More information has come to light about Walter Wallace Jr, the man who approached Philadelphia police while brandishing a knife, and whose seemingly justified death at their hands has ostensibly sparked the latest round of rioting. As the local ABC affiliate in the city reports, Wallace was an “aspiring rapper” whose “central themes” in his music were guns and shooting people. We are also told that he rapped about social justice, though it is not clear how someone can be fascinated with shooting people while simultaneously concerned with social justice.
Wallace has a lengthy rap sheet. He had a prior arrest for assaulting a police officer, though it’s not known whether the officers responding to the 911 call shortly before his death knew about that incident. Perhaps more noteworthy is his <a href="https://6abc.com/philadelphia-vandalism-walter-wallace-west-philly-shooting-police/7396432/">2017 conviction</a> for robbery and assault. Reportedly, that crime involved “kicking down the door of another woman and putting a gun to her head.” If this sounds familiar, that’s because George Floyd was convicted of doing almost exactly the same thing, except in his case he forced his way into a woman’s home and put a gun to her stomach rather than her head. Wallace’s actions are also reminiscent of Jacob Blake, who allegedly broke into a woman’s house, raped her, and then stole her debit card and her vehicle. 
If you’re keeping track at home, that makes three recent BLM martyrs with a history — in two cases confirmed, in one case very credibly alleged — of brutalizing and abusing women. We could also add to the list Ricardo Munoz, the man shot by Lancaster police after charging at them with a knife. He had several previous convictions, the worst one being a recent spree where he stabbed four people including a minor and a 22-year-old woman. Though he did appear to be an equal opportunity felon, stabbing men and women alike.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NG27VmCbV8Y?start=124" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
All of these men have been performatively mourned. The names of at least two of them have graced the helmets of NFL players. They have been memorialized as heroes of their community. Joe Biden infamously visited with the credibly accused rapist Jacob Blake’s family, and spoke with Blake himself on the phone. Last night, Biden tweeted about his “heartbreak” over the death of Wallace and lamented &#8220;the emotional weight of learning about another Black life in America lost.&#8221; Of course, black lives are lost every day in America, but Biden, like every other elected Democrat, is quite selective in the losses he chooses to publicly mourn.
And while we are implored to “say the names” of these men, and celebrate their lives, and weep over their deaths (or injuries, in Blake’s case), their female victims are erased from the discussion. Their names are not mentioned, or allowed to be mentioned. Their suffering does not count. Nobody ever stops to ask how they must feel to see their abusers lauded in this way. Nobody asks for their perspective. And if they were to offer it, they would be shouted down, or worse. This is what BLM and the Democrat Party think about women who do not fit neatly into the script, do not cooperate with the program. Mostly, they think nothing of them. They do not acknowledge their existence. We are expected to follow that lead, making the violent criminals into victims but never speaking a word about the victims of the violent criminals. It is by this silence that the Left crafts and maintains its narrative. So, we should not be silent.
More from Matt Walsh: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-black-lives-matter-isnt-even-pretending-to-care-about-police-brutality-anymore">Black Lives Matter Isn’t Even Pretending To Care About ‘Police Brutality’ Anymore</a>
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Demonstrators Protest The Fatal Police Shooting Of Walter Wallace Jr. In Philadelphia.

WALSH: BLM Is Making A Martyr Of Yet Another Man Convicted Of Abusing A Woman

Opinion

More information has come to light about Walter Wallace Jr, the man who approached Philadelphia police while brandishing a knife, and whose seemingly

description

noindex, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1

robots

WALSH: BLM Is Making A Martyr Of Yet Another Man Convicted Of Abusing A Woman | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/walsh-blm-is-making-a-martyr-of-yet-another-man-convicted-of-abusing-a-woman/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/Walter-Wallace-Jr-Protest-1200x800.jpg

twitter:card

COVID-19 pandemic

The ‘Lockdown vs. Herd Immunity’ Debate Has Nothing To Do With Science

Analysis

This past summer, I discussed COVID-19 with two different kinds of people. The first wore a mask and stood no fewer than 10 feet away, warning me that

The ‘Lockdown vs. Herd Immunity’ Debate Has Nothing To Do With Science | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/the-lockdown-vs-herd-immunity-debate-has-nothing-to-do-with-science/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1213314129-1200x800.jpg

Here’s the good news: on January 20, 2021, we will inaugurate the President of the United States. The bad news: the road to get there might not be pretty.
With the uncertainty surrounding mail-in ballots, the questionability of accurate polls, and two political parties that really want their candidate to win, the outcome of the 2020 election could involve court cases and lawsuits, congress and the electoral college, or some combination of all the above.
But before we get into the details of what could happen, there are some important dates to set straight.
When will we know who won?
Technically, the answer to that question is January 6, 2021. But here’s a rough timeline of when everything will play out.
November 3 – Election day. Go vote.
November 21 – The last day California receives absentee ballots. The deadlines for when states receive absentee ballots vary widely. California is the most lax (up to 17 days after the election), but most states require that they receive mail-in ballots either on election day, or within just a few days.
Keep in mind, the Supreme Court is handing down rulings on this issue right now. Pennsylvania and North Carolina, for example, have extended their deadlines just this week. So, check your state’s deadline if you need to know when to send in your vote.
December 11 – Again, California is the squeaky wheel. This is the last day for election officials to verify the results. The specific dates for this deadline vary by state, but they all fall within the 41-day period between election day and December 11.
December 14 – According to Congress, “On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, the electors meet in their respective States to cast their votes for President and Vice President of the United States.” Whichever candidate receives over 270 votes on this day wins.
January 6 – Mike Pence convenes a joint session of Congress where they vote to confirm the election results. This is typically a formality, but who are we to expect even this to go smoothly.
January 20 – Inauguration Day. The president and vice president are sworn in.
Now, regardless of how close the election is or whether there is controversy in any states, these deadlines will be strictly adhered to. So, what can candidates who feel they’ve been robbed of an election do within this time period? A lot.
Can a losing candidate demand a recount?
In short, yes. In long, it varies from state to state. Again, much like the deadlines for receiving and counting ballots, states determine their own election laws. They decide the process, and if Trump or Biden believes they’ve lost a state unfairly, their response will vary based on the state.
Assuming either candidate has valid reasons for protest, each state has laws that determine how recounts work. For example, in 20 states—including Arizona, Florida, and Ohio—recounts happen automatically if the margin of victory is within a certain threshold (typically 1% or less). In addition to automatic recounts, in 42 states, candidates can seek a recount, provided they pay for all or part of the cost to do so, unless they’re declared the winners.
However, Hawaii and Mississippi don’t do recounts. In those states, lawsuits are the only options.
What would an election lawsuit look like?
First, let’s acknowledge that candidates can’t merely file a lawsuit that says, “This is unfair” or “Something feels fishy.” Courts require specific evidence of things like voter fraud, ballot dumping, technical malfunction of voting booths, or tampering with ballots. The possibilities for wrongdoing are endless, but for a lawsuit to go through, the evidence must be clear.
Again, in sticking with the entire theme of the election, states determine the process for how these lawsuits make their way through court. And, it’s up to the state judges to provide a ruling, provided that ruling isn’t appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which could certainly happen. Of course, the most likely scenario involves a decision being made at the state level.
One example of this coming in 2010 when Senate candidate Joe Miller went to court claiming that write-in votes were improperly counted because many had misspelled the name of his opponent, Lisa Murkowski. In this case, the judge ruled that when voter intent was clear, spelling variations are allowed. And that was that.
Where does the electoral college come into all of this?
270. That’s the magic number. Referring back to our timeline, all electoral votes must be cast by December 14 and confirmed by both chambers of Congress on January 6.
Normally, the governor of each state is responsible for reporting to Congress regarding the results of the state’s electoral votes. However, in closely contested states, there is the possibility that the state’s legislature would be the one who’d end up reporting the results to Congress. Theoretically, both the governor and the legislature should report the same thing.
Then again, 14 states have divided governments—including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. If the governor reports one result while the legislature reports another, who does Congress listen to? In the words of Benjamin Ginsberg, a lawyer who represented the Bush campaign in 2000,“It is fair to say that none of these laws has been stress-tested before.”
Another way Congress might get involved has to do with a 129-year-old law that creates another deadline known as the “safe harbor” provision. This law states that if electors fail to settle any disputes six days prior to their December 14 deadline, Congress can step in and make the call. This law actually came into effect in 2000 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Bush vs. Gore claiming that time had run out.
Frankly, this type of situation is nearly impossible to imagine (and even harder to understand), but there’s no telling what laws may be finally put to the test.
So, what’s the worst-case scenario?
A contingent election is the most extreme of the possible results. In this instance, either both candidates have failed to reach the 270 necessary votes or Congress has failed to declare a winner by January 6. At this point, the 12th Amendment kicks in, meaning the House of Representatives selects the president and the Senate selects the vice president.
Both houses of Congress would have to make these selections by Inauguration Day on January 20, but even if they still fail, the Presidential Succession Act applies. That means the Speaker of the House would serve as acting president until a resolution was met.
Again, this situation is highly unlikely and something both parties would likely want to avoid, but we’ve come close to this before.
Has all of this happened in presidential elections?
Yes. Sort of. While some laws we’ve mentioned haven’t yet been stress-tested, some have. These are our historical precedents for contested elections.
1800 – This is the first Presidential election to go to the House of Representatives, what we outlined in our worst-case scenario. The candidates were Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. After threats of violence on both sides, the House eventually selected Thomas Jefferson before passing the 12th Amendment which split the decision for president and vice president between the two houses of Congress.
1824 – It didn’t take long for the 12th Amendment to be put to the test when none of the four presidential candidates—John Adams, Henry Clay, William Crawford, and Andrew Jackson—received enough votes to win. In what is known as “the corrupt bargain,” Henry Clay swayed his votes toward John Adams, who then won and made Clay Secretary of State. The spurned Andrew Jackson came back and won in 1828.
1876 – Following the Civil War the election between Democratic New York Governor Samuel Tilden against Republican Ohio Governor Rutherford B. Hayes involved widespread voter suppression and intimidation, particularly of Black Republican voters. Thanks in part to the violence in Southern states, Tilden won the popular vote but fell short in the electoral college by one vote. With no precedent, Congress created a bipartisan commission that included members of the House, Senate, and Supreme Court, and four months later, Hayes was declared the winner.
2000 – Bush v. Gore is still near enough to remain in the memory of most voters. With Gore leading the popular vote by 500,000 votes, Florida was declared too close to call. Gore pursued manual recounts, but the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that ballots couldn’t be subjectively tallied (“hanging chads’ left many voters’ intentions unclear) and 5-4 that no recount could be held prior to the day the Electoral College would officially cast their votes. Five weeks later, Bush won Florida by 537 votes and thus the presidency.
Hopefully, history provides a hint of solace that even in the unpredictable madness that may follow this year’s election, there are processes and systems set up to (hopefully) handle whatever comes next.
But if 2020 has shown us anything, it’s that normalcy may be nothing more than a faint hope from a distant memory. In any case, your voice matters. Vote.
More from J.D. Wills: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-political-pandemic-heres-what-to-expect-from-both-biden-trump-on-the-covid-crisis">What To Expect From Biden &amp; Trump On COVID Crisis</a>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Final U.S. Presidential Debate Between President Trump And Democratic Candidate Joe Biden

Everything You Need to Know About a Contested Election

Here’s the good news: on January 20, 2021, we will inaugurate the President of the United States. The bad news: the road to get there might not be pretty.

Everything You Need to Know About a Contested Election | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-a-contested-election/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/Trump-Biden-Head-to-Head.jpg

twitter:image

With only days remaining until Americans head to the polls in arguably the most consequential election in a generation, politicians are scrambling to highlight their opponents flaws, hoping to push the needle in their favor. One such subject was handed to Donald Trump on a platter by Joe Biden during the final presidential debate, with Biden delivering a two-course warning to Americans across the country. The first involved Biden’s rejection of the claim that he ever opposed fracking, saying, “I have never said I oppose fracking.” When fact-checked by Trump in real time, Biden requested that Trump “play the tape.” Trump’s campaign obliged the next day.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;You said it on tape!&quot;: Donald Trump and Joe Biden are facing off about the former VP&#39;s fracking comments. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Debates2020?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Debates2020</a> <a href="https://t.co/yAgALxJL2A">pic.twitter.com/yAgALxJL2A</a>
&mdash; 10 News First (@10NewsFirst) <a href="https://twitter.com/10NewsFirst/status/1319466735326539777?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The second part provided conservatives with yet another opportunity to “pounce,” with Joe Biden saying that he will “transition from the oil industry” because “the oil industry pollutes, significantly.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Joe Biden says he will &quot;transition from the oil industry&quot; <a href="https://t.co/0TgtYhhLEZ">pic.twitter.com/0TgtYhhLEZ</a>
&mdash; Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) <a href="https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1319467866194935809?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Biden has a lengthy record of making <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/20-lies-false-claims-from-the-honest-2020-candidate">false claims</a> and has spent his decades-long political career flip-flopping on supposedly fundamental positions. The subject of fossil fuels, and specifically fracking, is no different. Here is a recent timeline of Biden’s multiple and contradictory statements regarding fracking and fossil fuels.
I guarantee you, we are going to end fossil fuel. (September 2019)
During a campaign event, Biden took the hand of a young woman, called her “kiddo,” and said “I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you, I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Joe Biden said, “look into my eyes, I guarantee you… we’re going to end fossil fuel.” 
That includes Pennsylvania fracking jobs. 
 <a href="https://t.co/ZX49kPqehX">pic.twitter.com/ZX49kPqehX</a>
&mdash; Trump War Room &#8211; Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1318702005871910912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Sacrifice growth for a greener economy? Yes. (December 2019)
<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-jobs-energy-climate">During</a> a Democratic presidential primary debate, moderator Tim Alberta posed the following question: “Three consecutive American presidents have enjoyed stints of explosive economic growth due to a boom in oil and natural gas production. As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth, even knowing potentially that it could displace thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers in the interest of transitioning to that greener economy?” 
In response, Biden said “The answer is yes. The answer is yes.”
Stopping fracking? Yes. (January 2020)
<a href="https://www.atr.org/biden-yes-we-should-end-fracking?amp">Speaking</a> with a New Hampshire voter, Biden agreed to stopping both fracking and pipeline infrastructure.
Voter: “But like, what about, say, stopping fracking?”
Biden: “Yes.”
Voter: “And stopping pipeline infrastructure?”
Biden: “Yes.”
We are going to get rid of fossil fuels. (February 2020)
During a rally, Biden <a href="https://www.atr.org/joe-biden-we-are-going-get-rid-fossil-fuels">told</a> a cheering audience that “we are going to get rid of fossil fuels.” Responding to the reaction of protestors, Biden then followed up with:
“That’s okay, these guys are okay, they want to do the same thing that I want to do, they want to phase out fossil fuels and we’re going to phase out fossil fuels.”
No new fracking. (March 2020)
During a Democratic primary debate in March, Biden and Bernie Sanders sparred on the subject of climate change and the fossil fuel industry, with Biden saying, “no more, no new fracking.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
THREAD.
JOE BIDEN JUST LIED ABOUT HIS PAST COMMENTS ABOUT BANNING FRACKING 
WE HAVE THE TAPE
In March 2020, Joe Biden said there would be “no more, no new fracking” in my administration. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Debates2020?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Debates2020</a> <a href="https://t.co/CQwWE6eM96">pic.twitter.com/CQwWE6eM96</a>
&mdash; Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1319466310896701440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Following a familiar pattern, Biden’s <a href="https://www.axios.com/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-fracking-democratic-debate-99040579-caff-45d5-b169-402a411a57d5.html">campaign</a> “later clarified that Biden was re-stating his existing platform about policy on federal lands, not endorsing Sanders’ call for a nationwide ban.”
No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. (March 2020)
During that same primary debate, Biden <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/biden-claimed-he-never-wanted-ban-fracking-he-did-1541552">stated</a>, “No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.”
We would make sure it’s eliminated. (July 2020)
During another Democratic primary debate, CNN’s Dana Bash asked “Would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?” Biden responded with “No, we would we would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated, and no more subsidies for either one of those.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Joe Biden is in coal country.
Biden said he&#39;d eliminate fracking and coal.
CNN: “Would there be any place for fossil fuels including coal and fracking in a Biden admin?” 
Biden: “No, we would we would work it out. We would make sure it&#39;s eliminated.”<a href="https://t.co/thNIuke7cu">pic.twitter.com/thNIuke7cu</a>
&mdash; Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1320112775805403143?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 24, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I am not banning fracking. (August 2020)
Speaking in Pittsburgh, Biden said “I am not banning fracking. Let me say that again: I am not banning fracking. No matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Biden discusses his energy plan: &quot;I am not banning fracking. Let me say that again: I am not banning fracking. No matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/LBywpukq9G">https://t.co/LBywpukq9G</a> <a href="https://t.co/B5QXkBoQbt">pic.twitter.com/B5QXkBoQbt</a>
&mdash; CBS News (@CBSNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1300494432605794304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 31, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I’m not eliminating fracking. (October 2020)
Speaking to a handful of journalists, Biden said “I’m not shutting down oil fields. I’m not eliminating fracking.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Joe Biden: &quot;I&#39;m not shutting down oil fields. I&#39;m not eliminating fracking.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/rh7ZZBeZ2Z">pic.twitter.com/rh7ZZBeZ2Z</a>
&mdash; The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1321104617464156161?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
***
In the past year alone, Biden has held two antithetical positions regarding fracking and the fossil fuel industry. What makes matters worse is that his running mate, Kamala Harris, is also equally inconsistent with her language.
I’m in favor of banning fracking. (October 2020)
Speaking at a presidential town hall, Kamala Harris announced that “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.”
<iframe title="Kamala Harris: &quot;There&#039;s no question I&#039;m in favor of banning fracking.&quot;" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8VNkA1CYC8k?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Joe Biden is not going to ban fracking. (October 2020)
After stepping out from her (fossil fuel powered) plane, Kamala Harris defended Biden’s comments, saying “Let’s be really clear about this. Let’s be really clear about this. Joe Biden is not going to ban fracking. He is going to deal with the oil subsidies, but that’s not, you know, the president likes to put everything out of context, but let’s be clear. What Joe was talking about was banning subsidies, but he will not end fracking in America.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
JUST IN: Sen. Kamala Harris responds to questions on Biden energy policy: &quot;Joe Biden is not going to ban fracking.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/BZu84AZWDq">pic.twitter.com/BZu84AZWDq</a>
&mdash; The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1319672228464689158?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
We will not ban fracking. (October 2020)
Appearing on The View, Kamala Harris promised that “We will not ban fracking.” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;We will not ban fracking,&quot; Sen. Kamala Harris tells <a href="https://twitter.com/TheView?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheView</a>.
&quot;Joe is also committed to understanding that we have to also acknowledge the science in a way that frankly the current president does not, on the COVID issue and on climate.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/PzNuNTpDM4">https://t.co/PzNuNTpDM4</a> <a href="https://t.co/EynVGHOGtm">pic.twitter.com/EynVGHOGtm</a>
&mdash; ABC News (@ABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1320753026425118723?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 26, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
***
Of course, none of this blatant disregard for reality would be possible without the aiding and abetting of the mainstream media and their partners in the world of “fact-checking.”
The LA Times
While “fact-checking” the final presidential debate, The LA Times <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-10-22/fact-checking-the-final-trump-biden-presidential-debate">declared</a> that “No, Biden wouldn’t end fracking” in response to Trump’s statement, “He was against fracking. He said it.” The supposed fact-check justified this conclusion by saying that “Biden’s comments about fracking have varied some,” and attempting to retrospectively add context to Biden’s assertions about targeting fracking.
Politifact
The fact-checking organization also backfilled Biden’s meaning in order to rate Trump’s claim that “Joe Biden confirmed his plan to abolish the entire U.S. oil industry. That means no fracking jobs and no energy for Pennsylvania” as false. Their justification was that “Biden has <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/trump-biden-fracking-coal-mining-fact-check-20200924.html">said repeatedly that he won’t ban fracking</a>,” ignoring the obvious point that Biden has also said repeatedly that we wants to end fossil fuel. When it came to the subject of oil, Politifact wrote “Biden stumbled over his words as he tried to explain his position,” as if an inarticulate presentation of a position allows others to fill in the gaps as needed.
NBC News
<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/2020-10-22-trump-biden-election-n1244210/ncrd1244435#blogHeader">NBC News</a> decided to respond to Trump’s claim that Biden’s position on fracking varies depending on which state he visits.
<blockquote>“Just like he went at it with fracking,” Trump said. If Biden wins, he said, “We’re not gonna have fracking. We’re gonna stop fracking, we’re gonna stop fracking.”
“Then he goes to Pennsylvania after he gets the nomination, and he got very lucky to get it, and he goes to Pennsylvania, and he says, ‘Oh, we’re gonna have fracking,’” Trump added.
This well-worn attack against Biden is not true, although Biden’s position on the issue is complicated. </blockquote>
NBC News then used the fact that “Biden has repeatedly said he will not ban fracking” as evidence that Biden would not ban fracking.
***
Taking to Twitter, Trump summarized Biden’s monumental statements regarding fossil fuel as follows.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Last week, Joe Biden made perhaps the most shocking admission ever uttered in the history of presidential debates. On live television, Joe Biden confirmed his plan to ABOLISH the entire U.S. Oil Industry—that means NO fracking, NO jobs, and NO energy for Pennsylvania Families!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1320817236106330112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 26, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Democrats and the mainstream media are looking Americans dead in the face and asking them not to believe their own eyes and ears. Biden has expressed a clear desire to end both fracking and fossil fuel more broadly, as has his running mate Kamala Harris. The fact that his campaign has rushed to do damage control and parrot Biden’s “official” position is irrelevant. 
Biden opposes fossil fuels, except when he doesn’t.
Ian Haworth is host of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPxdVsNp7k&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuTQRVv1IOVMnA735vEYO0f5">The Ian Haworth Show</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05t2L69Sks&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuRHu5r0IV5qr4h2rBAV9oBd">The Truth in 60 Seconds</a>. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Joe Biden

Fracking: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris & Mainstream Media Are Lying To You; Here’s Proof

With only days remaining until Americans head to the polls in arguably the most consequential election in a generation, politicians are scrambling to

Fracking: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris &amp; Mainstream Media Are Lying To You; Here’s Proof | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/fracking-joe-biden-kamala-harris-heres-proof/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1206799778-1200x800.jpg

twitter:creator

As a sports fan, it pains me to say this: I watched not one inning of the 2020 World Series. This revelation is not some preening, pin-a-medal-on-me political puffery — “Those sportsball players are annoying, America-hating commies, so I’m not watching” — but rather the embarrassed confession of a discouraged, disillusioned former fanatic who has come to realize that my erstwhile sports obsessions are really not all that important.
Apparently, I’m far from alone. The Tampa Bay Rays’ instant classic walk-off Game 4 win drew 8.95 million viewers, the second-lowest viewership in World Series history — ahead of only Game 3’s 8.2 million. For contrast, remember that only four short years ago, Game 7 between the Cubs and Indians peaked at 49.9 million viewers. Game 7 of the classic 1986 Mets-Red Sox series had an estimated viewership as high as 60 million.
The ratings numbers have attached themselves to an anvil and tossed the anvil off a cliff into a black hole. It’s a shocking decline. MLB is not alone in seeing its appeal become more selective, Spinal Tap-style. The NFL’s once-vaunted viewership juggernaut is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/brett-favre-poor-nba-nfl-ratings-show-fans-clearly-do-not-want-political-messaging-in-sports">shedding passengers</a> at an alarming pace; the league is left celebrating a 33 percent decline year-over-year for the most recent Sunday Night game, because it represented a slight uptick compared to the rest of this season’s dismal numbers.
And the NBA? <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nba-will-leave-social-justice-messages-to-be-delivered-off-the-floor-amid-ratings-dive">Woof.</a> Game 3 of the 2020 NBA Finals averaged 5.9 million viewers. For comparison, Michael Jordan’s last game as a Bull, the clinching Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals, averaged almost 36 million viewers. Overall, the Lakers-Heat series dropped 51 percent from the 2019 numbers and 67 percent from 2018.
To extend the Spinal Tap metaphor, the NBA is a few BLM wokebombs away from second billing behind Puppet Show. Let’s be fair: There are mitigating circumstances. Nothing about this year is normal. MLB shoehorned a 60-game season into a pandemic-ravaged sports calendar. The NBA played its Finals at a time of year when teams are normally in training camp. The NFL has clung to something resembling a normal schedule, but the mostly empty stadiums and piped-in crowd noise have lent a surreal, off-putting atmosphere to the proceedings.
Personally, I’ve found it hard to care about sports when the very future of the Republic seems to be at stake, and every day’s headlines bring some fresh hell to torment and terrorize my fragile psyche. Sport becomes far less relevant in times like these, even as simple escapism. There’s no escaping a pervading sense of doom. But after the election, will my apathy magically dissipate, much like I expect the pandemic panic to do? Will I re-engage my former passion for pro sports? It’s entirely possible. A return to normalcy in 2021 would likely include a reboot of a casual interest in the exploits of overgrown man-children and a willingness to set aside their silly political posturing. A post-election de-weaponization of the virus will allow us all to relax, breathe and reclaim life’s simple pleasures. I hope so, anyway.
One final piece of advice: Don’t wait for woke-ism to recede from pro sports before re-engaging. Believe it or not, it is possible to set all that aside and simply enjoy the games themselves. If I let politics control my entertainment choices, I’d be left with listening to the Beatles song “Taxman” on an endless loop, and not much else. Life’s too short, and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-jon-voights-message-of-hope-trump-is-a-man-of-great-integrity-a-man-who-took-on-evil">Jon Voight’s</a> not making many movies these days.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/7-sports-figures-who-should-go-into-politics-and-5-who-shouldnt/">7 Sports Figures Who Should Go Into Politics, and 5 Who Shouldn&#8217;t</a>
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.)
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Los Angeles Dodgers take on the San Francisco Giants during a MLB baseball game on Opening Day at Dodger Stadium.

World Series Proved It…Woke Sports Are Unwatchable

As a sports fan, it pains me to say this: I watched not one inning of the 2020 World Series. This revelation is not some preening, pin-a-medal-on-me

World Series Proved It...Woke Sports Are Unwatchable | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/world-series-proved-it-woke-sports-are-unwatchable/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/Dodgers-Kneeling-.jpg

Until COVID-19 hit, President Donald Trump was on a glide path to reelection.
On domestic policy, Trump&#8217;s tax and regulatory cuts spurred the economy to heights unseen in 50 years; his Department of Education cracked down on the star-chamber courts applied on college campuses in cases of alleged sexual misconduct; he has appointed scores of well-qualified constitutionalist judges, including three Supreme Court justices. On foreign policy, Trump is the first president of my lifetime not to enter any foreign wars; he has brokered historic peace deals in the Middle East between Israel and Arab countries; he has stood up to Chinese predations in unprecedented ways.
If this election had been held in February, Trump likely would have won. And he likely would have won rather easily. That&#8217;s because Trump&#8217;s often-terrible rhetoric would have taken a back seat to his actions, and Americans&#8217; pessimism about Trump&#8217;s character would have taken a back seat to their optimism about his agenda.
Then COVID hit.
The economy, thanks in large part to overwrought lockdown policies, collapsed. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died. And Trump&#8217;s rhetoric blunders took on renewed seriousness as Americans looked for steady leadership and instead found the usual Trumpian stew of bloviation and exaggeration and ire.
COVID has become the Democrats&#8217; chief electioneering ploy. Their argument is patently wrong and immoral. It is an argument repeated ad nauseum by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, as well as their allies in the media. The argument, expressed by Biden, is this: &#8220;220,000 Americans dead&#8230;.Anyone who&#8217;s responsible for that many deaths should not remain as president of the United States of America.&#8221;
But, of course, Trump isn&#8217;t responsible for those deaths. Trump should have spoken sooner about wearing masks; he should have acted with more alacrity in developing testing. But COVID has spread throughout the world, killing hundreds of thousands, and is now spreading nearly unchecked throughout Europe, where lockdowns and masking have been prevalent for months. In fact, Democratic governors praised Trump for giving them the ventilators and personal protective equipment they sought; the White House&#8217;s Operation Warp Speed has accelerated the development of a vaccine in historically unprecedented ways. The hardest-hit states in terms of death per millions were nearly all states with governors who did not follow Trump&#8217;s preferred anti-lockdown policies.
Just as important, Democrats have never provided an alternative plan with regard to COVID. Biden&#8217;s stated plan &#8212; to accelerate a vaccine, to socially distance, to mask more, to create local authority for targeted lockdowns &#8212; is no different from Trump&#8217;s. Biden was holding packed rallies into early March. Democrats have repeatedly condoned or celebrated massive rallies of millions of people during the pandemic, so long as those rallies meet with their political approval.
The narrative that Trump is responsible for COVID&#8217;s death toll, then, is a religious argument, not a factual one. It is reliant on a perverse view of the universe by which Trump is responsible for all evil, a miasmatic orange Satan haunting the land. And, the theory goes, if Trump is excised, COVID will be controlled by someone with a steadier hand.
That&#8217;s nonsense. The pandemic will continue on Nov. 4, no matter who is elected. But so long as Trump is labeled the true scourge, rather than COVID, Trump will pay the political price. And the so-called Party of Science will continue to promote that anti-scientific lie all the way up through Election Day.
More from Ben Shapiro: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-media-officially-becomes-the-communications-department-for-joe-biden">The Media Officially Becomes the Communications Department for Joe Biden</a>
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.) 
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Joe Biden Kamala Harris

SHAPIRO: Blaming Trump For COVID Is Dems’ Anti-Fact Religion

Until COVID-19 hit, President Donald Trump was on a glide path to reelection. On domestic policy, Trump&#039;s tax and regulatory cuts spurred the economy to

SHAPIRO: Blaming Trump For COVID Is Dems&#039; Anti-Fact Religion | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/shapiro-blaming-trump-for-covid-is-dems-anti-fact-religion/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/Joe-Biden-Kamala-Harris-1200x800.jpg

Pizza Hut has teamed up with a nonprofit social enterprise, developing guidelines “to correct implied and overt forms of bias and privilege” in teaching methods and classroom materials. The 46-page training manual is advertised as “an introduction to anti-racist pedagogy,” guiding teachers who seek to “increase their personal awareness” on the subject.
Leading experts in the “Anti-Bias/Antiracist” field are said to have “informed” the content, which encourages educators to incorporate those visions into lesson plans. The international restaurant chain presents this new resource in collaboration with First Book — an organization that includes a “member network” of more than 475,000 registered teachers, librarians, and after-school program coordinators serving children from low-income families.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Don&#39;t know where to start when it comes to ABAR curriculum? You&#39;re not alone. That&#39;s why we partnered with <a href="https://twitter.com/pizzahut?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@pizzahut</a> to share our Guidebook on all things anti-bias and antiracist teaching, and educators are already loving it! 
Check it out here: <a href="https://t.co/fyt7bqLTdD">https://t.co/fyt7bqLTdD</a> <a href="https://t.co/NzAI9gL3ue">pic.twitter.com/NzAI9gL3ue</a>
&mdash; First Book (@FirstBook) <a href="https://twitter.com/FirstBook/status/1298650674524229632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
First Book’s website <a href="https://firstbook.org/about/">says</a> it “aims to remove barriers to quality education,” providing books, winter clothing, and other scholastic-related supplies that benefit disadvantaged kids. The guidebook indicates it was developed after the nonprofit’s members expressed a need to better understand how inequities impact the youth that they teach.
Pizza Hut CEO Artie Starrs and First Book CEO Kyle Zimmer co-signed a letter “in solidarity,” explaining: “Our goal is to empower educators so they can help their students engage in effective, courageous conversation about race and social justice.” The partnership strives to ensure adolescents understand systemic racism and the need to eradicate such structures.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Learning about the Empowering Educators series of resources in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SLJSummit?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SLJSummit</a> session. So appreciative of <a href="https://twitter.com/FirstBook?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FirstBook</a> &amp; <a href="https://twitter.com/pizzahut?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@pizzahut</a> for their support of these valuable resources. <a href="https://t.co/dxG0Kvqd0B">https://t.co/dxG0Kvqd0B</a> <a href="https://t.co/75sfa2rV68">pic.twitter.com/75sfa2rV68</a>
&mdash; Donna Macdonald (@dsmacdonald) <a href="https://twitter.com/dsmacdonald/status/1320014579892617218?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 24, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The guide is based on the premise that race and racism have been part of America’s collective history “since the first English colonists arrived in 1607.” It emphasizes, “race is not biological,” describing it as “one of many social constructs — ideas that have been created and accepted by society.” Citing data from the US Census Bureau, the manual projects people of color will become the majority of America’s population by 2043.
“This forthcoming shift means that today’s youngest students will graduate into and lead a nation that is more diverse than ever before,” it says.
One section highlights a quote from an activist that reads, “We need to reckon with our history of racial injustice.” A chronological timeline shows significant moments in America’s evolution, starting in the 1400s and ending on May 25, 2020, with the death of George Floyd, a black man who died while in the custody of law enforcement. The anti-racism instructional says, “Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, by a White police officer, Derek Chauvin,” even though he has not yet stood trial.
The extensive recap provides an alternative presentation of many aspects of American history than conventional public school teachings. Writers attributed Christopher Columbus’ expeditions to the beginning of the international slave trade, referred to colonization and Westward expansion as “the European invasion,” and called Bacon’s Rebellion “the origin of White privilege.”
After discussing progress made during the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War, it addresses the nation’s history of policing.
“Many former Confederate soldiers, Ku Klux Klan members, and other extremists joined local police forces,” it says. “Acting under their new policing powers, Southern police were allowed to legally discriminate against and harm formerly enslaved and freed Black citizens. As a result of these historical events, the Black community’s mistrust of police quickly became deeply rooted in American society.”
The authors ask educators to self-reflect throughout, asking questions like:
“How does this historical timeline compare to history lessons you received as part of your formal education? 
How does it compare to the history lessons you teach? 
After reviewing a brief history of race, racism and systemic violence against Black and Indigenous people, can you identify areas where you can incorporate some of these historical moments into your curriculum and instruction?”
A “Frequently Asked Questions From Educators” section advises on several potentially uncomfortable situations, such as:
“How do I talk about race when I’m a White person teaching mostly BIPOC students?”
“There is resistance from school/district leadership regarding having conversations about race in my class or program. What can I do?”
“What should I do when my White students have guilt about the history of the United States?” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
It’s time! Over 12,000 educators together this morning. Let us learn together. Thank you <a href="https://twitter.com/AmericanU?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@americanu</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/FirstBook?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FirstBook</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/pizzahut?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@pizzahut</a>! <a href="https://t.co/eYJTTKL6qd">pic.twitter.com/eYJTTKL6qd</a>
&mdash; Arika Dickens (@LibrarianArika) <a href="https://twitter.com/LibrarianArika/status/1296100301099786240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Another part warns of the psychological effects of micro-aggressions, which one ABAR authority defined as “an indirect, subtle or unintentional act of discrimination against members of a marginalized group.” The concept was subcategorized into three types: micro-assaults, micro-insults, and micro-invalidations.
“If someone uses a microaggression when interacting with BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color), it is best to apologize, reflect on the underlying message of their words or actions, and take steps to remove that language or behavior from their future interactions,” the guidebook advises.
It goes on to urge educators to create a classroom culture that makes all students feel welcome, recommending wall art that shows children of various racial, gender, and religious identities that is not “White-centric.”
“If you are a White educator, it is critically important that you take time to understand your Whiteness and the impact your identity has on the students and families you serve,” the guide explains.
Educators should use an “ABAR lens” when selecting reading materials and picture books for libraries and classrooms, the recommendations add. Stories should feature different geographical settings while celebrating diverse religions and nonreligious traditions. Collections should include books whose main characters come from other countries, incorporating all family structures, even those without children.
“A reading diet of books with mainly White characters teaches children that Whiteness is the default,” it says.
The Empowering Educators program also includes a two-part digital series on race and racism, along with a special edition of paperbacks to build “a more inclusive classroom.”
Pizza Hut sent an email last month asking customers to “help us reimagine the classroom bookshelf,” promoting its alliance with First Book. It indicated the mutual effort would print and distribute 75,000 first-edition books to “amplify diverse voices and cultures.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The <a href="https://twitter.com/FirstBook?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FirstBook</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/pizzahut?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@pizzahut</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EmpoweringEducators?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#EmpoweringEducators</a> program increases access to culturally diverse picture books and educational resources with affordable paperback picture books by <a href="https://twitter.com/juanamartinez?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@juanamartinez</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/aishacs?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@aishacs</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/foxville_art?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@foxville_art</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/noblemaillard?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@noblemaillard</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/jtbigelow?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jtbigelow</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/bottomshelfbks?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@bottomshelfbks</a> <a href="https://t.co/fEJ203wEjX">https://t.co/fEJ203wEjX</a> <a href="https://t.co/RSDKFKaeWJ">pic.twitter.com/RSDKFKaeWJ</a>
&mdash; Full Circle Literary 📚 (@FullCircleLit) <a href="https://twitter.com/FullCircleLit/status/1311691683780685824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
First Book’s <a href="https://www.fbmarketplace.org/empowering-educators?utm_source=20200929_NoProductORDeal_NONE_RDPLY&amp;utm_medium=Email&amp;utm_campaign=NAT_GENERL_NON&amp;utm_content=1_Hero_Bakedimage_SINGIM_Static&amp;utm_term=GEN_NoProductORDeal_">website</a> says the authors come from “a diverse range of cultures,” and:
These five warm, affirming stories invite children to think more deeply about names, food, language, clothing, traditions, families, and communities, strengthening their abilities to make meaningful connections between their own experiences and those of others, and increasing the range of empathy and understanding.  
Read the partnership’s “Empowering Educators: A Guidebook on Race &amp; Racism” <a href="https://www.fbmarketplace.org/downloads/dl/file/id/682/product/0/empowering_educators_a_guidebook_on_race_racism.pdf?_ga=2.197354282.48094597.1603823749-873596074.1603823749">here</a>.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Pizza Hut

Pizza Hut Partners With Nonprofit To Develop ‘Anti-Racist Pedagogy’ To ‘Empower Educators’

Pizza Hut has teamed up with a nonprofit social enterprise, developing guidelines “to correct implied and overt forms of bias and privilege” in teaching

Pizza Hut Partners With Nonprofit To Develop ‘Anti-Racist Pedagogy’ To ‘Empower Educators’ | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/pizza-hut-partners-with-nonprofit-to-develop-anti-racist-pedagogy-to-empower-educators/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1174202318-1200x800.jpg

There were, as the media calls it, “clashes” between “protesters” and police in Philadelphia last night. What this really means of course is that rioters and looters wreaked wanton destruction across the city and assaulted police officers at will. By the end of the night, at least 30 cops had been hurt and one officer was in the hospital with serious injuries. A female sergeant, 56-years-old, was hit and suffered a broken leg when a truck plowed into a group of officers. Elsewhere, rioters set cop cars on fire, ransacked stores, and looted police vehicles.
The ostensible reason for this latest bit of barbarity is the shooting of Walter Wallace Jr. As a <a href="https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1320873179925995520">video</a> recorded by a bystander shows, Wallace was armed with a knife and approached officers after refusing to comply with their orders. This would seem to be about as lawful as police shootings get. In order to navigate around the facts that might vindicate the officers, leftists are playing their usual game of turning the focus away from the inconvenient facts and towards personal details that are not relevant to the shooting. Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Ellie Rushing, for example, tells us that Wallace was “a twin, father, and son” and that his mother “begged [police] not to shoot.” These biographical notes might make the shooting sadder, but they do not make it any less justified.
Activists are also telling us that Wallace was shot “in front of his mother” and that he allegedly had a mental illness. Again, none of this has any bearing on the shooting itself. Whatever his family situation, whatever his psychological condition, all that mattered in the moments leading up to the shooting was that he was allegedly armed with a deadly weapon and charging at two police officers as they implored him to drop his weapon and surrender. I doubt that any police critic, if they were ever approached by a man armed with a knife, would stop to ask the assailant if he has children, or inquire about his most recent psych evaluation.  All of the facts about Wallace’s life and family make it a great tragedy that he threw his life away, but they do not change the fact that the cops had the right and duty to protect themselves and the community.
But notice what has happened. Black Lives Matter and its allies have, in the last few months, almost entirely stopped talking about &#8220;unarmed black men&#8221; shot by cops. Until very recently, BLM would usually cherry pick only the shootings of allegedly unarmed black men to protest, which of course often meant ignoring the fact that unarmed people can still pose a lethal threat (as the Michael Brown case demonstrated). Now, suddenly, the question of whether the suspect was armed is treated as irrelevant. Even if the suspect was brandishing a weapon and apparently intent on using it, his death is still characterized as a moral outrage. The &#8220;unarmed&#8221; qualifier used to be the entire stated reason for the protest. &#8220;They shot an unarmed black man!&#8221; was the cry. Now it&#8217;s just &#8220;They shot a black man!&#8221;
But what makes the shooting troubling, outrageous, murderous, etc., is not the color of the victim&#8217;s skin but the specific circumstances of the incident, especially the actions of the suspect. If he is not presenting himself as any sort of threat, then to shoot him is wrong. If he is presenting himself as a threat, then shooting him is probably not wrong. This holds true regardless of the races of those involved. BLM pretends not to understand this distinction, and demands that you join them in their willful confusion.
It’s worth reflecting on the incredible amount of racism involved here. BLM is so desperate to find a reason to riot that they will take to the streets when armed black suspects are shot while charging at officers. They have not found enough unarmed black suspects killed by cops to satisfy their lust for destruction, which means they must start using cases that have no discernible connection to police brutality, much less racism. But they could retain an ounce of credibility, and perhaps keep up the appearance of caring about injustice, and still find dozens of opportunities to riot every year, if they expanded the scope of their outrage to include unarmed white suspects killed by cops. There are usually more of those in a given year, after all. Yet they flat out refuse to protest the killing of white people, no matter how egregious. They would rather cry out against the killing of an armed black man than an unarmed white man, like Daniel Shaver, who was shot while on his knees begging for his life.
Black Lives Matter is not in the business of protesting police brutality, and never was. That fact has just become more apparent in recent months. It is so clear now that even the most oblivious must see it, unless they don&#8217;t want to.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Seattle

WALSH: Black Lives Matter Isn’t Even Pretending To Care About ‘Police Brutality’ Anymore 

There were, as the media calls it, “clashes” between “protesters” and police in Philadelphia last night. What this really means of course is that rioters

WALSH: Black Lives Matter Isn’t Even Pretending To Care About ‘Police Brutality’ Anymore  | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/walsh-black-lives-matter-isnt-even-pretending-to-care-about-police-brutality-anymore/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/09/Seattle-1.jpg

2020 turned out to have one more big surprise up its sleeve yesterday: Joe Biden left his basement.
After being ridiculed about hiding away by President Donald Trump, Biden emerged to announce that he had all the while been working twelve hour days, and each one of the twelve had been a backbreaking hour indeed.
The former vice president said he was pleased to be greeted by so many imaginary supporters and intended to shake each and every one of them by the hand before imagining some more.
Then, in a speech made to the cheering crowd in his head, he reassured the pretend people that the frightening yellow ball of fire that had been hovering over his house all afternoon was likely to sink into the Pacific and extinguish itself right around nightfall.
Biden said that the only reason he had not come out of the basement sooner was because he was preparing for the second debate.
He said he hoped he had won the debate, and only wished he could have been there when he did, but he had to stay home and prepare.
Biden said he was further delighted to find that George, his imaginary opponent in the presidential race, already seemed to have resigned his office, although George had been replaced by Donald Trump, who also seemed quite formidable.
Biden said he was considering re-imagining Trump as smaller and less intimidating.
Now that he was out of the basement, Biden said he was looking forward to voting in the next election just as soon as he found out who was running and which candidate he wanted to support.
When told that, in fact, he was running against Donald Trump, Biden said that was disappointing because he hadn’t wanted to vote for Trump but now felt he had no choice.
Before returning to his basement, Biden announced that after consulting with a team of scientists and other experts, he could now confirm he had seen his shadow and there would be six more weeks of Winter.
More satire from Andrew Klavan: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/man-who-used-to-be-joe-biden-says-hell-appoint-commission-to-get-out-of-admitting-hell-pack-supreme-court">Man Who Used To Be Joe Biden Says He’ll Appoint Commission To Get Out Of Admitting He’ll Pack Supreme Court</a>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Ball of Fire

Biden Reassures His Imaginary Supporters That Ball Of Fire Hovering Over His House Should Sink Into Pacific By Nightfall [Satire]

Satire

2020 turned out to have one more big surprise up its sleeve yesterday: Joe Biden left his basement. After being ridiculed about hiding away by President

Biden Reassures His Imaginary Supporters That Ball Of Fire Hovering Over His House Should Sink Into Pacific By Nightfall [Satire] | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/biden-reassures-his-imaginary-supporters-that-ball-of-fire-hovering-over-his-house-should-sink-into-pacific-by-nightfall-satire/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/Ball-of-Fire.jpg

Earlier this year, Apple TV released Ted Lasso, starring Jason Sudeikis as an American college football coach who is hired to run a professional soccer team in England. Unfortunately, Lasso doesn&#8217;t know the first thing about soccer. Having spent the last year living in the UK, my wife and I felt more than prepared to immediately start watching, being all too familiar with the “football” faux-pas which Lasso was about to experience. The show seemed like nothing but fun. And it was, at first.
After watching the first three episodes in quick succession, the fourth episode didn’t appear on the screen during the credits. Thinking our TV was broken, we restarted the system, only to come back to the menu and see — in a terrifying, tiny font — “Episode 4 Releasing in 7 Days.”
What sort of nonsense is this? We don’t get to watch the entire show right now? We have to … wait? Well, waiting is what we did. Excruciating week after excruciating week, we sat down on Friday nights at 5pm to watch what had quickly become one of our new favorite shows.
In the process, we realized that something had changed, and that our usual routine of binge-watching entire seasons had altered the way we viewed television, creating a new set of wants and desires that were now left unfulfilled.
Americans&#8217; New TV-Watching Schedule
Television shows now resemble a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX0fIi3H-es">JG Wentworth commercial</a>—“It’s my show and I need it now.” We want to watch a lot at a time, and we want to watch it on our time. According to the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm">U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics</a>, the average American spends roughly 2.7 hours watching TV per day, which adds up to almost 20 hours per week.
Given the amount of time we spend in front of our screens, is it surprising that <a href="https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/netflix-declares-binge-watching-is-the-new-normal-migration-1">a Netflix survey</a> found that 61% of users regularly watch between 2-6 episodes of a show in one sitting, and <a href="https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/netflix-binge-new-binge-scale-reveals-tv-series-we-devour-and-those-we-savor-1">another study</a> showed that most Netflix users choose to binge-watch a series instead of taking their time (finishing on average one season in one week)?
If we look at these findings, it’s clear that we have specific demands regarding when we want to watch what we want to watch. If a show lies outside of my schedule (i.e. having to wait until Fridays at 5pm to watch Ted Lasso), it’s more likely that we won’t keep watching. But our expectations for timing also bleed into what we expect from the type of content we want to watch.
Viewers&#8217; Expectations
Another strange result of the binge-watching phenomenon is the way that television show producers rely on “hooks” to draw viewers in, and then keep them watching. For example, <a href="http://deadline.com/2017/11/stranger-things-2-ratings-nielsen-netflix-1202200538/">361,000 people</a> watched Season 2 of Stranger Things on the first day it was released. This is, at least in part, the result of the consistent use of cliff-hangers which makes it almost impossible for viewers to wait beyond the allotted 10 seconds before allowing the next episode to play automatically.
Another strategy which drives viewers to keep watching is demonstrated by shows like Broadchurch, which present viewers with an intriguing and unanswered question in the first episode. If you want to find out who murdered 11-year-old Daniel Latimer, you will have to wait until the end of the show. Instead of relying on consistent and repeated cliffhangers, shows like Broadchurch keep viewers engaged by capitalizing on our desire for closure.
As <a href="http://lagunafamily.com/gayani-desilva-md/">Gayani DeSilva</a>, a psychiatrist at Laguna Family Health Center in California, explains, “when watching a TV program, the areas of the brain that are activated are the same as when experiencing a live event. We get drawn into story lines, become attached to characters and truly care about outcomes of conflicts.” Binge-watching eliminates having to experience uncertainty. We no longer have to wait to find out what happens, and can simply keep watching.
The symptoms of our newfound impatience are not limited to binge-watching our favorite shows. When we want to know the age of a certain actor, or what other movies they’ve been in, or their net worth, we don’t call a friend who knows a lot about movies and actors, hope they pick up the phone, and hope they know the answer. Instead, we can just ask Google and immediately quench our thirst for knowledge.
In the same way, binge-watching gives us what we want now. Not only does binge-watching fulfill the expectations we have for conclusion, and the closure that comes with it, but it also creates a certain set of desires that we now need to fulfill.
How Binge-Watching Is Driven By — and Drives — Our Desires
After a difficult day, tuning out in front of the television and binge-watching your favorite show feels like a reliable stress reliever. Our brain releases dopamine — the chemical associated with pleasure and happiness — which reinforces continued viewing and the perceived enjoyment that comes with it. 
Therefore, viewers want shows that make them feel good…literally. We’re not just looking for happy television. We’re looking for shows that give us the dopamine hit that comes with them. If the show is binge-worthy, then that dopamine hit becomes even easier to source. Frankly, it’s not unlike a drug user looking for that next hit. As clinical psychologist <a href="https://pmaonline.com/posts/tag/health/">Dr. Renee Carr</a> explains:
<blockquote>“When engaged in an activity that’s enjoyable such as binge watching, your brain produces dopamine. This chemical gives the body a natural, internal reward of pleasure that reinforces continued engagement in that activity. It is the brain’s signal that communicates to the body, ‘This feels good. You should keep doing this!’ When binge watching your favorite show, your brain is continually producing dopamine, and your body experiences a drug-like high. You experience a pseudo-addiction to the show because you develop cravings for dopamine…The neuronal pathways that cause heroin and sex addictions are the same as an addiction to binge watching. Your body does not discriminate against pleasure. It can become addicted to any activity or substance that consistently produces dopamine.”</blockquote>
We binge watch television shows because we crave the fulfillment that comes with being entertained. In isolation, that’s not necessarily a bad thing — who hasn’t wanted to zone out after a long day? — but it does mean that entertainment industries are now prioritizing shows based on our desire for dopamine-heavy binge-watch sessions. 
Looking at <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/chart-shows-netflix-and-amazon-genre-breakdown-for-tv-and-movies-2018-9">data from 2018</a>, 43% of Netflix’s upcoming productions fell into the comedy and sci-fi/fantasy genre. Considering the types of shows people are likely to binge, this isn’t a coincidence. Amazon, on the other hand, focused 25% of their producing efforts on dramas. While these two streaming giants continue to lead the way in modern entertainment, when we consider the focus on delivering binge-worthy content it’s not hard to see why Netflix continues to stay ahead, with 190 million viewers compared to Amazon’s 150 million.
Given this growing focus, we have to wonder if shows like Ted Lasso are going to survive. In our modern environment of entertainment, success has less to do with the quality of the content, but everything to do with the delivery. Gone are the days where people tune in for their “Wednesday night drama.” We watch our shows on our schedules. If a show doesn’t fit with our schedule, we will look to replace it with one that does.
The Role of Societal Pressure
In addition to fulfilling your own desires, there is also pressure on a societal level to keep up. If you didn’t finish entire seasons of Stranger Things within the first weekend of its release, you were left out of the conversation. As clinical psychologist and professor, <a href="http://www.drarianemachin.com/">Dr. Ariane Machin</a> explains, “Cue the &#8216;This Is Us&#8217; phenomenon and feeling left out if you didn’t know what was going on! Binge watching can make us feel a part of a community with those that have also watched it, where we can connect over an in-depth discussion of a show.”
Put simply, are we willing to wait? COVID-19 has consistently pushed back movie release dates, and one has to wonder what sort of impact this will have on future viewership. Will people flock back to the movie theaters, eager to see these long-awaited new releases? Or will everyone stay content with what they already have at their fingertips in their own home?
Ending the Binge-Watching Trend (at Least Some of the Time)
What’s interesting about Ted Lasso is that my wife and I finished the entire season. Starting with the fourth episode and going all the way to the finale, we never missed a week. We either tuned in on Friday nights or found some time over the weekend to watch. What was a frustration at the start — “Why won’t the TV let us keep going?” — actually became a source of joy.
We began to look forward to the next episode, eagerly anticipating what was going to happen, even to the point where we would attempt to predict what would happen to various characters throughout the week. When we finally did get to watch the next episode, that time was cherished and appreciated. Often, we found ourselves rewinding to re-watch the funniest moments because we knew this was all we had for the week.
While I’m not prepared to say that binge-watching needs to disappear, there is something special about delayed gratification. There’s something powerful about looking forward to the next episode and learning to enjoy uncertainty for an entire week. 
Weekly installments instilled in me a sense of wonder, excitement, and energy that I hadn’t felt for a television show in a long time. So, maybe, just maybe, some shows are worth the wait. Or maybe, it’s not the shows that are worth it, but merely the act of waiting.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe"> member</a>.

Binge Watching

Why We Binge-Watch Our Favorite Shows And How It Impacts Us

Earlier this year, Apple TV released Ted Lasso, starring Jason Sudeikis as an American college football coach who is hired to run a professional soccer Television shows now resemble a JG Wentworth commercial—“It’s my show and I need it now.” We want to watch a lot at a time, and we want to watch it on our time. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American spends roughly 2.7 hours watching TV per day, which adds up to almost 20 hours per week.Given the amount of time we spend in front of our screens, is it surprising that a Netflix survey found that 61% of users regularly watch between 2-6 episodes of a show in one sitting, and another study showed that most Netflix users choose to binge-watch a series instead of taking their time (finishing on average one season in one week)?

Why We Binge-Watch Our Favorite Shows And How It Impacts Us | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/binge-watching-our-favorite-shows/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1041467636-1200x800.jpg

In general, remakes and sequels of films are rarely ever as good, let alone better than their originals. Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm, newly released to stream on Amazon Prime, is no exception. Sorely lacking in both creativity and imagination, the film is a meandering reinvention of the original “mockumentary” from 2004.
Though the initial Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan from 2006 was brimming with crass, bawdy humor, it was at least original. It was shocking, but it was also new. It blended unscripted improvisation with written scenes. Not only that, but Borat himself was a new character with unseen antics, offering a sardonic insight into the subject of bigotry. Cohen spared little in the making of the original – likely never intending to return to it – and, while portraying the Kazakh reporter, he exhausted the toilet humor world of Borat. 
In its sequel, Cohen reprises his infamous and oft-imitated character as the titular Kazakh journalist. Cohen is joined by a 15-year-old daughter, Tutar (played by Maria Bakalova), replacing his original sidekick — his cameraman from the first film. Together they travel back to America in efforts to curry favor with the Trump administration by delivering a gift (Borat’s daughter) to Vice President Mike Pence. 
Say what you will of the first Borat film, but its central focus was not politics. At the time, there were plenty of outlets one could turn to for anti-Bush and anti-Republican commentary. Borat chose to ignore most of that – while throwing in a joke about Dick Cheney and adding an occasional comment about the Iraq War – and it didn’t feel as though the entire film had been crafted around the intent of hammering Bush. It was a ludicrous plot around filming a documentary about America and, along the way, falling in love with Pamela Anderson. 
This is not the case for Subsequent Movefilm, which feels like a lame, half-baked idea in search of a plot. Trump is bad: that’s why this movie ostensibly needs to exist. Cohen has a clear personal feud with Trump, dating at least as far back as the early 2000s when he was doing the Ali G Show and failed to “punk” the billionaire mogul.
In America, armed with an injected dose of “Gypsy Tears,” Borat and his churlish daughter – whom Borat shipped in a wooden crate – parade the American landscape as they dupe and demean Republican voters, hospitable business owners and religious people, exploiting their rank politeness for cheap laughs.
The usual schtick employed by Sacha Baron Cohen is to hide behind the façade of a dimwitted character and naively approach unassuming store owners, employees and other unaware citizens, only to ridicule them on camera. In one scene, he approaches a hardware store manager and asks him how many tanks of propane would be required to take out a band of gypsies; in another, he’ll ask a cake shop owner to defile a cake with anti-Semitic messages. 
The target of mockery is always the middle-class American, hoodwinked by a multi-millionaire in costume.
But the biggest strike against Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm is that it’s just plain lazy. The second coming of Kazakhstan’s lewd correspondent feels more like a dreary mash of outtakes from the first film, seasoned with an ample serving of glib anti-Trump jokes lifted from Saturday Night Live. All of which is hastily cut together and packaged to peddle as “Resistance Comedy” – Hollywood’s most copious commodity during the Trump administration. 
If you’ve been watching any late-night talk shows (or CNN) for the last five years, more than half the punchlines can be seen from a mile away. In one joke, Borat purchases a cage for his daughter to sleep in, referencing illegal immigration detention centers. Other jokes include references to Stormy Daniels, the 2016 Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape, and the 2017 Charlottesville Unite the Right rally. 
Eventually, Borat crashes CPAC, clad in KKK robes, claiming to be Trump’s senior policy advisor Stephen Miller (again, very original). He changes disguises, donning a costume-store Trump mask and barges in on Mike Pence’s speech to offer him his daughter. There’s no comedic payoff as security ejects him immediately. 
Failing to deliver his daughter to Pence, Borat then swipes through a series of other Trump-affiliated candidates including Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, and Paul Manafort (in a scene that appeared tailored for the occupants of political Twitter). Finally, Borat decides on a last-ditch effort to salvage his plan, roping Rudy Giuliani into what became a grossly disingenuous scene, attempting to paint Giuliani’s candid interview with his alleged daughter as a scandalous, sexual encounter. 
Stretching out the same handful of jokes over ninety-minutes, Subsequent Moviefilm concludes with a scene caricaturing the St. Louis couple who brandished their firearms at trespassing protestors, donning an “all lives matter” t-shirt. It’s like every bad cliché of Resistance Twitter rolled into one film. 
Perhaps the most frustrating facet of the entire Trump saga of politics is the effect it has had on formerly talented comedians. Despite being more than capable of coming up with meaningful humor, the comedy industry has sealed itself in a bubble of political punditry where it can do little more than bounce around variations of the same jokes, all revolving around Donald Trump. 
Borat’s sequel is comedically aimless. It is a haphazardly stitched political collage, blending a handful of Resistance Twitter jokes with tried formulas from the first film. Like most attempts at political satire aimed at Donald Trump, it comes off as unimaginative, lacking focus, and even worse, just plain forgetful.
Harry Khachatrian is a Canadian computer engineer and a contributor at The Daily Wire. Find him on <a href="https://twitter.com/Harry1T6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=https://twitter.com/Harry1T6&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1513617344022000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHh2pXFSex2266c4GY1YE3A-Q6Ykw">Twitter</a>, commenting on the latest news headlines.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Borat – Sacha Baron Cohen

Borat Sequel Is Lazy, Unoriginal, & Obsessed With Trump

Review

In general, remakes and sequels of films are rarely ever as good, let alone better than their originals. Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm,

Borat Sequel Is Lazy, Unoriginal, &amp; Obsessed With Trump | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/borat-sequel-is-lazy-unoriginal-obsessed-with-ripping-trump/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-107019724-1200x800.jpg

Though our nation’s complex system of checks and balances is not always perfect, we remain the greatest example of democracy and freedom the world has ever seen. While our country still stands as the world’s great beacon of freedom and opportunity, the far-left narrative disingenuously portrays the U.S. as rife with oppression and persecution. The sad fact is that actual oppression and persecution are a tragic fact of life in many other countries. Liberties we often take for granted — such as due process, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms — are non-existent under these authoritarian regimes. Here are some alarming developments in five of the most oppressive.
1. Venezuela
The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Venezuela at the hands of Nicolás Maduro’s “illegitimate regime” has only been exacerbated by the current pandemic.
The Trump Administration “indicted Maduro and 14 regime officials on narco-terrorism, proposed a dramatic power-sharing and transition agreement, and bolstered U.S. counter-narcotics assets in Latin America,” according to <a href="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/IB5060.pdf">Ana Quintana</a>, a senior policy analyst at the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy.
<a href="https://www.heritage.org/index/country/venezuela">The Heritage Foundation</a> gives Maduro’s Marxist regime and abysmal “economic freedom score” of 25.2, “making its economy the 179th in the 2020 Index.”
“Economic freedom has been suffocated in Venezuela under the Maduro regime,” The Heritage Foundation continues. “If a transitional government could take power and begin the long return to market democracy, it would have to end hyperinflation, restructure public debt, and rebuild institutions to restore confidence and promote investment.”
Starvation is now commonplace in Venezuela due to decades of socialism alongside widespread corruption. A recent piece in <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/venezuelas-suffering-shows-where-illiberalism-leads/606988/">The Atlantic</a> reported that “78 percent of Venezuelans eat less than they used to, and 41 percent go whole days without eating.” The report goes on to provide horrifying details that harken back to Stalinism:
“To anyone who knows the long history of the relationship between Marxist regimes and famine, this development seems uncannily familiar. More than 80 years ago, in the winter of 1932–33, Stalin confiscated the food of Ukrainian peasants and did nothing while nearly 4 million died. Then he covered up their deaths, even altering Soviet population statistics and murdering census officials to disguise what had happened. To anyone who knows the long history of Communist countries’ use of food as a weapon, the Venezuelan regime’s manipulation of the food supply comes as no surprise, either. Most Venezuelans—80 percent according to <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://reliefweb.int/report/venezuela-bolivarian-republic/venezuela-complex-emergency-situation-report-9-february-24-2020&amp;sa=D&amp;ust=1582638965391000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF87io5EN_SeeijYS6FWnEJMEcGmw">a recent survey</a>—now rely on boxes of food, containing staples such as rice, grain, or oil, from the government…The hungrier people get, the more control the government exerts, and the easier it is to prevent them from protesting or objecting in any other way. Even people who are not starving now spend most of their time just getting by—standing in lines, trying to fix broken generators, working second or third jobs to earn a little bit more—all activities that keep them from politics.”
2. Saudi Arabia
Though a U.S. ally, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia enforces all sorts of arcane strictures on its people, often in the name of a draconian understanding of Islam that emerged in the nineteenth century. The kingdom spends billions upon billions promoting its brand of religious extremism — loosely known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism">Wahhabism</a> — across the globe and has done so now for decades “[b]y investing heavily in building mosques, madrasas, schools, and…cultural centers across the Muslim world,” according to <a href="https://theweek.com/articles/570297/how-saudi-arabia-exports-radical-islam">The Week</a>.
Much of the radicalism emerged in 1979 when fears of “Western decadence” led “hundreds of armed militants to occupy the Grand Mosque in Mecca.” The royal family acquiesced to the demands of these extremists and formed an ignoble pact of sorts.
“The royal family made a grand bargain with the clerics: Riyadh would fund the spread of Wahhabism abroad,” according to The Week, “as long as the extremists kept any militant activities off Saudi soil. That deal ensured that radical Islam would overwhelm moderate versions in many countries, and planted the seeds of many terrorist groups.”
Worse, as fanatical as Saudi Arabia’s brand of religiosity is, “ISIS represents a form of Wahhabi ideology that the Saudis can&#8217;t control — a cancer that now threatens the kingdom.” One can very much argue that Saudi Arabia had a direct influence on the rise of ISIS and its virulent ideology with the kingdom’s proselytizing around the world.
Saudi Arabia also has little regard for due process and crushes any form of dissent with imprisonment or capital punishment. In 2019, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-52358476">only Iran</a> had more executions.
“Saudi Arabia announced the mass execution of 37 men on April 23, 2019 in various parts of the country,” according to <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/24/saudi-arabia-mass-execution-37-men">Human Rights Watch</a>. “At least 33 of the 37 were from the country’s minority Shia community and had been convicted following unfair trials for various alleged crimes, including protest-related offenses, espionage, and terrorism. The mass execution was the largest since January 2016, when Saudi Arabia executed 47 men for terrorism offenses.”
Like many other brutal regimes, forms of dissent in the country are often labeled “terrorism” as an authoritarian form of subterfuge. “Saudi authorities will inevitably characterize those executed as terrorists and dangerous criminals” even though the kingdom is “largely devoid of any due process.”
The recent imprisonment of a child provides just one grave example of this ongoing injustice. 13-year-old Murtaja Qureiris was detained by Saudi authorities for taking part in a protest in support of religious freedom at the age of ten, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/06/middleeast/saudi-teen-death-penalty-intl/">according to CNN</a>.
“Three years after he was filmed taking part in the bike protest, Saudi authorities arrested Qureiris, then just 13 years old. He was traveling with his family to Bahrain when he was detained by Saudi border authorities on the King Fahd causeway that connects the two countries.”
Qureiris barely escaped execution due to international outcry. He was still sentenced to 12 years in prison by the kingdom.
3. Russia
In a bizarre referendum in which “[t]he opposition accused the government of rigging the vote,” Vladimir Putin can now remain president of Russia until 2036, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/07/01/886440694/referendum-in-russia-passes-allowing-putin-to-remain-president-until-2036">according to NPR</a>.
“Russian voters have overwhelmingly backed a referendum on constitutional changes that includes a provision allowing President Vladimir Putin — who has already served for some two decades — to remain in power until 2036.”
Putin is now able to maintain his stranglehold on the Russian people and beyond under the guise of being “democratically elected.”
A 2019 report from the <a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/more-and-more-russians-are-fleeing-oppression-in-russia/">Atlantic Council</a> argues that oppression and lack of civil liberties are driving Russians to flee elsewhere now more than ever:
“An oppressive political climate marked by a lack of rights and freedoms is now a key factor driving emigration from Russia, according to a new report from the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. This is in stark comparison to emigration before 2012 when economic factors were the primary driver.”
The Russian leader and <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/27/catherine-belton-putin-people-book-review-kgb-russia-west/">former KGB agent</a> also excels at Machiavellian tactics, appealing to the moral impulses of many as a smokescreen for his political schemes inside and outside of Russia. “Putin has cleverly cast himself as a belligerent in the culture war” and “a defender of traditional morality” rooted in Orthodox Christianity that appeals to some conservatives far and wide, according to <a href="https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/how-putin-uses-russian-orthodoxy-grow-his-empire">The Heritage Foundation</a>.
His appeals to faith seem a tired ploy, however, and far more rooted in “geopolitics than religious sincerity.”
“Putin is seeking to tighten his grip on Ukraine and Belarus, as well as expand Russian influence further into Eastern and Central Europe. He will undoubtedly continue to promote Orthodoxy in the process. This is simply an attempt to seduce former Soviet republics back under the sway of Russia…Putin’s use of traditional Christianity is calculated for political effect. American and European observers would do well to see through the charade.”
4. The Philippines
Rodrigo Duterte’s reign in the Philippines began with an almost complete abandonment of due process in a treacherous effort to combat rampant drug use in the region.
During his inaugural speech in 2016, Duterte told a crowd of supporters “to shoot and kill drug dealers who resist arrest and fight back,” <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/05/kill-drug-dealers-medal-philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte">The Guardian</a> reported. He urged his citizens to take the law into their own hands if they had the means, adding, “Please feel free to call us, the police, or do it yourself if you have the gun, you have my support.”
<a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-1987eb2a568d773b36b578bda820abe4">AP News</a> reported that “[m]ore than 5,700 mostly poor drug suspects have been killed under Duterte’s anti-drug crackdown” since his infamous declaration in 2016.
His deeply misguided decree has led to allegations of unprecedented vigilantism and a complete disregard for the rule of law from the International Criminal Court and various human rights groups, according to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/asia-pacific-philippines-rodrigo-duterte-manila-crime-4b47dbd244d4e67e231e0fbfeb5db383">AP News</a>:
“At least two complaints for crimes against humanity and mass murder in connection with Duterte’s campaign are being examined by an ICC prosecutor, who will determine whether there is enough evidence to open a full-scale investigation.”
Duterte recently urged his police force to kill anyone defying lockdown orders and “challeng[ing] the government” at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, as detailed by <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rodrigo-duterte-philippines-president-coronavirus-lockdown-shoot-people-dead/">CBS News</a>:
&#8220;‘I will not hesitate. My orders are to the police and military, as well as village officials, if there is any trouble, or occasions where there&#8217;s violence and your lives are in danger, shoot them dead,’ he said in a mix of Filipino and English in the televised address. ‘Do not intimidate the government. Do not challenge the government. You will lose.’&#8221;
5. North Korea
Though President Trump attempted to make unprecedented diplomatic inroads into North Korea in 2018, the country remains enshrouded in secrecy, isolation, and ongoing oppression. It’s no exaggeration to assert that there is virtually no freedom in North Korea. Everything that can be controlled by the state is controlled by the state.
While officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, North Korea is a decidedly Marxist regime. All means of production are run by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_of_Korea">Worker’s Party of North Korea</a>, including agriculture which is “owned by the party and therefore by the state,” according to the late <a href="http://www2.law.columbia.edu/course_00S_L9436_001/North%20Korea%20materials/hwang%20jang3.html">Hwang Jang-yop</a>, a high-ranking official in North Korea who <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Jang-yop">defected in 1997</a>.
Land is broken down into cooperatives “[s]o ultimately, all the land managed by the agricultural cooperative belongs to the Great Leader.” Such a socialist monopoly on food production has led to ongoing mass starvation and what the late Hwang Jang-yop considers “the greatest human rights violation.”
“That more than 1.5 million people died of hunger from 1995 to 1996 is an irrefutable fact,” the late Hwang Jang-yop explains. “We do not have accurate data about the situation from 1997 to 1998, but since the food supply did not improve much, it can be deduced that at least a million people have met their deaths every year. According to reports that Chinese telecommunications company Xinhua claims it received from officials of the Agricultural Committee in North Korea, a total of 2.8 million people have starved to death at last count at the end of 1997. From this and the irrefutable fact that 1.5 million had died by the end of 1996, we can deduce that another 1.3 million people died in 1997 to add up to a total of 2.8 million deaths by starvation. We have consistently said that more than 1.5 million died between 1995 and 1996 and that 1 million more probably died every year from 1997 to 1998. We never resorted to exaggerating the situation.”
By all accounts, little has changed in North Korea except a greater potential to disrupt the geopolitical balance. <a href="https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/us-will-face-stronger-more-provocative-north-korea-2021">The Heritage Foundation</a> recently reported a “massive military parade on October 10” that “revealed an intimidating array of new military systems that increase the threat to America’s homeland and to its Asian allies.”
“Also of great concern for American security,” according to The Heritage Foundation, “the regime demonstrated that it could indigenously produce ICBM transporter erector launchers (TELs). During the parade, four Hwasong-15 ICBMs and four of the new ICBMs were paraded on TELs. North Korea had previously been constrained to six TELs converted from large trucks imported from China in 2012.&#8221;
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Maduro Forces

Troubling Developments Under 5 Oppressive Regimes Around the World

Though our nation’s complex system of checks and balances is not always perfect, we remain the greatest example of democracy and freedom the world has Though our nation’s complex system of checks and balances is not always perfect, we remain the greatest example of democracy and freedom the world has ever seen. While our country still stands as the world’s great beacon of freedom and opportunity, the far-left narrative disingenuously portrays the U.S. as rife with oppression and persecution. The sad fact is that actual oppression and persecution are a tragic fact of life in many other countries. Liberties we often take for granted — such as due process, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms — are non-existent under these authoritarian regimes. Here are some alarming developments in five of the most oppressive.

Troubling Developments Under 5 Oppressive Regimes Around the World | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/troubling-developments-under-5-oppressive-regimes-around-the-world/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/Maduro-Government-Forces.jpg

I am, by nature and philosophy, a sexual libertarian. If you’re an adult, acting in private without harm and with consent, I could not care less what kinky little fetish turns you on. It’s truly none of my business.
But then there’s Jeffrey Toobin. Toobin is — or maybe was — a New Yorker writer and CNN legal analyst. He has spent the last four years doing almost nothing but attacking Donald Trump. President Trump just doesn’t live up to Toobin’s moral standards.
“His complete disregard for norms. His constant lying. His inability or unwillingness to play by rules that Democrats and Republicans have played by for certainly all of my conscious life. It makes everything about these last three and a half years just feel different than anything I’ve ever covered,” he once said.
He was flogging a book then, but this week, during a Zoom call with the New Yorker, he was caught onscreen flogging something else entirely.
Toobin already exposed himself as an unsavory character ten years ago when he impregnated what was apparently one of several of his extra-marital mistresses, and then tried to stiff her on child support.
But that’s something any jag-off might do. Actually jagging off during an online business call — that’s something else. That’s deviant and abusive, a high-level act of sexual harassment.
Toobin was immediately suspended from the New Yorker, but CNN was slower to act. Why should they act? Wanking on camera is what CNN commentators do. It’s practically their job description. And it’s not just them either. As Election Day approaches, virtually the entire Democrat establishment and its poodle press are involved in one gigantic circle jerk, pleasuring themselves and each other while lost in a pornographic dream of destroying Donald Trump.
They are all doing the Toobin right there in front of us.
The New York Times, a former newspaper, ran an entire Sunday section denouncing the president.
“Donald Trump’s re-election campaign poses the greatest threat to American Democracy since World War II,” the paper Toobin-ed.
And I mean: srsly? There was Hitler’s War Machine, and then The Donald? No Cold War? No Cuban Missile Crisis? No Islamist Terror? Just Trump. And what makes Trump such a threat exactly?
“As the world runs out of time to confront climate change, Mr. Trump has denied the need for action… He has mounted a cruel crackdown on both legal and illegal immigration… he has sought to persuade both Congress and the courts to get rid of the Affordable Care Act…” and so on.
He disagrees with the Times, in other words. I am literally shivering in my literal shoes.
Times Editorial Board Member Mara Gay went on MSNBC to explain: “When The New York Times endorsed Joe Biden, we didn&#8217;t do it because The New York Times is a partisan newspaper. We&#8217;re actually not partisan… This is really about right and wrong and saving the soul of the nation.”
We’re not partisan. We’re just saving the nation from people with different opinions than ours. If that’s not an exercise in Jeffrey Toobin-ing, I don’t know what is.
“Donald Trump threatens the existence of human life — of all life on this planet,” Elizabeth Warren toobin-ed.
“If the president had done his job&#8230;  all the people would still be alive,&#8221; toobin-ed what used to be Joe Biden.
Trump can be rude and crude and bumptious, I’ll admit, but it isn’t that that has led an entire class of Americans into O-faced cries of ecstatic hatred.
No. Donald Trump is a threat, but not to American democracy. He’s a threat to a two-party system that has become, as the youngsters say, an op: a simulation of democracy in which both parties do almost nothing but pass around an ever-fattening public purse. The new revelations of Joe Biden’s probable participation in his son’s influence peddling show Joe to be a veritable poster boy of exactly what the people were protesting when they voted Trump in. Drain the swamp, they said. Biden is Swamp Thing.
And sure, Trump is an imperfect vessel of reform. But show me another as willing to brave the slings and arrows of our corrupt media and do what the people want to see done — namely give them a government that serves them instead of playing with itself.
Jeffrey Toobin is deviant and disgusting, but no more than the rest of the media and the party they serve. He was doing exactly what they’re doing. He was just a little bit more honest about it.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Jeffrey Toobin

KLAVAN: Doing The Toobin

I am, by nature and philosophy, a sexual libertarian. If you’re an adult, acting in private without harm and with consent, I could not care less what

KLAVAN: Doing The Toobin | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/klavan-doing-the-toobin/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/B774F53D-B432-4489-BAF0-B47CBF24C1EF-1200x800.jpeg

Seth Dillon oversees one of the web’s funniest destinations, but there’s an edge to his voice that’s hardly comic. Dillon, the CEO of The Babylon Bee, is at war with social media. Again. It’s an odd place for a humor site to be, but it’s in sync with the current wave of Big Tech bullying.
Dillon says the trouble began two years ago when Facebook aligned with third-party fact checkers like Snopes to battle misinformation on the platform. That seemingly noble stance led to Snopes and, by extension, Facebook, labeling a satirical Bee article as “false.”
“Facebook treated us as purveyors of Fake News,” he says, tied to a farcical story about CNN buying industrial strength washing machines to better spin the news.
“Nobody believed the story was true,” Dillon says. Facebook disagreed, threatening the company’s social media monetization if the Bee kept producing fake news stories.
The Babylon Bee, a Christian humor site that politically leans to the Right, generates revenue from Facebook in several key ways. Facebook traffic comprises a large part of the Bee’s overall clicks.
Plus, publishers can utilize Facebook’s subscription tools to generate new customers or leverage its “instant articles” feature. The latter lets users click on a story and the article appears, but the process taps into Facebook’s ad network structure.
“When they demonetize you, they turn all of them off,” he explains.
Cooler cyber-heads prevailed, but recently Facebook once again threatened The Babylon Bee over its content.
The story in question <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/facebook-removes-babylon-bee-satire-mocking-sen-hironos-treatment-of-amy-barrett-says-it-incites-violence">poked fun at Sen. Mazie Hirono</a>, a Hawaiian Democrat, for grilling Judge Amy Coney Barrett about any sexual assaults she may have committed in the past.
The Bee piece’s headline, “Senator Hirono Demands ACB Be Weighed Against A Duck To See If She Is A Witch&#8221; referenced a classic Monty Python routine.
&#8220;Oh, she&#8217;s a witch alright, just look at her!&#8221; the Bee fictitiously quoted Hirono. &#8220;Just look at the way she&#8217;s dressed and how she&#8217;s so much prettier and smarter than us! She&#8217;s in league with Beelzebub himself, I just know it! We must burn her!&#8221;
The Bee satire triggered Facebook’s algorithms, a process that eventually gave way to a manual content review.
The results?
The story “incites violence,” and Facebook pulled the article from the Bee’s page on its own.
“We were told we would need to edit it or else we would remain in violation of their community standards,” Dillon says. “We appealed [the decision] and lost.”
So The Babylon Bee reached out to the media to amplify both the conflict and their side of the argument. Days later, Facebook changed its mind and apologized, noting the difference between satire and Fake News.
“It’s always a mistake,” Dillon says sarcastically. “They’re reaching, stretching to make us in violation of their community standards.”
Facebook’s cyber-bulling represents an existential threat to The Babylon Bee. A large portion of the site’s revenue comes from ads served on the main site. If Facebook were to prevent social media users from clicking on Bee stories shared on Facebook, it would be devastating.
“Fortunately, we’re not stupid. We’re not using all their monetization tools. It’s way too risky,” he says. “We’re doing all we can to generate revenue outside the Facebook ecosystem.”
Dillon is grateful to press outlets for amplifying their concerns about Facebook, but not every reporter is eager to do so. It’s typically right-of-center outlets like National Review and Fox News sharing their plight.
The mainstream media, in sharp contrast, ignores their struggles.
Reporters did rush to cover the Bee recently, but only after President Donald Trump shared a Bee satire, presumably thinking it was a true news item. That got the attention of sites like MSNBC, Vox, and others, Dillon says.
USA Today recently addressed the site’s mission in an “explainer” style story, but it noted the <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/16/donald-trump-tweets-babylon-bees-satirical-news-story-joe-biden/3676071001/">publication mocked Black Lives Matter</a> as if that group should be untouchable to satirists.
The paper even activated its own fact-checkers after the Bee published this story: “Ninth Circuit Court Overturns Death Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”
Otherwise, mainstream reporters look away from the Bee when social media slams the brakes on its satire.
The Babylon Bee is hardly the first website to poke fun at the news. The Onion’s satirical work dates back to 1988. That site routinely shreds the latest headlines, too, although from an increasingly left-of-center perspective.
Dillon has been researching his competitor to see if it ever runs afoul of social media giants. So far, he’s seen nothing remotely similar to his own site’s woes.
“Even world leaders get duped by Onion stories,” he notes, but reporters react with glee when it happens.
Not so with the Bee.
“You get these New York Times hit pieces [that say] we are capitalizing on confusion,” he says. “They put our motives in question. ‘Are they spreading disinformation on purpose?’”
Dillon says his company draws support from the creative community, albeit in modest ways. Think private messages from fellow artists offering moral support and law firms eager to have their legalistic back.
Prominent players like “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams and political gadfly Michael Malice also speak out on the Bee’s behalf, along with “disaffected liberals” like Dave Rubin.
It isn’t only Facebook that threatens the Bee’s ascent. Google previously flagged select Bee stories for violating its terms against hate speech, putting “strikes on our account,” he says. “That can put you in jeopardy of losing Google ads.”
Plus, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-briefly-suspends-babylon-bee-then-apologizes">Twitter suspended The Babylon Bee’s account</a> in August “out of nowhere,” he says, claiming the company violated Twitter’s “spam and platform manipulation” policies.
“They said it was a mistake,” he says, noting the social media giant eventually restored the account.
“We did hear there were other conservative sites caught up in that spam filter. What kind of spam filter was that? What really happened?” he asks. “It’s one more mistake that affected us and not The Onion.”
For now, getting media coverage from conservative outlets is enough to prevent Facebook from censoring its content completely. That’s not possible for everyday Americans who lack the Bee’s clout.
The site has nearly 758,000 Twitter followers, half a million on Instagram, and more than 800,000 “likes” on Facebook.
“We’re just blessed to be in that position … so many people are just out of luck,” he says of social media suspensions. “I get people all the time messaging me. They’ve been suspended and put in Twitter jail. It’s over for them. How many people has this happened to?”
The situation puts a fresh light on next month’s presidential election.
Dillon says the Trump administration cares “very much about free speech and for conservatives to have a voice in the public discourse.”
“The Left tends to stamp out disagreement,” he adds, worrying the matter could get worse under a Biden administration.
“The progressive Left assuming more power is a serious threat to conservatives and free speech,” he says. “Look at that’s happening to the New York Post.”
The Manhattan tabloid remains blocked on Twitter for investigating Hunter Biden’s mysterious business ties, a story that has yet to be debunked in any fashion.
“The Right is much more willing to tolerate opposing opinions,” he says.
For now, The Babylon Bee will keep offering a counterpoint to modern comedy sans apology.
“We fill the void,” he says. “It’s kind of cool to be the one outlier. It’s healthy for society to have multiple outlets to give a different perspective. We need more of that.”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/conservatives-dont-dominate-facebook-despite-the-lefts-insistence-they-do">The Left Is Lying About Facebook &amp; Conservatives. Here’s The Truth.</a>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Facebook

EXCLUSIVE: Babylon Bee’s CEO Pushes Back Against Big Tech Bullying

Interview

Seth Dillon oversees one of the web’s funniest destinations, but there’s an edge to his voice that’s hardly comic. Dillon, the CEO of The Babylon Bee, is

EXCLUSIVE: Babylon Bee’s CEO Pushes Back Against Big Tech Bullying | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/nothing-funny-about-facebooks-serial-attacks-on-the-babylon-bee/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/7344BC28-7EAC-4F45-BBA8-4FD87DEAF279-1200x800.jpeg

The central strategy at the heart of the Democrats’ campaign to unseat or replace President Donald Trump is to present themselves as the only remaining alternative to the apparent horror of any Republican administration. As such, they take the binary choice facing voters on November 3rd and present their side as the “good guys” and Trump and his followers as the “bad guys.” 
During the final presidential debate, when asked what he would say in his hypothetical inauguration speech, Biden answered, “I will give you hope. We will choose science over fiction, hope over fear.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
In final question, Biden is asked what he&#39;d say at his inauguration to Americans who didn&#39;t vote for him: &quot;I&#39;m an American president. I represent all of you, whether you voted for me or against me. And I&#39;m going to make sure that you&#39;re represented. I&#39;m going to give you hope.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/nCrHwIKxJB">pic.twitter.com/nCrHwIKxJB</a>
&mdash; CBS News (@CBSNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1319469983148232705?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This isn’t the first time Biden has presented himself as the apparent solution to all that is wrong in our world. Earlier this month, he called for his supporters to “choose hope over fear, unity over division, science over fiction, and yes, truth over lies.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“We choose hope over fear, unity over division, science over fiction, and yes, truth over lies” Biden closes out his speech in Detroit tonight <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Biden2020?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Biden2020</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Biden?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Biden</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JoeBiden?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JoeBiden</a> <a href="https://t.co/WOVP0RNu9m">pic.twitter.com/WOVP0RNu9m</a>
&mdash; Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) <a href="https://twitter.com/BGOnTheScene/status/1317251086416285697?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
For the Left, it’s simple. In order to prove that you value hope over fear, unity over division, science over fiction, truth over lies, or ice cream over genocide, all you have to do is vote for a Democrat. Your vote alone is evidence that you have demonstrated your moral quality. In the same way that placing a sign on your lawn that offers a meaningless tautology like “love is love” proves your virtue, announcing that you “choose hope over fear” means that you are, in fact, hopeful. 
Moreover, those who disagree with you on any matter, whether relevant or irrelevant, are therefore choosing fear over hope. The same goes for choosing “unity over division,” “science over fiction,” or “truth over lies.” 
Voting for Biden will apparently prove that you want unity, that you respect science, and that you value truth, without having to lift a finger!
What is ironic about this linguistic binary strategy is that it’s immediately self-contradictory. “We choose unity over division” is, by definition, a divisive statement. You cannot declare that you value unity above all else, and then simultaneously divide the population on the subject of their supposed desire for unity. This is simply a clever version of “we’re not divisive, you are!”
Setting the absurdity of this statement aside, it’s important to note that the Democrats have a habit of seeing their own worst traits in their enemies. While Biden may decide that he and his supporters are choosing something good over something bad, his actions speak far louder than his jumbled words.
Despite apparently choosing “hope over fear,” the Harris/Biden campaign is built entirely upon a strategy of stoking fear. The Democrats have stated for years that, under a Republican administration, we will die. We will die without Obamacare. We will die without abortions. Now, we will die from COVID-19. We will die &#8230; unless we vote for a Democrat. 
In her recent debate with Vice President Mike Pence, Kamala Harris stared directly into the camera, pointed to Pence, and said, “They are coming for you.” How is this an example of choosing fear over hope?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Remember &#8230; They are coming for you <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ACA?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ACA</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BidenCoalition?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BidenCoalition</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Debates2020?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Debates2020</a> <a href="https://t.co/VtBShttYcy">pic.twitter.com/VtBShttYcy</a>
&mdash; United4Joe (@United4Joe) <a href="https://twitter.com/United4Joe/status/1319457051408564224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Despite choosing “hope over fear,” Biden and the Democrats want you to vote for them out of fear, not hope. Despite choosing “unity over division,” Biden and the Democrats arbitrarily separate Americans based on their willingness or refusal to adhere to their demands. 
What about “science over fiction?” The supposed “pro-science” Democrats are the same party who have not only embraced the idea that men are women and women are men, but that any scientific or biological disagreement on this subject is motivated by bigotry. “Pro-science” Democrats like Kamala Harris are the same Democrats who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-kamala-harris-promotes-dangerous-conspiracy-theory-about-coronavirus-vaccine">promoted</a> anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, the same Democrats who support the destruction of human life in the womb up to the moment of birth, and the same Democrats who have a shocking understanding of fundamental mathematics. Finally, let’s not forget the “pro-science” rhetoric of Democrats like Nancy Pelosi who, in-between mask-less trips to the salon during lockdown, declare that “<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/09/11/pelosi_mother_earth_is_angry_and_shes_telling_us.html">mother earth is angry</a>.” Science over fiction, folks.
The last binary division is the most absurd of all: “truth over lies.” Yes, Trump has lied, but so has Biden. Unfortunately, a penchant for falsehood is almost a prerequisite for any politician, and Biden has demonstrated over his long career that he is an expert. 
Despite CNN’s supposed “fact-checker” Daniel Dale claiming that Biden was “largely accurate” during the first presidential debate, his performance was, in reality, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cnn-claims-biden-debate-largely-accurate-here-are-14-false-claims-by-biden">replete with lies</a>. The same was <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-lies-again-and-again/">true</a> of the final presidential debate, including this nugget of “truth over lies” gold.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“Truth over lies.” <a href="https://t.co/rxjxBIB3lk">pic.twitter.com/rxjxBIB3lk</a>
&mdash; Ian G Haworth (@ighaworth) <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth/status/1319783876965756929?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
We should choose hope over fear, unity over division, science over fiction, and truth over lies. A vote for Biden is far from a vote for hope, unity, science, or truth.
Ian Haworth is host of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPxdVsNp7k&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuTQRVv1IOVMnA735vEYO0f5">The Ian Haworth Show</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E05t2L69Sks&amp;list=PLhi-aq-5DfuRHu5r0IV5qr4h2rBAV9oBd">The Truth in 60 Seconds</a>. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
More from Ian Haworth: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-middle-class-joe">Is Biden Really ‘Middle Class Joe’? Here Are The Facts.</a>
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe"> member</a>.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

How Biden’s ‘Hope Over Fear,’ ‘Unity Over Division,’ & ‘Truth Over Lies’ Is Fearful, Divisive & False

The central strategy at the heart of the Democrats’ campaign to unseat or replace President Donald Trump is to present themselves as the only remaining

How Biden’s ‘Hope Over Fear,’ ‘Unity Over Division,’ &amp; ‘Truth Over Lies’ Is Fearful, Divisive &amp; False | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/how-bidens-hope-over-fear-unity-over-division-truth-over-lies-is-fearful-divisive-false/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/GettyImages-1228018725-1200x800.jpg

#DefundNPR is trending on Twitter. The reason for this is that National Public Radio — you know, that sinkhole where your tax dollars go — issued a statement about why it is not covering the developing story about Hunter Biden’s overseas business deals and the potential implications for his father, Joe. Much like Twitter itself — which blocked circulation of the story along with Facebook, and which shut down the account of the New York Post, one of America’s longest-running papers, for days after the Hunter story broke — NPR has responded to charges of censorship with vague <a href="https://twitter.com/SpencerKlavan/status/1316759329383485441?s=20">grumblings</a> about the validity of the sources. These of course are concerns that NPR mysteriously never raised while pumping 24/7 coverage of the ludicrous Steele Dossier and its Russian collusion canard into our ears.
The reality is, as everyone knows, these rules are made up by big tech and legacy media as they go along in a desperate effort to shut conservatives out of the public square before they tell too much truth about Joe Biden and hurt his chances at the presidency. In this case it seems to have <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/16/1010644/twitter-ban-hunter-biden-emails-backfires/">backfired</a> by drawing more, rather than less, attention to the Hunter story. But there’s something more important going on, which merits attention for the long term — and it has to do with how Twitter itself is reporting the #DefundNPR hashtag.
Trends on Twitter come with little explanations, and here is the one for #DefundNPR: “A contingent of Republicans want to ‘defund NPR’ after the non-profit media organization defended its decision not to publish stories on the controversial NY Post article about Hunter Biden.”
Almost every word of this is dishonest. It’s not some marginal “contingent of Republicans” that is appalled at the partisanship of our digital forums — plenty of centrists are <a href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1319312843062218752?s=20">appalled</a> too. They have every reason to be. And the only reason the Post bombshell is “controversial” is because from the minute it broke, the clowns at NPR, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, and all the other dumpster fires we call media organizations have been fabricating ludicrous controversy about it precisely so they could discredit it.
So it’s not just the stories we’re reading online that are biased: it’s the way in which those stories are framed and presented to us.
Twitter knows what it’s doing when it swaddles a potentially explosive story in language designed to make it look like the fringe concern of partisan hacks. It’s shaping what we know and think by shaping the context in which we receive new information.
For my money, this completely explodes the naïve idea — which has long held Republicans back from legislating strongly on this issue — that human curators like Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey can run some sort of “neutral” public square. The comparison that is often made between Twitter and an internet or phone service provider is not just flawed: it’s a category error.
The reason for this is structural: when it comes to media venues, there is no such thing as a simple blank space into which all available opinions and facts are dumped equally without favor. There are human beings who build institutions, and those institutions make choices about what you will find out and how it will be framed. Some of them — like Twitter — lie about that and pretend to be neutral.
But in this case “neutral” is just another word for “my values are the ones which are non-negotiable because they don’t even count as values.”
Republicans need to wise up to this, and fast. If we are really going to have free speech in this country, we simply cannot allow platforms like Twitter to hold a functional monopoly on the attention of the American people. When conservative pundits make excuses for Twitter on the <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1316584400499421184?s=20">grounds</a> of shoddy First Amendment arguments, and when Republican lawmakers <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1265857184459612160?s=20">block</a> efforts to hold social media and search giants to account, they are being perilously naïve and playing with this country’s future.
Twitter isn’t some neutral platform: it’s a venue with a point of view, just like the Daily Wire or NPR. Only unlike the Daily Wire, Twitter gets to hide its values under the surface as if they were simply the rules of engagement. They aren’t, and they shouldn’t be—it’s high time Republicans figured that out.
Spencer Klavan is host of the <a href="http://youngheretics.com/">Young Heretics</a> podcast and assistant editor of the <a href="https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/">Claremont Review of</a> Booksand <a href="https://americanmind.org/">The American Mind</a>. He can be reached on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/spencerklavan">@SpencerKlavan</a>.
More from Spencer Klavan: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/video-games-the-last-refuge-of-manhood">Video Games: The Last Refuge of Manhood</a>
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Twitter

Why It’s Absurd To Think Twitter Can Be Neutral

#DefundNPR is trending on Twitter. The reason for this is that National Public Radio — you know, that sinkhole where your tax dollars go — issued a

Why It’s Absurd To Think Twitter Can Be Neutral | The Daily Wire

https://editorial.dailywire.com/news/why-its-absurd-to-think-twitter-can-be-neutral/

https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2020/10/Twitter-1.jpg

Menu

WALSH: BLM Is Making A Martyr Of Yet Another Man Convicted Of Abusing A Woman

Member Exclusives

The ‘Lockdown vs. Herd Immunity’ Debate Has Nothing To Do With Science

Everything You Need to Know About a Contested Election

Fracking: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris & Mainstream Media Are Lying To You; Here’s Proof

World Series Proved It…Woke Sports Are Unwatchable

SHAPIRO: Blaming Trump For COVID Is Dems’ Anti-Fact Religion

Pizza Hut Partners With Nonprofit To Develop ‘Anti-Racist Pedagogy’ To ‘Empower Educators’

WALSH: Black Lives Matter Isn’t Even Pretending To Care About ‘Police Brutality’ Anymore

Biden Reassures His Imaginary Supporters That Ball Of Fire Hovering Over His House Should Sink Into Pacific By Nightfall [Satire]

Why We Binge-Watch Our Favorite Shows And How It Impacts Us

Borat Sequel Is Lazy, Unoriginal, & Obsessed With Trump

Troubling Developments Under 5 Oppressive Regimes Around the World

KLAVAN: Doing The Toobin

EXCLUSIVE: Babylon Bee’s CEO Pushes Back Against Big Tech Bullying

How Biden’s ‘Hope Over Fear,’ ‘Unity Over Division,’ & ‘Truth Over Lies’ Is Fearful, Divisive & False

Why It’s Absurd To Think Twitter Can Be Neutral

Collections

Trending

Latest

Menu

WALSH: BLM Is Making A Martyr Of Yet Another Man Convicted Of Abusing A Woman

Member Exclusives

The ‘Lockdown vs. Herd Immunity’ Debate Has Nothing To Do With Science

Everything You Need to Know About a Contested Election

Fracking: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris & Mainstream Media Are Lying To You; Here’s Proof

World Series Proved It…Woke Sports Are Unwatchable

SHAPIRO: Blaming Trump For COVID Is Dems’ Anti-Fact Religion

Pizza Hut Partners With Nonprofit To Develop ‘Anti-Racist Pedagogy’ To ‘Empower Educators’

WALSH: Black Lives Matter Isn’t Even Pretending To Care About ‘Police Brutality’ Anymore

Biden Reassures His Imaginary Supporters That Ball Of Fire Hovering Over His House Should Sink Into Pacific By Nightfall [Satire]

Why We Binge-Watch Our Favorite Shows And How It Impacts Us

Borat Sequel Is Lazy, Unoriginal, & Obsessed With Trump

Troubling Developments Under 5 Oppressive Regimes Around the World

KLAVAN: Doing The Toobin

EXCLUSIVE: Babylon Bee’s CEO Pushes Back Against Big Tech Bullying

How Biden’s ‘Hope Over Fear,’ ‘Unity Over Division,’ & ‘Truth Over Lies’ Is Fearful, Divisive & False

Why It’s Absurd To Think Twitter Can Be Neutral

Collections

Trending

Latest

3 days until election

Don't miss a beat of our coverage.