In addition to Liz Cheney, Anthony Fauci, and Adam Schiff, Joe Biden is considering a pardon for Mark Milley. Milley is the general who betrayed the President. Mark Milley secretly conspired with other generals and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi to take control of the military. He also colluded with his Chinese communist counterpart. We also have […] The post Potential Pardons for Mark Milley and Murderers appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

The day that then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared would “live in infamy” has been reduced, for many in America’s younger generations, to a vaguely familiar phrase they had to recall for an American History exam. But it’s important for all of us to remember that day — that moment — that pushed a largely non-committal United States into global conflict, especially as conflicts arise in the present day that threaten to become global. The Empire of Japan’s surprise attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, lasted just over an hour and marked the beginning of U.S. involvement in the Pacific. It was that attack — along with the threat of alliance between Japan and Nazi Germany — that led Roosevelt to also call for the United States’ official entry into the war already raging in Europe as well. Several key events foreshadowed the attack in the early morning hours: 6:10 a.m. — The USS Condor, a minesweeper, spots a periscope. 6:45 a.m. — The USS Ward fires on a Japanese submarine, marking the first shot fired by American forces in World War II. 6:53 a.m. — Ward radios Navy HQ, but decoding processes slow down its reception. 7:02 a.m. — Radar station on Oahu spots an unidentified aircraft, but reports are ignored because a B-17 from California was expected to arrive. By 7:40, the first wave of Japanese attack planes were flying over Hawaii — and the coordinated attack began within 15 minutes. By 8:10, the USS Arizona had exploded. The USS Helm, a Destroyer, sank a Japanese submarine at the harbor’s entrance seven minutes later. At 8:54 a.m., 59 minutes after the first wave began, a second wave of Japanese planes arrived and opened fire. At 9:30 a.m., the USS Shaw exploded in dry dock. By 10:00 a.m., the Japanese attack planes had returned to their carriers. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE All told, Japan launched the December 7 attack with 353 planes and lost just 29 that day. However, of all the ships involved in the Pearl Harbor attack, only one would still be afloat by the end of the war. ⏳The legacy of the Sailors, Marines & civilians lost on Dec. 7, 1941 is not confined to physical artifacts, memorials or ships. Their sacrifice is the greatest example of our @USNavy values: honor, courage & commitment, which is alive and thriving in each of us.#PearlHarbor83 pic.twitter.com/6BrSs88e8V — Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard & IMF (@PHNSYIMF) December 3, 2024 One day later, on December 8, 1941, Roosevelt delivered a joint address to the House and Senate, eventually leading to a declaration of war. Roosevelt said, in part: Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. … No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us. Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces—with the unbounding determination of our people—we will gain the inevitable triumph – so help us God. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire. The surprise attack killed 2,403 American service members and injured more than 1,100. Tomorrow, we mark 83 years for “a day which will live in infamy.” Take time today to honor the brave men & women who lost their lives at Pearl Harbor, as well as all who answered the call to service in WW2! #CBPNYNWK #PearlHarborDay pic.twitter.com/ORNj4cVXAN — Acting Port Director Jeffrey Greene (@CBPPortDirNYNJ) December 6, 2024

A Hollywood star with a supporting role in “Oppenheimer” has come out as “trans masculine non-binary,” according to reports. Emma Dumont, 30, is best known for playing Robert Oppenheimer’s (Cillian Murphy) sister-in-law Jackie in the Oscar-winning film. The star also debuted “they/them” pronouns on Instagram and will use a new name, Nick, with friends and family. Dumont will continue using Emma professionally and on social media. “They identify as a trans masculine non-binary person. Their work name is still going to be Emma Dumont, but they will go by Nick with friends and family,” a rep for the star told TMZ. Per Healthline, the term transmasculine “is an umbrella term that refers to people who were assigned female at birth but identify with masculinity.” The outlet noted that it may also be referred to as “transmasc.” Dumont has not addressed the change beyond the rep’s statement and last posted on Instagram on December 3. Social media was filled with negative reactions. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE “Would have been easier to just say ‘Emma Dumont comes out as mentally ill,'” one X commenter said. “Emma Dumont comes out as attention seeker. Fixed it for you,” another one wrote. “‘Oppenheimer’ star Emma Dumont comes out as a boring narcissistic attention seeker who thinks – mistakenly – getting a haircut and donning a t-shirt makes her interesting,” a third commenter shared. The star has been active in Hollywood since 2009 with credits in minor films and TV shows. Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” took home 7 Academy Awards earlier this year including Best Picture, Directing, Actor in a Leading Role, Actor in a Supporting Role, Cinematography, Film Editing, and Original Score. Dumont’s announcement comes on the heels of celeb Ellen Page, who now goes by Elliot Page, making a similar declaration. Page came out as transgender and non-binary in early December 2020, roughly six years after coming out as a lesbian. “Hi friends, I want to share with you that I am trans, my pronouns are he/they and my name is Elliot,” Page said in a statement posted to Twitter, as The Daily Wire previously reported. “I feel lucky to be writing this. To be here. To have arrived at this place in my life. I feel overwhelming gratitude for the incredible people who have supported me along this journey. I can’t begin to express how remarkable it feels to finally love who I am enough to pursue my authentic self.” In 2021, Page spoke out against legislation which would protect children from being given life-altering surgeries and drugs that were being marketed as “transgender care.” “The backlash right now is so intense. But the rhetoric coming from anti-trans activists and anti-LGBTQ activists—it’s devastating. These bills are going to be responsible for the death of children. It is that simple,” Page said at the time. Some of the legislation in question is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court as trans activists argue against a law in Tennessee which protects children from having these types of surgeries.

The following is an edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and Tennessee Attorney General John Skrmetti on a Saturday edition of Morning Wire.  It’s being called the most significant case of the current Supreme Court term — United States v. Skrmetti. The attorney general sat down with us to discuss his pivotal role in the case and his defense of a state law aimed at protecting minors from transgender medical procedures. * * * JOHN: Joining us now is Tennessee’s Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. Attorney General, thank you so much for coming on. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on what is setting up to be a landmark case on transgender medical procedures on minors. Your name is on this marquee case, it’s you against the federal government: United States v. Skrmetti. So, safe to say, no one is more attuned to what happened this week than you. First, how do you feel the day went for your case?  SKRMETTI: I thought it went very well. I can’t predict outcomes, you don’t know what the court’s going to do and the justices have months to deliberate. So without talking “horse race” here, I thought the day went well for us. My solicitor general Matt Rice did a great job making our case. I was very happy with his oral argument. The argument went long, which I think reflects that the justices care a lot about this, recognize there are some complexities here from a legal perspective, and that this could be a very consequential precedent. And so they want to get it right. So I thought they explored many issues very thoroughly, and I thought we put out a great case for Tennessee. JOHN: Yeah, what were some of the questions from the justices that stuck out to you, that could be key in their decision-making? SKRMETTI: Again, you don’t want to prognosticate too much, but I think the sex discrimination questions were very important. There was one lengthy line of questioning, but there were a number of questions about how this case might fit into existing sex discrimination case law. And I think that’s probably going to be a very significant issue for the outcome of the case. I think I can prognosticate that much. But the question is: Is this a sex discrimination case in a constitutional sense? Our position is, it is not, because you’re not treating like people differently. The argument is because boys can get testosterone, but girls can’t, and girls can get estrogen, but boys can’t, that you’re discriminating on the basis of sex. But our position is there’s not some universal distribution of hormones out there. You don’t just give boys testosterone. Anytime a drug is prescribed, it is for the purpose of treating a particular condition. And the evaluation of whether the drug is appropriate depends on that condition. There’s not some universal access to any given drug. So, if you’re giving a boy testosterone, for a testosterone deficiency, that’s relieving medical problems. That’s curing harms. If you give a girl testosterone for a psychological condition, gender dysphoria, it will create a host of physiological problems – potential lifelong loss of fertility, potential lifelong loss of sexual function. Depending on which hormone you’re talking about, you can have lifelong problems with blood clots, with tumors, with puberty blockers, bone density disorders, and all of them cause potential lifelong cognitive impairments. So the use of the drug is very contingent on which condition you’re addressing with it. JOHN: Part of this is encapsulated in the concept of off-label usage of drugs. Can you explain what that means for our audience? SKRMETTI: Sure. So the FDA, kind of adopting the perspective that I just articulated, only evaluates drugs for certain uses. They don’t say, “This drug is good, everybody can get as much of it as they want.” They say, “This drug is appropriate for treating this condition.” So, a lot of times, a drug will be approved to treat certain conditions. The FDA doesn’t have sufficient research to evaluate whether it’s appropriate for other conditions, but doctors can still sometimes prescribe it. They can prescribe off-label, which means even though the drug is not approved for that use, the doctors have made an informed medical decision to use it in that context, but they’re still subject to regulation. The state has, for hundreds of years, been regulating the practice of medicine. Even though doctors have a great deal of latitude, there are legal limits on what they can do. Oftentimes those limits are in place because the potential harms dramatically outweigh the potential benefits. The state has made a judgment that it is simply not appropriate to let doctors do what they would otherwise be inclined to do. Of course, those are fairly limited circumstances. We give a lot of latitude to doctors. We have a lot of respect for their training and for their decision-making, but there’s still a role for regulation there. JOHN: When your team researched the evidence, the medical justification for why you think this is a fair law in the first place, what did you find in terms of the efficacy of these gender transition procedures for minors? Is there evidence backing up what pro-trans activists will claim about this? SKRMETTI: Every systematic review of the evidence has determined that there is little to no benefit to minors. There are individual studies – there was some of this in the court. You can attack any given individual study on either side, there are always arguments to be made, but the systematic reviews of the overall research literature have consistently shown no benefit to minors. That’s why European countries that pioneered the use of these procedures on kids have since reversed course. It’s not because they suddenly got very politically conservative. It’s because they looked at the evidence and they determined that, for kids, the risks far outweigh the benefits, that the unexplained dramatic increase in the number of cases was very concerning, that there simply wasn’t a medical justification for the broad adoption of these treatments in the juvenile context. So they’ve greatly restricted the availability of these treatments. And that same review of evidence informed Tennessee’s decision. JOHN: Now, I wanted to ask you about the parental rights aspects of this law. The pro-trans activists have tried to argue that Tennessee’s law could violate parent’s rights. What do you make of that argument? SKRMETTI: So when the case was originally filed, there was both the constitutional argument, involving sex discrimination, and a parental rights argument. We won both in the Court of Appeals in the Sixth Circuit. The United States only petitioned for cert on the 14th Amendment issue, and so when the court granted that petition, the only question before them is the equal protection sex discrimination claim. So, the parental rights issue is still lurking out there. Justice Barrett addressed that briefly. Now, there are other situations where parents aren’t allowed to do what they’d otherwise be inclined to do. We give parents a great deal of latitude with their children but that doesn’t mean that they can do whatever they want, particularly in situations where you’re talking about severely adverse consequences in the long run. Parents can’t just go ahead and let their kids engage in conduct like that because the kids can’t meaningfully consent, and the parents can’t consign them to a life of dealing with the consequences for many, many different choices. This is an area where the state’s power is near its apex, protecting kids from serious harm. Credit: Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images. JOHN: Now, as we’ve documented here at the Daily Wire, Tennessee’s law was inspired by an investigation into Vanderbilt’s gender clinic by Matt Walsh that got the attention of a lot of people not just in the state but across the country. And now over two dozen states have laws similar to Tennessee’s How will this ruling of impact those state laws? SKRMETTI: Well, presumably if Tennessee’s law is constitutionally sound, then the other half of the states in the country that have adopted similar laws will similarly survive constitutional scrutiny, and it will allow those states to exercise their sovereign authority to regulate the medical profession in a way that protects kids. So, this is definitely a case that will have broader consequences than just within the borders of Tennessee. JOHN: A larger question, about the cultural context of this: We just saw an election where Republicans gained 10 points or more in almost every single state, even in very deep blue areas – even if they didn’t vote for Trump, they moved in the direction of Republicans. And one of the most cited issues was the transgender agenda. Do you see this year as a turning point on this issue?  SKRMETTI: So I think it’s an issue that’s front of mind for a lot of people because the country has moved, at least in part, very, very far, very, very fast over the past few years. We’ve just seen radical changes in the rhetoric, in mainstream conversations about gender identity. To tell someone 10 years ago this would be the big case of this term at the Supreme Court, I think, would have baffled most Americans. So it’s something that people are reacting to. But I do think, even if there is a political element to it with respect to the election, it’s really important to note that this is not a political issue for a lot of people. This was a bipartisan piece of legislation. It was supported by members of both sides of the aisle when it came through the Tennessee legislature. The people advocating for this include, of course, traditional Christian conservative groups, traditional constitutional conservative groups, but also groups that probably don’t align with us on a lot of issues. There are medical groups that are fairly non-political. There are LGB groups that are very concerned about what they term “transing the gays.” So this is a coalition that’s much broader than just one side of the political divide. There are a lot of people who are really worried that we have adopted an approach to gender identity issues that’s going to leave a lot of kids very hurt. JOHN: There’s certainly evidence that the national sentiment has shifted on this. Final question. The justices will deliver their decision this summer. In the meantime, how does Tennessee handle this particular law in the intervening months? SKRMETTI: So, our law is currently in effect, and we will enforce it. That means we’re going to be protecting Tennessee kids from these lifelong treatments. One important fact is, the science shows, the evidence shows most kids dealing with gender dysphoria will outgrow it. It’s a hard thing to deal with, it’s a hard thing for everybody to deal with, but most of these kids who are being steered toward these life-altering treatments would be fine if they were just given time – and we want to make sure they have that time. JOHN: Well, attorney general, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. SKRMETTI: Thank you. Take care. JOHN: That was Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and this has been a Saturday edition of Morning Wire. *** CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE

The 1980s gave us some of the most iconic songs in music history, but a select few have been played so relentlessly that their opening notes alone evoke a mix of nostalgia and fatigue. These songs defined a decade, capturing the essence of arenas filled with big hair, neon lights, and synthesizer-driven anthems. Yet, despite their initial brilliance, their constant presence on radio stations, movie soundtracks, commercials, and karaoke playlists has made them inescapable—and for many, overplayed. This list takes a closer look at ten unforgettable tracks that have danced on the fine line between timeless and overplayed. Richard Marx’s The post Ten 1980s Songs We’ve Heard Way Too Many Times appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.