was successfully added to your cart.

Steve Bannon agrees to speak at UC Berkeley free speech week

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is expected to speak alongside conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

Steve Bannon agrees to speak at UC Berkeley ‘free speech’ week

FILE – In this April 29, 2017, file photo, Steve Bannon, chief White House strategist to President Donald Trump, tours The AMES Companies, Inc., with the president in Harrisburg, Pa. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

Will Steve Bannon really show up to speak later this month at UC Berkeley?

In what’s becoming a new tradition at the famously liberal school, a conservative student group on Tuesday insisted it’s bringing the ousted White House chief strategist to campus for a week of events including conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

But UC Berkeley officials said the group still hasn’t satisfied a number or requirements to host the event, setting off another showdown over whether Berkeley will roll out the welcome mat for controversial speakers. So far, the university says, the group hasn’t paid rental fees for venues or signed contracts, and none of the possible speakers have discussed security arrangements with the school.

That didn’t stop Bryce Kasamoto, a senior and spokesman for the student group Berkeley Patriot, from confirming Bannon’s appearance on Tuesday in a text message to this news organization: “I can confirm that Steve Bannon will be speaking at Free Speech Week,” he wrote.

Yiannopoulos also posted a video entitled “Bannon Infiltrates Berkeley” on his website Tuesday.

The group said it will host the controversial speakers during what it is billing “Free Speech Week” beginning Sept. 24. The long-rumored appearances by Yiannopoulos and Bannon are sure to heighten tensions at the campus known as the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement as UC officials struggle to balance public safety with free speech rights.

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter has also accepted an invitation to participate, Kasamoto said, but he declined to confirm her appearance because the group is still working out “logistics and details.”

Coulter was slated to speak at the school in April at the invitation of the Berkeley College Republicans, but her appearance was canceled after the school said it could not guarantee her safety and security on the date the group wanted. The controversy sparked an uproar from conservatives, with conservative student groups ultimately filing a lawsuit against the university for violating their right to free speech.

In a statement Tuesday, UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof indicated that if the student group fails to meet looming deadlines, the university may again halt the speeches because of security concerns.

“The University cannot yet confirm exactly when or if they will be here, nor can it confirm a list of speakers,” he said. “We have repeatedly asked representatives of the Berkeley Patriot to confirm that contracts have been completed between the student organization and each of these speakers; to date they have not.”

“While campus officials and venue managers are working diligently to assist the Berkeley Patriot group with its proposed events, the group’s failure to meet important deadlines is making it increasingly difficult to ensure a safe and secure program,” he continued.

The latest development comes as UC Berkeley is gearing up to host the conservative commentator Ben Shapiro this Thursday, an event the school will use as a test run for its security plan ahead of the “Free Speech Week.”

In February, a Yiannopoulos speech was canceled amid security concerns when demonstrations turned violent, prompting President Trump to tweet his outrage.

Yiannopoulos return to campus, along with Bannon and possibly Coulter, is sure to draw protests and national media attention as the school looks to bat back accusations it has limited conservative free speech in recent months.

UC officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment about what the events will cost or how officials will handle security. But Shapiro’s talk, a much smaller-scale operation, is expected to cost at least six figures alone, Mogulof has said.

Source:  MercuryNews.  We have added section headings, information, and/or comments for clarity.

Media Won’t Talk About Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez Corruption Trial

Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez upcoming corruption trial has gotten very little attention from members of the media. When they do talk about it, they like to leave out the fact he’s a Democrat.

Media Won’t Talk About Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez Corruption Trial

On Sunday, The New York Times published a 1,288-word article about the trial, which begins Wednesday, without once mentioning Menendez’s political party affiliation. The newspaper of record then stealth-edited the piece hours later. The updated version identifies the New Jersey senator once in the fourth paragraph as a Democrat.

Media Won’t Talk About Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez Corruption Trial

Media Won’t Talk About Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez Corruption Trial

Menendez faces 12 counts of corruption charges, including several bribery and fraud charges. Prosecutors say Menendez took bribes from Dr. Salomon Melgen — a wealthy doctor who was convicted of Medicare fraud earlier this year — throughout his tenure as a U.S. senator. E-mail exchanges between the two men reportedly show that Menendez frequently travelled in Melgen’s private plane to the Dominican Republic for free. In exchange, the Democratic senator reportedly lobbied on behalf of the doctor to government agencies and bureaucrats to settle a $9 million billing dispute between the eye-doctor and the government, among other things.

“Although Menendez did not pay Melgen back for the lavish gifts in money, he did pay him back using the currency of his Senate office to take official action to benefit the South Florida doctor,” prosecutors said, according to Politico

As columnist Phil Kerpen pointed out via Twitter last week, the news arms of the big three networks hadn’t mentioned Menendez by name in months. And the last time they did, it wasn’t even about the criminal case, according to Media Research Center.

Media Won’t Talk About Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez Corruption Trial

Last Friday, a U.S. district court judge denied Bob Menendez request to arrange trial dates around his schedule as a senator so he could vote on legislation in Washington DC. Yet that news garnered little media attention among the cable news networks.

On MSNBC, “Morning Joe” was the only show to talk about Bob Menendez upcoming trial at all this past week, when the hosts interviewed New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and asked him a question about the case.

Throughout the months of August and September, MSNBC has covered Mendez’s trial a total of four times on air. CNN, HLN, and CNBC have not covered it at all on air. By contrast, Fox News and Fox Business have discussed Menendez’s trial at least 18 times throughout the month of August and September.

If Bob Menendez is convicted, Christie could chose a Republican to fill the vacant Senate seat, strengthening the GOP’s thin majority in the U.S. Senate.

Source:  TheFederalist.  We have added section headings, information, and/or comments for clarity.

How My Parents Stayed Together For 50 Years And Found Faith After Labor Camp

Given what they had to go through in life, including but not limited to labor camp, it’s remarkable my parents are here today, together, to celebrate this important milestone.

How My Parents Stayed Together For 50 Years And Found Faith After Labor Camp

My parents recently celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. It’s an amazing achievement under any normal circumstances. But given what they had to go through in life, it’s remarkable they’re here today, together, to celebrate this important milestone.

Both of my parents were born in China before 1949, and their fate was deeply intertwined with what China had become since. My father is a country boy from Northern China, while my mother is a city girl from Central China. Under Mao’s communist regime, Chinese youth didn’t have any say in where they were to live or for whom they were to work. Government officials and school administrators dictated those decisions through central planning.

So upon their graduation, my parents were told (separately, of course) they needed to relocate to a remote town deep in Southwest China. They wouldn’t dare to say no. Worrying about losing food rations forced many young people like my parents to accept any form of employment anywhere the government assigned them.

Marrying in the Time of the Cultural Revolution

It was at this small town far from home where my parents met. My father first noticed my mother when she was talking to a patient at the front gate of a small clinic. My father told me later that it was my mother’s long, silky black hair that first caught his attention. My parents quickly fell in love and married a year later. Their wedding ceremony consisted of bowing to a portrait of Chairman Mao.

They received a few books by Mao as wedding presents. One of their married friends lent them half of her room for a honeymoon suite. It was only big enough to put a twin bed and two suitcases. My father helped my mother put her bedding right next to his on the small twin bed. They used one of their suitcases as a table and the other as a nightstand. That’s all there was for setting up their first home.

My parents married around the same time that Mao started his notorious Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution brought ordinary people nothing but suffering. There was a shortage of everything: food, cooking oil, cloth, bicycles. All people were classified into various social classes. The good (red) social classes included Communist Party members, soldiers, poor farmers, and factory workers. The bad (black) social classes included landlords, rich peasants, and counter-revolutionaries. Children inherited the class labels of their fathers.

Sent to a Labor Camp

In this time the rule of law was suspended indefinitely. Every organization was given a quota from higher-ups to uncover a certain number of black-class people within. There was no due process, no trial. Initially, my parents thought they would be safe since they had done nothing wrong and both grew up very poor. Yet innocence was not a guarantee of survival. Because my father’s grandfather was classified as a landowner, a category of the “black class,” the party secretary of my father’s work unit announced my dad was a hidden “black class” member. Soon my father was arrested and put into a re-education labor camp.

After my father was arrested, the Communist Party secretary from my dad’s work unit tried to coerce my mother into divorcing my father. She refused because she believed in my father. “My husband is a good and honorable man,” she told the party secretary. He threatened her, advising her to think about it again, because she and her kids would suffer if she remained married to a “black class” member.

My mother was scared, but never lost her faith in my father even after he urged her to divorce him. My father spent three years in the labor camp. He was only allowed to have family visit once every six months. His salary was suspended. My mother, sister, and brother lived on my mother’s salary alone, which was about five dollars per month.

But my mother always made sure my sister and brother put on their best clothes to visit my father. She knew my father didn’t have enough to eat inside the labor camp. Guards often took the food rations meant for the inmates for their own consumption. My mother always tried to save whatever food she could get and bring it to my father.

In the meantime, she never gave up fighting for my father’s release. Her persistence finally paid off, and my father was released in 1973. He was very fortunate. Many people didn’t survive the labor camp —the Chinese gulags—at all. My father gave all the credit to my mother. “If not for her, I would have languished in the labor camp like many others,” he told me later.

From Relief to Another Tragedy

After his release, our family life got back to normal and I became the newest addition. However, life likes to make unexpected twists when one is least prepared. On a hot summer day, I was waiting for my father to pick me up at the kindergarten. He never showed up.

Later, I found out that a truck had made a sudden turn, crashed into his bike, and ran over his right leg. He suffered a great deal of blood loss, and there were so many pieces of fractured bones, the doctor told my mother the only way to save him was to amputate his injured leg. But my mother was determined to find a different way. My father had faith in her reasoning and opted for an alternative treatment plan. My mother found an old Chinese bone-setting doctor who was willing to give it a try. He prescribed a lot of herbal medicines and gave my father numerous acupuncture treatments.

My mother’s strong will held our family together. She gathered us around her and told us to keep our chins up, because daddy would walk tall again. Her faith in my father was proven to be right again. After two long years of an excruciating treatment and rehabilitation process, my father learned to walk on his own once more.

A Life-Changing Visit to the United States

Fast-forward to the present day. I live in the United States now. A couple of years ago, when my parents were visiting me from China, my Chinese neighbor invited them to attend a church service that was performed in Chinese. It was the very first time that my parents were exposed to Christianity because China’s Communist regime is atheist and had long banned all forms of religious teachings and practices for several decades until 1980.

Although there’s increasing tolerance of some forms of religions, the Chinese government still has a tight control on all religious-related matters. Given that my parents have spent most of their lives in such an environment, I thought the novelty of attending church services in the United States would quickly wear off. But I was wrong.

My parents absorbed Christian teachings like sponges, without the slightest reservation. They went to church every Sunday during their visit. A few months later, before they went back to China, they were baptized together. Their testimony at their baptism moved many churchgoers including myself to tears. They explained that before they found God, they hadn’t really lived, but merely survived. Now they found God, they finally saw the light for the first time. They found new meanings in love, marriage, family, this earthly life, and eternity.

For most of their lives, my parents’ love and faith in each other have held their marriage and our family together, no matter what challenges and obstacles life presents. In their golden years, they found the light and put their faith in God. I thank God every day for my parents, for who they are and what they have become. They’re a true inspiration in my life. As they celebrate their 50-year wedding anniversary, all I can say is congratulations, mom and dad! And God bless!

Helen Raleigh is a senior contributor to The Federalist. An immigrant from China, she is the owner of Red Meadow Advisors, LLC, and an immigration policy fellow at the Centennial Institute in Colorado. She is the author of several books, including “Confucius Never Said” and “The Broken Welcome Mat.”

Source:  TheFederalist.  We have added section headings, information, and/or comments for clarity.

The 15 Biggest Movie Bombs Of Summer 2017

Summer 2017

Summer 2017 overall was a dismal session for Hollywood, with the total box office nearly 16 percent lower than the previous year.

The 15 Biggest Movie Bombs Of Summer 2017

Most outlets cover Hollywood’s massive performers: “Wonder Woman” made $400 million! “Fate of the Furious” cleared more than $1 billion globally!” Then there is me. I trend towards Hollywood’s low-quality retrograde fare, particularly those titles that failed to deliver the entertainment. Thus, at the end of the blockbuster season I look at the titles that made an impact — in the form of a crater.

Summer is when studios make bank. It is the season when careers are made, budgets are broken, and executives get bonused into buying diamond-encrusted padlocks to affix on the gates of the public access steps to the beach on their Malibu property. Well, most years, anyway.

 Summer 2017 overall was a dismal session, with the total box office nearly 16 percent lower than the previous year. To give one example of the futility: summer 2017 broke the record for the worst opening by a movie in 4,000 theaters—three separate times! Studios released tentpole titles week after week, which depleted their success rates as not too many titles had room to flex muscles. The later stages of the calendar were filled with middling titles when a blockbuster would not only rule the theater but draw in audiences, raising the ticket-buying tide.

Numerous factors went into numbering this box-office fail list. Beyond mere performances I used other metrics like overall quality, expectations, budgets, and star power. But for the most part, this is about celebrating general failure. Pop yourself up a box of burnt popcorn, pour a 64-ounce cup of flat soda, and let’s tear into the failures from theaters summer 2017.

15. ‘Wish Upon’

This widely ignored horror offering failed to find an audience in a summer frame with no fright-filled competition and a rather receptive audience. (The sequel to “Annabelle” did robust business.) Despite that favorable atmosphere, this film lacked atmospherics, as it recycled a familiar horror trope for the teen audience. Expected to open in the double-digit range, it struggled to make half of that mark, debuting as the No. 7 film opening weekend and soon as forgotten as a fever dream.

14. ‘Rough Night’

This was an obvious attempt to come up with a female version of “The Hangover” (that ploy always works!). The story was a bachelorette party that goes sideways, and best you can say was at least it was ambitious. Scarlett Johansson toplined the cast, along with Kate McKinnon offering a horrid Australian accent. The ladies had to deal with a male stripper who died and their night descended into scenes of mayhem. Summer 2017 was bad for comedies, and this was emblematic of that hostility, as it suffered a fate worse than its stripper had.

13. ‘Snatched’

Following the breakout success of “Trainwreck,” Amy Schumer made her next attempt at theatrical dominance, but was dashed on the rocks of the comedy-killing reef in this summer 2017. Critics commented that while she teamed well with Goldie Hawn the material was weak. The issue here? Schumer had written the script. While posturing as a media darling of the Left, critics rewarded Amy with scorn for insensitive portrayals of foreign people. Audiences did not snatch up tickets to this in appreciable amounts.

12. ‘The Circle’

I’m sure most are scratching their heads trying to even remember this title. What if I tell you it starred Tom Hanks and Emma Watson, and released in more than 3,000 theaters? Based on the Dave Eggers novel, this technological thriller went nowhere. It debuted with less than $10 million and deleted audiences along the way, barely earning $20 million at the end. On its opening weekend it finished behind a Latino comedy and an Indian Bollywood sequel, of all things.

11. ‘The House’

Despite saturation advertising, here was another comedy audiences condemned. Will Ferrell and Amy Poehler starred in this romp about a middle-aged couple who chose to pay for their daughter’s college tuition by converting their home into an unlicensed casino. It was trounced by the animated “Despicable Me 3” and the respected action title “Baby Driver.” It was also the lowest debut of Ferrell’s career in a lead role. You can now set the roof on fire—literally.

10. ‘Transformers: The Last Knight’

I know calling a “Transformers” film low-quality is not a risky stance. However, within that robotic universe “Last Knight” is noticeably the worst. These films are infamous for being loud and flashy content-free fare, and audiences have finally tired of them. Falling well short of $200 million in its run, this debuted with a five-day total of less than the four previous releases’ three-day openings. The mitigating factor: overseas this was popular enough to push it to a $600 million global total.

9. ‘Baywatch’

Following the established formula of modern TV adaptations—dispatching traditional elements; snarky variation on the theme; perfunctory cameos—this was yet another comedy that just did not click with anyone. Dwayne Johnson delivered his usual affable performance, but the material did not hold up. It was a constant gag about lifeguards investigating crimes, but the whole enterprise failed to move, like it was swimming through a large patch of seaweed. There was hope European audiences might float the film, but even in Hasselhoff-besotted Germany they stayed out of the water.

8. ‘Cars 3’

Already regarded as the lesser franchise in the glowing Pixar Studios stable, this unneeded third visit to the racetrack met a lowered audience octane. While it debuted at No.  1 with just over $50 million, it soon sputtered in a crowded field and was lost in traffic. For a Pixar release to fail to reach the $150 million mark is notable, and of all of the Pixar titles only one—“The Good Dinosaur”—has a lower box-office take. But I doubt Disney/Pixar even noticed; the product toy line is a huge money-maker.

7. ‘The Mummy’

Universal kicked off its “Dark Universe,” a series of movies based on the monster characters in its vaults. Tom Cruise headlined this CGI-choked affair that was wildly overshadowed by the excitement over “Wonder Woman.” Universal gave Cruise complete control over the script, editing, post-production, and even power to overrule the director. The result did not ignite theaters in what was meant to be a highly touted franchise launch. The overseas returns, while more vigorous, were not enough to keep the studio from losing near $100 million on this release.

6. ‘The Emoji Movie’

While watching a different cinematic disaster this winter, I was bemusedly exposed to the trailer for this fiasco. The crowning touch of famed British thespian Patrick Stewart lending his voice to anthropomorphic fecal matter sums it all up. This film was scorched by critics (a sceptic 8 percent on Rotten Tomatoes) and even audiences graded it low. The only surprise is that somehow it found enough kids to force parents into taking them and earned a higher than expected $70 million. (How?)

5. ‘Alien: Covenant’

The attempt to reboot this franchise has become something of a fraught enterprise for 20th Century Fox. After “Prometheus” was a very qualified success, this follow-up was not regarded at all. Up against paltry competition it still under-delivered, failing to even reach the lowered goal of $40 million on its opening weekend. It suffered a stark 71 percent drop in its second week, and by week three it dropped more than 1,100 screens, failing to even achieve $75 million in total. In theory director Ridley Scott still has two planned follow-up titles in this series, which may now be in question.

4. ‘The Dark Tower’

A long-in-the works project, this Stephen King adaptation bounced around different studios, went through numerous director changes, and had multiple scripts written. Sony ended up with Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey in a severely cut-down story that should have been fleshed out over multiple films. The fans who long anticipated this arrival stayed away, and even with a modest budget of $60 million the studio lost money on this venture.

3. ‘The Nut Job 2: Nutty By Nature’

The original “Nut Job” was a modest qualified success, but far from an animated classic to be remembered for generations. Open Road Films had a small budget and earned enough in returns during the dumping-ground release schedule in January to justify a sequel.

Then they severely miscalculated. Sensing a lull in the competition, the distributor felt they had a chance at glory, and rolled out their sequel in a saturation release in late summer 2017, expecting to draw kids with limited viewing options. Instead the title shattered the record for worst performance of a film released in more than 4,000 screens. The opening weekend was a single-digit disaster, barely earning above $8 million.

2. ‘King Arthur: Legend of the Sword’

Guy Ritchie decided to infuse the Arthurian legend with his stylized film-making. Curiously, he elected to topline the effort with American actor Charlie Hunnan. It was a frenetic exercise with obviously computer-generated locales and some contemporary politics mixed in (Brexit commentary for the loss!).

Sporting a massive studio budget of $175 million and a significant marketing spend, the projections for its debut were scaled down to an embarrassing $25 million, and it then managed to miss that mark by $10 million. The plan was for a six-movie franchise of this tale. I’d wager that has been scrapped, as the British director failed to draw profits from the stone.

1. ‘Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets’

That obtuse title was only the beginning of the challenges for this epic sci-fi feature that became an epic failure. French Director Luc Besson had long wanted to produce this space opera property after his successful film “The Fifth Element.” That was back in 1997. The source material is both dated and unknown; it is based on a French comic book Besson read while growing up.

Even with dazzling special effects, there was little interest in this sprawling affair, Estimates on the production costs range from $175-200 million. Factoring promotional costs, this needed to gross around $500 million before realizing a profit. Worldwide it made about 35 percent of that stratospheric goal.

Source: TheFederalist.  We have added section headings, information, and/or comments for clarity.

Poll: Virginia residents prioritize safe spaces over free speech on campus

According a recent poll administered in Virginia, half of Virginia residents are more concerned about proper safe spaces than the issue of free speech.

Poll: Virginia residents prioritize safe spaces over free speech on campus

Virginia residents would rather give up free speech than safe spaces.

Virginia Commonwealth University’s Office of Public Policy Outreach, which conducted the poll over the summer, found that 50 percent of Virginians supported “protecting everyone on campus from discrimination, even if it means there are negative consequences for voicing one’s opinions.”

Conversely, 40 percent of those polled said they felt that unlimited freedom of speech was more important than protecting students from discrimination. Ten percent of those polled were undecided.

“University administrators frequently face difficult tradeoffs, especially as we consider the conte

xt of controversial demonstrations on or near college campuses,” said the Public Policy Outreach director, Dr. Robyn McDougle.

“On one hand, universities have long traditions of robust debate and free speech, but increasingly administrators are called on to ensure zones of safety from ongoing discrimination for students and other members of campus communities,” said McDougle. “These results show Virginians are divided over which to emphasize, with a very narrow majority believing that protection from discrimination should receive a higher emphasis than unlimited expression.”

Among registered Democrats polled, 57 percent believed safe spaces and preventing discrimination should be more important than unlimited free speech, while only 40 percent of Republicans agreed.

Virginia Secretary of Education Dietra Trent said that while free speech was important, protecting students from harm should also be a top priority.

“Robust debate is the hallmark of an effective education, but we must be mindful of any situation that threatens physical safety on our campuses,” Trent said. “Virginia’s schools can, must, and do provide a safe space for both vulnerable students and dissenting ideas.”

The poll was conducted between July 17-25 by landline and cellphone and surveyed 806 adults with a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points.

Source:  TheBlaze.  We have added section headings, information, and/or comments for clarity.

Christian Leftist Zack Hunt’s Mindless Religious War Against Donald Trump

Zack Hunt is the Friar Tuck of his corner of the left-wing #Resistance™, a bona fide theologian lending ‘Christian’ cover to what would otherwise typically be a godless movement.

Christian Leftist Zack Hunt’s Mindless Religious War Against Donald Trump

Using some weird combination of a self-serving misinterpretation of Matthew 12:30 and the classic “No True Scotsman” fallacy, to some you can’t be a “real” Christian unless you’re adamantly against President Trump and his agenda.

Enter Zack Hunt, a Yale Divinity School-educated writer, speaker, and blogger who writes about “the intersection of faith and politics” for well-known Christian websites like Christianity Today, Red Letter Christians, and Ministry Matters. His writing has also been picked up by the hyper-liberal HuffPost, which likely says more about Hunt’s political leanings.

Although I could cite plenty of leftist Christian thinkers, Hunt is the perfect case study for the Christian liberal mindset regarding President Trump. He’s a fine writer and a clear, if extremely biased, thinker whose rise in the left-wing blogosphere has coincided with Trump’s political success. If Michael Moore is the Robin Hood and Maxine Waters is the patron saint, Hunt is at least the Friar Tuck of his own ever-growing corner of the left-wing #Resistance™, a theologian lending “Christian” cover to what would otherwise typically be a godless movement.

The Bible Perfectly Fits My Politics

While most liberals probably wouldn’t know a Bible from a copy of “Das Kapital,” liberal anti-Trump theologians like Hunt don’t hesitate to use it as a bludgeon against conservatives, ignoring its inconvenient truths and twisting the words of Jesus to portray the Son of God as some sort of ’60s-era hippie whose primary goal, if he walked the earth today, would be to keep Obamacare and fill Europe and America with as many Muslim refugees as possible.

It’s called “proof-texting” and everyone does it to some degree, except Hunt and others like him take it to another level. If you selected certain “red-letter” words of Jesus, then take them exactly at face value, ignoring common sense and the rest of the Bible, maybe you’ll get the “liberal” Jesus Hunt envisions, but as the HuffPo writer would himself say, conservatives see an entirely different lord and savior.

Of course, legitimate disagreements about the practical implications of Jesus’s teachings are fine, but Hunt also uses his platform to excoriate Christian leaders who have supported President Trump, and much of his vitriol of late has been directed at Liberty University’s Jerry Falwell Jr.

In 2015, after Falwell Jr. famously dared to suggest to his student body that a concealed-carry permit-holder might stop an Islamic terrorist attack before it starts, Hunt wrote, “Jerry Falwell Jr. can carry a gun into sacred space and call for the death of his enemies even though Jesus unequivocally declared ‘Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also,’ and ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.’”

Are we to believe that Jesus was actually teaching that we aren’t to protect the innocent or even ourselves from any violent attack? Would Hunt sit idly by and allow his wife to be raped and his children slaughtered in front of him? Of course not, but that is his “advice” to those who would follow Christ. Such is the utter depravity of liberal “values.”

Remember that Commandment about False Witness?

On August 16, Hunt wrote via Facebook, “Jerry Falwell Jr. took to Twitter this morning to praise Donald Trump’s defense of white supremacists and neo-Nazis.” The next day, he used the same “logic” while posting this stunning indictment of the majority of Republicans: “67% of Republicans agree with Donald Trump’s defense of white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, VA. Not coincidentally, Pew Research reports that 86% of Republican voters are white. It’s not exactly breaking news, but it bears repeating: the Republican Party has a white supremacy problem.”

Word games, of course, but they generally copy liberal talking-points to portray Trump as somehow “defending” white supremacists when he has said absolutely nothing of the sort. It’s absurdly fallacious reasoning to equate the fact that Trump did condemn the alt-right but also had a few bad things to say about leftist violence to Trump somehow coming to the “defense of white supremacists and neo-Nazis.”

While attorney Alan Dershowitz, one of the few intellectually honest liberals around these days, has also criticized President Trump’s response to Charlottesville, he at least has called for liberals to denounce the violence coming from far-left groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter. As a reasonably prominent liberal Christian writer with a decent following, has Hunt done anything of the sort?

If not, are we then to assume that Hunt and others who see this as a one-sided issue, including Republicans like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, condone violence as long as it’s coming from the “correct” ideological spectrum? The ideologues on the Left might be buying it, but ordinary Americans in flyover country, the ones who elected Trump, aren’t.

His Biblical Interpretation Switches Based on Politics

Another example of Hunt’s stunning hypocrisy lies in the writer’s response to Christian televangelist Paula White’s portrayal of President Trump as a leader “raised up by God.” In an article entitled, “If Donald Trump Has Been ‘Raised Up By God,’ Then Jesus Isn’t Our Savior. He’s The Enemy,” Hunt passionately argues that Romans 13, the passage to which Christians often refer when teaching how we should interact with our government, doesn’t make “the airtight case White and Co. would like it to.”

Except when Rowan County Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis was refusing to issue gay marriage licenses in 2015, Hunt took an altogether different view of Romans 13 in an admittedly well-reasoned Huffington Post piece. Because the shoe is on the other foot, don’t you see.

“But if Ms. Davis is convinced she is in the right about same-sex marriage, if she indeed believes sincerely that the Bible is clear and thus refuses to be subject to the governing authorities Paul says are ‘appointed by God,’ then Romans 13 makes it clear she has only one option if she want to avoid judgment,” Hunt wrote at the time. “Quit.”

So, are the governing authorities “appointed by God,” or are they not? Is God in control over the affairs of men, or is he not? I guess it depends on what party the “authorities” belong to, or whether their leader’s particular sins “tip the scales” for you.

In his overt denial of God’s sovereignty in all things, much less President Trump’s election victory, Hunt also manages in the article to equate President Trump with “Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Kim Jung Un.” In a January blog post entitled “Following Jesus And Supporting Donald Trump Are Utterly Irreconcilable,” Hunt cites a laundry list of supposed Trump shortcomings to “prove” that one can’t support President Trump and follow Jesus.

“We must choose a master: either Christ or Trump,” Hunt concludes. “Because we cannot follow Jesus while also supporting someone who, in the most literal sense of the word, is anti-Christ.”

False dilemma much, Zack? Are there any Christians out there actually worshipping President Trump? We are fully aware of his shortcomings, but also cognizant that there is a tremendous difference between Trump’s personal sins and even what he has said, versus what he does and is actually doing, which in the long-run will be good for America. God uses imperfect vessels literally every single time he uses a man or woman here on earth. I would paraphrase a few of those “red-letter words” and suggest Hunt cast the first stone, but he already has, many times.

You Really Need to Brush Up on Commandment Eight

Finally, as yet another example of Hunt’s typical liberal duplicity, he posted this tweet last Sunday in response to a non-hurricane Harvey related tweet by President Trump:

Christian Leftist Zack Hunt’s Mindless Religious War Against Donald Trump

Except Trump posted no fewer than 25 separate tweets, some before and some after the one tweet about Sheriff Clarke, including this one the day before:

Except Trump posted no fewer than 25 separate tweets, some before and some after the one tweet about Sheriff Clarke, including this one the day before:

Isn’t there something in the Bible against bearing false witness?

At least Hunt is an unapologetic liberal who is essentially preaching to his own choir. Far worse are the so-called conservatives who have turned their backs on President Trump, choosing to get their feathers ruffled over the president’s words and supposed moral failings, when the things he is actually trying to accomplish could very well bring our country back from the brink, if only they would stop sabotaging him.

But then, maybe they’ve wanted him to fail all along.

Source:  TheFederalist.  We have added section headings, information, and/or comments for clarity.


This Dad Lost Everything To Hurricane Harvey. His Response? ‘We Thank God’

Jeremiah’s son can look upon his father and see gratitude, humility, and strength during Hurricane Harvey; not the grievance and victimhood that is celebrated in our political life today.

This Dad Lost Everything To Hurricane Harvey. His Response? ‘We Thank God’

“Bad things do happen; how I respond to them defines my character and the quality of my life. I can choose to sit in perpetual sadness, immobilized by the gravity of my loss, or I can choose to rise from the pain and treasure the most precious gift I have—life itself.” Walter Anderson, 1885-1962

Twenty trillion gallons of water have fallen on Texas since Thursday afternoon. Eighteen people have been killed, and some 30,000 displaced; and there’s more rain still to come. As levees are breached, and lives are swept away, some have taken to social media to heckle and harass the victims of Hurricane Harvey.

This Dad Lost Everything To Hurricane Harvey. His Response? ‘We Thank God’

This Dad Lost Everything To Hurricane Harvey. His Response? ‘We Thank God’

This Dad Lost Everything To Hurricane Harvey. His Response? ‘We Thank God’

This Dad Lost Everything To Hurricane Harvey. His Response? ‘We Thank God’

This despicable behavior puts on full display the cold and empty chambers of the heart of identity politics. With this in mind, I’d like to you to meet a man named Jeremiah from Hurricane Harvey:  https://t.co/c8WRl5B43P

n the video Jeremiah is walking hand in hand with his six-year-old son. They’ve just been rescued from the storm. A reporter approaches, asking what happened. Jeremiah talks about the rain, and of being rescued. He then looks straight into the camera and says, “We thank God. We thank God. This all we got. We lost the car, all the clothes, school clothes, everything’s gone. Everything’s gone.”

The reporter asks where they’ll go next.

“We don’t know,” Jeremiah says.

“But you’re thankful?” the reporter asks, clearly taken aback by Jeremiah’s gracious thanksgiving to God in the wake of losing everything.

“Yeah, we’re thankful.”

Comic book writer J. Michael Straczynski once said, “For a lot of people, Superman is and has always been America’s hero. He stands for what we believe is the best within us: limitless strength tempered by compassion, that can bear adversity and emerge stronger on the other side. He stands for what we all feel we would like to be able to stand for, when standing is hardest.”

This is Jeremiah. He’s not pulling someone from a sinking car. He’s not the Cajun Navy. He’s not a first responder working 20 straight hours saving lives. He can’t be. He has a son to take care of, and in that brief exchange Jeremiah gave us an honest glimpse of the private conduct of a father. His son can look upon his father and see gratitude, humility, and strength; not the grievance and victimhood that is celebrated in our political life today. And I believe he will better off for it.

As I write this, I’m sitting on a porch in Tennessee with a couple of dogs at my feet. The sky is blue and the breeze is warm. My children are at school. My wife and I are sending flirtatious text messages to each other. It’s a good day for us, and I can’t recall the last time I felt truly thankful.

Later tonight we’re going to box up the supplies that we bought for the victims of Hurricane Harvey. Toothbrushes, protein bars, water, ramen. The kids picked out some candy bags for kids like Jeremiah’s son. It’s not much, but it’s everything we could do. Once the box arrives in Texas, we have no idea who will open it or receive the supplies inside. Perhaps those protein bars will be handed to a Bernie Sanders supporter. Maybe a member of Antifa will get one of the toothbrushes.

Jeremiah’s words are a welcome challenge: What will we show the world? When we reach the end of our rope, will we tie a knot and hang on, as Abraham Lincoln once advised? When you see Jeremiah, do you see a Trump supporter getting his just deserts? Is Jeremiah deserving of misfortune for his faith in God? Does his opinion on tax reform warrant the loss of his home and everything in it?

As my wife and I teach our children to navigate through disaster, we’ll think of Jeremiah making his way down the road, holding the hand of his young son, and we’ll thank God, too. We’ll thank God for men like Jeremiah.

Source:  TheFederalist.  We have added section headings, information, and/or comments for clarity.

Sarah Palin Should Appeal The Dismissal Of Her NYT Defamation Lawsuit

The judge’s narrow reading of the precedents shouldn’t end Sarah Palin’s quest for vindication against the latest vicious, untrue smear, defamation in particular, by a media establishment that has long detested her.

Sarah Palin Should Appeal The Dismissal Of Her NYT Defamation Lawsuit

On Tuesday, federal district court judge Jed S. Rakoff dismissed Sarah Palin’s defamation suit against The New York Times, holding that her complaint failed to allege the actual malice she was required to show in order to proceed with the suit.

His narrow reading of the precedents ends—barring a successful appeal—Palin’s quest for vindication against the latest vicious, untrue smear by a media establishment that has long detested her. It also lends legitimacy to the falling standards in the media wrought by the rise of the Internet and the decline of thorough, old-fashioned journalism.

Palin’s case arose in the aftermath of the congressional baseball shooting by an unhinged leftist on June 14. The shooter, who specifically targeted Republicans, left several people injured before being killed. In an editorial published later that same day, the Times referred back to the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Lee Loughner, and attempted to blame the deaths that day on Palin, while downplaying the connection between the 2017 shooter and his publicly professed radical politics.

The editorial stated that in the 2011 incident “the link to political violence was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.” After an outcry at the mischaracterization, the defamatory statements were corrected, but not until the next day. Palin filed suit against the Times and Rakoff, a 1996 Clinton appointee to the district court for Southern District of New York, was assigned to the case.

Balancing Free Speech and Defamation

Rakoff’s decision in the Palin case begins by professing respect for America’s robust tradition of free speech under the First Amendment that allows wide latitude in publishing political opinions. As he writes in his opinion, “Nowhere is political journalism so free, so robust, or perhaps so rowdy as in the United States.” This freedom separates us from the other nations—even ostensibly free nations—where censorship occurs every day.

But defamation as a cause of action must always co-exist with free speech and, while the government may not fine or jail people for what they say, when a newspaper prints falsehoods that damage a person’s reputation, that person must be allowed to sue for damages, just as she would for any other injury. In deciding her claim before it gets to a jury, Rakoff does Palin, and all people who find themselves on the wrong side of an editorial board, a disservice.

The law of defamation is most profoundly influenced by the rules set forth in New York Times v. Sullivan, a 1964 Supreme Court case that drastically reduced the scope of defamation suits, especially for public figures like Palin. For Palin to prevail in a libel suit under Sullivan, she must prove that (1) there was a written defamatory statement about her, (2) that the statement was published, (3) that the publishers did so with “actual malice,” (4) that the statement was false, (5) and that the publication caused damage to her reputation.  Clearly defamation.

The Times’ attorneys argued that Palin’s claim could not fulfill all of these elements even if everything she alleged were true. Rakoff agreed that four of the five elements could possibly be proven at trial. On the third element, however, he held that Palin could not possibly prove that the Times and the primary author of its unsigned editorial, James Bennet, acted with actual malice. As a result, he dismissed the case.

What Is ‘Actual Malice’?

“Actual malice” is a tough requirement to meet, and purposely so. The court in Sullivan wanted to ensure that libel suits did not stifle free speech, especially where the subject of the speech is a public figure of the type about which newspapers should be expected to publish opinions. They held that the statement in question must have been published “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

Palin alleged that Bennet, the brother of Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, had a motive to defame her, both out of political animus and of a desire to please the Times’ subscribers. Whether or not political disagreement alone is sufficient to prove animus—and Rakoff rightly says that it is not—it is useless to deny that the Times opposes Palin and other social conservatives. Palin needed to prove that such opposition led Bennet and others either to ignore what they knew (that the connection to Loughner was false) or that they recklessly made no effort to even verify their wrong assumptions.

Rakoff held an evidentiary hearing to look into what Bennet knew about the five-year-old falsehood. Even holding such a hearing arguably shows that the facts of the matter are in doubt and should be heard by a jury—which rules on the facts—rather than a judge, who rules on the law. By holding that hearing, questioning Bennet, and weighing the evidence, Rakoff stepped into the role properly granted to jurors.

While there were reasons for the hearing, such as finding out who, specifically, was responsible for writing the unsigned editorial, that should have been the limit of the court’s findings. Instead, the judge discovered Bennet’s role in the process, then took the additional step of absolving him of responsibility.

Different Times, Different Facts

The court’s application of the precedent in Sullivan is flawed in two ways. In the 1964 case, the Times published assertions about the actions of Alabama law enforcement personnel that were provably false, exaggerating the extent to which they had acted against civil rights protestors. The Alabamians believed the Times should have known that the statements were false, yet published them anyway. The Supreme Court held that showing the newspaper to have previously published the true version of events “supports, at most, a finding of negligence in failing to discover the misstatements, and is constitutionally insufficient to show the recklessness that is required for a finding of actual malice.”

That may have been true in 1964, but today, when every word published by the New York Times is almost instantly searchable in the newspaper’s online archives, calling it negligence falls short of the mark. With the most minimal of efforts, Bennet and his staff could have accessed their own coverage of the 2011 shooting and seen that the connection to Palin’s PAC, alleged in the immediate aftermath of that day’s events, was very quickly debunked, and that no evidence has ever emerged that Loughner had even seen the item that supposedly inspired him. It would have taken mere minutes of fact-checking to sort out their error (if indeed it was an error,) but they neglected even that level of diligence. Is it unreasonable to believe that a jury might find that level of neglect to have been a reckless disregard for the truth?

The other difference between the Sullivan case and Palin’s is in the nature of the publication. Rakoff quotes from Sullivan in his ruling (at page 22), saying, “The mere presence of stories in the files does not, of course, establish that the Times ‘knew’ the [publication at issue] was false.” The bracketed section draws the eye, but is not uncommon in legal writing, often used to exclude extraneous information not essential to the point of the citation. But compare it to the original sentence from Sullivan, and a problem emerges:
The mere presence of the stories in the files does not, of course, establish that the Times ‘knew’ the advertisement was false, since the state of mind required for actual malice would have to be brought home to the persons in the Times’ organization having responsibility for the publication of the advertisement. (emphasis added)

There lies an important distinction between Sullivan and this case: the defamatory publication in Sullivan was an advertisement, not an article or editorial written by the Times staff. The court in Sullivan held that it was not malicious for the advertising department to accept an ad without cross-checking it against all of the newspaper’s previously published articles. That’s a reasonable point: the advertising department’s job is to sell ads, not to fact-check stories, a labor-intensive process in those days.

Compare that to Palin’s case. The editorial Bennet wrote was not a third-party ad, it was a product of the Times’ own staff. Not only is research and fact-checking easier in 2017, but the editorial was the product of the part of the newspaper’s staff that should be used to getting things right.

That the ad salesmen might not know about the exact details of the civil rights movement in Alabama is plausible; that the editorial board was ignorant of the basic facts of a recent high-profile news story beggars belief. Add to that the coincidence that the “mistake” just happened to defame a political figure reviled by the mainstream media establishment and it might not immediately prove malice, but it is certainly enough to get the case to trial and let a jury decide.  Battling defamation is worth the fight.

New Media Doesn’t Care About Facts

Rakoff describes the case this way: “What we have here is an editorial, written and rewritten rapidly in order to voice an opinion on an immediate event of importance, in which are included a few factual inaccuracies somewhat pertaining to Mrs. Palin that are very rapidly corrected.” That statement describes journalism in twenty-first-century America and is a serious indictment of the profession. The state of affairs in journalism these days is to publish first and fact-check later, and this decision helps legitimize the slapdash approach to writing that has spread from bloggers to once-venerable newspapers.

When newspapers, including the Times, are laying off editors left and right, the result will necessarily be a weaker work product. Newspapers have always competed with each other to publish a news story first, and in breaking news errors will always be made. What has changed is that fewer editors and fact-checkers now intermediate between a reporter’s pen and the published product. Firing those people no doubt saves money, but only at the cost of accuracy and legitimacy.

In an editorial, this is doubly absurd. The news might “need” to be published as it happens, but opinions can and should wait until facts are known and sober judgment is applied. When editorial writers choose speed over accuracy, they leave readers ill-served. They also risk misstating facts in a way that has real-life consequences.

Inaccuracy in the June 14 editorial was a choice, born of laziness and closed-mindedness, and one that the slightest effort would have easily avoided. Palin would do the news industry a favor by appealing this decision and reminding them they are responsible for what they publish and required to make an effort, at least, to tell the people the truth.  Defamation should not be allowed without punishment.

Source:  TheFederalist.  We have added section headings, information, and/or comments for clarity.

No, Jesse Jackson, The Electoral College Isn’t Racist

Rev. Jesse Jackson has made headlines saying that as we get rid of Confederate statues we should also get rid of the Electoral College.

No, Jesse Jackson, The Electoral College Isn’t RacistRecently, Rev. Jesse Jackson made headlines saying that as we get rid of Confederate statues we should also get rid of the Electoral College. He complains that the historic institution, by which America chooses its presidents, has twice stolen the White House from Democrats, but the overall implication of his claims is that the Electoral College is racist.

He’s wrong on two fronts.

First, the college didn’t steal the elections from Al Gore in 2000 or Hillary Clinton in 2016. Neither Gore nor Clinton received more than 50 percent of the popular vote, and we don’t know how the more than four million Gary Johnson voters or three-quarter million Evan McMullin voters would have voted in a runoff between Trump and Clinton. More importantly, absent the Electoral College candidates would have campaigned differently. Clinton lost because she neglected too many non-coastal states.

The second charge, the charge of racism, is more subtle. The claim that the college is racist can be made two ways. First, that the college was designed as racist by giving more clout to slave states than they would have had under a popular vote model. Second, that boosting the influence of low-population states today effectively boosts the whiter states in the nation.

The former claim is plausible because Southern states did effectively have more representation through the college than they might have had under a popular vote of all free persons. But the oft-maligned Three-Fifths Clause was designed to limit the influence of slave states in congressional apportionment. Since congressional apportionment determines the number of a state’s electors—one for each representative and senator in Congress—limiting Southern representation in Congress limited their representation in the Electoral College.

A popular vote for president was not a viable alternative to the Electoral College considered at the Constitutional Convention. Convention delegates feared that popular executives could too easily turn into popular autocrats, as the annals of history repeatedly show. Additionally, the delegates weren’t convinced the average voter would know enough about the requirements for office or the qualifications of candidates to be able to make an informed decision. The Electoral Compromise was a compromise that allowed people to choose representatives—electors—to elect the president on their behalf.

The proponents of the college weren’t motivated by racism. Oliver Ellsworth, the “Father of the Electoral College,” twice asked the Convention to consider banning slavery in the Constitution. Northern states supported the institution, while the only votes against it came from Southern states.

Since the abolition of slavery under the Fourteenth Amendment (passed due to the efforts of Abraham Lincoln, who won in 1860 with less than 40 percent of the popular vote), the institution of slavery cannot pervert the Electoral College system.

The idea that the college is racist today because it boosts the influence of predominantly white, rural states is also flawed. The college supports low-population states regardless of their racial makeup. While Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, and Vermont are disproportionately white, the college also boosts Delaware, Washington DC, Alaska, Hawaii, and New Mexico, some of the most diverse regions of the country. Without the Electoral College, all of these states would have their influence subsumed under large population centers like New York and Los Angeles. No state would have signed on to a system that stripped them of any chance of influence, and no state should want that now.

The Electoral College facilitates the joining of the states in union. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights Act made it better still. If we also want it to check demagogues we should consider restoring the independence of electors to serve as real intermediaries between the popular will and the presidency.

Source:  TheFederalist.  We have added section headings, information, and/or comments for clarity.

After Transgenderism Discussion, Kindergartener ‘Came Home Crying And Shaking So Afraid She Could Turn Into A Boy’

Angry parents stampeded a California charter school board meeting Monday after a teacher read her kindergarten class picture books about transgenderism to affirm a gender dysphoric classmate. During the class, parents say, the gender dysphoric boy also switched clothes to look more like a girl in a “gender reveal.”

After Trans Discussion, Kindergartener ‘Came Home Crying And Shaking So Afraid She Could Turn Into A Boy’

Parents were not notified beforehand of the discussion or the classmate’s psychological condition, and learned about it when their confused kindergarteners arrived home from school that day.

“The kindergartners came home very confused, about whether or not you can pick your gender, whether or not they really were a boy or a girl,” Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute told CBS News.

“My daughter came home crying and shaking so afraid she could turn into a boy,” a parent said at the public meeting.

Rocklin Academy is a network of related charter schools, which are public schools typically run by nonprofit institutions, private companies, or school boards of local leaders and parents. Charter school board meetings must be public, since they are fully taxpayer-funded. Rocklin’s high school, Western Sierra, is ranked No. 1 in the Sacramento area for college readiness by U.S. News and World Report.

Unlike for sex ed content, schools do not need to notify parents about classroom instruction related to gender identity, school officials say. Teachers spoke out in support of their colleague’s surprise transgenderism book club, with seventh grade teacher Kelly Bryson objecting to “banned books or book lists, or selective literature” for schoolchildren.

While the parents negatively affected insist their children are too young to discuss transgenderism and be confused about a core aspect of their person, trans advocates disagree, suggesting preschool as the appropriate time to begin telling children their biological sex is meaningless.

“Most people have a sense of their gender identity at age 3 or 4,” Jo Michael, a transgender woman and legislative manager at Equality California, told a local Fox station. “The other students really do need to have that opportunity to engage and hear from the transgender student.”

Just last week I wrote in detail about the effects of a similar situation at a Minnesota charter school, where parents of a kindergartener they claimed was transgender sued another high-ranking charter school. Parents began transferring their kindergarteners out of Nova Classical Academy when the tykes came home saying things like, “Mom, I think you can choose if you want to be a boy or a girl,” The Daily Signal reported. The settlement this month basically gagged school communications with parents on what their children will learn about sex:

This month’s settlement after 16 months of litigation requires the school to make all uniforms available to both sexes, pay LGBT organizations to ‘train staff’ in politically correct behavior every three years, and ‘not adopt any gender policy that allows parents to opt out of requirements in the gender inclusion policy because of objections based on religion or conscience.’ This lawyer and Federalist contributor, after reviewing the settlement, said it appears to ban the school from even notifying parents of its sex policies.

These stories are the tip of the spear. As I write in the longer article, courts and activists are already working to require all public, private, and eventually home schools to teach children the destabilizing and false idea that their sex is malleable. In Canada, which is further ahead than the United States on such matters, transanity has already classified the teachings of the world’s major religions (plus basic scientific facts) as punishable hate speech. Here’s how that looks in their schools:

After Transgenderism Discussion, Kindergartener ‘Came Home Crying And Shaking So Afraid She Could Turn Into A Boy’


After Transgenderism Discussion, Kindergartener ‘Came Home Crying And Shaking So Afraid She Could Turn Into A Boy’


After Transgenderism Discussion, Kindergartener ‘Came Home Crying And Shaking So Afraid She Could Turn Into A Boy’


After Transgenderism Discussion, Kindergartener ‘Came Home Crying And Shaking So Afraid She Could Turn Into A Boy’


After Transgenderism Discussion, Kindergartener ‘Came Home Crying And Shaking So Afraid She Could Turn Into A Boy’


After Transgenderism Discussion, Kindergartener ‘Came Home Crying And Shaking So Afraid She Could Turn Into A Boy’


Source:  TheFederalist.  We have added section headings, information, and/or comments for clarity.