A four-year-old boy with leukemia has dropped off more than 400 bags of Christmas presents at the children’s hospitals where he received care. Elliott Hole and his mother Harley decided to give back by distributing advent calendars and and other fun items to keep sick kids entertained through the holidays The mom in Kent, England, […] The post Little Boy With Leukemia Returns to Hospital to Deliver 400 Christmas Gifts to Kids Still There for Holidays appeared first on Good News Network.

News Severance The Honeymoon’s Over in Severance Season 2 Trailer By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on December 7, 2024 Comment 0 Share New Share The second season of Severance is headed to Apple TV+ next year, and we finally have a full-blown official trailer teasing what’s in store for the Innies and Outies we’ve come to be concerned about. This trailer teases more of the actual plot: The four core Innies from last season—Mark S. (Adam Scott), Dylan G. (Zach Cherry), Helly R. (Britt Lower), and Irving B. (John Turturro)—are back inside the bowels of Lumon after escaping. They are, according to Milchick (Tramell Tillman) part of a reform program. Mark S., however, is determined to find out what happened to Miss Casey (Dichen Lachman), who he found out in the Season One cliffhanger is his Outie’s supposedly dead wife. There are a few moments on the outside as well, with Mark Scout wanting to shut out the fact that his Innie declared his wife was still alive, though his sister Devon (Jen Tullock) wants to dig into it. Ms. Cobell (Patricia Arquette) is also still Ms. Cobell, and this trailer has her giving her indelible delivery of Mark’s name, with a warning that he won’t have a honeymoon ending. We also get glimpse of weird stuff happening in Lumon—who is that herding a bunch of goats underground?—and also some humorous scenes, including a child Innie who leads a group who, in when asked why she’s a child responds correctly that it’s because of when she was born. In short, the trailer looks great, and it looks like the upcoming episodes from executive producer and director Ben Stiller and show creator and writer Dan Erickson are well positioned to surpass the already high expectations that views have for the show. Season Two of Severance starts streaming on Apple TV+ on January 17, 2025 with the first episode. Subsequent episodes will drop every Friday through March 21, 2025.   Check out the latest trailer below. [end-mark] The post The Honeymoon’s Over in <i>Severance</i> Season 2 Trailer appeared first on Reactor.

Whatever happened to the Democrats’ reputation as the party favoring the working man? Put another way, what happened to the Democrats as the party promising economic redistribution from the rich to the average man? Those are questions that Democrats are asking after Vice President Kamala Harris’ decisive, but not landslide, loss to President-elect Donald Trump. Her economic policies were obviously thin gruel. Her $25,000 payment to first-time homebuyers would be vacuumed up by sellers, her ban on “price gouging” was directed at notoriously competitive grocery chains, and her call for restoring the pandemic-era refundable child tax credit targeted a policy whose demise sparked no visible protest. These barely perceptible policy proposals had no perceptible political effect. Exit poll evidence suggests that Harris ran slightly better than average with high (>$100,000) earners. Nor is it obvious that left-wing Sen. Bernie Sanders’, I-Vt., postelection suggestions—to help working-class Americans by raising the minimum wage and lowering health care costs—would have fared better. Few minimum wage earners are heads of households, and voters are suspicious of proposals to reduce out-of-pocket health care costs. There are two big problems for those who push the politics of economic redistribution. First, the United States already has a highly redistributive tax system. Second, the United States already has highly redistributive economic policies. Consider the tax numbers. Despite the complaints that somehow billionaires are going untaxed, the federal income tax is substantially progressive. In tax year 2022, for example, 48% of all federal income tax revenues came from the top 1% of earners, who paid an average tax rate of 26%. The top 10% of earners paid 72% of revenues, while the bottom 50% accounted for just 3% of revenues. It’s true, of course, that the Social Security payroll tax, which zeroes out above a certain income level, is not so progressive. It’s also true that while some states have high-income tax rates, others have no state income tax at all, and almost all states rely heavily on less progressive sales taxes. But that leaves the United States with a more redistributive system overall than European nations—much praised by leftists—which, in fact, rely heavily on taxing consumers through value-added taxes. The government could perhaps gain more revenue by increasing the top rate from the 37% set in 2017 to Harris’ proposed 39.6%. That’s a number cleverly set by former President Bill Clinton’s administration, presumably because 39.6% sounds not nearly as close to half as 40% does. At some point when you raise tax rates, especially when states like California and New York pile 10% rates on top of them, the animal spirits of high earners will be diverted from productive activity to tax avoidance, and revenues will start falling. Economic redistribution stops working when the government has less revenue to redistribute. The second problem for politicians seeking to redistribute money to low earners is that the United States government does a lot of that already, more than either Democratic or Republican politicians seem comfortable in admitting. Documenting the numbers are former Sen. Phil Gramm, former Texas A&M economist Robert Ekelund, and retired Bureau of Labor Statistics professional John Early in their 2022 book “The Myth of American Inequality: How Government Biases Policy Debate.” The authors show how government statistics, scrupulously compiled but defined in ways that made sense decades ago, now significantly understate the incomes of low-income earners. As they point out, Census Bureau income statistics don’t take into account government transfer payments—food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, the earned income tax credit, and child tax credits. These are substantial enough that, when you take account of transfers and taxes, the lowest three quintiles (fifths) of the income scale end up with similar take-home pay, between (rounded off) $50,000 and $66,000. That’s not a sumptuous standard of living, but it’s not a starvation level either. The days I remember from my childhood in Detroit when factory workers cashed their paychecks and handed the bills and change to their wives and lived in fear of layoffs are gone. These days, low-earning Americans live on credit and debit cards and qualify, as millions did after the 2007-2008 recession, for EBT food stamps and disability payments. About everyone would like a 13th month of income. However, the lack of visible protest at the lapsing of the COVID-19 era of refundable child tax credit or the courts’ blocking President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness suggests that most Americans figure they can get by. Similarly, the unpopularity of Obamacare during the Obama presidency and the unpopularity of Obamacare repeal when Republicans took over suggests Americans are more leery of changes in health care arrangements than seething with discontent at them. This is not a population with a downtrodden proletariat demanding fundamental change and massive economic redistribution. It looks more like a population living with, and sometimes griping about, government tax and benefits systems that redistribute vast shares of a mostly growing economy. Republicans have learned that voters will tolerate only marginal reductions in redistributions and, with their new modest-income core constituency, have no incentive to seek more. Democrats are having trouble facing the fact that modest-income voters concerned about their woke stance on cultural issues have no more appetite than their affluent new core constituency for vastly increased economic redistribution—even if they could design one that wouldn’t send the whole system crashing down. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Politics of Economic Redistribution, RIP appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Isaac Schorr at Mediaite penned an opinion piece titled "CNN Should Apologize for Its Obscene Fearmongering Over Trump Outlawing Gay Marriage." On Friday morning's CNN Newsroom, CNN host Pamela Brown (daughter of John Y. Brown, the former Democrat governor of Kentucky) played up the alleged threat of Trump outlawing gay marriage -- even though Trump never touched it in his first term. Brown began:  In the November issue of Vogue, Shelby Wax writes about waking up on the Wednesday after Election Day and wondering if that wedding will still be possible. In her piece, Wax says in part -- quote -- "The one thing that scares me most is I no longer feel like I can envision my future. Will a stacked Supreme Court overturn my right to marry? Will my family be recognized as a family by my country?" ...So, Shelby, you write about how Trump's victory has spurred you and others in the LGBTQ+ community to get married now, rather than wait. That is happening. Tell us more about those conversations and what you're doing in your own life in response. Wax referred to Justice Clarence Thomas in the Dobbs ruling suggested the Obergefell "marriage equality" decision could be reversed. That’s all there is. Schorr makes the point that in his majority opinion repealing abortion on demand in Dobbs, Justice Samuel Alito expressly said abortion is different, that no life is ended in a gay marriage. Schorr also noted "At Trump’s direction, the GOP has removed all mention of marriage being a union between 'one man and one woman' from its party platform." Trump moved the GOP platform toward the center on these social issues. FAKE NEWS: CNN aired a segment arguing gay couples are correct in worrying a second Trump term and the Supreme Court could ban gay marriage and gays from becoming parents Tinfoil-hat stuff. Pamela Brown then brought in a GLAD Law official to double down on this BlueAnon claim. pic.twitter.com/grl3Atg02r — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 6, 2024 Brown maintained this fiction with Wax's partner: "So, in this piece, you acknowledge that you may be acting out of fear, but that you also say that fear is valid. Olivia, what is your biggest fear now that Donald Trump is returning to the White House?" The closest Brown came to acknowledging reality came next: "There are other data points too, that one of Trump's Cabinet picks is a married gay man, Scott Bessent, who is tapped to lead the Treasury Department. He, Donald Trump, for his part, is supported by groups like the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative gay rights organization. Mar-a-Lago has hosted same-sex weddings. Does any of that provide solace to you, Shelby?" Wax said "not necessarily." Fear wins! Brown asked one more softball question: "I'm wondering, Olivia, how your families have reacted. Are they supportive of your plans?" Yes. Then Brown brought on attorney Mary Bonauto of the Boston-based law firm GLAD LAW to be supportive of the frightened lesbians, but underline that no, this is not happening. "Marriage equality is protected on many levels. As you said yourself, Pamela, Obergefell remains the law of the land. The elections did not change that. And I'm not even clear that the executive branch would want to undo marriage equality…the country has moved on.” Why didn’t CNN listen to this beforehand and NOT put this baseless fear on the air?

Trigger warnings are the new normal. Everything from “Dumbo” to “Goodfellas” have been slapped with warnings for anyone coming across the content in question. New stories. Classic tales. And, of course, “Blazing Saddles,” one of the most beloved satires of all time, couldn’t escape without a warning.   'Blazing Saddles' trigger warning shows culture has gone off rails https://t.co/IUNlOykFOx — Christina Hoff Sommers (@CHSommers) August 15, 2020   The latest trigger warning, coming from the UK, may be the silliest yet. This comes courtesy of the BBFC, the British Board of Film Classification. The content in question? “Wicked,” the big-screen adaptation of the Broadway “Oz” prequel. The film stars Cynthia Erivo as the green-hued heroine, a young woman mocked for her skin color.     The story touches on friendship, feeling different from your peers and, of course, flying monkeys. The BBFC fears the film, which is crushing the box office competition, might trigger select audiences. Why? “…seeing beloved characters being mistreated, especially when Elphaba’s skin-colour is used to demonise her as the ‘Wicked Witch’, may be upsetting and poignant for some audiences.” Yes, that’s a key point of the original show and the movie. Should we avoid stories that are “upsetting” and/or “poignant?” That might leave out, well, most content. Even more important? If you fear being offended or triggered by it, there are countless examples of films and TV shows where similar themes exist. Should they have trigger warnings, too? If not, why not? The saddest part? The far-Left Guardian’s take on the “Wicked” warning. The snark-filled column suggests the true villains are those who think this is woke gone wild. But that would be political correctness gone mad, wouldn’t it. We shouldn’t have to put up with trigger warnings, even on films that have been heavily marketed for children despite being based on revisionist novels that contain several scenes set in BDSM clubs. Children need to learn that racism and animal abuse happens every day. They should be subjected to depictions of this without warning, especially if they’re five years old and just want to watch a nice fairytale movie with lots of lovely songs in it. Smart storytellers trust children to embrace and accept themes that provoke conversations. No, a tyke shouldn’t be watching “Fifty Shades of Grey.” Many family films, like the recent “Best Christmas Pageant Ever,” deliver moral tales of wrongdoing and redemption appropriate for all ages. And, shockingly enough, it’s drawing a crowd without a single trigger warning.

CNN’s self-asserted desire for facts took a back seat on Friday’s Inside Politics in favor of wild speculation as former Maryland State Police Commander Neill Franklin joined host Dana Bash to raise the possibility that United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson “orchestrated” his own assassination. Given the words "deny," "defend," and "depose" were found on the bullet casings, most people have assumed that the suspect’s motive must have been either a disgruntled customer or someone with a political ax to grind against private health insurance or perhaps both. To that end, Bash began, “Major Franklin, the motive. That is still not really known. We have some clues, like what was written on those shell casings.”     Franklin concurred but warned, “That's, you know, in a sense, leading people initially to that being the motive. But you also know criminal investigators have to think of everything. Could that be a diversion?” After Franklin considered other possibilities, such as a family member, Bash wondered, “So, when you say that, obviously, to talk to his family, you have to know who he is. DNA evidence is important for— I mean, first and foremost that, but also ultimately for a trial, as Shimon was saying. Do you think that they know who he is? You think that they have his identity?” Franklin thought the odds of that were “very good,” but added, “I want to say something else that I know these criminal investigators are looking into as it relates to motive. There have been times when people have orchestrated their own demise for certain reasons.” A clearly surprised Bash interjected with a “Whoa,” as Franklin continued, “We know that there was some—yeah, I'm not saying this is the case, but as an investigator—” Bash wondered if that would be “like for insurance purposes,” and while Franklin agreed that was possible, he also suggested Thompson may have wanted to cover something up, “Absolutely, insurance purposes. You know, maybe they fear some type of investigation down the road. Maybe they want to leave their family in a good light. But there have been cases where people have orchestrated their own demise and here’s another reason— Perhaps still a little shocked, Bash sought to clarify, “And just to say, you're saying in a nice language. You're saying—you're saying that it is a possibility that he hired somebody to kill him.”  Franklin doubled down, “Absolutely, it cannot be ignored. My, and this is what is really digging at me, as a former criminal investigator, this guy knew too much about where he was going to be at a specific time. There's no evidence that I've seen of him. When you look at the timeline of him coming to that area outside of the Hilton, and where he was outside of the Hilton. It's a very small window, very small window. It's not like he was roaming around. We have video of him roaming around, going from one door to the next to the next, trying to figure out where he's going to be at a specific time.” Bash added, “He knew,” as Franklin continued, “He was there. He was lying in wait. Who would have that specific type of information as to what sidewalk he was going to be on?” Thompson was heading across the street for a publicly-publicized annual investors conference. It is also odd that Franklin would say, “It’s not like he was roaming around” when CNN’s website quotes NYPD chief of detectives Joseph Kenny as saying, “We have him wandering around, walking in the vicinity of hotel.” Surely there is a difference between considering all possibilities and wild conspiracy theorizing, but it appears CNN’s “without any evidence” qualifiers do not get applied equally. Here is a transcript for the December 6 show: CNN Inside Politics with Dana Bash 12/6/2024 12:06 PM ET DANA BASH: And Major Franklin, the motive. That is still not really known. We have some clues – NEILL FRANKLIN: Absolutely. BASH: -- like what was written on those shell casings. FRANKLIN: Absolutely. So, right now, what a lot of people are thinking is okay, is directly related to his position as CEO of UnitedHealthcare. And some of the things that we're hearing about the insurance industry and denying claims and so on. What was scribed or written on the shell casings about, you know, delay, deny, and so on. That's, you know, in a sense, leading people initially to that being the motive. But you also know criminal investigators have to think of everything. Could that be a diversion? … BASH: So, when you say that, obviously, to talk to his family, you have to know who he is. DNA evidence is important for -- I mean, first and foremost that, but also ultimately for a trial, as Shimon was saying. Do you think that they know who he is? You think that they have his identity? FRANKLIN: It's a good chance – it's a very good possibility with these new photographs that he has, that they already know who he is. It's a very good chance of that. But I also -- I want to say something else that I know these criminal investigators are looking into as it relates to motive. There have been times when people have orchestrated their own demise for certain reasons. BASH: Woah. FRANKLIN: We know that there was some -- yeah, I'm not saying this is the case, but as an investigator – BASH: Like for insurance purposes? FRANKLIN: Absolutely, insurance purposes. You know, maybe they fear some type of investigation down the road. Maybe they want to leave their family in a good light. But there have been cases where people have orchestrated their own demise and here’s another reason – BASH: And just to say, you're saying in a nice language. You're saying -- you're saying that it is a possibility – FRANKLIN: It is a possibility. BASH: -- that he hired somebody to kill him. FRANKLIN: Absolutely, it cannot be ignored. My, and this is what is really digging at me, as a former criminal investigator, this guy knew too much about where he was going to be at a specific time. There's no evidence that I've seen of him. When you look at the timeline of him coming to that area outside of the Hilton, and where he was outside of the Hilton. It's a very small window, very small window. It's not like he was roaming around. We have video of him roaming around, going from one door to the next to the next, trying to figure out where he's going to be at a specific time. BASH: He knew. FRANKLIN: He was there. He was laying and wait. Who would have that specific type of information as to what sidewalk he was going to be on?

As lawmakers return to Washington, D.C., after a long and hard-fought election season, they will begin to set priorities for the upcoming session. The economy and inflation remain the top concerns for Americans and small businesses. We need to make sure we embrace policies that help them thrive. Extending the 2017 tax law is a crucial step toward providing small businesses with the security they need.The 2017 tax law transformed the small business landscape, enabling owners to reinvest more earnings into their operations. This spurred job creation, investments in new equipment, and the launch of new ventures. By lowering the tax burden on small businesses, the law fueled historic wage growth and brought unemployment to record lows.Lawmakers can either increase uncertainty by raising taxes or negotiate in good faith to build on the 2017 reforms.Policymakers should always aim to support economic growth and stability. The road map Congress laid out six years ago remains clear. Neither Congress nor the next president should undo those reforms so soon, especially while high inflation and interest rates strain entrepreneurs. Lawmakers must assess potential outcomes carefully. If there is no agreement on lowering rates, why not maintain the current tax levels instead?During my time at the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Entrepreneurial Development, we helped thousands of entrepreneurs nationwide start and grow their businesses. Washington’s economic policies played a crucial role in our success. Today, I worry that lawmakers are too eager to raise taxes on small businesses instead of exploring ways to help entrepreneurs invest more in their employees.The Tax Foundation’s latest research shows that avoiding corporate tax increases could boost U.S. economic output by 1.7%, wages by 1.5%, and employment by 381,000 full-time jobs. These gains would come at about half the cost of the Inflation Reduction Act’s green energy tax credits and the CHIPS and Science Act’s tax credits, grants, and spending programs.I understand where our new incumbents and candidates in Congress are coming from. Most were not involved in negotiating the 2017 law, and many believe that reshaping America’s tax code will fight inequality for generations. The reality, however, is that the taxes Washington is considering raising will likely harm the middle class the most. A narrow-minded “higher taxes” approach won’t solve America’s spending issues or help us compete in the global economy of the future.As the next Congress debates whether to maintain or raise the corporate tax rate, we face a critical decision. Lawmakers can either increase uncertainty by raising taxes or negotiate in good faith to build on the 2017 reforms. Allowing entrepreneurs to reinvest in their workforce will benefit the economy far more than higher taxes.Politicians must remember that voters have a real choice in deciding who should pay taxes and how much. By reviewing data from the past six years, lawmakers should recognize the success of the 2017 tax policies. Maintaining the current tax rate and extending key provisions would deliver the greatest long-term benefits to the economy and the middle class.

Charlamagne tha God isn’t Jason Whitlock’s favorite radio host, but his recent appearance on “The View” pleasantly surprised the voice of “Fearless.” “I found this fascinating and interesting because he actually had a little common sense when he was on ‘The View,’ and I’m wondering who put him up to this, who greenlit this, who allowed him to go on ‘The View’ and talk some logical sense into Whoopi Goldberg," Whitlock says. “A lot of this conversation about President Biden getting criticized from both sides of the aisle for pardoning his son Hunter after repeatedly saying he would never do it, and a lot of people are saying that it’s hypocritical, as if the other side doesn’t do it,” Joy Behar said to Charlamagne and the rest of the panel. “I think all of the criticism is valid, because you know, Democrats stand on this moral high ground all the time, and they act so self-righteous. The reality is he didn’t have to say anything in regards to whether or not his son wanted to be pardoned,” Charlamagne responded. “He could’ve said, ‘Hey man, I’m not focused on that right now.’” “But since they were calling Trump a threat to democracy and they were saying that nobody’s above the law,” he continued, “that’s what they were running on.” “He didn’t have to volunteer that lie to begin with,” he added, before Whoopi Goldberg took her opportunity to jump in. “My question is, what is it that makes people flip the f*** out with Joe?” Goldberg asked. “Democrats are flipping out with Joe because Democrats believe that they don’t represent what he’s currently representing. But that’s just not true. That’s why I say they stand on this moral high ground that simply does not exist,” Charlamagne replied. While Whitlock and Shemeka Michelle agree with what Charlamagne said, they don’t believe the exchange was organic. “I feel like if he was really an adversary and really was up there saying something totally different and shocking to them, something that they hadn't agreed with, and especially Joy, they would have been a little bit more hostile towards him,” Michelle tells Whitlock. “So I just think this was all planned and it just didn’t come across as genuine at all.” Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A Date Which Will Live in Infamy: Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day

Investigators Closing In on United Healthcare CEO’s Shooter, but It Might Be Harder Than It Seems