Imagine the challenge of caring for a single animal. Now‚ multiply that by a whole farm! That’s the life of a farmer who recently learned the hard way that even a small oversight‚ like forgetting to properly latch a gate‚ can lead to utter pandemonium. The scene unfolds with a burst of energy as the... The post Alpaca accidentally gets loose from farm and hilarious ‘chase scene’ ensues appeared first on Animal Channel.

A new season of NBC's Law &; Order returned last night with a complicated episode tackling pro-Hamas activism on college campuses and school presidents' double standards on free speech. Thursday's episode‚ "Freedom of Expression‚" begins with the president of fictional Hudson University‚ Nathan Alpert (David Denowitz)‚ stressfully talking to his wife (Sharone Sayegh) on the phone. President Alpert: Oh‚ I can feel it. It's gonna happen. It's just a matter of time.  Mrs. Alpert: I know it's crazy right now and there are all sorts of rumors swirling. President Alpert: No‚ it's more than that. People are already digging into my research. Every article‚ every book I ever published. One missed quote. One overlooked source. Mrs. Alpert: They can't accuse you of plagiarism if you're not a plagiarist.  President Alpert: Sure‚ they can. That's what's happening. It's how the bastards get their payback. This opening bit of dialogue is an obvious reference to Claudine Gay‚ the disgraced former president of Harvard University. In the case of Gay‚ however‚ she was a serial plagiarist who committed far more offenses than a missed quote or "an overlooked source."  Exposing her lies was justice‚ not "payback."  President Alpert is stabbed to death by an unknown assailant and NYPD detectives Jalen Shaw (Mehcad Brooks) and Vincent Riley (Reid Scott) go to work to find his killer.  Shaw and Riley soon discover that Alpert made many enemies among university staff for his embrace of cancel culture. A university lacrosse coach describes Alpert as "a progressive‚ cancel first‚ ask questions later type of president." The president even had to get a restraining order against a former professor‚ Phillip Klein (Jason Babinsky)‚ who threatened to kill him. When Shaw and Jalen find Klein to bring him in for questioning‚ he is holding anti-Israeli posters he tore down in disgust. The posters say‚ "From the river to the sea." Klein tells the detectives that Alpert actually fired him for a different issue altogether‚ specifically for opposing biological males in women's sport.  Klein: What kind of a relationship did I have with Alpert? A terrible one. Shall I continue? Shaw: No. We get it. The question is‚ why? What triggered all the rage? Klein: Son of a bitch fired me for having the audacity to suggest that someone born a man shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's athletics‚ regardless of how they identify. A college campus is a place to debate‚ express opinions. But not here‚ not these days. You express the wrong view‚ you're canceled. Unless‚ of course‚ you're talking about Israel. Yeah‚ on that topic‚ you can say whatever you want. The more hateful‚ the better.  Riley: I don't blame you for being upset. I don't even blame you for threatening to kill him. Yeah. We read the restraining order. Klein: I didn't mean it literally. I was sitting at home watching the news‚ reading about Israel. I-I-- I lost my mind.  Klein is able to quickly provide an alibi and remove himself from the list of potential suspects. Shaw and Riley probe him further about any other potential enemies Alpert had.  Riley: Ok. So‚ who else hated Alpert? Klein: Everyone‚ especially the Jewish community. Riley: Alpert is Jewish. Klein: Exactly. He refused to issue a statement after the October 7th terrorist attack. George Floyd‚ Alpert issued a statement. Roe V. Wade‚ statement. Hamas slaughters innocent Israelis‚ no statement. And then things‚ they just -- they got worse. Last month‚ this pro-Palestinian student group hosted a film symposium on campus‚ and the movies were disgusting. They were full of anti-Semitic tropes. Alpert said that the filmmakers had a right to express their views. Shaw: So you're saying the Jewish community is pissed off at Alpert 'cause of this. Klein: Yes. Shaw: Well‚ do you know anyone in that community who actually wanted to hurt him? Klein: Hurt him? No. Fire him‚ yeah. There was a group of influential donors demanding that he resign. But Alpert wouldn't budge. He told 'em all to go to hell.  The detectives next meet with one of these influential donors. The donor looks and acts like Bill Ackman‚ the real-life billionaire who fought Harvard and other universities for their refusal to condemn Hamas. He tells the detectives that Alpert had banned a pro-Palestinian group on campus the day of his murder.  Shaw: What did he find? Donor: Video of a student praising Hamas for their courage on campus at the film symposium. That was a bridge too far even for Alpert. The group of banned pro-Palestinian activists includes Chloe Esper (Alexa Wisener)‚ a young actress with millions of social media followers. Esper organizes on campus with a popular Palestinian professor‚ Kendra Nasser (Tehmina Sunny)‚ and a young‚ white male student named Cam Lawson‚ (Braxton Fannin) who is obsessed with the cause. Naturally‚ evidence reveals that Lawson stabbed the professor because the white guy is always the murderer in these shows. Although‚ in this case‚ he was helped and encouraged by Nasser. The Palestinian professor gave him the knife and details of Alpert's location. At her trial‚ Nasser admits on the stand that she is "proud" of Lawson for killing Alpert‚ but the jury acquits her of any wrongdoing.  To make the episode even more complex‚ pro-Israeli professor Klein also becomes a murderer and kills Palestinian activist Esper at a rally before the trial. Klein shoots Esper when she asks the audience‚ "Will you fight for a free Palestine! From the river to the sea!" Overall‚ the episode's plot was confusing and unwieldy in its attempt to portray violence from both Israeli and Palestinian supporters. Yet "Freedom of Expression" provided many surprising moments where things were said that almost never appear in a Hollywood script. I cannot think of a previous network show that so bluntly discussed left-wing double standards on free speech and treatment of conservatives. Law &; Order is one of the first network shows to return in the wake of the Hollywood strikes. Have these long months away actually caused some writers to reevaluate and reflect on left-wing hypocrisy? The coming months will tell.  

On Thursday evening‚ Vans for Life‚ an organization that specializes in equipping and launching mobile pregnancy centers held a gala. At the event‚ where hundreds gathered‚ CEO of Operation Underground Railroad and anti-child trafficking activist Tim Ballard spoke about the parallels between the tragedy of sex trafficking and abortion.  Vans for Life was established in 2017 when president Eddie Perez realized that in order to save babies from abortions‚ he needed to reach pregnant women before they entered the doors of an abortion facility. The vans are “equipped with the ability to offer free pregnancy test‚ free ultrasound‚ free resources and free counseling to pregnant girls in need.” Thursday’s event honored the cause‚ and Ballard made it clear that he fully supports everything Vans for Life does and stands for.  Ballard‚ whose mission is highlighted in the Angel Studios film "Sound of Freedom‚" began his speech talking about a 15-year-old girl‚ Andy‚ who was stuck in the trafficking industry and was pregnant for a third time‚ stuck not wanting to abort her baby. Ballard mentioned that the girl confessed‚ “I don’t care about my life at this point‚ I am having this child and if I have this child and then they kill me‚ they can kill me.” Ballard harped on how pivotal a pregnancy center would have been in that child’s life. "My dream is to see these vans everywhere” to help kids like Andy. Ballard mentioned that “this is the same fight‚” that of the child-sex trafficking regime and abortion. “It’s all part of the same evil family.” “Our children are being targeted in every way right now‚” Ballard said. “Children are the targets of the devil.” The audience let out verbal signs of agreement‚ many with tears in their eyes. Ballard included a slide in his speech talking about the left’s attempts to normalize pedophilia in their attack against kids. “The devil always counterfeits what God does‚” he said adding how pedophiles‚ who we’re allowing in our kids' schools to teach sexual content to kids‚ make parents out to be the villains. “The content you give our kids under the guise of sexual education is pornography‚” he said. “It’s crazy.” He even talked about gender mutilating surgeries for kids and how insane it is. “If you can consent at 13-years-old to gender mutilation‚ what’s the difference? Why can’t you consent to sex with an adult‚” he posed. He’s right. If we’re wishy-washy about allowing kids to make decisions like these‚ where do we draw the line? Do we let kids decide when they want to drink? No. How about when to start driving? Nope. Yet‚ the left wants them to make decisions that permanently affect their lives. Ballard moved on to talk about the parallels between those who advocate for abortion and those who advocated for slavery. “'My body-my choice‚' pro-aborts say‚ just like 'my property-my choice‚' slave owners said. Abortion is slavery in its worst form‚” Ballard said before talking about how both evils dehumanize people in an attempt to justify their actions.    “This nation is under a covenant with God‚" Ballard said in his conclusion. "That’s how the founders built it. So we’re not only helping children by fighting this‚ but we’re saving the nation cause the nation will come under condemnation." He also noted an improvised line from "Sound of Freedom" that comes from Luke 17:2. “Better a millstone be hung around your neck and you be cast into the sea than you should ever hurt one of these little ones‚” Ballard recounted. “We know where Jesus stands on hurting little ones. There’s no crueler way to hurt a little one than to crush its life in the womb.”

Well it’s about time! On Tuesday‚ the Department of Justice officially acknowledged that Hunter Biden’s laptop was real and legitimate. This was the very same laptop that Democrats and their pals in the liberal media repeatedly denounced as “Russian disinformation.”  So how much time have the Big Three (ABC‚ CBS‚ NBC) networks spent on this official acknowledgment?  ZERO seconds.  What’s particularly shameful about the networks hiding this latest development? These very same networks spent over an entire year (18 months) denying the legitimacy of the laptop.  The MRC (back in April of 2022) documented how the networks systematically buried the story: From October 14‚ 2020 (the day the New York Post broke the laptop story) through the morning of April 18‚ 2022 — a period of 18 months — MRC analysts looked at the ABC‚ CBS‚ NBC evening and morning shows and their Sunday roundtable programs. That analysis found the total amount of time spent on the Hunter Biden laptop story came to a miniscule 25 minutes‚ 6 seconds.  A deep dive of the coverage shows that when the Big Three networks bother to mention the scandal they do so largely to knock it down‚ using dismissive verbiage like “dubious” “questionably-sourced story‚” “old line of attack” and “unverified.” MRC analysts found arguments by anchors‚ reporters‚ guests and talking head soundbites dismissing the Hunter revelations outweighed those supportive of the case by an over 3 to 1 ratio. ABC‚ CBS and NBC aired a total of 18 minutes‚ 18 seconds devoted to dismissing the story to just 5 minutes‚ 1 second of arguments supporting the New York Post revelations. It’s been four days since the DOJ (via a court filing in Hunter’s firearms case) officially acknowledged the laptop and still nothing from nets.  On January 16‚ The Daily Caller reported on the DOJ’s admission:  The Department of Justice (DOJ) has acknowledged the legitimacy of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop data for the first time in a new court filing.  In a Tuesday court filing from DOJ prosecutors‚ which came in response to Biden’s request to have his federal firearm charges dismissed‚ investigators acknowledge the legitimacy of data found on Biden’s laptop prior to the 2020 election. The court filings described how IRS and FBI investigators had obtained a search warrant for tax violations on Biden‚ leading them to “various” backup data accounts. The documents additionally note that investigators later came into “possession” of the laptop that Biden had previously “left at a computer store‚” emphasizing that investigators had “already obtained” a large portion of the data from Apple. (RELATED: FBI Investigators Found Cocaine On Firearm Pouch Hunter Biden Used‚ Prosecutors Say) “In August 2019‚ IRS and FBI investigators obtained a search warrant for tax violations for the defendant’s Apple iCloud account. In response to that warrant‚ in September 2019‚ Apple produced backups of data from various of the defendant’s electronic devices that he had backed up to his iCloud account‚” the court documents stated. “Investigators also later came into possession of the defendant’s Apple MacBook Pro‚ which he had left at a computer store. A search warrant was also obtained for his laptop and the results of the search were largely duplicative of information investigators had already obtained from Apple.” Once again‚ the Big Three networks continue to do the bidding of the Biden White House.

Even some in the liberal press were a bit bothered by the Associated Press’s decision to call the Iowa caucuses for Donald Trump at 7:30 p.m.‚ just 30 minutes after the caucuses had begun and before some caucus-goers had even voted. (Shades of the 2000 presidential election‚ when the state of Florida was falsely called for Al Gore 12 minutes before the polls closed in the Panhandle part of the state.) AP’s move likely didn’t affect the outcome‚ but the decision was significant given the handwringing in the pro-Biden press about the dangers a second Trump term would pose to free elections and democracy itself. Can't the media let voters vote before they rush in with their proclamations? Who's getting in the way of democracy? And just for a "scoop" that they now say was obvious?  But the PBS NewsHour on Tuesday night was unfazed‚ defending their fellow media outlet against valid Republican complaints of election interference. Anchor Amna Nawaz tried to get her Republican strategist guest Kevin Madden (an aide in two Mitt Romney presidential campaigns) to defend the over-aggressive AP. AMNA NAWAZ: So‚ I want to get your take on some consternation around how early the call came for former President Trump by the Associated Press last night. It came just a half-an-hour after those caucuses first began. A lot of Iowans hadn't even voted yet. But the Associated Press put out an explanation today. Here's what they said. They declared Trump the winner of the caucuses based on both an analysis of early returns‚ as well as their AP VoteCast‚ which is a survey of voters who planned to caucus. Both‚ they say‚ showed Trump with an insurmountable lead. Kevin‚ they make these calls when the math lines up‚ they have been doing it for 170 years. Is the criticism warranted‚ do you think? KEVIN MADDEN: I mean‚ you're right‚ first of all. Every campaign I have ever worked on‚ we have seen these type of early calls‚ and you would think that campaigns would be used to it. But we also have to be very cognizant of the fact that there is a very high sense of distrust among a lot of Republican voters and a lot of Republican campaigns‚ and that's what's driving that level of consternation. So I think they're -- we all know that the AP has rigorous standards and rigorous protocols with how they announce this. But I think the media does have to have a little bit of self-reflection about whether or not there is a great utility in answering or releasing the calls so early‚ when you still have people voting‚ especially in an age of the smartphone‚ where everybody has a supercomputer in their pocket inside these caucuses‚ and they're able to see that type of information while still voting. An excerpt from the AP’s lame explainer: The Associated Press declared Trump the winner of the Iowa caucuses based on an analysis of early returns as well as results of AP VoteCast‚ a survey of voters who planned to caucus on Monday night. Both showed Trump with an insurmountable lead. This segment was brought to you in part by Cunard.

National Review editor-in-chief Rich Lowry had the unenviable task of having to educate the cast of Friday’s CNN This Morning that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not intended to perpetuate slavery and that the founding was not racist‚ but he still managed to perform the task quite well. First‚ in the 6:00 Eastern hour‚ co-host Phil Mattingly gave a monologue on recent comments by GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley that the country was not racist to begin with‚ “Now the intent‚ and its overarching role in U.S. history‚ is hardly that clear cut. In fact‚ the actual history seems to directly undercut that contention on some level. That's not an attack on the Founding Fathers‚ nor is it some inflammatory statement calling into question the soul of the nation. It's history.”     After going through the inglorious side of Thomas Jefferson and noting “at least 30 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves‚” Mattingly got to the Constitution‚ “During the Constitutional Convention in 1787‚ the Founders included the three-fifths compromise as a clause that found enslaved blacks in any state would be counted as three-fifths the number of white residents. It took 81 years‚ a civil war‚ and the 14th Amendment to change that.” Mattingly omits that if slaves were counted as one person then slave states would have had more power‚ but in the 7:00 hour he and fellow co-host Poppy Harlow welcomed Lowry and CNN contributor Cari Champion for further discussion. Ignoring that he just said that racism is in the founding documents‚ Mattingly wondered what the big deal is‚ “You can acknowledge what happened in the past and not undercut the founding... Like you're not trying to offend people if you're saying Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.” Lowry replied‚ “Of course. And she said last night‚ we've overcome things” and after acknowledging Haley made a gaffe when she previously didn’t mention slavery as a cause of the Civil War‚ urged people to be charitable when interrupting her latest comments‚ “I think for a well-intentioned person‚ it's clear what she means what she's saying now.” Unwilling to be charitable‚ Champion answered back‚ “Well‚ intentions don't -- they don't work for me. You know what I mean? It's just insulting‚ quite frankly. You cannot run for -- to be the president of the United States of America and not acknowledge its history clearly‚ plainly‚ concretely.” Champion further claimed “the precepts of this country that were racist.”     Lowry then initiated an exchange to see if Champion actually believed that‚ “Precepts‚ like all men are created equal‚ is racist? It wasn't racist. Now they made an accommodation to a fact on the ground that they assumed would go away.” Champion would affirm‚ “All men were not created equal‚ and you know that.” After ping-ponging back and forth some more‚ she cited Mattingly’s earlier monologue‚ “The Constitution‚ literally -- and you laid this out perfectly‚ Phil‚ earlier‚ the Constitution was very clear that there was a three-fifths clause for people who were not free. So how are we all created equal?” Lowry shot back‚ “And the idea was extremely powerful and has done more to define American history than the racism.” He also gave a little history lesson‚ “And look‚ they assumed‚ they were wrong‚ that slavery would go away. So‚ they weren't going to mention it in the Constitution and hope eventually progress would erode it. And in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution‚ race relations got better. You know‚ the north -- you had many missions‚ statues in the north. What happened‚ there was terrible backsliding in the South eventually in the 19th century. And then we have a terrible Civil War over it.” Champion had no good comeback to that so she played the “agree to disagree card” because “my experience is very different.” After some more Haley talk‚ Lowry declared‚ “This is not a fundamentally racist country. Why did Indian immigrants come here and thrive? Why did black immigrants come here and thrive‚ Asian immigrants come here and thrive?” Talking over him‚ Champion claimed that “This is absolutely a fundamentalist racist country. We don't all thrive. We are not created equal. We are not the same.” Getting the Founder’s definition of equality all wrong‚ Champion added‚ “Physically‚ sure‚ we can walk and we can move and we can say and we can do. But the world in which I live in is not going to be the same world that you live in. The way that I experience America is not going to be the way that you experience.” Lowry kept pressing her and eventually Champion unwittingly found herself agreeing with Haley‚ “The truth is‚ is that my experience is going to be different than your experience. And as a black woman in this country‚ I can tell you I have not been created equal‚ I haven’t been treated equal‚ rather in very many instances. Nikki can believe what you want.” Lowry then pointed out‚ “She said the same thing… She said she experienced racism and you shouldn't -- the country's not defined by that‚ people shouldn't be defined by that and you can overcome it. That seems an uplifting message‚ a fundamentally American message to me.” Not being willing to accept defeat‚ Champion claimed that Haley’s message was one “of erasure.” Here is a transcript for the January 19 show: CNN This Morning 1/19/2024 6:41 AM ET PHIL MATTINGLY: Now the intent‚ and its overarching role in U.S. history‚ is hardly that clear cut. In fact‚ the actual history seems to directly undercut that contention on some level. That's not an attack on the Founding Fathers‚ nor is it some inflammatory statement calling into question the soul of the nation. It's history. It's history based on facts. Facts like the author of those words‚ Thomas Jefferson‚ drafted that document while simultaneously owning people. Throughout his lifetime he enslaved 600 human beings. At any given time‚ there were more than 130 slaves at Monticello. But what about the signatories underneath the Declaration of Independence. That document states unequivocally that all men are created equal as cited by Haley. At least 30 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves. That's well over half of the signatories and a dozen U.S. presidents owned slaves as well. But slavery wasn't embedded in the U.S. history just through its Founders. It was in its founding documents. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787‚ the Founders included the three-fifths compromise as a clause that found enslaved blacks in any state would be counted as three-fifths the number of white residents. It took 81 years‚ a civil war‚ and the 14th Amendment to change that. Look‚ this isn't some kind of history lesson the 150 years that followed the Civil War laid bare in a visceral way‚ just how much more work was left to do and how much work remains today. So‚ why do these specific comments matter? Because on some level they capture a prevalent and pained effort to balance acknowledgment of clearly documented history while simultaneously not puncturing some sort of myth of infallibility about those who created the country. The most confounding thing about that is that those same men never claimed to have created some kind of perfect union. Far from it. The ability to strive towards that aspiration‚ even amid clear failings‚ that hardly seems to be an indictment. In fact‚ that seems to be what the country's all about. Poppy. … 7:09 AM ET MATTINGLY: I think you make an interesting point and this is why I've been a little stuck on how this keeps becoming a little bit of an issue for her. You can acknowledge what happened in the past and not undercut the founding -- either the founding fathers‚ the ideals of the country‚ the continuous evolution‚ trying to become a more perfect union‚ and yet it seems-- people seem to get stuck on it. Like you're not trying to offend people if you're saying Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. RICH LOWRY: Of course. And she said last night‚ we've overcome things. MATTINGLY: Yeah. Yeah. No‚ question. LOWRY: Obviously. No one really denies that. So‚ look‚ she got in a space where the slavery thing was a flat out gaffe and there's just no way to explain how she couldn't have a decent answer to that‚ but I think for a well-intentioned person‚ it's clear what she means what she's saying now. CARI CHAMPION: Well‚ intentions don't -- they don't work for me. You know what I mean? It's just insulting‚ quite frankly. You cannot run for -- to be the president of the United States of America and not acknowledge its history clearly‚ plainly‚ concretely. Two things can be true. This could have -- yes‚ the precepts of this country that were racist. Do you think it's better today? Great‚ Nikki‚ that's fine. I'm with that. It makes perfect sense. But you can't create your own way of describing this because she's leaving out the entire group. LOWRY: Precepts‚ like all men are created equal‚ is racist? It wasn't racist. Now they made an accommodation to a fact on the ground that they assumed would go away. CHAMPION: All men were not created equal‚ and you know that. LOWRY: No‚ all men are created equal. CHAMPION: No‚ no‚ that's not true. LOWRY: Yes‚ they are. CHAMPION: The Constitution‚ literally -- and you laid this out perfectly‚ Phil‚ earlier‚ the Constitution was very clear that there was a three-fifths clause for people who were not free. So how are we all created equal? The idea‚ sure. I love this idea‚ but they weren't referring to my ancestors—they weren’t referring to my ancestors. LOWRY: And the idea was extremely powerful and has done more to define American history than the racism. And look‚ they assumed‚ they were wrong‚ that slavery would go away. So‚ they weren't going to mention it in the Constitution and hope eventually progress would erode it. And in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution‚ race relations got better. You know‚ the north -- you had many missions‚ statues in the north. What happened‚ there was terrible backsliding in the South eventually in the 19th century. And then we have a terrible Civil War over it. CHAMPION: Yeah‚ we're going to have to agree to disagree because our experience are different‚ right? My experience is very different. So‚ all I was saying‚ what Nikki needs to do is be very honest. Yes‚ the slavery question was a complete gaffe. They're not even hard‚ but she wasn't even asked if this country was racist. She was asked‚ I do believe by the reporter‚ the anchor‚ are there racist people in your party? And she was like‚ this is not a racist country. No one even asked her. HARLOW: Are you in a -- I don't have the exact quote‚ but what Brian was asking her was essentially‚ is this a racist party? Are you part of a racist party? Right‚ Phil? CHAMPION: And she said this is not a racist country. No one asked her that. So‚ I'm really curious as to why she – LOWRY: Maybe she believes that. CHAMPION: I have a hard time understanding why someone would not acknowledge the two truths. She could believe that. That's fine. LOWRY: This is not a fundamentally racist country. Why did Indian immigrants come here and thrive? Why did black immigrants come here and thrive‚ Asian immigrants come here and thrive? CHAMPION: This is absolutely a fundamentalist racist country. We don't all thrive. We are not created equal. We are not the same. LOWRY: We are created equal. That is the fundamental truth. You deny that people are equal? CHAMPION: Physically‚ sure‚ we can walk and we can move and we can say and we can do. But the world in which I live in is not going to be the same world that you live in. The way that I experience America is not going to be the way that you experience. LOWRY: You're created equal. You're all equal. You deny that? CHAMPION: Yes‚ that's not what I'm talking about. LOWRY: But you said repeatedly not all of it. CHAMPION: There's nuance here. So‚ if you would allow me to finish‚ I can tell you. The truth is‚ is that my experience is going to be different than your experience. And as a black woman in this country‚ I can tell you I have not been created equal‚ I haven’t been treated equal‚ rather in very many instances. Nikki can believe what you want. LOWRY: She said the same thing. CHAMPION: One second. Nikki can believe what she wants‚ but she can't turn around and say that's just what we're going to do for our children. If I say this is a racist country‚ my children will grow up feeling inferior. That's not true. LOWRY: She said she experienced racism and you shouldn't -- the country's not defined by that‚ people shouldn't be defined by that and you can overcome it. That seems an uplifting message‚ a fundamentally American message to me. CHAMPION: It seems like it's a message of erasure‚ for me. MATTINGLY: It's just – LOWRY: Of what? Erasure? CHAMPION: For me. MATTINGLY: I think what's most -- there's a lot to dig into on this and we will continue to do so but the fact that this became a central issue on some level because of her doing‚ and I don't know that this helps move the ball forward for her politically right now but it's certainly a discussion that's always worth having.

World Economic Forum Chairman Klaus Schwab envisioned a future without elections‚ predicting that voting will no longer be needed as artificial intelligence will be able to predict who voters would want in power.Schwab spoke to Google co-founder Sergey Brin on stage at the WEF gathering and discussed the predicting powers of AI technology."Digital technologies mainly have an analytical power; now we go into a predictive power‚ and we have seen the first examples‚ and your company very much evolved into it‚" he told the Google founder. "The next step could be to go into a prescriptive mode‚ which means you do not even have to have elections any more because you can already predict."Next‚ with the audience eerily silent‚ Schwab then asked if elections would even be necessary given that the outcomes would already be predicted."Afterwards you can say 'why do we need elections?' because we know what the result will be." \xf0\x9f\x9a\xa8 Klaus Schwab says we don\xe2\x80\x99t need to have elections because AI can predict what the results will be — (@) Brin then pontificated about eliminating world leaders — replaced by an AI decision-making apparatus — and praised Schwab for his "profound" thoughts.Schwab later explained that a "crucial issue" that needs to be tackled would be how humanity is viewed."We need new concepts to define what humanity is and what's the purpose of our lives is‚" Schwab asked‚ referring to the automation of agriculture and daily tasks. The WEF chairman predicted most menial tasks would become a job for AI.Despite his suggestions in the unearthed video‚ the globalist organization called AI-powered misinformation one of the primary threats to the global economy.According to the WEF's "Global Risks Report 2024‚" misinformation and disinformation were defined as "persistent false information (deliberate or otherwise) widely spread through media networks‚ shifting public opinion in a significant way towards distrust in facts and authority."While they acknowledged that the crackdown by authorities on so-called misinformation‚ particularly the AI-generated kind‚ poses a risk of "repression and erosion of rights‚" the WEF suggested that there is also "a risk that some governments will act too slowly‚ facing a trade-off between preventing misinformation and protecting free speech."The WEF report also claimed that "known and newly emerging risks need preparation and mitigation. ... Localized strategies‚ breakthrough endeavours‚ collective actions and cross-border coordination all play a part in addressing these risks."The group seemingly admitted in their conclusion that "leveraging investment and regulation" are "critical" tools for reducing the impact of "global risks‚" which of course include "disinformation" and climate-related issues.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A network backed by the National Education Association‚ the country's largest teachers' union‚ plans to run an anti-school-choice campaign‚ claiming that voucher programs are "deeply rooted" in racism‚ the Daily Caller News Foundation reported Friday.According to school choice advocate Corey DeAngelis‚ Partnership for the Future of Learning‚ a "network of 700 education and social justice field leaders from 300+ organizations and 20 foundations‚" sent an "embargoed toolkit" set for the campaign's release on January 22. The network's website lists the NEA and the NEA Foundation as some of its "funders." The network is "housed and supported by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors‚" its website states. SCOOP: A group backed by the nation's largest teachers union is launching a campaign against school choice on Monday‚ during National School Choice Week.\n\nThey sent out an embargoed toolkit with messaging and their main tactic is... wait for it... to call school choice racist \xf0\x9f\xa4\xa3 — (@) The release of the new campaign coincides with National School Choice Week.DeAngelis reported that the network's "Truth in Education Funding" tool kit's main messaging tactic is "to call school choice racist." The tool kit reportedly claims that school choice voucher programs are increasingly being adopted nationwide "despite overwhelming evidence that they are harmful public policy.""In recent years‚ there has been a concerted effort to dismantle public education as a critical foundation of democracy‚ whether through legislation that harms LGBTQIA+ communities at school or banning inclusive books and curricula‚" the network's tool kit states. "This effort is inextricably linked to the push for private voucher programs.""Private school vouchers are historically rooted in segregation‚ discrimination and racism‚" it adds. The tool kit purports to be a "guide to understanding vouchers and supporting public education."The network claims that the public education system is "equitable‚" "effective and inclusive" compared to "harmful" voucher programs‚ which allow parents' tax dollars to follow their children to the school they believe will serve their education best.The Truth in Education Funding website argues that voucher programs are "rooted in segregation" because they "were first introduced during the Civil Rights era when efforts to desegregate schools were at a peak.""At that time‚ publicly funded scholarships to attend private schools were intended for white families to escape state desegregation efforts. While current pro-voucher advocates don't put segregationist intentions on display‚ research shows that voucher programs increase racial isolation and offer no educational benefits‚" it continues. However‚ considering today's school choice programs allow for all students‚ regardless of race or economic status‚ to attend and fund the school of their preference‚ the network's and the teachers' union's grievance with the programs is much more likely the fact that they can remove funds from underachieving public school systems. Voucher programs pressure public schools to boost their performance or risk losing their students — and thereby‚ the taxpayer dollars that follow those students — to better-performing school systems."Voucher programs pose a significant threat to the fiscal health of state budgets and to funding for public schools‚ which is often inadequate. Yet state legislatures are pouring more and more public funding into voucher programs‚ all while misrepresenting their fiscal impact‚" the website claimed.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The oceans are healing. Long contaminated by far-right ideology‚ whiteness‚ and colonialism‚ the water is finally being purified. “Ocean equity and justice” are emerging scientific themes in exciting new forms of BIPOC and LQBTQIA+ scholarship. With courage‚ we can develop a transgender indigenous hydrology. Here‚ take a moment to examine a chart from a recent peer-reviewed article that shows how we’re making progress and what work we have left to do to reorient the field of ocean science. As the pandemic taught us‚ it’s important to obey science without question‚ and by the most remarkable coincidence‚ science is a distinctly left-facing field of human ambition that aligns neatly with the coordinated power of governments and their client corporations. David Burge taught us to identify this maneuver: 1. Identify a respected institution. 2. kill it. 3. gut it. 4. wear its carcass as a skin suit‚ while demanding respect. Science is you have to do what I say because I own a lab coat. Science is leftist politics‚ and you can't argue with highly credentialed experts. An American Lysenkoism is rising‚ and you probably have no idea how advanced that ideological disease has become. Physics‚ for example‚ is now a discourse of social justice‚ with a deep and wide menu of culturally correct answers. Gravity is‚ like‚ a variety of things that depend on your gender and ethnic starting points. The National Science Foundation is pouring cash into left-facing science with a metastasizing list of DEI funding programs. Here’s a list of articles you can browse on the new pedagogy in physical science‚ organized around two questions: “1. What does it mean to think beyond just physics‚ specifically‚ to think about physics and physics education in the context of the social and political realities of the world? 2. What constitutes just physics‚ i.e.‚ what does physics for justice look like?” Objects at rest or in motion remain at rest or in motion unless acted upon by white supremacy. We were blind to the social realities of physics for a long time‚ but we know that now. Or here's some of the abstract from recent research in the important field of environmental science: Grounded in Kaupapa Māori Theory‚ PÅ«taiao is envisioned as a Kaupapa Māori way of doing science in which Indigenous leadership is imperative. It incorporates Māori ways of knowing‚ being‚ and doing when undertaking scientific research. An essential element of PÅ«taiao is setting a decolonising agenda‚ drawing from both Kaupapa Māori Theory and Indigenous methodologies. Accordingly‚ this centres the epistemology‚ ontology‚ axiology and positionality of researchers in all research‚ which informs their research standpoint. If you haven't been centering the axiology of indigenous researchers in the study of physical environments‚ it's time to get with the program. And so on‚ and so on‚ and so on. Are you decolonizing your paleobiology? Are you practicing a feminist glaciology? Have you considered a model of multivariate animal sex that allows for gender fluidity among potentially intersex giraffes and trans gazelles‚ or are you still using a cisnormative colonialist gender language that assumes the sexual identity of our friend the badger without even opening a space for inquiry? Predictably‚ the federal government is leading the way into this brave new science. Politics is making science into politics. The National Science Foundation is pouring cash into left-facing science with a metastasizing list of DEI funding programs. Browse that long list yourself‚ and you’ll find science funding programs like “BIO-LEAPS: Leading Culture Change Through Professional Societies of Biology”: NSF BIO will support awards that leverage the work of professional societies towards facilitating necessary culture change in the biological sciences to advance diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion at scale — In other words‚ at the broad and deep scales that are required to address this systemic issue. Politicized science funding turns out — brace yourself for a surprise — to promote political outcomes. The NSF’s Convergence Accelerator program‚ for example‚ has funded a bunch of data scientists who have worked on finding ways to defeat conspiracy theories and restore trust in authority. Science says to stop voting for Trump‚ you troglodytes! If you click on the link to that program page‚ look at the 2021 cohort of federally funded research projects — like the team that “assists online communities with building trust around controversial topics such as vaccine efficacy” or the team that “enables community‚ fact-checking‚ and academic organizations to collaborate and respond effectively to emerging misinformation narratives that stoke social conflict and distrust‚” or the team that “empowers journalists to identify misinformation networks‚ correct misinformation within the affected networks‚ and test the effectiveness of corrections.” No politics there‚ right? Just pure federally funded science‚ helping society to stop asking questions and learn to obey. We’re building a discourse of obedience based on the supposedly disinterested approach we see in scientific inquiry. But the new science has a steering wheel‚ and politics is in the driver’s seat. Trust the experts and believe in science. Don't worry about the details.

Cori Broadus‚ the daughter of rapper Snoop Dogg‚ was rushed to the hospital this week after suffering a "severe" stroke. She is just 24 years old.On Thursday‚ Broadus posted a photo to her Instagram story showing herself lying in a hospital bed. She then revealed to her more than 650‚000 followers that she had just suffered a stroke."I had a severe stroke this a.m. I started breaking down crying when they told me‚" she wrote. "Like I'm only 24; what did I do in my past to deserve all of this." — (@) Broadus did not share any additional information about the concerning incident‚ including what type of stroke she suffered or what may have caused the stroke.The prevalence of strokes in people Broadus' age is not exactly known. Data suggests that approximately 15% of strokes occur in people under age 50‚ but unfortunately‚ the data isn't stratified to show the prevalence of strokes in people ages 18-25‚ for example. Still‚ one can assume that strokes are rare in young adults like Broadus because the risk factors for stroke have a compounding effect on the body. This‚ of course‚ is why it is alarming that a 24-year-old like Broadus would experience a "severe" stroke.On the other hand‚ Broadus has been open about her health complications‚ mostly from an autoimmune disease known as Lupus. But she told People magazine last year that she had recently made changes to her lifestyle to improve her health."I've been good‚ better than I've ever been‚" she said. "I stopped taking all of my medication like five months ago. I'm just doing everything natural‚ all types of herbs‚ sea moss‚ teas. I started working out‚ drinking lots of water. So now I think my body's like‚ OK‚ this is the new program and she's getting used to it.""I've had medication since I was 6 years old‚ depending on these drugs all my life. So I wanted better for myself‚" she explained. "I wanted to change because it just became a lot. I'm only 24 years old‚ taking 10 to 12 pills every single day. So I kind of just went cold turkey."Fortunately‚ those changes had paid dividends."My body is not achy‚" Broadus told the magazine. 'When you have lupus‚ that's one of the number one things. You have achy joints‚ you have arthritis. And now I'm like‚ damn‚ I'm not complaining about my knees‚ my feet‚ my hands‚ my back." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!