Truth has been sacrificed on the altar of political narrative in just about every topic in news stories today. John and Producer Steve discuss how the truth has been left behind in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, in the recent climate change conference, and in the ongoing saga with the pandemic and the vaccines. There's even an indictment regarding the fake Russian dossier that no one in the media seems to care about. Narrative trumps everything else. If someone really wants to know the truth in any situation, the mainstream media, politicians, and social media sites are not the sources to go to.
What can we learn from the occupation of the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Seattle? In this week's boralogue, John points out glaring contradictions with the new autonomous enclave, including their border wall, border guards with guns, and the need for an ID – all things leftists and this group has fought against for years. The reason these things work is because we have learned from history, but it's the same history these folks want to tear down.
Has qualified immunity, created with good intentions, been abused like civil asset forfeiture? Mark Miller (www.pacificlegal.org), Senior Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, joins us to give the pros and cons of qualified immunity and discuss the balance between holding law enforcement accountable and allowing them to do their work without fear of being prosecuted.
John then wades into the issue of all lives mattering, showing that in order to claim that any life matters, there must be a moral foundation behind it.
Antifa has reared its ugly head during recent rioting and looting, but what is the history of this group? Kyle Shideler (www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org), Director for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism at the Center for Security Policy, examines the background of Antifa, their tactics in hijacking a movement, and what their real aim is for this country.
Finally we welcome another attorney from Pacific Legal Foundation, Daniel Ortner (www.pacificlegal.org), who shows that allowing bureaucrats to determine what content is allowed online could lead to speech suppression, regardless of who is in power. People should be allowed to hear both sides of an issue and then decide for themselves what to believe.