Our Top 10 Rock Songs You Never Get Sick Of list is probably one of the most subjective lists we have ever compiled. But that’s okay because one of the main goals of these lists is to start a conversation, and we think this one will be easy to get started with. There are so many classic rock songs that we all fell in love with dramatically at first but just became so overplayed on the radio that we just got tired of listening to them. Remember how you felt the first time you heard “Stairway To Heaven” or “Bohemian The post Top 10 Rock Songs You Never Get Sick Of appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

Millions of people who suffer back pain can ease their symptoms simply by walking more, claims new research. Adults with a history of lower backache went nearly twice as long without a recurrence if they walked regularly, according to the findings of the first-ever study of its kind. Around 800 million people worldwide suffer low […] The post Millions Who Suffer Back Pain Can Ease Symptoms Simply by Walking More–For ‘Huge Benefits’ appeared first on Good News Network.

The Supreme Court upheld the federal law banning gun ownership by those under domestic violence restraining orders on Friday morning. In its U.S. v. Rahimi ruling, the court rejected Zackey Rahimi’s claim that the statue that prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment. The court issued an 8-1 ruling, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the only dissenting vote. “Since the Founding, the Nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “As applied to the facts here, Section 922(g)(8) fits within this tradition.” US-v-RahimiDownload In April 2021, Rahimi was indicted for possessing a gun while subject to a domestic violence protective order for alleged assault against his ex-girlfriend, which explicitly prohibited him from possessing firearms. Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in a series of violent incidents in Arlington, Texas, including multiple shootings and a hit-and-run. Police searched the defendant’s home and found a rifle and a pistol, leading to Rahimi’s indictment for violating federal law by possessing firearms while under a domestic violence restraining order to possess firearms.  Rahimi challenged the law as a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The court found Friday that Rahimi posed a “credible threat to the physical safety of others,” adding that the “government offers ample evidence that the Second Amendment permits such individuals to be disarmed.” Courts routinely upheld the 30-year-old law Rahimi challenged as unconstitutional. But a 2022 Supreme Court case, New York Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, significantly changed the way courts evaluate Second Amendment cases. Before the Bruen case, lower courts evaluated gun laws using historical research and looking at how well-tailored the laws were in achieving a valuable government interest, like public safety. But in Bruen, the Supreme Court decided public safety can only be considered for gun violence if comparable historical laws did so as well.  Unlike the regulation struck down in Bruen, the law at issue “does not broadly restrict arms use by the public generally,” Roberts wrote. The Second Amendment is not limited to arms in existence at the Founding, Roberts wrote, but it “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that werenot [yet] in existence,” citing the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. “By that same logic, the Second Amendment permits more than just regulations identical to those existing in 1791,” the justice wrote. In his dissent, Thomas wrote that the decision threatens Americans’ Second Amendment liberties. He said the case does not concern the issue of whether someone like Rahimi can be disarmed, but if the government has the right to disarm any person only subject to a protective order, whether or not that person has been convicted of a crime. “The Framers and ratifying public understood ‘that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty,’” he wrote, citing McDonald v. City of Chicago. “Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.” This is the Supreme Court’s second gun-related case this term. Last week, the court decided the federal government cannot use a decades-old ban on machine guns to ban so-called bump stocks. The post BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds Restriction on Gun Ownership for Domestic Abusers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Hours after Hamas-backed fighters broke out of the fence surrounding Gaza and embarked on a crusade of rape, killing, and kidnapping throughout southern Israel, some American corporate activists began their crusade to legitimize all of it. Notably among their ranks were advocates of the boycott, divest, and sanction (BDS) movement. “Oppression is the root cause of violence,” wrote the BDS movement in a statement released on Oct. 7, offering praise to the “powerful armed reaction of the oppressed Palestinians in Gaza” and making no mention of the deaths of nearly 1,200 innocent Israelis, or Hamas, the group that made it all happen. As Israel’s political enemies swept across the battlefield, its corporate enemies in the Environmental, Social and Governance movement went to the boardroom to make good on their promises. The push for divestment was afoot. As an analyst at a proxy consulting firm, part of my job is to read corporate proposals at publicly traded companies from Boeing to BlackRock, and sit through hundreds of annual meetings a year. In doing so, I see incredible levels of politically charged rhetoric and partisan solutions, ranging from the absurd (like Starbucks’ oat milk pricing policies) to the truly destructive (like Disney destroying billions of dollars’ worth of brand value to appease woke ESG activists). But maybe the most disturbing trend I’ve seen concerns Israel—specifically, the push from anti-Israel radicals to not only defund the Israeli military, but also cripple the businesses of innocent Israeli civilians. This crusade isn’t limited to companies such as Ben & Jerry’s that try to treat their entire business model as a stand-in for their political preferences (although that’s concerning, too, and has created a significant obstacle to the company’s corporate perception). This time around, Israel’s enemies are taking their demands directly to corporate entities with outsized influence: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Amazon Web Services for starters. Activist shareholders put these proposals on the corporate ballots disguised in the polite, euphemistic language of social justice (think “human rights”) to hide their true intent. Their asks are far more sinister. In April, a proposal at Lockheed Martin called for the weapons company to sever its multimillion-dollar contract with Israel, including the sale of F-35 stealth fighters, and claiming that the company would be complicit in “war crimes” for doing business with the Israeli military. Similarly, activists accused Raytheon of propping up a “system of apartheid” by selling weapons used to defend Israeli civilians. And at Amazon last month, a shareholder proposal claimed that Amazon Web Services was, in fact, the architect of an “apartheid system” of surveillance against Palestinians. Many of these proposals, far from being merely sponsored by expressly anti-Israeli entities, are being pushed by the representatives of mainstream American Christianity. I’m talking about institutions from the American Baptist Home Mission Society to the Episcopal Church. Both have sponsored proposals aimed at defunding Israel. The good news is that, since Oct. 7, many of their demands are increasingly falling on deaf ears. A year ago, a proposal at Amazon aimed at curtailing business with Israel garnered 33% support—this year, the “apartheid” proposal drew less than 16%. American shareholders are realizing that such proposals not only offer horrific “solutions,” but fail to create value for companies. And yet, I’m still seeing indications that some brands are willing to make deals with anti-Israel entities. On June 11, I attended Tripadvisor’s meeting to inquire about a proposal (sponsored by the Episcopal Church) that would have pressured the company to boycott “Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine territories,” cutting Israeli business owners out of revenue in the name of politics. I was then told that the proponents withdrew the proposal—but this isn’t cause for celebration. It’s an indication that Tripadvisor made a backroom deal with the proponents to keep the proposal off the ballot. The battle to stop the politicization of American businesses never stops. It goes on, for many reasons—but American shareholders are waking up to the reality of just how radical ESG activist “solutions” truly are. None of the anti-Israel proposals I’ve seen offered an angle of benefit to shareholders or made a serious case for how divestment benefits American companies. They’re purely ideological, borrowing their language and talking points from a truly repudiable school of thought that brands Israel an illegitimate state, considers the physical and financial well-being of Jewish civilians an acceptable sacrifice for political point-scoring, and deems any American company willing to do business with Israel complicit in genocide. The BDS radicalism of yesteryear didn’t die, but thanks to the sanity of American shareholders, it’s slowly fading away. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Inside BDS Left’s Sneaky Targeting of Israel Via Corporate Boardrooms appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court (STF) has turned to contractors to keep an eye on social media and smoke out main critics – including by identifying them, and their location. Other judicial institutions that are said to have contracts of a similar nature are the Superior Court of Justice, the Superior Labor Court, the Superior Electoral Court, and the National Council of Justice. Reports out of Brazil about the contracting of outside entities to perform online surveillance is based on a public call for bids (the closing date was June 14), where STF looked to hire a company that will monitor, in real-time, what’s referred to as “the digital presence of the Federal Supreme Court” on social media. The contractor will also have to provide alerts via instant messages, daily, weekly, and monthly – both quantitative and qualitative – analytical reports, as well as “occasional bulletins and preparation of a monthly action plan strategy for acting on social networks.” This is yet another move by the country’s judiciary branch (the Superior Electoral Court’s activities offer more examples) that tests the boundaries of its powers. And, it’s a move that is explained as the need to protect democracy from “disinformation.” But it didn’t stop there, as the Supreme Court’s lengthy investigations would at times cover not only “fake” but also real news – the kind that, in one example, exposed a former justice as having links with a company accused of corruption. Contractors will now not only carry out “continuous monitoring” of social platforms (in search for “main detractors”), but also propose to the Court how it may “improve communication” with citizens. In the past, Supreme Court justices and even a prosecutor general launched legal battles against people because of their online speech, but when these officials were allied with former President Balsonaro – other high judicial figures, including Alexandre de Moraes (an STF justice) – had no problem calling that approach unconstitutional. Speaking about the conduct of the previous authorities, Justice Carmen Lucia – who recently took over as president of the Superior Electoral Court from Moraes (while singing the latter’s praises) – was quoted as saying: “The use of the state apparatus to obtain specific information about political stances contrary to the government constitutes an affront to the fundamental right to free expression of thought.” Nothing hypocritical to see here. /s If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Brazil’s Supreme Court Is Hiring Contractors To Monitor Social Media and Track Dissenters appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Brazil’s Attorney General Jorge Messias is reported to be looking for ways to gain more powers in his ongoing push to censor “disinformation.” He has been one of the key figures behind efforts in Brazil to shut down social media sites and even accused journalist Michael Shellenberger of committing a “probable” crime – as the author of the Twitter Files Brazil. Now, the country is in for yet another round of voting, this time at the local level – mayors and councilors will be elected in 5,570 municipalities. This again prompted some parties and officials to start issuing dramatic warnings about “disinformation” – and the threat of AI was inevitably thrown into the mix. The language is predictable enough – whatever those in power decide to consider as “disinformation” is presented as a massive threat to elections and democracy itself. But in Brazil, after the initial push before and after the January 8, 2023 events (the country’s almost carbon copy of Jan. 6 in the US) there’s been something of a lull when it comes to legislating against “disinformation.” A draft law known as “Fake News Bill” is currently stuck in parliament, but in the meanwhile, Messias is reported as pushing to be given the same right as candidates for office and electoral prosecutors – namely, to sue over “fake news ads” run by opponents. This would happen if “disinformation about public policies” was detected. The AG’s office has the National Prosecutorial Office in Defense of Democracy (PNDD) set up under the current Brazilian administration – which critics as far away as the US have dubbed an instrument of cracking down on free speech, because of its involvement in censorship under the guise of combating disinformation. In Brazil, conservatives are referring to PNDD as “the Ministry of Truth” and under pressure, its scope of action has already had to be redefined. Still, PNDD has managed to go after media outlets, Covid vaccine critics, etc., using extrajudicial censorship notices. Now, with Messias seeking even greater powers, some observers are worried about the already broad wording of PNDD’s scope, and what “swift” removal of content would mean in terms of free speech restrictions. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Brazil’s Attorney General Seeks New Powers to Remove “Disinformation” Online appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Moving Crews Train to Become Heroes in the War on Human Trafficking

Ukrainian Drone Swarms Target Four Russian Refineries In Major Attack

What to Eat When the Power Goes Out

Build your own DIY 5 gallon bucket no-ice evap air conditioner