Category Archives: News and Info

News and Information Posts from Bro Bo

‘The Muppets Show’ Slapped with Offensive Content Warning for ‘Negative Depictions’ of People and Cultures

Oscar and the rest of the Muppets really have something to be grouchy about thanks to Disney’s latest decision.


‘The Muppets Show’ Slapped with Offensive Content Warning for ‘Negative Depictions’ of People and Cultures

The Muppets have brought controversy with them in their debut on Disney+.

On Friday, Disney released five seasons of “The Muppets Show,” but added a disclaimer before each episode, according to the New York Post.

“This program includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures. These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now,” the disclaimer says.

“Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together,” it adds.

“Disney is committed to creating stories with inspirational and aspirational themes that reflect the rich diversity of the human experience around the globe.”

Disney does not spell out details, but the assumption is that the show’s characters crossed the line of political correctness in their depictions of Native American, Middle Eastern and Asian people.

Many on Twitter thought this was a little too much political correctness.





At least one British politician was irked at the label, according to the U.K.-based Daily Mail.

“I would like to know which bunch of Muppets thought this one up,” said Andrew Bridgen, a member of Parliament, the newspaper reported.

“It would appear if this continues kids won’t be able to watch any TV programmes which are not newly made. Is nothing safe?” he said, noting that the Disney decision requires that the shows be accessed from an account held by an adult.

One episode that might have sparked a concern came when Johnny Cash sang “Ghost Riders in the Sky” in a backdrop where a Confederate flag appears as part of the set, according to the Post.

The warning also appears on what have usually considered family films such as “The Aristocats,” ‘Dumbo,” “Peter Pan” and “Swiss Family Robinson.”

Although Disney will stream most of the shows, some will not appear due to issues over the rights to music performed on the shows, according to Entertainment Weekly.

The Western Journal


Source: ‘The Muppets Show’ Slapped with Offensive Content Warning for ‘Negative Depictions’ of People and Cultures

The secret to saving America

The secret to saving America

David Kupelian explores how to fight the good fight without losing your soul

“… become blameless and harmless, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye are seen as lights in the world …” –Philippians 2:15

The United States of America is in the throes of a full-scale revolution. The new administration, which openly promises to transform America, rewrite her Constitution and “reimagine” all of her bedrock institutions, is being heralded by a shockingly totalitarian censorship campaign targeting everyone in opposition, from Donald J. Trump on down.

But this revolution is not new. For decades, our nation has been under covert, slow-motion assault by what we cryptically call “the far Left,” a religious-political movement fundamentally at war with both Christianity and America.

From the sexual revolution and the “marriage-is-legalized-rape” radical feminists of the 1960s, to today’s open love affair with socialism, sexual anarchy, abortion, identity politics, radical environmentalism and “defunding the police,” the Left has relentlessly pursued its goal, as Barack Obama put it, of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

And though President Trump fought mightily against this tide for four years, tirelessly pursuing a pro-life, pro-religious freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-America agenda, as of today the revolutionaries are wildly ascendent.

Consider that in the past year the radical Left – with whose cause Big Media, Big Tech, Big Education, Big Hollywood and the entire Democratic Party totally identify – has succeeded in:

* indicting the freest, most welcoming and least racist nation on earth as irredeemably racist;

* inciting violent Marxist revolutionaries to riot, vandalize, loot and burn America’s major cities;

* abandoning their former “safe, legal and rare” stance on abortion in favor of wanton celebration of late-term abortion up to the moment of birth and beyond;

* encouraging innocent children to irreversibly ruin their lives by chemically (and sometimes surgically) “transitioning” to the opposite sex – a scientific impossibility;

* using the COVID pandemic as a cover for imposing unprecedented totalitarian control over Americans; and

gaslighting an entire nation by perpetrating the most wide-ranging, egregious and in-your-face election fraud in U.S. history while pretending disenfranchised American voters who simply want a fair and impartial investigation are the crazy ones, “trying to steal the election from Joe Biden.”

And that’s just for starters.

As America’s once-great middle class becomes crushed through endless COVID lockdowns, a wealthy and privileged globalist elite is not only growing ever richer and more powerful, but also strategically deploying COVID as a pretext for engineering what they call a “Great Reset” of the world – replacing capitalism with socialism. This is neither conspiracy theory nor partisan conjecture; the “Reset” movement’s leaders openly brag about it.

‘Evil in high places’

What Americans are beholding as the new year unfolds is more than just a host of extremely daunting circumstances brought about by corrupt, misguided and power-hungry people in leadership positions. Something else seems to be at work.

Consider that the well-intentioned but naïve liberal leaders of yesteryear are almost nowhere to be found. In their place are politicians, academics and media personalities whose breathtaking level of dishonestly and delusion (they talk earnestly about men becoming pregnant, they liken Trump to Hitler and they pretend the corrupt and shockingly senile Joe Biden is qualified to be president) suggests a surreal, dystopian, darkly spiritual dimension to the current troubled era.

In truth, Americans today are confronted with a maniacal revolutionary movement emanating from a full-bore rebellion against God Almighty and the essential foundation stones of Western Judeo-Christian civilization – from biblical morality, to “unalienable” individual rights, to equal justice under the law, to the color-blind society championed by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., to the sacredness of children in the womb. After all, each of these priceless principles emanates directly from a deep recognition that human beings are created in the image of God – Imago Dei – and are therefore precious and of inestimable value.

Ironically, although atheist Karl Marx famously attacked religion and particularly Christianity as the “opium of the people,” he himself concocted the ultimate religious opiate: Marxism.

For although the fantasy-world promise of socialism was a “classless” society wherein all people are equal and cared for, in the real world, corrupt leftist-elite politicians like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are so dishonest and desperately addicted to power, their consciences so seared by decades of lying, that they retain zero capacity for genuinely caring about the “poor and disadvantaged.” It’s all an act.

Rather, the religion they preach – Marxism, socialism, progressivism, whatever the label – is just an opiate they cynically dispense to pacify and distract the masses, while they grow ever more wealthy, powerful and privileged, but inwardly ever more ugly, corrupt and self-deceived.

So now comes the big question: With such genuine wickedness openly manifesting in “the land of the free,” so much that it evokes the Apostle Paul’s admonitions about “powers and principalities” and “spiritual wickedness in high places,” what can good Americans do about the precarious state of their country? During this time of genuine tribulation and even persecution, how should moral, right-thinking Americans, who work hard, love their country, honor its history and obey its laws – and who don’t pretend there are dozens of new genders and that America is a despicable racist hellhole – now respond?

‘Uniquely blessed by God’

First, remember that our current time isn’t uniquely burdened by evil and misfortune. When Jesus Christ walked the earth two millennia ago, He and His Jewish countrymen lived under harsh Roman occupation, “individual rights” (including the right to vote) didn’t exist and most people were “poor and disadvantaged.” And then there was leprosy. Moreover, to make sure the rabble always knew who was in charge, the Romans routinely crucified people along the roadsides – escaped slaves, criminals and other “lowlifes,” and especially those they regarded as any sort of threat to Roman rule.

The intervening centuries have all too often presented equally daunting circumstances. While today’s coronavirus pandemic has taken several hundred thousand American lives, 14th century Europe had to contend with the Black Plague, which killed some 25 to 50 million people – and no treatments or vaccines. Then there have been the countless wars, the costliest being World War II with over 70 million deaths, including over 400,000 Americans. Indeed, the 20th century was the bloodiest in all of human history, dominated as it was by the ever-metastasizing Marxist cancer, which consumed an appalling 100-200 million lives.

Truth is, the human race is so regularly mired in intractable crises, one could reasonably conclude that crisis and chaos are the norm for humans, with societal peace and prosperity but rare and cherished aberrations.

And that may be the point: America has historically constituted one of those few extraordinary “cherished aberrations,” a nation uniquely blessed by God.

America was blessed by wise founders who crafted a magnificent Constitution to be the template for a government based on individual rights and ordered liberty, not the rule of kings and potentates. Blessed with a population willing to sacrifice 600,000 lives in a war that ended up expunging the evil of slavery. Blessed with an admirably resilient Judeo-Christian culture and a population genuinely in love with their country. Blessed with extraordinary natural resources, including more oil than Saudi Arabia. Blessed with unparalleled freedom and prosperity that to this day attract more immigrants to our shores than any other country in the world, by far.

Therefore, when they see their beloved country being stolen, defiled and “fundamentally transformed” as it is right now, right-thinking Americans feel compelled to defend her. But how?

First and most immediate: November’s election was a freak show featuring hands-down the most massive amount of voter fraud in Americans’ lifetimes. If the various states that permitted and encouraged election fraud – such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and others – aren’t compelled to play by the rules, America will never again be a unified, peaceful nation – ever. So that is job one.

Even setting aside the outrageous election abuses, the major news media and tech monopolies pre-rigged November’s contest long before Election Day by continually portraying Donald Trump as a Hitlerian, mentally ill traitor while casting the demented and spectacularly corrupt Joe Biden as a moral paragon and guarantor of national healing.

They all knew better, but they did it anyway.

However, a corrupt news establishment, a rigged election process, a radicalized Democratic Party and out-of-control Big Tech information gatekeepers are not our only problems.

America’s colleges and universities have become Marxist indoctrination centers. Our public elementary, middle and high schools teach our children that America is a racist nation. Even preschoolers are herded into public libraries where demonically possessed men pretending to be women – some of them convicted sex-offenders – are allowed to beguile, indoctrinate and corrupt these children’s tender little minds, while their clueless parents smile and nervously laugh.

Summarizing America’s current spiritual state, Los Angeles mega-pastor John MacArthur recently told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham: “America’s in a moral free fall. … You murder the babies in the womb. If they survive the womb, you try to seduce them into transgender sexual deviation when they’re young. If they survive that, you corrupt them with a godless education. If they survive that, you have divorce in the family. And if they grow to be adults, we drown them in a sea of pornography. This is a nation so far down in the sewer of immorality and wickedness that nothing surprises me.”

MacArthur is right, of course. Which means even if Trump had managed to remain in office for another four years and continued to turbocharge the U.S. economy as he did previously, America would remain in a state of “moral free fall.”

Try this thought experiment: Recall how Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court led to hordes of screaming people wildly pounding on the doors of the Supreme Court building, an epic mob scene reminiscent of something out of the French Revolution. And that was just over a nomination! Imagine what would happen if those rioters’ worst fears – the outlawing of abortion – actually came to pass. What if the Supreme Court actually repealed Roe v. Wade, or – to take the hypothetical even further – suppose the states actually amended the U.S. Constitution with a Human Life Amendment, outlawing abortion throughout the nation.

It would be a great day, of course – except America would be in a state of war, her streets unsafe, mass hysteria dominating public life every single day.

I think you get the picture. America has become a very broken nation, with millions of people utterly captive to bizarre, deceitful and deadly beliefs.

Thus, while we work and litigate and demonstrate and persuade and donate and pray for a turnaround on all the current battlefields – from election integrity to media corruption to abortion – what America really needs is indeed a revolution. But not a Marxist one.

Toward national revival

First, a word of warning to hotheads: Whereas civil disobedience in the manner of the Civil Rights Movement demonstrators of the 1960s can be a powerful force for good, awakening the conscience of a nation and bringing about truly positive change, angry and violent rebellion is not only counterproductive, it is precisely what the maniacal, power-obsessed Left wants.

That’s right. Although they will never admit it, it’s what they desire most of all. Why? Because it would enable them to point to “rightwing, white-supremacist extremists and terrorists” and say, “See! We told you all along that white-nationalist Trump-supporting fascists were the real problem!”

This is precisely why the left is forever fabricating and publicizing a never-ending array of “hate-crime” hoaxes, because they serve to validate their deranged narrative that conservatives, Republicans and Trump supporters are the real criminals, fascists and terrorists, and must be throttled at all costs. The left dreams of an unhinged, violent “rightwing” rebellion, as such would serve only to vindicate them and give them a lock on the power they crave.

As events unfold in the new year and beyond, bold strategies will emerge for restoring our nation, and patriotic right-thinking Americans will surely pursue them. Members of Congress and all state legislators will play pivotal roles, especially with regard to asuring free and fair elections, as will governors and mayors and indeed all elected office holders. Traditionally minded citizens will pursue parallel institutions to protect their children as well as their own wellbeing and sanity, from alternative educational modalities (homeschooling and private Christians schools) to alternative news media. Indeed, the American samizdat (that’s what the “underground” press, the only source of truthful news, was called in the former Soviet empire) must flourish, although it will have to endure more censorship and abuse as they perform their vital role of investigating corruption and truthfully keeping Americans informed.

In every area of life, Americans will have to bear up with grace and dignity in fighting the good fight. Citizens, the ultimate sovereigns in America’s unique constitutional system, who may be tempted to “drop out of politics” must do the opposite – vigorously exercising their sacred rights of voting, free speech, free association, freedom of worship, and to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” in every legal and moral way.

One final all-important point: Unlike virtually all other nations, the essence of America is not a common ethnicity but a common spirit – a grateful, liberty-loving, generous, essentially Christian spirit, which needs to burn more brightly now in America than ever.

Indeed, no real and lasting recovery is possible for America without a genuine spiritual revival. And each of us can and must play a key part in this revival. How? While we’re engaged on every battlefront – committed to work creatively and effectively, to educate and persuade, to enlighten and awaken, and to outthink and outmaneuver the demented Left – each of us needs, as Christ commanded, to “Let [our] light … shine before men,” always praying we can wage the battle righteously. And even praying for our enemies.

Christianity has historically grown during times of persecution, not only in numbers but in depth and sincerity. America’s coming days promise to be very tough ones, with much persecution directed toward those who dare speak the Truth. But if good people stand up for what is right, for their nation, for what is legal and proper and moral and good – and if they do it with faith in Almighty God that He may be glorified and His will ultimately triumph – they absolutely cannot lose.

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” – Romans 8:28






Editor’s note: The preceding is the lead-off story in the current issue of Whistleblower magazine, compiled and edited monthly by David Kupelian. If you would like to explore this subject more deeply, read “TRIBULATION AND REDEMPTION IN AMERICA: How today’s breathtakingly corrupt politics and culture invite personal and national recovery.” 


Source: The secret to saving America

A Layman’s Guide to Penumbral Reasoning – American Thinker



A Layman’s Guide to Penumbral Reasoning


For over 50 years, constitutional scholars, and Supreme Court justices in particular, have used “penumbral reasoning” as one means to explain rulings expanding the Constitution of the United States.  Law schools describe it as “reasoning by interpolation.”  To put that in graphic terms, if you’re drawing a graph on paper, reasoning by interpolation allows you to extend the line off of the paper.  I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I don’t think that’s necessary to see that this can lead to a very dark place.

In legal terms, when a justice says they’re using penumbral reasoning, they’re admitting that the next thing they say is not actually written in the Constitution.  They’re using it as an interpretive instrument to claim that if the Founders were alive today, “They would put what I’m about to rule in the Constitution.”

Penumbras have been debated in legal papers for many years.  But in 1965, Justice William O. Douglas used penumbral reasoning in the majority opinion of Griswold v. Connecticut to declare that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution — even though it’s not written anywhere.  He then used this newly discovered “right” to find that a ban on contraceptives was therefore unconstitutional.  A right to privacy seems like a logical inclusion in the constitution.  But rather than five justices declaring it a right, why didn’t we add it to the Constitution with an amendment?  It couldn’t have been that difficult to get ¾ of the population to agree that they wanted privacy.  With an amendment, we could have avoided all the resulting controversy.

Instead, justices have been exploring the limits of penumbral logic ever since.  That’s how they “discovered” that a right to abortion is included in the Constitution.  They’ve become the test pilots, taking us for a ride while they “push the envelope” — only we don’t get a parachute.

To understand it better, let’s take a look at what a penumbra is.  The dictionary definition of a penumbra is the lighter area around the edge of a shadow.  When a legal scholar uses it, they’re saying that they see something emanating from the shadows of the Constitution — it’s there, even though it’s not written.  It’s a natural outgrowth of, or inherent in, something that is written.  Here’s the way I understand it: If you have a few drinks, squint your eyes, and look sideways, you can kinda sorta imagine what the Founders would write, even though they didn’t write it.  It’s perfectly straightforward.  The justices are saying that they can read the minds of political giants that have been dead for hundreds of years.  How humble of them.

The Supreme Court decided that the Supreme Court can declare that the Constitution means something it doesn’t say — without concurrence of the citizenry.  Isn’t that a bit like a king granting himself unlimited power over the serfs, and then saying it’s legal because the king gave himself the authority to write the rules?  What could possibly go wrong?

Maybe we can understand what could go wrong by looking at the application of penumbral reasoning to other legal venues.  How do you think a penumbral argument would go in a civil case?  Let me illustrate: You hire a builder to construct a new home for your family.  You enter into a contract with the builder to construct a single-family dwelling with three bedrooms.  But, by the time the home is completed, you’ve added another baby to the family.  You inform the builder that he’s in breach of the contract because you now need a four-bedroom home.  You file a lawsuit.  In court, you argue that the contract should have evolved with changing circumstances.  The requirement for a four-bedroom home was always there — as a penumbra, emanating from the requirement for a single-family dwelling.  How do you think this lawsuit will turn out?

Penumbral reasoning is absurd for contract law, and it’s also absurd for constitutional law.  If the words don’t have concrete meanings, the documents they are written on become meaningless.  Just because an argument originated with a scholar doesn’t make it any less asinine.  It just proves that Ivy League credentials do not bestow wisdom.

Let’s look at what this type of interpretation has led to. It started innocuously enough.  The justices used it to grant us a constitutional right to privacy.  That doesn’t seem like a bad thing.  Who could argue with that?  However, it did put us on the proverbial “slippery slope.”  Now that the Supreme Court has granted itself the authority to “read between the lines” of the Constitution, they’ve started finding other stuff.  Now they’ve discovered that we have a constitutional right to contraceptionabortion, and same-sex marriage.  I’m not arguing that any of these things are good or bad.  I’m saying that they should have been debated by the citizenry, not nine Supreme Court justices.

What about the argument that the Constitution needs to evolve with the changing needs of our society?  Of course, it does.  But the use of penumbral arguments is an arrogation of power from the people to robed overlords.  It’s also a lazy man’s method of achieving constitutional changes without selling them to his fellow citizens.

The correct way to evolve the Constitution is through the amendment process.  Yes, it’s difficult and time consuming — and that’s a feature, not a bug.  By requiring broad buy-in, public debate is driven and consensus is achieved — or not.  With consensus, future controversy is minimized.

Is it possible that Roe v. Wade was not an example of the Constitution evolving with society, but rather of the Supreme Court dragging society towards their worldview?  How different would our debates about abortion be if ¾ of the citizenry had agreed on the legality of the practice in 1973?  If you answer, “But we would have never gotten it passed,” then you’ve just made my point.


By John Green


John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Star, Idaho. He is a retired engineer with over 40 years of experience in the areas of product development, quality assurance, organizational development, and corporate strategic planning. He can be reached at




Source: A Layman’s Guide to Penumbral Reasoning – American Thinker

The Gloriously Inappropriate and Problematic ‘Blues Brothers’

The gloriously inappropriate and problematic “Blues Brothers” (1980) could never get made in today’s culture of woke fascism.



Under the belief it was the movie that would most offend today’s Woketards, last week I wrote about the gloriously inappropriate and problematic Animal House (1978). Finding myself in a Belushi mood, a few days later, I watched his next hit, 1980’s The Blues Brothers, and quickly realized today’s Hitler Youth would hate this one even more — a whole lot more.

You have no idea how blessed I was to come of age in the 70s and 80s, two of the freest decades, not only in our country’s history but in world history. By 1970, Hollywood’s self-censoring Production Code had been dismantled, the great Norman Lear had pushed the boundaries of television with his masterpiece All in the Family, and suddenly nothing and no one was off-limits. There were no more sacred cows. No limits on satire. No protected groups.

And do you want to know the best part? Almost all the satire was good-natured. When a Carlin, Pryor, Lear, and Saturday Night Live took a shot at you, you couldn’t help but laugh at yourself — which is the healthiest of medicines for the human spirit.

We were truly free then. So free… And like young people do, I took it all for granted — just assumed it would always be that way.

Well, look at us now… We live in a literal Woke Police State run by Big Corporations. Ironically, this was something Hollywood frequently warned us about — and now Hollywood is one of our most fascist enforcers. McCarthyism and blacklists have returned with a vengeance.

Well, as the (soon-to-be-blacklisted) Python boys famously suggested, you should “always look at the bright side of life.”

So, yes, there are some benefits to Woke McCarthyism… First off, it’s kind of fun to feel like an outlaw just for daring to enjoy a movie. Secondly, we certainly live in interesting times. Finally, now that movies like Animal House and The Blues Brothers have become the forbidden, like all things forbidden, you cherish and enjoy them all the more.

The Blues Brothers was always a terrific movie, a legitimately great musical-comedy. It’s aged into something even more beautiful, though, and not just because of Woketardism.

You see, in the 41 years since its release, we’ve lost all the legends the movie paid such affectionate tribute to: Aretha Franklin, Cab Calloway, Ray Charles, James Brown, and John Lee Hooker. They’re all gone now, and what a treat it is to watch them up on the screen strutting their magic. Each of their numbers, most especially Aretha’s “Think” and Calloway’s “Minnie the Moocher,” is a total show-stopper. You can’t help but sit with a big grin on your face mixed with an ache in your heart.

Yes, Giants once walked the earth … including John Belushi.

Best of all, you can sense the reverence John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd (who co-wrote the script with director John Landis) have for these giants. Not only are they eager to introduce their idols to a new audience, but during their respective musical numbers, Aykroyd and Belushi stay almost entirely out of the way. They generously (and appropriately) allow their musical heroes to shine alone in the spotlight.

Both the movie and musical history are better for it.

Before we get to listing all the woke sins, a quick rundown of the plot…

The Blues Brothers are Jake Blues (Belushi) and Elwood Blues (Aykroyd), two brothers who believe in only one thing: honoring, playing, and keeping the blues alive. Offstage and on, they wear the blues uniform of a black suit, black tie, black fedora, white shirt, and sunglasses.

Elwood: There’s 106 miles to Chicago, we’ve got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it’s dark out, and we’re wearing sunglasses.

Jake: Hit it.

After Jake’s release from prison, Elwood picks him up in the Bluesmobile (an old police car) and they pay a visit to “the penguin,” a Roman Catholic nun (Kathleen Freeman) who runs the orphanage the brothers were raised in. She needs $5,000 to pay the taxes or the city of Chicago (where the movie is set) will close her down.

Now that they’re on a mission from God, Jake and Elwood decide to get the band back together and put on a show to raise the money. Along the way, they’re hunted by the police, Nazis, rednecks, a crazed ex-girlfriend (Carrie Fisher), and their parole officer (John Candy).

Jake: We’re putting the band back together.
Mr. Fabulous: Forget it. No way.
Elwood: We’re on a mission from God.

Let me explain the rest of the plot this way… For nearly 20 years, The Blues Brothers held the record for the most cars crashed in a single movie (the record was broken by the uninspired 1998 sequel, Blues Brothers 2000).

Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don’t fail me now!

This plot might sound simple, but the heresies committed herein against the Religion of Woke are almost too many to count…

I’ll do my best.

  1. A movie based entirely on cultural appropriation…

Jake and Elwood Blues are walking, talking, living, breathing sins of cultural appropriation — white guys who sing the blues. Woke heads would explode 20 minutes into this thing. But allow me to say this…

Cultural appropriation is, by any objective and moral measure, a good thing — a very good thing. The whole idea of America is culture appropriation or “out of many one” — which is our national motto (e pluribus unum). We should all be grabbing hold of the best from everyone else’s culture. On top of laughing at ourselves, cultural appropriation bridges differences and bring us together…

To keep us divided, however, the Hitler Youth of Woke have turned a moral and unifying thing into a sin.

  1. Faith in God and America…

There’s no irony or anything tongue-in-cheek about Jake and Elwood’s mission. While Aykroyd’s dry recitation of “We’re on a mission from God” is hilarious, the brothers truly believe this and, most importantly, so does the movie. Belushi is literally hit with the Holy Spirit in a Christian church (how could he not with James Brown preaching?).

Yes. Yes. Jesus H. tap-dancing Christ… I have seen the light!

And it is also during this moment where Elwood — and again without irony — expresses his love for America.

Reverend Cleophus James [Brown]: Praise God!

Elwood: And God bless the United States of America.

  1. Government is the villain…

Our heroes are out to save a Christian institution from being closed down by the government over property taxes.

  1. The glory of “insensitivity” reigns supreme…

There are fat jokes, sex slave jokes, and at one point, Jake impersonates an Arab trader. Ray Charles repeatedly fires a gun at a kid, Carrie Fisher looks sexy as hell posing with an assault rifle, women run around in bikinis, and people look cool smoking cigarettes.

  1. So much glorious “sexism”…

Carrie Fisher plays a crazed stalker, Aretha Franklin is a nagging wife, Twiggy is left outside a cheap motel waiting for Elwood…

That’s it. That’s all the women are allowed to do.

  1. Nazis played for laughs…

The Nazis, or to be more precise, the “Illinois Nazis” (led by the great Henry Gibson), are played entirely for laughs. This, of course, is the smartest and most effective way to marginalize Nazis — you turn them into a joke. But if this were done today, the cries of That’s not funny! would never cease.

Oh, and there’s even a gay Nazi.

I’ve always loved you.

And now we come to the movie’s most unforgivable act of Woke Heresy….

  1. Race is never mentioned… Not even once.

Although this is a movie populated with black and white characters and premised on the blues, never once is race raised as an issue. The Nazis aren’t even motivated by race. They’re just angry at the Blues Brothers for driving them off a bridge. The “rednecks” aren’t motivated by race. They’re angry over having their gig stolen. A centerpiece scene takes place in a honkytonk. Race is never mentioned.

Elwood: What kind of music do you usually have here?

Claire: Oh, we got both kinds. We got country and western.

Throughout, we see blacks and whites sing, dance, argue, joke, travel, and perform together, all in a spirit of brotherhood.

This is deliberate, one of the overriding themes of the movie, one Elwood dares to speak out loud when he tells a massive crowd of people from all walks of life:

We do sincerely hope that you all enjoy the show and please remember people, that no matter who you are and what you do to live, thrive, and survive, there are still some things that make us all the same: You, me, them! Everybody! Everybody!

Like Animal House, and despite its R-rating (only for the occasional F-word), The Blues Brothers is ultimately a very moral movie. This is a story about redemption, brotherhood, recognizing our shared humanity, ignoring skin color, thumbing your nose at authority, accepting responsibility, the futility of grudges, and pursuing a cause greater than self.

And because of all that, because of all that goodness and good humor and colorblindness and ennobling of the human spirit, The Blues Brothers could never get made today — at least not without everyone involved getting blacklisted by today’s Woke Nazis.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.





Source: Nolte: The Gloriously Inappropriate and Problematic ‘Blues Brothers’

They’re obliterating our history more quickly than you think

Exclusive: Patrice Lewis sees parallel in alleged purging of Chinese explorers’ 15th century exploits


Last summer I read an engrossing book entitled “1421: The Year China Discovered America” by Gavin Menzies, a retired British submarine lieutenant commander turned amateur archeologist. The book documented his efforts to demonstrate how a Chinese fleet of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of ships set sail in 1421 and circumnavigated the world, touching base everywhere from the Americas (North and South), Australia, Africa, Greenland, Europe, and all points between. The purpose of the expeditions, according to Menzies, was to chart the waters of the globe, impress and intimidate foreign rulers, and bring the entire world into China’s “tribute system.”

The book was riveting. While COVID lockdowns and subsequent unemployment soared around America, I was lost in the voyages of these Chinese explorers. While cities burned around the nation, causing billions of dollars in damages and killing dozens of people, I was absorbed by the evidence of the expeditions found in California and the Caribbean. While BLM and Antifa toppled statues, defaced monuments and demanded history be rewritten, I was captivated by the evidence presented of the Chinese discovery of Australia and even Antarctica. While Portland, Seattle and other blue cities were torn apart by constant violence and anarchy, I was immersed in the phenomenal accomplishments of those Imperial Chinese fleets.

Some sources dismiss Menzies as a “pseudo-historian” because he doesn’t have academic credentials after his name (for the record, I’m not nearly as impressed by academic credentials as I used to be), but I found the book compelling and fascinating nonetheless. Whether or not Menzies’ conclusions are accurate is not the focus of this column. Instead, ponder this question: If the premise of the book is true – if evidence points to China being world explorers long before Europeans – why doesn’t history reflect this? Why aren’t the accomplishments of Imperial China known throughout the world?

The proposed answer, according to Menzies, is because during the years the voyagers were at sea and out of touch with their mother country, Imperial China’s tumultuous and controversial régime changed, and its leaders (who commissioned the fleet) were deposed. The new incoming régime was rigidly insular. All foreign goods, services and trade were forcibly suppressed and – here’s the critical part – expunged from the records. As with many cultural revolutions, the leaders wanted their reign to be “Year Zero” for history. The accomplishments of the previous rulers were not just unwelcome, they were downright dangerous to acknowledge.

Therefore, when the greatly diminished Chinese fleets finally limped home, these mariners found themselves irrelevant and their discoveries and adventures dismissed. “Not only was the priceless legacy of the greatest maritime expeditions of all time gone forever, foreign lands were to be banished from the minds of the Chinese people,” wrote Menzies. “The legacy of [the expedition leaders] and their great treasure fleets would be all but obliterated. What oceans they had sailed, what lands they had seen, what discoveries they had made, what settlement they had created were no longer of interest to the Chinese hierarchy. … The logs and records were destroyed, and the memory of them expunged so completely over the succeeding decades that they might never have existed.” [Emphasis added.]

When I read that last line, I was stunned. Absolutely floored. Why would any nation erase such a glorious legacy of world exploration? Why would they take second place behind European explorers in terms of historical accuracy and bragging rights?

As American anarchists (encouraged by Democratic leaders) burned and rioted and toppled statues and rewrote history during the last year, I pondered that question. Then it hit me. Oh wait …

America is doing the same thing.

America, too, has experienced a régime change in which the Five Evils (Big Tech, Hollywood, public education, mainstream media, politicians) are engaging in a long-term scrubbing of history, both past and modern. In a remarkably short period of time, our history – the good, the bad and the ugly – is being expunged from the records, leaving behind a sterilized and factually false account. Our founding documents are being dismissed as racist, and the intellectual giants who shaped the groundwork for a nation of freedom are being rebranded as white supremacists whose legacy is not just unimportant, but downright dangerous to acknowledge. America’s origins are being rewritten to fit the narrative of the extreme left agenda.

How long before the logs and records of our history are destroyed, and the memory of them expunged so completely over the succeeding decades that they might never have existed? Even now there are whole generations of children who have grown up completely ignorant of major world events, everything from the Holocaust to the democide (death by government) of hundreds of millions of people over the last 120 years due to socialism and communism. They are equally ignorant of American history except what reflects the extreme leftist narrative.

“As with most cultural revolutions that wish to start things over at ‘Year Zero,'” wrote historian and columnist Victor Davis Hanson last August, “the violence is aimed at America’s past in order to change its present and future. The targets are not just the old majority culture but also classical statues and buildings, hallowed institutions, religious icons, the renowned names of streets and plazas, and almost every representation of tradition and authority. … The point of the mob is to wipe out what it cannot create. It topples what it can neither match nor even comprehend. It would erode the very system that ensures it singular freedom, leisure, and historic affluence. The brand of the anarchist is not logic but envy-driven power: to take it, to keep it, and to use it against purported enemies – which would otherwise be impossible in times of calm or through the ballot box.” [Emphasis added.]

Even now, the left is trying to scrub President Trump from history. We’re watching it happen in real time.

We are witnessing a purge unprecedented in America, but widely repeated through world history during tyrannical régimes. Dissenting voices are silenced, religious expression is suppressed, statues are toppled, history is rewritten, and – most importantly – the education of children is strictly regulated. As Hitler so accurately observed, “When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already. … What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”

And it’s all happening in less time than you think.


Patrice Lewis is a freelance writer whose latest book is “The Simplicity Primer: 365 Ideas for Making Life more Livable.” She is co-founder (with her husband) of a home woodcraft business. The Lewises live on 20 acres in north Idaho with their two homeschooled children, assorted livestock, and a shop that overflows into the house with depressing regularity. Visit her blog at

Source: They’re obliterating our history more quickly than you think

Super propaganda at the Super Bowl

Exclusive: Brian Sussman notes both broadcasters and commercials were ‘selling ideology’

Television is a primary mechanism of social engineering and control. It has been from the very beginning.

Sponsors pay significant sums of money to advertise their wares during a show they believe to be popular. The commercials they employ are cleverly produced to create false expectations, urging subconscious minds to behave irrationally and immaturely. Whenever possible, subtle or overt sexualization is slipped into the imagery. The endgame is to lure viewers into a false reality that leads them to needlessly buy stuff they don’t really need.

But television commercials, often like the programs they’re inserted into, aren’t limited to selling goods and services. They sell ideology.

Such was the case this past Sunday. Big time.

The TV announcers, supposedly there to give us the play-by-play, spoke often of the work the National Football League and its players have accomplished away from the game to battle racial inequities.

The message was clear: America is a racist nation, and its playing field must be reconstructed.

Ironically, the announcers and their scriptwriters avoided the fact that between the goalposts racial inequities are zero. The mantra there is all about fair competition: “Just win, baby!”

Another blatant message was unfurled in game’s second quarter. On cue, COVID-masked fans in the stands held signs toward the cameras declaring, “It Takes All of Us.” Meantime, the TV talkers noted 7,500 vaccinated “front line workers” were invited to the NFL to the game.

Another clear message: If you, too, get inoculated, you will be able to safely attend big events like the Super Bowl.

And then there were the commercials.

Ads, or “spots” as they’re called, during the Super Bowl or any television program, represent “corporate propaganda,” a phrase popularized by Edward Bernays, “the father of public relations.” Amongst Bernays’ long list of achievements is a 1929 campaign promoting female smoking (quite rare at the time) by branding cigarettes as “Torches of Freedom.” The ads presented slim women whose sexy figures were attributed to smoking rather than snacking.

It worked.

In his 1928 book “Propaganda,” Bernays described consumers as irrational and subject to herd instinct. His belief was that skilled practitioners of his marketing methodologies could use crowd psychology to control the masses in desirable ways.

Bernays was even told that Germany’s Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, employed concepts from his book.

Well, so do today’s societal engineers.

Take, for example, the Super Bowl commercial that critics are saying was this this year’s best. No waay it was Wayne and Garth’s comeback in a pitch for Uber Eats. Instead, it was a deviously edited spot by the NFL declaring America’s racism problem.

Titled, “As One,” the ad portrays symbols from the current social justice movement, including selectively edited footage from protests this past summer. Careful to scrub any scene hinting of the terrible violence that destroyed property and harmed lives, the images include posters declaring “No Justice, No Peace” and “BLM,” a hat proclaiming “End Racism,” and three NFL helmets showing the names of Breonna Taylor, Elijah McClain and Eric Garner on the back.

T-shirts worn by peaceful protestors state, “We Won’t Be Silent!”

The takeaway? If we all stand together in the name of social justice, we will create a better future.

While it all sounds so heavenly, even those on the left know the real goal. Social justice isn’t about equality. It’s about vengeance on a multitude of platforms.

In the days ahead I suggest the best remedy for counteracting corporate propaganda is employing a sound mind. Be careful what you allow in, and stand firm on a foundation consisting of eternal truth.


Brian SussmanBy Brian Sussman
Published February 10, 2021 at 7:12pm at WND – World Net Daily


Brian Sussman is the author of “Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam” and “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America,” both published by WND Books. You can learn more about Brian at

Dick Morris: Trump and U.S. Medicine Worked While Europe’s Failed


Dick Morris: Trump and U.S. Medicine Worked While Europe’s Failed


As of today the United States has had 23,000 deaths from coronavirus. Italy, France, Spain and the U.K. have had 67,000 deaths combined. But these four countries have a combined population of only 241 million compared to 328 million in the US.

If our mortality rate were the same as these European countries, we would have 91,000 corpses on our hands.

This vivid, though gruesome, comparison illustrates the superiority of the American health care system, of President Trump’s response to the coronavirus and of the discipline of the American people.

Together, they saved 68,000 lives and counting.

It is fashionable these days to lament the state of the American health care system and, as Bernie Sanders did, speak of the superiority of the single-payer European model. But no comparison could possibly be as vivid as the different way in which these two systems handled the coronavirus.

At the start, the United States closed its borders first to China, then to Europe and finally to Britain.

Realizing that the pandemic was spread by global migration, President Trump knew that to protect America we had to seal our borders. By contrast, the ideology of globalism was so strong in Europe that it resisted any action to contain the virus and keep it from European shores.

Instead, this virus, which originated in China, was allowed to enter and to savage the continent. Lacking the mechanism or the political will to protect its people, the EU opened its frontiers to death.

But in the United States — despite accusations of isolationism and xenophobia —national frontiers inhibited the virus’ spread. By cordoning off America, President Trump saved tens of thousands of lives.

Once people became ill with the virus, the superiority of the American health care system kicked in and produced a death rate way below that which prevailed in Europe.

In Italy, 13 percent of those infected have died. In the U.K., the virus has taken the lives of 12.6 percent. In Spain, 10 percent and in France 12.2 percent of those infected have passed away. But in the U.S., only 4 percent have died.

The virus is, of course, the same on either side of the Atlantic. There has been no medical breakthrough in treating or curing it unique to the U.S. Rather, our relative success is due to the skill, dedication and efficiency of the American health care system over the single-payer systems that predominate in Europe.

It remains to be seen whether a third factor was involved: the discipline of our people.

It is unclear whether lockdown and social distancing measures were more successful in achieving mitigation in the United States because of the willingness of our people to obey quarantine guidelines. Has the United States been better able to enforce mitigation guidelines than Italy, Spain, France or the U.K.?

As we go forward to reverse quarantines and reopen our countries, we must not lose sight of the enormous lessons the coronavirus teaches.

With all of its defects, the American health care system — and our doctors and nurses — deserves plaudits for the way it has responded to and coped with this international emergency.

Let’s not be so quick to replace it with European models that have failed so spectacularly.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.



As we go forward to reverse quarantines and reopen our countries, we must not lose sight of the enormous lessons the coronavirus teaches.

Source: Dick Morris: Trump and U.S. Medicine Worked While Europe’s Failed


The Dome of the Rock and History – American Thinker

The Dome of the Rock and History

Right now, most of the pitched battles between Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem concerns Jews trying to pray in the vicinity of the spurious Al-Aqsa. I say spurious since any competent historian, with only the must rudimentary knowledge, could dismiss Muslim claims in five minutes or less.

The Muslims assert that Mohammed rode al-Buraq — a mule with the face of a woman — to Al Aqsa (the Furthest Mosque), in Jerusalem, where from thence, he ascended to heaven.

The ascent to heaven is called: al-Miraj, from where we get the word: mirage. A more ridiculous and fantabulous story could not be postulated.

The official histories of Islam note that, at that time, Mohammed was in the Hejaz — the west coast of Saudi Arabia. The armies of Islam would not reach Jerusalem until five years after Mohammed’s death. Hence, there was no mosque in Jerusalem for Mohammed to visit in his lifetime. Offical Islamic histories undercut Islam’s ridiculous claims.

The whole story is an outright lie, and you probably read this in under five minutes. Al-Aqsa should be referred to as “The Southern Mosque,” in reference to its location on the Temple Mount. It does not merit the Islamic title.

There is an even more damaging theory, starting to bubble up in academic circles, that Islam actually came out of Petra, not Mecca, and that Mohammed is a quasi-historical figure, invented by the Caliph Abd al-Malik in order to create a mythology to legitimize his power base.

If so, Mohammed, of Petra, might conceivably have visited Jerusalem as a “tourist.” However, the rest of the whole history of Islam falls apart — as Mecca would be shown to be a fraud; and hence, Islam itself would be demonstrably false at the core, with any of its claims to Al-Aqsa being equally false.

Either way, Al-Aqsa is a historical fraud.

Yet, the greatest historical atrocity on the Temple Mount is not Al-Aqsa, but the Dome of the Rock. However, that is overlooked and rarely mentioned. The Dome gets a pass because it dominates the skyline in Jerusalem’s Old City.

So what is the Dome of the Rock?

The Dome of the Rock is situated on Mount Moriah, on the Foundation Stone, a rock where, according to the Bible, and Jewish commentary, Abraham attempted to perform a sacrifice of his only legitimate son, Isaac — before an angel of the Lord stopped him.

Now, whether one believes in evolution or a literal six-day Genesis creation account, the historicity of Abraham — unlike Mohammed — is beyond question.  Abraham absolutely existed; even the Arab Muslims claim him as their ancestor, Ibriham.

The Binding of Isaac (in anticipation of sacrifice) is considered the most important event at the start of Jewish history, and is given the name, the Akedah (Heb: the Binding). The Holy of Holies, inside the Jewish Temple, was later situated on this very rock.

Jewish legends believe the world was created from this Foundation Stone,

The world was not created until God took a stone called Even haShetiya and threw it into the depths where it was fixed from above till below, and from it the world expanded. It is the centre point of the world and on this spot stood the Holy of Holies.” — Wikipedia, quoting the Zohar

Since Israel is at the confluence of three continents, and not the exact center of the planet, I take such commentary as poetic reference, and not literal geography — though it is close.

Recently, there were signs placed around the Temple Mount which read:

Jewish tradition teaches that the Temple Mount is the focal point of Creation. In the center of the mountain lies the ‘Foundation Stone’ of the world. Here Adam came into being. Here Abraham, Isaac and Jacob served G-d. The First and Second Temples were built upon this mountain … — Israel National News

It is clear that this Foundation Stone is far more central to Judaism than it could possibly be to the Muslims, who have their own rock — the Black Stone — back in Mecca. Not content with their counterfeit stone, the Muslims have decided to appropriate the Temple Mount merely to deprive the Jews of their history.

The point here is that from Abraham to the first century A.D., there is a seamless connection of Jewish history — at or near that Foundation Stone — from Abraham, to Isaac, to the Temple, to the Holy of Holies — even to Jesus, who was Jewish. There are many who take the connection back further to Adam and Eve, all in the vicinity of that Foundation Stone. And there are some who believe that the Ark of the Covenant is in the vicinity as well.

In [Eze 28:14], God seems to equate Eden with “the holy mountain of God,” which is identified in Scripture as Mount Moriah, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

This might indicate that the Eden’s Garden was located in what is modern day Jerusalem. —

This Foundation Stone is equally important for Christians.

According to Christian theology, Jesus was crucified outside the city, to bear the disgrace of all sinners. Calvary was not too far from the Foundation Stone, probably only 1500 feet or less.

The whole point of the Bible is that Man fell, and God would have to bring Man back to the central location, where that Fall occurred, to deal with the consequences of that Fall. Christians believe Jesus dealt with that Fall at nearby Calvary. Both Jews and Christians believe the Messiah will come (or come back) to the nearby Mount of Olives. All within walking distance — a Sabbath day’s walk?! — of the Foundation Stone.

The Jewish artist, Marc Chagall, created an insightful image of the Akedah where on the upper right of the drawing there is a picture of Christ at Calvary. In Chagall’s painting, there is a symbolic flow of red (blood) from Calvary back to the Binding of Isaac. Though Jewish, Chagall understood this connection between Abraham’s binding of Isaac and Christianity’s Crucifixion. Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son Isaac, while to Christians, God would sacrifice His Son.

Now, even if one is agnostic, or an atheist, there is no doubt that a man called Abraham existed. There is no doubt that the Jewish Temple was where the Temple Mount is today, and that it was Jewish, There is no doubt that Jesus existed — even if one does not accept the Resurrection.

That center is the Foundation Stone which the Muslims have appropriated as the Dome of the Rock.

Yet, it looks so pretty on the Jerusalem skyline that it is admired rather than seen as the historical crime that it is.

That Golden Dome — the gold leaf was only installed around sixty years ago — is nothing but a thumb in the eye of legitimate history, whether one takes that history only to the secular level, or goes deeper into spiritual realms. It is a fraud, even worse than the adjacent Southern Mosque [Al-Aqsa], and should not be admired, but detested as such.

To strike a biblical phrase — which since this is the Holy Land, is appropriate — the Dome of the Rock is like a well-festooned harlot: attractive to behold, but underneath the facade is festering disease. The disease is the Islamic claim.

The Al-Aqsa lie, by comparison, is a sideshow.


By Mike Konrad

Source: The Dome of the Rock and History – American Thinker

Climate science does an about-face: dials back the ‘worst case scenario’

A surprising comment published January 29th in the leading scientific journal Nature said; “Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading – Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome — more-realistic baselines make for better policy.” This has thrown a monkey wrench in hundreds of studies and media stories that previously predicted dire climate consequences in the future due to increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere.

The consequences were predicted by a computer model called Representative Carbon Pathways (RCP) and the worst case scenario model, RCP8.5 had been cited over 2500 times in scientific journals and in hundreds of media stories as the primary need for “urgent action” on climate. Predictions from RCP8.5 model suggested maximum global temperature increases of nearly 6°C (10.8°F) by the year 2100, shown in Figure 1.

clip_image002Figure 1 – Image Credit: Neil Craik, University of Waterloo

But, in the original scientific paper, RCP8.5 had just a slim 3% chance of becoming reality. Since climate alarmists (and some climate scientists) prefer to preach future doom in order to spur action, the predictions of RCP8.5 have become known as the “business-as-usual” scenario, even though it was nowhere close to that.

In a stunning walk-back, climate scientist Zeke Hausfather of the Breakthrough Institute, bucked the climate consensus and said that the RCP8.5 worst case scenario is unlikely to happen. The reason? We can’t get there given how much fossil fuel is being used now. The model assumes a 500% increase in the use of coal, which is now considered highly unlikely since coal use has dropped significantly, as seen in Figure 2.

clip_image004Figure 2 – Image credit: United States Energy Information Administration (EIA)

So with is new information that excludes the worst case RCP8.5 scenario, rather than predicting a future world that warms by 6°C (10.8°F), they’ll go to the next lower scenario RCP6 with warming by 2100 around 3°C (5.4 °F) .

However, in typical climate alarmist fashion, the two authors of this Nature article are pointing out that the lower temperatures due to this drop-off of coal use and the exclusion of RCP8.5 aren’t guaranteed.

The reason? Scientists are still uncertain as to how sensitive global temperatures are to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. The value, known as the Charney Sensitivity still isn’t known for certain, over 40 years after it was first introduced in 1979 by the United States National Academy of Sciences and chaired by Jule Charney. He estimated climate sensitivity to be 3 °C (5.4 °F), give or take 1.5 °C (2.7 °F).

Without knowing the true climate warming response to increased CO2, essentially all climate models become a crap-shoot. It is a glaring illustration of just how imprecise climate science actually is.

But, get this; new climate models are being used for the next set of major projections due from the IPCC next year known as AR6. Those models are said to show that temperatures are more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought.

So, with AR6 the higher numbers of the worst-case scenario are likely to be back on the table, along with continued calls for climate action in the form of reductions, alternate tech, and carbon taxation.

Inconveniently, there is another fly in the ointment. Even if the atmosphere turns out to be more sensitive to CO2 than they think, it is unlikely that the world will ever get to a doubling for CO2 in the atmosphere – the level on which climate sensitivity estimates are based. It turns out, based on a new calculation estimating if the world will get there, the answer is probably “no”.

Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer did a model calculation the same week as this new Nature article was released and discovered something totally surprising. Using data from the EIA projecting that energy-based emissions of CO2 will grow at 0.6% per year until 2050, he plugged that data into a climate model. With the reasonable EIA assumptions regarding CO2 emissions, the climate model does not even reach a doubling of atmospheric CO2, but instead reaches an equilibrium CO2 concentration of 541 ppm in the mid-2200s.

Spencer writes: “[T]he result is that, given the latest projections of CO2 emissions, future CO2 concentrations will not only be well below the RCP8.5 scenario, but might not even be as high as RCP4.5, with atmospheric CO2 concentrations possibly not even reach a doubling (560 ppm) of estimated pre-Industrial levels (280 ppm) before leveling off. This result is even without future reductions in CO2 emissions, which is a possibility as new energy technologies become available.”

The RCP4.5 scenario suggests a range of warming of about 1.7 to 3.2°C (3-5.8°F) which doesn’t constitute a “climate emergency” and may even be beneficial to humankind. After all, humanity didn’t do well during cold periods in history, and another global ice-age would certainly be ruinous.

With this broad uncertainty about what the future climate will be, the bottom line on climate science predictions is well-served by the great Yogi Berra who famously said:

“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”

Opinion by Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is former television meteorologist and Senior Fellow for Environment and Climate for The Heartland InstituteHe operates the most viewed website on climate in the world,

Source: Climate science does an about-face: dials back the ‘worst case scenario’ | Watts Up With That?

Man, Richard Jewell Hit Home! – American Thinker By George Zimmerman

Man, Richard Jewell Hit Home!


I love just about all Clint Eastwood movies, but Richard Jewell is in a class by itself. This one was personal. This one Clint Eastwood made for me. Only a handful of people in America know what it’s like to be Richard Jewell and unfortunately, I’m one of them. Mr. Eastwood got it right. Two thumbs up!

I rarely ever go to the movies. Nearly seven years after my acquittal in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, I still have to be very cautious about where I go. A few years ago, a man took a shot at me and missed my head by inches. He will be in prison for another dozen years or so, but every time I see my name trend on Twitter, I am reminded there are people out there who would like to pick up where the assassin left off.

My gut reaction in watching Richard Jewell was sadness. The film reminded me just how much heartache an accusation this heinous puts a parent through. For those who don’t know the story, Richard found a suspicious backpack in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics. He alerted authorities to the backpack and helped clear the area.

Two people were killed when the bomb inside the backpack went off, but many more would have been killed if Richard had not acted on his suspicions. For a brief period, people called him a hero, but then the media and the FBI turned on him and accused him without evidence of being an attention-seeking security guard. They call it “trial by media,” and it is beyond horrible.

This movie hit home. I absolutely identified. Richard and I were both cop wannabes — or so the media told us. We were both gullible. We both believed law enforcement had our best interests at heart. We both believed reporters wanted the truth. We both believed everyone was basically good and then we both realized what fools we had been to believe all that.

As I sat there in the dark, my stomach in knots, I found myself wishing Richard was still alive so I could reach out and hug him and tell him, “Yes, Richard, you are a hero.”

I know as only a few others do how gut wrenching it is to be at the center of the storm like this. You can only imagine what people think of you. You worry that everyone thinks you are the monster the media created.

Emotionally, I struggled. I imposed a kind of house arrest on myself. I did not want to see people or be seen. I questioned everyone’s intentions, even those close to me. Yes, I was acquitted, but after the trial, when the head prosecutor Angela Corey was asked to sum me up in a word, she said “murderer.” I was devastated. In watching the movie, I was reminded of how my mother must have felt to hear this.

After the trial it took me years to regain my balance. At the time I was thinking if people want to look at me as a villain, I will be that villain, the hell with them all. Without the unconditional love of my parents I never would have pulled out of that spiral.

This is something else Richard and I had in common — a fierce, loving mother. Kathy Bates, who played Richard’s mom, gave a heart stopping performance. She is nominated for an Academy Award. She deserves to win.

One advantage I had over Richard was a father who loved me just as much as my mother did. One advantage we both had was a gladiator of an attorney who always had our back. For me, that was Don West. I am thankful Mark O’Mara took my case, but it was West who won my confidence. When you go through an ordeal as intense as the one Richard and I did, it is essential to have someone who totally believes in you.

Richard died at 44 of natural causes. I have got to believe the stress of it all shortened his life. He did not get the chance to see himself vindicated on screen. Yes, he was cleared before he died, but that story was buried. So many people who just read the headlines still remembered him as a glory-seeking loser.

The people who just read the headlines still think I stalked and murdered a little boy because he was black. They have no idea that Trayvon was a skilled street fighter, a half a foot taller than me, who attacked me out of nowhere as I was walking to my car.

I am grateful for the vindication that Joel Gilbert’s brilliant new film, The Trayvon Hoax, provides me. Joel may not be Clint Eastwood, but he is a truth teller of the first order. I am thankful too to all those people who stood by me when the world told them not to.

At the end of the day, Richard Jewell and I had something else in common — we knew who our real friends were.




Source: Man, Richard Jewell Hit Home! – American Thinker

The Downfall of Conservatism, Inc. | Human Events

How Donald J. Trump made me rethink my Republican heroes.

The Downfall of Conservatism, Inc.

September 11, 2001 changed a lot of things for a lot of people. I’m no exception.Up until that monumental event I was only marginally political; I read the news, but hadn’t yet formed any sort of cohesive ideology. If anything, I was a fairly typical college student in the South, raised to respect tradition.

A decade and a half after the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93, another monumental event would soon rattle my worldview and drastically alter my political trajectory.

And then the planes hit the towers, and my obsession with politics began.

Watching such carnage must have made me instinctively hawkish. I instantly gravitated toward conservatives like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Every morning began, without exception, with a visit to the Drudge Report.

Of course, it’s only healthy to seek dissenting opinions, and my liberal state-college education ensured I remained exposed to political arguments from both sides. But no matter the issue, I veered right time and time again.

And over time, I naturally came to admire many of the icons of modern conservatism. I read National Review and The Weekly Standard, the essays of Ayn Rand, and countless history books. My growing familiarity with the conservative “intelligentsia” exposed me to the political points view ostracized by overwhelmingly liberal professors during graduate school.

Satisfied with my ideological home, the Bill Kristols and Jonah Goldbergs of the world became my heroes—I would have gladly taken a bullet for Mitt Romney.

But a decade and a half after the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93, another monumental event would soon rattle my worldview and drastically alter my political trajectory.

I’m speaking, of course, of the election of Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley at the 2016 Second Democratic Debate.

Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O’Malley at the Second Democratic Debate in 2016.


I wasn’t always a believer. I criticized his candidacy anywhere and everywhere: in bars, on Facebook, even some of my early columns. After all, he was openly and flagrantly mocking men like John McCain—men I had I long since come to admire.

I wasn’t a Democrat for a reason, and ours was not the party of corruption. If [Trump] won the candidacy, my party had spoken, and that’s who I’d be casting my ballot for.

Looking back, my logic made sense. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sidelined Bernie Sanders’s campaign, corruptly crowning Hillary Clinton as their nominee. It was more than the fact that my loyalty lay with my heroes within the conservative establishment. It’s that this newcomer—who spent years as a Democrat—had no business stealing the spotlight from candidates who I thought stood a chance to win against the dynastic power of Hillary Clinton.

As Donald J. Trump emerged as a viable contender for the Republican nomination, I realized a man I had, on principle, cultivated a loathing for might actually win and serve as the spokesperson for my principles on the national stage. I’ll be honest: the thought of it made me a little sick.

But I wasn’t a Democrat for a reason, and ours was not the party of corruption. If he won the candidacy, my party had spoken, and that’s who I’d be casting my ballot for.

Sadly, my establishment heroes saw things differently. They began doing their best to copy the tactics and lies of the DNC. Of course, they couldn’t do it officially or on behalf of the Republican Party, but they didn’t have to. The loyalties they had cultivated in Americans like me gave them enough power to sabotage Donald Trump’s campaign.

Or so they thought.

Evan McMullin.

Evan McMullin.


The establishment conservative leadership began to openly lend their support to candidates like Evan McMullin, a clown with a penchant for retweeting far-left celebrities. Even worse, conservative stalwarts like Colin Powell pledged their support for Hillary Clinton.

Instead of accepting their defeat in humility and taking the opportunity to reflect on how they had failed their constituents, establishment conservatives, launched an all out insurgency.

Hillary Clinton! I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

Meanwhile, here was Donald Trump, who was not only not a member of the Washington conservative elite, he thumbed his nose at them. His campaign was a functional criticism of establishment conservatives—the same conservatives who had spent the past two decades advocating for disastrous policies such as the Iraq War.

And as his popularity among everyday Americans rose, he began to dethrone these kingmakers, publicly mocking them over their powerlessness. Subscriptions to their newsletters and publications suffered—the Weekly Standard folded less than two years after Trump’s inauguration—as did the hold establishment conservatives had on their base.

Donald Trump would eventually win the presidency. And instead of accepting their defeat in humility and taking the opportunity to reflect on how they had failed their constituents, establishment conservatives launched an all-out insurgency.

Jennifer Rubin on Meet The Press.

Jennifer Rubin on Meet The Press.


Suddenly, the icons of modern American conservatism sought refuge within the very elitist bubble they used to criticize.

The cowardice and desperation of my so-called heroes has been more than concerning—it’s been an utter betrayal.

Unable to tolerate being associated with President Trump and popular nationalism, they fled institutions of conservative thought like Fox News. The Democratic media, all too happy to receive them, made room for them on countless cable news panels on opposition outlets such as CNN and MSNBC. Longtime enemies found armistice and unity in a common objective: subverting President Trump and the threat he posed to their continued relevance.

Of course, establishment conservatives had to make ideological compromises for the sake of their new alliances. Policies they once heralded, at least intellectually, became part of President Trump’s populist platform. Policing the border and cutting taxes became Trumpist—not conservative—policies, and symbolized authoritarian overreach.

Nobody was talking about the successes of President Trump’s presidency: from a gangbusters economy to judicial appointments to wiping out ISIS, Number 45 was getting the job done.

No, it was all Orange Man bad. And elites from both sides were happy to tell you just how bad he was.

It was this unholy union that promulgated what will no doubt be remembered as one of the most corrupt schemes in the history of American politics: the Russian collusion hoax.

Conservative writers that I once greatly admired—writers like Steve HayesJohn Podhoretz, and Jennifer Rubin—have been all too happy to flood the airwaves with endless conspiracy theories about so-called collusion between President Trump and Russian hackers.

The cowardice and desperation of my so-called heroes has been more than concerning—it’s been an utter betrayal.

Vladimir Putin.

Vladimir Putin.


What had happened to my heroes?

I understand their objection to Trump’s style—three years ago, I myself was put off by it—but style is nothing when measured against substance. Here was a president advancing their agenda—our agenda—didn’t that mean something?

Establishment conservatives were tokens, allowing liberal elites to pretend they were objective when they were fully intent on transforming American society.

At first, I attributed their open mutiny to pride. Pride is human, and prideful men often make for sore losers.

But now, after ample time to recover from their humiliation, the persistent whining from establishment conservatives has exposed a very ugly truth about our former “leaders.” The George Wills and Tom Nichols of the world were always more interested in self-promotion than advancing conservatism.

Before President Trump’s explosive entrance onto the political scene, mainstream conservatism was somewhat tolerated by gatekeepers in the media, academia, and the arts. My heroes were nuisances to America’s increasingly liberal institutions, sure, but no real threat to the progressively progressive status quo. Establishment conservatives were tokens, allowing liberal elites to pretend they were objective when they were fully intent on transforming American society.

But Donald J. Trump was a different animal altogether, one who refused to kowtow to the cultural norms of American political theater. His frank and straightforward style was intolerable to liberal puppet masters who had spent decades corralling Republicans and forcing them to play nice.

Establishment Republicans have built entire careers out of playing nice. And it shows.

The threat of banishment from cocktail parties and university lectures—over Donald Trump of all people—has been enough to force much of the right’s pundit class to toss aside their ideals to preserve mainstream acceptance.

Three years later, it’s this cadre of tamed conservatives who are lending their efforts to the left’s never-ending coup against the President.

David French.

David French.


The Democrats may have finally grown the spine necessary to begin acting on the impeachment they’ve threatened for months.

And their “conservative” accomplices have finally shed what remained of theirs.

No “conservative” in their right mind would cede one centimeter of power to the current Democratic Party.

There are rumors that Romney is seeking to rally Senate Republicans on impeachment. And David French and company continue to lambaste President Trump’s every action—the guy can’t even brush his teeth without being accused of desecrating America’s most treasured norms and institutions.

It’s exhausting, and their motives are painfully obvious.

No “conservative” in their right mind would cede one centimeter of power to the current Democratic Party. There is simply no moral comparison between them and the President—they’ve made it perfectly clear they have no intention of being civil. Perhaps the most extreme political entity in the history of the country, today’s left is proudly socialist, openly hostile to the freedoms granted by the Constitution, devoid of any respect for the miracle of life, and an open threat to our safety and stability.

During my two-decades of political education and civic life, if I’ve learned anything it’s that principles—not personalities—should define your political identity.

If it takes a little coarse language and off-color jokes to secure the future of the Republic and stave off the threats posed by an increasingly radical American left—so be it.


Source: The Downfall of Conservatism, Inc. | Human Events

The New Masculinity: Turning Men Into Women

In case you’ve been living under a rock or been trapped deep inside an ultra-leftist bubble, allow me to enlighten you. There is a definite, concerted, war on gender in our society today. And if you had even the slightest doubt about it, look no further than the November edition of GQ magazine.

There, on the front cover, stands singer and fashion designer Pharrell Williams, adorned gorgeously in a long, flowing robe and looking quite ladylike. And there, around Pharrell’s beautiful form, the theme of this special edition of GQ is spelled out: The New Masculinity.

I kid you not.

According to editor-in-chief Will Welch, GQ has been working on this special edition since January, not only tackling abusive aspects of masculinity in our culture, but also featuring an article from “a gender-nonbinary actor who is simultaneously advocating for greater inclusivity in Hollywood and acknowledging their own privilege (Asia Kate Dillon).”

Exactly what you’d expect to find in a gentlemen’s magazine. (Sarcasm intended.)

Another article is from “an anthropologist who is debunking the idea that testosterone determines male behavior (Katrina Karkazis).”

But of course! How did other researchers miss this for so long?

As explained in a blurb to Karkazis’s book on the subject (co-authored with Rebecca M. Gordon-Young), “This unauthorized biography pries T, as it’s known, loose from over a century of misconceptions that undermine science even as they make urban legends about this hormone seem scientific.”

Did you get that, men, especially those of you who suffered the effects of low testosterone counts? It’s all urban legend.

In all seriousness, and with full respect to Dr. Karkazis’s credentials (she is Carol Zicklin Endowed Chair in the Honors Academy at Brooklyn College, CUNY, and Senior Research Fellow with the Global Health Justice Partnership at Yale University), I must ask a simple question: Are these studies driven more by science or by ideology?

While I do not have the scientific acumen to analyze Karkazis’s claims, I can analyze statements like this, by editor Welch.

Speaking of Pharrell, he notes that, “has a long history of shattering cultural norms—and he has also shown a profound ability to adjust as the world around him has changed.”

Welcome to the new masculinity! And yes, this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with ideology.

Welch also notes that the “antidote to toxicity” is “empathy.”

There’s that evil, male toxicity once again.

Husbands and dads, beware. Your solid, steady, protective and nurturing acts are increasingly out of step with today’s new reality.

The playing field must be perfectly leveled.

Male-female distinctions must be downplayed and denied.

And gender confusion must reign supreme.

From a man being named Woman of the Year to Drag Queens reading to toddlers, and from “men” menstruating to “men” having babies, gender norms must go.

For months now I have been shouting from the rooftops about a “Jezebelic” attack on our nation, by which I mean a coordinated, ideological attack on our country. The spiritual assault is real.

That’s why I’m not surprised to see Will Welch’s October 14 article for GQ titled, “Pharrell on Evolving Masculinity and ‘Spiritual Warfare.’”

Yes, “spiritual warfare,” a theme repeated throughout the article.

In response to Welch’s questions, Pharrell said, “. . . we’re in the middle of a spiritual plight. A spiritual war.”

And, “We’re followers. And we’re not following God. We’re following men. So that’s spiritual warfare.”

And, “What is happening to a transgender person? What are they going through? They feel like their body is not connected to their spirit. And what kind of toxic environment do we live in that they have to justify how they feel? That must feel incredibly insane. That is spiritual warfare. . . . But it has prompted this conversation that I think is deeper than what the new masculinity is or what a non-gender-binary world looks like. I think we’re in spiritual warfare.”

And, with reference to the 2020 elections, “It’s more about who is going into the voting booths. But the reality is that people don’t know that we are in the middle of spiritual warfare.”

Spiritual warfare indeed.

Obviously, Pharrell and I are worlds apart on the nature of this spiritual warfare. But we are in agreement on the real existence of a spiritual battle for the soul of our nation.

We dare not downplay it.

That’s why my Jezebel book not only contains chapters focusing on idolatry, internet porn, abortion, radical feminism, witchcraft, the emasculating of men, and the silencing of the church’s prophetic voice. It also contains a chapter on the war on the gender, turning men into women and women into men.

At the risk of being redundant, I raise my voice again.

The mounting evidence of the war on gender will either bury us or wake us up.

What will it be?

The spiritual warfare is real.


Source: The New Masculinity: Turning Men Into Women

Schools can learn from strict head’s return to basics, says Stephen Pollard 

THE word hero is bandied about far too easily. But someone of whom you’ve probably never heard who is a true hero is Katharine Birbalsingh.

Michaela school

Ms Katharine Birbalsingh is the founding head teacher of south London’s Michaela community school (Image: Michaela Community School)

Ms Birbalsingh is the founding head teacher of Michaela community school which was set up, after many battles and amid much opposition, in a converted office block close to London’s Wembley stadium in September 2014. Michaela and its founder are controversial because its ethos is based on traditional education methods: strict discipline, pedagogical teaching where a teacher imparts knowledge to children and learning by rote. To the education establishment these are all something close to evil. From the moment Ms Birbalsingh first emerged as a public figure, she has been attacked for her views, often viciously. When she began the process of setting up Michaela, the education establishment did all it could to stop her.


On Thursday the school received its first set of GCSE results. To describe them as stellar barely comes close.

Over half (54 percent) of all grades were level 7 or above (the old-style A and A*). That is more than twice as good as the national average of 22 percent.

Nearly one in five (18 percent) of all grades was a 9, compared with 4.5 percent nationally. In maths, one in four results was a level 9.

As Ms Birbalsingh tweeted: “Michaela pupils SMASH it.” Now those results would be brilliant for a selective grammar school. They put Michaela among the best schools in the country.

But Michaela is not selective. It has achieved such incredible GCSEs as a local inner city community school whose pupils are mainly from challenging and deprived backgrounds.

Michaela Community School

Over half of GCSE grades at the school were Level 7 or above (Image: Michaela community school)

There is not a single white, middle-class child in the school. But the lessons from its pupils’ achievements are far wider than just for Michaela.

The fundamental lesson is that being an inner city school with children from deprived back- grounds is never a reason for failure.

As Michaela shows, with the right school environment, every child should be expected to achieve their potential.

In 2010, as deputy head of a school in south London, Ms Birbalsingh spoke at the Conservative Party conference.

She attacked attitudes to discipline as being far too lax: “In schools and in society, we need high expectations, of everyone, even if you’re black or live on a council estate.

Katharine Birbalsingh: It is important to believe in British values

“Why can’t they sit exams at the end of the year? We need to rid the classrooms of chaos by unshackling heads and setting our schools free.”

There was, she said, a “culture of excuses, of low standards”. The system was “broken because it keeps poor children poor”.

As a result of voicing such controversial thoughts – controversial, that is, among educationalists – she lost her job and was the subject of vitri- olic abuse from fellow teachers.

She was told she would never and should never be allowed to work in the state sector again.

But she had a rare mix of vision and determination and, instead of cowering, set about starting a new school under the free schools scheme launched by Michael Gove.

Katharine Birbalsingh

Katharine voiced opinions that the broken education system “keeps poor children poor” (Image: Steven Scott Taylor/Universal News And Sport)

History will laud Mr Gove as one of the greatest of all education secretaries. For decades schools have been in the grip of an ideology that places equality over excellence and where pupils’ supposed self-expression is valued above self-discipline – let alone discipline imposed by authority.

The tougher GCSEs at which Michaela pupils have excelled have been one mechanism through which Mr Gove sought to change this.

Another is the creation of free schools, which allowed the likes of Ms Birbalsingh to offer parents an alternative.

Opponents have attacked Michaela’s methods, such as handing out demerits or detention to pupils who forget to bring in a pencil or pen or for talking in corridors between lessons, and for learning poems and multiplication tables by rote.

Katharine Birbalsingh on Good Morning Britain

Katharine on Good Morning Britain (Image: REX/ Shutterstock)

It has a “no excuses” policy. Arrive even a minute late and you will get a detention.

The discipline – and everything else the school does – is designed to instil a belief in personal responsibility, respect for authority and a sense of duty towards others. And it works.

In its Ofsted inspection two years ago, Michaela was judged outstanding in every category. The last laugh is truly with Ms Birbalsingh – or rather, her pupils.

As maths teacher Thomas Kendall said: “I’m so proud to be a Michaela teacher today. It feels like winning the league. The kids deserve it so much for all their hard work.”




Source: Schools can learn from strict head’s return to basics, says STEPHEN POLLARD | Express Comment | Comment |

Turns Out, ‘Net Neutrality’ Zealots Were Dead Wrong | Investor’s Business Daily

One Year Later, ‘Net Neutrality’ Zealots Proved Dead Wrong

Deregulation: A year ago, “net neutrality” zealots warned that its repeal would spell doom for a “free and open” internet. They could not have been more wrong.

Net neutrality mania was so intense that one year ago FCC Chairman Ajit Pai had to cancel his appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show because of death threats he’d received. That was the same day the FCC published its final rule repealing “net neutrality.”

So-called experts predicted that removing this cumbersome Obama-era regulatory scheme — which granted the FCC virtually unchecked power over internet providers — would lead to the demise of the internet.

Horror Stories

Repealing “net neutrality” regulations “would be the final pillow in (the internet’s) face,” said The New York Times. The ACLU said it “risks erosion of the biggest free-speech platform the world has ever known.” CNET declared that “net neutrality repeal means your internet may never be the same.” CNN labeled repeal the “end of the internet as we know it.”

One of the Democratic commissioners on the FCC claimed that repealing “net neutrality” would “green light to our nation’s largest broadband providers to engage in anti-consumer practices, including blocking, slowing down traffic, and paid prioritization of online applications and services.”

There were protests and lawsuits. The biggest companies on the internet mounted online campaigns. Democrats vowed to make “net neutrality” a major campaign issue.

What Actually Happened

A year later, none of the horror stories came true. In fact, average internet speeds climbed by roughly a third last year. The number of homes with access to fiber internet jumped 23% last year, according to the Fiber Broadband Association.

Oh, and “net neutrality” was a nonissue in the Democratic midterm campaigns. One party official said that Dems didn’t campaign on it because: “It’s not something that people bring up in their top list of concerns.”

In a statement last week, Pai said that, “the FCC’s light-touch approach is working.”

Meanwhile, at this year’s CES, the industry will highlight the promise of 5G internet, which allows speeds 100 times faster than the current wireless networks. D-Link plans to showcase a 5G router that will let homeowners cut the cord and still get speeds 40 times faster.

Promise of 5G

Not only will speed climb exponentially, but 5G will inject still more competition in the ISP market. Even “net neutrality” advocates should be willing to admit that there’s no need for a massive federal regulatory system in a highly competitive market, since no internet provider would dare throttle or block sites for fear of losing customers.

What we did learn over the past year is that the real threats to a “free and open” internet aren’t the ISPs, but the self-appointed internet censors at Google, Facebook and Twitter.

The only question that remains is whether those “net neutrality” zealots will apologize to the public for repeatedly crying wolf.






Source: Turns Out, ‘Net Neutrality’ Zealots Were Dead Wrong | Investor’s Business Daily

Laying Down Lives


When Soldiers Die for One Another

As we mark another Memorial Day honoring those in uniform who have given their lives in service to the nation, it’s important to remember a truism of war: In the heat of combat, a soldier fights not for his country but for his buddy on the right and the left. The bond among soldiers, forged in battle, is as strong, or stronger, than any tie to nation or family.Consider the case of Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor. On Sept. 29, 2006, Monsoor was serving with a small team of SEALs on a rooftop in hotly contested town of Ramadi. They were in the overwatch position, providing surveillance and security for the troops on the ground. They’d been engaged in several firefights already when an enemy grenade came flying over the edge of the roof, hitting Monsoor in the chest, before falling between his two SEAL comrades.Being situated next to the exit from the roof, Monsoor was the only one in a position to escape the blast. Instinctively he could have dropped down the stairs and taken cover a wall before the grenade exploded, and no one would have thought less of him for doing so.But Monsoor’s primary concern was not for his own safety; it was for the lives of his friends. Instead of ducking for cover, he turned and threw himself on the grenade just as it exploded, saving the lives of everyone else on the roof. For his courageous actions, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.Or consider the case of Army Rangers stationed in Mogadishu, Somalia, on Oct. 3, 1993—the day of the infamous Black Hawk Down incident when Somali militants shot down two Army helicopters. The Rangers who had gone to the crash sites were vastly outnumbered and cut off from resupply or rescue. Word went out that a rescue mission was to be mounted. Every cook, clerk, and supply assistant at the base was to gear up and prepare to move back into the dangerous city, despite the fact that several vehicles had just returned filled with dead and wounded.

Yet not a single man flinched or refused to go. Even those who could have been excused from action easily boarded vehicles to head back. One soldier even cut the cast off his broken arm so he could go with them.

At the second crash site, Master Sergeant Gary Gordon and Sergeant First Class Randy Shughart volunteered to rescue the fallen crew, knowing that what they were doing would almost certainly result in their deaths. Both Gordon and Shughart were posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for their courage and honor.

This love for comrades, for that is what it is, is a great illustration of John 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” It is agape love in action, wishing the best for another, even at great cost. It is the love shown by Christ, who scorned the shame of the cross and faced an agonizing death all to save sinners (see Heb. 12:2). Like Monsoor, Gordon, Shughart, and numerous Rangers, He humbled himself and became obedient to death, all to save us (see Phil. 2:8).

So as you remember our fallen dead today, remember Him who, out of great love for us, gave his life.

This article was originally published on May 25, 2015, and is adapted from the Sermon Notes for Dr. Stanley’s message, “The Passion of God’s Love”.




By In Touch Ministries Staff


As you remember our nation’s fallen heroes today, remember Him who, out of great love for us, gave his life.

Source: Laying Down Lives

Fighter Jets with Missile-Killing Lasers Take Another Step Toward Reality – Defense One


U.S. Air Force says a ground-based laser downed multiple test missiles over New Mexico.

A successful ground test has moved the U.S. military one big step closer to putting anti-missile lasers on its aircraft.

A ground-based laser shot down “several” missiles in flight during an April 23 test at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, Air Force officials said. Run by the Air Force Research Laboratory, or AFRL, the test was part of the Self-Protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator, or SHiELD, a program intended to protect aircraft from incoming missiles.

AFRL officials said security reasons prevented them from saying how many missiles were downed in the test.

The laser that the Air Force lab used for the test was ground-based, and on the heavy side.

“The final SHiELD system, however, will be much smaller and lighter, as well as ruggedized for an airborne environment,” an AFRL statement said. Flight tests are planned for fiscal 2020.

The military has already tested ground-based and ship-based lasers against incoming drones; at $1 per shot, anti-drone lasers are expected to become a cost-effective defense against tomorrow’s unmanned swarms. But downing missiles is harder. They move a lot faster than drones. Moreover, it’s a big technical challenge to shrink a laser system with the power to take down a missile into a package that can fit on a plane, and keep waste heat from frying everything onboard.

It’s not the first time the Pentagon has tried it. In 2010, the Air Force mounted and fired off a megawatt-class chemical laser aboard a modified Boeing 747. But chemical lasers are unstableand dangerous compared to modern solid-state lasers. Another approach is using lasers to blind incoming missiles rather than physically damage them; Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems markets airborne lasers that do this to protect planes from shoulder-fired missiles.

While the AFRL works on SHiELD, which is aimed at stopping ground-to-air and air-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, the Missile Defense Agency is trying to figuring out whether a high-energy laser mounted on an F-35 could disable ICBMs. Results from initial studies are expected later this year.


Source: Fighter Jets with Missile-Killing Lasers Take Another Step Toward Reality – Defense One

Media’s Coverup Begins with Hair-Splitting over the Word ‘Spy’

The stupid debate over “spying” is a stall by a media terrified by their complicit role in the Russian Collusion Hoax will be exposed.


From Obama to Lynch to Comey to Isikoff to Brennan to Tapper. That is how the Russian Collusion Hoax aka the Insurance Policy began.

Not with journalism.

Journalism involves wiping off the make-up, leaving your cozy studio, and going out in the world to track down a story that may or may not be a sure thing. Real journalism involves risk and sweat, the chance of failure, and the chance you might have to report something inconvenient to your own personal political beliefs. Real journalism does not involve picking up the phone to be told what to report.

From Obama to Lynch to Comey to Isikoff to Brennan to Tapper was not journalism. Not even close. No story was tracked down. No information uncovered. No truth revealed (quite the opposite, in fact).  This was always a plot, a scheme, a conspiracy, a coup attempt deliberately premised on lies…

And from the beginning, the establishment media, all of them, were in on it…

And this is why the media are so desperate to distract us today with a breathtakingly stupid debate over the definition of the word “spying.”

Let’s begin with the beguine…

Months before Trump won the 2016 presidential election, and thanks to disgraceful men like the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), everyone in the elite media and Deep State already had the phony Russia Dossier, everyone knew it was oppo-research bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, and by the time Trump won, everyone knew it was bullshit, because…

By that time, every corrupt media outlet in the country had spent millions hoping to verify even one of the dossier’s disgusting details. By that time, the Obama administration, by way of Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department, James Comey’s F.B.I., and John Brennan’s C.I.A., had already spent countless man hours spying on then-candidate Trump and his campaign.

We now know this was a dedicated spying campaign that included actual wiretaps, covert human sources deployed to surreptitiously gather information on campaign personnel, and the use of human informants. Justified solely on oppo research collected by the other major party’s nominee, this was not only a sophisticated spy campaign involving the C.I.A. and  F.B.I. against the other major party’s nominee, it was a desperate spy campaign — so desperate the FISA court was serially lied to as a means to obtain those wiretaps.

You see, all along there was always this one little-tiny-itty-bitty-teensy-weensy problem: not a single piece of the dossier’s dirt could be confirmed. Despite all the resources at the command of the Deep State and the corporate media, nothing could be confirmed.

How, then, do we obtain a wiretap to spy on the Trump campaign if the dossier is bullshit?

From Obama to Lynch to Comey to … Isikoff.

Ahh, yes, a journalist.

Enter Yahoo’s Michael Isikoff, who was kind of enough to publish information about the unverified dossier.

And how odd that the same Michael Isikoff who, some 20 years ago, refused to publish a verified story about President Clinton having sex with an intern in the Oval Office, is now the same Michael Isikoff who was happy to publish a story about an unverified dossier. And how convenient was it for the Deep State that Isikoff’s stenography report was then used to corroborate the dossier so the FISA court would authorize a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.

Wait a sec. Slow down. Rewind… See how that worked?

To get their warrants (plural) to spy on the Trump campaign, the dirty cops who applied for the warrant needed to confirm the dossier was real, so Isikoff somehow got his hands on the dossier, was somehow convinced to  publish unverified information in the dossier, and now Obama’s dirty cops had an outside source to confirm what was in the dossier, even though that second source was … the dossier.

But even after all that spying, all that wiretapping, all the scheming by C.I.A. operatives to convince numerous Trump personnel to attend overseas traps meetings, the human sources, the strategic (and illegal) media leaks, and God only know how many millions spent by the corporate media… The C.I.A. the F.B.I., the Justice and State Departments, and the media still could not verify a single negative thing in that dossier, which means no one could go public with the dossier.

And now Trump is president.

And now Trump has to go.

And now that phony dossier is the only way to wrap a burning tire around Trump’s neck, a burning tire that will smother his agenda and maybe even hopefully-perhaps-possibly overturn the election…

And now we’re going to use the dossier because the dossier has always been The Insurance Policy.

And so a scheme was hatched, a plot manufactured, a conspiracy born…

How do we legitimize telling the world about a flaming pile of bullshit no one can confirm…?


We “brief” Trump on the flaming pile of bullshit and the “briefing of the president” is the hook that turns the flaming pile of bullshit into “legitimate news.”

Comey grabs the insurance policy. Comey briefs Trump on the insurance policy. Comey tells Brennan he briefed Trump on the insurance policy. And because he and CNN were in on this conspiracy from the beginning, all the scripts and chyrons are ready to fire when Brennan tells Jake Tapper to stop the world with the breaking news: TRUMP BRIEFED ON THE INSURANCE POLICY. And now the world knows about the dossier.

From Obama to Lynch to Comey to Isikoff to Brennan to Tapper.

And this is why the media want to distract us over the definition of “spying.”

You see, if you are arguing over the rules, over definitions, over nonsense, nothing is happening, everything is frozen, and the corporate media — not just Tapper and Isiskoff, but the legions of fake journalists who colluded to publish illegal leaks and what they knew was fake news because the Deep State told them to — are now terrified they are going to be exposed as the colluders they are in Attorney General Bill Barr’s investigation into the coup.

This ludicrous debate over the “spying” is a stall, this attempt to wrap us ’round the axle of nonsense is the act of a desperate gang of corrupt “journalists” who know that once their roles in the coup attempt are uncovered and exposed, not only will it (again) prove they’re all partisan hacks, but prove everything Trump says is true…

Because what are those who attempt to overturn a presidential election using lies if not the enemy of the we the people?

From Obama to Lynch to Comey to Isikoff to Brennan to Tapper.

They were all in on it, the entire corporate media, and now these traitors are screaming gibberish about “Bill Barr’s tinfoil hat” hoping to distract us from that fact, hoping to smear the truth of their treason as a conspiracy theory.

Debating whether or not Trump was spied on by the Obama administration is like debating whether or not water is wet.

I won’t do it.

Keep your eye on the ball, on the bastards who betrayed this country to collude with an F.B.I., C.I.A., and Justice Department that colluded with a Clinton campaign that colluded with a foreigner (Christopher Steele) who colluded with the Kremlin to fabricate lies about Trump, and did so to get their hands on an insurance policy to remove a duly elected American president.

 Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.


Source: Nolte: Media’s Coverup Begins with Hair-Splitting over the Word ‘Spy’

MAGA: First Real US Household Income Gain Since 2000


Donald Trump just delivered a record for U.S. median household income and the first full year of higher real incomes since 2000.

President Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ economic policies that favor Main Street over Wall Street just delivered a record for U.S. median household income and the first full year of higher real incomes since 2000.

The median household income hit an all-time high of $63,554 in November 2018, based on an analysis of the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey by Sentier Research. The real, after-inflation, median household income was 3.2 percent above the $61,612 for November 2017; up 5.5 percent above the $60,231 in December 2007; up 15.4 percent from $55,083 in June 2011; and 4.3 percent higher than January 2000.

Despite almost two decades of income stagnation for 99 percent of Americans, establishment economists on the left and the right have viciously attacked the Trump Administration’s ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) policies for cutting taxes, deregulating the economy, maximizing oil and gas production, ending foreign entanglements, renegotiating blatantly unfair trade deals, and slapping China with tariffs.

The Nation published an article in June warning that, ‘Donald Trump’s Trade Wars Could Lead to the Next Great Depression.’ Progressive former senior strategist at bankrupt Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers Naomi Prins hyperventilated that Donald Trump’s attacking foreign exporting nations for using America as “the world’s piggy bank” was “making the world a less stable, less affordable, and more fear-driven place.”

In the same month, Never-Trump’ conservatives at the Weekly Standard sneeredat MAGA policies in ‘Trumpenomics for Dummies.’ British economist Irwin Stelzer lashed out at Trump for trying to “protect our 19th and 20th Century industries” basic industries, instead of backing “brain replacing brawn as the basis of American economic prosperity.”

In response to MAGA’s unorthodox economic policies that delivered big income gains and drove unemployment down to its lowest levels in almost 50 years, the Trump Administration has had to weather seven interest rate hikes based on the Federal Reserve’s orthodox economic theory that wage growth must be restrained to prevent future inflation.

The Fed had no problem slashing interest rates 19 notches early in the Obama Administration, and then keeping interest rates substantially below inflation in order to create asset bubbles that drove up U.S. rents and home prices. According to an EPI study, Incomes for the top 1-percent spiked to an all-time high average of $1,316,985 in 2015, a multiple of 26.3 times the average income for the other 99 percent of Americans.

While the Federal Reserve has been trying to protect the average American from too much personal income growth, its own Inflation Expectation Rate for the next five years has actually fallen by 20 percent since President Trump took office in January 2017.

Managing Director David Hoffman of Brandywine Global Asset that manages $74 billion recently observed that before the Fed raised the U.S. policy interest rate on December 19th and crashed the stock markets, the Fed Funds target interest rate when adjusted for inflation was already above zero. He warned that the Fed’s policy for the first time in a decade is “no longer broadly promotive of continued strong growth.”

The Fed and critics on both the left and right have fully embraced Keynesian economic theories that argue for government using “targeted” fiscal spending and monetary credit policies to steer the U.S. economy to optimum performance. With the top “1-percenters” controlling the bureaucratic deep state over the last 40 years, they have manipulated those Keynesian “targets” to optimally enhance their own incomes.

Because MAGA economics rejects fiscal and monetary targeting as inherently corrupt, the “1-percenters” understand their entitlement is at existential risk of going away. They must fight, obstruct and slow down MAGA policies before the redistribution of income back to the 99-percent becomes overwhelmingly obvious to most American voters.

The Fed’s interest rate spikes have hammered Wall Street with a global stock market selloff that resulted in the worst December U.S. stock performance since 1931, with the Dow Jones Index down 9.7 percent for the month. After the market value of Apple Computer collapsed by $75 billion after warning of lower earnings due to China’s economy slowing, Dow Index entered a “Bear Market” Dow down 20 percent from its September high.

But “Main Street” is booming, according to the latest Bureau of Labor statistics, with 7.1 million job openings on the last business day of October. The latestSmall Business Optimism Index reported its highest percentage since 1989 of companies under 250 workers planning to raise compensation in 2019 in “response to persistently high levels of unfilled open positions.”



Source: MAGA: First Real US Household Income Gain Since 2000

Are the Investigations the Cover-Up?

What is the most effective way to hide the truth and protect the Deep-State criminals? It’s the never-ending Mueller investigation.


Those of us who have been paying attention know that serious crimes were committed at the highest levels of government in an attempt to exonerate Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.  There was collusion between government agencies, including collusion with foreign agents, to illegally influence the 2016 Presidential election.  There is enough evidence on the table to be confident of these claims.

And those of us who care about rule of law, who want to see justice done to the criminals in this conspiracy, have been waiting for years to see that happen.  We hear that these serious matters are being investigated.  We hear that there are whistleblowers inside the government who want to come forward and expose the corruption.  We hear that there are many, many more documents which will substantiate our worst fears about one of the greatest scandals in the history of our country.

We have been assured that there are several investigations looking into the various aspect of this abuse of power.  Inspector General Michael Horowitz, prosecutor John Huber, and others are looking into the corruption.  Mueller is supposedly tasked with exposing foreign influence on the Presidential election.

But what if the ‘investigations’ are really the cover-up? What if the investigations are carefully structured to protect criminal actions rather than expose them? What if the investigations are actually being used to hide evidence from the citizenry?

Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and others discussed the need for an “insurance policy” in case Trump won.  Was this “insurance policy” intended to protect deep-state criminals from exposure?  Mueller’s role is not to investigate collusion with foreign agents, or he would be investigating Christopher Steele and his Russian sources, along with the foreigners who worked with our government to infiltrate the Trump campaign.  He would investigate the illegal funding of Steele’s lies and how the lies were fed to the public by ‘bad cops’ and complicit media.  This is obviously not the goal of Mueller’s team.

Mueller’s key role is to have nearly absolute control over what information is released to investigators or the public.  Mueller determines what Horowitz and Huber can see. Mueller can hide anythinghe wants by claiming that release of the information would hinder his ‘investigation’.  He has given Rod Rosenstein a list of lines of inquiry that will not be allowed.  Rosenstein, who volunteered to be part of the soft coup, is happy to comply.  We have witnessed Rosenstein repeatedly refuse to turn over documents to Congress, flagrantly obstructing its oversight role.

What is the most effective way to hide the truth and protect the deep-state criminals? It’s the never-ending Mueller investigation.  Sure, Mueller’s team is still in the business of promoting the Trump-Russia fiction, but the most important role of this ‘investigation’ may be to obstruct any real investigation.

Conspiracy theories become conspiracy facts when enough evidence piles up to support the theory.  Consider this evidence, starting before the election:

  • Comey wrote a letter exonerating Hillary from her very intentional crimes long before she or key witnesses were interviewed.
  • Hillary’s key co-conspirators were given immunity, allowed to share attorneys, sit in on each other’s depositions, and even destroy evidence.  This was a sham investigation.
  • Hillary’s influence peddling through the Clinton Foundation was effectively swept under the rug.  The Clintons enriched themselves by selling future favors, often to foreign entities.  The foundation has been called “The Biggest Charity Fraud Ever”.
  • The Trump-Russia collusion narrative was developed as part of the effort to undermine Trump. It was not started by any actionable intelligence.  Spies were placed in the Trump campaign to aid the false narrative and to allow further illicit intelligence gathering.
  •  Spying on the Trump campaign was authorized by presenting fraudulent, hearsay evidence to FISA Court judges.  This criminal act led to many other criminal acts including rampant “unmasking” of American citizens associated with Trump.  Comey and Rosenstein both played roles in FISA abuse. White House officials did much of the unmasking.
  • On September 28, 2016, Peter Strzok texted Lisa Page that “hundreds of thousands” of email messages from Anthony Weiner’s computer had been turned over to the FBI by U.S. Attorneys who were conducting an investigation into Weiner’s sex crimes.  This was a treasure trove of information about Huma and Hillary.  The FBI immediately hid the information for a month while they figured out how to whitewash it to protect Hillary.  The bomb-control team successfully defused another bomb.  Surely, they expected a future reward from President H.R. Clinton.

Inspector General Horowitz’s June report had the goal of soft-peddling criminal behavior.  The report said that some unfortunate things were done, but there was no reason to think that bias played a key role in important decisions.  It did not find fault with things like granting immunity to the man who lied to the FBI and destroyed Hillary’s illegal server.  As we have learned, lying to the FBI can be fine, depending on who does the lying.  Destroying subpoenaed evidence is okay too, at times.

Horowitz’ public statement about his toothless report was followed by FBI Director Christopher Wray telling us not to worry about a thing because he intended to schedule a day when FBI agents would have a meeting to discuss bias.  Okay then — I guess that takes care of it.

Last year, when members of Congress were rightly frustrated about evidence being hidden, there were increasing calls for a special prosecutor to investigate surveillance abuses by the Obama administration, the shady Uranium One deal, and the Clinton Foundation’s influence peddling.  The idea of appointing a truly independent prosecutor was thwarted by Jeff Sessions, who appointed a career insider to do the investigation instead.  Sessions promised that an Obama holdover in Utah, John Huber, would do a “full, complete and objective evaluation of these matters.”

At this point, there is every reason to believe that the purpose of Huber’s investigation is to hide the truth, not to find it; to protect the criminals, not to charge them.   The key witnesses in each of the matters under investigation have not even been contacted.  It appears that no grand juries have been empaneled.  Tom Fitton, of Judicial Watch says, “Huber wasn’t tapped to investigate anything”, he was just “a distraction”.

What we are witnessing here is a carefully planned and orchestrated cover-up of a series of very serious crimes.  The deep swamp is pretending to investigate the deep swamp.

This cover-up would not be possible if the mainstream media were honest and aggressive fact-finders, but they actually function as a branch of the Democratic Party.  The cover-up would fail if Republicans were unified in absolutely demanding to see all the evidence that is currently being hidden, but Republican ‘leaders’ do not unify and fight hard for anything.  They appear to be comfortable with losing this battle.

Victors write the accepted history of events.  It is possible that the story here will be that good men like Strzok, Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller protected America from a vast right-wing conspiracy.  Donald Trump, the victim of most of the crimes, will be portrayed as the villain.

By Bryce Buchanan

Source: Are the Investigations the Cover-Up?



Why They are Wrong and President Trump Is Right on Syria



President Trump has overseen a clear, steady and realist foreign policy, focused on putting America First.


Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, I have been directly involved in advising the country’s top National Security Team in planning and executing the United States and Allied Powers response to the attacks.

I’ve trained trained troops to deploy, supervised and conducted intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations and deployed myself in the first Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as Operation Iraqi Freedom as a commander.

My support for President Trump’s decisions to bring American forces out of Syria now and soon Afghanistan is informed not only by my experiences since 9/11, but also four decades of military and civilian experience planning and executing national security policy. I have studied national security matters under retired US Marine Lt General Mick Trainor at Harvard, and many other great thinkers at the U.S. College of Naval Warfare.

As you can see from my background, I’m no pacifist, but I’ve also seen the horrors of war firsthand and understand that military force should always be a final resort and that it is the duty of the Commander in Chief to bring our troops home as soon as the stated mission is complete.

Unlike the bipartisan foreign policy swamp, which has been consistently proven wrong about nearly every major military decision of the last decade, President Trump has overseen a clear, steady and realist foreign policy, focused on putting America First. From re-building America’s military, destroying ISIS, ending the Iran deal, de-escalating tensions with North Korea, he has consistently proven the naysayers in the foreign policy swamp wrong.

Those who have led us down the failed and dangerous path of endless wars in the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and beyond, are the last people who should be listened to in regards to Syria. In fact, many of those people attacking President Trump today over Syria, are they themselves responsible for the chaos we see currently in the Middle East. Why trust a group of people whose policies have been discredited time and time again over a man whose policies and instincts in regards to foreign policy have been consistently proven right?

The members of the foreign policy swamp can’t even account for why it’s in America’s national interest to keep 2000 American soldiers and intelligence officers in Syria after they’ve already completed the mission the President gave them two years ago, to destroy and defeat ISIS. Could it be that that the foreign policy swamp was never actually interested in defeating ISIS and instead want us to stay in Syria because of their misguided and dangerous fetish for more regime change in the Middle East?

They scream that there will be chaos if we leave, conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the chaos we see in the Middle East is a direct result of their policies of regime change Libya and Iraq. Furthermore, do we really want to turn Syria into another Afghanistan, where we stay there for 17 years with no real purpose and no actual American interests at stake?

We’ve seen that script before and it hasn’t ended well for the United States. But that matters little to the foreign policy swamp, as they don’t even pretend this is about our national interest, but rather about their impossible dream for liberal Democracy in the Middle East.

Luckily, President Trump understands that we owe our troops more than that.

The President understands what I understand: The Middle East will never be a liberal democracy and our foreign policy should never be guided by grand ideological goals, but rather by a simple doctrine that asks: What is best for America and its people?

In the case of Syria, it’s clear to me that there is no tangible American interest left in staying. As a 32 year military man, I say President Trump is right, we completed our mission, destroyed the enemy and it’s finally time to bring our troops home and declare victory.

And to those who disagree,I have one question to ask: How much American blood are you willing to spill to achieve your goal of regime change in Syria? Because if you ask me, the answer should very clearly be, not a single drop.

Retired Colonel Rob Maness enlisted in the US Air Force at age 17 as an Explosive Ordnance Disposal technician.  As an officer, he served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, survived the attack on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, commanded a B-1 bomber squadron in combat, was Vice Commander of America’s largest airborne intelligence wing, and as a wing commander in nuclear operations.




Source: Why They are Wrong and President Trump Is Right on Syria

Scriptures, Lessons, News and Links to help you survive.