When several children were stabbed to death while attending a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in the UK late last month, British politicians and media outlets immediately went to great lengths to absolve themselves of any responsibility. They declared that decades of unrestricted mass migration couldn’t possibly be the reason that three young girls were dead, and many more were critically injured. The fact that the alleged killer was born in Britain to Rwandan parents who somehow ended up in Britain, the government insisted, was completely irrelevant — and only far-right extremists would say otherwise. And as I outlined earlier this week, British politicians threatened to arrest those “far-Right extremists” for “hate speech” and “misinformation.” As protests and riots broke out all over the country, the government promised to punish anyone who suggested that maybe open borders were a bad idea. But the problem with punishing wrongthink is that it does nothing to address the underlying problem. You can throw every single “Right-wing commentator” in the Tower of London for saying that mass migration has deadly consequences, and they’ll still be right. And children will continue to be targeted because of the barbaric ideology that Europe’s leaders have deliberately imported from the third world. As if to prove that point, on Wednesday, authorities in Vienna arrested two suspects who were planning a terrorist attack at Taylor Swift’s concerts that were originally scheduled for this weekend. The concerts have been canceled, apparently because the threat remains high. One of the suspects is reportedly a 19-year-old who pledged allegiance to ISIS. The police are apparently looking for at least one additional suspect. Bomb-making materials are involved. Beyond that, we’re not sure exactly who these suspects are at the moment, because the authorities won’t say. Watch: According to that report, Vienna now has a “track record” of being a “breeding ground” for the Islamic State. What’s not stated in that news report is what could possibly explain this troubling rise in terrorist incidents like this in Austria. This is a country that used to be known as the birthplace of classical music and strong coffee. And now they’re a breeding ground for ISIS? How did that happen? What got into all these Austrians? It’s a mystery wrapped in an enigma. What’s unstated in that report is that an awful lot of foreign nationals have poured into Austria over the past few decades from countries like Montenegro, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Chechnya, Turkey, and Somalia. And some of these migrants are doing things that Austrians don’t generally do. Just a few months ago, for example, a 14-year-old ISIS sympathizer from Montenegro was arrested in Austria with a knife and an ax that she allegedly planned to use in a terrorist attack. How did a 14-year-old terrorist from Montenegro get into Austria? Who knows. The media doesn’t care. Reporters aren’t even allowed to bring up any of this immigration because it might lead people to conclude that more immigration isn’t always a good thing. In fact, in the UK, even suggesting such a thing can now land you in prison. Here’s England’s “director of public prosecutions,” a guy named Stephen Parkinson. He wants Britons to know that if they so much as retweet anything that “insults” the foreign nationals who are living illegally in their country, then the full force of the law will descend on them. Watch: BREAKING: UK authorities will round up and charge citizens who RETWEET any material deemed as "inciting hatred" pic.twitter.com/p2j0nazREc — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 7, 2024 Aside from the accent and the language, it’s a clip that might as well be from North Korea. Instead of having teams of police officers deporting some of the illegal aliens who are living in Britain — which would actually accomplish something productive — the British government is spending its time scouring Twitter, looking for retweets they don’t like. Apparently, even people who write “RT’s are not endorsements” in their bio won’t be spared. If you retweet something that Kier Starmer thinks is naughty, then you’ll go to prison. Of course, Stephen Parkinson left the standard vague on purpose, so that no one knows where the line is, exactly. Take this quote from The New York Times, for example:  More British Muslim men have joined ISIS and the Nusra Front than are serving in the British armed forces. Would a statement like that qualify as inciting “racial hatred?” It happens to be a factually true statement, as unbelievable and incredible as it may seem. And it may lead people to conclude that Britain’s immigration policy isn’t the best. So can someone retweet that or not? No one knows. It’s a completely subjective standard that’s clearly designed to terrify people into submission. They don’t just want to make people afraid to speak their mind. They also want to make people afraid to agree with someone else who speaks their mind. They’re going several layers deep in order to censor dissent, as all illegitimate regimes do. Pretty soon they’ll be rounding up the family members of anyone who “likes” a tweet criticizing Keir Starmer. WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show If this were happening in any other third-world country, the State Department would immediately condemn this as a flagrant abuse of human rights. The UN Security Council would hold a meeting. We might even invade so that we can spread freedom and democracy. But because Britain is (supposedly) already a first-world democracy that sits on the Security Council, no one will say anything. Britain, like Canada, has descended very sharply and very quickly into totalitarianism. The government can tolerate the murder of children. It can’t tolerate criticism — or retweets of criticism. The rapid collapse of both Britain and Canada raises the obvious question of whether (and when) a similar collapse might happen here. And there’s one clear indication it might come sooner than we think. Yesterday I spoke at length about Tim Walz, who’s repeatedly lied about his military service record. His lies have been exposed, for the most part, because of free and open discussion on social media. And there is no doubt that, if he gets to the White House, Tim Walz will do everything he can to shut down those discussions. He said as much in 2022, during an interview with MSNBC. Watch: Tim Walz: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy” pic.twitter.com/4pNBwb8Su7 — Matt Wolking (@MattWolking) August 7, 2024 “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy.”  That line, by itself, should have disqualified Tim Walz from getting anywhere near the vice presidential shortlist. It should have disqualified him from continuing to serve in the government of Minnesota in any capacity. In a serious country, he would have been impeached and removed from office. WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI But Tim Walz wasn’t impeached. He didn’t suffer any consequences whatsoever. He was barely even criticized. On some corners of the Internet, people reacted to that footage by saying Tim Walz must have failed high school civics. But that’s not what that clip shows. We can assume that Tim Walz knows that the First Amendment protects “misinformation” and “hate speech” and even criticisms of “democracy,” whatever those things mean. Indeed, if the first amendment does not protect so-called hate speech and so-called misinformation, then it doesn’t protect anything. After all, something is labeled misinformation if some people — especially powerful people — claim that it is untrue or inaccurate. And something is labeled “hate speech” if some people — especially powerful people — claim that it is morally repugnant and offensive. So if the First Amendment does not cover misinformation and hate speech, that means we are free to say anything we want, as long as it’s not something that powerful people consider wrong, inaccurate, offensive, or outrageous. Which is to say, we do not have free speech or anything approaching free speech. Tim Walz knows this. He’s not the smartest guy, but he’s smart enough to understand the basic argument here. The real takeaway, then, is that he just doesn’t care. He understands that the First Amendment is just words on paper. The Soviet Union had a constitution guaranteeing free speech, too. Canada and the UK have charters that supposedly protect freedom of expression. But the constitution and the charters don’t matter if no one cares about what they say. This is the trajectory we’re on. A decade ago, no one in the UK thought the police would ever show up at their door because they retweeted someone else’s political commentary. Now it’s the reality of living in Britain. The insidious thing about this kind of censorship is that, by the time it takes hold, it’s too late to actually do anything about it. Protesters inevitably turn to violence, which in turn leads to more censorship and more crackdowns. This is the cycle that leads to a country so unstable and so dangerous that it can’t even host a Taylor Swift concert. Reasonable people look to Europe as a cautionary tale. Tim Walz sees a blueprint.

Podcast giant Joe Rogan clarified on Friday that he has not made an endorsement for president after social media users and some news outlets claimed he was backing independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. On Thursday’s episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” the comedian and UFC commentator discussed his appreciation for Kennedy, saying he is different from politicians on the Right and the Left who “gaslight,” “manipulate,” and “promote narratives.” “The only one who’s not doing that is Robert F. Kennedy Jr,” Rogan said. “I am a fan [of Kennedy]. He’s the only one that makes sense to me. He doesn’t attack people. He attacks actions and ideas. He’s much more reasonable and intelligent.” After the clip spread on social media, some news outlets, such as The Hill, The Daily Beast, and Variety reported that Rogan had endorsed Kennedy over former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Rogan took to X on Friday to push back against those reports. “For the record, this isn’t an endorsement. This is me saying that I like RFK jr as a person, and I really appreciate the way he discusses things with civility and intelligence. I think we could use more of that in this world,” Rogan wrote. “I also think Trump raising his fist and saying ‘fight!’ after getting shot is one of the most American f***ing things of all time.” WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI Rogan then told his followers not to rely on him for “political information.” “I’m not the guy to get political information from,” he wrote. “If you want that from a comic, go to @ComicDaveSmith. He actually knows what he’s talking about.” For the record, this isn’t an endorsement. This is me saying that I like RFKjr as a person, and I really appreciate the way he discusses things with civility and intelligence. I think we could use more of that in this world. I also think Trump raising his fist and saying… https://t.co/pzkHe9SKVS — Joe Rogan (@joerogan) August 9, 2024 Rogan has criticized the Biden administration and leftist policies on issues ranging from illegal immigration to gender procedures on children. The comedian has also been highly critical of Trump, saying in 2022 that he’s turned down multiple offers from Trump’s team for the former president to go on “The Joe Rogan Experience.” “I’m not a Trump supporter in any way, shape or form. I’ve had the opportunity to have him on my show more than once, I’ve said no every time,” Rogan told podcast host Lex Friedman. “I don’t want to help him, I’m not interested in helping him.” Joe Rogan says he has turned down multiple offers to have Donald Trump on his podcast: “I don’t want to help him. I’m not interested in helping him.” pic.twitter.com/Cd6A3b4asf — The Recount (@therecount) July 5, 2022 In the 2020 Democratic primary, Rogan said he would “probably ” vote for Democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

In a move that has sparked significant controversy, NASA is set to launch an artificial star into Earth's orbit at the staggering cost of $19.5 million. This initiative, part of the Landolt project, aims to improve the measurement accuracy of real stars and aid in the study of dark energy. However, many Republicans view this expenditure as another example of wasteful government spending. Critics argue that while scientific advancement is important, the current economic climate demands more prudent use of taxpayer dollars. With inflation and national debt at alarming levels, the allocation of nearly $20 million to a project that simulates a star seems highly questionable. They believe these funds could be better spent addressing pressing domestic issues such as infrastructure, healthcare, and national security. Cloudy with a chance of new stars! Named RCW 7, the nebula in this #HubbleFriday view contains the gas and dust needed to form stars. Under the influence of gravity, parts of the nebula's clouds collapse until they coalesce into young, developing stars: https://t.co/jbtRvPAXvX pic.twitter.com/JS6XtgaUZR — Hubble (@NASAHubble) June 21, 2024 Supporters of the project argue that the artificial star will provide invaluable data that could lead to significant scientific breakthroughs. NASA's deputy director, David Ciardi, stated that the project could enhance the precision of stellar brightness measurements by more than a factor of ten. This improvement could have far-reaching implications for our understanding of the universe, particularly in studying dark energy. Despite these potential benefits, the timing and cost of the project remain contentious. Many conservatives feel that the government's priorities are misplaced, especially given the numerous challenges facing the nation. They call for greater accountability and fiscal responsibility in government-funded projects, emphasizing that every dollar spent should be scrutinized and justified. WOW – incredibly beautiful new #JWST image! These new data are giving insight into newborn stars Read more: https://t.co/fxeNpZmtmS pic.twitter.com/Td0CvkkttX — Dr. Amber Straughn (she/her/hers) (@astraughnomer) June 20, 2024 The broader issue at play is the perception of government overreach and mismanagement of funds. The artificial star project is seen by some as a symbol of how government agencies can become detached from the practical needs of the citizenry. This sentiment has fueled calls for reform and increased oversight to ensure that taxpayer money is spent wisely and effectively. Furthermore, there is a growing concern about the transparency of such projects. Critics demand more detailed explanations of the project's necessity and expected outcomes. They argue that without clear, tangible benefits, such expenditures are difficult to justify to the public, who ultimately foot the bill. In light of these concerns, Republicans are urging NASA and other government agencies to re-evaluate their spending priorities. They advocate for a more balanced approach that considers both scientific advancement and fiscal responsibility. This, they argue, is essential for maintaining public trust and ensuring that government actions align with the needs and values of the American people. As the debate continues, it is clear that the launch of an artificial star is more than a scientific endeavor—it is a reflection of the ongoing struggle over government spending and accountability. Whether this project will yield the promised scientific benefits remains to be seen, but the controversy it has sparked highlights the need for careful consideration of how taxpayer dollars are allocated in pursuit of progress. The post Republican Outrage Over NASA’s $19.5 Million Artificial Star Project appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

For most people who grew up in an average family, the royals may seem like mythical creatures. They live their lives in the public eye. Voyeurs are always there to consume the good, the bad, and sometimes, the ugly. Princess Kate was not born into royalty, rather, she married the heir to the English throne. And if there is one thing she’s been very clear about since day one, family means everything to her. View this post on Instagram A post shared by The Prince and Princess of Wales (@princeandprincessofwales) Princess Kate and Prince William met more than 20 years ago while in college. And the pair have had a beautiful marriage. They’ve lovingly welcomed three children like the princess’s family growing up. According to Robert Jobson’s new book, Catherine, the Princess of Wales, Kate was quite clear with Queen Elizabeth about how she planned to raise her children. “She was clear from the outset that she would not be pigeonholed into carrying out particular duties and insisted on having her full quota of maternity leave, away from the glare of the media and the public,” Jobson wrote. Princess Kate Also Prioritizes Her Health And Personal Space Kate made it clear she’d return to the public eye after her cancer diagnosis but not until she was ready. “She isn’t being governed by it being a good picture opportunity. They aren’t worried about visibility — they are just going to do it. And that will be visible rather than the other way around. The health and the proper recovery is what is important,” Jobson told People. A source close to the royals told People that Kate also wants her children to be close to each other. She hopes they will understand the importance of caring for each other. “Coming from a different background, she appreciates the importance of having family time,” they said. “She wasn’t brought up in that aristocratic setting where you see the children for a short time each day.” This story’s featured image is by Pete Hancock via Shutterstock. The post Princess Kate Established “Rules” With “The Firm” After She & Prince William Became Parents appeared first on InspireMore.

'Hateful, antisemitic displays like this will not be tolerated'

'Islamists hungry for government support will surely welcome Walz'

'No more excuses'

By installing Harris as their nominee, the Democratic Party has embraced a candidate whose ideas are so radical that they are further left than Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

'Sullivan found success both in the ring and behind the scenes'

'Headwind for anybody that would want to put money in'