Texas Democrat Representative Shawn Thierry has formally announced her departure from the Democrat party, due to the “far left” direction the party is headed.

I don’t agree with everything Jeffrey Sachs says here, but he is worth listening to. Sachs liked the horrendous nuclear deal with Iran that Iran refused to abide by. However, his fear of nuclear war is worthy of note. Read with a healthy dose of skepticism. Jeffrey Sachs said he believes that Russia is winning […] The post Jeffrey Sachs Warns of Nuclear War appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

After raising concerns among pro-life conservatives with his comments on abortion on Thursday, former President Donald Trump said he will vote “no” on the leftist pro-abortion Florida ballot initiative this November. On Thursday, Trump said he disagrees with Florida’s current six-week abortion limitation, arguing, “There has to be more time” and claiming, “I’m going to be voting that we leave more than six weeks.” The former president’s comments alarmed pro-life conservatives who wondered if Trump was considering voting in favor of Florida Amendment 4, which would add constitutional protections in the state for abortion through nine months of pregnancy. Trump put those speculations to rest on Friday. “I disagreed with [the six-week limitation] right from the early primaries when I heard about it. I disagreed with it,” Trump told a reporter before taking the stage for a rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, on Friday. “At the same time, the Democrats are radical because the nine months is just a ridiculous situation, where you can do an abortion in the ninth month.” Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you. “You know, some of the states, like Minnesota and other states, have it where you can actually execute the baby after birth, and all of that stuff is unacceptable,” Trump added. “So, I’ll be voting ‘no’ for that reason.” #BREAKING: Former President Trump is “no” on Florida’s abortion Amendment 4, saying the amendment is too extreme “I’ll be voting no.” pic.twitter.com/YoGuIVMR1o — Florida’s Voice (@FLVoiceNews) August 30, 2024 Pro-life Republicans, including Catholics and evangelicals, who condemned Trump’s statement on Thursday thanked the Republican nominee for clarifying his position on the Florida abortion initiative on Friday. “Thank you, @realDonaldTrump! Please help the great people of Florida defeat this horrific amendment!” said Live Action founder Lila Rose. “If Trump starts talking like former President Trump who at the March for Life said ‘Together, we must protect, cherish, and defend the dignity and sanctity of every human life,’ he may just win this election.” WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI “This is an encouraging development that I am glad to see,” wrote Andrew T. Walker, Ethics & Public Theology Professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. “There is little doubt that the outpouring of responses from yesterday led to this. Continue speaking up. President Trump must know he cannot abandon pro-lifers.” “The correct position,” replied Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX).

It finally happened: After weeks of stalling, Kamala Harris did a sit-down interview in which she spoke. For a whopping 16 minutes. Dana Bash, the interviewer for CNN, did a horrifyingly bad job. She would ask Harris a somewhat difficult question, and Harris would wriggle her way out of the question. Then, Bash would be one question away from poking her, which would have sent Harris flying off the cliff because what she was saying made no sense. One little problem and Harris would have been a bug on a windshield. But Bash wasn’t going to do that. Instead, she started feeding her answers. She started avoiding the follow-ups that would have hurt her. The big takeaways from this interview are: Number one: Kamala Harris is now attempting to obscure every policy position she ever took. She is pretending she didn’t believe anything she said in 2019. She’s running to the middle by lying to you. That is most important. She should be called out for those lies. Bash did a little, but not nearly enough. It’s going to be up to Donald Trump and his campaign to do that, particularly in the September 10 debate. All those lines of attack are wide open. Harris has shifted virtually every position she ever held, and she has explained zero of those shifts. Number two: When Harris is off the teleprompter, even in a friendly interview as this one was, she’s a disaster area. She’s wandering all over the landscape in search of an idea, filling the time with romantic platitudes like, “When we think about the significance…” She does the same trick everyone did in fifth grade when the teacher asked a prompt on an essay question, and you repeated the essay question as the beginning of your essay. The teacher would ask about Tom Sawyer: “Why did Tom Sawyer get his friends to paint the fence?” You would begin, “The importance of Tom Sawyer getting his friends to paint the fence…” That’s what Harris does whenever she needs to stall for time. That is her shtick. She was incapable of answering very simple, basic softball questions in a convincing way. She looked incredibly nervous throughout the interview. She does not have any natural leadership quality. She does not confidently state her positions. She looks as though she’s filing through the note cards in her head because she’s not all that bright, and the note cards don’t help because even she doesn’t know what she believes. WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show on DailyWire+ It was a horrific performance. But will there be an overwhelmingly bad reaction to Harris’ performance? No, because we set the bar in American politics so low that if she didn’t completely fail, as Joe Biden did, then she is considered some sort of apotheosis of articulateness. Bash knew she was caught in a catch-22. If she pushed Harris too hard and Harris winds up losing the election, Bash would be blamed for her losing. If she didn’t push Harris enough, then people like me would say, “Bash did not do her job last night.” Which she didn’t. Bash was specifically selected for this interview because she’s very friendly to the Harris-Walz campaign. She asked about the “opportunity economy” Harris speaks of, saying, “I wonder what you say to voters who do want to go back when it comes to the economy specifically because their groceries were less expensive, housing was more affordable when Donald Trump was president.” Harris answered, “When we came in, our highest priority was to do what we could to rescue America. And today, we know that we have inflation at under 3%.” Bash could have jumped in and said the inflation rate when Trump left office was 1.4%. She could have said, “Your inflation rate today is 3%. The Federal Reserve shoots for 2%. You’ve had 40-year highs in inflation. All groceries are now 20 to 25% higher than they were when you took office. So how about that?” She didn’t.  Harris said, “Prices in particular for groceries are still too high. The American people know it. I know it. Which is why my agenda includes what we need to do to bring down the price of groceries. For example, dealing with an issue like price gouging.” Bash could have dug in and said, “Let’s talk about price gouging. Do you really believe that food is too expensive because the people over at Kroger, Publix, and Ralphs are just really, really greedy?” She didn’t. Bash asked her if Bidenomics has been a success, and Harris filibustered and would not answer the question because either way that would be a Trump campaign commercial: Either she says it has been a success (which everyone knows is not true), or she admits it has failed. Bash asked Harris about her reversal on fracking, which she wanted to ban in 2019. First, she lied and said that she reversed her position in 2020. She didn’t. She repeated Biden’s position in 2020. She was the vice-presidential nominee at that time. At no point in her presidential campaign did she ever reverse her position on fracking before she stepped out, so she’s lying. Then, Harris said she has not changed her position since 2020, adding that her “values” haven’t changed. There’s an internal contradiction. Logically, you can’t say your values never changed but your policies changed, and now everyone should believe you because they never changed. Bash actually tried to feed her the answers, asking, “Was there some policy or scientific data that you saw that you said, ‘Oh, okay. I get it now?’” Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you. In another instance, Bash did it again, asking, “How should voters look at some of the changes that you’ve made — that you explained some of here — in your policy? Is it because you have more experience now and you’ve learned more about the information? Is it because you’re running for president in a Democratic primary?” Harris speaking is a miasma of nothing. She’s a miasma, an unpleasant fog. It’s unbelievable that people take her seriously. She is just not bright enough to be president of the United States. She’s stupid. The Democrats picked her, and I can tell how stupid she is because she answers questions the same way a college freshman would in their first intro to philosophy class. It is total nonsensical gobbledygook jargony trash. In another example of Harris’ stupidity, she declared: “You mentioned the Green New Deal. I have always believed and I have worked on it, that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time.” That’s deep. Deadlines around time. My God, you mean as opposed to deadlines around space? Deadlines around mass deadlines? Around height? Deadlines around weight? I wish I’d thought of that. I should actually try that with our staff. “You know what, guys? You have a deadline. The deadline is three kilograms.” When they react, “What?” I repeat, “Yes, three kilograms.” They ask, “Could you translate it in terms of time?” And I respond, “My God, I should’ve thought of that! A deadline around time!” She is a dullard. Biden is dead, and they found the only person around was a stupid person whom they could consolidate. There was a time when Abraham Lincoln — a wise, intelligent human — was the president of the United States. The distance from Lincoln to Harris in intelligence is staggering. * * * WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI

Bud Light has taken a significant step in its ongoing effort to rebuild its brand by featuring comedian Shane Gillis in its latest ad campaign. This decision marks a clear pivot from the company's recent controversies and signals a broader trend of brands reassessing their marketing strategies post-DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) backlash. Gillis, known for his edgy and politically incorrect humor, was once a controversial figure himself, having been fired from "Saturday Night Live" in 2019 after past comments surfaced. However, his recent collaboration with Bud Light suggests that the beer giant is attempting to reconnect with its core customer base—blue-collar, middle-America consumers who may feel alienated by recent corporate trends toward DEI initiatives. https://x.com/noahsfriedman/status/1828538168771321917 Bud Light's brand has struggled ever since its disastrous partnership with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney earlier this year. The collaboration, aimed at promoting inclusivity, instead sparked a massive backlash among the brand's traditional customer base. Sales plummeted, and the brand became a cultural flashpoint in the ongoing debate over corporate America's shift toward progressive social values. In response, Bud Light has been scrambling to win back its core audience. The move to feature Gillis seems to be part of a broader effort to return to Bud Light's roots, focusing on humor and everyday American experiences rather than engaging in divisive social issues. The ad campaign portrays Gillis in a lighthearted setting, enjoying a cold Bud Light with friends, devoid of any overt political messaging. It's a stark contrast to the tone-deaf campaigns of the past year and reflects a growing recognition within the company that it needs to rebuild trust with its base. https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1753169157947036048 Bud Light is not alone in this recalibration. Other brands that have faced backlash for embracing DEI initiatives are also rethinking their strategies. Companies like Target and Disney have similarly experienced consumer pushback after engaging in politically charged campaigns, leading them to quietly dial back some of their more controversial efforts. This trend reflects a broader cultural shift, as many Americans grow weary of what they perceive as corporate virtue signaling. Critics of DEI initiatives argue that these efforts often alienate more customers than they attract, particularly in industries like beer and retail, where the customer base tends to be less receptive to progressive messaging. The backlash against Bud Light's previous campaign is a case in point, with many consumers feeling that the brand had abandoned them in favor of pandering to a small, vocal minority. Bud Light's choice of Gillis as a spokesperson is likely to resonate with those consumers who felt betrayed by the brand's earlier decisions. Gillis' brand of humor, which often pokes fun at the absurdities of modern life, appeals to a demographic that values authenticity over political correctness. By aligning with Gillis, Bud Light is signaling that it wants to move away from the polarizing politics of the past and focus on what made the brand successful in the first place—good times with good friends over a cold beer. This latest campaign is a gamble for Bud Light, but it's a calculated one. The brand is betting that by returning to its roots and distancing itself from the controversies of the past, it can regain the trust of its core consumers. If successful, this strategy could serve as a blueprint for other brands looking to navigate the increasingly treacherous waters of modern marketing. The post Bud Light’s Move to Tap Shane Gillis: A Strategic Shift in Marketing appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

A federal judge in Texas has ruled against Media Matters for America in its legal battle with X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. The ruling denies Media Matters’ motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by X, which accuses the progressive watchdog group of intentionally misleading advertisers through manipulated data reports. This decision marks a significant step forward for X in a high-stakes case that could have far-reaching implications for the media and tech industries. The lawsuit centers on allegations that Media Matters fabricated reports to damage the company's reputation and undermine its advertising revenue. X contends that Media Matters, a well-known critic of conservative media and organizations, engaged in a deliberate campaign to create the false impression that X’s advertisements were consistently placed next to extremist and harmful content. According to X, these reports were designed to scare off advertisers and inflict financial harm on the company. https://x.com/big_cases/status/1829283781519282370 Elon Musk, the CEO of X, has been outspoken in his criticism of Media Matters, accusing the organization of acting with malicious intent to discredit the platform and drive away business. In its legal complaint, X argues that Media Matters’ actions have resulted in the loss of millions of dollars in advertising revenue, as several high-profile brands pulled their campaigns from the platform following the publication of the reports. In response, Media Matters filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that their reports were protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and press. The organization claimed that its work was part of its mission to hold powerful entities accountable and that the reports were based on legitimate research and data analysis. Media Matters maintained that any harm suffered by X was a consequence of the company’s own practices and not the result of any deliberate deception on their part. https://x.com/LegInsurrection/status/1829622875298333074 However, the Texas judge rejected Media Matters’ argument, stating that the lawsuit presented by X had sufficient merit to proceed. In his ruling, the judge emphasized that while Media Matters has the right to report on matters of public interest, this right does not extend to publishing information that is knowingly false or misleading with the intent to cause harm. The judge's decision to allow the case to move forward indicates that the court believes there is a plausible basis for X's claims and that further examination of the evidence is warranted. The ruling is a significant victory for X and could set a precedent for how companies can challenge media organizations that publish critical or damaging content about them. Legal experts have noted that if X is successful, it could open the door for other corporations to pursue similar lawsuits against media outlets, potentially chilling investigative journalism and critical reporting. The case highlights the increasingly contentious relationship between social media platforms and the media, with both sides accusing each other of bias and misinformation. For Media Matters, the lawsuit poses a serious threat to its credibility and operations. The organization has built its reputation on exposing what it views as dangerous rhetoric and misinformation in conservative media. However, the allegations made by X could undermine the trust that supporters and donors have placed in the organization. If the court finds that Media Matters acted with malice or intent to deceive, the consequences could be severe, including substantial financial penalties and a tarnished reputation. The case will now enter the discovery phase, where both sides will gather evidence to support their claims. This phase is expected to be particularly contentious, as X seeks to prove that Media Matters manipulated data and acted with the intent to harm the company, while Media Matters will likely continue to argue that its reports were based on legitimate concerns about the content appearing on X's platform. The post Judge Rules Against Media Matters in Legal Battle with X, Allowing Lawsuit to Proceed appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Actors get paid millions of dollars to perform. Mother Nature puts on a show for free. And sometimes, it’s better than anything you’ll see on the big screen. When two natural phenomena collide, it’s the kind of production that wins an award. Many people like to visit Iceland to get a view of aurora borealis, also known as the Northern Lights. They naturally appear when charged particles from the sun interact with gases near the Earth. The sky appears to be painted in beautiful colored hues that look like art. View this post on Instagram A post shared by ABC News (@abcnews) According to VisitIceland.com, the Northern Lights peak season is just around the corner. “The best time to see the Northern Lights is during the winter, between September and April, when dark and long nights have taken over from the bright summer nights in Iceland. The Northern lights are said to be most active around the equinoxes in September and March, but the chances also improve mid winter by bringing more darkness – it simply gives you a larger window each day to witness them,” the website reads. Iceland is also known for its volcanos. Sometimes, a volcano will erupt while the Northern lights are shining and creates an incredible show. ABC News Shared a video of one such event on Instagram. “Natural phenomena collide as an erupting volcano and the Northern Lights join forces to illuminate the night sky over Iceland’s Reykjanes Peninsula,” the caption reads. Visitors Were In Awe As They Watched The Volcano Erupt Under The Northern Lights The video shows people standing back and watching as fireballs fly high into the air with an emerald-green sky in the background. An Instagrammer wrote, “This is honestly incredible. Can’t imagine seeing it live.” This person agreed, “Mother Nature is truly amazing. Phenomenal display.” “Woooow!!! Incredible. Iceland is a world in itself.” You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post This Is What Happens When An Erupting Volcano Meets The Northern Lights appeared first on InspireMore.

'We're live from Savannah, Georgia'

'I couldn’t be prouder'