A series of geomagnetic storms is expected this week, the strength of which will range from G1 to G3. Geomagnetic storms of class G1 (weak) are likely on July 29 and 31, which may increase to G2 (moderate). A strong geomagnetic storm of class G3 is expected on July 30. According to scientists, multiple coronal mass ejections from the Sun, which occurred from July 27 to 28, will reach the Earth between July 29 and August 1, which will cause a series of geomagnetic storms on Earth. According to the data obtained, solar activity has been moderate in recent days, with several large flares in the southeastern region of the Sun. Another flare occurred in the star’s largest active region in the southwest. There are currently 11 regions with sunspots on the solar disk. The southwest quadrant contains the largest and most complex area. At the same time, the cluster of sunspots that move through the southeastern quadrant of the Sun continues to grow in size. Tangled magnetic loops most often arise there, which further destabilize the region. In the dark-spotted southwest region, activity increased significantly. A coronal mass ejection, which is responsible for geomagnetic storms on Earth, occurred at sunspot M9.9. Scientists believe it also coincided with mass ejections from other areas of dark spots on the Sun. Therefore, this week the Earth will be under the influence of several geomagnetic storms of varying intensity. Experts remind that magnetic storms are periods of rapid magnetic change that can last from several hours to several days. Magnetic storms have two main causes. First, sometimes the Sun shoots a strong burst of solar wind into space, called a coronal mass ejection. Such powerful solar wind pores are the outer part of the Earth’s magnetic field, which undergoes complex fluctuations. This creates accompanying electrical currents in near-Earth space, which in turn create additional changes in the magnetic field – all this constitutes a “magnetic storm”. Sometimes the Sun’s magnetic field is directly related to the Earth’s field. This direct magnetic coupling is not the normal state of affairs. When this happens, charged particles moving along magnetic field lines can easily penetrate the magnetosphere, generate currents and cause the magnetic field to undergo changes. Sometimes the Sun emits a coronal mass ejection at a time when the magnetic field lines of the Earth and the Sun are directly connected. When these events occur, a truly powerful magnetic storm can occur on Earth. The post Scientists advise to prepare for a whole week of magnetic storms appeared first on Anomalien.com.

On July 14, hours after the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump, President Joe Biden told the nation, “(We need to) lower the temperature in our politics.” On July 13, hours after the assassination attempt, former Trump Attorney General William Barr told Fox News: “The Democrats have to stop their grossly irresponsible talk about Trump being an existential threat to democracy. He is not.” On July 18, five days after the assassination attempt, Trump at the Republican National Convention delivered his acceptance in a subdued tone and urged national unity. He insisted he did not want to be president of just “half the country.” But he went off script and attacked Biden using the same points and much of the same language as if this were a Trump rally. On July 22, nine days after the assassination attempt and after Biden quit his race for reelection, Biden phoned in to a Wilmington, Delaware, campaign event held by Vice President Kamala Harris. He said: “We still need to save this democracy. Trump is still a danger to the community. He’s a danger to the nation.” The “lower temperature” fired right back up. Would it have mattered had Trump at the RNC given a reflective “we need to lower the temperature in our politics” speech? Would Biden, and now Democratic presumptive nominee Harris, still push the “the election-denying Trump is an existential threat to democracy” hypocritical attack line? As I recently wrote, Biden in January 2022 preemptively denied the results of the November midterms. Like most Democrats, he fretted that the widely anticipated Republican “red wave” would cost the Democrats the Senate and increase the GOP majority in the House. Asked at a press conference if he would accept the results, Biden said: “Well, it all depends on whether or not we’re able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election. ... I think if, in fact -- no matter how hard they make it for minorities to vote, I think you’re going to see them willing to stand in line and -- and defy the attempt to keep them from being able to vote. I think you’re going to see the people who they’re trying to keep from being able to show up, showing up and making the sacrifice that needs to make in order to change the law back to what it should be.” Biden added: “It easily could be illegitimate. ... I’m not going to say it’s going to be legit. ... The increase and the prospect of it being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these (voting) reforms passed.” What?! “I’m not going to say it’s going to be legit”? About Republican politicians who hedge on whether they will accept the 2024 presidential results, The New York Times wrote: “The evasive answers show how the former president’s refusal to concede his defeat after the 2020 election has ruptured a tenet of American democracy -- that candidates are bound by the outcome. Mr. Trump’s fellow Republicans are now emulating his hedging well in advance of any voting.” Were The New York Times and Democratic politicians upset at Biden’s “hedging” months before the 2022 midterms? Did anyone chastise Biden for “emulating” the Republicans’ sin of questioning election results “well in advance of any voting”? Democrats questioned the results of the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections. But they essentially receive an in-kind contribution given the media’s refusal to hold Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Lewis, Jimmy Carter (about the 2016 election) and others to the same standard for “undermining our democracy” by “refusing to accept election results.” Hillary Clinton throughout Trump’s presidency called the 2016 election “stolen” and Trump “illegitimate.” So, when the dust settles after the defenestration of Biden and after the glow of Kamala “to the rescue” Harris dims, we return to basics. This means the economy, inflation and gas prices. Are you better off now than you were nearly four years ago? Unless you are one of some 8 million illegal aliens who entered the country under Biden, the answer is no.

MSNBC's Morning Joe tap-danced on the Democrat line again on Monday, freaking out over Donald Trump joking to the Christians at a Turning Point USA "Believers Summit" that they won't need to vote in four years because "we'll have it fixed."  In turning to Rev. Al Sharpton for his analysis, Jonathan Lemire began with the common notion that Trump's joking about how excellent he's going to be so "don't bother showing up" next time. He said that, "for many, sets off alarm bells." LEMIRE: Or, there's this idea of, well, maybe we won't even have any more elections four years hence. There are some Democrats who warn that's what Trump meant. His campaign pushed back against that idea as well. Just talk to us about what you saw there, and how worried are you? Sharpton thought he was criticizing Donald Trump. Instead, he unintentionally revealed something ominous about the Dem strategy for "winning" elections. SHARPTON: If he's saying he's going to give the far-right Christians what they want, it is frightening at best. And if, in fact, let's remember, he said twice, Jonathan, 'We're going to fix it. Well, if you are dealing in a climate where they're trying in some states to stop a drop box for voting, trying to limit early voting, I mean, fix it can mean exactly what they're doing in many states. Changing a lot of the voting regulations, changing a lot of the voting acces. I think that he said out loud what he intends to do. He intends to set a situation, working with the right-wing governors, to where voting will not matter. He will have it fixed. He said it. Let's take Sharpton's nightmare to the extreme: only Election Day voting allowed, requiring—heaven forbid— the same kind of ID needed to buy a pack of cigarettes.  And no drop-boxes.   Does that mean "voting will not matter?" Yes, it does—if your campaign strategy relies on ballot harvesting and drop-box stuffing! Judging by the enthusiastic applause, Trump's comments pleased his audience. But it certainly gins up the incessant leftist paranoia about the "existential threat to democracy," which could lead to violence. People who track the leftist media paranoia might wonder why he seems to like feeding that beast.  Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 7/29/24 6:07 am EDT DONALD TRUMP:  And again, Christians, get out and vote! Just this time! [ Applause ] You won't have to do it anymore! Four more years. You know what? It'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you, Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you. Get out. You gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not going to have to vote. JONATHAN LEMIRE: A spokesperson for Trump's campaign released a statement Saturday,  trying to clarify the comments. Writing, the former president was talking about uniting this country and bringing prosperity to every American. We can sure [chuckles] fact-check that!  Reverend Sharpton, let's get you on this. There are a couple interpretations here about what Trump meant. One is what we just floated, this idea that, because I'm going to give you everything you need these next four years, ah, don't bother showing up. And that, I think, for many, sets off alarm bells. Or, there's this idea of, well, maybe we won't even have any more elections four years hence. There are some Democrats who warn that's what Trump meant. His campaign pushed back against that idea as well. Just talk to us about what you saw there, and how worried are you? AL SHARPTON: I'm very concerned. First of all, if you take either interpretation, their justification, which doesn't really land well, or those of us who fear he meant what he said and said what he meant. Either way, it's a danger to this country. If he's saying he's going to give the far-right Christians what they want, it is frightening at best. And if, in fact, let's remember, he said twice, Jonathan, "We're going to fix it." Well, if you are dealing in a climate where they're trying in some states to stop drop off, a drop box for voting, where they're trying to limit early voting, I mean, "fix it" can mean exactly what they're doing in many states. Changing a lot of the voting regulations, changing a lot of the voting access. And I think that he said out loud what he intends to do. He intends to set a situation, working with the right-wing governors, to where voting will not matter. He will have it "fixed." He said it. And I see where his campaign is trying to clean it up. They didn't address him saying, fix it, we're going to fix it. He said it twice.

Local law enforcement provided radios to the U.S. Secret Service for cross-agency coordination during the July 13 Donald J. Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, but the Secret Service never used them, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said July 28. Johnson also disclosed that counter-sniper teams “acquired” would-be assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks in their rifle scopes only after Crooks fired on former President Trump at 6:11 p.m. “We also have it confirmed that the radios that local law enforcement gave the Secret Service sniper teams were never used by the Secret Service,” Johnson said on "Fox News Sunday." The communications problems before and during Trump’s appearance at the Butler Farm Show Inc. fairgrounds had fatal consequences, Johnson said. “So again, all of the communication was channeled,” Johnson said. “The sniper and the SWAT teams were on different communications channels than the patrol officers, different communications channels from Secret Service, all funneled in through a central communications system, which obviously delayed things and allowed this tragedy to happen.” 'We had no communication with the Secret Service.' Johnson, the ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said counter-snipers did not acquire Crooks as a target until after he opened fire on Trump and the rally crowd just after 6:11 p.m. "They acquired him after the shots were fired," Johnson said. "But again, we need detailed interviews with those individuals to find out exactly what happened. It’s unbelievable how little information has been coming from federal law enforcement.” During the early part of Trump's rally speech on July 13, a bullet cut a hole in his right ear from an AR-15 rifle shot by Crooks from approximately 130 yards north of the stage. Crooks got off seven more shots — killing retired Pennsylvania fire chief Corey Comperatore and seriously wounding two other men — before he was killed by a Secret Service counter-sniper. The biggest security failure in Secret Service history has launched at least seven congressional and law-enforcement investigations and led to the resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle. Johnson said photographs taken of Crooks by a counter-sniper near the American Glass Research Building 6 at 5:14 p.m. were received by the Secret Service well before the shooting. The counter-sniper who took the photos first noticed Crooks at 5:10 p.m., according to a preliminary shooting timeline released by Johnson's office. The event command center, which included Secret Service officers, acknowledged receipt of the photos of Crooks at 5:55 p.m., 16 minutes before Crooks fired the first shot, the timeline document stated. A local police sniper took photos of would-be assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks at a retaining wall of the building he used as a perch to shoot former President Donald J. Trump on July 13. Photos via U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released text messages between a local counter-sniper and his colleagues, given to Grassley by the counter-sniper, indicating that police were aware of Crooks' presence as a suspicious person at 4:26 p.m., some 44 minutes earlier than originally reported. First published in the New York Times July 28, the texts from a counter-sniper leaving after his duty shift indicated that he saw Crooks sitting at a picnic table. The officer said Crooks saw him come out of the two-story building just behind Building 6 where Crooks later launched his rifle assault, a text said. "He knows you guys are up there," one text read. Investigators from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have gotten most of their information so far from local law enforcement, Johnson said. The subcommittee contacted seven local and state law enforcement agencies asking for materials related to the assassination attempt. “We want a detailed timeline," Johnson said. "We need all of their communications, both the written emails, texts, but also we need voice recordings of any verbal communications." A July 30 joint hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear from Secret Service Acting Director Ronald L. Rowe Jr. and FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate. The hearing will be chaired by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Rowe will have his work cut out for him. “He has an awful lot to explain," Johnson said. There was virtually no coordination between the Secret Service and local law enforcement on July 13, according to a source with direct knowledge of the rally timeline who spoke to Blaze News on the condition of anonymity. Some Secret Service operators were distracted during the key minutes leading up to the shooting, the source said. “They did not have briefings, rehearsals, or contingency discussions. No all-hands-on-deck briefings," the source said. Two SWAT officers look down at the body of would-be assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks just before 7 p.m. July 13. The Butler, Pa., rally location that Crooks shot into with a rifle, striking former President Donald J. Trump, is seen in the background. Beaver County Emergency Services Unit SWAT via Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) “Also, many of the surveillance teams were on their phones, texting and scrolling when the shots were fired, while guys from the counter-assault team and counter-sniper team standing post were doing their jobs," the source said. "If those phone records can be subpoenaed, you’ll be able to learn who wasn’t paying attention." The source previously said counter-sniper teams had Crooks in their scopes before the shooting but had to "deconflict" via radio to make sure they were not firing on a police officer. "The police counter-sniper team saw him, had him in their sights but wanted to deconflict before they fired because that roof was supposed to have a counter-sniper team on it," the source said. "The whole plan and the pre-briefing all got messed up once the event started. So it was a clusterf**k before that assassin showed up." 'That’s a shocking piece of information.' Those types of communication problems were echoed by a Beaver County law enforcement officer who appeared on ABC News July 28. “We were supposed to get a face-to-face briefing with the Secret Service snipers whenever they arrived, and that never happened," the unidentified officer said. "I think that that was probably a pivotal point where I started thinking things were wrong because that never happened. We had no communication with the Secret Service." A whistleblower earlier reported to U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) that the Building 6 roof was supposed to have a police officer on it. “There was supposed to be a law-enforcement presence on the roof that day,” Hawley wrote in a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. “In fact, the whistleblower alleges that at least one individual was specifically assigned to the roof for the duration of the rally, but this person abandoned his or her post due to the hot weather.” Johnson said he also intends to make sure Rowe answers an allegation from former Secret Service agent and now radio and podcast host Dan Bongino, who reported that the Secret Service was not sending counter-snipers to Trump events unless the location was within driving distance of Washington, D.C. “That is a stunning piece of information, that counter-snipers were not being sent to Donald Trump events if it wasn’t drivable from Washington, D.C.," Bongino said on the July 26 episode of "The Dan Bongino Show." "That’s a shocking piece of information.” 'Crooks was a left-wing partisan who hated President Trump’s immigration policies.' Bongino was critical of Sen. Johnson for praising the acting Secret Service director after Rowe gave a closed-door briefing to senators on July 25. Bongino said Rowe was one of the Secret Service officials involved in denying Trump campaign requests for security upgrades at campaign events. “This guy’s life is being put in danger because — what? You’re trying to save on airplane tickets?” Bongino said on his radio program. While information on Crooks' possible motivation and personal politics has been sketchy, the CEO of the social network Gab disclosed an account that could have belonged to Crooks that expressed support for President Joe Biden on COVID-19 lockdowns and immigration at the southern border. The account under the handle @epicMicrowave posted nine comments on Gab between Jan. 20 and Feb. 4, 2021. Gab CEO Andrew Torba disclosed the account 30 minutes after he said Gab received an "emergency disclosure request." "Yesterday, in the process of responding to an emergency disclosure request from a U.S. law enforcement agency, Gab learned that a pro-Biden/Harris account on the site was believed to have belonged to Thomas Matthew Crooks, who attempted to assassinate President Trump," Torba wrote July 25. "After backing up the account, we notified the public." — (@) "Gab.com has published the first evidence making it very apparent that Crooks was a left-wing partisan who hated President Trump’s immigration policies — noting that the shooter fired on President Trump when he started talking about those same policies," Torba wrote. "This raises the possibility, for the first time, that his attempted assassination of President Trump was the latest instance of a wider pattern of left-wing domestic terrorism that has plagued our country since the summer of 2020." Torba said while Gab has been "unable to confirm that the account in question actually belonged to him," the company has "saved the account data pending receipt of a search warrant." After sharing the possible Crooks account information, Torba said July 26 that Gab's credit-card processing system "came under attack by the Regime 48 hours after we broke this story. We are in danger of losing our ability to process online payments, again. Please pray that we are able to sort it out." Torba had not shared an update on the situation as of early July 29. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

President Joe Biden unveiled on Monday his plan to reform the Supreme Court.For years, Democrats have been on a war path demanding the Supreme Court be overhauled because former President Donald Trump had the opportunity to appoint three justices to the court. Now, Biden — a lame-duck president — is trying to appease progressives on his way to retirement.Writing in the pages of the Washington Post, Biden made three proposals.1. 'No One Is Above the Law Amendment'In his essay — which was almost certainly written by a White House staffer — Biden proposed a new constitutional amendment called the "No One Is Above the Law Amendment."To state plainly: Presidential power is tightly limited, and the president himself is not the arbiter of the limits of his power."It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office," Biden wrote. "I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators."The basis for the amendment is untethered from reality.Biden ironically claimed that a Supreme Court decision outlining presidential community "means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do." He further claimed the "only limits" of presidential power "will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office."But that's not true. That is not what the Supreme Court ruled."The President is not above the law," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in Trump v. United States.Contrary to what Biden's op-ed claimed, the limits of presidential power are clear: The president is immune from criminal prosecution only in cases when he is carrying out his "official" presidential duties. That's why former President Barack Obama was never prosecuted for droning American citizens.On the other hand, a president does not enjoy immunity for "unofficial acts" — those not within his constitutional duties as chief executive. To state plainly: Presidential power is tightly limited, and the president himself is not the arbiter of the limits of his power.2. Term limits for justicesSecond, Biden proposed that Supreme Court justices be limited to 18-year terms, with a new justice being appointed to the court every two years.'Not only are they unconstitutional, but they will have the exact opposite result proponents wish for.'Biden claimed that "term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity," adding that term limits "reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come."Progressive institutes have proposed this specific reform for years.Biden tried to sell the idea by noting, "The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court."But the reasons why the Supreme Court does not have term limits are not insignificant.Not only are term limits currently unconstitutional, but imposing term limits and guaranteeing that a president gets to appoint two justices every four years would almost certainly make the court more political — not less.Legal scholar Anthony Marcum explained at USA Today:Although well-intentioned, term limits have a problem. Not only are they unconstitutional, but they will have the exact opposite result proponents wish for. More, term limits will ensure that court vacancies are inextricably tied to every presidential race and has the potential to create abrupt ideological shifts on the highest court, only increasing the political scrutiny. In other words, term limits will not lower the temperature around nominations, they will leave the country scorched....Yet term limits would regularize the process, and in turn tie two Supreme Court seats to every presidential cycle. A single two-term president could pick 44% of the court. If two presidents of the same party served three or four consecutive terms, an overwhelming majority of the court would quickly be ideologically one-sided. In the span of only a few years, a court of eight Scalias could turn to eight Ginsburgs. Certainly, the chance for such a dramatic ideological shift in the highest court would only put a greater spotlight on it during presidential elections and judicial confirmations. 3. Ethical code of conduct for Supreme CourtFinally, Biden wants a "binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court."The Supreme Court, however, already self-imposes an ethics code. But Democrats are not satisfied with that because, as Biden wrote, it is "voluntary" and "weak." Biden did not provide any examples of how it is "weak.""Justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest," Biden added. "Every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and there is no reason for the Supreme Court to be exempt."This is the least controversial of the three proposals. But the underlying implication is not true.Just because the Supreme Court imposes its own ethical code does not mean it is without accountability. The truth is that while progressives for years have accused Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito of ethical improprieties, they have produced no actual evidence to corroborate their claims.One major questionWhile Biden's first two proposals will likely never become law, that Biden is choosing this moment to demand Supreme Court reform raises a major question.Would Biden and Democrats be demanding change if the Supreme Court had ruled the way they wanted on abortion, presidential immunity, executive-branch power, student-loan forgiveness, the Second Amendment, and a host of additional issues?The answer to that question likely reveals the motive for their demands.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

UFC President Dana White vowed never again to be convinced to increase fighter bonuses after he said fighters didn't try any harder to earn the extra cash over the weekend. Specifically, White referred to the fact that he doubled fighter bonuses for UFC 304 to $100,000 — a semi-frequent pattern that has occurred in the last few years. Typically, fans, reporters, or fighters convince White to increase prize money for knockouts, submissions, or overall great performances during the week leading up to the fights.This time, fighter Bobby Green convinced the UFC boss to double bonuses from the usual $50,000 for Saturday's event in Manchester, England.'You can thank everybody on this card for that.'At the end of the night — which was actually near sunrise in the U.K. — White was asked at a press conference if he would consider permanently increasing the bonuses: "You know, every time you get on a press conference the fighters manage to get you to up the bonuses; do you think there's an argument that maybe you should just up them [permanently]?"White interrupted: "I think tonight showed that we should not, no. Upping them doesn't change anything; it doesn't make anybody fight any harder, it doesn't change anything!" White said, becoming increasingly annoyed. The UFC head clarified that he still might increase the bonuses in a preplanned way, but not in the sense that he would be convinced at a press conference. "I'm not doing this again, ever. Today was the last day that I'm doing that, yeah. Not saying that in the future the bonuses couldn't get up, but I'm not going to be at a press conference to say '200! 300!' Never again, never again! So you can thank everybody on this card for that.""Damn, dude," one of the reporters was heard saying."Nobody fought any harder, there was no sense of urgency, [no] 'Holy s**t, I want the $100,000.' Seven straight ..." White continued."It is 3 a.m.!" the same reporter complained."Who gives a f***?!" White came back. "It's 7 o'clock in Vegas, so whatever. Yeah, never again okay? Seven straight f***ing decisions, yeah the $100,000 was was was a real big f***ing 'woo hoo, let's get it boys!' F*** that, f***ing never again."White says that tonight proved that upping the bonuses doesn't work."Upping them doesn't change anything, it doesn't make anybody fight any harder... I'm not doing this again, ever. Today was the last day I'm doing that."— Aaron Bronsteter (@aaronbronsteter) July 28, 2024 The main event between Leon Edwards and Belal Muhammad also ended in a decision, leaving fans disappointed with its pace.When asked about the performances, White shrugged at reporters and admitted that "it wasn't a barn-burner."When a reporter asked White if he thought the late start time for the event was the reason for the lackluster bouts, White responded by saying, "I have no clue."The Pay-Per-View event's official start time was 10 p.m. Eastern time, but it was taking place in Manchester, England, meaning the local start time was around 3:30 a.m..Fighters Mick Parkin, Tom Aspinall, and Paddy Pimblett all received the fight bonuses, with Pimblett receiving $200,000.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

JoJo Siwa rose to fame on the show "Dance Moms" alongside her mother, but according to BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable,” the once-innocent performer is now “wrapped up in the cult of self.” Siwa, 21, appeared to switch almost overnight from a kid-friendly act to a sex-positive LGBTQ icon. “She went from like this teenage child, basically, who still dressed and acted and sang like a toddler, to apparently this grown adult who had some kind of sexual discovery and decided that she was a lesbian, and she started posting about her lesbian romantic relationships,” Stuckey says. Siwa’s most recent music video, “Guilty Pleasure,” attempts to portray Siwa as a woman’s guilty pleasure while making a mockery out of the church. “At one point she’s dressed up like a dark angel, she looks like she’s in hell, she’s talking about being a woman’s guilty pleasure. It’s just awful,” Stuckey says. Now Siwa is claiming she wants to hire three surrogates and raise the children as triplets. “I’m gay as s***,” Siwa said in an interview. “I have to plan a pregnancy much different than a straight person. I actually want to take three eggs, fertilize three eggs, and have three surrogates.” “So technically they’ll all be the same batch, but they would all be born separately. I’m gonna have my surrogates, my babies, then maybe the little birthdays will land on different days and they can be like triplets,” she added. Stuckey is horrified. “How she is talking so flippantly and so selfishly about creating human life is disgusting. It should be repulsive to everyone with a moral compass,” Stuckey says. “It is so sinful; it is so disordered,” she continues. “What we see about disordered sexuality is that it breeds more disorder and that it always puts kids in the crosshairs. It always sacrifices kids. Because when you mess with the natural order of procreation, the natural order of marriage, you are just going to get more disorder and more chaos.” It’s not just that Siwa’s sexual depravity is clearly unhinged and that she’s so cavalier about her desire to have children, but it's the moral issue surrounding surrogacy itself. “Kids are not gifts; they are not rights. Just because you have a good desire does not justify the means, which is the unethical IVF process, which involves eugenics and also the renting of wombs, which is unethical, and also the forced fatherlessness — which is just immoral.” Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Biden-Harris Supreme Court plan attacks the most fundamental basis of the American system.

What Dictators Do: Mad SCOTUS Isn't Left-Wing Enough, Biden Proposes 'Reforms' to Undermine Its Authority

Big Tech's SHAMELESS Effort to Scrub Attempted Trump Assassination From Public's Mind Continues on Meta