So here's something typical — the New York Times prints some fake news, and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow picks up on it and displays the misleading headline while lying about the story. Could "journalist" Maddow, brought back on five nights a week to cover President Donald Trump's first 100 days (we hope that's all), have looked into the story past the headline and done some actual reporting? Why would Trump want to take away Narcan? Maddow doesn't say. He's just that horrible, we guess.

The post continues:

… few people actually read. They see "no more Narcan."

The Trump admin has actually said that they want to increase funding for Narcan, as he did his first term. But they also want to replace the Substance Abuse Services Admin with the Admin for a Healthy America. A reorganization.

Rachel Maddow tells her millions of viewers that Trump is taking away Narcan. She has Jamie Raskin on later in the show to "confirm." People become outraged. Same cycle, over and over again, for virtually every issue.

People who get all their news from Maddow shouldn't be allowed to vote. Remember that a judge dropped a defamation lawsuit against Maddow, ruling that her show is purely subjective opinion and not news.

A program of block grants "does not appear to have been cut," but "… addiction specialists are worried about the symbolic … implications."

Again, the New York Times and Maddow want you to believe that Trump is taking away Narcan. Any reason why he'd do that?

She gets paid $25 million a year for this.

As we said above, a judge ruled that her show is simply "opinion" and should not be construed as news.

That's about 21 percent of Americans.

She should be shamed into reading a correction on air like "The View's" Sunny Hostin to avoid legal trouble.