First Lady Melania Trump announced that seven Ukrainian children have been reunited with their families amid the ongoing war with Russia.

I have ignored a lot of what Candace Owens has been saying online because I don’t want to give her any attention. She keeps accusing all kinds of people of trying to kill her, killing Charlie Kirk and so on. What she is trying to do to Charlie Kirk’s legacy is awful, and can’t be […] The post TPUSA Responds to “Troll” Candace Owens appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Seattle Mayor-Elect Katie Wilson bragged about her approach to economics which causes the very affordability crisis she is claiming to stop: high minimum wages and high corporate taxes. The spoiled liberal woke white woman, daughter of a rich, privileged family, is coming from ideology, not common sense. These women are dangerous and a threat to […] The post Seattle Mayor-Elect Wilson Plans a Serious Affordability Crisis appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

The Cracker Barrel rebrand debacle has been one of the most misunderstood corporate wokeness sagas of 2025. For months, it’s been held up as an example of the failures of ‘culture war conservatism,’ a tempest in a teapot that no one really cared about. Yet, we recently received data-driven proof that the backlash to one of America’s most beloved country brands has been anything but imaginary. At first glance, it would appear the outrage from consumers and shareholders was simply about the advent of a minimalist logo. The reality, however, is that Cracker Barrel’s performance has been slipping for years. For example, if you invested $1,000 in Cracker Barrel at the start of 2021, it would be worth less than $300 today. That can’t be explained away by a simple logo change. That’s a major problem, years in the making. But the real test for Cracker Barrel wasn’t whether customers would forgive Uncle Herschel and his wayward brand. It was whether investors would forgive the Barrel’s board of directors, specifically embattled CEO Julie Felss Masino. On November 20, Cracker Barrel held its annual shareholder meeting, and we found out exactly how much investor trust had been destroyed. Simply put: a lot. A large percentage of investor votes are guided by the recommendation of proxy advisory firms, none of which were inclined to let Cracker Barrel walk away from the debacle scot-free. In the lead-up to the meeting, much of the ire was focused on Gilbert Dávila, Cracker Barrel’s compensation committee chair and a marketing and diversity specialist, advising a vote against, with some firms also advising against re-electing Jody Bilney, the chair of the Barrel’s nominating/governance committee. CEO Masino wasn’t spared either, with proxy advisory firm Egan-Jones recommending a ‘no’ vote over the brand’s underperformance. Pay attention to these names — this is how you measure impact. The outcome? CEO Julie Felss Masino failed to gain support from a quarter of shareholder votes. Bilney, the nominating chair, lost almost a third of shareholder support. And Gilbert Dávila, the diversity specialist, barely broke two-fifths of shareholder support, resigning after the meeting. In fact, of the 10 directors up for election, seven of them didn’t break 90% support. That may not sound like much, but in a corporate context, let’s be clear: that’s a vote of “no confidence” from a very sizable number of shareholders. For comparison, in a 2024 pressure campaign against ExxonMobil, left-wing activist efforts successfully brought down vote counts by a single percentage point — to 95%. Exxon’s CEO, Darren Woods, lost maybe 1% percent of investor support over manufactured outrage. Cracker Barrel’s CEO lost around 20% percent investor support as a result of real outrage. If you’ll recall, Cracker Barrel made the risky and seemingly unprompted decision to change its logo in August of 2025. In an attempt to reach a younger, less nostalgia-driven audience, they removed ‘Uncle Herschel’ from the classic logo that had been emblazoned on storefronts since 1969. But that move didn’t proceed as anticipated. The rebrand got all the wrong attention, from ordinary customers to President Trump to a wide swath of conservative commentators, with Rod Dreher deeming the marketing shift “the New Coke of corporate logos.” And Cracker Barrel, to its very limited credit, listened. After a flurry of negative X impressions and customer protests, the company walked back the rebrand. “We hear you,” Cracker Barrel announced, shortly before restoring their old logo, firing their design firm, and embarking on one of the most embarrassing rollbacks in recent corporate marketing history. “We heard clearly that the modern remodel redesign does not reflect what you love about Cracker Barrel.” And then, you might think, the story ends. On the business side of things, however, the apology isn’t the final salvo in any marketing fumble. Customers might forgive a brand — but there was a lot more than a logo change to forgive. Actions have consequences. It’s one of the most foundational principles of business, economics, and politics. In Cracker Barrel’s case, however, an even more foundational principle is being played out in real time: ideas have consequences. Ideas, like allowing political bias to seep into our most prominent corporate institutions, have severe consequences — like a billion dollars’ worth of largely avoidable brand damage. It’s very easy to look at the Cracker Barrel saga and conclude that it’s a non-issue, a side cultural issue invented to invent victimhood where it doesn’t exist. Yet it’s not true. Cracker Barrel’s failure isn’t a MAGA-generated victim narrative, despite what MSNBC hosts like Jonathan Capehart might want you to believe. The company’s struggles have hurt people of all political stripes. Using a historic, valuable brand to test pet marketing theories isn’t just a matter of X debate. It’s a threat to the financial futures of millions of Americans, including Cracker Barrel’s roughly 70,000 employees who depend on the company’s success. Many of those Americans just made their opinions known, sending a clear sign: there’s serious trouble ahead at the Barrel. The rebrand was only the tip of a very large iceberg, and it’s not just going to be hand-waved away, least of all by the CEO and what’s left of the corporate board that allowed it to happen. * * * Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X @IsaacWillour. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire. 50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at DailyWire.com/cyberweek.

WASHINGTON—The Department of Health and Human Services took momentous action Wednesday to protect the rights of parents to know what medical procedures their children are being subjected to. The department opened an investigation into a Midwestern school that allegedly illegally vaccinated a child, ignoring a religious exemption request the parents had submitted under state law. Additionally, HHS issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to health care providers emphasizing that federal law requires them to let parents access health information about their children. The department also ordered its Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to add a grant requirement noting that any funding recipients must comply with federal and state parental-consent laws for any “services or care provided to minors at HRSA-supported health centers as a condition of receiving Health Center Program funds.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said in a statement Wednesday that HHS was “putting pediatric medical professionals on notice.” “You cannot sideline parents,” the HHS secretary said. “When providers ignore parental consent, violate exemptions to vaccine mandates, or keep parents in the dark about their children’s care, we will act decisively. We will use every tool at our disposal to protect families and restore accountability.” The action is particularly momentous given the progressive activist push in recent years to promote “Adolescent Medicine” — the idea that medical professionals should be able to give medical care to children without telling parents. In many blue states across the country, particularly under President Joe Biden’s administration, activists were pushing the notion that young girls and boys struggling with their gender identity should be able to transition without their parents’ knowledge or consent, or that young girls should be able to obtain abortions or other medical procedures their parents were unaware of. HHS Office of Civil Rights Director Paul Stannard told The Daily Wire in a phone interview that the department was first made aware of “Adolescent Medicine” and its dangers through a report issued by “Do No Harm,” a group that fights back against gender ideology, and has raised many concerns about the medical community transitioning children without parental consent. Stannard called this activist push for “Adolescent Medicine” very “concerning,” particularly from her perspective and her role in enforcing HIPAA. US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (L) looks on as President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 2025. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images) “Part of what the HIPAA rules outline are the rights that individuals and their personal representatives have with respect to their health information,” she noted. “And one of those rights is the right to access. Starting in the first Trump administration, we had begun an initiative to enforce the individual’s right to access of their medical records. And so when I saw this, I immediately decided and recommended to the secretary that we further emphasize this particular aspect of the privacy rule in our enforcement efforts under this initiative.” The HHS Office of Civil Rights is reminding health care providers, in very plain terms, of a parent’s right to access their child’s health information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, which states that a parent is the personal representative of their child and has the legal authority to make health care decisions for the child. In the department’s “Dear Colleague” letter, HHS emphasized that parents are indeed their children’s personal representatives and absolutely have the right of access to their child’s health information. Additionally, the HHS Office of Civil Rights says it is initiating compliance reviews of many health care providers to make sure that parents are not just receiving their child’s health information, but are also receiving it in a timely manner. “Both the president and the secretary are very focused on making sure that parents’ rights are respected and enforced,” Stannard explained. “We are investigating the particular healthcare provider, as well as the state, to find out what the facts are and to make sure that the state and the providers understand what federal law requires with respect to parental rights and religious exemptions for vaccination or the vaccines for children program,” noting the investigation into the Midwestern school.  HHS’ Office for Civil Rights will be investigating whether the school, which it did not name, failed to comply with the requirements of the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC). It will also scrutinize how the state agency and the school district are processing religious exemption requests to make sure they are in compliance with state law as they interpret the Vaccines for Children Program — a program which Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary and CDC Acting Director Jim O’Neill says should “never circumvent parents’ rights.” “Secretary Kennedy’s decision to probe potential abuse of the VFC is a necessary step in restoring public trust in immunization policy,” O’Neill said Wednesday.

What do you think?

It’s always the same playbook the hawks use for war.

'I didn't stutter when I said it'