When you come from a large family, it can be overwhelming. Lots of kids often mean lots of messes and even more chores. Sometimes, older siblings will help take care of the younger ones just to give their parents a break. Even though it can be chaotic, it is also a lot of fun—just ask Dolly Parton. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Dolly Parton (@dollyparton) Dolly Parton Is One Of 12 Kids & Has Beautiful Childhood Memories Dolly and her 11 siblings were raised with little money but a lot of love in the Smokey Mountains of Tennessee. She and her sister, Rachel Parton George, collaborated on a new cookbook of family recipes. Dolly and Rachel said they learned to cook “out of necessity.” Dolly told People that with so many kids in the house, everyone had to pitch in. “We’d have to climb up on the chairs to peel potatoes, turnips, or whatever. We were really helping out when Mama was not well, or in bed with a kid or having a new baby or whatever… so my first [lesson] came out of just really being a necessity of us helping mom as the older girls,” Dolly told People. The sisters’ new cookbook, Good Lookin’ Cookin,’ includes 80 recipes from the Parton family’s kitchen, including a “Slaw of Many Colors,” a point of her hit song Coat of Many Colors. Their strawberry shortcake calls for a “Dolly Dollop” whipped cream, which Rachel told people as “A generous helping, how’s that?” Dolly said that while she eats a bit healthier at 78, their cookbook is filled with delicious recipes. “Southern food is healthier than people assume it is, anyway,” Dolly said. “And Rachel has a way of not going overboard these days. You can learn to cook good southern food without putting as much grease, lard, bacon grease, whatever you do, or butter.” Good Lookin’ Cookin’ A Year of Meals- A Lifetime Of Family, Friends, and Food will be available on September 17. This story’s featured image is by Jason Kempin/Getty Images for American Greetings. The post Dolly Parton Shares Sweet Childhood Memories That Sparked Her Inner Chef appeared first on InspireMore.

'We hope that he will find the help he needs'

'zero serious rational plan'

'A burning and fumes, the fumes that kind of rise up, it chokes off your oxygen'

'Very bitter'

'The subject was charged and convicted in North Carolina'

It’s been almost a year since the Hamas terrorist organization attacked Israel on Oct. 7. The massacre left over 1,200 people dead and over 200 kidnapped—including women, men, and children. Since the attack, the Biden administration has made its support for a two-state solution clear. And now, with Vice President Kamala Harris running as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, it appears nothing has changed. During Tuesday’s debate between the vice president and the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Harris restated her support for a cease-fire and two-state solution, which, as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins explained on Thursday’s episode of “Washington Watch,” would ultimately “transfer the geographical heart of the state of Israel, Judea and Samaria, to the Palestinians.” Harris declared, “We must chart a course for a two-state solution, and in that solution, there must be security for the Israeli people and Israel and an equal measure for the Palestinians.” But experts on the ground in Israel like Caroline Glick say that a two-state solution is not a viable option. First, Glick emphasized on “Washington Watch” how Harris’ comments during Tuesday’s debate are likely to “lower her level of support” in Israel. As a senior contributing editor at the Jewish News Syndicate, Glick and her colleagues have been conducting polls “of Israeli sentiments regarding the presidential race.” As she stated, after their most recent update shortly before the presidential debate, “Trump was leading by more than two-thirds of Israelis supporting him over Kamala Harris.” She added, “I assume that next week when we poll that question,” the results will be similar. Glick further noted that Harris made potentially “the most hostile statement ever made by a major presidential candidate, by a nominee of one of the major parties, regarding Israel in history. … Her hostility toward Israel was stunning.” Glick explained how the attack on Oct. 7 was the “most sadistic” slaughter Israel has seen, and yet, Harris’ stance seems to reflect that she sees a cease-fire as a way to “pay the Palestinians.” And while it is true that many Palestinian civilians have died over this past year, Glick asserted that this was still “very much an invasion of Palestinian society into Israel, not just Hamas.” According to Glick, some military estimates found that out of the 10,000 people that entered Israel from Gaza during the attack, 5,000 to 6,000 were Hamas members, and the rest were Palestinian civilians. And so, Perkins noted, when considering the fact that Harris wants a solution that’s in “equal measure for the Palestinians,” it becomes even clearer how the Biden-Harris administration’s “support of Israel has been tepid at best.” Moving forward, he asked, is it possible policies under a potential Harris-Walz administration would be “even more indifferent toward Israel or outright hostile?” In response, Glick emphasized how, should Harris get elected, America could expect to see more hostility toward Israel. “I think that what Kamala Harris showed at the debate … is that an America under her presidency will not allow Israel to do anything beyond intercepting missiles en route to Israel” and will not allow the Jewish state to take “offensive actions against our enemies, whether it’s Iran or the Palestinians or Hezbollah.” Glick pointed out how Harris said she “will always support Israel’s right to defend itself,” but that doesn’t change the fact that “the United States right now continues to embargo 2,000-pound bunker buster bombs to Israel, because they don’t want us to take offensive action that will effectively diminish the capacities of our enemies.” Returning to the topic of the two-state solution, Perkins addressed how the land in question includes a “small strip of the Gaza Strip,” the home of the people attacking Israel. Considering this, he asked, how would Israel be able to defend itself if its land “is given away to a hostile entity?” “It can’t,” Glick said somberly. “It manifestly cannot do so.” Which is “the problem,” she added, because “people talk about the two-state solution as if this is some sort of responsible policy, but it’s not.” Rather, it establishes “a Palestinian state, causing Israel to renounce our rights to our biblical homeland” and paves the way for “Israel to be defeated.” Glick concluded, “[G]iving people whose goal in life is to annihilate the Jewish state and the Jewish people … sovereignty over the West Bank of the Jordan of Judea and Samaria” means “giving them the keys to the realm. You are telling them, ‘Go ahead, wipe Israel off the map.’” Originally published by The Washington Stand The post Expert: Harris’ ‘Two-State Solution’ Would ‘Wipe Israel Off the Map’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For Some Reason Nobody Has Taken Up This $1,000,000 Offer to Hold Pride Rally in West Bank or Gaza

TikTok Fights US Ban in Court, But Judges Are Skeptical

The Brazilian Supreme Court, as part of its war against free speech, has reportedly punished another of Elon Musk’s companies for his refusal to censor more on X. Justice Alexandre de Moraes has been in a power struggle with X that resulted in him effectively banning the platform in Brazil since the company refused to comply with overreaching censorship orders. De Moraes’s court has reportedly gone so far as to seizeabout $2 million from Musk’s Starlink company and over $1 million from X to punish him and his companies. X Global Government Affairs stated that X refused to censor De Moraes’s political opponents, including an elected senator, despite the Justice’s demands, and so faces massive fines. One of those demands reportedly required that X have a “duly authorized legal representative,” Reclaim the Net reported. But X Global Government Affairs posted that it previously did have Brazillian legal representation until Judge de Moraes “threatened” her with “imprisonment” and later “froze all of her bank accounts” after she resigned.  By seizing assets from Starlink De Moraes has now tied X’s suspension to Starlink’s ability to operate in Brazil.  Musk posted on September 4 in response to the Starlink assets freeze, “There is no legal basis for this whatsoever. Starlink is a different company with different shareholders. Moraes, the charlatan in judges robes, cannot even cite a law that Starlink has broken!” Reclaim the Net reported on Sept. 14 that De Moraes’s seemingly retaliatory actions include a fine of 18.5 million reais ($3.2 million). And De Moraes reportedly approved Starlink’s local funds being impounded to “ensure the settlement of fines.” Without specifying the amount of money impounded, Starlink confirmed the news in an August 29 X thread. “Earlier this week we received an order from Brazil’s Supreme Court Justice @alexandre de Moraes that freezes Starlink’s finances and prevents Starlink from conducting financial transactions in that country,” the post announced. The Starlink thread continued, “This order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied — unconstitutionally — against X.” Starlink said that the order “was issued in secret and without affording Starlink any of the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution of Brazil. We intend to address the matter legally.” With over a quarter of a million Brazilian customers, Starlink concluded by noting, “the Starlink team is doing everything possible to ensure their service is not interrupted.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.