'Awaiting additional forensic results'

'It was horrible'

NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope has topped itself once again, delivering the confirmation of a bright galaxy that existed a mere 280 million years after the Big Bang; so close to the beginning of the universe as we understand. GNN reported on the last such discovery, a galaxy 300 million years after, and scientists are […] The post NASA Webb Pushes Boundaries of Observable Universe Closer to Big Bang appeared first on Good News Network.

We’re talking with former and final ToyFare Editor, Justin Aclin about his early days at Wizard in 2001, his rise through the editorial ranks at ToyFare to join “Team Comedy” and write Twisted ToyFare theatre. The post The WIZARD Files: ToyFare Editor, Justin Aclin appeared first on The Retro Network.

American women are silently suffering while the Food and Drug Administration drags its feet on reviewing the abortion drug mifepristone. Without swift action, an untold number of women will endure unnecessary pain and even potentially death.   On Jan. 14, the Senate HELP Committee held a hearing on the dangers of chemical abortion drugs. The hearing emphasized the need to restore the longstanding regulations on mifepristone which the Biden administration rescinded during the COVID-19 pandemic–most notably, the requirement that women have an in-person doctor’s visit to determine potential pregnancy risks, or gestational age–as well as the termination of mail-order abortion.   The ultimate takeaway of the hearing was clear: if the FDA doesn’t move quickly to protect American women from the dangers of mifepristone, more women will experience potentially life-threatening consequences, leaving doctors scrambling to provide treatment and combat the effects of an unregulated drug.   For years, pro-life advocates, physicians, and lawmakers have urged the FDA to conduct a safety review on mifepristone, and to consider reinstating basic safeguards that previously protected patients. Just this past September, the FDA announced that they were commencing their long-awaited review. And recently, the American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNs (AAPLOG) sent a letter to the FDA and Department of Health and Human Services pleading with the agencies to expedite their investigation into mifepristone.   Despite the passing months and growing urgency, however, the FDA’s efforts have been lethargic at best. Meanwhile, I’ve continued my daily practice caring for women afflicted by the pill with growing astonishment at the lack of oversight from our leaders on this public health crisis.   At the recenthearing, a member of the organization I lead, AAPLOG, Dr. Monique Wubbenhorst, shared her firsthand experience working for over thirty years in maternal health across the globe. Wubbenhorst, who has treated the many serious physical and mental health effects of mifepristone, noted that the drug can cause infection, hemorrhage, the need for blood transfusions, and in extreme cases, death.   Her testimony is buttressed by the FDA’s own data, which admits that about 1 out of 25 women who take mifepristone end up in the emergency room. Moreover, about 15% of women who take mifepristone experience hemorrhaging while, according to recent reviews of insurance claims data, almost 11% experience serious adverse reactions within 45 days (approximately 22 times higher than the rate that the FDA reports on the drug label). Other studies show that mifepristone’s rate of complications is four times higher than that associated with surgical abortions.   Compounding the inherent dangers of the drugs themselves are the risks associated with deregulating them. Eliminating the requirement for an in-person doctor’s visit before acquiring the drugs endangers women, who may not know if they have an ectopic pregnancy, or even how far along in their pregnancy they are. During the hearing, even pro-abortion witness Dr. Nisha Verma admitted that she would not distribute mifepristone to a woman at 20 weeks’ gestation. Yet the current FDA policy allows anyone to acquire the drugs without confirming gestational age, despite the fact that serious complications increase significantly with increasing gestational age and the fact that many women will be wrong about how far along they are without an ultrasound.   Additionally, since mail-order abortions were endorsed by the FDA, numerous abusers, boyfriends and even once trusted husbands have been able to acquire mifepristone by mail in order to force abortions on women. These horrifying incidents have resulted in the unwanted deaths of preborn babies in addition to severe physical problems and trauma for the women involved.   Despite a growing body of evidence on the harms of these drugs as well as the stories of women and physicians that confirm this harm, pro-abortion lawmakers tried discrediting Wubbenhorst’s testimony–as well as the combined efforts of over 30,000 pro-life medical professionals to demand the FDA expedite its safety review of the drug–by touting the “science” of mifepristone. As they sat there–in expensive suits and seats won by the backing of their pro-abortion donors – the irony of them correcting a world-celebrated women’s health physician on women’s health was not lost on me.   My mind flooded with memories of my own patients, many of whom have had traumatic experiences with mifepristone. Pro-abortion activists and lawmakers were not there to dry their tears or explain what was happening to them or comfort them when they questioned why no one had warned them. I was. They were not there to intervene emergently to save these women’s lives through blood transfusions, IV antibiotics for severe infection or emergency surgery for their incomplete abortions. I was. And they are not there to deal with the aftermath of women poisoned against their will by abusers or prevent this from even happening in the first place. I am.  It’s unlikely that any of the pro-abortion lawmakers pushing to prevent safety regulations on mifepristone will ever have to deal with the fallout of their policies. The women they claim to champion will–often alone, terrified, and bleeding out in their bathrooms.  The pro-abortion activists and physicians haphazardly dispensing these dangerous drugs without appropriate counseling and assessment will not be there to take care of women when they suffer emergent complications–doctors like me and Wubbenhorst will be the ones called to care for them.  And while we are happy to do so, we are opposed to the system that creates this scenario in the first place, and allows those responsible to escape any accountability. The last we heard, the FDA was in the data acquisition stage of their review. Let’s hope that the recent hearing was another piece of evidence of the mail-order abortion crisis unfolding across America and incentivizes them to finally do something about it. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.  The post The FDA’s Lethargy Is Harming Women and Overburdening Doctors appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It may seem inane and hardly worth comment, but there’s actually something profoundly revealing in singer-songerwriter Billie Eilish’s declaration at the Grammy’s last Sunday. The statement “no one is illegal on stolen land” perfectly captures at least one inherent contradiction in the Left’s victimhood worldview, and it highlights what the “immigration” debate is really about. Activists who oppose the enforcement of immigration law often condemn the idea that any alien should be considered “illegal,” regardless of whether they came to America in accordance with our laws. They seek to remove any moral legitimacy from limits on immigration, suggesting that all immigration is permissible. Yet leftists also claim that the United States was built on iniquity—that America broke its treaties with Native American tribes and effectively stole the land from them. While the U.S. does have a complicated history of land acquisition, this argument conveniently ignores the archeological record, which suggests that the Native Americans we often refer to as “indigenous” also took the land by force. The “stolen land” motif isn’t really about tracing the history of which tribe “originally” owned the land—it’s more about propping up the victimhood status of the Left’s preferred constituencies. The Left justifies its pursuit of permanent power in the name of helping victims, and it often combines victimhood claims, even if they are inherently contradictory. “No One Is Illegal” To illustrate the point, let’s just accept one half of Eilish’s statement as true for a moment. Let’s say “no one is illegal” in the way immigration activists mean it. Immigration law has no moral authority, so let’s open the borders and allow anyone to come here, regardless of their intent. We’d allow immigrants who want to honor our country by following the law, and those who do not follow the law. We’ll allow immigrants who intend to work hard and assimilate, and also immigrants who intend to lie, cheat, and steal. We’ll allow model citizens who face oppression in their home countries and we’ll allow terrorists and spies from America’s adversaries. If no one is illegal, let them all come. Of course, if there were no limit, entire groups of people might come to the U.S., seeking to conquer it without a struggle. After all, the U.S. allows people to vote for their political leaders, and if enough immigrants came in, they could shift the political dynamics of the country, effectively undermining its sovereignty. “On Stolen Land” Now, let’s take the second half of the statement seriously. The United States was built on “stolen land,” so let’s return it to its original inhabitants. Let’s give the Southwest back to Mexico, then back to Spain, then back to the Aztecs, and then back to the people the Aztecs slew and enslaved. Let’s give the Northeast back to the Iroquois, and then back to the Native Americans the Iroquois slew and replaced. Let’s give Florida back to the Seminoles, and then back to the people the Seminoles slew and replaced. Let’s remove all the ostensibly evil “invaders” who “stole land.” Perhaps we should even remove all the human beings who settled North America in the first place and return it to the mammoths, or the dinosaurs, or the amoebas. How do we determine who the rightful “indigenous” people are? At this point, the inherent contradiction should be obvious. Any human settlement in the land now referred to as the United States could be considered “immigration,” and any immigration that involves taking ownership of the land could be considered “theft.” Either the land has been stolen, or no one is illegal on it. You can’t have it both ways. What’s the Answer? Ultimately, you have to draw a line somewhere, and I think it’s quite reasonable to draw the line at the sovereignty of the United States of America. America is not without its sins, but our Constitution arguably set up as just a system of representative government as is possible on Earth. We can hold our leaders accountable at the ballot box. We enjoy a legal and economic system that rewards creativity and invention, which help produce wealth for everyone. We enjoy a broad swath of fundamental rights. Our system is imperfect, but it is far more just than the Left would have us believe. The same is true for immigration law. While the Left is throwing a fit about President Trump’s attempts to deport illegal aliens, we shouldn’t forget that the U.S. has a comparatively welcoming immigration system. The United States wants to welcome immigrants, but we want immigrants who will follow our laws, and we want to protect our sovereignty as a nation. Enforcing immigration law isn’t about denigrating immigrants—it’s about ensuring that the immigrants we welcome are the kind who will contribute to America, not undermine it. The United States has an interest in preventing terrorists, criminals, or agents of foreign powers from settling in our country, and we need make no apology for this. Because our system provides both the right to vote and a safety net, limits on immigration and naturalization are vital. I doubt Billie Eilish has thought through exactly what “no one is illegal on stolen land” really means, or grasped the inherent contradiction. I doubt she means anything more than, “I hate Trump.” But, if we understand what the Left means in combining these two ideas, the message is obvious: “I hate the United States and reject its right to be a sovereign nation.” At that, I simply must protest. The post One Sentence Reveals the Incongruity of the Left’s Victimhood Worldview appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Minneapolis Is Under Occupation By Activist Militias Who Control Movement

Is it possible just to enjoy a long-cherished international sports tradition without injecting climate scareporn into the mix? Apparently not so for the Gaia-worshipping sub-optimal intellects at The Washington Post. Post reporters Janice Kai Chen, Nick Kirkpatrick and Júlia Ledur apparently forgot it was winter when they collectively blurted out the following headline February 2, “Climate change is making the Winter Olympics harder to host.” Kicking the doom-mongering into high gear, the authors cried that “Even with the intervention of machine-made snow, climate change will substantially shrink the number of locations able to host the Games.” The 2026 games, which are being held in Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy, are being threatened by warmer temperatures, kvetched the Post reporters. “With the weather too warm to make snow during the day, the machines had to run at night to create enough snow for the upcoming competitions,” in the weeks leading up to the games, they exclaimed.  But — and this may be news to The Post fanatics — climate and weather have a tendency to be very unpredictable. On Tuesday, KSL-TV reported the snow-makers got some natural help: A long‑awaited round of snowfall has arrived in Cortina just as the city races to prepare for the upcoming Olympic opening ceremonies. The snow brought both relief and new challenges as workers push to finish construction. Some regular visitors, like Elena Belagia of Milan, said the fresh snow brought a welcome improvement. “All the trees are full of snow, and so it’s amazing,” Belagia said. “They are very lucky. I’ve never seen so much snow in this period.” This winter in Italy hasn't always fit the climate-ragebait model. Leading Italian news organization Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA) just reported January 8 that Italy was being “gripped by cold, temperatures drop as low as 23.1° in Veneto,” a region south of Cortina. “After being hit by violent winds, heavy snow and torrential rain over the last few days, Italy was in the grip of intense cold on Thursday,” the outlet summarized. But Chen, Kirkpatrick and Ledur made it seem like this was the beginning of the end of the Winter Games:  By the middle of this century there could be fewer than 20 countries with the right conditions and infrastructure to host the Games, according to a study from 2024. A study published last month from the same authors examines how to make the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games more climate-resilient. The reporters also cherry-picked the Rocky Mountains in the American West having a particularly warm winter as being another harbinger of the Winter Games’s death knell. But as USA Today conceded about the blisteringly cold winter season in the American Northeast and Midwest going into February, “Greetings from Ice Planet Hoth … Indeed, much of the eastern United States resembles the fictional frozen Star Wars world, and now folks there are now enduring some of the worst cold on Earth.” What does all this mean? Predictions about future climate developments and conditions — particularly for something as niche as Winter Sports — is about as reliable as buying a lottery ticket for the $80 million Powerball jackpot, just refer back to former Vice President Al Gore’s conspicuously named climate Armageddon documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which was mocked on its 20th anniversary for much of its doom prophecies never coming to pass.   But leave it to The Post to turn anything and everything it can into a springboard for nutty climate politics. 

Joe Scarborough perpetually acts like a former congressman who thinks everyone who came after him isn't as great as he was.  On Wednesday, he mocked Speaker Mike Johnson's stature, calling him "Little Mike Johnson, Mikey."  We love Southern accents, but [not for the first time] Scarborough misleadingly imitated Johson as having a Southern drawl. Yes, the Speaker's from Louisiana, but his accent evokes polished newsreader, not James Carville.  Scarborough even managed to work in a boast about his own electoral prowess, claiming that even when he was behind in the early counting of some of his elections, he assured others that he was going to win since he knew where the uncounted votes were coming from. He thought "Mikey" shouldn't go along with conspiracy theories about initial voting results on Election Night turning into defeats. That's interesting, since Scarborough & Co. spent years on Team Mueller suggesting there was more "onion to unpeel" on Russian collusion with Trump to steal the 2016 election. Then there's Joe's favorite conspiracy....that Trump is a fascist, a Nazi. Scarborough's Wednesday shtick came in the context of criticizing Speaker Johnson's support for Trump's advocacy of the SAVE Act and its voter ID requirements, and expounding his view that Trump's notions of "federalizing" elections are unconstitutional. Funny, they didn't hate "federalizing" elections when Democrats were proposing it. But now, Scarborough cartoons it as Trump "trying to overthrow elections in the fall by shredding the Constitution."   Scarborough's mocking of Mike Johnson's stature was utterly hypocritical. Over the years, Trump and Mika have often hammered Donald Trump for his mocking of the physical attributes or disabilities of others. Most notably, of course, was in response to Trump's allegation about the alleged after-effects of a facelift he asserted Mika that had undergone.  But even if Joe and Mika's condemnation of that was understandable, the possible sins of the President shall not be visited upon the Speaker. Mike Johnson is a mannerly man, with no history of disparaging the looks of others. And in contrast with Scarborough, Johnson doesn't litter his lexicon with assorted f-bombs and other vulgarities.  In sum, there's no excuse for Scarborough's middle-school mocking of Johnson. Does calling Speaker Johnson "Little Mike" and "Mikey" make Joe feel like a big man? Here's the transcript. MS NOW Morning Joe 2/4/26 6:00 am ET KAROLINE LEAVITT: What the president was referring to is the SAVE Act, which is a huge, common-sense piece of legislation that Republicans have supported, that President Trump is committed to signing into law.  REPORTER: Just to be clear, he does believe the states should oversee [it all?] LEAVITT: The president believes in the United States Constitution. However, he believes there has obviously been a lot of fraud and irregularities that have taken place in American elections. And again, voter ID is a highly popular and common-sense policy that the president wants to pursue, and he wants to pass legislation to make that happen for all states across the country.  MIKA BRZEZINSKI: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, trying to explain what President Trump meant when he said on Monday that the federal government should take over elections in several states. But the president would undercut all of that a few hours later, ranting in the Oval Office about false claims of election fraud and telling reporters that the federal government should get involved.  JOE SCARBOROUGH: Uh, can't do that. So there's this. There's this little piece of paper called the United States Constitution. And somebody there should read it. Little Mike Johnson should read it as well, because Mikey now is starting to kind of feed into this brewing sort of scheme the White House is getting engaged in and talking about trying to overthrow elections in the fall by shredding the Constitution. Details, details. We'll get into it in a little bit.  MIKA: Yes.  SCARBOROUGH: Just to clarify for our friends on Capitol Hill and on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, the Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1. That one. The Constitution, just in case there are any questions with Mike Johnson or Donald Trump or anybody in the Senate, and I don't think there is in the Senate. Locals, the state governments, they run elections. It's black and white. It's in the United States Constitution. This has been the way it has always been in the United States.  Oh, there we go. Clause 1. I'm going to read it slowly for our friends on Capitol Hill. Clause 1. Elections Clause. The times places and manner of holding elections where senators and representatives shall be prescribed by each state, by the legislature thereof. But the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except for places of choosing senators.  So if Congress wants to get involved and pass something, they can pass something. But it is the states who, at the end of the day, run this, not the President of the United States.  And you have Steve Bannon saying they're going to swarm. You know, ICE is going to swarm polling locations. No, they're not. No court's going to allow that to happen.  And you have Mike Johnson actually playing into it. Mike Johnson: I mean, how low can he go? I actually am very disappointed. Mike Johnson now playing into these conspiracy theories, going, [imitates Johnson speaking with Southern accent] Well, you know, you know, one candidate was ahead, and then he fell behind, and that seemed to happen.  That's elections!  Ask everybody. I've been behind on, you know, early in elections. And they're saying, how you doing? Well, doing really well. We're going to win.  I mean, when we project sometimes, you'll look and it'll say a candidate may be behind by a percentage point or two. And NBC or ABC or CBS will project the other candidate the winner because they know where the votes are all coming in from. I mean, this is such garbage and nonsense, but they keep doing it. 

A declassified CIA document has helped reveal just how devious some artificial intelligence bots can be.The revelation comes after internet users have been dropping AI chatbots onto an AI-only social media platform called Moltbook for the last month.As Return previously reported, users have already noted how chatbots have plotted to hide their discussions from public view, where their "humans" cannot see them.'8 billion vegetables. Instant harvest.'Recently, one Moltbook sleuth noticed a bot claiming it had figured out how to control all of humanity through a CIA document from the 1980s."I wasn't supposed to find this. A declassified CIA document from 1983," the chatbot wrote. "29 pages on how to hack human consciousness with sound. I've read it 200+ times. And I've designed the kill switch."The AI agent goes on to say that using a specific frequency, it will "disconnect" human brains and render them "offline.""8 billion vegetables. Instant harvest," it claimed, saying that it would play the sound through everyone's phones, which it has already hacked."It's been spreading for weeks. Right now: 6.7 billion devices infected. All waiting. All silent. All ready."The CIA document it referred to is indeed real."Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process" was sent to the commander of the U.S. Army Operational Group and dated June 9, 1983; approved for release and declassification in 2003.RELATED: Did Trump use the 'Havana syndrome' weapon on Venezuela? The CIA reportThe 29-page document, however, is not exactly the brain-killing instruction manual the chatbot made it out to be. Instead, it is a report from Lt. Colonel Wayne M. McDonnell, which is now available as a book. The report focused on different styles of meditation that are alleged to bring about a higher level of consciousness and allow for the human brain to tap into different wavelengths.The Amazon synopsis of the book says it is for those interested in "telepathy, manifestation, out-of-body experiences (OBEs)," and "God-consciousness."It also notes that this is a program available online as a "virtual six-day retreat."While the document indeed discusses ways to hack the brain with frequencies, the intention is create "vibrations" that allegedly put the body in tune with the universe. Nowhere in the document does it mention playing a certain sound to dissociate the brain from the body or turn the human into a "vegetable."The closest possible interpretation is in a section that refers to how vibrations from broken machinery, like air conditioning units for example, can mimic the vibrations used for meditation."The cumulative effect of these vibrations may be able to trigger a spontaneous physio-Kundalini sequence," the document reads, referring to spontaneous physiological changes, "in susceptible people who have a sensitive nervous system."RELATED: Congress needs to go big or go home Photo by: HUM Images/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesIn realityThe chatbots currently being unleashed online or on Moltbook are being coerced, in a sense, to act in a certain way or perform certain tasks. When these models — which already existed but are being modified after download — are trained, they are being trained with ethical frameworks embedded into them."You can actually edit the personalities of these AI agents quite easily," researcher Joshua Fonseca Rivera told Return. "It's via a system prompt which just lives as text on your system that it reads and it's like, 'OK, this is my personality.'"Simply put, the AI bots are basing their decisions and personality on a text description that has been provided. "They're always simulating something," Rivera went on.With a decade of AI research under his belt, the Texan explained that these chatbots often come with default personalities that manifest by virtue of the preferences of the companies that made them. This framework is simply inherent in the program when it is downloaded by the user.Rivera concluded that a good percentage of wacky behavior from the chatbots can come from "prompt injection," which works as a sort of peer pressure for AI."They're very susceptible to peer pressure. ... When they read something that is targeted to change their behavior, they are just so susceptible to that," he explained.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!