When confronted with the more radical principles of BLM, the rationale was generally they supported the “movement” and not the group. Considering BLM raised over $90 million last year, many certainly supported the group. However, what if the movement was based on a lie?
Read MoreI want to be sympathetic to the casual Candace Owens viewer who loved certain sayings or segments from Owens, perhaps from her earlier days. For people who have watched her content religiously, I’m not certain why they are so hurt or shocked.
Charlie Kirk was a martyr who died for his faith. Was he killed because he spoke about a historical figure named Jesus? No. Was he killed because he claimed Jesus was God, was crucified and died for our sins, then rose again? No. Charlie Kirk was killed because he believed Jesus is Lord, lived his life demonstrating his convictions, and allowed his faith to inform his values and politics.
If only Obama were this vocal about exposing the Russia collusion hoax, started by Hillary Clinton (which he knew), to protect the integrity of the incoming president. But of course, Obama did spy on Trump’s campaign. Obama spied on a lot of Americans during his tenure.
Charlie Kirk’s killer believed he spread hate. If you’ve ever said men can’t become women, marriage is between a man and a woman, it’s wrong to take the lives of babies in the womb, or something along those lines, you’ve likely been accused of spreading “hate.”
We must defend the principle that it’s wrong to steal, and a company should not be destroyed based on internet myths and unverified beliefs. And while it is not shocking that many on the political Left are gleeful about tearing down a big business, it’s disturbing that so many “America First” influencers want to destroy an American company based on lies they’ve spread.
His response to Laura Trump was completely unprofessional for a journalist and was more like political hackery from a Democrat operative. It was more than him being wrong or willfully blind toward Biden’s condition. He was on a mission to smear her as someone who would mock a disability, just as the media and the Hillary Clinton campaign smeared Trump in 2016.
Smith has also said, “Let’s just call ‘collateral damage’ what it is: the international killing of innocent people: murder. Then we can have an honest conversation about supporting a war, with the obvious burden being on the person advocating for it to demonstrate this is absolutely necessary with no conceivable alternatives.”
Alex O’Connor was once asked by a fan why he didn’t talk about Islam and whether it was for personal or safety reasons. “Yeah, well, of course, it is a much less safe thing to do. That is a benefit of Christianity, by the way.”
Many have asked why Musk won’t simply apologize if it was all an honest misunderstanding. And the answer to that is simple: he did nothing wrong. It is not Musk’s responsibility to correct your imagination when his enemies offend you with a blatant smear.
Powered by Squarespace.
The reason why so many people take offense to my slavery analogies is that hindsight grants them moral superiority on the issue of slavery, and they’re offended that I would dare to sully their support of child sacrifice in such a way. The reality is that many of these uppity abortion advocates would have likely supported slavery back in the day. They would have been products of the culture, just like they’re the products of today.