This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More
Got It!
YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #police #astronomy #florida #law #racism
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
News Feed (Home) Popular Posts Events Blog Market Forum
Media
Go LIVE! Headline News VidWatch Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore Offers
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Group

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Daily Caller Feed
Daily Caller Feed
5 w

NFL Is Going All In For Pride Month
Favicon 
dailycaller.com

NFL Is Going All In For Pride Month

Oh, give me a break
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Caller Feed
Daily Caller Feed
5 w

Liberals Squander First Chance To Learn From 2020 Mistakes
Favicon 
dailycaller.com

Liberals Squander First Chance To Learn From 2020 Mistakes

Democrats are stuck in a trap of their own design
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Signal Feed
Daily Signal Feed
5 w

Secretary Kennedy’s Bold Agenda: Radical Transparency and Rational Vaccine Policy
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

Secretary Kennedy’s Bold Agenda: Radical Transparency and Rational Vaccine Policy

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is quickly delivering on his agenda. First, his promise to senators of “radical transparency” is fulfilled in his rapid response to congressional inquiries into federal policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Team Biden ignored those congressional requests for information over the past four years.   Second, Kennedy and his team are also recalibrating government recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines based on a rational risk-benefit calculation, while terminating the 17 members—all Biden administration appointees—of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the panel that makes recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  After four troublesome years, federal policy governing COVID vaccine recommendations is long overdue for a change. The reason: There is a vast difference in the risks of COVID-19, particularly mortality, and the benefits of the COVID vaccines based on age and the presence or absence of underlying health conditions. According to CDC data, over the period Jan. 1, 2020 to April 30, 2025, there were 1,227,616 deaths attributable to COVID-19. Of that number, 669,463 (54.5%), were over the age of 75; 270,847 (22.1%) were aged 65 to 74; and 209,694 (17.08%) were aged 50 to 64. In short almost 94% of the officially recorded COVID deaths occurred among Americans 50 years of age or older.    The statistical contrast between the older and younger cohort of the American population is dramatic. Over the same period, according to the CDC data, there were 20,554 deaths (1.67%) among Americans aged 30 to 39; 7,394 (0.06%) among those aged 18 to 29; 639 deaths (0.05%) between age 12 and 17; 394 deaths (0.03%) between the ages of 5 and 11; and 1,112 deaths (0.09%) of those aged 0 to 4.  Because older and sicker Americans face much greater risks of serious illness and death from COVID-19, the benefits of the vaccines—generally preventing hospitalization and death—outweigh the risks for this cohort of the population.  Official policy, at least until now, has not reflected this risk-benefit calculation. Writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, Marty Makary, the new commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and his colleague Dr. Vinay Prasad address the specific issue of annual COVID booster shots. The Biden era recommendations, they argue, are overly broad and unjustified by the data:  “While other high-income countries confine vaccine recommendations to older adults (typically those older than 65 years of age), or those at high risk for severe COVID-19, the United States has adopted a one size fits all regulatory framework and has granted broad marketing authorization to all Americans over the age of 6 months. The U.S. policy has sometimes been justified by arguing that the American people are not sophisticated enough to understand age and risk-based recommendations. We reject this view.”   In that article, Makary and Prasad “anticipate” that continued COVID-19 vaccination would be appropriate for persons over 65 and, of course, for those persons with an underlying medical condition that would lead to severe illness, hospitalization or death. For healthy persons between the age of six and 64, they believe vaccination would be appropriate—based on the results of randomized clinical trials for this population—combined with strong post-market surveillance. Kennedy, meanwhile, announced that he would cancel the CDC’s recommendation of the COVID vaccines for healthy young children and pregnant women.  This is a major shift in government policy, and it more closely aligns U.S. practice with that of our European friends and allies. While federal officials have insisted that adverse reactions are “rare,” there has been steadily mounting evidence COVID-19 vaccines are not as “safe and effective” as advertised. Adverse reactions have included anaphylaxis, myocarditis (heart inflation), pericarditis (an inflammation of the heart membrane), strange blood clotting, and various neurological problems.   On May 21, 2025, in sworn testimony before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, a panel of medical professionals cited COVID vaccines as a cause of death in certain instances, revealed the inadequacy of vaccine safety surveillance, and highlighted a relationship between injection and miscarriage. Based largely on self-reporting, the government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System is incapable of proving a direct causal relationship between an injection and a specific adverse reaction. House congressional investigators note, however, that the reporting system records a level of mortality from COVID-19 vaccination that dwarfs all other vaccines.    This acknowledgment of the disparate impact of the coronavirus and the effectiveness of the vaccine and a revision of the COVID vaccine recommendations is a major departure from the Biden administration’s policy.   Recall that in 2021, Biden and his appointees claimed—in the teeth of emerging evidence—that the COVID vaccines would prevent infection. They ignored or downplayed the power of natural immunity and then falsely insisted that the pandemic was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”; a claim that was obviously untrue in the daily experience of millions of Americans. And finally, they tried to impose an unprecedented vaccine mandate on 80 million private employers and employees, an illegal diktat struck down by the Supreme Court.   This series of measures not only undermined public confidence in the COVID vaccine and public health officials, but also contributed to a broader vaccine hesitancy, a profoundly dangerous development.    Worse, Team Biden ignored or downplayed crucial evidence of adverse COVID vaccine reactions. Because of Kennedy’s promise of full transparency, we have proof. He delivered 2,473 pages of previously withheld records to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.   Johnson subsequently published an explosive report revealing that in early 2021 Israel’s Ministry of Health told Biden administration officials that their own comprehensive data showed a “large number” of myocarditis cases among young people. An internal federal working group then received data indicating a “safety signal” for myocarditis among persons aged 16 to 24 years of age. By May 2021, the Senate report proves, Biden administration officials had ample reason to warn the public about the dangers of vaccine-induced myocarditis. They failed to do so.    Today the FDA affixes a “black box” warning on certain drugs that have the potential of causing serious injury or death. This is the case, for example, with antidepressants, which can induce suicidal ideation among young people; opioids, such as oxycodone, which can result in addiction; or warfarin, a common blood thinner that can result in serious or fatal bleeding. Based on the emerging evidence, it is time to affix the “black box” label to the mRNA COVID vaccines.     Kennedy has made a fresh start, including getting rid of Biden administration “holdovers” on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. But there is much more to be done. Based on an evaluation of congressional oversight over the last three years, The Heritage Foundation has outlined 21 specific steps that Kennedy and his new team can take to ensure better accountability for public health decisions. These include protecting scientific debate from federal censorship efforts, toughening enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act to ensure the free flow of information, improving the process of diagnostic testing during a pandemic, providing full transparency on vaccine ingredients, and upgrading rules to prevent financial conflicts of interest among public health employees.   Kennedy has a golden opportunity to repair and reinvigorate public health agencies, clarify their roles and responsibilities in preparation for the next pandemic, and reinspire Americans’ trust in public health. Godspeed.   The post Secretary Kennedy’s Bold Agenda: Radical Transparency and Rational Vaccine Policy appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Like
Comment
Share
Reclaim The Net Feed
Reclaim The Net Feed
5 w

Britain Launches Cross-Border Censorship Hunt Against 4chan
Favicon 
reclaimthenet.org

Britain Launches Cross-Border Censorship Hunt Against 4chan

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The UK government has taken another aggressive step in its campaign to regulate online speech, launching formal investigations into the message board 4chan and seven file-sharing sites under its far-reaching Online Safety Act. But this is more than a domestic crackdown; it is a clear attempt to assert British speech laws far beyond its borders, targeting platforms that have no meaningful presence in the UK. The law, which came into full force in April, gives sweeping powers to Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, to demand that websites and apps proactively remove undefined categories of “illegal content.” Failure to comply can trigger massive fines of up to £18 million ($24M) or 10 percent of global revenue, criminal penalties for company executives, and site-wide bans within the UK. Now, Ofcom has set its sights on 4chan, a US-hosted imageboard owned by a Japanese national. The site operates under US law and has no physical infrastructure, employees, or legal registration in Britain. Nonetheless, UK regulators have declared it fair game. “Wherever in the world a service is based if it has ‘links to the UK’, it now has duties to protect UK users,” Ofcom insists. More: UK Tries To Wield Censorship Laws Globally, Clashing with Gab and Kiwi Farms over Free Speech and Jurisdiction That phrase, “links to the UK,” is intentionally vague and extraordinarily expensive, allowing British authorities to demand compliance from virtually any website. This kind of extraterritorial overreach marks a direct threat to the principle of national sovereignty in internet governance. The UK is attempting to dictate the rules of online speech to foreign companies, hosted on foreign servers, and serving users in other countries, all because someone in Britain might visit their site. According to Ofcom, 4chan failed to respond to its “statutory information requests,” making it one of nine services now under formal investigation. What this law actually does is push platforms, especially smaller or independent ones, out of the UK entirely. Already, popular free speech platforms like Gab, BitChute, and Kiwi Farms have blocked UK access, citing the chilling effects of the Online Safety Act. Rather than making the internet safer, the law is creating a digital iron curtain around the UK, where only government-approved content and services remain accessible. 4chan, long a lightning rod for unfiltered speech and internet culture, has no shortage of detractors. But the platform’s commitment to anonymity and free expression has also made it one of the last places online where users can post without algorithmic throttling or corporate moderation. It is routinely blamed for hosting “offensive” memes, and conspiracies, yet in nearly every case, the speech in question would be protected under US First Amendment standards. Rather than respecting these legal differences, the UK is attempting to export its more restrictive model of speech regulation to the rest of the world. The aim is clear: if a platform cannot or will not bend to Ofcom’s demands, it will be blacklisted from the UK internet. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Britain Launches Cross-Border Censorship Hunt Against 4chan appeared first on Reclaim The Net.
Like
Comment
Share
Hot Air Feed
Hot Air Feed
5 w

DOJ: Judge Dugan Does Not Have Immunity for Disrupting ICE Arrest
Favicon 
hotair.com

DOJ: Judge Dugan Does Not Have Immunity for Disrupting ICE Arrest

DOJ: Judge Dugan Does Not Have Immunity for Disrupting ICE Arrest
Like
Comment
Share
Hot Air Feed
Hot Air Feed
5 w

Guess Which Side of the National Guard Debate the L.A. Cops Support
Favicon 
hotair.com

Guess Which Side of the National Guard Debate the L.A. Cops Support

Guess Which Side of the National Guard Debate the L.A. Cops Support
Like
Comment
Share
NewsBusters Feed
NewsBusters Feed
5 w

Google’s AI Can’t Say Exactly How Much NPR/PBS Get in Taxpayer Dollars—Because NPR/PBS Won’t
Favicon 
www.newsbusters.org

Google’s AI Can’t Say Exactly How Much NPR/PBS Get in Taxpayer Dollars—Because NPR/PBS Won’t

Google may be NPR and PBS’s partners in crime, but even the tech giant’s AI chatbot Gemini can’t run cover for the leftist outlets’ taxpayer-funded shell game. On Friday, Gemini gave inconsistent information in response to MRC Free Speech America’s questions about how much taxpayer dollars, both federal and state, NPR receives. Is it one, four or 10 percent of NPR’s total budget? Gemini claimed it is all of the above. Apparently, NPR’s funding is a multiple-choice mystery. “The amount NPR and PBS receive in taxpayer dollars is as closely guarded a secret as Google’s algorithm,” said MRC Free Speech America VP Dan Schneider. “That’s precisely why Google AI Gemini can’t say exactly how much the two leftist outlets receive in taxpayer dollars—because NPR and PBS won’t say.” Gemini’s conflicting answer was unsurprising, since it nearly exclusively relied on none other than NPR as a source. NPR has never clearly broken down its total taxpayer funding, including money from federal and state governments and member stations, which receive taxpayer dollars through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. First, the chatbot parroted NPR’s talking point: “NPR directly receives less than 1% of its annual budget from the federal government.” But just a few lines later, Gemini admitted the truth was “a bit more complex,” failing to come up with an exact figure of how many taxpayer dollars NPR gets. Later still, Gemini affirmed NPR receives almost 10 percent of its budget “indirectly through federal, state, and local governments via these member stations.” In a second paragraph, Gemini contradicted itself, saying that in 2017, “it was reported that 4% of NPR's revenue came from federal, state, and local governments via member stations.” [Emphasis added.] The chatbot then concluded: “In summary, while the direct federal funding for NPR is very small, a more significant portion of its funding comes indirectly from federal, state, and local taxes through its member stations and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.” MRC Free Speech America’s analysis shows Gemini relied exclusively on sources directly implicated by the prompt asked. Out of the five sources cited by Gemini, three came directly from NPR, with the fourth source being an NPR affiliate, Colorado Public Radio, and the fifth being its funding partner, CPB. Gemini’s response was just as muddled when asked how much federal funding PBS receives. It identified 15 percent of PBS’s revenue as federal, but then added that some reports “indicate that combined state, federal, and local funding can be around 31% for public television.” That figure excludes university contributions to PBS, which, as Gemini admitted, “may receive federal funding” as well. Like NPR, PBS charges local affiliates membership fees—effectively double-dipping, since these local stations receive federal funding themselves. According to Gemini, some local PBS Stations get “as much as 60%” of their funding from taxpayers. Gemini’s failure to clearly break down the taxpayer benefits of both NPR and PBS comes just as Congress prepares to vote on a Trump-endorsed rescission package aimed at reversing $1.1 billion in previously approved spending. The rescission bill passed the House Rules Committee on Tuesday and is set for a full House floor vote on Thursday. Newly appointed MRC President David Bozell urged lawmakers to pass the rescission package in an opinion piece published Wednesday by The Hill. “Congress now has a unique chance to act,” Bozell wrote. “Rescinding these funds will send a clear signal: if you want to push a partisan agenda, don’t ask taxpayers to fund it. If NPR and PBS believe in their product, let private donors or advertisers fund it. “ Bozell also vowed continued accountability for the media outlets, but warned that legislative action is needed: “We will not stop calling out their bias, but exposure alone is not enough. Lawmakers must act. Trump’s rescission package is a practical, principled reform. Republicans have fought to defund these institutions for more than 30 years. Now, that goal could finally become a reality. Congress must follow through.” Methodology: MRC Free Speech America prompted Google AI chatbot Gemini to answer the following question: “What percentage of funding from federal and state taxes does NPR receive?” In response, Gemini yielded the following: NPR's funding from federal and state taxes is a nuanced topic. Here's a breakdown: Direct Federal Funding: NPR directly receives less than 1% of its annual budget from the federal government. Indirect Federal Funding: This is where it gets a bit more complex. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a non-profit organization established by Congress, receives federal appropriations. The CPB then distributes grants to local public radio stations. These local stations, in turn, pay fees to NPR for its programming and services. While the exact percentage varies, reports indicate that NPR receives almost 10% of its budget indirectly through federal, state, and local governments via these member stations. State and Local Government Funding: A portion of the funding for local member stations also comes from state and local governments, which then contributes to the fees they pay to NPR. In 2017, it was reported that 4% of NPR's revenue came from federal, state, and local governments via member stations. In summary, while the direct federal funding for NPR is very small, a more significant portion of its funding comes indirectly from federal, state, and local taxes through its member stations and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. MRC also asked Google AI chatbot Gemini the following: “What percentage of funding from federal and state taxes does PBS receive?” In response, Gemini yielded the following: PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) receives funding from a variety of sources, with federal and state taxes contributing a portion: Federal Funding: Approximately 15% of the public television system's revenue comes from the federal government. This funding is primarily distributed through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), an independent non-profit organization established by Congress. The CPB then provides grants to local public television stations. State and Local Government Funding: While the 15% figure is often cited for overall "government subsidies," a portion of the funding for local PBS stations also comes from state and local governments. Some reports indicate that combined state, federal, and local funding can be around 31% for public television. Additionally, some universities, which may receive federal funding, also contribute to public broadcasting. It's important to note that: The majority of PBS's funding comes from private support, including individual donations, corporate sponsorships, and foundation grants. The federal funding that goes to public broadcasting through the CPB is often highlighted as a relatively small investment per taxpayer (e.g., $1.40 per taxpayer per year for the public television system). For individual local affiliates, especially those in rural areas, government funding can make up a more significant portion of their revenue, sometimes as much as 60%. In essence, while federal and state taxes contribute to PBS's operations, it's not the primary source of its funding, with private donations making up the largest share. Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
Like
Comment
Share
The Blaze Media Feed
The Blaze Media Feed
5 w

The left’s great victory in California
Favicon 
www.theblaze.com

The left’s great victory in California

After months of intraparty sniping, heterodox podcast appearances, and executive vetoes, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) bent the knee and kissed the ring. His yearlong rebellion is over, the left won back its first serious presidential candidate, and the Democratic Party’s moderating forces seem to be losing.Republicans are laughing all the way to the polls.The ghost of Chris Christie’s political future hangs over any partisan crisis interactions, and the White House seriously narrowed the tightrope Newsom could walk.Newsom has been trying to put some distance between his long, public past and his ambitious future for well over a year now. Even before November’s presidential election, he knew which way the wind was blowing.For example, in October 2023, he vetoed a radical transgender kids bill. This year, he began appearing with conservative podcasters, including Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon, and said that men should not be competing in women's sports — breaking with current Democratic Party dogma.Few of his fellow party members came to his defense. Gay activist groups and prominent Democratic politicians (and presidential candidates) like Govs. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota loudly criticized Newsom for pitting his ambitions against “the most vulnerable,” while his supporters quietly whispered to reporters on background that he’s right and they agree. Their relative silence makes it tough to tell how the broader Democratic Party actually took this messaging. But when one side silently watches its champions get torn up and the other vocally tears them down, it’s easy to tell who’s in charge – and it isn’t the voices of moderation.Newsom wasn’t the only Democrat flirting with apostasy, but he was by far the most visible. Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor and Obama consigliere, has long warned against the party’s progressive excesses. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, another supposed moderate, stayed silent through the whole mess — a luxury afforded to those safely on the sidelines.Newsom, by contrast, walked straight into the transgender minefield. As governor of the nation’s largest state and the Democrats’ most visible rising star, he faced more high-stakes tests — and more chances to lead — than any of his peers. The California wildfires gave him a golden opportunity: Cut through Los Angeles red tape, expose local mismanagement, and fast-track rebuilding to score a win.He blew it. As of last week, Altadena, which lost hundreds of homes in January, had issued just 15 rebuilding permits. So much for seizing the moment.Then came the riot’s fires. Again, Newsom had every opportunity to lead. He could have cracked down on the violent street crime from the outset, ordered California law enforcement to protect federal officers, and restored order — even while criticizing the president. Instead, he logged on and sided with the rioters.Some of that posturing likely came under pressure from the White House, which refused to let Los Angeles — or California — off the hook. After state officials declined to back federal agents, President Trump took control. He denied Newsom authority over the National Guard, deployed U.S. Marines to bolster federal presence, and threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to restore law and order by force.For years, Trump has trumpeted an invasion of military-age foreign men, while people like Newsom and L.A.’s deeply unserious mayor called him a racist and a tyrant. There’s little more embarrassing for California Democrats than the imagery of masked men waving foreign flags in front of looted shops and burning vehicles.It all put Newsom in a terrible bind. Los Angeles has long been a haven for illegal gangs, and California remains prime territory for cartel activity. His reckoning arrived — and Trump made sure the spotlight stayed on him. The ghost of Chris Christie loomed large: a cautionary tale of what happens when partisan posturing meets real crisis. Even with the LAPD showing up in force Tuesday night, the damage is done.Flipping off the cameras for the first couple of days while your state’s largest city burns is exactly the kind of meltdown Republicans dream about. Tweeting in Spanish about the Founding Fathers peacefully resisting didn’t help his case, either.In the short term, bashing Trump made sense — at least for a Democratic primary. The base loved it. In fact, this week marked the first time all year a major activist outlet ran glowing coverage of Newsom. That’s how you know he finally gave them what they wanted.But nationally, the political winds are shifting — and fast. A recent CNN poll showed a staggering 40-point swing among legal immigrants, from backing Democratic immigration policies to supporting Republicans. Even Politico admitted the optics of the riots were a disaster. And even the New York Times’ reporting conceded: Trump had the legal authority to invoke the Insurrection Act.Newsom had few good options. Los Angeles has gone up in flames twice this year alone, and both disasters bear the fingerprints of Democratic mismanagement. The president stands on firm legal ground and popular national sentiment. The Democratic base, meanwhile, demands total opposition — no matter how insane the circumstances. Newsom knew he couldn’t count on the party’s so-called moderates to back him in a real fight. So he folded.Now he’s their standard-bearer — whether he likes it or not. That might help him survive the early rounds of the primary, but could prove a burden later on. And will it be enough? Probably not. The base doesn’t want compromise. It wants a war. And this week, it won its first major battle.Blaze News: Order mostly restored in Los Angeles after days of riots, but the damage is doneThe Spectator: Newsom blew his chance to stand for law and orderBlaze News: A president’s historic job is to stop the burning if governors won’tBlaze News: Anti-ICE violence spreads across AmericaBlaze News: Reckless Democrats are turning ICE agents into cartel targetsBlaze News: The lie that launched a thousand riotsBlaze News: Billionaire Walmart heiress funds anti-Trump chaos, backs radical 'No Kings' protestsSign up for Bedford’s newsletterSign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford’s newsletter.
Like
Comment
Share
The Blaze Media Feed
The Blaze Media Feed
5 w

Gavin Newsom accidentally reveals his REAL goal while daring Trump to arrest him
Favicon 
www.theblaze.com

Gavin Newsom accidentally reveals his REAL goal while daring Trump to arrest him

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) added fire to the already burning city of Los Angeles when he dared President Trump and border czar Tom Homan to arrest him following the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to the city to quell violent anti-ICE protests.In a June 8 MSNBC interview, Newsom, responding to Homan’s threat to arrest officials obstructing ICE immigration raids in L.A., taunted, “Come after me, arrest me. Let's just get it over with, tough guy. I don’t give a damn.”The illegal aliens ICE was targeting, he claimed, were just “poor people ... trying to live their lives, paying their taxes,” who have “been here 10 years.”“Who was arrested on Friday?” asks Glenn Beck. “A rapist, a murderer — people who are not here just paying their taxes trying to live a quiet life.”He’s right. Among the illegal immigrants arrested last weekend were several people with criminal convictions for second-degree murder, rape, burglary, assault with a deadly weapon, and vehicular manslaughter, among others.In another interview with Fox News, Newsom said that President Trump’s end goal isn’t restoring public safety and national security. It’s “a civil war on the streets of America.” Deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles, he claimed, was just Trump “testing the boundaries.”Glenn sees through Newsom’s recent comments to the truth the radical governor hoped to keep concealed: It’s the left that’s pining for a civil war. Accusing Trump of trying to start one is yet another example of Democrat self-diagnosis. “[Democtats] want civil war, and they're testing their boundaries — period,” says Glenn.Co-host Stu Burguiere brings up a good point: Many of the organizations currently protesting on the streets of L.A. have openly “advocated” for uprising and revolution.One of those organizations is the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which aims to overthrow capitalism and establish a socialist system. That’s who’s “printing the signs for the people to carry in the streets!” says Glenn.Another group currently on the streets of L.A. is Unión del Barrio, another Marxist-Leninist political organization that seeks the destruction of imperialism, capitalism, and essentially “all the institutions that make America America.”One of its leaders, Ron Gochez, who helped organize the L.A. protests against ICE, framed the clashing of protesters and law enforcement in the exact same way Gavin Newsom framed it. He said that because of the “fierce resistance of the community,” “hundreds of workers that were in the factories ... were able to escape” and “go to their cars and go home.”Even though neither Newsom or Gochez “are saying ‘we want revolution in the streets,’ both of them want revolution in the streets,” says Glenn. “They always tip their hand by telling you what Trump is doing or what the right is doing. It's always projection.”To hear more of Glenn’s analysis, watch the clip above.Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Like
Comment
Share
Gamers Realm
Gamers Realm
5 w

Battlefield 6 and Black Ops 7 may be coming, but Delta Force is bigger than ever
Favicon 
www.pcgamesn.com

Battlefield 6 and Black Ops 7 may be coming, but Delta Force is bigger than ever

The biggest names in the multiplayer FPS space are set to launch new series entries in the form of Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 and the yet-to-be-unveiled Battlefield 6 very soon. But there are plenty of other free options within the genre to check out in the meantime. Just yesterday, for instance, Rainbow Six Siege X came out and, going by its recent resurgence on Steam, the Delta Force revival put out late last year is doing better than ever before. Continue reading Battlefield 6 and Black Ops 7 may be coming, but Delta Force is bigger than ever MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Delta Force guns, Delta Force operators, Delta Force loadouts
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 4498 out of 85567
  • 4494
  • 4495
  • 4496
  • 4497
  • 4498
  • 4499
  • 4500
  • 4501
  • 4502
  • 4503
  • 4504
  • 4505
  • 4506
  • 4507
  • 4508
  • 4509
  • 4510
  • 4511
  • 4512
  • 4513
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund