'It is disgusting, it is evil'

'A foreign government threatens to distort free speech'

A video shared on X claims to show a Somalian pirate boat being destroyed. Somali pirate boat is no more. pic.twitter.com/2qth4kKG4h — David Atherton (@DaveAtherton20) December 5, 2024 Verdict: False The video shows training from the United States Navy and is not a Somalian vessel. Fact Check: A Chinese fishing vessel came under the control of […]

Let’s make this clear right from the start: we love these songs, we respect these songs, and the mere fact that they are among the most overplayed in rock and roll and popular music history is a testament to just how great they truly are. This article is simply a presentation of brilliant songs that, for many of us, have likely been played just one too many times in our individual lives. That’s all—it’s a statement of fact and a reflection on rock and roll and pop music history. Why is any song overplayed? Why do classic rock radio stations, The post Ten 1970s Songs We’ve Heard Way Too Many Times appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

“Pretty disgusting” and “grotesque.” That’s how a Florida parent described an online session for students on “gender” provided by two K-12 virtual public schools in November—a session that virtual school officials held without first informing parents. This schools’ attempt to sidestep families is just the latest in a long list of examples demonstrating that some educators and academic publishers will simply go around parents to push lewd content on K-12 students. Yet this particular incident has implications for local, state, and even federal policymakers. Connections Academy and Pearson Online Academy, online public schools managed by the U.K.-based Pearson publishing company, offered the online programing as an optional “Pride Snack and Chat” for students last month. Yet the session was not listed on the online calendars parents use to track student activities and assignments, and a parent told a Florida news station that the “chat” was a surprise. The session’s instructors described terms such as “sexually fluid abrosexual,” “masexual,” and “syndemisexual,” to name a few. Presenters displayed a slideshow to students during the chat that also promoted organizations such as GLSEN, a group that promotes LGBT issues in K-12 schools, and The Trevor Project, an organization that hosts a website connecting adults with minor-age children for discussions on everything from chest binders to puberty blockers to explicit sex acts. Considering Pearson’s record, the surprise “Snack and Chat” should come as anything but a shock. Pearson is the world’s fourth-largest textbook publisher by revenue and operates the virtual K-12 schools known as Connections Academies, which have locations around the country. Pearson also has a history of advocating for school materials that include discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI; “antiracism;” and gender issues. In 2023, Pearson officials scrubbed their website after a Heritage Foundation investigation exposed their radical content. The company had published editorial guidelines for its content creators stating that the publisher was committed to DEI and antiracism and would make “colorism,” “colonial discourse,” “genderism,” and “intersectionality” part of everything the company produces. Yet after the Heritage report, Pearson removed some of the antiracist materials from its website without explanation. The company’s “Business Partners Code of Conduct” now says Pearson and its partners will follow any state laws prohibiting the teaching of “gender” in K-12 schools. The “Snack and Chat” content appears to violate Florida’s rules against exposing K-12 students to the topics of gender or sexual orientation. Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz, Jr. sent a letter to Connections’ Florida director Marcie Trombino and has opened an investigation into the programming. “As commissioner of education, I expect you to govern yourselves according to state law,” Diaz wrote. Other state officials and even federal lawmakers should be on notice. Though Pearson has sold off some of its K-12 operations in recent years, the company still holds large testing-related contracts with states such as Tennessee. Of significance for federal taxpayers today, Pearson owns PDRI, the company that operates USA Hire, which is the web portal that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget uses to receive and review applications for federal job postings. Some 40 federal agencies use USA Hire, and more than 500,000 applications are submitted to the site annually. Federal officials should be aware of Pearson’s repeated attempts to inject DEI and other discriminatory ideas throughout its portfolio of services, even as it attempts to hide its dealings when exposed. Lawmakers at the state and federal levels have introduced proposals to prohibit the use of taxpayer spending on DEI, and some of the proposals include prohibitions on using contractors that operate DEI programs. When he was a U.S. senator from Ohio, Vice President-elect JD Vance sponsored a federal proposal to do so and said he hopes to “root out DEI from our federal bureaucracy” and intends to “[strip] funding for DEI policies anywhere it exists.” The optional “chat” for Florida virtual school students connects to a web of gender-related advocacy and racial discrimination that reaches all the way to Washington. State and federal officials should unravel this network, rejecting both graphic sexual content in schools and the racial discrimination promoted by DEI ideology. The post Major Textbook Publisher Caught Spreading LGBTQ and DEI Ideology in Schools appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The winds of Washington are blowing icy cold for TikTok this December. A federal appeals court panel handed down a ruling today that could send the app packing— or at least force it into a kind of corporate divorce. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has today declared the law threatening TikTok’s existence to be totally constitutional, leaving the platform to fight for its digital life. In short, TikTok has until mid-January to break ties with its Beijing-based parent, ByteDance, or risk an outright ban in the United States. TikTok responded with the following statement: “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue. Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people. The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.” The Free Speech Shuffle TikTok played the First Amendment card, arguing that banning the platform would stomp on Americans’ free speech rights. But the court wasn’t having it, throwing in a little verbal aikido about protecting actual freedom. “The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” the court wrote, presumably while straightening its tie in a metaphorical mirror. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” Translation: TikTok, it’s not you — it’s China. TikTok has been accused of being influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. ByteDance’s Legal Tango TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, is already planning to appeal to the Supreme Court because apparently, they’re gluttons for punishment. And hey, why not? When you’re staring down a deadline that could nuke your entire US business, you either fight or fold. But here’s where it gets interesting: the same President-elect Donald Trump who once tried to fire TikTok like it was a contestant on The Apprentice now says he’s against a ban. Trump has promised to swoop in and “save” the platform during his second term. The law itself was signed by President Joe Biden in April, marking a rare bipartisan moment in a town otherwise allergic to cooperation. For years, Washington has been gnashing its teeth over TikTok’s ties to the Chinese government, accusing the app of being a national security threat disguised as a dance challenge factory. Of course, critics argue this is about power. TikTok’s cultural dominance has made it an unpredictable disruptor, threatening not only Big Tech’s grip on social media but also giving the average American teen more clout than your local senator. Government officials argue that the app’s voracious appetite for user data could lead to sensitive information, from browsing histories to biometric identifiers, being vacuumed up by the Chinese communist government. But the main issue? The proprietary algorithm, that magical machine-learning potion that keeps you scrolling at 2 a.m., is painted as a weapon of influence — a subtle but powerful propaganda tool ready to tweak your feed for Beijing’s benefit. Except, there’s a catch: a good chunk of the government’s evidence for these claims is locked behind classified curtains. TikTok’s attorneys — and by extension the American public — are left in the dark. More than 170 million Americans use TikTok. TikTok Fights Back TikTok has steadfastly denied being a Chinese Trojan horse, insisting that no evidence exists to prove they’ve ever handed over data to Beijing. As for the algorithm? TikTok says any suggestion of manipulation is pure speculation. Their legal team hammered home that the government’s arguments rely on what might happen in the future — a slippery foundation for ripping apart a platform that’s glued to the cultural zeitgeist. But the Department of Justice isn’t just playing futurist. It has hinted — vaguely and ominously — at unspecified past actions by TikTok and ByteDance in response to Chinese government demands. The key word here is “unspecified,” because whatever receipts the DOJ might have, they’re conveniently out of reach for TikTok’s lawyers, the media, or anyone else. A Courtroom Tango: First Amendment vs. National Security The appeals court panel, a politically mixed trio of judges, seemed as torn as the rest of us about how far Uncle Sam can stretch its First Amendment arguments to justify banning an app with foreign ties. Over two hours of oral arguments in September, the judges volleyed tough questions at both sides. Can the government really shut down a platform just because it’s foreign-owned? the judges asked, channeling TikTok’s core argument. On the flip side: What happens if this platform turns into a covert disinformation campaign during wartime? they wondered, invoking wartime-era laws restricting foreign ownership of broadcast licenses. Both sides twisted themselves into legal yoga poses. TikTok’s lawyer, Andrew Pincus, argued that a private company — even one with foreign owners — deserves constitutional protections. The DOJ’s Daniel Tenny countered that the government has a duty to head off potential foreign interference, even if the threat isn’t fully realized yet. $2 Billion in Data Defenses TikTok itself hasn’t just been sitting back while lawyers spar. The company claims it’s invested over $2 billion to fortify its US data, including setting up Project Texas — a heavily marketed initiative to store American user data on servers managed by Oracle. ByteDance has also floated the idea of a comprehensive draft agreement that it says could have eased Washington’s fears years ago. But according to TikTok, the Biden administration ghosted them, walking away from the negotiating table without offering a viable path forward. The DOJ insists the draft didn’t go far enough, but skeptics wonder if the government’s hardline stance is less about national security and more about flexing control over Big Tech. Divestment Drama Washington’s solution to the TikTok dilemma sounds deceptively simple: ByteDance should sell the US arm of TikTok. However attorneys for the company argue that such a divestment would be a logistical and commercial nightmare. And without TikTok’s algorithm—intellectual property that Beijing is unlikely to let go of—the app would lose its magic. Imagine TikTok without its eerily intuitive feed: it’d be MySpace 2.0, a ghost town for millennials waxing nostalgic. Still, some sharks smell blood in the water. Billionaire Frank McCourt and former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have rallied a consortium with over $20 billion in informal commitments to snap up TikTok’s US operations. A Perfect Storm of Lawsuits TikTok isn’t going down without a fight and it’s bringing allies to the battlefield. The company’s legal challenge has been bundled with lawsuits from several content creators, who argue that losing the platform would gut their livelihoods, and conservative influencers who claim a ban would silence their political speech. TikTok, ever the sugar daddy, is footing the legal bills for its creators — a savvy PR move if ever there was one. The Clock is Ticking If TikTok’s Hail Mary appeal to the Supreme Court fails, it’ll be up to President Trump’s Justice Department to enforce the ban. That means app stores would have to scrub TikTok from their offerings, and hosting services would be barred from supporting it. And what happens to the millions of creators, small businesses, and teenagers who’ve turned TikTok into a cultural juggernaut? Well, they’ll probably migrate to Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts—platforms that coincidentally happen to be owned by US tech giants who’ve been salivating at the thought of TikTok’s demise. This is far from over. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post TikTok on the Clock: US Appeals Court Hits the “Ban” Button appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

America's Top Proponent of Gender Affirming Care is Being Sued

While the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether to uphold state bans on the use of puberty blockers as well as hormone treatment for minors who think they might be transgender, the Washington Post is hyping both procedures, especially puberty blockers. This hype was provided by Casey Parks whose job description describes her as a "Social issues reporter covering gender and family." Or you can enjoy her leftist-celebrated book about her "queer lineage." The Parks pitch for puberty blockers appeared in the Post on Tuesday, "Puberty blockers, hormones: What to know about gender care for minors." That sounds like a fact sheet. But the biggest problem with the Parks pitch disguised as a newspaper story is how it absurdly overlooks the many, many medical concerns about using puberty blockers and hormone treatments. Oh, Parks does toss in this rather insignificant reservation, then goes on to ignore the major reservations presented by medical experts: Critics of transition care have noted that using these drugs to treat gender dysphoria is an “off label” use, meaning that the medications were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for another purpose. But researchers have noted that many drugs are used “off label” for pediatric patients, because medications are often only tested on adults while being developed. Yeah, the objection to puberty blockers is just a dispute over "off label" use which now allows Parks to skip the much larger medical objections provided by experts. Parks also brushes off the effect of puberty blockers on bone density by citing an associate professor of medicine Carl Streed who turns out not to be very reassuring at all: Using puberty blockers can reduce a patient’s bone mineral density, but Streed said research shows many patients do catch up, bone density wise, once they either resume puberty or start hormones. That’s not always the case, though, and doctors are continuing to study the drug’s effects, Streed said. “That’s something we’re still further characterizing, but this isn’t leading to people having brittle bones or bones that are breaking easily and so forth,” Streed said. “This is just us measuring what people’s bone density is and seeing that there’s a difference. I wouldn’t say it’s irreversible. I would say that’s just the known effect of the medications.” So Streed says it can reduce bone mineral density in a patient and he can't say for sure if its irreversible but, hey, shouldn't we all just roll the dice and gamble with our health that those promoting puberty blockers are right? In addition to causing a reduction in bone density there is also the problem of sterility. Parks provides this not very reassuring "assurance." Not in most cases. A patient’s outcomes will vary based on when they start puberty blockers, whether they take cross-sex hormones and how long they remain on the medication. And concludes with this rather frightening gem: Surgeries to remove a patient’s ovaries or testes do make a trans person infertile, though doctors encourage those patients to freeze their eggs or sperm first. Ouch! The overall problem with Parks' story is that it is the result of incredible misinformation due to not citing the many medical experts around the world who not only have deep reservations about the use of puberty blockers but are now actively warning against its use. It takes mental blockers to avoid seeing the many dangers of puberty blockers since a quick search on the web easily reveals this information such as the Google search for "puberty blockers Europe" which yields these easy to find results: England The National Health Service (NHS) stopped prescribing puberty blockers to children at gender identity clinics in March 2024. The decision was based on a lack of evidence that the drugs are safe and effective. Puberty blockers are now only available for children under 18 who are already taking them, or in clinical trials. Scotland In April 2024, Scotland's only gender clinic stopped prescribing puberty blockers to people under 18. The clinic also stopped prescribing other hormone treatments to new minor patients. Sweden In 2021, the Karolinska University Hospital stopped prescribing hormones to minors. The hospital cited a lack of evidence on the long-term consequences of the treatments. The National Board of Health and Welfare updated its guidelines to state that puberty blockers should only be used in exceptional cases. And in America's next door neighbor, Canada, a pioneer in the use of puberty blockers now regrets her role in it: Doctors in Canada have been prescribing puberty blockers to children with gender identity disorders since the early 2000s. Child psychiatrist Dr. Susan Bradley, now 82 and the founder of a controversial former gender identity clinic at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, said she regrets using the drugs. “I kept asking myself, ‘Is it possible that we are actually colluding rather than taking the pressure off and giving (children) a chance to think everything out,” Bradley said. “And it turns out that I think we were colluding, not consciously, but subconsciously,” said Bradley, a professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. So rather than being just a reporter, Casey Parks is an advocate for highly questionable medical procedures in the name of promoting the trans ideology. An advocacy that is so extreme as to cause her to completely ignore medical advice that does not adhere to her dangerous doctrines.

If a group of conservatives took to social media to dance on the grave of someone who was recently murdered, CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta would fiercely and unequivocally condemn them, and rightfully so. He certainly would not hype how “an entire discussion” had been raised in the aftermath of their murder, but that is exactly what he did on Friday after United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s recent murder. After a montage of social media clips of such grave dancing, Acosta welcomed correspondent Clare Duffy by claiming, “Those posts are part of a growing online trend of Americans expressing their personal struggles with UnitedHealthcare insurance following the CEO's death.”     Thompson didn’t just die; he was murdered. As it was, Acosta wondered, “Clare, a lot of outrage over denied insurance claims, and it's just sparked an entire discussion on social media. How big of a problem is this?” Duffy began, “Yes. Jim, look, I mean, obviously there is never a justification for this kind of violence. But I think what we're seeing in the social media reaction is this pent-up frustration and anger and distrust that so many Americans feel over the health insurance industry.” A proper pair of journalists would look at these people and first ask if they have no shame and second ask if they are aware that government-run “universal” healthcare systems deny treatment all the time. Instead, Duffy continued: And it is a big problem. I mean, look, we've spoke with healthcare experts who say this is a thing that often—these healthcare claim denials are a thing that often causes people anxiety and frustration. And it's a really common problem. More than half of Americans, 58 percent say that they have experienced some kind of problem with their health insurance over the past year, including denial of claims, preauthorization issues, those kinds of things. And of that 58 percent, 15 percent of those respondents say that it actually caused problems with their health anxiety or delays in the treatment that they received, and so this is an ongoing problem, but I think we're seeing that really bubble up to the surface in the wake of this news. Later Acosta welcomed “former health insurance industry executive turned whistleblower and the president for the Center for Health and Democracy” Wendell Potter and recalled: You testified in front of Congress in 2009, talked about how insurance companies were routinely canceling the coverage of policyholders who got sick. You and I got to know each other a little bit during that run-up to the passage of Obamacare. And I guess what goes through your mind when you hear some of these stories today in light of the fact that, I mean, the discussion during the passage of Obamacare, the signing of Obamacare, was that that legislation, the ACA, was supposed to fix a lot of these problems, apparently not. After hyping Obamacare brining "a lot of people into coverage," Potter added, “what we heard this morning, what we've been hearing over the past several days, is this pent up frustration.” Potter also claimed that “it's notable that this occurred in New York City. This tragic murder was just before Investor Day for this big company. And the point I'm making here is that shareholders and Wall Street financial analysts are the most important stakeholder for that company and others… the way that these companies satisfy those investors is by restricting access to care and that's why they're using A.I. to deny access and why we're seeing so many people now not getting the care that they need, not getting medically necessary care that they need in this.” Again, governments, who have no investors or profit motives, deny healthcare treatments on a regular basis, so if CNN really wants to have a conversation about claim denials in the aftermath of Thompson’s murder, they should have an actual conversation and not a left-wing, anti-capitalism talking points regurgitation session. Here is a transcript for the December 6 show: CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta 12/6/2024 10:06 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: Those posts are part of a growing online trend of Americans expressing their personal struggles with UnitedHealthcare insurance following the CEO's death. CNN's Clare Duffy joins me now. Clare, a lot of outrage over denied insurance claims, and it's just sparked an entire discussion on social media. How big of a problem is this? CLARE DUFFY: Yes. Jim, look, I mean, obviously there is never a justification for this kind of violence. But I think what we're seeing in the social media reaction is this pent-up frustration and anger and distrust that so many Americans feel over the health insurance industry. And it is a big problem. I mean, look, we've spoke with healthcare experts who say this is a thing that often — these healthcare claim denials are a thing that often causes people anxiety and frustration. And it's a really common problem. More than half of Americans, 58 percent say that they have experienced some kind of problem with their health insurance over the past year, including denial of claims, preauthorization issues, those kinds of things. And of that 58 percent, 15 percent of those respondents say that it actually caused problems with their health anxiety or delays in the treatment that they received, and so this is an ongoing problem, but I think we're seeing that really bubble up to the surface in the wake of this news. … ACOSTA: Joining me now is Wendell Potter, a former health insurance industry executive turned whistleblower and the president for the Center for Health and Democracy. Wendell, you testified in front of Congress in 2009, talked about how insurance companies were routinely canceling the coverage of policyholders who got sick. You and I got to know each other a little bit during that run-up to the passage of Obamacare. And I guess what goes through your mind when you hear some of these stories today in light of the fact that, I mean, the discussion during the passage of Obamacare, the signing of Obamacare, was that that legislation, the ACA, was supposed to fix a lot of these problems, apparently not. WENDELL POTTER: It was. And a big problem then, as you recall, was we had about 50 million Americans who didn't have health insurance. And this was, this did, that law did bring a lot of people into coverage. But what we're seeing now is that people who have coverage are not able to get the care that they need and that has become the big problem here. And what we heard this morning, what we've been hearing over the past several days, is this pent-up frustration. And it's notable that this occurred in New York City. This tragic murder was just before Investor Day for this big company. And the point I'm making here is that shareholders and Wall Street financial analysts are the most important stakeholder for that company and others. I used to plan sickness investor days. And the way that these companies satisfy those investors is by restricting access to care and that's why they're using A.I. to deny access and why we're seeing so many people now not getting the care that they need, not getting medically necessary care that they need in this. ACOSTA: And I remember, Wendell, you were exposing a lot of this at the time in the late 2000s, early 2010s, as a whistleblower in the industry.

A pair of males armed with guns entered a New Orleans convenience store Tuesday evening and demanded cash, a store employee told WWL-TV.One of them — 16-year-old Cecil Batiz — was seen on surveillance video pointing a gun with an extended magazine at a clerk working the cell phone counter at Sam's Meat Market and stuffing cash and other items in his pockets, the station said in a follow-up story.'That clerk was in an obviously high-stress situation and saw the perpetrator still moving with a gun, and it's hard to second-guess his decision to use deadly force yet again.'The other suspect, 18-year-old Teony Juarez, was wearing a black ski mask, WWL said.As the suspects exited the store, the clerk at the phone counter pulled out a gun and opened fire, the station said. Batiz was struck in the abdomen, after which he collapsed, WWL reported.Surveillance video also shows the clerk move out of camera range and return seconds later, shooting Batiz two more times as he moved on the store's floor, the station said. Batiz later died at a hospital, WWL reported.The station, citing the initial police report, said Juarez returned fire and was struck in the right forearm as he ran from the store. WWL said an unknown woman drove Juarez to a hospital and departed as he entered. Juarez was treated for a gunshot wound, and police arrested him, the station said.Juarez faces charges including armed robbery, aggravated battery, and illegal use of a weapon, WWL said, adding that his bond was set at $170,000.The station said the clerk so far has not been charged.Loyola Law Professor Dane Ciolino told WWL he doubts a charge against the clerk will come to pass: "That clerk was in an obviously high-stress situation and saw the perpetrator still moving with a gun, and it's hard to second-guess his decision to use deadly force yet again."Ciolino added to the station that in Louisiana, unlike other jurisdictions, Juarez can't be held accountable for Batiz's death: "He can't be charged with a homicide crime because this killing was done by the victim rather than by a co-felon." You can view a video report here that shows surveillance video of the armed robbery and shooting.What did the district attorney have to say?WWL said Orleans Parish District Attorney Jason Williams declined to discuss specifics about the case — but he did tell WWL Radio that "once somebody puts a gun in your face, the rules change."Williams added that "it's painfully obvious to anyone who saw that video what those two people were doing in that store, and that shop owner did not ask for that exchange," the station noted.As readers of Blaze News may recall, George Soros gave $220,000 to a Williams PAC, leading to his successful election in December 2020 on a criminal justice reform platform. But in October 2023, a pair of armed suspects carjacked Williams, and the Democrat's 78-year-old mother was in the black Lincoln Navigator at the time of the crime. The crooks stole some of his mother’s belongings, including her wallet and phone.A month after the carjacking, Williams told WWL-TV he changed his thinking about crime and punishment, with the station saying he's "even reversed his positions on some of his strongest campaign promises." Williams recused himself from working on the carjacking case.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!