'I think justice was served'

The document cited in the article does not make this claim

'I don't like the way this is working'

A 6-year-old boy who was kidnapped from a California playground more than 70 years ago has finally been found thanks to his determined, and unknown, niece. Making headlines all over the English-speaking world, Luis Armando Albino was reunited with lost family members when they discovered he was living on the East Coast thanks to a […] The post Boy Kidnapped 73 Years Ago is Finally Found–Just in Time to Reunite with Dying Brother appeared first on Good News Network.

News Teacup The Teacup Trailer Is Really Serious About Not Crossing the Line Yes, as in “tempest in a…” By Molly Templeton | Published on September 24, 2024 Screenshot: Peacock Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: Peacock The trailer for Teacup, a new series from producer James Wan and showrunner Ian McCulloch (Chicago Fire), packs a lot of not-uncommon horror elements into one small package. The animals are freaked out. The woods gets real creepy. Something is definitely in the basement. There’s a man in a gas mask who somehow comes across like a horrifying low-effort clown. A little kid comes bearing terrifying messages. And then there’s the matter of the blue line that the various characters must not cross. When someone does cross it—accidentally—we don’t see what happens. But we absolutely hear it. Teacup is based on Robert McCammon’s bestselling 1998 novel Stinger, and if you would like to have a better idea what is happening in the series adaptation, the novel’s synopsis will certainly tell you. But the series seems to want to play it a little vague and extra horrifying—and quirky, too, with a gentle Harry Nilsson song as the trailer’s soundtrack. So we’ll allow them their vagueness for now. The synopsis says only, “Teacup follows a disparate group of people in rural Georgia who must come together in the face of a mysterious threat in order to survive.” The disparate group of people includes Scott Speedman (Underworld), Yvonne Strahovski (The Handmaid’s Tale), Kathy Baker (Picket Fences), Rob Morgan (Stranger Things), Chaske Spencer (The Twilight Saga), and Boris McGiver (Evil). Teacup will release with two episodes a week starting October 10th on Peacock.[end-mark] The post The <i>Teacup</i> Trailer Is Really Serious About Not Crossing the Line appeared first on Reactor.

Those attacking me for my participation in Project 2025, for which I wrote the chapter on how the Federal Election Commission should be run, reveal their dangerous views approving of government overreach and abusive conduct by government law enforcement agencies.  There’s no other way to interpret their criticism of me other than their disagreeing with all of the recommendations I make in Chapter 29 of The Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership 2025.” For those who don’t keep up with the multitude of alphabet-soup federal agencies, the FEC is an independent federal agency run by six commissioners (three Republicans and three Democrats) nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The FEC has civil enforcement authority over the federal campaign-finance laws that govern the raising and spending of money in federal campaigns for Congress and the presidency.  The Justice Department has criminal enforcement authority, which comes into play for knowing and willful violations of the law. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) is byzantine in its complexity, and many of its provisions are confusing, contradictory, or ambiguous. But it’s the FEC’s job to civilly enforce that law and to issue regulations implementing it.  It’s important to understand what the FEC is regulating in what I pointed out in my chapter is “one of the most sensitive areas of the Bill of Rights: political speech and political activity by citizens, candidates, political parties, and the voluntary membership organizations that represent Americans who share common views on a huge range of important and vital public policy issues.” So, what are the reforms my critics are disparaging and denigrating?  I recommend that the president only nominate commissioners for the FEC who demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that the FEC: 1) does not act beyond its statutory mandate; 2) construes confusing and ambiguous provisions against the government, not candidates and the public; and 3) does not infringe on protected First Amendment activity. So, my detractors clearly want a federal agency, one with law enforcement authority that can sanction you with civil penalties, which won’t pay any attention to the statutory limits on its law enforcement power. They want an agency that will go after you for supposedly violating the law when the law is unclear and it’s not possible for a reasonable person to know that their behavior may violate the law. And they have contempt for the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment and think the FEC should not worry about the constitutional protections afforded to every American. What else did I say that was so objectionable to the detractors of Project 2025 that they label it an “anti-democracy agenda?” I pointed out that while a president does not control the FEC, he does control the Justice Department. It’s fundamentally unfair for “overzealous government prosecutors” to “prosecute individuals who are unable to determine if they are violating the law” because the federal law is confusing, contradictory, or ambiguous. The Justice Department should “only prosecute clear violations of FECA.”   What is so radical and antidemocratic about that? In fact, it’s the contrary view that’s radical and antidemocratic and leads to the weaponization of the justice system.  Oh, and here is another recommendation I made that irresponsible critics call a “troubling suggestion.” Imagine the situation you could find yourself in if you have two different federal agencies disagreeing completely on what the law allows. One agency tells you that what you are doing is perfectly legal, but another tells you that what you are doing is illegal. That second agency then criminally prosecutes you for taking an action that the other agency advised you was legitimate and not a violation of the law. Sound like a nightmare? It’s a nightmare that can happen, since enforcement of federal campaign finance law, as I noted earlier, is divided between the FEC and the Justice Department. My “troubling suggestion” is that the president should direct the Justice Department “not to prosecute individuals under an interpretation of the law with which the FEC—the expert agency designated by Congress to enforce the law civilly and issue regulations establishing the standards under which the law is applied—does not agree.” How is that antidemocratic? Why is that troubling? Why would anyone believe, as the critics of Project 2025 apparently do, that putting a candidate, a member of the public, or anyone else who participates in the political arena into such a quagmire is a sound way of running the government or a fair way of exercising its law enforcement powers?  Only those who believe in giving federal law enforcement agencies unlimited power to control the political playing field that’s an essential element of the democratic process would take that view. Their real fear is that if Project 2025 is implemented by a new president, it will restrict the overreach of powerful government agencies and bureaucrats, making them accountable to voters and the leadership they elect to run the executive branch, and pulling them back from interfering in the everyday lives of Americans. That is what permeates all of the unjustified, hysterical broadsides launched at the project. Everything I wrote in my chapter on the FEC is common sense to anyone except the jaded power-hungry elites in Washington and their political comrades in the national media. The post Criticism of Project 2025’s Reforms of Federal Election Commission Is Ill-Informed, Dangerous appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. There’s a joke about the United Nations. It goes something like this: if you want something done with maximum deliberation and minimal speed, ask the UN to take it on. It’s not exactly a gut-buster, but in the world of global governance, it lands because it’s true. But now, in a world swirling with algorithms, misinformation, and artificially intelligent beings who, unlike toddlers, never sleep, the UN has decided to enter the AI ring. Yes, the same UN that’s still trying to get all 193 of its member states to agree on what’s for lunch. So, what’s happening here? A new report suggests that the United Nations wants to establish its very own AI babysitting service. Imagine something akin to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but instead of trying to save us from melting glaciers, it’s here to save us from an AI-driven future where deepfake videos are supposedly a major problem. We obtained a copy of the report for you here. But before we dive into this report’s recommendations (and oh, are they vast), let’s address the most important question: Is the UN, the world’s go-to for polite disagreement and watered-down resolutions, really equipped to keep up with something like artificial intelligence? AI: The Wild West or Just Another Day in Cyberspace? The report is concerned—very concerned—about AI’s potential to spread misinformation, the modern-day equivalent of whispering the wrong answer on purpose in a game of telephone, but on a global scale. We’ve all seen those deepfakes and memes, like the ones where Tom Cruise is somehow everywhere and nowhere at once. But, according to the UN, these aren’t just TikTok party tricks; they’re threats to democracy, truth, and—let’s be real—probably the world economy. Enter the proposed AI babysitting panel, or as the UN would call it (because everything needs a fun acronym), something like the Global Artificial Intelligence Taskforce for Universal Safety. The goal? To corral the world’s 193 member states into one room—virtually, of course—and get them to agree on how to keep AI from wreaking total havoc. Alondra Nelson, an advisory body member who was graciously loaned to the UN by the White House and State Department, says it best: “There is a global consensus on the potential benefits and threats of AI.” Let’s break this down. “Consensus” here probably means they’ve agreed it’s terrifying, and beyond that? Well, good luck. Nelson’s enthusiasm underscores the delicate, and dare I say, naïve optimism required to take on something as vast as artificial intelligence. Regulation for All—But Especially the Global South Here’s where things get interesting. Not only does the report outline a shiny new AI body, but it also calls for a fund to help the global south get in on the action. Imagine it: countries who are still ironing out Wi-Fi issues are being told they’re now part of the international AI regulatory community. It’s not entirely absurd—helping these countries develop governance mechanisms is crucial—but it’s a bit like handing the car keys to someone who’s never driven. Sure, they can learn, but maybe not at 100 miles an hour, which is how fast AI is moving these days. And while we’re at it, let’s talk about the balance of power here. China and the US have their own thoughts on how to regulate AI. The US, of course, wants “safe, secure, and trustworthy” AI, which sounds lovely until you remember that “trustworthy” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Meanwhile, China is all about “cooperation” and ensuring everyone has access to AI, which, depending on how you interpret it, could mean anything from friendly tech sharing to global cyber dominance. But really, it’s not just about the technology. It’s about the power to control the narrative. And therein lies the rub: who gets to decide what counts as truth in an age where AI could potentially manufacture reality on demand? Misinformation might be the spark, but freedom of speech is the tinder, and one wrong move could ignite a global debate that makes Twitter wars look tame. The Verdict: Will the UN Save Us from Our Own Creations? So, what’s next? It all comes down to the details of implementation. And if you’ve ever read the fine print on anything, you know that’s where the devil lives. The UN might be stepping up to the plate, but we’re talking about a batter who’s trying to hit a home run while the ball’s moving at the speed of light—and is possibly a hologram. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UN Proposes Global AI Watchdog to Curb “Misinformation” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Coffee Shop Owner Wins $4 Million Judgment Against Boise State University

The similarities between the architecture at the site and that of Zoroastrians in Persia and elsewhere is pretty compelling.