Start Quiz photo credit: Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images photo credit: Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!” is one of the most iconic catchphrases of television from the ’60s and ’70s. When you hear someone say it, you can’t help but flash back to coming home from school and watching The Brady Bunch with your family. But do you remember the biggest moments... Source

WASHINGTON — Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard accused corporate media outlets of parroting “propaganda” talking points from the White House regarding controversial videos of President Joe Biden. Gabbard, who ran as a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, spoke with The Daily Signal on Friday at the Road to Majority conference in Washington, D.C., where she addressed the Biden White House dismissing videos highlighting Biden’s declining mental acuity as “cheap fakes.” “It made me laugh, because I’m obviously familiar with how the mainstream propaganda media works,” said Gabbard, who served four terms in the House as a Democrat, but has since become an independent. “And when you look at the montage of all of these different people, on many cable networks or broadcast networks, and they’re literally all using the same talking point. They warn misinformation, disinformation—[but] they are doing it right now.” “We are not stupid, and I think that’s the thing that is most fascinating to me. They really think that we are that stupid, to buy their spin on the unfortunate reality of what we’re seeing, which is President Biden’s deteriorating condition.” A number of recent videos of Biden at various public events show the president looking confused, freezing up, or wandering away from the location where he’s supposed to speaking or standing. At a D-Day anniversary event in France, for example, videos show him turning away from a group of other world leaders. Another video, at a campaign fundraiser, shows former President Barack Obama leading him off stage. The White House has repeatedly claimed that such videos are edited. Joe Biden highlights in Normandy on the 80th anniversary of D-Day:– Sits in an invisible chair– Forgets where his seat is– Talks about how many Russians died in Ukraine– Gets pulled away by Docta Jill as Macron greets D-Day veterans. pic.twitter.com/sWFsYpt1o5— Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 6, 2024 “It’s also very insulting to the folks, the viewers who are watching it,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told MSNBC on Tuesday. “And so, we believe we have to call that out. We’ve been calling it ‘cheap fakes.’ That is something that came directly from the media outlets in calling it that, the fact-checkers … calling it that. And so we’re certainly going to be really, really clear about that as well. And calling it out from where we are, from where we stand.” White House spokesman Andrew Bates similarly told Fox New Digital that the videos are the products of “discredited right-wing critics” of the president. “Their panicked reaction to mainstream reporters, including at The Washington Post, NBC News, and PolitiFact, citing misinformation experts taking anti-Biden cheap fakes apart says more than we ever could,” Bates told Fox News Digital. The post ‘We’re Not Stupid’: Tulsi Gabbard Slams ‘Propaganda’ Media for Parroting White House ‘Cheap Fakes’ Rhetoric appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Dr. Ben Carson provided personal anecdotes Friday and encouraged faith in God at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s 15th annual Road to Majority conference in Washington, D.C.  “There’s something going on in our country, and it’s not an accident,” said Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who was secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the Trump administration.  America is in the way of a one-world government, so “they need to change us,” Carson told the crowd at the Washington Hilton. “That’s why they have gone inside to destroy the moral fabric of the U.S.” By removing God from the public square, diminishing the role of the family, and making sexual immorality “natural, normal, and healthy,” he said, the Left has been successful in destroying that moral fabric.  To combat this, the celebrated brain surgeon said, conservatives must be willing to be more visible and stand up for what they believe in.  “I’ve had a lot of people try to cancel me,” Carson said. “I don’t care about those people. I only care about God.” When he was younger, he recalled, he had a terrible temper. He reflected on the time that, as a teenager, he attempted to stab another boy. That boy’s belt buckle stopped his blade, which broke. Carson promptly locked himself in a bathroom where there was a Bible, which he started reading.  “That was the last day that I had a problem,” Carson recalled, because God “took the knife out of the hand of an angry teenager and turned it into a scalpel to save lives.” The post Ben Carson Encourages Faith, Shares Personal Stories at Road to Majority Conference appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Pediatric Trans Care Doc Turned Whistleblower Pleaded Not Guilty, Released on Bond

New York State Greening Its Way Into Darkness

Luis Elizondo for Medium: When you think about the word “paranormal,” what comes to mind? Probably poltergeists, ghost hunters, or little gray aliens. Or perhaps you imagine movies like The Blair Witch Project or Ghostbusters. The idea of the paranormal has remained a constant focus of thriller and sci-fi movies, often taking the audience on a wild, but very speculative ride. Talking about the word paranormal in any context other than the entertainment industry usually results in raised brows and smirks. But isn’t everything in science paranormal until we eventually perceive it as normal? To answer that question, let’s look at the origins of the word “paranormal.” The prefix “para” simply means above, beside, or beyond. We use the word “parachute” to describe a life-saving device that deploys above your head to hopefully help you hit the ground with a thud and not a splat. Similarly, the word “paramedic” usually elicits the mental picture of a lifesaver or a first responder working above or beside you. In both cases, each word is used to describe something positive and beneficial. In fact, the English language is full of words where the prefix “para” is used as an integral part of the word’s meaning. So why is it that when the prefix “para” is used before the word “normal,” we automatically assume elements of fringe science, taboo topics, and witchcraft? After all, the meaning of the word paranormal is relative — what’s paranormal today may be considered commonplace tomorrow. Allowing ourselves to make these types of assumptions about the paranormal at best limits our ability to conduct serious study and at worst, completely paralyzes us with the fear of stigma and peer ridicule. Here’s how to avoid those pitfalls and dig deeper: What we think of as “paranormal” is often just a fact of nature. When I was in college studying microbiology, I remember my professor telling the class the famous story of when Antoni van Leeuwenhoek first discovered protozoa. As the story goes, he looked through a microscope and screamed, “Little beasties, little beasties!” and ran out of the room. For him and many during that time, the discovery of microorganisms was a paranormal moment. But these were living organisms, just below the threshold of our ability to observe and perceive. Today, we consider microorganisms a normal part of science, and in many cases, even beneficial. In fact, scientists discover as many as 20,000 new species per year. A lot of what is now considered normal aspects of the observable universe were once considered paranormal. For example, Ancient Mayans and Aztecs throughout Latin America viewed solar eclipses as paranormal, just as Halley’s Comet was considered paranormal for several centuries throughout Europe. When the concept of electricity was at its infancy during the last century, it was common to read headlines proclaiming “a true wonder of science,” “a modern marvel,” and “a miracle of physics!” Likewise, the introduction of the telegraph, wireless technology, and even antibiotics were all met with the same wonder and amazement and at the same time suspiciousness and caution. Of course, now we realize all of these advancements were simply a natural development of science. The truth of the matter is that “paranormal” really just refers to anything we don’t already have a solid scientific understanding at the present time. Even today, to a remote Amazonian tribe, a simple photograph may still be suspected of having soul-stealing powers. The U.S. has a long history of involving itself in things considered paranormal Historically, the U.S. has been a global powerhouse in part due to its embrace — albeit often reluctant — of the strange or bizarre. During the early days of the Manhattan Project, many scientists and lawmakers cringed at the idea of spending tax dollars on tiny, invisible packages of matter called “atoms” that would one day be used to end the war. After all, if you can’t even see an atom, how do we know they even exist? During the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. and Soviet militaries invested millions of dollars into psychic research, psychotronics, and mind control experiments. Even today, the United States Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is developing technology to allow pilots to fly aircraft with brainwaves. Without expounding upon the merits of each here, suffice it to say, research into the “paranormal” has sometimes led to our better understanding of the natural universe in areas like quantum mechanics, electromagnetic energy, and human biology. In the case of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), the stigma of anything that might be considered paranormal has a chilling effect on our nation’s ability to address a potential national security risk. It also severely limits the advancement of human knowledge. Advancements in technology have led to credible, reliable evidence that UFOs exist — far beyond simple anecdotes of untrained observer reports in prior decades. Slowly but surely, the subject is moving from the outer edges of the paranormal categorization as highly trained observers come forward with analysis of advanced aerospace technology. But even though the evidence overwhelmingly supports the legitimate study of these potentially highly combat capable phenomena, we choose to simply look in the opposite direction because the topic is too taboo. Assuming a paranormal area is not worth pursuing on the grounds of stigma is dangerous. In this case, we need more information, not less. It takes time to change our perception of the paranormal, but we have to start somewhere. Complicating our ability to receive new information, today’s media is plagued with the “fake news” phenomenon. Labeling media fake becomes a political weapon that can obscure truths and spread falsehoods. Information regarding UAP, in particular, tends to be associated with unhinged conspiracy theorists, and tabloid publications are quick to compound its negative reputation. But if we take away misinformation, hoaxes, frauds, money-making schemes, egotism, and wishful thinking, there are certain truths that cannot be denied. When it comes to UAP, it will likely take time to overcome the stigma and preconceived notions to the truth at heart. We must be careful not to give in to our human nature to dismiss what’s “para” — that is, above, beside or beyond — our understanding, just because we don’t have an explanation for it at this very moment. Most of Earth’s species are still awaiting discovery according to recent studies. And Mother Earth is but one of eight unremarkable planets revolving around our Sun, and our Sun is only one of an estimated 250 billion (250,000,000,000) stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and our galaxy is only one of an estimated 2 trillion (2,000,000,000,000) galaxies in the observable universe. That is, there is a lot out there we don’t yet understand that may be “paranormal” today but quite “normal” tomorrow. Author: Luis Elizondo, former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent, source Medium The post Everything in Science Is Paranormal Until It Isn’t appeared first on Anomalien.com.

A recent study revealed that more consumers are against seeing or consuming content that was generated by artificial intelligence than those who are for it.However, there is a higher level of acceptance for mundane tasks being taken up by AI and nonhuman content such as in games or animations.A survey of U.S. consumers by Variety Intelligence Platform and HarrisX revealed stark differences in which kind of AI-generated content is preferred by consumers.While about two out of 10 consumers have expressed interest in engaging with AI-assisted media, many consumers are still less interested in content made by such programs. In fact, there was typically a majority who were indifferent to the matter entirely in media, but for those who gave a positive or negative answer, the numbers usually fell on the side that was opposed to the AI content.The highest disparity came in regards to news content; 43% of respondents said that they would be less interested in reading the news if it were written using generative AI, while 20% said they were more interested.Music and podcasts showed the next highest resistance, with 38% and 37% (respectively) finding themselves less interested if the music or podcast used AI voices or production. Just 20% and 19% said they would be more interested in that content, respectively.Movies, TV shows, and social media videos/images saw similar patterns in the study, with only one category going against the grain.When participants were asked about "playing a video game" if they "knew it had characters, environments or dialogue created using generative AI," 25% said they would be more interested versus 20% who were less interested. A whopping 44% said it made no difference, by far the largest response for that answer of any category.This trend continued in terms of consumers not wanting artificial intelligence to play a role in creative endeavors, such as acting or writing scripts. However, for animations or add-on graphics and content, consumers weren't as concerned.An AI-replica playing a deceased actor, for example, saw 53% of respondents not being comfortable with it, with just 27% for it. The numbers were nearly identical if the actor was living. As were the numbers for an entirely fictional AI actor; 30% were okay with the notion while 49% disagreed.Audiences did accept, however, the idea of dubbed content with AI voices at a rate of 42%. Almost an identical amount of support was given for AI-generated theme music, voiceovers for a documentary or animated character, and the design of a new character.Responses also reached a majority for the following possibilities: special effects (51% were comfortable), illustrations in animation (52%), sound effects (55%).It seemed those polls were mostly in favor or indifferent to having AI make changes that helped the viewer experience while still holding artistic integrity. However, while they mostly rejected the idea of an AI portrayal of an actor, an AI dub using an actor's voice in a different language received 47% support.Over 1,000 American adults were surveyed for the study in early May 2024.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

As Pride Month nears its end, Allie Beth Stuckey has made an interesting observation. “None of the businesses I frequent have Pride stuff out this year. Most of them did last year. One in particular had a whole rainbow apparel display — this year, nothing. Anyone else see the same thing?” Stuckey wrote in a post on X. Even Target has stopped selling Pride apparel in many of its stores. Stuckey received a photo from one of her followers of patriotic red, white, and, blue merchandise for sale at the retail giant instead of the rainbow-slogan-adorned T-shirts and children's clothes they were pushing last year. “It actually had a sign instead that was a patriotic, red, white, and blue sign that said, you know, ‘Thank you for your service.’ It was a message to veterans, which I think is incredible,” Stuckey explains. “I think that is really interesting,” she adds, noting that it could be a sign of something bigger and better. “Some people are saying, well, it’s an election year, and so they’re trying to not scare people away because it is just so in your face to the point where even centrists are like, ‘Ok, can we not, does everything have to be gay in June, can’t something just, like, be neutral?’” Stuckey says. "And so some people are saying, ‘Oh, you know it’s a conspiracy or it’s an organized effort to try to tone it down this year so people don’t freak out before the election,’” she adds. However, she doesn’t buy it. “That may be true, but I doubt that all of these local businesses and some of the businesses that I’ve been in, that they’re all part of some grand organized effort to tone down Pride in an election year,” she says, noting that she has her own theory as to why companies have toned it down. “I really think it’s because of the push back and the backlash, I really do, and I think that’s a great thing,” she says. Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Industry experts and entrepreneurs alike think that artificial intelligence needs to be harnessed before it's too late.Of course, any push toward widening the use of technology that would benefit a person or particular company's bottom line would likely be welcomed. At the same time, however, there is an overarching narrative that AI is on the brink of becoming incredibly dangerous.The theme has existed for some time, though. It was all the way back in 1991 when "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" taught humanity that entrusting our weapons systems to AI would be a big mistake. Other films like 2008's "Eagle Eye" showed a central AI could track people anywhere they went and ruin their life, controlling systems of society at its whim.Fast forward to the present day, and it has seemed like every person in the know has warned about the dangers that artificial intelligence can bring.Microsoft said in February 2024 that American enemies are preparing for AI-driven cyber attacks. Multiple former Google employees claimed AI at the company had become sentient and learned to feel, comparing it to "creating God."Elon Musk even said AI is a "threat to humanity."What do all of these sources have in common? Each is the owner or developer of his own artificial intelligence platform. Just days after his comments, Musk announced Grok, the AI technology that is integrated into his X platform.Microsoft has invested billions in OpenAI, while Google has its aptly named Google AI under its belt. This begs the question as to whether these corporate talking points are simply acts of deceptive marketing and misdirection or if the experts in the field have a true worry about the path unfettered AI can go down.'AI is like water in the sea, you can not like it, but if it goes against you, you will drown.'Blaze News spoke with industry experts and AI entrepreneurs to find out whether or not the general consumer should be concerned with the direction companies are taking with their automated services.Most didn't buy into the idea of an immediate threat stemming from artificial sources, offering stark differences in their answers compared to that of the big players. But what was stressed was the need for Western nations to harness and monetize AI before adversarial economies do it first."There are significant long-term dangers, but the risks of not utilizing AI now potentially exacerbates those long-term risks," said Christopher Fakouri, who represented the Czech Republic on the matter."If we don't utilize and develop now, we will lose out in the long term to other markets and other people ... a lot of countries and jurisdictions across the world are looking for market capture [with AI]; however, I would not underestimate those risks."Whether this proposed arms race was strictly economic or also militaristic was not clear."[AI] functions on the human layer and helps augment excellence; the earlier we're ready to grasp the tools of augmented reality the earlier we can use these tools to benefit us," said Dr. Adejobi Adeloye from Amba Transfer, a company that uses AI technology to help seniors acquire medication."It is the future of the economy. Right now we are looking towards the era of artificial intelligence, of augmented reality, and virtual reality, and infusing it into education, manufacturing, and mining," the doctor added.Return's Peter Gietl sees AI disrupting the marketplace in the near future but not in a doomsday sense that many are speculating. "This means SEO, paralegal jobs ... but overall I don't see it as overwhelmingly replacing a mass amount of the job market," he said.What is AI currently capable of?Nuclear launches at the hands of AI wouldn't be completely out of the question based on the current rhetoric around the topic. But behind closed doors, the technology may not be nearly as far along as the public thinks.Multiple representatives from IBM revealed that the technology isn't exactly ready for world domination. One spokesperson revealed that the company isn't necessarily interested in selling products that use AI and is currently focused on harnessing the technology for use in sports. IBM has partnered with both Wimbledon and the Masters, sharing its technology to track data to increase the user experience.Fans can have AI detail up-to-date action from the events and even have it read to them as if it were play-by-play announcing."We're not hiding it or trying to make it seem like it's a real person," one representative who wanted to remain anonymous said. "We have voice actors who lend their voices to the technology." The spokesperson added that the most popular voice for golf has been a generic male from the American South.That technology is called IBM watsonx. The scary rhetoric isn't close to where AI technology currently is either, the representative explained. "It's nonsense," the IBM employee said. "An AI model was able to correctly identify four colors recently, and that was considered a huge breakthrough." While it is possible that the information was carefully crafted between the people at IBM with the intention to mislead, the representative could also be simply telling it like it is.Gietl agreed, explaining that AI in its current state is still producing grave errors."There's a term called 'AI Hallucination.' AI will make things up that it thinks the user wants to hear. All of the programs are being trained and taught on human knowledge that exists online, which of course includes a mass amount of non sequiturs and misinformation.""A lot of rhetoric is scare tactic propaganda put out by major companies to scare everyone into thinking AI is much more advanced than it is at the moment, and presents existential danger to the economy and national defense," Gietl continued. "By doing that they can scare people into accepting regulatory capture — these companies want to capture the market and regulate it."'Eventually we will become a society of empowered, independent, AIs.'The other side of the coin is indeed bleak and does include the aforementioned spooky rhetoric. Dr. Adeloye likened those who may be looking at job loss as needing to take note of when "the cheese" has moved."Certain things are inevitable if you're not ready to understand that the cheese has moved, and you need to move and find new cheese. The handwriting is on the wall ... your professional job may be on the line."Rat maze comparisons pale to what Olga Grass explained, a representative from forward-thinking company AISynt.The company, which Grass said was based on the research of a "scientist who formerly worked for the Soviet Union," is working in the direction of developing autonomous AI beings."We don't have the real AI just yet. Real intelligence is not computational, it's not algorithm-based," Grass said. "The real AI is a digital nervous system that learns for itself, and has the ability to build from the environment."The representative went on to liken the company's technology to raising a child or training a dog — learning from its environment. AISynt can certainly be described as ambitious but also frightening.While Grass sold the technology as a personal AI system that "empowers" and protects from other AI systems, the company's website is much more Matrix-esque.The technology promises brain downloads, instant learning, and living/learning beings."Living, digital, evolving forms of any nervous system," Grass said. She then claimed that the technology was already in use with a "neural matrix" in the form of an autonomous drone that thinks and learns for itself.Imminent job lossAI is a field that is on fire, and, as such, the term is being used colloquially as a buzz word to sell almost anything. Blaze News was able to chat with representatives from customer service, job-posting software, social media aggregation, and everywhere else in between. Each genre promised unique and first-to-market opportunities with AI.Companies are using the verbiage to "race for venture capital money and startup funds," Gietl explained. "Even the kooks and crazy people."Oleh Redko, CEO at Business!Go, said governments need to make a strategy sooner rather than later to prevent massive job losses."AI is like water in the sea, you can not like it, but if it goes against you, you will drown. Many people are against AI and some people are for AI, but we need to accept it and manage it and try to make it safe." The entrepreneur stressed that governments don't have the right to come after companies after the fact with taxation and regulation simply because they didn't have the foresight to prepare for the technological advancements. He predicted job market changes are five to 10 years away.On the other hand, AISynt has an outlook that is completely different from all the other representatives in the AI marketplace:"Eventually we will become a society of empowered, independent, AIs."Move over, Bruce Willis.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Court’s decision in U.S. v. Rahimi empowers the government to limit the gun rights of violent people, but dodges questions about due process of law.