Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘conservatives’

If you are a swan, Andrew, be a swan.

Commentary by Jonathan Turley | February 24, 2025

I am returning today after speaking at the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs about my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” Last night, I was approached by a student named Andrew who asked whether he should just remain quiet at his college, where professors routinely slam conservatives and teach highly ideological views as gospel. I went on a walk this morning around dawn and spotted this swan. I immediately thought of the young man who came up to me after my talk.

Andrew, when you find yourself surrounded by ducks, don’t try to be a duck.

There are three simple reasons. First, you will make a uniquely poor duck, and the flight South will be exhausting. Second, none of the other ducks are likely to believe that you are really a duck. Finally, and most importantly, you are not a migratory bird. You only go through this life once and either live it on your own terms or live an inauthentic life.

We have discussed how the current orthodox and intolerant environment in higher education has resulted in a culture of self-censorship. (here, here, here, and here). Surveys show conservative students are 300 times more likely to self-censor. Even the largely liberal faculty at leading schools report self-censoring to avoid being targeted.

This year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.

What is most striking is the fact that Harvard has created this hostile environment while maintaining an overwhelmingly liberal student body and faculty. Only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative.

Yet, even liberals feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.

During the Harvard debate, I raised the gradual reduction of conservatives and libertarians in the student body and the faculty.

The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”

Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”

According to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).

So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative” rather than 35 percent nationally.

Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats.

While Professor Kennedy dismissed the notion that Harvard should look more like America, the problem is that it does not even look like Massachusetts. Even as one of the most liberal states in the country, roughly one-third of the voters still identify as Republican.

The student body shows the same selection bias. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative, but the latest survey shows that number at 9 percent.

Some faculty members are wringing their hands over this continued hostile environment. However, the faculty as a whole is unwilling to restore free speech and intellectual diversity by adding conservative and libertarian faculty members and sponsoring events that reflect a broad array of viewpoints.

Given my respect for Professor Kennedy, I was surprised that he dismissed the sharp rise in students saying that they did not feel comfortable speaking in classes. Referring to them as “conservative snowflakes,” he insisted that they had to have the courage of their convictions.

This ignores the fact that they depend upon professors for recommendations, and challenging the school’s orthodoxy can threaten their standing. Moreover, a recent survey shows that even liberal students feel chilled in the environment created by Harvard faculty and administrators.

In other words, these are ducks surrounded by ducks who are still afraid of quacking out of turn.

Even a mute swan is actually not mute and are known to trumpet when other animals (including humans) threaten their nests or cygnets.

In other words, Andrew, if you are a swan, be a swan.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

censorship, Education, Free Speech, Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Freind or Foe

A.F. BRANCO | on February 28, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-freind-or-foe/

AI Anti-Conservative Bias — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

Google’s AI Gemini is proving to be woke with its recent inaccuracies in a few of its depictions of white historical figures. If AI (Artificial Intelligence) is programmed by leftist woke techies it stands to reason it will have anti-conservative biased output labeled as facts. If we dare extrapolate that into the future of probable technological advances, it gives off a very dark and grim hypothesis.

Google launches leftist AI image generator – world laughs, then realizes grim truth

By Kelly McCarthy

Gemini, Google’s most recent venture into the realm of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, has adopted weirdly woke positions on an array of subjects, prompting ridicule from the world of social media, and posing bigger questions about the world’s biggest search engine. READ MORE

Victor Reacts: Woke AI Makes Everyone Black (VIDEO)

By Victor Nieves Feb 23, 2024

Thank goodness for woke AI, without it we would never have known that George Washington was actually black. Google’s AI chatbot “Gemini” is getting destroyed online after reports show it generates historically inaccurate diverse images. The Gateway Pundit previously reported, … READ MORE…

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Survey Finds Conservatives, Independents Skeptical of Biden’s Action Against Houthis, but Liberals Confident

By: Victoria Coates / @VictoriaCoates / January 16, 2024

Most American voters who are tracking the issue anticipate rising domestic prices for vital goods because of disruptions to commercial shipping in the Red Sea. a survey finds. Pictured: Yemenis lift rifles, Palestinian-Yemeni flags, and Houthi emblems Friday while shouting slogans to protest U.S.- and U.K.-led airstrikes against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels for disrupting maritime traffic. (Photo: Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images)

An opinion survey taken before the recent U.S.-led military action against Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen found strong concern that disruptions in the Red Sea would elevate food and energy prices here at home.

The new polling from TIPP Insights surveyed 1,401 adults about the Houthi rebels’ attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

The survey first established the extent to which respondents were tracking the issue, finding Americans closely divided: 48% said they’re following the issue very or somewhat closely, while 46% said they’re not following it very closely, or not at all. Only 6% say they were unaware of the Houthi attacks on commercial shipping.

Broken down by party line, 52% of Democrats, 49% of Republicans, and 43% of independents said they are aware of the attacks, suggesting this generally isn’t a partisan issue.

Once this baseline was established, TIPP Insights posed three additional questions to those respondents who said they were following the Houthi attacks.

The first question, which got the most dramatic results, asked whether respondents were very, somewhat, not very, or not at all concerned that the attacks might disrupt vital supply chains of commodities such as food and energy.

Fully 89% answered that they were very or somewhat concerned, while only 9% said they were not. The smallest group of respondents in the survey, just 2%, said they had no opinion.

These results remained consistent across all demographics. Although younger voters were marginally less concerned than their older counterparts, the survey found that those concerned still had a significant majority that held across genders and ethnic groups.

In other words, for the roughly half of the U.S. electorate tracking the Red Sea issue, the majority anticipates a rise in domestic prices for vital goods because of the disruptions, which should get the attention of both parties at the outset of 2024.

Given that the price of Brent crude already is creeping up over $80 per barrel because of extended voyages around the Cape of Good Hope to deliver cargoes, this concern is likely to intensify in coming months.

The survey’s second question asked whether respondents placed the primary blame for the attacks on Iran’s Islamist regime, the Israel-Hamas war, or both.

The largest group of respondents, 42%, said they blamed both, and the second largest, 32%, said they blamed Tehran, a result that suggests 74% of American voters consider the Iranian regime at least partially culpable for the turmoil.

Only 15% said they blamed the Israel-Hamas war and, when the response of “both” was accounted for, 57% blamed the war.

It’s worth noting that of the 671 voters surveyed who said they were following the issue and so moved on to the additional questions, the single largest age demographic was 25 to 44, with a total of 230 respondents.

This group was considerably more likely to blame the Houthis’ attacks on the Israel-Hamas war (24%) than were those 18 to 24 (14%), 45 to 64 (12%), or 65 and older (7%), so the real percentage of Americans who blame Israel and the war may be lower.

The third question revealed the starkest partisan divide in the survey. “How confident are you,” it asked, “that President Biden’s Operation Prosperity Guardian will secure commercial shipping in the Red Sea?”

Overall, 52% of respondents said they either were very confident or somewhat confident that Biden would be successful, compared with 41% who said they weren’t confident and 8% who said they’re not sure. That should be welcome news for the president.

Democrats were significantly more confident, with 81% responding positively and only 11% disagreeing. But the numbers for the other political groups tell a different story: Only 26% of Republicans and 41% of independents said they have a degree of confidence in Operation Prosperity Guardian, compared to 68% and 49%, respectively, who said they don’t.

So although Biden’s action has the strong support of those in his base who are following events in the Red Sea, he is underwater on the issue not only with conservatives but also with independents. These survey results could signal broader unease with Biden’s performance as commander in chief.

TIPP Insights conducted its polling as Houthi attacks on commercial shipping were escalating, but before the Biden administration took retaliatory action Jan. 11 and 12.

While the Houthis rebels’ immediate response was muted, they escalated retaliation and struck two commercial vessels in recent days. There are no indications that the U.S.- and U.K.-led airstrikes restored freedom of navigation in the region—in fact, all reports are that shipping is still being diverted in the wake of the airstrikes.

Electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla, for example, announced a two-week hiatus in production at German factories due to lack of components.

If the Houthi threat isn’t neutralized and this type of stoppage spreads in coming weeks, supply chain disruptions will start to compound in a fashion that may grip the American electorate more broadly as primary voters head to the polls.

Category:

Islamic News, Military, Political

Tagged with:

Between The Old Right And New Right, There’s One Fault Line That Matters

BY: EMILY JASHINSKY | OCTOBER 05, 2023

Author Emily Jashinsky profile

EMILY JASHINSKY

VISIT ON TWITTER@EMILYJASHINSKY

The following is a transcript of remarks I delivered at the American Political Science Association’s annual meeting on Sept. 1. Panelists were asked to review the “National Conservatism” and “Freedom Conservatism” statements of principles.

It’s true that both the National Conservative Statement of Principles — which I signed — and the Freedom Conservative Statement of Principles are useful distillations of the so-called New Right and the Old Right. I say that as someone with a foot in both camps, working for the organization founded by the Sharon Statement and a group founded by its author Stan Evans. FreeCons cite the statement as their inspiration. I’ve spoken at NatCon as well. Like Michael Brendan Dougherty, as a NatCon signer, I have quibbles with both statements but could basically sign both of them as well.

That sentiment is certainly not shared by everyone on the right, new and old, but it reveals an essential point: The primary disagreement between NatCons and FreeCons is their priorities. This is not to minimize that disagreement. It is significant. With certain old conservative institutions run by stalwart defenders of the old agenda, it will be unworkable. But with Republican voters and average Americans, it will not.

Take, for example, the tax bill Donald Trump signed in 2017. Here was a standard bearer of the New Right expending immense political capital behind fiscal conservatism. It became the legislative highlight of his entire presidency, and not merely because Democrats after 2018 declined to cooperate with his administration, but also because the president and people who staffed his administration genuinely wanted to do tax reform and pushed the reconciliation effort hard.

Today, virtually no person in the national conservative camp will argue that was the right move. Importantly, though, virtually no person in the national conservative camp would in theory argue against a more competitive corporate tax rate that helps onshore jobs, or tax relief for overburdened American families increasingly getting less for their money.

Again, this is not true of everyone in the national conservative camp, because it includes a handful of integralist thinkers and heterodox voices who offer provocative dissents. Generally, though, national conservatism believes in free markets, just with the prioritization of families and communities as their moral end. Freedom Conservatives don’t disagree with that, perhaps with the exception of some hardcore libertarians.

But this conflict over priorities amounts to a major gulf in policy and tone: When the market fails to provide a living wage for single moms, is the priority to go after government barriers that may burden businesses with costs that cut into wages? Is it to create new cash benefits for parents? Is it to do both?

What about tone? Should conservatives be extolling the virtues of the business whose CEO is pushing ESG and hiking his own salary beyond previously conceivable limits? Should they be supporting the union that might score a win for the single mom? (Even Ben Shapiro has made the conservative case for collective bargaining in the private sector, though critically it’s nobody’s pet issue.) Should they be focused on that mother’s inability to send her child to a public school that successfully educates kids, and does so without pushing politically charged policies on sex and race?

Politics aside, what is the most moral way to prioritize family and freedom and flourishing under a set of economic and cultural conditions that threaten all those ideals? Do the free markets we all support need more or less intervention? Do families and individuals need more or less freedom?

Here’s the NatCon statement on free markets, which some of us on the New Right might balk at in another context if it came from a FreeCon: “We believe that an economy based on private property and free enterprise is best suited to promoting the prosperity of the nation and accords with traditions of individual liberty that are central to the Anglo-American political tradition. We reject the socialist principle, which supposes that the economic activity of the nation can be conducted in accordance with a rational plan dictated by the state.”

Here’s the FreeCon statement on the same: “Most individuals are happiest in loving families, and within stable and prosperous communities in which parents are free to engage in meaningful work, and to raise and educate their children according to their values. The free enterprise system is the foundation of prosperity. Americans can only prosper in an economy in which they can afford the basics of everyday life: food, shelter, health care, and energy. A corrosive combination of government intervention and private cronyism is making these basics unaffordable to many Americans.”

Let’s turn to foreign affairs. There are few genuine doves in either the FreeCon or NatCon camp. Note most of the NatCon opposition to war policy in Ukraine is explicitly predicated on the need to prioritize China. Many, if not most, NatCons are willing to support a more militaristic approach to Mexican cartels as well.

If we return to the issue of tax reform, most people on the New Right — myself included — would say Republicans who reeled at the cultural chaos of 2020 expended vast amounts of political capital on a lower priority (without even doing it very well), when they could have met the moment and tackled the corruption of higher education and K-12 or immigration reform, they could have dealt with cronyism in housing and health care, they could have seriously reigned in Big Tech.

Many ostensible disagreements are rooted more in rhetoric and priority disagreements than ideology. Here’s a broad but not at all exhaustive list of basic, fundamental points of agreement:

Strong borders and the benefits of a sensible immigration system
Peace through strength
Minimizing political censorship
Eliminating crony capitalism (explicit in both statements)
Free markets
Corruption and decline of the educational system
Corruption and decline of media
Corruption and growth of the administrative state
Primacy of marriage and family
Federalism
Independent judiciary
The excesses of environmental extremism
Nationalism (with some quibbles over the definition and application)
Sanctity of unborn life
Importance of the Second Amendment
National debt

There are some genuine divides among many members of both camps, including:

Free trade
Domestic spying
Public religion
Civil rights law (although this is unclear as the FreeCons haven’t fully reckoned with it in recent years)

This question of priorities is the biggest development to conservative political thought because it does change the calculus when decisions have to be made on policies like the tax code, labor, trade, education, and then rhetoric.

The Sharon Statement was a perfect articulation of conservative priorities for 1960. That really has not changed. If anything, contra the FreeCons, it should be used to unite these disparate factions, not as a wedge. The central threat is an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy that seeks, in cooperation with global institutions, to impose progressive ideological ends on individuals, families, schools, and employers by encroaching on personal and corporate freedoms.

These disagreements on rhetoric and priority are not to be minimized. They are significant. Still, it’s worth considering when internecine squabbles on the right boil over if the apparent divide — which often looks and feels very bitter — puts the two camps in different ballparks or different sections of the same one. The most important development in conservative thought — to continue torturing this metaphor — is that people on the right now realize where their tickets are.

Emily Jashinsky is culture editor at The Federalist and host of Federalist Radio Hour. She previously covered politics as a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner. Prior to joining the Examiner, Emily was the spokeswoman for Young America’s Foundation. She’s interviewed leading politicians and entertainers and appeared regularly as a guest on major television news programs, including “Fox News Sunday,” “Media Buzz,” and “The McLaughlin Group.” Her work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Real Clear Politics, and more. Emily also serves as director of the National Journalism Center, co-host of the weekly news show “Counter Points: Friday” and a visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Forum. Originally from Wisconsin, she is a graduate of George Washington University.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Elon Musk Grills Target Over Sick Charity Donation, Twitter Exposes Retail Giant with Community Note

By Warner Todd Huston May 27, 2023 at 1:39pm

Since the boycott of Bud Light seems to have been a rousing success, many people are shifting focus to retail giant Target and its years of supporting radical LGBT groups — one of which even advocates to “transition” children without parental consent. It is so outrageous that even Elon Musk felt compelled to begin asking some questions about it.

Musk, who is considered center-left in most things political was shocked by a recent Fox News article that reported that Target has been supporting the radical gay group GLSEN for years, even though the group “calls for gender ideology to be integrated into all classes, even math,” and spends its donations to get American schools to comply with that policy.

In its tweet, Fox News also noted that GLSEN “encourages secret gender changes among children in schools.”

TARGET TAKES AIM: The retail giant provides annual donations to GLSEN, which calls for gender ideology to be integrated into all classes, even math. https://t.co/f7g9yLDvuO pic.twitter.com/vCK6fqXepa
— Fox News (@FoxNews) May 26, 2023

In its May 26 report, Fox News noted that Target is “partnering with a K-12 education group for which focuses on getting districts to adopt policies that will keep parents in the dark on their child’s in-school gender transition, providing sexually explicit books to schools for free, and integrating gender ideology at all levels of curriculum in public schools.”

Indeed, Fox even obtained a direct quote from Target saying how much they support the organization with their annual donations of tens of thousands.

“GLSEN leads the movement in creating affirming… and anti-racist spaces for LGBTQIA+ students. We are proud of 10+ years of collaboration with GLSEN and continue to support their mission,” the retailer told Fox.

Fox goes on to explain what GLSEN does: “GLSEN calls for gender ideology to be integrated into all classes, even math. It provides educators instructions on how they can make math ‘more inclusive of trans and non-binary identities’ by including ‘they/them’ pronouns in word problems.”

“We advise on, advocate for, and research comprehensive policies designed to protect LGBTQ students as well as students of marginalized identities,” the group itself describes on its own site.

This group that Target has supported urges schools to add “intersex,” “transgender,” “non-binary” and other such left-wing “choices” of sexual identity into all class work from math to science, per Fox.

GLSEN tells schools to keep confidential any information about students “transitioning” or self-identifying as the opposite or some fantasy gender, and to make sure parents are not told of any such information unless explicitly approved by the child.

The group pushes a policy that maintains that schools and faculty “shall ensure that all personally identifiable and medical information relating to transgender and nonbinary students is kept confidential… Staff or educators shall not disclose any information that may reveal a student’s gender identity to others, including parents or guardian… This disclosure must be discussed with the student, prior to any action.”

In a Saturday news release condemning “right-wing extremists,” GLSEN attempted to spin that little nugget of information as such: “Supportive educators are a lifeline to students who do not have the freedom to be exactly who they are safely, and GLSEN will always fight back against policies that force educators to jeopardize student safety.”

The group also seeks to force schools to allow boys who claim to be transgender girls to play in school sports with the girls.

“To date,” Fox added, “the retail giant has donated at least $2.1 million to GLSEN.”

Fox’s shocking report spurred Twitter chief Elon Musk to ask, “Is this true, @Target?”

Is this true, @Target? https://t.co/WZpk9BBhGo
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 27, 2023

A Twitter “community note” also appeared on the tweet, noting that, “Target has donated to GLSEN for more than a decade: ‘Target annually supports GLSEN and its mission to create…spaces for LGBTQIA+ students.’” The note also presented links to the radical policies for which GLSEN advocates.

One Twitter user blasted Musk for asking the question, carping, “Oh come on, this is Fox News. You question CNN, MSNBC, but not Fox News? Don’t you think that this is hypocritical?”

But Musk pointed out that he literally was questioning the claims, and tweeted back, “Maybe it’s not true, hence the question.”

Maybe it’s not true, hence the question
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 27, 2023

So far, Target has not made any statement past its quote to Fox that it supports GLSEN.

This newest wrinkle in Target’s big-dollar support of the radical LGBT lobby comes on the heels of a boycott effort over its “pride” merchandise and for partnering with a company that embraces satanism along with its LGBT advocacy. Target is now hemorrhaging money, as is Anheuser-Busch, following Bud Light’s decision to partner with transgender social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

The bad news continues to mount for Target and Bud Light both, and conservatives must keep the pressure on these woke corporations. Examples must be made if we hope to reverse the wide trend in corporate America of donating billions to these organizations whose main goal is to groom our children for their disgusting sexual agenda.:

Warner Todd Huston

Contributor, CommentarySummaryMoreRecentContact

Warner Todd Huston has been writing editorials and news since 2001 but started his writing career penning articles about U.S. history back in the early 1990s. Huston has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business Network, CNN and several local Chicago news programs to discuss the issues of the day. Additionally, he is a regular guest on radio programs from coast to coast. Huston has also been a Breitbart News contributor since 2009. Warner works out of the Chicago area, a place he calls a “target-rich environment” for political news.

Facebook

Category:

Business, Political

Tagged with:

5 things conservatives need to know before AI wipes out conservative thought altogether

By Dan Schneider | Fox News | Published May 26, 2023 2:00am EDT

The “Godfather of A.I.,” Geoffrey Hinton, quit Google out of fear that his former employer intends to deploy artificial intelligence in ways that will harm human beings. “It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things,” Hinton recently told The New York Times.

But stomping out the door does nothing to atone for his own actions, and it certainly does nothing to protect conservatives – who are the primary target of A.I. programmers – from being canceled.

Here are five things to know as the battle over A.I. turns hot:

FAKE PENTAGON EXPLOSION IMAGE GOES VIRAL ON TWITTER, SPARKING FURTHER AI CONCERNS

1. Google’s new monopoly on “Truth”

Elon Musk recently revealed that Google co-founder Larry Page and other Silicon Valley leaders want AI to establish a “digital god” that “would understand everything in the world. … [A]nd give you back the exact ‘right’ thing instantly.” It is hard to imagine anything more dangerous to a pluralistic, democratic Republic than a single dispenser of “truth.”

AI sign — The Biden administration has seen the potential of AI to push its political message. (JOSEP LAGO/AFP via Getty Images)

That nobody has a monopoly on truth is the prerequisite for pluralism. But pluralism is what authoritarians abhor and what AI tech executives cannot tolerate. Conservatives have already seen how Big Tech censors and cancels us based on our beliefs and political viewpoints. AI is being turbocharged to do this in limitless ways.

2. Brainwashing is no longer science fiction

Americans are just beginning to understand that the dangers of AI go far beyond economic disruption. They also go beyond silencing speech. The newest gadgets being powered by AI now permit tech companies to capture our most intimate thoughts and our most sensitive data. They have already begun to map our minds, so they can manipulate our thoughts.

Duke Law professor Nita Farahany (a biologist, philosopher and human rights attorney) has been sounding the alarm, explaining how the Chinese government is using AI to analyze facial expressions and brain waves to punish those who are not faithful communists.

Using similar technology, U.S. tech companies may be able to hack into the minds of users to steal PIN codes, according to Farahany. They are also tracking brain waves via sensors embedded in watches and headphones which can determine which political messages are most persuasive to a user.

Video

AI will soon empower lying politicians to deceive more voters than ever before. When Farahany tried to explain these dangers at the World Economic Forum, the snobs of Davos applauded enthusiastically. They see AI’s dangers as an asset.

3. The GOP is truly the Grand OLD Party

Republicans in Congress who are even talking about AI are focusing on how many nurses and truck drivers might lose their jobs, not about the serious threat AI poses to the very essence of who we are as humans. Economic disruption is most assuredly going to happen, but Republicans are missing the profound implications to liberty.

In the first AI hearing held by the House Innovation Subcommittee this year, Big Tech lobbyists admitted that self-driving car manufacturers would gobble up every imaginable bit of data “for our own safety” but assured the committee that they would endeavor not to share this data with other companies. Shockingly, nobody asked the obvious: what assurances do we have that these companies will not use this data against their own customers?

You’d think that the lessons of Big Tech censorship would draw every Republican into the AI fight. That has not happened yet.

Americans are just beginning to understand that the dangers of AI go far beyond economic disruption. They also go beyond silencing speech.

4. Democrats have us where they want us

Democrats in the Biden administration and in Congress have a much better understanding that AI is the greatest tool they’ve ever had to socialize America. Many are pretending to call for a pause to AI development while stomping on the accelerator to develop it as fast as possible.

Here’s reality: the Biden administration has already pledged to spend $140 million to establish seven AI research institutes, and it just created the National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee to chart “a path for responsible and inclusive AI.” Even more telling, the Biden White House has indicated to it will direct federal agencies to “use AI tools” in their work. Nary a pause in the Dems’ use of AI can be found.

5. But failure is not an option

Communist China just released regulations mandating that AI be programmed to reflect “socialist core values” and avoid information that could undermine “state power.” The Chinese government and other authoritarians seek to harness this new technological power for control of information and the masses. They will use it extensively in warfare, too.

The trick is to lead the development of AI globally while enforcing appropriate guardrails to prevent the left from attacking our freedoms. The window to achieve both is small and shrinking.

Dan Schneider is vice president of MRC Free Speech America

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Republicans Proved They Aren’t Holding Anyone ‘Hostage’ On Raising The Debt Limit

BY: CHRISTOPHER JACOBS | MAY 01, 2023

Speaker McCarthy speaking behind podium on House floor — After last Wednesday’s vote, Democrats can’t claim conservatives amount to legislative nihilists who can’t get to ‘yes’ on an issue.

Author Christopher Jacobs profile

CHRISTOPHER JACOBS

VISIT ON TWITTER@CHRISJACOBSHC

Conventional wisdom holds that last week’s vote by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to approve a debt limit and spending reduction bill is meaningless. Democrats called the legislation dead on arrival in the Senate, making whatever the House decides to do on its own irrelevant.

As with many things in Washington, the corporate media’s conventional wisdom is wrong.

Approving a debt limit bill did more than dispel the narrative that the Republican House, and Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., will remain perpetually in disarray. By eliminating one of the major elements of Democrats’ political argument, it raised questions about their own strategic endgame.

House vs. Senate

Under the traditional, “Schoolhouse Rock” version of lawmaking, the House would pass its version of a bill, the Senate would pass its version, and the two would convene a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the measures. That outcome seems unlikely regarding this debt limit increase.

Virtually all Democrats support a so-called “clean” debt limit increase. That is, they want to extend the limit on the nation’s credit card without any accompanying spending reforms. (They claim they will discuss spending levels in separate legislation, just not as part of the debt limit.)

But most legislation requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance in the Senate, and Democrats only hold 51 Senate seats. As a result, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., must persuade nine Republicans — 10 if Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who continues to recover from a case of shingles in California, remains absent from the Senate — to approve a clean debt limit increase for the measure to clear the chamber. That scenario appears unlikely, as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would lean on his troops not to approve a Schumer-led measure.

Indeed, Schumer may not bring a debt limit bill to the Senate floor at all, rather than wasting precious days of the Senate schedule on a measure he believes will fail. But this strategy would allow members in the lower chamber to ask an obvious question: The House did its work, and approved a debt limit bill — why won’t the Senate do the same?

Republicans Get to ‘Yes’

But amid the larger debate about the debt limit and fiscal policy, a key point about last week’s events has somehow gotten lost. Democrats continue to decry supposed Republican “hostage taking,” alleging that conservative lawmakers are threatening to ruin the country’s full faith and credit unless Democrats acquiesce to their demands.

Ignore for a moment the not-insignificant question of whether the Treasury Department can prioritize government payments in the event Congress doesn’t increase the debt limit, so as to prevent a default on government bonds and protect the country’s credit rating. The Democratic argument in large part rests on the premise that Republican lawmakers would never vote to raise the debt limit.

All the talk about “hostage taking” — which the left has utilized ever since the Republican takeover of the House in 2010-11 turned the debt limit into a bigger political issue — might have merit if lawmakers under no circumstances would vote to increase the debt limit. If there is no possible way someone will vote for a debt limit increase, if a lawmaker’s vote isn’t “gettable,” to use the Beltway parlance, then yes, one might credibly accuse conservatives of wanting to sabotage the country’s credit rating, just to make a point.

That’s where last week’s vote proved revealing, and decisive. Numerous conservative members of Congress, who in the past had never supported legislation that raised the debt limit, voted last week for a bill to do just that. People like my friend and former think-tank colleague Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, probably didn’t like the idea of raising the debt limit, but they did it.

After last Wednesday’s vote, Democrats can’t claim conservatives amount to legislative nihilists who can’t get to “yes” on an issue. Instead, they don’t like the fact that Republicans said “yes” to raising the debt limit and “yes” to reforming federal spending. They can no longer attack Republicans for not approving the debt limit, so now they will try to attack Republicans for the way in which they did so.

That position amounts to an attempt to dictate both sides of the debate. It’s the legislative equivalent of a tennis player whining, “You didn’t hit the ball to me the right way.” It holds a particular irony given quotes like the following: “I cannot agree to vote for a full increase in the debt without any assurance that steps will be taken early next year to reduce the alarming increase in the deficits and the debt.”

That quote comes from none other than Joe Biden himself, circa 1984. Given the way in which he and many other Democrats previously supported the notion of linking a debt limit increase to spending reforms, this egregious flip-flop undermines the integrity of their position still further.

Now that Republicans in the House have agreed to a debt limit bill, Democrats should agree to get in a room, figure out each side’s position, and arrive at an agreement that will hopefully increase the debt limit while addressing the nation’s calamitous fiscal state. It’s called “legislating” — Congress actually doing its job.

Chris Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, and author of the book “The Case Against Single Payer.” He is on Twitter: @chrisjacobsHC.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Pro-Family Conservatives Must First Be Pro-Men

BY: DELANO SQUIRES | JANUARY 05, 2023

father and son with a hula hoop — **Republicans interested in crafting pro-family policy must focus on the well-being of America’s boys and men.**

DELANO SQUIRES

Those conservatives who want to shape the nascent pro-family movement emerging on the right must be willing to embrace a controversial — and countercultural — reality: Healthy families require strong, stable, and secure men. That means Republicans interested in crafting pro-family policy must focus on the well-being of America’s boys and men.

Democrats have spent decades supporting policies that make men and fathers economically and socially obsolete. They’ve promoted the notion that families and societies flourish when women are empowered, even to the detriment of men. For instance, they see the fact that women outnumber men in the college-educated labor force as a win for gender equality.  

It’s not all progress, however, from the perspective of modern feminists. So-called access to abortion, a major plank in the women’s empowerment agenda, was dealt a serious blow when the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision struck down Roe v. Wade and returned the issue of abortion to the states. 

This seismic shift, combined with the economic challenges brought on by Covid-19 shutdowns and parental discontent with public schools, has opened the door for some conservatives to seek to rebrand Republicans as the party of families.  

The initial push for this political pivot came from Republicans in the U.S. Senate. The most recent iteration of Utah Sen. Mitt Romney’s proposed Family Security Act would provide between $250 and $350 a month per child, based on age. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s Provide for Life Act would expand the child tax credit, enable parental leave, expand support for pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, and fund mentoring services for low-income mothers. Conservative social commentators have also made the case that limited government and support for families are compatible policy goals.

Whatever the merits of these efforts, the success of pro-family policies will depend on more than bipartisan support in Congress. The social and economic outcomes conservatives want to see must start with the understanding that men and women are not generic, interchangeable parts in the machinery of family life. 

Recognizing Roles

Men have played the role of provider throughout human history, though in recent decades that role has been shared. Still, no culture teaches that it’s a woman’s responsibility to take care of an adult male and the children they have together. This is why women generally seek men who earn more than they do. One analysis of U.S. Census data found that female physicians married men in the same field. Male doctors, however, often married nurses and teachers.

This is not an argument against women in the workplace. It’s an appeal for conservatives to recognize that disregarding the natural order in the name of “women’s empowerment,” whether through public policy or cultural norms, will make it harder for Americans to form strong, stable families.  

Conservative politicians and pundits need to become comfortable talking about what boys and men need in terms of education, economic opportunity, religion, social norms, and relationships. 

Their political speeches, op-eds, and podcast appearances need a renewed emphasis on vocational education that is aspirational, not framed in terms of a fallback option for young men who are unable — or unwilling — to attend college. Conservatives need to speak with a similar sense of clarity and concern when it comes to men, sex, and family formation.  

Every conservative bill, statute, policy, or regulation that directly affects families should include some version of the following statements:

Children have a right to the love and support of the man and woman who created them.
The ideal family structure for every child is to be raised by his or her married biological parents in a stable and loving home.
Men, not the state, are ultimately responsible for the children they father.

These self-evident truths should function as the “iron triangle” of social conservatism. Men need something they are willing to both live and die for. The responsibilities that come with a family give them both.  

Critics on the left — as well as some on the right — will undoubtedly accuse conservatives focusing on men of promoting a regressive return to the rigid sex roles of the 1950s. What they fail to realize is that the sexual revolution and 60 years of liberal social policy did not destroy patriarchy — they distorted it by minimizing the importance of men while maximizing the influence male-dominated institutions have in every area of American family life.  

Different Forms of Patriarchy

“Bureaucratic patriarchy” was introduced through the war on poverty’s expansion of the welfare state and policy incentives that provided aid and basic necessities for unmarried mothers. It has grown because of the symbiotic relationship between elected officials seeking votes, social service administrators overseeing the poverty economy, and single mothers who need financial support.  

Conservatives have a hard time criticizing “corporate patriarchy,” by contrast, because it promotes financial independence for women and exploits conservative deference to the private sector. A recent video from the pro-life organization Live Action satirizes an unfortunate reality brought about by the right’s allegiance to corporations: Many businesses would rather fund abortions than paid maternity leave for their female employees. Perhaps business executives are simply taking cues from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who said, “eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades.” 

The advent of “trans patriarchy” further complicates the pro-life, pro-family movement because men who believe they are women are committed to erasing biological sex altogether. In addition to attacking the foundation of human existence itself, this deformed version of patriarchy also seeks to usurp the family’s role as the primary shaper of children’s values.  

Many conservatives fail to see how the daycare-to-demisexual pipeline was built over time by politicians increasing funding for childcare and schools, corporations offering generous benefits in exchange for employee loyalty, and gender ideologues who want access to shape the next generation of children.  

The actors involved in all three deformed patriarchies are cruel taskmasters because they take a utilitarian view of women and children. A man who accepts his God-given responsibilities has a completely different orientation toward his family. His relationship with his wife is a covenant, not a contract. His children are the fruit of that union and the linchpin to multi-generational prosperity. They’re not mere “consequences” of sex and burdens to be overcome for the sake of economic productivity.  

In a sense, some form of patriarchy is inevitable. The question conservative policymakers need to answer is which form they believe produces the best outcomes for men, women, and children. This is why clear thinking about families must be preceded by honest reflection on the different natures of men and women and how they can be harnessed to fortify American households. That is why now is the perfect time for conservatives to lean into the connection between strong men and stable families. 

Delano Squires is a research fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation. Follow him on Twitter @DelanoSquires.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Conservatives blast the 18 Republican senators who voted in favor of omnibus bill ‘monstrosity’

By Lindsay Kornick | Fox News | December 22, 2022

Conservatives on Twitter blasted the news that the Senate had passed the massive $1.7 trillion omnibus bill on a 68-29 vote Thursday, especially targeting the 18 Senate Republicans who voted in favor of more government spending. The Senate approved the 4,000-page bill that funds the government for the rest of the fiscal year, until Sept. 2023. The omnibus included $858 billion for defense, $787 billion for non-defense domestic programs and more than 7,200 earmarks costing over $15 billion.

Though many Republican Senators had spoken out against the large bill, the final tally revealed several Republicans voting in line with the 50 Senate Democrats. Right-leaning social media users and other Republican senators were quick to pile on the “sellouts” who voted in favor of massive Democratic projects and more spending despite high inflation rates.

**Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., voted for the omnibus bill Thursday. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)**

ELON MUSK TAUNTS SCHUMER, MCCONNELL AFTER TWITTER POLL SHOWS OPPOSITION TO OMNIBUS BILL: ‘PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN’

“I’m looking forward to 7% approval rating Mitch McConnell’s next lecture on candidate quality after leading the charge to take away the new GOP House majority’s leverage over the budget for an entire year,” X Strategies Senior Digital Strategist Greg Price tweeted.

I'm looking forward to 7% approval rating Mitch McConnell's next lecture on candidate quality after leading the charge to take away the new GOP House majority's leverage over the budget for an entire year.
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 22, 2022

ACT for America founder Brigitte Gabriel wrote, “Who is worse? The Democrats who are actively destroying the country or the Republicans who are sitting on their hands watching it burn?”

“Yuck,” American Commitment President Phil Kerpen exclaimed.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., wrote, “I’m disappointed in some of my fellow Republicans, who voted against respecting the taxpayers and for empowering themselves to spend your money with reckless abandon.“

**Sen. Rand Paul called out his fellow Senate Republicans for voting in favor of the spending bill. (Associated Press)**

Internet Accountability Project senior counsel Will Chamberlain tweeted, “Every single Republican Senator should be asked – point blank – is the Russia/Ukraine border more important than our own southern border?“

“I never want to hear any of the Republicans who voted for this monstrosity pretend that they’re for fiscal sanity or border security ever again,” Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., wrote.

I never want to hear any of the Republicans who voted for this monstrosity pretend that they’re for fiscal sanity or border security ever again. https://t.co/hvXet6fvFm
— Dan Bishop (@danbishopnc) December 22, 2022

TOP REPUBLICAN BLASTS SPENDING BILL’S FOCUS ON FOREIGN BORDERS INSTEAD OF AMERICAN

Bishop previously went viral after tweeting a lengthy thread on the projects that will be funded within the omnibus bill. Among them included over half a billion dollars into “reproductive health” in areas that “threaten” endangered species.

“On a more sinister note, here’s at least $575 million for ‘family planning’ in areas where population growth ‘threatens biodiversity.’ Malthusianism is a disturbing, anti-human ideology that should have ZERO place in any federal program,” Bishop tweeted.

**Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., called out the $1.7 trillion spending bill in a Twitter thread. (Andrew Harnik/Pool via REUTERS)**

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Other stipulations in the bill included funding for a DEI and “structural racism” National Institute of Health subdivision and the prohibition for the Customs and Border Patrol “to acquire, maintain or extend border security technology and capabilities.”

Lindsay Kornick is an associate editor for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to lindsay.kornick@fox.com and on Twitter: @lmkornick.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

John Daniel Davidson Op-ed: Ordinary Americans Are Going to Have to Save the Country Themselves, One Town at a Time

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | DECEMBER 20, 2022

American flag close up — **What can regular people do to take back their country from woke radicals? Take over local institutions, one at a time.**

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOHNDDAVIDSON

One of the things I get asked from time to time by readers is, what can ordinary people on the right, Christians and conservatives, do to help save the country — besides voting on Election Day?

It’s a good question, and it comes from the very understandable feeling of helplessness many people feel about the direction of the country and, let’s be honest, the collapse of Western civilization that’s now well underway. It’s especially easy to get frustrated after an election cycle like the one we just had, in which Republican leaders thoroughly botched it and left things more or less where they were before the voting. Put another way, if voting doesn’t really change anything in our so-called democracy, what will?

There’s an answer to this question, but you’re not going to like it. The plain truth is this: You’re going to have to save the country yourselves. Donald Trump isn’t going to save it. Ron DeSantis isn’t going to save it. There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that a GOP majority in Congress is going to save it.

By all means, keep voting in national elections. Keep making your voices heard at the ballot box. But salvation won’t come from Washington, D.C. If America is going to be saved, or even just parts of it are to be saved, then ordinary men and women, God-fearing patriots all across the country, are going to have to do it themselves, one town at a time. And they will have to do it the old-fashioned and unglamorous way, by taking over the local institutions of civic life, organizing and winning elections for city council and school board, finding reliable and competent people willing to be candidates and staff and volunteers.

It’s going to be a long, thankless slog, but there’s no other way. Neither is there any guarantee of success. I speak here only of towns and suburbs, not of cities, many of which have become unlivable after decades of failed Democrat governance and leftist policies. Conservatives who can manage it should move to places where they can join with other like-minded Americans to take back their communities and instill a civic culture that reflects their beliefs.

We got into this situation through passivity, and only a sustained effort at the local level will get us out. For decades, conservatives did nothing while the left marched through academia — and then kept right on marching, down from their ivory tower and into the public square, into the schools, the libraries, corporate boardrooms, local police and fire departments, even the churches. These people have radical views far outside the American mainstream but nevertheless control all our institutions. If you want them back, you’ll have to take them back, post by post.

This is not the kind of thing the right likes to hear. By temperament and principle, conservatives would rather be left alone to run their businesses, raise their families, worship in their churches, and build up their charities and local communities. Unlike liberals and leftists, they tend not to be ideologues. They are not trying to fundamentally change the country. They mostly want to be left alone.

But of course, they will never be left alone. The woke radicals will never stop — until someone stops them. A kind of conservative radicalism, or at least activism, is going to be required to accomplish that.

A good example of what I’m talking about is playing out in the small central Texas town of Taylor, population about 17,000. Taylor, some 35 miles north of Austin, is a rather conservative place of the sort you can find all over the country. It recently made national headlines over its traditional Christmas parade; a longstanding town tradition organized by a coalition of local churches. Last year, organizers accidentally approved a parade float for a group calling itself Taylor Pride, which the parade committee naively mistook for the name of a group that was just proud of their town. What they got instead was a float featuring two men dressed in drag, dancing suggestively in what paradegoers assumed was going to be a family-friendly event.

Parents and attendees were understandably perturbed. To ensure it didn’t happen again, the consortium of local churches that runs the parade sensibly decided that this year, parade floats must be consistent with traditional biblical and family values. The point wasn’t to exclude any individuals or groups from attending or even participating, but to ensure the floats were family-friendly and not — like the Taylor Pride drag queen float — contrary to Christian teachings.

The City of Taylor responded by announcing it would stage its own separate LGBT-friendly “holiday” parade, on the same night as the traditional Christmas parade, on the same route, following right behind it. The decision was made not by the elected members of the city council, who are accountable to voters, but by the municipal staff who actually run things. There was no public notice or deliberation and no consultation beforehand with members of the city council. The municipal bureaucracy acted on its own authority to use (or rather misuse) public funds and resources to sponsor a parade that was wildly out of step with the community at large.

Kevin Stuart, a Taylor resident and assistant professor of political science at the University of St. Thomas, wrote about all this recently in The Wall Street Journal, noting that the problem in Taylor has deep historical roots. The outsourcing of decision-making to so-called experts has been happening in American towns and cities for more than a century, such that professional bureaucrats now run small towns across America like “ideological colonizers.”

“There is now a yawning ideological gap between the people who live in American towns and the professionalized cadre of city staff who pass through those towns on their way up the career ladder,” writes Stuart. He goes on to argue that residents of towns like Taylor are partly to blame for ceding too much political power to an expert class whose interests and values don’t align with the people they’re supposed to serve.

He’s right about that — and also about how “communities can’t remain strong if they are unwilling to defend common sense and get involved in the political process.” The lesson of Taylor’s dueling Christmas parades is that even in small, conservative towns in deep-red states like Texas, conservatives can’t be complacent. As I wrote last month about the Taylor fracas, there’s nowhere Christians can run and hide from the left. They have to stand and fight.

In Taylor, that means residents who until now might have never been involved in local politics will have to roll up their sleeves, give up some weekday evenings, and get involved. They will have to put up their own conservative candidates and vote out of office the city councilors who empowered a woke municipal bureaucracy. They will have to fire the cadre of leftist bureaucrats who run things and replace them with their own people. They might even have to change the city charter so that elected members of the city council actually do the work of the public in City Hall, not an unelected city manager who sees the job as merely a steppingstone to a bigger city.

The same goes for the library, the school board, and every other local institution in every American town like Taylor. Conservatives have to take them over if they can. To answer the question we began with, that is what ordinary people can do. And they have to start now. No one is coming to help, and time is running out.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Conservatives must finally break free from the stranglehold of fake Republicans

DANIEL HOROWITZ | December 12, 2022

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

The problem for conservatives headed forward is not so much mail-in ballots as it is mail-in Republicans.

If Haggai the prophet were around today, he’d likely chastise conservative voters as follows: “Consider your ways: You have sown much and you bring in little. You eat without being satiated. You drink without getting your fill. You dress, and it has no warmth. And he who profits, profits into a bundle with holes.”

No matter how much the Republican Party cheats on its base – committing sins that the eyes cannot unsee – conservatives continue to slavishly genuflect to the party’s every whim and offer to carry water for Republicans. They treat Republican politicians as the masters rather than the servants. They believe we must support them at any cost rather than understanding that they need our support to even exist, because Democrats already locked up the voters they truly desire. Conservative influencers continue to view themselves as loyal Republicans and refuse to explore any blunt force trauma to this perfidious party that would force a cathartic moment when either we finally take over the party or we have a critical mass to either start a new one or use the GOP only for ballot access but form a party within a party.

Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

The scope of the problem is not limited to a few RINOs. In fact, we are the RINOs. With the exception of a handful of Republicans who accidentally win office, almost every elected Republican is either indifferent or downright on the other side of the issues that really matter, in the way they matter, and at the time they matter. Just consider that only one senator and only one governor are fighting the issue of our time – biomedical tyranny. Or the fact that not only did a bunch of Republicans vote with Democrats to codify gay marriage as a right against religious liberty, but not a single leadership member in either party spoke out against it and none whipped against it.

In order to secure our votes, they pretend to be with us on the issues that don’t matter, or in the way and at the time they don’t matter. Then they employ a brilliant tactic to keep us on the plantation – threaten us with the prospect of the Democrat winning, the very same Democrats they work with on the issues that matter.

Cunningly, the Republicans understand that while they have no problem working with the Democrats, their base is truly revolted by and fearful of the Democrats. Hence, the argument of “but the Democrats” resonates the most precisely with those most likely to rebel against the perfidious party leadership. Thus, they have created a never-ending zero-sum game. The more the GOP commits perfidy and works with the Democrats on the issues of the time, the farther the political landscape and Overton window shift to the left. The more disquiet and fear instilled in the base about the Democrats further winning, the more the base is hoodwinked into voting Republican without doing any much-needed political surgery.

If you take this vicious cycle to its logical conclusion … it has no conclusion – other than us inexorably becoming wards of Klaus Schwab’s AI transhumanist kingdom. Because whether the issue is COVID, Ukraine, marriage, immigration, spending, global warming, no matter how much the Republicans screw us, they can always turn around and say, “Well, it’s going to be worse if the Democrats win.” In reality, it’s the GOP that acts as the forward advance guard or the getaway car for the Democrats – it’s a one-two step in which the Democrats could not succeed in what they are doing without a veneer of bipartisanship so that they won’t own the blame or fallout of their destructive policies.

Conservative talk show hosts and news influencers need to be asked: What is their plan to stop this cycle of failure and degeneration? And is there no limit to the perfidy of the GOP or particular Republicans that will finally prompt them to stop voting for them? Until conservatives are willing to shoot the hostage, they will never wield any leverage over the Republicans. McConnell and company rightly wager that Republicans will always come back to them because they have nowhere else to go. Jared Kushner said as much to Trump in advocating that he deviate from the MAGA agenda on certain issues.

As we explore multiple ways to shake up the party, particularly at the state and local levels in solid red states first, we must be willing to make it clear that at some point there is a bridge too far. Remember, the establishment torpedoes our candidates in the rare instance that they win the primaries. They not only refuse to support them but openly undermine them. We must return the favor.

The interesting thing about the Republican Party in the way it’s currently constituted is that it not only hates its base, but it increasingly does not appeal to independent voters, despite the fact that Democrats don’t really appeal to them either. Now is the perfect time to begin running respectable candidates with new ideas on an anti-elitist message but devoid of the typical divisive labels to appeal to a broad subset of the electorate who are deeply dismayed with the status quo of the duopoly. There is no silver bullet, but here is a rough outline of things that must be done concurrently:

A pledge against elite globalist Republicans: We don’t need perfection, but when you have Republicans openly undermining us on the key issues of the time, we need a petition of hundreds of thousands of Republican voters pledging they will never vote for them – primary or general election. A good place to start are the 12 Senate Republicans who voted to force gay marriage and its accompanying rainbow jihad against the church upon our communities. Almost all those 12 Republicans are in solid red states and undermine us on many other issues too. For example, Thom Tillis, who is a liberal pretty much on every issue, is also working on an amnesty bill with Democrats. It needs to be made clear that these people will never have our support.
Run independent candidates in the general election: So does this mean you just “let the Democrat win”? That should not stop us from running truly independent candidates in the general election for statewide office who have a broader message and have not been attached so much (or at all) to the Republican Party. I offered a blueprint for this in the Pennsylvania Senate race, when it became clear that Oz was both a leftist and unelectable, that we should have run someone from the medical freedom movement and strip the labels of “conservative” and “liberal.” We need to break the paradigm of the binary uniparty, and we only need one race to break this impervious monopoly. Also, unlike an official new party, it’s fairly easy to get on the ballot as an independent in most states. And nothing appeals more to swing voters these days than the label “independent,” which is something all of us who hate the status quo – from traditional conservative to populists or disenchanted classical liberal – should embrace.
Continue to run primaries with better focus: Where possible, we should still run in Republican primaries, but focus more on governors than on the House or Senate. The federal government is lost. We need to focus on getting more governors like Ron DeSantis in red states, yet at present we have not even a single one. Our entire primary focus should be on governors for red states like Utah, West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana, and Missouri, which are all up in 2024 but have lackluster GOP governors. There is an immediate opportunity in Kentucky, which has its election next year and is currently held by a Democrat. So far, Savannah Maddox, the most conservative member of the legislature, appears to be the best candidate. And again, when the result of the primaries is unacceptable to us, we should look for independent candidates with a broad appeal. This strategy has promise not only in solid red states but in swing states as well. As for downballot offices – from state legislature to school board and county positions – it’s hard to have a slate of independent candidates with enough money and name ID. We can probably only target this strategy of running independents initially for statewide office. So, for lower offices we will have to run Republicans; however, we need candidates who don’t consider themselves as Republicans and are merely using the party for ballot access – the same way the party uses us for our votes. For legislative bodies, we should make it clear that these candidates will form their own caucus and use their leverage against GOP leadership when needed, almost rendering it like a parliamentarian system. Once elected and having achieved notoriety, they can consider switching to independent, similar to what Kyrsten Sinema has just done after leaving the Democrat Party.
Switch from popular primaries to state conventions/caucuses: In swing states, the Republican brand is not only fraudulent but also toxic. In red states, the brand is still intact, but most red states are run by perfidious Republicans. I can write an entire book on how it’s nearly impossible to knock off Republicans in a primary without a scandal, and even most open seats are hard to win. They have all the money and use it to fool voters by running on our issues with no intent of fulfilling their promises. There is one way to change this cycle of failure. Rather than forcing candidates to raise millions of dollars, money only the bad guys have, they should go through a caucus or convention system whereby voters in precincts elect a representative to vote for them at a convention. The activists know who the frauds are. If you had a Utah-style convention in a state like Texas, Gregg Abbott would have lost his primary. This is the only way to get in a critical mass of non-Republican Republicans in one election cycle. Several years ago, I wrote an outline explaining how this would work.
Focus activism and pressure over issues, not just elections: The way to create a political environment either for primary challenges or independent runs is for conservative voters – who are busy with life, work, and family – to actually know just how bad their GOP governor and legislators are. We need a focused pressure campaign to expose the issues and personnel during legislative sessions so people realize in their deep red districts just how long their Republican representative has been faking it. Every policy opportunity in every legislative session must be exploited, and every bad policy from executive branches in red states must be pointed out and pressure brought to bear on the two-faced Republicans to “convert or die.” Getting active on the issues, especially at the state and local levels, which are less saturated with activism than Congress, is more impactful than elections.

There is a common denominator to all of these action items. They require a mindset that we are the masters of the GOP, not its servants. We must start holding Republicans’ feet to the fire, not carrying water for them. We have no obligation to them. There is a middle ground between continuing the same failed GOP game for the rest of our lives and immediately starting a new party. We make it clear that the Republican Party as it is currently constituted is dead to us, and we act in our own interests. The above ideas are just the beginning of an outline of what that practically looks like. Some of my colleagues in this business might be content to continue playing the game, but for me, I’m done. Life is too short to double down on failure.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Conservatives Can’t Run and Hide from The Left Anymore. They Have to Stand and Fight

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | NOVEMBER 18, 2022

abandoned church — **A tale of two parades in a small Texas town illustrates why conservatives can’t hide from the left. Not anymore.**

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOHNDDAVIDSON

One of the comforting fictions conservatives are increasingly tempted to tell themselves is that if they just move to a red state or county, the insanity of the woke left won’t affect them and their family. Ensconced in safely Republican communities, perhaps they’ll be free not just from disastrous Democrat policies but also from the pernicious sexual propaganda of the left. For conservatives with children, this is especially important.

But it’s a mirage. There is no American town or hamlet remote or red enough to prevent the infiltration of leftist ideology, which today often comes from institutions that in an earlier era would have been seen as the guardians of a decidedly Christian civic virtue. Not only are left-wing activists taking over these institutions, but they are also working to ban conservatives, and especially Christians, from the public square altogether.

There is nowhere today that conservatives can run and hide from the left. They can either surrender or stand and fight.

Consider what’s playing out in the small town of Taylor, Texas, population 16,807. Situated about 40 miles northeast of deep-blue Austin, it has long been precisely the sort of place conservative families might move to raise their children — a quiet and peaceful town full of churches in a deep-red part of the Lone Star State.

For decades, Taylor has staged a Christmas — not “holiday” — parade down Main Street. The Taylor Christmas Parade of Lights is a beloved tradition that for the past 10 years or so has been organized under the auspices of the Taylor Area Ministerial Alliance, or TAMA, a coalition of local churches.

Last year, as a result of an oversight in the application process, an LGBT advocacy group called Taylor Pride was included in the parade. The oversight in this case was that the old ladies who volunteer to organize the parade and process float applications had never heard of a group called Taylor Pride and didn’t realize what it was. (And no wonder, before the summer of 2021 the group had never staged a public event.)

By the time parade organizers found out, it was too late. Two men dressed in drag, one as a female Santa and the other scantily clad in glitter, were suggestively gyrating to dance music on the Taylor Pride float as it rolled down Main Street in the annual Christmas parade — as it happened, right in front of a float for Saint Mary’s Catholic School, which was full of children.

Parents and attendees were understandably outraged. Soon after the parade, TAMA decided that in the future, parade entries must be consistent with traditional biblical and family values, and made an announcement to that effect ahead of this year’s parade. The point, as TAMA’s statement made clear, was not to exclude any individuals or groups from attending or even participating in the parade, but to ensure the floats were family-friendly and not contrary to Christian teachings.

In response, the Taylor City Council announced it would stage a separate, city-sponsored parade, calling it the “Very Merry Holiday Parade and Celebration” — on the same night as the traditional TAMA parade, following immediately behind it on the same route, for the express purpose of giving Taylor Pride and other LGBT groups a parade of their own. As a recent post on the City of Taylor’s official Facebook page explained, the city is doing this because “we are committed to being inclusive and diverse in the City of Taylor.”

A spokesman for the city has since falsely characterized the situation to at least one local news outlet, saying TAMA had “made it clear that they did not want certain people to be a part of the parade,” and, “They were going to go in a little bit of a different direction … and make it a little bit more exclusive.”

This is exactly the opposite of what’s happened. The only thing that’s changed is that TAMA has realized that LGBT groups like Taylor Pride have targeted their town and attempted, with some success, to infiltrate and undermine their traditional civic celebrations of Christmas. So they decided to push back and insist on the survival of their traditions. Good for them.

The point here is that Taylor might as well be every conservative community in America. It’s located in Texas’s 31st Congressional District, one of two congressional districts in Texas that have never been represented by a Democrat. Voters there just reelected Republican Rep. John Carter for the 11th time. He ran unopposed. Taylor also sits in Williamson County, where nearly every elected office is held by a Republican.

Indeed, Taylor is the last place in the country where a family attending a Christmas parade organized by a coalition of local churches would expect to see two men in drag dancing inappropriately on a float rolling down Main Street. Yet like many such towns across the country, the city council and municipal staff are eager to prove just how enlightened and woke they are. Send in the drag queen holiday floats.

By now, Christians in Taylor must surely know that next year, there will be only one parade down Main Street in December — and it won’t be the Taylor Christmas Parade of Lights. Unless they vote the city council out of office and clean house in City Hall, traditions like the Christmas parade will soon be a thing of the past there, another lost battle in a never-ending war of attrition waged by the left. Same goes for the public library and the public schools. If conservatives don’t take them over, the left will.

It might just be one small town in Texas, but Taylor stands as a cautionary tale. It isn’t enough to move to a red state or a Republican district. You are going to have to fight the left, and win, or surrender to them. There is nowhere left to hide.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Will Conservatives Make Use Of Power This Time Around?

BY: CHRISTOPHER BEDFORD | NOVEMBER 09, 2022

Republican congressmen hold press conferences in front of flagstext — **Election night can be fun, but Republicans should not underestimate their opponents’ ability to keep a tight grip on control in Washington.**

Author Christopher Bedford profile

CHRISTOPHER BEDFORD

VISIT ON TWITTER@CBEDFORDDC

Election night can feel a rush for conservatives, which makes sense: After a few years, those politicians who rejected the country’s history, attacked the police, weaponized science, and persecuted Christians and their children were finally sent packing.

It’s always good to get a little separation from something as destructive as the modern Democratic Party, but there’s one problem, and it’s what comes next?

Really. Most of us lived through Scott Brown’s special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Just two years after he’d been elected in a historic victory, President Barack Obama had launched his signature legislation to increase government control over health care, and the reaction to his (and the GOP’s) elitist overreaches had finally brought out a previously quiet base of Americans. If he won the election, Scott Brown would break Obama’s supermajority, and stop Obamacare from becoming law.

As the election approached, the excitement spread. My parents took a commercial flight a few days before Election Day where the pilot pranked the intercom system, asking a “Sen. Scott Brown to please come to the front of the plane” to raucous applause. When the day finally came, I was off at the D.C. bar I was working at, so flew home to vote and spend my last dollar sharing a room at the campaign’s hotel. “Tonight’s Gonna Be A Good Night” blasted out of the speakers, while a smiling Gov. Mitt Romney gave television interviews from the ballroom risers.

I still have the issue of the arch-liberal Boston Globe announcing Brown’s win that night. I saved it because I thought he’d stopped Obamacare from becoming reality. And Brown did try! (At least on that issue.) The Republican Party, however, underestimated the lengths their political opponents would go to wield power and defeat their opponents. Twelve years later, Obamacare is still the law of the land and by now, not even talked about.

Ten months after the special election, Americans got another go at sending their men to Washington. The “tea party wave” was so strong, even the always-confident president appeared quiet and chastened, admitting to reporters his party had lost touch and taken “a shellacking.”

But he didn’t give up, eventually warning his opponents, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” before embarking on an ambitious agenda (that included remaking American citizenship) wielding solely executive power.

There was something to 2016, sure. A total outsider was elected president and, despite years of conspiracy theories, owed nothing to anyone. He’d serve as a wrecking ball, fighting the left on every front they opened, but by 2021, was gone. If just under two years on, Republicans are back, to what end?

Sure, neither Mitch McConnell nor Kevin McCarthy will be winning the presidency (a fact they’ll remind you of ad nauseum), but if they win the power of nominations and the power of the purse, how viciously will they wield the power they’ve been handed?

Will they halt the president’s extremely successful judicial nomination record? Halt it completely, without exception?

Will they ask where the billions in dollars and arms going to Ukraine ended up, or just keep sleepwalking toward a nuclear standoff?
Will they claw back the IRS’s newfound funds, or leave their tens of thousands of new agents on the job?
Will they continue to send $45 billion to America’s hard-left universities without a word of objection, as they have for years?
Will they demand funding for a wall, end funding toward abortions here and abroad, and refuse to confirm ambassadors and other posts devoted to spreading the left’s culture war to Vatican City and further abroad?
Will they break up the Big Tech companies who wield their power to control the flow of information to voters?

Or on all these issues, will they just tinker around the edges and go on Fox News to crow about it?

While election nights like last night can be a whole lot of fun, the reality is voters often wake up next to a stranger who’s planning to stick around for the next two years.

Conservatives have been losing for about a century now, and at this point rightly find little to conserve. If this will change any at all, they’ll need to think of themselves not as conservatives, but as revolutionaries. If they’re going to make a difference, they might as well: They’ll be up against a powerful executive, its sprawling army of lifelong employees, its allies in the intelligence agencies, Pentagon, corporate media, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and beyond.

Like an addict realizing the vicious power the drug holds over them, some among us have finally realized the vicious power being wielded against the West. We’ve been losing for a century, yes, but really, we’ve only begun to fight. Maybe 2022 will be different from all the rest, but not without a fight. You don’t beat the regime by voting on Election Day — you beat it by making hell each and every day.

Christopher Bedford is the executive editor of the upcoming Common Sense magazine, from the Common Sense Society. From December 2019 through October 2022, he was a senior editor at The Federalist. He is vice chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, a board member at The Daily Caller News Foundation and National Journalism Center, and the author of “The Art of the Donald.” His work has been featured in The American Mind, National Review, the New York Post and the Daily Caller, where he led the Daily Caller News Foundation and spent eight years. A frequent guest on Fox News and Fox Business, he was raised in Massachusetts and lives across the river from D.C. Follow him on Twitter.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

SOME POLITICALLY INCORRECT FUN

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Idaho conservatives poised to remake legislature like never before

OP-ED | DANIEL HOROWITZ | May 19, 2022

Idaho has long suffered a paradox, in that it is so dominated by Republicans that it is not so Republican at all. Because it is a de facto one-party state, many liberals who are well connected to the woke industries and lobbyists choose to run as Republicans and use their superior campaign cash to campaign as conservatives, the exact opposite of what they plan to do in office. This is why, despite a 58-12 majority in the House and a 28-7 majority in the Senate, conservatives rarely enjoy legislative wins that other red states are able to easily secure. Last night’s elections might have changed that in a big way.

Establishment Republican elites are crowing about their apparent victories in both the Pennsylvania Senate race and the Idaho gubernatorial race on Tuesday. Idaho Gov. Brad Little warded off a challenge from Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin. However, when you get past the statewide elections, which require tremendous money and organization to make competitive – money true conservatives don’t have – we find a different story.

A total of 20 incumbent Republicans – 11 running for the Senate and nine running for the House – were defeated or poised to lose as of Tuesday night. A big part of these results is thanks to the work of the Idaho Freedom PAC, which actively recruited candidates against incumbents.

It’s truly hard to overstate the significance of this development. Thirteen of the 28 Republican senators didn’t stand for re-election. Out of the 15 remaining, nine were defeated, and several RINO House members seeking a Senate seat lost to conservatives. There is almost no parallel to that in recent history. While some of the races involved other quirks or were due to redistricting, and a few others were conservatives who were defeated by more ideologically ambiguous candidates, for the most part, conservatives downed many liberal Republicans and made gains in open seats.

Among the highlights were conservative Rep. Codi Galloway beating Sen. Fred Martin, the five-term Senate Health and Welfare Committee chair from Boise. Sen. Jim Patrick, who served five terms in the Senate and three in the House, was defeated by a conservative as well. He was chairman of the Senate Commerce & Human Resources Committee. Also, Rep. Greg Chaney, the outgoing chair of Judiciary, Rules & Administration in the House, lost his bid for a Senate seat, and Sen. Carl Crabtree, vice chair of the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee, lost his seat.

Additionally, two conservatives who moved from California to seek freedom in the Gem State defeated prominent incumbents. Retired California firefighter Carl Bjerke took out Senate Health and Welfare Committee vice chair Sen. Peter Riggs. Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee co-chair Sen. Jeff Agenbroad was defeated by Brian Lenney, who moved his family from California to Nampa in 2010.

Even in a number of instances where the incumbent survived, the challengers came much closer than we usually see in statewide elections. Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Winder only won his race by about 640 votes. Now he will face a brand-new caucus that can possibly vote him out of leadership. Conservatives would have enjoyed an even better night if not for the fact that leadership drew several of them into the same district and forced them to compete with each other. This dynamic made the House results more of a wash, but the House was already fairly conservative. So, the fact that the Senate has caught up to it will give the legislature a lot of clout over Gov. Brad Little.

What this success at the legislative level demonstrates is that for lower offices, where the bar to entry is much lower in terms of financial needs, conservatives are on a much more level playing field.

Even in the statewide elections, there are signs that in the future, conservatives can sweep the state. Former Congressman Raul Labrador defeated a 22-year incumbent for attorney general. Conservatives also came within a hair of winning the office of secretary of state and only lost because of vote-splitting. Even for governor, Brad Little only secured 53% of the total vote. Had there been a runoff option, the race might have picked up more momentum and could have become contested. With less vote-splitting and slightly stronger candidates, conservatives can truly take over the state next time.

In other states, mainly in the South, where there are runoffs, conservatives have a stronger chance to compete statewide. Next week, conservatives have an opportunity to draw Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey into a runoff. One recent poll showed Ivey only garnering 40% of the vote, with socially conservative businessman Tim James in second place for a potential runoff. Vote-splitting has plagued conservatives for decades, and the institution of runoffs in more states would allow them to compete against the establishment without fear of dividing the vote of thinking voters.

The Idaho media cheer for liberal Republicans because they don’t really have Democrat horses to ride, but even they recognize the significance of the Idaho Freedom PAC’s work in changing the state’s politics. A bigger focus on state legislatures will pay great dividends in the future, and other states can mimic the work of the Idaho Freedom PAC.

Indeed, the trend of RINO chairmen losing their seats played out in other states on Tuesday night. Three RINO Kentucky House chairs lost their seats in northern Kentucky. Eight-term incumbent Adam Koenig, chairman of the House Licensing and Occupations Committee, was defeated by Steven Doan, a liberty candidate supported by Congressman Thomas Massie and state Rep. Savannah Maddox, a rising conservative star who might run for governor next year. Rep. Ed Massey, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from Hebron, and Rep. Sal Santoro, an eight-term incumbent and chairman of the Transportation Budget Committee, were also defeated.

In Pennsylvania, Rep. Stan Saylor of York County and Sen. Pat Browne of Lehigh County, both the House and Senate appropriations committee chairs respectively, were defeated by conservative challengers. Saylor had been in the House for 30 years. Republicans already have strong majorities in both houses, and if they can pick up the governorship with Doug Mastriano, a more conservative legislature can dramatically alter the political trajectory of the state.

So, what gives when it comes to 63% of the Pennsylvania Republicans voting for Mehmet Oz or Dave McCormick over the conservative favorite, Kathy Barnette? Very simple. They each raised close to $16 million and ran as solid conservatives, so the other challengers, including Kathy Barnette, were outgunned. On the other hand, Doug Mastriano, likely the most conservative in the gubernatorial field, won his primary in a landslide. In that case, there was no unified establishment candidate with endless sums of money to fool the voters.

Overall, conservatives would be wise to focus more on state and local races rather than federal races. Making red states red again and state legislatures great again will go a long way in divorcing ourselves from the morass of Washington. The RINOs can have the irremediably broken federal system, while we focus on rebuilding liberty in some of the states.

Category:

Opinion, Political

Tagged with:

‘America First’ Rally Canceled, California City Where It Was Planned to Take Place Issues Jaw-Dropping Statement About Where They Draw the Line on Free Speech

Reported by Jack Davis, Contributor for westernjournal.com | July 18, 2021

An “America First” rally that had been scheduled for Saturday in Anaheim, California, was canceled, and city officials were jubilant over the news.

A Twitter post from the city announced the cancellation, noting that the city was a prime mover in ensuring that the event featuring Republican Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia would not take place.

“The city of Anaheim shared public safety concerns with the operator, and those concerns were shared by the operator,” the statement said.

Then came a hint at the real reason.

“As a city we respect free speech but also have a duty to call out speech that does not reflect the city or our values,” the statement said.Advertisement – story continues below

When the city was called out for picking and choosing which brands of free speech were permitted, the city insisted safety concerns it did not elaborate upon were the real reason.

“Please help us share accurate information. We uphold free speech every day in Anaheim. As a city, we enjoy the same right of free speech and can note when something doesn’t align with our values. To be clear: public safety concerns are why this is not still on,” the city said in a statement.

Many on Twitter noted that this decision smacked of censorship.

Saturday’s canceled rally was to be held at the Anaheim Event Center, a privately owned facility, according to KNBC-TV.Advertisement – story continues below

The event had been scheduled at venues in two other southern California cities — Laguna Hills and Riverside — but each backed out, KNBC reported.

“I recognize this was a divisive issue in our community, and I am glad it has been resolved,” Riverside Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson said, adding that she commended a venue that canceled the event.

The Laguna Hills venue, the Pacific Hills Banquet & Event Center, is also privately owned.

However, the Riverside Convention Center, which also canceled the rally, is owned by the city. That means the cancellation could face a serious legal challenge, KNBC reported.

Greene and Gaetz did hold a protest event outside Riverside City Hall on Saturday.

“They may try to shut down our venues, but we will take this fight to them in the courts, in the halls of Congress and, if necessary, in the streets,” Gaetz said, according to KCAL-TV.

Donald Trump won the last election and he’s gonna win the next one!

Massive crowd for #AmericaFirst in Riverside.

Great to be on tour with @mtgreenee! pic.twitter.com/wPbNehqcUD
— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) July 18, 2021

The radical communist left can’t cancel us!!!#AmericaFirst 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/RA4hIGnRAV
— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) July 18, 2021

“Here’s what they need to understand,” Greene said, according to KNBC-TV. “We’re going to put America first, we will not back down.”

Lawsuits have been threatened over the cancellations.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Jack Davis, Contributor,

Jack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Christian leaders form new site to ‘stop corporate tyranny’

Reported By Jerry Bowyer, CP Guest Contributor | Thursday, April 22

Recent weeks have seen a renewed focus of the conservative Christian movement on “woke capital.” Following corporate denouncements of the new Georgia voting law, many Christians and conservatives are looking for ways to resist the growing tide within corporate America of partisan activism. Amidst this controversy, a coalition of conservative and evangelical thought leaders opposed to corporate activism, has launched a new website: StopCorporateTyranny.org. It is dedicated to exposing left-wing activism with corporations and educating conservative Christians about how it can be opposed. The website is a hub for updates, information, and resources for normal investors who are troubled by the growing trend of explicit corporate activism. It includes articles highlighting recent examples of woke capital and will call attention to campaigns to push-back against corporate politics.

“Free speech is under attack like never before. Activists are weaponizing Big Tech and other corporations as an arm of cancel culture,” said Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel and SVP of communications at the Alliance Defending Freedom. “While we continue to enjoy strong legal protections for free speech, our cultural institutions, our universities, and our corporations are rejecting free speech, and even punishing people for expressing their ideas. We face the very real risk of our societal norm of robust debate and dialogue being replaced with shaming, shunning, and silencing. Big Tech’s ongoing campaign of censorship against conservative and religious views is a prime example of this ominous threat to all Americans. Free speech is a cornerstone of a vibrant and prosperous nation. It’s essential for democracy, the search for truth, and as a check on governmental power and tyranny. Instead of virtue signaling to a woke mob that’s never appeased, corporations should take actions that build up a culture of free speech and religious freedom that will serve their customers, employees, and all Americans for generations to come.”

Within the conservative movement, there has been much discussion over the possibility of regulating big business to ensure ideological neutrality by law. Such a move is rife with potential complications, and even if those complications are resolved and some concrete policy proposal is found, it will likely be several years before the Republican Party is in a position to legislate on this issue.

But, while some wait for fairer political winds, progressive partisanship in American business is only increasing. The StopCorporateTyranny.org project is a mobilization of the conservative movement to fight back against corporate activism now, regardless of which party controls the White House.

This campaign comes at a time of increasing scrutiny over corporate activism. For many religious and conservative leaders, the recent attacks by corporate America on Georgia’s voting law have prompted a re-examination of what the political focus for their movement should be. Since the election of Donald Trump, big businesses – particularly tech giants – have become more openly partisan and politically involved. Richard Manning, President of Americans for Limited Government, said by email that “the attack on Georgia over their decision to require voter identification for voters by multi-national corporations is reminiscent to the attack on North Carolina led by Silicon Valley corporations when the state voted to keep men out of women’s restrooms.”

In the intervening years between North Carolina’s 2015 “bathroom bill” and today, corporate boardrooms have increasingly become a focal point for progressive politics. Despite the long-standing tradition of conservative support for corporations, corporate activism is now so widespread that many Republican officeholders are openly advocating punitive actions by government against some of the largest companies in America.

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri recently announced his support for breaking up Amazon. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida declared his support for Amazon workers attempting to unionize, accusing the tech-giant of “waging a culture war against working-class values.” It is increasingly the view of many that the alliance between the political left and corporate America represents a serious threat to traditional values.

In some cases, businesses have explicitly committed themselves to deplatforming conservative dissent. Following the passage of Georgia’s voting law, dozens of corporate leaders participated in a Zoom call in which they discussed how to oppose voting laws being proposed in other red states. But most of the country does not believe that the proper role for corporations is advocating for political causes.

In the midst of this flashpoint, StopCorporateTyranny.org is an emerging resource for educating conservatives and Christians on how to push back against the politicization of big business – which does not rely on government action, as the makeup of the federal government does not determine whether shareholders, investors, and customers can rein in boardrooms. It is a grass-roots effort, headed by some of the leaders of the conservative Christian movement, designed to provide tools to ordinary Americans for resisting corporate activism. “Right now, nearly 400 large corporations are pushing Capitol Hill to enact the Equality Act. Working in concert with the far-left Human Rights Campaign, these major businesses are not only seeking to end women’s sports, but to end religious freedom. Full stop,” Justin Danhof, director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research, said by email. “Americans of faith must engage with these corporate oppressors and https://www.stopcorporatetyranny.org will provide you with the tools and resources to do just that. It’s time that big businesses heard from all ‘stakeholders’ not just those pushing leftist policies.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Jerry Bowyer is financial economist, president of Bowyer Research, and author of “The Maker Versus the Takers: What Jesus Really Said About Social Justice and Economics.”

Category:

Political, Spiritual

Tagged with:

Former Facebook Exec Calls For OANN, Newsmax to be Deplatformed: ‘We Have to Turn Down the Capability of Conservative Influencers to Reach Huge Audiences’ (VIDEO)

Reported By Cristina Laila | Published January 17, 2021

Former Facebook executive Alex Stamos called for conservative news alternatives OANN and Newsmax to be de-platformed during his appearance on CNN Sunday.

Stamos said, “We have to turn down the capability of these Conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences.”

“There are people on YouTube for example that have a larger audience than daytime CNN,” he added and CNN’s Brian Stelter nodded in agreement.

WATCH:

Alex Stamos left Facebook after a series of massive failures on his part such as allowing sexualized images of children on the platform yet he believes he is the arbiter of truth.

Cristina Laila

Cristina began writing for The Gateway Pundit in 2016 and she is currently the Associate Editor.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Country Star Says Others In The Industry Are Being ‘Muzzled’ When Expressing ‘Anger’ Over ‘Targeting Of Conservatives’

Reported by KATIE JERKOVICH, ENTERTAINMENT REPORTER | January 15, 2021

A Day In The Life With “Celebrity Apprentice” Finalist John Rich (Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)

Country star John Rich said he’s been hearing from more and more artists in the industry about being “muzzled” when expressing “anger” over the “targeting of conservatives.”

“The list of country artists calling me is growing by the day who are saying they’re being ‘muzzled’ by the industry when it comes to them expressing their frustration and anger about the targeting of conservatives, and suppression of free speech by the powers that be,” the 47-year-old superstar singer tweeted to his many followers. The comments were noted by Fox News in a piece published Friday. “#BlackBall.” (RELATED: Ivanka Trump Calls Out Rioters, Says ‘The Violence Must Stop Immediately’)

“Someone’s ‘opinion’ doesn’t dictate what is true/false,” he added in a follow-up tweet. “Not my opinion, or yours. Free speech means SPEAKING FREELY.” (RELATED: Celebrities, Political Personalities Denounce Violent Insurrection At Capitol Hill)

“When ‘fact checkers’ wipe out platforms based on their ‘opinion’ of what you say being True/False, it’s akin to historic movements that always ended in disaster,” Rich concluded. (RELATED: Lead Singer Of English Funk Band Says He’s ‘Not’ The Viking Seen Rioting Capitol)

The “Big and Rich” singer‘s comments come after Twitter announced it had suspended President Donald Trump’s social media account following the riot at the Capitol.

“It’s an honor to be attacked for professing my loyalty to God, Country and family,” he added. “If big tech liked me, I’d take it as an insult. #OnwardChristianSoldiers.”

As previously reported, last week a “Save America” rally was held in Washington, D.C. where Trump spoke to supporters and said he would walk with them to the Capitol to “cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women” challenging his loss to President-elect Joe Biden.

The rally eventually turned into a riot, with video surfacing of supporters fighting Capitol Hill police to get into the building. The violence has led to the deaths of five people.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Rush Limbaugh Gives Harrowing Health Update

Reported By Jack Davis | Published October 20, 2020 at 6:54am

Conservative radio icon Rush Limbaugh on Monday told his listeners “the days where I do not think I’m under a death sentence are over” and his fight with cancer is “terminal.”

In February, the legendary broadcaster revealed he had advanced lung cancer but vowed to stay on the radio as he battled the disease. Limbaugh said in May that his treatment was physically grueling but that he would not stop fighting. As recently as July, he said he was hoping the treatment would give him “extra innings.”

But on Monday, Limbaugh told his audience that the latest results show the cancer that had been stymied is growing once again, according to a transcript of his remarks posted on his website.

“From the moment you get the diagnosis, there’s a part of you every day, OK, that’s it. Life’s over,” he said. “You just don’t know when. But when you get that diagnosis, I mean, that’s … So, during the period of time after the diagnosis, you do what you can to prolong life, do what you can to prolong a happy life. You measure a happy life against whatever medication it takes.

“And at some point you can decide, you know, this medication may be working, but I hate the way I feel every day. I’m not there yet. But it is part and parcel of this.“It’s tough to realize that the days where I do not think I’m under a death sentence are over. Now, we all are, is the point. We all know that we’re going to die at some point, but when you have a terminal disease diagnosis that has a time frame to it, then that puts a different psychological and even physical awareness to it.”

He said that when he went to the doctor last week, “The scans did show some progression of cancer. Now, prior to that, the scans had shown that we had rendered the cancer dormant. That’s my phrase for it. We had stopped the growth. It had been reduced, and it had become manageable.”

Limbaugh said the results were in some ways inevitable “because it is cancer. It eventually outsmarts pretty much everything you throw at it. And this, of course, this is stage four lung cancer.”

Later he noted that “stage four is, as they say, terminal. So we have some recent progression. It’s not dramatic, but it is the wrong direction.”

The results mean that Limbaugh’s treatment is being adjusted “in hopes of keeping additional progression at bay for as long as possible.”

Many on Twitter saluted Limbaugh.

………………………………………….“I try to remain committed to the idea what’s supposed to happen, will happen when it’s meant to. I mentioned at the outset of this — the first day I told you — that I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ,” he said. “It is of immense value, strength, confidence, and that’s why I’m able to remain fully committed to the idea that what is supposed to happen will happen when it’s meant to.

PLEASE READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT https://www.westernjournal.com/rush-limbaugh-gives-harrowing-health-update/

Category:

Health

Tagged with:

Exclusive from Gen. Flynn: This Is My Letter to America

Commentary By Michael Flynn | Published August 5, 2020 at 11:17am

We are witnessing a vicious assault by enemies of all that is good, and our president is having to act in ways unprecedented in decades, maybe centuries. The biblical nature of good versus evil cannot be discounted as we examine what is happening on the streets of America.

It’s Marxism in the form of antifa and the Black Lives Matter movement versus our very capable and very underappreciated law enforcement professionals, the vast majority of whom are fighting to provide us safe and secure homes, streets and communities.

When the destiny of the United States is at stake, and it is, the very future of the entire world is threatened. As Christians, shouldn’t we act? We recognize that divine Providence is the ultimate judge of our destiny. Achieving our destiny as a freedom-loving nation, Providence compels us to do our part in our communities.

It encourages us in this battle against the forces of evil to face our fears head-on. No enemy on earth is stronger than the united forces of God-fearing, freedom-loving people. We can no longer pretend that these dark forces are going to go away by mere prayer alone. Prayers matter, but action is required.

This action is needed at the local, state and federal levels. Action is also required in the economic, media, clerical and ecclesiastical realms.

Decide how you can act within your abilities. Stand up and state your beliefs. Be proud of who you are and what you stand for. And face, head-on, those community “leaders” who are willing to allow dark forces to go beyond peaceful protests and destroy and violate your safety and security.

Do you think Christians in America need to stand up and act?

Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Churches and houses of worship must return to normal. We invite everyone of goodwill to not shirk their responsibilities and instead act in a fraternal fashion. If for no other reason or with no other ability, act in a spirit of charity. We cannot disrespect or disregard natural law along with our own religious liberties and freedoms.

I am witnessing elderly people lose their connection to all that is good in their lives: connections to their faith, their families and their individual freedoms, especially the simple act of attending church, something they’ve been doing for decades. Let us not be intimidated or fear those who cry out that we are in the minority; we are not. Good is always more powerful and will prevail over evil.

However, evil will succeed for a time when good people are divided from each other and their personal lives — children away from their teachers, preachers from their congregations, customers from their local businesses. America will never give in to evil. Americans work together to solve problems.

We do not and should not ever allow anarchy and the evil forces behind it to operate on any street in our nation. No one should have to fear for their very life because some dark, disturbed force is challenged by the very essence of what America stands for.

We are “one nation under God” and it is our individual liberties that make us strong, not liberties given to our government. Our government has no liberty unless and until “we the people” say so.

God bless America and let’s stand by everything that was and is good in our lives, in our communities and in our country. Otherwise, America as the true North Star for humanity will cease to exist as we know it.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Michael Flynn

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn served as national security advisor to President Donald Trump.

Category:

Political, Spiritual

Tagged with:

‘Baby Lives Matter’ Mural Appears in Front of a Planned Parenthood Facility in Washington, DC

Reported By Randy DeSoto | Published July 27, 2020 at 3:33pm

URL of the originating web site: https://www.westernjournal.com/baby-lives-matter-mural-appears-front-planned-parenthood-facility-washington-dc/

A “Baby Lives Matter” mural appeared on the street in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Washington, D.C., over the weekend.

“The ‘Baby Lives Matter’ movement is responsible for the mural. They are painting such murals around the country,” Benny Johnson, chief creative officer with the student activist group Turning Point USA, tweeted Sunday.

The mural is located in front of the Carol Whitehill Moses Planned Parenthood Center near Union Market in Washington, about 1.5 miles from the U.S. Capitol.

Tayler Hansen, founder of the Baby Lives Matter movement, tweeted, “10 unarmed Black Americans were killed by police in 2019. They have murals all around the country.

“Almost 400,000 innocent babies were murdered by Planned Parenthood in 2019. It’s about d— time they get a mural too.”

Earlier this month, the pro-life activist painted the same message in front of a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Salt Lake City. In a video posted to Twitter on July 17, Hansen explained his motivation.

“In 2019, abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide. Almost 43 million children were denied the most basic right of all — life. Which is why I felt inclined to demonstrate a true peaceful protest dedicated to those abandoned without a voice,” he said.

The artist told KUTV-TV that he purposely used a paint that would wash away to avoid any criminal liability. Johnson noted in a tweet at the time, “Once leftists opened up public roads for political speech it was only a matter of time before a conservative response.”

In a statement to The Western Journal last year, Douglass Leadership Institute chairman and Human Coalition Action executive director Dean Nelson pointed out the devastating impact Planned Parenthood has had on black people and other racial minorities.

“Planned Parenthood has a long and well-documented history of targeting minority populations,” he said.

“This agenda goes back to Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, whose life’s work was to eradicate all individuals and groups she considered ‘unfit’ to live.”

In a statement to The Western Journal on Monday, Nelson said, “I am inspired by the pro life message I saw in front of Planned Parenthood in DC. That message along with the recent statement from Planned Parenthood of Greater New York about Margaret Sanger’s racism has provoked black leaders and students to connect the dots this weekend by painting Black PreBorn Lives Matter at the same location.”

In its Abortion Surveillance report released last fall, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined for the year 2016, African-American women accounted for 38 percent of all abortions, though black people make up only 13 percent of the overall population. Hansen launched a GoFundMe campaign for more murals to be painted in front of Planned Parenthood facilities around the country.

“The goal was simple: To draw attention to the tens of millions of innocent lives that have been ended by Planned Parenthood,” the GoFundMe page reads.

As of Monday afternoon, he had raised more than $7,400 toward his goal of $10,000.

“This was a pure passion project for Tayler,” the GoFundMe page says. “He completed the [Salt Lake City] mural by himself and spent a considerable portion of his life savings buying the material to get the job done.”

Hansen is looking to fund 10 more murals.

UPDATE, July 27, 2020: After the publication of this article, Dean Nelson responded to The Western Journal’s request for comment with an emailed statement. This article has been updated to include additional comments from Nelson.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Randy DeSoto

Senior Staff Writer

Randy DeSoto has written more than 1,000 articles for The Western Journal since he joined the company in 2015. He is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

@RandyDeSoto

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Report: Happiest Wives Are Religious Conservatives

Reported by DR. SUSAN BERRY | 21 May 2019

Brendan Hoffman/Getty

The authors of a new report about marriage, faith, and families found the happiest wives in America are those who are religious conservatives.

“Fully 73 percent of wives who hold conservative gender values and attend religious services regularly with their husbands have high-quality marriages,” wrote researchers W. Bradford Wilcox, Jason S. Carroll and Laurie DeRose at the New York Times.

It turns out that the happiest of all wives in America are religious conservatives, followed by their progressive counterparts https://t.co/jaxXzMkEf7

— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) May 20, 2019

Their report, titled, “The Ties That Bind: Is Faith a Global Force for Good or Ill in the Family?” was published by the Institute for Family Studies and the Wheatley Institution.

“When it comes to relationship quality, there is a J-curve in women’s marital happiness, with women on the left and the right enjoying higher quality marriages than those in the middle — but especially wives on the right,” the authors explained.

They continued that American wives who are in the middle, both religiously and ideologically, as well as secular conservative wives, are less likely to experience high-quality marriages:

We suspect that part of their relative unhappiness, compared with religiously conservative women, is that they don’t enjoy the social, emotional and practical support for family life provided by a church, mosque or synagogue. We also suspect that these groups are less likely to have husbands who have made the transition to the “new father” ideal that’s gained currency in modern America — and they’re not happy with their partner’s disengagement.

Following behind religious conservative wives, 60 percent of highly religious progressive wives said they were “very happy.”

Among secular liberal couples, 55 percent of married women reported above-average relationship quality, while 33 percent of women in traditional secular marriages reported the same.

According to the researchers, devoted husbands and fathers are at the center of American wives’ view of happiness:

[I]n listening to the happiest secular progressive wives and their religiously conservative counterparts, we noticed something they share in common: devoted family men. Both feminism and faith give family men a clear code: They are supposed to play a big role in their kids’ lives. Devoted dads are de rigueur in these two communities. And it shows: Both culturally progressive and religiously conservative fathers report high levels of paternal engagement.

The researchers’ presentation of their report in the NYT editorial created a stir on social media with a fair amount of bitterness:

Can confirm what all the other Evangelicals are saying. Self-reporting on this is not a reflection of reality. Conservative women are taught that being anything other than happy is a spiritual and moral failure.

— Stephanie McCown (@Lunges_n_Lashes) May 20, 2019

You know absolutely about the repression of religious conservative women, huh?

I would have reported that I was “so happy” while I went back and forth planning my suicide. This is irresponsible reporting.

— Manic Aes Sedai Dream Girl (@RCruzyBee) May 20, 2019

I know Christians from having been in the evangelical church for 20 awful years of my life. Several different ones, different denominations. But all the same. Full of hate. Full of fear. Pretending everything is okay for fear that being ungrateful will make them lose everything.

— Dembai (Tracy Hilliard) (@LadyDembai) May 20, 2019

This is hilarious. They all asked their spouses if it was ok to answer the survey in the first place. Then they made it a dinner table conversation to make sure they answered the questions correctly. I know evangelicals. Women do not have separate lives.

— flick fifo (@atheistscott) May 20, 2019

Others responded more happily:

Yup, can confirm! A marriage centered around God with a foundation on His Word equals happiness..love it! pic.twitter.com/cEfCKua1Tb

— Chrissy (@chrissylou76) May 20, 2019

Where my mom and dad met. Married 65 happy years.

— jdkahler (@jdkahler) May 21, 2019

Category:

Political, Religion, Spiritual

Tagged with:

Getting Caught up with A.F. Branco Politically INCORRECT Cartoons

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Wake Up n’ Smell the Tyranny

A.F. Branco on May 6, 2019 at 7:40 am | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-wake-up-n-smell-the-despotism/

Social Media Banning Conservative – There’s an all-out assault on conservative free speech by social media giants Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google in America.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Sty-Gate

A.F. Branco | on May 7, 2019 at 7:40 am | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-sty-gate/

Because AG Barr is known for his integrity and is now set to investigate those on the left for spying on a political opponent, Nadler, and the Democrats seek to tarnish his reputation.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Israeli Trump Card

A.F. Branco | on May 9, 2019 at 7:40 am | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-israeli-trump-card/

Obama and Kerry seemed to be more on the side of Hamas and the terrorists than they were for Israel, but it’s the exact opposite with Trump.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Raising the Barr

A.F. Branco | on May 10, 2019 at 7:40 am | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-raising-the-barr/

Because Barr won’t release the unredacted Mueller report, that would be illegal to release, Nadler is charging him with contempt for upholding the rule of law.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Near Miss

A.F. Branco | on May 13, 2019 at 7:40 am | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-near-miss/

Some say Nadler and the Democrats are creating a Constitutional Crisis in their effort to destroy President Trump and reverse the 2016 election.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – No More Kowtow

A.F. Branco | on May 14, 2019 at 7:40 am | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-no-more-kowtow/

Trump strikes back with big tariffs when China reneges on the original deal outline and talks ended. China has now retaliated with their own tariffs.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Three Stooges

A.F. Branco | on May 20, 2019 at 7:00 am | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-three-stooges/

Brennan, Clapper, and Comey are beginning to pointing fingers at each other now that AG Barr has appointed US Attorney John Durham to investigate Spying on the Trump campaign.

See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

An adult children’s Book for all ages APOCALI NOW! brilliantly lampoons the left order HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

take our poll – story continues below

Who are the happiest people?

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has recently had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Sarah Lawrence College “students of color” protesters issue 9-pages of demands, target conservative professor

Posted by William A. Jacobson Monday, March 11, 2019 at 9:06pm

URL of the original posting site: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/03/sarah-lawrence-college-students-of-color-protesters-issue-9-pages-of-demands-target-conservative-professor/

“We demand that Samuel Abrams’ position at the College be put up to tenure review to a panel of the Diaspora Coalition and at least three faculty members of color.”

In early November 2018, we covered the story of a conservative Sarah Lawrence College professor Samuel Abrams who came under attack after writing an Op-Ed in The New York Times advocating for diversity of opinion on campuses.

The campus social justice warriors, who claim to be devoted to diversity, didn’t appreciate the call for intellectual diversity, Sarah Lawrence Prof pens Op-Ed about lack of intellectual diversity, social justice warriors want him driven off campus.

As detailed in that post, student protesters demanded Abrams be removed from campus, and his office door was defaced. Abrams wrote about his in experience at The Spectator, The dangerous silence in higher education:

Within hours, my office door and surrounding corridor was vandalized. Pictures of my family were taken and bumper stickers that I had placed on the door to create a welcoming environment for students were stripped off. The vandals covered my door and surrounding hallway area with hateful paraphernalia intended to intimidate me into leaving the school. I received subsequent threats, and an alumna I have never met claims to be actively working on ways to ‘ruin my life’ while many others are demanding that my tenure be stripped all because I wrote a relatively tame article with which they disagree.

Following the defacement of my door, I was disappointed by the lack of a clear stand against violence and intimidation, and the lack of support for academic freedom and diversity of thought I expected from the College administrators. In fact, a note I received from a College official described the act as ‘alleged vandalism.’

There is a culture at Sarah Lawrence College which is regularly reinforced by various students, faculty, and administrators: tacitly regulate what topics are open to debate and identify which questions should simply be overlooked for fear that asking them could lead to significant negative consequences.

Abrams is under attack again by the campus social justice warriors.

There is a building sit-in/takeover going on at Sarah Lawrence by a coalition calling itself “the Diaspora Coalition” — an apparent reference to the African diaspora.

As part of the building takeover, the group has issued a 9-page list of demands (pdf.)(source)(full embed at bottom of post) of demands reminiscent of demand lists that were the rage a couple of years ago at places like Oberlin College.

The demand list reportedly was signed by 140 students.

The Sarah Lawrence demand list starts:

… We, the Diaspora Coalition, are a group of students who can speak to the injustices imposed on people of color by this institution on a daily basis. The Diaspora Coalition was established this fall in order to address the pain of marginalized students as well as to advise the administration on how to best address this pain. Each of us has seen this administration repeatedly diminish the hard work of student activists who merely want a quality education and the personalized curriculum that SLC promises. We extend solidarity to all people of color in the Sarah Lawrence Community, including international students, graduate students, faculty, and staff….

On March 11, 2019, the Diaspora Coalition, along with our allied peers, will occupy Westlands, make calls to the board, and present demands that describe not only our ideal vision for the school but also what we see as the only acceptable terms by which Sarah Lawrence can remain for the students and against hate. If the College does not accept these demands, it will no longer be hailed as a progressive institution but instead remembered for its inability to truly embody its self-proclaimed progressive ideology and support all students against an international rising tide of white supremacy and fascism. Sarah Lawrence was not founded on racial or economic equality and has not implemented sufficient strategies to dismantle systematic oppression to be sustainable or safe for marginalized people in an increasingly dangerous political climate. Low-income students should not have to question if they belong at this institution. We have worked tirelessly to make our voices heard and demands met because we believe in a Sarah Lawrence that can be for the people, by the people.

The demand list then goes through a laundry list of gripes and demands. Including, a laundry list:

“All campus laundry rooms are to supply laundry detergent and softener on a consistent basis for all students, faculty and staff.”

Among the other self-parody demands are:

“The College will designate housing with a minimum capacity for thirty students of color that is not contingent on the students expending any work or labor for the college. This housing option will be permanent and increase in space and size based on interest.”

“In addition to the expansion of the food pantry, we demand the College implement a 24/7 space in the Barbara Walters Center focused on providing food and necessities including pads, tampons, and detergent. Students should be able to obtain these items using with their meal plan or meal money.”

“We demand a mandatory first-year orientation session about intellectual elitism and classism.”

“We demand the College provide free storage to international students as part of the College’s commitment to student welfare.”

Then the Diaspora Coalition turned its attention to faculty, demanding hiring based on race (emphasis in original):

Diasporic Studies

Students of color should not be forced to resort to racist white professors in order to have access to their own history. It is crucial that the College offer courses taught about people of color by people of color so that students may engage in and produce meaningful work that represents them authentically.

We demand there be new tenured faculty of color – at least two in African diasporic studies, one in Asian-American studies, one in Latinx diasporic studies, and one in indigenous/native peoples studies.

We demand there be at least three more courses offered in African diasporic studies taught by Black professors.

We demand that the College offer classes that embody intersectionality, as defined by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and address the racial diversity of the LGBTQ+ community instead of centering whiteness.

The aforementioned classes must be taught by professors who are a part of the culture they are teaching about.

The group also demanded Sarah Lawrence “Reject Funding or Involvement from the Charles Koch Foundation and Koch-Affiliated Organizations” and then turned to Prof. Abrams (emphasis in original):

Professor Samuel Abrams and Defending Progressive Education

On October 16, 2018, politics professor Samuel Abrams published an op-ed entitled “Think Professors Are Liberal? Try School Administrators” in The New York Times. The article revealed the anti-Blackness, anti-LGBTQ+, and anti-woman bigotry of Abrams. The article specifically targeted programs such as the Our Liberation Summit, which Abrams did not attend, facilitated by the Office of Diversity and Campus Engagement. The Sarah Lawrence community deserves an administration that strives for an inclusive education that reflects the diversity of our community. Abrams’ derision of the Black Lives Matter, queer liberation, and women’s rights movements displays not only ignorance but outright hostility towards the essential efforts to dismantle white supremacy and other systems of oppression. This threatens the safety and wellbeing of marginalized people within the Sarah Lawrence community by demonstrating that our lives and identities are viewed as “opinions” that we can have a “difference in dialogue” about, as if we haven’t been forced to debate our very existences for our entire lives. We demand that Samuel Abrams’ position at the College be put up to tenure review to a panel of the Diaspora Coalition and at least three faculty members of color. In addition, the College must issue a statement condemning the harm that Abrams has caused to the college community, specifically queer, Black, and female students, whilst apologizing for its refusal to protect marginalized students wounded by his op-ed and the ignorant dialogue that followed. Abrams must issue a public apology to the broader SLC community and cease to target Black people, queer people, and women.

This just another attack on Prof. Abrams academic freedom. Peter Bonilla, Vice President of Programs for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education tweeted:

1. “Tenure review” my foot. These Sarah Lawrence students want a professor to lose tenure for uncontroversial research on academic admins’ liberal leanings.

2. NB: They’re arguing that students should be the arbiters of tenure on the basis of viewpoint.

(added) In an email to me, Bonilla of the FIRE added:

“If Sarah Lawrence actually heeded the demands on his tenure “review,” or that Abrams be forced to make a public apology for his views, it would be hugely problematic from an academic freedom and due process standpoint. Tenure exists precisely to protect faculty from being targeted for their political beliefs, and its roots in American higher education are deeply intertwined with the persecution and scapegoating of progressive academics. I’d hope the Sarah Lawrence administration doesn’t need to be reminded of this, but we will be watching just in case.”

Emails to Professor Abrams and Sarah Lawrence President Cristle Collins Judd seeking comment have not been returned.

[Featured Image: SLC Phoenix video screenshot]

——————

Sarah Lawrence College #SLC50 Diaspora Coalition Demands by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/401644010/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-NReCuJg2axzJlF7G71od&show_recommendations=true

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Irate Woman All Smiles Attacking Man in MAGA Hat. ICE Learns She’s Illegal and Makes Arrest

Reported By Benjamin Arie | Published February 26, 2019 at 5:02pm | Modified February 26, 2019 at 5:04pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/irate-woman-smiles-attacking-man-maga-hat-ice-learns-illegal-sends-cavalry/

Illegal Alien Showing Off The Hat She Assaulted

Assaulting someone over their hat is a crime, but bragging and seeking media attention for doing it while you’re in the country illegally seems particularly unwise.

Rosiane Santos was recently arrested for after assaulting a Trump supporter who was wearing a “MAGA” hat inside a Mexican restaurant in Falmouth, Massachusetts. Even employees of the restaurant confirmed that Bryton Turner had simply ordered food before he was accosted by Santos.

“Santos started yelling at him because of his hat, which bears the theme that President Donald Trump campaigned on,” Boston news station WFXT explained. “The woman is seen walking behind him and hitting his hat off his head.”

Even after being arrested, Santos claimed that simply being an immigrant allowed her to attack Turner.

“(B)eing discriminated for so many times in my life, I just had to stand up for myself,” she said in a phone interview with WFXT. “He’s not a victim. I am the victim. I have been bullied, OK?”

Going after someone because of a campaign hat and then drawing attention to herself on the news wasn’t a very wise choice. It turns out that Santos is from Brazil, and now the U.S. government says she was living in the United States illegally.

“The woman who was charged with confronting a man wearing a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat inside a Falmouth Mexican restaurant is now in ICE custody,” WBZ-TV reported on Tuesday.

Her attention-seeking stunt definitely worked, but it will likely get her a one-way ticket out of the country.

“Deportation officers with ICE’s Fugitive Operations Team arrested Rosiane Santos, an unlawfully present citizen of Brazil, today near Falmouth, Massachusetts,” ICE spokesman John Mohan told the local CBS News affiliate.

“Santos is currently facing local charges for assault and other offenses. She is presently in ICE custody and has been entered into removal proceedings before the federal immigration courts.”

For his part, Turner told WBZ-TV that the entire incident could have been avoided if the woman had simply respected other people’s right to wear hats or hold opinions she might not agree with.

“It’s just a hat at the end of the day,” he said. “I don’t really understand why people can’t just express themselves anymore, everybody has to get mad.”

The real irony of this story is that Santos just proved Trump and his supporters’ point. The left insists that “undocumented immigrants” are all good people who only want to join the melting pot and have better lives.

Conservatives, of course, have pointed out that there’s a lot more going on. While many immigrants don’t cause problems once they cross the border, a solid number seem to have a mentality of entitlement, making demands while stirring up trouble.

That’s exactly what this woman did on camera while continuing to play the victim. She and others like her wail about “MAGA” hats and angry Trump supporters, but it was her own unhinged behavior and illegal actions that got her arrested.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie

Contributor, Commentary

Summary

Perfect Timing: CEO of MyPillow Takes Bold Stand Against Abortion and Takes Fight to Hollywood

Reported By Malachi Bailey | February 1, 2019 at 11:50am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/perfect-timing-ceo-mypillow-takes-bold-stand-abortion-takes-fight-hollywood/

A pro-life movie that’s partially financed by MyPillow CEO Michael Lindell is set to be distributed nationwide next month, and it couldn’t have been announced at a better time.

The dramatic trailer for the pro-life feature film “Unplanned” was released on Thursday. In the film, Ashley Bratcher plays Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson, who renounces abortion after witnessing the procedure firsthand.

“Everything that they told us is a lie,” Johnson says in the emotional trailer.

Johnson is also warned that she made an enemy of “one of the most powerful organizations on the planet.” The film is set to be released on over 800 screens nationwide, beginning on March 29. “Unplanned” will be distributed by Pure Flix, which also theatrically distributed “God’s Not Dead,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Additionally, the film was partially funded by the MyPillow CEO, who has a history of standing up to the left. Last April, Lindell refused to pull his ads from Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” while leftists were targeting Ingraham’s advertisers. Now Lindell is investing money into a movie to combat abortion, and the trailer couldn’t have been released at a more perfect time.

Last week, Democrats in New York passed new legislation that will allow late-term abortions up to the moment of birth. Democrats in Virginia unsuccessfully tried to pass similar legislation this week, and Virginia’s governor is now under fire for allegedly supporting infanticide. In an interview on WTOP Wednesday morning, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam implied that post-birth abortion — otherwise known as infanticide — may be deliberated with doctors under the proposed legislation.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable,” Northam prefaced.

“The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

These are the monsters that Lindell hopes to oppose by funding “Unplanned,” but unfortunately, liberals may try to attack his business in retaliation. Lindell will need conservatives’ support to compensate for liberal push back as he takes the fight against abortion to Hollywood.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Malachi Bailey

Contributor, Commentary

Summary

“Conservatives are using identity politics to destroy liberalism from within”

Posted by William A. Jacobson Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 9:00pm

URL of the original posting site: https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/10/conservatives-are-using-identity-politics-to-destroy-liberalism-from-within/

George Mason Prof: “Political correctness, as a movement, is a winning issue for” conservatives.

One of the jokes on Twitter is how the mainstream media deflects liberal and Democrat failings by focusing on conservative and Republican reactions. Hence, headlines start with phrasing that conservatives and Republicans “pounce” or “seize on” or “slam” liberal mistakes.

Tyler Cowen, Professor of Economics, George Mason University, writing at Bloomberg Opinion, has a variation on that theme, The Right Finds the Perfect Weapon Against the Left.

That perfect weapon is liberal’s own obsession with identity politics, which is then used by conservatives “to destroy liberalism from within.”

The column is pretty good. Here’s an excerpt:

Imagine the perfect political and intellectual weapon. It would disable your adversaries by preoccupying them with their own vanities and squabbles, a bit like a drug so good that users focus on the high and stop everything else they are doing.

Such a weapon exists: It is called political correctness. But it is not a weapon against white men or conservatives, as is frequently alleged; rather, it is a weapon against the American left. To put it simply, the American left has been hacked, and it is now running in a circle of its own choosing, rather than focusing on electoral victories or policy effectiveness. Too many segments of the Democratic Party are self-righteously talking about identity politics, and they are letting other priorities slip….

So if you are a right-wing, conservative, or perhaps libertarian thinker, and you consider yourself an opponent of political correctness, I have a message: Political correctness, as a movement, is a winning issue for you. It is disabling some of the ideas you don’t like. You might want to celebrate in secret, but celebrate you should.

I think he has it right.

Identity politics is ripping Democrats and liberals apart. White liberal feminists regularly are attacked by non-white and even white liberal feminists for being not sufficiently woke and for using their privilege. Liberal-imposed affirmative action pits applicants of Asian descent at elite schools like Harvard against other identity groups. The #MeToo movement is consuming mostly liberal men.

Campus political correctness certainly damages conservatives. But mostly, Cowen writes, it damages liberals:

Here’s another ugly truth. The biggest day-to-day losers from the political correctness movement are other left-of-center people, most of all white moderate Democrats, especially those in universities. If you really believe that “the PC stuff” is irrational and out of control and making institutions dysfunctional, and that universities are full of left-of-center people, well who is going to suffer most of the costs? It will be people in the universities, and in unjust and indiscriminate fashion. That means more liberals than conservatives, if only because the latter are relatively scarce on the ground.

And it goes on and on, with identity groups competing in zero-sum games against each other.

Is this exploited by conservatives? Not as much as it should be.

Sure, maybe we are waiting to “pounce” and “seize on” and “slam” these structural divisions, but mostly we just sit back in amazement and watch the self-destruction.

[Featured Image: Déjànnoying bumper sticker]

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Song Conservatives Ought to Sing Aloud: Red Like Reagan (Video)

Authored by Tami Jackson | on May 16, 2018 at 2:49 pm

URL of the original posting site: https://comicallyincorrect.com/song-conservatives-ought-to-sing-aloud-red-like-reagan-video/

Buddy Brown is a country singer/songwriter and like so many country musicians, is a conservative patriot! Oh, there are a few loons like the shameful Dixie Chicks, but for the most part Nashville and country music is home to folks who love America and our troops and our Second Amendment.

Yep. Country music stars and fans stand for the National Anthem and proudly put their hands over their hearts for the Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance. So it’s not a big shock to hear a song like this.

Brown’s bio at his site:

Buddy was born in Mississippi and carries deep South culture in his songs today. In 2009, he started playing his songs for YouTube and Facebook audiences. He quickly amassed a following on Facebook that outgrew his own dreams.

Buddy’s music lies somewhere between Charlie Daniels and Justin Moore. His EP “Keepin it Country,” debuted at #12 on iTunes – Country. “That is rare territory for an Independent artist” says producer Dave Bechtel who has produced 7 projects with Buddy since 2011.

Buddy has played twice for NASCAR at Talladega Superspeedway, and was recently featured in USA Today as an internet sensation.

In May 2015, Buddy signed with CAA Nashville – He headlined 3 House of Blues shows in Texas before setting off on The College Town Throwdown tour with fellow country acts Justin Moore, Jon Pardi, and Brothers Osborne. After that Buddy sold out PBR Bar in Louisville with over 1,100 people. Quite a draw for an independent artist.

Buddy’s 9th EP titled “Just Saying” features 7 new songs and was released March 30!

Watch this great video of his catchy song, “Red Like Reagan”:

I can read your mind
We ain’t about to get along
And I know why
You think we owe you and we don’t

Yeah there’s a welfare line
Wrapping round main street
That money ought to help our boys
Coming back from overseas

We’re gonna paint this country red like Reagan
Gonna shoot our guns, gonna eat our bacon
There’s a great big bald eagle who’s smiling on us
And soldiers who died for your privilege to fuss

If you wanna leave
‘Cause you can’t take it no more
Man I’ll show you that damn door
I’ll show you the damn door

And all these protests
You’re throwing out some heavy words
And I’m just wondering
How the hell’d you get off work
‘Cause I got 65 long hours
That I just put in last week
Now I gotta go back home
And hear you whining on TV

We’re ’bout paint this country red like Reagan
Gonna shoot our guns, gonna eat our bacon
There’s a great big bald eagle who’s smiling on us
And soldiers who died for your privilege to fuss

If you wanna leave
‘Cause you can’t take it no more
Man I’ll show you that damn door
I’ll show you the damn door

Thanks Buddy! As of now I am officially a fan!

#GottaLoveCountryMusic #RedLikeReagan

Author Tami Jackson

Tami Jackson is a lifelong conservative embedded in her once red, native state of Oregon, and is the granddaughter of (legal) Norwegian immigrants. Tami is an Evangelical Christian, the “mom” of one Persian cat (Omar), a Second Amendment aficionado, and the chief organizer and instigator of trouble among the Hugh Hewitt Tribbles. She is also Executive Editor of BarbWire.com, Social Media/Content/Marketing for Robar Companies, Editor-In-Chief of RightVoiceMedia.com, and Social Media Marketing Director for Ride the Thunder Movie, and the host of the Tami Jackson Show.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Rep. Steve Scalise Grills Zuckerberg over Facebook’s Bias Against Conservatives

Reported By Joe Setyon | April 11, 2018 at 8:54am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/rep-steve-scalise-grills-zuckerberg-over-facebooks-bias-against-conservatives/

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise questioned Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday over the social media giant’s alleged bias against conservatives. Zuckerberg appeared before Congress for the second consecutive day to answer questions related to Facebook’s data privacy practices.

When it was time for Scalise to speak, he asked the Facebook CEO whether or not the platform is biased against conservative news publishers, referencing a study from The Western Journal that looked into the matter. The Western Journal’s analysis found that Facebook’s much-publicized demotion of publishers’ content in users’ news feeds has negatively impacted conservative-leaning publishers significantly more than liberal-leaning outlets.

“I do want to ask you about a study that was done dealing with the algorithm that Facebook uses to describe what is fed to people through the newsfeed, and what they found was after this new algorithm was implemented was that there was a tremendous bias against conservative news and content and a favorable bias towards liberal content,” the Louisiana Republican said.

Noting that there was a “16-point disparity,” which he called “concerning,” Scalise — a former computer programmer himself — asked Zuckerberg who writes Facebook’s algorithm.

Rep. Scalise: “Having a point of view” is “something Facebook has never done before,” once again pointing to the removal of Diamond and Silk from the site. Displays this chart and asks, “Who determines the algorithm?” pic.twitter.com/bkh0BObOog

— Amanda Zantal-Wiener (@Amanda_ZW) April 11, 2018

“Was there a directive to put this bias in?” he said, before asking if Zuckerberg was aware of such a bias.

In his response, Zuckerberg claimed there is “absolutely no directive in any of the changes that we make to have a bias in anything that we do. To the contrary, our goal is to be a platform for all ideas.”

Despite Zuckerberg’s claims, The Western Journal’s analysis indicated that Facebook’s algorithm change, intentional or not, has in effect censored conservative viewpoints on the largest social media platform in the world. This change has ramifications that, in the short-term, are causing conservative publishers to downsize or fold completely, and in the long-term could swing elections in the United States and around the world toward liberal politicians and policies.

Scalise was not the first GOP lawmaker to ask Zuckerberg about Facebook’s alleged bias against conservatives.

As The Western Journal reported, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz asked the Facebook CEO pointed questions Tuesday about Facebook’s political standpoint and the possible censorship of conservative views on the platform.

“Does Facebook consider itself a neutral public forum?” Cruz asked. “Are you a First Amendment speaker expressing your views or are you a neutral public forum allowing everyone to speak?”

Zuckerberg responded saying that there is certain content that is not allowed — hate speech, terrorist content, nudity — and that they refer to themselves as “a platform for all ideas.”

The senator pressed again, saying that it is a “simple question” whether or not Facebook is “engaged in political speech which is (their) right under the First Amendment.”

The Facebook CEO said that though the company’s “goal is certainly not to engage in political speech,” he was “just trying to lay out how broadly I think about this.”

Cruz then told Zuckerberg that there are many Americans who are concerned about Facebook’s political bias in what they show on their platform.

“There have been numerous instances with Facebook in May of 2016 as Gizmodo reported that Facebook had purposefully and routinely suppressed conservative stories from conservative news,” the senator pointed out. These stories include ones about CPAC, Mitt Romney and Rand Paul.

As Cruz pointed out, Facebook also had blocked a post from a Fox News reporter and “over two dozen” Catholic pages.

“This is actually a concern that I have, and that I try to root out at the company — is making sure that we don’t have any bias in the work that we do,” Zuckerberg responded. “I think it is a fair concern that people would at least wonder about.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Mitch McConnell Gets Bad News… Asked To Step Down

Reported By Jason Hopkins | on October 11, 2017 at 1:39pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/conservatives-demand-mcconnel-step-down-as-senate-leader/?

Advertisement – story continues below

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been hit with a heavy vote of no confidence from conservative groups around the country. On Wednesday, leaders from several conservative organizations called on McConnell to abdicate his position, citing a list of broken promises he made to Republican voters.

They are calling on not only McConnell, but also members of his leadership team, to step down.

“You and the rest of your leadership team were given the majority because you pledged to stop the steady flow of illegal immigration,” states their letter to McConnell, according to Fox News. “You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce the size of this oppressive federal government. You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce, and ultimately eliminate the out-of-control deficit spending that is bankrupting America. You have done nothing. You promised to repeal Obamacare, ‘root and branch.’ You have done nothing. You promised tax reform. You have done nothing.”

Disgruntled conservatives held a news conference in Washington, D.C. to address their concerns and desire to see the leadership team dissolved.

“We call on all five members of the GOP Senate leadership to step down, or for their caucus to remove them as soon as possible,” Ken Cuccinelli, the president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, said at the conference.

Advertisement – story continues below

The Senate Conservatives Fund, founded in 2008 by former Senator Jim DeMint, has worked for years to elect more conservative GOP candidates to the upper chamber in Congress. The group has regularly clashed with the more moderate wing of GOP leadership. The SCF wasn’t the only group calling for McConnell to vacate his position.

Members from FreedomWorks, For America and the Tea Party Patriots also joined the chorus in demanding GOP Senate leaders step aside after failing to enact conservative legislation, despite voters giving the Republican Party full control of Washington, D.C. on Election Day.

This is not the first time conservatives have called on McConnell to step down as majority leader, but the ferocity of Wednesday’s press conference certainly puts an added weight on Republican lawmakers to get things done this legislative session.

The letter and press conference come as congressional Republicans are currently working to enact tax reform. GOP leaders so far have not succeeded in repealing Obamacare, failing several times to push through their own GOP health care bills. Republicans are hoping tax reform will be an issue the entire party can rally behind.

“If this was a football team, and you’d lost this many times, you’d start seriously considering firing the coaches,” said For America President David Bozell.

Despite all agreeing that they’d wish to see McConnell go, many conservative leaders are not certain who they would like to see as a replacement.

“If I had to pick someone, I’d love to draft like Pat Toomey maybe,” FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon said, referring to the GOP Pennsylvania senator. “There’s a lot of different people out there who I think could unite this caucus and actually lead on some issues.”

Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots group, said she could see herself supporting Georgia GOP Senator David Perdue. “I’m from Georgia, so I’m not opposed to him,” Martin explained, touting the junior senator’s extensive business background as a former CEO.

Conservative candidates are taking notice as well. As the 2018 election cycle begins to heat up, many pro-Trump candidates are hoping to gain traction by displaying stronger support for the president.

“With rare exception, GOP senators blocking Trump’s agenda are impediments we can not afford. Double that for Senate leaders,” Ron Wallace, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, said in a statement to Western Journalism.

Wallace is an insurgent candidate hoping to win the GOP primary and take on incumbent Democrat Senator Tim Kaine. Wallace is running on a pro-Trump platform and believes it’s imperative the GOP majority pass what they promised to do.

“The American People voted for Tax Cuts, Border Walls, Rapid Growth, Excellent Law Enforcement, and Better Education. I expect strong proactive policies to make those outcomes possible and deliver cost-effective solutions, by whatever means may be necessary,” he said.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

When BLM Showed Up at Trump Rally…Things Took a Turn No One Saw Coming

Reported By Tiffani Grey | on September 20, 2017 at 11:52am

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/blm-showed-up-trump-rally/?

Advertisement – story continues below

“The Mother of all Rallies” in Washington, D.C. on Monday brought out a huge group of President Donald Trump supporters. The rally also had some protesters from the Black Lives Matter group show up. All this seemed completely predictable. However, something truly unexpected occurred — and it was remarkable.

According to WXYZ, tensions at the rally were high when members of the Black Lives Matter activist group arrived. With their fists in the air, and some wearing shackles, the group infiltrated the rally in an apparent protest of what the rally stood for. Chants could be heard from both sides, with Trump supporters adorned in their MAGA hats chanting “USA, USA, you don’t like it… get out,” at the activists. On the other side, BLM protesters shouted, “Black Lives Matter.”

This was poised to be the fight of the century. Then something amazing happened.

According to Real Clear Politics, Tommy Gunn, the rally’s head organizer, invited Hank Newsome, a Black Lives Matter leader, onto the stage.

“So you guys know that the ‘Mother of All Rallies’ was to end the political violence,” Gunn began.

“It’s about freedom of speech. It’s about celebration. So what we’re going to do is something you’re not used to, and we’re going to give you two minutes of our platform to put your message out,” Gunn told the BLM activists.

Many Trump supporters booed in response to Gunn’s decision to let the activists on stage, but he stuck to his guns and let BLM have their say. “Whether they disagree or agree with your message is irrelevant. It’s the fact that you have the right to have the message,” he told the crowd.

It was this first olive branch that led to an exchange of ideas that turned out to be extremely eye-opening.

“I am an American. And the beauty of America is that when you see something broke in your country, you can mobilize to fix it,” Newsome started off. Many Trump supporters cheered in response, likely because fixing a broken system is exactly why many in the crowd decided to vote for President Donald Trump — because he was going to fight for that change.

“So you ask why there’s a Black Lives Matter? Because you can watch a black man die and be choked to death on television and nothing happens. We need to address that,” Newsome continued. This comment did set off some jeers from the crowd, especially from an outspoken Trump supporter who pointed out “black on black” crime.

However, Newsome was not going to waste the time that Gunn gave him. He was there to share a special, though unexpected message: We are one. Even with dissenting voices, he carried on.

“We are not anti-cop! We are anti-bad cop. We say if a cop is bad, he needs to get fired like a bad plumber, a bad lawyer, like a bad f***ing politician!” This again, was something everyone could get behind. When it comes to draining the swamp, that goes across party and social justice lines. When people in public service are doing bad things, they need to be forced out of their position of power.

“We don’t want handouts, we don’t want anything that is yours. We want our God-given right to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” Newsome added, highlighting the rights of all Americans.

When the crowd erupted into a chant of “All Lives Matter,” Newsome responded, “You are so right, my brother, you are so right. All lives matter, right? But when a black life is lost, we get no justice. That is why we say black lives matter.”

Now This Politics put together a video of the incident, and it is hard to watch without getting moved by the diplomacy and respectful exchange of both parties. Be sure to watch to the end to see how Newsome’s initial intent was changed after Gunn respectfully invited him on stage. It’s pretty powerful stuff.

This is how you exchange ideas respectfully. Gunn graciously gave Newsome time on their platform and the result is changed hearts.

“It kind of restored my faith in some of those people. Because, when I spoke truths, they agreed. I feel like we made progress. I feel like two sides that never listen to each other actually made progress today,” Newsome said after the rally.

Despite our differences, most of us can agree that all lives matter, and that includes every single American life. This video and exchange of ideas is exactly how we move forward past our disagreements and find a common bond and a common goal.

As Newsome said, “If we really want America great, we do it together.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Hurricane Harvey Cartoon Explains what the Media Really Thinks of Christians, Conservatives, and Texans

Reported By Onan Coca August 31, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/one-harvey-cartoon-explains-media-thinks-christians-conservatives-texans/

Politico made a very big mistake on Wednesday when they decided to publish what may be one of the most bigoted, unAmerican, and despicable political cartoons published in recent memory.

Let’s start with the cartoon itself so that you can get a sense of what the liberal media actually thinks about people like us:

That image really has it all, doesn’t it?

This was published by the mainstream “news” publishers at Politico on a day when people were still getting rescued by the Coast Guard and by their neighbors.

Confederate flag? Check. Gadsden Flag? Check. Hillbilly redneck? Check. Texas Secession sign? Check. Mocking Christianity while praising government? Check.

This cartoon ticks all of the leftwing boxes, doesn’t it?

Meanwhile, it ignores the fact that the vast majority of people saved during and after the storm were rescued by friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. (That’s the small government way, if you’re keeping score.) Then the government actually told those heroic citizens to STOP saving their neighbors. It also ignores the fact that conservatives have never said that there is no place for government in a situation like this, in fact, this is one of the actual functions the government is supposed to take care of. Finally, it ignores the reality of a Sovereign God who “works in mysterious ways” and as the Bible teaches uses believers and non-believers alike to accomplish His Will.

Politico eventually realized their mistake and deleted the Tweet… but they kept the cartoon on their website.

http://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-10/html/container.html

The artist also tried to deflect the backlash from his bigoted cartoon by claiming it was just about secessionists:

Even the liberal Washington Post thinks the cartoon was way over the line:

The first problem with the cartoon is it’s crassness. People are still being saved, and it’s making fun of those same people.

The second problem is the stereotypes. It’s almost a caricature of what you’d expect a liberal cartoonist to draw in response to conservative Texans relying upon the government in their time of crisis. The Confederate flag T-shirt. The Gadsden Flag. The reference to being saved by God (which seems extremely dismissive of Christianity). The Texas secession banner. It’s all kind of … predictable? …

But the cartoon suggests that normal people who believe in small government should essentially forfeit government help in their time of need — or, at least, that they should suddenly recognize that their belief in smaller government is wrongheaded. It’s all very smug, and it gives extremely short shrift to very complex issues.

To make matters worse, the cartoon just isn’t very good. It’s ham-fisted and un-nuanced, there is nothing to think about as HotAir’s Ed Morrissey points out.

If you want a good analysis of what is taking place in Texas created by a political cartoonist with actual talent, look no further than Michael Ramirez:

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Conservative Tim Allen’s Sitcom ‘Last Man Standing’ Cancelled Despite Strong Ratings

Reported By Randy Desoto | May 11, 2017 at 4:55pm

URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/conservative-tim-allens-show-last-man-standing-cancelled-despite-strong-ratings/

Though airing at 8 p.m. Friday nights, Last Man Standing pulls only slightly fewer viewers than ABC’s No. 1, socially liberal, comedy Modern Family — airing at 8 p.m. on Wednesdays — which ABC did renew. The Live+7 viewership (those who watch the program live or within seven days on DVR) total is 8.1 million for Last Man Standing compared to Modern Family’s 8.7 million.

Despite being in its sixth season, the program only saw a modest 5 percent decline in viewership, in comparison to other shows which are normally down as much as 20 or 30 percent at this point in their television life, according to Deadline.

Variety reports, “Last Man Standing was ahead of the curve in the cultural sense as Allen played a conservative-minded patriarch who runs a sporting goods store and opines about the modern world, including political topics such as Obamacare and environmental policy.”

Advertisement – story continues below

“I’m not kidding. You gotta be real careful around here. You get beat up if you don’t believe what everybody believes,” Allen said.

“This is like ‘30s Germany,” he added. “I don’t know what happened. If you’re not part of the group, ‘You know what we believe is right,’ I go, ‘Well, I might have a problem with that.

“I’m a comedian, I like going [off] on both sides,” Allen said.

The actor, who describes himself as a fiscal conservative, endorsed fellow Midwesterner and Ohio Gov. John Kasich during the presidential primaries. Allen did not endorse Trump during the general election, but did speak out last November against Hollywood liberals trying to bully others who supported him.

As reported by Western Journalism, Disney CEO Bob Iger defended his corporation, which is the parent company of ABC, against charges of being liberally biased during the annual shareholder meeting in March.

Iger was questioned whether Disney would continue to cater to “liberal coastal elites or make your company welcoming to all Americans?”

The CEO denied Disney was only focused on producing programming agreeable to liberals.

Iger, who co-hosted a Beverly Hills fundraiser for Hillary Clinton last August, has agreed to be part of the president’s Business Advisory Council.

“I don’t believe my membership in that group in any way endorses or supports any specific policy of the president or his administration,” Iger told shareholders, who opposed his participation.

Fans of Last Man Standing are hoping the show will be picked up by Netflix or some other outlet. The first five seasons of the show are currently offered on Netflix.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘conservatives’

Commentary by Jonathan Turley | February 24, 2025

Share this:

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Freind or Foe

Google launches leftist AI image generator – world laughs, then realizes grim truth

Victor Reacts: Woke AI Makes Everyone Black (VIDEO)

Share this:

By: Victoria Coates / @VictoriaCoates / January 16, 2024

Share this:

BY: EMILY JASHINSKY | OCTOBER 05, 2023

Share this:

By Warner Todd Huston May 27, 2023 at 1:39pm

Share this:

By Dan Schneider | Fox News | Published May 26, 2023 2:00am EDT

1. Google’s new monopoly on “Truth”

2. Brainwashing is no longer science fiction

3. The GOP is truly the Grand OLD Party

4. Democrats have us where they want us

5. But failure is not an option

Dan Schneider is vice president of MRC Free Speech America

Share this:

BY: CHRISTOPHER JACOBS | MAY 01, 2023

House vs. Senate

Republicans Get to ‘Yes’

Chris Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, and author of the book “The Case Against Single Payer.” He is on Twitter: @chrisjacobsHC.

Share this:

BY: DELANO SQUIRES | JANUARY 05, 2023

Recognizing Roles

Different Forms of Patriarchy

Delano Squires is a research fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation. Follow him on Twitter @DelanoSquires.

Share this:

By Lindsay Kornick | Fox News | December 22, 2022

Share this:

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | DECEMBER 20, 2022

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Share this:

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Conservatives must finally break free from the stranglehold of fake Republicans

Share this:

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | NOVEMBER 18, 2022

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Share this:

BY: CHRISTOPHER BEDFORD | NOVEMBER 09, 2022

Share this:

Share this:

OP-ED | DANIEL HOROWITZ | May 19, 2022

Share this:

Reported by Jack Davis, Contributor for westernjournal.com | July 18, 2021

Share this:

Reported By Jerry Bowyer, CP Guest Contributor | Thursday, April 22

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

PLEASE READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT https://www.westernjournal.com/rush-limbaugh-gives-harrowing-health-update/

Share this:

Decide how you can act within your abilities. Stand up and state your beliefs. Be proud of who you are and what you stand for. And face, head-on, those community “leaders” who are willing to allow dark forces to go beyond peaceful protests and destroy and violate your safety and security.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn served as national security advisor to President Donald Trump.

Share this:

“Planned Parenthood has a long and well-documented history of targeting minority populations,” he said.

“This agenda goes back to Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, whose life’s work was to eradicate all individuals and groups she considered ‘unfit’ to live.”

As of Monday afternoon, he had raised more than $7,400 toward his goal of $10,000.

Share this:

The authors of a new report about marriage, faith, and families found the happiest wives in America are those who are religious conservatives.

According to the researchers, devoted husbands and fathers are at the center of American wives’ view of happiness:

Share this:

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Wake Up n’ Smell the Tyranny

Social Media Banning Conservative – There’s an all-out assault on conservative free speech by social media giants Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google in America.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Sty-Gate

Because AG Barr is known for his integrity and is now set to investigate those on the left for spying on a political opponent, Nadler, and the Democrats seek to tarnish his reputation.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Israeli Trump Card

Obama and Kerry seemed to be more on the side of Hamas and the terrorists than they were for Israel, but it’s the exact opposite with Trump.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Raising the Barr

Because Barr won’t release the unredacted Mueller report, that would be illegal to release, Nadler is charging him with contempt for upholding the rule of law.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Near Miss

Some say Nadler and the Democrats are creating a Constitutional Crisis in their effort to destroy President Trump and reverse the 2016 election.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – No More Kowtow

Trump strikes back with big tariffs when China reneges on the original deal outline and talks ended. China has now retaliated with their own tariffs.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Three Stooges

Brennan, Clapper, and Comey are beginning to pointing fingers at each other now that AG Barr has appointed US Attorney John Durham to investigate Spying on the Trump campaign.

Who are the happiest people?