Go Bulls

 https://x.com/gadsaad/status/2039001185873547465?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

This is exactly right.  If he changed his name and source, he'd be protected.   

  https://x.com/miles_commodore/status/2038932885122478359?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://x.com/pastorandywebb/status/2039049990778032312?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

The double standard is beyond comprehension.

 

BOT

 https://x.com/maxven3/status/2039401119768547513?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

It's one thing when comedians like Maher point out the idiocy of the DFL and their policies, but when Rahm Emmanuel does it, you'd think that the ASPL might take it seriously.  

 https://x.com/christopherrufo/status/2039372032635482535

If this is even close to accurate, then MN fraud doesn't look quite so bad.  Of course the DFL will never actually fix the problem...

 https://x.com/danfriedman81/status/2039228376754344429?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

The fact that the recidivism rate for J6 defendants is significantly lower than for criminals in general seems to have missed the NYT entirely.  That this also proves that the revolving door for violent felons is probably not a good idea. 

 https://x.com/peerrereview/status/2039087543996514368?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

One more left wing conspiracy theory debunked.

 https://x.com/electroversenet/status/2039296719943541167?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

A win for common sense.  

 https://x.com/swipewright/status/2039145916385366307?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

And another false narrative of the left falls to DATA.

 https://x.com/wellsjorda89710/status/2039319166952325215?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Well, I guess that invoking Satan is now seen as a good thing among the ASPL.  

 https://x.com/thomassowell/status/2039141947017933084?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

This is quite the change of position.  

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/DWji-kkDtKT/

Don't let the DFL leadership see this.

 https://x.com/drewpavlou/status/2038967293343096896?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

This encapsulates the idiocy of the ASPL in one short video.   

Europe Is Becoming More And More Irrelevant

 "Let’s be real here. Europe has spent decades freeloading on American security. Even now, with every NATO member finally hitting the 2% GDP target in 2025. But beyond the financial contributions, the real rupture is philosophical and the Iran crisis has shown a spotlight on it. Europe worships process. Endless committees, consultations, and “predictability.” Macron actually calls it a virtue. For Trump, this is paralysis as his style is to articulate a threat, fix a target, and act. The Americans are men of conviction and purpose. Europe on the other hand lives by bureaucratic liturgy and in high-minded abstractions. Sure, Americans might make mistakes when acting. But Europe never considers what the costs of not acting actually are. Just look at how their nations are doing on various fronts, especially on the border crisis, and you see the same cancerous rot that undergirds their foreign policy approach play out domestically. It's the same problem on a different scale. Iran is currently holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage, choking 20% of global oil and spiking prices past $100 a barrel. Meanwhile, the regime is bleeding from strikes, its nuclear ambitions are still alive despite degraded capability, and its proxies are firing missiles at allies and oil tankers. If this isn’t a clear and present danger to the global economy - of which Europe is a part - then I don’t know what is. Yet when Washington asked to use European bases to finish the job - bases the US has defended for generations, the response was hesitation and hand-wringing. The US did strike from RAF Fairford, but only after warnings that British soil could become a “legitimate target.” If you cannot agree that a theocratic regime with eschatological ambitions who have shown no restraint in hitting out at Gulf countries and threatening the world’s energy jugular is an enemy worth confronting, then what, exactly, are we allies about? Europe loves to preen about being tough on Russia. They issue condemnations and speeches and slap sanctions that hardly work to cripple the Russian economy. Now here was a chance to do something concrete: let the Americans use the bases they already pay for, help clear the Strait, and actually degrade the Iranian war machine that arms Moscow’s proxies. Turmp didn’t ask for boots on the ground or any kind of more offensive action. All he wanted was permission to operate from the infrastructure America has underwritten for decades. They couldn’t even manage that. So can you blame the Americans for seeing NATO for what it is? A paper-tiger alliance that expects Washington to bleed and pay while Brussels and London convenes and deliberates. If Europe refuses to treat Iran as the threat it is while happily letting American power keep the Strait open and the lights on, then the alliance is already dead. Trump is simply stating the obvious and the Americans are becoming very reluctant to subsidize the European delusion any longer."

 

Melissa Chen 

Internet Wisdom

 "The internet constantly tells women that men are terrible listeners because the second a woman starts venting about her day, the man immediately interrupts to offer a logical solution. We are taught to view this as him being dismissive, emotionally unintelligent, or invalidating our feelings. ​The strict, unpopular truth is that to a man, fixing the problem is his absolute highest, most desperate form of empathy. ​Women vent to connect; we want our partner to just sit in the dark with us and validate the emotion. But men are hardwired to view the woman they love being in distress as an active threat. When he immediately offers a spreadsheet, a strategy, or a solution to your problem, he isn't trying to silence you. His brain has recognized that something in the world is hurting his partner, and his immediate, visceral instinct is to assassinate the thing causing you pain. We constantly shame men for "not just listening," completely ignoring the fact that his attempt to fix your life is his most profound declaration of love."

 

In my experience, this absolutely rings True.  

Deep Thoughts

 https://x.com/devon_eriksen_/status/2039076855790146044?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "For 80 years, the political landscape of the developed world has been defined by WW2. 

Modern postwar liberalism became a sort of dark inverted religion, a religion not built around a god, but a devil. I call this religion "inverse fascism". 

Inverse fascism has no plans, no vision, and no systematic understanding of the world. It just asks itself "What would Hitler do?", then does the opposite, and congratulates itself for being righteous. 

Not only that, inverse fascism doesn't even understand who the fascists were, and what exactly they believed. It only sees the Axis powers as Saturday morning cartoon villains, comically evil antagonists in a half-hour show for kids. 

That's no way to run a world. 

You can't let infinity third world immigrants into developed countries just because Hitler wouldn't. 

You can't hug and forgive violent criminals over and over again as they hurt innocent people, just because Hitler wouldn't. 

You can't allow addicts and derelicts to camp on the streets of your cities, shooting up heroin, just because Hitler wouldn't. 

You can't pressure all your female population into in the workforce and career-building in their early 20s, discouraging them from having babies, just because Hitler wouldn't.

You can't dismantle your unique culture, and destroy the racial composition of your society, just because Hitler wouldn't. 

To do everything you do just because Hitler wouldn't is to allow Hitler, or your notion of Hitler, to define you. 

Today, I saw a Japanese person making a joke about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

A few days ago, I heard the President of the United States make a joke about the attack on Pearl Harbor. 

Perhaps in the days to come, we can hope to hear a Chinese man make a joke about Unit 731. To hear a German make a joke about the firebombing of Dresden. To hear an Israeli make a joke about the holocaust. 

Perhaps the world is starting to heal. Perhaps we are no longer allowing our worst moments to define us. 

Perhaps we don't need to scold ourselves about the wars of our ancestors. Or to blind ourselves to our virtues out of fear of repeating their sins. 

Perhaps we can create a new political ideology, based not on asking what Hitler would not do, but on asking what helps us colonize the stars."

Maybe The Pharisees Weren't Quite What People Think

 Everyone Wants To Talk About The Pharisees. But Nobody Talks About What Jesus Actually Challenged Them On.

And that is causing a serious problem in understanding.

And I want to be clear that I'm not bashing anyone, I'm simply stating a reality.

I've had preachers quote entire passages of scripture in the comments sections trying to refute my liturgical beliefs.

I got a comment recently that said this.

"Jesus rebuked the dressed up adorned rule spewing Pharisees. He leads us with love and freedom in worship."

And I understand why people say that. It sounds right. It fits a certain narrative that has become very popular in modern Christianity.

But it is missing the point almost entirely.

Jesus never challenged them on what they wore. Not once.

He mentioned their robes yes. But not because the robes were the problem. He pointed to the robes as evidence of something much deeper. They were wearing the garments without having the character that the garments were supposed to represent.

That is a completely different indictment.

Yes they spewed rules. But Jesus never said the rules were bad or wrong. He actually said they were right and good. The Law was good. The commandments were righteous.

The problem was that the Pharisees themselves did not follow them.

They were hypocrites.

Jesus was checking their HEARTS.

Not their practices. Not their adornments. Not their garments. Not the liturgical structure of their worship.

He was checking the heart that claimed adherence while living in defiance. The heart that performed righteousness without possessing it. The heart that used God's Law to control people while ignoring God's heart for them.

He was not tearing down the Law. He was calling them to actually LIVE by it.

He was not condemning piety. He was condemning the performance of piety without the substance behind it.

And here is where this gets really important.

When people use that narrative about the Pharisees to dismiss liturgical worship and sacred tradition they are doing the exact same thing they accuse the Pharisees of doing.

They are taking something out of its context and using it to nullify something God actually established.

Because liturgy is not a man made invention layered on top of scripture.

Liturgy IS scripture.

Hebrews 8:5 tells us the earthly tabernacle was built according to the pattern shown to Moses on the mountain. God gave specific instructions for worship. Specific garments. Specific prayers. Specific postures. Specific incense. None of that was arbitrary. That was God Himself establishing the pattern.

And then Revelation 4 and 5 pulls back the curtain on heaven itself.

Elders in robes around an altar. Incense described as the prayers of the saints. Candles burning before the throne. Antiphonal singing. Prostration before God.

That is not a contemporary church service.

That is the Divine Liturgy.

That is literally Heaven On Earth

So before you use the Pharisees as your argument against sacred practice and liturgical tradition let me ask you one simple question.

Was Jesus checking their robes or their hearts?

Because if it was their hearts then the robes were never the problem.

The heart was.

And a changed heart does not get rid of the sacred.

It finally learns how to wear it with integrity. 

Wayne E Daniels

The UN Is Ridiculous

 https://x.com/wil_da_beast630/status/2037691526210277435?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://x.com/Lewisrendell1/status/2037417214832238990

" The UN just voted 123-3 to declare the transatlantic slave trade the “gravest crime against humanity” and start sniffing around for reparations. Ghana led the charge, naturally. Applause erupted. Of course it did! What a shit show Africans didn’t just participate in the slave trade, they ran the supply side with ruthless efficiency. Tribal kings rounding up rivals, Arab traders shipping them, selling their own flesh and blood for beads, guns, and profit centuries before a Yankee clipper showed up."

 Lewis B RendellThe Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade isn't even the worst slave trade. "It was Very Bad, but I'd rank slave trades in this order: 1.) Arab Slave Trade (in blacks and whites) 2.) Roman Slave Trade 3.) Aztec/Tlaxcalan "120 year trade in humans as meat" 4.) Trans-Atlantic Trade 5.) Muslim trade in defeated Hindu Indians 6.) Barbary Slave Trade Should I keep going?"

Wilfred Reilly

 

 

 "The Arab Slave Trade was 17 million, the Barbary Trade another 2-3. Glad to drop sources. Note the dodgy "colonialism means ships" language, where "forced (specifically) maritime migration" was subbed in for "slave trade." The Arabs just cut your cock off and made you walk across the Sahara, sure."

Wilfred Reilly

 https://x.com/calumdouglas1/status/2037669252287627300?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

"Slavery began in large form soon after humans first began to settle into collective organized groups large enough to be called what we could call towns (this refers to the number of people involved not the sophistication of the buildings). However scholars state that slaves probably existed in small numbers even before this. This occured absolutely everywhere on earth, later vast numbers were taken by Arabs, where extremely large numbers died as many of them were required for Hareems (Islamic designated areas for Women only) where the males had to be eunuchs so they did not interfere with the Arab women. The Arab slave traders cut off the genitals with knives and the ones still alive once they`d walked over the desert to the ships were taken away. The huge attrition rate was irrelevant as the price paid for Eunuchs was enough to offset those who bled to death in the sand for whom very little had been paid. So they simply took far more than were needed, knowing that the final price was worth it, and was far less effort than looking after those medically who had been mutilated. Some alternatively had their genitals cut off in designated rooms at the ports, and were simply thrown overboard when they died. When Europeans arrived, they didnt even have to travel inland or "take" slaves, as they simply contacted the african warlords who were already selling slaves from local rival tribes, the Europeans were merely the latest buyers to arrive. It is estimated that about 90% of all slaves Europeans removed from Africa, were simply purchased upon arrival there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa The first nations to decide that this was no longer tenable were Iceland and Norway, however these were internal policies with no external effects, more serious measures were taken by Haiti and Denmark, who actually included abolition of the transatlantic trade. Britain began stopping the trade with the The Slave Trade Act of 1807. Later the British Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 represented the FIRST legislative act in the world, which not only began the process of banning the internal use of slaves, AND the trade, but also included active external use of military force to STOP the practise elsewhere. The British expended significant military effort stopping the trade, and then eventually bought the freedom of the slaves in our lands, at immense cost in 1833, the loan was only paid off in 2015. (per correction by the author, this should be 2014) The British nation at the time spent the about 2% GDP for a considerable time on stopping slavery. About three thousand Royal Navy personell were involved in this interdiction effort. It is difficult to make exact figures, but the largest slave users in known history since reasonable records began was the Roman Empire, with about 10 to 15 million slaves at the peak of the empire in captivity, which were mostly white European in origin with countless nationalties, including Britons, Germans, Greeks and Spaniards, some africans were also used. https://unrv.com/slavery.php The second most prolific users of slaves were Arab/Islamic nations, with about 11 > 18 million slaves in use, spanning well over a thousand years of exploitation. These were taken from Africa, India and Europe, and included many white europeans. https://soamibooks.com/post/the-islamic-slave-trade-unveiling-a-forgotten-chapter-in-history The third was the Portuguese Empire, which is estimated to have taken about 6 million slaves from Africa specifically. https://statista.com/statistics/1150477/number-slaves-taken-by-national-carriers/ The forth was the British empire which took about 3 million slaves, mostly from Africa over about 170 years. https://slaveryandremembrance.org/articles/article/?id=A0002 The fifth was the French empire, which took about a million slaves, mostly from Africa. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/transatlantic-slave-trade-the/ Unlike the Arabian and Islamic nations who used slaves for well over a thousand years, Britain in just 170 years went from using slavery, to banning and then bring the first to militarily enforce this ban internationally. We do not know exactly how many black Africans over time were enslaved by other black Africans for use internally within Africa, but we know it was utterly endemic to the societies there, and was was vast in scope. Estimates range from 25% to 75% of Africans in different parts of Africa for a large period in history existed on some level essentially as slaves to other Africans, although some had better life conditions than others and in some regions could expect after a long period of service to possibly be released. https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/africanpassageslowcountryadapt/introductionatlanticworld/slaverybeforetrade I hope this leaves you marginally better informed about this terrible period in human history, which, is still very much ongoing in many parts of the world today."

 

 https://x.com/CalumDouglas1/status/2037673974331789706

 "The notion that "the slave trade drive the industrial revolution in Britain" is not supported by the data, Slavery profits peaked at about 0.2 to 0.5% GNP at the absolute peak of the slave trade in Britain, and were mostly centred around cotton. It was therefore a measuable, but actually small part of the Industrial Revolution."

 

 

 
To single out one relatively short lived aspect of the "slave trade" for censure, while failing to do anything about actual enslaved people in 2026 is the kind of hypocrisy we have come to expect from the UN.