Uncensored Free Speech Platform

Tim Tebow’s Mistake: Empowering a Radical Left Politician on Child Protection
Same show, different day.

For years, Tim Tebow has been working with state and federal officials to raise awareness to help get laws passed to end human trafficking and child pornography. It’s a cause that is super commendable—for sure. And he’s on the verge of success.

Just last month, legislation meant to strengthen investigations of sexually abusive images of children, called the Renewed Hope Act of 2026, which Tebow has collaborated on with Republican Florida Rep. Laurel Lee, was reintroduced and voted out of the Judiciary Committee and is now slated for a floor House vote. The big problem, however, is that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., has been made a prominent co-sponsor of this measure.

On the surface, this may seem like something we should celebrate, but it’s not. The reason is simple: Wasserman Schultz is a hypocrite and a far-left politician who has worked to advance a progressive agenda that is nothing short of being anti-parent and anti-family. That ideology is the culprit behind the rise of online child predators.

In fact, if America is ever going to truly abolish online child pornography, then lawmakers like Wasserman Schultz need to get the boot and be voted out of office.

Instead, Tebow has released a press release that hails Wasserman Schultz as a co-sponsor; something she can brag about in her reelection bid.  

What’s more is that Wasserman Schultz hasn’t been mousey about her radical Left positions. She has held top key leadership positions in the Democrat Party and has been at the forefront in using her leverage to oppose parental rights, support abortion, and further transgenderism.

Take, for instance, that in this current Congress she is a lead co-sponsor of the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act. This legislation aims to advance abortion access that would, in essence, make Roe v. Wade the law of the land.

But perhaps most relevant to the issue at hand is that Wasserman Schultz not so long ago voted to prevent a parent’s right to review the curriculum of their child’s school and other materials available in the school library.

When the House of Representatives took up the Parents Bill of Rights Act in 2023, Wasserman Schultz joined with all Democrat members of Congress to oppose this bill, which merely stated that the “right of parents to educate their children is a pre-political natural right that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized as ‘beyond debate’ and rooted in the ‘history and culture of Western civilization.”

The measure also included a requirement that elementary and secondary schools for grades 5 to 8 would be forced to obtain permission from parents before marking their child’s “gender” as “transgender”—something that anyone who believes in protecting children should unequivocally support.  

In other words, Wasserman Schultz is on the side that is fighting against parental rights. She’s doing that even though parents are the key protectors for everywhere a child goes and everything they do, whether in or out of school or online.

Going a step further: The reason that children are being sexually targeted at school and online like never before in our nation’s history is 100% a result of the far-left policies …

Tim Tebow Should Have Pulled Strings to Keep Debbie Wasserman Schultz Off Anti-Child Porn Bill He’s Endorsing
Are they actually going to vote on something real?

For years, Tim Tebow has been working with state and federal officials to raise awareness to help get laws passed to end human trafficking and child pornography. It’s a cause that is super commendable—for sure. And he’s on the verge of success.

Just last month, legislation meant to strengthen investigations of sexually abusive images of children, called the Renewed Hope Act of 2026, which Tebow has collaborated on with Republican Florida Rep. Laurel Lee, was reintroduced and voted out of the Judiciary Committee and is now slated for a floor House vote. The big problem, however, is that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., has been made a prominent co-sponsor of this measure.

On the surface, this may seem like something we should celebrate, but it’s not. The reason is simple: Wasserman Schultz is a hypocrite and a far-left politician who has worked to advance a progressive agenda that is nothing short of being anti-parent and anti-family. That ideology is the culprit behind the rise of online child predators.

In fact, if America is ever going to truly abolish online child pornography, then lawmakers like Wasserman Schultz need to get the boot and be voted out of office.

Instead, Tebow has released a press release that hails Wasserman Schultz as a co-sponsor; something she can brag about in her reelection bid.  

What’s more is that Wasserman Schultz hasn’t been mousey about her radical Left positions. She has held top key leadership positions in the Democrat Party and has been at the forefront in using her leverage to oppose parental rights, support abortion, and further transgenderism.

Take, for instance, that in this current Congress she is a lead co-sponsor of the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act. This legislation aims to advance abortion access that would, in essence, make Roe v. Wade the law of the land.

But perhaps most relevant to the issue at hand is that Wasserman Schultz not so long ago voted to prevent a parent’s right to review the curriculum of their child’s school and other materials available in the school library.

When the House of Representatives took up the Parents Bill of Rights Act in 2023, Wasserman Schultz joined with all Democrat members of Congress to oppose this bill, which merely stated that the “right of parents to educate their children is a pre-political natural right that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized as ‘beyond debate’ and rooted in the ‘history and culture of Western civilization.”

The measure also included a requirement that elementary and secondary schools for grades 5 to 8 would be forced to obtain permission from parents before marking their child’s “gender” as “transgender”—something that anyone who believes in protecting children should unequivocally support.  

In other words, Wasserman Schultz is on the side that is fighting against parental rights. She’s doing that even though parents are the key protectors for everywhere a child goes and everything they do, whether in or out of school or online.

Going a step further: The reason that children are being sexually targeted at school and online like never before in our nation’s history is 100% a result of the far-left policies …

Tim Tebow Should Have Pulled Strings to Keep Debbie Wasserman Schultz off Anti-Child Porn Bill He’s Endorsing
This is performative politics again.

For years, Tim Tebow has been working with state and federal officials to raise awareness to help get laws passed to end human trafficking and child pornography. It’s a cause that is super commendable–for sure. And he’s on the verge of success.

Just last month, legislation meant to strengthen investigations of sexually abusive images of children, called the Renewed Hope Act of 2026, that Tebow has collaborated on with Republican Florida Rep. Laurel Lee, was reintroduced and voted out of the Judiciary Committee and is now slated for a floor House vote. The big problem, however, is that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., has been made a prominent cosponsor of this measure.

On the surface this may seem like something we should celebrate, but it’s not. The reason is simple: Wasserman Schultz is a hypocrite and a far-left politician who has worked to advance a progressive agenda that is nothing short of being anti-parent and anti-family. That ideology is the culprit behind the rise of online child predators.

In fact, if America is ever going to truly abolish online child pornography, then lawmakers like Wasserman-Schultz need to get the boot and be voted out of office.

Instead, Tebow, has released a press release that hails Wasserman Schultz as a cosponsor; something she can brag about in her reelection bid.  

What’s more is that Wasserman Shultz hasn’t been mousey about her radical left positions. She has held top key leadership positions in the Democrat Party and has been at the forefront in using her leverage to oppose parental rights, support abortion, and further transgenderism.

Take for instance that in this current Congress she is a lead cosponsor of the so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act.” This legislation aims to advance abortion access that would in essence make Roe v. Wade the law of the land.

But perhaps most relevant to the issue at hand is that Wasserman Schultz not so long ago voted to prevent a parent’s right to review the curriculum of their child’s school and other materials available in the school library.

When the House of Representatives took up the Parents Bill of Rights Act in 2023, Wasserman Schultz joined with all Democrat members of Congress to oppose this bill which merely stated that the “right of parents to educate their children is a pre-political natural right that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized as ‘beyond debate’ and rooted in the ‘history and culture of Western civilization.”

The measure also included a requirement that elementary and secondary schools for grades 5 to 8 would be forced to obtain permission from parents before marking their child’s “gender” as “transgender” — something that anyone who believes in protecting children should unequivocally support.  

In other words, Wasserman Schultz is on the side that is fighting against parental rights. She’s doing that even though parents are the key protectors for everywhere a child goes and everything they do, whether in or out of school or online.

Going a step further: the reason that children are being sexually targeted at school and online like never before in our nation’s history is one hundred percent a result of the far left …

Is separation of powers in the US system overrated?
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.

I was on YouTube and found a video of Justice Scalia advocating for the superiority of the U.S. system based on the separation of powers.
Link:
After studying the legal systems of various European countries, I was shocked to find that most operate under parliamentary supremacy rather than a strict separation of powers like the U.S. Great Britain, Germany, France, the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark), and Switzerland with its system of direct democracy are all highly developed nations.
In my opinion, they are more advanced than the U.S. in many respects. Furthermore, since Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Spain are large countries, one cannot dismiss their success based on size alone.
This leads to my question: Is the separation of powers overrated?
Scalia, Barrett, and most conservatives argue that a three-branch separation of powers is the reason for America's success, asserting that the Bill of Rights would be useless without it. However, European examples suggest this isn't necessarily true. Here is what I’ve observed:
The UK maintains true parliamentary supremacy. Parliament can enact any law, and the courts cannot strike it down. Despite having no written constitution or constitutional court, it remains one of the world's most stable democracies with a strong rule of law. For example, when they criminalized hate speech, the courts simply applied the law without opposition.
Germany utilizes a parliamentary system where the executive branch is derived from the legislature. Germany is the world’s fourth-largest economy and is known for excellent governance.
France has a semi-presidential system with limited judicial review. Until 2008, it wasn't even possible to challenge a law's constitutionality after it had been passed. Yet, it remains a major developed nation.
The Nordic countries largely practice parliamentary supremacy, and their courts rarely strike down legislation. Despite this, they consistently rank at the top of global indices for democracy, happiness, low corruption, and quality of life.
Switzerland practices direct democracy, and its courts cannot even review federal statutes for constitutionality. I am fairly certain this would have given the American Founders a stroke.
Meanwhile, the U.S. system seems to suffer from all the downsides of the separation of powers (such as gridlock) without consistently delivering the benefits:
- Judicial Overreach: We have an unelected Supreme Court with life tenure that claims to be the final arbiter of law. In fact, in CASA, Justice Barrett stated that they expect the executive branch to follow the "judgments and opinions" of SCOTUS. This feels like a massive escalation: moving from having no building, to establishing judicial review, to essentially acting as a higher power.
- District Court Decrees: "Venue-shopped" district court judges can issue vacaturs blocking federal policies via the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- Legislative Inertia: Congress has been "asleep at the wheel" for the last 20–25 years, while the Presidency becomes more powerful every year.
- Partisan Gridlock: Extreme polarization prevents the …

Andrew Boff: Why Conservatives should champion the ECHR, not run from it
Every delay has consequences.

Andrew Boff is a longstanding Conservative ‘London-wide’ London Assembly member. 

For much of our history we Conservatives have understood a simple truth: liberty is best protected not by the goodwill of the state, but by firm limits upon it. We are sceptical of power, jealous of freedom and wary of over-mighty government. That’s not a modern affectation; it is one of the oldest threads in the Conservative tradition.

And that is precisely why Conservatives should be defending the European Convention on Human Rights, not treating it as a foreign imposition to be discarded when it becomes politically inconvenient.

The ECHR is not a socialist charter, nor a lawyers’ conspiracy, nor a Trojan horse for continental federalism. It is a framework designed to restrain the state and protect the individual. Conservatives should ask themselves a simple question: who benefits when governments face fewer legal limits on their power? The answer is: never the citizen.

Long before the ECHR existed, Britain was shaping the very idea of individual rights against arbitrary authority. Magna Carta limited the Crown’s power over the subject; habeas corpus protected people from indefinite detention without trial; the Bill of Rights of 1689 safeguarded freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. These were not progressive indulgences; they were conservative defences against tyranny, forged through bitter experience of what happens when power is unchecked.

The ECHR sits squarely in that tradition: it was British Conservatives who helped design it in the aftermath of the Second World War. Born out of the horrors of the Holocaust, the Convention reflected hard-learned lessons from the collapse of democratic institutions across Europe.

Without the constraints of international treaties, governments elected by popular support, on a minority of the vote, dismantled in the Thirties freedoms step by step using perfectly legal means. The architects of the ECHR understood that democracy without constraints can mutate into authoritarianism.

That lesson is no less relevant today.

We should be honest with ourselves: a future government, elected on a fragmented vote share (as we have now), could be far more radical than anything we have yet experienced. A populist authoritarian left or far-right parliament would find it much easier to suppress protest, weaken due process, politicise policing, or curtail free expression if external legal safeguards were removed. Conservatives who cheer the erosion of those safeguards may live to regret it.

Much of the current hostility to the ECHR centres on immigration and asylum. But this is a profound misdiagnosis of the problem.

The Convention does not compel governments to operate chaotic asylum systems, to lose track of case files, to take …

You're tasked with creating a second Bill of Rights for a post-Trump America. What would you include in it?
Be honest—this is ridiculous.

What would you include in a second Bill of Rights? Would you say that healthcare is a right and not a privilege? Would you say that corporations are not people? What should we put in the document that would be transformative for this country, and how do we do it?

You're tasked with creating a second Bill of Rights for a post-Trump America. What would you include in it?
Be honest—this is ridiculous.

What would you include in a second Bill of Rights? Would you say that healthcare is a right and not a privilege? Would you say that corporations are not people? What should we put in the document that would be transformative for this country, and how do we do it?