CBS News may have acted out of loyalty to Vice President Kamala Harris when it edited her “60 Minutes” interview to make her sound more presidential and less chaotic — but it didn’t let her get away with it so easily in a recent interview with anchor Norah O’Donnell.
“So you do support restrictions after viability?” O’Donnell asked the Vice President.
“I support Roe v. Wade being put back into law by Congress and to restore the fundamental right of women to make decisions about their own body. It is that basic,” Kamala responded.
“But you know, with Roe v. Wade, there were restrictions after viability,” O’Donnell shot back.
Kamala went on to pin it on Donald Trump, telling O’Donnell that “women have died because of Trump’s abortion ban” and that “women who have survived rape and incest” are not allowed to make decisions about their body.
“We have seen women who are experiencing a miscarriage around a pregnancy they prayed for and being denied health care because doctors are afraid they’re going to go to prison,” she continued.
“And when you argue that Donald Trump, if elected, would put forward a national abortion ban,” O’Donnell began her response before being cut off by Kamala, who interjected with “just read Project 2025.”
“The former president said that’s not true,” O’Donnell continued, before Kamala started meandering on about how we shouldn’t be taking Trump’s word for it.
Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed” can’t hear anymore of it.
“Are we really taking your word for anything after you flip-flopped on every single issue from 2020 until now?” Gray says. “You flipped on fracking, you flipped on confiscating guns supposedly, we’re supposed to take your word for that? Eliminating private health insurance, now you don’t want to do that? Decriminalizing border crossings, federal job guarantees.”
“She has flipped on everything, and we’re supposed to take her word that now she feels completely different,” he adds, annoyed.
To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Democrats can't stop pitching a fit about Project 2025.
And Republicans from Trump on down are happy to take the bait, working overtime to distance themselves from the 900-page conservative policy blueprint that Kamala Harris branded a "dangerous plan" to expand presidential power and impose a supposedly nefarious agenda.
There’s something darkly humorous in watching a group of elites call for more elites to join a discussion about curbing the influence of elites.
But what if this is all just a distraction from the left's own — and far more organized — bid to reshape society?
Or as the United Nations puts it, to create "the world’s road map for ending poverty, protecting the planet, and tackling inequalities."
The U.N. calls it the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; you may want to call it something else.
The 2030 Agenda was first adopted in 2015. On September 22 and 23, world leaders converged in New York for the U.N. Summit of the Future, during which they reaffirmed their commitment to this radical transformation of global governance.
Ahead of this gathering, participants — including Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau — delivered pre-recorded speeches at a virtual meeting. Another notable speaker was U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who called for a sweeping overhaul of the U.N. Security Council and the global financial system, all under the banner of Agenda 2030's Sustainable Development Goals.
Anyone paying attention at this glorified Zoom meeting could see what lurked beneath the noble promises of poverty reduction and world peace: a dangerous globalist agenda that threatens national sovereignty and individual freedoms.
All in the name of collective progress, of course.
The call was just a preview. The meeting itself was best described as Big Brother in the Big Apple.
This is no exaggeration. We are facing sweeping proposals that could institutionalize global digital IDs, enforce online censorship, and grant the U.N. secretary-general extraordinary emergency powers. These measures risk establishing an unprecedented level of centralized control, all cloaked in the rhetoric of international cooperation.
The U.N. General Assembly laid it all out in a document called "Pact for the Future," a sweeping vision presented as the blueprint for tackling 21st-century challenges. But this isn’t just another international accord — it’s a master plan to consolidate power under a global governance framework that stifles dissent.
The Pact’s 11 initiatives include a U.N. “Emergency Platform” and a “Global Digital Compact,” alongside measures on “Information Integrity” and “Transforming Education.” These proposals aim not only to reshape governance but also to redefine the very essence of freedom, online and offline.
What’s most worrying is the proposed Emergency Platform, which would give the U.N. secretary-general the power to declare and manage global emergencies. This would allow one person to have broad control over the world during any crisis, whether it's real or imagined. And as we all know, those in power never let a good crisis go to waste.
Guterres also raised alarms about the risks of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, urging a global consensus on how to manage their militarization. He emphasized the need for collaboration among governments, tech companies, and academic institutions to ensure that AI benefits all of humanity — not just the powerful elite.
There’s something darkly humorous in watching a group of elites call for more elites to join a discussion about curbing the influence of elites.
It's also funny to read about a "Common Agenda" few if any of us signed up for. Call me a conspiracy theorist (I’ve been called worse), but this ridiculously broad initiative seems to reveal the true aims of the summit: to consolidate centralized global authority under the pretense of collaboration and security.
The compact is crammed with alarming recommendations, including digital identification systems, "digital public goods," and "digital product passports," all masked as efforts to create a safer, more accountable digital environment.
It also promotes measures against "disinformation" and the misuse of online resources. Yet the true threat lies not in these transparently disingenuous goals. It lies in the unchecked power these systems would bestow upon governments and global entities to control information — and, even more concerning, to control citizens.
The compact, “ambitious” in the extreme, also pushes for advanced vaccine technologies and large-scale manufacturing. This could pave the way for global vaccine passports that undermine individual rights to refuse medical interventions.
Clearly, this isn't just about public health; it’s about creating a surveillance state where personal autonomy is sacrificed for global governance — much like the COVID measures we endured but on copious amounts of steroids.
The "Great Reset" isn't an unhinged, lunatic-in-a-bunker theory — it's unfolding now through Project 2030. Global digital IDs, vaccine passports, and speech controls are not abstract concepts; they are real tools for a future where freedom could become a distant memory.
If we don’t confront this threat now, we may find ourselves stripped of even more than our possessions and living out a future even more grim than we could have imagined: You'll think nothing. And you'll be happy.
Supporters spent more time finding decent parking than listening to their candidate speak.
Here are some of the biggest falsehoods Harris told during her debate with Trump.
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com