Taxpayer-subsidized National Public Radio shouldn’t be a starting place for aggressively biased coverage against either Democrats or Republicans. But you can ask Clarence Thomas how the machine works. On Aug. 27, NPR veterans affairs reporter Quil Lawrence lit into former President Donald Trump for bringing cameras to a section of Arlington National Cemetery with some families of soldiers killed during President Joe Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. The entire manufactured controversy is perverse. It’s obvious NPR is exploiting the cemetery for a political goal, and it then spread to the rest of the national media. Trump is showing support for grieving Gold Star families, while Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris would not appear. They were MIA. But Trump was singled out as the one with grotesque political optics, not the no-shows whose negligence cost American lives. They weren’t seriously considering the Biden-Harris disaster on “All Things Considered.” They could call it “All Democrats Defended.” Conservatives quickly found snapshots from private photographers of Biden in the same sacred section of the Arlington cemetery. That thing cannot be “considered.” In a different segment of this evening newscast, Lawrence and NPR Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman reviewed the third anniversary of the Abbey Gate bombing, which led to the death of 13 American service personnel. The segment was headlined: “The chaotic U.S. exit from Afghanistan in 2021 had stems from four administrations.” NPR felt compelled to spread the blame around on everyone. Bowman spun furiously: “It’s important to note that it was the Trump administration that signed this peace deal that was basically a quick exit plan.” Lawrence added, “There is a lot of failure to go around to the four presidents over the 20 years of war.” Lawrence was back the next morning to add another layer of reheated Democrat spin to the mix: “You know, Trump has a controversial history with comments about disabled veterans, though, and about fallen soldiers. Some of his former staff have said Trump called fallen World War II troops losers and suckers for fighting and dying when they had no personal gain at stake. Trump denies these comments, but even this year, he mocked the late John McCain for not being able to raise his arms fully.” One of the most annoying problems with this story is using anonymous cemetery officials to attack Trump’s optics. This leads the public to assume only Trump is being political, that it’s impossible that the people seeking to block Trump and the Gold Star families are partisan Democrats doing damage control. Democratic journalists should be accused of hiding Democratic activism with an undeserved veil of anonymity. Why grant anonymity here? They’re supposedly nonpartisan public officials. Lawrence said they stopped talking: “They’ve told NPR and other media outlets that they’re no longer going to answer any questions about this because they want to protect the identity of the official who confronted the Trump campaign.” Then Lawrence closed with one last insult: “But our source told me that they have never seen this level of disrespectful behavior at Arlington, ever.” This sounds vaguely reminiscent of the anonymous “nonpartisans” at the National Archives that hated Trump so much it eventually led to an armed raid on Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago over some presidential papers. Trump is always the loutish supervillain, and the people heaping negative press on him are painted as patriotic anonymous bureaucrats. This is the corrupt nature of public broadcasting, loaded almost entirely with partisan Democrats, subsidized by Democratic politicians to provide mudslinging campaign ads disguised as “journalism.” It’s not “public” radio. It’s for the socialist half of the public. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post NPR Exploits Arlington Cemetery for Politics appeared first on The Daily Signal.

How do accomplished radicals elect a mediocre far-left presidential candidate? The task might at first seem impossible. Kamala Harris is currently a radical incumbent vice president. For more than three years, she was second in command to an unprecedentedly unliked Democrat president, his failed policies, and his unpopular record. Harris herself had compiled a hard-left trail over her own entire career while loudly boasting indiscreetly to leftist audiences of being proudly “woke” and “radical.” Most challenging for a Harris candidacy makeover was the long, entrenched Democratic Party’s reluctance to remove a debilitated President Joe Biden from the Democratic ticket. Why? Because Harris was deemed such a liability that she had become a Spiro Agnew-like insurance policy for a failing Biden. Until just recently, Democrats had considered an unpopular and enfeebled Biden nonetheless far preferable to an incoherent, lightweight, and widely ridiculed potential replacement Vice President Harris. After all, she had never before entered a presidential primary. She never won a single delegate by voting. She failed miserably as a candidate in 2020. And she co-owns the unpopular record of an even more unpopular president. The complete Harris makeover requires 15 radical rules followed to the letter: 1. Remake Harris as an entirely fresh happy face. She’s about joy and vibe—which trumps position papers and policy statements. Banish all thoughts that she is an incumbent vice president and co-owns the last four years of the Biden administration. 2. Ignore/deny that Harris as vice president could have long ago enacted her new makeover proposal—or could do so right now in the remaining five months of her administration’s tenure. She was the last person out of the room when Biden made those awful decisions. 3. For the next 70 days, reinvent Harris as a moderate. Xerox much of Donald Trump’s current more popular agenda. Have Harris claim it as her own. Reboot her as a border hawk, a China hawk, a defense hawk, a budget hawk, and a law-and-order hawk. 4. The word-salad Harris must not do a single unscripted media interview, live town hall, extemporaneous chat, ambush hot mic, or lecture without a teleprompter. 5. Harris must not offer any policy proposals such as her harebrained price controls that deviate from her 70-day new centrist image and teleprompted scripts. 6. Do not mention Biden at all. Harris is not to be seen with him in photos or at events. Create a vaguely joyful but completely imaginary, “Harris record.” Separate it from the miserable Biden-Harris administration. Leak that she was unhappy with Biden. 7. Call Trump a mobster, criminal, insurrectionist, and dictator nonstop. Never provide any evidence to support such charges. When challenged, double down and let loose with worse invective. 8. Talk about abortion nonstop. But never dare mention the word. Relabel abortion “reproductive rights.” Falsely reinvent Trump as a radical anti-abortionist who wants a federal ban. 9. Follow the 2020 successful Biden “basement” strategy: keep out of the public eye, silent on the issues, reliant on 70 percent of the ballots not being cast on Election Day, and outsourcing the campaign to the fusion media and billionaire class. 10. Harangue about race and gender nonstop. Define the election as a stark binary between a “young” oppressed but dynamic black woman and an old oppressor racist white guy. 11. Reinvent the “journey” and life “story” of Harris—the child of two PhDs—into a hardscrabble, lifelong struggle against poverty, systemic racism, and greedy “billionaires” like Trump. She is always to be from Oakland—never Berkeley. 12. Talk about transparency nonstop. Feign a willingness to have three or four debates. But agree to hold only one—and only on a left-wing network. Promise interviews and town halls endlessly. Enter into discussions about them. But always delay, stonewall, and evade for the next 10 weeks. 13. Meet privately and endlessly with the megarich donor class that helped to remove Biden. Assure Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley grandees that banter about wealth taxes, taxes on unearned income, and higher corporate taxes are mere campaign posturing. Then outraise Trump again 3-1. 14. Privately assure leftist activists and Democrat politicos that any backslidings from supporting lifelong left-wing advocacies are temporary and necessary 70-day pretexts. Instead look at what Harris actually does after Nov. 5, not anything she must say before then. 15. Control and modulate the street. Anti-Trump protests are a legitimate “movement” that are “not going to let up. And they should not.” Any violent anti-Trump demonstrator should be bailed out immediately. All anti-Democrat, anti-Harris demonstrations should be deterred. A large police presence must be proactive with as many arrests as possible, with barriers, and plenty of backup. Protest leaders should be given private concessions and incentives to tone down their people. Copyright by Tribune Content Agency We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post New Rules for Radicals—How to Reinvent Kamala Harris appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Former President Donald Trump announced Thursday a new plan to make IVF widely available and subsidized by the federal government. “Under the Trump administration, your government will pay for, or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for, all costs associated with IVF treatment,” Trump said at a Michigan campaign event, referring to the fertility treatment that involves creating an embryo in a lab setting and then implanting it under medically controlled conditions.  “Because we want more babies, to put it very nicely. … But the IVF treatments are expensive. It’s very hard for many people to do it and to get it, but I’ve been in favor of IVF, right from the beginning,” the former president added.  I have never been more proud of a policy! #IVF pic.twitter.com/YfBWfbLK2T— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) August 30, 2024 On its face, this is an appealing idea. Who wouldn’t want to help couples struggling with infertility? And Trump is right: We do need more babies in this era of declining birth rates.   But IVF comes with both moral and practical challenges.   First, IVF does not guarantee a child. Women who are 35 and under have a 51% chance of having a successful single child pregnancy from IVF using their own eggs, according to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology.  For women who are 38 to 40, that chance drops to 25%. For women 41-42, the odds are even lower: There’s only a 12% chance they will have a child.   Furthermore, don’t think IVF is easy for women, who must undergo a grueling treatment of hormones to allow for egg retrieval and then optimal implantation of the fertilized egg or embryo. As the data shows, many women will face that extremely difficult medical treatment—and have no happy ending.  Just take the case of Kaitlyn Abdou.  “Three years, five egg retrievals, 10 embryo transfers, 19 embryos, $165,000 and over 80 pounds of weight gained—and I have nothing to show for it,” Abdou wrote for NBC News’ “Today” in April.  “[A]s I look back on who I used to be three years ago, the confident, happy, hopeful young woman who dreamed of raising a family of her own, I can’t help but think that despite its magnificence, IVF ruined my life,” Abdou added.   “I am a broken shell of the person I used to be. I have nightmares; I have inescapable bouts of depression. I can’t look at an ultrasound image without choking back tears.”  That’s not the story we like to hear about IVF—but it is an experience that many women sadly face. Some evidence also suggests that women who conceive by IVF may have more health pregnancy challenges than women who conceive naturally. For instance, women who conceived via IVF had a higher likelihood of developing gestational diabetes, according to a 2023 study from Finnish researchers. A 2019 study found that women using assisted reproductive technology to conceive had a higher chance of developing preeclampsia. Furthermore, IVF is extraordinarily expensive. “[C]osts for a single cycle of IVF have recently been estimated to range from $15,000 to $20,000 and can exceed $30,000,” stated a March fact sheet from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  “Given the average number of cycles that are needed to become pregnant from IVF is 2.5, this means that the average cost of IVF to conceive successfully can easily exceed $40,000.”  If insurance companies are mandated to cover IVF, those costs will be passed along to their customers via higher premiums. If the government starts subsidizing IVF, taxpayers would foot the bill. In light of the recent statements on abortion and IVF coming out of both presidential campaigns, I want to reiterate that I'm a lifelong pro-lifer, the institutions I lead are pro-life, tens of millions of Americans are pro-life, and that we aren't going anywhere. @Heritage and…— Kevin Roberts (@KevinRobertsTX) August 30, 2024 There are also the moral challenges. While a May Gallup poll found that 82% of Americans think IVF is morally acceptable, 43% of Americans say it’s morally wrong to destroy the extra embryos created during IVF.  The typical IVF treatment involves producing a lot of extra embryos. Emma Waters, a senior research associate at The Heritage Foundation, estimated in a March report that on average, IVF involves the creation of 10 embryos.   “[T]his means that the 413,776 rounds of IVF reported in 2021 resulted in the creation of approximately 4.1 million embryos,” Waters wrote. “When dividing the total number of live-born infants by 4.1 million, this would mean that only 2.3 percent of all embryos created in the United States result in the live birth of a baby.”  The United States doesn’t have to allow such high numbers of embryos to be created. For instance, Germany allows the creation of only three embryos per cycle.   For those who believe that life begins at conception, these unused frozen embryos pose quite the conundrum. If we are opposed to ending the life of an unborn child in the womb, how can we be OK with ending these children’s lives?  Some have advocated donating the embryos to other couples. In 2022, twins created in 1992 and frozen for decades were born. But this solution poses its own moral quandaries. On a practical level, there are also concerns: Do enough people exist who want a child and are OK with embryo adoption to carry these millions of discarded embryos to term?   Nor are these the only moral issues present in IVF. Right now, three quarters of fertility clinics allow testing of embryos for genetic issues, and nearly as many allow let parents test for sex, hair, eye, and even skin color. Do we really want parents discarding embryos with Down Syndrome or other so-called “undesirable” conditions? Do we want parents rejecting boys in favor of girls? Do we want to encourage racist preferences through skin color selection?   Yes, more babies would be wonderful. As a 36-year-old woman who hopes to have children myself, I completely sympathize with couples who are facing infertility and want to try everything they can to have children, particularly in this era where adoption can be so difficult.  But we cannot be blind to the downsides of IVF, nor can we ignore the defenseless embryonic children who never consented to be frozen for decades or discarded, their lives prematurely ended.  Right now, the focus should be on addressing the moral challenges around IVF, not increasing the number of IVF treatments. If policymakers want to increase the number of babies and help couples facing infertility, there are other options. One such solution would be funding medical research on infertility and eliminating regulatory barriers affecting this area. The onerous burdens of student loans, high housing costs, and everyday expenses like gas and groceries make life unaffordable for many young Americans. Those fortunate enough to meet their spouse at a young age too often delay having children right away because of economic factors. Lawmakers could implement family-friendly policies, including a child support tax credit.  Such a debate would be welcome among our leading presidential candidates, putting the focus of this election on children and families. But when we advocate for more babies, let’s make sure we’re advocating for all babies, including the millions of embryos created in the course of IVF treatments. The post The Downsides of IVF appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Humane Society of Pinellas (HSP) in Florida shares a rescue dog's "heroic journey to recovery" after helping remove a 7-lb tumor on his face and successfully getting him adopted.

In a public hearing exclusively recorded and streamed by NewsBusters, on Friday, CNN defended their use of Taliban Sharia law in the courtroom. CNN’s lead counsel Deanna Shullman (of Shullman Fugate PLLC) repeatedly argued that the network was correct to suggest Plaintiff and Navy veteran Zachary Young took part in an illegal “black market” because he was getting women out of Afghanistan “without permission of the Taliban;” an argument that got some push back from Judge Scott Henry. As NewsBusters previously reported, a major crux of the argument against CNN was that the term “black market” and how it played a huge role in the alleged defamation since it suggested that Young was a criminal who had taken part in illegal activity. “Moreover, your Honor, the market was illegal,” Shullman declared. “CNN obviously does not condone the Taliban. It's ridiculous, but that was who was in charge at the time. And it's no dispute, your Honor, that they did not permit the evacuations.” According to CNN (and despite them admitting they didn’t find evidence of illegal activity), since Young was pointing out the definition of “black market,” they were now right to paint him that way because he didn’t get “permission” from the Taliban to get those women out. “They further admitted that the entire point, the entire point of the private evacuation market was to get people out without permission of the Taliban and without getting caught by the Taliban,” Shullman said. “So, there is an illegal black market in in evacuations. Young has put in no testimony that he had permission from the Taliban to move people. It's the whole point why he says his operatives waited for guards at the gate of Pakistan who would look the other way and let their evacuees in despite not having permission to leave the country.”     Judge Henry expertly thought up an equivalent situation to query Shullman. He wondered if CNN would think it would be illegal for people in Mexico to flee a town besieged by a drug cartel who forbade anyone from leaving. The question seemed to leave Shullman on her heels and she admitted getting out of that situation would be “a good thing”: HENRY: So, in Mexico, if a cartel is restricting people from going somewhere and you run your car out of town against the cartels “law,” are you saying that somebody did something illegal by leaving that town because the cartel said no you can't go? I mean, that that seems to be the equivalent of what you're suggesting here. SHULLMAN: Your Honor, what I'm – what I'm – Again, there's a disconnect between whether it's a good thing to get out of town because of the cartels and whether the cartels would have allowed it, and that's the issue here. Yes, it's a good thing to get people out of the country, but the truth is the Taliban didn't allow it, so you had to sneak around and to get it done. Just before that point, Judge Henry asked a probing question about the validity of the Taliban’s supposed laws, questioning how one could know what they were and/or if they were codified anywhere? Shullman responded by saying the Judge was “putting an American spin on laws that are not written”: HENRY: And where I, I mean, if I, you know, if I'm saying somebody did something illegal in the state of Florida. I point to some chapter and some section, sub subsection of a statute that says this in Florida makes it illegal. Where does it say in Taliban law adopted in Afghanistan in 2021, the fall of 2021, that this is illegal to do? SHULLMAN: So, plaintiffs own expert – HENRY: If I was to apply Taliban law as being the standard of whether he was doing something illegal. SHULLMAN: This is where his own expert helps you with this, Your Honor, because the expert testifies, you can't think of it like that. This is not a place where there is a code of federal regulations in place. Laws as American, you're putting an American spin on laws that are not written, you know, put in organized leather-bound book – But, as NewsBusters previously reported, CNN may have blew up their own legal argument with an article they published last week admitting that the Taliban had only just gotten around to codifying their brand of Sharia law. “The 114-page, 35-article document seen by The Associated Press constitutes the first formal declaration of vice and virtue laws in Afghanistan since the Taliban seized power in 2021, when it also set up a ministry for the ‘propagation of virtue and the prevention of vice,’” they reported. Young’s lead counsel, Vel Freedman (of Freedman Normand Friedland LLP) made a similar point to Judge Henry’s cartel analogy. He posed a scenario where terrorists took over a building and told everyone they couldn’t leave; pointing out that the terrorists weren’t the actual government of the building, thus their edicts did not carry the weight of law (Click "expand"): Before I get into the legal reasons why that fails, Judge, as common sense tells us that makes no sense, right? If a group of terrorists take over a building in downtown Panama City and take hostages in that building and then forbid the hostages from leaving and put a sign on the door that says “you're forbidden from leaving,” someone who goes into that building to save the hostages is not acting illegally. All right? And, and that's just, that's just common sense. And that's what's going on. The Taliban are terrorists that have taken over a country, yes, but how is it any different than a building? And that brings us to the legal issues. The Taliban are not the government of Afghanistan as a matter of law. This isn't disputable. And on the issue of Young’s alleged criminality, Freedman noted that CNN’s corporate representative Adam Solomon Levine and journalist Alex Marquardt admitted in the deposition testimony that they didn’t find any evidence of Young committing a crime: I'm gonna come back to this refrain, this pattern I'd say we were going to be talking about, Judge, where the plaintiffs have put forward competent evidence to say they did nothing illegal. The burden now shifts to Mr. Young – to CNN rather to put forward evidence of illegality. If they fail to put forward reasonable evidence of Mr. Young committing an illegal act, then the court has to enter summary judgment that Mr. Young did nothing illegal. “So, starting with the excerpts of testimony from Mr. Young and General Young, Judge, none of the cited evidence by CNN says that Mr. Young engaged in illegal conduct. CNN has literally made these arguments based on a deep mischaracterization of the record,” he said. The relevant portions of the transcript are below. Click "expand" to read: CNN Defamation Suit Hearing August 30, 2024 11:59:09 a.m. Eastern (…) JUDGE SCOTT HENRY: The second one you – um – you were requesting that Young – a determination Young was not operating on a black market. VEL FREEDMAN (lead counsel for Zachary Young, plaintiff): That's right, Judge, and it's, it's kind of two parts is that Mr. Young did nothing illegal and that Mr. Young did nothing on a black market, but yes. HENRY: Okay. Go ahead. FREEDMAN: OK, thank you, Judge. So, your Honor, again, so as we start in this pattern, I told you we'd be revisiting, Mr. Young put forward evidence that he did nothing illegal. And that evidence comes in in in in numerous forms, though some we withdrew. So I just want to flag again that, you know, we withdrew some of those and I won't be mentioning them. I know the court won't be relying on them. So, using only what was cited, Mr. Young testified that he was not a criminal in deposition, you know, quote, “probably just the facts are, you know, I'm not a criminal,” quote, “I'm not involved in anything illegal.” So, Mr. Young put on testimony saying ‘I did nothing illegal.’ The business at issue, Judge, had all the hallmarks of legality, you're talking about a US company that's issuing invoices, that's paying its taxes that provided service to Fortune 100 companies with robust compliance departments. You have the White House being publicly involved in evacuations. And in fact, Judge, CNN admitted in deposition that Mr. Young didn't do anything illegal, quote, Mr. Levine, CNN's corporate representative, “does CNN believe that Young was involved in illegal activity?” Answer, “No.” Or Mr. Marquardt, question, “did your reporting ever discover anything illegal that was going on with regard to the evacuation process.” Answer, “No, it didn't.” Question, “do you think Mr. Young was committing a crime? Let me ask it that way.” Answer, “As far as I know, he was—” he repeated himself here, but – “he was simply asking for large amounts of money to get Afghans out of the country.” So again, ‘do you think he was committing a crime?’ ‘No, as far as I know, he was simply asking for large amounts of money.’ So, you've got, um, again, I'm gonna come back to this refrain, this pattern I'd say we were going to be talking about, Judge, where the plaintiffs has put forward competent evidence to say they did nothing illegal. The burden now shifts to Mr. Young – to CNN rather to put forward evidence of illegality. If they fail to put forward reasonable evidence of Mr. Young committing an illegal act, then the court has to enter summary judgment that Mr. Young did nothing illegal. And Judge CNN tries to do two things to beat to counter evidence – now, the plaintiffs – the plaintiff's evidence. The first is they cite various experts of testimony from Mr. Young and General Young, no relation, by the way, which is our expert on evacuations in Afghanistan and the area out there, to try and prove that Mr. Young engaged in illegal activity. The second thing they do is CNN tries to rely on Sharia law to say Mr. Young's actions involve – it violated the Sharia law instituted by the Taliban. So, starting with the excerpts of testimony from Mr. Young and General Young, Judge, none of the cited evidence by CNN says that Mr. Young engaged in illegal conduct. CNN has literally made these arguments based on a deep mischaracterization of the record. (…) 12:03:26 p.m. FREEDMAN: The second issue, so that brings us to the Sharia law issue. And, and essentially what CNN is arguing is that the Taliban instituted a ban from women traveling alone or with males that were not their relatives. The evacuation process violated that Taliban edict and therefore Mr. Young did do something that was illegal. Before I get into the legal reasons why that fails, Judge, as common sense tells us that makes no sense, right? If a group of terrorists take over a building in downtown Panama City and take hostages in that building and then forbid the hostages from leaving and put a sign on the door that says “you're forbidden from leaving,” someone who goes into that building to save the hostages is not acting illegally. All right? And, and that's just, that's just common sense. And that's what's going on. The Taliban are terrorists that have taken over a country, yes, but how is it any different than a building? And that brings us to the legal issues. The Taliban are not the government of Afghanistan as a matter of law. This isn't disputable. (…) 12:19:03 p.m. Eastern DEANNA SHULLMAN (lead counsel for CNN, defendant): Moreover, your Honor, the market was illegal. CNN obviously does not condone the Taliban. It's ridiculous, but that was who was in charge at the time. And it's no dispute, your Honor, that they did not permit the evacuations. That's why it had to be done surreptitiously because if you got caught by the Taliban, you would get killed because they didn't allow it. (…) 12:20:39 p.m. Eastern SHULLMAN: They further admitted that the entire point, the entire point of the private evacuation market was to get people out without permission of the Taliban and without getting caught by the Taliban. (…) 12:21:46 p.m. Eastern SHULLMAN: So, there is an illegal black market in in evacuations. Young has put in no testimony that he had permission from the Taliban to move people. It's the whole point why he says his operatives waited for guards at the gate of Pakistan who would look the other way and let their evacuees in despite not having permission to leave the country. He testified that he sent the operatives across the border unaccompanied, even though they were not allowed by the Taliban to travel that way because crossing them with men unrelated to them would make it far worse for them. (…) 12:27:18 p.m. Eastern SHULLMAN: It's a not like a U.S. code section here. It's a terrorist regime. The terrorists didn't allow it. So, if you're gonna look at this through the lens of “illegality,” then you have to look at what was legal and not legal at the time. And it was not legal to allow – to take these women across the border, maybe without passports. Young doesn't know cause he wasn't there. Maybe with fake passports, he doesn't know, he wasn't there. All he wants to tell you is, ‘trust me, it was legal.’ He doesn't know. He's no competent evidence that what the operatives were on the ground were doing was legal and we have no means to test – to test at all his testimony that it was because he deleted everything! He can't meet his burden of falsity here, Your Honor. He just can't. It's not enough sufficient competent evidence. And again, if the reports even say that, because they don't. HENRY: And where I, I mean, if I, you know, if I'm saying somebody did something illegal in the state of Florida. I point to some chapter and some section, sub subsection of a statute that says this in Florida makes it illegal. Where does it say in Taliban law adopted in Afghanistan in 2021, the fall of 2021, that this is illegal to do? SHULLMAN: So, plaintiffs own expert – HENRY: If I was to apply Taliban law as being the standard of whether he was doing something illegal. SHULLMAN: This is where his own expert helps you with this, Your Honor, because the expert testifies, you can't think of it like that. This is not a place where there is a code of federal regulations in place. Laws as American, you're putting an American spin on laws that are not written, you know, put in organized leather-bound book – HENRY: So, in Mexico, if a cartel is restricting people from going somewhere and you run your car out of town against the cartels “law,” are you saying that somebody did something illegal by leaving that town because the cartel said no you can't go? I mean, that that seems to be the equivalent of what you're suggesting here. SHULLMAN: Your Honor, what I'm – what I'm – Again, there's a disconnect between whether it's a good thing to get out of town because of the cartels and whether the cartels would have allowed it, and that's the issue here. Yes, it's a good thing to get people out of the country, but the truth is the Taliban didn't allow it, so you had to sneak around and to get it done. And sneaking around to get it done was required because the people in charge wouldn't let you do it, not because they had a leather-bound book that said you couldn't do it, but because that's what they said. Women couldn't leave the country freely. The expert admitted it. Young admitted it. The whole point of the market is because you can't do this. You know, you can't just say, I'm gonna leave now and, and get out of town. You, you need the permission of the people in charge, thugs that they were, and they didn't have it. So, they resorted to a clandestine market. They resorted to, you know, channels that were private and outside unregulated. That's what I'm saying. The use of the term by CNN is clandestine, unregulated, outside of the view of the Taliban. There isn't anything in the report that says what he did was illegal, but if that's how the court is going to interpret it, then what he did violated the Taliban's rules. By his own admissions. (…)

My organization, CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education, organized a delegation of 20 prominent pastors to travel to Israel to host a press conference on Oct. 7 as a show of support for and solidarity with Israelis on the one-year anniversary of the horrendous, savage terrorist attack that took place. A few days ago, we were notified by Delta Airlines that our flight was canceled. Airlines are canceling flights in light of the ongoing hostilities and instability in security in the region. How can this not be seen as an achievement for the terrorist group Hamas and the nation that finances its existence, Iran? Hamas continues to hold over 100 hostages taken during their attack Oct. 7, 2023, eight of whom are Americans. The parents of one of these American hostages spoke at the Democratic convention, appealing for a deal that would lead to a release of hostages. But we must ask how it is we got to where terrorists and murders have become our negotiating partners? How do you win good will from unrepentant murderers? In 2011, Israel agreed to release 1,027 Palestinians being held prisoner in exchange for one Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, held hostage by Hamas. Among those released then by Israel was Yahya Sinwar, who has now become leader of Hamas, and the mastermind behind the Oct. 7, 2023, atrocities. Sinwar was being held under four life sentences tied to murders of Israelis and Palestinian collaborators. Estimates of the annual support that Iran has provided to Hamas are in the range of $200 - $300 million. Estimates of Iran’s support of Hezbollah in Lebanon are in a similar range. Overall, Iran’s support of terror over the years has been tens of billions of dollars. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, now U.S. Ambassador to Israel, noted in testimony last year to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “When you’re dealing with Iran, you’re not dealing with a rational economic player. You’re dealing with an evil, malign government that funds its evil and malign activities first.” Despite being among the top 10 oil producers in the world, per capita GDP in Iran, per the World Bank, is $4,500. Clearly, economic development of their own country, and prosperity and well-being of the Iranian population, is not a priority for the Iranian regime. Terrorism and murder are. And the same is true of their terrorist clients. The hundreds of millions annually funneled to Hamas has been directed to fund infrastructure to attack Israel, not to improve the quality of life of the Palestinian population in Gaza. In her remarks at the Democratic Party’s convention, Vice President Kamala Harris said, “I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself” and then continued, “At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating.” Terrorists will always murder as long as they see hope in achieving their deadly objectives. The vice president may have said nice words at the convention about recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself, but what message did she send to the Hamas murderers, who precipitated all of this, by boycotting the Israeli prime minister’s speech to Congress several weeks ago? The message that our pastors wanted to bring to Israel this October was their adherence to the words in the Book of Deuteronomy that “I have placed life and death before you, blessing and curse, and you shall choose life.” Israel, since its founding in the ashes of the Holocaust 76 years ago, has been about choosing life. The Abraham Accords, signed by the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco along with Israel, were about Arab nations joining with Israel to choose life and prosperity in the Middle East and worldwide. But the terrorists want death. The USA must stop giving them credibility. It’s the only way to a better world for all.

Florida police said they obtained video evidence showing a woman instructing a rottweiler dog to maul the 9-year-old daughter of her boyfriend. 34-year-old Tyshael Elise Martin was arrested and charged with first-degree murder of Jamaria Sessions after the girl was found unresponsive at a home they shared in Montverde in June. 'They got the act of Martin severely, savagely beating Jamaria.' The Lake County Sheriff's Office said emergency personnel documented "numerous abrasions, bruises, burns and possible bite marks" on the child after she was pronounced dead. Martin reportedly told deputies that she had awakened to find the child unresponsive when she went to check on other children. In the course of their investigation, police obtained surveillance video allegedly showing the woman directing the 103-pound dog to attack the girl while she held on to the leash. Police said she also kicked the girl as she "laid motionless on the floor." Her other children were watching at the time, the affidavit said. At one point, the woman allegedly said, "I'm fixin' to kill her," on the video. “They got the act of Martin severely, savagely beating Jamaria in the nights leading up to her death. In my time here, I don't think I have ever seen anything so graphic and like I said, savage is an appropriate word to describe this,” said Lt. John Herrell. Police said interviews revealed that Martin would allegedly punish the child with other unusual beatings and injuries. The medical examiner's report found that the girl died from complications from multiple blunt injuries. Martin was also charged with aggravated child abuse and neglect. “It's difficult to read. It's difficult to even talk about. And no doubt it was difficult even for detectives to investigate this and piece it all together," Herrell continued. "It's just unimaginable, really,” he added. A news video report from WOFL-TV showed photos of the girl and the home where she was killed. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Kamala Harris claims that if she were to become president, she’ll ensure prices go down and Americans can go back to living comfortable lives. However, that couldn’t be farther from the truth — and Glenn Beck isn’t going to take the lies sitting down. “All of the progressive madness has come from Kamala Harris, literally. She was the deciding vote on all of these massive projects, like the Inflation Reduction Act — which was not designed to decrease inflation. It was designed as the Green New Deal,” Glenn explains. “Kamala Harris lied to you about the Inflation Reduction Act. They named it that because they knew you would go, ‘Oh well, we have to have that ‘cause inflation’s out of control,’” he continues. While the economy is bad after the Biden-Harris administration’s three-and-a-half year reign thus far, Kamala would only make it worse. The vice president wants to tax unrealized gains. “Now, this is just the beginning,” Glenn says. “She has a $5 trillion tax idea and part of that, a big part of that, is unrealized gains. What is an unrealized gain? Let’s say your house goes up $100,000 in value in a year. Okay, you have to pay 25% of that in tax.” “So, that’ll mean, on April 15 because your house went up in value, that means you’ll have to cough up $25,000 on April 15 in addition to what you already pay,” he explains. “Well, wait a minute, what if my house goes down, does the government pay me?” The answer is a resounding “No.” “That’s what you're facing. How do you make a population have nothing? You tax them to death,” Glenn says. “This will absolutely collapse the economy. She is the Hugo Chavez or the Maduro of the United States of America.” Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The thrill of grinding for top-tier loot or the satisfaction of coming across rare or valuable items is a core aspect of many MMOs and RPGs. However, whether you're stuffing your postmaster full of junk in Destiny 2, constantly getting over-encumbered in Fallout, or hoarding gear for builds you’ll never actually make in Baldur’s Gate 3, loot can be a nuisance. Well, here’s a game that turns endless inventory management into a core mechanic. Meet Megaloot, which just launched on Steam. Continue reading Megaloot, the roguelike RPG for loot-hoarders, finally hits Steam MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best indie games, Best roguelike games, Best strategy games

Destiny 2’s third act of Episode 1 is now well underway, and its brand new Exotic is causing quite a stir. The new Destiny 2 Choir of One assault rifle is an absolute monster, but Bungie has admitted it’s more powerful than it should be due to a couple of bugs. However, it has no plans on fixing those bugs just yet “so you can have a fun time.” Continue reading Destiny 2 says it won’t fix bugged new Exotic because it’s too fun MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Destiny 2 classes, Destiny 2 The Final Shape review, Destiny 2 builds