Author

admin

Browsing

Elon Musk’s claim that “civil war is inevitable” in the UK is “totally unjustified”, a government minister has said, after the billionaire clashed with Sir Keir Starmer over the remarks.

Musk, the owner of X, has been engaged in a war of words with the prime minister over riots gripping the UK, amid concerns online disinformation is fuelling the unrest.

UK riots latest: Petrol bombs and violence in two cities

In a comment on his social media site below a video of rioters setting off fireworks at police, Musk said “civil war is inevitable”.

This was quickly rejected by the PM’s spokesperson, who said there is “no justification for comments like that” and “anyone who is whipping up violence online will face the full force of the law”.

Musk then replied to a social media post from Sir Keir who had criticised violence towards Muslims, with the tech entrepreneur saying: “Shouldn’t you be concerned about attacks on *all* communities?”

Courts minister Heidi Alexander told Sky News that “everyone should be calling for calm in this situation”.

“So I do think the language around civil war being inevitable is totally unjustified,” she added.

Former government minister Rory Stewart criticised Musk’s comments, posting on X: “Seriously?

“Since when have you claimed to understand British communities or British politics? Exactly how many days have you spent with these communities?

“Does it ever occur to you that this might perhaps be the wrong time to sound off about a subject you know nothing about?”

Armando Iannucci, creator of comedy series The Thick of It, also posted in response to Musk’s comments about civil war, saying: “Tomorrow morning you’ll see the people who live here tidy these streets up.

“Small gangs of thugs do not a mass movement make.

“You’ve been taken in by your own platform, which amplifies noise at the expense of facts.”

Mosques and hotels housing asylum seekers have been among the targets of far-right rioters across the UK over the past week.

Former police chief Neil Basu has said the worst of the far-right violence should be treated as terrorism.

This post appeared first on sky.com

Name any major tech brand – from Google to Amazon to Tesla to ChatGPT – and the chances are Nvidia is involved in some way.

The company – which makes computer chips – may not be a household name in the UK, but it has just leapfrogged Microsoft and Apple to become the most valuable public company in the world.

Update:
Microsoft back as world’s most valuable company

It is now worth more than $3.3tn (£2.6tn) – with its share price up by almost 600,000% from when it first traded on the US stock market back in 1999.

If you had invested $10,000 (£7,850) in the firm back then, the stock would now be worth more than $59m (£46m).

Jensen Huang, the co-founder and chief executive of Nvidia, has also seen his net worth swell to a staggering $119bn (£93bn) as a result, according to Forbes.

But how did this all happen?

Next version envy

Nvidia was formed in 1993 when Mr Huang met up with two friends – all of them engineering graduates – at a Denny’s restaurant in California.

The multi-billionaire used to work at a branch of the chain when he was a teenager after immigrating to the US with his family from Taiwan.

Video games were the initial focus of the trio, who wanted to create a computer chip that would help PCs display “realistic” 3D graphics.

Mr Huang, 61, said the 24-hour diner was an ideal meeting place because it had “all the coffee you could drink and no one could chase you out”.

The caffeine-fuelled session spurred Mr Huang, along with friends Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem, to soon get down to business working out of an apartment in Fremont, California.

They came up with the name Nvidia by combining NV – which stands for “next version” – with “Invidia”, the Latin word for envy.

The friends hoped to speed up computing so much that they would leave their rivals in the dust looking on – a mentality that also inspired the firm’s logo, which features an envious “green” eye.

Intelligent chips

In the 1990s the computer chip market was dominated by companies such as Intel, a key producer of central processing units (CPUs), a key foundation of basic computing and software processes.

However, Nvidia managed to carve out a specialism for itself by instead focusing on graphics processing units (GPUs), which are an important element in computer games as they help render images.

The company built up a reputation for helping to revolutionise electronic entertainment and went public in 1999.

Nvidia’s early success included its graphics card GeForce, which can be plugged into a PC to increase its power.

Writer Stephen Witt said the early popularity of the device was particularly driven by the Quake series of first-person shooter games.

The company soon achieved another coup when it signed up to become the exclusive graphics provider for Microsoft’s first Xbox games console in 2000.

However, it soon emerged that the company’s GPUs could also be useful beyond shoot ’em ups, platformers and role-playing games.

Clever bet

Engineers realised that the chips were able to perform calculations in ways regular CPUs could not – making them more energy efficient and better able to handle sophisticated computing tasks.

So by the mid-2000s Nvidia began marketing its products at other types of tech firms, before then branching out further by investing heavily in artificial intelligence (AI) in the 2010s.

One example was car companies – which soon turned to the firm for help with driver-assistance software. The impact was so major that Nvidia’s hardware is now found in all Tesla vehicles.

The company was also able to use its dominant and advanced position on GPUs to steal a march on its rivals, producing its chips more quickly and in larger volumes.

However, it was the company’s early gamble with AI, such as through developing machine-learning features in its products, which propelled it to the top.

Mr Huang told Sky News’ US partner NBC News in an interview last year: “We just believed that someday something new would happen, and the rest of it requires some serendipity.”

When asked if the company’s subsequent success with AI was the result of luck or prescience, he replied: “It wasn’t foresight. The foresight was accelerated computing.”

Bryan Catanzaro, who began working on AI when he joined Nvidia in 2008, told NBC News: “For 10 years, Wall Street asked Nvidia, ‘Why are you making this investment? No one’s using it’.”

From billions to trillions

The company’s journey to the king of the stock market has not been without its stumbles.

In 2010 it made an unsuccessful attempt to muscle in on the smartphone market – with Mr Huang admitting that he has made “a lot” of mistakes over the years.

But by the time of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, firms began increasingly turning to AI – and Nvidia’s bet started to pay off.

Among the firms using its technology was ChatGPT, which was soon followed by a rush of imitators.

A Wall Street analyst told the New Yorker last year: “There’s a war going on out there in AI, and Nvidia is the only arms dealer.”

Today, seemingly every major company in Silicon Valley, including Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft, has made use of its chips, and it is estimated to control more than 80% of the market for the tech used in AI systems.

Nvidia’s success has only accelerated in recent months. It hit a market valuation of $2tn in February and then overtook Apple for the number two spot earlier this month.

It finally climbed to the summit of the stock market on Tuesday after adding more than $100bn (£79bn) to its market value in just one day.

Analysts said demand had been fuelled by a stock split earlier this month that created more shares and made them more attractive to individual investors.

However, while demand for Nvidia’s products is currently outstripping supply, its top spot will likely continue to be threatened in the coming months and years as firms such as Microsoft invest heavily in AI in an attempt to catch up.

This post appeared first on sky.com

Elon Musk’s X has launched legal action against a string of companies after they stopped advertising on the social network.

The tech giant, formerly known as Twitter, alleges the firms unlawfully conspired to boycott the site and caused it to lose “billions of dollars” in revenue.

The lawsuit was filed in Texas against the World Federation of Advertisers and member companies British multinational Unilever, food giant Mars, CVS Health and Danish renewable energy company Orsted.

Musk wrote on X: “We tried peace for two years, now it is war.”

It comes after advertising revenue at X slumped after Musk bought and renamed the social network for $44bn (£35bn) in 2022.

Within days of taking over, Musk made thousands of employees redundant – including many moderation staff tasked with removing harmful content.

Companies also halted advertising on the site in November 2023 following concerns their content was showing up next to pro-Nazi posts, with X’s owner also accused of spreading hate speech.

Musk later apologised for endorsing an antisemitic conspiracy theory but also told advertisers to “go f*** yourself”.

The tech billionaire has come under growing criticism over his running of the site, which most recently has been blamed for failing to tackle misinformation spread during the riots in England.

The lawsuit claims the advertisers – acting through a World Federation of Advertisers initiative called Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) – colluded in a way that violated US anti-trust laws.

The scheme was launched in 2019 to “help the industry address the challenge of illegal or harmful content on digital media platforms and its monetisation via advertising”.

X is seeking unspecified damages, as well as a court order against any continued efforts to conspire to withhold advertising spending.

It said it has applied brand-safety standards that are comparable to those of its competitors and that “meet or exceed” measures specified by GARM.

Read more:
Why has Elon Musk waded into discussion about UK riots?

X’s chief executive Linda Yaccarino said: “People are hurt when the marketplace of ideas is constricted. No small group of people should monopolise what gets monetised.”

Professor Christine Bartholomew, an anti-trust expert from Buffalo University, said X would have to prove there was an agreement to boycott joined by each advertiser, which she described as “no small hurdle”.

She added that even if the case was successful, Musk could not legally force companies to advertise on X.

The firms accused by X are yet to comment on the lawsuit.

However, Unilever, which owns brands including Dove, Persil and Wall’s, told a hearing in Congress last month it only advertised on platforms that did not harm its brand.

The company’s president Herrish Patel said in a statement: “Unilever, and Unilever alone, controls our advertising spending. No platform has a right to our advertising dollar.”

This post appeared first on sky.com

As Israel braces for a possible attack from Iran, Israel Defense Forces on Tuesday said it carried out an airstrike in southern Lebanon, reportedly killing four Hezbollah operatives.

The strike was carried out in the Nabatieh area, where the IDF said its fighter jets targeted a building used by Hezbollah in the Southern Front.

A second building in which Hezbollah operates was also struck in Khiam, the IDF said.

While the IDF did not immediately note any casualties, Lebanese security sources told the AFP that four Hezbollah members were killed in the strike, according to the Times of Israel.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to be attacked while preparing for a potential larger conflict. 

Fox News Foreign Correspondent Trey Yingst reported that Hezbollah launched a rocket and drone attack into northern Israel on Monday. First responders reported that shrapnel injured two people, one of them critically. 

Israel and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah have exchanged near-daily strikes for the past 10 months. The conflict was sparked after Iranian proxy Hamas carried out a massacre against Israel on Oct. 7, slaughtering 1,200 people, including over 30 Americans.

Tensions have escalated in recent weeks as world leaders worry that the conflict could boil over into a larger regional war.

Israel confirmed last week that its forces killed top Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr and Hamas commander Muhammad Deif in recent strikes.

The assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran last week ratcheted up tensions in the Middle East tinderbox further. Israel has not come out publicly to claim responsibility for the killing, but Iran and Hamas are accusing the Jewish state of being behind it.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has said it is ‘Iran’s duty to avenge Haniyeh’s blood, because he was martyred on our soil.’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have reiterated that Israel remains ready for any scenario.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Governor who? Senator what’s-his-name? 

The leading candidates to be Vice President Harris’ running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket are Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. If those names are unfamiliar to you, count yourself among the majority of Americans who don’t know or have never heard of the Democrats who could be the next vice president, according to an NPR/PBS News Marist poll. 

The survey found Kelly has the highest favorability of the three candidates for the No. 2 job in the White House, 31% favorable to 18% unfavorable, but 52% of respondents still said they were unsure or have never heard of him. 

Shapiro, who is speculated to be the front-runner in the veepstakes since Harris will make her first appearance with her running mate in Philadelphia, has a 25%-23% favorable to unfavorable rating. Still, 53% of Americans are unsure. 

As for Walz, the progressive favorite is by far the most unknown of the three, with 71% of survey respondents saying they were unsure or had never heard of him. 

Meanwhile, Harris has improved her favorability numbers, which are now 46-48% favorable-unfavorable compared to 40-44% in the previous Marist survey. 

The Republican nominee, former President Trump, is viewed mostly unfavorable, 53%, in contrast to 44% of respondents who have a positive view of the GOP candidate. Trump’s unfavorable score increased four points since the last Marist poll, which was taken right after the Republican National Convention and the assassination attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania. 

The survey of 1,613 adults was conducted between Thursday and Sunday and has a +/- 3.3 percentage point margin of error. Respondents were contacted via cellphone, landline or online research panels in both English and Spanish. 

Harris is scheduled to announce her selection at a rally in Philadelphia on Tuesday evening. 

This will be Harris’ first visit to Pennsylvania as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, after formerly securing the nomination on Monday. The trip also marks her seventh visit to the commonwealth this year and the 17th since she was sworn in as vice president in 2021.

Kelly, Shapiro and Walz are the finalists for the VP job in a truncated vetting process after President Biden shocked the nation by dropping out of the 2024 race and endorsed Harris to succeed him. 

Harris was in Washington, D.C., over the weekend conducting in-person interviews with her potential running mates, Democratic sources confirmed to Fox News. Others under consideration include Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky and JB Pritzker of Illinois, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Ahead of her meetings with the contenders, Harris was briefed by a vetting team led by former Attorney General Eric Holder.

The rollout of the announcement is not known, but it’s likely it could come through a video introduction, similar to how Biden announced Harris as his running mate four years ago. But the Harris campaign’s plans could be upended on Monday or Tuesday by a media leak of the announcement.

After the rally in Philadelphia, Harris and her to-be-named running mate will team for an ambitious and jam-packed swing state tour through Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada, the seven battlegrounds that will likely determine the outcome of the presidential election.

The vice president drew over 10,000 at her first major rally since taking over for Biden at the top of the Democrats’ ticket, last week at the Georgia State Convocation Center in Atlanta.

Harris will be shadowed on her tour by Republican candidate for vice president JD Vance, forces confirmed to Fox News. The Ohio senator will act as the Trump campaign’s attack dog, attempting to persuade voters against Harris in key swing states. 

Fox News Digital’s Paul Steinhauser and Landon Mion contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

It is unusual for the fireman to actually pull the fire alarm, but that is exactly what Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has done in his new book, co-authored with Janie Nitze: ‘Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law.’

Readers familiar with the excesses of the ‘Administrative State’ will not be particularly surprised by the horror stories emerging from the regulatory behemoth that are the executive branches of federal and state government. The outline of every single story retold by Gorsuch and Nitze is familiar: Government crushing citizens who happen to cross their paths. 

It might by an Amish family trying to maintain its way of life in rural Minnesota, a famous race car driver (Bobby Unser) who barely survived a wilderness ride on a snowmobile only to face prosecution and conviction in a ludicrous proceeding, or a magician who discovered that his act’s rabbit needed a license from the Department of Agriculture. They all get their stories told in succinct and compelling fashion by Justice Gorsuch and Ms. Nitze, and there is no doubt satisfaction in that telling for every victim of bureaucratic excess. But did any of them receive justice, or even an imperfect remedy?

The answer is, sadly, no. For all the tales of regular overreach and abuse of process that Gorsuch recounts, the list of rebuked bureaucrats is…well, non-existent. Because while federal and state agencies can be told to stop violating the Constitution, or ordered to stop exceeding their authority, or simply shamed for the absurdity of their endless rules, there is precious little accountability for individual bureaucrats drunk on power. 

Which is why I jested with Justice Gorsuch on Monday’s program that he and his colleagues really needed to get back to work. (The Supreme Court traditionally wraps up its term at the end of June or very early July and then reconvenes on the first Monday in October.) The justice in good humor replied that he and his colleagues work pretty hard as it is, and he’s right. But measured against the vastness of the federal, state and local governments, the Supreme Court could hear and decide cases on behalf of aggrieved citizens 24/7/365 and it still would not make a dent in the power of unelected and unaccountable employees of the hundreds of federal, state and local agencies to make life miserable for citizens of the Republic. 

I pointed out to the justice that 2.8 million people are employed as civilians by the feds and more than 19 million more people are employed by the state and local governments. (These numbers do not include the uniformed military.) The chances of an ordinary citizen getting a fair and just result in expeditious fashion from any corner of this almost endless federal, state and local governments is simply next to zero. It is hard enough to get a phone call returned much less to litigate to victory against the government. 

Even when an eventual adjudication of an aggrieved litigant’s case results in a decisive win —as when the Archdiocese of Philadelphia triumphed over the ideological extremists of the City of Philadelphia’s social services— it does not really repair the damage done. In this case the city’s bureaucrats wanted to bar the Diocese’s Catholic Social Services (‘CSS’) foster program from the city’s sprawling network of providers of foster care services despite the Archdiocese’s long record of exemplary service to children in need of foster care, a record that dates to 1917.

The City had barred CSS in 2018 because, consistent with the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, CSS would not accept as potential foster parents whom CSS would ‘vet’ as qualified to care for foster kids either unmarried couples or gay and lesbians individuals or couples. Just before being barred, CSS was providing homes for more than 120 children. ‘How did it work out in the end?’ Gorsuch and Nitze ask. ‘In the Spring of 2021 the Supreme Court unanimously held that the city’s refusal to renew its contract with CSS on the basis of the group’s religious ideas violated the First Amendment.’

‘But consider what it took,’ the authors add. ‘The group had to endure years of litigation. It had to persist too, through losses both in the trial court and on appeal. In the meantime, children in need were left unserved and available beds in loving homes sat empty.’

That’s one story with a semi-happy ending but the book is full of the tragedies wrecked upon individuals and organizations by bureaucrats drunk on power and zealous for evidence that their jobs must exist. The ‘Administrative State’ never willingly relinquishes power, never ever declares any of its tentacles to be superfluous. 

The scope of the problem is laid out in ‘Over Ruled,’ but as Justice Gorsuch noted to me on air, any comprehensive solution to the problem of too many laws, regulations and penalties must come from the Congress or state legislatures. Justice Gorsuch is at least half correct. It is not for the Court to legislate, but it and the lower federal courts could seriously consider reviving the long dead ‘non-delegation’ doctrine as well as putting real teeth into the punishment of agencies and employees of the federal government who are found to have abused their authority in those federal cases brought by heroic plaintiff. 

The ‘Administrative State’ is not a ‘deep state.’ It doesn’t hide. It’s easy enough to see their work and God help you if you cross their most aggressive rule-enforcers. But curbing the excesses of untouchable bureaucrats should not be as hard as it is. The cases should not take so long to move towards resolution and redress. Courts need to move with urgency to rescue citizens from bureaucrats gone wild. And the president and governors deserve the authority they need over their ‘executive branches’—including the robust authority to dismiss the offenders of citizens’ rights.

Hugh Hewitt is host of ‘The Hugh Hewitt Show,’ heard weekday mornings 6am to 9am ET on the Salem Radio Network, and simulcast on Salem News Channel. Hugh wakes up America on over 400 affiliates nationwide, and on all the streaming platforms where SNC can be seen. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel’s news roundtable hosted by Bret Baier weekdays at 6pm ET. A son of Ohio and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, Hewitt has been a Professor of Law at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law since 1996 where he teaches Constitutional Law. Hewitt launched his eponymous radio show from Los Angeles in 1990.  Hewitt has frequently appeared on every major national news television network, hosted television shows for PBS and MSNBC, written for every major American paper, has authored a dozen books and moderated a score of Republican candidate debates, most recently the November 2023 Republican presidential debate in Miami and four Republican presidential debates in the 2015-16 cycle. Hewitt focuses his radio show and his column on the Constitution, national security, American politics and the Cleveland Browns and Guardians. Hewitt has interviewed tens of thousands of guests from Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump over his 40 years in broadcast, and this column previews the lead story that will drive his radio/ TV show today.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Since former President Donald Trump selected ‘Hillbilly Elegy’ author and Ohio Sen. JD Vance as his running mate, Vance has been forced to contend with a trove of old media clips that women who support the Trump-Vance ticket are concerned will hurt their election chances. 

Years ago, Vance said in a media interview that ‘a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made’ should not be in a position to run the country, lumping Vice President Kamala Harris into that category. He also said that Congress should ‘tax the things that are bad, and not tax the things that are good’ by imposing a higher tax rate for individuals without children. 

Vance’s team says his launch at the Republican National Convention last month was a success, and that the Harris campaign dredged up old media clips to demonize her opponent. But women supporting the Republican ticket still think his comments and attempts to correct course are so far falling short, and hope that the junior senator with an ‘inspiring story’ can ‘take back control’ of the narrative.

‘JD’s phrasing is extremely off-putting to undecided women voters. He needs to fix his delivery to relay the messaging, or the Trump-Vance brand is doomed,’ Jessica Reed Kraus, founder of the House Inhabit Substack, told Fox News Digital. 

Rachael Dean Wilson, the managing director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD) at the German Marshall Fund and former adviser to the late Sen. John McCain added that ‘attempting to divide women along the lines of mothers vs. non-mothers is poisonous’ and only ‘benefits’ American adversaries.

‘Taking a step back from the campaign tit-for-tat, attempting to divide women along the lines of mothers vs. non-mothers is poisonous to our communities and political discourse,’ she said. 

‘I would encourage women of all political stripes to resist the tribalism these attack lines encourage on both sides. While this is an undoubtedly domestic conversation, I always like to remind people that deep domestic division and polarization benefits our adversaries abroad and weakens the United States on the world stage,’ she added. 

Vance has made strides to leave the past behind him. Last week he took a trip to the southern border and railed against the Biden administration’s policies that have led to record border crossings, contributing to spikes in violent and drug crime. He appeared on the Full Send podcast, which caters to a male, Gen-Z audience. 

In an interview with ‘Fox and Friends,’ Usha Vance, wife to JD Vance, said that the ‘cat ladies’ comment he made was a ‘quip in service of making a point that he wanted to make that was substantive.’

‘And I just wish sometimes that people would talk about those things and that we would spend a lot less time just sort of going through this three-word phrase or that three-word phrase.’ 

The ‘substance’ of what JD Vance meant in those remarks, he says, is that public policy in this country has become ‘anti-family.’ 

‘Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment. I’ve got nothing against cats. I’ve got nothing against dogs. I’ve got one dog at home and I love ’em,’ Vance said of the cat comment in an interview with Megyn Kelly

‘But look, this is not— people are focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said, and the substance of what I said, Megyn, I’m sorry, it’s true. It is true that we become anti-family. It is true that the left has become anti-child. It is simply true that it’s become way too hard to raise a family,’ he said.

That message has not fallen entirely on deaf ears. Hannah Claire Brimelow, co-host of ‘Timcast IRL,’ says she agrees with Vance, that ‘we should want leaders who have children because our values depend on being passed down to the next generation, and having children changes your view on your role in a civic society.’ 

She added that the Harris campaign strategy of ‘bringing up a clip from 2021 to attack Vance seems like proof they don’t have much else to criticize him for.’

But it’s been roughly two weeks since the proverbial cat got out of the bag, and Vance is still playing defense. Vanessa Santos, president and CEO of public relations firm Renegade DC, says Vance ‘needs to take back control of the narrative.’ 

‘The Harris campaign and the media are working together to make sure this ‘cat lady’ news cycle sees as much attention and does as much damage to Trump-Vance as possible. JD needs to take back control of the narrative. He needs to go on adversarial media, look at these dishonest media people in the eyes, defend himself, and expose them for their unapologetic hypocrisy,’ she said. 

‘Since she announced her candidacy, the media has completely whitewashed Kamala Harris’ radical record, especially her abandonment of her border czar position, and continues to blindly accept her moderating positions,’ Santos added.

‘JD has an inspiring story and a beautiful family. His story resonates with men and women alike, and especially with parents and young Gen Z voters who are worried that the American dream is out of reach for them. Pivot from the ‘cat lady’ media storm and double down on attacking Democrats on their terrible and destructive policies,’ she said.

Taylor Van Kirk, a spokeswoman for Vance, responded in a statement to Fox News Digital, ‘Senator Vance is laser focused on exposing Kamala Harris’s weak, failed, and dangerously liberal record, and that’s exactly what he’ll do across key swing states over the coming days.’

‘Kamala Harris’s policies created crushing inflation, a historic crisis at our southern border, and rising crime – her agenda is to make Americans less prosperous and less secure. Democrats are creating false narratives about JD because they know their policies have been a disaster for American families,’ she said.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Governor who? Senator what’s-his-name? 

The leading candidates to be Vice President Harris’ running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket are Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. If those names are unfamiliar to you, count yourself among the majority of Americans who don’t know or have never heard of the Democrats who could be the next vice president, according to an NPR/PBS News Marist poll. 

The survey found Kelly has the highest favorability of the three candidates for the No. 2 job in the White House, 31% favorable to 18% unfavorable, but 52% of respondents still said they were unsure or have never heard of him. 

Shapiro, who is speculated to be the front-runner in the veepstakes since Harris will make her first appearance with her running mate in Philadelphia, has a 25%-23% favorable to unfavorable rating. Still, 53% of Americans are unsure. 

As for Walz, the progressive favorite is by far the most unknown of the three, with 71% of survey respondents saying they were unsure or had never heard of him. 

Meanwhile, Harris has improved her favorability numbers, which are now 46-48% favorable-unfavorable compared to 40-44% in the previous Marist survey. 

The Republican nominee, former President Trump, is viewed mostly unfavorable, 53%, in contrast to 44% of respondents who have a positive view of the GOP candidate. Trump’s unfavorable score increased four points since the last Marist poll, which was taken right after the Republican National Convention and the assassination attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania. 

The survey of 1,613 adults was conducted between Thursday and Sunday and has a +/- 3.3 percentage point margin of error. Respondents were contacted via cellphone, landline or online research panels in both English and Spanish. 

Harris is scheduled to announce her selection at a rally in Philadelphia on Tuesday evening. 

This will be Harris’ first visit to Pennsylvania as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, after formerly securing the nomination on Monday. The trip also marks her seventh visit to the commonwealth this year and the 17th since she was sworn in as vice president in 2021.

Kelly, Shapiro and Walz are the finalists for the VP job in a truncated vetting process after President Biden shocked the nation by dropping out of the 2024 race and endorsed Harris to succeed him. 

Harris was in Washington, D.C., over the weekend conducting in-person interviews with her potential running mates, Democratic sources confirmed to Fox News. Others under consideration include Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky and JB Pritzker of Illinois, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Ahead of her meetings with the contenders, Harris was briefed by a vetting team led by former Attorney General Eric Holder.

The rollout of the announcement is not known, but it’s likely it could come through a video introduction, similar to how Biden announced Harris as his running mate four years ago. But the Harris campaign’s plans could be upended on Monday or Tuesday by a media leak of the announcement.

After the rally in Philadelphia, Harris and her to-be-named running mate will team for an ambitious and jam-packed swing state tour through Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada, the seven battlegrounds that will likely determine the outcome of the presidential election.

The vice president drew over 10,000 at her first major rally since taking over for Biden at the top of the Democrats’ ticket, last week at the Georgia State Convocation Center in Atlanta.

Harris will be shadowed on her tour by Republican candidate for vice president JD Vance, forces confirmed to Fox News. The Ohio senator will act as the Trump campaign’s attack dog, attempting to persuade voters against Harris in key swing states. 

Fox News Digital’s Paul Steinhauser and Landon Mion contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The Trump campaign blasted Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, as a ‘dangerously liberal extremist,’ while warning that their vision for the country is ‘every Americans’ nightmare.’ 

Waltz was tapped as Harris’ vice presidential pick Tuesday morning. The 60-year-old is a former congressman and is in his second term as the governor of Minnesota – a state that Democrats have reliably won in presidential elections for decades but that the Trump campaign has aimed at flipping this cycle. 

Recently, Walz attacked former President Trump and his running mate JD Vance as ‘weird,’ a viral insult the Harris campaign has embraced.

The Trump campaign, though, blasted Walz for his liberal policies and views, which they say complement Harris perfectly. 

‘It’s no surprise that San Francisco Liberal Kamala Harris wants West Coast wannabe Tim Walz as her running-mate – Walz has spent his governorship trying to reshape Minnesota in the image of the Golden State,’ Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital. ‘While Walz pretends to support Americans in the Heartland, when the cameras are off, he believes that rural America is ‘mostly cows and rocks’.’ 

‘From proposing his own carbon-free agenda, to suggesting stricter emission standards for gas-powered cars, and embracing policies to allow convicted felons to vote, Walz is obsessed with spreading California’s dangerously liberal agenda far and wide,’ Levitt continued. 

She added: ‘If Walz won’t tell voters the truth, we will: just like Kamala Harris, Tim Walz is a dangerously liberal extremist, and the Harris-Walz California dream is every American’s nightmare.’

Walz can showcase a slew of progressive policy victories in Minnesota, including protecting abortion rights, legalizing recreational marijuana and restricting gun access to curb shootings. 

Walz was elected to the House in 2006 and re-elected five times, representing Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District, a mostly rural district covering the southern part of the state that includes a number of midsize cities. During his last two years on Capitol Hill, he served as ranking member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. 

Walz won election as governor in 2018 and re-election four years later.

Walz has gained attention recently with his comments about Trump and Vance.  

‘These are weird people on the other side, they want to take books away, they want to be in your exam room, that’s what it comes down to,’ he said on MSNBC last month. ‘Don’t get sugarcoating this, these are weird ideas.’

Walz, however, has faced criticism for his handling of COVID-19 and riots that rocked Minneapolis in 2020, Fox News Digital previously reported. 

‘[H]e’s been a disaster for Minnesota and is by far the most partisan governor that I can remember having,’ Minnesota GOP Chairman David Hann told Fox News Digital last week. ‘Going back to 2020, certainly – he did nothing to try to stop the riots going on in Minneapolis. I think he was fearful of alienating his ‘progressive’ base, who were supporting the riots. Kamala Harris was raising money for the rioters.’

Some critics point to Walz’s memorandum mandating indoor masking during the coronavirus pandemic, as well as setting up a hotline to report residents who violated COVID-19 mandates, as FOX 9 Minneapolis reported at the time.

He has also taken heat for telling a group of Democrats that socialism is what some people would call ‘neighborliness.’

‘Don’t ever shy away from our progressive values,’ he said on a ‘White Dudes for Harris’ call on Monday night. ‘One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness.

Harris and Walz are scheduled to kick off a campaign swing through all seven crucial battleground states starting on Tuesday, with an event in Philadelphia.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Sandra Lee revealed the moment she knew her relationship with former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was over.

Lee and Cuomo dated for 14 years but never married. They split in 2019, four years after the celebrity chef was diagnosed with breast cancer.

‘I was in my kitchen, and he said something. And the minute he said it, I knew what he’d just said. And every window and door closed. And that was it,’ Lee explained to US Weekly. 

However, Lee refused to share the details of the comment made in the spring of 2019. 

‘He knows what it is. I know what it is,’ she said.

At the time of their split, Lee and Cuomo had been spending less time together and had ‘separate’ lives.

Lee didn’t share many details about her breakup from Cuomo, choosing instead to keep the information private. 

‘When you live separate lives, you are not creating a life together,’ she told the outlet.

‘I was in my kitchen, and he said something. And the minute he said it, I knew what he’d just said. And every window and door closed. And that was it.’

— Sandra Lee

Lee also accused Cuomo of being absent during her cancer treatment. The ‘Semi-Homemade Cooking with Sandra Lee’ star was diagnosed with breast cancer, specifically ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), in 2015. She underwent a double mastectomy and later a complete hysterectomy.

‘Cancer is aggressive and tricky, and it hides and waits,’ Lee told US Weekly. ‘I had to spend a year dealing with that as aggressively as I could.’

As her birthday passed during treatment, Lee claimed she spent the day alone.

‘I spent the day by myself. I was sitting on my lawn alone,’ Lee recalled. ‘My birthday was a precious day to me, especially that one. I’m not someone who feels sorry for themselves, but that day was a bit much for me.’

The chef did note that she and Cuomo later went out to dinner.

Cuomo claimed he cleared his schedule to celebrate Lee’s birthday that year.

Rich Azzopardi, Cuomo’s spokesperson, slammed Lee’s recollection of events, explaining it doesn’t match up with what happened.

‘I’ll say this, her current version of what happened doesn’t square with what she previously said in the documentary she herself produced and released in 2018 — three years after her medical operation – a story clearly planted by her in Page Six about how she spent her birthday after her surgery (which the governor cleared his schedule to spend the day before and the day of her birthday with her), comments Sandra made in 2016 in which she praised the governor for being there ‘through every step’ of her breast cancer recovery, the comments she made after her relationship with the governor ended, and how she portrayed her relationship with him in 2020 during the height of COVID when Sandra was proud to pronounce to the world that the governor was ‘still her guy’ and that they ‘spoke every day,’’ Azzopardi told Fox News Digital. 

‘We wish her nothing but luck in her future endeavors.’

While dealing with the ‘s—ty’ media storm that followed her public split from Cuomo, Lee found out her uncle had been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

She moved to take care of the uncle she saw as a father figure before his death in 2023, leading to the ‘lowest point’ of her life.

‘I went into the bathroom and just started throwing up,’ Lee revealed. ‘I think that was my body just purging that five years of time. Actually, that had to be the lowest point of my life, leaning over a toilet, vomiting from sadness and grief.’

For Lee, the last ten years have made her ‘wiser and stronger.’

‘I’ve resigned myself to the fact that I will never get over the heartbreak of loss of the last 10 years,’ she said. ‘The grief has been endless, but I will use it to fuel and feed me and make me wiser and stronger.

‘I would say that I’ve had the most challenging decade of my life.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS