There's certainly no shortage of options when it comes to steakhouses, but how do The Keg and Texas Roadhouse stack up against each other? We take a look.

Subscribe - https://www.youtube.com/wearechange Sign up - https://lukeunfiltered.com/ The shirts - https://thebestpoliticalshirts.com/ Bitcoin Conference tickets (Discount Code: WRC) - https://glnk.io/lr8q9/wrc New Evidence Of Something SINISTER Surfaces! Hillary To Replace Biden?? This report covers new evidence that is surfacing and suggesting something sinister happened surrounding the former president of the United States. It also delves into the scuttlebutt surrounding a potential second Hillary Clinton run for the White House.

How convenient! Three months out from election…this bullshit narrative gives cover for a whole host of events. https://t.co/VAT6Qv0zA7 — Edward Dowd (@DowdEdward) July 21, 2024

from World Alternative Media: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Ethan Huff, Natural News: Desperation is setting in as Democrats both in government and media come to the stark realization that braindead Joe Biden has a zero percent chance of winning the presidency in a fair election unless they manipulate his words to spruce up his geriatric image. The latest scheme from the left to cover […]

She's been treating the concoction like a precious family heirloom that I wasn’t yet ready to honor. READ MORE...

  The United States and Canadian governments have become notorious in recent years as the true breadth of their assimilation policies against Indigenous people has come to light. One of the most horrific aspects of these plans was the forced removal of children into schools that would “kill the Indian.” Often overshadowed on the global stage is the extent to which this type of assimilation programming occurred in Australia toward Aboriginal and Torres Island people. The damage left by these policies was so severe that these children went down in history as The Stolen Generations.   Note: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be aware that this story may contain and provide links to images and names of deceased persons.    A Deep History of Inhabitancy The Aboriginal Memorial was commissioned in 1987 by the National Gallery of Australia. Source: National Gallery of Australia   The presence of Aboriginal people in Australia dates back more than 45,000 years. Some historians maintain that this is the oldest population of humans to exist outside of the African continent. Generally, Aboriginal people are split into two groups: those who lived on the mainland and those who inhabited the Torres Strait Islands, which Australia annexed in the nineteenth century. However, within these designations, there are about 500 different tribal groups speaking hundreds of Indigenous languages. Today, Indigenous people make up almost 4% of Australia’s population, with just under one million individuals counted on census estimates in 2021.   Macassans at Victoria, Port Essington by HS Melville, 1862, depicts early trade between Australia and Asia. Source: National Museum Australia   At one time, it was estimated that well over one million Aboriginal people occupied the Australian continent, but that population was immediately compromised with the arrival of British settlers in 1788. In 1770, Captain James Cook had claimed the continent for the British Empire, but it would be almost twenty years before permanent settlers arrived.   The first settlement established Australia as a penal colony, as 850 convicts and a group of soldiers to oversee them arrived to create a new society. Botany Bay in Sydney, New South Wales was the location of this first encampment and became the English government center in Australia. In 1793, the first free settlers arrived from England, and the white immigrant population grew steadily.   Colonization & Genocide Aboriginal Australians in Western dress. Undated P.C. Poulsen Photo. Source: The New York Times   Early interactions between the British and the Aboriginal peoples are widely characterized as friendly. However, as time progressed, the English population grew. It began moving further inland, seizing resources and land from Indigenous people, throwing considerations of the Aboriginal people to the wayside.   As European settlers moved inland and further away from the center of government in New South Wales, random killings of Aboriginal people were not uncommon. It wasn’t long before disease epidemics began to rage among the Aboriginal people of Australia, their immune systems facing unfamiliar bacteria and viruses shed by the encroaching colonists.   At least 270 massacres have been documented in the first 140 years of British settlement in Australia. There was resistance by the Aboriginal tribes, mostly in the form of small-scale guerilla warfare, and around 20,000 were killed in violent confrontations. Sorry by Nyree Reynolds, Wiradjuri artist, 2006. Source: Australian Museum, Sydney   British seizure of land and supplies subjugated the Aboriginal people and resulted in impoverished communities that lacked access to their traditional methods of gathering resources. The resettlement of some tribes was instigated by the government, and in 1837, official policies toward Australia’s Indigenous people were established.   A Guise of Protection A letter including a map of the Merri Creek Aboriginal School, which was established in 1845. Source: Public Record Office Victoria   In 1837, the British Select Committee, a division of Parliament, examined the treatment of and relationships with Indigenous people in all of the existing British colonies and outposts, including Australia. As a result, it was determined that a “Protector of Aborigines” role be established.   The Protector was charged with the welfare of the Aboriginal people; however, the definition of “protection,” as defined by this role, varies quite significantly from what a modern sensibility might assume. The Protector could essentially manage Australia’s Indigenous people under the guise of watching over their rights and saving them from oppression.   In an example of how the role of Protector was often paradoxical, the first Protector of South Australia, Matthew Moorhouse, was the leader of a party that perpetrated the Rufus River Massacre in 1841, where 30-40 Aboriginal people were killed. At the same time, Moorhouse often infuriated locals with his efforts to guard Aboriginal interests during his tenure. The inconsistencies were not unique to Moorhouse, and many “well meaning” Brits played a role in the maltreatment that was to come.   This map indicates where missions, reserves, and children’s homes popped up throughout Australia. Source: National Museum Australia   ​​​The oversight of Australia’s Indigenous people was broadened in 1863 when the Board for the Protection of Aborigines was established and in 1869 with the passing of the Aborigines Protection Act in Victoria. The control that this act offered had been sought for years, and analogous laws began spreading through other provinces, such as Queensland.   The Protection Act was the first law of its kind that granted the governor the legal ability to remove Aboriginal children from their homes. Government officials and many members of society at large believed that assimilating Aboriginal people into white culture would improve the lives of Indigenous peoples. It also had the potential to improve land access and reduce confrontations: If Aboriginal people were assimilated, they would no longer be an obstacle to English growth and expansion.   Since children were seen as more adaptable, most of these laws and efforts focused on youth. In addition, children were viewed as “useful” by many colonists as household servants or farm hands.   Legislation enveloped Australia and widened in breadth and scope. An 1886 revision extended the removal laws to include children who were mixed race, the offspring of one aboriginal parent and one white. By targeting young people, the government was not only controlling Aboriginal youth but exalting control over Aboriginal families and tribes while exterminating future generations and their relationship with Indigenous culture. By 1915, the New South Wales government could remove any Indigenous or mixed-race child for any reason. As a result, thousands of children were removed from their homes and sent to institutions.   Limited Aboriginal Rights The right to vote has not always been guaranteed to Aboriginal people in Australia. Source: National Museum Australia Digital Classroom   Children and their families weren’t the only ones affected by this subjugation. When Australia became a Federation in 1901, it was determined in the new Constitution that Aboriginal people would not be counted in the census and that the states retained complete power over Aboriginal affairs. Indigenous people were not able to vote or have Australian citizenship. Aboriginal parents were defenseless against the government’s attempts to conquer their culture via their children.   Stolen A Place of Reflection dedicated to the Stolen Generations, in Adelaide, 2023 photo. The figure of a mother with empty arms symbolizes the loss of the Stolen Generation. Source: City of Adelaide   Between 1910 and 1970, the Australian government ramped up its attempts to eliminate Aboriginal culture. Assimilation policies often targeted children, such as the expanded 1886 law that brought children with one white parent, referred to as “half caste,” into the fold. Between 10 and 33% of Aboriginal children were removed from their homes during these years.   The children were placed with adoptive (white) families to serve as servants or farm workers or institutionalized, given anglicized names, and forced to attend schools where they learned English and other aspects of white culture. They were forbidden from speaking their native tongues. These assimilation measures all traced to the idea that Aboriginal people as a race were inferior to Caucasians.   Eugenics, the idea of genetic purity and ideal human “breeding,” was a popular idea worldwide in the early 20th century, resulting in the ongoing removal of children into the next decades. Starting in the 1930s, which institution children were removed to was often based on their assessed degree of skin color.   In 1937, a conference on Aboriginal Health and Welfare was held in Canberra. This was the first time that Aboriginal “protection” and management had been discussed on a national level. At this gathering, officials agreed that assimilation, or the “ultimate absorption” of Aborigines into the Commonwealth, was the best policy.   After the conclusion of World War II, the world was left with a sour taste in its mouth in regard to eugenics after the horrors inflicted by the Nazis in Europe. However, this didn’t cause the removal of Aboriginal children to wane. Assimilation focuses shifted to social and economic concerns but persisted. Removal was said to be based on children’s welfare instead and would continue well past the midcentury mark.   This poster featuring an Aboriginal child encourages 1967 voters to vote “Yes” on a referendum that included the addition of Aboriginal people to official censuses, among other Indigenous issues. Source: State Library, South Australia   Many children were told that their parents had abandoned them or had died in an effort to reduce their attachment to their old life. In addition to being forced to abandon their native language, children could not participate in any cultural or religious ceremonies, resulting in shame associated with their native heritage and even themselves. Contact with families or any aspect of Indigenous culture was not permitted. Eventually, many children came to hate Aboriginal culture, as this is the message that was repeatedly forced on them during assimilation measures.   The institutions that rose up to take possession of these children can be viewed in parallel to the residential schools in the Western Hemisphere. The schools provided some education but also instructed students in work such as housekeeping and farm trades, which would allow them to be placed with a white family in a position of servitude. This pushed the idea that Aboriginal people were not qualified to hold places in white society other than as laborers and in servitude.   The longest-running of these institutions was United Aborigines Mission Home in Bomaderry, New South Wales, which held children under 10, many of them infants. When children aged out of the home, they were turned over to the care of the Protection Board and often sent into domestic service. It wouldn’t close until 1988.   Quarter Caste Children’s Home in Western Australia is an example of how race impacted the portrayal of youth with Aboriginal ancestry, no matter how dilute. At the Quarter Caste Home and others, children were allowed limited contact with the outside world until they were determined to be assimilated. Physical and sexual abuse were not uncommon at these training facilities, of which 480 existed across the continent.   Aftermath of Assimilation Neville Bonner AO, first Aboriginal member of Parliament. Source: National Archives of Australia   It wasn’t until 1969 that the Protection Board overseeing the removal of Aboriginal children was abolished as a result of new legislation that repealed the right of the government to remove native children with ease. Still, the children who survived this trauma, of which an estimated 17,000 survive today in Australia, known as the Stolen Generations, were left adrift.   Many felt disconnected from their heritage and were subject to intergenerational trauma, a situation in which a survivor, unable to cope with their experiences, passes residual trauma to their descendants. According to a 1997 study, children of the Stolen Generations became more likely to be involved with crime as they aged. In addition, depression was common among survivors, and they were often unable to establish their right to native title or tribal affiliation. The report also suggested that no Indigenous families were left untouched in some way by forced separation.   A Path To Healing? The cover of the Bringing Them Home report. Source: Australian Museum   The report, titled Bringing Them Home, suggested that the government should make a national apology in response to its past actions as a first step toward healing for all. In February 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued this apology, addressed to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but particularly those of the Stolen Generation. Though this apology could not repair all the damage that had been done, it was the first step on a path of healing for many.   Members of the Koomurri Aboriginal Dance Troupe at an Australia Day celebration in 2018. Steven Saphore photo. Source: Reuters   Despite the recognition of the wrongs committed against the Stolen Generation and Australia’s Indigenous people as a whole, the removal of Aboriginal children nevertheless persists. In 1983, a policy, the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, was adopted into welfare legislation in the Northern Territory, working to ensure that removed Indigenous children were placed with Indigenous families whenever possible.   Australia’s other states followed suit, adopting similar policies from 1987-2006. Though the government no longer formally endorses the removal of Indigenous children from their parents, statistics demonstrate another view. From 2012 to 2017, the number of children removed from their families and placed into state care rose from 46.6 per 1,000 children to 56.6. The rate of infant removal, in particular, rose dramatically. While the intent of child removal might not be the same at face value as it was in the twentieth century, it is still very real, and many of its effects remain consistent.   Removals are usually based on child welfare in contemporary times, accelerated by economic and social challenges among Aborigines, many based on the loss of the Stolen Generations and ongoing intergenerational trauma. Corruption within the system may also be to blame, as investigations have found that children are often removed without thorough determination if they could be placed with a family member rather than being removed from their families completely.   Members of Grandmothers Against Removals protesting against the excessive removal of Aboriginal children by the government in 2014. Ian Lloyd Neubauer photo. Source: Time   Australia has a long road to healing and reconciliation for the Stolen Generations. The loss of culture during those years is challenging to recapture, with languages and other cultural markers dying out permanently. Intergenerational trauma poses obstacles to healing and perpetuates the cycle of damage felt by thousands. In the Bringing Them Home report, a national apology was just one of 54 recommendations made to work toward healing. More work is required to accomplish these goals and put an end to the cycle of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander oppression in Australia.

  For decades, Australia’s art scene was monolithic; its canon was shaped and dominated by the works of white, male Australian artists that represented what mainstream culture deemed important and acceptable. In the 1960s everything began to change. Aboriginal artists from across the continent started to make their voices heard, proving to the world that they were not a dying race and that their culture was as rich and vibrant as that of non-Indigenous Australians.   While Sidney Nolan’s works take us back to the Colonial Period in Australian history, a time of bushrangers and penal colonies, through the paintings of Aboriginal painter Albert Namatjira we will look at the dire living conditions of Aboriginal people in the 1940s. Finally, Russel Drysdale will introduce us to the harshness of remote Australia.   1. Ned Kelly & Sidney Nolan: Two Iconic Australian Figures Kelly 1946, by Sidney Nolan, 1946, Source: Canberra Museum & Gallery   Ned Kelly (1855-1880), Australia’s most beloved bushranger and folk hero, iconic with his bullet-proof homemade helmet and armor suit fashioned from plow moldboards, is the subject of 26 paintings in a series. This body of work, created between 1946 and 1947 and known as the “Ned Kelly series,” established Sidney Nolan (1917-1992) as one of Australia’s most important artists.   Nolan was a young man in his late 20s when he decided to tell Kelly’s story. In Kelly 1946, the bushranger peers out from behind a mountain, dominating the valley below (and Australian consciousness and history, one could argue). Nolan is known for merging Kelly with the Australian landscape (as in Kelly and Sergeant Kennedy and Kelly in Bush). Here, however, his eyes, the only body part of his that Nolan ever shows us in his other paintings, are gone. All we see is the clear sky beyond.   Sidney Nolan, picture by Ida Kar, 1958, Source: National Portrait Gallery   Kelly is his armor; a man who most powerfully encapsulates the contradictions, tensions, and violence of that era. A myth in his own day, in Nolan’s paintings, Kelly is a force of destiny, an authority, self-confident as he rides his horse across the Australian land, his face always hidden behind his iconic bulletproof suit of armor.   In another painting, the claustrophobic Return to Glenrowan, the colors of the tempestuous sky behind Kelly and the tree to his right brush across him and his armor. But who was Ned Kelly, and why did a young painter from post-war Melbourne decide to make him the protagonist of 26 paintings that took him two years to complete?   Australian bushranger and icon Ned Kelly, Source: National Museum of Australia   Ned Kelly was the son of an Irish convict from Country Tipperary charged with stealing pigs and transported to Australia, to the then penal colony of Van Diemen’s Land. After finishing his sentence, John Kelly was arrested several times over the next few years and eventually died of an alcohol-related illness.   An Irish family in a British colony, the Kellys always saw themselves as victims of prejudice and persecution by the Victoria Police. Long before becoming the leader of the notorious Kelly Gang, Ned Kelly himself served several prison terms. He was hanged in the Old Melbourne Gaol at the age of 25, after being captured by the police in the small town of Glenrowan, Victoria, in what is known as the Glenrowan Siege or the Last Stand of the Kelly Gang.   A slab hut in colonial Australia, Source: Academic Accelerator   As most myths and cultural icons are, Kelly remains a controversial figure. Some view him as the symbol of Australia’s anti-establishment attitude, as a sort of Australian Robin Hood, standing up for the rights of the underrepresented and the poorest members of 19th-century Australian society. He did, after all, denounce the severe poverty endured by many Irish families in Australia, as well as cases of colonial police corruption, in his 56-page manifesto, now known as the Jerilderie Letter, which he wrote at the age of 24 in 1879.   Others resentfully challenge his legend, stressing his responsibilities in the killing of three policemen and in his slandering of the police force. In making Kelly a reminder of Australia’s past as a penal colony, and the harsh treatment of some of the British Empire’s citizens, Nolan’s series asks us to question our understanding of the past (and the present).   2. Ghost Gum, by Albert Namatjira: The Voice of the Red Center Ghost Gum, MacDonnell Ranges, by Albert Namatjira, 1945, Source: National Gallery of Victoria   The Australian landscape is an integral part of Nolan’s art. The same can be said of Aboriginal artist Albert Namatjira (1902-1959). White-trunked gum trees. The yellow sands of creeks’ riverbeds. Pale blue skies. Eucalyptus with long and smooth trunks. Palm-filled gorges, and, of course, the vibrant red rock formations of Tjoritja (also known as West MacDonnell Ranges). This is the multi-faceted region Namatjira has painted all his life, from the 1930s to the 1950s, the country that his ancestors, the Western Arrarnta, had inhabited from time immemorial before the coming of the Europeans.   The country of Albert’s father lay in the MacDonnell Ranges, between Glen Helen Gorge and Mount Sonder (depicted by Albert in one of his most famous paintings), a little more than 130 km (80 miles) west-southwest from Alice Springs. The country of his mother’s ancestors was in the region of Palm Valley (here in one of Albert’s works), 20 km (12 miles) south of Hermannsburg Mission, where Albert was born in 1902.   Children lined up outside the schoolhouse at Hermannsburg, 1951, Source: Hermannsburg Historic Precinct   Roughly 30 years earlier, two Lutheran missionaries from Germany, Hermann Kempe, and Wilhelm F. Schwarz, had settled down at the sacred Aboriginal site of Ntaria with more than 30 horses, cattle, sheep, and chickens, as well as five dogs. Under the silent supervision of Aboriginal people—with whom they had no contact for quite a long time—they built what was to become the Lutheran mission of Hermannsburg, named after the German city of Hermannsburg, where both men had studied.   The case of Hermannsburg is emblematic of the ambivalent role missions have played in the survival of Aboriginal culture and languages throughout the 20th century. As testified by the ground-breaking 1997 Bringing Them Home report, church missions worked with the Australian government in the systematic removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children of mixed descent (also referred to as “half-caste,” now a derogatory term) from their families and communities.   Aboriginal missions across Australia, 1930, Source: AIATSIS   In some instances, however, missionaries also actively learned local languages and worked with Aboriginal people to translate the Bible, psalms, prayers, and hymns into their language. Hermannsburg was one of them. While all these efforts were obviously working toward one main goal—that is, to “civilize” Aboriginal people—they also indirectly ensured the survival of many local Aboriginal languages, and their grammar and phonetics prior to contact.   Albert Namatjira grew up in two different cultures. After being baptized and receiving a Western-style upbringing on the mission, at the age of thirteen he went back to his family “on country.” Here he began to learn the culture of his ancestors. His works reflect this racial and cultural divide. At first glance, in fact, Ghost Gum could be mistaken for the work of one of the many white watercolor artists who dominated the Australian art scene in the 1940s and 1950s.   Albert Namatjira painting on country with other fellow artists, Source: Hermannsburg Historic Precinct   The influence of European pictorial idioms in Namatjira’s works is clear and unmistakable. This made him, among certain circles, the perfect example of the (alleged) success of assimilation policies in Australia.   As a species, the Ghost Gum is known to grow and prosper in inhospitable environments, where other trees would perish. In Ghost Gum, the tree, seen from the base of its trunk, is imposing. It towers over us and the landscape. From this privileged position, the viewer looks from the ground up to the smooth gum trunk, its different shades, the yellow-green leaves on its branches, and eventually to the distant mountain range past the hill in the middle ground. The Ghost Gum is solid, strong, and firmly planted on the ground. It looks like it’s been there forever, from time immemorial.   Albert Namatjira with his wife and family, photo by Poignant,1946, Source: Art Gallery NSW   When Ghost Gum was painted in 1945, Aboriginal people were not officially Australian citizens. They didn’t have the right to vote. They were not allowed to own land or drink alcohol legally. It was only in 1957 that Albert Namatjira and his wife Ilkalita (Rubina) were granted full Australian citizenship, and thus entitled to certain social freedoms.   Such freedoms did not extend, however, to their children. According to Australian laws, Namatjira himself could not purchase the land of his ancestors. Within this framework, Ghost Gum becomes a coded expression of Aboriginal knowledge, the powerful and immortal memory of an ancestral site. It is Namatjira’s assertion of his and his ancestors’ knowledge of the land, as well as a reaffirmation, from within Western sensibility, of Aboriginal existence in this new, colonial world. An aspect of Namatjira’s works most critics have failed to fully comprehend in the 1950s.   3. Sunday Evening, by Russel Drysdale: The Voice of Remote Australia  Sunday Evening, by Russel Drysdale, 1941, Source: Google Arts & Culture   Russel Drysdale (1912-1981) was born in England to an English mother and an Australian father of Scottish ancestry. His family had owned land on Australian soil for a century. When he was eleven, they moved to Melbourne. Here, Drysdale began to paint.   Drysdale’s Australia is not the sun-drenched peaceful arcadia most painters had depicted up until this point. It is a country of abandoned and dilapidated buildings, a desolate, dried-up land, where men and women wander aimlessly, their skin color matching that of the landscape around them. The protagonists of most of his paintings are rural workers, stockmen, and small-town dwellers with their families. A man feeding his dogs. A woman standing on the veranda of her house, scanning the flat horizon ahead. Four country men waiting outside the local pub, hands on hips. A grandmother walking her two grandchildren on a hot Sunday afternoon.    Making ends meet in rural Australia, 1940s, Source: Museums of History NSW   While very few suburban Australians in the 1920s and 1930s were interested in the conditions of their fellow outback-based Australians, Drysdale was impressed by their stoicism when he visited the hinterlands of Victoria and New South Wales in the 1920s and 1930s. The 1920s and 1930s were years of hardships for Australians, especially for those based in the outback. In the aftermath of World War I, Australia experienced high inflation, which resulted in a severe recession. Then, Black Tuesday happened: On 24 October 1929, the United States stock market crashed, triggering a chain of events that soon affected all industrialized countries across the globe.   A decade later, Australia still hadn’t recovered from the Great Depression. After borrowing vast sums of money from foreign banks, Australia now struggled to repay these debts. In 1932 unemployment levels reached a peak of 32 percent, with more than 60,000 Australians dependent on state-based sustenance relief payment (known as Susso).   Australian soldiers next to a bomb crater after the bombing of Darwin, 1942, Source: National Archives of Australia   National income declined by a third. More and more men (known as “swagmen”) ventured into the outback looking for work. They were pushed by the traveler’s ration card established by the Government to prevent unemployed Australians from living in camps within cities.   In September 1939 World War II broke out. Less than three years later, on 19 February 1942, Japanese forces bombed the city of Darwin in the Northern Territory: this was mainland Australia’s first foreign attack ever. Eleven ships were sunk, and 30 aircraft destroyed in two raids that killed 235 people. Fears of an imminent invasion caused half of Darwin’s civilian population to move out of the city, mostly southward.    Russell Drysdale in his studio, Source: Art Gallery of New South Wales Archive   Sunday Evening was painted in Sydney, where Drysdale had moved in late 1940, and it perfectly captures the feeling of aimlessness and hopelessness many Australians must have felt during the Great Depression and World War II.   Five figures—a woman, her husband, and their three children—are grouped together to form a static tableau, in which every character looks impassive, absent-minded even, but with their feet steadily planted in the arid land. Their belongings—a bicycle, a tin washing bowl, the kerosene tin on which the woman is seated—seem to grow out of the soil itself. They are thin and elongated figures, silent and stoic, with primitivist mask-like faces reminiscent of Modigliani’s women. They all look lonely.   It is worth noting that Dysdale’s portraits of Aboriginal people evoke a feeling of collected intimacy, of a special closeness that does not exist in his other paintings. As we see in Shopping Day (1953) or Group of Aboriginal People (1953), the Aboriginal people are faceless, strong, and imposing, always painted in tight-knit groups. The family of Sunday Evening seems aware that they’re on the verge of witnessing the worst storm the world has ever seen but determined to ignore it.

Unfounded fear is an oppressive agent in the lives of God’s children. It presents itself in various modes; but, if left unchecked, it will prevent us from living life to the fullest -- for His glory. Not all fear is bad. For instance, God tells us to fear Him in...