'Violence and patriarchy'

'An attempt to disguise them as Russian soldiers'

No bashing, brining or seasoning is required

Now this is how you do a college football game

Trump has a 0.8 point lead of 48.3% in seven key battleground states

Donald Trump received the coveted endorsement of Maxim Magazine on Thursday, and … that’s all folks. Someone let Melania know she’s good to send a design team into the White House to start refitting the drapes. It’s a perfect fit: with its HOT 100 list, Maxim is an international men’s magazine known as a purveyor […]

Time—one of the most powerful and mysterious words in the English language. It’s a concept that has captivated artists, poets, and philosophers since, well, the beginning of time. What does it really mean? Can we truly define it? These are questions that have fascinated humanity for ages, fueling some of the greatest works of art across history. Time represents everything we fear, everything we long for, and everything we never quite understand. It’s the invisible force that marks our moments, tracks our memories, and makes us wonder: How long have we been here? How long will we stay? Is there The post 10 Best Rock Songs With The Word ‘Time’ In The Title appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

Not everything significant politically is happening just in the target states.  “Never seen anything like this in 30 years,” said California Republican consultant Mike Madrid in an X post, referencing the sharp increase in Republican registration among California’s minority voters, including the state’s numerous Latinos, growing numbers of Asians, and decreasing number of blacks. This is especially evident among Latinos, as shown by mock elections in the state’s majority-Hispanic public schools, in which former President Donald Trump got 18% of voters in 2020 and 35% so far this year.  These changes are not going to make California go Republican on Nov. 5, but they’re part of a nationwide Republican trend among so-called minorities that may help Trump carry several target states with large percentages of Hispanics (Arizona and Nevada) and blacks (Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, and Pennsylvania).  Definitive confirmation of what has been scattered evidence comes from the latest, very highly rated New York Times/Siena poll, which oversampled Hispanics and blacks. The outlet’s chief political analyst, Nate Cohn, reported last weekend that Trump is trailing Vice President Kamala Harris by 78%-15% among blacks and by only 56%-37% among Hispanics. Trump, Cohn said, “might well return to the White House by faring better among black and Hispanic voters combined than any Republican presidential nominee since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.”  This not only alarms but also puzzles many Democrats. Commenters responded in disbelief to Madrid’s post.  “I cannot think of 1 single thing that Trump has or will do for Latinos,” said Lisa Grande.  “Specifically, why?” asked DebJM. “GOP has no policy that benefits either group. In fact, they stigmatized all those groups mentioned.”  Something similar came from as exalted and successful a political analyst as former President Barack Obama. Speaking in Pittsburgh on Oct. 10, the former president, who won 365 and 332 electoral votes (of 538) in 2008 and 2012, respectively, upbraided black voters, especially men.  “Part of it makes me think, and I’m speaking to men directly,” he said, “that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president.”  Similar to a jazz artist improvising on a theme, Obama continued, “Women in our lives have been getting our backs this entire time. … And now, you’re thinking about sitting out or supporting somebody who has a history of denigrating you because you think that’s a sign of strength because that’s what being a man is? Putting women down? That’s not acceptable.”  It’s not generally considered good persuasion tactics to accuse voters of bigotry and insist they confess error, but Obama seemed to be appealing to a longtime theme in black politics. Any reporter who’s watched a Democratic candidate speak in black churches has heard preachers call for unity. The virtual unanimity of black voters over many years, for Republicans from 1865 to the 1930s, and for Democrats since 1964, is a rational response by voters who are conscious of being part of a discriminated-against minority and who want to maximize their political clout.  That seems natural in a party that historically has always been a coalition of outgroups in a diverse society, minorities who, taken together, can form a national majority. Thus, the commenters on Madrid’s post are puzzled that Hispanics and blacks might vote for a Republican Party that, in their view, offers them no policies addressing their specific plight.  They might be less puzzled if they hit their New York Times app and read Cohn’s analysis. He points out that nearly half of Hispanic and black voters support a southern border wall and deportation of illegal immigrants. About half of minorities, like half of whites, say big-city crime is out of control. Majorities of blacks and Hispanics favor an “America first” foreign policy.  Moreover, under 30% of blacks and Hispanics rate the economy positively, and 61% of Hispanics and 25% of blacks, for whom the economy is the most important concern, favor Trump. As the Democratic Party becomes dominated by left-wing woke progressives and more liberal white college graduates, attitudes rooted in history that had prompted blacks and Hispanics to vote near-unanimously or heavily Democratic have been thrust aside.  Near-majorities of Hispanics and substantial numbers of blacks have become, in the phrase of Ruy Teixeira’s, a liberal patriot writer, “normie voters.” Just as in their daily lives, I suspect, they live similarly to normie Americans. The rigid and often violently imposed regime of segregation and subordination described in anthropologist John Dollard’s 1937 “Caste and Class in a Southern Town” has been long gone, and increasingly, though not completely, black Americans go about working, shopping, and enjoying leisure activities without stigma or disrespect.  As for Hispanics, to whom civil rights protections were applied in the 1970s on the assumption that they would be treated similarly to segregation-era Southern blacks, that assumption was never accurate, and the cessation of Mexican immigration for a decade after the housing and financial crisis of 2007-08 provided time for assimilation.  Let us go back to where this column started: California. I see a historical analogy. Just as the largely midwestern migration there in 1940 to 1965 led to Democratic victories and then, in response to the Watts riot and Berkeley rebellions, the 1966 turn to the conservatism of Ronald Reagan, the largely Mexican migration in 1982 to 2007 led to Democratic victories, and now, in response to the Biden inflation, illegal immigration, and COVID-19 lockdowns, we’re seeing a 2024 movement toward the populism of Trump.  If the Democratic Party has always been a coalition of outgroups, when members of an outgroup start feeling like normies, they may turn to the Republicans, who have always been centered on a core group of people regarded as typical Americans. While this process goes on, we may see the two parties in very close balance.  COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Are Minorities Voting More Like ‘Normies’?  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has announced that the US Supreme Court has sent a case, involving a citizen journalist who was jailed for her reporting, back to a court of appeals. Priscilla Villarreal was represented by FIRE when she asked the Supreme Court to review her case, which the non-profit said has “deep implications” not only for free speech and press, but also for government accountability. We obtained a copy of the Supreme Court decision for you here. Laredo-based Villarreal got in trouble with the local police in 2017, when she asked an officer for details regarding two deadly incidents (what FIRE says was a high-profile suicide and a traffic accident), which the officer did, which she then published on Facebook to her 200,000 followers. But the police reacted by invoking an obscure statute that was not used before, criminalizing Villarreal’s reporting and arresting her – in what she said was a bid to silence her. The citizen journalist then decided to sue the police and prosecutors on grounds of First and Fourth Amendment violations, but the district court found that the officials she named in the suit enjoyed immunity. A United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit panel disagreed, allowing the case to proceed, and noting in the ruling that if the arrest was not “an obvious violation of the Constitution – it’s hard to imagine what would be.” But then, FIRE writes, “the entire Fifth Circuit decided to reconsider the ruling, and in a 9-7 decision, tossed out her lawsuit.” And so the case reached the Supreme Court earlier this year. FIRE acted on Villarreal’s behalf when it filed the request before the country’s top court, and was supported in this with amicus briefs from over 40 individuals and organizations. The Supreme Court ruled in Villarreal’s favor and the case will now once again be considered by the Fifth Circuit. In explaining the decision, the court referred to another of its rulings, that in the Gonzalez v. Trevino case, where the right of Americans to sue government officials “when they retaliate against speakers by selectively enforcing statutes” was affirmed, FIRE notes. Both Villarreal and FIRE welcomed the decision, with the non-profit’s attorney JT Morris emphasizing the importance of the case for “free speech, a free press, and ensuring officials are accountable when they trample the First Amendment.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Supreme Court Revives Citizen Journalist’s Battle for Free Speech appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Musi, a company developing the eponymous YouTube streaming app, is suing Apple because the software that has 66 million users was removed from the App Store. According to the filing submitted to the US District Court of Northern District of California, Apple did this based on an “unsubstantiated third party complaint,” thus violating the contractual agreements it has with Musi. We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here. The proper course of action, the company states in the lawsuit, would have been for Apple to “investigate in good faith,” instead of simply kicking the app from the store. The third-party complaint has to do with suspected infringement of YouTube intellectual property. Musi also claims that all it took for Apple to make the drastic move was YouTube’s complaint consisting of only five words – namely, that its terms of service had been violated. As is YouTube’s habit, no further explanation was attached to the accusation. But, Musi’s lawsuit said, YouTube did go to the trouble of “lying to Apple” when they said Musi failed to respond to the video platform’s attempt to settle the issue before involving Apple. Musi launched in 2016 and claims to have always responded to YouTube, either by answering questions, letting the giant know how the app functions, or making changes to it. For that reason, the complaint insists that Musi was fully complying with YouTube’s ToS. Musi was only available for iPhones and consequently only on the App Store. The app is free while displaying Musi’s own ads is the business model. The content it provides to users is publicly available. Before the YouTube accusation that got it removed from the Apple store, some have questioned whether artists were getting a cut from Musi’s revenues (the company has maintained that they do), and also, if its own interface was used instead of the YouTube API was in line with the terms of service. To that, the answer has been that YouTube videos are not stored, processed, or transmitted by the app and that it works by playing and displaying content “based on the user’s own interactions with YouTube and enhances the user experience via Musi’s proprietary technology.” Given the lack of any explanation from YouTube, it is believed that the reason Musi was reported to Apple lies there, prompting the giant to act “abruptly and arbitrarily.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Music Streaming Giant Slaps Apple With Lawsuit Over Sudden App Store Removal appeared first on Reclaim The Net.