The real threat to “American democracy” is not former President Donald Trump or a foreign dictator, but the fact that the American voters keep voting for less immigration and elected politicians keep “rewarding” them with more, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, said in a speech Wednesday night. Vance addressed an audience at the annual National Conservatism Conference in the nation’s capital. The ideas that have come from those conferences, which began in 2019, have changed the Republican Party and the country. The Ohio lawmaker said that he thinks there have been some positive changes within the GOP regarding foreign policy, noting that there’s now a stronger focus on having a realistic outlook toward the limits of American power. He said that military power is “fundamentally downstream” from industrial power. “The important lesson from World War II is not that if you thump your chest and pretend you are the good guy, you can win a conflict,” he said. “The most important lesson of World War II is that if the homefront is strong, we can win and project power overseas.” Vance said that the war in Ukraine continues to drag on with billions of dollars being spent by the United States without a clear vision or strategy for victory. He said he thinks an increasing number of Republicans understand this problem. Another major problem, Vance said, is that some policymakers and media outlets think that a war with China could be won while being dependent on China for vital goods. You can’t have “unlimited free trade” with countries that “hate you,” the Ohio senator said. Even more important than the shifting ideas about trade, Vance spoke about the increasing opposition to the idea that all immigration is good for America and other Western countries. Vance said that he speaks to conservatives in other Western nations and their constant complaint is that they insist on reducing the amount of immigration to their countries, but politicians ignore them. He said that the reasons for that are that ruling elites desire cheap labor from other countries and that they don’t particularly like “the populations of their own countries.” “They seem to not really like their own fellow citizens, even though the wars that they want are, of course, going to be fought by people in the heartland, not by the people who are walking down the streets of Washington, D.C.,” Vance said. The explosion in immigration in recent years has caused an increase in home prices, Vance said. The communities with the highest numbers of immigrants are seeing higher home prices as a result of simple supply and demand. He cited Springfield, Ohio, as an example of what happens when a city has a massive increase in immigration in a short time. Vance said that this small city has seen its population nearly double, with mostly Haitian illegal aliens, and that has caused housing prices to skyrocket. “Now go to Springfield, go to Clark County, Ohio, and ask the people there whether they have been enriched by 20,000 newcomers in four years,” he said. “[The price of housing] is through the roof.” Middle-class people who have lived in the city for generations can’t afford a place to live, Vance said. “A third of the local county health budget is tied up in giving free benefits to illegal immigrants,” he said. Vance noted that these people aren’t technically illegal aliens, because President Joe Biden’s administration has essentially made sure that nobody is counted as illegal. There needs to be a fundamental shift in thinking from leaders, Vance said, in that they must give priority to the people living in their own country. He said that the National Conservatism movement is changing the debate on that front. Vance concluded his remarks by saying that America is not simply an idea—though it was founded on great ideas. Instead, it’s a nation with a common history and a common future. One of the positive things about this country is that America allows for newcomers, he said, “but we allow them on our terms.” Vance said that his family is originally from central Kentucky, deep in Appalachia. He said the people from there are very poor, but they love America—not because it’s a great idea, but because this is their home. He pointed out that there is a cemetery there where the remains of many of his family members and ancestors rest. “In that cemetery, there are people who were born around the time of the American Civil War and if, as I hope, my wife and I are eventually laid to rest there and our kids follow us, there will be seven generations just in that small, mountain cemetery in Kentucky,” the freshman senator said. There would be seven generations there who would have “fought for this country, who have built this country, who have made things in this country, and who would fight and die protecting this country if they were asked to.” “That is not just an idea. That is not just a set of principles. That is a homeland,” Vance said. The post JD Vance: America’s a Homeland, Not Just an Idea. Mass Immigration Is Sullying That. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

All eyes were on Dr. Anthony Fauci when he testified last month under oath before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. Praising him for his leadership, Democrats labeled the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases as the victim. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., for example, accused Republicans of wasting “significant time and taxpayer money fueling conspiracy theories.” To their credit, House Republicans, with a few exceptions, focused on the facts. The subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, uncovered several issues at the National Institutes of Health (the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is part of the NIH), including a lack of transparency, a flawed grant approval process, and a conflict of interest in protecting EcoHealth Alliance, the controversial firm that subcontracted NIH-funded gain-of-function research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. Many suspect that this type of research, enhancing the transmissibility and severity of the coronavirus pathogen, contributed to the initial COVID-19 spread and its impact. Beyond these specific issues, however, an even more serious problem has emerged: the American people’s lack of trust in our public health and scientific institutions—a reality that is expected to persist for decades to come. According to a recent survey, 70% of respondents believed that scientists will not publish findings if the results contradict the interests of the organization funding the study, and a mere 42% of respondents believed that scientists can overcome their human and political biases. The public has a valid reason to feel this way, given that the subcommittee’s findings are consistent with their sentiments. In hindsight, during the pandemic, federal public health officials contributed more to the public’s loss of trust in them than the “unvaccinated” individuals these officials often blamed for not “following the science.” Early in the pandemic, Fauci initially deemed masks unnecessary then later supported mandating them. However, he admitted during the hearing that there was “no study that did masks on kids” nor was there a “control trial” that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used to justify its six-foot social distancing rule. In fact, this past January, Fauci conceded in closed-door testimony to the subcommittee that this six-foot rule “sort of just appeared.” Regarding Fauci’s relationship with the CDC, Rep. John Joyce, R-Pa., a fellow physician on the subcommittee, asked, “Once we realized that the virus was not spread by droplets and was aerosolized, did you feel an indication to go back to the CDC and say, ‘Let’s base this on science’… and ‘get rid of this six-foot rule’?” In response to Joyce’s questioning, Fauci responded that it is “not appropriate to be publicly challenging a sister organization.” Science, in other words, must take a back seat to bureaucratic politeness. Given this mixed messaging and lack of transparency, Americans are right to be conflicted about whom to trust. Unfortunately, these practices continued in regard to the COVID-19 vaccine. The messaging about the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing transmission and the duration of that protection was unclear. Fauci, during the June hearing, conceded that the protection “waned rather rapidly.” Yet in 2021 the vaccine was mandated in various sectors, including schools, health care, the federal workforce, and the military. There were many sound reasons for popular pushbacks against these mandates, but the most notable concern was that the government inserted itself in the relationship between physicians and their patients. Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., a physician who treated COVID-19 patients, stated, “I watched as public health officials and politicians told my patients what treatment options were best for them regardless of their comorbidities or their medical history.” Consequently, he said his opinions on mandates were relegated to “conspiracy and misinformation by so-called ‘health care experts’ who had never treated a patient throughout the entire pandemic.” Furthermore, McCormick played a recording of Fauci stating that making people’s lives difficult leads them to “lose their ideological bulls**t” and get vaccinated. Consequently, increased political polarization, decreased public trust in lifesaving vaccines, erosion of social well-being, and compromised doctor-patient relationships have been among the many lingering negative results of these policies. Throughout the pandemic, Fauci and colleagues who sided with him often touted that they were just “following the science,” but based on the unfolding record revealed under oath to the subcommittee by several witnesses, they followed the politics. To his credit, Fauci finally acknowledged mistakes made at the federal level. For one, he said he recognized the need to “reevaluate” prior mandates that removed the notion of informed consent and contributed to a rise in vaccine hesitancy. Additionally, he acknowledged that to bring more clarity to the public, the CDC must do better to address the “lack of communication and interaction between the federal response and local public health officials.” Given these revelations, public health officials must be willing to candidly admit when they are uncertain or quickly admit when the government makes mistakes. Just as they used their platforms to encourage vaccination, they must also utilize their influence to call out any inconsistencies or missteps. Science is not and should never be represented by a single individual, a group of bureaucrats, or a powerful institution. It is rather the dynamic product of uncensored, open-minded discussion among a diverse community of informed professionals and educated researchers looking at the facts. Finally, science must be pursued in an environment of transparency. The best data should drive public policy, and such a commitment to scientific integrity can purge the partisanship of public health. Fauci’s recent testimony before Congress was a tonic. He revealed under oath some key federal policy failures during his tenure. In preparing for the next national health emergency, public health officials should pursue a path of transparency and facts rather than blunt edicts and fear. That is the only appropriate approach for the citizens of a free society. The post Fauci’s Recent Testimony Once Again Reveals Need to Restore Scientific Integrity appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. During a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing, several Democrats characterized scrutiny of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) (a World Economic Forum-affiliated pro-censorship advertising alliance that blacklists brands, creators, and content from advertising if they’re deemed to violate its “brand safety” rules) as “dangerous” and a “sham.” GARM has faced growing scrutiny over the way its practices have resulted in certain viewpoints being demonetized. Before this July 10 hearing, House Republicans released a report showing that GARM and its members had “carefully” monitored a number of conservative outlets, placed conservative media outlet The Daily Wire on an advertising exclusion list, and pushed for advertising restrictions on the popular “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast. And the intention of this hearing was to respond to these allegations and examine “whether existing civil and criminal penalties and current antitrust law enforcement efforts are sufficient to deter anticompetitive collusion in online advertising.” But, as has often been the case during hearings related to huge corporations and alliances targeting smaller businesses and entities, Democrats downplayed, dismissed, or outright denied the concerns that were raised. “This hearing has nothing to do with antitrust laws, since the majority’s allegations wither under even the most basic antitrust analysis,” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said during his opening statement. “This is instead another dangerous effort by the majority to bully companies into promoting and supporting far-right extremist views, views that brands understandably do…not want to be associated with. In this case, the majority seeks to undermine companies’ First Amendment rights and to make it harder for them to avoid monetizing online and offline harm through advertising.” He continued by suggesting that those who have shone a light on GARM’s practices are engaging in a “made-up scheme,” accused Republicans of pushing a “conspiracy theory that conservative content is being censored,” and claimed that there’s “no evidence” to support allegations of wrongdoing. https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/garm-hearing-july-2024-1.mp4 https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/garm-hearing-july-2024-2.mp4   Later in the hearing, Nadler again dismissed criticism of GARM by describing the investigation into GARM as a “sham.” https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/garm-hearing-july-2024-3.mp4 Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) pushed similar talking points to Nadler and claimed that the issue has been “investigated and produced no support for any unlawfulness.” https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/garm-hearing-july-2024-4.mp4 Two witnesses who work for companies with close ties to GARM also downplayed this big advertising conglomerate’s role in the blacklisting of independent publishers. The Global Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of GroupM (a large media buying agency that’s a member of GARM’s Steer Team, which is closely involved in GARM’s day-to-day operations), Christian Juhl, claimed that: “GroupM is not the arbiter of how to categorize websites, nor do we want to be because we have no control of our publishers and no role in moderating content. We also rely on independent third parties to identify domains with those definitions and additional categories that our clients deem unsuitable.” https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/garm-hearing-july-2024-5.mp4 Herrish Patel, the President of Unilever USA (a major consumer goods company that’s also part of GARM’s Steer Team), similarly denied that his organization uses market power for censorship or deploys advertising capital in a political way. And when Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) claimed it’s “hard to believe” Unilever’s goal is to avoid politics when one of its executives flagged a 2020 Trump campaign ad to Facebook to check whether it violated any rules, Patel insisted that he wasn’t sure on the “intention” of the communication and suggested that the push for scrutiny of the ad came from Rob Rakowitz, the leader and co-founder of GARM. https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/garm-hearing-july-2024-6.mp4 While Democrats and the executives who testified attempted to minimize the impact of GARM’s decisions on smaller brands and publishers, Ben Shapiro, co-founder of The Daily Wire, provided a first-hand account of how Democrats, the Biden administration, Big Tech, legacy media, and entities such as GARM are part of an “informal pressure system” that strips smaller brands and publishers of advertising revenue: “There is in fact an informal pressure system created by Democratic legislators, this White House, legacy media advertisers, and pseudo-objective brand safety organizations. That system guarantees that advertising dollars flow only to left-wing media brands. Let me explain how this works. When a conservative competitor to the legacy media arises, members of that legacy media and their political allies rush to paint such competitors as dangerous. The commentator Kara Swisher of the New York Times, for example, told the head of YouTube that my videos at Daily Wire were a quote gateway drug that would lead children, including her own teenage son, to watch neo-Nazi content. Never mind the Yamaka. Elected Democrats pick up that same messaging in 2017. Senator Diane Feinstein told lawyers at Facebook, Google, and Twitter quote ‘you created these platforms, and now they’re being misused, and you have to be the ones to do something about it or we will.’ Social media companies react to incentive structures, including threats. They’ve responded by adopting the standards of third-party, left-wing informational safety groups like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media or GARM. GARM purportedly sets brand safety standards, objective standards by which advertisers and platforms can supposedly determine just what sort of content ought to be deemed safe for advertising. In reality, GARM acts as a cartel. Its members account for 90% of ad spending in the United States, almost a trillion dollars. In other words, if you’re not getting ad dollars from GARM members, it’s nearly impossible to run an ad-based business. And if you’re not following their preferred political narratives, the ones that Kara Swisher and Diane Feinstein would follow, you will not be deemed brand-safe. Your business will be throttled.” Shapiro continued by noting that The Daily Wire’s YouTube channel had seen a “1,000% increase in content enforcements over a 2-year period since 2021” after the Feinstein threat and that his personal Facebook page had seen an “over 80% drop in impressions” after Democrat officials pressured social media companies. https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/garm-hearing-july-2024-7.mp4 And despite the attempts by Democrats and the GroupM and Unilever executives to present this pressure system as a non-issue, several other exchanges during the hearing further highlighted the uneven way that these advertising blacklists are deployed. When questioned b y Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC), GroupM executive Juhl was unable to name a single liberal site that has been placed on GroupM’s “risky list.” https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/garm-hearing-july-2024-8.mp4 Shapiro similarly noted that Unilever is willing to advertise with large legacy media outlets yet is reluctant to advertise on conservative news outlets: “When it comes to the original question that the chairman was asking, which is whether, for example, Unilever ever advertises…with the New York Times or with MSNBC or with CNN or with The View, all of which have host who have said extraordinarily controversial things, the answer was yes. And when it comes to would they advertise or have they advertised on conservative news outlets, the answer typically is no. I also should mention at this point that I’ve been told…by the advertising department of my own company that Group M’s managing director actually told us explicitly, The Daily Wire has an uphill battle based on our politically conservative content.” https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/garm-hearing-july-2024-9.mp4 You can watch the full hearing here. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Watch: Democrats Downplay Influence of Major Advertising Alliance’s Demonetization Blacklists appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Political commentator and podcast host Robby Starbuck exposed John Deere for betraying the values and interests of their customers.  In a July 9 video, Starbucks went after John Deere for shifting jobs and production out of the United States, while embracing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In a series of posts, Starbuck accused the company of embracing radical policies like pushing employees to state their pronouns, boosting gender theory propaganda and allowing men in women’s restrooms.  “They just had to do mass layoffs and have announced a production shift to Mexico,” Starbuck said, before taking the company to task. “I can't think of anything that's a larger betrayal of the American worker than taking jobs to Mexico while forcing this DEI down their throats. It's a violation of so many of your employees’ values and your customers’ values to push this woke trojan horse for leftism.” On its official website, John Deere brags about its DEI initiatives, including separating employees based on race and gender. “We believe by strengthening the diversity of our workforce, we can give everyone their chance to leap forward,” the website notes. “That’s why we celebrate diversity, champion equity, and promote inclusiveness so every employee can make the greatest impact as their true self.” As pointed out by Starbuck, John Deere has a number of so-called employee resource groups dividing its employees. These groups specifically separate employees who are Asian, black, Native American, Hispanic or “Latine” (an alternative for “Latinx”). The company also includes a group called “Rainbow” for LGBTQ employees. Starbuck recently led a successful campaign to force Tractor Supply, a company with a largely rural conservative consumer base, to abandon DEI. After a several-week boycott, Tractor Supply promised to “eliminate DEI roles and retire our current DEI goals” in a post on X. The company also promised not to fund pride festivals, abandon carbon emission goals and cease providing data to the LGBT pressure group the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).  Starbuck, however, referred to John Deere as “Much worse than Tractor Supply” in his video. The conservative commentator issued a call to action. “When we use our voices and wallets to vote our values, we can change the world and we can restore great American companies to a culture of sanity, meritocracy and culture war neutrality OR we can inspire competitors to step up to the plate to fight for our business.” He also noted that John Deere has an extremely high rating from the HRC, which uses its corporate equality index to note the extent to which companies comply with its radical demands. John Deere earned 95 out of 100 possible points from a radical leftist group that demands insurance coverage for genital mutilation and chemical castration.  According to the 1792 Exchange, John Deere does cover these costs, not only for employees but for their children: “The company covers transgender-related medical costs for its employees and their children.” This database of corporate bias ratings also notes that John Deere uses “sex and gender ideology criteria” to judge job applicants, potential vendors, marketing campaigns and donations. It also notes that John Deere pushes mandatory “ideological training” on employees.  Conservatives are under attack! Support businesses that share your values or at least understand that they serve customers and employees rather than radical ESG pressure groups such as the Human Rights Campaign.

Ben Shapiro shut down Rep. Eric Swalwell on Wednesday after the California Democrat tried — but failed — to weaponize Shapiro's personal religious beliefs.At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the controversial Global Alliance for Responsible Media, Swalwell chose to question Shapiro about a topic unrelated to the hearing: Project 2025, the forward-looking plan for America created by the Heritage Foundation.'Yes, I'm a religious Jew. That's true. You've found me out.'After, ironically, Swalwell admitted he agreed with much of the project's proposals — for example, less government bureaucracy, more government efficiency, less government waste — the California Democrat tried to question Shapiro about immigration. And when Shapiro knocked those questions out of the park, Swalwell turned to abortion and same-sex marriage.But that's when the hearing took a bizarre turn.Shapiro attended the hearing as a representative of the Daily Wire, which had been unfairly targeted by GARM. But Swalwell chose to question Shapiro about his religious beliefs, instead."Do you support that part? ... Banning same-sex marriage?" Swalwell asked, referring to Project 2025."I am in favor of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and I'm perfectly fine with anyone having any sort of voluntary sexual arrangement they seek," Shapiro responded. "That's a different thing from whether the government should attach benefits to that personal relationship."That answer, however, was not sufficient for Swalwell, who responded by more precisely probing Shapiro's religious beliefs."But you think it's a sin to have same-sex marriage?" the Democrat followed up."I mean, I'm confused. Are you asking me as a religious Jew what I think about biblically?" Shapiro responded."I'm just asking: Is it a sin to be gay?" Swalwell asked again."From a religious Jewish perspective, orientation is not a sin, but activity is, that's also the same perspective of most major religions so far as I'm aware," Shapiro pointed out.For the next minute, Swalwell asked Shapiro two questions on different topics. But, oddly, he later returned to the question of same-sex marriage, claiming to have found "receipts" of Shapiro's previous comments condemning homosexuality. Swalwell proceeded to read one such quote."Yes, I'm a religious Jew. That's true. You've found me out," Shapiro fired back. "I agree with me. Yes, that's true."The response drew laughter from the crowd gathered in the hearing room. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A Rolling Stones concert crowd in Vancouver last week showered lead singer Mick Jagger with a rousing chorus of boos after he said the Stones "love" far-left Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.Video shows Jagger in between songs Friday night telling the BC Place audience, “We love your Mr. Trudeau. I mean, his family’s always been such big fans of our band."'Mick Jagger has no clue how unpopular Justin Trudeau is.'Jagger barely finished his statement before the crowd erupted in boos — and the 80-year-old vocalist's mouth stayed hanging open with a flat facial expression for a good six to seven seconds.Then Jagger began to crack a smile, and the veteran frontman pivoted to a subject he likely knew would elicit a positive reaction: “By the way, congratulations to the Canadian soccer team getting to the semifinals!”Indeed, cheering abounded for the squad — which ended up losing to Argentina 2-0 in the Copa America semifinal.So, was the left-wing frontman really shocked at the booing for the left-wing Trudeau — or was Jagger just playing around with the audience?His comment saying the Trudeau family has "always been such big fans of our band" probably was a quip — at least the Toronto Sun said as much, recalling that Trudeau's famous mother, Margaret, "partied" with the Stones in the "late 1970s after she had split from Justin’s father."The Sun gathered comments from videos on X and Instagram in regard to Jagger's words, noting that one commenter said the singer "hasn’t been paying attention" while another said, "Mick Jagger has no clue how unpopular Justin Trudeau is.”The paper said others gave Jagger kudos for quickly getting the audience back on his side: “That was honestly an incredible pivot to the Copa America. Well played.”“Nice save Mick!” another person said, according to the Sun. “Mentioned Trudeau and just about [got] booed into the Pacific, but that soccer team congrats saved your bacon!”The paper noted that Margaret Trudeau — while she was still married to then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau — spent time with the Stones amid a club show of theirs in Toronto.“We played dice until about five in the morning, in my hotel suite,” she told Bazaar in 2016. “Smoked some dope, talked. It was a good night, and it was my new world. But no one knew I was separated from my husband yet, and it brought a huge scandal.”Vanity Fair in 2017 noted that she "left her table" at the El Mocambo club in 1977 "to sit at Mick Jagger’s feet as he sang and strutted. She stared at him worshipfully throughout the performance.“The Sun, citing the Evening Standard, said Jagger later called Margaret Trudeau a “very sick girl in search of something. She found it — but not with me. I wouldn’t go near her with a barge pole.”Jagger these days isn't one to keep his sociopolitical opinions private — particularly when targeting conservatives. A few months back, the singer set his sights on Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry at the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival. While reportedly discussing the topic of inclusion, Jagger allegedly said of Landry, "We want to include him too. Even if he wants to take us back to the Stone Age." Landry returned fire: "You can’t always get what you want. The only person who might remember the Stone Age is Mick Jagger. Love you buddy, you’re always welcome in Louisiana!"Jagger also isn't fond of former President Donald Trump, saying after he won the 2016 election, "Everyone outside the U.S. is kind of mystified, I’d say, that’s the polite word." The Rolling Stones also have threatened legal action against Trump for using their song "You Can’t Always Get What You Want" at campaign rallies.The Sun said Jagger in 2013 made a joke about then-Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, who was making headlines for a crack cocaine controversy: “I just wanted you to know one thing: we’re not going to do any jokes tonight about the mayor or anything, OK? It’s too easy. It’s much too easy a target. It’s a bit cheap — cheap shots. So we’re not going to do any of that. We’re going to crack on with the show now.”(H/T: Not the Bee)Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In the wake of his disastrous debate against Donald Trump, faith in Joe Biden has waned dramatically, as the nation had a front-row seat to witness the president’s undeniable cognitive decline. Major Democratic donors have pulled funds, liberal politicians have renounced support, and even the media has begun to denounce a second term for President Biden. Is it safe to say Democrats have officially lost hope in Joe? Glenn Beck and Piers Morgan met to discuss this very question. Are Democrats DONE with Biden? | Glenn Beck & Piers Morgan Debate www.youtube.com Currently, the nation is holding its breath waiting for the announcement that Biden has dropped out of the race. Many say it’s only a matter of time before he’s replaced. But with whom? And what happens to all the funds the Biden campaign has raised? “If Joe Biden does decide, as the New York Times is intimating, to step aside … then all the money that he's raised,” which amounts to “hundreds of millions of dollars, can only go to Kamala Harris; it can't go to any other candidate,” says Piers. “Does [Biden’s replacement] have to be Kamala simply because of where the money is?” he asks Glenn. “The money isn't the only thing,” says Glenn. “Kamala Harris was brought onto the ticket in this madness of equity.” According to “the progressive side, you cannot replace her. She's a black woman – the first black woman vice president. Now you have the opportunity, you're going to replace her with a white man?” he asks, referencing the suspicion that California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) might be chosen as Biden’s replacement. “The only person they could replace her with that could win is Michelle Obama.” However, the former first lady has made it clear she has no interest in running, but Glenn thinks if Barack presses her, she might concede, run, and actually win. Besides Biden’s candidacy, there’s another idea being thrown around: invoking the 25th Amendment, which would temporarily pass presidential powers to Kamala Harris. There’s only one problem – the decision must be made by “the Cabinet and the vice president,” and so far, both have refused to even acknowledge what the country sees in Biden. “I saw yesterday the press secretary [Karine Jean-Pierre] insisting he's not got any form of dementia. I thought that was a blatant lie,” says Piers. To hear the rest of the conversation, including Glenn's and Piers’ thoughts on the global unrest that seems to be growing ever stronger, watch the clip above. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Sacramento City Attorney's Office recently threatened to slap Target with an administrative fine for phoning police about a number of retail theft incidents, according to the Sacramento Bee.The report stated that a source, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation, claimed that the Target, located at 2505 Riverside Blvd in Land Park, was warned by city officials that it could face a public nuisance charge if it continues to report instances of theft. The news outlet noted that a law enforcement spokesperson confirmed the location.'Victims are being threatened for even reporting crimes.'The City Attorney's Office and the Sacramento Police Department told the Sacramento Bee that they were unaware of any litigation threats. City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood's office did not grant the Sacramento Bee's request for an interview. In response to the alleged threats and similar actions across the state, lawmakers added an amendment to a retail theft bill, prohibiting authorities from making such threats.During an assembly retail theft committee meeting, Alexander Gammelgard, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, stated that he was "surprised that anyone would ever attempt to make a nuisance case out of somebody calling to report a legitimate crime.""I don't think there is a place for that," he added.California Assembly GOP Leader James Gallagher told Fox News Digital, "[Governor Gavin] Newsom keeps insisting that reports of theft are dropping — well, now we know why. Not only are thieves let off without even a slap on the wrist, but now the victims are being threatened for even reporting crimes.""Everyone can see that Newsom's pro-criminal policies are a failure — no matter how much his allies try to cover it up," Gallagher said.Criminal defense attorney Nicole Castronovo blamed soft-on-crime policies for the increase in retail thefts in the area."Lawmakers have allowed smash and grab robberies to terrorize our cities. As a consequence, retailers are leaving major cities in droves — taking jobs with them," Castronovo told Fox News Digital."Now the government seeks to silence those retailers and, in turn, manufacturers lower crime rates," Castronovo continued. "No citizen should ever be penalized for lawfully calling upon its government for protection."Land Parks neighbors have expressed their frustrations with the area's crime crisis.Kristina Rogers, president of the Land Park Community Association, told KOVR last year regarding the Target location, "It's really disturbing and disheartening when you are standing there in line paying for things and someone is just walking out the door with a cart full of stuff."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In 2023, archaeologists unearthed a Hittite royal seal emblazoned with the haunting message "whoever breaks this will die" in the ancient city of Büklükale in Türkiye's Kırıkkale Province. The post An Ancient Hittite Seal Inscribed With A Chilling Warning Has Been Found In Türkiye appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Comptonatus chasei was a plant-eating dinosaur that was about the size of a bison and traveled in herds along England's southern coast 125 million years ago. The post Most Complete Fossil Found In The U.K. In Over A Century Leads To The Discovery Of A New Dinosaur Species appeared first on All That's Interesting.