The Democrats were distraught when Rachel Maddow negotiated with her Comcast paymasters to do her show only one night a week. What would the Left do with their Maddow magic cut by 80%? For media critics, Maddow has been tougher to analyze as a cable “news” host. She goes on long pseudo-intellectual benders of historical analysis and then tries to bring it right up to today’s politics. She especially loves identifying Hitler sympathizers from the 1930s and attaching it to today’s Republicans. It’s like making Joy Reid sound more ponderous and in-depth, even if it’s not. On Monday, on the cusp of the vice presidential debate, Maddow naturally sought to connect Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, to a series of antisemitic and fascist revolutionaries who wanted the universities destroyed in the 1930s and 1940s because they spread “communistic” ideas. Viewers were “treated” to nine minutes of this lecture, which began with the founder of Walgreens dragging his niece out of the University of Chicago. Then came more “unearthed” video of Vance from 2021, before he ran for the Senate. Vance gave a speech titled “The Universities Are the Enemy.” To Maddow, this sounds like the hayseeds are against “book learning.” Or Vance is rebelling against his time at Yale Law School? We’re supposed to overlook that you can barely find a conservative professor in our most prestigious institutions of higher education. The last survey found only 1% of Harvard professors identified as conservative. The idea that “Harvard hates America” has been around for decades, and it’s been true for decades.  As Vance put it, “You go to Harvard and put your preferred pronouns in your bio and learn to hate people in the heartland.” Vance dared to say, “The universities do not pursue knowledge and truth. They pursue deceit and lies.” They are “fundamentally corrupt.” This sounds like MSNBC talking about Fox News and Newsmax. But worse yet, Vance is also upset about woke corporations—like Maddow’s DEI paymasters at Comcast. So Maddow warned Vance has “a larger plan to destroy all the things which conservatives don’t have complete control over.” It’s like MSNBC wants all Republicans to sound like “MSNBC Republicans.” This is a fascinating claim at a time when former Secretary of State John Kerry is complaining at the World Economic Forum that “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence.” They pose as guardians of democracy, but they can’t really stand it in practice. Then she found Vance in a podcast talking about anti-Americanism in the schools and how we should “rip out like a tumor the current American leadership class and then reinstall some sense of American political religion.” That’s easy to say, but pretty impossible to accomplish. Wild talk of firing all the professors, all the government employees, and “draining the swamp,” scares the Left, but it’s not something you can do in a democratic system. Vance made all these remarks before being elected to the Senate, so it might be interesting now to learn how much he thinks can be accomplished by joining the so-called swamp in Washington. In the end, Maddow thinks it’s incredibly weird to associate college professors with Marxism, but she doesn’t think it’s a wacky conspiracy theory to find some villainous Hitler sympathizer from the 1930s and staple them to JD Vance, who is not a neo-Nazi. A Rachel Maddow puppet is featured in “Let’s Be Real,” a comedy special covering politics, pop culture, and the 2020 election on Oct. 1, 2020, on the Fox News Channel. Maddow fancies herself a historian and seems to be obsessed with WWII-era fascism. (Fox/Getty Images) What Maddow does isn’t “news.” It’s hurling nasty invective in a way that sounds like she’s reading a term paper—one that deserves a failing grade. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Pseudo-Historian Maddow Smears Vance as Fascist Speech-Squelcher appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. New legislative proposals in Australia, that those behind them say are aimed at curbing “disinformation,” are rejected by opponents as the biggest yet assault on free opinion and speech in the country. The biggest such attack, at least “in peacetime” – this is how Institute of Public Affairs Director of Law and Policy John Storey qualified what he sees in this unprecedented effort – but the Australian authorities have been engaged in their “war on disinformation” for a while now. We obtained a copy of the bill for you here. The bill containing the new laws was introduced in parliament earlier in September by Communications Minister Michelle Rowland, who continued to brand what the government decided to consider as misinformation and disinformation “a serious threat” that affects Australia’s safety and well-being. Peacetime? Judging by this rhetoric, it doesn’t sound like the country’s ruling class is living in any kind of political peacetime. In order to establish their version of the ideal, threat-free society, the laws would fine companies deemed to be enabling disinformation, etc., on their platforms by taking up to five percent of their global revenue. In order to prevent the proliferation of “disinformation,” companies are expected to introduce (yet more) rules (“codes of contact”) that deal with it via “an approved regulator.” More transparency and accountability is how Rowland chose to interpret the situation, should the proposals become law (the goal is to get this done by the end of 2024). The opposition is warning that several other provisions (up to seven years of prison time in cases of doxxing, and giving parents the right to sue, if they feel their children are subjected to “serious privacy invasions”) – will in reality produce a chilling effect on political speech as well. The reason for this angle in criticizing the proposals championed by Rowland is the (usual for this type of effort) wide-ranging nature of the draft legislation. Wide enough, in fact, to apply to election candidates and referendum proposals, a spokesman for the Australian opposition Coalition was warned. Hand in hand with the hunger for sweeping powers, with disinformation scaremongering at the center, come vague definitions. The spokesman, David Coleman, says that the legal proposal seeks to treat something as misinformation if it can be “reasonably verifiable” (by whom, based on what exact criteria?) as false, misleading, or deceptive information – but also “reasonably likely ” to cause serious harm or contribute to it. Applied to the election process, this means whatever’s decided to be misinformation about candidates and referendum proposals. “By stating in black and white that ‘information about electoral candidates or referendum proposals’ can be captured as misinformation, the government is making clear that this legislation will go to the core of our democracy,” Coleman commented. The spokesman also noted that the bill wants to put tech companies in a position where they decide – while facing massive monetary fines or even prison – what kind of information relating to elections and referendums should be available to Australians. Of interest, as an insight into the way the Australian government thinks about and treats these issues, is that the current proposal it seeks to fast-track in parliament is actually the “second draft” to change the existing anti-disinformation laws. The government had to abandon the first over much the same type of criticism. X owner Elon Musk decided to rattle yet another government’s cage for its anti-free speech policies – and pressure put on social platforms – referring to those behind Australia’s proposals as “fascists.” This hasn’t failed to elicit a response, where Labor Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones dismissed Musk’s opinion as “crackpot” and decided to play the sovereignty card. It’s up to the Australian government what it does to Australians, is the gist of the “argument.” And Jones added combating scammers and criminals to Rowland’s list of “serious threats to safety and well-being.” Institute of Public Affairs’ John Storey, however, sees this dramatic talk about big problems and consequences to be allegedly solved by the bill as “disingenuous.” The real goal, according to him – (and no doubt bearing in mind the broadness and vagueness of it all, from the scope to the “definitions”) – is no more than an attempt to let government bureaucrats position themselves as arbiters of “official” truth. Political censorship will be the result, Storey believes, and the government is pushing the bill while (ab)using legitimate worries about Australia’s societal issues, as well as those parents have about their children’s safety on the internet. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Australia’s Free Speech Crosshairs: Sweeping Anti-Disinformation Bill Draws Fierce Backlash appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

More People Trying to Get Into North Korea?

The animal's wound looked old and it had been eating normally until it was caught off the southern Albanian coast.

The roots of human facial expressions might go back a very long way.

The Mount Po Ma Lung toothed toad has a row of tiny teeth on the roof of its mouth.

ABC’s Good Morning America upheld its distinction Wednesday as the worst of the liberal broadcast network as they framed Tuesday’s lone vice presidential debate through the lens of the liberal media’s pet issues — abortion and January 6 — and arguing the election’s “really not...about policy” or pesky concerns Americans have about their livelihoods. Rather, it’s about stopping Republican Senator JD Vance (OH) and boosting Democratic Governor Tim Walz (MN). The worst came in the so-called analysis section. Co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos began with correspondent Mary Bruce — who’s Disney’s in-house North Korean news lady for the left — to explain away Walz’s performance, remarking that “the Harris campaign zeroing in on that last question” on January 6.     Bruce giddily proclaimed that back-and-forth “was the moment that defined this debate” for her friends in the Harris-Walz camp in which Walz “defend[ed] the Constitution”, revealing “they are rushing to get out an ad on that exchange what — what Walz called — Walz — what Walz called Vance’s damning non-answer.” Bruce downplayed Walz’s struggling performance, insisting he only needed “a little while to hit his stride” and shake off “the nerves” before he could “articulate the issue[s].” Chief Washington correspondent and three-time anti-Trump author Jonathan Karl was supposed to talk about how the Trump-Vance team is reacting to the latter’s debate performance, but largely deemed that irrelevant. After wish-casting discord (without evidence) on the ticket with Trump being jealous of Vance’s accolades, Karl groused that Vance was “civil”, “rational,” and “very reasonable” before moving onto what he thinks the election is about. Karl first seemed to take a dig at CBS moderators Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Donnell by lamenting it took “90 minutes into this debate before you hit the fact that this is not a normal election, that Donald Trump tried to overturn the last election.” “[I]n that last answer, what you saw is J.D. Vance saying he wouldn’t do what Mike Pence did. He wouldn’t stand up to Donald Trump if he tried to do it again. He would help him and he would have helped him last time overturn an American democratic election,” he added, showing more passion about that than Americans struggling to buy groceries or a home. Karl tripled down this should define the election: “You finally got to that at the end. But, for the first 90 minutes or so, this looked like it is simply a campaign about policy differences. And it’s really not, George. It is more than that.” Stephanopoulos — who reportedly makes $15 million and thus doesn’t have to care about the economy — agreed: “It is. It is absolutely stunning the only time in American history it has ever happened.” Rewinding to the start of the show, Stephanopoulos hit that note in the opening tease: “Vance refuses to admit Trump lost the 2020 election as they sparred over the economy, immigration, and abortion.” ABC had its resident Trump-hating correspondent Rachel Scott on the case for the traditional segment offering debate highlights. After noting the lack of “name calling” and “personal insults”, she went to January 6: Overnight, in what is likely the last debate before the November election, the two vice presidential candidates sparring over the results of the last election with Senator JD Vance refusing to admit his running mate, Donald Trump, lost. After back and forth with two Walz soundbites and one from Vance, Scott kept beating the dead horse: “Tim Walz challenging Vance to say Trump was defeated, pointing out Trump’s former Vice President, Mike Pence wasn’t on the debate stage because he stood up to him on January 6th.” Scott broadened out, briefly acknowledging “[m]uch of the debate was civil and cordial, focused on policy, from immigration to abortion rights” even though “Walz got off to a shaky start, appearing to be nervous” and “mixing up Israel and Iran.” “Both candidates asked to explain their past comments. Walz asked about false claims he made that he was in Hong Kong during the democracy protests back in 1989...and Vance pressed on his own words from 2016, claiming Trump was unfit for the nation’s highest office,” she added. The niceties ended there as she used the rest to lambaste Vance over abortion and the hubbub surrounding Springfield, Ohio and then Trump as a coward for not wanting a second debate with Vice President Harris (click “expand”):  SCOTT: Vance was more measured than he has been on the campaign trail. After amplifying false claims that Haitian migrants in his home state of Ohio were eating neighborhood pets, the Ohio senator now shying away from it on the debate stage. But, after an intense exchange on the issue, the moderators muting the candidates microphones. Vance cut off. MARGARET BRENNAN: Gentlemen, the audience can’t hear you because your mics are cut. We have so much we want to get to. Thank you for explaining the legal process. SCOTT: The other major issue? Abortion rights. Walz placing the blame on Donald Trump for sweeping abortion restrictions in nearly two dozen states, telling the story of women impacted by the bans. WALZ: How can we as a nation say that your life and your rights as basic as the right to control your own body is determined on geography? SCOTT: And Donald Trump has bragged about appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, but Vance acknowledging Republicans have to do better on this issue. VANCE: My party, we’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American people’s trust back on this issue where they frankly just don’t trust us And I think that’s one of the things that Donald Trump and I are endeavoring to do. I want us, as a Republican Party, to be pro-family in the fullest sense of the word. SCOTT: Yeah, the Trump campaign trying to make some inroads with likely female voters. So, this debate was civil. At times they even acknowledged where they have common ground. It was a much different tone from the last two presidential debates. But Donald Trump is holding firm. He made it clear he is not interested in another debate with Vice President Kamala Harris calling it too late even though he has participated in debates in late October in both 2016 and 2020[.] To see the relevant ABC transcript from October 2, click here.

For years, people have dreamed about self-driving cars, imagining a futuristic world where autonomous vehicles whisk us around without a human behind the wheel. For many, this future always seems too far away to take seriously. What millions of Americans fail to realize, however, is that this future likely isn’t far off. In fact, the era of self-driving vehicles has already begun. It is imperative that we acknowledge this reality and start asking crucial questions, including: Will self-driving cars enhance society, and will they threaten any of our liberties? In the not-so-distant future, you could find yourself unable to summon a car because your intended destination is a controversial political rally, or perhaps you will be denied because of posts you make on social media. When it comes to technological revolutions, we have been down this road before. In retrospect, new technologies often seem as though they were inevitable and appeared overnight. In reality, the mass adoption of technologies we rely on today took time to reach their current state of ubiquity. One could argue that the age of cell phones began in the 1980s when large, clunky, and expensive models became available to the general public. As the technology advanced, society saw a rapid adoption through the late 1990s into the early 2000s. Now, we can barely imagine a world without cell phones. Similar timelines occurred for the development of the internet, social media, and myriad other technologies. One day, people will think of self-driving cars in a similar way. Contrary to popular belief, tremendous progress has been made in recent years in the development of self-driving technology. Tesla’s autopilot features are already in use on public roadways. Waymo’s self-driving taxis are now operational in several cities. Companies like Cruise and Uber are racing to join the autonomous vehicle revolution. What once seemed like a distant vision is quickly becoming part of our present. The groundwork has been laid, and while most people may not yet be ready to rely on autonomous vehicles for their daily commutes, we are undeniably at the dawn of a new age of transportation. The question is not whether self-driving cars will become part of our daily lives but how they will transform the way we move, interact, and live. Perhaps most importantly, who will control that transformation? In the future, you’ll own nothing For more than a century, owning a car has been a symbol of independence and mobility. Today, most people own their own vehicles, allowing them to hop behind the wheel and travel anywhere they wish. While you might think a transition to self-driving cars would not alter this relationship, it is likely that the future of autonomous vehicles won’t look like the world we’ve become accustomed to. Instead, we’re likely to see fleets of self-driving cars controlled by a few massive corporations, offering transportation as a service instead of as a tangible product. For many families, self-driving cars will be far too expensive to own. Renting will be the only way to take advantage of this new technology. Uber and Google’s Waymo have already begun to position themselves as leaders in this new transportation paradigm. Rather than selling cars to individuals, these corporations envision a system where people no longer own vehicles but summon autonomous cars on demand, much like using a ride-sharing app. Google’s Waymo is currently leading the way in this regard. With more than 20 million miles driven, Waymo boasts of having self-driving taxis serving customers in several major U.S. cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. In August 2024, Waymo announced it surpassed 100,000 paid trips per week, a significant milestone for the company. The largest ride-sharing company in the world, Uber, is getting into the self-driving game too. Just a few weeks ago, Waymo and Uber announced a partnership that would make autonomous cars available on the Uber app for customers in Austin, Texas, and Atlanta, Georgia, in 2025. This announcement comes only months after a similar agreement was struck between Uber and General Motors’ Cruise company. Google, Uber, and General Motors are not the only ones pushing society toward this transportation model, either. Amazon, another one of the largest technology companies in the world, has a project called Zoox, which also imagines a world where self-driving cars are offered as a service rather than a product. Following Uber's playbook, this new transportation system will be touted as safe, efficient, and, most of all, convenient. You won’t need to worry about parking or maintaining your car. You won’t need to buy insurance or new tires. You will simply order a ride through an app on your phone — whenever you want, wherever you want. Potential harms However, despite the remarkable benefits offered by self-driving technology and centralized ownership of transportation, the proliferation of self-driving vehicles poses many potential threats to freedom as well. For example, in a world where most people rely on corporate-controlled fleets, mobility can be controlled by the businesses that own and operate the vehicles, not individuals. When it comes to transportation, Americans could soon find themselves at the mercy of a few powerful tech companies, such as Google, Amazon, and Uber. If they own a large percentage of the vehicles in an area, they, not the citizens, will have the power to determine how, when, and where people can travel. This is where things get really troubling. Imagine these fleets of self-driving cars being run like today’s social media platforms. Social media companies have immense control over the flow of information, deciding what content gets seen and what gets suppressed. What if the same principle were applied to transportation? In a world where a few corporations control most of the vehicles on the road, it’s not far-fetched to imagine these companies exerting similar control over where you can go and how you get there. What happens if a corporation decides to restrict access to certain areas? What if certain groups are denied access to transportation based on their political beliefs, in the same way social media platforms ban or restrict users? And what happens when these companies start collecting and monetizing data about our every move — just as they do with our online activity? What if all vehicle travel is limited to battle climate change or some other alleged environmental crisis? In the not-so-distant future, you could find yourself unable to summon a car because your intended destination is a controversial political rally, or perhaps you will be denied because of posts you make on social media. Ride-sharing apps have already taken actions like these in the past. Corporations could also use advanced algorithms to dictate which neighborhoods deserve better service or which routes should be ignored entirely. The debates over self-driving cars should not merely be about convenience or safety. Perhaps our biggest concern should be liberty. If we’re not careful, we could be handing over control of our basic mobility to massive corporations with a long track record of bias and questionable judgment. The era of self-driving cars is not some distant piece of science fiction. It’s here now, and it’s time to start taking it seriously.

In a recent broadcast on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Maher took a surprising stance in fierce defense of the U.S. Constitution. “Constitution Day was last week. It’s an actual federal holiday, but no one noticed despite the fact that it’s probably the greatest legal document ever. Is it flawed? Of course; it was written by humans,” Maher told his audience before criticizing the education system for the lack of importance placed on the document. “Only 14% of 8th graders are proficient in history now, and only 22% in civics, which may be why four in 10 Gen Zers say that the authors are best described as ‘villains,’” he continued, adding, “It’s amazing since in 1776, Alexander Hamilton was 21, and James Madison, 25. Joe Biden was only 30.” “America’s Founders, they were the Gen Z of their day. And when they were your age, they started a country. What the f*** have you done?” He then asked. Maher went on to note that our Founders made compromises, like slavery, calling history “complicated” while “Gen Z reasoning is not.” “They think they’re pure, but they’re really just simplistic. They know two things: White people did some very bad things and ... no, that’s it. That’s all they have,” he finished to cheers. Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed” is impressed, exclaiming, “Really good, wow.” “Not only a defense of the Constitution but of the Founders as well,” Keith Malinak agrees. “For Bill Maher to understand and explain that, that’s incredible,” Gray adds. Want more from Pat Gray?To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed in an op-ed Tuesday that the Biden-Harris administration has been successful in bolstering America's international image and geopolitical position as compared with four years ago. Blinken's thesis and remaining credibility did not survive the day. Within hours of publication, Iran — afforded access to billions of dollars by the Democratic administration despite its murder of American soldiers in Jordan — attacked Israel. Blinken, no stranger to humiliation, has since been met with widespread ridicule. In the foreign affairs op-ed, Blinken claimed that when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris came into office, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China "were already aggressively challenging U.S. interests" despite years of relative peace under President Donald Trump. "These countries believed that the United States was in irreversible decline at home and divided from its friends abroad," wrote Blinken. "They saw an American public that had lost its faith in government, an American democracy that was polarized and paralyzed, and an American foreign policy that was undermining the very alliances, international institutions, and norms that Washington had built and championed." According to the alleged architect of the misleading Hunter Biden "intel" letter that impacted the 2020 election, this Democratic administration has worked hard to successfully counter such perceptions with a "strategy of renewal." "The Biden administration's strategy has put the United States in a much stronger geopolitical position today than it was four years ago," wrote Blinken. 'An end zone dance by Blinken as the world burns.' The secretary appeared keen to gloss over, spin, or ignore various signals and causes of America's deteriorating position, deterrence, and perception over the past four years, including: the illegal entry of over 10 million illegal aliens into the homeland; the administration's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan and armament of the Taliban; the Russian invasion of Ukraine; military recruitment issues; brazen attacks on American embassies and on troops; routine attacks by Houthi terrorists on ships in the Red Sea; the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks on Israel; growing Sino-Russian cooperation in the face of the Biden-Harris administration's failed sanctions; North Korean missile launches over Japan and around Korea despite American warnings; the continued rise of the communist Chinese-led intergovernmental organization BRICS; and Saudi Arabia's increasing drift from the U.S. dollar. "Time and again, the Biden administration has demonstrated that the United States is the country others can rely on to help solve their biggest problems," wrote Blinken. The secretary suggested further that the Biden-Harris administration's strategy was geared toward deterring aggression, adding that, in the case of Iran, "we increased diplomatic pressure and strengthened the US military's force posture to deter and constrain Tehran." Iran fired over 180 missiles through Blinken's propaganda about strength and deterrence on Tuesday, striking targets in Israel. Israeli military spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari indicated that while the country's air defenses were able to take down numerous incoming missiles, some still managed to land in central and southern Israel, reported the Associated Press. Responding to the suggestion online that "it took less than a day for it to age like milk," Donald Trump Jr. said of Blinken's op-ed, "Yikes." Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) called Blinken "totally delusional." "Secretary of State Antony Blinken wrote an oped *TODAY* about how great the Biden admin is on international relations and Iran," wrote Libs of TikTok. "We're on the verge of WW3 and we don't have a President. The entire administration is completely incompetent. Has anything aged so bad so fast?" Conservative columnist Joe Concha tweeted, "Oh. Ok. An end zone dance by Blinken as the world burns. Great job everyone." "Timing is the essence of comedy," wrote Federalist CEO Sean Davis. Former Trump intelligence official Ezra Cohen noted, "This is Soviet-level cognitive dissonance from @SecBlinken." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!