'It is a question of can she keep this up'

'Dystopian Sh*t': Kamala Harris' Online Support Is Well-Funded And Inauthentic, Influencers Claim

'Sex traffickers capitalize on large scale events such as Comic-Con to exploit their victims for profit'

The list supposedly details the purchasing of wooden chairs, tables, and stools

9/11 attacks claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent people

'The safety and well-being of our members are our top priorities'

Site has no Description

It may still be the dog days of summer, but parents, students, and educators everywhere are already looking to the start of the school year. And this year will bring one massive change to schools and colleges across the country. On Aug. 1, President Joe Biden’s Department of Education is set to enforce its massive rewrite on Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—the simple, 37-word statute that bars sex discrimination in any federally funded education program. But this simple, long-standing prohibition on sex discrimination has been manipulated by the Biden administration to undermine constitutional freedoms (including the freedom of speech) and to eliminate commonsense due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct on campus. Also—and in perhaps what is the biggest change of all—the new Title IX rule expands the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity or expression,” thereby erasing the very women that Title IX was enacted to protect. These terms weren’t in the minds of the ratifiers of Title IX in 1972, but that’s of no concern to the Department of Education, which believes its vast expansion of the word “sex” is legally sound. It has purported that a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case—Bostock v. Clayton County—provides the legal basis for the new rule. But that case doesn’t say anything about Title IX, and the court’s holding was limited to employment discrimination alone. The ink was barely dry on the Education Department’s vast rewrite before 10 separate federal lawsuits were filed by 26 states, various membership organizations, and individual plaintiffs across the country. The essential elements of each lawsuit share a common theme: the Biden administration’s new Title IX rule is illegal, unconstitutional, and “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act—the federal law that governs all agency rulemaking. The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”; “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity”; or “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” In six of the 10 federal lawsuits, judges have already issued decisions and temporarily enjoined the revised Title IX rule from taking effect, citing the same “arbitrary and capricious” nature of the regulation. As a result, there are already temporary injunctions in place against the rule’s application in 22 states. Further, a federal district court in Kansas enjoined the department’s enforcement of the 2024 Title IX rule in a unique manner that impacts educational institutions nationwide. In addition to blocking enforcement in the specific plaintiff states (i.e., Alaska, Kansas, Utah, and Wyoming), it blocked enforcement at the more than 680 colleges and universities attended by the children of members of the plaintiff membership organizations anywhere in the country. And now, on Wednesday, a federal court in Oklahoma joined the others in enjoining the rule’s enforcement as well. In writing for the court, U.S. District Court Judge Jodi Dishman held that the state was likely to succeed in the ongoing litigation because it had demonstrated that the Department of Education had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in enacting the Rule. She added: The equities do not favor the Department, and the public interest is not served when the law is misapplied or constitutional rights are violated. Since the current regulations [on Title IX] have been in effect for decades, there is little harm in maintaining the status quo through the pendency of this suit. Additionally, recipients have only been given three months to comply with all the Final Rule’s changes. Federal funds that go to school programs, salaries, etc., are on the line. For these reasons, neither the equities nor the public interest favors the Department. The Biden administration has already asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the Department of Education to enforce at least the uncontested parts of the rule. In a pair of filings, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar asked the court to review the preliminary injunctions stemming from a pair of cases in Louisiana and Tennessee, after both the 5th and 6th Circuits denied the Biden administration’s request to allow portions of the rule to take effect. Those preliminary injunctions impact 10 states in total. For the Title IX litigants, it’s been so far, so good. But a few days ago, that changed. A federal court in Alabama denied a request for a preliminary injunction filed by Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina to block the Title IX rule from going into effect in those states. That denial means that, at least for schools not impacted by another injunction, the 2024 regulations from the Department of Education will go into effect in all schools in those states when school begins a short time from now. The plaintiff states have already filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, requesting an emergency injunction against the rule based on the time-sensitive nature of enforcement. In light of the ongoing litigation, the Department of Education released resources for schools and stakeholders on how to implement the new rule. The department also warned that the list of schools where it cannot enforce the new Title IX rule may grow in the coming days. For now, half of the country and hundreds of schools are in limbo as Thursday’s enforcement deadline looms. They will be required to comply with the new Title IX rule that eliminates free speech, campus due process, and protections for biological women—but it’s anyone’s guess how long that will last. Without compliance, they could be subject to a Title IX complaint, or an investigation by the Department of Education for the failure to comply with the new rule. That further subjects these states and schools to the possibility of losing their federal educational funding and facing lawsuits by the U.S. Department of Justice. Ultimately, the bulk of litigation over the Title IX rule seems destined for resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court is currently in recess, and won’t convene until its opening conference on Monday, Sept. 30. At that point, the Justices will consider which—if any—of the Title IX cases to accept for review. Until that date, one thing is certain. For many schools in the country, the future of enforcement of the new Title IX rule is going to be complicated and uncertain. With any luck that uncertainty will be short-lived. The post Biden’s Illegal Title IX Rule Is Set for Enforcement. The School Year Is Going to Be Complicated. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On the latest episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast,” we brace for the impact of a major conflict in the Middle East, which may expand into Europe and the open borders of the United States. Don’t expect anyone to ask Vice President Kamala Harris about it; she’s not taking questions from reporters. Harris tries out a few new, very awkward accents on the campaign trail, and former president Donald Trump shakes things up at a journalism conference. Retired Army colonel, author, and Townhall.com senior columnist Kurt Schlichter joins us to deliver his down-the-ballot predictions, praises, and warnings—with just a bit of advice on how to start being a citizen instead of a subject. Finally, those of us not eating bugs and grass walk through the shelled remains of what was once an affordable food economy, and every factor that continues to jack up prices beyond what Americans are capable of paying without going into severe credit card debt. Catch the live radio show and livestream weeknights at 7 p.m. EDT on The Daily Signal’s YouTube, X, or Facebook. The post WATCH: What the Media Refuse to Ask Kamala appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As the media has been filled with the overwhelming liberal bias, regarding Kamala Harris’ campaign, instances of non-partisan journalism have become hard to find. On Tuesday night’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, former Georgia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Stacy Abrams was confronted for her hypocritical statements by the CNN host.  Towards the end of the interview, Collins asked about Abrams’ failed campaign for Georgia governorship: I was listening to Donald Trump the other day and he still talks about the election being stolen. We all know it wasn't. We've seen that we've litigated that literally in courts and in many interviews. But I would've given the fact that he still uses that language. And so often when we confront Republican officials about that I often get people bring up remarks that you made after your governor race with Brian Kemp in Georgia, that you lost, that he won, and the comments that you made after that. I wonder if you have regrets about the language that you use, casting doubt on the outcome of that election in light of what we now see and how Republicans use that to bolster their defense of Trump's claims of a stolen election.     Abrams responded by stating that she had only questioned, “the process that was used,” complaining that “the process was flawed.” Yet, Collins persisted before Abrams cut her off: COLLINS: I do remember the time you told the New York Times, ‘I won.’ You did describe it as a stolen election. The courts did side with the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger - - ABRAMS: That’s actually -- Kaitlan, Kaitlan, that's actually incorrect. And normally I wouldn't cut you off, but you're repeating disinformation. What the court said, if you read the entire opinion, was that despite the flaws in the process that we acknowledge that the court's acknowledged, they were no longer permitted to complete and fix them. They could not, correct the mistakes because the law had changed between 2018 and 2022 when the case was finally adjudicated. There was never a moment where they said what happened was right. Abrams continued her diatribe on the issue, stating, “I believed then and I believe now - - I have never been the governor of Georgia. I've never claimed to be the governor of Georgia. What I have said is that voters were denied their full rights.” For the record, Abrams is quoted by The New York Times stating, “It was not a fair election.” She can also be quoted making similar comments over 35 times since the race in 2018. It brings up a major point towards the hypocrisy of Abrams actions, and the fact that they often go unchecked. Collins also noted, “the court said that ‘although Georgia's election system is not perfect. The challenge practices violate neither the constitution nor the Voting Rights Act.’”  Credit must be given to Collins for this rare move from CNN. The transcript is below, click “expand” to read: CNN The Source with Kaitlan Collins 7/30/2024 09:11:23 PM EST (...) KAITLAN COLLINS: I'm curious. I was listening to Donald Trump the other day and he still talks about the election being stolen. We all know it wasn't. We've seen that, we've litigated that literally in courts, and in many interviews. But I would've given the fact that he still uses that language. And so often when we confront Republican officials about that I often get people bring up remarks that you made after your governor race with Brian Kemp in Georgia, that you lost, that he won, and the comments that you made after that. I wonder if you have regrets about the language that you use, casting doubt on the outcome of that election in light of what we now see and how Republicans use that to bolster their defense of Trump's claims of a stolen election.  STACEY ABRAMS: Well, go back to elementary school again and use comprehension as the basis. I acknowledged that Brian Kemp won that election. What I called into question was the process that was used and courts agreed with us again and again during the overtime after Election Day and again afterwards. So much so that he actually signed legislation to fix some of the problems that we were able to reveal. I never once said that he did not win. What I said is that the process was flawed and that's why we have the Voting Rights Act in the United States. That's why we have the Help America Vote Act. We know that sometimes we don't get it right and it takes calling out the mistakes to improve. I'm always going to be proud of fighting for voters fighting for Americans, making certain that every vote that gets cast gets counted. That's work that I'm proud to do, whether I'm a candidate or a citizen, and I'm going to make certain that in 2024 every vote that gets cast, gets counted and that every American who wants to vote is eligible to do so, feels comfortable that they can do so in our country. COLLINS: Well, I do remember the time you told the New York Times, “I won.” You did describe it as a stolen election. The courts did side with the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger - - ABRAMS: That’s actually -- Kaitlan, Kaitlan, that's actually incorrect. And normally I wouldn't cut you off, but you're repeating disinformation. What the court said, if you read the entire opinion, was that despite the flaws in the process that we acknowledge, that the court's acknowledged, they were no longer permitted to complete and fix them. They could not, correct the mistakes because the law had changed between 2018 and 2022 when the case was finally adjudicated. There was never a moment where they said what happened was right. What they said was there was no capacity to correct the mistakes. And so it's important that we not only use the headlines, but we read the fine print because that's where the mistakes were made. COLLINS: Yeah. ABRAMS: That's where the challenges are. I believed then and I believe now -- I have never been the governor of Georgia. I've never claimed to be the governor of Georgia. What I have said is that voters were denied their full rights. Courts agreed with me in the time of that election, they agreed with me post-election, the state made changes to the flaws, some of them, unfortunately, too many of them have been restored in different ways and we continue to face voter suppression, not only in Georgia, but around the country because Republicans are using the ability to change the laws because we no longer have the protection of the Voting Rights Act to make it harder for average voters to show up at the polls and have their votes counted, that should be the that should be where our focus is that should be where our attention is and anyone who tries to distract us from that is not doing the work of protecting democracy in America. COLLINS: And I take your point that obviously you do not agree with the laws that replaced, you didn't like the new ones that governor Kemp signed. But -- and we do read past the headlines in the fine print and one of them, the court said that “although Georgia's election system is not perfect. The challenge practices violate neither the constitution nor the Voting Rights Act.” And so I just wanted to give you a chance to respond to that, given it is something we've heard from Senator Ted Cruz and others on this show. Stacey Abrams, thank you for your time tonight. ABRAMS: Thank you Kaitlan.