A viral post shared on X claims U.K. police purportedly arrested an 11-year-old for sharing “mean tweets” on social media. BREAKING: British police have just arrested an 11 year old over his “mean tweets” posted on social media. pic.twitter.com/Gc7LYx66S9 — aka (@akafacehots) August 28, 2024 Verdict: Misleading An 11-year-old was arrested in Middlesbrough, U.K. for “disorder” […]

‘She’s only getting paid that number because she’s playing a stripper’

One of the most famous families in American history has also suffered some of the worst scandals and tragedies imaginable. The Kennedy family might be American royalty, but with fame and fortune comes a whole lot of bad luck. After an accident in 1969, Ted Kennedy publicly wondered if rumors of a curse "did hang over all the Kennedys." Since then, people have looked into all the horrible things... Source

The Harris-Walz campaign used Labor Day to advocate for the power of Big Labor, thanking the “organizers, activists, workers, and leaders of the labor movement who have helped build this nation.” But the Biden-Harris administration’s embrace of Big Labor—as in big national labor organizations, as opposed to small, local unions—actually hasn’t helped workers as unionized workers’ wages have fallen behind the wages of nonunion workers over the past four years. Unlike small local unions that are in better positions to represent the unique needs of their members and that may even have productive relationships with management, the Big Labor movement is increasingly putting politics, power, and one-size-fits-all policies above the personal well-being of many workers. As nationwide Big Labor organizations are expanding their reach by representing workers across entirely different occupations and industries, they’re becoming increasingly disconnected from the everyday workplace concerns of the individual workers they are supposed to represent, and the consequences are evident in workers’ choices and paychecks. Despite the Biden-Harris administration asserting itself as the most pro-union administration ever, and employing a “whole of government” approach to increasing unionization across the U.S., the unionization rate is at an all-time low of 10% (just 6% among private-sector workers). In states that don’t force workers to join a union as a condition of employment, only 5.7% of workers are unionized. That’s down from a high of roughly 35% of workers who were unionized in the 1950s. So, why has unionization plummeted? Simply put, unions are providing less and less of the things that workers want, and more of the things they don’t want. For starters, many workers don’t like unions spending their dues on politics, instead of representation, and some don’t want to be forced to be represented by a union that they believe hates them. Most workers also don’t like adversarial work environments, but pitting workers against employers—including dehumanizing tactics like unions’ iconic use of 12-foot blowup rats to depict management—is Big Labor’s bread and butter. Workers and employers are in business with one another—not in competition against one another. When unions instill hostile work environments and break the direct line of communication between workers and management, that hurts both their bottom lines. Moreover, Big Labor’s emphasis on politics and power instead of focusing on the individual workers it represents hasn’t paid off for workers’ wages. Over the past four years, union wage growth was 6.4 percentage points lower than nonunion wage gains (15.8% nominal growth for union workers versus 22.2% growth for nonunion workers). Subsequently, unions’ wage advantage fell from 21.3% in 2019 to 15.8% in 2023. In health care and social services, unions’ wage advantage fell by half, from 18.2% to 9.2%. In the wholesale and retail trade, it disappeared, from 4.4% to 0.0%. And in manufacturing, it reversed; union jobs now pay 4% less than nonunion jobs. These stats don’t factor in union dues that usually take 1% or more from workers’ paychecks. Union workers’ lagging wages aren’t the failure of Big Labor to go to bat for higher pay, because Big Labor is admittedly quite good at that. Rather, it’s because Big Labor strikes out things like innovation and investments that make workers more productive, and which are crucial to sustained wage gains. Looking toward 2025 and beyond, workers cannot count on the strong jobs market to continue, and a slew of the Biden-Harris administration’s labor regulations will make it harder to find the jobs and rising incomes Americans want and need. Those regulations include new prohibitions on apprenticeships, new restrictions on independent workers, and new impediments to flexible hours and upward mobility. The keys to greater worker prosperity and personal satisfaction are expanding opportunities for workers to gain the education and experience that lead to higher wages, and reducing government barriers that limit the jobs and occupations workers can pursue and that reduce workers’ paychecks.   The post Is Big Labor Really a Solution for Worker Prosperity? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In the summer of 2016, Canada legalized euthanasia, also known as a “medical assistance in dying” (MAID) law. The current policy states only those with “a serious and incurable illness, disease, or disability” is eligible to die by assisted suicide. However, by 2027, the country plans to allow people with mental illness to choose death as well. Some groups, such as Death with Dignity, see euthanasia as “a good death.” But a ballot initiative in West Virginia is attempting to keep the practice illegal there. Amendment 1 has recently been added to the state’s November ballot with the intention of providing “protection against medically assisted suicide.” Ultimately, “the amendment just places what’s already illegal in West Virginia into the state constitution for more security going forward,” said Pat McGeehan, a Republican state delegate in West Virginia, on an episode last week of “Washington Watch.” If this amendment is passed, West Virginia would become the first state to amend its constitution to prohibit assisted suicide. The amendment states: “No person, physician, or health care provider in the State of West Virginia shall participate in the practice of medically assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of a person. Nothing in this section prohibits the administration or prescription of medication for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort while the patient’s condition follows its natural course; nor does anything in this section prohibit the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment, as requested by the patient or the patient’s decision-maker, in accordance with State law. Further, nothing in this section prevents the State from providing capital punishment.” Even though assisted suicide is “implicitly illegal in West Virginia,” McGeehan stated, “we want to send a message against this sort of nihilistic euthanasia movement sweeping the Western world.” And to fight against it properly, “You need to have it in the state constitution, because laws are not simply prescriptive, they’re also pedagogical. They teach people.” It’s McGeehan’s goal for West Virginia to become “the gold standard” in this push against euthanasia. McGeehan referred to Canada’s MAID program as “just a fancy way of saying they’re killing their own citizens in Canada,” and he noted that it’s “horrific” that the practice is the “fifth-leading cause of death” in the country. But Canada is far from the only proponent of euthanasia. In the U.S., “10 states have legalized euthanasia in one form or another.” Some states, such as Oregon and Vermont, have actually “opened up their euthanasia programs to not just their state residents, but to nonresidents,” McGeehan explained. This, he added, has led to a “sort of euthanasia tourism,” which has “essentially grown into a whole marketplace for nonresidents coming in to kill themselves.” Some states have gone as far as to offer lodging such as hotels and Airbnb rentals for people coming into the area to die. As McGeehan put it, “Really, they’re death hotels [and] death Airbnbs.” The euthanasia process has become so streamlined, he added, that it’s “just like [receiving] any other medication.” He explained, “They give you a cocktail of poisons,” and then “you go back by yourself into one of these hotels [and] swallow the cocktail poison. It destroys your organs,” and then “social workers actually come by the next day [to] collect all the bodies in these hotels and burn them.” McGeehan shook his head. “We’ve got to push back against this. This is just part of a broader trend of nihilism that’s sweeping our country with the progressive liberal order. And I’m sick of it.” As guest host and former Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., asked, “[W]hat do you say to those who argue that your state, West Virginia, already has a code that prevents medically assisted suicide?” McGeehan replied that “most people don’t even know [if] it’s illegal or legal.” This, he emphasized, is part of why it’s important to have it firmly stated in the constitution. And as he pointed out, “[Y]ou never know who’s going to be in office next.” It could be that in years to come, “It might not be guys that are pro-life on the Republican side.” And so, to allow government officials to decide “which suicides are good and which are bad” gives them “enormous power.” Additionally, “It … leads to arbitrary decisions on where you draw the line, and that just has devastating consequences for individuals in our society,” McGeehan contended. “[T]he progressive liberal order likes to reduce morality to just consent, and every relationship somehow has a sort of egalitarian, equal notion to it.” And since “doctors have an enormous power of authority in our society,” it becomes clear the “doctor-patient power relationship is extremely, extremely imbalanced.” McGeehan further argued that if assisted suicide is boiled down to consent and consent only, then all it takes is for a doctor to suggest euthanasia to “vulnerable patients” to blur the lines between choices made voluntarily and those made through persuasion. Hice agreed, adding that “the argument of so-called ‘death with dignity’” has a “sort of appeal for compassion.” How should believers respond, the former congressman wanted to know. McGeehan emphasized that it’s important to understand that this is “twisting the right order definition of compassion, and it preys on a lot of the pro-life movement within our own sort of ranks.” For instance, this same concept of dying with “dignity” has been applied to “the unborn child,” with people such as actress Anne Hathaway who said, “abortion can be another word for mercy.” McGeehan made it clear that this is simply those in opposition “preying on that compassion that [pro-lifers] already hold” by “trying to twist it and pervert it.” McGeehan closed by insisting that “this can be an argument that people need to take into consideration if they’re secular or if they’re atheists or nonbelievers,” because it can have enormous societal impacts. Beyond the biblical reality that each human being is made in the image of God, saying that euthanasia is an act of “dignity” or “mercy” could lead to “insurance companies [denying] coverage for expensive treatments like cancer care, just to cover suicide.” And the reality is, he concluded, “[T]his is already happening,” but it’s not too late to fight against it. Originally published at The Washington Stand The post W.Va. Lawmaker Aims to Ban Euthanasia in State Constitution: ‘We Want to Send a Message’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

At college campuses nationwide, the newest students are starting class, but I’m not among them. Many medical schools rejected my application, and when I asked why, several told me that my service in our nation’s armed forces didn’t matter, and that I should have spent more time proving my commitment to “diversity” and “equity.” I served in the United States Army from 2012 to 2017. During my service, I intended to apply to the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, the military’s medical school, but health-related issues and a service-related disability cut my career short. After being honorably discharged, I set my sights on attending a civilian medical school to become a pathologist. I never assumed I would be a shoo-in, nor do I believe veterans like me have some “right” to acceptance. Still, I thought my chances were strong because of my degrees in different fields, years of work history as a medical technologist in numerous hospitals, and other experiences. Plus, I thought my veteran status could help, given medical schools’ universal preference for diversity. In the 2022-2023 school year, only 154 matriculants were military veterans out of 22,712 in total. If varied experiences and backgrounds are what medical schools want, I figured I had a lot to offer. Turns out, the medical schools don’t agree. Take my experience with the Morehouse School of Medicine, a historically black college in Atlanta. I’m white, but it has a good reputation and is the closest medical school to my home. After my application was rejected, I requested reapplicant counseling, which helps you learn how to improve your chances in subsequent applications. In May, an admissions counselor told me that my MCAT score wasn’t high enough, even though I scored in line with the average Morehouse matriculant. I couldn’t get an answer as to why that wasn’t good enough. The counselor did tell me that I made a mistake by not discussing “equity” in my essay. Apparently, as a white man, I needed to show a special dedication to serving non-white patients. The counselor also told me that my military service didn’t qualify as volunteering, even though we have an all-volunteer military. An associate dean of admissions at Georgia’s Mercer University School of Medicine said the same thing, disrespectfully equating my military service to a cashier’s job. I found myself wondering: What kind of volunteering do medical schools want? I found the answer in my reapplicant counseling session for the University of Alabama’s Heersink School of Medicine. Once again, the admissions counselor dismissed the idea that military service constitutes volunteering. Instead, she said, I needed to volunteer at a “free clinic in a barrio” or an “inner-city soup kitchen.” When I asked why those kinds of volunteering were better, the counselor told me I needed to prove my “cultural competence.” I can’t imagine a member of another race being told they have to demonstrate cultural competence. In addition, it’s insulting to assume that volunteering is the best way to gain such competence. I served alongside a highly diverse group of soldiers, learning valuable lessons about different races, religions, and traditions. I’m also married to a Kenyan woman, have three biracial kids, and have traveled to East Africa many times. What makes volunteering in a barrio or the inner city somehow superior to my numerous personal experiences? The answer is the same reason the Morehouse counselor wanted me to mention “equity.” It proves your devotion to the diversity-industrial complex. It’s possible I was beaten out by more qualified applicants at these and other schools. There’s always someone better than you in life. However, after what I encountered at many medical schools, I’m not confident that the quality of my application was the deciding factor. If I had overtly capitulated to the DEI worldview, I bet I’d be starting medical school this fall. (Ditto, if I was non-white.) The Supreme Court may have banned affirmative action, but the medical advocacy group Do No Harm has shown that medical schools are finding numerous ways to make admissions decisions based on race. Since medical schools are openly disrespectful to the sacrifices of disabled veterans like me, what makes anyone think they won’t continue to unfairly and illegally elevate race? I plan to apply to more medical schools this year, but I’m not optimistic about my chances. My ability to use the education benefits I earned through service to my country is controlled by race-obsessed administrators. In today’s politicized world of “diversity” and “equity,” I fear there’s no room for a disabled white male who joined the Army to defend his country instead of padding his resume by going to the barrio or the inner city and then boasting about it. This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post ‘Diversity’ Doesn’t Include Disabled Veterans Like Me appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Rob Flaherty – Kamala Harris campaign’s deputy manager (originally a member of the team put together for the now failed Biden reelection bid) – has spoken about what that campaign is doing about “misinformation.” That’s one of the favorite subjects – and often tools of political pressure – of the current Biden-Harris administration, and Flaherty is no stranger to any of it. In the past, he served in the Biden administration as director of digital strategy and played a prominent role in exerting persistent pressure on Big Tech, to get these companies to censor even more content. Now, Flaherty tells Politico that the Harris campaign’s handling of what it perceives as misinformation is “extremely aggressive” and that it is “constantly” on the lookout for it, “monitoring” the internet – again, “aggressively.” The reason is to counter “the attacks that are coming in against the Vice President.” That includes what Flaherty calls “deep detection of what is happening on the internet” on election day. The apparent intent is to come across as aggressive, perhaps as an intimidation tactic. Flaherty’s other statements, such as hunting down “pockets of misinformation” (like posts that mention the wrong election date) along with threats of lawsuit speak to that. According to him, the campaign has “a really robust legal team” that is considering its options regarding “voting misinformation” – and Flaherty says these options are many. Regarding the channels the Harris campaign goes to, to implement “misinformation monitoring and pushing back” one is as expected – the presidential candidate’s own campaign accounts, but the other is quite controversial, yet clearly spelled out by Flaherty – traditional media. “That’s all part of one big strategy,” the Harris aide shared. Read more about Flaherty’s history here. What makes these statements – snippets of the overall approach to “misinformation” apparently espoused by the vice president’s campaign – resonate is Flaherty’s troubling track record. He was one of those earlier in the year subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, as part of the investigation into the previous instances of government-Big Tech censorship collusion. Flaherty was asked to testify about pressure meant to result in censorship that came from him. “The Committee has obtained documents that demonstrate the central role you played in communicating the Biden White House’s censorship efforts to social media companies, including the White House’s demands to censor true information, memes, satire, and other constitutionally protected forms of expression,” Jordan wrote to Flaherty last fall. Pressuring Facebook, but not only – and CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently admitted this pressure was coming from the Biden White House – was one of Flaherty’s “specialties.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Former Pro-Censorship White House Official, Now Harris Deputy Manager, Aggressively Targets Online “Misinformation” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Suddenly the Constitution is 'Dangerous'

Mongolia Fails to Arrest Putin

Two US Marines Attacked in Turkey