Student-athletes go get that bread!

'Potential materiel failure'

'Don’t reflect the values of our country'

'It was the truly single worst experience I’ve ever had with a co-star ever'

It'll blow your mind!

The Biden administration has decided against striking back at Houthi targets for now‚ despite recent incidents in which U.S. warships in the region shot down Houthi attack drones flying toward the vessels‚ Politico reported. Some military officers believe the U.S. should mount a more forceful response to the Iran-backed Houthi rebels‚ but high-level politicians in the administration believe those options do not make sense in the current circumstances‚ Politico reported‚ citing three U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The administration has not determined that the Houthis intentionally targeted U.S. warships‚ one of which was involved in an hourslong firefight on Sunday while responding to distress calls from commercial vessels under attack. Separately‚ the U.S.S. Mason guided-missile destroyer shot down another drone in the Red Sea on Wednesday with no injury to troops or damage to the vessel‚ a U.S. military official told Politico. Military officers in charge of Middle East operations have created options to strike back at Houthi targets where the drones were launched‚ but are not actively trying to carry them out‚ one official and another military official told Politico. President Joe Biden has not been briefed on the options or received a recommendation to counterattack despite holding several high-level meetings in recent days‚ two officials told the outlet. “I’m not going to telegraph or speculate on potential strikes in the future. As you’ve heard us say‚ we’re going to do what’s necessary to protect our forces‚” Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said Tuesday‚ adding that the National Security Council is involved in discussions with international partners over a combined maritime task force. On Nov. 26‚ the Carrier Strike Group Eisenhower (IKECSG) completed a transit of the Strait of Hormuz to enter the waters of the Arabian Gulf as the Strike Group continues to support USCENTCOM missions.While in the Arabian Gulf‚ the IKECSG are patrolling to ensure freedom of… pic.twitter.com/0GzRZQ7awM— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) November 26‚ 2023 Some current and former officials argue the Houthis’ increasingly aggressive behavior is endangering American troops‚ according to Politico. High-level Biden administration officials believe the Houthis do pose a threat to U.S. military personnel in the region‚ but that they are intending to target Israel-linked vessels‚ not the U.S. warships‚ Politico reported. The administration still harbors concern that Iran‚ which finances and arms the Houthis in Yemen as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon‚ could escalate and cause conflict between Israel and Hamas to spill into the region. White House decision-makers are weighing whether striking back at the Houthis would derail U.S. and United Nations efforts to broker a cessation of hostilities between Saudi Arabia and Yemen‚ a fifth official told Politico. Saudi Arabia has also urged the U.S. to curtail responses‚ Reuters reported. “What we don’t want to see is the conflict in Israel widen to a regional war. As of today‚ it has not‚” Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh said on Monday. The Pentagon and the National Security Council did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. Originally published by the Daily Caller News 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 Biden Team Decides Against Striking Back at Houthi Rebels Despite Recent Attacks appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The personal genomics and biotech firm 23andMe has been grappling with a cybersecurity dilemma that initially came to light on October 6th. And not only has security been revealed as a major issue but the company’s response to the breaches has also been alarming. Notably‚ by October 19th‚ it had been revealed that there was a second breach conducted by the same culprit who took responsibility for the initial one. Astonishingly‚ they stated that they now had access to over 4 million genetic profile records. In a startling disclosure on December 4th‚ the overall fallout from this intrusion affected 6.9 million users. As first discovered on Hacker News‚ in the midst of this crisis‚ 23andMe has decided to revise its Terms of Service (TOS)‚ thus requiring users to agree to binding arbitration‚ a process in which disputes are settled beyond conventional court settings. An arbitrator‚ a neutral party‚ oversees the process and issues the final‚ unappealable settlement. This adjustment to the TOS aims to hasten dispute resolution‚ a tactic widely employed in situations like consumer contracts‚ labor disputes‚ as well as business conflicts. As per the updated TOS‚ clients who have grievances will need to liaise with the company’s customer service team as the first point of contact to resolve the issue without legal proceedings. Arbitration takes precedence over lawsuits if this initial negotiation period‚ which lasts 60 days‚ fails to resolve the problem. The regulations surrounding arbitration are dictated by JAMS‚ a company specializing in these services. But when there are multiple similar disagreements pertaining to 23andMe‚ the alternate method of Mass Arbitration through another company‚ NAM‚ is utilized. The arbitration decision is binding; yet‚ a few instances allow issues to be taken to court rather than arbitration‚ such as intellectual property conflicts and minor issues. Restrictions also prevent individuals from joining a class action or group arbitration against 23andMe. If elements of this dispute resolution segment are deemed unenforceable by law‚ the remaining parts still hold. In light of their recent security breach‚ 23andMe users are advised to familiarize themselves with the methods of resolving potential disputes‚ which may now involve arbitration rather than lawsuits. Clients also cannot partake in class action lawsuits pertaining to these issues. 23andMe has begun updating users of these TOS changes and offers them a 30-day window to refuse these terms. 23andMe’s decision to resort to binding arbitration in the wake of its significant security breaches raises several concerns. Firstly‚ the move to amend the Terms of Service to mandate arbitration can be viewed as a strategy to limit legal exposure and control the narrative around the breach. This approach might be seen as prioritizing the company’s interests over the rights of the affected users‚ who may prefer the transparency and public accountability of court proceedings. The binding arbitration process‚ often conducted in private‚ lacks the same level of scrutiny and public record as court cases‚ potentially obscuring the full extent and implications of the breaches. The introduction of arbitration‚ particularly with the exclusion of class action lawsuits‚ can be perceived as a means to dilute the power of the consumer. Class action lawsuits are a critical tool for individuals‚ especially when dealing with large corporations. They allow for the consolidation of similar claims‚ making it feasible for individuals to seek justice against a well-resourced entity like 23andMe. By removing this option‚ 23andMe effectively isolates each claim‚ potentially overwhelming individuals with the financial and emotional burden of solo legal action. This tactic could deter many from pursuing their claims‚ thereby reducing the likelihood of 23andMe facing substantial repercussions for the breach. The imposition of a 60-day negotiation period before arbitration can commence might be construed as a delaying tactic. While ostensibly a period for resolving disputes amicably‚ it could also be used by the company to manage and potentially minimize claims before they reach arbitration. The post After Prominent Hack‚ DNA Company 23andMe Gives Users Just 30 Days To Opt Out of Anti-Class-Action Waiver appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

'I is for Intifada': Oakland Teachers' Union Hold's Pro-Palestinian 'Teach-In'

Kimmel to Bill Burr: 'You Are Going to Get a Visit From the Secret Service!'

A fired-up lawmaker echoed former President Donald Trump's pledge to get rid of the Biden administration's electric vehicle (EV) mandate during an interview with Fox Business. In a Wednesday interview with The Big Money Show‚ Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) raised the alarm about Biden's plan to force Americans to purchase EVs despite their preference for gasoline cars. “All we’re asking is that people have [a] choice and that choice may be EVs‚ but don’t mandate it‚” Walberg declared‚ before warning that the plan would make the U.S. more dependent on China. Notably‚ the lawmaker has proposed legislation to block Biden’s mandate that‚ as reported by the Wall Street Journal‚ “would make up two-thirds of car sales in 2023.” Rep. Walberg pointed out that even blue states prefer gasoline vehicles‚ adding that “less than 2% of Californians” drive electric vehicles‚ while 89% drive gasoline cars. The Michigan lawmaker added‚ “The issue here is people are not choosing EVs yet. They don't think they’re affordable. They don’t think they’re attainable. They don’t think they’re reliable and it's not a reality for them. Many people say ‘Give us our choice---when that F-150 Lightning becomes the vehicle that I can use in my marketplace efforts I will use it.’” Rep. Walberg suggested that EVs are not practical for many consumers‚ due to the limited distance these vehicles can travel on a single charge.   The congressman also noted that Americans should be wary of dependence on supply chains stretching to foreign countries post-COVID. “China produces 78% of all of the component parts that go into a battery for an EV‚” Rep. Walberg said.  Rep. Walberg’s comments follow Trump’s promise during a town hall on Hannity on Dec. 5 to “get rid of this ridiculous electric car mandate‚” possibly on his second day back in office. Trump also criticized electric vehicles over high prices and limited driving range during his conversation with Fox News host Sean Hannity. Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News at 818-460-7477‚ CBS News at 212-975-3247 and NBC News at 212-664-6192 and demand they hold Biden and his cronies accountable for attempting to restrict fossil fuel production and Americans’ choices