A dramatic video shows a giraffe lifting a toddler out of the family vehicle while they were going through a drive-thru safari.  The incident occurred when the family was visiting Fossil Rim Wildlife Center in Glen Rose, Texas. The family says they were feeding a giraffe from the bed of their pickup truck when the animal accidentally grabbed their 2-year-old daughter Paisley’s shirt, per Good Morning America. Videos of the incident were captured by Paisley’s mom Sierra Robert and other bystanders in line at the safari. Giraffe reaches into a pickup truck and grabs a 2 year old at the Fossil Rim Wildlife Center in Glen Rose, Texas pic.twitter.com/azhtgM3n6T — Dallas Texas TV (@DallasTexasTV) June 6, 2024 “By the time I, like, looked back over, she was gone,” Robert told GMA. “It was just really shock, you know, adrenaline sets in.” Paisley’s father Jason Toten also saw what happened from the driver’s seat. He said he believes the whole thing was an accident as the animal was just trying to get the food being offered, which was allowed by the venue.  “Paisley was holding the bag and the giraffe went to go get the bag, not get her, but ended up getting her shirt too and picking her up,” the father told KWTX. “My heart stopped, my stomach dropped… it scared me.” The giraffe released the toddler quickly and she fell into her mother’s arms uninjured, as multiple outlets reported.  Per Fossil Rim Wildlife Center rules, giraffes are the only animals visitors are allowed to feed. “Only giraffes can be fed by hand. This is for your safety, as animals besides giraffe[s] can bite,” the website says. Toten said Paisley later got a stuffed giraffe from the gift shop because she “deserved it.”  The incident has prompted the safari to change some of their rules. As of June 6, “guests are no longer permitted to ride in the bed of pickup trucks,” the website says.  Fossil Rim Wildlife Center issued a statement to ABC News on Wednesday regarding the incident. “We were recently made aware of an incident involving one of our giraffes that occurred this past weekend,” the statement said. “The incident was first reported to us on Monday June 3rd. The safety of our guests and animals is always of utmost importance to us. Although an incident like this has never occurred here previously, we are taking immediate action to make sure it won’t happen again.”

The big political news last night was that Donald Trump has supposedly started sending “vetting materials” and questionnaires to a variety of potential vice presidential nominees. The names include Doug Burgum (R-N.D.), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Byron Donalds (R-FL), Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), J.D. Vance (R-OH), and Tim Scott (R-S.C.). Of course, the list is subject to change, so it probably doesn’t mean much. At this stage, we have no idea what to make of it. Most of the names on the list — but not all — are rather uninspired, and a few of them would be actively bad and harmful choices. At the same time, what we can be pretty sure of is that right now — and for the last several months — the Democratic Party has been working on ways to attack every single one of these potential nominees. None of the names on the shortlist are a surprise, so they’ve presumably been digging up opposition research and monitoring everything these politicians say, hoping they can catch a slip-up or take something out of context. That’s to be expected at this point. Even with that expectation in mind, the attack that’s unfolding right now on one of these potential vice presidential candidates — congressman Byron Donalds of Florida — is worth talking about. It’s maybe the single most revealing smear campaign of the election cycle so far. On Tuesday, Donalds was speaking at an event in Philadelphia, along with Texas congressman Wesley Hunt (R-TX). The point of the event, apparently, was for the Trump campaign to reach more black voters by speaking honestly about the challenges that black communities are facing right now. Of course, the main challenge in black communities — as I’ve said many times — is the epidemic of fatherlessness. Black Americans have the highest rate of out-of-wedlock births as compared to every other racial group, by far. Roughly 77% of black children born in 2015 were out-of-wedlock. That’s the most recent year I found data for this. Hispanics had a much lower rate, at 56%, followed by whites at 30% and Asians at 27%. It is not a coincidence, by the way, that if you were to look at a list of average household incomes in the USA by race, it would be the exact inverse of the fatherless list. Asians have the highest household income, followed by white, then Hispanic, then black. WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show As far as I can tell, these numbers have held steady for decades. They’ve been consistent long enough that many people have come to believe that they’re inevitable. But that’s not true. There was in fact a time in American history when whites and blacks had roughly the same chances of growing up in a single-family home. This was a period when most black women got married before they had kids. And this isn’t ancient history. I’m talking about the first half of the 20th century, and in particular the 1950s and 60s. At the event in Philadelphia, Byron Donalds addressed all of this directly. He began by talking about his own personal experiences with fatherhood. Then he pointed out that two-parent black households weren’t always an anomaly. Watch: .@JoeBiden @RepJeffries @harrisonjaime & @DerrickNAACP are gaslighting Black America. I was talking about Black families, conservative mindsets, and conservative voting. Receipts are a beautiful thing! And don't clip my words to keep lying. I'm watching ?? pic.twitter.com/W2Fr5uAHE8 — Byron Donalds (@ByronDonalds) June 5, 2024 Everything Byron Donalds just said there is true. It’s not even remotely debatable, in fact. From 1890 to 1950, black women had an even higher marriage rate than white women. And in the 1950s the rates were about equal. As the Hoover Institution states: In 1950, the percentages of white and African American women (aged fifteen and over) who were currently married were roughly the same, 67 percent and 64 percent, respectively. [But] by 1998, the percentage of currently married white women had dropped by 13 percent to 58 percent. But the drop among African American women was 44 percent to 36 percent—more than three times larger. Additionally, between 1950 and 1997, the proportion of black births to teenage unwed mothers rose by 166%. Any political party that wanted to reduce black crime rates and ensure that more black children go to school and get good jobs would be talking about these figures nonstop. They’re clearly the key to understanding what’s wrong in black communities, and how to fix them. But Democrats very desperately don’t want to have this conversation, because as Byron Donalds said, it implicates them — starting with Lyndon Johnson and the “Great Society” welfare programs that arose from the Civil Rights era. As the Harvard professor Paul Peterson put it: …some programs actively discouraged marriage” because “welfare assistance went to mothers so long as no male was boarding in the household… Marriage to an employed male, even one earning the minimum wage, placed at risk a mother’s economic well-being. Peterson crunched the numbers and found that: …in 1975, a household head would have to earn $20,000 a year to have more resources than what could be obtained from Great Society programs. Adjusted for inflation, that means households would need to bring in $100,000 to match what the government would give them for free. In other words, the government was providing a massive economic incentive for poor mothers to raise children alone, in single-parent homes. And because black mothers are an extremely poor demographic group, the incentive affected black families the most.  That’s not to say this is the only explanation that explains the decline in black family units. You can also look at the decline of industry, the offshoring of manufacturing jobs, the rise of feminism, the influence of the entertainment industry, and so on. But no reasonable person can doubt that a $100,000 government incentive to break up family homes was indeed a major factor that contributed to broken homes. And a serious political party — one that cared about black communities — would learn from that disaster and immediately reform these kinds of welfare programs. But the Democratic Party has no interest in acknowledging any responsibility for their role in creating the crisis in the black community. After all, a core plank of Democratic Party mythology is that the civil rights movement was an unbridled good, and that no mistakes whatsoever were made in the process of creating the welfare programs that have persisted for generations. Instead, the Democrats’ top representative in the House, Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), just decided to simply lie about everything Byron Donalds said. Watch: Jeffries: It has come to my attention that a so-called leader has made the factually inaccurate statement that black folks were better off during Jim Crow. How dare you make such an an ignorant observation. You better check yourself before you wreck yourself pic.twitter.com/TfxOwHGCl8 — Acyn (@Acyn) June 5, 2024 It’s kind of incredible how bad this guy’s Obama impression is. Or maybe it’s supposed to be MLK. He kind of has the cadence down, I guess. But then he starts repeatedly attacking a statement that no one made. Byron Donalds did not say that black Americans were “better off” during Jim Crow. He said black families were together in Jim Crow, and they’re not together now. Those are two distinct statements. But apparently Jeffries can’t grasp the distinction.  So he just makes a complete fool of himself, attacking a strawman over and over again, until he ends by somehow embarrassing himself even further. “You better check yourself before you wreck yourself”? Really? Are we quoting Ice Cube songs now on the House floor? This is what passes for rhetorical genius in the Democratic Party, post-Obama. This is the guy they’ll make the Speaker of the House if they ever get the majority back. He doesn’t speak very well, frankly. But Hakeem Jeffries wasn’t alone. The brain trust at the Congressional Black Caucus put out a statement demanding that Byron Donalds apologize for telling the truth. They wrote,  This is a pattern of embracing racist ideologies that we see time and again within the MAGA Republican Party. … Rep. Donalds is playing his role as the mouthpiece who will say the quiet parts out loud that many will not say themselves. His comments were shameful and beneath the dignity of a member of the House of Representatives. He should immediately offer an apology to Black Americans for misrepresenting one of the darkest chapters in our history for his own political gain. Well, they got one part right. Byron Donalds did indeed “say the quiet parts out loud.” He said the one thing that Democrats simply cannot allow anyone to say, which is that the policies of the Democratic Party drastically increased black dependency on the government and, in the process, destabilized the family structure.  That is the third rail that Democrats don’t want any politician to go anywhere near, even though with every passing year, it’s getting harder and harder to deny. The Democratic Party has controlled pretty much every major urban center in this country for decades, and after all that, they’ve only made things worse.  Remember Selma? The site of the famous civil rights marches? The city that’s been run by Democrats in perpetuity? They just went to virtual classes a few weeks ago — not because of COVID, but because too many children are getting shot. Watch: Hakeem Jeffries and the Democratic Party never talk about Selma, even though Democrats have been running it for decades. The city that became famous during the Civil Rights movement remains, to this day, one of the poorest places in the entire country. It’s so dangerous now that they’re keeping children home from school.  That doesn’t necessarily mean the people of Selma were better off under Jim Crow, however Jeffries wants to define “better off.” But it does mean that the government certainly hasn’t helped matters in the wake of the civil rights movement. If there’s ever going to be a return to normalcy in Selma and dozens of other cities like it, then it’s necessary to first acknowledge that LBJ’s “Great Society” and its offshoots haven’t actually created great societies. They’ve done the opposite. Byron Donalds made that case this week. And by completely melting down in response, Democrats in the House have admitted that he was right.

Several Christian families say that Vermont has kicked them out of the state’s foster care system because of their views on gender and sexuality, according to a lawsuit filed on Tuesday. The lawsuit, filed by Brian and Kaitlyn Wuoti and Michael and Rebecca Gantt, accused the Vermont Department for Children and Families of revoking their foster care licenses because of their Christian beliefs. The suit, first reported on by The Daily Signal, was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont Windham Division. “Vermont’s foster-care system faces a crisis,” the lawsuit says. “But, with this emergent need, the Department recently decided to exclude all families with traditional religious beliefs about human sexuality from fostering or adopting any child. This ideological campaign puts politics above people and gender ideology over children’s best interests. It is harmful, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.” The suit says that Vermont has violated the families’ First Amendment rights to free speech, free association, and exercise of religion, as well as their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and equal protection. It asks that the state’s guidance on sexual and gender identity be deemed unconstitutional. “Although the Wuotis and Gantts have adopted five children between them, the Department has determined they are unfit to foster or adopt any child solely due to their religiously inspired and widely held belief that girls cannot become boys or vice versa,” the suit says. The department told the families that they must adhere to the state’s position on gender issues “even if the foster parents hold divergent personal opinions or beliefs,” according to the suit. The state asked them whether they would take a child to a Pride parade or use pronouns not aligning with a child’s sex. Both families said no and that their licenses had not been renewed. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “We were surprised, because they are typically always trying to match children with families as best they can, and so we assumed maybe they would say, ‘Ok, maybe we won’t place an LGBT child with this family,’” Brian Wuoti told The Daily Signal. According to the suit, caseworkers had previously reported good experiences working with the families. For example, one caseworker referred to the Wuotis in 2022 as “AMAZING” and said she “probably could not hand pick a more wonderful foster family,” according to the suit. The battle in Vermont comes as the Biden administration has put forth a foster care placement rule that critics say would force foster parents to accept gender ideology and harm religious liberty. The rule has been challenged by congressional Republicans and state attorneys general.

General Mills is under renewed scrutiny as consumer advocacy groups urge the company to remove hazardous plastic chemicals from its food products. A petition with over 30,000 signatures was delivered to the company's headquarters in Golden Valley, Minnesota, demanding immediate action to address the presence of plasticizers in their foods. The chemicals in question are phthalates, used to make plastics more flexible and resilient. These substances have been linked to various health issues, including hormonal disruptions, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and certain cancers. Stop buying their products General Mills facing revived push to cut plastic chemicals in food https://t.co/02GaocX698 — Dawn Wildman (@WildmanDawn) June 5, 2024 Studies have shown that even low-level exposure to phthalates over time can pose significant health risks​. Consumer Reports recently tested 85 different food products and found alarming levels of phthalates in several items from General Mills, particularly Annie's Organic Cheesy Ravioli, which had the highest concentration of these chemicals. Other products affected include Yoplait yogurt, Cheerios cereal, Green Giant vegetables, and Progresso soups​. Yesterday Consumer Reports was joined by members and local groups to hand-deliver over 35,000 petition signatures to General Mills headquarters near Minneapolis, MN, calling on the company to address the problem of plastic chemicals, called phthalates, in their food products. pic.twitter.com/CQHFAtACse — Consumer Reports Advocacy (@CRAdvocacy) May 31, 2024 Brian Ronholm, Director of Food Policy for Consumer Reports, emphasized the need for General Mills to identify and eliminate the sources of these chemicals, which could originate from packaging materials or production processes involving plastic equipment and conveyor belts​. In response, General Mills has maintained that all its products meet current regulatory standards and that the company regularly reviews its ingredients and suppliers to ensure safety and quality. However, consumer advocates argue that existing safety limits are outdated and insufficient to protect public health​. The pressure on General Mills to act comes amid broader concerns about plastic pollution and its impact on human health. Advocacy groups are calling for stricter regulations and better transparency from food manufacturers to prevent such contamination​. As the debate continues, consumers are advised to minimize their exposure to plasticizers by using alternatives like glass storage containers and avoiding plastic packaging whenever possible. This issue highlights the ongoing challenges in balancing industrial convenience with consumer health and safety​ . The post General Mills Faces Pressure Over Plastic Chemicals in Food Product appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

In a significant geopolitical maneuver, Russia has deployed naval assets to the Caribbean, heightening tensions amid its ongoing conflict with Ukraine. This move involves deploying multiple ships from its Black Sea Fleet, including warships equipped with advanced cruise missiles, highlighting Moscow's intent to project power far beyond its traditional areas of influence. The deployment of Russian ships to the Caribbean is part of a broader strategy to assert its military presence and challenge U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere. These warships, armed with Kalibr cruise missiles capable of long-range strikes, represent a direct extension of Russia's military reach. The decision to send these vessels comes as Russia continues its aggressive military campaign in Ukraine, aiming to demonstrate its global naval capabilities and resilience against Western sanctions. Russian warships are headed to the Caribbean. Have a nice day.https://t.co/87fic5zHvf — John Rich (@johnrich) June 6, 2024 This deployment includes frigates and other support vessels from Russia's Northern Fleet, traditionally responsible for Arctic defense but increasingly active in global operations. The Northern Fleet's strategic importance lies in its role as a second-strike force, equipped with nuclear-capable submarines and advanced air defense systems, now being projected into new theaters of operation. How many nuclear subs? Nobody talks about thathttps://t.co/aubI4Y6ohx — WINNING STREAK (@JodyKozlowski_) June 6, 2024 The presence of Russian naval forces in the Caribbean is not only a show of strength but also a message to the United States and its allies. It underscores Moscow's ability to operate far from its borders and maintain a strategic military presence in regions critical to U.S. national security interests. This move is reminiscent of Cold War-era power plays and reflects ongoing tensions between Russia and Western nations over Ukraine and other geopolitical issues. The geopolitical implications of this deployment are profound. It signals a potential escalation in the confrontation between Russia and NATO allies, particularly as the United States has increased its military support for Ukraine and bolstered its presence in Eastern Europe. The Caribbean deployment may serve as a diversion, forcing the U.S. to allocate more resources to monitoring and countering Russian activities in its backyard. In summary, Russia's deployment of naval assets to the Caribbean amid the Ukraine conflict marks a bold statement of its military capabilities and strategic intentions. This move challenges U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere and signals Moscow's readiness to engage in global power projection, raising the stakes in an already volatile international landscape. The post Russia Deploys Ships to Caribbean Amid Ukraine Conflict appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

'Various dramatic action scenes'

With the launch of Orexbot, well-known fintech company Avenix Fzco, headquartered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, has once more demonstrated its dedication to innovation in the ever-changing world of forex trading. Thoroughly designed for the MT4 platform, this sophisticated Expert Advisor, Orexbot, is set to completely transform the way traders approach the XAUUSD (Gold) symbol […]

'GOP voters have a substantial victory'

'There might not be any OnlyFans'

Police initially administered Narcan on the scene unsuccessfully