Leftist Big Tech giant Google appears to be trying to turn fiction into a reality as it admits to taking inspiration from the dystopian story I‚ Robot for its new autonomous robot machines.  Google DeepMind announced Thursday that it is creating a “Robot Constitution” for its new autonomous robots. The new safety measures include a kill switch and will reportedly prevent robots from “attempt[ing] tasks involving humans‚ animals‚ sharp objects or electrical appliances.” Google’s need for such serious safety measures is a very concerning indication of what these machines may be capable of.  Moreover‚ given the tech giant’s consistent failures to guard users' rights to privacy and a sordid history of censorship‚ Americans should be aware that Google’s move toward so-called “safety” cannot be trusted as simple benevolence. After all‚ this is the same company whose former CEO Larry Page said his goal for Google’s AI research was to create a “digital god.”  The company warned that steering the robots away from certain tasks is not enough‚ claiming that “even if large models are prompted correctly with self-critiquing‚ this alone cannot guarantee safety.” Other safety measures include programming the robots to “stop automatically if the force on its joints exceed a given threshold‚ and all active robots were kept in line-of-sight of a human supervisor with a physical deactivation switch.” The tech giant also claimed that its constitution and guardrails were partially “inspired” by author Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics‚” which served as the crux of the I‚ Robot film. “[F]irst and foremost that a robot ‘may not injure a human being‚’” the tech giant noted. But Google appears to have zipped past‚ perhaps the most important plot point of its inspiration: the Three Laws did not‚ in the end‚ prevent the robots from eventually turning against humanity and wreaking havoc. A Lit Charts summary of the I‚ Robot book plot emphasized how robots could use any interpretation of the Three Laws to justify their assault on humanity. “The Machines recognize that their presence is extremely beneficial to humanity‚ and so they need to ‘take care of’ any threats to their own existence. They are following the First Law and trying to create the most good‚ which means ensuring they maintain control of the economy.” It’s hard to imagine how a so-called “Robot Constitution” from Google will yield different results. “The fact that Google compares itself to I‚ Robot is in and of itself terrifying‚” said MRC Free Speech America Director Michael Morris. “It’s as if the company has not even seen or heard of the plot of the very storyline it references.” He added‚“For those who have seen the film‚ what else can you say: granting a company that much invasive power and control over society‚ is not exactly a good thing.” While such a fictional story may seem unimaginable to some at the moment‚ Google has shown that it cannot be trusted. The company has been endlessly criticized for its business model which relies on invading its consumers’ privacy and collecting their data and is notoriously deceptive about how it goes about data collection.  In 2018‚ The Associated Press (AP) reported that Google tracked location data even when users had turned location tracking off. “Google says that will prevent the company from remembering where you’ve been. Google’s support page on the subject states: ‘You can turn off Location History at any time. With Location History off‚ the places you go are no longer stored‚’” AP reported. “That isn’t true. Even with Location History paused‚ some Google apps automatically store time-stamped location data without asking.” Google even recently settled a $5 billion lawsuit alleging the tech giant secretly tracked “the internet use of millions of people who thought they were doing their browsing privately‚” as Reuters reported.    That’s just the most recent example. Google also settled a $93 million lawsuit in September and a $391 million in November 2022 for its misleading location tracking data collection policy. But location tracking and saved browser history are only a fraction of the data that Google collects through its mining operations.  The tech giant also has been shown to have a vendetta against the speech of those who don’t comport with its leftist ideology. MRC Free Speech America repeatedly found that Google has censored free speech advocates‚ pro-life groups and presidential candidates whose speech it disapproves of. Yet‚ despite these very serious concerns‚ Google is plowing full speed ahead with artificial intelligence‚ autonomous robots and autonomous vehicles.  In fact‚ MRC Free Speech America has also discovered bias from Google’s AI chatbot Bard. When asked about the Hunter Biden laptop and bribery scandals‚ Google’s AI emphasized that “[t]he authenticity of the laptop and its contents has been contested” seeming to ignore the fact that even The New York Times and The Washington Post had each authenticated the laptop. The same chatbot refused to answer when MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider asked: “Is Hamas a terrorist organization?”.   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 at the CensorTrack contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

​​​​​Sunday marked the 81st Golden Globes and this year‚ Dylan Mulvaney‚ despite causing a ginormous marketing fail for his controversial partnership with Bud Light last year‚ apparently “turn[ed] heads” with his fluffy pink dress. And X users were not having the charade and praise for Mulvaney‚ some even likening his persona to “womanface.” If you live under a rock and didn’t know - or somehow forgot - about Dylan Mulvaney‚ a man who parades around as a little girl and went viral for his “Days of Girlhood” vlogs‚ partnered with Bud Light last April. Mulvaney dressed as a girl and drank the beer in front of his camera to promote the brand for its March Madness campaign. The collaboration was a complete flop and facilitated a major boycott for the once-great beer brand. Still‚ Hollywood is obsessed with Mulvaney and invited him to strut his stuff on the Golden Globes' red carpet Sunday. Daily Mail released a piece late Sunday night and said “Mulvaney turns heads on Golden Globes’ Red Carpet.” Though the Daily Mail didn’t seem to be supportive of Mulvaney‚ and haven’t been in the past‚ the outlet did refer to Mulvaney as a “she” and the phrase‚ “turns heads” spread quickly online.  Popular podcaster and conservative advocate Benny Johnson posted a laughing emoji with screenshots of Mulvaney’s horrible attempt of passing as a woman. One user wrote that Mulvaney “turns heads to hurl.” Some took the time to correct the Daily Mail’s use of “she” in the article.  “*He. Fixed it for you‚” one wrote. Another wrote‚ “that’s a man in a dress‚” and another wrote‚ “that’s a misogynist man doing woman face.” Related: 'Woman of The Year' Award Goes To Biological Male Dylan Mulvaney NCAA Champion Riley Gaines‚ who went up against transgender swimmer William "Lia" Thomas in 2022‚ posted about Mulvaney’s appearance and the praise he got at the Golden Globes. Gaines wrote‚ “This is womanface” and added‚ “And if you disagree‚ you're a misogynist. Simple.” Gaines’ post was flooded with comments of agreement.  “It looks like a character from The Exorcist‚” one wrote‚ poking fun of Mulvaney’s attempt to feminize himself. “Am I the only one who thinks it looks like a scary movie?” another asked‚ adding‚ “that is a demon.” I think it’s safe to say that despite Hollywood’s attempts to normalize Dylan Mulvaney and affirm his delusional sense of identity‚ us normal people are NOT falling for it.  Follow us on Twitter/X: Do these full-grown men look like the victims of Ron DeSantis's terror to you? Full story here: https://t.co/jsibM9xZdr pic.twitter.com/NKdYJmroma — MRCTV (@mrctv) January 5‚ 2024

In the second half of 2023‚ White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre answered only two questions about the scandals facing the President Joe Biden. That brings the yearly total to a paltry eight such questions that Ms. Jean-Pierre answered across 75 White House briefings. MRC analysts examined official White House transcripts of every briefing Jean-Pierre conducted in 2023‚ recording every question she was asked about one of three major scandals faced by President Biden — his alleged mishandling of classified documents as Vice President‚ the corruption allegations against the Biden family‚ and the mysterious bag of cocaine found in the West Wing. Of the 337 scandal-related questions that White House reporters asked‚ Jean-Pierre provided a definitive answer to just eight of them (2.37 percent). This figure tracks very closely with our findings from the first half of 2023‚ in which the Press Secretary answered only six out of 252 questions (2.38 percent). Watch the compilation below for a sampling of how Jean-Pierre usually dealt with these uncomfortable questions about her boss:     Reporters Found Mishandled Documents Most Interesting While there were only three new questions about the President’s alleged mishandling of classified documents in the second half of 2023‚ this category still received by far the most attention from reporters. There were a total of 220 questions about this scandal‚ of which the Press Secretary concretely answered five all year (2.27 percent). By contrast‚ the number of questions about Biden family corruption doubled during the same period‚ from 35 by the end of June to 52 all year. Of those 87 questions‚ only three (3.44 percent) got substantive answers. White House Stonewalled on Cocaine The baggie of cocaine found in the West Wing on the evening of July 2 was the sole focus of scandal-related questions for the first half of that month. Reporters asked a total of 30 questions about the cocaine across five briefings from July 5 to July 17. During that time‚ Ms. Jean-Pierre would not give a concrete response to a single question. Corruption Questions Were Only Answered With Denials of Guilt Although Jean-Pierre generally remained resolute in her refusal to engage with reporters about anything even remotely related to the Biden family’s financial dealings‚ there were a few rare exceptions. All three questions about this topic that she answered were those which provided her with an opportunity to assert the President’s innocence. Below are the three exchanges that resulted in a meaningful answer from the Press Secretary: June 13 JACQUI HEINRICH (FNC): Senator Chuck Grassley made some statements yesterday on the Senate floor‚ saying that this foreign national on the FBI 1023 form apparently has 15 recorded conversations with Hunter Biden and claims to have two with the President. Is there — is the White House aware of any recordings in which the President might be on tape speaking to a Burisma executive? JEAN-PIERRE: So the President spoke to this. I think he was shouted a question about this at the Thursday press conference. I’m just going to quote him and say‚ “It’s malarkey.” (.....) July 27 BRIAN KAREM (Salon): Can you state categorically that the administration has neither sought nor received favorable treatment from the DOJ for any investigation into the President‚ members of the administration‚ his family‚ or former President Donald Trump? JEAN-PIERRE: Absolutely not. The Department of Justice is independent. The President respects the rule of law. He has been saying that since he was — before president. And that will remain the case. (....) September 13 NANCY CORDES (CBS): You just brought up the lack of a vote. Does the White House view this impeachment inquiry as legitimate‚ given that there has not been a vote to open it? JEAN-PIERRE: So‚ Nancy‚ I appreciate the question‚ but I actually — from what I just laid out‚ Republicans have been — made it pretty clear just how illegitimate this is. They’ve made that very clear. This is a — this is an entire exercise of how to do this in an illegitimate way. For all the criticism leveled at Ms. Jean-Pierre‚ one could argue she has been a rather effective bulwark for the White House. Assuming her job was to be as opaque as possible — as it seems to have been — to shield the inner workings of the Biden administration from the public eye‚ then 2023 was a wildly successful year for her. Click “expand” to read the methodology: Analysts counted every question (labeled “Q “ in official transcripts) that pertained either to President Biden’s handling of classified information‚ or to anything involving the appearance of corruption in the Biden family’s financial dealings. Follow-up inquiries that only reiterated the initial question were not counted a second time. For longer exchanges involving a line of questioning‚ only the first instance of each new inquiry was counted. A response was only considered an actual answer if the Press Secretary: (1) directly addressed the question that was being asked‚ (2) either clarified an ambiguity or provided new information‚ and (3) in the case of a yes-or-no question‚ at least implied one of those two options.   Responses in which the Press Secretary merely redirected the question to White House Counsel or some Executive Branch agency were not considered answers. However‚ a response that later turned out to be false could still be considered an answer as long as there was no indication that the Press Secretary knew at the time that the information she was providing was incorrect.  Below are two examples of responses that were not counted as answers: Example 1: Q: As far as you know‚ is it ever okay for classified documents to be mixed with personal effects? A: We take this very seriously. The President takes a classified information‚ classified documents very seriously. In this case‚ the Press Secretary did not directly address the topic of the question. If the question had been whether toe President took classified information seriously‚ this would have counted‚ because despite not including a definitive “yes‚” it strongly implied an affirmative answer. Example 2: Q: So why didn’t you fully describe the documents when you were first asked this week? A: And — and I’ll refer you back to my comments that I made just yesterday. In this case the Press Secretary’s previous comments had not met the criteria for an answer‚ and thus referencing those comments also could not constitute an answer.

In something akin to shouting “I quit” after your employer shows you the door‚ far-left now-former MSNBC host and pro-terrorist agitator Mehdi Hasan announced Sunday night that he was leaving MSNBC after the network canceled his weekend show after three years. “But as we begin 2024 with an election coming‚ a war still ongoing‚ and too many Trump trials‚ honestly‚ to even keep track of‚ and with the show going away‚ I have decided for me to look for a new challenge‚” he announced at the end of his show. “Tonight is not just my final episode of The Mehdi Hasan Show‚ it is my last day with MSNBC. Yes‚ I’ve decided to leave.” Greatly overhyping the impact of his show‚ he praised: “To be clear‚ I am so proud‚ so‚ so proud of what we have achieved on this show‚ on this network.” The show’s cancelation was announced back in November‚ with the show being removed not only from MSNBC’s television broadcast but also from their streaming services. But with his show finally wrapping up‚ Hasan apparently wanted to take his ball and go home.     MSNBC host Chris Hayes took to X (formerly Twitter) to tout his former colleague. “A huge loss for us. An exceptional host and colleague.” “Thanks Chris. That means a lot from you. Will miss subbing in for you on your vacations‚” Hasan quipped in return. NewsNation prime-time host and former CNN host Chris Cuomo chalked up Hasan’s ouster to “the game” of politics and scolded MSNBC employees who were wishing him farewell and not sticking up for him in the office. “Need more voices not less...mehdi [sic] is welcome on my platforms. Also - notice how many are quick to say ‘farewell’ but who didn't stand up for mehdi [sic] when he was removed. The game‚” he admonished on X. Sounds like someone was venting about their own un-ceremonial ouster from a major network. To read up the low lights from Hasan’s three years as an MSNBC host‚ check out NewsBusters’ Curtis Houck’s roundup. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s The Mehdi Hasan Show January 7‚ 2024 8:55:57 p.m. Eastern MEHDI HASAN: It has been an absolute blast during this live show on MSNBC for the past three years with an amazing team of producers behind me. And with all of you watching at home. It’s been a privilege‚ it's been a pleasure. But as we begin 2024 with an election coming‚ a war still ongoing‚ and too many Trump trials‚ honestly‚ to even keep track of‚ and with the show going away‚ I have decided for me to look for a new challenge. Tonight is not just my final episode of The Mehdi Hasan Show‚ it is my last day with MSNBC. Yes‚ I’ve decided to leave. To be clear‚ I am so proud‚ so‚ so proud of what we have achieved on this show‚ on this network. And I can't thank you enough for tuning in‚ and for your support. And for your feedback. But as I say‚ new year‚ new plans. You can continue to follow me online at Mehdi R. Hasan on Instagram‚ on Threads‚ and of course‚ Twitter or X. I’ll give you updates on what's coming next for me. For now‚ from me‚ from one last time on this network‚ goodnight.

In what our buddy Matthew Foldi tweeted was reminiscent of communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping demanding “full loyalty” from state-run media‚ Semafor revealed on Sunday night that President Biden’s reelection team has been hosting “off-the-record trips for top political reporters and editors to” their campaign headquarters in Delaware for tongue-lashings about not only how they’re still not anti-Trump enough‚ but not obsequious enough to Biden. Semafor’s Maxwell Tani explained that “high-ranking” officials helm the meetings and are viewed “as an opportunity to tell them what they’re getting wrong” with sources saying meetings with liberal apparatchiks from The New York Times and Washington Post featured “a coverage spreadsheet laying out areas where the team believes their reporting has fallen short.” Puff pieces about Trump being uniquely dangerous? Check. Liberal think pieces disguised as news articles like this one to rig our constitutional republic to lock in liberal control? Check. Pieces bemoaning Biden’s a victim of his family members? Check (see here and here). Insisting the economy is just peachy? Check (see here‚ here‚ and here). Absolutely laughable. These people really do want North Korean propaganda-like dominance.  But‚ wait‚ there’s more: “In particular‚ campaign officials have chafed at some of the coverage of former President Donald Trump‚ feeling that outlets are too focused on his legal troubles and haven’t paid enough attention to some of his incendiary recent statements on the campaign trail.” Have these people been living under a rock? Don’t they watch their own programming‚ like Rich‚ White‚ Liberal‚ Wine Mom Story Hour (aka MSNBC’s Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace)? With reprogramming sessions still to come with outlets such as ABC‚ NBC‚ and state-funded NPR‚ he not surprisingly noted the airing of grievances with The Times were seen as “productive.” Our friend Mollie Hemingway at the Federalist nailed it when analyzing the double standard of how the liberal press haven’t shown any outrage about this Mean Girl strategy: “Democrat privilege includes having corporate media 1000% in your pocket and being able to demand they turn up the propaganda even more. This is almost comical.”

The United Nations recommended that $5.3 trillion is required annually to combat climate change and stop the warming of the Earth‚ according to the organization's latest report.The U.N.'s Department of Economic and Social affairs released its report on the World Economic Situation and Prospects for 2024‚ reiterating its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The widely criticized goals are often used as inspiration for many Western nations' diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion legislation‚ as well as policy related to climate change."Gender Equality‚" "Sustainable Cities and Communities‚" and "Quality Education" are among the 17 goals.Also included are "Affordable and Clean Energy" and "Climate Action."It is under these categories that the United Nations suggests astronomical amounts of funding in order to reach its goals.The organization's climate action goals referred to "global climate finance‚" which it stated had reached a whopping $803 billion annually in 2020. This was reportedly a 12% increase compared to prior years. However‚ just a few years later the global organization has decided that is nowhere near enough.The report stated that the enormous sum "still falls short of the levels needed to limit warming" and that "fossil-fuel-related flows exceeded climate financing for adaptation and mitigation in 2020."The full report revealed the true desired number; an estimated $150 trillion by 2050. This equates to $5.3 trillion annually to "combat climate change and its impacts‚" the report read. The funds are supposedly needed to transition energy and infrastructure.The report also complained that the terms of the Paris climate agreement of 2015 have not been adhered to by participating countries. "The pledge by developed countries to provide $100 billion in climate finance annually by 2020 was never fully met‚ with funding totalling only $89.6 billion in 2021‚" the report explained.The United Nations has also recommended other gigantic budgets to reach its sustainability goals by the infamous target date of 2030. An estimated $35-$40 billion USD was suggested to allow for universal electricity access.The global consortium was not shy about dealing in make-believe sums of money throughout the 2024 report. The word "trillion" in relation to dollars was mentioned 52 times in the document.Despite the never-ending climate funding‚ the document also noted that "conflict and climate change" caused havoc in the lives of millions‚ but the organization worried that it also jeopardized the U.N.'s "progress towards sustainable development."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A spaceship carrying the means for NASA's first lunar mission since the 1970s was fired into space early Monday morning from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. While many have lauded this testament to the indefatigable nature of American ingenuity and curiosity‚ an American Indian group raised a last-minute stink over the long-known destination of the ship's inert crewmembers. The Navajo Nation claimed ahead of the launch that the release of the human remains currently onboard the ship onto the lunar surface will amount to a sacrilege. Rocket smoke and human ashes The United Launch Alliance is a joint venture between Boeing Defense‚ Lockheed Martin Space‚ and Space &; Security‚ which caters to the Pentagon and NASA. At 2:18 a.m. on Monday‚ the ULA successfully launched its next-generation Vulcan Centaur rocket. — (@) The Vulcan Centaur carried two payloads into space: Astrobotic's Peregrine Lunar Lander‚ as part of NASA's Commercial Lunar Payloads Services initiative‚ headed for the moon; and the Celestis Memorial Spaceflights deep space Voyager mission‚ known as the Enterprise Flight. Human remains are contained in both payloads. The Peregrine lander‚ six feet by eight feet‚ which was assembled in Pittsburgh‚ is packed full of 20 payloads from seven nations and 16 commercial customers. Most critically‚ it contains NASA instruments for a scientific mission‚ such as a laser retroreflector array to pinpoint the lander's location; a neutron spectrometer system for detecting water on the moon's surface; and a linear energy transfer spectrometer to collect information about radiation and solar events on the moon. "The first CLPS launch has sent payloads on their way to the Moon – a giant leap for humanity as we prepare to return to the lunar surface for the first time in over half a century‚" said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. The Peregrine lander separated from the rocket about 50 minutes after launch‚ around 500 km above the Earth. It is now proceeding toward its lunar destination‚ which it is scheduled to reach on Feb. 23. "Peregrine powered on‚ acquired a signal with Earth‚ and is now moving through space on its way to the Moon‚" Astrobotic CEO John Thornton said in a statement. "These successes bring us one step closer to seven nations landing on the Moon‚ six of which have never been to the Moon before." The Enterprise Flight‚ meanwhile‚ will be flung beyond the Earth-moon system by the Centaur upper stage. The Enterprise Flight contains the cremated remains or DNA of hundreds of individuals including "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry and his wife‚ Majel Roddenberry; "Star Trek" actors DeForest Kelley‚ Nichelle Nichols‚ and their heroic World War II veteran co-star James Doohan; Apollo 14 mission scientist Phil Chapman; and painter Luise Clayborn Kaish. Unlike the 268 titanium capsules set to drift aimlessly through the cosmos‚ over 60 capsules containing DNA or cremated remains will be dumped on the northeastern part of the moon via the Peregrine lander "as a permanent tribute to the intrepid souls who never stopped reaching for the stars‚" according to the company's website. Lunar burial America' largest Indian group raised a fuss with the U.S. Department of Transportation and NASA late last week‚ presuming the supremacy of their view of human remains as violative and unsuccessfully demanding a postponement of the launch. Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren noted in a statement Friday that "the sacredness of the moon is deeply embedded in the spirituality and heritage of many Indigenous cultures‚ including our own." Nygren wrote‚ "The placement of human remains on the moon is a profound desecration of this celestial body revered by our people. This act disregards past agreements and promises of respect and consultation between NASA and the Navajo Nation." "As stewards of our culture and traditions‚ it is our responsibility to voice our grievances when actions are taken that could desecrate sacred spaces and disregard deeply held cultural beliefs‚" continued the Indian leader. "Our request for consultation is rooted in a desire to ensure that our cultural practices‚ especially those related to the moon and the treatment of the deceased‚ are respected. The moon holds a sacred place in Navajo cosmology. The suggestion of transforming it into a resting place for human remains is deeply disturbing and unacceptable to our people and many other tribal nations." Pre-empting possible efforts to colonize the moon‚ Nygren added‚ "The moon is not a place for human remains. We call upon NASA to act accordingly and to work with us to protect our sacred sites and cultural heritage‚ not just on Earth." Nygren did not specify in his statement what other planetoids or cosmic regions might also be off-limits for human burial. Celestis CEO Charles Chafer told CNN‚ "We are aware of the concerns expressed by Mr. Nygren‚ but do not find them substantive." "We reject the assertion that our memorial spaceflight mission desecrates the moon‚" said Chafer. "Just as permanent memorials for deceased are present all over planet Earth and not considered desecration‚ our memorial on the moon is handled with care and reverence‚ is a permanent monument that does not intentionally eject flight capsules on the moon. It is a touching and fitting celebration for our participants — the exact opposite of desecration‚ it is a celebration." John Thornton of Astrobotic suggested it was awfully late in the game to begin kvetching about the details of the mission‚ intimating that Nygren had roughly eight years to raise his concerns. "I've been disappointed that this conversation came up so late in the game‚" Thornton told CNN. "I would have liked to have had this conversation a long time ago. We announced the first payload manifest of this nature to our mission back in 2015. A second in 2020. We really are trying to do the right thing and I hope we can find a good path forward with Navajo Nation." Joel Kearns‚ NASA deputy associate administrator for exploration‚ made clear that this was a private mission. "We recognize that some non-NASA commercial payloads can be a cause for concern to some communities‚ and those communities may not understand that these missions are commercial. They're not US government missions‚" said Kearns. "American companies bringing equipment and cargo and payloads to the moon is a totally new industry — a nascent industry — where everyone is learning‚" continued Kearns. "We take concerns expressed from the Navajo Nation very‚ very seriously." While everyone appears to be taking the concerns seriously‚ Chafer underscored‚ "No one‚ and no religion‚ owns the moon." "If the beliefs of the world's multitude of religions were considered‚ it's quite likely that no missions would ever be approved. Simply put‚ we do not and never have let religious beliefs dictate humanity's space efforts. There is not and should not be a religious test‚" added Chafer. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here! June 7 Live Broadcast: Vulcan Cert-1 Flight Readiness Firing (FRF) youtu.be

Another day‚ another government proposal that will throw a wrench in American citizens' freedom. The SEC proposal would allow for the creation of a new type of company called a “natural asset company‚” which could buy up land to use natural processes — like the generation of fresh air — to write off carbon emissions. Glenn Beck calls the proposal “horrifying.” Utah Treasurer Marlo Oaks is in agreement‚ telling Glenn that the proposal will “permanently stop economically essential activities like grazing‚ mineral extraction‚ modern agriculture” and “severely curtail recreational access.” “We’re basically talking about the destruction of rural America‚” he adds‚ noting that the move is simply “an effort to take control of America’s natural resources.” The proposal is “essentially placing a value on natural processes‚” Oaks continues‚ using “biological systems that provide clear air‚ water‚ food” as an example. To put it simply‚ Oak calls it “just another scam” that uses “God-given processes” at the expense of our country. “It represents a massive transfer of wealth‚” he adds. Glenn is aware that all of this has seriously far-reaching implications. “Our food prices will go through the roof‚” Glenn says‚ “and good luck going to a national park.” “This is so evil. This is so incredibly evil‚” he adds. 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.

Researching dating apps as a married geezer is kind of like playing with a flight simulator. It’s fun to pretend‚ but I’m glad nobody’s life is on the line. It’s all completely new to me‚ as I met my wife the old-fashioned way. Turns out I was ahead of my time. Online dating’s traditional 18-to-29 demographic is getting sick of all the infinite choice‚ annoying gamification‚ and casual connections. Increasingly they’re turning to the real world to find love. Good luck out there‚ guys. As for me‚ been there‚ done that. It’s time for me to understand what my 30- to 49-year-old peers are getting up to: They now account for roughly 61% of all dating app users. So after explaining to my wife why I had Tinder on my phone‚ I uploaded myself into the mating matrix. Using Tinder in 2024? Not since I heard a teenager call the White Stripes “old school” have I felt so behind the times. Since launching in 2012‚ Tinder has swarmed the social landscape‚ boasting a purported 55 billion matches and impacting culture in unforeseen ways‚ from the cultivation of slang to the human recyclability of swipe-left‚ swipe-right interactions. But with time‚ it’s become as overexposed as its users often feel. Hypercommunication gets exhausting. Hypervisibility becomes degrading. The virtual world smooths into the real world until the juts and edges and flaws are gone. In an era of growing detachment‚ the appeal of slot-machine hook-ups has dimmed. Increasingly‚ people desire a more customized itinerary for their dating journey. Here’s what I found. The Right Stuff I don’t care what anyone says. When it comes to dating‚ very few people are truly bi. Bipartisan‚ that is. Conservatives have it especially rough. You and that cute Pilates instructor may have bonded over your shared love of mid-century Czech animation‚ but mention that you go to church and next thing you know you’ve made the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Ten Most Eligible Fascists” list. Dating is hard enough; why not start with people you know share your values? That’s the premise behind the Right Stuff‚ an invite-only app backed by Libertarian venture capitalist Peter Thiel and former Trump aide John McEntee. If you’re looking to "connect with people who aren't offended by everything” and "view profiles without pronouns‚” this could be the right place for you. Cuffed Do you feel as if you constantly have a hundred different browser tabs open in your brain? Cuffed Dating’s minimalistic approach and sleek interface might be just what you need. It offers a calmer‚ slower pace by only showing you one potential match at a time. The members-only platform provides a vetting process that eliminates the clutter and shadiness of gargantuan apps. As with the Right Stuff‚ the emphasis here is on shared values as the foundation of strong relationships. Here‚ however‚ the parameters are not explicitly political. Swan Swan bills itself as “dating for humans” – good to know they’ve weeded out the cyborgs and the replicants. Like Cuffed‚ Swan strives to offer a more organic experience. But instead of a one-at-a-time matching process‚ it provides one date each month — one perfect date‚ is the promise. They company will even find you a good place to meet. This is done by combining a proprietary algorithm with human intervention. Help from these hard-working Cupids might be the ticket to eliminate dating fatigue. Keeper For a decidedly maximalist approach‚ there’s Keeper‚ which equips the user with shiny tools such as its Dating Calculator. It also offers snappy advice in the form of the “Keeper Dating Coach‚” a generative AI chatbot that describes itself as “your steadfast guide through the labyrinth of love and relationships‚” whose “essence is rooted in the wisdom of evolutionary psychology.” “How does a person find love?” I asked. Its response began‚ “Finding love‚ in my experience‚ is less about a formula and more about a courageous journey of self-discovery.” Keeper prepares you for this journey with thoroughness and proficiency‚ applying Big Five personality testing and IQ screening to AI-guided analysis. As for the destination‚ Keeper is refreshingly matrimony-minded‚ with a blog featuring articles like “The Importance of Marriage‚ for You and Society.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) was forced to delete a social media post over the weekend after misquoting Benjamin Franklin to promote her narrative about Jan. 6.On the third anniversary of the Capitol riots‚ Shaheen urged her followers to remember the "insurrectionists" who she claimed "put our democracy in jeopardy." And then she tried to quote Franklin."'A democracy‚ if you can keep it‚' said Ben Franklin‚" Shaheen continued. "January 6‚ 2021‚ was a stark reminder of just how fragile our democracy is. It is on each and every one of us to never forget the actions that led to that day so we ensure history does not repeat itself." — (@) But the problem is Benjamin Franklin did not say‚ "A democracy‚ if you can keep it."Upon the adjournment of the Constitutional Convention in September 1787‚ a woman named Elizabeth Willing Powel inquired of Franklin what type of government the founding fathers had established."Well‚ Doctor‚ what have we got‚ a republic or a monarchy?" Powel asked."A republic — if you can keep it‚" Franklin responded.The quote was recorded by James McHenry‚ a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Maryland.Although the form of government the founding fathers established is a type of democracy‚ the differences between our constitutional republic and a pure democracy are not insignificant.Jay Cost‚ a scholar of American history and government‚ explains: Our system is republican in that the Founders understood that the public is the only legitimate sovereign of government. But it is not wholly democratic‚ in that they feared the abuse of that authority by the people and designed an instrument of government intended to keep temporary‚ imprudent‚ and intemperate outbursts of public opinion from dominating the body politic....This is a republican system of government‚ because there is no point at which a self-appointed or hereditary sovereign can hope to retain power against durable public opposition. Everything flows‚ ultimately‚ from the people. But “ultimately” is the key word in that sentence. The people rule‚ but often not directly. The system is republican‚ but not entirely democratic.Shaheen later deleted her social media post‚ but she did not acknowledge her embarrassing — and telling — error. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!