Batya Ungar-Sargon‚ Newsweek's opinion editor and author of "Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy‚" gave Bill Maher all sorts of headaches on "Real Time" Friday night‚ particularly when she got a former U.S. representative — a Democrat‚ no less — to admit a wall at the border with Mexico actually may have helped America's illegal alien crisis.What are the details?In one segment‚ Ungar-Sargon challenged Maher‚ asking him if he really believes America is better off now than in 2018."How were we worse?" Maher replied."Ask the American people‚" Ungar-Sargon answered back. "Inflation‚ immigration crisis‚ eight million people ... who cross [the border] illegally ... we don't know who they are. Crimes being committed. People can't afford homes because of the [high] mortgage rates." Another program guest‚ former U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio)‚ tried to call out Ungar-Sargon by saying if former President Donald Trump "would've built the wall‚ maybe all these people wouldn't be coming over illegally."Ungar-Sargon obviously wouldn't let that moment go."Oh‚ so you support building the wall?" she answered back‚ laughing.Furiously digging his way out of the faux pas‚ Ryan somehow managed to declare that Ungar-Sargon "can't have it both ways. You're blaming [President Joe] Biden for [illegal] immigration. Trump said he was going to build a wall. He didn't do s**t!" — (@) In another segment‚ Ungar-Sargon wasn't buying the idea that Biden may lose Michigan in the election due to the state's high Muslim population being angry that he's backing Israel in its war against Hamas."I think that the media really‚ really wants to put this narrative out there that Biden is going to lose Michigan over Gaza when the truth is he's going to lose Michigan over 600‚000 auto workers because his EV market was extremely punishing to auto workers‚" she stated.More from Ungar-Sargon:There's been this big realignment where working-class Americans are very‚ very‚ very much on the Trump train: People who used to be Democrats and used to vote for Democrats. And rather than admit that — this outrage that Democrats lost the working-class vote — and try to figure out how we can appeal to them again‚ they're looking for excuses and other things to blame. Like ... this war in Gaza‚ or they'll call them deplorables‚ or they'll call them racists‚ you know‚ because they don't want to admit that Trump has picked up a lot of the policies that used to be Democratic policies in the '90s‚ like controlling the border‚ for example. The idea that an open border and mass migration is extremely punishing to the working class; it drives down their wages. It's class warfare against the working class. It is an upward transfer of wealth from the working class who end up competing with immigrants to the elites who end up employing them‚ and now they can employ cheap [labor] immigrants instead of having to pay working-class Americans a living wage. — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Over the weekend‚ the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay order on a lower court's preliminary injunction that blocked a new Texas immigration law‚ Senate Bill 4. With the latest order‚ SB 4 is now slated to take effect on Saturday as long as the United States Supreme Court does not intervene.According to the Texas Tribune‚ the appeals court paused the lower court's order for seven days and noted that it would schedule oral arguments on its next available date. As of Monday afternoon‚ a date has yet to be announced‚ the news outlet reported. On Thursday‚ United States District Judge David Ezra granted a preliminary injunction to block Texas' law while the federal government's lawsuit against the state is still being reviewed‚ Blaze News previously reported. In Ezra's ruling‚ he wrote that Texas failed to demonstrate that the Biden administration had "abandoned" the southern border. The judge accused Texas of "tak[ing] hyperbolic criticism literally" when "the record is replete with examples and evidence of the federal government carrying out its immigration duties." According to Erza‚ if SB 4 is allowed to be signed into law‚ the federal government "will suffer grave irreparable harm‚" and it "could open the door to each state passing its own version of immigration laws."Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott responded by stating that he "fully expected" the judge's ruling and noted his plans to appeal the decision. His attempt to block the ruling was successful‚ with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issuing the stay on Saturday. SB 4 will take effect on March 9 unless the Supreme Court moves to keep it on hold longer.If allowed to take effect‚ Texas' new law would make it a class B misdemeanor to illegally cross the southern border into the state. It has granted the authority for state and local law enforcement agencies to arrest‚ detain‚ prosecute‚ and deport illegal immigrants.The Biden administration filed a lawsuit against Texas shortly after Abbott signed SB 4 into law‚ claiming that it "intrudes into a field that is occupied by the federal government" and "conflicts with various provisions of the [Immigration and Nationality Act].""Federal appeals court allows Texas immigration law to take effect. Law enforcement officers in Texas are now authorized to arrest &; jail any illegal immigrants crossing the border‚" Abbott wrote on X Monday. "Obviously this is the case unless the Supreme Court intervenes by March 9."In a separate post on X‚ Abbott stated‚ "Texas National Guard soldiers and DPS troopers continue to apprehend and arrest illegal immigrants crossing into our state. Texas will hold the line until President Biden does his job to secure the border."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) filed a lawsuit against JBS USA‚ the world's largest beef producer‚ claiming that the company "falsely advertise[d]" its sustainability commitments to boost its sales.A February 28 press release from James' office accused JBS USA of "greenwashing and misleading statements to capitalize on consumers' increasing desire to make environmentally friendly choices."Assemblymember Dana Levenberg explained that "greenwashing" schemes are "used to justify higher prices."A few of JBS USA's many brands include Swift‚ Pilgrim's‚ Blue Ribbon Beef‚ and Certified Angus Beef. The company's brands are sold in Costco‚ WinCo‚ and Walmart. Fox Business reported that the company also supplies products to chain restaurants such as the Cheesecake Factory‚ McDonald's‚ Burger King‚ Subway‚ KFC‚ Pizza Hut‚ Wendy's‚ and Johnny Rockets.JBS USA has claimed that it aims to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. A 2021 article by the meatpacker stated‚ "JBS is the first major company in its sector to set a net-zero target. The ambition reflects the company's goal to meet the health and nutritional needs of the growing global population in a sustainable manner that preserves the planet's resources for future generations."Gilberto Tomazoni‚ JSA USA's chief executive officer‚ called climate change "the great challenge of our time" and noted his commitment to "urgently to combat the negative effects of global warming.""As one of the most diversified global food companies‚ we have an opportunity to leverage our scale and influence to help lead a sustainable transformation of agricultural markets that empowers producers‚ suppliers‚ customers and consumers. Agriculture can and must be part of the global climate solution. We believe through innovation‚ investment and collaboration‚ net zero is within our collective grasp‚" Tomazoni said.James' lawsuit alleges that the company has made emissions reduction guarantees that are "not feasible." Her officer's press release claimed that beef producers are largely responsible for "global climate change" and "deforestation.""JBS USA has made several misleading claims about its environmental impact‚ including pledges to curb deforestation and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions‚" the press release stated. "Recent studies have shown that people are influenced by a company's environmental reputation and are willing to change their habits to switch to more environmentally friendly products: more than two-thirds of American adults are willing to pay more for sustainable products."The lawsuit seeks to prevent JBS USA from advertising its net-zero goals. It also aims to force the company to "conduct a third-party audit of its compliance with New York's consumer protection statutes‚ and pay disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains earned by misleading the public about their business practices as well as penalties of at least $5‚000 per violation."James stated‚ "As families continue to face the daily impacts of the climate crisis‚ they are willing to spend more of their hard-earned money on products from brands that are better for the environment.""When companies falsely advertise their commitment to sustainability‚ they are misleading consumers and endangering our planet. JBS USA's greenwashing exploits the pocketbooks of everyday Americans and the promise of a healthy planet for future generations. My office will always ensure that companies do not abuse the environment and the trust of hardworking consumers for profit‚" she added.Nikki Richardson‚ a spokesperson for JBS USA‚ told Fox News Digital that the beef producer "takes its commitment to a more sustainable future for agriculture very seriously.""We disagree with the action taken today by the New York Attorney General's office‚" Richardson remarked."JBS will continue to partner with farmers‚ ranchers and our food system partners around the world to help feed a growing population while using fewer resources and reducing agriculture's environmental impact‚" she continued. "Our belief that American agriculture can help sustainably feed the world is undeterred." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The co-founders of Moms for Liberty‚ former Florida school board members Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich‚ spoke to "60 Minutes" host Scott Pelley in October 2023 about their organization and its work reinforcing parental rights‚ protecting children from being subjected to pornography at school‚ and combating grooming efforts in the classroom. The interview was ultimately packaged as a hit piece and released Sunday. When it went air‚ the MFL duo noticed something was missing. The parental rights group noted that critical details and comments they allegedly shared with Pelley and his producers — insights that may have vindicated their efforts in the court of public opinion — were omitted from the final product. '60 Minutes' removes obscene books from its special According to the parental rights group‚ its co-founders provided "60 Minutes" with an extensive list of books that have been reported at schools‚ "[n]ot just local libraries or retailers‚" containing lewd‚ obscene‚ or pornographic material. Among the titles they allegedly brought to the attention of Pelley and his producers was Juno Dawson's "This Book is Gay‚" which contains the following entry: "Blowies: Oral sex is popping another dude's peen in your mouth or‚ indeed‚ popping yours in his. There is only one hard and fast rule when it comes to blow jobs—WATCH THE TEETH. Lips and tongue‚ yes; teeth‚ NO." The parental rights group cited several other damning books they had previously flagged in American schools that "60 Minutes" did not bother to mention‚ including Erika Moen and Matthew Nolan's "Let's Talk About It‚" which contains detailed graphics on how to self-stimulate in a section entitled‚ "Things to Try!" MFL wrote on X‚ "Would exposing minor children to these sexual images &; texts by someone who is not their parent be grooming? It certainly is not educational. So‚ why did @60minutes censor this material from tonight's piece?" Justice wrote‚ "We read graphic sexual content on camera to @ScottPelley from books found in public school libraries all over the country. Do you think that @60minutes will air that footage? We've got the transcript and a video of the interview." We read graphic sexual content on camera to @ScottPelley from books found in public school libraries all over the country. \n\nDo you think that @60minutes will air that footage? We\u2019ve got the transcript and a video of the interview. \n\nRight @TinaDescovich? — (@) While "60 Minutes" neglected to detail these titles and MFL's specific concerns with them‚ the program singled out a supposedly "banned" title dealing with anti-Semitism in Tsarist Russia. However‚ by CBS News' own admission‚ this title hadn't actually been banned but rather held for review on account of parental concerns over mature subject matter. Revisionist histories and imagined bans Critics suggested that the special was misleading from the start. When introducing the topic‚ Pelley stated‚ "Moms was founded as a reaction against COVID mandates." Referencing her transcript of the conversation‚ Descovich indicated she had made clear to the the "60 Minutes" host that was not the case. Moms for Liberty‚ a conservative group‚ seeks to limit teaching on race‚ sexual orientation‚ and gender. 60 Minutes spoke with two of the founders‚ who also say teacher\u2019s unions have too much influence on education \u201cand that has to change.\u201d https://t.co/0jZpmwGi6V — (@) "Moms began as a‚ let me see. Yeah‚ [M]oms began as a movement to protest mask restrictions in schools with regard to COVID. And I wonder how you got to books?" said Pelley‚ according to the transcript shared online by the interviewee. Descovich apparently responded‚ "Well‚ I'd like to say‚ first of all‚ we didn't start to protest masks. Mom for Liberty's mission is to unify‚ educate‚ and empower parents to defend their parental rights at all levels of government." According to the transcript‚ Descovich underscored that during the pandemic‚ she and her co-founder began observing parents "coming to school board meetings‚ more than they ever had in our terms‚ and speaking up. But they didn't really know what they were doing. They were getting flustered‚ they were saying they were gonna report the school board to the County Commission which has no authority in Florida. They didn't understand the process or the polices or how to change a policy or how to be effective." "And so we formed Moms for Liberty when we came off our terms to help parents in any circumstance be effective in impacting the government when it came to their children‚" added Descovich. Extra to apparently providing an alternate history for the group‚ "60 Minutes" appears to have misrepresented the facts around book bans both in its special and in its corresponding social media communications. In the lead-up to its special‚ "60 Minutes" tweeted‚ "There were over 3‚000 book bans in U.S. schools last year. That rise is inspired‚ in part‚ by the conservative group Moms for Liberty." Dr. Jay Greene‚ senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Center for Education Policy‚ suggested this claim was "simply false‚ even if one accepts the loose definition of ban as 'no longer available in a school library.'" "60 Minutes" appears to have been regurgitating a debunked narrative advanced by the organization PEN America. Greene‚ Max Eden‚ and Madison Marino noted in a report last year that they had gone through PEN's 2022 list of 2‚532 banned books. After determining that 1‚868 books were actually in districts with public card catalogs‚ the researchers confirmed that 1‚378 books‚ "or 74 percent‚ are listed as available in the school district libraries from which PEN said they had been banned. Of the 1‚261 books PEN labeled as 'Banned -- Pending Investigation‚' 1‚015‚ or 80 percent‚ were present in school libraries." With the exception to 203 books in Texas and 174 books in Florida‚ the report revealed that only 113 books had been "successfully challenged in a calendar year amongst more than 10‚000 school districts." The 10 most "actually banned" books were found to "contain sexually explicit‚ if not outright pornographic‚ passages that few reasonable people would insist belong in a school library‚" according to the report. Blaze News reached out to "60 Minutes" for comment but did not immediately receive a response. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats and the mainstream media have spent the last few months trying to convince the American people that Colorado has every right to kick former president Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot. But the Supreme Court isn’t having it. The Court ruled 9-0 that Colorado can’t use Article 3 of the 14th Amendment to remove Trump from the ballot. Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere are pleased but note that the court may still have left Democrats an option. “The only way this can be implemented is by legislation of Congress‚” Stu explains. “They kind of leave it open as to what federal powers could be utilized there.” In order to get Trump off the ballot‚ Congress would have to pass a law saying that he engaged in an insurrection and therefore should be removed. “You can’t do that right now because the House belongs to the Republicans‚” Glenn says‚ adding‚ “I wouldn’t rule anything out. A dog-faced alien could come down and take over the White House on January 7 and I would be like‚ 'Well‚ didn’t see it coming‚ but mhm‚ makes sense.'” According to Stu‚ the Democrats have even more options. “Let’s just say Donald Trump wins the presidential election and the Democrats hold the Senate and turn over the House. That new Congress takes seat on January 3‚ you’ll note a couple days before January 6‚” Stu explains. “And then‚ all they have to do is vote and say he was an agent of insurrection and therefore cannot be president of the United States‚” Glenn agrees. 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.

Pandemonium erupted as an "unruly crowd" of as many as 600 people overwhelmed the Six Flags Over Georgia amusement park on Saturday night. Gunfire broke out as law enforcement attempted to quell the chaotic situation‚ and police reportedly shot a teen during the violent exchange.Georgia Bureau of Investigation officials told WSB-TV that the Cobb County Police Department was contacted around 6:15 p.m. on Saturday regarding an "unruly crowd" of 500 to 600 people at the Six Flags Over Georgia amusement park. According to police‚ several fights erupted near the entrance of the park in Austell – roughly 17 miles northwest of Atlanta‚ Georgia. The park's security was overpowered by the mob. — (@) A gunfight broke out on a service road that is not on the amusement park property‚ according to Six Flags Over Georgia officials. Police returned fire‚ and a 15-year-old was shot during the exchange. "At some point‚ multiple people began shooting‚ hitting an unoccupied CCPD marked patrol car‚" the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said in a statement. "As officers identified where the shots were coming from‚ they ran after people who had run into the woods. During the incident‚ one CCPD officer fired his weapon‚ hitting one minor."The 15-year-old was rushed to Grady Hospital. He is reportedly in critical condition as of Sunday. His name has not been released. A handgun was found near the wounded teen‚ according to the GBI. No officers were injured in the gun battle. The GBI is conducting an independent investigation into the police shooting and will submit its findings to the Cobb County District Attorney’s Office.Six Flags Over Georgia said in a statement about the violent incident‚ "Our goal is to provide safe‚ fun entertainment. We employ state of the art security systems and metal detection‚ maintain a robust and vigilant Public Safety Department‚ and have strong support from Cobb County Police who are present both inside and outside the park.""Every guest is expected to follow our strict code of conduct and anyone unwilling to follow that code of conduct is unwelcome‚" the statement from the amusement park read. Park officials blamed the disruption on "groups of underaged youth.""Just like other venues in the area‚ we are committed to keeping this type of trouble outside our park and off our property‚" the statement said. Gerald Rose – local social activist and president of the New Order National Human Rights Organization – told WAGA-TV‚ "Summer hasn’t even broke yet‚ and on the first day of the amusement park‚ someone at 15 gets shot? We have all this gun violence going on and I'm just very concerned with where we're headed. It's just the fact that the suspects doing these crimes are younger and younger."Rose noted that teenagers are supposed to be at home playing video games‚ not committing adult crimes. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A free-to-play cozy game about hidden furry creatures is winning hearts and positive reviews on Steam following its February 2024 release: 100 Dino Cats has entered the chat. If you're in the market for a relaxing yet challenging experience‚ it may fit the bill nicely. Continue reading Steam’s cutest new cozy game is free to play right now MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best free games‚ Best strategy games‚ Upcoming PC games

In February‚ BlackRock pulled out of Climate Action 100+‚ an investment coalition overseeing $68 trillion in assets.

Her equivocating remarks over the weekend left reason to wonder about the coherence of the White House’s strategy.

Sour Grapes Alert: Nikki Haley Says She's No Longer Bound by RNC Pledge to Endorse Trump