Rand Paul schools Margaret Brennan on Education Department's utility — or lack thereof



President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday to start the elimination of the Education Department, then indicated Friday that some of the department's remaining functions would immediately be offloaded onto the Small Business Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services.

These decisions have enraged various radical groups, including the teachers' unions that demanded the devastating closure of schools during the pandemic. The liberal media appears to be reflexively keen to join American Federation of Teachers boss Randi Weingarten and other leftists in defending the moribund institution, CBS News' Margaret Brennan included.

In conversation Sunday with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R), Brennan concern-mongered about the closure of the Education Department, suggesting federal funding for schools in his state might be at risk. The senator questioned the talking head's presumptions, particularly about the value of those federal funds, and proposed a possible innovation, namely that an A-team of better-paid and higher-caliber teachers could teach American students en masse.

Rather than fight for a guarantee of more federal funding, Paul underscored that he would prefer to secure "a guarantee that my kids can read and write and do math."

'Why do two-thirds of the kids not read at proficiency?'

Brennan began by suggesting that federal funds for students in high-poverty Kentucky schools through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act might be threatened by the Education Department's closure.

"[Kentucky has] over 900 schools that have these Title I programs, which are low-income schools who need that federal subsidy to continue to operate. How are schools going to get that money if the president closes the Education Department?" asked Brennan.

Rather than identify a way of retaining such funding, Paul pointed out that this and other streams of federal funding aimed at improving student achievement don't actually appear to helping.

"I think the bigger question if we're sending all this money to Kentucky and all the other states [is] why are our scores abysmal?" said the Republican senator. "Why do two-thirds of the kids not read at proficiency? Why do two-thirds of the kids or more not have math proficiency?"

The Education Data Initiative indicated that as of February, federal, state, and local governments were blowing $857.2 billion on K-12 education annually. This works out to $17,277 per pupil. Federal tax dollars account for 13.6% of public K-12 funding nationwide.

In Kentucky, K-12 schools blow on average $15,337 per pupil, $3,195 of which is apparently from the federal government.

'The number of dollars has gone up exponentially, and our scores have gone the other way.'

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 31% of fourth-grade students and 30% of eighth-grade students nationwide performed at or above the "NAEP Proficient" level on the reading assessment in 2024.

Last year, only 39% of fourth-grade students and 28% of eighth-grade students were found to be proficient in math.

The 2019 NAEP assessment of fourth- and eighth-grade proficiency levels found that only 35% and 33% made the grade, respectively.

Scores were better in Paul's state but still far from stellar.

In Kentucky, standardized test results indicated last year that 47% of elementary students were proficient in reading, 42% of students were proficient in math, and 34% were proficient in science, reported the Louisville Courier Journal.

The assessment conducted in May found that at the middle school level, 45% of students were proficient in reading, 39% were proficient in math, and 22% were proficient in science. At the high school level, 45% were proficient in reading, 35% in math, and 6% in science.

"It's an utter failure," added Paul.

Brennan countered by intimating the problem might be that the programs receiving oodles of federal cash may have been poorly administered by regional administrators — prompting Paul to question the federal mediation of taxpayer funds intended for education in the first place.

"Look, the number of dollars has gone up exponentially, and our scores have gone the other way. So dollars are not proportional to educational success," said Paul.

"It has always been a position, a very mainstream Republican position, to have control of the schools by the states," said Paul. "Send the money back to the states, or better yet — never take it from the states. About half of our budget in Kentucky goes to education, and that's the same in a lot of states. I think we can handle it much better."

"When I talk to teachers, they chafe at the national mandates on testing they think are not appropriate for their kids," continued the senator. "They think they waste too much time teaching to national testing. The teachers would like more autonomy, and I think the teachers deserve more autonomy."

In addition to suggesting that states are better equipped to handle local education and that national educational mandates interfere with regional education efforts, Paul indicated that radical, outside-the-box thinking might be the way forward. He proposed, for instance, the rollout of online instruction by "an NBA or NFL of teachers — the most extraordinary teachers teach the entire country, if not the entire world."

This proposed A-team of teachers "might teach 10 million kids at a time because it would be presented to the internet with local teachers reinforcing the lessons," said Paul.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Safe spaces or speech traps? Unpacking the left’s ‘free speech’ ruse



Freedom of speech is essential to a free society, yet progressives have spent years distorting its meaning to mislead the public.

In a recent attack on the Trump administration, CBS host Margaret Brennan claimed that “weaponized” free speech caused the Holocaust. This dangerous misrepresentation of history ignores that the Nazi regime sought to suppress free speech, not promote it. Her remarks reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

Courageous Americans must reject this twisted version of free speech and defend open dialogue — especially on college campuses.

Brennan is hardly alone, of course. Progressives have redefined free speech under the banner of tolerance, equality, and “safe spaces.” In practice, this has enabled targeted discrimination and harassment against those who oppose their political agenda. The result is widespread self-censorship and intellectual conformity.

Americans became accustomed to a dystopian reality, where praying in public, questioning the origin of COVID-19, and refusing to use someone’s preferred pronouns were labeled “dangerous” forms of speech that had to be silenced — sometimes even through violence.

With Donald Trump’s return to the White House, these restrictions are lifting. People are slowly readjusting to speaking freely without fear of government reprisal, cautiously voicing opinions once deemed off-limits. This newfound freedom is promising, but the fight against state censorship is far from over.

Meanwhile, university campuses are again in turmoil over the Israel-Palestine conflict. Activists have threatened Jewish students and occupied buildings, prompting administrators — mindful of the federal government’s new stance against such behavior — to crack down. Yet, protesters insist their actions are protected as “free speech.”

The same thing is taking place outside of schools, too. Consider the Maine legislature’s efforts to discipline state Representative Laurel Libby (R) — an elected official who had the audacity to question the continued presence of men in women’s sports in her district. For the crime of flagging such an incident on social media, Libby was censured by the legislature in a straight party-line vote — unable to vote on behalf of her constituents until she apologizes.

Remind me again which party poses a threat to democracy?

Liberals often resort to distorting the truth and rewriting history to justify their extreme measures. Margaret Brennan’s comments didn’t emerge out of nowhere; they reflect a broader progressive campaign for intellectual conformity through censorship, intimidation, violence, and revisionist history.

Benjamin Franklin warned in his Silence Dogood letters that “whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech.” Censorship remains the most direct path to tyranny.

Young adults are in a crucial stage of their lives — a time to develop resilience and critical thinking.

Courageous Americans must reject this twisted version of free speech and defend open dialogue — especially on college campuses, where future leaders are being force-fed a false narrative of their rights and pressured to stay silent. Students deserve better.

Blaze News original: When the mainstream media's left-wing bias costs them credibility



The mainstream media's left-wing bias is far from a brand-new topic.

Blaze News readers may recall a fairly big story in the fall of 2021 when Netflix employees staged protests in Hollywood against their company's decision to stream Dave Chappelle's comedy special "The Closer" due to what they characterized as his "transphobic comments" in it.

'The Fake News losers at CNN tried to fact check President Trump saying Biden spent $8 million on "making mice transgender," but President Trump was right (as usual).'

Amid the outrage, a prominent Netflix showrunner quit in protest; the company suspended three employees — including a queer trans worker — for crashing an executive meeting focused on Chappelle; and Netflix fired the organizer of a planned walkout for leaking confidential data related to Chappelle's special.

But during that very walkout, a big surprise took place: One guy showed up amid the furor to defend Chappelle. He's pictured below:

Al Seib / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

As you might guess, the protesting militants tried to intimidate him and shut down his free speech, but it didn't work.

Not so surprising was that the Associated Press got the idea that the Chappelle supporter was the one screaming profanities at protesters — and Variety actually called him the aggressor. Well, both outlets eventually admitted their reporting errors and walked things back.

Fast-forward to President Donald Trump's March 4 address to a joint session of Congress and his eye-popping claim that among the long and still-growing list of governmental waste is "$8 million for making mice transgender."

On cue, CNN initially said Trump's claim was false, adding that it couldn't determine where the president came up with the $8 million figure. Soon, though, the article was corrected to say the claim "needed context" and deleted the content calling it false.

"An earlier version of this item incorrectly characterized as false Trump's claim about federal money being spent for 'making mice transgender.' The article has been updated with context about the spending, which was for research students on the potential human health impacts of treatments used in gender-affirming care," the article read.

The two versions were posted to social media by the popular Libs of TikTok account, and many mocked CNN over the error — and then the White House joined in on its official social media account: "The Fake News losers at CNN tried to fact check President Trump saying Biden spent $8 million on 'making mice transgender,' but President Trump was right (as usual)."

The same left-wing media bias and the same result.

The following are a number of other recent examples of when the mainstream media's left-wing bias costs them credibility:

Joe Rogan torches MSNBC for 'deceptively' editing video clip to appear he praised Kamala Harris when he actually was talking about Tulsi Gabbard


Joe Rogan slammed MSNBC for “deceptively editing” a video clip that made it appear that the massively popular podcaster was praising then-Vice President Kamala Harris when he actually was talking about Tulsi Gabbard.

Here's how it went down: During an episode of "The Joe Rogan Experience" podcast with guest Michael Malice that aired July 30, Rogan torched Democrats for not embracing Gabbard as a presidential candidate, and he touted Gabbard as "a strong woman." MSNBC posted the clip on its TikTok page and edited it to make it appear that Rogan was referring to Harris rather than to Gabbard.

Gabbard on Aug. 2 posted the MSNBC clip on her X with the caption: "MSNBC is again EXPOSED as a propaganda machine for the Democrat Elite, and how they will brazenly try to deceive the American people." She described the MSNBC clip as "completely false."

MSNBC has since replaced the questionable clip and issued a correction: "We have removed an earlier version of this post that incorrectly implied Joe Rogan was talking more about Vice President Kamala Harris. He was referring to Tulsi Gabbard."

Rogan also commented on the edited MSNBC clip during a podcast episode, saying the news network "took a clip of me talking about Tulsi Gabbard, and they edited it up and made it look like I was saying great things about Kamala Harris." Rogan added, "They just deceptively edited the things I was saying."

Rogan blasted MSNBC: "They don’t care about the truth; they just want a narrative to get out there amongst enough people because most people are just surface readers."

“We’re in a very weird time with media, and I think truth is super important," he continued. "I think someone that’s willing to do something like that — that’s a real offense. It's a real offense. It's not a small thing. It's a real lie, and it’s a lie that changes other people's opinions."

Elon Musk joins chorus of critics dumping on the Associated Press over its trifecta of laughably bad hot takes — all committed on a single day


The Associated Press on Jan. 3, 2024, took plenty of heat for three tidbits it published.

Elon Musk, among the AP's many critics, responded to one of the awkward instances, writing on X that "the @AP has the woke mind virus growing out of its head like a giant mushroom!"

Blaze News detailed the first instance, noting the AP covered the resignation of Harvard President Claudine Gay with the following headline: "Harvard president's resignation highlights new conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism."

But the AP's corresponding post on X was flagged with Community Notes emphasizing the absurdity of the title and the article's premise. Later in the day, the AP changed the headline to "Plagiarism charges downed Harvard's president. A conservative attack helped to fan the outrage." This alteration was executed without an editorial note.

The AP ultimately told Blaze News why it had made the change: "The initial story didn't meet our standards, so we updated it."

Also in its article about Gay, the AP's Collin Binkley and Moriah Balingit highlighted a tweet from Christopher Rufo that reads, "SCALPED," in response to the news that Gay had resigned. The AP claimed Rufo's tweet was written "as if Gay was a trophy of violence, invoking a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists who sought to eradicate Native Americans."

But Musk opined, "Woe, the @AP hasn't merely drunk the woke Kool-Aid, they are swimming in it!" He added, "Somehow, indigenous peoples went from being referred to almost exclusively as baby-killing savages to almost exclusively being referred to as noble, peace-loving ecologists! In reality, all peoples back then did terrible things by modern western standards. Slavery, for example, was standard practice worldwide, including within Africa, until a few hundred years ago and was stamped out by force primarily by the British."

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' press secretary Jeremy Redfern asked Balingit and Binkley for a response after sharing an image of a white man who had been scalped as a boy by Sioux Indians. Finally, the AP edited the paragraph about Rufo — without an editorial note — to read: "On X, formerly Twitter, he wrote 'SCALPED,' as if Gay was a trophy of violence, invoking a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists who sought to eradicate Native Americans and also used by some tribes against their enemies."

The AP also on that day published an article titled, "Things to know about Minnesota's new, non-racist state flag and seal," which concerns the final decision on a new state flag from the Minnesota Emblems Redesign Commission. The AP apparently concluded that the old flag — which depicts an Indian riding a horse and a farmer plowing his field — is racist. The new flag by 24-year-old white designer Andrew Prekker is a minimalist, starred tricolor. Facing additional criticism, the AP changed the headline to "Things to know about Minnesota's new state flag and seal."

Blaze News staff writer Joseph MacKinnon noted: "The AP is evidently cognizant of its embarrassing errors, granted it has been desperately attempting to correct them. However, this corrective effort has been made all the more difficult by the fact that myriad publications across the nation routinely regurgitate the AP's articles — meaning those errors continue to live on coast to coast despite the agency's centralized efforts to make stealth edits and title changes."

Esquire article blasting Republicans contains falsehood so egregious that a correction and an apology aren't enough to save it


Esquire magazine published an article late last year that ripped Republicans' criticism of then-President Joe Biden for pardoning his son Hunter because, the piece said, former Republican President George H.W. Bush pardoned his own son Neil.

"Nobody defines Poppy Bush's presidency by his son's struggles or the pardons he issued on his way out of the White House," read the subheading of Dec. 3 article by Charles P. Pierce. "The moral: Shut the f**k up about Hunter Biden, please."

The problem? Bush never issued such a pardon. Soon, the humiliating falsehood was discovered, and Esquire issued a correction: "Editor's note: This story has been updated. An earlier version stated incorrectly that George H.W. Bush gave a presidential pardon to his son, Neil Bush. Esquire regrets the error." Before long, the magazine deleted the story altogether — but the publication was raked over the coals:

  • "Esquire Magazine is literally making stuff up to try to defend Joe Biden's pardon of Hunter Biden. The people who scream about misinformation are doing it to cover for Joe," said radio talk show host Erick Erickson.
  • "Even given the lengths to which some journalists will go to advance the approved narrative, this is unreal," responded Boston Globe op-ed editor Jeff Jacoby.
  • "How many people does an article have to pass through at @esquire, from idea to completion, before being published? 4? 5? Not one of them thought to check if the concept on which the article was based was true or not?" asked columnist Derek Hunter.
  • "How in God’s name did you get the George H W Bush/Neil Bush so completely wrong? Doesn’t Esquire have fact checkers anymore?" read another tweet.

Marco Rubio and JD Vance — on three occasions between them — get the better of CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan after she peddles false narratives during televised interviews


In early November 2024, CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan repeated false accusations suggesting that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump threatened former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.), prompting then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to correct the record.

It all started after Rubio argued that Trump would promote safety and security in the U.S. and abroad, after which Brennan said Trump spoke of "training guns on the face of Liz Cheney." Rubio shot back, "That's not what he said."

Brennan initially defended her assertion because, according to her, CBS producers had played a "sound bite" of Trump accusing Cheney of being a so-called chicken hawk. But CBS played only a sound-bite of Trump's remarks — not the full context.

"Donald Trump doesn't talk like someone who's been in Washington for 30 years," Rubio defended. "Training guns on her face?" Brennan replied, after which Rubio shot back, "He doesn't say it the way I would have said it, no, but that's not what he said, Margaret. You guys know that. Come on. I mean, everybody knows exactly what he was saying."

Brennan wouldn't concede, telling Rubio, "We played the sound-bite." But Rubio answered her with the facts: "No, you played a piece of the sound-bite, because, in another piece of it, he said he would give her a gun to go stand in conflict as well. You don't normally give a gun to someone that is going to be facing a firing squad, which is what much of the media made it sound like. The point he was making is not a new point. It is a point that has been made by people in both parties for decades. And that is: You're all for war, and it's easy to be for war when you're in some fancy building, and you're safe and sound in Washington, D.C." Only after that did Brennan give up defending her faulty point.

In late January, Brennan tried her tactics with newly elected Vice President JD Vance, trying to corner him over the Trump administration's immigration policy and suggesting that removing illegal aliens and ending birthright citizenship is anti-American. "This is a country founded by immigrants," she declared.

Vance shot back, saying, "Just because we were founded by immigrants doesn't mean that 240 years later, we have to have the dumbest immigration policy in the world" and that "America should actually look out for the interests of our citizens first."

Brennan changed course and pressed Vance on the administration's moratorium on refugee admissions, insinuating hypocrisy on the part of the vice president. After more of her attempts to poke holes in Trump's immigration policies, Vance cut off Brennan and famously said, "I don't really care, Margaret. I don't want that person in my country, and I think most Americans agree with me."

Finally, Brennan was back interviewing Rubio last month and actually suggested that free speech set the stage for the Holocaust. Of course, Rubio wasn't having any of it, and he eventually told Brennan, "I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews, and they hated minorities, and they hated those that they — they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews."

Newsweek annihilated on social media over its bizarre framing of Trump's campaign stunt when he handed out Big Macs and fries at McDonald's: 'The Pulitzer Prize is on the way'


Remember when then-presidential candidate Donald Trump put on a McDonald's apron and handed out french fries from a drive-thru window last October? Remember when Newsweek tried to "debunk" Trump's obvious stunt, designed to mock his opponent, Kamala Harris, for claiming without evidence that she once worked at a McDonald's?

Newsweek's headline actually read, "Rumors have been circulating on social media that former President Donald Trump's visit to the popular fast-food chain was staged." You don't say!

As you might guess, critics mocked Newsweek's article into oblivion:

  • "I’m gonna have to spend some time contemplating the possibility that this was not a completely organic event featuring a former president taking a side gig at a Pennsylvania McDonald’s while he’s running for president," commentator Mary Katharine Ham sarcastically noted.
  • "Wait, you’re telling me that Trump didn’t fill out an application and organically start working at a PA McDonald’s where a film crew spontaneously showed up with SS vetted customers, he staged it all? It wasn’t for the $25 in wages??" responded blogger Courtney O'Dell with tongue firmly in cheek.
  • "Dust off the mantle, the Pulitzer Prize is on the way," joked satirist David Burge.
  • "Woodward and Bernstein who? Looks like @Newsweek just wrapped up the Pulitzer for investigative journalism. Next up. Rumors Santa may not be real," said Barstool founder David Portnoy.

Newsweek, again? Yes, indeed — and this time magazine claims Tucker Carlson 'launches' show on Russian-state TV. Uh, not so much.


A mere five months prior to Newsweek's mock-worthy piece on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump working the drive-thru window at a McDonald's, the magazine published a story claiming Tucker Carlson had launched a show on Russia 24 — a state-controlled Russian media outlet. Newsweek cited as its source a newspaper owned and controlled by the Russian government.

The story quickly spread online, leading to accusations that Carlson was "quite literally, a mouthpiece of the Russian state" and that Carlson "has now embraced his master," a reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Of course, Newsweek's report was shown to be false, and the magazine updated and corrected its story. The false claim appears to have originated from Ukraine’s Institute of Mass Information and Ukraine Pravda.

New York Times columnist resoundingly ridiculed for regurgitating bizarre NPR claim against Israel amid its war with Hamas: '30 THOUSAND trucks?'


In March 2024, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof posted a bizarre claim from an NPR report against Israel amid its war with Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip — and both NPR and Kristof were mercilessly ridiculed for it on social media.

Kristof reposted an outlandish detail from the NPR report — that there were an impossibly large number of relief trucks that Israel was holding up: "[Jane Arraf] of @NPR quotes a Jordanian official as saying that 30,000 aid trucks are stuck at the Egypt/Gaza border, waiting for Israeli approval to enter Gaza, with some Jordanian trucks stuck there for the last two months. Meanwhile Gaza kids starve."

Critics on social media immediately took Kristof and NPR to task for circulating such a ridiculous figure.

"Nick, I realize you’re an idiot, but does that sound right to you? 30 THOUSAND trucks?" responded Jonathan Greenburg, who went on to calculate that 30,000 trucks would take up 271 miles of street space. He added, "That’s twice the distance from Kerem Shalom to Amman, where @janearraf’s idiot source is feeding her fake statistics because he knows hacks like you are dumb and malicious enough to believe anything you’re fed." Greenburg also said, "They don’t even try to make their propaganda believable and the all stars in the Western media lap it up because OF COURSE the Jews have kept a line of trucks visible from Mars waiting at the Gaza border!"

Other responses:

  • "30,000 trucks? LOL. People with an anti-Israel mindset will believe anything. Where are all these truck drivers sleeping? Who is feeding them? Where are the satellite photos of these trucks? Why hasn't this huge line of trucks at the border received any attention before now? I mean, some basic questions that anyone with common sense would be asking," David Bernstein replied.
  • "That’s what happens when your fervent conviction that Israel is to blame for everything addles your ability to think reasonably," replied Eylon Levy.
  • "30,000 trucks stuck at the Egyptian border? You want people to believe that trucks are lined up for 300 miles awaiting inspection by Israel? Reporters from the NY Times repeat other people's lies because it's easier than making up their own," responded Joel Petlin.
  • "Imagine pretending there are *30,000* trucks just sitting there at the border just to bash Israel. They don’t even try to make the propaganda believable," said radio host Jason Rantz.

Kristof eventually deleted the tweet.

NPR on April 17 issued the following "clarification" at the bottom of its story: "On March 27, NPR quoted a Jordanian official claiming there were as many as 30,000 aid trucks held up at the Rafah crossing with Egypt to enter Gaza. We were subsequently unable to confirm this figure and no longer believe it is accurate. Ahmed Naimat, spokesman for Jordan's National Center for Security and Crisis Management, said he based the number on satellite images but did not provide them. NPR's own analysis of later satellite images does not support that figure. Most aid groups currently estimate that as of early April 2024 there were generally between 3,000 and 7,000 trucks waiting to be allowed into the Gaza Strip pending Israeli security-related inspections."

NBC News tries to covertly revise article that originally contradicted Biden White House claim that it wasn't given choice between bringing home WNBA's Brittney Griner and former Marine Paul Whelan, both held hostage by Russia


NBC News issued a December 2022 report contradicting the official narrative of then-President Joe Biden concerning the government's prisoner swap with Russia — then the news network changed its original story without saying it had done so. Only after being met with online criticism and a request for comment from Blaze News did NBC News publish a correction.

In its Dec. 8 prisoner swap with Russia, the Biden administration exchanged Viktor Bout, who conspired to kill Americans, for pro basketball player Brittney Griner.

The White House suggested the Biden administration never had a choice to bring home former Marine Paul Whelan from Russia — that "the choice became to either bring Brittany home or no one." But NBC News, citing a senior U.S. official, first reported that the "Kremlin gave the White House the choice of either Griner or Whelan — or none."

Rikki Ratliff-Fellman, director of programming at Blaze Media, noted a significant discrepancy between NBC News' original report and its revised article. Without issuing an editorial note, NBC News made a stealthy change to the article, such that it now reads, "The Kremlin ultimately gave the White House the choice of either Griner or no one after different options were proposed."

Some food for thought: then-White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Griner is "an important role model; an inspiration to millions of Americans particularly the LGBTQI+ Americans and women of color."

What's more, a paragraph was added to the NBC News article concerning Whelan's notification in prison about the "outcome of the negotiations" — and without an editorial note.

Blaze News reached out to NBC News, asking why it originally failed to highlight the change with an editorial note, whether someone at the White House asked for the change, whether its original source had recanted or stood by its initial claim, and whether it continues to stand by its source.

NBC News then issued a correction saying that "an earlier version of this article misstated the choice the Biden administration was given over hostages. It was to swap for Griner or no one, not a choice between Griner or Whelan."

Still, Whelan's lawyer Vladimir Zherebenkov indicated that the deal involved a choice and implied that it was between his client and Griner. The lawyer said the exchange was a "one to one" and that "choosing Griner appeared 'more humane' because she is a woman and an Olympic champion, while Whelan was in the military and it is 'easier for him to be in custody.'"

After the beginning of his detention in Russia in 2018 and his espionage conviction by a Moscow court in 2020, Whelan finally was set free Aug. 1, 2024. Griner — who refused to stand for the American national anthem during home openers in 2020 — was arrested in February 2022 on smuggling charges after traveling to Russia with cannabis oil in her luggage.

Leftist media outlets walk back false reports that conservative host Michael Knowles at CPAC said transgender people 'must be eradicated'


Daily Wire host Michael Knowles during his 2023 CPAC speech stated, "For the good of society ... transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level."

Knowles also said, "There can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism. It is all or nothing. If transgenderism is true, if men really can become women, then it's true for everybody of all ages. If transgenderism is false, as it is, if men really can't become women, as they cannot, then it's false for everybody, too. And if it’s false, then we should not indulge it."

However, multiple left-leaning media outlets ran false reports saying Knowles called for the eradication of transgender people.

The Huffington Post published a piece originally titled, "At CPAC, A Call For Trans People To Be 'Eradicated' Gets Big Cheers." The Daily Beast ran a story originally titled, "Michael Knowles Says Transgender Community Must Be 'Eradicated' at CPAC." Rolling Stone — which has paid out millions for false reporting and defamation — ran a piece with the headline, "CPAC Speaker Calls for Transgender People to Be 'Eradicated.'"

Knowles immediately called out the leftist outlets and demanded retractions.

The Huffington Post changed its headline to read, "CPAC Speaker’s Trans Comments About ‘Eradication’ Sound Downright Genocidal." The story itself had claimed, "There are an estimated 1.6 million trans people in the United States. Knowles told the CPAC crowd that these people should not have a right to exist." The word "essentially" was added so that the sentence reads, "Knowles essentially told the CPAC crowd that these people should not have a right to exist."

The Daily Beast changed the headline of its article to "Michael Knowles Says Transgenderism Must Be 'Eradicated' at CPAC."

Rolling Stone changed its headline to "CPAC Speaker Calls for Eradication of ‘Transgenderism’ — and Somehow Claims He’s Not Calling for Elimination of Transgender People" and provided an editorial note stating, "This post has been updated to include statements from transgender rights activists and additional comments from Knowles."

The augmented Rolling Stone piece contains commentary by Erin Reed, a male transgender activist, on Knowles' demand for a retraction, suggesting that it's "an absurd distinction. There is no difference between a ban on 'transgenderism' and an attack on transgender people." Reed also claimed, "They are one and the same, and there's no separation between them."

Following the changes, Knowles tweeted, "I’m pleased to see that both @thedailybeast and @RollingStone have at least partially admitted their dishonesty by changing their libelous headlines. I look forward to seeing the other outlets that are defaming me follow suit!"

U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) commented, "It is indeed libelous. It’s an example of how a bad Supreme Court ruling from 1964 (NY Times v. Sullivan) has created a monster—giving the news media a license to lie about any public figure who can’t prove that the reporter acted with 'actual malice,' which is nearly impossible."

Canadian Press issues 3 embarrassing retractions after publishing 'hit piece' against Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre


The Canadian Press issued three retractions after publishing an October 2023 story saying Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre blamed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for poor relations with India.

"BREAKING: Canadian Press forced to retract three separate 'erroneous statements' from one story alone," Poilievre wrote on his X page. "It was another false hit piece now thoroughly discredited. Remember that next time they attack me."

The Canadian Press issued a retraction at the bottom of its story two days after the piece was first published admitting that the headline included comments attributed to Poilievre that he didn't say: "Note to readers: This is a corrected story. In a headline on an earlier version of the story, The Canadian Press erroneously reported that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre cited Sikh aggression toward Indian envoys when blaming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for Canada's poor relations with India. In fact, Poilievre did not mention Sikhs during his interview with Namaste Radio Toronto, which was the basis for the story."

The retraction continued: "The Canadian Press also erroneously reported that Poilievre blamed Trudeau for 'aggression shown to ... Indian diplomats at public events.' In fact, Poilievre did not link those remarks to Trudeau." In addition, the retraction stated, that "the story erroneously reported the World Sikh Organization of Canada had argued that Poilievre was indirectly pointing the finger at Sikhs. In fact, the group's lawyer Balpreet Singh had argued that Poilievre was wrong to point the finger at anyone other than the Indian government."

Readers of Blaze News likely will recall a viral story just a week earlier about Poilievre casually eating an apple while giving simple answers to a reporter's dubious line of questioning. The reporter noted that "a lot of people" had accused Poilievre of "taking a page out of the Donald Trump book," after which Poilievre asked, "Which people would say that?" The reporter replied, "Well, I'm sure a great many Canadians, but ..." after which Poiliere shot back, "Like who?" The reporter soon changed his line of questioning.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Treasury Sec Says Administration Is ‘Working Every Day’ On Affordability Crisis After ‘Years Of Disastrous Policies’

'But I can tell you that we are working to get these prices down every day'

CBS’ Margaret Brennan SKEWERED for claiming free speech caused the Holocaust



Last weekend at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, Vice President JD Vance delivered an epic speech denouncing Europe’s censorship policies and claiming that the United States under President Donald Trump would unapologetically uphold and protect the right to free expression.

Munich Security Conference Chairman Christoph Heusgen literally cried in response to Vance’s speech, lamenting the fact that Germany and America’s “common value base is not that common anymore.”

In the wake of Vance’s speech, CBS’ “60 Minutes” aired an episode in which Sharyn Alfonsi investigated Germany’s nationwide crackdown on hate speech. Alfonsi met with state prosecutors, accompanied police on hate speech raids, and spoke with organizations aimed at combatting “harmful content.”

CBS was already catching flak for the episode's lack of pushback on Germany’s authoritarian policies before anchor Margaret Brennan made it even worse.

Jill Savage of “Blaze News Tonight” plays a clip in which Brennan, sparring with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, made the outrageous claim that the Holocaust was caused by free speech.

Brennan criticized Vance’s speech, suggesting that it was tone deaf — “He was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.”

Rubio, thankfully, was having none of it.

“No, I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities. ... There was no free speech in Nazi Germany,” Rubio corrected.

“What Margaret Brennan said was one of the most insane things I've ever seen in my life,” says Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson.

The dialogue has changed, he says, from, “Would you go back in time and kill baby Hitler?” to, “Would you go back in time and kill baby James Madison before he writes the First Amendment that causes Nazi Germany?”

“This just reveals what these people actually think,” says Peterson, referring to proponents of censorship both in government and the media.

They believe “that they should be in charge, and they shouldn't have to provide arguments or a case for anything; they just deserve the right to rule and to shut down anyone who disagrees with them.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

CBS News: Free Speech Caused The Holocaust

CBS News’ Margaret Brennan claimed Sunday that free speech was to blame for the Holocaust. During an interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Brennan spun a wild theory that free speech in Germany paved the way for the Holocaust, arguing that Vice President J.D. Vance’s criticisms of European attacks on free speech were problematic […]

Rubio destroys CBS News anchor with facts after she tries blaming Holocaust on free speech



CBS News' Margaret Brennan did her apparent best last month to corner or to extract concessions from Vice President JD Vance. In the "Face the Nation" interview, Vance rejected both Brennan's dated liberal presumptions and the shaky premises shoring up her various lines of attack, proving the host's best was not good enough.

Brennan, evidently still committed to hitting Vance with a critique that sticks, attacked the vice president during her interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which aired on Sunday. The CBS News host concern-mongered about the impact of Vance's Friday speech at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, particularly his criticism of European censorship, and suggested that free speech set the stage for the Holocaust.

Rubio, like Vance before him, refused to indulge Brennan's fantasy and instead pointed out the falsity of her revisionist history.

In his Friday speech, Vance blasted European nations for their ruthless suppression of political movements and ideas; their destructive mass migration policies; their dismissal of citizens' concerns; and their attacks on religious liberties. Vance further expressed concern that Europe is turning its back on the values that it once shared in common with America.

While largely well received on this side of the Atlantic, various European officials took umbrage at the vice president's fact-based observations.

Germany's socialist defense minister Boris Pistorius, for instance, claimed that Vance's doubts about European democracy were "not acceptable," even though authorities in Pistorius' country have worked to ban, vilify, disarm, de-bank, and criminalize Alternative for Germany, a massively popular right-leaning populist party set for another electoral success later this month.

"He lectured about what he described as censorship, mainly focusing, though, on including more views from the right," Brennan told Rubio over the weekend. "He also met with the leader of a far-right party known as the AFD, which, as you know, is under investigation and monitoring by German intelligence because of extremism. What did all of this accomplish, other than irritating our allies?"

Rubio told Brennan that the European apoplexy over Vance's speech more or less proved the vice president's point.

'I have to disagree with you.'

"Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion? We are, after all, democracies," said Rubio. "I think if anyone's angry about his words, they don't have to agree with him, but to be angry about it, I think, actually makes his point."

The secretary of state noted further that European leaders frequently criticize the United States, but "we don't go around throwing temper tantrums about it."

Brennan tried contextualizing European officials' irritation over Vance's speech with the help of a revisionist history, stating that Vance "was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups."

Rubio prevented the host from skating past the insinuation that Europeans, Germans in particular, are sensitive about critiques of censorship because the Holocaust was somehow the result of free speech.

"I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide," said Rubio. "The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews, and they hated minorities, and they hated those that they — they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews."

"There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none," continued Rubio. "There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany. They were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that's not an accurate reflection of history."

'People are losing their minds.'

According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's Holocaust Encyclopedia, the Nazi regime abolished freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the early 1930s, shuttering or seizing anti-Nazi publications and controlling all forms of media content, including burning books deemed un-German.

Not only was free speech virtually nonexistent when the Nazis ran Germany, but in the preceding years, there were numerous limitations on speech — certainly enough to torpedo a modified version of Brennan's thesis.

Responding to an argument from a critical race theory scholar that resembled Brennan's insinuation, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression President Greg Lukianoff noted that nothing about the rise of Nazism or the Holocaust supports the claim that speech restraints could have prevented a genocide.

Lukianoff wrote:

Weimar Germany had laws banning hateful speech (particularly hateful speech directed at Jews), and top Nazis including Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch and Julius Streicher actually went to jail for violating them. The efforts of the Weimar Republic to suppress the speech of the Nazis are so well known in academic circles that one professor has described the idea that speech restrictions would have stopped the Nazis as "the Weimar Fallacy." The Weimar Republic not only shut down hundreds of Nazi newspapers — in a two-year period, they shut down 99 in Prussia alone — but they accelerated that crackdown on speech as the Nazis ascended to power. Hitler himself was banned from speaking in several German states from 1925 until 1927.

Critics blasted Brennan for her apparent historical illiteracy.

Vance wrote, "This is a crazy exchange. Does the media really think the holocaust was caused by free speech?"

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) tweeted, "Free speech caused the Holocaust in an insanely stupid take."

"People are losing their minds," wrote investigative reporter Matt Taibbi. "It's mass hysteria."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Rubio Criticizes CBS Host’s Claim Vance’s Support For Free Speech In Germany Mirrors Start Of Holocaust
play icon

Rubio Criticizes CBS Host’s Claim Vance’s Support For Free Speech In Germany Mirrors Start Of Holocaust

'No, no, I have to disagree with you'

Outrage over the J6 pardons flows from malicious misinformation



The post-pardon outrage from leftist pundits, politicians, and D.C. judges and prosecutors is as dramatic as it is predictable. No amount of reason or logic will stop them from rushing to the cameras to stoke fear and loathing over President Trump’s sweeping pardons and commutations for nearly every January 6 defendant. The pardons included nonviolent offenders and those who, frankly, were significantly otherwise. But every pardon and commutation was justified.

Equally unsurprising, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) eagerly joined the leftist choir. But plenty of other spineless Republicans have also condemned the pardons, mostly RINOs from states or districts where voters only elect Republicans who side with Democrats half the time.

Even the most unsavory characters and reprehensible actors had their constitutional rights trampled. That fundamental injustice justified Trump’s blanket pardons.

Meanwhile, many in Congress remain willfully ignorant of the Biden Justice Department’s lawless prosecutions of nearly 1,600 J6ers. The scale of their indifference is not just stunning — it’s downright disconcerting.

How could they ignore the blatant abuses of due process and basic legal rights? Prosecutors manufactured evidence, suborned perjury, and exaggerated or outright lied about individual behaviors. Courts handed down absurdly harsh sentences, especially compared to similar or worse crimes committed during left-wing protests and riots in the same city less than a year earlier. On top of that, J6ers in the Federal Bureau of Prisons system endured inhumane treatment for years.

Sunday morning “news” programs last week were a font of ignorance and disinformation. Near the conclusion of CBS News’ “Face the Nation” interview with Vice President JD Vance, Margaret Brennan repeated a persistent media falsehood about convicted J6er Ronald “Colt” McAbee. She claimed, “Ronald McAbee hit a cop while wearing reinforced brass knuckle gloves, while he held one down on the ground while other rioters assailed the officer for over 20 seconds, causing a concussion.”

Courtroom evidence and testimony contradict every word Brennan read from her prepared notes about McAbee, making her claims false and potentially defamatory. At the time, McAbee, a Tennessee deputy sheriff, wore motorcycle gloves with plastic reinforcement to protect his hands in an accident — not “brass knuckles.” He never held down a cop to allow others to cause a concussion.

Two exhaustive reports for Blaze Media by my colleague Joe Hanneman expose how federal prosecutors lied, manipulated evidence, and withheld material from a judge to keep McAbee behind bars. A thorough review of video footage confirms McAbee never assaulted Metropolitan Police Department Officer Andrew Wayte, as alleged. Instead, he shielded the officer and helped him return to the police line.

Vance delivered a response every Republican should learn and remember. “There’s an important issue here,” he said. “There’s what the people actually did on January 6 — we’re not saying everyone acted perfectly — and then,” he continued, “what did Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice do in unjustly prosecuting well over a thousand Americans in a politically motivated way?”

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), another waste of ample Republican flesh, told Martha Raddatz on ABC News’ “This Week,” “I think the pardons by Joe Biden were disgraceful, and I think Donald Trump has taken it to another level as well.” He didn’t stop there. “These are the two most selfish politicians in the presidency in my lifetime. Joe Biden pardoning his family proves it, and Donald Trump trying to whitewash January 6 proves it.”

The real “disgraceful” and “selfish” act is Christie's desperation to stay relevant while pontificating about cases he clearly hasn’t reviewed. His criticism ignores glaring examples of Justice Department overreach and excessive sentencing by D.C. judges, making his commentary more about political positioning than legal integrity.

Many GOP and Democrat legislators display blatant ignorance, but the claim that all Capitol Police and D.C. Metro Police feel “disgraced and insulted” by these pardons is false. Capitol Police officers I’ve interviewed and built relationships with over the past three years have shared a different perspective, as evidenced by the many messages in my inbox.

Active-duty, retired, off-the-record, and whistleblowing Capitol Police officers have congratulated me on the dismissal of my January 6 case. They recognize the department’s failures and the “setup” that occurred that day — their words, not mine.

On January 6 of this year, exactly two weeks before President Trump’s second inauguration, I entered the Capitol to cover the certification of the Electoral College vote count. Two other Blaze Media correspondents witnessed several uniformed and plainclothes Capitol Police officers recognizing and stopping me. They thanked me for exposing “the corruption of the white shirts upstairs.”

Make no mistake: About 140 police officers suffered injuries from assailants wielding sticks, bats, flagpoles, and bear spray that day. Calling violent perpetrators and provocateurs “patriots” or “heroes” is wrong. But even the most unsavory characters and reprehensible actors had their constitutional rights trampled by the Justice Department, the FBI, the courts, and their prison guards. That fundamental injustice justified Trump’s blanket pardons, commutations, and case dismissals.

Previously untold stories are now circulating through honest press coverage and social media revelations. These stories will gain further traction as newly appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin advances his investigation and as a new House select committee, led by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), begins its work.

But much remains to be done — not only to prevent another January 6 riot but also to ensure that no future administration weaponizes the legal system to attack basic rights and emasculate due process.

Team Trump Is Winning The Media Battle By Treating Left-Wing Press As The Propagandists They Are

The reason the entire Trump administration is successfully fielding absurd questions so well is because they understand these 'journalists' are just the propaganda wing of the Democrat party.