The streamer said people on the left 'need to be ... showing your opponents' guts'

The university president conducted a 'thorough review' of the video

The swagger couldn't be more out of this world

Buckethead was born Brian Patrick Carroll on May 13, 1969, in Pomona, California. His interest in music began in his youth when he became captivated by the guitar and began practicing obsessively. Carroll developed a fascination with martial arts films, horror imagery, and video games, which all became a major part of his artistic identity. He created the persona of Buckethead in the late 1980s, complete with a white mask and a KFC bucket on his head, a visual style that gave him a unique identity in the world of rock and experimental music. The persona allowed him to explore The post Top 10 Buckethead Songs appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

After defending former President Joe Biden’s mental fitness for more than two years, former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre went before a House committee to answer questions Friday morning.  The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating the use of Biden’s White House autopen, and whether Biden was aware of presidential actions staff took on his behalf, such as executive orders and clemencies.  House Oversight Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., noted that Jean-Pierre has a forthcoming book, as does former Vice President Kamala Harris. Initial published excerpts of Harris’ book showed her to be critical of the Biden White House. “One reason we delayed Jean-Pierre is, we knew she had a book coming out. Kamala Harris had a book coming out. The books are going to tell the story, I think, of what we’ve been hearing in the depositions,” Comer told The Daily Signal. “It’s counter to what many people have been reporting over the last year or so.” Though Jean-Pierre was White House press secretary from May 2022 to the end of Biden’s single term in office in January, she ignored reporters’ questions as she went into the Thomas P. O’Neill House Office Building on Friday morning.  As chief White House spokeswoman, she repeatedly defended Biden’s mental acuity, claiming she couldn’t keep up with him and that videos critical of Biden were “cheap fakes.” Jean-Pierre was not under oath, but lying to Congress is a crime under federal statute 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Jean-Pierre is the latest of more than a dozen senior Biden White House staffers who sat for transcribed interviews with the House Oversight Committee. Biden’s second chief of staff, Jeff Zients, will go before the committee on Sept. 18.  The committee had transcribed interviews with more than a dozen former White House officials in Biden’s inner circle about his mental fitness for office. Three others had to be subpoenaed and invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Most notable of those was Dr. Kevin O’Connor, the Biden White House physician. Anthony Bernal, former senior adviser to first lady Jill Biden, also pleaded the Fifth, as did Annie Tomasini, former deputy director of Oval Office operations.  “What’s at stake are all of the legal documents that were signed by the autopen, especially the last nine months, which by all accounts, President Biden was checked out of office,” Comer told The Daily Signal.  The Kentucky Republican talked about the excerpt from Harris’ book, “107 Days,” published in The Atlantic about her abbreviated presidential campaign in 2024 that she lost to Donald Trump. Harris called Biden’s decision to run for reelection reckless and criticized Biden White House officials. “What you were seeing from Kamala yesterday, I thought, was an admission of a huge lack of respect for Joe Biden when she said, ‘We should have never let Joe and [then-first lady Jill Biden] make that decision,’” Comer said. “That’s a pretty bold admission of lack of respect. I think that’s the kind of trend we are seeing in terms of excessive use of the autopen.”  The post Jean-Pierre Faces House Panel’s Scrutiny on Biden Incapacity, Autopen appeared first on The Daily Signal.

After a transgender gunman targeted a Minneapolis Catholic school last month, killing two and wounding nearly two dozen others, gun control advocates predictably doubled down on their constant calls to impose every restriction imaginable on peaceable gun owners. As is usually the case, none of their default proposals would have saved a single life. And, of course, gun control advocates failed to acknowledge how their desired regulations would significantly undermine the ability of ordinary Americans to fight back against the very types of criminal violence from which gun control fails to protect them. That’s in large part because many gun control advocates either don’t know—or simply don’t care—how often Americans rely on the right to keep and bear arms. Almost every major study—including the most recent report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually. In 2021, a professor at the Georgetown McDonough School of Business conducted the most comprehensive study ever on the issue, concluding that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the U.S. every year. For this reason, The Daily Signal publishes a monthly article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read accounts from past months and years here.) The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use during crimes that we found in August. You can explore more using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database. Aug. 2, Harvey, Ill. Two men opened fire on guests attending a large gathering inside a home, injuring five people (including a 4-year-old boy) before an armed victim put an end to the violence. The armed victim, who police say had a valid concealed carry license, returned fire, killing one gunman and injuring the second. All of the injured guests are expected to survive. Aug. 2, Jacksonville, Fla. A 25-year-old man used his firearm to defend himself, his mom, and his aunt during a road rage incident, exchanging fire with a driver who brandished a gun at him following a near-accident. The assailant sustained a gunshot wound, fled the scene, and, ironically, crashed his car. Police quickly used the assailant’s license plate to identify and locate him, and he now faces criminal charges for attempted murder. The man who defended himself and his family isn’t being charged. Aug. 4, Bryan, Tex. In a parking lot outside of a local steel business, a man with a history of serious mental health issues approached a truck occupied by a driver, his wife, and their three young boys, tried to open the doors, and claimed that God told him to take the truck and that “he knew the boys were inside.” Afraid for the safety of his family, the driver engaged the man in a physical altercation during which the man hit him multiple times. Eventually, the driver was able to grab a gun from his truck and fatally shoot his assailant. Aug. 9, Elkton, Md. A resident awoke in the middle of the night to the sounds of a man he didn’t know pounding on his door and repeatedly threatening to kill him. The startled resident called a “longtime friend and neighbor” for assistance, who in turn instructed his wife to call 911. At the same time, the neighbor armed himself, headed toward the targeted home, confronted the hostile man, and ultimately used the prospect of lethal force as leverage to help de-escalate the situation and detain the man until police arrived. Police arrested the man and charged him with attempted home invasion, attempted burglary, trespassing, and disturbing the peace. Aug. 15, Philadelphia, Penn. In a random and unprovoked assault, a man on a train viciously attacked another passenger, hitting the victim in the face repeatedly even after he’d fallen to the ground. Fortunately, the victim was a concealed carry permit holder and fatally shot his assailant in what police described as an “attempt[] to save himself from further serious injury.” Aug. 15, Joliet, Ill. When a pregnant woman heard a man forcing his way into her home late at night while her boyfriend was still at work, she armed herself with a handgun, grabbed her infant daughter, and hid in a bedroom closet. She fatally shot the intruder (who was wearing gloves and holding a screwdriver) after he came into the bedroom. Unbeknownst to the woman, the intruder was on parole for previous burglary convictions and may have targeted the home because the woman’s boyfriend is a well-known custom car creator with a large social media following. Aug. 20, Milan, Ind. A woman living in a rural area noticed a strange truck in her driveway and called her husband—who was only a mile away—to investigate. The husband quickly returned home, blocked the truck with his own vehicle, confronted an intruder, whom he discovered inside the family’s garage, and held him at gunpoint until police arrived. The suspect was charged with unlawful residential entry and various drug offenses. Aug. 22, Houston, Tex. An armed homeowner exchanged gunfire with two men who tried to manipulate their way into the house by impersonating police officers. The fake cops—who were clad in bulletproof vests and had badges hanging around their necks—initially claimed they were at the home to serve a warrant. That ploy failed when the homeowner grew suspicious after seeing through his doorbell camera that the “officers” wore ski masks and hadn’t arrived in a marked police car. The intruders then attempted to force their way inside and began shooting through the door, but the homeowner returned fire and fatally struck both of them during the 22-round shootout. Neither the armed victim nor the child inside the home at the time was injured. Aug. 24, Portsmouth, Virg. A would-be intruder quickly discovered that he’d picked the wrong home to try to break into, coming face-to-face with the homeowner, who happened to be an off-duty special agent for the Virginia State Police. The two had a physical altercation in which the victim sustained “moderate injuries” before he fatally shot the intruder. Aug. 28, Lauderhill, Fla. – As a father carrying his baby in a car seat exited an elevator in his apartment complex’s parking garage, a man who’d ridden the elevator down with them from a different floor pulled out a gun, shooting the father in the back. The wounded father ran to a nearby vehicle and collapsed, but was able to draw his own gun and return fire at his assailant, who retreated but was subsequently apprehended. Aug. 28, Harris, Mich. Police say that a man was fatally shot in self-defense during a domestic violence incident. Before the shooting, the man had physically assaulted his domestic partner and then allegedly assaulted another member of the household with a knife.   Tragedies like the Minnesota shooting are undeniably devastating. But they’re also statistically rare, especially compared to instances of lawful defensive gun use. Our response to unconscionable and extraordinary acts criminal gun violence cannot be to undermine the rights of ordinary Americans (like those described above) to defend themselves effectively against the most ordinary of criminal encounters.   The post Defensive Gun Uses Show Extraordinary Crimes Shouldn’t Erase Rights of Ordinary Gun Owners appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said this week that he’s ready to force a federal government shutdown at the end of the month if Democrats don’t get the spending that they want. That would be a reversal in rhetoric after some Democrat senators, including Schumer, warned in March about the dire consequences of a government shutdown. At that time, Schumer explained his decision to vote for a Republican continuing resolution to fund the government by saying, “It’s not really a decision. It’s a Hobson’s choice.” “Either proceed with the bill before us or risk Donald Trump throwing America into the chaos of a shutdown. This, in my view, is no choice at all. While the [House bill] is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse,” the Democrat minority leader contended at the time. Schumer was joined by several other Democrat senators, who voted with Republicans to prevent a government shutdown. They echoed his sentiment about how closing nonessential elements of the federal government would harm Americans.  “I’m outraged by the reckless actions of President Trump, Elon Musk, and Republicans in control of Congress, so I refuse to hand them a shutdown where they would have free rein to cause more chaos and harm,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., explained at the time.  “There is very little about this [continuing resolution] that I like—but there is even less I like about shutting down the government. With Donald Trump and Elon Musk taking a chain saw to the federal government’s workforce and illegally freezing federal funding, the last thing we need to do is plunge our country into further chaos and turmoil by shutting down the government,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., argued in his statement about voting to keep the government funded.  Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said that a government shutdown would hurt his state in particular. “My job is to protect people in Hawaii. Today’s vote on the continuing resolution was a difficult and close call, but ultimately, I made the determination that a flawed bill was better than no bill at all. A shutdown would enable Donald Trump and Elon Musk to unilaterally determine that the vast majority of federal workers are not essential. And given the number of federal workers in Hawaii, mass furloughs would be deeply painful for people across the state,” the Hawaii senator contended in a comment about his support of the March continuing resolution.  Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., worried about a government shutdown’s effect on the economy. “Shutdowns are also incredibly damaging. The last shutdown cost the U.S. economy $11 billion. Make no mistake, a shutdown under President Trump right now would be catastrophic,” Peters said in a statement.  In December 2024, Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., held that government shutdowns “have real and severe impacts on the American people, including by risking our national security and threatening livelihoods—which is why it is important that we voted on a bipartisan basis to avert a shutdown.” She added in March regarding her decision to vote for a continuing resolution that the choice “was between a federal government shutdown that would hurt Granite Staters and Americans, especially our most vulnerable neighbors, or a partisan government funding bill. I have concluded that allowing the federal government to shut down with this president in charge is too dangerous to risk.” “Our economy is already in a tailspin due to President Trump’s reckless trade war and general instability, and a shutdown harms innocent families, children, and seniors,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., asserted in a statement about her vote in support of the continuing resolution in March.  Time will tell if Democrat senators support Schumer in potentially holding the government hostage over spending or once again join Republicans to keep federal personnel on the job. The deadline to avert a shutdown is the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The post Schumer Threatens Government Shutdown, Something He, Other Senate Dems Decried as ‘Chaos’ in March appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A recent move by the California Senate Appropriations Committee has left families across the state concerned about their rights as the primary decision-makers in their children’s education. Just this week, as the legislature neared the end of its session, the state senate approved AB 495, a proposal that expands the list of those who can claim “caregiver” rights over a child—threatening to expand the state’s authority at the expense of parents. Despite last-minute revisions before the legislature, this bill is still harmful to parental rights. The proposal has even been described by some as “putting every child at risk.” This isn’t the first time California lawmakers have sought to sideline parents. In 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 107, a law that allows California courts to strip custody from parents, who don’t consent to their child undergoing experimental and irreversible gender transition procedures. That law applies regardless of the parents’ home state—all that’s needed is for the child to be within California borders. The law also requires doctors to withhold medical records of gender-related treatment from parents, even in response to a subpoena. Now, with AB 495, lawmakers are again expanding the state’s authority at the expense of families. Branded the Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025, the bill claims to provide legal tools for families facing temporary parental absence. But a closer look reveals that its language is far broader: It allows an adult who has “affinity” with a child to the “fifth degree of kinship,” including stepsiblings, to assume custody-like control through a one-page “Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit.” That gives those individuals the right to make medical and mental health decisions on behalf of children. And under a recent amendment by the bill’s author, Assemblywoman Celeste Rodriguez, those affidavits don’t even have to be notarized—eliminating a basic protection. Parents and advocacy groups are sounding the alarm. The California Family Council, the Home School Legal Defense Association, and local pastors have organized rallies, with nearly 6,000 people gathering at the state capitol last month. Yet while California seeks to take away parents’ rights, other states are moving in the opposite direction.  25 states have already passed a “Parents’ Bill of Rights” affirming the principle that parents are the ultimate authority in their children’s education and care. Many of these proposals affirm that parents are a child’s primary caregiver and the state cannot interfere with such a relationship unless the state has a “compelling” interest that is not being served (otherwise known as a “strict scrutiny” clause). The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld parents’ rights on several occasions, including in opinions stating that Americans have “the right to marry, establish a home and bring up children” and that the “primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” As explained by Heritage Foundation research the high court has even ruled that children have an “underdeveloped sense of responsibility” and that a child’s character is not as “well formed as an adult’s”—giving parents crucial rights to care for their minor-aged children. Such opinions and policies enshrine what AB 495 threatens to erode: the recognition that families, not the state, are best equipped to make decisions on behalf of their children. That’s not all. Surveys find that radical “gender” policies are unpopular. Survey results released in April by the NBC News Decision Desk found that 71% of respondents aged 18 and over agreed that there are only two genders: male and female. 75% of respondents opposed allowing males to compete in female athletics. When minor-aged children tell a teacher they are confused about their sex, these young people need empathy and careful guidance from adults—starting with their parents. Research finds that most children grow out of these feelings later in life. California families should not have to leave their state to preserve their rights. Lawmakers must reject AB 495 and instead strengthen the protections that affirm parents as the first and most important guardians of their children’s well-being. The post California’s AB 495 Erodes Parental Rights and Child Safeguards appeared first on The Daily Signal.

These College Students Prove That Antisemitism Is at the Root of Pro-Hamas Protests

I guess you really are what you eat.