This past weekend, men hoping to become Donald Trump’s running mate have vied to see who can be more pro-choice on abortion. Florida senator Marco Rubio previously cosponsored federal legislation that would ban abortion after 15 weeks. But when recently asked about whether the GOP platform should include a long-standing call to ban abortion, he said, “I think our platform has to reflect our nominee” (referring to, and aligning himself with, Trump’s objection to a federal ban on abortion). Not to be outdone, Ohio senator J. D. Vance says he supports access to the abortion pill mifepristone (referring to, and aligning himself with, Trump’s support for the abortion pill). They likely knew that by Monday, the GOP platform would be adopted and, for the first time in 40 years, reflect a pro-choice position on abortion. In Ernest Hemingway’s novel The Sun Also Rises, one character asks another, “How did you go bankrupt?” The other responds, “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” The same answer could be given to social conservatives wondering how the GOP became pro-choice. It was happening gradually for some time. But then it happened suddenly. Before we look at how it happened, let’s start with basic definitions. Central to the pro-life ethos is the belief in the inherent value and dignity of human life. The acknowledgment that life is sacred from conception until natural death undergirds the entire movement. As applied to abortion, the pro-life view is to support limits and restrictions on abortion in whatever ways are possible, with the ultimate goal of putting an end to the practice. In contrast, the pro-choice position is to support keeping abortion legal and accessible, typically within certain gestational limits. These positions are binary. A person is either pro-life or pro-choice. Just as you cannot be a “little bit pregnant,” you cannot be a little bit pro-choice. Once you support abortion in any form, you lose the right to the label of pro-life. By this standard, the GOP was once pro-life and shifted—gradually, then suddenly—to being pro-choice. From Platform to Personality The first gradual step was to align the political platform with the personal views of the party’s presidential nominee. Until recently, the GOP was officially a pro-life political party. Although the party platform isn’t binding on the presidential nominee or any other politicians, political scientists found that from 1980 until 2004, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Congress voted in accordance with their platforms about 82 percent of the time. The GOP was once pro-life and shifted—gradually, then suddenly—to being pro-choice. In 1980, Republican nominee Ronald Reagan pushed to have the language on abortion in the GOP platform changed to be more pro-life. Although it retained some of the inclusive language added in 1976 that was intended to appease all sides, the plank supported an anti-abortion constitutional amendment and efforts to cut the flow of taxpayer money to abortion services. It also pledged to appoint judges who “respect the sanctity of innocent human life.” Similar pro-life language was included in every platform up through 2016. But in the months before the 2020 convention, Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and top adviser, worked with campaign officials to overhaul the party’s platform. Kushner, a lifelong Democrat, objected to socially conservative language that offended homosexual Republicans, such as “We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children.” Conservative activists were appalled by this move, so the Trump campaign took a different path and chose not to draft a new platform at all—they’d just reuse the 2016 document. Instead of listing what the party stood for, they issued a resolution stating “the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America First agenda.” Does Trump’s “America First agenda” still oppose abortion? Yes, but only in the last stages of pregnancy. The full passage in the new GOP platform on abortion reads, We proudly stand for families and life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied life or liberty without due process and that the states are, therefore, free to pass laws protecting those rights. After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the states and to a vote of the people. We will oppose late term abortion while supporting mothers and policies that advance prenatal care, access to birth control, and IVF (fertility treatments). This is pro-choice language, in keeping with Trump’s pro-choice position. The sleight of hand is that it seems to claim the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn. But if the GOP believes that’s true, then the federal government, not just the states, has a duty to protect life. The platform does no such thing. It gives broad support for IVF (even when it causes the death of a child) and only lists opposition to late-term abortion. Theorem That Explains Abortion Politics So, that process occurred gradually. Then it happened suddenly. In 2023, Trump said he was proud to be “the most pro-life president” in American history. But it soon became clear he’d never abandoned his previous pro-choice values (in 1999, when he announced he was planning to run for U.S. president as a nominee for the Reform Party, he described himself as “very pro-choice,” even stating he supported partial-birth abortion). In September 2023, Trump said about a bill in Florida banning abortion at six weeks, “I think what [Ron DeSantis] did [in signing the bill] is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.” Then in April 2024, Trump declined to endorse a federal ban on abortion, saying the issue should be left to the states. To make sure voters knew where he stood, during the recent debate, Trump said he’d preserve access to the abortion drug mifepristone and that he doesn’t support criminalizing mailing abortion pills, nor does he support the drug’s regulatory approval being rejected by the Food and Drug Administration. In a meeting with House Republicans in June, “Trump urged lawmakers to talk ‘correctly’ on the issue of abortion by framing it as a state issue and stressing their support for exceptions to abortion bans. Trump warned that abortion has ‘cost’ the GOP politically and is ‘too important to ignore.’” Trump might never have heard of the median voter theorem, but that’s the concept to which he’s appealing. This key concept in political science was first proposed by Duncan Black in 1948. The theorem claims that in a country where people vote and there are two main political parties, both parties usually try to appeal to the average (median) voter. They do this because they want to win elections. So instead of having extreme views, they often choose middle-ground positions most people can agree with. This way, they hope to get the most votes and win. Based on this theorem, we can predict how both voters and political parties will act. If one party positions itself to the left or right of the median voter, the other party can gain an advantage by moving closer to the average voter’s position. This creates pressure for both parties to converge toward the electoral center, near the median voter’s position. What prevents both parties from converging on the median voter position? The primary check is for a sufficient number of single-issue voters willing to put principle ahead of a political party by defecting rather than compromising. To illustrate this concept, let’s consider an example involving abortion policy. Imagine a state where the median voter generally supports moderate restrictions on abortion. According to the median voter theorem, both political parties should converge on this position to maximize their chances of winning. However, this shift doesn’t always happen in practice because of the power and influence of single-issue voters. Let’s say Party A has traditionally been strongly pro-life, while Party B has been more pro-choice. If Party A moves too close to the center, here’s what might happen. A group of passionate pro-lifers (single-issue voters) might feel betrayed by Party A’s shift toward more abortion-friendly policies. These voters care so deeply about the issue that they’re willing to vote for a third-party candidate who maintains a strong pro-life stance, or even abstain from voting altogether. Party A realizes that by moving to the center, they risk losing these dedicated supporters, which could cost them the election. As a result, Party A decides to maintain a more pro-life position than the median voter prefers, to keep these single-issue voters from defecting. Meanwhile, Party B also avoids moving all the way to the center, as they have their own single-issue voters (pro-choice activists) who would defect if the party became too friendly to the pro-life cause. In this scenario, the presence of these principled, single-issue voters on both sides prevents the parties from fully converging on the median voter’s position. Instead, the parties maintain some distance from each other to keep their core supporters, even if it means not perfectly aligning with the median voter. This example demonstrates how passionate, principled voters can influence party positions and prevent the complete convergence predicted by a simple interpretation of the median voter theorem. Remember, though, that candidates and parties are typically less concerned about issues than they are about winning elections. They’re thus still incentivized to appeal to the median voter to win a majority of votes whenever possible. Their optimal strategy is to appeal to the median voter while preventing single-issue voters from defecting. That’s what the GOP is successful in doing when it comes to abortion. They’ve made it possible for Trump to abandon his support for pro-life principles, while voters abandon their pro-life principles to support Trump. Three Steps Here’s why the GOP has been highly successful in applying that strategy. 1. The Dobbs decision shifted the median voter. Currently, about 63 percent of Americans (including one in four white evangelicals) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Only 36 percent of Americans say it should be illegal in all or most cases. The median voter position on abortion is for abortion to be legal in all or most cases. Candidates and parties are typically less concerned about issues than they are about winning elections. They’re thus still incentivized to appeal to the median voter. But what about motivated single-issue voters? Before the Dobbs ruling overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, single-issue voters on abortion leaned toward the pro-life side. In 2020, about 13 percent of voters identified as pro-life and only supported candidates with the same position. In comparison, only 10 percent of voters said they were pro-choice and would only vote for those with the same beliefs. Today, that balance has shifted. Almost one in four (23 percent) registered voters are pro-choice and will only vote for candidates who share their views on abortion. In contrast, a mere 8 percent of pro-life voters will refuse to vote for a pro-choice candidate, such as Trump or Biden. 2. Major pro-life organizations have signaled they’ll endorse pro-choice candidates. The polling shows few Americans will defect and refuse to vote for pro-choice candidates. But what about pro-life leadership? Unfortunately, a primary reason for the polls and the reason the GOP is able to shift to the left on abortion is that they’ve received cover from national “pro-life” organizations. Many groups, such as Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Americans United for Life, Students for Life, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the Family Research Council, National Right to Life, and CatholicVote have all said Trump still has their full support, despite his embrace of abortion rights. (Full disclosure: I once worked full-time for the Family Research Council and did contract work for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.) It used to be beyond belief that Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the largest and best funded of the organizations, would endorse a pro-choice candidate. In 2023, they even made plans to oppose any presidential candidate who “refuses to embrace” a 15-week federal limit on abortion. But they quickly caved when Trump made it clear he didn’t support any such limit. Trump changed his mind, so they changed their principles. The justification these organizations give for putting a political party ahead of their pro-life principles is to appeal to pragmatism. They fall back on the reasoning that since “the other side is worse,” they can’t afford to defect. Such political naïveté is astounding and a catalyst for political progressivism. By openly proclaiming the GOP will never lose their support (and votes) as long as the Democrats are marginally worse, they’re providing cover for Republican politicians to embrace pro-choice policies. We see this clearly in the latest draft of the GOP platform. Herein lies the key difference between pro-life and pro-abortion activists. Pro-abortion activists recognize they’re to the extreme left of the median vote on abortion, yet they force Democratic politicians to cater to their demands by threatening to withhold support. The Democrats know that if their single-issue voters on abortion were to defect, they’d lose elections. Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates know this and use it to their advantage. They’re also willing to do something pro-life groups find unthinkable: lose in the short term (an election cycle or two) to advance their cause in the long term. It’s inconceivable that Planned Parenthood would still support Biden if he suddenly opposed abortion rights. Yet  many ostensibly conservative groups offer up a lame excuse: “What choice do we have? The other side is worse.” 3. The Democrats held firmly to their abortion extremism. The Democratic Party platform holds the extreme position of opposing all federal and state laws that prohibit or restrict abortion. Ironically, this position helps to incentivize the GOP to be more pro-choice on abortion—as we see with the revised platform. The GOP can move left on the issue until they reach a point where the party is more in line with the median voter. We see this in their current position of only opposing “late term” abortion. A primary reason the GOP is able to shift to the left on abortion is that they’ve received cover from national ‘pro-life’ organizations. The result is that the GOP can continue in the future to shift further away from pro-life positions, if it helps them win elections. For example, imagine two single-issue voters, one who supports and one who opposes medication abortions (i.e., abortions that occur from taking abortion pills). Medication abortion now accounts for about 54 percent of all abortions and has been increasing since the Dobbs decision. Because the GOP’s official position is to support whatever Trump wants, the Republican Party now officially supports the legalization of abortion pills. The single-issue voter who supports medication abortion has two options—she can vote for the Democrats or Republicans. The single-issue voter who opposes medication abortion, though, has nowhere to turn. And if she defects (by not voting or voting third-party), she’ll be treated as a pariah and told she’s helping the Democrats win. The reality, though, is that those who refuse to defect are tacitly endorsing the GOP’s shift to the political left. And not only on abortion. The GOP is quickly learning that “You can’t defect because the Democrats are worse” is a winning message that keeps social conservatives in line. As long as the GOP remains marginally better than the Democrats on issues like gender identity, the party is free to embrace whatever position will entice the marginal voter (who tends to oppose social conservative policies). Time for (Convictional) Inaction? Is there anything that can be done? Last year, I suggested that if we were witnessing the political end of the pro-life movement, it might be time to abandon those organizations, leaders, and politicians who compromised and brought us to this point. I proposed we might need to replace them en masse and to find and promote those who are truly willing to fight for the unborn instead of those who kowtow to a political party. Perhaps I’m naive, but I still believe pro-life voters (and other social conservatives) will realize their choices are a political party that wants to embrace abortion, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism today and a political party that believes it’s electorally prudent to adopt those politics next week. We still have the option to defect, temporarily, until we’re treated as voters whose views are valued. We can still embrace convictional inaction as the painful short-term solution to fixing the long-term problem. We can still prevent our political life from being a choice between two flavors of antihuman progressivism. We can, but the question remains whether we have the courage and political will to make such a choice.

When I was 10 years old, I attended a screening of a movie called A Thief in the Night. It offered a vivid depiction of end-time events, images that would terrorize me well into young adulthood and leave me paralyzed to read the book of Revelation. One of the scenes that caused me the greatest anxiety involved the tattooing of a barcode on the forehead of one of the main characters. I used to lie in bed at night, repeating to myself, “Whatever you do, don’t get the tattoo.” Because I was too afraid to read Revelation, it was years before I learned it holds multiple scenes in which people receive marks, and not all of them are terrifying. Some are extremely reassuring. Marked with a Name True, in Revelation 13:16–17 we learn that the beast “causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead . . . the name of the beast or the number of its name.” And true, it’s this mark that identifies those who’ll suffer God’s wrath at the great white throne judgment (20:11). But this mark is mentioned only after we’ve first seen the faithful saints marked with a seal on their foreheads (see 7:1–8). In 14:1, we learn this seal is the name of the Lamb and the Father. In Revelation, the unrighteous are marked with the name of the beast and the righteous are marked with the names of the Lord. We intuitively understand the everyday significance of this kind of mark. Recently, I was cleaning out our attic and came across a cassette player my husband had kept since college. I knew before I turned it upside down what I’d find underneath: his full name etched with an engraving tool. When we first got married, I quickly learned his family had a comprehensive practice of labeling everything from electronics to beach towels to Tupperware with their names to ensure the items could be returned to their proper owner. Everything he brought with him to our first home was labeled. Revelation’s depictions of labeled people show us that God knows exactly who belongs to him and who doesn’t. But it does more than that. Revelation’s depictions of labeled people show us that God knows exactly who belongs to him and who doesn’t. Sealed for Eternity Before we hear of the saints receiving a seal on their foreheads, we hear of other details: white linen garments, prayers like incense, a presence before God’s throne. Theirs are priestly garments, and theirs is the priestly place of service. All these details are meant to show us that the saints have been made “a kingdom and priests to our God” (5:10; see 1:6; 20:6), thus fulfilling the promise God gave to Israel in Exodus 19:6 at the foot of Mount Sinai. Here’s where the forehead label takes on another layer of significance. In Exodus 28:36–38, we hear, You are to make a pure gold medallion and engrave it, like the engraving of a seal: HOLY TO THE LORD. Fasten it to a cord of blue yarn so it can be placed on the turban; the medallion is to be on the front of the turban. It will be on Aaron’s forehead. . . . It is always to be on his forehead, so that [Israel] may find acceptance with the LORD. (CSB, emphasis added) Revelation shows us that the faithful saints, fully accepted, all function as high priests. They bear the seal of God himself on their foreheads. They are, at last, fully and completely “Holy to the Lord.” The Lord’s seal assures us that, whatever our future in this life may hold, our future in the next is secure. And here’s the best part: If you’re in Christ, you have already received this seal. “When you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him” you “were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). We’re already marked and cannot be unmarked. Our fate is sealed. Marked for Holiness Because I was so terrified by the mark of the beast, I never learned the incredible comfort of the mark of the Lord. Nor did I consider its significant implications for how I should live my daily life. Those who’ve been marked are called to live accordingly in this life—as “marked men.” The high priest wore “Holy to the Lord” “always . . . on his forehead” (Ex. 28:38, CSB). Always. Everywhere he went. As he walked through the camp on his way to serve in the tabernacle, “Holy to the Lord” would be affixed above his eyes. As he returned home in the evening, smelling of incense, the bells on the hems of his garment announcing his passing, still the label was there: “Holy to the Lord.” Everywhere he went, he bore witness to whose he was. The Lord’s seal assures us that, whatever our future in this life may hold, our future in the next is secure. And so should we. Think of all the sinful behaviors you’d cease if everywhere you went you bore on your forehead a sign that read “Holy to the Lord.” Gossip, slander, impatience, coarse speech—the list could go on for days. When we live as “marked men,” we recognize that in Christ we’re already holy to the Lord everywhere we go. By reminding ourselves of this present reality, we live as citizens of heaven today, even as we await our coming King. I, for one, am done fearing the mark of the beast. And I’m determined to live as one bearing the mark of the Lord, everywhere and in all places, until he comes. May the saints be found faithful on that day.

Cameron Sutton has been hit with an eight-game suspension

The Regime Media find themselves in uncharted waters as they attempt to provide somewhat adversarial coverage to a Democrat White House. But as tonight’s reporting shows, they are still figuring out how to do that. Most emblematic of the mixed-bag reporting: ABC, which under normal circumstances is the most Biden-friendly network. Watch as Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce opens her report in an almost reflexively cheerleady manner, but then pivots to the story of the day: MARY BRUCE: President Biden tonight defiant and fighting back, adamant he's in this race for the long haul. JOE BIDEN: The bottom line here is that we're not going anywhere. I am not going anywhere. BRUCE: Biden today aggressively rejecting calls to drop out and challenging his Democratic doubters. BIDEN: I'm getting so frustrated by the elites. I'm not talking about you guys, but about the elites in the party. Oh, they know so much more. If any of these guys don't think I should run, run against me. Go ahead- announce for president. Challenge me at the convention. BRUCE: But The White House today forced to face questions about whether they are being honest with the American people about the president's health, after visitor logs show a neurologist, a Parkinson's expert, visited The White House eight times within an eight month span, including meeting once with the president's doctor. This was not your normal Mary Bruce report. In addition to the questioning of White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, ABC was the only network to report on First Lady Dr. Jill Biden chafing at having questions shouted at her, something that Edith Wilson never had to deal with.  JILL BIDEN: Why are you screaming at me? You know me. Don’t scream at me, just let me talk. CBS’s report was more matter-of-fact, which is to be expected given Ed O’Keefe’s exchanges with Jean-Pierre. The softest report turned out to be NBC’s. Kelly O’Donnell’s entry also highlighted Biden’s defiance, and reported on some of the facts in discussion today. But the report also veered into what-about waters, by echoing President Biden’s complaints about former President Donald Trump’s radio silence throughout this fiasco, and spotlighting the RNC’s just-released platform: KELLY O’DONNELL: While Mr. Biden is under increased scrutiny, he noted that former President Trump has been laying low. JOE BIDEN: He hasn't done a damn thing since the debate. He's been riding around in the golf cart for ten days. O’DONNELL: Tonight ahead of next week's Republican convention, unveiling the party platform, which mirrors Mr. Trump's positions on immigration and reproductive rights. Notably, it does not call for a federal ban on abortion. This goes to show you that the media are still scrambling, trying to figure out precisely HOW to cover this ongoing slow-motion train wreck of whether or not Joe Biden stays on the ballot or in The White House before the election. And it is important to remember that the reason the media are scrambling now is because they got caught co-conspiring to hide, or looking the other way if we really want to be charitable, as the rest of the world saw Biden’s very obvious cognitive decline on full display. Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective evening network newscasts on Monday, July 8th, 2024: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT  7/8/24 6:36 PM DAVID MUIR: We turn to the other major story this evening. President Biden insisting, quote, “I am not going anywhere”, saying he will stay in the race. Daring Democrats who doubt him to challenge him at the convention. And tonight, The White House now being pressed about a Parkinson's expert who visited The White House eight times, including once meeting with the president's doctor. And the First Lady today, Jill Biden, and her moment with reporters. Here's our Chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce. MARY BRUCE: President Biden tonight defiant and fighting back, adamant he's in this race for the long haul. JOE BIDEN: The bottom line here is that we're not going anywhere. I am not going anywhere. BRUCE: Biden today aggressively rejecting calls to drop out and challenging his Democratic doubters. BIDEN: I'm getting so frustrated by the elites. I'm not talking about you guys, but about the elites in the party. Oh, they know so much more. If any of these guys don't think I should run, run against me. Go ahead- announce for president. Challenge me at the convention. BRUCE: But The White House today forced to face questions about whether they are being honest with the American people about the president's health, after visitor logs show a neurologist, a Parkinson's expert, visited The White House eight times within an eight month span, including meeting once with the president's doctor. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: So, to give you some answers here, has the president been treated for Parkinson's? No. Is he being treated for Parkinson's? No. He's not. Is he taking medication for Parkinson's? No. So those are the things that I can give you full blown answers on.  BRUCE: But The White House refusing to say if this neurologist ever evaluated the president or consulted on his care during his visits to The White House residence clinic, citing privacy concerns.  But you could clear this all up just by saying what he was doing here and if it was connected to the president, yes or no -- JEAN-PIERRE: I am not going to confirm th… a particular neurologist, anybody. BRUCE: The same neurologist also appeared on the visitor logs during the Obama years more than two dozen times. The White House today not providing a reason for the recent visits. The press secretary today adamant Biden has only been evaluated by a neurologist three times, each as part of his regular annual physicals.  Just to be clear, yes or no, has his physician seen a reason to re-evaluate him for Parkinson's since the February physical? JEAN-PIERRE: No. The comprehensive report that you all have stands. BRUCE: The president himself out of the public eye today. The First Lady out rallying crowds in North Carolina and Florida. JILL BIDEN: For all the talk out there about this race, Joe has made it clear that he's all in. REPORTER: Dr. Biden, do you have any message to House Democrats who are calling for your husband to drop out of the race? How are you feeling about the state of the race? JILL BIDEN: Why are you screaming at me? You know me. Don’t scream at me, just let me talk. BRUCE: This as the president scrambles to contain the defections on Capitol Hill, telling Democrats in a letter he's staying in this race, adding -- "The question of how to move forward has been well-aired for over a week now. And it's time for it to end." MUIR: So let's bring in Mary Bruce, live at The White House tonight. Of course, Mary, all eyes on the president again tomorrow when he hosts the NATO summit in Washington. Of course, world leaders will be here. And then on Thursday, a live news conference and a president who says he's staying in this race. BRUCE: And David, this will be his first solo press conference in eight months. Look, these next few days are critical. The president's goal is to show the American people that he is up to the task. He will be out there on the world stage at this NATO summit, and then fielding reporters' questions. He's well aware how high the stakes are, David. MUIR: Mary, thank you. CBS EVENING NEWS: CBS EVENING NEWS 7/8/24 6:30 PM NORAH O’DONNELL: But we’re going to begin tonight right here in Washington with the President of the United States, Joe Biden, facing a fresh round of questions about his health. 11 days after his disastrous debate performance, CBS News has learned a Parkinson’s specialist from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center has visited The White House eight times over the last year. Tonight the president's press secretary saying Biden is not being treated for Parkinson's. This is a critical week for the 81-year-old president, with dozens of world leaders in the nation's capital for a high-stakes summit- NATO summit. House Democrats will meet tomorrow and discuss Biden’s future as the Democratic nominee. CBS's Ed O'Keefe is at The White House with the new reporting. ED O’KEEFE: The White House today facing repeated questions about President Biden's medical history. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Has the president been treated for Parkinson's? No.  Is he being treated for Parkinson’s? No. He’s not. Is he taking medication for Parkinson's? No. O’KEEFE: But the press secretary refused to confirm that Dr. Cannard, expert on Parkinson’s Disease, visited The White House eight times from last summer to this past spring. Public White House visitor logs show Cannard also met at least once with the president's personal physician. Did Dr. Cannard come to The White House… (CROSSTALK) JEAN-PIERRE: Let's just answer. I also said to you, Ed. I also said to you for security reasons we cannot share names. We cannot share names. O’KEEFE: Those questions came as the president lashed out at critics, saying he should exit the race.  JOE BIDEN: I am not going anywhere. I wouldn't be running if I didn't absolutely believe that I'm the best candidate to beat Donald Trump in 2024. We had a Democratic nominating process where the voters spoke clearly. O’KEEFE: President Biden blasted the “elites”, who he says want him out. BIDEN: If any of these guys that don't think I should run, run against me. Announce for president. Challenge me at the convention. O’KEEFE: Washington state Democrat Adam Smith was one of four top House Democrats who called for the president to step aside on a private conference call Sunday night. ADAM SMITH: We would be better off with another nominee, okay? I believe that in my heart, my soul, my brain. I am 100% convinced of that. O’KEEFE: In a letter to House Democrats, the president acknowledged the growing dissent and said it's time for it to end. First Lady Jill Biden, seen as the only confidant who could ever convince her husband to step aside, agreed. JILL BIDEN: Joe has made it clear that he’s all in. That's the decision that he’s made. And just as he has always supported my career, I am all in too. O’KEEFE: But a growing number of Senate Democrats are also raising doubts about the president's fitness to run again. He’s set to speak with black lawmakers tonight to shore up their support. And tomorrow he begins hosting the NATO summit here in Washington. The eyes of the world will be on him. Norah. O’DONNELL: Ed O’Keefe, from The White House. Thank you very much. NBC NIGHTLY NEWS: NBC NIGHTLY NEWS 7/8/24 6:36 PM LESTER HOLT: Let's turn to the Biden campaign with both the president and first lady saying again today that Mr. Biden will stay in the race. It comes as we learn that a Parkinson's specialist has been to The White House multiple times. Kelly O'Donnell has more. KELLY O’DONNELL: The message from President Biden today, the debate over his debate is over. JOE BIDEN: I am not going anywhere. O’DONNELL: The president says he has now assessed the country's mood after visiting voters across battleground states. Today he phoned in to MSNBC's "Morning Joe." JOE BIDEN: I wanted to make sure I was right, that the average voter out there still wanted Joe Biden. And I'm confident they do. O’DONNELL: The first lady amplifying his message in three states. JILL BIDEN: For all the talk out there about this race, Joe has made it clear that he's all in. O’DONNELL: And to Democrats on Capitol Hill, the president sent more than 1,200 words to get on board. "Any weakening of resolve only helps Trump and hurts us." Nine Democrats in Congress have now called on Mr. Biden to drop out, including Adam Smith. ADAM SMITH: I think he should step aside. I think it's become clear that he's not the best person to carry the Democratic message. O’DONNELL: Tonight, new questions surround why a Parkinson's specialist has visited The White House eight times in eight months, according to visitor logs. One visit indicated a meeting with the president's doctor. Questioning during today's briefing grew tense. KARINE JEAN_PIERRE: Has the president been treated for Parkinson's? No. Is he being treated for Parkinson's? No, he's not. Is he taking medication for Parkinson's? No. O’DONNELL: NBC News has reached out to the specialist, who has not responded. The White House would not discuss why he visited, citing security, and noting the medical unit also cares for military staff here. But regarding the president, the press secretary said definitively he has only been checked by a neurologist during his formal annual exam. JEAN-PIERRE: He has seen a neurologist three times. Three times. Not more -- not more than that. Not more than that. O’DONNELL: While Mr. Biden is under increased scrutiny, he noted that former President Trump has been laying low. JOE BIDEN: He hasn't done a damn thing since the debate. He's been riding around in the golf cart for ten days. O’DONNELL: Tonight ahead of next week's Republican convention, unveiling the party platform, which mirrors Mr. Trump's positions on immigration and reproductive rights. Notably, it does not call for a federal ban on abortion. HOLT: And Kelly, the president trying to calm critics as he's heading into a major week on foreign policy. O’DONNELL: Very much so. Tomorrow he welcomes 38 world leaders to Washington for the NATO summit here, with one-on-one meetings and a press conference Thursday, and then hits the road to Michigan Friday, and to Texas and Nevada next week. Lester. HOLT: Kelly O’Donnell. Thank you.  

The Madonna of the Pantheon, an extremely rare surviving icon from the Byzantine rule of Rome, has been restored. The Madonna of the Pantheon dates back to the consecration of the ancient Roman temple to all the gods as the Christian Basilica of Santa Maria ad Martyres on May 13th, 609 A.D. The temple was given to Pope Boniface IV by the Byzantine Emperor Phocas and the pope transformed it in a church dedicated to Mary and all the Christian martyrs who had died from persecution. The Madonna of the Pantheon was likely given to Boniface by Phocas as part of the gifts and offerings made in honor of the consecration of the new church. The icon is a Virgin Hodegetria, a type of Christian iconography that depicts Mary holding the Baby Jesus seated in her arms and pointing to him with her right hand. The motif was popular in Byzantine art starting in the 5th century. Legend has it that the first of these icons was painted by Luke the Evangelist, no less, and was discovered in the Holy Land by the Byzantine Empress Aelia Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II. Painted with egg tempera on an elm wood panel, the Madonna of the Pantheon is a fragment of the original which was much larger, longer and made of three boards. Art historians believe the Madonna was once represented in full figure, very rare for an icon of this type, its grand dimensions created to suit the grand dimensions of its home. It was venerated by pilgrims for centuries, and many layers of varnish and overpaint were applied in the attempt to preserve it even as the wood and original paint deteriorated. These interventions backfired, of course, leaving the icon in atrocious condition. It was last restored in 1961, after which it was moved to a small chapel within the Pantheon for security reasons while a 1959 copy was placed in the apse above the altar. The new restoration employed far less invasive methods with a focus on removing the artifacts of prior interventions and filling in the many areas of paint loss using materials and techniques that are fully reversible if it becomes necessary down the road. The diagnostic and restoration processes took eight months. The results are excellent, the golden glow of its background and the original palette revived . Last year, Italy’s Culture Ministry announced to general outrage that the Pantheon would for the first charge visitors an entry fee. The default ticket would cost €5 (discounts for people 18-25, free for residents of Rome, children and the disabled) with 70% of the proceeds going the Culture Ministry to fund the maintenance of the Pantheon and 30% going to the Church. Entry would still be free the first Sunday of every both, although tickets would have to be booked in advance. Despite the howls of protest over a church charging admission, the most visited monument in Rome didn’t miss a beat. In the first month since ticket sales began on July 3rd, 2023, almost 230,000 visitors crossed the Pantheon’s threshold, putting €865,000 into its coffers, far exceeding expectations. The Pantheon is flush now, and the Culture Ministry is using that money to improve access to the ancient temple and restoring its cultural treasures like the icon and the ancient polychrome marble floor.

It's not a perfect solution.

Meanings of 'life', 'universe' and 'everything'.

from Redacted News: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/