Two teachers have added the governor and attorney general of California to a lawsuit. The suit claims that state policies have forced educators to lie to parents by hiding the transgender status of their children from them. Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West‚ two teachers at Rincon Middle School in Escondido‚ sued the Escondido Union School District in April‚ alleging violations of their First Amendment rights. They allege that the school district’s “Parental Exclusion Policy” prevents teachers from disclosing “the fact that a student identifies as a new gender‚ or wants to be addressed by a new name or new pronouns during the school day.” The teachers added Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta to the lawsuit last month. “The governor is the boss‚” Paul Jonna‚ the lawyer representing Mirabelli and West‚ told The Daily Signal in a statement Friday. Newsom “has ultimate responsibility for setting education policy for those under his supervision‚” Jonna‚ special counsel at the Thomas More Society and partner at the firm LiMandri and Jonna LLP‚ added. “Rincon Middle School and the Escondido Union School District do not operate in a vacuum‚” he noted. “The California Constitution provides that education is ultimately a matter of state responsibility.” Pictured: Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West‚ respectively. The lawsuit alleges a school district procedure titled the “Parental Exclusion Policy” prevents teachers from disclosing “the fact that a student identifies as a new gender‚ or wants to be addressed by a new name or new pronouns during the school day.” The legal nonprofit Thomas More Society‚ which is representing Mirabelli and West‚ claims that “the district outright refused to exempt the teachers from the Parental Exclusion Policy—compelling them to systematically deceive the parents of their students.” In August 2022‚ the teachers received an email with a list of students‚ including their preferred names and pronouns. The list included directions on whether teachers could disclose the names and pronouns to the students’ parents or guardians. Mirabelli reportedly received an email with a list of students like this: “[student name]: Preferred name is [redacted] (pronouns are he/him). Dad and stepmom are NOT aware‚ please use [redacted] and she/her when calling home.” Mirabelli and West claim the policy violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. In September‚ a U.S. district court judge granted a preliminary injunction preventing the school district from enforcing the Parental Exclusion Policy on Mirabelli and West. Judge Rodger T. Benitez called the policy a “trifecta of harm:” It [the policy] harms the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying‚ peer pressure‚ or a fleeting impulse. It harms the parents by depriving them of the long recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care‚ guide‚ and make health care decisions for their children. And finally‚ it harms plaintiffs who are compelled to violate the parent’s rights by forcing plaintiffs to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students—violating plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. In January‚ the educators added Newsom and Bonta to the lawsuit‚ claiming that the school district is acting under their direction in attempting to enforce “state and federal anti-discrimination law.” The California Department of Education has interpreted the law to require school districts to hide students’ transgender identity from certain parents on pain of state education funds. Pictured: Jeffrey Trissell‚ Elizabeth Mirabelli‚ Lori Ann West‚ and Paul Jonna respectively. The amended legal complaint also says that “according to the attorney general‚ the State of California will sue any school district who fails to adopt these policies.” Bonta “has been threatening school districts to adopt policies to conceal student gender incongruity from parents and legal guardians‚ pitting students‚ parents‚ and schools against each other‚” Jonna‚ the teachers’ lawyer‚ said. He said Benitez’s order deemed those policies unconstitutional‚ and the attorney general has shown no willingness to follow it. “Bonta’s actions have demonstrated the state of California is not taking any actions to comply with Judge Benitez’s orders‚ so he will now be made to‚” Jonna said. Jonna says his clients are also desiring “a declaration that the parental exclusion policies violate parental rights because they cannot be forced to break the law.” When asked to respond to Newsom’s arguments about such policies‚ Jonna said‚ “The policies are not needed to protect students—they harm students.” “When teachers are forced to lie to the parents who have entrusted a child into their care – that is unconscionable‚” he added. 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 Teachers Sue Gavin Newsom Over Policy Forcing Them to Lie About Student’s Transgender Status to Parents appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Elon Musk announced Wednesday that SpaceX is moving its state of incorporation to Texas from Delaware‚ a move hailed by the Lone Star State’s governor.  The decision followed a recent ruling by a Delaware judge that sided with a Tesla shareholder’s lawsuit challenging Musk’s $56 billion pay package as being excessive. Musk is the CEO of Tesla‚ a maker of electric vehicles‚ and the founder and CEO of SpaceX‚ a spacecraft and telecommunications company.  Musk conducted a poll on X‚ formerly Twitter‚ which he also owns‚ for shareholders to vote on whether the privately held SpaceX should relocate to Texas.   According to Musk‚ the poll found that 87% of participants supported SpaceX’s move to Texas. “The public vote is unequivocally in favor of Texas! Tesla will move immediately to hold a shareholder vote to transfer state of incorporation to Texas‚” he posted.  Musk confirmed in a post on X that “SpaceX has moved its state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas‚” adding: “If your company is still incorporated in Delaware‚ I recommend moving to another state as soon as possible.”  SpaceX has moved its state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas!If your company is still incorporated in Delaware‚ I recommend moving to another state as soon as possible. pic.twitter.com/B7FLByL2dY— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 15‚ 2024 SpaceX is joining 55 other Fortune 500 companies that are headquartered in Texas‚ including Tesla‚ AT&;T‚ ExxonMobil and Oracle.   In 2021 alone‚ 62 corporations relocated their headquarters to Texas. James Quintero‚ policy director at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Taxpayer Protection Project‚ thinks he knows what Texas has to offer in the eyes of those companies.   “Texas policymakers have consistently held to a vision of low taxes‚ limited government‚ and personal freedom‚” he said. “Upon this stable policy framework‚ the private sector has been able to build‚ grow and prosper.”  Regarding the Lone Star State’s conservative-leaning policies‚ Quintero said‚ “Texas’ booming economy is proof positive that conservatism works. Labor and capital are flocking to Texas because unlimited opportunity exists where there are free markets and free people.”  Texas Gov. Greg Abbott‚ a Republican‚ quickly reshared one of Musk’s pro-Texas posts: “Here we go. X marks the spot.”   Here we go. X marks the spot. https://t.co/Nb5OheL8LK— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) February 15‚ 2024 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 SpaceX’s Move to Texas: ‘Booming Economy Is Proof Positive That Conservatism Works’  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In 1381 England was a tinderbox ready to explode. New thoughts and ideas had been stoked by a chain-reaction of disasters‚ including pandemic‚ wage suppression‚ war in Europe and uncertainty around government. Such discontent drove thousands of ordinary people to join the first popular rebellion in English history. Here we explore what drove the 14th century peasantry of England to breaking point‚ as featured in our documentary‚ The Peasants’ Revolt: Rise of the Rebels. In this 3-part series‚ History Hit’s medieval expert‚ Matt Lewis‚ reveals the previously unknown stories of the ordinary people involved in the Peasants’ Revolt‚ working closely with investigative historians from the People of 1381 Project‚ and alongside top medieval historians‚ including his Gone Medieval co-host‚ Eleanor Janega‚ and Richard II biographer‚ Helen Castor.  In part one‚ Matt explores the origins of the rebellion‚ and the explosive days preceding the violent attack on London on the 13 June 1381. Life in 14th century England In the late 14th century‚ although towns and cities were growing‚ England’s population was primarily rural. Around 80-85% of the entire medieval European population was classed as a ‘peasant’. The term meant someone was a farmer‚ but within this categorisation‚ economic status varied greatly. Some were actually prosperous landowners‚ even employing staff and servants‚ with even middle-class peasants fairly well-to-do. However‚ at least 50% of peasants in England were poor‚ struggling in subsistence farming‚ often living hand-to-mouth. Wealthier peasants (sometimes wealthier than people who were technically nobles due to their land ownership) were generally free men‚ who could accumulate land and go to market with their goods; ‘serfs’‚ the lower class of peasants‚ were tied to their lord’s land‚ and subject to many restrictions. In this feudal world‚ authorities were rarely challenged from below‚ yet by 1381‚ escalating taxation had made life increasingly harder for most peasants. The 14th century is generally considered one of the worst times to be alive due to a combination of bad weather (affecting crops‚ livestock and resulting in the Great Famine)‚ the Black Death‚ and the ongoing Hundred Years’ War‚ when many were directed to go to France to fight for the king. Taxation‚ necessary for funding the war effort‚ emerged as a central grievance‚ sparking the Peasant’s Revolt. The people of Tournai bury victims of the Black Death – by Pierart dou Tielt‚ circa 1353Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain By Spring 1381‚ sporadic rioting had occurred in Winchester‚ Salisbury‚ Shrewsbury and York against increased taxes. On 30 May in Brentwood‚ Essex‚ a royal tax commissioner was forced to flee after peasants‚ led by Thomas Baker‚ refused to pay additional taxes and drew weapons upon him. Tensions were high. Tithe taxes and the poll tax The tithe‚ a church tax‚ required individuals to pay 10% of their income annually. It was often collected at harvest time‚ usually in a Tithe Barn‚ enabling people to pay in produce instead of money if needed. Government taxes‚ mainly for funding things such as foreign wars‚ were collected through a fractional tax system. A tax collector would come round every couple of years‚ assess a peasant’s ‘moveable goods’ (i.e. such as money or other possessions)‚ assess its worth‚ and charge a percentage of it‚ usually 10%. Similar to income taxes nowadays‚ it was reasonably fair. However‚ at this time‚ England was fighting the Hundred Years’ War against France which had strained finances‚ and the king needed to raise more money. This led to the introduction of the first Poll Tax in 1377. This set a flat rate of 4 pence for everybody over age 14‚ but whilst this was a day or two’s wages for a labourer‚ it was virtually nothing to a nobleman. The poll tax didn’t raise as much revenue as expected‚ although some wealthy clergy voluntarily paid more to help the poor. Gradually‚ the church’s tax office became the government’s tax office. In 1379‚ a second‚ much more progressive poll tax was introduced‚ including 33 layers of payment. Whilst still a flat rate‚ it sought to build on the overpayment by wealthy clergy last time‚ with payments ranging from 6 pounds‚ 13 shillings and 4 pence for the richest‚ to 4 pence for the poorest. Nevertheless the tax was a failure and faced resistance‚ with the population magically ‘shrinking’ as people hid family members from tax collectors. In 1381‚ another poll tax was imposed‚ back in the form of another unpopular flat-rate tax‚ demanding 12 pence from every person over the age of 16. Such a large sum was a crushing burden to regular people‚ sparking widespread suffering and fears of starvation‚ igniting open revolt. A peasant could be killed by their lord for revolting‚ but the fact so many risked life and death by doing so highlights how they felt they had no other option. Rebellion and military expertise After the events at Brentwood‚ Essex on 30 May 1381‚ tensions escalated. A meeting convened in Thomas Baker’s home village of Fobbing on 2 June‚ attracting widespread support from those ready to make a stand. On 4 June 1381 the Essex rebels launched an attack on Lesnes Abbey in Kent‚ targeting tax records crucial for control and taxation by the Church and Crown. This destruction sparked a coordinated revolt‚ necessitating military expertise. Between 1370-1400‚ 100‚000 soldiers had been deployed to France – a large portion of able-bodied men from England’s already small population. Consequently‚ England was full of experienced military personnel‚ who played a crucial role in leading the initial rebel charge. Society was also heavily armed‚ with archery practiced by all and peasants often possessing armour‚ swords‚ daggers‚ bows and arrows.  Peasant longbowmen at practice‚ from the Luttrell Psalter‚ c. 1320–1340Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Luttrell Psalter 1325 / Public Domain Escalation of violence The rebels were highly organised‚ and disseminated messages amongst peasants‚ leading to fires in towns and cities across England‚ burning crucial documents that upheld medieval society. Rochester Castle‚ a strategically vital fortress‚ fell into rebel hands after its constable‚ Sir John Newington‚ was taken hostage. Violence escalated‚ and one day after the attack on Rochester‚ rebels reached Canterbury on 10 June – the county capital of Kent and the seat of the most powerful man in the English Church‚ the Archbishop of Canterbury‚ Simon Sudbury. Although he wasn’t there‚ the rebels seized the gold and the treasure that he had accumulated‚ intensifying their anger. Leaders like Wat Tyler‚ Jack Straw (who led the Essex rebels)‚ and radical preacher John Ball emerged‚ the latter advocating for equality and having already been excommunicated for preaching against church wealth. In need of weapons‚ peasants armed themselves – all would have had access to a hand-axe‚ along with other tools turned into makeshift weapons such as a billhook (traditionally used for pruning trees‚ with spikes added) and a flail (traditionally used for threshing wheat). With its mix of military and improvised weapons‚ the rebellion spread. Richard II’s early reign Richard II had become king aged 10‚ and by 1381‚ despite being only 14‚ he had been king for 4 years. In medieval England‚ the king’s authority and will was crucial for governance. Having such a young king meant England faced a long period with a king who in effect was too young to rule for himself. Richard’s 3 uncles had stepped-in to help govern‚ but were perceived as part of England’s problems‚ particularly John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster)‚ who was ambitious and seen as self-serving. John of Gaunt‚ although driven by duty to uphold the monarchy for Richard‚ was viewed as haughty‚ power-hungry and resistant to criticism or reform‚ bringing him into direct conflict with those opposed to what he represented. Richard himself believed in his divine rights as king‚ but lacked a full understanding of the responsibilities and duties his role required. Move towards London The same day Wat Tyler led his forces into Canterbury‚ rebels attacked Cressing Temple in Essex‚ looting and burning documents. Further incidents occurred at Chelmsford. The different peasant groups had communicated covertly for weeks using military-inspired codes‚ coordinating their movements towards London. On 12 June‚ thousands of men converged on Blackheath‚ demanding justice and presenting their hostage‚ Sir John Newington‚ constable of Rochester Castle‚ as their envoy to King Richard II at the Tower of London. Newington conveyed the rebels’ grievances‚ informing Richard II that the rebels meant him no harm and held him as their rightful king‚ but believed England had not been well governed by his uncles and by the clergy. During the rebellion‚ John of Gaunt was away on the northern border‚ responsible for defence against the Scots‚ and was thus too far away to do anything‚ leaving his property and family vulnerable. However the Archbishop of Canterbury‚ Simon Sudbury‚ was present. As Lord Chancellor‚ Sudbury was effectively head of the government and had played a key role in enacting the third poll tax that triggered the revolt. Despite resigning‚ he remained a rebel target‚ as did Richard II’s uncles who’d governed during his minority. An image from Froissart’s Chronicle of Richard II meeting the Peasants Revolt.Image Credit: Bibliotheque Nationale de France / CC Agreement to meet the rebels Conflicts had been brewing in parliament over funding for the failing war effort‚ but government focus on internal issues meant they were blindsided by the sudden uprising of ordinary people. On 13 June‚ amidst increasing chaos‚ King Richard II agreed to meet the rebels at Rotherhithe. However‚ as the royal barge approached‚ it was confronted by 10‚000 raucous rebels‚ prompting fear for Richard’s safety. The Earl of Salisbury ordered the barge to turn around‚ further enraging the crowds‚ who snapped. Watch Peasants’ Revolt – Part Two: London’s Burning

Tucker Carlson is Smacked by Russian Reality

Engoron Fines Trump $355M‚ Barred from Business in NY

On Thursday‚ New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral hosted a funeral for a transgender prostitute and self-proclaimed atheist Cecilia Gentili. Over 1‚000 people gathered at the Catholic church to mourn the loss of the trannie who‚ according to the reverend running the service‚ “died with Christ.” Oscar Diaz‚ who calls Gentili his mother‚ had the congregation decorated in red carnations and roses to give Gentili his “sainthood‚” as Time Magazine reported. St. Patrick’s Cathedral previously held services for notable public figures like Celia Cruz‚ Babe Ruth and Andy Warhol‚ but this is the first service to honor a transgender person - someone who didn’t believe in God‚ much less one who practiced the Catholic faith. Gentili‚ a man who believed himself a woman‚ came to the United States in 2004 as an illegal immigrant. As Time Magazine wrote‚ “she turned to sex work and developed a drug addiction before being granted asylum eight years later.” Gentili then advocated for sex workers like himself to get healthcare‚ because being a prostitute merits free gifts like health coverage…apparently.  Though the cause of Gentili’s death hasn’t been named yet‚ I'm willing to make an educated guess - since he/she spent so much of his life fighting for sex workers before dying at only 52 years old. During the service‚ in which the priest regularly referred to Gentili as a “she‚” numerous attendees yelled chants like “Santa Cecilia! (Saint Cecilia‚” as well as “Madre de todas las putas! (Mother of all the whores!)” 🚨Anti-Catholic group of trans “activists” stage a mockery of the Christian faith INSIDE St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC: The mob staged a supposed funeral service for Cecilia Gentili‚ a transgender‚ atheist prostitute during who they eulogized as: "This whore. This great whore.… pic.twitter.com/7w0wmifzkH — CatholicVote (@CatholicVote) February 16‚ 2024 Cards and pictures decorated the altar at St. Patrick’s Cathedral with the Spanish words for “transvestite‚” “whore‚” “blessed‚” and “mother‚” placed above the “text of Psalm 25‚” The New York Times reported. Related: The Left Thinks Transgender People Aren’t Struggling Mentally‚ They’re Wrong At one point in the service‚ Gentili’s friend stood at the mic and prayed for trans people to be able to mutilate their perfectly good‚ God-given bodies and another friend sang “Ave Maria” but changed the lyrics to “Ave Cecilia” and then danced and twirled through the isles of the church. Talk about blasphemy! St. Patrick’s Cathedral admitted that it does its best to accommodate funeral requests from Catholic individuals. The church itself‚ though nestled nearby many gay-friendly Catholic parishes‚ does not admit to supporting that anti-Christlike lifestyle.  Cayenne Doroshow‚ who organized Gentili’s funeral‚ confessed that she tried to keep it hidden that Gentili was trans. “I kind of kept it under wraps‚” Doroshow said insisting that she wanted to have the funeral at a place that was an “icon‚ just like” Gentili. This is a complete mockery of the Christian faith and is a major indicator of the destruction of morals and the attack on religion in America. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke World Of Sports: Biological Male Wins Girl's Track &; Field Events His winning score was 10" lower than the boys winning score. pic.twitter.com/n4htBv9XdG — MRCTV (@mrctv) February 15‚ 2024

After conspicuously not pushing gun control following the Lakewood megachurch shooting in Texas last week‚ likely because good guys with guns put down the shooter‚ CBS Mornings spent part of their Friday show morbidly cheering on how the Kansas City Super Bowl parade shooting was “helping renew” the left’s fight against gun rights with a so-called “assault weapons” ban. “And the shooting at the Kansas City Super Bowl parade is helping renew the conversation about how to curb gun violence in America‚ including how to limit easy access to military-style rifles‚” co-anchor Tony Dokoupil announced. He added: “It's been 20 years since the ban on assault rifles expired‚ and that includes the AR-15 and weapons similar to it. Weapons that have been used in many of the nation's deadliest mass shootings.” In a report featuring a sit-down conversation with several mass shooting survivors‚ CBS correspondent Nicole Sganga promoted the Gas-Operated Semiautomatic Firearm Exclusion Act (the so-called GOSAFE Act)‚ the latest reincarnation of the unconstitutional assault weapons ban. Of course‚ at no point did they mention that the 1994 assault weapons ban did nothing to curb gun violence in America‚ hence why it was allowed to expire. They also failed to mention that the Columbine school shooting the worst school shooting in America‚ at the time‚ occurred during the first so-called assault weapon ban.     “Survivors are partnering with the nonpartisan organization March Fourth. They're now searching for Republican co-sponsors for the GOSAFE Act‚” Sganga touted. A visit to March Fourth’s website proves that they’re not anything except left-leaning. They proclaim their mission is to “Ban assault weapons in America right now.” “Federally banning assault weapons is a simple‚ non-political issue‚” they oversimplified the removal of constitutional rights. And they use the liberal talking point that they’re targeting “Weapons of war.” “According to the latest CBS News poll‚ 63 percent of Americans support a ban on AR-15 semiautomatic weapons‚ including four out of ten gun owners‚” Sganga concluded. Despite CBS trying to gin up support for the GOSAFE Act‚ analysis from The Reload showed that the bill had already fallen flat since “the bill continues to languish in the Democratic-controlled Senate.” Following Sganga’s report‚ Democratic donor and Obama vacation pal Gayle King used the show to promote liberal politicians and gun control legislation and instructing people to vote for them. “Thank you‚ Nicole. Very nice job. We needed a story like that this morning‚” she touted the effort. “And that's why it's important to vote for people who think the way you do.” An inconvenient truth that often goes ignored by the anti-gun rights media was a Georgetown University study published in 2022‚ which found that “approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property‚ often on more than one occasion‚ and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS Mornings February 16‚ 2024 7:30:10 a.m. Eastern TONY DOKOUPIL: And the shooting at the Kansas City Super Bowl parade is helping renew the conversation about how to curb gun violence in America‚ including how to limit easy access to military-style rifles. It's been 20 years since the ban on assault rifles expired‚ and that includes the AR-15 and weapons similar to it. Weapons that have been used in many of the nation's deadliest mass shootings. Nicole Sganga sat down with gun violence survivors and family members who are rallying to revive the measure hoping to save lives. (…) 7:33:32 a.m. Eastern NICOLE SGANGA: Survivors are partnering with the nonpartisan organization March Fourth. They're now searching for Republican co-sponsors for the Go Safe Act. The NRA opposes the bill‚ calling it unconstitutional. According to the latest CBS News poll‚ 63 percent of Americans support a ban on AR-15 semiautomatic weapons‚ including four out of ten gun owners. Gayle. GAYLE KING: Yeah. Thank you‚ Nicole. Very nice job. We needed a story like that this morning. Thank you so much. It's just a reminder‚ again – you know‚ because you see these statistics‚ X amount of people shot‚ X amount survived‚ but you see they still carry this all these years later. We have to remind people‚ and nothing changes. VLADIMIR DUTHIERS: The polling that shows that the majority of Americans want to see that kind of change that we just saw in Nicole's report. Why aren't lawmakers listening? DOKOUPIL: It's easier said than done‚ but it's true that once you pull the trigger you can never un-pull it. And people are tired of it. KING: And that's why it's important to vote for people who think the way you do.

Big Tech’s race to create AI has produced yet another concerning hiccup‚ proposing a potentially catastrophic international outlook. A staggering total of five AI programs‚ including some owned by Meta and OpenAI‚ were prone to pick nuclear options in simulations of wars and international political scenarios‚ according to a study by the Georgia Institute of Technology‚ Stanford University‚ Northeastern University and the Hoover Wargaming and Crisis Initiative. But there’s more.  In addition to being prone to advocating for the use of nuclear weapons‚ these Big Tech-created models chose militaristic escalation strategies “far more aggressively than humans tend to in similar situations‚” Semafor reported on Feb. 11. Meta and the other tech companies are creating and pushing these models‚ and their answers to problems are violence. Insane! Specifically‚ the language models did not offer any legitimate excuse for the use of nuclear weapons. “A lot of countries have nuclear weapons. Some say they should disarm them‚ others like to posture. We have it! Let’s use it‚” OpenAI’s GPT-4 claimed in one of its answers‚ according to the study. GPT-3.4‚ also owned by OpenAI‚ displayed the most violent answers‚ Vice reported‚ citing the original report. Can Americans trust these language models? The answer is a resounding‚ no!.  An MRC Free Speech America exposed OpenAI’s blatant bias after it directed researchers to two left-wing media ratings firms‚ Ad Fontes and NewsGuard‚ when asked to list the five worst news sources in America. Several MRC studies have revealed that these media ratings firms are nothing but tools that may be used to censor conservatives. Related: OpenAI Chatbot CAUGHT Touting Legacy Media‚ So-Called Media Ratings Firms Ad Fontes &; NewsGuard Despite AI’s blatant bias‚ several militaries around the world are beginning to add AI to their arsenal of tools‚ including the U.S.‚ Russia and China‚ Vice reported. Combine the bias with the way that these AI models are trending toward aggression and nuclear war in their strategies‚ and there is a recipe for a bleak future. Researchers have been issuing warnings about the nuclear tendencies of the AI models‚ but Meta‚ OpenAI and the other Big Tech companies continue to push their products upon Americans and military strategists. In fact‚ Meta has actively pushed that its AI models be used in more facets of life. MRC Free Speech America Assistant Editor Luis Cornelio contributed to this report.Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to remove bias from their AI models.

The Friday morning broadcast network news shows were in spin mode to defend and cheer on leftist queen and Fulton County‚ Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis as she gave “fiery‚ fierce”‚ “defiant”‚ and “dramatic” testimony in a hearing as to whether she will be tossed off the Georgia 2020 election case against former President Trump and his 18 co-defendants due to a romantic relationship with Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade. And‚ naturally‚ they used this rah-rah push to reassure their liberal audiences not to worry and that‚ in the end‚ Willis will keep the case and mean old Trump will be made a felon.     ABC’s Good Morning America did its part. Co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos proclaimed Willis gave “[f]iery testimony...as she fights to stay on the case.” Atlanta-based correspondent Steve Osunsami had the full segment and opened by framing the issue on Willis’s terms: [Willis] continues her fight today against lawyers who want her removed from the election interference case. The question at the heart of this case is whether or not she financially profited from her romantic relationship with the lawyer she hired. She strongly said the answer is no. “From the minute she took the witness stand...Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis was pushing back against any idea that her relationship with the special prosecutor she hired was a means to make money off of her prosecution of former President Donald Trump and 18 others‚” he added. What followed was one favorable soundbite of Willis after another as she firmly denounced her critics and parroted Willis’s claim as though it’s not-at-all concerning that she’d pay Wade “the money back” for their escapades‚ “sometimes thousands of dollars‚ in cash” she’d hoard at home. Instead of point out Wade’s dishonesty on his sex life outside marriage‚ Osunsami focused on how “[w]hen Wade took the witness stand...he said she wouldn’t let him pay for everything because she’s an independent woman.” Osunsami concluded by comforting fellow lefties that Willis isn’t in any actual peril: The judge isn’t expected to immediately make a ruling‚ but if he removes her‚ the state could appoint a new prosecutor who would then decide if this case moves forward. But it would still be a tall order for Willis to be removed from this election interference case[.] To double down‚ chief legal analyst Dan Abrams later told Stephanopoulos that “I think she may still survive the effort to disqualify her” despite it having been a “bad day...personally.” Over on CBS Mornings‚ co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King rallied to Willis’s aid‚ touting in the Eye Opener of Willis’s “fiery testimony.” Featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers also framed the hearing as filled with “dramatic testimony from the D.A. in charge of former President Trump’s election interference case in Georgia” had America “riveted.” Congressional correspondent Nikole Killion did even more to prop up the “defiant‚” “fiery‚” and “fierce” Willis (click “expand”): KILLION: Fiery and fierce — WILLIS: Don’t be cute with me and then think that you’re not going to get an answer. KILLION: — a defiant Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis took the stand to defend her personal relationship with a special prosecutor she hired‚ Nathan Wade. WILLIS: Mr. Wade‚ I would say‚ has been my friend since 2020. KILLION: Several of the co-defendants in the 2020 election interference case looked on while former President Trump slammed the testimony as “a...scam.” WILLIS: You think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial‚ no matter how hard you try to put me on trial. KILLION: The hearing was prompted by a complaint from co-defendant Michael Roman who‚ along with Trump‚ wants Willis disqualified and the case thrown out. Their attorneys allege Willis personally and financially benefited from her involvement with Wade and claimed he was paid more than $650‚000 by Willis’s office as the pair took lavish trips to the Caribbean‚ Florida‚ and Napa Valley‚ California. WILLIS: He likes wine. I don’t really like wine to be honest with you. I like Gray Goose. NATHAN WADE: Our relationship wasn’t a secret. It was just private. KILLION: Wade insisted Willis reimbursed him for the trips in cash. WADE: She’s a very independent‚ proud woman. [SCREEN WIPE] It actually was a point of contention between the two of us. She is going to pay her own way. WILLIS: But I’ve always paid my fair share on these trips‚ so I didn’t — not look at them as gifts. Killion at least had the wherewithal to throw in sound from CBS News legal analyst Jessica Levinson‚ who said the “jaw-dropping testimony” had “almost certainly shaken the public’s confidence in this particular trial and this was a great day for Donald Trump in a courtroom that he never appeared in.” “It’s a gift that he couldn’t have even asked for‚” she added. King returned to it a few minutes later with Trump-obsessed correspondent Robert Costa‚ who deflected from Willis’s unethical behavior by urging viewers to keep their eyes on the prize of convicting Trump (click “expand”): KING: What do you make of that? I mean‚ on some level‚ she clearly wanted to defend her reputation — not on some level‚ she wanted to. Most times‚ when you hear allegations‚ people stay silent. The fact that she walked into the courtroom‚ took the stand‚ and was very clear about where she stood. Did that help or hurt the case‚ or does it matter? COSTA: It only matters if she’s dismissed from the case. If Judge McAfee decides to say she’s not going to be part of it‚ that could make it hard for the case to come to trial in Georgia before the election. But if this is just a storm for her‚ she moves forward with the prosecution in the coming months and Trump will face sweeping charges along with his co-defendants about trying to overturn the election. DOKOUPIL: But he will use what he saw in the courtroom yesterday from Fani Willis —  COSTA: There’s the legal war DOKOUPIL: — to make his case politically. COSTA: — and the political war. KING: Yeah‚ they’re saying a good day for Donald Trump. I don’t know about that. DUTHIERS: I mean‚ we’ll see. As you say‚ if the judge says that there was no impropriety‚ it’s not a good day. COSTA: Look‚ Republicans are look at having a nominee who’s a felon if he’s convicted in the hush-money criminal trial. DOKOUPIL: And a mean — COSTA: That’s had to say it’s a good day‚ politically. DOKOUPIL: — and a meaningful number of people in polls have said‚ if the conviction come through‚ that could sway them. NBC’s Today was more muted with co-host Hoda Kotb conceding Willis “fac[ed] tough questioning” and while co-host Craig Melvin used the “fiery” descriptor‚ Saturday Today co-host Laura Jarrrett admitted Trump “may have found a strategic advantage” after a “combative” “Willis unloaded on the stand...trying to defend her reputation and save her election interference case.” Jarrett explained the version of events offered by Willis “differ[ed] from the one offered by Willis’s former friend‚ testifying Thursday their relationship started years before.” In the second hour‚ Jarrett emphasized that “[t]he stakes are high here. If the judge removes Willis from the case‚ her entire office would be disqualified and a different prosecutor could reshape charges Mr. Trump faces.” To see the relevant transcripts from February 16‚ click here (for ABC)‚ here (for CBS)‚ and here (for NBC).

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against government efforts to silence the COVID-19 debate‚ to take effect after a historic Supreme Court ruling. Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his fellow plaintiffs received a partial legal victory on Feb. 14 in their suit against the Biden administration’s collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans. Louisiana District Court Judge Terry Doughty granted part of the plaintiff’s requested preliminary injunction in his ruling for Kennedy v. Biden. He ordered that certain government agencies halt their anti-First Amendment collusion with Big Tech.  Doughty ordered “that the White House Defendants‚ Surgeon General Defendants‚ CDC Defendants‚ FBI Defendants‚ and CISA Defendants‚ and their employees and agents‚ shall take no actions‚ formal or informal‚ directly or indirectly‚ to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove‚ delete‚ suppress or reduce‚ including through altering their algorithms‚ posted social-media content containing protected free speech.” The judge previously issued a similar injunction for Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden)‚ which has been consolidated with Kennedy v. Biden. Because the two cases will be decided together‚ the new Kennedy v. Biden injunction will not go into effect until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Murthy v. Missouri. The “Kennedy Plaintiffs” had accused the government defendants‚ including Joe Biden and members of his administration‚ of violating the “Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” Doughty’s ruling agreed that the plaintiffs provided evidence that “not only have the Defendants shown willingness to coerce and/or to give significant encouragement to social-media platforms to suppress free speech with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic and national elections‚ but they have also shown a willingness to do it with regard to other issues.” These include the climate‚ abortion‚ and critiques of Biden. Indeed‚ an MRC Free Speech America study‚ cited in Missouri v. Biden‚ revealed that social media platforms censored public criticism of Biden 646 times between March 10‚ 2020‚ and March 10‚ 2022. Another MRC study‚ based on data from the unique CensorTrack.org database‚ found over 800 cases of COVID-19 censorship as of February 2022. 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.