by M Dowling, Independent Sentinel: According to one report, the Iranian military killed 16,500 protesters and injured 330,000. Most of the victims are under 50. Some reports say under 30. The Jerusalem Post reported Iran admitted 5,000 protesters were killed, but the numbers were expected to be much higher. However, doctors report 16,500 were killed. The US-based […]

from Lionel Nation: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

It’s classic for a reason. READ MORE...

  Since 1776, the borders of the United States have continued to expand outwards through land acquisitions such as the Louisiana Purchase or full-blown wars. The Mexican-American War, which took place between 1846 and 1848, was one such conflict that forever changed the US-Mexico border. Sparked by years of debate regarding the southern boundaries of the United States, the war saw US troops occupy the Mexican capital and permanently transform the boundaries of North America.   The Roots of the War: Manifest Destiny and Mexican Sovereignty US President James K. Polk. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The motivations behind the Mexican-American War can be traced back to the expansionist belief in Manifest Destiny. This ideology became increasingly popular in the 19th century, and its proponents argued that the United States was inevitably going to expand across the entirety of the North American continent. Democrat figures such as President James K. Polk used the notion of Manifest Destiny to win elections and frame expansionist government policies as both a divine right and a national imperative.   Under James Polk, the US had already begun to annex territories that Mexico regarded as a part of its own national territory. The notion of Manifest Destiny played a key role in the 1844 presidential election campaign, where Democratic candidates used it to justify bold actions such as annexing Texas, the Oregon boundary dispute, and eventually the Mexican-American war. However, Manifest Destiny was not universally supported by America’s ruling class, and a great many Whigs and Republican figures, such as Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, publicly opposed it.   Tensions began to mount as settlers from across the United States poured into Mexican territories such as California and New Mexico, often with little regard for Mexican governance or cultural norms. While the US did offer to purchase these territories from Mexico, disputes regarding the precise border between Texas and Mexico inflamed relations. Mexico continued to insist that the Nueces River marked the true border of southern Texas, and the United States claimed that the Rio Grande was the rightful border. This disagreement proved a key flashpoint that developed into a war.   The Thornton Affair and the Outbreak of the Mexican-American War Volunteers in New Hampshire leaving to fight in the Mexican-American War, 1846. Source: Amon Carter Museum of American Art via Wikimedia Commons   In the summer of 1845, the newly elected President Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor, along with over 3,000 soldiers, to the Nueces River. Under the guise of peacekeepers, these troops remained stationed along the Mexico-American border in readiness. Eventually, Polk ordered Taylor’s forces to move south to the contested point of the US-Mexico border, the Rio Grande. Mexican forces stationed nearby demanded that Taylor and his troops withdraw to the Nueces, but they refused. Instead, the American troops built a wooden fort on the banks of the Rio Grande in defiance of the Mexican demands.   By the spring of 1846, it became clear to both sides that a war could break out at any moment. Despite a year of internal turmoil that saw the presidency change hands four times, the Mexican army prepared to defend its territory. On April 25, a detachment of Mexican cavalry attacked a US patrol that had been dispatched from the fort along the Rio Grande. The patrol was commanded by Captain Seth Thornton, and the incident became known as the Thornton Affair, effectively beginning the Mexican-American War.   11 US soldiers were killed in the Thornton Affair, and Washington, DC, was forced to take drastic action. Polk seized the opportunity to rally Congress, declaring that because American blood had been shed on its territory, the only way to resolve the conflict was to declare war. With the support of Congress, war was formally declared by the United States on Mexico on May 13, 1846.   Key Events of the War Zachary Taylor at the White House. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The early days of the Mexican-American War brought to light the imbalances in military capability between the two nations. While Mexico had a much larger standing army, it was plagued by internal divisions. Within Mexico, two factions—the conservative centralists and the liberal federalists—were vying for control of the country. Reportedly, troops from these factions within the Mexican army often fought each other instead of the American army.   The Mexican-American War unfolded across multiple theaters, each with its own strategic objectives. In the North, General Zachary Taylor’s forces captured Monterrey and triumphed at Buena Vista, solidifying American control over northeastern Mexico. Meanwhile, General Stephen W. Kearny led a campaign in the west, securing Santa Fe and advancing into California with the help of local American settlers and naval forces. The California front saw the establishment of the short-lived Bear Flag Republic before US dominance was firmly established in the region.   The most decisive period of the war occurred in central Mexico, where General Winfield Scott led an audacious amphibious assault against the port city of Veracruz in March 1847. From there, Scott’s forces embarked on a grueling march towards Mexico City, encountering fierce resistance at Cerro Gordo and Chapultepec along the way. The Battle of Chapultepec is one of the most remarkable periods of the war. During the time of the battle, it was being used as a military school and was largely evacuated, save for six military cadets under the age of 18. Instead of surrendering to the US army, these young cadets fought bravely and even jumped from the castle to their deaths to avoid being captured.   After their string of victories, by September 1847, US troops succeeded in occupying Mexico City, effectively forcing the Mexican government to negotiate a surrender.   The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Redrawing of National Borders American troops occupying Mexico City. Lithograph by Adolphe Jean-Baptiste Bayot, 1851, after a drawing by Carl Nebel. Source: Public Domain / Wikimedia Commons   After the defeat of its army and the capture of its capital city, Mexico was forced to enter into peace negotiations with the United States. The resulting treaty was signed on February 2, 1848, in the town of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The terms of the treaty required the Mexican government to cede more than half of its territory, including the future states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and large parts of Colorado and Arizona. Mexico was also forced to relinquish all of its territorial claims over the state of Texas and officially recognize that the Rio Grande formed the border between the two North American nations.   Territorial claims ceded by Mexico to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Source: US federal government via Wikimedia Commons   In return for these sweeping land acquisitions, the US government agreed to pay Mexico $15 million and also settled the debts owed to American citizens by the Mexican treasury. Mexican citizens present in the areas newly annexed by the US were given the opportunity to relocate within Mexico or receive full American citizenship. This new border marked a dramatic expansion of US territory, effectively increasing the nation’s area by nearly 25 percent and solidifying its presence as a continental power. For Mexico, however, the loss represented a national tragedy. The forfeiture of over half its territory was a profound blow to its political and economic stability.   However, in the United States, a debate between Democrats and Republicans regarding whether to declare the newly acquired territory as slave-owning or free states contributed to the further rise in tensions between the slave-owning Southern States and the anti-slavery North. Some historians have even argued that the ensuing debates in Congress following the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo contributed to the American Civil War a decade later.   The Impact of the War on the US-Mexico Border A gold prospector in Montana, 1860. Source: Nordic Museum via Wikimedia Commons   The redrawing of the US-Mexico border after the Mexican-American War had far-reaching consequences, many of which continue to shape the region today. From a geopolitical perspective, the new border created opportunities for westward expansion and facilitated economic development through agriculture, mining, and trade. The discovery of gold in California in 1848, just months after the war ended, spurred migration that transformed the western United States into a booming economy.   However, the new border also introduced profound challenges. For the Indigenous people and Mexican communities who had long inhabited these territories, the change in sovereignty often meant dispossession and marginalization. The US government’s policies of forced relocation and land exploitation disrupted Indigenous ways of life, while Mexican residents who were newly classified as US citizens often faced discrimination and marginalization.   In Mexico, the loss of territory remained a painful period of history for several decades. In the immediate aftermath of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, a series of internal domestic struggles plunged the country into chaos for almost 20 years. The Reform War between the rival liberal and conservative factions eventually led to the Second French Intervention in 1861, a military invasion of Mexico by the French Empire led by Napoleon III. What followed was a period known as the Second Mexican Empire, in which the country became governed by a constitutional monarchy.   The War and US Domestic Politics Abraham Lincoln was a vocal opponent of the Mexican-American War. Source: Library of Congress / Wikimedia Commons   The legacy of the Mexican-American War can still be seen in the contemporary politics that surround the US-Mexico border, which still serves as a literal and symbolic dividing line between the two nations. However, the border region has since evolved into a dynamic place that has become a hub of cultural exchange, economic diversity, and ingenuity. Cities such as Tijuana, San Diego, and El Paso have come to exemplify the interconnectedness of the United States and Mexico, while ongoing debates surrounding immigration and trade continue to underscore the contested nature of the border.   The war was not universally supported in the United States. Opposition came from a wide range of prominent political leaders, intellectuals, and writers who criticized the moral grounds for starting such a conflict. One of the main concerns of the opponents to the war was that the conflict would help to expand the practice of slavery. Notably, Abraham Lincoln argued that the war was merely a pretext used by President James K. Polk to expand slavery into new territories. Ulysses S. Grant, who fought in the war, later reflected that the conflict was one of the most unjust in American history and claimed that it should never have been approved by the American people. Prominent writer Henry David Thoreau even went so far as to call for mass civil disobedience to prevent the war from going ahead.   The war also left a lasting imprint on the culture of the American Southwest. From place names and architectural styles to cuisine and festivals, the region bears marks of its former Mexican heritage. However, the cultural richness is often accompanied by persistent inequalities between the ancestors of the American settler communities and those of the original Mexican inhabitants.   The Lasting Legacy of the Mexican-American War A Mexican memorial to those killed in the war. Source: Agencia Brasil via Wikimedia Commons   The legacy of the Mexican-American War has been felt differently in both nations. For Mexico, the story of young military cadets who sacrificed their lives in the Battle of Chapultepec became a source of great national pride. A monument was built to honor the young cadets, and annual commemorations have become a part of Mexican national culture.   In the United States, the legacy of the war was largely overshadowed by the catastrophic conflict that followed in 1861: the American Civil War. However, a number of important monuments have since been erected in Southwestern States to commemorate the soldiers who lost their lives. As relations between the United States and Mexico began to improve in the 20th century, a cemetery was built in Mexico City to house the remains of over one thousand American soldiers who died there. Nevertheless, the conflict still plays a minor role in the national culture of the United States, while the border it helped to create remains a key point in the national debate.

  War has been a part of the human experience since the beginning, and along with the deaths and casualties, prisoners of war, or POWs, have suffered at the hands of their respective enemies. A special kind of stamina is required to persist in captivity, and it is in these unthinkable conditions that the bravery of certain soldiers has shone most brightly.   1. Douglas Hegdahl: Not So Stupid Douglas Hegdahl shortly before his release. He lost sixty pounds during his period in captivity. Source: US Information Agency/Wikimedia Commons   Douglas Hegdahl was a small-town boy from South Dakota who eagerly accepted the call of the US Navy when a recruiter came knocking in the 1960s. Hegdahl was excited to see the world, and after boot camp, he was assigned to the USS Canberra. The Canberra was positioned in the Gulf of Tonkin, three miles off the coast of Vietnam, at the height of the Vietnam War. On April 6, 1967, Hegdahl was pushed overboard by a blast from the ship’s guns. He was presumed dead, and a memorial service was held. However, Hegdahl, with no identification, had been picked up by Cambodian fishermen who turned him over to the North Vietnamese. He was taken to Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the “Hanoi Hilton,” and held as a prisoner of war.   Hegdahl was tasked with sweeping the camp and used his freedom of movement to his advantage. Source: Ahmed Brens/Wikimedia Commons   Hegdahl quickly decided on a tactic to manipulate his captors, and it would prove to be successful. He pretended to be a simpleton, unable to read or write. He soon earned the designation “the incredibly stupid one” and was largely ignored by his captors. He was given a great deal of freedom, and was assigned the task of sweeping the grounds. When unobserved, he would stymie his captors by filling gas tanks with dirt and passing notes and communication amongst other prisoners. Contrary to what he portrayed, Hegdahl was gifted with an exceptional memory. He began memorizing information about his fellow prisoners, using the “Old MacDonald Had a Farm” nursery rhyme as a mnemonic device. He retained the names, capture dates, and other information about over 250 prisoners.   The Paris Peace Talks ended in 1973 with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords on January 27th. Source: National Archives and Records Administration/Wikimedia Commons   In August 1969, the Vietnamese captors decided to release three prisoners. Hegdahl initially refused to go, as the American prisoners had made a pact they referred to as “No Go Home Early”—they’d all go home together, or none would go. However, Hegdahl’s commanding officer at the camp instructed him to return home, as he had a vast bank of information that could prove useful to the US military. When he arrived home, Hegdahl was able to provide US forces with the valuable details he’d stored in his memory. He revealed the names of some that were thought to be dead. Further, Hegdahl attended the Paris Peace Talks in 1970, where he talked about the poor conditions of the camps and the torture methods used by the North Vietnamese. This exposition on the global stage encouraged Vietnam to make a larger effort to keep POWs alive until the conclusion of the war.   2. Johnnie Johnson’s List A tube of toothpaste became a tool for Johnnie Johnson. Source: Radler22/Wikimedia Commons   Wayne Archer Johnson, better known as “Johnnie,” served in the United States Army and was taken prisoner in the Korean War, where he survived as a POW from 1950-1953. Johnson, along with more than 700 other prisoners, was transferred to the supervision of a North Korean officer they nicknamed “the Tiger” in October 1950, whose real identity remains unknown. He forced the prisoners to march over 120 miles in inadequate clothing to a series of deplorable prison camps, where hundreds died.   Johnson realized that no one would ever know what happened to the men who perished and began keeping a secret list. On his list, he recorded names and details about his fallen comrades in hopes that the information would bring comfort to family members one day. By the time Johnson returned home in 1953, he had amassed 496 names on the list and smuggled it home in a tube of toothpaste. Unfortunately, the knowledge of the list was lost in army records, and it wasn’t until a reunion forty years later that it became a topic of discussion again. The military took another look, and the list was used to determine the fates of many who were still considered missing in action. Johnson was awarded the Silver Star for his actions in 1996.   3. Geronimo Was Interred for Over Two Decades Geronimo was photographed numerous times after his arrest. Source: National Archives at College Park/Wikimedia Commons   A member of the Chiricahua Apache tribe, Geronimo grew up in what is now the Southwestern United States in the 1830s. From a young age, he earned a reputation as a fierce warrior. His culture relied heavily on raiding to sustain themselves, and he proved himself a skilled member of tribal forces. In 1858, Geronimo was stunned when he returned home from a Mexican trading trip to find his wife, mother, and three children had been executed by Mexican soldiers. In his grief, Geronimo vowed revenge on the Mexicans and spent the next decade exacting his vengeance. Later, his tribe would enter conflict with the encroaching United States, which was determined to keep moving westward in pursuit of Manifest Destiny.   Geronimo was photographed in 1898 by Adolph F Muhr. Source: LJ World Photogalleries, Rinehart, F. A. (Frank A.), copyright claimant/Wikimedia Commons   Geronimo became one of the last holdouts of American Indian resistance, escaping his assigned reservations numerous times before a final surrender and arrest in 1886. He was then transported to a prison in Florida, followed by one in Alabama, before spending his remaining fourteen years encamped at Fort Sill in Oklahoma. In total, Geronimo spent 27 years in captivity. He remained dedicated to his people and culture until the end, stating on his deathbed in 1909, “I never should have surrendered.”   4. James Forten Walked Home A painting of James Forten later in life. Source: Historical Society of Pennsylvania   James Forten was born September 2, 1766, on the eve of the Revolutionary War. Born a free person of African descent in Philadelphia, of which there were approximately 100 at the time, Forten grew up with the shadow of American slavery hanging over his family. The Fortens lived the best they could, knowing that they could potentially be captured and sold south at any time. Forten’s father was a sailmaker, and James was involved in his father’s work from a young age, playing and helping out in the sail shop. Young Forten observed the events leading up to the Revolution and was present when the Declaration of Independence was read in the state house yard.   Privateers saw action during the American Revolution as they pursued treasure in the name of their cause. Source: Musee d’Historie de Saint-Malo/Wikimedia Commons   After his father’s death, Forten went to sea, serving as a powder boy on the Royal Louis, an American privateer. His job was a dangerous one, as it involved moving explosive gunpowder around the busy ship. The British navy eventually captured the ship, and 14-year-old James found himself in even more danger—the British military had a history of selling Black individuals supporting the patriot cause into slavery in the West Indies. However, Forten became friends with the British captain’s son and was offered an alternative: renounce allegiance to America and come to England. To the captain’s surprise, James refused, and he was sent to a British prison ship. The floating jail was overcrowded and rife with disease, but Forten managed to survive, and seven months later, he was released in Brooklyn, New York. Faced with no other alternative, he walked home to Philadelphia, much to the delight of his mother, who had assumed he was dead.   The masthead logo of The Liberator, an abolitionist newspaper that was largely funded by Forten’s philanthropy. Source: Boston Public Library/Wikimedia Commons   James’ remarkable exploits didn’t end with the Revolutionary War. He became a tireless advocate for civil rights for all people. He lobbied politicians to strike down anti-Black bills, such as one that would require all new Black Pennsylvania residents to register with the state. Forten returned to the sail-making business and earned a fortune that rivaled the wealthiest in Philadelphia, regardless of race.   He channeled his fortune into abolitionist and equal-rights causes, funding an abolitionist newspaper and writing a pamphlet titled Letters From a Man of Colour. He married and had eight children. Upon his death at age 75 in 1842, thousands, Black and white alike, attended his funeral.

Soup in candy form? That's right! Progresso's quirky new drops are stirring up some curiosity and taste buds alike. Continue reading…

Social media is coming together to search for the lost pup. See how you can help. Continue reading…

When Cristian Sosa commits to something, he does it with both hands dirty—one wrapped around a welding torch, the other […] The post Cristian Sosa’s Shovelhead Takes on the 2025 Motul Hot Bike Tour appeared first on Hot Bike Magazine.

For most Americans, the debate over Apricot Seeds and Vitamin B17 sounds like just another internet controversy, something argued in comment sections, dismissed by headlines, or waved away with a warning label. But for one family, it was never abstract. It was deeply personal. It was about a father who believed his duty as a physician was to help patients—not protect institutions.  It was about a family whose dinner conversations were interrupted by phone calls, court summons, and federal scrutiny.  And it was about a truth that, once spoken aloud, could never be taken back. A Doctor Who Wouldn’t Look Away Dr. John A. Richardson, MD, wasn’t a fringe figure or a basement theorist. He was a licensed medical doctor practicing in California in the 1960s and 1970s,  an era when faith in modern medicine was near absolute, and questioning it came at a steep price. Dr. Richardson believed that cancer was not merely something to be “cut out” or poisoned into submission, but a systemic breakdown of the body—one that demanded nutritional, metabolic, and immune support. Among the tools he used was Laetrile, also known as Vitamin B17, a compound derived from Apricot Seeds and other seeds found naturally in foods consumed for centuries around the world. What mattered most to Dr. Richardson wasn’t ideology—it was outcomes. Patients came to him after being sent home to die. Some improved. Some recovered. Enough did that word spread. And when it did, the government noticed. “Cutting Out the Red Spots” Dr. Richardson often used a simple analogy that stayed with his children long after the courtrooms emptied: Removing a tumor without addressing the underlying disease, he said, was like cutting out the red spots in measles. The spots weren’t the disease; they were the symptom. That perspective put him on a collision course with a medical system increasingly invested in surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, and increasingly hostile to any approach it did not control. The FDA raided. Licenses were threatened. Trials followed.  The Cost No One Talks About What rarely makes it into official histories is what this kind of persecution does to a family. His children remember nights when the phone rang at two in the morning, and their father appeared moments later, fully dressed, jacket on, tie tightened, shoes polished, ready to head out to a patient’s home. They also remember federal agents. Legal fees. Friends who vanished overnight. And the quiet understanding that their father had crossed a line you weren’t supposed to cross. Not because he was wrong, but because he was inconvenient. Apricot Seeds: The Symbol, Not the Crime Apricot Seeds became the symbol of the controversy, but they were never the real issue. Yes, Apricot Seeds contain amygdalin, the compound later labeled Vitamin B17. Yes, that compound includes a cyanide component, just like dozens of naturally occurring foods humans have consumed safely for millennia. The real problem wasn’t toxicity. It was independence. You can’t patent a seed. You can’t monopolize a nutrient. And you can’t easily control a therapy that grows on trees. That made it dangerous, not medically, but economically. A Pattern Repeated Again and Again Dr. Richardson’s story was not unique. From chiropractors to midwives to nutritional doctors, history is filled with professionals who were punished not for harming patients, but for helping them outside approved channels. In Richardson’s case, hundreds of patients wrote letters to courts and medical boards in his defense. They weren’t paid. They weren’t activists. They were alive. Their testimonies didn’t matter. Why This Story Still Matters Decades later, the debate over apricot seeds and Vitamin B17 continues, but now it’s happening in a different context. People are questioning authority again. They’re reading labels. They’re asking why nutrition is still treated as secondary in chronic disease care. And they’re discovering stories like Richardson’s, not through textbooks, but through families who lived them. His son, John Richardson Jr., continues to carry that legacy forward, not by demanding belief, but by demanding honest conversation. Because when truth is buried long enough, it doesn’t disappear. It waits. This Was Never Just About Apricot Seeds This was about a father who refused to abandon his patients. A family that paid the price for integrity. And a system that chose control over curiosity. You don’t have to agree with every conclusion to recognize the injustice. But once you see the pattern, it becomes impossible to unsee. The Apricot Seed debate isn’t really about Apricot Seeds. It’s about whether truth belongs to institutions or to the people brave enough to speak it. And that fight, as the Richardson family knows all too well, is never over. Want to Learn More?   Download the Book, World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 by G. Edward Griffin — Free PDF available. Explore Natural Options and Receive a 10% Discount: Learn about Laetrile, B17, and Apricot Seeds at https://RNCstore.com/WLT. Join the Movement: Visit Operation World Without Cancer to support research, education, and advocacy for natural healing. Find a Wellness Provider: Visit B17works.com to connect with a  Certified Richardson Provider.

EDITOR’S NOTE: On this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I wanted to look back at the wildly disrespectful statue they erected in his honor back in 2023. Oh my…how disrespectful! Look, this is one of those articles I’m not going to tell you what I think, I’m just going to show you what a lot of other people think and show you pictures and video for yourself and let YOU decide. Let’s start off with the background. A giant bronze statue was commissioned in Boston to honor the late, great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Nice, right? Unfortunately, sometimes things sound better on paper than they do when finished. The idea for the statue was to honor this famous photo: The #MLK Embrace statue in Boston was inspired by this famous photo. Did it miss the mark? pic.twitter.com/cb2bg5ohhV — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) January 14, 2023 https://twitter.com/Nikki_T/status/1614083344433561601 Unfortunately, they decided to cut off the heads and the result is, well, you decide… #MLK Embrace Statue unveiled in Boston… Why does it look like a giant _____? pic.twitter.com/RCOd4nElch — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) January 14, 2023 When it’s being described as “veiny” that’s when I think you’ve got some problems: New “Embrace” MLK statue in Boston. The rear view looks kinda veiny. pic.twitter.com/IsXSFcWP8w — Troy (@EnolaEmanon) January 12, 2023 Now, it could just be a bad angle, so let’s watch the full video: Video of the Embrace MLK statue in Boston… Is there any angle where this does not look pornographic? pic.twitter.com/Xn3wDwxR3x — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) January 14, 2023 Yikes, not much better…. I feel like we definitely need to tune in and get a “not White person” opinion here for full and balanced reporting: Given that I am not White, I am safe from ANY charges of racism for saying the MLK embrace statue is aesthetically unpleasant. The famous photo should have been a FULL statue of the couple and their embrace. What a huge swing and miss in honoring the Dr & Mrs King. SAD! #bospoli pic.twitter.com/w8yqSjOfqs — Rasheed (@rasheednwalters) January 13, 2023 This is probably the most favorable angle: “The Embrace” statue on the Boston Common. A memorial to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his wife Coretta Scott King. pic.twitter.com/xYYBhzhCvR — Malcolm Johnson NBC10 Boston (@MalNBCBoston) January 14, 2023 Oh my: This is the worst piece of public art I have ever seen.Search “The Embrace” statue and see the various angles of this headless tribute to MLK Jr. & Coretta Scott King. It’s .. so bad. https://t.co/D6OWCVbfo2 — Polly St. George (formerly Amazing Polly) (@FringeViews) January 14, 2023 Is it pornographic? Opinions seem to vary depending on the angle you look at. It’s either a giant rooster or a person’s head between two legs. Either way, I think the quote from above was “aesthetically unpleasant”: What is this?The EMBRACE? Why not a statue of MLK Jr. and Coretta standing? Does this look pornographic to anyone else? #Boston Did you approve this? #statues #art https://t.co/VZIF1LO8Gl — TheXFactor (@DeborahTaylor01) January 14, 2023 Giant turd? A statue(of a giant turd?) has been unveiled in Boston.The sculptural composition is called “Embrace”. In fact, it is dedicated to Martin Luther King .Although, at first glance (and all subsequent glances) you can’t really say so.. pic.twitter.com/nFui24IBtY — Spartackus (@elskorpione) January 14, 2023 It’s a giant something… Cutting off the heads seems to have been a poor choice: I know Boston’s new #MLK statue is being unveiled today (which is fantastic!) but I can’t shake the feeling that this view of “The Embrace” sculpture from this angle looks like two disembodied arms & hands hugging a butt. #bospoli #MLKDay pic.twitter.com/jswBHB3Eb5 — Chip Goines (@chipgoines) January 13, 2023 Others have pointed out it has the Masonic “G” from the view above: “The Embrace” is a Masonic statue. You can see the G from the aerial rendering. This isn’t about MLK. Open your pic.twitter.com/CKxVTreEFr — Three Hawks (@ThreeHawks5) January 14, 2023 From Fox News: The four intertwined arms were inspired by a photo of the civil rights leader and his wife when they learned he had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. https://t.co/tG5dm2jlKT — FOX 35 Orlando (@fox35orlando) January 14, 2023 Fox35 reports: Annual tributes and commemorations of the life and legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. began nationwide Friday and included the unveiling of a statue in Boston. The 20-foot-high bronze sculpture called “The Embrace” is said to be one of the country’s largest memorials dedicated to racial equity. When looking at the sculpture, you’ll see four intertwined arms — inspired by a photo of the civil rights leader and his wife, Coretta Scott King, when they learned he had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. King first met his wife in Boston in the early 1950s, when he was a doctoral student in theology at Boston University and she was studying at the New England Conservatory of Music. “My parents’ time in Boston is often a forgotten part of their history – and the history of the movement they helped inspire,” said Martin Luther King, III in a press release. “The Embrace is a commemoration of their relationship and journey and represents the meaningful role Boston served in our history.” So sad that this will be the legacy: They really unveiled this statue in Boston Common yesterday. “The Embrace” pic.twitter.com/lxGy4NaWpK — historic-crypto.eth (@Historic_Crypto) January 14, 2023 Describe what YOU see first in the comments below: I feel like if this Embrace statue were a Rorschach test, i would fail miserably. pic.twitter.com/DyFJP3zVrX — Joey Eastman (@TheJoeyEastman) January 13, 2023 Here’s what Grok thinks of it: