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'

Three More Schools Show Enrollment Shift After Affirmative Action Ruling

Did Walz Fib About His Political 'Origin Story'?

Between Thursday night and Friday morning, ABC, CBS, and NBC added another few news cycles to the manufactured “controversy” and “firestorm” surrounding former President Trump’s Monday visit to Arlington National Cemetery with families of the 13 Americans killed in August 2021 in Afghanistan, declaring it “isn’t over yet”.  Worse yet, they opened a second front by suddenly (and disingenuously) acting like fiscal conservatives over Trump promising to make in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments free. It was, in other words, a repeat of the tax-on-tips double standard. ABC was apoplectic on both. Thursday’s World News Tonight featured weekend anchor Whit Johnson boasting of “the growing controversy” and “new fallout from former President Trump’s stop at Arlington National Cemetery”, citing an Army statement trashing Trump. “The Army says they consider the matter closed, but the controversy isn’t over yet,” Johnson declared with authority, illustrating the liberal media’s arrogance and dictatorial stranglehold on whether a storyline can fall off, be sustained, or ignored all together. Becoming quite the unofficial Harris-Walz agent, senior Whiter House correspondent Selina Wang also declared there was “growing fallout” over Trump and his team tastelessly “defying Department of Defense policy” with their presence She even kvetched that “Trump blaming President Biden and Vice President Harris for the botched withdrawal from America’s longest war” and returned to the well of finding a Gold Star family whose loved one’s gravestone was captured in photos because they were next to one of those killed at Abbey Gate. On IVF, the newscast had lead regime media pom-pom waver Mary Bruce huff about Trump being “[w]ell aware that reproductive rights have become a political liability for Republicans” and dismissed this move she’d be grinning from ear-to-ear if Harris made it. On Harris, she reiterated her friends are “hoping that the issue of abortion will help her expand her reach”. “Trump, who has bragged about appointing three of the justices who overturned Roe vs. Wade and said states are handling the issue brilliantly, now tonight saying...his administration would ensure IVF treatments are more easily assessable,” she complained. SUDDEN FISCAL CONSERVATIVE? ABC's Selina Wang repeatedly huffs about Trump calling for IVF treatments to be made free and suddenly concerned about how it'll all be paid for. If Kamala Harris proposed it, Selina and ABC would be over the moon and ignore the price tag. pic.twitter.com/XtATxfHInF — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) August 30, 2024 Wang took over the IVF subject on Friday’s Good Morning America, announcing with a heavy dose of disgust that Trump “claim[ed] he would make a IVF treatment for you without giving any details on how that would work,” including “any specifics on how he would pay for this costly plan or enact it.” Wang continued to harp about the cost (click “expand”): WANG: IVF can cost tens of thousands of dollars, with nearly 90,000 babies born in the U.S. with fertility treatments each year. TRUMP: We want to produce babies in this country, right? WANG: Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign telling ABC News, “Donald Trump’s own platform could effectively ban IVF and abortion nationwide. Trump lies as much if not more than he breeds, but voters aren’t stupid.” Trump making this proposal despite repeatedly bragging about appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, opening the door to new restrictions for fertility treatments. TRUMP [on 04/12/24]: We broke Roe v. Wade and we did something nobody thought was possible. We gave it back to the states. WANG: Earlier this year, Alabama Supreme Court declared frozen embryos human beings, entitled to full rights, causing fertility clinics across the state to shut down for weeks. A new poll finding Harris has a 16-point advantage over Trump on who voters trust more to handle the issue of abortion. In his own home state of Florida, Trump now saying he opposes the state’s ban on abortion at six weeks, before most women even though they are pregnant. TRUMP: I think the six weeks is too short. It has to be more time, and so, that’s — and I’ve told them I want more weeks. WANG: Trump contradicting his own statements that the issue of abortion should be left to the states, but Trump’s campaign attempting to appease his anti-abortion base, later saying he has not yet decided how he will vote. He simply reiterated that believes six weeks is too short, he has reiterated. Over the years, Donald Trump has flip-flopped on the issue of abortion but his focus on IVF is clearly an attempt to blend Harris’s attacks that he will rip away reproductive freedoms. Thursday’s NBC Nightly News rivaled ABC. Fill-in anchor Tom Llamas lost his noodle over “the firestorm” about Trump “bringing politics into the hallowed ground of Arlington” and the former President being “seen giving a thumb’s up at the grave of a fallen soldier” not long after someone on his team “abruptly pushed aside” a cemetery official. Correspondent Dasha Burns brought up “the controversy” at Arlington, but largely stuck to her exclusive interview with Trump. On IVF, she complained Trump called for treatments to “be covered without giving specifics on how.” Llamas too wondered about it: “Do we have any idea how much it would cost the government to pay for those?” This led Burns to reveal “we actually did the math and it would cost around $7.8 billion annually.” Today co-host Craig Melvin kept up the faux outrage on Friday: “So, who will foot the bill for the costly procedure?” Burns returned to the air by reracking her dismissals and knocked Trump for “not providing specifics” in their interview, which also focused on his “controversial visit to” Arlington National Cemetery. Thursday’s CBS Evening News was also all-in on kicking dirt on Trump over Arlington and IVF (click “expand”): NANCY CORDES: There are new signs today of just how much this race has changed in the 39 days since President Biden dropped out. A new USA Today poll finds that voters aged 18 to 34 have swung from backing Trump by 11 points to favoring Harris by 13. Hispanics had backed Trump by two. Now Harris has a 16-point edge and the data firm TargetSmart says that, since Harris became the nominee, new voter registration is up more than 175 percent among young Black women ages 18 to 29. (....) CORDES: The post was later taken down, along with a post calling for former President Obama to be tried by a military tribunal. Tonight, the Harris campaign is slamming Trump’s new proposal to pay for IVF. They say his own platform that was just adopted at the Republican Convention a few weeks ago would lead to restrictions in the use of IVF across the country, Norah. NORAH O’DONNELL: And no details on how it will be paid for. Nancy Cordes, thank you. Army officials are standing by a staffer at Arlington National Cemetery and accusing Trump campaign staff of abusing her, saying she was abruptly pushed aside when confronting the Trump campaign for allegedly violating decorum rules at the hallowed burial grounds.  Friday’s CBS Mornings surprisingly spent minimal time on both. On IVF, correspondent Ed O’Keefe called it a “notable” move and, on Arlington, he said Trump spoke “about social media videos his campaign posted of his visit earlier this week to Arlington National Cemetery.” To see the relevant transcripts from August 29, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC). To see the relevant transcripts from August 30, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

EXCLUSIVE: Stanford epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the most prominent health experts who came out against the government’s indiscriminate COVID-19 policies, minced no words when discussing rampant censorship targeting Americans. During an interview on Friday’s installment of the MRC UnCensored podcast, Bhattacharya delivered a categorical rebuke of censorship, telling host and MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider: “It's so fundamentally un-American to censor speech.”  Bhattacharya, one of the architects of the Great Barrington Declaration, hinted that pulling back the curtain on the Censorship Industrial Complex “will lead to the death of it” and highlighted the urgent need for legislation to tackle the assault on free speech. “We need legislation, I think, to fix that. … I think there's there's work to do. But the forces of censorship in the United States are on the backheel, and we need to keep pushing really hard on it,” he said. This response came after Schneider asked Bhattacharya about his thoughts on the global crackdown on free speech, including a Canadian law regulating speech online and Brazilian court orders threatening X’s operation in the country. Drawing a parallel from the Cold War-era Iron Curtain, Bhattacharya warned of a global “silicon curtain” between free speech and censorship. “The basic civil right of free speech has been essentially, by design, curtailed,” he lamented, rebuking social media platforms efforts to silence its users under the guise of fighting so-called misinformation. This, Bhattacharya warned, constituted a “dystopian” plan. Expanding on this topic, Bhattacharya described the United States as the “bulwark” against foreign-led censorship schemes. “It's very difficult for a country to impose restrictions on speech … if the United States doesn't cooperate,” he said. “I mean, imagine if we had, an American president that actually spoke in that way, it would be very difficult for all these countries to like to act in the way that they have.” Bhattacharya can confidently speak on censorship as he and his ideas were targeted by social media platforms. According to MRC’s CensorTrack database, Bhattacharya was shadowed-banned by Twitter (now called X). Similarly, Facebook disabled the Great Barrington Declaration’s page, which exposed the imminent dangers of pandemic-related lockdowns. “It was pretty terrible. It was like the entire sort of Censorship Industrial Complex machine was aimed at defaming me and anyone who agreed with me on, for instance, keeping schools open,” he recalled during the podcast. MRC UnCensored has previously hosted some of the most influential figures in the free speech movement, including Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA), Mike Benz, and journalists David Marcus, Miranda Devine and Emma Jo-Morris. Watch Bhattacharya’s interview and others here:  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable