Palworld features a big open world to explore‚ yes‚ but in this article‚ we’re talking about file size‚ not world size. So what is the file size of Palworld and can you preload to prepare for launch? Palworld install size‚ explained According to the Palworld Steam page system requirements‚ the Palworld file size is around 40 GB. The storage requirement asks for at least 40 GB of available space‚ but my experience with storage requirements and actual install sizes tells me that Palworld will be more like 30 GB when fully downloaded. Related: Is Palworld on Xbox Game Pass? For example‚ Baldur’s Gate 3’s Steam page system requirements state that you need at least 150 GB of available space to play the game. I am up-to-date with BG3 updates and the file size is a little over 140 GB. This is the case for most games; the storage requirement is usually slightly higher than the actual install size of the full game. Can you preload Palw...

Children are not property to be exploited; they are gifts from God—and what do you do with a gift? You cherish it‚ grow it‚ and protect it. Yet‚ in a world marred by moral decay and power imbalances‚ the most vulnerable among us‚ children‚ often fall prey to the darkest desires of influential figures. The Jeffrey Epstein case‚ among others‚ lays bare a troubling pattern: a fascination among certain powerful individuals for underage boys and girls. This is not a new phenomenon; history is replete with instances where those in positions of power‚ be they priests or potentates‚ have succumbed to this heinous proclivity.  But why? The answer perhaps lies in the corrupting nature of power itself. As Lord Acton famously said‚ “Power tends to corrupt‚ and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In the case of the exploitation of children‚ power becomes a vehicle not just for corruption but for the perversion of the most sacred trust. Let us consider priests‚ traditionally seen as moral guides and protectors of the flock. When they succumb to such vile desires‚ it is not only a betrayal of their sacred duty but an affront to the very tenets of faith and morality they are meant to uphold. Similarly‚ when influential figures like Epstein and his band of unknown powerful figures‚ most of whom are men‚ engage in such acts‚ it reflects a gross abuse of power and privilege‚ a twisted assertion of dominance over the most defenseless. This reprehensible behavior is not just a violation of law but a moral abomination that should be met with the severest of punishments. In this context‚ the call for the death penalty for child predators might seem a fitting retribution. The argument is straightforward: Such an act is so fundamentally against the natural order‚ so damaging to the very fabric of society‚ and so irreparably harmful to the victims that only the most extreme form of punishment would suffice. As we grapple with these dark realities‚ we must remember that the true measure of a society is found in how it treats its most vulnerable. In safeguarding our children‚ in nurturing their growth and in fiercely defending their innocence‚ we uphold not just a legal duty but a moral imperative. For‚ in the words of Charles Dickens: “In the little world in which children have their existence‚ there is nothing so finely perceived and so finely felt as injustice.” Children‚ the purest embodiment of innocence‚ should be the cherished treasures of our society‚ protected from the snares of those who would do them harm. However‚ as cases like Epstein’s tragically illustrate‚ often the mighty have the most depraved of desires‚ exploiting the defenseless and leaving an indelible scar on the tapestry of humanity. Why do such abominations occur‚ especially among the powerful? The intoxicating nature of power distorts the moral compass‚ leading some to exploit the innocent in a perverse display of control. This is not only a breach of legal boundaries but‚ more critically‚ a profound moral failure. As Edmund Burke wisely noted‚ “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Thus‚ it becomes imperative for society to act decisively. The psychological and societal impact of these crimes is catastrophic. The betrayal of a child’s trust can fracture the foundation of their world‚ often leaving lifelong emotional and mental scars. Beyond the individual tragedy‚ such violations erode public trust in institutions and figures of authority‚ undermining the social fabric that binds communities. In facing this grim reality‚ our justice system must be unyielding in its pursuit of those who prey on children. While some advocate the ultimate punishment‚ the death penalty‚ we must tread cautiously. The pursuit of justice must be balanced with the principles of fairness and the potential for rehabilitation. As Alexander Pope eloquently put it‚ “To err is human‚ to forgive divine.” Our approach must reflect a balance between the gravity of the crime and the principles of a just and humane society. The solution lies not only in punishment but in prevention and education. It requires creating environments where children are informed‚ empowered‚ and encouraged to speak out. We must cultivate a culture that prioritizes the welfare and protection of children above all else. The exploitation of children by the powerful is a stark reminder of the moral and ethical failings that can permeate any society. Our response must be resolute‚ not only in punishing the guilty but in safeguarding the innocence of the young. Through vigilant protection‚ education‚ and moral guidance‚ we can strive to build a world where the innocence of childhood is not just a fleeting moment but a lasting legacy treasured and protected by all. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or stat The post Unforgivable Sin: On the Exploitation of Innocence appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Law-abiding Americans increasingly are convinced that their government views them as an enemy‚ perhaps even a “domestic terrorism threat.” A newly unearthed video may confirm those fears. Bureaucrats in numerous federal agencies apparently tag-teamed with the Southern Poverty Law Center‚ an organization that demonizes conservatives and Christians‚ including groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom and Moms for Liberty‚ in order to raise money and silence political opponents. The federal bureaucrats reached out to the SPLC‚ which conservatives criticize as a far-left smear factory‚ as they planned to combat “the domestic terrorism threat.” I’ve long raised the alarm about the SPLC‚ which gained its reputation by suing the Ku Klux Klan into bankruptcy and then weaponized that program against conservatives. Today‚ the center maintains a “hate map” plotting mainstream conservative and Christian groups alongside KKK chapters. It pressures the government to crack down on these groups and urges the charity and tech sectors to blacklist them. The Video In the fall of 2021 after President Joe Biden took office‚ SPLC President Margaret Huang bragged in a donor meeting that many agencies in Biden’s administration had approached the center to craft a domestic terrorism strategy. “I think there’s no question that we are unparalleled in our abilities to track and monitor the hate and extremist groups in the country‚ and I can tell you that we’ve had many agencies in the new Biden administration reaching out to solicit our expertise and our knowledge and information to help shape the policies that the new administration is adopting to counter the domestic terrorism threat‚” Huang said in a fundraising event video exclusively provided to The Daily Signal by an attendee who wishes to remain anonymous. This video should send shivers down Americans’ spines. If what Huang told donors is true‚ it proves what so many conservatives have suspected—their own government views them as a domestic terror threat. Branding Conservatism ‘Hate’ As I wrote in my book “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center‚” critics long have noted that the SPLC exaggerates the prevalence of hate with its “hate map‚” scaring donors into ponying up cash and smearing ideological opponents. In addition to truly vile groups such as the KKK‚ the SPLC puts nonprofit law firms that protect religious liberty‚ such as Alliance Defending Freedom‚ on the “hate map.” ADF has won numerous cases before the Supreme Court‚ most notably Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and 303 Creative v. Elenis‚ both cases involving Christians who faced government sanction for refusing to use their art to celebrate same-sex weddings. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s map also includes conservative Christian groups such as the Family Research Council‚ Liberty Counsel‚ and D. James Kennedy Ministries; Roman Catholic organizations such as the Ruth Institute and Remnant TV; and parental rights groups such as Moms for Liberty and Parents Defending Education. The SPLC brands conservative Christians “hateful” for opposing its LGBTQ agenda‚ and it brands parental rights groups “hateful” because they oppose its education agenda. The SPLC also puts immigration reform groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies‚ the Foundation on American Immigration Reform‚ and the Immigration Reform Law Institute on its “hate map.” The map also includes organizations that warn against the threat of radical Islam‚ such as the Center for Security Policy and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. These moves align with the Biden administration’s priorities on LGBTQ activism‚ racial lessons in schools‚ lax enforcement of immigration law‚ and overlooking the threat of radical Islam. They also align with Biden’s rhetoric about “MAGA extremism” that “threatens the very republic.” Indeed‚ the Biden administration has worked with the SPLC in the past few years. Biden’s History With the SPLC Biden and his team hosted SPLC leaders and staff at the White House at least 11 times since Jan. 20‚ 2021‚ and Biden nominated an SPLC attorney‚ Nancy Abudu‚ to a federal judgeship. Last year‚ the FBI’s Richmond office used the SPLC’s “hate group” list to target “radical-traditional Catholics” in a rightly infamous memo. According to the SPLC’s logic‚ the entire Roman Catholic Church arguably should be listed as a “hate group” because the SPLC cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church in branding the Ruth Institute a “hate group.” Just this week‚ the White House touted Vice President Kamala Harris‘ meeting “with voting rights leaders.” Among the leaders the White House highlighted was Seth Levi‚ the SPLC’s chief strategy officer. The SPLC decided to add parental rights groups to its “hate map” last June‚ two years after the Biden administration already had begun to target concerned parents. In 2021‚ the National School Boards Association sent Biden a letter comparing parents who protest school district policies to domestic terrorists and urging Biden to use the Patriot Act against these parents. Documents later revealed that the White House had worked with the school board group to draft the letter. The Justice Department issued a memo based on the letter‚ urging an investigation of parents. The school board association later apologized for the letter and the DOJ rescinded its memo‚ but the incident revealed Biden’s approach to concerned parents. Biden’s administration released a domestic terrorism strategy in June 2021‚ after consulting “extensively with a wide array of experts across the U.S. government as well as with leaders in Congress‚ state and local governments‚ academia‚ civil society‚ religious communities‚ and foreign governments.” According to Huang‚ the SPLC’s president‚ that consultation involved her organization. The Irony of Using the SPLC to Combat Terrorism The Biden administration use of the Southern Poverty Law Center to combat domestic terrorism is ironic‚ because the SPLC “hate map” inspired a terrorist attack in 2012‚ an SPLC lawyer faces domestic terrorism charges‚ and the SPLC long has covered for Antifa rioters who caused the most destructive riots in history in the summer of 2020. In the 2012 incident‚ a terrorist gunman used the SPLC’s “hate map” to target a conservative Christian nonprofit‚ Family Research Council‚ in Washington‚ D.C. The man aimed to shoot everyone in the building‚ and he would have succeeded were it not for a brave security guard who received permanent injuries in foiling the attempt. The SPLC condemned the attack‚ but has kept Family Research Council on its map ever since. Last March‚ an SPLC attorney was arrested at a riot in Atlanta involving Molotov cocktails‚ and he now faces domestic terrorism charges. The Southern Poverty Law Center has taken other key hits to its credibility. In 2018‚ the SPLC formally apologized to a Muslim reformer‚ Maajid Nawaz‚ who dared to criticize radical Islamist terrorism. The SPLC had branded him an “anti-Muslim extremist‚” and it shelled out $3.38 million to settle his defamation lawsuit. In 2019‚ the SPLC fired its cofounder and its president resigned amid a racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandal. During that scandal‚ a former employee came forward‚ saying the organization’s “hate” accusations are a “highly profitable scam.” After the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel on Oct. 7‚ the labor union that represents SPLC staff described Israel’s military response in Gaza as “the violent imperialist desecreation of a people—the beginnings of a genocide.” Other SPLC staff appeared to help organize a massive anti-Israel protest in Washington‚ D.C.‚ and two senior staff members signed a statement condemning Israel as an “apartheid state” and Israel’s war in Hamas-ruled Gaza as an attempted genocide. Despite these and other scandals‚ many on the Left have continued to praise the SPLC and to use it as a weapon to silence conservative opponents. When Rep. Mike Johnson‚ R-La.‚ became speaker of the House‚ leftist groups cited the SPLC to attack Johnson over his history at Alliance Defending Freedom. Companies such as Amazon‚ Eventbrite‚ and Vimeo have used the SPLC to exclude conservative groups. Congressional Republicans and organizations such as The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project have demanded answers from the Biden administration about how closely it worked with the SPLC on targeting parents and “radical traditional Catholics.” Now‚ Huang’s comments likely will embolden those efforts. (The Daily Signal is The Heritage Foundation’s news outlet.) The FBI‚ which appears in the Biden strategy document on domestic terrorism‚ told The Daily Signal‚ “We don’t have any comment on specific remarks‚ and as this was a White House product we refer you to the White House for who they may have engaged in the process.” The bureau neither confirmed nor denied Huang’s suggestion that it reached out to the SPLC for advice. The Defense Department‚ the Justice Department‚ the Department of Homeland Security‚ and the State Department—all mentioned in the Biden administration’s strategy document on domestic terrorism —did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment for this article. Neither the White House nor the SPLC responded to a request for comment. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.   The post EXCLUSIVE: Biden Admin Approached Anti-Christian SPLC to ‘Help Shape’ Policies to Counter ‘Domestic Terrorism Threat’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The authorities in the UK are “thinking of the children” – but really‚ of online censorship‚ say critics – and in doing so‚ thanks to Online Safety Act‚ are dipping their toes into the long since established in the US “revolving door” policy. In the UK there is evidence of this flow going in one direction – from private Big Tech corporations to government jobs. Reports say that in order to implement the controversial law that considerably restricts online speech‚ the regulator tasked with this‚ Ofcom‚ has employed as many as some 350 new staff – those from tech giants among them. Former senior Microsoft‚ Google‚ and Meta employees are now working for Ofcom – and a further 100 jobs will be created in order to make sure the Online Safety Act is enforced. Those who pushed its adoption for a long time and continue to justify it‚ as well as the new‚ ex Big Tech hires‚ like to frame and sell the legislation as necessary in order to protect children’s well-being online. However‚ this is also the easiest way to protect themselves from criticism‚ as few people are willing to argue against a case positioned in this way. However‚ many still have and do‚ and the gist of their opposition to the act and nebulous terms like “legal but harmful content” that must be suppressed is that one of the provisions – forcing messaging apps to scan user content (with child sexual abuse always first mentioned as a target – but not the only one) means a serious threat to encryption and therefore‚ online safety of everyone‚ including children. But when big legacy media outlets are now reporting about the law‚ and the Ofcom hiring policy that has just come to light‚ they too like to focus on just the part of the Online Safety Act that its creators say is there for the sake of the children. If they mention any “critics” – it’s to‚ bizarrely‚ like the FT has done‚ say that despite the move to bring in hundreds of new people‚ Ofcom will still be “stretched” – in‚ that is‚ its effort to control and censor at such a large scale. The post UK Communications Regulator Forms 350-Person Team to Enforce UK’s New Online Censorship Law appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The social media platform X publicized on Wednesday that it is strategically restricting access to certain accounts that critique Turkish President Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan. This decision echoes earlier restrictions implemented before the general elections in May‚ in accordance with controversial censorship laws. Under current scrutiny are 12 accounts overseen by Kurdish businessman Muhammed Yakut or connected fan accounts disseminating his videos. Yakut‚ originating from Diyarbakır province in southeastern Turkey‚ previously utilized YouTube to expose alleged ties between key figures in the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and questionable business practices as well as a murky historical coup attempt on July 15‚ 2016. Yakut’s YouTube channel was incapacitated following a court order just before Turkey’s elections in May. The actions taken by X‚ previously known as Twitter‚ per their press release‚ aim to maintain compliance with a recent court order issued by the Ankara 9th Criminal Court of Peace to hinder access to 210 posts and profile accounts. Platforms including Instagram and YouTube‚ in addition to X‚ are affected by this. Noncompliance could lead to X getting blocked in Turkey. Amidst the crackdown‚ X‚ despite its contentious decision‚ says it strives to uphold freedom of speech with its platform. X posted: “Ahead of Turkish local elections on March 31‚ the Turkish Government has made clear to us that X is the only social media service not complying in full with a recent court order. “In order to prevent the X service being blocked we have taken action on twelve accounts and 15 Tweets identified by court order.” The post X Restricts Access to Accounts Criticizing Turkey’s President ErdoÄŸan After Government Orders appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

'Experts' Declare 'Misinformation' Greatest Threat in the World

Trump's Financial Fraud Trial Comes to a Close

In Concordia‚ Kansas‚ a black Labrador named Bo‚ known for his adventurous spirit‚ gave his family a bit of a scare. Bo‚ who loves exploring the open fields near his home‚ went missing during a routine potty break. His family‚ the Kriers‚ were understandably worried. Laura Krier‚ Bo’s human mom‚ shared with The Dodo‚ “We... The post Man spots runaway dog in field and chuckles seeing the 2 ‘friends’ he’s bringing home appeared first on Animal Channel.

GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy accused Google-owned YouTube of election interference by censoring the account of one of his recent interviewers. Influencer Shaneyyricch (Shane Ginsburg) posted on X (formerly Twitter) Jan. 9 that his channel had been banned from YouTube on the very same day his view-grabbing interview of Ramaswamy was posted. Subsequently‚ Ramaswamy slammed the Google-owned platform’s decision in an X post accusing Google of attempting “to rig this election.” As Ramaswamy himself noted‚ MRC Free Speech America research previously found he was the most censored presidential candidate in the 2024 race. Ginsburg stated in the X post that his interview of Ramaswamy had millions of views before his channel was abruptly terminated. “In the past 3 months I’ve taken this channel from 0 to 150‚000 subs and 185 million views‚” Ginsburg wrote. “This is blat[a]nt censorship in front of our eyes. I had zero strikes on this channel and was given no reason for the ban.” He included an apparent screenshot of YouTube’s message‚ which merely claimed “severe or repeated violations of our Community Guidelines.” No specific examples were cited in YouTube’s notice. Ramaswamy quoted Ginsburg’s post and added his own rebuke: “If Google is going to rig this election‚ just end the charade &; say so. That seems to be the message they’re sending.” In another post about the YouTube ban‚ Ramaswamy declared sarcastically‚ “Big Tech censorship to rig an election…who would have ever imagined.” While the exact content violation is unknown‚ The Daily Dot noted that the interview included controversial discussions‚ which could trigger leftists. For instance‚ Ramaswamy reportedly called for an end to birthright citizenship‚ insisted on only paper ballots for voting‚ and vowed to fire most of “the deep state‚” or the entrenched federal bureaucracy. Ginsburg later posted footage of his interview with Ramaswamy on X. Conservatives are under attack. Contact YouTube here 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 using CensorTrack’s contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Sunny Hostin’s racist and ageist attacks against former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley have been well-documented. But during the Thursday edition of ABC’s The View‚ she seemed to dabble in sexism as well‚ as she suggested that the only reason people‚ “especially women‚” supported her was because she was a woman. She even bizarrely announced: “Last I checked Nikki Haley has [a vagina].” It was just one of the few moments of panic the cast had about the Democratic Party’s prospects in 2024. While they were discussing the previous night’s GOP presidential primary debate in Iowa‚ Hostin went on a rant accusing Haley’s supporters of somehow being hypocrites. She asserted‚ without evidence‚ that they supported the Ambassador because she was a woman and whined that they didn’t support Hillary Clinton for the same reason. “I don't understand why everyone is backing Nikki Haley‚ especially women‚” she kvetched. She then suggested that she personally “checked” on Haley’s biological status of being a woman. “I remember when Hillary Clinton was running‚ there was a lot of talk about ‘I don't vote for someone just because she has a vagina.’ Well‚ last I checked Nikki Haley has one too‚” she proclaimed with no explanation. Co-host Joy Behar asked the question that was likely on the minds of most viewers: “What do you mean‚ the last you checked?!” “Sunny is full of surprises‚” she quipped.     Self-described “conservative” co-host and Haley supporter‚ Alyssa Farah Griffin pushed back on Hostin’s suggestion that Haley supporters only backed her because she’s a woman. Hostin ridiculously asserted that it was Republicans‚ not Democrats‚ who played to identity politics like that: FARAH GRIFFIN: But I haven’t heard a single person – real quick – say they were supporting her because she was a woman. We don't do identify politics as much. HOSTIN: Oh‚ yes you do. FARAH GRIFFIN: I don’t. I literally never said it’s because she’s a woman. HOSTIN: Yeah‚ but your party does. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg was in a full-blown panic that former President Trump could be elected again because of women who say: “I'll vote like my husband votes.” “We've seen this!" she warned‚ insisting people were going to die. "This is our lives we're talking about! This is‚ like‚ for real.” “I mean‚ the fact that we’re even talking about putting a psychopathic man into the Oval Office is making me nuts! I can't even believe this is happening in my lifetime‚” a flabbergasted Behar exclaimed. As the conversation weaved into fretting about alternate/third-party candidates‚ Farah Griffin pointed out the obvious: “If we’re risking [Biden] losing to [Trump] it’s because the Democrats aren't putting up someone could beat a 91-times indicted candidate!” Goldberg then blamed “the media” for “the blackout on any other candidate but the ones that they want to see.”   Alyssa Farah Griffin points out that if they're worried about a third-party candidate hurting Biden‚ that means Dems didn't put up a good candidate. Whoopi blames "the media" for not allowing other Dems to have the spotlight‚ but The View has CONDEMNED every other candidate. pic.twitter.com/iTActNVm6D — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 11‚ 2024   If only Goldberg had a national TV show where she could invite the other Democratic candidates on to give them exposure. Oh‚ that’s right‚ The View condemned them all. In October‚ the cast denounced Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips’ challenge to Biden‚ suggesting he has “a lot” of “arrogance” to take on Biden‚ who Goldberg called the “GOAT” (the greatest of all time). The cast had also insanely claimed Democrats had never backed their incumbent presidential candidate before Biden. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View January 11‚ 2024 11:05:07 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: I'm not going to question his‚ you know‚ his intentions or anything like that. But I will say this‚ I don't understand why everyone is backing Nikki Haley especially women. I remember when Hillary Clinton was running‚ there was a lot of talk about ‘I don't vote for someone just because she has a vagina.’ Well‚ last I checked Nikki Haley has one too. JOY BEHAR: What do you mean‚ the last you checked?! [Laughter] HOSTIN: Let me just finish. So‚ and the thing is‚ Nikki Haley -- BEHAR: Sunny is full of surprises‚ you know. HOSTIN: Nikki Haley has said that she will sign a national ban‚ a federal ban for – against abortion. Even though – And I think she's saying that to sort of talk -- talk to the MAGA base and bottom-line she knows that legislation won't pass. One other thing -- ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But I haven’t heard a single person – real quick – say they were supporting her because she was a woman. We don't do identify politics as much. HOSTIN: Oh‚ yes you do. FARAH GRIFFIN: I don’t. I literally never said it’s because she’s a woman. HOSTIN: Yeah‚ but your party does. (…) 11:10:52 a.m. GOLDBERG: No one has voted. No one is uninformed about Biden. They know about Biden. They know about bonehead. We don't know -- we don't know what people are going to do. People have from now until then to say‚ on Monday they'll say‚ well‚ I'm going to do this and Tuesday they say‚ no‚ no‚ Wednesday‚ I'll vote like my husband votes or they'll say -- We've seen this. We've seen this. We don't know‚ and that's part of what’s fueling all of this because we want it to be over and it's not going to be and it shouldn't be over like that. BEHAR: Another year of this‚ I can't take it. GOLDBERG: It's another year of this and you have to take it. BEHAR: I need a spa treatment. FARAH GRIFFIN: 11 Months. 11 Months. GOLDBERG: You need to take it because this is our lives we're talking. This is‚ like‚ for real. BEHAR: I mean‚ the fact that we’re even talking about putting a psychopathic man into the Oval Office is making me nuts! I can't even believe this is happening in my lifetime‚ frankly! (…) 11:11:56 a.m. Eastern FARAH GRIFFIN: If we’re risking him losing to [Trump] it’s because the Democrats aren't putting up someone could beat a 91-times indicted candidate! GOLDBERG: Wait a minute. I'm sorry. This is already – We already know the direction we're going in. Everybody has already said this is the direct. Even if there was another candidate you couldn't get them in there because no one would talk about them. Let's talk about the media and the blackout on any other candidate but the ones that they want to see. So it's not that the people are doing this. This is what we're being shown. (…)