Author: avadmin

The Biden Administration has crossed yet another red line and it needs to be held accountable for its reckless actions.

Just yesterday, the United States military carried out airstrikes against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in Syria. This attack was in response to an earlier drone strike that killed one U.S. contractor and wounded five service members and a second contractor.

This action was taken at the direction of President Joe Biden, who ordered U.S Central Command forces to conduct precision strikes against facilities used by groups affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin released a statement shortly after the incident stating that these airstrikes were conducted in response to today’s attack as well as a series of recent attacks against Coalition forces in Syria by groups affiliated with the IRGC.

“At the direction of President Biden, I authorized U.S. Central Command forces to conduct precision airstrikes tonight in eastern Syria against facilities used by groups affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC),” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement. “The airstrikes were conducted in response to today’s attack as well as a series of recent attacks against Coalition forces in Syria by groups affiliated with the IRGC.”

Now here’s where things get tricky: The IRGC has been designated as a terrorist group since 2019, but when did this authorization take place? Was there any forethought given to how this would play out on the world stage? And why is President Biden so eager to go up against Iran despite his pledge of “no more endless wars”?

What do you think about President Biden’s actions toward Iran? Do you think we should continue engaging militarily or should we be focusing solely on diplomatic solutions? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

The debate about gender and language has always been a hot-button issue, but Ana Kasparian’s recent tweets on the topic have stirred up a fresh round of discussion. As a prominent liberal voice and co-host of the Young Turks show, Kasparian’s words carry weight among progressives.

Her assertion that she is a “woman” and not a “birthing person” has sparked controversy among leftists who advocate for inclusive language that recognizes the full spectrum of gender identities.

In the Tweet she states, “I’m a woman. Please don’t ever refer to me as a person with a uterus, birthing person, or person who menstruates. How do people not realize how degrading this is? You can support the transgender community without doing this sh*t.”

I'm a woman. Please don't ever refer to me as a person with a uterus, birthing person, or person who menstruates. How do people not realize how degrading this is? You can support the transgender community without doing this shit.

— Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) March 22, 2023

Kasparian’s tweet, which came in response to a story about a proposed amendment to the federal budget that used the term “birthing people,” was seen by some as a rejection of the trans-inclusive language that has become increasingly common in progressive circles. Supporters of so-called inclusive language argue that it is important to use words that reflect the diversity of human experience, including those who may not identify with normal definitions of gender.

On the other hand, critics of inclusive language argue that it can be confusing and alienating to those who do not identify with the terms being used. Real women, for example, may feel that their identity as a woman is being erased if they are referred to as a “birthing person” instead. They argue that it is possible to recognize and support the non-binary community without abandoning traditional concepts of gender altogether.

Ultimately, the debate over language and gender is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. As our understanding of gender continues to evolve, so too will our language and our concepts of identity. What is clear is that the discussion itself is an important one, and that both sides have important perspectives to contribute.

On Friday night, an umpire’s egregious call cost the New Orleans Privateers a win against the Nicholls State Colonels. The umpire, who was suspended indefinitely by the Southland Conference, ended the game with an obvious ball that he called a third strike. It was a horrific call that had observers questioning the integrity of college baseball and demanding disciplinary action. Let’s explore what happened, why it happened, and what it means for umpires in the future.

Tempers flared after the strikeout call that ended the Miss. Valley St.-New Orleans game.

Do you agree with the call? 🤔 pic.twitter.com/x6risaNisk

— ESPN (@espn) March 11, 2023

“The Southland Conference is committed to promoting and enforcing the principles and standards of good sporting conduct with all conference activities involving our member institutions, including competition against non-conference opponents,” the conference said in a statement Saturday. “The conference expects this conduct to be upheld by all game participants.

“As a result, the umpire has been removed from the series and has been suspended indefinitely from Southland Conference baseball games.”

The Privateers moved to 9-5 with the win while the Delta Devils fell to 6-7.

What Happened?

The final pitch of the game on Friday night was an obvious ball in the dirt off to the side of home plate. However, the home plate umpire called it as a strike three and ended the game. This resulted in an uproar from players, coaches and fans alike. Not only did this call cost New Orleans a win, but also one of their players was denied a chance to hit with two outs in the ninth inning—a moment that could have changed his team’s fate entirely.

Why Did It Happen?

Unfortunately for all involved, we may never know why this egregious call occurred. It is possible that there were extenuating circumstances or miscommunication between umpires that we are not aware of; however, no such evidence has been presented yet. What is certain is that this single decision changed not only one game but also potentially an entire season for New Orleans Privateers and their opponents throughout conference play.

What Does This Mean For Umpires In The Future?

This incident serves as an important reminder to all umpires: calls like these cannot be taken lightly and must be handled with utmost respect and care. College baseball (and any sport) should always strive for fairness and accuracy when making decisions on behalf of teams so that every player gets their chance to make plays without having them taken away due to human error or bias. There must be accountability among officials so that games are officiated correctly from start to finish; otherwise, teams risk having their seasons derailed by bad calls like these ones made on Friday night—something no team should ever experience again!

TL;DR

No matter what level of sports one is playing at, everyone deserves a fair chance at success without having it taken away due to poor officiating decisions or bias amongst referees or umpires. The Southland Conference took swift action after they suspended this particular umpire “indefinitely” due to his egregious mistake in calling what would have been ball four as strike three—which ultimately cost New Orleans Privateers a win on Friday night against Nicholls State Colonels. Moving forward, let us hope that all referees stay vigilant about maintaining fairness during games so no other team has its season derailed by human error ever again!

William Shatner, the iconic Star Trek actor, spoke out in an interview with Variety about his mortality and the importance of leaving something behind after he passes away. He is releasing a documentary entitled “You Can Call Me Bill” that will feature highlights from his successful career over nine decades.

In the interview, Shatner revealed why he decided to make this documentary now, saying “I don’t have long to live. Whether I keel over as I’m speaking to you or 10 years from now, my time is limited, so that’s very much a factor. I’ve got grandchildren. This documentary is a way of reaching out after I die.”

“I’ve turned down a lot of offers to do documentaries before. But I don’t have long to live,” Shatner revealed during an interview with Variety.

“Whether I keel over as I’m speaking to you or 10 years from now, my time is limited, so that’s very much a factor. I’ve got grandchildren. This documentary is a way of reaching out after I die.”

The documentary focuses on Shatner’s life, from his humble beginnings in Canada to his current celebrity status. It looks back at some of his most memorable roles—from Captain James T. Kirk in Star Trek to Denny Crane in Boston Legal—and how those performances shaped him as an actor and person. The film also explores Shatner’s philanthropy work and shows how he has used his platform to help others.

The film is important for fans who want to learn more about their favorite actor and gain insight into the man behind the characters. But it also serves as a reminder that life can be fleeting and we should make sure we do something meaningful with our time here on Earth. As Shatner said in the interview: “You can’t just exist…you have to leave something behind.”

TL;DR

William Shatner’s upcoming documentary “You Can Call Me Bill” provides fans with an intimate look at the actor’s journey over nine decades, highlighting some of his most memorable roles and accomplishments along the way. But beyond just being an entertaining watch for fans, this documentary serves as an important reminder that life is short and we should strive to make it count by leaving something meaningful behind when we are gone. We wish William all the best as he continues pursuing this project!

featured image: Gage Skidmore

On Thursday, the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government held a hearing on Twitter files and censorship. To nobody’s surprise, House Democrats attempted to defend social media censorship and attacked two prominent Democratic journalists in the process.

Led by Ranking Member Stacey Plaskett (D-VI), Democrats assailed journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger. The two were accused of ulterior motives and even asked to reveal their sources. Dems resorted to the “reclaiming my time” tactic they had used when questioning then-Attorney General William Barr in 2020, preventing the witnesses from responding to their personal attacks and grandstanding.

Republicans were quick to point out that other conservative voices have also been censored or banned, citing examples such as Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, and even Project Veritas journalist James O’Keefe. They argued that what Twitter is doing is not only wrong but unconstitutional as well, violating users’ First Amendment rights.

Rep. Daniel Goldman (who bought a congressional seat) says "you cannot find actual evidence of any direct government censorship of lawful speech."

Rep. @Jim_Jordan then pulls out an email from the White House to Twitter asking them to censor a tweet from @RobertKennedyJr. pic.twitter.com/HEsr3rQC5E

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 9, 2023

Democrats attempted to defend Twitter’s actions by claiming that it is within its right as a private company to regulate who can use its platform and how they use it. However, Republicans countered this argument by pointing out that since Twitter has become such a major platform for news dissemination, it should be held accountable for any potential violations of free speech or civil liberties—just like any other media organization would be held responsible for its content.

I have to run to a speech, but I never thought I would come to see this day when Democrats trash journalists for seeking to disclose government censorship work and pressing them for their sources and confidential information…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 9, 2023

TL;DR

The Subcommittee hearing was contentious at times with tempers flaring between Democrats and Republicans over the issue of social media censorship and freedom of speech rights online. As the debate continues to rage over whether tech giants like Twitter should be subject to regulations or allowed free reign over their platforms, one thing is clear—many are unhappy with how these companies have treated conservative users in recent years and some sort of action needs to be taken in order to protect everyone’s civil liberties online regardless of political affiliation or opinion.

Former President Donald Trump has been publicly attacking Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for being the “embodiment of the political establishment” and a war hawk on Ukraine. But is Trump’s criticism warranted? Let’s examine the facts and see if there is any truth to his accusations.

DeSantis and the Political Establishment

When it comes to DeSantis’ association with the political establishment, there is some evidence to suggest that he does indeed have close ties with many prominent politicians in Florida. For example, former Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran has been one of DeSantis’ closest allies since he was elected governor in 2018. The two worked together on a number of initiatives, including legislation to expand school choice and tax cuts for businesses. Additionally, DeSantis has also received support from other high-profile Republicans such as former U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“It does not take bold leadership to oppose critical race theory in 2023. Donald Trump himself issued an executive order banning critical race theory in the federal government … It doesn’t show that you’re anti establishment at all to take an issue that every Republican agrees on,” the source said.

“President Trump is calling Ron DeSantis an establishment candidate because he is getting establishment support. Fox News is the Republican establishment. Fox News is all in on Ron. The donor class is all in on Ron. Jeb Bush and Karl Rove are boosting Ron. He is getting support from all corners of the party that Trump defeated in 2016. He will defeat them again,” the Republican operative said.

“Trump stands out as the least hawkish Republican on Ukraine and he will focus on exposing Ron as being out of step with many Republican voters on this issue,” the operative said. “Has Ron come out and said he wants an end to military aid in Ukraine and a peace deal? No. He has simply called for more blank checks. That’s the same rhetoric as Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley.”

Joe Biden is known for avoiding the press and rarely holding press conferences. On Friday, he made headlines again when he completely ignored a question from a reporter on the White House lawn. The question was about China and it seemed to scare off the leader of the free world. This begs the question, why is President Biden so scared of questions about China?

The Answer Could be in His Political Donations

It may have something to do with his political donations. During his time as Vice President, Biden received significant donations from Chinese-linked individuals and companies, including $1 million from an energy company owned by a Chinese state-controlled oil giant. He also took money from a defense contractor linked to the Chinese military and other entities connected to China’s ruling Communist Party.

Biden has long been criticized for not being forthcoming about his connections to China. In 2019, he told reporters that he was “perfectly happy” to answer questions about his dealings with China but then refused to do so when asked directly by reporters at his campaign rallies. He also failed to answer any questions about his connections to China during the presidential debates last year.

BREAKING: President Biden @POTUS was going to speak but turned away upon hearing my question on #Covid origin and whether he’ll hold #China accountable. @NTDNews @ChinaInFocusNTD @capitolreport pic.twitter.com/jsbMTNPeYb

— Iris Tao (@IrisTaoTV) March 3, 2023

Chinese Influence in US Politics

Biden isn’t the only politician with ties to China. There are many others in both parties who have taken money from Chinese sources and have not been transparent about their connections or activities related to those sources. The US intelligence community has raised concerns over potential foreign influence in US politics, prompting Congress to pass new laws aimed at increasing transparency around political donations from foreign sources.

TL;DR

It appears that President Biden is scared of answering questions about his dealings with China due to his past financial relationships with various Chinese-linked entities. His refusal to answer these questions calls into question his commitment to transparency and raises serious concerns over potential foreign influence in US politics – something that should worry us all regardless of our political beliefs or affiliations.

On Tuesday, Senator Lindsey Graham quickly came to the defense of Joe Biden, who has been put under investigation after classified documents were discovered in his private home.

Instead of speaking out against him and reprimanding him for the scandal, Graham instead said he didn’t believe anything sinister was going on. This statement has caused an uproar among Republicans, who are now questioning why Graham isn’t condemning Biden for this apparent lack of security protocols. Let’s take a closer look at the situation.

Senator Lindsey Graham is actually letting Biden off the hook in the classified doc scandal

Remember this pic.twitter.com/dHCiejkghw

— Clayton Keirns (@CKeirns) January 24, 2023

The Intel Scandal

On January 12th and 20th, further documents were found in Biden’s library related to scandals involving Ukraine, Iran, China, and the United Kingdom. There are serious implications when it comes to national security if these documents were mishandled or inappropriately shared with foreign entities. As such, Senator Graham quickly came to Biden’s defense by saying that he would be “shocked if there’s anything sinister here”.

However, many Republicans have expressed concern about this incident and believe that it should be investigated thoroughly. They argue that an investigation should take place regardless of whether or not they are friends with someone who may be involved in a scandal like this one. The idea is that no one should be above reproach simply because of their status or connections in politics.

In addition to expressing concern about the potential security breach, Republicans have also questioned why the documents were discovered so long after they were created. It is unclear why it took so long for them to be found and why they weren’t dealt with sooner; however, it appears as though they are only now being brought up because of political pressure from Republicans and Trump supporters. This leads some people to question if there is more than meets the eye when it comes to this situation.

TL;DR

To sum up, Senator Lindsey Graham jumped to Joe Biden’s defense following reports of classified documents discovered in his home – but many Republicans remain concerned about the implications of this discovery and want an investigation into the matter regardless of personal ties or political affiliations. We will have to wait until more information becomes available before we can determine whether or not anything truly sinister was going on here – but for now, it appears as though we just need answers as opposed to conclusions drawn prematurely.

featured image from Twitter video

President Joe Biden’s ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) rule has been published in the Federal Registry.

This rule would allow investment funds to invest Americans’ 401(k) savings with one or both eyes on political correctness and social engineering goals rather than for earnings. Fortunately, Congress can use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to keep the Biden Administration from wolfing down Americans’ retirement savings. Let’s take a look at how this proposed rule could impact you and what you can do about it.

What is the Biden ESG Rule?

The Biden ESG rule puts a thumb on the scale for “woke” investments that have historically not done that well in the free market. Financial advisors are now being encouraged to consider environmental, social, and corporate governance factors when evaluating potential investments, rather than just focusing on available data related to performance and return on investment. This means that they may put your money into projects that may have good intentions but may not be profitable in the long run.

Why You Should Be Concerned

The main concern with this rule is that it takes away your financial advisor’s ability to make decisions based purely on numbers and data. They will now be making decisions based on political correctness instead of sound financial sense, potentially putting your retirement savings at risk without you knowing it. Furthermore, this proposed rule would also give companies an incentive to overstate their ESG credentials in order to attract more investment from financial advisors who are trying to meet their ESG goals.

How You Can Take Action

Now is the time for Congress to step in and protect Americans’ retirement savings by using its power under the CRA which enables them to review and disapprove of rules published by federal agencies before they go into effect. By taking action now and voicing your opposition to this proposed rule, you can help ensure that your retirement savings are safe from harm caused by misguided government policies.

In 2022, Disney cut an episode of The Simpsons from its streaming platform in Hong Kong. This episode mentioned “forced labor camps” in China and the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, which the Chinese government has actively tried to suppress knowledge of.

While Disney claims that this decision had more to do with its ties to mainland China, many people are outraged by what appears to be censorship of an iconic show just to avoid any conflict with a powerful government.

Disney’s Financial Ties To China

Disney is heavily invested in mainland China, having opened multiple theme parks there over the last few years. It’s no wonder that they would want to avoid any conflict with the Chinese government; after all, they have billions of dollars at stake. As Kenny Ng, associate professor at the Academy of Film at Hong Kong Baptist University put it, “I think Disney is trying to maintain good relations with mainland China and not anger Beijing authorities by airing politically sensitive content on its streaming platform.”

The Impact Of Censorship On Creativity

This move from Disney shows how far some companies will go in order to maintain their financial interests. However, it also illustrates how censorship can stifle creativity and limit freedom of expression. After all, if a show as influential as The Simpsons is subject to censorship then what message does that send about other forms of creative expression?

The Value Of Freedom Of Expression

While it may seem like a small thing for a company like Disney to censor one episode of The Simpsons, it speaks volumes about our society’s willingness to sacrifice freedom of expression for financial gain or political expediency. Free speech is essential for a healthy society and it should not be silenced simply because someone finds certain topics uncomfortable or inconvenient. We must remember that freedom of expression is invaluable and should be protected at all costs — even if that means protecting controversial topics or positions that we might personally disagree with or find uncomfortable. That is true freedom and democracy in action!

TL;DR:

Disney’s recent decision to censor episodes of The Simpsons on its streaming platform in Hong Kong is troubling for many reasons — not least because it highlights how quickly some companies will sacrifice freedom of expression for financial gain or political expediency.

This incident serves as a reminder that we must continue fighting for our right to free speech no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient certain topics may be — otherwise we risk losing our ability to express ourselves freely and openly without fear of retribution from those in power. Only then can democracy truly thrive!