Category: blaze media

New Hampshire 2nd Congressional District candidate Lily Tang Williams delivered a blistering assault on Thursday against her opponent, Maggie Goodlander.

Goodlander is a former Biden administration Department of Justice official. She is married to national security adviser Jake Sullivan.

During a Thursday debate, Goodlander accused Tang Williams of catering to the wealthiest Americans by supporting tax breaks.

‘You pretend you are poor.’

“She believes that we should give a break to the wealthiest and the biggest corporations and hope for the best, hope that the results will trickle down to hardworking people,” Goodlander stated.

“I take a very different approach. I believe that the middle class deserves a tax cut, and I believe that we will do a lot for this country by ensuring that we don’t continue this disastrous tax policy,” she added.

Without missing a beat, Tang Williams fired back, accusing Goodlander of being a multimillionaire herself who is out of touch with the struggles of everyday Americans.

“You are wealthy. You’re worth $20 million to $30 million. How do you know about regular people’s suffering? Do you go shopping? Go to Walmart? Buy food? I talk to those people. And you pretend to be a renter in Nashua a few months ago, move back to run for this open seat with millions of dollars from Washington, D.C., insiders,” Tang Williams told Goodlander.

Goodlander rents an apartment in Nashua. If she wins the election, she has stated she will purchase property in the district, according to the New Hampshire Center for Public Interest Journalism.

“I don’t have money to run a TV ad, and you pretend you are poor, complain rent is so high,” Tang Williams continued. “You do not understand regular people’s concerns.”

“Just go back to your $2 million home in Portsmouth,” she remarked. “You do not understand regular people’s concerns.”

Tang Williams’ fiery rebuttal went viral on social media.

According to the Daily Beast and the New York Times, Goodlander and Sullivan purchased a $1.2 million home in Portsmouth in 2018.

Earlier this year, Goodlander was torched for complaining that rent costs are “too damn high” while holding millions of dollars in real estate.

Tang Williams was raised in China during Mao Zedong’s cultural revolution. She came to the United States with only $100 and became a citizen in 1994.

Following the viral debate moment, Tang Williams posted on X, “I have the fire in my belly to fight for the people in #NH02. I will always tell the truth.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Politics, Election 2024, New hampshire, Election, Lily tang williams, Maggie goodlander, Jake sullivan, Economy, News 

Have you ever wondered why reporters don’t seem to hesitate to say and repeat things about Donald Trump that simply aren’t true — as if they have no fear of defamation liability?

This sort of thing happens because the U.S. Supreme Court about 60 years ago invented a First Amendment doctrine that protects the media from defamation liability, at least in lawsuits brought by public figures.

The ‘actual malice’ standard technically allows the media to defame politicians of both parties equally. But they don’t. Not by a mile.

If you’re wondering which words in the First Amendment tell reporters they are free to defame activists, politicians, and other public figures without fear of being sued, you’re on the right track. Nothing in the text, structure, or original public understanding of the First Amendment talks about or even leads logically to an absurd rule insulating the media from defamation liability.

The fact that the Constitution doesn’t support this rule didn’t stop the Supreme Court from deciding in a 1964 case called New York Times v. Sullivan that a defamation action brought by a public figure cannot succeed unless the defendant acted with “actual malice.”

The Supreme Court defined “actual malice” to mean knowledge of the offending statement’s falsity or reckless disregard as to its truthfulness. For obvious reasons, the news media industry loves Sullivan, as it gives reporters and media companies almost a complete pass when it comes to defaming public figures.

But the fact that media companies love the Sullivan case doesn’t change the fact that the Supreme Court invented this doctrine out of thin air.

Even if one thinks immunizing media companies against defamation liability might be a good idea for policy reasons, that doesn’t change the fact that it finds no support in the Constitution. As a practical matter, moreover, it’s become apparent that New York Times v. Sullivan disproportionately — indeed, overwhelmingly — helps Democrats and creates a severe disadvantage for Republicans in the political process.

Think about it: The media are all but immune from defamation liability when speaking about public figures, including politicians, so, given that the media are almost seamlessly aligned with Democrats, they can hit Republicans more or less all they want without fear.

And they do!

In essence, all the media must do to avoid liability when attacking Donald Trump and other Republican politicians is have some thin, arguable basis to show that when they defamed a Republican, they didn’t know they were speaking falsely.

That means they can be negligent when speaking falsely about Republican politicians like Trump.

Of course, reporters will insist “that’s not fair to say New York Times v. Sullivan allows us to single out Republicans. After all, the same standard applies regardless of a politician’s party affiliation.” But that overlooks the overwhelming, increasingly obvious bias within the news industry in America.

So yes, the “actual malice” standard technically allows the media to defame politicians of both parties equally. But they don’t. Not by a mile.

Thus, not only is the Sullivan decision wrong because it isn’t rooted in the Constitution (but claims to be), but it also leaves countless victims of defamation without recourse, encourages lazy journalism, and provides a huge, unfair advantage to Democrats in politics.

Some jurists and legal scholars have noted that it may be time for the Supreme Court to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan and that litigants facing this standard should begin making arguments for overturning that unfortunate precedent.

In any event, it’s wrong for Democrats to enjoy an unfair advantage arising out of a fake constitutional doctrine created out of thin air by the Supreme Court 60 years ago.

Editor’s note: This article has been adapted from a thread that appeared on X (formerly Twitter).

​Libel laws, Libel and defamation, New york times v sullivan, Media bias, Defamation lawsuit, Donald trump, Fake news, Constitution, Supreme court, Opinion & analysis 

Despite the Taylor Swifts, the Beyonces, and the Mark Hamills, the majority of Hollywood is secretly voting for Donald Trump, according to actor Zachary Levi.

And it’s not necessarily because they like him. He’s just their only shot at keeping their job.

“Do you think, Zachary, there are a lot more stars in Hollywood who are now leaning towards voting Trump than would actually admit it?” Piers Morgan asked Levi on an episode of “Piers Morgan Uncensored.”

“I do think there’s a lot of people in Hollywood that would love to vote for a Democratic candidate because they really don’t like Trump … but they’re not just voting for Donald; they’re voting for that entire unity party,” Levi said, pointing to the reality that the country did better under Trump than it has under Biden.

Part of what made it better is that we didn’t fear that AI would be allowed to eliminate our jobs. But that’s been a huge concern under the Biden regime. When did the Hollywood actors’ strike occur after all? Not under a Trump administration.

Now, Levi meets with Blaze Media host Dave Rubin to unpack why Hollywood actors are more likely to vote for Donald Trump.

– YouTube

www.youtube.com

“I really believe that AI is about to disrupt this entire world — every single industry. … When you start putting AI in the robotics that are getting very, very good, you can essentially replace all of the workforce in the world,” says Levi, adding that “it’s going to start in a place like Hollywood” that relies heavily on “audio and video.”

He has a message for the Hollywood actors and actresses who are afraid to voice support for Donald Trump because it might cost them jobs: “There won’t be any jobs” if Kamala Harris wins.

“Anyone in my industry who’s still sitting on your hands and you’re scared … I really believe that this is the moment,” he says. “We are at the precipice of either saving the free world or not.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the clip above.

Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The rubin report, Dave rubin, Blazetv, Blaze media, Zach levi, Zachary levi, Hollywood 

Hillary Clinton’s mentor, Saul Alinsky, preached a cardinal rule of the left: to accuse opponents of precisely what they are doing. The former first lady recently accused Donald Trump of being Adolf Hitler, a charge repeated by leading Democrats, with Kamala Harris defaulting to the boilerplate “fascist.” The reductio ad Hitlerum was once the last rhetorical refuge for someone losing an argument, like a drunk at the end of the bar. Over time, the Hitler slander became politicians’ first resort, serving several valuable purposes.

Demonizing someone as Hitler is a justification for violence against them. On July 13, a 20-year-old with no tactical experience somehow evaded the Secret Service, gained access to a rooftop fewer than 150 yards from the stage where Trump was speaking, and fired eight shots, grazing Trump’s ear, killing rally attendee Corey Comperatore, and wounding two others.

For coincidence theorists, it’s all pure happenstance. In reality, the Trump-as-Hitler jihad signals a convergence going back nearly a century.

Common enemies

Consider the account of British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, author of the magisterial “Chronicles of Wasted Time.” In the early 1930s, Muggeridge visited the Soviet Union as the Moscow correspondent of the London Guardian but planned to remain as a partisan of the communist regime. Joseph Stalin’s forced famine in Ukraine, which claimed millions of lives, changed the journalist’s mind but inspired Hitler. As Muggeridge explained, Soviet communism and German national socialism were essentially Slavic and Germanic versions of the same tyranny. This was confirmed by a distinguished resident of Hitler’s regime.

Hans-Jurgen Massaquoi was born in Hamburg in 1926 to a Liberian father and a German mother. More than half a century later, as a naturalized American citizen, Massaquoi wrote “Destined to Witness: Growing Up Black in Nazi Germany,” a remarkable account first published in 1999 and now more relevant than ever.

Barred from university, Massaquoi read James Fenimore Cooper, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Miguel de Cervantes, Charles Dickens, Arthur Conan Doyle, Mark Twain, Victor Hugo, and Robert Louis Stevenson. Such authors became an “indispensable survival tool” against “constant racist attacks.” Massaquoi survived because “unlike Jews, blacks were few in number and relegated to low-priority status.”

For supporters of Biden and Harris, people who want the nation to be great are deplorables — the Untermenschen — and this lays the groundwork for violence against them.

The German National Socialists hailed their virtue and blasted communist evil, but Massaquoi found their propaganda “a distortion of facts.” The truth was, “in their many bloody clashes for dominance in Germany, the Nazis and Commies were virtually indistinguishable. Both were totalitarians, ever ready to brutalize to crush resistance to their respective ideologies.”

And they did.

The 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact divvied up Europe between the regimes, which both invaded Poland in September 1939, starting World War II. During the Pact, Stalin handed German Jews directly to Hitler’s Gestapo. For details, see “Under Two Dictators: Prisoner of Stalin and Hitler” by Margarete Buber-Neumann. After the war, Stalin swung the people of the USSR back to their habitual anti-Semitism, branding Jews “rootless cosmopolitans.” That was also the case in the communist regimes of Eastern Europe.

Witness the Slansky show trial in Czechoslovakia with its 11 executions. As director Robert Rossen (known for “All the King’s Men”) testified to Congress, the victims “were all hung, in my opinion, for being Jews and nothing else.”

Anti-Semitism remained a component of the left in the 20th century, culminating in its collaboration with Islamic terrorism. For example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine deployed the “Che Guevara Group Brigade” to hijack an Air France flight in 1976 that wound up taking hostages to Idi Amin’s Uganda. The Che Guevara squad consisted of two Arabs and Germans Wilfried Bose and Brigitte Kuhlmann, who were also members of a leftist group called the Revolutionary Cells. The Baader-Meinhof group, another leftist German terrorist organization, showed similar tendencies.

The late Christopher Hitchens could easily imagine Andreas Baader as “an enthusiastic member of the Brownshirts.” Some members were recruited at the University of Heidelberg’s Socialist Patients Collective. One of them, Ralf Reinders, planned to destroy the Jewish House in Berlin, once gutted by the Brownshirts, “in order to get rid of this thing about the Jews that we’ve all had to have since the Nazi time.” The contemporary left also has a “thing about the Jews.”

In the style of the PFLP and PLO, the left construes the Middle East conflict as colonialism, a doctrine expounded on by Marx and Lenin. October 7, 2023, the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust, caused campuses to reverberate with shouts of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” meaning Judenrein, the goal of Nazi Germany. The American left is down with it.

Rainbow supremacy

Ivy League campuses like Harvard couldn’t figure out whether their DEI policies, speech codes, and “woke” measures against bullying applied to calls for genocide against Jews. As Harvard’s then-President Claudine Gay said, it all depends on the “context.”

The Nazis touted their master race theories, and the communists hailed the “new Soviet man.” As it happens, the United States of America is developing its own brand of Übermenschen through the LGBTQ construct, construed as a “community” possessed of extraordinary powers. Consider Sneha Nair, a Biden-Harris appointee at the National Nuclear Security Administration and co-author of “Queering nuclear weapons: How LGBTQ+ inclusion strengthens security and reshapes disarmament.”

Nair claims queer people “make fewer errors, discuss issues more constructively, and better exchange new ideas and knowledge.” Not only that, “queer people have specific skills to offer that are valuable in a policy and diplomacy context.” The alphabet people are just better, but there’s more to the intersectionality now.

Democrats appear to believe that national socialist Germany allowed “Klaus’ Assault Rifles” shops on every corner, calling for citizens to “Get your Sturmgewehr and Schmeisser today!” As Stephen P. Halbrook showed in “Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming Jews and ‘Enemies of the State,’” the German National Socialists ruthlessly suppressed ownership of firearms. They used the registration records of the Weimar Republic to find out who owned guns and barred possession of ammunition. The government crusade against “assault weapons” is more like Nazi policy than people might think. See also Halbrook’s “Gun Control in Nazi Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance.”

California’s Firearms Violence Research Center at UC Davis aims to find out “who owns guns, why they own them, and how they use firearms.” As in National Socialist Germany and its occupied territories, “ve vant zuh names.” The state also requires background checks for ammunition sales and uses them to confiscate guns. These are not the only National Socialist-style measures the people now face.

The groundwork for violence

During the pandemic, government health bosses — white coat supremacists — demanded vaccination papers for entry to various establishments. Dr. Deborah Birx branded the uninfected “non-symptomatic carriers,” suddenly, it was “your papers, please.” NIAID boss Dr. Anthony Fauci promoted vaccines that failed to prevent infection or transmission, even for children — the least vulnerable group. Fauci was commanding a medical experiment on the entire population, but comparisons to Josef Mengele are unfair — to Mengele.

Since then, the United States of America has become more like National Socialist Germany, not less. Witness Joe Biden’s September 1, 2022, speech, which looked like something staged by Leni Riefenstahl. The Delaware Democrat also compares Trump to Hitler and calls Trump’s supporters “garbage.” For supporters of Biden and Harris, people who want the nation to be great are deplorables — the Untermenschen — and this lays the groundwork for state-sponsored violence against them.

Black American Hans-Jurgen Massaquoi, who died in 2013, would be shocked. So would those Americans who actually defeated the Nazis, liberating their captive nations and concentration camps. Fewer than 70,000 of the veterans remain, and they pass the torch to generations since born.

The Ansis — American National Socialists — are coming. Fight them on the internet, in the academy, and fight them at the ballot box. Sooner or later, everybody will have to pick a side.

​2024 presidential election, Reductio ad hitlerum, Adolf hitler, Donald trump, Totalitarianism, Nazi germany, Nazis, Democratic party, Hillary clinton, Anthony fauci, Opinion & analysis 

When it comes to early voting, rural voters are turning out in droves, while urban voters’ participation is declining in key battleground states. Given that rural voters tend to lean Republican and urban voters lean Democratic, this trend could be particularly consequential going into the election.

Since 2020, there has been over a six-point increase in rural early voting across the seven battlegrounds, while urban early voting decreased by over seven points, according to data from TargetEarly. Suburban voters only increased by about one point from 2020 across the seven swing states.

With just two days to go until the election, this may turn the tide in former President Trump’s favor.

There is a partisan split between rural and urban voters, which could shift the electoral outcome, and it has only widened over the last two decades.

Suburban voters have been split down the middle for the past two decades, with 50% identifying as Republican or Republican-leaning and 47% identifying as Democratic or Democrat-leaning, according to a Pew Research study from April.

Urban voters have a larger partisan gap, leaning heavily toward Democrats. In 1994, 58% of urban voters identified as Democratic or Democrat-leaning, while 39% identified as Republican or Republican-leaning, according to the study. The partisan gap widened slightly by 2023, with 60% of urban voters identifying as Democratic and 37% identifying as Republican.

The partisan gap among rural voters used to be extremely narrow, with 51% identifying as Republican or Republican-leaning and 45% identifying as Democratic or Democrat-leaning, according to the study. Since then, just 35% identify as Democrats, while 60% identify as Republicans.

While urban voters, who are mostly Democratic, are participating at a lower rate in battleground states compared to 2020, rural voters, who are mostly Republican, have a higher turnout rate. With just two days to go until the election, this may turn the tide in former President Trump’s favor.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Politics, Rural voters, Rural american, Suburban voters, Donald trump, Kamala harris, 2024 presidential election, Presidential election, 2024 election, Election, Battleground states, Swing states 

Like many in the influential yet shrinking elite media bubble, the Atlantic is in a panic over misinformation. In an October 10 article titled “I’m Running Out of Ways to Explain How Bad This Is,” Charlie Warzel laments how Americans no longer automatically follow the directives of the establishment or rely on the media-academia-expert complex to think for them. Warzel frames the issue differently, describing it as “nothing less than a cultural assault on any person or institution that operates in reality.”

“It is difficult to capture the nihilism of the current moment,” he writes. “The pandemic saw Americans, distrustful of authority, trying to discredit effective vaccines, spreading conspiracy theories, and attacking public-health officials.”

The media’s lies and disinformation began well before 2020 and continue today.

Warzel contends that things only worsened from there. He describes “journalists, election workers, scientists, doctors, and first responders” as victims in a “war on truth” because they “must attend to and describe the world as it is,” which, in his view, makes them dangerous to people who resist “the agonizing constraints of reality” or who have financial and political interests in perpetuating misinformation.

Warzel, of course, is not alone. Recently, many have sounded the alarm against the so-called plague of misinformation allegedly affecting society today. Among these voices, the most authoritative have come from a who’s who of Democratic Party leaders.

Hillary Clinton: “I think it’s important to indict the Russians just as Mueller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda and whether they should be civilly, or even in some cases, criminally charged, is something that would be a better deterrence.”

Tim Walz: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

John Kerry: “If people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence. So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation.”

And, of course, Kamala Harris: Social media companies “are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and it has to stop.”

Nowhere in Warzel’s article, or in any of these bold pronouncements and threats against dissenting voices, is there the slightest acknowledgment of a simple, undeniable truth: We stopped trusting them because they lost our trust. Science, once a self-correcting pursuit of truth, has become Dr. Fauci’s “the Science” with a capital S — a dogma similar to the one that the church used to stifle Galileo.

Much of the media, formerly our bulwark against state tyranny, now operates as the Democratic Party’s ministry of propaganda. When Donald Trump burst onto the political scene in 2015 and went on to secure the GOP’s nomination a year later, the media decided objectivity was no longer necessary. Instead, their new mission became crusading against Trump at every opportunity. Our loss of trust in these former arbiters of truth was a natural result.

Rather than acknowledging this erosion of trust, these politicking journalists, along with academics and political allies in their bubble, labeled any resistance to their often-false narratives as “misinformation.” Researcher David Rozado has documented a sharp rise in mentions of “misinformation” and “disinformation” in the media and academia, starting in 2016 — the year of Trump’s election.

Seriously, not literally

Warzel and others with a similar viewpoint might argue that the media began addressing misinformation in 2016 because Trump himself started spreading it, thereby inspiring a wave of conspiracies and outlandish claims from his supporters. There is some truth in this. Trump undoubtedly pushed the boundaries of acceptable political discourse and often lacked substantial proof for his claims.

While politicians have always bent the truth, Trump — a salesman from the high-stakes world of real estate rather than a lawyer like most national politicians — didn’t shy away from exaggeration. His go-to phrases — “the best ever,” “the worst ever,” “like no one’s ever seen before” — were part of his rhetorical style of inflation and hyperbole.

I would argue that most people, regardless of education, recognize Trump’s claims for what they are. Trump talks like that braggadocious, big-talking uncle we all know — not like a slippery politician skilled at lying through subtle phrasing and misleading statistics. People understand not to take Trump literally. In fact, unlike most politicians, Trump’s supporters know exactly what he stands for.

Ironically, despite claims from the left that Trump is a shameless liar, many people support him precisely because he speaks openly and directly about things other politicians might only hint at. That transparency, though often crude, appeals to his base. I would agree, however, that Trump has likely lowered the level of our political discourse more than anyone in recent memory. But crudity is not the same as deception. If anything, it’s the opposite of deception.

In any discussion of lies and misinformation in politics, the “Big Lie” attributed to Trump — widespread election fraud in 2020 — looms large. But an undeniable fact remains: The media’s lies and disinformation began well before 2020 and continue today. These distortions cover a wide range of topics and often involve coordination among news outlets, scientists, academics, and others.

Warzel’s alleged defenders of truth against misinformation have committed numerous notable infractions against reality.

Expert alarmism

For years, the media, relying on handpicked “experts,” has bombarded us with alarmist rhetoric about the imminent danger of manmade climate change. They promote a phony 97% consensus among climate scientists while censoring evidence-based alternative views, despite data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that doesn’t fully support such alarmism.

We were falsely told that President Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. This baseless accusation led to years of costly investigations that hamstrung his administration, while the New York Times and the Washington Post received Pulitzer Prizes for their extensive reporting on these unsubstantiated claims.

During the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots, which brought American cities to their knees with widespread arson, vandalism, looting, and destruction of small businesses, we were told these events were “mostly peaceful protests.” This disinformation campaign, along with the promotion of critical race theory and anti-law enforcement ideologies, led to lenient or nonexistent prosecutions for those involved. Meanwhile, the media labeled the events of January 6, 2021 — which resulted in far less loss of life and property damage — as an “armed insurrection” and an attempted “coup.”

The media omitted key facts about January 6, including that Trump, the alleged instigator, had warned top advisers days before that many protesters would be coming to the Capitol and requested the National Guard be prepared. They ignored and defied his request. Consequently, those involved in the Capitol breach were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and given disproportionately harsh sentences for what, in many cases, amounted to minor infractions, often limited to acts of trespassing.

On the eve of the 2020 election, the media — including Twitter and Facebook — suppressed the New York Post’s explosive story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, labeling it “Russian disinformation.” This suppression likely influenced the election outcome in Biden’s favor. Only later, when it no longer mattered, did the media reveal that the laptop and the story were real. Anyone who dismisses Trump’s claims of 2020 election interference must first contend with this major flaw in the media’s “Big Lie” narrative.

Accounting for COVID

The COVID-19 era exposed how the media colluded with the government to spread fear, propaganda, and disinformation while silencing evidence-based alternative views. Continued censorship on these issues — including the absurd censorship and deplatforming of respected scientists like Dr. Robert Malone, a pioneer of mRNA technology used in COVID vaccines — limits full and frank discussion.

The handling of the lab-leak theory of COVID’s origin provides a glaring example. Initially dismissed as a “conspiracy theory,” the lab-leak hypothesis now holds wide acceptance, yet the media originally pushed a flawed natural-origin narrative. Acknowledging a lab origin would have implicated Dr. Anthony Fauci, who approved gain-of-function research tied to the virus’ creation.

To discredit the lab-leak theory, scientists coordinated with Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins to publish an influential paper in Nature, arguing for a natural origin. Yet, their contemporaneous communications reveal they did not believe the narrative they promoted. The media amplified this false narrative, labeling dissenters as conspiracy theorists whose claims had been thoroughly “debunked.”

War, dementia, and ‘cheapfakes’

The media uncritically promoted the Biden administration’s false narrative that the Russia-Ukraine war was an “unprovoked” attack by Moscow. While Putin bears responsibility, evidence strongly suggests that the attack was substantially provoked by neoconservatives within the Biden administration. These actions built upon the Obama administration’s support for the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s government in favor of a more anti-Russian regime.

Biden administration officials continued to draw Ukraine foolishly closer to NATO, despite knowing that establishing an enemy alliance on Russia’s border was a red line for Putin — just as it would have been for the United States had Canada joined the former Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact or placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

The media also colluded with the Biden administration and others close to Joe Biden to hide his cognitive decline and ongoing descent into dementia. They attempted to gaslight the public, dismissing videos of Biden’s apparent incapacity — including moments like talking to a dead politician — as “cheapfakes.” When the June presidential debate made Biden’s condition undeniable, the media feigned shock.

After Biden was ultimately compelled to drop out of the race by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and wealthy donors, the media continued their false narrative. They portrayed his withdrawal not as an action forced on him by party elites despite his objections but as a courageous decision he made to protect democracy against Donald Trump.

Covering for Kamala

Once Democratic Party bosses appointed Kamala Harris to replace Biden, the media launched an unprecedented, coordinated effort to portray her as something she clearly was not: capable, intelligent, informed, inspiring, visionary, eloquent, articulate, honest, principled, and free of responsibility for the Biden administration’s mismanagement of the economy and immigration.

This full-scale media campaign included giving Harris and her running mate a month-long pass on unscripted interviews and press conferences. When they finally faced the media, reporters served up softball questions, allowing them to evade or respond with vapid pabulum or evasive nonanswers without follow-ups.

The presidential and vice-presidential debates further underscored this bias, with moderators framing topics to favor the Democratic ticket and engaging in misleading “fact-checks” exclusively for the Republican candidates. During the vice presidential debate, moderators even conducted fact-checks, despite rules prohibiting them.

The October “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris stood out as a particularly egregious example. Unlike the unaltered footage of Biden’s apparent cognitive struggles, CBS edited out Harris’ incoherent rambling in response to a question about Israel. They skipped directly to a slightly more coherent part of her answer, creating a genuine “cheapfake.” While the Biden clips aimed to reveal his cognitive deficits that his administration and the media sought to hide, the shameful editing stunt at “60 Minutes” blatantly tried to conceal Harris’ cognitive deficits from the public.

Who are you gonna believe?

In the face of this longstanding barrage of lies, propaganda, and disinformation, only two types of people would retain complete trust in the powers-that-be: 1) those deeply embedded in the Democratic Party-aligned information bubble, lacking the motivation, common sense, or drive to seek alternative perspectives; and 2) complete morons.

Most of us, thankfully, fit into neither of those categories — nor the massive overlapping area where the two converge. As a result, we no longer take anything from the media and their allies at face value. This widespread disillusionment, however, has led many to a point where it’s difficult to discern truth from misinformation, struggling to balance healthy skepticism with slipping into loony conspiracy land. Social media further amplifies this predicament, acting as both an escape from the distortions of the mainstream narrative and a potential detour from reality itself.

And yes, it’s a problem. But before the media priests blame us for opting out of their funhouse hall of mirrors, I have a suggestion for them: Take a long, hard look in one of those mirrors, recognize your own complicity, and … well … stop lying to us!

​Media bias, 2024 presidential election, Cheapfake, Kamala harris, Donald trump, Fake news, Fake news media, Misinformation, Covid-19, January 6, Conspiracy theory, Anthony fauci, Robert malone, Francis collins, 60 minutes, Opinion & analysis 

President Donald Trump expressed his displeasure Sunday over the likelihood that it might take officials over a week after Election Day to count votes in certain swing states.

At his
campaign rally Sunday in Lititz, Pennsylvania, Trump discussed various factors that might undermine the integrity of the election and Americans’ confidence in its integrity, including lax or absent voter ID requirements.

“There is only one reason you don’t want voter ID. There’s only one reason, and that’s to cheat,” said Trump. “And they do cheat.”

Trump stressed that the expected failure of officials to count votes in a timely fashion is similarly suspicious.

“They are fighting so hard to steal this damn thing,” said Trump.

“We should have one-day voting and paper ballots. And I just heard that a couple of states may go an extra 12 days. How the hell do you have an election? You know, they spend all of this money on these damn machines — and paper ballots, you’d have the answer by 9 o’clock tonight.”

‘Not every state is created equal, right?’

Pennsylvania, the state with 19 Electoral College votes where Trump
apparently has a slight edge, is expected to take several days to release its final results because it cannot begin processing mail-in ballots until Election Day.

The
official website of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania states:

Hundreds of thousands — sometimes millions — of mail ballots are cast in every election, and current state law does not permit counties to begin opening these ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day. That means county election officials cannot even remove the ballots from the envelopes and prepare them to be scanned until that time — on a day when those same officials are also running more than 9,000 polling places across the state. Then, under the Election Code, counties may not even begin to record and publish mail ballot results until after the polls close at 8 p.m. Election Day.

County election offices can also
continue receiving completed military and overseas absentee ballots until Nov. 12, drawing the process out further.

Election officials anticipate that vote counting in certain larger counties could run into Wednesday or Thursday,
reported Spotlight PA.

Barring a definitive landslide victory by one of the two candidates, it appears that Wisconsin — where Election Day 2020 ended up becoming “Election Week” — will similarly lag behind when reporting results, given that absentee ballots cannot be opened and counted until Nov. 5.

Wisconsin Public Radio
indicated that Milwaukee, for instance, is expecting to process at least 80,000 absentee ballots on Election Day, which is supposedly a time-intensive process. Since the state has same-day voter registration, that number could grow significantly.

“Not every state is created equal, right? So if you’re from Florida, you’re going to get results a little quicker, simply because we have 22 days of pre-processing,” Carolina Lopez, executive director of the Partnership for Large Election Jurisdictions, recently
told USA Today. “If you’re in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, by law, they’re not allowed to start until Election Day. So it’s just a quick numbers game. It doesn’t mean that Florida is more efficient or less efficient than some of their counterparts. It just means that the laws are a little different.”

The New York Times
suggested that Arizona and Nevada will likely also take days to finish counting votes.

In Nevada, where the Associated Press waited four days to call the election for Biden in 2020, postmarked ballots are allowed to pour in until Nov. 9.

Things are worse in Arizona, where Maricopa County deputy elections director Jennifer Liewer
indicated at a press conference last month that it could take “between 10 and 13 days to complete tabulation of all the ballots that come in.”

“It’s a damn shame, and I’m the only one that talks about it because everyone’s afraid to damn talk about it,” said Trump. “And then they accuse you of being a ‘conspiracy theorist. He’s a conspiracy theorist.’ And they want to lock you up, and they want to put you in jail.”

Trump suggested that while it’s unclear what will happen this time around, Americans should insist upon voter ID, paper ballots, and same-day results for future elections.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​President donald trump, Donald trump, Trump, Election fraud, Election 2024, Swing states, Voter fraud, Ballots, Counting, Politics 

NBC’s apparent attempt to give Kamala Harris a last-minute boost with a
cringey spot on “Saturday Night Live” — which some critics have called an “in-kind donation” — appears to have been strategically timed in order to “evade” Federal Communications Commission rules, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said ahead of the Nov. 2 broadcast.

Carr, in the Republican minority on the commission,
noted on X ahead of Harris’ appearance, “This is a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule. The purpose of the rule is to avoid exactly this type of biased and partisan conduct — a licensed broadcaster using the public airwaves to exert its influence for one candidate on the eve of an election.”

While the FCC’s
equal opportunities rule established by the Communications Act of 1934 does not require that networks like NBC “provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate,” networks generally must provide “comparable time and placement.”

Carr
indicated that in recent elections, NBC at least made an effort to follow the equal time rule.

The Hollywood Reporter
noted, for instance, that in 2015, then-candidate Trump appeared on “Saturday Night Live” during the Republican primary for a total of 12 minutes and five seconds. NBC subsequently offered the same amount of airtime to his opponents.

“NBC stations publicly filed Equal Opportunity notices to ensure that all other qualifying candidates could obtain Equal Time if they sought it,” wrote the commissioner. “Stations did the same thing when Clinton appeared on SNL.”

The equal time rule did not require NBC to seek out President Donald Trump and ask him if he similarly wanted to appear on “Saturday Night Live” but requires that the network entertain requests by the Republican president.

Carr suggested that the last-minute nature of Harris’ “Saturday Night Live” spot was ostensibly the liberal outlet’s way of flouting the FCC’s rule.

‘This requires FCC action.’

“Federal law requires that broadcasters provide comparable time and placement to all legally qualified candidates when the Equal Time rule is triggered,”
wrote Carr. “With only days before the election, NBC appears to have structured this appearance in a way that evades these requirements. What comparable time and placement can they offer all other qualifying candidates?”

Not only did “Saturday Night Live” leave the appearance to the last moment and its final show before the election; the head of the show appears to have misled the Trump campaign with the suggestion in a September interview that the show would ultimately have neither Harris nor the 45th president on the show prior to the election.

“Saturday Night Live” creator Lorne Michaels
told the Hollywood Reporter, “You can’t bring the actual people who are running on because of election laws and the equal time provisions.”

“You can’t have the main candidates without having all the candidate, and there are lots of minor candidates that are only on the ballot in, like, three states, and that becomes really complicated,” Michaels said, suggesting that his program might have politicians on the show after the election.

A senior adviser for the Trump campaign reportedly informed Fox News that “Saturday Night Live” did not extend an invitation to Trump.

Carr stressed that “this requires FCC action” but indicated that the initiative must be taken by the commission’s chair, Biden appointee Jessica Rosenworcel.

Rosenworcel has demonstrated an unwillingness to hold fellow travelers to the same standard as conservatives.

In September, Rosenworcel
joined her fellow Democratic commissioners in approving Democratic mega-donor George Soros’ controversial purchase of over 200 radio stations in over 40 markets with the help of unvetted foreign investors who were spared the cusomary national security review process.

After “60 Minutes'” apparently deceptive edit of its Harris interview, Rosenworcel
lashed out at Trump last month for requesting that CBS News be held to account.

‘She’s living out her warped fantasy cosplaying with her elitist friends on “Saturday Night Leftists.”‘

While Democratic commissioners on the FCC might let NBC skate for its apparent evasion of federal law, the risk taken by “Saturday Night Live” still does not appear to have been worth it.

Harris appeared in the show’s cold open, sitting opposite her fictional self, played by actress Maya Rudolph. Pretending to be mirror reflections of each other, the duo took turns talking up the vice president.

While some critics
suggested that the Harris skit was a “cringe fest,” in part owing to the accent the Democratic candidate decided to employ and her reliance on neoligisms rythming with “Kamala,” others noted that it once again evidenced Harris’ lack of originality.

Radio host Ari Hoffman was among the many critics who highlighted the resemblance between NBC’s Harris skit and Trump’s September 2015 skit on Jimmy Fallon’s “The Tonight Show,”
writing, “Kamala continues her pattern of ripping off Trump.”

In the
2015 spot, Jimmy Fallon, dressed up as Trump, sat opposite the future president with a fake mirror between them and conducted an interview.

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung
wrote, “In addition to stealing policy ideas, @KamalaHarris has now resorted to stealing comedy skits.”

Cheung was likely referring to Harris’
adoption of Trump’s proposal to eliminate taxes on tips as well as her campaign’s apparent plagiarization of the defunct Biden campaign’s policy agenda. Harris’ alleged plagiarism in her 2009 book, “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer,” indicates the vice president’s lack of originality is nothing new.

Trump senior adviser Jason Miller wrote, “Pathetic.”

Cheung
told Fox News, “Kamala Harris has nothing substantive to offer the American people, so that’s why she’s living out her warped fantasy cosplaying with her elitist friends on ‘Saturday Night Leftists’ as her campaign spirals down the drain into obscurity. For the last four years, Kamala’s destructive policies have led to untold misery and hurt for all Americans. She broke it, and President Trump will fix it.”

Blaze News has reached out to Commissioner Carr and NBC for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Kamala harris, Harris, Saturday night live, Nbc, Fcc, Brendan carr, Carr, Federal communications commission, Kamala, President trump, Donald trump, Election, Politics, Media 

New York Times political analyst Nate Cohn warned that nonresponse bias may lead to an underrepresentation of support for former President Donald Trump in current polls.

In a Sunday morning article, Cohn explained that in 2020, Trump’s supporters were considerably less likely to respond to polls than President Joe Biden’s supporters.

While accurately measuring nonresponse bias presents challenges, Cohn noted that he estimates it by considering the survey response rates of Democrats versus Republicans.

“Across these final polls, white Democrats were 16 percent likelier to respond than white Republicans. That’s a larger disparity than our earlier polls this year, and it’s not much better than our final polls in 2020 — even with the pandemic over,” Cohn wrote.

‘The polls are just as corrupt as some of the writers.’

He concluded that the nonresponse bias may indicate that Trump’s supporters are underrepresented in the polls.

“It raises the possibility that the polls could underestimate Mr. Trump yet again,” Cohn remarked.

In a Friday article titled, “So, Can We Trust the Polls?” Cohn acknowledged that the polls in 2016 and 2020 significantly underestimated Trump.

He argued there are a couple of reasons to “be cautiously optimistic” that pollsters will “avoid badly underestimating” the former president once again, with the end of COVID-19 being one of those factors.

Cohn also stated that some pollsters have implemented “major methodological changes” following the inaccurate predictions of previous presidential elections, calling 2016 and 2020 “traumatic” for pollsters.

“Many pollsters have made these changes in hopes of better representing Mr. Trump’s supporters, on the (quite possibly correct) assumption that traditional polling simply can’t reach his MAGA base,” Cohn explained. “But if that assumption turns out to be wrong, it’s possible that pollsters could overcompensate.”

He concluded that pollsters may “underestimate” Vice President Kamala Harris because they are “so concerned — understandably — about underestimating Mr. Trump.”

The latest New York Times/Siena Poll has Harris narrowly leading in several battleground states, including Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Trump is leading in Arizona, the poll shows. Trump and Harris are reportedly neck and neck in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

During a Sunday rally in Lititz, Pennsylvania, Trump told his supporters that the polls are “fake.”

“The polls are just as corrupt as some of the writers back there,” he said, pointing to the press. “They can make those polls sing.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Donald trump, Election, Election 2024, Harris, Kamala harris, News, Presidential election, Presidential election 2024, Trump, Politics 

At the core of the argument against Donald Trump lies a persistent claim that he threatens national and international norms. But breaking norms isn’t inherently bad; not all norms are good. So even if Trump challenges America’s political norms, that alone isn’t enough to disqualify his candidacy. The crucial questions are these: Which norms does he break? Are they truly norms, or are they just someone’s preferences? And if they are norms, are they good or bad?

These days, the American left complains the loudest about threats to “precious” norms. But this concern is largely performative — a superficial display of reverence. The left fundamentally hates norms. Leftists don’t reject only traditional American norms (although they do); they reject norms altogether. For them, defining anything as “normal” is a form of coercive bigotry that stifles individual autonomy, cultural diversity, and tolerance of “difference” writ large. Any serious analysis of threats to norms must acknowledge that the left has spent the past century working to demolish them.

For the sake of the nation — and for the sake of any genuine norms that remain — don’t let the normongers win.

This reveals an odd reality: Those most agitated about norm-breaking are the ones who break norms the most.

The left arrogantly assumes the right to decide which norms deserve respect. Leftists seem to believe that all the norms they disregard are bad, while the ones Trump allegedly violates are good. Curiously, their commitment to norms only appears when Trump challenges them. This selective concern for norms, paired with their hostility to traditional social standards, exposes their true motive. The left’s hand-wringing over norms is simply a rhetorical strategy to justify breaking long-standing protocols for treating current and former presidents, as well as presidential candidates.

‘Defending’ norms or destroying them?

The phenomenon of people who despise the very idea of norms lamenting that our norms are under attack has become so common in public discourse that it deserves its own term. I propose we call it “normongering.”

Pronounced aloud, normongering closely resembles “warmongering,” an adjacent concept. While a warmonger eagerly promotes war and conflict, a normonger despises norms yet stirs up political warfare and rhetorical conflict by falsely claiming that norms are under threat and in need of defense. The normonger frames his political aggression as a reluctant, defensive response to an unexpected assault, creating the misleading impression that he escalates hostilities only with regret.

The left has achieved major victories in weakening or destroying norms related to citizenship, pronoun usage, apparel, marriage, drugs, law enforcement, fitness, personal finances, elections, etiquette at meals, the workplace, sex, faith, diet, energy consumption, education, art, employment, parenting, and every other sphere of life. This unrelenting opposition to norms and normality remains a defining trait of left-wing politics. Perpetual conflict against norms and the “status quo” is its central activity.

Normongering serves as a powerful strategy for the left because it allows progressives to portray themselves as something they are not: normal people committed to defending the status quo.

Most Americans — and people in general — like norms. They seek to uphold existing norms and expect others to do the same, as norms provide a framework for public interaction, governance, and social situations. Unsurprisingly, the party that constantly calls for “fundamental transformations,” “comprehensive reforms,” and vague “change” also wages continuous war on norms. Meanwhile, leftists posture as the defenders of these norms, using this stance as a form of misdirection — an attempt to distract the public from the extensive list of norms they have already dismantled.

Trump is the exception

Do they really use appeals to the value of norms as a strategy for attacking them? Certainly. This is the defining trait of normongering, and it almost always appears as a hysterical reaction to Trump or his policies.

For instance, a long-standing norm has been to afford the president a degree of respect from both the press and citizens in positions of power. However, our media and celebrities have shattered that norm, routinely comparing Trump to Hitler. What has he done that compares to attempting world domination and the murder of 6 million Jews? In reality, nothing of the sort — except, they argue, that he threatens “our norms.”

Traditionally, impeaching a president was a last-resort measure for addressing executive misconduct. Elected officials were generally reluctant to pursue impeachment, understanding that it could lead to civil strife and divert resources from pressing governmental issues. Yet Democrats promised to impeach Trump even before his inauguration, absent any high crimes or misdemeanors. They made good on that promise, impeaching him twice. Why not? He was a threat to our norms!

The outrageous lawfare directed against Trump also reflects this norm-breaking approach. Armed agents descended on Trump’s personal residence over a dispute regarding the storage of presidential records. “No one is above the law!” declared Democrats. Yet these same individuals dismissed egregious records violations by Hillary Clinton (whom “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict) and Joe Biden (who, they argue, simply made honest mistakes due to age and forgetfulness).

This selective application of justice also extends to efforts aimed at keeping Trump’s name off the ballots in 2024. Meanwhile, a show trial in New York convicted Trump of 34 felonies, during which standard precedents and evidentiary procedures were ignored.

Americans have grown accustomed to the left’s pervasive disdain for norms, but we may now be approaching a Herculean level of normongering that could alter the nation’s future. Progressives have spent the past four years claiming, without evidence, that if Trump wins, he will become an “authoritarian dictator” who will “end our democracy” and that 2024 will be “our last election.” This rhetoric alone defies all norms of public discourse, but it could also signal a willingness to breach the most crucial norm in American politics: the peaceful and orderly transition of executive power.

‘Comprehensive reform’ means trashing norms

If Trump secures a clear and decisive win in November, will Democrats respect the choice of the American people? Recall that in 2020, during a scenario exercise called the Transition Integrity Project, prominent Democrats discussed plans to contest the presidency — even in the event of a “clear Trump win.” After the events of recent years, we can expect they will be even more committed to opposing the outcome of a fair and free election that doesn’t align with their preferred candidate.

If Trump wins, the normongers will refuse to seat the choice of the people. If they truly believe someone they call “literally Hitler” is taking office, they won’t simply congratulate him, hold an inauguration, and wait for another election in four years. Instead, they may employ every available procedural and judicial tactic to defy the result, justifying their actions by claiming Trump’s presidency poses such a severe threat to “our democracy” that they cannot honor the outcome. Should they succeed, they would have undermined our nation’s most fundamental norm — a peaceful transition of power — by invoking an imagined veto over the will of the people.

If they get away with it, the normongers may turn out to be correct: 2024 could very well be America’s last free election. Harris and her comrades have a long list of norms they are eager to violate when they take power: expanding the Supreme Court, ending the Electoral College, granting (more) benefits to people who enter the nation illegally, defying parents’ primary right to make decisions about their children’s health and education, paying reparations, and so much more.

Of course, all of these “comprehensive reforms” (read: “violated norms”) will be framed as attempts to protect the hallowed norms of “our democracy.”

For the sake of the nation — and for the sake of any genuine norms that remain — don’t let the normongers win.

​Donald trump, Norms, Normongering, Kamala harris, 2024 presidential election, Court packing, Electoral college, Lawfare, Impeachment, Opinion & analysis 

The New York Times and the leftist outfit Media Matters dropped complementary
hit pieces Thursday, accusing BlazeTV hosts Steve Deace, Mark Levin, and Jason Whitlock — along with various other prominent voices in conservative media, including Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, and Lara Trump — of “election misinformation.”

The apparent aim of this coordinated attack, which the Washington Post
did its part to reinforce, is to pressure the Google-owned platform YouTube to demonetize or possibly even deplatform Democrats’ ideological opponents before Election Day.

“Being lumped in with those fine fellows, and being labeled an enemy number one from the official Pravda of the regime, is truly the greatest honor of my career,” Deace told Blaze News.

‘It defines “false claims” and “election misinformation” so broadly.’

Times reporter Nico Grant
gave the plot away in advance when asking Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and Mike Davis of the Article III Project on Monday about their respective memberships in the YouTube Partner Program, their track records of demonetization, and history of notes from YouTube regarding “misinformation.”

Grant, whom Carlson told to “f*** off,” indicated that Media Matters, a leftist organization founded by Democratic operative David Brock that is presently being sued by Elon Musk for alleged defamation, identified “286 YouTube videos between May and August that contained election misinformation, including narratives that have been debunked or are not supported with credible evidence.”

Blaze News previously reached out to the Times and Media Matters for a working definition of “misinformation” but did not receive a response from either outfit. As a result, it remains unclear whether the Times’ false or misleading reports about
Russian collusion, former Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann, the death of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, and jihadists’ missile misfire at a Gazan hospital would qualify.

Journalists Matt Taibbi and Paul D. Thacker
wrote Friday on the “Racket News” Substack, “The problem with the Times piece is it defines ‘false claims’ and ‘election misinformation’ so broadly that legitimate questions or analyses and even jokes get wrapped in with far-out conspiracy tales.”

Media Matters did, however, shine some light on what sort of claims it apparently feels should not be uttered on YouTube, namely: suggestions “that the election process is ‘rigged’ against Trump, that the legal cases against him constitute ‘election interference,’ that Democrats want and are enabling noncitizens to vote in order to win the election, and that Kamala Harris was ‘illegally installed’ as the Democratic nominee in a ‘coup’ against Joe Biden.”

If Media Matters gets its way, then YouTube might penalize critics for highlighting the unmistakable
efforts by Democrats to throw Trump in prison before the election and to remove him from the ballot; Democratic lawmakers’ publicly stated plans to invalidate a lawful Trump victory; the Biden-Harris Department of Justice’s lawsuits aimed at restoring the voter registration of thousands of suspected foreign nationals; or for questioning the nature of Biden’s ouster as Democratic candidate and Harris’ voteless candidacy.

Media Matters specifically complained that BlazeTV host Mark Levin said in May that Democrats “will do anything for votes — imprison Trump, steal elections,” and that Democrats would “change the electoral process” to get more votes.

The Democratic attack dog attacked Levin further for apparently suggesting in July that Democrats “stole the election from their own primary voters and they’re going to install somebody who hasn’t gotten a single delegate on her own.”

Media Matters also set its sights on Deace, complaining:

Right-wing radio host Steve Deace said Democrats would be “dropping ballots” and “bussing people in … to keep the spigot going until they get what they want” on Election Day. Deace continued, “All they’re trying to do is make her credible enough so they can fortify this thing at the end here.”

Media Matters was apparently distressed to learn that Deace could exercise his First Amendment rights and suggest on YouTube that Democrats might want to get the polls “within their narrative margin to justify cheating.”

The hit piece also noted that BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock accused California of “manipulat[ing] voting.”

A YouTube spokeswoman told the Times that the company reviewed eight videos identified by the liberal paper and found that none of them violated its community guidelines. However, that’s not what the Times originally reported.

‘But what they meant for evil, I will choose to use for good.’

“A YouTube spokeswoman said none of the 286 videos violated its community guidelines,” wrote Grant.

The Times has since issued a correction:

An earlier version of this article misstated the number of videos that YouTube reviewed when asked for comment on whether they contained misinformation. YouTube
said it reviewed eight videos, which were identified by The New York Times and referenced in the article, not all of them, and found that those eight did not violate its community guidelines; it did not comment on whether they contained misinformation.

The YouTube spokeswoman whose response was initially misrepresented by the Times apparently also told Grant, “The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is an important value — especially in the midst of election season.”

Evidently not all are keen on open debate and free speech.

Kayla Gogarty, an LGBT activist who interned at the Human Rights Campaign before becoming “research director” at Media Matters, said, “YouTube is allowing these right-wing accounts and channels to undermine the 2024 results.”

Media Matters was not entirely impotent regarding its censorious crusade. The Times indicated that YouTube censored three videos and placed “information labels” that link to supposedly factual information on 21 other videos.

Deace told Blaze News, “The timing of this hit piece is obviously to induce Google, which also owns YouTube and thus the two largest search engines on this planet, to censor those of us who are among the most effective in deconstructing the Left’s attempts to deconstruct America right before the election. But what they meant for evil, I will choose to use for good.”

Taibbi and Thacker summarized the attack campaign thusly:

A DNC-aligned group produces a “report” documenting a sciencey-sounding quantity of “misinformation” incidents, then passes the scary number to a politically willing mainstream news outlet, which trumpets the new “facts” while publicly and privately pressuring platforms to remove offending material. Welcome to the new “accountability journalism.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Media matters, New york times, Fake news, Liberal, Propaganda, Washington post, Nico grant, Steve deace, Mark levin, Ben shapiro, Tucker carlson, Attack, Censor, Censorship, Thought control, Youtube, Politics, Tech 

Just two days from Election Day, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are going into the homestretch with contrasting campaigns.

Trump traveled from the Rust Belt to campaign in North Carolina and Virginia on Saturday, largely focusing on top issues like the economy and immigration.

‘Over the past 4 years, Kamala has orchestrated the most egregious betrayal that any leader in American history has ever inflicted on our people.’

“If Kamala wins, you are 3 days away from the start of a 1929-style economic depression,” Trump said in a post on X. “If I win, you are 3 days away from the best jobs, the biggest paychecks, and the brightest economic future the world has ever seen. … I will massively cut taxes for workers and small businesses — and we will have NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON OVERTIME, and NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY benefits!”

“As we rescue our economy, I will also restore our borders,” Trump said in another X post. “Over the past 4 years, Kamala has orchestrated the most egregious betrayal that any leader in American history has ever inflicted on our people. She has violated her oath, eradicated our sovereign border, and unleashed an army of gangs and criminal migrants from prisons and jails, insane asylums and mental institutions around the world, from Venezuela to the Congo — stealing countless American lives.”

Harris also spent time in the Sun Belt, campaigning in Georgia and North Carolina. Harris has refocused on policy issues like immigration, noting that she has served as attorney general of a border state.

“I was attorney general of a border state,” Harris said in a post on X. “Strengthening our border is not new to me.”

Under Harris’ purview as “Border czar,” there have been over 8.7 million migrant encounters across the southern border alone, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Harris also reminded voters of her goal to “restore reproductive freedom” and implement a $6,000 child tax credit, as well as her “economic plan” that “taps into the aspirations of the American people.”

Harris also made a surprise appearance on “Saturday Night Live” alongside Maya Rudolph. Many pointed out that the skit looked like a recreation of Trump’s 2015 appearance with Jimmy Fallon, both of which showed the presidential hopefuls speaking to their reflection, played by one of their co-hosts.

“It is nice to see you, Kamala,” Harris said to Rudolph. “And I’m just here to remind you, you got this, because you can do something your opponent cannot do. You can open doors.”

While her appearance sparked a huge amount of online discourse, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr criticized Harris’ appearance as a violation of the FCC’s “Equal Time rule.”

“The purpose of the rule is to avoid exactly the type of biased and partisan conduct — a licensed broadcaster using the public airwaves to exert its influence for one candidate on the eve of an election,” Carr said in a post on X. “Unless the broadcaster offered Equal Time to other qualifying campaigns.”

The campaign season took another unexpected turn last night when Ann Selzer released a poll alongside the Des Moines Register showing Harris three points ahead of Trump in Iowa. This is a huge turnaround for Harris compared to the four-point deficit she was facing in the state, according to a previous poll from Selzer.

Iowa is not considered a swing state but has had a split voting record. Trump won the state in both 2020 and in 2016, but former President Barack Obama won the state in 2012 and 2008.

At the same time, many criticized this poll as a fluke, calling it a last-ditch attempt to “demoralize Trump voters.” Notably, major projections have all included Iowa as a red-leaning state.

“No President has done more for FARMERS, and the Great State of Iowa, than Donald J. Trump,” the former president said in a Truth Social post on Sunday. “In fact, it’s not even close! All polls, except for one heavily skewed toward the Democrats by a Trump hater who called it totally wrong the last time, have me up, BY A LOT.”

Trump is set to campaign in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia today. Harris will make multiple campaign stops in Michigan.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Kamala harris, Donald trump, Snl, Iowa, Michigan, North carolina, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Virginia, Campaign, 2024 election, Presidential election, Border czar, Immigration, Economy, Brendan carr, Politics 

In 2016, the night before the presidential election, I posted a few paragraphs on how I was feeling. I was in an environment where I was surrounded by left-leaning coworkers, and I felt immense pressure not to voice what I really thought.

So instead, I posted that I was exhausted by the divisive rhetoric on both sides and that, while I believed Hillary Clinton would win, it didn’t matter as much as we made it seem because we would move on.

While most of us can agree that abortion is wrong, it’s easy to be swayed into believing that ‘loving our neighbor’ means allowing those living in worse countries into ours for a ‘better life.’

I got a barrage of comments from both sides saying, “Wow, this is exactly how I feel!” I felt validated. I felt like I had pleased everyone. The problem was that I didn’t actually say anything.

In an effort to be winsome and relatable to everyone, I ignored the glaring siren in front of me: It DID matter who won this election, and Christians had no business voting for Hillary Clinton despite Donald Trump’s many flaws.

It was true then, and it’s even more true now. In 2016, we didn’t have a clue how Donald Trump would actually lead or what policies he’d truly care about. Now we do. We also have three years — and an entire abysmal career before that — of record on our other candidate, current Vice President Kamala Harris.

False empathy

Yet I don’t blame the Christian for being confused. We’re bombarded with media lies claiming that Kamala Harris is the empathetic choice. She’s the choice that will be “compassionate” to the illegal immigrant (but not to the victim of rampant immigrant crime) and to the woman with an unwanted pregnancy (but not, needless to say, to the baby being murdered).

A few weeks ago, Pastor Ray Ortlund, president of Renewal Ministries and founding pastor of Immanuel Church in Nashville, posted on Instagram Threads: “Never Trump. This time Harris. Always Jesus.”

Last week, Glennon Doyle, lesbian self-love guru, who still has a large Christian, female following, posted a series of slides on Instagram claiming that if Donald Trump is elected, “we lose birth control, IVF, abortion, insurance coverage, and LGBTQ+ rights.” Note that quite literally none of that is even remotely true.

In the past few weeks, I’ve seen other pastors contribute to the irresponsible lie that “both sides are just as bad” or, even worse, that “both sides are valid options.” From a Christian standpoint, not only is that untrue, it’s unbiblical and dangerous.

If you find yourself convinced by the progressive left that it would be “unloving” to vote for Donald Trump, or that it doesn’t matter as long as you “vote your conscience,” I urge you to look a little deeper at what your vote actually means.

A higher authority

As Christians, we obey a higher authority than our feelings. If we examine each candidate’s proposals in the light of biblical truth, deciding how to cast your vote isn’t so confusing after all.

Clips from Pastor Jonny Ardavanis of Stonebridge Bible Church and Pastor Josh Howerton of Lakepointe Church were making the rounds on X last week after both pastors preached excellent sermons on how Christians should view this year’s election. You can view a clip from Pastor Jonny’s sermon here and Pastor Josh’s sermon here.

The clips went viral because the church as a whole is starved for good Christian teaching that speaks to how the Christian should apply the Bible to the ballot box. These are two of the pastors who actually cared to answer.

As much as Christians like to pretend like politics and culture are outside the church, they’re not, and it’s vital that the Christian understands where Kamala Harris stands and what she represents in this election.

Abortion

Proverbs 6:16-17: “The Lord hates … hands that shed innocent blood.”

Kamala Harris is the most radically pro-abortion presidential candidate in history.

It’s true that we do not have a consistently pro-life candidate in this election, with Donald Trump refusing to support a federal abortion ban and openly and consistently supporting abortion exceptions and term limits, but the Democrats are undeniably, radically worse.

While Republicans now think abortion should be rare, as Democrats used to, Democrats celebrate it and flaunt it.

It’s not just about exceptions or limits. Harris will not name a single abortion restriction that she supports. Eight states and Washington, D.C., impose no term restrictions on abortion, and more will follow under Harris.

In 2019, she voted to block the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required medical care for babies born alive in botched abortions.

Her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, signed the Protect Reproductive Options Act in January 2023, which repealed the state’s Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, codifying a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” and essentially prohibiting any restrictions on abortion, including gestational age limits.

The bill also removed the requirement for abortion providers to report cases in which infants survive abortion attempts, a measure that had been in place since 2015.

While Trump is not standing strong against abortion as he should, he would inevitably surround himself with many who do. He will be supported by people who have the potential to change his mind. Harris will not.

Immigration

Acts 17:26: And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.

Perhaps no issue today divides Christians more than illegal immigration.

While most of us can agree that abortion is wrong, it’s easy to be swayed into believing that “loving our neighbor” means allowing those living in worse countries into ours for a “better life.”

But is it really loving to open our borders and put our own citizens at risk?

How were we loving our neighbor Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student, when our border failed to protect her from the unvetted illegal immigrant who brutally murdered her?

Were we loving Mollie Tibbetts, Kate Steinle, and Lizbeth Medina when they, too, died at the hands of illegal immigrants? Are we loving our neighbors in Colorado as we allow apartment complexes to be taken over by Venezuelan gangs?

Harris and Walz have repeatedly blamed Trump for rejecting a border bill that they claim would have properly vetted illegal aliens. In reality, the “border security bill” would have allowed 5,000 illegal border crossings per day before closing the border, kept catch-and-release in place, sent hundreds of millions of dollars to NGOs to facilitate illegal immigration, and required that any illegal immigrant who claims asylum be released into the country and granted work authorization almost immediately.

The fact is that Harris has no plan to secure our border. We know because she’s been asked repeatedly and has never been able to answer.

Gender and sexuality

Gen 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

If you follow Libs of TikTok on X, you already know what the Democrats advocate in this department: books that read like porn being available to young children in schools, gender indoctrination baked into curriculum, and the normalization of drag shows, preferred pronouns, and “gender-affirming care” — dangerous hormone “treatments” and experimental genital mutilation surgeries.

I could write a lengthy book on the amount of corruption within the “transgender care” industry, but suffice to say that proponents in this industry are creating lifelong slaves to the medical industrial complex by selling experimental surgeries and hormone “treatments” that they know have an absurdly high complication rate.

It’s a neglect of responsibility for us to reject God’s design for sexuality and gender to begin with, and it’s a dereliction of duty to ignore the physical and mental harm being inflicted upon not only adults but children as well.

On “Transgender Day of Visibility” in 2022, Harris and Admiral Rachel Levine welcomed six “transgender” and “nonbinary” youth and their families to the White House. Levine said it was “deeply impactful to speak to some amazing trans kids at the White House. Gender-affirming care is the medical standard and allows these kids to be themselves and live a normal life.”

The same year, the White House posted a message from president Joe Biden and Harris that read, “Efforts to criminalize supportive medical care for transgender kids, to ban transgender children from playing sports, and to outlaw discussing LGBTQI+ people in schools undermine their humanity and corrode our Nation’s values.”

In a 2019 interview with the National Center for Transgender Equality, Harris crowed that as attorney general of California, she ensured that the state changed its policy “so that every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access to the medical care that they desired and need.”

When running for president in 2019, she pledged on an ACLU questionnaire that if she became president, she would use “executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care.”

Due to Harris’ policy, a man who is sitting on death row for gruesomely killing three people, known as the “Yacht Killer,” has received taxpayer-funded “sex-change” surgeries and is expected to transfer to a female prison soon.

Compare this to Trump’s pledge to keep men out of women’s sports and to stop child genital mutilation surgeries. Which candidate aligns more with our God-given duty to protect the vulnerable (Proverbs 31:8-9)?

Religious liberty

David Daleiden, project lead at the Center for Medical Progress, was investigated for criminal activity in 2015 by then-California Attorney General Harris after he released undercover footage showing Planned Parenthood executives discussing the sale of baby body parts from late-term abortions.

In 2016, Harris sent 11 armed agents along with K-9 dog units to Daleiden’s one-bedroom apartment, a raid in which the California DOJ seized dozens of hours of his unreleased undercover tapes.

Harris, upon request from her donors at Planned Parenthood, opened a criminal investigation into Daleiden and the CMP. Eight years later, he still faces charges under California’s never-before-used eavesdropping/recording law.

A few months ago, half a dozen pro-life activists were found guilty of violating a federal law that forbids protesters to block the entrances to abortion clinics. Jonathan Darnel, who remained outside the clinic, received a nearly three-year sentence. Others in the case received two-year sentences, and another — the only one who pleaded guilty — received a 10-month sentence.

Harris has voiced support for efforts to strengthen protections for “reproductive health care providers,” particularly in the context of increasing “threats” to clinics and their staff. In other words, this will only happen more under her watch.

In California, under Assembly Bill 957, a child’s gender identity must be considered in custody decisions during divorce or custody disputes. This includes custody disputes involving whether the state should have custody of the child.

In Oregon, the state can refuse Christian couples the opportunity to foster and adopt if they don’t comply with their potential future child’s “gender identity” and pledge to seek “gender-affirming care” accordingly.

This is religious “liberty” under Democrat rule.

Boiling it down

Trump or Harris? It’s really not that complicated, after all. And the same logic applies to local elections. When considering your vote, take a cue from Howerton’s sermon, in which he suggests asking the following questions.

Which candidate:

Promotes policies most likely to slow societal decay?
Will best protect our national security?
Is more likely to protect religious liberty?
Will oppose the erasure of gender?
Is more likely to stop the corrosion of the definitions of the family?
Will best limit the taking of unborn lives?

It may feel uncomfortable to admit when it’s tempting to reject party lines, but I’m more than confident that the answer to whom the Christian should vote for will simply never be “blue.”

It’s not because the Republican Party is right all the time or because Republicans don’t have their own glaring issues that need to be addressed.

It’s that the Democratic Party is a cancer to society that promotes baby murder, child genital mutilation, the destruction of the family and parents’ rights, and the unfettered influx of (sometimes violent) illegal aliens, who are draining taxpayer resources while citizens suffer. Been to North Carolina lately?

There is only one alternative. Christians, we must choose it.

The reality is that it is your duty to vote, because in a constitutional republic, you lead by electing representatives. As a Christian, you’re the leader appointing people to represent you as close to the biblical view on these issues as you can get.

To neglect to do so is a dereliction of duty. And the answer on whom to vote for isn’t complicated. As Howerton says, “Personalities are temporary; policies last a long time.”

Yes, Donald Trump is uncouth at times and posts silly little name-calling rants on X, but he also appointed Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

Imagine the numerous lives that were spared and will be spared because of that decision. That is what you’re voting for.

Around 30 million Bible-believing Christians didn’t vote in the last presidential election. That election is argued to have been decided by 42,000 votes.

That is why your vote matters.

​Abide, Faith, Donald trump, Kamala harris, Christian voting, Abortion, Immigration, Trans, Religious liberty, 2024 election, Endorsement 

Will Joe Biden succeed in undermining the pillars of American capitalism? The Wall Street Journal reported on Oct. 13 that the November election could decide whether Biden’s push to break up American companies simply for being “big” will succeed in the long run.

The Journal is correct. This election isn’t just a referendum on what the Biden-Harris administration has done to entrepreneurs over the past four years; it’s also a vote on the future of America’s economy. Another four years of the status quo could turn Biden’s unconventional policies into economic and legal precedents, causing lasting damage.

Once-successful companies are closing stores and laying off workers due to the unprecedented anti-business environment fostered by this White House.

This issue centers on how, after taking office, Biden and Harris ensured the confirmation of Lina Khan, a progressive favorite, to lead the Federal Trade Commission. Khan quickly reversed 40 years of consensus on antitrust policy by overturning the consumer welfare standard, which had limited government intervention in the economy to cases where consumers faced harm. The Department of Justice, which shares antitrust enforcement with the FTC, soon followed her lead.

Under the Biden-Harris administration’s aggressive approach to antitrust, businesses can now be regulated, broken up, or even dissolved for reasons determined by the White House, regardless of whether they lower consumer prices or increase competition. Over the past four years, this approach has led to challenges against companies for simply being “too big.”

The good news is that the Biden-Harris administration has lost nearly every corporate challenge it initiated, as courts recognize its anti-capitalism agenda lacks legal grounding and is politically motivated. However, these challenges have still cost thousands of jobs and discouraged businesses from pursuing innovation.

When the Biden-Harris administration blocked mergers like Spirit Airlines-JetBlue and Roomba-Amazon, the results were disastrous. Roomba lost jobs and declared bankruptcy, while Spirit now teeters on insolvency due to the administration’s actions.

Despite these failures, Biden and Harris continue their push, as shown by a late September lawsuit against Visa.

In its latest campaign against capitalism, the Biden-Harris administration’s antitrust cops claim Visa’s debit market is an unchecked monopoly raising consumer prices. But this is far from true. Consumers have a wide range of choices, not only with other debit cards but also through peer-to-peer payment networks like Apple Pay, Cash App, and Venmo.

Payment volumes and the number of competitors in this space continue to rise steadily. In a capitalist economy, being a popular choice among consumers isn’t a crime, but the administration is acting as if it is.

By overturning the consumer welfare standard, the Biden-Harris administration has created the worst business climate since the Carter era. Once-successful companies — even large chains like 7-Eleven and Walgreens — are closing stores and laying off workers due to the unprecedented anti-business environment fostered by this White House.

With the November election now in clear view, voters face a crucial decision.

The Wall Street Journal noted that “it is a near certainty that [Khan’s] authority will end if Donald Trump wins the presidency, as many in the GOP favor more latitude for mergers and view Khan as too tough on business.”

Voters must make the right choice, as the continuation of this anti-business agenda could lead to incalculable long-term consequences for the free market.

As voters stand at this crossroads, the choice is clear. Will they back a government that prioritizes regulation over innovation, or will they support policies that encourage free markets and allow businesses to thrive?

The costs of staying the current course are evident — job losses, higher prices, and economic stagnation. A change in direction, however, could promise economic freedom, growth, and prosperity.

We’ll have the answer soon, but one thing is clear: The current path of overregulation and government interference is unsustainable. It’s time to empower businesses, foster competition, and create an environment where innovation can flourish for all Americans.

Let’s hope voters agree.

​Economy, Regulation, Deregulation, Capitalism, Biden-harris administration, Joe biden, Kamala harris, Lina khan, Ftc, Antitrust, Spirit airlines, Opinion & analysis 

A 60-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly assaulting a Trump supporter in a New York grocery store for wearing a “Trump 2024” hat.

According to a statement released by the Village of Bath Police Department, officers were dispatched to the Tops Friendly Markets grocery store around 10 a.m. on Friday. Police were responding to an alleged fight at the grocery store.

Police said the suspect punched the Trump supporter in the mouth and head several times, which caused the victim’s ‘teeth to be broken and mouth bloody.’

The altercation allegedly was an incident of political violence.

A man reportedly assaulted a supporter of former President Donald Trump.

The Village of Bath Police Department said 60-year-old Robert Yott “initiated a confrontation” after he became “aggressive over the fact that a stranger was wearing a Trump 2024 hat.”

Police said the suspect punched the Trump supporter in the mouth and head several times, which caused the victim’s “teeth to be broken and mouth bloody.”

Investigators noted that the two men didn’t know each other, and the alleged attack was a “random act of violence.”

Yott was arrested and charged with one felony count of assault in the second degree and one misdemeanor count of fourth-degree criminal mischief.

Yott was transported to Steuben County Jail. He is currently being held at the jail without bail.

You can watch a local news report of the alleged assault here.

This is the latest act of political violence against a Trump supporter.

In June, a 27-year-old Massachusetts man was accused of assaulting an 82-year-old Trump supporter holding a sign supporting Trump. The alleged assailant reportedly shoved the elderly man to the ground and kicked him in the ribs and legs.

Aidan Courtright of Fall River, Massachusetts, was charged with committing a civil rights violation with injury, assault and battery on a person over 60 years old, vandalizing property, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon on a person over 60.

In April, a 36-year-old Pennsylvania man allegedly attacked a 64-year-old Trump supporter from New Jersey. The alleged assailant reportedly attacked the man with a sledgehammer at a tire store in New Jersey. The alleged victim’s injuries to his head were apparently so severe that he had to be airlifted to the hospital.

Michael Gonzales, of Philadelphia, was charged with attempted murder.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Crime, Assault, Political violence, 2024 election, Politics 

Blue counties in and around Atlanta, Georgia, are apparently engaging in some election shenanigans this weekend that may run afoul of state law, prompting the RNC to file yet another election integrity lawsuit.

According to a Saturday morning X post from RNC chairman Michael Whatley, Fulton, Cobb, DeKalb, and Gwinnett Counties will permit voters to drop off absentee ballots at designated polling locations this weekend. Whatley added that extending hours for ballot drop-offs “disregards the law.”

‘The Secretary of State has issued guidance to allow Republican poll watchers in but local officials REFUSE.’

Indeed, Georgia Code § 21-2-385, passed during the 2023-2024 legislative session, says that early voting in Georgia will begin “on the fourth Monday immediately prior to each primary or election” and “end on the Friday immediately prior to each primary, election, or runoff” (emphasis added).

In 2024, that end point should have been November 1.

Furthermore, Ga. Code § 21-2-382 adds that “all drop boxes shall be closed when the advance voting period ends.”

Nevertheless, a report from local PBS and NPR affiliate WABE confirmed that “metro Atlanta residents who live in Fulton, Cobb, DeKalb or Gwinnett counties can drop off their absentee ballots over the weekend and on Monday, Nov. 4, the day before Election Day, at their local election offices.”

What’s worse, there initially may not have been official oversight of some of these drop-off locations. A photo of an email apparently written by Kathryn Glenn, the registration manager of the Department of Registration & Elections in Fulton County, and apparently sent to dozens of office employees indicates that no poll watchers had been authorized.

“FYI – There are NO WATCHERS approved for ballot drop off! Do not let them in the building,” Glenn wrote, according to the photo.

“If they want to observe from the parking lot, you can’t stop that,” her email apparently continued, “but they are not allowed to sit in the building. Have your security detail enforce it!!!”

As a result, the RNC has already filed a lawsuit, Whatley claimed. As of Saturday afternoon, it remains “pending,” he said.

Josh McKoon, the leader of the Georgia Republican Party and a former state senator, called these latest moves from Democrat-area election officials a “blatant violation” of Georgian election law.

“We all know what is going on — Democrats are panicked by the incredible Republican turnout in early voting and will do anything to try to catch up even if it means doing it under the cover of darkness and stiff arming any independent observation of whatever the hell is going on in their four ‘special voting locations’ open today with no notice or approval by anyone authorized to oversee elections administration,” McKoon tweeted on Saturday morning.

McKoon tweeted Saturday afternoon that poll watchers had finally been permitted on the premises.

“Fulton County and other counties are now allowing our poll watchers to observe the voting activity occurring” on Saturday, he wrote.

He attributed the change to a pressure campaign from Republican leaders at the state and national levels.

“While we should not have to alert the public to have Georgia law enforced, I am pleased that lawful observation is now occurring.”

Blaze News reached out to Kathryn Glenn and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) for comment but did not receive a response.

This is a developing story. Check back with Blaze News for further updates.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Rnc, Fulton county, Georgia, Election integrity, Brad raffensperger, Cobb county, Dekalb county, Gwinnett county, Absentee ballots, Ballot drop off, Politics 

Hendersonville, North Carolina — The devastation of Hurricane Helene has not dampened the spirits — or suppressed early voting turnout — in storm-ravaged western North Carolina.

“It’s a phenomenal turnout, but you’re actually seeing quite a bit fewer today because we’ve opened up three additional locations around the county,” said Brett Calloway, chairman of the Henderson County Republican Party.

“So we were setting records, still setting records, every day on turnout, but now it’s spread over four locations instead of just the one,” Calloway told Blaze News at a polling station. “That happened late last week. And we’ve had 3,000 to 4,000 every day.

“In 2016, which was a good turnout, 72% turnout, we were having 1,600, 1,800 a day. So we’re doubling that.”

Calloway said voters have been motivated not just by the failures coming out of Washington but also the anemic federal hurricane relief response.

— (@)

“They were motivated before with the failures of the Biden and Harris administration, but even more so after that, and you can see it with the turnout,” he said. “The turnout has been very high.

‘They are determined to come vote.’

“We’ve got a hundred counties in North Carolina, and [in] none of the counties have the Democrats performed at previous levels,” Calloway said. “In other words, they’ve underperformed every single county.”

“We have overperformed. So we’re very motivated,” he said. “We’re fed up with what we’ve seen in the administration, and their response here to the storm has just put fuel on the fire.”

‘Tremendous’ devastation

Calloway said the storm damage still makes travel inconvenient, but it does not stop the voters from coming out.

“The devastation was tremendous. Still, coming in here, I had to go alternate routes to get around bridges that were out,” he said. “And there are a lot of trees still down. Most of the county is now able to get where they need to go, but it’s not as convenient as it had been.

“So that’s been a real challenge, but what I will tell you is those areas that were most affected have not seen a drop off on their turnout. They are determined to come vote,” Calloway said.

Ryn Riley, a first-time voter, said she drove two hours from her university to make her voice heard.

“I’m here to vote for the candidate that I think will better our country,” Riley said at a polling station in Hendersonville. She said the abortion issue motivated her to vote for Donald J. Trump for president.

Ryn Riley, a student at East Tennessee State University, made the two-hour drive to vote at her home polling station in Hendersonville, North Carolina.Photo by Steve Baker/Blaze News

“I think that is really sad that people are trying to promote abortion and promote that to be a free will,” she said. “And I think that it’s wrong to murder because I think that life begins at conception. And so that one for me is a really big one.”

Riley said her position on abortion is in the minority at school and among her peers.

“There’s not many people who believe what I believe. Most people are pro-choice — or pro-abortion, as I call it,” Riley said. “That baby, even from day one, has the rights of [an] American citizen, and one of those rights is the right to live.

“I think that they’re just, it’s like a nonverbal person. They still have rights, even though they can’t speak. They’re in the womb, and I need to speak up for them because they can’t speak up for themselves yet.”

A Democrat poll-greeter at the Hendersonville polling station said she has noticed strong support for Trump among Hispanics and younger voters.

“Well, I’ve previously volunteered in Buncombe County, and I’m kind of just discouraged to see in Henderson County the number of Latinos and young people that are voting for the Republicans,” Michelle Persons told Blaze News. “And I can tell that by which voter guide they accept and which one they don’t accept. And I’d say a lot of Latinos are voting for Trump, and I don’t get it.”

Persons said she has seen a similar trend among younger voters.

“I see a lot of young people that are voting for Trump, and I don’t get it,” Persons said. “I think they must be influenced by their family members, and they haven’t formed an educated opinion yet.”

Michelle Persons, a Democratic poll-greeter in Henderson County, North Carolina, said Hispanics and younger voters are trending toward former President Donald J. Trump. “I don’t get it,” she said.Photo by Steve Baker/Blaze News

Persons said her second home in Buncombe County was swept down the river by the massive floods. She said dealing with the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been frustrating.

“So it’s been kind of disappointing. I mean, I don’t want to believe it because I’m a Democrat, and I don’t want to believe that you can’t depend on FEMA, because I know there’s people getting help, and I know I probably will eventually get help, but the process has been cumbersome and it makes you want to give up.”

Carolyn Stewart, vice chairwoman of Moms for Liberty in Buncombe County, said Trump’s Oct. 22 visit to Swannanoa was a morale boost for the region. Her husband, Mike Stewart, was among those who met with Trump during his visit.

“When he hugged him, he felt his heartbeat,” she said. “That’s what he told me. And he said it was beating for all of us, for America, not just for western North Carolina.”

Stewart, who was volunteering at a polling location in Black Mountain, said she has seen communities come together and residents help make sure each other can get out to vote.

President Trump’s visit to the area on Oct. 22 was uplifting, says Buncombe County Moms for Liberty Vice Chair Carolyn Stewart.Photo by Steve Baker/Blaze News

“I was surprised at the effort … that neighbors are supplying rides, and it’s so good,” she said. “And some of them couldn’t get out of their driveways, even in very affluent neighborhoods. They couldn’t because of trees or mud or blockage of cars. And people uniting to help each other. Yes, I’ve seen that.”

Roxanne Wetzel, former McDowell County GOP chairwoman and one of the Electoral College voters for the 11th Congressional District of North Carolina, said there has been record early voting turnout.

“We’ve been pushing that very strongly,” she said. “We will see it in the tale of the tape. [For] recovery for western North Carolina, [it’s] imperative that we elect our conservative slate of candidates.”

Wetzel said voters have taken notice of who came to help after the storms.

“The citizens of western North Carolina know who came to help. It wasn’t our current administration in the governor’s mansion in North Carolina. It was our lieutenant governor who’s running for governor [Mark Robinson]. It was the citizens. Mountain people helping mountain people. They saw who came to help.”

The North Carolina legislature voted to open a second voting location in McDowell County with almost total bipartisan support, she said.

“Only two Democrats in the house voted against it,” she said. “Otherwise, it was unanimous in the House and Senate to mandate that we open up our second voting location in the most hardest hit area of McDowell County for the hurricane so that they have access to voting.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Politics 

Donald Trump may be the king of trolling after turning a controversial comment from President Biden — he called Trump supporters “garbage” — into a media spectacle.

Trump arrived in Wisconsin aboard a garbage truck emblazoned with “Trump Make America Great Again 2024” while wearing a bright orange reflective vest like a garbage man.

“How do you like my garbage truck? This truck is in honor of Kamala and Joe Biden,” Trump joked to the cameras, immediately catching media attention and intensifying the debate around Biden’s comments.

However, the mainstream media has been doing everything it can to mitigate the disaster Biden created, literally rewriting history by adding in words and context that were not there.

In an article published by Politico, Jonathan Lemire wrote that “Biden, in a Zoom call with the organization Voto Latino, said ‘the only garbage’ was the ‘hatred’ of Trump supporters who said such things about American citizens.”

“This is the worst, this was the most egregious,” Keith Malinak of “Pat Gray Unleashed” says of the blatant rewrite. “They actually added in the words.”

“There’s just no defending the indefensible,” Gray adds. “Really, thanks to Joe Biden for putting a lot of this focus right back on them. That’s fantastic. It just again goes to show how they feel about you.”

And Trump has not wasted the opportunity Biden laid out for him.

“He’s doing some really smart things right now. This is really good. So he posed, he had a photo op with some garbage men, he did a press conference in a garbage truck,” Gray says, adding, “So, the focus is right back on Kamala and their hatred for America.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat’s biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sharing, Video, Free, Camera phone, Upload, Video phone, Youtube.com, Pat gray unleashed, Pat gray, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Keith malinak, Garbage supporters, Donald trump, Master troll, Joe biden, Puerto rico, Election 2024 

Bill Maher delved into the hot-button election topics of President Joe Biden’s “garbage” comment, comedian Tony Hinchcliffe’s joke about Puerto Rico, and the legacy media’s deception about former President Donald Trump’s chickenhawk remarks regarding Liz Cheney.

On Friday’s episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the liberal talk show host defended Hinchcliffe following the controversy over the insult comic’s joke that Puerto Rico is a “floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean,” delivered during Trump’s recent rally at Madison Square Garden.

‘Just don’t lie to me. I don’t like Donald Trump. Don’t lie to me and tell me he wants her in front of a firing squad.’

Maher began, “Well, it was insulting. But look, I have to defend my profession. I’m a comic; I’m a free speech [supporter]. … But this guy’s an insult comic. Why he’s at this particular [event], it’s like bringing cocaine to a funeral.”

During his discussion with guests Tim Miller from the Bulwark and “The Fifth Column” podcast co-host Michael Moynihan, Maher asked, “Did the Democrats look weak because they can’t take a joke? Because I think that’s another Achilles’ heel that they have.”

“What the Trump people did at this rally — it’s so Trump — they hired an insult comic,” Maher stated. “Really, he went up there and did very insulting things. I’d never heard of him, but this is his act he does all the time. And he told a really demeaning joke about Puerto Rico. … It didn’t even go over with the Trump crowd. They said, ‘Look, we didn’t come here to hear vicious remarks from an insult comic. We came here to hear it from the candidate.’”

Maher claimed that Republicans would have had a much different reaction if he attempted a similar joke.

“They are just as big snowflakes, they are. Because if I did that joke in reverse and instead of Puerto Rico said Staten Island, they would have had a s**t fit,” Maher contended. “They would have found that completely unacceptable.”

As Blaze News previously reported, Hinchcliffe has refused to bend the knee for his joke despite the overwhelming fury about the quip.

Maher slammed President Biden for calling Trump supporters “garbage” and compared him to New York Yankees slugger Aaron Judge who dropped an easy fly ball in the World Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers.

“I think it’s a bigger gaffe than people think,” Maher said. “It’s so funny, Joe Biden, his whole career, he was like Mr. Gaffe, and then here at the very end — he’s like Aaron Judge in Game 6. He just f***ing muffed the fly ball and at the end of the thing and blew the whole [game].”

Maher declared Biden’s insult to be far worse than Hillary Clinton’s disastrous 2016 smear of Trump supporters as “deplorables.”

“Because I feel like it epitomizes everything that the Trump people hate about the Democrats. They look down at us. It’s like ‘deplorables’ times ten,” Maher noted.

Moynihan added that former President Barack Obama proclaimed that rural working-class Americans are “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion” while on the campaign trail in 2008.

He then mocked the media for attempting to cover for Biden by asserting there was an apostrophe that they claimed altered the sitting president’s comment.

Moynihan said Trump voters feel like: “The media hates you. The elites hate you. They think that you’re garbage.”

He added that “any sort of hint of that” is not a “net positive for Democrats.”

Miller chimed in by saying that “having the elderly president give a marble-mouthed answer” was “dumb” but didn’t think it would hurt the Kamala Harris campaign significantly.

Maher blasted Biden over his inability to “shut the f*** up.”

“In fairness, he was on a video call, and he thought he was just yelling at the TV,” Maher joked.

Also during this week’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the HBO host skewered the media for intentionally misrepresenting Trump’s recent comments about Liz Cheney.

“I woke up today to the headline that Trump had called for a firing squad for Liz Cheney,” Maher stated. “And this is what I really don’t like about the media — no, he didn’t. You don’t have to move me to not like Donald Trump more than I already [don’t].”

Maher continued, “He’s criticizing her for being a war hawk. I mean, she is Dick Cheney’s daughter.”

Maher read Trump’s actual quote, “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in the nice buildings saying, ‘Oh gee, well, let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.'”

Maher compared Trump to anti-war hippies.

Maher noted, “Just to be clear, this is exactly what hippies always said. This is exactly what peaceniks always said. This is ‘Fortunate Son’ the song. It’s like, you know what? It’s very easy to sit in your building and send young men to die.”

He declared, “Just don’t lie to me. I don’t like Donald Trump. Don’t lie to me and tell me he wants her in front of a firing squad. He was saying something that, by the way, if it came out of the mouth, some of it, not the stupid part, again, sounds like what hippies used to say about not sending people to [war].”

Moynihan pointed out that Trump did say Cheney would be given a weapon, “which is not typically something you do to have someone executed.”

Even Trump adversary Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) reprimanded the media’s deceptive coverage as “ridiculous, absurd and counterproductive.”

Cheney – the former Republican representative from Wyoming – has been a vocal supporter of Vice President Kamala Harris on the campaign trail.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​2024 election, Bill maher, Election, Election 2024, Garbage, Joe biden, Joe biden garbage, Liz cheney, Real time with bill maher, Tony hinchcliffe, Politics 

Social media was lit afire with outrage on Saturday over the death of Peanut the squirrel, a pet and online star, at the hands of the New York state government.

The pet squirrel was euthanized by the Department of Environmental Conservation after anonymous complaints were lodged against the owner Mark Longo. Another pet belonging to Longo, Fred the raccoon, was also euthanized.

Longo said he had rescued Peanut after seeing the squirrel’s mother get run over by a vehicle.

The squirrel was known as “P’nut” on various social media accounts until his untimely death at the age of seven by order of the state.

“RIP MY BEST FRIEND. Thank you for the best 7 years of my life. Thank you for bringing so much joy to us and the world. I’m sorry I failed you but thank you for everything,” wrote owner Mark Longo in a post announcing his death.

Longo said the squirrel was very friendly and docile, but state officials claimed the squirrel bit an officer while they tried to confiscate him. That provided the pretense for his state execution.

“Well internet, you WON,” Longo wrote after the animals were seized. “You took one of the most amazing animals away from me because of your selfishness.”

The incident enflamed critics of state tyranny online where many memes were cast.

“I want a government small enough to have neither the time nor the resources to conduct a 5 hour raid over a pet squirrel,” read one popular response.

“Petty bureaucrats can, at a whim, terrorize people. Nobody was being hurt, good things were being done, but some petty rule was broken. They mobilized goons and destroyed something good,” read another tweet.

“Euthanizing someone’s indoor pet squirrel under the guise of a rabies concern when New York is infested with rats is a perfect allegory for how the government functions writ large – DRAIN THE SWAMP,” said another critic.

Longo said he had rescued Peanut after seeing the squirrel’s mother get run over by a vehicle.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Peanut squirrel death, Government tyranny, Squirrel raccoon euthanized, Elmira squirrel, Politics