Landmarks of shame. The post Normalizing Atrocities appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

New Yorkers screamed their support for Donald Trump at the 9/11 memorial in New York City today. They didn’t call out anyone else’s name, not Kamala’s, or Chuck U’s, Biden’s, only Donald Trump. People in New York are yelling “we love you Donald” as President Trump is standing next to Biden, Kamala, and Schumer at […] The post Trump Receives an Enthusiastic Welcome at 9/11 Memorial appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Sean “Diddy” Combs has been ordered to pay $100 million in a default lawsuit after a convicted felon and sexual predator behind bars in Michigan accused the rapper of sexual assault. After the 54-year-old music mogul failed to appear in court virtually on Monday, Lenawee County Circuit Court Judge Anna Marie Anzalone ordered Combs to pay Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith $100 million, with the payments to start in October, $10 million per month, Variety reported. In June, the convicted felon filed his lawsuit against Combs alleging that the music entreprenuer drugged and sexually assaulted him at a party in 1997. On August 7, the judge granted a temporary restraining order against Combs following Cardello-Smith’s request against the rapper after Combs once again failed to appear virtually for the court date. A Michigan inmate has won a $100 million default judgment against Sean “Diddy” Combs in a sexual assault lawsuit, after the rapper did not show up in court or file any formal response to the case. #BillboardNews pic.twitter.com/ErkuOjEiuD — billboard (@billboard) September 10, 2024 Cardello-Smith is described in the judgement as a “Michigan inmate known for his long history of challenging the judicial system with civil lawsuits,” Variety noted. Fox News noted that the inmate appeared at all the court dates virtually. Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you. Marc Agnifilo, attorney for Combs, told Fox News Digital, “this man is a convicted felon and sexual predator, who has been sentenced on 14 counts of sexual assault and kidnapping over the last 26 years.” “His resume now includes committing a fraud on the court from prison, as Mr. Combs has never heard of him let alone been served with any lawsuit,” the attorney added. “Mr. Combs looks forward to having this judgment swiftly dismissed.” According to Detroit Metro Times, the inmate claimed to have been working at a restaurant in the Detroit area when he met Combs. The Michigan inmate also produced visitation records showing Diddy had visited the inmate, the outlet noted. He also claimed the rapper offered him $2.3 million to dismiss the lawsuit. The accusations follow a slew of sexual assault lawsuits by women against Combs accusing the rapper of sexual abuse or harassment. He has denied the sexual assault allegations. In June, Combs admitted he’d beaten ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura following the release of video of the attack in a hotel hallway in 2016. Combs later released a statement and said that it’s “so difficult to reflect on the darkest times in your life, but sometimes you got to do that. I was f***ed up. I mean, I hit rock bottom. And I make no excuses. My behavior on that video is inexcusable. I take full responsibility for my actions in that video.” Related: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Hit With Another Sexual Assault Lawsuit

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM A state Superior Court judge overturned an Alaska statute that required only licensed physicians to provide abortions, declaring that the limitation violated constitutional protections of equal protection and privacy. Superior Court Judge Josie Garton’s decision states that there is “no medical reason” why advanced practice clinicians (APCs), such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants, should be precluded from providing abortion care. This ruling is considered a triumph for Planned Parenthood, which launched the lawsuit in 2019. The lawsuit and the Judge’s rationale In December 2019, Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, and Kentucky filed a lawsuit challenging Alaska Statutes 18.16.010(a)(1), a physician-only clause that dates back to 1970, when abortion became legal in the state. The Act also applied to Alaska Board of Nursing guidelines prohibiting nurse practitioners from prescribing abortion drugs. Planned Parenthood contended that advances in medical technology and non-physician treatment had rendered this ban outmoded. They claimed that the physician-only requirement imposed unnecessary barriers for Alaskan patients, particularly in a state with a doctor shortage and a healthcare system that is increasingly reliant on nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Judge Garton concurred, saying that restricting abortion services to licensed physicians violates the state constitution’s equal protection and privacy provisions. “When APCs are barred from providing abortion, there are fewer available providers, fewer appointments, and potential for greater delay,” Garton wrote, stressing that the limitation imposes a “substantial burden” on patients’ freedom to make reproductive decisions. Barriers to access in a rural state  Alaska confronts distinct hurdles in terms of healthcare availability, particularly among remote residents. The state has only three health centers that offer abortion services, and patients frequently have to travel long distances to receive care. Judge Garton emphasized the impact of the physician-only statute on these patients, claiming that the rule decreases the number of available physicians and exacerbates care delays, which are crucial in time-sensitive cases such as abortion. Allowing APCs to provide these services, Garton contended, would improve accessibility and lower travel costs for many Alaskans. The decision is consistent with broader trends in the United States, where courts have recognized sophisticated clinicians’ ability to safely administer abortion care. Planned Parenthood celebrated the ruling as a win for reproductive rights. “By striking down these unnecessary restrictions, the court affirmed what we knew all along: every Alaskan deserves the freedom to seek abortion care from trusted providers in their own communities,” said Rebecca Gibron, CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Northwest in Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, and Kentucky. However, the Alaska Department of Law is currently considering its next steps. Chief Assistant Attorney General Chris Robinson expressed worries about the ruling’s larger ramifications, pointing out that the court’s conclusions did not specify how many patients were significantly affected by the physician-only provision. Robinson noted that the court determined that “the number of patients who experience significant adverse impacts as a result of AS 18.16.010(a)(1) is low, likely very low.” He questioned whether the Act could be regarded as a “substantial burden” in light of these findings, claiming that the regulation was meant to ensure medical safety, a judgment generally reserved for the Legislature or Executive branch. Implications for future access The decision might have far-reaching consequences for access to abortion treatment in Alaska and beyond. As more states face legal challenges to physician-only abortion regulations, this ruling endorses the notion that trained non-physicians can safely offer these services. This verdict, by extending the pool of providers, may reduce some of the barriers that patients confront in receiving timely and necessary care. While the Alaska Department of Law may take more legal action, the judgment is a significant step toward increasing healthcare accessibility for those seeking reproductive services in the state. As the legal landscape surrounding abortion rights evolves, Alaska’s verdict could set a precedent for other states facing similar limitations.The post Alaska Judge overturns law allowing only physicians to perform abortions first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM When you hear the term “self-help,” you may envision a stack of books with catchy, motivational titles. However, self-help is more than just feel-good mantras or superficial optimism. In reality, Sasha Heinz, Ph.D., a developmental psychologist and positive psychology expert, believes that it is much more than simply thinking positively. Self-help is not ‘fluffy’ or ‘frivolous.’ “It’s universal and real,” she explains. So, what do we still get wrong with self-help? Heinz debunks the three most popular myths and explains why we need to reconsider what personal growth really entails. Myth #1: only positive vibes allowed There’s a widespread misconception that self-help is all about having a constant happy attitude—”good vibes only.” But Heinz contends that this perspective is actually restrictive. “People [think] this self-development work is cheesy or it’s about good vibes only,” according to her. “That is so untrue.” While optimism is necessary, Heinz adds that a healthy dose of realism is required for genuine advancement. “Dream big, and then brush that dream up against cold, hard reality,” she suggests. “Maybe it’s your skill set, the current climate, resources… Use a strategic mindset and say, ‘These are the obstacles. How am I going to overcome these?'” You’re significantly more likely to succeed if you recognize potential problems and devise a strategy than if you simply focus on positive thinking. “That little bit of tension or inner friction is actually important because it activates us to take action. It makes us do something,” Heinz says. Myth 2: some people are simply not “into” self-help There is a common idea that self-help is only for certain types of people, but Heinz believes that improvement is possible for anybody. “We pretend it’s like, ‘This person is into it, and this person isn’t,’ [but] we’re all in this process of growth and development,” she says. “We all fundamentally agree that children develop—so do adults.” She encourages us to treat adulthood in the same way that we approach childhood: as a never-ending process of learning and development. “What if we lived our adult life like that, too?” she asks. “That is our great task in life, to continue to grow in the same way kids do in childhood.” If you are not growing, you are stalling, regardless of your age. Myth 3: you can hack your way into mindfulness In a world obsessed with instant gratification, it’s tempting to imagine there’s a shortcut to mindfulness. But Heinz warns against this mindset. “This notion that you’re going to find the quickest hack, to me, is something that reduces effort,” she says. Mindfulness involves more than simply a quick trick; it necessitates consistency and intention. That is not to imply that techniques like breathing exercises or mood-boosting tips aren’t useful, but Heinz emphasizes the importance of long-term habit changes. “Don’t think about it as a mindset hack. It’s really more about changing your daily habits,” she explains. Mindfulness, like any other talent, requires time and practice to fully master. Self-help is for everyone Self-help and personal development are not as simple as being happy or implementing a quick fix. As Heinz puts it, true self-development necessitates honest contemplation, a desire to progress, and, yes, some discomfort. “Any accomplishment requires a lot of uncomfortable action,” she argues. So, the next time you believe self-help isn’t for you, remember Heinz’s advice: it’s not about being “into” self-help, but about committing to growth and development in all aspects of your life.The post 3 myths about self-help and personal growth we should all stop believing first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

A sad ending to a great career

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Rumble, the rising Big Tech alternative and cloud services platform, made waves as it swept through multiple records during this week’s presidential debate. On that Tuesday night, former President Donald Trump went head-to-head with Vice President Kamala Harris and it was a big night for alternatives to mainstream media. Analytics provided by Streams Charts shows the significant surge in Rumble’s concurrent live viewers, a pioneering achievement for the platform. Additionally, the platform has set unprecedented records in terms of live concurrent creator streams and peak bandwidth usage. Rumble’s Chairman and CEO, Chris Pavlovski, proclaimed, “People want their news and commentary delivered live and unfiltered, and most importantly, they want it uncensored. More and more people learn every day that Rumble is the place for information that hasn’t been sanitized by the government or Big Tech.” Pavlovski highlighted the critical global relevance of the election and lamented the lack of honesty in information dissemination from other platforms. Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski showed a ranking of the most viewed USA streams on Rumble, with Dan Bongino and Steven Crowder on Rumble in the top positions. According to research data, Rumble’s platform enjoyed a remarkable surge of more than one million concurrent live viewers amid the heated debate. Alongside that, it exceeded the one-thousand mark in concurrent live streams. LiveSearch.app analytics revealed that the Rumble platform hosted 31 of the top 100 live streams in the United States. Further breakdown showed that Rumble accounted for 11.8% of viewership by Network and an impressive 31% of streamers by Network. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Rumble Dominates Debate Night as Alternative Media Streaming Surges appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The New Republic earlier this year featured an article that suggested a second Trump term would be analogous to the Nazis taking control of Germany in the 1930s. I didn’t read it. I saw the accompanying image of Donald Trump as Hitler, and I knew exactly what it would say. At this point, those essays write themselves. Reacting to the hysteria of the piece, Blaze Media’s Auron MacIntyre remarked on X that “the media is preparing the groundwork for justifying the assassination of Donald Trump.”Subsequent events proved MacIntyre right. In Butler, Pennsylvania, the former president narrowly escaped the fate of John F. Kennedy by barely one-eighth of an inch. Multiple security lapses enabled the attempt on Trump’s life, making it hard to believe they could all occur simultaneously. In the immediate aftermath, self-proclaimed defenders of democracy, who had spent a decade portraying Trump as an existential threat to be neutralized at any cost, offered half-hearted assurances of their “horror” at political violence.Trump has left an indelible mark on the GOP, reshaping it into something that cannot easily be undone.Two weeks later, the incident had all but vanished from media coverage. Despite this, federal agencies responsible for Trump’s safety and the investigation had yet to address many critical questions about what had happened.The regime’s desperation to avoid a Trump victory knows no bounds. With less than three months before the presidential election, the heat is rising. The 2024 cycle is proving to be just as frenzied and chaotic as 2020, reflected in how both parties and their allies discuss the race in apocalyptic terms.Regardless of who wins, the outcome will not resolve the core conflict driving 21st-century American politics. People across the ideological spectrum are expressing deep concern, and they have good reason to be more worried now than they were in 2020.The last free election?Four years ago, Democrats were highly motivated to end Trump’s presidency, but they had little to lose since he was already in the White House. Had Trump won a second term, his agenda would likely have faced the same roadblocks from the media, administrative bureaucrats, and other institutional forces of the global “Resistance.”Now, however, a second Trump term is far more alarming for left-wing voters than it was in 2020. Since leaving office, Trump has had time to reflect on what went wrong during his first term and formulate transformative measures that could cripple “The Resistance” from his first day back in office.Additionally, Democrats’ ongoing and unprecedented legal attacks on Trump have fueled their fear of political retribution if he takes the oath of office again in January.Many conservatives feel that the 2024 election is even more critical than the last one. In the summer of 2020, we didn’t fully grasp the extent of what we were up against. While we knew the left would go to great lengths to achieve its political goals, many still believed that elections were sacred to our opponents. Given Democrats' constant talk of protecting “our democracy,” it seemed unlikely they would deliberately break laws or violate electoral norms to win.We were wrong. We miscalculated and paid the price. Many on the right worry that 2016 may have been our last free, (mostly) fair, and lawful presidential election. Conservatives also fret that, since no one faced consequences for the forms of fraud permitted by blue states in 2020, those tactics might be used again in 2024. If that happens and the public and legal systems tolerate it, Democratic control could become permanent.Democrats have already demonstrated their ruthlessness by staging an internal coup against a beloved president within their own party to avoid losing the upcoming election. And it’s important to remember, Biden wasn’t just any Democratic president. He was the GOAT, the one who smashed the all-time record for the popular vote with 81 million votes in the “safest, most secure election ever.”So why, just three years later, have they ditched him for a deeply unpopular vice president who never won a primary? The only plausible explanation, aside from doubts about the legitimacy of those 81 million votes, is that Democrats are desperate to win this election. Like a cornered animal, they will act impulsively and do anything to avoid defeat.For all these reasons, it makes sense that voters across the political spectrum are waiting anxiously to see what kind of calamities and traumas await the nation in the next few months. But it doesn’t need to be this way. That’s because it’s clear that little will change soon — regardless of who wins the election.No short-term fixesImagine the worst-case scenario: a successful assassination attempt on Trump. Leftists clearly don’t realize that such an event wouldn’t end their nightmare — it would only galvanize the MAGA movement further, not dissolve it.Trump has left an indelible mark on the GOP, reshaping it into something that cannot easily be undone. Ten years from now, the Republican Party, if it still exists, will resemble Trump’s nationalist populism more than the establishment conservatism that has dominated since the ’90s. A second Trump term would accelerate this transformation, but it will continue with or without him.Even if right-wing voters suffer a devastating loss in 2024, their defeat will only be temporary. Leftists need to understand that even a decisive Harris victory — or a Trump loss — won’t eliminate the real threat to their control: the millions of Americans they dismiss as “domestic extremists” who refuse to submit to a globalist managerial technocracy.Democrats often say, “We can’t turn back the clock,” but they fail to grasp that the pre-9/11 political status quo will never return.Conservatives face a similar challenge: Even a decisive Trump victory would not undo a century-long progressive revolution that has infiltrated nearly every American institution. If Trump wins, his final term would last only four years — or perhaps less if Democrats gain control of Congress. Many of the troubles we face cannot be resolved in a single term, by Trump or anyone else.The immigration crisis, deep structural economic problems like mounting debt, and the shifting global alliances driven by China’s rise are challenges that will span decades.In short, whatever the outcome of the election, it won’t stabilize our current political turmoil. A Harris win won’t quash the high energy on the populist right, and the enduring victory Democrats crave will remain out of reach. While a Trump win could deal a significant blow to the institutional left, it would undoubtedly escalate resistance in the areas where the left still holds power.The stakes are undeniably high, and we should fight to win. Political urgency can make it tempting to believe that the ends justify the means, but that’s only true when your goal is within immediate reach. Even if Trump wins, that isn’t the case now. The means matter because it’s possible to sacrifice too much for a victory that would be partial and temporary.Recognizing this is crucial because framing this election as an apocalyptic battle can lead people to justify extreme measures. Desperate and impulsive actions can create the very catastrophe we aim to avoid.Those aware of the current moment can sense that we are on a razor’s edge. Sudden movements of any kind can trigger disaster, and calamity might occur regardless. We do not control our fate. However, understanding that all of us — friends, enemies, and everyone in between — will have to live to fight another day is vital to preventing the worst-case scenarios.

Alexander Vindman Reminds Senile Trump That Russia Was at War With Ukraine During His Term