ABC News is denying The Daily Signal access to cover Tuesday’s presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris in Philadelphia. The event, which will take place at the National Constitution Center, is the only scheduled debate between Trump and Harris for the 2024 presidential election. ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis will moderate the 90-minute debate, set for 9 p.m. Tuesday. ABC News has DENIED my request for a @DailySignal media credential to cover the Trump-Harris presidential debate in Philadelphia. The National Constitution Center, where the debate is being held, is a 160,000-square-foot building, yet “space is extremely limited.”This is BS.… pic.twitter.com/DQnQGIBCEK— Rob Bluey (@RobertBluey) September 6, 2024 Reporters from other media outlets are normally allowed to attend such newsworthy events (as I’ve done in the past), including a post-debate spin room. Unlike previous years, however, the Commission on Presidential Debates isn’t involved in the planning, leaving such decisions up to the corporate media behemoths instead. In the case of Tuesday’s debate, ABC News worked with both campaigns to establish the rules. It also offered interested media outlets an opportunity to apply for press credentials. In a tersely worded email sent at 12:40 a.m. Friday, ABC News cited a lack of space at the 160,000-square-foot National Constitution Center as the reason for denying The Daily Signal’s request: Thank you for your interest in the ABC News’ Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, PA. Unfortunately, ABC News will not be able to offer you a media credential as space is extremely limited. Following its decision Friday, several journalists and commentators expressed outrage at ABC News’ exclusion of The Daily Signal. Bad form @ABC NEWS.Also @RobertBluey feel free to debate watch the with me at a local PA bar. I learned a lot more there than sitting with in a room with other reporters. In 2016 watched 1st Trump-Clinton at the Tin Lizzie & learned so much about where that race was heading. https://t.co/9aEG25BHjt pic.twitter.com/51iPYjxJIV— ZitoSalena (@ZitoSalena) September 6, 2024 The next time they preach about press access/the first amendment/ democracy remember not just what @abc says but how they act https://t.co/DELduV5Szv— Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) September 6, 2024 This is egregious. https://t.co/OvKbIWTXWY— Megan Basham (@megbasham) September 6, 2024 Completely unacceptable https://t.co/OR5fmRTgvm— David Marcus (@BlueBoxDave) September 6, 2024 Why won’t @ABC approve Daily Signal attending the debate?Because the are left-wingers who want to minimize the number of truthful reporters in attendance. https://t.co/dxPdzMWCFt— Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) September 6, 2024 The liberal media wants to squash the conservative media. If ABC gives one leftist website a credential, then we'll know it was Rigged! If the Daily Signal doesn't get in, what about HuffPost? https://t.co/oy4mqSrnR1— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) September 6, 2024 Taking a cue from CNN’s debate between Trump and President Joe Biden, ABC News also won’t allow a live audience at the National Constitution Center. Before the June debate, the White House Correspondents Association objected to CNN’s prohibition on a pool reporter in the studio to observe Trump and Biden. In a June 27 statement, the association wrote: WHCA is deeply concerned that CNN has rejected our repeated requests to include the White House travel pool inside the studio. Through conversations and advocacy, we urged CNN to grant access to at least one print pool reporter for the duration of the debate. WHCA has been informed that one print reporter will be permitted to enter the studio during a commercial break to briefly observe the setting. That is not sufficient in our view and diminishes a core principle of presidential coverage. The White House pool has a duty to document, report, and witness the president’s events and his movements on behalf of the American people. The ABC News debate will mark one of the rare moments when Harris faces questions from journalists. Her only previous interview—the first since Biden dropped out of the race—came last week on CNN. The post ABC News Denies Daily Signal Access to Trump-Harris Debate appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Various military units around the world (notably in the UK during the pandemic) have been getting involved in what are ultimately, due to the goal (censorship) and participants (military) destined to become controversial, if not unlawful efforts. But there doesn’t seem to be a lot of desire to learn from others’ mistakes. The temptation to bring the defense system into the political “war on disinformation” arena seems to be too strong to resist. Right now in the US, Lockheed Martin is close to completing a prototype that will analyze media to “detect and defeat disinformation.” And by media, those commissioning the tool – called the Semantic Forensics (SemaFor) program – mean everything: news, the internet, and even entertainment media. Text, audio, images, and video that are part of what’s considered “large-scale automated disinformation attacks” are supposed to be detected and labeled as false by the tool. The development process is almost over, and the prototype is used by the US Defense Department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/darpa-digital.mp4 The total value of the program, awarded by the Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate (acting for DARPA) to Lockheed Martin comes to $37.2 million, Military and Aerospace Electronics reported. Reports note that while past statistical detection methods have been “successful” they are now seen as “insufficient” for media disinformation detection. This is why looking into “semantic inconsistency” is preferred. There is a rather curious example given of how “mismatched earrings” can be a giveaway that a face is not real but generated via a GAN – a generative adversarial network. (GANs are a machine learning method.) And SemaFor’s purpose is to analyze media with semantic tech algorithms, to hand down the verdict of whether the content is authentic or false. There’s more: proving such activities come from a specific actor has been near impossible so far, but there’s a “mental workaround” that those behind the project seem happy with: infer, rather than identify. So – just like before? “Attribution algorithms” are what’s needed for this, and there’s more guesswork presented as reliable tech – namely, “characterization algorithms” to decide not only if media is manipulated or generated, but also if the purpose is malicious. Now, the only thing left to find out – how the algorithms are written. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Lockheed Martin Develops System to Identify and Counter Online “Disinformation,” Prototyped by DARPA appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has managed to work fearmongering over the perceived proliferation of misinformation, hate speech, and deepfakes into his message issued on the occasion of the upcoming International Day of Democracy. Not only that but as far as the UN is concerned, this year’s Day of Democracy is focused on – of all things – (at this point in time, upcoming at some later point in time) artificial intelligence (AI). Though the press release might look like a “politically correct word salad,” it does show a purpose – and that’s pressing for global AI regulation. The way is, perpetuating the fear that AI, such as it is today, is truly a possible threat to “democracy, peace, and stability.” According to the UN website, Guterres took this opportunity to frame the problem of erosion of free speech, civil liberties, rule of law, and diminishing trust (ostensibly in legacy media and institutions) as the consequence of that “proliferation of harm.” The Guterres statement starts off reasonably enough: on International Day of Democracy, these now-under-threat values are the ones that need to be promoted. But then he descends into explaining why that is by parroting what has been heard a myriad times thus far from many governments and global political and business elites. For example, what makes free speech so fragile these days? Censorship? Government censorship? And by the same token, is that what’s burdening civil rights in general? Guterres appears to believe – no. It’s all somehow revolving around “AI” and specifically how to control it – as “a tool for good governance.” The UN, born after the devastation of the Second World War as a forum to make sure that never repeats, has been losing in influence over the past decade in particular. Instead of serving its original purpose – especially as all sorts of chaotic behavior and events intensify around the world – this organization is now, alarmingly, trying to find a new lease on life around issues closely related to censorship and repression: the pandemic (via its WHO agency), and now, “disinformation, misinformation, AI…” That’s the context in which a UN secretary-general makes statements like these: “To seize these opportunities, (AI promoting public participation, equality, inclusiveness, ‘human development’…) it is critical to ensure effective governance of AI at all levels, including internationally.” Is that really what’s crucial for democracy now – sir? If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UN Secretary-General António Guterres Complains About “Misinformation” and “Hate Speech,” Calls for “Effective Governance” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Has Anyone Noticed That We Know More About Yesterday's School Shooter Than Crooks?

Former President Donald Trump blasted Vice President Kamala Harris at a town hall for proposing potentially devastating taxes and price controls.  Trump sounded the alarm over Harris’ proposals on price-fixing and taxing unrealized gains during a Sept. 4 town hall with Fox News host Sean Hannity. Trump warned that Harris would not only reverse his tax cuts and bring about the “biggest tax increase in history” but would also be responsible for a “1929-style depression.”  Hannity played a montage of legacy news outlets’ coverage of Harris’ past statements on economic issues, including a radical statement against fracking. The former president responded by going after Harris' current agenda, saying that only Marxists like Kamala Harris’ “Marxist teacher of economics” father would support her radical idea of taxing unrealized capital gains.  Trump said that if Harris enacted her proposal to tax unrealized gains Americans should “go out and open an appraisal company because you’re going to make a fortune, that’s about the only group that’s gonna make it, and accountants.” Trump added that taxing unrealized capital gains, “is the craziest idea and remember there’s very rich people and big international corporations, they don't have to stay in the United States and they will be forced to leave for other countries.” The former president also took issue with Harris’ price-fixing proposal. Hannity noted that price-fixing in the communist U.S.S.R. and Venezuela was "a disaster." Trump agreed adding that price-fixing had a several hundred-year track record of failure. The former president argued that every time price controls are tried “you end up with no product, massive inflation and you end up with the destruction of a country.” Hannity and Trump then discussed the impact of runaway inflation on ordinary Americans. Under the Biden-Harris administration, Americans have suffered through a brutal 5.3% average monthly inflation.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News at (818) 460-7477, CBS News at (212) 975-3247 and NBC News at (212) 664-6192 and demand they tell the truth about the Bidenomics disaster.

On CNN This Morning, CNN Chief National Affairs Correspondent Jeff Zeleny uttered a very cynical "why not?" on the question of whether Joe Biden should pardon Hunter. The show had played the clip of Biden flatly telling ABC's David Muir that he would not pardon his son. But hey! That was then, when Biden was running for president. And this is now, with Biden out of the race. So, yeah, "why not?" Biden breaking his promise would give a new meaning to a favorite line of his: "On my word as a Biden." Zeleny used the tried-and-true MSM dodge of putting his opinion in the mouths of others, framing his answer as a some-would-say spin. Zeleny built his case for the pardon by noting that the power to do so is "one prerogative a president has. I guess some would say why not use it?" Kasie Hunt also pushed the notion that Biden should pardon Hunter, asking Brad Todd, the sole Republican on the panel: "If you're Joe Biden, is there a reason not to pardon his kid at this point?" The "kid" is 54. Pledges,schmedges. Holding politicians to their promises is something the liberal media only tends to do with Republicans. The MSM mercilessly raked George H.W. Bush over the coals for going back on his "Read my lips: no new taxes"—despite the fact that the liberal media actually favors raising taxes on "the rich." Brad Todd, the sole Republican on the panel, had every confidence that Biden would go back on his word: "I don't think there's a person in this country that believes he won't pardon his kid." Question: What are the odds Hunter would have pleaded guilty if the fix weren't already in with the Big Guy Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 9/6/24 6:18 am EDT KASIE HUNT: A shocking twist in Hunter Biden's latest legal drama. President Biden's son pleading guilty in his federal tax case to all nine charges. The surprise plea coming just as jury selection was set to get underway, his lawyer telling reporters he made the decision to quote, protect those he loves from an unnecessary hurt and cruel humiliation. This would have been Hunter's second public trial this year. ABBE LOWELL: Hunter put his family first today, and it was a brave and loving thing for him to do. HUNT: The sentencing is now scheduled for December 16th.  Hunter could face up to 17 years in prison and a more than $1 million fine—if—he's not pardoned. That's a possibility that Joe Biden had ruled out during Hunter Biden's federal gun trial earlier this year.  DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you, will you accept the jury's outcome, their verdict, no matter what it is? JOE BIDEN: Yes. MUIR: And have you ruled out a pardon for your son?  BIDEN: Yes. MUIR: You have. HUNT: Now, yesterday, the White House press secretary reiterated that message, telling reporters the answer is still no. But Jeff Zeleny, there is one critical difference between the Joe Biden there that said he would not pardon his son Hunter, and Joe Biden today. Which is that he is no longer running for reelection. JEFF ZELENY: Without question. I mean, so we'll see how this goes. Everything has changed in President Biden's world since then. He was seeking reelection, in that interview with David Muir, in a very tough reelection fight. Now he's not. So look, this is going to be, it's one prerogative a president has. I guess some would say why not use it?  . . .  HUNT: Brad, as the Republican at the table. I mean, if you're Joe Biden, is there a reason not to pardon his kid at this point? BRAD TODD:  I don't think there's a person that country that believes he won't pardon his kid. You know, but let's go back a minute. Hunter says he didn't want put his family through it. He should have thought of that before he sold access to his father to some of the seediest corporations and entities in the world. He, he's put his family through plenty on purpose for a long time.

On Saturday night, the Israeli military made a macabre and horrifying discovery: the slain bodies of six hostages taken by Hamas, including American citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin. All six hostages had been shot point-blank in the head some 48-72 hours prior, presumably upon the approach of IDF soldiers; Hamas terrorists chose to murder the hostages they had held in terror tunnels for over 300 days rather than risk their liberation. The discovery sent the entire nation of Israel into mourning. On Oct. 7, Israelis were forced to remember that the enemy they face is not merely violent, but purely evil. In subsequent months, with the extraordinary progress of the IDF in Gaza over the protestations of the Biden administration, Hamas’ evils were relegated once more to the realm of military conflict. But the very thought of these victims — Goldberg-Polin, 23; Eden Yerushalmi, 24; Ori Danino, 25; Alex Lobanov, 32; Carmel Gat, 40; and Almog Sarusi, 27 — suffering without sunlight, food or water for nearly a year, all to be shot to death within hours of their possible freedom, reopened all the wounds of Oct. 7. It turned out that all the diplomatic overtures made by America — overtures largely accepted by the supposedly intransigent administration of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — meant nothing. As Netanyahu pointed out, “whoever murders hostages does not want a deal.” That was predictable enough, given the fact that Hamas’ chief goal is its own survival — a goal directly at odds with Israel’s necessary goal of extirpating Hamas. That is why Hamas has consistently declared for months that there would be no hostage release without a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, along with the discharge of hundreds of convicted terrorists and murderers. Anything less than survival for Hamas is a loss. Dead Palestinians help Hamas achieve its goal of pressuring Israel; dead hostages help Hamas achieve its goal of pressuring Israel. And yet the immediate response of America and Great Britain has been to push Israel into more concessions. Asked whether Netanyahu had done enough to secure the hostage release, President Joe Biden — fresh from the beach in Delaware — said “no.” That is obviously political madness; if the murder of hostages wins indulgences, surely Hamas has the incentive to murder more hostages. But it is, far more importantly, moral madness; handing a victory to the very monsters who currently hold toddlers and threaten to shoot them in the head is the essence of cowardice. It’s worse: it’s complicity in evil. The only possible moral frame in which Israel can be blamed for Hamas’ monstrousness is a relativistic one, in which barbaric evil can be projected onto the “root cause” of the West. There is a reason so much of the left views America’s loss of the Vietnam War as a victory, or sees the Afghanistan pullout as a triumph, ignoring the viciousness of the Viet Cong and the Taliban. In this view, the cruelty of the West’s enemies is merely a response to the West’s own cruelty — and the evidence of that proposition is the existence of our enemies. Were we kind, generous and tolerant, we would have no enemies, goes the logic — thus the presence of our enemies demonstrates how fatally flawed we are. This perverse philosophy gives ammunition to the world’s worst human beings. Depriving evil actors of agency means leaving them free to pursue their worse designs, secure in the knowledge that the more savagely they act, the more they will be excused for their cruelty. The West, in this view, can never triumph but through surrender. This philosophy will destroy the West from within as well as from without. Cowardice is the greatest aid to evil; in fact, it is its own form of evil, for without it, evil could never win. A West incapable of distinguishing between those who kidnap and murder hostages in pursuit of Islamist theocracy and those who seek to free those hostages is a West that simply cannot survive. Ben Shapiro’s new collection, “Facts and Furious: The Facts About America and Why They Make Leftists Furious,” is available now. Shapiro is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” and co-founder of Daily Wire+. He is a three-time New York Times bestselling author. To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Hunter Biden’s shocking guilty plea in a California courtroom on Thursday led to a more shocking network-news result. ABC, CBS, and NBC all led their evening newscasts with Hunter’s plea. Between them, the Big Three aired more than eight minutes of coverage. Public broadcasting? Not so much. The PBS NewsHour gave it 54 seconds in a longer interview with NPR legal reporter Carrie Johnson with the online headline “Trump attorneys and prosecutors clash over key details of his election interference case.”     NPR’s All Things Considered listed their four-minute Ryan Lucas story online as story number 15. Fifteen. Their top story was a puffball by Asma Khalid titled “What Kamala Harris' foreign policy of might look like if she becomes president.” Let’s review what did not appear in these stories on the pro-Harris networks: No Republican soundbites or statements.  Republicans would have had plenty to say. The Big Three all ran Hunter’s lawyer Abbe Lowell proclaiming “Hunter decided to enter his plea to protect those he loves from unnecessary hurt and cruel humiliation. Hunter put his family first today.” No mention of the suppression of Hunter Biden's laptop exposing the guilty activities from in the last weeks of the 2020 campaign. We saw dated Biden soundbites pledging he wouldn't pardon his son. We didn't see dated Biden soundbites ludicrously claiming “My son has done nothing wrong." He even said that last year to Stephanie Ruhle on MSNBC.  Most ignored or soft-soaped Hunter's binging on crack cocaine and hookers with his untaxed millions. ABC and CBS couldn't explain where the "humiliation" came from in a trial. NBC mentioned "payments to women and luxury car purchases."  NPR's Ryan Lucas said the trial was "expected to dredge up some very embarrassing details of a very dark period in Hunter's life when he was addicted to crack cocaine." Most omitted the word “felonies.” They referred vaguely to Hunter pleading guilty to “federal tax charges.” ABC’s Pierre Thomas was the exception.  Most ignored any effects on the Kamala Harris campaign. On this, NPR's Ryan Lucas spun furiously. Anchor Ari Shapiro asked, "Does it still matter politically?" He claimed it's disappeared:  RYAN LUCAS: Well, they certainly do not matter to the same extent as they did back in, say, June, when Hunter was convicted of gun charges in Delaware. But these legal troubles of Hunter certainly were seen as a political liability for President Biden in the middle of what was a very tight 2024 presidential race. Republicans certainly have tried to use Hunter's personal problems to hamstring his father politically. But, yeah, now that President Biden isn't running for reelection, the potential political impact of Hunter's conviction here -- well, his guilty plea here and his conviction in Delaware on gun charges has really kind of disappeared. 

A former Minnesota state lawmaker was arrested for allegedly providing alcohol to an 18-year-old woman he met on a dating app and brought to his cabin.44-year-old Jason Metsa is a Democrat and was an appointee of Gov. Tim Walz, who is now the vice presidential candidate for the Democratic ticket. 'She had about four shots of alcohol and became tipsy.'Deputies said they searched the cabin and found alcohol after the incident reported on the Fourth of July, according to a criminal complaint reported by KMSP-TV. The woman told police he picked her up from her home and took her to his cabin, where she had about four shots of alcohol and "became tipsy, but had clarity, could talk for herself, and had rational thoughts."When deputies interviewed Metsa, he admitted to meeting the 18-year-old on Tinder and said that he asked her if she was 18 when they met. He is due in court in October. Metsa was a Minnesota state representative between 2013 and 2019. He was appointed to the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board by Walz in 2019 and had a stated mission to carry out Walz's "One Minnesota" vision. Walz had his own run-in with the law over alcohol. When he was a teacher in Nebraska in 1995, Walz was arrested for apparently driving drunk and speeding up to nearly 100 mph. He later pleaded guilty to reckless driving, but after becoming a politician, he downplayed the incident. He has been criticized for numerous lies and exaggerations in regard to details of his personal history. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Biden administration has never been a fan of political dissidents, and RFK Jr. is living proof. “Thirty-seven hours after he took the oath of office, President Biden’s White House opened up a portal for the FBI to begin to have access to social media posts on all the different social media sites,” RFK explained in an interview with Tucker Carlson. “The FBI then invited in the CIA, DHS, the IRS, and CISA. CISA is this new agency that is the center of the censorship industrial complex that is in charge, making sure Americans don’t hear things that their government doesn’t want them to hear.” Those agencies, as well as agencies like the CDC, were given access to social media sites to change posts and shadow-ban users. “I lost my Instagram account; I had almost a million followers. They say it was for ‘misinformation,’ but they could not point to a single post that I ever made that was factually erroneous,” RFK explains. In emails, Facebook was recorded pushing back and saying RFK wasn’t factually incorrect, so they had to come up with a new word for what RFK was doing. “Malinformation, which is information that is factually true but nevertheless inconvenient for the government,” he says, to which Tucker responds, “That’s illegal.” “The White House was overtly telling them that if they didn’t comply, that their Section 230 immunity was in jeopardy,” RFK adds. Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” isn’t surprised but is disturbed. “It should be noted that even if RFK Jr., with his 1 million followers on Instagram, was sharing misinformation,” Rubin says, “it's not illegal.” “It would be against the First Amendment,” he adds. 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.