s program and set them back,” Robert Greenway told The Daily Signal.   “The Israelis would have the ability to strike facilities, but have minor disruptive action,” Greenway said, adding, “the United States would have ability to do far more than that.”  Iran has multiple nuclear sites, some believed to be located 150 meters (about 500 feet) or more underground, according to Oded Ailam, a researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs in Israel and a former head of the Counterterrorism Division of the Mossad, Israel’s national intelligence agency. Israel does not have the ability to penetrate a nuclear facility buried deep underground, but America’s “MOAB” bomb likely could, according to Ailam. The MOAB—short for Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb and often referred to as “the mother of all bombs”—is the most powerful nonnuclear conventional weapon in existence.   While there are fears a U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities could trigger a war, David Aaronson, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security, contended that war would not be the result of a preemptive strike.   Assumptions that a strike would lead to war “are baseless and misleading,” Aaronson told The Daily Signal.  “It’s worth learning from history,” Aaronson said. “In 1981, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor built by Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq—no war. In 2007, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor built by the Assad regime in Syria—no war. Eradicating Iran’s nuclear program will not start a war, but it could prevent one.”  Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to engage in talks with Iran over its nuclear program with little clear progress. Over the weekend, President Donald Trump indicated a deal with Iran could be coming soon, but Iranian officials have appeared less optimistic. On Monday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran will survive if his country fails to reach an agreement with the U.S.   Ailam contends that the Trump administration should use the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran as leverage in the negotiations.   Trump should tell Iran: “I’m not able to control [Israel], so you better come to terms with me as soon as possible,” he said.  But Ailam said the Trump administration is at a disadvantage in negations with Iran because neither Trump nor special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff speak Farsi, and “they don’t understand the mentality” of the Middle East.   The negotiations between Iran and the U.S., according to Ailam, are “like the players from the NBA playing against the local neighborhood in Wisconsin.”   Iran has continued production of near weapons-grade uranium and, as of reports in February, Iran was enriching uranium up to 60%. Weapons-grade uranium levels are 90% enriched.   While Israel does not have the ability to take out Iran’s nuclear sites, it could strike Iranian oil facilities, Ailam said, contending this could cripple Iran’s economy and destabilize the government. If the current Iranian regime fell, Iran’s nuclear program would crumble, Ailam believes.  But a strike on one of Iran’s larger oil facilities is very risky, Heritage’s Greenway counters.   Because Iran’s economy is so dependent on its oil production, a strike on Iranian oil might encourage Iran to pursue a nuclear weaponization even more rapidly, or could lead to Iran launching a massive retaliatory missile attack that would have “global disruption” on the oil market.  While there could be advantages to striking Iran’s oil facilities, the risks are significant enough that “in my mind, there is only one target left, and that’s the nuclear target,” Greenway said.   Right now, time is one of the most important factors in the ongoing nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Israel, he explained.   Iran wants the negotiations over a deal to extend as long as possible because the additional time allows the Islamic republic to continue developing its nuclear capabilities and ultimately launch a test, the Heritage expert said. “They could test virtually at any time, with little or no warning,” Greenway said. “And once you test, you’re treated as a nuclear power and then things get very complicated.”  The post Preventing a Nuclear Iran appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—A growing number of Democrats are arguing that members of their party need to reconsider their use of certain left-wing words and phrases if they want to better connect with voters they lost in the 2024 election cycle, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. Some members of the Democratic Party are raising concerns that many of their candidates have become too reliant on using elite-sounding phrases, which they claim is a type of language that could isolate working-class voters, according to the Washington Post. The article cites examples of left-wing words and phrases often used by Democrats, such as “oligarchs,” “equity,” “justice-involved populations,” and “intersectionality.” “Some words are just too Ivy League-tested terms,” Democrat Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego told the Washington Post. “I’m going to piss some people off by saying this, but ‘social equity’—why do we say that? Why don’t we say, ‘We want you to have an even chance’?” Meanwhile, Democrat Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear told the Washington Post he believes that Democrats using certain left-wing words can result in them sounding like they are “not normal.” “I believe that, over time, and probably for well-meaning reasons, Democrats have begun to speak like professors and started using advocacy-speak that was meant to reduce stigma, but also removed the meaning and emotion behind words,” Beshear told the outlet, citing examples such as referring to addiction as “substance abuse disorder.” “It makes Democrats or candidates using this speech sounding like they’re not normal,” Beshear added. “It sounds simple, but what the Democratic Party needs to do is be normal and sound normal.” The Washington Post’s report comes amid a growing number of reports that the Democratic Party is attempting to develop a new messaging strategy to regain voters they lost in the 2024 presidential and Congressional elections. The party has also faced a slew of recent surveys showing poor approval ratings among voters. Similarly, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said in February that Americans now view the Republican Party as the party of the working class and see the Democratic Party as the “party of the elites.” “Honestly, Democrats trip over themselves in an attempt to say exactly the right thing,” Allison Prasch, who teaches rhetoric, politics, and culture at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told the Washington Post. “Republicans maybe aren’t so concerned about saying exactly the right thing, so it may appear more authentic to some voters.” “Republicans have a willingness to paint with very broad brushstrokes, where Democrats are more concerned with articulating multiple perspectives,” Prasch added. “And, because of that, they can be hampered by the words and phrases they utilize.” Earlier in May, Democrat strategist James Carville said he believes that Democrats need to stop using a spate of left-wing words and phrases he deemed as ineffective or isolating to voters, citing language such as “oligarchy,” “equity,” and “generational change.” Carville added that he thinks some left-wing words used by Democrats are often “just not helpful.” “We’re going to have limited time to make our case. When we have whatever limited time we have, and we’re fighting back at all this, I think we should be very careful … So when you hear your elected representatives and you hear Democrats or you hear sane people using words that are not the right word, let them know that that kind of language is not helpful,” Carville said at the time. “It doesn’t mean you’re a bad person—it’s just not helpful.” Relatedly, Rahm Emanuel, a former Obama White House chief of staff whose name has recently been floated as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, claimed in a Wall Street Journal interview published Monday that the Democratic Party brand is “weak and woke.” Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post ‘Not Normal’: Dems Say Their Party Members ‘Have Begun to Speak Like Professors’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Jonathan Capehart Attacks Washington Post Colleague in New Book