I hadn’t realized until today that a new Rambo movie was in production but I should have guessed. Nearly every Republican presidency of the last four decades has welcomed one or more entries in the franchise, and the lone exception — Bush 41 — is barely an exception. “Rambo III” premiered six months before Election Day 1988, when the then-sitting VP was elected to his own four-year term. Reagan, the last Republican to win running on a campaign of restoring American strength, saw not one, not two, but three Rambo movies during his term. It was a cinch that President MAGA would inspire one despite Stallone’s advanced age.

Speaking of which, a strange but true fact: In neither of the two Rambo movies released since 9/11, including the new one opening soon, does America’s ultimate fictional soldier battle jihadis. The closest he’s come to facing the mujahedeen on the battlefield was in “Rambo III,” when he … fought alongside them against the Soviets in Afghanistan. (The film was even dedicated to them originally!) “Rambo,” released in 2008, had him fighting bad guys in Myanmar for God knows what reason. This new one has him waging war on—

Well, guess. We’re in the Trump era. Who’s the top villain whose ass needs kicking? No, don’t say “China”: That’s the correct answer, but Hollywood depends heavily on the Chinese box office. No one’s leaving big money on the table by making an action movie that’s destined to be banned in a country of a billion people due to its choice of antagonist. Don’t say “Russia” either. These movies are aimed mainly at right-wing audiences, after all, and the right’s relationship with Russia at this point is … complicated. I mean the other top villain.

Right. He’s fighting Mexican cartels. I’m guessing the final scene is Rambo pitching in to help build the wall.

Eh, it’ll be good to see him shoot an arrow again. Frankly, Stallone should do as many fan-service sequels as he’s capable of in the few productive years he has left. Exit question: “Over the Top 2” or “Lock Up 2”? I have a slight preference for the latter but am open to persuasion.

They drew first blood. He will draw last. #Rambo Last Blood – In theaters September 20. pic.twitter.com/QI7YohiovO

— Rambo: Last Blood (@RamboMovie) May 30, 2019

The fight over abortion has drawn hard lines everywhere in the US — except perhaps in Louisiana. Last night, the state legislature overwhelmingly passed a fetal-heartbeat threshold bill and sent it off to the governor, who has pledged to sign it. The twist in the Pelican State is that the bill was authored by a Democrat, and a Democrat will sign it into law today:

The Louisiana House on Wednesday passed in a 79-23 vote anti-abortion legislation that would effectively ban abortions in the state, echoing similar legislative efforts by other Republican-controlled legislatures in the South.

A bill by Sen. John Milkovich, D-Shreveport, would outlaw the abortion of a fetus with a detectable heartbeat, which usually occurs around six weeks and before many women are aware they are pregnant.

John Bel Edwards had earlier given his support for the bill. After the final passage of the legislation, the Democratic governor reiterated his intent to sign it into law, although he also called on the legislature to expand their view of “pro-life” legislation:

“In 2015, I ran for governor as a pro-life candidate after serving as a pro-life legislator for eight years. As governor, I have been true to my word and my beliefs on this issue. But it is also my sincere belief that being pro-life means more than just being pro-birth.

My first act as governor was to expand access to health care for working Louisianans. I have worked with Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature to expand investment in education and pass sweeping criminal justice reforms. For each of the last three years, my administration has set records for the number of children being adopted out of our foster care system. And despite fierce opposition, I’ve fought to ensure LGBT citizens are not discriminated against in the workplace, to raise the minimum wage, and to pay a woman the same as a man for doing the same job.

I know there are many who feel just as strongly as I do on abortion and disagree with me – and I respect their opinions. As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone.”

Edwards has a deep personal connection to the pro-life movement, even apart from his devout Catholic faith. He and his wife faced a wrenching decision when Donna Edwards was in the 20th week of a pregnancy, Heavy informs its readers today. Their unborn child had spina bifida, a condition with a large range of potential disabling outcomes. Despite being pressured to abort, the Edwardses chose to see the pregnancy through:

According to an interview Gov. Edwards had with CatholicPhilly.com in 2016, the doctor who discovered Samantha’s spina bifida at 20 weeks strongly tried to push for abortion. The doctor took Donna to a clinic that treated on children struggling with the condition.

“It was our belief that God has a purpose in everything and we would have this child,” he said. “I credit Donna, she is a very courageous person. Our daughter is now 24 years old…I cannot imagine what our life would be without her, and I tell this story with her permission.”

Samantha gave her permission to use the story in a 2016 campaign ad:

“I was 20 weeks pregnant with our first child when the doctor discovered that she had spina bifida and encouraged me to have an abortion,” Donna said. “I was devastated – but, John Bel never flinched. He said, ‘No, no; we’re going to love this baby no matter what.’ And, at that moment, I watched the boy I fell in love with become the man I’m still in love with today.”

That exceptional story explains why Edwards will sign the bill, but perhaps not why the state legislature passed it. The pro-life issue has more cultural reach in Louisiana than it does in most other states, where the issue comes down to brute politics. In Louisiana, pro-life Democrats are not an endangered species, which allows for more success in pushing back on the culture of death, in which abortion is only one part.

That cultural reach points the way for the pro-life cause’s future, and it serves as a reminder of Andrew Breibart’s famous observation that politics is downstream from culture. That may spell doom for this effort, though, as the Supreme Court operates in a much different culture than Louisiana’s — and has already signaled a disinclination to change it. It just shows the scale of the work yet to be done.

John Solomon at the Hill has had a steady stream of these stories all pushing the basic idea that the collusion investigation was rotten from the start. Today’s installment features a memo which British national security officials allegedly sent to their American counterparts shortly before Trump was inaugurated.

“A whistleblower recently revealed the existence of a communique from our allies in Great Britain during the early days of the Russia collusion investigation,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, told me…

Congressional investigators say one former Flynn team member approached them recently as a whistleblower and disclosed the existence of the communique because the person believed it was relevant to the ongoing review of the FBI and intelligence community’s conduct in the Russia probe…

The investigators interviewed a second former National Security Council staffer who claimed to have read the memo in Flynn’s office. That person, who requested anonymity because he isn’t authorized to talk to the press, told me in an interview that the document contained an explanation from Grant that British authorities assisted the early U.S. investigation into Trump-Russia collusion and later concluded Steele’s intelligence was unreliable.

“The message was clear: the Brits were saying they may have done some stuff to assist the investigation that they now regretted after learning the whole thing was based on information from Steele,” the former U.S. official told me. “They wanted Trump’s team to know they did not think Steele’s information was credible or reliable.

Congressional investigators have supposedly confirmed that a memo was sent by then-British national security adviser Sir Mark Lyall Grant in January 2017. There’s one big problem though: No one has the memo. That’s why even Solomon’s story is framed as a question: “Did Brits warn about Steele’s credibility, before Mueller’s probe?” The fact is we don’t really know until someone turns up the actual document and verifies it says what the whistleblowers claim it does.

Of course, if the document exists and if the description turns out to be accurate, that would be pretty significant. All of this would have happened after the president-elect was briefed and after word of the briefing leaked to CNN. There’s even a suggestion the memo may have been a reaction to Buzzfeed publishing the full dossier. So, if true, this would have been a fairly significant indicator that some of the claims in the dossier which helped build the collusion narrative were considered unreliable long before Mueller was tasked with looking into it.

But until the memo turns up, it’s probably best not to assume too much. If the collusion narrative has taught us anything it’s that there’s often a big gap between what some people think could possibly be true and what is true. But whatever the Brits did send us needs to be reviewed in light of all the other questions that have been raised about how this partisan oppo document wound up dominating out attention for so long.