Israel's Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that ultra-Orthodox Jewish seminary students must be drafted to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). 

A 71-year-old woman has made history by being the oldest person to compete in the Miss Texas U.S.A. pageant. 

Donald Trump’s attorneys asked Judge Merchan to lift the unconstitutional gag order, but Matthew Colangelo, the FBI bigwig who took a stunning demotion to run Donald Trump’s trial, asked to keep the gag order in place to protect the trial. The trial is over, but not for Colangelo. CNN reported that Merchan partially lifted the gag […] The post Parts of DJT Gag Order Lifted, Merchan’s a Threat to Democracy appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Maybe you’ve heard the saying, “The purpose of a system is what it does.” It’s a phrase that was coined by a professor named Stafford Beer as a way of helping people understand complex systems. It was originally about cybernetics, but it’s increasingly being used in the context of American politics. That’s because you’ll often hear convoluted explanations to justify various policies, when all you really have to do is look at the end result that those policies are producing. The benefit of Beer’s approach is that, at the risk of maybe oversimplifying some things, it short-circuits all the rationalization and B.S. that we’re all used to hearing. And if there’s one skill that the politicians and academics have perfected — whether they’re talking about immigration or criminal justice reform or anything else — it’s drowning us in doublespeak so that we don’t look at the obviously evil and destructive results of their policies. Sometimes things really aren’t that complicated. Sometimes you don’t need experts and studies to decide on a course of action. That’s especially true in the case of so-called “transgender medical care” for children, which really means injecting children with sterilizing cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers that can cause early-onset osteoporosis. In some cases, it also means amputating body parts from children — so-called “top surgery” for minors is legal in many states, and used to be legal in many more. No other civilization throughout human history has done anything like this, and for good reason. There’s no need to analyze the “intent” of people who promote a practice like this. The purpose of a system is what it does. The end result of their policy is that children are being mutilated. No further discussion is necessary. Of course, this isn’t how our courts work. They generally take their time when it comes to ruling on major policy issues — if they ever decide to weigh in all. But eventually, on the most important issues, things come to a head. The various appellate courts disagree, creating a “circuit split,” and ultimately the Supreme Court feels compelled to step in. That’s happening now in the area of so-called “trans medicine.” And it brings us to what could very well be the most significant Supreme Court case since Dobbs. This could be a long overdue decision — and it’s worth a close look, especially since the ruling could come down in a matter of months. WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show We learned that this decision was coming just yesterday, when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Biden administration’s appeal of a Sixth Circuit ruling from late last year. That Sixth Circuit ruling, which I covered at the time, upheld Tennessee’s ban on the mutilation of minors in the name of “gender affirming care.” It was a devastating ruling for the trans agenda. And now the Biden DOJ’s appeal of that ruling is going to the Supreme Court. Watch:   It’s not overstating things to say that, when this case is decided, it’ll be one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions of all time. It will have ramifications for children all over the country. The question in the case is whether voters have the legal ability to prevent the sterilization and chemical castration of children, or whether bans on so-called “gender affirming care” violate the U.S. Constitution. The Biden DOJ’s argument, which is outlined in their appeal to the Supreme Court, comes down to a few main points. The first claim from the Biden administration is that trans-identifying individuals constitute a protected class of people. This means that any law affecting trans-identifying individuals must be subjected to “heightened scrutiny” by the courts, essentially meaning that the courts won’t defer to the voters’ judgment. If the Supreme Court buys this argument, it would mean creating a new “protected class” for the first time in more than four decades. Laws regulating so-called “trans healthcare” would face similar scrutiny to laws that affect people based on immutable characteristics like their skin color. Obviously, this would reshape the law to create a vast new layer of protection for trans-identifying individuals, and it would make future bans on child mutilation much more difficult to pass. In order to make this argument, the Biden DOJ has to demonstrate that, “transgender persons share obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group.” This is a necessary bar to clear before a court will make transgenderism a protected characteristic, as the Biden administration admits in their appeal to the Supreme Court. And in their petition to the Supreme Court, the Biden administration acts like it’s obvious that “transgender persons” share “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics.” Right away, this is laughable. There is maybe no single characteristic that is less “immutable” than transgender identity. Trans activists claim, as a core plank of their ideology, that people can change their gender at will. They can become men, or women, or nonbinary — or anything in between — at any time. That’s the whole idea that underlies the ideology. And that is the exact opposite of an “immutable” characteristic. They are the ones who say that gender is fluid. How in the hell can a thing be fluid and immutable at the same time? It’s like saying that a man being a bachelor does not preclude him from also being married. It’s a self-contradiction. The very definition of nonsense. Along the same lines, trans activists claim that someone can be transgender without changing their appearance in any way. Basically, if you think you’re a woman, you’re a woman. So there’s no argument to be made that transgender status is inherently an immutable or obvious or distinguishing characteristic. The opposite is true, clearly. And the trans activists themselves will say that — except when they’re petitioning the Supreme Court. At the Sixth Circuit, this argument was rejected by the majority. The Sixth Circuit found that, “the stores of de-transitioners indicate” that trans identity is not “immutable.” And that seems like a pretty obvious conclusion to make. But the Biden administration is now disputing that. In general, we must say, self-perception is not immutable. It is in fact the most mutable thing in the world. Immutable means “unchanging over time, or unable to be changed.” A person’s self-perception, whether or not it corresponds with reality, changes constantly. Self-perception changes in small ways every day, from moment to moment sometimes. Transgenderism is a matter of self-perception. The phrase “I identify as,” is a phrase that indicates self-perception. The Biden Administration is claiming that — self-perception — is immutable,  As part of the same argument, the Biden DOJ is also claiming that trans-identifying individuals are a protected class because they “lack political power.” The DOJ writes that, “The recent wave of legislation targeting transgender individuals decisively refutes any suggestion that they have no need for the protection of the courts.” In other words, because people all over the country are voting overwhelmingly to ban these life altering procedures from being performed on children, we’re supposed to conclude that “transgender individuals” lack political power in this country. But that’s a hard case to make, as the Sixth Circuit pointed out, because pretty much every single power center in the United States — from the media to the government — is aligned with trans ideology. From the Sixth Circuit’s opinion:  The President of the United States and the Department of Justice support the plaintiffs. A national anti-discrimination law, Title VII, protects transgender individuals in the employment setting. Fourteen States have passed laws specifically allowing some of the treatments sought here. Twenty States have joined an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. The major medical organizations support the plaintiffs. And the only large law firms to make an appearance in the case all entered the controversy in support of the plaintiffs. These are not the hallmarks of a skewed or unfair political process. In that one paragraph, the Sixth Circuit rejected an argument we hear constantly from trans activists, which is that everyone’s out to get them. Sure, they have about a million days on the calendar to celebrate themselves. And the entire federal government and Fortune 500 goes out of its way to promote their agenda at every opportunity, along with Big Pharma and the education system. But they always claim to be oppressed, and now the Biden administration is trying to make that claim at the Supreme Court. With this case, the Supreme Court has a chance to end this line of argument once and for all. Maybe just as importantly, the Court could also reject the argument that bans on so-called “gender affirming care” violate the 14th Amendment. The basic idea, which the Biden DOJ is advancing in its appeal to the Supreme Court, is that Tennessee’s ban discriminates against people on the basis of their sex within the meaning of the 14th amendment. But that’s also not true, as the Sixth Circuit pointed out. The Tennessee ban doesn’t prevent people from receiving sterilizing hormones or castration on the basis of their sex. Instead, the ban prohibits people from receiving hormones or puberty blockers because of their age — and also because the long-term effects of these procedures is unknown. (Puberty blockers, the court pointed out, are administered in much the same way for both boys and girls, so the sex discrimination claim makes even less sense there). But it’s the point about the unknown long-term effects of these procedures that’s maybe the most important. And since this litigation began, that last point has only been further underscored. Of course, there was the release of the internal WPATH files, which demonstrated that the so-called “experts” in this field are unethical and incompetent by their own admission. They openly talked about how children can’t possibly consent to these procedures, even as they acknowledged that in some cases children were apparently being harmed by them. Then there was the comprehensive Cass Review in the UK, which found that there’s “no good evidence” justifying any common “interventions” concerning gender identity. And then there was this declaration from the American College of Pediatricians. Watch:   So when the Biden administration told the Supreme Court that, “All of the Nation’s major medical and mental health organizations recognize [the WPATH] guidelines as reflecting the consensus of the medical communities on the appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria” — they’re lying. That’s simply not true. Major medical associations here and abroad — people who have looked at the data — disagree that it’s a good idea to “affirm” children by permanently sterilizing them and cutting up their bodies. Of course, again, it really doesn’t matter what medical organizations say on this point. Medical organizations can be wrong. But just as a factual matter, the Biden DOJ is lying to the Supreme Court. The truth is that these supposedly sacrosanct “WPATH standards” aren’t just fraudulent, as the WPATH files reveal. They’re also the result of political pressure. Late last night, the journalist Jesse Singal reported on his Substack that, When the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s Standards of Care Version 8 was released in September 2022, a very strange thing happened: WPATH removed references to minimum age requirements for various medical interventions. … Thanks to a rather remarkable document just unsealed as part of Boe v. Marshall, one of the many American lawsuits over youth gender medicine, we now have a potential explanation for why the age guidelines were removed: direct pressure from assistant secretary for health of the Department of Health and Human Services Admiral Rachel Levine … and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Singal reports that a Canadian researcher wrote, Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine strongly pressured WPATH leadership to rush the development and issuance of SOC-8 [standards of care 8], in order to assist with Administration political strategy. Of course, “Rachel Levine” identifies as a transgender woman. So if this reporting is accurate, as it appears to be, it’s yet more evidence that the alleged “standards of care” are really political documents written by activists. Of course, despite all of this, it’s true that many “major” medical organizations are still promoting this. They’re completely ignoring the findings of the Cass Report, the revelations in the WPATH files, the statement from the American College of Pediatricians, and their own common sense. In this country, however, we’re not slaves to what a handful of medical organizations tell us to think — especially when they have a vested interest in “medicalizing” every social problem. People are allowed to come to their own conclusions about the wisdom of disfiguring the bodies of children. And doing so is not “sex discrimination,” by any definition. It’s a moral obligation. By agreeing to hear the Biden administration’s appeal, the Supreme Court now has the opportunity to deal a fatal blow to those who wish to mutilate and indoctrinate even more minors. In fact, the Supreme Court should find that not only are the bans on these procedures constitutional, but the procedures themselves are unconstitutional. It is a violation of a child’s basic human rights to inflict these “treatments” on him. The Supreme Court could and should come to a decision that results in a nationwide ban on “gender affirming care” for minors. I don’t expect that to happen, as much as I’d love it if it did. But even if they come back with a more limited decision, this is still a decisive moment in the fight to protect children. It’s also yet another reminder that elections matter. Joe Biden publicly claimed that 8-year-olds can change their gender a little under four years ago, just prior to taking office. And once he took office, his administration made the same argument in court, as well as through the HHS. This has been a very long battle. Now, several years later, thanks to the state of Tennessee and everyone else who’s fought on the side of sanity and the side of children, there’s a very real chance of a final and total victory.

Former President Donald Trump offered insights into his view on the dealmaking that led to CNN hosting his first debate against President Joe Biden of the 2024 election cycle. The Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported a conversation in which Trump called anchor Jake Tapper, who has been announced as one of the debate moderators, “Fake Tapper.” York noted how “Trump said it was the result of what he believes was failed gamesmanship on the part of the Biden campaign” when asked how the debate came together. “What they did, I’m pretty sure, is that they approached me with a debate that I couldn’t take,” Trump said. The former president noted how Tapper and his fellow anchor, Dana Bash, were selected as moderators. Trump went on to list other rules that CNN has announced for the debate on Thursday evening. “No audience, sitting down, originally sitting down, a dead debate, turn off the mics when you’re not speaking so I can’t interrupt him,” he said. “They knew I wouldn’t accept that because it was CNN, Dana Bash, Jake Tapper, and I like an audience and probably he doesn’t, who knows?” Trump continued. He added, “They thought they would present it, I would say no, and they would say we can’t debate because Trump said no. So I said yes before they even gave me the terms. So he got roped into it.” York point out Democrats “would interpret things differently” than how Trump described them. “After all, Biden took the lead in the debate maneuver and Trump had to react,” he observed. “But there also appears to be little doubt that Biden, who trailed Trump in both national and key state polls, felt a need to shake up the race, and to do it sooner rather than later,” York wrote. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “Thus, the June 27 debate will be the earliest general election faceoff ever,” he went on. Another debate between Biden and Trump — this one hosted by ABC News — is planned for September 10. CNN anchor Kasie Hunt shut down a debate preview on Monday after Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt kept bringing up how the moderators had criticized her boss in the past. The cable network released a statement afterwards, describing Tapper and Bash as “well respected veteran journalists” with experience in covering politics and moderating debates. CNN added, “There are no two people better equipped to co-moderate a substantial and fact-based discussion and we look forward to the debate on June 27 in Atlanta.”

Alec Baldwin’s attorneys went back to court to get the “Rust” involuntary manslaughter case against the actor dismissed due to claims of destruction of the gun in the 2021 shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. During a virtual court hearing on Monday, attorneys for the 66-year-old actor argued that when the FBI took a mallet to Baldwin’s Colt .45 revolver during testing of the gun, it destroyed the defense’s case that the gun could have fired due to mechanical issues, CBS News reported. Baldwin’s attorney John Bash said the government “understood that this was potentially exculpatory evidence and they destroyed it anyway. It’s outrageous and it requires dismissal.” “This is among the most egregious constellation of facts I’ve ever seen,” he added, Variety noted. “They knew it would be destroyed, and they did nothing to preserve the evidence for the defendant.” Alec Baldwin attorneys claim FBI damaged revolver, seek to dismiss ‘Rust’ charges https://t.co/gODKiI1KUp — News 4 San Antonio (@News4SA) June 25, 2024 Prosecutors responded that the gun being damaged was “unfortunate” and argued that the defense can still make its case using other evidence that’s available, adding that the gun was not destroyed, just broken into three pieces. “The parts are still available,” special prosecutor Erlinda Johnson said. “The fact that this gun was unfortunately damaged does not deprive the defendant of ability to question the evidence.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “A review of the evidence in this case leads one to conclude that the exculpatory value of this firearm, in the condition it was in on Oct. 21, 2021, is extremely low,” she added, noting in an interview on that day with investigators from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “Baldwin himself told OSHA investigators that the gun had no mechanical defects” and said he had already been using it for some time. “The only problem was that it was … there was a live bullet in the gun. Those were his words,” the prosecutor added. “That could not put law enforcement on notice that this gun had, if you believe their theory, some potential mechanical defects when he was interviewed by law enforcement on Oct. 21, 2021.” New Mexico Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said she would make a ruling on the motion to dismiss on Friday and said, “Do not think that that means stop working for trial.” Baldwin currently awaits trial after being charged with involuntary manslaughter in Hutchins’ death and pleading not guilty to the charge, as previously reported. In October 2021, the “30 Rock” star was involved in the shooting of Hutchins on the New Mexico film set. The firearm Baldwin was holding discharged a bullet. Baldwin has repeatedly maintained that there was “no trigger pull.” In April, the film’s weapons supervisor, 26-year-old Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, was sentenced to 18 months in prison after she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of Hutchins. Baldwin’s trial is set to start July 10, Variety noted. If convicted, the “30 Rock” star faces up to 18 months in prison.

Ousted Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) weighed in on the tough primary opponent — George Latimer — facing Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and suggested the writing was already on the wall. Referencing Bowman’s now-infamous fire alarm stunt — which he claimed was simply a failure on his part to differentiate between an exit door and a fire alarm — Cuomo said that the Squad-aligned progressive was going to get “smoked” in his Tuesday primary. “Jamaal Bowman should pull the fire alarm again because he is going to be smoked by @LatimerforNY today. The message is clear: anti-semitism in any and all forms will not be tolerated in New York. And you can’t call yourself a progressive without making progress. Vote!” Jamaal Bowman should pull the fire alarm again because he is going to be smoked by @LatimerforNY today. The message is clear: anti-semitism in any and all forms will not be tolerated in New York. And you can’t call yourself a progressive without making progress. Vote! ?️ — Andrew Cuomo (@andrewcuomo) June 25, 2024 Cuomo’s comment about anti-Semitism was a reference to Bowman’s alignment with the far-Left progressive “Squad” and their insistence on siding with anti-Israel protesters in the wake of the October 7 Hamas terror attacks on Israel. Bowman has repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP The New York congressman’s relationship with the Jewish community in his own district has been fraught as well. According to a recent report, Bowman allegedly texted a Jewish leader in his district and asked for a photo of them together, explaining that he wanted to “show the world I’m friends with Jewish people.” The Jewish leader, reportedly made uncomfortable by the request, opted not to send the photo: “I was uncomfortable. I kind of joked around with him about it. I said, ‘Oh, I’m sure you guys have it. Don’t worry about it.’ I was like, ‘I don’t want to be his court Jew.’ That wasn’t what I signed up for.”

In the 2024 presidential election, third-party and independent candidates are facing significant hurdles in their quest for ballot access. Candidates such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West have decided to create their own political parties to ease the stringent requirements for getting on the ballot in various states. Kennedy, running under the "We the People" party, and West, initially planning to run with the Green Party before forming the "Justice for All" party, are leveraging the legal advantages that minor-party candidates have over independents. For example, in states like North Carolina, minor parties need only around 13,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot, whereas independents require over 83,000​. The scam “debates” are finally getting some much needed attention from people just figuring out issues that 3rd Party/Independents have with debate access because of RFK Jr not being invited to debate. How could someone polling so high not be included? How could someone on the… pic.twitter.com/xKJyhILTWu — Being Libertarian (@beinlibertarian) May 16, 2024 This strategic move comes as polling indicates an unprecedented appetite for third-party candidates, driven by widespread dissatisfaction with the major parties' frontrunners, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. Despite the enthusiasm, experts like political scholar Tamas emphasize that these candidates need a galvanizing issue to sustain their momentum and avoid fading by November​​. While the Greens and Libertarians remain focused on their traditional platforms, new entrants like Kennedy and West are attempting to capture the moderate and progressive vote respectively. Interesting perspective. Time to cut bait and join Kennedy. Your 3% could make a 3rd party win the Electoral College.Be a GameChangeror not. Kennedy Shanahan Winning https://t.co/jCWOHQkbLI — Billy from Philly -Kennedy-Shanahan (@MuffiWilliam) June 21, 2024 This dynamic could produce a significant spoiler effect, especially in a tight race where even a small shift in votes could determine the outcome. Historically, third-party candidates have impacted elections by forcing major parties to address neglected issues, but their success hinges on running candidates at all levels, not just the presidential ticket​​. The ballot access process varies widely across states, with independent candidates facing particularly high hurdles. For instance, Texas requires over 113,000 signatures from voters who did not participate in the primary elections of either major party, a daunting task within a limited timeframe​​. In contrast, states like Florida and Delaware offer more accessible routes for minor parties, enabling candidates like Kennedy and West to navigate these complexities more effectively. As the election draws closer, the role of third-party candidates will become clearer. Their ability to influence the political landscape depends on their organizational strength and the resonance of their platforms with voters. While the major parties co-opt popular third-party issues to neutralize their impact, the presence of strong third-party contenders could still shape the national conversation and potentially alter the election's outcome​​. In summary, the 2024 election cycle is witnessing a strategic adaptation by third-party candidates to overcome ballot access challenges. By forming new parties and focusing on key states, candidates like Kennedy and West are positioning themselves to influence the election, despite the historical difficulties faced by third-party campaigns. The post Third-Party Candidates Aim for 2024 Ballot Access Amid Challenges appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

After more than 35 years of marriage, Kevin Bacon still lights up when he sees Kyra Sedgwick shine. The happy couple attended the MaXXXine premiere this week with their kids, Travis Bacon, 35, and Sosie Bacon, 32. The outing was to support Kevin’s role in the horror flick. “That’s the way we roll,” Kevin told ET’s Ash Crossan before he made his way down the red carpet. “We’re a wholesome family that likes to come out for horror movies.” Kyra pulled out all the stops for the event and looked absolutely stunning in a black leather mini-dress and high heels, and her naturally curly hair was styled into a loose, straight style. The look did not go unnoticed by Kevin.  View this post on Instagram A post shared by Entertainment Tonight (@entertainmenttonight) “Yes, killer. I know, I know, I know,” he said after Ash commented on Krya’s perfect style. “She’s, uh, look, what can I say? She looks better and better.”  Kevin Bacon And Kyra Sedgwick Teamed Up For A Romantic Comedy Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick have been a Hollywood “it couple” for decades. After meeting on the set of Lemon Sky in the late 1980s, they fell in love, got married, and started a family. While some couples can’t mix business and pleasure, they’ve never grown tired of collaborating on set.  Over the years, Kevin and Kyra continued to film together when possible. Following Lemon Sky, they co-starred in Cavedweller and The Woodsman. And now they have a romantic comedy in post-production. “Yeah, we did a movie,” she continued. “We’re still dialing in on what the movie is going to be called. But yeah, we did. It was really fun. We got to act together. It was really a romantic comedy, and that’s pretty fun.” This story’s featured image is by Kayla Oaddams/WireImage. The post Kevin Bacon Gushes Over Wife Kyra Sedgwick As She Walks The Red Carpet appeared first on InspireMore.