theblaze--2020-10-05--Babylon Bee CEO says Christian university disinvited him from speaking in chapel following mob compl

Babylon Bee CEO says Christian university disinvited him from speaking in chapel following mob complaints about his stance against BLM

Palm Beach Atlantic University has reportedly disinvited Seth Dillon, university alumnus and CEO of the Babylon Bee — a Christian satire website — from speaking at the Christian school's chapel because of its "sacredness."
The announcement came on the heels of social media outrage against Dillon and his views on Black Lives Matter and traditional Christian sexuality.
The school now reportedly would prefer Dillon to speak instead at the university's library.
What are the details?
Dillon, who spoke to Campus Reform for an interview published on Saturday, revealed that the school recanted its invitation for him to speak at the school's chapel.
He told the outlet that the school insisted upon switching the venue of Dillon's speech after students flooded the school with emails — as well as social media remarks — over his stance against Black Lives Matter and on traditional Christian sexuality.
Dillon, who, according to the outlet, has branded Black Lives Matter a terrorist organization, tweeted about a cancel attempt in the works even before the school announced its disinvitation to speak in the university's chapel.
He wrote, "Cancel culture has come for me. I'm just too dangerous and divisive to be permitted to speak on the campus of my alma mater. Since when do you have to support terrorist organizations that use violence and intimidation to advance their agenda to be welcome on a Christian campus?"
On Twitter, one Palm Beach Atlantic University student said that Dillon's thoughts on the Black Lives Matter movement should be "enough to not welcome @SethDillon to our campus. Not to mention that every LGBTQ student has been disrespected and degraded by his content."
The outlet reported, "After the social media uproar began, PBA Director of Alumni Relations Steve Eshelman emailed Dillon, asking to eliminate the previously scheduled five minutes of freestyle speaking at the beginning of the event."
It only got worse from there.
"A few hours later, Dillon posted on Twitter that he was officially disinvited from speaking at the chapel," the outlet reported. "He told Campus Reform that he was scheduled to speak on the morning of September 30, yet was notified on the afternoon of September 29 that he would no longer be speaking in the chapel. Instead, the university asked him to speak in the school's library."
A 'sacred space'
The outlet reported that in an email forwarded to Dillon by PBA faculty member Laura Bishop — the school's executive vice president for advancement — said that the campus chapel was, indeed, a "sacred space."
"We anticipated that an honest conversation like this could become passionate, and that emotions may run high," Bishop said in the communication. "We did not want to compromise the sacredness of a chapel gathering, and, after heated exchanges on social media, it was decided that the Lassiter Rotunda of the Warren Library would be a more suitable venue for Mr. Dillon."
Dillon told Campus Reform that his remarks during the appearance were meant to be "lighthearted," and said that a list of questions "focused on his experience as an alumnus and a Christian media entrepreneur."
He told the outlet in a statement, "The assumption that I would bring a Twitter discussion into chapel and stray from the subject matter I agreed to discuss was pretty uncharitable. It seemed to me that it was an excuse ... what they wanted to do was cancel me without canceling me and appease everyone involved."
"Bishop would not explicitly tell me what I'd said or done that made my presence in the chapel suddenly inappropriate," he added. "I told her that if I'm not welcome in their chapel, then I don't feel welcome on their campus."
He also said he declined to move the talk to the school's library.
School should 'stand against cancel culture'
He said that Bishop and PBA President Debra Schwinn met with him and issued an apology for the move. Dillon added that the school does, indeed, have an interest in seeking opportunities to "eventually have him back in the chapel."
Dillon said he is not sure that he would make a future appearance at the school, adding that he would like the institution to "take a strong, public stand against cancel culture."
Dillon, who recently donated $300,000 in seed funding to launch a brand-new master's program at the university, added that in order for him to continue such donations, the university would have to "boldly and openly engage in the battle against cancel culture and take a clear stand against it."
"[The school would have to] back up people like me to the mob instead of doing exactly what the mob wanted them to do," he added. "[T]hen I wouldn't have any qualms about donating to them in the future."
He added, "Cancel culture is a destructive disease, and Palm Beach Atlantic University is not immune to it. We need more backbone and less coddling in our Christian institutions. And we need it yesterday."
The outlet concluded, "Campus Reform made contact with Palm Beach Atlantic University and is still awaiting comment; this article will be updated accordingly."
This story's headline has updated for clarity. The school did not cite Dillon's stance on BLM or sexuality in its reason for disinviting him to speak at chapel. Dillon's positions on those matters were brought up by those seeking to cancel his appearance in chapel.
Story edited for clarity.


theblaze--2020-10-05--POLL: Are you planning on voting in the upcoming election?

POLL : Are you planning on voting in the upcoming election ?
Cast your vote and do n't forget to @ @

POLL: Are you planning on voting in the upcoming election?
Cast your vote and don't forget to share!


theblaze--2020-10-05--Leftists, media lose it after Trump exits Walter Reed, even suggest criminally charging Trump

Leftists , media lose it after Trump exits Walter Reed , even suggest criminally charging Trump

Leftists, journalists, and media personalities were not happy that President Donald Trump briefly left Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Sunday to greet supporters outside the hospital — socially distanced, of course.
Trump has been hospitalized there since Friday after he tested positive for the coronavirus.
What did they say?
The president's critics complained that Trump was putting lives at risk by leaving isolation. The Washington Post's "conservative" blogger even said Trump should face criminal charges if Secret Service personnel become infected with COVID-19.
"I would hope that if any harm comes to those agents the attorney general of MD will indict Trump for reckless endangerment, assault (yes the virus he gives off count), etc.," the Post's Jennifer Rubin said.
"The GOP is a death cult. There is only one pro-life party and it's not them," Rubin later added.
The Lincoln Project, a band of Republicans who oppose Trump, claimed Trump "willing (sic) endangered innocent people in order to feed his small ego."
Democratic strategist and talk radio host Chip Franklin called Trump "f***ing insane," adding, "200,000+ dead and he's putting more Secret Service at risk."
Lynn Comella, an associate professor of gender and sexuality studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, wrote in a since-deleted tweet that Trump "is on a killing spree. What's going on at Walter Reed? Who allowed this public health travesty?"
Feminist Liz Plank wrote at NBC that Trump's brief exit from isolation revealed the "dangers of toxic masculinity."
Even an attending physician at Walter Reed, Dr. James P. Phillips, lashed out at Trump.
"That Presidential SUV is not only bulletproof, but hermetically sealed against chemical attack. The risk of COVID19 transmission inside is as high as it gets outside of medical procedures. The irresponsibility is astounding. My thoughts are with the Secret Service forced to play," Phillips said.
Meanwhile, the White House Correspondent's Association blasted Trump for leaving the hospital without reporters in tow.
Zeke Miller, president of the WHCA, said:
It is outrageous for the president to have left the hospital — even briefly — amid a health crisis without a protective pool present to ensure that the American people know where their president is and how he is doing. Now more than ever, the American public deserves independent coverage of the president so they can be reliably informed about his health.
What did the president's medical team say?
According to the White House, Trump's doctors approved his brief hospital exit and "appropriate precautions" were taken for those in proximity to Trump.
"Appropriate precautions were taken in the execution of this movement to protect the President and all those supporting it, including PPE. The movement was cleared by the medical team as safe to do," Judd Deere, deputy White House press secretary, said.


theblaze--2020-10-07--Breaking: Trump authorizes declassification of all documents related to 'Russia hoax' without redact

Breaking: Trump authorizes declassification of all documents related to 'Russia hoax' without redactions

Breaking : Trump authorizes declassification of all documents related to 'Russia hoax ' without redactions The move comes after the @ @ @ @ @ Clinton approved of a cooked-up Trump-Russia collusion scandal

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday night that he has authorized the declassification of all government documents related to claims that former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign sought to link him to Russian collusion ahead of the 2016 election.
What are the details?
"I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax," the president tweeted. "Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!"
Trump added, "All Russia Hoax Scandal information was Declassified by me long ago. Unfortunately for our Country, people have acted very slowly, especially since it is perhaps the biggest political crime in the history of our Country. Act!!!"
The president's announcement came within hours of Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassifying a heavily redacted CIA memo addressed to former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, who was part of the investigations into the Clinton email scandal and the Trump-Russia collusion claims.
The memo informed Comey and Strzok of "an exchange...discussing U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."
Strzok was later fired by the FBI. Comey was later fired by President Trump.
Ratcliffe also released notes taken by former CIA Director John Brennan, showing that Brennan was aware of the allegations. Brennan had written in 2016, "Cite alleged approval by Hillary Clinton (on 28 July) on proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to villify (sic) Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service."
Brennan also wrote "any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign & Russia," in a bullet point next to where he had written "POTUS" in the margin.
Fox News reported that "a source familiar with the documents explained that Brennan's handwritten notes were taken after briefing [President Barack] Obama on the matter."
Last week, Ratcliffe sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, alerting him that "In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Russians' hacking of the Democratic National Committee."
The DNI also wrote that "The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication."
But Ratcliffe told Fox News on Tuesday, "To be clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the Intelligence Community. I'll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by which it was obtained in the coming days."


theblaze--2020-10-07--Joe Biden says if Trump still has coronavirus by second debate, it should be canceled

Joe Biden says if Trump still has coronavirus by second debate , it should be canceled He had previously said @ @ @ @ @ advice on what to do

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said on Tuesday that if President Donald Trump was still testing positive for coronavirus at the time of their scheduled second debate, it should be canceled.
The former vice president made the comments to reporters in Hagerstown, Maryland.
"I think if he still has COVID, then we shouldn't have a debate," he said, referring to the president.
President Trump stunned the political world when he tweeted early morning Friday that he and first lady Melania Trump had tested positive for coronavirus. He has since gone to Walter Reed Medical Center for treatment and returned to the White House.
"I think we were gonna have to follow very strict guidelines," explained Biden.
"Too many people have been infected," he continued. "It's a very serious problem, so I will be guided by the guidelines of the Cleveland Clinic and what the docs say is the right thing to do. If and when he shows up for debate."
Previously on Monday Biden said that he would debate the president if the experts said it could be done safely.
"Look, if the doctors, listen to the scientists, if the scientists say that ... it's safe, that the distances are safe, then I think that's fine," said Biden. "I'll do whatever the experts say is the the appropriate thing to do."
The second debate is scheduled for Oct.15 in Miami, while a third debate has been scheduled for a week later on Oct. 22.
A debate between Vice President Mike Pence and the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), is also scheduled for Wednesday in Salt Lake City.
A CNN poll showed Biden with a commanding lead after the first debate, but the Trump campaign downplayed the results, and blamed flawed methodology for the reported gap in support.
"They don't have the best, most stellar reputation for being real news," said Trump 2020 Campaign press secretary Hogan Gidley of the CNN poll.
Here's more about the current state of the election:


theblaze--2020-10-07--Trump scraps talks with Democrats on COVID-19 relief bill until after the election

Trump scraps talks with Democrats on COVID-19 relief bill until after the election The president has asked the Senate to @ @ @ @ @ approving his SCOTUS nominee

President Donald Trump instructed administration officials on Tuesday to end talks with Democrats on another coronavirus stimulus bill until after the election, saying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was asking for too much funding and "not negotiating in good faith."
What are the details?
"Nancy Pelosi is asking for $2.4 Trillion Dollars to bailout poorly run, high crime, Democrat States, money that is in no way related to COVID-19," Trump tweeted. "We made a very generous offer of $1.6 Trillion Dollars and, as usual, she is not negotiating in good faith."
"I am rejecting their request, and looking to the future of our Country," he continued. "I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business."
The Hill noted that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House chief of staff Mark Meadows have been in talks with Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) "since late July on a fifth bipartisan coronavirus relief package but have been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement."
Last week, House Democrats passed a $2.2 trillion relief package viewed as "largely symbolic," given that it did not garner a single affirmative Republican vote.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said at the time that negotiations with the Trump administration for another stimulus were still ongoing, and that Democrats "believe this bill is a reasonable compromise." House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called the legislation a "liberal wish list."
But Pelosi's deputy chief of staff, Drew Hammill, confirmed on Twitter that the talks are now over, writing, "Speaker Pelosi & Secretary Mnuchin spoke briefly at 3:30 p.m. by phone. The Secretary confirmed that the President has walked away from COVID talks. The Speaker expressed her disappointment in the President's decision to abandon the economic & health needs of the American people."
Trump also tweeted that he asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) "not to delay, but to instead focus full time on approving my outstanding nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett."
When asked by CNN whether he agreed with the president's decision, McConnell replied, "I do. I think his view is that they were not going to produce a result and we need to concentrate on what's achievable."


theblaze--2020-10-06--Shocking surveillance video shows kidnapping of 9-year-old after she steps off school bus in Rhode I

Shocking surveillance video shows kidnapping of 9-year-old after she steps off school bus in Rhode Island Police released the video @ @ @ @ @ suspect

A shocking surveillance video showed a 9-year-old girl being kidnapped just minutes after she stepped off a school bus in Providence, Rhode Island.
The alarming incident unfolded on Monday near the intersection between Grover street and Merino street at about 3 p.m., according to WFXT-TV.
Police say that the girl had gotten off the bus when a man driving a silver Nissan SUV grabbed her and forced her into his car. The man later returned the girl to a nearby location.
Providence police are searching for a male suspect they believe is Hispanic, between the ages of 20 and 40 years old, wearing all black clothing, with black hair.
Police released the surveillance video in hopes that the public might be able to help them identify the suspect.
The Providence Public School District released a statement about the incident.
"All of us at Providence Schools are extremely distressed by yesterday's abduction of a young member of our community and are relieved to learn of the child's return. The school district is prepared to provide supports and resources to the family as they recover from this traumatic event," the statement read.
"We are grateful for the Providence Police, who are working diligently on this case. When it comes to protecting children, all members of the community have a responsibility to be vigilant," they concluded. "We have informed our staff and our families to be on the alert and to share any information with the police that could be helpful."
According to the Polly Klaas foundation, about 9% of the children who go missing are kidnapped by a family member. The vast majority of children who are reported missing are runaways or have become lost. Another 3% are kidnapped by a non-family member who is someone the child knows. Less than 1% of missing children are kidnapped by strangers.
Here's a local news report about the kidnapping:


theblaze--2020-10-06--DNI declassifies Brennan notes, CIA memo on allegation that Hillary Clinton approved plot to tie Tru

DNI declassifies Brennan notes, CIA memo on allegation that Hillary Clinton approved plot to tie Trump to Russia

DNI declassifies Brennan notes , CIA memo on allegation that Hillary Clinton approved plot to tie Trump to Russia Brennan @ @ @ @ @ after he briefed Obama on the intel

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has declassified notes taken by former CIA Director John Brennan along with a CIA memo from 2016, citing intelligence claiming Hillary Clinton approved of an alleged plot by her campaign to accuse then-candidate Donald Trump of collusion with Russia in order to distract from her email scandal ahead of the election.
What are the details?
Last week, Ratcliffe wrote a letter informing Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), "In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Russians' hacking of the Democratic National Committee."
Ratcliffe noted, "The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication."
As TheBlaze previously reported:
Ratcliffe went on to say that former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan briefed former President Barack Obama on the claims garnered from Russian intelligence. Those claims were also forwarded to then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok.
On Tuesday, Ratcliffe provided documentation to back up his letter, releasing a heavily redacted CIA memo from September 2016 addressed to Strzok, which describes "an exchange ... discussing U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."
The DNI also released notes taken by then-CIA Director Brennan showing he jotted, "Cite alleged approval by Hillary Clinton (on 28 July) on proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to villify (sic) Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service."
Brennan also wrote "any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign & Russia," in a bullet point next to where he had written "POTUS" in the margin.
According to an exclusive report from Fox News, "A source familiar with the documents explained that Brennan's handwritten notes were taken after briefing [then-President Barack] Obama on the matter."
The outlet pointed out that much of "the notes are redacted, except in the margins, which reads: 'JC,' 'Denis,' and 'Susan,'" adding, "The notes don't spell out the full names but 'JC' could be referring to then-FBI Director James Comey, 'Susan' could refer to National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and 'Denis' could refer to Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough."
Following Ratcliffe's letter to Graham last week, a Clinton spokesperson called the Russian intelligence claims "baseless bulls**t."
But Ratcliffe told Fox News on Tuesday, "To be clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the Intelligence Community. I'll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by which it was obtained in the coming days."


theblaze--2020-10-06--Grand jury indicts McCloskeys with gun exhibiting charges, adds charge of tampering with evidence

Grand jury indicts McCloskeys with gun exhibiting charges , adds charge of tampering with evidence Their attorney maintains that they @ @

A grand jury indicted a St. Louis couple on charges of exhibiting guns, and added one charge each of tampering with evidence.
The indictment was announced Tuesday.
The McCloskeys became material for memes nationally when they waved their guns in June at Black Lives Matter protesters who had trespassed into a private neighborhood on their way to protest at the mayor's home. The McCloskeys said that they feared for their lives and they reacted by protecting their property with their weapons.
The charges of tampering with evidence relate to a gun that their lawyer turned over to investigators. It was inoperable at the time they handed it over, but prosecutors had it re-assembled to be operable.
The McCloskey's attorney, Joel Schwartz, said that the indictment was not a surprise and that he was confident they would be exonerated of the charges.
"Once all the facts are out, it will be clear the McCloskeys committed no crime whatsoever," Schwartz said.
"Frankly because the grand jury is not an adversarial process and defense counsel are not allowed in there and I have no idea what was stated to the grand jury and what law was given to the grand jury," he added.
Nine protesters were charged with trespassing over the incident, but local officials refused to prosecute them.
'Exercising our Second Amendment rights'
Mark McCloskey expressed frustration and anger over what he saw as selective enforcement of the law.
"Every single human being who as in front of my house was a criminal trespasser. They broke down our gate, they trespassed on our property. Not a single one of those people are now charged with anything," he said. "We're charged with felonies that could cost us four years of our lives and our law licenses."
He went on to warn voters against supporting Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) in the presidential election.
"What you are witnessing here is just an opportunity for the government, the leftist, democrat government of the City of St. Louis to persecute us for doing no more than exercising our Second Amendment rights," McCloskey concluded.
Here's a local news video about the McCloskeys' reaction:


theblaze--2020-10-06--MSNBC's Chris Hayes seems in favor of 'truth and reconciliation commission' for anti-maskers

MSNBC 's Chris Hayes seems in favor of 'truth and reconciliation commission ' for anti-maskers 'The most humane and reasonable @ @ @ @ @ these people , if we survive '

MSNBC's Chris Hayes appeared to be in favor of what he called a "truth and reconciliation commission" for those opposed to COVID-19 mask wearing.
What are the details?
Hayes' declaration Monday came in response to mini-flurry of tweets that started with a question from NBC News' Michael Beschloss, who criticized President Donald Trump's brief Sunday drive after his positive coronavirus test:
"Why is a sick President riding in an SUV waving to supporters outside Walter Reed, jeopardizing the Secret Service agents inside the car with him?" he asked.
With that, conservative activist Matt Schlapp shot back with a question for Beschloss:
"So masks don't work? I'm so confused," Schlapp noted, a reference to the fact that Trump was wearing a mask during the drive.
And then Hayes took the battle to another level, slapping Schlapp for his tweet to Beschloss:
"The most humane and reasonable way to deal with all these people, if we survive this, is some kind of truth and reconciliation commission," Hayes tweeted, presumably in reference to those who aren't in favor of masks or question their efficacy.
What was the reaction?
As you can probably guess, Hayes' left-wing comrades seemed just as enthusiastic about harsh treatment for those who don't abide by mask-wearing — among them famously anti-Trump conservative Bill Kristol: "How about truth and no reconciliation?"
Indeed others agreed:
"I'd settle for marching them off a pier. That's the truth and reconciliation they deserve. (But, seriously, in our reality-denying country, would any of Trump's people *acknowledge* the truth, never mind reconcile to it?)" one user tweeted.
"Somebody should look into de-programming after it's over," another user wrote. "These GOP Congress people out here cheering him on when he's obviously in respiratory distress is very disturbing. I will despise Donald Trump till my last day on this earth. It didn't have to be like this."
"There is no reconciliation. People at this point who don't understand masks as a safety measure are either incurably ignorant or bad faith actors," another user wrote. "A truth and reckoning commission would be more useful."
But others pushed back against Hayes' words:


theblaze--2020-10-06--Spoof video ruthlessly mocks woke Spotify employees trying to censor Joe Rogan's podcast

A new video posted on YouTube mercilessly mocks the contingent of social justice warrior Spotify employees reportedly demanding `` editorial '' rights over Joe Rogan 's wildly famous podcast , `` The Joe Rogan Experience . ''
What are the details ?
The video , produced by comedian JP Sears , features Sears and fellow comedian , Brent Pella , pretending to be woke Spotify employees demanding company executives to allow them to edit and censor Rogan 's podcast .
Throughout the video , the two `` employees '' unwittingly rebuke their own claims with nonsensical explanations about how Rogan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-vegan , and the list goes on .
`` He 's transphobic ! ''
Sears exclaims .
`` He 's always talking about how he likes trans people , which means he does n't love trans people , which means he hates trans people . ''
`` Hateful Joe Rogan has built a massive audience because people enjoy and respect what he and his guests have to say .
But who knows better than his audience what they want to hear ?
We do ! ''
Pella insists in jest .
The video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care about low-level staffers more than its million-dollar moneymaker .
In May , Rogan signed a licensing agreement with Spotify worth more than $ 100 million .
`` But the executives at Spotify wo n't cater to our demands , '' Sears jokingly complains .
`` It 's almost like they value a $ 100 million asset more than they value a $ 49,000 asset ! '
Rogan , who has laughed off the controversy , evidently got a kick out of the video and posted it on Twitter .
The premise of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exaggeration at all , though .
Last week , news broke that a group of activist employees at Spotify did indeed demand editorial rights and threatened a `` full-blown strike '' if their demands were not met .
According to Digital Music News , who first reported on the matter , the demands included `` the ability to directly edit or remove sections of upcoming interviews , or block the uploading of episodes deemed problematic '' and `` the ability to add trigger warnings , corrections , and references to fact-checked articles on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his multi-hour discussions . ''
Reportedly , much of the backlash centered around a July episode of the podcast in which Rogan interviewed Wall Street Journal writer , Abigail Shrier , who recently authored a book titled , `` Irreversible Damage : The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters . ''
During the episode , Shrier criticized the transgender movement for pressuring young girls into transitioning .
Responding to the news of a possible strike , Rogan defended his show and his right to free speech .
He also took a swing at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I get it , you 're a 23-year-old woke kid and you 're working for this company and you think you 're gon na put your foot down , I get it . ''
Sears , more than just finding the controversy comical , was outraged at the news that employees were attempting censor Rogan .
In a post on Instagram last week , Sears wrote : `` This is the new book burning .
Everything you read and see is being curated .
Employees demanding direct 'editorial ' oversight of the biggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It has been happening for years on every social media outlet and it has to stop .
Social media censorship needs to be addressed . ''

A new video posted on YouTube mercilessly mocks the contingent of social justice warrior Spotify employees reportedly demanding "editorial" rights over Joe Rogan's wildly famous podcast, "The Joe Rogan Experience."
What are the details?
The video, produced by comedian JP Sears, features Sears and fellow comedian, Brent Pella, pretending to be woke Spotify employees demanding company executives to allow them to edit and censor Rogan's podcast.
Spotify Employees Censoring Joe Rogan youtu.be
Throughout the video, the two "employees" unwittingly rebuke their own claims with nonsensical explanations about how Rogan is transphobic, misogynistic, racist, anti-vegan, and the list goes on.
"He's transphobic!" Sears exclaims. "He's always talking about how he likes trans people, which means he doesn't love trans people, which means he hates trans people."
"Hateful Joe Rogan has built a massive audience because people enjoy and respect what he and his guests have to say. But who knows better than his audience what they want to hear? We do!" Pella insists in jest.
The video even mocks the idea that Spotify should care about low-level staffers more than its million-dollar moneymaker. In May, Rogan signed a licensing agreement with Spotify worth more than $100 million.
"But the executives at Spotify won't cater to our demands," Sears jokingly complains. "It's almost like they value a $100 million asset more than they value a $49,000 asset!'
Rogan, who has laughed off the controversy, evidently got a kick out of the video and posted it on Twitter.
What's the background?
The premise of the spoof video isn't actually an exaggeration at all, though. Last week, news broke that a group of activist employees at Spotify did indeed demand editorial rights and threatened a "full-blown strike" if their demands were not met.
According to Digital Music News, who first reported on the matter, the demands included "the ability to directly edit or remove sections of upcoming interviews, or block the uploading of episodes deemed problematic" and "the ability to add trigger warnings, corrections, and references to fact-checked articles on topics discussed by Rogan in the course of his multi-hour discussions."
Reportedly, much of the backlash centered around a July episode of the podcast in which Rogan interviewed Wall Street Journal writer, Abigail Shrier, who recently authored a book titled, "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters." During the episode, Shrier criticized the transgender movement for pressuring young girls into transitioning.
Responding to the news of a possible strike, Rogan defended his show and his right to free speech. He also took a swing at the activist employees, saying, "I get it, you're a 23-year-old woke kid and you're working for this company and you think you're gonna put your foot down, I get it."
What else?
MMA fighter Tim Kennedy, more than just finding the controversy comical, was outraged at the news that employees were attempting censor Rogan.
In a post on Instagram last week, Kennedy wrote: "This is the new book burning. Everything you read and see is being curated. Employees demanding direct 'editorial' oversight of the biggest podcast in the world should scare you. It has been happening for years on every social media outlet and it has to stop. Social media censorship needs to be addressed."


theblaze--2020-10-06--National Association of Scholars calls on Pulitzer Prize Board to revoke award given to '1619 Projec

National Association of Scholars calls on Pulitzer Prize Board to revoke award given to '1619 Project' author

National Association of Scholars calls on Pulitzer Prize Board to revoke award given to '1619 Project ' author 'The Board @ @ @ @ @ was an error '

The National Association of Scholars on Tuesday published an open letter calling for the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind its prize awarded to the lead author of the New York Times "1619 Project."
The letter was signed by 21 scholars and public writers declaring that the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones earlier this year was given in error, criticizing Hannah-Jones' essay as "profoundly flawed" and "disfigured by unfounded conjectures and patently false assertions."
"We call on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the 2020 Prize for Commentary awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her lead essay in 'The 1619 Project,'" the letter states. "That essay was entitled, 'Our democracy's founding ideals were false when they were written.' But it turns out the article itself was false when written, making a large claim that protecting the institution of slavery was a primary motive for the American Revolution, a claim for which there is simply no evidence."
Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and one of the signatories, says the impetus for the letter was the recent revelation that the New York Times stealth edited the central claim of the "1619 Project" — That America's "true founding" was in 1619 when slaves were first imported to North America, not 1776 when the Founding Fathers of the United States published the Declaration of Independence of the 13 colonies. The Times edited that claim out of Hannah-Jones' essay.
"These actions on the part of both the Times and Hannah-Jones are profoundly irresponsible and disturbing," Kurtz wrote for National Review. He criticized how Hannah-Jones has repeatedly denied ever claiming that "1619" was America's true founding, when it is easily demonstrable she's made this claim repeatedly since her essay was first published.
"Imagine that a Pulitzer Prize for Literature had been awarded to a novel for which it later emerged that the most famous passage had been plagiarized. At that point the prize would rightly be revoked. Now imagine that a Pulitzer Prize for Literature had been awarded to a novel whose author, after receiving the prize, surreptitiously edited out the most famous passage from the e-book and denied repeatedly that the passage had ever been in the novel to begin with. In that case, the prize would not be revoked, but the author would be considered to have gone at least semi-mad," Kurtz wrote.
"What do we say, then, about a Pulitzer Prize for journalism where the publisher edits out the most famous passage/claim and the author repeatedly denies that the claim had ever been there to begin with (although she herself made the claim repeatedly in a variety of public contexts well after publication of the original text)? What do we say when the author points to the stealthily edited text as proof that the claim edited out was never actually made to begin with, despite the fact that she herself repeatedly made the claim for months on end?"
Since its publication, the "1619 Project" has faced substantial criticisms from historians and scholars of all political persuasions for historical inaccuracies. Conservatives have widely opposed curricula based on it being taught in schools. President Donald Trump in September denounced the project and issued an executive order to create the "1776 Commission" to make recommendations for "patriotic education" to be taught in American schools to counter its "toxic propaganda."
The National Association of Scholars letter reviews the record of stealth edits to Hannah-Jones's essay and uses evidence to accuse her of "duplicity" in defending her essay.
"The duplicity of attempting to alter the historical record in a manner intended to deceive the public is as serious an infraction against professional ethics as a journalist can commit," the letter says. "A 'sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay,' as the Pulitzer Prize Board called it, does not have the license to sweep its own errors into obscurity or the remit to publish 'deeply reported' falsehoods."
The Pulitzer Prize Board erred in awarding a prize to Hannah-Jones's profoundly flawed essay, and through it to a Project that, despite its worthy intentions, is disfigured by unfounded conjectures and patently false assertions. To err is human. But now that it has come to light that these materials have been "corrected" without public disclosure and Hannah-Jones has falsely put forward claims that she never said or wrote what she plainly did, the offense is far more serious. It is time for the Pulitzer Prize Board to acknowledge its error rather than compound it. Given the glaring historical fallacy at the heart of its account, and the subsequent breaches of core journalistic ethics by both Hannah-Jones and the Times, "Our democracy's founding ideals were false when they were written" does not deserve the honor conferred upon it. Nor does The 1619 Project of which it is a central part, and which the Board seeks to honor by honoring Hannah-Jones's essay. The Board should acknowledge that its award was an error. It can and should correct that error by withdrawing the prize.
Without mentioning the National Association of Scholars by name, Hannah-Jones responded to "efforts to discredit my work" on Twitter, noting how Ida B. Wells received a Pulitzer Prize 100 years after the New York Times called her a "slanderous and nasty minded mulattress."
She said she takes the criticism as "a badge of honor."


theblaze--2020-10-06--New York Times discovers Black Bloc Anarchists hiding in plain sight

On Monday , Glenn and Pat had a little fun at the New York Times ' expense .
Jeremy Lee Quinn , a furloughed photographer in Santa Monica , California , noticed something `` odd '' while documenting Black Bloc anarchists in a half dozen cities across the country over the last four months .
`` Black Bloc Anarchists .
You can recognize them sometimes because they are wearing black , '' Glenn mocked .
Black Bloc anarchists allegedly protested for racial justice , but Quinn , a self-proclaimed supporter of some principles of anarchy , is n't convinced .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ find white supremacist groups at the core of chaos in cities like Portland , Oregon , and Minneapolis , but what he found was much different .
`` On the last Sunday in May , while snapping photos of suburban moms kneeling at a Black Lives Matter protest , Quinn directed his attention toward a more dramatic subject : looting at a shoe store about a mile away , '' Glenn read .
According to the article , Quinn recalled seeing young people with shoeboxes fleeing from a shoe store .
Among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , dressed in all black , acting as what appeared to be `` supervisors . ''
Rather than looting with the others .
Quinn observed these `` supervisors '' breaking storefront windows then walking away without stealing .
`` This is the New York Times reporting .
Hey , at least they 're starting to find their way .
It 's cute , '' Glenn said with a smirk .
Use promo code BECK to save $ 10 on one year of BlazeTV .
Want more from Glenn Beck ?
To enjoy more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos , subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America , defend the Constitution and live the American dream .

On Monday, Glenn and Pat had a little fun at the New York Times' expense.
Jeremy Lee Quinn, a furloughed photographer in Santa Monica, California, noticed something "odd" while documenting Black Bloc anarchists in a half dozen cities across the country over the last four months.
"Black Bloc Anarchists. You can recognize them sometimes because they are wearing black," Glenn mocked.
Black Bloc anarchists allegedly protested for racial justice, but Quinn, a self-proclaimed supporter of some principles of anarchy, isn't convinced. Quinn told the Times he expected to find white supremacist groups at the core of chaos in cities like Portland, Oregon, and Minneapolis, but what he found was much different.
"On the last Sunday in May, while snapping photos of suburban moms kneeling at a Black Lives Matter protest, Quinn directed his attention toward a more dramatic subject: looting at a shoe store about a mile away," Glenn read.
According to the article, Quinn recalled seeing young people with shoeboxes fleeing from a shoe store. Among the chaos, Quinn reported seeing white men, dressed in all black, acting as what appeared to be "supervisors." Rather than looting with the others. Quinn observed these "supervisors" breaking storefront windows then walking away without stealing.
"This is the New York Times reporting. Hey, at least they're starting to find their way. It's cute," Glenn said with a smirk.
Here's Glenn with the full story.
Use promo code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.


theblaze--2020-10-06--Massachusetts' new voting rules will allow the state to count dead people's votes this year

Massachusetts ' new voting rules will allow the state to count dead people 's votes this year

If you're a voter in Massachusetts who went through the effort to vote early this year but then you died before Election Day, don't worry: The state is still going to count your vote thanks to a new law passed by the state legislature this year.
Never mind that counting the votes of the dead could lead to problems: This is just a "temporary law," WBZ-TV reported.
Why do it? COVID-19, of course.
Wait. What's this now?
Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin announced Monday that, because of the coronavirus pandemic, anyone who voted early but dies before Election Day (Nov. 3) this year will still have their vote counted. Also, the window for early voting has been expanded.
"It's pandemic-era time," Galvin said at a news conference, WBZ reported. "So we had to expand the time for voting."
Before now, early voting in the Bay State was 10 days before an election, and if a person voted early and was discovered to have died prior to Election Day, that voter's ballot would not be counted.
"These are people who are alive and competent when they voted, but they may have died unexpectedly after they voted," the attorney general said. "In past times, if the local officials knew they were dead — had died — even though they had legally voted when they cast the ballot, they would have discarded the ballot, not counted it."
But apparently that did not sit well with the state's leaders.
According to the Boston Globe, the "temporary pandemic-era law passed this summer" by the legislature is a notable shift in the state's voting rules.
This year early voting in Massachusetts has been extended by an additional 20 days, giving voters essentially a month to cast their votes.
And not only has the window expended, apparently the definition of what constitutes a legitimate vote has been changed, too.
Now Massachusetts voters who die after casting their early ballot but before Election Day will have their ballots included in the final tally.
The new provision that allows the votes of the dead to suddenly count comes thanks to language slipped into the state's early voting expansion bill. The law bars election officials from rejecting an early or absentee ballot this year "solely because the voter became ineligible to vote by reason by death after casting the ballot," the Globe reported.
How many votes will that impact? Galvin guessed not many, calling it "extremely rare" and saying, "It's not a significant number of ballots."
"It's certainly not going to affect the outcome of the election," he added. "And if it were to — I speculate here — but if it were to, obviously there'd probably be some followup litigation. But since I'm already reaching my quota of being sued this year, I'm not going to go there."
Massachusetts is not the first state to have such a provision. The Globe said at least 11 states have similar laws, including Florida and Hawaii.
As of two years ago, at least 17 state states had explicitly rejected counting ballots of people who died before the election, the Globe noted.


theblaze--2020-10-06--Internet shreds Chris Cuomo after he rants about Trump's unmasked balcony appearance. Remember how C

Internet shreds Chris Cuomo after he rants about Trump's unmasked balcony appearance. Remember how Cuomo reportedly lied about his own COVID-19 quarantine — and fought with a cyclist?

Internet shreds Chris Cuomo after he rants about Trump 's unmasked balcony appearance .
Remember how Cuomo reportedly lied about @ @ @ @ @ and fought with a cyclist ?

Social media took CNN's Chris Cuomo to task on Monday night after he embarked on a blistering rant against President Donald Trump.
In the attack, Cuomo slammed the president's return to the White House following his COVID-19 diagnosis and stay at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
What are the details?
As highlighted by Fox News, a bevy of critics hit out at Cuomo on Monday night after the CNN anchor bemoaned Trump's return to the White House and took aim at footage showing the president taking off his mask while outside on his own balcony to wave to the public.
The "Cuomo Prime Time" host went viral in April for videotaping his "official reentry" from quarantine into the rest of society following his own COVID-19 diagnosis. During his dramatic reentry, Cuomo insisted that he'd been stuck in the family's basement for weeks during his convalescence.
However, it was shortly revealed that Cuomo was seen walking outside of his second property, and even engaged in an altercation with a cyclist while he was on the mend and purportedly confined to the family's basement.
"Days later," Fox News pointed out, "Cuomo dug himself a hole when he tried to combat a Twitter critic by claiming he was 'past quarantine' on the date of a now-infamous altercation with a cyclist, which appears to have occurred days before he claimed he was first healthy enough to emerge from his basement."
Despite his own controversy, Cuomo on Monday night said, "You want a metaphor? You've [got] a president who is a drunk driver who is pushing others to drive drunk. That's what he is. Do I want to see a drunk driver get hurt? Hell no. But I worry more about the people he hits."
He complained, "I love seeing him do that victory lap in that limo, thank God! You know why? I knew that meant he has to be OK. Not the people in there with him, PPE up to their ... nose. Now they've got to quarantine. He doesn't give a damn. And now, I do not have to feign any extra measure of compassion."
"Because he went out there, [and] whatever happens now is on him," Cuomo ranted. "The White House is a cluster. He returned to a cluster and took his mask off."
What did people say about the diatribe?
In a lengthy article, Media Research Center news analyst Nicholas Fondacaro wrote, "This was from the same guy who was caught breaking his own quarantine while he was still contagious, and staged a fake news segment where he came out of his basement 'officially.' He also admitted to spreading his coronavirus to his wife."
Commentator Caleb Hull added, "Chris Cuomo was diagnosed with COVID-19, broke quarantine, didn't wear a mask, put others in danger, got into a fight with a cyclist who called him out, then pretended nothing ever happened and threw a party when his 'quarantine' was over."
The Daily Caller's official Twitter account quipped, "Flashback to April when Cuomo played a dramatic clip of him leaving his basement after supposedly being cleared of coronavirus but had already broken quarantine and got into an altercation with a biker."
Commentator Jordan Rachel added, "Remember when Chris Cuomo went out in public while knowingly infected with COVID (violating his quarantine) and threatened the random biker who called him out for it?"


theblaze--2020-10-06--Twitter removes Trump campaign video featuring the president's head on 49ers' Brandon Aiyuk

Twitter removes Trump campaign video featuring the president 's head on 49ers ' Brandon Aiyuk

Twitter on Tuesday removed a Trump campaign video featuring President Donald Trump's head superimposed over that of 49ers rookie wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk.
The social media company insisted that the president violated the platform's copyright rules.
Aiyuk scored on an impressive 38-yard touchdown run Sunday against the Philadelphia Eagles, leaping over Eagles safety Marcus Epps in the process.
What are the details?
According to Newsweek, the video showed Trump — acting as Aiyuk — leaping over a graphic depicting COVID-19's structure — acting as Epps.
The move, according to the outlet, seemed to indicate that "Trump had hurdled over coronavirus as easily as Aiyuk and jumped over Epps on his way to score."
Following his Monday night release from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, the president tweeted, "Don't let [coronavirus] dominate you. Don't be afraid of it. You're gonna beat it. ... Don't let it dominate, don't let it take over your lives. Don't let that happen."
As it concluded, the video then cut to ITV News footage featuring an anti-Trump protester screaming "No!" during Trump's inauguration.
Team Trump — the Trump 2020 campaign's official Twitter account — shared the video on Monday, but Twitter later disabled playback video of the clip citing a report from the copyright owner.
A warning slapped over where the video used to live reads, "This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner."
'Can they do this?'
Of the ad, Ryan Williams — Aiyuk's agent — said, "His simple question was, 'Can they do this?'" And I went on the attack."
Williams also said that the NFL was also attempting to have the video taken down.
"Our contact at Twitter told us the NFL was also working to get it taken down for copyright (infringement)," he explained. "So it was taken down.''
Williams added, "It's interesting to me that for someone who at one point referred to football players as 'sons of b*****s,' him and his campaign sure do like to use football when it's convenient for them."
You can watch an archived version of the video here, or a low-quality version of the clip here and below.


theblaze--2020-10-06--VIDEO: Women trash 3-year-old's birthday party. Cops say DA won't press charges due to not enough pr

VIDEO: Women trash 3-year-old's birthday party. Cops say DA won't press charges due to not enough property damage.

VIDEO : Women trash 3-year-old 's birthday party .
Cops say DA wo n't press charges due to not enough @ @ @ @ @ gon na move y'all 's s**t ?
Are you gon na move y'all 's s**t @ @

Two women were caught on video destroying a child's birthday party outside a Houston apartment complex over the weekend — and police told TheBlaze that the district attorney declined to press charges due to insufficient property damage.
What are the details?
The video begins with a woman dragging away an upside-down table that appears to have a cover on it as others in the grassy area stare at her.
Image source: YouTube screenshot
The woman then returns to a second table where a male and female are seated; the table has a cover on top as well as food.
Image source: YouTube screenshot
Standing at one end of the table, the woman tells the pair, "Excuse me? Excuse me?" And presumably when she doesn't get the correct answer, she says, "OK, that's fine" — and attempts to drag the table away.
When the table occupants protest, the woman tells them, "Move your stuff! Move your stuff!" When they don't move the table or the items on it, she asks the pair, "Are you gonna move y'all's s**t? Are you gonna move y'all's s**t?"
With that the woman yanks up the table as a person off camera is heard remarking, "Wow!" — and the table's cover and the food slides off to the ground.
Image source: YouTube screenshot
She then carries the table away and lets it drop to the ground.
Another woman with her is seen tossing a chair against a tree and then picking up another chair and walking away with it.
Image source: YouTube screenshot
The first woman is heard saying something unintelligible to the partygoers, and the video ends.
Here's the clip. ( Content warning: Language):
Two women destroying 3yr old birthday party . youtu.be
What else did police say?
Police told TheBlaze they were called to the apartment complex around 9:15 p.m. Saturday where they spoke to the woman who took away the tables as well as the woman who was sitting at one of them.
Police said the woman who took away the tables was upset because they were set up too close to her patio, that she said she asked the people at the party to move them and that she called police over a noise complaint.
The woman who was sitting at one of the tables told police she's six months pregnant but wasn't injured.
Police told TheBlaze they brought the incident to the district attorney's office, but the D.A. declined to press charges since there wasn't enough property damage to issue a Class B misdemeanor. But police added that officers will reexamine the incident to see if a Class C misdemeanor can be issued.
What did the family have to say?
According to KPEL-AM, the family of 3-year-old Angely rented the tables and chairs to celebrate her birthday — and now they're responsible for covering damages.
A GoFundMe account was set up to help cover the costs — and as of Tuesday afternoon nearly 300 donors have pledged over $4,600.
Here's more about the incident from the mother's perspective:
The station said community organizations have reached out to offer a makeup birthday party for Angely:


theblaze--2020-10-06--Michelle Obama slams Trump as 'racist', defends BLM, advocates for Joe Biden in 'closing argument'

Michelle Obama slams Trump as 'racist ' , defends BLM , advocates for Joe Biden in 'closing argument' Obama 's @ @ @ @ @ conflict to cast election as Americans vs. divisive wealthy elites

Former first lady Michelle Obama blasted President Donald Trump's policies as "racist" and beneficial to the rich and powerful in a campaign video making her "closing argument" for Democratic nominee Joe Biden 28 days from the presidential election in November.
In a 24-minute speech published on YouTube, the former first lady adopted talking points lifted from progressive election strategists who urged Democrats to link "racism and class conflict" in the left's appeal to voters.
"Right now, our country is in chaos because of a president who isn't up to the job," Obama said.
Writing in the New York Times last month, progressive researchers Ian Haney López, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and Tory Gavito, founder of the left-wing Texas Future Project, called on Democrats to adjust their message to reach Hispanics and other voter groups the Biden campaign is struggling to consolidate support from.
"Democrats should call for Americans to unite against the strategic racism of powerful elites who stoke division and then run the country for their own benefit," López and Gavito wrote. "This is not to deny the reality of pervasive societal racism. But it does direct attention away from whites in general and toward the powerful elites who benefit from divide-and-conquer politics."
They proposed Democrats adopt a message like this:
We had come so far, but now Covid-19 threatens our families — for instance with health risks, record unemployment and losing the businesses we worked hard to build. To overcome these challenges, we need to pull together no matter our race or ethnicity. But instead of uniting us, certain politicians make divisions worse, insulting and blaming different groups. When they divide us, they can more easily rig our government and the economy for their wealthy campaign donors. When we come together by rejecting racism against anyone, we can elect new leaders who support proven solutions that help all working families.
That is exactly the message Obama used in her speech.
"Let's be very real, America is divided right now, and a lot of people are being sold lies from those who want to get rich or stay in power, or sometimes both," she said. "We must all empathize with those who might not look like us or vote like us. We have got to put ourselves in one another's shoes."
"Think about it," she continued. "You've worked hard all your life and for too long you've watched the rich get richer. You've lost your farms and your livelihoods to corporate greed, you've seen your beloved towns shattered by joblessness, you've watched families destroyed by drug addiction and mental health challenges. All of this, long before this virus hit. And it is frustrating to hear some folks say that you've been the beneficiary of privilege, that the color of the skin gives you a head start. That is the reality for far too many hard-working decent Americans.
"But right now, the president and his allies are trying to tap into that frustration and distract from his breathtaking failures by giving folks someone to blame other than them," she said.
Obama defended Black Lives Matter protests and said "the president and his allies" are "stoking fears about black and brown Americans, lying about how minorities will destroy the suburbs, whipping up violence and intimidation — and they're pinning it all on what's been an overwhelmingly peaceful movement for racial solidarity."
Obama claimed "only a tiny fraction of demonstrations had any violence at all" and labels the president's calls for law and order in U.S. cities beset by civil unrest "racist."
She accused Trump of failing to take the coronavirus pandemic seriously, appealing to U.S. parents who are concerned for their children's safety as schools reopen.
"If you're a parent like me, you're feeling the consequences of this president's failure to take this pandemic seriously — from his constant downplaying of the importance of masks and social distancing to his relentless pressure on schools to open without offering a clear plan or meaningful support to keep students and teachers safe," Obama said.
She said Trump, with all the resources of the United States government, failed to provide a plan to ensure Americans were tested for coronavirus and health care workers received the medical equipment they needed to handle a surge of sick patients. She said the president lied to the American people about the severity of the virus and attempted to "gaslight the American people by acting like this pandemic is not a real threat."
Obama attacked Trump for allegedly calling U.S. military war dead "losers" and "suckers," comments Trump denies making that were divulged to the press by anonymous sources. She also criticized the president and Republicans in Congress for failing to deliver additional stimulus aid to Americans facing economic hardship caused by the pandemic.
Former Vice President Joe Biden "has the character and the experience to put an end to this chaos, start solving these problems, and help lighten the load for families across the country," Obama said.
Obama made several appeals to race in her speech, asking undecided voters for "empathy."
"As a black woman, who has like the overwhelming majority of people of color in this nation done everything in my power to live a life of dignity and service and honesty, the knowledge that any of my fellow Americans is more afraid of me than the chaos we are living through right now — well that hurts. It hurts us all. It is a heaviness that sits on our hearts," Obama said.
So I want to appeal for some empathy here too. I want everyone who is still undecided to think about all those folks like me and my ancestors. The moms and dads who worked their fingers to the bone to raise their kids right. The teenagers who wear hoodies while working hard to get their diplomas. The millions of folks who look like me and fought and died and toiled as slaves and soldiers and laborers to help build this country. Put yourselves in our shoes for just a moment. Imagine how it feels to wake up every day and do your very best to uphold the values that this country claims to hold dear — truth, honor, decency — only to have those efforts met by scorn not just by your fellow citizens but by a sitting president. Imagine how it feels to have suspicion cast on you from the day you were born simply because of the hue of your skin. To walk around your own country scared that someone's unjustified fear of you could put you in harm's way, terrified of what four more years of this kind of division might mean for the safety of you and those you love. Living with the knowledge that no matter how hard we try, how much good we do in the world, there will be far too many who will never see our humanity, who will project on us their own fears of retribution for centuries of injustice and thus only see us as a threat to be restrained, and we know what happens next. A racial slur from a passing car. A job promotion that never comes. A routine traffic stop gone wrong. Maybe a knee to the neck.
"Racism. Fear. Division. These are powerful weapons. And they can destroy this nation if we don't deal with them head-on," Obama said.
"Search your hearts, and your conscience, and then vote for Joe Biden like your lives depend on it."


theblaze--2020-10-06--Justices Thomas, Alito stoke liberal fear by suggesting SCOTUS gay marriage ruling could be overturn

Justices Thomas, Alito stoke liberal fear by suggesting SCOTUS gay marriage ruling could be overturned

Justices Thomas , Alito stoke liberal fear by suggesting SCOTUS gay marriage ruling could be overturned

Conservative Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on Monday excoriated the high court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision — which uniformly mandated that all states recognize same-sex marriages — characterizing it as an assault on religious liberty and suggesting that the ruling could be overturned in short order.
What did they say?
"In Obergefell v. Hodges ... the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text," Thomas wrote in a scathing statement, joined by Alito. "Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots ... in other words, [it] was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."
Thomas wrote the court's denial to hear an appeal from former Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis, who was sued after objecting to issuing same-sex marriage licenses in the state.
Even in denying to hear Davis' case, however, Thomas made sure to note that her petition "provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell." Consequences that he said were "created" by the court and that "only [the court] can fix."
"Until then," — that is, presumably, until the case is overturned by the court — "Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty,'" Thomas concluded.
Why does it matter?
The sharp words were especially notable given the Supreme Court's conservative transformation over the last four years.
Time noted in its report that "with Ginsburg's death and the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018, only three members of the majority in the gay marriage case remain: Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan."
Kennedy, a moderate, was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and President Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ginsburg's position.
Should Barrett be confirmed, it would give conservatives a 6-3 majority on the court. It would likely be a true majority, too, even as Chief Justice John Roberts, who is traditionally regarded as a conservative justice, has shown a tendency at times to play the middle since Kennedy's retirement.
Liberals were outraged
In response to the statement, LGBT rights groups and others expressed outrage and concern.
Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso David said, "These comments made clear that the war on marriage equality, against the lives of same-sex couples, is alive and well" even as the court "hangs in the balance."
Jim Obergefell, a lead plaintiff in the 2015 case, said, "It is unthinkable that Alito, Thomas and others on the Supreme Court would want to take away that right and the dignity that comes along with it."
"It is alarming that there are justices on the Supreme Court who want to overrule Obergefell, which is a precedent the court has reaffirmed, and which hundreds of thousands of couples have relied to seal their unions in matrimony," Yale Law School professor William Eskridge added.


theblaze--2020-10-06--Glenn Beck's viral tweet prompts Americans to reveal why they're voting for Trump in 2020

Glenn Beck 's viral tweet prompts Americans to reveal why they 're voting for Trump in 2020 ' I 'm @ @ @ @ @ will vote for him now '

Glenn Beck did not vote for President Donald Trump in 2016 but will support the president in 2020.
In a tweet that has since gone viral, Beck explained Monday why he will vote for Trump this year.
"Who didn't vote for @realDonaldTrump in 2016 - but will in 2020, like me. I can't be alone. I couldn't vote for either last time. I just didn't trust he would do what promised. He may be the first politician in my lifetime that DID keep his word. What was it for you?"
The response to Beck's tweet was resounding, making clear that there are countless Americans who are in the same boat as Beck. Thousands of people responded explaining why they also will support Trump in 2020 despite not voting for him in 2016.
What did people say?
Many respondents were conservative or Libertarians who refused to vote for Trump in 2016, but plan to vote for him now.
"Voted for Gary Johnson last time. Trump this time," Dave Rubin responded.
"Hey, Glenn. I will. I ran against him but things are different now. He will get my vote barring any unforeseen circumstances," Austin Peterson, who ran in 2016, responded.
"Been a libertarian voter since the great Harry Browne. I am voting for Trump. The main reason: his stance against critical theory / woke-ism. There is no greater threat to freedom than allowing such poison to spread," another person explained.
"Me! I was Cruz all the way. Live in CA. Would not vote for Trump out of principle. Wrote in my dog for President. 4 years later, I will PROUDLY cast my vote for the most pro-life president this country has ever had (not to mention ALL of the positive things he has done!)," another person said.
"That's me. When I heard him say he was going to take down the swamp I just rolled my eyes. I've always voted libertarian. This is the first time I will be voting Republican and first time I know my vote matters," another person responded.
Many others cited Trump's first-term accomplishments.
"I didn't vote for him even though I've voted Rep my whole life. I thought he was too polarizing to get anything done. I was wrong - prison reform, tax cuts, troops home, no war, low unemployment, and more. I'm glad to be wrong and will vote for him now," one person said.
"Same. I am voting for him now because his policies have been better than I thought. Personally, he drives me crazy, but I will vote for him and most definitely against Biden and the rest of the rabid left," another person said.
"The work he's done for human trafficking has been unprecedented," one person responded.
"I didn't vote for either in 2016 because he acted like a manic game show host! But he has won me over with his ability to get done what he said amidst all the hostility! I believe he will get us back on track," another person said.
"I'm with you. I didn't trust either one. But I've never seen more results in such a toxic environment. But as a conservative, other than the usual spending complaints, what do I knock other than his tweeting?" yet another person said.
Others cited the leftward turn of the Democratic Party and media.
"You and I are identical from 2016 to now, @GlennBeck. It was Trump actually implementing conservative policies like the taxes and judges to name a few. I didn't trust him to do any of that. But between that and the behavior of the left during the Kavanaugh hearings, I'm onboard," one person said.
"Voted 3rd Party in 2016. Later, saw the 24/7 vitriol spewed toward Trump & his family/admin & the blinders fell off. Then, Kavanaugh happened & that sealed the deal for me. Now, seeing the anarchy/socialism/evilness from the Left only serves to solidify my vote for Trump in Nov," another person said.
"I quit voting 12 yrs ago because I felt both sides were corrupt. Donald is an anomaly who wasn't supposed to win. He exposed the corrupt media and those that are willing to do anything for power. That's one of the many reasons he has my vote," another person said.
Others were Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 — but are now on team Trump.


theblaze--2020-10-06--Facebook and Twitter censor Trump post comparing COVID-19 to the flu

Facebook on Tuesday removed a post from President Donald Trump comparing COVID-19 to the flu for violating its rules on coronavirus misinformation.
A spokesperson for Facebook confirmed to CNN that the company removed the president's post.
Trump's message, which asks if the United States will "close down our Country" for flu season, was also given a warning label on Twitter for "spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19."
"Flu season is coming up! Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu. Are we going to close down our Country?" Trump wrote.
"No, we have learned to live with it, just like we are learning to live with COVID, in most populations far less lethal!!!"
This year, more than 209,000 Americans have died of COVID-19. According to estimates from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, since 2010 between 12,000 and 61,000 people have died from the flu annually.
According to The Hill, the last time U.S. flu deaths were estimated at 100,000 was in 1968.
While COVID-19 is similar to the flu, there are important differences.
"Influenza (Flu) and COVID-19 are both contagious respiratory illnesses, but they are caused by different viruses," the CDC notes on a webpage explaining the differences between the two viruses. "COVID-19 is caused by infection with a new coronavirus (called SARS-CoV-2) and flu is caused by infection with influenza viruses."
"Because some of the symptoms of flu and COVID-19 are similar, it may be hard to tell the difference between them based on symptoms alone, and testing may be needed to help confirm a diagnosis. Flu and COVID-19 share many characteristics, but there are some key differences between the two."
The viruses share many of the same symptoms, including fever/chills, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, muscle pain or body aches, headache, and occasionally vomiting and diarrhea (more common in children than adults). In addition to these symptoms, COVID-19 may cause the loss of taste or smell.
In general, individuals with COVID-19 take a few days longer for symptoms to appear after infection, but this can vary from case to case. COVID-19 is also more contagious than the flu.
"While COVID-19 and flu viruses are thought to spread in similar ways, COVID-19 is more contagious among certain populations and age groups than flu," the CDC says. "Also, COVID-19 has been observed to have more superspreading events than flu. This means the virus that causes COVID-19 can quickly and easily spread to a lot of people and result in continuous spreading among people as time progresses."
COVID-19 is thought to be more deadly than the flu, according to Dr. Lisa Lockerd Maragakis, writing for Johns Hopkins Medicine.
"Since this disease is caused by a new virus, the vast majority of people do not yet have immunity to it, and a vaccine may be many months away. Doctors and scientists are working to estimate the mortality rate of COVID-19, but at present, it is thought to be substantially higher (possibly 10 times or more) than that of most strains of the flu," Lockerd Maragakis writes.
Additionally, while there is a vaccine and proven treatments for the flu, there is no vaccine for COVID-19 and medical professionals are still conducting research to find effective treatments for the virus.
President Trump spent the weekend at Walter Reed National Medical Center after disclosing last Friday that he tested positive for coronavirus. The president reportedly experienced mild symptoms, recording a fever and experiencing fatigue.
Trump was treated with Remedsivir, an anti-viral drug, the steroid dexamethasone, as well as zinc, vitamin D, melatonin, and aspirin during his hospitalization.
He was discharged from the hospital Monday. In a video message posted after he was discharged, Trump told Americans, "Don't let [the virus] dominate you. Don't be afraid of it. You're gonna beat it. We have the best medical equipment, we have the best medicines. All developed recently."


theblaze--2020-10-06--80-year-old man dies after mask dispute. Now authorities are charging a 65-year-old with homicide.

80-year-old man dies after mask dispute .
Now authorities are charging a 65-year-old with homicide .

A 65-year-old man has been charged with criminally negligent homicide after he reportedly pushed an 80-year-old man to the ground.
What are the details?
Rocco Sapienza, 80, was visiting a bar in West Seneca, New York, on Sept. 26 when he approached 65-year-old Donald Lewinski, another bargoer.
According to CNN, Sapienza confronted Lewinski about not wearing a mask and about treating bar staff poorly during some of the evening's interactions at Pamp's Red Zone Bar and Grill.
"Sapienza allegedly confronted Lewinski at a West Senca bar near Buffalo on September 26 about how he spoke to the bar staff and for not regularly wearing a mask as Lewinski brought out buckets of beer to a band playing outside," the outlet reported.
When Lewinski came back inside the bar, he reportedly shoved the 80-year-old man to the ground.
Erie County District Attorney John Flynn said that Sapienza was "pretty much in an unresponsive condition right away."
"[Sapienza] went into a seizure right away there on the floor of the bar," he added.
First responders rushed Sapienza to a nearby hospital, where he remained unresponsive until he died from his injuries on Sept. 30.
An autopsy concluded that Sapienza died of blunt-force trauma to the head.
Flynn announced Monday that Lewinski had been charged with criminally negligent homicide in the death of Sapienza and pointed out that it seemed the two "just didn't like one another" from the moment they met that evening.
"I get the impression from witness statements that these two just didn't like one another," he said. "[T]hese two were butting heads from minute one there. ... So there were other things besides the mask that were involved here."
If convicted, Lewinski could face four years in prison.
'He was a very friendly man'
Lewinski's attorney, Barry Covert, says his client plans to plead not guilty and is set to appear at West Seneca Town Court on Tuesday.
Covert said, "It's certainly a tragedy that Mr. Sapienza passed away. My client and his family want to express their best wishes and sympathy to the family of Mr. Sapienza."
Sapienza's son, Richard, told KDKA-TV that his father — a retired steelworker — was friendly to all he met.
"He wasn't afraid to call somebody out for being stupid, for acting stupid. If you knew my father, that's the kind of guy he was. And my father could hold a conversation with anybody, he was a very friendly man," he said.
The owner of Pamp's Red Zone Bar and Grill told WKBW-TV that the bar's community is also "deeply saddened" by Sapienza's death.
"We are all deeply saddened by the loss of Rocco. He was a part of our Red Zone family and loved by all. Our deepest sympathies go out to Rocco's family," the statement read.


theblaze--2020-10-06--Horowitz: Did WHO official just admit that COVID-19 death rate is similar to that of the flu?

Horowitz : Did WHO official just admit that COVID-19 death rate is similar to that of the flu ?
It @ @ @ @ @

It was the single most impactful fact disseminated by the World Health Organization in influencing the unprecedented global panic over this virus. They claimed in early March that the infection fatality rate (IFR) for COVID-19 was 3.4%. Those of us who paid attention always knew that it was bogus, but how ironic that a top WHO official has now given us the denominator we were looking for, which proves that the fatality rate of this virus is right in line with seasonal flus, although more people will be infected.
Late last week, Dr. Mike Ryan, the executive director of the WHO's health emergencies programme, said that "our best guess" is that 10 percent of the world has been infected with the virus. That is roughly 750 million people. While he meant to sow panic and push for more restrictions, he inadvertently let the cat out of the bag and gave us the infection fatality rate.
According to the WHO, roughly 1 million people have died from the virus. Let's put aside the fact that so many of those people died with the virus, not because of it and that a majority would have died within the year. Working with their official count, it would mean the implied infection fatality rate for the world, according to the WHO, is 0.13%.
Guess what else has a similar fatality rate? If you guessed the plain old flu, you won the jackpot. Here are the estimated fatality rates in the U.S. of the past decade worth of flu seasons based on CDC data.
Notice how the death rate for COVID-19 is in line with that of the seasonal flu. The 2017/2018 flu season was even considered a pandemic, and according to CDC's projected estimates, the death toll was "more than 80,000." That would result in an IFR of at least 0.18%. Yet, nobody in this country outside of those in health care circles even remembers it.
It's also important to keep in mind that the past two flu seasons were very mild, so COVID-19 likely killed out more people who were slated to die from respiratory viruses over the three-year window. Preliminary estimates of the 2019-20 flu season project just 22,000 deaths. Additionally, according to CDC, the flu essentially disappeared from the Southern Hemisphere this summer and there is solid evidence that the two respiratory viruses don't mix in the Northern Hemisphere either. Thus, you have to subtract the amount of typical flu deaths that we are missing and only focus on the net result, which further lowers the excess death burden of this virus. The number of flu deaths will likely remain low for the next year or two as a result of COVID-19.
Imagine what the fatality rate would have been had the World Health Organization not followed China's advice to liberally place people on ventilators during the early months of the epidemic?
Also, as time goes on, more and more people are getting the virus, yet fewer people are dying than before. For example, despite an explosion of cases in Europe, there are very few deaths. One doctor calculated the case fatality rate (CFR) in some European countries at 0.76%.
Typically, the infection fatality rate (IFR), which factors in all the undetected cases, is as much as 10 times lower than the fatality rate of known cases, which disproportionately include the more clinically acute cases.
Nowhere is this dynamic more evident than among college students. Unlike younger children who have shown very little capacity to spread the virus, college kids are spreading the virus like wildfire in dorms. Yet, according to Dr. Andrew Bostom of Brown University, who tabulated the data from 50 university systems, there were just three hospitalizations out of nearly 70,000 cases. There have been no reported COVID-19 deaths on campus.
The overreaction to the fatality rate and overstating of our ability to even mitigate it has real life consequences. Consider the fact that in Third World countries, the death rate from the virus has been particularly low, yet the disrupting responses to it led by Western elites have killed more people particularly in those countries. According to a report published last Thursday by Oxfam International, a massive global famine relief charity, 121 million more people could be "pushed to the brink of starvation this year," with as many as 12,000 dying a day from hunger due to the shutdowns and restrictions on commerce and production across the world. This is on top of more people dying from missed vaccinations, malaria, and medical treatment.
Thus, while western leaders can virtue signal about the need to stay home – all the while enjoying their fat paychecks and Amazon deliveries working from home – those in Africa and other underdeveloped areas will pay with their lives. This is all for a virus that has roughly the same fatality rate as the flu, albeit most people experience milder symptoms, often like those of spring allergies. To be fair, more people will get this virus than during a typical flu season, which will add to the death count, but there has been no proven method of stopping the spread.
What is so sad is that our leaders understood this reality before the media turned the virus into a political issue and decades of science and human experience were extirpated in favor of the virtue signaling opportunity of a lifetime. On March 26, Dr. Anthony Fauci, along with National Institutes of Health deputy director of clinical research Clifford Lane and CDC Director Robert Redfield, published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine making exactly this point. They predicted that once the true number of asymptomatic and subclinical cases would be factored in, "the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively."
Sadly, they didn't factor in the virtue signaling they'd eventually endorse, and the countless lives lost to suicide, drug addiction, famine, and missed medical care thanks to their subsequent decision to exchange science for power and control.


theblaze--2020-10-06--Joe Biden uses President Trump's stay in hospital to push president to force mask mandate — starting

Joe Biden uses President Trump's stay in hospital to push president to force mask mandate — starting with interstate travel

Joe Biden uses President Trump 's stay in hospital to push president to force mask mandate — starting with interstate @

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Monday used President Donald Trump's stay at Walter Reed Medical Center to renew his calls for the president to institute a nationwide mask mandate, beginning with interstate travel and federal facilities.
What did he say?
President Trump posted messages and videos during his stay at Walter Reed over the weekend while being treated for the coronavirus.
Early Monday, he began tweeting campaign messages on taxes, guns, law and order, the economy, the military, religious liberty, abortion, health care, and more. He also reminded supporters to register to vote and volunteer for the campaign.
While the president was continuing to recover at Walter Reed, Biden used a campaign stop in Miami Monday to renew his call for a nationwide mask mandate.
Back in August, Biden announced his support for the mandate, declaring, "Every American should be wearing a mask when they're outside for the next three months at a minimum," and calling for the government to institute a nationwide mask mandate, which, he claimed, would "save over 40,000 live in the next three months." He reiterated support for that plan during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.
Just a few weeks later, Biden walked back the demand for a mandate and admitted that it would likely be unconstitutional.
Asked about a mask mandate during an interview on "Politics Unplugged," Biden said, "Here's the deal, the federal government ... there's a constitutional issue whether the federal government could issue such a mandate, I don't think constitutionally they could, so I wouldn't issue a mandate."
Fast-forward a month and the Biden campaign is using the president's coronavirus diagnosis to once again call for the federal government to force a nationwide mask mandate.
"Now that he's busy tweeting campaign messages, I would ask him to do this: Listen to the scientists, support masks, support a mask mandate nationwide," Biden said to applause before a live audience in Little Havana.
"Require masks in every federal building and facility and interstate travel," he continued.
"Urge every governor in America to do the same," Biden added. "We know it saves lives."
"Experts say that universal masking could save, between now and January, 100,000 lives," he stated. "You know, I backed that mandate months ago. He should back it now."
The former vice president did not bother to add his subsequent admission that such a mandate would be unconstitutional.
LIVE: Biden Delivers Remarks in Little Havana in Miami, Florida youtu.be
Biden also said the Trump administration on Friday rejected a mask mandate for public transportation.
He was referring to the U.S. Department of Transportation's rejection of a petition — not a government-created policy plan — from a labor union connected to the AFL-CIO asking for a department-wide policy requiring, as The Hill reported, every passenger on a DOT-approved vehicle to wear a mask.


theblaze--2020-10-06--Commentary: The media's insane reaction to Trump's balcony appearance proves that they WANT you to l

Commentary: The media's insane reaction to Trump's balcony appearance proves that they WANT you to live in fear

Commentary : The media 's insane reaction to Trump 's balcony appearance proves that they WANT you to live in @

To hear the media tell it, President Donald Trump tried to kill us all yesterday.
In case you missed it, after being cleared to leave by the medical professionals who were caring for him, Trump returned to the White House — his home — on Monday and emerged onto his own outdoor balcony, removed his mask, and waved.
In spite of the fact that Trump was, yet again, a) outside, b) on the premises of his own home, and c) not within six feet (or, from what I could tell, 60 feet) of anyone, the condemnation of Trump was swifter and perhaps more hysterical than usual.
CNN predictably led the pack, with one on-air host actually suggesting that the shot of Trump removing his mask shouldn't be shown because "that's going to kill people."
Actually, it's not at all clear that CNN led the pack, because some reactions were even more hilariously over-the-top.
Of course, it goes without saying that diseases — even airborne ones — require proximity for transmission. A person who has COVID-19 (or any other contagious disease) does not just breathe a noxious cloud of disease that disperses infinitely until it finds someone to infect.
There's a maximum distance that disease-carrying aerosol droplets can travel in the air, and it's less than 6 feet, which is how we came up with the whole 6-feet-of-social-distancing thing. Which is also why the president standing outside of his own home with no people even in visible range represented literally zero threat to anyone.
Compare, if you will, the contrast with how the president's behavior was received with the way defiance in the face of literally any other disease would have been received. If a person who has cancer posts that they aren't going to let fear of cancer dominate their lives, they are rightfully lauded as brave.
Same goes for people who have HIV, or Hepatitis B, or whatever. If you get a disease, even a contagious one, you're not SUPPOSED to cower in fear of it. You should take reasonable precautions to prevent spreading it to others, yes, but no one is lauded for going inside and hiding indefinitely, as President Trump is apparently now expected to do.
A different set of rules applies, however, to COVID-19. According to the media, you're supposed to cower in fear of it. Consider the statement that so many have objected to: Trump did not say that you should not fear COVID, or take any precautions regarding COVID whatsoever; rather, he said that you shouldn't allow fear of COVID to dominate your life.
To paraphrase Bilbo Baggins in "The Hobbit," every time you step out your front door, you incur risks. You incur risks that you will die in a car wreck, catch an infectious disease (other than COVID-19), get mugged, or have any number of other terrible things happen to you.
Now, your response to that can be one of three things. One, you can just sit in your house and live in fear — which will probably not extend your life anyway because you'll soon be dealing with crippling depression and a bevy of health problems that are caused by inactivity. Two, you can completely ignore all dangers and take no precautions at all to protect yourself, which is also not advised. Three, you can determine that you're going to take reasonable precautions like driving the speed limit, wearing seat belts, and carrying a reasonable means of self-defense, but not let fear of the outside world dominate your life.
The president's message Monday encouraged Americans to take the third course when it comes to the coronavirus. For all of American history, this has always been considered the laudable course of action.
And let's be real for a minute: We are never going to rid ourselves of the coronavirus completely. Even after a vaccine is developed, it's going to remain around and be dangerous to vulnerable populations, much like the flu. No magic pill is coming that is ever going to make this disease vanish from the face of the earth, now that it's been loosed on the world. We are all going to have to decide whether we will allow fear of it to cripple us indefinitely, or if we will determine that, while we should take reasonable precautions to prevent unnecessary spread of this disease, we won't let fear of it dominate us.
I don't agree with everything Trump says, or even most of the things Trump says. But I agree with him 100% on this. And before this year, I couldn't have imagined anyone disagreeing with the principle.
Sadly, it appears I was wrong.


theblaze--2020-10-06--VIDEO: Staffer stops father's funeral at UK crematorium, orders sons to move away from grieving mom

VIDEO: Staffer stops father's funeral at UK crematorium, orders sons to move away from grieving mom due to COVID-19 rules

VIDEO : Staffer stops father 's funeral at UK crematorium , orders sons to move away from grieving mom due @ @ @

A staff member stopped a father's funeral at a crematorium in the United Kingdom last week and ordered his two sons to move away from their grieving mother due to COVID-19 rules — and it was all captured on video.
What are the details?
At the start of his father Alan Wright's service Friday at Crownhill Crematorium, the chairs were spread apart to conform to social distancing guidelines. Wright died from a heart attack in September, the Daily Mail reported.
But Craig Bicknell told BBC News he decided to close the distance between himself and his "vulnerable" mother as she was "lost."
"I made everyone aware that I [would] need to comfort my mum at some point," he added to the outlet. "When I saw my mum break as she did, it just took over that I had to comfort her and put my arm around her."
Seconds later, Bicknell's brother followed suit and moved his chair, and both sons were sitting next to their mother.
Image source: Daily Mail video screenshot
However, a crematorium staffer was seen on video walking in, raising his arms, walking behind the sons and their mother, interrupting the speaker, and telling Bicknell and his brother, "you have to put them back, I'm afraid," BBC News said.
Image source: Daily Mail video screenshot
"You can't move the chairs, you were told," he added, according to the outlet.
The brothers complied.
Image source: Daily Mail video screenshot
What did the powers that be have to say?
Milton Keynes Council, which runs the building, told BBC News it regrets the incident.
"We are sorry to have upset this family," a Council spokesman told the outlet. "We don't usually step in if a guest needs to be comforted by another family member, and in this instance [we] should have taken a more considered approach. We ask funeral directors to let us know whether any chairs should be grouped in advance, and from now on this includes guests who are in the same household or bubbles, as well as people who need extra support."
BBC News said COVID-19 government guidelines allow up to 30 people to attend a funeral and require social distancing.
What else did Bicknell have to say?
Bicknell noted to the Daily Mail that he and his brother Paul were left devastated by the "telling off," and he added to BBC News that the incident left him "angry, upset; it was just an empty feeling."
He also told BBC News that it "totally ruined the day" as he still had to deliver his eulogy after the confrontation.
"It was very hard to do," he said. "I needed the service to carry on for my dad. It was a really scary feeling, I've never felt [it] before."
Bicknell wrote on Facebook of the experience, "I can sit in a restaurant, I can sit in a pub, I can live at her house, I can travel in a limousine to the crematorium with 6. But when I want to give my mum a cuddle at dads funeral, a man flies out mid service shouting stop the service and makes us split...A devastating day made even worse," the Daily Mail reported.