#Brad Polumbo

[vlesbian540]

LGBT Youtubers/Content creators that I love and follow that are anti-woke:

Arielle Scarcella

Blaire White

Buck Angel

Marcus Dib (The Offensive Tranny)

Brad Polumbo

Amir Odom

Clarkson Lawson

Jesse & Nina (The Panic Button)

Daniel Moon (Cancelled Conversations)

CurlyBoyChuck

mrmenno

It makes me happy that all these people (and others that I still don't know yet) keep pushing back against this current woke ideology that comes mostly from the Queer side of the LGBT community.

I stand with them.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Jack Elbaum

The Libertarian Party of Michigan on Wednesday posted an antisemitic cartoon depicting Jews as puppet masters who control both the Democratic and Republican parties in the US.

The graphic was posted on multiple social media platforms, but gained particular traction on X/Twitter, where it received widespread blowback but also a chuck of support — garnering over 1,000 likes before it was ultimately deleted.

The Libertarian Party of Michigan did not respond to The Algemeiner‘s request for comment for this story.

“I know some people think of me as ‘libertarian.’ I have used that word to describe myself at times,” journalist Brad Polumbo wrote in response to the graphic. “But please understand that I have no affiliation whatsoever with whatever the f–k this is.”

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Brad Polumbo

Published: Jun 25, 2024

Republicans are very concerned about left-wing indoctrination in the public school system, and often for good reasons. Yet, it seems that some Republican leaders feel differently about ideological indoctrination in the classroom when they’re the ones doing it. 

In Louisiana, a recent law mandates the display of the Ten Commandments across all public educational institutions, from elementary schools to universities. The bill, championed by Republican Governor Jeff Landry, was signed into law at a private Catholic school. During the ceremony, Governor Landry declared, “If you want to respect the rule of law, you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses.”

This makes Louisiana the only state in the nation with such a mandate. Other red states haven’t ventured into this territory in recent years, perhaps because they know it’s blatantly unconstitutional. Nonetheless, Governor Landry appears undeterred, openly stating that “can’t wait to be sued.”

He may not have to wait very long.

A coalition of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has already announced its intention to file suit, condemning the mandate as “unconstitutional religious coercion of students, who are legally required to attend school and are thus a captive audience for school-spons.ored religious messages.” The ACLU also added that the mandate “send[s] a chilling message to students and families who do not follow the state’s preferred version of the Ten Commandments that they do not belong, and are not welcome, in our public schools.”

This is not uncharted territory. The ACLU cited the 1980 Supreme Court case Stone v. Graham, where the court explicitly ruled that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits the establishment of a formal state religion, prevents public schools from displaying the Ten Commandments. 

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” the Supreme Court ruled in that case. “However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

Governor Landry is surely aware of this precedent and simply does not care that this legislation will almost certainly be blocked in the courts. Nonetheless, it represents an opportunity for him to signal his cultural war bona fides—a move that, in any other context, Republicans might rightly describe as empty “virtue signaling.”

Regrettably, this isn’t just an isolated incident among Republicans in one conservative state. Louisiana’s initiative has garnered support from many of the most prominent figures in the modern GOP. One such figure is Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, who praised the legislation in an interview with Real America’s Voice. “This is something we need all throughout our nation,” she said. “I’m so proud of Governor Landry…. We need morals back in our nation, back in our schools, and if there’s anything we’re going to present in front of our children, it should be the word of God.”

This stance appears to be a mainstream view within the Republican Party, as the party’s leader, Donald Trump, also threw his support behind Louisiana’s efforts in a post on Truth Social: 

The Republicans’ embrace of this religious mandate in public schools is deeply hypocritical, contravening many principles they have previously claimed to stand for, and incredibly short-sighted. 

Firstly, they are proving to be fair-weather fans of the First Amendment. These same types regularly champion free speech when it comes to opposing government censorship or progressive attempts to crack down on “hate speech” (which now includes uttering basic biological truths), and they are absolutely right to do so. However, you cannot selectively support the First Amendment, endorsing free speech and freedom of religion clauses while actively violating the Establishment Clause. After all, if Republicans can disregard the parts they don’t like when it’s inconvenient, then progressives can too!

Secondly, Republicans are compromising their stated beliefs about the importance of parents’ rights and opposing “indoctrination” in schools. Now, they suddenly advocate for the government’s role in teaching children morality, instead of leaving this responsibility to parents or families.

Which is it? Consistent supporters of parents’ rights believe that it should be up to parents to teach their kids about morality, whether it concerns pronouns or prayer. 

There’s also the issue of misplaced priorities. Louisiana ranks 40th out of all 50 states in education. Meanwhile, 40 percent of 3rd graders cannot read at grade level, according to The Advocate. Yet, the governor prioritizes mandating posters of the Ten Commandments—and allocating tax dollars to defending it in court—that many students probably can’t even read.

Even many conservative Christians can see the issue here. As radio host Erick Erickson put it:

When the 3rd grade reading level is only 49 percent, I don’t see why the state wants to spend money on lawyers for a probably unconstitutional law making the Ten Commandments mandatory just to virtue signal a side in a culture war. Actually use conservative reforms to fix the schools instead of putting up posters half the 3rd grade cannot even read.

Perhaps the most common Republican rejoinder is that displaying the Ten Commandments is an educational initiative focused on historical context rather than a promotion of religion. But while there’s no disputing its historical significance, it’s not being presented as part of a broader course on religion that features a variety of religious and secular perspectives, which would be fine. Instead, beliefs from a particular religious tradition, the Judeo-Christian one, are being elevated and mandated to the deliberate exclusion of others. This selective approach is hardly subtle: Governor Landry purposefully signed the bill at a Catholic school and even referenced Moses! 

There’s no denying that the Ten Commandments are inherently religious, as they proscribe not only murder and adultery but also idolatry, taking the Lord’s name in vain, and working on the Sabbath. So, conservatives making this “history, not religion” argument are straining credulity. 

What’s more, further empowering government schools to promote a specific ideology to students will not end well for conservatives. It’s not exactly breaking news that the public education system is overwhelmingly staffed and run by people with increasingly left-leaning political and cultural views. Conservatives should be fighting to restore viewpoint neutrality in the public square—not further undermining it and thereby making it easier for woke ideologues to propagandize to everyone’s kids. 

It’s sad, but ultimately not surprising, to see so many Republicans proving to be inconsistent allies to true liberal values. At least those few genuine, principled defenders of the First Amendment now know who our allies are—and who they are not. 

--

About the Author

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an independent journalist, YouTuber, and co-founder of BASEDPolitics.

==

Moral consistency requires opposing both.

... Secularism means that no particular ideology is being forwarded and getting special treatment. Go have your belief. Believe what you want. Privately. You don’t get special treatment because you believe this with tons of conviction. Secularism means that your belief in your faith covers none of the distance to proving that it’s true. Conviction is not evidence of much of anything. Except conviction. -- James Lindsay

--

“If you want to respect the rule of law, you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses.”

Leviticus 25:44-46

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Who's going to tell him?

[msclaritea]

GRUMPY OLD GAY GOES OFF ON MODERN LGBT MOVEMENT

Some of you parents are really failing to teach children the nuances of humanity. You can be a Tomboy without being Transgender or Binary or a boy who likes dance and not be Gay.

You can not like dressing up, or be like me, and actually HATE shoe shopping. I like being barefoot. So, sue me. Does that make me Queer or secretly Trans? Fuck no! If you don't listen to me, listen to an old Gay, who's been there.

[beardedmrbean]

Thoughts on this article? I personally agree with everything stated here, but I would like to know your opinion on it.

Submitted by @thejdog2000

Twice because tumblr likely ate the link the first time.

Headline is something I've observed so, not going to lump everyone in the same pile but so far not off base that I can see, let's look at the actual words though.

I'm gonna leave their formatting, not sure what the deal with the bolding is but oh well. __________________

In addition to the BASEDPolitics podcast Brad Polumbo hosts with Hannah Cox each week, he recently launched a second weekly podcast called ‘Damage Control’ where he pushes back against the insanity of so many modern LGBT activists by featuring mostly right-leaning guests from that community.

Polumbo’s most recent guest was independent journalist Glenn Greenwald, a gay journalist who typically focuses on civil liberties and privacy issues. While Greenwald has been considered left-leaning for most of his journalism career, his continued defense of free speech and liberal values has created a perception that he has moved Right, though he hasn’t changed his views.

The world around him has changed—and this includes the LGBT movement. Glenn discussed with Brad, who is also gay and significantly younger than Greenwald, what the LGBT movement was like when he got involved and how much it has changed over the years.

Greenwald said the idea of the earlier gay movement was “about very little other than the principle that adult Americans have the absolute right to decide for themselves what constitutes fulfillment and self-actualization and happiness in their lives, and [what] choices they make about their personal lives and their private lives and their sexual lives and their family lives.”

“It’s no business of anybody else,” Greenwald added. “Not the government’s, not your neighbor’s, not your state, not your city, and that the role of all those entities is not to interfere in your life to try and control it.”

He said it was primarily a “libertarian ethos.”

Glenn Greenwald continued, “Ultimately, that became a very appealing principle for Americans who still have this very kind of libertarian ethos when it comes to cultural issues. This live and let live mentality.” 

He said the early movement sought to humanize and normalize gay men and women and to destigmatize their lifestyles.

“Ultimately, once these demonization stereotypes were combated, these long-time stereotypes that had been deliberately cultivated about threats to children and the like, people began to look at gays and lesbians as human beings and not these cartoon caricatures,” Greenwald said.

Greenwald said that years ago, “with more and more people coming out it was not that difficult to convince Americans that there was no reason to have the government try and interfere in or control or constrain the lives of their neighbors.”

Polumbo told Greenwald the movement he’s describing doesn’t sound like today’s LGBT movement.

“Yeah so that sounds a little bit alien to me,” Polumbo said. “It sounds wonderful, but it sounds a little bit alien to me as somebody whose political consciousness really began in like 2014, 2015, because, first off, I’m not old enough to remember when it was still called the gay rights movement.”

Polumbo added, “Now, it’s like the word ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ are rarely used. It’s LGBT or LGBTQ or LGBTQIA2+ or whatever the new acronym is.”

The host asked, “How has it changed over time? How much resemblance do today’s LGBT activists bear to the gay rights advocates in the 90s?”

Greenwald replied, “Yeah I mean you can kind of see this in the changing of the flag. That metaphorical evolution that you’re describing, where what was once the rainbow flag, the symbol of the lesbian and gay movement, is being increasingly crowded out. There’s barely any more space as all these other symbols kind of start penetrating and in a sort of aggressive way, pushing off to the side that original movement.” 

Later in the interview, Brad noted that the seeming lack of respect for free speech among many LGBT activists disturbed him.

Polumbo said, “I recently saw a video of a Christian protester at a pride parade…where he was arrested by the police for disorderly conduct, though there was none, so the charges were dropped. He was just arrested because they didn’t want him protesting at a pride parade.”

Brad continued, “I was disturbed because when he was put in handcuffs most of the crowd erupted in applause, clapping at this dissenting viewpoint being arrested, being squashed with the arm of the state. I do think, especially in the context of the trans debate, there is a new strain of LGBT activism especially in the halls of political activists that is pretty blatantly openly hostile to dissenting viewpoints or to free speech or open debate…”

“Would that be alien to gay activists of yesteryear?” Polumbo asked. “Or was that attitude also prevalent then even though they were the minority viewpoint?”

Greenwald responded, “For me, the tipping point moment or one of the transformative moments was when gay activist groups sued that small bakery in Colorado and demanded that they make wedding cakes celebrating same-sex couples even though their religious conscience counseled against it.” 

He continued, “And even though I understand in theory the argument that people should have the right to public accommodations and to be treated equally, the reality is there were all sorts of alternatives available to the people in that town.” 

“It’s just one little outpost of dissent that was saying we don’t believe in same-sex marriages. They weren’t attacking anybody. They weren’t assaulting anybody. They weren’t trying to interfere in anyone’s rights. They were actually defending their own rights of conscience and this wasn’t enough.” 

Greenwald later said that the modern gay rights movement seems to have lost the plot, exchanging the old view of just wanting to be left alone to becoming a new “bullying” movement.

“This principle of the right of autonomy and individual choice. What has happened is that the gay and lesbian movement, now the LGBTQIA2+, movement, the acronym seems to expand on a weekly basis, has really become a movement of power.” Greenwald said. “Every institution of authority practically is on the side of this movement.” 

Greenwald continued, “They have the banks behind them. Corporations behind them. The president hangs the LGBT flag at the White House. It has become a movement that has the support of almost every sector and as a result, it has become a bullying movement. Just like power corrupts people, it corrupts movements.”

He added, “I believe that’s what happened with the LGBT movement… where it’s no longer sufficient to say let us live our lives the way we want, it has now become we’re going to force you to live your life the way we want. We’re going to force you to teach your children things that you don’t believe in. We’re going to force you to affirm ideas that you don’t actually believe.”

“And we’re going to tolerate no dissent, any dissent at all to our agenda,” Greenwald observed. 

And what might happen to dissenters? Greenwald explained, “We’re going to interpret as some kind of hate crime or something that deserves violence because we’re so convicted and so righteous in our movement that anybody who dissents from any part of our agenda is automatically somebody who deserves punishment.” 

Glenn described today’s LGBT mob: “And to watch this kind of bullying mentality prevail. That really is this kind of characteristic of mob justice. We have all the force on our side. We have all the power.” _____________________________

Oh I bet he's "popular" in some circles.

I'm gonna kinda ramble a bit on things here, even if I try not to it'll happen so be warned.

I got to live through all that too, wild to see where we're at now with it. I went to the "hood" high school in my town class of 96 for people that would like a time frame, had all the tough guys and machismo shit left and right, we also had the legit farmers there, high school in a town with a population around 300,000 with a actual AG department, ya we had the legitimate rednecks and then there was the various gay folks, some more obvious than others.

Think maybe once or twice someone decided to give a couple of them shit and thought about starting something that I saw or heard of, the one I did see the people that were in there being asses were politely asked to go the fuck somewhere else by a few of the linebackers from the football team.

Weird place and time.

People just doing their thing and letting other people do their thing, gay rights movement had some real battles left to fight like the abolishment of DADT, legal protection for intimate partners AKA gay marriage, some workplace, housing, and other various discrimination issues that I think have mostly been taken care of.

It was good times when the 'equality in marriage' thing went through later on I remember thinking that that was going to be the cherry on the top of the big gay cake

Cancer researchers would like to be out of a job, have their entire department shut down and closed up never to be needed again, because they achieved their goals.

Activists on the other hand, many of them seem to get their sense of self worth from what they're doing right now and whatever accolades they're receiving right now, no matter how many issues get resolved with their participation the need to keep pushing, it comes off to me like a drug some people just need more and more of.

So they finished the big gay cake, but instead of enjoying it the search for the new thing to be angry about began.

Some of those things are perfectly valid, some of them are not, and some of them are downright rapey.

Which is where the bullying comes into play, with things like being told I'm transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a transwoman just because she has a dick.

Me not liking dick is not transphobic, the people I was talking about up above that had to do their fights to be accepted for wanting to use their naught bits the way they wanted and have other naughty bits of the type they liked brought round for them didn't do that so someone could tell a straight guy he's transphobic for not wanting to suck girldick.

So ya, I may not be 100% on board with what the guy says on everything, but he's got a solid point on several fronts. As a front row witness to a good deal of the movements history ya it's gone and become a whole lot of bullying, not all of it but man the folks out there with the loudest voices seem to enjoy the bully bit.

Revenge I'd guess.

[pashterlengkap]

Fact check: Does Donald Trump support marriage equality?

Throughout former President Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, several different outlets have claimed he supports marriage equality. One Newsweek column by Brad Polumbo from July of this year states, “Trump made history as the first president to take office accepting gay marriage,” and a separate PolitiFact fact check claims that “Trump and Biden had evolved on the issue of marriage equality before arriving at a similar stance that supports gay rights.” However, the article gives no indication that Trump has shifted his views on marriage equality since 2016, referencing past interviews in which he opposed marriage rights for same-sex couples. LGBTQ Nation evaluated the claim for its truthfulness. The Trump-Vance campaign was reached out to for comment; however, they did not respond before publication. Trump’s past statements on marriage equality Your LGBTQ+ guide to Election 2024 Stay ahead of the 2024 Election with our newsletter that covers candidates, issues, and perspectives that matter. Subscribe to our Newsletter today From 2000 to 2016, Trump publicly opposed same-sex marriage. “I’m probably as conservative as anybody on your show, and that’s going a pretty strong step. I’m Republican, a very conservative Republican. I believe strongly in just about all conservative principles, just about…. I’m not in favor of gay marriage…. No. I’m just not in favor of gay marriage,” he said to Fox News in 2011. “I just don’t feel good about it,” Trump told Bill O’Reilly in 2011. “I don’t feel right about it. I’m against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it’s like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I’m opposed to gay marriage.” In 2011, he also said to the Des Moines Register, “They should not be able to marry.” He was then asked if gay people should have the same marriage benefits as straight people, to which he said that his “attitude on it has not been fully formed.” After a moment, Trump said on marriage and civil benefits, “As of this moment, I would say no and no.” “I’m just for traditional marriage,” he told CNN in 2015. Additionally, during the 2016 election, PolitiFact rated gay former Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney’s (D-NY) statement that Trump is against same-sex marriage as “true.” At around this time, he stated that he would “strongly consider” appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices who oppose same-sex marriage and would try to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2015 that legalized gay marriage. “If I’m elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things,” Trump told Fox News. “I don’t like the way they ruled. I disagree with the Supreme Court from the standpoint they should have given the state — it should be a states’ rights issue.”  However, he congratulated Elton John on his civil partnership in 2005, making it feasible that he believed in civil partnerships over marriage equality. Shortly after he was elected in 2016, The Economist wrote of an interview he did with 60 Minutes: “Trump told Ms. Stahl that his personal views on same-sex marriage are ‘irrelevant’ because the issue is ‘already settled’ by Obergefell. ‘It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court,’ Mr. Trump said. ‘I mean it’s done.’ And not to be mistaken, Mr. Trump has left behind his campaign-trail paeans to ‘traditional marriage’ and the wish that same-sex nuptials be determined state by state. The law is settled, he said, ‘and I’m fine with that.’” Trump’s actions as president Since his election in 2016, Trump has not spoken directly about same-sex marriage. Instead, surrogates have at times said that he’s in favor of gay marriage. Kellyanne Conway, his former counselor, was quoted in 2019 as saying, “He’s the first president to start as president for approving of gay marriage.” This occurred in 2019 and 2020, especially with his “Trump Pride” campaign. This campaign featured no direct… http://dlvr.it/TCqFLK

[xtruss]

Forget A Ban — Why Are Journalists Using TikTok In The First Place?

I’m a Security Researcher Working in the Journalism Field, and I’m Here to Rain on Your Dangerous, Dumb Parade.

— Nikita Mazurov | April 7, 2024

The TikTok logo displayed on a laptop screen with a glowing keyboard in Krakow, Poland, on March 3, 2024. Photo: Klaudia Radecka/NurPhoto via Getty Images

As Far As I know, there are no laws against eating broken glass. You’re free to doomscroll through your cabinets, smash your favorite water cup, then scarf down the shards.

A ban on eating broken glass would be overwhelmingly irrelevant, since most people just don’t do it, and for good reason. Unfortunately, you can’t say the same about another dangerous habit: TikTok.

As a security researcher, I can’t help but hate TikTok, just like I hate all social media, for creating unnecessary personal exposure.

As a security researcher working in journalism, one group of the video-sharing app’s many, many users give me heartburn. These users strike a particular fear into my heart. This group of users is — you guessed it — my beloved colleagues, the journalists.

TikTok, of course, isn’t the only app that poses risks for journalists, but it’s been bizarre to watch reporters with sources to protect express concern about a TikTok ban when they shouldn’t be using the platform in the first place. TikTok officials, after all, have explicitly targeted reporters in attempts to reveal their sources.

My colleagues seem to nonetheless be dressing up as bullseyes.

Ignoring TikTok’s Record

Impassioned pleas by reporters to not ban TikTok curiously omit TikTok’s most egregious attacks on reporters.

In his defense of TikTok, the Daily Beast’s Brad Polumbo offers a disclaimer in the first half of the headline — “TikTok Is Bad. Banning It Would Be Much Worse” — but never expands upon why. Instead, the bulk of the piece offers an apologia for TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance.

Meanwhile, Vox’s A.W. Ohlheiser expatiates on the “both/and” of TikTok, highlighting its many perceived benefits and ills. And yet, the one specific ill, which could have the most impact on Ohlheiser and other reporters, is absent from the laundry list of downsides.

The record is well established. In an attempt to identify reporters’ sources, ByteDance accessed IP addresses and other user data of several journalists, according to a Forbes investigation. The intention seems to have been to track the location of the reporters to see if they were in the same locations as TikTok employees who may have been sources for stories about TikTok’s links to China.

— Not Only Did TikTok Surveil Reporters In Attempts To Identify Their Sources, But The Company Also Proceeded To Publicly Deny Having Done So.

“TikTok does not collect precise GPS location information from US users, meaning TikTok could not monitor US users in the way the article suggested,” the TikTok communication team’s account posted on X in response to Forbes’s initial reporting. “TikTok has never been used to ‘target’ any members of the U.S. government, activists, public figures or journalists.”

Forbes kept digging, and its subsequent investigation found that an internal email “acknowledged that TikTok had been used in exactly this way,” as reporter Emily Baker-White put it.

TikTok did various probes into the company’s accessing of U.S. user data; officials were fired and at least one resigned, according to Forbes. That doesn’t change the basic facts: Not only did TikTok surveil reporters in attempts to identify their sources, but the company also proceeded to publicly deny having done so.

And Now, Service Journalism For Journalists

For my journalism colleagues, there may well be times when you need to check TikTok, for instance when researching a story. If this is the case, you should follow the operational security best practice of compartmentalization: keeping various items separated from one another.

In other words, put TikTok on a separate “burner” device, which doesn’t have anything sensitive on it, like your sources saved in its contacts. There’s no evidence TikTok can see, for example, your chat histories, but it can, according to the security research firm Proofpoint, access your device’s location data, contacts list, as well as camera and microphone. And, as as a security researcher, I like to be as safe as possible.

And keep the burner device in a separate location from your regular phone. Don’t walk around with both phones turned on and connected to a cellular or Wi-Fi network and, for the love of everything holy, don’t take the burner to sensitive source meetings.

— Dumb USA 🇺🇸: China 🇨🇳 Is Coming! China 🇨🇳 is Coming! China 🇨🇳 Is Coming!

You can also limit the permissions that your device gives to TikTok — so that you’re not handing the app your aforementioned location data, contacts list, and camera access — and you should. Only allow the app to do things that are required for the app to run, and only run enough to do your research.

And don’t forget, this is all for your research. When you’re done looking up whatever in our hellscape tech dystopia has brought you to this tremendous time suck, the burner device should be wiped and restored to factory defaults.

The security and disinformation risks posed to journalists are, of course, not unique to TikTok. They permeate, one way or another, every single social media platform.

That doesn’t explain journalists’ inscrutable defense of a medium that is actively working against them. It’s as clear as your favorite water cup.

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

Have you heard of Clarkson Lawson or Brad Polumbo? They’re awesome

No I don't know who they are. If they're YouTubers I almost never know who those people are though

[antonio-velardo]

Antonio Velardo shares: How a Gay Republican Sees the Rise in Anti-L.G.B.T.Q. Rhetoric on the Right by Jane Coaston

By Jane Coaston There’s been an uptick in anti-gay rhetoric over the last year. Jane Coaston interviews Brad Polumbo, a gay Republican-leaning podcaster, about what’s going on inside the right. Published: September 4, 2023 at 05:02AM from NYT Opinion https://ift.tt/WnmDkVK via IFTTT

[gunlovingpacifist]

Brad Polumbo takes on the leftist ideologies in the LGBTQ community and interviews Buck Angel who is absolutely right but y'all call him a transphobe for trying to protect kids. You are actually the bigots.

https://fb.watch/mP8G8VUG_P/?mibextid=Ux40to

[beardedmrbean]

Protests broke out at the University of Pittsburgh after Daily Wire host Michael Knowles and journalist Brad Polumbo visited the school to debate transgender ideology, a hot topic on college campuses across the country. 

The anger directed against the topic of discussion, "Should transgenderism be regulated by law?", turned into fear as a "loud explosion was heard and felt in the debate room," according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 

"The explosion prompted Pitt to send an emergency alert to students about a ‘public safety emergency,’" the newspaper added. 

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH’S LGBTQ TASK FORCE MAKES DEMANDS, INCLUDING TRANS-INCLUSIVE HEALTH CARE, HOUSING

Even after the debate over transgenderism concluded, the protests reportedly continued outside. Some "chanted, yelled, played drums and cowbells and held LGBTQ flags as police urged them to clear off the streets." 

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette also reported that "[o]ne protester set fire to a cardboard cutout with Mr. Knowles’ face on it."

Knowles retweeted a video of students protesting on the University of Pittsburgh’s campus on his official Twitter account and also shared articles and posts about the event, held Tuesday night. 

Polumbo took to Twitter to address the agitators on campus directly. "[T]o the protestors who tried to interrupt and shout down the event, set off fireworks in the street, and reportedly assaulted 4 cops… grow the hell up." 

The protests and possible explosion at the University of Pittsburgh were the latest in a series of controversies at the school that have received national attention. 

The University of Pittsburgh’s LGTBQ task force posted several demands for the university to implement, including expanding housing and health care to transgender students.

"These centers need to not be buried deep in an org chart. LGBTQIA+ staff hired NEED to have some level of autonomy over collaboration, programming, and resource sharing. No more of this BS departmental/division gate keeping," the task force wrote in a post on Instagram.

Athlete Riley Gaines also made headlines after she visited the University of Pittsburgh’s campus back in March. A 12-time All-American swimmer, Gaines called out the chaos at University of Pittsburgh as many activists tried to prevent her appearance at the college.

Gaines — who became a national figure when she objected to trans swimmer Lia Thomas participating in women’s sports — pointed out the double standard that conservative speakers face on leftist college campuses. 

"When Dylan Mulvaney comes to UPitt, he gets paid $26,000 from school funding. When Riley Gaines comes to UPitt, she gets protested, threatened with violence, and attempted to get the event canceled by students, faculty, and lawmakers," Gaines tweeted. "Something tells me Im doing something right," the swimmer told her over 500,000 followers on the platform. 

The University of Pittsburgh directed Fox News Digital to the following statement on its website about the incident: "On the evening of April 18, 2023, an Emergency Notification Service message was sent alerting the campus community to an incident happening outside of O’Hara Student Center. There were several groups gathering, including guests arriving for a speaker event and counter demonstrators in the vicinity. In addition to several devices which produced significant smoke, an incendiary device was thrown in the direction of officers, triggering the message. As the situation evolved, several buildings were temporarily closed and visitors to residence halls restricted as a safety precaution. Throughout this, these details and additional information were regularly posted on emergency.pitt.edu throughout the evening, until such time as an all clear could be issued."

[aerendil]

This!!!