There’s nothing more frustrating than waking up one morning to see your homegrown, carefully tended garden has been torn apart by a pesky varmint. Trapping Techniques To Trap A Pesky Varmint If you’ve tried every method under the sun to repel, exclude, or scare away a garden pest that just won’t seem to leave, consider the method of live trapping, which has started to become very popular over the years for lots of farmers and gardeners both. There are two types of trapping you might practice: trap and release, and lethal trapping. You might consider both options and choose the one that you think will most effectively get rid of the varmint, or varmints, who have been tampering with your garden. A couple of factors should go into your thought process. Keep in mind that live trapping is best suited for a single pest, as opposed to larger groups or populations of varmints that might be invading your area. Here are some tips for the first option of pest removal: Lethal Trapping: Alter your garden or habitat to make sure that the animal cannot fully escape if it somehow frees itself of the trap; this can be done by putting up wire or wooden fencing. Try your hardest not to make the trap obviously known to the intruder. To ensure that your trap is not discovered by the varmint, wear gloves to protect leaving traces of your scent. Know your predator. Understand the size and sturdiness of the type of animal that is intruding, and build a trap accordingly that matches the weight and size of the predator. Make sure that the trap is anchored to the ground so the animal cannot roll over in the trap and escape. Place plywood under the trap to ensure that the intruder does not scratch the garden or piece of land after he has been caught. Lure the animal to the trap, multiple times if necessary. To do this, start by leading a small trail of “treats” for the predator (these can be scraps of human food). Do not make the trail too obviously planted; the predators are smart and they might recognize that they are being tricked. Next, bait the trap but DO NOT set it just yet. You want to establish trust between the trap and the animal by showing that it has nothing to fear. This will get the intruder used to engaging with the trap and seeing it in a non-threatening way. For lethal trapping, make sure that you check the trap at least once a day and bury or empty the remains as soon as possible, to avoid any decomposition or smells lingering that might attract future or different predators. Disinfect the trap thoroughly with bleach after each catch. Rabies can be transmitted by saliva, and simply touching saliva residue can cause transmission of the disease – you don’t have to be bitten! Lethal trapping is just one option that will depend upon the size of your predator, how frequently it is visiting your garden, and what kind of damage it is inflicting. For smaller predators, such as squirrels, gophers, opossums, and skunks, you might consider trapping and releasing. Before you choose this option, however, remember that if not done properly, trapping and releasing can actually be a crueler method than lethal trapping, if the animal remains too long and is injured upon release. And as always, check with your state game officer to make sure that trapping and release is legal in your area; in some places, it is not. Read on for some helpful tips that will ensure your trapping and releasing is safe to both the predator, and your garden. Non-Lethal Trapping: Use caution when releasing all animals, especially the larger ones such as raccoons and skunks. The safest approach is tying a thick rope to the trap door. You’ll want to run the rope through an open window in your vehicle and park close enough to where you can use leverage to pull and open the trap door, but far enough away to avoid an angry predator. For nut-eating animals like chipmunks and squirrels, use traps made of metal. These creatures have sharp teeth and can easily chew through wooden traps. Predators like gophers and moles tend to be most active in the spring, and you should plan your traps according to this fertile season. For these predators, you will need to place the trap in a tunnel and disguise it well with soil. If you’re not having any luck within 2 or 3 days catching the intruder, try moving the trap and trying again (of course, handle with gloves to avoid leaving your scent.) Larger-sized varmints, such as raccoons and opossums, need to have their bait placed at the far back of the trap so it closes properly; otherwise, the animal could easily back out of the trap after feeding on the bait. Make sure these traps are strongly anchored, as the predator in question is larger in size. Take care when releasing these animals! For a skunk, cover your trap with a tarp or a dark piece of fabric, as skunks like to explore dark areas. This cover will also protect you if the skunk happens to spray once getting trapped. Woodchucks are another common predator, and a trap will need to be placed right at the sight of their burrow as soon as you spot them nesting. Woodchucks should only be trapped in the summer – trapping in the spring, like you might do for other predators, could endanger a burrow full of young and end up orphaning the babies. You have invested a lot of time and care in your gardens, and they deserve to be protected so they can thrive and bloom beautifully to their fullest potential! These tips will ensure that you will choose the correct option for the varmint that is spoiling your land, and will make certain that they will not be back for another unwelcome visit! Up Next: Salsa, Guac, Hummus Oh My! | The Perfect Springtime Trifecta Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and Facebook!

No Comment Kamala Strikes Again: Don't Ask My Position on Crime Bill?

Vaya Con Donald

Anomalien is now on Flipboard! By following us, you’ll get direct access to our curated mix of mind-bending articles, mysterious stories, and cutting-edge science updates. In addition to the latest updates, we’ll occasionally be sharing PREMIUM articles for free. This means our most exclusive content will be available for all followers on Flipboard, giving you a taste of the in-depth stories and insights we provide through our PLUS+ membership. Head over to Flipboard now and follow us! The post Follow Anomalien on Flipboard for Exclusive Content! appeared first on Anomalien.com.

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for TV public-affairs programs, insisted upon “strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” But that’s not what we’ve gotten It's a grand deception made all the more clear in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election. One candidate, Donald Trump, has been constantly attacked for several months leading up to the election on the weekday PBS News Hour. A separate half-hour show, PBS News Weekend, often runs evergreen-type stories that aren’t political news. But this weekend’s episodes also attacked Trump on several social issue fronts without any conservative rebuttal. Anchor John Yang teased a story at top of Saturday's show that carried the online title "Why anti-transgender political ads are dominating the airwaves this election.“ Anchor John Yang: Then, why anti transgender ads are dominating the airwaves this election. Woman: The group of people that are watching these sporting events are young men. And the Republican Party is trying to tap into what they hope is some level of fear that they can draw up from that group of people. (Note: The unidentified “woman” in the transcript above is actually biological male Erin Reed, a transgender activist and a guest in the relevant segment.) Yang: If you`ve watched TV this month, especially sports like football or baseball, you`ve likely seen campaign ads supporting Donald Trump by attacking Kamala Harris over transgender issues. Laura Baron-Lopez looks at what’s behind them. Laura Barron-Lopez: Less than 1 percent of the U.S. population identifies as transgender. But this election year, Republicans have spent a considerable amount of money on ads demonizing transgender people…. And PBS has spent a considerable amount of tax money spreading LGBTQ propaganda this election cycle, as NewsBusters has documented. PBS aired clips from the anti-Harris ad. Male voiceover: Kamala supports taxpayer funded sex changes for prisoners….Kamala even supports letting biological men compete against our girls in their sports. Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you. Barron-Lopez didn’t dare directly call those charges falsehoods, because every accusation made in the ads was factual. Then she introduced Erin Reed, a biological man and radical transgender activist, as “an advocate and independent journalist covering LGBTQ issues” and noted that she had recently endorsed (shocker!) Vice President Kamala Harris – perhaps PBS’s pathetic idea of disclosure, to go along Reed being PBS’s objective and balanced source on a controversial news topic. Barron-Lopez: Anti-trans rhetoric is a regular part of Donald Trump stump speeches. He regularly lies about kids going to school and receiving gender-affirming surgeries before they return home. But now, in the final stretch, Republicans have been putting out increasing amount of ads that are anti-trans, making it essentially their closing argument. Help us understand the scope and the rhetoric in these ads. Reed said she had “tracked around $100 million in ads” by Republicans. When asked why “Trump and his allies are making this one of their main closing arguments,” Reed responded: Reed: ….this is a classic fear campaign….And so the purpose of a fear campaign is to distract you from issues that you normally care about by making you so afraid of a group of people, of somebody like me, for instance, that you`re willing to throw everything else away because you`re scared. At least PBS aired part of an actual GOP ad, although only to invite Reed to deflate its points. Barron-Lopez: These ads make pretty specific claims about surgery for transgender inmates and undocumented immigrants. Let’s take a listen. Male voiceover: Under liberal border czar Kamala Harris, illegal aliens are pouring into our country, including murderers, rapists, and even terrorists. Instead of paying for their crimes and receiving justice, Kamala will give criminal illegal aliens taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries. Barron-Lopez set up Reed to discredit the accusations, but Reed couldn’t. Barron-Lopez: Walk us through the facts about what’s actually happened with those populations. Reed: What the ad is actually talking about is medical care in the United States is a right by the 8th Amendment, you cannot deny medical care to prisoners…. When asked about the “stakes in this election for transgender Americans,” Reed concluded that even if Trump loses, Reed will still be spreading fear. Reed: Even if Trump doesn’t win and we get a Kamala Harris presidency, we have to contend with a nation that has been primed to hate people like me. Reed also appeared on the PBS News Hour in March 2023 to discuss the tragically misnamed “gender-affirming care” for children, a few months after comparing GOP opposition to genital surgery and hormone therapy as "ongoing anti-trans genocide" on X. This LGBTQ propaganda piece was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 11/2/24 7:06:33 p.m. (ET) John Yang: If you've watched TV this month, especially sports like football or baseball, you've likely seen campaign ads supporting Donald Trump by attacking Kamala Harris over transgender issues. Laura Baron-Lopez looks at what's behind them. Laura Baron-Lopez: Less than 1 percent of the U.S. population identifies as transgender. But this election year, Republicans have spent a considerable amount of money on ads demonizing transgender people. From October 7th to the 20th, Trump's campaign and pro Trump groups spent an estimated $95 million and more than 41 percent of those ads were anti-trans. Man: Kamala supports taxpayer funded sex changes for prisoners. Woman: For prisoners. Kamala Harris: Surgery for prisoners. Every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access. Man: Hell no, I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to that. Man: Kamala supports transgender sex changes in jail without money. Man: Kamala even supports letting biological men compete against our girls in their sports. Kamala is for they, them. President Trump is for you. Laura Barron-Lopez: Erin Reed is an advocate and independent journalist covering LGBTQ issues and she tracks transgender legislation around the world. Recently, Erin announced her decision to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris in this year's presidential election. Erin, thank you so much for being here. Erin Reed, Independent Journalist and LGBTQ Plus Activist: Thank you so much for having me on. Laura Baron-Lopez: Anti-trans rhetoric is a regular part of Donald Trump some speeches. He regularly lies about kids going to school and receiving gender affirming surgeries before they return home. But now, in the final stretch, Republicans have been putting out increasing amount of ads that are anti-trans, making it essentially their closing argument. Help us understand the scope and the rhetoric in these ads. Erin Reed: I have tracked around $100 million in ads. We see Donald Trump spending more money on these ads than on housing, immigration, and the economy combined. This is a major issue for him. Meanwhile, you have groups like the Senate Leadership Fund dropping extreme amounts of money in Senate races in Ohio, in Michigan, in Pennsylvania, and they're all focused on transgender people. Laura Baron-Lopez: The top issues, according to most polls right now, is the economy, abortion, immigration. So why do you think Trump and his allies are making this one of their main closing arguments? Erin Reed: It's important to note that some of the biggest benefactors of the Republican Party, some of the most influential organizations in the party we're talking, groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, for instance, have made this their main issue. If you're running a campaign in a place like Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan at any level, and you want money in your campaign, targeting trans people is a really good way to do that. But as for Trump, I think that there's something different at play here. I think that this is a classic fear campaign. We've just got polling today showing that Harris is catching up on the economy and on other issues that Republicans tend to pull well in. And so the purpose of a fear campaign is to distract you from issues that you normally care about by making you so afraid of a group of people, of somebody like me, for instance, that you're willing to throw everything else away because you're scared. Laura Baron-Lopez: Who are these ads targeting? They run during major sporting events. They were just on during the World Series. Who is he trying to reach here? Erin Reed: The group of people that are watching these sporting events are young men. And I think in a lot of cases, the Republican Party is trying to tap into what they hope is some level of fear that they can draw up from that group of people. If you look at most polling and anecdotally, really, young people tend to understand trans people better than anybody else. They're not as afraid of us. And I think that might be part of why this messaging campaign might be falling short. Laura Baron-Lopez: These ads make pretty specific claims about surgery for transgender inmates and undocumented immigrants. Let's take a listen. Man: Under liberal border czar Kamala Harris, illegal aliens are pouring into our country, including murderers, rapists, and even terrorists. Instead of paying for their crimes and receiving justice, Kamala will give criminal illegal aliens to taxpayer funded transgender surgeries. Laura Baron-Lopez: Walk us through the facts about what's actually happened with those populations. Erin Reed: What the ad is actually talking about is medical care in the United States is a right by the 8th amendment. You cannot deny medical care to prisoners. And under the law, a law that was in place during the Trump administration, if a doctor determines that an inmate needs medical care, then they get it. So these ads are actually focused on two instances where a transgender person received gender affirming care in prison, a surgery. And the amount of money spent on these particular cases is far less than the amount of advertising dollars that Trump is pouring into this issue. About 2 to 400 times more money is being used in political ads to make you afraid of two transgender inmates. So afraid that you're not going to care about the economy anymore, you're not going to care about abortion anymore. Laura Baron-Lopez: Erin, when you take a step back, what are the stakes in this election for transgender Americans? Erin Reed: It's been an especially difficult year in the last two or three years for trans people. Just two days ago in Odessa, Texas, they passed a $10,000 bounty on trans people found in the bathroom. I've been tracking anti LGBTQ legislation for years now. And it's not just the ads. The legislatures themselves are spending more time on this issue than anything else. This has been priority number one. And the trans people that live in these states, they constantly have to hear their humanity debated in public. They constantly have to worry about things that I think a lot of Americans take for granted, things like going to the bathroom, getting an updated driver's license, playing a school sport with your friends. But trans people right now are under a relentless assault by the Republican Party. These bills are passing in primarily Republican states. Even if Trump doesn't win and we get a Kamala Harris presidency, we have to contend with a nation that has been primed to hate people like me. Laura Baron-Lopez: Erin Reed, thank you for your time. Erin Reed: Thank you so much for having me.

Sixty years ago this week, Ronald Reagan delivered a speech in support of Barry Goldwater’s presidential bid. It was dubbed “A Time for Choosing.” Re-reading the speech, or watching it on YouTube, is a reminder how little has changed in six decades. Some of the issues debated in 1964 are still being argued and unresolved today. On taxes and spending, Reagan noted: “Thirty-seven cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend$ 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years.” In fiscal 2024, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury, “approximately $0.43 out of every dollar goes to the government” And the debt is $35 trillion, making the 1964 debt look like chump change. This line captured the essence of Reagan’s philosophy and would define conservatism for decades to come: “This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” The only difference between then and now in this excerpt are the names: “…they have voices that say, ‘The Cold War will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.’ Another voice says, ‘The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.’ Or, ‘Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.’ Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as ‘our moral teacher and our leader,’ and he says he is ‘hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.’ He must ‘be freed,’ so that he ‘can do for us’ what he knows ‘is best.’ And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as ‘meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.’" Is that not a fair comparison between the philosophies of today’s Democrats and Republicans (however crass the language employed by Donald Trump)? The debate about government’s role in individual lives and businesses is also nothing new. Reagan put it best when he said: “…the full power of centralized government was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.” Reagan had a way of communicating great truths to average people in his storytelling and analogies, such as this one: “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer – and they’ve had almost 30 years of it – shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help?” They cannot because government doesn’t solve many problems, or as Reagan often said, “government is the problem.” While Goldwater lost the election, the speech catapulted Reagan to national attention and in 1980 to the presidency. It’s worth reading to see how little has changed and how it is still a time for choosing.

Election Day is here, and the stakes for America could not be higher. With just one day to go, pollsters are putting out all kinds of predictions, from neck-and-neck races to forecasts of a sweeping blowout. The picture is murky, and even polling expert Nate Silver acknowledges that critical factors could push this election in either direction. We need to pay attention.Let’s start with one of the most telling indicators in American politics: to what extent the American people believe the country is on the right track. President Ronald Reagan made this question a crucial barometer in his 1980 presidential campaign, and it has remained a crucial campaign question ever since. According to CNN, only 28% of Americans currently believe the country is headed in the right direction. Gallup’s version is even more dismal at 26%. That is a startingly low number, especially given its historical precedent.The low “right direction” numbers indicate widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo — a red flag for the Democrats.Since 1980, in the 11 presidential elections in which the incumbent party has lost the White House, only 25% of Americans on average believed that the country was headed in the right direction. The lowest point was 11% in 2008, right before the financial crisis hammered the nation. The result? A massive win for the Democrats, led by Barack Obama, which flipped the White House from Republican to Democrat. What’s the takeaway? When “right direction” numbers are this low, the incumbent party historically struggles to retain the White House.But we can’t rely on historical precedent alone to predict this election, and here’s why: Kamala Harris is running instead of the actual incumbent, Joe Biden. But history still has some lessons to offer. When sitting presidents decide not to run for re-election, it rarely ends well for their party — especially for Democrats. This situation has only happened seven times in U.S. history: four for Democrats and three for Republicans.All four times Democrats opted for a successor — James K. Polk, James Buchanan, Harry Truman, and Lyndon B. Johnson — their party lost the White House. By contrast, when Republicans have done the same, their party’s successor won. Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, and Calvin Coolidge all managed to hand off power successfully.The lesson? Democrats fare poorly when they try to swap out an incumbent president.Where does that leave us in 2024? The low “right direction” numbers indicate widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo — a red flag for the Democrats. If that historical precedent doesn’t keep Kamala Harris from the White House, perhaps Joe Biden not running for re-election will.To prevent Kamala Harris from occupying the Oval Office, one certain action remains: voting. Pollsters predict this will be one of the closest elections in our nation’s history. That outcome isn’t inevitable, though. We all have the power to shape it by exercising our sacred right to vote. The future of our republic depends on it.Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Heavily Democratic cities are now in the habit of boarding up windows and shuttering businesses ahead of political events that might upset local leftists. That is certainly the case with Washington, D.C., which erected "Black Lives Matter"-branded plywood boards and fencing outside of stores ahead of the 2020 election and saw businesses brace for chaos again when Roe v. Wade was overturned. Some businesses in the city also took precautions ahead of the January 2017 anti-Trump riots, where all the rioters ultimately got off scot-free, as well as ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, protests, where rioters were held to a different standard. Possibly anticipating more chaos in the District of Columbia, where 92.1% of the vote in the last presidential election went to Joe Biden, businesses are once again reinforcing their windows and preparing for potentially "fiery but mostly peaceful protests." Resident Stacy Snyder told WJLA-TV, "Hopefully no riots. Nobody wants to see anyone get hurt or any damage. After what happened last time, I guess, you have to be prepared for anything. So, like I said, better safe than sorry." Ebony Boger, who works downtown, indicated she recently received an email from building management indicating it was going to fortify the exterior. "It's not shocking. I'm kind of used to it. I think they should do it," said Boger. The managers of various buildings confirmed to WJLA that the election was the reason behind the plywood reinforcement. According to the Washington Post, some business and property owners have also boosted their private security in anticipation of possible riots and looting. 'If people choose to riot, I feel like we need to listen to the people.' Leon Beresford, executive vice president of Admiral Security Services, indicated that his company, which provides security to 150 commercial office buildings in D.C., is mobilizing around 2,000 guards in time for Election Day. "People would rather be overprepared and have nothing happen, as opposed to the alternative," said Eric Jones, vice president of government affairs for the Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington. Washington Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela A. Smith said at a press conference last week, "I want to be very clear: We will not tolerate any violence of any kind. We will not tolerate any riots. We will not tolerate the destruction of property. We will not tolerate any unlawful behavior. Offenders will be arrested and will be held accountable." Smith indicated that well over 3,000 police officers will be working 12-hour shifts through the election. Storefronts in Portland, Oregon — another heavily Democratic city — have similarly disappeared behind protective boards. While big-name businesses like Chase Bank have reinforced their establishments, some have alternatively chosen to trust the mob. Katherine Morgan, the owner of the relatively new Grand Gestures Books, told KATU-TV, "When I got the business, the windows were boarded up because of the protest, and they just never came down. For me, if people choose to riot, I feel like we need to listen to the people." Morgan indicated she won't be boarding up her establishment, noting, "I'm someone who believes in protesting, I'm someone who believes in doing whatever you can for your voice to be heard." Real estate developer Jordan Schnitzer told the Oregonian he is praying his building will go unscathed. "If your sports team loses, do you go out and break windows?" said Schnitzer. "In this day and age to see that this type of behavior in America is so commonplace is heartbreaking." Portland Police Chief Bob Day said last week, "We never can eliminate risk, but the confidence that I have in our community, the confidence I have in our law enforcement response, I'm really hopeful that that's not going to be necessary." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Fans at a Buffalo Bills NFL game on Sunday were shocked when they were told that no political clothing could be worn inside the venue.During a 30-27 win over the Miami Dolphins, fans were approached by a stadium official who told them a "Trump 2024" shirt was prohibited.Video was posted online showing the fan's shirt — which also sported the "America First" slogan — and his interaction with a security official.'It's not a "Trump shirt." It's nothing political.'The exchange picks up already in progress, with one fan heard off-screen saying, "[It's] NFL policy that he can't wear his Trump shirt?""100% false!" another fan chimed in.."It's not a 'Trump shirt.' It's nothing political," a man in sunglasses and a headset tells the fans.The security guard was wearing a shirt that read "Allied Universal," which is listed online as a facility services company."So according to the NFL policy, you cannot wear anything political at all?" a shocked fan repeated back."We're in a free country!" another fan also yelled in disagreement. It turns out that while there is no NFL policy regarding political speech or clothing, the Bills home venue, Highmark Stadium, does indeed have its own policy.According to the stadium guide, "Clothing or material with profane language or obscene graphics or anything political in nature" is prohibited from the venue.This rule also extends to signs and graphics.Until very recently, the stadium guide differed from the generic "gate entry and permitted items" page, which listed only "clothing or material with profane language or obscene graphics."However, during the writing of this article, that page was updated to include "anything political in nature" and now matches the stadium guide.The NFL's fan code of conduct does not appear to prohibit fans from wearing clothing with political messages but does prevent players from wearing political statements on their uniform or helmet."The League will not grant permission for any club or player to wear, display, or otherwise convey messages ... which relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes or campaigns," the NFL rulebook states.This does not appear to cover a recent incident with San Francisco 49ers defensive end Nick Bosa. Bosa crashed a post-game interview sporting a "Make America Great Again" hat, causing his teammates to burst into laughter.Bosa later explained he felt it was "an important time" to promote the message.Similarly, 49ers offensive lineman Jon Feliciano defended a recent Donald Trump rally at Madison Square Garden. Feliciano said that he didn't believe critics were actually outraged when they claimed certain jokes told at the rally were offensive.Trump, Elon Musk, and former Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Antonio Brown and running back Le'Veon Bell have all appeared at recent NFL games to promote Trump's presidential candidacy. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Months before Joe Biden stepped out of the presidential race, Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” predicted that would be the exact outcome. Bill Maher, despite claiming he likes Rubin, did not agree in the slightest. “This is a done deal,” Maher told Jillian Michaels in an interview on “Club Random with Bill Maher.” “There’s no serious people running against him and now the primary season is underway.” “The rumors that even Dave Rubin and Megyn Kelly are talking about, that when they get to the Democratic convention, he’s going to quietly be like, ‘Oh you know what, not going to do it,’ and then somebody will slot themselves in,” Michaels argued back. “This is pure conjecture. This is just people making s*** up,” Maher responded, while Michaels continued arguing that “respectable people in the news are suggesting it’s a possibility.” “I like both Megyn and Dave, they’re respectable,” Maher said. “These two have a lot of looney ideas also, right-wing looney ideas.” “This is something just something they pulled out of their a**, and it’s not going to happen,” he added. The old clip has Rubin understandably amused, as shortly after Biden quietly dropped out of the 2024 election. “Pulled it out of my a** man,” Rubin laughs. 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.