The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the pivotal transgender case U.S. v. Skrmetti, and both the lawyers arguing against a Tennessee ban on “gender-affirming care” and three Supreme Court justices made dubious claims and stated outright falsehoods in support of experimental transgender “treatments.” Tennessee’s SB1 bans medical procedures on minors for the purpose of “enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or “treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.” The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the parents of minors who claim to identify as the opposite sex and claim to have benefited from these procedures, sued to block the law, and the Biden administration joined the lawsuit on the ACLU’s side. The plaintiffs claim that SB1 violates federal law by discriminating against minors who identify as transgender, denying to them the same treatments that would be allowed for minors who do not so identify. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld Tennessee’s law, finding that it doesn’t entail discrimination. The U.S. and the ACLU appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio—a male who says he identifies as female—argued the case before the court Wednesday, as did Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice. Prelogar, Strangio, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of President Joe Biden, twisted the truth on “gender-affirming care” in at least five ways. 1. ‘Puberty blockers’ are reversible “Critically, puberty blockers have no effect, in and of themselves, on fertility, so I don’t think that concern can justify the ban on puberty blockers, which is just pressing pause on someone’s endogenous puberty to give them more time to understand their identity,” Prelogar argued. The Food and Drug Administration has not approved GnRH agonists, which stands for “Gonadatropin-releasing hormone agonists,” for the treatment of gender dysphoria (the painful and persistent identification with the gender opposite one’s biological sex) in children. GnRH agonists prevent the natural release of testosterone and estrogen that initiate puberty. David Gortler, a pharmacologist and pharmacist who previously was a senior adviser to the FDA commissioner on policy and drug safety, previously told The Daily Signal that physicians developed GnRH agonists to help treat certain cancers that depend on estrogen or testosterone. Endocrinologists—doctors who specialize in the hormone-regulating endocrine system—have testified to the harms these drugs can cause. Dr. Paul Hruz, an endocrinology researcher and clinician at Washington University School of Medicine, wrote that after “an extended period of pubertal suppression,” patients can’t “turn back the clock” and “reverse changes in the normal coordinated pattern of adolescent psychological development and puberty.” Dr. Sophie Scott, a neuroscientist from the United Kingdom, explained that the effects of certain chemicals on the human brain aren’t well known, and that current science does not support “puberty blockers” for adolescents. “As puberty is associated with very marked changes in the structure of the brain … the use of puberty blockers may have serious consequences for the development of the human brain,” Scott warned. Studies in sheep and young girls suggest that these drugs affect the size of the amygdala. Male sheep treated with the drugs showed “more risk-taking behaviors,” while treated female sheep “showed higher levels of anxiety and greater avoidance behavior.” Girls treated with the drug also showed “significant greater emotional reactivity” and “lower heart rates.” They also scored lower on IQ tests after taking the drugs. ??PANTS ON FIREU.S. SG Elizabeth Prelogar repeatedly lies about "gender-affirming care."1?She claims "puberty blockers" are fully reversible: They are "just pressing pause."2?She acknowledges that cross-sex hormones can affect fertility but suggests that kids can be… pic.twitter.com/MFwrO02Bdz— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024 2. Suicidality Strangio, the ACLU lawyer, claimed that it is “clearly established in the science and in the record” that “the medications in question reduce the risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidality, which are all indicators of potential suicide.” (Suicidality refers to the condition of contemplating suicide.) The lawyer admitted that there is no evidence “that this treatment reduces completed suicide” because “completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare.” Yet Strangio claimed that “there are multiple studies, long-term longitudinal studies, that do show that there is a reduction in suicidality, which I think is a positive outcome to this treatment.” ?NO EVIDENCESupreme Court Justice Samuel Alito presses ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio about whether "puberty blockers" decrease thoughts of su*cide. He rightly cites the Cass Review, which found "no evidence" for that claim.It gets worse, however. At least one FDA study found… pic.twitter.com/zGAHhfFUUQ— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024 The evidence is not as clear-cut as Strangio suggested, however. In one email on Jan. 25, 2022, Shannon Sullivan, clinical team leader at the FDA’s Division of General Endocrinology, noted that the agency’s Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology Products performed a “safety review of the GnRH agonist class in pediatric patients in 2016/2017.” Sullivan noted that while the study did not find effects on bone density, “We did find increased risk of depression and suicidality, as well as increased seizure risk, and we issued [safety-related labeling changes].” In other words, some studies show the exact opposite of Strangio’s claim—that GnRH agonists increase, rather than decrease, thoughts of suicide. ?BREAKING: A high-ranking FDA official admitted that "puberty blockers" carry an "increased risk of depression and suicidality" but called for approving them for "transgender" kids, anyway. This flips the gender ideology narrative on its head??https://t.co/dtbdVKEcap pic.twitter.com/4qXc6TZF06— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) August 1, 2024 3. Puberty as Harmful “Gender-affirming care” advocates repeatedly suggested that the natural process of puberty causes harm to people who identify with the gender opposite their biological sex. “If you’re thinking about this from the standpoint of, ‘There’s no harm in just making them wait until they’re adults,’ I think you have to recognize that the effect of denying this care is to produce irreversible physical effects that are consistent with their birth sex, because they have to go through puberty before they turn 18,” Prelogar argued. “So, essentially what this law is doing is saying we’re going to make all adolescents in this state develop the physical secondary sex characteristics consistent with their gender or their sex assigned at birth, even though that might significantly worsen gender dysphoria, increase the risk of suicide, and—I think, critically—make it much harder to live and be accepted in their gender identity as a result,” she said. Prelogar noted that a male who goes through puberty will develop an Adam’s apple, and that may make it harder for that man to “pass” as female, thereby subjecting him to discrimination in the future. “You have this population of adolescents, and there are documented very essential benefits for a large number of them, and maybe a small number that will regret this care just like with any other medical care,” she added. Prelogar’s argument flips the natural course of biology on its head. She and others are suggesting that the natural process of puberty is somehow harmful and that it is better for males who say they identify as female to undergo a chemically induced artificial facsimile of the natural process than it is for them to develop naturally. The evidence for benefits of this artificial process is flimsy, but the associated harms are manifold—and that’s the exact reason why Tennessee’s General Assembly voted to protect minors from it. 4. ‘The Same’ Medical Condition Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Jackson repeatedly suggested that the Tennessee law bans puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones (estrogen for boys and testosterone for girls, to make them appear like the opposite sex) for males who identify as female and females who identify as male, but not for males who identify as male and females who identify as female. Sotomayor said that a boy struggling with precocious puberty—the condition of starting puberty too early—would take the same medication as a girl who identifies as male. “The medical condition is the same, but you’re saying one sex is getting it and the other is not,” she added. “We do not agree that the medical condition is the same,” Rice, the Tennessee solicitor general, responded. “We do not think that giving puberty blockers to a 6-year-old that has started precocious puberty is the same medical treatment” as giving them “to a minor who wants to transition.” While the two patients would take the same drug, the intended purpose and practical effect would be different. Sotomayor and Jackson were conflating two very different conditions. ?WE DO NOT AGREEJustices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson strain to compare the treatment of precocious puberty to the "treatment" of putting boys or girls on experimental drugs to "pause" puberty. "No, we do not agree that the medical condition is the same," Matt Rice… pic.twitter.com/12V5N8v4hL— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024 5. ‘Gender Conformity’ Justice Elena Kagan argued that “one of the articulated purposes of this law is to essentially to encourage gender conformity and to discourage anything other than gender conformity.” She cited the law’s text, which states that Tennessee has “a legitimate, substantial, and compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty” and a similar interest “in protecting the integrity of the medical profession, including by prohibiting medical procedures that are harmful, unethical, immoral, experimental, or unsupported by high-quality or long-term studies, or that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.” She said that it “sounds to me that ‘we want boys to be boys and we want girls to be girls,’ and that’s an important purpose behind the law.” Rice, representing Tennessee, noted that Kagan’s quotes come in the context of the state’s legislature attempting to prevent causing harm to minors. He noted studies in which minors’ mental health actually got worse after “gender-affirming care.” “The legislature specifically noted those studies, so I think that statement was rooted in the notion that actually this is causing affirmative harm to minors that were undergoing the interventions, and that’s why they’re saying we don’t want these interventions that will cause minors to become disdainful of their sex,” he explained. The law does not aim to set forth standards of masculinity to which boys must adhere, or standards of femininity that girls must follow. On the contrary, the transgender movement encourages boys who may have feminine traits to identify as girls and undergo medical interventions to alter their bodies. If any side is advocating conformity to gender standards, it is the transgender movement. ?NOT ABOUT GENDER CONFORMITYTennessee SG Matt Rice definitively strikes down the absurd claim that the TN law is all about enforcing "gender conformity." The law aims to protect minors from harm that is encouraged by an ideology that focuses on gender conformity—with the… pic.twitter.com/LlhPbGwRdU— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024 6. Comparison to Loving Justice Jackson repeatedly compared SB1 to the Virginia law banning interracial marriage that the Supreme Court struck down in Loving v. Virginia (1967). Prelogar agreed that both cases involve “overbroad generalizations of how we expect them to live and order their affairs,” such that “these laws disadvantage someone who falls outside the average description.” “When we look at the structure of that law, it looks—you can’t do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics—it’s sort of the same thing,” Jackson argued. ?INSANESupreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson strains to compare U.S. v. Skrmetti to Loving v. Virginia, suggesting that a law protecting kids from experimental medical "treatments" to make them appear like the opposite sex is similar to a law preventing interracial… pic.twitter.com/7nAQQkZzQD— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024 “In [Loving v. Virginia], those same kinds of scientific arguments were made,” Jackson claimed again when questioning Strangio. She repeated the comparison a third time when asking Rice, Tennessee’s solicitor general. “There, the question of can you marry this other person depended on what your race was. You could marry the other person if it was the same, consistent with your race. You couldn’t if [it wasn’t],” Jackson said. “I take your law to be doing basically the same thing. You can take these blockers if doing so is consistent with your sex, but not if it’s inconsistent.” “In this case, the only way that they can point to a sex-based line is to equate fundamentally different medical treatments,” Rice responded. “Giving testosterone to a boy with a deficiency is not the same treatment as giving it to a girl who has psychological distress with her body.” Any argument about discrimination relies on confusion about the basic fact that males going through male puberty is healthy and in accordance with nature, while males going through a false, manufactured facsimile of female puberty is not. ?MATT RICE STRIKES IT DOWN"In this case, the only way that they can point to a sex-based line is to equate fundamentally different medical treatments. Giving testosterone to a boy with a deficiency is not the same treatment as giving it to a girl who has psychological distress… pic.twitter.com/yFkAdXQQiI— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024 The post 6 False Claims Backing ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ in Key Supreme Court Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As many Americans shopped for Black Friday deals, the Biden-Harris administration released annual data on improper payments showing that the federal government spent at least $161 billion of taxpayers’ money sending payments to the wrong people and in the wrong amounts in fiscal year 2024. Although this amount marked a decrease from the pandemic-era average of $238 billion per year in improper payments between 2020 and 2023, $161 billion is still an egregious amount. It’s almost twice as much as the $89 billion budget of the Department of Homeland Security. And the total reported covers only the programs tracked and the improper payments discovered.     Such massive errors would never happen in a private business or within a family budget. But when the federal government empowers bureaucrats to spend other people’s money without consequence or accountability and provides an ostensibly limitless source of funds through its tax-and-borrowing powers, enormous and generally rising improper payments are not a surprise. Here are five facts found in the data for fiscal 2024, which ended Sept. 30: The federal government sent $161 billion in improper and unknown payments. This equals over $1,200 for every household in America. Over the past five years, the government spent $1.1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on improper payments. That’s $8,300 for every household in America. Almost all improper payments are overpayments. In 2024, only $7.8 billion of the total $161 billion in improper and unknown payments was in underpayments. Once out the door, improper payments are difficult to recover. Over the past five years, only 10% of improper payments was recovered. Such recovery is expensive.   Despite legislation designed to impose accountability and integrity, no real consequences exist for improper payments. Rather, agencies often are rewarded with larger budgets to cover their errors. And here are five examples of “worst offenders” from fiscal 2024: Federal health care programs top the charts for improper payments. Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program accounted for more than half of all improper payments in fiscal 2024. The three programs’ combined $87 billion in improper payments equals the cost of health insurance premiums for 9.7 million individuals or 3.4 million families.   The Treasury Department has the worst improper payments rate. Of four tax-credit programs that track improper payments, three have improper payments above 27%. In total, wrong payments amounted to $21 billion, or more than 1 in 5 dollars distributed by the Treasury Department through the earned income tax credit, additional child tax credit, American opportunity tax credit, and refundable Obamacare tax credit.  Pandemic-related programs were awash with fraud and abuse. Even after most improper payments in these programs were accounted for in prior years (including at least $191 billion in unemployment benefits), the Restaurant Revitalization Program issued $8.7 billion, or 30% of all payments, improperly in fiscal 2024. In addition, 25% of remaining Paycheck Protection Program payments were improper.    Improper payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs are particularly indefensible. Payments such as veterans’ pensions should be highly accurate because eligibility is based on decades of service and Veterans Affairs has extensive data on veterans. Yet, the VA pension system had an improper payment rate of 14% in fiscal 2024. Moreover, although most agencies assert that the bulk of improper payments are outside of their control, the VA admitted that 100% of its reported $600 million in overpayments was within the agency’s control. Welfare programs are plagued by large improper payments. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP or food stamps, had an improper payment rate of 11.7%, issuing $10.5 billion in improper payments. The Supplemental Security Income program had an improper payment rate of 10.6%, with $10.6 billion in improper payments. SNAP and SSI are mandatory programs, so they receive whatever funding is needed to pay benefits, regardless of whether the payments are accurate. But when discretionary programs such as Head Start have an improper payment rate of 12%, that prevents wait-listed low-income families and children from participating. President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed Department of Government Efficiency, led by entrepreneurs Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk, hopefully will improve accountability and integrity in the federal government’s $3.8 trillion in annual payments. A permanent Taxpayer Integrity Office or a fraud czar also could play a role going forward. But since rising improper payments are only a symptom of the disease of excessive growth in government spending, reducing such payments also will require right-sizing the role of government.    The post 5 Facts and 5 Worst Offenses From Report Showing Government Made $161B in Improper Payments in 2024 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Meta’s President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg has admitted that the tech giant “still has too high” content moderation error rates. This is another way of conceding that censorship is alive and well on Meta’s massive platforms, Facebook and Instagram, but also, Threads. That’s despite there being something of a shift in the way this issue is treated by Meta, including by CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Now Clegg, in a blog post dedicated to 2024 “global elections,” touches on free expression allowed on these social platforms, to state that Meta’s choice is to find a “balance” between free speech and “keeping people safe.” It’s unclear how Meta “keeps people safe,” but free speech is a straightforward concept, and here Clegg offers a “mea culpa” by not only publicly accepting that there are high rates of error, something that he says “gets in the way” of free expression. On top of that, he explains how it gets in the way: “Too often harmless content gets taken down or restricted and too many people get penalized unfairly.” Any of the large number of users who fell victim to Meta’s ever-escalating levels of censorship over the past almost a decade could have told him that; but, speaking about this in clear terms is a marked shift, at least in the approach to the problem. How that will translate into action is to be seen. Clegg is much less direct there, saying that a number of policies have changed in order to allow previously more tightly controlled recommendations, and prevent some content that would be banned and that this work “will continue.” We learn that Meta allows users “to ask questions or raise concerns about election processes in organic content” – but, it does not allow “claims or speculation about election-related corruption, irregularities, or bias when combined with a signal that content is threatening violence.” The mention of “a signal” is key here, rather – how Meta interprets its “signals” and how that could be used as an excuse to block content. Other than around elections, some of the most egregious, mass-scale censorship was seen on Facebook and other Meta platforms concerning COVID-19. To Clegg’s mind, Meta “overdid it a bit.” Free speech supporters would have no problem saying – “no, you actually overdid it a lot.” “No one during the pandemic knew how the pandemic was going to unfold, so this really is wisdom in hindsight,” Clegg told journalists earlier this week and added: “But with that hindsight, we feel that we overdid it a bit. We’re acutely aware because users quite rightly raised their voice and complained that we sometimes over-enforce and we make mistakes and we remove or restrict innocuous or innocent content.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Meta’s Nick Clegg Admits Excessive Censorship and High Error Rates in Content Moderation appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Former U.S. Attorney and current MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade was distressed on Wednesday’s edition of Andrea Mitchell Reports as she tried to argue that the Supreme Court would be hypocritical if it decides to uphold Tennessee’s ban on gender-altering care for minors. Mitchell asked McQuade to break out her crystal ball, “And while we're listening to the arguments based on what you heard, how is this 6-to-3 conservative majority Court likely to rule?”     McQuade replied that, “Well, I'm troubled by a couple of things that I've heard in the arguments today. Of course, it's a hard question, but what the Court is supposed to decide here is whether this violates the Constitution by making a determination on the basis of sex, not whether it is good or bad policy. That is something for legislatures and doctors to decide.” The other side of the coin is the question of whether a state can regulate medicine, the answer to which is clearly yes. Therefore looking into the state’s justification for the ban makes complete sense. Still, McQuade lamented, “Hearing things like Justice Kavanaugh looking to Europe as a matter of policy and what they've tried to do there is concerning.” McQuade was also displeased with “Chief Justice Roberts, who seemed to suggest that judges aren't experts when it comes to medical care and so isn't that something we ought to leave to the decisions of lawmakers and doctors? It's just such an about-face from some of the things they do agree to delve into.” Is it? This Court’s most controversial ruling was the Dobbs case, where the Court did exactly what Roberts suggested by extracting itself from the abortion debate and kicking the question back to lawmakers. However, McQuade continued, “I also heard Justice Jackson say that she was very concerned and nervous about the Court saying maybe we shouldn't get involved in this at all, and so it may be that they're looking for an out to avoid making this decision and allow the Tennessee law to be upheld, and so that is a concern I have.” Ultimately, to believe McQuade and Tennessee’s opponents, you need to believe that acknowledging that males and females are different is the same thing as discrimination. If that is true, then sex-specific sports and restrooms are also unconstitutional. Here is a transcript for the December 4 show: MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports 12/4/2024 12:43 PM ET ANDREA MITCHELL: And while we're listening to the arguments based on what you heard, how is this 6-to-3 conservative majority Court likely to rule? BARBARA MCQUADE: Well, I'm troubled by a couple of things that I've heard in the arguments today. Of course, it's a hard question, but what the Court is supposed to decide here is whether this violates the Constitution by making a determination on the basis of sex, not whether it is good or bad policy. That is something for legislatures and doctors to decide.  And so hearing things like Justice Kavanaugh looking to Europe as a matter of policy and what they've tried to do there is concerning. There were other justices including Chief Justice Roberts, who seemed to suggest that judges aren't experts when it comes to medical care and so isn't that something we ought to leave to the decisions of lawmakers and doctors?  It's just such an about-face from some of the things they do agree to delve into and I also heard Justice Jackson say that she was very concerned and nervous about the Court saying maybe we shouldn't get involved in this at all, and so it may be that they're looking for an out to avoid making this decision and allow the Tennessee law to be upheld, and so that is a concern I have.

The liberal ladies of ABC’s The View faced rare criticism of their antics to their faces during Wednesday’s edition of the show. In open defiance of moderator Whoopi Goldberg, radio host Charlemagne Tha God went there and called out President Biden for damaging himself by lying about not pardoning his son Hunter. He also noted that the media would not tell the truth about Trump during his second term and used The View’s own legal notes as evidence. When asked by Joy Behar for his reaction to the reaction to Biden’s pardon, Charlemagne explained that “all of the criticism is valid because, you know, Democrats stand on this moral high ground all the time, and, you know, 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,” Charlemagne proposed. “So, when he kept saying things like, ‘ah, you know, nobody is above the law, I respect the jury's decision in regards to my son.’ He didn't believe that. But he didn't have to volunteer that lie to begin with.” His mention of the fact that Biden lied triggered Goldberg, who interjected and wanted to how he could tell Biden lied: GOLDBERG: I'm going to stop you for a second. CHARLEMAGNE: Uh-oh. GOLDBERG: Only because you don't know that it was a lie. We don’t know why he changed his mind. CHARLEMAGNE: You really think he just changed his mind over Thanksgiving weekend all of a sudden? GOLDBERG: No. I’m going to tell you what I think. I think he changed his mind because he got sick of watching everybody else get over.     Goldberg went on to whine that people expected Democrats to stick to the “moral” standards they set for themselves, and Charlemagne pointed out that they were the ones shooting themselves in the foot (Click “expand”): GOLDBERG: And he -- this is just my feeling, because at some point you get to the place where you just go, ‘So, I'm just going to follow the straight and narrow always, because that's what's expected of Democrats?’ CHARLEMAGNE: But that's their fault. They're the ones that go out there and they stand on this moral high ground. They don't have to do that. GOLDBERG: I'm a Democrat. Tell me what the moral high ground is. CHARLEMAGNE: The moral high ground is ‘nobody is above the law,’ ‘I respect what the jurors are saying.’ He didn't have to do that. GOLDBERG: So, we're mad at him because he changed his -- CHARLEMAGNE: By the way, I'm not mad at him pardoning Hunter Biden. GOLDBERG: But you sound like it. CHARLEMAGNE: No. No. No. No. No. Still unable to understand why people wanted to hold Biden to his and the media’s shtick about being the most decent man in politics who was fighting for the soul of America, Goldberg wanted someone to “explain to me why it is that when Joe Biden does something, everybody clutches their pearls.” Further in the interview, pretend independent Sara Haines questioned Charlemagne’s predication that cable news would refuse to report accurately about President-elect Trump during his second term. “Not even just cable news, no network. Nobody. Because they didn't do it before. So why would they do it now? They’re scared to death cause he’s the president of the United States of America,” he clarified. “What about us? What about us?” Behar pushed back. Sunny Hostin adding, “Um, have you watched The View?” That’s when he called out Hostin’s recent string of legal notes. “Well, well, let’s be honest, Sunny, I saw you had to apologize a couple times last week so somebody is coming with some notes from downstairs,” he noted. Hostin grew indignant and argued that, “I'm not apologizing; I'm making a legal note as an attorney of law… that’s not a mistake.” “Check ourselves here through ABC News,” Behar falsely claimed. But Charlemagne’s premise wasn’t correct either. According to him, the way the media weren’t going to report accurately about Trump would be in the form of going too easy on him because “they’re scared to death.” In reality, as we saw with Trump’s first term and during the election, they had no problem with just making up stories and pushing hoaxes; like when Whoopi insanely claimed Trump was going to redistribute white spouses from interracial marriages. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View December 4, 2024 11:18:43 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: Let me ask you something that’s going around right now; a lot of this conversation about President Biden getting criticized from both side for pardoning his son Hunter after repeatedly saying he would never do it. And a lot of people are saying that it's hypocritical. Et cetera. As if the other side doesn’t do it. CHARLEMAGNE THA GOD: It is. BEHAR: But what's your reaction to it? CHARLEMAGNE: I think all of the criticism is valid because, you know, Democrats stand on this moral high ground all the time, and, you know, 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. He could have 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 nobody is above the law but they were speaking about him, that's what they were running on. So, when he kept saying things like, ‘ah, you know, nobody is above the law, I respect the jury's decision in regards to my son.’ He didn't believe that. But he didn't have to volunteer that lie to begin with. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: I'm going to stop you for a second. CHARLEMAGNE: Uh-oh. GOLDBERG: Only because you don't know that it was a lie. We don’t know why he changed his mind. CHARLEMAGNE: You really think he just changed his mind over Thanksgiving weekend all of a sudden? GOLDBERG: No. I’m going to tell you what I think. I think he changed his mind because he got sick of watching everybody else get over. [Applause] And he -- this is just my feeling, because at some point you get to the place where you just go, ‘So, I'm just going to follow the straight and narrow always, because that's what's expected of Democrats?’ CHARLEMAGNE: But that's their fault. They're the ones that go out there and they stand on this moral high ground. They don't have to do that. GOLDBERG: I'm a Democrat. Tell me what the moral high ground is. CHARLEMAGNE: The moral high ground is ‘nobody is above the law,’ ‘I respect what the jurors are saying.’ He didn't have to do that. GOLDBERG: So, we're mad at him because he changed his -- CHARLEMAGNE: By the way, I'm not mad at him pardoning Hunter Biden. GOLDBERG: But you sound like it. CHARLEMAGNE: No. No. No. No. No ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: If I could get in on this. I actually think it went further. And this is one thing we really disagree on. Joe Biden made a point of saying we stand by our institutions - GOLDBERG: Yes, I understand all that. Yes. FARAH GRIFFIN:  - and the impartiality to the Department of Justice. Democrats ran on that. The same DOJ indicted Hunter Biden. We shouldn't say it's corrupt like Donald Trump does, but then in his statement pardoning Hunter Biden, he says that it was a political pursuit by his own Department of Justice. GOLDBERG: Can you explain to me why it is that when Joe Biden does something, everybody clutches their pearls. He's wrong, he lies -- FARAH GRIFFIN: Nobody has criticized Donald Trump more than me or Charlamagne The God. GOLDBERG: Yeah, people have criticized him more. I’ve criticized him more. We've all criticized him more. But you're missing my question. My question is, what is it that makes people flip the [self-censors] out with Joe but we don't have the same kind of thing? CHARLEMAGNE: Well, I don't think people are flipping out with Joe. I think 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 does not exist. (…) 11:30:49 a.m. Eastern SARA HAINES: Now that Trump has won, you say you don't think cable news will ever truly cover him honestly again. Why -- CHARLEMAGNE: Not even just cable news, no network. Nobody. Because they didn't do it before. So why would they do it now? They’re scared to death cause he’s the president of the United States of America. BEHAR: What about us? What about us? SUNNY HOSTIN: Um, have you watched The View? BEHAR: Yeah! CHARLEMAGNE: Well, well, let’s be honest, Sunny, I saw you had to apologize a couple times last week so somebody is coming with some notes from downstairs. HOSTIN: I'm not apologizing; I'm making a legal note as an attorney of law. CHARLEMAGNE: Because you know we have a petty president incoming that is going to be very litigious. HOSTIN: Yes. Who is litigious. But that doesn’t mean – that’s not a mistake. BEHAR: Check ourselves here through ABC News. (…)

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued Wednesday that bans on transgender surgeries for children are similar to bans on interracial marriage. Jackson argued that one of the state bans on child transgender surgeries appeared to depend on an argument of classification that seemed similar to that used by states in the past on interracial marriage. The court is hearing arguments about transgender surgeries after the Biden Department of Justice sued Tennessee for banning the practice in March 2023.'There is absolutely a parallel between any law that says you can't act inconsistent with a protected characteristic.' "The question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn't necessarily invidious or whatever, but as I read the statute here, asking the case here, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is now one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications," said Jackson. "And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of you can't do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It's sort of the same thing," she added. "So it's interesting to me that we now have this different argument, and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten away with what they did here by just making a classification argument the way that Tennessee is in this case." U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar agreed with the characterization made by Jackson. "Yes, I think that's exactly right that there is absolutely a parallel between any law that says you can't act inconsistent with a protected characteristic," she responded. Audio of the comments was circulated on social media by supporters of the Tennessee ban. Democrats have been struggling to explain their electoral losses across the board, and some have landed on the unpopular issue of transgender child surgeries as part of their problem. Others have scolded Democrats on the issue and demanded that the party plow full steam ahead into more extreme transgender policies, despite polling showing most Americans oppose those policies. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Pro-Palestinian advocates opened up a torrent of bilious hatred against Israeli actress Gal Gadot after a movie trailer for her latest film was released by Disney. The live-action "Snow White" movie has already been mired in controversy over casting decisions about the seven dwarves, but anti-Israel critics have been more vociferous since the Oct. 7 attack led to Israel's war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Gadot served as a combat fitness instructor in the Israeli Defense Forces as part of her mandatory service. 'F*** gal gadot and all the zionists in and behind this movie.' "Oh look, gal gadot in her true form, a murderer," said one critic, referring to her role as the Evil Queen in the movie. "Remember to boycott Snow White," said another critic, "never EVER support anything that evil zionist Gal Gadot is in." "F*** israel and f*** gal gadot and her s****y acting," read one tweet. "F*** gal gadot and all the zionists in and behind this movie i hope you rot in hell," read another tweet. "How is gal gadot famous like she’s one of the worst actresses to ever exist AND she served in an army being tried for genоcide," said another critic. "Gal gadot a whole fascist who can’t act," said another user. Others made sure to drag in other woke criticisms of the film. "Not to be that one friend that's too woke but," read another tweet, "'f*** gal gadot' yes but also f*** the fact that this is a story abt a girl who's the most beautiful girl ever because of her pale skin and caricatures of disabled people presented as fantastical creatures." The movie has also been lambasted by the right over the decision to feature actress Rachel Zegler as the title character despite far-left statements against Trump supporters, Israel, and the traditional story of Snow White. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries issued a press release on Wednesday calling for President Joe Biden to issue additional pardons.The request follows Biden's heavily criticized decision to grant an extensive pardon to his son Hunter. Despite previous and repeated pledges to refrain from such action, Biden this week pardoned Hunter for any offenses he may have committed over the span of a decade.'Liberty and justice for all.'Amid the ongoing bipartisan backlash, Jeffries made a unique request: Grant more pardons.Jeffries wrote, "Throughout his life, President Joe Biden has fought to improve the plight of hardworking Americans struggling to live paycheck to paycheck. Many of these people have been aggressively prosecuted and harshly sentenced for nonviolent offenses, often without the benefit of adequate legal representation.""Countless lives, families and communities have been adversely impacted, particularly in parts of Appalachia, Urban America and the Heartland," he continued."During his final weeks in office, President Biden should exercise the high level of compassion he has consistently demonstrated throughout his life, including toward his son, and pardon on a case-by-case basis the working-class Americans in the federal prison system whose lives have been ruined by unjustly aggressive prosecutions for nonviolent offenses," Jeffries stated.He argued that such an action by the president would uphold "liberty and justice for all."Blaze News contacted Jeffries' office for comment, specifically inquiring whether he would support Biden extending pardons to Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro. A spokesperson for Jeffries responded, "The leader's statement speaks for itself."Both men were targeted under the current administration's costly and relentless lawfare and were not accused of committing any violent crimes.Navarro spent approximately four months in federal detention after he was convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress. On Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump tapped Navarro to serve as his senior counselor for trade and manufacturing.Trump stated in his announcement that Navarro "was treated horribly by the Deep State."Bannon was previously convicted on the same charges and released from federal prison in late October after serving a four-month sentence.He stated upon his release, "The four months in federal prison, not only didn't break me, it empowered me. I am more energized and more focused than I've ever been in my entire life."Bannon is also facing a separate case in New York for allegedly defrauding donors in a fundraising campaign. He pleaded not guilty to two counts of money laundering in the second degree, one count of conspiracy in the fourth degree, scheme to defraud in the first degree, and conspiracy in the fifth degree.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The true joy in all the best ARPGs is that moment when something in your build clicks - whether it's a new item, upgrade, or skill synergy - and you start absolutely blasting through the opposing hordes at a greatly increased rate. But across even the most popular games like Diablo 4 and Path of Exile, the start of every run is typically the slowest, as you plod your way through early waves of enemies using underwhelming gear and unleveled abilities. Conquest Dark is here to change that, blending that character progression with the rapid acceleration of horde survival games like Vampire Survivors, and you can try it right now. Continue reading New ARPG Conquest Dark lets you become a god in minutes, and you can try it now MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best roguelikes, Best RPGs, Games like Diablo

David Axelrod Applauds 'Intrepid Journos' for Anonymously Sourced Hegseth Hits (Yeah, About That...)