An angry Kamala Harris lied about the Border Bill again this week. The bill was actually an amnesty bill. It enshrined illegal immigration of at least 5,000 anonymous people a day. According to the proposed deal, the Department of Homeland Security would be required to close the border to all migrants without appointments to seek asylum […] The post Kamala Lies About the Border Bill, Screams Joyfully at Followers appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

The following is an edited transcript of an interview on an Exclusive edition of Morning Wire. Daily Wire editor-in-chief John Bickley sits down with CEO, president, and general counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, Kristen Waggoner, and Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon about a new lawsuit over censorship. Earlier this month, California’s Gavin Newsom signed first-in-the-nation “deepfake” laws – a move that came just weeks after he said a Kamala Harris online parody video should be “illegal.” While the Democrat governor’s office is celebrating the laws as a “safeguard” against the use of “deceptive” digital content, conservatives say this is a massive violation of free speech. * * * JOHN: Joining us now to discuss for the first time the lawsuit they have just filed today against the state of California is Seth Dillon, CEO of the Babylon Bee, and Kristen Waggoner, president of the Alliance Defending Freedom. Seth and Kristen, thank you so much for joining us. Now you’ve partnered to sue over these new laws just recently signed by Governor Newsom. First, Seth, I’d like to ask you, why did you feel compelled to bring this lawsuit? SETH: Well, I guess a number of things. We started out the Bee as a comedy site that’s mission was just to tell jokes on the internet. And over the course of the last several years – you know, the Bee’s been around for eight years now, if you can believe that – and for most of that time for the last six years, we’ve been battling either big state, big tech censorship or state laws that clamp down on speech with either rules against misinformation, rules against hate speech, laws now that we see popping up trying to prevent parody, the use of deep fakes, memes, things of that nature. And so we’re concerned about freedom of speech first and foremost, but we’re also concerned about our business, and when you’re doing satire, when you’re parodying people, you’re adopting their voice, you’re adopting their likeness. Satirical articles are meant to look like real articles and that’s the hook that pulls you in and then you hit them with a punchline. So, Babylon Bee’s content requires that we engage in this satire, where we’re adopting a voice and a viewpoint and using that to mock and ridicule a subject. And this law in particular – well, there are a couple of laws in play here – but one of them affects content creators, specifically satirists and people doing parody by requiring them to put disclaimers to let you know that this is parody that you’re reading right now – which completely stifles and kills the joke. It disrupts our ability to do what we do the way that we do it, in the voice we do it in. And so that’s very problematic for us. If we’re unable to publish satire without putting disclaimers all over it, and we’re going to face potentially penalties if we don’t do that, then that’s a very serious issue too. So we’re fighting back in every way we can against laws that clamp down on speech. So this is just one more, this is just the latest example of an effort where the state is now basically turning these social platforms into an arm of their censorship apparatus and coming after satirists like us very aggressively. So, we see that as an important thing that needs to be pushed back on. JOHN: Right – and this brings us to the legal arguments here. Kristen, can you lay out the legal case that you’re bringing against California? KRISTEN: I can. These laws that were passed in California target core political speech. These laws were passed by politicians to protect politicians from speech that they don’t like. I’ll point to two in particular. The first law is used to punish speakers for posting political commentary online that the government doesn’t like, decides is materially deceptive content, and it is targeting that content that affects candidates or election officials and what they say might harm their chances of getting elected. It also allows anybody to file a lawsuit if they want to file a lawsuit regarding a post. So in addition to what Seth talked about with regard to these disclaimers that actually defeat the whole point of the joke, they also subject all kinds of people – me and you – to saying, ”Well, should I repost this or not? Because what if it gets me sued?” It’s deeply disturbing and sets a roadmap for widespread censorship across the nation. LISTEN: Catch the full interview with Seth Dillon and Kristen Waggoner on Morning Wire JOHN: So this isn’t just for companies. This is for individuals. This applies to individuals posting any content online, even reposting content. Is that correct? KRISTEN: Yes, that’s correct. JOHN: So this really opens the floodgates legally. Have we seen anything similar to this in any other states? KRISTEN: We’ve seen censorship writ large in Western democracies now outside of the United States. And I think it’s important for Americans to understand that the United States is the last country in the Western world, among Western democracies, to protect free speech, to protect core political speech. The last people who should be doing the fact-checking are the political candidates and Gavin Newsom – and that’s what these laws do. They’re incompatible with self-government and democracy. JOHN: How much of a burden is this to the platforms – this is a threat to the platforms as well if the state decides they’re not properly policing content, correct?  KRISTEN: It’s absolutely a threat. It is a roadmap to widespread censorship. There’s no question about it, and there is no law that has gone this far. If we want to maintain a free society, if we want self-government, if we want democracy, then we can’t allow Gavin Newsom to tell us what we can post and what we can’t post. JOHN: Elon Musk’s platform X is obviously fighting against censorship laws. Are any other platforms pushing back on these new laws?  KRISTEN: Yes, I believe there will be more platforms that will push back on it. One of the problems with this law is that it’s so vague. In certain parts, it’s even hard to know what it says. And if the lawyers are having trouble explaining it, imagine what the average person is going to have to do to be able to repost something and feel like they won’t get sued for it. So there is one lawsuit that’s pending right now related to a post, and this is the second lawsuit. And I expect you’ll see more. I hope you will see more. JOHN: Now you brought up fact-checking. I know this is something that Seth has talked about a lot, and here at The Daily Wire, obviously, we’ve dealt with this firsthand. We have a current lawsuit related to the Biden administration’s collusion with fact-checking groups. Central to this is the idea that the state can actually identify what is true or not true, and that they are the arbiters of that. What is the legal case against that kind of suppression via “fact-checking”? KRISTEN: The legal case is that the free speech clause of the First Amendment in the United States Constitution — as well as a number of state constitutions — protects our right as Americans to be able to decide what is true, what is false, what is worthy of being said in the public square. We necessarily understand that if you allow the government to decide what speech is worthy of being given voice to, you are not only impairing the right to self-government and to impose a check on government officials, but you’re also impairing the pursuit of truth and social progress. We know in particular satire and parody have been used since the days of Voltaire and George Washington and Aristotle. Political satire has been used to reveal truth, to shock people into considering things in a new way. It serves a vibrant purpose, particularly in public debate. JOHN: Now the argument presented by advocates of these censorship laws often focuses on “misinformation” – that “misinformation” is dangerous for the public. We saw a lot of this during the COVID era. But you see this really highlighted in satirical content, in particular. The Babylon Bee has really led the way on this issue, highlighting the fact that this distinction between satire and straight news is not made – often in a very disingenuous way by the people that have the authority to block content on social media platforms. Seth, how have you seen this play out writ large in the last few years? SETH: Well, it’s funny you mentioned COVID. That whole scenario seemed like satire to me as I was watching it, and then watching the excuses they were making for the censorship. You remember they were telling you what you were and weren’t allowed to say based on whatever the prevailing narrative was. Whatever the CDC says you’re allowed to say or whatever Fauci says you’re allowed to say, that’s permitted, but you can’t challenge that. Then, later on, as the facts changed and people realized some of the things that they were saying were wrong— it was actually the case that many people had been speaking the truth and had been censored. And it just really highlights the fundamental problem with trying to decide up front what the truth is. Kristen mentioned a moment ago the utility of being able to speak freely. Part of that is truth seeking. You have to be able to debate ideas and challenge ideas rather than just arbitrarily deciding at any given moment in time what’s true. If knowledge changes over time, then it may turn out that you’re censoring people who are speaking the truth today. And that’s exactly what we saw with COVID. That is actually a knockdown argument against censorship for what they were doing with COVID and the way that the facts actually played out and disrupted some of those narratives. And so with “misinformation,” we’ve seen our jokes fact-checked so many times and we’ve been threatened with de-platforming and demonetization so many times by a number of these different platforms.There are state laws that are trying to clamp down on the spread of misinformation or on hate speech. And so, on the one hand we want to just kind of mock and make fun of that stuff, and on the other, we have to take it very seriously and push back with legal challenges when necessary. JOHN: ADF is really leading the charge on those challenges. Kristen, what other kinds of cases are related to this that your team has been a part of?  KRISTEN: Well, we’ve seen government censorship play out here in the United States. First of all, in cases like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop, where laws have been weaponized to force people to say things that they don’t believe and to face severe punishment in some states, even jail time for declining to speak messages about marriage and other topics. Then, we have moved to instances where pregnancy resource centers, for example, are facing assaults right now to have to refer to abortion — or to essentially express speech that violates their pro-life beliefs. We have a case right now at the US Supreme Court that we’re asking the Court to hear involving the right of a young boy in school who simply wants to say that there are two genders on his T-shirt when all of his colleagues are wearing things that suggest otherwise. So we are seeing this across the spectrum. We litigate more cases in this area than anyone else. But I also want to highlight the international perspective right now, because we have cases on five continents. We have congressmen in Mexico we’re defending; someone on death row in Nigeria. We had a trial this week in the UK for someone who engaged in silent prayer. Peru just had a criminal conviction, a case that we won this last week. So this is an all out assault by government officials. The World Economic Forum right now says its greatest threat is “misinformation” and “disinformation.” And when the public hears those words, they should understand what that means is government censorship. Someone who wants control will first take away the right to speak freely, and our First Amendment says that it’s up to the American people to decide and to think for themselves in the context, particularly of political debates. And we need to make sure that stays the same way and that those laws are upheld, despite what California’s trying to do here. One last thing on this that we haven’t even touched on is that this California law actually sets up social media platforms to be snitches on people. A second law actually requires these platforms to accept complaints and then to censor speech, even when they don’t want to censor speech. So it is Orwellian in nature. JOHN: So this California law turns Americans against each other, sort of weaponizing them with this “misinformation” clause. Now this case focuses on satire. Is this an original case in some ways? How much has satire played into the legal history of censorship laws? KRISTEN: We have not seen any law like this in the United States. Now perhaps there’s some that I’m unaware of, but we’ve seen no similar law where it has been targeted in this way through a state law. And frankly, in terms of the Western democracy and the laws that we’re seeing, they’re far more draconian. We can look at Brazil right now, where we have a petition before the Inter-American Commission — they’re just simply taking X down altogether. But this is the way it starts. These are code words that allow government officials and political opponents to sue over speech that they just don’t like. SETH: Yes.What she said a minute ago was right on point. It’s when they use words like trying to crack down on “misinformation” and “hate speech,” these attempts at content moderation, they are euphemisms for censorship. What they’re trying to do is guard certain narratives, not the truth. And they often end up guarding those narratives at the expense of the truth. JOHN: Final question, to return to California. What’s next for this case? And do you think these laws have any chance of standing up in court? KRISTEN: We will be filing the case that will go up through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We will be asking the trial court for a preliminary injunction and then a permanent injunction to stop these laws from going into effect. It’s difficult to say what will happen in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals up through the federal system in California, but I do believe, I am optimistic that the United States Supreme Court will stand up for free speech. But time will tell. It takes a lot of time, a lot of resources, and courage by groups and people like Seth and the Babylon Bee to stand up, because again, under this law, you and I can get sued for posting a parody or a satire, some type of joke – and that’s chilling. JOHN: Well, we certainly will be tracking your lawsuit, as its outcome impacts, well, all of us. Seth and Kristen, thank you so much for joining us.  SETH: Thank you for having us. KRISTEN: Thank you. JOHN: That was Seth Dillon, CEO of the Babylon Bee, and Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom – and this has been an Exclusive edition of Morning Wire.  *** LISTEN: Catch the full interview with Seth Dillon and Kristen Waggoner on Morning Wire

On September 26, 2024, the Biden administration unveiled a massive new aid package for Ukraine, marking one of the most comprehensive rounds of military support since the conflict with Russia began in 2022. This package, totaling almost $8 billion, comes as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the White House following his address to the United Nations General Assembly. A significant portion of the aid is being funneled through a $5.5 billion allocation, drawn from the U.S. defense stockpiles, which was set to expire at the end of the fiscal year. This move effectively depletes the remaining funds allocated for Ukraine under a previously approved congressional defense bill. President Joe Biden also pledged an additional $2.4 billion in long-term aid, including drones, munitions, and much-needed air defense systems. This assistance comes through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), allowing the U.S. to support Ukraine’s military needs into the future. ???: The United States is preparing a more than $8 billion aid package for Ukraine that will be announced Thursday during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's visit to Washington D.C. The Biden-Harris administration had already been in discussions with Congress to give… pic.twitter.com/NKcqb1JTod — RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) September 25, 2024 Perhaps the most headline-grabbing element of the aid package is the expansion of training for Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighter jets. Ukrainian pilots began receiving F-16s earlier this summer, and the expanded training aims to ensure these advanced jets can be fully operational in the hands of the Ukrainian Air Force. The F-16 training plan reflects the “crawl, walk, run” strategy of gradually preparing Ukraine for sophisticated aerial combat. However, there are concerns that the existing training infrastructure, split between the U.S. and Europe, is insufficient for the number of pilots Ukraine needs trained. The inclusion of additional air defense systems, especially a refurbished Patriot missile battery, is critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s airstrikes. Zelenskyy has long pushed for more Patriot systems to shield Ukrainian cities from Russia’s relentless bombardment. With this new aid package, Kyiv will receive more advanced weapons such as Joint Standoff Weapons, a type of air-to-ground missile that can be launched from long distances​. Geography matters. Culture matters. Political rhetoric is mostly irrelevant. Watch what governments do. Ignore what they say. The NATO countries taking the Russian threat seriously are (a) spending more on defense and (b) sending a lot of aid to Ukraine. This includes all… pic.twitter.com/JXnwZOlENj — The Good Shepherd (@HoyasFan07) September 27, 2024 This latest round of assistance underscores the Biden administration’s continued commitment to Ukraine, despite growing political debate at home. As the conflict drags into its third year, Donald Trump, the frontrunner in the 2024 presidential race, has indicated that he would seek to end the war but hasn’t clarified what concessions, if any, he would make to achieve peace. Many in Congress remain divided over how much support the U.S. should continue to provide, especially as economic concerns rise domestically. Zelenskyy’s visit to Washington comes at a crucial time, as Ukraine has recently ramped up its counteroffensive against Russian forces. While the West’s support has been critical, Ukrainian officials have expressed frustration with delays in weapons deliveries and what they see as overly cautious measures by NATO countries. The expanded F-16 training is a positive step, but some argue it’s coming too late. One of the F-16s already delivered to Ukraine was lost in an August accident, leading to a reshuffling of leadership in Ukraine’s air force. The Biden administration’s decision to exhaust the remaining $5.5 billion authority signals a decisive push to support Ukraine before the end of the fiscal year, with the next steps likely hinging on congressional approval of future funding. The White House also plans to convene a summit in October, bringing together leaders from across the globe to coordinate future aid for Ukraine. This shows that while the current package is significant, continued international cooperation will be essential for sustaining Ukraine’s defense efforts. In total, the aid package represents a broad, multi-faceted effort to keep Ukraine’s defenses strong, from high-tech weaponry to comprehensive pilot training. Yet, as the conflict continues with no clear end in sight, the question remains whether this will be enough to tip the scales in Ukraine’s favor or whether more aid will be necessary in the months ahead. The post White House Announces $8 Billion in Ukraine Aid, Expands F-16 Training appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

For decades, Kris Kristofferson offered the world a type of talent that is considered to be oh-so rare. As a singer and songwriter, he changed the landscape of country music. This is something he did along with the likes of other country legends, like Willie Nelson. But Kristofferson also made a lasting impact in the world of acting. He starred in movies like the Blade trilogy and even earned a Golden Globe for A Star is Born (1976). With an impactful career like this one, it’s no wonder so many are devastated by the news of his passing. At 88-years-old, Kristofferson passed away peacefully in his sleep. The news was broken in a post shared on his social media accounts. This message was written by his family, and it’s touching the hearts of fans from all around the world. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Kris Kristofferson (@kristofferson) “It is with a heavy heart that we share the news our husband/father/grandfather, Kris Kristofferson, passed away peacefully on Saturday, September 28 at home,” the family’s post reads. “We’re all so blessed for our time with him. Thank you for loving him all these many years, and when you see a rainbow, know he’s smiling down at us all.” Kris Kristofferson’s Family Shares the News of the Country Legend’s Death in a Touching Message View this post on Instagram A post shared by Kris Kristofferson (@kristofferson) Throughout Kristofferson’s career, he’s proven to have cared deeply about his art. That said, it seems he cared just as deeply about those he made the art for as well. This couldn’t be clearer than when taking a look at the comment section of his family’s post. Here, thousands of fans share the impact Kristofferson had on their lives. “I first met Kris in line at LAX in 2004, we ended up setting next to each other flying Southwest to Albuquerque, we talked nonstop all the way,” one fan shares, with another adding, “Kris Kristofferson’s passing is truly the end of an era. He was not just a brilliant songwriter and musician but a poet of the human condition, capturing love, loss, and everything in between.” You can find the source of this story’s featured image here! The post Family Of The Late Country Legend Kris Kristofferson Issues Statement That Will Touch Your Heart appeared first on InspireMore.

'They don’t want to be identified with all of those other immigrants'

While the videos depict genuine hurricane footage, the footage is from separate storms

HEL’ ON EARTH… AP: Death toll rises from Helene while supplies are rushed to North Carolina and Florida digs out PERRY, Fla. (AP) — Authorities struggled to get water and other supplies to isolated, flood-stricken areas across the U.S. Southeast in the wake of Hurricane Helene as the death toll from the storm rose to […]

'Very strong position'

The post When Cats Eat a Wet Food-Only Diet: Olga’s Preferences by Christopher Bays appeared first on Catster. Copying over entire articles infringes on copyright laws. You may not be aware of it, but all of these articles were assigned, contracted and paid for, so they aren't considered public domain. However, we appreciate that you like the article and would love it if you continued sharing just the first paragraph of an article, then linking out to the rest of the piece on Catster.com. Hi, I’m Christopher! Read my introduction to learn more about me and my silly Russian Blue cat, Olga. Until a few years ago, Olga wasn’t picky about her food; she ate wet food in the morning and dry food in the evening. She’s more food-motivated than my previous cat, and she used to scoot around with her front paws on the edge of the dinner table when I had a snack or meal. She still begs me for food but is no longer interested in human cuisine. Olga the Kitten When she was a kitten, I made the mistake of replicating my Siamese cat’s diet. His name was Robert Fripp, and he ate dry food every day and wet food only once a week. However, he didn’t have a routine and didn’t eat much in one sitting. Free-feeding him wasn’t a problem, and he was a slim cat for nearly 20 years. I took Olga for a checkup when she was less than a year old, and my veterinarian said she was a little hefty for a young cat and needed to lose a few pounds. She said it’s much harder for indoor cats to lose weight and warned that it would take a few months before Olga slimmed down on the new diet. Her advice and portioning instructions were invaluable; soon, Olga was at her ideal weight. Am I hungry? The answer is always yes! Changing Her Diet I tried several brands of cat food, along with a liquid medication my vet prescribed, when she had diarrhea and didn’t seem to like dry food anymore. I thought she was okay when she seemed to like a new brand, but after a few days, she vomited and ignored the food. I switched to a wet food-only diet, and she hasn’t had any gastrointestinal issues. Taking her off dry food and brushing her more has also helped reduce or eliminate hairballs. I didn’t think she coughed up hairballs that often before, but after discussing her condition with my vet, I realized it was occurring more than it should. She’s much happier and healthier on wet food, but the diet has a few disadvantages. The chicken gumbo you’re eating looks delicious but might be too spicy for me. Wet Food’s Disadvantages Since it’s less filling than dry food, she has to eat three meals a day to be satisfied. She eats less each meal, but she’s still picky. She’ll walk away from the food she loved the day before, but after I encourage her to eat it by sliding her toward the bowl, she’ll eat all of it. I’m not sure why she initially rejects some of her meals, but I buy six or seven wet food formulas and serve a different one at every meal to keep her interested. I’m glad her system is back to normal, and she likes the new routine. I work at home, and it’s not a problem to feed her more often, but it will be an issue when I leave town. I have a few friends and family members who care for Olga when I’m away, but they haven’t taken care of her since her diet changed, and they won’t be able to feed her three times a day. Before my next vacation, I’ll need to find a trusting cat sitter with an open schedule and patience for a picky cat. This article is a part of Christopher and Olga's series. Read his previous article: Office Cats: The Pros & Cons of Felines in the Workplace The post When Cats Eat a Wet Food-Only Diet: Olga’s Preferences by Christopher Bays appeared first on Catster. Copying over entire articles infringes on copyright laws. You may not be aware of it, but all of these articles were assigned, contracted and paid for, so they aren't considered public domain. However, we appreciate that you like the article and would love it if you continued sharing just the first paragraph of an article, then linking out to the rest of the piece on Catster.com.