CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta welcomed a four-person panel on Friday to explain Vice President Kamala Harris’s appeal to Gen Z voters. He wondered if old people simply don’t get it while other panelists tried to hype her as the “cool aunt.” One of Acosta’s guests was Time senior correspondent Charlotte Alter and Acosta began by noting that Harris is “vastly outperforming Biden right now with young voters by 16 percentage points.” He then asked her, “What is stirring this excitement? I mean, I think I remember at the time when she made that comment about the context in which we all live. I mean, people were, you know, criticizing that as being a bit of a word salad. But, you know, I've heard from a lot of younger folks over the last several days who just love that comment. So, I mean, is it just like the older folks not getting with the younger folks are thinking these days? What do you think?”     Alter wasn’t convinced it wasn’t just grumpy old people not being up with the youths, but a combination of anti-Trumpism and anti-Bidenism, “And you would see in the polling over the course of this whole year, younger voters saying over and over again, we want somebody else, we want somebody else. We don't want these same old, got two old white guys over and over again. Not just any old white guys, the same two old white guys who ran last time. You'd see that over and over in the polling.” Gen Z liberals can hype someone’s race and gender as a way to hype their candidates, but when Republicans notice, Acosta and his guests will cry racism. Later in the segment, Acosta turned to Voters of Tomorrow Executive Director Santiago Mayer and wondered, “How can Kamala Harris lean into these viral moments… of what the young people call ‘cringe’ which even somebody of advanced age like myself, I know what that means. I’m also capable of cringe moments myself, but how does the candidate not fall into that trap?” For Mayer, Harris simply has to be herself, “I think that as long as she remains true to who she is, she will be just fine, and I think that's really why we're seeing sort of a social media movement that we're seeing behind her because she is very relatable.” He insisted that Harris is just a bundle of fun, “She is fun, you were showing some of the videos with the Brat music and at the end of the day, what is being a Brat, if not being true to yourself and real and authentic and I think that as long as that continues to be the case, as long as she's not doing anything that she's not, like, perceived to be true to herself, she's going to be fine. I think she is someone who comes across as very fun, as very engaging, is very relatable.” Mayer also claimed, “I can tell you that's been my experience with her whenever I've interacted with her, and she is someone who really cares about people and is sort of like a cool aunt in a lot of ways, so I think as long as that continues to be the message and that continues to be the image, the memes are going to continue to be successful, and the campaign is going to continue to lean into it.” Perhaps the only thing more cringe-inducing than a presidential candidate being called “Brat,” is CNN devoting entire segments to aid the campaign’s effort to brand their candidate as one of the cool kids. Here is a transcript for the July 26 show: CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta 7/26/2024 10:25 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: And, Charlotte, a new poll shows Harris pretty much just vastly outperforming Biden right now with young voters by 16 percentage points. That's according to this latest New York Times/Siena College poll. What is stirring this excitement? I mean, I think I remember at the time when she made that comment about the context in which we all live. I mean, people were, you know, criticizing that as being a bit of a word salad. But, you know, I've heard from a lot of younger folks over the last several days who just love that comment. So, I mean, is it just like the older folks not getting with the younger folks are thinking these days? What do you think? CHARLOTTE ALTER: So, I don't -- it's a great question. I don't actually think it has very much to do with that comment at all. I think we've seen since 2016, in the 2018 midterms, in the 2020 election, and then in the 2022 midterms as well, young voters do not like Trumpism. Millennials and Gen Z are not very attracted to MAGA at all. Instead, the problem for this administration in this race has been that these younger voters weren't particularly attracted to Joe Biden either. And you would see in the polling over the course of this whole year, younger voters saying over and over again, we want somebody else, we want somebody else. We don't want these same old, got two old white guys over and over again. Not just any old white guys, the same two old white guys who ran last time. You'd see that over and over in the polling. … ACOSTA: Yeah, and Santiago, how can Kamala Harris lean into these viral moments that Dave was just talking about a few moments ago and avoid the trap of, of what the young people call “cringe” which even somebody of advanced age like myself, I know what that means. I’m also capable of cringe moments myself, but how does the candidate not fall into that trap? SANTIAGO MAYER: Well, I think that Dave hit the nail on the head. I think that as long as she remains true to who she is, she will be just fine, and I think that's really why we're seeing sort of a social media movement that we're seeing behind her because she is very relatable. She is fun, you were showing some of the videos with the Brat music and at the end of the day, what is being a Brat, if not being true to yourself and real and authentic and I think that as long as that continues to be the case, as long as she's not doing anything that she's not, like, perceived to be true to herself, she's going to be fine. I think she is someone who comes across as very fun, as very engaging, is very relatable. I can tell you that's been my experience with her whenever I've interacted with her, and she is someone who really cares about people and is sort of like a cool aunt in a lot of ways, so I think as long as that continues to be the message and that continues to be the image, the memes are going to continue to be successful, and the campaign is going to continue to lean into it.

In perfectly coordinated fashion this week, the liberal media have gone postal on GOP vice presidential nominee and Senator JD Vance (OH) for 2021 comments about the left being dominated by unhappy progressives who don’t have children. Everyone in the liberal media have piled on, ranging from ABC, CBS, and NBC on their flagship morning and evening newscasts to major newspapers to the insufferable blogosphere. Since they aren’t interested in the facts, we’ll start with him. Semafor’s Dave Weigel had a piece outlining what the left has been using to melt down over. It concerned a July 23, 2021 speech Vance made to the Intercollegiate Scholastic Institute (ISI) conference (click “expand”): Three years ago, when his U.S. Senate campaign polled in single digits, Vance told a friendly crowd about an idea he’d been kicking around. Conservatives needed to “take aim” at “the childless left,” whose “rejection of the family” was undermining their country. No one in the “next gen of the Democratic Party” — Vice President Kamala Harris, Transportation Sec. Pete Buttigieg, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — had biological children at the time. “Why have we let the Democrat party become controlled by people who don’t have children?” he asked. “Why is this just a normal fact of American life, that the leaders of our country should be people who don’t have a personal and direct stake in it via their own offspring, via their own children and grandchildren?” But here’s the important passage the left has left out from Vance’s speech; the left has ignored where Vance showed compassion for both those not able to and struggled to conceive (and how, as evidenced in a brief X thread by the great Kaylee McGhee White, Vance was right in terms of voting behavior): [L]ook, a lot of people are unable to have kids for very complicated and important reasons. I know there are good friends of mine who have struggled to find the girl, to find the right guy, there are people of course for biological reasons, medical reasons that can’t have children. The target of these remarks is not them - it’s important to point that out. There have always been people like that, who even though they would like to have kids, are unable to have them. Let’s set them to the side. Vance also said this on July 29, 2021 to Tucker Carlson (click “expand”): [W]e’re effectively run in this country be it the Democrats it, be it our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too. And it’s just a basic fact. You look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children, and how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it? I just wanted to ask that question and propose that maybe if we want a healthy ruling class in this country, we should invest more, we should vote more, we should support more people who actually have kids because those are the people who ultimately have a more direct stake in the future of this country. Tuesday’s CBS Evening News was the first mention on the broadcast networks with correspondent Robert Costa scolding Vance for having “long criticized Democrats...and often with scorn”. Wednesday’s Today on NBC also picked up the ball for the Harris campaign. Chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander boasted of “old video of Mr. Trump’s running mate JD Vance...resurfacing, referring to Harris and other prominent Democrats as ‘the childless left.’”     On the same show a day later, Trump campaign correspondent Garrett Haake pushed the left’s preferred narrative by warning Vance made “past comments on parenthood” that’s drawn him into “the spotlight” and “backlash coming from...even Hollywood” with Jennifer Anniston weighing in (click “expand”): HAAKE: It comes as the former President’s running mate, Senator J.D. Vance, is in the spotlight for some of his past comments on parenthood, including this speech in 2021. VANCE [at ISI conference, 2021]: When you go to the polls in this country as a parent — [SCREEN WIPE] — you should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic than people who don’t have kids. HAAKE: And this from the same year drawing the most attention, referring to Harris and other prominent Democrats. VANCE [on FNC’s Tucker Carlson Tonight, 07/29/21]: We’re effectively run in this country — [SCREEN WIPE] — by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives. HAAKE: The backlash coming from the political world to even Hollywood. Jennifer Anniston posting she, “truly can’t believe the comments.” And now, Kirstin Emhoff, the ex-husband of Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff, writing, “for over ten years, Kamala has been a co-parent with Doug and I. She is loving, nurturing, fiercely protective and always present.”  The onslaught continued into late Thursday and even Friday morning. Tuesday’s World News Tonight featured nearly two minutes on it from ABC senior White House correspondent Selina Wang playing Harris press secretary by kvetching he “disparag[ed] Harris for not having children” and “suggesting that parents be given extra voters” (even though it was clearly a euphemism) (click “expand”): WANG: But tonight, new scrutiny for Trump’s running mate. Ohio Senator JD Vance and his 2021 comments disparaging Harris for not having children. VANCE: We’re effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too. And it’s just a basic fact. You look at Kamala Harris. Pete Buttigieg. AOC. The entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. WANG: Tonight, actress Jennifer Aniston sharing Vance’s comments with her 44 million Instagram followers, writing: “I truly can’t believe this is coming from a potential VP of the United States.” And the former wife of Harris’s husband Doug Emhoff coming to her defense, noting that Harris co-parents their two children. Kerstin Emhoff writing, For over ten years ,since Cole and Ella were teenagers, Kamala has been a coparent with Doug and I. She is loving, nurturing, fiercely protective and always present. I love our blended family and am grateful to have her in it.” Ella Emhoff adding, “how can you be childless when you have cutie pie kids like Cole and I. I love my three parents.” And tonight, the Harris campaign highlighting Vance’s statements suggesting that parents be given extra votes in elections. VANCE: When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power. You should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic than people who don’t have kids. Let’s face the consequences and the reality. If you don’t have as much of an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn’t get nearly the same voice. Doesn’t this mean that non-parents don’t have as much of a voice as parents? Doesn’t this mean that non-parents don’t have as much of a voice as parents? Doesn’t this mean that parents get a bigger say in how our democracy functions? Yes. Absolutely. WANG: Tonight, Trump standing by Vance. TRUMP [on FNC’s Fox & Friends, 07/25/24]: He’s for the worker. No, he’s great. He’s doing a great job and he’s been very well received. At the same time, Alexander was on NBC Nightly News again reiterating (two days after it first was made into a manufactured scandal) that Vance was “facing new backlash” for his comments to Carlson. Yet again, Alexander held up Aniston’s Instagram post and a statement from Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff’s ex-wife. Come Friday morning, Wang was on ABC’s Good Morning America again to bludgeon Vance with nearly identical meltdowns. This time, she added a new claim, noting Vance “call[ed] for people without children to be taxed more” in an interview with Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. What did Vance actually say? He simply argued, “[i]f you are making $100,000, $400,000 a year and you’ve three kids, you should pay a different lower tax rate than if you are making the same amount of money and you don’t have any kids.” Thanks to child tax credits and even a Biden administration promise to end child poverty, we can safely rate Wang’s meltdown as pants on fire. Friday’s CBS Mornings had senior White House and campaign correspondent Ed O’Keefe play the Vance-Carlson appearance and even boasted of Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) pushing back as someone rumored to be in the running for Harris’s running mate. But this ending from O’Keefe was embarrassing as he pretended old clips resurfacing were coincidental: “Notably, the video of Vance saying what he said about childless women resurfaced on what’s known as World IVF Day. And the Harris campaign sent out email fundraisers saying, ‘Happy IVF Day to everyone but JD Vance.’” The newspapers weren’t great either. The Washington Post bemoaned in a piece headlined: “‘Childless cat ladies,’ Jennifer Aniston, and Swifties take on JD Vance”. Here were some online headlines from The New York Times: Attacking Kamala Harris for Not Having Kids Will Backfire JD Vance and the Age-Old Trope of ‘Childless Cat Ladies’ Vance Denigrated Harris for Being Childless. Her Blended Family Is Defending Her. USA Today was also having a normal one being tools for the left. Here was just a sampling:  Jennifer Aniston hits back at JD Vance’s viral ‘childless cat ladies’ comments Whoopi Goldberg, Jennifer Aniston, more celebs denounce JD Vance’s ‘cat ladies’ remarks Kamala Harris, Taylor Swift, Jennifer Aniston and when we reduce women to ‘childless cat ladies’ Ella Emhoff knocks JD Vance over childless cat lady remarks How about the freaks over at The Daily Beast? They were definitely enthused: Jennifer Aniston Slams J.D. Vance Over ‘Childless Cat Ladies’ Comment Kesha Has 3 Nasty Words for J.D. Vance’s ‘Cat Lady’ Nonsense Gabby Giffords Rips Into J.D. Vance Over ‘Childless’ Comment Ella Emhoff Claps Back at Vance’s ‘Childless’ Kamala Claim Now that, dear readers, is what a coordinated media push looks like. In a statement to NewsBusters, Vance spokesperson Taylor Van Kirk lambasted “the leftwing media” for “hav[ing] twisted Senator Vance’s words and spun up a false narrative about his position on the issues.” “The Democrats are in complete disarray with the most unpopular Vice President in history as their party’s nominee. The only childlessness we should be talking about are the childless parents who lost their kids to the murderous thugs and deadly fentanyl coming across Kamala’s southern border,” he added.

After releasing its top 100 athletes since 2000, ESPN decided to compile separate top 10 lists of mixed martial arts fighters for both men and women in the same time period.As with any completely subjective list, fans immediately took issue.For the women's list, ESPN's methodology was vague and also littered with pandering statements.The outlet claimed that the women on the list were "shattering stereotypes" and elevated the sport "to unprecedented heights."Without giving names of who composed the list, ESPN supplied its list of "top 10 fighters in the history of women's MMA."1. Amanda Nunes 2. Cris Cyborg 3. Ronda Rousey 4. Valentina Shevchenko 5. Joanna Jędrzejczyk 6. Rose Namajunas 7. Zhang Weili 8. Miesha Tate 9. Megumi Fujii 10. Holly HolmThe vagueness of ESPN's list requirements left fans to wonder if the fighters were listed by legacy and popularity or by sheer talent. Certainly by popularity and in terms of bringing eyes to the sport, Rousey was a huge pioneer. However, she was easily beaten by the list's 10th-ranked fighter, Holm.Similarly, Fujii is a legend in the sport, but with few notable wins in her career, she would struggle to be competitive with any woman on this list and many more who aren't on it.UFC legend Conor McGregor was quick to criticize the ranking, pointing out that No. 2 Cris "Cyborg" Justino has tested positive for banned substances multiple times."Cyborg is a convicted steroid cheat let's not forget," McGregor said in a since-deleted X post, BJPenn.com reported.UFC President Dana White once called Cyborg a "nightmare" and a "dirty" fighter after bringing her into the UFC after her steroid usage.Other fans took issue with Rousey's placement, with one saying that she is "criminally high on this list." — (@) ESPN was also vague in its description of the male category, describing it as a "top 10 of the greatest fighters in men's MMA." This wording varied slightly from the women's list, adding the word "greatest" to the preamble.The list was ranked as follows:1. Jon Jones 2. Georges St-Pierre 3. Anderson Silva 4. Demetrious Johnson 5. Khabib Nurmagomedov 6. Fedor Emelianenko 7. Randy Couture 8. Chuck Liddell 9. B.J. Penn 10. Kamaru UsmanFans were far more critical about the men's list, and while many agreed that it wasn't too shabby in terms of fighter greatness and relevance to the sport, it still left confusion about how it was determined.Along with the quintessential "where's Conor" posts, notable names left off that received frequent mention were UFC featherweight champion Jose Aldo and two-division champion Daniel Cormier.Randy, Chuck and BJ all do not belong there over DC— Combat Haven (@CombatHaven) July 22, 2024 A fan on MMA Mania made a compelling argument as to why McGregor should be added to the list, arguing that his accolades are worthy of recognition even if he didn't defend his belts."Not surprising. McGregor can rightly claim to be the most 'successful' MMA fighter, but not the greatest fighter. Even with his horrible recorded [sic] going back 6 years, he could have been considered in the top 10 if he had defended his belts," the fan wrote."The bottomline [sic] is that Conor made the most of his opportunities and become [sic] incredibly successful, but he has not been a serious contender in some time. His best days are behind him and he may be remembered more for his antics outside the cage than for his victories in it."While other fans noted that the list is not a "popularity contest," it is indeed hard to tell.This ain’t a popularity contest— Adam (@Sharkey_78) July 22, 2024 ESPN's previous top 100 list — which contained many MMA fighters — was unsurprisingly criticized, as well.The network's own host Pat McAfee called it a "s*** show" and criticized ESPN for trying to make a list of this kind in any form."There is a top 100 list that is coming out from ESPN's people and I'll tell ya what, it is the epitome of everything that everybody hates about ESPN," McAfee stated. "What they chose to do about ranking the top 100 athletes of the 21st century ... what a s*** show."Even in the obvious attempts to pander to female athletes with the rankings, unknown athletes were placed ahead of actual female sports legends like Venus Williams and WNBA pioneers Candace Parker and Lisa Leslie.All things considered, ESPN fared decently on its male MMA list but still seem to suffer from wanting to appear just woke enough with female audiences. This severely hinders ESPN's ability to make lists of overall athletes or even female-specific ones.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Alex Jones has been villainized by the left-owned media for years. A quick Google search of his name will reveal pages upon pages of articles containing phrases such as “conspiracy theorist extraordinaire,” “conspiracy empire,” “Mis-Infowars,” etc. But the reality is that Alex Jones’ predictions have been eerily correct time and time again. Perhaps that’s why he’s “the most canceled man on the internet,” says Liz Wheeler, who invited Jones onto her show to discuss his uphill battle against the censorship cabal and his latest predictions for America. “You predicted COVID, exactly how the Deep State – the globalist Deep state – was going to use a virus that they engineered to unleash tyranny on us. … You predicted the 9/11 attacks – almost exactly how they happened,” says Wheeler. Among Jones' other accurate predictions are Tucker Carlson being fired, Biden dropping out of the race , and the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. “What’s coming next?” Wheeler asks Jones. Alex Jones Reveals the Deep State’s Next Plot www.youtube.com “Cyber attack is what I said a week ago. ... I think [the CrowdStrike outage] was a test of the mega cyber attack,” says Jones, adding that he also thinks we will see “an expanded war with Russia, power outages,” potentially “more assassination attempts on Donald Trump,” and “a massive false flag against a black college or church or synagogue blamed on Trump.” “We are in cloud cuckoo now, with a desperate, out-of-control elite that are losing their war with Russia, they're losing their war with the people, the borders are wide open, the whole world's turning against them, and they desperately want to try to maintain control and change the subject, so I would say right now, the sky is the limit,” he explained. To hear more of the conversation, including Jones’ full analysis on the assassination attempt on Donald Trump and why he believes “[the Deep State] is even more desperate to kill him” now, watch the clip above.Want more from Liz Wheeler?To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently issued an executive order demanding local governments "urgently address homeless encampments," according to a Thursday press release.Newsom has claimed for decades that solving California's homelessness crisis is one of his top concerns; however, under the politician's leadership, the problem has continued to escalate. The state currently has roughly 181,000 homeless individuals and only 71,000 emergency shelter beds, according to Cal Matters.It is unclear where Newsom would like local municipalities to relocate the homeless population, but he is pushing leaders to do so swiftly. Newsom claimed that his abrupt announcement to clean up the encampments was sparked by a United States Supreme Court decision handed down a month ago.In a Thursday press release, the governor's office wrote, "With the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v Johnson, local governments now have the tools and authority to address dangerous encampments and help provide those residing in encampments with the resources they need."The high court's ruling found that laws restricting homeless individuals from sleeping in public areas do not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" and, therefore, such restrictions are not unconstitutional. "I don't think there's anything more urgent and more frustrating than addressing the issue of encampments in the state of California," Newsom said in a video posted to social media. "We've invested now over $1 billion in encampment resolution grants.""In the past, the courts have denied the ability of the local government — including the state — to clean up many of these encampments," Newsom claimed."We're done," he continued. "It's time to move with urgency at the local level to clean up these sites."Newsom called on local governments to "do their job." In a post on X, he declared, "No more excuses. We've provided the time. We've provided the funds."Republicans speculated that Newsom's sense of urgency may have more to do with the recent announcement that Vice President Kamala Harris plans to run as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee in the upcoming 2024 election. Harris has been viewed as largely responsible for California's prison-to-homelessness pipeline for supporting soft-on-crime policies. GOP lawmakers called the move to clean up the state's streets a "PR stunt" by Newsom, who is being floated as a potential pick for running mate.The governor previously cleaned up San Francisco's streets ahead of the U.S.-China summit in late 2023. Newsom admitted that the decision was motivated by the event."I know folks are saying, 'Oh they're just cleaning up this place because all those fancy leaders are coming to town.' That's true, because it's true — but it's also true for months and months and months before APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit], we've been having conversations," he said.In response to Newsom's new executive order to clear encampments, state Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-San Diego) remarked, "It's about damn time!""Letting people live and die on the streets or in our parks is unsafe and unsanitary," Jones stated, according to Fox News Digital. "I introduced a proposal earlier this year that would have provided even greater and more immediate solutions. While I am cautiously optimistic that the governor has finally taken note of the urgency of this problem, albeit many years later than needed, Californians deserve government for the people, not the PR hits."Earlier this year, all state Senate Republicans, including Jones, introduced Senate Bill 1011, a bipartisan effort to prohibit people from sleeping in public areas when shelter space is available. Some Senate Democrats rejected the measure.Senator Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) called Newsom's order "a good step" but noted that it would "require significant follow-through to ensure its effectiveness.""Homelessness is one of the biggest challenges we face today, and it is imperative we take swift, decisive and effective action to address it," Niello stated.Republican Assembly Leader James Gallagher wrote on X in response to the executive action, "Big promises. No action. [B]lame locals. No press. Rinse and repeat."Just last week, Newsom vetoed an assembly bill that, if enacted, would have required his administration to submit to annual evaluations of funds provided to its Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program. "Gavin likes to spend. Oversight? Not so much.," Gallagher said. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Scientific American Shifts Into Propaganda Overdrive Explaining Expertise Kamala Harris Would Bring

President Trump Welcomes Bibi Netanyahu with a Hearty Greeting at His Personal Home (WATCH)

Wait? She's RIGHT! Democrats Should DEFINITELY Do What Kamala Harris Wants When It Comes to This

Kamala Harris' Scoff at Idea of Terrorists Crossing Border Reveals Dangerous Level of Incompetence

Joe Biden's Defense Department Poised to Strip the Medal of Honor From 20 US Soldiers