'Hurtful'

A post shared on X claims Israel dropped a nuke on Lebanon. ?BREAKING?: Israel bombs Lebanon with a NUCLEAR warhead dubbed “Baby NukeNuke”, in violation of International law and nearly ALL US/Israel defense funding requirements. The US @StateDept is monitoring & has refused to comment on the matter. pic.twitter.com/nkms2jXsfF — Lyle ?? (@LordNefty) September 21, 2024 […]

News Powerless Lauren Roberts’ Powerless Has TV Adaptation in Development In a world where those without special powers are banished… By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on September 25, 2024 Comment 0 Share New Share Lauren Roberts’ young adult romantasy Powerless has been picked up for a television series adaptation. According to Variety, Lyrical Media has picked up the project, with filmmaker Will Gluck (Anyone But You, Friends With Benefits, Peter Rabbit) attached. “I am thrilled by the prospect of seeing my dear characters come to life,” Roberts told Variety. “Powerless is a story I have envisioned in my mind for years, dreaming of the day I would watch it unfold on screen. I truly cannot wait to work with such capable teams to accomplish this dream.” Powerless came out in January 2023 and sold over one million copies in its first nine months of publication. It’s the first of a trilogy, with the second book, Reckless, out in July 2024 and the third book expected to come out some time in 2025. The first book centers on Paedyn, a woman who lives in the kingdom of Ilya, where all those without powers—the Ordinaires—were banished. Ilya is one of those Ordinaries but passes herself as an Elite—one with powers—by posing as a psychic. When she gets thrown into the Purging Trials, an event meant to laud people’s powers, she finds her life at risk even as she falls for a sexy Elite prince whose life she saved. The television series adaptation is still in its early days, so no news yet on what streaming platform or network the show may end up on, much less any casting news. [end-mark] The post Lauren Roberts’ <i>Powerless</i> Has TV Adaptation in Development appeared first on Reactor.

It’s Climate Week at the United Nations in New York, and the U.N. General Assembly on Sunday voted to phase out fossil fuels, at the same time abandoning its sustainable development goals of eliminating poverty and hunger. That’s because no nation has ever eliminated poverty and hunger without fossil fuels. Vice President Kamala Harris hasn’t commented on phasing out fossil fuels, but President Joe Biden is all in favor. On Monday, just after bragging about progress with the U.N.’s sustainable development goals before the General Assembly in New York, he said, “We’ve taken the most ambitious climate actions. We’ve moved to rejoin the 2015 Paris Agreement on Day One. And today, my country is finally on track to cut emissions in half by 2030 … .” His goal is to decarbonize the electricity grid by 2035 and achieve net zero by 2050. But those plans, if achieved, are incompatible with the U.N. sustainable development goals. Eliminating poverty is the first goal, while dealing with climate change is goal 13. After poverty elimination, in order, come zero hunger; good health and well-being; quality education; gender equality; clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; industry, innovation and infrastructure; and reduced inequalities. All of those require affordable energy. Modern industrialized societies have not only begun to demand affordable, reliable energy, but also to use it to operate everything from transportation and refrigeration to air conditioning and internet access. Advanced societies use energy to diminish poverty, increase agricultural productivity, decrease child mortality, and allow the generation of wealth needed to address pollution concerns. Conversely, lack of affordable and reliable energy is associated with a lack of access to clean water, adequate medical care, affordable transportation, and economic opportunities, all of which stall human advancement, especially in the most vulnerable countries. Access to food requires fertilizer and refrigeration. A blackout for a small grocery store owner means a loss of refrigeration, which means some food either has to be sold at fire-sale prices or left to spoil. Hospitals need energy, and in developed economies—and some emerging economies—many have backup generators. Gender equality requires technology to power water systems and machines that do away with the drudgery of household labor, such as clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, and vacuum cleaners. Even hair-dryers help women look their best while walking out to the coffee shop or to a job. The Biden-Harris net zero agenda would result in a loss of at least $7.7 trillion in gross domestic product through 2040. Moreover, this income loss would come without any changes in global temperatures. Even completely eliminating all fossil fuels from the United States would result in less than 0.2 of a degree Celsius in temperature mitigation by the year 2100. UnsustainableCostsDownload A 2023 Heritage Foundation report, “Powering Human Advancement,” shows that impoverished countries that use only about 500 kWh of energy per capita often have subsistence-level production and incomes of about $1,000 per year. When energy consumption eclipses 10,000 kWh per capita, there is a drastic decline in poverty, with a virtual eradication at about 100,000 kWh per capita. This relationship between economic development and energy use is so strong that there isn’t a single nation with a high per capita income and low per capita energy usage. Conversely, there isn’t a single country with high energy use per capita and low per capita income. Climate change is a future risk to be managed, but poverty is today’s global problem. An estimated 3 billion to 6 billion people lack electricity or running water, and they can’t get them with renewables. The U.N. General Assembly and the Biden-Harris administration should decide if they want to achieve their sustainable development goals of reducing poverty and hunger or if they want to eliminate fossil fuels. They can’t do both. The post Phasing Out Fossil Fuels Will Leave the Globe Poor, Hungry, and Sick appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Efforts to End Affirmative Action Could Take a While

Kamala to Finally Answer Questions ... From Reporter Who Didn't Want to Ask

New research could have a solution for two mysteries of Mars.

A congressional committee advanced a much-talked-about bill that seeks to protect children from potentially harmful online content after a long battle over Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) version that many suggested would have increased online censorship. The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the Kids Online Safety Act during a committee markup hearing on Sept. 18 led by Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA). The recently approved legislation stripped the controversial “duty of care” provisions that Democrats support and would have forced Big Tech companies to potentially censor even constitutionally protected free speech, critics suggested. Media Research Center President Brent Bozell applauded the House bill but cautioned conservatives. "Protecting children is extremely important, but we should not fall into the trap of allowing Big Tech to censor us, which we know will happen on issues like gender ideology and abortion,” Bozell said. “I support the current House bill. If the Senate’s censorship provisions are added to the bill under the cloak of darkness, conservatives will have to oppose it.” Dan Schneider, the vice president of MRC Free Speech America, echoed Bozell’s remarks in a separate statement. “Big Tech companies have used and abused children in really terrible ways. It is long overdue for Congress to take action against yet another of tech’s reprehensible practices,” he stated.  Schneider also pointed out the complexities of the battle as it related to potential threats to the U.S. Constitution. “Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Gus Bilirakis deserve a lot of praise, not only for taking on the tech titans but doing so in a way that also protects free speech rights,” he added. “Chuck Schumer and Richard Blumenthal’s Senate bill included provisions to coerce Big Tech to censor conservatives even more than they are already prone to do. The House must never allow a bill to advance to the House floor if Democrats put back in those censorship provisions.” Rodgers hailed the committee for advancing the proposed legislation in a statement, saying, “In the nearly 230-year history of this Committee, we have established a rich tradition of taking on the hard problems and delivering solutions for the American people. Today we will continue to build on that record of success.” Despite the bill’s bipartisan support—it passed in the Senate with a 91-3 vote— questions remain about whether Democrats will successfully influence Republicans to reinstate the “duty of care” censorship provisions during debates on the House Committee on Rules. During the markup hearing, several Democrats and Republicans appeared to hint at potential amendments. “We have continued to take a significant amount of feedback on this bill, and I've offered the Nays that I believe substantively respond to many concerns about speech regulation, censorship and overreach,” Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) said, before urging his colleagues to vote for the bill for now. Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) echoed Bilirakis’s remarks later in the hearing. “I think this is a good bill. Can it be improved? Absolutely. I've already spoken with Mr. Bilirakis about an amendment that, as I was reading through it, I realized there's a little amendment that needs to be made.” Read the House Energy and Commerce-approved legislation below: H R 7891 Kids Online Safety... by Luis Cornelio   Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr echoed the Media Research Center in a warning shared with Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck that the federal government is poised to do a massive and unprecedented favor to leftist billionaire George Soros.  On Tuesday’s edition of The Glenn Beck Program, Carr sounded the alarm that the FCC is about to help Soros snatch up hundreds of radio stations owned by Audacy. Carr made clear that Soros’s foreign-backed purchase of Audacy, America’s second-biggest radio company, would normally require a review process that could take over a year, far past the 2024 election. However, Carr disturbingly told Beck that the FCC has “for the very first time ever, has skipped that process.” George Soros is buying up HUNDREDS of radio stations before the election and @BrendanCarrFCC confirms the FCC is HELPING him: "We have a very clear process... to review the foreign ownership at issue here... the FCC Commission, for the very first time ever, has SKIPPED that… pic.twitter.com/E3gJ7hWMjI — Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) September 24, 2024 Earlier this year, Soros Fund Management purchased $400 million of Audacy’s debt or about a 40% stake in the company, taking over 16 50,000-watt radio stations that Audacy features or streams. In April 2024, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell admonished the FCC for failing to comply with its rules.  Bozell first petitioned the FCC not to give preferential treatment to Soros by granting his request to skip a required “public interest” review of his purchase. Following Audacy’s rebuttal to the MRC petition, Bozell wrote, “The Communications Act does not contain a special Soros shortcut,” while bringing up additional concerns about the negative impact on local radio stations. Carr agreed that such a move would be special treatment, telling Beck that the FCC had determined to make its first exception in history for Soros. “We have a very clear process set up at the FCC; it could take six months, it could take a year to review the foreign ownership at issue here. But for reasons that are not sort-of plain to me, the FCC commission, for the very first time ever, has skipped that process,” he warned. The FCC has apparently ignored precedent and the devastating case put together by Bozell in April. “The Soros filings fail to demonstrate that in this case any interest in the reasonably efficient emergence from bankruptcy cannot be accommodated while also assessing the foreign ownership interests at the same time,” Bozell stated then, before warning: “There is no question that George Soros and his affiliated businesses are looking to control these radio stations to advance their particular brand of activism.”  In his petition, the MRC president noted that Soros would be taking over “225 local radio stations in 46 markets," which makes it even more important for the FCC to conduct a thorough review.  Soros’s Audacy purchase follows years of heavily investing in media. As previously reported by MRC Business, Soros “gave $131,111,250 to journalism and media organizations around the globe” to push leftist positions on a range of issues between 2016 and 2020 alone.  Soros has also donated $492,000 to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) from 2017 to 2019. The IFCN coordinates with a vast network of fact-checkers, including The Associated Press, FactCheck.org, The Dispatch, The Washington Post and PolitiFact.  Beyond this, Soros has ties to 34 legacy and leftist media personalities, detailed extensively in a Media Research Center report “George Soros: Propaganda Powerhouse.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on Soros’ ties to American and global media.

MSNBC’s Jose Diaz-Balart was greatly confused on his Wednesday show why a growing number of Latinos are supporting Donald Trump. To help him find an answer, he welcomed contributor Paola Ramos to promote her new book on the subject, which boils down to some Latinos are also be anti-Latino racists. Diaz-Balart set the table, “Let's talk about Defectors: The Rise of the Latino Far Right and What It Means for America. So, among the things that you highlight in this book, which I agree with Stuart on, everybody’s got to get, is the growing number of Latinos, many immigrants or children of immigrants who oppose unrestricted immigration. Explain how that apparent dichotomy exists.”     Folks on the left often like to claim that the idea that they support “unrestricted immigration” is a strawman, but here is Diaz-Balart lamenting that a “growing number of Latinos” don’t support it. As for Ramos, she immediately began by ringing the alarm bells, “I think, just as a bottom line, and I think we should be alarmed at the idea that someone like Donald Trump, in a state like Arizona, is polling close to 40 percent with Latino voters.” In seeking to explain why, Ramos toyed with the idea that they are race traitors, “Part of that is because there is a small, but growing group of Latino voters that are warming up to the idea of mass deportation, and just to be very brief, I think what Trumpism is betting on is this idea that there's a segment of Latinos that have become so Americanized and so assimilated that they, too, can, sort of, tap into the nativism and they too can tap into the otherizing and the, sort of, us versus them game.” She also tried to claim that these Trump-supporting Latinos are just trying to appease the racists that also support Trump in hopes that they can avoid the hate: There's research out there to ground us in the fear that some Latinos are feeling in this moment. When you look at the way anti-Latino hate crimes have been rising over the last eight years, you know when it really spikes, when mainstream media, when Donald Trump, when politicians pay so much attention to this idea of an “invasion” at the Southern border, this idea of chaos, of immigrants being criminals and there are some Latinos that don't want to be lumped with immigrants, that want to protect themselves from that type of discrimination and hatred, and so that explains why some Latinos in the quest to prove they too are American would find something appealing in Trumpism. The unspoken assumption is that Latinos who immigrated legally are supposed to view themselves as analogues to people who rush the border or that they are supposed to be unconcerned with crime because the criminal is of the same race. That’s obviously ridiculous, and if Ramos truly believes that, she should be prepared to be “alarmed” far more frequently. Here is a transcript for the September 25 show: MSNBC Jose Diaz-Balart Reports 9/25/2024 11:53 PM ET JOSE DIAZ-BALART: Let's talk about Defectors: The Rise of the Latino Far Right and What It Means for America. So, among the things that you highlight in this book, which I agree with Stuart on, everybody’s got to get, is the growing number of Latinos, many immigrants or children of immigrants who oppose unrestricted immigration. Explain how that apparent dichotomy exists. PAOLA RAMOS: Look, I think, just as a bottom line, and I think we should be alarmed at the idea that someone like Donald Trump, in a state like Arizona, is polling close to 40 percent with Latino voters and part of that is because there is a small, but growing group of Latino voters that are warming up to the idea of mass deportation, and just to be very brief, I think what Trumpism is betting on is this idea that there's a segment of Latinos that have become so Americanized and so assimilated that they, too, can, sort of, tap into the nativism and they too can tap into the otherizing and the, sort of, us versus them game.  There's research out there to ground us in the fear that some Latinos are feeling in this moment. When you look at the way anti-Latino hate crimes have been rising over the last eight years, you know when it really spikes, when mainstream media, when Donald Trump, when politicians pay so much attention to this idea of an “invasion” at the Southern border, this idea of chaos, of immigrants being criminals and there are some Latinos that don't want to be lumped with immigrants, that want to protect themselves from that type of discrimination and hatred, and so that explains why some Latinos in the quest to prove they too are American would find something appealing in Trumpism.