Zelensky's 'Victory Plan' Offers No Path to Victory

The Top Ten Kamala Harris Gaffes...This Week

The See No Evil, Speak No Evil Media Covers for Doug Emhoff

Reason #9276: Why Legacy Media Deserves to Die in the Full Light of Day

Chances of aurorae and disruptions are heightened as a tsunami of plasma races towards Earth.

In a NASA animation, the agency explains how the storm came to be so strong.

An unprecedented six earthquakes were detected at the volcano last month.

Why are pro-lifers, pro-life? Could it be that they genuinely believe that the unborn child is a human being with rights? According to the Wednesday edition of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with host of the week Jordan Klepper and abortion activist and author Jessica Valenti, that is not even a possibility. It must either be because they want power within the GOP or they enjoy controlling women because being a pro-lifer means being “the biggest asshole from high school.” Klepper asked the book touring Valenti, “It's curious, in your book, you talk about the battle over language, which we've seen go way back, whether it is pro-choice, pro-life, but you get into the nitty-gritty about, like, Nikki Haley talking about consensus talking about what late-term abortions mean. Like, for folks who aren't paying attention, why is that so important, and how do you see that getting morphed and shifted right now?” Valenti warned, “This is how they trick voters, right? So, they use words like, ‘I don't want a ban, I want consensus legislation.’ ‘We're not banning abortion, we are giving it back to the will of the people, we’re giving it back to the states.’”     Citing no sources, she continued, “Because this is something voters feel so strongly about, 81 percent of voters do not want government involvement in abortion at all. They don't want it regulated by the law. They are working really hard to use language that makes it sound as if voters are with them, right? They're trying to do this very clever pivot, and with something like ‘late abortion,’ which is not a real medical term, they're constantly moving the goalposts for what late abortion means.” It is simply wrong to say that 81 percent of Americans favor limitless abortion, but Klepper was there to help Valenti sell books and promote abortion, not seek truth. He wondered, “How much of this do you see as right-wing legislators who are using this as a way to gain power within their party? Perhaps not true believers, but, using it as a form of manipulation and how much of this, you talk about legislators who are doing this to exert control over women's bodies in some dark terms. When you look over all at that, how much of it is just a blatant move to be in a position of power, and how much of it is exerting power over a woman's body?” Valenti replied: I think it is both. I wrote a column once called "The worst guy you know." Think about the biggest asshole from high school, right? The guy who was devil's advocate, always had something to say, that's who the prosecutor is now. That is who the local legislator is now, that's who the sheriff is who are bringing forward these cases. So, when you look at the people who are enforcing these laws on a local and state level, they’re the worst guy you know. The worst kind of person you can possibly imagine. That said, I do think that there are a lot of politicians who don't really care. They don't care. It's just about the power to them. Seeking a contrast, Klepper followed up, “In dark times, we have the worst guy you know from high school. What is the best guy you know from high school doing right now?” Grateful for the question, Valenti declared, “Probably making phone calls to get bus tickets for people to get out of Florida to, no, really, to get an abortion out of state.” Pleading with the audience, she concluded, “There are so many folks like abortion funds on the ground, which are in the middle of a funding crisis and could really use your help. There are so many people who are doing the hard work of ensuring that people can get those abortions. That is what brings me a tremendous amount of hope and positivity for the future.” If you are promoting a culture of death under the guise of freedom, maybe it isn’t your opponents who are “the worst kind of person.” Here is a transcript for the October 9 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 10/9/2024 11:27 PM ET JORDAN KLEPPER: It's curious, in your book, you talk about the battle over language, which we've seen go way back, whether it is pro-choice, pro-life, but you get into the nitty-gritty about, like, Nikki Haley talking about consensus-- JESSICA VALENTI: Yeah. KLEPPER: -- talking about what late-term abortions mean. Like, for folks who aren't paying attention, why is that so important, and how do you see that getting morphed and shifted right now? JESSICA VALENTI: Sure. I mean, this is how they trick voters, right? So, they use words like, "I don't want a ban, I want consensus legislation." "We're not banning abortion, we are giving it back to the will of the people, we’re giving it back to the states." Because this is something voters feel so strongly about, 81 percent of voters do not want government involvement in abortion at all. They don't want it regulated by the law. They are working really hard to use language that makes it sound as if voters are with them, right? They're trying to do this very clever pivot, and with something like “late abortion,” which is not a real medical term, they're constantly moving the goalposts for what late abortion means. So, when you hear someone like Nikki Haley say, "I'm against late abortion," ask her how many weeks that is, because right now, I've been tracking the anti-abortion movement, right now, to them, that is 12 weeks. So, when they say, "I support consensus legislation for late-term abortion," they are saying, "I support a national ban at 12 weeks." That’s how you have to decode the language. KLEPPER: How much of this do you see as right-wing legislators who are using this as a way to gain power within their party? Perhaps not true believers.  VALENTI: Sure. KLEPPER: But, using it as a form of manipulation and how much of this, you talk about legislators who are doing this to exert control over women's bodies. VALENTI: Yeah. KLEPPER: In some dark terms.  VALENTI: Yeah. KLEPPER: When you look over all at that, how much of it is just a blatant move to -- VALENTI: Yeah. KLEPPER: -- be in a position of power, and how much of it is exerting power over a woman's body? VALENTI: I think it is both. I wrote a column once called "The worst guy you know." Think about the biggest asshole from high school, right? KLEPPER: Okay. VALENTI: The guy who was devil's advocate, always had something to say, that's who the prosecutor is now. That is who the local legislator is now, that's who the sheriff is who are bringing forward these cases. So, when you look at the people who are enforcing these laws on a local and state level, they’re the worst guy you know. The worst kind of person you can possibly imagine. That said, I do think that there are a lot of politicians who don't really care. They don't care. It's just about the power to them. KLEPPER: In dark times, we have the worst guy you know from high school— VLANETI: Yeah. KLEPPER: -- what is the best guy you know from high school doing right now? VALENTI: Oh, I love that question. Probably making phone calls to get bus tickets for people to get out of Florida to, no, really, to get an abortion out of state. I think one of the most amazing things about doing this work over the last two plus years has been seeing the way that people have come together on this issue to make sure that people can get the care that they need no matter what.  There are so many folks like abortion funds on the ground, which are in the middle of a funding crisis and could really use your help. There are so many people who are doing the hard work of ensuring that people can get those abortions. That is what brings me a tremendous amount of hope and positivity for the future.

The Washington Post followed a familiar scheme when it comes to the incessant media gaslighting on the existence of censorship of conservatives: First, deny it exists. Second, admit it exists, but excuse it away by asserting that such censorship is justifiable. The Post released an eye-popping Oct. 3 story that reeked of absurdity. “Why conservatives get suspended more than liberals on social media,” read the irony-laced headline based on a new so-called study published by Nature. The leftist rag attempted to play gotcha with Sen. J.D. Vance’s (R-OH) comments during the vice presidential debate, when he suggested that censorship was the “much bigger threat to democracy.” In the process, The Post committed peak, double-talking hypocrisy of the first degree by admitting that censorship of “conservatives” was real after spending column inches in years past pretending that it didn’t. The Post was trapped in the first stage of denial for a considerable period. A 2021 story lectured readers how “[c]onservative politicians and pundits upped their unsubstantiated accusations that tech companies are censoring their speech.” In 2020, The Post referred to former President Donald Trump and the right’s claims of censorship by social media platforms as “unproven.” In 2019, The Post was adamant that the idea of “conservatives” being censored by platforms such as Google and Facebook because of explicit left-wing bias doesn’t comport with evidence: “But these charges come in the face of considerable evidence that conservative news outlets outperform others on social media.”  Now, the newspaper has done a complete 180-degree turnaround, but the new schtick is trying to sell censorship of the right as a reasonable thing: “[A new study] finds that conservative accounts may be more often penalized because they post more misinformation.” Then, in an almost comical butchering of logic, the 2024 Post said that Big Tech censoring “conservatives” more than liberals still doesn’t “mean content moderation is biased.” No, you didn’t misread that.  The kicker is that the journal for which The Post is relying on for its argument isn’t exactly politically neutral. In fact, Nature openly endorsed then-candidate Joe Biden for president in 2020, who would then go on to lead one of the most aggressive dystopian censorship enterprises ever witnessed in American politics. The journal even later admitted in 2023 that “Political endorsements can affect scientific credibility.” Go figure.  The Post also attempted to castigate the right for posting what it claimed were “debunked” stories. “The Nature paper is not the first to find that conservatives are more likely to share stories that have been debunked, or that originate from fake news sites or other sources deemed ‘low-quality.’” Perhaps when The Post wrote “debunked” it meant stories like the Hunter Biden laptop bombshell or the credible theory that the COVID-19 virus could have originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China?  The Post further obfuscated by citing the ramblings of a random computer science professor to argue that “extreme partisans on both the right and the left share more information from low-credibility sources than moderates, but that the phenomenon is much more pronounced on the right than the left.” What a joke. 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 using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

“No one can deny the impact of climate crisis anymore. At least I hope they don’t. They must be brain dead if they do. Scientists report that with warming oceans powering more intense rains, storms like Helene are getting stronger and stronger. They’re not going to get less; they’re going to get stronger.” -- President Joe Biden, Oct. 2, 2024 Three years ago, Science News published an article with the following headline: “Hurricanes may not be becoming more frequent, but they’re still more dangerous -- There aren’t more of the storms now than there were roughly 150 years ago, a study suggests.” As to the increasing number of lives threatened and greater property damage, more people now live and build things in hurricane-affected areas. If this sounds confusing and contradictory, let’s again revisit the track record of the “experts.” “’The trouble with almost all environmental problems,’ says Paul R. Ehrlich, the population biologist, ‘is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. ... We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.’” -- The New York Times, 1969 “No real action has been taken to save the environment, (Ehrlich) maintains. And it does need saving. Ehrlich predicts that the oceans will be as dead as Lake Erie in less than a decade.” -- Redlands Daily Facts, 1970 “Scientist Predicts a New Ice Age by 21st Century: Air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the next century ... (I)f the current rate of increase in electric power generation continues, the demands for cooling water will boil dry the entire flow of the rivers and streams of continental United States. ... (B)y the next century ‘the consumption of oxygen in combustion processes, world-wide, will surpass all of the processes which return oxygen to the atmosphere.’” -- The Boston Globe, 1970 “The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. ... ‘In the next 50 years,’ the fine dust man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees. If sustained ‘over several years’ --‘five to 10,’ he estimated -- ‘such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!’ -- Washington Post, 1971 “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” -- Associated Press, 1989 “Dear Mr. President: ... We feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. ... The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. ... The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century.” -- Brown University, Department of Geological Sciences, 1972 “However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere -- from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.” -- Time Magazine, 1974 “Unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” -- Former Vice President Al Gore, 2006 “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” -- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 2019 “We’re all gonna die!” -- Homer Simpson Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.