A majority of Americans approve of President Donald Trump’s job performance, according to a poll released Friday by the Napolitan Institute that found the president’s job-approval rating at 51%, with 32% strongly approving. The 51% approval rating in the poll of 2,000 registered voters conducted March 3 to March 6 was unchanged from a poll a month earlier. Fewer than half of those polled (47%) disapproved of the president’s job performance. The positive polling comes after the unprecedented first month for the second Trump administration, which saw Trump moving quickly to establish the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in an attempt to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government.  That effort has also received positive feedback from Americans, with another recent poll finding 51% of Americans support the president’s efforts to pare down staff at government agencies, including 87% of Republicans supporting the measure.  At the same time, the Senate has also worked at a feverish pace to confirm the president’s Cabinet at a rate faster than either Trump’s first term or President Joe Biden’s term. Republicans are taking advantage of the moment and pushing past Democrat filibusters, taking notice of the promise of implementing the president’s Make America Great Again agenda. Republicans have promised to deliver on the MAGA agenda by significantly increasing the amount of spending for border enforcement and defense when they pass the budget reconciliation bill.  Trump has also worked to secure the United States against undue foreign influence by signing a memorandum in February limiting investment in critical industries by China. The memorandum promised to prevent Chinese government acquisition of farmland and land around strategic areas in the United States.  Trump also kept his promise to pardon or commute the sentences of those charged with crimes related to the protests of Jan. 6, 2021, perhaps contributing to his approval on the right. On the domestic policy front, the president signed an executive order declaring a national energy emergency and has sought to accelerate the completion of energy projects in the United States. Trump also implemented a regulatory freeze and withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord. He also allowed for energy production on federal lands.  On the foreign policy side, Trump has sought to end the war in Ukraine and proposed redeveloping Gaza after the Israel-Hamas war. The president’s national security adviser Mike Waltz has promised that Trump’s second term will be a “presidency of peace,” and told the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month that the United States will not be alone in deterring hostile foreign powers on the world stage.  “You establish peace through strength, and we have been demanding that the Europeans step up and contribute to their own defense,” Waltz said. The post Trump Job Approval Wins Majority Backing, Poll Finds appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Energy Secretary Wright: US Moving Away From 'Quasi-Religious' Climate Cult Policies

Most parents these days are aware that too much screen time is harmful to their children, so they implement, or at least try to implement, a system of guidelines regarding how and when their kids can use digital technology. But now that smartphones are basically universal, how do parents protect their children from the inherent dangers of the internet, social media, and addiction when the digital world lives in their back pocket? Clare Morell, director of the Technology and Human Flourishing Project for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, tells “Zero Hour’s” James Poulos that, as countercultural as it is, the only way to protect your children is to say no to smartphones. “Most parents know that these digital technologies aren’t good for kids, but they’ve been sold this illusion from the tech companies themselves that if you just put on screen-time limits and our parental controls, then you can mitigate these harms, but fundamentally, these strategies are just harm-reduction measures,” she says. Even under the strictest screen-time parameters, some harm is inevitable. It’s a “lose, lose” situation for parents, says Morell. “The screen-time limits don't work; the kids always want more because these technologies are addictive by design ... and the kids aren’t sufficiently protected” because they “continue to encounter dangerous content or find ways around the screen-time limits.” Morell argues that it’s the tech companies who we should blame. They are the ones who are lying to parents by suggesting that they can “stand between a child and this drug-dispensing machine” that was intentionally designed to be “inherently addictive.” But is it really possible to cut out smart technology from your child’s life completely? It’s certainly not the easy path, but it’s the best path, Morell says. “I ended up interviewing dozens for my book and found that not only was it possible to opt out completely from these addictive digital technologies, but these families were flourishing. Their grown children in college were grateful that they had not been given smartphones; they saw the differences even among their peers on the college campus,” she tells James. Morell’s book, “The Tech Exit: A Practical Guide to Freeing Kids and Teens from Smartphones,” drops in June this year. “What kind of harm are we talking about here? How severe is the problem?” James asks. Smartphone usage is “causing this mental health epidemic among kids,” says Morell. “Anxiety, rates of depression, suicide, self harm have skyrocketed, and it lines up exactly with the release of social media” and the “ubiquity of smartphones among teens.” Big tech companies are keenly aware of the damage their products are causing to children, but actual change would require them to transform their highly lucrative business model, which is predicated on addiction. Thus, change isn't likely. “They want to maximize user attention, time, and data to sell it to advertisers,” so they are not motivated to change, Morell explains. The parental controls, which again don’t really work, are something they can sell to create the illusion of concern for children while keeping their business model intact. “It's like putting a Band-Aid on this kind of gaping wound,” says Morell, calling the Big Tech industry “inherently predatory.” Parents, she says, would do well to ditch the faulty metaphor that smartphones should be treated like sugar — something to enjoy in moderation. The amount of dopamine released in the brain when a child engages with social media is equivalent to “highly addictive drugs,” she explains. “Sugar is really not the right metaphor. It's more like digital fentanyl." To hear more about Morell’s research, watch the episode above. Want more from James Poulos?To enjoy more of James's visionary commentary on politics, tech, ideas, and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Texas Longhorns star quarterback Arch Manning is promoting driverless Uber cars with his father and grandfather.The 19-year-old appeared in an ad titled "Who's Manning the car," in which the family sat in the back of a Google-powered Waymo car with no driver.Uber announced on "Good Morning America" its plans to offer a fleet of autonomous cars in Austin, Texas, which is Google's second city of Waymo operations, along with Phoenix."Arch, do you Uber to class? Because I noticed you get a lot of parking tickets. You must be driving somewhere," Arch's father, Cooper Manning, asks."Tickets are brutal around campus, so I think Uber is the way to go," Arch answers.Arch is the nephew of Super Bowl winners Peyton and Eli Manning and the grandson of NFL legend Archie Manning, who appeared in the ad as the comic relief, playing the confused old man who is assumed to be adverse to technology."I've just been a couple blocks, but it drives a lot better than Arch did last night coming from the airport. That was the worst," Archie says, mocking his grandson.In typical Manning fashion, the three joke at each other's expense, with Cooper Manning asking his father if he ever had a computer and how old he was when he first got a cell phone. Cooper then forces his son into a big hug and kiss in hopes of embarrassing him when he drops him off.'Humans make mistakes as well.'While the playful spot adds humor to the apparent bliss of a driverless taxi, the reality of autonomous vehicles is not quite as rosy. Significant problems have risen out of programs in California, which have caused traffic jams and accidents.In August 2023, 10 driverless cars caused a traffic jam in San Francisco after they lost their signal, just a day after the state signed an approval to expand the use of the vehicles.In November that year, General Motors recalled its entire fleet of 950 self-driving Cruise taxis from California's streets after one of its cars dragged a pedestrian who was hit by another car. The autonomous vehicle was attempting to pull over and inadvertently dragged the pedestrian. The California Department of Motor Vehicles announced the immediate suspension of the company's testing permits.Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi told ABC News' Stephanie Ramos that "humans make mistakes as well," but passengers can "rest assured" that Waymo cars are the "safest ride available to you today."The CEO also claimed the vehicles are "multiple times safer than a human" driver.The rides start with a push of a button from passengers on a screen, which was touted as a futuristic experience.Uber users are given the opportunity to opt out of driverless rides, however. Waymo plans to expand beyond its current two-city approach, naming Atlanta as its next destination.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Capitol Hill is going full speed ahead with Friday's funding deadline fast approaching. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is rallying Republicans behind his continuing resolution that was released over the weekend, and House Democrats are digging their heels in. But despite Republicans' historically narrow advantage in the House, it seems that this time around, fiscal conservatives may not be the reason the government is headed toward a shutdown.If the CR passes the House like many are predicting, all the pressure will weigh on Senate Democrats.Johnson pulled off a legislative miracle in late February when the House successfully passed his reconciliation budget blueprint. Although every House Democrat voted against the blueprint, House Republicans unified behind Johnson and President Donald Trump's resolution, with Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky being the sole GOP defector. With respect to the CR, Johnson is looking to continue this winning streak. Much like reconciliation, Johnson's CR secured Trump's blessing over the weekend. Additionally, fiscal conservatives and some members of the House Freedom Caucus met with Trump and other White House officials like Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought in an attempt to reel in any holdouts, as Blaze News first reported. In the aftermath of these closed-door meetings, it seems that the House's spending skeptics are falling in line, setting the stage for another near-unanimous GOP vote. House Democrats have already made it clear that they have no intention of backing the CR, and Massie has already claimed the sole Republican "no" vote Johnson can afford. Even still, politicos are forecasting a legislative win for Republicans on Tuesday night. If the CR passes the House like many are predicting, all the pressure will weigh on Senate Democrats. Voting against the CR would make Democrats responsible for a government shutdown, a consequence most politicians try to avoid at all costs. Although Republicans have a comfortable 53-seat majority in the Senate, the Trump-backed funding bill will need to clear the 60-vote threshold as opposed to a simple majority. Assuming there are no Republican holdouts, which isn't a guarantee, the CR will need the support of at least seven Senate Democrats to pass. So far, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania is the only Democrat to have signaled support for the CR. Consequently, Senate Democrats are faced with a tough choice. Democrats oppose the CR for various ideological reasons, protesting added provisions for ICE and the cuts to community projects. On the other hand, voting against the CR would make Democrats responsible for a government shutdown, a consequence most politicians try to avoid at all costs. With just days until the funding deadline, it's up to Democrats to see if the government lights will stay on. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The mainstream media's left-wing bias is far from a brand-new topic.Blaze News readers may recall a fairly big story in the fall of 2021 when Netflix employees staged protests in Hollywood against their company's decision to stream Dave Chappelle's comedy special "The Closer" due to what they characterized as his "transphobic comments" in it.'The Fake News losers at CNN tried to fact check President Trump saying Biden spent $8 million on "making mice transgender," but President Trump was right (as usual).'Amid the outrage, a prominent Netflix showrunner quit in protest; the company suspended three employees — including a queer trans worker — for crashing an executive meeting focused on Chappelle; and Netflix fired the organizer of a planned walkout for leaking confidential data related to Chappelle's special.But during that very walkout, a big surprise took place: One guy showed up amid the furor to defend Chappelle. He's pictured below: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesAs you might guess, the protesting militants tried to intimidate him and shut down his free speech, but it didn't work.Not so surprising was that the Associated Press got the idea that the Chappelle supporter was the one screaming profanities at protesters — and Variety actually called him the aggressor. Well, both outlets eventually admitted their reporting errors and walked things back.Fast-forward to President Donald Trump's March 4 address to a joint session of Congress and his eye-popping claim that among the long and still-growing list of governmental waste is "$8 million for making mice transgender."On cue, CNN initially said Trump's claim was false, adding that it couldn't determine where the president came up with the $8 million figure. Soon, though, the article was corrected to say the claim "needed context" and deleted the content calling it false."An earlier version of this item incorrectly characterized as false Trump's claim about federal money being spent for 'making mice transgender.' The article has been updated with context about the spending, which was for research students on the potential human health impacts of treatments used in gender-affirming care," the article read.The two versions were posted to social media by the popular Libs of TikTok account, and many mocked CNN over the error — and then the White House joined in on its official social media account: "The Fake News losers at CNN tried to fact check President Trump saying Biden spent $8 million on 'making mice transgender,' but President Trump was right (as usual)."The same left-wing media bias and the same result.The following are a number of other recent examples of when the mainstream media's left-wing bias cost them credibility:Joe Rogan torches MSNBC for 'deceptively' editing video clip to appear he praised Kamala Harris when he actually was talking about Tulsi GabbardJoe Rogan slammed MSNBC for “deceptively editing” a video clip that made it appear that the massively popular podcaster was praising then-Vice President Kamala Harris when he actually was talking about Tulsi Gabbard.Here's how it went down: During an episode of "The Joe Rogan Experience" podcast with guest Michael Malice that aired July 30, Rogan torched Democrats for not embracing Gabbard as a presidential candidate, and he touted Gabbard as "a strong woman." MSNBC posted the clip on its TikTok page and edited it to make it appear that Rogan was referring to Harris rather than to Gabbard.Gabbard on Aug. 2 posted the MSNBC clip on her X with the caption: "MSNBC is again EXPOSED as a propaganda machine for the Democrat Elite, and how they will brazenly try to deceive the American people." She described the MSNBC clip as "completely false."MSNBC has since replaced the questionable clip and issued a correction: "We have removed an earlier version of this post that incorrectly implied Joe Rogan was talking more about Vice President Kamala Harris. He was referring to Tulsi Gabbard."Rogan also commented on the edited MSNBC clip during a podcast episode, saying the news network "took a clip of me talking about Tulsi Gabbard, and they edited it up and made it look like I was saying great things about Kamala Harris." Rogan added, "They just deceptively edited the things I was saying."Rogan blasted MSNBC: "They don’t care about the truth; they just want a narrative to get out there amongst enough people because most people are just surface readers."“We’re in a very weird time with media, and I think truth is super important," he continued. "I think someone that’s willing to do something like that — that’s a real offense. It's a real offense. It's not a small thing. It's a real lie, and it’s a lie that changes other people's opinions."Elon Musk joins chorus of critics dumping on the Associated Press over its trifecta of laughably bad hot takes — all committed on a single dayThe Associated Press on Jan. 3, 2024, took plenty of heat for three tidbits it published.Elon Musk, among the AP's many critics, responded to one of the awkward instances, writing on X that "the @AP has the woke mind virus growing out of its head like a giant mushroom!"Blaze News detailed the first instance, noting the AP covered the resignation of Harvard President Claudine Gay with the following headline: "Harvard president's resignation highlights new conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism."But the AP's corresponding post on X was flagged with Community Notes emphasizing the absurdity of the title and the article's premise. Later in the day, the AP changed the headline to "Plagiarism charges downed Harvard's president. A conservative attack helped to fan the outrage." This alteration was executed without an editorial note.The AP ultimately told Blaze News why it had made the change: "The initial story didn't meet our standards, so we updated it."Also in its article about Gay, the AP's Collin Binkley and Moriah Balingit highlighted a tweet from Christopher Rufo that reads, "SCALPED," in response to the news that Gay had resigned. The AP claimed Rufo's tweet was written "as if Gay was a trophy of violence, invoking a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists who sought to eradicate Native Americans."But Musk opined, "Woe, the @AP hasn't merely drunk the woke Kool-Aid, they are swimming in it!" He added, "Somehow, indigenous peoples went from being referred to almost exclusively as baby-killing savages to almost exclusively being referred to as noble, peace-loving ecologists! In reality, all peoples back then did terrible things by modern western standards. Slavery, for example, was standard practice worldwide, including within Africa, until a few hundred years ago and was stamped out by force primarily by the British."Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' press secretary Jeremy Redfern asked Balingit and Binkley for a response after sharing an image of a white man who had been scalped as a boy by Sioux Indians. Finally, the AP edited the paragraph about Rufo — without an editorial note — to read: "On X, formerly Twitter, he wrote 'SCALPED,' as if Gay was a trophy of violence, invoking a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists who sought to eradicate Native Americans and also used by some tribes against their enemies."The AP also on that day published an article titled, "Things to know about Minnesota's new, non-racist state flag and seal," which concerns the final decision on a new state flag from the Minnesota Emblems Redesign Commission. The AP apparently concluded that the old flag — which depicts an Indian riding a horse and a farmer plowing his field — is racist. The new flag by 24-year-old white designer Andrew Prekker is a minimalist, starred tricolor. Facing additional criticism, the AP changed the headline to "Things to know about Minnesota's new state flag and seal."Blaze News staff writer Joseph MacKinnon noted: "The AP is evidently cognizant of its embarrassing errors, granted it has been desperately attempting to correct them. However, this corrective effort has been made all the more difficult by the fact that myriad publications across the nation routinely regurgitate the AP's articles — meaning those errors continue to live on coast to coast despite the agency's centralized efforts to make stealth edits and title changes."Esquire article blasting Republicans contains falsehood so egregious that a correction and an apology aren't enough to save itEsquire magazine published an article late last year that ripped Republicans' criticism of then-President Joe Biden for pardoning his son Hunter because, the piece said, former Republican President George H.W. Bush pardoned his own son Neil."Nobody defines Poppy Bush's presidency by his son's struggles or the pardons he issued on his way out of the White House," read the subheading of Dec. 3 article by Charles P. Pierce. "The moral: Shut the f**k up about Hunter Biden, please." The problem? Bush never issued such a pardon. Soon, the humiliating falsehood was discovered, and Esquire issued a correction: "Editor's note: This story has been updated. An earlier version stated incorrectly that George H.W. Bush gave a presidential pardon to his son, Neil Bush. Esquire regrets the error." Before long, the magazine deleted the story altogether — but the publication was raked over the coals:"Esquire Magazine is literally making stuff up to try to defend Joe Biden's pardon of Hunter Biden. The people who scream about misinformation are doing it to cover for Joe," said radio talk show host Erick Erickson."Even given the lengths to which some journalists will go to advance the approved narrative, this is unreal," responded Boston Globe op-ed editor Jeff Jacoby."How many people does an article have to pass through at @esquire, from idea to completion, before being published? 4? 5? Not one of them thought to check if the concept on which the article was based was true or not?" asked columnist Derek Hunter."How in God’s name did you get the George H W Bush/Neil Bush so completely wrong? Doesn’t Esquire have fact checkers anymore?" read another tweet.Marco Rubio and JD Vance — on three occasions between them — get the better of CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan after she peddles false narratives during televised interviewsIn early November 2024, CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan repeated false accusations suggesting that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump threatened former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.), prompting then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to correct the record. It all started after Rubio argued that Trump would promote safety and security in the U.S. and abroad, after which Brennan said Trump spoke of "training guns on the face of Liz Cheney." Rubio shot back, "That's not what he said." Brennan initially defended her assertion because, according to her, CBS producers had played a "sound bite" of Trump accusing Cheney of being a so-called chicken hawk. But CBS played only a sound-bite of Trump's remarks — not the full context."Donald Trump doesn't talk like someone who's been in Washington for 30 years," Rubio defended. "Training guns on her face?" Brennan replied, after which Rubio shot back, "He doesn't say it the way I would have said it, no, but that's not what he said, Margaret. You guys know that. Come on. I mean, everybody knows exactly what he was saying."Brennan wouldn't concede, telling Rubio, "We played the sound-bite." But Rubio answered her with the facts: "No, you played a piece of the sound-bite, because, in another piece of it, he said he would give her a gun to go stand in conflict as well. You don't normally give a gun to someone that is going to be facing a firing squad, which is what much of the media made it sound like. The point he was making is not a new point. It is a point that has been made by people in both parties for decades. And that is: You're all for war, and it's easy to be for war when you're in some fancy building, and you're safe and sound in Washington, D.C." Only after that did Brennan give up defending her faulty point.In late January, Brennan tried her tactics with newly elected Vice President JD Vance, trying to corner him over the Trump administration's immigration policy and suggesting that removing illegal aliens and ending birthright citizenship is anti-American. "This is a country founded by immigrants," she declared.Vance shot back, saying, "Just because we were founded by immigrants doesn't mean that 240 years later, we have to have the dumbest immigration policy in the world" and that "America should actually look out for the interests of our citizens first."Brennan changed course and pressed Vance on the administration's moratorium on refugee admissions, insinuating hypocrisy on the part of the vice president. After more of her attempts to poke holes in Trump's immigration policies, Vance cut off Brennan and famously said, "I don't really care, Margaret. I don't want that person in my country, and I think most Americans agree with me."Finally, Brennan was back interviewing Rubio last month and actually suggested that free speech set the stage for the Holocaust. Of course, Rubio wasn't having any of it, and he eventually told Brennan, "I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews, and they hated minorities, and they hated those that they — they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews."Newsweek annihilated on social media over its bizarre framing of Trump's campaign stunt when he handed out Big Macs and fries at McDonald's: 'The Pulitzer Prize is on the way'Remember when then-presidential candidate Donald Trump put on a McDonald's apron and handed out french fries from a drive-thru window last October? Remember when Newsweek tried to "debunk" Trump's obvious stunt, designed to mock his opponent, Kamala Harris, for claiming without evidence that she once worked at a McDonald's?Newsweek's headline actually read, "Rumors have been circulating on social media that former President Donald Trump's visit to the popular fast-food chain was staged." You don't say! As you might guess, critics mocked Newsweek's article into oblivion:"I’m gonna have to spend some time contemplating the possibility that this was not a completely organic event featuring a former president taking a side gig at a Pennsylvania McDonald’s while he’s running for president," commentator Mary Katharine Ham sarcastically noted."Wait, you’re telling me that Trump didn’t fill out an application and organically start working at a PA McDonald’s where a film crew spontaneously showed up with SS vetted customers, he staged it all? It wasn’t for the $25 in wages??" responded blogger Courtney O'Dell with tongue firmly in cheek."Dust off the mantle, the Pulitzer Prize is on the way," joked satirist David Burge."Woodward and Bernstein who? Looks like @Newsweek just wrapped up the Pulitzer for investigative journalism. Next up. Rumors Santa may not be real," said Barstool founder David Portnoy.Newsweek, again? Yes, indeed — and this time magazine claims Tucker Carlson 'launches' show on Russian-state TV. Uh, not so much.A mere five months prior to Newsweek's mock-worthy piece on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump working the drive-thru window at a McDonald's, the magazine published a story claiming Tucker Carlson had launched a show on Russia 24 — a state-controlled Russian media outlet. Newsweek cited as its source a newspaper owned and controlled by the Russian government.The story quickly spread online, leading to accusations that Carlson was "quite literally, a mouthpiece of the Russian state" and that Carlson "has now embraced his master," a reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin.Of course, Newsweek's report was shown to be false, and the magazine updated and corrected its story. The false claim appears to have originated from Ukraine’s Institute of Mass Information and Ukraine Pravda.New York Times columnist resoundingly ridiculed for regurgitating bizarre NPR claim against Israel amid its war with Hamas: '30 THOUSAND trucks?'In March 2024, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof posted a bizarre claim from an NPR report against Israel amid its war with Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip — and both NPR and Kristof were mercilessly ridiculed for it on social media.Kristof reposted an outlandish detail from the NPR report — that there were an impossibly large number of relief trucks that Israel was holding up: "[Jane Arraf] of @NPR quotes a Jordanian official as saying that 30,000 aid trucks are stuck at the Egypt/Gaza border, waiting for Israeli approval to enter Gaza, with some Jordanian trucks stuck there for the last two months. Meanwhile Gaza kids starve."Critics on social media immediately took Kristof and NPR to task for circulating such a ridiculous figure."Nick, I realize you’re an idiot, but does that sound right to you? 30 THOUSAND trucks?" responded Jonathan Greenburg, who went on to calculate that 30,000 trucks would take up 271 miles of street space. He added, "That’s twice the distance from Kerem Shalom to Amman, where @janearraf’s idiot source is feeding her fake statistics because he knows hacks like you are dumb and malicious enough to believe anything you’re fed." Greenburg also said, "They don’t even try to make their propaganda believable and the all stars in the Western media lap it up because OF COURSE the Jews have kept a line of trucks visible from Mars waiting at the Gaza border!"Other responses:"30,000 trucks? LOL. People with an anti-Israel mindset will believe anything. Where are all these truck drivers sleeping? Who is feeding them? Where are the satellite photos of these trucks? Why hasn't this huge line of trucks at the border received any attention before now? I mean, some basic questions that anyone with common sense would be asking," David Bernstein replied."That’s what happens when your fervent conviction that Israel is to blame for everything addles your ability to think reasonably," replied Eylon Levy."30,000 trucks stuck at the Egyptian border? You want people to believe that trucks are lined up for 300 miles awaiting inspection by Israel? Reporters from the NY Times repeat other people's lies because it's easier than making up their own," responded Joel Petlin."Imagine pretending there are *30,000* trucks just sitting there at the border just to bash Israel. They don’t even try to make the propaganda believable," said radio host Jason Rantz.Kristof eventually deleted the tweet. NPR on April 17 issued the following "clarification" at the bottom of its story: "On March 27, NPR quoted a Jordanian official claiming there were as many as 30,000 aid trucks held up at the Rafah crossing with Egypt to enter Gaza. We were subsequently unable to confirm this figure and no longer believe it is accurate. Ahmed Naimat, spokesman for Jordan's National Center for Security and Crisis Management, said he based the number on satellite images but did not provide them. NPR's own analysis of later satellite images does not support that figure. Most aid groups currently estimate that as of early April 2024 there were generally between 3,000 and 7,000 trucks waiting to be allowed into the Gaza Strip pending Israeli security-related inspections."NBC News tries to covertly revise article that originally contradicted Biden White House claim that it wasn't given choice between bringing home WNBA's Brittney Griner and former Marine Paul Whelan, both held hostage by RussiaNBC News issued a December 2022 report contradicting the official narrative of then-President Joe Biden concerning the government's prisoner swap with Russia — then the news network changed its original story without saying it had done so. Only after being met with online criticism and a request for comment from Blaze News did NBC News publish a correction.In its Dec. 8 prisoner swap with Russia, the Biden administration exchanged Viktor Bout, who conspired to kill Americans, for pro basketball player Brittney Griner.The White House suggested the Biden administration never had a choice to bring home former Marine Paul Whelan from Russia — that "the choice became to either bring Brittany home or no one." But NBC News, citing a senior U.S. official, first reported that the "Kremlin gave the White House the choice of either Griner or Whelan — or none."Rikki Ratliff-Fellman, director of programming at Blaze Media, noted a significant discrepancy between NBC News' original report and its revised article. Without issuing an editorial note, NBC News made a stealthy change to the article, such that it now reads, "The Kremlin ultimately gave the White House the choice of either Griner or no one after different options were proposed."Some food for thought: then-White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Griner is "an important role model; an inspiration to millions of Americans particularly the LGBTQI+ Americans and women of color."What's more, a paragraph was added to the NBC News article concerning Whelan's notification in prison about the "outcome of the negotiations" — and without an editorial note.Blaze News reached out to NBC News, asking why it originally failed to highlight the change with an editorial note, whether someone at the White House asked for the change, whether its original source had recanted or stood by its initial claim, and whether it continues to stand by its source.NBC News then issued a correction saying that "an earlier version of this article misstated the choice the Biden administration was given over hostages. It was to swap for Griner or no one, not a choice between Griner or Whelan."Still, Whelan's lawyer Vladimir Zherebenkov indicated that the deal involved a choice and implied that it was between his client and Griner. The lawyer said the exchange was a "one to one" and that "choosing Griner appeared 'more humane' because she is a woman and an Olympic champion, while Whelan was in the military and it is 'easier for him to be in custody.'"After the beginning of his detention in Russia in 2018 and his espionage conviction by a Moscow court in 2020, Whelan finally was set free Aug. 1, 2024. Griner — who refused to stand for the American national anthem during home openers in 2020 — was arrested in February 2022 on smuggling charges after traveling to Russia with cannabis oil in her luggage.Leftist media outlets walk back false reports that conservative host Michael Knowles at CPAC said transgender people 'must be eradicated'Daily Wire host Michael Knowles during his 2023 CPAC speech stated, "For the good of society ... transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level."Knowles also said, "There can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism. It is all or nothing. If transgenderism is true, if men really can become women, then it's true for everybody of all ages. If transgenderism is false, as it is, if men really can't become women, as they cannot, then it's false for everybody, too. And if it’s false, then we should not indulge it."However, multiple left-leaning media outlets ran false reports saying Knowles called for the eradication of transgender people.The Huffington Post published a piece originally titled, "At CPAC, A Call For Trans People To Be 'Eradicated' Gets Big Cheers." The Daily Beast ran a story originally titled, "Michael Knowles Says Transgender Community Must Be 'Eradicated' at CPAC." Rolling Stone — which has paid out millions for false reporting and defamation — ran a piece with the headline, "CPAC Speaker Calls for Transgender People to Be 'Eradicated.'"Knowles immediately called out the leftist outlets and demanded retractions.The Huffington Post changed its headline to read, "CPAC Speaker’s Trans Comments About ‘Eradication’ Sound Downright Genocidal." The story itself had claimed, "There are an estimated 1.6 million trans people in the United States. Knowles told the CPAC crowd that these people should not have a right to exist." The word "essentially" was added so that the sentence reads, "Knowles essentially told the CPAC crowd that these people should not have a right to exist."The Daily Beast changed the headline of its article to "Michael Knowles Says Transgenderism Must Be 'Eradicated' at CPAC."Rolling Stone changed its headline to "CPAC Speaker Calls for Eradication of ‘Transgenderism’ — and Somehow Claims He’s Not Calling for Elimination of Transgender People" and provided an editorial note stating, "This post has been updated to include statements from transgender rights activists and additional comments from Knowles."The augmented Rolling Stone piece contains commentary by Erin Reed, a male transgender activist, on Knowles' demand for a retraction, suggesting that it's "an absurd distinction. There is no difference between a ban on 'transgenderism' and an attack on transgender people." Reed also claimed, "They are one and the same, and there's no separation between them."Following the changes, Knowles tweeted, "I’m pleased to see that both @thedailybeast and @RollingStone have at least partially admitted their dishonesty by changing their libelous headlines. I look forward to seeing the other outlets that are defaming me follow suit!"U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) commented, "It is indeed libelous. It’s an example of how a bad Supreme Court ruling from 1964 (NY Times v. Sullivan) has created a monster—giving the news media a license to lie about any public figure who can’t prove that the reporter acted with 'actual malice,' which is nearly impossible."Canadian Press issues 3 embarrassing retractions after publishing 'hit piece' against Conservative Party leader Pierre PoilievreThe Canadian Press issued three retractions after publishing an October 2023 story saying Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre blamed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for poor relations with India."BREAKING: Canadian Press forced to retract three separate 'erroneous statements' from one story alone," Poilievre wrote on his X page. "It was another false hit piece now thoroughly discredited. Remember that next time they attack me."The Canadian Press issued a retraction at the bottom of its story two days after the piece was first published admitting that the headline included comments attributed to Poilievre that he didn't say: "Note to readers: This is a corrected story. In a headline on an earlier version of the story, The Canadian Press erroneously reported that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre cited Sikh aggression toward Indian envoys when blaming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for Canada's poor relations with India. In fact, Poilievre did not mention Sikhs during his interview with Namaste Radio Toronto, which was the basis for the story."The retraction continued: "The Canadian Press also erroneously reported that Poilievre blamed Trudeau for 'aggression shown to ... Indian diplomats at public events.' In fact, Poilievre did not link those remarks to Trudeau." In addition, the retraction stated, that "the story erroneously reported the World Sikh Organization of Canada had argued that Poilievre was indirectly pointing the finger at Sikhs. In fact, the group's lawyer Balpreet Singh had argued that Poilievre was wrong to point the finger at anyone other than the Indian government."Readers of Blaze News likely will recall a viral story just a week earlier about Poilievre casually eating an apple while giving simple answers to a reporter's dubious line of questioning. The reporter noted that "a lot of people" had accused Poilievre of "taking a page out of the Donald Trump book," after which Poilievre asked, "Which people would say that?" The reporter replied, "Well, I'm sure a great many Canadians, but ..." after which Poiliere shot back, "Like who?" The reporter soon changed his line of questioning.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Border czar Tom Homan told Fox Business on Monday that the federal government will soon run out of the money earmarked for deportations and that Congress needs to provide more funds.Homan stated before President Donald Trump entered office in January that in order to have millions of deportations every year, departments like Homeland Security and Defense will need over $80 billion. One of the most acute problems is the shortage of bed space for detained illegal immigrants waiting to be processed for deportation."We're running out of beds in two weeks. We're at about 46,000 in custody now. We ought to be at 65,000 at this point in time. And we when run out of beds, we stop interior operations. When we arrest somebody, we got to have a bed to put them in for removal," Homan said.'The CBP Home app gives aliens the option to leave now and self-deport.'"So Congress does need to get the funding we need so this administration can keep the promises made to the American people. ... We're doing great. The border [crossings] are down 97%," he continued.Homan clarified that media reports of the Trump administration not deporting as many illegal immigrants as the Biden-Harris administration are false because the deportation numbers today are higher and are only from the interior. Under the Biden-Harris administration, deportations at the southern border were added to the interior deportations because of the high number of illegal crossings.While the Trump administration is using flights by the U.S. military to increase air capacity for deportations, it likewise increased the price tag for flights. To further encourage illegal immigrants to leave the United States on their own, the Department of Homeland Security announced this week that the CBP One app is now the CBP Home app. Previously used by the Biden-Harris administration to let illegal immigrants through ports of entry and then release them via mass parole, the app is now designed to have users submit their information and confirmation that they have left the United States to avoid the penalties that come with being deported.The more illegal aliens who use the app to return home, the more federal resources can be spent on the holdouts."The CBP Home app gives aliens the option to leave now and self-deport, so they may still have the opportunity to return legally in the future and live the American dream. If they don’t, we will find them, we will deport them, and they will never return," Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

DOGE isn’t going to stave off or bring on the end times. 

Bringing back Karl Rove’s hero won’t usher in a new economic golden age.

Nice Free Speech Site You Got There: Elon Musk Confirms That X Is Undergoing a MASSIVE Cyberattack