Connect with us



Students at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., were asked about specific measures regarding voting integrity. They agreed with the measures — until they learned they were from the new Georgia voting law.

Campus Reform traveled to the university with a camera to read students the component of Georgia’s new law, finding that “Most students were widely supportive of the bill, applauding its voter expansion.”

One student, who is white, early in the video said she was from Georgia and that there was “a lot of voter suppression” in Georgia, adding that she believed there needed to be a lot more “freedom and accessibility” for voters, such as “extending hours.”

Campus Reform’s video reporter Addison Smith then explained to the students some measures of “new legislation going around,” which would require weekend early voting for two Saturdays instead of just one, giving counties the option to expand early voting for two Sundays, clarify voting hours, ban electioneering within 150 feet of a polling location, and require identification to ensure people can’t cast multiple ballots.

The students agreed with those measures.

“Making sure people aren’t casting more than one vote sounds kinda commonsense to me,” said one student.

“I think that allowing voters more time to vote is never a bad thing,” said another, who also appeared to be in favor of voter identification to prevent illegal voting.

“The ability to vote on the weekend, specifically, makes a lot of sense,” said yet another student.

The student who claimed there was “a lot of voter suppression” in Georgia also agreed on the measures relating to early voting and electioneering, but fell back on the left-wing talking point that “not everyone has access to an ID or the ability to get one,” adding that “not everyone has a static location where they live.”

Smith then asked the students if the bill he described would be a good substitute for the Georgia law. The student from Georgia said “yeah, anything’s better than that.” When informed that he actually described the Georgia bill, the student barely reacted, claiming the bill also included “less locations” to vote. She then claimed it was “classist” to require an ID to vote and that three years wasn’t enough time for people to get an ID. When Smith told her that more than 70% of black voters support showing an ID at the polls, she said “Okay, I don’t.”

Other students were surprised to learn what was actually in the Georgia bill, admitting they hadn’t actually read it. One student tried to claim people weren’t deliberately misrepresenting the bill, but when asked if the measures Smith described amounted to “Jim Crow on steroids,” she changed her tune.

As The Daily Wire’s Ian Haworth previously reported, there is a disconnect between what Democrats and their media supporters have said about the bill and what it actually does. The Georgia law expands early voting and requires voter IDs. It does not prohibit people from getting food or drink while waiting in line, they just can’t receive it from candidates or staff (poll workers can hand it out and people can order or bring it themselves).


  • Liberals have been misinforming their followers for years and have, unfortunately, had success in turning them into sheep who believe their lies without hesitation. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder. Here is an excerpt from an article in the Spectator.US.

    Firstly, the modern self-identified strain of ‘liberalism’ is explicitly correlated with mental illness. Studies of the mentally ill have found that they tend to vote less conservative and more liberal (Howard and Anthony, 1977; Kelly, 2014) . One paper, for example, found that 78 percent of mental illness outpatients in Germany preferred liberal political candidates, compared to just 56 percent of the general public. More recently, Kirkegaard (2020) analyzed the General Social Survey data and found that extreme liberals had a 150 percent increase in the rate of mental illness compared to moderates. Conservatives — even extreme conservatives — were 17 percent and 24 percent less likely than moderates, respectively, to have been diagnosed with mental illness. Meanwhile, Pew Research Center’s March 2020 American Trends Panel Survey similarly showed that 38 percent of ‘very liberal’ whites have been told by a doctor that they have a mental health condition (compared to 20 percent of moderates and 15 percent of the ‘very conservative’).

    More broadly, the same strain of (illiberal) ‘liberalism’ has been associated with destructive and unhealthy behaviors. Conservatives tend to be happier (Napier and Tost, 2008), healthier (Subramanian and Perkins, 2009), and — you guessed it — more attractive (Peterson and Palmer, 2017). Believing, as they do, that they have personal responsibility for their lives, they also tend to live longer (Kondrichin and Lester, 1998; Smith and Dorling, 1996). Studies suggest that liberals, meanwhile, are more likely to drink alcohol (Yakovlev and Guessford, 2013), take drugs (Nour, Evans and Carhart-Harris, 2017), and be promiscuous (Hatemi, Crabtree and McDermott, 2017).

    These unhealthy behaviors perhaps share a common neurobiological root with liberal political beliefs.

    A disorder called the behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) sheds some light. Miller and colleagues (2001) reported on a 63-year-old patient who was conservative before developing bvFTD. She then became ‘politically opinionated’ about her anti-conservative political beliefs, to the point of confronting strangers; she started dressing in a more casual manner; and she developed an interest in animal rights; altering her preference for collecting jewelry to collecting stuffed animals.

    As if these qualities weren’t suggestive enough of many antifa types, the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration lists the following among the symptoms of the disorder: rude and offensive comments, inappropriate sexual behavior, neglect of personal hygiene, binge eating, repeating words or phrases, clapping (it remains silent on the emoji ‘clap’ which has become so ubiquitous), rereading the same book over and over again, questionable financial decisions (see $150k liberal arts degrees; not to mention the left’s blind addiction to government borrowing), frequent and abrupt mood changes (see 2015-2020), and, perhaps most crucially of all, blaming others for the consequences of socially unacceptable behavior. The neurobiological root of such liberal traits is highlighted by research into bvFTD. Namely, it is associated with a reduced emotional response to negative emotional stimuli (Jacques et al., 2015), reduced attention to threat (Joshi et al., 2014), and reduced reactivity to disgusting stimuli (Eckart et al., 2012). In short, people with the disorder are less sensitive to danger. As a result, it can impair the self-protection instinct (Shinagawa, 2015).

    Overall, there seem to be three main traits which define what one might call ‘pathological liberalism’, all of which may have a core of reduced threat sensitivity.

    The first is an extreme openness to new things and tolerance of ambiguity. Liberalism is indeed associated with the personality trait ‘openness to experience’: that is, adventurous and tolerant of new ideas and change (e.g., Schoen and Schumann, 2007; Vecchione et al., 2011). Looking at personality more broadly, conservatism tends to be associated with preferences for stability, order and structure, while liberalism tends to be associated with curiosity, creativity, and novelty-seeking. It is also — credit where it’s due — associated with thinking deeply and rejecting simple solutions (Jost et al., 2003; Carney, Jost and Gosling, 2008; Jost, Federico and Napier, 2009; Caparos et al., 2015). Indeed, liberals tend to have more gray matter in the part of the brain that deals with processing signals for potential change (Amodio et al., 2007; Kanai et al., 2011; Schreiber et al., 2013). Liberals are more likely to prefer abstract art (Wilson, Ausman and Mathews, 1973) and have messy work spaces (Carney, Jost and Gosling, 2008).

    There is a huge amount of value in being open-minded but not — as G.K. Chesterton said — so open-minded that your brain falls out. On this point, Woodley (2010) proposed the idea of ‘clever sillies’ — intelligent people who lack common sense and overanalyze things to produce sophisticated rationalizations for nonsense. In the words of George Orwell: ‘There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.’

    Similarly, the cultural mediation hypothesis argues that intelligent people are — rightly or wrongly — more likely to follow the crowd because they have the cognitive ability to rationalize doing so and to predict the social benefits therein (Woodley, 2011).

    The second determinant of pathological liberalism is extreme emotionality and empathy. Liberals tend to be more empathetic (Hirsh et al., 2010), and more agreeable in general (Schoen and Schumann, 2007; Vecchione et al., 2011); they are also more likely to reject group loyalty (see Haidt, 2012) and, as discussed, are less prejudiced towards ‘out-groups’. From a neurobiological perspective, political liberalism has been linked to activity in the part of the brain that deals with interpersonal trust (Belfi, Koscik and Tranel, 2015). Bringing this all together, a study of Twitter users found that those following Republicans used more words emphasizing group membership (such as in-group identity, national identity, and religion), while those following Democrats used more emotional language (e.g., feelings, anxiety, positive emotions and expletives; Sylwester and Purver, 2015).

    Again, there are many benefits to such altruism — up to a point. Many researchers have also explored the concept of pathological altruism (Oakley et al., 2011), in which charitable giving actually does more harm than good (by, for example, fostering dependence and undermining organic economic development. One illustration comes from the donation of second-hand clothing to countries like Kenya, which has all but killed the once-thriving garment industry there.

    But when liberal altruism becomes pathological, it can also be at the subject’s own expense. For example, a survey by the American National Election Studies in 2018 asked respondents to rate how warm they felt towards their own race compared to others. All groups were biased in favor of their own except for one: white liberals, who feel warmer to others than to their own people. In other words, in contrast to all other groups, white liberals put others above themselves.

    This prostration before other groups introduces the third trait that defines pathological liberalism: low self-esteem. Die-hard liberals seem to live in a world of self-loathing: they believe they are born dirty thanks to new varieties of ‘original sin’; and they never recognize the good things their history has contributed, instead campaigning to actively ‘dismantle’ their own culture. Their protests are invariably forms of self-abuse or self-abasement, like lying in front of traffic or getting on their knees. A function of low self-esteem is also believing that one has little control over one’s life. Research has indicated that having an external ‘locus of control’ (i.e., believing that your fate is determined by powerful people and forces) is typically linked to a leftist ideology (e.g., Levenson and Miller, 1976). In surely one of the great reversals of history, a 2019 Cato Institute survey found that just 33 percent of people identifying as ‘very liberal’ agreed that ‘[their] life is determined by [their] own actions’, compared to 52 percent of those who are very conservative. It in turn makes sense that those who feel less in control of their own destiny would support ‘free’ healthcare, ‘free’ education, more welfare, and more regulation. As Edmund Burke said, ‘Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.’

    This external locus of control has recently manifested itself in victimhood culture — the Marxist belief that one is a perpetual victim of omnipotent but invisible power structures, from which only the same Marxist authorities can rescue such victim groups. What is less well known is a recent paper which found that those who exhibit these ‘virtuous victimhood’ behaviors were more likely to have ‘dark’ personality traits, including narcissism (Ok et al., 2020). Twenge, Zhang and Im (2004) explain the contradiction between low self-esteem and narcissism in terms of locus of control; the pathological liberal likely believes that, when something good happens in their life, it was their achievement; when something bad happens, they are the victim of oppression.

    Pride is the vice with the strongest correlation with narcissism (Veselka, Giammarco and Vernon, 2014). This narcissistic culture of pride is another defining trait of pathological liberalism — even manifesting in parades to celebrate pride. A ‘born this way’ mindset which embraces unhealthy lifestyle groups like the obese can only lead to disaster. As Thomas Aquinas said, pride is the worst vice and the source of all other vices. Without looking up towards the heavens, why would we ever seek to improve?

  • Janice says:

    Clearly money is being wasted on the blond. Zero critical thinking skills and racist to suggest those “beneath” her class are incapable of obtaining an ID.

  • CF


    Federal Judge Halts Biden’s $4B Plan to Compensate Farmers Based on Race



    A federal judge took the extraordinary rare step of issuing a temporary restraining order halting President Joe Biden’s $4 billion loan forgiveness program for minority farmers, saying the plan replaced one form of discrimination with another because white farmers are excluded.

    Wisconsin Judge William Griesbach, a George W. Bush appointee, also claimed the plan did not give adequate examples of recent hardships imposed on minority farmers.

    “The obvious response to a government agency that claims it continues to discriminate against farmers because of their race or national origin is to direct it to stop: it is not to direct it to intentionally discriminate against others on the basis of their race and national origin,” Griesbach wrote.

    “Indeed, Congress can implement race-neutral programs to help farmers and ranchers in need of financial assistance, such as requiring individual determinations of disadvantaged status or giving priority to loans of farmers and ranchers that were left out of the previous pandemic relief funding,” Griesbach wrote. “It can also provide better outreach, education, and other resources. But it cannot discriminate on the basis of race.”

    The money for farmers is part of Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan that directs $4 billion to offer loan forgiveness through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and would be used to pay up to 120 percent of direct or guaranteed farm loan balances for black, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian American, or Pacific Islander farmers.

    The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on the lawsuit:

    The group is representing 12 farmers, two of whom live in Wisconsin. Calumet County dairy farmer Adam Faust, who farms with both legs amputated after being born with spina bifida, and Christopher Baird, who owns a dairy farm near Ferryville in Crawford County.

    “There should absolutely be no federal dollars going anywhere just based on race,” Faust said.

    “The Court recognized that the federal government’s plan to condition and allocate benefits on the basis of race raises grave constitutional concerns and threatens our clients with irreparable harm,” said Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel for Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL). “The Biden administration is radically undermining bedrock principles of equality under the law.”

    The Sentinel reported the USDA is still implementing the program but is reviewing what the restraining order means for its future.

    ”We respectfully disagree with this temporary order and USDA will continue to forcefully defend our ability to carry out this act of Congress and deliver debt relief to socially disadvantaged borrowers,” a USDA spokesperson said. ”When the temporary order is lifted, USDA will be prepared to provide the debt relief authorized by Congress.”

    Some 17,000 farmers and ranchers from all 50 states qualify for the assistance, according to the Sentinel.

    The case in Faust v. Vilsack, No. 1:21-cv-528 for the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin.

    Continue Reading


    Police Investigating The ‘Suicide’ Of A Reporter Who Broke Clinton Tarmac Story



    Law enforcement officials in Alabama are investigating an apparent “suicide” by the reporter who broke the bombshell story in 2016 that former President Bill Clinton secretly met with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on a Phoenix tarmac in the run up to the presidential election while his wife, then-candidate Hillary Clinton, was under federal criminal investigation.

    “At 8:13 a.m. Saturday, the Hoover 911 center received a call of a person down at a residence on Scout Trace. Hoover police and fire personnel arrived to find the 45-year-old [Christopher] Sign dead,” reported. “Hoover police Lt. Keith Czeskleba said the death is being investigated as a suicide.”

    Sign, who played football at the University of Alabama, moved to a local ABC News station in Alabama in 2017 after working at a news station in Pheonix.

    The New York Post reported:

    While there, Sign broke the major 2016 presidential campaign news that Bill Clinton met with Lynch on the tarmac of Phoenix’s Sky Harbor Airport while the then-AG was investigating the use of a private e-mail server by Hillary Clinton, the former president’s wife and the Democratic presidential candidate at the time.

    Sign went on to write a book about the encounter titled “Secret on the Tarmac.”

    Sign told Fox News last year that he “knew something had occurred that was a bit unusual” on the tarmac.

    “It was a planned meeting,” Sign said. “It was not a coincidence.”

    “[The book] details everything that they don’t want you to know and everything they think you forgot, but Bill Clinton was on that plane for 20 minutes and it wasn’t just about golf, grandkids, and Brexit. There’s so much that doesn’t add up,” he said. “He then sat and waited in his car with the motorcade, her airstairs come down, most of her staff gets off, he then gets on as the Secret Service and FBI are figuring out ‘How in the world are we supposed to handle this? What are we supposed to do?’”

    Sign, who said that he received death threats over his reporting, said that the story “isn’t about right or left, Republican or Democrat, it’s about right and wrong and journalism.”

    “My family received significant death threats shortly after breaking this story,” he said. “Credit cards hacked. You know, my children, we have code words. We have secret code words that they know what to do.”

    Continue Reading


    Biden Reveals Why He Won’t Hold a Joint Press Conference With Putin



    President Joe Biden revealed on June 13 why he decided to avoid a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Switzerland next week.

    “I always found, and I don’t mean to suggest the press should not know, but this is not a contest about who can do better in front of a press conference or try to embarrass each other,” Biden told reporters at a press conference at the Cornwall Airport Newquay in England.

    “It’s about making myself very clear what the conditions are to get a better relationship are with Russia.”

    In 2018, when President Donald Trump met with Putin in person and held a joint news conference, corporate media outlets launched attacks against Trump and suggested the joint appearance meant the two had a cozy relationship. It came amid then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. Mueller, after a 22-month investigation, ultimately turned up “insufficient evidence” to support the allegations.

    “I think the best way to deal with this is for he and I to meet, he and I to have our discussion. I know you don’t doubt that I’ll be very straightforward with him about our concerns, and I will make clear my view of how that meeting turned out and he’ll make clear from his perspective how it turned out,” Biden said.

    Biden then seemed to make reference to the possibility that the meeting would trigger rampant speculation from the press.

    “I don’t want to get into being diverted by, did they shake hands, who talked the most, and the rest,” he said.

    During the Group of Seven (G-7) summit on June 13, the president said he would raise concerns during his meeting with Putin.

    “We are not looking for conflict. We are looking to resolve those actions which we think are inconsistent with international norms, number one,” Biden said. “Number two, where we can work together. We may be able to do that in terms of some strategic doctrine that may be able to be worked together. We’re ready to do it.”

    When asked about whether he believes that U.S.–Russia relations are at a low point—something Putin had said in recent days—Biden agreed.

    “I think he’s right, it’s at a low point,” he said.

    “It depends on how he responds to acting consistent with international norms, which in many cases he has not.”

    But Biden said the poor relationship was the fault of Russia, and again alleged that Moscow engaged in malign behavior during U.S. elections, as well as cyberattacks against American infrastructure and industries. Biden also claimed, without providing details, that Putin was directly responsible for an unspecified cyberattack.

    “I checked it out. I had access to all the intelligence. He was engaged in those activities—I can respond to that,” Biden told reporters on June 13. “This is not a contest about who can do better in a press conference, embarrass each other. It’s about making myself very clear what the conditions of our relationship are.”

    The White House placed new sanctions on Russia following the sweeping SolarWinds breach and for alleged interference during the 2020 election. The FBI said that Russia-based groups were behind the SolarWinds cyberattack, which affected several federal agencies.

    Biden said in a March interview with ABC News that he agreed with the claim that Putin is “a killer,” which prompted criticism from Russian officials. Putin in an interview with NBC last week brushed off the comments.

    Putin, according to a Russian-to-English translation, attempted to tie Biden’s remarks in March to “some deep things in Hollywood” and “macho behavior” that can be “treated as cinematic.”

    “So, as far as harsh rhetoric, I think that this is an expression of overall U.S. culture,” Putin said. “But that is part of U.S. political culture, where it’s considered normal. By the way, not here [in Russia]. … It is not considered normal here.”

    The Department of Defense authorized $150 million in defense aid to Ukraine on June 11, amid renewed tensions between Kyiv and Moscow over the Donbas region.

    Earlier this year, there were large military movements of Russian troops and armor toward the eastern Ukraine border and into Crimea, sparking fears of a wider war, although in April the Kremlin signaled that it would attempt to deescalate tensions by withdrawing some of its forces.

    Continue Reading


    World Leaders Laugh At Biden After Boris Johnson Has To Remind Biden Of Something That Just Happened



    World leaders laughed at President Joe Biden during a roundtable event at the G7 over the weekend after British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had to remind Biden of something that had just happened moments before.

    Sky News posted the clip on social media, which showed Johnson introducing world leaders who had just joined the event. In the clip, Johnson introduced South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, who was the only black leader in the room, and, after Johnson introduced him, Biden introduced the president of South Africa and pointed at him in a manner that suggested that he did not know that he had just been introduced.

    “…to say how pleased I am to welcome those who have just joined us in some pretty spectacular weather,” Johnson said. “With them, Prime Minister Modi, President Ramaphosa, President Moon…”

    “And the president of South Africa,” Biden interjected.

    “And the president of South Africa as I said early on,” Johnson responded.

    “Oh, you did?” Biden asked.

    The room erupted in laughter.


    Biden was widely mocked online after the incident, with many describing it as an embarrassing moment for the United States.

    It was not the only moment during the G7 that Biden appeared to struggle as he repeatedly referred to Libya as he spoke to the press.

    Biden said [emphasis added]:

    And so, there’s a lot going on where we can work together with Russia. For example, in Libya, we should be opening up the passes to be able to go through and provide — provide food assistance and economic — I mean, vital assistance to a population that’s in real trouble.

    I think I’m going to try very much — hard to — it is — and, by the way, there’s places where — I shouldn’t be starting off on negotiating in public here. But let me say it this way: Russia has engaged in activities which are — we believe are contrary to international norms, but they have also bitten off some real problems they’re going to have trouble chewing on.

    And, for example, the rebuilding of — of Syria, of Libya, of — you know, this is — they’re there. And as long as they’re there without the ability to bring about some order in the — in the region, and you can’t do that very well without providing for the basic economic needs of people.

    So I’m hopeful that we can find an accommodation that — where we can save the lives of people in — for example, in — in Libya, that — consistent with the interest of — maybe for different reasons — but reached it for the same reason — the same result.

    Bloomberg News reporter Jennifer Jacobs tweeted that aides told her that Biden meant to say Syria instead of Libya.

    Continue Reading


    Teen Influencer With 26 Million Followers Tells Fans He’s Pro-Life: Abortion Is ‘Killing Someone’



    A 19-year-old Spanish TikTok influencer with a massive following told fans last month that he’s pro-life, emphasizing that an abortion is “killing someone” — a far cry from leftist language that categorizes abortion procedures as “health care.”

    “In a series of videos responding to questions from his followers, Naim Darrechi, 19, who is a musician and author of a book, gave his opinions and thoughts on abortion,” LiveAction reported Friday. “He knew that what he had to say about the controversial topic could cause a stir, but he decided to say it anyway.”

    “An abortion is interrupting a life,” Darrechi said on video, addressing his 26 million followers. “When a woman is pregnant, if she doesn’t take anything, if she doesn’t abort, the natural cycle is going to make a life emerge.”

    “But here one of the biggest arguments of the people who are in favor of abortion, which is: ‘no, but the fetus does not suffer, that is something that has nothing there, is that it does not suffer,’” the teen added. “Here the question is not whether he suffers or not. The question here is that a life is being taken.”

    Darrechi noted that he believes abortion “should not be legal or free, period,” LiveAction reported, “Because it is killing someone.”

    Responding to a fan in a follow-up video, Darrechi said he would take on fatherhood “without hesitation” if his girlfriend were to become pregnant unexpectedly. “I would be a father without hesitation. You give me a child and I’ll fall in love with it,” he said. “Giving life to someone and on top of having the responsibility of educating him and being able to teach and guide him is the most beautiful and most precious thing in the world.”

    Liberal states like New York have sanctioned abortion until birth, and pro-abortion Democratic politicians have cheered permitting such a gruesome procedure.

    Dr. Anthony Levatino, a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist who performed over 1,200 abortions before he became pro-life, spoke to LiveAction in 2016 to describe late-term abortion. The Daily Wire reported:

    “At this point, the baby is almost fully developed and viable, meaning he or she could survive outside the womb if the mother were to go into labor prematurely. Because the baby is so large and developed, the procedure takes three or four days to complete,” says Levatino.

    “On day one, the abortionist uses a large needle to inject a drug called Digoxin,” he continues. The drug will be used to cause fatal cardiac arrest, killing the baby. The Digoxin is injected into the baby’s head, torso, or heart via a needle to the mother’s abdomen.

    “The baby will feel it,” Levatino says. “Babies at this stage feel pain.”

    The mother’s cervix is then opened with sticks of seaweed called laminaria so the woman can give birth to the dead baby.

    “While the woman waits for the laminaria to dilate her cervix, she carries her dead baby inside of her for two to three days,” the doctor explains. “On day two, the abortionist replaces the laminaria and may perform a second ultrasound to ensure the baby is dead. If the child is still alive, he administers another lethal dose of Digoxin.”

    If the woman cannot make it to the clinic to give birth to the murdered baby, she might be advised to give birth to the child on a toilet, Levatino says. If the woman does make it to the clinic, but the baby does not fully come out, a dilation and evacuation procedure must be performed, meaning “the abortionist will use clamps and forceps to dismember the baby piece by piece.”

    “Once the placenta and all the body parts have been removed, the abortion is complete,” he says.

    Dr. Levatino has spoken openly about what sparked his dramatic transformation from abortionist to pro-life advocate: specifically, the tragic death of his daughter Heather. After Heather was hit by a car and died in Levatino’s arms, his perspective about the unborn he was aborting changed. It was no longer medical waste on the table, he said, it was somebody’s child. Levatino has vowed to never perform an abortion again and has made it his mission to inform the public about the reality of the heavily-euphemized procedure.

    Continue Reading

    Trending Today