5 Places to Find Free Food

Republicans Getting Better At Doing Media, Media Getting Worse Doing Republicans

For lack of a detailed platform indicating what she might finally get around to doing if elected president, Kamala Harris has instead been campaigning on what she would like American voters to think she has accomplished. Harris posted a campaign ad earlier this month touting her record on the border. On closer inspection, critics and even some elements of the liberal media noticed something amiss about the 30-second video: President Donald Trump's border wall. Whilst insinuating that Harris has been strong on the border, the campaign ad repeatedly shows off the same border wall Harris spent years criticizing and then joined President Joe Biden in defunding upon taking power. Omitting any mention of the tens of millions of illegal aliens who have stolen into the country under Harris' watch, the narrator for the campaign ad claims, "As a border state prosecutor, she took on drug cartels and jailed gang members for smuggling weapons and guns across the border." "As vice president, she backed the toughest border-control bill in decades," says the narrator. "And as president, she will hire thousands more border agents and crack down on fentanyl and human trafficking. Fixing the border is tough. So is Kamala Harris." Mike Howell, executive director of the Heritage Foundation's government watchdog Oversight Project, highlighted the Trump border wall's cameos in the video Friday, tweeting, "What is that in this ad? Looks like the @realDonaldTrump BORDER WALL to me!" Peter Hasson, editor of the Washington Free Beacon, noted in reply, "Not only is Kamala featuring border wall in her campaign ad, it appears that she's featuring *Trump-era* additions to the border wall. The campaign footage (left image) matches VOA footage (right image) identified as Sasabe, Arizona. CBP website shows the wall in Sasabe was built under Trump." ABC News' Jonathan Karl played the video Sunday for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) and asked, "What do you make of her transformation on this issue?" Sanders offered a diplomatic response, attributing a potential border policy to Harris. 'Trump's border wall is just a stupid use of money.' Karl, ostensibly hoping for Sanders to acknowledge the vice president's radical about-face on the issue, said, "If you take a look at that ad, and one thing that I found striking, is if you look — and I think we have the images here — there are at least three points in that ad that show the border wall. Donald Trump's border wall." "Is it now the position of the Democrats that they favor the border wall?" asked Karl. "You can ask the Harris campaign about that ad," said Sanders. Harris' use of Trump's accomplishment to visually imply it to be her own might be less controversial if it were not for the Democrat's years-long rhetorical and administrative campaign against the wall. In 2017, Harris wrote, "Trump's border wall is just a stupid use of money." Bloomberg reported that in February 2018, congressional Democrats expressed an unwillingness to grant Trump $25 billion to build a border wall in exchange for those illegal aliens deemed "Dreamers" to gain a path to citizenship. Harris was one of three Senate Democrats who rejected the deal. Harris' spokeswoman at the time suggested, "With any vote she takes in the Senate, she looks at all the evidence, does her homework, and does what she believes is the right thing to do. This one was no different." Harris made clear in a statement that funding should not "be used to implement this administration's anti-immigrant agenda." While peddling her book, "The Truths We Hold: An American Journey," in 2019, Harris reportedly suggested the wall was Trump's "vanity project" and threatened litigation should he move forward with it. During a CNN town hall just weeks later, Harris called the border wall Trump's "medieval vanity project," emphasizing that she would "not vote for a wall under any circumstances." Prior to being run out of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary with no delegates to her name, Harris tweeted, "Trump's border wall is a complete waste of taxpayer money and won't make us any safer." Shortly after taking power, the Biden-Harris administration halted the flow of government funds toward the construction of the wall and in subsequent months took additional steps to axe construction contracts. Harris appears keen to gloss over her track record of keeping the border porous, especially in light of polling data indicating that Americans are tired of illegal aliens stealing into the country. Gallup revealed last month that 53% of respondents signaled a desire to expand the construction of walls along the U.S. border. 63% said they favored allowing the president and the secretary of Homeland Security to bar entry to asylum-seekers when the southern border is overwhelmed. Earlier this year, a Monmouth University poll found that over 8 in 10 Americans recognized illegal immigration to be either a very serious (61%) or a somewhat serious (23%) problem. The poll also found that 53% of respondents supported the border wall. The Harris campaign ad starring Trump's border wall drew heat earlier this month for a different reason: The law enforcement members shown standing next to her wanted it known that their images were used without permission and that she did not have their support. Blaze News previously reported that Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux and District Attorney Tim Ward expressed outrage over their inclusion in the video. "In light of a recent political ad put out by Kamala Harris featuring Sheriff Boudreaux, as well as other local law enforcement, the Sheriff wants to make it abundantly clear that his image is being used without his permission, and he does NOT endorse Harris for President or any other political office," Sheriff Boudreaux said in a statement. "Just as Sheriff Boudreaux said, I do not in any way want the use of that photo to be construed as support of [Harris] either in her candidacy, current candidacy, or even in her tenure as attorney general of the State of California," said Ward. Tulare County officials also contradicted Harris' characterization as a "border state prosecutor." According to Boudreaux, "The truth is, Harris never cared about the cartels and did nothing to stop people from illegally crossing the border." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Elon Musk is one of the most polarizing figures on the planet — a part-time tech genius and full-time provocateur who never fails to get under the left's skin. His latest venture, xAI, has just unveiled a new image generation tool that is, as expected, stirring up inordinate amounts of controversy. This feature, designed to create a wide range of visuals, is accused of flooding the internet with deep fakes and other dubious imagery.Among the content being shared are images of Donald Trump and a pregnant Kamala Harris as a couple and depictions of former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama with illegal substances. While these images have triggered the snowflake-like sensitivities of some on the left, those on the right might have more reason to be concerned about where this technology is headed. Let me explain.This trend, coupled with the biases in training data, suggests that LLMs could continue to mirror and amplify left-leaning viewpoints.To fully understand Grok's impact, it is crucial to see it within the broader AI landscape. Grok is a large language model, which places it among many others. The broader context reveals an important reality. The vast majority of LLMs tend to exhibit significant left-leaning biases.LLMs are trained on vast amounts of internet data, which often skews toward progressive viewpoints. As a result, the outputs they generate can reflect these biases, influencing everything from political discourse to social media content.A recent study by David Rozado, an AI researcher affiliated with Otago Polytechnic and Heterodox Academy, sheds light on a troubling trend in LLMs. Rozado analyzed 24 leading LLMs, including OpenAI’s GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Google’s Gemini, and Anthropic’s Claude, using 11 different political orientation evaluations. His findings reveal a consistent left-leaning bias across these models, with the “homogeneity of test results across LLMs developed by a wide variety of organizations is noteworthy” being particularly striking.This situation becomes even more significant when considering the rapid evolution of search engines. As LLMs begin to replace traditional search engines, they are not just shifting our access to information; they are transforming it. Unlike search engines, which serve as vast digital libraries, LLMs are becoming personalized advisors, subtly curating the information we consume. This transition could make conventional search engines seem obsolete in comparison.As Rozado points out, “The emergence of large language models (LLMs) as primary information providers marks a significant transformation in how individuals access and engage with information.” He adds, “Traditionally, people have relied on search engines or platforms like Wikipedia for quick and reliable access to a mix of factual and biased information. However, as LLMs become more advanced and accessible, they are starting to partially displace these conventional sources.”Rozado further emphasizes, “This shift in the sourcing of information has profound societal implications, as LLMs can shape public opinion, influence voting behaviors, and impact the overall discourse in society. Therefore, it is crucial to critically examine and address the potential political biases embedded in LLMs to ensure a balanced, fair, and accurate representation of information in their responses to user queries.”The study underscores the need to scrutinize the nature of bias in LLMs. Despite its obvious biases, traditional media allows for some degree of open debate and critique. In contrast, LLMs function in a far more opaque manner. They operate as black boxes, obscuring their internal processes and decision-making mechanisms. While traditional media can face challenges from a variety of angles, LLM content is more likely to escape such scrutiny.Moreover, they don’t just retrieve information from the internet; they generate it based on the data they’ve been trained on, which inevitably reflects the biases present in that data. This can create an appearance of neutrality, hiding deeper biases that are more challenging to identify. For instance, if a specific LLM has a left-leaning bias, it might subtly favor certain viewpoints or sources over others when addressing sensitive topics like gender dysphoria or abortion. This can shape users' understanding of these issues not through explicit censorship but by subtly guiding content through algorithm-driven selection. Over time, this promotes a narrow range of perspectives while marginalizing others, effectively shifting the Overton window and narrowing the scope of acceptable discourse. Yes, things are bad now, but it’s difficult not to see them getting many times worse, especially if Kamala Harris, a darling of Silicon Valley, becomes president.The potential implications of "LLM capture" are, for lack of a better word, severe. Given that many LLM developers come from predominantly left-leaning academic backgrounds, the biases from these environments may increasingly permeate the models themselves. This trend, coupled with the biases in training data, suggests that LLMs could continue to mirror and amplify left-leaning viewpoints.Addressing these issues will require a concerted effort from respectable lawmakers (yes, a few of them still exist). Key to this will be improving transparency around the training processes of LLMs and understanding the nature of their biases. Jim Jordan and his colleagues recently had success dismantling GARM. Now, it’s time for them to turn their attention to a new, arguably far graver, threat.

It’s been three days since the Democratic National Convention wrapped up and packed up. By now, even the hungover junior staffers who missed their 6:33 a.m. flights to DCA have finally limped back home. It’s anyone’s guess how many miniature American flags made it into overstuffed carry-ons, but it’s safe to assume thousands were swept off the floor of the now-darkened Chicago United Center. It's well known that Democrats love flags, but it’s been a long while since we’ve seen so many American ones at a Democratic event. Just eight years ago, for example, embarrassed DNC staff were forced to loot the flags from the Philadelphia City Hall when someone realized they hadn’t brought any of their own. It’s as if the party decided to listen to the former presidents in their midst, both of whom actually built and maintained winning coalitions for two terms. That’s not all. While God hasn’t quite made a comeback in the 12 years since delegates booed his name in Charlotte, North Carolina, appeals to some personal “faith” were confidently bandied about. And even that’s not all: Gov. Tim Walz molded his speech around (somewhat tortured) football imagery, and the prosecution of criminals was happily cheered. Infamous white, male slave-owner George Washington even made a cameo, though a 78-year-old President Bill Clinton is essentially a time traveler from a distant and moderate time. As UnHerd’s Emily Jashinsky pointed out, even the much-ballyhooed sisterhood of girl-power feminism was tucked into the back pocket for another day. Virtually the only references to Vice President Kamala Harris breaking any glass ceilings were made by Hillary “I’m with her” Clinton. It’s as if the party decided to listen to the former presidents in their midst, both of whom actually built and maintained winning coalitions for two terms. For all the moderation of language, however, there was no moderation of the policies, though price controls weren’t exactly highlighted. Policy wasn’t featured much of anywhere, in fact. The promise instead seems to be vote for Harris and you’ll get a good progressive, with all that entails. There’s no reason to doubt that. But does Harris have the charisma to say one thing while doing the other? Bill Clinton was a southern governor in Ronald Reagan’s America, and as president, he governed in line with his moderate promises. For his part, Barack Obama had only been a senator for four years. In that time, he’d bucked his party on the Iraq War, but by 2008, a lot of voters agreed. Any radical roots and connections were shrouded by time and obscured by the racial savior status his fans in the party and corporate media projected onto him. As Matthew Continetti reminds in the Washington Free Beacon: Kamala Harris is not Barack Obama. She didn't risk her career over a stand against the Iraq war, only to see her party move toward her. She is not known for a groundbreaking speech, or a worldwide bestseller, or rallying a movement to win a sharply contested primary against a two-term senator and former first lady. She didn't win a primary at all. She has no defined set of policies — no Obamacare waiting in the wings. Today, Clinton’s accomplishments are ancient history, and a decade of anti-white race riots and rising racial tensions have tarnished the fool's promise of any easy fixes. And unlike her successful predecessors, Harris is no blank canvas. She has a long record on the national stage as the country’s most liberal senator and as vice president to the first one-term Democratic president since Jimmy Carter. Though her campaign had the good sense to tuck tired feminism away, what is it offering America’s millions of disaffected men? By any measure, men have been hardest hit by the national shifts of the past quarter-century or more. This is sadly apparent in any statistic on unemployment, underemployment, labor-market drop-offs, and deaths of despair. It’s a reality that shows up in the polling, too. Black, white, and Hispanic men alike are increasingly gravitating toward former President Donald Trump. The moral stigma Democrats so successfully built around him has finally crumbled. What did the DNC have to say to these voters? CNN and MSNBC alike openly lauded Democrats’ outreach to low-testosterone men. That ain’t it. Last week’s pivot was a smart one, long asked for by wiser voices in the Democratic Party. But while hiring back Obama’s team and finally listening to David Axelrod and James Carville are good moves, people will vote for or against the candidate and her ideas. Despite the fanfare and Potemkin media campaign, Harris remains the weak link she was six weeks ago when her party was scrambling to find anyone but her to take the old man’s place. The next 10 weeks will test her to the max. Washington Free Beacon: Kamala Harris’s Obama makeover UnHerd: The Democrats chose not to play the gender card Spectator: The Californication of the Democratic Party Spectator: The kids are manifesting a Kamala presidency Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford's newsletter. IN OTHER NEWS The Trump-Kennedy alliance Democrats spent millions blocking Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from ballots and, they hoped, from siphoning votes from their nominee. For their efforts, Kennedy and his decidedly more liberal running mate officially turned on them Friday, throwing their weight behind Trump. RFK’s impressively heterodox (and impressively viral) campaign attracted more attention than any third-party run this side of 2000. Like Vivek Ramaswamy, his followers were intensely online. Many were new to politics. Will they follow their man if he’s promised a role? While the immediate impact of endorsements can be hard to guess, in a close race where Trump is still the outsider, RFK’s support has a real impact. As Ben Domenech writes in the Spectator, the move “will serve as a politically meaningful boost to the Republican campaign in multiple battleground states where Kennedy has gained ballot access in the past few months.” Those include Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. Turns out some prophecies really do fulfill themselves, if you spend enough money. Blaze News: Court gives RFK Jr. green light to sue Biden-Harris admin over censorship Spectator podcast: What’s happened to RFK Jr.?

Gov. Tim Walz, running mate of Kamala Harris, is once again fending off accusations of lying about his record after an old letter resurfaced that indicated he had once promoted on campaign materials an award he had never actually received.Back in 2005, around the time he retired from the Minnesota National Guard just months before his unit deployed to Iraq, Walz launched a campaign for Congress.A spokesperson for Walz's campaign blamed the embellishment on a "typographical error," according to an old article from the Post Bulletin.The following year, Walz claimed in his campaign biography that he was "named the Outstanding Young Nebraskan by the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce for his service in the education, military, and small business communities," according to an archived version of a website associated with Walz's campaign.However, Walz never received this accolade, and Barry Kennedy, who was president of the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce at the time, issued a scathing letter to Walz in November 2006 about the apparent misrepresentation."We researched this matter and can confirm that you have not been the recipient of any award from the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce," Kennedy wrote."I am not going to draw a conclusion about your intentions by including this line in your biography. However, we respectfully request that you remove any reference to our organization as it could be considered an endorsement of your candidacy," the letter continued.The letter also indicated that the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce had actually endorsed Walz's opponent in the race, incumbent Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.).The campaign eventually did correct Walz's biography, noting he had received an award from the Nebraska Junior Chamber of Commerce, commonly referred to as the Jaycees. A spokesperson for Walz's campaign blamed the embellishment on a "typographical error," according to an old article from the Post Bulletin. Walz ultimately unseated Gutknecht in the race.The old letter spread around social media over the weekend, though Kennedy denied knowing who had unearthed it. "I've received several emails," he told KETV. "And I have no idea how it resurfaced.""I did feel that at that time, it was important to set the record straight, if you will, and make sure that the integrity of the awards ... that the Nebraska Chamber ... gives was protected," Kennedy added.When asked about the incident, the Harris-Walz campaign claimed, "Governor Walz speaks the way real people speak – openly and off the cuff. The American people appreciate that Gov. Walz tells it like it is and doesn’t talk like a politician, and they appreciate the difference between someone who occasionally misspeaks and a pathological liar like Donald Trump."The campaign did not clarify how a written statement included in a biography could be considered speaking "off the cuff."While the campaign may accuse Trump of being a "pathological liar," Walz has faced numerous accusations of lying about his record ever since Harris tapped him to join her atop the 2024 Democratic ticket earlier this month, as Blaze News previously reported.Most notably, members of his former unit in the Minnesota Army National Guard have accused Walz of engaging in stolen valor for retiring early when a deployment in Iraq loomed large, for falsely claiming he "carried" weapons "in war" even though he never served in a combat zone, and for using the rank of command sergeant major when he actually retired at the lower rank of master sergeant.Lauren Hitt, another spokesperson for the Harris-Walz campaign, claimed that Walz "misspoke" when he referenced carrying weapons into battle.Kerry Greeley, who was affiliated with Walz's first run for Congress, also apparently misrepresented details about a DUI arrest nearly 30 years ago after he was pulled over for driving nearly 100 mph in a 55-mph zone.Greeley denied that Walz was "drunk" when he was arrested in September 1995, even though at least one test showed he had a blood alcohol level of .128. Greeley also blamed much of Walz's behavior that night, including his "balance issues," on "deafness" rather than inebriation."He couldn’t understand what the officer was saying to him," Greeley insisted.Greeley also claimed without evidence that the judge in Walz's case reprimanded the arresting officer for his insensitivity to Walz's hearing loss.A full transcript of Walz's subsequent court appearance is still publicly available. Walz pled guilty to a lesser charge of reckless driving, admitted that he "drove a vehicle in a manner as to indicate an indifference or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property," and paid a $200 fine plus court costs. His license was also suspended for 90 days.The transcript does not include any reprimand of the trooper by the judge or make any reference to Walz's hearing issues. Walz did have surgery to repair damaged ear bones sometime in 1995.Finally, Walz has repeatedly indicated that he and his wife, Gwen, conceived their two children through in vitro fertilization. An envelope for a Walz campaign letter sent back in April even included the phrase, "My wife and I used I.V.F. to start a family." However, the Walzes actually used intrauterine insemination, a much less invasive and less expensive process, not IVF.Once again, the Harris-Walz campaign claimed Walz merely used common parlance so as not to confuse people. "Governor Walz talks how normal people talk. He was using commonly understood shorthand for fertility treatments," campaign spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg said.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Unfortunately, they seem destined to never meet.

Holy TONE-DEAF Batman! Kerry Kennedy Learns the HARD Way Putting Party Over Family Is NOT a Great Look

Twitchy's Own Amy Curtis BLISTERS The Expert™ Tom Nichols and His Smug Pro-Kamala/Never Trump Thread

Kamala Harris' Fear is Palpable As She Desperately Tries to Change the Rules of the ABC News Debate