President Joe Biden released his official fiscal 2025 defense budget request in March‚ and in the document‚ his administration’s misguided priorities are on full display. While paying lip service to the concept of China as the primary challenge for the United States‚ the official request fails to align spending with strategy. Most egregiously‚ the request fails to procure the ships‚ aircraft‚ and munitions the military needs to deter China in the Indo-Pacific. It is‚ in a word‚ insufficient to keep the American people safe. In response‚ The Heritage Foundation has produced an alternative “Conservative Defense Budget for Fiscal Year 2025‚” which details what a fiscally conservative and strategically focused conservative defense budget would look like. >;>;>;Read more: “A Conservative Defense Budget for Fiscal Year 2025” By contrast‚ to account for the historically high inflation levels throughout this administration’s tenure and to provide a real increase in military capacity‚ the fiscal 2025 conservative budget calls for a roughly 3% overall increase over the official fiscal 2024 request (as opposed to the 1% increase called for in the president’s fiscal 2025 request) with procurement accounting for the majority of new funding. It also calls for procurement in addition to that new spending‚ to be funded by shifts from elsewhere within the defense budget. Ships‚ aircraft‚ and munitions are the basis of real military capacity that potential adversaries are prioritizing and need to be similarly prioritized within the U.S. defense budget. When faced with budget constraints‚ the services invariably cut procurement. In the official fiscal 2025 request‚ for example‚ the Navy chose to cut a Virginia-class submarine and the Air Force opted to cut its procurement of F-35 fighter jets. Meanwhile‚ the Air Force increased its Research‚ Development‚ Test‚ and Evaluation (RDT&;E) budget‚ and the Navy proposed to hire an additional 2‚000 civilian employees. But procurement of critical capabilities‚ such as ships and aircraft‚ should be the last place the Pentagon chooses to cut when faced with budget constraints‚ particularly given the near-term challenge posed by China’s dramatic military buildup. Within RDT&;E‚ the Defense Department must focus spending on the projects that are most likely to produce real military capacity‚ such as the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform. Generalized RDT&;E projects‚ RDT&;E projects of secondary importance‚ and all nondefense RDT&;E projects must be cut and reallocated to the procurement of ships‚ planes‚ and munitions. The conservative defense budget supports the troops by endorsing the requested 4.5% pay raise‚ reallocating $400 million toward family housing to improve the lives of service members‚ and advocating for the end of the politicized‚ woke policies negatively affecting readiness and recruiting. In terms of strategy‚ the conservative defense budget endorses a strategy of denial in the Indo-Pacific. The strategy of denial’s primary objective is to deny Chinese hegemony in the Indo-Pacific even as U.S. forces defend the U.S. homeland and work closely with allies and partners to counter other threats. The United States faces an increasingly dangerous world‚ and it has limited resources with which to confront all the threats to the nation—a reality that Biden’s defense budget request regrettably does not recognize. As a result‚ it’s increasingly vital for the United States—and the Defense Department in particular—to prioritize the Indo-Pacific. That means focusing U.S. forces first and foremost on defending the U.S. homeland and denying China’s imperial ambitions while supporting U.S. allies and partners to lead efforts to defend against other threats. In doing so‚ the United States can protect Americans’ security‚ freedom‚ and prosperity‚ while also strengthening America’s alliances and partnerships around the world so that they‚ too‚ can live without fear. To resource this strategy of denial‚ U.S. defense spending will have to focus on the procurement of ships‚ planes‚ and munitions relevant to the Indo-Pacific. The conservative defense budget contains detailed recommendations for munitions procurement‚ and advocates for the Navy to purchase two Virginia-class submarines and two Constellation-class frigates in fiscal 2025. Defense spending should flow from strategy and should be focused on military capacity and lethality. Nondefense spending‚ politicized initiatives within the Pentagon‚ and unfocused spending all distract from the military’s core mission of defending the American people. Given the dramatic expansion of Chinese military capabilities in recent years‚ U.S. defense spending must focus on capabilities that are relevant to deterring China in the Indo-Pacific. The Pentagon has neglected the procurement of new ships‚ planes‚ and munitions for decades. The recommendations in this special report go a long way toward reversing those negative trends and ensuring that the U.S. military is capable and ready to carry out its mission. The post What the Conservative Fiscal ’25 Defense Budget Would Prioritize appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A ballot initiative OK’d by the Florida Supreme Court perpetuates abortion advocates’ favored strategy of using vague definitions of “health” to expand abortion on demand. Florida voters will face a referendum measure in November that would allow abortion up to the moment of birth if deemed “necessary to protect the patient’s health” after the state Supreme Court’s decision on Monday allowing the measure on the ballot. Amendment 4‚ the so-called Amendment to Limit Government Interference With Abortion‚ is being pushed by a pro-abortion political committee‚ Floridians Protecting Freedom. The proposal’s vague definition of “health” is similar to that of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Doe v. Bolton‚ which defined “health” of the mother as “all factors” affecting the woman.  The Supreme Court held in Roe v. Wade that same year that states could issue no regulations for first-trimester abortions and some regulations for second-trimester abortions‚ but only for the purpose of protecting the “health” of the mother. In the third trimester‚ when the unborn child is viable‚ the since-overturned Roe allowed states to make abortion illegal contingent on the existence of exceptions to protect the mother’s life and “health.” Doe v. Bolton‚ the lesser-known case decided on the same day as Roe‚ defined the “health” of the mother as “all factors” that affect the woman‚ including “physical‚ emotional‚ psychological‚ familial‚ and the woman’s age‚” drastically expanding the allowable abortions legalized by Roe.  Florida’s Amendment 4 similarly would prohibit restrictions on abortion when “necessary to protect the patient’s health‚ as determined by the patient’s health care provider.”  The proposal would circumvent current state law protecting unborn children with a heartbeat. On the same day the Florida court approved the ballot initiative‚ it upheld a state law protecting unborn children from most abortions after 15 weeks‚ enabling a six-week abortion ban approved last year to take effect on May 1. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the six-week ban into law last April‚ but it couldn’t take effect unless the 15-week ban survived legal challenges in the state Supreme Court.  Because the text of the constitutional amendment contains no definition of “health” or “health care provider‚” the measure would likely legalize abortion at any stage of the pregnancy if anyone who claims medical expertise asserts the mother would benefit from it physically‚ emotionally‚ or otherwise.  Florida statutes define a health care provider as “a physician licensed under chapter 458‚ an osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459‚ a podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461‚ or an advanced practice registered nurse registered under 464.0123.” If it receives 60% of the vote in November‚ the ballot initiative would allow any doctor‚ osteopath‚ podiatrist‚ or nurse to determine if a woman’s health could in any way benefit from ending the life of her unborn child.  Michigan voters legalized abortion up until birth with similarly vague language in a November 2022 ballot initiative. Proposal 3 prohibited laws against abortion if a “health care professional” deemed it to be “medically needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or mental health.” Broad and unclear definitions of health have allowed half a century of violence against the unborn after Doe v. Bolton‚ and have ended thousands of lives in Michigan with the passage of Proposal 3.  In November‚ Florida voters will have the chance to stop another vague definition of health from turning the Sunshine State from one of the states with the most protections for the unborn to the most pro-abortion state in the South.  The post Pro-Abortion Ballot Initiative in Florida Aims to Trick Voters With Vague Definition of ‘Health’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This week‚ famed British atheist Richard Dawkins explained that he was a “cultural Christian.” Praising civilization in the United Kingdom‚ Dawkins stated: I do think that we are culturally a Christian country. I call myself a cultural Christian. I’m not a believer. But there is a distinction between being a believing Christian and being a cultural Christian. And so‚ you know‚ I love hymns and Christmas carols‚ and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos. I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense. Dawkins went on to praise Christianity as a “fundamentally decent religion in a way that I think Islam is not.” Dawkins’ case for Christianity—a case made on the basis of utility—is nothing new. It was made long ago by Voltaire‚ an acidic critic of the church who famously averred‚ “If God did not exist‚ it would be necessary to invent him.” But the problem with the utilitarian case for religious belief is that it doesn’t animate religious believers. It is simply impossible to build a civilization on the basis of Judeo-Christian foundations while making the active case as to why those foundations ought to be dissolved. In fact‚ Western civilization has doomed itself so long as it fails to reconnect to its religious roots. Philosopher Will Herberg wrote: The moral principles of Western civilization are‚ in fact‚ all derived from the tradition rooted in Scripture and have vital meaning only in the context of that tradition. … Cut flowers retain their original beauty and fragrance‚ but only so long as they retain the vitality that they have drawn from their now severed roots; after that is exhausted‚ they wither and die. So with freedom‚ brotherhood‚ justice and personal dignity—the values that form the moral foundation of our civilization. Without the life-giving power of the faith out of which they have sprung‚ they possess neither meaning nor vitality. We are a cut flowers civilization. And eventually‚ cut flowers die. That has never been more obvious than this week‚ when the Biden administration decided to honor the newly invented Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter Sunday. Gender ideology is a symptom of our society’s reversion to gnostic paganism‚ in which unseen‚ chaotic forces buffet us about‚ and in which nature is directly opposed to the freedom of our disembodied essences. It is no wonder that gender ideology is opposed by every mainstream traditional religion. Yet claiming that this magical holiday could not be moved‚ the White House issued a variety of statements in celebration of radical gender ideology‚ including a deeply insulting statement from the president of the United States citing the book of Genesis to the effect that transgender people are “made in the image of God”—ignoring the last half of the biblical verse‚ which reads‚ “male and female he made them.” What better time than Easter‚ the holiest day in the Christian calendar‚ to pay homage to an entirely new religion? Richard Dawkins is obviously correct that a civilization rooted in church is better than a civilization rooted in an alternative set of values. But in reality‚ the churches cannot be empty; they must be full. The cathedrals that mean Britain to Dawkins must ring with the sounds of hymns in order to maintain their holiness and their importance; otherwise‚ they are merely beautiful examples of old architecture‚ remnants of a dead civilization preserved in stone. But our civilization must live. And that means more than cultural Christianity. It means reengaging with the source of our values—the Scriptures that educated our fathers and grandfathers. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.  The post The Cut Flowers Civilization appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Utah‚ Idaho‚ and Wyoming all share common borders and something else that matters more. According to data the Census Bureau gathered in 2020‚ these were three of the four states that had the highest percentages of households headed by married couples of the opposite sex. New Hampshire also ranked in the top four. In 2020‚ 57.8% of the households in Utah were headed by married couples of the opposite sex. In Idaho‚ it was 53.7%. However‚ these were the only states in the country where the percentage of households headed by opposite-sex married couples constituted a majority of all households. In New Hampshire‚ which ranked third‚ only 49.4% of households were headed by opposite-sex married couples. In Wyoming‚ which ranked fourth‚ it was 48.9%. Rounding out the top 10 states when ranked by this demographic were Kansas (48.5%); Nebraska (48.5%); Minnesota (48.4%); New Jersey (48.3%); Hawaii (48.2%); and Iowa (48.2%). Which states ranked at the bottom for the percentage of households headed by opposite-sex married couples? New York came in last. Only 40.6% of the households there were headed by opposite-sex married couples. Louisiana was next-to-last at 40.7%; and Rhode Island and New Mexico were tied for second-to-last at 41.3%. The rest of the bottom 10 included Mississippi (41.5%); Ohio (43.9%); Massachusetts (44.1%); Alabama (44.3%); and Georgia (44.7%). Although the District of Columbia—our nation’s capital—is not a state‚ the Census Bureau included it in its data table that presented the state-by-state percentages of households headed by opposite-sex married couples. Had it been a state‚ the District of Columbia would have finished in last place—by far. Only 22.8% of the households there were headed by opposite-sex married couples. In a majority of this nation’s states (31 out of 50)‚ the percentage of households headed by opposite-sex married couples was at least double the 22.8% the Census Bureau reported for the nation’s capital. “While married-couple households made up the greatest proportion of coupled households‚ their share has been in steady decline over the past several decades‚” the Census Bureau said in an analysis published last week. “From 1968 to 2018‚ the share of adults ages 25 to 34 living with a spouse decreased from 81.5 percent to 40.3 percent‚ while the share living with an unmarried partner increased from 0.2 percent to 14.8 percent.” In 2020‚ the Census Bureau expanded its data collection on American “couples.” “The U.S. Census Bureau revised the relationship to householder question in the 2020 Census to improve the quality of coupled-household data after discovering issues with the measurement of coupled households in the 2010 Census‚” the bureau said in a May 25‚ 2023‚ release. One revision included adding “specific answer categories for opposite-sex spouse; opposite-sex unmarried partner‚ same-sex spouse‚ same-sex unmarried partner.” So‚ which states in 2020 had the highest percentages of households headed by opposite-sex unmarried couples? Vermont led the nation with 9.0%. The top 10 also included Maine (8.9%); Oregon (8.2%); Alaska (8.1%); Nevada (8.1%); New Hampshire (8.1%); New Mexico (7.6%); Washington (7.6%); Wisconsin (7.6%); and Arizona and Rhode Island tied with 7.3%. Utah‚ which led the nation with 57.8% of its households headed by opposite-sex married couples‚ tied Alabama for the smallest percentage of households headed by opposite-sex unmarried couples (4.9%). Following Utah and Alabama at the bottom of this category were Mississippi (5.2%); South Carolina (5.5%); Georgia (5.6%); Virginia (5.7%); Texas (5.7%); New Jersey (5.8%); North Carolina (5.9%); Maryland (5.9%); and Arkansas (5.9%). There were two other categories where the Census Bureau data showed that the District of Columbia beat all the states. These were the percentages of households headed by married and unmarried same-sex couples. In our nation’s capital‚ according to the Census Bureau‚ 1.2% of the households were headed by unmarried same-sex couples‚ and 1.4% were headed by married same-sex couples. No state had even 1% in either of these categories. Fourteen states—including California‚ New York‚ and Massachusetts—led the other states with 0.5% of their households headed by unmarried same-sex couples. Four states—including Hawaii‚ Massachusetts‚ Delaware‚ and Vermont—led the other states with 0.8% of their households headed by married same-sex couples. The decline in the traditional family—headed by a married mother and father—is a decline for America. As this column has noted before‚ traditional family life correlates with financial well-being. In 2022‚ according to the Census Bureau‚ married-couple households had the highest median incomes and lowest poverty rate. The median household income for a married-couple family that year was $110‚800—compared to $51‚930 for a male householder living in a nonfamily household and $40‚200 for a female householder living in a nonfamily household. That same year‚ 6.9% of married-couple families with children under 18 lived in poverty‚ according to the Census Bureau‚ while 37.2% of female householders with children under 18 and no spouse present lived in poverty‚ and 18.3% of male householders with children under 18 and no spouse present lived in poverty. In 1798‚ President John Adams sent a message to a Massachusetts militia. “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion‚” he said. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people‚” he said. “It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams was right. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.  The post It’s Time to Restore Fading Families appeared first on The Daily Signal.

KJP's April Fool's Day Joke Flops with White House Press Corps

Do You and Your Partner Need a 'Sleep Divorce?'

Have you ever wondered what your pets do when you’re not looking? Well‚ for one mischievous golden retriever named Zeppole‚ the answer involves a bit of harmless trespassing and a whole lot of fun. This delightful tale begins in the scenic coastal region of New Jersey‚ where Zeppole and his owner‚ known on TikTok as... The post Rule-breaking golden retriever hops the neighbors fence for a swim without invitation appeared first on Animal Channel.

Independent journalist Matt Taibbi has taken on deniers of government-private partnerships against free speech in a recent Twitter Files report. Taibbi issued the new report in response to NBC News smears accusing Taibbi‚ Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk of shutting down vital government “disinformation” efforts with a “conspiracy theory.” Despite NBC News’s claims‚ Taibbi provided alleged documentation which showed clear and defined partnerships between federal agencies and private entities to coordinate censorship with social media platforms. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) were among those federal agencies. On March 27‚ Taibbi wrote in his Racket News piece‚ “Three separate investigations took over a year to nail down the case that government agencies were improperly censoring by proxy. Forced by courts to stop‚ they're desperately trying for a reboot.” His exposé comes soon after a CBS News’s 60 Minutes segment tried to argue that private entities did not collude with the government to censor speech. The segment included comments from government censorship proxy Kate Starbird. Taibbi posted screenshots on X to support his case. These included evidence of the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP)‚ with which Starbird was involved‚ flagging content seemingly on behalf of the government for social media to censor. A message to DHS/CISA employee Brian Scully (the sender was unspecified) expressed regret “you won’t be joining us at Twitter.” This makes sense in light of earlier 2020 emails‚ one of which‚ from Twitter’s legal executive Stacia Cardille‚ declared “DHS want [sic] to establish a centralized portal for reporting disinformation.” Scully‚ who was cited as having ties to multiple federal agencies‚ was apparently a key player on the subject‚ which specifically aimed to undermine election-related information. The FBI was also implicated in many ways‚ per Taibbi‚ including through an email from agent Elvis Chan telling then-trust and safety head at Twitter Yoel Roth to set a date to share certain information. Roth promised‚ “We’ll discuss and get back to you.” In another message Taibbi shared‚ Roth voiced reservations about sharing information that he deemed more appropriate for a congressional investigation than an FBI request. Roth also protested the proposed DHS portal as “high-risk.” A congressional finding‚ Taibbi did not say from where‚ showed that DHS was involved with the portal behind the scenes. There was also an FBI letter to Twitter demanding information on metrics and how the platform “limit[ed] the scope of your analysis of the domestic‚ scam‚ foreign state‚ official propaganda‚ and white supremacist actors.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Wednesday’s CNN This Morning twice devolved into hysterical bewilderment among the three liberals on-set when conservative strategist and former Tim Scott 2024 adviser Matt Gorman responded to the left’s pearl clutching around fervent support for Donald Trump by reminding them of the cult of personality that surrounded Barack Obama. Host Kasie Hunt premised the discussion around a New York Times piece from reporter Michael Bender that claimed Trump supporters belong to the “Church of Trump” that views Trump as a deity and the repugnant smear of non-Democrat Christians by Tim Alberta in his finger-wagging book.     Gorman said he saw this whole take “a little bit different”‚ but Hunt tried to have him badmouth Republican voters by wondering what he made of “people view[ing] Trump as a seemingly — or treat him like a seemingly Christ-like figure when..the Bible specifically says‚ like‚ you’re not supposed to do that.” Gorman then dropped the truth bomb: “But I will say this though‚ in a — in a secular sort of way‚ not in an evangelical directly away‚ you saw Obama treated like this.” Having left a grimacing look of disgust from liberal Washington Post reporter Toluse Olorunnipa and liberal panelist Karen Finney mumbling in disagreement‚ Gorman further unspooled: [Y]es‚ absolutely. Absolutely. There was a sort of — people — not an — not an evangelical‚ religious way...But‚ look‚ I will say this‚ when you are president of your party and you’re a leader of your party‚ there is among — a base where it is a social — it is a secular deification in a way. It is. Yes. In contrast‚ Finney went the way Hunt wanted by repeatedly invoking Alberta’s book and arguing Trump’s “perverting the words of God” with his rhetoric in this campaign having turned “frightening” after‚ in 2016‚ merely running to appease “a cadre of voters who were afraid of a changing America...by demonizing...black and brown people and immigrants”. “Well‚ he has said in the past that has favorite Bible verse is an eye for an eye‚ which is firmly in the Old Testament‚ not the New‚” Hunt replied. The conversation then changed to a cockamamie narrative that‚ because there’s comparisons that have been made between Trump and Jesus‚ that Christian women will abandon Trump.  Thankfully‚ Gorman wasn’t having any of this and lambasted Finney for this absurdity that‚ after having been on the political scene for nearly a decade‚ a whole block of voters will abandon Trump (click “expand”): FINNEY: And you can see that they were — that — in the Iowa caucus we did see that that — the ad that we’ve played here before‚ that was likening the birth of Trump to the birth of Jesus — right — where he literally compared it — HUNT: Right. FINNEY: — there have been evangelicals who have said‚ Okay‚ that’s too far. And Tim Alberta‚ in his book‚ talks about how some in the evangelical movement have — had — are uncomfortable with this fusion and perversion of the teachings. HUNT: Matt‚ do you agree? GORMAN: No‚ because‚ look‚ like I — FINNEY: Of course not.  GORMAN: — look‚ I — no‚ no — FINNEY: You’re a Republican. Why would you agree with me? GORMAN: — of course not. But like — but I think the ad in the Republican primary‚ where there’s a trust among Republicans is a little different. When you get to a general election‚ that — that choice will fuse. I don’t think you’re going to see Biden evangelical votes in Iowa suddenly gaining steam here. Look‚ he’s not going to — FINNEY: Yes‚ but I think they could not vote for him. GORMAN: — he’s not going to lose — he’s not going to lose any votes off that. You know‚ I think it’s — that’s a winning issue for us? HUNT: You don’t think he’s going to lose any votes off that? GORMAN: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. That is a winning issue for him and press that advantage if you’re Trump. FINNEY: So you think suburban women — let’s go back to them — GORMAN: Yes. FINNEY: — are comfortable with Donald Trump comparing — GORMAN: Those — FINNEY: — no‚ no‚ no‚ let me finish —  GORMAN: Yes. FINNEY: — are comfortable with him — literally saying‚ I’m your god.  GORMAN: I want to meet those — FINNEY: I don’t think so. Please show me those voters. GORMAN: — those are suburban women who all of a sudden see that — that one thing‚ like‚ you know what‚ now I’m turned off. They — after almost a decade of this‚ that’s going to break it? FINNEY: No‚ it’s not just that. GORMAN: Yeah. FINNEY: What that shows is someone who will do anything to win‚ who has no boundaries‚ who has no sense of decency‚ who has no sense of what’s appropriate‚ what’s not appropriate. He will do anything to win. If it means comparing himself to God‚ that’s what he’ll do[.] (....) GORMAN: [W]e’ve been having the same conversation for a decade. Like‚ again‚ we talk about meanness. This is the same sort of thing that Hillary Clinton talked about. I just suddenly wonder that‚ you know‚ suddenly‚ in the year 2024‚ after Donald Trump’s been on the — for — this for a decade that people are going to wake up and be like‚ you know what? Now he’s too mean. You know what? I was going to vote for him‚ but‚ you know what? That one thing‚ no. This thing is big.  Hunt returned back to the cult of personality‚ granting it to Trump supporters because he’s “treated....totally different than other political candidates” but not for Obama because while “people got — were very excited about Obama‚ but — but it was secular and political”. Spoken like a former Obama Zombie herself‚ Finney concurred the support for Obama “was hopeful” and what that warm fuzziness “said about the country‚ that maybe we had moved to a [better] place” whereas Trump’s movement has been “about grievance and retribution”. Hunt called this “definitely objectively true” as “hope and change is not the same as” a movement of “grievance.” Gorman closed with what should be a basic observation of history and politics that “popular presidents...always have a certain cult of personality around them” (and especially in their own parties)‚ so no one should “act like this suddenly” is new with Trump voters. Hunt had said Gorman would have the last word‚ but she took that back to defend Obama’s honor: “Yeah‚ but the shoot — you know‚ his — I could shoot people on Fifth Avenue and my base would still be with me. There is something about him that is different from Reagan and Obama.” To see the relevant CNN transcript from April 3‚ click here.

These Old Fashioned Oatmeal Bars are easy to make and a wonderful treat! You will also want to try these delicious Peanut Butter Oatmeal Cookies‚ they are no bake and everyone loves them. ❤️WHY WE LOVE THIS RECIPE This recipe is easy to make and a great treat! If you love oatmeal this is a...