When Josh and Kelly Rheaume welcomed their newborn twins‚ Lily and Lennon‚ into their home‚ they were uncertain about how their beloved dog Lucy‚ a part of their lives for nearly seven years‚ would react. Having rescued Lucy when they were still dating‚ the couple always considered her more a daughter than a pet. The... The post Dog earns 17 million views with the impressive way she helps her owners with newborn twins appeared first on Animal Channel.

Earlier this week‚ Doritos Spain‚ which is a subsidiary of PepsiCo‚ announced its partnership with transgender influencer Samantha Hudson. After the announcement‚ old tweets from Hudson resurfaced linking him to many pedophilic and rapist thoughts. Doritos Spain has now decided to end the partnership with Hudson. Why these companies don’t research people they’re hiring before they hire them is beyond me‚ but at least they’re doing something about it now! Doritos shot itself in the foot after partnering with Hudson. Critics called the partnership a disaster waiting to happen and compared it to the failure that Bud Light became after partnering up with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney last year.  Hudson's pedophilic tendencies are highlighted in his past tweets. “I want to do depraved things‚ like stick a 12-year-old girl up my ass‚” he tweeted once. Other tweets‚ which were translated using Google Translate‚ read: “If a minor came up to me to ask for help because she was a victim of sexual harassment‚ I would spit in her face.” “In the middle of the street in Mallorca‚ in panties and shouting that im a nymphomanic in front if a super nice 8-year-old girl.” “I cry with laughter at videos of bullying that ends in suicide.” “I just ran my tongue through my little cousin’s vagina and she smiled at me. The little ones also deserve pleasure.” It took the internet like 20 seconds to find proof that Hudson is a pedophile‚ yet Doritos seemed to be shocked by the news.  Here’s what the company said in a statement to Rolling Stone: We recently created a content series with Samantha Hudson‚ a local influencer. After the campaign started‚ we were made aware of Samantha’s deleted Tweets from around 2015. We have ended the relationship and stopped all related campaign activity due to the comments. We strongly condemn words or actions that promote violence or sexism of any kind. The video of Hudson promoting the chips has been deleted from Doritos Spain’s Instagram. Funnily enough‚ Rolling Stone insisted that the breakup with Hudson was forced by “the right‚” like it had done with Bud Light. Sorry‚ but people don’t want to buy from brands who support pedophiles. Is that wrong? Apparently‚ it is to Rolling Stone. Honestly‚ nobody planned to boycott Doritos because Hudson thinks he's a girl. People planned to boycott the company‚ because Hudson formerly posted pedophilic tweets and comments‚ and Doritos - at the time - didn’t seem to care.  I wonder if Doritos reversed their decision before they inevitably succumb to the “get woke‚ go broke” slogan. I guess time will tell!

The PBS NewsHour was comfy-friendly territory for Biden press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Wednesday night in her State of the Union preview. PBS anchor Geoff Bennett and Jean-Pierre were both MSNBC regulars a few years back. The whole interview sounded like a Democrat strategy session. How does Biden use this speech to beat Trump? It's allegedly a speech appealing for "unity‚" but it's a campaign speech? Bennett began by declaring the speech is "essentially the hard launch of his reelection campaign. And this is a president who is facing sinking poll numbers‚ concerns about his age‚ a progressive base that's been splintered over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. How is the president aiming to use this speech to address those concerns‚ while also conveying his vision for the future?" Here's how you define softball interview: Jean-Pierre was then allowed to speak for 358 words (almost two minutes)‚ about women's reproductive health "under attack‚" democracy "under attack‚" blah blah blah‚ before they edited into the next question.   Bennett's follow-up? More talk among Bennett and his fellow Democrats:  BENNETT: I have spoken with Democrats‚ Karine‚ supporters of his‚ who make the case that in some ways what matters more than what the president says is how he says it. Does he appear energetic? Does he appear to be vigorous‚ given the fact that poll after poll shows that majorities of Americans have serious concerns about his age? How attuned is the White House to that? Notice that there's apparently nothing Biden can say that suggests the Democrats are extreme or mistaken about anything. KJP offered the usual advertising answer about how Experience Delivers Results. This spurred more Democrat worrying about how Biden's "objectively popular policies" aren't helping with his approval rating!  BENNETT: And yet there is this persistent disconnect between the president's objectively popular policies like student debt relief… reducing prescription drug costs‚ capping junk fees‚ et cetera‚ and his underwater approval ratings. What's the White House's theory of the case as to why that is? KJP basically thanked him for the softball:  "You just said it. Every issue that the president is working on is popular‚ whether it's student loans‚ whether it is making sure that we're dealing with gun violence in a way that really helps to save and protect communities‚ save our young people's lives‚ right?" By this juncture‚ it might spur giggles that these Democrats just can't figure out Biden is so unpopular‚ and why their "the people will come around" blather isn't turning out. This is the closest thing to a hardball (but it's not!):  BENNETT: Hasn't the president been saying that for the better part of three years‚ that once the American people start to feel the impact of these policies‚ once the American people start to see these shovel-ready infrastructure projects begin‚ then they will fully understand the impact of the work that I have been doing? He's been saying that for years. Why hasn't that shifted? The answer was unintentionally funny: "I understand that‚ but I also understand and we also understand that it takes time‚ right?" How much time does it take?! This state-run TV echo was brought to you in part by the American taxpayer‚ including Republicans. And by Raymond James. 

Fox’s Peter Doocy made the most Wednesday afternoon of the last briefing for the week (with Thursday’s State of the Union and President Biden on the road for Friday) as he went around and around with the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre over whether Biden will actually debate former President Trump now the general election fight is all but set in stone. But first‚ as a quick aside‚ Doocy led off with a question that drew some chuckles concerning Tuesday’s caucus in American Samoa: “[H]as President Biden called to congratulate Jason Palmer?” Once Jean-Pierre replied that Team Biden does “congratulate Jason Palmer on his win last night‚” Doocy cut to the main event: “Now that the field is down to two‚ is President Biden going to commit to a debate with Donald Trump?”     Jean-Pierre refused to answer‚ hiding behind the Hatch Act and thus punting to the campaign. Nonetheless‚ Doocy pointed out how‚ during the last campaign‚ Biden said he could “hardly wait to debate” Trump (click “expand”): JEAN-PIERRE: That’s something for the campaign to speak to. DOOCY: Well‚ we know when the debates are going to be. JEAN-PIERRE: I do. DOOCY: We know where they’re going to be. Is he going to go? JEAN-PIERRE: You should speak to the campaign. DOOCY: In 2020‚ once it got down to one on one. Joe Biden said‚ “I can hardly wait to debate him.” How about now? JEAN-PIERRE: I’m gonna sound like a broken record. You should reach out to the campaign. DOOCY: Why is this a campaign thing? JEAN-PIERRE: Because it’s an election. It’s a debate for the 2024 presidential election. DOOCY: I’m not asking what argument he is going to make — JEAN-PIERRE: Well — DOOCY: — at a debate. I’m just as — JEAN-PIERRE: — it’s not a — DOOCY: — do that. JEAN-PIERRE: — it’s not an ar — we’re not talking about arguments. You were talking about his attendance. Doocy tried another way: “You get a lot of questions in here about these polls concerning the President’s age and his acuity. Do you think that it is going to quiet concerns about the President’s age and acuity if he decides not to debate?” Only then with the qualifier that she wouldn’t specifically be “talking about the debate” did she opine that Biden’s age will be put to rest by the State of the Union and Biden “lay[ing] out his plans” after “a successful three years of progress.” A long‚ winding answer later (that was interrupted by a loud sneeze in the back of the Briefing Room)‚ Doocy kept pushing: “So‚ just for clarity‚ it’s possible that there will be no Joe Biden-Donald Trump debates this fall?” Jean-Pierre thought she could mock Doocy into giving up: “Is that you — is that what you’re excited about? Is that what you want to see? Because you keep asking me. You asked me about three‚ four‚ five different times in different ways.” Amid crosstalk‚ Doocy wasn’t having it: “I would love to see Joe Biden and Donald Trump debate. How about you? How would President Biden do in a debate? I’m not asking a question about a specific debate. I’m just — how would he do in a debate?” Jean-Pierre moved on‚ but not before claiming Biden shouting back and forth with Republicans over entitlements at the 2023 State of Union was proof of his “impressive” stamina. Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann immediately followed and‚ after a question about the impending resignation of the longtime (and‚ for some‚ controversial and shadowy) State Department official Victoria Nuland‚ he inquired as to Biden’s thoughts on “France codifying abortion rights into their constitution.” As you’ll see below‚ Jean-Pierre waxed poetic about how glad the regime was to see this‚ but Wegmann quickly turned the tables and got a non-answer when he brought up the fact that it actually prohibits abortion after 14 weeks (click “expand”): JEAN-PIERRE: So‚ we appreciate countries taking a step forward to protect the right for a woman — a woman or women to make a very difficult decisions [sic] on their health care. We appreciate that‚ and I think that’s a good thing to see. And‚ as it relates to here in this country‚ the President’s going to talk about Reproductive rights and fighting for that and what we’re seeing across the country — more than 300 bills that were introduced recently on finding ways to prevent women from making these really important decisions on their bodies‚ and that should not be and that’s because Roe v. Wade was overturned‚ which is a law — a — law that was Constitution for those — part of the Constitution for almost 50 years‚ almost 50 years. And that was taken away. We see Republicans putting forth three national — national bans against abortion. That’s — you know‚ that’s not — that’s not what the President is fighting for. He’s fighting for the right for a woman to make a decision on their — on her — on her own body. WEGMANN: And does he think that the French prohibition on abortion after 14 weeks is reasonable? JEAN-PIERRE: Look‚ I’m not going to get into the specifics of that particular bill. What I could say — it’s — it’s always important to see other — other countries actually take steps to protecting — protecting rights — fundamental rights that women should have‚ but I’m not going to get into the specifics of the bill. Finally‚ Bloomberg’s Jordan Fabian and The New York Times’s Michael Shear deserve shoutouts for bringing up the bipartisan legislation that‚ if passed‚ would require TikTok to divest from its Chinese Communist Party-linked parent company ByteDance or face a U.S. ban. Along with both making sure National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan’s support for the bill is where the administration writ large stands‚ Shear seemed to suggest a TikTok White House event was afloat‚ which Jean-Pierre refused to confirm or deny: “Is the President planning on talking to TikTok influencers on Friday after the State of the Union about his speech?” To see the relevant transcript from the March 6 briefing (including one from the left about whether Biden’s speech will channel “the anger and frustration” about the lack of a ceasefire being imposed on Israel)‚ click here.

Click to Skip Ahead Do Dogs Protect Their Owners? How Do Dogs Protect Their Owners? FAQ People keep dogs for all sorts of reasons‚ from companionship to having a work partner or an excuse to get them out of the house more often. Dogs have also been kept as guardians for livestock and humans for centuries‚ and many people still keep dogs for protection today. The belief that all dogs will protect their owners is a bit of a myth‚ though. Many people believe that their dog will rush to their rescue whenever they need it‚ only for said loyal pup to turn tail and hide instead. This doesn’t mean that your dog doesn’t love you or that a protective dog won’t defend you to the best of their ability. It all comes down to the dog’s breed‚ temperament‚ and their training. To clear up the confusion‚ we explore the reasons that some dogs protect their owners and others don’t. We also examine common ways that dogs try to protect you even if they do run away or attempt to make friends with your attacker. Do Dogs Protect Their Owners? The question of whether dogs will protect their owners is one that’s asked frequently and many people assume that the answer is always‚ “Yes‚ absolutely!” In practice‚ however‚ this is rarely the case. Most dogs won’t protect you at all if you’re attacked. This can be due to many reasons. Breed Perhaps the biggest factor in whether your dog will protect you if necessary is their breed. While all dogs have a natural protective instinct‚ some breeds were developed with a stronger guard-dog temperament than others. Well-known guardians include livestock guardians like the Anatolian Shepherd Dog or ancient war dogs like the Cane Corso. That said‚ having a guardian breed doesn’t necessarily mean these dogs will protect you. There are plenty of other factors to consider too. Image Credit: Hoika Mikhail‚ Shutterstock Temperament Although breed plays a huge part in the reason that some dogs are more likely to protect you than others‚ you also have to consider the temperament of the dog as an individual. For example‚ German Shepherds might be well known for being excellent police dogs‚ but not all of them make it through K9 training. It’s similar to how not all Labrador Retrievers have the focus and dedication to make good guide dogs. They’re still good dogs even if they don’t meet the standards required for police work or other jobs. They simply don’t have the right temperament for a job that someone wants them to do. Your protective German Shepherd might be terrified of loud bangs or not have the confidence that makes them an excellent guard dog. While you can train a dog to protect you if they don’t already have that spark‚ they’ll struggle to excel as much as another dog would. Image Credit: Gajus‚ Shutterstock Training Something you do have to remember about dogs is that from a very young age‚ they learn that humans are good. They might be wary around strangers or aggressive toward everything that they’re unfamiliar with‚ but with proper socialization and obedience training‚ people are seen as good things. Most of all‚ they’re a source of food and ear scratches. This is partly what makes small dogs more likely to snap at threats than large breeds. Large dogs are more likely to be taught good manners and to be gentle when they’re puppies because they quickly get bigger‚ stronger‚ and harder to control. Small breeds stay small and cute‚ and their aggressive behavior isn’t seen as a problem by most owners until it already is one. Unfortunately‚ your dog’s good behavior often leaves them confused about how they’re supposed to protect you. If they’ve been taught not to bite‚ bark‚ or jump up at people‚ they won’t know how to protect you. However‚ you can train dogs to protect you on command. This gives them a direction to follow that will tell them when and where their protectiveness needs to come into action and when to back off. Image Credit: Jumpstory How Do Dogs Protect Their Owners? Most dogs might be inclined to run the other way or sit and watch when someone attacks you‚ but many of them still protect you. They might not be the dramatic‚ snarling‚ and biting heroes that you imagine them to be‚ but they can and do protect you in their own way. Presence The fact that there are so many misconceptions about dogs shows that they can be effective in protecting you from attackers. Perhaps not in the way that you imagined them to be‚ but their presence can be a deterrent alone. Take a breed like the Great Dane‚ for example. Their size is intimidating‚ even to people who are familiar with dogs. Even if you didn’t know that they once hunted wild boars and are dedicated home guardians‚ they are likely to scare away an attacker simply by bounding up to them and barking. That said‚ if you’re attacked by someone who knows that Great Danes are massive softies‚ their presence won’t be much of a deterrent at all. A kind word‚ a treat‚ and ear scratches are often more than enough to make a new friend. This is why training your massive guard dog to use their instinctive protectiveness can help. Image Credit: Mary Swift‚ Shutterstock Watchdogs Dogs are equipped with impressive senses that help alert them to trouble. Their nose‚ ears‚ and eyes all work together to observe their surroundings and keep them safe. Your Basset Hound might become best friends with a burglar‚ but they also won’t be quiet when said burglar walks up to your back door. In many cases‚ a dog’s bark might be worse than their bite‚ but it can also be a good deterrent. If your dog isn’t known for making excessive noise all the time‚ the more noise they make when they need to‚ the more attention they’ll draw. For an attacker who wants to make a quick stop and an easy getaway‚ attention is the last thing that they’ll want. Don’t rely on this alone‚ though. Unless you train your dog specifically to react to certain triggers‚ it’s difficult to say what sets them off. It’s also easy to quiet them down. After all‚ few dogs will say “no” to a handful of treats or a juicy bone. Frequently Asked Questions How Can You Protect Yourself From Attackers? Hopefully‚ you and your dog will never experience a situation where you’ll need them to protect you. There are a few ways that you can defend yourself and your dog without relying solely on them to protect you. Here are a few quick tips: Invest in guard dog training. Stay alert‚ and avoid dangerous situations or walking routes. Carry pepper spray. Take a self-defense course. Walk with a friend or family member. Image Credit: Tanya Consaul Photography‚ Shutterstock What’s the Difference Between Protection and Aggression? Many people don’t realize that there’s a big difference between protective behavior and aggression. This is often why a dog owner will let their tiny Chihuahua “guard” their lap by snapping at anyone who comes close—the tiny dog’s overprotectiveness is adorable. Unfortunately‚ this behavior often isn’t a response to an actual threat to you; it’s your dog’s response to their jealousy or possessiveness toward you. It can also escalate until your dog is reacting to everything with snarls‚ bites‚ or other unwanted behavior. When your dog reacts aggressively to everything‚ even when it’s not a threat‚ they’re not being protective‚ they’re just reacting. Aggression is a common problem in dogs and needs to be corrected through training and socialization. Conversely‚ protectiveness is an instinctive behavior that all dogs have‚ especially the breeds that are bred for guarding. Most of the time‚ it isn’t a bad thing either; it’s just your dog being loyal‚ observant‚ and dependable. Dogs will also react to your emotional response to situations. Protectiveness can lead to aggression in certain cases‚ but with the right training‚ you can teach them to assess the situation and decide whether there’s a threat before they overreact. Protective dogs will also back down and relax as soon as they realize that there isn’t a threat. This can be after they’ve assured themselves that everything is safe or with a command from you. Conclusion Despite popular belief‚ many dogs won’t protect you if you’re attacked‚ and these can include breeds that are known to be naturally protective. In many cases‚ dogs that protect their owners are trained to do so and will respond to a command that tells them to act in a certain way. It’s rare for a dog to protect their owner instinctively‚ and many are happy to make friends with your attackers. Even if your dog is a well-known guard dog breed‚ don’t rely on them to protect you. Invest in guard dog training‚ but also take steps to protect yourself by carrying pepper spray‚ learning basic self-defense‚ or walking with a friend. Sources https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/best-guard-dogs/ https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/great-dane/ https://sequoiahumane.org/protective-jealous-and-possessive-behaviors Featured Image Credit: SasaStock‚ Shutterstock The post Will My Dog Protect Me If I Am Attacked? Facts &; FAQ appeared first on Pet Keen.

Wildfires have devastated the Panhandle of Texas‚ destroying hundreds of homes‚ more than a million acres of land‚ and thousands of cattle. Many people are left wondering if this localized devastation will have far-reaching effects. “The catastrophic depths of this particular wildfire go one step further‚ and it will affect you‚” Glenn Beck says. “Texas leads America by far with the most cattle‚ and according to Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller‚ 85% of the state's cattle population resides in the Panhandle where this fire happened‚” he adds. During an interview with CBS‚ Miller predicted that 10‚000 cattle will have died or will have to be euthanized. “While the death toll of human lives lost to these fires is low‚ the loss of livelihood is nothing like we’ve ever seen before‚” Glenn says. Joe Leathers‚ the general manager of the Four Sixes Ranch‚ which was affected by the fire‚ tells Glenn that it’s a “pretty devastating feeling.” However‚ he disagrees with Glenn’s assessment that others outside the area will be affected. “You’re not going to see any immediate change in prices at the grocery store. You’re not going to see a shortage of beef‚” Leathers says. “Even though it’s very devastating to the individuals who lost their ranches‚ who lost their homes‚ who lost their livelihood‚ who lost all these cattle — that number ahead that we have lost is a minute amount‚” he explains. “I don’t see a major increase in price at the grocery store.” Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling‚ thought-provoking analysis‚ and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.

Alabama Republican Governor Kay Ivey signed a bill into law on Wednesday that grants legal protections to in-vitro fertilization providers‚ prompting some clinics to reopen.Several IVF providers‚ including that state's largest hospital‚ halted services last month after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that embryos have the same rights as "unborn children." The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit involving three couples who accused their IVF provider of wrongful death after a wandering hospital patient allegedly destroyed their frozen embryos.The state supreme court's ruling sparked fears about the future of IVF services‚ leading clinics to pause treatments over concerns that staff could face criminal charges or damages. Last week‚ Alabama lawmakers passed Senate Bill 159 and House Bill 237‚ Republican-proposed legislation granting legal protections to IVF clinics. On Wednesday‚ both chambers moved quickly to pass a unified version of the bills‚ sending the legislation to Ivey's desk for a signature. The House approved the bill in an 81-12 vote‚ and the Senate voted 29-1 to pass the legislation‚ USA Today reported.On Wednesday evening‚ Ivey said‚ "The overwhelming support of SB (Senate Bill) 159 from the Alabama Legislature proves what we have been saying: Alabama works to foster a culture of life‚ and that certainly includes IVF.""I am confident that this legislation will provide the assurances our IVF clinics need and will lead them to resume services immediately‚" she added. I have signed SB159‚ the IVF protections legislation‚ after it received overwhelming support from the Alabama Legislature. #alpolitics\n\nRead my full statement: — (@) Under the new law‚ IVF providers cannot face criminal prosecution if there is "damage or death of an embryo‚" but civil lawsuits can still be filed against clinics.Dr. Mamie McLean with Alabama Fertility stated that the clinic plans to resume treatments on Thursday."This means that we will be able to do embryo transfers and hopefully have more pregnancies and babies in the state of Alabama‚" McLean said.Many Democrats were displeased with the bill‚ noting that it failed to clarify whether an embryo created by IVF should be treated as a child. The state's Republican majority rejected a Democratic-proposed bill that stated embryos outside the uterus cannot be deemed unborn children.Some critics of the legislation have expressed concerns that it provides too much protection to clinics. Attorney Sarah London told USA Today that the new law could create a "potentially dangerous environment for patients.""It is vital to protect access‚ but we should not give complete immunity to the fertility industry and wipe out critical protections for women undergoing IVF treatment‚" London remarked. "When the industry fails to live up to minimum safety standards and the promises made to hopeful parents‚ we need to ensure there is a pathway to accountability." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Police in Georgia said a 28-year-old mother of four entered a school bus last week‚ made physical contact with a 9-year-old‚ and told her own kid to beat up another child.What are the details?Tenisha Barber told WSB-TV she was waiting for her child’s school bus to arrive when she saw Roshaunda Qualls get on the bus on Mount Zion Parkway in Clayton County last Thursday.“She came up‚ and she got on the bus‚” Barber added to the station.Court documents say Qualls recklessly interfered with the operation of a school bus when she made intentional contact with the 9-year-old‚ WSB reported.Barber told the station she doesn’t condone Qualls' actions but understands: “She was trying to defend her child 'cause her child was getting bullied."However‚ another parent said Qualls’ child was doing the bullying‚ WSB reported.A judge ordered Qualls and her child to stay away from the other child‚ the station said: “You’re not to enter a Clayton County school bus‚ particularly bus number 36."One woman remarked to WSB: “It’s just crazy. Things are just getting more and more out of hand.”New chargesPolice arrested Qualls again after she bonded out on the initial charges‚ WSB reported in a separate story.Officers said Qualls‚ 28‚ encouraged her child to beat another child on the bus‚ the station said‚ adding that the judge said Qualls used abusive language and attempted to strike a child with her right hand. Police told WSB Qualls entered the school bus outside the Carrington Park apartments near Jonesboro and caused mayhem.Now Qualls faces a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in addition to her initial charges of battery‚ third-degree child cruelty‚ and disrupting the operation of a public school‚ the station said.“When another child has been instigated by their parent to fight‚ I think that’s wrong because it’s not Christian-like‚” one woman told WSB.But the station added that Qualls’ attorney‚ Dennis Scheib‚ said during a hearing that the incident "wasn’t something [Qualls] started."“She sees everybody fighting‚ and the door was closed‚" Scheib said‚ according to WSB. "So she got on there‚ and it was a mess."After her first arrest last Thursday‚ Qualls — a mother of four — was released on a $7‚000 bond‚ the station said. Following her second arrest‚ WSB said her attorney asked the judge for a $5‚000 bond‚ but the judge set the bond at $10‚000.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin schooled three MSNBC hosts on Wednesday for mocking voters who are concerned about immigration and the border crisis. Exit polls conducted on Super Tuesday showed that immigration is the top concern for Republican voters in Virginia. In fact‚ it is a top issue for voters nationwide‚ even surpassing the economy in some exit polls. This is not breaking news unless you live under a rock because the border crisis has been a national story for years. But that didn't stop MSNBC hosts Jen Psaki‚ Rachel Maddow‚ and Joy Reid from ridiculing these voters over their concerns. During MSNBC's election-night coverage‚ Psaki read the exit poll data‚ Reid laughed‚ and Maddow outright mocked the voters. "If you look at some of these exit polls — I mean‚ I live in Virginia — immigration was the number one issue‚" Psaki said to Reid's laughter. "Well‚ Virginia does have a border with West Virginia. Very contested area‚" Maddow mocked. "But you're thinking like: WHAT?!" Psaki added. — (@) At first‚ Melugin responded to the trio of MSNBC hosts by pointing to the recent arrest of an illegal immigrant who is accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in Virginia. "Two weeks ago‚ in Virginia‚ an illegal alien from Venezuela was arrested &; charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in Campbell County‚ VA. He had crossed illegally into El Paso‚ TX‚ in September 2023 and was released into the U.S. by the federal government‚" he wrote on social media. Then Melugin explained on "Fox and Friends" why the MSNBC hosts' reaction demonstrates how out of touch they are with normal Americans. "Talk about out of touch— listening to them giggle and laugh and joke‚" Melugin said. "We've been down there the last three years‚ and we've watched as this issue has taken over the entire country. It's no longer just Arizona‚ California‚ Texas‚ New Mexico — look what's happened to the sanctuary cities‚" he explained. "Look what's happened ever since Gov. [Greg] Abbott started busing [migrants] around the country. Ask Laken Riley's parents if the border and immigration is something to giggle about. It just shows a massive‚ massive out-of-touch moment." After noting that exit polls prove immigration is a top issue‚ Melugin issued a warning to the naysayers. "Laugh at it at your own risk. The voters will have their say in November‚" he said. MSNBC's @jrpsaki @Maddow laugh at and mock Virginia voters for caring about border crisis‚ where just a few weeks ago an illegal alien released by Biden administration was arrested for raping a 14-year-old girl. @BillMelugin_ @kilmeade @SteveDoocy @ainsleyearhardt react: pic.twitter.com/YdrLhIFIVG — johnny dollar (@johnnydollar01) March 6‚ 2024 Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Ever wonder why so many radical leftist activists fall within Gen Z? According to NY-based journalist Ashley St. Clair‚ who’s 25 years old and thus a Zoomer herself‚ it’s because “so much of Gen Z feels out of control” and “like they don't have anything to control.” “So it seems like they cling to these movements‚ like Free Palestine and BLM‚ because they feel like it's something they can control and do because there's so little impact they can have on so many different things‚” Ashley tells Dave Rubin. “They’re not empowered. … They're told the only way they can be useful is through these social justice causes‚ and so I think that's why they gravitate towards [activism] more.” This may also explain why so many young people are opting not to have children. “I did street interviews with EveryLife‚ the diaper company‚” she continues‚ and “one [girl] outright told me she didn't want to have kids … because of climate change.” Others told her that they were choosing not to have children “because of economics.” “They think the worst thing that could happen to a kid is being poor in America‚” Ashley says‚ adding that “it's just such an antinatalist lie that's been sold to them.” “They are so dreadful about the future” and believe “humanity is so doomed that they don’t think there should be more of it.” “Do you think it's worse in a way for girls than for guys right now?” asks Dave. “It depends on what your metric for success is‚” says Ashley‚ “but I think both young men and women are particularly disturbed nowadays‚” especially when it comes to “identity.” “So many people have no sense of identity; they don’t know who they are because [the left] has destroyed that” via gender ideology. “We're fundamentally destroying what it means to be both a man and a woman.” On top of that‚ Gen Z'ers are the most chronically depressed and anxious generation. While there are likely many factors that feed this issue‚ one reason is because their highly digital world is forcing them to take in “inputs all the time” and “perform all of the time for everybody‚” Ashley says. To hear more‚ watch the clip below. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations‚ free speech‚ and big ideas with Dave Rubin‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.