Insane: Santa Monica College Students Married The Ocean—And Got Intimate With It

Campus Reform has this bizarre tale from Santa Monica College, where the “EcoSexual Extravaganza” took place earlier this month. Students married the ocean and “made love with the water” in order to foster a greater love for the Earth. Some attendees even explained the importance of consent regarding beginning a “physical relationship” with the planet:

Amber Katherine, a philosophy professor who helped organize the May 14 event, explained to Campus Reform that the purpose of the “wedding” was to bring about a deeper love for the planet through “ecocentric passion and even lust.”


Some students then made their way down to the water, where they were urged by event organizers to “consummate” the marriage and “make love with the water.”

“Stick your toes in the water … or any part of your body that you want.”

The event, according to Professor Katherine, “was funded by a number of campus organizations” with the main sponsor being the University’s Public Policy Institute chapter.

I’ll just leave this here:

That’s a, uh—interesting day at the beach, I guess.

Chairman McCaul: Senate Could Solve TSA Problem Today ‘If They Would Act’ on My Bills

House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul has been making the media rounds lately calling out the Obama administration for their lackluster anti-terror efforts. ISIS is still “on the march,” he said during a speech at George Washington University last week. In his remarks, he also explained that aviation security is our most vulnerable and important aspect of national security.

On the same note, the chairman is sounding off on the long wait times in airlines across the country. Security is paramount, but we don’t need to have two-three hour long security lines, he insisted during an appearance on Fox News on Thursday.

“TSA just doesn’t get,” McCaul told Fox’s Bill Hemmer on Thursday. “I don’t think they’re listening.”

Congress, however, is also to blame, the chairman said. These headaches could be easily alleviated if the Senate passes his two bills. 

“We have two bills sitting in the Senate—one to deal with PreCheck expansion in the program, to take these long lines and put them into PreCheck lines—and another one to reform TSA and they’re just sitting over there in the Senate and they’re not taking action. They could help resolve this problem today if they would act. We also have a bill we’re introducing today to deal with this local input issue to mandate that they talk to the airlines and the airport authorities about when the flights are coming in.”

Airports are right to be on edge after the disappearance of EgyptAir flight 804. Yet, keeping families standing in line for hours on end does not seem like an efficient use of time. We should be holding airlines to a high safety standard, but we should be doing it in ways that make sense. 

The Senate should start with McCaul's legislation.

Bloomberg News: So, Romney Is Giving A Third Party Bid Another Look

Like a pinball machine, Mitt Romney might be considering (again) to jump into the 2016 ring by running as an independent. Earlier this month, the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 candidate met with The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, where a third party bid was discussed. Kristol is one of the many conservatives in the Never Trump camp, despite the billionaire real estate magnate clinching the number of delegates needed to become the 2016 Republican nominee. Politico’s Mike Allen had noted in Playbook that there was a 50-50 chance that Romney, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), or former Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn would run as an independent. Sasse and Romney reportedly said they were not considering a third party bid, but Kristol said that he might be coming around to it on Bloomberg Politics’ Masters in Politics podcast:

The Weekly Standard editor said on Bloomberg Politics' Masters in Politics podcast that Romney, who has been highly critical of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, is contemplating a third-party White House run. Kristol, one of the most prominent Republicans in the “Never Trump” camp, said that while Romney initially ruled out another presidential bid, he may be coming around to the idea.

“The real last chance here is with Mitt Romney, who has said ‘no’ but who I think is thinking seriously about it,” Kristol said. “He is a very serious person, he really knows that Trump should not be president of the United States. He strongly believes that Hillary Clinton should not be president of the United States.”

Reached via e-mail, a Romney spokesperson declined to comment on Kristol's assertion.

Kristol said he believes that a general-election matchup between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump sets the stage for a third-party candidate like Romney, 69, to have a legitimate shot at winning.


Kristol discussed the fact that Romney has expressed reservations about entering the race. “I spoke to him about three weeks ago, and we talked more generally about the situation. I expressed that I'd of course be for him, against Clinton and Trump,” Kristol said. “He had the very sensible reaction and he said this publicly, ‘Look you know, it's someone else's turn. Surely it would be better if a young person comes on and says, I'm carrying this banner here.’”

Still, Romney is drawn to the prospect of offering himself up as an alternative to Trump and Clinton, according to Kristol. “I think he thinks someone should do it,” Kristol said. “And I think that he thinks that maybe he is the right person to do it. He has the national stature and name ID, access to resources.”

Romney did have a somewhat solid showing in a poll showing a three-way race. Clinton led 37/35/22 over Trump and Romney respectively.

Still, there are questions about ballot access, which would mean that Romney would have to piggyback on smaller parties that already have that access, and convince the leadership of those respective parties to be accomplices in stopping Trump. Yet, there’s also the most obvious reason. In 2012, Romney ran against the eminently beatable Obama and lost. Moreover, the Democrats are divided as ever right now—why would we want to invite that on our side with a third party bid that would only end splitting the conservative movement down the middle? These are the cards we’ve been dealt—some of us may not like it, but there it is. Trump is our nominee. Instead of focusing on other right-leaning alternatives for 2016, why not focus that attention on attacking Hillary? The words President Hillary Clinton should scare conservatives to death. You don’t have to be for Trump, but you should at least devote ample time to attack the candidate whose agenda we all know she’d implement on day one in the Oval Office. You don’t have to fall in love with Trump, but third party bids are rarely successes. Maybe it’s time for us to focus less on Never Trump (because he’s already crossed the 1,237 delegate mark) and move aggressively into the Anti-Hillary camp.

Disney CEO: Hey Bernie Sanders, How Many Jobs Have You Created?

Disney CEO Bob Iger was not happy with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders' comments that his company isn't paying his workers a living wage. In a (private) Facebook post, Iger slammed Sanders and pointed out that Disney has created thousands of jobs in the United States.

Iger is a supporter of Hillary Clinton.

In a private Facebook message on Tuesday, Iger, a supporter of Sanders’ Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton, wrote:

“To Bernie Sanders: We created 11,000 new jobs at Disneyland in the past decade, and our company has created 18,000 in the US in the last five years. How many jobs have you created? What have you contributed to the US economy?”

California's primary is June 7. At least one poll shows the two candidates are nearly tied. Clinton has to score big in California if she hopes to officially clinch the Democratic nomination.

Rep. Rohrabacher: I Use Medical Marijuana To Treat My Arthritis

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has admitted to using medical marijuana to treat pain in his hands caused by arthritis. According to Rohrbacher, it worked very well and he was able to sleep without pain for the first time in quite a while.

Marijuana is legal for recreational and medicinal use in D.C., and is legal for medicinal use in California. Rohrabacher has been a longtime proponent of legalizing marijuana. The representative used a marijuana-infused wax treatment to treat his pain.

From CNN:

Speaking to NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Rohrabacher said Tuesday that he used a topical cannabis treatment that got rid of pain he'd been experiencing for over a year.

"I tried it two weeks ago, and it's the first time in a year and a half that I had a decent night's sleep because the arthritis pain was gone," Rohrabacher told the audience, who applauded.

Rohrabacher says that his arthritis developed after decades of surfing and that he hasn't been able to surf since the pain developed.

"I went to one of these hemp fests in San Bernardino," he told the crowd. "It's a candle, and you light the candle, and the wax is in there, and it melts down, and you rub it on whatever you've got problems with.

"There's definitely cannabis in there, and it makes sure I can sleep now," he said.

California is likely voting this November (along with Maine) to fully legalize marijuana for both recreational and medicinal uses. Medical marijuana is currently legal in a majority of states in some form to treat a selection of illnesses.

Dutch Government Rules That Movement to Boycott Israel Is 'Free Speech'

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is an effort to pressure Israel to give up land that supposedly belongs to Palestinians. The anti-Semitic campaign is not, however, just limited to the Middle East - it has been sweeping America's college campuses at an alarming rate and is gaining traction in Europe. 

Israeli leaders, who had been trying to convince Europe to outlaw the movement, will be especially unnerved by Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders' latest announcement.

“Statements or meetings concerning BDS are protected by freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as enshrined in the Dutch Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights,” Koenders said Thursday during a debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the Dutch parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee in The Hague.

In his explanation, Koenders said the Netherlands opposes a boycott of Israel, but that the right to endorse the movement is protected under freedom of expression.

Israel Foreign Ministry Spokesman Emmanuel Nachshon, however, pushed back against that argument. There has to be some kind of limit, he insisted, when it comes to hate speech.

“Once free speech becomes a pretext for allowing hate speech, then it is no longer legitimate,” Nachshon said.

European governments should be discouraging, not giving ammunition to anti-Israel movements like BDS. For what it's worth, the White House has not exactly come out strongly against the campaign either. As Israel's friend, America's disapproval of BDS should be a no-brainer. 

So, a question: To whom can Israel look for support? 

Video: Under Federal Investigation, Clintonite McAuliffe's Story Falls Apart

We learned this week that Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, the former DNC Chairman and close Clinton ally, is under active federal investigation. At least one issue under scrutiny is a donation to McAuliffe's 2013 gubernatorial campaign received from a wealthy Chinese businessman who previously served as a delegate to the Communist country's show parliament. The governor's team has insisted that he did nothing wrong, and that the contributions were legal because the man in question holds a US green card (in case you'd forgotten, McAuliffe has a checkered history with Chinese nationals and green cards). Considering that the feds' probe stretches back to 2015, one might concluded that there's more "there" there than McAuliffe suggests, especially given his rapid shifting story about the nature and extent of his relationship with Wang Wenliang. At first, the governor claimed he couldn't recall ever meeting the man (timeline via America Rising):

This all has "nothing to do with" the Clintons' so-called charity/slush fund, he says, even though the investigation has reportedly examined his conduct in connection with the Clinton Global Initiative.  After the New York Times debunked the 'not sure if I've even met him' spin, McAuliffe's tune abruptly changed.  Actually, maybe there were some short conversations after all. Perhaps over coffee:

He also insisted there were "zero" personal ties between himself and Mr. Wang. Which brings us to the kicker.  Please enjoy the exquisiteness of this Time magazine scoop:

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe invited the Chinese businessman whose donations to him have been named as a focus of Justice Department investigators to a 2013 fundraiser at Hillary Clinton’s personal Washington, D.C., residence. Wang Wenliang, a Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency, briefly shook Clinton’s hand at the Sept. 30 event, a representative for Wang told TIME. An American company controlled by Wang made a $60,000 contribution to McAuliffe’s campaign three weeks before the fundraiser. Less than a month later, a separate Wang company pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the first of several donations that eventually totaled $2 million. The fundraiser was one of at least three interactions between Wang and McAuliffe, according to the businessman’s representative. McAuliffe initially told reporters this week he could not remember ever meeting Wang, though he later clarified that his staff had informed him of several likely meetings. “I did no deals,” McAuliffe said Wednesday in a radio interview. “I would not know the man if he sat in the chair next to me.”

Oops. Terry and his old pal Hillary are on quite the veracity-impaired roll this week. I'll leave you with this, just for fun:


Gawker Publishes 3,500-word Article About Donald Trump's Hair

Senior Gawker journalist Ansley Feinberg has written an in-depth story suggesting that Donald Trump’s hairstyle is the result of an expensive “microcylinder” treatment used to disguise thinning or balding hair. Entitled “Is Donald Trump’s Hair a $60,000 Weave?,” the investigative report is 3,479 words long, or about 14 pages double spaced.

After receiving a tip claiming that Trump received this microcylinder intervention, Feinberg began investigating the one clinic that performs the treatment—Ivari International. She discovered that, according to a website page from 1997, the company had a location in Trump Tower—on Donald Trump’s personal, private floor. The company now lists its only public location as Paris, perhaps owing to the multiple American lawsuits it has been subjected to over the years. Its founder, Edward Ivari, has no medical degree, and one judge called the treatment nothing more than “exorbitantly priced hairpieces” and “the functional equivalent of wigs”—violating the company’s claim that its results are indistinguishable from natural hair.

The microcylinder treatment consists of attaching strands of donor hair to the client’s scalp with thread and metal clamps. The initial treatment is $60,000 and requires $3,000 touch-ups every six weeks.

Gersh Kuntzman, author of Hair! Mankind’s Historic Quest to End Baldness, weighed in on Freidman’s article in the New York Daily News. While he has an overall positive opinion of the piece, he calls Friedman’s evidence for the microcylinder treatment “circumstantial” and argues that Trump’s hair is likely a hair transplant. The evidence he gives is what is visible in many videos of Trump: “a forest of individual strands spaced in a clear pattern along the hairline.” He notes, however, that the Ivari International link may still be accurate, as the company performs hair transplants as well.

While covering the ostensibly trivial subject of Trump’s hair in such depth might seem misguided given the seriousness of Trump’s candidacy—as of today, he has received enough delegates to be the official, rather than the presumptive, Republican nominee—it is undeniable that image plays a crucial role in a candidate’s campaign. Many believe that the reason John F. Kennedy won over Richard Nixon was that Kennedy looked healthier and more attractive in the televised debate. Hair in particular has been a telling predictor in presidential races, with voters overwhelmingly voting against bald or balding candidates. Only five presidents have fallen into this category, and of these, only one—Dwight D. Eisenhower—has been elected in modern times.

Trump himself seems aware of the crucial importance of hair among the electorate. Frequently at campaign events, he has supporters touch and pull at his hair to prove it is his own, rather than a wig or a toupee. As Feinberg and Kuntzman point out, however, this test is not foolproof: both hair implants and the microcylinder treatment would react like normal hair.

Given the importance of image in the electorate, Trump’s hair will likely continue to fuel media speculation. Even 3,500 words is not enough to exhaust interest in the topic.

Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos Visited DePaul University, Social Justice Warriors Went Indiscriminately Insane

On Tuesday, the outspoken Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart News visited DePaul University, which devolved into a total fiasco when Black Lives Matter activists hijacked the event. Heat Street reported that this was part of Yiannopoulos’ “Dangerous Faggot” speaking tour, which sends social justice warriors’ blood pressure through the roof since Milo is unapologetic about his stances on anti-feminism, race, and free speech. In other words, he’s injecting some reality into the student bodies of these various campuses for showing them that there are other views in the world, some of which they may not like. Nevertheless, event devolved into chaos, with one Black Lives Matter activist ripping the microphone from the moderator and shouting at Yiannopoulos, who appeared calm and collected. The reason for the disruption: Mr. Yiannopoulos spreads hate speech, or something (via The College Fix):

Roughly 15 minutes into Yiannopoulos’s kickoff question-and-answer session with a CR member about his recent controversies and political statements, a once-homeless student and youth activist named Edward Ward marched up the aisle blowing a whistle. Ten to 15 protesters headed for the stage to join Ward.

After seeing that administrators weren’t doing anything, some pro-Yiannopoulos attendees went on stage to argue with the protesters.

During the argument, Yiannopoulos called a black Republican student, Kati Danforth, up to the stage. That didn’t help the situation: When Danforth tried to reason with the protesters, they shouted her down.

Following minutes of arguing between the two groups, CRs President Nicole Been announced that anyone on stage would be removed upon the arrival of Chicago police, whom campus security had called for help.

But when Chicago police arrived, they did not remove protesters, though administrators made faint attempts to talk to them.

Milo also paid $1000 for security, which did nothing to remove the unruly protesters from the grounds. He also reportedly got into a tense exchange with Ward, where graphic language was hurled and threats of violence were made (via Heat Street):

Before the event DePaul asked Milo him to pay $1,000 for security costs—only, he points out, to then fail to intervene when his tormentors stormed the stage. He told Heat Street: “I will be asking for my money back.

“What I’m surprised by is that the security, which I paid a thousand dollars for otherwise they threatened they would cancel [the event], refused to remove somebody from the stage who threatened to hit me. It’s so shocking, It’s a whiny loser’s move to sue but I want my money back. It’s up to them if they give me the money back but I will publish articles asking for it back.


“The extent to which Black Lives Matter is counter-productive to its own cause is incredible. They have no understanding of no political strategy. I’m happy for them to do it because it furthers my objective.”

Milo unsurprisingly rejected the accusation made to Heat Street by protest ringleader Edward Ward that Milo had threatened his safety: “It’s pretty obvious whose safety was at risk. This idea that making jokes about feminism could prompt a massacre is plainly preposterous.”

Milo said Ward had reacted unfavorably to his provocative compliments on his appearance: “He threatened to hit me because I said, ‘If you weren’t such an obnoxious c**t, I might even hit on you’, as he was prowling the stage. He walked up to me and said, ‘Don’t f**king try me, I’ll lay you out.’ ”

Milo added: “I don’t want it [the disruption] to happen. I would much rather finish the event because I had a lot of good jokes that 550 people didn’t get to see. That was irritating but when it does happen, it doesn’t exactly do any damage.”

Heat Street added that DePaul President Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider had apologized to Yiannopoulos, and that he was “ashamed” for his institution that this event was shut down. As Reason’s Robby Soave noted, Milo is a Trump supporter. I’m not a huge fan of the billionaire, but Mr. Trump and his supporters have every right to hold rallies, town halls, and other speaking engagements without disruption. Milo is right in the sense that Tuesday’s fiasco only helps the real estate magnate.

That being said, speaking in generalities, liberals need to also understand that hate speech is free speech. Now, you can still challenge those ideas that fall within the realm of neo-Nazism (or any view you find offensive) since they’re truly awful, but acting like an idiot, shutting down public venues, and rioting, as we’ve seen from the left regarding Trump-related events doesn’t help anyone.

Oh, and to boot—this was reportedly shouted at Milo at the event:

Bravo, liberals … bravo.

Liberal insanity didn’t just occur this week. In April DePaul’s Black Student Union went so far as to accuse the College Republican chapter of a hate crime for engaging in pro-Trump chalkings across campus.

Donald Trump Press Conference: "It's Good World Leaders are Rattled...Americans Should Profit from Pipeline"

Donald Trump gave his first press conference since reaching 1,238 delegates in the Republican primary, a feat that some declared impossible.  

There was plenty of headlines from the event in North Dakota, including a response to "rattled" world leaders, an offer to debate Bernie Sanders, and claims that Elizabeth Warren is in no shape or form Native American.

He first responded to news that Barack Obama made earlier on Thursday in which he said that world leaders are "rattled' by the rise of Trump.

He then reaffirmed his position on debating Bernie Sanders. 

He also raised the idea that American people should be given a piece of the profits from the Keystone pipeline.  

Trump upset some of the reporters in the crowd when he called Elizabeth Warren 'Pocahontas.'  

"I think she's as Native American as I am," he said.

Tears of Gratitude: West Point Cadet Born in Haiti Cries During Graduation

Alix Idrache, who was born in Haiti, did something he never imagined this week: He graduated from West Point.

No greater feeling than that of accomplishment! #DutyHonorCountry (@usarmy photo by: Staff Sgt. Vito T. Bryant)

A photo posted by U.S. Military Academy (@westpoint_usma) on

"I want to thank everyone for your kind and thoughtful comments on this picture. SSG Bryant captured a moment that I will never forget. At this moment, I was overwhelmed with emotions. Three things came to mind and led to those tears. The first is where I started. I am from Haiti and never did I imagine that such honor would be one day bestowed on me. The second is where I am. Men and women who have preserved the very essence of the human condition stood in that position and took the same oath. Men who preserved the Union is a dark period of this country's history. Men who scaled the face of adversity and liberated Europe from fascism and nazism. Women like CPT Griest, LT Haver, MAJ Jaster who rewrote the narrative and challenged the status quo to prove themselves worthy of being called Rangers. The third is my future," Idarche wrote in the comment section on the photo. "Shortly after leave, I will report to FT. Rucker to start flight school. Knowing that one day I will be a pilot is humbling beyond words. I could not help but be flooded with emotions knowing that I will be leading these men and women who are willing to give their all to preserve what we value as the American way of life. To me, that is the greatest honor. Once again, thank you."

Incredible. If only we could all be so grateful.

SSPX Inching Closer to Full Communion?

Reports are suggesting that the quasi-schismatic group Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) may be closer to re-entering full communion with the Vatican. The group has been in a "canonically irregular" situation since 1988, when their founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordaining four bishops without Vatican approval. While the excommunications were lifted in 2009, and Pope Francis said that the society has the ability to perform licit and valid confessions during the Year of Mercy, relations with the Vatican have remained frosty as of late. This, however, may be changing.

The group is hesitant to accept some Vatican II teachings. Recently, their leader Bishop Fellay met with Pope Francis in a private audience.

The recognition of the Second Vatican Council is "not an unreasonably high hurdle” to overcome, he said, adding that it was rather “the adequate remedy to enter into full communion with the Pope and the bishops in communion with him.”

The CDF prefect further asserted that Pope Francis’ relationship to the SSPX does not differ from that of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. "He sees this and similar groups as Catholic, but still on the way towards full Catholic unity."

Earlier this month, Pope Francis hinted reconciliation could be close, telling the French Catholic daily La Croix May 16 that the SSPX are “Catholics on the way to full communion” and that “good dialogue and good work are taking place.”

He also received Bishop Fellay for the first time in a private audience last month, and told La Croix he is “a man with whom one can dialogue.”

This would be huge, if true. SSPX has been in an awkward situation for nearly three decades, and any steps towards reuniting with Rome can be considered a big deal for traditional-minded Catholics. Tridentine Mass, which is celebrated by SSPX priests, has been making an unprecedented comeback since the 2007 apostolic letter by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI permitting its use. Let's pray that these issues are resolved in the near future.

No HuffPo, Jesus Christ Was Not Transgendered

The Huffington Post seems to have become a cesspool of nonsense lately. I don’t mean their reporting—we know it has a left leaning tilt, but that actually is (at times) worth reading. I’m talking about their blogging community, which has veered into insanity land. First, we have a blogger saying that the Second Amendment should be revised, and that self-defense somehow perverts the right to a fair trial:

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right to a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.

Now, we have this rather absurd notion that Jesus Christ was transgendered. No, I’m not kidding, folks—someone actually wrote this in response to the latest entrée of debate served to us by the left regarding bathroom laws that they feel unfairly target transgendered Americans:

The worst offenders are the Christian’s who claim to take the Bible literally. Of course they don’t actually do that; they impose their own filters on stories and phrases to fit their particular ideology. If they really did as they claim to do, they would quickly see that Jesus must be, by their own exegetical rules, the first transgender male.


The teaching of the church from ancient days through today is that Jesus received his fleshly self from Mary. The church also teaches that Jesus is the new Adam, born of the new Eve.

Now Eve is a fascinating creature for many reasons. The Bible tells us she is the first example of human cloning, which I touched on in this post. But the fun doesn’t stop there. If we take the Genesis account in it’s literal meaning, as conservative Christians demand that we do, she is also the first case of a transgender woman. God reached into Adam, pulled out a bit of rib bone, and grew Eve from that XY DNA into Adam’s companion. She was created genetically male, and yet trans-formed into woman.

Then along comes Jesus and the whole pattern is both repeated and reversed. The first couple’s refusal to cooperate is turned around by Mary’s yes, and the second act of cloning occurs. The Holy Spirit comes upon the second Eve, and the child takes flesh from her and is born. Born of her flesh. Born with XX chromosome pairing. Born genetically female, and yet trans-formed into man.


A quick look at the dictionary for the prefix “trans” tells us that it means “across,” “beyond,” “through,” and “changing thoroughly,” all of which are great terms for the person of Christ. He cuts across all boundaries. He is beyond our understanding. He is through all and in all. He changes us thoroughly into new creations.

Brandon Morse over at our sister site RedState had a good response to this:

The asininity is astounding, and I’ll clear this up quick. Jesus is NOT trans. As I said before, the universal principles that govern nature – that He set – are pretty absolute. In order for a woman to give birth, she first needs the seed of a male to impregnate her. Hall completely dismisses that the Holy Spirit was that seed in this scenario, and says simply that he “came upon her,” and that an “act of cloning” occurred.

Jesus is not a clone of Mary, just as any child is not a clone of their parent. Christ is the offspring of Mary, and God. While the impregnation wasn’t sexual, the laws of nature were still followed. There was a seed given to Mary who bore Christ in her womb, gave birth, and raised Him as her son. One thing led to another, and the man changed universal law at his Father’s behest.

The best part about the “Jesus is trans” post is that the author seems to place her own filter on biblical interpretation, while criticizing Christians for allegedly doing the same.

I’m not the most religious person, but this seems to be a stretch. There are many ways to argue for and against the recent spat over laws that dictate which bathrooms transgender Americans can use in public—trying to say Jesus was trans is probably not the most effective talking point in this debate.

Listen: Tom Cotton Goes on Epic Rant Against Harry Reid

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton took the Senate floor earlier this week to say what we've all been thinking for years:  Harry Reid is a jerk. 

"I'm forced to listen to the bitter, vulgar, incoherent ramblings of the minority leader," Cotton said. "Normally, like every other American, I ignore them. I can't ignore them today." 

Reid's "bitter, vulgar, incoherent ramblings" that prompted Cotton's response revolve around the defense bill, which Reid claims was "written in the dead of night," even though it's been public for weeks.

"The happy by-product of fewer days in session in the Senate is that this institution will be cursed less with his cancerous leadership," Cotton concluded.


CAIR Releases New Ad Promoting Islamaphobia Medicine

Enough with you racists and bigots who believe that Islam is fundamental liability to the advancement of human kind, Islamophobin is here to cure you of your disease.  

This is the premise of a new satirical video created by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Washington Post Editorial Board Skewers Hillary Clinton Over Email Lies

Yesterday the State Department Inspector General released a damning report showing former Secretary Hillary Clinton broke a number of policies and violated federal records laws through her use of a private email server to conduct all of her government business. 

Guy broke down the report, and the many Clinton lies proven in the findings, and now the Washington Post editorial board is calling the Democrat presidential candidate's private email use "inexcusable" and a "willful disregard for the rules."

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 has been justifiably criticized as an error of judgment. What the new report from the State Department inspector general makes clear is that it also was not a casual oversight. Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods, so as to make sure that her records were properly preserved and to minimize cybersecurity risks. She ignored them.

There is no excuse for the way Ms. Clinton breezed through all the warnings and notifications. While not illegal behavior, it was disturbingly unmindful of the rules. In the middle of the presidential campaign, we urge the FBI to finish its own investigation soon, so all information about this troubling episode will be before the voters.

Yesterday the Clinton campaign attempted and failed to do damage control. First, a statement was released declaring the former Secretary did nothing wrong. 

"While political opponents of Hillary Clinton are sure to misrepresent this report for their own partisan purposes, in reality, the Inspector General documents [show] just how consistent her email practices were with those of other Secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email. The report shows that problems with the State Department's electronic record keeping systems were longstanding and that there was no precedent of someone in her position having a State Department email account until after the arrival of her successor. Contrary to the false theories advanced for some time now, the report notes that her use of personal email was known to officials within the Department during her tenure, and that there is no evidence of any successful breach of the Secretary's server. We agree that steps ought to be taken to ensure the government can better maintain official records, and if she were still at the State Department, Secretary Clinton would embrace and implement any recommendations, including those in this report, to help do that. But as this report makes clear, Hillary's use of personal email was not unique, and she took steps that went much further than others to appropriately preserve and release her records," the Clinton campaign released Wednesday.

Then, the State Department addressed the report during the daily press briefing. 

And finally, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon made an appearance on Special Report to try and explain away the IG findings.

Bottom line: Hillary Clinton put her personal desire to avoid transparency, oversight and scrutiny above the national security of the United States. She is unfit to be president.

Couric's Director: We Made Gun Owners Look Like Idiots So Viewers Could Consider Background Checks...Or Something

Yesterday, Pavlich wrote about Katie Couric being busted for deceptively editing her group interview with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Couric has a new anti-gun documentary, Under the Gun, and it seems the folks behind this piece of propaganda were doing everything they can to make pro-gun activists look like idiots. In the clip, Couric asking “if there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons, or terrorists, from walking into a licensed gun dealer and purchasing a gun?” The feature shows seconds of silence as to insinuate that Couric has stumped them. It’s pure unadulterated crap, as Stephen Gutowski of the Free Beacon pointed out with the unexpurgated audio clip that took place.

Yet, have no fear, folks. The makers of this documentary didn’t mean to make them look like thoughtless troglodytes. In fact, The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple noted that the statement that sought to clarify the editing seemed to a) admit to it as such and b) was probably one of the most pathetic excuses ever to give for engaging in such behavior. This is how director Stephanie Soechtig explained the omission of the VCDL audio [emphasis mine]:

“There are a wide range of views expressed in the film. My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans’ opinions on background checks. I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way.”

Wemple was not impressed, especially how Couric reacted to the controversy [bold text highlights Couric’s statement]:

In the years we’ve covered and watched media organizations, we’ve scarcely seen a thinner, more weaselly excuse than the one in the block above. For starters, it appears to count as an admission that this segment of the documentary was edited. The artistic “pause” provides the viewer not a “moment to consider this important question”; it provides viewers a moment to lower their estimation of gun owners. That’s it. As far as the rest of the statement, adults in 2016 may no longer write the phrase “apologize if anyone felt that way” and preserve their standing as professionals. To compound matters, here’s the accompanying statement from Couric:

I support Stephanie’s statement and am very proud of the film.”

That, from the Katie Couric of Yahoo News, of “CBS Evening News,” of “60 Minutes,” of the “Today” show and so on.

Many of those who sampled the discrepancy between the video and the audiotape were already enraged by the depiction of these gun owners. The statements from Soechtig and Couric will surely intensify the backlash, as well they should. An apology, retraction, re-editing, whatever it is that filmmakers do to make amends — all of it needs to happen here.

Oh yes, all of this definitely needs to happen. Moreover, these dirty tricks anti-gunners deploy because the facts, laws, and public are not on their side only further discredit their grossly unconstitutional crusade to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

For starters, the question itself is ridiculous since it’s predicated on the idea that background checks actually stop felons and terrorists from obtaining firearms—they don’t. Second, the film seems to be heavily centered on the outrageous debate of stripping Americans’ civil rights based on mere suspicion. The trailer for the film begins with the documentarians asking NRA members that people on the terror watch list can’t board a plane, but can buy a gun. Yes, sounds bad—but the real question is how does one actually get on the list? Moreover, how do you find out you’re on the list? And if you’ve discovered you’re on the list, what’s the process of getting oneself removed from it since you’re not a terrorist? The answer: we don’t know. There’s no due process, which is why the American Civil Liberties Union has rightly slammed and filed a lawsuit over these government watch lists. The fact that anti-gun liberals want to codify a mechanism that strips one's rights away without due process is a disgrace.

I’m not alone on this one. Even the pro-gun control Los Angeles Times editorial board said that Americans on the terror watch list should be allowed to buy guns. Also, there’s no reason to panic. Yes, there are about 1.1 million people on the lists, but the vast majority on the list aren’t even American citizens, so they can’t buy guns here legally. By all estimates, there are less than 10,000 Americans on these lists. Oh, and it’s been riddled with inaccuracies and embarrassments. A simple Google search will bring you stories about children being flagged as no fly. An 18-month-old baby was removed from a Jet Blue flight in 2012, with numerous others under the age of 10 being cited for being part of the dark world of terrorism. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy was on a no-fly list, and The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes was on the list for merely flying to Turkey—that’s his guess.

This terror watch list talking point is another way for liberals to try an expand background checks, though they’re trying to do so by integrating possibly unconstitutional, and widely inaccurate, government no-fly lists into the National Instant Background Check System that will lead to innocent Americans losing their Second Amendment rights. The fact that liberals are even entertaining incorporating these lists into NICS, which are not transparent and lack due process, is horrifying—and is nothing more than cheap political theater. Couric’s documentary is exactly that—a grotesque manifestation if liberal smugness towards gun owners and the Second Amendment.

A moment of silence for viewers to reflect on the question—what balderdash.

UPDATE: For your enjoyment...

Senators to Loretta Lynch: No, You Cannot Punish Climate Change "Deniers"

Two months ago Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted during congressional testimony that Justice Department attorneys were looking into punishment for the fossil fuel industry and certain individuals, including academics and researchers. Their crime? Rejection or denial of climate change and therefore being opposed to President Obama's agenda on the issue. 

Today, five Republican Senators have sent a letter to Lynch reminding her that in America, we don't have thought police and the Justice Department doesn't have the power or authority to punish an entire industry because the people in it they think differently than the progressives in charge of the government.

"We write today to demand that the Department of Justice immediately cease its ongoing use of law enforcement resources to stifle private debate on one of the most controversial public issues of our time  --- climate change," the letter states. "As you well know, initiating criminal prosecution for a private entity's opinions on climate change is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and an abuse of power that rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct."

The letter also notes that Democrat Attorney Generals around the country have been issuing subpoenas to private companies, scientists and academic researchers demanding any and all documents referring to "climate change, greenhouse gases, carbon tax, or climate science." 

"These actions provide disturbing confirmation that government officials at all levels are threatening to wield the sword of law enforcement to silence debate on climate change," the letter states.

The Senators have asked the Department to end all investigations and inquiries into climate changes "deniers" within 14 days.

Disability Groups Angered Over Movie With Euthanasia Plot

(Warning: Spoilers for the upcoming film Me Before You up ahead)

Disability groups have started the hashtag #MeBeforeEuthanasia to voice outrage over the plot of the upcoming movie "Me Before You." The movie is about a wealthy man rendered quadriplegic in a motorcycle accident. Despite falling in love with his caregiver, the character chooses to end his life via assisted suicide.

Naturally, some in the disabled community are a bit ticked that a film promoted with the hashtag "#LiveBoldly" would effectively glorify euthanasia. They have been referring to the film as a "disability snuff movie," and protested outside of the theater hosting the movie's premier.

Other persons with disabilities have been sharing pictures of themselves "living boldy" counter to the ideas promoted in the film.

All life is precious. Promoting euthanasia is despicable.

MSNBC’s Brzezinski On Clinton Email Fiasco: ‘It Feels Like She’s Lying Straight Out’

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski went through the key points of Hillary Clinton’s totally avoidable email fiasco, noting that she said that having a private email system was allowed (it wasn’t), and responding to a question from a reporter last year about whether she wiped the server clean, which she flippantly answered, “like with a cloth.”

After the State Inspector General report noted that Clinton violated the Federal Records Act by deleting what she considered private emails, which numbered around 30,000—and that all emails should’ve been turned over to State when she left government service. The Clinton campaign, of course, says she didn’t do anything wrong.

“I really don’t want to be the one delivering this, but I got to tell you, this is really hard to believe," said Brzezinski. "It feels like she’s lying straight out." Andrea Mitchell, who was interviewed on the show, was asked point blank “is she lying?”

“I can’t say that…I mean, I would let the viewer. I would let the voter make those determinations, but it doesn’t hold up. There’s so many inconsistencies,” she said.

Mitchell did note correctly that the more the Clinton camp fights this, the more it remains in the news cycle. She added that pushing a non-credible argument on Clinton’s behalf isn’t the way to handle this situation that has been marinating for over a year. If Clinton had admitted to wrongdoing, and said it was a lack of judgment (which she somewhat alluded to, but then backtracked), then conventional wisdom is that most of the outrage would have blown over months ago. Yet, we then get into the national security aspect of it, where classified emails were sent unsecured, classified markers were removed (a federal crime) on those communications, and hackers were able to penetrate inside the system. The question of her having good judgment comes into play, which is something she does not want to fight Donald Trump on in a debate. At the same time, it’s probably going to happen anyway, though the best option for the Clinton camp, in their mind, is to avoid the press and fight this narrative with the typical “everyone is out to get me” talking point. That’s fine. But the wounds of this will continue to fester—and the notions of her being dishonest, untrustworthy, and non-transparent will also continue to permeate the electorate. It already has. On the Republican side, it’s the emails; for Sanders’ people, it’s probably more of her refusal to release her transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street banks. Both point and feed into Trump’s “Crooked Hillary” attacks. Yet, if it wasn’t emails, it was going to be something else since she’s a terrible candidate.

Oh, and the huge California primary that’s to be held on June 7 has Clinton and Sanders in a dead-heat.

Mitchell added that Clinton is going to clinch the nomination, but she wanted to win California and end her primary season on a high note. She’s not going to get that now.

“Bernie Sanders is giving her a huge challenge out here, I can tell you from just looking at the campaigning this week,” she said.

Trump to Bernie: Yes, I Accept Your Debate Challenge [UPDATE: Nevermind?]

That headline reads like a political fever dream, perhaps cooked up in the Saturday Night Live writers' room. But this is the 2016 presidential cycle, so of course it's real. Appearing on Jimmy Kimmel's late night talk show Wednesday (other guests reportedly canceled due to his presence in the line-up), presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump said he'd agree to a pre-California televised debate against Hillary Clinton's primary opponent -- the scrappy anti-establishment Socialist, Bernie Sanders -- if the proceeds went to charity. Putting aside Trump's incoherent ideology, uniquely poor temperament and sprawling ignorance, the man is a quick-on-his feet genius when it comes to marketing. Kimmel hits him with Sanders' unusual challenge, and Trump instantly figures out how to play the hand he's being dealt. Watch:

The Sanders campaign responded on Twitter almost immediately:

From Sanders' perspective, this is a no-lose situation.  Though he's destined to come up short in his party's "rigged" primary -- as Trump calls it in the clip, appealing to disenchanted Bernie voters -- this publicity stunt would likely generate enormous interest ahead of the final round of primary balloting.  The Vermont Senator would get to square off with a cartoonish capitalist, pound away at his campaign themes using Trump as an irresistible foil, and probably get the Republican nominee-in-waiting to accept a number of his premises on policy while he's at it.  He also trolls the hell out of Hillary Clinton, who's hunkered down in her paranoid bunker somewhere, reeling from new email scandal developments, hypocritically refusing to debate the man who's beaten her more than 20 times thus far, and characteristically avoiding the press.  The potential benefits for Trump are less clear.  If the debate occurs (Team Sanders is pushing hard for it; we'll see if Trump finds some trapdoor to avoid the spectacle he's just agreed to), he'll zestfully join in the Hillary needling.  He'd probably make several unsubtle appeals to Sanders' base along the way, emphasizing his concurrence with their angry contention that the Democratic nominating system is unfairly controlled by party elites, and congratulating Sanders for having the courage of his convictions to debate big issues in front of voters -- unlike you-know-who.  

If part of Trump's general election strategy is to pick off significant numbers of disgruntled former Bernie folks who may still be drawn to an outsider iconoclast up against Clinton, he'll have a chance to speak to them directly.  As fruitless as that play may prove to be, Trump might as well give it a whirl, especially if he continues to underperform among middle class rust belt voters.  One big question would be whether he'd manage to resist the temptation to insult Sanders, which could bait and anger the latter's supporters, perhaps helping unify the Left.  Getting needlessly personal would have little strategic value for Trump in that context, but neither does his continued dumping on fellow Republicans, including ones who've endorsed him.  Trump's gonna Trump.  The other potential upside here is the creation of a hyped-up, larger-than-life, made-for-TV event that showcases the celebrity billionaire cementing his image that he's a totally non-traditional politician running a wild campaign that would make high-dollar consultants pull their hair out.  Basically, he's still the showman, doing things on his terms; who cares what "they" say?  If Trump can battle to an approximate rhetorical draw against Bernie and avoid a damaging general election soundbyte or a clear loss, the optics of the event might look less like a weird sideshow between two fringe figures, and more like an appealing bipartisan middle finger to the aloof, ethically-compromised woman who embodies Washington's insular and entitled establishment.  There's a risk that this event could elevate her as the last serious candidate standing, sagaciously eschewing the silly fray.  But there's also a chance that it diminishes her, underscoring her incurable identify as a craven, out-of-touch pol.  Parting thought: Place your bets. Does this thing actually go down between now and June 7?  I'd say 70/30 'no,' which means it'll probably happen.

UPDATE - Hope you got your bets in quickly. This sounds like a 'LOL, jk' from Trumpworld:

Sanders' campaign is, fittingly,  keeping the faith against all odds:

I'm shifting to 95/5.

World Leaders, Along with Obama, Are 'Rattled' by Trump and the American People

Once again, like many Republican elitists, world leaders and even Barack Obama are ostracizing Donald Trump and his supporters as a small group of renegades that are merely in the way of their globalism experiment.  

During a press conference in Japan, Obama admitted that world leaders are “surprised” and “rattled” by the rise of Trump.

“I think it’s fair to say that they are surprised by the Republican nominee. They are not sure how seriously to take some of his pronouncements, but they’re rattled by him, and for good reason,” he said. “Because a lot of the proposals that he’s made display either ignorance of world affairs or a cavalier attitude or an interest in getting tweets and headlines instead of actually thinking through what it is that is required to keep America safe and secure and prosperous and what is required to keep the world on an even keel.”

Obama went on to reassure world leaders about America's intent to participate in international order. 

“The United States, as I said before, is at the heart of the international order,” he said.

He then took one last question but got upset when he realized the reporter was asking about the State Department’s inspector general report criticizing Hillary Clinton’s email practices.

“OK. You know what, I take it back, I’m not taking another question,” Obama said.

According to recent polls, more than half of voters prefer Trump over the already proclaimed third term "that we'd get" with Hillary Clinton.  Obama is showing that he is not only afraid of Trump, but also the majority of American people who do not want to see a third term interim president.   

One of the key points that Trump has made regarding Obama is that many Americans, including Trump, thought he would have at least been a great cheerleader for America.  However, Obama has only demeaned and excluded those who do not agree with his view of America.  

Gov. Nikki Haley Signs Bill Banning Abortions After 20 Weeks In South Carolina

Last week, the South Carolina legislature passed a bill that would’ve banned abortions after 19-20 weeks. Now, Gov. Nikki Haley has signed that into law (via the Hill):

The legislation, which offers exceptions only to women whose lives are threatened or if their fetus would not survive outside the womb, is considered the cornerstone of the anti-abortion movement's policy agenda in 2016.

The new law is almost certain to face a court challenge from abortion rights supporters, who argue such laws are unconstitutional.

Thirteen other states have also recently enacted 20-week bans, as has the House.

The Associated Press added that the law goes into effect immediately, with $10,000 fines and three years imprisonment for doctors who violate the law. They added that prison time is mandatory on a third conviction.

FRC Fumes Faith-Based Contractors Will Be ‘Punished’ After LGBT Amendment Passage

Update: The House has failed to pass the energy and water spending bill on Thursday that included the Maloney LGBT amendment, marking the second time in two weeks it was defeated.

Original Post 

Last Thursday, House Democrats vocally shamed Republicans for defeating an LGBT bill that would prevent employers from discriminating against homosexuals, according to the bill’s author Rep. Sean Maloney (D-NY), who is gay. Seven Republicans were leaning toward voting for the legislation but suddenly changed their minds, resulting in the bill being defeated by just one vote.

Yet, on Wednesday, Maloney tried a new strategy by tacking the bill onto the Energy and Water Appropriations Act. It worked. The bill passed 223-195.

House Speaker Paul Ryan insists the chaos that ensued last week was due to the confusion about the bill’s content.

“A bunch of members were misled as to what [last week's] amendment was or was not, what it was about," Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., said Wednesday. "A lot of people thought it was about bathrooms and guidance letters. And then the bill managers and the floor managers very legitimately thought it was going to take down the bill funding veterans in the military.”  

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins was frustrated with the bill’s passage, insisting in a new statement that it is just a “vehicle to elevate gender identity over faith–based hiring protections.”

"Congress should not allow the government to punish faith-based contractors, like the Salvation Army, that work and hire in accordance with their First Amendment freedoms. By itself, the administration could use Maloney's elevation of sexual orientation and gender identity for government contractors to gut long held religious freedom protections. This in turn, would strip faith-based contractors of contracts and result in job cuts and loss of services to those in need."

FRC was, however, encouraged by an amendment authored by Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL), which also passed on Wednesday. Bryne’s measure would help ensure Maloney’s amendment doesn’t violate the Religious Freedom Protection Act.

“The passage of Rep. Bradley Byrne's amendment is essential to continue to safeguard religious liberty protections for contractors,” Perkins said.

Family groups have had a lot to complain about lately. Earlier this month, the Obama administration enforced a bathroom mandate, which requires public schools to enforce transgender bathroom laws. Parents across the country pushed back against the ordinance they say would endanger their children's safety. 

Is Washington listening?

Good News: Cash-Flush Iran Sends $70 Million to Terrorist Group Islamic Jihad

Even though President Obama and John Kerry candidly admitted that the tens of billions in sanctions relief dollars that would flow to the Iranian regime as a result of his reckless and unpopular nuclear accord could be used to finance terrorism, other proponents spent a fair amount of effort downplaying those concerns. Lo and behold, Obama and Kerry's frank confessions have already proven correct.  How...totally unsurprising. Our new 'peace partners' have been the world's top state sponsor of international terrorism for years, and their deadly activity has persisted "undiminished" since the agreement was forged, according to the US State Department. A boon to Islamic Jihad, courtesy of Team Smart Power -- via the Jerusalem Post:

After a two-year cessation, Iran is attempting to bring Islamic Jihad back into its fold by renewing financial support for the Palestinian terror organization, sources affiliated with the organization told the London-based daily Arab newspaper a-Sharq al-Awsat on Wednesday. Iran's decision to re-embrace Islamic Jihad after two years of strained relations, came following a visit to Iran in April by a high-level delegation from the organization, led by Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Shalah. During his meetings with senior Iranian leaders and the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force Qassem Suleimani, Shalah lauded Iran for its exclusive support for the "Palestinian intifada." ...According to Suleimani's move, 70 million dollar of financial aid will now arrive directly from Revolutionary Guard's treasury to the Quds Brigades.

The story goes on to note that part of this maneuver appears a power play to influence Hamas, another terroristic beneficiary of Iran's lethal largesse, but the simple fact is that Tehran now has a much larger bank account with which to project its power and fund its malignant proxies. Congratulations, Islamic Jihad. It seems the "crazies" were right again.  Meanwhile, Adam Kredo reports that the Obama administration -- ever desperate to avoid provoking the Iranian regime in any way that could complicate the president's foreign policy legacy project -- has been looking the other way on human rights abuses, in violation of their public assurances leading up to the deal:

The Obama administration has not designated a single Iranian as a human rights abuser since finalizing last summer’s comprehensive nuclear agreement, despite rising abuse in the Islamic Republic, including state-sanctioned killings and the imprisonment of opposition figures. The administration’s hesitance to use sanctions as a tool to confront Iranian human rights abuses, despite past promises made to Congress, has prompted outrage on Capitol Hill among lawmakers who were given assurances the administration would act. A senior administration official admitted during questioning on Capitol Hill Wednesday that the U.S. has not sanctioned a single Iranian human rights abuser since the deal was finalized. The disclosure calls into question further administration promises to continue using sanctions as a tool to pressure Iran...Republicans and Democrats alike are now accusing the administration of misleading Congress about its commitment to sanctions and saying that it has avoided such designations in order to prevent the Iranian regime from walking away from the deal.

The story quotes a pro-Iran deal Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee effectively accusing the White House of a bait-and-switch: “We were assured that this would give us an opportunity to push back hard in these other areas because the danger of a nuclear Iran would be off the table, and I was very persuaded by that,” said David Cicilline (D-RI). Perhaps Rep. Cicilline hasn't been paying close attention to this administration's regard for Congress or record of adherence to oft-stated promises. Speaking of dissatisfied Democrats and Iran, here is California's Brad Sherman, a vocal opponent of the accord, pressing an administration figure on the maintenance of sanctions against the regime:

Cue the "warmonger" slime jobs from Team Obama's choreographed and well-funded "echo chamber."