Add Your Heading Text Here The post Epstein Files Reveal DOJ Letter Announced His Death 1 Day Before He Died appeared first on SALTY.

Looks like Kid Rock isn’t the only one dropping a new song after the Super Bowl halftime show(s). Lee Brice announced tonight that he’ll be releasing his new single, “Country Nowadays,” on February 19, after debuting the patriotic anthem during the Turning Point USA All-American Halftime Show. Brice first teased the song during an interview with Breitbart News ahead of the performance, announcing that the song would be available on his still yet-to-be-announced upcoming 30-song album. The politically-charged anthem finds Brice lamenting the state of the country these days: “It ain’t easy being country in this country nowadays The direction of fingers point when it all goes up in flames Saying I’m some right wing devil because I was downside red letter raised It ain’t easy being country in this country nowadays” In introducing the song during the halftime show, Brice praised TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk for giving people a voice to speak out about their beliefs: “Charlie, he gave people microphones so they could say what was on their minds. This is what was on mine.” One verse (and line) in particular really seemed to resonate on social media: “I just want to cut my grass, feed my dog, wear my boots Not turn the TV on, sit and watch the evening news Be told if I tell my own daughter That little boys ain’t little girls I’ll be up a creek in hot water In this cancel-your-a** world” Immediately after the performance I began getting messages from people wanting to know where they could find the song, and it wasn’t long before Lee himself gave us our answer. The song is available for pre-save now on streaming platforms, and according to Spotify will be dropping everywhere on February 19. Pre-Save/Pre-Add “Country Nowadays” NOW! Link in bio. pic.twitter.com/qsWy8Oikj7 — Lee Brice (@leebrice) February 9, 2026 Lee’s announcement comes as Kid Rock also gears up to drop a song that he performed during the halftime show. After opening with his own rockin’ song “Bawitaba,” Kid Rock (whose real name is Robert Ritchie) slowed things down with his own spin on Cody Johnson’s #1 single “Til You Can’t,” even adding his own verse that he wrote after the death of Charlie Kirk: “There’s a book that is sitting in your house somewhere That could use some dusting off There’s a man that died for all our sins, hanging on the cross You can give your life to Jesus, and he’ll give you a second chance ‘Til you can’t” Kid introduced the new lyrics by saying that he woke up one morning and felt called to add one more verse: “I awoke one Sunday morning all alone with this song stuck in my head, and in that moment, something or someone spoke to me. They said there was still a verse that needed to be written for this song. And to get up and write it down.”  It’s a version of the song that Kid Rock first performed back in November while filling in for CoJo during the Hondo Rodeo Fest. And ahead of the halftime show, Kid even recorded his version of “Til You Can’t” to drop as a single tonight at midnight. If you enjoyed our version of "Til Ya Can’t” on The TPUSA All American Halftime – Our studio recording of it will be available to purchase or stream at midnight tonight! A big thank you to @codyjohnson and the songwriters Ben Stennis and Matt Rogers for giving me there blessing… pic.twitter.com/KzKUfKHebh — KidRock (@KidRock) February 9, 2026 I have a feeling both of these songs are going to be pretty popular.The post Lee Brice Announces New Single “Country Nowadays,” Which He Performed During Turning Point USA Super Bowl Halftime, Dropping This Month first appeared on Whiskey Riff.

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

When counterculture met nouvelle vague... The post The story of how Jean-Luc Godard got Jefferson Airplane arrested: “It was really loud” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

In almost all midterm congressional elections, the President’s party loses seats in the House of Representatives. The only exceptions occurred in 1902, 1934, 1998, and 2002. This obviously means the razor thin Republican House majority — and thus the GOP’s governing trifecta — will be in considerable peril next November. This being the case, common sense dictates that certain crucial bills should be prioritized by Congress and sent to President Trump’s desk for signature post haste. Considering the insecure and chaotic manner in which federal elections are conducted in blue states, the SAVE Act clearly falls into the must pass category. Yet the Republican leadership in the Senate continues to vacillate. They should follow the example of the Republican House leadership, who seem to understand how important it is to get an election integrity bill across the finish line. They have twice passed the SAVE Act, which would require states to obtain documentary proof of citizenship that complies with the REAL ID Act of 2005 before registering a person to vote in a federal election. Despite historically attenuated GOP majorities, the House passed the bill during the 118th Congress but the Democrats who controlled the Senate at that time left it for dead. The House GOP passed it again during the current (119th) Congress expecting the Republicans, who now hold a majority in the Senate to take it up, yet still it languishes in committee. It’s past time for Republicans like Grandstand Rand and his ilk to get serious about election integrity. Why the inertia? The excuse most commonly given by weak-kneed Republican Senators involves their reluctance to “nuke” the legislative filibuster. It is true that this should not be done without considerable circumspection, but this hoary relic of the 18th century is moribund. The Democrats have pledged to eliminate it in order to pass several pieces of controversial legislation and would have done so already but for the opposition of former Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Sooner or later, the Democrats will regain control of the Senate and they will consign the filibuster to history shortly thereafter. As early as 2020, the far left Brennan Center for Justice provided them with a pretext for doing so: The filibuster was designed and used for decades to thwart civil rights legislation. In recent years, its use and abuse has only grown … The struggle for democracy and racial justice must be at the heart of our politics. Chief among these goals must be repair of our democratic systems, which, this pandemic has revealed, are so evidently in need of renewal. Millions of Americans are calling for major reforms to ensure our democracy continues to function — overhauling our elections, creating stricter ethics rules for elected and appointed officials, limiting the poisonous influence of money in politics, and ensuring that voters choose their elected officials. You will note that, despite the Democrat caterwauling to which the public was subjected after President Trump’s remarks about nationalizing elections, one of the above justifications for killing the filibuster involved “overhauling our elections.” This recommendation eventually produced the “For the People Act of 2021.” It was the first bill (H.R.1) introduced by the Democrats during the 117th Congress and would have literally imposed a federal takeover of state-run elections. In other words, the Democrats themselves attempted to “nationalize” elections and were prepared to nuke the filibuster to get it done but were thwarted by Senators Manchin and Sinema. As the Heritage Foundation described it at the time. H.R.1 would federalize and micromanage the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states … It would implement nationwide the worst changes in election rules that occurred during the 2020 election and go even further in eroding and eliminating basic security protocols that states have in place. The bill would interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters, to ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, to secure the fairness and integrity of elections, to participate and speak freely in the political process. All of which brings us back to the Republicans in the Senate. They have a genuine opportunity to pass legislation that will bolster election integrity and prevent most non-citizens from voting. They also have ample evidence that the filibuster will not prevent the Democrats from foisting the “For the People Act” on the country when they return to power. And, they will return to power sooner or later. While it’s tempting to blame Senate Majority Leader John Thune for failing to push the SAVE Act, or even Mitch McConnell for keeping the bill bottled in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, there are still a number of GOP Senators who oppose the legislation based on their “principles.” Their names are all too familiar: Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). What the Hell is wrong with these people? The latest version of this bill is the SAVE America Act, introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and its most important difference from the SAVE Act is that, in addition to providing proof of ID to register, it requires that voters provide a photo ID when they actually cast a ballot. This requirement is supported by a huge majority of voters, including Republican, Democrats, and Independents. It’s past time for Republicans like Grandstand Rand and his ilk to get serious about election integrity. READ MORE from David Catron: The Abigail Spanberger Bait-and-Switch Peaceful Protestors Don’t Carry Loaded Pistols Minnesota and the New Nullification Crisis

As I’ve mentioned in previous articles here, I have not been blessed with a family. The increasingly likely prospect that I’ll never be a dad will haunt me to the end of the line — along with every opportunity I squandered to change my status with prospective wives and moms. But I take comfort knowing others of my right perspective are pulling more than their weight in reproducing, as opposed to the bitter progressive side. A great essay in LifeNews.com confirms this fact. “Marriage between a man and a woman, despite the best efforts of liberal social engineers, remains the best foundation for childrearing,” the piece stated. About 60 percent of conservative women aged 25 to 35 have ever married. About 44 percent of liberal women aged 25 to 35 have ever married. Among conservative men aged 25 to 35, about 57 percent have ever married. Among liberal men of the same age, about 35 percent have ever married. It doesn’t take Mr. Spock or Dr. Spock to identify the key driver in the difference — feminism. Feminism ruins everything. And after 60 years of brainwashing women, and weak men, it’s finally terminating itself. Despite the multigenerational Marxist push to warp nature, conservatives understood the goal was never female empowerment but the destruction of the family — the nucleus of Western civilization. The horror feminism wrought in advancing this — 66-million innocent unborn babies snuffed out since it possessed the Supreme Court — will be atoned for in another life. Though in this life, the women who embraced the infamy are already suffering, mentally and emotionally. I would teach my kids that once there was such a thing as screen comedy that could make them laugh…. And programming that affirmed the view of men and women as partners not competitors. According to the 2024 American Family Survey, 37 percent of young conservative women reported being “completely satisfied”, versus only 12 percent of young liberal women. Liberal women were up to three times more likely to report dissatisfaction. And 46 percent of white liberal women aged 18–29 reported a mental disorder diagnosis, compared to 21 percent of conservative women. You can view their full psychosis on social media, where many go for virtual validation, often having no children or normalcy to check them. What is more satanic than a delivery nurse (Alexis “Lexie” Lawler) on TikTok wishing the most repellant childbearing disaster on pregnant White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt? It’s another level of evil, attainable, in my view, only by batpoop crazy liberal women. And there’s no end to them or their hate. But after decades of relentless media mockery and abuse, the men and women who rejected such insanity for the natural order are turning the tide. Compare the progressive Biden White House; Vice President Kamala Harris — no biological children, Secretary of State Antony Blinken — two children, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre — no biological children, Deputy Chief of Staff Bruce Reed — one child; to the conservative Trump White House: Vice President J.D. Vance — wife Usha expecting fourth child, Sec. of State Marco Rubio — four children, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt — expecting second child, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller — wife Katie expecting fourth child. Normal women are restoring the political balance, and helping to save the country. But it’s a slow process. Because mad women — in both meanings of the first word — still control the culture and the arts. Because conservatives still refuse to attend to either. And their majority of children will pay the price, with nothing in the media to inspire them, and only anti-human fare to “entertain” them, like everything from Hollywoke. I didn’t have that problem as a boy. Both large and small screens offered infinite excitement and inspiration in every genre, beginning with Westerns. I could watch Shane, Hondo, Rio Bravo, The Magnificent Seven, The Virginian, The Big Valley, The Wild, Wild West, Alias Smith and Jones, and Kung Fu, and have a better concept of my future manhood. What was right and what was wrong, respecting women, and standing up for the endangered weak, all while having a rip-roaring fun time. Today, there’s nothing anywhere close to those heroes on either screen. There are no men, only docile beta males catering to unattractive girlbosses, when not getting beat up by them. If I had boys, I wouldn’t let them watch that. I’d send them back into the past, from the wild, wild west I conquered to when Disney actually respected them, with 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Swiss Family Robinson, Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier, Zorro, Hercules, and Tarzan. And if I had girls, they could watch anything by Disney before the turn of the century. I would teach my kids that once there was such a thing as screen comedy that could make them laugh: A Night at the Opera (“They threw an apple at me!” “Well, watermelons are out of season.”), The Road to Rio (“You will fight a duel.” “A duel.” “To the death.” “A duel.”) And programming that affirmed the view of men and women as partners not competitors. I would encourage them to read books. There are more wonderful ones than they’ll ever be able to: Robinson Crusoe, David Copperfield, Pride and Prejudice, The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo, The Hound of the Baskervilles, Tarzan of the Apes, The Maltese Falcon. Well, I don’t have kids. But I am a writer. I write novels that appeal to traditional men and women. Fortunately for me, there will soon be a lot more of them. READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: A Fountainhead for the Screen Art The Washington Toast Starfleet Academy: To Boldly Go Nowhere

President Trump wants to bring about regime change in both Cuba and Iran. Either would be good for U.S. national security but neither is likely. Why? Mr. Trump has urged Cuba to make a deal “before it is too late.” He has said there would be no more Venezuelan oil going to Cuba and, also, no more money to the Cuban regime. Cuba’s economy is a shambles. The supposed cutoff of Venezuelan oil to Cuba will make matters far worse. The Cuban economy, as my late great friend Jose Sorzano used to say, is a function of the regime. It is, as Jose said often, “No hay. No te toca” — “There isn’t any. It’s not your turn.” (Jose, more accurately Ambassador Jose Sorzano, was Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s deputy at the UN in the Reagan administration.) Jose was of Cuban heritage and hated the Castro regime. But he was right about the Cuban economy which was chronically short of everyday items including food. But the facts are what they are and we’re all stuck with them. The Cuban regime (which goes back to 1959 when Fidel Castro, after a years-long guerilla war campaign, threw out Fulgencio Batista) is now headed by Miguel Diaz-Canal. The Cuban people have as little to say about who governs them as the people of Arab states, China, or Russia. The problem with regime change in Cuba is that there’s no obvious  successors to the Castro regime. There are a few in government and elsewhere (mostly in the U.S.) who want regime change. But they are without resources to bring it about or likely followers who would fight to overthrow the regime. Which is to say that while regime change in Cuba is desirable, it’s not at all likely. Trump must realize that the time for negotiations with Iran has passed. The choice is between attacking Iran and appeasing it. The truth about Iran is even worse. Iran still threatens to attack Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East. Last week it sent a drone, probably to attack our carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln. The drone was shot down. Iranian gunboats tried to surround a U.S.-flagged oil tanker and were driven off on the same day. Iran is willing to talk about a new nuclear weapons deal but — contrary to Mr. Trump’s desires — it won’t talk about the Iranian missile program or uranium enrichment. In short, everything Iranian for which we need to negotiate is off limits. President Trump’s emissaries have held talks with the Iranians as recently as Friday. The talks went nowhere as anyone even remotely informed about the ayatollahs’ regime in Iran could have predicted. The Iranian regime is entirely belligerent and doesn’t respect American negotiators or America itself. The ayatollahs may fear another U.S. attack. The June 2025 U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities using B-2 bombers and ground-penetrating weapons certainly created fear for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the attack is fading into memory. In at least one respect, the Iranian situation resembles that of Cuba: there is no group of revolutionaries capable of toppling the regime. The followers of the son of the late shah, Reza Pahlavi, have — along with many other Iranians — been demonstrating for freedom. But they have been ruthlessly put down by the ayatollahs. An unknown number — possibly exceeding 15,000 — have been killed. The regime is clearly still in charge. On January 2, President Trump said we were “locked and loaded” and “ready to go” to intervene in Iran. But he hasn’t pulled the trigger on that intervention. He prefers negotiations to war. But he must also think about Iran’s record in negotiations and realize that they won’t do anything to change their behavior. That includes their sponsorship of terrorism around the world. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have both threatened attacks on U.S. bases and on Israel if the U.S. attacks Iran again. They are almost certainly not bluffing. Their missiles can reach Israel and those bases. So what can Mr. Trump do? If we attack Iran the regime will start a wider war that we are unprepared to handle. Nevertheless, Trump should attack Iran. Another B-2 raid, this time on Iran’s missile bases and capabilities, could prevent them from starting a wider war, but that is a risk the president has to take. As this column explained last week, any raid on Iran won’t be enough. It is time to attack the ayatollahs themselves and strengthen Iranian would-be revolutionaries by supplying them with communications equipment and arms sufficient to overthrow the regime. Mr. Trump’s efforts in Ukraine, in Gaza, and in Cuba haven’t accomplished much. Russia’s war on Ukraine is apparently stalemated, Hamas refuses to disarm and the Cuban revolutionaries are almost non-existent. Trump must realize that the time for negotiations with Iran has passed. The choice is between attacking Iran and appeasing it. READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Iran and the New Domino Theory   From Outrage to Agreement: Trump’s Greenland Gambit Trump and Greenland: A NATO Test    

As the Baby Boomer generation advances in years, we learn with increasing frequency of the passing of many of the people who were famous in our teens and 20s. Just this week, two bright stars who entertained me and millions of others way back then left this world. On Monday, Chuck Negron, one of the three lead singers in the band Three Dog Night, passed on at the age of 83. He was followed on Wednesday by Mickey Lolich, the long-time star pitcher of the Detroit Tigers and hero of the 1968 World Series, who was 85. I don’t know if these two men ever met, but they have something significant in common. Despite highly impressive careers, neither one was elected to the Hall of Fame in their field. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland has baffled music fans for years by never inducting Three Dog Night into membership. Similarly, the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, never enshrined Mickey Lolich. Let me make the case for each of these stars being admitted to their respective HoF. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame has long been perplexing in its decisions about whom to admit. One fails to detect any sort of pattern or fixed criteria for induction. To a white boomer like me, many of the inductees are total unknowns. Others — Patti Smith immediately comes to mind — are one-hit wonders. Granted, “Because the Night” was a gusty, catchy song, but the rest of her work lies far out of the mainstream and enjoyed little commercial success. I’m not arguing that commercial success should automatically get a singer or band into the Rock Hall, but to induct a one-hit wonder while shunning a musical act that cranked out hit after hit that kept them on the radio and filled performance venues year after year is baffling. Doesn’t music that has obvious mass appeal to millions count for something? Chuck Negron and Mickey Lolich have not been enshrined in their respective Halls. But they have been enshrined in my personal Hall of Fame. For those of you too young to remember Three Dog Night’s heyday, there were years when they sold more records than the Beatles, had more gold records than the Rolling Stones, and played to larger audiences than great bands like Creedence Clearwater Revival. Between 1969 and 1975, Three Dog Night had 21 consecutive songs in the Top 40. According to the latest AI online search, that remains a record. Three of those hits rose to Number One — the amazingly original “Mama Told Me (Not To Come),” the ebullient “Joy to the World,” which probably has the most unique and memorable vocal opening in rock history (“Jeremiah was a bullfrog!”), and the mellow and melodic “Black & White.” Negron sang lead on “Joy to the World,” as well as on the band’s first hit, “One,” its second hit, “Easy To Be Hard” (from the soundtrack of the iconic ‘60s musical “Hair”) the sweet, easy-to-sing-along-to ”Just an Old-Fashioned Love Song,” among others. To me, it is incomprehensible that Three Dog Night is not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. The case for Mickey Lolich being in the Baseball Hall of Fame is a bit murkier, although I believe a strong case can be made. As a lifelong Tigers fan, I’m undoubtedly biased, but those of us privileged to watch Mickey Lolich in his prime enjoyed watching a master craftsman dominate opposing batters. Lolich’s star shone most brightly from 1968 through 1975, and especially from 1969 through 1972, when he was a three-time All-Star and peaked at 25 wins, 308 strikeouts and 376 innings pitched, including 29 complete games, in 1971. With a pudgy belly and a slightly slouched posture, Lolich looked harmless enough — until he got on the pitchers’ mound and overwhelmed batters. Mickey Lolich of the Detroit Tigers 1975 (Detroit Tigers via tradingcarddb.com, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons) Lolich is still 23rd all-time on the career strikeouts list. He was the last pitcher to win three complete-game victories in the World Series, with his most famous game being the Game Seven victorious duel with the formidable Cardinals ace Bob Gibson. On that blessed day for us Tigers fans, Mickey (on only two days’ rest) and the Tigers prevailed, 4-1, to come back from a three games-to-one deficit to capture the 1968 championship. Indeed, complete games were Mickey Lolich’s calling card. Nearly 40 percent of his career starts — 195 — were complete games. That is unfathomable today when one considers that there were only 28 complete games last year spread over all of major league baseball’s 30 teams. I suspect Lolich was not admitted to the Hall of Fame because some of his other career stats were near the borderline of what a “typical” Hall of Fame pitcher accumulated. I emphasize “some” of his stats. In the important modern stat WAR (Wins Above Replacement), Lolich’s score was higher than such well-known HoF pitchers as Lefty Gomez, Dizzy Dean, Bob Lemon, Catfish Hunter, and Jack Morris. In fact, it is comparing Lolich’s record with Morris’ that is most intriguing. Morris was the first truly dominant starter for the Detroit Tigers after Lolich retired. Compared to Lolich, Morris had fewer complete games — 175 to 195, fewer shutouts — 28 to 41, and a significantly higher ERA (Earned Run Average) — 3.90 to 3.44. Morris’ won-lost percentage was higher (.577 vs. .532), but that was impacted by Lolich playing on weaker teams that had trouble scoring runs. Alas, no Hall of Fame for Mickey Lolich. The gatekeepers at Cooperstown have decided against it. In closing, let me say that the ways of Hall of Fame selection committees are often inscrutable, and they lead to endless debates among fans. For whatever reasons, Chuck Negron and Mickey Lolich have not been enshrined in their respective Halls. But they have been enshrined in my personal Hall of Fame. To me, they were both stars of the first magnitude, and they provided loads of happy memories with their outstanding performances. Rest in Peace, men, and thank you! READ MORE from Mark W. Hendrickson: The Fiscal Folly of Handing Out $2,000 Tax Rebates Abusing Border Patrol Agents: Echoes of Vietnam The 1960s: Baseball’s Golden Decade  

To make good decisions on any question the public needs to be well-informed, something not so easily accomplished in America’s schools. That is a key point made by Michael Kent, a recently retired bio-scientist from Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque. Kent is passionate about the debate over the origins and nature of our universe, and over the past 20 years he has developed slide presentations on “12 recent discoveries which have changed the debate about design in the universe.” Now he is turning those presentations into videos. In his introductory video, Kent elaborates: These are discoveries of science that are not controversial. They are findings of science that are very strongly supported. Scientists may disagree about the implications or the conclusions to make from these findings, but there is little or no debate about the discoveries themselves … My goal is for people to be knowledgeable about the subject so that the philosophical decisions will be in their own hands and not made for them, or imposed on them, by someone else. In a recent interview with Discovery Institute’s Andrew McDiarmid, Mike argued that “people should be informed and the decision about design should be in their own hands. This is really important because what you believe about where the universe came from affects your entire worldview.” And thus your political views, I would add. Although there are many scientists who are aware of all the recent discoveries discussed by Kent and who still will not even consider design as a possible explanation, no one could possibly watch these videos and not at least understand why some good scientists are convinced that design is real. But as Kent says, “Many of the basic facts are not known by the public. That in itself is surprising and something to think about.” The first 10, plus an introductory video and two videos on the philosophy and history of science, are all viewable here. Several videos require some knowledge of biochemistry to fully understand, but even those topics are presented in such a way that the main ideas can be appreciated by non-scientists. Here is the current video list: The universe (space-time, matter, energy) had a beginning. A great deal of evidence indicates that the universe came into existence from nothing about 14 billion years ago. Since there were no natural causes before Nature came into existence, we cannot expect to find a “natural” explanation for this “big bang.” The laws of physics, the fundamental constants, and the initial conditions of our universe are fine-tuned to allow for the possibility of life. The universe that came into being from nothing is not arbitrary but is exquisitely tuned to allow life to exist and flourish. It is now known that the values of many basic physical constants, such as the strengths of the four fundamental forces, the masses and charges of the basic particles of physics, the speed of light and Planck’s quantum physics constant, etc., had to be almost exactly what they are in order for any conceivable form of life to exist in our universe. As physicist Stephen Hawking wrote “the remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” Even more remarkable are the finely tuned initial conditions of the early universe as indicated by the cosmic microwave background radiation. Amino acid sequences that correspond to functional enzymes are incredibly rare. Discoveries 3,5,6, 9, and 10 all show that every living cell is incredibly complex, far beyond what Darwin could have imagined when he proposed his simple mechanism of evolution. That complexity is best described as integrated and coordinated systems of machines and of information processing. Biochemist Michael Denton said, ”Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.” The sequence space of proteins is inconceivably great (20300 for a protein of 300 amino acids which is an average length). Functional proteins form a miniscule fraction of this sequence space. This combinatorial problem, which has no analogue in the world of the machines that we build, must be successfully navigated to produce functional enzymes and molecular machines. This is the reason that humans cannot design molecular machines or enzymes, or even antibodies to block viruses, which is far, far simpler than creating molecular machines or enzymes. Humans can create supercomputers, nuclear submarines, and jet airplanes but are nowhere close to being able to build protein-based molecular machines from scratch. The number of genes in the simplest free-living organism is about 450. There is no such thing as a simple form of life, at least not now. So attempts to explain the origin of life without input of information from an intelligent agent imagine that much simpler chemical forms of life existed in the past and have since disappeared. However, without the constraints provided by a living cell, chemistry moves away from life. Two authors called the phenomena of alternative splicing “perhaps the biggest surprise in the history of molecular biology.” Life is based on a digital information processing system. At the heart of life’s digital information processing system is the genetic code and a set of enzymes that have the genetic code written into them. No one knows how these enzymes or the code could have come about by unintelligent processes. Molecular machines and sophisticated software algorithms are essential to all life-forms. Most if not all molecular machines are irreducibly complex, meaning that most or all of the parts are absolutely required for the machines to function. Also, the machines are integrated into coherent higher-level systems. Logical operations are carried out by highly specific and conditional molecular interactions between proteins, DNA, and RNA. Random mutation + natural selection has severe limitations as a creative mechanism that are now well understood. While in the last century the simplest living cells were discovered to be far more complex than previously imagined, containing colossal amounts of functional information, the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection proposed by Darwin to explain the origin of life’s complexity has been shown to be weak and severely limited. Scientists can no longer assign God-like creative powers to mutation plus natural selection. So many highly improbable factors make Earth habitable that it is unlikely that another truly “earth-like” planet exists in our galaxy. In the recent past technological advances have led to the discovery of planets outside our solar system, with news reports occasionally heralding the discovery of many “earth-like” planets. However, these reports considered only one or a few required habitability factors. Scientific analysis has revealed that many factors are required for a planet to support complex living things, and it has become clear that our planet is highly exceptional. Author David Waltham, in his book Lucky Planet, states, “The Earth is a precious jewel in space possessing a rare combination of qualities that happen to make it almost perfect for life.… Personally, I no longer have doubts. The evidence points towards the Earth being a very peculiar place; perhaps the only highly-habitable planet we will ever find.… Almost too good to be true.” The “junk DNA” paradigm has been shown to be false. Most, if not all, noncoding DNA has function. It was long thought that most DNA in higher organisms was useless junk, and this was used to argue against an intelligent designer. In the last 25 years, most of this “junk” DNA has been found to have useful function after all. The noncoding DNA has been shown to correspond to various types of RNAs that are critically important in regulating gene expression. Extensive post-translational processing (editing) of genes occurs in eukaryotes (which includes all plants and animals) by molecular machines called spliceosomes. It is commonly the case that a particular gene will make different proteins in different cell types or in the same cell type but at different times. Two authors called the phenomena of alternative splicing “perhaps the biggest surprise in the history of molecular biology.” Another author stated that the spliceosome may be the most complex macromolecular machine in the cell. Video number 11, “The Cambrian (and other) explosions in the fossil record are not consistent with the Darwinian model of gradual evolution,” is not yet available. While you are waiting for this video, I recommend my own video “Why Evolution is Different,” which, among its topics shows why the fossil record is not consistent with gradual evolution. Kent’s videos 1, 2 and 5 deal with the three discoveries focused on by Stephen Meyer’s 2021 best-seller Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. Meyer’s book has been endorsed by many top scientists, including Nobel Prize-winner Brian Josephson, a Cambridge University physicist, who says “This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science.” I believe Michael Kent’s videos also make that clear. READ MORE from Granville Sewell: A Mathematician’s View of Evolution What is the Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design? Venezuela Follows the Classic Path of Radical Socialism

The old saw that you can’t put a price tag on a good time is not true in the case of military incompetence; those costs can be quantified. I would expect it of the Navy, but not the Marine Corps which, until 2019, had a reputation for being the most frugal of the services. The Navy’s habit of turning perfectly good hulls into razor blades has long been a source of amazement to me. At a time when the Pentagon is trying to increase the size of the U.S. Navy and rebuild our naval construction capability, the Navy is retiring the USS Nimitz, which is over 60 years old, but sill serviceable. The original cost of the Nimitz class carriers was $4.5 billion a unit. The new USS Gerald R. Ford came in at a whopping $13.5 billion. The delay in launching the next Ford class ship (the Kennedy) will leave only 10 carriers in the fleet for an indefinite time period. The advantage of the Ford is that it needs a smaller crew and will be more maintainable because its catapult systems no longer works by steam which is hard to maintain. But the cost overruns caused by improper original planning and design have largely offset those advantages. I write this off to the fact that admirals are drawn to that new ship smell the way we taxpaying peons are drawn to the odor of a new automobile. Strategically, no-one asked the Corps for this capability, nor does the main customer — Indo-Pacific Command — seem to want it. Tellingly, the Chinese have ignored it. To give credit where credit is due, the Navy is re-purposing its Zumwalt class destroyers by taking off their guns and replacing them with 1,700 mile ranging hypersonic missiles. The Navy’s problems in shipbuilding and maintenance are caused by passive incompetence and corruption. Since 2019 however, the senior Marine Corps leadership has gone all in on active incompetence. Starting that year the Marine Corps repurposed itself from a world-wide force in readiness capable of answering any contingency from humanitarian operations to heavy ground combat into a China-centric one trick pony. Under the last two commandants, the Corps has instituted its Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations EABO concept. This piece of military idiocy has wasted billions on a force structure that after nearly seven years is not nearly operational. It envisions placing small anti-ship missile units — called Stand-in-Forces (SIF) — to hide on islands in the South China Sea to attempt to sink Chinese warships that come in range. This concept demonstrates incompetence at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war. Strategically, no-one asked the Corps for this capability, nor does the main customer — Indo-Pacific Command — seem to want it. Tellingly, the Chinese have ignored it; if it worried them they would have squealed like stuck pigs. Operationally, it presents a logistics nightmare for which the Corps still does not have a good answer. Tactically, it depends on an outdated missile system that does not have the range to be of much help in the most likely combat scenario; that being Taiwan. It is also subsonic making it vulnerable to advanced Chinese anti-ship defenses. After seven years, not a single SIF is fully operational. Worse, the price tag in wasted tax dollars is staggering. When completed the NEMSIS buy will come in at around $50 billion. To logistically support EABO, the Marine Corps released the Navy from its responsibility to maintain 38 amphibious ships in order to build 18 Landing Ship Medium (LSM) hulls. The LSM will be virtually useless for conventional amphibious operations and will cost  at least $7.8 billion. To date, not one of them has been built. The LSM will not be able to defend itself. The geniuses who came up with the idea envisioned its main defense as being able to blend in with commercial shipping in the coastal waters around China. What they did not consider is that, as soon as fighting breaks out commercial shipping will dry up for the duration of the conflict leaving the LSMs naked and alone to be picked off. The only good thing is that the radars envisioned for EABO can be used for other purposes such as air defense and counterbattery fire. Given the fact that the cost figures are unclassified, the Navy/Marine Corps team has or is planning to flush over $8 billion down the toilet on EABO. A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon we are talking real money. More disturbing, to afford this abortion of a strategy, the naval services are not building sufficient big deck amphibious ships to meet pop-up contingencies world-wide. Since 2019, the marines have had to turn down contingency requests made by the European and Central Commands due to lack of shipping. To afford EABO, the marines divested all of their armor, much of their cannon artillery, snipers, and combat aircraft. Thus far, no-one in the administration or Congress has seriously called the Corps’ leadership out on it. As a retired marine, I am embarrassed. As a taxpayer, I am appalled. READ MORE from Gary Anderson: ICE Should Adopt a Counterinsurgency Strategy If We Want to Help the Iranians, We Should Disrupt the IRGC Regime Modification in Caracas Gary Anderson is the author ofBeyond Mahan, a Proposed Naval Strategy for the 21st Century