President Donald Trump reportedly thought Ukraine’s June 1 surprise drone attack on Russia’s bomber fleet deep in the country was “badass,” reports Axios. The president told close aides that he thought the move was “pretty strong” and that he was “impressed” by the actions of the Ukrainians, according to anonymous sources reported by Axios. The […]

'Make America safe again'

  Exercise was in the news recently for being found in an epidemiological study to reduce the risk of colon cancer. But what should be in the news is that a study published 7 years ago is going somewhat viral on the internet thanks to the profile of a popular health influencer, Dr. Rhonda Patrick. […] The post 2 Years of Exercise Reversed 20 Years of Aging in the Heart: Longest-Ever Randomized Trial on Exercise appeared first on Good News Network.

The Supreme Court handed down three blockbuster rulings Thursday focused on hot-button cultural issues, and all three of them went in the conservative direction. That’s not exactly a surprise—the court has a conservative majority, after all. The first real surprise was that the rulings were unanimous. The second real surprise? Each of the court’s three liberal justices wrote one of the opinions. Justice Elena Kagan, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote the opinion in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, upholding the rights of U.S. gun manufacturers from Mexico’s attempt to sue them, blaming them for abetting cartel violence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another Obama appointee, wrote the opinion in Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, defending a Catholic nonprofit from Wisconsin’s attempt to tax it. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Joe Biden appointee, wrote the opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, upholding the rights of a straight woman (Marlene Ames) who claimed her employer discriminated against her because she wasn’t gay. The Supreme Court’s decision to release this trifecta of heartening rulings, each one unanimous and each one written by a different liberal justice, seems an intentional statement of solidarity, but I fear something else might be happening behind the scenes. The justices don’t always see eye-to-eye, but in these cases, at least, they all agreed to uphold the plain text of the law, following the tenets of judicial originalism—or so it seems. According to originalism, judges should interpret the law based on the original public meaning of the law’s text at the time it was passed. This theory conflicts with the “living Constitution” framework, where judges interpret the law based on their modern interpretation of the intentions of the original law. That looser framework led to court rulings such as Roe v. Wade, the now-overturned 1973 case in which the court claimed the Constitution protected abortion. For instance, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against the straight woman in the Ames case, applying a “background circumstances” rule that required a higher threshold for members of “majority groups” (versus minority groups) to prove that they had faced discrimination. This “background circumstances” rule wasn’t part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence, noted that judges had created the rule, and Jackson’s opinion Thursday rightly struck it down. Judges applying the “living Constitution” model would say that so-called reverse discrimination—where someone discriminates against a straight person for being straight at a time when most people in the society identify as straight—is a wrongful application of laws initially meant to grant more rights to minorities. The court’s three liberal justices have routinely twisted the law to favor leftist causes, straining to find any excuse to uphold the claims of women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ people, or whichever leftist group is most relevant at the time. Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Giancarlo Canaparo recently highlighted Jackson’s double standard when it came to participation in the political process. In the case Allen v. Milligan, Jackson vociferously defended people’s right to participate in the political process. During oral arguments, she slammed the state of Alabama for failing to create an additional majority-black congressional district. Yet in Libby v. Fecteau, Jackson voted against granting relief to Laurel Libby, a conservative member of the Maine House of Representatives. The Democrat majority had barred Libby from voting on any bills because she condemned a transgender policy allowing a boy to compete on a girls’ sports team. Jackson voted against granting Libby relief because she had “not asserted that there are any significant votes scheduled in the coming weeks [or] that there are any upcoming votes in which Libby’s participation would impact the outcome.” In other words, Jackson seems to consider participation in the political process a fundamental right for a black group of voters but not a fundamental right for someone concerned about women’s sports. After all, this is the justice who strained to support racial preferences and refused to answer the question, “What is a woman?” during her Senate confirmation hearing. While the Supreme Court issues many unanimous rulings, it is rare to see unanimous rulings on hot-button issues like guns and “reverse” discrimination. Perhaps the Democrat-appointed justices truly believe that the gun companies, Catholic Charities, and Marlene Ames were in the right. Perhaps these rulings suggest those justices are finally willing to consider the law rather than use it to force their leftist preferences on us. Color me skeptical on that point. I consider it far more likely that Kagan, the craftiest of the three, orchestrated this trifecta of rulings as a strategy. The next time conservatives fault Sotomayor, Jackson, or her for an ideologically skewed ruling, Kagan can point to these opinions as evidence of their “fairmindedness.” Either that, or the liberal justices traded their votes in these cases in order to derail one or more of the remaining hot-button case decisions coming down the pike. I celebrate these cases, but they also make me nervous. What’s really going on behind the scenes? The post Why Did the Liberal Justices Write Unanimous Conservative Rulings at the Supreme Court? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

There’s justice for a North Carolina teen wrongly suspended and branded a racist for using the phrase “illegal alien.” Last year, 16-year-old Christian McGhee of Central Davidson High School in Lexington, North Carolina, was given an English assignment: Write about aliens. Being an intelligent lad, Christian asked the teacher a logical question: “Like space aliens or illegal aliens who need green cards?” A Hispanic classmate had heard his innocent question and threatened to “kick his a**.” Next thing you know, Christian was dragged to the assistant principal’s office and suspended for three days, even though his classmate insisted he’d been joking about the butt-kicking and wasn’t offended in the slightest, and even though Christian was just trying to clarify what the teacher wanted. “I didn’t make a statement directed towards anyone. I asked a question,” Christian told the Carolina Journal, “I wasn’t speaking of Hispanics, because everyone from other countries needs green cards, and the term ‘illegal alien’ is an actual term that I hear on the news and can find in the dictionary.” The school accused Christian of “making a racially insensitive remark that caused a class disturbance” and “racially-motivated comment” for his “offensive” use of the term “illegal aliens.” As McGhee’s attorney, Dean McGee, put it after filing suit against the Davidson County Board of Education and the assistant principal: “The school’s stance seems to be this was offensive even if no one in class actually found it to be offensive.” After a year of legal wrangling, the Davidson County school district has now settled with the teen, pending a judge’s approval. As the Carolina Journal reports, the school board will remove all references to racial bias in the teen’s school record, offer a public apology for “the mischaracterization of racial bias,” and provide $20,000 in compensation.” The money will help pay for Christian to attend a new private school. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Teen Suspended and Dubbed a Racist for Saying ‘Illegal Alien’ Wins $20K, Apology From School appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Musk-Trump War of Words is Heating Up (Update: Musk Drops 'Really Big Bomb')

Trump Bans Foreign Students At Harvard ... Again

Similar to former President Biden, we might have to start worrying about the cognitive decline of some of the liberal co-hosts of ABC’s The View. In addition to Joy Behar forgetting the word “presidency” during Thursday’s show, moderator Whoopi Goldberg seemed to not be present in this century as she whined that Governor Wes Moore (D-MD) wasn’t getting presidential consideration because “you can't elect a black man.” Goldberg also proclaimed that there was “no name” for her ideology. Goldberg’s unhinged ranting, which was divorced from reality, came during their discussion of former Biden Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announcing that she was becoming an independent. “Whoopi … you've been an independent for awhile,” co-host Sunny Hostin teed up Goldberg to virtue signal about her purported party affiliation. According to Goldberg, no label could encompass her. “There's no name, because there are some things that fit what I want and some things that don't,” she pompously declared. Lashing out at the Republicans, Goldberg chided that “the Republican Party used to stand for a whole bunch of stuff … I question the Republican Party now.” Goldberg claimed she also questioned Democrats because they supposedly weren’t giving “perfect candidate” Moore the proper consideration for a presidential run. “And people are saying, well, he – you know, you can't elect a black man. Why not?” she huffed.       The rest of the cast pushed back: HAINES: Like, hell yeah we will. BEHAR: But we did it. HOSTIN: We did it twice! HAINES: And we will again! GOLDBERG: Well, I’m just  – But I’m saying. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: And what I like about Wes Moore, for example, he thinks outside of the box. She also lamented that people would call her “crazy” because she wondered: “why don't we have a Democratic president and a Republican vice president?” Clearly, Goldberg was flaunting her ignorance of the fact that the Constitution originally allowed for it but failed so miserably in practice that the founders drafted and ratified the 12th Amendment. Additionally, on the notion of being an independent voter, co-host Sara Haines admitted that she was essentially pretending. “I feel like maybe I'm biased as an independent that everyone should be independent … Usually, an independent leans one way. I have voted left for 25 years,” she touted, “but I don't identify as a Democrat because the Democrats don't stand for what I stand for…” “Yeah, but you keep voting for them,” Behar sniped back. “I wait to see the candidates and if the Republicans ever put up a candidate that I was, like, ‘that's my person;’ in a heartbeat I would vote for them,” Haines claimed, without evidence to back up her hypothetical. It’s also worth pointing out that their conversation was sparked by Jean-Pierre abandoning the Democratic Party, but they ignored a Politico report that detailed how “Jean-Pierre had been hoping for a post-White House job as a co-host on The View … But no such opportunity materialized for Jean-Pierre, a factor three of her former colleagues surmised that likely led to the book.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View June 5, 2025 11:03:28 a.m. Eastern (…) SARA HAINES: Well, I think it's a more honest political take. I feel like maybe I'm biased as an independent that everyone should be independent, but it's the largest group of voters we have are independents. And I think it's because our party is -- sorry, our system is so simplistic by having two parties and assuming anyone fits in those boxes at all. But I also realize some people push back and say, ‘Oh, you can't vote in the primaries.’ Right now, in this country, in 35 states they're either open or semi open, which suits the independent voter. And I think it's time for politicians to sell themselves completely to someone consuming what they have to offer and not worrying about jersey-wearing politics and tribalism. JOY BEHAR: So, she [Karine Jean-Pierre] calls herself an independent. That means she'll vote for a Republican? I doubt it. HAINES: No, but that’s – you're also simplifying it. Usually, an independent leans one way. I have voted left for 25 years, but I don't identify as a Democrat because the Democrats don't stand for what I stand for in every – BEHAR: Yeah, but you keep voting for them. HAINES: I wait to see the candidates and if the Republicans ever put up a candidate that I was, like, ‘that's my person;’ in a heartbeat I would vote for them. (…) 11:07:19 a.m. Eastern SUNNY HOSTIN: Whoopi, you've always -- you've been an independent for awhile. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Well, there's nothing -- there's no name for what I am. HOSTIN: Okay. [Laughter] GOLDBERG: There's no name, because there are some things that fit what I want and some things that don't. And I'm the crazy person who said, you know, why don't we have a Democratic president and a Republican vice president. HAINES: Oh. HOSTIN: Yeah, you said that. GOLDBERG: I believe that the only way to get stuff done is to have both parties represented. [Applause] HOSTIN: Yeah. GOLDBERG: At the same time. HOSITN: Yeah. GOLDBERG: And people keep telling me I'm crazy but I don't think I am. (…) 11:08:46 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: People would feel like they were being heard, if someone was talking to them, you know, and there are a lot of, you know -- Listen, the Republican Party used to stand for a whole bunch of stuff. Not all things I liked, you know, at all, but they had a point of view that I didn't have to question. I question the Republican Party now, And I question the Democratic Party now. You have someone like Wes Moore who is a perfect candidate. You know. HAINES (while clapping her hands): I love Wes Moore. Oh, my gosh. Please. GOLDBERG: And people are saying, well, he – you know, you can't elect a black man. Why not? HAINES: Like, hell yeah we will. BEHAR: But we did it. HOSTIN: We did it twice! HAINES: And we will again! GOLDBERG: Well, I’m just  – But I’m saying. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: And what I like about Wes Moore, for example, he thinks outside of the box. (…)

This Chicken and Stuffing is delicious and so easy to make! Get the crock pot out.. you are going to want to make this dish. If you are a fan of easy crock pot dishes, you will want to try our Chicken and Noodles. It’s so easy and only a few ingredients and has fantastic...

NASCAR seemingly ditched gay Pride celebrations for 2025, but internet sleuths were quick to notice that they were trying to pull a fast one on racing fans.In 2024, the stock racing company happily posted pro-Pride graphics across their social media, including a flag that promotes transgender ideology."NASCAR is proud to support the LGBTQ+ community," the company wrote on its Instagram page last year. For 2025 however, NASCAR's support seemed absent, until someone found where it was hiding.'Truth is, this sneaky acknowledgement of Pride Month showcases what most of us already knew ... these leagues don't care.'Blaze News could not find any sexuality- or gender-based content on NASCAR's X, Instagram, or Facebook pages over the past week, but one X user noticed the sports league tried to fly under the radar by posting in an inconspicuous location.'Hey @NASCAR is there a reason you’ll post this on LinkedIn but not any other social media platform?" a user wrote, showcasing a picture from the company's page.RELATED: 'I don't need anyone else talking s**t': NASCAR's Frankie Muniz says he may be at 'a new low' after insane string of bad luck PORTLAND, OREGON - JUNE 03: A detail view of a 'NASCAR "LOVE WINS' Pride button during qualifying for the NASCAR Xfinity Series Pacific Office Automation 147 at Portland International Raceway on June 3, 2023, in Portland, Oregon. (Photo by James Gilbert/Getty Images)In a post to its more than 87,000 LinkedIn followers, NASCAR displayed a graphic with "Pride Month" in big, bold letters."We celebrate the LGBTQ+ community during Pride Month and beyond," it said.While the post had abysmal engagement, the top reply came from a physician's assistant in California; it read:"Very strange that you’d post this to LinkedIn but not any other social media platform. You want to hire gays but don't want to support them elsewhere?"The next reply was a post in support of veterans, but at the time of this publication, there were fewer than 10 comments on the post.RELATED: Here are all the NFL teams that haven't virtue-signaled for Pride Month LEBANON, TENNESSEE - MAY 30: Toni Breidinger, driver of the #5 818 Tequila Toyota, waits backstage during pre-race ceremonies prior to the NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series Rackley Roofing 200 at Nashville Superspeedway on May 30, 2025 in Lebanon, Tennessee. (Photo by James Gilbert/Getty Images)"It's truly strange that NASCAR would choose to post pro-Pride images on its LinkedIn page to garner a whopping seven comments," OutKick's Alejandro Avila told Blaze News.Avila continued, "Truth is, this sneaky acknowledgement of Pride Month showcases what most of us already knew ... these leagues don't care. If they have to 'wear the ribbon' then I guess pinning it to your a** (LinkedIn) counts. Way to go, NASCAR," he laughed.NASCAR's television viewership is down in 2025, which makes the move even more peculiar.After 17 races, total viewership is down almost more than 5.4% compared to 2024. This equates to a decrease in average viewership of almost 175,000 viewers per event, according to numbers from Daily Down Force.Last year, NASCAR increased viewership by 1.2% over 2023, but those numbers will be erased if business does not pick up.Recent additions of female drivers (Katherine Legge in NASCAR Cup Series, Toni Breidinger in the Craftsman Truck Series) and even former television star Frankie Muniz have garnered outside coverage, but the latest news seems to have angered fans on both sides.One fan pointed out that while the company has chosen to hide its public support, the fan was disappointed that NASCAR is still willing to sell T-shirts with rainbow checker flags that display phrases like "Yaaascar" or "Slaytona.""I wish they would at least pretend to care because what this tells me is that these are all cash grabs which once again not surprising but still sad," the fan wrote.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!