“Doctor” Kenny Chesney used to rely on his math smarts to “impress” the ladies before he could make them swoon with his Grammy-winning songs. The country star visited The Kelly Clarkson Show on June 17th and got on the subject of pickup lines. We assume his smooth vocals could easily land him some dates today. But he took a different approach in the past. “Well, I used to try to impress girls by quoting different formulas—like mathematical formulas,” he told Kelly. “And sometimes, it worked, and sometimes they looked at me like I was crazy.” View this post on Instagram A post shared by The Kelly Clarkson Show (@kellyclarksonshow) After the admission, Kelly Clarkson decided to see just how much he remembered. While he was talking, the producers shared the quadratic formula on a screen behind him. Then Kelly put him on the spot and asked him to recite it for the audience. “This was burned into my head in high school,” Kenny shared as he tried recalling the closed-form expression. “Doctor” Kenny Chesney Is “In Different League” It took a few moments. But after remembering the full name of the teacher who taught it to him, he quoted the equation with ease. And it worked—Kelly was impressed. “How many dates did that land you?” she asked with a shocked face. Kenny was honest with his response. While reciting formulas may have dazzled a few ladies, it didn’t exactly fill up his calendar. “A few,” he said. “But yeah, I mean, not as many dates as my guitar did.” Kelly Clarkson kindly admitted that it wouldn’t have gotten him far with her either. “If I was on a date, and someone said anything like ‘quadratic formula,’ I would just know that we are not meant to be together,” she laughed. “I would be like, ‘Oh man, you’re in a different league.'” Kenny Chesney then remembered that his alma mater, East Tennessee State University, handed him a PhD when he dropped in for a homecoming celebration in 2022. “Maybe that’s why they gave me an honorary doctorate,” Kenny joked. This story’s featured image is by Ethan Miller/Getty Images for dcp. The post Kenny Chesney Reveals How He Impressed The Ladies Before He Was A Star appeared first on InspireMore.

He shouted in pain as he fell off the stage - the theater has since been evacuated

'The worrying episodes are increasing'

The pilot’s body remained in the plane

PhRMA's lobbyists still come knocking on the doors of conservative members of Congress

'Pretty spectacular'

'Yes today but tomorrow I will be cancer free'

The 2023 Nashville Covenant School murders understandably received massive news coverage when they occurred. The fight over obtaining the murderer’s diary also received news attention. But when “nearly four dozen pages” of the murderer’s diary were finally released earlier this month, the mainstream media completely ignored it. It turns out that behind the scenes, the FBI had fought hard against the diary’s release. Some Covenant School parents also opposed releasing the diary because it would force families to re-live the nightmare. The Tennessee Star’s parent company, Star News Digital Media, successfully filed two lawsuits to obtain the diary. Five days after the release of the diary, with the exception of the New York Post, which is a national news outlet, the news coverage was limited to seven other conservative outlets such as The Daily Wire and Newsbusters. The school murderer was transgender, and her diary reveals a suicidal left-winger who hated whites. The FBI expressed concern that the release of the diary from a transgender person could lead the public “to dismiss the attacker as mentally ill,” which would “further permeate the false narrative that the majority of attackers are mentally ill.” It worried that the diary could “potentially inflam[e] the public.” The FBI worried that releasing the diary could have “unintended consequences for the segment of the population more vulnerable or open to conspiracy theories, which will undoubtedly abound.” Self-professed “experts,” the FBI fears, will “proffer their perspectives” in the press. But there is a lot of important information in the diary. As is very typical of mass public shooters, the murderer was suicidal: “A terrible feeling to know I am nothing of the gender I was born of. I am the most unhappy boy alive. I wish to be dead.” She was also on the anti-anxiety drug Buspirone, whose potential side effects include “abnormal dreams, outbursts of anger, tremors, and physical weakness.” The FBI worries that the diary will help create a link in people’s minds between mass murderers and mental illness, but suicidal people presumably have some mental health problems. Nor should the link be particularly surprising given that the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that 51% of mass public shooters in the last 25 years were actually seeing mental health care professionals before their attacks. That is 2.5 times the rate in the general public. The FBI acknowledged that Americans want to “understand what led to such tragic events.” But the FBI argued these statements “seldom provide the answers” and the diaries and manifestos were “often misleading.” Yet the national media appears completely uninterested in why these murderers pick the targets they do and how their motivation to get media coverage is important in understanding how to stop these attacks. The diary showed that the murderer had picked the Covenant School because it was a soft, unprotected target. Even if the national media ignored these comments, Metro Nashville Police Chief John Drake, who had access to the diary, said on the day of the attack, “There was another location that was mentioned, but because of a threat assessment by the suspect of too much security, they decided not to.” A couple of days later, Nashville Council member Robert Swope stated that the murderer “looked at” two other Nashville public schools before deciding “the security was too great to do what she wanted to do.” While the FBI worries that many of “the offenders themselves do not fully grasp or comprehend” what they are writing, there is a logic to attacking facilities assumed to be gun-free zones, like the Covenant School, and trying to maximize the amount of media coverage that they receive. The FBI may not want to acknowledge this, and the media may not want to cover these points, but we see it consistently in these attacks. The mass murderer wanted to get attention for the difficulties facing transgender individuals. She compared trans individuals to other groups in a way that indicates she clearly believed that transgender people didn’t have the same rights: “Disabled have rights, civil races have rights, LGBTQ have rights, gun owners have rights.” But referring to the life of transgender people, she declared: “ … with no rights, anyone’s country is a s—– dictatorship.” The news media and the FBI under the Biden administration are attempting to control the information available to Americans about a mentally troubled woman who identified as a man. The Biden administration is free to argue against linking transgender issues to mental illness or mass murder, but censoring the information is not the right approach. This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Nashville Shooter’s Manifesto Released Despite FBI Resistance appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has thrown a wrench into the blatantly discriminatory practices of big-money corporate interests. In American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund Management, over a bizarre dissent by a third judge, Judges Kevin Newsom and Robert Luck upheld an injunction against a venture capital fund with tens of millions of dollars in assets that gives money only to businesses owned by black women. Nobody else is eligible even to apply. The plaintiff, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, sued on behalf of three of its members—business owners who aren’t black women and, therefore, aren’t allowed to compete in Fearless Fund Management’s funding process. Fearless Fund was apparently fearless about violating anti-discrimination laws. The threshold question was whether the American Alliance for Equal Rights had standing to sue on behalf of its members. Each member provided an affidavit showing he was “able and ready” to participate in Fearless Fund’s competition, meet all prerequisites but the racial one, and have concrete plans to use the funds they would get to build up their businesses if they weren’t racially excluded. That is all that’s required to establish standing, according to Newsom and Luck, and they are correct—these business owners have an obvious claim since they are explicitly excluded from applying for the $20,000 in venture capital offered by Fearless Fund in its grant contest. Yes, Fearless Fund discriminates against members of the Alliance for Equal Rights because of their race, but that isn’t enough to establish standing, according to Judge Robin Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee. In her dissent, Rosenbaum accused the alliance of “flopping”—that is, faking an injury the way soccer players do by flopping on the field—“to manipulate the referee into inappropriately exercising his power to award a penalty kick in the box.” That’s a strange position to take in the 21st century. According to Rosenbaum’s illogic, members of the NAACP who, during the Jim Crow era, avoided hotels, restaurants, and buses where they knew they’d be turned away would be “flopping” because they didn’t go in and actually get turned away. This retrograde view of civil rights ignores that, as Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh put it recently, “discrimination is harm.” It would also force victims of discrimination into humiliating and even potentially dangerous situations before letting them seek justice. It’s curious, isn’t it, how efforts to defend the race discrimination that is now trendy and politically correct in academia, the media, and the corporate world so often end up tolerating the race discrimination that was trendy in the past? The only difference between today and the 1960s is which race is being discriminated against and which is benefiting. But Newsom and Luck took a principled view and reminded Rosenbaum, their fellow judge, that we’re talking about real-live, flesh-and-blood individuals who were excluded from the opportunity to compete in Fearless’s contest solely on account of the color of their skin. Respectfully, victims of race discrimination—whether white, black, or brown—are not ‘floppers.’ They face very real race discrimination, and that discrimination, Newsom and Luck recognized, is forbidden by federal law. The lawsuit was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which, as the judges pointed out in their June 3 ruling, prohibits race discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts. In fact, the entry form for applicants specifically said it was a “contract.” But Fearless Fund “conspicuously” changed that to take out the contract language after the lawsuit was filed in an obvious attempt to avoid the legal consequences of violating federal law. In defense of its discrimination, Fearless Fund argued, in essence, that it was allowed to discriminate “so long as there are prospective funders out there who aren’t discriminating.” Newsom and Luck dismissed that argument as “anathema to the principles that underlie all antidiscrimination provisions.” There is no doubt that the Southern racists of a long-gone era would have loved that argument. By Fearless Fund’s logic, so long as some hotels, restaurants, and buses served black people, they would be free to discriminate against black Americans. We know that was wrong then. And it is still wrong today, as is discriminating against anyone on the basis of race. In a last-ditch attempt to defend its discrimination, Fearless Fund argued that it had a free-speech right to engage in racial discrimination. But Newsom and Luck dismantled that argument too. There is a “critical distinction between advocating race discrimination and practicing it,” they said. And again, an example from the past proves the point. If a restaurateur banned black people from his restaurant, he would certainly be making a statement, but while the First Amendment would protect his right to say racist things, it would not protect his act of discriminatory exclusion. So, too, today. Of course, the trendy race discrimination that Fearless Fund practiced has its defenders. A quick internet search will reveal angry pundits saying that the decision is racist, that it “fails black women,” that it represents “a sick victory,” and that it amounts to “using historic civil rights laws to attack black people.” But take their arguments out of the thick cloud of rhetoric that pervades our era and apply them to the discrimination of the last one, and you will find what Rosenbaum missed—that to defend discrimination today is to excuse discrimination yesterday. There were angry pundits then, too, who no doubt argued that the ending of segregation and discrimination against blacks was a “sick victory” and an “attack on white people.” The wiser path is to rise above our era and find the principles that transcend all of them, as Newsom and Luck did. Racial discrimination is always wrong—there is never any justification for it. And it is about time that the corporate world of American business recognized that, just as American universities have been forced to do. Originally published by PJ Media. The post Appeals Court Deals Blow to Racial Discrimination by Big Money Corporate Interests appeared first on The Daily Signal.

SELCO: What to Do If Unwanted People Show Up at Your Door When the SHTF