'I was learning about things the same time that the world'

“Promising” antibiotic candidates were found by Finnish scientists in microbes under the seafloor in the Arctic Ocean. 70% of all currently licensed antibiotics have been derived from actinobacteria in the soil, but most environments on Earth have not yet been searched for them. Scientists say that focusing the search on actinobacteria in other habitats is […] The post Potential New Source for Drugs to Fight Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Found Deep in Arctic Ocean appeared first on Good News Network.

This Labor Day weekend, the AAA expects tens of millions of drivers on the road—10% more than last year—most of them in safe, affordable cars and pickup trucks.   Consumers have choice, based on their own preferences and needs, not the dictates of government. Now you can travel in your choice of electric vehicle, hybrid, or gasoline-powered car. But in 10 years you will likely not have that choice, once the stealth regulations of the Biden-Harris administration force you into buying electric vehicles. That’s because President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have imposed regulations through the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation that mandate that 70% of all new passenger cars sold in America be battery-powered electric or plug-in hybrid by 2032, up from about 8% in 2023. By 2027, 32% of new vehicles have to be electric or plug-in hybrid; by 2029, the share is 47%. The stated objective of the mandate is to reduce global temperatures due to climate change. But even if all fossil fuels were eliminated from the United States immediately, this would make a difference of only two-tenths of one degree Celsius by 2100, according to government models. If automakers don’t sell the required share of electric vehicles under the mandate, the government levies fines and manufacturers must purchase credits from companies selling more electric vehicles. Currently, automakers buy Zero Emission Vehicle credits from Tesla, which sells two-thirds of all EVs in the United States. The financial penalties faced by auto companies for breaking the law already force them to reduce production and raise prices of popular cars, such as pickup trucks and sports utility vehicles, and increase their production of electric vehicles. As the required share of EV sales rises, more desirable brands will be priced higher—or disappear. Since Americans prefer pickup trucks to EVs, auto companies price EVs artificially lower than cost and raise prices of gasoline-powered cars to compensate. Raising car prices to unaffordable levels removes choice. Even with favored pricing, and with the $7,500 tax credit to purchase an electric vehicle, dealers are not selling enough EVs to meet the mandate. Over 4,000 car dealers wrote to Biden in November 2023, stating: “The reality, however, is that electric vehicle demand today is not keeping up with the large influx of [battery electric vehicles] arriving at our dealerships prompted by the current regulations. BEVs are stacking up on our lots.” In January 2024, over 5,000 car dealers wrote again to Biden, saying: “Electric vehicle sales are not remotely on trend to meet those [EPA] requirements. Indeed, the day supply of electric vehicles on dealer lots today is nearly twice the supply of conventional vehicles … We now ask that you hit the brakes.” For those who can afford electric vehicles, who can recharge them at home or at the office, and who don’t have to travel too far during the day, EVs are ideal. They are quiet and don’t require trips to the gas station. But for others, the Biden-Harris EV mandate doesn’t work, and these drivers should be allowed their choice of gasoline-powered cars. Electric vehicles cost tens of thousands more than their gasoline-powered equivalents. Some people can’t recharge at home or on the job, such as many who work in businesses that require travel, or who work in farming. Extreme hot and cold temperatures reduce battery life. And those who travel with children know that several delays along the road to recharge can ruin a family vacation. The mandate for electric vehicles increases America’s dependence on China, which produces 80% of EV batteries, as my recent Heritage Foundation report details. The mandate also specifies that 25% of all heavy trucks sold must be electric by 2032. As with EVs, electric trucks cost more than diesel trucks, raising transportation costs. A diesel truck costs about $120,000; an electric truck costs in the range of $450,000 to $500,000. America doesn’t even have the electrical grid capacity, the charging stations, or the technology to operate long-haul electric trucks—and won’t have them by 2032. Harris has said that she doesn’t want to take away Americans’ choice of vehicles. If so, the Biden-Harris administration indeed needs to hit the brakes on the EV mandate. The post Biden-Harris Admin’s EV Mandates Destroy Car Choice appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Some ideas are like horror movie villains. They’re dangerous, and no matter how many times they’re defeated, they never seem to die. The misguided idea of taxing unrealized capital gains is back on the scene. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., floated a proposal to tax unrealized capital gains in 2021. It was widely debated in 2022, when Congress was considering a multitrillion-dollar tax and spending package. Opposition from Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., to taxing income before it’s earned helped defeat the idea then. But the idea was far from dead. President Joe Biden included a version of the tax in his latest budget. Vice President Kamala Harris also has endorsed the idea. The first step in killing a bad idea is to recognize it for the scourge it is. A realized capital gain—which we currently tax—is the difference between the price you sold an asset for and the price you paid for it. An unrealized gain, on the other hand, is an estimate of what that difference would be if you had sold an asset that you still hold. The difference between taxing realized capital gains and unrealized gains is the difference between the government taxing people on income they’ve actually received versus the government taxing them on income they might receive later. It would give the government the first claim on income, taking a big slice before the supposed owner of the asset ever sees a penny. In effect, it would turn property owners into property renters, with Uncle Sam as their landlord. Consider how an unrealized capital gains tax would work if it was applied to housing. You would be taxed on the increase in the value of your house regardless of whether you sold it and received any income out of it. If you bought a house for $300,000, and the value rose to $500,000 a couple years later, you could be stuck paying tax on the $200,000 of gain even as you’re struggling to make mortgage payments. At a 25% tax rate, it would cost you $50,000 in federal taxes. It would be like having a second mortgage, but in some ways worse. At least mortgage payments end after 30 years. But you would never finish paying off your unrealized capital gains tax payments, as long as you owned the asset and its value was increasing—even if that increase was only from inflation. And unlike mortgages, which give homeowners clearly defined payment terms, unrealized capital gains tax payments would be unpredictable, rising or falling depending on the housing market, inflation, and subjective assessments of a house’s value. Unrealized capital gains taxes on business assets wouldn’t be much better. The value of company stocks fluctuate wildly, year to year and even day to day. If a company’s stock price skyrocketed at the end of one year and then plummeted at the start of the next, its shareholders could face devastating capital gains taxes that they may have no way of paying—even if they were to sell their shares. Unrealized capital gains are often—as the name suggests—not real. But the taxes on the phantom gains would be very real. Under an unrealized capital gains tax, the federal government would exert its primacy over Americans’ investments, taking the first dividends on profitable endeavors. But although the government would reap the first rewards, individual investors and business owners would bear the risk of losses. Taxing the unrealized gains from ownership in a small, closely held business would present many of the same challenges as taxing unrealized gains on corporate stock or on housing. And it would present unique challenges. Stock prices may be used to estimate public companies’ prices, but an unrealized capital gains tax on small business assets would require administratively burdensome business valuations. Small business owners—with limited access to capital markets—would be especially ill-prepared to deal with sudden surges in taxes whenever the company’s estimated value rose. As soon as small businesses achieved some success, the government would slam them with new taxes and stop their momentum. Those in Washington who propose taxing unrealized capital gains generally include broad exemptions for certain asset classes and based on income or asset thresholds. These exceptions would give investors a path to escape from the tax, which is better than the alternative. The tax would have fewer direct victims as a result. But the tax-induced capital flows still would wreak economic havoc—and without managing to raise much government revenue. So, the new tax would do little to satiate lawmakers’ appetite for more tax dollars. And once a horror movie villain—or a bad idea—gets a foot in the door, it quickly can swing the door open wide and claim more victims. When the income tax was first implemented in 1913, it applied to less than 1% of the population, and most of those who paid it paid only a 1% rate. That small initial income tax spawned something far worse and more widespread over time. Allowing the government to tax income that doesn’t exist sets an even more dangerous precedent. Americans should slam the door on the idea of taxing unrealized capital gains, and lawmakers should kill the idea once and for all. The post The Danger of Taxing Unrealized Capital Gains appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. America First Legal (AFL) is attempting to shed light on the role that the Biden-Harris administration may have played in the arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov. The French-Emirati citizen was arrested in France and charged with a large number of alleged crimes – in effect, failure to censor third-party content that can be qualified as criminal behavior. However, there is suspicion that the real reason is to force Telegram to censor all content, in the style of Google or Meta. The charges also attack encryption. Announcing its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding the US State Department’s possible involvement in the arrest, AFL noted that the encrypted app is one of the world’s largest, based on the premise of protecting its users’ free speech from what the non-profit dedicated to promoting the rule of law calls “government-sponsored” censorship. We obtained a copy of the letter for you here. AFL cites statements made by Mike Benz, founder of the Foundation for Freedom Online and former State Department official, as the reason to suspect the current White House either had advance knowledge or has had its hand in the highly controversial arrest. Display content from Twitter Click here to display content from Twitter. Learn more in Twitter’s privacy policy. Always display content from Twitter Open "content" directly If true, AFL doesn’t see this as out of character for the Biden-Harris administration, given its own track record regarding online censorship. AFL puts its FOIA requests in the context of working to protect freedom of speech, which is guaranteed – or is supposed to be guaranteed – by the First Amendment in the US. Durov’s arrest is described by AFL Legal Executive Director Gene Hamilton as “troubling.” “The American people have a right to know whether the Biden-Harris Administration had advance knowledge of the plans to arrest Mr. Durov,” Hamilton is quoted as saying. The FOIAs state that Telegram is, among close to a billion users, used by millions of political dissidents and freedom fighters around the world, and is endorsed by digital rights groups. The FOIAs specifically request records that should show whether the administration, prompted by domestic political reasons, engaged in influencing “the criminal justice apparatus of an important ally.” To this end, AFL wants access to communications with French nationals and/or diplomatic cables that contain the words “Pavel Durov,” “Paul du Rove,” and “Telegram,” and documents or records relevant to the arrest. The material requested via the FOIA covers the period from May 1 this year, to the date the requests are processed. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Biden-Harris Administration is Probed for Potential Role in Telegram CEO Pavel Durov’s Arrest appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Andy Yen, CEO of Proton – which develops a suit of encrypted, privacy-focused services including Proton Mail – has spoken out against France’s charges against Telegram’s Pavel Durov, slamming them as “insane.” Yen commented on the developments in the context of the position France has put itself in, as a place for tech companies – either in terms of doing business there, or merely for their founders traveling to the country. In the wake of Durov’s arrest, and in light of the nature of the charges pressed against him, the perception of France as a desirable destination for the tech industry is changing “rapidly and permanently” as far as investors and founders are concerned – and not in a good way. France has committed “economic suicide” – that is how Yen describes the situation, in addition to the damage done to its image as a free country. He makes note of the fact that even though Durov faced problems in Russia, and refused to comply with the demands of the authorities there several years ago, France turned out to be the one to arrest him. “Imagine the outrage,” Yen continues, if the situation was reversed – if Russia arrested the CEO of a major US tech company, for example, Mark Zuckerberg. (The outrage would most certainly include branding Russia as an “authoritarian” country, but something of the kind is entirely missing in legacy media reporting about France, in the context of the scandalous arrest in Paris.) Yen expressed another concern regarding France’s decision to subject a platform operating on servers in other countries to its jurisdiction, making the charges extrajudicial. “The only French connection (when it comes to jurisdiction over servers) is that Durov made the mistake of obtaining French nationality,” the Proton CEO writes. Some of those who commented on Yen’s reaction made an interesting observation that, at least up to the point it was posted, very few other founders of privacy-friendly and encrypted services had raised their voices against the arrest and the charges. And they, among other things, accuse Durov of providing “cryptology services aiming to ensure confidentiality without certified declaration.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Proton CEO Slams France for Arresting Telegram Founder appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

A leftist group financed by self-appointed Minister of Truth George Soros is partnering with a Big Tech-backed organization in an attempt to interfere in the 2024 election. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) boasted in an Aug. 21 press release how it was leading a joint effort for “Helping Election Officials Combat Misinformation in 2024” with a “course” co-led by the Google and Facebook-backed Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL), which was significantly involved in the whole “Zuck Bucks” scandal to influence the 2020 election. Notably, Soros pumped at least $1,496,000 into the coffers of CDT and its international affiliate between 2016 and 2023, according to grant disclosures reviewed by MRC Free Speech America.  CDT claimed the course seeks to supposedly groom election officials “by teaching terms and concepts related to information operations, helping them identify and respond to mis-, dis-, and malinformation, and preparing them to respond with a defensive communications strategy.” It’s as though they’re converting officials into Soros and Big Tech’s own personal election foot soldiers. Talk about an unholy alliance. MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider warned Americans about the implications of this chilling development in a statement. “It wasn’t enough for George Soros to direct and control prosecutors or manipulate various media across this country, but now it's clear his machine  is trying to wield his enormous influence over the people responsible for overseeing the elections just as the 2024 race is heating up.” He continued: “Make no mistake. This is yet another terrifying example of how powerful the Soros machine is. Americans need to be on high alert.” This new Orwellian alliance between a Soros-funded group and the Big Tech lobby is especially chilling because Soros was already exposed for doling out $80 million to groups pressuring social media platforms to censor Americans before the 2024 elections.  In 2023, MRC specifically found that Soros earmarked $14.8 million to fight the leftist bogeyman called “disinformation” online, which typically means constitutionally protected free speech with which the left disagrees. Not to be outdone by Soros, Big Tech platforms played a major role too. MRC Free Speech America has released several studies showing how Google has manipulated its search algorithm to benefit President Joe Biden (while he was still running for reelection) and his successor Vice President Kamala Harris. Similarly, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook’s parent company Meta, publicly admitted on Monday that his platform interfered in the 2020 election by censoring the infamous Hunter Biden laptop story. His censorship continued into 2021, this time targeting COVID-19-related posts under pressure from the Biden administration. Memes and jokes were among the censored content. Tim Harper — CDT’s senior policy analyst of democracy and election and one of the individuals involved with the new joint-led course — was most recently Meta’s “Content Policy Associate Manager, Political Advertising.” In his official capacity at the censorship-obsessed Big Tech giant, Harper “developed and implemented electoral, political, and social issues advertising policies for Meta’s products and services globally.” Also revealing is that part of his job was to supposedly “prevent election delegitimization around the world.”  But peeling back the layers of the smelly CDT onion doesn’t just stop with Harper.  In January 2024, CDT CEO Alexandra Reeve Givens pushed for increased censorship during the 2024 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. She specifically took issue with court injunctions against the Biden-Harris administration’s ability to freely collude with Big Tech platforms to police content.  “So we’re in this bizarre environment where right as the threats are ticking up, the investments in actually doing the day-to-day work of online trust and safety for our information environment is being scaled back and is under attack,” she whined. CDT’s board of directors also includes the woke, leftist NPR President Katherine Maher, who was also the CEO of the Soros-funded Wikimedia Foundation (parent company of Wikipedia). Not only is Maher a Democrat donor, but she also became notorious for vile tweets against former President Donald Trump. Trump happens to be the Republican nominee for the 2024 election—the same election that the Maher-tied CDT appears to be attempting to interfere in. “Donald Trump is a racist,” Maher wrote in a 2018 tweet. But CDT argues that everyone should look at what the group is doing as an apparent act of pure benevolence, as any good propagandist would do: In the past, we have teamed up with CTCL to contribute to courses on cybersecurity and post-election audits. We hope that this latest course will give election officials an additional set of tools to make sure that elections continue to become more secure, fair, and trusted. It appears the Soros machine and Big Tech are joining forces just in time for November. Big Brother, no doubt, is pleased. 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 so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

Was that David Plouffe? Brian Fallon? Maybe the Second Gentleman himself? Surely no one from outside Kamala Harris' inner campaign circle would have had the chutzpah to use the term "soaring rhetoric" to describe Kamala Harris' pedestrian-at-best performance during her CNN interview last night! But no! It was actually Jeremy Peters, an MSNBC contributor and New York Times "reporter" on today's Morning Joe--which tells you all you need to know about the New York Times, MSNBC, and the liberal media at large.  "She's really positioned herself in a way that should scare Republicans," chirped Peters. "What you see, I think, is the kind of soaring rhetoric from her about uniting the country that a lot of people are really hungry for." It doesn't matter that it's remarkably phony -- remember, Joe Biden also campaigned as a uniter, and then as president compared Republicans to Jim Crow segregationists. He said “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”  Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were oddly AWOL on one of the most significant mornings of the campaign to date. In their absence, Willie Geist hosted the show, and offered a much more balanced take than the raving over Kamala that we could have anticipated from Joe and Mika. Commenting on Kamala's policy flip-flops, notably on fracking, Geist, with a chuckle in his voice, said: "The subtext is, forget everything [chuckles] I said in 2019 [Sam Stein laughs] when I was running in the Democratic primary. The person you should look at is the one sitting before you today, and the one who was on the stage with Joe Biden in 2020." Sam Stein took it up a notch from there, musing whether Kamala could have gone "full Bulworth." That was a reference to a 1998 Warren Beatty movie in which a politician at the end of his personal and political rope drops the duplicitous rhetoric and just tells it like it is. If Harris had gone that route, Stein imagined her saying: "Look, I was running in the Democratic primary, I needed to get some progressive votes, and now I'm not." Concluded Stein:   "Would that work? Probably not. But that is probably the truth or close to it." Zing!  Stein specified that he was floating the notion of Harris going full "Bulworth," not "Bulwark." The latter is the Never Trumper outfit founded by Bill Kristol, Charlie Sykes and Sarah Longwell, of which Stein serves as managing editor. That in itself represents an interesting evolution for Stein, someone we've always thought of as an amiable but nonetheless left-leaning MSM member.  Note: The Wall Street Journal has a great take on Harris' claim that although she's flip-flopped on multiple issues, "my values have not changed." Says the WSJ: "We take it as a studied wink to her left flank that she’s on their side but can’t say so clearly until she’s elected." Shades of Barack Obama caught on a hot mic, telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more "flexibility" to negotiate missile defense after the 2012 election. Medvedev assures Obama that he will inform his boss, Putin. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 8/30/24 6:06 am EDT WILLIE GEIST: Jeremy Peters, this obviously was a big moment for the Vice President. Her nominee to be Vice President at her side, Tim Walz was there as well. But this really was an interview about the candidate, about who she is. Because there are open and fair questions about why she has changed so dramatically on so many key issues. What is the sense inside the campaign about how that interview went yesterday? . . .  JEREMY PETERS: The policies that a lot of Democrats were trying to embrace because they thought that's where the party was in 2020 were really out of step with the concerns of most Americans. And that became evident when the Democratic party rejected candidates like Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren in 2020, and went with the centrist Joe Biden. So I think she's really positioned herself in a way that should scare Republicans. I know that Republicans were scrambling yesterday to try to figure out how to push back on this interview. They, once again, have kind of failed to land a punch on Harris.  What you see, I think, is the kind of soaring rhetoric from her about uniting the country that a lot of people are really hungry for. . . .  GEIST: And the criticism you hear from the Trump campaign and Republicans, that they hope will take hold of independent voters, is that Vice President Harris doesn't quite know who she is. She was someone in 2019 and in the Senate that she's sayings she's not now. But she answered specific questions to get into it a little more closely here. Vice President Harris pressed on those evolving policy positions, including on the question of fracking. DANA BASH: Do you still want to ban fracking? KAMALA HARRIS: No, and I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020. That I would not ban fracking. As Vice President, I did not ban fracking. As president, I will not ban fracking. BASH: In 2019, I believe, at a townhall, you were asked, would you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on your first day in office, and you said, there's no question, I'm in favor of banning fracking, so yes. So, it changed in that campaign? HARRIS: In 2020, I made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024, and I have not changed that position or will I going forward. I kept my word, and I will keep my word. BASH: What made you change that position at the time? HARRIS: Well, let's be clear, my values have not changed. I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far. The Inflation Reduction Act, what we have done to invest, by my calculation, over probably a trillion dollars over the next ten years, investing in a clean-energy economy. What we've already done, creating over 300,000 new, clean-energy jobs. That tells me from my experience as Vice President, we can do it without banning fracking. In fact, Dana [pronounced as Day-na], Dana, excuse me, I cast the tie-breaking vote that actually increased leases for fracking as Vice President. BASH: Yeah. HARRIS: So, I'm very clear on where I stand. BASH" Was there some policy or scientific data that you saw that you said, oh, okay, I get it now? HARRIS: What I have seen is that we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean-energy economy without banning fracking. GEIST: So Sam Stein, pretty clear there. She says, in 2019, I said I wanted to ban fracking. In 2020, when I became the vice presidential nominee, I came on board with the position that we were not going to ban fracking, and I hold that position today. The subtext, because Dana Bash did a good job asking specific questions then about immigration, how she's changed on a series of policies, the subtext is, forget everything [chuckles] I said in 2019 [Sam Stein laughs] when I was running in the Democratic primary. The person you should look at is the one sitting before you today, and the one who was on the stage with Joe Biden in 2020. SAM STEIN: Right. I mean, yes, that is the subtext. I've always wondered in these situations, could someone go full Bulworth, not Bulwark, Bulworth. [Geist chuckles] And just be like, look, I was running in the Democratic primary, I needed to get some progressive votes, and now I'm not.  You know, like, would that work? Probably not. But that is probably the truth or close to it.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore (D) has been accused of stolen valor for previously failing to correct the record about a Bronze Star he never received, but claimed he had, while serving in the United States Army.A New York Times report published Thursday revealed that in 2006, Moore, then 27 years old, claimed on an application for the White House Fellowship that he had received the award.'I should have corrected the interviewers.'“For my work,” he claimed, “the 82nd Airborne Division have awarded me the Bronze Star Medal and the Combat Action Badge.”Bronze Star awards are given to military members who perform “acts of heroism in ground combat.”He had not been awarded with either the Bronze Star or the badge at the time of the submission. The Times found that Moore never received the Bronze Star but earned the badge in May 2006, according to an Army spokesperson.During a Wednesday interview, Moore called the statement on his application “an honest mistake.”“While serving overseas with the Army, I was encouraged to fill out an application for the White House Fellowship by my deputy brigade commander,” Moore stated. “In fact, he helped me edit it before I sent it in. At the time, he had recommended me for the Bronze Star. He told me to include the Bronze Star award on my application after confirming with two other senior-level officers that they had also signed off on the commendation.”“I made an honest mistake by including something because my commanding officer thought it was a good idea,” Moore added. “He thought that I earned it and he was already going through the paperwork to process it.”Moore’s then-commanding officer, Lt. Gen. Michael Fenzel, confirmed to the Times that he had advised Moore to include the Bronze Star on his application. He told Moore that he and others had already approved the medal. Fenzel noted that Moore initially objected to including it on his application.Fenzel stated that he was unaware that Moore had never received the medal, adding that he plans to resubmit the paperwork.However, despite claiming it was “an honest mistake,” Moore has had several opportunities to correct the record, including during a 2008 PBS panel discussion with Gwen Ifill and a 2010 appearance on “The Colbert Report” with Stephen Colbert.“I should have corrected the interviewers,” Moore said. “In retrospect, I’m sorry that I didn’t.”Moore has received several other medals for his time in the military, including a National Defense Service Medal, an Afghanistan Campaign Medal, an Armed Forces Reserve Medal with “M” Device, an Army Service Ribbon, and a Parachutist Badge.Moore was initially included among Democratic presidential nominee and Vice President Kamala Harris’ list of candidates for running mate. According to Moore, questions regarding the Bronze Star did not come up. Harris ultimately selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) as her vice presidential nominee, who has also been accused of stolen valor. Walz referred to weapons he “carried in war,” but he was never deployed to a combat zone. He has also been introduced as a “command sergeant major” despite retiring at a lower rank and failing to meet the requirements associated with the higher position.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

NHL superstar Johnny Gaudreau and his brother Matthew were killed on Thursday night — a day before their sister's wedding. Around 8:30 p.m. on Thursday, Johnny Gaudreau, 31, and Matthew Gaudreau, 29, were riding bicycles down a road in Oldmans Township, New Jersey. 'Both Matty and Johnny were terrifically admired by all of us. Wonderful young guys, and they impressed a lot of us off-ice.'A Jeep Grand Cherokee attempted to pass a slower-moving sedan and an SUV while traveling north on County Route 551, police told WPVI. The driver of the Grand Cherokee — 43-year-old Sean M. Higgins of Woodstown – fatally hit the Gaudreau brothers, Sgt. Jeffrey Lebron of the New Jersey State Police said in a statement on Friday. The Gaudreau brothers were pronounced dead at the scene. Higgins was charged with two counts of death by auto and is being held at the Salem County Correctional Facility.Higgins was suspected of being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the deadly accident, Lebron stated. Citing the police affidavit, WPVI reported the state trooper who arrived at the scene detected a "strong odor of alcohol" on the driver. Higgins allegedly told the trooper he had consumed "five to six beers" before the fatal crash. The outlet reported that Higgins told investigators that his consumption of alcohol contributed to his impatience and reckless driving, according to the criminal complaint.The trooper allegedly said Higgins failed a field sobriety test.The Columbus Blue Jackets confirmed the sudden death of the NHL superstar with a statement that called the fatal crash an "unimaginable tragedy.""The Columbus Blue Jackets are shocked and devastated by this unimaginable tragedy," the statement read. "Johnny was not only a great hockey player, but more significantly a loving husband, father, son, brother, and friend.""Johnny played the game with great joy which was felt by everyone that saw him on the ice," the Blue Jackets said. "He brought a genuine love for hockey with him everywhere he played from Boston College to the Calgary Flames to Team USA to the Blue Jackets. He thrilled fans in a way only Johnny Hockey could.""The impact he had on our organization and our sport was profound, but pales in comparison to the indelible impression he made on everyone who knew him," the statement continued. "Johnny embraced our community when he arrived two years ago, and Columbus welcomed him with open arms." The statement concluded, "We will miss him terribly and do everything that we can to support his family and each other through this tragedy. At this time, we ask for prayers for the Gaudreau family and that their privacy be respected as they grieve."Johnny played two seasons with the Blue Jackets and nine seasons with the Calgary Flames.The Calgary Flames said in a statement, "It’s with great sadness, we mourn the tragic deaths of our friend Johnny Gaudreau and his brother Matthew Gaudreau. Our hearts are broken by this devastating loss. Johnny was and always will be a member of the Flames family and loved by all of Calgary."NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said in a statement, "The National Hockey League family is shocked and saddened by the tragic passing of Columbus Blue Jackets forward Johnny Gaudreau and his brother Matthew.""While Johnny’s infectious spirit for the game and show-stopping skills on the ice earned him the nickname ‘Johnny Hockey,’ he was more than just a dazzling hockey player; he was a doting father and beloved husband, son, brother, and teammate who endeared himself to every person fortunate enough to have crossed his path," Bettman stated. "Gaudreau often told the story of how his father taught him to skate as a child in his home state of New Jersey and he carried that same youthful passion throughout his 11 NHL seasons," Bettmen added. "A skilled playmaker, Gaudreau participated in the NHL All-Star Game seven times where he was always a fan favorite, particularly while showcasing his talents in the various skills competitions for which he was so well suited."Both Gaudreau brothers were hockey teammates at Boston College before Johnny was drafted by the Calgary Flames in 2011.Jerry York — who coached the Gaudreau brothers at Boston College — told the Associated Press, "Just devastating news for all of us connected with the Gaudreau family. Both Matty and Johnny were terrifically admired by all of us. Wonderful young guys, and they impressed a lot of us off-ice."Johnny scored 20-plus goals six times and was a 115-point player in the 2021-2022 season when he had a career-best 40 goals and 75 assists.Matthew was also a professional hockey player who spent time in the AHL and ECHL.Johnny Gaudreau is survived by his wife, Meredith Gaudreau, and their two young children, 1-year-old daughter, Noa, and 6-month-old son, Johnny Jr.Johnny and Matthew had been set to attend the wedding of their sister, Katie Gaudreau. The wedding ceremony is scheduled for Friday afternoon in New Jersey and a reception in Philadelphia later that night. The brothers were supposed to be groomsmen during the wedding ceremony, according to the bride-to-be's wedding page. This is the second tragedy for the Blue Jackets in recent years. Columbus goaltender Matiss Kivlenieks died in July 2021 when the 24-year-old was struck in the chest by a firework while attending the wedding of the daughter of then-Blue Jackets goaltending coach Manny Legace in Novi, Michigan. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!