The age of the arcade-style racing games is certainly past‚ with some of the best being left in the smoke. However‚ that doesn’t mean a lot of them aren’t worth visiting again‚ and there are still some gems being produced. Arcade-style games need something more than their sim racing-style counterparts. For me‚ the core of it is handling. Cars need to be able to be thrown around corners at speeds beyond comprehension while burning rubber in a sideways slide. Nitrous needs to be in abundance‚ and crashes have to be completely unrealistic. A few other extras I like to see are a killer soundtrack‚ police chases‚ and of course‚ obscene car customisation. Burnout This whole series ran from 2001 to 2018 and created a one-of-a-kind style of arcade racer that has never quite been matched. What made the Burnout series stand out was its focus on carnage and destruction over technical mastery. The high speed‚ car tagging‚ adrenaline-fest was best in class for arcade-style rac...

Since Cloud is typically always the party leader in FF7 Rebirth‚ you should know about the best build for him‚ including the greatest weapons‚ armor‚ Materia‚ Folios‚ and accessories to pick for him. This will help you build a well-rounded Cloud. Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth: Best Cloud build Cloud has many strengths‚ whether that be his deadly sword fighting or intricate magic attacks. To make sure you’re molding Cloud in the best way‚ here are the greatest weapons‚ Materia‚ Folios‚ and accessories for Cloud’s build in FF7 Rebirth. Screenshot: PC Invasion Best weapons and armor for Cloud Depending on which part of the game you’re at‚ you’ll be looking for different kinds of weapons. There are only a few select choices for Cloud in FF7 Rebirth‚ but here are the ones you should look out for. LevelWeaponStatsAbilityHow to getEarly gameSleek SaberATK: 32MATK: 24Firebolt Blade: Imbue your sword with fire and lightning while slicing a foe. Can use while ...

After the roaring success of Dune 2‚ it only makes sense that there will be a game to continue the wealth of the IP. The release date for Dune: Awakening is still to be announced‚ but in the meantime‚ you can sign up for the Beta and get a taste early. Sign up for the Beta To sign up for the Dune: Awakening Beta‚ you must be running a PC setup. Sadly‚ the game won’t be available on console yet. To gain access to a chance to be a beta tester‚ you need to head to their website. Once you are on the site‚ look for the Beta Signup option on the top right of the screen. Image via PC Invasion Here‚ you will be prompted to enter your email and select the levels of contact you will grant them. Once you have submitted your details‚ you will receive a welcome email in your inbox. The email will tell you that you have been put on a list of potential candidates to Beta test Dune: Awakening in the future. Now‚ all there is to do is wait for the email providing you with the invit...

Throughout the vast regions present in FF7 Rebirth‚ enemies are everywhere. Enemies that would be great intel for Chadley and his new friend MAI. We’re going to track down some intel and figure out how to prevent enemies from using Quick Nap in Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth. Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth – How to prevent enemies from using Quick Nap Screenshot: PC Invasion Just like you‚ foes you face throughout FF7 Rebirth have unique abilities they can call upon during battle. During your time in the Grasslands‚ you come across Fiend Intel locations requiring you to complete a battle and three challenges. More specifically‚ one of Fiend Intel 4: Wailing Weed’s challenges asks you to prevent enemies from using Quick Nap. The enemies you face are a rare type of mandragora called a Mandrake. As you start the fight and asses the enemy‚ you’ll find that inflicting too much damage on one of these creatures causes Quick Nap to trigger. However‚ as with most enemies‚ ...

If you’re looking to unlock Biological Intel: At Any Cost in Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth‚ you’ll need to know about all the Corel enemy locations to Assess them. Let’s uncover the 25 enemies you must Assess and where to find them. How to Unlock Biological Intel: At Any Cost in FF7 Rebirth Speak to Chadley in Corel‚ and you’ll be able to look at the new Combat Simulator challenge Biological Intel: At Any Cost. You can unlock this Combat Simulator by using the Assess Materia on 25 different enemies in the Corel Region. Make sure you have the Enemy Skill Materia as well. Screenshot: PC Invasion You can unlock other types of Biological Intel Combat Simulators by Assessing Junon enemies and Grasslands enemies as well. So don’t forget to go back to those Regions to unlock more Combat Simulators! How to make Corel Enemies respawn Even though some enemies are exclusive to certain side quests‚ don’t worry about missing the chance to Assess those...

Unveiling the enigmatic persona behind one of the Wild West's most legendary figures‚ Wyatt Earp lies the captivating tale of his wife. Often referred to as the wildest woman in the West‚ her identity remains shrouded in mystery‚ leaving historians and enthusiasts intrigued by the life of this remarkable yet elusive figure. Wyatt Earp's impact on history is undeniable‚ as his involvement in the... Source

In a much anticipated‚ historic opinion Monday‚ the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed Colorado’s highest court and restored former President Donald Trump to the ballot for the state’s presidential primary Tuesday.  By doing so‚ the U.S. Supreme Court halted the Colorado Supreme Court’s unconstitutional disenfranchisement of 4.5 million registered voters in Colorado‚ restoring their right to make their own decision on who should be president. The Colorado court claimed that because Trump was guilty of “insurrection‚” it could remove him from the ballot under Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is one of three Reconstruction amendments adopted after the end of the Civil War‚ and its Section 3 was intended to keep certain Confederate military and government officials from serving in state and federal government. Section 3 provides that: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress‚ or elector for President and Vice President‚ or hold any office‚ civil or military‚ under the United States … who‚ having previously taken an oath‚ as a member of Congress‚ or as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States‚ shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same … . But Congress may‚ by a vote of two-thirds of each House‚ remove such disability. But all nine justices of the Supreme Court agreed in Monday’s decision that Colorado could not remove Trump from the ballot.  As the unsigned opinion says‚ since “the Constitution makes Congress‚ rather than the States‚ responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates‚” state courts and state officials have no power to remove federal candidates from the ballot. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment has language found in many other amendments‚ namely: “Congress shall have the power to enforce‚ by appropriate legislation‚ the provisions of this article.” The high court concluded that Congress’ power under Section 5 to pass appropriate legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment “is critical when it comes to Section 3.”  The court noted that the “terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress‚” not the states‚ and the text “does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States.”  Although the states retain sovereign power to determine the qualifications of their own state officeholders‚ the court ruled‚ they have no such power over federal officeholders.  Granting the states such “authority would invert the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power‚” the nine justices said. Nor is there “any tradition of state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders or candidates in the years following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Moreover‚ state enforcement “would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that ‘the President … represent[s] all the voters in the Nation.’”  As the court explained: Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits‚ but variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations.  Some States might allow a Section 3 challenge to succeed based on a preponderance of the evidence‚ while others might require a heightened showing.  Certain evidence (like the congressional Report on which the lower courts relied here) might be admissible in some States but inadmissible hearsay in others.  Disqualification might be possible only through criminal prosecution‚ as opposed to expedited civil proceedings‚ in particular States.  Indeed‚ in some States – unlike Colorado (or Maine‚ where the secretary of state recently issued an order excluding former President Trump from the primary ballot) – procedures for excluding an ineligible candidate from the ballot may not exist at all.  The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some States‚ but not others‚ based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record). The “patchwork” that could result from different decisions in different states under differing legal standards (or no standards at all) on whether a candidate should be on the ballot would “sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States.” Allowing states to have such authority to remove candidates or someone actually elected as supposedly disqualified to hold office was of great concern to the Supreme Court.  The “disruption” that would cause “would be all the more acute–and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election results–if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted.”  “Nothing in the Constitution‚” concluded the court‚ “requires that we endure such chaos–arriving at any time or different times‚ up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.” There were two concurrences in the unanimous judgment written by other justices.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the result‚ but said this decision doesn’t require the court to address whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced. Justices Sonia Sotomayor‚ Elena Kagan‚ and Ketanji Brown Jackson also concurred in overturning the Colorado decision‚ but said the court shouldn’t have decided whether enforcement can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.  The three justices stressed that it was important to leave open the question of which federal officials may enforce Section 3. Although the state of Colorado was the only party in this case‚ the Supreme Court’s decision is broad enough to apply to any and all attempts by a state to disqualify from the ballot Trump or any member of Congress who supposedly engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6‚ 2021.  Thus‚ this decision voids Maine’s removal of Trump from the ballot by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows‚ who was an elector for Biden in the 2020 election‚ or the recent similar decision in Illinois by a state judge in Cook County. The specious efforts to remove Trump from state ballots is over.  No doubt the lawfare against Trump by the Left will continue.  But with this Supreme Court decision‚ Donald J. Trump will be on the presidential primary ballot in every state.  And if he becomes the nominee of the Republican Party‚ no state official will be able to remove him from the general election ballot in November. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post With Trump Ruling‚ Supreme Court Restores Voting Rights of Millions of Americans appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—A coalition of 16 state attorneys general is calling out YouTube for “misleading” informational posts on abortion videos‚ warning that the platform is putting women in danger by minimizing the risks of chemical abortions. “Your bias against pro-life and pro-woman messages is un-American; inconsistent with the liberties protected by the First Amendment; and‚ in this case‚ illegal‚” the attorneys general said in the letter‚ first obtained by The Daily Signal. “It must stop.” With the effort led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird‚ the letter is addressed to YouTube Chief Executive Officer Neal Mohan and also signed by the attorneys general of Alabama‚ Alaska‚ Arkansas‚ Georgia‚ Indiana‚ Kansas‚ Mississippi‚ Montana‚ Nebraska‚ South Carolina‚ South Dakota‚ Texas‚ Utah‚ West Virginia‚ and Wyoming. “Women deserve to know the truth about the dangers of chemical abortion pills‚” Bird told The Daily Signal. “For YouTube to attach deceptive labels to videos of women sharing their testimonies after suffering from at-home abortion drugs is a disservice to women everywhere. YouTube must end its blatant misinformation campaign that puts women at risk and quit targeting pro-life messages.” The letter specifically singles out a video published by the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom‚ in which a woman describes her “excruciating experience of inducing a chemical abortion at home alone‚ without a doctor or nurse present.” 03-04-Letter-to-Youtube-re-False-Disclaimer-FINALDownload YouTube added a notice to that video that states: “An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed health care professional.” That notice “minimizes and downplays some of the serious risks of abortion drugs‚” the letter says‚ calling the notice both “false and misleading” and pointing out that the notice is not backed up by reliable sources. “It suggests that chemical abortions are performed by trained professionals‚” the attorneys general said. “They are not. Although surgical abortions are still typically ‘done by a licensed health care professional‚’ under current FDA protocols‚ chemical abortions are ‘done by’ pregnant women themselves.” The lack of physician involvement in chemical abortions is also central to the case of Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine‚ a case in which the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments later this month. It deals with the FDA eliminating requirements that doctors care for a pregnant woman in person before‚ during‚ and after that woman uses abortion drugs to abort her baby. The FDA formerly required abortion drugs to be prescribed and administered only by doctors and only in a “health care setting‚” the letter notes‚ since these requirements were intended to mitigate the “serious risks” the chemical abortions pose to women. WATCH: “The FDA now allows women to receive these drugs from non-physicians through the mail and to self-administer them‚ all without ever seeing a physician or other health care professional in person‚” the letter says. “The doctors in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine are challenging that unsafe process.” The attorneys general warn YouTube that “chemical abortion is the most common abortion method in the country‚ and women deserve to know the truth about these high-risk drugs that send‚ according to the FDA’s own label‚ roughly one in 25 women who take them to the emergency room.” “By asserting that chemical abortions are performed by licensed health care professionals‚ YouTube lies to our constituents and the rest of the American public‚” they add. “That lie is especially concerning because it inaccurately portrays a fact central to a current Supreme Court case.” If YouTube does not promptly remove or correct the notice‚ the attorneys general warned that they will need to exercise their “consumer-protection authority to protect pregnant women and other consumers from your falsehoods.” And since YouTube edited and posted the false warning label itself‚ the letter adds‚ the company does not have immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. YouTube did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Signal. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post EXCLUSIVE: 16 Attorneys General Order YouTube to Remove ‘Misleading’ Notice on Abortion Video appeared first on The Daily Signal.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recently expressed concern about the decision by Missouri’s state courts to exclude Christians from serving on a particular jury because of their “traditional religious views on questions of sexual morality. The case at issue involves a woman who identifies as lesbian suing the Missouri Department of Corrections for job discrimination. And Alito is right to be concerned.Although the judge found that the three potential jurors holding traditional Christian views about sex and human sexuality “were very clear in that they could be absolutely fair and impartial” in deciding the woman’s legal claims‚ the judge nonetheless struck all three from the jury pool “to err on the side of caution.”Ponder that chilling decision: A judge disqualified three people from doing their civic duty simply because they believe in God’s plan for sex within a marriage between one man and one woman.The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 20 declined to review this egregiously wrong decision. Alito agreed with that decision‚ writing that—although the case raised a “very serious and important question” that the high court should address in a future case—a significant procedural issue would have complicated that review in this case. Nevertheless‚ Alito said he fears the Supreme Court soon will see other cases in which government excludes Americans from roles of civic responsibility strictly because of their religious beliefs.The problem? Every American’s constitutional right to trial by jury “necessarily contemplates an impartial jury drawn from a cross section of the community‚” the Supreme Court said in the 1946 case of Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. The judicial system‚ then‚ should not reject individuals from serving as jurors by using crude group stereotypes.The Supreme Court already has determined that it is unconstitutional to exclude women and blacks from jury pools merely because of sex or race. The same should be true with religion. People shouldn’t be excluded from participating in an important public duty because of their religious beliefs.Of course‚ jurors should be excluded from deciding a case when they show specific bias or have conflicts of interest. As Alito wrote: “Jurors are duty-bound to decide cases based on the law and the evidence‚ and a juror who cannot carry out that duty may properly be excused.”That is the law and common sense. But nothing like that happened with the excluded Christians in Missouri.Imagine if‚ “to err on the side of caution‚” we allowed attorneys and judges to exclude groups of Americans from juries because of generalized hunches that they can’t overcome their own opinions to apply the law fairly to the facts presented at trial.Would we strike all blue-collar workers from juries involving business disputes because of their possible bitterness against the rich? It would be deeply wrong for courts to say Muslims couldn’t be jurors in cases involving Jews‚ or vice versa—or to exclude atheists from cases involving either faith. Michigan football boosters can fairly decide disputes involving graduates of Ohio State or Notre Dame.We are all Americans striving to work together responsibly to ensure a just community‚ not fragmented factions exploiting our fears of each other.These kinds of group exclusions are especially unconstitutional when they involve religious adherents because‚ as Alito explained‚ the Constitution’s free exercise clause protects everyone’s right to practice their religion. Courts inflict unconstitutional disabilities on religious believers when they exclude them from participation in public life simply because of their beliefs.In the Missouri case‚ we have little more than an embarrassingly crass prejudice against Christians who believe that it is best to reserve sexual intercourse only for a marriage consisting of one man and one woman. That prejudice assumes wrongly that Christians will use those beliefs to punish those who disagree with them‚ even though the Bible teaches believers to love their neighbors as themselves and to treat others the same way they would like to be treated.Christians believe the Bible’s teachings optimize the common good and human flourishing and should not be wielded as weapons against others. We all need to learn to live together‚ respecting even those of our fellow Americans who have different ideas than we do.The Missouri courts here wrongly treated religious Missourans and their beliefs “as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique disabilities‚” as Justice William Brennan warned in 1978. Although the Supreme Court declined to review this flawed decision by the Missouri courts‚ no one should view the high court’s action as authorizing such discrimination in the future against those holding to traditional views on sex.To do so‚ make no mistake‚ would open even wider the door for government officials to exclude anyone from public life whose beliefs they disagree with. The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Supreme Court Justice Right to Warn of Dangers in Dismissing Jurors for Their Faith appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Violent crime is going down in Venezuela just as the United States has been hit with a rash of high-profile violent crimes by illegal immigrants.  It’s not hard to figure out why. The killing of Laken Riley‚ a 22-year-old nursing student in Athens‚ Georgia‚ has become the latest and most prominent case of an American being killed as a consequence of President Joe Biden’s open-border policies. The man being held in connection with the killing of Riley is Jose Antonio Ibarra‚ a Venezuelan illegal immigrant who reportedly entered the United States in 2022. Since his arrival in the U.S.‚ he appears to have spent his time breaking various other laws and behaving like a general menace to society. He has been arrested for various serious crimes and repeatedly released. Now‚ a young American woman is dead. Here’s how Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas—who has been impeached by the House—described the responsibility for the killing. “As a prosecutor‚ having prosecuted violent crime and other crimes for 12 years‚ one individual is responsible for the murder‚ and that is the murderer‚” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. That’s not at all how the Left typically talks about crime—as an account on X‚ formerly Twitter‚ pointed out. Mayorkas on the illegal that k*lled Laken Riley:“One individual is responsible for the m*rder. And that is the m*rderer."Interesting standard.Aren’t we told white supremacy‚ hate speech and citizens owning guns are the real causes of other crimes?pic.twitter.com/pAE8ObuhDJ— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) March 4‚ 2024 Sen. Tommy Tuberville‚ R-Ala.‚ didn’t mince words about the cause of this evil: “Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas have blood on their hands for every single American murdered by an illegal alien. They need to do their jobs and secure our border before more innocent Americans are killed.” Riley’s death is certainly not the only case of a serious crime being connected to the unrestrained immigration and border issue. Fox News reporter Bill Melugin lamented on X that it’s getting hard to keep up with all the stories about illegal immigrants committing violent crimes. Can't keep up w/ these stories at this point. Now media in Louisiana are reporting an illegal alien from Honduras has been arrested for the rape of a 14-year-old girl at knifepoint‚ and stabbing another man repeatedly during a robbery. ICE detainer lodged.https://t.co/WF4HQKVSLy— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) February 28‚ 2024 While left-wing media twist and turn to hide the source of illegal immigrant crimes and portray “asylum-seekers” as just innocent refugees‚ the reality seems to be that a potentially large number of dangerous criminals have been allowed to enter and remain in the United States. A news report from December is a pretty good indicator of what’s driving this uptick in criminality. “Venezuela’s rate of violent deaths dropped to its lowest level in more than two decades following years of massive migration‚ as both criminals and victims fled the nation’s economic crisis‚” Bloomberg reported in late December. According to Bloomberg‚ Venezuela “registered 26.8 violent deaths per 100‚000 inhabitants” in 2023‚ down from 35.3 for every 100‚000 the year before. Last year’s figure is “one-third of what it was in 2016.” Good for Venezuela‚ I guess. But the socialist country didn’t come up with new crime-fighting tricks or round up all the gangs like El Salvador did. No‚ what’s happened is‚ Venezuelan criminals have simply pulled up stakes and left the failing nation for greener pastures. Remember how Vice President Kamala Harris‚ the “border czar‚” spoke about how fixing the border issue was about fixing the problems in Central and South America? Apparently‚ what she meant by that is that we’d just bring all of their crime issues here. Problem solved! It’s a bit reminiscent of how Fidel Castro’s regime in Havana sent thousands of convicts to the United States from Cuba in 1980‚ the final year of the Carter administration. Is Venezuela intentionally sending criminals over to the U. S.? So far‚ there’s no direct evidence of that‚ but the Caracas regime of strongman Nicolas Maduro is preventing Venezuelan illegal immigrants from being sent back. “Venezuela has followed through on a threat to stop accepting flights of migrants deported from the U.S. and Mexico‚” the Wall Street Journal reported in February. The Journal reported that “President Nicolas Maduro’s authoritarian regime introduced the measure after Washington reimposed some of the economic sanctions it had previously lifted on Venezuela.” An estimated more than half a million Venezuelans have illegally crossed the southern border in the past two years. How many of those people are dangerous‚ violent criminals? Will the Biden administration and blue‚ Democrat-run cities even do anything about the ones who have proved to be a danger? According to the latest estimates‚ at least 7.2 million people have come into the country during the Biden presidency. And because this migration is on such a mass scale and all but unregulated‚ it’s impossible to weed out all the violent criminals. If the Biden administration had focused on actually securing the border and ensuring that people couldn’t come into the country illegally to begin with‚ this wouldn’t be a problem. But now it is‚ and given the scope of the border crisis‚ this is now a much more widespread issue than what Miami faced in the 1980s. This is all the result of the self-inflicted‚ ideologically motivated destruction that’s become a hallmark of the Biden presidency. The Left gets mass‚ unrestricted illegal immigration‚ and we pay the price. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Venezuela Is Exporting Its Violent Crime Problem to US‚ Thanks to Biden appeared first on The Daily Signal.