The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against North Carolina and its elections board on Tuesday over its maintenance of voter rolls. The Justice Department’s lawsuit says that the North Carolina State Board of Elections violated federal election law and risked the integrity of its voter rolls. Voters in the state were allowed to register without providing identification, such as a driver’s license, in violation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), according to the suit. “Defendants have failed to maintain accurate lists in North Carolina’s computerized statewide voter registration in violation of Section 303(a)(5) of HAVA and the sacred trust that the people of the State of North Carolina have put in them to ensure the fairness and integrity of elections for Federal office in the state, necessitating this litigation,” the lawsuit says. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March directing the Justice Department to vigorously enforce federal election laws. “Above all, elections must be honest and worthy of the public trust. That requires voting methods that produce a voter-verifiable paper record allowing voters to efficiently check their votes to protect against fraud or mistake. Election-integrity standards must be modified accordingly. It is the policy of my Administration to enforce Federal law and to protect the integrity of our election process,” the order states. Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing the president’s directive on election integrity. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement: “Accurate voter registration rolls are critical to ensure that elections in North Carolina are conducted fairly, accurately, and without fraud.” “The Department of Justice will not hesitate to file suit against jurisdictions that maintain inaccurate voter registration rolls in violation of federal voting laws,” Dhillon added. Sam Hayes, the executive director of the North Carolina elections board, acknowledged shortcomings in the state’s voter registration process. “I was only recently notified of this action by the United States Department of Justice. We are still reviewing the complaint, but the failure to collect the information required by HAVA has been well documented. Rest assured that I am committed to bringing North Carolina into compliance with federal law,” Hayes told CBS17.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM Ah, the joys of warmer weather: sunshine, fresh air, and…grass stains. Whether you’ve been stretching on the lawn, tackling yard work, or chasing your kids through the park, chances are a few green streaks have made their way onto your clothes. The good news? With quick action and a few household items, grass stains don’t have to be permanent. “As always, act fast because fresh stains are much easier to remove, and make sure to blot, don’t rub,” says Ocean Van, owner of Coco Laundry. Letting the stain sit gives chlorophyll time to settle into fabric fibers — and trust us, that’s not the kind of natural dye you want sticking around. Here’s a breakdown of the most effective, expert-backed methods for banishing grass stains and saving your favorite clothes. Rubbing alcohol: a simple first step Rubbing alcohol works like a charm for loosening up the chlorophyll in grass before a wash. Dab rubbing alcohol directly onto the stain (don’t rub — blot gently). Let it sit for a few minutes to break down the stain. Rinse with cool water. Follow with an enzyme detergent and let it sit for 15 to 30 minutes. Scrub and wash with cool or warm water. Hydrogen peroxide and dish soap: the dynamic duo If rubbing alcohol alone isn’t cutting it, this two-ingredient method ups the cleaning power. Mix a few drops of hydrogen peroxide with an equal amount of dish soap. Apply generously to the stain and let it sit for 30 minutes. Scrub and rinse with cool water. Apply an enzyme detergent and let it sit for another 15 to 30 minutes. Scrub again and wash in cool or warm water. Vinegar: your pantry’s secret weapon Distilled white vinegar is great for grass stains — especially when paired with a little patience. Mix equal parts vinegar and water. Drench the stain with the solution and let it sit for 30 minutes. Scrub gently and rinse with cool water. Add enzyme detergent and let it sit for 15 to 30 minutes. Scrub and wash. Repeat if needed — this one can take a few rounds. Enzyme detergent: the reliable workhorse If you’ve got enzyme detergent on hand, it can do most of the heavy lifting. Coat the stain with enzyme detergent, and let it sit for 15 to 30 minutes. Rinse with cool water and reapply detergent. Let it sit again for 15 to 30 minutes. Scrub and wash in cool or warm water. Best practices for tackling grass stains Scott Schrader, founder of CottageCare, recommends pre-treating with rubbing alcohol first, then following up with a liquid enzyme detergent in warm water. The key? Give it time to soak in. Let stains sit with treatment for about 30 minutes before washing on a cold cycle. And whatever you do, do not toss stained clothes straight into the dryer. Heat sets stains like concrete. Always double-check that the stain is completely gone before drying. Which method works best? That depends on the fabric and how fresh the stain is. Many pros swear by the vinegar and enzyme detergent combo — but if that doesn’t work, your local dry cleaner might have the magic touch. Can you use a Magic Eraser? Only on shoes. Magic Erasers are mildly abrasive and can damage fabric. If you are using one on sneakers, blot gently and wash according to the care label. Are grass stains permanent? They don’t have to be! As long as you act quickly and pre-treat before washing, you’re likely to save your clothes. Just remember: cold wash, check before drying.The post How to remove grass stains from clothes (and save your spring and summer wardrobe) first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM In the chilly heart of Antarctica, a bunch of tuxedoed waddlers may be doing more for the planet than most of us in puffer coats. A new study has found that penguins, already champions of charm, are also unlikely champions of the climate—thanks to their poop. Yes, really. Cloudy with a chance of guano Scientists from the University of Helsinki spent two months on the Antarctic Peninsula, getting up close and atmospheric with a colony of 60,000 Adélie penguins. What they discovered is both fascinating and oddly delightful: penguin droppings release ammonia, and that ammonia helps form clouds. “There is a deep connection between ecosystem processes – being the ocean phytoplankton activity as well as penguins – and atmospheric processes that can have an impact on the local climate,” said lead author Matthew Boyer. When the wind blew in just the right direction, ammonia levels in the air shot up more than 1,000-fold. That ammonia, reacting with sulfur gases from phytoplankton, forms particles that seed clouds. And those clouds? They bounce sunlight back into space and help cool the ground below—a natural defense mechanism against ice melt. The poop that keeps on giving Even when the penguins pack up and migrate, their legacy (ahem) lingers. In one instance, researchers watched a fog bank hang around for three hours after a spike in airborne particles. Guano: the gift that keeps on giving. This quirky climate function underscores the intricate ways Antarctic wildlife influences global systems. As warming threatens habitats, it’s not just penguins we stand to lose, but the invisible services they provide. High stakes, low temperatures Antarctica is no ordinary block of ice. It’s a planetary thermostat, helping regulate ocean currents, trap carbon, and balance temperatures. Yet it’s one of the fastest-warming regions on Earth. The Thwaites Glacier, ominously nicknamed the “Doomsday Glacier,” could raise sea levels by up to three meters if it collapses. Understanding how penguin poop and other ecosystem quirks affect these dynamics is critical. It may sound funny, but it’s serious science with global consequences. A feathered forecast of hope Let the penguins remind us: sometimes, saving the planet starts with small, weird miracles.  Hope lies in the ingenuity of nature—and the humans paying close attention to it. Source study: Communications Earth & Environment— Penguin guano is an important source of climate-relevant aerosol particles in AntarcticaThe post The surprising power of penguin poop: how guano-made clouds may help cool the planet first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

This isn't good enough, California

'China is pursuing an aggressive approach on every front'

DC Shooter's Chat Logs Revealed

There Will Never Be a Day I Don't Say 'Thank God' for Nov 5

America has no reason for hope – and there’s no way the nation can escape hopelessness – CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl says in a fearmongering PBS special purporting to examine the boundaries of presidential authority. Stahl is a panelist in PBS’s misleadingly titled How Much Executive Power Is Too Much? Breaking the Deadlock: A Power Play – a transparently manipulative effort to vilify President Donald Trump by portraying the threat-to-democracy deeds of a hypothetical “President Powerton.” After leading viewers to a foregone conclusion that Americans should fear and reject the drunk-with-power “President Powerton,” Moderator Aaron Tang asks panelists the following question: “One last question: folks, is there any reason for hope?” Not only is there no reason for hope, but there’s hope of having hope, because “all” of the nation’s institutions are irredeemable, Stahl answered: “I am not hopeful. I look at all our institutions, all of which have lost the respect and trust of the American people. I worry about the future of democracy, obviously. And, I don’t see a path out. So, I’m kind of down.” Not all panelists’ responses are shown, but the other ones that PBS chose to air express either hope for the nation or, at least, cautious optimism. “America is crumbling because of this president,” Stahl declared earlier in the program. Coincidentally, the PBS program aired after President Trump issued an executive order canceling funding of taxpayer-funded public media – including PBS. While the program claims to examine the limits of presidential authority, it actually presents a hypothetical series of events in which Trump surrogate “President Powerton” looks to defy a Supreme Court ruling striking down his executive order: President Powerton issues an executive order canceling a “green,” farm grant, without which farmers will go bankrupt and lose their farms. A state attorney general sues the president, challenging Pres. Powerton’s authority to cancel the grant. A court rules Pres. Powerton can’t cancel the grant checks – so the president tries to bribe a member of his administration to stop the payments, anyway. The Supreme Court strikes down Pres. Powerton’s executive order when he appeals the decision. Pres. Powerton looks to defy the Supreme Court’s ruling. Powerton orders the U.S. attorney general to find dirt on the state attorney general who sued him, then fires the AG when he refuses to prosecute. When the state attorney wins a Senate seat, a Powerton supporter tries to kill him, gravely injuring the senator-elect. After the would-be assassin is convicted of felony assault, Pres. Powerton decides to pardon him, despite being advised not to by members of his administration. Throughout the program, panelists make thinly-veiled references to Trump while warning of the threat of what a power-mad president might do. “The president thinks every single thing he does is justified, just because he won an election – he’s wrong,” panelist Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) says. Goldman is a former assistant U.S. attorney who led the first impeachment of President Donald Trump.

CBS’s Margaret Brennan butted heads with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on Sunday’s installment of Face the Nation over the proposed tax cuts in what has been dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” The proposed cuts mentioned in the segment were regarding ending Medicaid and S.N.A.P. fraud, as well as cutting back on erroneous spending by government agencies. Brennan, obviously uninformed and uninterested in being corrected about her misconceptions, completely either ignored Johnson’s explanations or was too married to the Democratic Party talking points on the bill.     The segment began with Brennan interrogating Johnson on what exactly would be cut and why. According to the Democrat-backed KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation), 200,000 people in his state would lose Medicaid coverage. “How do you defend that to your constituents?” she chided. Johnson explained that these cuts exist to end Medicaid and S.N.A.P. fraud, and that many people are taking advantage of these programs, which take from the individuals who actually need them: [We are] working on fraud, waste, and abuse, and everyone in Louisiana and around the country understands that's a responsibility of Congress. Just in Medicaid, for example, you’ve got 1.4 million illegal aliens receiving those benefits. That is not what Medicaid is intended for. It's intended for vulnerable populations; for young, single, pregnant women and the elderly and disabled and people who desperately need those resources. Despite the fact that this explanation was common sense, and seems like it should be a bipartisan issue, Brennan tried to correct Johnson, reminding him that illegal immigrants weren’t eligible for programs like Medicaid. She failed to realize she made the same exact point as Johnson was, which was that illegal immigrants should not be able to partake in federal relief programs but still have, in fact, received money from them. Brennan also tried to pit Johnson against his colleague, Republican Senator Josh Hawley (MO), saying that the Senator had expressed strong dissent regarding the bill. Johnson explained, once again, that there should not be anything controversial about this legislation, since all it is doing is funneling funds away from the people abusing the system toward people who actually need it, like the elderly and disabled (Click “expand”): BRENNAN: Well, one of your Republican colleagues over in the Senate has been very vocal about his concern in regard to what you're doing to Medicaid. Josh Hawley has been arguing, “It is morally wrong and politically suicidal to slash health insurance for the working poor.” He said the cost sharing language will force people at or just over the federal poverty level to pay as much as $35 for a medical visit, which means working people will pay more. How do you defend that? Because you know in the Senate they are going to make changes to this. JOHNSON: My friend Josh Hawley is a fiscal conservative, as I am. We don't want to slash benefits and again, I make this very clear, we are not cutting Medicaid, we are not cutting S.N.A.P. We’re working in the elements of fraud, waste and abuse. S.N.A.P., for example, listen to the statistics; in 2024, over $11 billion in S.N.A.P. payments were erroneous. She again tried to suggest Johnson was out to harm his constituents (Click “expand”): BRENNAN: – Louisiana is like the second largest recipient of food stamps in the country, sir. So, do you think– JOHNSON: – Let me explain it, Margaret, let me explain it. The states– the states are not properly administering this because they don't have enough skin in the game. So what we’ve done in the bill is add some– just a modest state sharing component so that they’ll pay attention to that, so we can reduce fraud. Why? Again, so that it is preserved for the people that need it the most. This is common sense, Margaret. It's good government and everybody on both sides of the aisle should agree to that. BRENNAN: Well, Senator Hawley objects to that cost sharing language. Brennan, during the almost five minute long debate, refused to concede that Johnson was, in fact, making sense, and that the policies outlined in the bill are beneficial to Americans. She seemed to only cared about winning the argument rather than reporting the actual realities of the situation to the American people. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read. CBS’s Face The Nation May 25, 2025 10:36 AM EST (...) MARGARET BRENNAN: But back to your end of the– of the deal here. For this tax relief, you talked about the cuts to pay for it all. You are eliminating subsidized federal student loans; so the government will no longer cover the interest on debt while borrowers in school, you’re eliminating 500 billion in clean energy subsidies, and you’re terminating early tax breaks for electric vehicles. Alongside that, you’re carrying out about a trillion in reductions to Medicaid and food stamps. We looked at your home state and the projection is that nearly 200,000 Louisianans will lose their Medicaid coverage because of this. How do you defend that to your constituents? SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: We have not cut Medicaid and we have not cut S.N.A.P. What we’re doing, Margaret, is working on fraud, waste, and abuse, and everyone in Louisiana and around the country understands that's a responsibility of Congress. Just in Medicaid, for example, you’ve got 1.4 million illegal aliens receiving those benefits. That is not what Medicaid is intended for. It's intended for vulnerable populations; for young, single, pregnant women and the elderly and disabled and people who desperately need those resources.  Right now, they are being drained by fraud, waste, and abuse. You got about 4.8 million people on Medicaid right now, nationwide, who are able-bodied workers, young men for example, who are not working, who are taking advantage of the system. If you are able to work and you refuse to do so, you are defrauding the system, you’re cheating the system. And no one in the country believes that that's right. So, here's a moral component to what we are doing, and when you make young men work, it's good for them, it’s good for their dignity, it’s good for their self-worth, and it's good for the community that they live in. BRENNAN: Sure, sure. But- in- first of all, undocumented immigrants, you know, are not eligible for food stamps or Medicaid. Some lawfully present – JOHNSON: – And yet they’re receiving them, that’s the problem– BRENNAN: – immigrants are. So the 190,000 Louisianans that are projected by KFF as losing their Medicaid, your position is they were just lazy, not working? That they were undocumented? What about them? How do you defend that they will be losing their benefits? JOHNSON: No. What we're talking about, again, is able-bodied workers, many of whom are refusing to work because they are gaming the system, and when we make them work, it will be better for everybody, a win, win, win for all. By the way, the work requirements, Margaret, is not some onerous, burdensome thing. It's a minimum of 20 hours a week. You could either be working, or be in a job program, a job training program, or volunteering in your community. This is not some– some onerous thing. This is common sense. And when the American people understand what we are doing here, they applaud it. This is a wildly popular thing. Because we have to preserve the programs. What we're doing is strengthening Medicaid and S.N.A.P. so that they can exist and that they will be there for the people that desperately need it the most and it's not taken advantage of. And this is something that– that everybody in Congress, Republicans and Democrats, should agree to. BRENNAN: Well, one of your Republican colleagues over in the Senate has been very vocal about his concern in regard to what you're doing to Medicaid. Josh Hawley has been arguing, “It is morally wrong and politically suicidal to slash health insurance for the working poor.” He said the cost sharing language will force people at or just over the federal poverty level to pay as much as $35 for a medical visit, which means working people will pay more. How do you defend that? Because you know in the Senate they are going to make changes to this. JOHNSON: My friend Josh Hawley is a fiscal conservative, as I am. We don't want to slash benefits and again, I make this very clear, we are not cutting Medicaid, we are not cutting S.N.A.P. We’re working in the elements of fraud, waste and abuse. S.N.A.P., for example, listen to the statistics; in 2024, over $11 billion in S.N.A.P. payments were erroneous. I mean, that’s a number that everyone acknowledges is real, it may be much higher than that– BRENNAN: – Louisiana is like the second largest recipient of food stamps in the country, sir. So, do you think– JOHNSON: – Let me explain it, Margaret, let me explain it. The states– the states are not properly administering this because they don't have enough skin in the game. So what we’ve done in the bill is add some– just a modest state sharing component so that they’ll pay attention to that, so we can reduce fraud. Why? Again, so that it is preserved for the people that need it the most. This is common sense, Margaret. It's good government and everybody on both sides of the aisle should agree to that. BRENNAN: Well, Senator Hawley objects to that cost sharing language. He is the one leveraging that criticism. This is going to change, you know that, when it goes to the Senate. How do you– how do you put– JOHNSON: Well– so I– BRENNAN: –how do you put your Republicans up to have to defend these things when they are facing an election in 17 months. JOHNSON: We got almost every vote in the House because we worked on it for more than a year in finding the exact balance of reforms to the programs so we can save them and secure them. I think– I think Senator Hawley will see that when he looks into the details of what we passed on Thursday. This is a big thing, it's a historic thing, once in a generation legislation. We call it the “One Big Beautiful Bill” because it's going to do so much and the America First agenda will be delivered for the people just as we promised. And look, I had lunch with my Senate Republican colleagues on Tuesday, their weekly luncheon, and I encouraged them to remember that we are one team, it's the Senate and the House Republicans together that will deliver this ball over the goal line, so to speak, and I encouraged them to make as few modifications as possible remembering that I have a delicate balance— BRENNAN: Yeah. JOHNSON: -- on our– a diverse Republican caucus over in the House. (...)

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he had a concession for Canadian officials that made them consider whether to become the 51st state in the union. Trump has been pitching the idea of annexing Canada since he won the 2024 election, but Canadian officials have rejected the offer and said the country is not for sale. 'It will cost $61 Billion Dollars if they remain a separate, but unequal, Nation, but will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our cherished 51st State.' The president said that he had sweetened the pot by proposing that Canada could save billions of dollars that they would otherwise have to pay in order to obtain defense under a missile dome proposal. "I told Canada, which very much wants to be part of our fabulous Golden Dome System, that it will cost $61 Billion Dollars if they remain a separate, but unequal, Nation, but will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our cherished 51st State," Trump wrote. "They are considering the offer!" he added. The president first floated the idea in a meeting with the previous Canadian prime minister at Mar-a-Lago, where he reportedly berated Canada for taking advantage of the U.S. through the trade deficit. Since then, he has made more statements in support of the annexation proposal. RELATED: Trump pushes harder on Canada, Greenland merger talk in wake of Trudeau falling on his sword Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images In April, the current prime minister wholeheartedly rejected the idea and instead accused the U.S. of betraying its neighbor to the north. "The system of open global trade anchored by the United States, a system that Canada has relied on since the second World War, a system that, while not perfect, has helped deliver prosperity to our country for decades, is over," Mark Carney said after winning his election. Some have blamed Trump's rhetoric against Canada for a stunning resurgence of support in the Liberal Party that led to Carney's surprise victory. "These are tragedies, but it's also our new reality," Carney continued. "We are over the shock of the American betrayal, but we should never forget the lessons. We have to look out for ourselves and, above all, we have to take care of each other."If Canada became the 51st state of the union, it would increase the land mass of the U.S. by 101.5%, effectively doubling the size of the country. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!