Lies, Damn Lies, and Paul Offit

Did California Democrats Just Blink on Prop 47?

A prominent doctor and leading critic of COVID lockdowns addressed the major ramifications of Murthy v. Missouri and discussed the ideal outcome for free speech and the American people. ReasonTV interviewed with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which criticized lockdowns as a means of protecting public health. Bhattacharya discussed the Supreme Court case Murthy v. Missouri, emphasizing the importance of preventing government censorship. The case, which partially relied on research conducted by MRC, demanded legal redress over the Biden Administration’s blatant censorship requests to social media companies. Bhattacharya indicated that he found the case compelling and asserted that the government had no prerogative to censor. “What I really want is that [sic] the government to get out of the business of regulating speech online,” Bhattacharya expressed. “I think that free speech online is a tremendous opportunity for a huge flowering of scientific discussion, of connections that will be made that would never otherwise be made, and the government suppressing that is a really, really bad idea.” He added, “It’s analogous I think to the Gutenberg press being invented in, you know, 1450 or something, and the governments or the churches trying to say, ‘You can’t print books, and we’re going to need to have the right to censor the books.’”  Bhattacharya pointed out that in 2021, medical professionals like himself were censored as a result of a collusion between Big Tech and the government. He suggested the relationship between the social media companies and government was more of a junior-senior dynamic rather than an equal partnership. He cited congressionally subpoenaed emails between Facebook staffers, indicating that the Biden White House was in charge and leveraged its powers to coerce social media companies into complying with censorship. “The House did its own investigation of the Facebook Files, and what they found was that Facebook will have these internal discussions where they’d say, ‘Well, if we don’t cooperate, we’re not going to be able to get some of these legislative priorities that we really need to survive as a company,’” Bhattacharya said. “So, for instance, the EU has these privacy laws that essentially would put Facebook out of existence in the EU, and the threat was the Biden administration won’t represent American companies in trade negotiations with the EU if they don’t comply with the censorship orders.” Bhattacharya also said that had attended oral arguments for the case and was particularly dismayed by the arguments put forth by the government plaintiffs, who argued that the government should censor to protect people from harm. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson furthered this logic by bringing up the hypothetical example of a viral trend encouraging kids to jump out of windows and expressed that government censorship of said content would be desirable. “The whole analogy that this hypothetical draws is based on the premise that the government automatically knows what’s good and bad for people,” Bhattacharya said. “Like here you have an example that’s such [sic] obviously bad for kids. Kids should not jump out of windows.” But Bhattacharya argued that in the real world, harmful and benign become a lot harder to discern and cited COVID policies as a case and proof.  “Well, I mean, what actually happened during the pandemic was that the government suppressed speech that would have criticized government policy that in effect told kids metaphorically to jump out of windows, right? They closed schools, harming kids at scale. They recommended that kids, even kids as young as six months old, take a vaccine that they probably didn’t need.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

In-N-Out Burger, the most recognizable California fast-food chain, has raised its menu prices because of a new minimum-wage law in California. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a law increasing the state-mandated minimum wage at fast-food restaurants from $16 per hour to $20 per hour. The law took effect on April 1. 'When I came to In-N-Out and I was spending $20 on a meal, it's definitely something that I did not expect at all.' Democrats who supported the law said it was necessary to provide workers with a living wage. But there are consequences of forcing restaurants to raise their minimum wages by 25% because employers rarely absorb the cost of increased wages. Typically, they pass the cost onto the consumer or their employees (in the form of layoffs). And almost immediately after Newsom signed the law, some employers announced layoffs. Other fast-food chains raised their prices or said they would increase automation. Earlier this year, In-N-Out president Lynsi Snyder said that she didn't want to raise menu prices out of an "obligation" to her customers. But that's exactly what the burger chain was forced to do. "On April 1st, we raised our prices incrementally to accompany a pay raise for all of the Associates working in our California restaurants. The price increase was also necessary to maintain our quality standards," In-N-Out confirmed to KTVU-TV. Now, the starting minimum wage for In-N-Out employees is between $22 to $23 per hour, depending on the restaurant location. Menu board at In-N-Out burger restaurant in Pleasant Hill, California, September 30, 2013. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images) The price of a double-double meal — which includes a burger, fries, and a drink — now costs as much as $13.63 in San Francisco, KRON-TV reported. The same meal costs about $11.44 in Los Angeles County, according to KTLA-TV.The Democrat-instituted mimimim-wage hike is directly responsible for the price increase, an In-N-Out spokesperson confirmed to KTLA. Customers, meanwhile, said they understand the prices because they recognize the economy is "bad." "The price increase? I understand because the economy is kind of bad. Food's going up, all type of stuff," frequent In-N-Out patron Chris Hachlica told KTVU. "Especially coming from Georgia, California prices are a little bit higher. But when I came to In-N-Out and I was spending $20 on a meal, it's definitely something that I did not expect at all," Khalil Coleman told KTVU. News of In-N-Out's sticker shock comes after an analysis from the Hoover Institute discovered that California's new minimum wage law has cost the state more than 10,000 jobs. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Four Americans teaching in China were recently stabbed while doing some sightseeing in Jilin City, about 700 miles northeast of Beijing.On Monday morning, David Zabner and three other Americans were hiking around Beishan Park with one of their Chinese colleagues at nearby Beihua University. The four Americans actually teach at Cornell College, a private school in Iowa, but are currently working at Beihua University, which began partnering with Cornell College for a STEM-related teaching exchange program in 2018.'I didn’t immediately realize what was happening. I thought my coworkers had been pushed, and he, for some reason was trying to push me.'During the hike, one of the Americans accidentally bumped into 55-year-old Cui Moumou. As a result of this collision, Cui allegedly stabbed the four Americans as well as another Chinese local who had come to their aid, according to a report from the Jilin City Public Security Bureau, Chuanying Branch.Graphic video and images of the bloodied victims then went viral on social media, but it seems Chinese officials may have since censored those videos and images, as they no longer appear on Chinese internet, the BBC reported.In fact, Zabner's name reportedly became publicly known only after his brother, Adam Zabner, a Democrat state representative in Iowa, identified him as one of the victims. "I spoke to David. ... He is recovering from his injuries and doing well," Rep. Zabner said. "My family is incredibly grateful that David survived this attack."The names of the other victims have not been released. David Zabner has since spoken with Iowa Public Radio to describe the harrowing experience."I turned around to find a man brandishing a knife at me. I didn’t immediately realize what was happening. I thought my coworkers had been pushed, and he, for some reason was trying to push me," David Zabner told IPR News. "And then I looked down at my shoulder and realized, 'I'm bleeding. I've been stabbed.'""Police told us that [Cui] was unemployed and down on his luck," Zabner added.Zabner was stabbed in the upper arm. One of his fellow American victims appeared to be bleeding from his back, IPR News reported, citing video evidence. All four Americans remain at a Chinese hospital, recovering from their injuries. They "are no longer in danger of death," the local police report said.Cui has been arrested, though it's unclear what charges he may be facing.Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, a Republican congresswoman from Iowa who represents the district that includes Cornell College, has since called for the four Americans to be brought back to the U.S. as quickly and as safely as possible. "My office and I are in touch with an impacted #Iowa family," she wrote on X. "We are working through proper channels and requesting to speak with the U.S. Embassy on appropriate matters to ensure that the victims first receive quality care for their injuries and then get out of #China in a medically feasible manner."National security adviser Jake Sullivan professed to be "deeply concerned" about the incident and extended his best wishes to the victims. "Our team has been in touch with these Americans and our PRC counterparts to ensure that the victims’ needs are met, & appropriate law enforcement steps are being taken," he said on X.A statement from Cornell College characterized the attack on its instructors as "serious," according to various outlets.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

It appears Hunter Biden may not be above the law after all. The president’s son was found guilty by a federal jury on all three federal felony gun charges he faced, which is the first time a president’s immediate family member has been found guilty of a crime during his father's term in office. Hunter faces up to 25 years in prison and fines up to $750,000. “I am more grateful today for the love and support I experienced this last week from Melissa, my family, my friends, and my community than I am disappointed by the outcome. Recovery is possible by the grace of God, and I am blessed to experience that gift one day at a time,” Hunter said in a statement following his conviction. While many are shocked that Hunter was convicted despite the fact that his father is literally the president of the United States, Sara Gonzales notes that it could be a lot worse for him. “This is not his first rodeo, he has committed many crimes, but this is his first conviction,” Gonzales says, adding, “so maximum sentence is probably not likely.” The left is overjoyed with the conviction, as it now can be used to claim that Donald Trump’s conviction was not politically motivated. “Now that this has happened, I think the game plan is clear from the left. ‘Look, we told you no one is above the law, see? Even when it’s the president’s son, nobody is above the law. This is evidence of a justice system that is working,’” Gonzales says, mocking the Democrats. Legal expert and host of “America on Trial” Josh Hammer doesn’t think the trial could have gone better. “Federal prosecutors' bread and butter are gun crimes and drug crimes. So, this was a very standard prosecution, and to the prosecution’s credit, they did everything that I would have possibly hoped that they did,” Hammer says. “He’s obviously not going to get 25 years,” he continues, “but is he going to get any prison time?” “We have to hope for jail time right now because if the jury finds him guilty, but he just gets a slap on the wrist, back to drug treatment, you know, drug treatment program, whatever — at that point, we’re right back to where we started,” he adds. Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Shannon Norenberg, the former Sexual Assault Response Coordinator at the United States Coast Guard Academy, recently announced her resignation, claiming that she was used in the USCG’s “cruel” attempt to conceal a number of sexual assaults.Last year, CNN reported that an investigation into the Coast Guard Academy revealed a “disturbing pattern” of alleged rape and assault cover-ups and that the probe’s discoveries were kept secret for years. 'They did not want the victims to have any proof that their cases even existed.'The investigation, dubbed Operation Fouled Anchor, uncovered misconduct from the late 1980s through 2006, involving more than 75 agents and 20,000 hours of research, Blaze News previously reported.The 2019 draft report read, “There was a disturbing pattern of not treating reported sexual assaults as criminal matters.”High-ranking officials “did not adequately investigate allegations as serious criminal matters and hold perpetrators appropriately accountable,” the report stated.CNN reported that the investigation’s findings were not reported to Congress until last summer. On Sunday, Norenberg released a letter announcing that she had recently decided to resign from her position after she realized that the USCG misled her and the sexual assault victims.“The Coast Guard lied to me. Worse than that, they used me to lie to victims, used me to silence victims, and used me in a coordinated effort to discourage victims of sexual assault at the Academy from speaking to Congress about their assaults and about the Coast Guard’s investigation of their cases,” Norenberg wrote.She explained that in 2018, she was assigned to Operation Fouled Anchor and, as part of the mission, was directed to meet with the victims in what she ultimately believed would amount to an “apology tour.” Norenberg stated that she was initially instructed to provide the individuals with a CG-6095 form to report the sexual assault to the Coast Guard. She noted that she “wonder[ed] why we were giving this to the victims just now if the investigation was already four years old.”Norenberg concluded that the alleged sexual assaults were likely never entered into the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database if the victims had never filled out the official form. According to Norenberg, the meetings with the victims were “very emotional.”“Many of the victims we met with cried throughout the meetings. One of the things the victims were most angry about was that none of their perpetrators had ever been held accountable for the crimes they’d committed. That anger at the lack of accountability was a consistent theme during the meetings. Some victims were upset that the Coast Guard had ripped open the wounds they had received at the Academy all those years ago, only to take no action against the perpetrators in the end,” Norenberg wrote.“Some talked about having to relive trauma that had been long buried,” she continued. “Some talked about the pride they still felt at having served despite what happened. Some of the victims couldn’t bear to meet with us but sent their parents instead. Some were glad to at least hear something back from the Coast Guard and to receive some acknowledgment.”Norenberg explained that just before the first meeting, she was instructed not to provide any of the victims with the CG-6095 form. “The CG-6095 is proof for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (‘VA’) that the victim reported a sexual assault that occurred while they were in the military. Having this form makes it much easier for survivors of Military Sexual Trauma (‘MST’) to obtain services from the VA to deal with their trauma,” she explained.Norenberg argued that the decision not to offer the forms was likely an attempt to prevent Congress from discovering the secretive operation.“Another reason I believe the Coast Guard did not offer the victims CG-6095’s is because they did not want the victims to have any proof that their cases even existed or had ever been investigated,” she continued. “The whole thing was a cruel coverup at the expense of the victims, with the entire purpose being to preserve the image of the Coast Guard and avoid scandal. And the Coast Guard used me as part of their plan.”The Coast Guard Academy has not responded to Norenberg’s allegations, The Hill reported.Last year, the Coast Guard said in a statement to CNN that it is “dedicated to supporting and addressing the needs of survivors, improving access to justice, holding offenders accountable and ensuring a coordinated response to sexual assault and harassment.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

After noticing the word "Jesus" in the text, researchers realized that this seemingly insignificant papyrus contained a part of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which had been left out of the Bible. The post Experts Have Discovered The Earliest Known Record Of Jesus’ Childhood On A Fragment Of 1,600-Year-Old Papyrus appeared first on All That's Interesting.

A House GOP chairman claims that the office improperly protected a Voice of America manager accused of misusing taxpayer funds.

How Dare J.K. Rowling Be Rich AND Disagree With the Gender Cult Mafia