The world must be getting so much worse! Activists protest everywhere. Listening to them, I’d think hate, homophobia, racism, and environmental threats are at record highs. But it’s not true. Despite our ugly election politics, for most people, life is better than ever.   Our air and water are cleaner. People live longer and healthier lives. There’s less racism and homophobia. But if they admit that, activists would be out of a job. In my new video, John Tierney, a journalist who’s covered protests for years, says, “For activists, success is a threat. It is going to put you out of business.” I push back. “They’re not a business. They’re not making money doing this.” “Yes, they are!” Tierney says. He’s right. Environmental groups probably make the most. The head of the World Wildlife Fund pays himself $1.2 million a year. Somehow, that will reduce climate change? “Climate change is the perfect crisis,” Tierney says, “You can attribute anything to it, and it’s always in the future.” The fund says climate change increased the number of “major hurricanes.” “There’s been no long-term growth in the intensity or the number of hurricanes,” Tierney points out, “but every time one comes, it’s a great photo op for the crisis industry to use to say, ‘This is climate change!'” When it comes to deceitful self-dealing, Tierney says, “The ultimate example is the Southern Poverty Law Center.” When the SPLC opened, it promised legal help to those harmed by racism. After its lawsuits bankrupted chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, the SPLC changed its “Klanwatch” to “Hatewatch,” Tierney points out, “fabricating the idea that there’s a rising tide of hate in this country. … It scares people, and they get money.” “They think they’re making the world a better place,” I suggest. “But they’re not!” he says. “They’re viciously attacking and smearing.” Smearing groups like “Moms for Liberty” and “Moms for America.”  “Scaremongering and giving people the idea that there’s all this hatred and racism,” Tierney continues, “when all the evidence shows just the reverse.” The SPLC’s founder said he’d stop fundraising once they raised $55 million. Now they have $600 million, and they ask people for more money. Another branch of the crisis industry, The Human Rights Campaign, claims that American gays are under attack. They issued a “national state of emergency” for LGBTQ+ people. But “last year, public support for gay rights reached an all-time high,” Tierney says. “Gays can marry in every state. There’s no stigma against homosexuality. Gay characters used to be taboo on television; now they’re practically obligatory. An anti-gay slur is this career suicide. But these activists need to declare some kind of emergency.” Racial justice activists claim America is still a racist country. “How did this fundamentally racist country elect Barack Obama and reelect him?” asks Tierney. “There’s even been a decline in the search for racist jokes on the internet. People are more committed than ever to treating everyone the same.” I bring up George Floyd’s killing. “But that was a very rare event,” Tierney says. “Studies do not show any racial bias in police shootings. Taking one death and turning that into a ‘national reckoning with race’ was incredibly lucrative for activists.” They raised more than $10 billion after George Floyd was killed. Back Lives Matter’s leaders spent $12 million of it on luxury properties. And their anti-police protests probably killed people. Violent crime increased sharply. Activists’ self-promotion often kills.   “One of the great public health advances (of) this century has been vaping,” Tierney points out. “Once vaping devices were introduced, smoking rates plummeted to historic lows.” Lots of lives are saved because vaping is much safer than smoking. “But this was a huge threat to anti-smoking activists,” Tierney says. “If people were quitting on their own, what happens to us? So, they started scaring people about vaping.” “They’ve succeeded in persuading most people that vaping is as dangerous as smoking,” he adds. “That is a horrible thing to do to the public. But it’s been very good for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. It’s great for their careers. It’s terrible for public health.” COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC. The post Promoting Panic for Cash appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ weak response to President Joe Biden’s calling Donald Trump supporters “garbage” matches her hyperbolic, incendiary claims that Trump is a “fascist” who relies on the tactics of Adolf Hitler.  Meanwhile, Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, compared Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally to a Nazi gathering.  Even high school debate coaches erect a key boundary: When you label your opponent a Nazi, you’ve lost. StopAntisemitism, which describes itself as a grassroots watchdog organization, called foul, posting a statement on X that went viral:  Equating either candidate or their supporters to the Nazi regime diminishes the genuine horrors of Hitler and his followers. It dishonors the millions who perished under his orders and disrespects those who gave their lives to bring his tyranny to an end. Save the reprimand for the actual Nazis. As Harris struggles in polls to reach the necessary Electoral College tally of 270 votes, and also in the betting markets, the Democratic presidential nominee reeks of desperation while trying to shake her obvious association with the unpopular Biden-Harris administration.  Yet the vice president also conjures a certain familiarity. Numerous examples illustrate how Harris is poised to become Hillary Clinton 2.0. (Clinton, of course, lost to Trump in 2016 as the Democratic presidential nominee.) Both women are nearly lifelong politicians who never faced the average U.S. voter (e.g. median political ideology vs. blue state extremism). As U.S. senators, both hailed from states that are safe and cushy for liberals.  Their core voters are disconnected from the rest of America—a key factor in an Electoral College-based, states-empowered republic.  The Cook Political Report’s Partisan Voting Index ranks Harris’ California as +13 Democrat margin compared to the nation as a whole; it ranks Clinton’s New York as +10 Democrat. This helps explain why both women have a tin ear about Middle American values.  Because of her last-minute party coronation after Democrats forced Biden out of the race, Harris didn’t earn one single vote in the 2024 Democratic primary season (nor did she as a candidate in 2020). This means she hasn’t faced the average nationwide Democrat voter, either. Sure, Harris and Clinton both might have relatively middle-class or humble roots (as Harris desperately trots out in the most awkward fashion to any question she gets on the campaign trail, no matter how unrelated).  However, the two women truly have floated in economic and social “privilege” their whole adult lives.  And the fact that Harris was the child of two parents who worked for elite colleges—her mother for the University of California, Berkeley and her father for Stanford—gifted her a childhood of socioeconomic privilege that reverberated into adulthood.  Like Clinton, Harris is out of touch with average Americans. And while Harris at 60 is younger and perceived by some as more likable, Clinton is more articulate and better informed—so perhaps this cancels out.  Even though Clinton, now 77, comes off as more rigid and cold, Harris’ many verbal gaffes mean the vice president projects incompetence instead of endearment. Tellingly, behind the scenes, Harris’ staff apparently doesn’t experience her as likable. Blistering levels of staff turnover beset the vice president’s office due to allegedly hostile work environments. Harris is ultimately the source of this breakneck turnover.  Whatever Harris enabled or did to cause this excessive turnover is something she can’t hide from voters or the camera. Like Clinton, Harris projects unlikability and doesn’t evoke the deep, fierce loyalty of Trump voters. Like Clinton, Harris also projects inauthenticity, a sense that she loves celebrities more than everyday people.  Both women like power but don’t seem to care about the people in front of them. This is the opposite of Bill Clinton—numerous reports paint Hillary’s husband as a magnetic politician who makes each person feel like he or she is the only person in the room.  Both women, to compensate for their liberal elite bubbles, selected a balding, white-haired, supposedly inoffensive white man as their VP choice.  In both cases, it screams of pandering. And in both cases, it appears headed for failure. Carrie Sheffield is a senior policy analyst at Independent Women’s Voice. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Desperate, Elitist Kamala Harris Is Hillary Clinton 2.0 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The New York Times, Media Matters for America, and The Washington Post are stepping up their pressure on YouTube to demonetize and censor election “misinformation,” particularly statements that the 2020 election was rigged or insecure. As these organizations push for stricter speech suppression, questions are raised about the implications for open discourse on the platform and the legacy media and activist attempts to get it shut down. In the past months, Media Matters undertook an extensive review of content from 30 prominent conservative YouTube channels, identifying 286 videos containing what they classified as election misinformation, which collectively garnered over 47 million views. This report, backed by verification from The New York Times, pointed out that YouTube profited from ads placed on many of these videos. Highlighted in the Times article were figures such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, all of whom have voiced skepticism regarding the legitimacy of various aspects of the 2020 election process. According to The New York Times, “Giuliani, the former New York mayor, posted more false electoral claims to YouTube than any other major commentator in the research group.” Surprisingly, YouTube’s stance, as relayed by a spokeswoman, stresses the importance of open political discourse: “The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is an important value — especially in the midst of election season,” she stated, defending the platform’s approach to content management. Critics argue that the concerted effort by The New York Times and Media Matters may push YouTube towards a censorship regime that could hinder the expression of political ideas and debates. They fear that these actions could set a precedent where content is excessively policed, potentially stifling a broad spectrum of political discussions under the guise of combating misinformation. A YouTube spokesman elaborated on the company’s policy, saying, “YouTube said it removes videos that mislead voters on how to vote, encourage election interference or make violent threats.” The discussion around these policies does not occur in a vacuum. Various community members and commentators have voiced their concerns. Giuliani, a popular YouTube creator mentioned in the article, defended his content, stating, “I am proud to be included with Ben and Tucker — two GREAT Patriots!” The Washington Post in particularly takes aim at podcasts. Podcasts, fundamentally different from other media formats in their distribution, exist primarily as MP3 files that are uploaded and stored on various hosting services before being disseminated across a multitude of directories and platforms. This more decentralized nature of podcast distribution means that unlike posts on a single platform like Facebook or Twitter, which can be centrally monitored and moderated, podcasts can be accessed from numerous sources. This dispersal complicates the ability of activists and tech companies to exert control over content, as removing a podcast from one directory does not prevent it from being available on others. Additionally, the host servers, often separate entities from the directories that list the podcasts, further obscure the line of responsibility and control, rendering censorship efforts fragmented. “Podcasts, whose fast-moving audio format has proved challenging for tech companies and researchers to monitor, can provide ‘a safe space’ for those airing election-fraud narratives, said Valerie Wirtschafter, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. “The shows are an especially impactful vehicle for falsehoods and conspiracy theories because hosts foster intimate, trusted relationships with their listeners, who regularly tune in during their commutes or while doing chores around their homes,” she said. “Fact-checking is so hard on social media,” said Katie Harbath, CEO of the tech consultancy Anchor Change and a former Facebook public policy director, to the Washington Post. “How do you even do that on a podcast?” Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro has launched a scathing attack on mainstream media, particularly targeting The New York Times and The Washington Post for today’s publications which he claims attempt to suppress conservative media outlets. His criticism comes at a critical time, just days before voters head to the polls. According to Shapiro, both The New York Times and The Washington Post released articles “just hours apart” in a coordinated effort to discredit conservative media. Shapiro disparages these pieces as “trash” and indicative of a broader media agenda to quell conservative discourse. Shapiro specifically mentions his own commentary, stating, “The New York Times, of course, argues on the basis of Media Matters (!) ‘research’ that YouTube is essentially making money off election denialism.” He defends his statements as factual, particularly his claims about Democrats manipulating voting rules in 2020 to favor mail-in voting and ballot harvesting, arguing, “Which, of course, isn’t misinformation. It’s true.” Further, Shapiro highlights the discrepancy between media accusations and YouTube’s policies, noting, “To the credit of YouTube, they’ve said ‘none of the 286 videos violated its community guidelines.’” This point underscores his argument that the media’s claims against him and similar content creators are baseless and not in violation of any established platform guidelines. Shapiro also criticizes The Washington Post, which he feels exacerbates the issue by suggesting that podcasts are detrimental to American society. He expresses dismay at being singled out for “the sin” of hosting former President Donald Trump on his show, which The Post characterizes as problematic. Shapiro sarcastically remarks on the publication’s extreme stance: “Their conclusion? You guessed it: SHUT IT ALL DOWN.” Shapiro’s critique extends beyond specific articles, touching on what he perceives as a broader attempt by the Democratic Party and its “apparatchiks” to control media narratives and stifle opposition. He ties these media criticisms to political motives, specifically attacking Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for allegedly wanting to shut down opposition media. Established in 2004 by journalist and activist David Brock, who is described by Time magazine as “one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party,” Media Matters consistently targets what it perceives as conservative misinformation online and in the media. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post NYT & Washington Post Push YouTube To Censor Election “Misinformation,” Highlight Podcast Censorship Challenges appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

It Could Never Happen Here: Many People Won’t Consider the Grim Reality of Long-term Survival

PA Democratic Party Illegally Suppressing the Vote

It's in its initial stages of construction after a cash injection from the EU.

This kitty deserves all the treats (and an author credit).

“You get an ocean world, you get an ocean world, and you get an ocean world…”

Pretty hard to record something of this scale.

As the presidential campaign enters its final week, Laura Barron-Lopez, White House correspondent for the PBS News Hour, got the vote out for Kamala Harris in Pennsylvania, while on assignment on the Ellipse near the White House in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, covering Harris’s “closing argument” speech which Harris delivered later that evening. Laura Barron-Lopez: Geoff, we expect to hear the vice president lay out her vision and her values, what she would do if she were elected. Specifically, she's going to say that Donald Trump is busy creating an enemies list, while she's creating a quote "to-do list." And based on prepared excerpts of her remarks that we have, she is going to call Donald Trump unstable, obsessed with revenge, and also say that Americans that don't agree with her, she doesn't consider them enemies, and she wants to give them a seat at the table. She's also going to talk about her economic plans and talk about the opportunities that she wants to create for Americans and working Americans. Bennett: And Laura, considering the message and the choice of location tonight, what does the Harris campaign want folks to take away from her speech this evening? Barron-Lopez: This location was chosen intentionally, Geoff. We are on the Ellipse, and this is where Donald Trump gave that speech on January 6, 2021. Harris' campaign manager, Jen O'Malley-Dillon, said that they specifically wanted it here to create a stark visualization and remind voters about Donald Trump's speech, where he encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol to stop certification and overturn the 2020 results. They also like the fact that the White House is going to be directly behind the vice president and that the White House -- that people, Americans, can hopefully visualize the vice president as the next commander in chief. PBS pounced, naturally, on Donald Trump’s controversial rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday. Bennett: And, of course, this comes just days after Donald Trump's rally at Madison Square Garden, which was really marked by racist and sexist comments from some of the speakers. Based on your reporting, has that broken through with voters at all? The reporter agreed that it was good news for Harris. Laura Barron-Lopez: It appears that it has, Geoff. The campaign believes that it's breaking through. They say that they are seeing a lot of movement amongst Puerto Rican voters, specifically in states like Pennsylvania. And I also spoke, it's not just the campaign, I also spoke to the owner of a Spanish-language radio station in Allentown, Pennsylvania, where a lot of Latinos, specifically Puerto Ricans, live. And he said that people are calling in angry about the comments made about Puerto Rico and that some that weren't necessarily going to vote are planning on voting now. Why does that matter, Geoff? Because there are more than half-a-million Latinos in the swing state of Pennsylvania, and the vast majority of them are Puerto Rican. So the Harris campaign sees a potential momentum here in a key battleground state, Geoff. Barron-Lopez had previously ended her campaign trail segments with encouraging words for Democrats in four of the seven swing states of North Carolina, Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia. Is there still time for Wisconsin and Michigan to be the recipient of PBS's taxpayer-boosted partisanship? This pro-Democratic segment was brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 10/29/24 7:07:14 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: Tens of thousands of people are expected to be in attendance on the National Mall tonight, according to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. And our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, is there at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C., ahead of Vice President Harris' closing argument. So, Laura, what can we expect to hear from the vice president tonight? Laura Barron-Lopez: Geoff, we expect to hear the vice president lay out her vision and her values, what she would do if she were elected. Specifically, she's going to say that Donald Trump is busy creating an enemies list, while she's creating a — quote — "to-do list." And based on prepared excerpts of her remarks that we have, she is going to call Donald Trump unstable, obsessed with revenge, and also say that Americans that don't agree with her, she doesn't consider them enemies, and she wants to give them a seat at the table. She's also going to talk about her economic plans and talk about the opportunities that she wants to create for Americans and working Americans. Geoff Bennett: And, Laura, considering the message and the choice of location tonight, what does the Harris campaign want folks to take away from her speech this evening? Laura Barron-Lopez: This location was chosen intentionally, Geoff. We are on the Ellipse, and this is where Donald Trump gave that speech on January 6, 2021. Harris' campaign manager, Jen O'Malley Dillon, said that they specifically wanted it here to create a stark visualization and remind voters about Donald Trump's speech, where he encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol to stop certification and overturn the 2020 results. They also like the fact that the White House is going to be directly behind the vice president and that the White House — that people, Americans, can hopefully visualize the vice president as the next commander in chief. Geoff Bennett: With a week to go until Election Day, who is the Harris campaign trying to reach at this point? Laura Barron-Lopez: She is trying to intimately speak to people who may not feel engaged, who may not feel as though it's worth getting engaged, to those remaining undecided voters, according to the campaign officials that I spoke to today, Geoff. And that includes also they really want to drive turnout among suburban women, independents, moderate Republicans specifically. And Harris' campaign manager, Jen O'Malley Dillon, also said that they are trying to make sure that those voters that turned out in 2022 about abortion turn out again this year. Geoff Bennett: And, of course, this comes just days after Donald Trump's rally at Madison Square Garden, which was really marked by racist and sexist comments from some of the speakers. Based on your reporting, has that broken through with voters at all? Laura Barron-Lopez: It appears that it has, Geoff. The campaign believes that it's breaking through. They say that they are seeing a lot of movement amongst Puerto Rican voters, specifically in states like Pennsylvania. And I also spoke — it's not just the campaign. I also spoke to the owner of a Spanish-language radio station in Allentown, Pennsylvania, where a lot of Latinos, specifically Puerto Ricans, live. And he said that people are calling in angry about the comments made about Puerto Rico and that some that weren't necessarily going to vote are planning on voting now. Why does that matter, Geoff? Because there are more than half-a-million Latinos in the swing state of Pennsylvania, and the vast majority of them are Puerto Rican. So the Harris campaign sees a potential momentum here in a key battleground state, Geoff. Geoff Bennett: Laura Barron-Lopez reporting from the Ellipse tonight. Laura, thank you. Laura Barron-Lopez: Thank you.