EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Debating Porn With Brandi Love And Terry Schilling — How Do We Protect Children From Accessing Adult Content?

/in , , , , , /by

The Daily Caller sat down with adult film star Brandi Love and executive director of American Principles Project Terry Schilling to debate all things porn.

In this episode, Love and Schilling were first asked to swap sides. Schilling pondered what his biggest pro-porn argument would be while Love described an anti-porn viewpoint.

Next, the two took on one of the more prominent issues that has come up regarding porn – in an age where so much is accessible with the touch of a button, what are some potential solutions that would prevent minors from accessing pornography?

WATCH:

Both agreed on the importance of regulating the ability of minors viewing this content, but had different ideas on how to police.

Schilling brought up a solution that his organization has already proposed. In his eyes, reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would be a good step in making it more difficult for those underage to see this content.

Schilling noted that Section 230 has “been debated with social media platforms.”

“What you would do is, you would give Section 230 immunity to adult websites based on whether or not they have age verification,” he explained. “And if those websites don’t have age verification, then they lose the Section 230 immunity, which would open them up to civil litigation, basically making them liable for any content posted illegally or inappropriately.”

“It would basically force a lot of the adult entertainment companies that are online to do some type of meaningful age verification.”

Love offered a different solution. She argued for a digital ID, although Love noted that she understood Schilling’s argument for reforming Section 230.

“The problems that I see with 230 is that as it’s currently written, it is working,” Love responded. “I feel like the responsibility doesn’t need to be on the free market, on the companies that create the platforms, the user-uploaded content sites.”

“I feel the responsibility needs to be on the person uploading the content. By putting the responsibility and opening up companies to sue-happy people or potentially people that want to abolish a particular aspect of the industry, meaning adult, that leaves these companies wide open … By having a digital ID, which is no different than having a driver’s license … this would be attached to your age, your name, all of your information.”

Love and Schilling continued to discuss each other’s pitches, with Schilling noting that “verified third-party actors” would need to “verify the information and then relay it to the sites.” He expressed concern about the possibility of the federal government getting involved regarding digital ID’s.

“If we can make something happen, not just talk about it but create a solution that solves all these problems,” Love said. “And it’s not about applying it to the adult industry … It’s maintaining and preserving the free and fair market, but also applying equal application of the laws that we’re able to set in, so that there’s not that one ‘target.’”

Stay tuned for more content from Schilling and Love’s porn debate.

COLUMN BY

RELATED TWEETS:

https://twitter.com/TrustThePlan_/status/1295990420149800961

RELATED ARTICLES:

Andrew Yang: ‘Rampant Access To Pornography Is A Real Problem’

What Won’t We Tolerate?

/in , , , , /by

Stephen P. White: Democrats are politically immune to Catholic criticism of their support for abortion. Unwavering support from millions of Catholics is why.

Joe Biden wants you to know that he is Catholic. Joe Biden wants you to know that his Catholic faith is very important to him. Joe Biden takes his faith so seriously, that he once told a reporter on the campaign trail, “The next Republican that tells me I’m not religious I’m going to shove my rosary beads down their throat.” That was back in 2005.

With that in mind, let me say up front: Joe Biden is Catholic. The indelible character of Baptism is sufficient to establish that. Moreover, I see no reason to doubt him when he says that his faith is deeply important to him. I find no reason to doubt the sincerity of his convictions.

While I do not question the sincerity of his convictions, I do wonder about their content. What are we to think of a man who, like Joe Biden, would tout the way in which his Catholic faith shapes his politics, and then ask his fellow citizens to vote for him on the promise that he will devote himself to defending and promoting the single greatest injustice in American life since chattel slavery – i. e., abortion?

Long gone are the days when pro-choice Catholics like Mario Cuomo defended their willingness to tolerate a right to abortion on the grounds that their personal opposition to abortion as Catholics gave them no right to impose that opposition on others. The Cuomo Compromise has slowly, irresistibly, and predictably devolved into the position now exemplified by Biden: the Catholic faith teaches us to seek justice; abortion rights are a matter of justice; therefore, I will defend the abortion license where it is threatened and expand it where it is lacking.

Biden’s is a pretty standard position for Catholic Democrats these days. For what it’s worth, Biden seems to have arrived at this position more recently than some of his fellow Catholic Democrats. Happily, not all Catholics on the Left are buying it.

“Biden’s position on abortion is untenable from any Catholic perspective,” writes Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter, “The theological proscription against the intentional taking of a human life is not something that can be set aside for the kind of libertarian argument favored by pro-choice advocates.”

Winters concludes, “We Catholics should be able to explain how our faith informs all of our decisions, including our political ones. Biden’s decision to lean in to the discussion, and not to avoid it, will be good for Catholicism, whether or not it is good for the Democrats.”

Winters speaks, I suspect, for a lot of Catholic Democrats – perhaps not a majority, but a substantial minority. This November, most of these pro-life Catholic Democrats will go to the polls and vote – as they have for decades – for a presidential candidate who supports the abortion license. As frustrating as it can be for pro-lifers who aren’t Democrats to admit, supporting the abortion license and voting for candidates who do are not the same thing: the former is never justifiable, the latter may be, but only for “truly grave moral reasons.”

Tens of millions of American Catholics believe that a morally serious person can look at the industrial-scale slaughter of innocent children in this country – close to a million abortions performed each year – and say, “I am willing, not only to defend that butcher’s bill, but I promise to expand it, if doing so allows me to pursue justice on other fronts.”

For decades, a large slice of American Catholics has convinced itself (or resigned itself) to supporting just such candidates, not because they also support abortion, but despite their opposition to it. This November, millions of American Catholics will do it again.

Yet how many of these same Catholics – people who have for decades insisted that they could compartmentalize their vote, hermetically sealing themselves off from complicity in the horror of the abortion policies their candidates favored – now insist that to vote for Donald Trump is to make oneself complicit in everything the man does?

If one is willing to tolerating 60 million abortions in order to pursue justice on other fronts – even assuming all those ancillary causes are, in fact, just – what evil will one NOT tolerate?

To be clear, this is not intended as a defense of the current president or his policies, still less an argument in favor of voting for his reelection. Rather, I mention it because it throws into sharp relief the way in which the politics of abortion – more than any other issue or policy – have degraded the ability of most American Catholics to reason well about the exercise of prudence. Nothing (not even the abuse crisis, I would argue) has done more to undermine the Catholic Church’s credible witness in political life than her impotence with regard to abortion.

Politicians like Joe Biden are politically immune to Catholic criticism of their support for abortion. It is unwavering support from millions of Catholic voters who make them so immune. And does anyone doubt that pro-life Catholics who have made a long-standing alliance with Republicans over the issue of abortion have not also been shaped by that partnership in other ways?

November 3 will be here sooner than we think. Many Catholics have long ago made up their minds about whom they will vote for. Many are happy with “their guy.” Many loathe “their guy.” Many are exasperated by both choices. We can be sure that each side will look with disdain and horror at the moral compromises the other is willing to make.

For many of us will be painfully aware that we will choose between the lesser of two evils. Maybe now is as good a time as any to recall that, while faith without works is dead, ending injustice is not the measure of the Christian life.

COLUMN BY

Stephen P. White

Stephen P. White is executive director of The Catholic Project at The Catholic University of America and a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

PODCAST: The Secret of the News Media

/in , , , , /by

Regardless of your party affiliation, everyone seems to be on edge regarding the upcoming November elections. When you add on top of this the concern over the COVID-19 virus, and the violence and looting in our cities, the country is getting worn out, depressed, and frankly, very angry. This is all by design as the news media knows how to pull the strings of the people.

Let me preface my remarks by describing my participation in the 2016 election when I followed the press corps to several Trump Rallies in my state. One of the first things I learned was how immoral these people were and how they gladly sacrificed honest reporting for the almighty dollar.

Ever since the United States went to a 24/7 news cycle in 1980, the reporting of news media has been manipulated by executives for competitive purposes, and this goes for ALL media outlets, be it television, newspaper, radio, magazine, etc. Fewer and fewer reporters are allowed to produce honest copy, most must follow the guidelines as prescribed by their bosses. To illustrate, before all of the Trump Rallies I attended, those members of the press who produced written copy had finished their work PRIOR to Mr. Trump taking the podium. The next day, I would read their copy, and realized it had nothing whatsoever to do with what was actually said during the rally, making the reporting completely fallacious and nonsensical. It was just plain wrong.

It was at this time I learned the news media was in the business of making money, big money. Naively, I had believed reporters tried to report fairly and accurately, but this is simply not so. To make money, they have to create an audience following, and there is nothing better than to create intrigue a la “sensationalism.” Let me give you an example, if the press reported an incumbent will likely win re-election and the challenger will be easily defeated, there would be no intrigue, and consequently, no audience interest and no income. However, if it is reported the underdog will likely upset the incumbent, than the press creates intrigue, resulting in a bigger audience and makes more money on advertising, regardless if it is true or not. Not surprising, all of the news media is in on this, be it CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and just about everyone else. Creating intrigue results in big bucks. It is therefore in their best interest to do so, and to Hell with honesty and accuracy, it just gets in the way. Hence, the proliferation of “Fake News.”

Closely related to this are the polls, which are also geared to creating intrigue. Again, they will have little to sell if the incumbent is winning. Not surprising, no two polls follow precisely the same criteria and input gathering techniques (people to be selected to be interviewed). As such, they produce different results which is why I refer to them as mixing apples with oranges. Let us also not forget, Secretary Hillary Clinton possessed a double-digit lead going into the election. The same phenomenon is happening again. This explains why the political parties and campaigns do their own polling. In other words, they recognize the major polls are flawed and useless, which is why they rely on their own polling people. The point is, anyone who has complete faith in the political polls is a sucker and should avoid Aqueduct.

So, who should John Q. Public trust for news and polling? Nobody but themselves. I would suggest you watch current events, speeches, and other live events on television (Thank God for C-SPAN), and leave the spin behind you. You may also want to lookup voting results through your local board of elections (which is what I do).

Just remember, the news media’s business is not honest journalism, it is about making a buck, and to do so, they have to play the public as sheep. Sorry, but it is true.

So, for you Nervous Nellies out there, take a chill pill and relax. If you are really concerned with the outcome of the November elections, report for campaign duty. Otherwise, just turn off the network news and do your own homework.

Therefore, the lesson today is simple, “Do not believe half of what you read or hear.” Then again, you might want to make it 75%.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also, I have a NEW book, “Before You Vote: Know How Your Government Works”, What American youth should know about government, available in Printed, PDF and eBook form. This is the perfect gift for youth!

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

VIDEO: WHITE HOUSE SIEGE! Leftist group pledges revolution.

/in , , , , /by

A leftist group is vowing to place the White House under siege.

The 50-day protest, starting on Sept. 17, is being promoted by a revolutionary group called “Adbusters.”

Though claiming to want nonviolent protest, the group’s website provides questionable suggestions on what to bring to the protest: “Stuff your backpack with the tools of nonviolent revolution, and bring intelligence to match your enthusiasm.”

Their manifesto includes a doctrine called “The Metamemetic Insurrection” — all about winning the culture war with funny internet photos, also known as memes.

“This is the Meme War that will decide our fate. And to win this war, we must re-examine all assumptions, all rules, all habits of mind that have delivered us to this perilous moment,” it says.

They oppose the re-election of President Trump — accusing him in this promo video of desiring a dictatorship — pledging their goal to prevent his victory: “By now it’s clear that Trump and his sycophants will do anything to prevent Joe Biden from taking office. … We will not let Donald Trump steal the election!”

Earlier in the week Attorney General William Barr, a faithful Catholic, warned of the dangers of communist groups like Adbusters: “What they do is they hijack these demonstrations and they provoke violence.”

Leftist radicals — agitating to take down the Trump administration — are demonstrating they are not afraid of using groups like Adbusters to provoke their revolution, turning a figurative siege into a literal one.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

MICHELLE’S SPEECH: What the Devil Ordered!

/in , , , , /by

Psychological manipulation at its finest.

To the progressive Left, political speeches are not about truth and justice but, rather, psychological manipulation. Last night, Michelle Obama’s speech was a shining example.

The former first lady delivered her much-anticipated speech Monday night at the virtual Democratic National Convention, and the devil must have been elated.

“I am here tonight because I love this country with all my heart,” Obama began.

The remark was possibly an attempt to nullify her 2008 anti-American rant, during which she revealed, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m proud of my country.”

Michelle’s speech was brilliant. It’s exactly what the devil ordered. It checked off all the boxes of psychological manipulation: She had the Oprah-like teary eyes, the Bill Clinton “I feel your pain” attitude and her husband’s superficial likability factor. She played the identity-politics card masterfully. Further, she herself is the picture of politically correct acceptability — being both a woman and one “of color,” as the leftist lexicon dubs it.

She also got the “science” lingo down. When referring to the Wuhan virus or so-called climate change, Democrats seemingly love science.  Or at least they love to manipulate it to fit their narrative. But science doesn’t seem to matter when it comes to preborn children, sex and “gender” or the importance of having a father and mother to raise you. The truth is, Democrats generally disdain science because its aim is to detect objective truth, something the Left has been at war with for decades.

Michelle spoke about Democrats’ “values,” although she and her party promote behavior that would make demons blush. She spoke about remaining high while Republicans (like Trump) go low, not acknowledging that Democrat politicians allow mob rule to reign (not to mention her husband turning John Lewis’ funeral into a Marxist political rally).

She projects transference like a professional. All her attacks against Trump dividing America and not caring for the little guy were precisely true for her own political party, the Party of Death. And, of course, we heard no word about the most vulnerable “little guy” that exists — the preborn child, even though such babies are killed at a clip of 4,000 per day in abortuaries around the country. Michelle’s Party of Death supports the ongoing slaughter with the kind of passion found only in Hell.

Funny thing is, it’s possible she and her husband don’t even want Biden to win. If America still exists in 2024, she’s got that Democratic presidential nomination wrapped up.

It seems the Prince of Hell has found an effective foil to keep good from triumphing and the perfect conduit for the agenda of psychological manipulation to continue.Tweet

Nonetheless, it seems the Prince of Hell has found an effective foil to keep good from triumphing and the perfect conduit for the agenda of psychological manipulation to continue. Until the family is completely destroyed, people like Michelle Obama are needed. It’s much easier to convince people to take poison when it’s candy-coated and wrapped in a beautiful bow.

Sure, the media and academia have been used as Satan’s puppets for several decades now, but you can never replace politically correct star power. The first black president was her husband’s ticket, but, as Kamala Harris now illustrates, black males are so yesterday. Black and woman is now demanded, not just one or the other. (Harris is a majority Caucasian, but let’s not spoil the narrative.)

Apparently, it’s too dangerous to come together for a convention because of COVID-19 — but not too dangerous to gather in protest, loot and kick defenseless people in the head, sending them to the hospital. After all, gathering for a convention in keeping with the American political tradition could kill you — or at least Joe Biden’s chances at the presidency, since he’d have to be somewhat spontaneous in the public eye.

As we watch the mainstream media fawn over Michelle’s “brilliance” and “passion” in the aftermath of her speech, sane people around the country hope there are enough voters wise enough to see through the rhetoric and psychological manipulation. In order to see reality through all the fog that the culture-molding establishments have formed in us, one needs the grace of God.

There are many rosary crusades now underway until election day. If we don’t want the violence of the streets of Portland to become the norm in our country, it would behoove us to choose one to pray and allow God’s grace to triumph in people’s hearts and in our nation.

COLUMN BY

Paul Murano

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved,

Desperation Of Postal Hoax Is Hilarious

/in , , , , , /by

It’s another week and so the Democratic Party and their Keystone Cops media allies have drummed up yet another reality-free, context-free, phony-baloney political crisis to scare the American public against re-electing President Trump. This one is a doozy, only missing green lizard people in tinfoil hatching from recently returned astronauts.

This faux crisis is the claim that President Trump — his dark eminence from which all evil emanates, also known as Beelzebub — is masterminding the slow strangulation of the United States Postal Service to steal yet another election. No word yet on the role that Putin is playing in the nefarious deed, but the intrepid defender of good, the New York Times, should be getting an anonymously sourced story out on that soon.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling the House back for a special session this week to investigate the wicked doings. Barack Obama claimed Trump is trying to “actively kneecap” the USPS to suppress the vote. Joe Biden called it “bazarre!” And a couple members of Congress have written the FBI to seek a criminal investigation — as if those tin-foiled lizard people are subject to American laws. Sheesh!

I’m approaching this topic with all of the sobriety and seriousness it warrants. I can’t see how any serious Democrats are not red-faced embarrassed at this.

A major driver of this nutso conspiracy theory are reports that the USPS is decommissioning hundreds of mail-sorting machines. Which it is. For good reason. Overall mail volume has fallen 33% since 2006. “They’ve been taking machines out of service for years now, and I’ve been encouraging them to do it more aggressively,” Hamilton Davison, president of the American Catalog Mailers Association, told the Wall Street Journal. “I think that’s a good thing for America, because we don’t want to pay for stuff that we don’t need.”

It’s not like the Postal Service is a bastion of efficiency and profits. With only two-thirds of the volume it had in 2006, it ought to be decommissioning machines, boxes and maybe trucks and postal carriers.

“This conspiracy theory is the most far-flung thing I think I’ve ever heard,” says Stephen Kearney, who worked at the USPS for 33 years, finishing as senior vice president and treasurer. “(Postmaster General Louis) DeJoy was not appointed by President Trump.” The USPS’s bipartisan board of governors unanimously appointed him.  But he’s being dragged before Congress for yet another three-ring circus.

“You can find valid operational reasons for the actions taken by the Postal Service so far,” says Mike Plunkett, another longtime USPS executive who now leads the Association for Postal Commerce. “In no way do I detect any criminality behind them, and I’m at a loss as to how one would reach that conclusion.”

Plunkett can only be at a loss by not paying attention to what has happened to the American media, left and Democratic Party in recent years.

Another element of the tin-foil lizard people conspiracy is that the USPS is driving around scooping up blue collection bins from sidewalks. This bit of quackery began in the Twitter insane asylum, where a photo of a truck picking up mail collection bins was made a central part of the conspiracy and got hundreds of thousands of retweets. The problem was that the truck clearly had old bins and new ones. It was replacing them. Actress Jamie Lee Curtis, tweeted a photo of a USPS truck on the back of a flatbed being driven away to further the plot — apparently unaware the mail delivery trucks can break down. Turns out though, better yet, it was photoshopped.

None of which stopped Joe Biden from poking his cob-webby head out of the basement to claim: “They’re going around literally with tractor trailers picking up mailboxes. I mean, it’s bizarre!”

Well, you may say, even if volume is way down and it makes sense to remove little-used collection bins, the timing sure is suspicious, right before an election that will have record mail-in voting.

Nope! This is the Keystone Cops portion.

An explainer post on the USPS website from Sept. 19, 2016 entitled “Where Have All The Collection Boxes Gone?” said: “Nationally, the number of collection boxes declined by more than 12,000 in the past 5 years…Some collection boxes are barely used and are expensive to maintain.”

Quick check of the calendar and…yup, Barack Obama was president for all five of those years when 12,000 boxes were taken off America’s streets.

The Washington Post recently published a story headlined “Trump’s assault on the U.S. Postal Service gives Democrats a new campaign message.” News story. With all that is now known. Still called it “Trump’s assault.” But there we have it, all in a nice package and tied with a bow. It’s at least somewhat heartening that the Political Operations that have been ongoing between the Democrat Party and the media are now in the wide open. I mean, the Post headline of today would have been an internal Democrat memo of 10 years ago.

So Pelosi wants to pass a bill that “prohibits the Postal Service from implementing any changes to operations or level of service it had in place on January 1.” She also wants to shovel another $25 billion into the USPS, in addition to the $10 billion the USPS got from the Covid-19 funding.

Turns out, though, there may well be a conspiracy here! The letter-carriers union endorsed Joe Biden this past weekend at the same time that Democrats want to ensure in legislation there will be no cuts and $25 billion more cash.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Media Refuses To Cover Black Man’s Murder Of White Boy
Dear World: Florida Is Doing Fine
Behind The Goya Boycott Is The Legacy Media
Never-Trumper GOPers: Wake Up! It’s Trump Or Anarcho-Socialism
The Lack Of Constitutional Standing For Interstate Quarantines

EDITORS NOTE: This The Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: President Trump Endorses Kimberly Klacik for Congress

/in , , , , , /by

President Donald J. Trump after viewing the below video posted by Kimberly Klacik who is running for Congress in Maryland’s District 7, Tweeted his endorsement stating:

Kimberly will work with the Trump Administration and we will bring Baltimore back, and fast. Don’t blow it Baltimore, the Democrats have destroyed your city!

©All rights reserved.

Is it racist to say that 2+2=4?

/in , , , /by

Facts once assumed true by everyone are quickly becoming controversial. This is a trend we have all become aware of. There is, for example, increasing pressure to suggest that pregnancy can happen to women and men. People who wish to express that “all lives matter” may now choose to self-censor for fear of reprisal. You may have even heard that the American Cancer Society, well-meaning no doubt, recently called women “individuals with a cervix”.

In the latest development, it’s being suggested that we could be guilty of Western imperialism if we insist that 2+2=4.

In late 2019, Seattle Public Schools released a new draft curriculum aimed at “re-humanising” mathematics. It suggests that “Western” maths has been used to “disenfranchise people and communities of colour” by posing as “the only legitimate expression of mathematical identity and intelligence.” The document goes on to ask, “Who gets to say if an answer is right?”

This draft curriculum builds on the theory of ethnomathematics — the study of intersections between maths and culture — which began in the late 1970s.

While the historical oppression of minorities should by all means be covered in school curricula, using it to dismantle the universal facts of mathematics is highly questionable. But Seattle Public Schools seem quite serious.

So did many Twitter users in the online debate that followed. Nikole Hannah-Jones, founder of The New York Times’ controversial “1619 Project”, weighed into the debate, tweeting,

“I wonder if folks always talking about ‘standards’ ever stop to consider that it’s their so-called standards that are the actual problem.”

A Brooklyn College professor also voiced her view that 2 + 2 = 4 “reeks of White supremacist patriarchy”. Laurie Rubel objected to “the idea that math (or data) is culturally neutral or in any way objective,” claiming that this is a myth. “I’m ready to move on with that understanding. Who’s coming with me?” she added. Several other academics from American universities and colleges went on to retweet and support her views.

It turns out that this is no isolated discussion.

A New York-based group called Abolition Science was formed in 2018. The community produces a regular podcast and describes itself as “an anti-colonial project” with a mission to “undermine the racial capitalist logics of Western Science and Math”. Their vision statement explains that they are “an abolitionist project that envisions a science and math delinked from racial capitalism, imperialism, and oppression”.

In actual fact, key concepts behind mathematics came to the West from non-Western lands. The concept of the number zero — a revolutionary concept for mathematics — has roots in Mesopotamia and India, for example. Al-jabr, or “algebra” as we call it, came to us from the Middle East.

Moreover, mathematics is embraced far beyond the West today as the basis for just about every modern advancement — from smartphones to medical research to skyscrapers.

This is important context before dismissing mathematics, as we have always understood it, as being “oppressive”.

These are ominous signs of our times. For good reason do many describe ours a “post-truth” world. Social theorist Thomas Sowell, who is himself African-American, was sharp in his analysis that “we are living in an era when sanity is controversial and insanity is just another viewpoint”.

English philosopher G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) saw the early signs of the West’s abandonment of objective truth, and in a cheeky tone, he warned:

We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.

But there is another eerie backdrop to these developments.

The phrase “two plus two equals five” was made famous by George Orwell’s dystopian classic Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). In that story, the totalitarian government that ruled Oceania brainwashed its citizens to say and believe absurd things. Under threat of torture, protagonist Winston Smith was forced to declare that two plus two equals five. This was part of the ruling Party’s push to replace “thoughtcrimes” with approved ideas known as “Newspeak”.

Could it be that in coming years, insisting that 2+2=4 will become as risky as saying that there are only two genders?

It is good to question our assumptions and challenge our biases. And yes, let’s continue to root out injustice and oppression if we encounter it. But sometimes fashion goes too far. In the all-consuming desire to critique Western civilization, we may well end up dispensing with truth itself. That won’t help us — and it’s doubtful that sowing this kind of distrust among the next generation will bode well either.

With so much cultural upheaval that has taken place in recent years, now might be a good time to ask yourself: is 2 + 2 = 4 a hill you’re willing to die on?

COLUMN BY

Kurt Mahlburg

Kurt Mahlburg is a teacher, freelance writer, and the Features Editor of the Canberra Declaration. He contributes regularly at the Spectator Australia, Caldron Pool and The Good Sauce. He hosts his own… More by Kurt Mahlburg

RELATED ARTICLES:

Faith and the novel in a secular age

Why is Australia’s PM making a free vaccine for Covid-19 mandatory?

The optics are not good: lessons from euthanasia in Canada

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Minneapolis Residents Sue City Council And Mayor For Failing To Staff Police Amid Crime Surge

/in , , , , , , /by

A group of Minneapolis residents are suing the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor Jacob Frey for failing to manage the city’s police force amid a surge in violent crime, Alpha News reported.

The eight residents allege that the recent actions of the City Council and mayor have driven out officers, which the leaders have no plans to replace as the city moves toward plans to defund the police, Alpha News reported.

“Minneapolis is in a crisis. The city faces a violent crime rate that has skyrocketed this year. It is the responsibility of the City Council and the Mayor to make Minneapolis safe. Instead, the City Council and Mayor Jacob Frey have violated their duties to fund, employ and manage a police force as required by the City Charter,” states the lawsuit, which was filed in Hennepin County District Court.

More than 150 Minneapolis police officers began the process to file disability claims in July following the death of George Floyd and subsequent riots and protests. Most officers reported suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and mentioned the exhaustion of working long shifts without support from city leadership.

At least 80 officers have retired or quit in recent months, and by the end of July more than 200 had applied for disability. By the end of the year, the number of officers could sink to as little as 500 — far below the required 743 officers — according to Alpa News. Frey reportedly doesn’t plan to replace the officers due to a citywide hiring freeze.

“Rather than work to improve public safety, the City Council and Mayor Jacob Frey are making the city unsafe for its citizens, thus requiring this Court’s intervention,” it says.

“The safety of our families and community require an adequately staffed and deployed police force. The actions of the City Council and Mayor Frey in driving out unprecedented numbers of Minneapolis police officers, and then canceling all hiring of replacements, endangers our community, our residents and our children,” said Cathy Spann, one of the suit’s eight plaintiffs, who are represented by the Upper Midwest Law Center, Alpha News reported.

Following the death of George Floyd in May, the Minneapolis City Council proposed dismantling the police department. The proposal will not appear on November ballots for voters to decide on the issue because a Charter Commission chose to take additional time to review the proposal after determining in August that it was rushed and gave the city councils too much power.

Dozens of Minneapolis businesses have expressed concerns with the prospect of the police department being dismantled, reporting in a survey that they are considering leaving downtown.

“We demand the City Council and Mayor comply with the Charter and, rather than ‘defund the police,’ take all necessary steps to increase the number of police in active service to the minimum of 743 officers required by the City Charter,” Spann continued.

The lawsuit asks the court to order the mayor and city council to meet the minimum number of officers as well as to take the steps to train and fund them. A chair of the Upper Midwest Law Center stated that while the city council claims this number of officers is not required for public safety, the city pays more than $150,000 for private armed security for its council members.

“While the City Council claims that the Charter-required minimum number of armed police is not required for public safety, when it comes to their own safety, their actions stink of hypocrisy,” chair of the Upper Midwest Law Center Howard Root said in a press release.

“So at the same time the City Council has determined that the citizens require less police protection, they have hired their own special private police force to provide added security for themselves at taxpayer expense,” he continued, according to Alpha News.

COLUMN BY

MARLO SAFI
Culture reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Attorney Says 150 Minneapolis Police Officers Filed Disability Claims, Mostly For PTSD, Following George Floyd Death

Texas Gov. Abbott, Other State Leaders Want To Freeze Tax Revenues For Any City That Cuts Police Budgets

6 Officers Injured, 18 Demonstrators Arrested After Seattle Rioters Hurl Explosives At Police

Virginia State Sen. Louise Lucas Faces Charges After Allegedly Damaging Statue During Protests

Virginia State Sen. Louise Lucas Faces Charges After Allegedly Damaging Statue During Protests

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Democrats Continue Lies About So-Called Muslim Ban

/in , , , , /by

As I have reported innumerable times recently at RRW, thousands of Muslims continue to enter the US from all over the world.  There is no Muslim ban.

But, the Democrats are never hindered by the facts as John Binder points out about last nights Democrat infomercial (a.k.a. 2020 presidential convention).

By the way, I’m busy these days prepping and generally getting stuff in order (if you know what I mean), and so I only plan to post when I see something that I find interesting.  Consider this my August recess.

From Breitbart:

Fact Check: The Travel Ban Is Neither a ‘Muslim Ban,’ Nor Unconstitutional

CLAIM: President Donald Trump’s travel ban was a “Muslim ban” and was unconstitutional.

VERDICT: False. The travel ban was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Actress Tracee Ellis Ross, who moderated the second evening of the Democrat National Convention (DNC), claimed that President Trump’s travel ban was unconstitutional She introduced former Acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates, whom she said “refused to defend an unconstitutional travel ban and paid for it with her job.”

Yates herself then described it as a “shameful and unlawful Muslim travel ban.”

In reality, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in Trump v. Hawaii that the president has extraordinarily broad discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to exclude aliens when he believes doing so is in the nation’s interests.

[….]

In Senate testimony in May 2017, Yates admitted that she had been motivated partly by “policy” considerations, which were not hers to make, and that she based her view of the ban not on the executive order but Trump’s previous statements. She even admitted that she had overruled the Office of Legal Counsel, which had confirmed the order’s constitutionality.

Yates was simply wrong about the Constitution and the law. She was a political actor seeking to create controversy; she could have resigned in protest, but instead forced the administration to fire her to create a sense of being victimized.

More here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

MAINE: Democratic Senate Hopeful Repeatedly Killed ‘Racist’ Bills to Outlaw Female Genital Mutilation

/in , , , , , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

The most revolting news item of the week comes from Maine, where, according to the Washington Free Beacon, “Democratic Senate candidate Sara Gideon repeatedly killed bills to outlaw female genital mutilation during her tenure as the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives.” In amassing this shameful record, Sara Gideon has become Exhibit A of everything that is wrong about identity politics, the Democratic Party, and the Left in general.

The Free Beacon notes that Gideon’s determination to enable the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is abundantly established. She “leveraged her leadership position in the Democrat-controlled legislature to kill two separate bills that would have criminalized the practice of severing the clitoris of infant girls and sewing their vaginas shut.”

Why on earth would Gideon do something as heinous as this? The answer is simple and predictable: “Under Gideon’s leadership, Maine Democrats argued that the bill was racist toward the state’s large immigrant community from Somalia, a country where the practice is ‘nearly universal’ according to the United Nations.”

It’s racist to outlaw FGM? Well, of course it is, because Sara Gideon needs the votes of Maine’s rapidly growing Somali community, and that’s as far as her moral calculus goes. The Free Beacon notes that “Gideon’s efforts have helped make Maine one of only 12 states that have not banned female genital mutilation,” and that “such a legacy threatens to complicate her cultivated image as a champion of women’s rights, one built on her consistent support for abortion access and the #MeToo movement,” but Gideon has shown in opposing efforts to criminalize FGM that she doesn’t really care about women’s rights at all. She poses as a women’s rights advocate when seeking donations from well-heeled Leftists, but she likely knows that those same Leftist donors won’t be concerned in the least about her wanting to allow for the preservation of a time-hallowed Somali cultural practice. After all, any other course of action would be “ethnocentric” and “Islamophobic,” right?

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Turkey: Ruling party discussing annulment of law combating violence against women

Muslim cleric: When women obey Islamic law, ‘the Jews will be disappeared and Jerusalem be ready for a new conquest’

Delaware: Hamas-linked CAIR sues state detention center over safety-related hijab prohibition

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO INTERVIEW WITH RON EDELSTEIN — ‘Concerned Christians and Jews for Trump’

/in , , , , , /by

TOM TRENTO, DIRECTOR, THE UNITED WEST – “Check out this engaging conversation with Ron Edelstein and his relationship with the Trump family, his concern for Israel and his concern for America!” Ron is the Founder of “Concerned Christians and Jews for Trump.”

©The United West

RELATED ARTICLE: ALAN BERGSTEIN Top NYC Businessman, Mensch, Stands up for President Trump; Forms Concerned Christians and Jews for Trump; Sounds Alarm of Radicals.

Julio Rosas On Defunding The Police: ‘Not Going To Be Helpful At All’ [Video]

/in , , , , , , /by

Julio Rosas, a senior writer for Townhall, spoke with the Daily Caller’s Samantha Renck about protests throughout the country, race relations and more.

A group of protesters in Washington, D.C. clashed with the police Thursday during another night of civil unrest.

“There was a big protest that started to become a little destructive in the Adams-Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C.,” Rosas said. “They were setting some stuff on fire. They were bringing out trash cans, newspaper stands into the street.”

Rosas explained that the police had “trapped a large number of the protesters — rioters at that point — in the street and so they were in the process of arresting them.”

“Some of the people that were able to get away — they came back and started to become agitators,” he said, “with the officers that had set up the perimeter around the outside of where they had gotten their friends.”

Rosas also discussed the Seattle City Council’s decision to defund the police, Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best’s resignation and more. 

WATCH:

COLUMN BY

SAMANTHA RENCK

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rep. Jodey Arrington Rips Jerry Nadler, Democratic Party Leadership On Portland Response

Special Prosector In Jussie Smollett Case Finds ‘Abuses Of Discretion’ By Kim Foxx’s Office

Head Of Young Democrats Of Maryland Found Dead After Missing For More Than A Week

Trump Critics Push Conspiracy Theories About Postal Service Mailboxes

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Here’s A List Of Corporations Funding The ‘Defund The Police’ Movement

/in , , , , , , /by

  • Prominent corporations from around the world are bankrolling the “defund the police” movement, a Daily Caller News Foundation review found. 
  • Companies including Cisco, Clif Bar, Degree, DoorDash, DropBox, H&M and Pokemon announced donations to organizations that seek to defund the police. 
  • Black Lives Matter Global Network and Color of Change are open about their desire to defund the police. 
  • Both organizations have received an outpouring of corporate donations in recent months. 

Dozens of corporations from around the world have collectively donated millions of dollars to left-wing organizations that advocate for defunding America’s police departments, a Daily Caller News Foundation review found.

Companies including Microsoft, Intel and Airbnb have donated to Black Lives Matter Global Network and Color of Change, both of which want to defund police departments across the country.

Color of Change is leading a national petition campaign demanding elected officials “defund the police, and invest in communities now!”

“Policing is a violent institution that must end,” Color of Change President Rashad Robinson said after the Minneapolis City Council voted to “dismantle” its police department.

“We imagine a country where there is enough money to educate our children, care for our sick and feed those who are financially unstable,” Robinson continued. “Defunding the police allows for this vision.”

Black Lives Matter Global Network, the national arm of Black Lives Matter, released a statement on May 30 calling for “a national defunding of police.” The organization published a video on June 6 arguing that “defunding the police is the only way to stop pouring resources into a system that doesn’t keep us safe.”

Both Black Lives Matter and Color of Change have seen a flood of corporate donations since George Floyd, a black man, died after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for more than eight minutes, according to video.

Clothing company H&M donated $500,000 across three social justice organizations including Color of Change, H&M announced in a June 1 Instagram post.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CA5vnhYB8Rs/?utm_source=ig_embed

Clif Bar announced a $100,000 donation split between two groups, including Color of Change, in a June 1 Facebook post.

Cisco announced on June 1 that it was splitting a $5 million donation across four social justice groups, including both Color of Change and Black Lives Matter.

RITZ Crackers announced on June 4 that the company and its sister brands — OREO, Trident and Chips Ahoy! — had donated $500,000 to the NAACP and Black Lives Matter.

Degree pledged $100,000 to Black Lives Matter, the deodorant company announced in a June 1 tweet.

Food delivery service DoorDash donated $500,000 to Black Lives Matter, along with donations to other racial justice groups, the company announced in a June blog post.

Slack CEO Stewart Butterfield and his wife announced they would make a $700,000 donation to Color of Change, Black Lives Matter and a host of other organizations in June, Protocol reported. The couple also said they would match $300,000 in employee gifts to organizations.

Clothing brand Vans Inc. announced a $50,000 donation to Color of Change in June, according to the Orange County Business Journal.

Women’s working space collective, The Wing, donated $200,000 to Color of Change in June, according to Protocol.

The Pokémon Company International company announced on Twitter in June it would be making a $100,000 donation to Black Lives Matter.

Fashion and music merchandising company Bravado pledged to match employee donations to Black Lives Matter, among various other organizations, Protocol reported.

Workspace computer software company Dropbox pledged to donate $500,000 to Black Lives Matter in a June 3 blog post.

Women’s undergarment company Spanx said it would donate $100,000 across multiple organizations, including Black Lives Matter, the NAACP and the Minnesota Freedom Fund, according to a June 3 Instagram post.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund has faced scrutiny for using donations to post bail for alleged violent criminals, including a woman charged with murder and a convicted rapist.

Beauty company Biossance announced it would donate $100,000 to Color of Change, Black Lives Matter, the ACLU and the Minnesota Freedom Fund in a June Instagram post.

Sportswear company Lululemon announced they donated a $250,000 sum to a variety of organizations, including Black Lives Matter, according to an Instagram post.

Japanese video game publishing company Square Enix made a $250,000 donation to Black Lives Matter and pledged to match employee contributions to Black Lives Matter, as well, the company announced in a June 2 tweet.

None of the companies other than DoorDash returned requests for comment.

“In the wake of the death of George Floyd, DoorDash has taken a series of steps to show our support for equality and to stand against discrimination, including by making donations to a number of national and local organizations and leveraging our platform to support Black-owned businesses,” DoorDash global head of public affairs Taylor Bennett told the DCNF in an email.

“In partnership with our Black@DoorDash Employee Resource Group (ERG) and in consultation with civil rights leaders, we made donations to Black Lives Matter, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Black Girls Code, and a number of local organizations across the country that work to empower local economies to promote equality,” Bennett’s email continued.

“Our goal with these donations and the other actions we announced is to stand with our employees and community members to fight injustice, inequality and discrimination and to support organizations that are working to root out structural and systemic racism and providing local community development, mentorship, education and entrepreneurship programs to support Black communities across the country,” Bennett said.

His email did not address questions from the DCNF asking if DoorDash was aware that Black Lives Matter supports defunding the police at the time the donation was announced and whether DoorDash has a position on defunding the police.

COLUMN BY

JAKE DIMA AND PETER HASSON

Contriburtors.

RELATED ARTICLES:

These Celebrities Are Funding The ‘Defund The Police’ Movement

Another Weekend In Portland Brings Chaos, Assaults

49 Shot In 72 Hours In New York City As Violence Continues To Surge

‘I Was Trying To Get Out The Way’: Portland Protesters Attacked A Man And Woman After Truck Crashed

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

PODCAST: Democracy versus a Republic — Do You Know the Difference?

/in , , , /by

I originally wrote this piece in March 2019 as a means to find out how many people knew the difference between a democracy and a republic. I was shocked by how many didn’t. Then again, maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised as this simple concept is not taught in classrooms anymore. Yet this is something important to understand, particularly as we go into the upcoming November elections. As such, I decided to rerun it herein and included it in my latest book, “BEFORE YOU VOTE: KNOW HOW YOUR GOVERNMENT WORKS.” Enjoy!

One of my pet peeves involving politics is when people misstate our form of government. Normally, I would claim this as the fault of uneducated young people, but many politicians, members of the press, as well as grown-ups are also guilty of this faux pas. No, we most definitely do not live in a “democracy,” but a “constitutional republic” instead, as does most of the governments in the world.

In its truest sense, democracy means “Rule by the People,” meaning a system of government whereby the populace votes directly on each and every issue. When you consider the voluminous number of bills and candidates to be voted upon, this is simply not feasible, regardless if we had the most sophisticated computer software to do so. Time should be allotted to deliberate on each piece of legislation and, to do so, would require citizens to devote most of their time to such study, and not tend to their own business.

This is why we elect politicians, to represent our interests so the populace doesn’t have to vote on every bill, large or small, and explains why we refer to this as a “representative democracy,” aka “republic.” Here, the elected representatives are governed by a rule of law, such as a constitution, which defines the structure and responsibility of executive, legislative, and judicial tasks. Consequently, we call this form of government a “constitutional republic,” which is a more accurate description of our government than “democracy.” It should also be noted that under this form of government, the head of state is not a monarch, such as a King or Queen, which lends itself more to being a “monarchy” as opposed to a free-standing “republic.”

Every now and then, we hear a politician or member of the media proclaim, “This (or that) is a threat to our democracy.” This tells me they haven’t a clue as to what they are talking about. Instead, they should have said, “This is a threat to our republic.” Alas though, they do not.

The Democrats also have a problem with the name, particularly when they refer to themselves as the “Democratic” party. This too is incorrect. However, it is often difficult to describe the party, audibly or in writing, without making this common mistake. The term “Democracy” is so imbued in our culture, the Democrats try capitalizing on it to confuse the public, portraying the word “republic” as a constitutional threat to the country. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Interesting, Democrats today do not practice Democracy within their own party, but rather act as a Republic instead.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is now the largest socialist organization in the United States and aside from their far-left agenda, it is difficult to discern if they truly embrace democracy or a constitutional republic, I suspect the former.

Another commonly misunderstood area is the concept of the Electoral College in presidential elections, which is indirectly tied to the concept of “republic” as opposed to “democracy” by electing electorates (representatives) as opposed to a popular vote. By doing so, it provides parity between the interests of rural and metropolitan America. Frankly, the Electoral College is a testament to the sheer genius of our founding fathers as it encourages everyone to vote, not just large metropolitan areas.

The Left believes the Electoral College is a threat to democracy, and it is reported as such by the press. In reality, they are correct as the College is intended to be used in a republic, not a democracy.

So, in a nutshell, No, we do not live in a democracy, in the truest sense of the word. We live in a “constitutional Republic” and it is important all citizens understand the differences.

The Constitution defines our government in Article IV, Section 4:

“The United States shall guarantee, to every State in this Union, a republican form of government…”

Following the writing of the U.S. Constitution, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the delegates and authors, and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” He coyly replied, “A republic — if you can keep it.”

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also, I have a NEW book, “Before You Vote: Know How Your Government Works”, What American youth should know about government, available in Printed, PDF and eBook form. This is the perfect gift for youth!

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.