Some Minnesota parents are expressing outrage as two more school districts there are set to issue guidelines allowing boys who say they identify as transgender in girls’ restrooms and locker rooms.  “Schools are focusing on all sorts of things that have nothing to do with academics and really seem to be wanting to socially engineer children to change their attitudes toward things,” parent and Moms for Liberty chapter President Jeannine Buntrock of Rochester, Minn., told The Daily Signal. “Their focus is absolutely off, and they’re willing to make a large number of people very uncomfortable in order to make a small number of people supposedly comfortable.”  While 11 Minnesota districts already have “gender inclusion” guidelines, two have newly introduced policies to allow boys in girls’ private spaces. The Rochester Public Schools system is set to approve its abridged “Supporting Transgender and/or Gender-Expansive Students” policy on July 16. The school district in Minnesota’s third-largest city was expected to introduce an updated version of its transgender student guidelines at a Tuesday board meeting. Changes to the policy from its original form issued in September 2023 allow a transgender-identifying boy to share a room with a girl on an overnight trip without the girl’s or her parents’ knowledge. Though Buntrock’s three children are zoned for the Rochester Public Schools, she moved her daughters to a different district to avoid policies like these. Yet she fears the “gender inclusion” policies sweeping across Minnesota will find their way to her daughters’ new district. “It makes me very uncomfortable to think of my daughters being in a bathroom, a locker room, or a hotel room on a school trip that was not single-sex only,” Buntrock said. “I think that girls naturally feel uncomfortable with that, and it’s not right for schools to insist that they become comfortable with biological males in spaces where they’re changing or using the bathroom.” The policy permits transgender students to participate in school trips, including overnight trips “in a manner that corresponds with their gender identity or in a manner that allows the student to feel the safest, included, and most comfortable.”  “In all cases, the school has an obligation to maintain the privacy of all students and cannot disclose or require the disclosure of the student’s gender identity to the other students or the parent(s)/guardian(s) of other students,” the guidelines say.  The district works with students to determine what spaces, including restrooms and locker rooms, are most “comfortable” for the student. Students will “in no case” be required to use the restroom that corresponds with their biological gender if they say it conflicts with their so-called gender identity.  Critics of some Minnesota schools’ pro-transgender policies say those policies are misguided. “[T]hey’re willing to make a large number of people very uncomfortable in order to make a small number of people supposedly comfortable,”  says Moms for Liberty chapter President Jeannine Buntrock. (Photo: Peter Parisi/The Daily Signal) “In situations where students are segregated by gender, students have the right to participate in any such activities or conform to any such rule, policy, or practice in a manner that aligns with their gender identity consistently asserted at school,” according to the policy.  Rochester Public School will make “reasonable” changes to the curriculum and train staff in order “to accommodate students whose gender identity aligns outside the binary male and female constraints.” Buntrock said she understands that solutions need to be found for people who wish to use facilities deviating from their biological sex, but said the solution shouldn’t impose upon or harm other students.  “It shouldn’t involve normalizing something for everyone else and trying to override their normal sense of discomfort in the name of ‘inclusion,’” Buntrock said. The Rochester Public School District was unavailable to comment by time of publication. The Minneapolis Public Schools’ Board is expected to vote to allow boys in girls’ spaces next week, on June 18. The School Board unanimously adopted a policy stating that “gender-expansive” students can use facilities and participate in programs consistent with their “gender identity” at an April 23 meeting reviewed by The Daily Signal.  The Minneapolis district’s stated priorities in determining transgender students’ preferred facilities are maximizing the transgender students’ “social integration” and “comfort,” and “minimizing stigmatization,” rather than protecting the safety of female students in restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities.   Bloomington Public Schools adopted a “gender inclusion” policy at a May 28 School Board meeting. Other districts with recent adoptions of similar policies include White Bear Lake in January and Anoka-Hennepin in August 2023.  The Anoka-Hennepin School District in the northern suburbs of the Twin Cities instituted its transgender guidelines in response to “a growing number of students who identify as transgender or gender-nonconforming.”  The policy gives students an opportunity to hide their gender identity from their parents, as some transgender students “do not want their parents to know.” Students can submit requests asking for their gender identity to be concealed from their parents.  “Upon receiving such a request, the school shall determine whether denying parental access is in the student’s best interest by considering the potential for physical or emotional harm,” according to the policy.  The Hastings and Burnsville Savage Eagen school districts have had “gender inclusion” policies allowing students to use all facilities consistent with the student’s preferred gender since 2020 and 2022, respectively.  As a victim of sexual assault, Britni Granquist, Moms for Liberty chairwoman for Dakota County—which includes the Hastings and Burnsville Savage Eagan districts—said she worries about the safety of girls in districts that allow boys in girls’ private spaces. “I have concerns that this would greatly open the door for more situations like what happened in Loudoun County” in Virginia, she said. “I’ve spoken with my daughter about it, and she doesn’t feel comfortable being around other people in locker rooms for the most part, but a boy would make her feel very uncomfortable as well.” In Loudoun County, Virginia, a boy who identified as transgender sexually assaulted a female student in a girls’ bathroom in 2021. “I believe I have the right as a parent to be able to ensure that she’s safe in the locker room,” Granquist said, “and the school has their due diligence to ensure that my child is safe when they are in the schools as well.” The post ‘Concerned for My Daughter’s Safety’: 2 More Minnesota School Districts Issue Transgender Guidelines Allowing Boys in Girls’ Spaces appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On a quiet Friday morning on May 3, two men posing as subcontracted Amazon drivers pulled their truck up to the main gate entering Quantico Marine Base in Virginia. The men did not present approved access credentials and had no affiliation with the base. They claimed they were making a delivery to the post office. Following standard protocol, the gate officers directed the truck to a holding area for extra vetting, but the driver ignored the order and tried to breach the gate. Luckily, vehicle denial barriers prevented the truck from getting on base. The two drivers were detained and eventually handed over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They were later identified as Jordanian nationals. One of the men was living illegally in the United States on an expired student visa while the other had only recently crossed the U.S. border in San Diego.   Almost a month later, there are still a lot of unanswered questions in this case. For instance, the identities of the men have still not been revealed. The Department of Homeland Security refuses to share who these men are, citing privacy concerns for asylum seekers. Doesn’t the public have a right to know who these uninvited guests are, given the obvious threat they present to national security? Most importantly, why did it take almost two weeks for base officials to notify personnel of the security breach? Curiously, the public found out about the incident on May 10 only after a local reporter broke the story. The reporter was acting on a tip from Matt Strickland, a Virginia politician who ran for state Senate in 2023. Strickland had received a message from a Quantico employee about the attempted breach. The message stated that the man who had crossed the border was on the terrorism watch list, a claim that has not been confirmed by authorities.  Republican members of Congress and Virginia’s Governor Youngkin issued letters to President Joe Biden and Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas requesting a full briefing on the incident but no new details have emerged.   This is not the first time foreign nationals have attempted to breach sensitive military facilities. In an interview with Fox News on May 24, Navy Admiral Daryl Caudle stated that these incidents are “happening more and more, something that we see two or three times a week.” Many of these individuals attempting to enter military bases are from Russia and China. In other cases, foreign nationals have targeted high-ranking U.S. military officials. On the same day as the Quantico incident, two Chechen men were caught taking photos outside the family home of a U.S. Army Colonel in a neighborhood close to Fort Liberty, North Carolina. The immigration status of both men remains unconfirmed. This is not an isolated incident. Many U.S. Special Operations soldiers around the country have reported suspicious surveillance of them and their families. While some of these incidents may be tied to espionage, many experts fear that they are dry runs in preparation for targeted attacks against military personnel or larger terrorist attacks on government facilities or military bases. FBI director Christopher Wray has even warned of a potential attack.  “I’ve never seen a time where all the threats or so many of the threats are all elevated, all at exactly the same time…I see blinking lights everywhere I turn,” Wray said in December.   These incidents are directly tied to the Biden administration’s open border policies. From 2017 to 2020, border agents recorded a total of 14 encounters with terror watch list individuals between ports of entry along both the U.S. northern and southern border. After three years of the Biden administration, that number has jumped to a total of 286 encounters. This is a 2,500% increase in known encounters over three years. These numbers do not reflect the number of individuals that were either never caught or were not on the terrorism watch list.  Poor vetting procedures combined with the overwhelming stream of illegal migrants across the border increases the risk that bad actors slip through. On March 9near El Paso, Texas, U.S. border patrol caught a Lebanese national named Basel Bassel Ebbadi who claimed to be part of Hezbollah. In an interview with authorities, Ebbadi stated that he had trained with Hezbollah for seven years and was headed to New York City to make a bomb. He was on no terrorism watch list and therefore could have been released if he had kept quiet about his ties to terrorism. What is the Biden administration doing about it? In the first week of June Biden signed an executive order that temporarily suspends the entry of illegal entrants, “when the Southern border is overwhelmed.” Setting aside the subjective nature and loopholes in the executive order, it does nothing to address the over 1.5 million got-aways or the over 5.4 million illegal crossings logged by U.S. Customs and Border protection since Biden took office in 2021. Incidents like the one in Quantico and near Fort Liberty are only the beginning. Red lights are indeed blinking, and it may be too late to stop an attack from happening on the homeland.    The post The Dangerous Consequences of an Open Border appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Riding the waves of stardom doesn't make an actor good at their job. There are some who, even though they have won numerous awards and have performed in massive hits, are beyond overhyped (looking at you, Gwyneth Paltrow). Sorry to dent their overinflated egos; these upcoming actors are beyond overrated. For a very long time, people couldn't differentiate between Robert Pattinson and Edward Cullen... Source

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has been involved in the process of drafting the UN Cybercrime Convention in a bid to improve it from the point of view of free speech and privacy (though questioning the treaty’s necessity in the first place.) The recent take regarding the latest in a series of drafts – of which it has been consistently critical – is that it is simply too flawed to be adopted without significant changes. Countries sometimes having irreconcilably different opinions on key issues regarding the convention’s scope is cited as a reason for EFF’s stance. Related: How The UN’s Cybercrime Convention Draft Is a Threat To Free Speech and Privacy Online But time is running out for the major changes urged here to actually happen, as the concluding session will be held from late July until August 9, after 2.5 years of discussions and as many as seven negotiating sessions. The ultimate decision to adopt or reject the document will be made by the UN General Assembly. Though symptomatic of the rift within the UN on the issue, the fact that participants in these discussions have not yet even settled on the name for the treaty is the least of its problems; the crucial one is its scope, or, an EFF blog post put it: “Should it address only core cybercrime, or any crime committed using technology?” The draft that is criticized here dates back to February, and according to EFF, does not show progress on fixing previous problems with the text, as it contains provisions that on one hand “risk criminalizing protected speech, granting broad surveillance powers without robust safeguards” – while managing to. at the same time, raise “serious cybersecurity concerns.” During the long process of drafting and discussing the treaty, these points have been brought up repeatedly, according to EFF, but continue to be ignored. A new draft is now in the works and EFF and more than 100 other NGOs have penned a letter that is demanding the treaty to “focus solely on cyber-dependent crimes, incorporate comprehensive human rights safeguards, and ensure robust protections for security researchers, whistleblowers, activists, and journalists.” Short of that, the signatories will call on countries to reject the draft treaty and block it from being sent to the UN General Assembly. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Time is Running Out For Free Speech and Privacy Revisions on Flawed UN Cybercrime Convention appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Sign Up To Keep Reading This post is for Reclaim The Net supporters. Gain access to the entire archive of features and supporters-only content. Help protect free speech, freedom from surveillance, and digital civil liberties. Join Already a supporter? Login here If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Learn How to Stop Hidden Trackers on Your Android Phone With Open-Source Technology appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

This Story About the California Innocence Project is Eye-Opening

Again. Judge Dismisses Riot Charges Against Illegal Aliens in Texas

Animals exhibit a wide range of amusing behaviors that often captivate our attention and provide us with a good laugh. While dogs and cats typically steal the spotlight with their antics, other animals are just as capable of bringing joy and humor into our lives. A recent viral video of horses sleeping, which has amassed... The post Owner captures priceless footage of horses snoring and farting while they dream appeared first on Animal Channel.

For months, the liberal media have praised President Biden as a supposed pillar of the rule of law and touted his promise that he would accept any verdict in his son Hunter’s felony gun crime trial. But following the three guilty verdicts on Tuesday, ABC News seemed to prime their audience to expect him to intercede with the full powers of the presidency. The network also pouted about the court reading the verdict without First Lady Jill Biden in the room. Following the verdict, ABC interrupted The View to mournfully deliver the heartbreaking and devastating news for the Biden family. Chief legal analyst Dan Abrams was the first to float the idea that Biden could use a slippery technique to help his son. Abrams pointed out that while Biden had promised not to “pardon” his son, commuting whatever sentence he received could still be on the table: ABRAMS: But, you know, David [Muir], one other interesting question. You had asked President Biden in your interview with him, whether he would pardon his son. And his answer was, ‘no. He'd respect the verdict, etc.’ Remember, there's also the possibility of commuting the sentence. So, if there is a sentence that comes down, even if he's not officially pardoned, there's also the possibility of commuting the sentence at some point down the road. MUIR: And again, just to Dan, alluding to this interview I did with President Biden in Normandy just a couple of days ago. About five minutes later, chief Washington correspondent and anti-Trump author Jon Karl recalled that the President was insistent “that his son had done nothing wrong.”     “So, while you had asked him and he said that he would respect this jury verdict entirely, that he would not pardon his son, I am sure there are some interesting conversations happening right now inside the Biden family and at the White House,” Karl teased. Earlier in the break-in, anchor David Muir and investigative reporter Olivia Rubin pouted about how the verdict was read without the First Lady present: MUIR: Olivia, we're looking at pictures right now of First Lady Jill Biden. As you point out, she was there for the trial every day but one; she was not in the courtroom for the verdict? RUBIN: She was not in the courtroom for the verdict. And I can tell you, David, as I sprinted out of the courtroom to come down to you as it was after wrapped up there, she was heading in just as I was heading out. She was rushing through that lobby, appearing. You know, we don't know if they intended for her to not be here for Valerie, but it certainly does appear as if it's possible that they missed the reading of the verdict. “It happened quite quickly from when it came down just after 11. Her clerk, the judge's clerk, came into the courtroom to say that the verdict had been reached. And just moments later it was being read,” Rubin seemed to huff. Of course, this was part of their sympathetic framing of the Biden family. “[The First Lady] took a whirlwind trip to France to join the president for the D-Day commemorations and came right back to be with her son,” senior national correspondent Terry Moran noted, falsely suggesting Hunter was her biological son. Rubin also quibbled over one of the jurors allegedly smiled just before the verdict was read. “Again, something we have talked about before the jury not looking at Hunter Biden. One of the jurors actually took his seat smiling, which was quite striking to see him smiling right before that verdict was read,” she claimed, without evidence. ABC's immediate coverage didn't include reaction from the Trump campaign or Republicans, but following the Trump felony convictions they made sure to report that there were "cheers inside" the Biden HQ. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View – Break-In for Hunter Biden Trial Verdict June 11, 2024 11:19:53 a.m. Eastern (…) DAVID MUIR: Terry, let me ask you about the show of support in the front rows of that courtroom. As we know, the first lady, Jill Biden, there supporting her son every day but one in this trial, multiple members of the family and friends close to Hunter Biden all there. We know in the closing arguments, the prosecution well aware of that image right there in front of the jurors, saying of family members, the first lady, the friends who had gathered, essentially, that does not matter here. TERRY MORAN: That's exactly what they said, David. None of that matters. Pointing at the Biden family, at the first lady who was here almost every day, took a whirlwind trip to France to join the president for the D-Day commemorations and came right back to be with her son. And yet it was partly part of the closing argument of prosecutors there, prosecutors saying no one is above the law, no matter what their name is, no matter who is in court. (…) 11:21:15 a.m. Eastern MORAN: And in part, David, because of the law that the judge read to them. The judge, as is customary, as is part of the process, reads the jurors, the law that they will apply to the facts that they heard in this case. And part of that law was that drug use, for the purpose of this law, did not have to occur on the day that Hunter Biden bought the weapon and checked that federal form, that it could be evidence of a pattern of drug abuse or drug addiction around that. And that certainly was clear in this case. So, the defense was fighting an uphill battle, not only really against the facts, but against the law. As the judge gave it to the jurors here. Now, I should say that in court, the defense, as is customary right after the conviction was announced, renewed an appeal for an acquittal from the judge that in order to preserve an appeal and gave notice essentially that they will appeal this case. (…) 11:25:51 a.m. Eastern DAN ABRAMS: But, you know, David, one other interesting question. You had asked President Biden in your interview with him, whether he would pardon his son. And his answer was, ‘no. He'd respect the verdict, etc.’ Remember, there's also the possibility of commuting the sentence. So, if there is a sentence that comes down, even if he's not officially pardoned, there's also the possibility of commuting the sentence at some point down the road. MUIR: And again, just to Dan, alluding to this interview I did with President Biden in Normandy just a couple of days ago. Dan, thank you. (…) 11:28:29 a.m. Eastern MUIR: Olivia, we're looking at pictures right now of First Lady Jill Biden. As you point out, she was there for the trial every day but one; she was not in the courtroom for the verdict? OLIVIA RUBIN: She was not in the courtroom for the verdict. And I can tell you, David, as I sprinted out of the courtroom to come down to you as it was after wrapped up there, she was heading in just as I was heading out. She was rushing through that lobby, appearing. You know, we don't know if they intended for her to not be here for Valerie, but it certainly does appear as if it's possible that they missed the reading of the verdict. It happened quite quickly from when it came down just after 11. Her clerk, the judge's clerk, came into the courtroom to say that the verdict had been reached. And just moments later it was being read. And you could kind of almost sort of sense what that verdict was going to be initially when they walked the jury in. Again, something we have talked about before the jury not looking at Hunter Biden. One of the jurors actually took his seat smiling, which was quite striking to see him smiling right before that verdict was read. But again, Jill Biden not in the courtroom, and again, the least amount of Biden's essentially, that we have seen in the courtroom for the reading of the verdict. MUIR: The first lady not there for the verdict, though. There just about every other day of this trial to show her support. Olivia, thank you for the color inside the courtroom. (…) 11:31:08 a.m. Eastern JON KARL: And as we know, President Biden had said, not long ago, when asked about all of this, all of the legal troubles swirling around Hunter, that his son had done nothing wrong. So, while you had asked him and he said that he would respect this jury verdict entirely, that he would not pardon his son, I am sure there are some interesting conversations happening right now inside the Biden family and at the White House. (…)

All-In Podcast co-host David Sacks slammed Big Tech for aiding and abetting “America’s Doctor” in a censorship campaign. On May 31, tech entrepreneur Sacks ripped Big Tech companies for helping to hide former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. “[T]here was a comprehensive effort by people at [National Institutes of Health], likely at Fauci’s direction, to again, not just cover this up, but to smear scientists who were telling us the truth,” Sacks said. He added that this effort went after “people like [Stanford medical professor] Jay Bhattacharya, who then got censored and banned on social media.” Bhattacharya was placed on a secret black list by Twitter because he posted content not consistent with lockdown narratives or guidelines during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Sacks’ comments on Big Tech censorship came after Fauci was exposed in a House Oversight Committee hearing in regards to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and its failures.  During the testimony, Republican members of the committee confronted Fauci for mandating Americans to comply with stringent COVID-19 guidelines which Fauci now admits were “not backed by science” and discrediting proponents of the lab-leak origin theory of COVID-19. In reference to Fauci’s grilling before the House Oversight Committee, Sacks said, “Fauci, from the get-go, was lying about the origins of COVID in order to cover up his role in funding this type of research”  and that “Fauci knew very early, as early as February 1, 2020, that COVID came from a lab leak.”  Such revelations from Fauci’s testimony last week lay bare the malicious scheme conducted by Big Tech companies to assist Fauci and his colleagues to restrict and control speech on social media platforms during the pandemic.  Sacks’ comments on the alleged COVID coverup by Fauci and other staff members reinvigorates the conversations surrounding Big Tech censorship of the COVID-19 narrative. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.