from And We Know: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics: This video is all over the place. I even went to my local doctor for the routine checkup, and she was from Serbia. She immediately brought this up. What I will say is this. One of my sources in Ukraine, whom I believe Zelensky had murdered to silence him, was Gonzalo […]

by Nick Gilbertson, Breitbart: President Donald Trump’s approval rating in New Jersey bests that of Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ), according to a poll, marking a negative sign for Democrats. The Emerson College/Pix 11/the Hill poll, published Thursday night, finds that Trump has a neutral rating in the Garden State, with 47 percent approving and 47 percent disapproving of […]

The South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously ruled the state can continue banning abortions around six weeks after conception by agreeing it’s the earliest interpretation of when a fetal heartbeat begins. According to The Hill, the 2023 Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act bans abortions in the state as soon as a health care provider can detect “cardiac activity, or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart, within the gestational sac.” ????? ???????? ??????? ????? ??????????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????’? ?-???? ???????? ??? The 5–0 decision this week came in response to a challenge to the current state law from Planned Parenthood. pic.twitter.com/i3szerVEdZ — The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) May 17, 2025 The Hill reports: The law states that such cardiac activity occurs at around six weeks after conception, but Planned Parenthood challenged the law’s merit in court, arguing that it uses an alternative definition of when the fetal heart forms and when a heartbeat starts. They argue that this type of “cardiac activity does not occur until all four chambers of the heart have formed” and that a “heartbeat” ban should start at around nine or 10 weeks after conception. Justices noted in their ruling that the definition of a “fetal heartbeat” in the 2023 law is ambiguous and does not convey a “clear, definite meaning.” “Not one of the terms the General Assembly used in the definition-not ‘cardiac activity’ nor ‘steady,’ ‘repetitive,’ ‘rhythmic,’ ‘contraction,’ ‘fetal heart,’ nor even ‘gestational sac,’-is a precise medically defined term,” they wrote. South Carolina Can Keep Protecting Babies From Abortions https://t.co/hx2meae00m pic.twitter.com/CxpSXoTMRh — Stop Abortion Now (@LifeNewsToo) May 15, 2025 From the Associated Press: Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended a nationwide right to abortion in 2022, most Republican-controlled states have begun enforcing new bans or restrictions while most Democrat-dominated ones have sought to protect abortion access. Currently, 12 states enforce bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with limited exceptions. South Carolina and three others prohibit abortions at or about six weeks into pregnancy — often before women realize they’re pregnant. The fight over South Carolina’s abortion law is not over. A federal judge this month allowed to continue a lawsuit by five OB-GYN doctors who said they can’t properly treat patients because they fear they could be charged with crimes due to the vague definitions of heartbeat and the exceptions allowing abortions only when a fatal fetal anomaly exists or a woman’s life is at risk. South Carolina’s law also allows abortions for up to 12 weeks after conception if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.

Reading the Psalms profoundly transforms our faith by teaching us to bring every part of our heart to God, offering comfort, conviction, and a deeper understanding of His love and guidance through His Word.

Snorting "seriously, come on," on Saturday's edition of MSNBC'S The Weekend, co-host Jonathan Capehart dismissed former FBI Director James Comey's posting of a photo of "8647" as a "pseudo controversy." Right! After all, in taking down the post, Comey claimed "I didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me." Of course he didn't realize it! After all, who would expect the former top federal crime fighter to be familiar with . . . criminal code? Capehart played a clip of President Trump telling Bret Baier: "He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. That meant assassination. Now, he wasn't very competent, but he was competent enough to know what that meant." But Capehart wasn't buying that. It was just the whining of a guy who . . . had been the target of two assassination attempts.  Maybe Comey hadn't heard about that, either. So it didn't occur to him that any possible suggestion of offing Trump was in the worst possible taste, and a very plausible incitement to violence. Reacting to Trump's statement, Capehart unloaded an absurd non sequitur: "This is the man who pardoned January 6th rioters who beat up and hurt maimed law enforcement officials." So Trump's issuance of pardons justified Comey's suggestion that the president be taken out?? Boston Globe columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr weighed in to call Comey's post "stupid." Not because it could have incited someone to attempt to assassinate Trump. No, Atkins Stohr fretted that the post could endanger . . . Comey! "This administration is all about vengeance. It's all about settling scores. And James Comey should know that he would be among the top of the list of people, if given a chance, the administration would go after."  Note: MSNBC is not the only liberal media outlet to ride to Comey's defense. The New York Times published an article yesterday citing Columbia professor Jesse Sheidlower [see photo], a slang specialist, on the meaning of "86." While acknowledging that "it can mean murder," Sheidlower claimed: "Without any very specific indication that that’s the intended meaning, you’d never assume that. The notion that Comey was suggesting this is completely preposterous.” "Completely preposterous" -- great point, professor. Because in posting "8647," Comey didn't specify, "I mean that to say, murder the president." Case closed! Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Weekend 5/17/25 7:17 am EDT JONATHAN CAPEHART: There is what I would like to think is a pseudo controversy involving the former FBI director, James Comey, and the shells photo that he took, 86-47.  And now you've got people screaming at the tops of their lungs that, do we have that? Yeah, there it is. And you've got people saying that he's threatening the president's life.  Let's play element four. This is the president's reaction to that post that the president gave Fox News yesterday.  PRESIDENT TRUMP: He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you're the FBI Director and you don't know what that meant? That meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear. Now, he wasn't very competent, but he was competent enough to know what that meant.  CAPEHART: Okay, seriously. Come on. This is the man who pardoned January 6th rioters who beat up and hurt maimed law enforcement officials. So I'm not downplaying whatever concerns he might have about what that meant. But Kimberly, come on now.  KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR: Yes. So I don't think any reasonable person would take that post to mean that the former FBI Director is calling for the assassination of the president. That is just not real.  On the other hand, Comey is a former FBI director. He's now a private citizen. He's walking on the beach. If you want to snap a picture and send it to your family, your wife. It's really improper for a former official to be doing something like that. CAPEHART: Correct, yes. ATKINS STOHR: And it's also stupid, given that you know that this administration is all about vengeance. It's all about settling scores. And James Comey should know that he would be among the top of the list of people, if given a chance, the administration would go after.  So he should go off as a private citizen, enjoy his life, walk on the beach and stay out of the chat. 

Jake Tapper has been blasted by conservatives for extreme hypocrisy for writing a book about the coverup of Joe Biden's mental decline when, in fact, it was Tapper himself who was one of the perpetrators of that very coverup. However, now Tapper is being slammed for writing that book for a very different reason by liberals. They are angry at Tapper for writing about Biden's loss of mental cognizance because it detracts from their cause of slamming Donald Trump. Thus  many of them now consider Tapper to be a traitor to their anti-Trump narrative as you can see chronicled on Friday in MSN with an article by Jesus Mesa, "Jake Tapper draws liberal outrage over new Biden book." Tapper's new book on Biden's cognitive decline was expected to draw ire from the political right, but the most heated backlash has come from the other direction—liberals who once viewed the CNN anchor as an ally. Liberals considered Jake Tapper to have been an ally because he clearly demonstrated media bias in their favor. However, the urge to make a quick buck exposing a coverup in which he himself participated overrode his usual liberal leanings. And now the cascade of castigations against Jake Tapper for daring to veer from the party line by failing to blast Trump in a book about the coverup of Biden's mental decline: "Hey @jaketapper, is there any timeline for reporting on Donald Trump's clear pattern of cognitive deterioration?" asked LGBTQ+ advocate Charlotte Clymer. "I figured you'd be a great person to ask given that you've done so much research and reporting on this area of medicine." John Pavlovitz, a progressive Christian author and activist, added bluntly on a separate X post: "I think we need to talk about Jake Tapper's decline." Joanne Carducci, known as @JoJoFromJerz to her more than one million followers, accused Tapper of cashing in on false equivalencies: "It's almost as if Jake figured it would be more financially lucrative to write about the out-of-office guy who he blames for helping elect a rapist traitor felon than it would be to write about the actual in-office rapist traitor felon." Writer and MSNBC contributor Wajahat Ali called Tapper's project an indictment of the broader media's priorities: "Jake Tapper's New Book on Biden Reveals How Corporate Media is Failing America. While the Trump Administration is galloping towards fascism... corporate media remain complicit cowards by focusing on Joe Biden's age." Tapper's publisher had an interesting observation about his book: Penguin Press, the publisher of Tapper's upcoming book, in a press release: "What you will learn makes President Biden's decision to run for reelection seem shockingly narcissistic, self-delusional, and reckless—a desperate bet that went bust—and part of a larger act of extended public deception that has few precedents." Hmmm... "Shockingly narcissistic, self-delusional, and reckless..." The same thing could be said about Jake Tapper and his highly hypocritical book that is now being blasted from all sides of the political spectrum for very different reasons.

Nineties nostalgia is big these days. Some are into the music. Distorted guitars and drum sets. Something more human than samples and synths. People dressed better in the '90s. Even considering grunge culture, people dressed better. There were no Crocs in 1994. Some are into the clothes. Old Polo Ralph Lauren on one hand and grungy baggy jeans on another. From time to time, I see young people crossing the street, and those memories of the JNCO years come rushing back.Reflections of an unrepentant nostalgistI’ve been an unrepentant '90s nostalgist for quite some time now. My argument on behalf of the '90s predates Zoomer nostalgia. It’s interesting to witness the rise of '90s nostalgia among young people. It feels like watching others catch up to what I already knew. It’s a rare case of feeling culturally vindicated.What is happening? People never like what I like.Of course, it will be short-lived. Trends go as quickly as they come. People are fickle. That’s OK, it’s just the nature of things. But the rise of '90s nostalgia isn’t just irrational sentimentalism.Nineties nostalgia makes sense. The '90s were indeed better. Better problemsThere are always detractors. There are those who respond, “The '90s weren’t that great, you know. It wasn’t all perfect. It wasn’t utopia or anything.” That’s true, it wasn’t utopia. There is no utopia. No one is saying it was utopia. The straw man argument can be dismissed.Yes, there were problems in the '90s. Urban crime, for one. There was a darkness to the grunge scene. Cubicle culture was as stultifying as ever. There was an ennui looming somewhere underneath everything in the wake of the Soviet Union collapsing. With our enemy on the other side of the world vanquished, where did that leave us? Who were we without a formidable enemy? The end of history was here. Yes, these were problems in the '90s. But here's the crucial point: None of those problems came close to what we're dealing with today. Is the darkness of grunge really worse than the absolute nihilism we see among our young people today? No. There was, actually, some kind of vital rage to grunge. Brain-rot culture of 2025 is some kind of unholy combination of "Idiocracy" and "Brave New World."Same for office malaise. Yes, more of us may work from home, but those homes are often as sterile as the buildings they replaced. Slack email jobs for people with no kids, two cats, and Netflix every night. Don’t forget DoorDash, vasectomies at 26, and sleep health. Grim.Bad to worseOur society today is far more anti-social than the society of the '90s. People are lonelier. More people avoid marriage or even dating. There are fewer children being born. There are more suicides. More overdoses. More sexual dysfunction. More mental illness. More prescription drugs. The culture is more disgusting. The music is less human. The clothing is more dehumanizing. Yes, there were problems in the '90s, but the problems are worse today. Lament of a '90s kidI remember; I was around in the '90s. I wasn’t an adult, I was a kid. And, of course, children never know what is really going on, but I do remember what life was like.I know that there was not one bit of gender destruction going on in school. I know that not a single person in my entire childhood claimed to be a boy when she was actually a girl. I know that no one in 6th grade had unfiltered access to anything resembling the psychotic internet of 2025. I know that almost no one was on antidepressants in high school. I know what it was like, and it wasn’t like today. I know that with my children, I have to look out for everything my parents had to look out for, plus a bunch of other stuff.People dressed better in the '90s. Even considering grunge culture, people dressed better. There were no Crocs in 1994. People didn’t wear pajama pants everywhere. In high school, pajama day was some weird one-off during spirit week. The lowest of the low was ripped jeans and T-shirts. Girls wore makeup more. Guys shaved more.There was a general thrust of society that led to girls wanting to look pretty and guys wanting to look handsome. There were more songs about love. The movies were, largely, about adults and life, not super heroes and other banalities. All of this is historical fact.Kids todayNineties nostalgia, for those of us who were alive then, is a little less interesting than '90s nostalgia found among the Zoomers. For us olds, it’s real in a way it just isn't for the Zoomers. They are longing for a world they never knew. They are imagining a place they have only seen in photos and videos. And it’s the aesthetic of those photos and videos they love. Handheld-recorder aesthetic with date and tracking problems is a vibe. It’s not Super 8 midcentury. It’s Sony camcorder 1997. Something — anything! — less sterile than a straight iPhone photo. That’s the meaning of that aesthetic memory.Were the '90s the greatest decade? No. Of course not. There is no greatest decade. Some argue that history has a fixed trajectory and that every decade is worse than the previous one. It’s a compelling argument. I can’t say it’s entirely wrong, though spending too much time thinking about that might lead to depression. So close, so farBut why the nostalgia for the '90s and not the '80s? Or the '70s? Or the '50s? Or the '20s? Because the '90s were the end and the closest we can get. The final sputters of the 1900s. The end of the other world. Yes, there have been many ends, but the '90s were really the final gasp. The last chopper out of Vietnam. That flip from 1999 to 2000 was the final nail in the coffin. The '90s feel like an alternative reality. It was modern then. Looking back on 1994 isn’t like looking back at 1924. 1924 feels ancient. We can’t really wrap our heads around living then. But 1994 is near us. The cars, the houses, the technology, the medical advancement, the people, the language, the way of life. It all feels very familiar. It really feels like yesterday, even for the Zoomers who weren’t there. It feels like we can almost reach out and grab it. It feels like we can almost get there from here. It feels like today, but better.