Blaze News original: Pro-lifers dunk on New York Times for falsely accusing Trump of lying about Dems' abortion ambitions



The New York Times has demonstrated on numerous occasions a willingness to bend or abandon the truth, especially when doing so might further leftists' political agendas.

The paper rushed, for instance, to print Hamas propaganda in October 2023, falsely suggesting that the Islamic Jihad rocket misfire that blew up a hospital in Gaza, killing hundreds, was actually an Israeli airstrike. The paper also did its apparent best last year to furnish Democrats with the misleading narrative they needed to launch attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices — reliant upon claims that even the Washington Post knew weren't worth a jot of ink. When President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, setting the stage for mass-murdering Mexican cartels to be designated foreign terrorist organizations, the Times undermined its credibility again, suggesting that identifying and holding terrorists responsible for their actions might hurt the economy.

This is far from an exhaustive list. In fact, the Times — a paper compromised by the CIA during the Cold War — recently misled readers on another issue, claiming that President Donald Trump had misrepresented Democrats' aims regarding abortion.

Pro-life groups were quick to hammer the Times over its latest publication of fake news and its corresponding attempt to obfuscate a damning truth.

'The Times has an obligation to report this evidence.'

In a letter shared with Blaze News, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser told the executive and political editors of the New York Times that "while abortion remains an issue that evokes strong opinions, feelings, and reactions, such personal perceptions cannot overtake journalists' obligation to report fairly, accurately, and impartially."

Highlighting information the Times apparently decided to gloss over, Dannenfelser noted that "the Times has an obligation to report this evidence, cite the facts, and allow readers to come to their own conclusion without the interference of bias, omission, or misinformation that has often characterized your coverage of the issue."

'Debating any limitations around a federal right to abortion does not sit well with some key members of the Democratic Party.'

Among the articles Dannenfelser raised concern about was Times health policy writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg's Jan. 24 article, in which Stolberg stated that Trump "repeated false claims about abortion rights" in his video address to pro-life advocates at the 52nd March for Life, singling out his suggestion that Democrats are pushing "for a federal right to unlimited abortion on demand up to the moment of birth and even after birth."

Of course, to accept that Trump's assertion is false would mean discounting what Democrats have said and how they have voted in recent days and years.

NBC News, which Stolberg would apparently have readers believe was dealing in Trumpian falsehoods, noted in 2023 that some Democrats "insist on a sweeping national standard that goes beyond the one set by Roe v. Wade, which gave women the right to have an abortion before a fetus is considered viable and allowed states to set limitations for abortions after that time frame."

The same report noted that the "notion of debating any limitations around a federal right to abortion does not sit well with some key members of the Democratic Party, particularly reproductive rights advocates."

Multiple Democratic lawmakers have voted repeatedly to advance the so-called Women's Health Protection Act, which would codify a federal right to abortion with virtually no limitations or requirements, enabling health care providers, including incentivized abortionists, to end a child's life after fetal viability on the basis of a "good-faith medical judgment" that the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the mother's health.

National Review previously noted that the WHPA's chief sponsor in the Senate admitted that the bill "doesn't distinguish" between physical and mental health and that the legislation advises courts to "liberally construe" the provisions of the act. A risk to a mother's emotional state of mind could, therefore, potentially qualify as a risk to the mother's "health."

When asked whether he supports any limits on abortion, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, one of the many Democratic lawmakers who championed the WHPA, responded, "I don't believe so, no."

Such legislation would put the nation on a path to emulating at least eight Democratic states plus Washington, D.C., where there are no restrictions on third-trimester abortions.

Per Trump's suggestion, Democrats similarly want to minimize protections for babies who initially survive abortionists' attempted executions.

'Double standards and a slant that consistently favors one political party erode whatever remains of the public's confidence.'

When the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act went to a vote on Jan. 23, a total of 210 House Democrats voted against requiring health care practitioners to save babies who survive attempted abortions. Senate Democrats kept the sister bill from advancing a day earlier.

This is how the New York Times characterized the Democrat lawmakers' efforts to deprive abortion survivors of protection: "Senate Democrats blocked a Republican-written bill on Wednesday that could subject some doctors who perform abortions to criminal penalties, thwarting the G.O.P.'s first attempt to restrict reproductive rights since the party has secured its governing trifecta."

"The facts are in President Trump's favor," Dannenfelser said in her letter. "Democrats have not been shy about also publicly stating their support for abortion at any stage and without limits. A long list of Democrats, ranging from Senators John Fetterman, Mark Kelly, and Patty Murray, to Governor Katie Hobbs and former Governor Ralph Northam have refused to name a point before birth at which they think abortion should be limited."

"It's clear to us and to many other readers that the Times isn't just reporting on a debate but taking a side, placing its thumb on the scale in favor of the pro-abortion argument," continued the pro-life advocate. "As editors, you know well that these intentional word choices matter. The facts matter. Truth matters. Double standards and a slant that consistently favors one political party erode whatever remains of the public's confidence in legacy news publications."

Blaze News reached out to Stolberg, asking her to clarify what precisely Trump had said in the above quote that was false. The Times reporter did not respond by deadline.

The conservative nonprofit CatholicVote was among the other groups and pro-life advocates that blasted the Times for its "false reporting," stating, "Uh, @nytimes, Democrats literally just voted against giving medical care to babies who survive botched abortions and can't name a single abortion limit they support."

Tim Graham, executive editor of MRC's NewsBusters, stated, "America's most prestigious newspapers routinely paint pro-lifers as extreme. They can't seem to locate themselves on the opposite extreme. Is it because they consider themselves the moral center? Extending the 'right to choose' to terminate babies ... born alive may seem logical to them. But it defines a radical fringe."

The apparent eagerness on the part of fellow travelers to mislead on Democrats' real objectives regarding abortion might be informed by polling showing that only a minority of Americans think abortion should be legal in all cases.

A 2024 Pew Research poll found that only 25% of Americans support the legality of abortion in all cases. A May 2024 Gallup poll found that 50% of respondents supported legal abortion, but only under certain circumstances. A previous Gallup poll found that only 22% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the third trimester.

A Knights of Columbus-Marist poll revealed on Jan. 23 that 67% of Americans — including 55% of respondents who identified as "pro-choice" — said that limits should be placed on when abortion is allowed.

Emma Camp, an assistant editor at Reason, recently noted in the Atlantic, "The grim reality of later abortion is simply too much for most Americans to countenance — and reasonable policymakers should listen to them."

"Most Americans believe that third-trimester abortions should be restricted. If Democrats want a platform that truly reflects majority opinion, they should address the question of what to do about later abortions and adopt a position that protects abortions in the first trimester while limiting second- and third-trimester abortions to pregnancies with fetal abnormalities or maternal health crises," added Camp.

Democrats don't, however, appear keen to heed the concerns of Americans. Unwilling to abandon the promise of limitless abortion, they must rely on the media to gaslight the public about what they are really up to. Stolberg appeared more than willing to do her part.

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

Blaze News original: Let us never forget the left's reprehensible behavior toward fellow Americans who refused COVID jabs



After COVID-19 vaccines became available in early 2021, not everybody in America was down with the getting the jabs. Typical vaccines take years of testing prior to approval, but since the COVID vaccines were produced with lightning speed, lots of folks were concerned and resisted getting the shots.

Readers of Blaze News won't soon forget what happened next. Vaccine mandates and steadily growing pressure to get the jab turned into an all-out assault on "anti-vaxxers" by the government, businesses, the mainstream media, celebrities, politicians, and the medical community.

'If you ask me what’s my first reaction to you if you’re not vaccinated, and you don’t have any medical reason not to be, you’re a piece of s**t, OK? I just want to punch you in the goddamned face.'

In September 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order requiring federal workers to be vaccinated; that same month, he announced a sweeping vaccination mandate for businesses with more than 100 employees, which the Supreme Court later blocked.

In October 2021, Biden said he believed police officers and first responders who refused the jab should be fired.

Widespread firings indeed happened. Teachers were terminated for not getting vaccinated. Businesses and hospitals fired employees who refused the jab. A viral video showed a nurse being escorted out of a hospital after her religious exemption was denied, and a UCLA doctor suffered a similar fate.

An October 2021 New York City vaccine mandate required all city employees — including police and firefighters — to get the jab or lose their jobs. Indeed, 1,400 city workers were canned for refusing vaccinations, but incredibly Mayor Eric Adams (D) in March 2022 exempted city-based athletes and performers from the mandate. That came after the awful optics of then-Brooklyn Nets star Kyrie Irving, who was unvaccinated, being barred from playing in Brooklyn's home games — but somehow being allowed to watch those games from the seats in the Nets' arena.

Want more bad looks? How about an unvaccinated Coast Guard member who, after rescuing Hurricane Ian victims, faced termination for not getting the jab? Biden managed to personally thank the hero days before his scheduled dismissal. Or Washington, D.C., Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser announcing no virtual instruction options for unvaccinated students? Turns out 40% of black students were in that mix. Or a trio of unvaccinated Air Force Academy cadets who were denied their commissions? Or the Navy barring a destroyer from setting sail because its commander wouldn't get the jab?

How about a hospital pulling the plug on a lifesaving kidney transplant because the donor wasn't vaccinated? Or a health care system denying an organ transplant to a dying unvaccinated woman? Or another hospital removing a dying man from its heart transplant list because he was unvaccinated?

Along with the aforementioned gut-punches from those in power against the unvaccinated, further bolstering the cause were the seemingly daily insults — which arguably were dangerous in some cases — from the left against those who refused the jab.

A number of your favorite usual suspects show up below, and you may even remember some of their astonishing declarations. A number of them called for shaming and shunning the unvaccinated. Others wanted to make life a "living hell" for them. One even wanted to punch them in the "goddamned face." You get the idea.

Let's not ever forget.

Sunny Hostin declares 'we need to shun those that refuse to get vaccinated' — specifically 'white evangelicals' and 'Republicans'


Sunny Hostin of "The View" tore into Americans who indicated they wouldn't get the COVID-19 vaccine by saying we should "shun" them — and the co-host specifically called out "white evangelicals" and "Republicans."

Hostin said during the show's May 3, 2021, episode that "when you look at the folks that are not getting vaccinated — because it's a quarter of Americans that aren't getting vaccinated — white evangelicals: 45% say they won't get vaccinated according to ... Pew Research ... almost 50% of Republicans are refusing to get the vaccine. So we won't reach herd immunity because of those particular groups."

Then the co-host lowered the boom: "So I say we need to shun those that refuse to get vaccinated."

She added that unvaccinated Americans should be refused entry into certain places: "I think if you have not been vaccinated, no entry. You want to get on a plane? You gotta be vaccinated, show proof of vaccination. And those people who don't want to get vaccinated ... that's fine for you, but you can't spread it to other people. ... You don't get those other liberties that come with immunity. Something has to break. If that's your personal choice not to get vaccinated, you don't then get to infringe on the rights of those who have chosen to protect their fellow citizens."

You can view Hostin's comments here just after the 3:30 mark.

James Carville wants law passed that allows him, others to punch 'piece of s**t' unvaccinated Americans in the 'godd**ned face'


"I wish what they’d do is pass a law to make you immune from liability if you punch some unvaccinated person right in the face, which I’d really like to do," Carville — a famous Democratic operative — said during a February 2022 episode of the "Politics War Room" podcast.

He also said, "If you ask me what’s my first reaction to you if you’re not vaccinated, and you don’t have any medical reason not to be, you’re a piece of s**t, OK? I just want to punch you in the goddamned face."

Carville added, "That’s the way I look at these people."

Jimmy Kimmel says unvaccinated Americans who have taken ivermectin should be denied ICU beds and left to die: 'Rest in peace, wheezy'


Kimmel in a September 2021 monologue took potshots at Americans who have refused the COVID jab — particularly those who have taken the drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19.

"I leave you people alone for two months, and you start taking horse worm medicine?" he asked the crowd in reference to ivermectin.

"Dr. [Anthony] Fauci said that if hospitals get any more overcrowded, they're gonna have to make some very tough choices about who gets an ICU bed," Kimmel also said, before adding a witty gut-buster.

"That choice doesn't seem so tough to me," he continued. "Vaccinated person having a heart attack? Yes, come right on in, we'll take care of ya. Unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo? Rest in peace, wheezy." You can watch the segment here.

Far-left NY Gov. Kathy Hochul actually preaches COVID jab gospel from church pulpit: 'Smart' vaccinated people must 'be my apostles' and evangelize unvaccinated who 'aren't listening to God'


Far-left New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) gave a sermon of sorts to a Brooklyn megachurch on the last Sunday of September 2021 — and the Democrat preached the gospel of getting COVID-19 vaccines. You can view Hochel's homily here.

Speaking about the trials of the pandemic to the Christian Cultural Center, Hochul told listeners that she "prayed a lot to God during this time, and you know what? God did answer our prayers. He made the smartest men and women — the scientists, the doctors, the researchers — he made them come up with a vaccine!"

Hochul added that the COVID-19 vaccines are "from God to us, and we must say, 'Thank you, God! Thank you!'" She then held aloft not a cross but her "vaccinated" necklace, telling congregants that she wears it "all the time" to announce to the world that "I'm vaccinated!"

Hochul also gave a sacred mission to the "smart ones" who've been vaccinated: to be her "apostles" and spread the Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J gospel to the unvaccinated heathen who "aren't listening to God."

Tucker Carlson was taken aback by "high priestess" Hochul and discussed during his Fox News show the following night the growing "cult of coronavirus" that possesses "its own sacraments" and "its own sacred texts" — just like other religions.

MSNBC's Joy Reid says conservatives who defy COVID jab are 'angels of death' — and asks, 'How many more people have to die before these ghouls are satisfied?'


In late November 2021, Reid ripped into conservatives who refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine: "It's about power and spreading lies and fake outrage so the MAGA squad wins elections. They are today's angels of death. Refusing to get vaccinated and urging fellow Americans to remain exposed even as their own parents, grandparents, and children die of COVID. The numbers prove it. Red America has the highest rates of COVID death, but the lowest rates of vaccinations. They are literally killing people."

She also asked, "How many more people have to die before we say what we have all known for quite some time? This faction of the right is a death cult. Six unvaccinated members of a Florida family dead after contracting COVID, mothers dying shortly after giving birth, parents of young children wiped out. And then the harrowing news that more than 140,000 U.S. children have lost a caregiver due to the pandemic. Almost two years in, the trauma is irreversible. It's a trauma that has crossed generations. It is permanent and unforgiving. And so we ask again, how many more people have to die before these ghouls are satisfied?"

Keith Olbermann calls unvaccinated people 'snowflakes,' 'morons,' 'losers,' 'cowards' in video rant


Leftist Keith Olbermann called unvaccinated people "snowflakes," "morons," "losers," "cowards" — among other descriptors — in a Twitter video rant posted on Oct. 1, 2021. He added that that they're "afraid" of getting the shot and that vaccinated people should stop "coddling" them.

Here's his word-for-word diatribe:

It is time to stop coddling them — the ones who won't get the damn shot already. And our first step, you and I, is symbols. The language we use. We call these people "vaccine-hesitant." "Vaccine skeptics." "Anti-vax." We say they're "protesting mandates and passports." They're "making a personal choice." They're "waiting for more information." They're "making a medical decision." Bulls**t! They're afraid! They're afraid to get vaccinated. Stop feeding their egos about what they're doing. Stop legitimizing it. "Vaccine-hesitant"? They're afraid! "Vaccine skeptics"? They're afraid! "Anti-vax"? They're afraid! They're "protesting mandates and passports"? They're afraid! They're "making a personal choice"? They're afraid! They're "waiting for more information"? Afraid! They're "making a medical decision" — to be afraid! The snowflakes are afraid! Afraid of the vaccine. Afraid of being proved wrong. Afraid of doing what anybody else in the world tells them to do. Afraid of needles! So no more pleasant euphemisms about what's going on here — apart from the people who have legitimate medical complications about vaccines — we have to stop coddling the morons who will not get the shot. We start by calling them what they are. They are all snowflakes. And cowards. And idiots. And losers. And most importantly, they are afraid!

Don Lemon on unvaccinated Americans: They're 'stupid' and 'harmful to the greater good,' and we should 'start shaming them or leave them behind'


In September 2021, the now-former CNN host ripped into "stupid" unvaccinated people and demanded that Americans stop "coddling them."

"The people who are not getting vaccines, who are believing the lies on the internet instead of science, it's time to start shaming them," Lemon declared. "Or leave them behind, because they're keeping the majority of Americans behind."

He then screamed at the unvaccinated for not trusting the COVID vaccine while having no problems with other vaccines — which he failed to point out have been around for decades and have been proven safe for generations of Americans: "You didn't feel that way for the polio vaccine, you don't feel that way about measles, mumps, rubella when it comes to your children. And all of a sudden this vaccine is different? What's different about it?" He added, "The only different thing about it is because of your politics today."

Lemon last year doubled down on his views, calling those who didn't get the COVID jab "selfish."

Ana Navarro says she does not want to know any unvaccinated people: 'Your "personal freedom" is holding the rest of us hostage'


Ana Navarro on Dec. 21, 2021, posted on Twitter that she doesn't want to be around or even know anyone who remains unvaccinated against COVID-19 unless they have a medical reason.

"Unless you have a LEGITIMATE medical reason, if you’re not vaccinated, I don’t want to see you, talk to you, work w/you, socialize w/you or know you. It’s enough. Your 'personal freedom' is holding the rest of us hostage. It’s selfish and stupid," she wrote.


CNN medical analyst Leana Wen likens unvaccinated people in public to drunk drivers


In September 2021, CNN medical analyst Leana Wen — the former head of Planned Parenthood — likened unvaccinated people in public to drunk drivers.

"You have the option to not get vaccinated if you want, but then you can't go out in public," she noted to then-CNN anchor Chris Cuomo. Wen added: "Just like you can choose to drink in private if you want, but if you get behind the wheel of a car and can endanger other people, there is an obligation by society to prevent you from doing that."

Wen also insisted around that time that life "needs to be hard" for unvaccinated Americans.

But would you believe she was singing different tunes later on?

In December 2022, Wen admitted that natural immunity from COVID-19 is optimal — and a month later she warned that officials have been overcounting COVID-19 deaths.

Joy Behar implies unvaccinated COVID patients don't deserve medical help since they've 'chosen to listen to the lies' on Fox News


Leftist Joy Behar implied during a September 2021 episode of "The View" that unvaccinated COVID-19 patients don't deserve medical help because they've "chosen to defy the science" and have "chosen to listen to the lies on Fox [News]" — all while patients with other needs can't get hospital beds.

Former Utah Rep. Mia Love — a Republican — sat at the table as a guest and argued that it's a "slippery slope" for doctors to say they won't treat unvaccinated patients since that declaration could lead to them saying they won't treat people for other illnesses.

Behar at first agreed with Love that doctors denying health care to smokers and the morbidly obese could be problematic — but Behar then declared that such patients have developed "long-term" habits compared to the one-time decision by unvaccinated people to reject thea COVID-19 shot "based on false information."

She added — as if she were speaking to unvaccinated COVID-19 patients — they should "go to [Fox News host] Tucker Carlson and make your case. Because he's telling you lies. He and other people on Fox and on some parts of Facebook are telling you lies about the vaccine."

Baltimore's Democrat mayor tells unvaccinated citizens to 'shut up': 'It's your fault that we're going back to having an indoor mask mandate'


Democrat Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott in August 2021 left no doubt about whom he blamed for the spike in COVID-19 cases in his city and the subsequent resumption of mask mandates.

"For anyone that's frustrated about wearing a mask — and you're not vaccinated — then look in the mirror. It's your fault that we're going back to having an indoor mask mandate," Scott said. "Make sure that folks get vaccinated. If you're not vaccinated, shut up. Don't complain."

You can view a video report here that includes Scott's remarks.

5-year-old boy reduced to tears as NYPD officers tell his mother they have to leave restaurant because they don't have their COVID vaccination papers


An Instagram video posted on Christmas Eve 2021 shows a 5-year-old boy reduced to tears at a New York City restaurant as police officers tell his mother they have to leave because they don't have their vaccination papers.

Police told the boy's mother that anyone without proof of vaccination could be charged with trespassing: “If you leave voluntarily, there will not be charges pressed against you; otherwise you will be arrested for trespass. This is your only warning."

Several angry bystanders could be seen recording the incident and yelling at cops about their rights being infringed. “Scaring a child, traumatizing a child. I hope you feel good about yourself, NYPD,” a woman says. "This is disgusting. This is gross."

The video went viral as New York City began enforcing the strictest private-sector vaccine mandate in the nation at the time. The mandate, enacted by far-left Democrat Mayor Bill de Blasio, required everyone age 12 and up to show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 to patronize businesses with indoor spaces — including restaurants, gyms, music venues, movie theaters, and other indoor public spaces.

'It’s time to make life a living hell for anti-vaxxers,' Washington Post columnist writes


A Washington Post columnist lambasted the vaccine-hesitant and praised French President Emmanuel Macron in a January 2022 piece titled, "Macron is right: It’s time to make life a living hell for anti-vaxxers."

James McAuley, global opinions contributing columnist for the Post, recounted Macron's headline-grabbing statements from the prior week saying he wanted to push the unvaccinated out of public life in France until they get the jabs.

"The unvaccinated, I really want to piss them off. And so we're going to continue doing so, until the end. That's the strategy," Macron told newspaper Le Parisien in an interview, Reuters reported.

McAuley noted that "the English translation hardly does the comment justice. In French, the verb he used is 'emmerder,' which means, quite literally, to cover in excrement."

He added that Macron "happens to be totally right. There is no justifiable excuse for refusing vaccination, which is the only way the pandemic will ever come close to ending. Macron has set a fine example for other world leaders to follow in refusing to kowtow before ignorance or honor selfishness."

CNN medical guest and ethics 'expert' declares America must increase punishments for the unvaccinated: 'Condemn them,' 'shame them,' 'blame them,' 'penalize them more'


In January 2022, Arthur Caplan — then head of the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine — said during a CNN segment that America must increase punishments for the unvaccinated.

Caplan said that though he wants Americans to "act as a team" and doesn't want to "reject those who still haven't done the right thing" by getting the jabs, he will gladly "condemn them" and "shame them" and then "blame them."

"We can penalize them more," he added. "We can say, 'You've got to pay more on your hospital bill if you weren't vaccinated. You can’t get life insurance or disability insurance at affordable rates if you aren’t vaccinated.' Those companies should not treat us as equals in terms of what the financial burdens are that that disease imposes."

"I can think of a number of ways in which we should say, 'Here's the stick. Get on board,'" he concluded.

'Let hospitals quietly triage emergency care to serve the unvaccinated last,' writer from the Atlantic declares


David Frum, a staff writer at the Atlantic, in December 2021 wrote on Twitter that hospitals should be permitted to place those who haven't taken the COVID jab at the bottom of emergency care priority.

In the face of negative reaction to his post, Frum doubled down: "Reading the reactions to this tweet, I am impressed by the immense self-pity of the anti-vaxxers — who see themselves as bottomless victims, even as their own bad choices deny hospital care to so many others in desperate need."

He added: "If, at this point, you are still unvaccinated, you are not a victim. You are a cause of the victimization of vulnerable others."

Obama's education secretary compares 'anti-mask,' 'anti-vax' Americans to suicide bombers


Arne Duncan, secretary of education for most of Barack Obama's presidency, in late August 2021 compared terrorist suicide bombers to "anti-mask and anti-vax" Americans.

Duncan in a now-deleted social media post said Americans opposed to face masks and vaccines are "strikingly similar" to terrorists who carried out an attack outside a Kabul airport the previous week: "Have you noticed how strikingly similar both the mindsets and actions are between the suicide bombers at Kabul's airport, and the anti-mask and anti-vax people here? They both blow themselves up, inflict harm on those around them, and are convinced they are fighting for freedom."

Middle school teacher says we'd be 'lucky' if the unvaccinated die — and adds that could 'cut out 30% of the population that votes the wrong way'


A middle school teacher in Washington state reportedly said on social media that America would be "lucky" if unvaccinated people are denied health care and die from COVID-19.

The teacher, who reportedly works at Wy'East Middle School in Vancouver, boasted on Facebook that she's "ready to say let them die," referring to unvaccinated people, KTTH-AM reported in August 2021.

"You made a choice to not get your shot for any reason other than a doctor's note, you should not be allowed health care. You are like the brats in class that ruin it for everyone," the post read.

The teacher even suggested that allowing the unvaccinated to die also solves another issue for her: "If we're lucky we can cut out 30% of the population that votes the wrong way." The teacher added, "Plus less people using up all the resources. Let the hunger games begin."

According to KTTH, the teacher deleted her Facebook account after her post began circulating among local parents. KTTH, however, preserved a screenshot of the shocking comments.

Obama-era official says the unvaccinated should be placed on a no-fly list


Juliette Kayyem — a former assistant secretary for Homeland Security who served under Barack Obama — argued in an August 2021 piece published in the Atlantic that "a no-fly list for unvaccinated adults is an obvious step that the federal government should take."

"The public debate about making vaccination a precondition for travel, employment, and other activities has described this approach as vaccine mandates, a term that, to conservative critics, suggests that unvaccinated people are being ordered around arbitrarily. What is actually going on, mostly, is that institutions are shifting burdens to unvaccinated people — denying them access to certain spaces, requiring them to take regular COVID-19 tests, charging them for the cost of that testing — rather than imposing greater burdens on everyone. Americans still have a choice to go unvaccinated, but that means giving up on certain societal benefits," Kayyem wrote. "Amid a global health crisis, people who defy public-health guidance are not, and do not deserve to be, a protected class."

New York Times gets torched after singling out 'white evangelical resistance' as 'obstacle' in COVID-19 vaccination effort


The New York Times' headline in an April 2021 story spelled it out plainly: "White Evangelical Resistance Is Obstacle in Vaccination Effort." The Times' piece indeed singled a giant swath of humanity as an enemy of COVID-19 vaccines — using race and faith as its sole parameters.

The story also claimed that white evangelical "opposition is rooted in a mix of religious faith and a long-standing wariness of mainstream science, and it is fueled by broader cultural distrust of institutions and gravitation to online conspiracy theories."

After the Times posted a link to its story on Twitter, a number of commenters backed the paper's premise. In fact, one person said white evangelicals should be placed in "one big arena. Let them pray or sing or whatever they do. Let the virus run rampant throughout the venue. Let science decide their fate."

But others took issue with the Times' report. One commenter shot back, "Bravo @nytimes, I think you have really outdone yourself with this one. You have found another way to be decisive and to further divide the country. Take the vaccine or else it's your fault and be seen as an outsider who does not belong in our society."

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

New York Times refers to regular women as 'non-transgender women,' causing massive backlash



A New York Times writer is facing substantial criticism after referring to biological women as "non-transgender women."

The author was discussing testosterone levels and men in women's sports, particularly San Jose State University's male volleyball player Blaire (Brayden) Fleming, who plays on the SJSU women's volleyball team.

At 6'1'', Fleming possesses obvious strength and athletic advantages over women, a fact that has been noticed by countless athletes who have shared the court with him. This includes teammate Brooke Slusser, who told Blaze News that Fleming's "power" was something she had "never seen before."

Fleming's inclusion has caused the following schools to forfeit matches: Boise State (twice), Nevada, Southern Utah, Utah State, and Wyoming.

'This is so insulting to the billions of women in the world.'

New York Times writer Juliet Macur declined to name the athlete, however, citing that "she" has not "publicly confirmed her identity and declined an interview request."

The most contentious part of the article came when the author was discussing the NCAA's rules surrounding hormone levels and the inclusion of transgender athletes.

The excerpt, which has angered many women, reads as follows:

On its website, the N.C.A.A. says trans volleyball players are eligible to play if their testosterone level is less than 10 nanomoles per liter — that's at least four times more than what many experts say is the top of the range for non-transgender women, and in the typical range for adult men.

This reference to women as "non-transgender," as if men who believe they are women or receive surgeries to appear as a woman are indeed the norm, set off a firestorm with actual women online.

British Olympian Sharron Davies said she felt this was evidence that transgenderism is a "men's rights movement."

"Women are now Non transgender women! Just wow! How anyone can say this isn't a men's rights movement I'll never know, whilst women lose their rights, their words, their safeguards, their sports, their sex discrimination laws ... I will never understand."

Tennis legend Martina Navratilova, who even has "#VoteBlue" on her X profile, took great offense to the excerpt:

"[New York Times] you stink. We are women, not NOT TRANSGENDER WOMEN. Just WOMEN will do in the future."

Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace simply called the article "bs," while Chaya Raichik said through her popular account Libs of TikTok that she felt insulted.

"Hey [New York Times], I'm not a 'non-transgender woman.' I'm a woman. Adult human female. This is so insulting to the billions of women in the world."

Many other "non-transgender" women took shots at the outlet, with some simply calling the publication "a joke."

New York Times is a joke.
— Ruthless World 🇺🇲 (@Ruthlessworld2) December 1, 2024

Another woman said the New York Times had made itself "irrelevant" with this kind of verbiage, while a woman named Katie said the language contributed to the "erasure of women."

They have made themselves completely irrelevant. No one cares what @nytimes says about anything.
— Elaine 🇺🇸 (@sweetdreamdairy) December 1, 2024

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

'Very stupid': New York Times beclowns itself with botched 'fact-check,' proving RFK Jr.'s point



Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald Trump's proposed Health and Human Services secretary, has pledged to "Make America Healthy Again" primarily by tackling the "chronic disease epidemic" and the corporate capture of federal regulatory agencies.

The environmental lawyer's adjacency to the Republican president and his recent criticism of experimental gene therapies have made him a frequent target for criticism by lawmaking recipients of Big Pharma lobbying money and the liberal media. In their efforts to dunk on Kennedy, establishmentarians have in many cases exposed their true loyalties as well as their aversion to inconvenient facts.

The New York Times is now among the outfits that has risked such exposure in its desperation to characterize Kennedy as "wrong."

'The science shows that these dyes cause hyperactivity in children, can disrupt the immune system, and are contaminated with carcinogens.'

By attempting to miss a point that Kennedy was making in a recent interview, the Times' Christina Jewett and Julie Creswell unwittingly defended his thesis. Critics have since descended upon the liberal publication, mocking it over its botched fact-check.

At the outset of their article, titled "Kennedy’s Vow to Take On Big Food Could Alienate His New G.O.P. Allies," Jewett and Creswell wrote, "Boxes of brightly colored breakfast cereals, vivid orange Doritos and dazzling blue M&Ms may find themselves under attack in the new Trump administration."

After highlighting why food titans that produce unhealthy products are "nervous" about the incoming administration, Jewett and Creswell tried nitpicking through some of Kennedy's concerns, zeroing in on his recent remarks about the ingredients of Kellogg's Froot Loops cereal.

In September, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) moderated a four-hour round table discussion on Capitol Hill about American health and nutrition.

During her presentation, Vani Hari, a critic of the food industry who founded FoodBabe, shared the ingredient lists for multiple food products in the U.S. versus in Europe and stressed the need for limits on additives and dyes in breakfast cereals.

Together with Jason Karp, founder and CEO of the healthy living organization HumanCo., Hari highlighted the color difference between the Froot Loops cereal produced for American consumption and the version produced for consumption in Canada.

The brighter artificial colors are more attractive to children — and helpful with sales — but apparently harmful to their health.

Hari recently told Blaze News:

The science shows that these dyes cause hyperactivity in children, can disrupt the immune system, and are contaminated with carcinogens. There are safer colors available made from fruits and vegetables, such as beets and carrots. Food companies already don't use artificial dyes en masse in Europe because they don’t want to slap warning labels on their products that say they 'may cause adverse effects on attention in children.' If food companies like Kellogg's can reformulate their products without artificial dyes to sell in other countries, there is no reason why they can’t do that also here in America.

The food activist added, "As there are over 10,000 food additives approved for use in the United States, while Europe only allows 400, the [incoming] administration should prioritize taking control of the alarming amount of food additives in our food supply."

'This is of particular concern for fetuses and babies under the age of 6 months, whose blood-brain barrier is not fully developed.'

Kennedy appeared on Fox News the following day and referenced Hari's presentation, saying, "A box of Froot Loops from Canada or from Europe ... has a completely different group of ingredients. It's actually colored with vegetable oils, which are safe. Ours are colored with chemical oils, which are very, very dangerous."

Following the election, Kennedy revisited the example in a MSNBC interview, saying offhand, "Why do we have Froot Loops in this country that have 18 or 19 ingredients, and you go to Canada and it's got two or three?"

The Times seized on Kennedy's critique of Froot Loop, writing:

Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many artificial ingredients, questioning why the Canadian version has fewer than the U.S. version. But he was wrong. The ingredient list is roughly the same, although Canada's has natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used "for freshness," according to the ingredient label.

In the same paragraph that the Times claimed Kennedy was wrong about Froot Loops having more artificial ingredients in Canada than in the U.S., the liberal publication effectively pointed out he was right on the money.

According to the National Library of Medicine, butylated hydroxytoluene — used as a preservative in fats and oils as well as in packaging material for fat-containing foods — has been shown in animal studies to increase serum cholesterol, reduce growth in baby rats, and increase absolute liver weight. The NLM and the Canadian government also recognize BHT as harmful to the environment.

Red dye 40 is made from petroleum and has been approved by the FDA for use in food and drinks. It has been linked in some studies to hyperactivity disorders in children. The Cleveland Clinic indicated that red dye 40 also has various potential side effects, including depression, irritability, and migraines.

Yellow dye 5 or tartazine is another synthetic food colorant linked to numerous adverse health effects. It is reportedly restricted in Austria and Norway owing to the allergies, asthma, skin rashes, hyperactivity, and migraines it can apparently cause.

A 2021 paper in the peer-reviewed journal Advances in Nutrition noted that blue dye 1 has been found to cause chromosomal aberrations and "was found to inhibit neurite growth and act synergistically with L-glutamic acid in vitro, suggesting the potential for neurotoxicity. This is of particular concern for fetuses and babies under the age of 6 months, whose blood-brain barrier is not fully developed."

'This is beyond absurd.'

The paper noted further that having found blue dye 1 to have cytotoxic and genotoxic effects, some researchers "advise that caution must be exercised when using it for coloring food."

Children are the biggest consumers of such artificial food dyes.

Critics blasted the Times over its bizarre "fact-check," which said he was wrong then unwittingly explained why he was right.

"This is what passes for a 'fact check' at The New York Times," wrote Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. "The media lie a lot, but fortunately for us, they are also VERY stupid."

"Americans are being poisoned under the status quo food and health institutions, and regime media wants you to believe that Bobby Kennedy pushing for reform is somehow the problem. Make it make sense!" added Kirk.

Molecular biologist Dr. Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University tweeted, "I read the paragraph multiple times yesterday, trying to make sense of what the idiot writer had written. I could only conclude that the idiot writer had written the equivalent of '2 + 2 = 5.'"

One critic quipped, "'As you see, the ingredient list is just completely identical, except the US product contains formaldehyde, cyanide, and nearly undetectable levels of saxitoxin."

"Crazy," tweeted Elon Musk.

Pershing Square Capital Management founder Bill Ackman wrote, "This is beyond absurd. The @nytimes says @RobertKennedyJr 'was wrong' about Froot Loops having too many artificial ingredients compared to its Canadian version, and then goes on to explain the artificial colorings and preservatives in the U.S. vs the Canadian version. @RobertKennedyJr is right and The NY Times is an embarrassment."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) noted, "In their defense, their comedy writers are really strong."

The Times has since blamed an "editing error" and rewritten its Orwellian paragraph to read:

Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many ingredients. In an interview with MSNBC on Nov. 6, he questioned the overall ingredient count: 'Why do we have Froot Loops in this country that have 18 or 19 ingredients and you go to Canada and it has two or three?' Mr. Kennedy asked. He was wrong on the ingredient count, they are roughly the same. But the Canadian version does have natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used 'for freshness, according to the ingredient label.

The New York Times' credibility has taken a massive hit in recent months and years. After all, it was an exponent of the Russian collusion hoax; falsely claimed Trump supporters killed U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick with a fire extinguisher; falsely reported on the basis of terrorist propaganda that Israel blew up a Gazan hospital; and suggested that the Babylon Bee, a satire website, was a "far-right misinformation site."

Despite its trouble getting the facts right, it recently teamed up with Media Matters to get BlazeTV hosts censored, citing concerns over "misinformation."

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

'Hypervaccinated' German man claims he got 217 COVID shots in 29 months with no side effects



A German man who claimed to have received 217 COVID-19 vaccinations in about two-and-a-half years said he had no adverse reactions or side effects from the shots.

The 62-year-old male from Magdeburg was "hypervaccinated," according to a report by the Lancet, which studies infectious diseases.

The study noted that the man "deliberately and for private reasons received 217 vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 within a period of 29 months."

The public prosecutor in Germany actually opened an investigation into the man with allegations of possible fraud, but no charges were filed. The research group said it then submitted a request through the public prosecutor to study his DNA. It is claimed that the man then "actively and voluntarily consented to provide medical information and donate blood and saliva."

The state confirmed 130 vaccinations, and the man recorded another 108 vaccinations, which is said to have resulted in an overlap in data and a higher total.

The study also claimed that throughout the entire "hypervaccination schedule," the man did not report any vaccine side effects and didn't catch COVID. The study added that he repeatedly tested negative on antigen, PCR, and nucleocapsid tests.

As reported by Fox News, the man had his first Johnson & Johnson vaccine shot in June 2021. He then began receiving AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines before ramping up his injections in January 2022 when he received vaccine shots 13 out of 14 days and often received doses in each arm. He also got a vaccine every day for the first 12 days of February 2022.

A German man who got the COVID vaccine 217 times has thus far had 'no noticeable side effects,' and his immune health is very good.\n\nDetails:\n\n- 134 of the 217 Vaccines can be verified by third parties.\n\n- The vaccines were administered over a 29 month period.\n\n- The man is 62\u2026
— (@)

It doesn't appear that social media users in general are too excited about the man's claims, but a straggling group of supporters gave comments such as "Biden needs to invite this guy to be his guest for the State of the Union Address."

@nytimes Biden needs to invite this guy to be his guest for the State of the Union Address. It would make MTG\u2019s head explode\u2026she\u2019d go off like a howler monkey. Again.
— (@)

"He destroyed the arguments of vaccine deniers," another X user wrote.

Declaring "no conflicts of interest," the study stated that the man increased the quantity of "spike-specific antibodies and T cells without having a strong positive or negative effect on the intrinsic quality of adaptive immune responses."

"While we found no signs of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in HIM to date, it cannot be clarified whether this is causally related to the hypervaccination regimen. Importantly, we do not endorse hypervaccination as a strategy to enhance adaptive immunity," the study concluded.

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

Ron DeSantis ERUPTS into laughter when Bill Maher says THIS about Florida



Bill Maher recently invited Ron DeSantis to his show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” and per usual, the anti-woke, liberal host had a long list of gotcha questions prepared.

Unsurprisingly, one subject they broached was Florida’s approach to COVID-19. Dave Rubin plays a clip of the two actually agreeing about what transpired in Florida during the pandemic.

“I think woke ideology has corrupted institutions, ... things like the CDC, with how they handled COVID,” DeSantis said.

“We’re on the same page,” Maher responded, “and I think it's unfair what they did to you because you did handle it better.”

“You were like, ‘Let’s target the people, protect the people who are most vulnerable, and everybody else can go on with their lives,’” Maher acknowledged. “You opened schools sooner, ... and they won't give you credit for that.”

“It’s not about credit for me,” DeSantis responded. “It’s about them admitting that they were wrong” because “if this happened again, they would repeat the same playbook all over again, and if we don't have accountability, that's what's going to happen.”

Maher also pointed out the absurdity of the New York Times’ “despicable hit piece” about how “Ron DeSantis f***** up the pandemic.”

At this, DeSantis breaks into a big grin.

“And then, like, at the very end, it says Florida's death rate overall was better than the national average,” continued Maher as DeSantis erupted into laughter.

“If you're gonna do an article about Florida and the pandemic, shouldn’t that be lead?” Maher asked.

“What we did is we understood you can't stop society because of one respiratory virus,” DeSantis responded.

“Here you have lefty, liberal Bill Maher who will, sadly, I think, never vote for a Republican, will never vote for DeSantis, but he at least has the balls to tell the truth,” says Dave.


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

'Is it safe to go outside?': New York Times scorched for 'fear-mongering' article about summer weather 'perils' that recommends face masks



The New York Times is being torched for publishing an article asking if it "safe to go outside" during "this cruel summer." Reactions online roasted the liberal news outlet for pushing "fear-mongering" content.

In its "Health" section, the New Times published an article titled: "Is It Safe to Go Outside? How to Navigate This Cruel Summer."

The article's sub-headline reads: "Heat, flooding and wildfire smoke have made for treacherous conditions. Use this guide to determine when it’s safe to head out and when you should stay home."

The article is written by Alisha Haridasani Gupta – a reporter "focused on women’s health, health inequities and trends in functional medicine and wellness."

The article sounds the alarm about this year's "summer of weather extremes in the United States, in which going outside can be riddled with perils." The NYT cites flooding in the Northeast, heatwaves across the country, and smoke from wildfires in Canada.

The NYT writer advises people to watch for flood warnings and check air quality levels before going outside.

The Times urges people, "If you must be outdoors, consider wearing an N95 mask to help reduce your exposure to toxins, Dr. Balbus said."

The New York Times tells readers, "A heat index of 103 degrees Fahrenheit and above is dangerous; you’re likely to experience heat cramps and heat exhaustion, and heat stroke is possible if you’re outside for a prolonged period or doing something strenuous, according to the National Weather Service."

The Times warns that "extreme heat leads to hundreds of fatalities a year in the U.S."

Despite warnings about heat-related deaths, studies show that more fatalities are caused by cold weather.

A 2021 study published in The Lancet Planetary Health found that for every death linked to heat, nine are connected to cold.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics Compressed Mortality Database stated: "During 2006-2010, about 2,000 U.S. residents died each year from weather-related causes of death. About 31% of these deaths were attributed to exposure to excessive natural heat, heat stroke, sun stroke, or all; 63% were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold, hypothermia, or both; and the remaining 6% were attributed to floods, storms, or lightning."

According to The Lancet, there were 1.7 million deaths worldwide deaths from extreme temperatures in 2019 – 356,000 were related to heat and the rest were caused by cold.

A 2020 study by researchers at the University of Illinois Chicago found that 94% of temperature-related deaths were because of cold weather.

The official Twitter account for New York Times Health posted the article on social media with the caption: "So you want to go outside — despite the heat, heavy rainfall and poor air quality affecting millions this summer. Here’s how to determine whether it’s safe to leave the house."

— (@)

Reactions to the guidance on Twitter scorched the New York Times over the article instilling fear in the heads of readers and recommending face masks.

BlazeTV host Lauren Chen: "Journalists have now reached levels of neuroticism previously thought to be impossible."

Professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University Jay Bhattacharya: "Anyone taking health advice or learning epidemiology from the @nytimes will be doomed to isolation and ignorance."

Mathematician and cultural critic James Lindsay: "It's definitely safe to go outside."

DeSantis campaign researcher Kyle Lamb: "They're already back to trying to normalize lockdowns and masking for things like weather and air quality. They're desperate for control."

Public health expert Pradheep J. Shanker: "I'm not sure there is a bigger conveyor of scientific misinformation in the country right now than @NYTScience."

Writer Tom Goodwin: "The news reads very much like covid times these days. Monetizing existential dread and fear as a business model."

Lawyer Julie Hamill: "YES - it is safe to go outside. Stop fear mongering. You are enabling agoraphobia and extremely unhealthy life decisions."

College professor Wilfred Reilly: "The elite is very consciously domesticating the citizenry."

Political consultant Noah Pollak: "Liberal neurotics are desperate to find another excuse to lock themselves in their apartments."

Attorney Laura Powell: "Why has there been a concerted effort by the government and its propaganda arms to scare people into remaining in their homes? What purpose does this serve? It certainly doesn’t promote public health, as they pretend."

Writer Jennifer Sey: "Free floating fear and anxiety in search of a reason. And wanting everyone else to be as anxious as you are so it’s normal."

School social worker Justin Spiro: "The inevitable next step after years of COVID fear-mongering. The New York Times incredulously implies that leaving the house is dangerous due to the horror of... summer weather! Could you imagine such a headline in 2019?"

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

Sen. Graham joins critics calling for Pulitzer Prize given to Washington Post and New York Times to be rescinded after Durham report proved their narrative to be 'politically motivated crap'



The Pulitzer Prize board honored New York Times and Washington Post reporters with a cash prize and its once-esteemed award in 2018 for peddling the thoroughly debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative, which proved politically expedient for the liberal reporters' ideological comrades in Washington at the time.

In light of the damning Durham report, critics now reckon the awards to be albatrosses around the necks of those who dutifully worked to mislead the nation — put there by an organization apparently indifferent to the storm gathered as a consequence.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has joined those now urging that the Pulitzer Prize awarded to the staff at both papers be "taken back."

Graham told Fox News' "America's Newsroom" Tuesday that "we have a situation where the FBI ran every stop sign available, kept pushing a warrant against an American citizen based on a Steele dossier that was a piece of fiction. The information was supplied the FBI by two Russian agents. It was used to get a warrant against an American citizen to turn his life upside down and create a cloud of the Trump presidency and try to deny him the presidency."

With the full understanding provided in the Durham report that the investigation was from the get-go a stitch-up predicated upon a false claim, originally approved and advanced by failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Graham stressed that three things should happen:

First, Attorney General Merrick Garland "should pick up the phone and call all those that were harmed by this and say, 'Even though it didn't happen on my watch, I'll apologize to you. This is not the Department of Justice that I want you to believe in,'" said Graham.

Second, FBI Director Christopher Wray should "get on the phone and apologize to the people that had their lives ruined by the FBI."

Third, "the Pulitzer Prize given to the Washington Post and New York Times should be taken back because the entire episode was politically motivated crap. That's not something you should get a Pulitzer Prize for," added Graham.

Graham doubled down on this third suggestion Wednesday, tweeting, "Awarding the Washington Post and New York Times Pulitzer Prizes for reporting political fiction as fact regarding President Trump shows that these prizes are awarded not based on the product of your work, but the subject you go after. They should rescind the prize."

The awards in question went to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post for what the Pulitzer Prize Board characterized as "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration."

The Daily Mail reported that the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post remains unrepentant.

"The Post stands by its reporting," said Jennifer Lee, a spokeswoman for the paper, citing a 2022 review by the Pulitzer board that claimed no aspect of the awarded stories "were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes."

This statement appears to indicate that false reports may be deserving of awards, just so long as the truth comes out after the receipt of the prize.

While the Washington Post evidently stands by past false narratives, the New York Times appears keen to downplay newly revealed truths.

In its Monday story on the Durham report, the Times claimed, "Mr. Durham’s 306-page report revealed little substantial new information about the inquiry," suggesting that Durham's hunt "for evidence to support Mr. Barr’s theory that intelligence abuses lurked in the origins of the Russia inquiry" had proven fruitless.

It added, "The special counsel’s final report nevertheless did not produce blockbuster revelations of politically motivated misconduct, as Donald J. Trump and his allies had suggested it would."

TheBlaze reported in 2019 that then-President Trump said the Pulitzer committee should revoke a joint Pulitzer Prize from both newspapers "for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia."

\u201cSo funny that The New York Times & The Washington Post got a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia - And there was No Collusion! So, they were either duped or corrupt? In any event, their prizes should be taken away by the Committee!\u201d
— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump) 1553901917

In response to Trump's suggestion, the New York Times wrote in a March 29, 2019, tweet, "We're proud of our Pulitzer-prize winning reporting on Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Every @nytimes article cited has proven accurate."

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took to Twitter Monday to comment on the Durham report, writing, "Disgraceful. Obama-Biden officials and the corrupt corporate media pushed these piles of lies for years. Accountability now— starting with WaPo and The New York Times returning their Pulitzer Prizes for breathlessly spreading these ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ lies."

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) posed the question, "Ready to give your Pulitzer back now?"

\u201cReady to give your Pulitzer back now?\u201d
— Congressman Byron Donalds (@Congressman Byron Donalds) 1684186374

Sean Spicer, who served as press secretary and White House communications director under President Donald Trump, quipped, "How will the Washington Post send back its Pulitzer? USP, FedEx, UPS."

Former Georgia state Rep. Vernon Jones (R) wrote, "For three years the liberal media portrayed the now-infamous Steele dossier — the original basis for the Trump- Russian collusion claims — as true, and the New York Times and Washington Post received Pulitzer Prizes for a story that not only has been debunked but shown to be the product of Hillary’s Clinton’s presidential campaign."

The Georgia Republican suggested that it's time for the papers to issue apologies.

Graham Reacts to the Durham Report youtu.be

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

Musk calls New York Times propaganda; outlet loses Twitter verified status after refusing to pay for it



Elon Musk called the New York Times "propaganda" and its Twitter feed "diarrhea" amid the outlet refusing to pay for and subsequently losing its verified status on the platform, Reuters and other outlets reported Sunday.

"The real tragedy of @NYTimes is that their propaganda isn’t even interesting," Twitter CEO Elon Musk tweeted Sunday.

Musk doubled down in a second tweet, calling the outlet's feed "unreadable" and "the Twitter equivalent of diarrhea."

\u201cAlso, their feed is the Twitter equivalent of diarrhea. It\u2019s unreadable.\n\nThey would have far more real followers if they only posted their top articles. \n\nSame applies to all publications.\u201d
— Elon Musk (@Elon Musk) 1680412564
The New York Times announced Friday that it would not pay for the verified badge for its institutional account. The outlet also said it will not reimburse reporters for Twitter Blue personal accounts, "except in rare instances where this status would be essential for reporting purposes," an NYT spokesperson told Reuters.

Twitter announced March 23 that the company would start "winding down" its legacy verified program and removing the associated check mark badges April 1.

\u201cOn April 1st, we will begin winding down our legacy verified program and removing legacy verified checkmarks. To keep your blue checkmark on Twitter, individuals can sign up for Twitter Blue here: https://t.co/gzpCcwOpLp \n\nOrganizations can sign up for https://t.co/RlN5BbuGA3\u2026\u201d
— Twitter Verified (@Twitter Verified) 1679610049
As promised, the legacy golden check mark was unceremoniously removed from the Twitter account of the "Gray Lady." On Sunday morning, the account's badge was no longer visible to its nearly 55 million viewers.

Organizations that are not currently verified will have to pony up $1,000 monthly for the golden check mark, plus $50 per month for each additional affiliate. Individual subscriptions to Twitter Blue start at $7 monthly for the badge.

The New York Times is not alone in its decision to forego fees now associated with Twitter's verification badges. The Washington Post and CNN announced they would not pay for staffers' blue check status, Politico reported Saturday.

The White House has also said it will not pay for staff's official Twitter profiles' continued verification, according to Axios.

"It is our understanding that Twitter Blue does not provide person-level verification as a service. Thus, a blue check mark will now simply serve as a verification that the account is a paid user," White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty told staffers in an email sent Friday afternoon, the outlet reported.

In his response targeting the NYT, Musk also offered some advice to other outlets.

In addition, he seemed to suggest not all the NYT's followers were legitimate. It is unclear whether Musk was suggesting some of the outlets' followers were bots, were purchased, or not "real" in some other fashion.

"They would have far more real followers if they only posted their top articles," Musk said.

"The same applies to all publications," he added.

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

New York Times torched by trans activists for 'editorial bias' in coverage of transgender, non-binary people



New York Times contributors wrote a letter to the newspaper's associate managing editor for standards on Wednesday, expressing "serious concerns" about the Times' "editorial bias" in its coverage of "transgender, non⁠-⁠binary, and gender nonconforming people," the New York Post reported.

Contributors accused the Times of treating "gender diversity with an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language, while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources."

The letter, addressed to Philip B. Corbett, the Times' associate managing editor for standards, was signed by nearly 200 contributors and supported by another 20,000 media workers, subscribers, and readers. Some of those prominent contributors and supporters included Lena Dunham, Cynthia Nixon, Gabrielle Union, Judd Apatow, and Jameela Jamil.

The letter argued that, by the Times' own standards, reports are supposed to "preserve a professional detachment, free of any whiff of bias" and remain "sensitive that personal relationships with news sources can erode into favoritism, in fact or appearance."

Contributors noted that many reporters at the Times have covered transgender-related issues "fairly." However, they roasted the newspaper for publishing "over 15,000 words of front⁠-⁠page Times coverage debating the propriety of medical care for trans children published in the last eight months alone."

In particular, contributors took issue with an article by Emily Bazelon titled "The Battle Over Gender Therapy," which they lambasted for using the term "patient zero" to refer to a transgender child. They argued that the phrase "vilifies transness as a disease to be feared." Contributors also took issue with the sources Bazelon used in the article.

The letter cited the Times article, "When Students Change Gender Identity and Parents Don't Know," by Katie Baker as another example of allegedly biased reporting. They accused the piece of "misfram[ing] the battle over children's right to safely transition" and claimed that Baker failed to clarify that "court cases brought by parents who want schools to out their trans children are part of a legal strategy pursued by anti-trans hate groups."

"These groups have identified trans people as an 'existential threat to society' and seek to replace the American public education system with Christian homeschooling, key context Baker did not provide to Times readers," the letter stated.

Contributors accused the Times of "follow[ing] the lead of far-right hate groups in presenting gender diversity as a new controversy warranting new, punitive legislation."

In a separate effort, another 130 LGBT+ organizations signed a letter to the Times, similarly accusing the outlet of "irresponsible, biased coverage of transgender people."

The letter was hand-delivered yesterday to the Times' office in Manhattan by members of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

The organizations criticized the Times' coverage and made a list of demands, including "stop printing biased anti-trans stories;" "hold a meeting with transgender community members and leaders, and listen throughout that meeting;" and "genuinely invest in hiring trans writers and editors, full time on your staff."

Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander defended the newspaper's reporting.

"Our journalism strives to explore, interrogate and reflect the experiences, ideas and debates in society – to help readers understand them. Our reporting did exactly that and we're proud of it," Stadtlander told NPR.

\u201cWe\u2019ve had enough. We\u2019ve joined over 100 organizations and leaders to demand that @nytimes stop printing inaccurate and harmful misinformation about transgender people and issues. Today we are outside of the Times building to send a clear message. https://t.co/IkQocpsG5q\u201d
— GLAAD (@GLAAD) 1676468875

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