CNBC anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin brought on the president of a major leftist pressure group to explain the rapid collapse of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at major companies. Sorkin spoke to Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Kelley Robinson on the Sept. 12 edition of Squawk Box and asked her to explain why businesses were abandoning DEI and severing ties with her once-dominant organization. “Major U.S. companies have been walking back their internal diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, Ford, Lowe’s, Tractor Supply and others will stop submitting data to LBLGBTQ+ advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign,” Sorkin said. Sorkin specifically asked Robinson if companies were seeking to avoid boycotts by rebuking DEI—and pressed for information on whether the Supreme Court’s decision against racial discrimination in college admissions drove companies away from the leftist ideology. Robinson ignored the hypothetical question and lashed out at her enemies in a response that showed no sign of any understanding of the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision.  “There's no denying that there is tension in the business community right now related to the political nature of some of these issues that are popping up, and unfortunately, it's nothing new. The same sort of narratives that we saw coming out of the Supreme Court are mirroring the horrific, anti-LGBTQ+ policies that we've seen in hundreds of bills in states across this country,” Robinson said.  Robinson’s remarks followed an exodus of companies from the HRC’s grip. Since June 27, Ford, Molson-Coors, Tractor Supply, Harley-Davidson, Jack Daniel’s parent company Brown-Furman and Lowe’s have abandoned DEI initiatives and cut ties with the HRC after campaigns by political commentator and podcast host Robby Starbuck.  Companies such as Lowe’s and Tractor Supply have made commitments to cease funding pride festivals, while the latter also promised to “eliminate DEI roles” and “retire our current DEI goals.” Many of the companies have ceased separating employee groups by race or sexual orientation and removed leftist training materials. According to USA Today, Stanley Black & Decker has also abandoned Robinson’s group.  Robinson impotently told Sorkin that the HRC will punish the companies for rolling back DEI and ending their relationships and data sharing with her organization. She promised that these companies faced a “25-point deduction” to their Corporate Equality Index (CEI) scores. The CEI tracks to what extent companies embrace radical policies such as allowing men in women’s restrooms and “healthcare coverage for medically necessary transition-related care.” Robinson followed this announcement with an apparent threat, warning, “It's important that we have accountability here and that employees and consumers alike and shareholders too get to see the impact of these decisions on these companies.”. While the HRC president bragged that “over 1400 companies” still work with her radical organization, Starbuck announced that he is coming after these companies as well. Moreover, Starbuck promised to expose the HRC for pushing companies to “cover transition care, not just for the adults who work for you, but also for children in the states where it is legal.”  It’s time to expose the @HRC. This is a must see video. Did you know that most major companies work with a group that calls Trump a "White nationalist" who "hates America" and many give this group MILLIONS as they work to legalize child sex changes and men in girls locker rooms?… pic.twitter.com/2kz4fj9foM — Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) September 12, 2024 Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on the dangers of leftist DEI ideology infecting corporate America.

X owner Elon Musk highlighted the importance of preserving free speech globally explaining how individuals can be “imprisoned or killed” if they speak out against their respective countries’ ruling authority.  Musk sounded the alarm during a special Sept. 10 interview with All-In podcast hosts Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks and David Friedberg. “They spoke about free speech, with Musk cautioning, “There is like, this weird movement to quell free speech, kind of around the world, and this is something we should be very concerned about.”  Citing the Framers and free speech, Musk continued, “You have to ask yourself, why was the First Amendment, like, a high priority? It’s because people came from countries where if you spoke freely, you’d be imprisoned or killed—and they’re like, ‘Well, we’d like to not have that here because that was horrible.’”  Sacks added to the conversation, remarking “We knew there were authoritarian places around the world, but we thought that in the West, we’d have freedom of speech, and we’ve seen like you said, it seems like a global movement. In Britain, you’ve got teenagers being put in prison for memes.” Agreeing with Sacks, Musk alluded to the recent French arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov in France, on Aug. 25 as an example of this global censorship. Related: Musk, Rumble CEO Condemn Global Assault on Free Speech as Telegram CEO Arrested in France Expanding on this point, Musk responded, “If a country's laws are a particular way and … we think we are being asked to break them and be silent about it then obviously that is no good.” He went on to say, “I think any given thing we do at X corp, we’ve got to be able to explain in light of day, and not feel it was dishonorable or we did the wrong thing.”  Calacanis shared Musk’s concern, remarking, “I'm a bit concerned, as your friend that you’re going to go to one of these countries and I’m going to wake up one day and you’re going to get arrested and like, I'm going to have to go bail you out or something like this is… feels very acute.” Calacanis continued to share the cause of his concern, inquisitively asking Musk about a Guardian journalist suggesting Musk be jailed. Musk answered, directly, “There have been three articles, in the past three weeks. … calling for me to be imprisoned.”  ICYMI!: Musk Launches ‘Alexandre Files’ to Expose Origin of Brazil’s Free Speech Assault Calacanis concernedly responded, “The premise here is, that you bought this thing, this online forum or communication forum, and you're allowing people to use it to express themselves, therefore you have to be jailed? I don't understand the logic here.”  Musk responded to Calacanis's remark saying the issue is that if governments “do not like the truth, they want to suppress it.”  The infamous articles by The Guardian urging the incarceration of Musk include an op-ed written by former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and headlined, “Elon Musk is out of control. Here is how to reign him in.”  The other pieces were written by Guardian Reporter Carole Cadwallad (“Racism, misogyny, lies: How did X become so full of hatred? And is it ethical to keep using it?”) and Columnist Zoe Williams (“Don’t rejoice yet, Elon Musk and his tech bros-in-arms are winning the global battle for truth”). Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Do you carry a gun? Bad idea, says Hollywood. Civilians with guns are fools. You are more likely to hurt yourself than the bad guy. “Leave it to a good guy with a gun to really screw things up,” says a cop on ABC’s “The Rookie.” Liberal politicians agree. “A good guy with a gun will stop bad guys with a gun?! It doesn’t hold up,” smiles New York Gov. Kathy Hochul. “An adolescent rescue fantasy,” adds an “expert” on CBS. Now, I’m not a gun person. I was raised among lefty gun haters. I assumed Hollywood and “experts” were right. When I saw economist John Lott’s book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” I rolled my eyes. But now I understand that Lott makes a good point. “A couple million times a year, people use guns defensively,” he says in my new video. “When a civilian tries to stop one of these instances, they’re overwhelmingly successful.” But FBI reports say self-defense with guns is rare. “They’re simply missing a huge number of cases,” says Lott. He’s posted a list of cases the FBI ignored, where civilians stopped shooters. The FBI lists the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. Forty-nine people were killed. “One week afterwards,” says Lott, “there was a similar attack at a nightclub in South Carolina.” But there, a civilian shot the attacker. “Still had 125 rounds of ammunition on him when he was stopped!” says Lott. Somehow, the FBI missed that case, along with so many others. When 17 people were killed at Parkland, Florida, that got lots of news coverage. Few people know that “just a few months later in Titusville, Florida, (at) an elementary school,” says Lott, “a man came up, started firing his gun. Fortunately, a hot dog vendor (with a) concealed handgun was able to wound the attacker and stop him before he was able to kill.” “Stepped in and saved a lot of people’s lives,” said a local police officer. But the FBI somehow missed that, too ... Lott’s list of ignored cases includes the story of Raul Mendez, who was at a party when a guest opened fire. “Bullet enters right by my ear, goes straight through my face and out my left eye ... Blind from one eye and covered in blood, I unloaded four rounds and finished him off.” Mendez probably saved the lives of a dozen people at that party. I tell him, “The FBI records instances like this, but somehow they have no record of your case.” “They’re not recording the true numbers,” Mendez replies. I ask Lott why. “There’s a lot of political views that infect their data,” he says. “I had interactions with the people in the FBI ... I had people tell me, ‘Well, I’m a Democrat.’” I push back. “The FBI, who carry guns, are anti-gun? It’s not believable.” “They think that it would go against the narrative that they want to push,” answered Lott. Stossel TV asked the FBI why they don’t include self-defense cases like Mendez’. They replied that their data is: “not intended to explore all facets of active shooter incidents.” Too bad politicians and the media don’t realize that. “It’d be great if we could just make all guns disappear,” says Lott. “But when you ban guns, it’s basically the most law-abiding good citizens who obey. Every place in the world that’s banned all guns or all handguns has seen murder rates go up.” So-called experts like a psychiatrist featured on Detroit’s CBS station confidently say, “There haven’t been good guys with a gun who stop mass shootings. It’s the kind of thing you learn reading comic books!” Mendez replies: “I was prepared, and it saved lives. There’s no comic book story about that. Those are facts. That’s what happened. I was there. I’m sure there’s many more out there that go unheard.”

CBS doesn’t seem to know what the word “impartial” means. While praising singer and Harris supporter Taylor Swift for telling people to register to vote, CBS Mornings co-host and Kamala Harris-donor Gayle King proclaimed that she, her co-hosts, and the network don’t just “try to remain impartial,” but that they actually “are impartial.” Co-host Nate Burleson tried to suggest that Swift’s endorsement of Harris wasn’t a way to sway the people she was telling to register to vote. King added that Swift was being impartial like they do: BURLESON: It was basically saying, go out there and vote. Here`s my opinion on what`s going on. KING: Yes, she is not telling you who to vote for though. BURLESON: Yes. KING: She is saying do your own research. BURLESON: And we respect that around here. KING: Yes, we do. BURLESON: As much as we try to remain impartial. All right, so there is controversy -- KING: We don’t try to remain impartial. BURLESON: We do. KING: We do. BURLESON: We do. KING: We are impartial. BURLESON: 100 -- we are. 100 percent, Gayle. KING: Yes, yes.     As NewsBusters has previously reported about King, over the course of a couple years, she had donated a total of $9,000 to Harris’s campaigns in California (that’s not to mention the fact that her donations were exclusively to Democrats). King defended Swift from Republican Senator and vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance, mischaracterizing what he said about her. “I actually heard somebody, I think it was J.D. Vance said, it doesn`t matter, you know, because she is a billionaire and she is out of touch. Meanwhile, your running mate is a billionaire, and a celebrity as well,” she falsely suggested. She, Burleson, and Tony Dokoupil mocked him for having a celebrity billionaire running mate: BURLESON: Yes, I think he said a celebrity billionaire. KING: Yes, a celebrity billionaire. DOKOUPIL: Yes, and there are people who are -- KING: Along with your running mate -- whatever a billionaire. “It sounds like projection a little bit,” Burleson chided. In reality, Vance’s light criticism was just him pointing out that billionaires don’t actually feel the economic hardship average Americans do since they have a lot of money. Some could also argue that people who have $9,000 to spend on political campaigns are kind of in the same boat. It’s also worth noting that this proclamation of impartiality came a day after these same purported journalists all but endorsed Harris themselves following the debate and Swift’s support. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS Mornings September 13, 2024 7:49:16 a.m. Eastern NATE BURLESON: So, let`s start with the Taylor Swift surge. The pop star, she urged her fans to register to vote at vote.gov after she endorsed Kamala Harris for president on Tuesday. Vote.gov, says more than 405,000 people visited the website after Swift`s post. The site only had -- check this out – 30,000 visitors a week before. TONY DOKOUPIL: Whoa. Whoa. GAYLE KING: Wow. BURLESON: That is wild to me. KING: Yes. BURLESON: All right, so the CEO of the nonprofit vote.org says Swift`s impact on voter engagement is undeniable because people were like, ‘well, what does it matter?’ KING: ‘Celebrity endorsements don`t make a difference.’ BURLESON: ‘She`s a pop star. Who cares?’ It makes a big difference. KING: Yes. I actually heard somebody, I think it was J.D. Vance said, it doesn`t matter, you know, because she is a billionaire and she is out of touch. Meanwhile, your running mate is a billionaire, and a celebrity as well. BURLESON: Yes, I think he said a celebrity billionaire. KING: Yes, a celebrity billionaire. DOKOUPIL: Yes, and there are people who are -- KING: Along with your running mate -- whatever a billionaire. BURLESON: It sounds like projection a little bit. KING: Yes. DOKOUPIL: There are people who are afraid of fuller participation in our democracy. I think more people voting and making their voices heard is a good thing. KING: Yes. BURLESON: That`s right. KING: I do, too. BURLESON: And the way she did it. DOKOUPIL: Yes. BURLESON: It was basically saying, go out there and vote. Here`s my opinion on what`s going on. KING: Yes, she is not telling you who to vote for though. BURLESON: Yes. KING: She is saying do your own research. BURLESON: And we respect that around here. KING: Yes, we do. BURLESON: As much as we try to remain impartial. All right, so there is controversy -- KING: We don’t try to remain impartial. BURLESON: We do. KING: We do. BURLESON: We do. KING: We are impartial. BURLESON: 100 -- we are. 100 percent, Gayle. KING: Yes, yes. BURLESON: Way to correct me. (…)

Democatic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has claimed that a Goldman Sachs analysis prefers her economic plan to Trump's, but the bank's CEO corrected her on the gross exaggeration. Harris repeated the claim during a debate with former President Donald Trump Tuesday in an attempt to gain Americans' trust on the economy. 'I think this blew up into something that's bigger than what it was intended to be.' "I am offering what I describe as an opportunity economy, and the best economists in our country, if not the world, have reviewed our relative plans for the future of America," said the vice president. "What Goldman Sachs has said is that Donald Trump's plan would make the economy worse, mine would strengthen the economy."Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon told CNBC that the claim was grossly exaggerated and relied on an independent analysis. "That report, which was mentioned last night in the debate, came from an independent analyst, and it's interesting, Scott, I think a lot more has been made of this than should be," said Solomon. "What the report did is it looked at a handful of policy issues that have been put out by both sides, and it tried to model their impact on GDP growth," Solomon explained. "The reason I say a bigger deal has been made of it is what it showed is the difference between the sets of policies that they've put forward is about two-tenths of 1%."So while Harris might be technically correct, the difference between the two economic plans in the analysis was so minuscule as to be insignificant. Solomon went on to say that it was unclear whether either plan would even be implemented given the political obstacles to approving such policies. "I think our clients are trying to look at what's going on from a policy perspective and make judgments. I think this blew up into something that's bigger than what it was intended to be," he added. That cautionary outlook on candidates' economic plans was shared by IBM vice chairman Gary Cohn, who previously served as the national economic adviser in the Trump administration. Polls have shown Americans trust Trump and Republicans far more on economic policies after high inflation robbed them of wage gains and raised costs across the board. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The first presidential debate between Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump was undoubtedly full of lies — which were permitted by the ABC moderators so long as they benefitted Kamala. One of the most blatant lies occurred when Kamala regurgitated the out-of-context claim that Trump called white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, “very fine people.” “All politicians lie, but the difference that I felt and I think a lot of us watching last night is she was so brazen about it. She looked up right in the eye without flinching, without blinking, without the usually guilty symptoms,” Liz Wheeler of “The Liz Wheeler Show” tells the “Blaze News Tonight” panel. “She lied about late-term abortion, she lied about the ‘very fine people’ Charlottesville hoax, she lied about January 6, she lied about the ‘bloodbath’ comment, she lied about crime data in our cities across the country, she lied about her stance on border security, she lied, I believe three times, about Project 2025, and she lied about fracking,” Wheeler continues. And the ABC moderators did not fact-check Kamala once. “I don’t like being a person that complains about that, but they really outdid themselves. I mean that was propaganda to the level of Pravda,” she adds. Pravda was the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union — which ironically means "truth." Matthew Peterson is disturbed as well, noting that Kamala “can do it and get away with it without looking like the borderline brain-dead person that we’ve seen the clips of for the last few years.” Steve Deace agrees but also believes moderators should be done away with in general. “I don’t know why the media has to be directly involved at all. We’ve already eliminated the presidential commission on debates, which is essentially a who’s who of swamp creatures as it is. I think we ought to just do this as jury selections,” Deace explains. “These people are running for the most powerful office in the world. There’s no moderators when you’re negotiating with Putin and Zelenskyy. There’s no moderators when you’re over there with the little dweeb with the bull haircut and his finger on the trigger,” he adds. Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

An Illinois woman was arrested after she reportedly attacked a staff member of an elementary school Wednesday — and baggies of cocaine spilled upon the floor sparked the alleged assault, according to authorities. Officers with the Rockford Police Department arrested Shakeda Barfield, 33, on Wednesday after accusations that she battered an elementary school employee. The elementary school visitor reportedly became violent and subsequently attacked, punched, scratched, and bit the victim.According to WREX, the Winnebago County State’s Attorney’s Office filed the following charges against Barfield: possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, aggravated battery/strangulation, aggravated battery to a school employee, and disorderly conduct.Police were summoned to the Welsh Elementary School around 9:35 a.m. after a 911 call about a “disruptive visitor” who was battering a staff member, according to WTVO.The news outlet reported that Barfield was at a morning meeting with a school staff member when baggies of cocaine fell from her clothing to the floor. The elementary school employee noticed the baggies of cocaine before Barfield scooped them up, according to court documents. The school staff member allegedly attempted to call police to report the illegal drugs, but Barfield reportedly became violent and subsequently attacked, punched, scratched, and bit the victim.During the physical altercation, Barfield purportedly attempted to strangle the male victim with his own tie, court docs said. Police said the elementary school employee suffered multiple injuries and was bleeding when officers arrived. Medics arrived at the Welsh Elementary School to tend to the staff member's injuries, which were considered non-life-threatening.The alleged violent confrontation caused a lockdown at the school. Classes reportedly continued after the lockdown was lifted.Officers arrested Barfield and took her to the Winnebago County Jail.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

While the media is busy painting Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as "folksy," the folks in Minnesota are not rushing to jump onboard the Democratic ticket. That's according to a new poll showing that independents are breaking toward former President Donald Trump even though Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris has a lead in the state. 'You wanna rip open the champagne bottle, pop that cork, do not do it.' The MinnPost-Embold Research poll said that Harris' lead has shrunk from 5% to just over 4% in just two weeks in a pivotal state where Democrats have a 7% advantage in voting registrations. Of those voters who identify themselves as independents, 40% said they would vote for Trump while only 23% said they would back Harris, a 2 to 1 advantage for the former president. The New York Post noted that unless something changes to improve Harris' standing in the state, it may become a dark horse battleground state in November. Some poll experts have pointed out that Trump has historically underperformed in polling, owing in part to the reticence of his supporters to take polls. Democratic strategist James Carville warned Democrats that unless Harris is winning by more than three points in the popular vote, Republicans still have a good chance of prevailing on election day. CNN polling analyst Harry Enten agreed. "The bottom line is this: If you have an idea, if you're a Kamala Harris fan and you wanna rip open the champagne bottle, pop that cork, do not do it. Donald Trump is very much in this race," he said in August. "If we have a polling shift like we've seen in prior years from now until the final result, Donald Trump would actually win," Enten added. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

I have to admit that a thing that has passed me by utterly is Funko Pops. Despite nearly every shop I go into having at least one shelf filled with these wide-headed characters, I’ve never owned one. So it’s with a small sense of bafflement that I look at Funko Fusion, a pop culture-filled action game that’s out now. That said, there may be some reasons to work through that fog of confusion and give Funko Fusion a chance. Continue reading Funko Fusion might be the closest we’ll get to Astro Bot on PC MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best action-adventure games, New PC games, Best PC games

Kamala FINALLY Agrees to Another Taped Interview and She's Clearly a Big Chicken