How Valid Is Evolutionary Psychology?

From Steve Taylor Ph.D. on Psychology Today.com (Dec. 9, 2014):

Why do we find natural scenes like green fields, trees, and rivers beautiful? Why do people have an urge to gain wealth and power? Why do human beings fight wars? Why are human beings creative?

According to evolutionary psychology, the answers to these questions are linked to survival and reproduction. Evolutionary psychology explains present-day human traits and characteristics in terms of the survival value they possessed for our ancestors. These traits have survived because the genes they are linked to were ‘selected’ and have remained part of our genetic heritage. So in terms of the above examples, we find natural scenes attractive because for our ancestors they represented survival—lush vegetation, trees laden with fruits and nuts, rivers. People have an urge to gain wealth and power because, in prehistoric times, they enhanced their chances of survival and increased their reproductive possibilities. The instinct to wage war is so strong because prehistoric tribes of genetically similar people were in constant competition for resources with other groups. The creative instinct can also be seen as a way of increasing our reproductive possibilities—successful creativity increases our status and so makes us more attractive to potential mates.

It’s clear from these explanations (all of which have been put forward by evolutionary psychologists) that evolutionary psychology has a great deal of explanatory power—seldom has such a simple idea been used to explain such a wide variety of human behavior. This is probably the reason why the theory has become very popular, especially in the media and amongst non-scientists. As human beings, we have a strong need for explanation, to make sense of our behaviour and of the world around us. (This is part of the reason why religions are appealing to many people too.) However, the negative side of this is that, when theories do have explanatory power, we tend to become over-enthusiastic about them, and to over-estimate their validity. And I think this is the case with evolutionary psychology. Seldom has a theory gained such widespread support whilst being based on such shaky foundations.

Having said that, my problem with evolutionary psychology isn't so much with the theory itself, but with how it has been used to justify a particular view of human nature. After all, it makes sense to assume that we have inherited some behavioural tendencies from our ancestors, that some of the instincts we carry originated millions of years ago. As I suggest later, it might be possible to formulate an alternative interpretation of evolutionary psychology that doesn't make such grandiose claims, and is more in line with anthropological evidence. [read more]

Robotic ‘Super Monster Wolves’ are guarding Japanese towns against bears

From Pop Sci.com (Oct. 3, 2023):

Stories about solar-powered robotic wolves first surfaced back in 2017 after Japanese researchers began testing prototypes to combat wild boars’ devastating encroachment into farmlands. Since then, a company called Wolf Kamuy expanded sales of its sentry products featuring menacing fangs, fur, flashing red LED “eyes,” and a head capable of shaking side-to-side while emitting a 90 decibel howl. But boars aren’t the only problem plaguing rural Japanese communities. According to recent reports, Wolf Kamuy is now offering many of its faux-wolves as bear deterrence.

It turns out the “Super Monster Wolf” isn’t just effective at protecting farmers’ crops—it’s also pretty good at protecting the farmers themselves. As reported October 1 via the BBC, bears are an increasingly difficult, sometimes even deadly nuisance in many areas of Japan thanks to a combination of serious factors, including climate change, deforestation,and urban expansion. What’s more, bear populations in regions such as Hokkaido appear to be actually increasing as Japan faces an aging population and declining birth rates. According to the BBC, some researchers estimate a total of over 22,000 bears located around Hokkaido. Because of all this, the region recorded at least 150 bear attacks over the past six decades—with four fatalities in 2021 alone. Meanwhile, bears continue to wander into more crowded towns and cities bordering wildlife areas.

Enter: the Super Monster Wolf. By installing the guard bots in urban locales, experts hope to deter bears from wandering into populated areas to potentially harm both humans and themselves. Researchers previously estimated that a robo-wolf’s howls effectively deterred bears from encroaching within approximately 1-square-km (about 0.38 square mi) of its installation—arguably better than many electric fence perimeters. With strategic placement, Super Monster Wolves could help elderly communities, and protect the bears.

Of course, humanity cannot solely rely on an army of robot wolves to protect us from bear attacks. Bears (not to mention countless other species) face immense existential threats in the face of ongoing climate change calamities, and it’s not the bears’ fault they are increasingly desperate to find food sources. The best remedy, therefore, is to continue focusing on climate solutions like conservation, renewable energy, and sustainable urban planning, rather than stopgaps like the (admittedly rad) Super Monster Wolf. [source]

The robotic "super monster wolves" look demonic. But I guess if they do the job, they do the job.

Former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton Indicted, CNN Reports

From Newsmax.com (Oct. 16):

A federal grand jury in Maryland has returned an indictment against John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser.

The development was first reported Thursday by CNN, citing two sources familiar with the matter.

The indictment represents an escalation of tensions between Trump and one of his most prominent internal critics.

The indictment accuses Bolton of mishandling classified information, part of a broader Justice Department inquiry into whether he retained or transmitted secret or national defense information after leaving government.

The case is being handled by career prosecutors in Maryland, rather than prosecutors in politically sensitive districts.

While the full indictment has not yet been unsealed, multiple media outlets — including Reuters and The Associated Press — reported that the charges are tied to the federal investigation sparked by FBI searches of Bolton’s Maryland home and his Washington, D.C., office in August.

According to publicly available court filings and the inventory of seized material, investigators recovered documents marked “secret,” “confidential,” and “classified,” including items related to weapons of mass destruction, strategic communications, and U.S. interests at the United Nations.

The affidavit supporting the search warrants references alleged retention of national defense information and probable cause to believe Bolton may have been in unlawful possession of materials that should have been turned over to government archives.

One redacted portion of the affidavit suggests that Bolton’s personal AOL email account had been hacked by a foreign entity, and that the government recovered emails from that account that raised questions about whether he had transmitted classified materials through it.

Media outlets report that the allegedly illicit conduct spans multiple counts — potentially unauthorized retention of national defense information, improper transmission of classified records, and false statements to federal investigators.

Bolton is expected to plead not guilty.

If convicted, each count could carry substantial prison terms, possibly up to 10 years or more per violation, depending on the charges and statutes involved, said wire services and the New York Post.

Bolton is a veteran diplomat and national security figure who served under multiple Republican administrations.

Trump appointed him as national security adviser in April 2018, but their relationship quickly soured over foreign policy differences, particularly on Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan.

Trump dismissed him in September 2019.

Following his departure, Bolton emerged as one of the president’s fiercest critics.

His 2020 memoir, "The Room Where It Happened," portrayed Trump as erratic and self-interested in foreign affairs.

The book’s release sparked controversy after the White House claimed it contained classified material that had not been cleared through prepublication review — a dispute that foreshadowed the current indictment.

Bolton has continued to speak out publicly against Trump’s leadership and foreign policy, accusing him of undermining national security.

Trump, in turn, has frequently mocked Bolton and threatened legal action over what he has described as “betrayal” and “unauthorized disclosures.”

Bolton’s indictment comes amid a wave of investigations involving figures who have been publicly critical of Trump.

One such case involves special counsel Jack Smith, who previously led the federal investigations into Trump’s handling of classified documents and the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol breach probe.

Trump has accused Smith of corruption and bias, and Smith himself has reportedly faced internal reviews ordered by Trump-appointed officials.

In another example, New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted earlier this month in Virginia on bank fraud and false-statement charges linked to a 2020 property transaction.

James has denounced the case as political retaliation for her civil fraud prosecution against Trump’s business empire in New York.

Trump and his allies have defended the prosecutions as necessary to uphold the rule of law, asserting that prior administrations ignored misconduct by establishment figures.

Officials close to the White House note that Bolton’s case is being handled by career prosecutors, not political appointees, as evidence of independence in the process.

Bolton is expected to be arraigned later in October.

Legal proceedings will likely include motions to suppress evidence and challenges to the legality of the searches. Because the case involves classified material, much of the evidence and argument could take place under seal or in closed hearings under the Classified Information Procedures Act.

The indictment of a former national security adviser under a sitting president who once employed him is without precedent. The case underscores the deepening political and institutional tensions defining Trump’s second term — and may further test the limits of presidential power over the Justice Department. [source]

And Bolton makes three... Well, he shouldn't have classified materials in his resident and he definitely shouldn't put those documents in his book. I guess he just wanted to get back at Trump and was not thinking about the country's security.

More articles on the indictment:

• John Bolton Indicted On 18 Counts For Mishandling Classified Information
• John Bolton pleads not guilty to charges accusing him of storing and sharing classified information

8 steps to secure the next election

From Glenn Beck.com (May 2, 2024):

Americans agree our elections are no longer trustworthy.

Glenn revealed in a recent Glenn TV special how concerned Americans are about the security of elections and just how vulnerable our voting systems are. It's clear something has to be done to secure our elections. We will lose everything if we lose the ability to facilitate a peaceful transition of power.

Glenn is not the only one to recognize this. The Foundation for Government Accountability has seen the issue too, and has created an 8-step plan that shows the path to restoring faith in our elections. If every state implemented these eight steps, voting confidence would be fixed immediately. These are the 8 steps to securing the next election:

1.States must ban ballot harvesting to secure elections.

Ballot harvesting is when a third party collects and submits mail-in ballots from other individuals to be counted. It is unknown whether there is any oversight over these third parties, if there are any bad actors along the chain of custody, or if the third party influences the voters. The lack of information does not inspire confidence in the process.

In 2018, multiple Republicans in California saw their apparent election night wins eventually turn to losses. Republicans pointed at a recent change in California voting law that “lets voters allow anyone to drop off their absentee ballot, rather than a family member as previously required. That has opened the door to what they call ‘ballot harvesting.’” Keep in mind this was before the pandemic. The results speak for themselves. In Orange County alone, more than 250,000 ballots were a “direct result of ballot harvesting.”

2.Prohibit third-party ballot returns and narrow who can return ballots.

The ways this can be manipulated are absolutely nuts. A state-appointed investigator in Wisconsin found a 100 percent turnout in multiple nursing homes. The investigator called it “absurd." He found intercepted ballots, forged signatures, and completed ballots from residents who were deemed “incompetent.” 92,000 residents live in these facilities in Wisconsin. To put that into perspective, Joe Biden won the state by less than 21,000 votes.

There was a similar case in Michigan where a woman was forced to plead guilty to seven counts of election fraud. She was caught submitting applications for absentee ballots on behalf of people who were “legally incapacitated.” These are the cases that the Left wants to pretend don’t happen but are very real.

3.Ban third-party distribution of unsolicited absentee applications.

These so-called “non-partisan” actors are shooting out ballot applications like confetti to anyone and everyone.

Some of these mailing operations “sent voter registration forms to the deceased, to longtime voters who are already registered and even to pets with human-sounding names.” [read more]

All excellent steps but until then the republicans should do ballot harvesting and encourage early voting.

The other steps are:

1. Ban unsolicited absentee applications and ballots by government officials.
2. States should adopt strict guidelines for absentee ballot return.
3. Require identification to vote absentee.
4. Prohibit unsecured drop boxes.
5. Require absentee and mail-in ballots to be returned by election day.

Top 5 WILDEST moments from Tucker's interview with Putin

From Glenn Beck.com (Feb. 12, 2024):

On Thursday, February 8th, Tucker Carlson released a two-hour-long interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, his first interview with a U.S. outlet since 2021 before Russia invaded Ukraine. Tucker's interview became a point of contention in the media from the second he announced that he was in Moscow. Many left-wing talking heads jumped at the opportunity to accuse Tucker of being soft on Putin, and European politicians were even calling for a travel ban — all before the interview was even released.

Glenn came to Tucker's defense, seeing the potential value of the interview and calling out the Left's blatant disregard for free press. Now that the interview has been released, it's clear that Glenn's hopes for the interview were fulfilled: Tucker did a great job. There were many memorable moments from the two-hour-long interview, but we compiled the top five for you here:

Putin suggests that Zelensky's government is illegitimate.

Putin, when asked why Russia had invaded Ukraine, gave a surprising answer. Putin claimed that the 2008 Ukrainian Presidential Election was illegitimate because it included a third round of voting, which was allegedly not permitted by the Ukrainian Constitution. It was in this third round that the first pro-western President was elected, and Putin suggested that U.S. backing was a major reason for his victory. Putin called this event a "coup" and implied that the Ukrainian government has been illegitimate ever since.

Putin speaks about Neo-Nazis in Ukraine.

When Tucker asked if Russia had achieved its aims in the War in Ukraine, Putin explained that Russia had not successfully "de-Nazified" Ukraine, which, Putin claims, is one of Russia's main objectives in the war. He elaborated that a large portion of the Ukrainian population venerates Nazis and Nazi collaborators, who fought against Russia during World War II. Putin cited the Canadian parliament's blunder in venerating a former SS officer from Ukraine. Tucker pushed back, asking Putin how he would squash an ideology in another sovereign nation. Putin's response was evasive and unsatisfactory.

Tucker calls out (and laughs at) Putin for not communicating with Biden.

Tucker asked Putin when he had last talked with President Biden, and when Putin admitted that he couldn't remember, Tucker laughed right in Putin's face. Tucker pointed out that, by Putin's admission, the U.S. is footing the Ukrainian military's bills. So why would he not be in contact with the President? Putin tried to brush off this apparent oversight by claiming that he had talked to Biden (before the war) and assured Tucker that there was communication between the U.S. and Russia.

Putin says the only way to end the war in Ukraine is through a total Russian victory.

Tucker continued to push Putin, asking him why he risks escalating the war into something potentially catastrophic and why he doesn't call up Biden and work out a deal. Putin explained that there would be no point and that the U.S. should simply pull the plug on Ukraine and the war would be over in a matter of weeks. The only way to end the war for Putin is victory. Putin also claimed that any talk about escalation is nothing but fear-mongering.

Tucker confronts Putin on the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline.

In one of his more startling moments, Tucker boldly asked Putin, "Who blew up Nord Stream?" Putin wasted no time in pointing fingers at the CIA, but when asked to provide evidence, he fell short. Putin pointed out that the list of agencies that are both interested and capable of such an attack is very short. However, Tucker asked why Putin, who assumedly would have strong evidence against the U.S. in this matter, would not show it. Putin simply claimed that there would be no point, as everyone already knows who is responsible. [source]

Not a bad interview. Putin talked most of the time, but Tucker, I thought, asked probing questions. Critics complained that Tucker didn't give a tough enough interview. What they don't understand is Putin is a  dictator and Tucker is on Putin's turf. To avoid angering Putin and potential consequences, Tucker had to tread carefully. It's always precarious to interview a tyrant in their own country.

Freedom without choice is no true freedom at all

From Richard D. Land on Christian Post.com (July 14, 2023):

It is not often I am surprised by comments that are generated by my columns in The Christian Post. Over the years I have read, as you would imagine, literally thousands of various opinions, agreements and disagreements with the ideas I have articulated and the arguments I have made on literally hundreds of issues.

So, imagine my surprise at being taken aback by some comments generated by my column, “The Extraordinary Meaning of July 4th for America and the World,” I frankly thought that praising the Declaration of Independence and its meaning would not have been terribly controversial.

However, several of our readers took exception to my praising the unique birth of human freedom published on July 4, 1776.

One reader declared:

“It was never the founders intent to promote irresponsible freedom. The freedom we enjoy in our Constitution and supporting Declaration of Independence was formulated within the context of reverence and submission to God on an individual basis. In those times it was the one true Christian God.”

Another critic goes even further, assuming that I am glorifying “this ‘FREEDOM’ even though it blasphemously proclaims that it is …a human right to worship ANY gods, that it proclaims … right for each to define good and evil in their own eyes. It is clear that you have placed the ‘light of the torch of FREEDOM’ above the LIGHT and 1 Truth of the 1 & only God.”

Imagine my surprise. My first response is that our forefathers bequeathed us a great and noble thing — an understanding that our freedom and our rights came from our Creator and that God created us with the right to govern ourselves according to His revelation of Himself and His character to us.

However, He also gave us, beginning with Adam and Eve, the freedom to choose right from wrong, understanding that wrong choices would bring disastrous consequences.

My question to my critics is this: “What would you have in place of our constitutionally guaranteed freedom? Would you have the Founding Fathers dictating to us which particular God (Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or Deist) we must worship and the manner in which we are to perform that worship?”

After all, nine of the original 13 states had tax-supported state churches and our forefathers did not follow their lead.

True freedom leaves a man or a woman free to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences without interference from the civil magistrate. Our second president, John Adams, said in 1798, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, “Letter from John Adams to Massachusetts Militia,” Oct. 11, 1798.)

Adams understood that our Constitution was based on Judeo-Christian values combined with Enlightenment ideas of self-government.    

If most people did not obey the law voluntarily because they were aware they were responsible to Divine authority, then the “light” hand of our government would allow liberty to turn to license requiring even more restrictive state power to ensure order.

You cannot force people to be pious or devout. And, you have no right to coercively interfere with another man’s relationship with God. As the great Baptist Roger Williams put it so eloquently in the early 17th century while facing the state church in Massachusetts Bay, for any man to coercively interfere with another man’s faith is “soul-rape.”

All attempts by government to dictate religion always ends in disaster, conscience abuse, and dictatorship. And after all, God never wants coerced worship. He gave Adam and Eve a choice. He gave His chosen people a choice. He could have forced them to obey. He did not. He wanted a voluntary compliance and loving worship.

As the Apostle Paul exhorted the Ephesian Christians to “walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.” (Eph. 5:2)

In the early 17th century the English Baptist Thomas Helwys wrote The Mystery of Iniquity in which he informed the King of England, James I, that he was just a man and should have no coercive control over another man’s relationship with his God, thus authoring the first published plea for religious freedom in the English language.

As John Adams predicted, as America has become less religious and less decent, liberty has turned to license which has led to more government and less freedom.

However, the answer is not for any one group to try to impose what they believe the correct religion is on the people. The last thing that anyone should want is government-sponsored or government-mandated religion. The experience is like being embraced by a python which squeezes all the life out of you. The empty cathedrals of the state churches in Europe bear stark testimony to that truth.

Our Declaration and our Constitution free our people to be God-honoring, Bible-believing followers of Christ, but also allows them to go their own way. That is the two-edged sword of freedom.

The confessional statement of my personal faith tradition, Southern Baptist, The Baptist Faith & Message, puts it quite eloquently and succinctly: “God alone is Lord of the conscience and He has left it free from the doctrines of man which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it.”

This statement makes a critically important distinction. While we shall be free from the dictates of man, we are responsible to God. “Human beings are not really autonomous. We will one day answer to God for our beliefs, actions, thoughts and words.” (Charles S. Kelley Jr., Richard Land, R. Albert Mohler Jr., The Baptist Faith & Message, 2007), pp. 163-164.

Freedom is a God-given right. He gave us the ability to choose right over wrong, and even after the fall of man He redemptively acts to empower us to choose the right through the life-giving power of His Son.

Genuine and true Christianity has flourished under the freedoms set in place by the Declaration and the Constitution, like it has in no other milieu. Government should be an umpire, or referee, making sure everyone plays fair, with no cheating in attempts to intimidate or suppress minorities. The government should not be a judge, a sponsor, or a censor for one religion over another or no religion over religion. This leaves men free to pursue the truth according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Will this mean competition for hearts and minds in the marketplace of ideas? Yes. What’s the problem? I did not see Elijah avoiding a confrontation with the prophets of Baal. He said, “You pray to your gods and I will pray to mine, and let’s see whose prayers get answered.”

Let us go forward with the confidence of Elijah. We serve the one true God, the one who answers prayers. [source]

Freewill is a gift from God that mankind can use for good or ill.

Niall Ferguson: The Treason of the Intellectuals

From The FP.com (Dec. 10, 2023):

In 1927 the French philosopher Julien Benda published La trahison des clercs—“The Treason of the Intellectuals”—which condemned the descent of European intellectuals into extreme nationalism and racism. By that point, although Benito Mussolini had been in power in Italy for five years, Adolf Hitler was still six years away from power in Germany and 13 years away from victory over France. But already Benda could see the pernicious role that many European academics were playing in politics.

Those who were meant to pursue the life of the mind, he wrote, had ushered in “the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds.” And those hatreds were already moving from the realm of the ideas into the realm of violence—with results that would be catastrophic for all of Europe.

A century later, American academia has gone in the opposite political direction—leftward instead of rightward—but has ended up in much the same place. The question is whether we—unlike the Germans—can do something about it.

For nearly ten years, rather like Benda, I have marveled at the treason of my fellow intellectuals. I have also witnessed the willingness of trustees, donors, and alumni to tolerate the politicization of American universities by an illiberal coalition of “woke” progressives, adherents of “critical race theory,” and apologists for Islamist extremism.

Throughout that period, friends assured me that I was exaggerating. Who could possibly object to more diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus? In any case, weren’t American universities always left-leaning? Were my concerns perhaps just another sign that I was the kind of conservative who had no real future in the academy?

Such arguments fell apart after October 7, as the response of “radical” students and professors to the Hamas atrocities against Israel revealed the realities of contemporary campus life. That hostility to Israeli policy in Gaza regularly slides into antisemitism is now impossible to deny.

I cannot stop thinking of the son of a Jewish friend of mine, who is a graduate student at one of the Ivy League colleges. Just this week, he went to the desk assigned to him to find, carefully placed under his computer keyboard, a note with the words “ZIONIST KIKE!!!” in red and green letters.

Just as disturbing as such incidents—and there are too many to recount—has been the dismally confused responses of university leaders.

Testifying before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce last week, Harvard President Claudine Gay, MIT President Sally Kornbluth, and University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill showed that they had been well-briefed by the lawyers their universities retain for such occasions.

They gave technically correct explanations of how First Amendment rules apply on their campuses—if they did apply. Yes, context matters. If all students did was chant “From the river to the sea,” that speech is protected, so long as there was no threat of violence or “discriminatory harassment.”

But the reason Claudine Gay’s carefully phrased answers on Tuesday infuriated her critics is not that they were technically incorrect, but that they were so clearly at odds with her record—specifically her record as dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in the years 2018–2022, when Harvard was sliding to the very bottom of the rankings for free speech at colleges.

The killing of George Floyd happened when Gay was dean. Six days after Floyd’s death, she published a statement on the subject that suggests she felt personally threatened by events in distant Minneapolis. Floyd’s death, she wrote, illustrated “the brutality of racist violence in this country” and gave her an “acute sense of vulnerability.” She was “reminded, again, how even our [i.e., black Americans’] most mundane activities, like running. . . can carry inordinate risk. At a moment when all I want to do is gather my teenage son into my arms, I am painfully aware of how little shelter that provides.” In nothing that Gay said last Tuesday did she seem aware that Jewish students might have felt the same way after October 7.

In a memorandum to faculty on August 20, 2020, she wrote: “The calls for racial justice heard on our streets also echo on our campus, as we reckon with our individual and institutional shortcomings and with our Faculty’s shared responsibility to bring truth to bear on the pernicious effects of structural inequality.” Gay continued: “This moment offers a profound opportunity for institutional change that should not and cannot be squandered. . . . I write today to share my personal commitment to this transformational project and the first steps the FAS will take to advance this important agenda in the coming year.”

As the great German sociologist Max Weber rightly argued in his 1917 essay on “Science as a Vocation,” political activism should not be permissible in a lecture hall “because the prophet and the demagogue do not belong on the academic platform.” This was also the argument of the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report that universities must “maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures.”

This separation between scholarship and politics has been entirely disregarded at the major American universities in recent years. Instead, our most elite schools have embraced the kind of “institutional change” that Gay has championed. Look where it has led us. [read more]

Self-driving car mows down woman, leaving her trapped underneath vehicle: cops

From NY Post.com (Oct. 3, 2023):

A woman had to be rescued with the Jaws of Life after she was mowed down on a San Francisco roadway by two different cars, one of which was a self-driving vehicle.

The chaotic collision, which involved a Cruise autonomous vehicle, took place just after 9:30 p.m. in San Francisco and left the woman wedged underneath the left rear axle of the autonomous vehicle, San Francisco Fire Captain Justin Shore told FOX KTVU.

Since the car that struck the woman fled the scene, and there were no passengers inside the Cruise car, officials have been left to piece together what transpired.

“Rescuers did not have any drivers or any passengers to ask about the nature of the injuries or how the victim came to be beneath the vehicle,” Shore said.

Officials couldn’t say how long the unnamed woman was trapped underneath the Cruise vehicle.

According to Cruise, the human-driven vehicle was traveling in the lane immediately to the left of the self-driving vehicle when the human-driven car struck the woman, the company said in a statement Tuesday morning.

“The initial impact was severe and launched the pedestrian directly in front of the AV,” Cruise’s statement read.

Cruise said their vehicle braked “aggressively,” to try and minimize impact.

Video the company shared with KTVU — that has not been shared publicly — shows the victim was first struck by the hit-and-run driver before falling into the self-driving car’s path.

San Francisco Police Department said the autonomous vehicle remained at the scene following the crash. There was no occupant inside the AV at the time of the collision.

Heavy rescue tools, including the Jaws of Life, were used to retrieve the victim, Shore said.

First responders were at the scene within 60 seconds of the initial dispatch.

The woman was transported to an area hospital after responding officers and medics rendered aid.

San Francisco is the host city to the nation’s first experiment with robotaxis operated by Cruise, the General Motors-owned company, and Google’s Waymo startup.

The autonomous vehicles have drawn safety complaints, as they have been blamed for blocking ambulances responding to emergencies as well as a slew of other issues in the city. [source]

Weird and scary. It's like a scene from the Stephen King's movie Christine except that car was possessed.

What Biden’s Doctor Thinks You’re Not Allowed to Know

From National Review.com (July 10):

On the menu today: Joe Biden’s personal physician, Kevin O’Connor, refuses to answer questions under oath before Congress about his assessment of the former president’s health while he was in office. Elsewhere, progressives ask why the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement workforce needs to be so large, ignoring the scale of the task before the agency, and wondering about a not-so-long-ago doomsday prediction.

The Biden Health Coverup Continues

The U.S. is not supposed to end up in a situation where it has a doddering old man as president. Many people have a role in ensuring the good physical and mental health of the president, but high among them is the president’s physician.

At the end of February 2024, White House physician Kevin O’Connor declared that Biden “continues to be fit for duty and fully executes all of his responsibilities without any exceptions or accommodations.” This diagnosis came several months after Biden’s inability to remember dates and the sequence of events during his testimony to special counsel Robert Hur.

Subsequently, in books like Original Sin, the American people learned that while in office, the former president was forgetting the names of national security adviser Jake Sullivan and communications director Kate Bedingfield; didn’t recognize DNC chairman Jaime Harrison, Representative Eric Swalwell, or actor George Clooney when he met them despite knowing them for years; was “disoriented” and “out of it,” mouth agape, during his rare cabinet meetings, and so on. Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson wrote, “Biden’s physical deterioration — most apparent in his halting walk — had become so severe that there were internal discussions about putting the president in a wheelchair. . . . The doctor often argued with Biden’s political officials to get more rest time into the president’s schedule. O’Connor sometimes quipped that Biden’s staff members were trying to kill him, while he was trying to keep him alive.”

That certainly makes it sound like O’Connor’s publicly released diagnosis was not accurate, and represented happy-talk that contradicted his private diagnosis.

In fact, according to Original Sin, by February 2024, Biden’s political advisers contemplated having Biden undergo a cognitive exam to dispel the increasingly loud questions about his mental health and acuity. O’Connor reportedly argued against giving Biden one, insisting that he saw the president frequently and never saw any reason for concern.

O’Connor never conducted any media interviews or answered any questions from the media about the president’s health during Biden’s presidency.

The American people have a lot of indisputably fair, overdue questions for Dr. O’Connor. But apparently, he is not interested in answering any of them:

O’Connor invoked his Fifth Amendment rights Wednesday and did not answer questions during a closed-door deposition with the House Oversight Committee.

“It’s now clear there was a conspiracy to cover up President Biden’s cognitive decline after Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s physician and family business associate, refused to answer any questions and chose to hide behind the Fifth Amendment,” said Oversight Committee chairman James Comer (R., Ky).

“The American people demand transparency but Dr. O’Connor would rather conceal the truth. Dr. O’Connor took the Fifth when asked if he was told to lie about President Biden’s health and whether he was fit to be President of the United States.”

Now, only Joe Biden has the authority to say, “I waive my right to doctor-patient confidentiality.” If there was no coordinated effort to hide the truth about Biden’s health while he was president, you would think Biden would want O’Connor to testify, truthfully and completely. By not waiving doctor-patient confidentiality, Biden is putting O’Connor in a difficult position where he cannot explain and defend his diagnosis of the president’s health, harming the doctor’s reputation.

Biden could have said O’Connor had his permission to answer all questions about his diagnosis of the president’s health. But Biden hasn’t done that.

Recall that for a very short time in April, Biden launched an unofficial “comeback tour” after the opening months of a post-presidency where reportedly he hadn’t reached out to a single member of Congress for a chat at all. When Biden did appear on The View in early May, he continued to insist that if he had stayed in the race, he would have won, and that he “wasn’t surprised” that Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election. His wife Jill finished many of his answers.

Four days before the official publication of Original Sin, the Bidens announced that he had been diagnosed with Stage 4 prostate cancer. The morning after the announcement, oncologist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel shocked the hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe by declaring, “Oh, he’s had this for many years, maybe even a decade, growing there and spreading. ”

While we’re at it, someone should ask O’Connor why he concluded that Biden didn’t need to get a PSA test during his presidency. [read more]

CYA mode activated.

More articles about Biden:

Biden's Former Doctor Refuses to Answer Questions in House Oversight Probe

Secret Service suspends 6 agents assigned to protect Trump during Butler assassination attempt

From NY Post.com (July 9):

Six members of the Secret Service have been suspended for failures related to last year’s assassination attempt against President Trump at a rally in Butler, Pa.

The suspensions for the six agents ranged from 10 to 42 days, and they won’t be paid while on leave, Secret Service Deputy Director Matt Quinn told CBS News on Wednesday.

The agents will not be fired, but upon return to work, they will be placed in roles with diminished operational responsibility.

“We aren’t going to fire our way out of this,” Quinn told the outlet. “We’re going to focus on the root cause and fix the deficiencies that put us in that situation.”

Trump was struck in the ear by one of the bullets fired by would-be assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks on July 13, 2024, during a campaign event at the Butler Farm Show grounds, leaving the then-presumptive Republican nominee for president bloodied.

Firefighter Corey Comperatore was killed shielding his family from Crooks’ bullets, and two others were left with severe injuries before the 20-year-old gunman — lying on an unguarded roof with a clear line of sight to Trump — was taken out by a Secret Service sniper.

A scathing Senate report on the assassination attempt released in September determined that “multiple foreseeable and preventable planning and operational failures by [Secret Service] contributed” to Crooks’ ability to carry out the deadly shooting.

“These included unclear roles and responsibilities, insufficient coordination with state and local law enforcement, the lack of effective communications, and inoperable [counter-unmanned aircraft] systems, among many others,” the damning report read.

A second assassination attempt against Trump took place two months later at the president’s Palm Beach, Fla., golf course.

Quinn insisted that the Secret Service is “totally accountable for Butler.”

“Butler was an operational failure and we are focused today on ensuring that it never happens again,” he said.

The official noted that the agency now has a new fleet of drones and mobile command posts that let agents communicate over radio directly with local law enforcement.

The Secret Service did not respond to The Post’s request for comment. [source]

Finally, some accountability.

More articles on the matter:

• Gaps in Policy and Threat Information Sharing Hindered Efforts to Secure 2024 Trump Campaign Rally [pdf]
• USSS Outlines Reforms as Butler Shooting Anniversary Nears
  

Ceasefire Goes Into Effect, Gaza, Global Leaders Rejoice

From Newsmax.com (Oct. 9):

The agreement on the first stage of President Donald Trump's plan for ending the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza went into effect Thursday at 0900 GMT, Egyptian state-affiliated TV al-Qahera News reported.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said Israel has an interest in expanding the circle of peace and normalization in the Middle Eastern region, following the U.S.-brokered deal entering Phase 1.

Celebrations have reportedly broken out in Gaza.

President Donald Trump said Israel and Hamas had reached a deal to end the 2-year-old war in the Palestinian enclave.

The following are comments on the agreement from leaders and officials around the world.

Trump

"This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace.

"All Parties will be treated fairly! This is a GREAT Day for the Arab and Muslim World, Israel, all surrounding Nations, and the United States of America, and we thank the mediators from Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, who worked with us to make this Historic and Unprecedented Event happen. BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!"

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

"A big day for Israel ... I thank from the bottom of my heart President Trump and his team for their dedication to this sacred mission of freeing our hostages.

"With God’s help, together we will continue to achieve all our goals and expand peace with our neighbors."

Hamas

"We call on President Trump, the guarantor states of the agreement, and all Arab, Islamic, and international parties to compel the occupation government to fully implement its obligations under the agreement and to prevent it from evading or delaying the implementation of what has been agreed upon.

"We affirm that the sacrifices of our people will not be in vain, and that we will remain true to our pledge — never abandoning our people’s national rights until freedom, independence, and self-determination are achieved."

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich

"Mixed emotions on a complex morning: Immense joy for the return of all our abducted brothers! ... Great fear of the consequences of emptying prisons and releasing the next generation of terror leadership, which will do everything to continue spilling rivers of Jewish blood, God forbid. For this reason alone, we cannot join the short-sighted celebrations and vote in favor of the deal.

"A tremendous responsibility to ensure that this is not, God forbid, a deal of 'hostages in exchange for stopping the war,' as Hamas thinks and boasts ... and that immediately after the hostages return home, the State of Israel will continue to strive with all its might for the true eradication of Hamas and the genuine disarmament of Gaza, so that it no longer poses a threat to Israel."

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres

"I urge all stakeholders to seize this momentous opportunity to establish a credible political path forward towards ending the occupation, recognizing the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, and achieving a two-state solution that enables Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security.

"The stakes have never been higher."

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan

"I would like to express my sincere gratitude to U.S. President Trump, who demonstrated the necessary political will to encourage the Israeli government toward the ceasefire. As Turkey, we will closely monitor the strict implementation of the agreement and continue to contribute to the process."

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer

"This is a moment of profound relief that will be felt all around the world, but particularly for the hostages, their families, and for the civilian population of Gaza, who have all endured unimaginable suffering over the last two years."

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz

"For the first time in a long while, there is a real prospect of peace in the region."

French President Emmanuel Macron

"This agreement must mark the end of the war and the beginning of a political solution based on the two-state solution ... France stands ready to contribute to this goal. We will discuss it this afternoon in Paris with our international partners."

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong

"After more than two years of conflict, hostages held and a devastating loss of civilian life, this is a much-needed step towards peace ... We urge all parties to respect the terms of the plan."

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters

"This is an essential first step towards achieving lasting peace. We urge Israel and Hamas to continue working towards a complete resolution."

European Parliament President Roberta Metsola

"This is a pivotal moment for peace and renewal in the Middle East and opens a path that could finally end the intergenerational cycle of violence, suffering, and terror that has plagued the region."

World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus

"WHO stands ready to scale up its work to meet the dire health needs of patients across Gaza, and to support rehabilitation of the destroyed health system.

"The best medicine is peace." [source]

Nice. Good to hear. Hope Hamas gives back all the hostages and the peace lasts. President Trump should get the Nobel Peace prize for the peace deal.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. - Mathew 5:9.

Others articles on the peace deal:

• Hostage families ask Trump for meeting to thank him personally
• Released Hostages Reunited With Families
• Israel: Hamas Turned Over Body That Wasn't a Hostage
  
• Red Cross Receives Remains of 2 More Hamas Hostages for Israel
  
• Israel IDs 10th Dead Hostage Returned by Hamas
  
• Chants Of ‘Thank You, Trump’ And Calls For Nobel Peace Prize Erupt At Israel’s Hostage Square
• Hamas agreed to deal after being convinced that hostages are a 'burden' to keep, US official says
• U.S. sending about 200 troops to Israel to help support and monitor ceasefire deal in Gaza
• What concessions did Israel, Hamas make to reach hostage-ceasefire deal in Gaza? – analysis
• The Biggest Obstacle To Trump’s Israel-Hamas Peace Deal Is Jihadi Ideology
  
• Hamas Storms Through Gaza, Executing Opposition Groups in Attempt to Cling to Power
  
• Israeli Military: Hamas Has Attacked Israeli Soldiers, Breaking Ceasefire
  

Why atheists and Christians should never trust themselves

From Christian Post.com (July 14, 2023):

It is purely natural for man to trust himself. He assumes his ideas and conclusions are reliable. But what about when man gets it wrong? Every day we hear stories of people who misled themselves into making some awful decisions.

Christians and atheists are similar in this sense. People in both groups can be and have been wrong on multiple issues in their personal lives. They advanced positions that turned out to be completely inaccurate or engaged in behavior that is unseemly.

Why do such mistakes happen so frequently? The answer is simple. Atheists rely solely upon their fallible brains, while Christians at times pursue a course that flows from their sinful nature rather than from the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

Let’s start with atheists. John Lennox is a Northern Irish mathematician, bioethicist and Christian apologist who said in an interview:

“As a scientist, the very bottom line for me is that atheism doesn’t even give me a reason to trust the mind with which I do science because it tells me that the mind with which I’m doing science is essentially equal to the brain. And the brain is the end product of a mindless, unguided process. Well, no scientist I have ever asked would trust a computer if he or she thought it was the end product of a mindless, unguided process. So, there’s a big black hole at the bottom of atheism’s thinking when it comes to science.”

And yet most atheists continue to overlook the irrationality of their approach. You see, it is only reasonable to trust your mind if an intelligent Creator produced it. Otherwise, it is utter foolishness to place full confidence in a brain that simply evolved from a mindless process.

Atheists pick and choose which ideas and outcomes to rely upon and which ideas and outcomes to summarily reject. They assume God does not exist and they reject every supernatural claim. In the end, they stake their immortal soul on a faulty assumption rather than on an intelligent investigation of the facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Check out the blog post by Rachel Boulos titled, “23 Mind-Blowing Facts About Jesus’ Death and Resurrection You Might Not Know.”)

John Lennox stated: “Of course, I reject atheism because I believe Christianity to be true. But I also reject it because I am a scientist. How could I be impressed with a worldview that undermines the very rationality we need to do science? Science and God mix very well. It is science and atheism that do not mix.”

C.S. Lewis observed:

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so, I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” 

[read more]

Profound insight.

Similarities Between Prophet Jehu and President Trump

From Grok 4 Fast:

The comparison between the biblical King Jehu (from 2 Kings 9-10) and President Donald Trump has gained traction among some evangelical and Messianic Christian leaders, particularly since Trump's 2024 election victory and inauguration for his second term. Jehu, a military commander anointed by the prophet Elisha to overthrow the idolatrous house of Ahab and purge Baal worship from Israel, is often portrayed as a flawed but divinely appointed disruptor. Proponents like Rabbi Jonathan Cahn see Trump fitting a similar "template" as a bold instrument of reform against perceived moral and political corruption in America. Below is a compiled list of commonly cited parallels, drawn from religious commentaries and analyses.

Similarity	Description	Biblical Reference (Jehu)	Modern Parallel (Trump)
Outsider Rise to Power	Both ascended from non-traditional backgrounds without prior entitlement to leadership.	Jehu, a military commander, was unexpectedly anointed king by a prophet, not born royal.	Trump, a businessman with no political experience, entered as an outsider and won the presidency in 2016.
Divine Anointing for a Mission	Portrayed as chosen by God for a specific, urgent purpose.	Anointed by Elisha to execute judgment on Ahab's house (2 Kings 9:6-7).	Described as a "trumpet of God" or vessel for restoring America, akin to Jehu's template.
Disruptors of Corrupt Establishments	Challenged entrenched powers seen as morally bankrupt.	Overthrew Ahab's dynasty, symbolizing the end of corrupt rule.	Campaigned to "drain the swamp" in Washington, targeting political elites.
Swift, Aggressive Action	Took decisive, rapid steps upon gaining power to enact change.	Drove his chariot furiously to confront and kill rivals immediately (2 Kings 9:20).	Issued an omnibus executive order on January 20, 2025, rescinding 78 Biden-era policies and firing officials.
War on Idolatry and Immorality	Fought against practices viewed as societal evils, including child sacrifice.	Destroyed Baal's temple and slaughtered its priests (2 Kings 10:25-28).	Opposed abortion (likened to "America's cult of Baal" via Roe v. Wade) and progressive policies on sexuality and family.
Alliance with Religious Leaders	Partnered with prophets and conservatives to fulfill their mandate.	Allied with Elisha's followers for religious reform.	Formed ties with evangelical leaders like Cahn and Ché Ahn for moral and political support.
Confrontation with Prominent Female Adversaries	Dealt harshly with influential women embodying opposition.	Killed Jezebel, the manipulative queen promoting idolatry (2 Kings 9:30-37).	Defeated Hillary Clinton (2016) and Kamala Harris (2024), cast as modern "Jezebels."
Purging Enemies and Systems	Systematically eliminated threats to their vision.	Wiped out Ahab's descendants, officials, and Baal worshippers.	Pursued deportations, declared cartels terrorists, and removed intelligence officials and diversity programs.
Legacy of Upheaval and Division	Brought dramatic change but faced resistance and left unfinished work.	Eradicated Baal but allowed golden calf worship to continue, leading to instability (2 Kings 10:29-31).	Reshaped institutions amid legal battles and opposition, with reforms like border policies under challenge.

These parallels are interpretive and prophetic in nature, emphasizing themes of judgment and restoration rather than literal biography. Critics, including some faith leaders, express concern that such analogies could justify extreme actions by framing opponents as demonic forces.

H/T: The Josiah Manifesto (2023) by Jonathan Cahn.

11 Assumptions About The Future

From Matt Smith on International Man.com:

If you watch our podcast Doug Casey’s Take, you already know. We’re in the middle of a complex and destructive phase full of unknowns.

Our goal with The Phyle is to focus on solutions. To make progress, we must clearly articulate the problem.

Amidst this chaotic phase, it’s impossible to predict even the near future. The best we can do is form a hypothesis and orient our actions around it.

Today I’m going to lay out my process and conclusions. I hope that they will be as useful to you as they have been to me.

Assumptions

We’ve been taught that assumptions are bad. They make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”. But, that’s not always true. I developed a set of assumptions about the future to build a framework of understanding. I use that framework to identify what IS in my control and what is NOT in my control.

The things outside our control, we can stop worrying about. They’re not up to us. Instead, our concern is what IS in our control and all our energy and resources should be dedicated there.

Before I get to the assumptions I’m operating under. Let me say – They are assumptions not predictions. I could be wrong. Hell – I hope I’m wrong. But with nearly three years of the “Great Reset” under our belt, I bet you’ll agree – they have merit.

None of this should be taken as a blackpill. No problem can be solved without sober identification and acceptance. of the nature of the challenge. That’s all we’re doing here.

With that in mind, here are the 11 assumptions I’m using today to guide my actions.

1. Less Freedom of movement. There will be more effort so to restrict and regulate our freedom of movement. From Vax passports to increased visa requirements and 15-min city initiatives – a grid is being constructed to regulate our freedom of movement.

2. A CBDC is coming. Cash will be eliminated. How restrictive it may end up being, I don’t know. But, CBDC is a foregone conclusion. Timing? BIS publishes estimates of 14 retail CBDC and 9 wholesale by 2030. And there are indications that the major economies are working to be ready to deploy by 2025.

3. The digital ID is already here. Biometrics are the future. If you have a government issued ID associated with your photograph, you are in the system already. How the ID is deployed and enforced is the only question.

4. GFC 2.0 and/or the Greater Depression. Timing is hard. But, can any thinking person imagine how the outcome can be avoided altogether. Simon Hunt suggests a market pullback of up to 30% between now and early 2024 followed by a pump and a deflationary wipeout in 2025.

5. Most of my financial assets will disappear at some point. Inflation, bank bail-in, market wipe out, or Great Taking. I don’t know the cause, but I assume physical assets are where I need to be, ultimately.

6. Increasing crime & disorder. You’ve seen the videos. Whether, driven by economic desperation, mass migration, the inversion of law, or in the name of social justice. Crime and disorder will grow and lead to greater physical threats to our lives and property from our fellow man. This makes urban environments, especially but not exclusively, a real risk.

7. Supply constraints are increasing around all commodities – from food to energy. Tight supplies are showing up everywhere. Live Cattle, long dormant, hit an all-time high recently. Oil Prices are up 30% in the last three months. 40% of Argentina’s wheat crop is in poor to fair condition and protectionist policies are on the rise globally.

8. WW3 is coming. A good case can be made that it’s already begun. The Army War College recently published a study suggesting that the All Volunteer Force had reached the end of its useful life. With the military struggling with recruiting, conscription is likely at some point.

9. Censorship and Digital Control will enter a new phase. Deplatforming, de-banking, shadow banning, and social media account suspensions will increase. Centralized digital services of all kinds should be considered suspect and, very likely, dangerous to use in the future.

10. The US election – regardless of the outcome – is an inflection point and potentially a flash point. IF it happens, the outcome will not be accepted by half of the country. I’ve heard from more than one source, publicly and privately, that there may not be a 2024 election. Who knows? We can be sure of is that running up to and shortly after the election, things could get wild. In advance of the 2020 election we had Covid and BLM. Shortly after, J6 and state overreach. What will 2024 bring

11. There is a war happening today. It’s a war on us. The primary battleground is within the sphere of 5GW – informational/psychological. Where I’ve been wrong in the last three years, it’s been in my assumption that kinetic coercion would be utilized. As we can see, much progress has been made in the Great Reset without the need for kinetic tactics. For most of this cycle, they will rely on this same approach. If/When we see a move toward kinetic force, we should be alarmed because we will have entered a new and more dangerous phase.

Do you disagree with any of my assumptions? Did I miss anything? Let me know.

I see all of the assumptions as “Out of my control”. They may not come to pass, but whether they do or not is not up to me. Of course, I’ll continue to speak out against them. If enough of us do, it may help. Possibly.

Since these unfortunate outcomes are out of my control, I don’t worry about them. And free from the burden of unsolvable problems, I can fully devote my energy and resources to what IS within my control. [read more]

Scary. Along the same lines: 

• This ‘Digital ID’ would control EVERYTHING in your life [video]
• Why the UK is REALLY forcing Digital ID on workers [video]

EXCLUSIVE: Major Western Media – CNN, BBC, Reuters, AP – Participated in Chinese Communist Party’s ‘Global Media Summit’

From The National Pulse.com (May 18, 2020):

In 2017, the Chinese Communist Party’s state-owned propaganda networks China Central Television (CCTV) and the China Global Television Network (CGTN) co-hosted a ‘Global Media Summit‘ in China’s Hainan province to address the CCP’s role in global media.

CGTN has existed as a foreign propaganda outlet since 1997, while its parent company CCTV has been around since the 1970s. Even YouTube, owned by Google, demarcates CGTN clips with a disclaimer that reads: “CGTN is funded in whole or in part by the Chinese government”.

But that didn’t stop Western media agencies collaborating in events over the course of 2017 and 2018.

Listed attendees included The Associated Press (AP), Reuters, CNN, Al Jazeera, Russia Today, China Daily, Phoenix Satellite Television, AFP, BBC, Fox, and Google.

At the 2017 summit, five broadcasters from CGTN, CNN, Russia Today, Al Jazeera, and ARD participated in a panel discussion on “media convergence” according to CGTN’s own reports of the event.

The National Pulse has verified the attendance of Reuters’ John Pullman, then-Huffington Post editor (and now NBC editorial director) Jessica Prois, as well as CNN’s Andrew Stevens, the Associated Press’s Managing Editor Brian Carovillano, and the BBC’s Hong Kong Bureau Chief Vivian Wu.

In step with the 2017 conference’s theme ‘A Shared Future’, CGTN Controller Jiang Heping said in his keynote address: “In the media today, only integration can be the king.”

Wary of Chinese Communist Party propaganda and integration with Chinese government-sanctioned entities, the United States Justice Department registered CGTN as a foreign agent in early 2019 by a process known as The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), originally passed in 1938 to expose covert Nazi-influence campaigns in the United States.

Some have vehemently disavowed CGTN’s parent company – China Central Television (CCTV) – as a “long standing weapon in Beijing’s arsenal of repression.”

Freedom House’s Sarah Cook noted last September:

The broadcaster has achieved a truly global reach, meaning its content has the potential to shape the perceptions of hundreds of millions of people within and beyond China’s borders. The fact that this content is heavily distorted to suit the CCP’s political agenda poses a growing challenge for news consumers, regulators, journalists, advertisers, and others around the world.

Still, CCTV maintains close ties with the Chinese Communist Party and its officials.

CCTV’s President, Shen Haixiong, belongs to the Chinese Communist Party and currently serves as an alternate member of the Central Committee. Prior to his role at CCTV, Shen Haixiong led the Propaganda Department of Guangdong Province. [read more]

A gathering of the like-minded. The media that attended this summit are Commie-sympathizer useful idiots. Nothing’s really changed since then.

FBI Jan. 6 report sets off a firestorm: Why did it take 56 months to disclose 274 agents at Capitol?

From DNYUZ.com (Sept. 29):

The disclosure of 274 FBI special agents at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 has set off a firestorm of controversy, with FBI Director Kash Patel insisting that the agents only did “crowd control” and President Donald J. Trump saying he wants to identify all of the agents, who he said were “probably acting as Agitators and Insurrectionists.”

After 56 months of not disclosing the scope of the FBI’s presence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, a Sept. 25 leaked report from the House Select Subcommittee to Investigate the Remaining Questions Surrounding January 6 has turned into an online free-for-all — trying to assign blame and determine what the disclosure really means.

‘This was a mass entrapment scheme that was run and operated by the government.’

“It was just revealed that the FBI had secretly placed, against all Rules, Regulations, Protocols, and Standards, 274 FBI Agents into the Crowd just prior to, and during, the January 6th Hoax,” President Trump wrote on Truth Social. “… I want to know who each and every one of these so-called ‘Agents’ are, and what they were up to on that now ‘Historic’ Day.”

More than 360 FBI special agents and other staff from the Washington Field Office responded to the rapidly developing events at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6, including 274 special agents and 89 intelligence analysts and support staff, the leaked report says. The professional staff did not deploy to the Capitol. A report issued in December 2024 reported 26 FBI informants at the Capitol on Jan. 6, including four who went into the building.

After that news garnered millions of views on social media, Patel went to Fox News to “clarify” that the 274 agents were only there for “crowd control.”

Crowd control?

“Agents were sent into a crowd-control mission after the riot was declared by Metro Police – something that goes against FBI standards,” Patel told Fox News. “This was the failure of a corrupt leadership that lied to Congress and to the American people about what really happened.”

Metropolitan Police broadcast declaration of a riot over police radio at 2:22 p.m.

Patel’s attempt to tamp down the online furor from former Jan. 6 defendants who tried to get this information in their criminal cases didn’t work, with many saying they don’t believe Patel’s explanation.

“Where is the film of one agent doing crowd control? Where is one affidavit in court?” asked former Jan. 6 defendant Larry Brock Jr. “This story doesn’t fly. You definitely need a better PR team. There are cameras everywhere in D.C. Show us the videos of the Hoover building emptying.”

While there is ample video evidence of SWAT teams from the FBI, ATF, U.S. Marshals, Park Police, and other agencies sweeping the Capitol after 3 p.m. and escorting lawmakers to the subways, that is not the case with plainclothes FBI personnel. Their presence was most noticeable after 6 p.m., when no protesters were left in the Capitol Building.

The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General said there were no FBI undercover agents in the crowds on Jan. 6. That category is distinct from agents who are described as plainclothes. In the field, plainclothes agents would normally wear their badges on a lanyard or their belts. Some wear blue FBI windbreaker jackets with “FBI” stamped in yellow on the back. Agents who patrolled hallways of the Capitol office buildings before Congress reconvened late on Jan. 6 wore body armor with FBI patches.

Patel’s answer seemed a far cry from the expectations he set up in a May 18 interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox News.

FBI Director Kash Patel promised a “trove of information” about Jan. 6 on May 18, but no report has been forthcoming since.Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

“We’ve got answers coming. We just found a trove of information, and it’s on its way to Capitol Hill right now,” Patel said. “And they’ve asked, and they’re getting them, and you’re getting answers on January 6.

“You’re getting answers on what sourcing was utilized, what money was utilized, how many assets were utilized, who made those decisions — you’re getting it,” he said. “We can only control the FBI. But you’re getting it from the FBI.”

When Bartiromo asked, “Were there FBI agents under cover egging people on?” Patel replied, “Like I said, that answer is coming, and it’s on its way to Congress.”

Assistant FBI Director Dan Bongino cautioned that people should make the distinction between FBI agents and “assets.”

“I just hope when people put that information out there, they make the distinction,” Bongino said. “Not that it’s better or worse, but there’s a distinction there.”

No “trove of information” has been released since Patel’s interview May 18.

‘FBI provocateurs in the crowd. Peaceful Americans framed. Lives destroyed.’

FBI tactical teams flowed into the Capitol through the Hall of Columns south entrance after the 2:44 p.m. shooting of Ashli Babbitt by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd.

Security video shows FBI SWAT medics entered the Capitol at 2:49 p.m., turned right, and met a Capitol Police SWAT team that was carrying the mortally wounded Babbitt. The FBI medics set Babbitt on the floor and began lifesaving aid at 2:50 p.m. Babbitt was declared dead at a hospital at 3:15 p.m.

According to Capitol Police CCTV video, an armored vehicle of ATF agents arrived through the Capitol’s south barricade at 2:46 p.m. That ATF tactical team entered the Capitol through the South Doors at 2:48 p.m. [read more]

I hope the agents were only helping with crowd control and not agitating the protestors. I don’t the FBI is trained in crowd control. Somebody was agitating the crowd.

Russia Hoax Conspirator James Comey Indicted For Obstruction, Lying To Congress

From The Federalist.com (Sept. 25):

A grand jury indicted former FBI Director James Comey on Thursday on two counts: false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

The indictment, which was brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, centers on alleged false testimony Comey provided to Congress in September of 2020 about his handling of the Russia collusion hoax.

“On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United States, by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he … had not ‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1,” the indictment reads.

The indictment alleges such a statement was false since Comey “then and there knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.”

The indictment further alleges that Comey tried to “influence, obstruct and impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry … by making false and misleading statements before that committee.”

The charges arise from testimony Comey gave in 2020 when Sen. Ted Cruz questioned him about testimony he previously provided in 2017, in which he stated “he did not authorize leaking information regarding the FBI’s investigations into President Donald Trump or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” as described by NBC News. Comey told Cruz he stood by the testimony.

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said Comey was made aware of the leak of information to the press and essentially gave it the stamp of approval after the fact, a 2018 Justice Department inspector general’s report found.

Addressing the indictment, Attorney General Pam Bondi said, “No one is above the law” in a statement on X.

“Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.”

FBI Director Kash Patel issued a similar statement, saying: “For far too long, previous corrupt leadership and their enablers weaponized federal law enforcement, damaging once proud institutions and severely eroding public trust. Every day, we continue the fight to earn that trust back, and under my leadership, this FBI will confront the problem head-on.”

“Nowhere was this politicization of law enforcement more blatant than during the Russiagate hoax, a disgraceful chapter in history we continue to investigate and expose. Everyone, especially those in positions of power, will be held to account — no matter their perch,” Patel continued. [source]

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. He better hope there are no more indictments or his lawyer is really good. Then again, if the trial is held in DC, he'll probably get off knowing how much the people there hate President Trump.

Another article on the subject: Fmr FBI Director Comey Pleads Not Guilty in DOJ Case

Beware the Leaven of the Transsexuals

From Standing for Freedom.com (June 28, 2023):

What does an ingredient used to bake bread and today’s Alphabet People have in common?

Glad you asked.

Leaven in the Bible is one of those fascinating concepts.

God commands the Israelites, for instance, to use unleavened bread to commemorate their exodus from Egypt, yet later He tells them to consume only leavened bread to celebrate another of the Old Testament feasts, the “Feast of Weeks.”

At first glance, this dietary contrast could seem like an archaic practice that doesn’t have any significance for us right now other than to serve as theological fodder to impress the cute girl setting next to you in the church pews.

But that would be incorrect.

Biblically speaking, “leaven” has less to do about an ingredient that causes bread to rise and more to do with the worldview that influences the way we think and act.

It’s why Jesus instructed His disciples to “watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”  The disciples initially thought that Jesus was talking about food, but soon realized that “he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

Leaven, in other words, is a unique way of conveying a system of ideas that impacts the character of a person or society. This system will either give rise to a culture that glorifies Christ in its laws and customs or it will produce the opposite — a way of life that clashes with God’s design for humanity.

As such, we are to choose carefully the “ingredients” — read: ideas — that leaven our surroundings.

For parents, it can be the difference between a child who is vibrantly living in accordance with God’s Word and one who has turned away from the Faith to serve another master.

Which brings us to today’s unhinged transsexual zealotry.

It is a movement determined to get our kids to abandon the Faith and serve that other master.

It is a movement offering its own leaven in the hopes of producing hordes of children who, at best, are confused about basic biological reality and, at worst, are experimented upon like lab rats.

It is a movement, in the end, that has no misgivings about usurping the will of parents and elected leaders to get their way.

The Daily Mail recently published an explosive report chronicling how “dozens of midwestern teachers” conducted a workshop that “traded tips on helping trans students change gender at school without their parents’ knowledge.”

One Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) bureaucrat for the Royal Oaks Schools in Michigan boasted to her colleagues that “we’re working with our record-keeping system so that certain screens can’t be seen by the parents,” particularly if the child identifies as a different gender in the classroom than they do at home. Around 5,000 students, grades kindergarten through 12th grade, are in this school district.

Another “educator” out of Ohio encouraged the group to work “subversively and quietly sometimes to make sure that trans kids have what they need,” adding that the “stakes are very high for trans youth.”

Her example of a “subversive act,” according to the Daily Mail, is for teachers to be “wary of treating ‘reinforced heterosexuality as the norm’” when discussing “men, women, playground crushes, love, and marriage with youngsters[.]”

This strategy session was organized by the Midwest and Plains Equity Assistance Center, which has branches in at least a dozen states and received a cool $8.5 million from the Department of Education for their partnerships with public schools across the country.

One participant in the online gabfest unintentionally captured the worldview dynamics behind gender ideology when she admitted: “I have my own right code of ethics, and that doesn’t always go along with the law.” [read more]

The far-Left (Marxists) use the trans people as a way to destroy the family. The transsexuals are just political weapons to them. And sometimes real weapons.

Canada Is Not Only Euthanizing Persons but Personhood Itself

From The Public Discourse.com (Dec. 10, 2023):

In 2016, Canada legalized euthanasia for adults suffering severely and incurably near the end of life. Four years later, it legalized euthanasia for adults even if death is not “reasonably foreseeable.” Next year, euthanasia is set to become legal also for adults whose sole medical condition and source of suffering is mental illness. Recommendations have been made to legalize euthanasia for minors whose death is “reasonably foreseeable.” The organization that regulates physicians in the province of Quebec has suggested that euthanasia should be available for infants with severe disabilities or illnesses that render them unlikely to survive.

Between 2016 and 2022, close to 45,000 Canadians died through what is officially termed “medical assistance in dying,” or MAID. As of 2022, euthanasia was virtually tied with cerebrovascular disease as the fifth-leading cause of death in Canada (with only accidents, COVID-19, cancer, and heart disease causing more deaths). In each of the preceding years starting in 2016, the number of deaths by euthanasia grew significantly. Between 2019 and 2022, the average increase was just over thirty-one percent per year.

These statistics reveal disturbing truths about what happens when a society legalizes euthanasia. Canadians have been told by advocates, legislatures, and courts that euthanasia is a basic good. But in truth, euthanasia teaches that human dignity is degradable rather than enduring. It creates hierarchies of personhood by calling into question the worth and value of certain individuals based on their strengths and abilities—things that, by nature, are mutable. This is always and everywhere a fundamental injustice. In Canada, this injustice is surfacing in deeply damaging ways.

These warnings are not new. When, in 2021, Canada was about to expand euthanasia to scenarios in which death is not near, three UN officials—including the special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities—wrote to the Canadian government to express concerns about how this step would affect individuals in Canada living with disabilities. The authors noted that if euthanasia is “made available for all persons with a health condition or impairment, regardless of whether they are close to death, a social assumption might follow (or be subtly reinforced) that it is better to be dead than to live with a disability.”

This point is accurate, but it has a broader reach. When euthanasia is legalized, the social assumption that it is better to be dead than to continue living takes hold in all the scenarios in which euthanasia is legal. And one must ask: what factors would lead us to think that it is better to be dead than to continue living in these scenarios? Advocates for euthanasia will point to quality of life, autonomy, dignity, pain, and suffering. But the deeper message embedded in these advocates’ words is that some of us are no longer persons. If we find ourselves eligible for euthanasia, we are not really living anymore. And if that is true, euthanasia seems like a sensible choice. [read more]

Canada has become a death cult. Sad.