Canada’s recent decision to transfer confiscated firearms to Ukraine has sparked a significant public debate. Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s leadership, Canada has strengthened gun control measures by banning 324 firearm models. Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc has suggested these seized firearms could aid Ukraine’s fight for democracy. This raises concerns about the balance between self-defense rights and international commitments. As these discussions unfold, the implications for Canadian citizens remain uncertain. Firearm Confiscation and New Bans Under Trudeau’s government, Canada introduced new gun confiscation strategies, effectively altering citizens’ rights. Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc prohibited 324 makes and models of assault-style firearms. These firearms cannot be legally used, sold, or imported within the country. There are limited exceptions for transferring or transporting them, but the majority face restricted use. The ban builds on a 2022 handgun freeze that halted the sale and transfer of handguns. Dominic LeBlanc stated, “324 unique makes and models of assault-style firearms” would expand the list of prohibited firearms in Canada. This development is coupled with an expectation for Canadian firearm owners to comply, amidst concerns over threats to self-defense capabilities. Many criticize this ban, suggesting it leaves citizens vulnerable and underlines Canada’s decisive gun control shift. new export strategy: confiscate legally owned firearms, call it a buyback & ship to Ukraine so they can kill Russians. Only in Trudeau’s law-abiding gun owners lose their property, criminals keep theirs& gets the spoils of overreach. Is this a Nation or Netflix comedy? https://t.co/QCyhRGvxxo — Richard Syrett (@richardsyrett) December 6, 2024 Supporting Ukraine: A Controversial Move Canada’s potential decision to donate confiscated firearms to Ukraine further fuels the controversy. Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc mentioned exploring options where these guns could be useful for supporting Ukraine’s democracy fight. Critics argue this initiative prioritizes international interests over domestic freedoms. The move is seen by some as an extension of Canada’s stance to aid Ukraine, viewed by some as excessive. Numerous Canadians consider this initiative as “absurd,” placing it at odds with their self-defense aspirations. Additional concerns arise about the perception of sacrificing national rights to satisfy global obligations. Furthermore, the act has sparked sympathy among Americans who question the extent of support the Western hemisphere offers Ukraine. Canada's Gun Grab: A Hypocritical Stance on Citizen Safety and International Conflict In a baffling display of double standards, the Canadian government under Justin Trudeau has embarked on a new wave of gun seizures from law-abiding citizens, ostensibly to curb violence within… https://t.co/WxNXcYNblQ — Barry Sharp (@BarryESharp) December 6, 2024 Broader Implications for Canadian Freedoms Canada’s decision to confiscate firearms has stirred widespread disapproval. According to reports, one-third of Canadians rank Trudeau among the least effective prime ministers in decades. Within this context, the further regulation of streaming services, which mandates government registration, worries many about its implications on freedom of expression. The government’s moves, perceived as limiting freedoms, evoke concerns over a drift away from traditional democratic values. The proposal to send confiscated guns to Ukraine underscores the ongoing discourse on balancing citizens’ rights with international duty. As these developments unfold, questions surrounding Canadian freedoms and self-defense rights remain central in the public consciousness. Sources: Canada Literally Confiscating Citizens Guns, Sending to Ukraine to Kill Russians The post Canada’s Controversial Firearm Confiscation: Undermining Self-Defense While Backing Ukraine appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

A mystery pathogen known as Disease X has rapidly spread in the Democratic Republic of Congo, raising global alarm over its potential for widespread outbreaks. With critical eyes on the central African nation, the situation underscores the critical role of healthcare infrastructure and international cooperation in combating emergent diseases. As the UN mobilizes health teams to the heart of the crisis, the world stands watchful, eager to see if their efforts will curtail this unfolding health threat. Unfolding Crisis in Congo The Disease X outbreak began in Kwango Province, Democratic Republic of Congo, with reports of nearly 400 cases and 79 deaths. Despite its impact, the national government received initial reports more than five weeks after the outbreak began on October 24. Symptoms resemble those of respiratory illnesses, including fever, headache, cough, and breathing difficulties. A high percentage of cases, more than half, involve children under five, pointing to a significant concern for vulnerable populations. Authorities are struggling to understand the disease, with possible causes ranging from influenza and COVID-19 to malaria and measles. Preliminary findings suggest airborne transmission, but this is not yet confirmed. High malnutrition rates in the affected areas compound the crisis, leaving the population more susceptible to infections. There is widespread frustration about the delay in notifying national authorities, emphasizing the urgent need for robust disease surveillance and strengthened local health systems. Congo's health minister on unidentified disease: "The alert level — I would say we're on maximum alert. This means we consider it a type of epidemic that must be monitored as closely as possible." — BNO News (@BNOFeed) December 5, 2024 International Efforts and Response Global health authorities, including Africa CDC and WHO, are investigating the situation closely, with samples sent for testing to ascertain the disease’s origin. The U.S. CDC has communicated with the DRC’s Ministry of Health, ready to assist if required. International monitoring efforts aim to prevent the disease’s spread beyond borders, an endeavor critical to global health security. The WHO’s recent report outlines the risk level in the affected region as high, underscoring the critical nature of the healthcare situation. While the cause of Disease X remains elusive, with 406 recorded cases and 31 deaths, the case fatality ratio stands at 7.6%. This level of fatality is concerning when compared to past outbreaks like the 2002-2004 SARS epidemic. The materialization of this disease, primarily in children under 14, presents challenges in assessment due to factors such as regional malnutrition and endemic diseases like malaria. ‘Disease X’ outbreak widens as UN sends health team to Congo https://t.co/tlunRKvV7T — ST Foreign Desk (@STForeignDesk) December 9, 2024 Need for Robust Healthcare Systems This outbreak reiterates the necessity of robust healthcare systems and international cooperation in mitigating public health crises. Limitations in medical data, such as vaccine histories and healthcare records, complicate investigations and response strategies. Health experts are analyzing patient samples to trace the disease’s source, maintaining vigilant surveillance as they await clearer insights. The crisis serves as a sobering reminder for all nations of the importance of preparedness against emergent diseases. Strong international cooperation paired with well-prepared local health systems marks a decisive line of defense against the unpredictable nature of future global health challenges. As the world observes the Congo’s response, the serene hope remains that through combined efforts, global health resilience can be strengthened for the present and future. Sources: How worried should we be about Disease X? WHO Provides Update About Disease X In Democratic Republic Of The Congo ‘Disease X’ Outbreak Widens as UN Sends Health Team to Congo The post Disease X Outbreak in Congo: A Test for Global Health Systems and International Unity appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

'My new goal in life is to match with the hot UnitedHealthcare assassin on Tinder'

The fate of TikTok hinges on multiple high-level decisions

Skin is the largest organ of the human body, measuring on average two square meters. It provides a protective barrier, regulates our body temperature and can regenerate itself. But I bet you didn’t know that skin develops in the sterile environment of the womb, with all hair follicles formed before birth. (There is follicle cycling […] The post First Human Skin Map Provides ‘Recipe’ That Could Prevent Scarring And Facilitate Hair Transplants appeared first on Good News Network.

I am a bondsman—a profession rooted in the Constitution and born from the fundamental principle of justice: the presumption of innocence. For centuries, the right to bail has been a cornerstone of our legal system, ensuring that individuals accused of crimes can maintain their freedom while awaiting trial, so long as they fulfill one essential obligation: to appear in court. This system, when working as intended, strikes a delicate balance between the rights of the accused and the safety of the public. Yet today, this balance is under attack—not just from those who seek to avoid accountability, but from a judicial system increasingly hostile to secured bail. Across the country, judges are legislating from the bench, dismantling the safeguards that ensure defendants appear for trial. These actions not only jeopardize public safety but also erode constitutional principles and threaten professions like mine. I know this fight firsthand. I am currently engaged in a federal lawsuit against the Bozeman Municipal Court in Montana, where judges have adopted policies that effectively nullify the role of bondsmen. These policies allow defendants to avoid accountability while forcing bondsmen to shoulder the consequences. By legislating from the bench, these courts are not just ignoring statutory law—they are rewriting it to fit an agenda that seeks to eliminate secured bail entirely. This is not just a fight about my livelihood; it is about the erosion of accountability within our justice system. By reducing or eliminating bail requirements, courts enable individuals to disappear without consequence, leaving victims retraumatized, communities vulnerable, and law enforcement stretched thin. To understand the gravity of this issue, it’s important to recognize why bondsmen are essential. When a person is accused of a crime, the court sets bail as a financial guarantee to ensure their appearance for trial. For those unable to afford the full bail amount, bondsmen provide the financial backing necessary for their release. In return, we take on the responsibility of ensuring the defendant appears in court. If they fail to do so, it is the bondsman—not the taxpayer—who bears the financial loss and the burden of locating the fugitive. Without this system, courts face two options: either hold defendants in overcrowded jails until trial or release them on their own recognizance, hoping they return. Common sense and experience tell us hope is not a strategy. Unfortunately, a growing number of jurisdictions are choosing to release defendants without accountability. Judges are removing financial incentives, allowing defendants to walk free without bail and, in many cases, without any oversight. Victims are retraumatized when offenders fail to appear. Law enforcement must divert critical resources to track down fugitives. Communities are left vulnerable to individuals who have no incentive to face justice. The judicial overreach I’ve seen in Montana reflects a national trend. Courts increasingly prioritize convenience over accountability and expedience over public safety. This movement disregards the rights of victims, shifts enforcement burdens onto taxpayers, and undermines constitutional principles of bail. As a bondsman, I’ve witnessed the chaos created in courtrooms, the frustration of law enforcement officers, and the injustice experienced by victims. But I refuse to stand by while a system that serves our communities is eroded. The attacks I face—from the courts and public perception—are not unique. They are symptomatic of a broader effort to dismantle accountability in the justice system. Judges rewriting the rules to protect defendants at the expense of victims must be held accountable. When an unelected judiciary legislates from the bench, they threaten not just my profession but the foundational principles of fairness and public safety. This issue transcends state lines because the principles at stake are national in scope. The right to bail is enshrined in the Constitution, and its erosion undermines the foundation of our justice system. This fight is about ensuring that defendants face justice, that victims receive closure, and that communities remain safe. I am proud of the work I do as a bondsman. I provide individuals with a second chance, help families reunite, and give people an opportunity to face justice with dignity. But I also enforce accountability—on the defendants I serve and on the system itself. If that makes me a target for criticism or attack, so be it. Our nation deserves better than a justice system that lets people off the hook. Victims deserve better. Communities deserve better. And I will continue to fight for a system that upholds justice, accountability, and public safety—because these values are worth defending. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Standing Up for Justice in a System Under Attack appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Between transgender-identifying men competing in women’s sports and women’s limited athletics funding coming from so-called Name, Image, and Likeness policies, Sen. Tommy Tuberville says, there will be no women’s sports left in five years unless something is done. Tuberville, R-Ala., a former Auburn University football coach, met with President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of education, Linda McMahon, on Monday. Afterward, Tuberville said McMahon is “totally against” men competing in women’s sports. The two discussed protecting Title IX, the 1972 federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs. “The Biden administration basically said … if you don’t allow transgender sports, men in women’s sports, then you lose your federal funding,” Tuberville told The Daily Signal, referring to the administration’s reinterpretation of Title IX to allow males who identify as girls and women in female spaces. “We need to get that out,” he said. “That doesn’t need to be in there. We don’t need men participating against women.” Tuberville and McMahon discussed ensuring that Title IX is funded, since Name, Image, and Likeness, or NIL, policies threaten women’s athletic scholarships. NIL allows athletes to make money through endorsement deals and sponsorships. “Title IX has been the best thing to ever happen up here, and it gives young girls an opportunity to look up and ‘Hey, listen, I can be a scholarship player. I go to Olympics, and I do all these things,’” he said. “But now, because of the transgender movement, and the NIL is going to defund all that, and so there’s going to be a lot of opportunities lost.” Because men’s sports are usually more popular, male athletes can often secure high-paying NIL deals. That could cause universities to rely less on scholarship funding for athletes. Title IX requires schools to give equal athletic scholarships to men and women. If men received fewer scholarships due to being paid through NIL deals, there would be fewer scholarships for women, who might be less likely to have NIL deals. “What’s happening is, a lot of the women’s sports, the nonrevenue sports—swimming, golf, and all those where you don’t pay money to get in to watch—they don’t make money,” Tuberville said. “And so what we want to do is make sure that a lot of the money that goes to NIL also goes to nonrevenue sports, to where we can still have those.” “If we stay on this path, in five years, you won’t have women’s sports,” the Alabama lawmaker said. “It’s going to be gone. You’ll have club sports, but they’ll have to pay their own fees to play the sport, and that’s not right.” The post Alabama Senator’s Playbook for How Trump Admin Can Save Women’s Sports appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The justice system in New York City came to the correct conclusion in finding subway hero Daniel Penny not guilty in the self-defense death of Jordan Nelly, who was threating to harm people on Penny’s subway car. But during their coverage of the breaking news, MSNBC liberals expressed hope that Neely’s family could “find justice” in a civil trial against Penny, and ridiculously compared it to the OJ Simpson murder trial. “The breaking news here, Daniel Penny found not guilty. But Lisa, we also know that Jordan Neely's family filed had filed – I believe – a civil suit in this case as well. Does the verdict in this case impact that?” host Ana Cabrera asked legal correspondent Lisa Rubin while filling in for Jose Diaz-Balart. Rubin responded immediately with a message that could bring some solace to MSNBC’s far-left audience about how the Neely family could still “find justice.” “Not necessarily. I mean, the law is rife with examples of people who are acquitted in criminal cases and yet find justice with respect to civil accountability,” she proclaimed. Her go-to example was a ridiculous comparison to the OJ Simpson murder trial and subsequent civil trial: I think the best example of that is with respect to Fred Goldman's family. Fred Goldman -- I'm sorry, Ron Goldman being the man who was murdered alongside Nicole Brown Simpson. Even though OJ Simpson was never found criminally guilty for those two murders, Fred Goldman, the father along with his daughter then sued OJ civilly and won a fairly large verdict with respect to civil liability for OJ Simpson. What made her example particularly ghoulish was the fact that the death of Nicole Brown Simpson involved cold-blooded murder and not a self-defense situation. That’s not to mention that while the Penny trial did have notoriety, it paled in comparison to the circus that was the OJ Simpson trial which divided the nation and may have played a role in the civil verdict.     “There are many other examples of similar disjuncture between criminal court and what happens with respect to a wrongful death action for example by a family,” she boasted. Further, Rubin seemed to baselessly suggest that something improper had happened with the jury and the reading of the verdict, and wanted jurors to speak out to the her and the rest of the media about it (Click "expand"): Ana, one of the things that came across is the jury was not polled here in delivering their verdict. That means, nobody asked the jurors one at a time to confirm that this is their verdict. That means we didn't get to hear from the people who are on this jury. And one thing that I'm really curious about is whether or not there are people on the jury who feel like they want to speak out because, again, if they could not reach a unanimous verdict to find him guilty, based on the prior experiences, they may have concluded they were never going to reach a unanimous verdict. That doesn't mean there weren't people on this jury who would have voted to find Daniel Penny guilty, particularly given how fraught this case is, given what else is going on in the city of New York, as Antonia was very vividly describing. I’ll be curious to see if any jurors come forward and want to tell their story to folks like us. A couple hours later, during Chris Jansing Reports, reporter Antonia Hylton would whine that Penny’s supporters celebrated the verdict while Neely’s were “mourning” it: An incredibly emotional morning inside the courtroom as this verdict came down. The supporters of Daniel Penny were in celebration while the family members of Jordan Neely began to breakdown. His father had to be escorted out of the courtroom. A woman fell to her knees in mourning. And outside here on the street, several dozen protesters were chanting, expressing outrage. At one point, a physical altercation broke out. In the second hour of the show, Jansing suggested that the jury didn’t properly check their fears of riding on the unsafe New York City subway system. “Is it possible to separate fears or thoughts about what it's like on the subway system from jury deliberations?” she asked Rubin. “Yes and no,” Rubin prefaced. “Jurors are asked prior to being seated whether they have certain biases or prejudices that might disqualify them from service. But of course, this is a jury made up of Manhattanites” who have likely all experienced something while riding the subway. Rubin also tried to cast doubt on any fears people had about the New York City subway system by saying New Yorkers were “fed up with what they perceive to be the lack of safety on MTA public transit.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s José Díaz-Balart Reports December 9, 2024 11:40:30 a.m. Eastern (…) ANA CABRERA: The breaking news here, Daniel Penny found not guilty. But Lisa, we also know that Jordan Neely's family filed had filed – I believe – a civil suit in this case as well. Does the verdict in this case impact that? LISA RUBIN: Not necessarily. I mean, the law is rife with examples of people who are acquitted in criminal cases and yet find justice with respect to civil accountability. I think the best example of that is with respect to Fred Goldman's family. Fred Goldman -- I'm sorry, Ron Goldman being the man who was murdered alongside Nicole Brown Simpson. Even though OJ Simpson was never found criminally guilty for those two murders, Fred Goldman, the father along with his daughter then sued OJ civilly and won a fairly large verdict with respect to civil liability for OJ Simpson. There are many other examples of similar disjuncture between criminal court and what happens with respect to a wrongful death action for example by a family. (…) Chris Jansing Reports 11:43:19 a.m. Eastern RUBIN: Ana, one of the things that came across is the jury was not polled here in delivering their verdict. That means, nobody asked the jurors one at a time to confirm that this is their verdict. That means we didn't get to hear from the people who are on this jury. And one thing that I'm really curious about is whether or not there are people on the jury who feel like they want to speak out because, again, if they could not reach a unanimous verdict to find him guilty, based on the prior experiences, they may have concluded they were never going to reach a unanimous verdict. That doesn't mean there weren't people on this jury who would have voted to find Daniel Penny guilty, particularly given how fraught this case is, given what else is going on in the city of New York, as Antonia was very vividly describing. I’ll be curious to see if any jurors come forward and want to tell their story to folks like us. CABRERA: Yeah. Me too. (…) Chris Jansing Reports 1:33:13 p.m. Eastern ANTONIA HYLTON: An incredibly emotional morning inside the courtroom as this verdict came down. The supporters of Daniel Penny were in celebration while the family members of Jordan Neely began to breakdown. His father had to be escorted out of the courtroom. A woman fell to her knees in mourning. And outside here on the street, several dozen protesters were chanting, expressing outrage. At one point, a physical altercation broke out. (…) 2:50:54 p.m. Eastern CHRIS JANSING: Is it possible to separate fears or thoughts about what it's like on the subway system from jury deliberations? RUBIN: Yes and no. Right?  Jurors are asked prior to being seated whether they have certain biases or prejudices that might disqualify them from service. But of course, this is a jury made up of Manhattanites. This was a case tried by the Manhattan district attorney's office. So, everybody on that jury lives on this island and, of course, most if not all of them have experiences every day with public transportation. You're right to say that we're at a moment right now, particularly here in New York, where folks are fed up with what they perceive to be the lack of safety on MTA public transit. (…)