A terrifying time in two children’s lives created an incredible bond between a man and a child. Legendary Carolina Panthers tight end Greg Olsen met a young boy named Bryson Shupe eight years ago. Bryson was a patient awaiting a heart transplant at the same time as Greg’s son. The pair bonded, and Bryson developed a love for football, particularly the Panthers. Levine Children’s Hospital shared a sweet video on Instagram of Bryson and Greg reuniting in the press box at Lambeau Field. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Atrium Health Levine Children's (@levinechildrens) Bryson Shupe Was Surprised To See Greg Olsen Levine Children’s and the Panthers set up the surprise for Bryson. As he hugged Greg Olsen, he said he had no idea they’d be seeing each other for the first time in eight years. “Eight years ago, Bryson and @gregolsen88’s son were awaiting heart transplants together at Atrium Health Levine Children’s Hospital. During that time, Bryson connected with Greg and developed a deep love for the Carolina @Panthers. Now, as a healthy 14-year-old, Bryson’s surprise trip to Green Bay had an even bigger surprise in store when he got to reunite with his hero,” the post reads. Fans loved seeing Bryson and Greg together. “Love the genuine joy/excitement/happiness on Greg’s face. What a beautiful moment, and so grateful that his son and Bryson are still with us,” someone wrote. “I met Greg’s father-in-law in Pittsburgh years ago. He said everyone talks about his play on the field, but he said his play doesn’t come close to the kind of person he really is. This and many other stories about him prove just that. Just a great human being all around,” another person wrote. “Greg Olson is a great announcer, was an outstanding football player, but is even a better person. Stand-up guy,” a fan agreed. We love seeing athletes with such kind hearts who treat their fans with love and respect. We need more of that. This story’s featured image can be found here. The post Football Legend Reunites With Young Fan Eight Years After Bonding In A Hospital appeared first on InspireMore.

'Not just white women'

'They elected us to keep them safe'

One of her drivers was detained in the process

'Fourth consecutive year of budget problems'

'Please share the full clip for context'

'Child molestor'

President Donald Trump promised to tackle the issues of crime and law and order in American cities. Early in his second term he deployed the National Guard to alleviate the problem in places like the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, and Memphis. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight held a hearing on Wednesday examining how “Democrat-run cities and their soft-on-crime policies have enabled violent crime to rise unchecked” and explored “how the Trump-Vance Administration is restoring law and order in some of these cities through the deployment of the U.S. National Guard and federal law enforcement entities.” Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., the committee chairman, stated the purpose of holding hearings on the crime issue.   “We need to restore the rule of law in America’s high crime cities,” Van Drew said. “And let’s be honest about something from the very start. Crime didn’t just rise and come about on its own. It happened because leaders chose to, leaders in the Democratic run cities have made political choices.” Democrats let crime explode in their cities and then acted shocked when the National Guard had to clean up their mess.Today, the @JudiciaryGOP Subcommittee on Oversight is exposing the real cost of their soft-on-crime policies. pic.twitter.com/0bEU28yGf9— Congressman Jeff Van Drew (@Congressman_JVD) November 19, 2025 He said that the choices made were to put “radical ideology before safety, politics before people, and criminals before the safety of the good people in our communities.” Van Drew noted that many cities have embraced soft on crime prosecutors, eliminated cash bail, and lowered penalties for repeat offenders. The New Jersey congressman pointed to Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops to various cities as part of his promise to restore the rule of law in America. Hearing witnesses were asked to speak about the National Guard deployments and explain the next steps to improving safety in American cities. The committee ranking chair, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said that with the deployment of the National Guard and other actions, Trump has “used the full power of the federal government to attack Americans in cities across the country.” She said that Trump has made it more likely for Americans to suffer “militaristic operations” in their homes and other depredations at the hands of “rogue federal agents.” A Concentrated Problem Rafael A. Mangual, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book “Criminal (In)Justice,” spoke at the hearing about how criminality is concentrated in many cities and how this can mask a larger problem even when crime is generally going down. “We often talk about crime in nationwide, statewide, or even citywide terms,” Mangual said. “But whether a city’s crime rates are up or down, while important, can mask some important realities.” Mangual said that in his home city of New York, data from 2010, 2015, and 2020 showed that “approximately 50% of the city’s reported crime occurs on just 4% of the city’s streets.” That reality means that people living on streets with the higher crime can have a “radically different experience” than other residents, Mangual said. He noted that in Chicago’s 9th District the homicide rate was just “2.3 per 100,000,” while in the 6th District the rate was “73.4 per 100,000.” He said that for this reason, the crime problem still needs urgent attention even if aggregate crime has gone down because many city localities are still experiencing sky high rates. Mangual attributed much of the problem to the issue of repeat offenders. In Chicago the average homicide suspect has been arrested 12 times previously, and in Oakland both homicide suspects and victims have on average ten previous arrests, Mangual said. Mangual said that the reason there are so many repeat offenders who commit violent crimes is because “somewhere down the line policy makers made a choice. They made a choice to pursue decarceration for its own sake because they were convinced that doing so was the best way to serve justice.” These decisions can and must be reversed, Mangual said. In some cases, states and localities have made a significant pivot. He pointed to Tennessee where lawmakers “passed legislation to amend their state’s constitution so that judges there can have the right to detain dangerous criminal defendants in all cases.” They also passed a law to ensure that convicted criminals must serve the majority of their sentences before being released, he said. Mangual further recommended Congress pass a crime bill similar to the one from 1994, but “this time with a particular focus on police recruitment and retention funding the acquisition of force multiplying technologies, incentivizing data collection, and incentivizing the adoption of strong policies for habitual offenders.” An Erosion of Crime Fighting Success Paul Mauro, an attorney and former inspector for the NYPD, said that in the years following the 1994 crime bill a huge amount of progress was made in stopping crime in New York City. But the success it produced has “eroded,” Mauro said. He pointed to policies such as no cash bail, which have “coincided with visible disorder.” The former NYPD inspector said that disorderly conduct summonses, the “lynchpin of quality-of-life enforcement,” fell by 91% since 2015. Mauro said that police recruitment and retention are in crisis and while homicide is down in the Big Apple this year, “major felonies are up 16% since 2010 … and low-level recidivism is universal.” Worse, he said that the vast majority of crimes go unreported. Mauro noted that the use of the National Guard to help stop crime is often misunderstood by the public. In New York since 9/11, the National Guard has patrolled transit hubs “without incident” he said. These troops provide a deterrent to crime through “visibility,” Mauro added. When politicians “vilify” these crime fighters, that rhetoric is felt on the street, he said. “Is it any wonder that since 2019 assaults on NYPD officers ups up 63%,” he said, concluding that those who protect the safety of the public deserve “our support, not our scorn.” The post Trump’s Guard Deployments Lowered Crime, But Can More Be Done? Witnesses Describe How at House Hearing. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. For most of my life, at least for the last 35 years, we have accepted the climate change orthodoxy. We used to be global warming, and then, when things were not always warming, but they were cooling, they changed the name to climate change to suggest that whatever the temperature extreme was, it was all due to carbon emissions caused by, in general, humans, but in particular, Westerners, who were polluting the planet with heat. That was the dominant narrative. I didn’t think in my lifetime that I would see an end to that dominance, even though there were inconsistencies. The planet is 4 billion years old. And man has only been here for 300,000 years. And we only have accurate record-keeping of temperature fluctuations for the last 150 years. And even within that period, we have cyclical changes between decades of abnormal temperatures, whether too hot or too cold. And before the Industrial Revolution, in some cases, by tree rings and ice in the Arctic sampling. There was always debate. But the dominant narrative said, “No, we have to radically change our economy and move away from fossil fuels to renewable,” and that was usually wind and solar. And then something’s happened lately. King Gustaf XVI, the hereditary monarch of, you know, figurines, as it is, not an actual person in power, in Sweden kind of mused openly the other day—he’s known as a rabid environmentalist. He said, why are you—basically, I’m not quoting him literally. He said, why are we ruining the economy of Europe by having exorbitant power cost, electricity cost, when we only contribute to 6% of global warming worldwide? Then Bill Gates shocked the world when he said he no longer believes that there is an impending climate change crisis. This was followed by a lot of other people who said, “Let’s take a different look at this.” And of course, the second tenure of President Donald Trump has people in it, in energy, interior, treasury, who were saying, “You know, we’re not gonna subsidize this anymore.” And this is collated with the disasters that were caused by global climate change worries or Armageddon, such as the high-speed rail program in California that was supposed to replace automobiles—$15 billion, $20 billion. Not one foot of track laid. The solar plant down in the desert of California that is being dismantled. Or the battery storage in Moss Landing, near Monterey, that has caught fire twice. I could go on. So, there was a lot of skepticism, both by individuals who were influential and by the general public, for good cause. What is causing this? Well, the first thing is, in reference to Bill Gates, is artificial intelligence. It’s going to require an unprecedented level of electrical generation. It takes huge amounts of electricity. We don’t have it. And we will not get it by subsidizing wind turbines and solar panels. Sam Altman, one of the pioneers of artificial intelligence, said, if the United States wants to achieve preeminence in the field—and this seems to be the greatest technological breakthrough since the Industrial Revolution—we’re gonna have to build 100 gigawatt, 1-gigawatt plant, that’s the size of a large nuclear reactor, a thousand megawatts. We’re gonna have to build, he says, a hundred per year or the equivalent of clean coal or natural gas. So, that influenced Bill Gates. That shook him up. That’s not compatible with his prior green idea that we’re gonna supplant fossil fuels. Another reason is geostrategic. People are starting to become aware that Russia is a bad actor and Iran is a bad actor. And they depend on oil exports and, therefore, the high price of oil to fuel their military ambitions. The United States became the largest producer of fossil fuels during the first Trump administration, then President Joe Biden, for all of his green rhetoric, pivoted in his third and fourth year, so he could win the election, and began pumping oil again. Donald Trump took that 12 million to 13 million barrels, has increased it to 14 million. And the price of world oil is going down. And that hurts Iran. And that hurts Russia. And that benefits our allies, like Europe and Japan, that would like more liquified natural gas shipped from the United States. And so, there were geostrategic reasons. Let’s be frank. Everybody has sort of seen what China’s doing. It’s playing the West. It talks a great game about global warming: “You guys, we all have to reduce our admissions.” And then what does it do? Two things. It subsidizes cheap export of solar panels and wind turbines, below the cost of production, to bankrupt competing industries in Europe and the United States to get the West hooked on solar and wind, even though it is a very expensive and unreliable source of electricity. Meanwhile, as we get hooked on Chinese exports, they build two to three coal or nuclear plants per month, affordable energy that will give them a competitive edge over the West. Then there’s the Third World that has been telling us for the last 20 years that we are culpable for global warming, even though the two greatest heat emission areas in the world are China and India. Nonetheless, governments in Latin America, Africa, and Asia say: You people owe us because you started the Industrial Revolution in the mid-19th century. And you’ve been polluting the planet ever since. And you create all of your industries and your affluent lifestyles by burning fossil fuels. And therefore, you should pay us. Not we pay you, or we don’t have to cut back, we’re late to the game. And we should say to them, “Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We burned more fossil fuels in the past because we created the Industrial Revolution. And we do today. We provide you the cars, we provide you the industrial plants, we provide you the plastics. If you want us to stop, we won’t export it to you. And then, maybe we’ll pay reparations. And you can do your own industrialization. Don’t take stuff from us that requires fossil fuels that’s essential to your economies and then tell us that we have to pay an added tax on it because we’re warming up the planet, as if it’s only for our purposes as well as yours.” Then there’s the, I guess it would be—what would we call it? The hypocrisy. The people who have been the avatars of climate change never suffer the consequences of their own ideology. Former President Barack Obama said the planet would be inundated pretty soon if we didn’t address global climate change. Why would he buy a seaside estate at Martha’s Vineyard or one on the beach of Hawaii if he really did believe that the oceans would rise and flood his multimillion-dollar investment? Why would John Kerry fly all over the world on a private plane and then tell the rest of us that we’re flying too much commercial when his carbon imprint was a thousand times more than the individual American? Why would people on the California coast say, “We have to have wind and solar, and we have to get kilowattage up to 40 cents a kilowatt—the cost—because we want to use less fossil fuels”? And then the temperature from La Jolla to Berkeley is between, what, 65 and 75 year-round, where here in Bakersfield or Fresno or Sacramento it can be 105. And poor people can’t afford to run their air conditioners. Add it all up: the inconsistency of the global warming narrative, the self-interest in the people who promote it, and the logic that they have not presented, empirically, the evidence that would convince us that we have to radically transform our economies on the wishes of a few elites that do not have the evidence, but do have a lot of hypocrisy in the process. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Is the Era of ‘Climate Change Orthodoxy’ Dying? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The following is a preview of Daily Signal Politics Editor Bradley Devlin’s interview with Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., on “The Signal Sitdown.” The full interview premieres on The Daily Signal’s YouTube page at 6:30 a.m. Eastern on Nov. 20. After months of drawn-out fighting over the release of the Epstein Files, a bill that would order the release of all unclassified information about disgraced financier and sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein is heading to the Resolute Desk. But, while the congressional drama is coming to a close, a new chapter in the Epstein story could just be opening. What could more tranches of Epstein documents reveal, and what questions remain about Epstein’s activities and elite network? As a member of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., has been deeply involved in the ongoing Congressional investigation into Epstein. He joins “The Signal Sitdown” to discuss what comes next in the fight for the release of the Epstein files. “I’ve consistently said the victims deserved to have justice. Imagine you were raped as a young girl and your government is hiding and protecting the people that were complicit or involved in that act,” Burlison told The Daily Signal. “The very government you’re paying your tax dollars to, the one entity, law enforcement, that is supposed to be there to save you, to protect you, is the one that’s turning on you. I think that the disservice to the victims was, to me, gut wrenching.” On Tuesday, the House and Senate voted on The Epstein Files Transparency Act. The House passed the bill by a vote of 427-to-1 before the Senate later approved it by unanimous consent later that afternoon. Previously, a procedural mechanism called a discharge petition garnered the 218 signatures necessary to force a vote on the House floor. The Epstein Files Transparency Act “requires the Department of Justice to release what files that they have, barring any kind of information that would further expose any victims or any kind of child pornography, any of that kind of material,” Burlison said of the legislation. President Donald Trump has said he will sign the legislation after a last minute flip, encouraging Republicans in Congress to sign what he had called a “hoax.” But the discharge petition is no panacea to the Epstein debacle, Burlison pointed out. While it has been driving the headlines regarding the Epstein case, there are other aspects that the discharge petition does not touch, which means the House Oversight Committee’s continued work on the files remains essential. ”In Oversight, we’ve actually got more documents than I think this discharge petition will get,” Burlison said of the committee’s work. The oversight committee has already released more than 60,000 documents relating to Epstein over a series of tranches, according to Burlison.  “There’s quite a bit of overlap between the discharge petition and what we’ve subpoenaed in Oversight,” Burlison explained. But, “where the discharge petition falls short is that we’re not getting, in the discharge petition, the depositions of all these people. So, bringing in people like the Clintons, bringing in all of these individuals—even prosecutors who have failed their job—bringing them in, getting them on record, that is an important part of this investigation, and that’s something that only the oversight committee has done,” he added. Furthermore, the House Oversight Committee’s investigation has crucial information that will likely not be included in the discharge petition. “In addition, the Oversight Committee, in our subpoenas, we subpoenaed Jeffrey Epstein’s estate. From the estate is where we get the travel logs, we get his calendar—all of that information is extremely important,” but not in the bill heading to the president’s desk, Burlison said. “Now, what the discharge petition did, that oversight has not subpoenaed yet, is some of the FBI files,” Burlison added. “Those files where the FBI was taking notes and from their interviews with people. That will be substantively the difference in passing the discharge petition.” A cause for concern, however, is that the discharge petition only requires the release of unclassified information. Given Epstein’s alleged connections to intelligence operations, many in Washington believe a declassification effort could be necessary to know the whole truth. The idea that Epstein is connected to intelligence “is a very plausible explanation,” Burlison said. “This town has kind of pulled together all these connections and that’s what you’re hearing through, through the rumor mill. And I’m not talking about just from politicians. I mean, from like people in the intelligence community.” “When the FBI files are released, if there are connections made that would point in a direction for us to do an effort to declassify,” then Burlison wants to keep that option on the table. The post What’s Next For the Epstein Files? appeared first on The Daily Signal.