recent image
Will we ever have an honest discussion about...
angelobottone
 March 08 2025 at 10:48 am
more_horiz
post image
Divorce will affect children for the rest of their lives, well into adulthood, but people don’t want to hear this because it makes them feel bad about their decisions, says Spectator columnist, writer and broadcaster, Bridget Phetasy.A piece she wrote a few months ago titled “How divorce never ends”, is based on her personal experience and presents the lifelong impact of parental break-up on children. It caused a huge reaction, for and against. Those who supported the article were themselves usually children of divorce. Those who reacted angrily were often the parents who exhibited great defensiveness about what they had done, even though Phetasy was at pains to say parental separation, for example when the relationship is abusive, is justified. Phetasy (née Walsh), whose parents divorced when she was 12, recounts how her life and that of her future husband – also a child of divorce – were upended. Their school achievements declined, and they fell into rebellious behaviours. The logistical challenges of splitting time between parents, with cross-country travel and fractured holiday traditions, contributed to instability and neglect. Lacking proper supervision, the children often resorted to reckless behaviour. “So often it feels like two people are just ‘over it’ [meaning the parents] and want to move on with their lives and be single again instead of doing whatever it takes to make it work for the kids. People don’t want to hear this because it makes them feel bad about their decisions. Divorce sucks. It never ends and it should be a last resort”, she wrote. Phetasy – a former columnist for Playboy magazine, of all things, – is now a mother and uses her parents’ shortcomings as a guide for what not to do. “Before I had a kid, I asked people who came from similar backgrounds how they managed to raise great, well-adjusted kids. They always said the same thing: “I just did the opposite of what my parents did.’”, she writes in her piece. She argues that divorce is too often treated casually, with little regard for its profound and enduring impact on children. She admits harbouring lasting anger and grief over her parents’ prioritisation of new relationships over their children’s well-being. These feelings persist into adulthood, particularly as the complexities of managing relationships with multiple sets of grandparents now affect her own family. Talking to the feminist podcaster Louise Perry, she recalls the reactions from readers of the piece and also from followers of her YouTube channel. “People lie to themselves about how hard it is on the kids. There’s this lie: kids are resilient, they’ll be fine. It was heartbreaking reading the initial flow of comments that came in. First you get the flood of people who feel seen and heard and validated. “Thank you so much this was my experience. I felt I this brought up so many emotions of my own”, and then you get the backlash and the people misinterpreting you and taking it out of context”, she told in the interview. Commenting on Bridget Phetasy’s article, Louise Perry noticed that the consideration of what is a truly valid reason for divorce often leads to exaggeration of issues, while many overlook the long-term impact on their children, whose lives will be shaped by the decision for decades to come. The majority of break-ups occur in low-conflict marriages, where the impact on children is often more profound due to the unexpected and therefore more traumatic nature of the separation. In such cases, it is usually in the best interest of the children for the parents to remain together. 2025 will mark 30 years from the divorce referendum in Ireland, where now over 320,000 adults are today divorced or separated and hundreds of thousands of children affected. This anniversary will surely be celebrated with enthusiasm, but a mature assessment will consider the voices of people like Bridget Phetasy who have suffered because of their parents’ decisions.
recent image
It Matters Who Wields the Pen
LadyVal
 March 13 2025 at 12:21 am
more_horiz
A matter long believed has recently been claimed by some who served in the Biden Administration during the last four years; that is, that Sleepy Joe was never mentally competent to serve in that office. The same Party that claimed Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s during his tenure as President (he wasn’t!) failed to disclose that Joe Biden actually was mentally incapable of serving during his “presidency.” Of course, Biden’s ability or lack thereof was never a problem as his “presidency” was actually intended to be the third (and fourth) term of Barack Obama! It was a real-life replay of the throne room scene in the Wizard of Oz with Biden as the Big Head on the throne and Obama the man behind the curtain. Unfortunately, it is possible that the puppet master(s) didn’t understand just how “out to lunch” Sleepy Joe actually was – or became – as he took office. Yet even that may not be the case, for now, with Donald Trump in office, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has requested that the Justice Department investigate the legality of Biden’s many Executive Orders. Why? Because the conservative Heritage Foundation’s “Oversight Project” has revealed that Biden’s signatures on numerous EOs, pardons and other documents of national consequence appear to have been “machine-generated.” The “auto-pen,” a mechanical means of producing someone’s signature when great numbers are required, may be used in “unofficial” correspondence but in matters of law and the President’s duties, such documents must actually be signed by the individual holding that office at the time and in the place indicated on the document. Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell stated, "The main legal question here is who was the president over the last four years. That's what we are aiming to uncover. The prolific use of (the) autopen by the Biden White House was an instrument to hide the truth from the American people as to who was running the government." The watchdog group noted that "every document" they could find with Biden's signature” — with the exception of the announcement indicating that he was dropping out of the 2024 presidential race — "used the same autopen signature." Howell also noted that the repeatedly used autopen signature appeared on the pardons for a murderer and five other criminals issued while Biden was vacationing in the U.S. Virgin Islands though all reportedly claimed that they were signed "at the City of Washington." This discovery, coupled with the former president's alleged admission to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he did not remember signing a January 2024 order to pause decisions on exports of liquefied natural gas, prompted the Oversight Project to once again cast doubt on whether Biden was ever actually fulfilling the office of the President of the United States, clearly suggesting that "WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY!" Critics of the Administration, enraged by yet a further indication that unelected ideologues may have secretly controlled the Executive Branch for the past four years, are now questioning the legitimacy of all documents bearing the autopen signature in the belief that all orders so signed are void on their face. Thus, as noted, seeking definitive answers to this newly found situation, Missouri AG Bailey wrote to the Department of Justice last week requesting a full investigation into the legality of Biden's presidential actions in light of his apparent mental decline, which was made especially clear to special counsel Robert Hur, who, upon investigation, found Biden as possibly too senile to legally charge with any wrongdoing! "Under the 25th Amendment, his (Biden’s) inability to make decisions should have meant a succession of power," Bailey noted in his letter. "Instead, it appears staffers and officers in the Biden administration may have exploited Biden's incapacity so they could issue orders without an accountable President of sound mind approving them." President Donald Trump told Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck in October before the election that Joe Biden was likely little more than a figurehead for a "committee" of unnamed bureaucrats. Lindy Li, a former Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served as a surrogate for failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris and worked for the 2020 Biden campaign, recently shed some light on potential members of that supposed committee. Li told podcaster Shawn Ryan that Hunter and Jill Biden, and a handful of other unelected senior advisers effectively combined to serve as a shadow president. AG Bailey also suggested that a number of pardons Biden supposedly signed were suspicious, including the unconditional 10-year pardon Biden supposedly gave his son after repeatedly vowing he would not do so and just months after declaring without qualification, "No one is above the law." "It is black-letter law that a document is void, ab initio, when the person signing it lacks mental capacity," wrote Bailey. "Staffers and the Vice President cannot constitutionally evade accountability by laundering far-left orders through a man who does not know what he is signing (or, in the case of the auto-pen, it is represented that he signed). If in fact this has been occurring, then all those orders are void." The Oversight Project suggested that in order to determine whether Biden ordered the signing of key documents or was even mentally capable of doing so, investigators must "determine who controlled the autopen and what checks there were in place." The watchdog group also indicated that Biden's efforts to undermine the White House "executive privilege" shield in their attacks against then former President Donald Trump will make such determinations achievable. "There is a constitutional process to deal with an incapacitated POTUS and it doesn't contemplate giving someone else his autopen and authority," tweeted Howell. "It's called the 25th Amendment and the conspiracy not to invoke it in order to keep whatever they were doing going is a big problem." The New York Post reported that representatives for Biden had not responded to requests for comment regarding the use of the autopen. Of course, that is to be expected as God knows what a finding of mental incompetency of the former President while he was in office especially given admissions already made that he was incompetent before he took office, will mean for what was done during the last four years!
recent image
How a "guest" Palestinian Student’s Protests...
Right Away
 March 17 2025 at 11:37 am
more_horiz
post image
There is a global protocol for guests. You are a visitor with special permission. You are forthright with gratitude, and I appreciate the generosity that has been extended to you. You use your manners, say please and thank you, and remind yourself what a treat it is to be there—or so I thought. I listened to some interviews about the fate of a young man who was arrested and detained for his pro-Palestinian speech. He was a guest in the US on a visa. He was here as a student at Columbia University, my Alma Mater. I am in despair at how my school has chosen to support this young man's behavior and how they have allowed others to suffer so he could feel affirmed. I am certain the pressure will be on me in the upcoming years as I get targeted marketing emails to donate to compensate for their poor judgment. The story revolves around free speech. Free speech has ALWAYS been a topic of discussion. Say something wrong about the king, and off goes your head. Say a lie about the king’s enemy, and you get a castle and a valley filled with peasants of your own. That was true five thousand years ago, five hundred years ago, and fifty years ago. Where is right and wrong through all of this? History of the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Its origins lie in the political and philosophical currents of the American Revolution and the Enlightenment, as well as in colonial experiences with British rule. The First Amendment, as ratified, reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It passed with broad support, reflecting a consensus on safeguarding these liberties against federal overreach. History of Free Speech Free Speech didn’t last, as written. And you are glad that it didn't. What am I talking about? We decided a few hundred years ago that false advertising is illegal. Someone’s free use of their tongue to deceive us into purchasing a good or service that is not “as advertised” is a crime. It is unforgivable. The phrase "as advertised" has a tone of accountability built into it. We also agreed that free speech is not OK when false statements harm a person’s reputation. We decided that if a person’s loose tongue threatens our nation’s security, that, too, is illegal. The most recent addition to the limitations on free speech is labeled as “hate speech.” If a person’s words incite harm to someone or are a threat to their well-being, we label that as equally illegal. Everyone has a right to say what they want, including telling someone they hate them and wish they would die; they just can’t say that they are the ones coming to kill you. What really happened? It is challenging to reduce it to a single paragraph, but not if I leave out my opinion. Hamas attacked Israeli citizens (no law enforcement or military were targeted) in October of 2023. They killed and raped, and they took hostages as they returned to Gaza. Israel decided to retaliate with two intentions. They wanted to prevent future attacks by wiping out Gaza’s leadership’s ability to repeat the attacks and retrieve their hostages. Hamas knew that this would be their intention before they attacked, and they structured a method of gathering global support for their cause by using their own people as shields against the Israeli military, forcing the Israeli army to kill civilians as they sought retribution. Portions of the world watched videos and called this genocide. Others saw the same videos and chose to support the Jews and their right to live in safety. Both sides had horrific videos to show, trying to win over sense and emotion from both sides. Both sides used religious texts and “rules of fair warfare” (whatever that means). Both sides claimed self-defense as their core motivation. The fighting isn't over. Mahmoud Khalil is the guest of ill repute. He is the poster child of how this international skirmish is negatively impacting students at Columbia University. The Antagonist This young man was a ringleader and acted as the spokesperson at Columbia when Jewish students were tracked down and beaten, with the university not choosing to either condemn the pro-Palestine violence or offer assistance to these Jews. He lead protests to attempt to get his university (and my university!) to divest from Israel. He participated in the destruction of property and threats against Israeli students. At the core of the issue is the issue of Free Speech. Can a young man like this man be considered “exercising his First Amendment rights” when he targeted, harassed, and intentionally made Israeli students feel unsafe and unwelcome? The videos of how these young Jewish college students were beaten made the news last spring, and it polarized us. Sorting out fact from truth. The student hired a lawyer who was looking for the spotlight. His lawyer found a microphone and a series of listening ears. Let’s look at the lawyer's positions. 1) He claims that his client was “peacefully protesting and exercising his constitutionally protected activism." 2) He claims that his clients was within his legal rights to participate in tracking down and attacking Jews that were part of the Columbia University community. 3) He claims that it is unfair for his client to be arrested and detained in Louisiana, as it inhibits his client's rights to attorney-client privileged conversations. 4) He claims that his client's arrest intends to silence all protestors, not just the ones at CU. These claims are obviously extreme, but let's examine the truth. · This guy is not a US Citizen and does not share the same rights as the rest of us. He can’t vote. He has a visa to be here and is a guest of the United States. His lawyer is trying to convince the public that he has the same rights. He is also avoiding the reality that he is behaving inappropriately, celebrating the physical harm done to someone who has never harmed him or anyone he knows. · He claims that it is within his legal rights to track down and witness an attack on someone if you are not the one swinging the club. That is not even close to true. There are laws against participating in a felony, even if only passively. · The government concluded that the school’s choice (not inability) not to protect its Jewish students from known threats was a violation of the terms and conditions for $400 M worth of funding, and the government responded by canceling the funding. As I analyzed the story, I chose to look outside of the US to see if other countries were experiencing similar issues. What were their reactions? Is the USA the only place where Jews are being attacked because they are Jews, not because of what they have done? I found an article from the UK in the Telegraph. It was an internal study that compared violent crime between native Britons and people who were immigrants or were on a VISA. Specific to sex crimes (the preferred crime type for Hamas), the report said that immigrants are 70% more likely to commit sex crimes than native Britons. The author sought to suggest that the methods used to allow entry to immigrants and the associated education and law enforcement resulted in a more dangerous United Kingdom. Imagine that. How shocking to learn that people new to the country select a “culturally inappropriate” response as they seek to get their way in a country other than their own. I conclude this Palestinian student is NOT exercising free speech. He is creating hate speech. He is actively involved in making people unsafe. It is not limited to making them “feel” unsafe. They are actually unsafe once people embrace this young man’s ideology. Can you imagine letting a guest into your house and he acts like this? The Christian response As a Christian, I own that I have Jewish roots. The Old Testament is as much my people’s history as it is for the Israeli Jew. The tendency is to have tunnel vision and conclude that we have to take the Jewish position, as they are the greatest Creation. They are God’s chosen people. How can we say we are pro-love or pro-God if we choose not to defend God's people? Yet, the core of the moment is the answer to your question, “What does God mean when he says love your enemies?” An analogy applies here. I hate the Nazis. They killed people with joy in their hearts. We are called to protect the innocent. People who seek harm against the Jews “just because they are Jews” are doing evil no different than the Nazis. Yet, if I meet an individual nazi, I am not facing the enemy. I am facing a single person. As such, I can see myself investing in getting to know them and potentially love them. Hollywood has multiple movies that play on this theme. Hogan’s Heroes is a comedy based on the idea that the enemy can become a friend, but only one person at a time. That one-person-at-a-time idea is what highlights the difference between enemy and enemies. This young “activist” is a hypocrite. He hates Jews and wants others to hate them just because they are Jews. Yet, he wants us to empathize with his unique circumstances. The media is talking about his pregnant wife as justification for him to be set free to continue his evil antics that threaten other people's safety. Strip his VISA. Deport him immediately. Let him reapply and agree to the terms and conditions of what it means to be here as a guest of the United States.
recent image
The Marxist Blueprint: Everywhere You Look
Nancy Churchill
 February 13 2025 at 03:47 am
more_horiz
post image
How a Revolutionary Ideology has Infiltrated Institutions, Culture, and Government Marxism did not die with the Soviet Union. It evolved. Today, it’s not just an obscure theory debated in academic halls—it’s a guiding force behind cultural, political, and economic shifts in America. While Karl Marx framed his toxic ideology as a battle between the wealthy and the working class, modern activists have rebranded his revolutionary playbook to focus on gender, race, climate policy, and government power. This Marxist Blueprint is a six-step strategy designed to transform activism into an unstoppable force for expanding state control—all in the name of “equity” and “justice.” It’s not limited to a single movement. It fuels feminism, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), the Black Lives Matter movement, climate extremism, and progressive governance. But beyond shaping policy, it does something even more insidious: it rewires belief itself. Economist Ludwig von Mises warned of statolatry—the worship of the state as the ultimate authority. Modern Marxist movements have embraced this fully. As Kevin of “The Smallest Minority” explains in his essay “Statolatry,” progressives have replaced traditional faith with faith in government, treating political figures as high priests and state power as salvation. This is not just about reshaping laws—it’s about reshaping how people think, training them to see government as the source of all moral truth. Step One: Define the Oppressor vs. the Oppressed Marxism doesn’t seek unity—it demands division. Conflict is its fuel. In classical Marxism, the bourgeoisie were framed as oppressors of the working class. Today, that same framework has been repackaged into the Marxist Blueprint. Feminists claim men oppress women. DEI activists insist white, straight, Christian men oppress minorities and LGBTQ individuals. The Black Lives Matter movement portrays police and the justice system as tools of systemic oppression. Climate activists blame corporations and industrialized nations for environmental destruction. This step ensures society is locked in a permanent struggle. A divided people are far more willing to accept government intervention to “fix” the problem. But there’s another layer: by making the state the final arbiter of justice, Marxist movements shift authority away from individuals, families, and communities and into the hands of the government. Step Two: Declare the System Fundamentally Corrupt Once the conflict is set, the next step is to convince people the entire system is rotten to the core. Marxist movements never argue for reform—they demand total destruction. Feminists claim Western civilization is built on patriarchy and must be dismantled. Black Lives Matter activists say America was founded on racism and that police must be abolished. DEI leaders argue that meritocracy itself is a tool of white supremacy and must be replaced with race-based hiring. Climate extremists insist capitalism is inherently destructive and must be replaced with a government-controlled “green economy.” This strategy doesn’t just tear down existing institutions—it replaces them. Once trust in faith, family, and tradition is shattered, government steps in as the new moral authority. The Marxist Blueprint doesn’t just attack the system—it seeks to replace it with a secular, all-powerful state. Step Three: Push for Government and Institutional Control If the system is corrupt, then only one solution remains: bigger government, more regulations, and less individual liberty. In Washington State, House Bill 1531, is euphemistically called “Communicable disease.” This dystopian proposal would give government bureaucrats control over public health decisions, overriding local authority and personal choice. DEI mandates force corporations to prioritize race and gender over ability. Criminal justice “reforms” weaken law enforcement, making communities more dangerous while expanding the government’s role in policing. Washington’s Climate Commitment Act imposes a carbon tax, forcing businesses into compliance with state-controlled energy policies. The pattern is clear. Every movement following the Marxist Blueprint leads to the same result: centralized power. And as the government grows, so does faith in the state as the only source of fairness, security, and justice. Step Four: Promote State Dependency Over Individual Freedom A free and self-sufficient people don’t need government handouts. That’s why the next step in the Marxist Blueprint is to undermine independence and create dependency. Feminist policies have weakened the nuclear family by incentivizing single motherhood through welfare. DEI and BLM initiatives have made career success dependent on affirmative action rather than merit. Climate regulations artificially restrict energy access, forcing businesses and individuals to rely on state-approved alternatives. Universal Basic Income, socialized healthcare, and government subsidies create a culture where people turn to the state for survival rather than relying on themselves. This isn’t an accident. The weaker families, churches, and local communities become, the stronger the state grows. Step Five: Silence Opposition and Control Speech Once people are dependent on the government, the next move is to shut down dissent, as Washington state Democratic representatives did with House Resolution 4607. Free speech is dangerous to Marxist movements because it exposes their contradictions—so they silence it. Criticize feminism? You’re a misogynist. Question Black Lives Matter? You’re a racist. Reject DEI quotas? You’re upholding white supremacy. Doubt climate change alarmism? You’re a science denier. Instead of debate, Marxist movements attack their critics with labels. Support parent’s rights? Your 13-year-old can make life-changing, permanent decisions and you’re probably a child abuser for wanting to parent him or her. Government, universities, corporations and our Washington state legislature enforce ideological conformity, ensuring only one narrative is permitted. Statolatry demands obedience. Any dissent against the government’s moral authority is treated as heresy. Step Six: Institutionalize Perpetual Revolution A Marxist movement can never declare victory—because if it did, it would lose power. That’s why the revolution must continue indefinitely. Feminists once fought for equal rights; now they demand gender quotas and the erasure of traditional masculinity. Black Lives Matter began with protests against police brutality; now it pushes for the abolition of law enforcement altogether. DEI policies once claimed to promote fairness; now they enforce racial hiring quotas. Climate activists once advocated for clean energy; now they demand bans on gas-powered cars, restrictions on farming, and government-controlled industry. The revolution must never end. Because the goal was never justice—it was power. How to Stop the Marxist Blueprint The Marxist Blueprint has long been at work in America, but we’re just now starting to recognize it. Fortunately, it’s not unstoppable. The first step to defeating it is recognizing its tactics. Americans must reject false oppression narratives designed to justify government expansion. They must resist power grabs at every level—local, state, and federal. They must defend free speech, ensuring open debate is never silenced. Most importantly, they must rebuild the foundations that Marxism seeks to destroy: strong families, self-reliance, faith, and local governance. Marxism doesn’t announce itself. It infiltrates, manipulates, and divides—until its control is absolute. The only way to stop it is to expose it and reject its framework entirely. The first step to stopping the Marxist Blueprint is to recognize it for what it is: a roadmap to tyranny. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Support Dangerous Rhetoric SOURCES: 1) Kevin. "Statolatry." The Smallest Minority, 8 Feb. 2025, https://bit.ly/3EoJRkv 2) Damon Sloss. The DEI Delusion: A Marxist Blueprint in Disguise. Facebook, 5 Feb. 2025. https://bit.ly/4b9laVP 3) Brandi Kruse. "The most dystopian thing happening in America right now is House Bill 1531 in Washington state." https://bit.ly/4hsTkpv 4) Travis Couture (@TravisSCouture). "Umm, excuse me?!" X (formerly Twitter), 7 Feb. 2025, https://bit.ly/3CGmSB8 5) AgClimate Network. "One Year into Washington's Climate Commitment Act: Impacts on Agriculture." https://bit.ly/40SgkXV 6) Washington State Legislature. "House Bill 1531." https://bit.ly/417BpPH 7) Peter Abbarno. "Statement from Rep. Peter Abbarno on House Resolution 4607." Washington State House Republicans, 27 Jan. 2025, https://bit.ly/3WX5zm7
recent image
Left or Right
Octaveoctave
 March 19 2025 at 08:17 pm
more_horiz
I have one cousin who is an "outlier" and is, horror of horrors "a liberal". Now if one is paying attention, a lot of the MAGA movement (if not most) consists of former Democrats (including Trump himself). So MAGA is not REALLY Republican at all. Lots of old school Republicans loathe the MAGA movement, obviously. But the previous labels and associations still sort of remain for many people, and they cannot quite understand what is going on. Even though I was raised as a "far right" conservative in Canada (So-Cred) and my parents and grandparents and family members were mostly So-Cred, the Social Credit movement is/was actually LEFT of American Democrat Party, for the most part. So it is confusing. If one looks at Jordan Peterson, he got his start as part of the far Left in Canadian Politics, the "NDP" (New Democratic Party), but now Peterson is associated more with American conservatives. Even Bernie Sanders supports a LOT of what DOGE and MAGA are doing. This was at least true until DOGE and other events started to reveal Bernie's corruption. So, these things are complicated. Even Michael Moore, the "massive" leftist, has a sort of "right wing" movie, "The Planet of the Humans". MAGA is kind of what H. Ross Perot wanted to create in the early 90s. And he almost succeeded. Or what Ralph Nader attempted to create. I voted for both Perot and Nader. The division in American politics is really no longer between "left" and "right" or "conservative" and "liberal" or "Democrat" and "Republican". It is more of a division between "sanity" and "insanity" or between "corrupt" and noncorrupt". So what do party labels even mean at this point?

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

Recently Active Thinkers