Approximately a year after tech billionaire Elon Musk acquired X, formerly known as Twitter, in November 2023, a number of major companies collectively removed their ads from the platform.

They all did so while citing dubious concerns that Musk was allowing the promotion of anti-Semitism and “hate speech” on his platform.

The effort to get companies to pull their ads from X was spearheaded by the Leftmedia organization Media Matters.

Companies that pulled ads significantly impacting X’s revenue generation included the likes of Disney, Apple, IBM, Comcast/NBC Universal, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Paramount.

The European Commission also joined in on the ad boycott, with spokesman Johannes Bahrke contending that the EU had “seen an alarming increase in disinformation and hate speech on several social media platforms in recent weeks,” singling out X.

The Biden administration also tacitly supported the campaign against X, with the White House posting the following statement on November 17, 2023: “We condemn this abhorrent promotion of Antisemitic and racist hate in the strongest terms, which runs against our core values as Americans.”

The pretext for all this — what proved to be faux outrage given the subsequent silence on actual anti-Semitism that would soon roil college campuses across the country — was that Musk had dared to agree with an X post observing that Jewish communities support a “dialectical hatred against whites.”

However, the ad boycott was too coordinated to pass the spontaneous, supposedly organic movement sniff test.

Soon, House Republicans began asking questions, with the House Judiciary Committee launching an investigation into the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM).

The Committee concluded that GARM “likely violated federal antitrust laws.”

Read more...

The right to self-defense, and by extension the right to bear arms, has a long and complex history in Britain.

Today, many see strict gun control as a hallmark of British law, but this was not always the case.

Indeed, Britain has a robust tradition of armed citizenry, rooted in common law, enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights, and eroded only in the modern era.

British society faces unprecedented strains, from mass immigration, rising crime and public disorder to distrust of the State, so it is worth re-examining whether Britain has moved too far from its historic principles.

The roots of Britain’s approach to bearing arms can be found in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

The overthrow of King James II and the ascension of William III and Mary II resulted in the English Bill of Rights in 1689.

Mostly focused on the abuses of State (Royal) power, it contained a clause declaring:

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

While limited by religious qualification (reflecting the Protestant-Catholic tensions of the time), the Bill of Rights enshrined a foundational acknowledgment of the citizen’s right to bear arms.

It was not an unlimited right. It was conditioned by status and subject to the law, but it established that the government could not arbitrarily disarm the population.

Throughout the medieval and early modern periods, the English militia system required men to possess and train with weapons to ensure that defense was a civic responsibility, not a purely professional one.

Far from fearing private firearm ownership, the State encouraged it, not least because it lacked a standing army and viewed armed citizens as vital to national defense.

This tradition continued well into the 19th century. Gun ownership was common; regulation was minimal.

This changed after World War I, which left Britain with a surplus of weapons, a newly politicized working class that knew how to use them, and an Establishment fearful of a Bolshevik revolution, culminating in the Firearms Act of 1920, the first major piece of modern gun control legislation.

Read more...

For openers, kudos to President Donald Trump for his leadership on addressing this heretofore missing piece of the energy puzzle.

Incomprehensibly, the preceding administration embarked on a quixotic mission to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, while simultaneously ignoring our single safe, abundant, and non-polluting means of generating electricity.

Somehow, in the midst of ongoing firestorms on immigration, trade, taxes, and two wars, Trump still manages to attend to other important matters that have been lost in the shuffle.

Some call it chaos, but we should be happy to have a president with the stamina to keep so many balls in the air.

Will Trump’s blitz of actions get nuclear power back on track?

The only way to answer that question is to understand how we got so far off track so quickly and so completely.

Why did we suddenly stop building nuclear plants?

It’s a complicated picture with numerous parts and pieces. But in my opinion, it all boils down to one root cause: the realization by prospective investors that nuclear power’s opponents, with sufficient legal and political support, can render a new, multibillion-dollar facility unusable.

If that seems implausible, consider the fate of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, the poster child for anti-nuclear activism.

Read more...

As one anonymous and unelected judge after another rules against the Trump agenda, Republicans must decide whether they want to abide by the will of the American people.

If Tren de Aragua gang members aren’t “alien enemies” of the United States, aren’t able to be deported by the American president under the ancient Alien Enemies Act, then language itself has lost its meaning. But that’s the world we’re living in.

In a way, it shouldn’t surprise us. The Left, after all, has been at war with the language — and at war with reality — for decades.

Indeed, they insist that men can become pregnant, that women can only be described by biologists, that pedophiles are merely minor-attracted persons, and that last year’s version of Joe Biden was the best Biden ever.

Nor should the current judicial war against Donald Trump surprise any of us. All throughout his first term, Trump and his agenda were sabotaged from within by entrenched deep-state leftists and by old-guard establishment Republicans.

In this second term, though, with Trump having remade the Republican Party and having cleaned up the executive branch, the attacks are coming from without — from the third and supposedly coequal branch of government that Thomas Jefferson once presciently warned could become despotic: the judicial branch.

Since his inauguration, Trump has been busy trying to unscrew the mess bequeathed him by four years of the Autopen Presidency, but he’s been opposed at nearly every turn — from mass-deporting illegal aliens to ending birthright citizenship to trimming down our grotesquely bloated federal government to imposing tariffs on predatory trading partners — by lower-court judges and, in some cases, by the very Supreme Court justices that he nominated for the bench.

Read more...

On a recent podcast episode, Joe Rogan and his guest Cody Tucker found themselves in a discussion that was clearly skeptical of the atheistic consensus among prominent thinkers of the past few generations.

That atheistic consensus generally states that the following is true. There was obviously once a Great Nothingness that suddenly became our universe and the existence of everything within it -- and all of this happened for no reason whatsoever.

Rogan asks a question that every person has likely asked themselves countless times, “wouldn’t it be crazy if there wasn’t something at some point in time?  That seems even crazier than [to think] there has always been something.”

He's not wrong.

To believe that nothing suddenly became everything for no reason whatsoever is an act of pure faith based upon no observable data.

What’s more, the proclamation itself an act of heresy for scientific atheists.

Read more...