From the Jersey Shore comes the story of a parasail operator rescuing a kayaker and her dogs as fast as the wind which capsized them was blowing across the water. It was Thursday evening in Sea Isle City and Brennan Bollard wasn’t working. A storm was forecasted and at around 7:00 p.m. it hit the […] The post Parasail Operator Turns Rescuer After Storm Hits the Jersey Shore appeared first on Good News Network.

In South America, the nation of Guyana is under threat. Just next door, its socialist, autocratic neighbor Venezuela is actively attempting to lay the foundation for a guerrilla war over the region of Essequibo. Essequibo makes up about 160,000 square kilometers of Guyanese territory, about two-thirds of the country’s total landmass, and is home to vast reserves of natural resources like gold, diamonds, bauxite, and, most notably, oil. Thanks to strategic cooperation with American companies like ExxonMobil, Guyana has been able to tap into these vast natural resources, making it the fastest-growing economy in the Western Hemisphere. But this rapid development has not gone unnoticed.Venezuela has long claimed the Essequibo region as part of its national territory, rejecting the legitimacy of the 1899 Arbitral Award, which first settled Guyanese-Venezuelan borders in the eyes of international law. Having failed to stop Guyana from enshrining its claim’s legitimacy in the eyes of international courts, and still eyeing Essequibo’s newly developed oil wealth, Nicolas Maduro’s regime has increasingly turned to threats of military force against Guyana. Recently, this aggression has intermittently boiled over, with incidents ranging from the use of state-backed criminal gangs to assault Guyanese troops to the sending of a Venezuelan warship to demand information from an ExxonMobil oil facility in Guyana’s exclusive economic zone. At the same time, Venezuela has been building up its military forces along the shared border.These incidents signal that Maduro—needing to drive up domestic support to counteract his own destruction of Venezuela’s economy—increasingly seeks to dominate Venezuela’s neighbor. Venezuela has the military capacity to do just that. And to build up its military capabilities even further, it’s recently looked overseas to China, Russia, and Iran. For the last five years, it’s relied on China and Russia for arms, using them to modernize and expand its military forces via access to an arsenal of weapons from small arms to surface-to-air missiles to anti-drone devices.Beyond this, Venezuela remains one of the most militarized states in Latin America, maintaining a relatively large and competent force. It has access to an extremely mobile force equipped for the kind of jungle warfare that would be encountered in an invasion of Guyana, including extensive forces of rangers, jungle battalions, and an array of aircraft and patrol boats. In the face of this much larger potential adversary, the current Guyanese Defense Force would likely fare poorly in a conventional conflict. While Guyana has developed close cooperation with regional partners like the U.S., Brazil, and France, it currently lacks the capability to stop Venezuelan aggression for long enough to allow its allies to mobilize.Guyana has made some steps in the right direction, with a 2025 defense budget that marks an almost 121 percent increase from only two years prior. Unfortunately, though, its current approach—an attempt to build up conventional forces—will manifest slowly and at significant cost, and Venezuela may be tempted to act long before these investments pay off.But there’s a better solution. To capitalize on its increased defense spending and successfully deter Venezuelan aggression, Guyana should focus on developing cheap, asymmetrical warfare capabilities in the short term and on expanding its conventional ground forces in the long term.On the ground, the Guyanese Defense Force should prioritize developing its antiair and anti-tank capabilities. All of Guyana’s principal security partners—the U.S., Brazil, and France—have developed extremely robust and time-tested weapons in this field. And Venezuela maintains a largely mechanized force with supporting aircraft—making these systems essential for Guyana’s defense. On the sea, the Guyanese Defense Force should prioritize developing a larger force of multipurpose patrol boats like the Mark VI, capable of switching between riverine and littoral waters. In the air, Guyana should develop its drone capabilities. Unmanned aerial vehicles serve a dual purpose; they offer a way to enhance Guyanese surveillance over Essequibo while also developing Guyanese strike capabilities without the expense of maintaining a large manned air force.By focusing on these shorter-term affordable, adaptable, and asymmetrical warfare capabilities across land, sea, and air, Guyana can maximize its defense budget and complicate Venezuelan operational planning, thereby enhancing deterrence. At the same time, Guyana can build out its conventional forces as part of its long-term deterrence against Venezuelan aggression. The post How Guyana Can Deter Its Socialist Neighbor appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The decisions of the Supreme Court reverberate throughout the nation, defining the limits of government power and often directing our culture. The 2024-2025 term of the Supreme Court is now coming to a close, bringing with it a wide range of cases. I spoke with Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, on the latest episode of “Heritage Explains.” He is the host of the weekly Heritage legal podcast, “Case in Point,” which discusses important cases in the news affecting politics, culture, and everyone’s daily lives. Listen to the full episode or read a lightly edited transcript below. Mark Guiney: We want to talk about some of the highlights that have happened this past year, especially vis-à-vis the Trump administration. Hans von Spakovsky: Let me devise into two areas. One is the substantive decisions that have come down and we’ve had some pretty good decisions. In one case out of Ohio, a woman sued the state of Ohio. She was a state employee saying, “I was discriminated against because I’m not gay.” It’s kind of reverse discrimination. The lower courts imposed a higher standard of proof on her than if she’d been gay, basically saying, “Well, because you’re a heterosexual and therefore you’re part of the majority, you’ve got a higher standard of proof.” The Supreme Court unanimously said, “No, the same standard of proof applies in any kind of discrimination case like that.” It was a very good, very fair decision and an easy decision because of the way the statute’s written.  Another great case for the Second Amendment, and frankly gun owners across the country, is the fact that the government of Mexico sued what I call the seven sisters, the seven major gun companies in America. In essence, Mexico sued saying, “You’re responsible for all the criminal violence in Mexico.”  The Supreme Court came back again unanimously and said, “No, there’s a federal statute that bars that kind of liability. You cannot sue.” This was actually a great example of the Mexican government trying to blame somebody else for the fact that it can’t do anything about the cartel violence down there. Another terrific win was a case involving Catholic Charities. The state of Wisconsin refused to give them a tax exemption that goes to church organizations because basically they said, “You’re not churchy enough in your charitable work. For example, when you’re helping poor people, you don’t proselytize, you don’t try to convert them. Obviously, the state doesn’t understand Catholicism since it’s part of the creed, part of the beliefs that you should help people regardless of who they are and what their potential religious beliefs are. Again, the Supreme Court came in and said, “You can’t do that. The state cannot make that kind of a judgment on a church or religious organization.” Not quite as important, but something that’ll make people feel good is they ruled in favor of a family whose house was mistakenly destroyed by an FBI SWAT raid that went wrong. They went to the wrong place, and the federal government refused to pay for it, saying, “Oh, we’re immune, you can’t make us pay it.” The Supreme Court came back and said, “No, this fits with one of the exceptions to what’s called the Federal Tort Claims Act. And yes, you can sue the government for the damages they caused to your home.” Given how often in this country people are now experiencing this kind of thing because cranks or people who don’t like them politically will call and the police will show up mistakenly because of that, that’s actually a good thing. Of course, we also got a really important decision, U.S. v. Skrmetti. That was out of Tennessee. Tennessee passed, frankly, a law to protect kids and it was followed by about two dozen other states saying, “You can’t engage in, basically, surgical mutilation and abusive drug treatments to try to make someone look like a different gender.” The American Civil Liberties Union sued and again, the Supreme Court said, “No, that that’s within the protective authority of a state to protect minors under something like that.” … I interviewed Tennessee’s solicitor general, Matt Rice, about it. That was his first argument for the U.S. Supreme Court, and he won. The other thing that’s been really more active than usual is what they call the emergency docket. The emergency docket is when the Supreme Court isn’t making substantive decisions the way it did in these cases. They have gotten a lot of emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration because of these nationwide injunctions that have been issued all over the country.   In fact, just this past Monday, the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay of an injunction that had been issued by a judge in Massachusetts. Folks will recall that the Trump administration detained and removed a whole passel of illegal alien criminals—child rapists, murderers, etc. and took them to Sudan even though they’re not originally from Sudan. This judge said, “Oh, you can’t do that” and issued an injunction. The Supreme Court just issued a decision staying that injunction, which means basically suspending it. [That] means that the Trump administration can restart deporting aliens to third countries, in other words, not the country that is the native country of that alien. Those are the kind of emergency appeals that we’ve been getting, and the Trump administration has been pretty good at winning those. Guiney: What is the state overall of a lot of these injunctions? Do you expect that we’ll continue to see the Supreme Court challenge them? Do you think it’s going to be a mixed bag? What’s the state of play there? von Spakovsky: We have a bunch of important decisions that we’re still waiting on, including a case involving pornography out of Texas, a case involving a school board in Maryland where they refuse to let parents opt their kids out of gender propaganda and DEI education. One of the other cases we’re waiting for that’s important to this is a case on birthright citizenship. Now the substantive issue is not before the court. The court is not going to decide whether or not President Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment is correct or not. What’s up before the court again is part of this emergency docket. The Department of Justice filed an emergency appeal asking the court to stay or suspend three nationwide injunctions that have been issued by three different judges in three different courts. That’s what the fight is about. Frankly, what a lot of people are hoping, including me, is that when the Supreme Court issues its decision in that case, it will issue very strict rules on nationwide injunctions—not just in this case, but in general—that will hopefully restrict judges from issuing these all over the country. Guiney: Based on what you’ve seen this term, is this a divided or partisan or compromised Supreme Court? von Spakovsky: Just a week or so ago, we had one unanimous decision after another, and even in the cases that weren’t unanimous, we had some strange combinations of a liberal and generally conservative justice, for example, dissenting. The places you see the divide are in the cases over immigration and over what are considered social issues, like the Skrmetti case … [and] stopping that injunction against the removal of criminal aliens. In a lot of the other cases, you don’t get that kind of a split. I think that says a lot about the court and anybody who thinks it always divides up between the liberal justices on the court and those who are generally considered conservative, obviously haven’t looked at the record of the court. Guiney: Is there anything that you might expect to see coming down the pike? von Spakovsky: Well, back to the emergency dockets, we’ve had one immigration case after another. We’ve had one case after another involving what the president has been doing in trying to lay off federal employee, what DOGE has been doing. Many of those have gone to the Supreme Court, but only on the emergency basis where the Trump administration is asking for a stay of a nationwide injunction issued by a lower court judge. Those cases are going to work their way through the courts and finally get up back to the Supreme Court on the substantive issues. Did the president, for example, have the power to lay off lots of employees in particular departments? I expect those cases probably will work their way through the summer—while the Supreme Court is off—at the lower courts, the district courts, courts of appeal, and they will start arriving at the court when the new term starts, which is October of this year. Also, the other case that’s sure to be back is birthright citizenship, but this time, not just on the nationwide injunctions, but on the substantive question of, “How do you interpret the 14th Amendment on that?” The post How Did the Supreme Court Do This Year? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Can Eric Adams Save New York City?

Even with a human “language gene,” mice remain far from composing Shakespeare.

Bear Grylls? No, bear grills.

Forget cats and dogs (or men), it’s raining spiders!

Ten years ago, a great injustice was done to children. In Obergefell vs. Hodges, the Supreme Court equated two things that for children will never be equal: Same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. One pairing unites children with two people to whom they have a natural right. The other separates children from one — or both.Gay marriage hasn’t led to greater love for LGBTQ adults but rather harm to children. As many of us predicted, gay marriage eroded children’s right to their mother and father. It turns out, when you make husbands and wives legally optional in marriage, mothers and fathers become legally optional in parenthood.Family redefined, kids sidelinedSince 2015, activists have been arguing state by state that equality requires making parenthood gender-neutral and elevating “social parents” (unrelated adults in the home who have not undergone background checks). Fathers have been legally erased from birth certificates to accommodate “two moms” and vice versa. Activists have insisted on requiring insurance or the government to fund the creation of fatherless and motherless children. Biology and adoption are bypassed in favor of “intent-based” parenthood. Giving same-sex couples equal access to the marital “constellation of benefits” denied children equal access to their own mother and father.Politicians have followed suit.RELATED: Rainbow rebellion: How Christians can take back what Pride Month stoleWhen was the last time you heard a lawmaker say that children need a mom and dad? Odds are, it's been about 10 years. In 2013-14, the phrase “every child deserves a mother and father” appeared in over 30 congressional speeches. By 2023-24, it surfaced fewer than five times. The message is clear: Redefining marriage redefined the family. Dissent is now discrimination.Culture followed the courtBut it isn't just law and politics. The Supreme Court's decision had a massive impact on culture, especially on kids.The education establishment went all in on the Court-appointed family makeover. Before 2015, the National Education Association still referred to “mothers” and “fathers” in lesson plans and holiday activities. But after the ruling, it began purging traditional language. Its 2020 “Checklist to Support LGBTQ Students” advised teachers to replace “mom and dad” with “family” or “caring adult.” GLSEN’s 2016 re-release of Ready, Set, Respect! toolkit conditioned kindergartners and first- and second-graders to believe that a mom and dad, two moms, two dads, or no mom or dad, all are perfectly normal. What the Court de-gendered in law, teachers now de-gender in the classroom. Publishers followed the court’s lead — and the money.In 2021, Americans bought nearly five million LGBTQ-themed fiction books. By 2023, that figure had topped six million, a 173% increase since 2019. Many aimed to normalize motherless and fatherless families to children such as "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "My Two Dads and Me."We lied to children, using school curriculum and sweet librarians, about the one thing every child longs for instinctually — to be loved by their mother and father.The culture shift and the legal restructuring contributed to a booming fertility market. Surrogate pregnancies more than doubled from 2.2% in 2011 to 4.7% in 2020. Fertility clinics often direct gay couples to surrogacy grants in the name of “equitable access to parenthood.” These children did not lose their mothers to tragedy. They lost their mothers to adult “equality.” Enough is enoughMany good-hearted Americans, even conservatives, supported gay marriage because they felt it was a way to love their LGBTQ neighbors. Some stammered for a response to the question: “How will my gay marriage harm anyone else?!” Others were bullied into silence by accusations that they were “on the wrong side of history.” After 10 years, we have seen the results. Gay marriage hasn’t led to greater love for LGBTQ adults but rather harm to children. The truth is, their “marriage” redefined all families, and children across the nation are paying the price. That so-called “right side of history” has turned out to be the side of child victimization.RELATED: Is same-sex marriage about to get the Dobbs treatment?About 50 years ago, the Supreme Court made a devastating decision that victimized children. It denied the biological reality that children in the womb are fully human and worthy of life. It took nearly 50 years to overturn the child-victimizing Roe v. Wade.Ten years ago, the Supreme Court made another devastating decision that victimized children. It denied the biological reality that children come from a man and woman and have a right to that man and woman. It redefined the institution that every society throughout history has employed to unite children to that man and woman. We can't wait another 50 years to undo this injustice. A coalition of child defenders is rising — Christians, conservatives, parents, pro-family leaders, ordinary moms and dads, and the children of LGBT parents themselves. We are committed to reclaiming the institution of marriage on behalf of the most vulnerable in the country: children.

Make It STOP: Don Lemon and Harry Sisson's New 'Strut' Video Makes Us Want to Not Have Eyes

LA Times Reporter Under Fire for Video Coaching Moms on How to Protect Illegal Immigrant Nannies From ICE