Vaunce News

🔒
❌ About FreshRSS
There are new available articles, click to refresh the page.
Before yesterdayNB Blog Feed

Jon Meacham On Morning Joe: No 'Buts' About It—You MUST Vote For Biden!

You might think of a presidential election as a choice among candidates. Not to historian and occasional Biden speechwriter Jon Meacham. He will brook no dissent. There is no choice. You MUST vote for Joe Biden! On today's Morning Joe, Meacham told to Biden phone buddy and informal adviser Joe Scarborough the election prospects are "thrilling and terrifying. It's thrilling because it's up to all of us.... What's terrifying is that it's up to us, and it's up to the voters in the swing states." Meacham doesn't really trust the people, and that's why he's going to keep telling you the "stakes" are too high, you can't vote Republican: "I think it's going to be impossible for people to vote in the fall and not understand what's at stake." He knows many voters aren't spending this whole year in a fetal position for the survival of democracy, but gosh, voting for Biden is really, really important! "What I would say to anyone who says, 'Yeah but. Yeah, Trump is awful but, whatever," is there is no but. It's got to be, "Yeah, Trump is that, and, I'm going to vote against him." There is no but? It's "got to be" a vote against Trump, i.e., for Biden?  And the liberal media accuses MAGA of disrespecting democracy? Win or lose, Trump is sure to get tens of millions of votes. But Meacham doesn't even try to understand what motivates people who say, "yeah, but" -- not to mention the millions who outright like Trump and everything he is and stands for.  Such is the arrogance and condescension of the liberal media.  Question: When it was disclosed that Meacham was an occasional Biden speechwriter, MSNBC announced that "per network policy," he would no longer be employed as a paid contributor.  So what about Joe Scarborough? As mentioned, it's been disclosed that not only is Scarborough a frequent Biden phone buddy, but also serves as an informal adviser, offering his "take" on issues of the day.  What's the MSNBC "network policy" that permits Scarborough to continue in his multi-million-dollar MSNBC gig? Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/6/24 6:37 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: Jon Meacham, there is simply, we won't even ask. And we stopped asking some time ago for historical parallels. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: There just simply aren't. SCARBOROUGH: There are no historical parallels in this country. But, my gosh, as you said before, what is at stake is so massive this fall. I'm curious your thoughts when you see this testimony, and the Time magazine article. The continued threats of an authoritarian regime coming directly from Donald Trump . . . And so, I'm just curious about your take on where we are right now. JON MEACHAM: I think, my answer is, at once, to me, thrilling and terrifying. It's thrilling because it's up to all of us. It's up to the voters in the seven or eight states. It's up to those of us who have strong feelings about the continuance of the constitution order, to make this case. And that's great, right? That's we the people. What's terrifying is that it's up to us, and it's up to the voters in the swing states. And it's up to those of us who have to make the case to people around the country.  If -- there's no mystery here, right? It's going to be -- I think it's going to be impossible for people to vote in the fall and not understand what's at stake. And if, and maybe that's part of what those of us who, you know, want to make this case have to keep doing, is making sure we say it. And it may seem repetitive to the political-industrial class, but that doesn't matter. I think as Ed would say, you know, there are normal people who are better adjusted than we are and don't worry about this all the time. But it's really, really important. And I don't think, again. What I would say to anyone who says, "Yeah but. Yeah, Trump is awful but, whatever," is there is no but. It's got to be, "Yeah, Trump is that, IIand, I'm going to vote against him.

Bombshell Judiciary Report Reveals Biden’s White House Threatened These Companies to Censor

New details have emerged in a congressional investigation into the Biden administration censorship enterprise that has curtailed free speech on a level unprecedented in American history. A new House Judiciary Committee report uncovered more of the Biden administration’s collusion with Facebook, YouTube and Amazon to silence constitutionally protected speech. The administration in some cases threatened these companies, pushing them to censor content or change their moderation guidelines, specifically with regards to fighting “vaccine hesitancy” during the COVID-19 pandemic.  “By the end of 2021, Facebook, YouTube, and Amazon changed their content moderation policies in ways that were directly responsive to criticism from the Biden Administration,” wrote the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Weaponization Committee in a May 1 press release. “While the Biden White House's pressure campaign largely succeeded, its effects were devastating. By suppressing free speech and intentionally distorting public debate in the modern town square, ideas and policies were no longer fairly tested and debated on their merits.” Here are some highlights of the bombshell report: Facebook In February 2021, Facebook began coordinating with the Biden White House to censor disfavored opinions relating to COVID-19. According to an internal email from Facebook, these topics included the theory that COVID-19 was a man-made virus; that the virus leaked from a lab in China; and other “false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, and vaccines in general.” In an email to Mark Zuckerberg, a Facebook employee revealed that Facebook's censorship of these opinions was prompted by pressure from the Biden administration. “In February 2021, in response to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing the five Covid claims that had been repeatedly debunked by 3PFCs and the eight claims that we had identified … before COVID as widely debunked vaccine misinformation,” the email said, according to the House Judiciary Committee. Zuckerberg concluded that Facebook had made the wrong decision to “compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration.”  However, officials like Rob Flaherty, Digital Director of the White House, and Andy Slavitt, a senior White House coronavirus advisor, were not content with this level of censorship. They even wanted memes and other humorous content about the vaccines to be censored.  On April 18, 2021, Slavitt was particularly incensed by a meme that was featured in Facebook’s data set shared with the White House team and demanded its removal. According to Nick Clegg, head of Meta’s Global Affairs, Slavitt “‘was outraged – not too strong a word to describe his reaction – that [Facebook] did not remove’ a particular post—a Leonardo DiCaprio meme— ‘which was third most highly ranked post in the data set [Facebook] sent to him.’”  On April 14, 2021, Facebook held a meeting with the White House to discuss the effectiveness of Facebook’s censorship.  During the meeting, Flaherty even floated the idea that Facebook could “change the algorithm so that people were more likely to see NYT, WSJ, any authoritative news source over Daily Wire, Tomi Lahren, other polarizing people.”  The administration also specifically targeted American journalists who were skeptical about the safety of the vaccines, such as Tucker Carlson.  Flaherty emailed Facebook demanding why a video of Carlson questioning vaccine safety was still widely visible on the platform and questioned its commitment to “reduction” of harmful content. Flaherty wrote, “This is exactly why I want to know what ‘Reduction’ actually looks like – if ‘reduction’ means ‘pumping our most vaccine hesitant audience with tucker [sic] Carlson saying it doesn’t work’ then . . . I’m not sure it’s reduction!”       According to other emails, the administration not only pressured Facebook to target wrongful opinions but also demanded the censorship of true information on vaccine-related injuries, which caused some consternation on the part of Facebook employees. On July 21, 2021, a Facebook employee sent a memo to Clegg in which they expressed that employees faced pressure from administration officials to ramp up censorship more than they would like.  “There is likely a significant gap between what the WH would like us to remove and what we are comfortable removing,” the memo said. “There are some policy mitigations that could get the two parties closer, but Content Policy does not recommend pursuing them.” Included in this “delta” of content was true, documented information or personal experiences discussing harmful vaccine side effects. The memo read, “The Surgeon General wants us to remove true information about side effects if the user does not provide complete information about whether the side effect is rare and treatable.”  Also included were opinions that concluded that the adverse effects of the vaccines were worse than the benefits as well as “humorous or satirical content that suggests the vaccine isn’t safe.”   Ultimately, the unyielding pressure of the Biden administration resulted in Facebook changing its moderation policies. An internal email sent on Aug. 2, 2021, expressed that Facebook was making the changes because of the Biden administration. The email said, “Leadership asked Misinfo Policy and a couple of teams on Product Policy to brainstorm some additional policy levers we can pull to be more aggressive against Covid and vaccine misinformation. This is stemming from the continued criticism of our approach from the US administration.”    Youtube The Biden administration also actively worked with YouTube to censor similar content with notably less pushback from the video-hosting platform. In fact, Biden officials disturbingly referenced YouTube as a gold standard for censorship. According to Clegg, during the April 18 meeting with Facebook, Slavitt expressed that he had attended a “misinfo” meeting with Flaherty and that “the consensus was that FB [Facebook] is a ‘disinformation factory’, and that YT [YouTube] has made significant advances to remove content leading to vaccine hesitancy whilst we [Facebook] have lagged behind.” On April 21, 2021, YouTube and the White House held another meeting. After the meeting, Flaherty emailed YouTube, requesting more information on “borderline content,” that is, content that didn’t violate YouTube’s policies. Flaherty expressed that the White House wanted “to be sure that you have a handle on vaccine hesitancy generally and are working toward making the problem better.” He also implied that this concern was shared by Biden himself. Flaherty said, “This is a concern that is shared at the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the WH, so we’d like to continue a good-faith dialogue about what’s going on under the hood here.” On July 20, 2021, Flaherty emailed the YouTube public policy team a tweet from a CNN fact checker Daniel Dale that showed his algorithm was presenting him with “anti-vaccine content.” One video was from a Senate hearing featuring Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and the other was a debate on vaccines between attorney (now presidential candidate) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz. Flaherty then appeared to get confrontational with YouTube and implied they were not upholding their end of the bargain. “We had a pretty extensive back and forth about the degree to which you all are recommending anti-vaccination content,” Flaherty said. “You were pretty emphatic that you are not. This seems to indicate that you are. What is going on here?” On Aug. 23, 2021, Flaherty pushed YouTube to act as a propaganda arm for the Biden White House to “push” the FDA’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine.  Flaherty’s email said, “We’d appreciate a push here, given the fact that this is an oft-cited blocker for many people.” In September 2021, YouTube worked with the White House to change its policies to remove content that questioned vaccines.  According to the House Judiciary Committee’s report, YouTube has continued to work with the Biden White House to censor other subjects, including “Russian disinformation,” climate change and even abortion. Amazon The Biden administration also worked with Amazon to demote or remove “anti-vaccine” books on its website. In response to “feeling pressure from the White House,” Amazon started tagging anti-vaccine books with the same labels designated for “extremist” content. As previously reported by MRC, Amazon held a meeting on March 9, 2021, with Biden officials to determine if “‘the Admin is asking us to remove books, or are they more concerned about search results/order (or both)?’”    On the same day, Amazon unveiled a new “‘AntiVax’ [Do Not Promote]” tag to be applied to all vaccine skeptic books. On March 12, 2024, an internal email announced the online retailer was going to hold another meeting to “take a closer look at books related to vaccine misinformation and debat[e] additional steps Amazon might want to take to reduce the visibility of these titles.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

CBS’s Norah O’Donnell Is MAD That Hakeem Jeffries is Insufficiently Critical Of Israel

During an otherwise fawning interview on CBS for 60 Minutes, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) was sharply questioned for his refusal to be overtly critical of Israel over their conduct of the war against Hamas in the aftermath of the medieval and horrific attack of October 7th. Watch this exchange, in which CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell pokes Jeffries time and again, as aired on 60 Minutes on Sunday, May 5th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: But isn't it also true that, while retaliating and going after Hamas terrorists, that Israel has been indiscriminate in its bombing? HAKEEM JEFFRIES: I would not say that they've been indiscriminate. I do think what we'd like to see moving forward is the execution of the new phases of this conflict with surgical precision. O’DONNELL: You could still be a strong supporter of Israel and Americans' defense of Israel and be critical of their approach about how they wage this war in Gaza. JEFFRIES: That's correct. O’DONNELL: But you seem reluctant to criticize Israel at all? JEFFRIES: I'm dealing with the facts on the ground. O’DONNELL: The facts are, according to the U.N.- half of Gaza's 2.2 million people are on the verge of famine. Has Israel done enough to get food and aid into Gaza? JEFFRIES: Israel clearly needs to do more, as they have recently acknowledged through their actions, to surge humanitarian assistance into Gaza. The other thing that I think is important… O’DONNELL: Only after they killed seven aid workers from World Central Kitchen. JEFFRIES: Correct. And that was horrific, including one American. Now, in terms of the loss of innocent Palestinian life in this tough theater of war, that is deeply disturbing, tragic, and should be painful for anyone who has a shred of humanity in their body. In this exchange, O’Donnell sounded more like a Biden White House official trying to get Jeffries to fall in line than like a journalist on 60 Minutes. We often use the term “Regime Media”, but here the media acted as part of the regime. Zero daylight between them both, which put Jeffries on the defensive and exposed him, even, as a leader seemingly out of step with the anti-Israel forces within the highest echelons of his own party. O’Donnell even attempted to use Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s floor speech calling for the removal of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an appeal to authority with which to get Jeffries to criticize Israel. Jeffries refused the bait. The interview was otherwise intended to be a fawn job- a mechanism with which to cast Jeffries in a most favorable light ahead of the 2024 election. Topics ranged from basic biography- fitting for an introductory interview- to immigration and abortion, the defense of which he equates to the defense of Democracy itself.  WATCH: House Dem Leader Hakeem Jeffries equates abortion to DEMOCRACY itself pic.twitter.com/V98w3PRUo5 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 6, 2024 The interview closes with a brutal exchange on the economy, in which Jeffries dismisses voter perceptions of the economy being better under former President Donald Trump, and admits that Democrats have not made that case to the American voter. "Well, that's just not the case", says Hakeem Jeffries when confronted with 2/3 of voters believing the economy was better under Trump. Brutal exchange on the economy to close his interview with Norah O'Donnell on 60 Minutes pic.twitter.com/dIb0eQ1j75 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 6, 2024 Jeffries received infinitesimal to no pushback on these points as he struggled to make them, which tells you everything you need to know about how the Regime Media will cover this election. Buckle up.

Sen. Tom Cotton SCHOOLS ABC’s Jon Karl on Campus Protesters, ‘Little Gazas’

During a wide-ranging interview on ABC’s This Week, Sen, Tom Cotton (R-AR) took a blowtorch to the antisemitic protesters on college campuses, brutally mocked them as establishing “little Gazas”, and schooled host Jon Karl when he tried to twist mockery of the encampments into mockery of Gaza itself. Watch the exchange, as aired on ABC This Week on Sunday, May 5th, 2024: TOM COTTON: They're spray painting buildings with vile, antisemitic hate. (Biden) said, well, we shouldn't have antisemitism or hate speech in the abstract, or Islamophobia. Where are the encampments, Jon, on campuses spreading Islamophobia? Why is Joe Biden so equivocal? Why does he have to draw moral equivalence between thousands of students who are setting up Little Gazas all across America…  JON KARL: Can I…can I ask you… COTTON: …engaging in hate speech- engaging in hate speech against Jews, assaulting Jews, disobeying the law, and some fictional encampment that’s spreading Islamophobia? KARL: Can I ask you, you just three or four times now just used the phrase “little Gazas”. What do you mean by that? COTTON: Well, they call themselves the Gaza Solidarity Encampment. They’re little. They’re little Gazas. KARL: I mean, are you…? It seems like you're mocking the situation in Gaza. This is a place that the World F--- COTTON: A lot of these people do -- these people do deserve to be mocked. KARL: No, no, no. Gaza. I'm talking about, you know, Gaza, you know… COTTON: With… No. On college campuses. KARL: We had the World Food Program has just now said that there is an outright famine in parts of Gaza. Tens of thousands of people have died. You're using this phrase “little Gazas” -- COTTON: Which is 100% the fault of Hamas. Just like every civilian casualty in Gaza is 100% the fault of Hamas. Yet Joe Biden for seven months has leaned on Israel, has pressured Benjamin Netanyahu, has told him to stand down when they get attacked by Iran, has said they can't go into the last holdout where Hamas has its final terrorist battalions. But no. These students on campuses? They deserve our contempt. They also deserve our mockery. I mean, they're out there in their N95 masks in the open air. With their gluten allergies, demanding that Uber Eats get delivered to them. They should not have been allowed to fester on campus for two weeks when these liberal administrators and liberal politicians refuse to send in the police to clear them out the very first day they set up their tents.  As soon as Cotton began mocking the protesters living within their “little Gazas”, one could see Jon Karl’s brow begin to furrow. One imagines a similar strained expression over at The New York Times, as staff got wind of Cotton’s op-ed calling for a military response to the violent protests raging throughout America’s cities. When Karl finally found his angle, the asinine suggestion that Cotton’s mockery of the protester tent cities was a mockery of Gaza itself, it got quickly shot down with even more mockery, forcing Karl to move off the subject and on to speculation over the 2024 Republican presidential ticket. The interview covered such subjects as funding for Ukraine, the campus protests, the 2024 presidential campaign and January 6th. On each of these issues, Karl’s hysterics were quickly and promptly shut down. There was ample opportunity here to have a broad-ranging discussion of multiple issues. Instead and surprising no one, Jon Karl chose to perform Regime Media.

ABC’s Jon Karl Follows Stephanopoulos With HYSTERICAL Editorial To Open ‘This Week’

It appears that there is now an editorial requirement at ABC News in place, mandating that whoever is hosting that Sunday’s This Week must now open the show with a screeching editorial about “the stakes” of the 2024 presidential election. There is no other explanation for Jon Karl’s editorial today, a week after George Stephanopoulos’ screeching hysterics. Watch the opening editorial in its entirety, as aired on ABC This Week on Sunday, May 5th, 2024: ANNOUNCER: From ABC News it’s This Week. Here now, Jonathan Karl. JON KARL: Good morning. Welcome to This Week. For as long as I've covered politics, politicians have said, “this will be the most important election of our lifetimes.” They said that, no matter how high or low the stakes actually were. Election Day 2024 is exactly six months from today and this time, the divisions in our country are so vast and the choice so stark there's little doubt this really is the most important election of our time. No more crying wolf. This. Is it. Karl takes a different tack here. He almost comes across as more subtle, what with his vague references to stark choices. This departs a bit from Stephanopoulos’ lengthy recitation of the various charges against former President Donald Trump. But such a departure is only one of style. On substance, Karl’s editorial is every bit as hysterical as Stephanopoulos’, and equally as arrogant. These editorials are in many ways reflective of the messianic complex displayed by those throughout the media. Inspired by equal parts unreformed partisanship and elite arrogance, they seek to impose their ideology upon the American people, as opposed to simply reporting on the facts and stories as they occur on the ground.  It is not enough to report on the presidential race as an ongoing event- they now seek to lecture the public on “the stakes” of the election and argue the strongest possible case in support of the reelection of Joe Biden. This is what Karl’s breathless proclamation of this being “the most important election of our time” seeks to achieve. Call it whatever you want so long as you don’t call it journalism.  

FLASHBACK: Lefties Frowned As America Cheered bin Laden’s Demise

Thirteen years ago, nearly all Americans were united in celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader behind the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Yet one group stood on the sidelines and scowled: the Sourpuss Left, which fretted the “mindless jubilation” and “jingoistic hubris” of those cheering the elimination of the evil al Qaeda leader, an avowed enemy who had ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent people. “It felt a little crazy, a bit much. Almost vulgar,” one Washington Post columnist huffed about the late night crowds celebrating outside the White House gates on May 1, 2011. “I think that this kind of jumping up and down, chanting ‘USA, USA,’ send a message of almost, sort of, blood lust,” another commentator mourned on PBS that week. There was also the morally-inverted griping that Big Bad America was worse than al Qaeda. “This was not justice,” fumed journalist Allan Nairn on Democracy Now. “This was one killer killing another — a big killer, the United States government, killing another, someone who’s actually a smaller one, bin Laden.” Mainstream liberal journalists avoided such hateful nonsense, instead touting the “heroics” of President Barack Obama, as if he had actually participated in the dangerous military operation. “Professor Obama turned into General Obama and ran this incredible, incredible raid,” gushed Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson. “That took a lot of guts, the kind of thing you do see in a Hollywood movie.” To his credit, however, Obama didn’t listen to his then-Vice President. “Mr. President, my suggestion is: Don’t go. We have to do two more things to see if he’s there,” Joe Biden counseled his boss, as he himself related in a speech to House Democrats the following year. (Video here.) Thirteen years later, Biden’s “don’t go” advice seems as terrible as ever (especially now that he’s handed Afghanistan back to the abhorrent Taliban), while the anti-American Left has moved on to condemning Israel’s necessary fight against similarly implacable and deadly terrorist enemy. Here’s a rundown of the worst quotes from that week, when (nearly) every citizen recognized and celebrated an American victory in the War on Terror: ■ “Some Americans celebrated the killing of Osama bin Laden loudly, with chanting and frat-party revelry in the streets. Others were appalled — not by the killing, but by the celebrations.... ‘The worst kind of jingoistic hubris,’ a University of Virginia student wrote in the college newspaper, The Cavalier Daily. In blogs and online forums, some people asked: Doesn’t taking revenge and glorying in it make us look just like the terrorists?”— New York Times reporter Benedict Carey in a May 6, 2011 news story, “Celebrating a Death: Ugly, Maybe, but Only Human.” ■ “It is just and necessary that this evil man was finally punished for the mass murders he engineered on September 11, 2001. But I am repelled by the scenes of mindless jubilation, from Times Square to the park in front of the White House, that erupted after President Obama delivered the news in a properly sober tone Sunday night.”— The Washington Post’s “Spirited Atheist” blogger Susan Jacoby in a May 2, 2011 posting. ■ “At the news of Osama bin Laden’s death, thousands of people — most of them college-aged and in requisite flip-floppy collegiate gear — whipped up a raucous celebration right outside the White House gates that was one part Mardi Gras and two parts Bon Jovi concert....It felt a little crazy, a bit much. Almost vulgar....When I saw that folks were celebrating in the streets at the news of bin Laden’s death, my first reaction was a cringe. Remember how we all felt watching videos of those al-Qaeda guys dancing on Sept. 11?”— Washington Post “Metro” section columnist Petula Dvorak, May 3, 2011. ■ “It’s idiotic to treat these kinds of international events like sporting events, like it’s the World Cup that we’re cheering for here....I think that this kind of jumping up and down, chanting ‘USA, USA,’ sends a message of almost sort of blood lust. I think we need to be really careful about that.”— Correspondent Jeremy Scahill of the left-wing The Nation magazine, on PBS’s Tavis Smiley, May 2. ■ “When you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mid East who celebrate when America falls?”— ABC News religion correspondent Father Edward Beck on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, May 3, 2011. ■ “People cheer because they thought they saw justice, but this was not justice....This was one killer killing another — a big killer, the United States government, killing another, someone who’s actually a smaller one, bin Laden....We have to stop these people, these powerful people like Obama, like Bush, like those who run the Pentagon, and who think it’s OK to take civilian life.”— Journalist Allan Nairn on the far-left Democracy Now radio program, May 2, 2011. ■ “I’m glad he’s gone. But I just feel something has — we’ve lost something of our soul here in this country. And maybe I’m just an old school American who believes in our American judicial system.... [Snarls] ‘What do we need a trial for, just get rid of him.’ The second you say that, you’re saying that you hate being an American. You hate what we stand for, you hate what our Constitution stands for.”— Left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, May 5, 2011. ■ “So when does SEAL Unit 6, or whatever it’s called, drop in on George Bush? Bush was responsible for a lot more death, innocent death, than bin Laden.”— Left-wing radio host and former CNN producer Mike Malloy on The Mike Malloy Show, May 2, 2011. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.                            

Keith Olbermann RAGES with Mob on Twitter Against Peggy Noonan's Columbia Column

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, who was once a Reagan speechwriter and is now a dyspeptic critic of Donald Trump, infuriated leftists on Twitter this weekend with a column about her visit to the Columbia University campus to observe the pro-Hamas protests and attempt to interview some young protesters.  Noonan wrote she understood the youthful passion to protest, but these protesters all wore masks and didn't want to engage with largely supportive media. She found this carried an air of menace...and cowardice. This was the passage that New York Times reporter Peter Baker passed around that fanned the fury:  I was at Columbia hours before the police came in and liberated Hamilton Hall from its occupiers. Unlike protesters of the past, who were usually eager to share with others what they thought and why, these demonstrators would generally not speak or make eye contact with members of the press, or, as they say, “corporate media.” I was on a bench taking notes as a group of young women, all in sunglasses, masks, and kaffiyehs, walked by. “Friends, please come say hello and tell me what you think,” I called. They marched past, not making eye contact, save one, a beautiful girl of about 20. “I’m not trained,” she said. Which is what they’re instructed to say to corporate-media representatives who will twist your words. “I’m barely trained, you’re safe,” I called, and she laughed and half-halted. But her friends gave her a look and she conformed. Raging kook Keith Olbermann, the man so unbalanced that he tweeted the Supreme Court majority that overturned Roe vs. Wade were "domestic terrorists," argued Baker and Noonan were not journalists: Is there a point at which Peter Baker and Peggy Noonan will understand that vast swaths of America do not recognize them as journalists? Hell, if I knew about the "I'm not trained" line I could've gotten Noonan off my back and off my shows in 2004 instead of 2006 https://t.co/2P2OvlX3rt — Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) May 4, 2024 The Left could certainly argue that college kids might be smart not to sit down with a journalist they don't know, and Noonan could be characterized as an establishment Republican, who wouldn't naturally love radical disorder. Noonan noted they were yelling “Israel bombs, Columbia pays! How many kids did you kill today?” Lefties were probably angrier at Noonan for suggesting that even liberals in Manhattan were pleased the cops shut this encampment down:  The Vietnam demonstrations came to a country at relative peace with itself and said: Wake up! The Hamas demonstrations come to a country that hasn’t been at peace with itself in a long time. It watched, and thought: More jarring hell from kids with blood in their eyes making demands. The people of my liberal-left town were relieved to see the NYPD come in, drag the protesters away, restore order, and let people clean things up.

Ugh: PBS Hails ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Court Win for Minors, Including Mastectomy

The PBS NewsHour was back to its old rhetorical tricks this week on the LGBTQ front. Lately the outlet has been reacting with pro-transgender alarm when yet another state restricts transgender surgery for minors. But it had cause to celebrate on Tuesday, covering a “groundbreaking ruling” that somehow didn’t shake up the other media outlets enough to cover. PBS teamed up with its fellow taxpayer-funded outlet National Public Radio to bring the joyful news that a federal appellate court in Richmond had ruled that so-called “gender-affirming care” must be covered by state health care plans in West Virginia and North Carolina. They used that Orwellian term no less than ten times in the segment. including in the supportive introduction from host Amna Nawaz: “A federal appeals court issued a groundbreaking ruling last night ensuring that gender-affirming surgery is covered by state-run health insurance programs.” The entire exchange took place in a liberal bubble, with zero mention of conservative counterpoints -- no  inconvenient questions about gender transition, or how a biological man can become a woman, or if the government should be obligated to pay for such a change. NPR health reporter Selena Simmons-Duffin -- who provided a similar bubble of an interview to transgender Biden appointee Adm. Rachel Levine two years ago, that there was "no scientific debate" on these surgeries -- only cared about how the "trans community" greeted the news. Reporter Stephanie Sy explained: ...this decision centered around two lawsuits, with trans people in West Virginia and North Carolina suing to secure insurance coverage for gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy and surgery." Sy crowed, "It is a win for the trans community, but it may not be the final word on the issue." Selena Simmons-Duffin, health-policy reporter, NPR: I think this is a really significant ruling. The Fourth Circuit's majority opinion was really strong and called discrimination against trans patients on these plans to be -- quote -- "obviously discriminatory." I think that the big takeaway is that insurers are not going to be able to say that they're going to cover this care for some patients with some diagnoses and not for others. If they're going to be covering things like sex hormones and mastectomies for some patients, they're going to have to cover it for trans patients as well. And I do think that it's really seen in the trans community as a major win, and it cuts against some of the trends of more litigation and more restrictions that we have seen in statehouses across the country. Sy: Selena, how far-reaching is this ruling? Does this mean trans people with state medical plans are now covered for gender-affirming care where they couldn't or where they weren't before? Simmons-Duffin explained that the ruling was a signal that “trans people are protected under the law,” as if they weren’t protected by law before. Both reporters ignored the traumatic effects of gender surgery (including hormone replacement theory and even chemical and physical castration) on children in their eagerness over the medical insurance decision, while continuing their happy talk about “gender-affirming care.” Sy: We have seen in the last few years some two dozen states pass restrictive laws on gender-affirming care specifically for minors. Does this decision, Selena, apply to minors covered by state medical plans, even in states where legislatures have banned care? Simmons-Duffin: ….it is important to differentiate this from some of the other cases around gender-affirming care for minors, because this is really about insurance coverage and whether insurers can make the distinction that they're going to cover hormones and mastectomies with certain conditions, but not for people with gender dysphoria. In this case, they said that's not going to fly and that needs to stop…. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 4/30/24 7:13:54 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: A federal appeals court issued a groundbreaking ruling last night ensuring that gender-affirming surgery is covered by state-run health insurance programs. Stephanie Sy has that report. Stephanie Sy: Amna, this decision centered around two lawsuits, with trans people in West Virginia and North Carolina suing to secure insurance coverage for gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy and surgery. The federal appellate court in Richmond, split 8-6, ordered that the state health care plans — quote — "reinstate coverage for medically necessary services for the treatment of gender dysphoria." The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics wrote briefs in support of the trans plaintiffs. It is a win for the trans community, but it may not be the final word on the issue. For more on all of this, I'm joined by NPR's Selena Simmons-Duffin, who covers health policy for NPR. Selena, it's good to see you on the "NewsHour." So, as you know, there are numerous court cases around the country about transgender rights and access to gender-affirming care. How significant was this ruling, and what are the big takeaways to you? Selena Simmons-Duffin, NPR: I think this is a really significant ruling. The Fourth Circuit's majority opinion was really strong and called discrimination against trans patients on these plans to be — quote — "obviously discriminatory." I think that the big takeaway is that insurers are not going to be able to say that they're going to cover this care for some patients with some diagnoses and not for others. If they're going to be covering things like sex hormones and mastectomies for some patients, they're going to have to cover it for trans patients as well. And I do think that it's really seen in the trans community as a major win, and it cuts against some of the trends of more litigation and more restrictions that we have seen in statehouses across the country. Stephanie Sy: Selena, how far-reaching is this ruling? Does this mean trans people with state medical plans are now covered for gender-affirming care where they couldn't or where they weren't before? Selena Simmons-Duffin: Well, actually, in both of these cases, the state plan in North Carolina and Medicaid's — Medicaid in West Virginia, they already had to start covering this care after the district court ruled in the plaintiff's favor in 2022. So people have been able to bill for this and get coverage for this in the last two years, but what the appellate ruling does is really solidify that coverage. And as I said, it also signals to other plans in other states around the country that this is care that needs to be covered and that trans people are protected under the law. Stephanie Sy: We have seen in the last few years some two dozen states pass restrictive laws on gender-affirming care specifically for minors. Does this decision, Selena, apply to minors covered by state medical plans, even in states where legislatures have banned care? Selena Simmons-Duffin: I should say that there were plaintiffs in these cases that were minors. So, for example, in North Carolina, there were some members of the plan who joined the case on behalf of their dependent minor child who was transgender. And so they were seeking coverage for the care of that child. But I think it is important to differentiate this from some of the other cases around gender-affirming care for minors, because this is really about insurance coverage and whether insurers can make the distinction that they're going to cover hormones and mastectomies with certain conditions, but not for people with gender dysphoria. In this case, they said that's not going to fly and that needs to stop. But one thing I also wanted to mention is that, in the realm of bans across the country in different states for gender-affirming care for youth, just today, in Kansas, the Statehouse was unable to override the veto of the governor who had vetoed the ban on gender-affirming care for youth in that state. So I think advocates are really hoping that this does — even beyond the realm of its actual reach, it does send a signal to different places, to governors, to statehouses to say, this isn't a winning issue and the courts are starting to fall in their favor, although it has been a mixed bag in the courts. Stephanie Sy: Yes, absolutely. In this particular case — and you quoted it — the majority wrote that, when it comes to the state's exclusion of gender-affirming care for medical plans — quote — "We hold that the coverage exclusions facially discriminate on the basis of sex and gender identity." It said the exclusions, in essence, violate the 14th Amendment and provisions in the Affordable Care Act. There are so many transgender rights issues mired in the courts right now. Selena, do you see the Supreme Court taking all this up any time soon? I know, in this case, West Virginia's attorney general has already said he is appealing. Selena Simmons-Duffin: Yes, I mean, court watchers and policy watchers that I have talked to really think that a case is going to reach the Supreme Court at some point, and probably soon. But the Supreme Court has been sending some mixed messages on this. So there was a gender-affirming caravan in Idaho that the Supreme Court allowed to take effect. But then there are other cases, including one from the Fourth Circuit that was related to transgender students participating in sports, that the Supreme Court declined to take. And that was a win for the transgender plaintiff in that case. Court watchers suggest that it seems like the Supreme Court is maybe reluctant to jump into the fray, but there has been so much litigation in this area and so many laws being passed that it just seems inevitable that the Supreme Court will have to weigh in and give some clarity.

Spitting on Graves? MSNBC Lets Dems Smear Tennessee GOP on Arming Teachers

Over the last few weeks as a bill made its way through the Republican-dominated Tennessee legislature to permit local areas to decide whether to let teachers concealed carry firearms to deter mass shooters, several MSNBC hosts found it "shocking" and brought on "The Tennessee Three," their favorite far-left Democrats from the state's House of Representatives -- Justin Jones, Justin Pearson, and Gloria Johnson -- to smear Republicans and push conspiracy theories. MSNBC host Ali Velshi claimed that the new law was "worse than doing nothing," and, on the April 28 edition of his eponymous weekend show, went along with State Representative Justin Jones's theory that Republicans hope arming teachers will scare parents away from sending their children to public schools. Velshi responded: "I don't want my kids going to a place where there's yet more guns in the school. I'd like zero guns in the schools." A bit after Jones declared that Republican Governor Bill Lee "has no conscience and no courage," weekend host Alex Witt concluded the segment on her April 27 show by gushing: "I'm really glad you were voted back in office." A few minutes earlier, among his substantial trashing of Republicans, Jones further declared: "the governor just spit on the face of all these people and spit on the graves of the six people killed by signing this law. Nothing to reign in gun violence like common sense gun laws that would expand universal background checks, ban assault weapons, red flag laws. Instead, he's putting a law to arm teachers -- something that no teachers want in our state." Stephanie Ruhle found the push to arm teachers "almost too much to believe," and Katie Phang labeled the move "really flawed and dangerous policies." MSNBC also allowed Democrat guests to claim that no one except pro-gun lobbyists asked for the new law. By contrast, CNN hosts at least had right-leaning guests on to explain why they support the move. CNN This Morning Weekend host Victor Blackwell had a surprisingly sober reaction on April 28 as he allowed CNN contributor and MRC alum Stephen Gutowski on as a guest so he could explain that some rural schools had difficulty finding qualified resource officers and wanted to open up the possibility of school staff stepping in to fill the void. A few weeks earlier, CNN weekday host Sara Sidner provocatively quoted left-wing protesters who chanted, "Kill the bill, not the kids" as they opposed guns in schools, and her voice cracked as she discussed the issue, but, unlike MSNBC, at least she did allow State Senator Paul Bailey (R) to appear as a guest. He recalled that the legislature had already supplied funding to hire more resource officers, but some schools had failed to find qualified candidates, making other options necessary: "We provided over $140 million to go directly to those school districts for them to be able to hire school resource officers. ... But the situation is there's not enough qualified individuals to be able to fill those positions." While some of the liberal guests invoked the Covenant school shooting that occurred in the state in 2023, it was not mentioned that that school was a gun-free zone or that nearly all mass shooters who target public places choose gun-free zones to make it less likely they will face resistance, thus pointing to a deterrence value of armed teachers. And while Democrat guests fretted that armed teachers would lead to more violence, MSNBC hosts ignored research finding that schools with armed teachers tend to be safer. Transcripts follow: CNN News Central April 10, 2024 8:02 a.m. Eastern JOHN BERMAN (in opening plug): Backlash in Tennessee after lawmakers pass a law that would allow teachers to carry concealed guns in their classrooms. (...) 8:42 p.m. SARA SIDNER (before commercial break): All right, up next, some teachers and parents up in arms over a bill in Tennessee that could allow teachers and staff members to carry a gun on school grounds. We'll talk to the bill's co-sponsor coming up. (...) 8:49 p.m. SIDNER: "Kill the bill, not the kids." That's what some parents and teachers are chanting about a bill in Tennessee that allows teachers and school staff to carry guns at school. The bill just passed by the senate -- state senate in a 26-5 vote, and now it goes to the house. It allows Tennessee teachers to carry concealed handguns in K-12 schools. The bill also puts the debate over arming educators right back in the spotlight. Currently, 34 states ban teachers and the general public from carrying guns onto public school property according to Every Town for Gun Safety. Let's discuss this now with Tennessee State Senator Paul Bailey. You are the sponsor of this bill. First of all, why do you think this will make schools safer for children and staff? (STATE SENATOR PAUL BAILEY (R-TN)) You know, you said the sheriff's association is sort of at the forefront of pushing this bill and influenced you certainly -- we saw what happened in Uvalde, though, with people who are trained with weapons -- police officers who did not respond in a quick matter. What makes you think that teachers  under this kind of stress would be able to handle this with all that they already have to do? (BAILEY) All right, I want to play for you what Lauren Shipman-Dorrance has to say about the bill. She is a teacher in Nashville. Here's what she said. LAUREN SHIPMAN-DORRANCE, NASHVILLE TEACHER: I really thought the lieutenant governor would listen to the voice of the people. You know, we know overwhelmingly so many Tennesseeans do not support legislation like this. I don't know if I'd feel safe to stay in a teaching role, to be honest with you. SIDNER: There is already a shortage of teachers. What do you say to her, that she doesn't think she'll feel safe with other folks, staff members, potentially other teachers, walking around armed in a school? (BAILEY) I'm curious if any of the schools talked to you about this and asked for this? (BAILEY) So, sir, why not -- why not pass legislation -- why not pass legislation to fund more school resource officers instead of putting this on the teachers or the staff members there who, as you know, are overtaxed? They have to do so many things in classrooms now from being counselors to teaching, you know, math and science and English. Why not just say, "Okay, let's -- let's fund the resource officers who are trained"? STATE SENATOR BAILEY: Well, I'm glad you brought that up because we had a special session last year and dealt with that. We provided over $140 million to go directly to those school districts for them to be able to hire school resource officers. And, as of just the beginning of this legislative session at the end of January, $98 million of that had been drawn down into those local school districts for them to be able to provide SRO officers. But the situation is there's not enough qualified individuals to be able to fill those positions. I'm also carrying legislation that would allow any retired law enforcement officer that would like to go back for at least two years and be a school resource officer to be able to do so without losing their retirement benefits. So we've been working in many ways to try to make sure that our schools are as safe as possible here in Tennessee. SIDNER: State Senator Paul Bailey, thank you so much for coming on and asking -- and answering the questions. Appreciate it. (...) MSNBC's The 11th Hour April 11, 2024 11:24 p.m. Eastern STEPHANIE RUHLE: Meanwhile, this week, the Tennessee State Senate advanced a bill there to arm their teachers and school staff in the face of local protests. If passed, the move would mark one of the state's biggest expansions of gun access since the deadly Covenant school shooting that took place in Nashville last year. Here to discuss, Tennessee State Representative Justin Jones. You know him as one of the Tennessee Three. He was reinstated to his position one year ago yesterday after he was peacefully protesting gun violence. And Rachel Wegner joins us -- a children's reporter at The Tennessean and USA Today network. Rachel, what should we know about this bill? Because it's almost too much to believe. (WEGNER) But once they do that, a teacher could have a gun on their belt while teaching the third grade? WEGNER: Yeah, and another thing that has raised a lot of concerns is that they won't need to disclose which staff members are carrying weapons in the schools to teachers, parents, and possibly even other teachers around them. RUHLE: Representative Jones, what is your reaction to this? What are people in your district telling you? STATE REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN JONES (D-TN): I mean, so many people are outraged, you know. The Tennessee Republican supermajority continues to hold our state at gunpoint and put more guns on our streets, and now they're trying to force guns into our classrooms. I think the most asinine thing about this, Stephanie, is that we live in a state where we've passed laws saying we don't trust teachers to pick the books in their classrooms. We don't trust teachers to pick their own curriculum about history. But now we want to say we want teachers to carry guns in our schools when every parent we saw show up in our committees, said, "Please don't do this -- more guns are not the solution, and they'll make out children and our schools more unsafe." RUHLE: We don't even provide those teachers with the school supplies they need to do their jobs. Rachel, what are parents and teachers saying about this? WEGNER: So I would say fairly wide outcry against the passage of the bill now in our state senate has been rolling this week. It is yet to be taken up by our house, but, as we've got into that potential hearing, lots of folks are planning to continue their protests and speaking out against this over their concerns for all the ways things could go wrong. Supporters of the bill have, you know, a different viewpoint on that, but teachers, parents, students, I've almost unanimously heard them say they're opposed to it, and they're worried about what it means. RUHLE: Representative, what do you say to people who argue, "Well, schools have the option to opt out." Is that good enough? (...) JONES: And so what we're hearing in our state is people saying that our legislature is morally insane. We have a Republican supermajority that has just lost their mind and, you know, passing laws just last week to honor the Tennessee Rifle the same week that we are recognizing the Covenant tragedy here in our state -- a mass shooting that took the lives of three nine-year-olds and three adults, and, you know, we're going to honor a gun? And the only law that we passed after the Covenant mass shooting was to protect firearms manufacturers. So what we're seeing is a Republican supermajority that is beholden to the gun industry -- that is beholden to gun extremists -- that is beholden to the NRA, and that is not listening to the people of Tennessee. (...) MSNBC's The Last Word April 12, 2024 10:37 a.m. Eastern STATE SENATOR LONDON LAMAR (D-TN): This is irresponsible! The public school teachers don't even want the bill! They're not even asking you for this! We just passed legislation to have SROs in every school -- can we see if that works yet?! I'm upset not out of -- because I don't like you all individually -- because I'm mad because this bill puts my child at risk and all the mothers I hear that just got put out! They're saying their children at risk! Look at that gallery! They're asking you not to do this! (editing jump) Put partisan politics aside -- I ask you this all the time, but this bill is dangerous. Don't do it. (editing jump) Teachers don't want it, the school districts don't want it, nobody doesn't want it, it's not going to work! It's going to cause more school shootings. (editing jump) What happened today is a gallery full of mothers who are concerned, and we put them out because you're trying to put guns in teachers' hands! We ought to be ashamed, Mr. Speaker. KATIE PHANG: That was the scene in the Tennessee Senate this week. State Senator London Lamar with her eight-month-old baby and a microphone in her hands begging Republicans not to vote to put more guns in schools. Yes, more guns, not less. This week, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee advanced legislation that would allow some teachers to carry concealed guns. Last April, just days after three children and three staff members were killed in a mass shooting at the Covenant school in Nashville, Donald Trump gave a speech pushing for armed teachers. And so a year later Tennessee Republicans have decided that their solution to gun violence in schools is more guns in schools. (...) Representative Pearson, I know that you're familiar with the being silenced when you're trying to speak out in that hall, but what is the justification that is coming from your colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote on a bill and approve it that is not wanted by anyone? It's been tried before in some other counties in Tennessee -- hasn't worked -- and I understand there's an opt out in this legislation, but -- and I understand maybe that the voices in support of this say, "Well, there's training, and there's, you know, a certain component of it, but how is it possible that they're so tone deaf about what's really wanted to protect the children in these schools? STATE REPRESENATATIVE JUSTIN J. PEARSON (D-TN): This is a dangerous piece of legislation that puts at risk every child in our schools, including putting our teachers at risk as well. You don't have a single teacher in our district or in this state who are asking the legislature to pass this type of legislation. And they certainly aren't asking for us to do it by kicking out mothers from the galleries and those who are advocating on behalf of their kids in the process. What we are seeing is the cowardice of the Republican party in our state, refusing to address the epidemic of gun violence, which is the number one killer of our children, and instead of ending the epidemic by doing something about the guns that are being proliferated in our communities and doing something that would stand up to the National Rifle Association and the Tennessee Firearms Association, and they're attacking parents, and they're actually making our schools less safe. They're bringing guns into gun-free zones, and this is only going to have horrendous ramifications for children who will access these weapons and these guns -- for teachers who might accidentally shoot or harm their students. These are the real challenges that are going to come from this terrible legislation. (...) PHANG: I want to harp on this for our viewers to understand. Mothers like Beth Gebhard who talk about this experience, they're being silenced. These are not politicians, right? These are not -- these are not lobbyists for anti-gun or anti-2nd Amendment kind of propositions, These are parents that only want to keep their kids safe. And yet they're being silenced. They're being removed from a public forum because they just want to share their concerns about really flawed and dangerous policies and legislation that's getting passed in your state? STATE REPRESENTATIVE PEARSON: This is the way that the Tennessee Republican party works. They silence the voices of dissent in order that they can corrupt, be corrupt and use their power and corrupted absolutely using it. And they wield it against anybody that they believe is going to stand up against them. This is why Representative Jones and I were expelled. This is why the mothers are consistently being kicked out of the gallery and kicked out of committee rooms even during our special session to address public safety. They're not interested in the safety of our kids -- they're not interested in the safety of our teachers. They do not want to end the gun violence epidemic -- they only want to proliferate it with bad policies and legislation that is supported by the Tennessee Firearms Association and supported by the National Rifle Association. They are not interested in making our communities safer (...) MSNBC's The Last Word April 26, 2024 10:43 p.m. Eastern ALI VELSHI: That was the scene at the Tennessee house chamber this week after Republican lawmakers passed a bill that would allow some teachers to carry concealed guns. There were vocal protests inside the gallery against putting more guns in schools. State troopers once again removed folks for protesting. Inside the chamber, Democratic legislators pleaded with their colleagues not to pass the bill. They argued that in the year since the Nashville Covenant mass shooting, more should have been accomplished by this legislative body. (...) Joining us now is the Tennessee Democratic State Representative, Justin J. Pearson. ... The country came to know you because of the stand that you and some of your colleagues in the legislature took about having government take a stronger hand in trying to deal with the disasters that you faced in Tennessee -- the disaster that repeats itself across this country -- and yet here we are today. STATE REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN J. PEARSON (D-TN): Yeah, I mean, the gun violence epidemic in our state is the leading cause of death for our children. We have a responsibility and an obligation to do everything possible to actually make our schools and our communities safer, and the Republican party of Tennessee led by Cameron Sexton and William Lamberth refuse to do that. Unfortunately, they view arming teachers, increasing the amount of gun violence in schools and in our communities as some form of a solution. No one would have ever imagined that after we experienced the tragedy that we did in the wake of the Covenant shooting, nor the hundreds of lives that we've lost due to gun violence just a year ago where 500 people in our state, that our resolution would be: "Let's try and increase the probability of having more gun violence." We didn't pass any red flag laws or extreme risk protection orders. We haven't addressed anything as relates to gun safety storage, and this is the signature piece of legislation the Republicans have pushed, which is antithetical to anything that anyone in the state of Tennessee that I talked to have wanted to see or for us to get to make our communities safer. VELSHI: I'm curious as to how it even came to be because if you were going to just not bother, then just don't bother. This seems to be possibly one worse than not bothering. (...) MSNBC's The Katie Phang Show April 27, 2024 12:33 p.m. Eastern KATIE PHANG: So another important issue I know is very near and dear to you is gun violence and the prevention of it. It's also something that's been a very important part of my ability to use my platform to spread awareness. In Tennessee, as you know, passing a law that now allows teachers in schools to have concealed firearms. The Republicans there saying that it's for school safety and to improve the safety of students in schools. What are your thoughts, Congressman, about the fact that Tennessee now allows this? CONGRESSMAN MAXWELL ALEJANDRO FROST (D-FL): Well, this is people legislating without looking at the facts and without looking at data and just simply doing the bidding of the gun lobby, which seeks to pass legislation that will sell more guns. That's all the gun lobby and the NRA cares about -- selling more guns to teachers, to kids, whoever. And so, unfortunately, they're not looking at the data that shows us that when there's more guns in the equation, guess what. It doesn't make you safer -- it makes you less safe. Not just that, but our teachers are already drastically underpaid, especially in the South. We already have a huge teacher shortage, and, on top of that, to add insult to injury, you want to add to the job description: "Carry a firearm and protect your students that way"? Come on, give me a damn break. So this is just politicians doing the bidding of the NRA and not actually doing what we need to do to save lives and keep people safe. And we're so happy and lucky we have great progressive advocates like Justin Jones, Justin Pearson, Gloria Johnson -- they are fighting in Tennessee. But it just goes to show that this fight in the South is real, but we're not doing it alone. (...) MSNBC's Alex Witt Reports April 27, 2024 3:49 p.m. ALEX WITT: Starting now in Tennessee, teachers and other school administrators are now officially allowed to carry concealed handguns on school grounds. Governor Bill Lee signing the bill one year after six people were killed, including three children, when a gunman opened fire at a private Christian school in Nashville. Joining me now is Democratic State Representative Justin Jones, who was expelled from the state house after joining a protest supporting gun reform in the wake of that shooting. He was then voted back in back to office in a special election. Welcome, Justin, I'm glad to have you here. Um, look, there was significant tension as this bill was approved, and I know you were banned from speaking on that floor for two days, and you say you were physically shoved by one of your Republican colleagues. It stemmed from you filming these chants from the gallery. Let's play this up. (clip of protesters in capitol chanting, "Blood on your hands") What happened there? STATE REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN JONES (D-TN): Yes, well, Alex, it is a terrible time in Tennessee because the governor has signed this horrific law that's going to allow teachers to carry guns. This is the largest expansion of gun laws in our state since the mass shooting at Covenant, and in that gallery, you see my constituents. You see mothers, you see grandmothers, and parents and teachers and students telling my Republican colleagues that they will have blood on their hands. For over a year now, Tennesseans have been showing up to our capital week after week, begging for common sense gun laws, and the governor just spit on the face of all these people and spit on the graves of the six people killed by signing this law. Nothing to reign in gun violence like common sense gun laws that would expand universal background checks, ban assault weapons, red flag laws. Instead, he's putting a law to arm teachers -- something that no teachers want in our state. WITT: Wow. STATE REPRESENTATIVE: JONES: And it's an insult to Tennesseans. WITT: Justin, I want to talk about the bill specifically because, as we understand it, a staff member would have to complete 40 hours of training, get a background check and a psychological evaluation. They would then also need the approval of school officials and local law enforcement. But, to your point, parents would not be notified because of confidentiality, meaning parents won't have any idea at all if their child's teacher has a gun in the classroom. So here's the question: Would teachers with guns have made a difference in the Covenant school shooting when the killer had an AR-15 assault rifle and a pistol caliber carbine with 30 rounds in it? STATE REPRESENTATIVE JONES: I mean, that is the insanity, Alex, is that, "What is one handgun going to do against a military grade assault weapon? Nothing. The Covenant school had armed security. I mean, you saw in Uvalde officers were afraid to go in a building with these assault weapons. So this is just a false solution. And really what it's about -- it's about this idea of trying to proliferate guns in our state. The number one cause of death for children right now is gun violence, and so it's about proliferating guns and not doing anything to reign in the issue of this uniquely American problem of gun violence. WITT: Let me ask you this in regards to that. Is this putting too much responsibility on teachers? If, let's say, they are paralyzed by fear during a school shooting and they can't shoot, or they accidentally shoot a student or anybody else, could they be blamed for what happens? STATE REPRESENTATIVE JONES: That's the point we got no clarity about, is who has liability. They refuse to answer that because the real liability is on the governor and my Republican colleagues, and let me just -- I want to say this, too, that this is really also about -- I've been thinking about this in my head about trying to make parents afraid to send their kids to public schools because so many parents I've talked to in my district have emailed me in my office saying, "We don't know if we can send our kids to schools anymore because we're scared." And it's really about this idea of trying to destroy public education, which the governor has been trying to do, and in pushing guns in our communities. And now they're in tandem. And so teachers are not asking for this -- they're asking for more supplies -- they're asking for psychologists and counselors, better pay. No teachers in Tennessee are asking to have this law to allow them to carry guns. It's insanity, and it's morally inexcusable. WITT: And -- and Governor Lee, couldn't he have allowed the bill to become law even without his signature. I mean, the fact that he signed it -- he wanted to put his name on this bill -- what does it tell you? STATE REPRESENTATIVE JONES: I mean, it tell us that our governor has no conscience and no courage. He lost a friend in the Covenant mass shooting -- one of his wife's friends -- and he told us he was going to do something to, you know, to reign in gun violence, and he's failed Tennesseans -- he's bowed down to the extremists. And he's really about arming these extreme elements in our community because not only are we talking about arming teachers, but the governor has allowed the Proud Boys to come to our capitol armed -- they've allowed neo-Nazis to march three blocks away from the capitol where I am right now to march armed. And it's about arming these extreme elements in our community that are leaving us with trauma and terror. And it's at the expense of our children's lives, so he should be ashamed of himself, and it is a dereliction of duty and a dereliction of his oath of office that each of us take as elected officials on Tennessee. WITT: Democratic State Representative Justin Jones, let's just put it this way. I'm really glad you were voted back in office. Thank you so much for our conversation. (...) CNN This Morning Weekend April 28, 2024 7:37 a.m. Eastern VICTOR BLACKWELL: What informs the decision for arming the teachers instead of hiring more law enforcement to patrol these schools? STEPHEN GUTOWSKI, CNN FIREARMS ANALYST: Well, I think there's two reasons that advocates go this path. One is that it is actually quite difficult to get enough school resource officers to fill every school on a consistent basis, especially in more rural areas. And the second is that advocates of armed teachers believe that having several people armed in a school will increase the reaction time in case there is some sort of shooting. So those tend to be the main selling points. (...)  MSNBC's Velshi April 28, 2024 10:40 a.m. ALI VELSHI: Despite resounding pushback from parents and Democratic lawmakers in Tennessee, on Friday the Republican governor, Bill Lee, signed a shocking bill into law that gives counties the ability to decide whether some educators can legally carry guns in public schools. Republicans in the state house and senate pushed this bill through, claiming that it would reduce gun violence in schools and bolster safety. (...) Under the new legislation, some faculty and staff will be able to carry concealed handguns on school grounds but first need to complete 40 hours of training and pass criminal and mental health background checks. But Democrats have continually argued that the state would better served by, among other measures, employing background checks and requiring safe storage of firearms. As legislative debate ensued, leading up to the passage and signing of the bill, Democrats in the house signed off. (clips of Democrat legislators complaining about the bill) You'll probably remember the two people whom you just saw -- they are the Tennessee state representatives Justin Jones and Gloria Johnson. Two of them -- along with Representative Justin J. Pearson whom I spoke to on Friday night -- became the faces of the anti-gun movement in the state last year following the shooting at Nashville's Covenant school. Three children and three adults were killed in that attack. In the wake of the shooting, the Tennessee Three -- as these three have come to be called -- joined thousands in protest of the state's gun laws on the state's house floor. The decision to fight back -- small acts of courage -- were not met without consequence. Both Jones and Pearson --= who are black -- were booted from the Republican-controlled state house for their actions. Meanwhile, Johnson -- who is white -- dodged expulsion by one vote. However, both men returned to their seats last fall after their local governments voted to reinstate them. In light of the passage of this new gun law, it's abundantly clear that the Tennessee Three's fight for more sensible gun laws is far from over. On the other side of the break, both Justin Jones and Gloria Johnson join me to explain why this new law threatens the safety of classrooms in Tennessee. (...) Friends, thank you for being with us this morning and for your continued fight for the safety of our students and our citizens. Representative Jones, you posted on X that (Tennessee) House Speaker Cameron Sexton is growing "drunk with power" and that we are, quote, "witnessing the death of democracy in light of what happened with this vote. Talk to me about what you see happening here. Your state surprised me again in that there were lots of options between doing nothing and doing something, and they seem to have skipped through all of the more productive possibilities and went for the fairly absurd one. STATE REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN JONES (D-TN): Yes, Ali, well, this is a very sad time for Tennessee. The trauma of our community is once again coming to the surface because at the end of the session my Republican colleagues decided to push forward and push through this asinine, insane bill to arm teachers as the gallery was full of Tennesseans -- teachers, mothers, students, clergy -- begging them not to, including families whose children are at the Covenant school, including families who have lost loved ones in shootings here in Nashville. And rather than hear them, Republicans pushed this bill forward by cutting off debate and then having the gallery cleared of the public and media when the people in the gallery chanted, "Shame on you," and that "there's blood on your hands." They had me censured for recording my constituents being drug out the gallery by state troopers. And so I said online that this is fascism -- this is a step against democracy -- against -- and toward authoritarianism and toward this, no, just shameful trajectory of arming our schools more and more -- putting more guns in schools -- when people have been begging for a year for common sense gun laws that protect kids and not guns. And the governor, by signing that bill, has spit in the face of these families.  He is a coward, and he is somebody who is going to be on the wrong side of history here in Tennessee. (...) STATE REPRESENTATIVE GLORIA JOHNSON (D-TN): ...And they need to start listening to teachers, and I can tell you that teachers did not come to them with the legislation. Every major county has already said, "No, since this is permissive, we are not arming teachers." They've already said no. No one asked them for this bill. VELSHI: Yeah. Somebody -- (cross talk) -- the question is, no one or is it lobbies that continue to cause these legislators to do things that are completely not in the interests of -- don't have the support of their voters. (...) STATE REPRESENTATIVE JONES: What I think this is really about is that the governor is mad that his privatization of public schools bill failed this session, and so this is a way to further undermine education. So I want to connect the dots between this proliferation of guns and their attack on public schools. Because what we're hearing is that people are afraid to send their kids to schools. So what was the thing they did after the voucher bill died to try and privatize our schools? The coward Ryan Williams -- my colleague from Cookeville -- said we're going to push through this bill to arm teachers, and now parents are scared to send their kids -- VELSHI: Yeah, up. STATE REPRESENTATIVE JONES: -- to public schools. That's really what the goal is, I think, Ali. I really -- VELSHI: Yeah. STATE REPRESENTATIVE JONES: -- think that's the purpose of this legislation. VELSHI: I don't want my kids going to a place where there's yet more guns in the school. I'd like zero guns in the schools. Thanks to both of you. It is remarkable what you have both done and your other colleagues have done for democracy and for standing up for it. When they tell me, "You know, there's not enough younger people getting involved in politics and it's all -- it's all corporatized," and all that, I point to you Tennessee Three to remind people that there are a lot of people fighting the battle right out there all the time, and we should be proud of that. Thank you.

Bloomberg Columnist Claims Trump Trial Doesn't 'Get Much Attention' From Media

Bloomberg Businessweek columnist Joshua Green mourned on Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO that the media has been covering the demonstrations on college campuses across the country and not Donald Trump’s hush money trial. Not only is surging anti-Semitism among college students a newsworthy topic, but it is simply not true that Trump’s trial has been removed from newscasts. Green’s fellow panelist was former Trump strategist Kellyanne Conway and the trio were discussing what voters care about when Maher quipped, “People do care about democracy also, they do, maybe not the circles you run in.”     Conway pushed back, “I came on your show five days after that, we know what—nine days after that, you know what I think of January 6, that will never change. But if we are looking backward, elections are always about the future, not the past. That's the way America needs to look at them and right now they feel cost of living in everyday quality of life is diminishing.” That led Green, who is the author of The Rebels: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the Struggle for a New American Politics and Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency, to chime in, “But as a pollster you've got to worry, I mean, you've seen polls that say if Donald Trump is convicted of a crime, he's currently on trial, though, it doesn't get much attention in the news that support for Trump will ebb.” A stunned Conway replied, “Trump doesn't get attention in the news? It’s all they talk about.” Green clung to his claim, “No, the criminal trial, no, it’s nothing but protests. It’s like the D block.” At the same time, Maher tried to offer an explanation, “Well, that criminal really—we’re treating it like it's like the Gwyneth Paltrow skiing trial. People just don’t care.” Back in the real world, the media, and especially cable, has obsessed over the trial. They cover it pretty much all day, relay what is going on inside the courtroom, and then have their legal analysts discuss. CNN has tried to analyze the profound meanings of photographs and court sketches of Trump to such a comical degree, even Jon Stewart couldn’t pass on the opportunity to mock them for it. Here is a transcript for the May 3 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher 5/3/2024 10:27 PM ET BILL MAHER: People do care about democracy also, they do, maybe not the circles you run in. KELLYANNE CONWAY: Of course, we all do. No, no, we all do. You know what I think of January 6. JOSHUA GREEN: But as a pollster. CONWAY: I came on your show five days after that, we know what—nine days after that, you know what I think of January 6, that will never change. But if we are looking backward, elections are always about the future, not the past. That's the way America needs to look at them and right now they feel cost of living in everyday quality of life is diminishing. GREEN: But as a pollster you've got to worry, I mean, you've seen polls that say if Donald Trump is convicted of a crime, he's currently on trial, though, it doesn't get much attention in the news that support for Trump will ebb. CONWAY: Trump doesn't get attention in the news? It’s all they talk about. GREEN: No, the criminal trial, no it’s nothing but protests —. CONWAY: Oh, okay. Well— MAHER: Well, that criminal really—we’re treating it like it's— GREEN: It’s like the D Block. MAHER: -- like the Gwyneth Paltrow skiing trial. People just don’t care.

The Onion and Ben Collins: A Perfect Fake News Marriage

It’s hard to remember a time when The Onion was synonymous with “funny.” The humor site once had the field all to itself, creating Fake News stories that made us laugh and think. The Onion came out in printed form, and its attacks on the political class could be withering. That was then. Today’s online-only Onion is comedic in name only. The outlet’s hard-Left politics have all but stripped away its comic potential, from the woke handcuffs placed on liberal satire to how it protects Democrats… …much like today’s late-night TV landscape. So if you want to read something funny about President Joe Biden, for example, you’d never type “the onion” into a search engine. You go to The Babylon Bee.   To Save Time, The Babylon Bee Will Now Just Republish Everything Biden Says Verbatim https://t.co/KDHEZAjgU7 pic.twitter.com/O4ZfgGrc8P — The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 18, 2024   That site leans to the Right, but it’s unrelenting in its humor and ability to smite both sides. It’s everything The Onion isn’t – topical, fast, bold and hilarious. And, sadly, The Onion might soon be even worse. The site just got picked up by new owners, and former NBC journalist Ben Collins is the platform’s CEO moving forward. Ostensibly charged by the Peacock network with overseeing so-called “disinformation,” Collins proved inept at the gig. We’re still waiting for him to weigh in on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, the “Very Fine People” hoax and more. Here’s how Collins described Libs of TikTok, the social media journalist who exposes the far-Left’s extremes. “Fox News’ favorite aggregator of LGBTQ teachers they don’t like the look of.” The latter part of the sentence feels slanderous, no? What’s his proof that Libs of TikTok is bigoted. Does he share any? Collins, formerly with the far-Left Daily Beast, also got exposed by The Federalist for carrying water for the hard-Left. Consider: NBC’s leftist reporter Ben Collins, meanwhile, arguably offered the most laughable response to Soros backing Bragg. Quoting a CNBC story, Collins says Soros can’t back Bragg because the two never met. Journalist Steve Krakauer slammed Collins for his social media-heavy methods that often occur without actual journalism. Collins seems to spend his days endlessly opining on social media about the state of journalism – like his frequent attacks on the New York Times. But one thing Collins does not appear to be doing very much anymore is journalism. Collins hasn’t written an article for NBC News in more than 100 days. His last one, published in early October, was on one of his favorite targets, X owner Elon Musk. Before that, you have to go back to May 22 to find his previous byline, a short piece about a “fake picture of an explosion” at the Pentagon that had gone semi-viral. He’s also wary of transparency. I asked Collins and NBC News if he was still a full-time employee of the media outlet, and neither responded to multiple requests for comment.  Does this sound like the person to shake The Onion from its hard-left shackles? It gets worse. Collins was one of many mainstream news reporters who got the infamous Gaza hospital story wrong. Collins is treated as an expert in the burgeoning field of countering the spread of misinformation. Yet his error rate is noteworthy…. Did Collins soberly wait for these facts to come in? Nope. The award-winning disinformation expert helped circulate the inaccurate claims of the Palestinian authorities. When other voices on social media recommended caution, Collins chimed in to assert that any delay in reporting the horrific casualty numbers represented a profound moral failing. It’s Disinformation 101, and he fell for it. That he recently won a Walter Cronkite Award for journalism speaks volumes about today’s Fourth Estate. Collins’ rage against free speech advocate Elon Musk found him making more mistakes, according to Reason. Collins’ reporting often contains basic errors that suggest he doesn’t particularly understand the right-wing forces he’s denouncing. His most recent article alleges that Musk’s plans for Twitter were shaped by a far-right former Trump administration staffer, even though it’s fairly clear the staffer wasn’t actually telling Musk what to do, but rather warning about what would happen to Musk if he offended “the regime.” Collins even raged against the release of The Twitter Files, which exposed the platform’s extensive censorship regime against right-leaning voices. He did so without calling out any errors in Matt Taibbi’s reportage. He just used ad hominem attacks on the left-leaning Taibbi. So The Onion’s return to its funny, bipartisan roots is even more unlikely today. Still, the two parties may be perfect for one another.

CBS Claims Human Smuggling At Border 'Is More Complex'

On CBS Saturday Morning, host Dana Jacobson sat down to discuss the border crisis with anthropology Prof. Jason De Leon, where the duo also hyped his new book on human smuggling. Both host and author claimed the issue “is more complex” than simply viewing the smugglers as bad guys who take advantage of people. Jacobson reported, “The business of human smuggling, according to the Department of Homeland Security, is a multibillion dollar industry, run by criminal organizations intent on taking advantage of vulnerable people. The story de Leon tells is more complex.”     De Leon differentiates between smugglers and traffickers. For him, a smuggler is working within a consensual agreement with the person seeking to cross the border, whereas a trafficker is not. He therefore claimed, “I can write a story about how they're the bad guys in this whole scenario and all they do is brutalize migrants, but if you think about the realities, if smugglers only brutalized migrants, the system wouldn't function, and so I went into it telling myself that, you know, what can I find that's relatable, it's not trying to humanize smugglers, it's working from the assumption that they are human first and that they just happen to be in this brutal occupation.” Jacobson then claimed that smugglers and migrants face the same set of challenges, “The low-level smugglers de Leon met said issues like poverty and gang violence had driven them out of Honduras. The same issues many migrants also face.”  She then asked, “You talk about smuggling and think what you write, it's violent, it exploits people, but that it's also a symptom of a larger problem. What is that larger problem?” That does not sound complex at all. In fact, de Leon would spend much of the rest of the time portraying smuggling as a get-rich-quick scheme. He also blamed things such as climate change for the crisis, “We need to think about why are people migrating in the first place, and you know, why does the United States have an insatiable appetite for cheap, undocumented labor that we rarely acknowledge, and as long as you need the labor and as long as climate is changing and making places unlivable, those smugglers are going to stay in business and just make more money off of this whole process.” After de Leon warned the crisis is not going to end any time soon, Jacobson added, “A future de Leon hopes can be made easier by considering different perspectives and the humanity of everyone involved.” De Leon concluded by lamenting, “The approaches that we've been using to deal with these problems have clearly been ineffective for decades and yet we just don't seem to want to get smarter about this stuff… You can build whatever border wall you want. There are desperate people on the other side who are willing to die to save themselves, to save their family, and then there are smugglers who are willing to make a buck on that in all kinds of different ways, so that will just keep the system, kind of, going forever.” You can’t have a policy that claims the weather being too hot is a legitimate asylum claim and as CBS itself admitted, the smugglers exploit people and subject them to possible death, so why is this complex? Here is a transcript for the May 4 show: CBS Saturday Mornings 5/4/2024 8:54 AM ET DANA JACOBSON: The business of human smuggling, according to the Department of Homeland Security, is a multibillion dollar industry, run by criminal organizations intent on taking advantage of vulnerable people. The story de Leon tells is more complex. JASON DE LEON: I can write a story about how they're the bad guys in this whole scenario and all they do is brutalize migrants, but if you think about the realities, if smugglers only brutalized migrants, the system wouldn't function, and so I went into it telling myself that, you know, what can I find that's relatable, it's not trying to humanize smugglers, it's working from the assumption that they are human first and that they just happen to be in this brutal occupation. JACOBSON: The low-level smugglers de Leon met said issues like poverty and gang violence had driven them out of Honduras. The same issues many migrants also face.  You talk about smuggling and think what you write, it's violent, it exploits people, but that it's also a symptom of a larger problem. What is that larger problem? DE LEON: We need to think about why are people migrating in the first place, and you know, why does the United States have an insatiable appetite for cheap, undocumented labor that we rarely acknowledge, and as long as you need the labor and as long as climate is changing and making places unlivable, those smugglers are going to stay in business and just make more money off of this whole process. JACOBSON: It's an industry that continues to grow as migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border hit record highs with people coming from as far away as Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. DE LEON: People are coming from around the globe. They're coming up from South America, through the Darien Gap. It's a window into the future as all those places become unlivable for different reasons. We're going to continue to see that mix of people coming up from the south to our doorstep. JACOBSON: A future de Leon hopes can be made easier by considering different perspectives and the humanity of everyone involved. DE LEON: The approaches that we've been using to deal with these problems have clearly been ineffective for decades and yet we just don't seem to want to get smarter about this stuff. I hope with this book that it's a way to undermine the simplistic framings of what the problem actually is. You can build whatever border wall you want. There are desperate people on the other side who are willing to die to save themselves, to save their family, and then there are smugglers who are willing to make a buck on that in all kinds of different ways, so that will just keep the system, kind of, going forever.

PBS Wonders Why College Protests Are Labeled Anti-Semitic

The cast of Friday’s PBS NewsHour was greatly confused. Host William Brangham didn’t understand why the anti-Israel college demonstrators, on the whole, have been branded as anti-Semitic, while Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart didn’t know why it is so hard for the demonstrators to protest Israel without degenerating into anti-Semitism. Brangham’s remarks came on the heels of New York Times columnist David Brooks warning that the protests are toxic for Democrats, “I think if the protests continue to veer in the direction they're veering, you could see some pretty serious repercussions, which is why Biden is speaking, which is why Chuck Schumer is speaking, trying to distance themselves from what the protesters are doing.”     Claiming his first-hand look at the protests disproved the idea that they are rampant with anti-Semitism, Brangham wondered, “I mean, Jonathan, a lot of the critics of these protests like to say that it's all anti-Semitism, just a hot stew of anti-Israeli bias. I was at one of the NYU protests earlier this week, and there is some of that, for sure. But it's mostly young people, as you were describing, who are despairing over what is happening in Gaza. How is it that people who care deeply about this issue can't — can somehow protest and not be risked being branded as anti-Semities?” Capehart began by correcting him, “So, there's anti-Semitism, but then you anti — you said anti-Israeli,” to which Brangham apologized, “I'm even conflating it myself here.” That settled, Capehart proceeded, “Exactly. And that is the issue. It is possible to criticize the government of Israel, the state of Israel, the prime minister of Israel, the policies, what he says, his actions, without veering into ugly anti-Semitism. If you don't like what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doing in Gaza, not allowing enough humanitarian aid to go through, that is a legitimate criticism.” He then added, “But to then go into all the ugliness, some of the ugliness that we have heard, that's not okay. I don't understand how — why it's so hard to state your objections without being bigoted about it.” Perhaps we can help both Brangham and Capehart out. If you listen to what the leaders of the movement say, they talk about defeating Zionism which is simply the belief that Israel should exist. That is not criticism of Netanyahu and is an anti-Semitic position, according to President Barack Obama’s State Department. As your typical liberal, Capehart believes that there should be a ceasefire leading to two states for two peoples and that Netanyahu is an obstacle to this, but he and his fellow liberals keep projecting their liberalism onto Marxists and others who do not want such an outcome by refusing to acknowledge that the problem is with the group’s leaders and professors, not a handful of bad actors who corrupted a genuine anti-war, pro-peace movement.  Here is a transcript for the May 3 show: PBS NewsHour 5/3/2024 7:36 PM ET DAVID BROOKS: And, so I think if the protests continue to veer in the direction they're veering, you could see some pretty serious repercussions, which is why Biden is speaking, which is why Chuck Schumer is speaking, trying to distance themselves from what the protesters are doing. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, Jonathan, a lot of the critics of these protests like to say that it's all anti-Semitism, just a hot stew of anti-Israeli bias. I was at one of the NYU protests earlier this week, and there is some of that, for sure. But it's mostly young people, as you were describing, who are despairing over what is happening in Gaza. How is it that people who care deeply about this issue can't — can somehow protest and not be risked being branded as anti-Semities? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Okay, what — excuse me. So, there's anti-Semitism, but then you anti — you said anti-Israeli. BRANGHAM: I'm even conflating it myself here. CAPHEART: Exactly. And that is the issue. It is possible to criticize the government of Israel, the state of Israel, the prime minister of Israel, the policies, what he says, his actions, without veering into ugly anti-Semitism. If you don't like what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doing in Gaza, not allowing enough humanitarian aid to go through, that is a legitimate criticism. But to then go into all the ugliness, some of the ugliness that we have heard, that's not okay. I don't understand how — why it's so hard to state your objections without being bigoted about it.

Leftist Journos and Hollywood Celebs Trash Trump But Praise Pro-Hamas Protests

It’s an odd state of affairs when a former President of the United States is called a threat to the “bedrock tenets of democracy,” the “rule of law itself” and is compared to Adolf Hitler but pro-Hamas/anti-Semitic protestors are praised for “singing prayers of peace.” Yet that is where the leftist press and their Hollywood friends are right now. Yikes! This past month saw ABC’s Good Morning America co-host and This Week moderator George Stephanopoulos warning his audience that Donald Trump was testing the “bedrock tenets of our democracy” in a way “we haven’t seen since the Civil War.”  MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace feared she would be out of a job after a Trump victory because of his “outward disdain” for a “free press.” Meanwhile Wallace’s MSNBC colleague Joy Reid came out spinning for the pro-Hamas protestors who took over college campuses as she claimed they weren’t hurling anti-Semitic slurs but rather “singing words of peace.”  Over on CNN, podcaster Kara Swisher waved her finger at the critics of the college kids: “Not to support them, is sort of anti-American.” Hollywood celebrities spouted crazy exaggerations about Trump too. ABC’s Black-ish actress Jenifer Lewis feared that “Hitler” Trump “will punish everybody that didn’t vote for him,” put “us in camps.” While actress and talk show host Drew Barrymore begged Vice President Kamala Harris to be the “Momala of the country.” The following are the most obnoxious outbursts by leftist journalists and celebrities during the month of April:  [LANGUAGE WARNING]   Trump Is Testing the “Bedrock Tenets” of “Democracy”     “Until now, no American presidential race has been more defined on what’s happening in courtrooms than what is happening on the campaign trail. Until now. The scale of the abnormality is so staggering that it can actually become numbing. It’s all too easy to fall into reflective habits — to treat this as a normal campaign where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power. But that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenets of our democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens.”— Moderator George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, April 28.   A Trump Win Could Lead to the End of a “Free Press,” and “The Rule of Law Itself” “Depending what happens in November — seven months from right now — this time next year, I might not be sitting here. There might not be a White House Correspondents Dinner or a free press. While our democracy won’t exactly fall apart immediately without it, the real threat looms larger. A candidate with outward disdain not just for a free press but for all of our freedoms and the rule of law itself.” — Host Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC’s Deadline: White House, April 29.   Protesters Aren’t Hurling Anti-Semitic Insults, They’re “Singing Words of Peace”     “I saw….these students singing and singing about peace and singing salaam, singing words of peace. So, it just didn’t square with what I was even hearing on television and television commentators saying was shrieking anti-Semitism, I didn’t hear it.”— Host Joy Reid on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, April 22.    “Anti-American” To Oppose Young Pro-Hamas Protesters “The question is, are you for order and against chaos, or for protests and the right to free speech?...All the free-speech warriors are suddenly like, order, order, we must have order. And so there are heinous things that are said, but there is a line where you have to support also young people, especially when they do things that they do badly. Not to support them, is sort of anti-American in a way.”— Podcast host/former New York Magazine contributing editor Kara Swisher on CNN’s The Chris Wallace Show, April 27.   Netanyahu = Stalin     “It is increasingly looking like Benjamin Netanyahu had a plan to force famine on the Palestinian people, on the Gazan people, to amp up the pressure on Hamas….You’re starving women and children in Gaza….They’re now having to grind up dog food and cat food and….drink salt water….It’s savage conditions, and it’s calculated….It’s calculated just like Stalin’s starvation of Ukrainians was calculated.”   — Co-host Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, April 5.    If You Vote for Trump, You Are Not a “Patriot” “There’s a patriotic duty to support President Biden against Donald Trump, for this reason: Patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It’s not just an allegiance to your own kind. That’s nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. President Biden is a patriot.”— MSNBC contributor/presidential historian Jon Meacham on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, April 19.   Fretting That Trump’s Trials May Hurt Biden      “These legal cases have only helped him fundraising….energized his base….He’s risen in the polls with every indictment….The problem for Joe Biden and the Democrats is….the trial is crowding out everything else. So Joe Biden goes out and does policy things….But everything else is crowded out….That’s what happened in 2016 to Hillary Clinton and that could be replicated this year.”— NBC chief foreign correspondent and MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell on NBC’s Meet the Press, April 21.   “Wonderfully Poetic!” Joy Reid Cheers “My DEIs” for Prosecuting Trump     “The first person to actually criminally prosecute Donald Trump is a black Harvard grad....He came out and graduated and he’s prosecuting you, Donald. And a black woman is doing the same exact thing in Georgia. And a black woman forced you to pay a $175 million fine….Trump is being held to account by the very multicultural, multiracial democracy that he’s trying to dismantle. And for me, there’s something poetic and actually wonderful about that. It says something good about our country that we’re still capable of having that happen. Go, DEI! My DEIs are bringing it home.”— Host Joy Reid on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, April 15.   Katie Couric’s Condescending Take on Trump Voters     “The socio-economic disparities are a lot and class resentment is a lot and anti-intellectualism and elitism is what is driving many of these anti-establishment  — which are Trump voters — so, I think that is a huge problem that we have to address.”— Former NBC Today co-host and CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric on HBO Real Time host Bill Maher’s podcast Club Random with Bill Maher, April 14.    Immediately Tying Trump to Man Who Set Himself on Fire “It seems then, that the gravitational pull of the Trump melodrama that has gripped the nation since he came down the escalator has now, it appears, resulted in someone coming to that where protesters have gathered and lit himself on fire.”— Correspondent Terry Moran during ABC’s live coverage of the Donald Trump trial, April 19.    Trump = Cult Leader Like David Koresh, Jim Jones or Charles Manson     “What Donald Trump is doing….it’s kind of David Koresh. It’s kind of Jim Jones. Because those two men started by saying, ‘You need to come to Jesus.’ They started as Christian evangelizers. But eventually, their evangelism said, ‘No, I get to have your wife. No actually, I get to tell you to kill these federal agents that are outside. I’m asking you to pick up a machine gun and shoot them because I don’t want to go to jail.’...It’s making me lose my mind to watch people who call themselves Christians fall down on their knees and worship this man. This is [Charles] Manson stuff.”— Co-host Joy Reid on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, April 2.    It’s a Conspiracy! Blaming High Gas Prices on Donald’s Oil Business Buddies  “These prices are not the fault of President Biden….We’ve got the highest oil production in U.S. history and some overseas oil producers who would sure like to help DJT.”— Host Stephanie Ruhle on MSNBC’s The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle, April 17.   NBC’s Brief Hiring of Former RNC Chair Was a Blow to “Democracy”     “It was an unpleasant few days at our network….In mainstream media, we need to include an array of voices. But there’s a line, and the line is truth….You have to be someone upholding our democracy.”— NBC’s Today show co-host Savannah Guthrie on CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, April 3.   America Ruled By a Bunch of “Grumpy Old Men” Like Afghanistan and Iran “[France] actually signed into law a constitutional amendment to guarantee a woman’s right to make choices about her own body….This was sort of a demonstration of will by….a country that’s very supportive of your revolution, to show that this is universal human rights and that women actually need to be treated like adults and whether it’s Afghanistan, Iran, or the United States, a bunch of grumpy old men shouldn't be making essential decisions.”— PBS/CNN host Christiane Amanpour on CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, April 11.    “Handmaid’s Tale Come to Life” in Arizona “People say it may sound like a joke….A lot of people are saying, unfortunately, it is not a joke. And that is where we’re going to begin today….The [Arizona] Supreme Court reinstating a law from the 1800s — 1800s — that bans nearly all abortion in the state….I’ve heard people use the phrases like “Is this Handmaid’s Tale come to life, in real life?’”— Co-host Gayle King on CBS Mornings, April 10.   Republicans Are Making Women’s Lives “More Miserable”      “[Mike] Pence, Lindsey Graham, and [Donald] Trump are fighting to see who could make women’s lives more miserable. That’s like what they’re really fighting for. ‘How can we really destroy women in this country?’ That’s it.”— Co-host Joy Behar on ABC’s The View, April 9.   “Hitler” Trump “Will Punish Everybody That Didn’t Vote For Him,” Put “Us In Camps” “If that man [Donald Trump] gets in, as soon as he takes the oath, he will have generals walk down the steps of the Capitol….He will take a hammer and break the glass where the Constitution is, and he will tear it up in our faces and say, ‘Now I’m the king of the fucking world. You will bow down, bitches.’ He will punish everybody that didn’t vote for him….I know what mental illness looks like! That mania is unstoppable! See, this motherfucker is Hitler. He didn’t come to play….That motherfucker will have us in camps.” — ABC’s Black-ish actress Jenifer Lewis on the Sirius/XM radio show Mornings with Zerlina, April 4.   Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Are the “Father” and “Momala” of “Our Country”     “I keep thinking in my head that we all need a mom. I’ve been thinking that we really all need a tremendous hug in the world right now, but in our country, we need you to be Momala of the country.”— Actress/talk show host Drew Barrymore to Vice President Kamala Harris on the syndicated The Drew Barrymore Show, April 29.  “You’re the kind of leader I love, because we’re lucky to have you in the Oval Office. And serving as the father of the country because if you’re a good father to your family — which you are — I know you’ll be a good father to the country.” — Host Howard Stern to President Joe Biden on Sirius/XM’s The Howard Stern Show, April 26.    Trump Actually Benefiting From “Two-Tiered System of Justice”  “[Trump] is part of a two-tiered system of justice but not in the way he thinks he is. He is getting way more concessions than the average criminal defendant would get. He’s getting delays, he’s got access to all kinds of lawyers that are filing this and filing that, delaying every trial, and most people don’t have access to that kind of lawyering, don’t have access to the kind of concessions that the justice system will provide to you if you can afford it.”— Musician/actor John Legend on MSNBC’s Inside with Jen Psaki, April 15. 

Sister Barbara's Gone Rogue! NPR Touts Nuns for 'Enshrining Abortion Rights' in Missouri

Leftists love to believe that churches should be run like clubs -- the majority rules. So they'll make a big deal out of polls, like the Pew Research Center finding six of ten Catholics disagree with the church's opposition to abortion. They do not ask self-identified Catholics whether they actually go to church on Sundays, or if they stopped the minute they became an adult. You would get a more conservative result. On Tuesday, NPR's newscast All Things Considered brought on reporter Katia Riddle to channel the views of pro-abortion Catholics, but what made it more shocking is touting a pro-abortion nun -- someone who is financially supported by the Church, and who should be accepting of all the Church teachings. KATIA RIDDLE: Today, Missouri is replete with Catholic churches, iconography and people like Sister Barbara. SISTER BARBARA: I certainly did not intend to, you know, become a sister or a nun. RIDDLE: She's standing outside her modest apartment, wearing jeans and a sweatshirt. She grew up Catholic but wasn't all that religious. In her 20s, she describes a kind of love affair she fell into with Catholicism. SISTER BARBARA: An emphasis on serving the poor and getting involved in just, you know, the social justice issues of the day. And that was a whole new idea for me about what religious life was really about. Church officials might want to know who this nun is, and why she would publicly -- well, not all the way -- bite the hand that's feeding her. RIDDLE: NPR is not using Sister Barbara's last name. She fears retribution from her local archdiocese for publicly expressing her beliefs on reproductive rights. She doesn't agree with the church's position that abortion is a sin and should be illegal. SISTER BARBARA: I just don't see it in just real absolute terms. RIDDLE: She says she wouldn't personally choose to end a pregnancy. SISTER BARBARA: However, I have not been in the situation of a person who has - had suffered from incest or rape or all of those things. RIDDLE: The Bible, she points out, does not say anything explicit about abortion. She fell in love with Catholicism for its practice around compassion and service, not politics. SISTER BARBARA: I want to put a sticker on the car that says, don't like abortion? Don't have one. RIDDLE: That's why she's supporting an effort in Missouri to enshrine abortion rights in the state's Constitution. Several other nuns interviewed for this story said they feel the same. One was even collecting signatures to put the measure on the November ballot, though she didn't want to talk about it on the record. Over seven minutes, Riddle lined up the Catholic abortion advocates: ex-nun Alice Kitchen, retired reproductive endocrinologist Marilyn Richardson, Democrat state representative Ingrid Burnett, and college student Mary Helen Schaefer. The only surprise is a brief nod to Matt Lee, who runs a pro-life group called Missouri Stands with Women. He's a deacon in the church. RIDDLE: Lee says he's not surprised that many Catholics support abortion access. Some reproductive rights advocates say church leadership is scared of this diversity of opinion among its followers, but Lee disagrees. LEE: Could you say the Catholic Church is under attack or the church's beliefs are under attack or their institutions are? Sure, but that doesn't mean that the Catholic Church is scared. I mean, scared people tend to run away. The Catholic Church is not running away from this fight. Try not to laugh at NPR saying some other organization is scared of having a diversity of opinion inside its walls. Riddle concluded with the unsubtle hint that the Catholic hierarchy should be tethered to polls instead of their view of God's will: SISTER BARBARA: I think that the Catholic Church would not be here today if they didn't have a remarkable ability to turn corners when it's necessary - when things are about to collapse for it. RIDDLE: After all, she points out, Catholicism has been around for centuries. She's hoping this abortion debate is a relatively brief distraction from what she sees as the faith's fundamental aspirations. SISTER BARBARA: Reaching for some kind of ideals in the way we love and live with each other, with one another. RIDDLE: For Sister Barbara, one of those ideals would be for church leadership to value what a majority of Catholics believe.

NewsBusters Podcast: Biden Laughs at the New York Times Interview Request

President Biden and his team have been very reluctant to hold press conferences or grant interviews. He's much less accessible than other recent presidents. For the most part, the press doesn't care. But The New York Times put out a statement shortly before the White House Correspondents Dinner protesting how it was troubling that Biden has "so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term." What happened next? At the White House Correspondents Dinner, Biden JOKED about it, even suggesting The New York Times was inferior to the Howard Stern show in its influence. Mr. Butt Bongo Fiesta was a better forum. Journalists laughed along, underlining they have next to zero professional self-respect.  Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple posted has a new piece on Friday headlined “The New York Times, alone in its outrage over access to Biden.” He noted the Times laid it all out for Biden:  For anyone who understands the role of the free press in a democracy, it should be troubling that President Biden has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term. The president occupies the most important office in our nation, and the press plays a vital role in providing insights into his thinking and worldview, allowing the public to assess his record and hold him to account. Mr. Biden has granted far fewer press conferences and sit-down interviews with independent journalists than virtually all of his predecessors. It is true that The Times has sought an on-the-record interview with Mr. Biden, as it has done with all presidents going back more than a century. If the president chooses not to sit down with The Times because he dislikes our independent coverage, that is his right, and we will continue to cover him fully and fairly either way. However, in meetings with Vice President Harris and other administration officials, the publisher of The Times focused instead on a higher principle: That systematically avoiding interviews and questions from major news organizations doesn’t just undermine an important norm, it also establishes a dangerous precedent that future presidents can use to avoid scrutiny and accountability. Times Publisher Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, according to the Times statement, has “repeatedly urged the White House to have the president sit down with The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, CNN and other major independent news organizations that millions of Americans rely on to understand their government.” It's not like Trump will act like Biden in a second term. As Wemple shows, with numbers from Martha Joynt Kumar, Trump had about three times as many pressers at this point in his presidency than Biden – 97 to 34. Same with interviews – 327 to 118. Trump will take on hostile interviews. Biden's talking to Stern, Drew Barrymore, and Ryan Seacrest.  Wemple wanted to point out the Times is standing alone with its outrage, without supporting words from other news organizations contending with Biden’s hard-to-get status. “I think this is a norm that matters,” said Sulzberger in a Tuesday interview with Wemple. “And all our experience shows that when norms like this erode, especially a norm as uncomfortable as the discipline of answering probing questions from independent journalists, they rarely return.” Wemple said he asked The Post, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today — as well as TV outlets that have interviewed the president (ABC News, NBC News/MSNBC, CBS News and CNN) — whether the situation merited a public statement along the lines of the Times’s. "Not a single outlet responded with an endorsement of the Times’s message," including Fox News. They're all holding out hope for an interview -- which can draw ratings.  Enjoy the podcast below -- or wherever you listen to podcasts.   

What Word the Media Refuses to Use For the College Riots: Insurrection

No one who's politically aware can be unaware of January 6, 2021. Tens of thousands of Americans descended on Washington to protest the counts and Covid-related conditions of the 2020 election. A riot took place at the US Capitol. The riot resulted in the charging, per ABC News three years later, of over 1,200 and “incarceration for more than 460 people.”  The coverage since then of that day in the mainstream media is typified by headlines like this from the New York Times:  Jan. 6 Panel Accuses Trump of Insurrection and Refers Him to Justice Dept. Or like this from Forbes:  Jan. 6 Insurrection 2 Years Later: How Many Arrested, Convicted And What Price Donald Trump May Still Pay The Washington Post has an ongoing section titled:  THE JAN. 6 INSURRECTION There’s more of this kind of thing out there. And that’s before you get to Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden. Here’s NPR on Pelosi:  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Launches Select Committee To Probe Jan. 6 Insurrection And CNN on Biden:  The big lie being told by the former president, and many Republicans who fear his wrath, is that the insurrection in this country actually took place on Election Day. There’s more like this out there in the media, but you get the drift. When the subject of the riot at the Capitol on January 6th comes up, the “I word” is always nearby. So let’s take a moment to check the definition of “insurrection” and move on to the events of our current day and what is curiously missing in the coverage of these multiple upon multiple anti-Israel, anti-Semitic riots on one college or university campus after another. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “insurrection” as follows:“…an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” As of today, America is awash in multiple upon multiple “acts or instances revolting against civil authority” - the civil authority of one American college or university after another. And the mainstream media coverage is curious indeed.  Here’s a sample headline from the Washington Post:  Riot police and over 2,000 arrests: A look at 2 weeks of campus protests CNN headlined:  What we know about the protests erupting on college campuses across America The CNN story said:   New York CNN  —  College campuses across the United States have erupted with pro-Palestinian protests, and school administrators are trying — and largely failing — to defuse the situation. And on…and on and on…went the media coverage of these riots on multiple college campuses, the resulting arrests and financial damage. Good for them.  But the missing word in all this coverage? The missing word used routinely in the media and by progressive politicians to describe one solitary -- and admittedly decidedly wrong -- riot on January 6, 2021? That would be, of course, “insurrection.” All one has to do is turn on the television or start streaming current network coverage and there is decided violence on display. At Columbia University in New York the insurrectionists smashed windows and occupied the university’s Hamilton Hall. The Los Angeles Times headlined:  Nationwide, police make almost 2,000 arrests at college campuses since protests started All of which is to say that what’s happening collectively on some 70 college campuses across the country - riots, vandalism, violent clashes with police -is decidedly an insurrection against the “civil authority” and “governing” of those colleges and universities.  Yet mysteriously, silence on that fact from the media. Which in turn suggests that because the culprits of January 6 were Trump supporters the media says they were all about insurrection. But when the culprits of infinitely larger riots, replete with violence and attacks on police, involve far-left, anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas students and “outside agitators” - oh well, no big deal. If ever there were a naked example of how liberal media bias operates, there it is. Relentless coverage of “insurrection” for January 6th, (and in fact, no one was ever charged with the actual crime of “insurrection”) shrugging off massive campus unrest as just mere good ole American protests. The good news? Americans are on to the game.  And in the hierarchy of the liberal media’s friends in the Democratic Party, word seeps out about concern on how all of this reflects on President Biden and his re-election chances. As headlined here in the Financial Times:  Campus protests become a political liability for Joe Biden and Democrats Exactly. Which says just why the liberal media is not eager to exacerbate Biden’s problem by describing these events as an “insurrection.” Things are bad enough as they are.

Matt Walsh on Debunked Pro-DEI Studies: ‘The Fraud Is Officially Exposed’

The Daily Wire host Matt Walsh reported on the immense damage caused by a recently discredited report used by many corporations to justify discriminatory Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.  During the May 1 edition of The Matt Walsh Show, Walsh applauded UNC-Chapel Hill Professor of Accounting John R. M. Hand and Texas A&M Associate Professor of Accounting Jeremiah Green for their work exposing a series of studies by management consultancy firm McKinsey & Company that claimed to show the so-called benefits of DEI initiatives. "They simply lied and because they lied a lot of people in this country have lost job opportunities on the basis of characteristics that they can’t control,” Walsh said, referring to McKinsey and their debunked studies. “Many companies have become less efficient and now finally the fraud is officially exposed, thanks to the work of a couple of business school professors who were brave enough to do their jobs, which is extremely rare now in academia.”  In 2015, 2018, 2020 and 2023, McKinsey — where Transportation Secretary Pete ‘Racist Roads’ Buttigieg used to work — published several studies arguing for the financial benefits of DEI, which Walsh called “evil” during the podcast.  Despite McKinsey & Company’s claims, Hand and Green were unable to replicate McKinsey’s results. They wrote that “Despite the imprimatur given to McKinsey’s studies, they should not be relied on to support the view that US publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives.” What this DEI consulting firm lied about is actually evil: pic.twitter.com/MeGZTj02Ds — The Matt Walsh Show (@MattWalshShow) May 1, 2024 Earlier in the podcast, Walsh mentioned former Intel President Renée James and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban’s parroting of McKinsey’s propaganda. Walsh would go on to point out that the corporate world had been influenced by “bad data for nine years.” What this “bad data” promotes is racial discrimination. A report by Bloomberg News highlighted a disturbing trend in hiring throughout 2021. According to the media outlet, a mere 6% of jobs at major companies they analyzed went to white individuals in 2021. Simultaneously, white people made up 68.5% of layoffs at studied companies that shrank in 2021. Walsh mocked McKinsey’s silence in the face of this embarrassing revelation. “As of now, McKinsey hasn’t responded to this debunking, which tells you a lot, because if you have decades’ worth of research showing something and then some academics come along and they say that it’s all fraudulent, you’d think you would want to respond some way, but McKinsey hasn’t because of course all their research on this topic is fake.” Citing an American Conservative article, Walsh hammered the point that McKinsey shouldn’t be let off the hook for pushing discrimination. “What McKinsey pushed for was actually evil. It wasn’t some innocent lie,” he continued. “It wasn’t something where they had the best of intentions and it went wrong. It damaged the lives of a lot of people.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on the dangers of leftist DEI ideology infecting corporate America.

Austin Tex. Votes to Become ‘Sanctuary City’ For Transgender Minors

I think it may actually be time to "mess with Texas." The Austin City Council voted in favor of becoming a sanctuary city for transgender minors seeking “gender-affirming care” on Thursday. The city has plans to break Texas state law, which aims to protect kids against things like chemical castration, in order to mutilate innocent children to feed a delusion and push an agenda. In a vote of 10-1, the council passed a measure that will help it undermine state law by directing police to push any enforcement of the state's transgender child restrictions to their “lowest priority.” As noted in the resolution:  Except to the extent required by law, it is the policy of the City that no City personnel, funds, or resources shall be used to investigate, criminally prosecute, or impose administrative penalties upon: (1) a transgender or nonbinary individual for seeking healthcare, or (2) an individual or organization for providing or assisting with the provision of healthcare to a transgender or nonbinary individual; and further, the City shall not terminate or limit the eligibility for City funding, such as grants or contracts, to an individual or organization for seeking, providing, or assisting with the provision of healthcare to a transgender or nonbinary individual. Local news station KXAN said that the resolution would make sure that police aren’t “wasting their time” making sure kids aren’t getting mutilated and instead focus on other issues in the city. Numerous individuals gave testimonies both for and against the city’s push for skirting around the law. One included a de-transitioner who explained how she was adamantly against these “permanent” procedures. Related: South Carolina Senate Passes Ban on Transgender Treatments for Kids The woman, Aether Dixon, detailed the complications she faced after being coerced into starting transgender treatments as a teenager. After being on testosterone for just a few months, Dixon said she was diagnosed with a cardiovascular intolerance, “having constant issues with heart regulation and passing out.” While in agonizing pain, Dixon remembers asking herself why she was still unhappy even after following through with all the transgender procedures she could.  Now 21, Dixon said she is dealing with the complications of the treatments like “vaginal atrophy, extreme joint pain and discomfort from permanently changing my sex characteristics,” saying all of it is because she “identified and was affirmed in [her] trauma.” Dixon said she supports state laws restricting these kinds of procedures for children. “The legislation this item is against is not taking away rights or anatomy, it is regulating experimental medicine on children in a non-criminal way. Save every kid from the unnecessary hormone complication and lost body parts,” Dixon said, noting that kids need help and support to love themselves and their bodies, not procedures that will ruin them. Yesterday, I addressed #Austin City Council, sharing my journey as a queer and undocumented individual, advocating for agenda item #64: a #transgender protection resolution to combat #SB14.🏳️‍⚧️ It was a pivotal moment as I shed light on the mental health toll of homophobia and… pic.twitter.com/eiTtYagt4d — Christian Aguirre (@christianindc) May 3, 2024 A different woman, Michelle Evans, read a statement on behalf of state Representative Brian Harrison (R - Tex.) and said that the city of Austin shouldn’t be able to arbitrarily make up its own rules.  “Actions like the one being proposed today, if passed, make it abundantly clear that this council is unfit to manage the capital city of the greatest State in the country," Evans read. On the other hand, Christian Aguirre,  a “proud member of the LGBTQ community,” expressed his support of the resolution, claiming it would help people like him who grew up “queer and undocumented” and somehow prevent suicide...by mutilating kids before they're old enough to vote. Yesterday, I addressed #Austin City Council, sharing my journey as a queer and undocumented individual, advocating for agenda item #64: a #transgender protection resolution to combat #SB14.🏳️‍⚧️ It was a pivotal moment as I shed light on the mental health toll of homophobia and… pic.twitter.com/eiTtYagt4d — Christian Aguirre (@christianindc) May 3, 2024 Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement on Austin’s resolution on Thursday evening: If the City of Austin refuses to follow the law and protect children, my office will consider every possible response to ensure compliance. Texas municipalities do not have the authority to pick and choose which state laws they will or will not abide by. The people of Texas have spoken, and Austin City Council must listen. Time will tell what actions Paxton makes regarding the Austin City Council’s resolution. Hopefully everyone puts politics aside and considers what is actually helpful and what is harmful for these young, confused minors. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: The Left Needs Therapy & You Might Too After Watching This The people featured in this video really need therapy & our prayers too. pic.twitter.com/zLbJcivOW3 — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 30, 2024  

ABC, CBS Play White House Pravda Fawning Over State Dinner for Teachers

Less than week after President Biden used his White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD) speech to order the liberal media to get to work on behalf of democracy (aka his reelection campaign), ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS Mornings took this to heart with puff ball pieces Friday on a White House state dinner held to celebrate teachers. This was especially par for the course on ABC. Co-host Michael Strahan even had a tease at the top of the second hour: “From the classroom to the White House. The historic event for teachers who help others make their dreams come true. We got ready with the national teacher of the year.”     “Going to turn now to the White House, honoring America’s top teachers last night, including the national teacher of the year. Senior White House correspondent Selina Wang was there and ABC got an exclusive behind the scenes access,” he added moments later. Wang did her best impression of colleague and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce: [T]he White House, for the first time, hosting a state dinner for teachers. Now, these are lavish events for heads of state, but this time, teachers got to experience the glitz and glam and we got that exclusive look behind the scenes. Overnight, the White House hosting the first ever teachers of the year state dinner. First Lady Dr. Jill Biden toasting honorees from nearly every state and territory. Following soundbites from Jill and Joe Biden, Wang touted ABC’s exclusive look at national teacher of the year Mindy Testerman — an ESOL teacher in Tennessee — getting ready and as she made her grand entrance where celebrities and politicians often pose for photos upon rival for state dinners. “Testerman hoping to use her platform to encourage other teachers to advocate for students,” Wang added, asking her inside the White House, “[w]hy is teaching so important?” “Teaching is so important because as this country moves forward, educators make every other single profession possible,” Testerman replied. Wang concluded with a line from Testerman’s speech, which sounded like it was crafted by the Democratic National Committee as she talked about preserving “democracy”: And guys, Missy Testerman said in her speech last night that teachers make democracy possible by educating the next generation. And, look, the learning goes both ways. She told me that her students have taught her courage, calling them her heroes[.] Having been the ones to reveal both Testerman as the award recipient and there would be a state dinner for all state and national teachers, CBS Mornings was ebullient and made sure viewers knew it. “For the first time ever, America’s top teachers were invited to a special dinner at the White House to honor their work. First Lady Jill Biden hosted last night’s event, upgrading the usual White House reception for state and national teachers of the year,” fill-in co-host Jericka Duncan began, tossing to chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes. Cordes made sure to twice name-check the show (click “expand”): [V]ery glitzy. You might recall that the First Lady revealed right here on CBS Mornings last month that she was going to host a state dinner for the nation’s top teachers. And so, last night, the educators traded in their school clothes for gowns and suits as they were each announced individually at the event. Now, this is a big deal since White House state dinners are typically reserved for visiting heads of state, prime ministers, the Hollywood elite. It’s the toughest ticket in town. But this space, take a look, may look familiar. Missy Testerman joined CBS Mornings last month when we revealed that she was named the 2024 national teacher of the year. The English as a Second Language program director at Rogersville City School in Tennessee has been teaching for more than three decades. She was celebrated last night.  Like a Biden press secretary, Cordes added “[t]he nation’s top educators received an inspirational message from the First Lady, who has also been teaching for more than 30 years” and “thanked them for everything they do to change the world.” It grew even more pathetic and partisan when she complimented the President’s message: “Her other half, President Biden, also stopped by to honor the teachers. He told them, ‘you are the kite strings that hold our national ambitions aloft.’ Very poetic, guys. Maybe he has a teacher in the house.” Or, a speechwriter, but whatever. To see the relevant transcripts from May 3, click here (for ABC) and here (for CBS).

Hostin: You Can’t Send Police to Bust Camps, Kids Had ‘Fire Drills!’

On Friday’s edition of The View, ABC’s staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) decried that administrators and states sent the police in to bust many of the illegal, anti-Semitic/pro-Hamas encampments on college campuses across the country. According to her, it was unconscionable for the police to break up the encampments because the students “grew up” doing “fire drills” in school. Hostin, completely ignoring the fact that the students she was backing employed Nazi-style tactics against the Jews on campus (including taking a Jewish student hostage), whined that “anti-protesters that have coming in and caused violence to these encampments.” “Let's not forget that part of the story,” she bitterly declared as moderator Joy Behar shot back with: “You know what, there are a lot of parts to the story.” The shrill rambling continued with Hostin bizarrely proclaiming that the police should have considered the fact that the students had participated in “fire drills” before busting the encampment: Can I just also say this? Let's also remember that these kids that are protesting are kids that grew up with active fire drills and for them to be subjected to the type of police violence that we are seeing on the nightly news is something also something to recall.     It’s unclear what Hostin meant by this and she didn’t offer any further explanation as to why “fire drills” would make her fellow anti-Semites exempt from following the law. Co-host Sara Haines pushed back and noted that the encampments were harming other students through actions, not speech. “But there are students that can’t cross campus. The antithesis of freedom of speech is threatening someone, they have to say something you believe to cross the campus,” she told Hostin off. Interestingly, Behar, Haines, and co-host Ana Navarro actually called out the encampments for being funded by shady dark money groups. “You know, can I just say one thing? Somebody is behind that with money! I’m sorry. Who bought those tents, for example?” Behar exclaimed. “There are two Palestinian rights groups that are actually – until we end Israel we will not stop. There are two agitating groups that are problematic,” Haines explained. Meanwhile, Navarro noted that “professional protest consultant” Lisa Fithian had been spotted at the Columbia encampment. “But there is actually video footage that I've seen here in New York and Columbia of a woman I guess is like a protest consultant. A professional protester or something like that appears in the video in Columbia,” she noted. “She basically has shown up in many protests that have occurred, and she knows how to make them more effective.” They got into talking about the encampment - a topic they largely avoided most of the week - because visuals of lawless campuses were hurting Biden in the polls. “Do they not remember the visuals on January 6?! Do they not remember those visuals of chaos?!” an unhinged Hostin shouted. “January 6th is ingrained in my memory and should be ingrained in every single person's memory in the United States of America!” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 3, 2024 11:07:59 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: Do they not remember the visuals on January 6?! Do they not remember those visuals of chaos?! SARA HAINES: I think visuals – literally humans look at the recent visions so nightly image right now matters more to them than January 6. HOSTIN: January 6th is ingrained in my memory and should be ingrained in every single person's memory in the United States of America! [Applause] ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: It should be but while they’re completely different, a lot of the imagery looks similar. And it was you're going to see Republicans seeing windows being smashed, things being defaced on college campuses and it evokes that same sense of lawlessness. HAINES: And the President had to speak to it. FARAH GRIFFIN: It was wise of Biden to get out and give a – JOY BEHAR: You know, can I just say one thing? Somebody is behind that with money! I’m sorry. Who bought those tents, for example? FARAH GRIFFIN: Oh, definitely. There's agitators who have infiltrated it for sure. [Crosstalk] HAINES: There are two Palestinian rights groups that are actually – until we end Israel we will not stop. There are two agitating groups that are a problematic. ANA NAVARRO: But there is actually video footage that I've seen here in New York and Columbia of a woman I guess is like a protest consultant. A professional protester or something like that appears in the video in Columbia – [Crosstalk] No, she basically has shown up in many protests that have occurred, and she knows how to make them more effective. She knows how to -- HOSTIN: But there are also anti-protesters that have coming in and caused violence to these encampments. Let's not forget that part of the story. That part – BEHAR: You know what, there are a lot of parts to the story. HAINES: Yeah. HOSTIN: Can I just also say this? Let's also remember that these kids that are protesting are kids that grew up with active fire drills and for them to be subjected to the type of police violence that we are seeing on the nightly news is something also something to recall. HAINES: But there are students that can’t cross campus. The antithesis of freedom of speech is threatening someone, they have to say something you believe to cross the campus. BEHAR: Okay, back to the vice president. (…)

'It's F****** Scary,' De Niro Compares Trump To Hitler On MSNBC

For some reason, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle decided to interview actor Robert De Niro on the Thursday edition of The 11th Hour. On multiple occasions, De Niro would compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler and himself and his compatriots to Jews in Nazi Germany, claiming “it's [bleep] scary.” Ruhle wondered, “What do you say to those who say, ‘I don't like the guy, but I'm going to vote for him.’ What's your message to them?” De Niro claimed that “I don't understand it. I don't think they understand how dangerous it will be if he ever, God forbid, becomes president.”       He further claimed, “I don't think they really understand and historically, from what I see, even in Nazi Germany, they had it with Hitler. They don't take him seriously. He looks like a clown, acts like a clown, Mussolini, same thing. These guys, I don’t know why they look like clowns, they somehow, people, that element of society identifies in some ways with them, but it would be chaos beyond our imagination. There's no mystery about him. He’s right out front and what he says is what it will be if he becomes president.” Ruhle’s underwhelming response was to ask, “Do you think our democracy is at risk in this election?” After comparing Trump to Hitler and Mussolini, De Niro naturally thought it is, “The guy’s a monster, is beyond wrong. It’s almost like he wants to do the most horrible things that he can think of in order to get a rise out of us. I don't know what it is, but he has been doing it and doing it and it's [bleep] scary. Excuse my French.” Still playing along, Ruhle inquired, “Do you have any concerns for the future of the arts if he were to become president? He already said he wants to go after his enemies, he wants to go after journalists and the news media. What about your industry?” De Niro took a while to get to his answer before ultimately replying that there could be “civil strife because, yeah, but he will try it.” Ruhle then wondered about other celebrities, “What do you say to other celebrities who don't want to alienate part of their fan base, don't want to step in harm’s way, but they have similar megaphones that you do?” Returning to the Nazi analogy, De Niro agreed that “other people are going to have to stand up” because otherwise America is going to end up in a Hitlerian dystopia: Because it's either that or you’re going to find yourself in a situation that is so terrifying. We always hear about people from Eastern Europe. The Jews from other than parts of Eastern Europe, from Western Europe coming over. Look what happened in France and with the Nazis and so on. And they come over, and you hear these and when I was a kid, they would say ‘you don't really appreciate this country. You don't really. Well, we know from experience.’ De Niro further added, “I run into people who are close to my age, who are from Eastern Europe, European countries or even Nazi Germany and, you know, they, you understand it.” Of all the times to compare being a liberal in Trump’s America to being a Jew in Nazi Germany, the one that involves Jews being told by hard core leftists to go back to Poland is probably not the best one. Here is a transcript for the May 2 show: MSNBC The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle 5/2/2024 11:47 PM ET STEPHANIE RUHLE: What do you say to those who say "I don't like the guy, but I'm going to vote for him." What's your message to them? ROBERT DE NIRO: I don't understand it. I don't think they understand how dangerous it will be if he ever, God forbid, becomes president. I don't think they really understand and historically, from what I see, even in Nazi Germany, they had it with Hitler. They don't take him seriously. He looks like a clown, acts like a clown, Mussolini, same thing. These guys, I don’t know why they look like clowns, they somehow, people, that element of society identifies in some ways with them, but it would be chaos beyond our imagination. There's no mystery about him. He’s right out front and what he says is what it will be if he becomes president. RUHLE: Do you think our democracy is at risk in this election? DE NIRO: I think that it is. I always keep saying, democracy is great, of course, but democracy people take for granted. It is a word some people don't even understand. They take it for granted. It’s about right and wrong, period. The guy’s a monster, is beyond wrong. It’s almost like he wants to do the most horrible things that he can think of in order to get a rise out of us. I don't know what it is, but he has been doing it and doing it and it's [bleep] scary. Excuse my French. RUHLE:  Do you have any concerns for the future of the arts if he were to become president? He already said he wants to go after his enemies, he wants to go after journalists and the news media.  DE NIRO: Yes. RUHLE: What about your industry? DE NIRO: I believe he —   the only thing I can think is what will happen is that he’ll go after these things like he always —   impulsively and he’ll be stopped. There’ll be pushback, a lot of it, and there might be as much pushback as needed, like, in the streets. Conflict, that could happen. Civil strife because, yeah, but he will try it. RUHLE: You have no upside in having this conversation. In speaking out against Donald Trump. You are making yourself a target. The interview will air and he will immediately find a reason to talk bad about you in public. DE NIRO: Yeah. RUHLE: — but you’re choosing to use your platform to do so. What do you say to other celebrities who don't want to alienate part of their fan base, don't want to step in harm’s way, but they have similar megaphones that you do? DE NIRO: You know, the idea, to be bullied at my age by someone like this, is not happening. RUHLE: I’m pretty sure you were never bullied. DE NIRO: No, there was a kid sometime, but the point is not—and for the country, no, and I think other people are going to have to stand up and just—because it's either that or you’re going to find yourself in a situation that is so terrifying. We always hear about people from Eastern Europe. The Jews from other than parts of Eastern Europe, from Western Europe coming over. Look what happened in France and with the Nazis and so on. And they come over, and you hear these and when I was a kid, they would say “you don't really appreciate this country. You don't really. Well, we know from experience.” Imagine what those people went through. I'm just starting to see it. You know, as a kid, I said “Hitler, it’s a nightmare. That never would happen.” But now I see that it is possible and with those people, and sometimes I run into people who are close to my age, who are from Eastern Europe, European countries or even Nazi Germany and, you know, they, you understand it.

MRC VP Dan Schneider Reveals Which Corporations Are ‘Worst Among Al’ Reshaping America

MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider and podcast host Lou Dobbs discussed just how anti-American U.S. corporations and the Biden administration have become. The pair discussed the massive power that government and big corporations have amassed while each have also become more woke. “When you look at the centers of power in our society, it’s the federal government and corporate America,” said Dobbs on the Wednesday installment of his podcast, The Great America Show. Dobbs seemed to agree with Schneider's criticism of Big Tech companies as some of the worst corporations during the interview. “For so long the idea of for-profit corporations, conservatives saw corporations as allies as a good thing. And it used to be that these corporate CEOs usually were kind of right of center and pro-freedom, and that’s no longer the case,” Schneider lamented. “Now these big corporations are controlled by the left, and those resources are being used to attack the idea of America, the very founding principles of our democracy.” He added that “worst among all of them, of course, are the Big Tech platforms.” The Great America Show 5/1/24 - Corporate Power Threatens Freedom https://t.co/Kq5h0mKsnV — Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) May 1, 2024 Schneider went on to give examples of MRC Free Speech America’s recent studies on Google and Facebook’s election interference over the last 16 years. He noted Google has interfered in U.S. elections no fewer than 41 times during that period, burying the campaign websites of every Biden opponent this election cycle alone. Similar censorship that Google conducted in 2020 suppressed at least 6 million votes. Not to be left out, Facebook interfered in elections 39 times over the past 16 years, according to a recent MRC study. Schneider added that corporate censorship is not even the most disturbing form of curtailing the First Amendment. Rather, government collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans is alive and well as became clear during the Supreme Court-heard arguments for Netchoice v. Paxton and Netchoice v. Moody.  “Joe Biden, and his administration, just a month ago in the Supreme Court, was arguing that the government and Big Tech both have First Amendment free speech rights to censor Americans who disagree with the president,” he said. “I am not making this up. Joe Biden’s argument is that government has the right to control our speech.” The Netchoice cases challenge Florida and Texas’s free speech laws, which would limit Big Tech’s ability to censor users based on viewpoint discrimination as a publisher might. They would, however, keep liability protections that shield platforms from being sued for the speech of their users. During oral arguments, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar claimed that the laws violated Big Tech’s freedom of speech. “Congress specifically recognized the platforms are creating a speech product. They are literally, factually publishers, and Congress wanted to grant them immunity,” she alleged. “[Liability protection]  was for the purpose of encouraging this kind of editorial discretion.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Leguizamo Bashes 'Insidious' Univision For Lacking Hostility In Trump Interview

Actor, alleged comedian, and massive narcissist John Leguizamo stopped by CBS and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Thursday to hype his MSNBC miniseries about “Latinx lenses all across America.” Before that, however, Leguizamo blasted Univision for not bashing Donald Trump all the time and that, as a result, he trumpeted that he will no longer be appearing on the network. Colbert recalled that, “You also wrote this in the Los Angeles Times recently, this was in November. You wrote this opinion piece there. It says, ‘Cozying up to Trump, Univision is betraying its Spanish-speaking viewers.’ How so?”     It is hard to see how any network that employs Jorge Ramos could be considered soft on Trump, but Leguizamo tried, “Well, it's kind of insidious because Spanish-speaking only Latinos watch Univision and that's where they get all their news and information and so, you should be impartial. You should be non-partisan. And they're not. It's problematic to me.” Even Colbert suggested he wasn’t buying what Leguizamo was selling, “Are they right-wing in some way?” Leguizamo tried to claim that they were “I've spoken off the record with some of the newscasters and they said that they were leaning -- they were pushing them right way and they had Trump on and they softballed the whole questions. They wouldn't allow Biden commercials on and then they didn't have Biden on for a long, long time and so I had to call them out on it. I called them out and their marketing people called me back.” The interview with Biden wasn’t exactly hardball, but being a little bit to the right of the far-left does not make an outlet a right-wing network, but after Colbert asked what they said in response, Leguizamo proudly declared that the interview resulted in him banning himself from their airwaves, “They said 'it's not true. You know, we are not really -- we are doing everything we can to be nonpartisan,' but 'I'm like, yo, how are you doing all these things that are not -- that are leaning very MAGA? So, you need to be non-partial. Otherwise, I'm going to call you out again.' So I won't be on Univision. I won't be.” Earlier, Colbert and Leguizamo were discussing the latter’s time as temp host of The Daily Show in 2023. It should be noted that a NewsBusters study found that Leguizamo was the most partisan of the show's 2023 temp hosts which included former Democratic officials Al Franken and Kal Penn. Only one of his 66 political jokes targeted the left and that one was attacking Univision's Enrique Acevedo for the interview in November in a show co-hosted by Jordan Klepper and Desi Lydic from the left after his initial stint in March. During his time as host, Leguizamo played racial politics, delighted in Trump getting indicted, and accused Republicans of stealing elections. This year, he mauled a piñata while cursing the fact that polls show Latinos ignoring his political wisdom. Later, Colbert brought up the MSNBC miniseries, “What do you want to explore with the show? Like, what's it about?” The supposed champion Latinos and nonpartisanship in the news media teased, “I’m looking at Latinx lenses all across America and I find it an embarrassment of riches.” Ah, yes, the nonpartisan “Latinx.” Here is a transcript for the May 2-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/3/2024 12:07 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: You also wrote this in the Los Angeles Times recently, this was in November. You wrote this opinion piece there. It says "Cozying up to Trump, Univision is betraying its Spanish-speaking viewers." How so? JOHN LEGUIZAMO: Well, it's kind of insidious because Spanish-speaking only Latinos watch Univision and that's where they get all their news and information and so, you should be impartial. You should be non-partisan. And they're not. It's problematic to me. COLBERT: Are they right-wing in some way? LEGUIZAMO: I've spoken off the record with some of the newscasters and they said that they were leaning -- they were pushing them right way and they had Trump on and they softballed the whole questions. They wouldn't allow Biden commercials on and then they didn't have Biden on for a long, long time and so I had to call them out on it. I called them out and their marketing people called me back. COLBERT: What did they say? Like did they-- LEGUIZAMO: They said “it's not true. You know, we are not really -- we are doing everything we can to be nonpartisan,” but I'm like, “I'm like, yo, how are you doing all these things that are not -- that are leaning very MAGA? So, you need to be non-partial. Otherwise, I'm going to call you out again.” So I won't be on Univision. I won't be. They have the highest rated Spanish-language shows, so I won't be on [speaks Spanish]. … COLBERT: What do you want to explore with the show? Like, what's it about? LEGUIZAMO: I’m looking at Latinx lenses all across America and I find it an embarrassment of riches. You know, we are in every city in America. We've been here since, at least 1492, and before that and you know, from Mississippi to the Pacific was all Mexico until 1840, so we’re everywhere and doing incredible things. I’m meeting politicians, grassroots organizers, chefs who are James Beard nominees and winners. I'm eating the best freaking food you've ever had and gaining pounds and I don’t give a—”

Editor’s Pick: Washington Times Covers DISTURBING Move by BlackRock in China

Our friends at The Washington Times had a front-page story for Thursday’s print edition that showed, once again, The Times has in-depth reporting the rest of the print media wouldn’t dare to touch. This time, national security correspondent Bill Gertz highlighted a report that infamous Wall Street firm BlackRock “is investing millions of dollars in an estimated 30 Chinese military-linked companies sanctioned by the U.S. government”. The report, which came courtesy of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, also revealed BlackRock — a company known for backing woke “environmental, social and governance” (ESG) policies under boss Larry Fink — “has invested in companies working on China’s large-scale nuclear weapons buildup.” Despite its woke pedigree, Gertz said BlackRock specifically has given “nearly $50 million” to “Chinese companies sanctioned under the 2022 Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act”. Here was more from Gertz’s disturbing story: “China’s political leadership wants to redirect capital to emerging technologies with military application in preparation for a potential war with the United States,” the report said. “Beijing also wants to continue its campaign of oppression against the Uyghurs and other minority groups in northwestern China.” Noting that BlackRock has said it does not do business with companies in China producing nuclear arms, the report concludes: “The reality is that BlackRock holds stock in Chinese companies pursuing an aggressive buildup of nuclear warheads meant to hold United States territory at risk.” (....) The report singled out MSCI Inc., a leading provider of support tools for global investors known as indexes, for its role in BlackRock’s investments in banned military-linked companies in China. Christopher Berger, a spokesman for BlackRock, which reports managing $10 trillion in assets, had no immediate comment on the report. MSCI officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. (....) BlackRock became the first global asset manager allowed to operate a wholly owned mutual fund business in China in 2021. Chief Executive Larry Fink was among the senior American business leaders who reportedly paid $40,000 for a seat at a dinner table with Chinese President Xi Jinping during his visit to California in November. The company said on its website that one of its principles is “we are committed to a better future.”      (....) The report identified MSCI as BlackRock’s main index provider, with more than $15 trillion in assets. “As MSCI’s most important customer and second largest shareholder, BlackRock could demand the exclusion of Chinese military companies and human rights violators from its indexes,” the report said. “Instead, BlackRock fails to acknowledge that its exposure to U.S.-sanctioned entities is a problem, claiming that it ‘complies with all applicable U.S. government laws.’” To read Gertz’s full story, click here.

South Carolina Senate Passes Ban on Transgender Treatments for Minors

On Thursday, the South Carolina Senate approved a ban on transgender procedures and surgeries for minors.  The Help Not Harm bill (H4624) passed by a 27-8 vote which included all South Carolina Republicans and one Democrat who voted in favor of the ban.  If passed, the ban will make it so that healthcare professionals will not be allowed to perform gender surgeries, prescribe puberty blockers or provide hormone treatments for minors who identify as transgender. Additionally, if a child presents as a gender that differs from their biological sex or uses a name that isn’t their legal name, school principals would be required to notify parents or guardians. In response to the verdict, both those for and those against the bill took to X to comment. Executive Director for the American Civil Liberties Union in South Carolina posted a video where he was on the brink of tears over the news since it “hit him hard.” “Folks who want to hurt transgender kids and transgender people, they’d get their way,” he said, “I’m heartbroken.” Our leader Jace is the first (and so far only) transgender Executive Director in the 100+ year history of the nationwide ACLU. The passage of the bill to ban healthcare for transgender kids is hitting him hard. Here's his message. pic.twitter.com/OUghdW4xVF — ACLU of South Carolina (@ACLU_SC) May 2, 2024 One user tagged the South Carolina governorand wrote “for every beautiful transgender child in South Carolina who suffers despair, depression, or harms themselves — it’s on you and your complete lack of empathy and decency.” On the other hand, the group called Palmetto Family wrote that they are “thankful to God that children in the Palmetto State will soon be protected” and one user said it was a “huge win for kids.” Another wrote, “'Gender-affirming care' has never been evidence-based. It is purely activist driven and research shows that it is indeed causing harm. The legislature is following the evidence and protecting vulnerable children.” The bill needs to go back to the House for review after the Senate amended some elements. If it passes there, it will go to Governor Henry McMaster’s (R - S.C.) desk to be signed into law.

Three Years of the Corporate Media Shrieking About the ‘End of Democracy’

In speeches throughout his time in office (and in particular starting with the 2022 midterms), President Biden has warned a second Trump term would herald the “end of democracy.” But if anything, Biden is late to the party. The corporate media were doomsaying about democracy’s brutal demise as far back as early 2021, and their rhetoric has only grown more absurd since then.     The most obvious issue with this dire warning, other than its absurd overuse by journalists loyal to liberals, is that it always entails an almost comically vague, ever-changing definition of “democracy.” For three years, washed-up security analysts have warned that, unless former President Trump goes to prison for his alleged role in January 6, democracy is dead. But that trend started as far back as even January of 2021, when MSNBC contributor and former Watergates prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks pontificated: “It is the end of democracy if we do not take and hold the President accountable for what he inspired.” By that point, the DNC operatives in the news media had already branded Republicans the anti-democracy party. On October 12 of 2021, CNN contributor and former Clinton aide Paul Begala warned that, if Democrats ever lost power again, democracy would be over forever: I’ve got a piece coming out tonight or tomorrow [about this] on cnn.com — shameless plug — and I really don’t think this is hysterical. I’m a pretty moderate guy. If the Democrats fail, it might be the end of American democracy. In December of 2022, MSNBC host Ali Velshi remarked while filling in on The Last Word that Moore v. Harper — a gerrymandering case concerning the North Carolina redistricting map — “could be the end of democracy if it goes the wrong way.” Velshi was far from alone in his assessment. In October of that same year, the ACLU put out a podcast episode about Moore titled, “This Supreme Court Case Could Upend Democracy.” In June 2023, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell agreed enthusiastically with Mount Holyoke College president-elect Danielle Holley when she remarked that the Dobbs decision was “a case that could end democracy.” A few weeks later, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece titled, “How the end of Roe turned into a threat to American democracy.” Do these ideologues really think any of these events will result in the mass-disenfranchisement of millions of Americans? Presumably not, but then what is their definition of democracy? The truth, as most have probably realized, is that “democracy” is simply a stand-in term for the DNC agenda. The Republican-favored North Carolina congressional map threatened “democracy” because it would’ve made it harder for the Democrats to win seats in that state. The overturning of Roe v. Wade also threatens “democracy” because it strips abortion, a sacred calf of the Democratic Party, of its constitutional body armor. But a Trump presidency would be most dangerous of all for “democracy” since a Republican in the White House would threaten all of the “progress” the Democratic Party has made over the last three and a half years.

NPR: Columbia Agitators' Call for 'Intifada' Just an 'Anti-Israel Slogan'?

Taxpayer-supported National Public Radio has picked sides in the Israel-Hamas war, supporting the students/terrorist supporters camping on the quads of progressive colleges campuses. This is how NPR’s Up First newsletter (a summary of what NPR considers the must-know stories of the day) on Wednesday morning described the illegal occupation by pro-Hamas agitators at Columbia University: NPR's Brian Mann tells Up First that Columbia students were shocked, dismayed, and stunned by the overwhelming force used by police. Columbia spokesman Ben Chang said in a press conference that protesters were frightening other students. Mann adds that despite this, there’s been a lot of community support for these encampments. Lena Whitney, a City College graduate who witnessed the police action last night, told NPR, “These students are putting their lives at risk; they’re putting their jobs, their diplomas at risk because they’re fighting for something bigger -- the right to life for Palestinians.” One would have to dig up the online transcript of Mann’s report, which aired first on Wednesday’s Morning Edition --“NYC police used force to clear a pro-Palestinian student encampment at Columbia” -- to confirm the campus disruptors at Columbia heard on the report's background tape were in fact chanting “intifada,” support for the killing of Jews. A Martinez, Host: ….Across the country, the pro-Palestinian encampment at Columbia University is gone this morning, and the campus building that protesters had seized is empty. Police forced their way into the building and arrested and zip-tied the hands of dozens of students who began their demonstration two weeks ago…. NPR’s reporter Mann committed bias by omission, reporting only that “Hundreds of students were defiant at first, A. They were chanting anti-Israel slogans and calling for divestment from doing business with Israel.” Calling for Israel’s destruction via “intifada” -- which Mann didn’t even acknowledge directly -- isn’t just an “anti-Israel slogan” and certainly isn’t a mere call for divestment. It calls up memories of the Second Intifada and the suicide bombers who murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians on buses and in cafes. Unidentified Protester: (Chanting) Intifada, intifada. Unidentified Protesters: (Chanting) Intifada, intifada. Unidentified Protester: (Chanting) Long live the intifada. Unidentified Protesters: (Chanting) Long live the intifada. Still, NPR stuck up for the terrorist supporters and their (illegal) occupation of a campus building. Mann: At one point, A, a student appeared on top of Hamilton Hall. That's the building they occupied Monday night. That student waved a Palestinian flag. But then around 9:30 p.m. last night, a huge number of NYPD officers in riot gear charged the campus. And the student crowd fell back. They were clearly frightened. The NYPD used a massive armored vehicle to push a bridge into a window of Hamilton Hall…. Martinez: Wow, what a scene. How did students react to all this? Mann: Yeah, with shock and dismay. I spoke to one student who was stunned by the overwhelming force. She wouldn't give her name because she fears reprisal by Columbia University. Unidentified Student: Myself and many other students have just felt horror seeing the swiftness with which the NYPD came and deploy themselves onto our campus. Mann ran a bite from a Columbia spokesman who said protesters had “created a threatening environment for many, including our Jewish students and faculty.” Still, the reporter located “a lot of community support” for the agitators, including the bystander Up First found interesting. Mann: You know, many politicians in New York City, including bipartisan members of Congress have condemned these protests, describing them as unlawful and antisemitic. That's a charge many students reject. There's also been a lot of community support for these encampments. NPR spoke last night with Leena Widdi, who watched this police action. She's a graduate of City College. Leena Widdi: Students are putting their lives at risk. They're putting their jobs, their diplomas at risk 'cause they know that they're fighting for something bigger, which is the right to life for Palestinians.

Meyers Claims Columbia Should've Rejected Police, Surrendered Instead

NBC Late Night host Seth Meyers used his Thursday show to condemn Columbia for using the police to clear the illegal encampments and building occupations instead of surrendering to the campers like Brown University. At the same time, Meyers ignored what the leaders of the movement say about Zionism and continued to pretend that they are simply critical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On the police sweep, Meyers ranted, “As a New Yorker, I just wanna say, I really appreciate knowing this is where my tax dollars are going, using drones to round up co-eds rather than say keeping librarians open, building affordable housing, or making sure the F Train isn't a total piece of [bleep].” After a digression about the F Train’s lack of punctuality, Meyers got back on track by sarcastically remarking, “So, the NYPD responded with advanced technology and unprecedented force to a college protest. Columbia and New York City officials said they were left with no choice. And I mean, let's face it. It's not like they had any alternatives. Unfortunately, there's just no other way for a college to deal with a protest like this.”     He then played a clip of CNN’s Jim Sciutto reporting that Brown reached an agreement with the demonstrators to “hold a vote on divestment from Israel later this year.” Meyers thought Columbia also should’ve caved to the lawlessness and inflammatory demands, “But, what about our drones? If there's a peaceful settlement, what are we going to do with all our drones? I know. Maybe instead of taking the F train, the drones could fly us to work.” Later, Meyers introduced a clip of Sen. Bernie Sanders by lamenting the demonstrators’ message has been lost, “I would hope that there's maybe one thing we can all agree on. No matter how you feel about the protesters, we should spend less time arguing about college kids and more time focusing on what the protests are about. A point Senator Bernie Sanders made on Wednesday.” In the clip, Sanders suggested, “CNN and maybe some of my colleagues here, maybe take your cameras just for a moment off of Columbia and off of UCLA. Maybe go to Gaza and take your camera and show us the emaciated children who are dying of malnutrition because of Netanyahu's policies.” Meyers agreed, “He's right. The story is what's happening in Gaza. That's what the protests are about… As we said on this show before, the misery and devastation in Gaza is horrifying. It must end. At the same time, it's important to be clear. Anti-Semitism is vile, must be rejected in all its forms. Anti-Semitic harassment has no place anywhere, including on a college campus. And the constitutional right to protest, the actions of any government should be protected. And Jewish students should feel safe at school. All of these things can and should be true at once. To quote my favorite college professor, that just seems to me like—” The sentence was concluded by My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell at a Donald Trump rally, saying “bucket of common sense.” Meyers wants to separate the protestors message from the ant-Semitism, but he can’t. The leaders of these movements are not simply Netanyahu critics who are a bunch of naïve peaceniks who think a ceasefire will bring peace, they are radicals who think Zionism is a form of racism and therefore Israel needs to be destroyed, which is a form of anti-Semitism. They say this on tape and on their signs, but Meyers and Sanders chose to ignore it despite the fact that the people they are defending would consider both of them as guilty as Netanyahu for simply believing Israel should continue to exist. Here is a transcript for the May 2-taped show: NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 5/3/2024 12:46 AM ET SETH MEYERS: As a New Yorker, I just wanna say, I really appreciate knowing this is where my tax dollars are going, using drones to round up co-eds rather than say keeping librarians open, or building affordable housing, or making sure the F Train isn't a total piece of [bleep]. I like the delays. It gives me a chance to do the Wordle. There's even a new special F train Wordle where the words are twice as long.  The other day my train was trapped for 50 minutes between stocks because Pizza Rat was on the tracks and all the other rats wanted a photo. There were even two tourist rats from Germany. You could tell from their lederhosen. Oh, my god, I fought -- I fought so hard to get that in and it was such a dud.  So, the NYPD responded with advanced technology and unprecedented force to a college protest. Columbia and New York City officials said they were left with no choice. And I mean, let's face it. It's not like they had any alternatives. Unfortunately, there's just no other way for a college to deal with a protest like this. JIM SCIUTTO: We also have news just out of Brown University, which has come to agreement with protesters there. The university says it will hold a vote on divestment from Israel later this year. That is ending investments in Israel. It's a key demand from students. Students have said that in response to that, well, they will disband the encampment by 5:00 P.M. Eastern today. MEYERS: But, what about our drones? If there's a peaceful settlement, what are we going to do with all our drones? I know. Maybe instead of taking the F train, the drones could fly us to work … MEYERS: I would hope that there's maybe one thing we can all agree on. No matter how you feel about the protesters, we should spend less time arguing about college kids and more time focusing on what the protests are about. A point Senator Bernie Sanders made on Wednesday. BERNIE SANDERS: Well I suggest to CNN and maybe some of my colleagues here, maybe take your cameras just for a moment off of Columbia and off of UCLA. Maybe go to Gaza and take your camera and show us the emaciated children who are dying of malnutrition because of Netanyahu's policies. MEYERS: He's right. The story is what's happening in Gaza. That's what the protests are about.  And always I will say, I love Bernie's delivery. Really helps him drive home the point he's making. He's like a grandpa reminding everyone to stop texting during dinner. [BERNIE SANDERS IMPRESSION] "Maybe take your eyes off your phones. And make eye contact at the table. In my day there was no such thing as a gif. When we were surprised, we just did this. And then if somebody missed, you would just loop it and do it again."  [NORMAL VOICE] As we said on this show before, the misery and devastation in Gaza is horrifying. It must end. At the same time, it's important to be clear. Anti-Semitism is vile, must be rejected in all its forms. Anti-Semitic harassment has no place anywhere, including on a college campus. And the constitutional right to protest, the actions of any government should be protected. And Jewish students should feel safe at school. All of these things can and should be true at once. To quote my favorite college professor, that just seems to me like MIKE LINDELL: Bucket of common sense. 

Column: The Public Doesn't Trust the 'Democracy-Saving' Media

The national media consider themselves essential in educating the electorate, so what happens when the electorate does not consider them a trustworthy guardian of democracy? The Associated Press and the American Press Institute just released a poll on the 2024 election and found only 14 percent of their sample expressed a great deal of confidence in election-related information they receive from national sources. By contrast, 52 percent have little or no confidence at all in the information they receive from national news organizations About half of Americans, 53 percent, say they are extremely or very concerned that news organizations will report inaccuracies or misinformation during the election. It's 83 percent if you count the middle option of "somewhat concerned." That has to hurt, since the media elites say “misinformation” is what other people offer. When faced with poll after poll showing the media are not trusted, their failure to accept these results underlines the persistent lack of trust. AP media reporter David Bauder turned to American Press Institute chief Michael Bolden, who said “Years of suspicion about journalists, much of it sown by politicians, is partly responsible, he said. People are also less familiar with how journalism works.” Let’s be uncharitable for a minute. Reporters have sown “years of suspicion about politicians.” That’s how investigating politician performance could be described. So why would investigating journalist performance draw complaints of “sowing years of suspicion”? Why can they never be evaluated for how they serve the public? Respect cannot merely be demanded. It should be earned. Mr. Bolden is implying that politicians have swindled the public, which paints the public as – how did The Washington Post put it? – “poor, uneducated, and easy to command.” Then he lobbed another insult, that people aren’t familiar with “how journalism works.” Maybe these elitists should consider that news consumers might want a mostly factual, somewhat objective product instead of hyperbolic editorializing that tells them what they should think. Obviously, the Republican half of the public isn’t going to support Democrat electioneering badly disguised as “news.” Since they refuse to consider any bowing to objectivity, they have to dismiss any demand for it as ignorance of “how journalism works.” Bolden weirdly claimed this may be because most people don’t have a journalist who “lived on their block.” Since journalists won’t meet you at the summer picnic or the Trick or Treat greetings, media outlets need to tell the public “what journalists do and how people reporting news are their friends and neighbors.” This sounds remarkably similarly to what NPR CEO Katherine Maher recently said to The Wall Street Journal as she dismissed bias complaints as a “distraction.” Maher said, “We want to be able to speak to folks as though they were our neighbors and speak to folks as though they were our friends.” Curiously, they don’t want to talk to Republicans like they’re neighbors and friends. Remember short-lived CNN CEO Chris Licht meeting with Republicans trying to say trust us, “we don’t bite.” That turned out to be (a) untrue and (b) fatal to his CNN career. Brian Stelter channeled the national media arrogance under Trump after Licht was dumped: “We were advocating for the truth, advocating for reality. Others felt that was left-leaning.” When you think reality has a liberal bias, you shouldn’t be shocked when a lot of people change the channel. 

PBS’s Amanpour Celebrates ‘Heart of the Pro-Palestinian Campus Peace Movement’

On Monday’s Amanpour & Co., which runs on PBS and CNN International, host Christiane Amanpour took the side of the pro-Hamas campus protesters who are spewing anti-Jewish rhetoric on “progressive” college campuses nationwide -- no surprise given her long-standing journalistic hostility toward Israel. Against all evidence she insisted that the campus occupiers were “mostly nonviolent” idealists and that concerns had been blown “out of proportion.” Occupying private property is illegal, hence police may be called. Amanpour: Now, a major development sparked by this war is a growing protest and peace movement on college campuses across the United States. Though mostly nonviolent, several schools have called in local police and National Guard troops….the epicenter of all of this is Columbia University, where today, with negotiations between students and the administration at an impasse, the university called on protesters to clear their encampment or face suspension. Amanpour invited on a student journalist, introduced in the show opener like this: "Isabella Ramirez editor in chief of the Columbia Daily Spectator, reports from the heart of the pro-Palestinian campus peace movement." Ugh.   To her credit, she asked her about “student-on-student verbal harassment that has been cited as very damaging and uncomfortable and frightening by some of the Jewish students.” Ramirez replied her paper had “compiled pretty extensive reports regarding this, most particularly when in the aftermath of one of our campus rabbis telling Jewish students, hundreds of Jewish students to leave campus, to not stay because of the environment," including "particularly violent signage that was used to refer to actually Hamas...." But Amanpour then made the college administration the aggressors for calling on the local police to dissolve the disruptive and threatening takeover of the campus. Amanpour complained Columbia's president Minouche Shafik had been "hauled before" Congress to answer to anti-semitism on campus.  Amanpour:  I'm just fascinated to know what you think and how you're writing about the very targeted political situation that's layered upon all of this. Because after that, Shafik, did, as we've been talking, call in the NYPD to break up the protest. Now, it's interesting that the chief of the NYPD patrol on the U.S. said the students who were arrested were peaceful, offered no resistance whatsoever, and were saying what they wanted to say in a peaceful manner. And your newspaper wrote in an editorial, history has made clear who stood on the wrong side then. And it's clear that this is the side you are aligning yourself with now…. Ramirez replied with a laundry list of past protest movements at Columbia, then said her paper's editorial board was trying to warn the college president about her legacy if the wake of “the forceful removal of students from campus and also this crackdown on student protests.” Amanpour: And as we continue to chat, you know, we've seen on other universities, including Emory, it caused a huge ruckus, what happened on Emory, when a teacher -- a professor was essentially manhandled. Other teachers tried to help, faculty members, student, I think it was the police and the state guard or whatever they call them. It was a very rough situation over the weekend in Atlanta…. Ramirez turned understandable concerns about anti-Semitic rhetoric and “scholarship” by Columbia professors into a free speech issue (this after years of liberal academics calling out “micro-aggressions” against campus minorities). She said, "there has been this really big question as to whether the university has done enough to kind of protect academic freedom." Amanpour relayed the views of left-wing students and faculty, which seemingly morphed into her own view of the situation, that concerns about the campus encampments were being blown “out of proportion,” while inviting Ramirez to criticize mainstream media coverage of the protests, as if they were all too conservative. Amanpour: ….a lot of the faculty and some of the students have criticized the way we, the press, have covered these protests, some call it a peace movement. It's not even, you know -- it's not meant to be violence, it's meant to be nonviolent. And obviously, social media is blowing it out of proportion. You're watching it from the inside. Do you have a comment on the way the national press has been covering it? Ramirez demurred, and talked only about how the students can cover it because they live right there on campus. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS Amanpour & Co. 4/30/24 1:48:55 a.m. (ET) CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Now, a major development sparked by this war is a growing protest and peace movement on college campuses across the United States. Though mostly nonviolent, several schools have called in local police and National Guard troops. Today in Paris, French police entered the Sorbonne University campus to remove students occupying the main square. Now, the epicenter of all of this is Columbia University, where today, with negotiations between students and the administration at an impasse, the university called on protesters to clear their encampment or face suspension. Some of the most valuable reporting on all this comes from inside the student newspaper, the Columbia Daily Spectator. Editor in Chief Isabella Ramirez. Joins us from New York. Isabella Ramirez, welcome to the program. And, you know, I can't tell you how much we've read about what an excellent job you are doing and your, you know, student newspaper, your on campus journalist. What can you tell us is the latest right now as we sit here talking? ISABELLA RAMIREZ, EDITOR IN CHIEF, COLUMBIA DAILY SPECTATOR: Today is going to be a very significant day in terms of our developments. This morning, our president, Minouche Shafik, sent out an e-mail effectively saying that negotiations failed to reach an agreement. And it, for the first time, outlined very explicitly that Columbia will not divest from Israel, which is the central demand of the protesters. As well as, in that e-mail, it laid out, what, the university actually brought to the table to those negotiators, to those student negotiators and included a series of very interesting things, including offering a list of financial transparency of direct holdings of the university that is -- would be accessible to students and updating that list. It also offered to potentially invest in health and education in Gaza, as well as create an expedited process for divestment proposals. And those were all the things that essentially those students would have rejected because it did not fulfill what their central demands would be. And one of the interesting things as well is that that e-mail did not include anything about amnesty for the students, which has also been a very big thing for the arrested and suspended students. And so, now, the university has been handling out notices to those students at the encampment at this moment warning of disciplinary action, and they have until 2:00 p.m. today to potentially clear out if not to face, again, disciplinary action. And at the same time that this is happening, we're hearing word from the encampment, they made an announcement essentially saying that they have voted to stay. AMANPOUR: Wow. RAMIREZ: So, the students currently have voted to stay past 2:00 p.m. and face those suspensions. And just to add one more thing, the suspensions are actually even more severe than previous. The previous suspended students who were suspended simultaneous to the first wave of arrests that happened, you know, on April 18th, those students were allowed to stay on campus, at least in the residential spaces. This interim suspension says they would have no access to any campus buildings, including residences, dorms, dining, et cetera, IDs completely deactivated, which would effectively evict a lot of those students or at least leave them without access to the residence halls and other important buildings. So, the consequences are now much more severe. AMANPOUR: So, it seems, honestly, Isabella, that it's a real standoff that there seems to be, you know, little peace building or bridge building between either side and both sides, administration and students are really holding the toughest positions right now. I don't know whether you see any way forward, but what I want to ask you is, you know, you're watching this, you're talking to people on campus, you also see the ruckus that's being created outside the campus. Can you tel us what is the real picture? What -- is it dangerous, violent on campus? Is that off campus? What are you seeing as journalists from inside? RAMIREZ: So, at the very beginning stages, there were -- there was a lot of activity in terms of protest activity, both outside of our campus on campus. To be frank, that off campus protest activity has held quite a bit. It has calmed down. That is where a lot of people were sort of citing a lot more tension in terms of when it came to, you know, certain chance or certain incidents that were arising from those outside protests. But predominantly for right now, the encampment has sort of remained the same. And there's been very few updates sort of on the day to day. That's why today is actually quite a big day. But, you know, I was just at the encampment pretty recently distributing our newspaper and really, when you walk on and you see it, it's students sort of laying on the lawn, you know, chatting, reading books, getting water, getting food. It's a really interesting environment because we are certain that there are a lot of students who have reported feeling uncomfortable, have reported feeling unsafe by the presence of the encampment. But also, when you walk onto it, there isn't like active protests necessarily occurring on the encampment itself, it's mostly just the state of occupying that space and kind of being on that space, and there being kind of a series of other activities often but very little in terms of tangible protest. There is going to be probably more escalation we can anticipate as a result of the university's crackdown. And that's sort of why we saw, in the first place, some of those outside protests come in and also some of the students themselves start to galvanize in terms of upping their protest activity was because or was in response to the arrests and also university crackdown. But for these past few days where everything hs been at sort of a -- the negotiations have stalled, it has been pretty, you know, regular in terms of just the students laying on the lawns and, you know, kind of doing their day-to-day activity and programming, sometimes even tuning in to class from the lawn. AMANPOUR: Isabella, did you see, or were you able to hear the kind of, you know, student on student verbal harassment that has been cited as very damaging and uncomfortable and frightening by some of the Jewish students? RAMIREZ: Yes, we have compiled pretty extensive reports regarding this, most particularly when in the aftermath of one of our campus rabbis telling Jewish students, hundreds of Jewish students to not -- to leave campus, to not stay because of the environment. We, in that report, were able to compile a series of incidents that had happened. I believe on the Saturday following the arrests, much were related to off campus protest somewhere on campus that involved certain rhetoric, some of which was evocative of the Holocaust, telling students to go back to Poland, go back to Europe. And there were also other particularly violent signage that was used to refer to actually Hamas and that was one singular protest, that was a protester that was holding that sign and referring to the pro-Israel protesters behind them. And so, we have seen those incidents, and for sure, it has come up quite a lot in the dialogue when it comes to Shafik's communication to the community and all communication we've been receiving from the administration has been very strongly condemning the particular incidents that have arisen from this. Now, is that to say that that represents the entirety of the protesters at the encampment or all of the sort of different moving pieces? I think that is, of course, probably too wide sweeping, but there have certainly been these incidents that should draw concern for our community in half. AMANPOUR: So, let's go back. There's so much politics as well. You just mentioned the president, Minouche Shafik, who is new, let's face it. She started at the beginning of this academic year and has been hauled, like the others, in front of the special committee in Congress. I want to play a little bit of what happened on April 17th as you guys were -- well, not you, but the campus protesters were building the encampment. This is an exchange between Shafik and the GOP Representative Lisa McClain. REP. LISA MCCLAIN (R-MI): Are mobs shouting, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free or, long live the intifada. Are those antisemitic comments? MINOUCHE SHAFIK, PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: When I hear those terms, I find them very upsetting. And I have heard -- MCCLAIN: That's a great answer to a question I didn't ask. Is that fall under definition of antisemitic behavior? Yes or no? Why is it so tough? SHAFIK: Because it's a difficult issue. MCCLAIN: Maybe I should ask your task force. Does that qualify as antisemitic behavior, those statements? Yes or no? Yes. OK. Do you agree with your task force? SHAFIK: Yes, we agree. The question is what to do about it? MCCLAIN: So, yes. So, the -- so, yes, you do -- AMANPOUR: So, I'm just fascinated to know what you think and how you're writing about the very targeted political situation that's layered upon all of this. Because after that, Shafik, did, as we've been talking, call in the NYPD to break up the protest. Now, it's interesting that the chief of the NYPD patrol on the U.S. said the students who were arrested were peaceful, offered no resistance whatsoever, and were saying what they wanted to say in a peaceful manner. And your newspaper wrote in an editorial, history has made clear who stood on the wrong side then. And it's clear that this is the side you are aligning yourself with now. This will be your legacy. Are you -- were you addressing the president and the administration? RAMIREZ: Yes. So actually, our editorial board, I do not serve on, but it represents a sector of our opinion team who is very talented and has been working very hard on, you know, kind of reflecting discourse in a different way, because I oversee both the opinion and the newsroom. But that was -- that piece in particular was addressing Shafik herself. It was attempting to say, Shafik, take a look at what your legacy looks like right now to the public, to your students, to the administration. And I think a lot of it is inspired as well by what we know from previous protests at Columbia, 1968, Vietnam, antiwar, South African apartheid, these are all huge moments in Columbia's history in which those presidents also have been looked upon for the decisions that they made at that time. And now, when we reflect on it now, there is, of course, a lot of disdain and criticism for those decisions. So, I believe what the editorial board was really trying to get out here is, you know, really warning President Shafik as to what your legacy will entail if it means, you know, the forceful removal of students from campus and also this crackdown on student protests. Now, of course, there are many differing opinions here, but that was the opinion reflected by our editorial board in terms of what the majority voted for. AMANPOUR: And as we continue to chat, you know, we've seen on other universities, including Emory, it caused a huge ruckus, what happened on Emory, when a teacher -- a professor was essentially manhandled. Other teachers tried to help, faculty members, student, you know, the -- I think it was the police and the state guard or whatever they call them. It was a very rough situation over the weekend in Atlanta. But I guess what I want to ask you, because Columbia is known around the world for, you know, it's history of student protests, but most importantly, it's very enviable and distinguished Middle East program. You have a very important Middle East studies on Arab and Palestinian studies. You have very, very important Jewish studies program. What do you think happened? Why can't people talk to each other? RAMIREZ: I think part of it is that there is -- encircling all of this, encircling the protest activity is there's a big conversation about academic freedom at Columbia and sort of what are the limits of that, but as well as has the university done enough to protect those -- the academic freedom of the professors on our campus. And we saw that as well in the congressional hearing. Congress went very, very hard on Columbia for, naming multiple faculty members by name, most of whom came from the department regarding statements that they had made, scholarship, and other things that they have taught in their classrooms as, of course, labeling them antisemitic and unsafe. And so, there has been this really big question as to whether the university has done enough to kind of protect academic freedom in the first place to allow that discourse to even happen. And so, I think, you know, in terms of agree, like our tradition here at Columbia of both our Middle Eastern Studies Department, but also our immense connections too, we have the Jewish Theological Seminary, we have a -- controversial, but we have a relationship through a program with Tel Aviv University. We have these very deep-seated ties to this issue in particular Edward Said, many scholars who are considered foundational in Israeli and Palestinian issues. And so, a big question here has, though, been, what is academic freedom, what is the university's role in protecting it, and has Columbia, in this time frame, under political pressures, under student pressures, has it done enough to protect that and allow that discourse to occur on its campus? AMANPOUR: And briefly, we got just a little bit left. You know, a lot of the faculty and some of the students have criticized the way we, the press, have covered these protests, some call it a peace movement. It's not even, you know -- it's not meant to be violence, it's meant to be nonviolent. And obviously, social media is blowing it out of proportion. You're watching it from the inside. Do you have a comment on the way the national press has been covering it?

REGIME MEDIA: ABC Keeps Pushing ‘Bloodbath Hoax’ In Trump Smear

ABC World News Tonight, far and away the most fervent propagator of Biden talking points, farted out an embarrassment of a report that served little purpose other than to attempt to rekindle January 6th fearmongering and rehash the broadly-debunked “Bloodbath Hoax”. Watch the aforementioned report in its entirety, as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Thursday, May 2nd, 2024 (click “expand” to view full transcript): DAVID MUIR: Meantime, in the race for The White House, Donald Trump refusing to commit now to accepting the results of the upcoming November election, and President Biden tonight saying, "Take Donald Trump at his word" on this. Here's Mary Bruce. MARY BRUCE: Tonight, the Biden campaign is calling Donald Trump “a danger to the Constitution and a threat to our democracy”, after the former president refused to say he would accept the results of the election. Trump telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “If everything's honest, I'd gladly accept the results… If it's not, you have to fight for the right of the country.” BRUCE: Tonight, President Biden saying, take Trump at his word. Our Karen Travers asking him: KAREN TRAVERS: Are you worried that Trump says he won't accept the election results? BIDEN: Listen to what he says! BRUCE: Earlier this week, when Trump was asked by Time magazine if he's concerned about violence if he doesn't win, he said, "If we don't win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election."  Biden has been ramping up his warnings. BIDEN: He promises quote,” a bloodbath”, if he loses. This guy denies January 6th. Listen. Listen to what he says. Because you know he means it. BRUCE: The president urging voters to take this seriously, as some of Trump's language echoes what he said in the runup to the January 6th attack on the Capitol. The Biden campaign concerned that Trump supporters may be listening closely. David. MUIR: Mary Bruce, live at The White House tonight. Mary, thank you. Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce rehashes the usual January 6th hysteria, by citing portions of an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wherein Trump hedges when asked if he’d accept the results of the election should he lose. Bruce takes the opportunity to tie this to Trump’s Time  interview, and feed it to Biden as an election-denial burger.  It is at this point that Bruce allows Biden’s utterance of the Bloodbath Hoax to go unchallenged and uncorrected. As we said when ABC World News Tonight, with Bruce behind the anchor desk, first furthered the Bloodbath Hoax: …to accept the idea that people who are the elite in the industry of communicating with words are suddenly unable to comprehend plain English requires multiple significant suspensions of disbelief. That’s not to say that some of these elites are not intellectually deficient. But not to this extent. Which leaves willful deception as the only likely reason why reporters, correspondents and anchors would, in near unanimity continue to promote Trump’s assessment of damage to the American automotive industry under a second Biden term as both a violent threat and a January 6th-adjacent attack against democracy. Bruce closes out tonight’s report by contemptibly suggesting, without evidence, that Trump’s rhetoric echoes what he said in the runup to January 6th and echoing the Biden campaign’s talking point that “Trump supporters may be listening closely”.  The title “Regime Media” is well-earned.  

CBS’s Nancy Cordes Frets Campus Protests Might Hurt Biden

CBS Senior White House Correspondent Nancy Cordes went into full “Protect the Precious” mode as she covered the political fallout from the radical and often violent protests at various elite college campuses across the nation. Watch as Cordes laments that “the unrest is now threatening to become an election issue” affecting President Biden with the youth vote: PROTESTERS: Palestine will be free! NANCY CORDES: Like many protesters, President Biden has expressed concern about the plight of Palestinian civilians. More than 34,000 killed, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry. But when asked today if he would change his policies towards Israel, as the protesters have been demanding, Biden said, simply: JOE BIDEN: No. CORDES: The unrest is now threatening to become an election issue. Young people are a key Democratic voting bloc. SELINA AL-SHIHABI: Biden needs to listen to what the students are calling for, which is an end to a genocide funded by the United States. So, first things first, stop funding Israel. It is a small wonder that Cordes didn’t utter “Michigan” at some point in the report. You know she must’ve thought it. This item serves as a reminder that there is only one true, pure victim of whatever the calamity of the day might be- and that is the electoral prospects of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.  The report plays more like a mashup of two different reports: first, a recap of the happenings at the different universities across the nation, with their varying degrees of protest and crackdown. On the other hand, there is the standard D.C. wrapup.  In addition to the lamentation over the youth vote, the report unquestioningly cites Hamas Health casualty figures, and attempts to compensate for Biden’s perceived misfortunes by taking a “without evidence” shot at former President Donald Trump, who at a rally suggested that there were paid foreign agitators: Laying down this marker for when it is discovered that at least ONE (1) foreign-born student and/or outside agitator was paid by some radical oligarch-funded organization. pic.twitter.com/kR0GYRjIU0 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 3, 2024 Cordes’ shootdown of Trump’s statement so early into the protest fallout is arrogant to the point of recklessness. All it takes is ONE paid foreign student/agitator in order to make Cordes look like a total fool. The report closes with a casual “by the way” observation- that the Biden administration is thinking about bringing in some Gazan refugees to be reunited with family stateside. Again, Cordes managed to bite her tongue and not utter “Michigan”. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on the CBS Evening News on Thursday, May 2nd, 2024: JAMES BROWN: And we begin tonight with President Biden's sharp criticism today of the violence that has broken out in protest on America's college campuses over the Israel-Hamas war. In recent weeks, nearly 2,000 people have been detained or arrested at dozens of schools. There were more protests today at Portland State, George Washington University, the University of Pennsylvania, and NYU. Speaking at the White House today, President Biden made his most extensive comments to date on the protests, condemning anti-semitic slurs, vandalism, trespassing, and major disruptions to classes and graduations at some universities. New York City Mayor Eric Adams says nearly half of those arrested earlier this week at Columbia University and nearby City College were not students at those schools. Adams claims outside agitators are radicalizing students. CBS's Nancy Cordes leads off our coverage tonight from The White House. NANCY CORDES: White House officials say it was the sheer number of violent encounters on college campuses over the past two days that prompted President Biden to speak out. JOE BIDEN: There’s the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos. CORDES: His comments came in the wake of nearly 2,000 arrests. More than 30 colleges and universities. POLICE: Start clearing the barricade. CORDES: Just today, protesters were ejected from a library at Portland State University that they had occupied for three days. Inside, police say they found ball bearings, paint balloons, spray bottles of ink, and DIY armor. BIDEN: Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and graduations. None of this is a peaceful protest. PROTESTERS: Palestine will be free! CORDES: Like many protesters, President Biden has expressed concern about the plight of Palestinian civilians. More than 34,000 killed, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry. But when asked today if he would change his policies towards Israel, as the protesters have been demanding, Biden said, simply: BIDEN: No. CORDES: The unrest is now threatening to become an election issue. Young people are a key Democratic voting bloc. SELINA AL-SHIHABI: Biden needs to listen to what the students are calling for, which is an end to a genocide funded by the United States. So, first things first, stop funding Israel. CORDES: In battleground Wisconsin, Donald Trump argued Biden should have spoken out sooner. DONALD TRUMP: There’s a big fever in our country and he’s not talking. CORDES: But Trump also made this unfounded claim about campus demonstrators. TRUMP: They do come from other countries, and they are paid.  CORDES: Some Republicans have urged President Biden to send in the National Guard to quell campus protests, but he said no to that today. CBS News was first to report that the Biden administration is now considering bringing some Palestinians from war-torn Gaza to the U.S. as refugees. JB. BROWN: Nancy, thank you very much.  

Why Biden’s Just Wrong: NO ONE ‘Knows How to Make Government Work.’

President Joe Biden says, “I know how to make government work!” You’d think he’d know. He’s worked in government for 51 years. But the truth is, no one can make government work. Biden hasn’t. Look at the chaos at the border, our military’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, the rising cost of living, our unsustainable record-high debt ... In my new video, economist Ed Stringham argues that no government can ever work well, because “even the best person can’t implement change. ... The massive bureaucracy gets bigger and slower.” I learned that as a consumer reporter watching bureaucrats regulate business. Their rules usually made life worse for consumers. Yet politicians want government to do more! Remember the unveiling of Obamacare’s website? Millions tried to sign up. The first day, only six got it to work. Vice President Joe Biden made excuses: “Neither (Obama) and I are technology geeks.” Stringham points out, “If they can’t design a basic simple website, how are they going to manage half the economy?” While bureaucrats struggled with the Obamacare site, the private sector successfully created Uber and Lyft, platforms like iCloud, apps like Waze, smartwatches, etc. The private sector creates things that work because it has to. If businesses don’t serve customers well, they go out of business. But government is a monopoly. It never goes out of business. With no competition, there’s less pressure to improve. Often good people join government. Some work as hard as workers in the private sector. But not for long. Because the bureaucracy’s incentives kill initiative. If a government worker works hard, he might get a small raise. But he sits near others who earn the same pay and, thanks to archaic civil service rules, are unlikely to get fired even if they’re late, lazy or stupid. Over time, that’s demoralizing. Eventually government workers conclude, “Why try?” In the private sector, workers must strive to make things better. If they don’t, competitors will, and you might lose your job. Governments never go out of business. “Companies can only stay in business if they always keep their customer happy,” Stringham points out. “Competition pushes us to be better. Government has no competition.” I push back. “Politicians say, ‘Voters can vote us out.’” “With a free market,” Stringham replies, “The consumer votes every single day with the dollar. Under politics, we have to wait four years.” It’s another reason why, over time, government never works as well as the private sector. Year after year, the Pentagon fails audits. If a private company repeatedly does that, they get shut down. But government never gets shut down. A Pentagon spokeswoman makes excuses: “We’re working on improving our process. We certainly are learning each time.” They don’t learn much. They still fail audits. “It’s like we’re living in Groundhog Day,” Stringham jokes. When Covid hit, politicians handed out almost $2 trillion in “rescue” funds. The Government Accountability Office says more than $100 billion were stolen. “One woman bought a Bentley,” laughs Stringham. “A father and son bought a luxury home.” At least Biden noticed the fraud. He announced, “We’re going to make you pay back what you stole! No. They will not. Biden’s Fraud Enforcement Task Force has recovered only 1% of what was stolen. Even without fraud, government makes money vanish. I’ve reported on my town’s $2 million toilet in a park. When I confronted the parks commissioner, he said, “$2 million was a bargain! Today it would cost $3 million.” That’s government work. More recently, Biden proudly announced that government would create “500,000 (EV) charging stations.” After two years, they’ve built ... seven. Not 7,000. Just seven. Over the same time, greedy, profit-seeking Amazon built 17,000. “Privatize!” says Stringham. “Whenever we think something’s important, question whether government should do it.” In Britain, government-owned Jaguar lost money year after year. Only when Britain sold the company to private investors did Jaguar start turning a profit selling cars people actually like. When Sweden sold Absolut Vodka, the company increased its profits sixfold. It’s ridiculous for Biden to say, “I know how to make government work.” No one does. Next week, this column takes on Donald Trump’s promise: “We’ll drain the Washington swamp!”

Fla. Heartbeat Act Goes Into Effect: Pro-Lifers Rejoice, Pro-Aborts Cry

The Florida Heartbeat Protection Act went into effect on Wednesday in the 'Sunshine State,' protecting babies with detectable heartbeats from the brutal effects of abortion. Both individuals in support and those in opposition uttered their feelings regarding the new law going into effect. The Act makes it so that babies at around six-weeks gestation, when heartbeats are generally detectable, cannot be aborted. According to Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, it has the potential to protect roughly 50,000 lives annually. The law, however, does leave exceptions for cases where a mother’s life is at risk, when a fatal prenatal diagnosis occurs, and in cases of rape, incest or human trafficking. In response to the news, many pro-life individuals and groups celebrated the potential this has to save lives. “The Florida Heartbeat Act took effect today! That means preborn children are protected after 6 weeks gestation!” Catholic professor Michael New wrote on his X account linking to data from the Charlotte Lozier Institute about the 160 pregnancy centers in Florida who can serve more women, like the 88,000-plus they served in 2022, now that the heartbeat law is in effect. “While not perfect, the Heartbeat Protection Act will nonetheless now SAVE tens of thousands of unborn children’s lives annually here in the Sunshine State!” Florida Voice for the Unborn wrote and linked to a verse in Psalms about rejoicing in what the Lord has done. On the contrary, pro-aborts were mad that babies would be saved. “As of this morning, 4 million women in this state woke up with fewer reproductive freedoms than they had last night,” Vice President Kamala Harris said at an appearance in Jacksonville, Florida on Wednesday. One user wrote, “The law is barbaric. Like the man who signed it,” in response to a woman who wrote that “today marks the day, my daughter has less rights than the day she was born.” “Florida’s abortion ban will have a catastrophic impact on abortion access across the Southeast. As this years-long crisis continues to unfold and confusion mounts, abortion funds continue to show up and show out for their communities,” The National Network of Abortion Funds wrote with a graphic that read “F**K ABORTION BANS.” Obviously, with new laws not everyone is going to get their way, but all I can say is that babies get to live and nobody should be against that.

As Police Bust Pro-Hamas UCLA Camp, CBS Hints Students Will Be Killed

Thursday’s CBS Mornings was live on the scene as California Highway Patrol was busting the anti-Semitic/pro-Hamas encampment at UCLA. But from the get-go, the network seemed intent on hinting that at any moment police would turn their guns on the students and UCLA would become the next Kent State massacre. Before they even started the show, their opening tease (teed up by co-anchor Nate Burleson) highlighted a student who claimed, without evidence, that the university wanted them dead: BURLESON: Breaking overnight, police swarm demonstrators at UCLA a day after their encampment was attacked by counter-protesters. PRO-HAMAS PROTESTER: The aggression that we faced shows that the university has no choice to just stand by and wait for us to get killed by Zionist aggressors. Seemingly ill-prepared to go to their live shots of correspondent Carter Evans, who at the scene, the network sloppily had their in-studio fill-in anchors try to report on what they were seeing live. Vladimir Duthiers noted: “Police fired what appear to be nonlethal rounds at some of the protesters. That was the pop, pop, pop that you just heard there.” His tone turned to what seemed like panic he seemed to suggest the highway patrol had switched to real guns. “As again, this is live pictures coming into the newsroom right now where you see looks like hundreds of police officers in full riot gear now holding up weapons at those protesters!” he exclaimed.     But they didn’t. Following the video portion of Evans’ report, co-anchors Burleson, Duthiers, and Jericka Duncan bloviated about the profound nature of what they were witnessing. “Again, Americans haven't seen scenes like this since the 1960s when college campuses erupted over protests in Vietnam. And now we're seeing this again play out on college campuses all across the country,” Duthiers suggested, inching toward a Kent State parallel. It was Duncan who hinted the strongest that they could see students get killed soon: DUTHIERS: They seem to be inching inch by inch to try to move these protesters off, but it's going to be very, very difficult. And of course the fear is that somebody gets hurts. BURLESON: Yeah. No doubt about it. DUNCAN: Or even worse. Burleson built off of Duncan by suggesting it was a real fear among the pro-Hamas mob. “And when you look at the protesters, some are speaking and saying that ‘we are protesting peacefully, and we are looking for support from the police.’ And then others are saying that the police are not offering that, they are actually doing the opposite,” he said. Duthiers did note that there was also a danger to officers from “outside agitators” and concluded with: “So, it becomes really, really difficult and, of course, the danger, as you see this police officer trying to tear down a barricade that presumably protesters put up, the danger is that somebody gets hurt.” Over 130 people were reportedly arrested and no one was seriously injured, let alone killed. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS Mornings May 2, 2024 7:00:22 a.m. Eastern [Opening tease] (…) NATE BURLESON: Breaking overnight, police swarm demonstrators at UCLA a day after their encampment was attacked by counter-protesters. PRO-HAMAS PROTESTER: The aggression that we faced shows that the university has no choice to just stand by and wait for us to get killed by Zionist aggressors. (…) 7:02:16 a.m. Eastern [Live video of the chaos at UCLA without voiceovers] VLADIMIR DUTHIERS: Again, we just want to reiterate, this just happened minutes ago. Police fired what appear to be nonlethal rounds at some of the protesters. That was the pop, pop, pop that you just heard there. Those folks were sheltering behind a barricade. As again, this is live pictures coming into the newsroom right now where you see looks like hundreds of police officers in full riot gear now holding up weapons at those protesters! (…) 7:06:19 a.m. Eastern DUTHIERS: These pictures are remarkable coming into us right now, into the newsroom. When you see what looks like dozens if not perhaps hundreds of police officers in full riot gear, and they're trying to get in to clear this encampment. Again, Americans haven't seen scenes like this since the 1960s when college campuses erupted over protests in Vietnam. And now we're seeing this again play out on college campuses all across the country. It looks like now the police are actually moving toward those barricades that protesters have set up. You can see those pieces of plywood that they -- protesters are using to try and force the police back. They seem to be inching inch by inch to try to move these protesters off, but it's going to be very, very difficult. And of course the fear is that somebody gets hurts. BURLESON: Yeah. No doubt about it. JERICKA DUNCAN: Or even worse. BURLESON: And when you look at the protesters, some are speaking and saying that “we are protesting peacefully, and we are looking for support from the police.” And then others are saying that the police are not offering that, they are actually doing the opposite. DUTHIERS: The difficulty, of course, is that when you hear police officials – and we heard that yesterday from New York City Mayor Adams – that there are outside agitators who are taking part in some of these demonstrations, it's difficult for police to know who the outside agitators are. Look -- it's dark, there are lights, there are teargas -- BURLESON: Most people are covered. DUTHIERS: Being deployed – Exactly. People have their faces covered. So, it becomes really, really difficult and, of course, the danger, as you see this police officer trying to tear down a barricade that a presumably protesters put up, the danger is that somebody gets hurt. (…)

NYT's Frank Bruni Blames Trump, Mike Johnson for Escalation at Columbia

Appearing as a guest on Tuesday's Erin Burnett OutFront, New York Times columnist Frank Bruni tried to blame Republicans Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson for the escalation by far-left anti-Israel protesters at Columbia University that included taking over and occupying an academic building. Host Erin Burnett recalled that other schools had had more success in negotiating the demands of protesters, and then posed: "What do you think is different here about Columbia? There has been no ability to tamp it down." Bruni quickly pointed a finger at Speaker Johnson recently visiting Columbia University and calling for more to be done to stop Jewish students from being harassed: BRUNI: Yeah, I mean, part of it is, everything that happens in New York City is on steroids, right?.. I also think that various political actors -- and this is indicative of our grievance culture. Various political actors have decided to choose this particular circumstance to come in and choose their sides and make their statements, and I think that has accelerated and amplified things. Mike Johnson, for example -- the Speaker of the House -- a week ago, I was writing about how much I admired the fact that he made common cause with Democrats -- changed his mind about Ukraine aid, and then, the next day or the day beyond that, he goes up to New York -- he didn't need to be here -- and he says, "Maybe we should bring in the National Guard." So a politician calling for less hate is "accelerating and amplifying" the problem, not the protesters. After Burnett recalled that she had been there during Speaker Johnson's visit and was surprised about the unhappy students surrounding him, Bruni added: BRUNI: But did he need to do that? You know, so many of the voices that have joined the situation and have shouted about it -- because that's what we do these days -- we shout, we don't talk. Have they been there for -- to score political points and their own purposes? Or have they come there really to come and solve this? I think this has been a sort of -- this particular situation has attracted political actors scoring points in a way that the situation on some of those other campuses have not. Once again, what are the protesters doing there if not to "score political points"?  Burnett -- who last week pressed Speaker Johnson from the left on the issue of him criticizing anti-Israel protesters -- voiced agreement with her left-leaning guest: BURNETT: Yeah, right. Maybe somehow maybe because it's Columbia. He came, he brought -- he brought four -- three or four other representatives with him, and I, you know, I was standing next to him. I was -- the students couldn't fully hear him, and that was a good thing because if they had heard what they were saying -- in one case, saying, "You all should be ashamed" -- there would have been a true outcry. The intention of them appearing was for the press conference part, not to actually talk to the students. Again, as if the protesters aren't there for the cameras. A bit later, after the CNN host recalled that seeing broken windows, "I'm thinking of that indelible image of the Capitol, far-right protesters on January 6. Here we are on April 30, people who would identify themselves as far-left protesters doing the same thing." Bruni suggested that President Trump had culpability because he has defended January 6 rioters: BRUNI: Well, you do have to ask if there's a through line from one to the other. I mean, on January 6, we had a President still at the time -- now a former President who has romanticized what's happened there -- who has sent the message that if you really believe in something and if you're fighting for it, you do the most provocative, disruptive, confrontational thing possible. That's what the rioters on January 6 did. That's what these students and their non-student allies, whatever you want to call them, were doing here. There's this -- it's all the same sort of ethos -- the same sort of approach. It was not mentioned that left-wing anti-police protesters showed plenty of ability to cause damage (more than a billion dollars) during the summer of 2020 before the Capitol Hill riots of 2021 had even happened. Transcript follows: CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront April 30, 2024 7:43 a.m. Eastern ERIN BURNETT: So, Frank, I'm just trying to understand -- and I know every situation because there's different individuals involved, right -- but Yale and Brown today succeeded -- two different ways but negotiating so that the encampments were dismantled and things appear to be going back to normal. Some of the students, you know, in the case of one of the universities -- okay, look at the police are walking here as we're talking so we're seeing where they're going. As they do that, Frank, what do you think is different here about Columbia? There has been no ability to tamp it down. FRANK BRUNI, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, I mean, part of it is, everything that happens in New York City is on steroids right now. We don't know exactly who's in that building and what effect that has on it. I also think that various political actors -- and this is indicative of our grievance culture. Various political actors have decided to choose this particular circumstance to come in and choose their sides and make their statements, and I think that has accelerated and amplified things. Mike Johnson, for example -- the Speaker of the House -- a week ago, I was writing about how much I admired the fact that he made common cause with Democrats -- changed his mind about Ukraine aid, and then, the next day or the day beyond that, he goes up to New York -- he didn't need to be here -- and he says, "Maybe we should bring in the National Guard." We have two -- BURNETT: I was there, by the way, on the steps at Columbia when he was there, and he came out, and he said and did what he intended to do. BRUNI: Right. BURNETT: But he was clearly taken aback and surprised by how many students were there. And at that point -- there were only a few hundred -- but they gathered -- and they were not happy, which is not what he was expecting. BRUNI: But did he need to do that? You know, so many of the voices that have joined the situation and have shouted about it -- because that's what we do these days -- we shout, we don't talk. Have they been there for -- to score political points and their own purposes? Or have they come there really to come and solve this? I think this has been a sort of -- this particular situation has attracted political actors scoring points in a way that the situation on some of those other campuses have not. BURNETT: Yeah, right. Maybe somehow maybe because it's Columbia. He came, he brought -- he brought four -- three or four other representatives with him, and I, you know, I was standing next to him. I was -- the students couldn't fully hear him, and that was a good thing because if they had heard what they were saying -- in one case, saying, "You all should be ashamed" -- there would have been a true outcry. The intention of them appearing was for the press conference part, not to actually talk to the students. BRUNI: They came here because New York City is the media capital. Where are you and I sitting right now? We're sitting in a studio in New York City. They came here because more cameras are here. More media companies are here than in any other city. (...) BURNETT: These kids were offered -- the ones that are students, you know, that they would be able to not be expelled, you know, that if they would just to sign papers to back off today. Which at Yale, Brown -- this seemed to work to deescalate -- did not happen in this case. But when we look at the images of where -- I don't know how many people are in there and how many of them are students, but right now, in Hamilton Hall, in Columbia, right near these images that you're looking at where when the police go in that is where we anticipate this confrontation will happen -- we saw the students occupy it and whoever else was with them, broken windows. And the first thing when you see that broken window, I'm thinking of that indelible image of the Capitol, far-right protesters on January 6. Here we are on April 30, people who would identify themselves as far-left protesters doing the same thing. BRUNI: Well, you do have to ask if there's a through line from one to the other. I mean, on January 6, we had a President still at the time -- now a former President who has romanticized what's happened there -- who has sent the message that if you really believe in something and if you're fighting for it, you do the most provocative, disruptive, confrontational thing possible. That's what the rioters on January 6 did. That's what these students and their non-student allies, whatever you want to call them, were doing here. There's this -- it's all the same sort of ethos -- the same sort of approach.

CBS Lionizes Climate Losers Blocking Traffic, Throwing Paint, Interrupting Conservative Gala

Like being able to visit museums without climate freaks throwing soup on world-renowned paintings? Looking to enjoy a night out at a gala? Need a peaceful commute without anyone blocking the road? If the answer to any of these questions is no, CBS Mornings all but said no way, Jose. On Thursday, they ran a lengthy puff piece fawning over Climate Defiance and even followed them as they interrupted the March 6 gala for our friends at American Moment.     Co-host Nate Burleson incredibly wove in the climate freaks with the live scenes from UCLA as “police are clashing with protesters against the war in Gaza”. “College campuses aren’t the only places where protesters are making their voices heard. This morning in our Climate Watch series, we’re focusing on climate activists who are taking direct action to make their point. Last week one group blockaded the entrance to the global headquarters of CitiGroup in Manhattan. They demanded the banking giant stop funding fossil fuel interests,” boasted fill-in co-host Jericka Duncan. She added “[s]enior national and environmental correspondent Ben Tracy [took] a closer look at one climate group that says it doesn’t need to be liked to be effective.” The chyron was unsurprisingly stupid: “Climate Watch; Protests for the Planet; A Look at What’s Driving Climate Activists to Get Aggressive”. With that stacked deck, Tracy gave unassuming and seemingly neutral (i.e. pro-thuggery) open: “Blocking traffic, throwing red powder on a case housing the U.S. Constitution, and dousing a global-covered Van Gogh with soup, climate protesters are not just marching in the streets. They’re finding new and more aggressive ways to demand climate action.” Tracy was then shown following around Climate Defiance in their preparation, execution, and aftermath of their storming of the American Moment gala. Tracy and CBS cameras even palled around with one of their leaders as they scouted out the hotel a day beforehand. Of course, Tracy denied our friends the full free advertising by refusing to name them (click “expand”): MAXWELL DOWNING: We can still cause a little bit of a scene. Cause some chaos. TRACY: On a recent Wednesday night in Washington, D.C. — DOWNING: I know exactly the route that we can go. TRACY: — 21-year-old Maxwell Downing shared his plan to cause a scene at this nearby hotel. [TO DOWNING] What exactly are you guys doing tonight? DOWNING: We’re going to a fancy, schamncy gala that J.D. Vance — Republican senator from Ohio — is going to be speaking at. J.D. Vance is one of the top 20 recipients of oil and gas money in Congress. TRACY: Downing cased the hotel the day before they found the best escape routes. DOWNING [TO FELLOW THUGS]: Who does not have $50 in cash? TRACY: So, after making sure that everyone had money in case they got arrested — DOWNING [at American Moment gala]: J.D. Vance is a climate supervillain! TRACY: — these climate protesters stormed the ballroom — DOWNING: Come out, J.D., face us. CLIMATE DEFIANCE PROTESTER: He’s a climate criminal. TRACY: — interrupting the event until security finally threw them out. DOWNING: Face us! Off fossil fuels! AMERICAN MOMENT SECURITY GUARDS: Get out. Get out. DOWNING: Immediately, security guards hands around the neck, which is not usual. Nearly a minute and a half into the five-minute-and-37-second block, Tracy finally identified the group as Climate Defiance, taking them at their word that they don’t “engage in vandalism or violence” and have “become notorious for surprise confrontations with oil executives...and politicians on both sides of the aisle.” Tracy even served at the group’s unofficial spokesman by having CBS ask Senator J.D. Vance “for his reaction to the disruption” at the gala he was speaking at. Of course, Vance’s team “did not respond”. One could presume this question to Climate Defense executive director Michael Greenberg was meant to be adversarial: “When you burst into a room and you call somebody like Senator Manchin a sick f-word, what is the outcome you’re hoping to achieve?” Greenberg was unapologetic in explaining they “don’t necessarily expect to move Manchin or whatnot” but instead “make climate change a top issue in American politics”....via intimidation. “He says their protests are designed to go viral on social media, attracting new members to their cause, and raising awareness of climate change as an existential issue,” Tracy added. Tracy’s other question came with a drive-by-ish tone: “Do you worry about turning people off, that they see you as more annoying or more of a threat than actually helping the cause you say you’re trying to help?” The only mild, official pushback from Dana Fisher, an American University professor who penned “a new book about climate activism” (Click “expand”): GREENBERG: We’re trying to shake the public awake. TRACY [TO GREENBERG]: Do you worry about turning people off, that they see you as more annoying or more of a threat than actually helping the cause you say you’re trying to help? GREENBERG: Yeah, we’re definitely an acquired taste. Not everybody loves us. You don’t need to be popular to be effective. FISHER: And their goal is media attention, plain and simple. [TO STUDENTS] When you guys look at the general population — TRACY: Dana Fisher is a professor at American University and author of a new book about climate activism. DOWNING: He is a criminal! TRACY: She calls these kinds of activists “shockers,” not unlike some of the AIDS activists of the 1980s who desperately tried to get people’s attention. [TO FISHER] How do we know if this is actually effective? FISHER: I think it’s going to be a hindsight thing. I mean, I do not think that the whole movement should shift toward these kinds of actions because I think it will be a detriment to the movement itself, but it is playing a role in helping to keep the conversation going. The CBS correspondent closed by bragging that “they have had some success” in securing “a meeting with John Podesta, the White House’s chief climate adviser” and were “part of the pressure campaign that recently led President Biden to pause the expansion of liquefied natural gas exports.” Duthiers gushed about how “this is such a great piece” with “a lot to digest,” adding “you can understand that they want cameras there...because it does cause people to pay attention” since “politicians...have enacted or have at least put plans into place to address climate issues.” Duncan also voiced her support: “But only time really will tell in terms of what action is actually taken, what policies are actually passed as a result of bringing attention to something that I think everyone, at this point recognizes, is a problem.” “We love shock value. But we’ll see if this is counterproductive or not in the future,” Burleson said. Exit question: How would liberal journalists feel if protesters stormed and occupied their studios, or say, blocked roads that made them late for family emergencies? To see the relevant CBS transcript from May 2, click here.

MRC’s Bozell Joins FBN’s Varney in Slamming Media’s Campus Protest and Trump Coverage

On Thursday, MRC President Brent Bozell appeared on the Fox Business’s Varney & Company to break down how the leftist media are failing to properly cover the student protests. Bozell and Varney also had a good laugh over the Trump trials backfiring on the left and MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace’s “end of democracy” fear-mongering.   The segment began with Bozell admonishing network and cable coverage (with the exception of Fox News) for ignoring three key elements of the protests.  First up, Bozell noted the lack of coverage of the protest backers: “The agitators, the professional people who are causing trouble funded by radical left-wing groups. How is that not a story?” Bozell then called out the censorship of the ugly slurs on display: “Second, the comments that are being made. The chants! ‘Hamas, we love you, we support your rockets too!’ Putting up signs that say ‘Final Solution.’ ‘From the river to the sea.’ All these messages that say kill Israelis. Not political, kill Israelis.”   Bozell continued: “And then the third element. The big one that’s been missing here. Is this is all couched under a pro-Palestinian, it is not pro-Palestinian, it is pro-Hamas. And they’re not saying it. They’re not saying that this is endorsing a radical terrorist movement that slaughters thousands of Israelis.”     Later on in the segment, Varney and Bozell chatted about the left’s strategy of keeping Trump tied-up in the courtroom and how it has backfired.   Bozell observed: “Why is Donald Trump going up in the polls? Because the public is seeing the puppet trials that are taking place right now….They’re saying this is fundamentally unfair. This guy is being kept off the campaign trail through these ridiculous lawsuits that are being thrown at him….and it’s backfiring on the left.” Varney and Bozell then had a good laugh over MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace’s claim that a “free press” may no longer exist if Donald Trump wins in November. The following is a complete transcript of the Fox Business Varney & Company segment that aired on May 2:  Fox Business Varney & Company May 2, 2024 HOST STUART VARNEY: The president of the Media Research Center is Brent Bozell and he joins me now. Brent studies the media and what they are up to. So I got two questions for you, Brent. Number one. How is the media covering the campus unrest and then deal with how the media is covering Trump trials? Start with the campus unrest please. L. BRENT BOZELL: Ok, campus unrest. There’s a rule, a normal rule about reporting. Which is the analysis before an event or after an event is where you see real bias but when it’s hard news of an event it tends to be pretty good. Well there are exceptions to the rule and we’re talking about an exception to the rule.  There are three things — elements of this in the hard news phase that Fox is covering. They should all be covering but they’re not.  The first one, we just heard. The agitators, the professional people who are causing trouble funded by radical left-wing groups. How is that not a story?  Second, the comments that are being made. The chants! “Hamas, we love you, we support your rockets too!” Putting up signs that say “Final Solution.”  “From the river to the sea.” All these messages that say kill Israelis. Not political, kill Israelis.  Second, Donald Trump. VARNEY: Yeah.  BOZELL: You’re seeing recent surveys that are showing this. Why is Donald Trump going up in the polls? Because the public is seeing the puppet trials that are taking place right now. I think they’re saying this is fundamentally unfair. This guy is being kept off the campaign trail through these ridiculous lawsuits that are being thrown at him. When he’s up, when he is going up two, three, four, five, six points in the polls while he’s sitting in a courtroom, that tells you that the public is fed up with this and it’s backfiring on the left.  VARNEY: Next one, Brent. I want you to listen to what MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace said about the threat Trump poses to democracy. Roll it please. CLIP OF MSNBC HOST NICOLLE WALLACE: Depending what happens in November — seven months from right now — this time next year, I might not be sitting here. There might not be a White House Correspondents Dinner or a free press. While our democracy won’t exactly fall apart immediately without it, the real threat looms larger. A candidate with outward disdain not just for a free press but for all of our freedoms and the rule of law itself.  VARNEY: Okay, Brent. Wallace thinks Trump will destroy democracy. Do you think the media is destroying democracy? BOZELL: Those same people that are chanting that Trump is trying to end democracy had nothing to say when there were attempts in 36 of  the 50 states of the United States to keep Donald Trump off the ballot, and the Supreme Court by a unanimous 9-0 vote declared it was unconstitutional. That it was — in fact — an attack on democracy. It’s these same hypocrites who are doing this. Welcome to today’s world.  VARNEY: It never changes. Great stuff, Brent. Come and see us again. Don’t be a stranger, okay? BOZELL: Thanks Stuart.

No, Demonstrations Today Not Like the 1960s

The current demonstrations on college campuses against Israel remind some of the unrest on college campuses during the 1960s. But the comparison is not a good one. The unrest of the 1960s was defined by the war in Vietnam and by the Civil Rights Movement. Both had practical, personal impact on young Americans in their own country. American soldiers were fighting and dying in Vietnam. There was real, life-and-death impact on all Americans, and certainly on young Americans. The military draft was still operative then. Despite various deferments, including deferment for university attendance, the draft was still a reality and was a looming presence for all college-age Americans. They knew they could be drafted and had friends and friends of friends who were. The official number of American soldiers killed in Vietnam stands at 58,220. Although there were legitimate moral concerns about American involvement in this war, the moral concerns were accompanied by young Americans having real skin in this game. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s also had real personal moral impact on all Americans. And youth are always highly sensitive to the moral failings around them. The reality of segregation and Jim Crow started getting national attention with the Civil Rights Movement, the activism of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference and other more violent groups in the movement. In contrast to the woke activism of today, which is totally political in character, the Civil Rights Movement was led by a charismatic and articulate Black pastor and had a religious, moral tone rooted in the Christian church. Anyone that questions this should read, or reread, King’s “I Have a Dream” speech from 1963. But King’s moral appeal was to an America very different than today. In 1965, per Gallup, 70% of Americans said religion was personally “very important” to them. In 2023, by contrast, only 45% of Americans say religion is “very important.” In 1962, per Gallup, 46% of Americans said they attended religious services over the last seven days. In 2023, this was down to 32%. During this period there were two major wars involving Israel and the surrounding Arab states. In 1967, Israel prevailed in the Six-Day War, which began with preemptive action by Israel against the Egyptian army mobilized for attack, and subsequent aggression by Syria in the North and Jordan in the East. In 1973, Israel again prevailed against attacks on these same fronts. In 1967, per Gallup, 45% of Americans supported Israel against 4% who supported the Arab states, with 26% with no opinion. In 1973, 48% of Americans expressed support for Israel versus 6% expressing support for the Arab states and 24% with no opinion. Support for Israel among Americans during this period was one-sided and clear. But, again, America today is very, very different. Our young people in the 1960s understood what personal responsibility is about. On a national level, in the 1960s, all young Americans faced the reality of military conscription. Today, regarding national obligation and service, there are virtually no demands on our youth. Now President Joe Biden is even erasing their student loan obligations. On a religious, moral level, religion then held a much stronger hold on the nation. Religion teaches and inspires a culture where individuals have a sense they belong to and have obligation to something beyond their own egotistical inclinations. Nature abhors a vacuum, and as religion has weakened and disappeared from our culture, it has been replaced by politics and the welfare state. The end of it all is we now have a generation of youth insulated from all sense of national and religious and moral personal responsibility. So now they demonstrate in support of terrorists and against the only free country in the Middle East that shares the very values that made our own country great.

WATCH: Bishop’s Powerful Response to Censorship Demands of Stabbing Video

Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel is back to preaching and has issued a powerful new sermon in defense of free speech and the natural rights of man. On April 28, Bishop Emmanuel made his first public appearance after being viciously attacked by a knife-wielding assailant who left the bishop with only one eye. The bishop delivered a sermon in which he defended the right to freedom of speech as a fundamental human right and referred to the Australian government’s recent attempts to suppress the video of his stabbing on social media platforms such as X. Bishop Emmanuel expressed dismay at attitudes that dismiss or outright attack freedom of speech, saying, “Every human being has the right to their freedom of speech and freedom of religion…and for us to say that free speech is dangerous, that free speech cannot be possible in a democratic country … I’m yet to fathom this.” Bishop Emmanuel also lamented the state of the Western world and the increasing prevalence of a nihilistic viewpoint that fails to uphold universal moral truths or recognize basic human worth.  “I’ll say it again, the Western world has succeeded exceedingly in giving value to everything, but I’ll say this with utmost sadness in my heart, the Western world has failed miserably in giving purpose to everything, but until we find the purpose of the thing, we can never give it value… Human rights is human value,” Bishop Emmanuel argued.  The bishop contrasted this modern view with the attitudes of Australia’s forebears, who fought for human rights.  “I am very proud of these great ANZAC warriors who gave their life up to the very human rights, to the very freedom of speech and freedom of religion,” Bishop Emmanuel said. “They died to keep and preserve the human identity.” In recent weeks, the bishop has been the center of a controversy between the Australian government and Elon Musk.  The head of Australia's eSafety commission, Julia Grant, issued an order on April 16 to X demanding that the platform take down the video of the stabbing of Bishop Emmanuel that had been proliferating on the platform.  The order even prohibited users outside of the country from viewing the content. X’s Global Government Affairs Team refused to ban the content for users outside Australia, saying that the order was unnecessarily broad and outside the legal authority of the Australian government.   Musk and X’s refusal to toe the line of the Australian government has attracted the criticism of numerous Australian politicians such as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.  “By and large, people responded appropriately to the calls by the [eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant],” Albanese recently commented. “They stand, I think … I find it extraordinary that X chose not to comply and trying to argue their case.” Australian Senator Jacqui Lambie even threatened Musk with prison time for not complying. “Someone like that should be in jail, and the key be thrown away,” Lambie asserted. “That bloke should not have a right to be out there on his own ideology platform and creating hatred, you know, showing all this stuff out there to our kids and all the rest.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.   

MSNBC Hosts Praises Colleges That Surrendered To The Israel-Haters

MSNBC hosts Chris Hayes and Alex Wagner used their respective Wednesday editions of All In and Alex Wagner Tonight to attack those who called in the police to end the illegal encampments and occupations on college campuses by claiming it was they who were escalating tensions and to prove their point, they pointed to those schools that surrendered to the mob. Hayes came out of commercial break wondering what the big deal about violently breaking into a building and occupying it is, after all, actor Samuel L. Jackson was involved in a similar episode in the 60s, “Now, I tell this story for two reasons. One to remind us that college activism has long been a part of college education. The other reason, though, is to get a sense of proportion, which seems lacking today as we watched disturbing imagery emerge from campuses at Columbia, UCLA, University of Texas, University of South Florida, so many others, where cops or, in some cases, mobs took down pro-Palestinian student encampments and protests, as well as professors and journalists and just random bystanders.”     Hayes didn’t mention that the altercation counter-protestors had with the “pro-Palestinian student encampment” at UCLA came about because the campers assaulted a Jewish girl and committed other acts of violence the school did nothing about. If violence sounds escalatory, Hayes was there to say that the real escalators are those who called in the cops, “The cumulative effect of this coverage, along with unverified assertions from police and politicians, has been to drive home the idea that student protests are basically a terrorist-level threat. That they have to be neutralized by battalions of cops armed like soldiers with MRAPs and sonic cannons. The reason this seems to me, a reaction that's out of proportion to the protests themselves.” This led Hayes to praise those who surrendered to the mob, “It seems especially true when you look at other campuses like Brown University, where administrators negotiated with protesters who took down their encampment. At Wesleyan University whose president said the protesting there was non-violent and non-disruptive, adding, ‘as long as it continues in this way, the university will not attempt to clear the encampment.’” Roughly 25 minutes later, Wagner played an NYPD video that did not sit well with her, “Sort of a half-promotional video for the NYPD, half a warning shot to future protesters. There's also a soundtrack, you may have noticed, and situation room footage as officers plan the Columbia sweep like it was, I don't know, the Bin Laden raid. It is not what you might call a tool for de-escalation.”     Violently occupying a building is not de-escalation either, but Wagner continued, and unlike Hayes, she actually mentioned what Brown agreed to, “But it is worth noting that some colleges have actually managed to do just that, to de-escalate the tension on their campuses this week. Both Brown and Northwestern University reached deals with student protesters this is week with protesters leaving encampments and the colleges agreeing to hear them out and to vote on divestment issues.” Wagner didn’t mention that Northwestern agreed to also hire more Palestinian faculty, subsidize scholarships for five Palestinian students, and allow the mob and their supporters to sit on an advisory committee on university investments. Both Brown and Northwestern’s response to the lawlessness and anti-Semitism was to give the anti-Semites more power and give their Jewish students and faculty nothing. Still, for Wagner, the bad guys in this situation are anybody who objects to this madness, “This is happening across the country with lots of individual actors making separate decisions and that makes this story complicated, and that is important to remember because we have actors in our national discourse right now who are very much trying to exploit this tension for fairly obvious political gain.” In related news, Northwestern is facing multiple lawsuits for its deal with the agitators.  Here are transcripts for the May 1 shows: MSNBC All In With Chris Hayes 5/1/2024 8:42 PM ET CHRIS HAYES: In the spring of 1969, a group of students at Morehouse College, a historically black college in Atlanta, were frustrated by what they said was the school’s slow progress on civil rights and they protested and had been rebuffed, so they locked the college trustees in their office for two days and essentially held them hostage. Now, one of the trustees was Martin Luther King Sr., father of the recently slain civil rights leader. He began having chest pains and one of the students later said we let him out of there so we wouldn’t be accused of murder. That student and his classmates eventually gave up under a promise of amnesty from the college. The college reneged and he was expelled, it would be years before he was rehabilitated, decades before he became known the world over as actor Samuel L. Jackson. Now, I tell this story for two reasons. One to remind us that college activism has long been a part of college education. The other reason, though, is to get a sense of proportion, which seems lacking today as we watched disturbing imagery emerge from campuses at Columbia, UCLA, University of Texas, University of South Florida, so many others, where cops, or in some cases mobs, took down pro-Palestinian student encampments and protests, as well as professors and journalists and just random bystanders.  The cumulative effect of this coverage, along with unverified assertions from police and politicians, has been to drive home the idea that student protests are basically a terrorist-level threat.  That they have to be neutralized by battalions of cops armed like soldiers with MRAPs and sonic cannons. The reason this seems to me, a reaction that's out of proportion to the protests themselves. It seems especially true when you look at other campuses like Brown University, where administrators negotiated with protesters who took down their encampment. At Wesleyan University whose president said the protesting there was non-violent and non-disruptive, adding “as long as it continues in this way, the university will not attempt to clear the encampment.”  *** MSNBC Alex Wagner Tonight 5/1/2024 9:06 PM ET ALEX WAGNER: Sort of a half-promotional video for the NYPD, half a warning shot to future protesters. There's also a soundtrack, you may have noticed, and situation room footage as officers plan the Columbia sweep like it was, I don't know, the Bin Laden raid. It is not what you might call a tool for de-escalation. But it is worth noting that some colleges have actually managed to do just that, to de-escalate the tension on their campuses this week. Both Brown and Northwestern University reached deals with student protesters this is week with protesters leaving encampments and the colleges agreeing to hear them out and to vote on divestment issues. Whether or not that can be replicated elsewhere at this point is totally unclear. This is happening across the country with lots of individual actors making separate decisions and that makes this story complicated, and that is important to remember because we have actors in our national discourse right now who are very much trying to exploit this tension for fairly obvious political gain.

ABC Claims UCLA Mob Was ‘Largely Peaceful’ While They Gassed Police

CNN proved themselves to be biased fools in the summer of 2020 when they claimed the Black Lives Matter Riots were “fiery but mostly peaceful.” Well, ABC News told them to hold their beer Thursday morning as they had correspondent Trevor Ault assert that the anti-Semitic/pro-Hamas encampment at UCLA was “largely peaceful” with no sign of “fighting back” against police while admitting that they were throwing stuff and using fire extinguishers to gas them. The California Highway Patrol crackdown on the UCLA encampment, where they employed Nazi-style tactics against the Jews on campus, was already underway as ABC’s Good Morning America came on the air at 7:00 a.m. and was the first story they got to. Ault was live on the scene where he reported “So far, we haven't seen a lot of physical resistance other than standing their ground.” But he did admit: “If anything, we’ve seen a few demonstrators who were throwing bottles, tossing water, and you actually at some points see some smoke that we believe is from fire extinguishers.” According to Poison Control, the contents of fire extinguishers can be very harmful: People with lung conditions like asthma or someone deliberately sprayed at close range can have more serious respiratory effects and might need medical attention. Contact of these powders with the eyes, nose, throat, and skin can cause irritation, which should improve after rinsing the exposed area. Deliberate inhalation or ingestion can cause serious symptoms such as pneumonia, seizures, irregular heartbeat, and kidney failure.     Throwing things and spraying chemicals in the face of law enforcement doesn’t sound like what non-violent demonstrators do. And Ault might have had someone give him a strong talking-to about disclosing those facts because it was the last time they were mentioned all morning. In his 7:30 and 8:00-a.m. live shots, Ault dropped all mentions of the anti-Semitic mob throwing anything and using fire extinguishers. “They have said to me that their plan is never to fight back. That is not how they go about things,” Ault defended them in the 7:30 live shot. “Although, at least from what I have seen on the ground, we haven't been seeing people fight back. It's more about standing their ground.” “So, they’ve been saying they're going to be peaceful,” he reported around 8:00. “We haven't seen violent clashes but you have to anticipate at any moment law enforcement is going to begin making a lot of arrests.” Ault’s next report didn’t come until after ABC broke into The View to air President Biden’s address condemning the encampments. After the address, they went to Ault for an update on the situation at UCLA. Possibly in response to those calling him out online for his earlier ridiculous description of the peaceful violence, Ault tried to have it both ways: Now, I do want to specify from at least what we saw. This was a largely peaceful demonstration, at least in terms of the protesters not fighting back against the law enforcement presence that was there. But they also didn't necessarily give themselves up. “And what we've heard from California Highway Patrol so far is that at least 132 people have been arrested here for this unlawful gathering,” he added. The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America May 2, 2024 7:03:51 a.m. Eastern (…) TREVOR AULT: So far, we haven't seen a lot of physical resistance other than standing their ground. We’ve seen some of them very distressed but screaming that they don't have weapons but still not giving up their ground here. If anything, we’ve seen a few demonstrators who were throwing bottles, tossing water, and you actually at some points see some smoke that we believe is from fire extinguishers. But mainly we’re watching as these protesters are standing their ground after what has been many, many days here on campus of very intense situations that has escalated significantly just in the past 45 minutes or so. And this is probably one of the most intense clashes that we’ve seen as these campuses have been playing out all over the country. (…) 7:30:44 a.m. Eastern AULT: We have been watching over those several days as they’ve basically been preparing for this moment. You’ll notice, if you look closely, that a lot of these demonstrators have hard hats, a lot have gas masks, a lot have eye-protective wear, too. They have said to me that their plan is never to fight back. That is not how they go about things. But when I was asking them about it, it was largely about counter protesters; it could be a different thing with law enforcement involved. Although, at least from what I have seen on the ground, we haven't been seeing people fight back. It's more about standing their ground. The big question now is how does law enforcement move forward? (…) 8:02:51 a.m. Eastern AULT: Those protesters have been preparing for any kind of law enforcement tactics; they have hard hats; they have gas masks. So, they’ve been saying they're going to be peaceful. We haven't seen violent clashes but you have to anticipate at any moment law enforcement is going to begin making a lot of arrests. These are perhaps the most intense moments we’ve seen of what have been many days of tense moments at campuses across the country. (…) The View (Break in for President Biden’s address & follow-up reports) 11:13:03 AULT: Now, I do want to specify from at least what we saw. This was a largely peaceful demonstration, at least in terms of the protesters not fighting back against the law enforcement presence that was there. But they also didn't necessarily give themselves up. And so, law enforcement basically pushed them up against that library till it was one on one. They pulled them apart, put them into zip ties and took them away. And what we've heard from California Highway Patrol so far is that at least 132 people have been arrested here for this unlawful gathering. (…)

Gay Group Calls on Hollywood to Have Even MORE Gay Characters

LGBTQ characters in Hollywood TV fell more than 20 percent during the 2023-2024 season and now, the LGBTQ activist group, GLAAD, has become especially concerned that there weren't enough gay characters in movies and shows coming out of entertainment. The group issued a statement asking Hollywood to re-direct and add more gayness to shows. GLAAD tallied all the characters in shows from 2023-2024 and found that there were 468 LGBTQ characters. During the 2022-2023 season there were a total of 596 LGBTQ characters meaning that there was a roughly 21.4 percent drop from last season to the most recent one. God forbid we see less gay sex and transvestites on TV. “We know that LGBTQ stories are crucial now more than ever—it is paramount to see our lives reflected on screen, challenging the misinformation and harmful rhetoric that is running unchecked by politicians and journalists,” GLAAD CEO and president Sarah Kate Ellis said. Ellis was sure to note that integrating stories with LGBTQ characters into TV is important for young people who want to see characters that “truly reflect themselves.” While I’d argue that her intention with that statement was to get more kids to join the LGBTQ mafia, she insisted it was to help networks and streamers “grow their audience.” At the launch event for the report, Ellis GLAAD-ly proclaimed, “when all of us [LGBTQ’s] are in every show,” she’ll be satisfied about the level of representation. “We deserve to be in every story,” she said. LGBTQ people are in every family, we're in every community, we're in every school, we're in every office. We belong there. LGBTQ people deserve to be in every story. 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ pic.twitter.com/3IAXhuy1m6 — Sarah Kate Ellis (@sarahkateellis) May 2, 2024 Even stories about a Christian family who follows biblical principles when it comes to homosexuality and gender? What about a story about Palestine? Should gay people be in those movies even though if you were gay in Palestine you’d probably end up beheadded? No, Ellis, you don’t belong in every story. Get off your high horse of entitlement. Thing is, there’s already WAY too much gay crap in shows. For example, in the show “Abbott Elementary,” a second grade teacher used nonbinary pronouns in a recent episode, ABC’s “Station 19” show promoted kids attending pride parades and called gay open relationships “ethical non-monogamy” and ABC’s “The Conners’” show had characters begging for more gay propaganda in schools. Yet for the left, that still isn’t good enough. What’s new?

Doocy, Wegmann, Gutierrez Grill Inept KJP Over Biden’s Inaction on Pro-Hamas Students

Before being shamed into speaking on-camera Thursday to the American people about the dangerous anti-Semitic hooligans who’ve thrown college campus into chaos, Wednesday’s White House press briefing was dominated by numerous reporters — including Fox’s Peter Doocy, Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann, and even NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez — pressing the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre on why Biden hasn’t been more public in denouncing these scenes. The initial questions were rather pedestrian. After AP’s Zeke Miller asked “[w]hy haven’t we heard directly from the President”, he was followed by ABC’s Karen Travers wondering whether “anyone from the administration been in touch with...any of these universities that are seeing these protests”, CBS’s Weijia Jiang asking the same except with the NYPD, and NPR’s Mara Liasson inquiring as to how read in Biden is on the chaos. Gutierrez finally called out what had been denials from Jean-Pierre about how much Biden knows and why he’s been out of sight aside from paper statements: I wanted to follow up on a previous question that was asked. And, respectfully, you didn’t quite answer it. The question was, why hasn’t the President been more forceful in talking about the protests. You talk about how he’s talked about anti-Semitism. But specifically on the protest, why hasn’t the President been more forceful on that? Jean-Pierre grew defensive, claiming she “hear[s] the question....but...the President has been the — one — the — no other president has spoken about anti-Semitism than this President.”     Gutierrez countered that was “not the question” and Jean-Pierre hit back that she was “answering it in the way that, I believe, is the best way to” do so with binder notes about Biden’s “strategic plan to deal — to counter anti-Semitism more than 100 new actions...across the administration.” Some blah, blah, blah later, Gutierrez followed up with a fact-check (click “expand”): GUTIERREZ: You mentioned that the President has taken questions on this. Again, respectfully he — he hasn’t. He did take a question where he said he “condemns those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians.” I know you’ve been asked about that. But since you brought up Charlottesville, what do you say to those critics who say that he is trying to have it both ways that he’s essentially, you know, trying to talk about both anti-Semitism and what’s going on with the Palestinians? JEAN-PIERRE: I would say to those critics is no. He’s not doing a both sides scenario here. When you think about Charlottesville, you think about the — the — the vile anti-Semitism that we heard on the streets of Charlottesville, right here, uh, in Virginia — right — not far from here. The President and many of us wanted to make sure that was called out. Somebody died. A young woman lost her life and, when the President saw that, it put him in a situation where he believed it was the right thing to speak against that. He wrote an op ed that was in The Atlantic because — about that — about that. He decided to run because of what he saw in Charlottesville and that was just vile, nasty rhetoric. And you had — um — you know, a former President talk about both sides. There was no both sides here. None. Absolutely none. As it relates to the Palestinians, he was talking about the humanitarian — a dire humanitarian situation — that we’re currently seeing. I just mentioned the Secretary — Secretary Blinken is going to be talking about the humanitarian aid that we are trying to get into Gaza for the people of Gaza. We’re trying to get this hostage deal done so that we can get hostages home and create an environment to get humanitarian aid that would lead — also, the hostages would lead to a ceasefire. Those things are not the same. They are just not the same. Fundamentally, not the same. And it is in bad faith. It is in bad faith to say that. Incredibly, one reporter moments later wondered if President Biden’s concerned the rise of campus protests are “turning“ ”the court of public opinion...against what the President is standing for” in supporting Israel: Reporter: “These protests that have been going on college campuses, we're hearing that some of them are starting to wane a little bit, but they're not just a one day protest. This has been going on for quite some time. Is there some concern within the Biden administration that… pic.twitter.com/97C14wXBvF — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 1, 2024 USA Today’s Joey Garrison had a few questions from the left, including twice bringing to the forefront concerns about how university leaders and law enforcement have acted “harshly” in ““forcibly shut[ting] down” encampments: USA Today's @JoeyGarrison: “With that said, I mean, does the President believe New York Mayor Adams and leaders of Columbia University and — and City College of New York acted appropriately by having the protesters at those colleges — colleges arrested and their encampments… pic.twitter.com/7sJ80I5s1e — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 1, 2024 After having been ignored on Monday, she called on Doocy and, like always, he asked something no one else in the room had brought up: Some of these encampments, they had a matching tents. We’re being told that there are professional outside agitators involved. We don’t know if they’re being paid to sow chaos by domestic folks or foreign entities. Does President Biden want his administration to find out who is funding some of these protests? Our friend Nicole Silverio of the Daily Caller had it right when she tweeted the Jean-Pierre promptly “short-circuited”.     Click “expand” to read her psychobabble and Doocy’s hardball follow-up wondering if Biden’s silence served as further indication that he’s “worried about losing the youth vote” if he were to firmly denounce them: JEAN-PIERRE: What I can say — you know — um — I cannot — uh — I cannot speak to — uh — the organizations that are being reported out on the ground. That is not something for me to speak to. That is obviously something that local governments — uh — local officials — I keep saying local government — local officials are going to speak to. They’ll have better information on that. What we have said — and I don’t think I’ve iterated that yet from here is that the DOJ and FBI is going to continue to offer support to universities and colleges — uh — with — in respect to federal laws, so that is something that the DOJ and FBI is doing. As far as local organizations and what is all being reported on the ground, that is something that — I’m — that local law enforcement, I’m certainly, is looking into. DOOCY: And I understand that President Biden historically has spoken — JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. DOOCY: — very forcefully about anti-Semitism, but this week, he’s not. He’s MIA. Is he that worried about losing the youth vote with these protesters? JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to be mindful. You’re talking about youth vote. You’re talking about 2024. DOOCY: Support of young people. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no, no. I — I — I — I have to say what I have to say and just give me a second.  (....) JEAN-PIERRE: I’ll speak more broadly. I can’t speak to youth people, youth and support and voters. That’s not something I can do from here. Uh, the President has taken a lot of policy actions here that he knows that young people care about and a lot of those actions are popular with those young folks, whether it’s giving a little bit of breathing room with student debt relief — so we made announcement today, matter of fact, and we are going to continue to do that, because we think it’s important as families or as an American and you coming out of college and you wanna build a family by home — uh — you have the opportunity to do that and not be crushed by student debt. The President understands how important it is to deal with that issue. Climate change — something that young people really truly care about. One of the crises that the President said he came into having to deal with was the climate change crisis. This is a President that has taken more — has taken aggressive, aggressive action to deal with climate crisis. You know, look, I can’t speak to — um — I can’t speak to youth voters or their support, but we’re going to do continue to take actions that we believe helps all Americans and all communities. Doocy had one more question: “[Y]ou mentioned what he said in 2017 after Charlottesville. He said, about Trump’s response then, ‘Charlottesville, for me, was a moment where I thought silence would be complicity.’ So how does he explain — how do you explain his silence this week?” Like with Gutierrez, Jean-Pierre stood pat and reiterated Biden “has not been silent on this issue when it comes to hate speech, anti-Semitism” but Doocy noted “he hasn’t” and his written words obviously mean nothing since “a school building at an Ivy League campus got taken over.” Jean-Pierre dithered away and ran out the clock until Wegmann came up to close the briefing.  Like Doocy, Wegmann stuck to his reputation of going against the grain. This time, he wondered what the administration made of “some of these college campuses where we’ve seen the U.S. flag torn down and the Palestinian flag replace it.” Jean-Pierre declined to comment and instead spoke more generally about how none should be able to “disturb campuses in the way of taking over buildings in the way that we have seen” and “it is a dangerous time for [the Jewish] community and we have been very clear about what we need to do to fight that hate.” The Press Secretary also refused to weigh in on Wegmann’s other question about whether Biden believes “higher education has gone off the rails that, you know, something more fundamental has gone wrong on these college campuses” given the rampant anti-Semitism among younger Americans. To see the relevant transcript from the May 1 briefing (including even more protests-related questions), click here.

Big Three Networks Ignore Hearing Exposing Biden Cabinet Member: She Did What?

After a brutal hearing exposed connections between activist groups and a Biden cabinet official, all three major networks ignored the revelations in their coverage.  During an April 30 hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Capital Research Center President Scott Walter and The Daily Signal Managing Editor Tyler O’Neil hammered Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland and her department over damning allegations. According to Walter, at the center of the allegations is that Haaland’s daughter Somah Haaland is a member of the radical environmentalist group Pueblo Action Alliance (PAA) which is plagued with communist connections. Even worse, Walter asserted that Deb Haaland has other connections to the PAA and that the group influences the policies of the Department of the Interior.  Echoing Walter’s sentiments, O’Neil addressed the negative impact that Deb Haaland’s policies have on American energy, urging Congress to get to the bottom  of the “far-left infiltration of the Department of the Interior under President Biden.” Tellingly, the big three networks entirely ignored this hearing in their evening coverage on April 31 and May 1, as ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News opted to cover other topics.  On April 30, NBC Nightly News had time to talk about malfunctioning iPhone alarms and fearmonger about Russians on social media. In lieu of Deb Haaland’s scandals, ABC World News Tonight brought its viewers the story of a car crashing into a store in New Mexico and a death in a bounce house. The latter story also made it into CBS Evening News coverage, alongside the news that online scammers are targeting seniors. Stop the presses!  Here’s What the Legacy Media Missed: Deb Haaland’s Damning Allegations After detailing the communist connections of the PAA, Walter brought up Deb Haaland’s daughter PAA media organizer Somah Haaland. He also ripped the Department of the Interior, saying, “It’s shocking the Interior Department not only treats Pueblo Action Alliance as a source of policy wisdom but also appears to have made official policy with bias toward the alliance and provided improper assistance to the alliance."  Walter went on to point out a case where Deb Haaland had put the concerns of such environmentalist groups first while ignoring the financial damage predicted by Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren. Walter also mentioned that “multiple meetings between the secretary and Pueblo Action Alliance officials” have taken place and excoriated Deb Haaland for promoting “PAA by having its insignia appear in public photographs beginning her first day in office.”  Moreover, Walter noted that PAA had posted these photographs on social media, later adding, “Activists have promoted Secretary Haaland’s involvement in a film produced by the director of PAA, which demands that oil, gas and mineral leasing outside of the Chaco National Historical Park be ended, a question on which the Secretary officially ruled in favor of PAA’s demand.”  A ‘Sue and Settle’ Plot?  When Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) mentioned a case of close cooperation between the Department of the Interior and leftist activists, O’Neil unearthed a disturbing pattern of collaboration.  “What we’ve seen over and over again, in this case in particular as well, this ‘sue and settle’ strategy, where an activist group that shares the broad policy preferences of the administration, sues an administrative agency for a change in the law, claiming that there’s a legal requirement,” O’Neil told Gosar.  “And then what the agency winds up doing is settling that lawsuit, agreeing to implement the legal requirement.” O’Neil alleged that the agency repeatedly used this duck process and transparency requirements.  Earlier in the hearing, O’Neil noted that the leftist Sierra Club successfully lobbied for a policy resulting in the “smallest number of oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf in history.” He explained efforts by the leftist grant-making behemoth Arabella Advisors and the Soros-funded Tides Foundation to pour vast amounts of dark money into environmentalist groups.  To sum up the situation at the Department of Interior, O’Neil explained that “the left's dark money network is propping up radical environmentalist groups that help steer policy at Interior.” Disturbingly, the leftist media couldn’t have cared any less.  [WATCH MORE: Rep. Mike Collins Goes After Department of the Interior for Energy Policies That Benefit America’s Adversaries] Conservatives are under attack. Contact ABC News 818-460-7477, CBS News 212-975-3247 and NBC News 212-664-6192 and demand they report on Secretary Haaland’s scandalous behavior. 

Scarborough Rips MSM For Mocking MAGA As Rednecks -- But Did the Same Himself

With all the focus on Joe Biden's decline in mental acuity, have we overlooked the possibility that his phone buddy Joe Scarborough is also suffering some short-term memory loss? The question arises in light of this comment Scarborough--now in his seventh decade--made on today's Morning Joe. "You know, Jen [Palmieri], there is a stereotype of the Trump voter that the media does. Oh, people are stumbling drunk out of their trailer park and, you know, shooting raccoons or something like that. No, it's bankers. It's lawyers. It's people with advanced degrees." So Scarborough rips the MSM for stereotyping MAGA as people "stumbling drunk out of their trailer park, shooting raccoons?" Really, Joe? This from the man we recently caught mocking Jim Comer, the Republican chairman of the House Investigations Committee as saying in a stereotypical southern accent, apropos of his committee's investigation of Hunter Biden: "We ain't got nuthin' but a squirrel fryer and a hound dog. " Scarborough, who claimed: "Comer and his gang are running for the hills. In their coon hats, holding a squirrel fryer in their left hand and a shotgun in the right!" The same Scarborough who we caught putting on a heavy Southern accent to mock Speaker Mike Johnson's belief in the Bible. In reality, as Scarborough surely knows, Johnson sounds more like a newsreader from Nebraska than anything resembling the typical native of his Shreveport, Louisiana home town. More recently, we noted Scarborough indulging a negative stereotype of Southerners, describing legislators who had adopted a pro-life law as "old, fat, white men in Mississippi." So yeah, Joe. The media really does mischaracterize Trump voters and the people they elect -- just have a look in the mirror. Note: Instead of rednecks, Scarborough blamed "billionaires" for making the election of Trump possible, and he said they're "not understanding that this is not just a threat to democracy, but this is a threat to capitalism." At least Joe didn't point the finger at the Rothschilds. And a nervous Scarborough noted Trump "way ahead" in a number of swing-state polls.  Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/2/24 6:13 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: You know, Jen, there, there's a stereotype of the Trump voter that the media does. Oh, it's, people are stumbling drunk out of their trailer park and, you know, shooting raccoons, or something like that. No! It's bankers. It's lawyers. It's people with advanced degrees. This is something Anne Applebaum brought out so masterfully in her book, The Twilight of Democracy. Which is, it's, it's, the elites make this possible.  Think about all the billionaires that said, Oh, I'll never vote for Trump. Now, it's like, yeah, I'll vote for Donald Trump. They know this. They read this. They read that Donald Trump says that there's going to be mass deportation. He's going to force prosecutors to arrest political enemies. He's going to execute generals that don't follow his commands. He's able to use SEAL Team Six to execute political opponents. And he says, you can't arrest me for that.  You can go down the list. He's going to be a dictator from day one. He's going to terminate the Constitution. On and on, they've heard all of this. They heard what he said to Time magazine a couple of days ago. It is a dark, autocratic vision of America. And these people, these educated people with advanced degrees, are the ones saying, yeah, I'll support Donald Trump again. Thinking, oh, you know what? Maybe my investments will go, or maybe he won't tax me 3%. Not understanding that this is not just a threat to democracy, but this is a threat to capitalism. JEN PALMIERI: Right. Well, I mean, that's the thing that makes me think maybe they will reconsider if they continue to hear him -- DONNY DEUTSCH: No. They don't get that. PALMIERI: They don't, they don't, they will not make that connection? DEUTSCH: What Joe just said: they don't get how it could affect them negatively. PALMIERI: They don't think that that's going to affect affect business? But there are the 20% of people in Republican primaries who still are not voting for him. And there's the people that say that they were worried about Jan 6th. There's people that, you know, the Republicans Against Trump, those videos about people who voted for him twice but, because of January 6th, won't do it a third time. And, you know, keep doing these interviews, keep saying this, it's like, Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. SCARBOROUGH: You look at the polls, though. PALMIERI: I know, I know. SCARBOROUGH: I mean, a lot of swing-state polls, if you're talking about Nevada, if you're talking about Georgia, if you're talking about North Carolina, they're not even close. Trump way ahead.

PBS's Favorite 'Republican' Claims the GOP Now Is an 'Autocratic Movement'

Former Mitt Romney strategist Stuart Stevens is senior adviser of the Lincoln Project, a never-Trump “Republican” outfit whose pathetic anti-GOP stunts and scandals have discredited it everywhere but in the mainstream media, where it remains a reliable source for smears of the modern-day Republican party as fascistic. Stuart took his familiar act to Tuesday’s edition of Amanpour & Co., which airs on PBS. Host Christiane Amanpour used Steven’s spicy quote in her show opener: Stuart Stevens: Now, it's been a lot of sleepless nights trying to come to grips with it, but the Republican Party now is an autocratic movement. (Stevens is a popular “Republican” in PBS-land. In October 2023 he pumped his then-new book The Conspiracy to End America on the PBS NewsHour comparing his old party to Nazis.) Stevens was interviewed by co-host Walter Isaacson, who identified Stewart as “part of the anti-Trump movement in the Republican Party.” What? He's a former Republican. Isaacson asked him if Trump being on trial would hurt or help his presidential campaign. Stevens had to admit the optics of Trump on trial could work in the candidate’s favor: "It's the grievance campaign. I am your retribution. The deep state is out to get us. What better proof that the deep state is out to get us than the deep state has me on trial.” Prompted by Isaacson, Stevens alleged Trump supported Russian dictator Vladimir Putin before getting to the money quote. Stevens: “And I've spent a lot of sleepless nights trying to come to grips with it, but the Republican Party now is an autocratic movement. And I think what you see in front of the Supreme Court, where they're actually trying to make the case that a president is above the law, it's just further proof that. It's why they -- the conservative movement is in love with Viktor Orban and Vladimir Putin.” Isaacson quoted from Stevens saying the Biden team has to be amazed at "how is this guy still in the race?" Stevens painted the GOP as racist. Stevens: You know, a lot of this ultimately has to do with race, Walter. We're a country that's headed to becoming a minority-majority country. If you're 16 years and under in America, you -- the majority are nonwhite. Trump's base is 85 percent white. And it's that reality that drives so much of the Republican Party's efforts to change election laws and to sort of curate the election.” Prodded by Isaacson, Stevens got more and more worked up, and, yes "alarmist." Stevens: ….it's difficult to talk about this without sounding alarmist, and language is one of the issues that, you know, we struggle with. But I think if Donald Trump wins this election, it will be the last election that we can recognize as a normal American election. I know these people. As bad as you think they are, they are worse. They want a different America, and they're open about it when you really listen to them, and that's why they embrace Russia so much. They look at Russia, and they say, OK. Russia, no nonwhite people in power. Putin says there's no gays in Russia. There's no women in power. Elections are performative, but not decisive. That looks pretty good. And they embrace that…. Excepting a question about anti-Trumpers, including Sen. Liz Cheney, journalist Isaacson just facilitated Stevens and his long, broad smear of one of America’s two main political parties. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” Amanpour & Co. 5/1/24 2:03:04 a.m. (ET) CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Stuart Stevens, a former Republican strategist, admits that he's still coming to grips today's GOP and its embrace of a man facing 91 criminal charges, and the grand old party's creeping authoritarian character, as he explains with Walter Isaacson. WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Stuart Stevens, welcome back to the show. STUART STEVENS, SENIOR ADVISER, THE LINCOLN PROJECT AND AUTHOR, "IT WAS ALL A LIE": Great to see you, Walter. Thanks. ISAACSON: You've been a Republican strategist most of your life, worked for George Bush, Mitt Romney, and then have been part of the anti-Trump movement in the Republican Party. Now, you're watching him on trial. In some ways, he's running on the notion of grievance and persecution. Does this trial help him or hurt him? STEVENS: Well, you know, I mean, I think that the sort of headline on this is that Trump is still a viable candidate and he's on trial. That in itself is extraordinary. Look, I think if you're one of the smart people running the Trump campaign, and they do have smart professionals now, this isn't what your ideal scenario would have been. But at the same time, it's not disqualifying for Trump, which it would be for any other candidate I can think of. And what -- the essence of that is that Trump's campaign, particularly in this cycle, is based on being a victim. It's the grievance campaign. I am your retribution. The deep state is out to get us. What better proof that the deep state is out to get us than the deep state has me on trial. ISAACSON: And you say these are really smart people running the campaign. Are they going to use this to help this politics of grievance? STEVENS: Yes, they're going to use it to try to eat as a proof point. You know, if you have -- you have to get inside their heads, Walter, the whole Trump thing. So, in their world, Trump won the presidency, the White House has been stolen. And the only way that they can stop Trump, who was the legally elected president, they say, from winning again is to put them in jail. So, this is just that process of the deep state trying to take away from you, the voter, your right to choose your president, and they would say, restore democracy. It's sort of like the aliens built the pyramids. Once you understand that, everything else makes a lot of sense. You know, the problem is aliens didn't build the pyramids. But that's how they see the world and this fits into that worldview. ISAACSON: If Trump were not on trial, if there had not been all of these indictments, would he be in a stronger or a weaker position? STEVENS: I think that the indictments helped him in the primary because it then became necessary to support Trump in the primary to prove that what the Democrats were saying and they put in the same Democrats in the deep state are exactly the same. I don't think it is going to help him in the general election. I think that there's something that is going to be disconcerting and wearing the people to see a potential president of the United States, a former president of the United States on trial in multiple jurisdictions. ISAACSON: But wait, haven't people been saying this for a year or two that eventually wear down? STEVENS: Yes. Yes. But the audience has been -- the audience that has been voting has been that primary audience. And it was fascinating to see the split in the primary electorate that pretty much the threshold belief that if you voted for Trump, you believe that he won the presidency last time. Very few of Nikki Haley's voters believe that. The majority of the country doesn't believe that. So, I just think that -- you know, I've compared the Trump candidacy to somebody walking around with a paper bag full of water. I don't think it's going to leak, but I think there's a very good chance it's going to go -- and when it goes, it's going to be very hard to put the water back in the bag.   ISAACSON: Were you surprised that the Republican Party, not just a hardcore base, but a majority of people in the primaries, rallied around him that way?   STEVENS: Oh, Walter, you know, I had a going out of business sale with any optimism in the Republican Party. I think that we've seen a complete collapse of any moral authority of the party. And the people to blame are not Donald Trump. Donald Trump is just being Donald Trump. It's all of the people that you and I know, and I helped elect a lot of them, who before Trump, they wouldn't have had lunch with Trump. They wouldn't let Trump in their house. They know that he's destructive to democracy. They know he's not a conservative. They know that Putin helped elect him. And yet, they still support him. ISAACSON: Why is that? STEVENS: That is a profound question. And I asked myself that. And that led me to write this book, "It Was All a Lie." And what -- the only conclusion I come to that makes any sense to me, and I think it makes any sense at all, is that all of these things that we espoused as deep values, Walter, that the party held, character counts, strong on Soviet Union, strong on Russia, the deficit matters, all of these things, we said were values were in fact just marketing slogans. So, OK, that's not the case then. So, character really doesn't count. Sure, we'll support the candidate who supports Vladimir Putin in, you know, the largest war in Europe since World War II. I don't know how else to come to a conclusion because people don't abandon deeply held beliefs in a couple of years. And the party has just walked away from these.   You know, the Republican Party now doesn't really exist as a normal American political party in any kind of tradition. It exists to defeat Democrats. And, you know, that's how cartels operate. Nobody asks OPEC, what is your higher purpose? You sell oil. And, you know, it's not like a fun thing to admit. And I've spent a lot of sleepless nights trying to come to grips with it, but the Republican Party now is an autocratic movement. And I think what you see in front of the Supreme Court, where they're actually trying to make the case that a president is above the law, it's just further proof that. It's why they -- the conservative movement is in love with Viktor Orban and Vladimir Putin. ISAACSON: There's a group of people in the Republican Party who have, of course, pushed back Liz Cheney, most prominent among them, even Senator Mitt Romney, Former Vice President Mike Pence. Do you see the possibility that more and more Republicans like that will come forward between now and the election? STEVENS: I don't think there's many Republicans like them. I think if Trump is convicted it might make a difference with some. You know what – I think it's very interesting to look at, say, Chris Christie, who was a former client of mine. Loved the guy. Could not believe he endorsed Donald Trump in 2016. I remember standing at Atlanta Airport and seeing, you know, CNN and literally tears came to my eyes. It was like, how is this person that I love doing this. And I think he would say it was a mistake now, which is good. What he's going out there and saying now is what should have been said. But when you listen to Chris Christie, how do you come to any other conclusion but you have to support Joe Biden? Same with Asa Hutchinson, who ran in the Republican primary, former governor of Arkansas, another former client of mine, a really good and decent human being, and you may not agree with his politics. He has to support. Liz Cheney has to support Biden. Mitt Romney will support Biden. I think --   ISAACSON: Well, you think or he should -- STEVENS: I think they will. I think those two definitely will. ISAACSON: Do you think that Biden -- and Biden hadn't called them yet? Do you think Biden should reach out to all of them and create a Republicans for Biden committee? STEVENS: Sure. When the time is right. You know, if a prominent Republican came to me and said, I want to endorse Joe Biden, my advice, as wearing my political consultant hat, would be, that's great. I would wait. Because if you do it now, it's not going to mean as much as if you do it, say, during the Democratic Convention. And timing is pretty much everything in politics. So, I hope this will happen. If Trump is convicted, it may make that entry ramp a little smoother. But really, you don't need a conviction in any of these trials to know that Donald Trump should not be president. So, you know, it's just -- I mean, think about it, Walter, the Republican Party doesn't have room for a Cheney? Really? A Cheney? What do you do with that? And there is no Republican Party to go back to. And people just have to come to grips with that. There's a kind of false hope that somehow we can just look beyond Trump, and McConnell expressed a lot of this, and a lot of these sort of gentry Republicans have held their nose and say, well, you know, we're just going to be able to put Trump behind us. No, no. The party -- there is a need for a center right conservative party in America. That cannot be the Republican Party as it's currently construed.   ISAACSON: So, wait. What happens if there's a need for a center right party and the Republican Party has abandoned that? What do you see down the road?   STEVENS: I think 2032 is the best hope that you could have a sane center right party that will emerge. You know, pain is the best teacher in politics. Arguably, maybe the only teacher. And what needs to happen is Republicans need to lose, and they need to lose again and again. And then, out of some sense of survival, you could see a sane party emerging. You know, a lot of this ultimately has to do with race, Walter. We're a country that's headed to becoming a minority majority country. If you're 16 years and under in America, you -- the majority are nonwhite. Trump's base is 85 percent white. And it's that reality that drives so much of the Republican Party's efforts to change election laws and to sort of curate the election. ISAACSON: You talk about the politics of grievance and of anti-corporate, anti-state feelings. How does Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fit into this equation? STEVENS: It's a great question. I think it comes down to who RFK. Jr. is. If come October, and RFK Jr. is defined as a crusading environmentalist lawyer that took on big corporations, that guy's going to hurt Joe Biden. If RFK Jr. is defined as this wacky conspiracy nut who has said that there is no safe vaccine, which means he's basically the, you know, anti-polio vaccine candidate who believes -- has expressed these conspiracies about the CIA killing his father and how, you know, Prozac leads to school shootings, I think that guy will probably hurt Trump more. But, you know, if it was up to me, I would rather just have a straight race with no third-party candidates. It's a cleaner race. You have to make it a choice between Trump and Biden. And there are voters out there who don't like Trump, who are uncomfortable with Biden. If you give them any sort of socially accepted off ramp, my fear is that they'll take them. That was a great fallacy of a No Labels candidate. And all the candidates they talked about definitely would have just helped elect Donald Trump, which maybe is one of the reasons that ultimately, they didn't go forward. But, you know, in The Lincoln Project, we're out there defining Robert Kennedy for what he is, a conspiracy nut who's anti-vaxxer. I think that's what needs to be done. And I hope that's who he is in October. ISAACSON: The last few lines of your op-ed, let me quote them to you. You say, we should not normalize how extraordinary it is that Mr. Trump is still a viable candidate for president. The Biden campaign will watch the spectacle unfold asking, how is this guy still in the race? So, let me ask you, how is this guy still in the race? STEVENS: It goes, I think, to a fundamental hollowness that existed within the Republican Party that Trump brought to light. ISAACSON: But also, the American electorate? STEVENS: Well, you look at among Democrats, Trump is, you know, not getting a lot of support. But yes, you would have to say he is appealing to a dark side of America. And we've had other candidates who did that. George Wallace did it. We just didn't have him nominated by a major political party. The Democratic Party rejected George Wallace. The Republican Party embraced it. You know, I think that there has been, by the establishment of the Republican Party embracing Trump, it has given a permission structure for people who are troubled by a lot of Trump to say, well, he couldn't -- he must not be that bad. I think he's a little weird and all this, but, hey, my governor -- I know my governor better. My Senator, they're normal humans. They support Trump. And that is the failure of the party not to stand up to Trump. But look, if you're going to ask me if Donald Trump wins his next race, does it say something that's very, very troubling about the future of democracy? My answer overwhelmingly is yes. You know, it's difficult to talk about this without sounding alarmist, and language is one of the issues that, you know, we struggle with. But I think if Donald Trump wins this election, it will be the last election that we can recognize as a normal American election. I know these people. As bad as you think they are, they are worse. They want a different America, and they're open about it when you really listen to them, and that's why they embrace Russia so much. They look at Russia, and they say, OK. Russia, no nonwhite people in power. Putin says there's no gays in Russia. There's no women in power. Elections are performative, but not decisive. That looks pretty good. And they embrace that. So, the idea, you know, America is rapidly changing, non-college educated white voters have the largest declining demographic in the country, and they find it unsettling and troubling and they would like to stop that. And they will -- they are about the business of trying to change elections so that they reduce the power of those who see a different America. And that's -- the Electoral College facilitates that. Biden won by 7 million votes, but it's 45,000 votes to change hands in just exactly the right places Trump would still win. So, I think it's a race about the future of America. I think the cliche this is the most important race of our lifetime has never been more true. ISAACSON: Stuart Stevens, thank you so much for joining us again. STEVENS: Thank you, Walter. AMANPOUR: So, that was two Republicans, two former Republicans, talking about their party today.

Guess Which Outlet Internet Traffic Cop NewsGuard Is Applauding OpenAI for Partnering With

You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours seems to be NewsGuard’s attitude toward OpenAI. Gordon Crovitz, the Co-editor and chief of so-called media ratings firm NewsGuard, wrote an article praising OpenAI artificial intelligence ChatGPT’s use of “Trustworthy Journalism” in its answers. But trustworthy according to whom? Well, NewsGuard’s biased ratings system, of course. This comes just two and a half months after ChatGPT refused to answer which news sources are the worst and instead directed MRC Free Speech America researchers to look to NewsGuard ratings for answers.  “Trusting legacy media to train AI is just about as ridiculous as chickens trusting a fox to guard the hen house,” said Michael Morris, Director of MRC Free Speech America. “But that’s exactly what NewsGuard is asking users to do here, and that can only lead to one thing: a really bad day for the chickens.” In his recent article, Crovitz applauded OpenAI for its recent licensing agreement with The Financial Times (FT), which just so happens to have a 100/100 NewsGuard rating.  “The AI models are ‘trained’ on whatever they can find on the internet, so when people ask the chatbots about topics in the news, their responses are based on the news sources the models are able to access,” Crovitz wrote. “OpenAI just announced that the Financial Times is the latest news publisher to get a licensing agreement, which means that its ChatGPT will be able to use the highly regarded London-based source of financial and business news in its training data.”  FT has repeatedly shown its bias over the years including when in 2018 it made leftist billionaire George Soros its “person of the year.” The outlet has also propped up President Joe Biden when his bad economic policies predictably led to bad economic outcomes. “Unemployment rate in US falls unexpectedly to 13.3%,”  FT wrote in a headline. The Financial Times editor and columnist Edward Luce also parroted claims of the Russian collusion hoax when he was interviewed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.  The AI platform is also reportedly negotiating similar licensing agreements with CNN  and Politico –which NewsGuard gave ratings of 80 and 100 respectively– along with News Corp. which owns a conglomeration of outlets, according to Bloomberg News.   Crovitz is also in no position to label what news is “trustworthy” as his own ratings firm has repeatedly shown bias and relaxed standards toward leftist media outlets while giving right-leaning media outlets low scores.  MRC Free Speech America has repeatedly shown that NewsGuard’s ratings system favors leftist media outlets. Using a media bias chart provided by AllSides in January 2023, the MRC exposed NewsGuard for giving a high average score of 91/100 to media on the “left” while slapping “a low average score of 66/100 to media on the “right”. This mirrored MRC’s previous studies which found very similar results. NewsGuard showed its true colors when The New York Times, TIME, Politico and Reuters each falsely reported that Israel was responsible for an airstrike on Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza. Those who did not just take Hamas’s health ministry at its word soon learned via U.S. intelligence assessment that the explosion was caused by a “failed rocket launch by militant terrorists,” as Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) put it. Despite the very public flub, Time, Politico and Reuters each continue to have a perfect 100/100 rating from NewsGuard. While NewsGuard docked The Times’s score in February and mentioned the Gaza hospital fake news that the leftist rag published, the ratings firm notably did not reduce the score due to its criteria that media outlets not “repeatedly publish false or egregiously misleading content.” Instead, NewsGuard lowered the media outlet’s score because The Times no longer “Handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly.” NewsGuard gave USA Today a perfect score, which did not even change after the outlet admitted to publishing 23 fabricated stories in 2022. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the CensorTrack contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Colbert Suggests Feds Will Monitor Women Under Trump, Attacks Him on Israel

CBS’s Stephen Colbert reacted to Donald Trump’s interviews with Time and Fox News on Wednesday’s edition of The Late Show by attacking him on issues ranging from abortion to Israel. Colbert noted that in the Time interview, “Trump tried to dodge any question at all about abortion by claiming he would leave it up to the states, but said he's fine with states monitoring pregnant women, so they don't get abortions.”     It would be more accurate to say Trump took a position of complete federal non-interference, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.” Regardless, Colbert raised the prospect of the invention of the menstrual cycle police, "Well, then why stop at pregnancy? Why not monitor women for their entire cycle? ‘Open up! Open up! It's the feds! It's gonna be a light day!’” Colbert followed up with a juvenile digression, “Not sure how I was holding that bullhorn, I’m not sure why I was talking into a hoagie. Light butt play. Light butt play. What do you think of that, Ed? Ed, what are you think about, what about you, Ed? You ever have light butt play? What about you, Doc?” Moving on, Colbert reported, “Trump also assured the nation that he's going to be way better at staffing this time around, saying, [TRUMP IMPRESSION] ‘The advantage I have now is I know everybody. I know people. I know the good, the bad, the stupid, the smart.’"  Reverting back to his normal voice, Colbert continued, to great amounts of applause, “You can just say ‘good’ and ‘smart,’ we already know you're pretty tight with the bad and the stupid. They're your sons.” Colbert also recalled that “yesterday, he also called into Fox News and weighed in on the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.” In the clip of Hannity, Trump explained that “We have to let Israel complete their war on terror. It's a horrible thing, but they have to do it and they have to do it fast.” There are some things that are unpleasant or miserable, but have to be done. The sooner you get it over with, the sooner the misery ends, but Colbert played dumb, “Yes, horrible things are only horrible if they aren't done really fast. ‘Kids, I am leaving you and your mom for my college intern, but it's okay 'cause I'm leaving in a jetpack. Pshhhh.’" While Colbert devoted portions of his Wednesday monologue to taking apart Trump’s platform, do not expect him to do the same when he takes his show on the road to Chicago and the DNC in a few months. Here is a transcript for the May 1 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/1/2024 11:45 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Trump tried to dodge any question at all about abortion by claiming he would leave it up to the states, but said he's fine with states monitoring pregnant women, so they don't get abortions. Well then why stop at pregnancy? Why not monitor women for their entire cycle? "Open up! Open up! It's the feds! It's gonna be a light day!"  Not sure how I was holding that bullhorn, I’m not sure why I was talking into a hoagie. Light butt play. Light butt play. What do you think of that, Ed? Ed, what are you think about, what about you, Ed? You ever have light butt play? What about you, Doc?  Trump also assured the nation that he's going to be way better at staffing this time around, saying, [TRUMP IMPRESSION] "The advantage I have now is I know everybody. I know people. I know the good, the bad, the stupid, the smart." [NORMAL VOICE] You can just say "good" and "smart," we already know you're pretty tight with the bad and the stupid. They're your sons.  Now, yesterday, he also called into Fox News and weighed in on the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. DONALD TRUMP: We have to let Israel complete their war on terror. It's a horrible thing, but they have to do it and they have to do it fast. COLBERT: Yes, horrible things are only horrible if they aren't done really fast. "Kids, I am leaving you and your mom for my college intern, but it's okay 'cause I'm leaving in a jetpack. Pshhhh."

PROPAGANDA: CBS Airs Gazan Kids Thanking U.S. Campus Protester-Vandals

Tonight’s CBS Evening News dispatch from Gaza included a pretty blatant piece of propaganda: a group of children thanking American campus protesters for their “protests and solidarity”.  Watch as correspondent Ramy Inocencio introduces this moment of thanks to American pro-Hamas useful idiots and other leftists demanding that the universities accommodate their BDS demands. RAMY INOCENCIO: And for the first time, aid started flowing through a reopened border crossing destroyed on October 7th. As Gazans rallied to thank U.S. university students for their protests and solidarity.  The report was otherwise your normalish dispatch from Gaza. A mention of the tension between the Biden and Netanyahu administrations, respectively, over a potential Blinken-brokered ceasefire, allowing for prisoner exchanges. There’s Blinken fretting over a potential IDF invasion of Rafah, and Bibi saying he’s doing it no matter what. Petty standard stuff. There was also the quick interview of a hostage family wherein they firmly demanded something be done in furtherance of the incarceration of hostages. Again, pretty standard stuff. Standard stuff until the kids with signs get trotted out, with their entirely organic artwork and proper university logos. Totally spontaneous, I’m sure. Notice the children bring guided by their "adults" Seriously, who at CBS thought it was a good idea to air pro-Hamas and pro-student rioter propaganda? It is very brief but serves its purpose. Ultimately, the net effect of this video will be to embolden pro-Hamas protesters in the U.S. to ratchet up their efforts. An otherwise unremarkable report on the state of affairs in Gaza was made remarkable by the willful broadcasting of pro-Hamas propaganda. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on the CBS Evening News on Wednesday, May 1st, 2024: JAMES BROWN: Secretary of State Antony Blinken was back in Israel today for the seventh time since the war with Hamas began last October. Blinken is pushing hard for a stop to the fighting, but CBS's Ramy Inocencio reports from Tel Aviv, progress on a deal seems out of reach. RAMY INOCENCIO: Handshakes and smiles aside, in the quest for a cease-fire with Hamas, secretary of state Antony Blinken shot down Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plan for a final Gaza invasion. ANTONY BLINKEN: We cannot, will not support a major military operation in Rafah, absent an effective plan to make sure that civilians are not harmed. INOCENCIO: But a Netanyahu advisor confirms to CBS News the prime minister is not backing down from his plan to attack Rafah. A more receptive welcome came from families of hostages pleading for a cease-fire to get all hostages home. AVIVA SIEGEL: I feel like I'm broken up into pieces. INOCENCIO: For Aviva Siegel, her American husband, Keith, is one of them. This proof of life video released just days ago. SIEGEL: And I know that Keith has had enough. Our family has had enough. Our country’s had enough. INOCENCIO: Aviva herself was a hostage released after 51 days. She, her daughter,and families of other American hostages had a face-to-face with Blinken. What was the feeling? DAUGHTER: Really grateful for what the United States has been doing since October 7th. INOCENCIO: Another sticking point to a cease-fire, aid to Gaza. The U.N. warns of impending famine. Blinken toured routes being ramped up and being built into the Strip, and for more. BLINKEN: It needs to be accelerated, it needs to be sustained. INOCENCIO: And for the first time, aid started flowing through a reopened border crossing destroyed on October 7th. As Gazans rallied to thank U.S. university students for their protests and solidarity.  And Antony Blinken left the region a few hours ago back to Washington. Israel hasn't confirmed it’ll send a delegation to any cease-fire talks. Hamas still hasn’t replied to Israel’s proposal. JB. BROWN: Thank you, Ramy.  

NBC News Is Only Network To Report On Suspected ISIS Border Crosser

The catastrophe along the U.S. southern border has all but disappeared from the corporate network evening news. A recent NBC News story demonstrates why networks must still report on the border, notwithstanding that issue driving President Joe Biden’s unfavorable numbers. Watch as NBC News correspondent Julia Ainsley describes a shocking scenario wherein an Uzbek crossed the border illegally in 2022, was released into the United States only to struggle to find him once it was known that he was a potential member of ISIS: JULIA AINSLEY: Tonight, among the record wave of migrants crossing the southern border, a suspected ISIS member who lived freely in the U.S. for nearly two years, two U.S. officials tell NBC News. 33-year-old Jovokhir Attoev of Uzbekistan crossed into Arizona in February 2022, where he was apprehended and vetted by both Customs and Border Protection and I.C.E. He was not on the U.S. terror watchlist and he was released into the U.S., those sources tell us. Then, in May 2023, Uzbekistan put out an international alert saying that Attoev was affiliated with ISIS and wanted there. But it took nearly a year for U.S. officials to figure out the suspected ISIS member was living freely here in the U.S. It is inconceivable that it would take the government almost a year to find a man suspected of being an actual terrorist. Compare that to the dispatch with which the government is able to locate random school board protesters, pro-life activists, or random grandmas walking the Capitol grounds on January 6th, and you begin to sense a real disconnect.  The report leaves viewers with some uncomfortable questions: how many more suspected ISIS terrorists have crossed, unvetted, into the United States? Of those, how many are known to the government and what is being done in order to be able to track them down? There is no answer for that, which is not good given the Biden administration’s proposal to bring Gaza refugees into the United States.  It is shocking that such a report would even make it to air, given the media’s propensity to cover for the administration’s failures. To their credit, NBC News reported an uncomfortable story- which is more than can be said for their competitors. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on NBC Nightly News on Wednesday, May 1st, 2024: LESTER HOLT: We're back with our NBC News report on the terror concerns at the U.S. border. We've learned a suspected ISIS member not only crossed into the U.S. illegally, he was also living here for quite some time before anyone realized it. Here's Julia Ainsley. JULIA AINSLEY: Tonight, among the record wave of migrants crossing the southern border, a suspected ISIS member who lived freely in the U.S. for nearly two years, two U.S. officials tell NBC News. 33-year-old Jovokhir Attoev of Uzbekistan crossed into Arizona in February 2022, where he was apprehended and vetted by both Customs and Border Protection and I.C.E. He was not on the U.S. terror watchlist and he was released into the U.S., those sources tell us. Then, in May 2023, Uzbekistan put out an international alert saying that Attoev was affiliated with ISIS and wanted there. But it took nearly a year for U.S. officials to figure out the suspected ISIS member was living freely here in the U.S.  U.S. Officials tell us DHS made the alarming discovery after reviewing Attoev’s application for asylum. Shortly after DHS connected the dots, ICE arrested him here, in Baltimore, just two weeks ago. Former Homeland Security officials tell us his case raises red flags about the vetting process for migrants after they cross the border. Should alarm bells be going off here? ELIZABETH NEUMANN: We are in the midst of a really volatile threat environment. Any time I see a gap in a system like we are seeing in this case, I do have concerns. Any time you have just a massive volume of people like we do, our systems are overwhelmed and we need more resources at the southern border to properly protect the homeland. AINSLEY: And it follows our exclusive report last month that a migrant U.S. officials say was affiliated with an Afghan terror group crossed the border and was released into the U.S. because agents lacked information to connect him to the terror watchlist. That man, Mohamed Harwin was arrested hours after our report aired. The FBI director recently alerted Congress, the agencies investigating whether ISIS has a hand in smuggling migrants across the southern border. CHRISTOPHER WRAY: There is a particular network that has -- where some of the overseas facilitators of the smuggling network have ISIS ties that we're very concerned about. AINSLEY: Two U.S. officials tell NBC News DHS has not yet concluded that Attoev is part of ISIS, but they are questioning him in detention. A DHS spokesperson tells us he remains in U.S. custody and there is no threat to public safety. Lester. HOLT: Ok. Julia. Thank you.  

NewsBusters Podcast: The Lingo Games with 'Pro-Palestinian Protesters'

One of the ways you can always sense media bias is the terminology that the media elite decides to adopt en masse. Colleges are being occupied by "pro-Palestinian protesters," and you can't (accurately) call them "anti-Israel," not to mention "pro-Hamas." Liberals paint other liberals as pro-everything good, and the conservatives are anti-everything good. Anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-government, anti-tax. All of this is messaging, like advertising slogans. This tendency is especially transparent on the "culture war" issues. Killing a baby is "abortion care." Seeking an amputation is "gender-affirming care." Florida adopting a six-week abortion ban is portrayed as very "restrictive." The media will use the word "protections" for whatever policies they support, like Democrats passing "protections for gender-affirming care." They'll call liberalized abortion law "protections," when the baby is clearly not protected.  Reporters casually pass along that leftists call trans surgeries "life-saving." They'll even call abortions "life-saving." On the PBS NewsHour, they filed a story that used the term "gender-affirming care" ten times, and nowhere in the report did anyone take exception to that term or anything else the transgender lobby is seeking to accomplish. It wasn't surprising, given the expert in the segment was NPR health reporter Selena Simmons-Duffin, who has filed one-sided stories in favor of abortion and the abortion lobby. Ex-NPR senior editor Uri Berliner appeared with Chris Cuomo on NewsNation and insisted “I think that really, NPR has a lot of soul searching to do about representing the country at large. Being a publicly funded news organization and really trying to represent this country in all its great diversity and viewpoints.” Berliner is no longer at NPR because almost no one in public radio believes that the taxpayer subsidies should encourage NPR to be fair and balanced. No one at NPR wants that, or if they do, they'll be sidelined like Berliner. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 
❌