A video shared on X claims that Connecticut Democratic Representative Jim Himes said the drones purportedly seen over New Jersey are “federal operation.” ?BREAKING: New Jersey Drones Are “Federal Operations” After attending a classified briefing in a Secure Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), Jim Himes, said: “These sightings in New Jersey, Connecticut, anywhere they’re being sighted, are […]

Debt cancellation

In early December, a major anti-trafficking operation resulted in the arrest of a suspected pangolin scale broker and the seizure of over 2 metric tons of pangolin scales. Representing approximately 1,100 pangolins, the seizure is a significant blow to transnational wildlife trafficking networks operating in Nigeria, where the bust was carried out. Acting on intelligence […] The post Nigerian Authorities Seize 2 Tons of Pangolin Scales and Arrest Key Broker in Major Wildlife Trafficking Bust appeared first on Good News Network.

Are you not entertained? But is that really why you are here? The genius of the 2000 movie “Gladiator” wasn’t just the music, the acting of Russell Crowe, or the ancient Roman setting. The movie had all of these things in spades, and to call it entertaining would be a gross understatement. The beating heart of “Gladiator”—the thing that made it a masterpiece—was its central coherent theme: the brave and noble fight against adversity to restore justice. It wasn’t just fun to see Maximus Decimus Meridius (Russell Crowe) fight his way through multiple rounds of gladiatorial combat to ultimately face the emperor one-on-one, it was inspiring, even edifying. The movie roused young men to become heroic in their own lives, even when the world seems dead-set against them. I would know—I am one of those (now less young) men. Sadly, the sequel “Gladiator 2” may have broken records at the box office, but it won’t have the same inspiring effect. Here’s why. (Warning: this review contains spoilers for both “Gladiator” and “Gladiator 2” in the analysis below.) The Dream That Was Rome Neither “Gladiator” nor “Gladiator 2” is particularly historically accurate—and that’s not the point. The first film, however, captured a sense of classical Roman nobility that is largely absent from the second. For those who may be less familiar with the story, “Gladiator” sets up a tragedy: the kindly old emperor, Marcus Aurelius, aims to restore Rome to a Republic once again, and he chooses the general Maximus to succeed him, charging the general with handing over power back to the Senate. The emperor’s evil son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), discovers the plan, kills his father, has Maximus’ family slaughtered, and orders Maximus’ execution. The general survives, only to end up enslaved and put in the arena. From there, he fights for survival, then for revenge, then to carry out Marcus Aurelius’ original vision. He inspires the gladiators around him, turning them into his friends and allies, and he plans with members of the Senate to bring in his army and depose Commodus. This plan fails and Commodus plans to execute Maximus in the arena by fighting him to the death and wounding Maximus beforehand. Maximus fights through the pain, and manages to slay Commodus before dying himself, giving the order to restore the Senate with his last breath. The story may be a bit convoluted, but the film moves beat by beat, letting characters grow and establishing Maximus as the consummate Roman hero. He earns the respect of the army and of his fellow gladiators. He displays wisdom and strength, choosing his words carefully and speaking simply but in a manner that inspires courage and loyalty. The movie’s central theme resonates with audiences afterward. Phrases like “strength and honor” and “what we do in life echoes in eternity” have a simple elegance that modern audiences associate with ancient Roman virtue before the decadence of the empire. Even side speeches that create the setting memorably echo the film’s central theme. The gladiator trainer Proximo (Oliver Reed) says, “Ultimately, we are all dead men. Sadly, we cannot choose how. But we can decide how we meet that end, in order that we are remembered as men.” Finally, the film’s tragic ending—with Maximus dying while doing his best to restore Marcus Aurelius’ dream—fits the theme of nobility and bravery in the face of adversity, providing the perfect coda for a superbly well-crafted story. Strength and Honor—Well, Maybe Just Strength In one of the most notable moments of “Gladiator,” Maximus taunts the audience with the question, “Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?” The moment perfectly encapsulates the injustice and absurdity of slaughtering people for entertainment—and the crowd cheers, even while Maximus is taunting them. The point is, “Gladiator” is not just about entertainment—the entertainment serves a noble purpose, inspiring the movie’s audience to persist in the face of adversity just like Maximus does. The second movie has no such encapsulating moment. In fact, it has no overriding theme like the first movie. Instead, it rides on “Gladiator’s” coattails, echoing the original movie but telling a very different kind of story. While “Gladiator” is a tragedy with classical overtones, “Gladiator 2” is an Arthurian myth set in the “Gladiator” universe. The sequel’s hero, Lucius (Paul Mescal) appears in the original film as the son of Marcus Aurelius’ daughter Lucilla (Connie Nielsen). While Lucius (played by Spencer Treat Clarke in the original) looks up to Maximus, he is not Maximus’ son, and the movie shows that Maximus never had a relationship with Lucilla despite her interest in him. “Gladiator 2” chucks these inconvenient facts in the Hollywood trash can and merely declares that Lucius is Maximus’ biological son. Why do this? Because “Gladiator 2” is trying to borrow some of Maximus’ gravitas from the original movie, and the cheapest way to do that is to just declare that Lucius was Maximus’ son. Never mind that “Gladiator” presents Maximus as a loyal husband to his wife and father to his true son, both of whom die at the beginning of the original film. No, “Gladiator 2” wants a King Arthur figure in an ancient Roman setting, and it will bend the arc of the previous film to get it. Further, the sequel tries very hard to echo the plot of the original movie, and it just doesn’t work in the same way. The audience first sees Lucius leading men in battle—just as Maximus did at the beginning of “Gladiator”—but Lucius is fighting against Rome, not for it. Like Maximus, Lucius loses his wife—this time in battle—and like Maximus, Lucius vows revenge on the man responsible for his wife’s death, General Acacius (Pedro Pascal). Like Maximus, Lucius becomes a slave and gladiator, able to rile the crowd and have a political impact in the Coliseum. However, Lucius is not Maximus. He has the strength and prowess in battle, but he doesn’t build rapport with his fellow gladiators. While the other gladiators cheer him for his victories, he doesn’t listen to their stories or help them in the way Maximus did. Yet, when it comes time for the gladiators to rebel against their masters, Lucius is more effective than Maximus had been. Worse, the movie gives Lucius what the director evidently thought was an inspiring speech. I couldn’t help but snicker as Lucius declared, “Where death is, we are not. Where we are, death is not!” in an attempt to rouse men and women who will be dead mere moments later. This speech has none of Maximus’ gravitas, and the movie essentially admits as much by returning to Maximus’ iconic lines—”strength and honor” and “what we do in life echoes in eternity.” In the place of these noble declarations come a slew of pedestrian platitudes that take away the epic feel of the original film. “Gladiator 2’s” Cinematic Gluttony Perhaps the sequel’s greatest sin is the rushed pacing, however. The movie bites off more than it can chew, and it attempts to keep the audience from noticing by peppering the script with little nods to the original movie. It’s not just Lucius who has a complex and convoluted story arc—the ultimate villain does, too. Macrinus (Denzel Washington), the slave owner who trains and profits from Lucius, weasels his way into ultimate power in Rome, proving the decadent corruption of the empire by enslaving a senator through gambling debts. Macrinus ultimately assassinates the brothers who jointly rule, Emperors Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger), rising to become a pseudo-emperor himself. Lucius restores order, in true Arthurian fashion, by defeating Macrinus in single combat and becoming king of Rome. Oh wait, that’s right, Rome doesn’t have kings, and it proudly doesn’t have kings. Ever since Romans overthrew Tarquin the Proud, Rome vowed never to have a king again, and even though the emperors were something like kings, they consciously adopted titles like “Princeps” and “Caesar” in order to avoid any trappings of monarchy. Perhaps someone ought to remind the director of basic Roman history. The film repeatedly refers to Lucilla as a “queen” and suggests that Lucius’ right to rule comes from his status as Maximus’ son. The only ones who seem intent on restoring the Senate and fulfilling Marcus Aurelius’ dream die in the film’s rushed conclusion. The senator Gracchus (Derek Jacobi), who appears as a major Republican leader scheming to restore the Republic, dies in the arena. He’s finished off as if an afterthought—just like the dream that was Rome. The movie constantly rushes to resolve the petty conflicts it creates, giving the audience whiplash. Macrinus kills both Gaeta and Caracalla in rather quick succession. The movie does give Lucius a moment to mourn his mother, Lucilla, but even this largely falls flat. Lucius gets mad at Lucilla for sending him away as a boy, and this initial conflict complicates the storyline to the point that the audience does not properly feel loss when Lucilla dies. Her death feels like yet another thing that happened, not the climax of Macrinus’ evil. “Gladiator 2” is trying to be too much, and it fails due to this lack of discipline. Audiences may indeed be entertained, but that doesn’t make this poor pitiful excuse for a sequel any more deserving. Just as the sequel tried to slap Maximus’ last name on an inferior man, so the now-disgraced director Ridley Scott has slapped a far superior brand on a less deserving product. For his sake, let’s hope what he does in life doesn’t echo in eternity. The post Ripping the Heart Out of ‘Gladiator’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Survival gear is about quality over quantity, needs over wants, functionality over whim. If you don’t need it, you shouldn’t have it. I learned this the hard way. As a kid, I remember getting my first survival kit. It was something cheap from the mall, with little more than a few tidbits. Nonetheless, I was overjoyed by my little box of fishing hooks, candles, Morse code instructions and a plastic compass. One night, I decided to test out my survival skills by camping out in the forest behind my house. Tent in one hand, box in the other, I had childish fantasies of catching fish and living like the king of the forest. I’d be completely off the grid, surviving off my own cunning. By 9pm, I was back home, eating a reheated dinner I’d missed a few hours earlier. My first attempt to go it alone was a total failure. In part, it was inevitable; I was, after all, just a kid. My survival box was hardly and help, either. With the exception of a small flashlight, none of the items in the box were particularly useful then, and certainly not now. In fact, if there’s one thing I’ve learned since that disappointing night, it’s that having the right gear for the job is critical. In the past, we’ve published plenty of articles on what kind of survival gear you should have. New preppers should check out this list of basic gear. If you’re putting together your own bugout bag, this checklist is your best friend. On the other hand, it’s all too easy to forget that while there’s plenty of things you do need in a survival situation, there’s just as much survival gear that’s completely unnecessary. In this list, we’ll be looking at survival gear that shouldn’t be in your basic survival kit or bug out. Some of these items might have once been a good idea, but are outdated by newer alternatives. Some were just bad ideas to begin with, or are just too cumbersome to be worth the effort. Whatever the reason, you don’t need any of this stuff on you in a survival situation. Survival books Books are a survivalist’s best friend, but even the closest of friends need time apart. As any bookworm knows, books can get pretty heavy, pretty quick. Indeed, the best place to store an important book isn’t your rucksack – it’s your mind. So instead of stuffing your bugout bag full of reading material, try to read and memorize your favorites long before SHTF. If that’s not possible, then copy anything particularly important into a more compact notebook. Alternatively, consider investing in a Kindle or similar, which can allow you to carry a library in your pocket. The downside, of course, is the need to recharge every few days. Candles Once upon a time, every survival kit had to include a few candles. The rationale is simple: candles are lightweight, easy to light and don’t rely on electricity. They can be broken but still work, and you always know how much use you have left. Today though, candles are far too anachronistic, and there are plenty of decent flashlights that will do just fine. Ordinary, lousy matches Another anachronism, matches just aren’t as great as most people think they are. They’re unreliable, finicky and die the minute they get a drop of water on them. Waterproof matches are much better, but personally I’d rather invest in a reliable waterproof lighter. Throw in a cheap backup lighter or two from the gas station, and you’re good to go. Toiletries I’m always shocked by how many survivalists carry basic toiletries, like deodorant in particular. To be fair, I can’t go a night without my toothpaste, so I guess we all have our weaknesses. Nonetheless, toiletries should never be considered a priority item. Realistically, a serious bugout bag can almost always go without any toiletries at all. If this sounds like a tall order, then at the very least consider investing in an all-in-one soap. One tried and true option is Dr. Bronner’s, a multi-use Castile soap. It can be used as a toothpaste, shampoo, body wash, kitchen detergent and more. Aluminum foil Many survivalists swear by aluminum foil – and no, it’s not to protect against the X-rays from Pluto. The idea is that aluminum foil can be used as an improvised bowl for boiling water, among other things. It’s become so popular, that aluminum foil is now a pretty common addition to many store-bought survival kits. In reality, this foil isn’t particularly reliable. For evidence of this, grab some foil right now, fold it up and carry it around in your pocket for the rest of the week. Odds are, it’ll come out a crumpled mess of shredded trash. Now ask yourself, would you really trust that foil with your life? Canned food I once knew an old British World War II veteran who swore by spam. “A can of spam and some crackers is all I’ll need,” he used to say. I’ll always respect him, but it’s unarguable that canned goods simply can’t be considered an appropriate food item for the modern survivalist. Dehydrated meals are simply superior by almost every measure. They’re lighter, easier to pack and can include far less waste. Plus, they’re usually easier to split up into smaller rations if necessary. For most outdoorspeople, dehydrated meals usually boil down to either dirt cheap ramen or overpriced ready made meals from the hiking store. While both options are fine, nothing beats a DIY dehydrated meal. Dehydrating food is surprisingly easy to do, and simple to preserve and store. If you’re looking for recipes, check out our list of 15 easy things to make with a dehydrator. Ten thousand guns We all know that guy: he’s got an AR-15 over one shoulder, an antique AK-47 over the other, and about half a dozen side-arms in his underwear. Presumably, he also has a trolley full of ammunition in tow. Don’t be this guy. Sometimes, less is more, and any hunter knows that guns are pretty damn heavy. If you haven’t yet discovered this too, you will after a few hours of hiking with a rifle. Or, just watch this old MythBusters segment, which exists to remind us all that none of us will ever be the DOOM guy.   Backup items There’s a few backup tidbits that make sense: an extra lighter, a few spare pens, batteries and the like. However, you don’t need backup versions of every piece of gear in your bugout bag. As already mentioned, one gun is just fine; so is one stove, one filter, one everything. All of your gear should already be tried, tested and guaranteed to stand up to whatever you plan on throwing at it. The only things you should consider doubling up on are small items mentioned above, or anything that you seriously think might break. For example, a spare torch or phone could make sense. Clothing Okay, I’m not suggesting you go naked when SHTF. Instead, just one set of clothing should do you just fine. Fashion is hardly a priority when we're talking about survival gear, and every spare shirt is just another dead weight that will – well, leave you dead. Just bring whatever is suitable for your climate, and don’t bother with that extra pair of socks. Hollow handle knives Just. Please. Don’t. In all seriousness, there are some good quality hollow knives out there. The Cold Steel Bushman is one example of a great knife that happens to have a hollow handle, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Instead, my gripe is with hollow knives where the handle is used as a container for tidbits such as a compass or firestarter. It might sound like the perfect survival gear, but oh, how wrong you are. These knives are finicky, easy to break and create more problems than they solve. Just get a decent full tang blade, and call it a day. Over-sized, chunky first aid kits Those big metal boxes with red crosses on them that you see in office buildings were never intended to be moved, let alone be used as survival gear. They sit on a wall, and mind their own business until a desk jockey gets a paper cut. In a survival situation, you want something lightweight. A standard fabric pack should be fine, while a Tupperware container or similar can offer a little more protection for its contents. Either way, keep it as small as possible, and avoid metal for now. Anything that’s already on your multi-tool Screw drivers, hammers and mini-saws are great, but you don’t need them in a survival situation. Tools like these are heavy, and unnecessary 99 percent of the time. If you do, however, feel that you just can’t leave home without these items, then consider investing in a good quality multi-tool. If your bugout bag looks like a toolkit, then you’ve done something wrong. Cheap multi-tools/ Swiss Army imitations Speaking of multi-tools, don’t buy something that will break after a day or two. Ditto for overloaded Swiss Army knives. Admittedly, many survivalists completely multi-tools altogether, noting that so many are cheap, shoddy and unreliable. This isn’t entirely true, and there are plenty of good quality multi-tools out there. Don’t be stingy, and only buy survival gear you can rely on. Plastic eating utensils As an avid hiker, most people I know tend to prefer plastic cutlery on the trail. It makes sense, with plastic being lightweight. New plastic products are always getting more durable, and there’s a good mix of variety. Having said that, plastic eating utensils are a waste of your money if used as survival gear. What you gain in terms of weight, you lose in terms of reliability. Sooner or later, your plastic spork is going to snap, and the plastic bowl will split down the side. For me, the latter happened when it was full of steaming hot ramen – nice. Don’t make my mistake, and stick to metal. Wire saws Good quality wire saws are okay, but sadly the market is overwhelmingly flooded with cheapies. As a piece of survival gear, they're overrated. Almost every store-bought survival kit nowadays contains a wire saw; most will snap within an hour of intense use. So unless you’re a hitman planning on garroting someone in a dimly lit apartment, just buy a knife. Excessive cutlery While we’re on the topic of cutlery, let’s talk about excessive eating items. You don’t need a cooking pot, bowl, fork, dining knife and spoon. Instead, all you need is a solid cooking pot, a fork and the ability to slurp like a pro. Alternatively, Korean-style metal chopsticks work great, too. They’re chronically underrated by us westerners, and are somewhat more versatile than a boring old fork. Flare guns Unless you’re planning on an extended vacation on a desert island, you probably don’t need a flare gun in your backpack.   Flare guns are heavy, and almost always unneeded. If you really find yourself in a situation where you need to bring attention to yourself, just use a small, handheld mirror. A mirror doesn’t need to be loaded. Mallets Some people like to use mallets for hammering in their tent pegs. Putting aside the fact that a pure bugout shouldn’t actually include a tent, there’s almost never a need for a mallet. Even if you’re planning on bringing full camping gear for some reason, the mallet will still be a dead weight. Unless you’re camping in a parking lot, tent pegs can easily be hammered down with a rock. If you’re having trouble with this, then you might have bigger problems. Anything longer than your forearm No list can cover absolutely everything, and I’m sure I’ve missed something here. So as a general rule, you should seriously question carrying any bulky items. If it’s longer than your forearm, taller than your knees or otherwise just damnably heavy, then you might want to reconsider carrying it. Your ukulele/hipster guitar/bongo drums/pan pipes It’s been a long day, and everyone is sitting around the fire, exhausted. Then, that hipster in your group starts strumming some tunes on his organic, fair-trade ukulele. It’s usually around that moment when everyone else loses the will to live. Want to know more about survival skills? You'll love these articles! 15 Ways A Knife Can Save Your Life In A Survival Situation Car Survival Kit: 12 Must Have Winter Survival Items You Need

The Media Admits Trump Is Current President

As more Democrats are losing House seats, following the Republican presidential win, the Democratic Party has been questioning its up-and-coming leaders. In reviewing this discussion, The View’s Sunny Hostin was appalled on Wednesday, claiming persecution against young Democratic lawmakers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) by Republicans. The ABC co-host claimed that Ocasio-Cortez’s political beliefs were not so left-leaning, aligned with most of young Americans, and should be considered basic stances by the Democratic Party. These outrageous opinions surrounding AOC, by Hostin stemmed from the criticism mounting against young leaders. Sunny continued with her outrageous claims that the stances of AOC should be commonly held and not “demonized,” even claiming they should be “everybody issues.” HOSTIN: She has been demonized by the right, and she's been demonized as this, like, too progressive far-left person, and I want to set -- try to set the record straight cause if she is too progressive, then the Democrats really are going to lose the working class. Because this is her platform: The key issues, health care for all people, affordable housing, rebuild the unions, federal job guarantee, free public college, create clean energy jobs, pay parental leave and expand protections for the LGBTQ+ community.      Sunny decried that “If that is too progressive for this country, then that's a problem for the Democrats, and that's a problem, quite frankly for this country.” These extreme comments, which normally go unchecked on The View, were countered by the token “Conservative” on the show, Alyssa Farah Griffin. Griffin pointed out that some of AOC’s stances were in no way generally accepted in the U.S. electorate, especially when it comes to healthcare: Most Americans think they want to have some choice and optionality in their healthcare. There is a reason Obamacare did not have the public option. That's not where the majority of the country is. I would argue that AOC is definitely too left for the majority of the country. This was reminiscent of when Hostin claimed back in July that, much like her, Vice President Kamala Harris wasn’t far left. “Well, to be clear, she's pretty moderate also. She's pretty moderate also,” she said at the time, “…former prosecutors aren’t leftist.” With Hostin’s comments furthering progressive ideology as common views, Griffin created a reality check amongst a panel of one-sided, and out-of -touch opinions.   The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’S THE VIEW  12/18/2024 11: 04 16 AM EST (...) SUNNY HOSTIN: The other thing that I will say is about AOC, she has been demonized by the right, and she's been demonized as this, like, too progressive far left person, and I want to set -- try to set the record straight cause if she is too progressive, then the Democrats really are going to lose the working class, because this is her platform: The key issues, healthcare for all people, affordable housing, rebuild the unions, federal job guarantee, free public college, create clean energy jobs, pay parental leave and expand protections for the LGBTQ+ community. If that is too progressive for this country, then that's a problem for the Democrats, and that's a problem, quite frankly for this country. (…) 11:05:05 AM EST HOSTIN: Well, healthcare for all should be an everybody issue. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But the devil is in the details because a lot of is country does not support, for example, the Green New Deal which would absolutely crush jobs across the country, wreak havoc on the econo– SUNNY: It would create millions of jobs actually– ALYSSA: It would make, it would actually make international travel virtually impossible to do because of some of the regulations that have been placed. Universal healthcare. You should have, of course, anyone who needs emergency coverage, people should have catastrophic coverage but most Americans think they want to have some choice and optionality in their healthcare. There is a reason Obamacare did not have the public option. That's not where the majority of the country is. I would argue that AOC is definitely too left for the majority of the country…

MSNBC talking head Joy Reid did her best ahead of Election Day to promote Vice President Kamala Harris and vilify President-elect Donald Trump. Her best was evidently not enough. Although Harris' humiliating defeat is now history, Reid continues to rack up losses. Earlier this month, Nielsen Media Research revealed that "The ReidOut" lost 47% of its total audience. Fox News Digital indicated that whereas Reid's show was averaging 1.4 million viewers ahead of Trump's landslide victory, it was subsequently averaging under 760,000 viewers. Reid's show even hemorrhaged 52% of viewers from the critical 25-54 age demographic."We were so Harris propaganda that when she lost, viewers were shocked," an on-air pundit told the Daily Beast regarding the network's overall decline in viewership after the election. "It turned into one giant circle j*** and echo chamber. If MSNBC wants to be of service to its viewers, they can't keep them in fantasy land."In the wake of the election and Comcast's decision to spin off its flagging NBCUniversal cable television properties, MSNBC reportedly cut Rachel Maddow's annual salary by $5 million. Maddow — whose comments about Georgia doctor Mahendra Amin, deemed "verifiably false" by a judge, might cost NBCUniversal $30 million — will continue raking in $25 million from her re-negotiated contract. 'The state of left-wing corporate media is unrecognizable.'The network was apparently keen to keep slashing.According to Lachlan Cartwright of the Ankler newsletter, Reid and Stephanie Ruhle — the MSNBC host of "The 11th Hour" who courted mockery with her softball Harris interview and embarrassing attempt at fact-checking Vice President-elect JD Vance's hyperbolic joke — are similarly facing pay cuts.The Washington Free Beacon indicated that Reid and Ruhle are believed to make around $3 million and $2 million per year, respectively. Critics online appeared less surprised by the alleged pay cuts and more surprised that Reid was poised to continue collecting millions of dollars despite her venomous rants and racist commentary.Jonathan Choe, a senior fellow and journalist at the Discovery Institute, noted, "The state of left-wing corporate media is unrecognizable. Say wild things on air, and you still get to keep your job."When asked about the alleged pay cuts, an MSNBC spokesman told the New York Post the network would not comment on personnel matters.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

He's Dead, Jim! Keith Olbermann Brings Knife to a Gunfight with Elon Musk in HILARIOUS Back-and-Forth

Friday Morning Minute