At one point during the Sept. 10 presidential debate, former President Donald Trump accused Democrats of not only supporting unlimited third-trimester abortions, but the “execution” of babies after birth. Once Trump wrapped up his rant, Linsey Davis, one of the ABC News moderators, “fact-checked” the former president, helpfully noting that “there is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” If Trump had been better prepared, he could have pointed out that a senator named Kamala Harris, while running for president in 2020, opposed legislation that would have compelled doctors to provide infants who survive abortions the basic care they would to any other human being in distress. So, not exactly “executing” babies. Just negligent homicide. And ironically, it’s because the contemporary Left’s position on abortion is so morally unfathomable that the media can gaslight voters. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, after all, simply required medical professionals to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” Yet Harris and 40 other Democratic senators opposed it. Most Democrats, however, argued the bill was superfluous because this sort of thing never, ever happens—just like the late-term abortions of viable babies never happens. Tragically, this is untrue. Just ask Tim Walz, Harris’ running mate. The Minnesota governor might not believe free speech is an absolute right, but he has no problem making abortion one. Indeed, Walz overturned laws prohibiting coercing of women into abortions. He defunded pregnancy centers. He removed requirements for informed consent on abortion—or any consent, for that matter. And then he stripped any protections for babies who survived abortion attempts. Five babies were left to die in 2021. Notwithstanding Harris’ contrived laugh mocking the very notion she supports unfettered government-funded abortion from conception to delivery, as it stands, seven states, as well as Washington, D.C., have no gestational limits on the procedure. One allows abortions in the third trimester. Sixteen allow abortions after viability. Indeed, during the debate, Trump was compelled to do the job of the ABC News moderators when he asked Harris to name a single restriction she supported. The vice president’s word salad offered none. Harris, instead, claimed she wanted to codify the “protections” of Roe v. Wade. Let’s remember two things about this misleading talking point. First, by the time Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was decided, Roe had no enforceable protections. Zero. When the Atlantic interviewed the Colorado butcher Warren Hern last year, he’d already spent 50 years terminating the lives of completely viable babies in the third trimester. He did it under Roe v. Wade. Hern also admitted most of his victims were physically healthy—which is unsurprising. Not long ago, the Charlotte Lozier Institute found that most medical literature showed late-term abortions weren’t sought because of “maternal health complications or lethal fetal anomalies discovered late in pregnancy” despite what we are incessantly told by activists. A pro-choice Guttmacher Institute study similarly found that most late-term abortions were not “for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” (As far as I can tell, they’re no longer conducting inquiries into this inconvenient matter.) It’s difficult—purposefully so, one imagines—to calculate how many viable babies are aborted every year. It’s probably around 1.3% of the total—which is to say thousands, perhaps over 8,000, viable babies are killed every year. Most, if not all, having nothing to do with “saving the mother’s life.” (There’s no law anywhere in the country that bars a doctor from protecting the life of the mother.) There are far more healthy babies terminated than school shooting victims every year. And Democrats want to enshrine the practice into law. Of course, sometimes these decisions are often fraught with complicated ethical questions. No one should diminish this reality. It’s not the pro-lifer who treats the issue frivolously. Two, Democrats want to go way beyond codifying Roe. The Women’s Health Protection Act, for instance, would not only have made it impossible to enforce any fetal viability limits, but it would have unconstitutionally overturned hundreds of existing state laws, including ones banning sex-selective abortions, protecting conscientious objectors, upholding parental or guardian notification for minors, and many others. On abortion, there is only one extremist on the ballot. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post On Abortion, Kamala Harris Is the Extremist appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It's a great time to release a conservative documentary. Since Dinesh D’Souza’s "2016: Obama’s America," the left wing's grip on the genre has weakened, making way for a proliferation of right-leaning films like "The Plot Against the President," "Alex's War," and "Hoaxed."The movie presents a vivid example of the ugliness and abuse that virtue signaling can draw out of normal people seeking approval.Now comes Matt Walsh with "Am I Racist?" Can it attain the kind of mainstream theatrical success formerly reserved for blatantly liberal fare like "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Bowling for Columbine"? Preaching to the choir?I have two questions I always ask when evaluating conservative documentaries. First: Does the filmmaker actually have something to say, or is he just using the film to promote his personal brand? Second: Has the filmmaker worked to present a genuinely persuasive argument, or has he settled for preaching to the choir?As with his previous documentary, "What Is a Woman?" Walsh has picked a promising subject. And like its predecessor, "Am I Racist?" features Walsh blindly stumbling around the modern world, asking basic questions while pretending to be baffled. He's just a confused innocent earnestly trying to understand the latest bizarre concepts mainstreamed by obscurantist left-wing intellectuals.In "What Is a Woman?" it was trans and gender ideology. In "Am I Racist?" it's DEI policies and anti-racist activism. Walsh definitely has something to say, even if his characteristic acerbic personality often upstages his message. That just leaves the question of whether he can convince anyone not already fed up with the totalizing view of racial identity permeating every aspect of American life. Very nice!To that end, it is worth looking at the film’s approach. As my colleague Christian Toto puts it, Walsh is effectively trying to reinvent the Borat strategy of goading people into revealing their worst beliefs and prejudices by pretending to be an ally. The film introduces Walsh as a bumbling white man grappling with the challenges of the post-2020 world, going on a journey of self-discovery to become a certified DEI expert and interviewing leading progressive voices like Saira Rao and Robin DiAngelo. For the film to be truly persuasive, it needs to take the logic of modern critical race theory to it's inevitable conclusion. It needs to get the core of what “anti-racism” means in a modern context and why it’s bad on principle: its tendency to answer inequality with illiberal, easily exploitable social engineering, the way its relentless targeting of whites for their "privilege" and alleged sense of "supremacy" emboldens actual white nationalist groups to use the same arguments. It needs to expose the cynical, self-perpetuating grift of professional anti-racists like Ibram X. Kendi, who argues, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”Racist uncleWalsh comes remarkably close to accomplishing this. "Am I Racist?" is comprised of several hidden camera group sessions with Walsh in attendance, asking questions and nudging the dialogue in the direction he wants. However, in its relentless desire to be a comedy, the film frequently stumbles.Throughout these hidden camera meetings, Walsh interjects and asks questions that derail the conversations, which proves detrimental from a journalistic perspective. He’s interrupting his enemies while they’re making mistakes. "Am I Racist?" works best toward the end, when Walsh hosts a DEI group discussion. He rolls out an old man in a wheelchair, identifying him as his uncle who told a racist joke. Walsh proceeds to castigate the man (actually an actor), leading two women in the crowd to join in, yelling obscenities at their target and bragging that they've cut off their entire families for being racist. Here, the movie presents a vivid example of the ugliness and abuse that virtue signaling can draw out of normal people seeking approval. Affirmative reactionUnlike "What Is a Woman?" "Am I Racist?" explicitly hopes to appeal to mainstream moviegoers. It's done fairly well with them so far, grossing $4.75 million in its opening weekend and landing in fourth place at the box office.Conservatives are largely turning out to support the film, with Lutheran Satire creator Hans Fiene praising the film as “genuinely hilarious” and “very well done.” The most notable, and surprising, nonpartisan review of the film has come from YouTuber Jeremy Jahns, who generally approved of the film as funny, thought-provoking, and “a good time, no alcohol required,” while highlighting the disconnect between activists and the desire of regular people not to have to think about race every second of their lives.More positive reviews coming from nonpartisan or centrist content creators would help assuage my fear that "Am I Racist?" won't have much reach beyond the conservative media-sphere. As "Podcast of the Lotus Eaters" points out, the film's unabashed mockery of DEI — its steadfast refusal to take it seriously or consider it worthy of reverent attention — may be persuasion enough. And yet the fact that progressives are brigading "Am I Racist?" so effectively is a sobering reminder of the vast propaganda machine at their disposal. Winning the hearts and minds of open-minded non-conservatives will take all of the creative and commercial power the right can muster.

Angie Bowie was married to David Bowie from 1970 to 1980 — and the couple's relationship was anything but conventional. The post Who Is Angie Bowie, The Eccentric First Wife Of David Bowie? appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Idaho Bar Owner Who Defied the Left, Gets Excommunicated From His Own Church for Defending Christianity

A team of student volunteers in northern France has uncovered an unexpected piece of history during an archaeological dig. While excavating the remains of a Gaulish village near Dieppe on Monday, they found an earthenware pot containing a glass vial. Inside the vial was a message, written in 1825 by P.J. Féret, a local archaeologist who conducted excavations at the same site 200 years ago. The note, rolled up and tied with string, reads: “P.J Féret, a native of Dieppe, member of various intellectual societies, carried out excavations here in January 1825. He continues his investigations in this vast area known as the Cité de Limes or Caesar’s Camp.” Guillaume Blondel, the dig team leader and head of Eu's archaeological service, described the moment as "absolutely magic," reports the BBC. Belisama: Who Was this Beautiful, Powerful, and Popular Gaulish Goddess? The Belgae: Gaulish Masters of War Unrolled message documenting 1825 excavations (Guillaume Blondel) Read moreSection: NewsHistory & ArchaeologyRead Later 

President Donald J. Trump and Ivanka TrumpThe last presidential debate was not even halfway over when Donald Trump accused his opponent of a careless kind of rhetoric that nearly got him killed: “I…

Readers, Instead of sucking up to the political and corporate powers that dominate America, The Daily Caller is fighting for you — our readers. We humbly ask you to consider joining us in this fight.…

Topline: President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act expanded a tax credit program meant to incentivize homeowners to buy solar panels and other green technologies, but most of the tax breaks are…

On September 6, 2024, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling that California cannot prohibit concealed carry in hospitals. The case in question,…

Fact is truly weirder than “fantasy,” sometimes. In a story that isn’t going to help the stereotype that Philadelphia sports are cut from a particularly notorious cloth, an American man has pleaded…