Even though the Xbox Series X is readily available‚ some people have stuck with their trust Xbox 360 consoles for nearly two decades at this point. Everything still works normally‚ even online play‚ but sometimes you’ll encounter error codes like 8015000a. Error 8015000a can occur when trying to sign into your Xbox Live account on an Xbox 360 console. According to Microsoft‚ it either means that the license is missing‚ expired‚ corrupt‚ or doesn’t belong to the current gamertag or it means that your Xbox Live profile cannot be downloaded at the moment. Regardless of the cause‚ there are a few easy fixes for this Xbox 360 error. How to Fix Error 8015000a on Xbox 360 There are two ways to fix error 8015000a. If you’re trying to play digital content‚ then you’ll need to troubleshoot the game or app. Firstly‚ make sure you’re connected to the Internet with a stable connection. Then‚ check your Microsoft purchase history to make sure that ...

Adam is opening up 2 EXCELLENT packs of Bill and Ted’s Most Atypical Movie Cards by ProSet from 1991. These packs contained 10 Triumphant Cards. For more episodes of Wax Pack Flashback with Adam‚ check CONTINUE READING... The post Wax Pack Flashback: Bill &; Ted’s Most Atypical Movie Cards (1991) appeared first on The Retro Network.

The U.S. Supreme Court took up two cases Wednesday regarding the regulatory authority of the federal government as fishermen argue that government agencies are exceeding their authority by imposing costly mandates. In Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. vs. Department of Commerce‚ fishermen are challenging administrative law‚ dubbed the “Chevron deference‚” that asserts that when a federal statute is ambiguous about specific regulations‚ courts should defer to the implementing agency’s interpretation of the law. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration implemented a rule in 2020 forcing fishing companies (such as Relentless Inc.) to pay for federal observers to monitor the fishermen at sea on their own fishing boats—even though Congress did not give the agency authority to do so. Supporters of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association make their views known before the Supreme Court. (Photo: NEFSA) The fishermen argue that the mandate violates the U.S. Constitution’s Article I‚ accusing the agencies of exceeding their statutory authority. “Overregulation is imperiling the future of American fisheries and the maritime communities who depend on them‚” Jerry Leeman‚ founder and CEO of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association‚ said in a statement. “Worse still‚ fishermen have long struggled to fight back‚ because Chevron deference skews the legal process in the government’s favor. We thank the fishermen plaintiffs in this case‚ who are truly relentless.” Paying for the monitors is also expensive‚ costing more than $700 a day‚ according to the New Civil Liberties Alliance (the nonprofit organization representing Relentless Inc.)‚ which might often exceed the fishermen’s daily profits for herring‚ the species the boats and the North Atlantic fishery involved are mostly focused on. “It is time for the Supreme Court to fish or cut bait on the Chevron doctrine‚” said Mark Chenoweth‚ president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. “This deference charade has gone on long enough. Executive agencies cannot be allowed to serve as judges in their own cases any longer.”  While Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have called for curtailing Chevron deference‚ Fox News reports‚ Chief Justice John Roberts’ and Justices Brett Kavanaugh’s and Amy Coney Barrett’s views on the matter remain to be seen. Justice Samuel Alito is seen as entertaining some skepticism of Chevron deference. The three liberal justices‚ by contrast‚ are thought to see no constitutional problem with it. In a press release‚ the New Civil Liberties Alliance argued that “when a federal judge defers to an agency’s interpretation of law‚ doing so denies due process of law to the entity opposed to the government in that litigation.” “Employing such a deference also abandons a judge’s Article III duty of judicial independence‚” the release asserts. “The logic of Chevron deference cannot withstand this devastating dual critique.” Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post Supreme Court Hears Fishermen’s Challenges to Costly Regulatory Authority of Feds appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Dr. Anthony Fauci‚ the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who famously claimed to “represent science‚” has a monumentally bad memory. In recent and lengthy testimony to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic behind closed doors‚ Fauci claimed that he “did not recall” over 100 times. In his deposition Nov. 23‚ 2022‚ in the federal case of Missouri v. Biden‚ Fauci’s recollection failed him 174 times.  The good doctor is presenting an impressive case of recurrent amnesia. Nonetheless‚ following two days and 14 hours of a wide-ranging interrogation over Jan. 8 and 9 examining the federal government’s flawed response to the COVID-19 pandemic‚ Fauci confirmed three vitally important points for the record. 1. The view that the deadly pandemic originated in a leak from a Chinese research lab no longer is a “conspiracy” theory. In his closed-door testimony to the House select subcommittee‚ Fauci affirmed the hypothesis that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese laboratory—a view shared by analysts of the FBI and the Department of Energy—was not a “conspiracy” theory. Note well: Four years ago‚ Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins‚ then Fauci’s boss as director of the National Institutes of Health‚ were diligently discrediting the legitimacy of the origins of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 in a lab leak. At the same time‚ they were “prompting” top virologists to publish a prominent paper in the journal Nature Medicine affirming zoonotic origins and rejecting the notion of laboratory origins. In February 2020‚ most of these virologists tapped by Fauci initially assessed the deadly coronavirus to have a decidedly unnatural origin. But in a matter of days‚ and without even the possibility of accessing hard Chinese data‚ they rapidly reversed themselves. In March 2020‚ Collins declared the virologists’ paper dispositive. Case closed. The media narrative gelled into rock-hard conviction.    Well‚ no. Collins‚ too‚ has now reversed himself. Under questioning from the House select subcommittee‚ Collins conceded that the lab leak hypothesis is not a “conspiracy theory.” 2. Oversight by Fauci’s agency of grants to taxpayer-funded laboratories overseas is poor. Fauci said he signed off on every foreign grant as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases‚ but didn’t personally review the proposals. As Rep. Brad Wenstrup‚ R-Ohio‚ chairman of the select subcommittee‚ observed of Fauci: While leading the nation’s COVID-19 response and influencing public narratives‚ he simultaneously had no idea what was happening under his own jurisdiction at NIAID. Dr. Fauci signed off on all domestic and foreign research grants without reviewing the proposals and admitted that he was unaware if NIAID conducted oversight of the laboratories they fund. Clearly‚ the American people and the United States government are operating with completely different expectations about the responsibilities of our public health leaders and the accountability of our public health agencies. In fact‚ Fauci’s recent testimony reconfirms what he stated in his Nov. 23‚ 2022‚ deposition in the case of Missouri v. Biden. He was questioned about his agency’s 2014 grant to EcoHealth Alliance‚ a controversial nonprofit that subcontracted coronavirus research to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. “I do not individually approve grants‚” Fauci responded. “They go through multiple levels of peer review‚ so I would not have‚ by the standard way things work‚ have seen this‚ read it‚ or individually approved it. That’s not the way things work in this institute.” Fauci later told Missouri’s attorneys that he didn’t become aware of the EcoHealth Alliance project until “after all the attention was put on it‚ following the early part of January‚ February‚ mid-March 2020.”   In short‚ at the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. America’s top public health officials‚ including Fauci‚ didn’t “follow the science.” Beyond issues related to the origins of the pandemic‚ the House select subcommittee questioned Fauci on several other topics related to the federal government’s response to COVID-19. For example‚ in response to questioning‚ Fauci said that the COVID-19 vaccine mandates could increase future “vaccine hesitancy”—a legitimate public health concern‚ given the potential of backlash against coercion. Recall that before the Biden administration announced its program of vaccine mandates‚ Fauci initially expressed his skepticism of such mandates‚ saying that the United States had never done such a thing to the general population. Nonetheless‚ Fauci told the House subcommittee that he advised universities to impose vaccine mandates on their students—a young and healthy cohort of the population that‚ based on indisputable data‚ was relatively invulnerable to serious disease‚ hospitalization‚ or death from COVID-19. Curiously‚ Fauci also told the subcommittee that the social distancing recommendation—that persons should stay “6 feet apart” to avoid infection—was not based on any scientific data‚ but “sort of just appeared.” In later‚ separate testimony‚ Collins confirmed Fauci’s assessment‚ and agreed that the social distancing rule wasn’t grounded in data.   The key unresolved issue is the extent to which‚ if any‚ federal taxpayers’ money was funneled into Chinese gain-of- function coronavirus research‚ or lab efforts to enhance the power of the pathogen. Fauci reiterated his position‚ stated in previous Senate testimony‚ that his agency didn’t fund such research. Collins also restated that position. For the record‚ the subcommittee’s chairman‚ Wenstrup‚ wasn’t buying it. “He repeatedly played semantics with the definition of ‘gain of function’ in an attempt to avoid conceding that NIH funded potentially dangerous research in China‚” Wenstrup said of Fauci. Reflecting on Fauci’s closed-door testimony‚ Wenstrup also said: Dr. Fauci’s transcribed interview revealed systemic failures in our public health system and shed light on serious procedural concerns with our public health authority. It is clear that dissenting opinions were often not considered or suppressed completely. Should a future pandemic arise‚ America’s response must be guided by scientific facts and conclusive data. During sensitive congressional investigations‚ the sworn testimony of witnesses in a closed-door session isn’t uncommon; it provides for an extensive preliminary inquiry before a public hearing. Testifying under oath in a public hearing may yet stimulate Fauci’s powers of greater recollection. Expressing appreciation for Fauci’s willingness to testify privately and anticipating his future public appearance‚ Wenstrup offered this encouragement: “There are many opportunities to do better in the future.” If the country is to learn from this experience‚ it’s critical that any top official responding to the deadliest national medical emergency this country has faced since the 1918 flu should do a better job recalling key actions. We cannot wait. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Fauci’s Latest COVID-19 Testimony Only Confirms View of Washington’s Critics appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A revelation by the House Judiciary Committee has raised concerns about federal investigators’ intrusion into individuals’ private financial transactions. According to the committee‚ federal investigators instructed banks to filter customer transactions using politically related terms such as “MAGA” and “TRUMP.” This move‚ part of an investigation into the events of January 6‚ 2021‚ was exposed by the House Judiciary Committee. The potential alarm does not end here‚ as even purchases of “religious texts” are seen as indicative of extremism in the eyes of the investigators. The committee’s report further revealed that the investigators suggested banks filter transactions using keywords such as names of popular merchandise stores including Dick’s Sporting Goods and Bass Pro Shops‚ among others. The meticulous oversight undertaken by the House Judiciary Committee and its subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is focused on federal law enforcement’s acquisition of information about US citizens without legal procedures as well as its engagement with the private sector. Documents acquired by the committee‚ according to Chair Jim Jordan‚ point to actions from the Treasury Department’s Office of Stakeholder Integration and Engagement in the Strategic Operations of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Following the events of January 6th‚ the department provided search terms to banks to identify transactions on behalf of federal law enforcement. These materials suggested generic keywords to search Zelle payment messages amidst other instructions. According to Jordan‚ FinCEN essentially relied on large financial institutions to scrutinize their customers’ private transactions for suspicious activities that might stem from protected political and religious expression. The committee has called Niah Bishoff‚ the former director of FinCEN‚ to appear for a formal interview on this issue. As Jordan highlights‚ pervasive financial surveillance of American citizens’ private transactions‚ coordinated with federal law enforcement‚ raises serious concerns about FinCEN’s attitude towards fundamental civil liberties. We obtained a copy of the letter the committee sent Bishoff for you here. Jordan also requested an interview with Peter Sullivan‚ the senior private sector partner for outreach in the Strategic Partner Engagement Section at the FBI. The concern arose after receiving testimony indicating that Bank of America voluntarily provided the FBI with a list of individuals who made transactions in the Washington‚ D.C. area using a bank card within a specific period in 2021. The post Surveillance Overreach: Federal Investigators Asked Banks To Search Transactions Related to “MAGA‚” “TRUMP” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Not Every FL GOP Loss Is As It Appears

What Does 'Diversity' Look Like at United?

Trump Nearly Gets Kicked Out of E. Jean Carroll Trial

The ongoing World Economic Forum conference has featured more than one anti-free speech “expert.”  Artificial intelligence (AI) has been one of the most discussed topics at the globalist World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Davos 2024 conference. Hence‚ it’s no surprise that the issue of alleged online “misinformation” has come up multiple times. WEF released its 2024 report classifying “misinformation and disinformation” as the top short-term global threats. Multiple panelists or speakers seemed to agree with WEF that more censorship is needed online‚ including government regulation of so-called “hate speech‚” especially in the age of AI. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was particularly blunt in ludicrously framing free speech as a problem during her speech. Echoing the WEF report on “misinformation‚” she alleged‚ “For the global business community the top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate‚ it is disinformation and misinformation‚ followed closely by polarization within our societies.” Von der Leyen later returned to the topic‚ boasting of her work to censor free speech. European Union tech legislation has been condemned as anti-freedom‚ but Von der Leyen claimed to be protecting democracy: “Disinformation and misinformation tackling this has been our focus since the very beginning of my mandate. With our Digital Services Act‚ we defined the responsibility of large internet platforms on the content they promote and propagate. A responsibility to children and vulnerable groups targeted by hate speech‚ but also a responsibility to our societies as a whole. Because the boundary between online and offline is getting thinner and thinner‚ and the values we cherish offline should also be protected online. And this is even more important in this new era of generative AI.” Von der Leyen wasn’t the only one to speak on this topic. President of swissuniversities Luciana Vaccaro and Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes described X (formerly Twitter) as “toxic‚” while also yearning for anti-free speech policies. “For a long time I was on Twitter and now it’s become such a toxic place that I’ve concluded it’s not a worthwhile place to spend time‚” Oreskes claimed. “I have given up on X. What a scary name that even is‚ right?” Vaccaro seemed to agree‚ characterizing X as a “very toxic environment.” She lamented‚  “I have no solution on that.” She expressed her conviction‚ however‚ that social media will have a more restrictive “code of conduct” in the future. “I think there will be a societal reflection on how information is brought there. Of course on X now there is also the policy of the owner that is problematic but I think this is a problem of the society of the future‚” she rambled. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Global elites are meeting for the World Economic Forum’s 2024 Davos summit to decide the future of those less “elite” and have set their sights on “misinformation and disinformation” as the biggest global threat over the next two years. Glenn Beck may be shocked‚ but he is already preparing to fight back — not just because it’s terrifying‚ but because the mainstream media has now fallen in lock step with the global elites and set its sights on him as a purveyor of so-called misinformation. In a piece from the Independent titled “Climate Misinformation Is Mutating on YouTube — and the Platform Is Profiting‚” it’s argued that YouTube should stop monetizing people like Glenn Beck and Jordan Peterson. The reasoning is “climate misinformation.” “Climate activists and policy makers must recognize this shift or risk losing the information battle necessary to deliver climate solutions‚” the article explains‚ before noting that “conservative outlet BlazeTV” and “individual pundits” like Jordan Peterson are the ones endangering climate change belief and solutions. The article also states that “BlazeTV‚ founded by conservative firebrand Glenn Beck‚ regularly features climate change denial‚” and that “Mr. Beck claims the Biden administration is using the climate crisis as a cover for government control and a great reset.” Beck now finds it impossible to ignore that this article‚ as well as the current focus on misinformation and disinformation at the Davos summit‚ means that we’re in deep trouble. “It is no longer coming‚ it is here‚” Beck warns. 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.