“Think before you post.”

That’s the chilling message that was just posted from social media accounts affiliated with the United Kingdom’s government. Amid the riots and civil unrest in the streets of Britain that were initially sparked by anti-immigration protesters, the posts warned citizens not directly involved in the uprisings that they too could face arrest even just for their speech. 

“Content that incites violence or hatred isn’t just harmful — it can be illegal,” the Crown Prosecution Service tweeted. “The CPS takes online violence seriously and will prosecute when the legal test is met. Remind those close to you to share responsibly or face the consequences.”

These aren’t just idle threats, either.

Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions of England and Wales, warned that there are “dedicated police officers” tasked with “scouring social media” to “follow up with identification [and] arrests” when people “publish or distribute material which is insulting or abusive which is intended to or likely to start racial hatred.” 

This censorious effort is coming from the top levels of government. In an interview with Sky News, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said social media is “not a law-free zone” and that he wanted to issue “a reminder to everyone that whether you’re directly involved or whether you’re remotely involved, you’re culpable, and you will be put before the courts if you’ve broken the law.”

The arrests have already begun. 

As Sky News reports, one 28-year-old man, Jordan Parlour, has been sentenced to 20 months in prison after writing on Facebook that “every man and his dog should smash [the] f*** out of Britannia hotel (in Leeds),” even though his post only received six likes and there’s no direct evidence that any of the people who went on to attack the hotel did so because of his post. (The hotel was targeted for housing refugees at taxpayer expense.) 

Meanwhile, according to the Guardian, a 55-year-old woman was arrested simply for sharing inaccurate information about the suspect involved in the horrific stabbing attack that led to the uprisings. More arrests are sure to follow.

There is no word for this other than “dystopian.” The U.K. government is going full speech police and arresting and imprisoning people simply for the words they say.

Of course, anyone who has actually participated in the riots and crimes, such as mob beatings, looting, and vandalism, should be arrested and subjected to full legal consequences. Whether it’s Black Lives Matter activists in the United States in 2020 or anti-immigration agitators in these current U.K. riots, violence and victimizing the innocent are never acceptable forms of protest. But going beyond that and arresting people simply for their words is beyond the pale. 

For one, you are quite literally punishing people for the actions of others who are not in their control. That alone makes these arrests unjust. 

Even in the more extreme cases, such as that of Jordan Parlour, who did explicitly encourage violence with his words, he did so while sitting at home. He didn’t throw a single brick or smash a single window. No one was compelled to do anything simply because he posted something idiotic on Facebook. To punish him so severely because of the decisions other people made is to assign to him responsibility he does not bear — and take the blame off the shoulders of the people who actually committed the violent acts. 

And to arrest people simply for spreading inaccurate information is incredibly dangerous. (In this case, the riots were, in part, motivated by false rumors that the man who committed a stabbing attack was an illegal immigrant.) Yes, people have a responsibility to be careful with their words and not spread fake information, but that should be considered a civic and moral responsibility, not a legal one.

Crossing into the alarming territory of arresting people after sharing “false” information requires making the government the ultimate arbiter of truth. What could possibly go wrong?

Of course, as we’ve been repeatedly reminded in recent years, the government is not all-knowing and often gets things wrong. Just ask the many people who challenged the U.S. government’s claims on everything from the lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origins to the efficacy of mask mandates and beyond, who were initially labeled as purveyors of “misinformation” but, as time went on, were revealed to be correct or, at least, not necessarily incorrect. 

Government officials are only human and are not capable of accurately determining one “truth” to anywhere near the degree of certainty required to punish people justly for spreading “falsehoods.” Granting any government this power is also dangerous because it’s so ripe for abuse.

The government often seeks to obfuscate or cover up facts that are harmful to its public perception, which it regularly labels “false” during initial media reports only to admit later it was wrong. See the Washington Post’s Afghanistan papers, for example, which extensively document how U.S. officials misled the public about the status of the war in Afghanistan to burnish their image.

Even if the government were somehow able to separate fact from fiction with a reasonable degree of accuracy and never abused this power, engaging in this kind of censorship would nevertheless have a chilling effect. 

People would, quite understandably, be afraid to speak their minds openly or challenge a consensus, and they would engage in self-censorship as a result. This kind of repressed society is incompatible with the basic principles of democracy, where good ideas are supposed to win out over time through the open exchange of arguments, and such repression endangers everything from scientific progress to entrepreneurial innovation, which both require the freedom to risk being wrong. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The conclusion here is inescapable. 

The U.K. government must crack down on lawless riots in its streets. But in the long run, its creep into truly Orwellian levels of censorship poses a far bigger threat to its citizens’ freedom than any riot ever could. And this whole saga serves as a reminder to Americans as to why we should cherish our First Amendment because without strict legal protections for free speech, even a Western nation can quickly descend into dystopia. 

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an independent journalist, YouTuber, the co-founder of BASEDPolitics, and a Steamboat Institute Blankley Fellow. 

2024-08-10 11:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3116592%2Fthe-uk-descends-into-dystopian-levels-of-censorship%2F?w=600&h=450, “Think before you post.” That’s the chilling message that was just posted from social media accounts affiliated with the United Kingdom’s government. Amid the riots and civil unrest in the streets of Britain that were initially sparked by anti-immigration protesters, the posts warned citizens not directly involved in the uprisings that they too could face,

“Think before you post.”

That’s the chilling message that was just posted from social media accounts affiliated with the United Kingdom’s government. Amid the riots and civil unrest in the streets of Britain that were initially sparked by anti-immigration protesters, the posts warned citizens not directly involved in the uprisings that they too could face arrest even just for their speech. 

“Content that incites violence or hatred isn’t just harmful — it can be illegal,” the Crown Prosecution Service tweeted. “The CPS takes online violence seriously and will prosecute when the legal test is met. Remind those close to you to share responsibly or face the consequences.”

These aren’t just idle threats, either.

Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions of England and Wales, warned that there are “dedicated police officers” tasked with “scouring social media” to “follow up with identification [and] arrests” when people “publish or distribute material which is insulting or abusive which is intended to or likely to start racial hatred.” 

This censorious effort is coming from the top levels of government. In an interview with Sky News, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said social media is “not a law-free zone” and that he wanted to issue “a reminder to everyone that whether you’re directly involved or whether you’re remotely involved, you’re culpable, and you will be put before the courts if you’ve broken the law.”

The arrests have already begun. 

As Sky News reports, one 28-year-old man, Jordan Parlour, has been sentenced to 20 months in prison after writing on Facebook that “every man and his dog should smash [the] f*** out of Britannia hotel (in Leeds),” even though his post only received six likes and there’s no direct evidence that any of the people who went on to attack the hotel did so because of his post. (The hotel was targeted for housing refugees at taxpayer expense.) 

Meanwhile, according to the Guardian, a 55-year-old woman was arrested simply for sharing inaccurate information about the suspect involved in the horrific stabbing attack that led to the uprisings. More arrests are sure to follow.

There is no word for this other than “dystopian.” The U.K. government is going full speech police and arresting and imprisoning people simply for the words they say.

Of course, anyone who has actually participated in the riots and crimes, such as mob beatings, looting, and vandalism, should be arrested and subjected to full legal consequences. Whether it’s Black Lives Matter activists in the United States in 2020 or anti-immigration agitators in these current U.K. riots, violence and victimizing the innocent are never acceptable forms of protest. But going beyond that and arresting people simply for their words is beyond the pale. 

For one, you are quite literally punishing people for the actions of others who are not in their control. That alone makes these arrests unjust. 

Even in the more extreme cases, such as that of Jordan Parlour, who did explicitly encourage violence with his words, he did so while sitting at home. He didn’t throw a single brick or smash a single window. No one was compelled to do anything simply because he posted something idiotic on Facebook. To punish him so severely because of the decisions other people made is to assign to him responsibility he does not bear — and take the blame off the shoulders of the people who actually committed the violent acts. 

And to arrest people simply for spreading inaccurate information is incredibly dangerous. (In this case, the riots were, in part, motivated by false rumors that the man who committed a stabbing attack was an illegal immigrant.) Yes, people have a responsibility to be careful with their words and not spread fake information, but that should be considered a civic and moral responsibility, not a legal one.

Crossing into the alarming territory of arresting people after sharing “false” information requires making the government the ultimate arbiter of truth. What could possibly go wrong?

Of course, as we’ve been repeatedly reminded in recent years, the government is not all-knowing and often gets things wrong. Just ask the many people who challenged the U.S. government’s claims on everything from the lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origins to the efficacy of mask mandates and beyond, who were initially labeled as purveyors of “misinformation” but, as time went on, were revealed to be correct or, at least, not necessarily incorrect. 

Government officials are only human and are not capable of accurately determining one “truth” to anywhere near the degree of certainty required to punish people justly for spreading “falsehoods.” Granting any government this power is also dangerous because it’s so ripe for abuse.

The government often seeks to obfuscate or cover up facts that are harmful to its public perception, which it regularly labels “false” during initial media reports only to admit later it was wrong. See the Washington Post’s Afghanistan papers, for example, which extensively document how U.S. officials misled the public about the status of the war in Afghanistan to burnish their image.

Even if the government were somehow able to separate fact from fiction with a reasonable degree of accuracy and never abused this power, engaging in this kind of censorship would nevertheless have a chilling effect. 

People would, quite understandably, be afraid to speak their minds openly or challenge a consensus, and they would engage in self-censorship as a result. This kind of repressed society is incompatible with the basic principles of democracy, where good ideas are supposed to win out over time through the open exchange of arguments, and such repression endangers everything from scientific progress to entrepreneurial innovation, which both require the freedom to risk being wrong. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The conclusion here is inescapable. 

The U.K. government must crack down on lawless riots in its streets. But in the long run, its creep into truly Orwellian levels of censorship poses a far bigger threat to its citizens’ freedom than any riot ever could. And this whole saga serves as a reminder to Americans as to why we should cherish our First Amendment because without strict legal protections for free speech, even a Western nation can quickly descend into dystopia. 

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an independent journalist, YouTuber, the co-founder of BASEDPolitics, and a Steamboat Institute Blankley Fellow. 

, “Think before you post.” That’s the chilling message that was just posted from social media accounts affiliated with the United Kingdom’s government. Amid the riots and civil unrest in the streets of Britain that were initially sparked by anti-immigration protesters, the posts warned citizens not directly involved in the uprisings that they too could face arrest even just for their speech.  “Content that incites violence or hatred isn’t just harmful — it can be illegal,” the Crown Prosecution Service tweeted. “The CPS takes online violence seriously and will prosecute when the legal test is met. Remind those close to you to share responsibly or face the consequences.” These aren’t just idle threats, either. Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions of England and Wales, warned that there are “dedicated police officers” tasked with “scouring social media” to “follow up with identification [and] arrests” when people “publish or distribute material which is insulting or abusive which is intended to or likely to start racial hatred.”  This censorious effort is coming from the top levels of government. In an interview with Sky News, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said social media is “not a law-free zone” and that he wanted to issue “a reminder to everyone that whether you’re directly involved or whether you’re remotely involved, you’re culpable, and you will be put before the courts if you’ve broken the law.” The arrests have already begun.  As Sky News reports, one 28-year-old man, Jordan Parlour, has been sentenced to 20 months in prison after writing on Facebook that “every man and his dog should smash [the] f*** out of Britannia hotel (in Leeds),” even though his post only received six likes and there’s no direct evidence that any of the people who went on to attack the hotel did so because of his post. (The hotel was targeted for housing refugees at taxpayer expense.)  Meanwhile, according to the Guardian, a 55-year-old woman was arrested simply for sharing inaccurate information about the suspect involved in the horrific stabbing attack that led to the uprisings. More arrests are sure to follow. There is no word for this other than “dystopian.” The U.K. government is going full speech police and arresting and imprisoning people simply for the words they say. Of course, anyone who has actually participated in the riots and crimes, such as mob beatings, looting, and vandalism, should be arrested and subjected to full legal consequences. Whether it’s Black Lives Matter activists in the United States in 2020 or anti-immigration agitators in these current U.K. riots, violence and victimizing the innocent are never acceptable forms of protest. But going beyond that and arresting people simply for their words is beyond the pale.  For one, you are quite literally punishing people for the actions of others who are not in their control. That alone makes these arrests unjust.  Even in the more extreme cases, such as that of Jordan Parlour, who did explicitly encourage violence with his words, he did so while sitting at home. He didn’t throw a single brick or smash a single window. No one was compelled to do anything simply because he posted something idiotic on Facebook. To punish him so severely because of the decisions other people made is to assign to him responsibility he does not bear — and take the blame off the shoulders of the people who actually committed the violent acts.  And to arrest people simply for spreading inaccurate information is incredibly dangerous. (In this case, the riots were, in part, motivated by false rumors that the man who committed a stabbing attack was an illegal immigrant.) Yes, people have a responsibility to be careful with their words and not spread fake information, but that should be considered a civic and moral responsibility, not a legal one. Crossing into the alarming territory of arresting people after sharing “false” information requires making the government the ultimate arbiter of truth. What could possibly go wrong? Of course, as we’ve been repeatedly reminded in recent years, the government is not all-knowing and often gets things wrong. Just ask the many people who challenged the U.S. government’s claims on everything from the lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origins to the efficacy of mask mandates and beyond, who were initially labeled as purveyors of “misinformation” but, as time went on, were revealed to be correct or, at least, not necessarily incorrect.  Government officials are only human and are not capable of accurately determining one “truth” to anywhere near the degree of certainty required to punish people justly for spreading “falsehoods.” Granting any government this power is also dangerous because it’s so ripe for abuse. The government often seeks to obfuscate or cover up facts that are harmful to its public perception, which it regularly labels “false” during initial media reports only to admit later it was wrong. See the Washington Post’s Afghanistan papers, for example, which extensively document how U.S. officials misled the public about the status of the war in Afghanistan to burnish their image. Even if the government were somehow able to separate fact from fiction with a reasonable degree of accuracy and never abused this power, engaging in this kind of censorship would nevertheless have a chilling effect.  People would, quite understandably, be afraid to speak their minds openly or challenge a consensus, and they would engage in self-censorship as a result. This kind of repressed society is incompatible with the basic principles of democracy, where good ideas are supposed to win out over time through the open exchange of arguments, and such repression endangers everything from scientific progress to entrepreneurial innovation, which both require the freedom to risk being wrong.  CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The conclusion here is inescapable.  The U.K. government must crack down on lawless riots in its streets. But in the long run, its creep into truly Orwellian levels of censorship poses a far bigger threat to its citizens’ freedom than any riot ever could. And this whole saga serves as a reminder to Americans as to why we should cherish our First Amendment because without strict legal protections for free speech, even a Western nation can quickly descend into dystopia.  Brad Polumbo ( @Brad_Polumbo ) is an independent journalist, YouTuber , the co-founder of BASEDPolitics , and a Steamboat Institute Blankley Fellow. , , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/AP24222370107162-scaled-1024×683.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Brad Polumbo,

GLAAD is one of the most radical LGBT groups in the United States. Its influential activists aggressively promote medically transitioning gender-confused minors by harassing media outlets that air dissenting views, maintain Orwellian lists tracking journalists and public figures who disagree with them, and have even tried to redefine homosexuality out of existence in the name of newfangled gender ideology.

It’s all a far cry from GLAAD’s beginnings. The organization was originally founded to do noble work, such as defending AIDS victims from the vicious homophobia they routinely received during the AIDS epidemic. How did such an organization become hijacked by partisanship and end up so radicalized?

Well, if a damning new exposé is anything to go by, there’s a relatively simple explanation: It’s the money, stupid.

A remarkable report from journalist Emily Steel reveals that GLAAD has, in recent years, used its $30 million-plus budget to fund an extravagant lifestyle for its executives, in ways that likely breach both its internal policies and IRS rules. For example, Steel recounts GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis’s 2023 journey to the World Economic Forum’s conference in Davos, Switzerland, noting that she flew in “Delta’s most exclusive cabin,” she was “chauffeur[ed] to the Swiss Alps” in a Mercedes, and “she and her colleagues would stay at the Tivoli Lodge, a seven-bedroom chalet that cost nearly half a million dollars to rent for the week.”

This wasn’t an outlier example.

“When Ms. Ellis traveled for work, there were first-class flights, stays at the Waldorf Astoria and other luxury hotels and expensive car services,” Steel reported. “Not to mention a Cape Cod summer rental and nearly $20,000 to remodel her home office, which was outfitted with a chandelier, among other accouterments.”

All this, while low-level employees were routinely nickel-and-dimed on small expenses, with the report even recounting one incident where a staffer was forced to reimburse GLAAD for a cup of coffee after expensing it.

Meanwhile, Ellis negotiated a new contract in 2022 that put her, after including various bonuses and add-ons, “on track to receive anywhere from about $700,000 to $1.3 million a year.”

Experts and lawyers who spoke to the New York Times confirmed that much of this is unusual and possibly legally suspect.

The gall of this grift is jaw-dropping. Some of the most prominent LGBT activists in this country, who supposedly have dedicated their lives to pursuing “justice” and “equity,” are breaking their organization’s own rules to cash in on first-class flights, lavish trips, and even home renovations!

As journalist Benjamin Ryan reported, GLAAD is responding to this story in part by removing the names of its board of directors from its website. So much for taking accountability, huh?

Still, there’s more to take away from this story than just that donors need to stop cutting checks to GLAAD. It also offers insight into how and why many LGBT activist organizations, not just GLAAD, have become so partisan and so radical.

Before Ellis took over in 2014, the New York Times reports that “GLAAD’s finances were in shambles. Its assets had dwindled as expenses far outpaced donations, which had declined steeply.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

By bringing GLAAD into radical new territory in terms of ever-expanding transgender activism, Ellis created a new cause to rally donors around after their original goals of addressing the AIDS epidemic and achieving gay equality were accomplished. And by making the organization more partisan, she ingratiated herself with more major Democratic donors and earned more media attention from outlets such as MSNBC, eager to utilize the nonprofit organization for partisan coverage.

It all came, of course, at the expense of the organization’s sanity, efficacy, and integrity. But that’s evidently a worthy trade for the likes of Ellis if it’ll get them flying first-class.

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an independent journalist, YouTuber, and co-founder of BASEDPolitics.

2024-08-03 10:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3108736%2Flgbt-activist-grift-exposed%2F?w=600&h=450, GLAAD is one of the most radical LGBT groups in the United States. Its influential activists aggressively promote medically transitioning gender-confused minors by harassing media outlets that air dissenting views, maintain Orwellian lists tracking journalists and public figures who disagree with them, and have even tried to redefine homosexuality out of existence in the name,

GLAAD is one of the most radical LGBT groups in the United States. Its influential activists aggressively promote medically transitioning gender-confused minors by harassing media outlets that air dissenting views, maintain Orwellian lists tracking journalists and public figures who disagree with them, and have even tried to redefine homosexuality out of existence in the name of newfangled gender ideology.

It’s all a far cry from GLAAD’s beginnings. The organization was originally founded to do noble work, such as defending AIDS victims from the vicious homophobia they routinely received during the AIDS epidemic. How did such an organization become hijacked by partisanship and end up so radicalized?

Well, if a damning new exposé is anything to go by, there’s a relatively simple explanation: It’s the money, stupid.

A remarkable report from journalist Emily Steel reveals that GLAAD has, in recent years, used its $30 million-plus budget to fund an extravagant lifestyle for its executives, in ways that likely breach both its internal policies and IRS rules. For example, Steel recounts GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis’s 2023 journey to the World Economic Forum’s conference in Davos, Switzerland, noting that she flew in “Delta’s most exclusive cabin,” she was “chauffeur[ed] to the Swiss Alps” in a Mercedes, and “she and her colleagues would stay at the Tivoli Lodge, a seven-bedroom chalet that cost nearly half a million dollars to rent for the week.”

This wasn’t an outlier example.

“When Ms. Ellis traveled for work, there were first-class flights, stays at the Waldorf Astoria and other luxury hotels and expensive car services,” Steel reported. “Not to mention a Cape Cod summer rental and nearly $20,000 to remodel her home office, which was outfitted with a chandelier, among other accouterments.”

All this, while low-level employees were routinely nickel-and-dimed on small expenses, with the report even recounting one incident where a staffer was forced to reimburse GLAAD for a cup of coffee after expensing it.

Meanwhile, Ellis negotiated a new contract in 2022 that put her, after including various bonuses and add-ons, “on track to receive anywhere from about $700,000 to $1.3 million a year.”

Experts and lawyers who spoke to the New York Times confirmed that much of this is unusual and possibly legally suspect.

The gall of this grift is jaw-dropping. Some of the most prominent LGBT activists in this country, who supposedly have dedicated their lives to pursuing “justice” and “equity,” are breaking their organization’s own rules to cash in on first-class flights, lavish trips, and even home renovations!

As journalist Benjamin Ryan reported, GLAAD is responding to this story in part by removing the names of its board of directors from its website. So much for taking accountability, huh?

Still, there’s more to take away from this story than just that donors need to stop cutting checks to GLAAD. It also offers insight into how and why many LGBT activist organizations, not just GLAAD, have become so partisan and so radical.

Before Ellis took over in 2014, the New York Times reports that “GLAAD’s finances were in shambles. Its assets had dwindled as expenses far outpaced donations, which had declined steeply.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

By bringing GLAAD into radical new territory in terms of ever-expanding transgender activism, Ellis created a new cause to rally donors around after their original goals of addressing the AIDS epidemic and achieving gay equality were accomplished. And by making the organization more partisan, she ingratiated herself with more major Democratic donors and earned more media attention from outlets such as MSNBC, eager to utilize the nonprofit organization for partisan coverage.

It all came, of course, at the expense of the organization’s sanity, efficacy, and integrity. But that’s evidently a worthy trade for the likes of Ellis if it’ll get them flying first-class.

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an independent journalist, YouTuber, and co-founder of BASEDPolitics.

, GLAAD is one of the most radical LGBT groups in the United States. Its influential activists aggressively promote medically transitioning gender-confused minors by harassing media outlets that air dissenting views, maintain Orwellian lists tracking journalists and public figures who disagree with them, and have even tried to redefine homosexuality out of existence in the name of newfangled gender ideology. It’s all a far cry from GLAAD’s beginnings. The organization was originally founded to do noble work, such as defending AIDS victims from the vicious homophobia they routinely received during the AIDS epidemic. How did such an organization become hijacked by partisanship and end up so radicalized? Well, if a damning new exposé is anything to go by, there’s a relatively simple explanation: It’s the money, stupid. A remarkable report from journalist Emily Steel reveals that GLAAD has, in recent years, used its $30 million-plus budget to fund an extravagant lifestyle for its executives, in ways that likely breach both its internal policies and IRS rules. For example, Steel recounts GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis’s 2023 journey to the World Economic Forum’s conference in Davos, Switzerland, noting that she flew in “Delta’s most exclusive cabin,” she was “chauffeur[ed] to the Swiss Alps” in a Mercedes, and “she and her colleagues would stay at the Tivoli Lodge, a seven-bedroom chalet that cost nearly half a million dollars to rent for the week.” This wasn’t an outlier example. “When Ms. Ellis traveled for work, there were first-class flights, stays at the Waldorf Astoria and other luxury hotels and expensive car services,” Steel reported. “Not to mention a Cape Cod summer rental and nearly $20,000 to remodel her home office, which was outfitted with a chandelier, among other accouterments.” All this, while low-level employees were routinely nickel-and-dimed on small expenses, with the report even recounting one incident where a staffer was forced to reimburse GLAAD for a cup of coffee after expensing it. Meanwhile, Ellis negotiated a new contract in 2022 that put her, after including various bonuses and add-ons, “on track to receive anywhere from about $700,000 to $1.3 million a year.” Experts and lawyers who spoke to the New York Times confirmed that much of this is unusual and possibly legally suspect. The gall of this grift is jaw-dropping. Some of the most prominent LGBT activists in this country, who supposedly have dedicated their lives to pursuing “justice” and “equity,” are breaking their organization’s own rules to cash in on first-class flights, lavish trips, and even home renovations! As journalist Benjamin Ryan reported, GLAAD is responding to this story in part by removing the names of its board of directors from its website. So much for taking accountability, huh? Still, there’s more to take away from this story than just that donors need to stop cutting checks to GLAAD. It also offers insight into how and why many LGBT activist organizations, not just GLAAD, have become so partisan and so radical. Before Ellis took over in 2014, the New York Times reports that “GLAAD’s finances were in shambles. Its assets had dwindled as expenses far outpaced donations, which had declined steeply.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER By bringing GLAAD into radical new territory in terms of ever-expanding transgender activism, Ellis created a new cause to rally donors around after their original goals of addressing the AIDS epidemic and achieving gay equality were accomplished. And by making the organization more partisan, she ingratiated herself with more major Democratic donors and earned more media attention from outlets such as MSNBC, eager to utilize the nonprofit organization for partisan coverage. It all came, of course, at the expense of the organization’s sanity, efficacy, and integrity. But that’s evidently a worthy trade for the likes of Ellis if it’ll get them flying first-class. Brad Polumbo ( @Brad_Polumbo ) is an independent journalist, YouTuber , and co-founder of BASEDPolitics., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Sarah-Kate-Ellis.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Brad Polumbo,

The Saturday Night Live skits practically write themselves. Over the past week, white supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign have gathered on whites-only virtual calls, barely distinguishable from parody, to self-flagellate and virtue-signal en masse. 

First, there was the “White Women for Kamala” Zoom call with more than 200,000 attendees, including celebrities such as Megan Rapinoe and Pink. This featured plenty of hilarious moments, such as when one speaker told attendees they will “want to speak to a manager” while doing racial justice work but warned them that none exists, or when one TikToker told hundreds of thousands of adult white women to “put their listening ears on” and shut up when a “BIPOC” person (read: minority) is speaking. The Zoom call’s host summed up the event’s mood when she said, “I feel like we all just went to collective therapy together.”

Then came the “White Dudes for Kamala” follow-up event, featuring figures such as Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and progressive activist David Hogg. This, too, had plenty of cringe-worthy highlights (lowlights?) such as reflections on their white privilege, observations about the “rainbow of beige” people on the call, and promises to be “educated” by “marginalized communities.” 

So, on one hand, this new form of “woke” activism is genuinely hilarious. It offers enormous entertainment value if you can overcome the secondhand embarrassment. But there’s a sinister side to this new strain of Democratic white identity politics.

Democrats may not realize it, but with this kind of self-segregated, “whites-only” political activism, they are reinforcing racial identitarianism and the divides between racial groups in America, not breaking them down or promoting harmony and coexistence. There is no culture or experience that “white,” a vague and nebulous category, people have in common. But this kind of activism nonetheless reinforces the idea of white collective identity, an idea with a dangerous and toxic history in the United States. 

It’s not a coincidence that the infamous white nationalist Richard Spencer praised the Harris campaign for its whites-only Zoom calls. If that’s not a sign that Democrats are astray, what is?

Secondly, this brand of activism perpetuates one of the most toxic ideas of modern progressivism: collective guilt, the idea that individuals bear responsibility for the actions of their broader demography.

This is epitomized by the materials circulated by the “White Dudes for Kamala” organizers. Their talking points included, “We need to be honest with ourselves and each other about the role we’ve played in our nation’s history — good and bad.”

Excuse me? Neither I nor any of the white men on that call played any role “in our nation’s history” beyond our lifetimes. We are in no way, shape, or form responsible for the actions and decisions made by people in the past who look like us.

To understand how absurd this is, imagine a white man today taking credit for the achievements of, say, Albert Einstein, because they check off the same box on the census. And an ideology or movement that actually suggests individuals bear collective blame or responsibility because of their skin pigment and chromosomes is not just a misguided one but a deeply evil one. 

This is the logic of the tyrant, of the genocidaire. It’s the kind of thinking used to justify some of the greatest injustices in American history, such as when Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt imprisoned more than 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry, including many U.S. citizens, in “internment camps” for the “crime” of sharing heritage with people who were waging war against America. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

This act is now rightly viewed as one of the biggest civil rights violations in U.S. history, a deeply immoral act rooted in an evil premise: collective guilt. While the consequences and outcomes are nowhere near on the same scale, of course, the same evil basis underlies modern Democratic white identity politics. 

So, yes, we can and should mock these cringe-worthy “whites for Kamala” displays. But we must not lose sight of the fact that at a deeper level, there’s nothing funny about them at all. 

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an independent journalist, YouTuber, and co-founder of BASEDPolitics.

2024-07-31 13:15:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3105530%2Fthe-sinister-side-of-whites-for-kamala%2F?w=600&h=450, The Saturday Night Live skits practically write themselves. Over the past week, white supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign have gathered on whites-only virtual calls, barely distinguishable from parody, to self-flagellate and virtue-signal en masse.  First, there was the “White Women for Kamala” Zoom call with more than 200,000 attendees, including celebrities such,

The Saturday Night Live skits practically write themselves. Over the past week, white supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign have gathered on whites-only virtual calls, barely distinguishable from parody, to self-flagellate and virtue-signal en masse. 

First, there was the “White Women for Kamala” Zoom call with more than 200,000 attendees, including celebrities such as Megan Rapinoe and Pink. This featured plenty of hilarious moments, such as when one speaker told attendees they will “want to speak to a manager” while doing racial justice work but warned them that none exists, or when one TikToker told hundreds of thousands of adult white women to “put their listening ears on” and shut up when a “BIPOC” person (read: minority) is speaking. The Zoom call’s host summed up the event’s mood when she said, “I feel like we all just went to collective therapy together.”

Then came the “White Dudes for Kamala” follow-up event, featuring figures such as Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and progressive activist David Hogg. This, too, had plenty of cringe-worthy highlights (lowlights?) such as reflections on their white privilege, observations about the “rainbow of beige” people on the call, and promises to be “educated” by “marginalized communities.” 

So, on one hand, this new form of “woke” activism is genuinely hilarious. It offers enormous entertainment value if you can overcome the secondhand embarrassment. But there’s a sinister side to this new strain of Democratic white identity politics.

Democrats may not realize it, but with this kind of self-segregated, “whites-only” political activism, they are reinforcing racial identitarianism and the divides between racial groups in America, not breaking them down or promoting harmony and coexistence. There is no culture or experience that “white,” a vague and nebulous category, people have in common. But this kind of activism nonetheless reinforces the idea of white collective identity, an idea with a dangerous and toxic history in the United States. 

It’s not a coincidence that the infamous white nationalist Richard Spencer praised the Harris campaign for its whites-only Zoom calls. If that’s not a sign that Democrats are astray, what is?

Secondly, this brand of activism perpetuates one of the most toxic ideas of modern progressivism: collective guilt, the idea that individuals bear responsibility for the actions of their broader demography.

This is epitomized by the materials circulated by the “White Dudes for Kamala” organizers. Their talking points included, “We need to be honest with ourselves and each other about the role we’ve played in our nation’s history — good and bad.”

Excuse me? Neither I nor any of the white men on that call played any role “in our nation’s history” beyond our lifetimes. We are in no way, shape, or form responsible for the actions and decisions made by people in the past who look like us.

To understand how absurd this is, imagine a white man today taking credit for the achievements of, say, Albert Einstein, because they check off the same box on the census. And an ideology or movement that actually suggests individuals bear collective blame or responsibility because of their skin pigment and chromosomes is not just a misguided one but a deeply evil one. 

This is the logic of the tyrant, of the genocidaire. It’s the kind of thinking used to justify some of the greatest injustices in American history, such as when Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt imprisoned more than 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry, including many U.S. citizens, in “internment camps” for the “crime” of sharing heritage with people who were waging war against America. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

This act is now rightly viewed as one of the biggest civil rights violations in U.S. history, a deeply immoral act rooted in an evil premise: collective guilt. While the consequences and outcomes are nowhere near on the same scale, of course, the same evil basis underlies modern Democratic white identity politics. 

So, yes, we can and should mock these cringe-worthy “whites for Kamala” displays. But we must not lose sight of the fact that at a deeper level, there’s nothing funny about them at all. 

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an independent journalist, YouTuber, and co-founder of BASEDPolitics.

, The Saturday Night Live skits practically write themselves. Over the past week, white supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign have gathered on whites-only virtual calls, barely distinguishable from parody, to self-flagellate and virtue-signal en masse.  First, there was the “White Women for Kamala” Zoom call with more than 200,000 attendees, including celebrities such as Megan Rapinoe and Pink. This featured plenty of hilarious moments, such as when one speaker told attendees they will “want to speak to a manager” while doing racial justice work but warned them that none exists, or when one TikToker told hundreds of thousands of adult white women to “put their listening ears on” and shut up when a “BIPOC” person (read: minority) is speaking. The Zoom call’s host summed up the event’s mood when she said, “I feel like we all just went to collective therapy together.” “Karens for Kamala?” I will be breaking down the full highlights (er… I guess, lowlights) from the “White Women for Kamala” event on the Brad vs Everyone podcast later today. Here’s a sneak peak. pic.twitter.com/xrtK5oBxb4 — Brad Polumbo (@brad_polumbo) July 29, 2024 Then came the “White Dudes for Kamala” follow-up event, featuring figures such as Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and progressive activist David Hogg. This, too, had plenty of cringe-worthy highlights (lowlights?) such as reflections on their white privilege, observations about the “rainbow of beige” people on the call, and promises to be “educated” by “marginalized communities.”  So, on one hand, this new form of “woke” activism is genuinely hilarious. It offers enormous entertainment value if you can overcome the secondhand embarrassment. But there’s a sinister side to this new strain of Democratic white identity politics. Democrats may not realize it, but with this kind of self-segregated, “whites-only” political activism, they are reinforcing racial identitarianism and the divides between racial groups in America, not breaking them down or promoting harmony and coexistence. There is no culture or experience that “white,” a vague and nebulous category, people have in common. But this kind of activism nonetheless reinforces the idea of white collective identity, an idea with a dangerous and toxic history in the United States.  It’s not a coincidence that the infamous white nationalist Richard Spencer praised the Harris campaign for its whites-only Zoom calls. If that’s not a sign that Democrats are astray, what is? Secondly, this brand of activism perpetuates one of the most toxic ideas of modern progressivism: collective guilt, the idea that individuals bear responsibility for the actions of their broader demography. This is epitomized by the materials circulated by the “White Dudes for Kamala” organizers. Their talking points included, “We need to be honest with ourselves and each other about the role we’ve played in our nation’s history — good and bad.” Excuse me? Neither I nor any of the white men on that call played any role “in our nation’s history” beyond our lifetimes. We are in no way, shape, or form responsible for the actions and decisions made by people in the past who look like us. To understand how absurd this is, imagine a white man today taking credit for the achievements of, say, Albert Einstein, because they check off the same box on the census. And an ideology or movement that actually suggests individuals bear collective blame or responsibility because of their skin pigment and chromosomes is not just a misguided one but a deeply evil one.  This is the logic of the tyrant, of the genocidaire. It’s the kind of thinking used to justify some of the greatest injustices in American history, such as when Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt imprisoned more than 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry, including many U.S. citizens, in “internment camps” for the “crime” of sharing heritage with people who were waging war against America.  CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER This act is now rightly viewed as one of the biggest civil rights violations in U.S. history, a deeply immoral act rooted in an evil premise: collective guilt. While the consequences and outcomes are nowhere near on the same scale, of course, the same evil basis underlies modern Democratic white identity politics.  So, yes, we can and should mock these cringe-worthy “whites for Kamala” displays. But we must not lose sight of the fact that at a deeper level, there’s nothing funny about them at all.  Brad Polumbo ( @Brad_Polumbo ) is an independent journalist, YouTuber , and co-founder of BASEDPolitics ., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP22066635344677-scaled-1024×683.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Brad Polumbo,

Somebody needs to give anti-Israel protesters some tips on their PR. Agitators took to the streets Wednesday night to protest Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress and decided that the best way to make their case to the public was to burn the American flag.

Suffice it to say, this didn’t go over well. Their tactics were roundly denounced by Democrats and Republicans alike. But, as often occurs when protests involve the burning of the flag, a round of free speech discourse was spurred, primarily by former President Donald Trump, who argued that this expressive act is not just contemptible but actually ought to be illegal.

“I think you should get a one-year jail sentence if you do anything to desecrate the American flag,” Trump said in an interview with Fox & Friends. “People will say, oh, it’s unconstitutional. Those are stupid people that say that. We have to work in Congress to get a one-year jail sentence.”

“All over the world, Putin and President Xi of China, all over the world they’re watching this …. That wouldn’t happen in their countries,” he continued. “It’s impossible for that to happen in their country.”

Taking offense at seeing people burn our flag is understandable. But when Trump wanders into the territory of wanting to criminalize this act just because it hurts his feelings, he is embracing censorship — and running right into a First Amendment roadblock. 

To be clear, the protesters in question from Wednesday evening’s chaos can be punished for their actions because they took down and burned a flag that did not belong to them. This is vandalism and destruction of property. But the act of burning a flag itself (one you own) cannot be made illegal under our First Amendment, despite Trump’s advocacy otherwise. 

It’s not only “stupid” people who believe this. It’s actually the conclusion of the Supreme Court, which in the famed case Texas v. Johnson, specifically ruled that flag-burning could not be categorically criminalized, writing, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” 

No less a conservative legend than the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who Trump has praised many times, joined this opinion. Was he just “stupid,” too? 

If Trump were only calling to criminalize the vandalism of American flags that do not belong to the vandal, that would be a different story. But he is not making that case. His remarks on Fox News were much broader than that, and he has advocated the blanket criminalization of flag burning for years. 

One counterargument many Trump defenders made after his remarks drew scrutiny was that if it’s illegal to tarnish the LGBT Pride flag, then it should be illegal to desecrate the American flag. They cited instances where people were criminally prosecuted for burning or destroying rainbow flags or other rainbow displays.

But, again, in these cases, they were destroying property that did not belong to them. Thanks to our First Amendment, it is perfectly legal to buy a rainbow flag, stand in your front yard, and light it on fire. There’s no real inconsistency here. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Whataboutism doesn’t change the fact that Trump’s comments demonstrate a disdain for free expression and a disturbing fondness for authoritarian governmental crackdowns. He’s correct that such unpatriotic displays wouldn’t be tolerated in Russia, China, or North Korea. But that’s because those are authoritarian nations run by tyrants, not free countries run by leaders. That Trump would cite them aspirationally in this way should be highly alarming to anyone who values the U.S.’s traditions of liberty. 

Even if Trump becomes president, a law criminalizing the burning of the flag is unlikely to pass, and if it did, it would just be struck down by the Supreme Court. So, the real problem here is not the practical effect of Trump’s position but the inconsistent commitment to the principle of free speech it reveals. 

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an independent journalist, YouTuber, and co-founder of BASEDPolitics.

2024-07-27 10:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3101236%2Ftrump-doesnt-understand-first-amendment%2F?w=600&h=450, Somebody needs to give anti-Israel protesters some tips on their PR. Agitators took to the streets Wednesday night to protest Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress and decided that the best way to make their case to the public was to burn the American flag. Suffice it to say, this didn’t go over,

Somebody needs to give anti-Israel protesters some tips on their PR. Agitators took to the streets Wednesday night to protest Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress and decided that the best way to make their case to the public was to burn the American flag.

Suffice it to say, this didn’t go over well. Their tactics were roundly denounced by Democrats and Republicans alike. But, as often occurs when protests involve the burning of the flag, a round of free speech discourse was spurred, primarily by former President Donald Trump, who argued that this expressive act is not just contemptible but actually ought to be illegal.

“I think you should get a one-year jail sentence if you do anything to desecrate the American flag,” Trump said in an interview with Fox & Friends. “People will say, oh, it’s unconstitutional. Those are stupid people that say that. We have to work in Congress to get a one-year jail sentence.”

“All over the world, Putin and President Xi of China, all over the world they’re watching this …. That wouldn’t happen in their countries,” he continued. “It’s impossible for that to happen in their country.”

Taking offense at seeing people burn our flag is understandable. But when Trump wanders into the territory of wanting to criminalize this act just because it hurts his feelings, he is embracing censorship — and running right into a First Amendment roadblock. 

To be clear, the protesters in question from Wednesday evening’s chaos can be punished for their actions because they took down and burned a flag that did not belong to them. This is vandalism and destruction of property. But the act of burning a flag itself (one you own) cannot be made illegal under our First Amendment, despite Trump’s advocacy otherwise. 

It’s not only “stupid” people who believe this. It’s actually the conclusion of the Supreme Court, which in the famed case Texas v. Johnson, specifically ruled that flag-burning could not be categorically criminalized, writing, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” 

No less a conservative legend than the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who Trump has praised many times, joined this opinion. Was he just “stupid,” too? 

If Trump were only calling to criminalize the vandalism of American flags that do not belong to the vandal, that would be a different story. But he is not making that case. His remarks on Fox News were much broader than that, and he has advocated the blanket criminalization of flag burning for years. 

One counterargument many Trump defenders made after his remarks drew scrutiny was that if it’s illegal to tarnish the LGBT Pride flag, then it should be illegal to desecrate the American flag. They cited instances where people were criminally prosecuted for burning or destroying rainbow flags or other rainbow displays.

But, again, in these cases, they were destroying property that did not belong to them. Thanks to our First Amendment, it is perfectly legal to buy a rainbow flag, stand in your front yard, and light it on fire. There’s no real inconsistency here. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Whataboutism doesn’t change the fact that Trump’s comments demonstrate a disdain for free expression and a disturbing fondness for authoritarian governmental crackdowns. He’s correct that such unpatriotic displays wouldn’t be tolerated in Russia, China, or North Korea. But that’s because those are authoritarian nations run by tyrants, not free countries run by leaders. That Trump would cite them aspirationally in this way should be highly alarming to anyone who values the U.S.’s traditions of liberty. 

Even if Trump becomes president, a law criminalizing the burning of the flag is unlikely to pass, and if it did, it would just be struck down by the Supreme Court. So, the real problem here is not the practical effect of Trump’s position but the inconsistent commitment to the principle of free speech it reveals. 

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an independent journalist, YouTuber, and co-founder of BASEDPolitics.

, Somebody needs to give anti-Israel protesters some tips on their PR. Agitators took to the streets Wednesday night to protest Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress and decided that the best way to make their case to the public was to burn the American flag. Suffice it to say, this didn’t go over well. Their tactics were roundly denounced by Democrats and Republicans alike. But, as often occurs when protests involve the burning of the flag, a round of free speech discourse was spurred, primarily by former President Donald Trump, who argued that this expressive act is not just contemptible but actually ought to be illegal. PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTERS BURN 3 AMERICAN FLAGS AT UNION STATION The Pro-Palestine protesters replaced the US flags with Palestinian flags. The demonstration has turned violent, with stun grenades deployed and clashes between protesters and police. Authorities urge the… pic.twitter.com/0STGhUtDgu — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) July 24, 2024 “I think you should get a one-year jail sentence if you do anything to desecrate the American flag,” Trump said in an interview with Fox & Friends. “People will say, oh, it’s unconstitutional. Those are stupid people that say that. We have to work in Congress to get a one-year jail sentence.” “All over the world, Putin and President Xi of China, all over the world they’re watching this …. That wouldn’t happen in their countries,” he continued. “It’s impossible for that to happen in their country.” WATCH: Full interview with Donald Trump on Fox & Friends as he calls Joe Biden’s exit from the election “a coup” pic.twitter.com/RzN41IPasX — TV News Now (@TVNewsNow) July 25, 2024 Taking offense at seeing people burn our flag is understandable. But when Trump wanders into the territory of wanting to criminalize this act just because it hurts his feelings, he is embracing censorship — and running right into a First Amendment roadblock.  To be clear, the protesters in question from Wednesday evening’s chaos can be punished for their actions because they took down and burned a flag that did not belong to them. This is vandalism and destruction of property. But the act of burning a flag itself (one you own) cannot be made illegal under our First Amendment, despite Trump’s advocacy otherwise.  It’s not only “stupid” people who believe this. It’s actually the conclusion of the Supreme Court, which in the famed case Texas v. Johnson, specifically ruled that flag-burning could not be categorically criminalized, writing, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”  No less a conservative legend than the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who Trump has praised many times, joined this opinion. Was he just “stupid,” too?  If Trump were only calling to criminalize the vandalism of American flags that do not belong to the vandal, that would be a different story. But he is not making that case. His remarks on Fox News were much broader than that, and he has advocated the blanket criminalization of flag burning for years.  One counterargument many Trump defenders made after his remarks drew scrutiny was that if it’s illegal to tarnish the LGBT Pride flag, then it should be illegal to desecrate the American flag. They cited instances where people were criminally prosecuted for burning or destroying rainbow flags or other rainbow displays. But, again, in these cases, they were destroying property that did not belong to them. Thanks to our First Amendment, it is perfectly legal to buy a rainbow flag, stand in your front yard, and light it on fire. There’s no real inconsistency here.  CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Whataboutism doesn’t change the fact that Trump’s comments demonstrate a disdain for free expression and a disturbing fondness for authoritarian governmental crackdowns. He’s correct that such unpatriotic displays wouldn’t be tolerated in Russia, China, or North Korea. But that’s because those are authoritarian nations run by tyrants, not free countries run by leaders. That Trump would cite them aspirationally in this way should be highly alarming to anyone who values the U.S.’s traditions of liberty.  Even if Trump becomes president, a law criminalizing the burning of the flag is unlikely to pass, and if it did, it would just be struck down by the Supreme Court. So, the real problem here is not the practical effect of Trump’s position but the inconsistent commitment to the principle of free speech it reveals.  Brad Polumbo ( @Brad_Polumbo ) is an independent journalist, YouTuber , and co-founder of BASEDPolitics., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP24197093890487-scaled-1024×683.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Brad Polumbo,

President Joe Biden condemned the attempt on former President Donald Trump’s life in no uncertain terms on Saturday night. He deserves credit for doing this bare moral minimum, but now Democratic officials and their liberal media allies must stop with their constant alarmism and doomsday exaggerations before our culture war gets even more out of control. 

After all, just days ago, the official “Biden HQ” social media accounts shared a screenshot from The Handmaid’s Tale, a dystopian television series where women are forced into sex slavery, and absurdly suggested that this is the fate awaiting America under a second Trump term. So, too, Biden has repeatedly said that Trump represents an existential threat to democracy and also that Trump would be a “dictator” if elected again, twisting a comment the former president clearly said as a joke. 

We’ve seen even more extreme rhetoric from left-leaning media outlets. MSNBC anchor Nicole Wallace suggested, with no basis, that if Trump wins, her show will be taken off air and we’ll see an end to a free press in America. Another MSNBC anchor, Joy Reid, recently described a second Trump term as “Hitler in the White House.” The New Republic even recently published a cover story styling Trump as Hitler. 

These are just examples from the past few weeks of hundreds if not thousands of doomsday, alarmist warnings about Trump we’ve seen from the left-of-center establishment. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of Trump, but all this rhetoric clearly overstates the facts and, given that we already had one Trump presidency and literally none of these things happened, is incredibly detached from factual reality. 

Yet all it takes is one crazy person to take these massively hyperbolic comments literally, and you can end up with the kind of jarring and tragic incident we saw on Saturday night. This shooter’s motivations aren’t yet confirmed, but how many times do you have to tell people falsely that Trump would be a dictator who will enslave women and put Americans in camps before some deranged individual believes you and acts accordingly?

To be clear, only the shooter bears ultimate responsibility for the assassination attempt. What happened isn’t Joe Biden’s, Nicole Wallace’s, or Joy Reid’s fault, or the fault of anyone except the individual who pulled the trigger. But, by the logic that liberals and progressives routinely use to blame conservatives for violent acts by others, they would have “blood on their hands,” and it’s not unfair to hold people to their own standards. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Yes, Republicans sometimes engage in alarmist rhetoric too, and they should not be so quick to label their political opponents “groomers” or accuse them of supporting an “invasion” of the United States. But, at least in recent political memory, liberals and progressives have engaged in significantly more fearmongering and alarmism than conservatives and Republicans. (Remember when repealing net neutrality was going to end the internet?) 

We desperately need leaders in both parties to embody civility and take the temperature down in our boiling political discourse. If elected officials and major media outlets continue to engage in routine alarmism and fantastical fearmongering, more political violence will surely ensue.

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an independent journalist, YouTuber, and co-founder of BASEDPolitics.