One Siberian husky named Ashley‚ separated from her beloved family‚ embarked on an incredible 240-mile trek just to return to the warmth and love of home. It’s a story that showcases the unbreakable bond between pets and their humans‚ a journey marked by resilience‚ determination‚ and an undeniable sense of belonging. Huskies are renowned for... The post Lost dog spots her family at shelter and has priceless reaction appeared first on Animal Channel.

Women’s health is actually being prioritized and it pisses off the leftist media. A battle has broken out between TikTok and women who warn about the dangers of birth control pills. A group called “28‚” that focuses on providing nutrition‚ tips‚ and advice for women and girls who get their period‚ released a detox vitamin regime to make it easier to wean yourself off of hormonal birth control. TikTok removed the group's advertisement for the detox regiment as well as numerous other videos warning about negative effects of the birth control pill.  Now‚ I cannot speak for every woman who is on or has been on the hormonal birth control pill‚ but I can speak to the fact that anything that you put in your body with chemicals to stop‚ change or alter your normal bodily functions has the potential to cause negative effects. Anyone with a brain should be able to realize that. The hormonal birth control pill‚ which can be prescribed or ordered online‚ is a concoction of drugs that a menstruating woman takes daily to prevent pregnancy. It works by stopping ovulation‚ a regular‚ monthly occurrence. If you don’t ovulate (release an egg)‚ even if you have unprotected sex‚ you won’t get pregnant. The pill also thickens the mucus on the cervix‚ which makes it harder for sperm to swim up to an egg for implantation. Planned Parenthood calls it a “sticky security guard.” Though the pill is most commonly used to prevent pregnancy‚ it has also been used by women for acne prevention as well as to help with irregularly painful periods. While it seems simple‚ the pill is chock full of hormones which have various negative effects. Birth control pills can: cause severe hormonal imbalances‚ cause women to lose their sex drives‚ become depressed‚ have a different attraction for men (example: many women on the pill are attracted to less masculine men)‚ gain a significant amount of weight‚ cause liver disorders‚ heart attack‚ stroke‚ fertility and many more issues. All that and they aren’t even 100% effective for preventing pregnancy.  These risks were noticed by 28‚ hence their “Toxic Breakup: Birth Control Detox” product.  The supplement is an all natural product that aims to detoxify‚ replenish and balance and is sold on the 28 website. Using all natural ingredients‚ the detox is a way to break up with the "toxicity" of the birth control pill. When it was released on March 23‚ 28 posted a video ad on its TikTok account. Shortly after‚ TikTok removed the video “after they guaranteed its approval ahead of launch and even committed to boosting it across the app‚” 28 founder Brittany Martinez tweeted. As of Wednesday‚ the video has not been reinstated on TikTok. Similarly‚ users‚ like Daily Wire’s Brett Cooper‚ had videos about the dangers of the hormonal birth control pill removed for “misinformation.” While this is a blatant breach of free speech‚ The Washington Post (WaPo) was thrilled that TikTok is helping to keep women in the dark about these dangers. On March 21‚ the liberal outlet released a piece titled “Women are getting off birth control amid misinformation explosion.” Here’s how it began: Search for “birth control” on TikTok or Instagram and a cascade of misleading videos vilifying hormonal contraception appear: Youngwomen blaming their weight gain on the pill. Right-wing commentators claiming that some birth control can lead to infertility. Testimonials complaining of depression and anxiety. Hate to break it to you WaPo‚ but none of those videos are misleading. Nonetheless‚ the outlet boasted about its role in getting Cooper’s video removed.  “Brett Cooper‚ a media commentator for the conservative Daily Wire‚ argued in a viral TikTok clip that birth control can impact fertility‚ cause women to gain weight and even alter whom they are attracted to. It racked up over 219‚000 ‘likes’ before TikTok removed it following The Post’s inquiry‚” the article insisted.  WaPo also insisted that 28‚ along with influencers online telling women about these harms‚ help "drive potential legislation limiting access to hormonal birth control‚" later linking them with "antiabortion activists." Now why might WaPo and the left be pissed that women are waking up to the reality of the situation - that these pills are not the saviors like we were once told? Well‚ it could be a number of things. Primarily‚ I'd bet it's the left’s odd desire to have extreme control over people. Think about it‚ women needing to detox from a drug may make them stay on it longer to avoid having to wean themselves off. That brings in more money for big pharma. Similarly‚ when women are on “the pill‚” they could become more depressed‚ then boom‚ more money for anti-depressants and therapies. Women may fall in love with less masculine men‚ which makes society weaker. Women may not be able to get pregnant on their own as a result of the drug‚ so...more money goes to IVF.  Funnily enough‚ even though WaPo blatantly advocated for censorship of videos and content that exposes the risks of the birth control pill‚ the author insisted that there’s a worry that women are “facing a lack of accurate information — and choices.” It’s important that women know the risks of these drugs before taking them. Menstruating women and girls should have the opportunity to know any pros and cons surrounding the drug‚ and censoring women's experiences from the pills are no way to help provide that abundance of information. This isn't a "conservative" issue. This is a human issue and should be treated as one. Not only is free speech under attack‚ but the actual health of women is as well. That’s two things the left cares nothing about apparently.

This year Easter falls on one of the left’s favorite made up holidays: Transgender Visibility Day. Last week‚ the board of supervisors in Fairfax County in Northern Virginia decided to prioritize transgender people over the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ that’s celebrated annually. Washington Examiner summarized the move by saying that members are “sending a message to Christians that they do not matter as they turn one of their holiest days into a celebration of an ideology that undermines the church’s core convictions.” Chairman Jeff McKay announced the following after the board unanimously decided to hijack Easter and instead celebrate yet another made up holiday for people who have a delusional sense of identity: “As an elected official‚ it should be our moral responsibility to stand up for all people that we represent‚ not just the people we like or the people we agree with.” So you mean to tell me that you'll stand up for people who are living a lie but not stand up for who created you? Really? The Washington Examiner brought up a great point when it insisted that the Fairfax area could have chosen literally any other day to honor the transgender folk‚ especially considering the area is overtly progressive and accepting of the alphabet mafia.  The Washington Examiner article read: The transgender activist community does not have a visibility problem in northern Virginia. But it does appear to have a narcissism problem. Fairfax County School Board‚ for example‚ has designated June as LGBT Pride Month and October as LGBT History Month. The community gets two full months of celebration in our district’s schools. Apparently‚ that just wasn’t enough. In response to the move‚ users online were livid with the mockery of the Christian holiday. “This is appalling‚” Telegraph contributor Nile Gardiner said on X‚ “Fairfax County’s board of supervisors mocks Christians by designating Easter as Transgender Visibility Day.”  A different user wrote‚ “I thank God that I don't live in Fairfax County‚ Virginia.  A Board of Supervisors who would do what they did should all be removed” while another called the move “shameful and offensive.” They’re totally right. Easter is a holiday for Christians to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus and choosing to “honor” people who live a lie by telling them that they’re greater or should be prioritized over the Savior‚ is a perfect example of the moral decline that our nation is up against.

Journalist and media personality Glenn Greenwald did not hold back his criticism of tech journalist and author Kara Swisher when he described her as a “gigantic fraud.” Greenwald ripped Swisher for her seemingly cozy relationship with Silicon Valley insiders during a segment of his show SYSTEM UPDATE on March 25. “The leading cheerleaders for Kara Swisher generally‚ and for her new book in particular‚ are and always have been the very leaders of the industry she claims to subject to such harsh and unrelenting and critical journalistic scrutiny‚” Greenwald said‚ describing the friendly relationship between Swisher and Silicon Valley.    Greenwald pointed to a recent interview Swisher did with Silicon Valley tycoon Sam Altman‚ the founder and CEO of ChatGPT and a major figure in the world of Artificial Intelligence. As Greenwald noted the interview appeared to be anything but adversarial. “He is exactly the kind of powerbroker that Kara Swisher goes around presenting herself as putting such fear into the hearts of these people because she is so tough‚” Greenwald said of Altman. “And yet‚ here she is. The two of them are sitting together promoting her book‚ they’re giggling together‚ they’re smiling together.” Greenwald highlighted that real‚ honest journalists do not usually enjoy this kind of cozy relationship with the people they cover. He contrasted Swisher with another very prominent reporter‚ Seymour Hersch‚ known for exposing the My Lai massacre and for contradicting the U.S. intelligence narrative regarding the demolition of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Greenwald pointed out that the CIA would never dream of promoting Hersch’s book because he actually does his job.  “Obviously‚ this would never happen‚” Greenwald said. “The reason being is that Seymour Hersch has actually spent his life being a scourge for the CIA exposing their crimes‚ debunking their lies‚ exposing the secrets that they want hidden.”  Greenwald also pointed out that Swisher was praised by another major Silicon Valley figurehead‚ Laurene Powell Jobs‚ the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs and owner of The Atlantic magazine.  “Laurene Powell Jobs just kept saying what a wonderful person Kara Swisher is [and] how great her book is‚” Greenwald said‚ referring to an interview between Swisher and Jobs.  [O]bviously‚ Laurene Powell Jobs’ billions rests in Silicon Valley‚ her husband is a major part of this book‚ Kara Swisher heaps all kinds of praise on Apple‚ on whose wealth Laurene Powell Jobs’ ultimately depends.” Greenwald continued‚ outlining just how bad this looks for Swisher as she markets herself as a fierce journalist. “This sounds and looks a lot more to me like an industry propaganda and spokesperson than it does an aggressive‚ scary thorn in the side of their power‚” he said. Swisher is also blindsided by political bias‚ Greenwald critiqued. “The only people she is willing to criticize are people who she perceives as being [an] adversary to her liberal ideology‚” he said‚ noting that Twitter owner Elon Musk is the perfect example of this. He added that Swisher “used to heap immense amount of sycophantic praise” on Musk “until he bought Twitter‚ turned it into X‚ ceased censoring‚ began promoting an ideology she disagrees with.”  Greenwald reiterated that who Swisher chooses to criticize is highly indicative of how well she does her job. “She’s just a liberal operative‚ and so of course‚ the liberal operatives inside of Silicon Valley love her.”  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 so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

ABC’s The View has been a major source of racial hatred and division in America thanks to the likes of staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host‚ Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) and moderator Whoopi Goldberg. So‚ it was a surprise when they invited podcaster and author Coleman Hughes to promote his book about removing race as a factor in government policy-making‚ on Wednesday's show. His reasonable position led Hostin to call him a “charlatan” and a “conservative” as a smear‚ and Goldberg to attack his age. Since he was there to promote his book The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America‚ Goldberg asked him to set the stage by explaining what he meant by “colorblind.” “My argument is that we should try our very best to treat people without regard to race both in our personal lives and public policy…” he said. He also denounced the so-called “anti-racism” movement. “The reason I wrote this book is that in the past ten years‚ it has become very popular to in the name of anti-racism‚ teach a kind of philosophy to our children and in general that says your race is everything. Right? I think that is the wrong way to fight racism and that's why I wrote this book at this time‚” he said. Not dividing people along racial lines didn’t sit well with Goldberg‚ who proceeded to suggest that Hughes was too young and just didn’t understand history (Click “expand”): GOLDBERG: Can I just point out that there is a reason for that? You know‚ when I went to school‚ getting any information about anyone's race was not taught in history. There was no black history. None of those things were taught and here in America -- 100 years ago when I was a young woman -- [Laughter] -- That's how people saw you‚ that’s how they judged you. So‚ I think -- I don't want to say it's your youth but I think you have a point but I think you have to also take into consideration what people have lived through in order to understand why there has been such a pointing of very specific racial things. Like‚ women couldn't get into colleges; if you are a black person‚ there are a lot of colleges wouldn't accept you. Trying to equal the playing. I think that's what a lot of folks have been trying to do. I'm sorry‚ I didn't mean to cut you off. HUGHES: I think that's your experience and that's valid. As a counterpoint when I was in fifth grade we all watched Roots together in public school. GOLDBERG: Yeah. HUGHES: So‚ these are different experiences. I think it's also different generations‚ it’s different parts of the country. Right? We have very different cultures all living together in one country‚ so I'm not going to deny that.     Hughes said that “a colorblind society” was “an ideal. It's a north star and the point is not that we'll ever get there‚ we’re not going to touch it but we have to know when we're going forward and backwards.” He declared that wokeism was a force bringing us backward. He went on to denounce the use of “black and Hispanic identity as a proxy for disadvantage” and said “socioeconomics is a better proxy for disadvantage‚” because “you actually get a better picture of who needs help by looking at socioeconomics and income. That picks out people in a more accurate way.” He noted that the method would also help poor white folks. The idea that people were more than just their skin color triggered Hostin‚ who called his premise “fundamentally flawed.” She and Hughes proceeded to spare over the legacy of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.‚ each throwing out competing quotes. Hostin argued that she was a better authority on MLK because she was friends with his daughter (Click “expand”): HOSTIN: This is not my question‚ but when you say that socioeconomics picks out people in a better way than race‚ when you do look at the socioeconomics‚ you see the huge disparity between white households and black households. You see the huge disparity between white households and Hispanic households. So‚ your argument – and I've read your book twice because I wanted to give it a chance – your argument that race has no place in that equation is really fundamentally flawed in my opinion. [Applause] HUGHES: Well‚ two separate questions. One is whether each racial group is socioeconomically the same. I agree with you‚ they're not. HOSTIN: Yeah‚ they're not and the stats show that. HUGHES: Of course‚ I agree with that fully. The question is: how do you address that in a way that actually targets poverty the best? HOSTIN: Great. HUGHES: And what Martin Luther King wrote in his book Why We Can't Wait is he called it‚ we need a bill of rights for the disadvantaged. And he said‚ yes‚ we should address racial equality‚ yes‚ we should address the legacy of slavery‚ but the way to do that is on the basis of class. And that will disproportionately target blacks and Hispanics because they're disproportionately poor‚ but it will be doing so in a way that also helps the white poor in a way that addresses poverty as the thing to be addressed. HOSTIN: That part is true‚ but as you are a student of Dr. King‚ I'm not only a student of Dr. King‚ I know his daughter Bernice. Right? So‚ I'm going to get to my question. JOY BEHAR: Go ahead. Go right ahead. HOSTIN: I think the premise is fundamentally flawed. You claim that color-blindness was the goal of the civil rights movement based upon Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech. You know‚ content of character versus color of skin. Bernice‚ Dr. King's daughter points out that four years after giving that speech actually‚ Dr. King also said this‚ "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for negroes." He also said in 1968‚ it was about less than a week before he was assassinated‚ "This country never stops to realize that they owe a people kept in slavery for 244 years." So‚ rather than class‚ he did write about that earlier on. Right before his death‚ he made the argument for racial equality and racial reparations‚ and so your argument for color-blindness‚ I think‚ is something that the right has co-opted. Backed into a corner‚ Hostin resorted to trying to smear Hughes as a “conservative” and a “charlatan‚” citing unnamed “critics” (Click “expand”): HOSTIN: And so many in the black community – if I'm being honest with you‚ because I want to be‚ believe that you are being used as a pawn by the right and that you're a charlatan of sorts. HUGHES: Who am I being accused by? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: He's not a Republican. HOSTIN: So‚ how do you – FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s never voted for a Republican. HOSTIN: You said you're a conservative. HUGHES: No. No. FARAH GRIFFIN: No. HOSTIN: No‚ you did. You actually said that in a podcast that you were two weeks ago. HUGHES: I said I was a conservative? FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s not. HOSTIN: Yes‚ you did. Informing Hostin that he’s only ever voted for Democrats as a left-leaning independent (and would only vote for a “non-Trump Republican if they were compelling” enough)‚ Hughes said there was “no evidence” that he’s been “co-opted” and what she was doing was “an ad hominem tactic people use to not address‚ really‚ the important conversations we're having here.” Following a commercial break‚ co-host Joy Behar made it known that she couldn’t wrap her mind around the fact that the “anti-racism movement” mirrored white supremacy. Hughes explained that people like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kennedi “view your race as an extremely significant part of who you are‚” just like white supremacists. “Neo-racists like Robin DiAngelo‚ they say that to be white is to be ignorant‚ for example. Well‚ this is a racial stereotype and I want to call a spade a spade and say this is not the style of anti-racism we have to be teaching our kids. We should be teaching them that your race is not a significant feature of who you are‚ who you are is your character‚ your value‚ and your skin color doesn't say anything about that‚” he declared‚ getting applause from the audience. Hostin tried to argue that he was “misrepresenting what Robin DiAngelo’s position is‚” but he shot back with: “It's in her book.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 27‚ 2024 11:37:45 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Welcome back. Political analyst and author Coleman Hughes makes a case for changing the national conversation on racism in his new book‚ The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America. Please welcome Coleman Hughes. [Applause] So‚ I think the first question that I should ask you to do is explain to folks what you mean by this‚ “arguments for a color-blind America.” What do you mean when you say that? COLEMAN HUGHES: So‚ a lot of people equate color-blindness to “I don't see race” or pretending not to see race. I think that's a big mistake. We all see race‚ right? And we're all capable of being racially biased‚ so we should all be self-aware to that possibility. My argument is not for that. My argument is that we should try our very best to treat people without regard to race both in our personal lives and public policy and the reason I wrote this book – Thank you. [Applause] The reason I wrote this book is that in the past ten years‚ it has become very popular to in the name of anti-racism‚ teach a kind of philosophy to our children and in general that says your race is everything. Right? I think that is the wrong way to fight racism and that's why I wrote this book at this time. GOLDBERG: Can I – I’m sorry‚ baby [to Sara Haines]. Can I just point out that there is a reason for that? You know‚ when I went to school‚ getting any information about anyone's race was not taught in history. There was no black history. None of those things were taught and here in America -- 100 years ago when I was a young woman -- [Laughter] -- That's how people saw you‚ that’s how they judged you. So‚ I think -- I don't want to say it's your youth but I think you have a point but I think you have to also take into consideration what people have lived through in order to understand why there has been such a pointing of very specific racial things. Like‚ women couldn't get into colleges; if you are a black person‚ there are a lot of colleges wouldn't accept you. Trying to equal the playing. I think that's what a lot of folks have been trying to do. I'm sorry‚ I didn't mean to cut you off. HUGHES: I think that's your experience and that's valid. As a counterpoint when I was in fifth grade we all watched Roots together in public school. GOLDBERG: Yeah. HUGHES: So‚ these are different experiences. I think it's also different generations‚ it’s different parts of the country. Right? We have very different cultures all living together in one country‚ so I'm not going to deny that. But I view this notion of a colorblind society similar to the idea of a peaceful society. Which is to say‚ it's an ideal. It's a north star and the point is not that we'll ever get there‚ we’re not going to touch it but we have to know when we're going forward and backwards. And we're going backwards when we're doing woke kindergarten in San Francisco‚ you know‚ with -- you didn't hear this about story? GOLDBERG: No‚ but‚ wait. SARA HAINES: Want to get to the book. Because actually‚ you believe that public policies that address socioeconomic differences would be better benefiting disadvantaged groups and that race-based policies often hurt the very people they're trying to help. What are some examples of policies that would be better at reducing racial disparities? HUGHES: So‚ my overall argument is that class‚ socioeconomics is a better proxy for disadvantage. We all want to help the disadvantaged‚ and the question is how do we identify them. Right? The default right now in a lot of areas of policy is to use‚ you know‚ black and Hispanic identity as a proxy for disadvantage. And my argument is that you actually get a better picture of who needs help by looking at socioeconomics and income. That picks out people in a more accurate way. [Applause] Right? SUNNY HOSTIN: This is not my question‚ but when you say that socioeconomics picks out people in a better way than race‚ when you do look at the socioeconomics‚ you see the huge disparity between white households and black households. You see the huge disparity between white households and Hispanic households. So‚ your argument – and I've read your book twice because I wanted to give it a chance – your argument that race has no place in that equation is really fundamentally flawed in my opinion. [Applause] HUGHES: Well‚ two separate questions. One is whether each racial group is socioeconomically the same. I agree with you‚ they're not. HOSTIN: Yeah‚ they're not and the stats show that. HUGHES: Of course‚ I agree with that fully. The question is: how do you address that in a way that actually targets poverty the best? HOSTIN: Great. HUGHES: And what Martin Luther King wrote in his book Why We Can't Wait is he called it‚ we need a bill of rights for the disadvantaged. And he said‚ yes‚ we should address racial equality‚ yes‚ we should address the legacy of slavery‚ but the way to do that is on the basis of class. And that will disproportionately target blacks and Hispanics because they're disproportionately poor‚ but it will be doing so in a way that also helps the white poor in a way that addresses poverty as the thing to be addressed. HOSTIN: That part is true‚ but as you are a student of Dr. King‚ I'm not only a student of Dr. King‚ I know his daughter Bernice. Right? So‚ I'm going to get to my question. JOY BEHAR: Go ahead. Go right ahead. HOSTIN: I think the premise is fundamentally flawed. You claim that color-blindness was the goal of the civil rights movement based upon Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech. You know‚ content of character versus color of skin. Bernice‚ Dr. King's daughter points out that four years after giving that speech actually‚ Dr. King also said this‚ "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for negroes." He also said in 1968‚ it was about less than a week before he was assassinated‚ "This country never stops to realize that they owe a people kept in slavery for 244 years." So‚ rather than class‚ he did write about that earlier on. Right before his death‚ he made the argument for racial equality and racial reparations‚ and so your argument for color-blindness‚ I think‚ is something that the right has co-opted. And so many in the black community – if I'm being honest with you‚ because I want to be‚ believe that you are being used as a pawn by the right and that you're a charlatan of sorts. HUGEHS: Who am I being accused by? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: He's not a Republican. HOSTIN: So‚ how do you – FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s never voted for a Republican. HOSTIN: You said you're a conservative. HUGHES: No. No. FARAH GRIFFIN: No. HOSTIN: No‚ you did. You actually said that in a podcast that you were two weeks ago. HUGHES: I said I was a conservative? FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s not. HOSTIN: Yes‚ you did. But my question to you is‚ how do you respond to those critics -- [Crosstalk saying to let him speak] HUGHES: I think it’s very important. The quote that you just pointed out about doing something special for the Negro‚ that's from the book Why We Can't Wait that I just mentioned. A couple paragraphs later he lays out exactly what that something special was and it was the bill of rights for the disadvantaged‚ a broad class-based policy. HOSTIN: But he also says you must include race. HUGHES:  No‚ he says -- HOSTIN: Yes‚ he does. HUGHES: Well‚ everyone should go read the buy Why We Can't Wait. Let's not get sidetracked by that. I don't think I've been co-opted by anyone. I've only voted twice‚ both for a Democrats. Although‚ I'm an independent. I would vote for a Republican‚ probably a non-trump Republican if they were compelling. I don't think there's any evidence I’ve been co-opted by anyone and I think that's an ad hominem tactic people use to not address‚ really‚ the important conversations we're having here. And I think it's better and it would be better for everyone if we stuck to the topics rather than make it about me. With no evidence of that I’ve been co-opted. HOSTIN: I want to give you the opportunity to respond to the -- HUGHES: I appreciate it. HOSTIN: The criticism. HUGHES: There's no evidence that I've been co-opted by anyone. I have an independent podcast. I work for CNN as an analyst. I write for the Free Press. I'm independent in all of these endeavors and no one is paying me to say what I'm saying. I'm saying it because I feel it. HOSTIN: Do you also believe – GOLDBERG: Hold on‚ we got to go to break. (…) 11:51:28 a.m. Eastern JOY BEHAR: I have a question. Because you write the anti-racism movement‚ there are a couple of people -- I don't even know who they are‚ maybe you know. HOSTIN: Robin DiAngelo. HUGHES: Robin DiAngelo‚ Ibram X. Kennedi‚ for instance. BEHAR: Okay. Well‚ you say that that is just another form of racism and you even say there’s a lot in common with white supremacy. How can you compare those two things? You’re talking about anti-racism‚ you are comparing it to white supremacy. HUGHES: Because they both view your race as an extremely significant part of who you are. So‚ white supremacists they obviously say – we all know what they say‚ okay. Neo-racists like Robin DiAngelo‚ they say that to be white is to be ignorant‚ for example. Well‚ this is a racial stereotype and I want to call a spade a spade and say this is not the style of anti-racism we have to be teaching our kids. We should be teaching them that your race is not a significant feature of who you are‚ who you are is your character‚ your value‚ and your skin color doesn't say anything about that. [Applause] HOSTIN: That's – that’s actually misrepresenting what Robin DiAngelo’s position is. HUGHES: It's in her book. [Crosstalk] GOLDBEGR: So‚ here we go. Thank you. Coleman Hughes‚ for coming. Because this is a show of lots of different opinions and we are multigenerational and we all got an opinion. So‚ The End of Pace Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America is out now. And we’re giving it to you all‚ so you can read it and judge for yourself how you feel about what he's saying.

The leader of a union representing some of New York's finest has warned certain leaders in New York City to avoid the funeral for one of their fallen brothers this coming weekend.Vincent J. Vallelong‚ the president of the NYC Sergeants Benevolent Association‚ had strong words for members of the New York City Council regarding the "completely avoidable death" of 31-year-old NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller. "The Council members who are vehemently and inexplicably against public safety are responsible for the carnage in the streets‚" Vallelong said‚ according to the New York Post.On Monday‚ Diller‚ a three-year veteran of the force‚ was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop in Queens‚ leaving behind a wife‚ Stephanie‚ and a 1-year-old child. According to reports‚ his suspected killer‚ 34-year-old Guy Rivera‚ has 21 prior arrests to his name.A funeral for Diller will be held at St. Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church in Massapequa on Saturday morning. Vallelong worries that city council members might attend the funeral — and perhaps even "shed a few crocodile tears" — because it presents a "good photo opportunity." Villelong claimed their presence at the funeral would be "a stain on the legacy of a true hero who made the ultimate sacrifice."Vallelong also claimed that‚ all too often‚ council members' "words of sympathy and empathy" at such moments ring "hollow and untrue." He even suggested that any council members "who have declared war on the police" were at least "morally responsible" for Diller's death and "should be the ones ... investigated.""Despite their admonitions to the contrary‚ the 'leadership' in the Council has failed city residents‚ workers‚ and visitors at every turn. They are blinded by their own hatred and twisted ideology."The Survivors of the Shield‚ an organization of NYPD widows and widowers‚ announced that it had begun fundraising for Diller's wife and child. "We know what Stephanie and [her son] are going through because we’ve all been there‚" the group's statement said.Rivera‚ the man suspected of killing Diller‚ was likewise wounded during the incident and remains hospitalized but is expected to recover. During treatment‚ medical professionals reportedly discovered a small shiv lodged in his rectum.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

I have spent more than a decade promoting the importance of marriage and strong families in the public square. But according to one “scholar” at George Mason University‚ my decision to speak at Hampton University’s 42nd annual black family conference makes me little better than a modern-day Exalted Cyclops. Bethany Letiecq‚ a professor in George Mason’s College of Education and Human Development‚ recently wrote in the Journal of Marriage and Family: Marriage fundamentalism can be understood as an ideological and cultural phenomenon‚ where adherents espouse the superiority of the two-parent married family. … But it is also a hidden or unacknowledged structural mechanism of White heteropatriarchal family supremacy that is essential to the reproduction and maintenance of family inequality in the United States. This is how our nation’s credentialed agents of intellectual chaos often speak. They specialize in soggy word salads that have no cultural or academic value. This is also why it’s so vital for one of the country’s most influential historically black colleges and universities to focus on work that helps couples sustain marriages and build strong families. Most people would assume that every academic and institution of higher learning would share similar goals‚ but that is not the case. Christina Cross is a black Harvard sociology professor and one of Letiecq’s research collaborators. She wrote an op-ed in the New York Times several years ago in which she argued that black children don’t benefit as much as their white peers from being raised in two-parent homes. She claimed that access to resources‚ not family structure‚ is the key to positive outcomes for children. Progressive social commentators have become increasingly dismissive of agency and slavishly committed to outsourcing racial uplift. They seem to think bigger government and better white people are viable strategies for solving every social ill. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have never read a headline in the New York Times‚ the Atlantic‚ or Vox that said‚ “I Have Five Kids by Five Men and Love Being a Never-Married Baby Mama.” A black father and mother in southeast Washington‚ D.C.‚ have far more responsibility for doing the necessary things to give their child a better life than a government bureaucrat or white woman in Wisconsin could possibly do to improve the conditions of their lives. That’s because all human beings must contribute to their own flourishing. No one can be carried to a better life‚ especially when every life starts with the one man and one woman who decide to create a child. Given the connection between family structure and social outcomes‚ the message from the intellectual class to the public should be an encouragement to put marriage before baby carriage. It’s certainly what journalists‚ professors‚ and pundits do. I have never read a headline in the New York Times‚ the Atlantic‚ or Vox that said‚ “I Have Five Kids by Five Men and Love Being a Never-Married Baby Mama.” Many progressives have a nasty habit of — politically speaking — living “right” but talking “left.” They embrace the norms they criticize as being rooted in “white supremacy‚” but when they put pen to paper‚ it’s always to defend things in the public square that they don’t practice in their private lives. About 70% of black children are born to unmarried parents‚ and 45% live with a single mother. The people who claim to care about race and social outcomes should be spending more time talking about marriage and family structure and less time attending Ibram X. Kendi’s anti-racism lectures. Increasing the number of children who are born to married parents is a definable‚ tangible‚ measurable‚ and achievable goal that is directly tied to positive social outcomes. On the other hand‚ destroying “white supremacy” is hard to envision when the term itself is used to describe everything from objectivity to good writing skills. I am grateful that Hampton University is willing to use its time‚ talent‚ and treasure to speak honestly about the importance of marriage and fight for the black family. Let’s hope other HBCUs will follow. I look forward to seeing progressives freak out when a room full of “white supremacists” come together in support of black families.

In the wake of Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge’s collapse‚ skepticism continues to mount. A number of conspiracy theories regarding the events of the mysterious collision have since emerged. Many have pointed to the possibility of a cyberattack‚ granted the cargo ship lost power. Others have honed in on the company that manages the ship — a DEI-captive firm called Synergy Marine Group. Then‚ there are those who call attention to the fact that the Baltimore bridge was not the Dali’s first unfortunate collision. However‚ Glenn Beck‚ Pat Gray‚ and Stu Burguiere have another theory — one you probably haven’t heard of before. And it centers around Pete Buttigieg‚ the United States’ secretary of Transportation. There seems to be an unprecedented number of accidents related to transportation taking place under his watch‚ and yet nobody has heard from him. “We never hear him talk about anything transportation” related‚ says Glenn. “He never shows up at the scene of the crime.” “There are a lot of reasons to believe that Buttigieg isn't responsible for each” transportation mishap‚ but “how else do we explain this?” asks Stu‚ adding that “this guy has overseen disaster movie sequel after disaster movie sequel since he got this job.” “Have we seen close-up pictures of the United Airlines flight when it was taking off losing the tire? ... Was [Buttigieg] up in the wheel hub?” laughs Glenn. “Was he driving a tankard truck last June 11 and left it on I95 in Philadelphia?” asks Pat jokingly. While the theory isn’t meant to be taken seriously‚ it is uncanny that America has seen an immense rise in the number of transportation “accidents” since Buttigieg took office. To hear more‚ watch the clip below. 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.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) blew away 30 bills this week that he figured encroached on the rights of law-abiding citizens‚ including a Democratic bill prohibiting the sale or possession of new so-called "assault" rifles. Among the bills Youngkin ultimately shot down were: HB 2‚ a Democratic bill that would ban the sale or possession of new "assault rifles"; HB 454‚ a Democratic bill that would have criminalized an otherwise law-abiding citizen's possession of a firearm in a building owned or operated by a college or university — which Youngkin noted was unnecessary granted the present ability of institutions of higher education to implement prohibitions on their respective campuses; HB 585‚ a Democratic bill that would have barred firearms sales within 1.5 miles of an elementary or middle school — which the governor said appeared "unconstitutional‚ retaliatory‚ and arbitrary"; HB 799‚ a Democratic bill that would have required the submission of fingerprints with an application for a concealed handgun permit or permit renewal — which Youngkin said "targets individuals already subject to background checks and mandatory training‚ creating superfluous and onerous restrictions on responsible citizens exercising their Second Amendment right to self-defense"; SB 273‚ a Democratic bill that would have required a waiting period to purchase a firearm — which Youngkin said would "impede individuals facing threats of violence from promptly acquiring a firearm for self-defense"; HB 798‚ a Democratic bill that would have barred Virginians with a misdemeanor conviction of assault and battery or stalking from purchasing‚ possessing‚ or transporting a firearm; SB 99‚ a Democratic bill that would have banned the carrying of so-called "assault firearms" in public areas; and SB 327‚ a Democratic bill prohibiting any American under the age of 21 from purchasing a handgun or "assault firearm" — which Youngkin indicated would render meaningless the constitutionally protected right to possess a firearm for those under 21. The Washington Post noted that in Youngkin's first two years in office‚ Republican lawmakers successfully prevented gun-grab legislation from advancing in the House of Delegates. This spared the governor from having to evidence his support for the Second Amendment. However‚ with majorities in both the state House and Senate‚ Democrats apparently figured they could advance their agenda or at the very least expose the governor as a defender of the Constitution. Youngkin said in a statement‚ "I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of Virginia‚ and that absolutely includes protecting the right of law-abiding Virginians to keep and bear arms." The governor did‚ however‚ ratify a bill preventing parents from "willfully allowing a child who poses a credible threat of violence to access a firearm" as well as a bill banning the manufacture‚ transfer‚ or possession of an auto sear — a device that converts semi-automatic firearms into automatic weapons. Neither of these bills were opposed by the Citizens Defense League. "I am pleased to sign four public safety bills which are commonsense reforms with significant bipartisan support from the General Assembly‚ and offer recommendations to several bills which‚ if adopted‚ will make it harder for criminals to use guns in the commission of a violent act‚" added Youngkin. The governor's vetoes were not well received by Democratic lawmakers‚ who do not have two-thirds majorities required to override them. Democratic state Sen. Creigh Deeds complained on X‚ writing‚ "2 more of my bills‚ prospectively banning assault style weapons‚ and keeping guns off college campuses are being vetoed. Shameful and unthinking action!" Deeds' colleague‚ state Sen. Mamie Locke (D)‚ responded‚ "Consider the source. Guns for everybody‚ no redemption for anyone‚ suppress the vote and voters and tax cuts for millionaires. Who's backwards?" Heather Williams‚ the president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee‚ claimed‚ "Republicans continue to make it clear that they care more about guns than people." The National Rifle Association‚ on the other hand‚ lauded Youngkin's resolve. "Governor Glenn Youngkin's courageous veto of dozens of ill-conceived gun control bills is a resounding victory for the Second Amendment in Virginia‚" Randy Kozuch‚ NRA executive director‚ said in a statement obtained by Fox News Digital. "His refusal to bow to unconstitutional overreach — stopping widespread bans on semi-automatic firearms‚ blocking ill-conceived laws like arbitrary waiting periods‚ and unjust age restrictions — underscores his fierce commitment to safeguarding our fundamental rights‚" continued Kozuch. "This is a clear message: Virginia stands firm against the erosion of our liberties." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson issued a cease and desist order on Tuesday against asset management company BlackRock‚ claiming that the firm "repeatedly made false and misleading statements" concerning its environmental‚ social‚ and governance agenda‚ Fox Business reported.Watson‚ along with the Securities Division of the Secretary of State's Office‚ issued the order "to stop BlackRock's alleged fraudulent actions and impose a multimillion-dollar administrative penalty‚" according to a Wednesday press release.Watson accused BlackRock of deceiving Mississippi investors regarding the firm's "involvement in pushing ESG factors on portfolio companies."The order stated that BlackRock claims its non-ESG "funds do not follow an ESG investment strategy." Watson argued that this is untrue."BlackRock has issued several statements and actions in commitment of using all assets under its management to incorporate ESG considerations‚ including advancing the environmental goals of net zero carbon emissions‚" the Secretary of State's press release read. "BlackRock also informed clients they would see better long-term financial prospects and financial outcomes through ESG-backed funds‚ with little to no evidence to substantiate the claim."As an example‚ the order pointed to BlackRock's commitments to the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative. "BlackRock's climate-disclosure reports demonstrate that BlackRock is actively working to fulfill its NZAM obligations by implementing a 'sustainable' net-zero investment strategy across 'all assets under management‚'" it explained.The cease and desist order stated that BlackRock also misled Mississippi ESG investors by marketing the funds as financially beneficial. Additionally‚ it claimed the firm charged higher fees for ESG funds than for non-ESG funds.In a statement to Fox Business‚ Watson said‚ "Investment companies will not push their political agenda on Mississippians‚ especially through fraudulent and deceptive means.""All citizens should have the opportunity to make informed and educated decisions when investing their hard-earned money. If not‚ our office will hold these bad actors accountable‚" he added.BlackRock told Fox Business it is committed to following the law in "every respect.""Many policymakers and government officials have ideas on how we should invest our clients' assets‚" BlackRock said. "We are always bound to invest consistent with our clients' choices‚ their best financial interests‚ and applicable law. Our only agenda is maximizing risk-adjusted returns for the funds our clients choose to invest in. We operate in one of the most highly regulated industries in the country and are committed to following the law in every respect."Last week‚ Texas pulled an $8.5 billion investment managed by BlackRock. Texas State Board of Education Chairman Aaron Kinsey explained that the decision was based on the asset management company's "destructive" commitment to ESG. He accused the firm of violating the state's Senate Bill 13‚ which prohibits "investments in companies that boycott certain energy companies."BlackRock fired back‚ calling Texas' decision to pull its investment "reckless" and "irresponsible." The company's vice chairman‚ Mark McCombe‚ said the state prioritized "short-term politics over your long-term fiduciary responsibilities." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!