We had to see this for ourselves! Los Angeles Dodgers hosted a Christian faith event at the ballpark…
See how the night went:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
At the age of 43, Ivanka Trump has distilled her experiences into 17 life lessons—principles that are both timeless and profoundly practical. Here, we explore each lesson through anecdotes, real-world data, and quotes that deepen their meaning, allowing us to glimpse the wisdom she has accrued and how it can guide us in our own lives.
1. Family and Friends Are Everything
Nourish these relationships, check in on them, and let people know you care, even across distances. As relationship expert Esther Perel says, “The quality of your relationships determines the quality of your life.” A Harvard study on adult development—which spanned over 80 years—concluded that the happiest people are those who have strong connections with family and friends. Ivanka’s message aligns with this wisdom: investing time in loved ones isn’t just a virtue, it’s also a key to long-term happiness.
2. Forgive People—It Frees You More Than Anyone Else
Forgiveness can be seen as a self-liberating act. When Nelson Mandela walked free from prison, he remarked, “As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn’t leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison.” Holding onto grudges binds us emotionally, but forgiveness offers the release that enriches our own lives more than anyone else’s.
3. Everyone Was Sent to Teach You Something
People come into our lives as mirrors, reflecting our own lessons. Psychologist Carl Rogers’ work in humanistic psychology encourages us to learn from every interaction, embracing even those who challenge us as teachers. Ivanka’s notion of “learning from everyone” helps us grow by interpreting every experience—good or bad—as a means of personal evolution.
4. Avoid Lashon Hara / Gossip
The Jewish concept of “Lashon Hara” means refraining from harmful speech. Using words that heal rather than harm contributes to a more meaningful existence. This aligns with Brene Brown’s research, which shows that gossip fosters distrust and insecurity within social groups, whereas compassionate communication builds connection and trust.
5. Trust Yourself
Self-trust means living in alignment with your core values, sometimes setting difficult boundaries. Oprah Winfrey once said, “You don’t become what you want, you become what you believe.” Trusting yourself involves discerning your needs and beliefs, then allowing those values to shape your actions.
6. Nourish Your Body
Ivanka highlights the importance of nourishing your body with whole, locally grown food—but also advises allowing yourself indulgence. Studies have shown that balanced eating, without excessive restriction, contributes to better mental health. As Julia Child said, “Everything in moderation, including moderation.”
7. Get Sunshine Daily
Studies show that spending even 15-30 minutes outside every day reduces stress and boosts serotonin levels. Countries like Denmark, known for their happiness rankings, encourage their citizens to embrace “friluftsliv”—open-air living—a reminder of the simple yet profound benefits of getting some sunlight.
8. Make the Unconscious Conscious
Carl Jung’s idea of making the unconscious conscious speaks to our capacity for self-awareness. Our unconscious tendencies—often informed by early life experiences—can dictate behavior if left unchecked. Journaling, therapy, or meditation are ways to bring hidden patterns into the light and reclaim control of our narratives.
9. Strong Body, Strong Mind
Exercise is linked to cognitive resilience. According to Harvard Medical School, regular physical activity improves memory and thinking skills. Ivanka emphasizes sports and play as ways to keep both the body and mind agile, which is reflected in research showing the positive impact of movement on mental well-being.
10. Strive for Three Daily Wins
Naval Ravikant speaks of “a calm mind, a fit body, and a house full of love.” This can be framed as striving for three daily wins—one physical, one mental, and one spiritual. By setting these as goals, Ivanka reminds us to nurture all aspects of life, focusing not only on achievements but on a balanced, fulfilling existence.
11. Cultivate Self-Mastery
Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Stoic, taught that we have control over our responses, not the world around us. Ivanka draws on this to emphasize the power of inward focus. Self-mastery doesn’t mean suppressing emotions; it means recognizing them and choosing how to respond, gaining true strength over the self.
12. Guard Your Peace
“Anyone capable of angering you becomes your master,” said Epictetus. By emphasizing the importance of protecting one’s peace, Ivanka points us toward emotional resilience—the ability to remain unshaken by external negativity. This is crucial in a hyper-connected age where our boundaries are constantly tested by the barrage of information and opinions online.
13. Be Open to the Truth, Wherever It Leads
True growth requires being open to new ideas, even when they challenge your preconceived beliefs. This echoes the spirit of Socratic questioning—asking questions to discover deeper truths. Ivanka encourages listening and curiosity as ways to expand not only intellectually, but spiritually.
14. Get Curious
Curiosity is the antidote to stagnation. Studies have shown that curiosity is linked to greater life satisfaction and even longevity. Whether it’s a partner, a child, or the broader world, asking questions and seeking understanding keep our connections fresh and enrich our perspective.
15. Approach Life with Love and Positivity
Dolly Parton famously said, “I don’t criticize and condemn; I love and accept.” This perspective not only enriches our relationships but our own sense of fulfillment. Research by psychologist Barbara Fredrickson suggests that positive emotions broaden our ability to think and build personal resources, from resilience to social bonds.
16. The Price of Anything Is the Amount of Life You Exchange for It
Henry David Thoreau reminds us that time is our most precious commodity. Ivanka’s message here is to make conscious choices about where we invest our energy. The idea is reminiscent of Tim Ferriss’ “4-Hour Workweek”—focus on what truly matters and eliminate distractions to maximize what is meaningful in life.
17. Thinking Is Difficult; That’s Why Most People Judge
Carl Jung’s insight on judgment speaks to a profound truth: judgment often replaces curiosity. Ivanka urges us to choose the harder path of understanding over the easier path of dismissal. By doing so, we expand our empathy, connecting more deeply with others and enriching our perspective on the human condition.
Ivanka Trump’s 17 lessons offer a guide to living deliberately, with awareness and compassion. Whether through forgiving others, guarding our peace, or spending time in the sunshine, these insights reflect a philosophy grounded in growth, connection, and well-being. They remind us that while life’s circumstances are often beyond our control, the way we choose to engage with them is where our true power lies.
If you enjoy my work, please subscribe https://x.com/amuse/creator-subscriptions/subscribe.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.
Twitter CEO Elon Musk has reinstated former President Donald Trump’s access to his infamous Twitter account which was notoriously blocked following the Jan. 6th Capitol riot.
While the former President has yet to make his re-entrance to the Twitter sphere, instead opting for his own TRUTH Social platform, the idea is enough to make liberals’ blood boil over.
Watch Amanda break down the situation below.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch reports they filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy for “records about the retroactive termination of former President Donald Trump’s security clearance and/or access to classified information.”
Judicial Watch reports the lawsuit “cites Trump’s January 12, 2024, motion to compel discovery in his criminal prosecution in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in which the former president asserts that DOE attempted to terminate his security clearance retroactively after his June 2023 indictment by Special Counsel Jack Smith.”
“It looks like the Department of Energy is trying to manufacture a criminal case,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “What are they hiding?”
Judicial Watch reports the lawsuit “points to the February 2024 response to Trump’s January 2024 motion in which Smith acknowledges the existence of a June 2023 memorandum prepared by an Energy Department official regarding the security clearance.”
“The Special Counsel’s office describes the memorandum’s contents and asserts that it had produced the record to Trump,” Judicial Watch reports. “Smith also acknowledges requesting and receiving additional ‘responsive’ records from DOE, including ‘approximately 30 pages of records and eight emails.’ Smith asserts that he was ‘now producing’ the 30 pages to Trump and withholding the eight emails.”
“Trump’s lawyers suggest in the January 2024 motion to compel discovery that Trump had a high-level security clearance as recently as 2023,” Judicial Watch notes.
“Lawyers for Trump say a government document from June 2023 still listed him with a “Q” clearance from the DOE. The document was dated a few weeks after prosecutors indicted Trump in the classified documents case,” Judicial Watch reports. “A ‘Q’ clearance refers to a type of security clearance handled by the Department of Energy, which holds classified information focused largely on nuclear secrets.”
Judicial Watch reports it “filed the lawsuit after the Energy Department failed to comply with a January 18, 2024, FOIA request for its records and communications concerning retroactively terminating Trump’s security clearance and/or access to classified information.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A top legal watchdog is going to federal court to uncover documents on a major breach of President Donald Trump’s security.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement that “it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records related to an August 31, 2025, incident in which a club member allegedly carried a loaded semi-automatic handgun past Secret Service screening checkpoints at Trump National Golf Club in Virginia while President Donald Trump was on site.”
“It’s very disturbing that a security lapse of this magnitude could occur, particularly given recent threats against the president,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The public has a right to know how this happened and what is being done to prevent it from happening again.”
“According to reports, a club member was able to bring a loaded semi-automatic handgun onto the premises while Trump was present, after passing through Secret Service screening checkpoints. A Secret Service spokesperson said that handheld magnetometers were used instead of walkthrough devices when screening guests at the president’s golf resort, located about 25 miles northwest of the White House,” Judicial Watch reports.
“The agent in charge of searching the guest’s bag at the Sterling golf facility was placed on administrative leave amid an ongoing review by the Secret Service,” Judicial Watch notes.
Judicial Watch reports it “filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) failed to respond to a November 18, 2025, FOIA request for:”
All records related to the internal investigation of the August 31, 2025, incident at the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, in which a club member was able to get a semi-automatic hand gun into the club premises while the President was present without initial detection, including but not limited to investigative reports, agents’ notes, witness interview, audio-video recordings and other records.
All emails and text messages sent between members of the Presidential protective detail regarding the August 31, 2025, incident at the golf club.
“Trump has survived multiple assassination attempts, including Butler, Pennsylvania Rally – July 13, 2024; West Palm Beach, Florida – September 15, 2024; and most recently at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Washington, D.C. – April 25, 2026,” Judicial Watch points out.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Stranger than fiction. Can’t make this stuff up. The cross-dressing, ‘puppy sex role play,’ ‘non-binary’ Department of Energy (DOE) official appointed by Joe Biden, was placed on leave last month after he was reportedly caught on camera stealing an expensive suitcase at a midwestern airport terminal.
This is according to a report in the New York Post.
His criminal case is now in court.
According to court filings, Sam Brinton, the deputy assistant secretary for spent fuel and waste disposition at the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy was charged with felony theft after allegedly snatching a Vera Bradley suitcase reportedly worth $2,325 from baggage claim at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport on Sept. 16.
Brinton, who has a shaved head, mustache, an affinity for wearing lipstick, women’s dresses, and high heels, and uses idiotic plural ‘they/them’ pronouns, initially denied taking the expensive designer luggage.
However, Brinton was captured on surveillance video grabbing the luggage and quickly removing the real owner’s ID tag, before scurrying away.
Investigators said Brinton was later seen using the stolen Vera Bradley suitcase at least twice while traveling to Washington, DC, within weeks of snatching it.
He is one of the U.S. government’s first ‘non-binary’ (aka – openly mentally ill) officials.
Public Health Service Admiral Richard (who now goes by Rachel) Levine identifies as a woman, so he is binary, just a different gender from what his biology dictates.
Both, of course, are Biden appointees.
Brinton is also a “queer activist” who brags about his “kink” of leading other gay men who are pretending to be dogs around on leashes before having sex with them.
As one Twitter user noted:
He doesn’t care about that. But he does care that this was the reason he was picked by Biden for this senior government post.
Brinton is charged with felony theft of movable property without consent and, if convicted, faces up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Brinton’s hearing is scheduled for December 19.
It is unknown whether he would be sent to a men’s or women’s correctional facility, or whether he would be allowed to wear dresses.
Please note – unlike too many other news writers, journalists, and outlets, I won’t confuse my readers, and enable mental illness, by also using idiotic plural pronouns to refer to a single individual.
Let’s see how this story plays out.
Hopefully, there will be no gay men ‘puppies’ involved.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Did you expect this?
Popular Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is flatlining in the polls while another Republican candidate for president is surging ahead.
Watch Amanda explain the situation below:
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Be afraid, Be very afraid. 1984 is almost here. A recent poll by the Libertarian CATO Institute showed that a big chunk of our latest and brightest Generation Z (Gen Z or Zoomers) actually favors having the government watch them 24/7.
Including surveillance in their homes and bedrooms.
Zoomers are officially those under the age of 26. And come right after Millennials.
After the horrors of World War Two showcased the brutal dangers of modern totalitarian dictatorships such as Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union, George Orwell penned his classic dystopian tale titled ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ (1984).
In the novel, written in 1949, the pervasive government of the fictional nation Oceania was known as ‘Big Brother,’ and it watched its citizens incessantly via two-way video devices called ‘telescreens.’
This was of course before the advent of television or modern surveillance.
Government agents known as the ‘Thought Police’ were able to monitor everyone at home, at work, on public streets, in shops, even in bathrooms. It was a terrifying existence.
The book and term ‘Big Brother’ have since been widely referenced when warning about government overreach and expanding state control.
Sadly, it seems that almost 30 percent of Gen Z (and some Millennials) haven’t read the book or understand the danger.
CATO’s Blog notes that:
In a newly released Cato Institute 2023 Central Bank Digital Currency National Survey of 2,000 Americans, we asked respondents whether they “favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.”
Fortunately, the poll shows that 75 percent of Americans oppose or are strongly opposed to this insane idea.
However, CATO also notes that the younger you get, the less concerned Americans are about state surveillance and control:
…Americans under the age of 30 stand out when it comes to 1984‐style in‐home government surveillance cameras. 3 in 10 (29 percent) Americans under 30 favor “the government installing surveillance cameras in every household” in order to “reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.” Support declines with age, dropping to 20 percent among 30–44-year-olds and dropping considerably to 6 percent among those over the age of 45.
Support for 24/7 surveillance was especially high among those younger than 30. Almost a third of those born after 1993 said they would welcome round-the-clock monitoring by the government.
Those respondents in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were almost totally opposed. That is a terribly disturbing trend that bodes ill for liberty in America in the next decades.
In his Boston Globe Email Newsletter, Jeff Jacoby provides his explanation for this sad state among Zoomers:
…perhaps, [it] is that Generation Z has been indoctrinated to regard safety, not freedom, as the highest good — so much so that many would rather be under the nonstop watch of the state than face the possibility of being abused or endangered.”
If so, they are in for a fearful awakening. What little protection they might gain from being under the authorities’ constant watch is nothing compared with the peril they would face. Benjamin Franklin’s famous admonition is as relevant as ever: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Inviting Big Brother into your home will not keep Gen Z-ers safe. And by the time they realize what they have given up, it will be too late to get it back.
Jacoby adds that the protagonist of Orwell’s novel, Winston Smith, is a weak man who resents the regime — and is ultimately broken for it. And the must-read book’s final words are haunting: “He loved Big Brother.”
Yet, after all we have seen and know about tyranny, almost a third of Generation Z is still prepared to love Big Brother too. Yes, we must be afraid. Very afraid.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) event, Daily Wire host Michael Knowles argued that conservatives should not compromise with the left on certain core issues, such as radical transgender ideology, but should reject these leftist ideologies completely.
And this is something I would support wholeheartedly.
Unfortunately, the wording of Knowles’ statements, made while discussing marriage and gender issues, gave the left an opening to hysterically, and falsely, claim he wants to get rid of all transgender people, which he clearly never said, nor intimated.
And what was the statement that created the contrived firestorm of leftist hysteria?
Knowles’ said: “For the good of society … transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.”
The Daily Wire Host was clearly referring to the bizarre and dangerous new leftist ideology that insists gender and therefore sex can be changed at will, even among children, usually only with a self-diagnosis under pressure from activist counselors, teachers, and the media.
The truth about his remarks, however, didn’t keep left-leaning media outlets such as the Daily Beast, the Huffington Post, and Rolling Stone from falsely reporting that Knowles had called for the genocidal eradication of all trans people.
Adam Vary, at Variety, tweeted, “Pay attention. This is genocidal. That is not hyperbole or alarmist; this rhetoric is calling for the eradication of a group of people for who they are.”
John Knefel of Media Matters called the speech “[e]liminationist, genocidal rhetoric.”
His remarks were clearly none of these things, and he never called for any actions against trans people whatsoever.
And Knowles fought back against these outlets demanding a retraction, which he partly achieved.
The truth is that this extreme trans movement has permanently damaged countless individuals who have been sterilized and mutilated with the help of pharmaceutical reps and surgeons who, along with politicians and activists, have spawned a giant and lucrative new trans-political-medical industry.
This massive new industry pressures and lobbies people of all ages to believe they are transgender, and then quickly pushes them to initiate the costly, painful, disfiguring, and life-long process of ‘transitioning’ to the opposite sex.
All while making tons of cash from the doubts and insecurities of their victims.
But this movement doesn’t just harm its trans victims, as the Blaze notes, it also severely impacts “women and girls whose sex-specific spaces (e.g., prisons, bathrooms, shelters) and events have been infiltrated by biological males masquerading as women.”
The Blaze quotes Knowles as noting that conservatives “suffer from low expectations – we think the thing we can most hope for is that we halt the left exactly where it is.”
But watch his entire speech here for yourselves:
Rather than accommodate the left, making concessions about the age children must be to undergo sex-change surgeries, Knowles suggested conservatives ought to reject leftist ideology outright, especially when it comes to transsexuality.
Knowles said, “There can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism. It is all or nothing. If transgenderism is true, if men can really become women, then it is true for everybody of all ages. If transgenderism is false, as it is, if men really can become women, as they cannot, then it is false for everybody too. And if it’s false, then we should not indulge it.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
