Taylor Swift Re-records Herself Because She Can

In 1965 legendary country music artist Johnny Cash was involved in a very public dispute with his record label, Columbia Records.

The bad blood created between Cash and his label resulted in an abrupt end of the relationship in 1986, when after 26 years Columbia unceremoniously dropped him from its roster.

Singer-songwriter John Fogerty wound up in court after being sued by his record label, Fantasy Records, for alleged plagiarism (otherwise known as copyright infringement).

It all happened over a song that Fogerty, the co-founder and front man of Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR), had released as a solo artist. Fantasy Records claimed that the tune was merely a CCR song with a different title.

Prince had a very open feud with his record company, Warner Bros. The musical artist and performer extraordinaire made an appearance in public with the word “slave” written across his face. The entertainment industry dubbed him with the new royal title of “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.”

Taylor Swift has had a long public battle with a music executive connected to her career. The country-turned-pop superstar recently made the decision to re-record and re-release her second album. The move was prompted in part by the attenuated dispute.

All of the above artists that have been involved in fights with their respective record companies have something quite interesting in common. They were extremely upset over a fundamental issue, one that carries great weight with human beings across time and around the globe – property rights.

The right to the private ownership of property is a hallmark of civilization.

Just like she famously is able to do with her song lyrics, Swift encapsulated the private property notion in a recent Instagram post.

“Artists should own their own work for so many reasons,” Swift wrote. “But the most screamingly obvious one is that the artist is the only one who really knows that body of work.”

A term that almost always appears in contracts between musicians and record labels is “master recording.” It refers to the complete, original, or official recording of a performance fixed in a tangible medium, from which copies are made.

The ownership of master recordings is at the heart of Swift’s desire to re-record her music.

Back in 2005, 15-year-old Swift signed with an up and coming label, Big Machine Records. The terms of her contract gave the company the rights to her original master recordings.

The Nashville-based independent label signed Swift to the roster shortly after the company had formed. Other artists who also recorded with Big Machine include Rascal Flatts, Florida Georgia Line, and Sugarland.

When Swift’s contract expired in November of 2018, she switched companies and signed with Universal’s Republic Records. However, Big Machine still maintained ownership of the master recordings of Swift’s first six albums.

As her fans already know, Big Machine sold the master recordings to a private equity group that is owned and controlled by a powerful music manager and executive named Scooter Braun.

Swift reacted almost immediately to the purchase by Braun, posting the news to her massive social media following. She alleged repeated bullying by Braun, sounded off bitterly over the fact that her artistic output was controlled by an individual not of her choosing, and called the situation her “worst case scenario.”

In 2019 Braun sold off the rights to the Swift master recordings for a reported $300 million.

Swift had promised that someday she would re-record and re-release her original six albums in order to obtain ownership over her music. In December of 2020, she started to make good on the promise, beginning with her 2008 release “Fearless.”

She gathered the same musicians who had worked on the original album and re-recorded the material a second time. The result, “Fearless (Taylor’s Version),” was a re-do of the 2008 album with a bonus of six new songs.

The re-release worked out swimmingly for Swift. Not only does she now own the new re-recorded versions of her songs, but the newly released album hit number one on the Billboard 200 chart, giving her added incentive to continue the re-recording trend.

Swift’s 2021 release of the same music that she had recorded back in 2008 may sound the same. But the ownership and control of her music is as different as it can be.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Gives the Media a Bible Lesson

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has been a target of the establishment press and the social media ever since she was elected to office.

In a recent critique of proposed COVID-19 vaccine passports, the House member from Georgia blasted the current resident of the White House, took a viral ride on the internet, and triggered a media firestorm all in one stroke.

“They are actually talking about people’s ability to buy and sell linked to the vaccine passport. They might as well call it Biden’s Mark of the Beast,” Rep. Greene tweeted.

A Facebook video further elaborated on her position regarding the issue.

“They want you to be required to have something called a COVID passport,” Rep. Greene explained. “This would mandate your ability to be able to travel, your ability to be able to go to events, your ability to be able to buy and sell…”

It is obvious to all but the naïve that the requirement of such a document, which would demand proof of vaccination prior to attending large gatherings or traveling domestically and/or abroad, would severely hamper Americans ability to move freely within the country and without.

The freshman congresswoman completed her presentation in appropriate dramatic fashion by invoking the subject of totalitarianism.

A vaccine “passport” is “still fascism or communism whatever you want to call it. But it’s coming from private companies. So I have a term for that: I call it corporate communism,” she said.

Almost immediately the compliant media sprang into attack mode.

–The Guardian characterized Rep. Greene as a “Klan mom.”

–An online community of supposed Christians launched a petition that condemned Rep. Greene’s comments.

–And in another sorry attempt at humor, late-night host Jimmy Kimmel wound up disrespecting Rep. Greene while belittling her religious beliefs in the process.

“What a dumb person. The mark of the beast?” Kimmel pretended to query. “Everyone knows the mark of the beast is Zuckerberg.”

Rep. Greene responded without missing a beat by offering a bill to ban COVID-19 vaccine passports. She also brought forth a bill to have Dr. Anthony Fauci receive a 100% pay cut (#FireFauci Act) and additionally shared a video of a meeting that she had at Mar-a-Lago with President Donald Trump.

It is appalling to have to witness the parade of religious bigots in the news and entertainment media, who with apparent impunity think that they can display contempt for the beliefs of hundreds of millions of Christians.

Bible believers across the globe patiently await and prayerfully watch for a future that will someday unfold, one that is foretold in sacred scripture.

Passages of the Holy Book, which Christians revere as the sacred word of God, speak of a time when the Earth is ruled by a highly charismatic, yet deeply malevolent figure.

The “mark” to which Rep. Greene refers is an imprint taken upon one’s body, which is a demonstration of allegiance on the part of followers to the singular evil ruler.

Revelation, the final book of the Bible, sets forth key language on the subject.

… all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, … receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads …”

The words of the scripture passage also make clear that no one will be able to “buy or sell” unless they have had the mark.

The evil leader about which scripture speaks is called the “son of perdition.” A specific number has been assigned to him, one that is familiar to many Bible believers and non-believers alike: 666.

This number, and the demonic figure with which it is associated, has permeated our culture across time, appearing in numerous movies, television shows, books, and songs.

Films such as “End of Days,” “Final Destination,” and “The Omen” have dealt with biblical prophecies that are embraced by followers of Jesus Christ. The remake of “The Omen” was released on 6/6/06 to capitalize on the connection to scripture.

The number has actually influenced the real life decisions of some of our nation’s most highly respected people.

In 1989, after his second term had been completed, President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan moved to a new home in the Bel-Air section of Los Angeles. The residence had the unfortunate address of 666 St. Cloud Road, so the couple happily made the decision to have the address changed to 668 instead.

U.S. Route 666 became a highway in 1926. It acquired its number reference by being the 6th spur connected to the iconic Route 66.

The bureaucrats who named the road were apparently unaware of the number’s biblical significance as well as the negative implications it could attach to the road.

The road made for a particularly treacherous drive nonetheless, and it ended up acquiring two underworld nicknames: “The Devil’s Highway” and “Highway to Hell.” So in 2003, via legislation, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson renamed the road, changing it to U.S. Route 491.

In 2015 Texas Representative Joe Barton had the number of a bill that he had introduced changed from 666 to 702. According to an email sent by Barton spokesperson Sean Brown, “It quickly became clear that the original bill number carried many different negative connotations.”

In 2017 Finnair flight AY666, which flew from Copenhagen to Helsinki airport, the code of which is HEL, was renamed to flight AY954.

Much like the financial markets make predictions using indicators, the Bible reveals to Christians that they are to watch for End Times indicators of coming events that are foretold in scripture.

One of these indicators is a decline in moral sensibilities.

Millions of Christians and others are painfully aware that this is an ominous trend in our current world. Rep. Greene, along with many of her Christian sisters and brothers, are also extremely uncomfortable with the potential use of intrusive digitally-based identifiers.

For folks like us, the book of Revelation looms large as current events seem to be leaping off the pages of The Word.

The End Times scenario of a one world government, a one world religion, and a totalitarian system of rule seem more and more plausible with each passing day.

Thankfully, though, the second coming looms larger than all of it.

Netflix Descends into the Child Porn Business

The giant streaming company Netflix acquired a French film at the 2019 Sundance Film Festival. It turned out to be a very bad purchase.

The film is the debut work of a French director who won a best directing award at Sundance. The truth is, the film should never have won any kind of an award or ever have made it to the screen in the first place.

Why? Because it is actually child pornography.

The movie features a main character named Amy, who in a rebellious act against her Muslim parents joins a school dance troupe of 11-year-olds known as “Cuties,” hence the title of the film.

Among other sordid things in the film, young girls dressed in provocative outfits are shown engaging in highly erotic dance moves known as “twerking.”

During the lead-up to its release, the movie’s promotional materials included a poster that displayed the pre-teen dancers in various exploitive poses. Backlash to the movie poster on social media and elsewhere was immediate and explosive.

In August of 2020, Netflix apologized and quickly tried to switch tracks. It came out with a revised film poster that displayed a colorful backdrop and cast members who were more appropriately attired.

Netflix’s apology was largely an admission that the movie poster had crossed the line. Still, the company continued to insist that there was no problem with the film itself.

This would turn out to be a blatant lie.

The Internet Movie Database puts out a guide for parents that warns of sexual scenes in “Cuties,” which, among other things, luridly expose parts of the children’s bodies.

The public has now been left with the impression that a portion of the entertainment industry and news media is attempting to mainstream this form of sexualized content.

The Telegraph has awarded the film four out of five stars. And the New Yorker’s Emily Nussbaum is claiming that the movie has been taken “out of context.” In her words, it merely “critiques just what its haters think it supports.”

Meanwhile the film has triggered an online petition as well as a trending Twitter hashtag, #CancelNetflix.

The salacious nature of the movie has prompted a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers to call for the Justice Department to take legal action against Netflix for its streaming of the film. Included in the congressional group are Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii.

“Like any parent, I find ⁦@netflix⁩ decision to peddle child pornography disgusting. And it’s criminal. ⁦@TheJusticeDept⁩ should take swift action,” Sen. Cotton tweeted.

Sen. Cruz joined the group with his own letter to Attorney General William Barr, noting that the film “sexualizes young girls, including through dance scenes that simulate sexual activities and a scene exposing a minor’s bare breast.” The Texas senator urged the Justice Department to find out whether the company, its executives, or other involved individuals violated “any federal laws against the production and distribution of child pornography.”

Sen. Hawley sent a letter to Netflix Co-CEO Reed Hastings requesting the removal of “Cuties” from the on-demand platform. He noted that “depicting children being coached to engage in simulated sexual acts, for cameras both onscreen and off…raises major questions of child safety and exploitation, including the possibility of copycat behavior and exploitation of child actors.”

Rep. Banks told the Daily Caller, “Not only is this movie fodder for pedophiles, it encourages very young girls to defy their parents’ wishes and share pornographic images of themselves with strangers.”

Banks added that the“DOJ should be readying charges against Netflix for distribution of child pornography.”

Rep. Gabbard indicated on Twitter that the film could “whet the appetite of pedophiles & help fuel the child sex trafficking trade.” She additionally posted, “Netflix, you are now complicit. #CancelNetflix.”

There has been a long-held belief in our country that the physical and psychological well-being of our children must be protected. As a result, we have passed laws to shield children from being used to produce sexually provocative materials.

It is important to distinguish, however, the manner in which adult pornography and child pornography have been and still are being treated by the courts.

Adult pornography is generally protected speech, unless it is ruled to be obscene.

Child pornography is in category all its own. The first law to ban commercial child pornography was passed in the late 1970s. Subsequently, in 1982, the Supreme Court held child pornography, even if not deemed to be obscene, is not worthy of First Amendment protection.

During the 1990s, nineteen states had laws on their books prohibiting child pornography possession. Today every state in the country has such a law.

According to law, any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor is child pornography.

“Cuties” fits the description completely. The film features scenes depicting children in ways that are nauseatingly explicit.

Unfortunately, Netflix persists in trying to justify the unjustifiable. The streaming service is attempting to put forth the argument that “Cuties” is somehow a “social commentary” that is just trying to alert people to the issue of the sexualization of young children.

This is duplicitous and only serves to further endanger children while filling the company’s wallet with the filthiest of profit.

“Cuties” remains on the streaming service but is currently accompanied by footage that features the director explaining why it was made.

Netflix is defending the film and urging critics to watch it.

Don’t do it. The viewing of child porn can make one an accomplice.

Netflix is an internet based company. Its leaders know that people who wish to harm children operate online.

In its doubling down on this vile piece of cinema, here’s hoping that Netflix has just cancelled itself.

What You Need to Know about the Heads of Social Media and Big Tech

untitled-5-6

In an unprecedented move by the head honchos of social media, President Donald Trump had several posts on his Twitter account slapped with “fact check” disclaimer labels.

When internet companies were in their infancy back in the 1990s, Congress, via legislation, provided them with immunity from certain civil lawsuits in order to encourage the development of “platforms,” i.e., digital places for users to share user-created content.

Similar to bookstores that are not in the business of creating, editing, or publishing the material contained on the shelves of their stores, companies such as Twitter were granted special protection from lawsuits so that digital platforms that merely host media content created by third parties (their users) would be able to operate unhindered by the threat of legal action.

Companies with very large social media platforms have been acting as if they merely provide space for third parties to share, when in actuality it is just that, acting. Based on the same premise, they additionally continue to maintain that they should not be held liable for what their users post.

Twitter’s decision to fact check in such a high profile and subjective manner stands as a watershed moment in the relationship between government and social media.

By fact checking the President of the United States on, of all things, an issue related to potential election fraud, Twitter tossed its identity of being a platform out into the ethersphere. But it also let the cat out of the bag as to its real present status, that of full-fledged publisher.

Twitter expressed a political opinion when it engaged in its fact checking. The issue was a mega-politically charged one involving mass mail-in voting and whether such a process is ripe for fraud.

President Trump’s tweet was evaluated by the overseers at Twitter, and users were prompted to “Get the facts about mail-in ballots.” Upon clicking a link, users were subsequently instructed that “experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud,” an unmistakable political statement that also happens to be false.

If one is willing to dig a little deeper, what is discovered is that Twitter has implemented a policy that currently seems to apply to a single user—President Trump.

When a social media company engages in the same activities as a publication, it must be treated as if it were one. Newspapers, magazines, etc., fall under the umbrella of conventional publishers that create and edit their own content and are not exempt from liability.

Twitter has not been considered a publisher, despite the fact that it has been acting like one. But to exacerbate the situation, it has increasingly become a publisher of the most highly partisan kind. And it just so happens that, as of this writing, we are less than six months away from a presidential election.

Some big tech companies have also demonstrated a political bias in giving liberals a pass while engaging in an all-out targeting of conservatives.

–PragerU’s Facebook page was marked with a virtual branding iron as containing “false news” and was demonetized as well.

–A study from NYU on the addition of zinc to a hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin treatment was removed by YouTube.

–A hydroxychloroquine video by Sharyl Attkisson was also removed, although it was subsequently reinstated.

–A contrarian Michael Moore-produced documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” was yanked from YouTube.

As reported by Vox, a number of top Silicon Valley figures appear to be working behind the scenes in a concerted effort to get presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden elected. Big tech names include LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, Apple founder Steve Job’s widow Laurene Powell Jobs, and ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

Twitter’s own Yoel Roth, who presently holds the title “Head of Site Integrity,” has referred to President Trump and his team as “actual Nazis.” Roth has additionally mocked Trump supporters, insulted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and provided campaign donations to former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

President Trump recently signed an executive order that sets in motion a potentially costly change for Twitter with respect to the company’s civil liability exposure. The order directs all executive departments and agencies to ensure that their application of Section 230(c), the law that limits liability, falls within “the narrow purpose of the section.”

The executive order cites the legislative purpose of the law to maintain the internet as a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” The departments and agencies are instructed to “take all appropriate actions in this regard.”

The heads of departments and agencies must also review advertising and marketing expenses that are paid to Twitter and other online platforms. This includes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as other parts of the executive branch.

With regard to Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, and others, it is possible that some of the personnel of these departments and agencies will be looking into the practice of the gathering of information about virtually everything users do and then selling the data for billions of dollars.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr has already indicated that the DOJ will begin drafting legislation to regulate social media companies.

President Trump’s executive order may have an immediate limiting effect on social media and big tech’s future editorial actions.

Apparently, tech CEOs, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, have already heard the footsteps of the federal government. Zuckerberg recently distanced himself from Twitter when he told Fox News that the social media platform had, in his opinion, made a mistake, and that no social media platform should be the “arbiter of truth.”

The bottom line is that social media and big tech companies can’t have it both ways. And hopefully, in the very near future, they won’t.

Democrats and Media Allies Stoke Coronavirus Fears

mainstream-media

As the saying goes, “If it bleeds it leads.”

It has been this way across history for the dominant media of the day.

In their endless quest for the most compelling stories, natural disasters, widespread tragedy, political intrigue, criminal conduct, and the like have routinely provided the news and entertainment story fodder.

However, today’s times are unlike any that our country has previously experienced. This is mainly due to the fact that the dominant news and entertainment media have undergone a dramatic change in form and substance. The info-tainment industries have actually devolved in a way never anticipated, and unfortunately they have become an apparatus of one political party in particular, the Democratic Party.

In relation to the current reigning story, COVID-19, commonly referred to as the coronavirus, the Democrats and their news and entertainment cohorts have been working overtime to ratchet up the levels of public anxiety and alarm.

No doubt both the Democrats’ rhetoric and the media coverage of the coronavirus outbreak have grown increasingly duplicitous. Unfortunately, this is diametrically opposed to what is needed for our society to keep things in proper perspective, remain productive, and maintain a healthy outlook.

It is an axiom that when something poses a risk to the population, dissemination of accurate and objective information is key to reaching a solution. Presently, however, a kind of hysteria surrounding the coronavirus has been generated by partisan news media that have the ultimate goal of bringing down the approval ratings of President Donald Trump.

Democrats across the left-leaning spectrum and their willing media accomplices have politicized the current health-related issue to a sufficient degree that susceptible individuals have been driven into a state of uncertainty about their personal health and that of their families.

Such confusion about one’s personal circumstances may oftentimes lead to feelings of fear and apprehension that are not easily remedied even when the truth emerges.

With full knowledge that the public would likely overreact to exaggerated reporting, much of the news media have amplified the scare factor of the coronavirus story, creating a distorted perception in the minds of the public. The 24-hour cable news cycle and the social media have been working in conjunction to reinforce the misleading message.

Fear mongering by the left-leaning media is nothing new. The difference this time around, though, is that the media have abandoned all pretense of conveying factual information. They seem to have adopted a single rule with which to measure a publication’s worthiness: Will the “story” hurt President Trump? If the answer is yes, run with it.

Anything that can be blamed on the president will be.

Case in point: The U.S. newspaper of record, the New York Times, published a headline in its op-ed section that read, “Let’s call it Trump virus. If you’re feeling awful, you know who to blame.”

At a recent rally, President Trump brought up the way in which the coronavirus has been publicly discussed, highlighting a particular focus on an attempt by Democrats to massage the public psyche.

“Now, the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus…” Trump told the crowd.

The president then spoke about an individual who had suggested that the Democrats were perpetrating a hoax similar to the now-discredited Russia collusion narrative.

“One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia…they tried the impeachment hoax… they tried it over and over and they’ve been doing it since you got in…this is their new hoax.’”

When looked at in context, one should logically conclude that President Trump was referring to the Democrat and media attempts to accuse the administration of mishandling the response to the coronavirus. Rarely relying on logic, the left instead proceeded to mischaracterize his comment, taking aim directly at the word “hoax.”

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank tweeted, “Remember this moment: Trump in South Carolina just called the coronavirus a hoax.”

Ken Dilanian, a correspondent for NBC News, used his Twitter account to perpetuate the falsehood by posting, “Trump calls coronavirus Democrats’ ‘new hoax.’”

Other news outlets used distorted and misleading headlines to convey the notion that the president, shortly after creating a task force to deal with the coronavirus, called the virus itself a “hoax.”

Democrat House member Ted Lieu tweeted, “Dear @realDonaldTrump: I hope you apologize for using the term ‘new hoax’ in connection with the #coronavirus outbreak.”

Democrat presidential candidates Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg, and recent exiter Pete Buttigieg jumped in to repeat the lie.

The truth is no action that the president would have taken to respond to the coronavirus would have satisfied Democrats or the media.

Interestingly, ignored by the same partisan figures are the hundreds of thousands of lives lost each year due to tuberculosis and AIDS, as well as the tens of thousands who die because of the flu.

Another truth nugget is that our country has an amazing track record of dealing with the risk of contagious diseases. Ebola, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) were all handled with skill and expertise and were significantly contained.

When the facts are fully known, expect the U.S. response to the coronavirus to be successful.

Watch also for the doomsday predictions given by Democrat politicians and left-leaning media to end up on top of a trash heap of failed hoaxes.

‘Christianity Today’ Becomes a Tool of the Left

billy-and-franklin-graham

Although a lot of people link “Christianity Today” with evangelical Christian ideology, the magazine’s editor, Mark Galli, recently nixed that idea with a click of his keyboard.

Galli penned a column that appeared to be written with the goal in mind of putting grins on the faces of leftists and garnering gobs of attention from the Trump-hating faction of the media.

Whether the above stated goal was mapped out or not, the end result was the same. The magazine’s image took a hit, the president was unfairly maligned, and the liberal media ate it all up.

Galli used the pages of the magazine, which happened to be founded by the late legendary preacher extraordinaire Billy Graham, to call for the removal of President Trump from office.

As his days with the magazine are on the wane, the liberal-minded editor put forth a constitutionally vapid case with an apparent purpose of reversing the results of the 2016 presidential election. Galli argued for the president’s removal because of behavior that he chooses to characterize as immoral.

What Galli apparently doesn’t understand is that the U.S. Constitution sets forth a specific and elevated standard in order for the nation’s chief executive to be removed, not just a mere allegation of subjectively questionable behavior.

Because Galli’s publication was originally founded by Reverend Graham, the article referenced the evangelist. It is fitting that Graham’s son, Franklin, who now leads the ministry that his father envisioned and brought to fruition, was one of the first to comment on Galli’s opinion piece.

In a compelling social media post, Franklin let the world know that his dad both “believed in” and “voted for” President Trump.

“… they invoked my father’s name, so I felt I should respond. Yes, @BillyGraham founded Christianity Today; but no, he would not agree w/ their piece. He’d be disappointed,” Franklin stated.

Other leading evangelicals joined in with the countering of Galli’s assertions.

Jerry Falwell Jr. of Liberty University stated that “Christianity Today” has been “unmasked” as part of what he called the “liberal evangelicals who have preached social gospel for decades.”

In an appearance on Fox News, Faith and Freedom Coalition Chairman Ralph Reed said of the magazine, “You cannot imagine a publication more out of step with the faith community that it once represented.”

And President Trump himself joined in with a comment, calling the publication “a far left magazine” and tweeting that Christians are not very likely to be “looking for Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or those of the socialist/communist bent, to guard their religion.”

When they found out that an ostensible spokesperson for evangelical Christians essentially used Democratic Party talking points to go after the president, the left-leaning media were filled with delight. Galli was predictably offered numerous media spots.

Guesting on NPR’s Morning Edition turned out to be a perfect venue in which to double down on his attacks on the president while letting loose with some additional jabs that seemed tailor-made for a CNN audition.

Galli, of course, repeated his call to negate the choice of America’s voters, but this time came up with other justifications, claiming that the president is in “psychological and moral confusion.”

As propagandists are prone to do, Galli used highly manipulative and corrosive language that is designed to plant negative seeds and is deliberately crafted to poison the minds of potential voters. He compared the president to a physically abusive husband and then left the notion there to lie.

During his appearance, Galli denied that his publication is left-leaning. But the truth is, he and his magazine don’t even come close to being objective.

On February 20, 2015, “Christianity Today” featured a commentary written by none other than Galli himself, titled “Amnesty is Not a Dirty Word.” The main assertion of the piece was that “…the one thing we Christians especially should not run from is any action accused of offering ‘amnesty.’”

In his article, Galli refers to the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT), a group that has received financing from the George Soros-backed National Immigration Forum.

An article published in the November 2019 magazine, titled “Another Way for Immigration Reform? How Evangelicals Can Help Lead It,” is highly critical of the president’s approach to securing the border. Conversely, it advocates for policies that are consistent with the president’s political opponents. The author of the article is Matthew Soerens, the national coordinator for the aforementioned EIT.

Although it is unlikely that “Christianity Today” will be able to get many of its readers to return to the publication, a name change might help to attract a new crop of subscribers.

“Un-Christianity Today” might do the trick.

U.S. Leftists Ignore UK Elections

U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson as they take part in a session on reforming the United Nations at U.N. Headquarters in New York

The recent landslide election triumph of Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson may prove to be an accurate predictor of what is likely to happen in U.S. elections come 2020.

The same hatred that has held Democrats in its bitter grip since President Donald Trump first took to the political stage is the same rage that is likely to blind them to the lesson that is there in the UK election results.

Prime Minister Johnson’s electoral victory resulted in the largest majority in the British Parliament since Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher held office.

Conversely, Johnson’s adversary, Jeremy Corbyn, managed to drag his Labour Party to its lowest levels since the 1930s. The conservative Tories won 365 seats in Parliament’s lower chamber, with Labour gaining a mere 203.

Labour was left shell-shocked after a night that saw once safe seats in working class areas jump to the conservative side of the spectrum. Such a profound change to the political landscape would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago.

Interestingly, the place with which we share a common language, culture, and history currently has a political climate that is remarkably similar to the one that is occurring in the U.S. In both places, there is a seemingly perpetual struggle that exists between globalist elites who embrace trans-national institutions and national populism that is aligned with working class citizens who are trying to navigate the waters of the current economic reality.

Political occurrences in the U.S. and across the pond appear to run jointly at times. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher strove together in fierce opposition to communism. The 1990s saw President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair hike the “Third Way” road together of supposed middle ground politics. And in 2016, the political earthquake election of President Trump caused comparable seismic waves to that of Britain’s prior Brexit vote.

It then comes as little surprise to the politically and culturally astute that the right in both countries seeks border integrity, individual empowerment, fewer regulations, lower taxes, and innovative approaches to international trade, thereby favoring the nation state.

The left in both countries, on the other hand, has a preference for multilateral international organizations, embraces ever-expanding government, elevates open borders, is expert in crafting draconian regulations, and is endlessly preaching about the supposed environmental doomsday that is to come.

Corbyn campaigned on a set of extreme left-wing policies that sound eerily similar to the current crop of Democrats that are seeking the presidential nomination. Corbyn would have increased government spending to gargantuan amounts, ballooning the public sector. During his first 100 days in office, Corbyn promised to nationalize utilities, give 10 percent of corporate stock in companies to workers, and implement a 32-hour work week.

His planned policy solutions were almost in lockstep with the so-called democratic socialism offered by Democrat presidential wannabes Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

A couple of their fellow Democrat opponents attempted to capitalize on the UK results. At a fundraiser, former Vice President Joe Biden referenced Johnson’s victory, saying, “Look what happens when the Labour Party moves so, so far to the left. It comes up with ideas that are not able to be contained within a rational basis quickly.”

And former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg used his Twitter account to declare that “Jeremy Corbyn’s catastrophic showing in the U.K. is a clear warning: We need a Democratic nominee who can defeat Donald Trump by running a campaign that appeals to Americans across our divides.”

Much like their denial after President Trump’s watershed victory, the left in America cannot accept the results of the UK election either. Leftists are already following the same pattern of rationalization, falsification, and resistance that was exhibited in 2016 and thereafter.

Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast characterizes Corbyn as someone who was “never suited to be a national leader of a major political party in a major industrial democracy,” adding that he “was an ineffectual backbencher and should have remained so.”

Others such as Kate Aronoff, a senior fellow at Data for Progress, which is a progressive U.S. think tank, dismiss Johnson’s massive win by claiming that it was only about Brexit. Aronoff used the Guardian to explain that, in her assessment, “the UK election was ultimately an election about Brexit, and Brexit won. There’s no clean analogue to that in the US.”

Eric Levitz of the New Yorker Magazine rationalizes that Sanders’s “political vision is less radical than Corbyn’s, particularly on foreign policy.”

Another Guardian writer, Cas Mudde, posits, “Centrists say this is proof Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren can’t win. They are wrong.”

Two infamous names, Fusion GPS’s Glen Simpson and “dossier” author Christopher Steele recently surfaced to precondition the UK public in a virtual re-run of the debunked narrative of 2016.

Even before the electorate in the UK had cast a single vote, Simpson and Peter Fritsch wrote in an editorial that appeared in the Guardian that Russia was the reason Prime Minister Johnson won.

The article actually urged the British government to launch a Mueller-style investigation into Russian interference in the UK elections, claiming, “The British political system has become thoroughly compromised by Russian influence.”

Weeks earlier the Guardian had drudged up yet another so-called dossier derived from an “analysis from Britain’s intelligence agencies, as well as third-party experts such as the former MI6 officer Christopher Steele…”

It seems as though the American left, lost in its impeachment obsession, is calloused to the growing disgust and anger on the part of the public on both sides of the Atlantic.