One of the joys of traveling to a major city is that there’s always more to see. Even if you stay for a week‚ there are restaurants you miss‚ sites you can’t get to‚ tours you’re unable to take. You can’t cover it all in one visit. In The Transfiguration of Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Reading‚ Patrick Schreiner argues the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s transfiguration are similar. The depth of the narrative should keep readers constantly coming back for more‚ because there’s always more to see. In the moment of Jesus’s transfiguration‚ the disciples struggled to understand what was happening. The voice of God interrupts Peter as he suggests building three tents on the mountain (Matt. 17:4–5). Mark explains that his outburst was because “he did not know what to say” (Mark 9:6). Modern disciples in the Western Christian tradition sometimes struggle to know what to do with the transfiguration. Many of us treat it like a visit to a city during a 12-hour layover. We claim to have “seen the sights” even though we barely made it out of the airport terminal. For those willing to stop for a while and explore‚ Schreiner—associate professor of New Testament and biblical theology at Midwestern Seminary—steps in as a tour guide to the transfiguration‚ pointing out where to look and what to look for. Christological Significance As in his book on the ascension‚ Schreiner takes an underexamined event in the life of Christ‚ showing how it’s central to rightly understanding Jesus’s identity and mission. Christologically‚ the transfiguration showcases “Jesus’s double sonship” (4). It reaches backward to reveal the glory Jesus has always possessed as the eternal Son of God and forward (from that point) to the future glory Jesus now possesses as a glorified human being because of his messianic work. The transfiguration gives us a clear‚ biblical picture of Chalcedonian Christology: Jesus is one divine person existing in two natures‚ divine and human. By pulling back the curtain‚ Jesus offers his disciples “hope by revelation‚” giving them certain hope that because he will not be defeated by death‚ they’ll share in his glorious transformation (12). The transfiguration gives us a clear‚ biblical picture of Chalcedonian Christology: Jesus is one divine person existing in two natures‚ divine and human. To demonstrate how the transfiguration reveals the glory of the Savior‚ Schreiner begins by examining the Gospel accounts for their glorious setting‚ signs‚ and saying. Then he shows how the transfiguration shines light on the doctrines of creation‚ incarnation‚ resurrection‚ and new creation. He shows the transfiguration narrative is key to understanding the whole Bible. Robust Hermeneutics Bible reading is as much an art as it is a science. It’s caught as much as it’s taught. So we need mentors and examples who can model it well. This book is worth its weight in gold because it offers a model approach to Scripture. The Transfiguration of Christ does the necessary exegetical work by explaining that the Greek word for “transfigure” and “transform” is the same: metamorphoō. It’s used only four times in the New Testament: twice in the transfiguration narratives‚ in Romans 12:2‚ and 2 Corinthians 3:18. Thus‚ Schreiner shows‚ Jesus’s transfiguration on the mountain is linked with our transformation into his image. In the transfiguration‚ Christians get a picture of Jesus’s divine and human glory and a preview of their own glorification into his image (Rom. 8:29–30). As Schreiner says‚ “The transfiguration guarantees that we will not only be where he is but as he is” (12). Schreiner’s reading is well-grounded historically. He draws from the church fathers‚ like John of Damascus‚ who argued Luke’s description of the transfiguration as “about eight days” after Peter’s messianic confession is an intentional reference to the inauguration of the new creation (Luke 9:28). Meanwhile‚ Mark’s and Matthew’s reference to “six days” after the same event ties in the Genesis timeline for creation (Mark 9:2; Matt. 17:1). Thus‚ the transfiguration was both a “preview of beholding God’s glory” and a revelation of “God’s purpose for creation” (37). As he works through the text‚ Schreiner incorporates insights from biblical and systematic theology to show that Jesus is presented as the new Moses‚ but even more that Jesus shines with the glory of God that Moses longed to see on Sinai. This thorough treatment of the text can inform preaching and reflection on this mysterious moment in the life of Christ. Devotional Theology In “On the Reading of Old Books‚” C. S. Lewis wrote‚ “I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books. . . . I believe that many who find that ‘nothing happens’ when they sit down‚ or kneel down‚ to a book of devotion‚ would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.” The pipe is optional‚ but working through Schreiner’s theological reading of the transfiguration is a great way to be led to worship as he unveils the glorious Savior revealed in this event. Working through Schreiner’s theological reading of the transfiguration is a great way to be led to worship as he unveils the glorious Savior Because Jesus lives and reigns‚ as Desmond Tutu is quoted by Schreiner as saying‚ “The principle of transfiguration says nothing‚ no one and no situation‚ is ‘untransfigurable‚’ that the whole of creation‚ nature‚ waits expectantly for its transfiguration‚ when it will be released from its bondage and share in the glorious liberty of the children of God‚ when it will not just be dry inert matter but will be translucent with divine glory” (151). Christ’s transformation inspires hope for our transformation. Death didn’t snuff out the glorious light of Christ and the preview of Christ’s messianic glory‚ seen by the disciples on the mountain‚ is now a present reality. This should make a tired heart leap for joy. By giving a preview of Jesus’s glorified humanity‚ the transfiguration gives Christians deep hope for their transformation and the transformation of all creation. The Transfiguration of Christ has the power to deepen our love for Christ and our understanding of his work.

The best storytellers of my childhood knew how to save the revelation of a rightful ruler until the final scenes. I’m thinking of Aslan‚ of course. And Aragorn. And Princess Leia‚ hair piled high‚ bestowing medals on Han‚ Luke‚ and Chewbacca. Such stories acknowledge the heroes’ claims to the throne from the beginning but wait to fully comprehend their majesty and authority until the closing pages‚ when we see them crowned and ruling at last. By the time they ascend a throne‚ we celebrate their presence there because they’ve won our trust in their character in the earlier chapters of their storyline. So also God’s sovereignty—his right and ability to exercise authority—is best understood in the context of his multiple perfections. Not only can his sovereignty be difficult to grasp‚ but it can be difficult to trust unless we’ve first spent time considering other aspects of his nature. It’d be out of order to present to you a God of infinite authority without first pointing to his other attributes. His omnipotence‚ omniscience‚ omnipresence‚ eternality‚ immutability‚ holiness‚ goodness‚ love‚ and faithfulness single him out as not just capable of ruling but as eminently qualified to rule. The collective portrait of God’s attributes moves us toward an inevitable conclusion: the most right and logical place for God to inhabit is a throne. No wonder the Bible portrays him there so often. His throne is described as a place of worship and celebration but also as a place of trembling and awe. A place of right reverence. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The wise see and celebrate God not just as their father to whom they owe adoration but as their King to whom they owe total allegiance. They pray‚ as Jesus taught them to pray‚ “Thy kingdom come‚ thy will be done.” Out of the Mouths of Babes When my son Matt was small‚ we taught him the Lord’s Prayer‚ that beautiful model prayer of submission to divine authority. But the King James language proved a tongue twister for Matt’s 3-year-old verbal skills. So each night he’d bow his head and earnestly pray‚ Odder Fodder who art in Heaben‚ Hallowed be My name. My kingdom come‚ My will be done on Earf as it is in Heaben. It was either the most comically mispronounced prayer of all time or the most transparently honest one. Matt uttered aloud the desire most of us only repeat silently in our hearts: My kingdom come‚ my will be done. We want our rule. We want our kingdom‚ our power‚ our glory. We want the very throne of God. But we’re wholly unqualified for it. Only God is. And we have no right to it. Only God does. But where does his right come from? Earthly sovereigns rule by right of birth‚ but what about God? What gives him the right to expect and demand our allegiance? We owe God our allegiance for one simple reason. Not because we sinned against him and feel guilty‚ not because he saved us and we feel grateful—we owe him our obedience because he made us. He holds authority over us because he’s our Author. It’s his natural right as our Creator. The potter forms the clay‚ and the clay doesn’t question its design or purpose. He holds authority over us because he’s our Author. But it has no need to. He’s a good potter‚ and he knows what he’s doing. Not necessarily so with our earthly authorities. One of the reasons we’re uncomfortable with God’s sovereign rule is the way humans mishandle authority on the regular. We hold virtually no experience of virtuous rule. Abuse of authority runs rampant in families‚ in nonprofits‚ in boardrooms‚ in government‚ in the church. Someone is always vying for control. Someone is always looking to ascend the throne‚ to seek the highest place‚ to wield power with authority for personal gain. It’s no wonder we hesitate at the doctrine of God’s sovereignty. Americans in particular chafe at the idea of unquestioning submission to a ruler. So steeped in democracy are we that we feel we should get to register our vote on all life’s decisions‚ both individual and collective. The most cursory glance at human history affirms that unquestioning submission to an earthly authority isn’t a universally safe posture. It’s a posture that invites abuse. In the hands of sinful humans‚ authority can be (perhaps is almost certain to be) misused. Humans with absolute authority command submission to what brings them glory‚ regardless of the harm it inflicts on those they govern. But in the case of an infinitely benevolent Sovereign‚ our unquestioning submission isn’t only desirable; it’s the only rational course to follow. God never requires submission to a harmful command. None of his commands is harmful. In commanding what brings him glory‚ he commands what brings us good. Unlike humans‚ he can only use his authority for good. How Much Control? Human authority—that of governments and leaders—is delegated‚ granted to us temporarily by the God who holds all authority. In the Old Testament‚ God grants authority to both Israel and Israel’s enemies as suits his purposes. In the New Testament‚ Jesus points out to Pontius Pilate during his trial‚ “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above” (John 19:11). Romans 13:1 tells us to submit to earthly authorities‚ giving this reason: “There is no authority except from God‚ and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Whether earthly rulers exercise their authority for good or for evil‚ ultimately God is in control. Control lies at the heart of what we must understand when we speak of the sovereignty of God. The question we must resolve is this: How much does God control? The Bible makes the bold and repeated claim that God controls not just many things or most things but all things. As R. C. Sproul notes‚ “If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose‚ totally free of God’s sovereignty‚ then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled.” There are no limits on what God controls. Thus‚ whatever he wills he does. He’s completely free to act according to what he decrees. He requires permission from no one. Because he needs nothing from anyone‚ knows all things‚ is everywhere present‚ and holds all power‚ no one exists who could possibly challenge or overrule his plans. His limitlessness in every area points to his sovereignty over all things. As A. W. Tozer states‚ “Nothing can hinder him or compel him or stop him. He is able to do as he pleases always‚ everywhere‚ forever.” Or‚ as Job put it‚ “I know that you can do all things‚ and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2). Acknowledge Paradox; Act Practically Because he controls all things‚ God can ultimately work all things for our good‚ even those that others mean for evil. Theologians speak of his active will and his passive will. He works actively through our obedience‚ but he can also work passively through disobedience‚ as in the case of Joseph’s brothers. Joseph recognized that God had used what they intended for evil to bring about his good purposes (Gen. 50:20). Because God needs nothing from anyone‚ knows all things‚ is everywhere present‚ and holds all power‚ no one exists who could possibly challenge or overrule his plans. Though God controls all things‚ those who do evil are still accountable for their sinful choices. How can this be? How can we be responsible for our choices if God is sovereign? Divine sovereignty and human responsibility are parallel truths we must hold simultaneously. The Bible consistently affirms both God’s total sovereignty and man’s free will. The same Jesus who said‚ “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44)‚ also said‚ “Come to me‚ all who labor and are heavy laden‚ and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). God draws us to salvation. We respond to his call from our own free will. If we humans don’t have free will‚ then God is unjust to punish sin. Indeed‚ he’s responsible for it. How our free will and God’s sovereignty can coexist is a mystery. Any time the human and the divine intersect‚ paradox will appear and our human limits will obscure how two seemingly contradicting points can both be true. It’s good for us to wrestle with paradox‚ but if we allow that wrestle to draw our eyes away from a question of more pressing concern‚ we miss the point. That question is this: How committed are you to the myth of your own sovereignty? Toppling the Myth of Human Sovereignty When we reach for control we aren’t built to exercise‚ we announce our belief that we‚ rather than an all-knowing‚ all-seeing‚ all-powerful‚ infinitely good God‚ should govern the universe. Typically‚ we strive to exercise rule over a circumstance or a relationship. Our control issues stem largely from fear of the unknown‚ resulting in anxiety about the likelihood that our kingdom shall come and our will shall be done. My husband always soothes my anxiety by pointing me back to an important question: What’s your worst-case scenario? Speaking aloud my fears about a circumstance or relationship helps me lay them to rest. Or more precisely‚ it helps me lay them at the feet of my King in heaven. It’s a form of confession‚ letting my mouth speak out of the overflow of my heart‚ giving voice to my nagging fears and relinquishing my need for control. It’s an acknowledgment that his is the kingdom: Yours‚ O LORD‚ is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty‚ for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom‚ O LORD‚ and you are exalted as head above all. Both riches and honor come from you‚ and you rule over all. In your hand are power and might‚ and in your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all. (1 Chron. 29:11–12) So said King David to the King of heaven. So say all who pry their hands from their idols of control. How committed are you to the myth of your own sovereignty?How committed are you to the myth of your own sovereignty? Over what do I have control? A few important things. My thoughts‚ which I can take captive by the power of the Holy Spirit. And if I can control my thoughts‚ it follows I can control my attitude toward my circumstances and relationships. If my thoughts and attitude are under control‚ my words will be as well‚ and my actions. The redeemed obediently submit thought‚ word‚ and deed to their Heavenly Ruler‚ trusting uncertainty to him who “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11). They step away from the throne‚ acknowledging they’re utterly unqualified to fill it. The best storytellers of my childhood were on to a winning formula. Every truly good story echoes the best story of all. The Bible recounts the story of a King whose claim to a throne is recognized from the beginning but whose majesty and authority are only fully apprehended in its closing pages‚ when we see him crowned and ruling at last. His faithful utterance from the throne is this: “Behold‚ I am making all things new” (Rev. 21:5). Blessed are those who live with the end in mind. Blessed are those who don’t wait for that final day when every knee will bow and every tongue confess but who humble themselves in the sight of the Lord while it’s still called today. Until all is made new‚ we look to our King’s faithfulness to all generations to shape our trust in him in this one. Our God is in the heavens; he does all he pleases. And all he pleases is for our good.

It is time to seek out the fashion police. No‚ really. Here is how to complete Where Honed Blades Clash in Genshin Impact. Genshin Impact: How to complete Where Honed Blades Clash Where Honed Blades Clash is the first mission of Act 1 of the Chiori Story Quest‚ also known as When They Talk About Tonight. Before you attempt to start it‚ you need to know that the following requirements are mandatory: Adventure Rank 40+ One Story Key Complete Chapter 4‚ Act 5: Masquerade of the Guilty Image: YouTube Story Keys are necessary to unlock Story Quests and you can get those by completing a total of 8 Daily Commissions after you reach Adventure Rank 26. This means that you need at least two days to prepare for the Chiori Story Quest since Daily Commissions are limited to four per day. Once you do unlock the Story Quest – and you accept it-‚ you will need to head out to the northernmost fast travel point in the Court of Fontaine‚ Fontaine. This is a pretty easy que...

On tonight’s installment of The ReidOut‚ broadcast nightly into America’s homes by MSNBC in conjunction with your preferred streaming or cable or satellite dish provider‚ host Joy Reid discovers that an American billionaire might potentially own Tik Tok as a result of the House-passed bill calling on Tik Tok to divest from under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. Pure CINEMA. Watch as Reid has her “aha” moment‚ and discovers that billionaires might buy stuff‚ especially stuff they’ve invested in to begin with:  JOY REID: It feels --I have to say- I'm sorry‚ but it does feel like this is an attempt to enrich some already rich American billionaire that just wants Tik Tok. Because my question is: what is the difference in the algorithmic threat of this site versus Telegram‚ versus Facebook‚ versus Discord‚ versus X‚ Twitter‚ all of them have algorithmic problems and dangers‚ right? Why is Tik Tok being singled out when they all have the same algorithmic issues and issues of disinformation?  BRIAN CHEUNG: When we talk about data and disinformation‚ misinformation‚ it is certainly the same at a Tik Tok as it would be at a Facebook or an Instagram or X or Twitter‚ right? But the concerns that at least lawmakers cite with regards to this is with the Chinese ownership through Bytedance‚ that company that owns Tik Tok. But‚ yeah. You're right. There are certainly a lot of billionaires that have stakes in all these social media apps. And when we talk about Bytedance‚ you look at Jeff Yass‚ for example. He is a billionaire who has a 7% personal stake in the company Bytedance and then his investment firm‚ Susquehanna‚ has a 15% stake. So‚ they have a vested interest‚ as I'm sure other investors do‚ in seeing how this story plays out. Because they have a financial stake attached to it as well‚ which will create some interesting undercurrents in the lobby.  REID: Just to be clear. I’m sorry. Not to interrupt you. So you're saying that an American billionaire owns some of this company. So it's not wholly owned by China‚ right? CHEUNG: Well‚ I mean‚ of course the company is based in China. It's based in Beijing‚ Bytedance‚ at least. But there are investment stakes that come from a number of shareholders which can include in some cases Americans as well. REID: Aha. I smell a rat. We're going to keep talking about this. Brian Cheung. Thank you very much. I’ll see y’all on Tik Tok. Follow me please on Tik Tok at Joy Reid Official. And we’ll be right back. Ahahahaha! The whole segment was devoted to whining about the potential sale of Tik Tok to an American billionaire pursuant to a forced divestiture. In other words‚ Reid appears very much to want to leave Tik Tok just the way it is and under CCP control. Regardless of one’s stance on the bill‚ the idea of a major social media platform granting unrestricted backdoor access to the ChiComs is or should be a major cause for concern. But Reid doesn’t discuss this during her segment with NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Cheung. Instead‚ she wastes Cheung’s time and insights while she infers that the intent of the bill is to redistribute Tik Tok to an American fatcat which‚ even when looked at from a skeptic’s perspective‚ is an incredibly dopey take. Even for Joy Reid. Opposition to the bill‚ serious opposition unlike the dog vomit that Reid offered up on-air‚ centers around concerns over the unmerited grant of additional powers to a government already weaponized against opposition and dissent. Or‚ at a bare minimum‚ the desire (as expressed by former President Donald Trump) to preserve a competitor of Meta‚ parent company of Facebook and Instagram.  In addition to being ridiculous on its face‚ Reid’s anti-billionaire ranting is superficial. One suspects that Reid’s opposition to divestiture would rapidly dissipate if‚ say‚ George Soros were the high bidder. Or Alex‚ nowadays.  I watch this nonsense so you don’t have to‚ but take no pity upon me for doing so. For‚ as Hyman Roth once said to Don Michael Corleone: This is the business we’ve chosen. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on MSNBC’s The ReidOut on Wednesday‚ March 13th‚ 2024: MIKE GALLAGHER: Tik Tok is a threat to our national security because it is owned by Bytedance‚ which does the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party.  MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: I believe that this bill can cause future problems. It's opening Pandora's box. NANCY PELOSI: This is not an attempt to ban Tik Tok. It's an attempt to make Tik Tok better.  SYDNEY KAI KALMAGER-DOVE: The bill seriously undermines civil liberties by essentially banning a platform that 150 million Americans use to engage in free speech and expression. JOY REID: Today a bipartisan House majority passed a bill that would lead to a nationwide ban of Tik Tok if its China-based parent company does not divest ownership. 352 members voted in favor of the bill‚ 65 against who were an interesting mix of progressives and ultra-MAGA conservatives. The margin of victory is well above the two thirds majority threshold. Tik Tok has headquarters in the United States‚ but is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chinese tech firm Bytedance. Roughly 150 million Americans use Tik Tok. Earlier this week‚ FBI Director Chris Wray reiterated concerns that the Chinese government has the ability to control the app’s recommendation algorithm during a Senate hearing on national security threats. Joining me now is Brian Chueng‚ NBC News business and data correspondent. Thank you so much for being here. And I have seen some of your Tik Toks and your posts about these- about these topics. If‚ in fact‚ this bill was to pass the Senate and be designed by President Biden‚ would this forced sale be to a person in particular? ‘Cause all I want to know when I heard this is what rich billionaire American wants Tik Tok and who is it that is being set up to buy it? BRIAN CHEUNG: Yeah‚ and for what it’s worth‚ it’s going to take some time before there would be any sort of ban on Tik Tok because the way this would have to work is that after passage of the House‚ which happened today‚ it would need to go on to the Senate. The Senate would have to pass it‚ then the president would have to sign it. And then‚ even after that happens‚ the clock would then begin for a six-month period by which Tik Tok would have to be divested by the Chinese parent company Bytedance. If they can't do that‚ then it will be banned. If they can do that‚ then things go on (unint). We can continue to post our dancing videos on Tik Tok. But‚ look. At the end of the day the question is‚ okay‚ so if this does look like it has a path to being passed and signed into law by the president‚ which the president said he would do‚ who might buy Tik Tok? And we have to remember that there is precedent for this because then-president Donald Trump in 2020 tried to do the exact same thing‚ which was force Bytedance to divest Tik Tok. And when he tried to do so‚ there were two potential suitors that were named. Oracle and also Walmart. So‚ there is potentially a potential for this company to be sold. But again- how this plays out in 2024‚ we’ll have to see.  REID: It feels --I have to say- I'm sorry‚ but it does feel like this is an attempt to enrich some already rich American billionaire that just wants Tik Tok. Because my question is: what is the difference in the algorithmic threat of this site versus Telegram‚ versus Facebook‚ versus Discord‚ versus X‚ Twitter‚ all of them have algorithmic problems and dangers‚ right? Why is Tik Tok being singled out when they all have the same algorithmic issues and issues of disinformation?  CHEUNG: When we talk about data and disinformation‚ misinformation‚ it is certainly the same at a Tik Tok as it would be at a Facebook or an Instagram or X or Twitter‚ right? But the concerns that at least lawmakers cite with regards to this is with the Chinese ownership through Bytedance‚ that company that owns Tik Tok. But‚ yeah. You're right. There are certainly a lot of billionaires that have stakes in all these social media apps. And when we talk about Bytedance‚ you look at Jeff Yass‚ for example. He is a billionaire who has a 7% personal stake in the company Bytedance and then his investment firm‚ Susquehanna‚ has a 15% stake. So‚ they have a vested interest‚ as I'm sure other investors do‚ in seeing how this story plays out. Because they have a financial stake attached to it as well‚ which will create some interesting undercurrents in the lobby.  REID: Just to be clear. I’m sorry. Not to interrupt you. So you're saying that an American billionaire owns some of this company. So it's not wholly owned by China‚ right? CHEUNG: Well‚ I mean‚ of course the company is based in China. It's based in Beijing‚ Bytedance‚ at least. But there are investment stakes that come from a number of shareholders which can include in some cases Americans as well. REID: Aha. I smell a rat. We're going to keep talking about this. Brian Cheung. Thank you very much. I’ll see y’all on Tik Tok. Follow me please on Tik Tok at Joy Reid Official. And we’ll be right back. Ahahahaha!  

People are sounding off after Dylan Mulvaney‚ a man who identifies as a woman‚ released a song titled "Days of Girlhood."Some of the lyrics in the song include lines such as "Monday can't get out of bed‚ Tuesday morning pick up meds‚ Wednesday retail therapy‚ cash or credit I say yes‚ Thursday had a walk of shame‚ didn't even know his name." Many people blasted Mulvaney and the song."Every part of 'girlhood' that Dylan Mulvaney imitates is an offensive stereotype‚" BlazeTV host Lauren Chen tweeted‚ listing‚ "Stupidity‚ promiscuity‚ emotional instability‚ materialism." She added‚ "His entire persona is a modern-day minstrel show‚ and women are the butt of the joke.""This is literally the most sexist song in the history of sexism‚" Ben Shapiro tweeted."I didn’t think that Dylan Mulvaney could insult anything more than he insulted women but he’s done it. Calling this crap music is an insult to even the worst music‚" Robby Starbuck wrote on X.Over on Mulvaney's YouTube channel‚ people left comments such as‚ "I introduce: the patriarchy."Another comment stated‚ "this is a mockery of women.""I cringed into another dimension‚" someone wrote."This is not only misogynistic‚ but super cringe on another level‚" someone declared."I would rather watch 24 hours of baby shark on repeat than listen this song once‚" another comment read.Mulvaney was previously at the center of a firestorm of cultural backlash that ignited after he had been enlisted to promote Bud Light beer. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

He held a Guinness World Record for it.

A poignant musical memory. The post ‘Fullness of Wind’: The Brian Eno song ingrained in Beth Orton’s core memory first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

“Political language‚” wrote George Orwell‚ “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable‚ and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Nowhere is this more evident today than in the phrase “liberal democratic values‚” which is routinely invoked to justify measures that are neither liberal nor democratic. For one reason or another‚ the “defense of democracy” invariably seems to require a level of political repression that would make history’s most notorious authoritarians blush. RELATED: Trudeau’s Orwellian Dream: Deploying ‘the Trump Treatment’ to Destroy Canada The most recent example of this comes from Belgium‚ where the 30-year-old right-wing activist Dries Van Langenhove has just been sentenced to a year in prison and a €16‚000 fine for privately espousing what were deemed to be “thoughtcrimes” in the eyes of his government. Van Langenhove’s criminal charges‚ Politico writes‚ included “hatred” and “racism”; the venue in which those crimes were committed was a private online group chat between the activist and his friends. (Notably‚ the criminal charges were leveled at internet memes sent by others in the group chat; Van Langenhove’s crime‚ in that context‚ was merely his digital proximity to the messages.) The nefarious criminal conspiracy was originally uncovered by a 2018 TV report‚ triggering the multi-year-long (and multi-million-euro) investigation into the young men’s correspondences on behalf of the government of Belgium. On top of the jail time and the hefty hit to his bank account‚ “the judgment also deprived Van Langenhove of certain civil rights for a period of 10 years‚ during which he won’t be able to serve in public office or run in elections‚” reports Politico. While delivering the sentence‚ the judge presiding over Van Langenhove’s trial accused the young Belgian of creating “a hostile atmosphere in society.” “He contributes to antagonism‚ discord and conflict‚” the judge added‚ “and thus fosters physical and psychological violence.” A lawyer for the Human Rights League‚ a powerful Belgian activist group that helped bring the case against Van Langenhove‚ gloated that the ruling sent “a clear signal.” On that count‚ at least‚ he was correct; and if that signal doesn’t shake Western civilization out of its slumber‚ nothing will. Belgium Isn’t Alone The right wing in Europe is ascendant. On that‚ commentators of all political persuasions agree. In Italy‚ Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s nationalist Brothers of Italy party swept into power in 2022 and has only strengthened its position since. In France‚ the right-wing National Rally’s Marine Le Pen is leading President Emmanuel Macron in the polls for this summer’s European Parliament elections. In the Netherlands‚ a surge of anti-immigration sentiment led to a stunning victory for a coalition led by anti-Islam activist Geert Wilders in November. In Germany‚ the rightist Alternative for Germany is poised to win unprecedented victories in this year’s elections‚ “break[ing] the ‘cordon sanitaire’ erected around it by Germany’s more mainstream parties that have so far refused to entertain coalition talks with the far-right faction‚” writes the Washington Post. (All the aforementioned parties and figures are persistently described as “far right” in the breathless reports from legacy media.) Brexit’s legacy may have been betrayed by the political elites in Westminster‚ but the populist fervor it came to symbolize has swept across large swathes of the West. As the avatars of that populism have breached the fortress gates‚ the political establishments in each respective country have grown increasingly alarmed and desperate. And as their desperation has grown‚ so too has their willingness to utilize extreme measures to suppress the opposition — to defend liberal democracy‚ of course. Belgium is one of many examples. Vlaams Belang‚ the right-wing anti-immigration party that Van Langenhove represented in the parliament of Belgium from 2019 to 2023‚ “is now the biggest political force in Belgium‚” explains Politico. Perhaps it’s simply a coincidence that Van Langenhove’s group chats happened to pique the interest of his country’s political and media elites just as his party began to surge in momentum. But if it is‚ it is one that coincides with many other very similar coincidences across the Western world. (READ MORE from Nate Hochman: Becoming Haiti: How Biden Is Transforming America Into a Gang-Infested Wasteland) In Germany‚ for example‚ elites are openly musing about “simply banning” the Alternative for Germany outright — and‚ in the meantime‚ are busying themselves with doing everything they can to change election laws‚ force through constitutional amendments‚ and bolster various legal “protections” to make it as difficult as possible for the party to win power. In Ireland‚ the government is currently on the verge of passing what is arguably the most radical “hate speech” law in history. As I noted on X in November‚ the bill “criminalizes the mere possession of materials that are ‘likely to incite violence or hatred’ — books‚ videos‚ or even memes on your phone.” The bill prohibits “hatred” against a number of “protected characteristics‚” which include sexual orientation‚ “sex characteristics‚” and the “preferred gender” with which a “person identifies‚” among others. The bill defines “hatred” as “hatred against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics.” Protected characteristics include “national origin.” Would criticizing Ireland’s open borders even be legal under this bill? pic.twitter.com/j9jA8kGDFM — Nate Hochman (@njhochman) November 26‚ 2023 In Finland‚ the prosecution of Päivi Räsänen — a member of the Finnish parliament and the former Finnish minister of the interior — is approaching its fifth year. As Paul Coleman explained in a recent piece for the Critic‚ Räsänen’s crime was tweeting a Bible verse — yes‚ a Bible verse — while explaining her Christian view on sexuality and marriage in 2019. After “[l]engthy police interrogations followed by criminal prosecution‚” Coleman wrote‚ “Räsänen was dealt three criminal charges‚ carrying a potential prison sentence of two years‚ for the tweet‚ in addition to her comments on a 2019 radio debate and in a church pamphlet she had authored nearly 20 years before. Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola was charged alongside her for publishing the booklet for his congregation.” (READ MORE: Finnish Politician Goes Back to Court for 2019 Bible Tweet)  Europe and America Are Linked These stories abound across the European continent. Just this month‚ Samuel Melia‚ a right-wing activist in the U.K.‚ was jailed for distributing stickers; his crime‚ according to the official statement from the Crown’s prosecutors‚ was “intent to stir up racial hatred.” (The statement itself is Orwellian to an almost absurd degree: Upon Melia’s arrest‚ “a number of stickers were found in his wallet‚ which included slogans expressing views of a nationalist nature.”) So what does Europe have to do with America? Other than our common civilization and shared cultural heritage‚ the answer is that the ruling class in the West is an international body; elites in the U.S.‚ the U.K.‚ Belgium‚ France‚ Germany‚ and so on are often educated at the same elite institutions‚ are acculturated into the same basic worldview‚ and profess a similar set of political objectives. This is why the populist and nationalist movements that have arisen to oppose those elites across the West have borne a notable (though not identical) resemblance to one another‚ both in their rhetoric and their political goals‚ despite the substantial differences between the nations from which they arise. Thanks to the enduring wisdom of the men who wrote our Constitution‚ we Americans are beneficiaries of far stronger and more stubborn free speech protections than our peers in Europe. Beleaguered and degraded as those protections may be‚ they have insulated us — at least thus far — from the most extreme kinds of censorship and persecution that has engulfed so much of our civilization. But no reasonable observer of the past decade in American politics could think that what is happening to Europe cannot happen to us too. (In some instances‚ it already is: Just ask Douglass Mackey‚ the American who was recently sentenced to seven months in prison for posting an internet meme.) Many of the most powerful people in our country would jump at the opportunity to “defend democracy” with the same means as their European contemporaries‚ if given the chance. It’s our duty to make sure they never are. The post Free Speech Is Dead in Europe appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It’s a sad commentary on the current state of things that we look back on 2018 as “the good old days.” By comparison‚ that year was pretty good compared to this one on a number of metrics; however‚ by no objective criterion would that be a year regular Americans should pine for. RELATED: Becoming Haiti: How Biden Is Transforming America Into a Gang-Infested Wasteland After all‚ in 2018 we had an establishment Republican House speaker who retired on active duty amid differences with a Republican president. We had a grinding‚ fraudulent investigation of that president over spurious allegations that he’d colluded with the Russians to fix the 2016 presidential election‚ allegations we now know were made up out of whole cloth by a seditious conspiracy of Democrat operatives. And though the Mueller investigation ultimately cleared Donald Trump of any Russian collusion — the Durham investigation later documented the conspiracy to defraud the American people and ultimately create the Mueller probe — the conspirators still managed to monetize the fake Russia charges in the midterm elections that fall by riding them into a turnover of the uninspiring Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Beyond the soon-to-conclude-without-result Mueller probe‚ one reason why the 2018 elections went so badly for Republicans was a perceived exhaustion on the part of the voting public with a never-ending series of controversies enmeshing Trump. Perhaps the stupidest of those involved his characterization of the island (or half-island) nation of Haiti‚ which he was said to have referred to as a “shithole country.” This was in the context of a meeting regarding immigration. It’s been a fairly established bipartisan consensus‚ at least until 15 minutes ago‚ that immigration from Haiti was considerably less desirable than from any other country. For all the smarmy moralizing that word of Trump’s unkind reference engendered‚ which included such histrionics as Don Lemon and Michael Steele calling Trump a “racist‚” Conan O’Brien all but selling T-shirts proclaiming Haiti’s national greatness‚ and Stephen Colbert claiming that Haiti couldn’t be a shithole because Donald Trump wasn’t its president‚ the proof of Haiti’s shithole status is overwhelming. And it has nothing to do with race. Haiti is a shithole by African standards‚ by Caribbean standards‚ by Latin American standards — in fact‚ by any standard you’d like to impose. I could take you through the statistical proof. For example‚ I could show you that Haiti’s per capita income is a breathtakingly low $1‚745.90 as of 2022‚ according to the World Bank‚ or I could point to studies indicating that the mean IQ of Haitian schoolchildren hovers below 70. (The U.S. military used to‚ and perhaps still does‚ refuse to admit anyone with an IQ below 83‚ based on a conclusion that those unfortunates with scores so low couldn’t be trained to do even the most menial jobs the armed services needed done. By the way‚ 82 or below would grade out around the 10th percentile among U.S. military test-takers.) Perhaps the most obvious proof Haiti is a shithole country comes from the fact that its neighbor‚ the Dominican Republic‚ with whom Haiti shares the island of Hispaniola‚ has built a wall along the full length of the border between the two countries to keep the Haitians out. No‚ I’m not kidding: The Dominicans have actually become a nice little success story of economic development over the past three or four decades‚ as they’ve climbed out of the gutter and built a vibrant‚ growing economy with something that looks like the rule of law and a reasonably functional power grid and transportation infrastructure. Investment has come in‚ tourist dollars are up‚ and the DR is no longer a basket case. I mention this not to sing the praises of the Dominican Republic so much as to note how poorly Haiti performs. The Great Dominican Wall went up years after Trump’s descriptive remark about Haiti‚ and it went up for a pretty good reason. In July 2021‚ three years after Trump had been excoriated for calling a shithole a shithole and just months after Trump left office — and those legacy corporate media prattlers were lecturing America about a “return to norms” following a “fortified” election — Haitian President Jovenel Moïse was assassinated by a small army of Colombian mercenaries working on behalf of ambitious Haitian dissidents. Moïse‚ who on one hand was attempting to fight corruption in Haiti but‚ on the other‚ had engendered a constitutional crisis by remaining in office beyond his term‚ might have been the last true president of the country. His prime minister‚ Ariel Henry‚ assumed power but has never really wielded it. In fact‚ so empty is Henry’s pen that last week‚ when Haiti collapsed anew‚ he was in Kenya attempting unsuccessfully to beg that country’s government for 1‚000 military policemen to keep the armed gangs from overpowering his own troops. He attempted to fly home but couldn’t‚ owing to the fact that the gangs now control the airport in Port-au-Prince. Henry was further told by the Dominicans that he wasn’t welcome to land in Santo Domingo‚ either‚ which tells you how it looks when someone builds a wall and is damned serious about patrolling it. He’s now in Puerto Rico inventorying his offshore bank accounts and plotting retirement in exile. The true power in Haiti is held by the warlords. The most prominent is a gang leader named Jimmy Chérizier‚ who is better known by the moniker “Barbeque‚” owing to his penchant for burning his victims alive. Video of Chérizier’s minions eating the body parts of their enemies has made it onto the internet‚ though you won’t find links here. We do try to keep some standards‚ after all. Chérizier also recently sacked a couple of Haiti’s prisons‚ leading to the release of almost 4‚000 of the most dangerous psychopaths on planet Earth. Think about how badly you have to behave to go to prison in a place like Haiti. Armed with the grateful allegiance of the sprung‚ Chérizier is now threatening civil war as the flaming bodies pile up in the streets. Haiti is the very definition of a failed state — although‚ to be fair‚ it has never been much of a “state” in the first place. Haiti won its nominal independence from France two centuries-plus ago after a slave revolt began in 1791‚ led by a heroic figure named Toussaint Louverture. That revolt was born of a pagan ritual in which the participants were asked to drink the blood of a slaughtered pig‚ and before long it had resulted in the destruction of some 1‚500 plantations on the island‚ at a massive death toll. Louverture is heralded as a freer of slaves‚ which he was‚ but he also burned down most of Haiti’s cities as a measure of opposition to the French soldiers sent to restore some sense of order to the island. In other words‚ the Haitians celebrate a man whose definitive accomplishment was to destroy everything of economic viability in his country and leave it permanently destitute. Louverture died in a French prison in 1803‚ having been betrayed by his own people. Thus began a tradition of Haitians betraying other Haitians that has lived unbroken ever since. Of course‚ you will hear again and again that Haiti’s plight is the fault of Europeans and Americans. Much has been made of the crushing debt imposed on Haiti‚ first by France as a de-facto price of its independence‚ and later by American banks. Of course‚ a main reason for Haiti’s balance of payments problems is that the country’s leaders are the most kleptocratic in the world‚ and it doesn’t take a particularly high IQ to realize that when you’re in control of a government and that government can borrow untold sums from rich Westerners‚ and you can then loot those sums from the treasury without being on the hook for paying any of it back‚ two things are true. First‚ that the port improvements‚ highways‚ utility infrastructure‚ drainage‚ and other things that debt is supposed to produce either are not made or are of such substandard quality as to do no good. And second‚ the next round of refinancing of that crushing debt will not come at the most favorable rates. Not that it matters‚ because no Haitian leader has ever fully interested himself in paying off the country’s debt anyway. And now‚ paying off debt is so far beyond the capabilities of anyone who might aspire to Haiti’s leadership as to make a joke of the subject. We’re literally at the point where the Haitians hope their next president isn’t a cannibal or‚ at least‚ that the executions of his enemies by matches and gasoline don’t take place on busy streetcorners or university quadrangles. Guy Philippe‚ a participant in the 2004 coup that deposed former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and who was recently deported from the U.S. to Port-au-Prince after serving a prison term for laundering drug money‚ is being touted as the next Great Haitian Hope. At the end of the day‚ the Haitians are out of excuses for the shitholery of their country. Particularly when the favored president of our own shithole elites is deploying Marines to our embassy in Port-au-Prince‚ presumably to keep our diplomats from being barbecued by its burgeoning new leadership. The post Can We Now Admit Trump Was Right About Haiti? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Pop quiz! Question: Who said the following? “We all agree on the need to better secure the border and to punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants. We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States. But those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law‚ and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.” “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected‚ undocumented‚ unchecked‚ and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently‚ diligently‚ and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.” Was this said by: Former President Donald J. Trump? U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)? U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)? Answer: Trick question! RELATED: Biden Takes It Back: ‘I Shouldn’t Have Used Illegal’ None of the above conservative Republicans uttered these words. The man who stated them was none other than (brace yourself) Barack Obama. These were his comments at a Dec. 15‚ 2005‚ news conference‚ back when he was a U.S. senator in a hurry. That’s right: “Illegal” was common parlance among top Democrats until just a few years ago. Democrats now consider this hate speech. President Joe Biden learned this lesson last week‚ after he said in his State of the Union address that Georgia nursing student Laken Riley “was killed by an illegal.” Democrats freaked out. “Biden’s remark about immigrants was ugly and uncalled for‚” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) complained. “He’s piling on to Trump’s dangerous rhetoric.” (Democrats stayed largely mum about the 22-year-old Riley’s murder‚ allegedly at the hands of Venezuelan illegal alien Jose Antonio Ibarra‚ 26‚ who broke into America in September 2022‚ on Biden’s watch.) These and other leftist brickbats hurled at Biden contrast starkly with Democrat luminaries’ frequent use of “illegal” not so long ago: While promoting Obamacare‚ its namesake addressed a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9‚ 2009. “There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants‚” Obama said. “This‚ too‚ is false. The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” To this‚ Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) famously shouted from the House floor‚ “You lie!” On March 11‚ 2016‚ Obama spoke with Texas Democrats at Austin Music Hall. “You’ve got all these candidates on the other side tripping all over themselves‚” Obama said. “You’ve got these folks saying immigration is our biggest crisis when illegal immigration is lower than it’s been in 40 years.” The audience applauded. Just eight years later‚ today’s Democrats would groan at news of a four-decade low in lawless border breaches. “All Americans‚ not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country‚ are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country‚” President Bill Clinton proclaimed in his Jan. 24‚ 1995‚ State of the Union address. “The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants…. That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards‚ by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before‚ by cracking down on illegal hiring‚ by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.” He concluded‚ “In the budget I will present to you‚ we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes‚ to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan‚” a Texas Democrat. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) minced no words in a June 24‚ 2009‚ speech that Newsday described with this headline: “Schumer talks tough on immigration reform issue.” Schumer declared: “People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens‚ and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who enter the United States legally.” Schumer’s predecessor as Senate Democrat leader sounded like the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus on Sept. 20‚ 1993. “If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough‚ how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant?” Nevada’s Harry Reid asked on the Senate floor. “If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child‚ we reward that child with U.S. citizenship — a guarantee of full access to public and social services that this society provides…. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense at county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal-alien mothers?” As much as today’s Democrats recoil at “illegal” and “illegal alien‚” they cannot explain why this language is inappropriate‚ other than with such slogans as: “No human is illegal.” That bumper sticker might make people weep. Regardless‚ those who enter America illegally are illegal. And‚ as foreign citizens‚ they also are aliens. Today’s Democrats prefer “undocumented.” But this is squid ink into which Democrats escape to conceal their evil ways. “‘Undocumented immigrant’ is a politically correct‚ made-up term adopted by pro-illegal alien advocacy groups and liberal media outlets to obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law and are in the country illegally‚” Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky wrote in the Daily Signal. “Illegal alien” appears throughout the U.S. Code and in numerous federal court decisions‚ including U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Von Spakovsky explains‚ “‘Alien’—rather than ‘immigrant’—is the correct legal term‚ since ‘alien’ is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101 (a)(3) as ‘any person not a citizen or national of the United States.’” Democrats’ constant word games camouflage their nefarious deeds‚ in this case‚ to rip America’s borders wide open and let 8.8 million illegals‚ and rising‚ invade America. They will crowd Democrat states. And if the 2030 Census counts them (which it should not)‚ those states will score more federal funds and perhaps bonus seats in the House and Electoral College. Attorney General Merrick Garland last week threatened legal jihad against states that demand photo ID to vote. He also promised to hammer states that weaken “temporary” and “emergency” COVID-era measures such as same-day registration‚ mass-mail-in ballots‚ no-excuse absentee ballots‚ drop-off boxes‚ and ballot trafficking. Garland wants early voting to start just after Labor Day and mail-in ballots to wander in until nearly Thanksgiving. Amid such chaos‚ Democrats hope that illegal aliens — or “newcomers‚” as the White House recently dubbed them — will choose to vote or get bamboozled into doing so. The Biden/Democrat border fiasco is no accident. It is deliberate‚ and maximizing Democrat power and control is the goal. Amid this worrisome backdrop‚ the least that conservatives can do is reject the Left’s gaslighting. These are not “undocumented workers‚” “migrants‚” or “our newest Americans‚” as today’s post-Clinton and post-Obama Democrats call them. Von Spakovsky puts it perfectly: “Under federal law‚ any individual in this country who is not a citizen is an alien. And any alien who is here without permission is here illegally. End of story.” Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor. The post For Democrats‚ ‘Illegal’ Wasn’t Always Hate Speech appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.