YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #freespeech #virginia #astronomy #nightsky #biology #deepstate #plantbiology #novac #terrorism #trafficsafety #underneaththestars #treason #stargaze #assaultcar #carviolence
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

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

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
7 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

God-Given Rights: The Profoundly Ignorant Tim Kaine

Sometimes you read something so outrageously, disturbingly, and profoundly ignorant, especially given the source, that you’re simply left speechless. I had such a moment when reading a breathtaking statement by Tim Kaine, an elected senator of the United States of America. This ignorance makes it easier for progressives to try to do what they want to do. They supplant the crucial missing knowledge with their leftist ideology and theories. “The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes,” asserted Kaine during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last Wednesday. “It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Sharia law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities.” With a weird Joker-ish grin and furrowed brow, Kain continued: “And they do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.” No, what is extremely troubling is the statement of 67-year-old Timothy Michael Kaine, U.S. senator, former governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and graduate of Harvard Law School. Needless to say, the notion that our rights come from the Creator rather than government is the very foundation of the United States of America. It is a hallmark of our founding documents. As any child in an American school knows (or ought to know), our Declaration of Independence affirms that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The July 1776 document, written by Thomas Jefferson and edited and approved by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and the Continental Congress, then says “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men.” Government’s role is to secure, to protect, these God-given rights. The rights come from the Creator. This is, of course, rudimentary stuff. But Tim Kaine, who nearly became vice president of the United States as Hillary Clinton’s 2016 running mate, has it utterly butt-backwards, upside down, inverted, wrong. His statement is frankly flabbergasting. Indeed, Kaine’s statement had so stunned his Senate colleague, Ted Cruz, that Cruz walked into the hearing room and immediately corrected his colleague. “I have to say, it is stunning to me that the principle that God has given us natural rights is now deemed by Democrats some radical and dangerous notion,” said Cruz. “I just walked into the hearing as he was saying that, and I almost fell out of my chair, because that ‘radical and dangerous notion’ — in his words — is literally the founding principle upon which the United States of America was created.” Cruz affirmed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator — not by government, not by the Democratic National Committee, but by God — with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Cruz found Kaine’s remarks “disturbing” and noted that they revealed “much of where today’s Democrat Party has gone wrong.” Indeed, Kaine is not alone among liberal Democrats. You may recall last year when Politico award-winning journalist Heidi Przybyla argued on MSNBC that what makes “Christian nationalists” such “an extremist element” is “that they believe that our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don’t come from any earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, they don’t come from the Supreme Court, they come from God.” Her remarks went viral, earning a rebuke even from the mild mannered Bishop Robert Barron, who dubbed them “disturbing and frankly dangerous.” All of which beg some troubling questions: Are these people really this uninformed? Do they truly not know that America is based on the idea of God-given rather than government-given rights? I hate to say it, but many probably don’t. You would be shocked at how many law students have not even read the U.S. Constitution (nor have been taught about natural law). I’m serious. Ask around. You’ll see. One will puzzle that Tim Kaine is an educated man. But is he? The Latin word for “educate” is educare (see also educere), which means not merely to educate, to train, but to “lead out of.” One is led out of ignorance. Tim Kaine was left in ignorance. You would likewise be shocked at how many Americans “educated” in public schools and liberal universities have neither studied nor read documents like the Declaration of Independence. And sadly, in some cases, this is a willful ignorance imposed by secular progressives. In my thick lecture folder on the Declaration of Independence, I keep a November 2004 Reuters article on a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area who had been barred from showing students the Declaration of Independence (as well as other founding documents) because it mentioned God. Yes, seriously. The teacher, Steven Williams, sued for discrimination, claiming he had been singled out by the school principal, Patricia Vidmar, because he is a Christian. Aside from the details of what happened, the key point is this: By barring students from reading documents like the Declaration, particularly because they mention God, you’re blocking students from learning the crucial reality that our founders believed that our rights come from God rather than government. You are generating historical ignoramuses. Some of them go on to graduate from Harvard Law and become elected governors and senators, like Tim Kaine. Particularly insidious, those responsible for this ignorance often desire it (along with other subjects, like socialism and Marxism). This ignorance makes it easier for progressives to try to do what they want to do. They supplant the crucial missing knowledge with their leftist ideology and theories. Education becomes indoctrination. Welcome to American education. And that’s even more disturbing than the singular disturbing ignorance of Tim Kaine. READ MORE from Paul Kengor: Bruce Springsteen’s Anti-American Anthem A Message to Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce: Get Married and Have a Baby The Dating Game v. The Mating Game  
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
7 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

The Vilification and Vindication of Mark Regnerus

In the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research (SSR), Associate Professor of Sociology Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas-Austin (UT-A) published a research article with the leaden title: “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.” His conclusion? That among a large, random sample of young adults ages 18 through 39, there were “numerous, consistent differences especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents.” Predictably, all hell broke loose. “The most reasonable conclusion is that there is some negative effect of gay/lesbian parenting on children’s outcomes in these data.” This study should have been welcomed by social scientists in 2012. Why would they not want legal decisions that could profoundly affect the institution of marriage and the fate of children to be informed by large-scale controlled studies? After all, the volatile issue of constitutionality of state prohibitions of same-sex marriage, integrally tied to assertions about gay parenting outcomes, was swiftly working its way through federal appeals. SCOTUS would soon be settling the issue. Most published social science research does not matter much in the real world. But this research clearly mattered. Moreover, Regnerus’ study offered what little same sex parenting research had. For one thing, using controls, it examined an impressive 40 highly relevant outcomes. It also addressed them in young adults, not children or teenagers. As Richard Redding pointed out, this was not typical for such research. Regnerus also utilized a large, random sample over against the common practice in such research of using small, non-random, even “convenience” and “snowball” samples unsuitable for making statistical claims about significant differences in general populations. For example, one source of research showing “no difference,” was the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS). As Glenn Stanton documented, the NLLFS (which is ongoing) only had a tiny number (“initially 84 lesbian families”) invited through “informal networking and word of mouth referrals” and “announcements at lesbian events, in women’s bookstores, and at lesbian newspapers,”  in three large cities. It was not representative of gays, or even of lesbians. High status, highly educated, overwhelmingly white participants knew what they were signing up for and could connect favorably with achieving gay rights goals. As Redding noted, many other studies had samples of just “15 to 55 gay or lesbian participants.” And the Regnerus’ study? Redding pointed out that it had “a sample of 236 adult children of parents (175 mothers, 73 fathers) who had a same-sex relationship and a total sample across all comparison groups of 2,988.” Of course, Regnerus did not compare children being raised in stable same-sex headed (much less, married) homes with those in married opposite-sex households. But he did not claim to, stating right up front that he compared “how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare … when compared with six other family-of-origin types” (emphasis added). But then, how could one perform such comparisons, using large, random samples, at that time? According to research cited by Regnerus, in 2010 there were an estimated 98,600 same-sex (out of more than 35 million total) households with children. In a general sample of Americans, how could you pick up enough people raised by same-sex couples to analyze and compare them with otherwise comparable opposite-sex parents? How many of these same-sex households had children old enough to test many important, measurable outcomes? How many young adults were raised in such households? The numbers reality that Regnerus confronted is still faced by any researcher trying to do controlled gay parenting research. As of the 2023 Census’ American Community Survey (ACS), among married couples raising their own children, only one-half of one percent — 221,076 — were same-sex. In Massachusetts, which has had same-sex marriage since 2004, that percentage was just eight-tenths of one percent. UCLA’s Williams Institute used the 2019-21 ACS to estimate that 293,986 children were being raised by same-sex couples (married and cohabiting). In those years, the estimated total number of children fluctuated between 74.3 to 73.1 million. So, even with its limitations (which he mostly stated up front), the Regnerus study was ground-breaking. Yet rather than reasonably absorbing and discussing it, many social scientists and numerous media pundits unleashed the furies on Regnerus’ hapless head. If he could not be silenced, he had to be punished, his reputation reduced to a smoking ruin as a warning to any social scientists with the temerity to offend the LGBT gods. The vilification was almost instant. As the National Association of Scholars (NAS) reported, on June 24, a blogger and gay activist named Scott Rose (really, Rosensweig) demanded that UT-A investigate Regnerus’ “scientific misconduct.” About 200 “PhDs and MDs” wrote to the SSR editor, demanding an inquiry into “the process by which this paper was submitted, reviewed, and accepted.” Rose also published that on his blog. Ultimately, UT-A found no grounds to formally investigate Regnerus. But they still put him into a gauntlet through the end of August. The smears intensified. This included not just criticism of methodology but, as the NAS said, “character assassination.” Many of Rose’s charges would have probably been constitutional violations if the school pursued them (they did not). As the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) reported, amidst a few allegations that could legitimately be investigated, the charges included such things as: Regnerus is an ex-evangelical and current Catholic; he received support from the conservative Witherspoon Institute “where Robert George of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage is a Senior Fellow”; “Sociologists from Brigham Young University were involved in the study design … akin to asking the Ku Klux Klan to design a study about Jews.” UT-A “sequestered” (i.e., took away) Regnerus’ six computers and 42,000 emails. As FIRE complained, this was “a major disruption of his scholarly activity.” Not to mention unbelievably “intrusive.” Things did not stop there. An audit of the journal’s peer-review process of Regnerus’ submission by Darren Sherkat was to be published in the November issue of SSR. In July, the SSR senior editor shared a draft version of this audit with the Chronicle of Higher Education, which covered it, interviewing Sherkat and the editor. In the interview, Sherkat called Regnerus’ article  “bullshit” that should have been “disqualified … immediately.” Sherkat accused reviewers of “both ideology and inattention.” He complained that three of the six were opposed to gay marriage (though this percentage reflected the American public at the time and could be viewed as ensuring fairness). As for the editor, he “suffered sleepless nights since the publication of Regnerus’s paper, and has received a steady stream of angry e-mails, from both colleagues and irate strangers.” If this is what he was being put through, we can imagine Regnerus’ email. Meanwhile, Regnerus responded to and interacted with his methodological critics, and did some re-analysis in a follow-up SSR piece in November, but without backing down. And as retired Catholic University sociologist Paul Sullins recently recounted, the same month “he publicly posted his entire dataset, inviting [his critics] to analyze it for themselves and to try to overturn his findings,” though he was not required to. None of this stopped the media and professional mud-slinging too numerous and vitriolic to fully recount here. For example, the Huffington Post, which just the year before had positively publicized a study (of 78 kids) based upon the NLLFS that claimed a zero percent child physical and sexual abuse rate in lesbian households, posted an anti-Regnerus diatribe that August. Based on the Sherkat draft, and while the UT-A inquiry was still ongoing, the author demanded apologies from a list of people who had favorably cited or defended Regnerus’ work. Then in March and April 2013 Huffington unleashed two investigative pieces supposedly further uncovering the truth about Regnerus and the study’s backers. This was followed by a 2014 post by a graduate student in Regnerus’ department expressing angst about things such as that he fraternized with the wrong political and religious sorts, spoke at conservative places, said gay marriage would lead to more heterosexuals having anal sex (while not appreciating how great that could be), used media talking points, and called same sex relationships less stable without understanding all the of the reasons that might be true. In October, the New York Times published a piece by Mark Oppenheimer that, while indicating the intensity of the attacks on Regnerus, noted that Regnerus “was immediately called a fraud, a charlatan, a shill for the religious right” as soon as the study was published. But Oppenheimer goes on to claim that Regnerus “won’t talk about his research”  simply because Regnerus had declined to be interviewed for the Times article, despite Regnerus’ very public defenses of his research and his transparency. Focusing the article on Regnerus’ faith and its implications for his scholarship, Oppenheimer said, “Dr. Regnerus was a proud Christian witness, once upon a time” but “these days, he won’t discuss his faith.” What was the evidence of that? In one recent interview with Christianity Today, Regnerus had “said nothing about his religious beliefs.” The professional coup de grace were two replication studies using Regnerus’ data. The first, by sociologists Simon Cheng (University of Connecticut) and Brian Powell (Indiana University), questioned the classifications Regnerus had used, cutting out cases they believed he miscategorized. When they “fixed” this, as Sullins pointed out, “all of the important differences … became statistically insignificant.” Of course, reducing sample size makes it much harder to establish statistical significance. The second, by Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld, “corrected” Regnerus’ research by controlling for family instability. Voila, most of Regnerus’ statistically significant outcomes were reduced to insignificance. As Rosenfeld put it, “simple control for family transitions accounts for most of the negative outcomes for subjects who had ‘gay fathers’ or ‘lesbian mothers.’” Of course, if less stability is more common among same sex parents, as Regnerus argued, that is a clear indication that such parenting hurts kids. As Sullins tells us, Regnerus “responded to both critics” but, again, did not back down, leaving things in a “standoff.” Nevertheless, most social scientists firmly sided with his critics, with some attacking any who cited it favorably or had the temerity to try to publish their own research identifying negative outcomes of gay parenting. The alleged non-difference of same-sex versus opposite-sex parenting outcome is now widely treated as settled science. For example, in an otherwise excellent, rigorously empirical 2023 book, The Two Parent Privilege, University of Maryland economist Melissa Kearney dismissed the idea of any such differences out-of-hand. She did so by citing American Sociological Association’s (ASA) amicus brief in the Obergefell case (the ASA had strongly sided with Regnerus’ critics, and that brief refuted him at length), plus adding three other studies in a footnote, two of them from well before 2012. Said Kearney, “there is no empirical evidence showing that children raised by married same-sex parents have different outcomes than children raised by similarly situated married opposite sex parents … once socioeconomic status and family stability are accounted for.” Despite the fact that, as we know, tiny numbers and the recency of widespread gay marriage makes such an absolute, categorical assertion hard to defend. That is where things are. We must say that there are no differences, except perhaps that gay couples produce better outcomes than heterosexual couples. Having two parents matters, but having both a mother and a father does not. Breaking the False Narrative Now this comfortable but rigid narrative has a fly in its ointment. Just a few months ago, a groundbreaking reanalysis of Regnerus’ 2012 study, and of the replications by Cheng and Powell and Rosenfeld that supposedly drove a stake in its heart, appeared. It convincingly vindicates Regnerus and refutes these replications. This was published in the most unlikely of places — a chapter inside a research methodology tome explaining and demonstrating how to do “multiverse analysis.” Released in March and authored by Cornell sociologists Cristobal Young and Erin Cumberworth, the book is Multiverse Analysis: Computational Methods for Robust Results. The Catholic News Agency has posted the chapter. Multiverse analysis is explained in laymen’s terms by Martin Schweinsberg, a business professor and psychologist with the European School of Management and Technology in Berlin. I draw on that here. Ahead of actually analyzing any set of data, researchers make choices among a set of potentially valid alternatives they are aware of. Multiverse analysis, Schweinberg says, takes “each possible analytical option and crosses it with all other possible analytical options, resulting in a universe of possible analyses … you now run all possible combinations of these choices so you can explore the universe of possible analyses.” Young and Cumberworth chose to try this on Regnerus’ study, and the two replications discussed above, because various factors made it, they said, “ideal for this analysis.” It took “more time and effort” than they expected, which is an understatement considering they identified over “2.6 million model specifications.” They undertook the analysis expecting to vindicate Regnerus’ critics, believing that they would “drive their point home in a powerfully conclusive way.” But, as Gomer Pyle would say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise.” To be sure, almost all the models reduced the strength of Regnerus’ estimates. But nullify them? No. For example, this is what they said about their “full multiverse results”: “critics were only partly successful in challenging [Regnerus’] results … very few of the 2.65 million estimates are zero or opposite-signed (i.e., opposite Regnerus’).” Their point? “The most reasonable conclusion is that there is some negative effect of gay/lesbian parenting on children’s outcomes in these data, but it is probably smaller than suggested by Regnerus’s original study.” They said, “we were surprised by the robustness of the Regnerus finding,” and rejected Cheng and Powell’s and Rosenfeld’s main conclusions. Does this mean that their analysis supported the claim that people raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by opposite-sex couples in apples-to-apples comparisons? No.  They do not seem to think so, and Regnerus was not testing that specifically. As indicated, doing so will require a lot more analysis and, especially, contending with the still miniscule numbers of children in same-sex married families. But it is possible that Young and Cumberworth have made it acceptable to do competent and objective research on this critically important issue again. But it still will not be easy. How likely is it that peer reviewers in today’s social science journals will let such studies into their publications unless the conclusions fit the established narrative? Meanwhile, as Sullins averred, as in the past, weak research with the right conclusions will probably continue to be accepted, if not trumpeted, a woeful but tiresomely predictable double-standard. Moreover, as Sullins says, these days, “adverse, malicious findings tend to be suppressed much more quietly” than the shrill denouncements and attempts at methodological refutation that Regnerus dealt with. He continues: For progressive partisans, it has become clear that there is no necessity to refute findings that are deemed unfavorable. Instead of noisy opposition that advertises the strength of their opponents’ arguments or stimulates thinking about both sets of ideas being debated, proponents of gay parenting have deployed their dominance in the academy to quietly disappear adverse ideas. Partisan editors and peer reviewers ensure that negative findings seldom get published; if published, they are seldom cited. Increasingly, they are subject to retraction for “ethical reasons.” The reception of Young and Cumberworth that I have seen so far supports Sullins’ depressing observations. Google searching shows publicity of their findings in conservative venues, but little if anything in the mainstream press, and certainly no mea culpas from Regnerus critics, the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Human Rights Campaign, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ASA, and so on. But there are stirrings that suggest the American public, tired of Woke thought control, bullying, and intimidation may be open to such research. There are also thriving conservative colleges and universities, perhaps some willing to support faculty who conduct it, or scholars creating new journals ready to buck Left orthodoxy on such a sensitive issue. And there are now numerous other pathways for disseminating such studies. Let us hope this research happens. We owe it to our children to ask such hard questions and try to honestly answer them. READ MORE from David Ayers: Paganism and LGBT: Kissing Cousins? Mom, Meet My New AI Girlfriend Yes, Americans Are Getting More Rude
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
7 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

SCOTUS: Preserve Gay Marriage but Protect Religious Rights

Will the U.S. Supreme Court torpedo gay marriage in its next term, which begins October 6? SCOTUS could use Kim Davis to do so. But it should not. The Alphabet people demand that Americans swallow an endless supply of genders, pronouns, and “identities” that not even Team Alphabet can define.[/perfectpullquote] Davis, a Kentucky county clerk, cited her religious faith for not issuing a marriage license to David Ermold and David Moore, a currently wed gay couple. Davis’ stand cost her six days in jail in 2015. The Davids sued Davis and won $50,000 each for “emotional damages” and $260,000 in legal fees. Davis is appealing this jury verdict and — bonus! — also wants SCOTUS to reverse its “egregiously wrong” decision and overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that made gay marriage a constitutional right. SCOTUS should welcome Davis’ case and, ultimately, use it to maximize liberty and the right to pursue happiness. SCOTUS should honor Obergefell’s precedent and keep gay marriage constitutional. If spending their lives together fulfills David and David, hooray! Since they are consenting adults, what happens when they click off their lights is nobody’s damn business. SCOTUS should let Davis and others with religious or even secular objections to gay marriage, abstain. If giving gay couples marriage licenses is the Highway to Hell to Davis, or something merely unethical to an atheist, fine! Such public employees should be excused from handling gay-marriage licenses. (Barring government from licensing marriages would halt this controversy instantly.) Likewise, judges who reject gay marriage as either sinful or misguided never should be obliged to officiate at gay weddings. Across America, there are enough bureaucrats, city councilmen, and other officials to provide gay couples whatever assistance they need to wed while also accommodating public servants who conscientiously object. The core American value of non-coercion should shield Americans from being forced to do what they rather would avoid. This general distaste for mandates excludes tax evasion, alas. But the point persists. Likewise, if women must have access to abortions, no doctor or nurse ever should be compelled to perform one. Americans who cherish a woman’s right to choose an abortion also must respect a woman’s right to choose not to execute an abortion. (Ditto for men.) Similarly, Catholic and other religious (or even secular) adoption agencies should not be forced to place children with gay couples. This surely is heartbreaking for those wish to adopt. And many of them would make fine parents. For all of the emotional and psychological benefits of a child having a mother and father, having two dads would be a massive improvement for a little boy or girl who bounces from foster home to foster home or stares all day at the drably painted walls of an orphanage. That said, private parties — from churches to foundations — have their rights, too. And their religious and ethical beliefs trump those of potential adoptive parents. If a private store can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, private adoption agencies should enjoy at least as much deference. Indeed, Catholic Charities of Baltimore took its tenets so seriously that it got out of the adoption business in 2020, rather than serve gay couples. Catholic Charities of Boston did the same in 2006. Agree or disagree with these views, even critics must admit that this represents serious commitment to what these people hold dear. And that’s not nothing. This case Ermold v. Davis arises while appreciation of gay marriage has fallen, which Gallup recently confirmed. While a record 71 percent of U.S. adults endorsed gay marriage in a May 2023 Gallup poll, that number dropped to 68 percent in May 2025. Democrat support rose slightly, from 87 percent in May 2022 to 88 percent this year. Independents peaked at 77 percent in 2023 and slipped to 76 percent today. Meanwhile, gay marriage has cratered among Republicans. In May 2022, 55 percent of GOP respondents okayed these unions. Last May: 41 percent. This issue’s Democrat-Republican gap is a record 47 percent. This disenchantment with gay marriage coincides with mounting distaste with transmania, Dylan Mulvaney’s Bud Light disaster, and men who think they are women swiping sports titles from real women. Even worse, these “women” with penises literally traverse female locker rooms as their junk dangles between their legs. Ten years ago, this was indecent exposure. Cops would have raced in and cuffed the offender. Today, “women” with male genitalia claim a legal right to display their wares, while real women recoil. The “LGBTQIA2s+” alphabet people demand that Americans swallow an endless supply of genders, pronouns, and “identities” that not even Team Alphabet can define. Drag Queen Story Hour showcases men dressed gaudily as women reading sexually charged texts to first and second graders. A Dallas-area gay bar hosted a “family friendly” event in June 2022 called Drag Your Kids to Pride. Children there watched a drag queen dance before a sign that read: “It’s Not Gonna Lick Itself.” Anyone who finds these things unusual or inappropriate is declared a transphobe, bigot, or domestic terrorist. Also unhelpful: the hard-Left Alphabet People will not simply let reluctant Americans quietly tolerate gay marriage. Instead, these radicals insist that the entire country wave their pom poms and salute the increasingly cluttered “Progress Flag.” Alphabetniks have demanded that Christians who oppose gay marriage design gay-wedding invitations, bake gay-wedding cakes, and photograph gay-wedding ceremonies. This is no less sadistic than a neo-Nazi club berating a Jewish baker into creating a Happy Birthday, Unser Führer cake for its April 20 salute to the über-dictator. No surprise, these in-your-face tactics also have curbed enthusiasm for gay marriage. Amid this chaos, many Americans have seen the G in “LGBTQIA2s+” and, via collective guilt by association, assumed that all gay people cheer these outrages. The TQIA2S+ anvil is dragging normal LGBs beneath the waves. Until the latter tell the former to sod off, gay marriage’s popularity will keep lagging. And remember: Supreme Court justices read opinion polls. Saving gay marriage will require a big, fat gay divorce between normal gay people and the homophobic TQIA2S+ freaks. This division cannot come soon enough. SCOTUS’ next move is a mystery. It might accept Ermold v. Davis or abstain while lower courts grapple with this dispute for years. If SCOTUS does intervene, this common-sense compromise would allow gay couples to enjoy equal protection of the marriage laws and let gay-marriage critics walk away. Such a SCOTUS decision should satisfy the most Americans. Who could ask for anything more? READ MORE from Deroy Murdock: Highest 2 Lowest Spotlights Ups and Downs of Black Experience Time for the Republican Congress to Legislate, Legislate, Legislate Trump’s Secret Weapon Deserves a World Record Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
7 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Big Tech’s Political Takeover Threatens All Americans

The machinery of democracy is being quietly rewired, and most Americans don’t even realize it’s happening. While families struggle with inflation, housing costs, and job security, Silicon Valley’s most powerful corporations are systematically purchasing the politicians who will determine how artificial intelligence reshapes every aspect of American life. Meta’s new super PAC  is a declaration. One of the most powerful corporations on earth intends to shape the rules governing the very technology it is racing to deploy. Tens of millions of dollars won’t be spent on civic renewal or public debate. They will be spent to silence critics, weaken oversight, and ensure that the architects of AI remain their own regulators. Americans should care because this isn’t an abstract issue. It is your children’s privacy, your job security, and your civic life being bargained away. When the players buy the referees, the game is already rigged. The social fabric frays, replaced by interactions curated not for connection but for consumption. The corporate strategy extends far beyond Meta. Technology giants have collectively launched multiple super PACs with over $100 million earmarked specifically to influence the 2026 midterm elections, creating a coordinated campaign to elect lawmakers who will rubber-stamp industry priorities. This represents the most ambitious attempt at regulatory capture in American history, dwarfing even the influence campaigns of Big Tobacco or the fossil fuel industry at their peak. Consider what this means for working families across America. Your factory job, your accounting position, your customer service role — all vulnerable to AI automation that will deploy without meaningful oversight. Meta has already spent substantial sums lobbying to weaken AI safety and transparency standards, opposing legislation that would require companies to disclose how their systems work and what safeguards are in place. When AI eliminates your livelihood, you won’t even know it was coming because the warning systems will have been legislated away. AI systems are already replacing human judgment at every stage of employment. Résumés are scanned by algorithms trained on old patterns, interviews reduced to automated scripts, and final hiring (and firing) decisions handed over to code. Without enforceable transparency requirements, which Meta and its allies fight against, workers have no recourse. They’re left in the dark, never knowing whether rejection came from a genuine skill gap, a hidden algorithmic bias, or a simple technical glitch. What once required accountability from a manager or HR department is now hidden behind a digital curtain. A generation of Americans will enter the workforce filtered by black-box systems designed to serve corporate cost-cutting, not fairness. For parents, the danger is even more profound. Meta’s platforms already gather vast stores of personal information on children, despite repeated pledges to protect privacy. That data is not simply stored; it is weaponized to shape behavior. Now, it’s building AI systems that will know children’s habits, fears, and desires more intimately than their parents. These systems will dictate what videos appear, which friendships are elevated, and how a child comes to measure his or her own worth. What appears to be harmless entertainment is, in fact, engineered influence. The cognitive, emotional, and even spiritual growth of an entire generation is being outsourced to algorithms whose only mandate is to maximize profit through endless engagement. The erosion of privacy and basic human dignity reaches every American household. AI feeds on vast datasets, yet Meta and other Big Tech giants fight transparency at every turn. Families are left blind to what is taken, how it is used, or who profits from it. Your medical searches, financial struggles, relationships, and political leanings all become fuel for systems built to predict and manipulate behavior. And when the algorithm errs, misjudging your creditworthiness, your insurance risk, or even your security threat, you will have no recourse. The democratic process becomes the casualty. Silicon Valley executives marshal their super PACs like generals, zeroing in on districts and candidates who might dare to push for AI oversight. This is not democracy; it is regulatory capture dressed up as electoral choice. Citizens cast ballots, but the menu has already been written by corporations with bottomless coffers. Local life absorbs the blow. Small businesses are steamrolled by AI-powered giants operating under flimsy rules. Local journalism shrinks as AI-generated slop floods the news cycle. Civic groups falter as citizens retreat into algorithmic bubbles. The social fabric frays, replaced by interactions curated not for connection but for consumption, engineered to enrich corporations rather than sustain community. Economic inequality accelerates as AI benefits flow overwhelmingly to technology companies and their investors while costs are socialized across the population. The super PAC strategy ensures that wealth generated by AI remains concentrated while the disruption affects everyone else. Workers lose jobs, communities lose cohesion, families lose privacy, some lose their minds, but Silicon Valley gains unprecedented power over American life. Perhaps most insidiously, this corporate capture of democracy normalizes the idea that tech companies should police themselves. The precedent reaches far beyond AI. Biotechnology, quantum computing, nanotechnology — each will follow the same script if Meta and other heavyweights succeed in buying regulatory immunity. The endgame is a society where corporate algorithms make decisions about employment, education, and social interaction with minimal accountability or transparency. Meta’s super PAC isn’t buying candidates; it’s buying the future, ensuring that when AI transforms civilization, it does so on terms written by and for Silicon Valley billionaires rather than the American people who will live with the consequences. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: Saudi Arabia’s Sick Joke The Digital Lobotomy of America’s Children Begins in Virginia How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
7 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

The Enduring Spirit of Solidarity: A Story Still Being Written

The Solidarity Movement was born in Poland 45 years ago and paved the way for the end of communism in Europe. In August 1980, workers laid down their tools and raised their voices. They were demanding dignity and freedom. They called their movement “Solidarność” — Solidarity. The movement began with thousands of striking workers in the Gdańsk Shipyard and expended rapidly to nearly 10 million members across Poland by early 1981. This growth made it the largest voluntary civic movement in history. Today, our nations face different challenges — not tanks and censors, but political polarization, misinformation, and social fragmentation. Solidarity was never just a moment in history. It’s a mindset. We had no weapons. We had courage, faith, and unity. For us, freedom wasn’t an abstract ideal. It meant bread on the table, the right to speak without looking over your shoulder, and the hope of building a country worthy of our children. The story didn’t end with the fall of communism in 1989. The spirit of Solidarity paved our road to full independence. It was that spirit that led Poland to join NATO, securing our sovereignty, and later the European Union, cementing our place in a united Europe. Solidarity’s journey is the modern journey of Poland itself: from Soviet occupation to independence. This spirit is not a relic of the past; it is the living heart of the Polish character. We see it in the immense national effort to welcome millions of Ukrainians fleeing the war, opening not just our borders but our homes. It is the same spirit that sends our rescue teams to pull survivors from the rubble of earthquakes, from Haiti to Turkey, and our firefighters to battle devastating blazes across Europe. Time and again, when crisis strikes, Poles respond. Our movement’s patron, Blessed Father Jerzy Popiełuszko, once said, “People are won over by an open heart, not by a closed fist.” While many know his famous call to “overcome evil with good,” it’s this quieter wisdom that best captures who we are. Today, our nations face different challenges — not tanks and censors, but political polarization, misinformation, and social fragmentation. In these times, the lessons of Solidarity are more relevant than ever. It teaches us that truth isn’t negotiable, that community is our greatest strength, and that true freedom is rooted in responsibility, not just rights. Solidarity became a global symbol of hope, and few nations understood our struggle better than the United States. We will never forget President Ronald Reagan’s support or the spiritual strength we drew from Saint John Paul II. Through the years, successive American leaders have recognized the bond between our nations — a shared love of freedom. We say thank you to our American friends. Your solidarity is woven into the fabric of our freedom. As we look to the future, let us stand together — Poles and Americans together — firm in our commitment to truth, democracy, and human dignity. Forty-five years ago, a Polish Solidarity movement gave hope to the world. Today, its spirit calls on us to believe that freedom is not a trophy to be polished but a garden to be tended together. The story of Solidarity is still being written. READ MORE: The Italian Fashion Industry Is at Risk of Disappearing Spain’s Far‑Left Dictatorship Has Become a Reality UK’s Labour Party Is Gerrymandering the Vote  
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
7 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Blue States Losing Out on Foreign Investment

Everybody knows about the continuing migration from Democrat-run states like California, Illinois, and New York to low tax, less regulated Republican states like Florida, Tennessee, and Texas. But as much as this outflow of disgruntled citizenry will seriously impair the future prosperity of the blue regions being left behind, it will not be their biggest financial loss. After the Civil War, it was almost exclusively the northern and western states which enjoyed an “Industrial Revolution,” while the southern states were held back. As a result of President Trump’s tariff negotiations, a growing number of countries have pledged massive investments in the United States over the next decade. Two trillion dollars alone will come from the Middle East with $1.4 trillion pledged by the UAE and the balance by Saudi Arabia. Japan says it will expand its American manufacturing capacity by $550 billion, while the European Union will finance $600 billion in new facilities beyond the $750 billion it has also promised to pay for American natural gas. At the same time, major domestic companies like GE Appliances, IBM, Nvidia, and Eli Lilly have agreed to pull back on making their products in foreign countries and instead build state-of-the-art factories in the United States. Apple alone is committed to spending $600 billion on its so-called American Manufacturing Program (AMP) — $100 billion more than it had first announced in February. On first consideration, these developments would seem to be good news for every state, but especially for bluer ones where once thriving cities like Buffalo (NY), Flint (MI), Rockford (IL), and Waterbury (CT) have been hardest hit by globalized manufacturing. Every community which receives a new factory or administrative facility will benefit not only from increased employment but also from a technological upgrade to regional infrastructure. It will participate in what Allianz economic adviser Mohammed El Erian has termed America’s coming wave of “transformative innovation.” But unfortunately for most blue jurisdictions, the same concerns which have caused so many of their residents to flee to red ones — high taxes and fees, inefficient public services, and a relatively hostile commercial environment — will also bias the planning of both foreign and domestic investors. Certainly, any new U.S. construction undertaken by Japanese, Canadian, and European companies will be sited in the same red states where they have already found it easier to do business: places like Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. And as for where America’s own companies are likely to expand, CEO Tim Cook gave a clear indication when he announced Apple’s forthcoming U.S. locations: primarily in Kentucky and Texas. The swing state of Arizona does get a chip facility because of the plant’s need for a dry climate, but there is just $10 billion for a Detroit-based training facility in blue Michigan and some scraps left over for rare earth recycling in the company’s home state of California. JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon effectively made the same prediction when he announced this year’s itinerary for the bank’s annual bus tour of those states where it thinks it can most profitably expand branches. Dimon never called it an “all-red road trip” but did say that he and his top executives would be heading down through North Carolina and South Carolina to Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Even President Biden gave a financial cold shoulder to Democrat-leaning states when it came to deploying the billions raised for clean energy and semiconductor projects from his CHIPS and Inflation Reduction Acts. Conceding that it was “not a politically smart thing [for me] to do,” he nevertheless signed off on allocating 73 percent of the money to corporate and public-private partnerships in red states. It should be noted that some blue states have received significant outside investment in recent years, but their apparent exceptionalism only goes to prove the rule. Delaware, for example, may not be the kind of right-to-work state where international companies prefer to operate, but its low business taxes and efficient legal system have resulted in 9.0 percent of its private-sector workforce being from abroad. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has achieved nearly the same result (8.1 percent) by helping foreign investors leverage his state’s unique location — in the heart of the Boston-New York-Washington corridor with the largest East Coast port — to make up for its financial drawbacks. And very blue Massachusetts, despite its reputation for aggressively taxing high earners, has nevertheless become a magnate for life science companies by committing to spend $1 billion over ten years on biology education and related infrastructure. If these outliers have any lesson for other blue states, it is that they do not need to be as financially attractive as their red cousins to benefit from the hundreds of billions of investment dollars about to be poured into the U.S. economy. They just need to be moving in the right direction, either initiating meaningful fiscal reform or offering some incentive to compensate for their economic negatives. Unfortunately, this is the last thing most blue state legislatures seem to have any interest in. One step to win over potential investors that any blue state governor could easily take would be to sign onto the provision of the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) which gives tax credits for donations to nonprofits that offer private-school scholarships to children from lower income families. The credits are paid for by the federal government and, if agreed to by a state’s governor, could lure new office complexes and factories with the credible promise of a well-educated local workforce for decades to come. Yet the chief executives of both Oregon and New Mexico — apparently more interested in placating their teacher unions than building a prosperous future — have already said no, while other blue state governors are “cautiously studying” the option. It may seem hard to believe that America is on the verge of a quantum leap in business productivity which only part of the country will enjoy, but such a thing has happened before. After the Civil War, it was almost exclusively the northern and western states which enjoyed an “Industrial Revolution,” while the southern states were held back by a combination of vindictive federal legislation and their own refusal to see what was in their long-term interest. For nearly a century the phrase “North vs. South” was popular shorthand for lopsided economic development. And in the century to come it appears increasingly likely to be “red vs. blue.” READ MORE from Lew M. Andrews: Dem Dilemma: Far-Left Can’t Tolerate Winning Language Democrats Must Adapt to Popular Republican Reforms America’s Promise: Classically Educated Kids
Like
Comment
Share
Twitchy Feed
Twitchy Feed
7 w

Jessica Tarlov Melts Down on 'The Five' Because People Now Can't Get the COVID Vaccine
Favicon 
twitchy.com

Jessica Tarlov Melts Down on 'The Five' Because People Now Can't Get the COVID Vaccine

Jessica Tarlov Melts Down on 'The Five' Because People Now Can't Get the COVID Vaccine
Like
Comment
Share
Twitchy Feed
Twitchy Feed
7 w

Hold My Beer, Cracker Barrel: City of Austin Reveals Result of $1.1 Million Rebranding Campaign
Favicon 
twitchy.com

Hold My Beer, Cracker Barrel: City of Austin Reveals Result of $1.1 Million Rebranding Campaign

Hold My Beer, Cracker Barrel: City of Austin Reveals Result of $1.1 Million Rebranding Campaign
Like
Comment
Share
Twitchy Feed
Twitchy Feed
7 w

Brian Krassenstein Thinks JD Vance Should Be IMPEACHED for 'Cursing Him Out'
Favicon 
twitchy.com

Brian Krassenstein Thinks JD Vance Should Be IMPEACHED for 'Cursing Him Out'

Brian Krassenstein Thinks JD Vance Should Be IMPEACHED for 'Cursing Him Out'
Like
Comment
Share
Twitchy Feed
Twitchy Feed
7 w

Woman Says MAGA Hat Is Representative of Men Who Treat Women Terribly
Favicon 
twitchy.com

Woman Says MAGA Hat Is Representative of Men Who Treat Women Terribly

Woman Says MAGA Hat Is Representative of Men Who Treat Women Terribly
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 6219 out of 95815
  • 6215
  • 6216
  • 6217
  • 6218
  • 6219
  • 6220
  • 6221
  • 6222
  • 6223
  • 6224
  • 6225
  • 6226
  • 6227
  • 6228
  • 6229
  • 6230
  • 6231
  • 6232
  • 6233
  • 6234
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








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

Reviews

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

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

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

Request a Refund