Foreign policy reporting can be tricky. You have to explain what bad people think in an honest way without coming across like you endorse their position. Christiane Amanpour failed in this on Tuesday’s CNN News Central as she omitted key facts related to a recent ceasefire proposal that she claimed could have prevented Iran’s salvo of 180 ballistic missiles on Israel. Amanpour recalled, “And what the Lebanese foreign minister told me, and this is really extraordinary, and I had not heard it before. That just before the Israeli targeting of the Hezbollah headquarters that assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, that there had been a ceasefire, which the U.S. announced, but what the Lebanese prime minister said to me was that they had got Hezbollah to agree to that ceasefire and apparently they thought that Netanyahu would agree too.”     The ceasefire proposal Amanpour is referring to was for a 21-day temporary ceasefire that would have allowed for negotiations towards a permanent one parallel with a similar ceasefire in Gaza. Israel opposed it because if the first stage ended in failure, all it would have accomplished was allowing Hezbollah to regroup after much of its chain of command had been wiped out and communications sabotaged. Opposition to the plan was widespread in Israel. The leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid, declared any temporary ceasefire should last no more than seven days, while the head of the Democrats—a new party formed from the merger of the left-wing Labor and Meretz parties—suggested it be three days, not three weeks. As it was, Amanpour proceeded to give the Iranian view of things, “Now, the Iranian foreign minister told me in New York during the United Nations that they were showing, and this is again before Friday's assassination, that they were showing restraint and that Hezbollah was showing restraint as well. And that it wanted, you know, to deescalate all of this.” She continued: That was the word also from the podium at the United Nations by the Iranian president and they were saying that they are being entrapped and they're trying to resist the notion of being trapped into this war. So, then comes the assassination of their client, Hassan Nasrallah. Now, Hezbollah is not but there—Iran is not there to protect Hezbollah. It's the opposite, Hezbollah is meant to be the frontline troops of Iran. So, this response from Iran is more likely because it feels it has been left no choice, as [Javad] Zarif said to me, in New York, that they may be pushed into this kind of response because everyone is asking, hang on a second, what are you going to do now that your best friend has been assassinated in Lebanon and certainly the so-called Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Khamenei’s was very close to Hassan Nasrallah. Amanpour claims Iran wanted a ceasefire, but it could’ve told Hamas and Hezbollah to quit, but it chose not to. Iran has taken the region to the brink. First by arming Hamas, then by watching as its Hezbollah friends joined the war for no justifiable reason, and now by launching a second massive missile barrage at Israel in the last six months. The tensions in the Middle East can be laid right at Khamenei’s door step. Here is a transcript for the October 1 show: CNN News Central 10/1/2024 1:01 PM ET CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: The second thing is that I've been speaking to foreign ministers from the region just today, the Lebanese foreign minister, who is currently in Washington speaking with the Biden administration and trying to get them, as he told me, to really use all their diplomacy and their influence with Israel and with whoever else they have influence with to stop this escalating. And what the Lebanese foreign minister told me, and this is really extraordinary, and I had not heard it before. That just before the Israeli targeting of the Hezbollah headquarters that assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, that there had been a ceasefire, which the U.S. announced, but what the Lebanese prime minister said to me was that they had got Hezbollah to agree to that ceasefire and apparently they thought that Netanyahu would agree too. Anyway, as you saw what happened on Friday night, which has led to this escalation. As for Iran, and now the Lebanese prime minister is very concerned that there will somehow be an attempt, whether it's to come to the rescue of Israel or whether Israel tries to get U.S. in. But the U.S. may end up joining this escalation in the Middle East, the foreign minister said. Now, the Iranian foreign minister told me in New York during the United Nations that they were showing, and this is again before Friday's assassination, that they were showing restraint and that Hezbollah was showing restraint as well. And that it wanted, you know, to deescalate all of this.  That was the word also from the podium at the United Nations by the Iranian president and they were saying that they are being entrapped and they're trying to resist the notion of being trapped into this war. So, then comes the assassination of their client, Hassan Nasrallah. Now, Hezbollah is not but there—Iran is not there to protect Hezbollah. It's the opposite, Hezbollah is meant to be the frontline troops of Iran. So, this response from Iran is more likely because it feels it has been left no choice, as Zarif said to me, in New York, that they may be pushed into this kind of response because everyone is asking, hang on a second, what are you going to do now that your best friend has been assassinated in Lebanon and certainly the so-called Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Khameni was very close to Hassan Nasrallah. And there's been a lot of internal divisions inside Iran about how best to respond to what happened with the assassination of Nasrallah. So that is essentially what seems to be going on right now in terms of the big picture.

Unionized dockworkers halted operations at the 36 East Coast and Gulf Coast ports and took to the picket lines early Tuesday morning as a result of failed negotiations between the International Longshoremen's Association and the United States Maritime Alliance.Port workers told Fox Business they are prepared to continue the work stoppage until their union is able to negotiate a more favorable contract. The six-year agreement between the two parties expired Monday evening.The walkout is the first launched by the ILA, which represents 85,000 longshoremen, since 1977.The ILA is demanding wage increases for its members and job security by banning the automation of cranes, gates, and container-moving trucks used to load and unload freight.The USMX claimed it made an offer to the ILA on Monday that would have raised wages by nearly 50% over the duration of the contract. The offer also reportedly would have tripled employer retirement plan contributions, provided better health care plans, and retained existing language about automation.In a Monday statement, the USMX said, "In the last 24 hours, the USMX and ILA have traded counter offers related to wages. The USMX increased our offer and has also requested an extension of the current Master Contract, now that both sides have moved off their previous positions. We are hopeful that this could allow us to fully resume collective bargaining around the other outstanding issues – in an effort to reach an agreement."Fox Business reported that the ILA rejected the offer and announced it would be moving forward with its plan to strike. Last week, the USMX reportedly filed an unfair labor complaint against the ILA, claiming that the union was breaking labor laws by refusing to participate in negotiations. The ILA called the move a "publicity stunt."In a Monday statement, the ILA accused the USMX of "block[ing] the path toward a settlement on a new Master Contract by refusing ILA's demands for a fair and decent contract" and said it "seems intent on causing a strike at all ports from Maine to Texas beginning in almost 12 hours."ILA President Harold Daggett told Fox Business that the parties' initial negotiations "didn't work out" but that the union is "always willing to sit down when the right number is hit.""Right now, everything is off the table," he told the news outlet. "Nobody's talking right now. We got Congress trying to bring them to the table. And that's where we are right now."The union's decision to push forward with the strike has raised concerns about the potential economic impact. The 45,000 dockworkers participating in the walkout manage approximately half of all goods shipped in and out of the country. Jason Fisk, CEO of Los Angeles-based SalSon Logistics, estimated that the work stoppage could cost $3.7 billion per day.Joe Mosquera, a dockworker in New Jersey, told Fox Business from the picket line on Tuesday, "I started 27 years ago and my wages increased only $25 over the 27 years.""So to me, I believe that we've taken less than we've deserved in the past. So now it's time," Mosquera stated. "We are just looking to be paid fairly and for the goods we take care of every day. And we did not stop during COVID, and we don't want to stop right now.""We are willing to go back as soon as they decide that they'll give us a fair contract," he continued. "What's fair is whatever my union president is willing to negotiate to. But to be lowballed, he's not going to agree to that."From the picket line in New Orleans, the ILA's local chapter told WVUE-DT, "Due to corporate greed, employers refused to compensate the ILA's members fairly.""The ILA is fighting for respect, appreciation, and fairness in a world in which corporations are dead set on replacing hardworking people with automation. Employers push automation under the guise of safety, but it is really about cutting labor costs to increase their already exceptionally high profits," the chapter said.Boise Butler, president of ILA Local 1291 in Philadelphia, made similar remarks to KYW-TV, stating, "Automation puts us all out of work.""This industry controls so much of the economy. It's unbelievable. We may be small in stature ... but what we control as far as the economy is concerned, it's untouchable," Butler continued. "We're not going anywhere until we get what we deserve."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Actress and comedian Roseanne Barr said the onus fell on her to play a Donald Trump supporter on the reboot of her show "Roseanne" because all the other actors refused to do so.During an appearance on "The Glenn Beck Podcast," Barr spoke about the reboot of the incredibly popular TV show that bears her name. The sitcom originally aired from 1988 to 1997 before returning during the Trump administration in 2018. Despite the massive viewership (18 million for the premiere), the rebooted show was canceled by the network for what was perceived as racist commentary by Barr."They hated Trump so bad," Barr said of the Disney-owned ABC. "I thought, well, when they hear the facts — but then I knew, oh, it's because they know the facts. That's why they hate him.""But it was consistent with the show," Beck retorted. "Donald Trump is the guy for the blue-collar worker.""Even if you personally didn't like him, he's the guy the Conner family would have supported," the host added."Of course," Barr explained. "That's what I said."'I wanted to show both sides still loving on each other in the same family, because that's America.'In the reboot, Barr portrayed a Trump supporter, while her sister was portrayed as a vehement liberal who even wore a pink "p**sy hat" worn by protesters at pro-abortion marches in real life.However, the comedian revealed that she didn't want her character to be the conservative person because it was too true to life."I didn't want to be the one that was for Trump because I thought that was too on the head. I thought it should have been Dan Conner [John Goodman], because it was mostly working-class men that were [pro-Trump] at that time.""But he wouldn't do it. John Goodman wouldn't do it, and neither would any of the other characters on the show portray the Trump voter." — (@) For Barr, she felt there was a need to show that families with differing political opinions, as stark as they may be, can still get along."I wanted to show both sides still loving on each other in the same family, because that's America. And maybe fighting about it, but certainly not trying to kill each other," she explained."That's why I came back, because I didn't want to see America polarized like that. I knew [leftism] was leading to segregation."The 71-year-old also revealed that the network didn't approve of showing an "integrated" working class."I also wanted to show that the working class is the most integrated class in America, and [ABC] hated all that too," Barr told Beck.Following Barr's exodus, the sitcom was revamped into "The Conners," which largely ignored the previous season. In the new show, the Roseanne character died of an accidental opioid overdose. According to People, the character was found to have a mixture of pills hidden in different places around the house.The show is still on the air after six seasons, garnering an average of 9.5 million viewers in its first season and 7.7 million in the second season. The numbers have significantly dropped off but are still in the millions.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Under Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, the United States government has released 13,099 murderers from across the border. They’ve released 15,811 rapists, 425,435 convicted criminals total — and 350 terrorists, or those suspected of having ties to terrorism. On top of all that, 325,000 children have gone missing after being brought into the country. These stats were all released last week by none other than ICE. “What happened to them? Are they now being subjected to essentially child slave labor? Are they part of child sex trafficking rings? These are valid questions that the Kamala Harris campaign doesn’t want to answer, because she doesn’t want people to know her stance on legalizing illegal immigrants into our nation,” Liz Wheeler of “The Liz Wheeler Show” comments. And Wheeler has the receipts. The National Partnership for New Americans is a group funded by George Soros that has been naturalizing hundreds of thousands of individuals — at least a quarter of a million of them. “Their goal is to continue to naturalize these migrants and make them into voters,” Wheeler explains. The group has received $560,000 from Soros’ Open Societies Foundation, with a revenue of $4.1 million in 2023 alone. “George Soros is paying for that because his goal is the same as Kamala Harris’. He wants to change the fabric of our nation, overwhelm our systems, topple our country, and he’s using the border invasion to do that,” Wheeler says. Want more from Liz Wheeler?To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The dockworkers’ strike should make it clear that allowing unions to stonewall technological advances has massive costs.

'BUCKLE UP': What Netanyahu Said to the People of Iran Suggests Something BIGGER Is Coming (Watch)

'Evil WITCH' --> Ayanna Pressley TORCHED for Grossly Antisemitic Post As Iran Launches Missiles at Israel

Wharton Grad's Lame Attempt to Dunk on J.D. Vance's Egg Comment Is CLUCKING Idiotic

Despite the Left's Best Efforts, Nature’s Order of Sex and Attraction Remains Undefeated

Perfect Timing: Trump Posts Powerful New Ad Blistering Kamala Harris on Her Foreign Policy Weakness