Professional fact-checkers love to add context to their articles to argue why the claim made by whoever they are checking is more complicated than the claimant is suggesting. This can also be evidence of double standards. On March 14‚ PolitiFact gave GOP Wisconsin GOP Senate hopeful Eric Hovde a “half-true” rating for a factually correct statement about Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s spending record. It justified itself by claiming the issue of the national debt is more nuanced‚ but on Thursday it gave Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg a “mostly-true” rating for stating that 96 percent of jobs have been created under Democratic presidents since 1989‚ despite also providing several caveats that portrayed the issue as more complicated. Louis Jacobson writes that “a 2014 paper by Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson found a performance gap between the parties that was "startlingly large" over a wide variety of economic metrics.” Jacobson further cites Binder‚ who was on Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers‚ but Jacobson didn’t mention that‚ as saying‚ "The U.S. economy not only grows faster‚ according to real (gross domestic product) and other measures‚ during Democratic versus Republican presidencies‚ it also produces more jobs‚ lowers the unemployment rate‚ generates higher corporate profits and investment‚ and turns in higher stock market returns‚’ Blinder and [Mark] Watson wrote. ‘Indeed‚ it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics.’” Jacobson then provides several reasons why Rosenberg could be accused of spinning‚ “Attributing job creation to policies or presidents isn’t as clear as it might seem. The Republican Congress of 1995 to 2001 might deserve a share of the credit for the job growth under Clinton.” Democrats also supported the lockdowns that caused so many job losses under President Donald Trump‚ as Jacobson notes “In crises especially‚ the parties have historically worked together. When faced with the 2008 financial crisis and the coronavirus pandemic‚ George W. Bush and Trump 'chose the policy responses that Democrats favored‚' said Dan Mitchell‚ a libertarian economist.” Jacobson also accuses Rosenberg of cherry-picking‚ “If you go back to the first president to serve a full tenure during the modern age of employment statistics — Republican Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s — the economy has added 107.7 million jobs. Of those‚ 70% emerged under Democratic presidents and 30% under Republican presidents. That’s not as dramatic an edge as the 96% to 97% over the past 35 years‚ but it’s still a better than 2-1 margin for Democrats.” Even then‚ Jacobson claims Democratic presidents benefited from things that have nothing to do with their economic presidents. Specifically‚ he cites Harry Truman benefiting from World War II demobilization and Lyndon Johnson benefiting from the baby boomers entering the job market. Meanwhile‚ Trump was hurt by the aforementioned COVID shutdowns and Biden has benefited from them ending. Additionally‚ George W. Bush had to deal with the 2008 financial crisis. Jacobson writes‚ ‘“Particularly the pandemic and the financial crisis were global in nature‚ and you can’t pin their roots on the president or even the U.S. as a whole‚’ said Douglas Holtz-Eakin‚ president of the center-right American Action Forum. ‘The numbers are what they are‚ but the implication that somehow the Democrats deserve full credit is a bit too facile.’"  Holtz-Eakin and Mitchell get ideological labels‚ but Blinder does not. Just like a Democrat missing all sorts of context still gets a “mostly-true‚” but a Republican only gets a “half-true.”

I hosted a debate earlier this week about the TikTok bill with Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). I respect their mutual commitment to the Constitution. Usually‚ they fall on the same side on key issues in Congress but not this time. Not when it comes to the TikTok bill. Roy was one of the sponsors of the bill‚ and Massie is one of the bill’s main opponents. I haven't seen an issue divide conservatives so sharply in a long time. Before this week’s debate‚ I didn't know where I stood on the issue‚ either. I do now. I’m against the TikTok ban. I’ll explain. Many of the assurances about the TikTok bill sound like what proponents said about the PATRIOT Act. Both Roy and Massie are concerned about national security. Both know what we’re facing with China and how great a threat the Chinese Communist Party represents. Most importantly‚ both love the Constitution and are ardent defenders of freedom. That’s why I had them debate each other because of my deep respect for them. It was so refreshing to see people talk about something they disagree on‚ but nobody became disagreeable. We went over a lot of the bill line by line‚ and there are some disturbing things in there. For instance‚ if you look at section two of the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act‚” you will find the bill doesn't just apply to phone apps. Individual websites could also be seized. That should send chills up your spine. Supporters of the bill point out that this power applies only to apps and websites belonging to "foreign adversaries." That’s more than a little vague. When you say that a website or an app is controlled by a foreign adversary‚ who has the power to decide who is and is not a foreign adversary? When Tucker Carlson went to Russia in February‚ how many people said he was just a pawn for Vladimir Putin? When Trump visited Kim Jong Un‚ how many people said he was being controlled by North Korea and Russia? We have been accused of being an asset for Israel‚ and many people in government right now are treating Israel like a foreign adversary. If the president decides that Tucker Carlson is being controlled by a foreign adversary‚ does that mean he can just go away? What about Trump? What about you and me? The bill says an app or website can be seized “if determined by the president to be a present threat to the national security of the United States.” What does it mean to be a “national security threat” to the United States? In just the last year‚ we've heard that “election deniers” are a threat to our government along with “vaccine deniers‚” “Christian nationalists‚” and “climate deniers.” Would we fall into that category? We aren’t the ones who are hostile to the government. We’re trying to stop the ruling class from overthrowing the government. We believe in the Constitution‚ and our ruling class members don't. So‚ if anyone is the foreign adversary‚ they are.Another troubling provision in the bill is a “covered company” whose primary purpose is to "allow users to post reviews‚ product reviews‚ business reviews‚ or travel information and reviews." Is Yelp in the middle of a sale to communist China? It sounds like somebody pulled his Washington strings to make sure he wasn't affected by the bill‚ while you and I are left hanging out to dry. Those are just a few of the concerning points we covered in this week’s debate‚ and they’re why I’m against the ban. I love Chip Roy‚ and I trust him. He’s a constitutionalist. He’s a freedom-loving Texan who you don't want to mess with. But I don't trust a government that is seeking more control over its people while making its bed with giant corporate tech and China. I don’t trust a government that doesn't seem to care about its people over oligarchs. I can’t give any more power to the rich‚ the corporations‚ the lawyers‚ and I won’t give any more power to a president who doesn't defend the Constitution at all costs. So‚ that’s where I’ve come down on the question. You might disagree. But whatever you do‚ please carefully consider the costs of the TikTok bill in its current state. Many of the assurances about the bill sound like what proponents said about the PATRIOT Act. Remember how they tried to appease our fears by telling us how it would never be used against us? I said at the time that all they have to do to weaponize the PATRIOT Act against us is to change the definition of extremist. In the TikTok ban‚ all they would need to do is to change the definition of “foreign adversary.” They can absolutely turn this on you. Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights‚ top stories‚ show prep‚ and more delivered to your inbox.

A third adult has been charged with murder in connection with the deadly shooting at the Super Bowl parade last month after a couple of distinguishing features‚ including a "teddy bear backpack‚" seemed to implicate him.On February 14‚ approximately 1 million fans gathered along the streets of Kansas City‚ Missouri‚ to celebrate the Chiefs' second consecutive Super Bowl win and their third in four years. Everyone seemed to be having a good time until suddenly‚ shots rang out in the area of West Pershing Road and Kessler Road‚ leaving 24 people as young as 8 wounded and Lisa Lopez-Galvan‚ a 43-year-old mother of two‚ dead.The violence apparently erupted after two groups who did not know each other stared one another down. A verbal altercation between the two groups quickly escalated when one individual drew a weapon‚ prompting others to produce their weapons as well‚ court documents said.In all‚ police believe 12 individuals drew weapons and at least six fired them. All six — three adults and three minors — have been arrested.Two of those six alleged shooters — 18-year-old Dominic Miller and 23-year-old Lyndell Mays — have already been charged with second-degree murder. Miller is believed to have fired the shot that killed Lopez-Galvan‚ and the firearm he used is believed to have been stolen.On Thursday‚ a third adult male was charged with second-degree murder in connection with the shooting: 20-year-old Terry Young. According to charging documents‚ as tensions between the two groups increased‚ Young grabbed his gun and began advancing toward a member of the opposite group. He then "appears to shoot several times in [redacted] direction‚ shooting with one hand‚" even though bystanders were within close proximity‚ before fleeing the area on foot‚ the documents said. The mass shooting was captured on surveillance video‚ and police said they were able to identify Young by two notable characteristics: He wears his hair in long dreadlocks‚ and he apparently often carries "a very distinct backpack‚ that appears to be a bear‚ that is half green and half yellow‚ and other colors‚" documents said. Police found a person who appears to be Young in several YouTube videos‚ including a rap video posted about a month before the shooting. In that video‚ the man believed to be Young "is seen wearing the same‚ unique green teddy bear backpack as the one seen on Union Station and Crown Center surveillance videos. He is also seen as having the same type of long dreads‚" the documents claimed. Several other suspects in the shooting appeared in that rap video as well‚ police said.In addition to second-degree murder‚ Young has been charged with unlawful use of a weapon and two counts of armed criminal action. Like Mays and Miller‚ Young's bond has been set at $1 million. Young has not yet retained an attorney. The AP sought comment from Young's family members‚ but the outlet's messages were not returned.Another suspect in the Super Bowl shooting was also assessed new charges this week. An unidentified 15-year-old has now been charged with one felony count of unlawful use of a weapon and armed criminal action. He is currently in custody at Juvenile Detention and may be tried as an adult. Two other teens have also been arrested and charged in connection with the shooting.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Cartoonist Seth MacFarlane said he would "defend to the death" the presence of journalists and remarked that the common social media user is not as informed as a journalist who wrote the story.MacFarlane‚ whose political commentary has increased on the horizon of the 2024 presidential election‚ gave his opinions on journalists and their expertise during an episode of the "Logically Speaking" podcast hosted by rapper Logic (Sir Robert Bryson Hall II)."I will defend to the death the presence and existence of journalists‚" MacFarlane said when speaking on news credibility. The "Family Guy" creator then explained how he feels the New York Times is an especially credible news outlet‚ whereas an outlet like Fox News is only in pursuit of money."When you look at a New York Times article on Instagram ... and you look at the headline and you read it and you maybe click on the link and you read the story‚ that story‚ whether you agree with it or not‚ whether you connect with it or not‚ has been written by somebody who did the research‚ who did the work‚ who did the foot work‚ who put in the hours to at least make an attempt to communicate the truth to their audience‚" MacFarlane explained."Still just their opinion‚" Logic interjected‚ seemingly not completely agreeing with MacFarlane's take. "They're not perfect‚" MacFarlane continued. "If they make a mistake — and they do make their share of mistakes — there are retractions‚ there are admissions of that‚ you know that's what separates Fox News. Fox News is in it for the dough‚ that's as simple as I can put it. They're in it for the money‚ and they make a lot of money‚ and they get a lot of viewers. Is it worth it? Wouldn't be to me‚ I wouldn't able to sleep at night." \u201cEverybody thinks they are the expert\u201d\n\nSeth MacFarlane doesn\u2019t like social media because it gives a voice to people that didn\u2019t go to college for journalism. — (@) MacFarlane then referred to comment sections on social media and expressed that the typical reader is not as informed as a New York Times writer and that such an outlet should not allow comments on their social media pages."When you look at legitimate journalism‚ I go back to what I said‚ you look at a New York Times article on Instagram‚ and then you look at the comments and everyone thinks they're an expert. Everybody thinks that they know better than the person who did the leg work. Everybody thinks they know better than the person who put in the hours‚ did the research‚ did the interviews‚ did the follow-up‚ did the best that they could to make sure that everything that they put into print is factual. And maybe they missed something‚ maybe they f**ked up‚ but they did their best."The entertainment entrepreneur continued‚ citing a study that he says showed news readers are absorbing "extremism" through comment sections that change their opinion on stories."It's shocking to me that any press outlet ... they consent to comments under [articles] because there are studies that have shown that if you read an article on social media‚ you process it a certain way once you read the comments‚ and you start absorbing the inevitable extremism that comes with comments."Comments "reduce" the argument to "black and white‚" MacFarlane claimed‚ adding that readers then perceive "the original article" in a "more extreme‚ more polarized way."MacFarlane's recent appearances on shows such as "Real Time with Bill Maher" have not gone without criticism. Comedian Joe Rogan openly mocked MacFarlane for "gas lighting" the American public with "crazy" claims about President Biden's competency.MacFarlane had said that Biden's age "is his superpower.""You’re talking about a guy who can’t speak. We all know you’re doing this; you’re gaslighting. And you’re doing it because you think that this is the good side and the bad side’s bad‚ and you do whatever you can to change the way people view things‚" Rogan decried. This is hands down the funniest joke @SethMacFarlane has ever written — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Even with the Republican primaries now behind him‚ Trump’s list of potential vice presidential candidates isn’t getting any shorter. The former president has named Tim Scott‚ Elise Stefanik‚ Sarah Huckabee Sanders‚ Vivek Ramaswamy‚ Ben Carson‚ and Tulsi Gabbard‚ among others as potential picks. However‚ he has now added Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to his running list. But what does Rubio think about this? “There’s a news story that broke today that you are on the very‚ very short list to be [Trump’s] running mate‚” says Glenn Beck. “Is that true? Do you know about it? Would you want to be his running mate?” “Anybody who gets the chance to serve as vice president of the United States should consider that an honor‚” is Rubio’s answer. However‚ as of now‚ he “has never spoken to President Trump or anybody on his campaign” about the potential of being Trump’s running mate. “The reason I’m in public service and the reason why I even ran for reelection” is because “I want to save this country‚” Rubio tells Glenn. “I love this country with all my heart. It changed the life of my family.” For those who don’t know‚ Rubio is the son of Cuban Americans‚ who fled their homeland for a better life in America. Their family is living proof of the virtue of the American dream. “I’m not saying that people whose families weren’t born here don’t love the country ... but when your parents came from somewhere else‚ you realize that but for the grace of God and the existence of America‚ how different my life would have been‚” he says. “I think this country is in a lot‚ a lot of trouble” and “not just because of bad policy decisions” but also because of “existential threats to our very nature of the republic and all things that made America special‚” he explained‚ adding that he “has a lot of work to do in the Senate.” While he doesn’t know much about Trump’s interest in him as VP‚ he does know that “unlike the Democrats‚ President Trump will have a lot of good options available to him.” “And I’m confident he’s going to make the perfect and right choice.” — (@) 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.

Democratic state Rep. Anne Perry's LD 227‚ dubbed the "Transgender Trafficker Protection Act" by critics‚ is a radical piece of legislation that would codify the right to sex-change mutilations and abortion in Maine‚ shield sex-change surgeons from consequence‚ and bar authorities from notifying parents of the locations of their kidnapped children if those kids are said to be seeking "gender-affirming care" in the state. In recent weeks‚ LD 227 was condemned by Republican lawmakers‚ the Maine Sheriffs' Association‚ and 16 state attorneys general who indicated that it was unconstitutional. The parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit led a massive campaign this month to raise awareness about LD 227 and get it killed in committee. The eight Democrats on Maine's Joint Standing Committee on Health Coverage‚ Insurance and Financial Services were evidently unswayed by parents' concerns and the overwhelming backlash‚ voting Thursday to advance LD 227. Fellow travelers in the Maine Legislature and the governor's mansion will now likely see LD 227 through to becoming law‚ thereby setting up an interstate battle. "This was already defeated in January‚" Courage Is a Habit president Alvin Lui told Blaze News‚ referencing the death of LD 1735‚ a similar piece of legislation killed in committee. "But they want to trans children so badly‚ and they want to separate them from their parents so badly‚ that they're getting it through by piggybacking on the abortion bill." The bill Blaze News previously reported that in addition to codifying the legal right to sex-change mutilations and abortions without age or time limits‚ LD 227: helps health care practitioners escape professional discipline and legal accountability for crimes related to sex-change procedures performed in and outside Maine; authorizes persons targeted with criminal or administrative action to sue those seeking to hold them accountable; requires insurance companies to cover sex-change procedures but not the health care needs of detransitioners; effectively prevents law enforcement from reuniting parents with children who have run away or been taken to Maine for abortions or sex changes; and allows virtually any adult to take a child across state lines for "gender-affirming care" even if the kid is not their own or is "incapacitated." Republican state Rep. Laurel Libby confirmed that under LD 227‚ an individual could take a child "from another state against the parents' wishes" to Maine for sex-change procedures. "And Maine law enforcement would have their hands tied. Maine judiciary would have their hands tied — would not be able to actually help return that child to their lawful parents‚" added Libby. Lui previously told Blaze News‚ "This is the nastiest bill I've ever seen. Even worse than anything that I've seen come out of California. I never thought I would say that." The opposition Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and 15 other state attorneys general‚ convinced the bill was animated by a "totalitarian impulse to stifle dissent and oppress dissenters‚" told Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills in a March 11 letter that LD 227 is unconstitutional and "seeks to contravene the lawful policy choices of our States' citizens by imposing on the rest of the country Maine's views on hotly debated issues such as gender transition surgeries for children." The attorneys general indicated they would take action if the bill was passed and ratified. Now that federal battle is all but guaranteed. Mary-Anne LaMarre‚ executive director of the Maine Sheriffs' Association‚ stressed to the committee members Thursday that LD 227 "has unanimous opposition of Maine Sheriff's Association's legislative policy committee." LaMarre noted that the association was "unable to find anyone that was consulted on the language of the bill." Maine law enforcement fully rejects this horrendous Transgender Trafficking bill‚ LD 227 — (@) Courage Is a Habit‚ various individual parental rights advocates‚ and some critics of gender ideology‚ including All-American swim star Riley Gaines‚ rallied against LD 227 and attempted to focus pressure on the Democratic committee members who ultimately supported the legislation. The result and response The bill cleared committee in an 8-4 vote along party lines. Sens. Donna Bailey (D) and Cameron Reny (D)‚ along with Reps. Poppy Arford (D)‚ Anne Perry (D)‚ Sally Cluchey (D)‚ Anne-Marie Mastraccio (D)‚ Kristi Michele Mathieson (D)‚ and Jane Pringle (D) voted in the affirmative. It will now go to the state House floor for a vote. Video of the vote‚ with all 8 Democrats voting for the revamped Trans Trafficking bill to pass committee — (@) Planned Parenthood‚ an incentivized champion of the legislation‚ celebrated the advancement of LD 227. Lis Margulies‚ vice president of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England‚ said in a statement‚ "Mainers can be proud today that 8 elected leaders said loudly and clearly: We will protect our state's health care providers and access to care from extremist attack." "We have seen over the past few weeks that people both inside and outside of our state who are opposed to this safe‚ legal medical care will not stop their attempts to take away our rights and freedoms‚ and the protections provide [sic] by LD 227 are a step forward in ensuring Maine's clinicians can continue offering safe‚ legal medical care without fear of hostile actions from out-of-state actors‚" added Margulies. When previously blasting the state attorneys general for taking issue with LD 227‚ Planned Parenthood recycled the now-debunked suggestion that sex-change procedures amount to "life-saving medical care." The LGBT outfit Equality Maine similarly was delighted by the result‚ calling it "great news." LGBT activist Erin Reed‚ Montana Democratic state Rep. Zooey Zephyr's boyfriend‚ tweeted‚ "A huge number of people emailed the legislators to let them know that bomb threats and the 'terrorists veto' should not be respected in Maine. But the work isn't done for those seeking to make Maine a safe state for all." Courage Is a Habit responded on X‚ writing‚ "This is an all out war on children." — (@) Lui told Blaze News that there are two big takeaways for Americans. First‚ it is important to recognize that gender ideologues are playing a "long game." Accordingly‚ they are not dissuaded by short-term losses. By the same token‚ conservative victories — such as the defeat of LD 1735 — cannot be taken for granted or treated as definitive. Second‚ Lui indicated that while critical battles are fought at the legislative level‚ the bulk of the war against radical gender ideology is cultural and fought locally. "It's a good reminder that people transform their culture. [Gender ideologues] will stop at nothing to come after your children — until the cult is completely dismantled‚ until they're sued into oblivion‚" said Lui. "The transgender social contagion begins at school with school counselors; pronouns; keeping things from parents; all the transgender propaganda within the culture of the school; the teachers; the social workers; equity policies." "So if parents really want to dismantle the cult‚ to end the social contagion‚ [they have to do it] at the school level‚" said the parental rights advocate. Lui further suggested that a failure to prevent the indoctrination of younger generations in schools will guarantee more victims for the "cult" and an uphill battle in legislatures around 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!

Pollster Frank Luntz warned New York Attorney General Letitia James that she is "going to elect Donald Trump" if she goes through with seizing the former president's properties. James — a Democrat who campaigned on the promise that she would go after Trump — brought an unprecedented civil fraud case against the former commander in chief‚ which resulted in him owing penalties and interest in excess of $450 million. Trump has until Monday to pay it off‚ or James said she will start seizing his properties. During a CNN panel discussion Thursday‚ Luntz predicted that James' attack on Trump will ultimately backfire on Democrats: I want you to remember this moment and don’t forget it: If the New York attorney general starts to take his homes away‚ starts to seize his assets — it’s all gonna be on camera‚ pundits are gonna sit there and scream ... 'This man cannot be elected' — you’re going to create the greatest victimhood of 2024‚ and you’re going to elect Donald Trump. If they take his stuff‚ he’s gonna say that this is proof that the federal government and the establishment in the swamp in Washington and all the politicians across the country and the attorneys generals and all of this‚ that this is a conspiracy to deny him the presidency. He’s gonna go up in the polls just like he went up every single time they indicted him. The indictment‚ and let’s not talk about whether it’s justified or not‚ but it will prove the things that he’s saying on the campaign trail‚ and he will go up‚ and it may just elect him president. Do not forget that. With that‚ Luntz pointed his finger at the camera in a figurative warning to James: Image source: X video screenshot via @FrankLuntz And I say this to the attorney general right now: If you play politics on this‚ this is what the secretaries of state did in Colorado‚ and what they did in‚ I believe in Maine‚ his numbers went up in both states. I don’t understand. I’m almost speechless in how pathetic the opposition to Trump has been and how completely misguided. And this is a perfect example of it. Luntz also spoke more broadly about Trump's lead in the polls despite his legal troubles: How is Donald Trump beating [President] Joe Biden? He’s got 85 indictments that still exist. Felonies. How is he beating Joe Biden with the economy getting better and things cleaning up? Okay ... you still have inflation‚ you've still got immigration. Trump is leading. And in the seven swing states‚ Trump is up by the margin of error in five out of seven. Why is that happening? Because his critics are stupid‚ and they’re running a horrible campaign. And for those people who do not want Donald Trump back‚ they should be thankful that the people who are orchestrating his loss are as pathetic‚ and they don’t understand the American people." Here's the clip. The relevant portion begins after the 4:15 mark: — (@) Anything else? The New York Times reported that Trump’s social media company on Friday "completed a merger with a cash-rich shell company‚ raising Mr. Trump’s wealth by billions and potentially providing him a fresh source of cash to pay his mounting legal bills." The Times added that the merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation will "pump more than $300 million into Trump Media‚ which has all but exhausted its available cash and will allow Truth Social‚ the company’s flagship digital media platform‚ to keep operating." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The students filed complaints to the EEOC. If successful‚ they’ll be able to sue the grad students union.

Since becoming president‚ Biden has transferred over $130 billion in student-loan debt to taxpayers.

Defiant L's Thread Hilariously OWNING Lefties Across the Board for Using 'Bloodbath' the REAL Bloodbath