Has the pope actually read the Bible? Honest question. God commands the death penalty. Moses wrote of it repeatedly. Paul said it is deserving. Jesus affirmed it is carried out by man under God’s authority.

That’s just repeating the approved narrative, and false. The “burglary“ was a (second) attempt to plant bugs in a suite/apartment used by the DNC for their convention. The first try planted bugs but they failed. It was managed by CREEP, and Nixon was not involved.

New: A Florida county discovered Flock cameras along its roads that officials didn’t know were there. No one has publicly claimed them. Who has operated them — and who has had access to their data — remains a mystery. washingtonpost.com/nation/20…

very zero-sum to always think in terms of how many jobs we need at a given moment

bad day to be a passport expediter

Vote No on Amendment 6

Is Missouri really a red state? Today on The Jennifer Bukowsky Show: SCOTUS kills Missouri’s 7–1 congressional map for 2026 🗳️ Why Amendment 6 could dramatically weaken the legislature 🏆 Golden Cabinet: Trump, China, Iran & the U.N. 🇮🇱 Netanyahu’s extraordinary U.N. speech + “Paging Hezbollah” 🚔 Cops accused of abusing Flock cameras to track women ⚖️ The class-action racket 📜 And September 27 in history Sunday, 10 AM–Noon. @939theeagle, @kwosnewsradio, @933KWTO Politics. Law. Culture. No boring parts.

Peter Thiel makes a very important point in his latest interview: we moralise far too much. Think German Energiewende. Thiel explains that moral judgement has increasingly replaced functional judgement. Instead of asking whether something actually works, we rush to classify it as morally good or evil. The confusion starts with the word “good”, because it has two completely different opposites: - The moral opposite of good is evil. - The functional opposite of good is bad. These are two entirely different axes. Yet public discourse increasingly folds them into one. Particularly the progressive left wants to occupy the moral high ground. So everyone virtue-signals — or pretends to, often without the slightest competence to judge the virtue in the first place. Enter the climate crisis. Too much CO₂ is declared evil. Overnight, everybody knows we are in a climate emergency. Any doubt becomes morally suspect. After all, the IPCC consensus has declared it so. A Ferrari can now be declared morally “evil” because it burns too much fuel. Yet it remains an exceptionally good car. And here lies the political trap: once something has been declared morally good, its advocates start treating that moral classification as evidence that it is also functionally good — that it actually works. And even if it works demonstrably worse, it doesn’t matter. It’s virtuous..! But obviously the two may have absolutely nothing in common. A policy advertised as virtuous can be functionally terrible: incompetent, ruinously expensive or incapable of achieving its stated objective. Worse, once all its consequences are counted, it may turn out not to have been virtuous in the first place. Germany’s Energiewende is the textbook example. Nuclear was morally branded “Hochrisikotechnologie” by @Die_Gruenen — high-risk technology — from the 1970s onwards. Dangerous. Irresponsible. Wind & solar became the virtuous alternative: “renewable”. And once that moral hierarchy was established, the engineering and economic questions became irrelevant: Does the resulting electricity system actually work better and cheaper? Of course not. Nuclear power was one of the great scientific achievements of the 20th century: enormous quantities of cheap electricity from tiny quantities of energy-dense uranium, virtually no operational CO₂ emissions, little land use and dispatchable generation from massive rotating machines that also contribute to grid stability. More importantly, it is also one of the safest forms of electricity generation mankind has ever developed. Yet German Greens spent decades morally slandering it. And Germany was hardly alone. Across much of the West, nuclear became something morally suspect rather than an extraordinary feat of engineering. Doubt, rather than gratitude, accompanied nuclear. The doubt of the ignorant. Yet by some obscure moral code, ignorance itself suddenly earned a seat at the table. Expertise became optional; moral conviction became qualification. A child could command a global audience on questions of energy systems. How dare you? Meanwhile, physics doesn’t care about false virtue signalling. A TWh of solar is not functionally identical to a TWh of nuclear — not at night, not in winter and not even at noon on a summer day if it is generated in the wrong place or exceeds consumption at that moment. Why? Bc an electricity system has never been about producing enough TWh over a year. It has always been about timing and location too. Electricity must be produced at the precise time and location it is demanded, while generation and consumption must remain continuously balanced because the grid itself cannot store electricity. That is Thiel’s message: The Energiewende — replacing nuclear with wind and solar — proved neither functionally competent nor virtuous. It was one gigantic $2 trillion amateur hour.

Let us be perfectly clear: whether one finds the Missouri supreme courts map decision to be the greatest thing since Marbury v. Madison, or flagrant judicial activism, SOS @DLHoskins did nothing wrong and he followed the law. He had until close of business on August 4 to confirm or deny the sufficiency of the referendum petition. He followed that deadline. Polls for the 8/4 primary closed two hours later, indicating that reverting to the defunct 2022 map was inconsistent with a proper understanding of Missouri law. The other hand, the Missouri Supreme Court vindictively scheduled a contempt hearing at a time when it had been overruled by a higher court, and Hoskins was following the order of that higher court. Denny was threatened with arrest and jail time. I’m proud of Secretary Hoskins for his courage in following the rule of law under tremendous pressure to do otherwise. @RickBrattin @AGCHanaway

SCOTUS just ruined my weekend. #Missouri #Midterms

Amendment 6 is a threat to our Constitutional Republic. If passed, it will move Missouri drastically toward a direct democracy where anyone with the money and resources can pass legislation and change our state constitution leaving the elected representative powerless

Amendment 6 is a threat to our Constitutional Republic. If passed, it will move Missouri drastically toward a direct democracy where anyone with the money and resources can pass legislation and change our state constitution leaving the elected representative powerless

Prior to Trump's bombing campaign, Iran was in no sense "close" to possessing a deployable nuclear weapon. To build one, several steps are required: 1. Enrich sufficient uranium toward weapons-grade concentrations (conventionally 90%+ U-235). 2. Convert enriched uranium from its enrichment-process chemical form into material/components suitable for a weapon. 3. Develop a workable nuclear explosive package. Iran had conducted relevant implosion-related experimentation before its weapons program was halted; the IAEA's 2025 assessment discusses full-scale hemispherical implosion experiments conducted in 2003. 4. Develop the specialized explosives, initiation systems, electronics, power supplies, etc. 5. Build a precision manufacturing capability to manufacture and integrate the components to the required tolerances. 6. Establish adequate confidence that the system will function. This does not necessarily require a nuclear explosive test; simulations, hydrodynamic testing, and full-scale non-nuclear experiments can provide substantial validation, although an untested nuclear weapon necessarily carries some uncertainty. 7. Make the package compatible with the intended delivery system. For a ballistic missile, that means a sufficiently compact and robust warhead/re-entry package. 8. Integrate weapons with delivery units, storage, security, handling procedures, trained personnel, and associated infrastructure. 9. Establish authorization, communications, physical security and procedural controls governing nuclear use to prevent an errant field commander from an unauthorized launch. Iran unquestionably possessed the technical capacity eventually to develop a deployable nuclear weapon. But that is very different from saying one was imminent. In March 2025, the U.S. intelligence community explicitly assessed that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei had not authorized the weapons program suspended in 2003. Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in 2018. That agreement limited Iranian enrichment to 3.67%, severely restricted its enriched-uranium stockpile and centrifuge capacity, and imposed extensive monitoring. Trump has now significantly reduced Iran's incentive to enter another such agreement. Tehran may reasonably conclude from direct attacks on Iran that a nuclear weapon would provide a deterrent against future attacks. Iran may also hesitate because it may assess that an agreement is unreliable as the next president can rip it up. Trump's actions have meant that America lost credibility. Trump's poorly thought out war to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran may have substantially increased Iran's incentive to become one.

Isn't the more interesting question who determines what is "good" vs what is "evil"? I'm confident different groups would have opposite labels on the same things/people.