Being a survivalist doesn't mean you only prepare for roughing it in the wild, but also learning lifelong survival skills you can use on your homestead. Read on and find out how survival and homesteading come together in many ways! The Ease Of Being A Survivalist On Your Own Homestead Homesteading by definition means “To claim and settle land as a homestead”. (source) Life has become quite different since the introduction of the Homestead Act of 1862 in which the U.S. federal legislation permitted settlers to occupy a homestead on designated public land in the western states and own it after five years. (source) These brand new settlers would build homes, grow crops, make their own clothes, raise cattle…the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, homesteading is slowly becoming a dying art, especially when it comes to large homesteads. For example, in my area of North Texas, family farms and other pieces of beautiful land are being purchased to make room for new housing subdivisions and retail stores. Large fields of corn, for example, are now stripped with a sign by the road that is pretty hard to miss. The signs usually read “(BUSINESS) COMING SOON”. It truly makes my heart sink every time I see one of those signs! The Survivalist Way As fellow survivalists, we look for ways to be and stay prepared. It’s our way of life. When disaster strikes, we are packed and ready to go at a moment’s notice. Our bug-out bags stay packed and ready to grab at all times. We have extra supplies such as water and blankets. We have fully stocked first aid kits in our homes, our vehicles, and our workplaces. We even have an emergency plan down to the very last detail in the case of any possible disaster. Did I forget anything? You may be thinking “Sounds like you covered everything!” Homesteading As Part Of Survivalism…My Thoughts I didn’t always have homesteading as part of my “survivalist mentality” but, as time goes by and the world continues to change daily, I realize that homesteading is just as important as everything else that we, as survivalists, do to be and stay prepared. As survivalists, when we think of disaster, we think of a possible evacuation from our homes. In a lot of cases that is, unfortunately, the case. But, what if you were unable to evacuate your home in the midst of a disaster (for whatever reason) and you had to live off your own land? What if you had no access to the local grocery store to buy food and water, no access to the local gas station to put gas in your vehicle, no access to your local Wal-mart for needed supplies, no access to roads…..you have access to nothing outside of your home! Would you be able to survive long term without access outside of your own property? The Reality Of It All Now, I’m not usually one to purposely try to instill fear into anyone but, the reality is that our world is in chaos. There is no denying that. I see tragic events unfold daily on the news. It has made me realize that ANYTHING can happen at any given moment. If you’re like me, it leaves you with a feeling of uncertainty and a series of “what ifs”. For me, homesteading as a survival tool became an answer to one of my most recent “what if” moments…”What if I’m bound to my own home? Could I survive long-term?”. Like so many other survivalists out there, my honest answer as of right now is no, I don’t think I could. I am prepared for a short-term evacuation. BUT, I’m going to be straight with you  – I am not fully prepared for a situation where I possibly become bound to my own home for a long period of time. I think it’s safe to say that this goes for a lot of fellow survivalists out there. My opinion is that homesteading and survivalism go hand in hand. It’s all about self-reliance and self-sufficiency! It’s all about surviving!   Having thoughts of being self-sufficient nowadays? Watch this video to find out the reasons why! In the next few months, I will be writing a series of articles on homesteading and it’s connection to basic and long-term survival. I will be (at times) learning alongside you, the reader. I will share every bit of my extensive research and my own personal knowledge as I go. I will also speak with homesteaders across the nation to bring their personal experiences to you as well. There is always something we can learn from each other. In this field, in these crucial times where anything can happen…knowledge of survivalism on any level from anyone willing to be the teacher or student is so very valuable. Like I always say, “Having the knowledge and skill before you actually need it is how one survives.” Do you consider yourself a survivalist who enjoys homesteading too? Please leave your tips and experiences in the comment section below. Give a jump start on modern day homesteading- urban style and be guided with these 10 simple tips every urban homesteader needs to see! Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and Facebook!

Apostrophe Gate: Turns Out the White House Is Almost as Good at Furtive Favorable Edits as CBS

Martin Luther King's Niece Blasts Mark Cuban, Endorses Trump

Hugh Hewitt Was Right to Walk Out on Capehart and Marcus

Sit back, relax, and let’s Break It Down in episode 38...

"It was a cacophony of hell."

YouTube, the Google-owned video streaming platform, rebuffed pressure from The New York Times and The Washington Post to silence some prominent right-leaning and free-speech voices just days before the 2024 presidential election. On Thursday, The Times and The Post published separate reports accusing several podcast hosts, news anchors and legal scholars of spreading so-called election-related misinformation on platforms such as YouTube. But, to the detriment of the left, a YouTube spokesperson affirmed that the platform would not censor the videos, claiming it values a range of opinions. “The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is an important value — especially in the midst of election season,” YouTube told both The Times and The Post, shocking many as the platform has had a reputation for censoring speech that the left disagrees with. Not deserving of being called a free speech bastion by any means, the platform still removed three of the videos targeted and temporarily slapped an informational banner on 21 of them, most of which were later removed, according to The Times.  While YouTube's refusal to fully cave to censorship pressure from The Times and The Post is a welcome sign, it doesn't excuse the platform's ongoing censorship. Data from MRC Free Speech America’s exclusive CensorTrack shows that YouTube has censored speech no fewer than 534 times, and that’s just scratching the surface. YouTube’s response came after the targeted individuals blasted The Times for reaching out to them for comments to be featured on the infamous report, which exclusively relied on data from a discredited, radical leftist group. The Post did not use the discredited leftist group for its report. The information that The Times and The Post relied upon singled out 286 videos across 30 channels, featuring some of the biggest and most influential hosts like Tucker Carlson, Benny Johnson, Tim Pool and Donald Trump Jr., Fox News hosts Greg Gutfeld, Jesse Watters and Mark Levin and The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles. YouTube said it reviewed eight of the 286 videos and that they did not run afoul of the company’s community guidelines. Legal voices were also targeted, including Tom Fitton, Stephen Miller, Mike Davis, Harmeet Dhillon, Kash Patel and Kimberly Guilfoyle, among others. Many of these figures rebuked The Times for blindly echoing the radical anti-free speech talking points it was fed, with Shapiro taking the lead. Shapiro accused The Times of relying on a “radical Left-wing organization whose sole purpose is destroying conservative media … in order to pressure YouTube to demonetize and penalize any and all conservatives ONE WEEK FROM THE ELECTION.” In a separate report, The Post accused Shapiro, Johnson, and podcasters Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk of “preemptively casting doubt on the integrity of the 2024 election.” Similar to The Times, The Post also contacted YouTube and other podcast platforms, requesting comments about the videos it deemed misinformation. However, YouTube similarly dismissed their request, reiterating to The Post the same statement it had provided to The Times. YouTube’s subdued approach to censorship came after the Media Research Center and members of the MRC-led Free Speech Alliance warned Big Tech giants against interfering in the presidential election by censoring online speech. “We know that governments across the world are pressuring tech firms to interfere in the 2024 elections just as so many of you did in 2020,” FSA members wrote in August 2024. “Now is the time for you to affirm that you will not bow to this coercion and to reaffirm your commitment to providing fair and even-handed service to your customers.” Several prominent free speech leaders signed the letter, including MRC Founder and President Brent Bozell and Article III Project President Mike Davis, the latter of whom was also targeted in The Times’s one-sided report. Other members of the Free Speech Alliance that were targeted were The Claremont Institute, through its senior fellow Jeremy Carl; The Heritage Foundation, through its senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky; and Human Events, through its senior editor Jack Posobiec. Former President Donald Trump has also weighed in, warning Google that any interference in the upcoming November election would come with dire consequences if he is elected president. His admonishment came after MRC released several bombshell studies showing that Google Search users had to wade through a bevy of leftist media outlet content before finding the Trump campaign’s website. "It has been determined that Google has illegally used a system of only revealing and displaying bad stories about Donald J. Trump, some made up for this purpose while, at the same time, only revealing good stories about Comrade Kamala Harris,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in September. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) grilled Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai for allegedly corrupting his YouTube platform to censor former President Donald Trump’s Oct. 25 appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience.  Jordan condemned YouTube for its role in censoring the episode which has accumulated over 42 million views as of Friday. In a Wednesday letter, Jordan called for prompt answers from Alphabet: "We write to seek an immediate briefing on (1) YouTube’s decision to censor Joe Rogan’s interview with President Trump; and (2) Google Search’s elevation of material critical of the interview." Jordan’s requests came after the New York Post reported on Monday that a “search on YouTube using the terms ‘Joe Rogan Trump’ or ‘Joe Rogan Donald Trump’ did not bring up Friday’s three-hour sit-down at the top of the list.” The Post also noted that the interview was absent from YouTube’s trending page on Monday. Among the first to call out Google for censoring the podcast was Alexandros Marinos, an X user boasting over 61k followers. Marinos used a screen-recorded video to expose YouTube's apparent censorship, garnering over 16.5 million views on X. YouTube does not return the link to the full Joe Rogan/Trump interview no matter how I try to search for it. There is no sensible explanation for this, and if deliberate, Google is overtly interfering with the elections.@YouTube this needs fixed immediately. pic.twitter.com/4xt0V9V1EF — Alexandros Marinos ?‍☠️ (@alexandrosM) October 28, 2024 Instead of the full episode popping up in the search results, researchers found YouTube featured small clips of the nearly three-hour-long episode. Can Google make it any more obvious that they were trying to censor Rogan’s most-viewed episode of the year?  Rogan himself commented Wednesday, “There's no way it was a mistake, that's too convenient." Rogan even went so far as to say, “This is the internet. This is 2024. People are going to realize what you're doing if you try to make it so that something can't come up in a search engine because it's too popular.” Jordan continued by saying that he found the instance very troubling, especially in the few days prior to an election where free speech needs to be observed. In the letter, he scolded Alphabet saying that "Americans deserve access to political speech, especially in the closing weeks before an election." To cap off the letter, Jordan threatened Alphabet with a measurable amount of oversight on the situation if not briefed by Nov. 13—just a week after Election Day.  With just under a week to go before Election Day, it is apparent that lawmakers like Jordan are keen on ensuring that YouTube does not censor for the purpose of election interference. After all, election interference by Alphabet’s Google has become a commonality in the past few election cycles as noted in the Media Research Center’s “41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand government agencies and Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

It is odd that a website that fancies itself as a fact-checking organization would believe that if you repeat a falsehood enough times it eventually becomes true, but that is what PolitiFact is doing with Democrats and transgender sports. In a Thursday article, PolitiFact defended Montana Sen. Jon Tester’s vote that failed to protect the competitive integrity of women’s sports by claiming such attacks are false. Tester is the third Democratic senator PolitiFact has defended on the issue since October 10 after Ohio’s Sherrod Brown and Nevada’s Jacky Rosen. For the third time, PolitiFact ignored how conservatives view Title IX’s role in this issue, as Louis Jacobson wrote, "The amendments Tester voted on would have stripped federal funding from schools and colleges that allowed transgender girls and women to compete in sports matching their gender identity. They did not dictate athletic eligibility. Federal law rarely dictates who is eligible for specific sports.” Jacobson then cites a Tester campaign statement, ‘“As a former public school teacher and school board member, Jon Tester believes these decisions should be made at the local level,’ the Tester campaign said in a statement to PolitiFact. ‘He has never voted to allow men to compete against women.’” Eventually getting to Title IX, Jacobson added, “Some federal laws, such as Title IX, prohibit sex-based discrimination for programs receiving federal funding, which includes nearly all public schools, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. President Joe Biden unveiled new rules in April that cover gender identity under Title IX, though the rules did not specifically address transgender athletes in sports.” Yes, and Tester’s inability to criticize those rules is fair game for the Senate GOP's Senate Leadership Fund. Again, for the third time, PolitiFact tried to argue that it is unfair to condemn the Democrat because the vote was on amendments to a larger spending bill: Both Democratic and Republican senators have introduced amendments structured to force members of the other party to support or oppose policies that could be controversial with constituents. Senators in the majority, as Tester was during both votes, need to plow through these amendments to get the larger bill passed. Sometimes, this means voting for something that could be used by a future opponent. Otherwise, a bill already passed by the House would have to be sent back to the House to resolve differences, an impractical course given funding deadlines. As the Tester campaign’s earlier statement makes clear, Tester would not have voted for a standalone bill to protect women’s sports. The Senate Leadership Fund clearly believes liberal culture war craziness is a winning issue for them. They have the added benefit of being correct in their attacks on Democratic incumbents, but PolitiFact insists on defending them. Unfortunately for PolitiFact, in certain sports, as in fact-checking, it is three strikes and you’re out.

The liberal papers and TV networks are not rushing to cover Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against CBS for its dishonest clip job of their Kamala Harris interview on 60 Minutes. They most likely consider it a stunt like riding in a garbage truck, as Trump trying to refocus attention on CBS sketchily refusing to release a full transcript. In his “Reliable Sources” newsletter on Friday, Brian Stelter noted (without mentioning CBS) that Harris did a "pull-aside" interview with NBC's Yamiche Alcindor, seen above. "NBC immediately posted the full transcript." Why can't CBS do the same?  But Stelter covered Trump's suit as a First Amendment threat: "1A experts trash Trump's CBS suit."  Last night, Trumpworld gave an exclusive to Fox about Trump's lawsuit against CBS alleging "deceptive doctoring" of last month's "60 Minutes" interview with Harris. The suit asserts $10 billion in damages and attempts to apply a Texas statute "that is meant to prevent advertisers from misleading the public about a product being sold," CBS's own story notes. The suit was immediately ridiculed by numerous First Amendment experts. "It's ridiculous junk and should be mocked," Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law at Harvard Law School, told CNN's Jon Passantino. "This is a frivolous and dangerous attempt by a politician to control the news media," First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin of Ballard Spahr added. "The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear: the First Amendment leaves it to journalists – and not the courts, the government, or candidates for office – to decide how to report the news." Read Passantino and Rashard Rose's full story here... It's pretty easy to notice that Stelter's cited experts are lefties. Rebecca Tushnet is an active Democrat donor, who gave $1,500 to Joe Biden in 2020 and $1,033 to Kamala Harris in 2024. It's also funny that she's the "Frank Stanton Professor" at Harvard, since Stanton was the president of CBS from 1946 to 1971. Leftists consider Stanton a legend for....refusing to provide copies of outtakes and scripts to the House Commerce Committee from the CBS documentary The Selling of the Pentagon in 1971. CBS has a habit of not letting the public (and those right-wingers) see how they make their spicy, tilted sausage.  Charles Tobin (or "Chuck Tobin") of Ballard Spahr was very happy to side with Disney as it attempted to sue Gov. Ron DeSantis for what Tobin called his "year-long campaign to punish Disney for speaking out against state policies that target the LGBTQIA+ community." You can see why CNN picked these people.  Stelter concluded with CBS still claiming their Harris interview "was not doctored," but it won't release the transcript. A spokesperson said Trump's lawsuit "is completely without merit and we will vigorously defend against it."