Milo Ventimiglia, famous for his role as Jack Pearson in This is Us, found his “life imitating art.” On the show, he dies after the family’s house catches fire, and he inhales too much smoke. It was an emotional moment on television that made many people cry. They wondered how the Pearson family would go on without their strong patriarch. But the Pearsons aren’t a real family, and Milo walked away from the fire on set unscathed. Sadly, his real-life California home wasn’t so lucky. Milo Ventimiglia and many of his friends and neighbors lost everything in the Palisades fire. The 47-year-old expectant father went back to his neighborhood after the fire to survey the damage. What he found was nothing short of devastating. Actor Milo Ventimiglia tells CBS News’ @TonyDokoupil he helplessly watched his home burn to the ground through security cameras. The 47-year-old father-to-be returned to his property to see what was left. pic.twitter.com/jidcR5ZAsY— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) January 10, 2025 Milo Ventimiglia Has Nothing Left After The Palisades Fire CBS News shared a video of Milo on X standing in the place that used to be his home, and the actor said with a gasp that it felt “heavy.” He and his wife Jarah Mariano, who is pregnant with their first child, evacuated their Malibu home and watched the neighborhood go up in flames via security cameras. He said they watched in shock for a while but ultimately chose to stop watching because they knew they couldn’t change anything. Sadly, along with their own things, the Palisades fire took the nursery and baby items Milo Ventimiglia and Jarah Mariano had for their baby. “The whole thing was set up,” Milo said, choking back tears. Milo said that although this will not be an easy transition, they have good friends, family, and people who support them during this difficult time. He said no matter, he has all he needs. “We’ll make do. Wife and baby and dog most important.” This story’s featured image can be found here. The post Milo Ventimiglia Tearfully Visits Home Lost In Palisades Fire, “It’s Not Lost On Me—Life Imitating Art” appeared first on InspireMore.

Episode Description: Welcome back to The Optimist Daily Weekly Round-Up! Arielle and Karissa kick off a brand new season with a conversation about setting intentions to make 2025 a year of personal growth and fulfillment. Forget those rigid New Year’s resolutions—learn how intentions can guide your heart and mind toward meaningful change. The hosts also explore how psychological richness, mindfulness, curiosity, and creativity can transform everyday routines into opportunities for engagement and joy. Start your year with optimism and actionable solutions—hit play and get inspired! The Optimist Daily is a project of The World Business Academy. Donate link: https://www.optimistdaily.com/donate-to-support-the-optimist-daily/?gift=Y%20http:// Transcript: Theme music Arielle: Hello, and welcome to The Optimist Daily’s Weekly Round-up! I’m Arielle. Karissa: And I’m Karissa, and we’re here working hard to put solutions in view and optimism in movement. Arielle: Hello, everyone! We are back with another episode of the pod to share the solutions from the Optimist Daily this week. Karissa and I are thrilled to be kicking off a brand-new season with all of you. Karissa: Yeah! Arielle: It’s our first week back after the holidays, and, honestly, we took a longer break than expected because—well—life happens. People get sick. Karissa: Mmhmm. Arielle: But we’re ready to dive into a year full of positivity, solutions, and thought-provoking conversations. Karissa: Absolutely! December was a bit rough for our team in terms of illness. Both of us quite literally lost our voices for a while there. Arielle: Yeah. Karissa: So, those early weeks of December didn’t exactly go as planned. We didn’t get to wrap up last season of the pod the way we wanted to. But then the holidays happened, we got a chance to rest a bit, and I don’t know about you, Arielle, but I’m feeling refreshed and ready to head into this new year strong! Arielle: Yes! New year, new season, and maybe even new perspectives on how to approach 2025. That’s actually what today’s solutions are all about. Shall we dive in? Karissa: Let’s go for it, Arielle. Arielle: So, the article I picked to share today is called Forget New Year’s Resolutions: Why Setting Intentions is the Key to a Fulfilling Year. It’s such a timely topic because we’re all coming off that holiday reflection period. Intentions feel like a much better alternative to resolutions, and they can genuinely help you live a more fulfilling life. That’s the message I got from this article, and I’m excited to share it with all of you. Karissa: I’m excited too! Resolutions always feel so restrictive, like a checklist of all the ways we think we need to “fix” ourselves. Looking at it through a different lens sounds so refreshing. Arielle: Exactly! That’s why change coach Niamh Ennis, who’s an expert on this topic, suggests ditching resolutions altogether. Instead, she advocates for setting intentions. As she puts it, “An intention is, at its heart, a guiding value for how you want to be and feel.” Karissa: Ooh, so intentions are less about doing something and more about being something? Arielle: Exactly. Intentions reflect what matters most to you and how you want to show up in the world. Unlike resolutions, which are often rigid and focused on outcomes, intentions are rooted in how you wish to feel. For instance, instead of saying, “I want to lose 10 pounds,” an intention might be, “I want to nurture my body with care and compassion.” Karissa: I love that shift—it feels so much kinder. So, how do you go about setting intentions? Arielle: Well, intentions are different from goals or even the trendy concept of manifestation. Intentions are about connecting with your values and embodying them in your daily life. Karissa: What’s an example of a strong intention? Arielle: Here are a few ideas straight from Niamh Ennis: “Let go of the constant self-judgment and criticism of myself and others.” “Forgive myself for not getting everything done.” “Open my heart to loving more.” Karissa: Those are great suggestions! You know, intentions remind me a lot of yoga practice. I don’t know about you, Arielle, but I’ve set intentions during yoga classes before, like focusing on energy or balance. Arielle: Yes, I’ve done that too! And it’s a great point—if we set intentions for yoga classes, why not set them for life? Karissa: Exactly! Arielle: And the beauty of intentions is that they aren’t tied to strict measures or deadlines. Instead, they act as a compass, guiding your decisions and actions toward what truly matters to you. Karissa: So how do we get started? What’s the secret to setting intentions that actually resonate and stick with us throughout the year? Arielle: It all starts with self-reflection. Ask yourself questions like: What matters most to me right now? How do I want to show up in the world? What would I like to create or nurture more of in my life? From there, you can choose a word, a phrase, or a wish that feels deeply meaningful to you. It could be something simple, like “freedom” or “vulnerability,” or a more specific aspiration, like “spread more love” or “embrace joy.” Karissa: That makes a lot of sense. But what’s the reason intentions work so much better than plain old resolutions? Arielle: Resolutions often set us up for failure because they’re based on arbitrary benchmarks or external achievements. Intentions, on the other hand, are intrinsically motivating because they’re grounded in personal values. As Niamh Ennis puts it, “When you align your thoughts about what is important with what you want to create in your life, your intention appears.” This alignment helps you chart a personal path that feels authentic and empowering. Karissa: I’m guessing intentions aren’t rigid, right? They can evolve with you throughout the year? Arielle: Exactly! It’s less about checking a box and more about nurturing a way of being. And while intentions require self-reflection and action, Ennis encourages embracing a little magic. She says, “We need to show up and do the work, but we also have to lean into the magic of the universe.” So, it’s about balancing effort with trust—trust in yourself and trust that the universe will meet you halfway. Karissa: That definitely sounds like a practice worth trying. Arielle: So, this year, maybe forget about those resolutions that tend to fizzle out by February. Instead, set intentions that align your heart and mind, and watch them transform your life. Karissa: I think this is really great—definitely something I want to try. I feel like I’ve been unintentionally setting intentions as I’ve been planning for the new year. I was working on my vision board, which I still think is a great practice. Arielle: Unintentional intentions! (Laughs) Karissa: Exactly! I saw people doing bingo boards for the year, which is fun, but it felt a little more restrictive, like trying to check off all these boxes. I think I’ll stick with my vision board. It’s a great way to incorporate intentions because… Arielle: …it’s like a visual representation of your intentions! Karissa: Yes, exactly. I’m definitely going to reflect more on the simple intentions I have for this year. It’s still the beginning of the year, and we’ve got a whole 12 months ahead. Arielle: Absolutely. And if resolutions work for you, then by all means stick with them. But this is for people who find it hard to keep up with resolutions. That’s definitely me—I don’t think I’ve ever stuck to a resolution for a whole year. But intentions? I think I could get behind those. Karissa: That’s a good distinction. Arielle: Right? They’re more like a guiding force. Karissa: And you could do both if you wanted! I’m really excited for a kinder and more intentional 2025. Arielle: All right, so what do you have to share with us today, Karissa? Karissa: So, I’ve got something on a similar note that might help us with our resolutions, intentions, or even those bingo boards we’ve been talking about. It’s all about transforming your daily grind. Today, I’m sharing three simple strategies for a more engaging life. But before I dive in, Arielle, do you ever feel like you’re stuck in an endless loop of the same dull routines? Arielle: Oh, definitely. You know how it is—dishes, laundry, repeat! Karissa: Exactly. I feel that way too, especially working remotely. For me, it’s like I’m at home all day, working during the usual hours because I’m in the U.S. But I know your schedule’s a little different since you’re on the other side of the world. Arielle: Yeah, it’s a bit offbeat. Karissa: Right! But even so, the routine can feel monotonous—work, maybe a workout, dinner, and then bed. It can get super boring. But there are ways to transform those mundane moments into opportunities for a richer, more engaged life. According to philosopher Lorraine Besser and psychologist Shigehiro Oishi, you can do this by focusing on psychological richness. Arielle: Psychological richness? What exactly is that? Karissa: Great question. Psychological richness, as defined by Besser and Oishi’s research, is about cognitive engagement. It’s the kind of mental stimulation that comes from encountering new perspectives, challenges, and emotions. Unlike happiness or meaning, psychological richness offers its own unique dimension to what they call “the good life.” Their research even found that many people would prioritize a psychologically rich life over a happy or meaningful one. Arielle: Interesting. So, how do we create this psychologically rich life? Karissa: Well, I’ve got three strategies for you, straight from Besser’s recommendations, to help cultivate psychological richness and make life more interesting. Let’s dive in! Karissa: First up is mindfulness 2.0: pay attention, and don’t judge. You’ve probably heard the “pay attention without judgment” phrase floating around online—it’s popular for a reason! Arielle: (Laughs) So true! Karissa: Traditional mindfulness teaches us to be present, but Besser’s mindfulness 2.0 takes it a step further. It’s about actively noticing details without attaching labels or judgments. For example, during your morning commute, instead of tuning out with your usual playlist, you can engage with your surroundings. Observe the rhythm of traffic lights, the people waiting at the bus stop, or even the architecture of nearby buildings. And you can start small at home too. Notice the texture of a houseplant’s leaves or the birds chirping outside your window. These small shifts in focus can transform your perspective and enrich your day. Arielle: I love that—it’s such a great way to turn ordinary moments into opportunities for discovery. It reminds me of an article we wrote a while ago about taking “awe walks.” It’s the same idea—you take a normal walk but really pay attention to everything around you. Karissa: Yes, exactly! Awe walks are perfect for practicing mindfulness 2.0. Karissa: Moving on to the second tip: invoke your curiosity. Once you’ve honed your ability to notice things, curiosity takes it a step further. Besser explains that asking questions pushes your mind to explore beyond the surface. Let’s say you notice a group of people at a bus stop. Do they ride together every day? What are their routines? By asking questions like this, you engage your mind in ways that make even mundane tasks more interesting. And honestly, it’s kind of fun to create little stories about strangers! Arielle: Totally! Daydreaming and wondering—it’s such a playful way to stay engaged. And once again, you can start small with the questions you ask yourself. Karissa: So, the third tip is to: engage in your creativity and try something new. Creativity isn’t just for artists and musicians. It’s about making small, novel changes that bring a fresh perspective to your day. Whether it’s trying a new recipe, rearranging your desk, or experimenting with fashion, creativity stimulates cognitive engagement. Arielle: Even simple acts, like switching out pen colors or changing your screensaver, can break the monotony of your daily routine. Karissa: Exactly! These small tweaks add novelty, which fuels psychological richness and makes your day-to-day more engaging. Besser’s work with Oishi also reveals that psychological richness is deeply personal. Each person’s experience of what’s interesting depends on their unique way of engaging with the world. And the best part? Developing psychological richness only requires small moments throughout your day. By shifting your mindset, you can transform even the most routine moments into opportunities for growth and fulfillment. Arielle: I love that. I’ll definitely remember these tips the next time I’m doing something mundane like washing the dishes. It’s a great reminder that the good life isn’t about escaping the grind—it’s about reimagining it and paying attention to it. These are all great ideas for my intentions this year. Karissa: Well, I think we’ve shared some fantastic solutions to kick off the New Year, and I’m looking forward to implementing these in my own life as well. Arielle: As always, we have even more solutions you can find on our website, theoptimistdaily.com. And at the start of this week, we were still wrapping up our Best of 2024 series. If you haven’t checked it out yet, you should definitely visit the site to read some of the top stories of the year. Karissa: Yes! Our final day of that series featured our staff picks. So, Arielle, what was your staff pick? Arielle: Mine was Scientists Document the Secret Language of Sperm Whales. Thinking about how whales have their own special language was just fascinating to me, so that’s the one I chose. What about you, Karissa? Karissa: I went with Fearless Hearts: More Than 50 Taylor Swift Songs Are Perfect for Life-Saving CPR. We talked about that on the podcast last year, and it’s such a fascinating discovery—being a Swiftie could literally save lives! Definitely check out those articles if you missed them or want a refresher on whales and Taylor Swift. Arielle: And we’ve got new solutions, too! It seems like so many places are starting the year on the right foot. We’ve got Belgium Pioneers EU Ban on Disposable Vapes as Milan Acts on Outdoor Smoking, and California Leads the Charge: Why Banning Polystyrene Foam Is a Game-Changer. What else do we have, Karissa? Karissa: We also have Chicago Goes Green: All City Buildings Now Powered by Renewable Energy, and Roaring Personalities: How Unique Leopard Calls Could Impact Conservation. Arielle: If you want to start your day off right, be sure to subscribe to our free daily newsletter to get these solutions straight to your inbox. Karissa: And don’t forget to follow us on all of our platforms! We’re at @OptimistDaily on Threads and Pinterest, and on X, we’re known as @OdeToOptimism. Arielle: We’re a small team of optimists working hard to bring you positive news. If you want to support our mission of putting optimism into action, click the link in the show notes to find out how you can help. Karissa: And support doesn’t always have to be financial! Sharing the podcast with a friend, leaving a positive review on Apple or Spotify, forwarding a link, or sharing a solution on social media all make a big difference. Arielle: It’s so nice to be here with you again, Karissa, sharing solutions from the Optimist Daily. Karissa: It really is! I missed our weekly catch-ups and sharing good news. I’m so glad to be back and can’t wait to see what solutions we’ll explore this year. Arielle: Alright, we hope all our listeners have a wonderful weekend and a wonderful New Year! Karissa: We’ll be back next week. Bye! Arielle: Bye! The post Podcast transcript January 10, 2025: New Year, New Intentions: Strategies for a Fulfilled 2025 first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

'Fell for his ploy'

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of the accompanying video from noted historian and Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. I want to talk about illegal immigration. You know, this is the point in our history that we’ve never been before. We have not a porous border, but no border at all. We’ve had somewhere between 10 [million] to 12 million illegal entrants since the Biden administration began.  There is no real corpus of immigration law. It’s been destroyed. We’re at a historical period in our country, where 55 million people, never such a large number of people born outside the United States, that are residing here. In terms of percentages, almost 16% of the population was not born in the United States.  That’s an enormous task of assimilation, integration, [and] civic education, and we just haven’t been doing any of that. So, what are we going to do? Well, the first thing is: We need to stop “catch and release.” We need to make entrants, legal entrants, go back to their country if they’re applying for refugee status. You cannot come here, and then say you’re a refugee. You must ascertain that and prove that at the consulate overseas.   We’ve got to finish the walls. It’s a 2,000-mile border, and we’ve never quite been able to continue. We’ve got a wall or fence or somehow obstruct the entire 2,000-mile border. That will save manpower. It will save time and cost, and it will have an enormous deterrent effect.  The next couple of things are a little bit trickier. I think that whatever your status is, if you are sending money back to a foreign country from the United States that is singled out as a source of illegal immigration—Mexico, Latin America, for example—then the United States government should put a 10% to 20% or 30% tax on all the remittances.  That would earn us up to maybe somewhere around $20 billion. And that would also deter Mexico, to take one example, that depends on remittances as its largest source of foreign exchange—greater than tourism, greater than its oil revenues. And yet, so often the American taxpayer—state, local, federal—through generous subsidies, free up the cash so that the illegal resident can send it back for social necessities that the Mexican government itself is responsible for, so we’re subsidizing everybody but ourselves.   I think it’s very important that we start looking at the countries that are the source of illegal immigration in terms of security. A Sudan, a Syria, terrorist countries that support, countries that support terrorism like Venezuela, the Middle East, especially Iran. Russia, as well.  Why would we let them send people here that we have no background checks, have not adjudicated their status? So, we should have a travel ban, an immediate deportation, and immediate consequences for the mother country that knowingly sends these people here. And that, too, would be a deterrent.   We’ve got to also look at anchor babies.  The 14th Amendment didn’t really ever say, as sometimes [is] alleged, that if you’re born in the United States, then you’re an automatic citizen. It says if you’re born in the United States, and not subject to the laws of another country. All the people coming, in some sense, are subject to the laws of another country.  So, we have to redefine that, either through legislation or renewed attempts in the courts.   Europe, the Left always looks for guidance—17 [European] countries don’t even allow it. And the other 13 or 14 have restrictions that qualify it. So, we’re the only country in the world that gives unqualified citizenship to people who happen to be born here and then anchor an entire family.   Why not also put a 10-, 20-year ban on people who have been detained here illegally and stop them from applying for a green card or legal readmissions for 20 years? That would be a very powerful deterrent.   In other words, we would announce sometime in February and say, “We want all of you to know, all 12 million who came here during the Biden administration, to take the first iteration of cohort, you have 30 days to go back. If you do not go back to your country, and you are detained, arrested here in the United States, you will be deported, but you will not be given any chance to get a green card for 10 to 20 years,” depending on how the courts or legislation adjudicates it.  And finally, I think it’s time to look at how we deport people. The first 500,000 who have committed a crime, it will be no problem. There’s unanimous consent. They should be deported immediately. They’re wreaking havoc on the American population.   The next iteration, the 1.5 [million], 1.7 million people who have already gone through the system, they’ve been adjudicated, they failed to show up for the court hearings. Or they left detention when they were facing deportation.   Those would be the next group that would face deportation. The third group of people, as I said earlier, from terrorist countries or terrorist-supporting countries, no one is going to sympathize with their residents here.  The fourth group is a little trickier, but I think we could pretty easily find hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of able-bodied residents who are on public assistance and who have not been here five years. If you haven’t been here five years, you came during the Biden open-borders era.  You were on welfare of some sort, and you’re able to work. You should go back home. That would leave a large group of people who have been here five years. They’ve never committed a crime. They’re not on public assistance. And they want to get a green card, not citizenship, a green card.   I think if we had won public opinion and support by deporting the most egregious offenders, say 10 [million] to 12 million, then I think in a bipartisan fashion, we could work out a system for the law-abiding, the productive, and the long-residing American residents and allow them to pay a fine to recapture legality and stay in the United States.   It’s going to be a tough road to restore border security, because the prior administration didn’t believe in it. But I think now that the White House, the Senate, and the House are in Republican hands, it’s absolutely possible. It can be done rather quickly.   Thank you very much. I’m Victor Hanson for The Daily Signal. Please subscribe to The Daily Signal for our next episode.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Deport Millions, Finish the Wall, Tax Remittances, and End Birthright Citizenship appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Pacific Palisade Reservoir Was Empty When Fire Broke Out, Fire Chief Says City Failed

Senate Dem: Resistance Is Futile?

A new study reveals communist Chinese government-tied TikTok’s biased, anti-free speech manipulation of China content as the app faces a looming ban. A U.S. federal government TikTok ban is set to take effect on Jan. 19, and TikTok is desperately trying to appeal to the Supreme Court and incoming president Donald Trump, but a new study illustrates again why the Chinese-tied app is a national security risk. Two centers at Rutgers University and the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) found that there is a “massive CCP propaganda bureaucracy devoted to controlling the flow of information in ways that threaten free speech and free inquiry.” The study is particularly interesting as TikTok makes its case to the Supreme Court Jan. 10. Read the full blog on MRC Free Speech America.

A president cannot admit more people into the country than Congress authorizes. However, the president holds both delegated authority and inherent Article II powers over foreign commerce to prevent individuals from entering, even if Congress has authorized their admission.Instead of relying on Congress to change laws or allocate funds, Trump should assert his authority to exclude and deport individuals. He can invoke emergency powers to redirect military funding, coordinate with state and local resources, and use this strategy to negotiate an immigration bill from a position of strength later in his presidency.Declaring an emergency at the border offers another key advantage: Trump could redirect funding for removal operations without needing congressional approval.With that approach, here are five authorities Trump should invoke on his way back from his second inaugural on January 20:1. The right to excludeCongress established the modern immigration enforcement framework through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, later modified in 1965, 1980, 1990, and 1996. The INA outlines numerous categories of legal immigration and processes for addressing illegal immigration or asylum claims. However, Section 212(f) grants the president sweeping authority to halt all immigration categories at will, independent of these parallel processes.This provision allows the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants” for as long as deemed necessary, provided the president determines their entry would be detrimental to U.S. interests.This plenary power, upheld by longstanding case law and reaffirmed in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), is unreviewable by the courts. While Trump mainly used this authority during his first term to address terrorism concerns, Section 212(f) extends beyond national security to encompass the broader “national interest.” Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence in Trump v. Hawaii, noted that the law “does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the president.”As a result, Trump — or any president — can determine that any form of immigration, including legal immigration, is detrimental to U.S. interests for reasons such as culture, wage depression, health, welfare, or the economy.2. The right to regulate entrySection 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act grants the president significant authority to regulate the entry of all aliens, covering both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas.The law states: “Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful — (1) for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.”This provision allows the president to establish any process for handling asylum claims at the border, even without congressional reforms to immigration laws. While tightening certain laws would be ideal, it is not a prerequisite for the president to address illegal immigration during his term.Furthermore, under these and other authorities, the president could reform or even halt processes such as the H-1B visa program as needed.3. Inherent constitutional authority to block entryCongress holds full authority over naturalization, entry rules, and deportations, while the president exercises power over foreign affairs and commerce. This means the ability to enter the U.S. depends on agreement between both branches. If either Congress or the president opposes an individual or group’s entry, they may be denied.For instance, even if Congress passed a law explicitly stating that “all aliens seeking admission shall be granted status,” the president could still exclude individuals at his discretion. Justice Thomas has suggested the president might also possess inherent authority to deport, separate from delegated powers — a concept worth testing. In his dissent in Sessions v. Dimaya (2018), Thomas argued that this authority may exist inherently.The strength of this executive power was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950), which remains a controlling precedent. The Court stated, “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”A California district judge echoed this sentiment in 1996, in a case called Encuentro del Canto Popular v. Christopher. The court ruled that Congress does not act alone when it prescribes immigration procedures. Instead, it implements inherent executive powers under Article II.Before Congress officially began regulating immigration in 1875, the State Department managed immigration diplomatically. For example, in 1872, Secretary of State Hamilton Fish warned the British that the United States would not accept immigrants from the “pauper class” supported by government funds.Even without Section 212(f), no asylum statute could override the president’s authority to halt asylum cases when deemed to be in the national interest. With 212(f) in place, the president’s power to do so is unassailable.4. Deputizing state and local law enforcement to deportIn addition to the 287(g) program, which deputizes state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws, particularly for criminal aliens in local jails, another authority becomes available if the president declares an emergency. Federal law empowers the attorney general to authorize state law enforcement to exercise the same immigration powers as federal officers if an “imminent or actual mass influx of aliens” is determined.Since the law includes no exceptions to this rule, local law enforcement agencies that agree to participate could potentially apprehend, detain, and even deport illegal aliens. This authority would allow the president to enlist tens of thousands of additional personnel to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement in conducting mass deportations.5. Redirecting defense funding for border and deportationsDeclaring an emergency at the border offers another key advantage: Trump can redirect funding for removal operations without needing congressional approval. Instead of relying on Democrats for more detention space and removal funding — risking demands for amnesty in exchange — he can reprogram Department of Defense funds. Using the military budget to secure our homeland, rather than funding overseas conflicts like Ukraine, is a logical approach.In 2019, Trump used these same authorities to begin border wall construction. He could now apply them to construct detention facilities, utilize military ships for deportations (which are more efficient than commercial flights), and support other border security operations.Upon declaring a national emergency, Section 2808 of the Emergencies Act of 1976 allows the secretary of defense to undertake military construction projects “not otherwise authorized by law” that are necessary to support the use of the armed forces. Similarly, a parallel statute permits the secretary to redirect Department of the Army resources — including funds, personnel, and equipment — for essential civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects during such emergencies.These statutes include minimal restrictions. The secretary of defense is required only to report the nature and costs of the projects to the relevant congressional committee — no further approval is necessary.Another law authorizes the secretary of defense, upon request from federal or state law enforcement combating drug trafficking, to support counter-drug and anti-transnational crime activities. In fact, the legislation specifically authorizes the Defense Department to construct roads and fences and install lighting to block drug smuggling corridors along the U.S. border.Trump could use these statutes to fund ICE detention space and logistics for mass deportations. By leveraging these existing authorities, he could launch deportation operations immediately without relying on Congress, offering concessions, or expending party-line budget reconciliation for border funding.The president has all the authority he needs to safeguard U.S. sovereignty. As commander in chief, enforcing these laws is his primary responsibility. The issue lies not with the laws themselves but with faithfully executing them.

As calls for accountability for government failures over the California wildfires ring out, Gov. Gavin Newsom has called for an independent investigation into one of the worst reports. Newsom issued the statement Friday afternoon as the wildfires continued to spread and destroy lives and livelihoods. 'We need answers to ensure this does not happen again.' "I am calling for an independent investigation into the loss of water pressure to local fire hydrants and the reported unavailability of water supplies from the Santa Ynez Reservoir," said Newsom on social media. "We need answers to ensure this does not happen again and we have every resource available to fight these catastrophic fires."Some firefighters reported that hydrants had low water pressure while they were trying to save lives and houses. Local officials have been lambasted by residents and others for the lack of government response to the natural disaster. "I have directed state water and firefighting officials to prepare an independent after-incident report examining the causes of lost water supply and water pressure in municipal water systems during the fire events, and to identify measures that local governments can implement to provide adequate water supply for emergency response during future catastrophic events," wrote Newsom. As of Friday, officials said more than 10 people had died from the fires, at least 180,000 were forced to evacuate, and approximately 10,000 homes and businesses had been destroyed. The Palisades fire, the largest of the wildfires, was only 8% contained. Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass was excoriated for going on a trip to Ghana just as the fires kicked off despite having warned residents about the potentially life-threatening natural disaster. Another Democrat, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, was lambasted for trying to blame corporations for the wildfires because of global warming. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

I remember the smell of cigarette smoke in the 1990s. It was the last time in America when you might smell cigarettes in a bar or a restaurant. It’s a smell that always reminds me of my childhood. Nostalgia. Memories. The world that was. The world we saw, heard, and smelled. Those were the smells of our dads. Cigarettes, beer, liquor, gasoline, sawdust, the garage. They make me smile. I sound like an old-timer memorializing another era. But it was only yesterday, wasn't it? Thirty years ago now. Gas on pump two My dad smoked. Marlboro Lights. I remember standing next to him in the gas station countless times. “Gas on pump two, and two packs of Marlboro Lights in the box.” That’s what he would always say. He would motion to the boxes with his hand or lean over the counter a little as he asked in a voice he never used at home. He smoked in the car. The window cracked, his elbow on the door, the cigarette hanging right above the glass. I could smell it so faintly in the back seat. Just barely. I remember late at night, on long road trips, the sight of that orange ember on the end of the cigarette in the dark night. The green lights of the dashboard and his hand on the steering wheel. My dad didn’t smoke in the house. He would stand at the door to the garage. Crack it about six inches with his hand on the doorframe so the smoke wouldn’t come in. The smell of Stroh’s, cigarette smoke, and cold air. I remember standing in the kitchen talking to my dad right there. The smell of all those things together. That’s a memory. Bacon and eggs My grandparents smoked, too. Salems. They bought them in the carton. They smoked inside the house. We didn’t live too far away, and we visited them often. Sometimes we would stay over the weekend. I remember my grandpa standing in the kitchen frying eggs in an electric frying pan, an ashtray on the counter and a burning cigarette turning to ash. The smell of syrup and bacon grease, smoke and coffee. Still in my pajamas. My grandparents drank 7&7s at night. I would watch my dad sitting with my grandpa, smoking and drinking. The sweet smell of the 7-Up tainted by the unappealing, all-too-adult scent of Seagram's. The look of the sweaty glass. Cigarette smoke in the air. These are old memories, places I haven't been to in years. Moments I can’t find in a picture or a video. But certain smells linger. They connect to some place behind my eyes, and I am there again. My grandpa and my dad. The smell of cigarettes. Basics and Bud My wife’s dad smoked. Basics. He worked out in the garage a lot. For her, it’s sawdust mixed with the smell of Basics and the faint aroma of Bud Light. Those are her memories, her dad. I knew my wife in high school. I remember walking through that garage and saying a quick “hi” to her dad as he stood back there behind his workbench. Those were the smells of our dads. Cigarettes, beer, liquor, gasoline, sawdust, the garage. They make me smile. Our dads; they seem so big when we are little. They seem so grown and so old. I am his age now. Do I loom so large over my son? Those smells felt so familiar, yet so strange and unappealing at the same time. Beer and cigarettes don’t sound good when you are little kid, but they are the smell of your dad. My dad always smoked when he was working on some home improvement project. I close my eyes and I can see him putting all his weight on a screwdriver with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth. Muttering profanities under his breath, cursing the cheap screws. My son won’t have the same scent memories that I do. His grandfather doesn’t smoke in the kitchen over a pan of fried eggs. His dad doesn’t request the smoking section when we go out to eat. There aren’t any smoking sections any more. Some of his memories will be the same as mine, but not these. Those scents are from another time. Smoke 'em if you got 'em Yeah, we all know that cigarettes aren’t the healthiest thing in the world. I’m sick of hearing about it. I’m starting to think there are a lot worse things than a pack of butts, if we are being honest. I’ve become anti-anti-smoking. Those scent memories that still hang deep in my nose remind me of being a kid and looking up at my dad. How he held his cigarette between his fingers and how he brought it to his lips. Feeling so little and like nothing would ever happen to me because my dad would always protect me. Like everything would always be OK. I miss the smell of cigarettes.