Sure‚ Taylor Swift did a great job at writing‚ performing in and directing her “Fortnite” music video (which has only dropped a couple days ago and already at over 30 million views)…but you know what could make it even better&;#63; Having a dog perform all the parts‚ that’s what&;#33; And that’s exactly the treat we received‚ thanks to an adorable dachshund named Lucas. The clip (aptly titled “Fortnight (Lucas’ version)”) recreates the music video’s black-and-white typewriter scene‚ where the camera alternates between a moody Swift and Post Malone clacking as they lament about how much love is “ruining” their lives. you know‚ basic tortured poets stuff. Only this time‚ Lucas plays both the roles—costumes as all&;#33; Major kudos to Lucas’ parent‚ who clearly has an eye for detail and camera angles. Both the original video and Lucas’ video play simultaneously so you can really see how similar they are. “I look like @taylorswift in this light‚ i’m lovin’ it 🤭🤍‚” the clip caption says. Watch below. Spoiler alert: get ready to see little doggy paws in lace gloves. See on Instagram Down in the comments‚ people were enthralled. One person wrote‚ &;quot;THIS NEEDS MORE ATTENTION” &;quot;Magical&;#33;&;#33;&;#33;&;#33;&;#33;&;#33;&;#33;&;quot; another added.Though clearly Lucas’s is a whole ‘nother level of Swiftie‚ is he not the only dog to be a fan. In an experiment produced by WoofWoof‚ dogs were “visibly more relaxed” by her music than other artists in the study. Her songs got more tail wagging and even more “howls of approval.” That’s right‚ her music transcends species. Just like Taylor Swift‚ Lucas has many‚ many more music videos where they came from‚ including “The Archer‚” “Hoax” and “You Belong with Me.” And just like Swift‚ he outdoes himself with every new project.Check out even more of his content on Instagram and TikTok.

Every once in a while a state's bill will make a blip on national media that causes people to dig a little deeper into what's happening. One such bill made headlines last year for a brief time before a new bill from another state took it's place.After a tragic school shooting in the state of Tennessee where six people were killed‚ including three young students‚ state politicians began talking about arming the teachers. The idea was if teachers were armed then they would be able to stop school shooters‚ but the bill was widely unpopular among teachers and many parents. That didn't stop the state legislature from drawing up the bill and putting it up for a vote April 2024. Many parents showed up to Tennessee State Senate to protest the bill‚ but it was the fiery speech of State Senator London Lamar that has people talking.The new mom held her infant son in her arms while she addressed her colleagues who saw fit to laugh after moms protesting the bill were asked to leave. Lamar did not hold back in not only expressing her disappointment in her colleagues behavior but their disregard for very real concerns that she also shares with the people asked to leave. &;quot;We are literally talking about arming educators who took an oath to teach our kids writing and arithmetic and how they can one day contribute to Tennessee's great economy‚ and we're now turning them into law enforcement agents by arming them with guns. We think this piece of legislation is going to keep kids safe which is probably going to enable the next school shooter‚ and it's not going to be someone coming in from the outside. It's unfortunately going to be a teacher with this piece of legislation‚&;quot; Lamar declares. You can watch her passionate speech below:

“When she gets drunk‚ the evil forces seem to be able to take over.&;quot; The post The night Grace Slick ensured she would be fired by Jefferson Starship: “I wanted to be so out of line” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

In an exclusive interview‚ Kennedy tells The American Spectator: “We will be announcing 1-2 states each week from here until we qualify for all 50 states and the district of Columbia in July.” “Democracy&;#33;” That’s the rally cry of today’s liberal Democrats. It’s also the precise opposite of what they actually support for those standing in the way of Democrat President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign. These democracy advocates would ban Donald Trump from ballots in every state if they could‚ or better yet‚ put him behind bars or use the courts to disqualify him in some other way. But among their most concerted and disturbing efforts to date — in fact‚ a day-after-day campaign — has been their shocking effort to block Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from getting on the ballot anywhere from coast to coast. This has been a comprehensive effort‚ locally‚ nationally‚ in every state‚ and in D.C. Democracy‚ democracy‚ democracy&;#33; Well‚ no‚ not when it comes to RFK Jr. And to that end‚ I’m here to report some really bad news for Biden and Democrats: The son of Bobby Kennedy is suddenly getting on ballots‚ and his success in recent days signals what might well be the start of a surge. In an especially crucial development last week — largely ignored by the liberal media — Kennedy got on the ballot in the crucial swing state of Michigan. “[T]he campaign has gained ballot access in Michigan‚” stated an April 18 press release from the Kennedy campaign. “The party has filed all necessary documents with the state‚ putting the Kennedy-Shanahan ticket on the ballot in Michigan this fall.” Democrats badly need to win Michigan once again in November 2024. They’re hoping for it‚ banking on it‚ expecting it; that is‚ unless a third-party candidate‚ like Kennedy‚ fouls it up for them. And what’s so striking about Michigan is that Kennedy isn’t just polling around‚ say‚ 13 percent of the vote there. He has polled at double that. A New York Times/Siena poll of six key battlegrounds last October placed Kennedy at 26 percent in Michigan‚ compared to Biden at 31 percent. Numbers like that jolted the Biden camp‚ which quickly sprung into attack mode with an anti-Kennedy ad campaign. “Michigan is proving to be one of the closest swing states of the 2024 presidential election‚” says the Kennedy team. “Michigan is where the DNC put up its first attack ads against Kennedy in February‚ a series of defamatory billboards.” No surprise there. And it isn’t just Michigan. Team Kennedy has collected what it calls “all the necessary signatures to be on the ballot” in Hawaii‚ Idaho‚ Iowa‚ Nebraska‚ Nevada‚ New Hampshire‚ and North Carolina. Could Kennedy’s presence on the ballot move states like New Hampshire‚ Nevada‚ and North Carolina to Trump’s win column&;#63; Either way‚ Kennedy legitimately seems to be on a roll. We at The American Spectator reached out to him. He told me on Saturday: “We just won our case in Hawaii where [the] DNC challenged our ballot petition. There is nothing for them to challenge in Michigan. We will be announcing 1-2 states each week from here until we qualify for all 50 states and the district of Columbia in July.” Indeed‚ shortly after Kennedy shared that with me‚ his campaign team issued a press release noting that he had just gained ballot access in Hawaii as well. If the Kennedy campaign indeed announces one to two new states each week until it qualifies for all 50 states‚ the Democrats and Joe Biden will be foaming at the mouth. “The DNC is treating me as if I am President Biden’s big challenge‚” Kennedy told me. “But his real problem is not RFK‚ his real problem is four dollar milk‚ four dollar gas and six dollars for a loaf of bread and the fact that generation of American kids are never going to own their own home. We are the only campaign talking about how to make life affordable‚ to rebuild our industrial base and to get this generation into homes so that we can preserve America as an ownership society instead of a feudal corporate kleptocracy.” A kleptocracy might here be defined as one in which Washington’s governing class talks of “democracy” but maneuvers from state to state to keep opponents off the ballots. You might not technically call that rigging an election‚ but it certainly undermines the democratic process and voters’ choices. What especially concerns the Biden folks is that Kennedy does very well among voters under the age of 35‚ where he leads both Biden and Trump in a recent Quinnipiac poll. Moreover‚ another Quinnipiac poll shows Kennedy in a three-way tie with Biden and Trump among Latinos. That could be a doubly big blow to Biden. At the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference in Harrisburg‚ Pennsylvania‚ three weeks ago‚ I met with an expert on the Latino vote who projects that Donald Trump could get anywhere from 30–40 percent of that vote. If Kennedy cuts into that vote for Biden still more so‚ then Biden is in huge trouble with Latinos. He might lose them outright. And then there are independents‚ with whom RFK Jr. does especially well. Kennedy’s campaign cites a Quinnipiac poll showing that he leads both Biden and Trump among independents. And yes‚ that’s bad news for Donald Trump‚ too. Yes‚ yes‚ I know — there remains debate about whether RFK Jr.’s entrance into the race takes more votes from Biden or Trump. No doubt‚ he pulls from both‚ but most polls have shown that he hurts Biden more‚ even if only by a 1–2 percent margin. But‚ of course‚ in a Biden-Trump rematch‚ which is currently a dead heat‚ a 1–2 percent difference would make all the difference. As I write‚ RealClearPolitics’ composite average has Trump up over Biden by 44.5 to 44.2 percent in a head-to-head matchup. In a five-way race with Kennedy included‚ Trump’s lead over Biden goes up slightly‚ 41.6 to 40.6 percent. That would be decisive. Biden and the Democrats certainly know that. The last time that I wrote about RFK Jr. and Biden‚ I focused on the outrageous‚ egregious refusal by the Biden administration to provide Kennedy with Secret Service protection. (Could you imagine the media meltdown if President Trump had denied the same to a major challenger to his reelection&;#63; He would have been accused of wanting his opponent literally dead by assassination.) “It’s not right for the President to provide protection to his family and political favorites while denying it to political rivals‚” RFK Jr. told The American Spectator last October. “During his first week as Attorney General‚ my father assembled all the DOJ’s senior prosecutors to tell them that he would not tolerate any politicization of law-enforcement. President Biden displays a bust of my father in the oval office‚ but he seems to have forgotten this critical tenet of America democracy. During his administration‚ we’ve seen the wholesale cooption of federal law-enforcement agencies to censor criticism of White House policies and to serve other political ambitions.” As for himself‚ Kennedy added: “I don’t spend time worrying about my personal safety. I do worry about the safety of my family and their sense of wellbeing — and about the safety of bystanders if there is a more serious incident.” Despite multiple security threats to his very life‚ RFK Jr. has pushed on. He has not been scared out of the race. In the meantime‚ Biden and the Democrats are running scared. Their strategy is to try to refuse Kennedy ballot access in state after state. These great advocates for “DEMOCRACY&;#33;” are doing their best to thwart democracy in the case of Robert F. Kennedy‚ Jr. RFK Jr. is their ongoing nightmare. READ MORE: What Robert Kennedy Jr. Held Back From His Counterpunch of the Censorship State Kennedy for President&;#33; Nicole Shanahan: RFK Jr.’s Unconventional Pick for Vice President The post RFK Jr.: Biden’s and the Democrats’ Ongoing Nightmare appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The anti-Israel protests on America’s elite university campuses have reached a fever pitch: On name-brand campuses across the country‚ students have occupied offices‚ set up encampments‚ and held daily demonstrations to protest the war in Gaza. Today‚ nearly 50 campus activists were arrested at Yale. Last week‚ more than 100 anti-Israel protesters were arrested at Columbia — and university administrators subsequently announced that they would be moving to online classes due to the chaos. Those moves only inflamed tensions further‚ unleashing “a wave of activism across a growing number of college campuses‚” the New York Times reported on Monday. “In the days after the tents at Columbia came down‚ students at Yale‚ the University of Michigan and M.I.T. erected their own encampments in support of those arrested. By early Monday‚ New York University had become the latest protest site.” If onlookers are disturbed‚ they shouldn’t necessarily be surprised. None of the radicalism emanating from the nation’s most influential universities is new‚ nor is it confined to the issue of Israel-Palestine. That it has invited the level of outrage and scrutiny it has now — including from conservative megadonors who happily funneled cash to these elite radicalization machines for years — is preferable to the alternative; late is always better than never. But this most recent spate of upheavals did not materialize out of the blue. It is only the most recent culmination of an ideological corruption that has been decades in the making‚ often with the implicit assent of Republican politicians — and the active support of Republican university donors. As I wrote for the American Conservative back in late October: Hamas’s savage attacks are outrageous‚ as are the efforts to excuse or justify them. But so is the mass murder of unborn children in the womb. So is our open border. So is the radicalization of our universities‚ the carnage and violence on our city streets‚ and the systematic destruction of our history and heritage. That our conservative leaders have suddenly found their appetite for outrage is laudable‚ but it’s impossible to avoid wondering where it has been for the past decade…[Republican voters] could have been forgiven for inquiring where the donor class was when the campus radicalism it suddenly abhors was ransacking the country in the summer of 2020‚ or when the education system was teaching our youth to hate the country they are to inherit‚ or when the same factions that are now celebrating the slaughter of Israelis were fantasizing about doing the same to their fellow Americans. Since the Oct. 7 attacks and the fallout on American campuses‚ a number of powerful GOP donors appear to have suddenly come to their senses. Marc Rowan‚ a private equity billionaire and Trump donor‚ has given some $50 million to the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business; after Oct. 7‚ he publicly called for university donors to “close your checkbooks.” Ken Griffin‚ another GOP megadonor‚ has given hundreds of millions of dollars to Harvard; today‚ he has embarked on the warpath against his alma mater and the campus activists leading the anti-Israel movement there. Republican politicians‚ too‚ are making angry noises about financial reprisals — a bargaining chip that has been on their table‚ unused and collecting dust‚ for decades. Most Americans are probably unaware of the extent to which their tax dollars pad the sinecures of campus radicals. (Then again‚ most Americans are probably unaware of the extent to which their tax dollars are spent on any number of terrible things). According to a November 2023 report from Open the Books‚ a government watchdog group‚ 10 of the most elite universities in America — the eight Ivy Leagues‚ Stanford‚ and Northwestern — received a breathtaking $45 billion in federal government goodies over the past five years. “Since 2018‚ $33 billion of federal contracts and grants flowed to these ten colleges – averaging $6.6 billion annually” and outpacing “their collection of undergraduate student tuition‚” the report notes. “Furthermore‚ these schools reaped another $12 billion in special tax treatment benefits on the growth of their massive endowment gains (2018-2022).” Here’s a visualization‚ from America 2100: From 2018-2022‚ taxpayers sent more than $7 billion to Stanford. Columbia received $5.8 billion.UPenn received $3.6 billion.Yale received $3.5 billion.Harvard received $3.2 billion. Americans are funding their own destruction. It's time to tax the endowments. pic.twitter.com/ZxjhVPQIle — America 2100 (@America_2100) April 22‚ 2024 To be clear: These are not drops in the bucket for these universities. For many of the nation’s top schools‚ they make up a substantial portion of the budget. As Joe Lancaster wrote in Reason: In some cases‚ universities receive more money per year from the government than from their students: In the 2021–22 school year‚ Princeton University took in nearly $145 million in net tuition and fees (tuition paid minus scholarships disbursed)‚ but it received over $362 million in government grants and contracts—more than twice the amount it received in tuition. In the 2022–2023 school year‚ Yale took in more than $458 million in net tuition and room and board costs‚ but it brought in a whopping $1.038 billion in government grant and contract income. This funding stream has continued to flow through both Democrat and Republican majorities in Congress; it has continued to flow through both Democrat and Republican presidential administrations. It has continued to flow amid the radical fervor of Black Lives Matter and the DEI revolution within our elite institutions (an ideology and movement born in our elite universities). It has continued to flow as academic theories about police and prison abolitionism have become public policy‚ wreaking violence and destruction in every American city they touch. It has continued to flow as the anti-American iconoclasm that was once confined to the sociology classroom consumes the country‚ tearing down statues‚ desecrating monuments‚ and wiping the names of our heroes off our schools‚ buildings‚ and streets. It has continued to flow in spite of all of this anti-civilizational chaos — chaos that is sustained by your hard-earned money‚ dear reader. Through no fault of your own‚ you are funding the subversion and destruction of the country you love‚ the country you will pass on to your children. The politicians you vote for and donate to have watched it happen‚ and they have happily signed over more of your tax dollars whenever they’re given the chance. Today‚ they’re insisting that will change. This time‚ they say‚ these radicals have really gone too far. We’ll believe it when we see it. READ MORE: It’s Bigger Than NPR’s Katherine Maher There Will Be No George Floyd 2.0 The post You Are Paying the Radicalization Machine appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On April 16‚ the Supreme Court ruled that Idaho can enforce its Vulnerable Child Protection Act‚ which was passed to protect children from the “lasting harm and irreversible damage” of transgender “medical treatment.” With the Supreme Court’s order‚ the law can go into effect while the litigation winds itself through the court system. This is undoubtedly a victory in the gender ideology war. And not just for Idaho‚ but for the whole nation. This ruling marks the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of whether states can prohibit minors from taking cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers and undergoing gender transition surgeries. And although the court didn’t make a final ruling on the law’s constitutionality‚ its short order and the concurring opinions shed light on where the court might rule when this case — or one like it — inevitably reaches the court on the merits.    Background In 2023‚ Idaho passed the Vulnerable Child Protection Act. The act‚ like similar laws across the nation‚ prohibits doctors from giving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors and from performing surgeries that “sterilize or mutilate” children’s genitals. Doctors who violate the law can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. Two children and their parents‚ represented by the ACLU and others‚ sued the Idaho attorney general arguing that the law violated the 14th Amendment. The plaintiffs asked for an injunction — basically a fancy legal term that means that the law can’t go into effect while the case is litigated.  The most important factor in granting an injunction is whether the party asking for it is likely to win the case “on the merits‚” that is‚ after the case is fully litigated — after discovery‚ motions‚ briefing‚ trial‚ etc. The district court held that the plaintiffs were likely to win because the act‚ in the court’s opinion‚ unconstitutionally denied transgender children the equal protection of the law and parents the right to make decisions concerning the care‚ custody‚ and control of their children. Accordingly‚ the court issued an injunction. And not just any injunction. The district court barred Idaho from enforcing any part of the law on any person in the entire state of Idaho. Typically‚ judges‚ particularly district court judges‚ only make rulings that affect the parties in the case. Not so here. The judge ruled that a “statewide injunction” was appropriate to prevent “needless and repetitive litigation.” Idaho then appealed to the Ninth Circuit‚ asking only that it “stay” — or put on pause — the district court’s order‚ and at minimum scale it back such that it applied only to the parties in the case. In other words‚ Idaho asked that it be permitted to at least enforce the law against everyone except the two children and parents involved in the case. Seems like a reasonable position. Apparently‚ the Ninth Circuit didn’t think so. It denied Idaho’s appeal‚ so Idaho appealed to the Supreme Court asking for an “emergency order” that would overturn the district court’s injunction.  The Supreme Court’s Opinion  In a very short order‚ the Supreme Court “stayed” the district court’s order‚ meaning that Idaho can enforce the act against all non-parties while the litigation plays out in the lower courts. In addition to the short order‚ there were two concurring opinions‚ one written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and another by Justice Brett Kavanaugh‚ that shed more light on where the Supreme Court stands on this critical issue.  Justice Gorsuch‚ joined by Justices Thomas and Alito‚ rebuked the district court for granting a “universal injunction.” By granting such a broad injunction‚ the district court prohibited Idaho from enforcing the act against non-parties‚ including its “prohibition against surgeries to remove or alter children’s genitals‚” and this despite the fact that neither of the plaintiffs “had sought access to those surgeries or demonstrated that Idaho’s prohibition of them offended federal law.” How could a district court judge order that a state be prohibited from enforcing part of a duly enacted law that affected neither of the plaintiffs in the case — and before the case was even decided on the merits&;#63; It could not‚ said Justice Gorsuch‚ and “[i]n choosing such an extraordinary remedy‚ the district court clearly strayed from equity’s traditional bounds.” Why It Matters This is an important holding‚ not only because it allows Idaho to enforce this critical law for at least the next few years‚ but also because of the message it sends to lower courts who are issuing orders that routinely exceed their authority.  But even more important than allowing the law to go into effect is the signal that the Supreme Court sent on where it stands with respect to the constitutionality of laws like Idaho’s Vulnerable Child Protection Act. Currently‚ an estimated 22 states have laws in effect that prohibit so-called “gender-affirming” medical treatment. The only two federal appellate courts — the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits — that have ruled on the issue have upheld their constitutionality. But many district court judges‚ like the one here‚ have found such laws unconstitutional. And it’s very likely that the Ninth Circuit will rule that Idaho’s law is unconstitutional. If that happens‚ it will create “a circuit split” and an inevitable showdown at the Supreme Court.  So how might the court rule&;#63; To be clear‚ it would be unwise to read too much into the Supreme Court’s current order. It wasn’t a ruling on the merits‚ and the heart of the concurring opinions dealt with overbroad district court injunctions and how the Supreme Court should handle such cases moving forward. But it isn’t as if the order tells us nothing. The fact that the Supreme Court overturned the district court’s broad injunction might indicate that the Supreme Court believes that the law is constitutional — that Idaho is likely to succeed on the merits. Second‚ in discussing the criteria for whether the Supreme Court should even accept emergency applications like Idaho’s in the middle of litigation‚ Justice Kavanaugh‚ who was joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett‚ stated that one of the criteria the Supreme Court should use is whether the merits of the case “warrant [the] Court’s review.” In other words‚ the Supreme Court should be inclined to make interim emergency orders like this one if the case is significant enough that the Supreme Court will ultimately need to take the case at a later date and rule on the law’s constitutionality. Given that the Supreme Court did make such an order in this case‚ and the order overturned the lower court’s holding‚ it shows that at least some members of the Supreme Court stand ready to intervene if the district court’s opinion doesn’t change.  Thus‚ while it would be too much to say that the war has been won‚ it would be too little to say that gender ideology hasn’t suffered a defeat. Everyone in favor of protecting children from genital mutilation‚ double mastectomies‚ and from the irreversible damage of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones can and should celebrate. We can’t have the final victory celebration yet‚ but this ruling puts us one step closer.   S. Ernie Walton is an assistant professor at Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach‚ Virginia. The post Victory at the Supreme Court: Idaho Can Protect Children from Destructive Gender Transition ‘Medical Treatment’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I’ll admit this up front: I’m not a huge fan of Tulsi Gabbard‚ the former congresswoman from Hawaii‚ former presidential candidate‚ and current media personality. And no‚ I’m not going to be one of these pundits playing around with making Gabbard into Donald Trump’s running mate. Enough with that already. It’s irritating. Oh‚ don’t get me wrong. If it’s my fate to be governed by one of the people who populated those stages during the 2020 Democrat presidential primaries‚ I’ll take Gabbard. That doesn’t say a lot‚ of course: that might have been the single worst aggregation of wannabe tyrants ever assembled in a free nation. Gabbard isn’t an aggressive defiler of America as founded‚ and that alone put her atop the Democrat slag-heap. Or beneath it‚ because when she began promoting things slightly different from the Obama cabal’s orthodoxy‚ they ran her right out of their party. Gabbard is a perfect example of why conservatives should start paying attention to the difference between liberals and out-and-out leftists. She’s the former‚ and it’s a distinction that matters. Liberals actually care about civil liberties like free speech. Leftists‚ which the Democrat Party is dominated and run by‚ do not. It turns out that the cultural and political elite are also dominated by leftists‚ not liberals. And certainly not conservatives. The effect is noticeable. For example‚ Prince Harry — who isn’t even American‚ but‚ if there’s a better example of the typical leftist ruling-class twit than Meghan Markle’s husband‚ it’s hard to find one — thinks free speech is “bonkers.” He said so after he moved to America‚ the world’s oldest democracy and a country built on the freedom to speak one’s mind about anything‚ anytime‚ anywhere. America has always believed in the thing Harry finds so weird — in fact‚ we shot a whole lot of redcoats with accents pretty similar to his in order to win this nation for ourselves‚ and the very first thing we did after we wrote our Constitution was to enshrine this freedom in writing. The right to freedom of speech is so vital to America’s way of life that the founders embedded it in the First Amendment. Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with freedom of faith and freedom of the press‚ as individual rights and as means of keeping the government in check. The Democrat Party once claimed it lived by the ethos — “I may disapprove of what you say‚ but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That’s standard liberal cant. You don’t hear it from people like Adam Schiff‚ Dan Goldman‚ Pramila Jayapal‚ or Mazie Hirono because they’re not liberals; they’re leftists and they couldn’t give a red hot damn about your freedom of speech. But Gabbard is a lot better than they are and she deserves credit for it. She also deserves credit for having the sand to write her new book‚ For Love of Country: Leave the Democrat Party Behind. Gabbard writes in For Love of Country that this public bedrock belief in the right to free speech is what first attracted her to the Democrats. At 21‚ she writes‚ she saw a party that passionately defended free speech and represented a big tent that included a variety of beliefs‚ not all of which agreed with one another. And that was fine. Freedom of speech is for all‚ and good ideas should win out over bad ones as long as debate is unfettered. Does this describe the Democrat Party today&;#63; Is the Democrat Party‚ especially under Joe Biden‚ still dedicated to defending free speech&;#63; Are today’s Democrats with America’s founders‚ or with the prince who just doesn’t get it&;#63; I’d argue that it was mostly a scam all along‚ but whether that’s true or not‚ there is zero question Gabbard has her former party’s current number. Today’s Democrats‚ by and large‚ believe “hate speech‚” which is often defined as anything with which they disagree‚ is “violence” or “disinformation” and must be banned. The New York Times‚ dominated by woke left-wing Democrats in the newsroom and its boardroom‚ faces rebellions any time it strays from the hard Left’s orthodoxy even to publish an op-ed by a sitting senator. Left-wing network MSNBC has become a partisan cult. NPR‚ according to 25-year veteran of the taxpayer-funded network Uri Berliner‚ who was just forced out of his job for having a slightly dissenting opinion‚ pushes only and always left-wing talking points and viewpoints despite the fact that the majority of Americans disagree. The American Civil Liberties Union‚ once a staunch defender of Nazis’ right to hold parades‚ now fights against free speech in the transgender debate. Biden’s Democrats colluded with Big Tech throughout the Trump presidency‚ and‚ up to the point when Elon Musk bought Twitter for billions‚ used federal law enforcement agencies to curb and crush free speech about COVID and other serious issues — to the party’s benefit. And while our speech is violence‚ their violence is speech. They taught us that when they burned down half of our cities in the summer of 2020 while Kamala Harris was raising bail money for rioters and murderers. This is today’s Left and the Democrat Party‚ Gabbard writes. Free speech has never faced more grave or open threats than it faces right now — from the very party that once made freedom of speech its most prominent and foundational principle. So she left the Democrats for good and is now an independent. Gabbard has faced smears for this‚ and she writes that she’s far from alone. She details what happened when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was invited to testify before a House hearing on the weaponization of government under Biden. Before he could even speak‚ Democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz smeared him as “anti-Asian” and “antisemitic.” Schulz had no evidence to present‚ and when Kennedy attempted to reply and defend himself‚ she cut him off. Schulz weaponized her mic‚ her office‚ and the House itself against an American citizen she falsely accused of one of today’s deadliest sins — because he was set to detail how the Democrats have gone to war against the freedom of speech. Remember that&;#63; If not‚ here’s a video refresher: Think Debbie Wasserman Schultz would defend to the death your right to say something that hurts her feelings&;#63; Or nah&;#63; Gabbard’s exposition of the Left’s militant disdain and campaign against free speech couldn’t be more timely. Or necessary‚ for that matter. Here we are facing rising threats from communist China‚ Putin’s Russia‚ the jihadist cancer across the Middle East‚ and even apparently from Niger (please&;#33;)‚ and Americans are having to fight a cold cultural war at home against the people Gabbard is sounding the warning bells about. Free speech is the only way good ideas win. Freedom of thought‚ conscience‚ writing‚ even art‚ is the most important weapon in the battle for truth. The monsters who run the Democrat Party today are fighting so hard to destroy this bedrock right for that very reason. Cut off debate and nobody notices that their arguments are garbage. It’s a cute plan and it works — in all the worst places on earth. There’s an election coming up‚ you know‚ and the Democrats are literally trying to jail and bankrupt their chief opponent. America needs real champions of freedom. Tulsi Gabbard is‚ for whatever other ideas she might have that aren’t so good‚ one of those champions. With this book‚ she has stepped up and accepted the challenge of fighting to save America from her former party‚ and we’re better off for it. READ MORE: Five Quick Things: The Impending Death (By Suicide) of Reacher The Trans Reckoning Is Not Yet Here — But It’s Coming Soon The post Tulsi Gabbard’s Book Is a Gutsy Attempt to Keep You Free appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.