If we were living in a simulation, what is in it for the simulators?

The International Space Station (ISS) is currently a problematic object in orbit. It suffers from cracks, coolant and air leaks, and just age, since it is already 25 years old. This makes the ISS a dangerous place for astronauts to stay. NASA has decided to “safely and under control” lower the ISS into the Earth’s atmosphere in 2031, where part of it will burn up, with the aim of sinking its debris into the Pacific Ocean. Some experts are beginning to question how safe this deadly plunge will be, since it could end up polluting the Earth’s air and water. The ISS’s controlled dive zone is located within the South Pacific Ocean, where there are no human settlements. This area is farther from land than any other point on Earth and is often referred to as the world’s largest spacecraft graveyard. However, the planned end of the ISS’s life is causing concern among scientists. Some researchers believe that debris from the station could heavily pollute the water and air as it descends through the atmosphere and falls into the ocean. NASA announced that it has selected SpaceX to develop a spacecraft that will help deorbit the International Space Station. The contract is worth nearly $850 million. NASA believes this is the best option for a controlled and safe disposal of the orbital station. Leonard Schulz of the Technical University of Braunschweig in Germany says that given the ISS’s mass (450 tonnes), the Earth’s atmosphere could be contaminated with huge amounts of harmful substances when the station burns up due to intense heat from friction with the air. The ISS is the largest space station ever built. Its primary purpose is to perform microgravity and space environment experiments. Luciano Anselmo of the Institute of Information Sciences and Technology in Pisa, Italy, believes that there is also some risk to ocean water, as it could be contaminated by debris from the ISS. But he says that even if the entire mass of the ISS were to fall into the ocean, it would be nothing compared to the mass of all the ships and cargo sunk over the decades, not to mention other waste polluting the aquatic environment. Anselmo believes that the greater threat from the ISS’s descent is to the Earth’s upper atmosphere, but it is difficult to assess the negative impacts at this point. But representatives of organizations that protect the aquatic environment believe that space debris from the ISS crash could pose a major threat to the waters of the Pacific Ocean. Many experts point out that there is still no international legal framework that would control the descent of inoperative spacecraft to Earth. Darren McKnight of LeoLabs, which monitors space activity to identify threats to spacecraft safety, says many experts are more concerned about the water environment than the space environment. But if spacecraft are not re-entered under control, it could be a major disaster. If no one pays to keep the ISS in orbit, it won’t be able to maneuver and will be easily hit by space debris. Then the station could just fall anywhere, McKnight says. According to McKnight, it would be possible to dismantle the ISS in orbit and float it down into the ocean in pieces. Or it could be sent to a higher orbit. But both options are very expensive. The post NASA Is Going To Destroy The ISS By Crashing The Station To Earth appeared first on Anomalien.com.

Introducing an interview with left-wing author Joshua Green, PBS News Hour co-anchor Geoff Bennett made a rare media admission: “Much has been made of the far right’s strong sway over the GOP and its agenda. But what doesn’t get nearly as much attention is the far left’s influence in the Democratic Party.”  Bennett could be describing his very own News Hour, PBS’s flagship weeknight news program. The “far left” certainly doesn't gain attention on taxpayer-funded PBS, at least not under that label. PBS was “far” more likely to use hostile ideological terminology to describe right-leaning groups, personalities, or policies. MRC analysts studied the labels used by anchors, reporters and contributors on the PBS News Hour regarding American politics from June 1, 2023 to November 30, 2024. We did not include PBS News Weekend programs.The difference in labeling was stark.  Key Findings: ■ PBS staff used 162 variations of “far right” labels and only six “far left” labels, an astounding ratio of 27 to 1. ■ PBS staff also used mere "right-wing" and "left-wing" labels at a disparity of 33 to 6. So overall, the labeling disparity was 195 to 12. ■ Fascist Trump, Communist Harris: Independent of the labeling counts above, PBS staff and guests employed 17 total “fascist” labels of Donald Trump, compared to three for Kamala Harris as “communist,”  with two of those three denying she was one. Even that stark 27:1 ratio understates the full extent of the slant. “Right” labels were often targeted at specific people or groups and conveyed a sense of menace. The rare “left” labels were often merely quotes from the Republican campaign trail or amorphous descriptions that lacked the specificity or warning connotation of the right labels, or were loaded with caveats.  PBS also failed to apply “left” labels to the guests invited on to lament, unopposed, about Trump using extremist rhetoric of having extremist immigration proposals, or Republican legislation limiting abortion or transgender "health care." In fact, those guests turned around and contributed their own labeling bias, though the slant was not as stark as from PBS reporters.   PBS Reporters: “far-right” labels vs “far-left” labels: 64-2 Far-right examples: News Hour co-anchor Amna Nawaz lamented on June 2, 2023, during the drawn-out House GOP leadership fight: “….there were a lot of questions about how Speaker McCarthy would be able to handle the far-right members of his conference in particular.” PBS reporter Laura Barron-Lopez on September 12, 2023: “And far-right Republicans have threatened a shutdown and McCarthy's gavel if their list of demands, including an impeachment inquiry, go unmet….The White House is again saying that there is no evidence, that this is -- quote -- 'extreme politics.' And to Heather's point about the list of demands that these far-right conservatives are issuing in exchange for funding the government, the White House is very eager to latch on to that and say that this is extreme Republicans trying to potentially cause a government shutdown in exchange for an impeachment inquiry, in exchange for these — a host of all these other demands.” Nawaz’s fellow co-anchor Geoff Bennett said in a September 26, 2023 interview with Vice President Kamala Harris: “… as House Republicans fight among themselves over whether or how to extend government funding, it appears likely that the House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, who's already slammed his far-right flank, as trying to burn down the House, that he might need help from Democrats.” On October 25, 2023, Bennett said to guest Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa): “Mike Johnson is more genial than Jim Jordan, but he's no less a hard-liner. He is on the far right of the spectrum when it comes to issues like reproductive rights, same-sex marriage.” Bennett waded into the supposed Supreme Court flag controversy on May 29, 2024: “U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito told lawmakers today he won't recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 presidential election or the January 6 Capitol riot. That's despite concerns about two flags associated with far-right causes that have flown over his properties.” Barron-Lopez questioned hard-left Yale professor Jason Stanley on November 27, 2024: “What could a second Trump term mean in terms of emboldening extremists or those who hold far-right views about the future of the country?” Far-left: Occasionally centrist commentator David Brooks came up with one of his almost reluctant uses of a “left” label on August 30, 2024. Reflecting on the 2019 Democratic primary debates, he noted that “the Democratic Party moved pretty far left on a whole bunch of issues in ways that I thought were politically suicidal, decriminalizing the border, obviously the defunding the police, the ban on fracking.”    “Hard-right" vs “hard-left” labels: 16-1 Hard-right: Nawaz on October 2, 2023 documented one of the last acts of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who kept the government open, having “sidestepped the hard-right flank of his party and pushed through a temporary spending bill with the help of Democrats.” Covering the race to replace McCarthy, here’s congressional reporter Lisa Desjardins on October 17, 2023: “In Congress, Jordan was a founding member of the hard-right Freedom Caucus, where he gained a reputation for forgoing suit jackets and for his combative in-your-face style of politics.” They did not describe the Congressional Black Caucus or the Congressional Progressive Caucus as "hard-left."  After Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) cited the “hard right….in the Freedom Caucus,” on the January 8, 2024 edition, Desjardins repeated the partisan Democrat’s hostile formulation: “Yes, but again, that hard right, however you want to describe them, Freedom Caucus really will be an issue in terms of getting the votes….” Hard-left:  This barely counts as a negative label, as David Brooks managed to sound sympathetic talking of the pro-Hamas mobs on college campuses on April 26, 2024: “So I think most of the protesters are appalled by the horrors the Palestinians are suffering and they're well-motivated by compassion. There are some people who are probably hard-left people, and they get to have their views.”    "Extreme right" vs "extreme left": 57-3 Extreme Right: Two groups that could actually be called “extreme,” The Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, were granted that label by both anchors, Bennett and Nawaz, on the June 1, 2023 program. Yet PBS reporters have also used the label to smear  conservative groups like Moms for Liberty. On Independence Day 2023, co-anchor Amna Nawaz unwittingly revealed PBS’s gross labeling standards when she called the anti-Israel elimination terror group Hamas “extremist” (obviously before the October 7 attacks), then applied that same word, on the same program, to non-racist “militias” that celebrated 1776 and the Founding Fathers! Nawaz used two separate labels while introducing a report by congressional reporter Lisa Desjardins: “The American Revolution and the Founding Fathers, two parts of U.S. history celebrated on July Fourth. In recent years, they have also become political and ideological tools, including at times of some extremist groups on the right.” While interviewing Hillary Clinton on October 3, 2023, Bennett pivoted off Clinton’s reference to “extreme members” of the Republican caucus with this repetitive softball: “On this matter of extremists within the GOP, President Biden has said that the Trump Republicans, the MAGA Republicans, as he puts it, are semi-fascists, and that there's this growing authoritarian strain in the Republican Party. Do you see it that way? And what's the best way to remedy that, if you do see it that way?” On November 8, 2023, Bennett forwarded a charge by the discredited radical leftists at Southern Poverty Law Center: “In yesterday’s election, voters across the country pushed back on the group called Moms for Liberty. They say they’re a parental rights organization. The Southern Poverty Law Center says that they’re an extremist group.”  Anchor Nawaz talked to Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on February 5, 2024 about Democrats supposedly caving on immigration legislation: “You have faced some criticism from your fellow Democrats as well, progressives in particular. The caucus chair, Pramila Jayapal, said Democrats are giving into extremist views."  Extreme Left: As previously noted, even the few lefty labels tabulated were often just anchors repeating Donald Trump or J.D. Vance’s campaign rhetoric, often with a note of disapproval. PBS wouldn’t have dared call Kamala Harris “extreme” directly, the way the News Hour was comfortable doing with Republicans. NPR’s White House correspondent and PBS commentator Tamara Keith announced on July 22, 2024: “There is a well of energy that exists for Harris and who she is and the history she could make. Republicans also want to tap into that and paint her as extreme.”    “Hard-line” right vs “hard-line” left: 25-0 Most stark was the use of “hard-line,” employed by PBS staff 25 times against conservative policies or personalities during the study period, compared to zero occasions for liberal ones. (Two guests also referred to conservatives as “hard-line.”) Lisa Desjardins packed an impressive amount of labels into her March 21, 2024 story: "Hard-liners say the disorder is within GOP leadership, that they skirt rules and bend or break pledges. But the majority of Republicans I speak with say, no, the issue is the hard-liners, that they demand untenable positions, like allowing a government shutdown. Some hard-liners see shutdowns as leverage, even right at this moment, Amna, and others see them as a disaster.” Here’s Bennett on November 11, 2024, after Trump’s victory: “And the president-elect is also expected to formally name Stephen Miller as his deputy chief of staff for policy in the coming days. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance confirmed the selection on the social media site X. Miller worked as an adviser during Mr. Trump's first term and is known as an immigration hard-liner.”   PBS Reporters: “right-wing” vs. “left-wing: 33-6 Right-wing: PBS host John Yang talked with NPR media reporter David Folkenflik about Rupert Murdoch’s right-leaning media empire on September 21, 2023. Folkenflik ranted: “The legacy that endures is sort of the success and the fun at times of his right-wing populism, but also the punitive and pugilistic nature of it that has been ultimately quite corrosive, not only to our sense of what fair play is in journalism in this country and in some of the others, like the U.K. and Australia, in which he was so dominant.”  Bennett chatted with then-Washington Post reporter Devlin Barrett on the November 7, 2023 edition on an emerging liberal bogeyman, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025: “And you report that much of the planning for a second Trump term has been outsourced to this group of right-wing think tanks dubbed Project 2025.” Bennett on May 17, 2024: “Texas Governor Greg Abbott has pardoned a man convicted of fatally shooting a Black Lives Matter protester in the summer of 2020. Abbott had faced pressure to issue the pardon from white right-wing conservatives, including then Fox News host Tucker Carlson.” The same evening, reporter Stephanie Sy questioned Austin-American Statesman investigative reporter Tony Plohetski about Abbott’s pardon: “….critics say this is politics, and you had right-wing pundits like Tucker Carlson calling for this for a year.” Left-wing: Even the few left-wing references came with caveats. On February 15, 2024, substitute anchor John Yang hemmed and hawed to Shaun Harper, Executive Director of the USC Race and Equity Center: “Shaun, I don't want to put words into Greg's mouth [Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression], but I have heard others argue against DEI, saying that colleges and universities are essentially indoctrinating students in sort of left-wing views. What do you say to that?” On August 6, 2024, Bennett used one of the liberal media’s favorite words to neutralize Trump’s criticism of the “left-wing” Kamala Harris-Tim Walz ticket: “The Trump campaign is already pouncing, calling [Tim Walz] dangerously liberal and saying that the Harris/Walz ticket is the most left-wing ticket in American history.” One of the very few genuine “left” labels aired -- not a quote, not one made sarcastically or dismissively -- was Bennett on the June 24, 2024 show talking to USA Today reporter Francesca Chambers about an upcoming Democratic primary race, in which more moderate Democrat George Latimer would defeat radical Democrat incumbent Jamaal Bowman: “Francesca, without reading too much into any one race, I mean, how much will this tell us about the strength of the Democrats’ left-wing faction."   Labeling Disparity by Guests: 52 right to 19 left Guests interviewed on the PBS News Hour also unloaded ideological labels upon conservatives and Republicans, though not at quite the same sharp tilt as the PBS crew. The right-left label disparity from PBS guests (often political journalists) was 52-19. For example, Dr. Peter Hotez complained that the government's COVID response faced "an entire ecosystem of elected officials on the far right, together with Fox News and other outlets."   SIDEBAR: “Fascist” Trump vs.” Communist” Kamala PBS’s labeling disparity wasn’t limited to the terms above. A “fascist” smear campaign against Donald Trump came to a head after October 22, 2024 comments made by John Kelly, the retired Marine general who served as Trump’s White House chief of staff, claiming the former president fit “into the general definition of fascist.” PBS relished using Kelly’s quotes to smear Trump as a “fascist,” without caveats or hesitation.  Desjardins on October 23, 2024: “In scathing comments in audio interviews with The New York Times, Kelly said Trump, behind the scenes, displayed the tendencies of a fascist.” Bennett repeated it that same night: “As we just heard, retired Four-Star General John Kelly, who was one of Donald Trump’s White House chiefs of staff, told The New York Times, Donald Trump would rule like a fascist if reelected.” PBS didn’t let up. Here’s Bennett on October 25: "John Kelly, Donald Trump's longest-serving White House chief of staff, told The New York Times that he believed Donald Trump met the definition of a fascist, that he would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of the rule of law.” Barron-Lopez got in some last licks against Trump on November 4, the day before Election Day, that Kamala Harris "was repeatedly quoting former Trump officials like his longest-serving Chief of Staff John Kelly, as well as the former Joints Chief of Staff. And their words, as they described him as -- they described Donald Trump as fascist and as dangerous.” In all, 10 NewsHour reporters and seven guests labeled Trump or his policies as “fascist,” often in the course of repeating Kelly’s accusation, with no criticism that the label was a smear or an extreme exaggeration, save a typically mild comment from David Brooks. Only during PBS’s special Election Night coverage, with Trump cruising toward victory, did PBS’s resident poll-watcher Amy Walter mildly suggest that calling Trump a fascist perhaps hadn’t been an effective tactic for the Democrats.  In contrast, PBS fiercely resisted when the Trump camp referred to Kamala Harris as “Comrade Kamala” or her or Democrats in general as “Communist.” The description aired a total of three times, each time by a PBS staffer -- and two of those three happened in the course of denying Harris was a communist! On June 6, 2024, Barron-Lopez said that referring to Democrats as Marxist or communists were “common slurs” by Republicans.  Desjardins assured viewers on July 22, 2024 that Republicans were wrong about Harris: “Obviously, [Harris] is someone who is a part of a democratic republic. She is not a communist. But that is something that they’re going to try and tag her with.” The labeling disparity documented in this study goes beyond the standard media tilt of “liberal” and “conservative” labeling, and is a grossly inappropriate stance for a tax-funded network with a congressional mandate to maintain "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.”     Methodology: MRC analysts tabulated every use of the phrases “far right, “hard right,” “right wing, “far left,” “hard left,” “left wing,” “extreme,” “hard-line,” fascist,” and “communist” (and all variations of those phrases, i.e. with or without hyphens or spaces) pertaining to political figures, policies, and movements in American politics, that were said on air by PBS News Hour staffers (anchors, reporters, commentators, and occasional substitute commentators) during the 18 months up to and after the 2024 election (June 1, 2023 – November 30, 2024). Labels spoken by guests were also counted. Clips of politicians or other talking heads using the labels were not included.

The tire fire inside a dumpster fire that is CNN NewsNight showed within minutes Monday of its nearly 20-minute opening block why it’s an insult to civil discourse as, led by the smarmy host Abby Phillip, conservatives Scott Jennings and former Congressman Scott Taylor (R-VA) were shouted down for calling out the lies and hypocrisy of President Biden for pardoning son Hunter. Jennings drew the ire of the other panelists — Phillip, Congressman Jamaal Bowmawn (D-NY), and leftist commentator Leigh McGowan — for his usual crime of sharing facts (click “expand”):     JENNINGS: NBC News reported that the President and his top aides met this summer and decided two things, that they were going to keep this option open, that they were going to publicly maintain that they would not pardon Hunter Biden through statements from Joe Biden and statements from the White House press secretary. They had a meeting, they coordinated the lie, I guess for political purposes, and now that he’s leaving office, he is going back on what he told the American people. This isn’t simply changing your mind. This is just fulfilling what you always intended to do. No Republican is shocked that he is doing this. What I am shocked at is the duplicity of the president of the United States and his top aides to come together and form this lie and stick to it this entire time. We all knew it was ridiculous and now the American people are seeing what a disgrace he really is. PHILLIP: Scott! MCGOWAN: I think it’s incredibly rich to have you say that people got together and they were duplicitous — JENNINGS: I didn’t say it! MCGOWAN: — and they created a lie. JENNINGS: NBC News said it. NBC News said it. MCGOWAN: I’m saying they created a lie because —  JENNINGS: NBC News. MCGOWAN: — honestly, what the other side has been saying for years, what — what you guys ran on for president is — was multiple lies. I mean, if — Eric Holder said it right, I think, he said if Hunter’s name was Joe Smith, this case would probably have never even gone to trial — right — that it was always a political witch hunt, and it was always a political witch hunt. JENNINGS: Who’s Justice Department brought the case? MCGOWAN: And it was always — PHILLIP: But wasn’t it — to Scott’s point, I mean, wasn’t it a lie? I mean, you can defend it, but wasn’t it a lie that he was not going to pardon his son? MCGOWAN: No. I believe the circumstances have changed. FORMER CONGRESSMAN SCOTT TAYLOR (R-VA): What circumstances have changed? McGowan then waged this cockamamie drivel that the President genuinely changed his mind about not pardoning his son because “we have now have a president coming into office who’s talking about firing squads, who’s talking about running people around the country and making sure that everyone who’s his enemy is going to be punished and Hunter Biden lied about his drug use on a government forum when he was buying a gun and he failed to file and pay taxes when he was a drug addict.” Representing the sane part of America, this caused Jennings to role his eyes and throw his head back in disgust, triggering a lifetime of memes (and even led to Jennings changing the banner photo of his X profile). Taylor was thrown through the fire for the transgression of pointing out Hunter received an 11-year “full and unconditional pardon” for all the things on his laptop, including drugs and sex and possibly “hundreds of crimes.” Amid shouts from Bowman, McGowan, and Phillip, Taylor pointed to the fact that the pardon started in “January 2014, just when, of course, he joined the board of Burisma, so, in my opinion, I think you’ll see more pardons” of those “actually tied to some of the things that potentially showed that Joe Biden benefited from monies that were coming out of” his business dealings. Phillip clutched her pearls in her pathetically shocked voice, declaring Taylor was “losing” her “because the Trump administration had an opportunity to investigate it. They could not verify the things that you’re alluding to.” Jennings jumped in for an assist to help Taylor: “They tried to, and he got impeached over it. They impeached Donald Trump over the investigation that Hunter Biden has now gotten a pardon for.” Bowman also clutched pearls as the failing congressman looks for a new job, claiming Hunter Biden was the victim of the “witch hunt” and only “charged because his name is Hunter Biden, not because his name is Hunter Smith or Hunter Jones.”     Jennings hilariously tried to ask him “who runs the Justice Department,” but Phillip put a squash to that smackdown. What felt like an eternity later, Jennings stated the clear fact that “[t]he Department of Justice investigations, indictments into Hunter Biden, this has nothing to do with the Republican Party” seeing as how the Republicans aren’t even in charge of the executive branch. Obama U.S. Attorney Elliot Williams tried to have it both ways, accusing Bowman and Jennings of equally “using hyped up rhetoric,” but largely sided with Bowman that Hunter Biden was unfairly prosecuted. McGowan and Phillip tried to change the subject, using whataboutism to argue Trump’s pardons in his first term were far worse. Fortunately, Jennings stepped into lower the boom (click “expand”):     MCGOWAN: — into an example because he’s Hunter Biden. And Joe Biden is saying, you know what? That’s enough. We’ve done enough. You’re going to look 11 years back into his life. You’re going to look into his future. You’re going to make sure that you ruin the life of my last and only son — BOWMAN: This is why —  MCGOWAN: — and we have to remember — can I just say, we have to remember that Trump’s pardon list from his last administration when he was leaving office included literal bank robbers, drug dealers, embezzlers, murderers. You can go to justice.gov and see all the people that Trump — PHILLIP: Oh, Okay. Let me ask you this, Scott, because this is a fair point. Donald Trump pardoned Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, George Papadopoulos, Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn. Joe Biden’s also not the first person to pardon a family member, Hunter Biden, Charles Kushner, Donald Trump did that one too, Roger Clinton was pardoned, President Clinton’s half brother. Emily Todd Helm, Abraham Lincoln’s wife’s half sister was pardoned. So, are we — are we saying we have a problem with all of those things? JENNINGS: How many — how many of — how many of the Trump children that we were told are corrupt —  PHILLIP: No, no. I know. JENNINGS: — that got — needed pardons? Zero. PHILLIP: Scot — Scott — okay — MCGOWAN: [INAUDIBLE SHOUTING] — $2 billion from the Saudis. PHILLIP: — to your point — to your point — to your point, Scott, the Trump children did not face federal charges, to your point. I’m going to give you that. But the person on here, Charles Kushner, who was convicted for a crime. JENNINGS: Did he go to jail? PHILLIP: Yes. MCGOWAN: Yes. PHILLIP: But he was given a pardon. JENNINGS: Oh, he served — PHILLIP: But he was pardoned. MCGOWAN: He was living in an Alabama apartment. JENNINGS: — he served time? MCGOWAN: He was in prison. It’s completely different crimes. JENNINGS: It strikes me — it strikes me that one of the arguments against this pardon — MCGOWAN: He’s literally moved from a jail cell in Alabama. PHILLIP: So, you didn’t answer the question. Are those things — JENNINGS: — what? No, in my mind they’re not equivalent. They’re not equivalent in any way, shape, or form. PHILLIP: — guys, hold on a second. JENNINGS: — but — it strikes — and  you’re bringing up an issue and you brought it up, so I want to address it, this idea that Hunter Biden is being selectively prosecuted. Now, one of the core criticisms of the Republicans and Trump specifically during the Biden years is that the Department of Justice is engaging in selective prosecution investigations of Republicans and today, what I hear Democrats saying is, you know what? You’re right. Joe Biden’s DOJ does engage in selective prosecutions, which is exactly why we need people to come in and clean it out now. There seems to be bipartisan consensus. Select — selective prosecutions! McGowan tried to go down the sympathy route, lamenting Trump somehow rigged the justice system and “changed” “the rules of the game,” so the President was right to save his son. Williams had a moment of sanity, conceding Joe shouldn’t have spent months saying he wouldn’t pardon his son since there was always a chance Trump would win in November. Jennings agreed and noted Joe had a “given such an oddly specific denial numerous times,” signaling the age-old issues in politics of “corruption, partisanship, [and] grifting.” Once again, Phillip lost her noodle, arguing Jennings was disingenuous for saying the President should have been honest since “either way, you would have been up in arms.” Amid even more cross-talk with Bowman trying to inject Trump’s criminal trials and — wait for it — January 6 into the equation, Taylor did some schooling of his own with the fact that those things have “nothing to do with” Hunter Biden. He didn’t get very far as Phillip shouted from a proverbial fainting couch about the need for “context” disguised as punditry that Trump’s a very bad man (click “expand”): TAYLOR: That’s a nice story, but it has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Just today, the special prosecutor in Hunter Biden’s case came out and refuted the allegations in President Biden saying that it’s a political witch hunt. He said there’s no evidence whatsoever of that, of a political witch hunt. This is the special prosecutor in Hunter Biden’s case. He came out and said that today. In my opinion, like I said, I’m a father. I understand why he did it, but he absolutely lied numerous times. He had a lot of folks from your side of the aisle. BOWMAN: No change of mind, man? TAYLOR: Hold on a second. BOWMAN: You don’t change your perspective based on new context? TAYLOR: A lot of — PHILLIP: Hold on. Hold on. Let’s let him finish his sentence. BOWMAN: What are we talking about? TAYLOR: There’s nothing new here. But one of the things that he did do — [BOWMAN LAUGHS] — to say, was he had folks from your side of the aisle come on this program, not this program, excuse me, on CNN, this network many, many times saying he’s not going to do it, he’s not going to do it and they look pretty bad today — PHILLIP: Okay, yeah. Well, okay — let me give the context — TYALOR: — of course and I think, let me just let me just finish that point. One of the biggest things that this does, the country is already — and you mentioned a little bit of this, the country’s already skeptical of the integrity of government and all this does is undermine it even more. PHILLIP: — okay. I — I sort of take that point. I mean, here’s — here’s the thing. I think there’s a critique about how President Biden did this. I think the idea that suddenly he was the one to abuse the pardon power does not pass the smell test, but on this question of what has really changed, I mean, haven’t we known all along that Donald Trump was going to put in place people at the Justice Department if he won, which we always knew was a possibility, who would go after Trump’s political enemies, who would go after the so-called deep state? That was a known thing. So, I don’t see how that context has really changed. We’ve already known that. TAYLOR: I think you’re conflating a little bit of retribution with accountability. PHILLIP: Well — well — JENNINGS: Accountability. TAYLOR: That’s what you’re conflating here. That’s what continues to be conflated. PHILLIP: I’m just saying, Scott, seeing it from, you know, Congressman Bowman’s perspective, if the concern is all these people are going to go after Hunter Biden, it was a known thing that that could happen if Donald Trump was elected. Nothing has changed. Jennings made an attempt at turning the tables back towards some balance, asking McGowan and Bowman if, since they believe the Justice Department is corrupt, Attorney General Merrick Garland should be canned by President Biden. Of course, neither lefty would answer him (click “expand”) JENNINGS: Can I ask a question? Do you all think that Merrick Garland should be fired because of this corruption at the DOJ? MCGOWAN: Again, I don’t think there’s corruption at the DOJ. I think the concern is the future DOJ is going to be corrupted. JENNINGS: Because — You think there’s corruption there. You think this was a politicized witch hunt — MCGOWAN: No. JENNINGS: — but the attorney general should be held accountable. No? [MCGOWAN SIGHS] BOWMAN: These charges were trumped up because his name is Hunter Biden. JENNINGS: But wouldn’t that — wouldn’t you — if you were the president, wouldn’t you relieve the attorney general? MCGOWAN: He had congressional — PHILLIP: Hold on. MCGOWAN: — you were — BOWMAN: Let’s consult — let’s consult our legal expert at the desk. WILLIAMS: No, I just — JENNINGS: If you thought there was — BOWMAN: Please repeat what you said earlier. JENNINGS: — you thought there was corruption — WILLIAMS: I am not talking about corruption at the Justice Department. I don’t believe it’s fair. BOWMAN: [INAUDIBLE] JENNINGS: — no, I’m saying if — if someone — WILLIAMS: Don’t pull me into your fight about [INAUDIBLE] BOWMAN: Hundreds of thousands of people have misrepresented themselves on these applications, never charged. Hunter Biden does. WILLIAMS: No. I think, I think that is an unassailable fact — well, pardon me — I know it is an unassailable fact that hundreds of thousands of people misrepresent information on gun applications and are not charged. Click here to see the full transcript of the CNN debacle, including how the so-called conversation eventually ended.

Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealth Group’s insurance unit, was fatally shot in a possible targeted attack outside a New York City hotel Wednesday morning, CNBC reported, citing an individual familiar with the matter.The New York Times reported that police believe Thompson was targeted in the attack.Citing police sources, the New York Post reported that a masked gunman allegedly was waiting for Thompson, opened fire at him repeatedly, and fled eastbound off Sixth Avenue.The shooting took place outside the Hilton Hotel in midtown Manhattan, CNBC said.A New York Police Department spokesperson confirmed that a 50-year-old male was shot in front of 1335 Avenue of the Americas at 6:46 a.m., CNBC said, adding that the spokesperson didn't confirm the male's identity.The NYPD formal report said the male suffered a gunshot wound to the chest, the news network said, adding that he was unconscious and unresponsive upon arrival at Mount Sinai West hospital and in critical condition; he was later pronounced dead.No arrests have been made, and an investigation is ongoing, CNBC said, citing the NYPD report.The suspect is described as a white male wearing a black hoodie, black pants, black sneakers with a white trim, and a gray backpack who was using a gun with a silencer, the individual familiar with the matter told the news network.UnitedHealth Group was hosting its investor day at the hotel, CNBC said, adding that the insurance giant canceled the day's activities after reports of the shooting came to light. Thompson led UnitedHealthcare, the largest private health insurer in the United States, the news network noted.UnitedHealth Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment, CNBC said, adding that the company didn't confirm the shooting during its investor day.“I’m afraid that we — some of you may know we’re dealing with very serious medical situation with one of our team members. And as a result, I’m afraid we’re going to have to bring to a close the event today, which I’m sure you’ll understand," UnitedHealth Group staff said during the investor day, according to the news network, citing a transcript. Citing police sources, the New York Post reported that a masked gunman allegedly was waiting for Thompson, opened fire at him repeatedly, and fled eastbound off Sixth Avenue.Witnesses added to the Post that suspect had been spotted milling around near the hotel on Sixth Avenue.Police sources added to the Post that when the suspect spotted Thompson, he began to fire from a distance, striking him multiple times. The suspect then fled through the Ziegfeld alley and used a bicycle to escape, the Post reported.Sources noted to the Post that the shooter wasn’t a hotel guest, but it's not clear if he had other business there.The Post, citing Thompson's LinkedIn account, said he had worked with UnitedHealthcare for the last 20 years, became CEO in 2021, and was based at its Minnetonka, Minnesota, offices.This is a developing story.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democratic challenger Adam Gray defeated Republican incumbent Rep. John Duarte in California's 13th congressional district on Tuesday, one month after Election Day. Gray unseated the freshman GOP lawmaker by just 187 votes, making this rematch a reversal of their 2022 face-off. California's 13th congressional district was the final congressional race to be called, solidifying the partisan split in the House. Republicans now hold 220 seats while Democrats hold 215. The Republican majority is expected to be even slimmer at the start of the 119th Congress due to three expected vacancies. "I'm honored to become the Congressman-elect for California's 13th Congressional District," Gray said in an X post on Tuesday. "The final results confirm this district is ready for independent and accountable leadership that always puts the Valley's people ahead of partisan politics." "But the work has just begun," Gray continued. "In Washington, I'll work every day to deliver the resources that the Valley needs: clean water, better educational opportunities, stronger infrastructure, and more good-paying jobs. And you can count on me to build bipartisan relationships to accomplish these goals." Democrats also flipped California's 45th congressional district, with Democratic challenger Derek Tran defeating incumbent Republican Rep. Michelle Steel, chipping away at the GOP's already slim majority in the House. The Republican majority is expected to be even slimmer at the start of the 119th Congress due to three expected vacancies. Former Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida resigned in November amid his bid for attorney general, although he later withdrew. Republican Rep. Mike Waltz of Florida is also set to resign on January 20, Inauguration Day, after being tapped by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as national security adviser in the upcoming administration. Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York was also recruited by Trump to serve as ambassador to the United Nations, although she has not yet confirmed when she will resign. The two Florida seats are set to be filled via special election on April 1. If all three seats are simultaneously vacant, Republicans will be operating with a slim majority of 217 while Democrats hold 215 seats. Under these circumstances, Republicans could afford to lose only one single vote from their party. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Former co-workers of defense secretary nominee and combat veteran Pete Hegseth are going on the record to say the latest report from NBC News about Hegseth's alleged behavior at Fox News is false and that the way the reporters wrote the story proves it. The report from NBC News claims, via anonymous sources, that Hegseth's excessive drinking habits concerned people who worked on "Fox & Friends Weekend." Co-host Will Cain, who worked with Hegseth until he was nominated, told NBC News on X, "Your story is horsesh*t. ... Put my name on it. On the record. It’ll be your only on the record source. Signed, the guy who sat next to him for 8 hours every week for five years starting at 6am." 'Running a hit piece on a man that's solely based on anonymous sources is cowardly and isn't journalism.' Fellow host Rachel Campos-Duffy revealed the NBC News reporters did not reach out to her for comment, even though she would be a good source to say whether the claims were true. "The losers at [NBC News] never reached out to me either. [Will Cain] is right - your story IS horsesh*t. You now have 2 people who sat next to him 8+ hours a week on the record," Campos-Duffy said. "Will you retract or correct your story?" "I've guest co-hosted with him numerous times before. Not once did this happen. Not once have I heard this from others. This is such a disgusting and false smear. It is wrong and malicious," Fox News contributor Lisa Boothe posted on X. It's not just on-air talent who have come to Hegseth's defense. Breanna Morello, a former producer at Fox News, said, "I've never heard a negative remark about Hegseth--until now." Morello wrote a letter that she is sending to all senators to help set the record straight because "running a hit piece on a man that's solely based on anonymous sources is cowardly and isn't journalism." William Case, another producer, said, "I worked with Pete Hegseth for YEARS --on set, in the control room, in the newsroom, in taxis, on boats, on location. This is all LOLOL. The F&F staff all LOVED Pete, and women of every rank thought he was just the greatest thing (oh the stories)."Case shared a picture of Hegseth holding Case's child and added, "I don't let problematic alcoholics hold my children." The number of Fox News hosts and frequent guests who worked with Hegseth for years and who went on the record to refute NBC News' reporting is nearly at 20 at the time of writing. While on Capitol Hill to have more meetings with senators, Hegseth said he talked with President-elect Donald Trump Wednesday morning and that Trump told him to "keep fighting." Hegseth further said he is not withdrawing his name from consideration. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

If you Google Kash Patel — Donald Trump’s pick for FBI director — you’ll see that the word “controversial” comes up over and over again. What makes Kash Patel so controversial? Could it be because the man fearlessly speaks the truth and names names while doing it? Dave Rubin plays a video montage of Patel doing interviews on various podcasts during which his brutal candor is on full display. And let’s just say it’s crystal clear why the media insists he’s controversial. In the first clip, Patel detailed his plans to let the American people in on the truth that the current government keeps hidden from them. “We need a 24/7 declassification office rolling papers out 24/7, and not just like JFK and not just 9/11,” he said. He then clarified that he “believes wholeheartedly in the classified system of information,” but he also knows that it has been “abused by these corrupt officials in government to hide the truth and enact more corrupt activity.” In the second clip, Patel met with Blaze Media’s very own Glenn Beck. The subject of Epstein’s little black book came up. “Who has Jeffery Epstein’s black book?” Glenn asked bluntly. “The FBI,” said Patel, clarifying that it’s “under direct control of the director of the FBI.” In the third clip, Patel went into even more detail about the FBI’s refusal to release the Epstein list. “Why is the FBI protecting the greatest pederast — the largest scale pederast — in human history?” the host asked. “Simple — because of who’s on that list. You don’t think that Bill Gates is lobbying Congress night and day to prevent the disclosure of that list?” Patel said plainly before lambasting House Republicans for not being able to get the list released. In the fourth clip, Patel disclosed his plans for the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. “I'd shut down the FBI Hoover building on day one and reopen it the next day as a museum of the Deep State, and I’d take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals. Go be cops,” he stated. “Same thing with DOJ. What are all these people doing here? Looking for their next government promotion; looking for their next fancy government title; looking for their parachute out of government,” he added, emphasizing the need to “shrink government.” To hear Dave’s thoughts on Kash Patel and see the video montage of his podcast interviews, watch the clip above. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden's tax crimes case is accusing President Joe Biden of "rewriting history" and unconstitutional behavior.On Sunday, Biden shocked the political world when he announced a "full and unconditional pardon" for Hunter Biden. The pardon was not only shocking because Biden repeatedly promised that he would not pardon his son, but it raised eyebrows because of its comprehensiveness: Biden pardoned his son for any crime he committed or may have committed from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024.To justify the pardon, Biden claimed Hunter was "selectively" and "unfairly" prosecuted, asserting that Hunter "was treated differently" and is a victim of "selective prosecution." The only reason the prosecution was brought, the president claimed, is because Hunter is his son.But U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi said Tuesday none of what President Biden claimed is true.In a five-page opinion, Scarsi condemned Hunter Biden's lawyers for not submitting to the court a "true and correct copy of the pardon" in its motion to dismiss the charges against their client. Instead of the pardon, Hunter's attorneys simply provided the court a link to President Biden's statement about the pardon.That statement was the central issue in the judge's order because, according to Scarsi, the "representations" in Biden's statement "stand in tension with the case record."'Nowhere does the Constitution give the president the authority to rewrite history.'In other words, Scarsi believes Biden is lying — and he used Hunter's own admissions to prove it.First, Scarsi addressed Biden's insinuation that Hunter is "among those individuals who untimely paid taxes due to addiction.""He is not," the judge declared. "In his pretrial filings, Mr. Biden represented that he 'was severely addicted to alcohol and drugs' 'through May 2019.' Upon pleading guilty to the charges in this case, Mr. Biden admitted that he engaged in tax evasion after this period of addiction by wrongfully deducting as business expenses items he knew were personal expenses, including luxury clothing, escort services, and his daughter’s law school tuition.""And Mr. Biden admitted that he 'had sufficient funds available to him to pay some or all of his outstanding taxes when they were due,' but that he did not make payments toward his tax liabilities even 'well after he had regained his sobriety,' instead electing to 'spen[d] large sums to maintain his lifestyle' in 2020," Scarsi explained.Second, Scarsi obliterated Biden's claim that "no reasonable person" would have brought criminal charges against Hunter, noting that multiple federal judges already rejected that argument and that Biden's own Justice Department initiated the prosecution."In the president’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people," Scarsi wrote.Finally, Scarsi ripped into Biden and the pardon itself.While noting the Constitution does vest the president with "broad authority" to grant pardons, Scarsi explained that "nowhere does the Constitution give the president the authority to rewrite history."The chief problem with the pardon, Scarsi explained, is that Biden pardoned Hunter for all conduct "through" Dec. 1, 2024."The president signed the pardon on December 1, 2024. Because the period of pardoned conduct extends 'through' the date of execution, the warrant may be read to apply prospectively to conduct that had not yet occurred at the time of its execution, exceeding the scope of the pardon power," Scarsi wrote.In the end, Scarsi said he would comply with the presidential intent of the pardon, its constitutional problems notwithstanding."To the extent the pardon encompasses prospective conduct, the Court deems the prospective component of the pardon severable from the component that demands the termination of this proceeding," he wrote. "The warrant explicitly brings the charges in this action within the ambit of the pardon, indicating presidential intent for the pardon to apply to this case even if it is unconstitutional in other respects."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

What are the best samurai games? Samurai are the subject of ceaseless fascination for many gamers thanks to their ornate armor, razor-sharp weaponry, and the stories that have been told about them in other media thanks to directors like Akira Kurosawa and Yôji Yamada. With few options, we’ve had to get a bit creative with our choices, so expect some games that only feature samurai in limited roles, games with characters like samurai, ronin games, and heaps of different genres. Everything from hack-and-slash games and strategy behemoths to action-adventure games and multiplayer brawlers is on the cards for this samurai games list. Join us as we break down some of the top samurai games on PC, from old games classics to new samurai games. Continue reading The best samurai games on PC 2024 MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Elden Ring builds, Elden Ring bosses, Elden Ring weapons