KAMA CHAMELEON... IN SAME DAY, KAMALA MAKES UP DIFFERENT ACCENTS FOR DETROIT AND PITTSBURGH RALLIES... JOHNNY MAGA: Kamala in Detroit vs. Kamala in Pittsburgh — literally 5 hours apart. The difference is insane (VIDEOS) STATE OF THE RACE... TIGHT, WHICH FAVORS TRUMP... DAVID STROM: The Sprint Begins Harris has managed to take a slight lead in the polls [+1.8 RCP AVG]--a gut punch to those of us who not too long ago assumed Trump had the election in the bag--but she is barely holding on to a lead that is as slim as a sheet of paper.

A post shared on X claims that the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower was targeted in August 2024 by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. BREAKING⚡️ The American Eisenhower aircraft carrier was targeted by #Yemen for second time in the last 24 hours. pic.twitter.com/gEiEsLsHVf — ZAINABZEHRA????????? (@ZAINABALI_72) August 28, 2024 Verdict: False The Eisenhower is currently near Virginia, 11,000 kilometers […]

'This, you know, obviously is shocking'

The study reveals never-before-seen behavior within our oceans

Paranoia is a complex and often misunderstood state of mind. It’s that creeping, insidious feeling that something is amiss—that someone or something is out to get you. It manifests as an irrational distrust of others, a hyper-awareness of surroundings, or an overwhelming sense of impending doom. Scientifically, paranoia can be rooted in a variety of psychological and neurological factors, from the brain’s response to fear stimuli to chemical imbalances that amplify anxiety. But beyond the clinical definitions, paranoia also thrives in the shadowy corners of our collective imagination, and few art forms have captured its essence more vividly than rock The post 10 Best Rock Songs About Feeling Paranoid appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

Migrants Now Make Up 75% of Arrests in Manhattan

NBC Meet the Press host Kristen Welker doesn't have a page at PolitiFact. She's apparently never mangled a fact that required checking. It's because she's in the liberal fold. By contrast, Tucker Carlson has 18 fact checks during the Biden era, with seven "Pants On Fire" rulings, ten "False" and one "Mostly False." On Sunday, Welker unloaded a whopper as she rushed in to contradict Sen. Tom Cotton as he responded to the fake Arlington Cemetery scandal. He pointed out the perversity that the Democrat media is hounding Trump when Kamala Harris failed to come to Arlington to honor the 13 service members killed by a suicide bomber during the botched Biden withdrawal from Afghanistan. Welker falsely claimed Harris was present at Dover Air Force Base when the bodies arrived for a "dignified transfer." That, too, was an occasion for fact-mangling, when the "fact checkers" tried to deny an undignified President Biden repeatedly looked at his watch as the bodies were transferred. They had to issue corrections. Here's how Welker just lied about Kamala's whereabouts on August 29, 2021. WATCH: NBC's Kristen Welker firefights for Kamala Harris against the Abbey Gate families, lying about Harris's attendance at the infamous Dignified Transfer where Biden continuously stared at his watch, which NBC has been forced to walk back. pic.twitter.com/whwzE0TAKT — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 1, 2024 COTTON: They wanted President Trump there. They wanted to take those photos. You know who the families also invited? Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Where were they? Joe Biden was sitting at a beach. Kamala Harris was sitting at her mansion in Washington, D.C. She was four miles away, ten minutes. She could've gone to the cemetery and – and honored the sacrifice of those young men and women. But she hasn't. She never has spoken to them or taken a meeting with them. WELKER: Well, they – they did meet with them during the dignified – COTTON: It's because – WELKER: – transfer – COTTON: – of her – WELKER: They were with them at the dignified transfer. COTTON: – her and – her and Joe Biden's incompetence that those 13 Americans were killed in Afghanistan. WELKER: Well, not everyone, obviously, was pleased with this visit. And again, just the law says memorial services and ceremonies at Army national military cemeteries will not include partisan political activities. NBC put out a rare "correction" with a weaselly tone that Welker "incorrectly implied" Harris was there. She didn't imply -- she lied outright. Harris has not met these families or spoken with these families.  On our broadcast this morning, we incorrectly implied that both President Biden and Vice President Harris attended the dignified transfer of 13 American service members killed during the Afghanistan withdrawal. Biden was in attendance but Harris was not. — Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) September 1, 2024 This is what happens when these media Democrats are so desperate to fight with Republicans with their "fact checking in real time." Facts aren't as important as demonstrating you're "on the team." PS: Welker's predecessor Chuck Todd has a page at PolitiFact: seven on the True/Mostly True side, one Half True, one False.

U.S. taxpayers pay $850 million in annual dues to the World Health Organization, expecting more than deflection and lousy science. Yet this United Nations subagency continues to spread fear, often issuing alarming warnings that are completely detached from reality.Last July, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer released a dire assessment labeling the non-sugar sweetener aspartame, commonly found in diet drinks, as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Health experts have pushed back, criticizing the review’s research as “flawed.” Emails recently obtained by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance Foundation reveal U.S. government officials’ deep frustrations with this global bureaucracy. The WHO and IARC should not receive another dime of taxpayers’ money until they address their sloppy scientific research, among other problems.While it would be helpful to use public information requests to see how the WHO responded, watchdogs and journalists face significant challenges in accessing these records.July 14, 2023, was far from dull for scientists studying food and beverage safety. On that day, IARC released a frightening assessment on aspartame, while the WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives published their own, more nuanced review of the sweetener.The WHO’s mixed messages on aspartame upset U.S. Department of Agriculture regulator Mary Frances Lowe, who called the WHO’s communication “disappointing risk communication” in a message to her colleagues. In response, the Food and Drug Administration stepped in to counteract the IARC’s claims and convince the public and media that JECFA had presented the correct science.FDA employee Shruti Kabadi wrote on July 14, “JECFA concluded that there was no concern for carcinogenicity of oral exposure to aspartame in animals. There was no concern for genotoxicity of oral exposure to aspartame. The evidence of association of aspartame consumption and cancer in humans is not convincing.” Shruti’s colleague, Sabine Francke, praised JECFA’s findings, writing back, “I saw the Jecfa report — excellent rebuttal to the IARC attempt!! Science prevailed.”The FDA acted quickly to clarify the information on its website and to rebut IARC’s flawed analysis in media correspondence. Regulatory staff at the FDA and USDA were understandably frustrated, as their research supporting aspartame’s safety was undermined by IARC’s shoddy science. In response, both agencies pushed for “action by WHO to prevent future duplicative reviews of food use chemicals by IARC and the WHO/FAO joint scientific advice program.”While it would be helpful to use public information requests to see how the WHO responded, watchdogs and journalists face significant challenges in accessing these records.The WHO’s “Information Disclosure Policy” states, “Information, the disclosure of which may adversely affect WHO’s relations with a Member State or other intergovernmental organization” is considered “confidential information” that “is not normally subject to disclosure.” In other words, any documentation of any disagreement between the WHO and any of its 194 member states can be shielded from public view. This broad-based prohibition on information disclosure has come at the cost of assessing aspartame safety, not to mention addressing global pandemics and tobacco harm reduction efforts.And despite celebrating “World Press Freedom Day” every May 3 and claiming that “freedom of information is an integral part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression,” the United Nations does not have a FOIA-style law on the books. Longtime U.N. correspondent Thalif Deen notes, “A long-standing proposal for a FOIA at the United Nations has failed to get off the ground due largely to the inaction by the 193-member General Assembly, the U.N.’s highest policy making body, resulting in the lack of transparency in the inner workings of the U.N. and its secretariat.”At most, FOIA requesters will only have access to one-half of the conversation between U.S. federal agencies and the WHO on sweetener safety. It will remain a mystery why the WHO insists on ignoring the wealth of evidence highlighted by the FDA and its own Joint Expert Committee with the Food and Agriculture Organization. This lack of transparency is not so sweet for taxpayers funding the WHO and consumers looking for sugar substitutes and sound science.