President Donald Trump’s eldest son slammed the highly controversial criminal trial that his father faces in New York on Tuesday, saying the fact that President Joe Biden’s campaign was holding a political event across the street proved that the trial was nothing more than a “witch hunt.” After largely ignoring Trump’s ongoing hush-money trial in New York, Biden’s campaign held an event outside the courthouse as the trial is set to go to closing arguments. The Biden campaign invited actor Robert De Niro — who is known for making vulgar attacks on the former president — to speak. De Niro denounced Trump and effectively suggested that the world as it exists would end if Trump was re-elected. “Under Trump, this kind of government will perish from the Earth. I don’t mean to scare you. No, no, wait, maybe I do mean to scare you,” he said. “If Trump returns to the White House, you can kiss these freedoms goodbye that we all take for granted. And elections? Forget about them. That’s over, that’s done. If he gets in, I can tell you right now, he will never leave. He will never leave. You know that. He will never leave.” Trump Jr. responded to the Biden campaign circus while speaking to reporters near the courthouse. “The fact that they’re holding a rally across the street from this very witch hunt, right across the street, tells us exactly what we all knew all along, that it is a political persecution,” he said. “It is a witch hunt. There is a reason one of the people sitting at that desk was the number three person in Joe Biden’s DOJ. I know my father is not allowed to say ‘Matthew Colangelo’ is his name, because he’s been gagged. The President of the United States is not allowed to exercise his First Amendment rights in New York City in this day and age.” Trump Jr. added in a post on X that “the Biden campaign would hold a rally outside of the courthouse during closing arguments tells you everything you needed to know.” “Election interference!!!” he wrote. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP WATCH: If there was ever any doubt that this was a political persecution, the fact that the Biden campaign would hold a rally outside of the courthouse during closing arguments tells you everything you needed to know. Election interference!!! pic.twitter.com/cGaMU2ld3h — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 28, 2024

Trans-identifying women — biological women who identify as men — are suffering menopausal symptoms after taking testosterone, a new study shows. Symptoms like incontinence, sexual disfunction, and even bed-wetting were found among women in their 20s who tried to medically transition with cross-sex hormones, according to a study published last month in the International Urogynecology Journal and led by researchers at the Federal University of Pernambuco in Brazil. The researchers looked at 68 trans-identifying women who were taking testosterone. The women were as young as 18, but had an average age of 28. The study found that more than 94% of the trans-identifying women experienced some type of pelvic floor disfunction. About 87% experienced urinary symptoms such as incontinence, frequent bathroom visits, including during the night, and bed-wetting. Women taking testosterone were about three times more likely to suffer from urinary incontinence or urine accidentally leaking than women not on the drug — about 25% of trans-identifying women had this symptom compared to 8% of other women, the study found. About 74% of the women had bowel issues such as constipation or being unable to hold in stool or flatulence. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Other symptoms included burning sensations and difficulty urinating and defecating. Meanwhile, more than half of the women, 53%, also experienced sexual disfunction, including nearly half who had an “orgasm disorder” and a quarter who suffered from painful sexual intercourse. Elaine Miller, a pelvic health physiotherapist who has worked with around 20 detransitioners, noted that bladder issues are embarrassing and have a profound impact on the lives of these young people. “A lot of women are absolutely fine until the menopause and then they start to get leaky. That appears to be exactly the same trajectory for female people who take cross-sex hormones, but there hasn’t been much in the way of research,” Miller told The Telegraph. “Wetting yourself is something that just is not socially acceptable, and it stops people from exercising, it stops them from having intimate relationships, it stops them from traveling, it has work impacts,” she said. “The impact a bit of leaking has on these young people’s lives is huge. It really needs to be properly discussed within gender clinics because I would expect that almost 100 per cent of female people that take cross-sex hormones will end up with these problems.” Miller added that some women say they were never informed of these risks by their gender clinic. “It’s really sad when we hear people say, ‘nobody ever told me this,’ and they should have been informed of the risks in gender clinics,” she told the outlet.

A majority of Democrats approve of replacing President Joe Biden with another candidate ahead of the 2024 presidential election, a recent poll found. The Rasmussen poll of 1,113 likely voters, which was conducted from May 20th to 22nd, found that 54 percent of Democrats think it is acceptable for another candidate to replace Biden as the Democratic nominee. Just under half of all likely voters, 49 percent, say that they approve of the Democrats swapping Biden out for another candidate, with 43 percent of Republicans agreeing. Democrats did not, however, think that it was likely that Biden would be replaced, with only 38 percent saying they thought it was probable and 57 percent saying that it was not. The results mark a shift from February, when 47 percent of likely voters said they believed it was likely that the Democrat would replace Biden with a different candidate as their presidential nominee. Democrats were also asked whether they thought several different candidates would be better candidates than Biden. Of the respondents, 17 percent said that Vice President Kamala Harris would be a better candidate than Biden while 21 percent and 11 percent said the same about former First Lady Michelle Obama and former candidate Hillary Clinton respectively. Just eight percent said that California Governor Gavin Newsom would be a better candidate while another five percent pointed to Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. “None of them” won out with 31 percent. The poll figures come as support for Biden in his November matchup against former President Donald Trump appears to be waning. One recent poll found that Trump holds a lead over Biden in five of seven crucial swing states and a tie in Nevada, with only one swing state, Michigan, currently supporting Biden by a slim one-point margin. An additional poll found that Americans trust Trump more than Biden when it comes to handling immigration, crime, and the economy, three issues that are likely to have an outsized impact on the presidential contest in November.

When cable news channels announced the results of the 2016 election, for the most part, they displayed the vote totals for the two major party candidates side-by-side: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. They simply left out the Libertarian Party ticket, which was led by Gary Johnson. It was as if Gary Johnson didn’t exist. In a normal election year, that wouldn’t be a very notable omission. Outside of Ross Perot’s run in 1992, third-party candidates don’t exactly put up very big numbers on Election Night, so they’re not worth talking about. That’s been especially true for Libertarian Party candidates, who are mostly known for taking off their shirts at conventions and debating the merits of driver’s licenses. But in 2016, it was a very different story. Libertarians had their best-ever showing in a presidential race, racking up nearly four-and-a-half million votes. In eleven states, the Libertarian Party vote total exceeded the margin of victory — meaning, you can make a case that Libertarians affected the outcome of the 2016 presidential election by siphoning votes from Hillary Clinton. You don’t hear that discussed very often — it’s a lot easier for Democrats to blame Russia. But it’s true. Eight years later, once again, there are signs that libertarians might have a relatively strong showing in the upcoming election. Polls show that most Americans are ambivalent about this presidential race — in part because both candidates have already served as president, so there’s not as much enthusiasm as there normally is. That gives an opening to third-party candidates to attract new support. Both the Trump campaign and the Biden campaign understand this dynamic very well. They’re looking at the same poll numbers. But only Trump has decided to appeal to these Libertarian voters directly. On Saturday night, Trump spoke at the Libertarian Party’s national nominating convention in the nation’s capital — becoming the first former president to ever do so. WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show The speech marked another moment of stark contrast between Trump and Joe Biden, who would never walk into a venue where he knew that a large portion of the audience would oppose him. We’re at the point where Joe Biden isn’t even allowed to give press conferences anymore, much less deliver speeches before a hostile crowd. But Trump had no problem facing his detractors at the convention, who (as predicted) heckled him at various points during his address. That was the side of the story the media ran with. There were dozens of headlines about how Trump was booed and jeered at the convention. But there were quite a few Trump supporters in attendance as well, and there were several moments where the Libertarians in attendance were clearly on Trump’s side. That makes sense, because Trump didn’t deliver his typical stump speech. Instead, he tailored his remarks for a libertarian audience — hitting topics like lower taxes, cryptocurrency, reducing the size of the federal government, keeping America out of foreign wars, and so on. Trump even promised to commute the sentence of libertarian hero Ross Ulbricht, the founder of the defunct dark web marketplace “Silk Road.” Ulbricht is serving a life sentence for facilitating the sale of narcotics, but Trump said he’d let him out of prison on day one of his second term. Trump made a host of other promises, as well, including a vow to appoint libertarians to his Cabinet. Watch:   As you could hear during some of those clips, the crowd reaction was mixed at some points and very positive at other points. It was a lot more interesting than the traditional stump speech, and the response was unpredictable at points. But for their part, the media pretended it was an unmitigated disaster. NBC News ran this headline: “Trial taking its toll: Trump booed and heckled at Libertarian National Convention. “The Washington Post reported, “Trump loudly heckled at Libertarian National Convention.” Politico reported that Trump had been “jeered,” and CNN said he was “loudly booed.” And on and on. As you just saw from the clips I played, this is obviously a total misrepresentation of what happened. The media desperately does not want the Trump campaign bringing in new voters from the Libertarian side, so they’re lying. The so-called “defenders of democracy” want to shame a presidential candidate for reaching out to people who disagree with him. But the truth is that, even when there was booing during Trump’s speech, it didn’t always relate to what Trump was saying. There was, as others have pointed out, the equivalent of a “Jerry Springer” episode occurring in the crowd at one point as Trump spoke. Apparently a Libertarian delegate by the name of “Starchild” was holding up a sign calling Trump a dictator. And then security dragged him away for some reason, and Starchild’s associates weren’t pleased by this development. Watch: “These fascists don’t get to kick out Starchild! Free Starchild!” Presumably that’s Starchild’s father, Star, but it’s hard to say. Meanwhile Starchild’s wig falls off as he’s dragged away, while a very confused Secret Service agent looks on. Is this what Ludwig Von Mises had in mind back in the day? Probably not. But it’s the state of the Libertarian Party in America right now. And if nothing else, it’s entertaining. During his speech, Trump apparently recognized that, and he had some fun at the party’s expense. Watch: Again, this is something Joe Biden wouldn’t have the balls (or the brainpower) to do. It certainly wasn’t written in the teleprompter to taunt libertarians to their faces, at their own convention, about the fact that pretty much no one votes for them. That’s not the kind of outreach that any campaign advisor would have come up with. But it was both honest and hilarious, which is why it works. Libertarians (except for Starchild, maybe) are under no illusions that they’re going to win the White House. What Trump is doing is something the Left normally excels at, which is transactional politics. He’s basically saying, “Vote for me, even though you don’t like me, and I’ll give you more than the other party will.” We can assume Trump isn’t passionate about Ross Ulbricht, for example. But he knows the crowd is, so he says he’ll get him out of prison. In that context, it makes sense for Trump to embrace the adversarial relationship he has with the crowd. Trump knew going into the convention that he wasn’t going to win the Libertarian Party’s nomination. Instead, his plan was simply to present a viable alternative to the Libertarian Party’s eventual nominee. And in that respect, Trump’s speech succeeded more than he probably even thought possible. It now appears very likely that Trump will indeed win a very large share of the Libertarian Party vote. That’s because on Sunday — after Trump was determined to be ineligible for their party’s nomination — Libertarians nominated an HR representative named Chase Oliver to be their presidential nominee. Already, right away, this is a win for Trump, because no one in their right mind would ever want an HR representative in the White House. It’s probably the least sympathetic and appealing profession for a politician that you can imagine. But it gets even worse once you start looking at what Chase Oliver believes. For example, earlier this year, Oliver shot a video at the southern border. Watch: According to Oliver, the United States has no right to enforce its borders against anyone. We have to be open to illegal migrants as well as hostile invading armies, presumably, because otherwise we’re basically erecting another Berlin Wall. Never mind that the Berlin Wall was intended to lock people inside and prevent them from escaping, while the southern border wall is intended to keep foreigners from entering the country. That’s not important to Chase Oliver. The point, in his mind, is that walls are always bad. Except, presumably, the walls that form his own home, and keep intruders out. In that video, Oliver also lies and claims that illegals don’t use more welfare benefits than American citizens, which is just completely made up. As the Center for Immigration Studies has found, “In 2018, 49 percent of households headed by all immigrants — naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants — used at least one major welfare program, compared to 32 percent of households headed by the native-born.” So this guy doesn’t understand the impact of open borders on the economy, but he wants open borders anyway. This is one of the least-popular positions a politician can have right now, but the Libertarian Party just picked a candidate who firmly believes in unrestricted illegal migration. As it happens, Chase is also a big supporter of pretty much every other Left-wing agenda item. He doesn’t want the government to prevent adults from getting naked in front of kids, for instance. Watch: Oliver goes on to say that he doesn’t prefer to see nudity at Pride parades, where children are attending — but only because it’s not “helpful” to the message of the parade, in his view. He doesn’t think it should be prohibited. Then the interviewer asks a few follow-up questions about drag shows for children. And once again, Oliver pretends that there’s nothing sexual about these shows. We’ve all seen the footage of these shows, and what kids are forced to watch. But apparently Chase Oliver hasn’t. Watch: As the joke goes, the Libertarians wanted Ron Paul but they got RuPaul instead. But it’s actually disturbing to listen to his reasoning. He compares the Wiggles — the kids’ music group — to grown men with a fetish for wearing women’s clothing. And he says he has no problem leaving children alone with these grown men. Parents, he says, always know best — and if parents want to leave their children with these people, then who are we to disagree? His only defense is that these drag performers are engaging in “performance art.” Therefore, we have to accept it. Once again, it just so happens that Chase’s position comports perfectly with mainstream Democratic Party orthodoxy. And there’s plenty more where that came from. Chase Oliver has also voiced his support for banning Donald Trump from social media, as well as for vaccine mandates (as long as they’re implemented by private companies and not the government). He also supports legislation that would overrule the Supreme Court on abortion. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP So to recap: The Libertarians nominated a Leftist, essentially. They’ve picked a Pride-flag waving progressive who supports open borders, has no problem with nudity at Pride parades, loves seeing kids alone at drag queen story hours, supports vaccine mandates for millions of Americans, and also supports abortion on the grounds of “bodily autonomy.” This is pretty much the DNC’s platform, word for word. It’s yet more evidence that libertarians are just pot-scented Democrats. They fundamentally agree with Democrats on most things because libertarians and leftists both subscribe to a consent-based morality where anything is okay as long as the people involved choose to do it. And they both make exceptions even to that flimsy moral framework when it comes to children — who are often exposed to drag queens and public nudity without their consent, especially in cities controlled by Democrats. Chase Oliver wouldn’t be remotely out of place as a Democrat on San Francisco’s city council. Then again, Republicans are also just Democrats driving the speed limit, to use Michael Malice’s phrase. Both parties agree on major issues like funding foreign wars, and they both tolerate open borders. What this means is that there really is no true political alternative to Leftism, at least not right now. Even the “third party” doesn’t really provide it, as Chase Oliver demonstrates. During his appearance on Saturday night at the Libertarian’s convention, to the dismay of Starchild, Donald Trump didn’t promise his audience everything they wanted. But Trump did demonstrate that he’s willing to break with the Republican Party establishment to win over voters who have been ignored for decades. He made it clear that he’s willing to make promises that Mitch McConnell won’t be happy about, in order to secure more votes and political power. Is that a tactic we normally see from the Right? Absolutely not. But ultimately, especially in this election year, it’s what building a viable alternative to Leftism will require.

The U.S. Department of Defense said on Tuesday that it has been forced to halt the use of President Joe Biden’s $320 million pier in Gaza because it has fallen apart. Sabrina Singh, the Pentagon’s deputy press secretary, said at a press conference that the pier was “damaged and sections of the pier need rebuilding and repairing.” She blamed the failure of the controversial project on “a perfect storm of high sea states” and “this North African weather system also came in at the same time.” The U.S. Military will remove the pier from Gaza and bring it to Israel so it can be fixed and reconstructed, which is expected to take at least a week. “I believe most of our soldiers were able to remain on the vessels and still are currently on them,” Singh claimed at the press confernce. “And … within the next 24 or 48 hours, the Israeli Navy will be helping push those vessels back and hopefully they’ll be fully operational by then.” Video emerged of the pier sinking on Monday as a man speaking Hebrew could be heard laughing at Biden’s pier “sinking.” “It’s simply disconnected and practically swamped,” the man said, according to NBC News. BREAKING: AMERICAN GAZA PORT SINKING GAZA: Netzerim Beach: Reports are coming in that the American pier in Gaza is sinking. pic.twitter.com/oJCGjD6OdE — Open Source Intel (@Osint613) May 27, 2024 The news comes after two U.S. Military vessels ran ashore in Gaza near the pier while two others washed up on Israeli beaches near Ashkelon over the weekend. “Efforts to recover the vessels are under way with assistance from the Israeli Navy,” U.S. Central Command said in a statement. “The IDF is supporting the recovery efforts near the pier. No U.S. personnel will enter Gaza. No injuries have been reported and the pier remains fully functional.” The pier has largely been a disappointment for the administration after it deployed a thousand U.S. service members to open it. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP After a full week of operations, only 820 tons of aid was offloaded from the pier. Roughly a third of that aid was hijacked and stolen. Three U.S. service members were injured last week during an operation supporting the transfer of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. “On May 23, a U.S. service member sustained a non-combat related injury aboard USNS Benavidez (T-AKR 306) while in support of the humanitarian aid mission to Gaza,” a U.S. defense official said. “The service member was transported to a medical facility and is in critical condition at this time. More information will be provided as it becomes available.” The two other injured service members reportedly sustained minor injuries.

'I don't know that they've have proven that Donald Trump knew'

'I'm in love!'

'He may be an asshole, but he's my asshole!'

He 'was one of the Sinaloa Cartel’s lead sicarios, or assassins'

As President Joe Biden considers adopting a global health agreement that would turn the power of the federal government over to leaders of a world government, dozens of governors have put him on notice that they “stand united in opposition” to handing over America’s national sovereignty. Nearly every Republican governor in the country has signed a letter asking Biden to reconsider adopting a forthcoming accord enhancing the power of the World Health Organization before, during, and after global health crises. Negotiators are working around the clock to hammer out a final version of the WHO Pandemic Agreement before the World Health Assembly meets on Monday. The current text of the accord would require nations to agree with WHO regulations on “routine immunization,” “social measures” such as lockdowns and mask mandates, and require a massive global redistribution of U.S. wealth and technical information based on “equity.” The Biden administration has signaled it will accept the agreement without congressional approval. The proposed document would grant WHO “unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people,” which “could drastically change the role of governors,” noted the 24 governors in their May 22 letter. “The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable director-general, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles.” The agreement would grant WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and other leaders “unilateral power to declare a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ (PHEIC) in member nations, extending beyond pandemics to include a range of perceived emergencies,” they said. The current text of the agreement states that “a range of environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic and economic factors may increase the risk of pandemics.” The latest details about the global health treaty are available in the Family Research Council’s updated comprehensive explainer on the WHO Pandemic Agreement. Enhancing global bureaucrats’ authority “would erode sovereignty” by “stripping elected representatives of their role in setting public health policies and compelling citizens to comply with WHO directives, potentially including mandates regarding medical treatments,” stated the two dozen governors spanning the party’s ideological spectrum, including Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Ark.), Glenn Youngkin (Va.), Doug Burgum (N.D.), and Chris Sununu (N.H.). The state leaders are also concerned about “a global surveillance infrastructure and requirements for member states to censor speech related to public health. Requiring Americans to share information about deadly, incurable, highly transmissible viruses with the rest of the world may “potentially facilitat[e] the proliferation of biological weapons.” “[P]ublic health policy is a matter reserved for the states, not the federal government, and certainly not international bodies like the WHO,” they point out. “We are committed to resisting any attempts to transfer authority to the WHO over public policy affecting our citizens or any efforts by the WHO to assert such authority over them.” Every Republican governor in the United States signed the letter except Govs. Mike Parson of Missouri, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Phil Scott of Vermont. “The governors appear to be more concerned about their sovereignty than Joe Biden seems to be concerned about the sovereignty of the U.S.,” said FRC President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch” Thursday. “I also think it is a precursor to one-world government.” The governors’ letter followed a May 1 letter led by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and signed by all 49 Republican senators branding the WHO Pandemic Agreement “unacceptable” and “dead on arrival” if it ever comes before the U.S. Senate for ratification, as required of a treaty. “Instead of addressing the WHO’s well-documented shortcomings, the treaty focuses on mandated resource and technology transfers, shredding intellectual-property rights, infringing free speech, and supercharging the WHO,” noted the senators. US Senators Drop a Bombshell on the World Health OrganizationThe tide is turning.In a shocking turn of events, all Republican senators (49), led by Senator Ron Johnson, have formally urged President Joe Biden to withdraw his support in expanding the World Health… pic.twitter.com/o2Hx3WCEyW— The Vigilant Fox ? (@VigilantFox) May 3, 2024 They called on the Biden administration to “withdraw your administration’s support for the current [International health regulations] amendments and pandemic treaty negotiations” and champion “comprehensive WHO reforms that address its persistent failures without expanding its authority.” It also comes after 22 state attorneys general put the executive branch on notice that it cannot turn over U.S. health policy to any global governance body, because the “U.S. Constitution doesn’t vest responsibility for public health policy with the federal government,” the legal authorities pointed out in a May 8 letter. They added the present text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement “would lay the groundwork for a global surveillance infrastructure, ostensibly in the interest of public health, but with the inherent opportunity for control (as with Communist China’s ‘social credit system’).” Travis Weber, vice president for policy and government affairs at the Family Research Council, said the rising chorus of concern could help uphold fundamental American liberties. “We hear a lot in the press and in the culture right now about protecting democracy,” Weber told Perkins. “The Constitution leaves health care to the states. [It] certainly does not put it in the hands of the federal government to be automatically put in the hands of an international body like the WHO.” All signs show U.S. opposition to the WHO Pandemic Agreement growing among the American people, as well. Just over 93% of Republicans voted no on Question 8 in Georgia’s primary May 21, which asked, “Do you believe unelected and unaccountable international bureaucrats, like the U.N.-controlled World Health Organization (WHO), should have complete control over management of future pandemics in the United States and authority to regulate your health care and personal health choices?” Opposition has spread globally, as well. On May 8, authorities in the United Kingdom announced they would not sign on to the agreement unless it no longer required them to turn over 20% of British pandemic vaccines, therapeutics, and medications to WHO for redistribution. Slovak leader Robert Fico had also opposed the accord. The Family Research Council has set up a campaign allowing Americans to email national leaders with their opposition to the WHO Pandemic Agreement, as well. Signatories of the governors’ letter: Kay Ivey of Alabama, Mike Dunleavy of Alaska, Sarah Sanders of Arkansas, Ron DeSantis of Florida, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Brad Little of Idaho, Eric Holcomb of Indiana, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Greg Gianforte of Montana, Jim Pillen of Nebraska, Joe Lombardo of Nevada, Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, Doug Burgum of North Dakota, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Greg Abbott of Texas, Spencer Cox of Utah, Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, Jim Justice of West Virginia, and Mark Gordon of Wyoming. Originally published at WashingtonStand.com The post 24 GOP Governors Warn Biden Against ‘Unconstitutional’ WHO Pandemic Agreement appeared first on The Daily Signal.