Emma Heming Willis shared a throwback video of Bruce Willis and his youngest daughter, Evelyn, as she celebrated his place in his children’s lives. The former model took to Instagram to post a memory of Bruce and Evelyn as they explored Manhattan. Evelyn, now 10, was much younger in the clip, and she laughed while Bruce carried her around the city on his shoulders. The two bonded while they wandered through the streets, seemingly lost in their own world. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Emma Heming Willis (@emmahemingwillis) “The best seat in the house,” Emma wrote. Bruce Willis is a father to five daughters. He shares Rumer,36, Scout, 33, and Tallulah, 30, with ex-wife Demi Moore. Bruce and Emma are parents to Evelyn and Mabel, 12. The Die Hard star retired from acting in 2022 after being diagnosed with aphasia. He eventually learned that he was also suffering from frontotemporal dementia. Emma, Demi, and their daughters have dedicated themselves to caring for Bruce, and they’ve often reminded fans of how loving and dedicated of a father he was and continues to be. In the comments, fans banded together with words of support. “Memories can be comforting & painful at the same time,” a commenter wrote. “This is so hard to navigate.” “This is beautiful and heartbreaking all at the same time. Thinking of you all ,” wrote another. “For all of us out here who don’t know you at all —the way you share how you love; How you advocate; How damn human it all is; What strength and vulnerability really look like. Thank you for that,” a fan shared. This story’s featured image is by Featureflash Photo Agency via Shutterstock. The post Emma Heming Willis Tributes Bruce Willis With “Beautiful And Heartbreaking” Video appeared first on InspireMore.

'I’m a member of the New York bar and it’s just shameful'

Kevin Federline pushed back on the claims

'An earlier trial date will ensure that Mayor Adams’s speedy trial rights are upheld'

Need a couple of palms for that shade

NY Times: Democrats Just Didn't Turn Out for Kamala Harris

The View’s general refusal to do any serious soul-searching following the Democratic Party’s humiliating loss to President-elect Trump, continued on Monday after they had a weekend to stew on it. With anti-Trump Republican Alyssa Farah Griffin apparently out sick, ABC’s pretend independent Sara Haines was the only person on the set attempting to speak any sense. While they opened the show by freaking out over Trump nominating former acting ICE director Tom Homan to be his boarder czar, Haines took the (sadly) courageous position of admitting the obvious: “there is a problem at the border, and there's been a problem for decades and decades, and every administration has come through here and no one has fixed it.” “It ballooned in this last administration, and that's what the people voted on, a referendum on that,” she added. Haines put her foot down and declared: “either we have laws at the border or we don't. We're asking people to get in line to come to this country while incentivizing people not waiting in the line.” With possibly the first time any ABC News viewer had heard about any of it, Haines called out the Democrats in so-called “sanctuary cities” for incentivizing illegal immigration with gratuitous handouts. She even pointed to Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) as part of the problem:   Like, we've seen things where sanctuary cities like California and Illinois, it's kind of like, get to the country, like, kick the can. If you get to base though, you're going to be fine. You also have Tim Walz signed into legislation in Minnesota that allowed undocumented immigrants to receive free in-state tuition. All these are lovely in spirit, but there are people that can't pay for food for their own families. In New York, they were giving the $500 meal cards. And obviously we want to help someone for the humane interests, but there's a lifeboat here. And I think the rage about the border was also people here that are maybe insecure, homeless at times, making ends meet, and they don't have any of -- they can't send their kid to college. That's the outrage of what I saw the voters say.     Moderator Whoopi Goldberg responded by chiding the voters for Trump instead of the side that backed an 11th-hour, election-year border bill. Mischaracterizing the support for the bill, Goldberg misleading claimed: “The Border Patrol agents were saying, this is a good deal for us, and it was stopped – I'm going to repeat that. It was stopped by the man who's just been elected president. He stopped that.” In reality, the Border Patrol union picked Trump as their candidate. Fake Republican Ana Navarro took a sick pleasure in her purported Trump-supporting friends worried about losing their illegal immigrant labor. “So, I told them that I suggested they learn how to clean their kids' ass,” the proud childless cat lady proclaimed. Earlier in the show, Navarro lashed out at America for electing Trump. “[America] screwed around, and you're about to find out,” she snarked. Haines countered by calling attention to the fact that the Democrats were abusing the asylum system to help illegal immigrants and it was hurting actual asylum seekers: They changed this asylum rule too though where there are real people that need asylum in this country, and they ballooned that asylum law which meant people were cutting the line and those that were vulnerable, it's been diluted, the pool of people. There should be able to be a real conversation about the problems with immigration. Staunchly racist Sunny Hostin took to downplaying all the free stuff Democrats were giving illegals. “There's this feeling like you mentioned, that, you know, there are American citizens suffering because other, I guess, funds are being given to undocumented immigrants,” she rhetorically scoffed. She followed up by claiming illegals were paying billions in taxes and getting no benefits at all, and scolded Americans: But the fact of the matter is undocumented immigrants paid approximately $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022. And so, that is very significant because they pay into things like social security, they pay into things like Medicaid, but they don't get the benefits. So, the notion somehow that they're taking away from American citizens, they're really giving to this country because they want to be here. “I don't think they know that immigrants are paying these taxes,” she condescendingly added. “It doesn't mean they're taking away from people that are simultaneously suffering, the outrage of people that are struggling to put food on the table aren’t saying – they're just saying, ‘why aren't we getting some help over here?” Haines pushed back. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View November 11, 2024 11:07:28 a.m. Eastern (…) SARA HAINES: I think that the weaponizing of immigrants or equating immigrants to criminals was feeding off people's fears because the statistics don't support that. But there is a problem at the border, and there's been a problem for decades and decades, and every administration has come through here and no one has fixed it. It ballooned in this last administration, and that's what the people voted on, a referendum on that. Because right now – One thing I've never understood, and I actually think we'll wait to see how this looks, but either we have laws at the border or we don't. We're asking people to get in line to come to this country while incentivizing people not waiting in the line. Like, we've seen things where sanctuary cities like California and Illinois, it's kind of like, get to the country, like, kick the can. If you get to base though, you're going to be fine. You also have Tim Walz signed into legislation in Minnesota that allowed undocumented immigrants to receive free in-state tuition. All these are lovely in spirit, but there are people that can't pay for food for their own families. In New York, they were giving the $500 meal cards. And obviously we want to help someone for the humane interests, but there's a lifeboat here. And I think the rage about the border was also people here that are maybe insecure, homeless at times, making ends meet, and they don't have any of -- they can't send their kid to college. That's the outrage of what I saw the voters say. [Crosstalk] WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Perhaps the problem then the voters should have said, ‘why didn't we pass the legislation that they had put together?’ Because it was both sides saying, here's what we have. The Border Patrol agents were saying, this is a good deal for us, and it was stopped – I'm going to repeat that. It was stopped by the man who's just been elected president. He stopped that. So, if you want to talk about the problems at the border, when people come to you with solutions, once you turn them into a politics of solutions, and it's an issue. [Crosstalk] ANA NAVARRO: I saw the statistic during the elections and I think it was in the New York Times that said, when Trump said things, people didn't think it applied to them. So, in the last few days, I got a call from a couple of people, friends of mine, people very close to me in Miami, big Trumpers who are worried now about what's going to happen to their undocumented nannies that help them raise their children. So, I told them that I suggested they learn how to clean their kids' ass. [Laughter] [Applause] People who think that what Trump was saying, that the racial slurs, that the threats on immigration, the Department of Education, all those things that Trump was saying, RFK – was just rhetoric, hyperbole. They’re about to find out. [Crosstalk] HAINES: They changed this asylum rule too though where there are real people that need asylum in this country, and they ballooned that asylum law which meant people were cutting the line and those that were vulnerable, it's been diluted, the pool of people. There should be able to be a real conversation about the problems with immigration. GOLDBERG: There are problems. Go ahead. SUNNY HOSTIN: Can I make a point? Because I think that there is this sort of feeling in America that immigrants or undocumented immigrants are taking their jobs. There's this feeling like you mentioned, that, you know, there are American citizens suffering because other, I guess, funds are being given to undocumented immigrants. But the fact of the matter is undocumented immigrants paid approximately $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022. And so, that is very significant because they pay into things like social security, they pay into things like Medicaid, but they don't get the benefits. So, the notion somehow that they're taking away from American citizens, they're really giving to this country because they want to be here. HAINES: It doesn't mean they're taking away from people that are simultaneously suffering, the outrage of people that are struggling to put food on the table aren’t saying – they're just saying, ‘why aren't we getting some help over here?’ HOSTIN: I don't think they know that immigrants are paying these taxes. (…)

An estimated 2.2 million civilian federal workers serve at the pleasure of the president, despite only 4,000 being designated as political appointees. Donald Trump’s first priority as he prepares to retake office must be to establish that he can fire any of them. Whether they hold political appointments, Senate-confirmed positions, or civil service roles, all federal employees are subject to the president’s authority to terminate their employment. This includes workers in any department or so-called “independent” agency. If a congressional statute conflicts with his authority to fire someone, that statute is unconstitutional and must yield to the president’s plenary firing authority. Ironically, Trump’s biggest failure in his first term was his reluctance to say his famous line, “You’re fired!” To succeed in a second term, he must remove anyone who does not share his campaign vision. His primary promises are to reduce inflation and eliminate the deep state. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is already challenging both promises, presenting Trump with an early test of his resolve. 'If any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.' When a Politico reporter on Thursday asked Powell if he would comply if Trump asked for his resignation, Powell responded flatly, “No.” When pressed on whether he is legally required to resign, he tersely repeated, “No,” asserting his belief that no legal basis exists for firing him. Legally, Powell has no foundation to stay in his post if the president fires him, which Trump must do. While the legislature dominates in setting public policy and the federal budget, the president decides who serves in executive positions. The Senate can confirm high officers and may refuse to confirm a new appointee after the president removes someone senators support. However, the Senate cannot force the president to keep any personnel he wishes to dismiss, even if it passes a law granting tenure to that individual, as in the case of Powell, whose term doesn’t expire until 2026. The Supreme Court ruled in Ex Parte Hennen (1839) that the president’s power to appoint executive officials includes the power to remove them. This authority was upheld in Myers v. United States (1926) in a 70-page opinion by the chief justice, former President William Howard Taft. If a president can appoint anyone to head an agency within reason, Congress cannot restrict him to choosing or retaining any specific individual. Some argue that the Federal Reserve must remain independent, but that is a political stance, not a legal one. Constitutionally, there are only three branches of government. Since the Fed is neither legislative nor judicial, its governors are subject to the president’s authority to remove them. Congress can defund or abolish an office and refuse to confirm the president’s nominee, but it cannot impose a tenure law on the president. James Madison explained this separation of powers in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: [Congressional tenure laws] overlook the important distinction between repealing or modifying the office and displacing the officer. The former is a legislative, the latter an Executive function; and even the former, if done with a view of re-establishing the office and letting in a new appointment, would be an indirect violation of the theory and policy of the Constitution. For example, although Congress passed a law entitling the FBI director to a 10-year term, President Bill Clinton, at the recommendation of Attorney General Janet Reno, fired FBI Director William Sessions in 1993 during his sixth year in office. No executive branch figure operates outside the president’s authority. If an individual is not subject to the president’s authority, that individual is, by definition, not part of the executive branch. Therefore, the president can fire any civil service worker within main agencies and terminate anyone serving in independent commissions, such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Based on his campaign promises, Trump has an obligation to exercise this authority. Although the Supreme Court once deviated from the originalist view espoused by Chief Justice Taft — in cases like Morrison v. Olson (1988) involving the independent counsel — that era has ended. The current Supreme Court is likely to support Trump’s power to fire executive officials. Just four years ago, the justices ruled 5-4 that the president has full authority to remove the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. With Amy Coney Barrett now on the court, Trump would likely have six votes in favor of a decision to fire someone like Powell. The president may not be a king, but he is the CEO of the executive branch. As James Madison said in 1789, “If any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.” It’s time to exercise that power to the fullest.

The women of "The View" are very upset with former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California after the Democratic leader criticized President Joe Biden for the Democrats' catastrophic election loss. Pelosi said that Harris might have been more successful as a candidate had Biden dropped out sooner, a common criticism among some Democrats. 'We will never know if the results had been different if there had been an open primary.' Whoopi Goldberg voiced her agreement when Ana Navarro expressed her disdain for Pelosi's comments."Why, Nancy, why? I find this so unproductive, so nasty, so unnecessary. She wants to make sure people know it wasn’t her. She has no blame in this," said Navarro. "I said Biden should have gotten out earlier. I said there shouldn’t have been a primary. Don’t blame me," she said in Pelosi's voice. "I think it’s really unseemly." Pelosi had said Harris might have been able to take her case to the public earlier if Biden had not waited so long to drop out of the campaign. "Look, we will never know if the result would have been different had Biden stepped off earlier," Navarro said. "We will never know if the results would have been different if he had stayed in. We will never know if the results had been different if there had been an open primary." Navarro went on to call on Biden to pardon his son Hunter Biden because President-elect Donald Trump had announced his intention to pardon some of the Jan. 6 rioters. Trump won the electoral college contest and looks to be well on his way toward winning the popular vote as well. The U.S. Senate will go to Republicans and the House of Representatives may also be controlled in the next session, barring a miraculous turn-around in voting. Democrats have been attacking each other and the voters in an attempt to explain how Trump could make historic gains in nearly every part of the country despite their vitriolic attacks. Some have blamed black and Hispanic voters, others blame Vice President Kamala Harris herself while many say racism and sexism are the culprits. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The American people have spoken. Donald Trump’s landslide victory in the Electoral College and popular vote has delivered a clear mandate for transformative change. Now, Senate Republicans need a leader who can work seamlessly with Trump’s expanded coalition of visionary leaders. That leader is Florida’s Rick Scott.The political landscape has fundamentally shifted. Trump’s victory has drawn an unprecedented alliance of talent and innovation: Tech leader Elon Musk, former Democrats Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, populist champion JD Vance, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy have all joined the America First movement. This diverse coalition of problem-solvers needs a Senate leader who shares their bold approach to governance and willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. Scott embodies these qualities.The next Senate Republican leader must be able to translate Trump’s mandate into legislative reality.As a former Florida governor and current senator, Rick Scott has shown the executive experience and political courage that this new era demands. His track record speaks for itself: He turned a $3.6 billion deficit into a surplus, cut taxes 100 times, and created 1.7 million new jobs. Like many in Trump’s coalition, Scott brings real-world business experience to government, having built one of America’s largest health care companies from scratch.Scott’s proposed “Rescue America” plan demonstrates his understanding of what Trump’s expanded base values — the need for fundamental reform of our institutions. While establishment figures recoiled, Scott recognized that an honest conversation about unsustainable government spending and institutional reform aligns with what the American people voted for in this historic election.Critics argue Scott is “too bold” to lead effectively. But Trump’s landslide victory and this unprecedented coalition show that Americans are ready for bold leadership. Scott’s record proves he can govern pragmatically while advancing transformative priorities. Like Musk’s approach to innovation or Ramaswamy’s challenge to corporate orthodoxy, Scott brings fresh thinking to entrenched institutions.Rick Scott’s journey from humble beginnings to business success to political leadership embodies the American dream that Trump’s coalition aims to restore. His rise from growing up in public housing to the Senate demonstrates his understanding of the value of individual initiative and the role limited government plays in creating opportunity.Scott’s ability to work with diverse coalitions while holding firm to core principles makes him particularly suited for this moment. Just as Trump has united figures as different as JD Vance and RFK Jr. in the pursuit of American renewal, Scott has shown he can build alliances while standing strong for conservative values. His business background aligns with Musk’s and Ramaswamy’s entrepreneurial spirit, while his willingness to challenge the establishment resonates with the independent streaks of Gabbard and Kennedy.The next Senate Republican leader must translate Trump’s mandate into legislative reality. Scott has consistently demonstrated his readiness to take on the establishment, whether by challenging Mitch McConnell’s leadership or opposing massive, behind-the-scenes omnibus spending bills. This kind of backbone is essential to work effectively with Trump’s coalition of change agents.Looking forward, the Senate needs leadership that can harness the energy and ideas of these new allies. Scott’s detailed policy proposals reflect his commitment to structural reform — the kind Musk advocates in tech, Kennedy promotes in health freedom, Gabbard supports in foreign policy, and Ramaswamy pushes in corporate governance. In his media appearances, Scott consistently and effectively argues for bold reform while countering Democratic opposition.The challenges America faces demand fresh thinking and bold leadership. The current strategy of reactive opposition and strategic retreats isn’t working. The American people have decisively rejected it. Rick Scott offers a different model: principled leadership unafraid to disrupt the status quo.The choice for Senate Republicans isn’t just about leadership style; it’s about whether the party will rise to this historic moment. The American people have delivered a clear mandate for change, and Trump has assembled a team of innovators and reformers. Choosing Scott would signal that Senate Republicans are prepared to act on this mandate rather than clinging to failed approaches of the past.The time for cautious leadership is over. Scott has demonstrated the vision, courage, and capability to work with Trump’s coalition to bring the change Americans voted for on Nov. 5. Now the question is whether his colleagues are ready to meet this moment with the bold leadership it demands.