Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Incredibly unbreakable and eternal national pride. Incredible pictures. UTL COMMENT:- Where has YOUR NATIONAL PRIDE GONE in YOUR country??! They have tried to destroy your national pride, have they not? In Australia we are made to feel 'guilty' on Australia Day, calling it 'invasion day'....all part of their psyop!!! The Poles march and sing together with pride to celebrate their eventful history, their unique traditions, their amazing way of life and their INDEPENDENCE! Goosebumps at such pictures, this is a country that is full of national pride Super Poland ??. Poland ?? 11.11.24 Independence Day Polish Independence Day is a national holiday in Poland that is celebrated every year on November 11th. The occasion is the regaining of the state's independence in 1918 after 123 years of Poland's partition by the Kingdom of Prussia, the Habsburg Monarchy and the Russian Tsarist Empire.

A recent study by Data Recovery found that 68% of parents admit to making posts and sharing photos about their children, and 73% of people don’t personally know everyone who looks at their page. This can be a big problem. While most parents think that “sharenting” is harmless, some real dangers can happen to children whose photos are shared online.Should parents post photos of their kids online?According to NPR, sharing photos of your children could result in them being bullied by other children, or they could have their photos digitally “kidnapped” and used by fake accounts. In some cases, the photos could wind up on child pornography sites.Ruth Watts (@ruthwattshv on TikTok), a British family health worker, recently posted a viral TikTok about parents who overshare about their kids and she makes a point that everyone should hear. After scrolling through a typical parent's page, anyone can learn more about a child’s life than the parents would ever intend to share.Watts says that by knowing a child only through social media, she can figure out their full name, date of birth, parents' names, birthday, where they live, the foods they like and dislike, the toys they play with, their diagnosis, the parks where they like to play and so much more. @ruthwattshv What’s your opinion on this? Let me know in the comments ❤️ #parenting #parentsoftiktok #parentingtips #mumsoftiktok #mumlife #mum #healthvisitor #responsiveparenting #gentleparenting #parentingtips #parentingrules #babytok #babyhacksandtips #gentleparentingtips #wholesomemomcontent #mumcontent #momcontentcreator #healthvisitor We may not think we’re giving out much information about our children. Still, when you add up all the posts year after year, plus the comments, it would be pretty easy for a predator to learn a lot about a child based solely on social media posts.“Can you guess how I know this child? I purely know them through watching them on social media,” Watts says in a video with over 500,000 views. “I purely know all of your information because the parents have chosen to share that private, confidential information about their child. And yes, a story here, a story there and upload here and upload there. It all creates a picture. It is a jigsaw that people notice. People pay attention to and the wrong people pay attention to.”Watts also adds that when parents share pictures of children online, they put their children in a vulnerable position without asking for their consent. The video inspired over 500 comments, many from parents who thanked her for her brutal honesty and others who shared why they don’t share photos of their children online. A mother takes a photo of her child for her Instagram feed. via Canva/Photos“This is exactly why the majority of people have no idea I even have a child. The people that matter will see him grow up in person, not fake friends through a screen,” Mikita Blackmore wrote. “This is why I don’t post my daughter on social media; it’s so scary what people can do these days,” Clara Marie added.“I always say if you wouldn’t go to the effort of printing the photo and handing it to that person, then they shouldn’t have access to that image,” Soph wrote. Why shouldn't parents post photos of their kids online?Watts says she created the video because she has 2 children and feels that kids everywhere deserve a voice. “I feel it’s important to advocate for children who are vulnerable and unable to consent to posting the images. Let alone the parents and children having no understanding of internet risks and security,” she told Upworthy. “How would people feel if I started posting pictures of them without consent? I’m sure they wouldn’t like it. So why is it ok for us to post our children?”You can follow Watts on Instagram @RuthWattshv.

An overlooked link... The post Why Jimmy Carter thinks he owes his presidency to The Allman Brothers Band first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Trump’s transition into his second term is in full swing, and he has been announcing members of his Executive Cabinet this week. In this episode of The Spectacle Podcast, hosts Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay discuss Trump’s selections for his Cabinet and what it means for this new era of the United States. Melissa and Scott hope that selections like Pete Hegseth and Elon Musk will go after government regulation and hold the bureaucracy accountable. Tune in to hear their discussion! Listen to The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Spotify. Watch The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Rumble.  The post <i>The Spectacle</i> Ep. 165: Welcome to the New American Era: Trump’s Cabinet Picks appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

This is a book review. Now that the election is over, I’ve got a book of my own to write. The Revivalist Agenda, which will be my third political book, is going to come out in late January or early February, and as I gear up to crash it out, I’m looking for the best inspirations and source material as fuel for it. The Revivalist Agenda is a book about the future — as the book it’s a sequel to, The Revivalist Manifesto: How Patriots Can Win the Next American Era, was mostly a book about the past. Getting a very clear view of the past is crucial, however, to understanding the future. (READ AN EXCERPT: Weaponized Governmental Failure: A Primer) We’ve forgotten a lot about our past. People in positions of authority have wanted it that way and they’ve imposed a false understanding on us which (1) doesn’t work and (2) was just repudiated last week. But there are some very good books out there that provide more clarity. I found one. Ronald Reagan once declared, “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” But it wasn’t always this way. In The Power and the Money: The Epic Clashes Between Commanders in Chief and Titans of Industry, author Tevi Troy expertly lays out how the relationships between our nation’s presidents and CEOs have developed throughout history. You’ll have a far broader understanding of how power and influence shape policy once you’ve read this book. Troy illuminates the trajectory of increasing governmental regulation of businesses, thus providing, “a cautionary tale of what happens when the federal government gets too big and too enmeshed in the activities of the producers and innovators in our economy: our costs go up while our freedom diminishes.” This explanation, demonstrated through case studies of various president and CEO relationships, illuminates how our government has arrived at its taxing, regulating, and subsidizing attitude toward businesses, as Reagan warned of long ago. The book covers extensive swathes of American history, while simultaneously introducing us to a host of unforgettable characters. This cast includes well-known presidents, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden, and also lesser-known ones, such as Rutheford B. Hayes, William Taft, Warren Harding, and Calvin Coolidge. Alongside them, the reader meets the giants of the American economy, including Rockefeller, Buffett, Gates, Musk, Jobs, Zuckerberg, and Oprah, while also encountering less familiar ones like Henry Luce, Lew Wasserman, Katharine Graham, and Jack Welch. Troy starts his story during President Ulysses S. Grant’s tenure when CEOs John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan’s businesses were booming. There was little to no regulation of businesses by the government, including Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and Morgan’s Drexel Morgan. Nonetheless, their enormous success, questionable modes of operation, and monopolization of industries soon attracted the federal government’s attention. Soon, laws like the Sherman Antitrust Act, signed into law by President William Henry Harrison in 1890, were being enacted, and Rockefeller and Morgan realized that a positive relationship with the president would have beneficial effects on their business prospects. A president, when favorably disposed to them, could delay laws, subsidize funding, and generally advance the interest of companies. But the adverse possibility was a frightening one. A rough relationship between a president and a CEO could result in a number of unpalatable consequences for the businessman. Firstly, government investigations could result in the breaking up of corporations, such as Rockefeller’s Standard Oil at the instigation of Teddy Roosevelt. Moreover, it could also result in the CEO losing advantageous political contacts in the capital, and attracting negative attention from regulators in the process. Elon Musk is experiencing this now. As the Musk example shows, Troy’s narrative continues all the way up to the present day, when the reader is granted a front-row seat to Obama, Trump, and Biden’s dealings with the well-known magnates of our day. The modern phenomenon of Big Tech propelled the significance of president–CEO relations to even higher heights. In our day and age, when the government has notable regulatory power over businesses, these Big Tech CEOs are almost required to have a presence in the nation’s capital. As Troy recounts, “When Gates met Zuckerberg, he gave him clear and stark advice: ‘Get an office there, now.’” The importance of these relationships becomes even more apparent around election time, as demonstrated by Obama and Zuckerberg’s dynamic. Indeed, Obama’s sizeable social media presence led his “2008 campaign to be dubbed ‘The Facebook Election.’” Obama was more than happy to give credit where credit was due in a 2016 Global Entrepreneurship Summit at Stanford University when he shared the stage with Zuckerberg. The writing throughout the book is superb, entrancing the reader further into the world of power and money. Troy has a special knack for knowing how to incorporate plenty of juicy facts and anecdotes, which further engages the reader. For instance, on one occasion, when President Johnson summoned Katharine Graham, publisher of The Washington Post, to berate her about a specific article, he happened to be undressing for bed: “When he reached his underwear, he sensed her discomfort and barked, ‘Turn around!’ then continued the tongue-lashing with her back turned to him.” In another vignette, during the closing of the 2011 Facebook Live event that the company hosted for the White House, Troy explains that “Zuckerberg thanked Obama by giving him a Facebook hoodie. Obama responded jokingly, ‘This is a high-fashion statement right here. This is beautiful.’” Through a mix of striking storytelling and impressive analysis, Troy is able to get his point across clearly: the federal government’s regulatory policies have continuously encroached on the country’s largest corporations and their CEOs. The biggest losers in all of this, Troy opines, are the American people. In fact, government regulation can actually be helpful to these CEOs, while small businesses and regular Americans could not even begin to fathom having a transactional relationship with the commander-in-chief to press business concerns or alleviate troublesome regulations. These president–CEO relationships aid the latter in killing or redirecting unfriendly legislation or receiving special fiscal favors. These connections have resulted in, “Elon Musk getting helpful funding for Tesla during the Obama administration, Lew Wasserman prevailing on Ronald Reagan not to change the financial interest and syndication rules…Lee Iacocca getting a major bailout for Chrysler during the Carter administration,” to name just a few. Troy’s The Power and the Money: The Epic Clashes Between Commanders in Chief and Titans of Industry makes for captivating reading and introduces readers to the beguiling world of power, money, and those who control it. This enthralling book is a must-read for all those interested in the intrigues, connections, and strategies of U.S. presidents and the titans of American businesses. And yes, you’ll see a few references to it in The Revivalist Agenda early next year. READ MORE from Scott McKay: It’s Long Past Time to Bend the Senate to the Will of the People It’s the End of the Obama Era in America. Good Riddance. A Dozen Thoughts on a Historic Election The post Does Government Really Regulate Industry, or Is It the Other Way Around? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — It was only a month ago that California Gov. Gavin Newsom concluded an emergency session of the state Legislature by signing that special session’s crowning achievement: Legislation that requires the state’s dwindling number of oil refiners to maintain larger inventories and have longer lead times before planning for refinery maintenance. The session gave the governor plenty of time to rail against so-called price gouging. “Price spikes have cost Californians billions of dollars … and we’re not waiting around for the industry to do the right thing — we’re taking action to prevent these price spikes and save consumers money at the pump,” he said regarding the new law. Beaming lawmakers headed into the election vowing to lower gas prices, which are around $1.50 a gallon higher than the national average. The whole session was political theater. Industry observers say the new regulations will add costs and could lead to higher gas prices. Everyone understands the reason for the state’s high prices. The government imposes the highest gas taxes in the nation. It mandates a special formulation used nowhere else, which lowers supply. It imposes the nation’s most stringent environmental rules. And the state’s official policy is to eliminate fossil fuel production, which makes refiners unwilling to invest in new capacity. Every once in a while, newspapers report on a so-called “mystery” gas surcharge to explain why Californians pay more at the pump than other Americans. But that’s absurd. It’s no mystery, but the direct result of the above-mentioned policies. It’s also not a mystery why the state’s gas prices likely will soar again. Newsom and his legislative allies spent weeks hyperventilating about the impact of high gas prices on California consumers, but then on Friday I heard no indignant speeches from them as a state regulatory agency approved a rule that will boost gas prices by an estimated 47 cents to 65 cents a gallon. Newsom previously made a few comments about transparency, but I can’t find any statement about the 12-2 vote from an agency dominated by his own appointees. Go figure. Specifically, the California Air Resources Board voted to update the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. According to the agency’s statement, it’s designed to “channel global, national and local private sector investment towards increasing cleaner fuel and transportation options for consumers, accelerating the deployment of zero-emission infrastructure, and keeping the state on track to meet legislatively mandated air quality and climate targets.” The LCFS program basically imposes more aggressive reductions in the state’s cap-and-trade system. As CARB further explains, the LCFS “reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by setting a declining carbon intensity target for transportation fuels used in California; producers that don’t meet established benchmarks buy credits from those that do.” This obviously will have an impact on gasoline prices. CARB’s own researchers reportedly said the rules would increase costs by 47 cents a gallon next year and much higher in coming years. Now suddenly those estimates can’t be trusted, or maybe the new rules won’t even affect gas prices or it’s now somehow impossible to calculate the extra costs. Don’t try to find that old document on CARB’s website. A CARB official told attendees at its Riverside board meeting that “Any claims that LCFS is responsible for high gas prices is misleading at best and not supported by the data,” per a Los Angeles Times report. Yet the story pointed to a study last month from the University of Pennsylvania Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, which provided supportive data: “If LCFS credit prices reach their maximum allowed levels, as has occurred in the past, then retail gasoline price impacts could be $0.65 per gallon in the near term, $0.85 per gallon by 2030, and nearly $1.50 per gallon by 2035.” As the Southern California News Group opined, California officials refuse to level with the public about the real-world costs of their climate policies. For a state leadership so committed to democracy, you’d think they would be willing to allow a wide debate about these proposals in the Legislature rather than just drive them through a regulatory agency led by appointees. The vote is the obvious end point of Newsom’s previous mandates. “Newsom mandated California’s transition to 100% electric vehicles (EVs) by 2035,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, R-San Diego, in a San Diego Union-Tribune column. “The problem is, everyday Californians don’t want battery car …. This isn’t about cleaner air or affordable energy; it’s about forcing us into submission. Rather than risk his authoritarian mandate failing, Newsom told his cronies at the air board to ‘up their game.’ Their plan? Make gas prices so high that Californians are forced into EVs.” The state’s approach is hypocritical and condescending. California leaders expressed upset at rising gas prices and led emergency-session show hearings that blamed oil companies. They passed a bill that looks like it does something, but could make the problem worse and certainly won’t fix anything. Then after their own policies led to a regulation that likely will raise gas prices by a lot, they are remarkably passive. It’s almost enough to turn one into a cynic. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. READ MORE: Californians Reject the Worst Initiatives Preview of California’s Initiative Frenzy Newsom’s Oil-Price Show Hearings The post State Officials Give Nod to Far Higher Gas Prices appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Meghan McCain calls it “a national embarrassment.” It’s “a laughingstock,” according to Arizona Republican state Sen. J. D. Mesnard. “Our system is broken,” groused Elon Musk. Progressive Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts says, “You could grow a beard” waiting to find out what happened. “And I’m not just talking about the men.” What is going on that can unite the Left and the Right in such a rare show of concord? They’re counting votes in Maricopa County. The counting in Arizona’s largest and most populous county may go on until Election Day plus 10–13; that is, it’ll take between 10 days and 13 days before all the Maricopa County votes have been tallied. And that’s fast. In 2012 and 2018 it took 14 days, in 2010 it took 15, in 2008 it took 17. Another election season, another election fiasco. Arizona, once a reliable red state in its voting habits, is now reliably red-faced with its vote counting. The authorities tick off on their fingers justifications for this glacial tally operation with troubling nonchalance. They act like it’s old hat because it is old hat. The many close races can’t be called, we’re told, until the Maricopa ballots are tabulated, given that the country’s second-largest county (Los Angeles County is the largest) comprises about 62 percent of Arizona’s population. Compounding that, the ballots in Maricopa County this cycle were two pages long — double-sided — with 79 races and referenda, on average. Long ballots take longer to count. Add to this a curing period, mandated by law, in which voters are given five days to verify that an unclear or otherwise problematic signature is theirs. This pushes back the earliest possible final vote announcement to Election Day plus five. But the real rub is a state law that mandates that election officials cannot start processing early ballots dropped off at polling stations on Election Day — what they call “late earlies” — until the morning after Election Day. There were 292,000 of these in 2022; this cycle’s number was 225,000, which doesn’t include the hundreds of thousands of ballots dropped off late last week and over the weekend. Four days post-election, on Nov. 8, an estimated half a million ballots still needed to be counted. It was not until Saturday night that the Associated Press called the state for Trump. He won by a six-point spread — 52.6 percent to 46.4 percent. On Monday, six days after Election Day, the AP called the Senate race for Ruben Gallego who won by about two points. One House race is still undecided, with 90 percent of the vote tallied. Arizona could take a few pointers from Florida. Once the most mockable of all states in vote counting, Florida has turned fiasco into state of the art. It has recovered from the hanging chads and dimpled chads and butterfly ballots of the contested 2000 presidential race that took until December to call to where, in 2024, the state called their results shortly after 8 p.m. on election night. They do it by cutting off early voting days before Election Day; this year the deadline was Saturday, Nov. 2. All those early ballots have to be counted by 7 p.m. on Election Eve. Thus, once the polls close, they have all mail-in and early votes tallied. Arizona Republicans passed in 2023 a piece of legislation that would have yielded similar results. Senate Bill 1595 would have moved the deadline for dropping off early ballots from 7 p.m. on Election Day to 7 p.m. on the previous Friday. Voters who dropped off ballots on Election Day would have been required to follow the same requirements as those voting in person — stand in line, show ID, and sign the poll book. The number of “late earlies” would have dropped considerably, thus reducing the number of ballots to be signature-verified beginning the next day, and streamlining the vote counting immeasurably. Mesnard, the bill’s sponsor, said it “was commonsense, practical to implement, fair to the voters, and would have made a real difference in tackling the lengthy timeline voters and candidates – and the nation – continue to complain about.” The bill made it to Gov. Katie Hobbs’s desk, where the “Veto Queen” pounded it with her veto stamp — one of 185 she nixed since taking office in 2022, which breaks the record of 181 by former Gov. Janet Napolitano, who took six years to rack up her many no votes. Explained Hobbs, “This bill fails to meaningfully address the real challenges facing Arizona voters.” A response that could have been written by a machine. Mesnard’s response to the veto: Once again, Arizona is a laughingstock across the country for how long it’s taking our state to determine winners and losers in this election, an election with national implications. This chaos, confusion, frustration, and controversy is nothing new for us and easily could have been avoided this year had the Governor not vetoed SB 1595. According to the Arizona Daily Independent, Warren Petersen, president of the Arizona Senate, promises to introduce, on the first day of the legislative session, a bill that would result in more timely vote counting in the Grand Canyon State. READ MORE from Tom Raabe: Men in Women’s Sports Is Becoming a Major Political Issue If Trump Wins… How a Church Fought Back Against a Liberal Takeover — And Won The post Still Counting Votes in Arizona appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from OPERATION FREEDOM: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Mish Shedlock, Mish Talk: Trump has a mandate on the border and to deport criminals. What else? Then what? Trump’s Mass Deportation Promise Let’s discuss the WSJ article Trump’s Mass Deportation Promise. My comments are in square brackets. Emphasis also mine. TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/ Donald Trump won a second term in the White House […]