Nashville Billboards Show Support For ‘Canceled’ Artist Morgan Wallen Ahead Of Academy Of Country Music Awards

Even though the woke music industry tried to invoke celebrity cancel culture on country music artist Morgan Wallen for using a racial slur — to which he apologized several times for — it appears fans are not remotely done with him.

Two months after being suspended from his record label, with all major radio stations taking him off airplay, billboards popped up overnight in Nashville, Tennessee ahead of next week’s Academy of Country Music Awards. In February, the ACM determined Wallen was ineligible for the awards ceremony.

“The Academy does not condone or support intolerance or behavior that doesn’t align with our commitment and dedication to diversity and dedication,” the organization said in a statement, noting it will “expedite” inclusion and diversity training for all of the “country music artist community.”

According to Country Now, six billboards were paid for by fans who felt neglected by the corporate country music industry. One fan who took part in the effort told the publication that the “idea was really our way of trying to ‘right the wrong’ of cancel culture.” The fan also said, “[w]e just wanted to ‘Wallen-Paper’ Nashville during the week of the ACMs to show our support for Morgan!”

Wallen, 27, released a double album titled “Dangerous” on Jan. 8. Upon debuting, it hit number one in the U.S. Billboard 200 and remained in that spot for 10 consecutive weeks despite the efforts to destroy his career. Billboard reported that “Dangerous” is the first album since Whitney Houston’s “Whitney” in 1987 to spend as much time on the chart. Other artists in recent memory who closely achieved this include Stevie Wonder, Adele, and Drake.

The billboards erected reference the phrase “gaht,” which is something Wallen often references in his music, as well as the Bible verse Mark 11:25: “And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

The company Lamar Advertising is reportedly involved with the billboards, given its logo appears under it, and told The Federalist that “we do not accept or reject copy based on Lamar’s agreement or disagreement with the views expressed.”

The artist has apologized several times to fans and the industry, but it appears to be no use to the woke corporatists running the show in Nashville. Still, Wallen maintains a popular artist with a dedicated fan base.

Source

Wokeness Wrecked ‘The Bachelor’ Only For Matt James To Get Back Together With A ‘Racist’

The latest rumor circulating the Bachelorsphere is that the last “Bachelor” Matt James is back together with his recently-wrapped season’s front-runner Rachael Kirkconnell, whom he dumped in disgrace after internet trolls dug up purportedly racist photos of the sorority girl at an antebellum-themed college party.

“It’s been a while but here’s some news: Matt and Rachael? Yeah, they’re not over. They’re currently in New York together. FYI,” tweeted Reality Steve on Tuesday night after somebody snapped a photo of what is allegedly the pair walking together in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn.

The buzz about Matt and Rachael is truly fascinating as it comes only three weeks after the cringiest episode of “After the Final Rose” in “Bachelor” history, in which romance took a backseat while race issues were front and center. Matt and interim host Emmanuel Acho — who was tapped to host the finale after Chris Harrison got canceled for initially asking for grace for Rachael before folding to the woke bullies — put Rachael through an on-air struggle session. The conversation was egregious, and it ended in Matt telling Rachael that their relationship wouldn’t work because of her “not fully understanding” his “blackness” and Matt refusing to initiate a “final embrace.”

The Matt-Rachael rumor also comes on the heels of news that current casting for another franchise spin-off, “Bachelor in Paradise,” is not going so well, as Bachelor Nation stars are hesitant to jump on board the turbulent train of Hollywood wokeness.

“Casting has begun and some members of Bachelor Nation are apprehensive to sign up,” one “Bachelor” insider told E! News. “Some are wondering what direction the season will take and are curious if it will strictly focus on contestants falling in love.” If the next run of “Bachelor in Paradise” looks anything like the last “Bachelor” season, fans can expect the focus to stray from contestants falling in love to land instead on progressive politics.

“Many people are declining due to the current state of Bachelor Nation. A lot of people are removing themselves from the franchise,” reportedly added another source.

At this point in the franchise’s progressive purge, it seems the options are for the stars to remove themselves or be removed — just ask Chris Harrison, who hosted the show for nearly two decades and then got the boot for saying essentially the same thing as his replacement host before resorting to groveling pathetically to keep his post. It’s hard to blame potential would-be contestants for walking away. Who wants to be the next victim of a rose-strewn struggle session?

Wokeness ruined “The Bachelor.” It watered the franchise down to the worst version of itself and became repulsive even to woke millennials desperate for Instagram fame. Anything the show had going for it in the way of mindless entertainment has now been replaced by insufferable leftist dogma and cancel culture landmines that nobody wants to navigate for fear of blowing up their life and reputation on national television and being remembered as nothing more than the next fill-in-the-blank controversy.

And for what? If the rumors about Matt and Rachael turn out to be true, which many fans of the show have said would not be surprising, the main takeaway will be that the girl at the center of this year’s biggest pop culture racism scandal will ride off into the sunset with her black boyfriend.

You didn’t solve racism, Hollywood. You effectively matchmade the first black bachelor and his prejudiced lover. Was destroying the franchise worth it?

Source

If Democrats Will Cry ‘Racist’ No Matter What, Republicans Should Pass Much Stronger Laws

In March, Georgia Republicans amended their state’s election laws in a weak attempt to assuage voters disgusted with their enabling of the 2020 election circus. To punish their political opponents for requiring voter ID and creating an election season of a month long or more Democrats called up their character assassination squads.

Democrats have been throwing every bit of pressure they can at Georgia elected officials to get their way without winning power legitimately through elections. This has included pressure from Democrats’ current and last U.S. presidents, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

Biden called on companies to push his political goals outside of the legitimate political system by boycotting Georgia. He is the first president to openly push private companies to boycott a U.S. state over fully legal political outcomes he dislikes.

Biden also explicitly voiced support for Major League Baseball economically punishing Americans represented by members of his political opposition by withdrawing MLB’s All-Star game from Atlanta. MLB quickly complied.

Biden called Georgia’s election law “Jim Crow on steroids, what they’re doing in Georgia and 40 other states.” Obama also publicly supported MLB’s use of its private economic power in service of his political party.

Minnesota U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, who openly labels herself a socialist, noted on CNN that boycotts helped end South African apartheid. She also wildly insinuated that Georgia’s law, which makes no distinctions whatsoever related to race, is comparable to a system that explicitly accorded rights and privileges by ethnicity and included state-enabled murder, rape, and theft of property based on race.

Stacey Abrams, whose claims to have been deprived of Georgia’s governorship through voter fraud have been treated seriously by the same Democrats and corporate media that have banned Republicans from even mentioning those topics, claimed in USA Today, citing no evidence, that the “targets of SB 202” were “young people, people of color and minimum wage workers.” She called it a “racist, classist bill.” Abrams also encouraged corporations to attempt to skew politics her way with pressure campaigns and political spending.

Georgia’s ‘Restrictions’ Were Mostly Expansions

So, what exactly comprises this “racist” vehicle for “apartheid” and the second coming of “Jim Crow”? An extremely expansive voting regime that enshrines numerous loopholes that can assist in election manipulation and general insecurity.

“One of the biggest changes in the bill would expand early voting access for most counties,” summarizes a local NPR affiliate. “…If you live in a larger metropolitan county, you might not notice a change. For most other counties, you will have an extra weekend day, and your weekday early voting hours will likely be longer.”

Also according to Georgia Public Broadcasting, the law allows people to vote for at least up to a month by various means, including early voting and mail-in absentee ballots. The law tightens restrictions for voting by those expanded means, most notably by requiring identification on mail-in ballots such as a driver’s license number or the last four of your Social Security number, but it massively expands the election period to several weeks.

This, of course, materially changes elections. It allows political teams to “beat the bushes” for votes and makes elections more weighted towards people who cannot or will not plan ahead or prioritize voting on a specific day. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have elections decided by fellow Americans who tend to plan ahead and prioritize civic engagement over people rolled into the polls over several weeks by, say, campaigns that trade financial “prizes” for votes.

The law also is relatively loose with mail-in balloting, by far one of the largest sources of election uncertainty. “Compared to 2020, 134 of 159 counties will offer more early voting hours in future elections under the new law,” says the conservative group Heritage Action. “It codifies election drop boxes, which did not exist prior to 2020. Voters can continue to vote absentee with no excuse (unlike states like Delaware, New York, and Connecticut, which require an excuse to vote absentee).”

Under this law, Georgia voting is far more accessible than in Democrat-bastion states including New York and California. It is far more expansive than in left-governed countries such as Canada and numerous members of the European Union.

Quite simply, contrary to the hysterical and race-tinged claims of Democrats and their ignorant corporate lapdogs, Georgia’s election laws are not “restrictive.” They are liberal and expansive.

Oh, and nothing about this law has anything to do with race. Nothing. Democrats just lie about that constantly because enough voters reward them for lying and Republicans don’t exact a political price for it.

Stop Pretending Democrats Are Anything But Liars

It is thus clear that Democrats’ stated complaints cannot be their real reasons for raising Cain over Georgia’s new law. Instead, they are virulently opposing a modest effort to reduce voter fraud and election uncertainty. They are lobbing rhetorical nukes over Georgia enacting a more permissive voting regime than those in states Democrats have controlled for decades.

Even MLB has acted to oppose requiring people show ID to vote while MLB makes people show ID to pick up baseball tickets. Why would they do these things?

As Jesse Kelly writes, everyone knows why Democrats don’t want voters to show ID. It has nothing to do with racism or any of their other fake justifications, and everyone knows it.

So why are we playing this stupid game? Why are Georgia’s Republicans play-acting about the reasonability of their law in response to people who very obviously don’t care about facts or reason? Why would Republicans have enacted a lax voting regime in the obviously doomed hope of demonstrating their reasonability to people who categorically oppose reason itself?

It is a scandal that Republican politicians care one whit about getting brutalized in the press for meeting Democrats halfway to insanity. Corporate media don’t vote for them. People who believe Democrat lies about “systemic racism” don’t vote for them. If Republicans were going to be brutalized over passing a relatively loose election law, they should instead have passed a law that provides rigorous and uncontestable election security.

If you’re going to get called a racist no matter what you do, don’t let the lies pay off politically for your opponents. Give them absolutely nothing. When Democrats decide they want to come to the table because they’re getting nothing from lying on TV, make them trade things they actually want for things you actually want. That’s what any political party worthy of earning votes would do.

Until legitimate negotiation can be restored after the shameless name-calling stops, Republican politicians should leave these dogs to their own vomit. Stop wasting energy on bad-faith actors who lie as a tactic to get their hands on increased government force.

Republican politicians will occasionally flirt with better strategies, usually when they don’t have political power and want to woo their disenchanted voters back with a few empty promises. That’s a scandal, and it needs to end, or the party deserves to collapse under its failures to generate a return on their voters’ political investments.

Things like this are glances in the right direction, but until those glances are followed by a decisive and concerted forward march, Democrats will keep lying until Republicans stop allowing that to be an effective political strategy. To do that, Republicans have to refuse to dignify lies with a point-by-point refutation. That kind of dialogue is a privilege reserved for people who come to an encounter in good faith, with something to exchange.

That’s not what Democrats are as a party today. They want truth to be defined as whatever serves their private interests. They are not interested in mutual benefit and accommodation, only in the complete domination of those they consider the enemies of their desired regime.

For cynical factions like that, the only response is the prudent application of opposing power. Political nihilists cannot be won over in public combat. They can only be beaten. So put on your boxing gloves and swing as hard and as long as you can, until you make them see their only path to getting something they want is to stop fighting dirty and mutually seek the common good again.

For starters, they can prove that’s where they are by no longer smearing people as racists for not actually being racists. Until then, don’t treat liars as honest men. It only makes you an Elmer Fudd-level fool.

Source

New Yorker Attempt To Dunk On Conservatives Further Shows Why H.R. 1 Is A Threat

In attempting to own conservatives by leaking partial audio of a presentation to Republicans by the director of research at a conservative nonprofit, staff writer Jane Mayer at The New Yorker further illuminates why H.R. 1 is a garbage proposal. Mayer misunderstands the Republican base’s argument completely and produces a straw man.

The March 29 report is based on audio from a Jan. 8 phone call in which Kyle McKenzie of Stand Together discusses the “For The People Act,” known as H.R. 1. The election bill passed in the House on March 3 at a vote of 220 to 210. The Democrats require a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate to pass it and some seek to eliminate the filibuster to do so.

In the leaked call, McKenzie provides strategies to Republican congressional staffers on how the GOP ought to most effectively communicate to voters what the misguided legislation imposes. He grants that establishment GOP messaging has thus far failed to educate people enough about H.R. 1, and suggests those on the call provide thorough explanations and anecdotes to voters instead of engaging in “surface-level messaging” that is frankly common in political debates nowadays.

McKenzie notes the GOP has engaged in one-sided messaging on H.R. 1, instead of offering human stories and why the legislation will directly affect people. McKenzie also claims polling has shown support for the measure. While Democrats argue a Data for Progress poll in February that found 68 percent of “likely voters” would support this assertion, an Honest Elections Project poll in March showed 64 percent of respondents seek to protect laws fighting voter fraud.

McKenzie correctly points out H.R. 1 is a convoluted bill. Therefore, Americans do need to be offered specific ways it would affect their lives, not fed repetitive lectures from Republican operatives on socialism or the like.

A significant flaw of Mayer’s article is her reliance on McKenzie as a pseudo-spokesman for all of the GOP, branding him as some sort of all-knowing figure behind the curtain pulling the strings. She both mischaracterizes H.R. 1 and misunderstands major reasons conservatives take issue with it.

What H.R. 1 Really Is

The New Yorker writer relies on The New York Times‘ claim that H.R. 1 is “the most substantial expansion of voting rights in a half-century.” Mayer says the efforts by Republicans “to deter Democratic constituencies from voting” is even more appalling given “the extraordinary attempts by Donald Trump and his supporters to undermine the 2020 election.”

For starters, Mayer chiefly neglects to mention supporters of Democrat candidates who have also objected to election results. The left has made a big stink about the Republicans who objected to the 2020 certification of the Electoral College, but Democrats have done just this for the last three Republican presidents.

Even if the writer’s characterization of “extraordinary” is to define those who wished to undermine the election is in the context of the breach at the Capitol in January, the idea this group represents a majority of the Republican Party is completely unsubstantiated, not to mention the opposite of the truth. Also, if Mayer wants to talk about “extraordinary attempts” to “undermine” the American system, look no further than the billions of dollars in rioting and looting Black Lives Matter and Antifa inflicted in more than 20 cities in the most expensive manmade disaster in U.S. history.

Mayer oversimplifies the 800-page legislation. For someone who wrote a little over 2,000 words criticizing Republicans for supposedly failing thus far on voter messaging, she avoids a fair characterization of her own party’s goals. If Mayer is going to stand behind a bill proposed by her own coalition, she should say what it actually would do. But she doesn’t. Why?

H.R. 1 is a Democratic Party wishlist to eliminate election security. Among other things it does, which The Federalist has reported on here, here, and here, the For The People Act would turn election day into election season. It would also require blanketing the country with hundreds of millions of mail-in ballots, extending the confusion of 2020 to every future federal election.

Mayer’s backing of President Joe Biden’s press conference claim the GOP opposing the bill is “sick” and “un-American” is only fitting, since both Biden and The New Yorker writer oversimplify the measure and do not mostly address GOP concerns. This includes a two-week delay in ballots being opened, zero voter ID at polls, enabling 16- and 17-year-olds to register to vote, a mandate against election audit recounts, and much much more.

None of these provisions are mentioned in Mayer’s analysis, and it is clear why. Allowing 16-year-olds to vote is a policy that Americans have overwhelmingly disapproved of in the past, per a Hill-HarrisX poll. According to a McLaughlin & Associates/Newsmax poll in Nov. 2020, two-thirds of Americans believed Trump’s election recount efforts in the 2020 presidential election were fair and legal.

A Rasmussen poll from March showed 75 percent of voters support ID laws as a prerequisite to casting a ballot. This is echoed by the aforementioned Honest Elections Project poll. It states:

Over three-quarters (77%) want people to show a photo ID to cast a ballot, while only 14% oppose it. Voters who supported Joe Biden in the 2020 election back ID requirements by nearly 40 points (62% vs. 24%). Majorities of Republicans (92%), Independents (75%), and Democrats (63%) all support voter ID. Some politicians and progressive activists frequently malign voter ID laws as discriminatory, but by huge margins both Black and Hispanic voters favor them (for Black voters, 64% vs. 22%; for Hispanic voters, 78% vs. 16%). Similarly, 64% of Black voters, 77% of Hispanics, and 76% of low income voters reject the notion that showing an ID is a ‘burden,’ despite frequent claims from the left.

While Mayer claims H.R. 1 is “overwhelmingly popular across the political spectrum,” and chides McKenzie for failing to acknowledge this erroneous platitude, many of its major provisions have been measured in polls as highly unpopular. But the author deceivingly neglects this.

Donor Disclosure In H.R. 1

Instead of discussing any of the above provisions and more H.R. 1 would push through, The New Yorker writer solely focuses on the bill’s forcing of organizations and political speakers to disclose political donations. Mayer grossly mischaracterizes the provision and why conservatives find it deeply dangerous.

“The speakers on the call expressed alarm at the broad popularity of the bill’s provision calling for more public disclosure about secret political donors,” Mayer writes.

To play devil’s advocate for a moment, let’s assume H.R. 1 is a demonstrably popular bill Americans support. Even if this were the case, Mayer’s argument relies on the idea that just because something is popular means it is the proper policy to pursue. Sure, Mayer sprinkles in a few examples of literal support for the measure, but she largely just claims H.R. 1’s “popularity” makes it necessary to pass, superficially rendering the GOP “out of touch.”

There is a thing called right and wrong in society, and eliminating privacy for law-abiding citizens to expose them to harassment by pressure groups is surely wrong. As The Heritage Foundation cites, H.R. 1 would mandate exorbitant rates for “candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations” and “its onerous disclosure requirements for nonprofit organizations would subject their members and donors to intimidation and harassment.”

The writer also trivializes the fact that the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union has voiced disapproval over the donor disclosure provision in H.R. 1. The ACLU acknowledged in a January letter to House Democrats the measure “could harm political advocacy and expose non-profit donors to harassment and threats of violence should their support for organizations be subject to forced disclosure.”

“And the A.C.L.U. supports almost all of the expansions of voting rights contained in the bill, although it has sided with the Koch groups and other conservative organizations in arguing that donors to nonprofit groups could be harassed if their names are disclosed,” Mayer writes.

Nonprofit Involvement in Politics

“Coördinating directly with the right-wing policy groups, which define themselves as nonpartisan for tax purposes, were two top Republican congressional staffers,” Mayer writes, alluding to two congressional staffers on the leaked call.

The first part is the real kicker. The writer is misrepresenting the reality that a whole swath of left-wing public policy organizations do the exact same thing, sometimes while falsely claiming to be “nonpartisan.”

Look no further than Arabella Advisors, which claims to be “philanthropic” while funneling millions into Democratic causes through a “money-mixing” formula. Arabella moves funding through four separate political organizations that each contain dozens of other funds. It is a for-profit, pyramidal organization providing leftist nonprofits with a flow of dollars to spend.

Arabella is the king of dark money. Through the Sixteen Thirty Fund, for instance, Arabella funded Allied Progress, an organization that claims to be “nonpartisan.” Allied Progress has commissioned dozens upon dozens of articles on then-President Trump, blasting him for economic policy.

In 2018, The Washington Free Beacon reported the group was a sponsor of The New Venture Fund. The New Venture Fund is funded by the George Soros Open Society Foundations. Billionaire Soros is notable for investing $220 million in Black Lives Matter this summer.

Mayer broaches the issue of dark money organizations, although this is a losing issue for her argument. In the 2020 presidential election, dark-money groups spent $145 million to elect Joe Biden, whereas groups spent a fraction of that to elect Trump — $28 million.

Transparency In The Name Of Silence

According to Mayer, “[a]dvocates for greater transparency in political spending argue that there is no serious evidence of any such harassment” in regard to mandating public disclosure of all donors. In making this claim, the writer only cites one individual — a lawyer at the ACLU who is not quoted on the record and claimed there is no evidence there will be harassment of individuals upon the release of financial disclosures.

The senior legislative counsel, Kate Ruane, cited the backlash for millionaire actress Mila Kunis after it was reported she donated to Planned Parenthood under the false name of former Vice President Mike Pence. Ruane cited this one abnormal example as harassment involving a Hollywood elite. Ruane is a Democrat who supports Big Tech censorship, came out in support of legalized prostitution, and has flirted in several articles with the anti-Israel movement Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Mayer did not exactly choose a nonpartisan figure to aid her piece. She chose an apparent radical.

The major crux of Mayer’s argument is groups ought to have to disclose donors in the name of transparency. But a necessary follow-up to this claim is why? Do Democrats seek to uncover who is funding right-leaning organizations and people just in the holy name of “transparency,” or is another motivation fueling this effort?

Given that two-thirds of Americans agree that cancel culture is a threat to freedom, and similar numbers fear saying what they truly think, it’s pretty obvious that a supermajority of Americans agree privacy is needed to secure people’s freedoms to support whatever candidates they believe in.

Private free speech violations are on the table here. Supreme Court case NAACP v. Alabama in 1958 was a landmark decision that validated the unconstitutionality of forcing an organization to silence individuals based on disclosure.

There is great precedent in regard to the constitutionality of anonymous speech, shown by decisions in Watkins v. United States (1957),  Bates v. Little Rock (1960), and Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (1963), Talley v. California (1960), McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999), and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton (2002).

Pressure and Intimidation

Mayer claims “pressure tactics” may work on “individual lawmakers,” noting H.R. 1 “faces an uphill fight in the Senate.” Ironically, pressure tactics are the precise reason conservatives oppose H.R. 1’s public disclosure portion. Whereas the New Yorker writer says such pressure tactics are being applied from organizations to lawmakers to oppose H.R. 1, significant pressure would be applied to all Americans if H.R. 1 passes.

In religiously fighting for transparency, Americans would face mounting obstacles in supporting a given cause. As society grows more partisan, political discrimination increases against those whose views diverge from those in power. Just look at what happened to Parler or Ryan T. Anderson’s book “When Harry Became Sally” or the example of GoFundMe shutting down a fundraiser opposing critical race theory. Now picture this times 1,000 if H.R. 1 passes.

But this is the whole point of H.R. 1, folks. It is to place us on different teams, pitted against one another, unable to participate in civil society on an equal basis. Mayer misses the point completely — and perhaps that is on purpose.

Source

Two-Thirds Of Americans Say Cancel Culture Is A Threat To Freedom

A majority of Americans see “cancel culture” as a threat to freedom, according to a new survey out this week.

The poll, reported exclusively by The Hill on Monday, shows 64 percent of those interviewed said there is “a growing cancel culture” which threatens their freedom. Thirty-six percent disagreed.

“Additionally, the poll found that 36 percent of Americans said cancel culture is a ‘big problem,’ while 32 percent called it a ‘moderate problem,’” the paper reported. “Another 20 percent said it was a ‘small problem’ and 13 percent said it is ‘not a problem.’”

The survey also revealed a majority of Americans are afraid to share their views online out of concern over retribution from their employers or Big Tech oligarchs who dictate speech in the 21st century digital public square.

“The poll found that 54 percent of respondents said they were ‘concerned’ that if they expressed their opinions online that they would be banned or fired, while 46 percent said they were not concerned,” The Hill reported.

The poll, conducted by the Harvard Center for American Political Studies with Harris Insights & Analytics between March 24-25, surveyed 1,945 registered voters.

“As a representative online sample, it does not report a probability confidence interval,” The Hill wrote in lieu of a margin of error.

The survey comes as cancel culture reaches new heights, where individuals are either de-platformed or tossed into unemployment for sharing controversial views. Cancel culture also goes after past statements made, dug up in bad faith by the woketopian left, who then deploy online mobs against any dissent.

Even individuals on the left have fallen victim to the growing cancel culture perpetuated by their own movement.

Former Axios political reporter Alexi McCammond was let go from starting her new job as editor-in-chief of Teen Vogue earlier this month after staffers uncovered past tweets the New York Times described as, “comments on the appearance of Asian features, derogatory stereotypes about Asians and slurs for gay people.”

McCammond had apologized for the tweets posted in 2011, but fell victim to the ire of staff anyway, and ended up unemployed.

Even popular fictional figures of decades past have fallen to the vindictive cancel culture breeding a new cultural revolution.

The publisher of Dr. Theodor Seuss’s infamous children’s books announced at the start of the month it would halt the promotion of six illustrated books because of “racist and insensitive imagery.”

The books, “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street,” “If I Ran the Zoo,” “McElligot’s Pool,” “On Beyond Zebra!,” “Scrambled Eggs Super!,” and “The Cat’s Quizzer,” will no longer be published by Dr. Seuss Enterprises.

“These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” the publisher told the Associated Press.

The cancel culture movement picked up at a rapid pace in the aftermath of George Floyd’s Minneapolis death as militant mobs torched American cities in the name of social justice. Statues of historical figures from Christopher Columbus to Abraham Lincoln were defaced and torn down. The classical cinema “Gone With the Wind,” which featured Hattie McDaniel as the first black actress to capture an Academy Award for her role in the film, was stripped from HBO’s streaming service, and an NBA announcer was fired last year for saying “all lives matter.”

Source

Scott Walker on YAF’s ‘Long Game’: Sponsor One Million Students, Sue Schools Violating Free Speech, Launch Tip Lines Exposing Leftism

Former Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI), president of Young America’s Foundation, explained his organization’s “Long Game” strategy — including constitutional lawsuits, partnerships with other conservative organizations, and use of a tip line to expose leftism in the educational establishment — on Thursday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow, author of Breaking the News: Exposing the Establishment Media’s Hidden Deals and Secret Corruption.

YAF plans to establish chapters across all the nation’s college and university campuses, Walker said.

“We support students in more than half of all the campuses in America,” he noted. “That’s over 2,000 campuses, but we’ve got to be in all 4,000, because the left is.” He added, “We need to start sooner — not just in college — but in the high school and even junior high, so we’ve got aggressive programs [to do this].”

The former Wisconsin governor shared YAF’s intentions to expand into elementary, middle, and high schools. He described the composition of curriculum as another front in the political battle against the left.

LISTEN:

“We want to get a million new students involved as participants in our program,” Walker remarked, listing the first goal of YAF’s new plan.

YAF launched a tip line through which students, teachers, and other stakeholders can share information about leftist policies in education.

Walker stated, “We’ve got this aggressive tip line that often exposes radical and out-of-control professors. We’ve exposed  — sadly — many situations where increasingly campuses are segregating students, even in terms of training and even living circumstances.”

The YAF tip line led to revelations of a local school district in Iowa pushing the “Black Lives Matter” campaign on children as young as four. “Among the ideas forced on students—aged four to eighteen—are ‘queer affirming,’ ‘transgender affirming,’ ‘globalism,’ and ‘disruption of Western nuclear family dynamics,’” reported YAF.

The local Iowa school district pushed “transgender” narratives to students, framing sex as an arbitrary social construct, denying human sexual dimorphism and rejecting family as a universal human institution.

“Last month for black history month, [an Iowa local school district] partnered with BLM for a BLM ‘Week of ‘Action,’” Walker recalled. “It had literally nothing to do with black history, and in fact went from preschool all the way ’til 12th grade, and what we found was they were giving out coloring pages. [They were] telling kids that they could pick their gender. Now, these are preschoolers and kindergarteners.”

He continued, “This makes no sense. They were saying the father didn’t have to be a part of the family structure anymore. These are radical ideas. Instead, maybe we should be teaching kindergarteners and young kids in elementary school how to read and how to write, and appreciation for American history instead of the 1619 Project.

Walker identified hatred of America as a component of leftist pedagogy. He said YAF would provide patriotic materials to parents and students to “counteract all this nonsense about hating America.”

“We’re going to lift up our American icons,” Walker remarked. “We’re going to lift up our Americans founding principles. We’re going to lift up our Judeo-Christian values. Those are things that are timeless [and that] we need to get back to to get this country back on the right track.”

YAF also intends to expand its digital reach as part of its vision, Walker added.

“We found in our research and polling, the number one place that young people get their information is on YouTube,” he stated. “So we created a YouTube channel, YAF TV. We’ve seen a tremendous jump this past year with the shutdowns because people want to gravitate to real content and watching our speakers.”

Walker added, “We want to have five million subscribers [on YouTube] under the Long Game plan and one billion views on our YouTube channel.”

YAF will assist in lawsuits to combat violations of the First Amendment, Walker held. The organization said it will be “holding schools accountable in court for free speech violations [and] fighting back across the country against anti-conservative bias and discrimination.”

Walker remarked, “When it comes to free speech … we’re going to be aggressive, take it to the campuses, [and] take it to the liberals. [We will] not just wait until someone complains to us and asks us to get involved in the lawsuit, but we’re going get involved.”

“I don’t like to typically litigate, but the Constitution’s on our side when it comes to free speech,” he added. “We’ve won big cases, even at places like UC Berkeley, but we’ve got fights to fight everywhere across America. We’re in a fight right now in Florida, we’re involved with our students — College Republicans, Turning Point, others — who are unfairly targeted. We need to do more things to back up our students on every campus, whether they’re in our chapters or our members or not. We’re going to back up conservative students with the law and fight for what’s right, for free speech.”

Walker called for an end to “turf battles” between varying conservative groups.

“We want to partner with other organizations,” he expressed. “It’s not enough just to have YAF doing it … The left gets this. They unite. They form together. They don’t fight each other. We need to get beyond turf battles and say, ‘We’re in this together.’”

Walker identified “critical race theory” as a neo-Marxist ideology designed to sow seeds of discord between Americans.

‘We’re gonna push back even harder on things like critical race theory,” he stated. “[Critical race theory] is not about peace amongst the races. This is part of a larger plan. It started decades ago, even before I was born, with Marxists trying to impose Marxism and communism and socialist tendencies on the United States. That didn’t work, because we’re not in a class-based society in America.”

He concluded by highlighting the American Dream as contrary to communist visions of egalitarianism.

“You can come out of the poorest-of-the-poor households and succeed and do well, whether it’s in business or politics or anywhere else in life, and the opportunities are endless and boundless to people who come to America or were born here. Critical race theory [and] the BLM efforts and others are really about coming at Marxism from a different direction. In fact, the three founders of BLM flat out acknowledged that they are Marxist-trained sympathizers, and in the end, they want to use race and sex and gender as new ways to pit groups of Americans against others to try to reestablish the economy.”

Breitbart News Daily broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

Source

Exclusive: Daily Wire Eyes Men’s Grooming Business After Harry’s Pulled Its Ads

Harry’s canceled The Daily Wire right into competition. The Federalist has learned that TDW, a news outlet founded by Ben Shapiro and Jeremey Boering in 2015, is planning to launch a men’s grooming business. The move marks a small but meaningful escalation in the splintering of our economy into woke and anti-woke sectors.

Last week, Harry’s, a millennial-friendly hygiene company, pulled its ads from “The Michael Knowles Show” after being alerted to Knowles’s allegedly “transphobic and homophobic content” by a Twitter account with less than 10 followers.

“Thanks for bringing this up,” Harry’s tweeted on March 19. “We condemn the views in this video, which are inexcusable & at odds with our longtime support of the LGBTQ+ community. We’ve ended our relationship with this show & are looking into our sponsorships to prevent any values misalignment going forward.”

The video in question features a perfectly reasonable interview with Joseph Nicolosi Jr., who runs a group that supplies “support for men with unwanted same-sex sexual attractions.”

Now, The Federalist can exclusively report The Daily Wire is eyeing the launch of a direct-to-consumer men’s grooming line. In a Thursday statement to The Federalist, Daily Wire CEO Jeremy Boreing said, “The woke left seems determined to make every economic decision a political decision. With companies like Harry’s essentially signaling that conservatives don’t deserve their products because of ‘values misalignment’, a dual economy is beginning to emerge.”

“We’re evaluating starting several direct-to-consumer businesses to meet that new demand, including in the men’s grooming space,” Boering continued. “It’s time to challenge the cultural hegemony of the 23-year-old woke staffers who apparently drive strategy for so many of these businesses. It’s time for conservatives to stop funding companies who hate us, and to get busy creating alternatives.”

This is more than a splashy schtick. Boering’s point about the emerging “dual economy” is a serious one. As we’ve reported before, The Daily Wire is already a key player in the creation of a new media and entertainment infrastructure that challenges the dominance of legacy institutions who allow the radical left’s cancel culture to set their standards.

As these standards consume Hollywood and create an underserved market of non-leftist consumers, The Daily Wire stepped into the film business. The outlet acquired distribution rights to “Run Hide Fight,” then snapped up Gina Carano for a new film after Disney dropped her from “The Mandalorian” over a social media post.

As the “dual economy” emerges in media and entertainment, TDW’s admittedly hilarious foray into men’s grooming will be an early test of that duality’s limits. Outside the political economy, is there a demand for products sold by anti-woke companies?

If the outlet’s grooming line succeeds, it will be a strong signal to investors that, indeed, there’s a big demand for products that help consumers disentangle their finances from the increasingly radical corporate culture.

As of now, corporations follow the incentives to placate woke police in the news media and leftists on social media, fearful of public relations headaches. Serious efforts to compete in this space from politically neutral or conservative companies could change that dynamic.

This story has been updated to reflect that The Daily Wire’s are in the preliminary phase.

Source

Aspen Institute Hires Prince Harry To Fight Media ‘Misinformation’ 

Prince Harry has accepted a job at the Aspen Institute, a U.S. think-tank trying to tackle “misinformation” with a new “Commission on Information Disorder.”

The Duke of Sussex said he is deeply concerned by the “avalanche of misinformation” that is “affecting our ability as individuals as well as societies to think clearly,” in a statement Wednesday.

Harry will join 14 other commissioners and three co-chairs in conducting a six-month study on the state of the media in the US.

“Disinformation and the proliferation of online hate groups not only harms Black people and communities of color as we’ve seen from the 2020 election, COVID-19, and the fight for safety and justice in communities around the country — it impacts our democracy and threatens everyone,” said Rashad Robinson, co-chair of the study.

Robinson called for Big Business and Big Government to regulate disinformation across all major tech platforms, to “make the digital landscape a safer place for all communities.”

Harry called on lawmakers, activists, academia, and media to help address what he calls a “humanitarian issue.”

Harry’s statement is yet another example of the former prince echoing the words of his mother, the late and beloved Princess Diana. “I am not a political figure,” Diana said in a 1995 BBC interview, “The fact is I am a humanitarian figure and always will be.”

Harry seems to have missed the first part of the quote, however, since he has been a hyper-political figure ever since he married American actress Meghan Markle in 2018.

The two royals are outspoken climate activists and have even pledged not to have more than two kids out of fears of global sustainability (a slight at their in-laws, Prince William and Duchess Kate, who already have three children). Their climate crisis warnings have fallen on deaf ears as the public has pointed out how hypocritical it is for the couple to preach about carbon emissions while they paraded around the world in private jets.

Harry has also claimed the Wuhan Coronavirus pandemic was a punishment from “Mother Nature” for humanity harming the Earth.

There is, of course, substantive evidence from the US State Department that the virus is the result of an accident lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. One does have to wonder if this information will be deemed “disinformation” by the prince, just as it has been by others in the corporate media and theocratic health organizations.

Earlier this month, Harry and Meghan Markle were interviewed by Oprah Winfrey where the couple accused the British royal family of racism. Shortly after the interview, Harry’s brother, Prince William, told reporters the royal family is “very much not a racist family.” Meghan also revealed she was suffering from suicidal thoughts in response to the racism she says she faced from the British media.

Some in the media, notably Piers Morgan, weren’t very eager to take Meghan’s word for it. Morgan, a monarchist who was host of “Good Morning Britain,” said on the air, “I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she says … I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a weather report.”

It appears Harry and Meghan are already silencing and censoring “disinformation,” (aka members of the media they disagree with). It was reported by Chris Ship, ITV’s royal correspondent, that Meghan “formally filed a complaint” to ITV, the network which broadcasts the morning show, after Morgan’s comments. Morgan resigned from the show the following day, refusing to apologize.

After leaving the show, Morgan wrote on Twitter, “On Monday, I said I didn’t believe Meghan Markle in her Oprah interview. I’ve had time to reflect on this opinion, and I still don’t. If you did, OK. Freedom of speech is a hill I’m happy to die on. Thanks for all the love, and hate. I’m off to spend more time with my opinions.”

Morgan paired his Tweet with a Winston Churchill quote that reads, “Some people’s idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.”

Since leaving the royal family, the couple has signed lucrative deals with Netflix and Spotify. The Duke of Sussex, in addition to joining the Aspen Institute, has also joined Silicon Valley startup BetterUp as its chief impact officer.

Source

How Writing A Federalist Article Put Me On Chardonnay Antifa’s Cancel List

In October 2020, I wrote an opinion article for The Federalist entitled “More Va. Public Schools Using Kids As Guinea Pigs For Critical Race Theory.” As a parent in Loudoun County, Va., I had become extremely concerned that Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) is being hijacked by rabid radicals eager to spend taxpayer money to indoctrinate teachers and students with critical race theory concepts.

Among the many issues I highlighted included: (1) more than $400,000 in taxpayer money spent on “equity consultants”; (2) an unconstitutional speech code preventing school staff from speaking negatively — both at school and in private — about LCPS’s “action-oriented equity practices”; and (3) unconstitutional discrimination in paying for an “equity” focus group, where participants were chosen based solely on race.

As a parent, a lawyer, and public affairs professional, I was exercising my First Amendment right to question my local government. Certainly, those in Loudoun County on the other side of this debate could have countered my opinion article with one of their own. That is the very essence of the First Amendment: the marketplace of ideas.

But that contrary opinion article never came. What did come, however, is highlighted in this horrifying story by The Daily Wire.

In short, a private Facebook group called “Anti-Racist Parents of Loudoun County” (hereinafter referred to as Chardonnay Antifa) solicited members to help “expose” other parents who had spoken out against the use of critical race theory and “equity” (as opposed to equality) at LCPS. As part of the call to action, one member asked for help in hacking the websites of fellow LCPS parents, spreading information about these targets publicly through mailings, and raising money for these dirty deeds.

Dozens of members of this group started listing their nonconformist neighbors. I was listed by someone I didn’t know for speaking out at a school board meeting about my heartfelt concerns with the speech code. I was listed a second time for my October Federalist op-ed by a neighbor who frequently takes to social media to attack everyone who does not agree with her worldview.

While those posts are certainly annoying to see, it is her constitutional right to express on social media or any other medium as many negative opinions about me as she wishes. But you don’t need a J.D. from the Holiday Inn Express Law School to recognize that soliciting assistance to potentially commit cyber-crimes against people solely for exercising their right to speak —and providing targets for destruction — is not protected by the First Amendment.

These proposed dirty tricks may violate a bevy of laws, including Virginia’s criminal solicitation law, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and ironically a Reconstruction Era civil rights statute prohibiting a conspiracy to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.”

As insane as this part of the story is, there is a larger concern here. It is important to understand that being “anti-racist” is not the same as being “not racist.”

The large majority of tolerant people, myself included, put themselves squarely in the latter category. They believe that the color of someone’s skin is as relevant as the color of his eyes or hair. They have been raised to be color-blind and live by Martin Luther King Jr.’s maxim to judge a person by the content of his or her character, rather than skin color. These people believe in race-neutral policies that have the ultimate goal of equal opportunity for all.

Those who pose as “anti-racist” claim that systemic racism is present in nearly every conversation, interaction, organization, and so forth. They aggressively advocate for race-based policies that inflame, divide, and deliberately destroy longstanding norms, language, and institutions.

While many do not subscribe to the “anti-racist” mantra, that does not mean they are wrong or right. That is what civil debate in the marketplace of ideas is for.

Unfortunately, the Loudoun story is an example of what happens when people become radicalized by non-stop gaslighting from nefarious leaders, cable news hosts, celebrities, and people who say things on social media they wouldn’t dare say at a cookout. Throw in the social media algorithms and you’ve got an army of liberal lemmings willing to start secret cabals to bring down anyone who dares raise concern.

So what are parents to do? Well, I helped start a daily newsletter called the Daily Malarkey that frequently highlights the absurdity of cancel culture. Here is what we said about this the other day: “The Cancel Culture war isn’t limited to politics and the media. It’s in your neighborhood, at your kids’ schools, and on your social media channels. In the past, you could generally avoid drama by keeping your head down, but when you’re dealing with a group that literally creates a blacklist, there is no safe space.”

This cancel culture cancer is coming for you, whether you know it or not. It’s not about your political affiliation. It’s not about your worldview. It’s about the radicalization of everyday people whose inner turmoil will be directed at you, for whatever innocuous thing you might do to offend. It’s being fueled by Big Tech, irresponsible political leaders, and perhaps a dash of foreign influence campaigns.

Whatever you do, don’t back down. Go beyond the politics and read the work of James Lindsey, Chris Rufo, and Bari Weiss. If you are conservative, don’t be afraid to read Matt Taiibi just because he is liberal. If you are a liberal, don’t scoff at reading Andrew Sullivan because he is a conservative.

Seek out information about critical race theory in schools and learn why it’s unconstitutional and racist. Send open records requests, go to school board meetings and speak out, and substitute unproductive social media fights with letters to the editor at your local paper.

Ultimately, this is beyond a fight for the First Amendment, a fight for freedoms, or even a fight for the future of your country. This is a fight for you, your family, and the future. Go win it.

Source

Merciless Teen Vogue Staffers Are Not An Outlier, They’re The Future Of Newsrooms

Make no mistake, the journalists at Teen Vogue will soon be in charge of every legacy newsroom. The shortsighted media establishment haplessly fueled its own destruction and there’s little recourse.

This week, Alexi McCammond lost her job as editor-in-chief of Teen Vogue because the outlet’s staff couldn’t get over tweets she sent as a teenager which, as the New York Times put it, “included comments on the appearance of Asian features, derogatory stereotypes about Asians and slurs for gay people.” McCammond apologized for the tweets in 2019 and went on to cover the 2020 election for Axios, earning acclaim from her peers.

After Teen Vogue announced her hiring, staff made hay over the old tweets, forcing McCammond to issue more apologies before the situation ultimately became untenable on Wednesday. This is obviously crazy to everyone who hasn’t drank the Kool-Aid, which is a rapidly decreasing proportion of the adult population, thanks in no small part to the journalists who normalized these absurd standards. As such, McCammond’s peers in the press leaped to her defense, condemning the successful efforts to oust her.

It’s too little, too late. The legacy media fueled the rise of cancel culture, indulging the far left’s bizarre and radical scorched-earth arguments for years through their coverage and their own personnel decisions. They mocked conservatives who sounded the alarm about college campuses. They continue to insist the right is disproportionately “obsessed” with the culture war, even as it consumes their institutions.

This is a problem that will get significantly worse until the left is forced to pay an intense price for using their corporate heft to impose the rules of cancel culture on the public. That means the people ignoring or cheering unjust retribution against the right will need to grow up and defend the principle of free expression, whether or not it’s politically convenient.

Just earlier today I wrote about why these small battles are worth fighting. When institutions like Conde Nast hold the line, it prevents the far left from setting standards that unjustly govern our culture. Those unjust standards leave our institutions distracted and weakened and leave our people needlessly divided and paranoid. This is a good example but the point is that it’s one of many.

Look no further than the leaks from Politico’s staff meeting after the outlet let Ben Shapiro guest author Playbook for literally one day. Read Donald McNeil’s account of how he was pushed out of the New York Times for repeating a slur in the context of a conversation about it. Revisit the Grey Lady’s leaks about Bari Weiss, or the downfall of Sue Schafer at The Washington Post, The Atlantic’s internal freakout over Kevin Williamson. This isn’t happening at Slate. It’s happening at the world’s premiere “objective” news institutions, the public’s biggest access points into world affairs. And they’re utterly broken.

Let’s not forget that McCammond was hired at Teen Vogue after news broke that she’d been dating a top staffer for Joe Biden while still covering him. That, of course, was fine with them. The 10-year-old tweets on the other hand? Unacceptable.

Teen Vogue just cut a promising young center-left journalist loose for tweets she sent as a kid, that clearly don’t represent her adult worldview, and that she apologized for. It’s ridiculous and telling that even a big slice of the corporate media agrees and is publicly saying so despite saying silent in other cases.

Not only did they heavily contribute to the creation of this problem, they mocked and ignored the people trying to prevent it. They will also be the casualties, which is exactly what conservatives warned would happen.

There’s no good reason for the right to take a victory lap. What’s happened to our culture is far too sad to warrant any celebration.

Source