White Buffalo Calf Born to Lakota Tribe

As part of its ongoing crusade of transgender advocacy, PBS on Sunday night brought on transgender youth researcher and psychiatrist Dr. Jack Turban to plug his new book  Free to Be: Understanding Kids and Gender Identity. Turban is director of the Gender Psychiatry Program at the University of California, San Francisco and a strong supporter of controversial gender-identity surgeries and of the entire spectrum of trans-related issues, including biological boys intruding into girls' sports. The scientific case against gender identity treatments for children, such as hormone replacement therapy, is strengthening every day. But it hasn’t quite dawned on taxpayer-supported PBS, judging by Turban’s treatment. On PBS News Weekend, openly gay anchor John Yang led the segment with a citation from a pro-transgender interest group, an unpromising start, and continued using the ridiculous anti-science lingo (“sex assigned at birth” is a long way to state “I’m a man” or “I’m a woman”) while implying that Turban was on the side of "science and medicine." Yang: According to the advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign, half of the states in America have passed laws or policies restricting treatment for young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria. That`s the discomfort or distress that might occur when someone’s gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth. Some of those laws are on hold while court challenges work their way through the system. The legislative debate on these measures has often been long on emotion, but short on science and medicine. A new book seeks to use science and research to explain gender identity and treatments for transgender youth…. Turban, who pushed dubiously sourced emotional blackmail (gender dysphoric kids are at higher risk of suicide) in his previous appearance with Yang, gave his game away with his own “sex assigned at birth” misnomer, treating immutable biological reality as a technicality, inferior to one’s personal “gender identity” on a particular day.  Dr. Jack Turban: So gender identity is your psychological sense of yourself in terms of masculinity and femininity. It’s extraordinarily complicated, right? We know from research that there is a biological basis of how we think about ourselves in terms of gender, but then we interact with society and culture to create this really complex understanding of who we are and how we think about ourselves. Sex assigned at birth, also unfortunately complicated. It could be based on your chromosomes, based on different sex organs. But generally, there are these biological characteristics that end up being on your birth certificate. And then -- so when I say sex assigned at birth, I`m usually referring to what’s on someone’s birth certificate. …. Yang: Now, a lot of these laws that have been passed in the states limit treatments on transgender minors, young people, they say that they’re trying to protect them. You’re saying they’re actually harming them. Explain that. Turban: So, for a lot of these kids, these are really important interventions that improve their mental health. So I have patients who become severely depressed and anxious when their bodies start developing in a way that doesn`t align with their gender identity. And we have more and more research studies showing that when we offer these kids relief with these interventions, that their mental health is a lot better…. Yang actually brought up a recent body blow against puberty blockers and other “treatments” for trans children that recently landed in the United Kingdom: The landmark Hilary Cass report that has already led to restrictions on youth “gender care” in the United Kingdom. Turban was evasive: Yang: A lot of the supporters of these bills also point to Europe, where some countries are banning puberty blockers, other treatments. There’s a pediatrician in Britain named Hilary Cass who was commissioned to review the scientific data on this, and she said it was remarkably weak. What do you say to that? Turban: I think a lot of people don’t realize the nuances that were in that document. In a lot of ways, it actually agrees with how we practice care in the United States…. Interestingly, Turban was much less agreeable on X when the Cass report was released several weeks ago, when he nitpicked it heavily but didn’t seem to land many real blows. Yang asked another half-challenging question about “young people somehow being persuaded, somehow being coerced into being transgender,” though a truly balanced segment would have hosted an actual opponent of gender identify treatment for young people to debate Turban. Fat chance of that happening at heavily LGBTQ+ supporting PBS. This segment was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Weekend 6/9/24 6:16:03 p.m. (ET) JOHN YANG: According to the advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign, half of the states in America have passed laws or policies restricting treatment for young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria. That`s the discomfort or distress that might occur when someone`s gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth. Some of those laws are on hold while court challenges work their way through the system. The legislative debate on these measures has often been long on emotion, but short on science and medicine. A new book seeks to use science and research to explain gender identity and treatments for transgender youth. It`s called "Free to Be: Understanding Kids and Gender Identity." The author is Dr. Jack Turban. He`s the founding director of the Gender Psychiatry Program at the University of California, San Francisco. Doctor Turban, thanks for joining us. Let`s begin with sort of the basics. Gender identity, sex assigned at birth, what do they mean, and how can they be different? DR. JACK TURBAN, Author, "Free to Be: Understanding Kids and Gender Identity": So gender identity is your psychological sense of yourself in terms of masculinity and femininity. It`s extraordinarily complicated, right? We know from research that there is a biological basis of how we think about ourselves in terms of gender, but then we interact with society and culture to create this really complex understanding of who we are and how we think about ourselves. Sex assigned at birth, also unfortunately complicated. It could be based on your chromosomes, based on different sex organs. But generally, there are these biological characteristics that end up being on your birth certificate. And then -- so when I say sex assigned at birth, I`m usually referring to what`s on someone`s birth certificate. JOHN YANG: And when they conflict, what happens? JACK TURBAN: Yeah. So, for most people, their gender identity aligns more or less with their sex assigned at birth. But a lot of my patients, there`s a misalignment, and so they may identify as transgender or gender non binary, which just means that they have a sense of themselves that doesn`t align with their sex assigned at birth. For some of those kids, they have really intense gender dysphoria, where there`s distress related to their body not aligning with their gender identities. For other kids, they don`t have so much distress about their body. And so the big thing I try and explain in the book is just this nuance of what gender related experiences are like and what those experiences are like for all different kids. Early on in the book, you quote an endocrinologist named Dr. Norman Spack, who`s sort of a leader in this field, as saying being transgender isn`t a condition of the brain, but of the body. Explain that. JACK TURBAN: Yeah, so he`s an endocrinologist. I`m a psychiatrist. We think about it a little bit differently. The way he thinks about it is that their body has betrayed them, essentially, that their gender identity is who they are, and that`s what`s important. And the endocrine interventions that he offers for some young people are meant to align the body with the gender identity that he thinks is really the core of who those people are. JOHN YANG: And having said that, what are the implications of that for treatment of young people who are transgender? JACK TURBAN: The way in reality we approach these kids is they have a comprehensive mental health evaluation to really understand their gender history, what other mental health conditions they may have, and also understand their relationship with their physical bodies for some of these young people, but not all, they might be candidates for certain medical interventions. So things like puberty blockers or gender affirming hormones like estrogen or testosterone. JOHN YANG: Now, a lot of these laws that have been passed in the states limit treatments on transgender minors, young people, they say that they`re trying to protect them. You`re saying they`re actually harming them. Explain them. JACK TURBAN: So, for a lot of these kids, these are really important interventions that improve their mental health. So I have patients who become severely depressed and anxious when their bodies start developing in a way that doesn`t align with their gender identity. And we have more and more research studies showing that when we offer these kids relief with these interventions, that their mental health is a lot better. So unfortunately, these bills just ban the treatment altogether so that none of the kids can access these treatments that we see help them. JOHN YANG: A lot of the supporters. These bills also point to Europe, where some countries are banning puberty blockers, other treatments. There`s a pediatrician in Britain named Hilary Cass who was commissioned to review the scientific data on this, and she said it was remarkably weak. What do you say to that? JACK TURBAN: I think a lot of people don`t realize the nuances that were in that document. In a lot of ways, it actually agrees with how we practice care in the United States. So it recommended that you should do a comprehensive mental health evaluation before starting these interventions. They should have a holistic view of the young person to understand if there are both medical and nonmedical interventions that might be appropriate. The big area of divergence between her report and how doctors think in the United States is that she recommended that treatment only be provided in the context of a clinical trial where they`re collecting more data. I think us doctors don`t quite agree with that because they worry about coercing people into clinical trials, and also that it just may not be feasible that there are so many of these young people who need care that we wouldn`t be able to set that clinical trial up. JOHN YANG: Use the word coercion. Some of the supporters of these bills also talk about young people somehow being persuaded, somehow being coerced into being transgender. What do you say to that? JOHN TURBAN: Yeah, I think that`s more, unfortunately, a political talking point than the reality of care. When patients come to see me, if anything, they`re frustrated that I`m really slowing them down. We`re doing these comprehensive mental health evaluations, making sure they really understand what these treatments do, what they don`t do. There are difficult conversations to be had, including around things like fertility preservation. For these kids, that`s often very difficult because it can exacerbate their gender dysphoria to go through that process. And most kids don`t even access the care because there is such a strain on the system. They need to find a therapist who can do that mental health evaluation, then they need to get into the clinic. Then they really need to get all the education from the doctors to their family. So it`s really a slow, involved process, and I would say the opposite of anyone being rushed into it or certainly not pushed into it. JOHN YANG: Your book illustrates a lot of your points using case histories, using some of the patients you`ve been treating over the years. How long have you been doing this? And what drew you to this field? JOHN TURBAN: Yeah, I first came to this about a decade ago as a medical student at the time, actually, and my mentor was a journalist. And so before I even finished medical school, I was interviewing doctors who were taking care of these kids. And I met doctors who did essentially conversion efforts or trying to force these kids to be cisgender. They were not having very good success. I met doctors who were practicing this affirming model of care, which just means supporting the kids, sometimes with medical interventions, sometimes with simple things like a new name or pronouns, helping them talk to their family about it. And I was just really struck by the experiences of these kids, that they were going through such a difficult time. And it seemed that these affirming models of care were helping them so much. And so eventually, that inspired me to go become a child psychiatrist. And I`ve been doing this, I`d say, for about a decade. JOHN YANG: Doctor Jack Turban, thank you very much. JOHN TURBAN: Thank you.

Ignoring the fact that Special Council David Weiss was set to give Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal to avoid his felony gun charges (and let the statute of limitations expire on other charges) before the judge rejected the deal, CBS Mornings spent part of their Wednesday newscast having chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett lecture their viewers about how the convictions of Biden and former President Trump represented “the facts and the law” winning the day. Teeing up Garrett, co-host Tony Dokoupil chided Trump for not accepting his convictions and “promis[ing] to fight [them]” in appeal; giving the false impression that Hunter was rolling over for his by conflating Trump (the subject of the case) with President Biden (the father of the subject): You know, when Donald Trump was convicted, he called the decision rigged. He promised to fight it. With President Joe Biden he said he would accept this result in his son's case, and he wouldn't pardon him. So, there's a contrast there. But politics is all around this. So, talk to us if you could about the intersection between our judicial system and the political world these days.     Hunter’s legal team had signaled that they too planned on appealing the convictions, just like Trump’s. Garrett responded by trying to make both trials about how the legal system treated wealthy elites writ-large and dismissed the naked political nature of the Trump trial (Click “expand”): We've always debated what justice means in America, Tony and everyone. Typically, that has been about how does justice affect the powerless. We have rarely had a conversation – except maybe when business executives or celebrities are involved – about how the powerful operate in the judicial system. And we've never had a conversation about the judicial system taking to task someone who is a former president or a sitting president's son. And that creates for the country an entire debate about what does justice mean and does it apply equally. And President Biden and those around him say it does apply equal, no one is above the law. Former President Trump wants the country to believe that this entire system, our entire judicial network, is a raid against one person in this country and one person only: former President Trump. And some Republicans echo that. What Garrett obfuscated from CBS viewers was the fact that Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg had gotten elected to his office by promising to send Trump to prison. He also omitted the fact that the judge overseeing the trial had donated to the Biden campaign in 2020. “But this dual application of justice at the highest levels of political power with a president staring across the courtroom at jurors or a first lady staring across the courtroom at jurors, and juries, the intervening force, rendering verdicts based on the facts and the law remind the country that the justice system remains,” Garrett bloviated. “Politics may swirl around it, but this a fundamental aspect of our American life, and – though it will be debated – remains so.” Democratic Party donor and vacation pal of the Obamas, Gayle King wanted Garret to answer if he saw “this verdict having a political impact for either President Biden or President Trump?” Garrett gave away the game in regards as to why the left needed to own and downplay the issue of a politicized justice system; the final tally for the 2024 election hinged on the margins: And just remember this: of the six most important battleground states, not one of them was decided by more than three percentage points. Four were decided by 1.2 percentage points or less. Any small shift in any of those states – as it regards to these verdicts – could affect the presidential election. Garrett’s analysis mirrored what a Media Research Center/Polling Company poll discovered following the 2020 election in that the media’s omission of key details and damaging stories aided the Biden campaign to victory. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS Mornings June 12, 2024 7:05:32 a.m. Eastern TONY DOKOUPIL: We are joined by CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett for more on all this. Major, good morning to you. You know, when Donald Trump was convicted, he called the decision rigged. He promised to fight it. With President Joe Biden he said he would accept this result in his son's case, and he wouldn't pardon him. So, there's a contrast there. But politics is all around this. So, talk to us if you could about the intersection between our judicial system and the political world these days. MAJOR GARRETT: We've always debated what justice means in America, Tony and everyone. Typically, that has been about how does justice affect the powerless. We have rarely had a conversation – except maybe when business executives or celebrities are involved – about how the powerful operate in the judicial system. And we've never had a conversation about the judicial system taking to task someone who is a former president or a sitting president's son. And that creates for the country an entire debate about what does justice mean and does it apply equally. And President Biden and those around him say it does apply equal, no one is above the law. Former President Trump wants the country to believe that this entire system, our entire judicial network, is a raid against one person in this country and one person only: former President Trump. And some Republicans echo that. But this dual application of justice at the highest levels of political power with a president staring across the courtroom at jurors or a first lady staring across the courtroom at jurors, and juries, the intervening force, rendering verdicts based on the facts and the law remind the country that the justice system remains. Politics may swirl around it, but this a fundamental aspect of our American life, and – though it will be debated – remains so. GAYLE KING: That's a good reminder for all of us, Major. You know, do you see this verdict having a political impact for either President Biden or President Trump? President Trump because he's always said the system is rigged, certainly rigged against Republicans. It would be hard for him to use that argument now considering this conviction of Hunter Biden. GARRETT: Something that Republicans, Gayle, will privately acknowledge though some of the Trump allies will say, “No, it's still a two-tiered system of justice.” But the American public is going to make up its own mind about this. And our polling unit and lots of polling teams will try to assess what the country thinks about this. I believe that's going to be a very hard process because we've never seen this before and I think people are going to absorb is in due time. And just remember this: of the six most-important battleground states, not one of them was decided by more than three percentage points. Four were decided by 1.2 percentage points or less. Any small shift in any of those states – as it regards to these verdicts – could affect the presidential election. We should keep that in mind and understand that people are going to process this over the summer like we've never seen before. Political conventions, nominating process, a fevered presidential campaign against the backdrop of what our legal system actually means. NATE BURLESON: The American people are paying attention to every single moment as we get ready for the election. Major, thank you so much.

Legendary director Richard Linklater criticized Hollywood filmmakers for only making films that are targeted toward children and that have no sex appeal. At the same time, he said that he feels for the current generation, which is simultaneously bombarded with pornography while being force-fed children's movies."This just is Hollywood. It's cinema of this generation. It's just less adult. I think when superheroes took over, it's clear they don’t have genitalia at all, do they?" Linklater said on the podcast "Mixed Signals."The director of classics such as "Dazed & Confused" and "School of Rock" said that Hollywood is attempting to keep people in perpetual adolescence, thinking that it is likely more profitable to make films that are generally appealing content-wise and convince adults the films are good."Gosh, I'm glad I'm not a kid now. Being a young person, let's say 10 through 13. ... The only reason I went to movies was to see... because they were all adult movies. You had to find your way into the movie. Now, we make films for 12-year-olds. They've done a great job at convincing adults that those are good films. Just stay a kid forever. Keep reading comic books. That's movies. They've just abdicated adult filmmaking and all its complexities, which includes sex. They've just tossed that out largely. That's the studio's game. They just thought it was probably more profitable to just make films for kids and the kids in all of us."'I think there's a generation now, adult, that has just been inundated with porn their entire life.'Filmmaker Cody Clarke likened Hollywood's tactics to "using a 12-pound weight forever, and never upping them.""Audiences are never given a little more than they can handle, then a little more than that, so that they can grow as people— that's just not the model anymore.""There's nothing intellectually and emotionally stimulating about anything that studios put out anymore," Clarke told Blaze News, agreeing that there is no real difference between modern movies that are marketed toward children and those that are marketed toward adults."There are countless R-rated movies from yesteryear that would be like them reading some complex and interesting novel," but studios opt to always give audiences "the easy weights," he said.Linklater admitted that the #MeToo movement probably made it easier for movies to "not have sex [scenes]."However, he cut his commentary short and suggested not even talking about it if his words "hit the wrong note or offend[] someone.""But then, why do anything?" he added.Diving deeper into sex in movies, the director theorized that there is no real need to simply inject sex into films and that it doesn't have to be "hardcore."He explained that there is an even lesser need for it in film because those of the current generation consistently have pornography pushed on them."I think there's a generation, now adult, that has just been inundated with porn their entire life. To be the old guy here, when I was a kid, Playboy was just topless. It was very gradual that things got ... It was very scarce. I think sex is just so ubiquitous. It's boring. It doesn't really fit in a story. It feels gratuitous. I think you have to earn your way into it being a part of your movie or your story," Linklater pontificated.As for why Gen Z isn't interested in sex or social interaction, Linklater said, "Everybody’s distracted.""I'm not saying anything original. If you're staring at your phone all day, you're not going to be social."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Scholars have deciphered an ancient papyrus fragment that they believe contains the earliest account of Jesus' childhood. The fragment, which sat unceremoniously at the Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky State and University Library for decades, is believed to be a fragment from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, an ancient apocryphal account that claims to tell the story of Jesus' childhood from ages 5 to 12. 'We deciphered it letter by letter and quickly realized that it could not be an everyday document.' Scholars believe the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was written in the 2nd century, while the newly discovered Greek fragment is believed to be from the 4th or 5th century. Dr. Lajos Berkes from the Institute for Christianity and Antiquity at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and professor Gabriel Nocchi Macedo from the University of Liège made the discovery. "The fragment is of extraordinary interest for research," Berkes said. "On the one hand, because we were able to date it to the 4th to 5th century, making it the earliest known copy. On the other hand, because we were able to gain new insights into the transmission of the text." The earliest previous known manuscript copy of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is dated to the 11th century. "Our findings on this late antique Greek copy of the work confirm the current assessment that the Infancy Gospel according to Thomas was originally written in Greek," Macedo said. Image source: Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg/Public Domain Mark 1.0 According to Berkes, the reason the manuscript fragment went unnoticed is because researchers originally thought it was an "everyday document." "It was thought to be part of an everyday document, such as a private letter or a shopping list, because the handwriting seems so clumsy," Berkes explained. "We first noticed the word Jesus in the text. Then, by comparing it with numerous other digitized papyri, we deciphered it letter by letter and quickly realized that it could not be an everyday document." More from the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin press release: The two researchers assume that the copy of the Gospel was created as a writing exercise in a school or monastery, as indicated by the clumsy handwriting with irregular lines, among other things. The few words on the fragment show that the text describes the beginning of the "vivification of the sparrows," an episode from Jesus' childhood that is considered the “second miracle” in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas: Jesus plays at the ford of a rushing stream and moulds twelve sparrows from the soft clay he finds in the mud. When his father Joseph rebukes him and asks why he is doing such things on the holy Sabbath, the five-year-old Jesus claps his hands and brings the clay figures to life. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas was a popular text in the early and Medieval Christian church. However, early church leaders considered the composition to be fictional and heretical. The text is distinct from the well-known Gospel of Thomas.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

We’ve gotten so sensitive as a society that common sense is apparently offensive now. Rebel Wilson is living proof of this phenomenon. The Fat Amy actress has recently come under intense fire for simply stating the obvious about the profession of acting. During an interview with BBC’s Radio 4 show “Desert Island Discs,” Wilson called the idea that “only straight actors can play straight roles and gay actors can play gay roles” “total nonsense.” “I think you should be able to play any role that you want,” she argued. Her statement makes sense considering acting literally means to pretend to be someone you’re not. However, “People are all pissed off about that,” says Pat Gray, adding that “it’s called acting for a reason.” What’s strange is that gay actors play heterosexual characters all the time. “I've just seen Neil Patrick Harris playing heterosexual parts in two separate movies,” says Pat. “A gay actor playing a heterosexual person, that's fine, but you know as usual the left has to have it both ways on every issue, so it's not okay for a straight person to play a gay role.” What’s even stranger is that Rebel Wilson is part of the LGBTQ+ community. She’s a lesbian who’s currently engaged to her partner, but apparently that doesn’t make her immune to the woke mob’s constant bellyaching about the latest micro aggression. To hear more of the scandal, which has since escalated after actor and comedian Rob Schneider jumped to Wilson’s defense, watch the clip below. Want more from Pat Gray?To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

An American artist best known for painting the official White House portrait for former President Barack Obama has vehemently defended himself against accusations of sexual assault from several men, including two fellow artists and a BLM cofounder.In the past few weeks, Joseph Awuah-Darko, a Ghanan-British artist and curator, and Derrick "Dwreck" Ingram, a BLM cofounder, have both accused Kehinde Wiley of assaulting them sometime in 2021. British artist and filmmaker Nathaniel Lloyd Richards likewise accused Wiley of touching him inappropriately on a date sometime in 2019, but when Richards came forward with the allegations is unclear.'I have a decorated past. I have carried so much shame. But I refuse to be a victim any longer.'Last month, Awuah-Darko took to Instagram to claim that Wiley assaulted him on two occasions in 2021. That June, Wiley and Awuah-Darko met for the first time, and during that first meeting, Wiley allegedly grabbed Awuah-Darko's buttocks and made a suggestive statement. Awuah-Darko claimed Wiley's behavior that evening was "unsolicited," "unwelcome," and "unprovoked."Awuah-Darko also referenced a second attack, which he described as "much more severe and violent" but gave no further details about it. He claimed these assaults brought him "shame" and that he spent months processing and coming to terms with them."Whatever I may have lost from speaking my truth today was never mine to begin with," his post continued. "All I can do is pray for the strength, resources and support to see justice through and hope that others come forward to put an end to this pattern of abuse."Indeed, someone else did come forward. About three weeks later, Ingram followed suit, taking to Instagram to level accusations against Wiley.Ingram claimed that he and Wiley were in a romantic relationship between late July and October 2021. During that time, Ingram said, Wiley had subjected him to significant physical and mental abuse by punching him, slapping him, and otherwise engaging in "emotional manipulation."Wiley also regularly pressured Ingram to use illegal drugs, Ingram said, including "cocaine, meth and weed." Ingram claimed he always refused these offers. Then on September 10, 2021, Wiley "raped ... and sexually assaulted" Ingram at Wiley's Soho apartment in New York City, Ingram claimed. Ingram described the attack as "unprotected." He also said Wiley asked him to sign an NDA about it but that he had declined."I am not the ideal representative for survivors," Ingram wrote in an attending message. "I have a decorated past. I have carried so much shame. But I refuse to be a victim any longer. This part of my story isn’t pretty or glamorous. The veil will be raised for everyone to see the ugliness that permeates these elite spaces."'We live in a world where a single false social media post can destroy someone's life. ... This is dangerous and wrong.'Just 24 hours later, Wiley responded in kind, taking to Instagram to defend himself against what he called "baseless and defamatory" accusations and to share screenshots he claims are exculpatory. While he admitted to having sexual encounters with Awuah-Darko and Ingram, he claimed that such encounters were "consensual" and that Awuah-Darko and Ingram "wanted far more than [he] was willing to give them."To demonstrate, he shared screenshots that seem to indicate that Awuah-Darko continued to pursue and flirt with Wiley for more than a year after the alleged "severe and violent" assault in June 2021. According to the screenshots, Awuah-Darko was even willing to fly from London to Nigeria just to attend Wiley's birthday party in February 2022."Since our first encounter in 2021, he has consistently sent me messages via phone and Instagram professing his love for me, my talent, and my work," Wiley wrote of Awuah-Darko.As for Ingram's accusations, Wiley suggested Ingram had exaggerated the extent of their relationship. He also included screenshots that appear to show Ingram texting Wiley in October 2021 — more than a month after the alleged rape in Wiley's Soho apartment — calling Wiley "handsome" and asking to see him again. "I miss your company," Ingram apparently wrote to Wiley on October 16, 2021.Wiley's attorney Jennifer Barrett also denied that Wiley ever asked Ingram to sign an NDA.Wiley insisted he doesn't know why these former lovers have come forward to hurl these accusations against him now, though he suggested they may feel jilted."Does that give them the right to commit character assassination? No it does not," he said."We live in a world where a single false social media post can destroy someone's life, where people are tried and convicted online without regard for the truth. This is dangerous and wrong."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Vermont RNC committeeman Jay Shepard tells NR he was sidelined from the platform committee because of his staunch pro-life views.

Charles Payne Bursts Biden Campaign's Gaslighting Bubble About #Bidenomics

Many Dive in to Celebrate As Lia Thomas Loses Legal Battle Against World Aquatics