Harris reportedly 'loved' Walz' policies

'A situation happens like that, you try to stand up for your guys'

'F in religious liberties'

'Iran's brazen and unrelenting efforts to retaliate'

As Democrats and media outlets accuse former President Donald Trump of dramatizing the Democratic abortion agenda, data from the Minnesota Department of Health shows that at least eight babies who survived abortions in the state were left to die. Under a 2015 Minnesota law, the state formerly was required to report whether abortions resulted in the live birth of a baby, what actions were taken to preserve the life of that baby, and whether the baby survived. Those reporting requirements exposed that between Jan. 1, 2021 and Dec. 31, 2021, physicians performed five abortions that resulted in a baby’s live birth. No measures were taken to help the first baby, who reportedly had “fetal anomalies” that resulted “in death shortly after delivery.” Two of the babies were given “comfort care measures” as they died. No measures were taken to “preserve life” of the last two babies, who were previable. Previous data from the Minnesota Department of Health reveals that physicians have been leaving babies to die after failed abortions for years. In 2020, no babies were reported born alive through botched abortions, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. But between Jan. 1, 2019 and Dec. 31, 2019, three abortions resulted in born-alive babies who were then allowed to die. The first baby reportedly had “fetal anomalies” but also had “residual cardiac activity” for two minutes, yet no efforts were taken to preserve that baby’s life, and “the infant did not survive.” The second baby died while “comfort care measures” were provided. The third baby was previable and did not receive any attempts to preserve his or her life. It does not appear that any of the babies born alive in botched abortions survived. Due to efforts by the state’s Democratic governor, who served from 2019 until the present, Minnesota will no longer even keep track of born-alive babies. Tim Walz, the new Democratic vice presidential nominee, repealed the bipartisan measure in May 2023, stripping the state’s requirement that measure be taken to preserve the baby’s “life and health” and merely replacing it with a nebulous requirement for “care.” Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has refused to specify any limitations on abortion or protections for unborn babies that she would support, indicating that her campaign does not, in fact, support any restrictions on abortion. When Trump has pointed out that some states leave babies to die after birth, stating, “Hard to believe, they have some states passing legislation where you can execute the baby after birth,” outlets like CNN rate such claims as “false,” writing: “No state has passed or is passing a law that allows the execution of a baby after it is born.” Trump was ?% correct. Post-birth abortion is real and Harris-Walz support it. At least 5 babies were born alive after botched abortions and left to die under Walz’s watch. Two of these struggling babies were given “comfort care” instead of medical care allegedly in violation of… pic.twitter.com/OMrwWaK0NU— Roger Severino (@RogerSeverino_) August 6, 2024 The Harris campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. “Post-birth abortion is real and Harris-Walz support it,” tweeted The Heritage Foundation’s Roger Severino. “At least 5 babies were born alive after botched abortions and left to die under Walz’s watch. Two of these struggling babies were given ‘comfort care’ instead of medical care allegedly in violation of state law.” “How did Walz respond?” he continued. “By repealing the very law exposing and outlawing this horror and replacing it with abortion-on-demand on the front end, and infanticide on the back end.” Gov. Tim Walz is so extreme on abortion that Nancy Pelosi once told him that he needs to “tone it down” & be more moderate. Don’t vote for the ticket that will allow babies to die up until the moment of birth, and in some cases, even after birth. pic.twitter.com/FjtlEepfPg— Kristan Hawkins (@KristanHawkins) August 6, 2024 In January 2023, Walz signed a broad abortion law that included no limitations on how late during pregnancy a mother may end the life of her unborn baby. “To Minnesotans, know that your access to reproductive health, and your right to make your own health care decisions, are preserved and protected,” Walz said then of the Protect Reproductive Options Act. “And because of this law, that won’t change with the political winds and the makeup of the Supreme Court.” The legislation reads: “Every individual has a fundamental right to make autonomous decisions about the individual’s own reproductive health, including the fundamental right to use or refuse reproductive health care.” “Reproductive health care” is a euphemism for abortion. Tyler O’Neil contributed to this report. The post Under Gov. Tim Walz, Babies Born Alive in Botched Abortions Were Left to Die. Then He Removed Reporting Requirements appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Shock Revelation: Starliner Can't Undock From Space Station Safely

It’s only been a few hours since Kamala Harris picked hard-leftist Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) as her running mate, and the media are already lying at full throttle about his supposedly “moderate,” “centrist” record. Before getting into the absurd garbage that journalists are peddling today, let’s first dispel with the notion that Walz is, or ever was, a “moderate.” It’s already well established that he’s governed Minnesota as a hard-line leftist: he allowed the BLM riots in 2020 to run rampant through the Twin Cities; he supports hormone treatments and sex change operations for children; and during a particularly draconian COVID-19 lockdown, he established a hotline that encouraged Minnesotans to snitch on their neighbors for gathering outdoors. But even most (though not all) corporate journalists are not dishonest enough to claim that he’s been a centrist Governor. Instead, the preferred talking point is that, while he trended more progressive during his stint as Minnesota’s Chief Executive, he spent 12 years in Congress as a solid moderate. But that’s also a lie. The American Conservative Union (ACU), which rates how conservative each members of Congress is, gave Walz a lifetime rating just eight percent — tying him with the likes of Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Joaquin Castro (D-TX) when he left Congress in 2018. Meanwhile, Heritage Action, which employs a similar rating system, gave Walz a more generous but still very left-wing lifetime score of 13 percent. If that sounds like a centrist to you, then you’ll find nothing amiss with the video below. But for everyone still tethered to reality, this chorus of reporters calling a Walz a moderate should sound pretty nutty:     On Tuesday morning, MSNBC contributor and former Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill (whose lifetime ACU rating was 12%) lambasted those who would dare describe Walz as a leftist: “The idea that Time Walz is some lefty is just not true in reality. He got elected in a district that was very moderate… He is definitely somebody who is absolutely more moderate than people are giving him credit for right now.” Later that morning, MSNBC contributor and former Florida Dem Carlos Curbelo spent several minutes wildly gaslighting the audience of MSNBC’s José Díaz-Balart Reports: “It’s the same formula as 2020 for Democrats, but inverted. Now the progressive candidate is at the top of the ticket, and the more centrist, deal-making candidate is the Vice Presidential nominee.” Hillyard repeated the claim that Walz was a “centrist” several times during that segment. Against all odds ABC chief Washington correspondent Jon Karl somehow managed to outdo even the two former members of Congress on MSNBC’s payroll. Over the course of just a few minutes, wove the term “moderate” into his analysis so often that one wonders whether he was being paid per utterance: He does have a record in Congress as a very moderate Democrat representing a very moderate to conservative district in Minnesota… He had a pretty moderate record… He was viewed as a moderate… He will appeal, have a more personal connection to some of those moderate voters… He has a proven ability to do well with rural, moderate, even conservative voters. Not that any of this is surprising. After all, the corporate media’s primary task is to get Democrats elected. When the American public are turned off by lawless rioting and transgender surgery for minors, that means they have to lie to do their jobs.

A U.S. District Court Judge just handed down a devastating ruling for the godfather of all the Big Tech censors–Google. U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled Monday in U.S. v. Google that “Google is a monopolist and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.” Former Attorney General William Barr filed the lawsuit initially while Donald Trump was still president. Fox News host Laura Ingraham celebrated the decision on the Aug. 5 edition of her show The Ingraham Angle. Crediting the Trump administration, Ingraham said the former president “may be a Google slayer.”  In his ruling, Judge Mehta specifically noted that he found Google to have a monopoly in “general search services” and “general search text ads.” According to the Sherman Act, such violations can lead to $100,000,000 in fines for a corporation, but the consequences of this decision could go much further.  Mehta added, “Google’s distribution efforts are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects; and Google has not offered valid procompetitive justifications for these agreements. Importantly, the court finds that Google has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads. That conduct has allowed Google to earn monopoly profits.” The U.S. Department of Justice argued that Google reached its current dominance of internet searches by paying companies such as Apple to make Google the default search engine on their products. Google has paid Apple $8-$12 billion a year for such prime treatment, according to The New York Times. Such efforts have clearly borne fruit as Business Insider reported that 90 percent of internet searches take place on Google and its subsidiary YouTube, amounting to billions of searches a day.  Mehta noted this market dominance prominently in his ruling, which mentioned that Google already hosted 80% of “all search queries in the United States” by 2009. The ruling also pointed out that Google spent $26 billion in ad revenue in 2021 to ensure that its corporate partners not only gave the search giant “default placement” on their devices  but also that they agreed “not to preload any other general search engine on the device.” Thirty-six states and three U.S. territories joined the lawsuit including: Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that the State Department be held to account to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and that Big Tech mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

The Algerian boxer Imane Khelif has sparked an online firestorm, as people viciously spar over whether or not the athlete is biologically male or female. According to what the mainstream media and the IOC are saying, Khelif is not transgender but was born female with a condition called DSD that causes the development of XY chromosomes. Others say that it is impossible to have XY chromosomes and be anything other than a biological male. Caitlyn Jenner, who largely pioneered the transgender movement, spoke about the controversy during a recent Fox interview. Dave Rubin plays the clip. Caitlyn Jenner Makes Fox Host Go Quiet with Unexpected Take on Controversial Olympic Boxer www.youtube.com “First of all, if you’re dealing with being intersex, we’re talking about 0.001% of the population. It’s a very, very small portion of the population,” Jenner said, adding that the “media is so hypersensitive about this.” “I think the Olympic Committee did absolutely the wrong thing by letting her compete. ... The IOC just didn't do their job at the beginning and then the media got a hold of this and blew the whole thing up. But shame on the IOC for not protecting the integrity of women's sports and shame on the IOC for not protecting the safety of women's sports, obviously,” Jenner continued, noting that “this is a safety issue.”Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A study recently published in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal Environmental Research revealed that cell phone radiation can do a whole lot more than simply warm users' faces. Background Mobile phones emit radiation in the radiofrequency region of the electromagnetic spectrum. According to the National Cancer Institute, second through fourth-generation cell phones emit radio waves in the frequency range of 0.7-2.7 gigahertz; however, fifth-generation phones are anticipated to use a spectrum of up to 80 GHz. Supposedly, such "energy is too low to damage DNA. By contrast, ionizing radiation, which includes x-rays, radon, and cosmic rays, is high frequency and high energy. Energy from ionizing radiation can damage DNA." DNA-damaging radiation is particularly concerning because that could lead to genetic changes that might significantly increase the risk of cancer. New York University radiology professor Christopher Collins told Forbes earlier this year that electromagnetic radiation only starts to ionize and threaten DNA at around 3 million GHz. The NCI suggested that beside heating, there "are no other clearly established dangerous health effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation." Recognizing that the absence of proof of a causal link between cell phone radiation and cancer is not proof of an absence of such a link, various health organizations have expressed concern as well as the need for caution. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, for instance, maintains that the electromagnetic fields produced by cell phones are possibly carcinogenic to humans. A study published last year in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health indicated that specific low frequency magnetic fields generated by power lines and various electrical appliances "can increase the risk of developing leukemia in children, probably acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Prolonged exposure to electric appliances that generate magnetic fields higher than 0.4 µT like electric blankets is associated with a greater risk of childhood leukemia." The European Commission's directorate-general for health and food safety has acknowledged a possible link "between long term mobile phone use with acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor of the auditory nerve." The California Department of Public Health indicated in a 2017 alert: Although the science is still evolving, some laboratory experiments and human health studies have suggested the possibility that long-term, high use of cell phones may be linked to certain types of cancer and other health effects, including: brain cancer and tumors of the acoustic nerve (needed for hearing and maintaining balance) and salivary glands[;] lower sperm counts and inactive or less mobile sperm[; and] headaches and effects on learning and memory, hearing, behavior, and sleep. Damning new study A team of Austrian researchers recently executed the first human intervention trial under controlled conditions, examining the possible cell-killing and DNA-damaging effects of mobile phone radiation. Participants in the study were exposed to low and high doses of a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System signal via headsets for two hours on five consecutive days. Both before and weeks after their exposure, buccal cells — cells found on the inside of the cheek — were collected from the 41 subjects and closely examined. Although the researchers found no evidence for induction of chromosomal damage by 3G cellphone radiation and of "nuclear buds which are caused by gene amplifications," they did observe a "significant increase of binucleated cells which are formed as a consequence of disturbed cell divisions, and of karyolitic cells, which are indicative for cell death." These effects were not observed on the sides of the subjects' faces that were not exposed to the UMTS signals. 'These processes may possibly lead to formation of neoplastic cells.' The researchers indicated that they had "found clear evidence for disturbance of the cell cycle and cytotoxicity. These effects may play a causal role in the induction of adverse long term health effects in humans." "It is possible that these effects cause inflammatory responses and/or release of ROS, which were seen in a number of laboratory studies," wrote the researchers. "These processes may possibly lead to formation of neoplastic cells." Tumors, also called neoplasms, are made up of neoplastic cells. "Evidence is accumulating that exposure to HF-EMF [between 100 kilohertz and 300 GHz] is associated with specific brain tumors," wrote the researchers. "The results of the present investigation indicate that molecular mechanisms other than chromosomal damage may cause neoplastic transformation of the cells as a consequence of exposure to mobile phone specific HF-EMF." Dr. Rob Brown, a diagnostic radiologist who serves as vice president of scientific research and clinical affairs for Environmental Health Trust, told the Defender that the Austrian study "is significant and should be looked at with great concern." "Most research to date exploring the biological effects of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation has been performed on in-vitro cell cultures, plants and animal models," said Brown. "Because of this, they have been easier to discount by industry and policymakers." Brown suggested the study also provided "strong evidence that at least some frequencies emitted by the cellular phone passed through the entire thickness of the cheek's soft tissue (typically 1 centimeter in thickness or more) to affect the sampled cells" — a revelation that points at the possibility that such penetration could be "expected in all parts of the body in which a cellphone may make contact." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!