Donald Trump did not say that he wants to shoot Liz Cheney. On Friday, the legacy media suggested that Trump engaged in "violent" rhetoric against Cheney, a former congresswoman who endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris. They used it as evidence to scaremonger voters into believing their narrative that Trump is a fascist and wannabe dictator. Daily Beast: "Trump Fantasizes About Shooting Female Rival in the Face" CNN: "Trump says ‘war hawk’ Liz Cheney should be fired upon in escalation of violent rhetoric against his opponents" NPR: "Trump, using violent language, attacks 'war hawk' Liz Cheney" The Washington Post: "Trump suggests ‘war hawk’ Liz Cheney should have guns ‘trained on her face’" The New York Times: "Trump Attacks Liz Cheney Using Violent War Imagery" Axios: "Trump suggests Liz Cheney should have guns 'trained on her face'" The Harris campaign even claimed in a statement that Trump suggested he wants Cheney to "face the firing squad." 'You know, they're all war hawks when they're sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, "Oh, gee, well, let's send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy."' The problem, of course, is that Trump did not say what the media and Harris' campaign claim. Speaking with Tucker Carlson in Arizona on Thursday, Trump was discussing Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney when he criticized the former congresswoman for being a "radical war hawk." "I don't blame him for sticking with his daughter," Trump said of the former Republican vice president. "But his daughter's a very dumb individual, very dumb. She's a radical war hawk. "Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face," he continued. "You know, they're all war hawks when they're sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, 'Oh, gee, well, let's send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.' But she's a stupid person. I'd have meetings with a lot of people, and she always wanted to go to war with people." The context is clear: Trump is criticizing Cheney as a "war hawk" and suggesting that she would not flippantly support sending Americans to die in war if she had firsthand combat experience. Trump did not threaten Cheney, nor did he "fantasize" about shooting her in the face, nor did he say he wants Cheney "fired upon," nor did he say he wants Cheney to stand before a firing squad. He simply suggested that it's easy to send other people to die in war when you yourself will never face and have never faced the physical or life-ending consequences of war. Trump is saying that firsthand combat experience would give American leaders a different perspective about being pro-war. American political discourse, in fact, has invented a term to describe such individuals: chicken hawks, or people who support war but refuse to have any skin in the game. For her part, Cheney claimed Trump essentially issued a death threat against her. "This is how dictators destroy free nations. They threaten those who speak against them with death. We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant," she said. Trump, of course, is no dictator — as his first four years as president proved — and he did not threaten death against anyone. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

According to Kamala Harris and the Democrats, Donald Trump will weaponize the Department of Justice and jail his political opponents. While Trump was already in office for four years and did not do anything of the sort, the Biden-Harris administration has done exactly what it's predicting Trump will do — and to innocent American citizens who disagree with the administration politically. But weaponization of the DOJ hasn’t happened solely under Biden’s reign, and if you dig a little deeper into Kamala’s past, you’ll see that she’s been using her power to hurt innocent American citizens for more than just political disagreements for a very long time. One horrific example of this is when Kamala was San Francisco district attorney in the mid-2000s. The now vice president filed charges against a handful of San Francisco parents whose elementary school-aged children were consistently missing school. “She was very proud of this endeavor,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” comments. “She really bragged about it, and a lot of parents sadly and unjustly lost their jobs, lost their freedom, lost much of their wealth, or their ability to even pay the bills because of Kamala Harris’ overbearing truancy policy.” And brag she did. “I believe a child going without an education is tantamount to a crime. So I decided I was going to start prosecuting parents for truancy,” Kamala said in a clip from 2010 during which she followed up by laughing that her staff was “concerned.” While it was funny to Kamala, it was not funny to those who were actually affected. One mother, Cheree Peoples, was handcuffed in her pajamas in front of the press — who had collaborated with Kamala to capture the moment — because she had been struggling to care for her daughter who had been suffering in the hospital with sickle cell anemia. The school was well aware of Peoples’ plight and was negotiating a plan to provide accommodation so the student could be educated in the hospital and at home. However, because the plan was not yet arranged, she was technically “truant.” “This mother faced jail time because of the policy that Harris advocated for, and even after the facts of the situation were revealed, prosecutors continued to pursue the struggling mother, exacerbating her difficulties,” Stuckey explains. Cheree lost her job, could not pay her rent, and became homeless. Her daughter was hospitalized while she stood trial. “That’s Kamala Harris. She is cruel,” Stuckey says. Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

LA-HOO-ZA-HER! Conservative Women Chew Mark Cuban Up and SPIT HIM OUT for Trying to 'Clarify' His Remarks

YIKES: October Jobs Report Is ABYSMALLY BAD, but the Media Dutifully Carry Water for Harris

Deceptive SNAKES at Kamala's HQ Straight-Up NUKED for Editing Trump Speech to Look Like Liz Cheney Threat

Friday Morning Minute

Marjorie Taylor Greene Gives Mark Cuban Atomic Wedgie, Stuffs Him in the Locker: 'Guy Suffers From Low T'

Mark Cuban's Sputtering Effort to 'Clarify' Insulting Women Around Trump Just Digs the Hole Deeper

Polynesian peoples were sailing far and wide across the southwestern Pacific Ocean long ago, demonstrating a seafaring skill that is both impressive and awe-inspiring. Given how far they advanced in their Pacific explorations, it is natural to wonder whether or not they ever reached Antarctica. Some researchers have claimed they did, and that they were actually the original discoverers of that continent. But in a study recently published in the journal Archaeology in Oceania, a team of scholars present the evidence that caused them to conclude that the ancient Polynesians never made it quite that far south, despite the astonishing success of their long-distance explorations. Maori Artifacts Indicate Early Polynesian Settlement on New Zealand Island Study Traces Epic Polynesian Migration to the Pacific Islands Read moreSection: NewsHistory & ArchaeologyAncient PlacesAustralia & OceaniaRead Later 

Secret Service leadership interfered with an independent government probe into the July 13 assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump, according to multiple reports.