'It makes me sick to my stomach'

Imagine being Jordan Montgomery hearing this

It’ll be a showdown between two Midwest men when Sen. JD Vance, an Ohio Republican, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, face off in the vice presidential debate Tuesday evening in New York City. The stakes are high in what likely will be the only debate between the vice presidential candidates as both Vance and Walz will attempt to lay out the path to victory for their respective running mates—former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris—and themselves. Both men, new to the level of national scrutiny focused on a presidential campaign, have studied for this debate. Sources told CBS News that Vance, first elected to public office in 2022, has spent more than a month preparing while maintaining a vigorous campaign schedule. Vance and his team have held “murder board” sessions with top Trump-Vance campaign communications officials. “We’re studying up as much as we can on the issues that matter to the American people, and I’m looking forward to it,” Vance recently said of the debate. Beyond the issues, Vance and company have keyed in on Walz’s own policy record and his debate style in previous outings. Vance’s goal, it seems, is to cast the Harris-Walz ticket as far left and incapable of solving the nation’s problems, namely illegal immigration, inflation, and instability worldwide. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., is familiar with Walz’s record and style, given he represents the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Emmer has been standing in for Walz during Vance’s debate prep. “My job was to be able to play Tim Walz so JD Vance knows what he’s going to see,” Emmer told ABC News’ “This Week.” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Democrats’ vice presidential nominee, addresses the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner on Sept. 7 in Washington. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) So far, Walz has been on the offensive on the campaign trail. He has called Trump and Vance “weird as hell.” He’s told the GOP ticket to “mind your own damn business.” And he’s repeatedly claimed that he “can’t wait to debate” Vance. Nevertheless, a report from CNN claims that Walz actually warned Harris in August that he is a “bad debater.” More than a dozen campaign staffers told CNN that the Minnesota governor is afraid he will let down Harris, his running mate. No surprise, then, that Walz also has been intensely preparing for the debate with campaign advisers, several of whom reportedly also were involved in Harris’ debate prep. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has played Vance opposite Walz. Buttigieg also helped Harris prepare for her vice presidential debate in 2020. Walz’s strategy, sources told CNN, is to brush Vance aside and focus on Trump because, as Walz recently asserted at a fundraiser in New York City, Vance is “selling his soul to Donald Trump.” The challenge for Walz will be balancing a vigorous attack with the positive and plainspoken style he’s known for. Meanwhile, Vance, like Trump, has a combative debate style, albeit the Ohio senator is more measured in his delivery. If Trump is like a hammer, Vance is more like a scalpel. Vance will attempt to draw the contrast between the Trump and Biden years, but he’ll also look to play the role of journalist amid the Harris-Walz ticket’s lack of media appearances. He’ll likely ask Walz pointed rhetorical questions about the Biden-Harris administration’s record, why the Biden-Harris administration didn’t implement Harris’ plans on Day One if they would solve the Americans’ problems, and what actually happened to President Joe Biden that forced him to drop out of the presidential race after one debate with Trump. Nevertheless, Vance could confront unexpected opponents—namely, the debate moderators—just as Trump did in the Sept. 10 presidential debate hosted by ABC News. The vice presidential debate, hosted by CBS News, will be moderated by “CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell and “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan. The network has promised there will be no fact checks by the moderators, unlike the ABC News debate, but said they do have the power to mute a speaker’s microphone if they so choose. The backlash to ABC News’ bias during its presidential debate was so severe that it appears to have worked in Trump’s favor. If the moderators conduct themselves similarly Tuesday night, Walz might fade into the background. But given the Harris-Walz ticket’s media strategy, that might be the result the campaign is hoping for. The post Vance, Walz Prepared for All-Out Attacks in VP Debate appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Rarely does a piece of education legislation deserve a grade of A+. But the End Woke Higher Education Act, has passed the U.S. House of Representatives, has earned it. The policies in the bill—passed 213-201 on Sept. 19—are right on point and are articulated well. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and accreditation reform: What’s not to applaud? Following the anti-Israel, antisemitic encampments and civil rights violations at multiple U.S. universities, it’s especially welcome to see the House clarify where free speech ends and actionable conduct begins. Being more restrictive risks violating the First Amendment or a college’s own promises of free expression. But being any less restrictive risks violating civil rights. Colleges have failed on both sides of this equation. The End Woke Higher Education Act, following Supreme Court precedents, shows them what they must and must not do. In particular, the bill “recognizes that free expression, open inquiry, and the honest exchange of ideas are fundamental to higher education.” In that light, the bill encourages colleges to adopt the Chicago principles of free expression, which the University of Chicago uses as a touchstone and which also follows Supreme Court precedent. Furthermore, colleges must disclose their speech and association policies to students. At student orientation, public colleges must explain students’ constitutional rights and their civil rights. And to prevent public colleges from reclassifying their public spaces to exclude the public, the bill reminds colleges that their public spaces are public forums for free speech. The bill also condemns and discourages the use of a DEI (“diversity, equity, and inclusion”) statement—or any political litmus test—in hiring and admissions. That’s because a nonsectarian university should be neutral and merit-oriented, not activist, when bringing scholars and students into their academic community. The House of Representatives on Sept. 19 turned thumbs down on collegiate DEI. (Rapid Eye/iStock/Getty Images) Similarly, the bill prevents accreditors—the bodies that vouch for colleges so that they can access federal student aid programs—from having DEI requirements. As colleagues and I have argued, accreditors too often abuse their gatekeeping power. This bill ensures that, at least for student aid purposes, accreditors do not stray beyond the letter of the law. But wait, there’s more. The bill protects student organizations in five ways. For one, sometimes a disfavored organization cannot find a faculty adviser as required due to social pressure on faculty members to avoid even advising the group. In such cases, a college must recognize the organization anyway. Second, sometimes a college has given the student government authority over recognizing student organizations, but the student government abuses its power and rejects a group for ideological reasons. At a public college, that’s unconstitutional. This bill makes it clear that a group may appeal to the administration. Third, it is common for a college to give the student government authority over expending funds from a mandatory student activities fee. These funds frequently go to ideologically and culturally favored organizations without the use of neutral funding standards. This bill follows numerous court precedents to require the use of clear and neutral standards, and it requires an appeals process. Fourth, sometimes a student organization is assessed an unreasonably high—and therefore unconstitutional—“security fee” to host a disfavored speaker, on the ground that protesters may disrupt the event. Again, the bill follows Supreme Court precedent in preventing a public college from charging extra because of what’s called a “heckler’s veto.” A basic function of government is to keep its people safe, and extra security costs must be borne by the college. Finally, some colleges have shown so much animus against single-sex social organizations that they ban students from joining them—even if such groups are unrecognized and off-campus. No college, under the bill, may punish students for being part of a fraternity or sorority. Overall, this bill mainly puts into law what the Supreme Court and lower courts have been saying for decades about how the First Amendment applies on college campuses. If colleges had protected these rights in the first place, such a law would not be needed. But free speech violations are so pervasive across so much of American higher education that it is high time to implement policies such as the ones just passed by the House. The post Ending Woke on Campus: Will Colleges Now Finally Uphold Students’ Rights? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Join us for a special four+ hour LIVE broadcast of “The Tony Kinnett Cast,” covering the day’s top news and pre-debate antics, a simulcast of the vice presidential debate hosted by CBS News, and follow-up postdebate analysis from Tony Kinnett, Bradley Devlin, and other special guests. In the run-up to Election Day, this final scheduled debate might be far more important than the vice presidential debate has been in the past. With Hurricane Helene’s destruction, foreign war escalation, labor strikes along the East Coast, economic uncertainty, and immigration chaos along the southern border, we’ve never seen a more dramatic election-year October. Don’t miss this power-packed, fast-paced coverage! Catch the live radio show and livestream weeknights at 7 p.m. EDT on The Daily Signal’s YouTube, X, or Facebook—and subscribe to the podcast so you never miss an episode or exclusive interview. The post WATCH: The Daily Signal’s Ultimate VP Debate Coverage appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The World Bank (WB) has issued a policy note revealing that it wants to see the development of what it calls electronic signature (including using biometric authentication) frameworks which include legal recognition and trust. The purpose of these “key enablers” where it concerns digital transactions, is to facilitate “the emergence of a trusted digital economy” – according to this global (and globalist) financial institution. Their role is to link people’s identities to online interactions, where electronic transactions, as defined by the WB, cover a vast range of activities. And the WB believes that electronic signatures are a critical component of the digital economy. We obtained a copy of the note for you here. The policy note first states that an electronic transaction is a transaction, action, or a set of these, commercial or non-commercial, “and includes the provision of information and/or e-government services.” According to the policy note, electronic transactions happen in anything from banking, credit, insurance, health, education, commerce, and public services, to the judiciary. Examples of what electronic signature – the “frameworks” for which the WB is pushing hard – means, are also explained in the document. It could be clicking on a ToS “agree” button, or typing one’s name at the end of an email or message. The WB paper also states that most electronic signatures in the digital world will have to be verified by people’s identities – digital ones. Only what the WB refers to as the “lowest-trust” electronic signatures should be allowed to go without “some” assurance of identity. Therefore, “digital ID and electronic signature can be implemented together, with a digital ID credential being linked to, or containing, a signing certificate.” Another proposal from the policy note is to link this with legal ID systems which “provide for digital verification of attributes and/or digital authentication.” “Another potential avenue” is how integrating electronic signatures into those ID systems is described, with smartcards and “mobile form factors” cited as having been done “somewhat successfully” so far. No economy can be considered fully digitized without incorporating electronic signatures, the policy note insists. The WB is resolutely against physical signatures and wants instead these centralized and easy-to-control “frameworks” to substitute interactions between people and move the whole operation online. The only thing left is to persuade both governments and people that such schemes are trustworthy. That, naturally, is the requirement for wide adoption, and, not a simple problem to solve. Thus reports talk about the WB recommending approaching it “(not) solely through technology” but also “a combination of legal, procedural, and technical elements.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post World Bank Wants to Replace Your Signature with Biometrics and Digital IDs appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Google on Trial: Ads, Algorithms, and Antitrust – Week 3 Breakdown appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Privacy company Tuta has introduced a dedicated encrypted calendar application known as Tuta Calendar. This new addition, coming for both Android (available now) and iOS platforms (coming soon), marks another step forward in secure personal and professional schedule management. As the pioneer of encrypted email services under its original name, Tutanota, Tuta’s move could be seen as a strategic positioning against competitors like Proton, which also offers a suite of encrypted communication tools. The Tuta Calendar is designed to enhance user privacy through end-to-end encryption, ensuring that sensitive information related to appointments and schedules remains confidential. Unlike other calendar apps, Tuta allows users to share their schedules and specific appointments with chosen contacts without compromising the security of the exchanged data. This level of privacy is achieved by employing a “zero-knowledge” architecture, which ensures that not even Tuta’s servers can access the user’s calendar data. “By building tools which improve the security of one person, we are increasing the overall privacy and security of everyone they communicate with… When your privacy increases, so does mine. Together, we can create a future where privacy is the default. At Tuta, we guarantee that people have complete control over their personal information, and this is proven by our usage of open-source code for all clients, including our brand-new calendar apps,” stated Tuta CEO Arne Möhle. Further enhancing user convenience, the Tuta Calendar includes features such as local reminder notifications that eliminate the need for server-side processing of event details. Users can also import .ics calendar files directly on mobile devices—a functionality previously limited to desktop or web browsers. The introduction of the Tuta Calendar comes with a fresh visual design, offering both light and dark mode themes to cater to user preferences. Looking towards the future, Tuta is also developing Tuta Drive, an encrypted file storage app which promises quantum-safe security solutions, highlighting Tuta’s commitment to providing robust, privacy-centric digital tools. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Your Calendar Deserves Privacy: Tuta Takes Secure Scheduling to the Next Level appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

CBS Mornings co-anchor Tony Dokoupil displayed a lot of courage on Monday’s show when confronted race hustler and author Ta-Nehisi Coates for his new book The Message, where Coates took the side of anti-Semitic, genocidal terrorists in their fight to exterminate Israel. Dokoupil pointed out that Coates completely omitted Israel’s perspective in the conflict and suggested Coates essay read like the manifesto “in the backpack of an extremist.” Coates responded by claiming he was morally superior because he’s black. Dokoupil allowed to his co-anchor Nate Burleson to get a friendly question in before he took the gloves off. According to Dokoupil, if you stripped away all of Coates’s clout and notoriety, at the end of the day, what he had written was “extremist”: Ta-Nehisi, I want to dive into the Israel-Palestine section of the book. It`s the largest section of the book. And I have to say, when I read the book, I imagine if I took your name out of it, took away the awards and the acclaim, took the cover off the book, the publishing house goes away, the content of that section would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist. He then grilled Coates on why he omitted all of the decades of terror campaigns and innocent Israelis that had been killed by Palestinians and their allies: And so then I found myself wondering, why does Ta-Nehisi Coates, who I`ve known for a long time, read his work for a long time, very talented, smart guy, leave out so much? Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it? Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it? Why not detail anything of the first and the second Intifada, the cafe bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits? And is it because you just don`t believe that Israel in any condition has a right to exist? Coates argued that he didn’t need to give Israel’s perspective because there’s too much of that already and he needed to speak for the side that wants to exterminate the Jews. “I am most concerned always with those who don`t have a voice, with those who don`t have the ability to talk,” he said. “I`ve been a reporter for 20 years. The reporters of those who believe more sympathetically about Israel and its right to exist don`t have a problem getting their voice out.”     “I have asked repeatedly in my interviews whether there is a single network mainstream organization in America with a Palestinian American bureau chief or correspondent who actually has a voice to articulate their part of the world,” he proclaimed, despite the fact that CBS News had a correspondent sympathetic to the terrorists in Imtiaz Tyab, who Dokoupil slapped down earlier in the show. The CBS anchor actually got Coates to admit that he believed that Israel did not have a right to exist, and essentially Israel needs to fight for it: DOKOUPIL: So, I think the question is central and key. If Israel has a right to exist, and if your answer is “no,” then I guess the question becomes, why do the Palestinians have a right to exist? Why do 20 different Muslim countries have a right to exist? COATES: My answer is that no country in this world establishes its ability to exist through rights. Countries establish their ability to exist through force, as America did. And so I think this question of right to Israel does exist. It`s a fact. The question of its right is not a question that I would be faced with with any other country. Coates doesn’t seem to realize that his suggestion that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist because they need to fight to earn it, means that a Palestinian states doesn’t deserve to exist because they lose every fight for it. Dokoupil hit back hard and pressed his guest to answer: “What is it that so particularly offends you about the existence of a Jewish state that is a Jewish safe place, and not any of the other states out there?” But Coates gave a mealy mouth answer about being against any ethno state, despite the fact that that was what the Palestinians wanted. Further, Dokoupil called out how Coates’s book gave “no agency” to the Palestinians as if things just happened to them and they did nothing at all. “They exist in your narrative merely as victims of the Israelis, as though they were not offered peace at any juncture, as though they don`t have a stake in this as well. What is their role in the lack of a Palestinian state?” he asked. Backed into a corner, Coates relied on his race-baiting. He suggested that Dokoupil didn’t get it because he’s white and that he, himself was morally superior because he’s black: “I have a very, very, very, very moral compass about this. And again, perhaps it`s because of my ancestry.” Unable to ask any deep questions and short on time because Dokoupil and Coates went at it for almost five minutes, co-anchor Gayle King awkwardly wanted to know: “Less than 20 seconds. What`s your message?” “Okay, you`re still invited to High Holidays. I`ll see you at the show. I mean it, buddy,” Dokoupil took the high ground as the segment ended. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS Mornings September 30, 2024 8:44:36 a.m. Eastern (…) TONY DOKOUPIL: Ta-Nehisi, I want to dive into the Israel-Palestine section of the book. It`s the largest section of the book. And I have to say, when I read the book, I imagine if I took your name out of it, took away the awards and the acclaim, took the cover off the book, the publishing house goes away, the content of that section would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist. And so then I found myself wondering, why does Ta-Nehisi Coates, who I`ve known for a long time, read his work for a long time, very talented, smart guy, leave out so much? Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it? Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it? Why not detail anything of the first and the second Intifada, the cafe bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits? And is it because you just don`t believe that Israel in any condition has a right to exist? TA-NEHISI COATES: Well, I would say the perspective that you just outlined, there is no shortage of that perspective in American media. That`s the first thing I would say. I am most concerned always with those who don`t have a voice, with those who don`t have the ability to talk. I have asked repeatedly in my interviews whether there is a single network mainstream organization in America with a Palestinian American bureau chief or correspondent who actually has a voice to articulate their part of the world. I`ve been a reporter for 20 years. The reporters of those who believe more sympathetically about Israel and its right to exist don`t have a problem getting their voice out. But what I saw in Palestine, what I saw on the West Bank, what I saw in Haifa in Israel, what I saw in the South Hebron Hills, those were the stories that I have not heard. And those were the stories that I was most occupied with. I wrote a 260-page book. It is not a treatise on the entirety of the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. DOKOUPIL: But if you were to read this book, you would be left wondering, why does any of Israel exist? What a horrific place, committing horrific acts on a daily basis. So, I think the question is central and key. If Israel has a right to exist, and if your answer is “no,” then I guess the question becomes, why do the Palestinians have a right to exist? Why do 20 different Muslim countries have a right to exist? COATES: My answer is that no country in this world establishes its ability to exist through rights. Countries establish their ability to exist through force, as America did. And so I think this question of right to Israel does exist. It`s a fact. The question of its right is not a question that I would be faced with with any other country. DOKOUPIL: But you write a book that delegitimizes the pillars of Israel. It seems like an effort to topple the whole building of it. So I come back to the question, and it`s what I struggled with throughout this book. What is it that so particularly offends you about the existence of a Jewish state that is a Jewish safe place, and not any of the other states out there? COATES: There`s nothing that offends me about a Jewish state. I am offended by the idea of states built on ethnocracy, no matter where they are. DOKOUPIL: Muslim included. COATES: I would not want a state where any group of people laid down their citizenship rights based on ethnicity. The country of Israel is a state in which half the population exists on one tier of citizenship, and everybody else that`s ruled by Israelis exists on another tier, including Palestinian Israeli citizens. The only people that exist on that first tier are Israeli Jews. Why do we support that? Why is that okay? I`m the child of Jim Crow. I`m the child of people that were born into a country where that was exactly the case of American apartheid. I walk over there, and I walk through the occupied territories, and I walk down a street in Hebron, and a guy says to me, "I can`t walk down the street unless I profess my religion." [Crosstalk] GAYLE KING: But Ta-Nehisi – I`m with another-- No, no, no, no, no. I want to-- This is very, very important. DOKOUPIL: It is important, it is. COATES: Extremely important. DOKOUPIL: Yes, lay it down. COATES: I`m working with the person that is guiding me, is a Palestinian whose father, whose grandfather, and grandmother was born in this town, and I have more freedom to walk than he does. He can`t ride on certain roads. He can`t get water in the same way that Israeli citizens who live less than a mile away from him can. DOKOUPIL: And why is that? COATES: Why is that okay? DOKOUPIL: Why is that? Why is there no agency in this book for the Palestinians? They exist in your narrative merely as victims of the Israelis, as though they were not offered peace at any juncture, as though they don`t have a stake in this as well. What is their role in the lack of a Palestinian state? COATES: I have a very, very, very, very moral compass about this. And again, perhaps it`s because of my ancestry. Either apartheid is right or it`s wrong. It`s really, really simple. Either what I saw was right or it`s wrong. I am, for instance, against the death penalty. What the person did to get the death penalty, it really doesn`t matter to me. I don`t care if they were selling a nickel bag of marijuana or if they were a serial killer. I am against the death penalty. I am against a state that discriminates against people on the basis of ethnicity. I`m against that. There is nothing the Palestinians could do that would make that okay for me. My book is not based on the hyper- morality of the Palestinian people. KING: What`s the last message you want in lessons? Because many people feel it`s complicated. You say it`s not complicated. Less than 20 seconds. What`s your message? COATES: Less than 20 seconds. I want people to read the book. And I don`t make the assumption that somebody would just read the book and have read nothing else about Israel and Palestine. DOKOUPIL: Okay, you`re still invited to High Holidays. I`ll see you at the show. I mean it, buddy. (…)

In the summer, it was revealed that the co-founder of Netflix not only endorsed the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris but also deposited millions into the coffers of the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee. The heavy-handed advocacy for Harris appears to have backfired as cancelations on the streaming behemoth soared directly after the political endorsement. As Blaze News reported in early July, several high-profile Democratic donors demanded that President Joe Biden drop out of the 2024 presidential race following his disastrous debate performance against former President Donald Trump. Included among the Democratic donors who called on Biden to drop out was Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings.Netflix is the latest major company to suffer a boycott at the hands of conservative consumers."Biden needs to step aside to allow a vigorous Democratic leader to beat Trump and keep us safe and prosperous," Hastings said in July. Once Harris was installed as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hastings donated a whopping $7 million to Kamala's campaign. Hastings told The Information that it was the single-largest political donation that he had ever doled out. Hastings, a longtime Democratic donor, has a net worth of $4.3 billion, according to Forbes. Hastings said of Kamala's campaign, “After the depressing debate, we are in the game again.”Hastings wrote on the X social media platform on July 23, "Congrats to Kamala Harris — now it is time to win."As soon as the extremely generous donation and public endorsement was revealed, it ignited a backlash against Hastings and the streaming behemoth. Many conservatives called for a boycott of Netflix in response to Hastings supporting Harris. The hashtag "CancelNetflix" began trending on social media. Many users shared screenshots of their canceled Netflix subscriptions online. A new report revealed that Netflix suffered a major spike in cancelations after the streaming service's chairman endorsed Harris. Antenna — a research website that has a mission to "expand knowledge of subscriber behavior" — reported that the rate of Netflix cancelations nearly tripled in the United States immediately following the Harris endorsement by Hastings. The tidal wave of cancelations reportedly lasted a few days. Some subscribers were also upset because Netflix discontinued its basic plan for new users in the same month.However, Bloomberg reported that "the five-day period after Hastings’ endorsement was unusual, even for July." July 26 — three days after Hastings' endorsement of Harris — was the single-worst day for Netflix cancelations this year.The outlet noted that the surge of cancelations wasn't as severe as the 2020 boycott of Netflix over the movie "Cuties," which many conservatives believed sexually exploited children. Netflix did not respond to a request for comment from Bloomberg. Netflix is the latest major company to suffer a boycott at the hands of conservative consumers. Companies such as Bud Light, Target, Disney, Ford, Harley-Davidson, Tractor Supply, Jack Daniel's, and John Deere have seen conservatives boycott or threaten to boycott over liberal policies. Like Blaze News? Circumvent the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!