‘Montanans have put their trust in me to do what is right and it is a responsibility I take seriously'

We're sure the cast and crew will be quickly snapped up by new projects

A video shared on Facebook claims to show British Prime Minister Keir Starmer watching soccer with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken. ❗️?? | ???????⚔️?? – Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer with the Secretary of State of the United States, Antony Blinken, watching Harry Kane’s goal in the Euro Cup pic.twitter.com/uDDdsD6VJo — ??The Informant […]

An image shared on Facebook claims to show Chinese President Xi Jinping having a stroke. Verdict: False The image is from March and shows Xi after he drank a cup of water. There is no evidence he has suffered a stroke. Fact Check: Chinese media has moved to dispute a phrase about economic decline, according to […]

'I have not heard anything about any criminal charges, and where is the accountability?'

America is great because America is good. If America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great. Those words often attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville (though in truth their origin remains much murkier) cut right to core of what makes America great: her goodness. But today, too many Americans reject the very idea that America is good. Our schools poison students with the lie that our American experiment has been flawed from the beginning because of sins such as slavery and that, as a result, we must replace the founding values of faith and freedom with a fundamentally new and different system of values often based on Marxist ideologies. This shift makes some sad sense when you consider that America’s goodness has always been tied to the Godliness of her citizens. The author of the quote attributed to de Tocqueville says that he searched for America’s greatness in many places but “not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.” To be sure, there’s always been great variation among the religious beliefs of Americans, and Americans have always valued—and enshrined in our constitutional order—a respect and a demand for religious liberty. But there’s little doubt that today church attendance and even adherence to a Christian worldview are declining. Once prominent mainline Protestant denominations are poised to fade away within a generation. And no wonder. They often espouse views in direct contradiction to Biblical decrees and take theological positions that would be anathema to congregants only a few generations ago. Today’s pulpits don’t so much flame with righteousness as flirt with feel-good messaging. The results have been dire. As Americans have fled from churches and Christianity, so too has our nation fled from God—or at least public acknowledgments of Him and His attributes. In a series of diktats dating back to the 1960s, the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools, banned the Bible from those schools, and banned displays of the Ten Commandments on governmental grounds. Somehow, the justices contorted the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which prohibits Congress from establishing or endorsing any particular religion, to mean that any mention, tangentially tied to any governmental entity, of God, Christianity, or especially Jesus Christ in the public sphere is forbidden. This ahistorical interpretation of the establishment clause can’t be squared with the understanding and practices of our founding generation who regularly gave thanks for God’s blessings and invoked pleas for God’s mercies in a variety of public and private places. More tragically, this capacious view of the establishment clause has given short shrift to the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. For over half a century, Americans’ ability to freely exercise their religious beliefs in the public square has taken a backseat to the fear that a school teacher saying a prayer might establish a religion. But there’s hope. The Supreme Court in recent years has overturned many—but not all—of its problematic precedents in the establishment clause context. And many Americans are rightly outraged that Jack Phillips, a Colorado cake baker, has spent nearly a decade in litigation for merely living his life in accordance with his religious beliefs. More Americans too are recognizing that it’s not discriminatory to talk about basic biological differences between men and women. And that it’s morally wrong to treat people differently based on their race despite what DEI advocates proclaim. But there are flashpoints, particularly around abortion. After the Supreme Court overturned its problematic precedent that created a constitutional right to abortion—something unknown throughout America’s history until Roe v. Wade in 1973—the issue has been returned to Americans and their elected representatives to decide. Would a nation fearful of God’s judgment allow the unmitigated murder of unborn children? Doubtful. And yet that’s exactly what some states like California and New York have done. There’s no denying that laws and systems of government reflect the mores and values of the people who establish them. So what do ours say about us? As John Adams famously wrote to his wife, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Without God, there can be no goodness. And without goodness, there can be no greatness—at least none worth having. May we, like our founding generation, pray for God to guide us and to bless us with His goodness and His greatness. Without that, little else matters. The post America Can’t Have Greatness Without Goodness. And There Is No Goodness Without God. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Democrat Civil War Is Getting Nasty

Words like “fruit”, “berry”, and “vegetable” are thrown around with reckless abandon, taking little care for their botanic classifications. So, if you’d like help reducing your circle of friends, stick with us and we’ll teach you how to correctly identify all the taxonomic inaccuracies surrounding fruit and veg.Let’s start off easy to whet your appetite for curiosity – tomatoes, cucumbers, and peppers aren’t actually vegetables, they’re all berries. But, raspberries and blackberries, they’re berries, right? WRONG! These imposters are all, in fact, aggregate fruits. Confused yet?What makes something a fruit?The term fruit is used to describe the fleshy ovary of a flowering plant that encloses a single or multiple seeds. The three main types of fleshy fruit are berries, pomes, and drupes, however, the fruit species that fall into these classifications may surprise you. Fruits can be split into four distinct botanical classifications based on their origin:Aggregate fruits are derived from multiple ovaries, or carpels, within a single flower. The mature carpels fuse together to form the entire fruit. Raspberries are an example of an aggregate fruit, as are the achenes (the little dots that get mistaken for seeds) on a strawberry.Multiple fruits, or collective fruits, form from clusters of individual flowers that fuse together to make the fruit, as seen in pineapples.Accessory fruits, or false fruits, form from parts of the flower other than the ovary. The fleshy bit of strawberries, for example, is actually receptacle tissue, and the pome family, which includes apples and pears, form from the flower’s hypanthium.Simple fruits, or true fruits, are derived from one ovary in one flower. The drupe family, including peaches and plums, are all simple fruits, as are berries.Within the simple fruit group are the subcategories of drupes and berries. Drupes are defined as fleshy fruit which contain a single seed – cherries, almonds, and mangos are drupes – but avocados are not. This is because the avocado stone, or endocarp, has a soft, thin skin surrounding it – to be a drupe, this central stone must be thick and hard.What makes something a berry?As simple fruit, berries are formed from the single ovary of a single flower. Berries are defined as fleshy fruits with multiple seeds contained inside a single vessel. Unlike drupes, the middle and inner layers (mesocarp and endocarp) are not distinct from each other.Tomatoes and cucumbers are berries. Seeded banana and grape varieties are also berries, but some commonly consumed species reproduce through parthenocarpy meaning they don’t have seeds. Citrus fruits like limes and oranges are berries, as are pepos (melons and squashes), and avocados – which are single-seed berries.By now you should have a pretty good grasp at identifying if something is an aggregate, multiple, accessory, or simple fruit, and if they would be considered a drupe or berry.To test your knowledge, try to work out which categories these fruits belong in and why (answers at the end):PomegranateFigKiwiBlueberryOliveThe four classifications of fruit.Image credit: Canva.com edited by IFLScienceWhat makes something a vegetable?While fruit grow from the flower of a plant, vegetables can be classified as practically any other piece of a plant that is edible. Plant roots, like radishes and carrots, are considered vegetables, as are the stems (asparagus and celery), leaves (cabbage and lettuce), seeds (peas and beans), bulbs (garlic and onion), or flowers before they develop into fruits (broccoli and cauliflower).These botanical classifications, while distinct, have a lot of crossovers. Strawberries, and their achenes, for example, are both accessory and aggregate fruits. Plants like pumpkins can be both a fruit (the flesh) and a vegetable (the seed) depending on which part of it you consume.Similarly, agricultural definitions define plants by how they are cultivated and consumed, while legal definitions can differ between countries and states. So, while it's fun to be pedantic, don’t go starting any wars over the taxonomic classifications of fruit and veg.QUIZ ANSWERS BELOW:Pomegranate – is a simple fruit as it comes from one ovary in one flower. As it contains multiple seeds, it is considered a berry.Fig – is both an accessory fruit, as the “fruit” is actually a cluster of inverted flowers, and a multiple fruit as it is formed from multiple flowers. These flowers also contain hundreds of achenes – an aggregate fruit – so technically, they’re all three!Kiwi – coming from one flower, kiwis are simple fruit and are considered berries as they contain multiple seeds.Blueberries – are actually berries! They are simple fruit as they come from a single flower with a single ovary and contain multiple seeds inside a fleshy casing.Olive – as they grow from a single flower, olives are simple fruits. Their hard-seeded centre also makes them part of the drupe classification.

Jonathan, Jonathan: you're not supposed to say this kind of stuff on live national TV! Save it for whatever is the dark web successor to JournoList, where liberal media types can reach consensus on the approved lib talking points of the day! In a bizarre bit of saying the quiet part out loud, on today's Morning Joe, Jonathan Lemire, MSNBC's Way Too Early host and Politico's White House bureau chief, issued marching orders to the rest of the liberal media. "I do think we need a moratorium here in the media about Donald Trump's -- praising Donald Trump's new tone. That doesn't ever happen on this show, mind you." So Morning Joe's worried that, after an incredibly successful RNC in which Trump struck a softer tone, the media might actually report that, giving Trump an electoral boost. Then there was Lemire's equally hilarious and superfluous addendum: "That doesn't ever happen on this show, mind you." Don't worry, Jonathan. No reminder necessary. We're all too aware that Morning Joe will never give Trump an even break! Lemire continued to expose Morning Joe's theory of the case: Trump's RNC speech was a missed opportunity in which, softer tone notwithstanding, he didn't reach out beyond his base.  And so, the keep-hope-alive Democrats are declaring, "this is the guy we can beat!"  So don't go messing that up by offering praise of Trump, faint as it might be! Lemire ended with one more unsubtle point.  The belief among some Dems that Trump is beatable explains, "why, of course, there's so much scrutiny about President Biden's upcoming decisions."  Translation: We can beat this guy with the right candidate. All the more reason to dump Biden, STAT!

A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump was only partially immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken during the course of his presidency. That may be true for the laws of the United States, but if there is one thing the last couple of weeks have decisively shown, it is that Trump is wholly and completely immune from the laws of politics. This is both good and bad news for Trump fans. For a variety of reasons, my social circle tends to skew left politically. As a result, I often find myself in the company of delightful people who inhabit a completely different political universe. They all know what I do for a living and frequently ask me for my take on how the right sees things. I remember well that when Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts in May, they reacted with glee. Surely, they thought, a convicted felon would plummet in the polls and the public would refuse to elect him. Several of them came to me and asked me how I thought the convictions would affect the 2024 election. They were shocked when I told them my honest opinion: The convictions would not affect the race whatsoever. If the polls are to be believed, the televised implosion of his opponent does not appear to have helped Trump much. For those who have been watching politics for longer than the last decade, it is indeed pretty shocking that more than two dozen felony convictions would have absolutely no impact on a presidential race, but on the other hand, anyone who has been watching politics for the last decade should not be surprised that they would have no impact on Trump, specifically. Trump has always been more or less immune to the rules that have governed American politics since World War II. Things that would cause other candidates to crater in the polls do absolutely nothing to Trump. That was true in 2016, and it is even more true now that Trump was actually elected and served as president for four years. For better or worse, there is now virtually no one in America who does not have a pretty concrete view of Trump. The number of people who have a potentially flexible view of the most polarizing figure in modern political history is incredibly small and getting smaller. After the last 10 years, it's pretty hard to conceive of something that would surprise the American people about Trump. And so the American public reacted to Trump's convictions ... pretty much not at all. The RealClearPolitics polling average showed Trump enjoying a 0.8-point advantage on average over Biden on May 31. A week later, the margin was still exactly 0.8. His criminal convictions had literally no impact, if the polls are to be believed. If you are a Trump fan, the unfortunate truth seems to be that this appears to be a two-way street. In the last three weeks, two events have happened that, to any other politician, would have meant a double-digit polling swing in his favor. The first of those, of course, was the June 27 debate between Trump and Biden. The debate was widely panned as a debacle for Biden by everyone, including Biden himself. But calling it a "debacle" is unfair to debacles. Barack Obama's first debate against Mitt Romney was a debacle. Biden's performance was something else entirely. It wasn't just that Biden got beat; it's that he spent 90 minutes exposing his Achilles' heel — his age and visibly advancing senility — in a spectacularly embarrassing fashion on live television. His performance was such a spectacle that the partisan Democrats on CNN and MSNBC have almost uniformly spent the last three weeks on air trying to convince Biden to drop out of the race. Yet if the polls are to be believed, the televised implosion of his opponent does not appear to have helped Trump much. The last of the pre-debate polls rolled in on June 28, and at that time, Trump enjoyed a 1.9-point lead according to the RCP average. A week later, Trump's advantage sat at 3.3 points. That's movement, but very little — so little that it is possible to explain it as statistical white noise. Compare, if you will, this public reaction to Michael Dukakis' comparatively mild fumbling of his answer regarding whether he would support the death penalty if someone murdered his wife. Dukakis' answer, substantively, was well thought out and stated clearly. It was just out of step with Americans. And the result of this was that George H.W. Bush, who had a narrow four-point lead in the polls going into the debate, promptly opened up a 17-point lead in polling after the debate and the race was effectively over. In comparison, the fact that Biden’s 90-minute "Weekend at Bernie's" act may have moved the polls one percentage point is nothing short of astounding. Similarly, the old rules of politics would have predicted that a candidate surviving an assassination attempt would enjoy a substantial (at least temporarily) boost in the polls — particularly given the iconic image of Trump extending his fist to the crowd, face covered in blood, mouthing, "Fight! Fight! Fight!" The historical comparisons here are obviously more scant, but the one analogy we have suggests that Trump should have enjoyed a substantial boon in his approval ratings. When John Hinckley attempted to assassinate Reagan in March 1981, Reagan's approval rating shot up from the low 50s into the high 60s, where it remained for most of the year. By way of contrast, the assassination attempt on Trump appears to be affecting the race very little, if at all. The two public polls that have been performed with interviews entirely conducted after the assassination attempt show Trump leading by two and four points, respectively — pretty much exactly the same thing these polls showed prior to the assassination attempt. The usual caveats should apply here. There is good reason to believe that polling is an increasingly imperfect science. It also should be noted that a swing of one or two points can make a huge difference in the electoral vote totals, as the elections of 2016 and 2020 demonstrated. However, it seems clear that when it comes to Trump, the sorts of seismic shifts in public perception that affect virtually all other politicians simply do not happen at this point. People know who Trump is, they have made up their minds about him, and that is that. For better or worse, all the rules of politics simply do not apply to Trump.