The liberal media knives are out for entrepreneur Elon Musk‚ who has been steering the liberal-dominated blue-check bastion social media platform formerly known as Twitter toward free speech and increased diversity of opinion since taking it over a year ago. Thursday’s edition of the PBS NewsHour devoted almost six minutes to attacking the space and technology impresario. The conversation between National Public Radio’s tech reporter Bobby Allyn and PBS host Geoff Bennett was keyed to a threatened “advertising freeze” from virtual-signaling corporate entities like Disney and Apple‚ after controversy over a Musk reply to a tweet on X that was perceived as anti-Semitic (and which he later apologized for)‚ and Musk’s vulgarity-laden response to his corporate critics at a New York Times-hosted business conference. “Increasingly unhinged” was the descriptor bestowed on Musk by Allyn‚ who pitched a tantrum against Musk on Twitter earlier this year. His employer NPR left the platform in a huff over Musk labeling it “US state-affiliated media.” The two tax-funded journalists engaged in performative offense-taking against Musk’s F-bombs‚ practically panting that the outburst would mark the beginning of Musk’s long-awaited downfall (and presumably flock to Mastodon or Threads‚ two would-be Twitter replacements everyone’s already forgotten about). Host Geoff Bennett: In an interview at The New York Times DealBook Summit yesterday‚ he denied the accusation of antisemitism and told companies not to advertise. He even called out the CEO of Disney‚ Bob Iger‚ who was at the event. Question: You don't want them to advertise? Elon Musk: No. Question: What do you mean? Elon Musk: If somebody's going to try to blackmail me with advertising‚ blackmail me with money‚ go f*** yourself. Bennett saw a conspiracy. Bennett: NPR tech reporter Bobby Allyn joins us now. So‚ Bobby‚ there is no possible business benefit‚ at least not one I can think of‚ to Elon Musk sitting on stage‚ cursing out the advertisers whom he needs to buy ads on X to keep that company afloat. It raises the question‚ what does Elon Musk want with X right now? Is he intentionally trying to tank this company? Allyn replied: “…it sure does seem like bankruptcy is a fait accompli‚ that it's just a matter of not -- it's not a matter of if‚ but when X files for bankruptcy.” Bennett relegated Musk’s ambitious technological achievements‚ which the Biden Administration is depending on‚ as quasi-blackmail material stored up by Musk. Bennett: Big picture‚ Bobby‚ the U.S. government can't seem to quit Elon Musk‚ even if it wanted to. The Pentagon needs his satellites. NASA needs his rockets. The Biden White House needs his electric vehicles as a key component of this green economy that they're trying to promote. How is the government contending with the fact that so many of his companies are woven into the fabric of American culture and are so sort of inextricably linked to national security interests? Allyn also portrayed Musk as a mad scientist with his hooks into the power structure. Allyn: ….Some say Elon Musk is like an unelected official‚ right? He has a tremendous amount of power‚ whether it's with his Starlink satellites in Ukraine‚ which are on the front lines of the war with Russia‚ whether it's the E.V. charging stations across the country….So the Biden administration‚ as you mentioned‚ can't push its green energy policies without working with Elon Musk. We can't send astronauts from American soil to the International Space Station unless we work with SpaceX. So the government has no choice but to play nice and to do business with this very mercurial‚ erratic business leader who is becoming increasingly unhinged by the day…. This Musk-loathing segment was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular. A transcript is available‚ click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 11/30/23 7:32:23 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: Elon Musk‚ the owner of X‚ formerly known as Twitter‚ is dialing up the pressure on his own company even more after cursing advertisers who paused ads on the social media platform. The advertising freeze from major companies like Disney and Apple came after Musk endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory on X earlier this month. In an interview at The New York Times DealBook Summit yesterday‚ he denied the accusation of antisemitism and told companies not to advertise. He even called out the CEO of Disney‚ Bob Iger‚ who was at the event. Question: You don't want them to advertise? Elon Musk: No. Question: What do you mean? Elon Musk: If somebody's going to try to blackmail me with advertising‚ blackmail me with money‚ go (expletive deleted) yourself. Question: But… Elon Musk: Go (expletive deleted) yourself. Elon Musk: Is that clear? I hope it is. Hey‚ Bob‚ if you're in the audience. Geoff Bennett: NPR tech reporter Bobby Allyn joins us now. So‚ Bobby‚ there is no possible business benefit‚ at least not one I can think of‚ to Elon Musk sitting on stage‚ cursing out the advertisers whom he needs to buy ads on X to keep that company afloat. It raises the question‚ what does Elon Musk want with X right now? Is he intentionally trying to tank this company? Bobby Allyn: It sure does seem like it. I mean‚ this was an act of pure self-sabotage. Remember‚ 90 percent of X's revenue comes from advertisers. Since Elon Musk made waves by endorsing an antisemitic conspiracy theory‚ there has been an exodus of major corporations away from X. Linda Yaccarino‚ who was brought in as X's new CEO‚ has been trying to court some of those fleeing advertisers back to the platform. But now we have the world's richest man‚ who runs X‚ literally telling the brands to go eff themselves‚ cursing them out. I can't imagine this does anything but make the problem much worse. And Musk even said himself from that very stage that advertisers are going to kill the company. He seems even to be saying what many outside observers have been saying for a while‚ which is‚ it sure does seem like bankruptcy is a fait accompli‚ that it's just a matter of not — it's not a matter of if‚ but when X files for bankruptcy. Geoff Bennett: Well‚ The New York Times reported that X could lose as much as $75 million in advertising revenue by the end of this year‚ as all of these advertisers walk away from the company. You mentioned Linda Yaccarino‚ who was brought on to bring advertisers back to X after Elon Musk took it over in 2022. What does this mean for her and the job that she was hired to do? Elon Musk is not making her job any easier. Bobby Allyn: Not at all. Linda Yaccarino today tried to play cleanup. She's in crisis control mode‚ because‚ remember‚ her main job has been to try to bring some of these skittish advertisers back to the platform. And she issued a statement today saying that X is at the sort of unique and amazing intersection of Main Street and free speech‚ right? She's trying to spin her boss' comments in the most positive way possible. But think about it. If you are someone whose job it is to bring corporations to this platform and to try to place ads on this platform‚ and the person who leads it is basically cursing you out and saying he has absolutely no respect for your concerns‚ that's going to be a really hard business case. It's going to be really hard to be a salesperson in the wake of these comments‚ where Elon Musk does seem to be trying to drive his company directly into the ground. I can't imagine any other outcome but that. I mean‚ like I said‚ he said in no uncertain terms that this advertiser boycott will likely decline the company into bankruptcy. Geoff Bennett: Big picture‚ Bobby‚ the U.S. government can't seem to quit Elon Musk‚ even if it wanted to. The Pentagon needs his satellites. NASA needs his rockets. The Biden White House needs his electric vehicles as a key component of this green economy that they're trying to promote. How is the government contending with the fact that so many of his companies are woven into the fabric of American culture and are so sort of inextricably linked to national security interests? Bobby Allyn: That's completely right. "The New Yorker" has called this Elon's shadow rule. Some say Elon Musk is like an unelected official‚ right? He has a tremendous amount of power‚ whether it's with his Starlink satellites in Ukraine‚ which are on the front lines of the war with Russia‚ whether it's the E.V. charging stations across the country. Remember‚ Elon Musk's company‚ right‚ Tesla‚ controls 60 percent of the E.V. charging stations around the country. So the Biden administration‚ as you mentioned‚ can't push its green energy policies without working with Elon Musk. We can't send astronauts from American soil to the International Space Station unless we work with SpaceX. So the government has no choice but to play nice and to do business with this very mercurial‚ erratic business leader who is becoming increasingly unhinged by the day. And some U.S. government officials say it's just too late. We wish we could have done something sooner‚ but this entrepreneur just has so many deep inroads into the federal government at this point. Geoff Bennett: NPR tech reporter Bobby Allyn. Bobby‚ thanks again. Good to see you. Bobby Allyn: Thank you.

Cosmopolitan magazine published an article promoting "Satanic abortions" to young women. In the process‚ the liberal magazine insulted the deceased mother of a conservative Supreme Court Justice. Cosmopolitan – which deems itself to be the "biggest young women’s media brand in the world" – published an article on Nov. 16 titled: "The Satanic Abortion Clinic That’s Pissed Off Pretty Much Everyone...and Might Beat the Bans Anyway."The article boosts the reputation of The Satanic Temple (TST) – which provides support to the so-called "Samuel Alito's Mom's Satanic Abortion Clinic." The abortion clinic was purposely named to stoke outrage and take a shot at Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito – who authored the opinion that ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade. The abortion clinic attempts to mock Justice Alito by fantasizing about an alternate reality where his mother‚ Rose Fradusco Alito‚ aborted her son when he was an unborn baby. The Cosmopolitan article conceded that Alito's mother was a schoolteacher and was "thrilled" with the birth of her son. The article asked‚ "It’s unlikely that Rose ever considered abortion for herself (a few years before she passed away‚ she told reporters she opposed it). But what if her circumstances had been different — if her own life had been endangered by the pregnancy or if the fetus had a fatal anomaly or if Rose simply hadn’t been ready for a child? What if she’d had a choice and access to safe‚ legal abortion care?"The Alito matriarch died in 2013. See on Instagram The article admits that the Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic does sound like "pure clickbait." However‚ the article praises the clinic for providing young women with abortion pills offered at a "competitive price" and offered up until the 11th week of pregnancy. According to Turning Point USA: Chemical abortions are conducted using the drug Mifepristone‚ a synthetic steroid that blocks the naturally produced hormone progesterone‚ preventing the fetus from receiving any nutrition‚ and ultimately starves the unborn human until it passes away inside the mother’s womb. Once the unborn child is no longer viable‚ the second pill is taken to induce cramping‚ and bleeding‚ and ultimately expel the aborted fetus.The clinic also offers "24/7 phone access to licensed medical personnel to anyone in need."Cosmopolitan magazine commends The Satanic Temple for its "guerrilla street theater." The article lauds a 2016 demonstration where "temple members wearing adult diapers and baby masks disrupted a Christian-led anti-abortion protest with a BDSM stunt that involved flogging one another with whips‚ which one TST member said was a commentary on the Christian right’s 'fetishization of the fetal image.'" The article downplayed any outrage over the act by labeling it as "public mischief." The author of the article applauds the clinic for going beyond "abortion activism to abortion care." The Cosmo piece confesses that the group behind the abortion clinic is a religion. "Meaning its patients‚ who don’t have to be Satanists themselves‚ are participating in a religious ritual‚" the article stated. "That’s a key legal distinction TST hopes to leverage in its historic push to expand its clinic model beyond New Mexico — into states where abortion is otherwise banned."The article describes women aborting their unborn babies with pills as a "religious ritual‚" adding‚ "That’s a key legal distinction TST hopes to leverage in its historic push to expand its clinic model beyond New Mexico — into states where abortion is otherwise banned."The alleged "religious ritual" of chemical abortion is described as: First‚ you find a quiet space. Bring a mirror if you can. Just before taking the medication‚ gaze at your reflection and focus on your personhood. Home in on your intent‚ your responsibility to you. Take a few deep‚ relaxing breaths. When you’re ready‚ read the following tenet aloud: One’s body is inviolable‚ subject to one’s own will alone. Take the medication and immediately afterward‚ recite‚ Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs. Later‚ once your body expels the aborted tissue‚ return to your reflection. Focus again on your personhood‚ your power in making this decision. Complete the ritual by reciting a personal affirmation: By my body‚ my blood; by my will‚ it is done.Cosmopolitan notes that 34% of its readership is between the ages of 18 and 24. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Businessman Bill Ackman recently took aim at the president of Harvard University for opting not to attend Israel's screening of footage that was captured on October 7‚ when Hamas terrorists launched a surprise attack against the Jewish state‚ killing 1‚200 people. The billionaire hedge fund manager said that Claudine Gay had failed to show leadership‚ and referred to her decision not to attend the screening an "insult" to those who have been impacted by the tragic event‚ according to the Daily Mail.Ackman apparently offered to fly the Harvard president to Washington‚ D.C. immediately after the conclusion of the screening‚ where she is expected to answer for the sudden spike in anti-Semitism at the prestigious university. Since Hamas' attacks against the Jewish state on October 7‚ anti-Semitism has dramatically increased‚ especially in Western countries‚ according to the Anti-Defamation League.However‚ Gay declined the offer by Ackman‚ with her staff saying that she was going to be "out of town" in an email reply.Ackman went on the offensive in early November‚ writing on X: "The failure of @Harvard‚ @MIT and other universities to discipline protesters who violate their rules emboldens the protesters to more aggressive‚ disruptive and antisemitic actions." — (@) "This has created a climate of fear that is not conducive to a university education. The failure to discipline students who have bullied‚ assaulted or otherwise been abusive to Jewish students under the guise of free speech or a supposed requirement to wait for the completion of a police and FBI investigation is similarly absurd. Imagine if a female student were sexually assaulted by five male Jewish students and it was captured on multiple videos.""The hypocrisy and double standard in how attacks on Jewish and Israeli students on campus are being handled by Harvard‚ MIT and other universities is self evident‚ and now we are beginning to see the consequences of the lack of enforcement of a universities’ own standards for student conduct and permitted speech. The problem is only getting worse. I would not be surprised to see the white supremacists begin their campus protests shortly."The Harvard Crimson‚ the university's newspaper‚ reported that "Gay will testify during a hearing on Dec. 5 alongside MIT President Sally A. Kornbluth and University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill.""Harvard‚ MIT‚ and UPenn have all faced calls to do more to combat antisemitism after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel revealed bitter tensions on college campuses across the country."Gay's upcoming appearance before Congress comes after The Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Education Department opened an investigation into allegations of anti-Semitism cropping up at the school.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The singer‚ guitarist‚ writer‚ producer and leader of the multi-Platinum selling rock band shaped and directed the group from its earliest beginnings The post April Wine Leader‚ Myles Goodwyn‚ Dies at 75 appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

DC Government Spent HOW MUCH to Repaint 'Black Lives Matter' in the Street?

  The Arthurian legends contain an extensive mixture of fact and legend. With the few contemporary sources we have‚ we can discern the historical truth to a certain degree. One prominent figure who features in the Arthurian legends is Aurelius Ambrosius. Not only was he a real person‚ but he had a major role in the historical events of fifth-century Britain. Without him‚ the progress of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain may have looked very different. Some scholars have even argued that he can be identified as the real King Arthur.   The Real King Arthur? What Do We Know About Ambrosius Aurelianus Folio from one of the earliest surviving copies of De Excidio‚ by Gildas‚ 10th century‚ via the British Library‚ London   The primary source of information about Ambrosius Aurelianus comes from De Excidio‚ a text written at some point in the sixth century by a monk named Gildas. Although he was not an exact contemporary of Ambrosius‚ he was not writing too long after his era. Therefore‚ scholars generally do not treat his comments with suspicion. Unfortunately‚ Gildas tells us very little about Ambrosius. He discusses him in a passage about the Saxon wars. He explains that the Saxons had engaged in severe attacks on the Britons‚ causing many of them to flee. They could apparently offer no effective resistance against their attackers.   But then‚ Ambrosius Aurelianus became the military leader of the Britons and engaged in an effective counter-offence against the Saxons. From that time on‚ the Britons and the Saxons fought against each other fairly evenly. Sometimes the Britons were victorious‚ and sometimes the Saxons were victorious. This continued until the Battle of Badon‚ which was a decisive victory for the Britons.   Mosaic of Emperor Justinian I wearing Tyrian purple‚ Church of San Vitale‚ Ravenna‚ Italy‚ sixth century   Gildas does not tell us whether or not Ambrosius was a king. He could have just been a military commander. Later tradition does call him a king‚ though‚ and there is nothing in Gildas’ words that makes that unlikely or improbable. He tells us that Ambrosius’ parents had “worn the purple‚” but that they had died during the strife of that era.   The reference to them wearing the purple has been interpreted in a variety of ways. It almost certainly means that they had a prominent position of some sort. What exactly this was‚ we do not know. Purple was the imperial color. On this basis‚ it has been suggested that Ambrosius may have been the son of an otherwise unknown emperor in Britain‚ established after the end of Roman rule. But purple was also used by the consuls‚ and even by military officers. Could his parents have been consuls from the continent? Or might they have been Brittonic consuls‚ just as other territories that were formerly in the Roman Empire established their own consulships? We simply do not know.   Ambrosius in Later Historical Sources Historia Brittonum‚ folio 1‚ via the British Library‚ London   When it comes to investigating the real King Arthur and the Arthurian legends in general‚ two later sources are particularly useful. One is the work of Bede‚ an English writer of the eighth century. The second is the ninth-century Historia Brittonum‚ usually attributed (perhaps falsely) to Nennius. Most of Bede’s information is repeated virtually verbatim from Gildas‚ but one new piece of information he provides is related to when Ambrosius lived. He explicitly dates his career to the reign of Emperor Zeno‚ who ruled from the mid 470s to 491.   The Historia Brittonum is not viewed as a particularly reliable historical source‚ primarily due to its late date. However‚ it is a valuable record given the paucity of other early sources available. According to this‚ Ambrosius was a younger contemporary of Vortigern‚ possibly even a child at the start of the latter’s reign. All the best evidence supports the Historia Brittonum’s date of 425 for the start of Vortigern’s reign‚ so that would place Ambrosius’ birth in approximately 420. This is arguably consistent with Bede’s date for Ambrosius’ career.   Arguments in Favor of Ambrosius Being the Real King Arthur Illustration of King Arthur in battle‚ 13th century‚ via pocketmags.com   With these fundamental facts out of the way‚ what about the theory that Ambrosius Aurelianus was actually the real King Arthur? What is the basis for this theory? Essentially‚ the basis is the fact that Arthur’s most important victory against the Saxons was said to have been the Battle of Badon. This claim is found as early as the Historia Brittonum itself‚ and it is repeated in all subsequent records about the battle.   Therefore‚ the basic idea used by many researchers is that the real King Arthur is simply the person who led the Britons at Badon. Gildas’ description of that event is used to support the conclusion that Ambrosius was the one who led the Britons at that battle. Recall that he described the Britons fighting under Ambrosius against the Saxons‚ and that the back-and-forth between them eventually culminated in the Battle of Badon. He does not explicitly say that this final battle occurred decades after Ambrosius started to lead the Britons. This has opened the way for some to conclude that he was still leading the Britons at that time. Thus‚ this would indicate that Ambrosius himself was the real King Arthur.   Anglo-Saxon Chronicle folio 37r‚ 17th century‚ via the British Library‚ London   A related argument is based on the fact that Gildas never mentions Arthur at all. Given that the portion of history covered by his account encompasses the era of Arthur’s supposed reign‚ this seems rather suspicious. Many scholars take this as an indication that Arthur never existed at all. Furthermore‚ Arthur is not mentioned by Bede‚ nor by the tenth-century Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. In view of this lack of direct evidence for his existence‚ many scholars feel that Arthur cannot have existed.   Yet‚ it is self-evident that legends of Arthur do exist. So‚ how did those legends get their start? One line of thought is that Arthur started off as a folkloric figure who was gradually historicized. However‚ others feel that he must have come from a historical figure of the period‚ who then later acquired the name “Arthur” somehow. Since Ambrosius is known to have really existed and his activities (even excluding Badon) at least broadly match Arthur’s‚ he is an obvious choice.   Problems with the Theory that Ambrosius was the Real King Arthur Illustration of King Arthur fighting the Saxons from the Rochefoucauld Grail manuscript‚ 14th century‚ via the Independent   This logic is simple enough. But does it actually stand up to scrutiny? In reality‚ there are a few key issues with it. For one thing‚ there is no reason why Ambrosius and Arthur could not both have been involved in the battle. Consider the fact that in the earliest references to Arthur‚ there is no mention of him being a king. This leads many scholars to conclude that — if he was real — Arthur was a military commander‚ not a king. If Ambrosius was a king (and he is explicitly called “high king” in the Historia Brittonum)‚ then Arthur would have been a commander in his service. Thus‚ even if Ambrosius really was still leading the Britons at the time of the Battle of Badon‚ this would not necessarily make him the real King Arthur. So on this basis‚ we see that the logic that the leader at Badon must have been the real King Arthur simply does not stand up to scrutiny. It could be correct‚ but there is no guarantee.   Annales Cambriae in the Harleian MS 3859‚ folio 190r‚ via the British Library‚ London   What about the lack of evidence for Arthur’s existence? Really‚ this is not significant. Gildas mentions almost no one at all throughout his entire work (apart from the five living kings to whom he directs some comments). He was writing a sermon‚ not a history. Bede took his information almost entirely from Gildas‚ so naturally‚ Ambrosius is the only British leader in that period mentioned by him‚ excluding the Saxon ally Vortigern. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does not even mention Ambrosius‚ yet his historicity is not in doubt.   More significantly‚ there is very good reason to believe that Ambrosius cannot have been the leader at Badon and thus the real King Arthur. As we saw earlier‚ he was likely born around 420. The Battle of Badon‚ meanwhile‚ is dated to 516 in the Annales Cambriae. The Historia Brittonum seems to imply an even later date‚ apparently placing Badon in the era of Ida of Bernicia. In either case‚ Ambrosius would have been much too old to be participating in any battles by that time. This would preclude him from having been the real King Arthur.   Was Ambrosius Aurelianus the Real King Arthur? Depiction of Aurelius Ambrosius from a manuscript of Historia Regum Britanniae‚ 15th century‚ Wales‚ via Wikimedia Commons   In summary‚ Ambrosius Aurelianus was a historical leader of the Britons in fifth-century Britain‚ during a time of intense turmoil. He helped the Britons to recover from the devastating attacks of the Saxons and prevented them from being completely overwhelmed. From Gildas‚ we know that he was the son of prominent parents‚ although we do not know exactly what position they had. Based on the information from Bede and the Historia Brittonum‚ we can conclude that Ambrosius was likely born in about 420. The main part of his career‚ in which he campaigned against the Saxons‚ occurred somewhere between c. 475 and 491. Some scholars try to argue that he was the real King Arthur. This is based on the perceived implication by Gildas that Ambrosius was the victor at Badon. However‚ this is a very shaky foundation on which to base a theory. The dating of the Battle of Badon by other records places it well into the sixth century‚ which would make it impossible for Ambrosius to have been the leader. This argues strongly against identifying him as the real King Arthur.

The end of Season 2 of 'Yellowstone offers up some of the most intense action in the show's history. Continue reading…