#Bidenomics Update: What EV Slump? Throw Me the Money!!!

Ancient DNA can reveal all sorts of things about the past – from the mysteries of human evolution to the secrets of Earth’s prehistoric climate. We’ve found some pretty old examples of it – but what is the oldest DNA ever recovered?What is ancient DNA?DNA is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms that carries genetic information for the development, functioning, growth, and reproduction of that organism. Ancient DNA (aDNA) is DNA isolated from ancient sources.Molecules of DNA are fairly fragile and degrade over time, which means that finding really old examples is incredibly rare – but not impossible…Oldest DNA ever discoveredThe world’s oldest DNA was discovered in 2022 – and it’s an astonishing 2 million years old.Unearthed in Ice Age sediment in northern Greenland, the genetic material had been locked in permafrost since the Pliocene. Once sequenced, the DNA opened up a window into the past, shedding light on the array of animals and plants that once inhabited the area.These included reindeer, geese, hares, rodents, crabs, and mastodon, as well as poplar, birch, and thuja trees, and a variety of Arctic and boreal shrubs and herbs.Prior to this discovery, the oldest DNA ever recovered came from 1.2-million-year-old mammoth teeth unearthed in Siberian permafrost. It marked the first time that DNA exceeding 1 million years old had been retrieved from an ancient organism. Although only around half as old as the Greenland samples, this DNA was recovered directly from biological material, making it the oldest to be sequenced from physical specimens.Another noteworthy example of some really old DNA hailed from a horse found preserved in Canadian permafrost in 2013, which was dated to between 780,000 and 560,000 years old. It held the record for oldest DNA until it was bested by the mammoth molar.What is the oldest human DNA?But enough about ancient animals – what about human DNA?Things get a little trickier when it comes to ancient humans. Our ancestors first evolved in Africa, where it gets pretty hot – and, as you may have noticed, all of the examples mentioned above are from much colder climes.DNA degrades quicker in warmer climates, so finding ancient examples of it that are not in permafrost is no mean feat. That said, it has been done.The oldest hominin DNA on record comes from a 430,000-year-old genome, which was found in a cave in Spain. Known as “Sima de los Huesos” (“Pit of Bones”), the underground pit housed the remains of 28 hominins who were early members of the Neanderthal lineage.If we look beyond DNA, to other forms of genetic data, we can find some even older examples. Last year, researchers discovered the oldest human genetic data yet in 2-million-year-old hominid fossils in South Africa. Protein sequences extracted from the teeth of the primate Paranthropus robustus are by far the oldest genetic information ever recovered from any hominid. The oldest-ever proteins, meanwhile, were obtained from ostrich eggshells in Tanzania back in 2016. They are up to 3.8 million years old.

If there’s one thing that the internet has made clear, it’s that scientists should not be allowed anywhere near your food. They’ll snip the middle out of your birthday cake; divide your pizza into weird, curvilinear tessellations – and now, they’re coming after your sandwiches.Now, we all have a favored way to slice a sarny: there’s the diagonal cut, which results in a pair of delicious triangles; the horizontal cut if you’re in more of a rectangular kind of mood; if you’re really devil-may-care, you can forego the slicing altogether, and just cram the whole thing into your mouth in one go.But on May 1, 2024, a new challenger appeared: the Y cut. IFLScience is not responsible for content shared from external sites.“It seems genius, even though it is just mildly clever,” ruled Claire Lower, digital editor at instructional food preparation organization Christopher Kimball’s Milk Street, in Popular Science earlier this month.“I don’t see myself taking the time to do this,” she said, “but I’m a big fan of anything that gets people to eat more sandwiches.”So, what’s the story behind the complex cut? Obviously, there’s no way of knowing who was the first to split their samwag into the union of a triangle and two trapezoids, but its current fame appears to stretch back only a matter of weeks – to a tweet by one Ryan Duff. Now seen more than 19 million times, he published a photo of a ham and cheese sandwich cut in the now infamous pattern, commenting (correctly) that “practice makes perfect.” And the crowd went wild.“I didn’t know it was legal to cut a sandwich this way,” one commenter replied. “You made twice as much sandwich out of sandwich.”“I cut my sandwich like this today and I'll be honest you really did something here,” another wrote. IFLScience is not responsible for content shared from external sites.But is the Y cut really all it’s, well, cut out to be? According to Lower, there is at least some logic behind it: it “lets the eater start with three bites that they know are going to be ‘good,’” she explained, “as in they will have the even distribution of fillings and condiments you get at the center of the sandwich.”In that respect, it’s kind of a level-up of the diagonal cut – reportedly the favored way to slice a sandwich in the US. “Some proponents of this method believe that cutting the long way extends the amount of crust-free surface area, somehow allowing for more filling-heavy bites,” noted food writer Brynna Standen in an article for Mashed. “While that isn't actually possible, the diagonal cut does allow you to see more of the inside of your sandwich, which can create the illusion that you're getting more filling, thus making it taste better based on perception alone.” “If this is true, then it's safe to assume that the Y-cut method shown in Ryan Duff's X post only amplifies that effect,” she added, “as it puts even more of the sandwich's filling on display.”Equally, the Y cut may have some genuine advantages for a sandwich-hungry consumer. By creating three corners in the center, it gives the prospective eater three nice, crustless bites to start with – and while Lower may believe that “crust avoiders […] need to grow up,” she also noted that the Y cut would likely reduce mess, while maintaining the original filling construction for longer.That said, not everyone is such a fan. Three cuts is three times as much work as a standard diagonal or horizontal cut, which only extends the waiting time until you get your delicious snack. Plus, as one commenter pointed out, employing the diagonal cut twice, to make four triangles, is less work and gives even more central corners.Nevertheless, it’s clear that the Y cut seems to be a hit with many people, so why not give it a go? Oh – and we know what you’re thinking, and yes: we can confirm that the top part gets eaten last.

The government in Alberta, Canada has announced an end to the 18-year ban on hunting grizzly bears in the province, drawing criticism from wildlife conservationists. Hunting grizzly bears – which are a subspecies of the brown bear Ursus arctos – was first brought to a close in Alberta back in 2006 due to low numbers and four years later, the species was classified as threatened under the province’s Wildlife Act. The western population of grizzlies was also – and remains – listed as a group of “special concern” under Canada’s Species At Risk Act.But on June 17, Alberta’s government amended the Wildlife Act to partially lift the ban, once again allowing the bears to be hunted in particular circumstances.Under the new rules, grizzly bears may be hunted if a wildlife officer determines them to present an “imminent public safety risk, or the bear has killed livestock, damaged private property or made contact with a human resulting in injury or death.”One of a pool of “wildlife management responders” will be selected to track the bear in such instances and as long as they are within a designated area and using allowed methods and equipment, they may be permitted to kill the bear."A hunt normally would allow the hunter to choose what, where and when they hunt," the Minister for Forestry and Parks, Todd Loewen, told CBC. "But the … problem wildlife responder will not have any choice of what, where and when they hunt. They'll be told exactly the details of all those."The government says its reasoning behind the change of tack is an uptick in “problematic” interactions between grizzlies and humans, and with other animals, as the bear population has increased. According to the authorities, there were nine recorded attacks by black or grizzly bears in Alberta in 2021, and over 100 livestock animals killed in 2023 and 2024.“This is not a bear hunt; this is a measure to ensure the safety of humans and livestock,” reads the announcement from authorities.“The loss of even one human life because of a grizzly bear attack is one too many,” added Loewen in the statement. “We are taking a proactive approach to help Albertans co-exist with wildlife through our new wildlife management program. These changes demonstrate our commitment to ensuring Albertans can safely work and recreate throughout the province.”However, the decision hasn’t gone down well with conservation groups and grizzly experts.“Hunting is not an acceptable management approach for a threatened species,” said Devon Earl, a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association, in a statement. “Grizzly bears have a very slow reproductive rate, and trophy hunting could undo all the recovery of the last decade.”The ban’s reversal has also been criticized by Alberta’s Opposition Critic for Environment and Tourism and bear biologist Sarah Elmeligi.“Killing grizzly bears does not reduce human-bear conflict. It does not solve the problem,” said Elmeligi in a statement.The solution? According to the biologist and politician: “Work with people to better coexist with grizzly bears.”"Human use management on the landscape like the livestock compensation program, subsidies for electric fencing, attractant management on public and private land, and better education, are the things that actually reduce conflict.""These programs should be amplified across the province to reduce conflict at its source."

Before the liberal media had to publicly admit President Biden’s cognitively impaired, they were relentlessly consumed with a years-long campaign (that now exists in the background) to delegitimize the Supreme Court and turn the American public against it because of rulings they refuse to accept. An examination of headlines from The Washington Post revealed a comical double standard in coverage of these two supposed national scandals — the two flag-flying flaps by Justice Alito and who Justice Clarence Thomas’s choice of who he spends free time with — compared to when Donald Trump laid into the now-late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020 for having trashed him years earlier. Using “recusal” and “Trump” then each of the justice’s names, a search of The Post’s archives revealed an even more stunning double standard with over 1,100 results for the manufactured Alito hubbub, roughly 3,000 for Thomas, but only 234 for Ginsburg. In May 2024 when the Alito hubbub was still at a fever pitch, the walking parody Philip Bump had a whiny May 29 piece with the headline “Samuel Alito Has Decided That Samuel Alito Is Sufficiently Impartial”. The Post also ran an AP story (since removed from their site, as evidenced by this dead link) with this header: “To recuse or refuse? A look at Supreme Court justices’ decisions on whether to step aside in cases”. In it, reporter Mark Sherman whined (click “expand”): In declining to step aside from two high-profile Supreme Court cases, Justice Samuel Alito on Wednesday provided a rare window on the opaque process by which justices decide to step aside from cases. Alito faced calls from Democrats to recuse from two cases involving former President Donald Trump and Jan. 6 defendants because of the controversy over flags that flew over his homes. (....) Revelations about the flags came as the court is considering cases related to the Jan. 6 riot, including charges faced by the rioters and whether Trump has immunity from prosecution on election interference charges. In letters to members of Congress, Alito said he had no involvement in flying an upside-down flag over his home in 2021 and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his New Jersey beach house last year. He said his wife, Martha-Ann, was responsible for both flags. His impartiality, he said, could not reasonably be questioned. (....) Supreme Court justices decide for themselves whether and when to recuse from a case. On rare occasions, a party to a case will ask a justice to recuse. (....) Alito pointed to the Supreme Court’s ethics code to explain that justices have an obligation to take part in a case unless their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In this instance, he said, anyone “not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases” would see that recusal is not required. Longtime leftist court observer and columnist Ruth Marcus similarly bemoaned that day of the justice and his wife Martha-Ann having “one weird marriage” with there also being “reasons to question Alito’s candor and judgment here” since he “wrapped himself in an unconvincing blend of faux feminism and free speech, with an Alito-esque helping of victimhood.” The tone of the Thomas coverage has been similar, as well, painting Justice Thomas as being in a bizarre, creepy marriage. Post Courts reporter Tobi Raji giddily proclaimed on February 6 that “Thomas is facing calls from Democrats and court transparency advocates to recuse himself from a case examining whether former president Donald Trump can appear on 2024 primary election ballots nationwide”, adding (click “expand”): Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns about Thomas’s ability to remain impartial in this and several other Jan. 6-related cases given the involvement of his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, in the movement to overturn the 2020 election results. The ballot disqualification case, which is likely to be decided quickly, is a test of the court’s recently released code of conduct and recusal guidelines. (....) The Supreme Court’s newly adopted ethics code asks the justices to disqualify themselves if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” The code suggests recusal if a justice or their spouse has “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” or is “likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who previously served on Harvard University’s Board of Overseers, notably recused herself from one of two cases examining the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions practices in 2022 because Harvard was the defendant. However, the decision to recuse is up to the individual justice — a point of contention among critics including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who is sponsoring legislation to impose an enforceable ethics code on the justices. Flashing back to an earlier chapter in this manufactured hubbub, The Post breathlessly boasted on March 27, 2022: “Democrats urge Clarence Thomas to recuse himself after wife’s texts; Republicans continue to defend the justice’s integrity”. Many of The Post articles spoke glowingly of ProPublica’s sham reporting, which of course resulted in a Pulitzer for the liberal non-profit. One particular column from March 30, 2022 by none other than walking meme Jennifer Rubin was egregious: “The Thomas scandal exemplifies the rot spoiling our democracy.” Rubin huffed that “[w]e lack institutional mechanisms to restrain and punish public figures who don’t ethically police themselves” and argued that Thomas’s existence was proof of “the slow deterioration of our democracy.” Five days earlier, the editorial board called Thomas’s wife Ginni “a political extremist” and thus “a problem for the court” and the justice needed to recuse himself from politically sensitive cases or there would be “further erosion of public faith” in the third coequal branch of government. Well, the liberal media seem to have achieved their objective as evidenced by a May 24, 2023 piece by staff writer Aaron Blake with this boast as a headline: “Clarence Thomas’s image takes a hit”. Finally, there’s Ginsburg. Here was a brief summary from a March 2020 column in The Wall Street Journal by Emory University law professor Michael J. Broyde: In public interviews in 2016 she called Candidate Trump a “faker” and said: “I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president.” She even mused about fleeing the country: “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.” She apologized—kind of: “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.” She admitted her remarks were “ill advised,” and that “in the future I will be more circumspect.” The controversy died down, in part because hardly anyone expected Mr. Trump to become president. Now that he’s raised the matter again, is he right? The answer seems to be yes. Litigants—including Mr. Trump—have a right to appear before judges who have not prejudged the case or the person. Sure, there were some tough pieces in 2016 and 2017, such as “Justice Ginsburg has come explaining to do” and “In bashing Donald Trump, some say Ruth Bader Ginsburg just crossed a very important line”, but again, they were in short supply versus Alito and Thomas. But when Trump sounded off on this, they rushed to Ginsburg’s defense when, on February 24, 2020, Trump tweeted about how Ginsburg should recuse herself “on all Trump, or Trump related, matters” in order to preserve “fairness”. Instead of diving into the merits, the liberal media pitched a hissy fit. At The Post, they made Trump’s reaction out to be unhinged, not Ginsburg’s words. This was a news story from February 25, 2020: “Trump slams Sotomayor and Ginsburg, says they should recuse themselves from ‘Trump-related’ cases”. Here was the lede from Meagan Flynn and Brittany Shammas (click “expand”): President Trump went after Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a pair of tweets and at a news conference in India on Tuesday, days after Sotomayor issued a dissent critical of the Trump administration’s legal strategy and the court’s majority for enabling it. Tweeting just before appearing at a welcome ceremony at the Indian president’s ceremonial residence in New Delhi, Trump cited a Laura Ingraham segment on Fox News titled, “Sotomayor accuses GOP-appointed justices of being biased in favor of Trump.” He then called on Sotomayor and Ginsburg to recuse themselves in all Trump-related matters. “Trying to ‘shame’ some into voting her way?” Trump said of Sotomayor. “She never criticized Justice Ginsberg when she called me a ‘faker'. Both should recuse themselves on all Trump, or Trump related matters! While ‘elections have consequences’, I only ask for fairness, especially when it comes to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court!" The article cited a tweet from liberal court observer and now-CNN legal contributor Steve Vladeck, who defended Sotomayor as “right” for claiming GOP-appointed justices are biased. That same day, then-lead Court reporter Robert Barnes and political reporter Ashley Parker kvetched that Trump “escalat[ed] an unorthodox battle” with a “broadside” against “the judiciary from which even his own lawyers have advised retreat” and went astray from “what normally is an arm’s-length distance between the White House and the high court, and cast the disagreements into starkly personal terms.” If Trump tweets are “personal” attacks, then what has Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-RI) entire bit been against Thomas?

The Salt Lake Tribune is throwing a fit over the U.S. Supreme Court stripping the ungodly regulatory power of unelected bureaucrats while picking a fight with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) for daring to support the move.  “Utah politicians are wrong to say the end of Chevron is a boost for liberty,” The Tribune editorial board complained in a whiny July 7 screed targeting Lee and other Utah Republicans who celebrated the Court’s ruling. Under the so-called “Chevron Doctrine,” deference was given to federal agencies' subjective interpretations of ambiguous laws to enforce burdensome regulations on American businesses, which was upended by the Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2023). The Tribune was livid and took a swipe at Lee by likening him to a notorious Star Wars villain: “Sen. Mike Lee chortled that, without Chevron allowing regulators to make decisions, ‘It’s time for Congress to re-learn how to make real laws.’ That is, to make laws that say what the rules are and aren’t left open to bureaucratic interpretation. That’s rich coming from a guy whose entire obstructive legislative career was so well summed up by Star Wars villain Darth Sidious: ‘I have the Senate bogged down in procedure.’” Has anyone ever thought of Sidious as being gung-ho about stripping power away from dictatorial-like federal agencies? Perhaps The Tribune forgot to watch The Empire Strikes Back. Lee clapped back at The Tribune for mixing up its Star Wars metaphors in an exclusive interview with MRC Business: The real problem with The Salt Lake Tribune is that they think unelected bureaucrats should have the power of a Sith Lord, regulating and controlling the masses by force choke. The Supreme Court has given renewed hope for the future of our Republic. Lee hit the nail on the head.The Tribune cried crocodile tears in its first paragraph how the Court’s ruling was gutting “a long-standing legal guideline” that the supposedly benevolent government overlords “used to protect us from foul air, polluted water, adulterated food and ineffective drugs.”  The National Review editorial board stated that the left's “alarms about crippling administrative power are overstated.” The Raimondo ruling did not prevent “the agencies from exercising powers explicitly granted by Congress, or from pursuing cases that could stand up in court.” However, as National Review stated, if Raimondo “provokes in Congress the habit of writing laws, and in agencies the habit of obeying them, all the better. Agencies are but creatures of law, and law is but a creature of the sovereign people’s right to self-government — a government of laws, and not of men.” But The Tribune couldn’t be stopped, and proceeded to fear-monger about power shifting away from tyrannical unelected government bureaucrats over-regulating the free market on a whim to alleged robber barons who are out to just poison people: There is such a thing as federal overreach. But power taken away from the federal government does not magically diffuse through to the people. Power collects, as power always does, in the hands of the already powerful. In this case the corporations that will now enjoy more freedom to poison our planet, your children and you. What a joke. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Salt Lake Tribune at (801) 237-2900 and tell it to stop acting like a shill for the federal bureaucracy.   

United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced Wednesday the Risky Research Review Act, which would establish an independent security board to review and approve "high-risk life sciences research" projects seeking federal funding.The first-of-its-kind proposal would create a Life Sciences Research Security Board within the executive branch responsible for conducting "oversight over life sciences research funding across the federal government to protect public health, safety, and national security."'If we had this bill in place ten years ago, we could have prevented the COVID pandemic.'The act defines "high-risk life sciences research" as any research that has a potential dual-use nature or could pose a threat to public health, including "gain of function research, research involving genetic modification or synthetic creation of a potential pandemic pathogen, and activities involving the collection or surveillance of potential pandemic pathogens."Grant applicants seeking to conduct research projects that fall into this category would only be able to receive federal funding with approval from the majority of the security board members.The nine-member board, appointed by the president with Senate approval, would include one executive director, five non-governmental scientists, and two national security experts. The members would serve up to two four-year terms and must not be, or have been within the past three years, a federal employee. Under the proposed act, the security board would be expected to submit annual reports to Congress and online.On Thursday morning, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held an oversight hearing on "taxpayer funded high-risk virus research."Senators listened to testimony from Dr. Gerald Parker, the associate dean for Global One Health at the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences; Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, the senior principal and chair at Lewis-Burke Associates health and bioscience innovation practice group and a former senior adviser with the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Robert Redfield, a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and Dr. Kevin Esvelt, associate professor at MIT Media Lab.During opening statements at Thursday morning's hearing, Senator Gary Peters (D-Mich.) seemed to express that he may not be opposed to legislation similar to the bill proposed by Paul."Our expert witnesses raised to the need for robust oversight over a wide range of high-risk life sciences research both here in the United States and abroad," Peters stated. "Life science research can be critical to protecting public health and our national security. It helps up develop vaccines and improve our diagnostic tests and sharpen our understanding of potential biological threats.""This research can be incredibly dangerous. It puts scientists in contact with harmful pathogens, and they sometimes do not get the necessary training on how to handle them properly," Peters added. "If equipment fails or researchers make an innocent mistake, it can carry serious health risks for the broader public."During his opening remarks, Paul stated, "Over the last four years, compelling evidence has emerged supporting the lab origin of the pandemic and unraveling a web of deception: the vast COVID cover-up.""So what has been done since the discovery that our government is funding dangerous virus research overseas with little or no oversight? The answer is stark and chilling: virtually nothing," Paul remarked. "In this dystopian universe we find ourselves in, it is our duty to challenge the status quo — to shine a light on the darkest corners of government operations, and to protect the freedoms and lives of the people we serve."Wolinetz defended the federal government's oversight of risky pathogen research."Collectively, while this policy framework may be imperfect and should continue to evolve with the science and current threat landscape, it arguably represents the most rigorous oversight of pathogen research in the world," Wolinetz claimed. "If we make it too hard for scientists to conduct and communicate the findings of experiments that expand our knowledge of pathogens, we will be less prepared for the next emerging biological threat."The committee issued a press release announcing the Risky Research Review Act, noting that the funding of such research currently "lack[s] sufficient government oversight, allowing American taxpayer dollars to be spent without appropriate checks."Redfield called the proposed act "a very important bill" that would "ensure national security is prioritized when making U.S. life science funding decisions." He called for a moratorium on gain-of-function research."If we had this bill in place ten years ago, we could have prevented the COVID pandemic," Redfield added.Richard Ebright, the Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University and laboratory director at the university's Waksman Institute of Microbiology, also voiced support for the proposed legislation."The gaps in current U.S. oversight of research on potential pandemic pathogens place the U.S. at risk of research-related pandemics, with medical, economic, and national security impacts as disruptive and damaging as, or even more disruptive and damaging than, those of the COVID-19 pandemic," Ebright stated. "Addressing the gaps in oversight is essential and urgent."Ebright wrote in a post on X Thursday, "The US has no--zero--regulations with force of law for biosafety or biorisk management of research with any pathogen other than smallpox virus, apart from a requirement to have a biosafety plan, the content of which is left to the discretion of the institution."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Stephen A. Smith is apparently in negotiations with ESPN to become the highest-paid sports commentator — with a $25 million per year contract on the table. After news of the possible deal broke, Patrick Bet-David sat down with Stephen A. Smith on Smith’s podcast. And he may have fanboyed a little too close to the sun. “Talk to me about what your vision is of what America should be,” Smith says to PBD. “What America should be,” PBD repeats, before completely ignoring the question. “You’re the greatest guy in sports commentating ever, right? You’re the GOAT. Everybody calls you the GOAT.” Jason Whitlock is understandably confused by the praise. “Is this a worthy classification? Is he the Michael Jordan of sports commentary?” Whitlock asks Steve Kim. “I’ve never actually heard anyone outside of Patrick Bet-David actually say ‘You’re the greatest of all time in that field,’” Kim says. “Is he going to be the most well paid? Is he the most exposed or overexposed? Is he the one that’s out there the most? Is he the most ubiquitous? Yes.” “But does that necessarily make him the greatest commentator of all time?” he asks, adding, “I never thought of him as the greatest. I don’t think he knows enough, to be honest with you.” Whitlock agrees. “When you start saying that someone is the greatest sports commentator of all time, and he’s worth $25 million a year, this is where my brain goes,” Whitlock begins. “This is all a rigged simulation. This is all a Matrix. And these are people that are supporting the Matrix, who are just like Patrick Bet-David.” “Is he represented by the same agents as Stephen A. Smith? Because it’s such a nonsensical statement. It’s like, you know, ‘Jason Whitlock is the greatest bodybuilder of all time.’ That’s what it’s the equivalent of,” he adds.Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Star college quarterback Arch Manning will reportedly receive a large payment from video game publisher Electronic Arts after months of holding out from inclusion in an upcoming game.Manning is the youngest star of the famous football family that includes his uncles, Super Bowl winners Peyton and Eli, and his grandfather, football legend Archie Manning.For the latest NCAA football video game published by EA, thousands of student athletes accepted the average payment of $600 and a copy of the game in exchange for their name, image, and likeness.'I'm in the game.'However, with Manning's name holding tremendous potential value, he was one of just a few star players who declined the offer when news started surfacing of the payments in February 2024.It appears someone in the Manning camp made the right call, as it was just announced that the Texas quarterback is set to receive between $50,000 and $60,000 to promote the game and accepted the $600 to be included in it.Meanwhile, college sports reporter Pete Nakos told Blaze News that cover athletes for the game received payments in the low six figures.Manning released a promotional video for the game with his uncle Eli as news broke online."I'm IN the game," Manning wrote, along with the signature "horns up" emoji representing Texas.With the large payment to Manning, it is likely that many other athletes will become holdouts for larger sums in the future. Manning's NIL value is currently ranked at No. 3 in the country, at $2.8 million. Manning is outranked only by fellow football player Shedeur Sanders, son of NFL legend Deion Sanders. Sanders sits at a valuation of $4.9 million for name, image, and likeness.At the same time, gymnast and social media star Livvy Dunne sits in the second spot at $3.9 million.The advent of the NIL era has empowered many student athletes to demand much higher compensation for their names, something that was outright banned before. NFL rookie Marvin Harrison Jr., another NFL legacy athlete, is still in a legal battle over his likeness. In May 2024, Harrison Jr. was sued by apparel brand Fanatics over what the company called a failure to hold up his end of the contract. It was recently revealed that Harrison Jr. was alleged to be compensated $1.05 million over two years by the company.Harrison Jr. has been selling memorabilia on his website after declining to sign the standard agreement with the NFL Players Association to turn over his name, image, and likeness. He did not respond to request for comment; however, the player remarked on signing the NFLPA group licensing agreement during his introductory press conference with the Arizona Cardinals."I'll continue to talk to my team, and we'll do what's best for me moving forward," Harrison Jr. reportedly said. "We'll just take it one day at a time. I just got drafted, so I'm trying to enjoy the moment and be happy while I can at the moment."On3 reported that with over 14,000 players opting in to the NCAA game, EA passed its goal of having 11,000 athletes sign up in what it called possibly the biggest NIL deal ever executed.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats, media personalities, and other individuals with uneasy relationships with the truth have spent years suggesting that President Donald Trump is "an existential threat to our democracy." The suggestion that the majority decision by American voters to elect a candidate disliked by the political establishment would mean the end of the very system by which they elected him has also been repeated on numerous occasions by the very man most likely to benefit from this narrative: President Joe Biden. Shortly after a Biden official's group successfully got the Democratic incumbent's top rival temporarily removed from the primary ballot in Colorado late last year, Biden tweeted, "Trump poses many threats to our country: The right to choose, civil rights, voting rights, and America's standing in the world. But the greatest threat he poses is to our democracy." 'All these, you know, kind of phrases that are thrown about ... on the op-ed pages of the New York Times and on MSNBC.' All this work to paint Trump as a threat to democracy has effectively been undone. Ezra Klein, the leftist founder of Vox, revealed to a fellow traveler at another leftist blog Wednesday that Biden was not the only Democrat who appears not to have really believed in the existential threat narrative. Tim Miller of the Bulwark told Klein on his podcast that he frequently encounters "this 'democracy is at threat,' 'it's an existential threat,' all these, you know, kind of phrases that are thrown about ... on the op-ed pages of the New York Times and on MSNBC where I frequent." Klein later explained how top Democrats, cognizant of the likelihood Biden will suffer a humiliating defeat in November, can justify not asking him to exit the race despite their peers having floated this existential threat as a likely consequence. 'Unlike Biden and many others, I refuse to participate in a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our democratic system.' "Top Democrats believe that if Joe Biden is on top of the ticket, he will lose, but are also not coming out and calling on him to resign. I think there are a lot of ways to say it, but I think one thing that is being revealed is that ... whatever they believe intellectually, they certainly do not believe Donald Trump is an existential threat to American democracy," said Klein. Klein suggested he respected Democratic Maine Rep. Jared Golden's recent op-ed in the Bangor Daily News, which signaled this understanding among Democrats that Trump does not pose a risk to democracy. Golden wrote, "While I don't plan to vote for him, Donald Trump is going to win. And I'm OK with that." "Democrats' post-debate hand-wringing is based on the idea that a Trump victory is not just a political loss, but a unique threat to our democracy. I reject the premise. Unlike Biden and many others, I refuse to participate in a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our democratic system," continued Golden. "I urge everyone — voters, elected officials, the media, and all citizens — to ignore the chattering class' scare tactics and political pipe dreams. We don't need party insiders in smoke-filled back rooms to save us. We can defend our democracy without them." "Golden was unusual in saying that, but I think that if you look at how a lot of these Democrats are acting, that is sort of what they believe," Klein told Miller. "People are, like, weighing this set of things, like, 'It would be quite unpleasant for me personally to come out against the president as an elected official in a Democratic Party' and weighing what will happen if Donald Trump wins and saying ... 'I can live with Donald Trump winning.' And I've had people say that to me off the record, to be fair." "Really?" asked Miller. "I've had top Democrats say to me basically something like, 'I don't know why all these Democrats who think Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy are acting the way they are. But the reason I'm acting the way I am is because I don't think that,'" said Klein. "Who the f*** is this?" responded Miller. "Out your sources, Ezra! I'm about to be in leaking-text mode over here myself. Like, that is crazy." "I find it maddening," said Klein. "But I do find it consistent. Look, you can say this is true in a lot of things, right. It's a charge Republicans always throw at liberals, which is that if they really believe climate change is a problem, they wouldn't fly on planes." While Klein's admissions helped kill the existential threat narrative, it was already on life support thanks to Biden's recent interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. Stephanopoulos asked Biden, "If you stay in [the race] and Trump is elected, and everything you're warning about comes to pass, how will you feel in January?" Biden answered, "I'll feel, as long as I gave it my all and I did as goodest as I know I can do, that's what this is about." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!