Freeze Dry Wholesalers 15% Off With Link: https://freezedrywholesalers.com/discount/iridium242 Amazon Store: https://www.amazon.com/shop/iridium242 Money Metals Exchange Silver Kit: https://shrsl.com/407yj My Patriot Supply: http://www.preparewithiridium.com Thrive Life Freeze Dried Food Store: https://www.thrivelife.com/iridium242 Ecoflow Power Stations: https://us.ecoflow.com/?aff=497 JASE Emergency Antibiotics at this link: https://jasemedical.com/?rstr=4460 SAVE $10.00 with code “IRIDIUM10” Get Mylar Bags Here: https://wallabygoods.com/?rfsn=6677827.a5f87d Iridium242 Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/iridium242 Iridium242 Merch: https://www.bonfire.com/store/iridium242/ Olight 10% Off code Iridium242: https://www.olightstore.com/s/MJT87N If you enjoyed the video feel free to leave a Super thanks! Let's Connect Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iridium242/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iridium242/ Website: https://www.iridium242.com Merch: https://www.bonfire.com/iridium242/ This channel is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on Amazon.com. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc, or its affiliates. #prepping #survival #preparedness

The following article, FL Journalist Advocates Human Sacrifice to Appease “Hurricane gods”, was first published on Conservative Firing Line. Tim Padgett, Americas Editor at WLRN, posted on X that if Gov DeSantis really wanted to take care of hurricanes, he should honor the way indigenous peoples did it. Human sacrifice, thatched roofs, the whole thing that proves this man is totally nuts. And the perfect example of why the climate agenda is a religion. … Continue reading FL Journalist Advocates Human Sacrifice to Appease “Hurricane gods” ...

Tesla Robot - I like the concept but I don't like the potential of what these robots and AI can do to us... I don't trust Musk either...

When Donald Trump left Washington on January 20, 2021, the consensus among our ruling elites was that his tumultuous career in politics was at an end. The Democrats, however, were taking no chances. Having impeached him just a week earlier in the House of Representatives, they were hard at work preparing to put him on trial in the Senate for “incitement of insurrection” despite the fact that he was no longer in office. They were so fearful that Trump might stage a comeback that they hoped to convict him of an offense that would forever disqualify him from holding public office at any time in the future. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our fall 2024 print magazine, which includes this article and others like it. Three weeks later, the Senate began an impeachment trial that was so constitutionally questionable that Chief Justice John Roberts refused to preside over the farce. During the ensuing antics, one of Trump’s attorneys, Bruce Castor, explicitly called out the Democrats concerning their real motive for insisting on the unprecedented proceeding: “Let’s understand why we are really here. We are really here because the majority in the House of Representatives does not want to face Donald Trump as a political rival in the future.” Trump was inevitably acquitted by the Senate, and Castor proved remarkably prescient.  This impeachment charade was the beginning of a multi-year legal campaign, the primary purpose of which was to associate the former president, in the public psyche, with a fictitious conspiracy to undermine our democracy and to assure that his viability as a future presidential candidate was irreparably damaged. Trump, however, was not so easily disposed of. As Gallup reported at the time of Trump’s departure from Washington, “Republicans’ average 88% approval of Trump ties Eisenhower’s as the highest own-party approval score, though most presidents had better-than 80% approval among their fellow partisans.” This article is taken from The American Spectator’s fall 2024 print magazine. Subscribe to receive the entire magazine. Moreover, a mere five weeks after leaving office, he appeared at CPAC in Orlando, Florida, where he delivered a ninety-minute speech that made it clear that he had no intention of retiring in disgrace. Trump spoke to an enthusiastic audience that cheered when he teased a 2024 presidential run and said his political career was “far from over.” This rattled Democrats, who decided to conduct a public “investigation” of the January 6 riot. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed a select committee consisting of seven Democrats and two notorious RINOs, which predictably devolved into a nakedly partisan inquisition. As Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation put it: Democrats are so brazen they’ve even hired the former president of ABC News to turn the hearings into ‘made-for-TV’ political theater. You can expect a one-sided partisan narrative intent on slandering the left’s political opponents—starting with former President Donald Trump and extending to other conservatives—that has nothing to do with strengthening our republic and everything to do with distracting from their abysmal failures in every major policy area. The committee’s first hearing was held on June 9, 2022, during prime time and was carried by all the major broadcast and cable networks. The effect of this circus on the public was, however, not what the Democrats had hoped for. Indeed, according to the RealClearPolitics average, Trump’s overall favorability rating climbed by nearly 7 points within ten days of the first televised committee hearing. The significance of this was clearly not lost on congressional Democrats or the White House. It is no coincidence that, less than ninety days later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted an unprecedented raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. This was the first time in American history a raid of this kind had been carried out at the residence of a former president, and it unnerved most Republican and Independent voters. Its pretext was that Trump had classified documents that should have gone to the National Archives. Historically, when presidents have inadvertently taken such documents home after leaving office, the Department of Justice has negotiated with their legal staffs to retrieve the material. In Trump’s case, FBI Director Christopher Wray sent thirty heavily armed agents to surround the resort while Trump was out of town and ransacked his family’s private quarters.  This turned out to be a major blunder. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith, a federal prosecutor with a long record of fumbling several high-profile cases, as special counsel in the matter. Smith indicted Trump in June of 2023 on seven criminal counts of mishandling classified documents. In July of 2024, however, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the prosecution, citing Garland’s violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause in assigning Smith to the case. Now, according to Fox News, Trump is suing the DOJ for $100M over the Mar-a-Lago raid. Trump attorney Daniel Epstein told Fox News: Garland and Wray should have never approved a raid and subsequent indictment of President Trump because the well-established protocol with former U.S. presidents is to use non-enforcement means to obtain records of the United States.… If the government is able to say, well, we don’t like someone, we can raid their home, we can violate their privacy, we can breach protocols when we decide to prosecute them, we can use the process to advance our personal motives. In addition to causing the dismissal of the classified documents case, the incompetence of the FBI, Garland, and Jack Smith made Trump into a martyr and all but guaranteed that he would capture the GOP presidential nomination. Moreover, sympathy for Trump is by no means limited to Republican voters. According to Democrat pollster Douglas Schoen, half of all voters agree with the following statement: “The indictments against Donald Trump are a form of election interference, being carried out by liberal prosecutors, the Biden administration, and the Justice Department.” The status of each of the four major cases as of this writing is as follows: As noted above, the classified documents case in which Trump is charged with the unauthorized retention of national security secrets and obstruction of efforts by the government to retrieve the files has been dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon. Nonetheless, Jack Smith insists that he will appeal the ruling in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is extremely unlikely that there will be any major new development in this case until well after the November election. The federal January 6 case, also brought by special counsel Jack Smith, involves one count of conspiracy to “violate rights,” one count of conspiracy to defraud the government, and one count each of obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring to do so. Judge Tanya Chutkan has effectively put the case on hold while she assesses how the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity affects it. No significant developments are expected until after November. In the election interference case in Georgia brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Trump and eighteen associates were indicted on conspiracy charges related to attempts to overturn the state’s results and subvert the will of the voters. This case is on hold while an appeals court determines if Willis has a conflict of interest that requires her to be removed from the prosecution. No major developments are expected until after the November election. In the Manhattan hush-money case, brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Trump was charged in April 2023 with thirty-four counts of falsifying Trump Organization business records related to reimbursing his lawyer and for payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on all counts, and Trump is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Juan Merchan on September 18. Most experts expect Trump to receive a suspended sentence. All of which brings us to the resilience of Donald J. Trump. He had a remarkably successful first term as president, despite the best efforts of the swamp creatures to drown him in the muck. Then, after “defeating” him in 2020, they maligned him in the media as an aspiring dictator, raided his home, illegally removed his name from state ballots, arrested him, forced him to sit for demeaning mugshots, and convicted him based on a legal theory that most experts found laughable. This would have caused almost anyone reading this column to throw their hands up and say, “Nothing is worth this.” But he knows we are worth it. Can he win? Despite the candidate bait-and-switch that the Democrats executed in July, Trump is doing better in polls than he did in 2016 and 2020. According to RealClearPolitics, he was 5 points behind in the national polls in August 2016, yet he defeated Hillary Clinton. In August of 2020, he was 7 points behind Biden in the national polls and lost by a tiny percentage. That suggests that the paltry 1.5-point lead Harris holds just after the Democratic National Convention is never going to get her across the finish line ahead of the Bad Orange Man. If he wins in November, he will owe the victory to the relentless lawfare campaign the Democrats have waged against him. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our fall 2024 print magazine. The post How Democrat Lawfare Launched Trump’s Comeback appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

A couple of months back, this column noted a narrative being pushed by, among others, Donald Trump surrogate and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Trump isn’t really running against Kamala Harris, said Ramaswamy; instead, he’s running against a machine. Instinctively, pretty much everybody understands that Ramaswamy was correct. Harris, like Joe Biden, the predecessor she helped to overthrow at the top of the Democrats’ ticket, can’t really be discussed as a candidate per se but is really more of a corporate being. She’s a product assembled by a cabal of handlers, consultants, donors, and propagandists much more than a stateswoman or a leader, and in fact there is little in the way of personal substance she can offer to the American people. “These are my core principles. These are my achievements. This is how you should judge my fitness as a candidate for the most important job in the world.” Ask Harris to present anything like that and you’ll get a word slaw that ought to irritate and offend you. The fact that she’s a machine candidate who can’t even offer a plausible facade of leadership tells you a lot about the machine. That they’ve descended from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden to Kamala Harris is a pretty damning indictment. Oh, and the machine has played on the Republican side, too, let’s not gloss over that fact. It pitted Nikki Haley against Trump as long as it could before it became perfectly obvious that wasn’t going to fly with the folks. But when it became obvious that Haley wasn’t unseating Trump, the machine went all in to keep its appointed puppets — and thus itself — in power. It doesn’t look like that bet will pay off, though nothing about that is guaranteed. But one thing is absolutely, positively clear: a key component, if not perhaps the dominant component, of the machine is the rancid, toxic sludge blob that is the legacy corporate “mainstream” media. From the New York Times to the Washington Post to the Chicago Tribune to the Los Angeles Times to the Hill and Politico to NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, ABC, and NPR, the sludge blob is what has been greasing the machine’s wheels as it continues spinning its way to self-preservation. 1. Which Is Why Voters Ought to Consider the Media as the Enemy It Is There should be a colossal flaw in this analysis, which would be to say that each of the aforementioned entities has an editorial viewpoint distinct from the others. Even better would be if you could say that within those entities are contained lots of distinct viewpoints indicative of a robust debate inside their newsrooms. But neither are true. The media is a monolith. The sludge blob has no spots or stripes. Here’s how bad it is. After Harris’ catastrophic interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, which any rational human could identify as a disqualifying performance to rival the debate disaster that sent Joe Biden on the fast track to political oblivion, the headlines from the sludge blob’s various organs all spoke the same words: Interesting coincidence pic.twitter.com/tMhtK1P3Nq — The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole84) October 17, 2024 The interview wasn’t “testy.” Harris was “testy.” Baier just wanted to get his questions out and have them answered, and she got hostile at the idea that he was intent on having that happen. That it’s “testy” for a media organ to make demands of a candidate in an effort to vet him or her should tell you something about the sludge blob. Interviews Trump has done have certainly been “testy.” The one he did with Bloomberg’s silly editor-in-chief John Micklethwait qualified as that, because Micklethwait insisted on fact-checking most of his answers, which ultimately led to Trump pointing out that Bloomberg constantly gets things wrong. And almost always when they do, it’s because they’re representing the power elite to the people, rather than speaking truth to power and holding the elite accountable. Comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable was how H. L. Mencken defined the role of the media. That perhaps wasn’t spot-on correct, but certainly it’s the job of the Fourth Estate, and a job specified in the First Amendment as important enough to be protected by the Constitution. They are to vet the elite and check their lies and abuses. The sludge blob doesn’t do any of that. When all the stories of Democrat scandals and failures are headlined with “Republicans Pounce” markers, and when we’re deluged with demands to see Trump’s cholesterol levels and accusations he’s going to sic the U.S. military on average Americans (which wasn’t what he said, of course, and if this was a real threat, how come he didn’t do any of that in his first term?), it’s no longer a question of there being an objective, truth-seeking media in America. Should Trump win and should he have a majority in Congress to work with, one key task has to be to break up the sludge blob. Too many of those entities are bundled into a fairly small number of media conglomerates, and breaking up those giant megaliths with antitrust actions has to be on his agenda. The sludge blob is all-in for Kamala. It plays a lot larger role in American politics than she does. And it’s what Trump is really running against at this point. 2. Show Me No More of Collin Allred Harris’ Fox News interview wasn’t the worst political catastrophe of the week for the Democrats. Oh, no. That title goes to Collin Allred, the congressman from the Dallas suburbs who’s being boosted into a surprisingly close race for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Republican Ted Cruz. Allred could be Gloria Allred, or Red Buttons. It wouldn’t matter. They’ve thrown $100 million plus at him because the machine hates Cruz so much. And to be fair, the GOP wing of the machine hates Cruz, too — Mitch McConnell has done nothing whatsoever to protect him from that $100 million onslaught. The race is close. There are even polls showing Cruz behind. He’s probably going to pull out a 52–48 win, or something close to that, having withstood the $100 million in attack ads and other political acts of aggression committed against him. But this week Cruz got to debate Allred and he destroyed him. This was a total evisceration: Ted Cruz DEMOLISHES Colin Allred with his voting record in which Colin supported boys in girl’s sports and girl’s bathrooms, s*x change surgery for minors, and taxpayer funded drag shows and se*x change surgeries for military members pic.twitter.com/azxZI1ulPV — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) October 16, 2024 Cruz crushed Allred on Israel. He pummeled him on late-term abortion. He annihilated him on border and immigration policy. It got so bad that Allred was swaying back and forth like Jim Cantore in a hurricane. All he could do in defense of himself as Cruz brought receipts and pounded him into the dirt over his repeated votes to inflict confused men on female athletes was to say that Cruz “wants you thinking about kids in bathrooms so you’re not thinking about women in hospitals.” That’s it? That’s the best you’ve got? Sludge blob entities like the Nation, where the imbecile John Nichols posted something with a headline saying Cruz was as “hapless and beatable” as Trump (both are favored to win), rejoiced at Allred’s performance. Not many others did. Will Cruz win big? No. Cruz doesn’t win big. Cruz, who’s actually very nice in person, presents in public as your obnoxious lawyer rather than your drinking buddy, and there are too many voters who think a Pepsodent smile and a little small talk are signifiers of statesmanship. And Cruz attracts big money for his opponents from unhinged Democrat donors lining up to take him out, while at the same time the Chamber of Commerce crowd doesn’t feel it for him like they do Texas’ other senator, John Cornyn, who believes in nothing but a big smile. So it’s always going to be a fight to keep Cruz in the Senate. But it’s a fight worth engaging. 3. Can’t We Get Rid of the Disgusting Rick Wilson? What needs to be said about this? Wilson is the grotesque in charge of the pedo-friendly grift known as the Lincoln Project, and he’s still around after all this time. This is disgraceful from Rick Wilson of the Lincoln Project, after multiple assassination attempts already on Trump he still goes on national television and says this: “they’re still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump” pic.twitter.com/a1p5W5O33c — Sean (@Xcellent78) October 16, 2024 These people are the product of the media sludge blob, which continues propping them up, and the various leftist donors who continue funding them. There is no discernible merit to any of what Wilson does, and yet this persists. It’s an interesting case study in the strange staying power of certain grifts. 4. Trump Says Obama Is “An Angry Guy” in Patrick Bet David Interview The interview Donald Trump did with Patrick Bet David on his podcast was maybe one of his best, and one of the reasons was that the questions were excellent. Here was a segment from that interview talking about Barack Obama and his pot-shots at Trump’s economy: Compare Trump’s demeanor and candor in that interview with Harris’ in that room with Baier, and you can understand why things are beginning to turn. 5. The From Hellmarsh With Love Podcast As is my wont, having finished writing From Hellmarsh With Love, I’m engaging in a little bit of book promotion with this final thing of the week. In case you missed it, one of last week’s Spectacle Podcast segments contained a discussion of the book and its main subject matter — which is the assault on free speech being perpetrated by the ruling elites of the various Western countries, particularly on the issue of mass migration and its effect on the culture of those affected Western countries. Melissa and I had a good discussion about that subject, so I wanted to give you folks another opportunity to have a look: The seventh episode (out of eight) of the serialized version of From Hellmarsh With Love will pop here at The American Spectator over the weekend (keep this link handy; it’s where you can find the whole series). But also, click here if you’d like to pre-order a signed copy of the book and get it in advance of the crowd. READ MORE: Is This Right? Is America Now R+7? And Now, the Cholesterol Race Begins Aftershocks: From Hellmarsh With Love Ep. 6 The post Five Quick Things: Shouldn’t This Election Be a Referendum on the Legacy Corporate Media? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Porn: everyone can see it but few will talk about it. Before photography, there were tasteful paintings at a downtown museum. Before the internet, there were tasteless videos at a few across-the-tracks theaters. Now in every man’s pocket cellphone is a cavernous public library with endless rows of towering shelves, all filled with three-minute clips of every imaginable kind of sexual release. Easy access has led to overwhelming use. Three of the five most-trafficked websites in the United States, according to data from April 2023, are porn. “The internet is for porn” now, as the saying goes. Republican states, teaming up to make it just a little bit harder to get internet porn, have passed laws requiring porn sites to verify that those accessing their vast collections are adults because, as everyone knows, any American child with an internet connection can access 57 varieties of porn in less than 57 seconds. At the Supreme Court, the Biden–Harris administration has teamed up with pornographers to challenge these laws. They argue that the modern web’s Thanksgiving buffet of porn is a blessing of the First Amendment. Any regulation of internet porn, they argue, must therefore satisfy the highest constitutional test known as “strict scrutiny.” Biden and Harris are wrong. Common internet porn is not First Amendment speech. Like drugs or alcohol, it may be regulated for any rational reason. Biden and Harris ban criticism of their tyrannical pandemic mandates. They voice no opposition to offline public libraries requiring library cards. But only the highest need, they argue now, can justify slowing down even a little bit how fast Americans can get their porn fix. Like their monomaniacal support for abortion, marijuana, sports gambling, and transsexual surgeries even for children, Biden and Harris’ zealous defense of porn is another way they show you that, to them, you are not dignified citizens but mere subjects for whom they seek the worst. Biden and Harris are wrong about the First Amendment. In Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court restated the long-held rule that “obscene” material could be banned. It struck down a federal law making it a crime to transmit over the internet “indecent” material to minors, but not because the First Amendment protected internet porn. Rather, the court worried that the law’s failure to specify what counted as “indecent” would dissuade citizens, for fear of criminal prosecution, from publishing material that some may regard as indecent but is surely First Amendment protected: Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut, for example. But Reno was in 1997. That was the fin de siècle for porn. Back then, porn films had plots. Scripts. Characters with names. They surely had explicit scenes. But as adaptations of an artistic form, they had to have some meaning — even if it wasn’t all that thoughtful. Characters had to go into and out of sex scenes with motives and thoughts — and clothes. Today, common internet porn is little more than public sex with a camera rolling. It’s like synthetic THC or fentanyl over plant-based THC or opiates. It’s high-concentration smut designed solely to stimulate its viewers as quickly as a shot of smack saturates the blood. It’s not political speech, the core of the First Amendment for which Biden and Harris show little favor. It’s not literature, an unquestioned beneficiary of the First Amendment as envisioned by the Framers. Like having sex in the public park, it’s conduct — not speech. Material does not become speech merely because it is published over the same medium as Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon. A strobe light is a collection of light like a film. It is not speech. A CAPTCHA image is a collection of text like George Eliot’s Silas Marner. It is not speech. Common internet porn is like a strobe light or a CAPTCHA image. It’s made of the same stuff as speech, but it’s not speech. The final difference between speech and everything else is the capacity for a meaning or message. Whatever can deliver neither is of no concern for the First Amendment. Laws banning sex in the park are not subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment. Nor should laws regulating common internet porn. This is not about good meaning versus bad meaning, over which reasonable men may differ. Those who think the plot of Deep Throat was bad still have to agree that it had a plot. And yes, the line between meaning and meaninglessness can itself be debated. A museum recently passed off a banana taped to a wall as art. But in any reasonable view, lewd clips of bodily functions, which is what common internet porn is today, have no capacity to express meaning or message. The First Amendment is the nation’s most important. And it is under assault — from Biden and Harris and even some Republicans. The reason the First Amendment matters — and the reason it is under assault — is the same: messages can move the masses toward meaningful action. So when it came to Americans resisting lockdowns and forced vaccinations, the ruling regime had no use for free speech. Now, when it seeks to recast the First Amendment as the opiate of the masses does it come riding to the Supreme Court, urging it to put red states’ anti-porn laws to the most exacting test. Our forebears fought for a divine right in the First Amendment. The Supreme Court must not let Biden and Harris smother it into the muck. The post Biden and Harris Finally Back Free Speech — For Porn appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Paul Serran, The Gateway Pundit: A secretive US spaceship will attempt flight maneuvers above Earth that have never before been performed. We are talking about the Boeing X-37, a reusable robotic spacecraft. The X-37 is boosted into space by a launch vehicle and re-enters Earth’s atmosphere landing as a spaceplane. The project began as […]

Pfizer took out a patent in 2021 for the purpose of remote contact tracing of all vaccinated individuals worldwide. pic.twitter.com/pjYqtbKufc — Not A Number (@myhiddenvalue) October 16, 2024

30 Seconds Of The Most Un-American Treason You've Ever Seen! The Tyrants Are Desperate & Have Taken The Mask Off— Must-Watch/Share! @MAHAalliance pic.twitter.com/aHXESPjEO1 — Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) October 18, 2024

This is stunning: The New York Times "plagiarism expert" now confirms that the paper deliberately withheld the full Kamala Harris plagiarism report from him and that, after analyzing the full claims, Harris's plagiarism is "more serious" than he told the Times. pic.twitter.com/EP1og7bIi0 — Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 17, 2024