One picture worth a thousand words is a graph on the U.S. Department of Defense website showing U.S. annual Defense spending as a percentage of GDP‚ going back to 1953. Two things jump out. First‚ the lowest over the 70-year period was in 1999‚ at the end of the Clinton administration‚ when it stood at 2.7%. This is a little more than half the previous low‚ which stood at 4.5% 20 years earlier‚ in 1979. A little over year after this historic low point in defense spending‚ our nation experienced the worst attack on its homeland in its history on Sept. 11‚ 2001. The second thing I notice is that the forecast for 2024 shows that Defense spending as a percentage of GDP will be 2.7%‚ matching the 1999 low point. However‚ the 2.7% in 2024 implies a far lower national priority for Defense spending than the 2.7% in 1999‚ because in 1999‚ overall federal spending as a percent of GDP stood at 17.7% compared to 23.4% in 2024‚ according to the CBO forecast. So as a percent of the federal budget‚ in 1999 Defense spending stood at 15.3% compared to 11.5% in 2024. The 2024 Index of Military Strength published by the Heritage Foundation rates the state of military power by branches of service from “very weak” to “very strong.” The results: Army‚ “marginal”; Navy‚ “weak”; Air Force‚ “very weak”; Marine Corps‚ “strong.” The report summarizes saying “In the aggregate‚ the United States’ military posture must be rated as ‘weak.’ ... As currently postured‚ the U.S. military is at significant risk of not being able to defend America’s vital national interests with assurance.” We look to the Middle East now and see increased aggression from proxies of Iran. Three U.S. Army reserve soldiers were killed in Jordan by a drone attributed to an Iran-backed militia in Iraq. As the daughter of an Air Force retiree‚ I find this particularly emotionally painful. Ships are being attacked in the Gulf of Aden area by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. And there was the horrible‚ savage attack on Israeli civilians on Oct. 7 by Iran-supported Hamas. A backdrop to all of this is the conflict raging in Ukraine‚ the result of aggression by Russia. The headline is that we have enemies‚ and these enemies are energized when they perceive the United States as weak and confused. There is a lot of rhetoric now about so-called “globalization” and “endless wars.” Some call for a retreat inward by our nation and want to label international engagement as not “conservative.” But it is just the opposite. A conservative worldview recognizes there is truth and that for every right we claim there is a corresponding responsibility. The universal rights the founders of our nation claimed in our Declaration of Independence have corresponding universal responsibilities. We must remember the quote attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville‚ “America is great because America is good. If America ever stops being good‚ it will stop being great.” This does not mean that our nation should take on the impossible task of being the world’s policeman. But as we saw‚ and too soon have forgotten‚ on the horrible day on Sept. 11‚ 2001‚ there are evil people in this world hostile to us who celebrate death to advance their own power. Israelis saw it in the vicious Hamas attack last Oct. 7. When those who love to kill to advance their own power see Americans retreat‚ when they see demonstrations at America’s leading universities celebrating terrorism‚ who condemn those in our country and abroad who live free and responsible lives‚ so we encourage and empower evil. As good retreats‚ evil advances. It is a natural truth. Let’s not forget what is written at the memorial to the Korean War in Washington‚ D.C. “Freedom is not free.”

In its latest attempt to push President Joe Biden over the finish line in 2024‚ Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos attempted to pressure former Republican presidential candidate and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie into supporting Biden’s reelection. Christie was invited on the show to discuss his new book about Ronald Reagan‚ but towards the end was strategically asked about his current advocacy against Donald Trump as a 2024 candidate. Stephanopoulos first asked Christie who he would be voting for instead of Trump‚ to which Christie responded that even though there wouldn’t be anyone else on the ballot‚ he still wouldn’t vote for Trump “under any circumstances.”     The GMA host then tried to corner Christie by arguing that any vote not for Biden was automatically in favor of Trump. While Christie tried to respond that the technicalities did not matter‚ Stephanopoulos interrupted saying he thought that it was “pretty clear” that anyone not voting for Biden was supporting Trump. Though Christie did not concede to the host’s point‚ and instead brought up alternatives such as the No Labels organization‚ Stephanopoulos again interjected that a third-party group like No Labels would “drain more from Joe Biden than Donald Trump.” These arguments dealt in slight interruptions‚ attempted to corner Christie into agreeing that in order to be against Trump‚ as he claimed he was‚ Christie only had one real choice: to vote for Biden. Christie responded with a quip that since he lived in New Jersey‚ his vote “is not gonna matter a lick.” In addition to waiving off the third party as indirectly pro-Trump‚ Stephanopoulos also seemed to nervously query‚ asking in so many ways if Christie had put his name on the ballot‚ if he had been nominated by No Labels‚ or if he had “closed the door” to reinserting himself into the election. Christie pushed the suggestion away from himself but ultimately supported any third-party option that could get 270 electoral votes. “You know‚ this is‚ if there’s ever a time‚ in our lifetime‚ when a third party candidate could make a difference‚ I think it's now‚” Christie argued. Instead of discussing the third-party option further‚ Stephanopoulos turned the discussion towards how Christie might “prevent Donald Trump from becoming president in 2024.” To which Christie responded that since Joe Biden was “the only major Democrat who Donald Trump could beat‚” he should be replaced on the ballot. While the host argued that Trump was the only Republican candidate Biden could beat‚ Christie countered that Biden’s “sell-by-date” was past expiration. After the discussion ended‚ Stephanopoulos repeated to his co-hosts that “it's almost certain that [a third party is] going to take more votes from Biden than from Trump‚” once again insinuating to Americans that its only sane option would be to vote for Biden. Good Morning America 2/6/2024 8:15:21 a.m. EST   GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So‚ who do you vote for in the New Jersey primary in June? CHRIS CHRISTIE: My guess is that there won't be anybody else on the ballot to vote for. Other than Donald Trump— STEPHANOPOULOS: So‚ you’ll write-in Chris Christie. CHRISTIE: No‚ I would never write myself in. But‚ yeah‚ I probably would just skip that part. I mean‚ look‚ the one thing I can tell you for sure is I don't know what I'm gonna do in November‚ but I'm not voting for Donald Trump‚ under any circumstances. STEPHANOPOULOS: But isn't any vote that's not for Joe Biden‚ assuming it's two of them‚ and a handful of third-party candidates‚ isn't any vote that's not for Joe Biden a vote for Donald Trump? CHRISTIE: Well‚ we can get into all the technicalities and you—             STEPHANOPOULOS: No‚ no‚ I think it’s pretty clear that it’s— CHRISTIE: You know this as well as I do. In my state‚ in my state‚ my vote is not gonna matter a lick‚ okay. I don't know who the full field’s gonna be yet. And‚ and‚ there might be a No Labels candidate who I might say... STEPHANOPOULOS: But No Labels is just going to drain more from Joe Biden than Donald Trump‚ isn't it? CHRISTIE: I think it depends who they nominate. It depends who they nominate. If they nominate a strong Republican‚ um‚ it might not be the case. STEPHANOPOULOS: Have they asked you? CHRISTIE: They have not asked me‚ no. STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they did? CHRISTIE: Oh‚ I don't know. There’d be a long conversation between me and Mary Pat‚ I can guarantee you that. STEPHANOPOULOS: But you haven't closed the door to it? CHRISTIE: Well what I’ve said in the past is that I'd have to see a path for anybody‚ not just me‚ but I think anybody who would accept that would need to see a path to 270. 270 electoral votes. You know‚ this is‚ if there’s ever a time‚ in our life time‚ when a third party candidate could make a difference‚ I think it's now. The question though is‚ what kind of difference? STEPHANOPOULOS: Play out this as a strategist. If you're running the campaign now to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president in 2024‚ what do you do? CHRISTIE: Replace Joe Biden. I just think Joe Biden is probably the only major Democrat who Donald Trump could beat. And I think that if President-- STEPHANOPOULOS: And Donald Trump may be the only Republican that Joe Biden can beat. CHRISTIE: Exactly right. And‚ you know‚ I’ve known Joe Biden for 40 years. I like President Biden personally. Always have. But‚ you know‚ past the sell-by-date‚ it’s just time. STEPHANOPOULOS: His argument is he did it once‚ he'll do it again‚ and the economy is improving on my watch. CHRISTIE: He's a different guy though‚ George. Like‚ Joe Biden could sell it better in 2020 than he's able to in 2024. And that is just a product of age. And this is not me making some clinical diagnosis. I'm making a political diagnosis‚ that the guy isn't as good as he was four years ago. STEPHANOPOULOS: Bottom line‚ do you think you'll succeed in your mission to make sure Donald Trump is not president again? CHRISTIE: I don't know‚ George‚ but it won't be for lack of trying. I can guarantee you that. [Cuts back to live] STEPHANOPOULOS: So‚ lot of news right there. As you saw‚ he didn't close the door on possibly getting to a third party. But you also saw me press him because if you look at numbers‚ it's almost impossible for a third party to actually get into the White House. And it's almost certain that they're going to take more votes from Biden than from Trump. ROBIN ROBERTS: It will make a difference; but we just don't know – STEPHANOPOULOS: What the difference will be. ROBERTS: What the difference will be. STEPHANOPOULOS: Exactly.

Newly released documents indicate the same Biden White House that routinely bemoans perceived threats to freedom and democracy hasn't just pressured social media companies to censor speech and hide conservative news — it has also gone after literature that contains disfavored views. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) revealed Monday that documents subpoenaed by congressional investigators indicate Amazon "bowed down to Biden White House pressure to censor BOOKS." An internal Amazon email sent on March 9‚ 2021‚ regarding a meeting with the White House includes the question of whether the Biden administration was asking the company "to remove books‚ or are they more concerned about search results/order (or both)?" Jordan indicated this question was a priority at Amazon because "Andy Slavitt — the senior Biden White House official who demanded that Facebook censor a meme and true information — was pressuring Amazon at the same time." Slavitt is the senior Biden adviser who helped steer COVID-19 policy‚ told Americans they "could have all done a little bit better" during the pandemic‚ and pressured Facebook to censor Tucker Carlson videos and memes about vaccine side effects. Jordan indicated that Slavitt and other people in the Biden White House "ran keyword searches for controversial topics‚ such as 'vaccine‚' and emailed Amazon when [they] didn't like how the search results appeared." In an email sent on March 2‚ 2021‚ Slavitt pressed Amazon on who the White House could "talk to about the high levels of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation of [sic] Amazon?" — (@) Slavitt wrote in another email‚ "If you search for 'vaccines' under books‚ I see what comes up. I haven't looked beyond that but if that's what's on the surface‚ it's concerning." Zach Butterworth‚ Biden's former public sector liaison‚ similarly hectored Amazon employees about books on the site‚ expressing concern in one instance that there was no Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warning label on the sales page. Amazon initially refused to manually censor books for fear of drawing too much heat from the public. The company's exchange administrative group noted in a March 2‚ 2021‚ email‚ "We will not be doing a manual intervention today. The team/PR feels very strongly that it is too visible‚ and will further compound the Harry/Sally narrative (which is getting the Fox News treatment today apparently)‚ and won't fix the problem long-term problem [sic] because of customer behavior associations." "If we completely remove customer behavior associations it will break the search‚" continued the email. Rather than censor outright‚ the company decided — at least at first — to "widen the search light flag for COVID-19 CDC website re-direct so that it comes to the top of the page on more search keys." Despite these efforts‚ the Amazon group conceded that "it won't be satisfactory. The WH will probably ask why we don't take the content like FB/Twitter do if we aren't taking it down. That is an option being explored by [sic] that we don't want to disclose to avoid boxing in." On account of the Biden White House's pressure campaign to censor wrongthink‚ Amazon generated canned excuses‚ including: "Our guidelines address content that is illegal or infringing‚ generates a poor customer experience‚ or that we otherwise prohibit‚ such as pornography. Our guidelines do not specifically address content about vaccines"; "We believe that retailers are different than social media communities which means we review the content we make available‚ where we make it available in our store‚ and how we address content that customers find disappointing"; and "As a retailer‚ we provide our customers with access to a variety of viewpoints‚ including books that some customers may find objectionable. All booksellers make decisions about what selection they choose to offer and we do not take selection decisions lightly." Amazon's canned responses evidently failed to satisfy the ruling power. One week later‚ Amazon representatives "feeling pressure from the White House" met with members of President Joe Biden's cadre "to take a closer look at books related to vaccine misinformation and debating additional steps Amazon might want to take to reduce the visibility of these titles." It appears the White House got what it wanted: more censorship. "Starting March 9—the same day as its meeting with the White House — Amazon enabled 'Do Not Promote' for books that expressed the view that vaccines were not effective‚" said Chairman Jordan. A March 12‚ 2021‚ internal Amazon email indicated that the company had "CRM review all titles mentioned and have worked with the teams who specialize on Search‚ Reviews‚ and Personalization tools." "One book (out of 9) was found to violate our COVID policy and was removed‚" continued the damning update. "As a reminder‚ we did enable Do Not Promote for anti-vax books whose primary purpose is to persuade readers vaccines are unsafe or ineffective on 3/9‚ and will review additional handling options with these books." Jordan denounced the Biden White House's coercive efforts during a committee hearing Tuesday‚ stating‚ "I've been thinking about it. Government pressuring Amazon to ban books. Twitter‚ Facebook‚ YouTube — all this big combination to impact [an] election and now we find the same thing was happening‚ the same dynamic was happening at Amazon." None — (@) Concerning the new revelations about the state-driven censorship push at Amazon‚ Aaron Kheriaty‚ director of the Bioethics and American Democracy Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center‚ tweeted‚ "More evidence of the reach of the federal censorship leviathan — not just social media but also books on Amazon." The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education noted‚ "If accurate‚ these new documents are yet another disturbing example of government pressure on private actors to suppress disfavored views." Allum Bokhari‚ a journalist who has exposed various censorship efforts in the digital space‚ wrote‚ "The people who call their critics 'fascists' and enjoy cringe catchphrases like 'democracy dies in darkness' spent early 2021 using government pressure to ban books." Jay Bhattacharya‚ professor at Stanford School of Medicine and co-author of the "Great Barrington Declaration‚" wrote‚ "At this point‚ if the Supreme Court doesn't stop this Biden administration censorship nonsense (perhaps in the Missouri v. Biden case)‚ the United States may as well apologize for its revolution‚ close up shop‚ and give itself back to the British Crown." In August 2022‚ Bhattacharya joined Dr. Martin Kulldorff‚ Reopen Louisiana activist Jill Hines‚ and the states of Missouri and Louisiana in their legal effort to hold the Biden administration responsible for running roughshod over the First Amendment rights of critics and questioners of government COVID-19 policies. U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty wrote in a July 4 ruling in their case that "if the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true‚ the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history." Doughty issued a preliminary injunction against the Biden administration‚ barring its agencies and top officials from leaning on social media companies to remove‚ delete‚ suppress‚ or reduce "content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms." However‚ a three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit reversed the injunction for all officials save for the CDC‚ the White House‚ the surgeon general‚ and FBI. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently stayed the Fifth Circuit's order and is set to hear the case in the 2023-2024 term. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Several illegal migrants accused of brutally assaulting two New York Police Department officers and then skipping town were recently arrested in Arizona‚ Fox News confirmed Monday evening.The suspects were detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security Investigations at a Greyhound bus station in Phoenix‚ Arizona. While the identities of the suspects have not been released‚ the individuals are believed to have participated in a vicious mob assault against two NYPD officers on January 27. The incident‚ which was captured by a nearby surveillance camera‚ showed a large group of men outside a migrant shelter throwing punches and kicks at the cops‚ Blaze News previously reported.Four of the migrants were previously charged with assault and released without bail. A fifth suspect was apprehended later and charged with attempted assault of a police officer. Police were still looking for several suspects who fled the scene and were on the run‚ believed to be heading for California.Kenneth Genalo‚ the director of ICE’s New York field office‚ torched the city’s “sanctuary” policy‚ claiming it slows down the agency’s ability to detain suspects‚ the New York Post reported.“We want to help. The problem is‚ due to city policies and state law‚ cooperation is no longer afforded between NYPD and ICE‚” Genalo explained. “There’s hundreds of people a week that are being arrested throughout the city and we can’t determine which are the most violent.”According to Genalo‚ the agency only learned about the attack through media reports.“Unfortunately‚ a lot of the way that we have to do our intelligence at ICE is the same way that you find out about cases — it’s through the media. We’re no longer called [by the NYPD]‚” he added.Local laws‚ established by Democratic former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio‚ prevent the NYPD from working with federal agencies regarding immigration enforcement activities.“Once they’re back in the community‚ we have to then go look for them‚” Genalo continued. “Instead of being able to take custody of these individuals in the confines of a jail or in the confines of a precinct‚ we now have to go out into the community and the streets where unfortunately the criminals have the upper hand.”Mayor Eric Adams stated Monday that he is unable to use city resources to assist ICE due to the current law.“It is a question that should be presented to the council how do they want to move forward on this issue‚” Adams said. “This bill was passed by the city council. I know my role and I share with the office what my views are and use my power either to veto or whatever actions are to support bills‚ but this is a city council bill that was passed.” Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Entrepreneur and podcaster Patrick Bet-David questioned comedian Bill Maher on his stances on California Governor Gavin Newsom‚ as well as climate change‚ and pushed for concrete answers. Bet-David was talking to Maher on his "Club Random" podcast when he asked the host if he likes Newsom."First of all‚ I love him‚" Maher began. "Do I love everything he does as the governor of California? No‚ I don't; I wouldn't say I'm under-taxed‚" Maher explained.The comedian added that he thought he would be a great presidential candidate because he is a "winner" and running for president would force him to "move to the center."Bet-David then began trying to pin down specific policies or changes of Newsom's that Maher was a fan of."Are you a results-driven guy? ... What areas has Newsom won in? You said he's a winner.""Winner of the election!" Maher replied."But based on what‚ though?" Bet-David quickly responded. "Do you want results? What has he done to California to say he's a winner?"Maher‚ who didn't seem enthusiastic about getting into details‚ responded by saying "Oh‚ God‚ I don't know‚ he made it rain‚ okay‚ dude? It wasn't raining; now it's raining‚ so he's got my vote.""You base your candidate based on being a good debater‚ deflecting‚ not necessarily results ..." Bet-David asserted."This is stupid; you're better than this‚ really I hope — it's a silly argument‚" Maher scoffed. "Do I like it that Newsom is good at the running part? I do because that means he can get elected. Do I also think that if he got elected he would be a good president? I do‚" Maher continued. "Based on what‚ though?" Bet-David insisted.Maher went on to claim that Newsom has been "attacking" the "red tape" regarding projects like high-speed rail or homeless encampments. However‚ he was unable to specifically point to any results or examples of the governor being a "winner."Maher's stance on climate change was similarly vague. The comedian explained that climate science‚ as it pertains to humans causing a significant shift in climate‚ has reached a "consensus.""I think there was 10‚880 [scientists] ... and there was only two dissenting about the idea that climate change was real‚ and it was happening and it was caused by humans‚" he claimed. Maher then went on to say that climate science is not quite that complicated‚ especially in comparison to vaccine science or disease research."The climate; it's not that complicated. I mean‚ I couldn't do it‚ but climate science‚ it's geology and it's chemistry‚ and it's some physics. It's not a mystery like why do people get Parkinson's disease."Maher also said that despite his explanation that humans are hurting the environment‚ he conceded that he would not stop flying on private jets."I can be called a bad environmentalist; I cannot be called a hypocrite. So I'm not going to say I'm the greatest environmentalist. ... I couldn't do these gigs I do‚ and even if I was [taking a jet] somewhere for pleasure ... f**k that! You know what? Yes‚ there's a certain part of me [that] is going to live life."Maher then chalked up climate change to humans acting selfishly."If I thought it was really making a difference to the eight trillion flights or whatever it is every day that are crisscrossing the globe‚ you know‚ make it illegal‚" he said. "We're going to have to think of something because making humans not act selfishly‚ that's what communism tried to do."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The sheriff of Philadelphia County‚ who has battled one controversy after another since taking office in 2020‚ is now facing questions about some phony headlines that recently appeared on her campaign website.On Monday‚ the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Sheriff Rochelle Bilal‚ a Democrat‚ had perhaps as many as 30 headlines posted on her campaign website that were either fabricated out of whole cloth or connected to articles that did not relate to Bilal. The headlines were attributed to several different area news outlets‚ including NBC10‚ CBS3‚ WHYY‚ and the Inquirer.As recently as last week‚ some of the site's headlines‚ supposedly from NBC10‚ referenced Bilal's leadership regarding COVID-19 policies‚ police reform‚ free gun lock programs‚ and victims of domestic violence. NBC10 spokesperson Diana Torralvo confirmed that none of those articles and headlines could be authenticated."We have one video similar to the Sheriff’s Office’s headline about the Sheriff’s Office handing out free gun locks‚" Torralvo told the Inquirer via email. "However‚ that story was done in 2016‚ before Rochelle Bilal was in office."Bilal's website also shared an article entitled "Philly Sheriff’s Office Announces Temporary Halt to Evictions Amid Coronavirus Outbreak" attributed to WHYY and dated March 16‚ 2020. WHYY did publish an article on March 15‚ 2020‚ entitled "Philadelphia halts evictions as coronavirus bears down‚" but the article made no mention of Bilal or the sheriff's office.Even three headlines about Bilal's supposed crime-fighting partnership with far-left DA Larry Krasner could not be substantiated. "After searching our email and web archives‚ we were unable to locate any press releases‚ announcements‚ or news clips that match what those headlines describe‚" Jane Roh‚ a spokesperson for Krasner‚ told the Inquirer.On Friday‚ the Inquirer reached out to Bilal's campaign team about the headlines‚ apparently setting off a series of strange mitigation efforts by the sheriff or members of her campaign staff. First‚ the headlines were removed from the site. A few hours later‚ the headlines had returned but with an oddly worded disclaimer attached to them. The disclaimer read: "While we endeavor to keep the information up-to-date and correct‚ we make no representations or warranties of any kind‚ express or implied‚ about the completeness‚ accuracy‚ reliability‚ suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information provided."By Monday‚ the headlines were removed once again‚ and the link to the page about Bilal's "record" in office was broken. Finally‚ the campaign team fessed up that the supposed headlines had been generated by ChatGPT. "Our campaign provided the outside consultant talking points which were then provided to the AI service‚" a campaign statement said. "It is now clear that the artificial intelligence service generated fake news articles to support the initiatives that were part of the AI prompt."Bilal‚ who was first elected in November 2019‚ was just re-elected in a landslide three months ago. Despite her apparent popularity with voters‚ her tenure as sheriff has been rife with controversy. In 2020‚ the Office of Controller for the city of Philadelphia reported that the sheriff's office had more than 200 firearms unaccounted for. A follow-up audit issued by the acting controller last fall indicated that one shotgun‚ four semi-automatic handguns‚ and 71 revolvers or handguns remained missing‚ Blaze News previously reported.Bilal has also been accused of massaging the budget to double her salary‚ and since April 2021‚ her office has failed to resell properties seized for unpaid taxes‚ possibly costing the city millions in missed revenue.Some have even criticized Bilal for adopting the language of the thugs she is entrusted with locking up. "You don't want this smoke‚" she warned those harboring fugitives last May‚ Blaze News reported. — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A technology nonprofit firm's "fact-checker" and "misinformation tiplines" project received $5.7 million in 2021 from the federal government‚ the Daily Caller News Foundation reported Monday.Government spending data revealed that the National Science Foundation awarded a multimillion-dollar grant to Meedan for a project titled "Fact Champ Fact-Checker‚ Academic‚ and Community Collaboration Tools‚ Combating Hate‚ Abuse‚ and Misinformation with Minority Led Partnerships."Part of Meedan's Co-Insights research project aims to build "misinformation tiplines" as a means of "supporting free speech‚" according to its website."We are working to promote a healthy and inclusive public sphere online in which everyone — including historically marginalized and minoritized groups — can equally participate‚" Meedan's website states."Our overarching goal is to empower people to understand and evaluate the information they see online. We do this by building tools such as 'misinformation tiplines' that people can choose to consult if they want to learn more about a given piece of content‚" it adds.According to Meedan‚ "disinformation" is "too often out-of-sight from mainstream misinformation response efforts.""Co·Insights brings together community organizations‚ academics‚ and fact-checkers to address misleading and harmful narratives. In this way we're fostering interracial solidarities‚ greater understanding‚ and better democracy‚" the nonprofit claimed.Meedan's fact-checking efforts seek to identify and track long-lasting narratives instead of focusing on one claim at a time. "This approach can move the status quo away from content moderation and towards an approach more akin to email spam detection or local antivirus software‚" it explained.Check‚ a Meedan product‚ allows users to "instantly deliver fact-checks" through WhatsApp‚ Messenger‚ Telegram‚ X‚ and other apps. According to the nonprofit‚ Check has become "the global leader in fact-checking and annotation software for collaborative fact-checking projects." "Misinformation is destabilizing elections‚ slowing pandemic recovery‚ entrenching climate change denial‚ and creating civil unrest and violence‚" Meedan stated in a December blog post. "Meedan's team is actively countering this challenge by building open-source software that enables local partners to organize and scale collaborative efforts to discover and address that harmful misinformation‚ particularly in closed messaging spaces during critical public and civic moments."The nonprofit tech firm received a $500‚000 grant from the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation to further develop the Shared Feeds feature for Check. The foundation‚ which has backed left-leaning groups‚ is funded by the New Venture Fund‚ an organization tied to the dark money group Arabella Advisors. Neither Meedan nor the NSF responded to the DCNF's request for comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Iowa Hawkeyes superstar Caitlin Clark is the hottest name in women’s basketball right now and for good reason. She’s the NCAA's all-time leading women's scorer‚ she broke the NCAA record for most points scored in a tournament‚ and she’s considered the first-ever Division 1 player to reach 3‚300+ points‚ 900+ assists‚ and 800+ rebounds in a career. Clark’s extraordinary talent has caused a bit of frenzy in the domain of women’s basketball. Because of her‚ ticket prices have skyrocketed‚ lines of eager fans swarm for her autograph‚ and more people than ever before are flocking to watch women’s basketball in person and on television. Popular news outlets are calling this “the Caitlin Clark effect.” But as always‚ such wild popularity comes with a price. What is an inevitable result of unparalleled success? Haters. And Clark certainly has plenty. One of them is none other than three-time WNBA MVP Sheryl Swoopes‚ who was the first woman to be signed in the WNBA and who set the NCAA record in 1993 for the most points scored in a tournament — until Clark broke it in 2023. Jason Whitlock plays a clip of Swoopes discussing Clark’s success or‚ in her opinion‚ the lack thereof. “If you're going to break a record‚ to me‚ if it's legitimate‚ you have to break that record in the same amount of time that [the former record-holder] set it‚” Swoopes said. “So if Kelsey Plum set that record in four years‚ Caitlin should have broken that record in four years.” “But because there was a COVID year … she’s already had an extra year to break that record‚ so is it truly a broken record? ... I don’t think so‚” Swoopes continued‚ suggesting that Clark is undeserving of her accolades. “But that will go in the record books as Caitlin Clark is the all-time whatever … but you have a 25-year-old playing against a 20-year-old.” Unfortunately‚ Swoopes is dead wrong. Caitlin Clark just turned 22 on January 22‚ 2024. She’s also dead wrong when it comes to the athlete’s shots per game. Swoopes argued that Clark “takes about 40 shots a game‚” when stats prove that she’s taken “19.7 shots per game on average throughout her career.” “That’s a lot of hate [and] a lot of bad information‚” says Whitlock‚ who thinks Clark’s haters are guilty of not only jealousy but also of racism and heterophobia‚ considering Clark is a straight Caucasian. “She's going to face a level of racism from black players‚ and she's going to face a level of hostility from lesbian players because she's not on team LGBTQ. She's a Catholic [and] she's got some boyfriend‚” which means “she's going to walk into an extremely hostile environment‚” he explains. Steve Kim agrees‚ adding that Clark will likely receive the most hate from her future teammates once she enters the WNBA. “When she gets into the WNBA‚ games that have maybe 2‚000-3‚000 will suddenly have 10‚000 people” – many of whom will be wearing “Caitlin Clark paraphernalia” – and after the game‚ people will “race right past all these teammates that have been in the league for seven‚ eight years‚ who may have had more accomplished careers‚ to get [Clark’s] autograph‚” Steve predicts. “The endorsement deals are going to be with Caitlin Clark; all the appearances you have to make for the team in the league [will be for] Caitlin Clark. … The locker-room politics and the derision she is going to face over time is going to be really interesting‚” he continues‚ adding that Clark will likely be painted as "the Great White Hope‚ the savior of the WNBA.” Whitlocks agrees‚ but he also thinks alongside opponents and teammates‚ “the media is going to participate in the diminishment of Caitlin Clark‚” as that’s “the woke thing to do.” To hear the full conversation‚ watch the clip below. Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture‚ faith‚ sports‚ and comedy with Jason Whitlock‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) delivered a much-needed reality check on Monday to those defending the Senate's so-called border bill.One of the most contentious provisions of the bill is the migrant "encounters" threshold for a border "shutdown." Critics of the bill say the border would never close if the bill becomes law while permitting countless more migrants to enter the U.S. The bill's defenders‚ however‚ say that is false.CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins asked Roy about the provision in a contentious interview on Monday‚ immediately trying to correct him when he didn't provide the answer she wanted."If this was in place right now‚ wouldn't the border be shut down‚ at this moment‚ based on this number of encounters that would launch that trigger to shut down the border?" Collins asked. "No. In fact‚ what would happen is it would set sort of a de facto —" Roy began when Collins interjected."It would‚" she claimed."No. It would set sort of a de facto standard — right? — normalizing about 5‚000 [migrants per day]‚" Roy shot back.The major concern‚ Roy explained‚ is the Mexican cartels "are coordinating this all the time." He cited Eagle Pass‚ one of the epicenters of the border crisis. That section of border has cooled in recent days after receiving significant attention in the media. It has cooled‚ he explained‚ because the cartels — which control human smuggling routes — quickly adapt."What happens is the cartels — they look at it and they go‚ 'Oh‚ that ain't working there.' So guess where they're all going now? Arizona and California‚" Roy pointed out. "If you set a standard of about 5‚000‚ the cartels will go 'Ah‚ I get it. 4‚999? You got it‚'" he explained.Collins‚ however‚ refused to accept Roy's explanation of why the migrant threshold is problematic and how the Mexican cartels will exploit it to ensure their human-smuggling business doesn't slow down. The CNN host repeatedly told Roy‚ "It would shut it down.""There would be 4‚999‚" Roy argued.Finally‚ Collins told Roy that the people who wrote the bill disagree with him‚ citing Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.). But that's not the full truth. Sen. Chris Murphy‚ the Democrat who helped co-author the bill‚ admitted the border "never fully closes" if the bill becomes law. Roy Blasts Colleagues in Clash with Kaitlan Collins: ‘They Don’t Know What They’re Talking About’ www.youtube.com Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

High-profile Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado has now been granted a temporary restraining order against her ex-husband after a series of incidents between family members led directly police involvement.On Monday‚ a Garfield County judge granted Boebert's request for a restraining order against ex-husband Jayson Boebert on behalf of herself and the couple's three minor boys. In the document requesting the restraining order‚ Rep. Boebert alleged that Jayson had "made multiple suicidal threats and threats to harm [her] over the past 14 months."The court document referenced three recent events that prompted an investigation from law enforcement. First‚ cops were called to a restaurant in Silt‚ Colorado‚ in early January after the couple got into a heated argument. Jayson told police that night that he was a "victim of domestic violence‚" but a spokesperson for the representative later claimed that Lauren Boebert had merely pushed Jayson away to thwart his "disrespectful" and "aggressive" advances.Jayson Boebert was later arrested in connection with the incident and charged with third-degree assault‚ prohibited use of weapons‚ obstructing a peace officer‚ harassment‚ disorderly conduct‚ and third-degree trespassing."I would never harm Lauren; I just want to move on and be in peace‚" Jayson told the AP.Three days after the incident at the restaurant‚ Jayson allegedly got into a fight with the couple's 18-year-old son‚ Tyler Boebert. During the altercation‚ Jayson Boebert‚ who was reportedly intoxicated‚ allegedly jammed his thumb into Tyler's mouth with such force that it seemed he was "going to pull his tooth out‚" a police report later stated. Tyler then called police. While he was on the phone‚ Jayson allegedly grabbed a rifle and left the property. Jayson was later arrested and charged with harassment‚ prohibited use of a weapon‚ and third-degree assault. Lauren Boebert was not present during the fight‚ the AP reported.Finally‚ the court document submitted by Lauren Boebert claimed that last Friday‚ Jayson broke into the home where Lauren was living in Silt. While in the home‚ he allegedly destroyed or otherwise took some of her belongings. Jayson claimed that he had merely gone there to tidy up the place because "her Granny" was coming. He also claimed that Lauren was using the restraining order to "justify" running for Congress in Colorado's 4th District‚ rather than running for re-election in the 3rd District‚ the district she has been representing for the past three years.The temporary restraining order requires Jayson to remain at least 100 yards from Lauren and the couple's three minor children and make no other efforts to contact them. The restraining order could become permanent at a hearing scheduled for Thursday.Jayson and Lauren Boebert were married in 2005 and have four sons together‚ one of whom is an adult‚ as well as one grandchild. They divorced last year‚ citing "irreconcilable differences."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!