Tag

Slider

Browsing

Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign reportedly announced Harris will skip the historic Al Smith dinner, eschewing a decades-old campaign tradition.

The decision was first reported by CNN Saturday afternoon, citing Harris campaign officials. The campaign reportedly told event organizers Harris was instead planning to campaign in a battleground state, but the report did not specify which state Harris will be campaigning in.

The annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner is traditionally held in New York City to benefit Catholic Charities and is hosted by the archbishop of New York.

Every presidential election year, the Republican and Democratic candidates will typically come together to give humorous speeches at the dinner. The tradition began when John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon spoke at the event in 1960.

There have been exceptions to the tradition. The Al Smith dinner opted not to invite the two major presidential candidates during the 1996, 2000 and 2004 election cycles.

Fox News Digital asked the Trump campaign if the Republican candidate plans on attending the dinner but did not immediately hear back. The last time a Democratic candidate opted out of the event while a Republican nominee attended was in 1984, when President Ronald Reagan gave a speech without Walter Mondale in the audience. 

In 2020, both President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden appeared at the dinner. Neither candidate took shots at the other despite the intensity of the race.

‘Throughout my life of public service I’ve been guided by the tenets of Catholic social doctrine,’ Biden said in his speech. ‘What you do to the least among us, you do to me.’

‘Catholics have enriched our nation beyond measure,’ Trump said at the dinner. ‘The essence of the Catholic faith, as Jesus Christ said in the gospel, ‘Everyone will know you are my disciples.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris campaign for comment but did not immediately hear back.

The Associated Press and Fox News Digital’s Morgan Phillips contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Former President Trump vowed to ‘protect women at a level never seen before’ if elected, and to ensure that ‘powerful exceptions’ for abortion are adopted across the nation, in a social media post early Saturday.

Trump, in the lengthy late-night missive to his Truth Social in all capitalized letters, said ‘women are poorer than they were four years ago, are less healthy than they were four years ago, are less safe on the streets than they were four years ago, are more depressed and unhappy than they were four years ago, and are less optimistic and confident in the future than they were four years ago.’ 

‘I will fix all of that, and fast, and at long last this national nightmare will be over,’ he said. ‘Women will be happy, healthy, confident and free!’

Polls have consistently shown Trump running strongly, against Vice President Kamala Harris in most demographic groups, but struggling with women. Much of that has been attributed to the fact that the three justices he picked for the Supreme Court helped overturn Roe v. Wade, which had enshrined abortion protections under federal law.

In his post, Trump wrote that women ‘will no longer be thinking about abortion, because it is now where it always had to be, with the states, and a vote of the people—and with powerful exceptions, like those that Ronald Reagan insisted on for rape, incest, and the life of the mother—but not allowing for Democrat demanded late term abortion in the 7th, 8th, or 9th month, or even execution of a baby after birth.’

‘I will protect women at a level never seen before,’ he said. ‘They will finally be healthy, hopeful, safe and secure.’ 

Trump added: ‘Their lives will be happy, beautiful, and great again!’ 

The former president’s play for the female vote comes after Vice President Harris campaigned in Georgia, delivering a speech about the consequences of, what her campaign calls ‘extreme Trump Abortion Bans.’ 

‘After Vice President Harris spent the week speaking about the consequences of Trump Abortion Bans and the stakes of this election for women’s lives, Donald Trump snapped — taking to his phone late at night to rant and rave about women,’ Harris-Walz 2024 Spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said in response to Trump’s Truth Social post. ‘After ripping away our reproductive freedom, now he’s trying to tell us how to think.’ 

Chitika said ‘Trump thinks he can control women — he’s wrong.’ 

The Harris campaign said he is ‘terrified that women across the country will vote like our lives and freedoms depend on it, because they do.’ 

‘Women aren’t stupid. We see Trump’s Project 2025 agenda for what it is: an extreme plan to ban abortion nationwide and threaten access to IVF and birth control,’ Chitika said. ‘We’ll vote like it this November.’

But Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital that Harris and President Joe Biden have put women’s lives in danger, and noted the names of women who have been killed by illegal immigrants.

‘President Trump is right. Kamala may want to be the first woman president, but she’s made the lives of women worse — more dangerous and more unaffordable,’ Leavitt said. ‘If Kamala cared about protecting women, she would close the border and stop allowing rapists and murderers to flow into our country to prey on young women and girls. Kamala has never said the names of Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nunguaray, and Rachel Morin. President Trump has honored their lives and consoled their grieving families.’ 

Leavitt added: ‘If women want safety, security and prosperity for our families, there’s only one option on the ballot — President Trump.’

As for Project 2025, a blueprint for a Republican administration crafted by the Heritage Foundation, Leavitt repeated Trump’s assertion that he did not commission it and has no plans to implement it if elected.

‘President Trump has repeatedly said he has nothing to do with Project 2025,’ Leavitt said, adding that ‘Kamala’s campaign is lying because they are losing.’

Harris continues to claim that Trump will install a national abortion ban that would allow for no exceptions, despite Trump repeatedly saying that he would never support a national abortion ban, and believes in exceptions for abortion, including rape, incest, and life of the mother. 

Harris has refused to say whether she supports any abortion restrictions up to birth. 

Trump has vowed that he ‘will not block’ abortion pills or abortion medication for women, should he be elected president.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Vice President Kamala Harris entered the final stretch of the 2024 race for the White House with a large fundraising advantage over former President Trump, new federal filings show.

Harris hauled in nearly $190 million in fundraising for her 2024 campaign in August, more than quadrupling the $44.5 million that Trump’s team reported bringing into his principal campaign account last month — this according to figures from the Federal Election Commission made public on Friday.

The Harris campaign also vastly outspent the Trump campaign last month, as it dished out roughly $174 million. Much of those expenditures went to creating and running ads, as the campaign aimed to familiarize Americans with Harris after she replaced President Biden on the Democrats’ 2024 ticket two months ago.

The Trump campaign, by comparison, listed just $61 million in expenditures, with most of the spending going toward media buys.

But despite the Harris spending spree, the vice president’s campaign entered September with $235 million cash-on-hand, far ahead of the $135 million Trump’s coffers, according to the FEC filings.

The latest cash figures are another sign of the vice president’s surge in fundraising since becoming her party’s standard-bearer.

Both the Harris and Trump campaigns use a slew of affiliated fundraising committees to haul in cash, and those panels file their reports on a different schedule.

The Harris campaign announced earlier this month that they and their allied committees hauled in $361 million in August — nearly triple the $130 million reported raised by the Trump campaign and its aligned committees.

The vice president’s team also touted that Harris hauled in $47 million from nearly 600,000 donors in the 24 hours after her first and potentially only debate with Trump, which took place earlier this month in Philadelphia.

When asked about the fundraising deficit, Republican National Committee chair Michael Whatley told Fox News Digital in the debate spin room earlier this month that ‘the Democrats have a ton of money. The Democrats always have a ton of money.’

However, he emphasized that ‘we absolutely have the resources that we need to get our message out to all the voters that we’re talking to and feel very comfortable that we’re going to be able to see this campaign through and we’re going to win on November 5.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Democrats roundly condemned political violence after news that a suspect had been arrested for threatening to hurt and kill six of the Supreme Court’s nine Justices and some of their family members.

‘Threats and acts of violence are unacceptable. Period,’ Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told the Washington Post. ‘As President Biden and Vice President Harris have always said, violence has absolutely no place in our country. Violent rhetoric and threats are unacceptable,’ White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates said. ‘There’s absolutely no place for political violence in this country – full stop,’ said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

It remains unknown exactly which justices 76-year-old Alaska resident Panos Anastasiou intended to attack. 

However, a complaint filed against him Wednesday indicated that his threats included anti-Black slurs, and there is only one Black Supreme Court Justice – Clarence Thomas, who typically votes with the Court’s conservative majority. Additionally, the complaint laid out that Anastasiou’s threats included extreme remarks about a former president described by Anastasiou as a ‘convicted criminal.’ Former President Donald Trump became the first former president to be convicted of a felony, earlier this year.

Democrats have repeatedly slammed the Supreme Court as illegitimate. In a foretelling speech from Duke Law School on Monday, Kannon Shanmugam, who is widely considered one of the nation’s top appellate litigators and has argued 35 cases in front of the Supreme Court, said that ‘attacks on the legitimacy of the courts are contributing to the threat of violence against judges in general.’ 

‘Enough is enough. When will the media press Democrats like Sen. Schumer, Sen. Durbin, Sen. Whitehouse, VP Harris and others to stop their baseless attacks on the Supreme Court that have created actual threats to the safety of our Justices?’ questioned GOP Florida Sen. Rick Scott following news of Anastasiou’s arrest. ‘Hey, look, someone who took Chuck Schumer seriously,’ said Trent England, the founder and executive director of conservative nonprofit Save Our States. Other critics pointed to how Anastasiou was a frequent donor to Democrats. 

Trump’s ability to shakeup the Supreme Court with new Justices has not sat well with Democrats. 

In a fiery speech in front of the Supreme Court after a preliminary draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked in spring 2020, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., put conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, both nominated by Trump, in his crosshairs: ‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,’ Schumer exclaimed outside the steps of the Supreme Court in 2020. ‘You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’

‘The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,’ a cohort of Democratic senators said in an August 2019 brief after the High Court took up a case about the constitutionality of a New York City law restricting legal gun owners from transporting their firearms.

In 2020, during the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s final Supreme Court nomination that would eventually make it to the bench, then-Sen. Kamala Harris called the confirmation ‘illegitimate’ and ‘reckless.’ Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Harris warned that there is ‘a national movement afoot to attack hard-won and hard-fought freedoms.’ 

‘I don’t want to, at this point, use my voice in a way that is alarmist,’ she added earlier this year in an interview with the New York Times. ‘But this court has made it very clear that they are willing to undo recognized rights.’ 

Meanwhile, in July, Sen. Ed Markey said: ‘Donald Trump and his MAGA partners’ were to blame for the fact that ‘Our most fundamental freedoms are under attack from an illegitimate, extremist U.S. Supreme Court majority.’ 

‘They started by breaking the rules for confirming justices and ended up breaking the Supreme Court itself,’ Markey said.

The DOJ indicated Wednesday that Anastasiou was charged with nine counts of making threats against a federal judge and 13 counts of making threats in interstate commerce. He faces up to 10 years in jail. 

‘Our justice system depends on the ability of judges to make their decisions based on the law, and not on fear,’ Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday. ‘Our democracy depends on the ability of public officials to do their jobs without fearing for their lives or the safety of their families.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

After months of public optimism about the prospects of a ceasefire, Biden administration officials have soured on the prospects of an end to the war between Israel and Hamas. 

‘We aren’t any closer to that now than we were even a week ago,’ National Security Council spokesman John Kirby admitted to reporters on Wednesday. He called the prospects of a completed deal ‘daunting.’ 

‘No deal is imminent,’ one U.S. official told The Wall Street Journal. ‘I’m not sure it ever gets done.’

Israelis point the finger at Hamas for killing six hostages earlier this month, including a U.S. citizen. Arab officials lay blame on Israel for explosive pagers and walkie-talkies and airstrikes aimed at killing Hezbollah fighters for making the prospect of a multi-front war more likely. 

‘There’s no chance now of it happening,’ an Arab official said after the recent campaign against Hezbollah. ‘Everyone is in a wait-and-see mode until after the election. The outcome will determine what can happen in the next administration.’

For Biden, a former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who ran on his diplomacy chops, failure to secure a deal would be a blow to his legacy. It would mean a presidency bookended by a chaotic pullout from Afghanistan at the start and the false hope that peace — and the return of some 250 hostages taken by Hamas on Oct. 7 — was just around the corner after the outbreak of war in the Middle East. 

Along with the recent attacks on Hezbollah, officials cited another main reason for pessimism to the Journal: the number of Palestinian prisoners that Israel would be asked to release to bring home its hostages.

Joel Rubin, former deputy assistant secretary of state, told Fox News Digital he’s less pessimistic about the potential for a deal. 

‘Nobody’s walked away from the table. They haven’t stated they’re done. Qatar and Egypt are still partnering with us on these talks. The three-stage agreed-upon framework is still in place,’ he said.

‘The hangups are on the implementation side, not the framework side,’ he said, noting that negotiations as far as which prisoners will be released, how their safety will be guaranteed and what to do with Hamas Leader Yahya Sinwar remain open-ended. 

‘These implementation issues keep coming up,’ he said. ‘That’s where you keep hearing Hamas growing its demands, adding new names, expecting more. And that’s where you hear Israel, you know, calling for the Philadelphia corridor, which suddenly has dropped out of the discussion, right? They both want more and more advantage and gains on their side, which is why negotiators are exasperated.’

While the Biden administration continues to try to find ways forward on a deal, public comments that have strung along hope for months are now conflicted by some of the privately held sentiment that cease-fire efforts are futile. 

On July 19, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said a cease-fire deal was within sight. 

‘I believe we’re inside the 10-yard line and driving toward the goal line in getting an agreement that would produce a cease-fire, get the hostages home and put us on a better track to trying to build lasting peace and stability,’ Blinken said.

On Aug. 17, President Biden said he was ‘optimistic’ a deal could be reached. ‘We are closer than we’ve ever been,’ he said, adding that he was sending Blinken to Israel to continue ‘intensive efforts to conclude this agreement.’ 

On Aug. 19, Blinken said that Israel had ‘accepted a proposal’ and the next step was for Hamas to agree.

‘The next important statement is for Hamas to say ‘yes,’ and then, in the coming days, for all of the expert negotiators to get together to work on clear understandings on implementing the agreement,’ Blinken said at a press conference in Tel Aviv.

‘This is a decisive moment, probably the best, maybe the last opportunity to get the hostages home, to get a cease-fire and to put everyone on a better path to enduring peace and security.’

But those comments came one day after Hamas had said it would not agree to that proposal. They objected to Israel having control of the Rafah and Philadelphia corridors, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had demanded. 

Then again on Sept. 2, Biden claimed the U.S. was ‘very close’ to finalizing a cease-fire deal that would see the release of hostages. Asked why he was optimistic despite other deals having failed, he said, ‘Hope springs eternal.’

Even this week, Blinken expressed optimism about a deal, though he warned after the pager blasts that ‘escalation’ threatens to thwart progress.

‘It’s imperative that all parties refrain from any actions that could escalate the conflict,’ Blinken said at a news conference in Egypt. 

He said he was focused on a deal that would bring calm on all fronts, including Israel’s northern border with Lebanon. Blinken said that 15 out of 18 paragraphs of a deal had been agreed by all sides.

He blamed long wait times for messages to be passed between the parties for leaving space to disrupt the talks. 

‘We’ve seen that in the intervening time, you might have an event, an incident — something that makes the process more difficult, that threatens to slow it, stop it, derail it — and anything of that nature, by definition, is probably not good in terms of achieving the result that we want, which is the cease-fire,’ Blinken said.

After Egypt, he went to Paris to discuss the prospects of a deal with his European counterparts. 

U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan met Wednesday with the relatives of the seven remaining U.S. hostages held in Gaza, where the families said they ‘expressed ​frustration with the lack of tangible progress’ to Sullivan. 

On Thursday, ​​Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in a televised address called the pager attacks ‘a declaration of war’ and that attacks against Israel would continue until the war with Gaza is over. Likewise, Israel’s defense minister vowed to continue striking Hezbollah in Lebanon, aiming to stop the group’s rocket and missile attacks so some 70,000 Israelis who live in the northern border region could return home. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

As CBS anchors Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan prepare for the vice-presidential debate on Oct. 1, they have two models to choose from: CNN’s attempt to avoid ‘fact-checking’ the candidates or ABC’s aggressively one-sided ‘fact-based’ assault on the Republicans. 

ABC’s immoderate moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis uncorked the most flagrantly unfair and unbalanced debate in the history of modern presidential debates, going back to the Nixon-Kennedy debates of 1960. They don’t care that anyone objects to their strategic decision to join in debating former President Trump, giving everyone the distinct impression that this was a three-on-one conversation. 

Muir appeared on the Disney-syndicated chat show ‘Live with Kelly and Mark’ and dismissed all criticism of ABC’s shoddy performance as ‘noise.’ He sounded like Jimmy Kimmel when he told Republicans he didn’t want them watching his late-night show. ABC isn’t here to please Republicans, only Democrats. 

‘All of the noise that you hear afterward about, you know, ‘Which candidate won the debate, did the moderators win or lose?’’ Muir said. ‘That’s just noise. You all know that. The most important thing to remember is you all have the power.’ 

Voters don’t have the power to tilt the election discussion in one direction. Conspiracy theories bubbled up from an alleged anonymous whistleblower about Vice President Kamala Harris getting questions in advance. ABC hired former Democratic Party chair Donna Brazile as a contributor, and in 2016, when she was a contributor at CNN, she sent Hillary Clinton’s campaign some topics for a town hall discussion in advance, and CNN let her go. 

It could be enlightening to drag ABC before a congressional probe and ask how this incredibly biased debate was organized. But Harris didn’t need to have these questions in advance. Team Kamala could know there would be an inflation question, an immigration question, an abortion question, an Israel question, and maybe another mention of her flip-flop on fracking. There were no surprises, and the questions were vague enough that she repeatedly dodged a direct answer and uncorked her prepared speeches, and the moderators naturally allowed it. 

Davis gave a revealing interview to the Los Angeles Times, explaining they didn’t want to be like CNN. ‘People were concerned that statements were allowed to just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate Biden, at the time, or the moderators,’ she said. Those ‘people’ are Democrats. 

Davis told Times media reporter Stephen Battaglio that she had to turn off her social media accounts to shut out people who accuse her of pulling for Harris. ‘There is a stereotype that I am acutely aware of that I can’t be unbiased covering this moment,’ she said. Then she went on the debate stage and proved it. Davis, like Muir, had no time for people charging her with blatant favoritism. 

Davis also cited her mentor, ABC News veteran Carole Simpson, a woman of color best known for moderating a 1992 presidential debate where she sneered at President George H.W. Bush for calling himself the ‘education president.’ Simpson openly called Hillary Clinton’s election to the Senate in 2000 an ‘exhilarating moment’ and in 2007, proclaimed it was time for Hillary to be elected the first woman president. That says a lot. 

So how did Team ABC decide to tilt toward only ‘fact-checking’ Trump? Davis said she and Muir had studied hours of campaign rallies and interviews to prepare for the debate, so they were ‘ready to counter the candidates’ most egregious statements.’ For example, she fully anticipated fighting back on Trump’s supposedly ‘erroneous’ claim that the Democrats favor abortion at any time for any reason. 

‘That was an obvious thing to get on the record,’ Davis said. ABC’s partisans should have studied what Trump typically cites, that then-Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said in a radio interview about keeping a baby that was born alive ‘comfortable’ as they decided whether to kill it (or perhaps let it die unassisted). A state legislator had proposed a bill that she admitted would allow abortion up until birth. 

They could have reviewed the 2020 Democratic Party platform, which proclaimed, ‘We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion… Democrats oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights.’ 

Davis gave a revealing interview to the Los Angeles Times, explaining they didn’t want to be like CNN. ‘People were concerned that statements were allowed to just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate Biden, at the time, or the moderators,’ she said. Those ‘people’ are Democrats. 

They will fight to overturn barriers, with no exceptions. Liberal ‘fact-checkers’ have attacked Trump and many other Republicans (like Montana Senate candidate Tim Sheehy) for ‘lying’ about Democrats supporting abortion on demand, when the facts are there, in black and white. They claim Republicans are debunked because late-term abortions are ‘rare.’ That’s not a factual rebuttal. 

On the Sunday after the debate, ABC’s ‘This Week’ host Martha Raddatz, who has specialized in foreign policy, pushed a belated fact-check on Harris’ claim that there were no American service members in war zones. ‘Our fact-checkers found that to be false,’ Raddatz told Gov. Maura Healey, D-Mass. ‘There are currently 900 U.S. military personnel in Syria, 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq. All have been under regular threat from drones and missiles for months. We also have action in the Red Sea. Also, every single day, the Navy SEALs, Delta Forces special operators can be part of any sort of deadly raid.’ Muir and Davis didn’t prepare for that one. 

Battaglio apparently had no questions about whether they studied Harris’ record for ‘fact-checks.’ They obviously needed no preparation on that front, since they never touched her. Let’s guess that shameless zero occurred because, on the left, any attempt to fact-check a Democrat opposing Trump is objectionable, because it suggests that a Democrat’s falsehoods might be made equivalent to Trump’s. Every anti-Trump journalist acts on the belief that any measure of neutrality is an atrocity. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The House of Representatives has passed a bipartisan bill increasing U.S. Secret Service (USSS) protections for major presidential and vice presidential candidates after two foiled assassination attempts against former President Donald Trump.

It passed with an overwhelming unanimous 405 to 0 vote, a rare show of bipartisanship in Congress.

The legislation was introduced by Reps. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., and Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., in response to the July 13 shooting at a Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

A 20-year-old gunman was able to open fire on the rally from a rooftop just outside the rally perimeter, killing one attendee and injuring Trump and two others.

Weeks later, USSS agents arrested a man near Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course who had been waiting for the ex-president during a game on Sunday with an SKS rifle.

If passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Biden, the bill would mandate a comprehensive review of USSS protective standards and impose uniform standards for the security of presidents, vice presidents and major White House candidates.

‘Regardless of how every American feels, regardless of how every American intends to vote, it is the right of the American people to determine the outcome of this election. The idea that our election could be decided by an assassin’s bullet should shake the conscience of our nation, and it requires swift action by the federal government,’ Lawler said during debate on the bill Thursday.

‘It is shocking that it took a second assassination attempt for Donald Trump to get the same level of protective detail from the Secret Service as the president of the United States.’

Progressive Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said he is backing the bill but argued it would be meaningless without stronger firearm laws.

‘I support this legislation because the Secret Service must be able to protect our highest elected officials and candidates. But this legislation will do nothing to make the rest of us any safer, or change the fact that gun violence continues to take the lives of more than 100 Americans every single day,’ Nadler said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, pushed back on Nadler’s comments and accused him of painting the assassination attempts as ‘Republicans’ fault.’

‘Next thing they’re going to say is, oh, some crazy guy on the left tries to assassinate President Trump, and it’s President Trump’s fault. Oh, wait a minute. They said that too. This is ridiculous,’ Jordan said.

It is not immediately clear how the bill would classify ‘major’ candidates.

Following the first attempt against Trump, Biden extended heightened USSS protection to the ex-president, who he was still running against at the time before dropping out of the race.

He also granted a request by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., then running as a third-party candidate, for USSS protection.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A new poll has found that former President Trump has higher favorability numbers among likely voters compared to pop superstar Taylor Swift. 

The New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and Siena College poll of 2,436 likely voters nationwide revealed that 44% have a favorable opinion of Taylor Swift, compared to 34% who have unfavorable views. 

The same poll found that 47% view Trump favorably, compared to 51% who don’t. Vice President Kamala Harris, meanwhile, was viewed favorably by 48% of the likely voters and unfavorably by 49%, the newspaper says. 

The poll, with a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points, was conducted from Sept. 11 to 16, starting one day after Swift endorsed the Harris-Walz campaign. 

‘I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election,’ Swift wrote on her Instagram account on Sept. 10, following the presidential debate between the two candidates that day. 

‘I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them. I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos,’ Swift added. ‘I was so heartened and impressed by her selection of running mate @timwalz, who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman’s right to her own body for decades.’ 

The New York Times reports that her endorsement appears to have divided voters along party lines. 

The poll shows that 70% of Democrats have a favorable view of Swift, compared to 41% of independents and just 23% of Republicans.

A total of 60% of Republicans indicated that they had an unfavorable view of Swift, while only 11% of Democrats felt the same way. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The U.S. is ‘sleepwalking’ into a global war against its top adversaries united under an axis of ‘malign partnerships,’ and experts are sounding the alarm that neither the U.S. military nor the public are prepared for World War III.

In late July, a body of non-governmental national security experts, first tasked by Congress in 2022 under the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, released an evaluation of the U.S.’ overall security strategy put forward by the Biden administration two years ago.

The commission found that after decades of post-Cold War policies that cut defense spending and reduced investments in the security sector, Washington, D.C., is ‘not prepared’ to counter Beijing in open conflict, let alone a multi-front war against China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.

The commission, which included four Republicans and four Democrats who served under the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations, looked to make clear the lack of preparedness was not the fault of a single administration, but rather the failure of a generation of leaders to identify and counter the growing danger posed by authoritarian nations, as well as to adequately explain the threat to the American public.

The experts explained the U.S. and its allies are facing a threat not seen from global powers since WWII, as Europe is witnessing the largest land war on the continent since 1945 – a war in which Russia is receiving aid from China, Iran and North Korea. 

The threat of a major war between nation states, not just rogue militants or terrorist groups, looms in the Middle East, and the potential for open conflict in the Indo-Pacific also remains a serious concern.

‘There’s been a generalized failure across our political class in educating the American public of the severity of these threats and the danger that they represent,’ Amb. Eric Edelman, who served as vice-chair for the 2024 commission as well as co-chair or vice chair for prior commission reports, said during a briefing to reporters hosted by JINSA this week.

‘Historically, I’m sad to say, that when we’re faced with these kinds of challenges, we have typically responded after a catastrophe,’ he added, referencing events like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. ‘Perhaps we can draw from some different lessons in history.’

The experts pointed to the decrease in defense spending – which has been in a downturn since 1952 when the U.S. allocated nearly 17% of its GDP for defense compared to the 3% allocated today – and warned this investment in security is not enough to adequately counter adversaries like China.

After reviewing unclassified war games, the commission found that even with Washington’s efforts to ramp up weapons stockpiles following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. would likely still exhaust its munitions inventories within three to four weeks if it were to engage in open conflict with Beijing.

Some munitions like anti-ship missiles are estimated to last only a few days, and once expended, it will take years to replace the munitions.

Edelman pointed out that this is not a justification for ceasing military aid to Ukraine and highlighted that a direct war against an adversary like China or Russia would be substantially more expensive, let alone a global conflict not seen since the 20th century. 

‘Preparing ourselves for defense is essentially an effort to deter conflict,’ Edelman said. ‘Whatever the cost of defense is going to be, it’s going to be paltry in comparison to what the cost of a war would be.’

Near the end of World War II, the U.S. allocated more than 40% of its GDP for its defense budget in 1943 and 1944, and the commission warned that modern wars, as seen in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Ukraine, are lengthy engagements.  

‘The United States must therefore ready its forces and its industrial base for the potential of protracted conflict,’ the commission’s report said. 

However, the experts also warned that preparing the U.S. for a global power struggle cannot be remedied by just throwing money into the defense budget, there also needs to be a ‘shift in culture.’

Mara Rudman, commissioner and former deputy assistant to the president for National Security Affairs during the Clinton and Obama administrations, pointed to steps China has been taking over the last several decades that have given it an edge over the U.S., including in its technology sectors and relationship building in Latin America, Africa and recently, the Middle East.

‘They spent the last 20 years building the Belt and Road Initiative, making sure that they control processing and mining for most of the critical minerals that we need for a range of different weapon systems we have, but also for our phones and for the kinds of cars we need to build, and for the batteries that we need to have across the board,’ she told reporters this week. ‘That’s something we need to overcome.’

There has been an increasing push in Republican circles in the U.S. to move away from international involvement, contributing to a rise in isolationism that is similar to U.S. sentiments ahead of World War II, and experts are sounding the alarm that this needs to change if Americans do not want to find themselves embroiled in another global war. 

‘It’s going to require leadership, and it’s going to require educating the American public,’ Edelman, who served under the Bush administration, said. 

The experts on the bipartisan commission were in agreement that the American people not only need to be better educated by their leadership but trusted that they can decide what is best for their nation when properly informed.

Both the Biden-Harris administration and the Trump campaign were briefed by experts on the results of the commission. 

While the White House and Harris campaign have not publicly commented on the findings, the former president’s response to the report seemed to run counter to what the commission urged, as former President Donald Trump called it ‘stupid’ during a rally in late August – prompting the experts to question whether Trump had been properly briefed by his campaign.

‘I really think it’s impossible to read the report that they’ve delivered and not believe that we are as a nation…sleepwalking into a great and potentially historic catastrophe,’ host of the event and JINSA’s Charles & Randi Wax senior fellow, John Hannah, said. ‘We are not on the brink of a national crisis – in many ways, we’re already deep into a crisis.

‘And we do not have our Churchill at the moment,’ Hannah, who also served during the Bush administration, added. ‘The commission on the National Defense Strategy has fulfilled its mission. Now we need everybody else to play their part around the country and in the halls of power in Washington.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

New legislation signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom regulating AI-generated ‘deepfake’ election content and requiring the removal of ‘deceptive content’ from social media is now being challenged in court.

The new laws build on legislation passed years earlier regulating campaign ads and communications, according to the governor’s office.

But two of the three new laws are being challenged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California by a conservative poster – @MrReaganUSA – Fox News Digital has learned. The account had posted an AI-generated parody of a Harris campaign ad that resurfaced and went viral after Newsom signed the bills. 

‘This chills free speech, particularly for political commentators like Mr. Reagan, who use satire to critique public figures and rely on social media viewership for their livelihood,’ said the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, the public interest firm filing the lawsuit on behalf of @MrReaganUSA, in a news release.

The legislation, which Newsom’s office says will not ban memes or parodies, will instead require all satire or parody content to either remove their content or display a disclaimer label that the content is digitally altered. One of the laws also exempts ‘Materially deceptive content that constitutes satire or parody.’

But the attorney for the account holder suing California, Theodore Frank, told Fox News Digital in an interview that there’s a provision in one of the laws that would require social media platforms to have ‘a large censorship apparatus and respond to complaints within 36 hours.’

‘And what’s going to happen is that social media is just going to ban us so that they don’t have to have a big infrastructure to deal with it. They’re not going to look to see whether something counts as parody,’ Frank said.

‘There’s a provision that allows lawsuits against the makers of the videos, if, unless there are these really burdensome disclosure requirements that basically require you to use the entire screen to have the disclosure and requires them to take down years of videos and spend hours on hours re-cutting them with the disclosure requirements and then having a disclosure that’s louder than the video itself, and that takes away the entire comedic event,’ Frank added.

The law makes it illegal to create and publish deepfakes ahead of Election Day and 60 days thereafter. It also allows courts to stop distribution of the materials and impose civil penalties, per the Associated Press.

X allows parody accounts so long as they distinguish themselves as such ‘in their account name and in their bio,’ per the company’s website. The platform does not have rules around individual posts containing parody and has been known to label deepfakes if the poster does not do so.

There are similar laws already in place in Alabama, and Frank said they’re prepared to file suit against those, too.

‘I don’t think Republicans are immune to over-legislating in this area, but there are certainly other states that are doing this. And you know, I think it depends on who’s in power and who’s getting made fun of,’ he said.

In a statement provided to Fox News Digital, Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon said, ‘The person who created this misleading deepfake in the middle of an election already labeled the post as a parody on X. Requiring them to use the word ‘parody’ on the actual video avoids further misleading the public as the video is shared across the platform.’

‘It’s unclear why this conservative activist is suing California. This new disclosure law for election misinformation isn’t any more onerous than laws already passed in other states, including Alabama,’ Gardon said. ‘We’re proud California did expand the law to also include misinformation about election workers for two months after an election — so that malicious actors don’t attempt to disrupt the democratic process.’

Newsom has previously condemned such satirical election content generated by AI. In response to the altered election ad of Harris, which Elon Musk reposted, Newsom said in July. ‘Manipulating a voice in an ‘ad’ like this one should be illegal. I’ll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is.’

Fox Business’s Michael Dorgan contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS