Officials said there was 'no record' of Overstreet being reported as missing

Yes, The Democrats Really ARE Panicking

PolitiFact is at it again. For the second day in a row, the website has condemned Senate Republicans’ Senate Leadership Fund for an attack ad against Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown. On Thursday, they twisted themselves into a rhetorical pretzel as they rated the PAC “false” for claiming Brown supports men being able to compete in women’s sports, and on Friday they did it again, claiming it is “mostly false” to say Brown supports puberty blockers and sex changes for children. Once again, Seth Richardson was assigned the task of trying to debunk the ad. He writes, “The Senate Leadership Fund supplied a closed-caption transcript of the news segment, in which a reporter asked Brown about legislation from Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, that aimed to ban gender-affirming care for minors.” After explaining that the bill would have made it a felony to “provide surgery or prescribe puberty blockers to anyone younger than 18," Richardson provides a quote from Brown, ‘“A child's health care decisions are between them, their parents, their families and their doctors,’ Brown said, according to an archived snippet of the interview. ‘Not politicians. I will never agree with anyone that wants to bring politics into the family situation with health care. Period.’” Vance’s bill was never brought up for a vote, but Richardson proceeds to cite Brown spokesman Matt Keyes, “Sherrod cares about the health and well-being of all children. He does not believe the government has any role in a family's personal healthcare decisions." So far, everything Richardson has written would justify a true rating, but things were about to get even stranger: The Senate Leadership Fund also pointed us to a March 31, 2023, letter Brown and eight other Democratic senators signed that asked the Biden administration to use executive action on several policies to ensure LGBTQ+ people’s access to health care. The letter noted that several states had enacted legislation ‘to restrict access to gender affirming care for minors’ and asked President Joe Biden to allow Medicaid to cover expenses for patients traveling or moving to obtain gender-affirming care.  Richardson finally got around to attempting to debunk the claim, although it wasn’t very convincing, “Gender-affirming care is an individualized health care model that prioritizes encouraging and supporting a person’s gender identity — it  is more than puberty blockers and surgery.” That’s too cute. The aforementioned letter talks specifically about “health care,” not simply “using the name and pronouns that align with a child’s gender identity.” Media discourse on “gender affirming care” also revolves around hormone treatment, so Richardson is punishing Republicans for using the same definition that the liberal media uses just because they reject the premise that such “treatments” are good. Richardson wraps up by trying to downplay the whole controversy, “Gender-affirming surgery is very rare among minors in the United States.” In this case, “rare” means 5,747 times, including 224 in Ohio, from 2019 through 2023.

On Wednesday's The ReidOut on MSNBC, fill-in host Jason Johnson gave environmental alarmist Michael Mann a forum to tie fossil fuels to the intensity of Hurricane Milton as the category 3 storm targeted Florida. The MSNBC host began by asking his liberal guest to put into context whether Hurricane Milton really is the "storm of the century" as storms are sometimes described.  The University of Pennsylvania climate researcher began by declaring that the intensity is "the consequence of our ongoing burning of fossil fuels and the warming of the oceans." After explaining that the storm will be more destructive because it spent time as a category 5 for a while before making landfall, Mann reiterated: "So this is a tragedy that is unfolding, and it's a tragedy that was, you know, created in part by our continued burning of fossil fuels and the warming of the planet that's caused." Johnson then brought up the issue of environmental activists evolving from using the term "global warming" decades ago to "climate change" in the present: I'm old enough to remember when, you know, we talked about global warming when I was a kid, and then it turned into "climate change," and I think a lot of people didn't understand that climate change didn't mean that things were automatically going to get hotter. It also meant more extreme weather. Talk a little bit about what the consequences are of the increased frequency of these kinds of storms because the fact that we are two weeks away from Helene -- the fact that there were over 100 tornadoes reported in one day in one particular state. If this becomes the norm, what kind of world are we looking at in vast swaths of land in the United States? Even though there have been other periods of similar hurricane activity, Mann claimed that there is a "new normal" for hurricanes as he argued that it may not be tolerable for much longer unless the burning of fossil fuels is curtailed. He explained: We're stuck with this new normal. That's the best case scenario. That's a scenario where we stop burning fossil fuels -- we stop warming of the planet further. Then, we're sort of -- we're stuck with this level extreme weather events that we've seen summer after summer. These devastating, stronger, more flood-producing hurricanes -- we're sort of stuck with this, but we can still, you know, we're still within our adaptive, you know, capacity. We can adapt to the changes that we've just witnessed thus far. It's going to take, you know, quite a bit of investment, and there's going to be suffering and harm is done, and we're already seeing that play out. This is a level warmer we can probably adapt to, but if we continue to warm up the planet even more, then pretty soon we're going to exceed our, you know, our level of resilience.  And so that's really the problem. He then added: These extreme weather events become more extreme. These hurricanes become stronger, the flooding becomes worse. Helene produced 50 percent more rainfall than we would have if we hadn't warmed up the planet. There was a study that came out just last week that demonstrated that. And we know hundreds of people died from that interior flooding -- flooding in very states in the southeastern U.S. That means people are dying because of the warming of the planet that has exacerbated these events. We're already seeing the catastrophic consequences. But there is nothing unprecedented about the frequency of hurricanes hitting the United States. According to NOAA's list of hurricanes that have made landfall in the U.S. since 1850, in the 25 calendar years from 1999 through 2023, there were 16 hurricanes of at least category 3 strength that made landfall in the United States, compared to 18 between 1945 and 1969. Additionally, between 1999 and 2023, there were seven hurricanes that were at least a category 4 while, between 1945 and 1969, there were 11. Transcript follows: The ReidOut 7:14 p.m. Eastern JASON JOHNSON, FILL-IN HOST: What are we looking at in context right now? You know, the term "storm of the century" gets thrown out from time to time. Is that what we're looking at? Are we looking at something that we have not seen before and could have consequences to lives -- to infrastructure to the environment that we've never seen or haven't seen in the lifetimes of those people watching? PROFESSOR MICHAEL MANN, UNIVERSITY STATE UNIVERSITY: Yeah, hi, Jason. It's good to be with you. And what we're witnessing is tragic, and it is the consequence of our ongoing burning of fossil fuels and the warming of the oceans. That extra heat in the oceans means that there's more energy available to intensify these storms. The peak wind speeds increase by about 12 percent for each degree Celsius -- that's like nearly two degrees Fahrenheit. Each two degrees Fahrenheit of warming, you get a roughly 12 percent increase in those maximum wind speeds, and the destructive potential of the storm actually scales as the third power of the wind speed, which means that about 12 percent increase in wind speed corresponds to like a 40 percent increase in the destructive potential -- the power that is dissipated by the storm damage that's done. And so there's the intensity of this storm, the size of the storm, the fact that it was a cat 5 storm out there for several days has built up a very large storm surge. So don't be fooled by the fact that it has weakened a bit over the past 25 hours or so. That storm surge that threatens the West coast of Florida was built up over several days. And we're going to see the nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, maybe 14-foot storm surge in some locations along the West Coast between Tampa and Sarasota. So this is a tragedy that's unfolding, and it's a tragedy that was, you know, created in part by our continued burning of fossil fuels and the warming of the planet that's caused. JASON JOHNSON, FILL-IN HOST: You know, Professor Mann, I'm old enough to remember when, you know, we talked about global warming when I was a kid, and then it turned into "climate change," and I think a lot of people didn't understand that climate change didn't mean that things were automatically going to get hotter. It also meant more extreme weather. Talk a little bit about what the consequences are of the increased frequency of these kinds of storms because the fact that we are two weeks away from Helene -- the fact that there were over 100 tornadoes reported in one day in one particular state. If this becomes the norm, what kind of world are we looking at in vast swaths of land in the United States? MANN: Yeah, and I'll tell you, you know, what we're witnessing now, we're sort of stuck with. We're stuck with this new normal. That's the best case scenario. That's a scenario where we stop burning fossil fuels -- we stop warming of the planet further. Then, we're sort of -- we're stuck with this level of extreme weather events that we've seen summer after summer. These devastating, stronger, more flood-producing hurricanes -- we're sort of stuck with this, but we can still, you know, we're still within our adaptive, you know, capacity. We can adapt to the changes that we've just witnessed thus far. It's going to take, you know, quite a bit of investment, and there's going to be suffering and harm is done, and we're already seeing that play out. This is a level warmer we can probably adapt to, but if we continue to warm up the planet even more, then pretty soon we're going to exceed our, you know, our level of resilience. And so that's really the problem. These extreme weather events become more extreme. These hurricanes become stronger, the flooding becomes worse. Helene produced 50 percent more rainfall than we would have if we hadn't warmed up the planet. There was a study that came out just last week that demonstrated that. And we know hundreds of people died from that interior flooding -- flooding in very states in the southeastern U.S. That means people are dying because of the warming of the planet that has exacerbated these events. We're already seeing the catastrophic consequences. JOHNSON: Michael Mann, thank you for that sobering but very important message about what we're facing as a planet.

The "Joker" movies were always a trap for the left’s untouchable castes. When I saw trailers for the first film back in 2019, I was immediately turned off. While so many were hyping its praises, I was still burnt out from "The Last Jedi." By that point, I was spiraling away from the mainstream, and nowadays, I only go to the movie theater when my family wants to go on an outing.But I have to wonder whether the romanticization of these villains is a product of cultural rot. Why don’t we have an unabashed love of heroes and a hatred of our villains?Now, I didn’t ignore "Joker" to make a stand or whatnot — I think I was still in high school at the time. I just didn’t like the idea of exploring the Joker as a loser with mental illness. Joker's wildFor me, the character was never just some rando who had a bad day and decided to put on clown makeup. Although he would do everything to assure you otherwise, I always saw that as an illusion, even if the writers believed in it.When regular people snap, they don’t become criminal masterminds who can rob banks with impunity and contend with billionaire detectives. No, the Joker I knew was a whirlwind, a catastrophic force of nature that appeared from nowhere and wrecked utter bedlam. He was a demon, literal or not, summoned by the excesses of a corrupt culture. His claim of being an ordinary man was only to mess the characters’ heads, to break them. But the face of evil isn’t so readily understood. He was always more than that, an almost supernatural presence that our materialist culture could only explain away with a vat of weird chemicals.To see him on-screen as a regular, beaten-down guy instead of a trickster devil was enough to dissuade me from watching entirely.Stop me if you've heard thisBut that turned out to be a good thing, because that meant I wasn’t invested for when "Joker: Folie à Deux" came around.The backlash to this movie is part of a fomenting undercurrent that I’ve noticed for some time. First, we all knew since its announcement that it was an intentionally bad movie. The idea to make it a musical was alone a dead giveaway that the creators were not making this for the fans. It’s a film downright hostile to its audience. But that’s not what I’m interested in.Die a villainTell me, what does it matter if the Joker gets raped or humiliated? Tell me honestly. The man’s a psychopath, and furthermore, why is anyone invested in a character study about a villain? Are there any heroic qualities to him that would make you want to relate to him, understand him? People don’t get this attached to genuine dissections of evil. And looking beyond that, I’m certain I can find plenty of worse things that have happened to him in the comics. I think at one point he got his face flayed off or something. Why is this any different?But we all know it’s different. Everyone knows instinctively that this is an attack on fans, and more importantly, everyone on the right who thought they saw something in the character. After all, this particular incarnation was supposed to be the most relatable. And I think it was meant to tap into this fascination Western culture has with psychopaths — especially psychopaths with a “code.”Why are people so fascinated with these villains? You would think they would inspire a visceral sense of disgust, or at least dislike. They are thoroughly immoral people who do horrendous things, and yet, we can’t get enough of them. We can’t get enough of villains who have a point, who deep down have a critique of the West that lands true.Cultural rotThe Joker is fascinating in part because he makes you question what a good person truly is. Patrick Bateman is trying to find something that’s real underneath the shallowness of his life. Anton Chigurh is a bit more tricky, but there’s a component of him bringing savagery and primal violence back into a tamed West. And we can go on and on. This is not an uncommon trope in the slightest.But I have to wonder whether the romanticization of these villains is a product of cultural rot. Why don’t we have an unabashed love of heroes and a hatred of our villains? Why is the bad guy so often more charismatic, more primal than our protagonist? Why has the good become associated with the lame and the bad associated with vitality?I would wager that the right tends to attach itself to these figures because we intuitively sense that something has gone awfully wrong. The heroes in mainstream stories are not actual heroes, and while the villains are horrendous, they at least point to something that’s truer. Deep down, the Joker is absolutely right that people aren’t the moral paragons they like to think themselves, and they have no foundation to prevent utter chaos when their hypocrisy is brought to the surface. So ought we take the frame of the Joker? Was he the right-wing paragon all along? Is he the man we should get behind?Absolutely not.'How about a magic trick?'One of the left’s favorite tricks is to invest psychopaths and demented crazy people with right-wing ideas and aesthetics. If the right concedes that the character has a point, they also associate themselves with that character's evil. This prevents a noble vision of the right from ever fully manifesting, distracting people in digital clown games. No matter what the Joker has to tell us about the plight of incels or the corruption of society or whatever, his flaws outweigh any message. It’s not just his mental instability. He’s a pathetic loser with no moral compass, and his solution to decline is to accelerate it.In other words, he’s a villain. He’s an actual bad guy.And should the ironic take prevail, should the mainstream ever receive a different message from what the writers intended, they have one final trump card they can play. Controlled opThe Joker is entirely fictional. That means they can do whatever they want to him, and more importantly, make him do anything they want. He’s controlled opposition, and leftists will happily lose hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure he stays that way.The left does not play for money. It plays for the message. And that message is:You’re the bad guy. And also, lol, you got gang raped.The lesson to take away is to never invest yourself in modern media. Memes and edgy takes are one thing, but they are nothing to attach yourself to.The left will never make a true right-wing hero, only right-wing villains. Never embrace imagery unless it’s genuinely worthy of emulation. And most importantly, never attach yourself to a caricature your enemies control.Again, I’m not saying don’t engage in meme wars or ironic takes. Just don’t get attached to them insofar as the left can turn them into a weapon against you. The proper response is to just shrug and let it go. The culture is completely hostile to you, and your ability to remain indifferent is the ultimate weapon against people who slovenly desire your outrage.

As Kamala Harris’ media blitz continues, so does her inability to prove she’ll be any different than President Joe Biden. In a recent interview on “The View,” Harris was asked by Sunny Hostin if she would have “done something differently than President Biden during the past four years.” “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” Harris responded, adding, “I’ve been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact.” “Let’s hope we never have to figure out if that’s going to happen or not,” Jill Savage of “Blaze News Tonight” comments before asking Christopher Bedford, Blaze Media’s senior editor for politics, what message he believes the vice president is attempting to convey. “It’s funny, she’s tried to distance herself from Joe Biden, but she still hasn’t come up with a very good line in response to, ‘All right, well, what are the differences between you and Joe Biden?’” Bedford says. “Her whole vibes campaign was about being a different person, a new path forward, we can’t go back to apparently what’s right now, but she can’t actually figure it out,” he adds. While her campaign has been centered around “vibes” and “brat,” Bedford notes that her vibes seem to be completely off. “She doesn’t even seem that excited. She seems low energy. She seems tired, like she’s interviewing for a job she doesn’t really want. She could just cash in and go on the speaker circuit. This policy stuff seems to bore her,” he explains. Which is why Kamala continues to go on shows like “The View” and “Call Her Daddy” — and failed miserably in her interview on “60 Minutes.” “Those weren’t gotcha questions. They were just serious questions. Journalistic questions where the reporter wasn’t going to let her give non-answers,” Bedford says. “Right now, the way it’s looking, I kind of think the bottom falls out for her in the last 30 days.” “She just doesn’t have the capacity to change from who she is,” he adds. Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

While we just got Tomb Raider I-III Remastered in February of this year, it seems developer Aspyr wants to continue the momentum, as the studio has announced Tomb Raider IV-VI Remastered for consoles and PC. It will be released on February 14, 2025.

As one of the best metroidvanias of all time, Hollow Knight has a lot of content. Whether it's areas, bosses, questlines, or secrets, Team Cherry's masterpiece is packed with things to explore and discover, even more so when considering its multiple DLC.

Michael Moore Now Thinks Joe Biden Has Super-President Powers. He's Wrong. Again.

The End of the Kamala Harris Media Honeymoon: Whose Fault Is It?