Next month, Spotify subscribers can expect an increase in membership fees as the audio streaming service is planning to boost its rates for the second time in less than a year.

As New York descends into a crime mecca with 1 in 5 hotels filled with unvetted illegal aliens and hardcore criminals released without bail, a new Stock Exchange has popped up in Texas. The timing is right for the Texas Exchange to seek dominance over New York’s. The Wall Street Journal reports TXSE has raised […] The post Texas Threatens NY’s Major Asset: The NY Stock Exchange appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

In a shocking backtrack, New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul announced an indefinite delay on the controversial congestion pricing plan for drivers entering Manhattan’s central business district amid fears that it could affect Democrats’ election chances. On Wednesday, Hochul said she had directed the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to push back the new toll’s June 30 start date. “After careful consideration, I have come to the difficult decision that implementing the planned congestion pricing system risked too many unintended consequences for New Yorkers at this time,” Hochul said in a video announcement. “For that reason, I have directed the MTA to indefinitely pause the program,” she said. The governor cited the high cost of living, saying “hardworking New Yorkers are getting hammered on costs.” She added that while New York’s pandemic recovery has been faster than expected, it is “by no means complete.” The MTA’s congestion pricing plan would charge drivers a minimum of $15 to enter Midtown Manhattan south of 60th Street. Drivers would be charged the rush hour price nearly all day every day — between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends. Cars would be charged $3.75 during the remaining hours. The toll is aimed at lessening peak-hour congestion in Manhattan. The around $1 billion raised from the toll is supposed to go towards upgrading subways, commuter railroads, and bus systems. Hochul is also reportedly concerned about how the expensive toll might affect local Democrats facing uphill battles in House races in the New York City suburbs. Republicans have already started attacking Democrats over the toll. Additionally, several lawsuits have already been filed over the congestion pricing plan. For months, critics have slammed the idea of slapping drivers with new expensive charges. Representative Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican and vocal critic of the toll, celebrated the expected change. “It is welcome news that Governor Hochul is considering delaying congestion pricing, scheduled to begin June 30, due to our pressure, the public‘s outcry and concerns it will impact Democrats in November’s election,” Malliotakis told the New York Post. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “I urge my fellow New Yorkers to continue calling their city, state and federal representatives because it is working. They are feeling the heat and this war-on-cars cash grab must be reversed!” she said. Another critic of the toll, International Transport Workers president John Samuelsen, who serves on the MTA board, also sounded off on the reversal. “I told the governor two years ago that if she imposed the congestion toll without increases in transit service it would be a political disaster,” Samuelson said. “It’s like taxation without representation. She let [MTA CEO] Janno Lieber lead her around like a stooge.” The MTA is governed by 23 members, who are nominated by the governor, NYC mayor, and local officials. New York City Democratic Mayor Eric Adams emphasized that the congestion toll should not be a “burden on everyday New Yorkers.” “We have to get it right,” Adams said. “We have to make sure that it’s not going to impact our recovery. We got to the point of more jobs in this city than in the history of the city because of the support in the recovery effort.”

The results of our pornography-drenched society are in. And they’re hideous. Pornography has disconnected men from women. It has led to less mating – after all, why date when you can get the dopamine hit of seeing bodies in various combinations at the touch of a button – and serious, society-wide sexual dysfunction (certain studies now claim that up to 30% of young men now suffer from erectile dysfunction). It has emptied wallets and souls. The average age of first pornography viewing for males is now 12. Some 73% of teens aged 13-17 have watched pornography. The brain can respond to pornography and its attendant dopamine hits much like a drug. And just like a drug, for some, higher doses may be necessary in order to achieve the original effect. In the last few years, the question of pornography has reared its seamy head. The availability and regulation of pornography has cut across political lines: libertarians see pornography as a harmless good, a simple and disposable product that harms no one; traditional conservatives see pornography as a damaging and soul-crushing symptom of hedonistic individualism; radical leftists see pornography as a form of female empowerment, with women “finally” controlling their own sexuality; traditional liberals see pornography as exploitation of women, a form of patriarchal domination. Oddly enough, our pornographic society is a sex-free, relationship-free society. We date less. We get married later, if at all. We have fewer children, if any. We do not form the little platoons of society – the family – necessary for its preservation. Not all of that is pornography, of course. But the utter pervasiveness of pornography isn’t a minor factor, either. All of this was foreseeable. In 2005, at the age of 21, I wrote a book titled “Porn Generation” – a book that was widely seen by many on both Right and Left as alarmist and prudish. That descriptor – prudish – was, at the time, one of the worst slurs you could toss at someone. It meant that you were repressed, that you were a Bible thumper. That you were – gasp! – judgmental. In the book, I wrote that pornography had become absolutely mainstream, from music to television to movies to education. That was before the era of Kim Kardashian. Here is what I wrote: Our culture has bred hollow young men, obsessed with self-gratification. Young women are told to act like sex objects – and enjoy it…Society told the porn generation that final moral authority rests inside each of us – and in our vanity, we listened. The mainstream acceptance of pornography has become a social fact….In the absence of community-promoted traditional standards, subjectivism reigns. Nothing is expected of anyone; everyone may make his own rules about what is best. The “live and let live” societal model is a recipe for societal disaster. To put it mildly, I was right. Our society has begun to figure out that the sexual mores of a morally relativistic society are destructive – that age-old ideas about monogamy and marriage and the value of heterosexual relationships, cultivated over the course of millennia, might be more valuable than the latest slogan about the joys of licentiousness. Pornography’s obvious vacuity and the damage coincident with its ubiquity is a reminder that consent is not, in fact, the highest moral value: that just because people choose to engage in an activity does not make that activity morally good or acceptable. There can be pragmatic arguments over the nature of government power necessary to reverse the pornification of our society – do we have to delegate too much power to the government in order to squash the problem? Ought it be solved at the level of social censure rather than regulation? – but there can be no question that consent alone does not morally justify pornography. In the words of British legal theorist James Fitzjames Stephen, “It is one thing…to tolerate vice so long as it is inoffensive, and quite another to give it a legal right not only to exist, but to assert itself in the face of the world as an ‘experiment in living’ as good as another, and entitled to the same protection from law.” WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show The true answer to the question of pornography has been known all along: robust social institutions, as well as local regulations that make it difficult to create and obtain. We have a duty to our children to give them a society free of the scourge of pornography and its societal externalities. The Founders knew that, which is why they never considered pornography a protected class of free speech under the First Amendment. They would have scoffed at the very idea. In “Porn Generation” I made a series of recommendations – again, recommendations snorted at, up until the point every American child had access to smut on their cell phones. Those recommendations included better parenting, of course; more church adherence; school vouchers; boycotts against products promoting social radicalism (see, e.g., Bud Light); governmental censorship where possible; cutting off funding to universities that promote obscenity. If any of them had been pursued in 2005, our society would be markedly better off in 2024. They weren’t. But that doesn’t mean we can’t pursue them now. Pornography is merely a symptom of a broader underlying ill: a society that promotes libertinism as liberty, ignoring that a meaningful life is about liberty within a rubric of morality and responsibility. Any society that promotes libertinism rather than traditional liberty is doomed to the scrap heap.

A former Yale University student who was accused of sexual assault but acquitted at trial is suing 15 women’s organizations he says defamed him after the verdict. Saifullah Khan was found not guilty in March 2018 but was subsequently expelled from Yale anyway. He sued the university and his accuser – and is now suing women’s organizations he says defamed him in post-verdict filings. While suing Yale and his accuser, who has not been named in court or the media, the 15 organizations applied to file an amicus brief with the Connecticut Supreme Court. The filing included a proposed brief, which Khan says included “several false and defamatory statements.” Those statements include the opening sentence, which stated as fact, “When Jane Doe was in college, the Plaintiff raped her,” even though Khan was acquitted. The brief also claimed that “her rapist invented an ambiguity in Connecticut law and subjected her to years of costly and traumatic retaliatory litigation.” Throughout the brief, the organizations referred to the accuser as a “victim” and noted in a footnote that “Jane Doe was raped…” When Khan and his attorney objected to the organizations’ application to file the amicus brief, the groups defended their claims as “supported by the record.” The Connecticut Supreme Court disagreed with the claim, denying the application but allowing them to refile. In its denial, the court argued that any refiling must be “shorn of all facts not supported by the record.” When the organizations refiled their brief, the opening sentence was changed to say: “Jane Doe, while a student at Yale University, engaged in Yale’s legally-obligated reporting and disciplinary procedures to report that plaintiff had sexually assaulted her.” As Khan notes in his lawsuit, the original proposed brief is still permanently available on the Connecticut Supreme Court website. Khan filed professional ethics complaints against Jennifer Becker, an attorney associated with the initial brief. When answering the complaint, Becker apologized for the language, saying, “I first want to acknowledge and apologize for the offending language that was included in the draft amicus brief.” She added that her language “was over-zealous and unnecessarily forceful.” She also directly addressed the use of the word “rape,” saying it was used “without qualification that it was an allegation…” She claimed, however, that “any overzealousness on my part was ameliorated by the Court’s order and there is no resulting harm to Mr. Khan.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Khan disagrees and is suing Becker and 15 women’s organizations who signed on to the amicus brief: Jewish Women International, Legal Momentum, The Fierberg National Law Group, Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Futures Without Violence, Advocates For Youth, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Crime Victim Law Institute, National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Women’s Law Center, Network for Victim Recovery, Sanctuary for Families, and the Women’s Law Project. The Daily Wire previously reported on the details of Khan’s case. In March 2018, a jury found him not guilty in a court of law. While some could argue that “not guilty” does not mean “innocent,” some jurors said they perceived him as innocent after the trial. “He’s innocent, and the facts prove it,” said Elise Wiener, an alternate juror who saw the same evidence as the other jurors. “He was acquitted because he deserved to be acquitted and the prosecutor should never have brought the case in the first place.”

House Republicans referred two members of President Joe Biden‘s family — his son Hunter Biden and brother James Biden — for criminal prosecution on Wednesday over allegations that they lied while testifying as part of the corruption-focused impeachment inquiry into the commander in chief. A letter sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland and special counsel David Weiss recommended that both Biden family members be charged with making false statements and Hunter Biden also get charged with perjury. Hunter Biden and James Biden “made provably false statements … about key aspects of the impeachment inquiry, in what appears to be a conscious effort to hinder the investigation’s focus on President Joe Biden,” wrote Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY), who was joined by Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO). Millions of dollars made by Biden family members and their companies have spurred concerns about potential influence-peddling schemes involving Joe Biden dating back to when he served as vice president. As part of the impeachment inquiry, the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees conducted a transcribed interview with James Biden on February 21. Hunter Biden, who like James Biden was subpoenaed to testify, appeared on February 28 for a deposition in which he testified under oath. Both men, who had counsel with them, have denied President Biden benefited from their work. It remains to be seen whether either Biden gets charged for their testimony. A criminal referral from Congress does not compel federal prosecutors to open a case. After Smith publicly accused Hunter Biden of lying to Congress last month, Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell responded, “Here they go again, grasping at straws and twisting Hunter’s testimony to try to revive an impeachment inquiry that was a complete and utter failure.” The letter from the impeachment leaders to Department of Justice officials on Wednesday describes three instances, two involving Hunter Biden and one focused on James Biden, in which the lawmakers have centered their claims that the witnesses were less than truthful during their testimony. “Specifically, Hunter Biden falsely distanced himself from a corporate entity — Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC — and its bank account (Rosemont Seneca Bohai Bank Account) that was the recipient of millions of dollars from foreign individuals and foreign entities who met with then-Vice President Biden before and after transmitting money to the Rosemont Seneca Bohai Bank Account that then transferred funds to Hunter Biden,” the letter stated. “Hunter Biden made additional false statements as to whether he held positions at Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC,” the letter added. “After deposing Hunter Biden, the Committees obtained documents showing Hunter Biden represented that he was the corporate secretary. Additionally, Hunter Biden during his testimony relayed an entirely fictitious account about threatening text messages he sent to his Chinese business partner while invoking his father’s presence with him as he wrote the messages. Hunter Biden told the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee he had transmitted this threat to an unrelated individual with the same surname. However, documents released by the Committee on Ways and Means demonstrate conclusively that Hunter Biden made this threat to the intended individual, and bank records prove Hunter Biden’s Chinese business partners wired millions of dollars to him after his threat. A portion of the proceeds has been traced to Joe Biden’s bank account.” The letter provides an explanation of the alleged false statements by James Biden in relation to his dealings with Tony Bobulinski, who also testified for the impeachment inquiry. Bobulinski made a public hearing appearance in March during which he accused Hunter Biden and James Biden of perjuring themselves. Hunter Biden has said that he did not find Bobulinski to be “credible.” Jim Biden said in his interview that he was not “fond” of Bobulinski and responded “yes” when asked if he would describe Bobulinski as a “bully” during an exchange about their ill-fated team-up. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “With respect to James Biden, he stated unequivocally during his transcribed interview that Joe Biden did not meet with Mr. Tony Bobulinski, a business associate of James and Hunter Biden, in 2017 while pursuing a deal with a Chinese entity, CEFC China Energy,” said the letter from the impeachment investigators. “Specifically, James Biden stated he did not attend a meeting with Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Tony Bobulinski on May 2, 2017 at the Beverly Hilton Hotel. These statements were contradicted not only by Mr. Bobulinski, but Hunter Biden. Mr. Bobulinski also produced text messages that establish the events leading up to and immediately following his meeting with Joe Biden on May 2, 2017.” Hunter Biden is already facing two criminal cases led by Weiss that could result in prison time. The first son has pleaded not guilty to gun charges in a case set in Delaware and tax charges in California. His gun-related trial began this week, while the tax trial in California is set to start in September. The GOP lawmakers said the DOJ “should consider Hunter Biden’s prior alleged criminal activity when evaluating whether to charge him for the false statements described in the attached. Because Hunter Biden was federally indicted in two different jurisdictions at the time of his Congressional deposition, he was also subject to two federal court orders stating that he could not commit any crimes while on federal supervised release.”

When Chris Hemsworth heard that Robert Irwin would choose the actor to portray him in a biopic, he was understandably flattered. Who wouldn’t jump at the chance to play the son of the legendary Steve Irwin? Access Hollywood shared the best clip of Hemsworth’s reaction to an interview with the young conservationist. Honestly, we can’t tell which of the two celebrities received the bigger compliment! In the video, an interviewer posed an age-old question to Robert Irwin. “Who would you want to play you in a movie?” they asked. It didn’t take long for the wildlife expert to come up with an answer. “It’d have to be a Hemsworth, wouldn’t it?” he said, adding, “The Hemsworths are an incredible group of people. And if they played me in a film, I think that would be the most flattering thing that could ever happen to a human being, let’s be honest.” @accesshollywood tbh “A Hemsworth” is the answer to most problems in life. #chrishemsworth #robertirwin ♬ original sound – Access Hollywood After listening to Robert Irwin praise him and his family like that, fellow Aussie Chris Hemsworth was more than thrilled. “I would be honored,” he said. However, there was still a difficult casting decision to make for this theoretical biopic. Robert Irwin hadn’t specified which of the famous brothers should get the role, so interviewers asked Chris Hemsworth to make the tough call. Who would be the best fit for the movie: Chris, Liam, or Luke? Although this wasn’t an wasy question, the middle Hemsworth brother came up with the most diplomatic answer. Obviously, the best actor for the job would be the one that Irwin himself chose! “Whoever he says,” Hemsworth joked. Screengrab from TikTok Of course, commenters pointed out a slight flaw in the idea of Chris Hemsworth playing Robert Irwin in a film. The actor is a bit older than the celebrity conservationist — about 20 years older! So, several users suggested that he play the late Steve Irwin instead. Which, honestly, would be just as high of an honor! “Ok but Chris could definitely play STEVE in a movie and then Liam play Robert!” one person wrote. “Get on it!” “Chris plays Steve… just saying,” added another. Is anyone else super excited to watch this hypothetical movie? You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post “It’d Have To Be A Hemsworth” Chris Hemsworth Gives Chuckle-Worthy Response To Celeb Petitioning Him For Biopic appeared first on InspireMore.

Simon Cowell of America’s Got Talent used to remind me of Mikey from the old Life cereal commercials until I saw this drone show. If you don’t remember the commercials, kids were sitting around the table, not wanting to try a new cereal. One says to let Mikey try it, while another adds, “He won’t like it; he hates everything.” Yes, I used to think that Simon hated everything. But then the AGT stage moved outside to witness a phenomenal show by Sky Elements drones. Six men, wearing flight suits representing all branches of the U.S. Military, marched onto the America’s Got Talent stage. They introduced themselves as Preston, Brian, Phil, Tyler, Kyle, and Rick. The microphone returned to Preston, who introduced the group as Sky Elements from Dallas. Preston described their act: “It’s going to be 400 feet tall and 300 feet wide.” Howie Mandell asked if they were aware of the size of the building, and Preston replied, “This building is not big enough.” The introductions finished, and the four judges and the members of Sky Elements moved outside. Image from YouTube. The outside presentation began with lights in the sky and a voice recording of President John Kennedy saying, “We choose to go to the moon …” As the judges watched from folding chairs, the sky lit up, showing a space rocket. The countdown broadcast loudly over a public address system. The rocket took off, shedding its booster fuel tanks and preparing to land on the moon. Image from YouTube. The Moon landing was a success, and the larger-than-life astronaut was ready to place the American flag on the surface. But then something happened that surprised everyone, most especially Simon. AGT Effects Sent This Drone Show Over The Top Knowing that Simon is the hardest judge to impress, the pilots from Sky Elements had a few tricks up their sleeves. As the astronaut appeared with the flag in hand, it looked generic. Within seconds, more lighted drones began illuminating, creating a recognizable face inside the helmet! Image from YouTube. There is no adequate way to describe the look on Simon’s face as the facial recognition hit. Image from YouTube. The only word that escaped the normally outspoken man was “Wowww.” The show continued with another surprise. The astronaut faded away and was replaced by a single star shape. That quickly became the center of the “A” in the AGT logo! The Sky Elements pilots really stacked the deck to impress the America’s Got Talent judges with their drone show. One other part of the stage was outside — the Golden Buzzer! Simon loved the America’s Got Talent drone show so much that he got up and pressed the Golden Buzzer. Rather than the normal confetti drop, fireworks lit up the outdoor stage. Image from YouTube. The Sky Elements pilots were standing in shock as the celebration commenced. Congratulations! What an amazing display of drone flying! You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post Simon Cowell Gives Up A Rare Golden Buzzer For This Unlikely Performance On “America’s Got Talent” appeared first on InspireMore.