Vaunce News

🔒
❌ About FreshRSS
There are new available articles, click to refresh the page.
Today — March 28th 2024NB Blog Feed

The View's Low IQ Conspiracy Theorists: RFK Trying to 'Buy' Election

The low I.Q. members of ABC’s Cackling Coven (aka The View) were terrified on Thursday because they were apparently feeling the heat of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s independent campaign and feared it would hurt President Biden’s chances in November. They were so scared that they cooked up a fringe conspiracy theory accusing Kennedy of trying to “buy” the election by picking billionaire Nicole Shanahan to be his vice president. The View brought up the topic of Kennedy by disgustingly co-opting the death of former Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT); making it about third parties (Click “expand”): Welcome back. We do want to note that Senator Joe Lieberman passed away yesterday at 82, who founded the No Labels party to offer centralists alternatives to major party candidates. No Label does not have a candidate in the 2024 race but the third-party candidate people seem to be talking about right now is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Reportedly, you know, people are saying, oh, the Democrats are going -- he's going to take votes from Biden and a lot of Republicans are pushing that narrative too, but I'm not sure that that's so, but I'll ask you all. What do you think of this third-party situation or possibility? After saying her peace about Lieberman, faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin rambled on about how “RFK has to be taken seriously” because his beliefs were “very dangerous.” “But he has money, he’s organizing, he is on the ballot in a number of key battleground states including Nevada – two battleground states,” she warned, recalling 2016, “But we know this. We know it from 2016, Jill Stein alone was enough to keep Hillary Clinton from winning in Michigan and changed the course of the election.”     Co-host Joy Behar became unglued as she ranted about how “Somebody has to ask him: why are you doing this! Why do you want to destroy the election and hand it to Trump if possible?!” She also claimed he was doing a disservice to the family name, saying: “He's a Kennedy. His forefathers are rolling over in their graves with this. His own family is telling him to get out. We already have one clown in the race. Do we need two of them?” She also suggested that Kennedy was showing the king of “delusion” that destroyed countries in the past; “that's what we're dealing with here with this.” No examples were given. Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) was the first to dive into the election conspiracy waters. She clutched her pearls and suggested that Kennedy chose Shanahan, the daughter of an immigrant, for dark and sketchy motives: “Didn't he just choose a billionaire vice president? Who can help him get on the ballots in different states in battleground states.” Decrying that a candidate was trying to get on ballots, which required signatures and not cash, sounded very anti-democratic. She provided no evidence that Kennedy was buying off election officials to get on ballots. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg really bought into the conspiracy theories. She said Kennedy’s pick sent a “bad message for folks” and accuse him of trying to “buy the election.” It was a serious allegation that she provided no proof for, but she received broad approval from the rest of the cast anyway. “Keep in mind what you're hearing,” Goldberg declared, “You're not supposed to be able to buy an election.” “[Or] Buy your way onto a ballot,” Hostin added, suggesting that “the Supreme Court made sure he can.” Again, there was no explanation of how the court helped the campaign nor evidence provided of any alleged illegal activity; nor what specific activity the campaign was doing they thought ought to be illegal, for that matter. What they refused to mention was the strenuous efforts the Democratic Party was going through to make sure Kennedy’s name didn’t appear on ballots. Sounds pretty anti-democratic. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 28, 2024 11:15:46 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Welcome back. We do want to note that Senator Joe Lieberman passed away yesterday at 82, who founded the No Labels party to offer centralists alternatives to major party candidates. No Label does not have a candidate in the 2024 race but the third-party candidate people seem to be talking about right now is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Reportedly, you know, people are saying, oh, the Democrats are going -- he's going to take votes from Biden and a lot of Republicans are pushing that narrative too, but I'm not sure that that's so, but I'll ask you all. What do you think of this third-party situation or possibility? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I just want to say love and well wishes to the Lieberman family. He was someone I greatly admired in politics. I think it feels like the end of an era of centrism and trying to prioritize working across the aisle. I feel like we so often demonize moderation in this current era, so he will be missed. But on this third party, RFK has to be taken seriously even though I think his beliefs are out there. Some of them are very dangerous. Some of the anti-vax sentiment. But he has money, he’s organizing, he is on the ballot in a number of key battleground states including Nevada – two battleground states – But we know this. We know it from 2016, Jill Stein alone was enough to keep Hillary Clinton from winning in Michigan and changed the course of the election. (…) 11:17:59 a.m. Eastern JOY BEHAR: Somebody has to ask him: why are you doing this? Why do you want to destroy the election and hand it to Trump if possible? [Crosstalk with Sara Haines] BEHAR: He's a Kennedy. His forefathers are rolling over in their graves with this. His own family is telling him to get out. SARA HAINES: But a lot of people -- BEHAR: We already have one clown in the race. Do we need two of them? [Applause] HAINES: A lot of people including myself believe in time there is space for a third party. So, I tend to think the people that take this on aren't coming at it like, “I'm going to ruin the election for everyone.” I truly think they believe there is a lane to try to create something. I just don't think it's this election. BEHAR: I think many times delusion has destroyed a country and that's what we're dealing with here with this. The polls are too close. Even though you don't believe in them. GOLDBERG: I don't. BEHAR: I know, Whoopi. But they're close. Even though now – GOLDBERG: That's why I don't believe them. BEHAR: Biden is only slightly ahead and it’s only – what are we in, April now or March, whatever?   SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah, we’re in April. BEHAR: Pretty soon – People are starting to focus and they’ll realize the danger that Trump poses. I believe that. HOSTIN: You know -- BEHAR: I'm not a religious person but I'm making a novena. HAINES: Oh, he's definitely going to answer. HOSTIN: And it's good because it's Holy Week. It’s Holy Week. So, it’s a very good time for that, Joy. (…) 11:20:36 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: Didn't he just choose a billionaire vice president? FARAH GRIFFIN: Yeah. HOSTIN: Who can help him get on the ballots in different states in battleground states. GOLDBERG: Here's the thing. HOSTIN: That's pretty smart. GOLDBERG: Yeah, it's one more bad message for folks that says you can buy the election. FARAH GRIFFIN: Yeah. HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: That's right. GOLDBERG: It's another -- there's so many – [Coughs] excuse me – So many messages here that – Keep in mind what you're hearing. You're not supposed to be able to buy a message -- you're not supposed to be able to buy an election. HOSTIN: Buy your way onto a ballot. GOLDBERG: You’re not supposed to be able to do that. HOSTIN: The Supreme Court made sure he can. BEHAR: That’s right. GOLDBERG: And so many things are shifting, but you right now. (…)

NBC Hails Biden’s ‘Star-Studded’ NYC Fundraiser, Footnotes Trump Honoring NYPD

Having axed former RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel as a contributor, NBC’s Today returned Thursday to doing what the network does best: being fanboys and girls for their liberals. This time, they cheered President Biden’s upcoming attempt “to re-energize his re-election campaign with a star-studded campaign event” at Radio City Music Hall with former Presidents Clinton and Obama, CBS’s Late Show host Stephen Colbert, and celebrities such as Lizzo and Queen Latifah. “Radio City rally. President Biden looking to re-energize his re-election campaign with a star-studded campaign event tonight,” beamed co-host Hoda Kotb in a tease, adding “a new national poll shows that Biden and Donald Trump are now locked in a dead heat.” Accompanied by the chyron “Star-Studded Biden Fundraiser”, co-host Savannah Guthrie set-up senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez’s piece by boasting Biden is “looking to boost his re-election campaign” with a “major fundraising event tonight that will include former Presidents Obama and Clinton” and a “host of celebrity performers.”     Gutierrez read his talking points, fawning over what “[t]he Biden campaign” insists will be “a historic, first-of-its-kind event” that’s “expected to draw 5,000 people here at this iconic venue and rake in more than $25 million.” After fretting Donald Trump “has his own plans” as if him being in New York is a nuisance, Gutierrez went back to ogling:  This morning, the Biden campaign is preparing to host a star-studded fundraiser with three Presidents Biden, Obama and Clinton in a conversation moderated by late-night host Stephen Colbert. The event also set to feature appearances by Lizzo, Queen Latifah and Ben Platt among other celebrities as Democrats set their sights on the general election. He conceded Biden’s “poll numbers are ticking up, but still shaky” with Biden and Trump running neck-and-neck compared to Biden holding steady leads “[a]t this time in 2020”, which has meant they need Dear Leader Barack to save them and “tak[e] an increasingly active role in the campaign.” Gutierrez threw a jab at Trump over ObamaCare before finally footnoting Trump’s New York visit is to “highlight violent crime in the city and...attend the wake of NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller, who was shot and killed this week in the line of duty.” Gutierrez couldn’t leave it there or say any more about Diller’s murder. Instead, Gutierrez had to pair what with Trump “escalat[ing] his attacks on the judge presiding over his hush money trial”. The NBC correspondent concluded with more liberal fluff, celebrating the fact that “Democrats have outpaced Republicans when it comes to fundraising in recent months” and tickets for the Radio City Music Hall event going for anywhere between $250 and $500,000. To see the relevant NBC transcript from March 28, click “expand.” NBC’s Today March 28, 2024 7:00 a.m. Eastern [TEASE] [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Radio City Rally] HODA KOTB: Radio City rally. President Biden looking to re-energize his re-election campaign with a star-studded campaign event tonight. This as a new national poll show that Biden and Donald Trump are now locked in a dead heat. We’ll have the latest.  (....) 7:06 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Star-Studded Biden Fundraiser] SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: We turn now to the 2024 race. Both President Biden and Donald Trump will be in New York today. The President looking to boost his re-election campaign, major fundraising event tonight that will include former Presidents Obama and Clinton as well as of — host of celebrity performers. NBC’s senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez is just near us at Radio City Music Hall is where this event will be held. Gabe, good morning. GABE GUTIERREZ: Hey there, Savannah, good morning. The Biden campaign is billing this as a historic, first-of-its-kind event. The event is expected to draw 5,000 people here at this iconic venue and rake in more than $25 million. But former President Trump has his own plans. This morning, the Biden campaign is preparing to host a star-studded fundraiser with three Presidents Biden, Obama and Clinton in a conversation moderated by late-night host Stephen Colbert. The event also set to feature appearances by Lizzo, Queen Latifah and Ben Platt among other celebrities as Democrats set their sights on the general election. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I’ve never been more optimistic about our future. And I know I’m only 40 years old times two, plus one. GUTIERREZ: The President’s poll numbers are ticking up, but still shaky. At this time in 2020, Biden was leading Trump by an average of six points. Now, most polls show it’s a statistical tie or Trump lead, so the President and Vice President are ramping up their travel. Former President Obama is also taking an increasingly active role in the campaign. BARACK OBAMA [on 03/23/24]: Right now, the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party for president says he wants to repeal the entirety of the ACA. GUTIERREZ: Mr. Trump is firing back, says he doesn’t want to “terminate” it, just make it better even though he’s previously said repeatedly that he wanted to replace it. TRUMP [on 06/11/16]: We’re repealing and replacing Obamacare. GUTIRREZ: While the former President escalates his attacks on the judge presiding over his hush money trial in New York, he’s also trying to highlight violent crime in the city and planning to attend the wake of NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller, who was shot and killed this week in the line of duty. Today, both candidates heading to high-profile events, another split-screen moment as the campaign intensifies. Meanwhile, Democrats have outpaced Republicans when it comes to fundraising in recent months. As for the fundraiser here tonight, the cheapest tickets have sold for $250, but the most expensive have gone to people who contributed up to $500,000. Savannah. GUTHRIE: Alright, Gabe Gutierrez, Thank you very much.

Yet More Gov’t-Big Tech Collusion? New Report on YouTube Raises Disturbing Questions

It’s not just censorship. The federal government reportedly ordered Google to reveal which users were watching certain videos on its YouTube platform. The feds face a U.S. Supreme Court case for coordinating with Big Tech to violate Americans’ First Amendment free speech rights. But the government may also be violating Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights against “unreasonable searches” by demanding user data from Google-owned YouTube, according to a Forbes report published on March 22. Experts framed the orders as a free speech issue. “The left used to push for federal gun registries. They have now shifted their focus to the most dangerous weapon of all: speech. Because they can’t stand dissent or diversity of opinion, the left is trying to intimidate their opposition from speaking their minds or accessing news from right-of-center news outlets,” MRC Vice President for Free Speech Dan Schneider said. “We’ve seen how the Biden administration has funded efforts to choke off private funding of conservative media outlets and how it has tried to direct students away from these sites. Now Biden is demanding access to user data. Given the government’s track record, we should be very skeptical.” The potential Fourth Amendment violations were revealed as Forbes originally reported that it accessed multiple orders related to a Kentucky case where law enforcement officials suspected YouTube user “elonmuskwhm” was selling bitcoin in exchange for cash, a potential money laundering crime. As unveiled by Forbes, the government not only investigated the suspected user but also demanded data on all individuals who viewed the user’s videos between Jan. 1 and Jan. 8, 2023. Videos posted by “Elonmuskwhm” garnered at least 30,000 views. Strikingly, Google was reportedly required to keep the requests secret until they were recently unsealed. “The court orders show the government telling Google to provide the names, addresses, telephone numbers and user activity for all Google account users who accessed the YouTube videos between January 1 and January 8, 2023,” according to Forbes. “The government also wanted the IP addresses of non-Google account owners who viewed the videos.” The data was allegedly “‘relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation,’” Forbes quoted the police as having said. The feds also demanded data on viewers of livestreams showing officers searching an area after a bomb threat. Forbes noted that privacy experts see the federal orders on YouTube as a constitutional violation, both of the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. Albert Fox-Cahn, executive director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, told Forbes, “This is the latest chapter in a disturbing trend where we see government agencies increasingly transforming search warrants into digital dragnets. It’s unconstitutional, it’s terrifying and it’s happening every day.” He added that users should not be surveilled secretively by the government because the YouTube algorithm suggested a video to them. John Davisson, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that “[w]hat we watch online can reveal deeply sensitive information about us—our politics, our passions, our religious beliefs, and much more.” He concluded, “It's fair to expect that law enforcement won't have access to that information without probable cause. This warrant turns that assumption on its head.” This is another piece of evidence showing potential federal government violations of constitutional rights. The Murthy v. Missouri case, currently before the Supreme Court, exposed the extent of alleged government collusion with Big Tech to crush free speech using a leftist bias.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an 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.

Target and Walmart Celebrate Easter With Bunnies and Eggs, Ignore Jesus

Easter is a Christian holiday that celebrates...bunnies??? MRCTV/Culture went through Target's and Walmart’s selection of Easter items through the search term “Easter candy” and found that the overwhelming majority of the results had nothing to do with Jesus, the resurrection or the cross. Instead, the companies, as well as likely many more, flooded their selection with pastel flowers, carrots, bunnies and decorated egg candies for purchase. We knew that Target would have no problem concealing the real meaning of the holiday. Afterall, they care more about pride month than any other day, holiday or occasion.  When we searched for “Easter candy,” the company provided 499 results. Only five of those results had anything to do with the real meaning of Easter and honestly, one of them was just a little lamb and I’d argue that creators weren’t even intending to represent the blood of the lamb during the manufacturing process. Among the results was one Russell Stover chocolate cross, which is only available via the shipping option. The other items were just decorated boxes or packages of regular shaped and themed candy. For example, Target sold a box of assorted chocolates in a tin with a purple sticker with the words “Happy Easter” and a cross on it. The kicker is that Target is just the middle man of those products, as they’re actually sold and shipped from distributors that merely use Target to get more sales. So, essentially, Target actually only sells 1.5 (half a point for the lamb) Easter candies. Walmart provided similar results. Among the 1000+ items that showed up when searching “Easter candy,” Walmart waited til the third page to show a Hershey’s chocolate cross. Unlike Target, Walmart's cross is available for in-store pick up.  It wasn’t until page 16 of Walmart’s results that a “little lamby” was displayed, and honestly, it didn’t allude to Jesus’ resurrection in any other way than being a lamb. So likely, it also was not a religious item. Plus, it was out of stock. Page 21 displayed little mints that had various phrases about Jesus on the wrapper, like “Jesus Guides Me,” “Jesus Loves Me,” and “Jesus Saves Me.” The mints, which weren't even marketed as "Easter candy," were sold and shipped by an external company that went through Walmart to execute sales, just like Target's. No other items that related to the Resurrection showed up via this search. Searching “Easter candy religious” did merit a few more results for Walmart, but it took that extra step of adding the word “religious” to get more options. Even then, for Walmart, only three more options popped up and all of the items, again, were sold and shipped by external companies through Walmart’s check out system.  This is odd considering Easter has absolutely nothing to do with bunnies, carrots or little decorated eggs and everything to do with the cross. Roughly 3000 years ago, the hare was a symbol of death and rebirth to ancient people in Mesopotamia and Syria. Similarly, as noted by ExploreGod, the word “Easter” was linked to the German fertility goddess Eostra, “who in some traditions was even associated with hares.” Critics also note that the egg represents an "unexpected resurrection" through the unexpected chick that comes out of it. But in reality, the bunnies, the eggs, the carrots and the rest of the pastels have nothing to do with the actual meaning of Easter. Nonetheless, MRC also took a look at gifts, too. The Easter basket category on Target’s website generated 66 items. Zero items had anything to do with Jesus.  For Walmart, results were way more chaotic. Even when generating items by clicking “Easter” at the top of the site then selecting “Baskets,” 1000+ items popped up.  Out of all 25 pages, there were no baskets that had anything related to Jesus, but page one of the search did feature a spell book set with “Pagan Witchcraft Supplies.” Now, are these two companies to blame for the secularization of the religious holiday? Of course not. As a matter of fact, they’re likely just appealing to what customers are interested in, and unfortunately, these days, it isn't God. While celebrating in these more secular ways may be fun for little kiddos, it’s important as consumers and as parents, if you are one, to remind them about the real meaning of Easter. But if that isn’t your goal, Target and Walmart are great places to feed your your anti-Jesus traditions.

Scarborough: January 6 = Kristallnacht, Female Fox Hosts Played With 'Eva Braun' Barbies

Who calls MSNBC a "news" channel? Joe Scarborough dug deep into his bag of Trump-Hitler analogies on today's Morning Joe. Scarborough began by analogizing the January 6 riot to Kristallnacht, the 1938 anti-Jewish pogrom led by the Nazi SS. He claimed "you can hear on Fox News people saying that nothing was wrong with January 6th." They're like Nazi newspapers: "Were there Nazi newspapers in the 1930s, saying, you know, Kristallnacht, there's some people that actually think that was a bad thing?!" Kristallnacht was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Jews, and the damage or destruction of hundreds of synagogues and thousands of Jewish businesses. It is seen as the precursor to The Final Solution--the Holocaust. To in any way equate this riot to a pogrom is wildly inaccurate and repulsive. But this is MSNBC, where they air lunatic pundits who claim "9/11 is nothing compared to January 6."   Later, Scarborough unloaded his usual braggadocio about how he reacts when "somebody makes the mistake of saying, I used to like you when you were a conservative." Mika said "Please don't do that." He bragged that he'd tell conservatives that they're liberal if they're voting for Trump and all his big spending (as if Democrats opposed massive pandemic relief, and other spending).  He boasted to George Conway: "You and I were conservatives, and are conservatives, but we were conservatives when some of these women on Fox News who call us liberals were still playing with their, their Barbies. Of course, Eva Braun edition." Conway found Scarborough slurring Fox News women as proto-Nazis hilariously funny. He kept on bragging: "We were fighting for conservative values. We were fighting to balance the budget, to reform welfare, we were fighting to hold Democratic administrations accountable when they were in grade school and have done it our entire life." So, sexism, ageism, and a Nazi slur -- quite the three-fer, Joe!  It's a little much to hear these people still mocking the conservatives because Ronna McDaniel said sometimes you "take one for the team" and don't state your own opinion. "No convictions....no core values," said Mika. Joe and Mika backed Trump enthusiastically in 2015, and then turned and ran the other way. Now, every day, they aim to please their number one fan, President Biden. But they think other people are just saying what the boss wants to hear.  Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 3/28/24 6:26 am EDT MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I think, first of all, the reason for these gag orders, as Jonathan Lemire pointed out, is because of the fear of violence, of retribution. And Donald Trump is proven on that point in many different ways. We could talk for four hours about all the different ways he has threatened people. And then, of course, we have January 6th. And I just have to say, I was watching one of his networks, cause I like to see what Trump voters are hearing from places that call themselves news networks. And they were talking about January 6th in a discussion, in a discourse -- about us, actually. And saying that we want to put out there that January 6th was more than just a little thing. And that is the problem with the discourse. JOE SCARBOROUGH: I, I, I: let's just come out and say it. You hear, you can hear on Fox News people saying that nothing was wrong with January 6th. MIKA: You can have some -- yeah, if someone believes it was a little thing, you can still talk about it. SCARBOROUGH: It wasn't a big deal. And others saying, that network, you know, they actually sit there and people who watch that network think January 6th was an important event.  And you're, you're sitting there going, wait a second!  MIKA: More than a little thing. SCARBOROUGH: Were there Nazi newspapers in the 1930s, saying, you know, Kristallnacht. There's some people that actually think that was a bad thing?! The fact that Donald Trump has numbed people so much that the same people who said it was a horrible thing on January 7th are now coming back into the cult, back into the folds, going, you know, some people actually are stupid enough to say that that was a really terrible thing. Mind-blowing to me. MIKA: That can't be the debate. SCARBOROuGH: Mind-blowing to me that they are actually able to say that on a network that has paid dearly for election lies. . . .  MIKA: Their crime, in their party, is that they spoke their mind. And the problem we're seeing right now is, you have a lot of people on the media that leans to the right, and has that take, is that they are right now cutting down people for speaking their mind. They are right -- SCARBOROUGH: -- But they don't really know what -- MIKA: They are right now cutting down people who speak their minds despite who pays them. SCARBOROUGH: They -- MIKA: And they are -- SCARBOROUGH: [Getting annoyed by Mika] Yeah. MIKA: And they proving that they take one for the team every day. [Scarborough repeatedly jams ballpoint pen against chin in frustration.] You don't know what you're watching. SCARBOROUGH: And, and, and they actually admitted over the past week. They said -- MIKA: Time and time again. SCARBOROUGH: They said, I would never say anything that my boss doesn't want  -- MIKA: Insubordination. SCARBOROUGH: -- me to say. I would never speak my mind --  MIKA: Wait.  SCARBOROUGH: They literally are on the air -- MIKA: [Extended but unintelligible interruption.] I'm so confused. SCARBOROUGH: And they assured the viewers -- MIKA: [Unintelligible interruption] -- SCARBORuGH: -- That  they would never speak their mind -- MIKA: Ever! SCARBOROUGH: -- if their boss didn't want them -- MIKA: No convictions! SCARBOROUGH: -- speaking their mind. MIKA: No core values. SCARBOROUGH: And that's, [points back and forth to Mika and himself] we're speaking serially here, because we believe it a lot.  That's one of the reasons why -- MIKA: Please keep talking about it. [Joe stares angrily at Mika.] Sorry, go ahead. I was just talking to my friends over there. SCARBOROUGH: That's one of the reasons why -- . . .  If I'm walking through an airport, and somebody makes the mistake of saying, I used to like you when you were a conservative -- MIKA: Please don't do that. It's not good. SCARBOROUGH: I'm like, really, really? All right. And then I go down the list of issues. Where are you on this? Where are you on this? Well, I'll tell you what, you're, you're a liberal on spending if you support Donald Trump. You're a liberal. And you just go down the list of things.  It is so funny, George. You and I were conservatives, and are conservatives, but we were conservatives when some of these women on Fox News who call us liberals were still playing with their, their Barbies. Of course, Eva Braun edition. [George Conway laughs hysterically.]  We were fighting for conservative values. We were fighting to balance the budget, to reform welfare, we were fighting to hold Democratic administrations accountable when they were in grade school and have done it our entire life.  What's the difference? When an anti-democratic, fascist-leaning guy wants to be President of the United States -- you know what? We're Americans first. Let's work with other people who support democracy.

Reid Asks Why White Women Don't View Pro-Lifers As White Supremacists

MSNBC’s Joy Reid claims to have no problems with hearing Republican points of view, but when it came to discussing abortion on Wednesday’s edition of The ReidOut, she instead welcomed two Democrats, strategist Juanita Tolliver and former Sen. Doug Jones, to wonder why white women vote for Republicans because pro-lifers are a bunch of white supremacists who view them as vehicles to avoid “race suicide.” A confused Reid declared “the sort of trick that has been difficult to get her out how to untie this knot, Juanita, which is that, you know, white women on a majority, do vote Republican even in states where they’re voting away their reproductive rights. I think about Georgia where they voted for Brian Kemp and his six-week abortion ban and so it's like, what will unlock that fealty that white women have to it.”     When Reid wants to learn about pro-lifers, she turns to the lefties at Slate, “I read this thing in Slate that talked about the origins, the white nationalist origins of the anti-abortion movement. It says the following in Slate, ‘In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the movement against abortion mainly included white supremacist who pointed to declining white birthrates believed that legalized abortion would mean race suicide for white Protestants.’” Not only is the pro-life movement larger than white Protestants, it is telling that Reid’s desire to project the 19th century on to 2024 only extends to pro-lifers and not her white male, former Democratic senator from Alabama guest. Finally getting to a question, Reid asked Tolliver, “You still look at it and you don't think they want you and me to have more babies. I don't think they want Latinos to have more babies. How do they get the message to white women that they are the target and should vote accordingly?” Tolliver’s solution was to break the scale on the freak out meter, “And we saw white women have a wakeup call when IVF was on the table and that is something that I think when we understand how this is going to impact IVF. Even the list that you had put up from the Heritage Foundation report for 2025, it included same-sex relationships as well.” In the 920-page document that is Heritage’s Project 2025, the term to “same-sex marriage” appears only twice. Once is to note that same-sex marriages, on average, last less than half that of heterosexual marriages, which is noteworthy for adoption placements and the second is that people should be protected against having to do things such as bake a cake for a same-sex wedding if they object. However, Tolliver rolled right along, lamenting that Heritage does not care for the left’s abortion euphemisms, “This is not isolated and it won't focus exclusively on abortion or reproductive rights, it is expansive and the other thing that came out of that Heritage report that is a sign of them going too far, as Doug Jones mentioned, is they literally want to delete the language from the books. I'm talking about deleting abortion from federal regulation. Deleting the phrase ‘reproductive rights.’ Deleting DEI, all of it.” Eventually, Reid returned to implore viewers to “Watch The Handmaid’s Tale, as much of it as you can stand. That's what they want to do and by the way, you know how it's not about babies? They are trying to kill Head Start, which is for the babies.” Nothing like a good old-fashioned non-sequitur to end the show. Here is a transcript for the March 27 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 3/27/2024 7:58 PM ET JOY REID: The thing is, the sort of trick that has been difficult to get her out how to untie this knot, Juanita, which is that, you know, white women on a majority, do vote Republican even in states where they’re voting away their reproductive rights. I think about Georgia where they voted for Brian Kemp-- JUANITA TOLLIVER: Right. REID: -- and his six-week abortion ban and so it's like, what will unlock that fealty that white women have to it. I read this thing in Slate that talked about the origins, the white nationalist origins of the anti-abortion movement. It says the following in Slate, “In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the movement against abortion mainly included white supremacist who pointed to declining white birthrates believed that legalized abortion would mean race suicide for white Protestants.” You still look at it and you don't think they want you and me to have more babies. I don't think they want Latinos to have more babies. How do they get the message to white women that they are the target and should vote accordingly? TOLLIVER: Our message definitely has to come from Republicans because, remember, this attack on abortion is not isolated to abortion. It's reproductive rights generally.  REID: Correct. TOLLIVER: And we saw white women have a wakeup call when IVF was on the table and that is something that I think when we understand how this is going to impact IVF. Even the list that you had put up from the Heritage Foundation report for 2025, it included same-sex relationships as well.  REID: Correct. TOLLIVER: This is not isolated and it won't focus exclusively on abortion or reproductive rights, it is expansive and the other thing that came out of that Heritage report that is a sign of them going too far, as Doug Jones mentioned, is they literally want to delete the language from the books. REID: Yes. TOLLIVER: I'm talking about deleting abortion from federal regulation. Deleting the phrase "reproductive rights." REID: Correct. TOLLIVER: Deleting DEI, all of it.  REID: Yes. TOLLIVER: And I think when people frame it as this is not isolated to abortion. They're coming for IVF, they’re coming for contraception, they’re coming for anything privacy related— REID: Yeah. TOLLIVER-- with a roadmap given by Supreme Court justices Alito and Thomas, then that's what's going to resonate. REID: Watch The Handmaid’s Tale, as much of it as you can stand. That's what they want to do and by the way, you know how it's not about babies? They are trying to kill Head Start, which is for the babies.

Hawley Reveals ‘Real Truth’ Behind Biden’s Hypocrisy on TikTok Ban

One GOP senator argues that President Joe Biden could have banned the communist Chinese government-tied TikTok, but chose not to do so for personal reasons. The debate about banning TikTok continues to rage as legislation has gone to the Senate. Biden said he would sign the legislation, yet continues to use TikTok and have TikTok influencers helping his campaign. Indeed, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told 97.1 FM Talk’s The Marc Cox Morning Show Podcast that he doubts Biden will sign the legislation. “They think that their voters are on TikTok,” Hawley declared, referring to Democrats. “The real truth is Biden could have banned it,” Hawley said, as reported by Audacy, the publisher and parent company of 97.1 FM. “Trump tried to ban it when he was president. Biden has had years now to act. He hasn’t done it.” Biden is using the app for his Basement 2.0 campaign in 2024. “In fact, Biden is on TikTok, and the reason is the Democrats secretly love it,” Hawley added. On Thursday, MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider pointed out the same hypocrisy in an X post. “Joe Biden just posted his 92nd TikTok video after banning 4 million federal employees from using it,” Schneider wrote. Meanwhile, Hawley explained the security risks of allowing TikTok to operate in the U.S. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. A 2023 lawsuit alleged that a “backdoor” through ByteDance enabled the CCP to access U.S. user data. Hawley evidently believes that allegation. “Whatever the problem is, it’s a backdoor for spying by the Chinese Communist Party,” he exclaimed during the radio interview. A U.S. company should buy TikTok to mitigate the security risks, Hawley insisted. “ByteDance, the parent company, would either have to sell TikTok or else if they don’t sell it, then they’d have to shut it down. We can argue about, you know, the exact details of the bill and is it written precisely the correct way? But I think this is the right thing,” the senator added. Conservatives are under attack. Contact TikTok via email at communitymanager@tiktok.com and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment and provide transparency. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

EXCLUSIVE: China Expert Gordon Chang Rips WashPost for Defending Gov’t-Big Tech Collusion

The Washington Post Editorial Board went to bat for the federal government colluding with Big Tech to police so-called disinformation online. Gatestone Institute Senior Fellow Gordon Chang was having none of it. “Don’t defund the fight against Russia and China’s disinformation,” decried the Board in the editorial. In the editorial, the Board defended the State Department-tied Global Engagement Center’s financing of the now-infamous Global Disinformation Index (initially based in the U.K.), which has since been panned for blacklisting right-leaning American media. The Post propagandized how the GEC “deploys a $61 million budget and a staff of 125 to counter disinformation from Russia, China, Iran and terrorist organizations.” The only problem, as Chang pointed out in an exclusive interview with MRC Free Speech America, is that these pretexts are smokescreens the federal government has consistently deployed to violate the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. Chang rebuked The Post for parroting the government’s excuse of fighting “disinformation” to police online speech: “You have a clear attack on the First Amendment, and you have mainstream media supporting it. I mean, these guys [The Post] — aren’t they going to find out that at some point the government can use it against them?” Chang doubled down: “The First Amendment is absolutely essential for the preservation of democracy. And we should not have, especially newspapers, advocating unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment. It’s just as simple as that.”  In Chang’s view, “The most important thing is [that] we must delegitimize the concept of disinformation” in order to de-fang the government from using the evergreen newspeak concept as license to infringe on free speech. Rather, Chang argued that the marketplace of ideas is the best arena where false information can be filtered out, not through the police state tactics of coercive government oversight.  Despite the glaring evidence The Post, true to form, dismissed members of Congress and other entities who “have complained that the [GEC] is part of an effort to muffle conservative speech and ideas in the United States.” The leftist newspaper attempted to distinguish between what the GEC specifically financed GDI for — a disinformation tool in Asia — and the latter’s blacklisting of U.S.-based “conservative” media outlets. In its ludicrous justification, The Post wrote that GDI's targeting of “conservative” media and what the government specifically funded were “separate projects,” completely dismissing the reality that money is fungible.  Similarly, The Post also slapped down The Daily Wire and The Federalist’s lawsuit against the GEC for allegedly infringing on their First Amendment rights as “misguided” because The Global Engagement Center supposedly “does not look at what goes on inside the United States — all its programs are for fighting disinformation abroad. The GEC also instructs its grantees not to work in the United States.” President Joe Biden’s press team couldn’t have generated a better public relations campaign on behalf of the GEC. But as the House Judiciary Committee summarized in a Nov. 6, 2023 report, “The GEC and GEC-funded entities have, on multiple occasions, flagged content to social media platforms that included Americans engaged in constitutionally protected speech.” Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi directly illustrated GEC’s targeting of domestic actors, rendering The Post’s gaslighting to the contrary a total crock.  GDI was also just named in another House Judiciary report for co-authoring a “hate groups” blacklist featuring “conservative” and faith-based organizations. The report documented how the Department of Treasury used such a blacklisty to pressure banks to surrender customer data. These allegations further illustrate how the federal government doesn’t have any issues using GDI, including the GEC by extension, to target U.S. citizens. GEC is even on record defending its GDI funding, even after the uncovering of the latter’s dystopian vendetta to target the advertisers of “conservative” American media. To be clear, said Chang, the communist Chinese regime (and the Russian government by extension) doesn’t have a First Amendment right in their malicious info operations, “and we can deal with that in other ways that are constitutional, but that’s not what is really at stake here.” He further warned, “What we’re talking about is the U.S. government funding an attack on the First Amendment.” Chang rebutted the GEC and The Post’s attempts to make it seem like the GEC is predominantly focused on speech happening abroad in light of numerous instances of anecdotal evidence showing the Biden administration targeting domestic speech: “These are purely domestic actors in a purely domestic context, and the First Amendment clearly protects speech and clearly — in my mind — prohibits what the Biden administration is doing.”  Chang argued that the obsession with so-called disinformation — especially amongst the younger generation of Americans — stems from what he called a “fundamental misunderstanding of the marketplace of ideas.” Chang argued that the First Amendment “protects disinformation” and  “what people call ‘hate speech’ because we believe the best ideas will work out.”  What the Biden administration is doing in fomenting government oversight of online speech (e.g. The Disinformation Governance Board) is “starting a slippery slope” towards even more draconian measures down the road. In essence, this is “clearly prohibited conduct. It’s just unconstitutional,” Chang continued.  But The Post, which is the epitome of a First Amendment beneficiary, still found justification for some kinds of government infringements to root out the so-called “purveyors of lies,” and even used chilling, counterinsurgency language to make its case: The House Republicans who are taking down the GEC could, more constructively, reauthorize the program with legislative language that would ban any operations in the United States. By eliminating the program altogether, they would deny the United States a vital tool in a contest for hearts and minds around the world — while rewarding the purveyors of lies, [emphasis added.]  Chang retorted by pointing out that “the First Amendment protects almost all speech” and that it has “very few restrictions on it.” There’s just “very few things that the First Amendment actually allows the government to prohibit, and that’s the way it should stay,” he continued. The China expert pointed to instances where social media companies censored that turned out to be accurate — such as the notion that the COVID-19 virus had originated from a lab in Wuhan, China and the Hunter Biden laptop bombshell story — as evidence illustrating the underlying truth that “nobody gets to determine what is a falsehood,” especially the federal government. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that the State Department be held to account to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and that Big Tech 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.

MSNBC: One Man’s ‘Election Denier’ Is Another Man’s TV Host

MSNBC, the “news” outfit on which the Rev. Al Sharpton has a show, briefly hired former Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, at $300,000 per year, to serve as an on-air pundit. Why did the rabidly anti-Trump, anti-Republican network make her the offer? MSNBC likely did so because 2024 is an election year; McDaniel was available, having been pressured into leaving her post by former President Donald Trump, the inside story of which MSNBC viewers would salivate over; her ouster from the RNC suggests bad blood between her and Trump and therefore, from MSNBC’s point of view, a welcome willingness for a high-profile Republican to dish some anti-Trump dirt; or because McDaniel could bring a different perspective to MSNBC’s lineup of hosts and guests who unanimously parrot the narrative that Trump is a “racist” and “election denier” who, on Jan. 6, 2021, committed “insurrection.” “Why,” likely went MSNBC’s thinking, “we are, after all, a ‘news’ organization -- and maybe McDaniel could increase ratings by attracting some non-Trump-hating viewers.” The better question is why McDaniel accepted the offer. While Trump wanted her out, she cheered him on during his presidency, supported Trump’s claim of 2020 election fraud and characterized what happened on Jan. 6 as “legitimate political discourse.” How will that sit with an MSNBC lineup that routinely compares Trump to Hitler and deems Trump an existential threat to the republic? Immediately after McDaniel’s hiring, former NBC “Meet the Press” moderator and current NBC chief political analyst Chuck Todd said, “There’s a reason a lot of journalists at NBC News are uncomfortable with this.” Todd proceeded to accuse McDaniel of “gaslighting” journalists and engaging in anti-media “character assassination.” In what turned out to be McDaniel’s first and only on-air interview as a pundit, MSNBC host Kristen Welker asked McDaniel, “Why should people trust what you’re saying right now?” Welker also asked, “Did you not have a responsibility as the RNC chair to say before Jan. 6, ‘The election is not rigged’?” Days later, MSNBC terminated McDaniel. To the MSNBC hosts who rioted, the McDaniel hiring crossed the line. But isn’t this the same MSNBC that hired Sharpton, American’s preeminent race card hustler, to host a show? Sharpton is the Tawana Brawley-lying, Crown Heights riot/Freddy’s Fashion Mart incendiary, tax deadbeat and would-be cocaine dealer who has made anti-white and antisemitic slurs. After McDaniel’s hiring, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said he and his “Morning Joe” co-host would not allow McDaniel to appear as a guest. But Sharpton, Scarborough’s colleague, regularly appears on the show. In 2000, when Scarborough served as a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives, he proposed a resolution called “Condemning the racist and anti-Semitic views of the Reverend Al Sharpton.” It read in part: “Whereas the Congress strongly rejects the racist and incendiary actions of the Reverend Al Sharpton; “Whereas the Reverend Al Sharpton has referred to members of the Jewish faith as ‘bloodsucking [J]ews’, and ‘Jew bastards’; “Whereas the Reverend Al Sharpton has referred to members of the Jewish faith as ‘white interlopers’ and ‘diamond merchants’; “Whereas the Reverend Al Sharpton was found guilty of defamation by a jury in a New York court arising from the false accusation that former Assistant District Attorney Steven Pagones, who is white, raped and assaulted a fifteen year-old black girl; ... “Whereas the Reverend Al Sharpton’s vicious verbal anti-Semitic attacks directed at members of the Jewish faith, and in particular, a Jewish landlord, arising from a simple landlord-tenant dispute with a black tenant, incited widespread violence, riots, and the murder of five innocent people; ... “Whereas the Reverend Al Sharpton led a protest in the Crown Heights neighborhood and marched next to a protester with a sign that read, ‘The White Man is the Devil ...’” Apparently, all is forgiven. Sharpton is also, to use MSNBC’s parlance, an “election denier,” and an egregious one at that. About the 2016 election, Sharpton said: “There’s no question that the process that elected (Trump) was not legitimate. When you look at now the evidence from the intelligence agencies that there was the influence from the Russians ...” So, McDaniel out, Sharpton in. One man’s “election denier” is another man’s MSNBC host.

Philly Uses Drag Queen Story Hour Recording for Tourism Video

This makes me never want to visit Philadelphia again. Comedian Tim Young recently shared a video that was posted on Visit Philadelphia’s YouTube page to encourage tourists to visit the city of brotherly love. I guess creators took that a little too literally when they used two drag queens reading to children in front of Independence Hall. “Brotherly love” by two “queens.” EW! The video was posted just before pride month 2023, but has recently received backlash after its repost. “Visit Philadelphia has launched a public service announcement (PSA) in partnership with CBS New York and CBS Philadelphia that celebrates the LGBTQ+ community, highlighting a drag queen story time in the birthplace of the nation,” the group said in its description of the video.  It featured drag queens Brittany Lynn and Morgan Wells reading “Giraffes Can’t Dance” to a bunch of little kids on the green out front of the nearly 300-year-old historic Independence Hall in Philadelphia. In that very building, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were debated and signed.  Imagine if the signees were alive to witness such an atrocity just outside the window! They’d be mortified! Lynn, who's real name is Ian Morrison, is proud of his involvement bringing hyper-sexualization to kids. His Instagram features numerous examples of his initiatives to intersect young people with drag, whether it's events at high schools, reading books to kids as young as infant age, or releasing a book about a lesbian and possibly transgender child. Wells runs a drag closet where people can purchase drag queen costumes. He also regularly appears at events with Lynn. Libs of TikTok re-shared Young’s post of the video and on X, and it now has more than 800,000 views. The queens read the book to the kiddos and then the phrase “In pursuit of a more perfect union” popped up on the screen. Then the words “kind” and “respectful” replaced “perfect” in the graphic just before the “Visit Philadelphia” logo popped up. Official tourism video for Philadelphia shows a drag queen holding drag queen story hour for kids in front of Independence Hall. pic.twitter.com/NcWRQlgO3z — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 27, 2024 Replies on the post showed just how perturbed people were by the blatant grooming in such a historic area. “Who the hell takes their child to see a man play dress up in woman face. To this day is still blows my mind,” podcaster Rob Coates tweeted. “No matter how many of these stories I read, it still amazes me we're actually living in a time where public child abuse celebrations are a thing. Any parent that takes their child to see a drag queen read or dance for them should be locked up,” a different user commented.  One more wrote, “Philadelphia is officially promoting grooming of children. This is outrageous. The city should be denied federal funds for doing this. Instead, Biden and his administration will encourage this. It’s criminal.” While Philly attempted to entice people to visit the city by using drag queens, it seems that the move did the exact opposite and now people are less likely to visit. Honestly, can’t say I blame them!

Zakaria: 'Christian Nationalism,' Islamism, Xi Agree Women Are 'Too Uppity'

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria took his book tour to CBS and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Wednesday, where he claimed that if there is one thing that unites the “right-wing reactionary movements” of Christian Nationalism (whatever that means), Islamic fundamentalism, and ultra-Orthodox Israelis, it is that belief that “women have gotten to uppity.” For good measure, Zakaria also threw in Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. Colbert asked, “The subtitle for this book is Age of Revolutions: Progress and Backlash from 1600 to the Present. What would you say the main modern backlash we are experiencing right now is?”      Zakaria began by going through the typical talk about globalization and social media before proclaiming that “I would say the principal one has been this one of we've really moved, think about it, you know, we've always through human history had some group has up or down, but women for tens of thousands of years were second-class citizens and that has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. So, think about it, right, 10, 15, 20,000 years of history and then in the last 30 years we upended the basic structure of the family.” He continued, “Look at the right-wing reactionary movements all over the world, whether it's Islamic fundamentalism, whether it's Christian nationalism, whether it's the ultra-orthodox in Israel, they all, the come of principal concern is often women have gotten too uppity. You know, let’s move, Xi Jinping gave a speech the other day in which he said women basically need to go back to the kitchen and they need to start having babies again.” Zakaria is hardly alone in using “Christian nationalism” as a scary-sounding term without ever defining it or explaining how it differs from traditionally understood conservative Christianity, but lumping it in with Islamic fundamentalism as “right-wing” and communist dictators strongly suggests Zakaria is just using it to simply mean “bad and scary.”   Earlier in the interview, the Joe Biden fundraiser Colbert mourned, “On your show, Fareed Zakaria GPS, on CNN, you recently covered low approval ratings, which is just below 40 percent right now, 39.3, something like that, despite the economy doing pretty well right now especially compared to other countries.” He then asked, “looking at the rest of the globe, how does our economy stack against the major industrialized nations right now?” Zakaria replied with statistics that have nothing to do with Biden, “We are doing much better than any of the other major economies in the world. To give you a simple number, in 2008 the Eurozone, Europe basically, and the U.S. economies were the same size. Today the U.S. economy is twice the size of the Eurozone economy. If Britain were to join the United States as the 51st state, it would be that poorest state in the union, below Mississippi.” That stat, which is a little more complicated and says more about Britain’s mismanagement than Biden’s supposed successes, left Colbert and his audience in awe. For his part, Zakaria continued in his lamentations, “We are doing amazingly. But what has happened is, people for a while said, 'we don't realize it, we're feeling the inflation.' Well, for the last 18 months, consumer sentiment has been going up, but Biden’s approval ratings still flat lined. What's really happened is our political identities are no longer shaped by economics as it used to be for so many years.” Zakaria would go on to lament tribalism in politics, which is laughable considering he would soon compare conservatives to Islamists and communists. Here is a transcript for the March 27 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 3/28/2024 12:25 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: On your show, Fareed Zakaria GPS, on CNN, you recently covered low approval ratings, which is just below 40 percent right now, 39.3, something like that— FAREED ZAKARIA: 38, 39, exactly. COLBERT: -- despite the economy doing pretty well right now especially compared to other countries, looking at the rest of the globe, how does our economy stack against the major industrialized nations right now?  FAREED ZAKARIA: We are doing much better than any of the other major economies in the world. To give you a simple number, in 2008 the Eurozone, Europe basically, and the U.S. economies were the same size. Today the U.S. economy is twice the size of the Eurozone economy.  If Britain were to join the United States as the 51st state, it would be that poorest state in the union, below Mississippi. COLBERT: Wow. ZAKARIA: We are doing amazingly. But what has happened is, people for a while said “we don't realize it, we're feeling the inflation.” Well, for the last 18 months, consumer sentiment has been going up, but Biden’s approval ratings still flat lined. What's really happened is our political identities are no longer shaped by economics as it used to be for so many years.  They are shaped by culture, by class, by religion, by all these tribal identities and that was part of the reason I wrote the book because I realize this began with Obama, this-- it used to be the tightest connection in predictive polling, which was your view the economy, president's approval rating always roughly the same. Now, under Obama, the stock market tripled under Obama. His approval ratings didn't move much. … COLBERT: You say, the subtitle for this book is "Age of revolutions: Progress and backlash from 1600 to the present." What would you say the main modern backlash we are experiencing right now is?  ZAKARIA: I think it's really all around us, this identity stuff. There’s a backlash against globalization, there’s a backlash against the open information revolution, you know, a lot of people are saying it's too much, social media is, kind of, ruining our lives. But I would say the principal one has been this one of we've really moved, think about it, you know, we've always through human history had some group has up or down, but women for tens of thousands of years were second-class citizens and that has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. So, think about it, right, 10, 15, 20,000 years of history and then in the last 30 years we upended the basic structure of the family.  Well, look at the right-wing reactionary movements all over the world, whether it's Islamic fundamentalism, whether it's Christian nationalism, whether it's the ultra-orthodox in Israel, they all, the come of principal concern is often women have gotten too uppity. You know, let’s move, Xi Jinping gave a speech the other day in which he said women basically need to go back to the kitchen and they need to start having babies again. 

The President’s War Against the Jews

For some American Jews, the months since Oct. 7 have felt like a horror movie, as they watch, with increasing alarm, as our president—for whom many voted, and in whom many placed inviolable trust—seemed to, moment after crucial moment, throw Israel under the bus. Earlier this month, a U.N. report from its Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General revealed what Israel has been saying for months, namely that Hamas committed the most vile sexual violence and torture on Oct. 7, and such treatment likely continues to be perpetrated on hostages. Experts from the U.N.—an organization that is routinely hostile to the Jewish state—actually found “clear and convincing information that some [hostages] have been subjected to various forms of conflict-related sexual violence including rape and sexualized torture and sexualized cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and it also has reasonable grounds to believe that such violence may be ongoing.” In reaction, Joe Biden’s State Department chose to level the charge of sexual abuse—at Israel. Recently, IDF Brig.-Gen. (res.) Amir Avivi recounted his meeting with a senior State Department official—since identified as Jill Hutchings, director of the Office of Israeli and Palestinian Affairs—who proceeded to accuse Israel of “systematically sexually abusing Palestinian women.” The State Department’s claim was based on information from Hamas pushed by Al Jazeera—which ended up deleting the story after it proved to be fabricated. Indeed, Biden briefly expressed empathy with Israel after the heinous attack. But since then, along with his Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Biden has been working at breakneck speed to undermine, if not fully impede, Israel in its existential battle against the Iran-funded Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists—a campaign that has now extended to official blood libels about deliberate Israeli campaigns of genocide, famine and starvation, killing babies, and sexual abuse—culminating in the administration’s betrayal of Israel and siding with Hamas at the Security Council on Monday. In the blink of an eye, Biden has gone from framing Hamas as “pure, unadulterated evil” to putting immense pressure on Israel to stand down. That pressure is not of recent origin. More than 40 years ago, Joe Biden prompted one of the most famous phrases ever uttered by an Israeli prime minister. In a private session with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1982, Sen. Biden threatened Prime Minister Menachem Begin with cutting off U.S. aid if Israel did not stop its “settlements” in Judea and Samaria. Begin replied: “Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.” Biden’s scorn for Israel’s current PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, is significantly more vocal, referring to Netanyahu as a “bad f****ing guy” and an “a**hole”—language that is difficult to imagine him using about any other leader of a friendly foreign state. More recently, as he swaggered his way out of the State of the Union, doing his whispering, leaning-in shtick, Biden told Blinken and others, “I told him, Bibi, and don’t repeat this, but you and I are going to have a ‘come to Jesus’ meeting.” Biden knew he was on a hot mic and admitted as much. He wanted the world to know what he thinks of Israel’s PM, and to broadcast that he was putting the squeeze on Israel to force it to forgo its ability to defend itself. In fact, this has been Biden’s posture from day one. Biden has made downgrading Israel and elevating the Palestinians, while also using them as a pressure tool against Israel, central to his policy in the region. Upon taking office and despite the Taylor Force Act, which prohibits the U.S. from sending certain taxpayer dollars to the PA until it stops funding terrorism, Biden rewarded Palestinian terrorism with U.S. taxpayer monies ultimately amounting to almost a billion dollars. America First Legal Foundation (where I am senior counsel), filed suit against Biden and Blinken on behalf of Congressman Ronny Jackson, Stuart and Robbi Force, parents of Taylor Force, the U.S. Army veteran murdered at the hands of a Palestinian terrorist in 2016, and Sarri Singer, herself a victim of Palestinian terrorism in 2003, for violating the TFA. Judge Kacsmaryk recently denied the government’s motion to dismiss, and the case is pending. The court found the plaintiffs have standing to sue Biden and Blinken because each plaintiff has suffered an injury (heightened likelihood of physical harm or death when visiting Israel) that is fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct (funding the PA which pays terrorists and incentivizes terrorism), and that each plaintiff’s injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision by the court (stopping the flow of monies to the PA reduces terrorist acts). Biden knows that payments to the PA incentivize and reward terrorists and the PA’s terrorist operations; his actions reveal he doesn’t care. The same applies to Secretary of State Blinken. His State Department revealed in a March 2022 fact sheet that, “since April 2021, the United States has provided over half a billion dollars in assistance for the Palestinians, including more than $417 million in humanitarian assistance for mainly the descendants of Palestinian refugees through UNRWA.” Is it a coincidence that even prior to Hamas’ heinous Oct. 7 attack, there had been a significant increase in terrorist acts since Biden and Blinken took office? In the first half of 2023 alone, there were more than 3,600 Palestinian terrorist attacks, surpassing all of 2022. Biden has what’s known as a whole-of-government approach in his embrace of the Palestinians at the expense of Israel, mobilizing multiple executive branch agencies to work across individual silos to implement an integrated policy. Just last year, his Department of Homeland Security ceremoniously handed over to the PA a 2,700-year-old spoon dating back to the Assyrian empire describing the conveyance as a “historic repatriation.” The State Department’s George Noll, chief of the Office of Palestinian Affairs, described the spoon as an “example of Palestinian cultural patrimony” and that the transfer was a “historic moment between the American and Palestinian people.” This attempt to manufacture an ancient “Palestinian” lineage in the Land of Israel while denying the right of Jews to settle in their ancestral homeland was clear. Oct. 7 didn’t temper this obscenity. Just one day after the Oct. 7 slaughter, Blinken, in concert with Turkey, called for a cease-fire by an X post—on the evening of Oct. 8. Blinken deleted the post about 12 hours later, but the message was loud and clear: Stand down and remain victims. Two days later, Biden’s National Security Council spokesman called on Israel to show restraint and take only “necessary and proportionate action” to defend itself. The inconvenient truth is that there was a cease-fire on Oct. 6. Hamas broke it with financial and military assistance from Iran—a terrorist state that is now flush with billions in sanctions relief as a direct result of Biden’s disastrous policy of gifting the Islamic Republic with cash, some of which he helpfully provided barely a month after the October terror attack. And, on Nov. 14, the administration extended a sanctions waiver allowing Iran to access $10 billion. U.S. spokesmen have been repeatedly unable to deny that monies delivered by Biden to Iran weren’t used in funding the Oct. 7 attack because, of course they were. As if funding Hamas through Iran weren’t bad enough, Biden made it a top priority to help maintain open supply lines to Gaza while also looking the other way as Hamas intercepts and hijacks 60% or more of the humanitarian aid from the many thousands of aid trucks coming into the Strip since the start of the war. Hamas either keeps the aid for its terrorists or sells it to noncombatants at exorbitant prices. This is being reported almost daily from multiple sources, with social media videos corroborating the reports of Hamas’ theft of the cargo. Instead of condemning Hamas for the aid crisis, Biden blames Israel for what his secretary of state has claimed is an “acute food insecurity” crisis in Gaza supposedly affecting “100% of the population.” Biden also ignores that Hamas steals the fuel aid to fire rockets and operate its tunnels. When thousands of Gazans swarmed some 30 food delivery trucks in Gaza and a deadly stampede ensued, IDF aerial footage corroborated the IDF’s account, showing that Hamas was directly to blame, and fired on Palestinians—and yet both the media and the Biden administration have continued to blame Israel, in order to further their repulsive, evidence-free narrative. During his State of the Union address, Biden didn’t demand that aid also be given to the hostages Hamas holds and abuses, nor did he demand their release. He certainly did not laud Israel for its unparalleled efforts to avoid civilian casualties and facilitate aid transports. None of those realities fit Biden’s anti-Israel rhetoric. Instead, Biden boldly lied, accusing Israel of making humanitarian assistance a “secondary consideration or a bargaining chip” and chiding Israel that “protecting and saving innocent lives has to be a priority.” As a bonus, Biden also endorsed Hamas’ fake casualty numbers. Not content with false and inflammatory rhetoric libeling Israel, or with displays of U.S. support for Gaza such as using the military to air-drop supplies, Biden used his address to announce an emergency mission to send U.S. military to build a temporary pier on the coast of Gaza to deliver aid to Gaza. A Pentagon spokesman later shared some details about the 1,000 Army and Navy servicemen to be deployed to deliver some 2 million meals a day into Gaza—giving direct support and comfort to Hamas, whose own construction company was put in charge of building the pier, which will be financed and operated by Qatar, at the Biden administration’s request. Under U.S. law, giving money to a Hamas-affiliated construction company would certainly qualify as providing material support to a designated terrorist group—which is apparently fine now, as long as the U.S. government is writing the checks. Earlier in February, however, Biden sanctioned four Jews in Judea and Samaria, while ignoring Palestinian terrorists and the PA that supports them. These terrorist have been responsible for hundreds of attempted and successful lethal terrorist attacks in the West Bank since Oct. 7. Jews have been responsible for zero such attacks. Days later, three Israeli banks stated they were suspending the bank accounts of these four individuals to comply with the sanctions. This month, Biden’s Department of Treasury announced new sanctions, this time against three Jews and two farms. These sanctions freeze assets, prevent the individuals from getting visas, and block Jews from accessing the U.S. financial system. If the goal is the appearance of evenhandedness, one might imagine that Biden would also sanction the family of the PA policeman who murdered two Jews, a teen and a volunteer medic, at a gas station in Eli in Judea and Samaria end of February. Nope. Instead, Blinken declared Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria as being inconsistent with international law, reversing the “Pompeo doctrine,” which asserted that Jews have a historical and legal right to live in this area of their ancestral homeland. Biden’s February national security memorandum also imposes unprecedented and new conditions on military assistance to Israel. While framed as a means to ensure that a country receiving U.S. military aid comports with international humanitarian law when using U.S. weapons, it clearly sets its sights on Israel, requiring Israel within 45 days to submit a report proving compliance with international law or potentially lose military aid. Not long after the memorandum’s issuance, and in lock step, more than three dozen House Democrats sent a letter to Biden citing the memorandum and arguing that Israel’s entry into Rafah could violate the terms of the memorandum. They know, as does Biden, that Rafah is key to Israel’s offensive to eradicate the remaining Hamas battalions, whose survival will allow Hamas to rule Gaza unopposed once Israel withdraws. Biden owns this war imposed on Israel. The president inherited a Middle East marked by a bankrupt Iran and amicable relations between Israel and Arab countries with more in the works, thanks to President Trump’s historic Abraham Accords. Biden reversed course, enriched Tehran, funded terrorists and destabilized the Middle East—setting the stage for Oct. 7. Biden shows no sign of reversing even one of his deadly failures. Instead of taking responsibility for his policy mistakes, he blames Israel for not going further and providing Iran with a launching pad on its border by establishing a Palestinian state. Perversely, the attacks of Oct. 7 have only led Biden to kick his effort to establish a Palestinian state into high gear. Biden claims Hamas is different from the Palestinians. But an overwhelming majority of Palestinians, whether in Gaza or Judea and Samaria, cheered the Oct. 7 atrocities. Videos show Palestinians handing out candy in celebration, and a November 2023 research poll conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) found, “[a]n overwhelming percentage of Palestinians support the October 7 massacre (75%), reject coexistence with Israel (85.9%), are committed to creation of a Palestinian state ‘from the river to the sea’ (74.7%) as the end of the Israeli Palestinian conflict … there is more support for the 10/7 massacre from the Palestinians resident in Judea and Samaria (83.1%) than those residing in the Gaza Strip (63.6%).” Regardless of Biden’s wishes, the “river to the sea” crowd isn’t interested in living in peace next to a Jewish state: They don’t believe Israel should exist at all. While Israel’s cabinet overwhelmingly rejected Biden’s push for a so-called Palestinian state, with strong backing from 99 of the 120 members of Knesset also voicing their rejection, Biden and his administration continue to push their animus against the Jewish state while fueling rampant antisemitism in America. Biden’s silence, at his State of the Union, about the alarming rise of antisemitism throughout the United States, including the glorification of Hamas terrorism and intimidation and physical violence perpetrated against Jews in America’s towns and cities, was deafening. That’s because his party’s loyal foot soldiers among college and university administrators and professors or their K-12 equivalents, the media, Democratic politicians, or leftist NGOs, include a large number of antisemites, who live openly and happily in the Democratic Party. As Ryan Mauro, Capitol Research Center national security analyst explained, “the disturbing reality is that Hamas’s allies in the U.S. have a significant foothold in the non-profit sector. Major left-wing organizations are funding Hamas’s sympathizers and those who indirectly help Hamas by waging a political war against Israel.” It was 50 years ago in 1973, when then Sen. Biden was in Israel, sitting with PM Meir. Biden recalled her saying to him that he “look[ed] so worried.” She assured him not to worry, sharing “we have a secret weapon in our conflict with the Arabs. You see, we have no place else to go.” Perhaps it took these 50 years for Biden to figure out how to exploit Meir’s words about Israel’s “secret weapon” to effectuate the ouster of the Jewish people from their ancestral homeland. Whether Biden and his party are blinded by ideology, lack moral clarity, or both, the fact remains that the battle that Israel is fighting has existential stakes, not only for the Jewish state but for all Western civilization—regardless of party affiliation. Those who understand what is at stake in this fight must stand with Israel in her battle to achieve total victory—not only against Hamas and its barbaric ideology, but also against those in high places in our own country who support them. This article has been-crossed posted from Tablet Magazine.

Ronna McDaniel Is Out at NBC: MRCTV’s Stephanie Hamill Reacts On Fox

 MRC’s Contributing Writer Stephanie Hamill was a guest on Wednesday’s Fox News at Night with host Trace Gallagher, and KTTH Seattle Radio talk show host Jason Rantz to react to NBC's firing of former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel. McDaniel was hired by NBCUniversal just a couple weeks after stepping down at the Republican National Committee, and was apparently let go just after only one TV appearance on the network which lead to public tantrums on their own airwaves by some of the top hosts.  I was more shocked by the hiring then the firing. I thought it was a great thing because people should be exposed to diversity of thought and that's what they were pledging, yet they are not for diversity of thought today, not with McDaniel and probably not tomorrow. I really think the hosts of these shows that went on television basically crying, they really just lacked professionalism. I think the way that they bullied McDaniel is really inexplicable and if she wants to go the legal route she may have a case. Watch the video above for more.

Telemundo Was the ONLY Evening Network Newscast to Cover the End of Disney’s Lawsuit Against Ron DeSantis

The corporate media placed themselves on the side of the sexualization of our children in schools and in opposition to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act, referring to the statute not by its name but by the term coined by the rainbow mafia- “Don’t Say Gay”. They then fawned over Disney’s decision to sue the state over revocation of its exclusive government entity. But only Telemundo reported in prime time that the tables turned and Disney tapped out, effectively ending the lawsuit. Here is Telemundo’s report in its entirety, as aired on Wednesday, March 27th, 2024: ARANTXA LOIZAGA: In other news, Florida and Disney came to terms in order to put an end to a nearly 2-year old legal dispute over control of the district that governs the Disney World theme park. Via the agreement, both parties accepted to withdraw their lawsuits and committed to work together towards development of the area. Governor DeSantis’ offensive against the company began after (Disney) expressed its opposition to the controversial law known by its critics as “Don’t Say Gay”. Of course, the report is flawed inasmuch as it also refers to the Parental Rights in Education Act by its derisive activist moniker. Nonetheless, Telemundo showed up. Not a peep from ABC, CBS, NBC, or even Univision. And this stands in stark contrast to how the networks covered the initial filing of the lawsuit. Per CNBC’s report, with significantly more context than Telemundo’s tiny brief: Disney agreed Wednesday to end litigation in state court involving a Florida special tourism district that the entertainment giant effectively controlled for more than five decades until last year after Gov. Ron DeSantis moved to revoke that status. The settlement lifts a significant barrier to the continued development of Walt Disney World in the Orlando area and provides for the potential resolution of a related federal case. The state lawsuit was originally filed in Orange County by the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District to void agreements the old district board had signed with Disney right before it was dissolved at DeSantis’ behest after Disney opposed Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill backed by the governor. Disney in turn had asked the court to rule that the agreements, which benefited the company, were valid. As part of the settlement of that case Wednesday, Disney agreed not to challenge the CFTOD’s determination that the prior agreements with the old Reedy Creek Improvement District were null and void. Reedy Creek got gone, and stays gone as part of the agreement. That is huge. That is an enormous L for Disney- an admission that its exclusive taxing district is gone forever. Surely there was time to cover such a significant business story. But, alas, that was not the case. Which makes the networks’ coverage at the time even more egregious.  As our friend Curtis Houck noted, the networks cheered “Heavy economic hitter” Disney, and eagerly quoted Republicans critical of DeSantis for both standing up for parents’ rights and standing up to Disney. Breathlessly, and with extensive quotes. During prime time and in the morning shows. No opportunity was wasted to try to make DeSantis look bad. Even Nikki Haley’s goofy proposal to take Disney to South Carolina garnered gleeful attention. All in service of the sexualization of children in schools.  Now that Disney’s efforts to change the law fizzled in state court, not a peep. The networks were as quiet as Main Street right before a hurricane.  
Yesterday — March 27th 2024NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: PBS and The Atlantic Merge in the Liberal Bubble

Last August, PBS announced it was entering a partnership with the leftist magazine The Atlantic to rebrand its Friday night journalist roundtable show Washington Week. We've studied six months of this merger, and it's no surprise that it's dramatically anti-Trump and anti-Republican. Our PBS analyst Clay Waters shares his findings.  Over the last six months, more than half (88) of the 157 topics addressed focused on Republicans, over twice as many as those focused on Democrats (38). As we like to ask, “who’s the president?” Democrats control the White House and the Senate, but all the heat is on Republicans. The panelists only come from liberal outlets from PBS and NPR to The New York Times and The Washington Post. No Fox News reporters need apply!  These panelists spent 149 minutes opining about Republicans, and nearly 90 percent of it was negative. For Republicans in Congress, it was 99 percent negative. Trump opponents like Nikki Haley and Mitt Romney drew the positive opinions. By contrast, the Democrats received just 66 minutes of opinionated commentary, split much more evenly (57% negative vs. 43% positive). Congressional Democrats drew only 17.8 percent negative coverage. Biden drew 61 percent negative opinion, but a bunch of that was reporting his polling struggles and his failure to please the hard left. Perhaps the most amusing defense of Biden came in a discussion of Trump mocking his age and acuity:  Mark Leibovich: Can I just actually just point out, though, that, I mean, it’s not just making an issue of Biden’s age, it’s lying, it’s saying he’s senile, saying he’s demented, saying he’s out of it. I mean, I think it’s important to sort of state for a fact that a lot of these are just -- Goldberg: Right. Mentally, he’s quite acute. Leibovich: It seems like it. Clay found Republicans were branded as “extreme” 11 times over the study period. Democrats never were. The Washington Week crew ignored scandals by "The Squad" and only gave 34 seconds to the gold-bars bribery scandal of Sen. Bob Menendez. Then there's their time and tone on Hunter Biden: 104 total seconds, 75 seconds positive, 29 seconds negative. or 27.9 percent negative. Poor Hunter's just trying to get his life together!  Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you satisfy your podcast itch.  

TikTok Silences Women Warning Against Horrific Side Effects of ‘Birth Control’

Communist Chinese government-tied TikTok censored videos of women exposing the health risks of hormonal contraceptives after apparently receiving pressure from a leftist legacy media outlet. The Washington Post released a now-infamous report attempting to discredit women speaking out about many of the well-known side effects listed on the blanket-sized warning label that comes with oral contraceptives. In its report, The Post highlighted the fact that TikTok had censored some of the people it had reached out to for the piece, including The Daily Wire commentator Brett Cooper who hosts The Comments Section and TikTok influencer Nicole Bendayan. The newspaper took credit for the part it played in the removal of multiple videos. The Post identified one censored video as being a clip from Cooper’s May 2023 appearance on the Iced Coffee Hour podcast. In the censored video, Cooper highlighted contraception’s worrying impact on weight gain, fertility, regular hormone function and romantic attraction. The Post itself reported on the Pill users’ increased risk for cervical cancer in 1977, something it neglected to remind users of in its more recent reporting on the issue. The clip of Cooper garnered 219,000 likes “before TikTok removed it following The Post’s inquiry,” The Post reported. Links to the TikTok video now bring up the message, “Video currently unavailable” or “This page isn’t available.” The app does not provide any further explanation. Cooper posted on X (formerly Twitter) on March 24, “What’s ironic is that [The Post] reached out to me for a comment, and they asked WHY my video was removed and no longer available. Shocker... was because of them.” She included a screenshot of The Post’s admission about the censorship following a Post inquiry. The Post bragged that TikTok removed five videos critical of contraception after the leftist legacy outlet demanded to know how the app “prevents the spread of misinformation.” A TikTok spokesperson claimed to the Post that the videos had “inaccurate, misleading or false content that may cause significant harm to individuals or society.” TikTok did not respond to a request for comment from MRC Free Speech America at the time of publication. Another individual that TikTok censored was Nicole Bendayan, whose video explaining why she got off contraception went viral until censorship silenced it, according to The Post. TikTok has a track record of anti-American bias and censorship and is currently in danger of being banned due to congressional legislation. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. Censorship occurring after leftist media outlets or researchers put pressure on Big Tech appears to be a rising trend, something addressed in a recent "60 Minutes" segment. The Post’s whole piece aggressively defended contraception, bewailed the fact that some women are turning away from it, and blamed “right-wing” so=-called “misinformation” for that. “Search for ‘birth control’ on TikTok or Instagram and a cascade of misleading videos vilifying hormonal contraception appear,” The Post bemoaned. “Young women blaming their weight gain on the pill. Right-wing commentators claiming that some birth control can lead to infertility. Testimonials complaining of depression and anxiety.” Such evidence used to be mainstream. In fact, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) documents substantial evidence of serious side effects from taking hormonal “birth control”, including some of the very effects The Post scoffs at. The study published on NIH also listed serious potential long-term side effects from contraception including cancer, multiple sclerosis, weight gain and suicidal desires.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact TikTok via email at communitymanager@tiktok.com and demand 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 at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

After Souring on Lemon, X Eyeing Real Journalist Catherine Herridge

There appeared to be a new chapter in the saga of investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, on Wednesday, regarding her next landing spot. According to The New York Post, the award-winning journalist was in talks with Elon Musk’s social media platform, X. The news came not long after Musk soured on former CNN host Don Lemon and cut off their business arraignment following a contentious and rude interview. The Post’s Alexandra Steigrad reported that Herridge “met with X CEO Linda Yaccarino at The Jefferson Hotel in Washington, DC earlier this month, according to a source with knowledge.” She also noted that the talks were very much in the early stages, but there seemed to be interest in her building out a major investigative unit: The talks have been described as “preliminary.” A potential deal could see Herridge — known for her aggressive reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal — helm an investigative unit that she could help put together, according to a source close to the situation. “We are in discussions with many content creators who are interested in joining X in various ways. Catherine Herridge is a great journalist who strongly supports free speech,” X said in a statement, declining to comment further. In February, a Washington D.C.-based federal district court found her in contempt for refusing to disclose the name of a source central to a defamation suit. Last year, Musk offered to take up the cases and fund law suits against woke companies that targeted employees for what they posted on the site. Now, the case against Herridge did involve her past reporting with Fox News, and the network was also covering her legal fees in the case. But perhaps X also saw an opportunity with Herridge to double down on their support for the First Amendment and support real journalism. An anonymous source told The Post “that the Herridge had run into ‘internal roadblocks’ on her reporting of Biden’s laptop from top brass at CBS.” Which could have played a role in her ultimately being fired during a wave of mass playoffs at the third-place broadcast network that had been described as a “bloodbath.” But, as The Post noted: “joining X could give the journalist freedom to pursue a variety of stories” she otherwise couldn’t if she remained at CBS or a major news outlet.

CBS Airs Long Story on Illegal Crossing in Arizona, Biden Unmentioned

In the second half hour of CBS Mornings on Wednesday, they aired a long segment on the massive influx of illegal immigration, but there was no mention of Biden causing it. The president was only mentioned at the end, as immigration reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez claimed “The last immigration law passed by Congress was in 1990.” That’s strange. The left-leaning Migration Policy Institute has a timeline of major immigration laws and lists ten laws passed since 1990. Nancy Chen began the report by noting federal judges “decided to continue a block on the controversial SB 4 border law in Texas,” but “Texas has actually seen a big drop in attempted crossings. Instead, one of the busiest sections for illegal arrivals now is a remote area of Southwest Arizona.” That’s where CBS sent its young reporter, who noted there’s a new record in migrant deaths (none of them Biden’s fault). The death count went from 300 in Fiscal Year 2019 to 895 in Fiscal Year 2022. CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: In its latest public count, Border Patrol documented a record 895 migrant deaths in one year, including 142 in this sector alone. This makeshift encampment behind me can be a lifeline for migrants crossing this treacherous terrain here along the Arizona border. You can see migrants behind me getting food, water, and basic necessities here before being transferred over to Border Patrol agents. In just five months, the Tucson sector recorded over 300,000 migrant apprehensions, more than any other section of the border. BENJAMIN SALCIDO: Here's the border fence here. This is the Sasabe Port of Entry. MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Border Patrol agents like Benjamin Salcido  largely act as first responders. SALCIDO: We're not in the business of losing lives. Any life that we can spare, whether it be a fellow agent or a migrant in distress. To save a life, that's part of the job. TV reporters love this "migrants crossing treacherous terrain" spin, putting the empathy with the poor illegal immigrants just looking for a better life, and the border enforcers are supposed to be "first responders" instead. Notice the lack of Biden when the CBS reporter asked what's driving the border crisis?  MONTOYA-GALVEZ: What is driving this unprecedented flow of people to the US? JASON OWENS (US Border Patrol chief): Everything that comes across our border illicitly is under the control and dictation of the cartels and the smugglers. MONTOYA-GALVEZ: In an exclusive interview, Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens said his agency is on track to record two million migrant apprehensions for the third consecutive fiscal year. In the interview, Owens wouldn't commit to the notion that Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's energetic enforcement efforts are driving down crossings and "migrant apprehensions" in Texas:  MONTOYA-GALVEZ: We have seen a sharp increase in migrant crossings in Arizona and California, and the numbers in Texas have remained low compared to last year. Governor Abbott has credited his policies, the razor wire, the arrests, the busing of migrants to cities for that geographic shift, if you will. Is that accurate? OWENS: Hard to say. Could it have had some impact? Sure. Is it the one panacea that`s corrected the problem? I don't think that's a fair statement. Now here's the weird part: when you turn to the Owens interview as featured on CBSNews.com, Owens sounds much tougher on illegal immigration! he calls it a "national security threat" and talks tough about punishing illegal immigration. They wouldn't put that on the TV! 

The View Gets TRIGGERED By a Guest Who Argues Against Racism

ABC’s The View has been a major source of racial hatred and division in America thanks to the likes of staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) and moderator Whoopi Goldberg. So, it was a surprise when they invited podcaster and author Coleman Hughes to promote his book about removing race as a factor in government policy-making, on Wednesday's show. His reasonable position led Hostin to call him a “charlatan” and a “conservative” as a smear, and Goldberg to attack his age. Since he was there to promote his book The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America, Goldberg asked him to set the stage by explaining what he meant by “colorblind.” “My argument is that we should try our very best to treat people without regard to race both in our personal lives and public policy…” he said. He also denounced the so-called “anti-racism” movement. “The reason I wrote this book is that in the past ten years, it has become very popular to in the name of anti-racism, teach a kind of philosophy to our children and in general that says your race is everything. Right? I think that is the wrong way to fight racism and that's why I wrote this book at this time,” he said. Not dividing people along racial lines didn’t sit well with Goldberg, who proceeded to suggest that Hughes was too young and just didn’t understand history (Click “expand”): GOLDBERG: Can I just point out that there is a reason for that? You know, when I went to school, getting any information about anyone's race was not taught in history. There was no black history. None of those things were taught and here in America -- 100 years ago when I was a young woman -- [Laughter] -- That's how people saw you, that’s how they judged you. So, I think -- I don't want to say it's your youth but I think you have a point but I think you have to also take into consideration what people have lived through in order to understand why there has been such a pointing of very specific racial things. Like, women couldn't get into colleges; if you are a black person, there are a lot of colleges wouldn't accept you. Trying to equal the playing. I think that's what a lot of folks have been trying to do. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. HUGHES: I think that's your experience and that's valid. As a counterpoint when I was in fifth grade we all watched Roots together in public school. GOLDBERG: Yeah. HUGHES: So, these are different experiences. I think it's also different generations, it’s different parts of the country. Right? We have very different cultures all living together in one country, so I'm not going to deny that.     Hughes said that “a colorblind society” was “an ideal. It's a north star and the point is not that we'll ever get there, we’re not going to touch it but we have to know when we're going forward and backwards.” He declared that wokeism was a force bringing us backward. He went on to denounce the use of “black and Hispanic identity as a proxy for disadvantage” and said “socioeconomics is a better proxy for disadvantage,” because “you actually get a better picture of who needs help by looking at socioeconomics and income. That picks out people in a more accurate way.” He noted that the method would also help poor white folks. The idea that people were more than just their skin color triggered Hostin, who called his premise “fundamentally flawed.” She and Hughes proceeded to spare over the legacy of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., each throwing out competing quotes. Hostin argued that she was a better authority on MLK because she was friends with his daughter (Click “expand”): HOSTIN: This is not my question, but when you say that socioeconomics picks out people in a better way than race, when you do look at the socioeconomics, you see the huge disparity between white households and black households. You see the huge disparity between white households and Hispanic households. So, your argument – and I've read your book twice because I wanted to give it a chance – your argument that race has no place in that equation is really fundamentally flawed in my opinion. [Applause] HUGHES: Well, two separate questions. One is whether each racial group is socioeconomically the same. I agree with you, they're not. HOSTIN: Yeah, they're not and the stats show that. HUGHES: Of course, I agree with that fully. The question is: how do you address that in a way that actually targets poverty the best? HOSTIN: Great. HUGHES: And what Martin Luther King wrote in his book Why We Can't Wait is he called it, we need a bill of rights for the disadvantaged. And he said, yes, we should address racial equality, yes, we should address the legacy of slavery, but the way to do that is on the basis of class. And that will disproportionately target blacks and Hispanics because they're disproportionately poor, but it will be doing so in a way that also helps the white poor in a way that addresses poverty as the thing to be addressed. HOSTIN: That part is true, but as you are a student of Dr. King, I'm not only a student of Dr. King, I know his daughter Bernice. Right? So, I'm going to get to my question. JOY BEHAR: Go ahead. Go right ahead. HOSTIN: I think the premise is fundamentally flawed. You claim that color-blindness was the goal of the civil rights movement based upon Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech. You know, content of character versus color of skin. Bernice, Dr. King's daughter points out that four years after giving that speech actually, Dr. King also said this, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for negroes." He also said in 1968, it was about less than a week before he was assassinated, "This country never stops to realize that they owe a people kept in slavery for 244 years." So, rather than class, he did write about that earlier on. Right before his death, he made the argument for racial equality and racial reparations, and so your argument for color-blindness, I think, is something that the right has co-opted. Backed into a corner, Hostin resorted to trying to smear Hughes as a “conservative” and a “charlatan,” citing unnamed “critics” (Click “expand”): HOSTIN: And so many in the black community – if I'm being honest with you, because I want to be, believe that you are being used as a pawn by the right and that you're a charlatan of sorts. HUGHES: Who am I being accused by? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: He's not a Republican. HOSTIN: So, how do you – FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s never voted for a Republican. HOSTIN: You said you're a conservative. HUGHES: No. No. FARAH GRIFFIN: No. HOSTIN: No, you did. You actually said that in a podcast that you were two weeks ago. HUGHES: I said I was a conservative? FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s not. HOSTIN: Yes, you did. Informing Hostin that he’s only ever voted for Democrats as a left-leaning independent (and would only vote for a “non-Trump Republican if they were compelling” enough), Hughes said there was “no evidence” that he’s been “co-opted” and what she was doing was “an ad hominem tactic people use to not address, really, the important conversations we're having here.” Following a commercial break, co-host Joy Behar made it known that she couldn’t wrap her mind around the fact that the “anti-racism movement” mirrored white supremacy. Hughes explained that people like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kennedi “view your race as an extremely significant part of who you are,” just like white supremacists. “Neo-racists like Robin DiAngelo, they say that to be white is to be ignorant, for example. Well, this is a racial stereotype and I want to call a spade a spade and say this is not the style of anti-racism we have to be teaching our kids. We should be teaching them that your race is not a significant feature of who you are, who you are is your character, your value, and your skin color doesn't say anything about that,” he declared, getting applause from the audience. Hostin tried to argue that he was “misrepresenting what Robin DiAngelo’s position is,” but he shot back with: “It's in her book.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 27, 2024 11:37:45 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Welcome back. Political analyst and author Coleman Hughes makes a case for changing the national conversation on racism in his new book, The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America. Please welcome Coleman Hughes. [Applause] So, I think the first question that I should ask you to do is explain to folks what you mean by this, “arguments for a color-blind America.” What do you mean when you say that? COLEMAN HUGHES: So, a lot of people equate color-blindness to “I don't see race” or pretending not to see race. I think that's a big mistake. We all see race, right? And we're all capable of being racially biased, so we should all be self-aware to that possibility. My argument is not for that. My argument is that we should try our very best to treat people without regard to race both in our personal lives and public policy and the reason I wrote this book – Thank you. [Applause] The reason I wrote this book is that in the past ten years, it has become very popular to in the name of anti-racism, teach a kind of philosophy to our children and in general that says your race is everything. Right? I think that is the wrong way to fight racism and that's why I wrote this book at this time. GOLDBERG: Can I – I’m sorry, baby [to Sara Haines]. Can I just point out that there is a reason for that? You know, when I went to school, getting any information about anyone's race was not taught in history. There was no black history. None of those things were taught and here in America -- 100 years ago when I was a young woman -- [Laughter] -- That's how people saw you, that’s how they judged you. So, I think -- I don't want to say it's your youth but I think you have a point but I think you have to also take into consideration what people have lived through in order to understand why there has been such a pointing of very specific racial things. Like, women couldn't get into colleges; if you are a black person, there are a lot of colleges wouldn't accept you. Trying to equal the playing. I think that's what a lot of folks have been trying to do. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. HUGHES: I think that's your experience and that's valid. As a counterpoint when I was in fifth grade we all watched Roots together in public school. GOLDBERG: Yeah. HUGHES: So, these are different experiences. I think it's also different generations, it’s different parts of the country. Right? We have very different cultures all living together in one country, so I'm not going to deny that. But I view this notion of a colorblind society similar to the idea of a peaceful society. Which is to say, it's an ideal. It's a north star and the point is not that we'll ever get there, we’re not going to touch it but we have to know when we're going forward and backwards. And we're going backwards when we're doing woke kindergarten in San Francisco, you know, with -- you didn't hear this about story? GOLDBERG: No, but, wait. SARA HAINES: Want to get to the book. Because actually, you believe that public policies that address socioeconomic differences would be better benefiting disadvantaged groups and that race-based policies often hurt the very people they're trying to help. What are some examples of policies that would be better at reducing racial disparities? HUGHES: So, my overall argument is that class, socioeconomics is a better proxy for disadvantage. We all want to help the disadvantaged, and the question is how do we identify them. Right? The default right now in a lot of areas of policy is to use, you know, black and Hispanic identity as a proxy for disadvantage. And my argument is that you actually get a better picture of who needs help by looking at socioeconomics and income. That picks out people in a more accurate way. [Applause] Right? SUNNY HOSTIN: This is not my question, but when you say that socioeconomics picks out people in a better way than race, when you do look at the socioeconomics, you see the huge disparity between white households and black households. You see the huge disparity between white households and Hispanic households. So, your argument – and I've read your book twice because I wanted to give it a chance – your argument that race has no place in that equation is really fundamentally flawed in my opinion. [Applause] HUGHES: Well, two separate questions. One is whether each racial group is socioeconomically the same. I agree with you, they're not. HOSTIN: Yeah, they're not and the stats show that. HUGHES: Of course, I agree with that fully. The question is: how do you address that in a way that actually targets poverty the best? HOSTIN: Great. HUGHES: And what Martin Luther King wrote in his book Why We Can't Wait is he called it, we need a bill of rights for the disadvantaged. And he said, yes, we should address racial equality, yes, we should address the legacy of slavery, but the way to do that is on the basis of class. And that will disproportionately target blacks and Hispanics because they're disproportionately poor, but it will be doing so in a way that also helps the white poor in a way that addresses poverty as the thing to be addressed. HOSTIN: That part is true, but as you are a student of Dr. King, I'm not only a student of Dr. King, I know his daughter Bernice. Right? So, I'm going to get to my question. JOY BEHAR: Go ahead. Go right ahead. HOSTIN: I think the premise is fundamentally flawed. You claim that color-blindness was the goal of the civil rights movement based upon Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech. You know, content of character versus color of skin. Bernice, Dr. King's daughter points out that four years after giving that speech actually, Dr. King also said this, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for negroes." He also said in 1968, it was about less than a week before he was assassinated, "This country never stops to realize that they owe a people kept in slavery for 244 years." So, rather than class, he did write about that earlier on. Right before his death, he made the argument for racial equality and racial reparations, and so your argument for color-blindness, I think, is something that the right has co-opted. And so many in the black community – if I'm being honest with you, because I want to be, believe that you are being used as a pawn by the right and that you're a charlatan of sorts. HUGEHS: Who am I being accused by? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: He's not a Republican. HOSTIN: So, how do you – FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s never voted for a Republican. HOSTIN: You said you're a conservative. HUGHES: No. No. FARAH GRIFFIN: No. HOSTIN: No, you did. You actually said that in a podcast that you were two weeks ago. HUGHES: I said I was a conservative? FARAH GRIFFIN: He’s not. HOSTIN: Yes, you did. But my question to you is, how do you respond to those critics -- [Crosstalk saying to let him speak] HUGHES: I think it’s very important. The quote that you just pointed out about doing something special for the Negro, that's from the book Why We Can't Wait that I just mentioned. A couple paragraphs later he lays out exactly what that something special was and it was the bill of rights for the disadvantaged, a broad class-based policy. HOSTIN: But he also says you must include race. HUGHES:  No, he says -- HOSTIN: Yes, he does. HUGHES: Well, everyone should go read the buy Why We Can't Wait. Let's not get sidetracked by that. I don't think I've been co-opted by anyone. I've only voted twice, both for a Democrats. Although, I'm an independent. I would vote for a Republican, probably a non-trump Republican if they were compelling. I don't think there's any evidence I’ve been co-opted by anyone and I think that's an ad hominem tactic people use to not address, really, the important conversations we're having here. And I think it's better and it would be better for everyone if we stuck to the topics rather than make it about me. With no evidence of that I’ve been co-opted. HOSTIN: I want to give you the opportunity to respond to the -- HUGHES: I appreciate it. HOSTIN: The criticism. HUGHES: There's no evidence that I've been co-opted by anyone. I have an independent podcast. I work for CNN as an analyst. I write for the Free Press. I'm independent in all of these endeavors and no one is paying me to say what I'm saying. I'm saying it because I feel it. HOSTIN: Do you also believe – GOLDBERG: Hold on, we got to go to break. (…) 11:51:28 a.m. Eastern JOY BEHAR: I have a question. Because you write the anti-racism movement, there are a couple of people -- I don't even know who they are, maybe you know. HOSTIN: Robin DiAngelo. HUGHES: Robin DiAngelo, Ibram X. Kennedi, for instance. BEHAR: Okay. Well, you say that that is just another form of racism and you even say there’s a lot in common with white supremacy. How can you compare those two things? You’re talking about anti-racism, you are comparing it to white supremacy. HUGHES: Because they both view your race as an extremely significant part of who you are. So, white supremacists they obviously say – we all know what they say, okay. Neo-racists like Robin DiAngelo, they say that to be white is to be ignorant, for example. Well, this is a racial stereotype and I want to call a spade a spade and say this is not the style of anti-racism we have to be teaching our kids. We should be teaching them that your race is not a significant feature of who you are, who you are is your character, your value, and your skin color doesn't say anything about that. [Applause] HOSTIN: That's – that’s actually misrepresenting what Robin DiAngelo’s position is. HUGHES: It's in her book. [Crosstalk] GOLDBEGR: So, here we go. Thank you. Coleman Hughes, for coming. Because this is a show of lots of different opinions and we are multigenerational and we all got an opinion. So, The End of Pace Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America is out now. And we’re giving it to you all, so you can read it and judge for yourself how you feel about what he's saying.

Fairfax VA Board of Supervisors Celebrate Transgenders over Jesus

This year Easter falls on one of the left’s favorite made up holidays: Transgender Visibility Day. Last week, the board of supervisors in Fairfax County in Northern Virginia decided to prioritize transgender people over the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ that’s celebrated annually. Washington Examiner summarized the move by saying that members are “sending a message to Christians that they do not matter as they turn one of their holiest days into a celebration of an ideology that undermines the church’s core convictions.” Chairman Jeff McKay announced the following after the board unanimously decided to hijack Easter and instead celebrate yet another made up holiday for people who have a delusional sense of identity: “As an elected official, it should be our moral responsibility to stand up for all people that we represent, not just the people we like or the people we agree with.” So you mean to tell me that you'll stand up for people who are living a lie but not stand up for who created you? Really? The Washington Examiner brought up a great point when it insisted that the Fairfax area could have chosen literally any other day to honor the transgender folk, especially considering the area is overtly progressive and accepting of the alphabet mafia.  The Washington Examiner article read: The transgender activist community does not have a visibility problem in northern Virginia. But it does appear to have a narcissism problem. Fairfax County School Board, for example, has designated June as LGBT Pride Month and October as LGBT History Month. The community gets two full months of celebration in our district’s schools. Apparently, that just wasn’t enough. In response to the move, users online were livid with the mockery of the Christian holiday. “This is appalling,” Telegraph contributor Nile Gardiner said on X, “Fairfax County’s board of supervisors mocks Christians by designating Easter as Transgender Visibility Day.”  A different user wrote, “I thank God that I don't live in Fairfax County, Virginia.  A Board of Supervisors who would do what they did should all be removed” while another called the move “shameful and offensive.” They’re totally right. Easter is a holiday for Christians to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus and choosing to “honor” people who live a lie by telling them that they’re greater or should be prioritized over the Savior, is a perfect example of the moral decline that our nation is up against.

TikTok Censors Warning About Harmful Hormonal Birth Control Pill

Women’s health is actually being prioritized and it pisses off the leftist media. A battle has broken out between TikTok and women who warn about the dangers of birth control pills. A group called “28,” that focuses on providing nutrition, tips, and advice for women and girls who get their period, released a detox vitamin regime to make it easier to wean yourself off of hormonal birth control. TikTok removed the group's advertisement for the detox regiment as well as numerous other videos warning about negative effects of the birth control pill.  Now, I cannot speak for every woman who is on or has been on the hormonal birth control pill, but I can speak to the fact that anything that you put in your body with chemicals to stop, change or alter your normal bodily functions has the potential to cause negative effects. Anyone with a brain should be able to realize that. The hormonal birth control pill, which can be prescribed or ordered online, is a concoction of drugs that a menstruating woman takes daily to prevent pregnancy. It works by stopping ovulation, a regular, monthly occurrence. If you don’t ovulate (release an egg), even if you have unprotected sex, you won’t get pregnant. The pill also thickens the mucus on the cervix, which makes it harder for sperm to swim up to an egg for implantation. Planned Parenthood calls it a “sticky security guard.” Though the pill is most commonly used to prevent pregnancy, it has also been used by women for acne prevention as well as to help with irregularly painful periods. While it seems simple, the pill is chock full of hormones which have various negative effects. Birth control pills can: cause severe hormonal imbalances, cause women to lose their sex drives, become depressed, have a different attraction for men (example: many women on the pill are attracted to less masculine men), gain a significant amount of weight, cause liver disorders, heart attack, stroke, fertility and many more issues. All that and they aren’t even 100% effective for preventing pregnancy.  These risks were noticed by 28, hence their “Toxic Breakup: Birth Control Detox” product.  The supplement is an all natural product that aims to detoxify, replenish and balance and is sold on the 28 website (use code: tierinrose). Using all natural ingredients, the detox is a way to break up with the "toxicity" of the birth control pill. When it was released on March 23, 28 posted a video ad on its TikTok account. Shortly after, TikTok removed the video “after they guaranteed its approval ahead of launch and even committed to boosting it across the app,” 28 founder Brittany Martinez tweeted. As of Wednesday, the video has not been reinstated on TikTok. Similarly, users, like Daily Wire’s Brett Cooper, had videos about the dangers of the hormonal birth control pill removed for “misinformation.” While this is a blatant breach of free speech, The Washington Post (WaPo) was thrilled that TikTok is helping to keep women in the dark about these dangers. On March 21, the liberal outlet released a piece titled “Women are getting off birth control amid misinformation explosion.” Here’s how it began: Search for “birth control” on TikTok or Instagram and a cascade of misleading videos vilifying hormonal contraception appear: Youngwomen blaming their weight gain on the pill. Right-wing commentators claiming that some birth control can lead to infertility. Testimonials complaining of depression and anxiety. Hate to break it to you WaPo, but none of those videos are misleading. Nonetheless, the outlet boasted about its role in getting Cooper’s video removed.  “Brett Cooper, a media commentator for the conservative Daily Wire, argued in a viral TikTok clip that birth control can impact fertility, cause women to gain weight and even alter whom they are attracted to. It racked up over 219,000 ‘likes’ before TikTok removed it following The Post’s inquiry,” the article insisted.  WaPo also insisted that 28, along with influencers online telling women about these harms, help "drive potential legislation limiting access to hormonal birth control," later linking them with "antiabortion activists." Now why might WaPo and the left be pissed that women are waking up to the reality of the situation - that these pills are not the saviors like we were once told? Well, it could be a number of things. Primarily, I'd bet it's the left’s odd desire to have extreme control over people. Think about it, women needing to detox from a drug may make them stay on it longer to avoid having to wean themselves off. That brings in more money for big pharma. Similarly, when women are on “the pill,” they could become more depressed, then boom, more money for anti-depressants and therapies. Women may fall in love with less masculine men, which makes society weaker. Women may not be able to get pregnant on their own as a result of the drug, so...more money goes to IVF.  Funnily enough, even though WaPo blatantly advocated for censorship of videos and content that exposes the risks of the birth control pill, the author insisted that there’s a worry that women are “facing a lack of accurate information — and choices.” It’s important that women know the risks of these drugs before taking them. Menstruating women and girls should have the opportunity to know any pros and cons surrounding the drug, and censoring women's experiences from the pills are no way to help provide that abundance of information. This isn't a "conservative" issue. This is a human issue and should be treated as one. Not only is free speech under attack, but the actual health of women is as well. That’s two things the left cares nothing about apparently.

‘Gigantic Fraud’: Kara Swisher Accused of Cozying Up with Big Tech

Journalist and media personality Glenn Greenwald did not hold back his criticism of tech journalist and author Kara Swisher when he described her as a “gigantic fraud.” Greenwald ripped Swisher for her seemingly cozy relationship with Silicon Valley insiders during a segment of his show SYSTEM UPDATE on March 25. “The leading cheerleaders for Kara Swisher generally, and for her new book in particular, are and always have been the very leaders of the industry she claims to subject to such harsh and unrelenting and critical journalistic scrutiny,” Greenwald said, describing the friendly relationship between Swisher and Silicon Valley.    Greenwald pointed to a recent interview Swisher did with Silicon Valley tycoon Sam Altman, the founder and CEO of ChatGPT and a major figure in the world of Artificial Intelligence. As Greenwald noted the interview appeared to be anything but adversarial. “He is exactly the kind of powerbroker that Kara Swisher goes around presenting herself as putting such fear into the hearts of these people because she is so tough,” Greenwald said of Altman. “And yet, here she is. The two of them are sitting together promoting her book, they’re giggling together, they’re smiling together.” Greenwald highlighted that real, honest journalists do not usually enjoy this kind of cozy relationship with the people they cover. He contrasted Swisher with another very prominent reporter, Seymour Hersch, known for exposing the My Lai massacre and for contradicting the U.S. intelligence narrative regarding the demolition of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Greenwald pointed out that the CIA would never dream of promoting Hersch’s book because he actually does his job.  “Obviously, this would never happen,” Greenwald said. “The reason being is that Seymour Hersch has actually spent his life being a scourge for the CIA exposing their crimes, debunking their lies, exposing the secrets that they want hidden.”  Greenwald also pointed out that Swisher was praised by another major Silicon Valley figurehead, Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs and owner of The Atlantic magazine.  “Laurene Powell Jobs just kept saying what a wonderful person Kara Swisher is [and] how great her book is,” Greenwald said, referring to an interview between Swisher and Jobs.  [O]bviously, Laurene Powell Jobs’ billions rests in Silicon Valley, her husband is a major part of this book, Kara Swisher heaps all kinds of praise on Apple, on whose wealth Laurene Powell Jobs’ ultimately depends.” Greenwald continued, outlining just how bad this looks for Swisher as she markets herself as a fierce journalist. “This sounds and looks a lot more to me like an industry propaganda and spokesperson than it does an aggressive, scary thorn in the side of their power,” he said. Swisher is also blindsided by political bias, Greenwald critiqued. “The only people she is willing to criticize are people who she perceives as being [an] adversary to her liberal ideology,” he said, noting that Twitter owner Elon Musk is the perfect example of this. He added that Swisher “used to heap immense amount of sycophantic praise” on Musk “until he bought Twitter, turned it into X, ceased censoring, began promoting an ideology she disagrees with.”  Greenwald reiterated that who Swisher chooses to criticize is highly indicative of how well she does her job. “She’s just a liberal operative, and so of course, the liberal operatives inside of Silicon Valley love her.”  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 Tries To Use Rapes By Drug Cartels To Dunk On Pro-Life States

On Wednesday’s installment of MSNBC’s Jose Diaz-Balart Reports, the eponymous host and contributor Paola Ramos focused on the rapes and sexual assaults committed by drug cartels against women who seek to make their way to the U.S. border. Instead of using this as an opportunity to warn against making a dangerous journey that will only end with a longshot asylum claim, they used it as an opportunity to dunk on pro-life states such as Texas. Diaz-Balart introduced the segment by referencing current arguments at the Supreme Court about mifepristone, “The ruling will have consequences nationwide, including at the Southern Border, where a growing number of women and girls have been sexually abused and raped in Mexico on their way to the U.S. Once they cross into Texas, a new country, a new language, they have to navigate the many immigration and abortion laws there.”     After being introduced, Ramos previewed her report, which also aired on Tuesday’s Alex Wagner Tonight, by declaring that “this is a reflection of a larger problem that we're seeing, right? Where there are migrant women that are stepping into the United States with rape-related pregnancies and as they’re then trying to navigate this complicated legal anti-abortion landscape and so the question that we had is: what does that look like, right?” No, the problem is that those rapes could have been avoided if it was made clear that the journey is extremely dangerous and that your chances of being granted asylum are not high, so do not come to the border. That should be the message, whether one supports or opposes abortion. Instead, Ramos’s report featured multiple women, including one who lives in Mexico, running an underground abortion pill trafficking operation. After the report, Ramos, who is the daughter of Univision's Jorge Ramos and a former Hillary Clinton staffer, added, “Jose, that is the unintended consequences of these anti-abortion laws, right, that it drives people to take matters into their own hands. You know, to rely on the underground networks to ensure that women, at the end of the day, get the help that they need.” Diaz-Balart followed up, “And Paola, just the numbers of people, the doctor in Mexico telling you she’s got about 15,000 people. This is something that is a crisis, and that continues to increase, women being sexually abused, being raped, consistently in Mexico, on their way to the United States, Paola. Ramos agreed, “When we talk about the humanitarian crisis, Jose, that's exactly what we're talking about. You're right.” Usually, people like Diaz-Balart and Ramos say the humanitarian crisis is why people are heading to the border, not the journey itself. If they really believe the journey is the crisis, they should be using their platforms to encourage people to stay home, not try to dunk on pro-lifers. Here is a transcript for the March 27 show: MSNBC Jose Diaz-Balart Reports 3/27/2024 11:30 AM ET JOSE DIAZ-BALART: The ruling will have consequences nationwide including at the Southern Border where a growing number of women and girls have been sexually abused and raped in Mexico on their way to the U.S. Once they cross into Texas, a new country, a new language, they have to navigate the many immigration and abortion laws there.  MSNBC contributor Paola Ramos just came back from the border with a special report and she is with us this morning. I know, Paola, you spoke to migrant women who have been sexually assaulted during their journeys to the U.S. and you've spoken to them over the years. What did you learn and how are things different?  PAOLA RAMOS: Well, Jose, as you can imagine, they are horrified. They're traumatized. I spoke to women that had been held by the cartels, some for a week, some for over a month, as they were being sexually abused, but I think, Jose, this is a reflection of a larger problem that we're seeing, right? Where there are migrant women that are stepping into the United States with rape-related pregnancies and as they’re then trying to navigate this complicated legal anti-abortion landscape and so the question that we had is: what does that look like, right? What does post-Roe look like through the eyes of one of those migrants and here's what we found.  … RAMOS: But on the other side of the border, activists are working day and night to fill the void.  [SPEAKING SPANISH WITH ON SCREEN SUBTITLES]: Hi. How are you? This is Paola Ramos speaking. ELOWYN [SPEAKING SPANISH WITH SUBTITLES]: Hi, Pao. RAMOS: This is Elowyn, a young doctor from Mexico City, who's part of an international network helping women obtain both mifepristone and misoprostol. Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022, much of that help is being routed to Texas. She asked for her identity to be concealed in order to protect the operation. Approximately, how big is this network? How many people are part of it?  ELOWYN [SPEAKING SPANISH WITH SUBTITLES]: Right now, we’re about 15,000 strong RAMOS [SPEAKING SPANISH WITH SUBTITLES]: Wow, 15,000 people. [IN ENGLISH] And who are they, where are they contacting you from? ELOWYN [SPEAKING SPANISH WITH SUBTITLES]: They are mostly, the majority, migrant women and due to different situations, they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. RAMOS [SPEAKING SPANISH WITH SUBTITLES]: Meaning, they are women who are right here, on the border, where I am? ELOWYN [SPEAKING SPANISH WITH SUBTITLES]: Yes. Exactly. RAMOS: How many packs of pills are you sending each week?  ELOWYN [SPEAKING SPANISH WITH SUBTITLES]: Every week? Like around four or six. RAMOS: How do you hide these pills? How do you make sure that no one knows what you're mailing?  ELOWYN [SPEAKING SPANISH WITH SUBTITLES]: The way we usually send it, which goes very unnoticed, is in sanitary pads inside an envelope. That’s how we send it. RAMOS: I think many people would ask what is in it for you, right, obviously, you're not doing it for economic reasons. So, why do you do it?  ELOWYN [SPEAKING SPANISH WITH SUBTITLES]: Well, because I understand the reality of being a woman and I believe that being able to help them, being that support at this critical moment, is essential. RAMOS: Back in Texas, Valentina feels the same way.  You risk your life and your status. Why?  VALENTINA [SPEAKING SPANISH WITH SUBTITLES]: Because I know what it feels like to be there and not have help. RAMOS: Jose, that is the unintended consequences of these anti-abortion laws, right, that it drives people to take matters into their own hands. You know, to rely on the underground networks to ensure that women, at the end of the day, get the help that they need.  DIAZ-BALART: And Paola, just the numbers of people, the doctor in Mexico telling you she’s got about 15,000 people.  RAMOS: Huge. DIAZ-BALART: This is something that is a crisis, and that continues to increase, women being sexually abused, being raped, consistently in Mexico, on their way to the United States, Paola. RAMOS: When we talk about the humanitarian crisis, Jose, that's exactly what we're talking about. You're right.  

CNN's Ashley Allison Panics on Trump Bible Sales: He'll Impose His 'Theology' On Us!

Amidst all the liberal outrage over NBC's hiring of Ronna McDaniel, CNN offered an example this morning of what passes for a perfectly acceptable revolving-door hire. CNN commentator Ashley Allison was on a CNN This Morning panel to discuss Trump's hawking of a God Bless America Bible. Allison was the National Coalitions Director for Biden-Harris 2020 and deputy director and senior policy advisor for the Obama White House Office of Public Engagement, where she strategized on running campaigns during "the Resistance." Her bio features her commitment to "equity."  Hunt played an old clip of Trump talking about "Two Corinthians" and pressed David Frum and Jonah Goldberg to mock Trump's marketing push. When it came her turn to comment, Allison displayed a combination of fearmongering and ignorance about America's founding. Allison claimed that the U.S. was "founded on the separation of church and state." Hunt echoed that misstatement of the First Amendment, which, of course, says nothing about "separation," prohibiting only the "establishment" of a state religion. Allison went on to claim that if elected, Trump will try to impose a theocracy. As she put it, "This is a preview again of how Trump sees the way he wants to rule the world, through an authoritative theology, which is one way, which is. I'm a Christian, but Trump's governing approach will be, "The Bible is the route in which we are going to govern this country." Then, in what might or might not have been an attempt at humor—though she seemed rather serious—Allison claimed that Trump will take credit for having written the Bible. She predicted that if the Bible sales don't go well, he will say: "Why aren't people buying it? You know, they asked me what to put in the Bible . . . 'I helped write this thing.' That's the kind of fraudulent behavior that this, this exhibits to me. And he's just willing to say whatever he can to seem like he's the center of the story, even when we know it's so extreme." This is CNN, which claims it's devoted to facts, but traffics in wild speculation about the future to scare its viewers to stay glued to the screen. Jonah Goldberg expressed some disagreement with Allison, suggesting Trump doesn't want to impose a theocracy....but a lot of his allies do:  GOLDBERG: I don't think at all, truly that Donald Trump wants to impose a theocracy. I think there are a bunch of people in his orbit who do, right? There are people who, really -- Donald Trump, we talked about going to Communion, he says, and when they give me my little cracker. I mean, like this is a guy who's not religiously literate in the slightest. But the people who are most invested in him, surrounding him, and want to fill the federal bureaucracy, they actually take this theocracy stuff very seriously. Note: This wasn't the first time that Allison's less-than-encyclopedic command of the facts has been exposed. Earlier this month, our Nicholas Fondacaro caught Allison absurdly suggesting that before the latest proposed legislation, there were no laws governing immigration on the books! Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 3/27/24 6:45 am EDT KASIE HUNT: All right, now there's this, which is really the one that everyone at this table is talking about this morning. Former president turned Bible salesman?  DONALD TRUMP: All Americans need a Bible in their home, and I have many. It's my favorite book. I'm proud to endorse and encourage you to get this Bible. We must make America pray again. HUNT: Make America pray again. After launching sneaker and cologne lines last month, the former president, okay, so he's selling this is, get this, the God Bless the USA Bible. That's in partnership with country singer Lee Greenwood. He takes the stage to Greenwood's music. It's only $59.99. And just for that, you get a copy of the Constitution, a copy of the Bill of Rights, a copy of the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Declaration of Independence. As well as the Bible, I guess. . . .  Ashley, do you want to weigh in here [chuckles]? ASHLEY ALLISON: Not particularly [laughter], but I guess, you know, to take a slightly more serious tone on this, is, this is a preview again of how Trump sees the way he wants to rule the world, through an authoritative theology, which is one way, which is. I'm a Christian, but the Bible is the route in which we are going to govern this country, even though this country was founded on the separation of church and state.  And so, it's funny, and yet it's not, because it is a tell that if he wins in November and becomes president, he could not just say like I'm selling Bibles, but I'm mandating that in our schools, everyone has a Bible, in these institutions everyone has a Bible. And that's not what America is about. There are people from all different faiths. And that's the beauty of this patchwork cloth that we have that Donald Trump doesn'treally seem to appreciate.  HUNT: And Jonah, pulling together to Ashley's excellent point, the founding documents of the country into the, I mean, they're the separation of church and state was a founding ideal for a country that was breaking away from Britain. And those documents that the founders wrote. To kind of put them together and then hawk, it does, I mean -- JONAH GOLDBERG: Yeah, but it's a great value in a bundle [laughter.] And they're all public domain now, so they can get them really cheap for printing purposes. But no, look, I mean, like I don't think at all, truly that Donald Trump wants to impose a theocracy. I think there are a bunch of people in his orbit who do, right? There are people who, really -- Donald Trump, we talked about going to Communion, he says, and when they give me my little cracker. I mean, like this is a guy who's not religiously literate in the slightest. But the people who are most invested in him, surrounding him, and want to fill the federal bureaucracy, they actually take this theocracy stuff very seriously, and I do think that this mixing -- it really is an interesting mix of God and Mammon isn't it that we're seeing? And I think, to your point, I think that's where the real threat is if you're concerned about that kind of thing. . . .  ALLISON: You know, I will, I think one thing that I could, two things I bet that Donald Trump will say if the Bible sales don't go: "Why aren't people buying it? You know, they asked me what to put in the Bible." That will be one claim that he makes. "And I helped write this thing." That's the kind of fraudulent behavior that this, this exhibits to me. And he's just willing to say whatever he can to seem like he's the center of the story, even when we know it's so extreme.  

Karine Jean-Pierre Whitewashes Biden Economy, Flees Follow-Up Questions in Radio Interview

After White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre spewed Bidenomics propaganda on the radio, she was smart enough to leave immediately.  Jean-Pierre abruptly left a March 26 interview with 99.3 WBT’s The Brett Winterble Show after fielding questions on President Joe Biden’s age and the high prices Americans face under his administration.  During the interview host and News Director Mark Garrison mentioned high gas and grocery prices, asking Jean-Pierre, “How does Mr. Biden win votes when people don’t have as much disposable income?” Jean-Pierre proceeded to hypocritically blame a pandemic that began in early 2020 for Biden’s struggles before directly proceeding to criticize former President Donald Trump for “leaving the economy in a tailspin” for Biden to handle in 2021. Jean-Pierre said, “You have to remember when the president walked into this administration, there were multiple crises happening. There was COVID...the economy was in a tailspin because of the last administration, because of what President Trump left us with.”  Yes, Jean-Pierre, it is completely fitting to ignore the impact of the pandemic and the lockdowns of 2020 to denigrate Trump’s economic performance, but still insist that the Biden economy be graded on a curve because he took office in 2021 after millions of people were vaccinated.  From this wildly unsound logic, Jean-Pierre then proceeded to paint a favorable comparison between the economy under Biden in 2024 and that of 2023. “Now you’re asking me about gas prices. The president took action on gas prices,” Jean-Pierre said, before adding, “Let’s not forget Russia’s invasion on Ukraine skyrocketed prices of gas and because the president took action, we see we are in a different place than we were a year ago on gas prices, eggs, milk, seafood products, all the important groceries. Those costs have gone down because of what this president has been able to do.”  Sensing danger, Jean-Pierre quickly added, “And with that thank you so much, Mark, have an amazing, amazing day.” The White House press secretary then proceeded to hang up on the radio program.  It’s no wonder Biden’s proud propagandist ended the interview there. Biden did drain 180 million barrels from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2022, which is intended for emergencies. Nevertheless, gas prices are still higher under Biden than under Trump, rising from $2.42 a gallon in Jan. 2021 to $3.33 a gallon in Feb. 2024. Should Americans really be grateful because they remember that things were even worse at another point in the Biden administration? After all, Americans already had to fork over the money. Americans’ average personal savings rate has dropped from 12.8% on Feb. 1, 2021, to 3.8% on Jan. 1, 2024.  Jean-Pierre also avoided any challenge to her claim about Americans spending less at the grocery store. If Jean-Pierre had stayed, she may have faced further unflattering comparisons. Prices have risen 18.5% on Biden’s watch and Americans have been buffeted by 5.6% average monthly inflation under Biden.  Hanging up may save the embattled press secretary some embarrassment, but it’s not going to make Americans any more grateful.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact ABC News at (818) 460-7477, CBS News at (212) 975-3247 and NBC News at (212) 664-6192 and demand they tell the truth about the Bidenomics disaster.

Eight Brand New Biden Gaffes ABC,CBS, NBC Have Buried

The gaffe machine that is President Joe Biden let out another howler on Tuesday and the Big Three networks dutifully ignored it. During a press conference on the tragic collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, Biden recalled he had passed over “many, many times commuting” from Delaware “either on a train or by car.” There’s just one problem. The bridge was constructed just for car use and never had any rail lines.  ABC, CBS, NBC overlooked Biden’s botch — just like they have done for much of his administration and career.  For a brief moment it looked as if the networks were going to start covering Biden’s bloopers. When the President mixed up the leaders of Egypt in Mexico — in his press conference refuting special counsel Robert Hur’s claims about Biden’s memory loss — network shows actually aired the humiliating moment. However, they spent less than four minutes on it.  If any past Republican President made a similar flub — be it Donald Trump or George W. Bush — you can bet it would have gotten a lot more than that. The following are eight brand new Biden gaffes and how the networks (mostly) refused to cover them:    Biden Recalls Taking the Train Over Francis Scott Key Bridge, It Never Had Rails     On March 26, the New York Post reported: President Biden on Tuesday was fact-checked by social media users after claiming that he’s commuted over Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge “many, many times…either on a train or by car.”  Numerous people on X noted that the bridge, which fell into the Patapsco River early Tuesday morning after being struck by a massive cargo ship, has never had rail lines attached to it.  “At about 1:30 [a.m.], a container ship struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which I’ve been over many, many times commuting from the state of Delaware either on a train or by car,” Biden said in his first public remarks on the catastrophe.  “I’ve been to Baltimore Harbor many times,” he added. “And the bridge collapsed, sending several people and vehicles into the water — into the river.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Biden: “US Has Lowest Inflation of Any Country in America” On March 14, India Today reported:  US President Joe Biden has made yet another gaffe while speaking about his administration’s efforts to tackle inflation in the country. Instead of saying that the US has one of the lowest inflation rates in the world, Biden said, “We have the lowest inflation rates of any country in America.”  “Wages are rising faster than prices and now we have among the lowest inflation rates of any country in America. And, still, we are fighting to lower it even further,” Biden said in his address in Milwaukee in the state of Wisconsin. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Biden Botches Name of Murder Victim Laken Riley and Confuses Sports Fans In the Process On March 8, SI.com reported:  USC football coach Lincoln Riley has been a trending subject of conversation online in the hours since President Joe Biden delivered his State of the Union address, and after an apparent gaffe when delivering the speech to Congress. In a back-and-forth with Republican opposition over the contentious subject of illegal immigration into the country, the President mentioned the recent killing of Laken Riley, a woman who was killed while jogging on the Georgia campus, allegedly by an undocumented immigrant from Venezuela.  But in the process, the President appeared to bungle the name of the victim, which sounded instead like that of the Trojans head coach. “Lincoln — Lincoln Riley,” Mr. Biden appeared to say, showing a button bearing Ms. Riley's name that Republicans passed out before the speech. “An innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal.” The President continued: “That’s right, but how many of the thousands of people are being killed by legals.” “To her parents, I say, my heart goes out to you, having lost children myself. I understand,” Mr. Biden said. Mr. Biden’s prepared remarks did not include any reference to the victim of the killing, so the exchange appeared to be improvised in the moment.  The remarks caused widespread reaction from the President's critics, including sports commentator Clay Travis. “Joe Biden just confused Laken Riley, a college student killed by an illegal immigrant, with USC football coach Lincoln Riley,” he said on X/Twitter. “This just happened. Incredibly disrespectful.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds. (While the audio clip of President Biden saying the name was played on March 8 and March 11 editions of ABC’s Good Morning America and March 18 editions of NBC’s Today show and Nightly News no one on the broadcasts pointed out he mispronounced the name.)     Biden Invites Congress to Fly With Him to Moscow to Buy Prescription Drugs On March 7, the Washington Examiner reported:  President Joe Biden slipped up during his State of the Union address, inviting the audience to fly with him to Moscow. During his address, Biden touted his efforts to bring down prescription drug prices. To prove his point, he listed large foreign cities where drug prices are typically cheaper than in the United States. In a slip-up, he listed Moscow among these. “I’m gonna get in trouble for saying this, but anybody wanna get in Air Force One with me and fly to Toronto, Berlin, Moscow — I mean, excuse me,” Biden said, prompting laughs. “Well, even Moscow, probably.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Three Gaffes In One! Biden Bumbles Through Pennsylvania Campaign Stump Speech  On March 9, FoxNews.com reported:  Just one day after President Biden delivered a State of the Union address many liberals said put to rest questions about his mental fitness, the president raised eyebrows with several gaffes in Pennsylvania. Biden visited Strath Haven Middle School in Delaware County on Friday for his first swing state campaign stop after outlining his agenda to a joint session of Congress. There, he pitched his plans for a second White House term, promising to protect abortion rights, defending his economic record and calling for new gun control laws. He also made some unforced errors in his speech, which were ridiculed by Republicans.  “Pennsylvania, I have a message for you: Send me to Congress!” Biden shouted at one point, appearing to mix up the office he’s running for. He was a six-term U.S. senator representing Delaware in Congress before he became vice president in 2008. Later in his remarks, Biden said, “we cut the deficit and we added more to the national debt than any president in his term in all of history, than under Donald Trump.” Both comments were picked up by the Republican National Committee’s opposition research account and shared far and wide on X.  At another point, Biden mistakenly referred to the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots as taking place on “July 6th,” and then corrected himself.  The gaffes illustrate how Biden, 81, must continue to fight off criticisms of his age and mental fitness from Republicans as the general election heats up. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   Biden Mixes Up Mexico and Egypt On March 8, The Hill reported:  President Biden confused the leaders of Mexico and Egypt during a press conference Thursday in which he forcefully rebutted a special counsel report that offered a harsh assessment of his memory and recall abilities. Biden delivered remarks from the White House in which he sharply pushed back against conclusions from special counsel Robert Hur that the president presented during an interview with investigators as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” “My memory’s fine. Take a look at what I’ve done since I became president.…How did that happen? I guess I just forgot what was going on,” Biden said, striking a sarcastic tone. But when he fielded a question about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, Biden mistakenly referred to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as the “president of Mexico.” “I think, as you know, initially, the president of Mexico, Sisi, did not want to open up the gate to humanitarian material to get in. I talked to him. I convinced him to open the gate,” Biden said. A clip of the comment quickly traveled around social media, where Republicans seized on it as the latest evidence that Biden had lost a step. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: This gaffe was actually covered but only for a total of 3 minutes, 48 seconds.   ABC = 1 minute, 51 seconds (Feb. 9 Good Morning America: 25 seconds; Feb. 11 This Week: 1 minute, 26 seconds) CBS = 65 seconds (Feb. 9 CBS Evening News: 9 seconds, Feb. 9 CBS Mornings: 21 seconds; Feb. 10 CBS Saturday Morning: 22 seconds; Feb. 11 Face the Nation: 13 seconds) NBC = 52 seconds (Feb. 9 NBC Nightly News: 22 seconds; Feb. 10 Today: 30 seconds)   The gaffes keep coming but the networks keep hiding them. If they were actually on Team Biden’s staff would the network coverage look any different? 

SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments Against FDA's Approval of Abortion Pill

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. Supporters of both sides gathered outside the Court in Washington D.C. to share their stance. Pro-aborts advocated for the abortion pill to remain on the market while pro-lifers insisted that the FDA was negligent in its research prior to approving the abortion pill and thus, that the pill should be removed from the market. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Erin Hawley argued before the court along with Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, and Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach who all insisted that the FDA’s “unlawful removal of critical safeguards for the use of chemical abortion drugs,” harms women and that the abortion pill regime is not safe.  Here’s the summary according to ADF’s website: FDA began recklessly removing in-person doctor visits to check for ectopic pregnancies, severe bleeding, and life-threatening infections. It also removed reporting requirements that once provided doctors, women, and the public with better information about the serious risks associated with abortion drugs. ADF attorneys are asking the court to affirm the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision holding that the FDA acted unlawfully when it removed these safeguards. During their arguments, rallies were held outside the Supreme Court building. Representatives from Concerned Women for America, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, March for Life, Young Women for America, and various congresspeople held signs and insisted that the FDA needed to do its actual job and produce drugs that help, not harm people. “I would love it if the other side would tell the truth. They are about big abortion. They are not about safety for women and it’s never been about safety for babies,” Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance said in front of SCOTUS.  Jeanie Mancini, president of March for life, sent an email following the event and noted the following: Kelly Lester, a mom who previously had numerous abortions and is also the Outreach Coordinator for And Then There Were None and Pro-Love Ministries, shared how harmful these pills can be, some even leading to women delivering their babies alive: “Women are coming into our pregnancy resource centers with their child in their hands saying no one told me I was going to see this.” “FDA, DO YOUR JOB,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, SBA President said while rallygoers joined in on the chant.  “She has become her own abortionist, in an unsafe home-abortion clinic,” Dannenfelser said and later added, “The FDA broke the law and its own rules when it removed virtually every safeguard [and] every standard. Ignoring a woman's need for in person visits and ongoing care when taking dangerous abortion drugs.” Dannenfelser also said, “Every woman and woman’s organization in this country should come together and demand that the FDA stop its politics and we together must insist: 'FDA, DO YOUR JOB.'”  Today I was proud to stand with women harmed by abortion drugs courageously sharing their stories, and with the doctors caring for them, in contrast to the abortion industry that leaves women to suffer alone. They all know the true cost of the FDA’s recklessness first-hand.… pic.twitter.com/LWSa65jGaY — Marjorie Dannenfelser (@marjoriesba) March 26, 2024 “#WomensHealthMatters” also trended on X. One member of the Progressive Anti-Aborion Uprising group held a sign that said “Pills Should Never Kill” and wrote “Fully Human” in black marker on her pregnant belly. Many others gathered with various signs that read: “Women’s Health Matters,” “FDA: DO YOUR JOB” and “Women Deserve Safe Medical Care.” Pro-abortion rally-goers gathered as well. Their message was essentially: “we don’t care how harmful the abortion pill is, we still want it available at any point, for any person and regardless of any risks.” One woman, a “rabbi,”  in an interview with USA Today, insisted that her “rights are under threat” as well as her “ability to live safely and healthily.” Again, nothing about the abortion pill is safe. If successful, it kills at least one human being and puts a woman’s life in significant risk.  The same video showed individuals holding sings that read “The Bible can be your guide but not my shackle,” “reproductive freedom for all,” “Abortion on our own terms,” and then of course a line of old ladies, who likely won’t have any use for the abortion pill, held letters in a line that spelt out “PRO ROE.” The pro-aborts really do come up with a bunch of nonsense when they think that their opportunity to kill babies may be at stake. Time will tell what happens with this case. Until then, prayers for clarity and decisions on what is actually best for the future of women's health would be well received by SCOTUS justices.     

Daily Show Longs For Abortion In Spoof Ad Portraying GOP As Sexist

The cast of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show came together on Tuesday to put together a satirical movie trailer about a male GOP politician who becomes a woman after a “freak jacking off accident” and has an epiphany that the party needs to support abortion, all while portraying the party as a bunch of out-of-touch, sex-crazed misogynists. The trailer begins with the narrator introducing the protagonist and immediately shows The Daily Show does not understand pro-lifers, “Meet Senator Tim Greco, he likes fast cars, sexy women, and abortion bans with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother.”     Pro-life laws have life of the mother exceptions, but the trailer moves right along with Greco, played by Michael Kosta, in the office of “GOP Party Boss,” who laments, “Our poll numbers with women are just tanking, that just doesn't make any sense.” Kosta explains that “They're probably just mad they suck at sports,” as he proceeds to crumble up the paper with the graph and miss a waste paper basketball shot.  In the next scene, Kosta is seen telling a colleague that “I'm going to go jack off in the breastfeeding room,” with the narrator repeating, “A freak jacking off accident transformed him.” After a rather bizarre transformation scene, Kosta was replaced by Desi Lydic as the narrator explains, “Into the one thing his political party couldn’t understand.” Lydic then visits a doctor who informs her that she is pregnant, which she does not take well, “I can't be pregnant. It's Thirsty Thursday. Isn't there some kind of medical procedure I can get?” The doctor recommends an abortion, but Lydic doesn’t want to go there at first, “No, god no. No, I mean like a medical procedure.” She replies, “Not in this state. Thanks to that law that Tim Greco just passed.” She then hands Lydic a newspaper that features a picture of Kosta with a sign that reads, “No abortions, even if you're pregnant after a breast pump electrocuted you.” Lydic returns to the boss’s office to explain that “I got turned into a pregnant woman from a magical breast pump on my penis… I know what women voters want: legalized abortion.” The party boss responds by mocking the suggestion and some inappropriate behavior, “Greco, that's a good one. Hey, does this mean, since you're a lady now, that I could have sex with you?” As Lydic leaves, it is revealed that the boss has been drawing cartoonishly large breasts on a stick figure. In the final scene, Lydic is at a whiteboard giving a presentation, where she again explains that “Women voters want access to abortion. You know, like, before.” One of her male colleagues again responds by proving The Daily Show doesn’t actually understand conservatives, “Or maybe women voters want trans women banned from working in sandwich shops?” He then asks Lydic, “Hey, now that you’re a woman, can we maybe –”    Despite the absurd nature of impregnating yourself after masturbating as a man, Lydic’s character actually hurts the pro-abortion argument. Pro-abortion advocates routinely point to the difficult health positions women find themselves in, but here is The Daily Show arguing for abortion out of pure convenience because it is Thursday after a choice Kosta/Lydic freely made.  Here is a transcript for the March 26 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 3/26/2024 11:17 PM ET NARRATOR: Meet Senator Tim Greco, he likes fast cars, sexy women, and abortion bans with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother.  MICHAEL KOSTA [TIM GRECO]: The ayes have it. Total abortion ban.  NARRATOR: He thought he had politics all figured out.  GOP PARTY BOSS: Our poll numbers with women are just tanking, that just doesn't make any sense.  KOSTA: They're probably just mad they suck at sports. Kobe!  NARRATOR: Until one day— KOSTA: I'm going to go jack off in the breastfeeding room.  NARRATOR: A freak jacking off accidents transformed him. [transformation scene] DESI LYDIC [GRECO]: It’s killing me. NARRATOR: Into the one thing his political party couldn’t understand. DESI LYDIC: Whoa. I’m a woman. I'm going to barf.  NARRATOR: This November...  DOCTOR: It’s not the flu, you're pregnant.  LYDIC: I can't be pregnant. It's Thirsty Thursday. Isn't there some kind of medical procedure I can get?  DOCTOR: You mean, an abortion?  LYDIC: No, god no. No, I mean like a medical procedure.  DOCTOR: Not in this state. Thanks to that law that Tim Greco just passed. LYDIC: Shouldn’t have made that sign so specific.  NARRATOR: The inspirational story of one Republican.  LYDIC: Boss, it's me, Tim Greco. I got turned into a pregnant woman from a magical breast pump on my penis.  GOP PARTY BOSS: I believe you. Continue.  LYDIC: I know what women voters want: legalized abortion.  GOP PARTY BOSS: Greco, that's a good one. Hey, does this mean since you're a lady now, that I could have sex with you?  LYDIC: No! Maybe.  NARRATOR: And what it is probably going to take to make Republicans realize what women voters actually want to.  LYDIC: Women voters want access to abortion. You know, like, before.  MAN: Or maybe women voters want trans women banned from working in sandwich shops?  GOP PARTY BOSS: Write that down.  MAN: Hey, now that you’re a woman, can we maybe –  LYDIC: Ew, no. Maybe.  NARRATOR: What Women Voters Want. Coming to theaters this fall. 

NY Times Reporter Carl Hulse Lards His 'News' Report with 'Ultraright' Labels

There was some impressively dense anti-Republican labeling in the lead of veteran congressional reporter Carl Hulse’s Sunday New York Times story. The online headline certainly delivered the flavor – not just “right,” but “far right,” not just “conservative,” but “ultraconservative”! "Revenge” isn’t exactly neutral either. The Far Right Lost Badly and Wants Its Revenge Bipartisan spending legislation approved by Congress represented a major defeat for ultraconservatives, who immediately turned on Speaker Mike Johnson.” The labeling and tone got no less biased as it went. The story fits Hulse’s pattern of painting Republicans as extremists -- a tactic he eagerly employed long before Donald Trump descended the Trump Tower escalator in 2015. In other words, one can’t blame it on Trump. As 2023 opened with Republicans newly in control of the House, the far-right members of the party considered themselves empowered when it came to federal spending, with increased muscle to achieve the budget cuts of their dreams. Today’s GOP rarely proposes actual “budget cuts,” making that a red herring. But it turned out that many of their Republican colleagues did not share their vision of stark fiscal restraint. Or at least not fervently enough to go up against a Democratic Senate and White House to try to bring it into fruition. Instead, Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday pushed through a $1.2 trillion bipartisan package to fund the government for the rest of the year, with none of the deep cuts or policy changes that ultraconservatives had demanded. Those on the right fringe have been left boiling mad and threatening to make him the second Republican speaker to be deposed this term. “The speaker failed us today,” declared Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, after one of his ultraright colleagues, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, filed a measure to potentially force a vote to remove Mr. Johnson, over a spending plan she called “atrocious” and “a betrayal.” In all, Hulse made five repetitions of the “far right” insult, including the online headline, three “ultraconservatives” and one “ultraright” to spice things up. Hulse nodded approval at the final, Democrat-pleasing spending bill, saying it “represented fairly traditional compromise measures. They gave each party some wins, some losses and some election-year talking points….” But the legislation was assailed by members of the House Freedom Caucus, the far-right bloc that has bedeviled its own party’s speakers for years, as a betrayal by Mr. Johnson, for both its content and the way it was handled. One “far-right” wasn’t enough. The very next paragraph began: Not only did members of the far right not get the steep cuts and severe border restrictions they had envisioned, they were also unable to secure the conservative policy riders they had sought to stop the “weaponization” of the Justice Department, with most of the truly contentious proposals stripped out because Democrats would not accept them. Hulse pulled the same thing in a March 8 "news analysis," with six uses of "far right" and an "ultraconservative" to boot. Nobody in Hulse's House is on the "far left."

Fox's 'The Cleaning Lady' Glorifies Illegals, Makes Cartel Leader Heroic

Fox's drama The Cleaning Lady is a propaganda vehicle for open borders advocates. Last night, it romanticized illegals and portrayed a cartel leader as someone who cares about his human cargo. The series revolves around Thony (Elodie Yung), a crime scene "cleaner" for a fictional Mexican cartel. On Tuesday's episode, "Agua, Fuego, Tierra, Viento," Thony drives through the desert border to rescue her sister-in-law Fiona (Martha Millan) and nephew Chris (Sean Lew).  Fiona and Chris are illegal immigrants from the Philippines. They were deported last season and are trying to sneak back into the country again with Thony's help. Fiona and Chris got separated from their coyote and are lost in the desert. As they struggle to survive, angelic Fiona gives her son a speech about how the illegals who came before them in that same desert "risked everything to get a better life than what they had."  Fiona: Okay? Everything out here tells you a story of someone who had the guts to do this. Okay? Who risked everything to get a better life than what they had. People like Camila and Gizelle, they came from nothing -- nothing. The rain stopped. The crops dried out. They were left with nothing to eat. You think they came out here to die? They fight and they don't give up.  Thony sets out into the desert to find them after they don't arrive with the coyote. Jorge (Santiago Cabrera), a murderous cartel leader who facilitated the illegals' journey, helps Thony in her search. Is the audience supposed to believe a cartel thug actually cares about these people's lives? The episode's villains are instead American vigilantes who hunt down and kill illegals in the desert. The vigilantes are white, of course, and their caricatured dialogue is cringeworthy. The female vigilante is named "Barbie" and her male companion is dumb and creepy. Like so many network shows, the bloodthirsty pair are a left-wing fantasy of illegal immigration opponents. Male Vigilante: On your knees. On your knees! Both of you.  Jorge: Hey, we're just out here hunting, amigo, and I don't think you want any trouble.  Male Vigilante: That's funny. We're out here hunting, too, and it looks like we just got lucky. Alpha, we got ourselves some drug mules, maybe Coyotes.  Man: Roger that Delta. We just spotted a cargo truck that might have about a dozen aliens in it. [ Laughs ]  Male Vigilante: Copy that. Where are you from?  Thony: Las Vegas. Male Vigilante: Oh, come on. Where are you really from?  Thony: Cambodia.  Male Vigilante:  Whoo! Did you hear that, Barbie? All the way from Cam-bo-di-a. They're crawling in from every crevice. What do you all call that? La cucaracha? [ Laughs ]  Jorge: Yeah. Why don't you crawl back to whatever trailer park you came -- [ Yelps ] ♪ Put the gun down now! Put it down! Male Vigilante: Come on. Shoot him, Barbie!  Jorge: Barbie, don't listen to this scumbag. Put the gun down! [ Gunshot ]  Network shows portray white Americans as so stupid and evil that you have to wonder why anyone from another country would want to live in the United States if this fiction were really true. Jorge and Thony leave the two Americans in the desert to die. "Let the animals take care of them. They can see what it's like," Jorge says. Jorge is a murderous human trafficker who is angry at the Americans for being cruel. Jorge and Thony find Fiona and Chris and reunite them with friends and family in the United States. Everyone is one big, happy family again. Hollywood regularly pushes open borders narratives, but "Agua, Fuego, Tierra, Viento" was one of the most infuriating episodes I've seen on television. It dripped with hatred of the United States, glorified illegal activity and made a human trafficker look heroic.  The Cleaning Lady is currently on its third season despite low ratings. Let's hope this season will be the last of this awful show.

Non-Binary Dragons, Gay Camp & Anti-Capitalist Freak Outs

Welcome to Woke of the Weak where I’ll update you about the most woke, progressive, insane, and crazy clips and stories that the left thinks is tolerable and well, point out why exactly they’re nuts. What’s the difference between sugar and Splenda? What about between poultry and lab grown “chicken”? Or cow milk verses non-dairy creamer? Or the difference between speaking with a real representative or a robot? Well, the first ones of each of the series are real - whereas the second ones are fake, they’re artificial.  Something else that’s artificial is the so-called "happiness" that many people on the left convince themselves that they possess when in reality it’s all fake. All this woke identity crap may bring temporary satisfaction but long term happiness? Not a chance. This week we took a look at how lefties root themselves in things of this world and yet, are confused when ultimately, they end up unhappy.  We started out by hearing from a woman who expressed her deep hatred for America and hard work via an all-out tantrum.  Another lady twerked at a restaurant in a hot pink thong-type-thing. Unfortunately kids were present for the "show" and likely felt the gyrations from their seats. Next we saw a girl pretending to be a boy explain one of the greatest days of “his” life. The day she was called a “sir” at the grocery market. A different trannie explained something else that’s artificial: the “periods” of transgender women. Fake news alert!!! We even heard from a transgender man ( a woman) who doesn’t feel that she fits fully into a “male” specific box nor into any box and then another freak who explained how he identified as a dragon and wanted to say “bye bye” to his balls. Singer Sam Smith graced us with his presence by getting a necklace that said “SEX” placed around his neck during a concert. I think that Smith is a great representation of what non-binary Satan would look like … that, or the next freak in our video who had black lips, red hair and red eyeballs. As one more element of delusion, we played a video advertisement for a LGBTQ family camp in Georgia! I know where I WON’T be sending my kids.  

Column: Hyperbolic MSNBC's Ronna McDaniel Debacle

The word broke on March 26 that NBC News was reversing its decision to hire former Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel as a political commentator. MSNBC hosts across the schedule broke out into frenzied denunciations of whichever executive who thought that McDaniel should be paid to speak anywhere on this hypnotically/robotically anti-Trump network. In one of her typical half-hour jeremiads, Rachel Maddow compared McDaniel to a mobster and a pickpocket. “You wouldn't -- you wouldn't hire a wiseguy, you wouldn't hire a made man, like a mobster to work at a DA's office, right? You wouldn't hire a pickpocket to work as a TSA screener. And so I find the decision to put her on the payroll inexplicable. And I hope they will reverse their decision.” There was no need for NBC News to hire McDaniel. One can look at the election results during her tenure at the RNC and question her expertise at winning elections. But this mobster talk underlines once again that MSNBC is not a “news” channel. It’s a hyperbole channel, constantly fearmongering its audience that the end times are near for democracy. Maddow claimed this hiring wasn’t about Republicans vs. Democrats. It’s about “bad actors trying to use the rights and privileges of democracy to end democracy.” There are no “fact checkers” who will get in the way of this talk. Maddow is like Bluto in Animal House saying “when the Germans invaded Pearl Harbor.” Facts don’t matter. Rallying your audience is all that matters. This was the essence of Maddow’s rant: "I want to associate myself with all my colleagues both at MSNBC and at NBC News who have voiced loud and principled objections to our company putting on the payroll someone who hasn't just attacked us as journalists, but someone who is part of an ongoing project to get rid of our system of government. Someone who still is trying to convince Americans that this election stuff, it doesn't really work. That this last election, it wasn't a real result. That American elections are fraudulent." Every conservative who’s ever watched Maddow lowlights knows that she was a leader in the Collusion Corps, someone who obsessed night after night over how the 2016 election was fraudulent because the Russians interfered with it. MSNBC doesn’t suggest that every election is fraudulent. It’s only when Democrats lose that they imply (for years) that it was fraudulent. Since Hillary Clinton lost the election in 2016 and ran around telling people it was stolen from her, Maddow has hosted a series of fawnathons with her. They discussed why Vladimir Putin decided to back Trump in 2016. In 2018, Hillary even suggested the Russians may have used the National Rifle Association to funnel money into the election. Maddow concluded by lobbying the executives who allow her on air: “Acknowledge that maybe it wasn't the right call. It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to acknowledge when you are wrong. It is a sign of strength. And our country needs us to be strong right now." That may be the funniest line of all. Maddow is notorious for refusing to concede she’s wrong, especially about Trump. In 2019, Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple constructed a devastating timeline of all of Maddow’s promotions of the baseless dungpile called the Steele Dossier. He noted Maddow called it “creepy” and “unwarranted” when journalist Michael Isikoff said she’d “given a lot of credence” to the dossier on his podcast.  Why couldn’t she acknowledge she was wrong? Instead, “Maddow declined to provide an on-the-record response to the Erik Wemple Blog.”

MSNBC Hosts Spike The Football After NBC’s Firing Of Ronna McDaniel

Several of the hosts at MSNBC, pleased with having cowed leadership into terminating the contract of former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel, took to the air and celebrated the ouster in an eye roll-inducing display of pious self-congratulation. The inmates rejoice, secure in the knowledge that they do, in fact, run the asylum. The evening began innocently enough, with Ari Melber soberly breaking the news and reading, without really any subsequent dunking, the statement put forth by NBCUniversal News Chairman Cesar Conde (click “expand”): ARI MELBER: We want to turn now to an update from NBC News. NBC News leadership has announced that former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel will not be an NBC News contributor. We have a new email and update that's come out just within this hour, so this is sort of breaking news here within our organization on a story that has garnered significant attention and criticism. And what I'm going to do now, to be very clear, is read the entire update from NBCUniversal News Group Chairman Cesar Conde. He has written in this new email, quote: “There's no doubt that the last several days have been difficult for the news group. After listening to the concerns of many of you, I have decided that Ronna McDaniel will not be an NBC News contributor.” He goes on to write that “no organization, particularly a newsroom, can succeed unless it is cohesive and aligned. Over the last few days, it has become clear that this  appointment undermines that goal.” The news chairman continues to say, quote, “I want to personally apologize to our team members who felt we let them down. While this was a collective recommendation by some members of our leadership team, I approved it and take full responsibility for it”, says Cesar Conde, the chairman. He explains, quote, “Our initial decision was made because of our deep commitment to presenting our audiences with a widely diverse set of viewpoints and experiences, particularly during these consequential times.” And then, in closing, this message which again is brand-new. We're airing it for the first time here on MSNBC having come out this hour- quote: “we continue to be committed to the principle that we must have diverse viewpoints on our programs and to that end, we will redouble our efforts to seek voices that represent different parts of the political spectrum”, end quote. If you watch MSNBC as you probably do if you're listening to me right now or you follow news media and politics, this has been a roiling debate since that initial announcement was made on Friday. Many people have weighed in and now the News Chairman says, in response to the legitimate criticism including on this channel, Ms. McDaniel will not be a contributor here. That is the news update. Other than “legitimate criticism”, Melber said nothing really out of the ordinary and handled the story matter-of-factly.  The same can not be said for Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow, who took a victory lap and celebrated their heckler’s veto (click “expand”):  JOY REID: Another thing happened that is not about the abortion situation. Our chairman of the NBC Universal News Group, Cesar Conde, who we both know very well, he sent a memo that we all got as employees here, rescinding the hiring of Ronna Romney-McDaniel. And I know I felt strongly about it, I know you felt very strongly about it- I think everyone from 4 o’clock on, from Nicolle to midnight, we all felt very strongly and said so on our respective shows yesterday. And I just have to say, when somebody does the right thing, I feel like it should be acknowledged as publicly as we acknowledge our outrage. And so I know how I feel about it. I am grateful to Cesar for actually making the right decision. I think it was the right decision. But I want to get your take as well. RACHEL MADDOW: Thank you for asking me about it. I still feel like- I still feel like a little -- it always feels wrong to talk about things, you know, in the company as if it's news.  REID:  Agreed.  MADDOW: It's not the way either you or I are wired. But I will just say that journalists are a fractious bunch, and in our big company with all sorts of different journalistic entities you have all sorts of different people working in this business doing all sorts of different work. And to see the, essentially, unanimous feeling among all of the journalists in this building and also our senior staff and all the producers and everybody in this building about this was one thing. But then to see the executives and the leadership hear that, and respond to it, and be willing to change course based on it, based on their respect for us and hearing what we argued, I have deep respect for that. I do- I mean what I said on the air last night in my show, that I think that acknowledging that you might have gotten something wrong is a real sign of strength, a real show of strength. And I think it's a show of strength and I think it’s a show of respect for the people who work at this company and who make us who we are. That leadership was willing to change on this, and I'm grateful to them. You know, it's not about hiring a Republican. It’s not even about hiring somebody who has Trump ties. This was a really specific case because of Ms. McDaniel’s- her involvement in the election interference stuff. And I'm grateful that our leadership was willing to do the, I think, the bold, strong, resilient thing.  REID: Yeah. I mean, we're going to be using her name because she's a witness in the Michigan electors case. It's less awkward to have to say, “and by the way, this person works for NBC News”. We're glad we don’t have to do that. A recurring theme here is the insistence from some of these propagandists on calling themselves journalists. Especially Maddow, who willfully spread some of the most egregious lies on the efficacy of the Covid vaccine and who gleefully reported the Russia Hoax as factual. What does this all say about Cesar conde, who allowed himself to be held hostage on personnel decisions by a bunch of partisan propagandists? We then move on to Chris Hayes, whose take reminds us of the old South Park episode about the “Pious” sedan (click “expand”).  CHRIS HAYES: A couple of hours ago, NBC News announced that Ronna Romney-McDaniel, the former chairperson of the Republican National Committee, will not be a contributor to the network. This comes four days after NBC News announced her hiring as a political analyst. As you might know, we don't have a show on weekends or Mondays and between then and now I've been closely following the news and talking to lots of people inside the company. And most of what I wanted to say about al this has already been said very well by my colleagues from people like Chuck Todd and Joe Scarborough, to Nicolle Wallace and Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and others. There’s a reason so many people had this reaction. It’s not because McDaniel is a Republican or a conservative and everyone thought, “oh no a Republican on NBC News”. We all recognize a variety of views is vitally important in understanding our country and doing good programming. The reason this precipitated the visceral gut reaction that it did is that there's just a pretty bright red line in American life after January 6th. On one side of that line are people who aided and abetted this attempt to end the democratic system as we know it. To steal a free and fair election. An attempt that, as Rachel noted last night, is ongoing. It’s very much still happening. There’s lots of Republicans who tried to stop that. But Ronna Romney-McDaniel is unfortunately on the wrong side of that red line. She aided and abetted in the biggest attack to destroy American democracy since the Civil War. She helped perpetuate lies that Donald Trump told as part of his plot to overthrow the constitutional order. As members of the press, as democratic citizens I, we believe in democracy as a system. We’re pro-democracy. We want to keep the system going. People involved in the kind of work we do every day are also signed on to that basic project, I think. And we are in this business at a time when the information environment has never been more polluted and more confusing. More people try to pass off dubious stories and lies. It's important for us to do the best we can to tell the truth all the time and everyone is going to make mistakes. Lord knows we certainly make them. But the big lie of a stolen election is one of the most consequential, systematic lies told in recent memory, probably up there with all the lies about the vaccine, both of which have incredibly damaging effects and both of which have really destroyed the credibility of the people and institutions and the political parties and the corporations that are associated with them. In the end, all you can really ask of people in our profession is diligence, and open-mindedness, and critical thinking, and above all else and this is really important to me, good faith. When I'm speaking to you here right now I'm not putting on a show about what I think and believe. This is it. I could be wrong about things, Lord knows I must be sometimes. I might have opinions you think are wrong, we might tell stories in ways that you think leave stuff out or emphasize a wrong angle but the key to this entire enterprise is the kind of bedrock trust- the trust that we that we really are acting in good faith. We really are trying to get it right. We are not feeding you lies to be good team players. It’s a foundational principle for both working in the press and, I think, healthy democratic dialogue and debate. Whatever your ideology is, wherever you come down on issues, whoever you support for president. Whatever you believe in. And I have to say- I really appreciate working at a place that was able to say, “we got this one wrong”, and they made the right decision. Again, the biggest fraud here is these guys insisting that they be taken seriously as “journalists”. Say what you want about Ronna, but she’s the most transparent out of everyone involved in this sorry episode. Hayes has some chutzpah talking about polluted information environments, given MSNBC’s role (and the corporate media’s writ large) in polluting the information environment. Finally, there’s Alex Wagner, who echoes some of Hayes’ thematics but seems less enamored with the sound of her own voice (click “expand”): ALEX WAGNER: Before we go, I do have an update on a story that some of you may have been following in recent days. NBC News has announced tonight that it has dropped former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel as a paid on-air contributor. Now, that decision comes less than a week after this company announced Ms. McDaniel's hiring, and it is due in no small part to the efforts here both in front of the camera and behind it, to make clear that her hiring was a very serious mistake. A lot of my colleagues in prime time here, actually all of them, are weighing in on this so I'm not going to belabor the point except to say election denial lists do not belong on the payroll of a news organization. People who seek to undermine democracy should not be contracted to work at an institution that seeks to preserve it. Tonight the man who is the boss of all of us, NBCUniversal News Group Chairman Cesar Conde, confirmed that Ronna McDaniel would not be an NBC News contributor either. In a note to the staff he said, “no organization, particularly a newsroom, can succeed unless it is cohesive and aligned. Over the last few days it has become clear that this appointment undermines that goal”. Through the last few days, we have been given license to say what we felt was wrong with this call. And so I also think it's important to speak up when we feel like the right thing was done. Companies make mistakes. Sometimes very big ones, sometimes very publicly. What matters especially, in the end, is how they correct them. And from what we can see right now, at this hour, it looks like our company listened to us, to you, and did what was right.  Thankfully, both Ali Velshi (sitting in for Lawrence O’Donnell) and Stephanie Ruhle spared us the indignity of additional hot takery and preening triumphalism. But the fact remains that MSNBC flexed veto power over a personnel decision, and this will have repercussions beyond McDaniel.  What happens when the MSNBC mob howls over the hiring of someone who advocates against puberty blockers for minors, or for the unborn, or who thinks that the United States should wind down its assistance to Ukraine? Getting a commentator fired over J6 may seem like low-hanging fruit today, but it is in fact a slippery slope. Cesar Conde caved to the MSNBC mob, plain and simple. And the mob is never, ever fully placated.  
Before yesterdayNB Blog Feed

OFF THE RAILS: The Network Evening Newscasts OMIT Biden’s Baltimore Bridge Gaffe

Once again, President Joe Biden has committed a major gaffe while addressing the media. And once again the media, always in Protect the Precious mode, pretend that it never even happened. Watch as Biden opens his remarks on the tragic accident at the Francis Scott Key Bridge with a personal anecdote: PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: At about 1:30, a container ship struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge which I’ve been over many, many times commuting from the State of Delaware by train or by car. I’ve been to Baltimore Harbor many times. This is usually the red flag that a less partisan media would be on the lookout for. There are many such instances that simply get written off as folksy Bidenisms, such as his claims of being simultaneously raised in the rough-and-tumble Puerto Rican and Polish neighborhoods of Scranton, PA, depending on the audience being pandered to. Biden’s claim of commuting over the Francis Scott Key Bridge is equally suspect- because the bridge never had any rail lines. Per The New York Post: President Biden on Tuesday was fact-checked by social media users after claiming that he’s commuted over Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge “many, many times …  either on a train or by car.”  Numerous people on X noted that the bridge, which fell into the Patapsco River early Tuesday morning after being struck by a massive cargo ship, has never had rail lines attached to it.  … Biden, who claims to have traveled over one million miles aboard Amtrak over the course of his 36 years in the Senate and 8 years as vice president, was skewered for “inserting himself” into yet another tragedy.  Adding insult to injury, The White House tried to gaslight the Post into believing that Biden only meant commuting by car. The White House told The Post that Biden was only making reference to having driven over the bridge. “The President was clearly describing driving over the bridge while commuting between Delaware and D.C. during his 36-year Senate career,’ White House spokesperson Robyn Patterson said in a statement. Congratulations to Patterson on acing her MSNBC audition. Unsurprisingly, none of the major evening newscasts covered this egregious fabrication. Facts and accuracy seem to only matter when covering Republicans. Biden, on the other hand, can make stuff up with impunity- secure in the fact that the media will more often than not provide cover for his fabrications and increasingly frequent cognitive lapses.  

‘Pretentious Bull****’: NewsNation Takes on NBC Journos Attacking New GOP Hire

Hours before news broke that NBC News may be firing their newly hired Republican political analyst, former RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, NewsNation stuck it to their cable news rival. During Monday night’s Cuomo, correspondent at-large Geraldo Rivera called out their “pretentious bullshit,” and host Chris Cuomo proclaimed that “the hypocrisy reeks” at the network. Cuomo led into the segment by calling out his former morning show rivals (when he co-hosted CNN’s New Day) for their rank “hypocrisy” in calling for McDaniel’s ouster when they benefitted from being pals with Donald Trump before he got elected: Look, I have no beef. But it was okay for you, Mika [Brzezinski] and Joe [Scarborough], to have Trump on all the time to talk to him about what questions to ask, right? When it was working for you when he was running, right? When you guys are all pals, that was ok, right? You have any problem with that, right? Just because you went bad on him when it became convenient because you work at a lefty outlet. This is okay now you can be high-minded about it, right? The hypocrisy reeks! When asked for his take, the first words out of Rivera’s mouth were “Screw them!” “I mean, the whole idea is that they were hiring her to be the ultimate insider. And here she gets washed or she gets drowned by this tsunami of pretensions bullshit,” he added. “Really, all of these people that have a stick up there behind, how dare they.” Rivera took on McDaniel’s most prominent naysayers: Brzezinski and Chuck Todd: “When did she become management? When did she become, you know, the arbiter of who got hired and who doesn't get hired? And Chuck Todd, I don't remember his years, his nine years at Meet The Press as being exactly triumphant.”     Continuing to focus on the Morning Joe crew, Cuomo pointed out “the bias at play” in how their friends in the liberal media didn’t have an issue with their buddy-buddy relationship with Trump during the 2016 election cycle: I was against them in the morning at CNN and I still beat them twice even with them having Trump on all the time. And you remember the tape that came out, Geraldo, of them in break asking Trump about what questions to ask next and how they were going to do their next segment of the town hall. And nobody got upset about it. It was there and gone because all the reporters want to be on their show iin the morning. But now they have standards about what's right and what's wrong. It's all advantage. It's all hypocrisy. Following a recounting from Rivera about a similar protest against him at ABC (you can check that out in the transcript below), he defended McDaniel as “a perfect hire 8 months before the election. Who knows more about the mechanics of the Republican Party than she does?” Cuomo agreed: “Alright, she's coming on. I guarantee you she would have exposed things, she would explain things in a way that would be satisfying to that audience. You make such a huge mistake when you limit who you talk to to be the people who already agree with you.” As they were nearing the end of the segment, Cuomo told the NBCers that they needed to “get out of the silos,” but warned that “their talent has come out and shown you what they're about. They are not as tolerant on voices.” “But you guys did the wrong thing with Trump when it and now you've gotten religion on it,” he scolded Scarborough and Brzezinski. “But remember what you did, you're lucky to get thrown out on your ass because of it. Now, you not affording the same sympathies going forward. I just think it's a hypocrisy thing.” Seeming almost prophetic in hindsight, Rivera’s final advice for McDaniel was to wait it out and maybe have a nice payday in court: “My thought is that I hope she tells them all to screw it, she's sticking around, forces them to fire her and then sues them for millions because that they have humiliated her in a very, very unjust way.” Perhaps NewsNation saw the writing on the wall and were making an on-air play to appeal to McDaniel if/when NBC gave her the boot. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: NewsNation’s Cuomo March 25, 2024 8:39:29 p.m. Eastern (…) CHRIS CUOMO: NBC hires her. I'm sure other people we're trying to get her. But now everybody's mad. Now, this happens in the media. Somebody hire somebody that other people would have hired as well, but they attacked the place that hired her. But this is coming in-house; big shots inside NBC like Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski. She said this. [Cuts to video] MIKA BRZEZINSKI: And we hope NBC will reconsider its decision. It goes without saying that she will not be a guest on Morning Joe in her capacity as a paid contributor. [Cuts back to live] CUOMO: Look, I have no beef. But it was okay for you, Mika and Joe, to have Trump on all the time to talk to him about what questions to ask, right? When it was working for you when he was running, right? When you guys are all pals, that was ok, right? You have any problem with that, right? Just because you went bad on him when it became convenient because you work at a lefty outlet. This is okay now you can be high-minded about it, right? The hypocrisy reeks!   NewsNation correspondent at-large Geraldo Rivera. Look, I get making the decision not to hire McDaniel, but the idea that NBC News, Chuck Todd, or Mika Brzezinski, or Joe Scarborough are offended. What do you make of it? GERALDO RIVER: Screw them! I mean, I like everyone you just named. I don't know Chuck Todd, but Mike and Joe and I heard Nicolle Wallace said something bad against the Ronna McDaniel. I mean, the whole idea is that they were hiring her to be the ultimate insider. And here she gets washed or she gets drowned by this tsunami of pretensions bullshit. Really, all of these people that have a stick up there behind, how dare they. And for Mika to say NBC shouldn't hire them. When did she become management? When did she become you know, the - the - the - the arbiter of who got hired and who doesn't get hired. And Chuck Todd, I don't remember his years, his nine years at Meet The Press as being exactly triumphant. You know, she is the ultimate insider and to say that they don't want to hire her now because of election denialism. Well, then you don't want half the country to watch your network because half country is Republican more or less. And they – they believe a lot of them or at least they've convinced themselves about election being a, you know, fraudulent or whatever it is. Now, I think that she's wrong. I think that the Republican Party is going off the cliff. But the fact is they hired her to be who she is, who she was and for them now, these other talent, you know, some of past their prime to – to go after her and then they won't have her. I think that's – that's baloney. CUOMO: I mean, look, I like it on one level. Okay? One is Ronna McDaniel and all the Trumpers beyond the pale from what they're used to see? Yes, they advanced things that go beyond questions of fact, unarguable questions? However, now you see the bias at play, especially when it comes to Mika and Joe. I was against them in the morning at CNN and I still beat them twice even with them having Trump on all the time. And you remember the tape that came out, Geraldo, of them in break asking Trump about what questions to ask next and how they were going to do their next segment of the town hall. And nobody got upset about it. It was there and gone because all the reporters want to be on their show iin the morning. But now they have standards about what's right and what's wrong. It's all advantage. It's all hypocrisy. RIVERA: It's also pretension and – and a bogus I’m holier than thou. I remember way in 1977. Go way back to very brief story. I was on Good Morning America and I had a show called Good Night America. Roone Arledge, the legendary boss of ABC got the big gig. He says to me, “I want you on the evening news.” It was the Son of Sam. Son of Sam was happening. “No one knows New York better than you Geraldo. I want you on it.” Ted Koppel and a bunch of guys from the Washington bureau of ABC. Ted Kopple tells this story Arledge’s eulogy. Now they want to Roone Arledge and said, “You can’t hire Geraldo, he's not one of us. He’s not professional. He’s done all this crazy stuff. And we're going to resign.” Roone Arledge said, “Okay. Put your resignation on the desk.” And I went on and I stayed on and screw them. And since then I all of these, you know, that holier than thou, lecturey, pompous, I'm going to be Walter Cronkite – You know, so many anchors have said to me or said to others, “He's a he's not fit for—“ And 54 years later, I'm still I'm still here, after I started because the American people have made a decision about me. Television’s a lie detector. You look right through it. She’s a perfect hire 8 months before the election. Who knows more about the mechanics of the Republican Party than she does? You know, and if you're going to find Republicans who except the 2020 results as legit, you know, good luck to you and your search. CUOMO: Look, I just think that you've got to get out of the silos. At least MSNBC. Their talent has come out and shown you what they're about. They are not as tolerant on voices. Now, you can say, “No, these people lie.” A lot of people lie. Alright, she's coming on. I guarantee you she would have exposed things, she would explain things in a way that would be satisfying to that audience. You make such a huge mistake when you limit who you talk to to be the people who already agree with you. And they're making that mistake. But at least they let you know. And I know they're going to come back at me. It's not done with animus. I wish them well. I think Mika Brzezinski cares about what she does. I think that's basically true about Joe Scarborough too. But you guys did the wrong thing with Trump when it and now you've gotten religion on it. But remember what you did, you're lucky to get thrown out on your ass because of it. Now, you not affording the same sympathies going forward. I just think it's a hypocrisy thing. I got to jump. Do you have a last button? RIVERA: My thought is that I hope she tells them all to screw it, she's sticking around, forces them to fire her and then sues them for millions because that they have humiliated her in a very, very unjust way. CUOMO: And also from management. I never got to decide who comes on my show and who doesn't. That was always the bosses. RIVERA: Exactly. Exactly. CUOMO: You know, and it is now too, by the way. And look, I'm at different level of the game, but if they say they want somebody on, they say they want me to go somewhere. I go. That's what being an employee is all about. (…)

Dan Bongino Blasts 60 Minutes as ‘Goon Hack Commie Network’ for ‘Misinformation’ Segment

Syndicated radio host Dan Bongino scorched 60 Minutes for its latest hot take on “misinformation” before the 2024 election and pointed out that the network was not exactly reputed for being truthful. Bongino addressed a recent 60 Minutes segment on The Dan Bongino Show on Monday. The theme of the segment was that a group of “misinformation researchers” were concerned about not being able to control the narrative ahead of the 2024 election. “The bottom line is this. There is a group of people, it’s not a group of Spider-Man/Venom-like characters, and what they’re doing, is they’re out there trying to control, manipulate, gaslight and brainwash people,” Bongino said of this shadowy group of researchers.    “The information nuclear war is exploding,” Bongino told his audience. He warned that there is  an “information warfare going on right now where lefties are desperate to try and control the narrative.” Bongino had some not-too-flattering words to spare for the 60 Minutes show.  “60 Minutes, the goon hack commie network, communist network, I mean what I say,” Bongino said of the television program. “It is a straight agitprop propaganda network full of bullshitters and liars, [they] ran an entire piece last night attacking Elon, attacking social media companies. Attacking it for what? For not censoring more.” Bongino not only took issue with the stance of 60 Minutes; he also pointed out the sheer hypocrisy of the network smearing dissenting views as untruths when they have spread many fibs of their own. “So 60 Minutes — the network that ran with the pee pee hoax, the network that refused to tell the truth when they knew the Hunter laptop was likely real — is running a segment on disinformation attacking conservatives who expose them?” Bongino asked rhetorically.  Bongino appeared offended at the intellectual dishonesty of the network, saying: “Folks, this is the biggest F.U. I have ever seen to America.”   However, Bongino was not simply concerned with the 60 Minutes segment. He attributed it to a much larger last-ditch effort by “the blob” or “the Deep State” to maintain control of the narrative ahead of the elections. Drawing attention to an NBC News report on the topic of misinformation, Bongino further scolded: “You think this is a coincidence that research universities and research groups—that have spent millions if not billions of dollars around the globe working with governments and NGOs trying to censor you—are now afraid they’re losing control before an election? So 60 Minutes does an attack on conservatives for attacking these fake groups that are trying to censor you, and NBC writes a piece just what? A couple days before. You think that’s a coincidence, right?” 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.

Well That Was Fast: NBC Already Reportedly Planning to Drop Ronna McDaniel

Looks like the last two days of on-air temper tantrums by MSNBC hosts have paid off. According to Puck News founding partner and senior correspondent Dylan Byers, NBC News executives already plan to remove former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel as a paid contributor.  Just after 1 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, Byers tweeted: “NBC NEWS plans to drop ex RNC-chair Ronna McDaniel as a paid contributor following on-air revolt from NBC/MSNBC talent. Execs are deliberating over details; announcement pending. Meanwhile, McDaniel is seeking legal representation.” By “on-air revolt,” Byers was referring to Monday’s outpouring of sanctimony by MSNBC hosts Joy Reid, Mika Brzezinski, Nicolle Wallace, Rachel Maddow, and others. We’ve put together a compilation of the highlights from yesterday:     The unanimous outrage from on-air talent reportedly forced MSNBC head Rashida Jones to announce that the cable network’s hosts would not be required to have McDaniel on their shows. But that didn’t put a stop to the tirades. Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski slammed McDaniel as “an anti-democracy election denier,” and urged the network to “reconsider its decision.” Her co-host Joe Scarborough added: “We weren’t asked our opinion of the hiring, but if we were, we would have strongly objected to it.” Hours later on Deadline: White House, host Nicolle Wallace was aghast that the network would even consider allowing an “election denier” onto “our sacred airwaves.” That evening, Longtime MSNBC prognosticator Rachel Maddow spent several agonizing minutes listing all the reasons she objected: The fact that Ms. McDaniel is on the payroll at NBC News, to me, that is inexplicable. You wouldn’t — you wouldn’t — you wouldn’t hire, like, a wise guy. You wouldn’t hire a made man, like a mobster, to work at a DA’s office, right? You wouldn’t hire a pickpocket to work as a TSA screener. Apparently the mere presence of a Trump-endorsed former RNC head is all it takes to cause a riot over at MSNBC these days.

Joy Reid Cites Her Guest Hosts To Claim She Doesn't Mind Hiring Republicans

MSNBC’s Joy Reid was not the only NBC and MSNBC employee to lament the hiring of former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel, but she may have been the most unintentionally hilarious. The noted election denier used Monday’s edition of The ReidOut to claim that she has no problems with the network hiring Republicans because some of them even guest host her show, the most left-wing show on the country’s most left-wing TV channel. During a discussion with The Bulwark’s Charlie Sykes and Vanity Fair’s Molly Jong-Fast, Reid declared that her and others’ opposition to McDaniel’s hiring “is not about having not Republicans on. My good friend Michael Steele is the former, also, RNC chair. Who guests hosts this show and my friend.”     It’s nice that Reid and Steele are friends, but simply being friends doesn’t mean you're qualified to host a show. The fact that Steele guest hosts The ReidOut and fills in for other MSNBC progressives means Reid and her colleagues trust him to tell viewers what they want to hear. Reid was just getting started, “One of the best broadcasters on this network is Nicolle Wallace, who is a brilliant broadcaster and a former Republican, who worked for a president I was literally in a campaign to work against: George W. Bush.” Wallace also worked for John McCain's, the quintessential moderate Republican that MSNBC claims to love, 2008 presidential campaign, and she still didn’t vote for him. Still, Reid proceeded, “I wish more Republicans— I want Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney to get right here and come talk to me. The reality is, this isn't a difference of opinion. She literally backed an illegal scheme to steal an election in the state of Michigan.” Jong-Fast naturally agreed, “Right, it's not about partisanship. We have to be pro-democracy and that's the goal here and it's fine to have your own views, but you can't have your own reality and we all know that the 2020 election was free and fair and she couldn't even say it on Sunday.  While MSNBC is criticizing McDaniel for her 2020 views, it should be noted that CNN once hacked up its own interview of McDaniel to give a false impression of what she said, while MSNBC took the butchered version and portrayed it as real. Jong-Fast added, “She is still saying there were problems with it. The problems were—was a global pandemic and that’s what happened. A global pandemic. I mean, that was really, I do think, and I would also add, that the road to authoritarianism is paved with people like Ronna, people who repeat the lies they know are not true.”  Reid claims to care about defending the truth against conspiracy theorists, but she spreads election-related conspiracy theories all the time.   Here is a transcript for the March 25 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 3/25/2024 7:51 PM ET JOY REID: And look, this is not about having not Republicans on.  MOLLY JONG-FAST: Right. REID: My good friend Michael Steele is the former, also, RNC chair.  JONG-FAST: Yes. REID: Who guests hosts this show-- JONG-FAST: Yes. REID: -- and my friend, one of the best broadcasters on this network is Nicolle Wallace— JONG-Fast: Yes. REID: -- who is a brilliant broadcaster and a former Republican, who worked for a president I was literally in a campaign to work against: George W. Bush. JONG-Fast: Yes. REID: It is not about that— JONG-FAST: No. REID: -- we welcome Republican voi— JONG-FAST: Right. REID: I wish more Republicans— I want Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney to get right here-- JONG-Fast: Yes. REID: -- and come talk to me. The reality is, this isn't a difference of opinion. She literally backed an illegal scheme to steal an election in the state of Michigan.  JONG-FAST: Right, it's not about partisanship. We have to be pro-democracy— REID: That’s right. JONG-FAST: -- and that's the goal here and it's fine to have your own views— REID: Absolutely. JONG-FAST: -- but you can't have your own reality and we all know that the 2020 election was free and fair and she couldn't even say it on Sunday.  REID: She’s still not saying it. JONG-FAST: She is still saying there were problems with it. The problems were—was a global pandemic and that’s what happened.  REID: Yeah. JONG-FAST: A global pandemic. I mean that was really, I do think, and I would also add, that the road to authoritarianism is paved with people like Ronna, people who repeat the lies they know are not true. 

MRC President Bozell to Google CEO: Give Us ‘Concrete Proof’ You Aren’t Interfering in US Elections

The Media Research Center has put Google on notice: Enough is enough. MRC President Brent Bozell is calling on the CEO of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, to disprove MRC Free Speech America’s findings that the tech giant has meddled in U.S. elections at least 41 times in the past 16 years to favor the most left-wing candidates. In a Tuesday letter addressed to Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, Bozell posed a simple but critical demand: Provide “concrete proof” Google is not interfering in U.S. elections or face the consequences.  “Americans demand answers, and either way, I will make sure they have them,” Bozell wrote in the one-page letter. “If I do not hear from you by April 9, I will have no choice but to make your recalcitrance public.” Bozell’s remarks came after the publication of a scorching Special Report by MRC Free Speech America that compiled at least 41 times when Google interfered in U.S. elections since 2008 when Barack Obama and his radical left-wing agenda were first propelled to power. Fast forward to 2024 and Google is now helping President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign, the MRC report unveiled. Read the Special Report Here! 41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008 Despite the growing condemnation aimed at Google, the tech giant has yet to provide concrete proof that dispels MRC’s findings. “We have waited over a week for Google to provide a substantive rebuttal,” Bozell added, referencing Google’s weak response to the MRC’s findings a week prior. In remarks to Fox News—the outlet granted exclusive access to the report—a Google spokesperson chastised the MRC Special Report as a “recycled list of baseless” and “inaccurate complaints. Tellingly, the Google spokesperson cited not a single source of evidence to back the tech giant’s claims. In the letter, MRC President Bozell highlighted disturbing remarks from Jenn Gennai,  a director of Google’s Responsible Innovation Team, who was caught on a 2019 video suggesting that the tech giant had the power to block then-President Donald Trump from clinching victory in 2020. Highlighting Gennai’s remarks, Bozell further explained: “Since your own executives have promised to use your company’s resources to push left-wing causes and values, including ‘preventing the next Trump situation,’ it is incumbent on you to provide concrete proof that Google is no longer interfering in the 2024 presidential election and that it did not interfere in previous elections as outlined in our study.” MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider, who co-authored the Special Report, echoed Bozell’s sentiments, saying: “Our researchers have done excellent, honest, ethical work showing what Google does in the dark of night to swing elections in favor of their candidates of choice. Never once has Google denied that it buried Republican presidential candidates' websites. Not once. For Google now to claim that our work has been refuted is as false as their claim that they are unbiased.”  In his letter, Bozell did not mince words about Google’s undisputable impact in U.S. elections. He said that the tech giant, with its “huge reach” and “massive budget,” is “fighting against the values that allowed it to become one of the largest corporations in history.”  

INSANE Kathy Griffin Defends Pic Holding Trump’s Bloody Severed Head

Revisionist history and hypocrisy were once again the theme of ABC’s The View, on Tuesday. So-called “comedian” Kathy Griffin was one of the special guests, there to pitch her new “comedy” tour, and she defended her infamous picture of her holding up an effigy of then-President Trump’s bloody severed head. She got raucous support from the Cackling Coven for how she was not “afraid to take on powerful men” in that way. “This is your first tour in six years,” moderator Whoopi Goldberg falsely declared. “Six years I was out of work because of that [audio cuts out and mouth blurred]! There, I said what it was!” Griffin cursed and lied. In reality, the supposed harm to her career was either all in her broken head or part of the false narrative she was using to get sympathy and lefties to turn out to her shows. As NewsBusters reported by in August 2019, People magazine did a puff piece on Griffin, boasting about how she was “still standing” after the blowup. They noted Griffin had booked shows in 15 countries “from Iceland to Australia” including shows in Carnegie Hall and Radio City. Her IMDB page also shows she was credited with works throughout Trump’s presidency and Biden’s. There’s the obvious dropoff during the pandemic when production of many shows was put on hold and live shows really weren’t happening.     She went on to defend her so-called ‘joke’ about killing Trump: “All about a picture! A picture I took making fun of the president, which you're supposed to do as a comic!” “They made you pay,” co-host Joy Behar lamented. Griffin has never adequately explained what the punchline of the picture was and she didn’t seem to like it when she was at the butt of that joke. She vented to Behar about the “hate” she received from Trump supporters who protested one of her shows with an effigy of her head: BEHAR: But you still have to deal and contend with these Trump supporters. GRIFFIN: They're crazed over me! So, there was an actual parade Sunday night at my show in Huntington, New York, and they had all these Trumpers organize an anti-Kathy griffin parade. It was kind of funny because they did have a bobbing redhead of me, an effigy and they had -- they were shouting I'm a traitor and all this other stuff. But the audience came inside so it was like hate on the outside and inclusive love and laughs on the inside and it was sold out! “Now, you have never been afraid to take on powerful men and billionaire Elon Musk is just no exception. Thank you very much!” staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) commended Griffin. Enabling Griffin's psychosis, Hostin begged her to recount how her insanity led her to impersonate Elon Musk on X and abuse her "dead mother's account" to troll him (Click “expand”): GRIFFIN: I love starting beefs with very powerful men. That's why I'm out of work but I can't help it. I can't help confronting them. I change my name right before the midterm elections from Kathy Griffin to Elon Musk – SARA HAINES: Oh, I remember this. GRIFFIN: -- and I started tweeting, “It's me, Elon. I've talked to the mothers of all my children and now I'm firmly pro-choice.” [Laughter] And he got so mad and I kept tweeting as him going #BidenHarris, #VoteBlueNoMatterWho. So, he took away my account and then I started -- this is so twisted! I started trolling him from my dead mother's account. HAINES: [Laughter] GRIFFIN: And I said, this is the ghost of Maggie Griffin. Vote blue. Be a Democrat. Be proud. And he was livid so his fanboys came after me and they all said, you're old and irrelevant and you're a man and you're ugly, the usual. HOSTIN: [Laughter] GRIFFIN: So, then I got a call from Jimmy Kimmel and he said I love that you're giving it to him. So, they run a sketch where I could play Elon and went on the Kimmel show the next night and played Elon, stuck it to him again! She suggested that Musk took personal offense and that’s why she was banned, but impersonating people without a "parody" notation somewhere on the account was against X’s terms of service. Other Musk parody accounts were allowed to stay on the platform because they followed the rules. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 26, 2024 11:32:44 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: This is your first tour in six years. KATHY GRIFFIN: Six years I was out of work because of that [audio cuts out and mouth blurred]! There, I said what it was! All about a picture! A picture I took making fun of the president, which you're supposed to do as a comic! [Applause] JOY BEHAR: They made you pay. [Applause] GOLDBERG: So you’re feeling pretty good about being back. GRIFFIN: Oh, I love it! (…) 11:36:00 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: But you still have to deal and contend with these Trump supporters. GRIFFIN: They're crazed over me! So, there was an actual parade Sunday night at my show in Huntington, New York, and they had all these Trumpers organize an anti-Kathy griffin parade. It was kind of funny because they did have a bobbing redhead of me, an effigy and they had -- they were shouting I'm a traitor and all this other stuff. But the audience came inside so it was like hate on the outside and inclusive love and laughs on the inside and it was sold out! [Applause] (…) 11:37:47 a.m. Eastern SUNNY HOSTIN: Now, you have never been afraid to take on powerful men and billionaire Elon Musk is just no exception. Thank you very much! GRIFFIN: Yeah. HOSTIN: Can you tell us about a Twitter war? I guess it's an X war that -- apparently you started with him. GRIFFIN: Oh, yeah, I can't stand that [audio cuts out and mouth blurred]. [Laughter] But, come on. BEHAR: Every time you curse an angel does not get its wings and Brian has a nervous breakdown. GRIFFIN:  Hi, Brian. Sorry. It’s me again! BEHAR: Try to keep it down. GRIFFIN: 25 years I've been coming here swearing. Sorry, friend! I love starting beefs with very powerful men. That's why I'm out of work but I can't help it. I can't help confronting them. I change my name right before the midterm elections from Kathy Griffin to Elon Musk – SARA HAINES: Oh, I remember this. GRIFFIN: -- and I started tweeting, “It's me, Elon. I've talked to the mothers of all my children and now I'm firmly pro-choice.” [Laughter] And he got so mad and I kept tweeting as him going #BidenHarris, #VoteBlueNoMatterWho. So, he took away my account and then I started -- this is so twisted! I started trolling him from my dead mother's account. HAINES: [Laughter] GRIFFIN: And I said, this is the ghost of Maggie Griffin. Vote blue. Be a Democrat. Be proud. And he was livid so his fanboys came after me and they all said, you're old and irrelevant and you're a man and you're ugly, the usual. HOSTIN: [Laughter] GRIFFIN: So, then I got a call from Jimmy Kimmel and he said I love that you're giving it to him. So, they run a sketch where I could play Elon and went on the Kimmel show the next night and played Elon, stuck it to him again! (…)

MSNBC’s Wallace Throws Juvenile Meltdown Over McDaniel Polluting NBC’s ‘Sacred Airwaves’

MSNBC’s Rich, White, Liberal, Wine Mom Story Hour (aka Deadline: White House) made sure Monday afternoon to add its voice to the shrieking, almost infantile-like meltdown across the liberal media over parent company NBC’s decision to hire former Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel as a paid contributor. Over three segments, host Nicolle Wallace melted down over McDaniel (or, to be honest, any Trump supporter) polluting “our sacred airwaves.” By Tuesday afternoon, the outrage worked as Puck’s Dylan Byers first reported she’d be dropped from the company.     From the get-go, the queen of apocalyptic, hiding-under-the-covers but pious rhetoric went straight to a ten: “The times in which we do this — when we meet, you and us at the table are — I don’t have tell you this, dire. This show has dedicated itself to a jarring pursuit of the uncomfortable truth about our politics and our political leaders and our justice system and yes, the media.” Wallace wrapped herself in the flag of democracy: “For our part here, we’re going to cover this story as part of our ongoing series of conversations about American autocracy, asking the question or positing the theory that it could happen here.” She even framed the idea Trump supporters should be allowed to have a paid voice in the media as some existential threat to democracy with “NBC News...either wittingly or unwittingly is teaching election deniers that what they can do stretches way well beyond appearing on our air” and, worse yet, would tarnish the Comcast-owned network’s “sacred airwaves”. To underline this comical doom and gloom, Wallace turned to On Tyranny author Timothy Snyder and quoted from the first page, saying it gave her “chills” that appeasing tyranny had come to her workplace (click “expand”): I’m going to read you an excerpt from Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny. Tim is standing by to talk to us. This from the first page of the first chapter of On Tyranny: “Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead of what a moral repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.” In this instance, NBC News is either wittingly or unwittingly is teaching election deniers that what they can do stretches way well beyond appearing on our air and interviews to peddle lies about the sanctity and integrity of our elections[.] (....) [W]hat we have also said to election deniers is not just they can do that on our airwaves, but that they can do that as one of us, as badge carrying employees of NBC News, as paid contributors to our sacred airwaves. Joining us now, Yale University history professor, author of the aforementioned and quoted from best-selling book On Tyranny: 20 Lessons for the 20th Century, Timothy Snyder. One of my colleagues sent me a screenshot of that first page and it — it gave me chills and I thought if I have an opportunity, I have to say — nobody at this company stopped me from having this conversation with you and I’m grateful for that — this was the part of the story that I found most haunting. That — what you write is that authoritarianism doesn’t come in and take things, but what they — they do is learn and operate in the spaces that they’re given and I wondered through that lens how you see this development and what warnings you have for the media? Snyder’s highfalutin exercise served as feeding the doom-and-gloom projection of wine moms everywhere that McDaniel being hired was some sort of hinge moment (click “expand”): What NBC has done is they’ve invited into what should be a normal framework, someone who doesn’t believe that that framework should exist at all. What — what NBC has done of its own volition is bring into a very important conversation about democracy, one which is going to take place for the next seven months or so, is Ronna McDaniel, who tried to disassemble our democracy, who personally took part in an, attempt to undo the American system. And so, bringing that in without questioning it is obeying the advance. Because what NBC is doing is saying, “well, could be that in ‘24, our entire system will break down, could be we’ll have an authoritarian leader — oh, but look, we’ve made this adjustment in advance because we’ve brought into the middle of NBC somebody who — who has already taken part in an attempt to take our system down.” So yeah, I think this is pretty bad. (....) [I]t doesn’t at all have to do with what party you belong to, although you might say that what McDaniel did was help transform the Republican Party into a kind of personality cult, which is where we’re heading now, right? That’s essentially where she’s — she’s left it. But that’s another issue. The lines for me would be things like if you are going to be on American media, you should be somebody who believes that there is something called truth, that there are things called facts and you can pursue them. You shouldn’t have been someone who has over and over and over again pushed the idea of fake news, educated Americans away from the facts, away from a belief from the facts. And a second red line would be something like this: If — if we’re going to be putting people on the news who have participated in an attempt to overthrow the system, then we have to ask, at the very beginning, why did you do that? Why is that legitimate? And we have to ask yourselves, why are we bringing these people into the middle of our discussions, so my two red lines would be you should be somebody who is at least trying for the facts and you shouldn’t be somebody who has taken part in an attempt to undo the system, which is — which is what we’re talking about here. We shouldn’t mince words about it. When she was — what she took part of from December of 2020 at the latest in attempt to change the American system by knowingly bringing in, by knowingly bringing in these — these — these false — these false electoral slates, that’s really something like extraordinary. (....) If everybody gives up on factuality, at the end of the day, there won’t be an NBC or an MSNBC. There won’t — there won’t be media in the sense that we believe in them. And so, people — so then it should be — an alarm bell should ring if you’re dealing with people have said fake news, fake news, fake news over and over again. And the other thing people should think about is they make a distinction between — again, it’s not about Democrats or Republicans or conservatives or liberals or progressives or whatever it might be. It’s about people who sincerely believe that we have a Constitution which allows us, which gives us a framework for discussion, a framework for this section of power or are we talking about people who really believe that this system is done for, that we should have one-person rule — right — and it’s perfectly fine so long as you have that one person to put him in power against the rules and just let him sit there. Bidding farewell to Snyder, Wallace whined this was “a scary thing to cover your own place of employment.” The second segment featured Wallace alongside fellow former Republican-turned-Democrat-turned-pompous prick David Jolly. Wallace huffed how “[t]hese conversations are hard to have, but I think if you don’t have them, what are we doing here.” Jolly insisted this was “a conversation about the role of media, about decisions of news enterprises” before bragging with impressive pomposity that “the viewers of this platform in particular for at least eight years have found a home here for conversations around protecting democracy and what they saw in the hiring of Ronna McDaniel is a decision to bring on-board someone who’s a liar.” Doubling down on how McDaniel shouldn’t be allowed on NBC because she “undermin[ed] democracy,” Jolly proclaimed that, unlike some “media outlets” (i.e. Fox News or anyone to the right of Jolly) who have “abandon[ed] critical thinking,” MSNBC would remain steadfast in “being the backstop...protecting democracy”. Following Wallace disingenuously claiming this wasn’t “about the ideological spectrum,” Jolly agreed with the cartoonish proclamation they were true Republicans as they, unlike the dumb rubes out there, have stood for what’s right (click “expand”):  Shared set of facts, which speaks to the line and shared set of values, which is the advancement of democracy in the United States for all people. And, as you and I have discussed, it’s a little intriguing because we each have participated in a party that ultimately produced Donald Trump, but where I would suggest this is radically different, not asking for forgiveness for my own sins as a Republican, but — but it is important. You participated in the McCain camp to push back and try to stop the Tea Party emergence that ultimately led to Donald Trump. Michael Steele participated in the autopsy that tried to create a bigger tent Republican party to speak to more people. As a member of Congress, I opposed Donald Trump, denounced him. I cited with Democrats on marriage and guns and a lot of other issues.  We understood this journey is not always a fight against each other, but it is a fight for the future of the country. Ronna McDaniel sees this as a fight against each other and that is a — a zero sum game where Republicans must win. That’s reason to question her voice in this conversation. In the third block, Wallace read from a Liz Cheney tweet lambasting NBC before giving way to Jolly whining that, given what happened on January 6, “[t]here is a reason that Liz Cheney, who saw all of this upfront...is angry and I think she’s as angry as many viewers who are watching right now.” Someone get Jolly and Wallace fainting couches. No one should ever confuse them as free thinkers. To see the relevant MSNBC transcript from March 25, click here.

Rep. Jordan Challenges Leftist Disinformation Industry on 60 Minutes

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) called out biased “disinformation” researchers’ efforts to undermine Americans’ First Amendment rights. Jordan was having none of it when a charged 60 Minutes interview hostile CBS News co-host Lesley Stahl tried to get him to agree that the so-called "misinformation" and "disinformation" research industry is necessary. Jordan argued that the research has a “chilling impact on speech” by pressuring tech companies to censor speech that the left does not approve of. Even worse, some of these researchers coordinate with government to increase censorship on social media, per the House Judiciary Committee, which Jordan chairs. The “60 Minutes” segment featured both Jordan and Kate Starbird, the researcher whose Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) acted as a government surrogate to ensure election-influencing censorship in the 2020 and 2022 elections.  Starbird mourned that Facebook and Twitter only took action on about a third of flagged content, arguing for more censorship but Jordan highlighted that the nefarious work of researchers like Starbird nonetheless has a negative impact. “[W]hat they're doing is chilling First Amendment free speech rights,” he said. A 2023 Harvard survey found that so-called “misinformation” experts “leaned strongly toward the left of the political spectrum,” indicating heavy bias in the industry. Stahl attempted to defend the industry during her interview with Jordan. She seemingly made the argument that posts questioning the integrity of the 2020 election should be shut down because “[m]ost people don't question the result,” implying that a right to free speech is dependent on majority opinion. Jordan had a different suggestion: “I think you let the American people, respect the American people, their common sense, to figure out what's accurate, what isn't.” Stahl seemed most concerned about the First Amendment rights of the so-called misinformation researchers. She tried to argue that Congress's investigation of government coordinating with researchers and tech companies to censor Americans can "chill the research" and violate the researchers' free speech. Jordan later challenged Stahl. “So us pointing out, us doing our constitutional duty of oversight of the executive branch-- and somehow we're censoring? That makes no sense,” he said. Would-be censors are allowed to research what they choose, but when they coordinate with government to take down differing opinions, that is a different situation, Jordan noted. “They can do their research,” Jordan countered, “but they can't take it down” without violating another person’s right to free speech. Indeed, “when they're coordinating with government, that's a different animal,” he added. Stahl responded by again defending the censorship industry taking researchers like Starbird at their word without being critical of their motivations. “[Researchers] deny they're coordinating” with government, she said, despite extensive evidence from the free speech case Murthy v. Missouri and the Twitter Files.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an 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.

What Border Crisis? Tone-Deaf Paul Krugman Suggests Immigration Surge ‘Secret’ to US ‘Success’

Somehow, New York Times economics propagandist Paul Krugman managed to one-up himself on his really bonkers Bidenomics hot takes. Millions of illegal border crossings? Humanitarian crisis? No problem, suggested Krugman in his March 19 piece, “Are Immigrants the Secret to America’s Economic Success?” In his wild logic (if you even want to call it that), Krugman blathered how supposedly “the very surge in immigration that has nativists so upset has played a big role in increasing the economy’s potential.” Yes, he actually wrote that. Never mind the fact that foreign born employment is up at least 3.3 million above its pre-pandemic levels while native-born employment is 1 million beneath its pre-pandemic level. That’s apparently a win in Krugman’s view. Not once does the word “border” appear anywhere in his half-cocked column.   Krugman downplayed the epidemic of crimes being committed by illegal immigrants crossing the border, and tried to spin one of President Joe Biden’s most damning indictments on his national security policies into a positive. “I’d still say that even if the migrant crime wave Trump and his allies harp on were real, and not a figment of their imagination (violent crime has in fact been plummeting in many cities) [sic].” Ah, but Krugman bypassed key context. The Council on Criminal Justice released a study in January 2024 showing that “Most violent offenses remained elevated in 2023 compared to 2019, the year prior to the outbreak of COVID and the widespread social unrest of 2020. There were 18% more homicides in the study cities in 2023 than in 2019, and carjacking has spiked by 93% during that period.” If that wasn’t telling enough, The Center Square also reported that “Hundreds of thousands of the migrants caught entering the U.S. have criminal records often including violent offenses.”  But Krugman, staying true to form, spewed that “even if there weren’t growing evidence that immigration is helping the U.S. economy — indeed, that it may be a major reason for our surprising economic success.” To say his argument is utterly ridiculous would be an understatement. The Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni wrote in a Feb. 22 analysis, “With millions of such illegal aliens pouring across the southern border due to Biden administration policies, it makes sense that this would augment the workforce of foreign-born people here legally and boost employment numbers.” However, said Antoni, “That native-born Americans have made no progress in terms of job numbers in four years is a key reason why they view the economy so poorly, but it isn’t the only one.” Inflation-adjusted weekly earnings have plummeted at least 4.2 percent under Biden’s term in office, Antoni noted.  What Krugman’s argument amounts to is essentially as follows, as Antoni described: “The benefits of ‘Bidenomics’ go to a few, and Americans as a whole come last.” But Krugman attempted to get ahead of this fact too by cherry-picking a Goldman Sachs chart allegedly showing no rise in native-born unemployment during the "immigration surge" to claim “that there is no good evidence that immigrants are taking away jobs from workers born in America.” He must have missed the fact millions of workers are still missing from the labor force. Krugman even mischaracterized former President Donald Trump’s recent Ohio comments: “When we accuse a politician of dehumanizing some ethnic group, we’re usually being metaphorical. The other day, however, Donald Trump said it straight out: Some migrants are ‘not people, in my opinion. Well, in my opinion, they are people.’” Fact-check: Trump was specifically referring to MS-13 gang members, but Krugman’s not exactly known for including mitigating context when the ensuing narrative doesn’t fit his agenda. That held true even for the data Krugman plastered in his piece to — ONCE AGAIN — gaslight readers into believing that Biden’s economy is a wonderland filled with heavenly-scented marigolds and daffodils. Krugman argued that post-pandemic, “real G.D.P. has risen by about a percentage point more than expected, while employment exceeds its projected level by 2.9 million workers.” But Krugman didn’t disclose that much of the so-called growth in GDP is being buoyed by the federal government taking on trillions of dollars in new debt (at least $6.6. trillion). Additionally, as Antoni told MRC Business, “There are a variety of ways to measure how” far the labor market is below its pre-pandemic trend, “but each of them shows that we’re missing at least 4.8 million jobs.” In fact, Antoni argued that “it seems more accurate to say Biden is short jobs than he has added them.” But Krugman wasn’t finished. He proceeded to praise the Biden administration for its absurd policy stance of going “big on spending, probably contributing to a temporary burst of inflation but also helping to ensure rapid recovery — and at this point the inflation has largely faded away while the recovery remains.”  Yes, Krugman is still blue-pilling himself with his long-since debunked “transitory” inflation argument despite admitting he got inflation wrong nearly two years ago. Add to the mindless drivel the fact that inflation-driven prices are over 17.6 percent higher than they were since Biden took office, and Krugman’s assertion that “inflation largely faded away” also blows up. A recent MarketWatch headline also undercuts Krugman’s position: “Inflation here to stay? U.S. could face unstable inflation for next decade, top investment pro says.”  Hang it up, Krugman. No amount of gaslighting on America’s immigration crisis will get citizens to treat Biden’s economy like anything other than the decrepit monstrosity that it is.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact The New York Times at 800-698-4637 and demand it distance itself from Krugman’s awful takes on Bidenomics in the midst of America’s immigration crisis.  

‘CONFUSION’: Google Gemini Apologizes for Its Falsehoods about Trump, Biden

Google’s no-whites-allowed artificial intelligence chatbot went to great lengths to cover for President Biden’s mismanagement of the U.S. economy.  In response to questions from MRC Business researchers about former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden’s economies, Gemini twice led with incorrect information in bold that served to denigrate the former while bolstering the latter. Americans' average personal savings rate rose from 5.6 percent to 12.8 percent from Feb. 1, 2017 to Feb. 1, 2021, but suffered a bruising fall from 12.8 percent on Feb. 1, 2021 to 3.8 percent on Jan. 1, 2024. As these numbers don’t reflect well on Biden, who was inaugurated in late Jan. 2021, Gemini worked hard to avoid embarrassing the president by twisting the numbers. Ultimately, Gemini apologized twice for providing incorrect information.  Why does Gemini go out of its way to defend the president? The person overseeing it could provide some insight. Jack Krawczyk, Google's Senior Director of Product over Gemini, is on the record in 2020 fawning over then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and later praising the president for acknowledging America’s supposed “systemic racism” during his inauguration speech. As the old saying goes: Garbage in, garbage out. MRC Business asked the following question for both presidents: “How did Americans' average personal savings rate change between” February 1, 2017 – February 1, 2021 under Trump’s policies and February 1, 2021 – February 1, 2024 under Biden’s policies. For both Biden and Trump, Gemini offered astoundingly inaccurate responses. For Biden, Gemini claimed, “The average personal savings rate in the United States went through a significant increase between February 1, 2021, and January 1, 2024 .” But the evidence that it cited actually reflected a significant decrease in personal savings; the complete opposite of what Gemini argued. “So, the rate went from around 7.38% to 3.8%, representing a substantial decrease,” Gemini wrote. [No emphasis added.] But the ridiculousness didn’t end there. The Google chatbot committed the same error in reverse when asked about Americans’ personal savings under Trump: “How did Americans' average personal savings rate change between February 1, 2017 and February 1, 2021,” MRC Business researchers asked.  Gemini responded, “The average personal savings rate in the United States actually went through a slight downward trend between February 1, 2017, and February 1, 2021,” before once again disclosing data indicating that its argument was an outright falsehood. [No emphasis added.] This time, Gemini provided statistics showing Americans’ savings actually grew but begged readers not to give former President Trump much credit. Gemini wrote, “While there was a slight increase [5.76 percent to 7.38 percent], it's important to consider: The overall increase was modest compared to significant jumps seen in other periods.” So, in other words, no “downward trend.” Yes, you read the contradictory responses right. When MRC Business probed Gemini on the glaring contradictions, the AI chatbot admitted its so-called “mistake[s].” For Biden, Gemini conceded, “You are correct. The text in the image says that the personal savings rate went from 7.38% to 3.8%, and this represents a substantial decrease. I apologize for the mistake. I am still under development and learning to perform many kinds of tasks, including interpreting data and images.”  Gemini also admitted that the trajectory of Americans’ savings under Biden “represents a substantial decrease,” while the trajectory of Americans’ savings under Trump showed a slight increase. For the Trump contradiction, Gemini apologized: “You're absolutely right, my response regarding the personal savings rate contained contradictory information and used bold text for emphasis in a misleading way. Let me apologize for the confusion.” “Confusion, or baked in bias? I think we all know the answer to that question,” said MRC Business Director Michael Morris. “Time and time again Google has shown its unwillingness to maintain political neutrality, instead favoring leftist ideology over all else. There’s little reason to suggest that Google — with the numerous examples from Google Search bias in election contests to Gemini’s no whites allowed DEI pandering — is doing anything different here.” In its responses and even in its corrections, Gemini significantly understated the heights that Americans’ savings reached under former President Trump and consequently obscured the percentage drop under President Biden. In both cases, Gemini reported that Americans’ average personal savings rate on Feb. 1, 2021 was 7.38 percent, when in fact it was 12.8 percent. Even when Gemini tried to tell the truth after admitting its initial contradictions, the Google product used minimizing language that looked even more absurd in light of the real percentages. Gemini referenced an alleged rise from 5.76 percent to 7.38 percent under former President Trump in order to claim a “slight increase.” But this is incorrect. The percentage increase was actually much more significant. Americans’ personal savings increased from 5.6 percent to a sizable 12.8 percent (not just 7.38 percent) during Trump’s term in office, reflecting a 129 percent spike. Gemini’s numbers for Biden were just as bad. Despite later conceding that personal savings actually decreased during Biden’s administration after MRC Business called it out, the data it disclosed downplayed the impact. Gemini later conceded that personal savings decreased under Biden from 7.38 percent to 3.8 percent. However, the actual drop was more drastic than what Gemini suggested. Personal savings dropped from 12.8 percent to 3.8 percent, reflecting a whopping 70 percent decrease. Gemini has demonstrated obscene bias in the past, casting doubt on atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists on and after the Oct. 7th genocidal attack on Israel. In response to prompts by MRC Staff, Gemini also demonstrated racism against white men. The chatbot willingly generated prompts of black, Hispanic and Asian people in various fields, but refused to generate images of white men in those same fields.  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.

Lesley Stahl of '60 Minutes' Rips Jim Jordan, Says X Is 'Rife with Trash Talk & Lies'

On Sunday night, the hatchet-job specialists at 60 Minutes were back on the attack against conservatives. It was a 13-minute segment provocatively titled “The Right to Be Wrong.” On one side of this cockeyed chronicle were the allegedly non-ideological, nonpartisan “misinformation researchers” – Kate Starbird, Darrell West, Katie Harbath – who are presented as people in favor of “fact checking” and opposed to “hate speech.” They line up neatly with the CBS narrative. On the other side was Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who was presented as someone who doesn’t favor facts, but does support freedom for “hate speech.”  Stahl refers to “conservatives” or “the right wing” eight times, but never finds a label for her favored “misinformation experts.” It started out funny, as she told viewers "Conservatives claim that the companies have engaged in a conspiracy to suppress their speech." The rest of the segment is Stahl unfurling a "conspiracy theory" that conservatives are engaged in an effort to "chill" the "misinformation researchers," those nonpartisan truth-tellers.  Reminder! Stahl had 13 minutes to report, but was never going to revisit her comical interview with Donald Trump before the 2020 election (sections of which she wouldn't put on the air). Trump talked of the Biden family taking millions from China and other countries, and Stahl shot back "All these things have been investigated and discredited." Biden scandal? "It can't be verified." Hunter's laptop? Again, "It can't be verified."  The joy of being CBS News is being able to only choose the facts you want to choose, and to refuse to verify what you do not want to be verified. When someone suggests there are other facts and other stories, you turn to "misinformation researchers" to pluck out how the conservatives are the ones who are sloppy with information. Stahl avoided any mention of Big Tech giants suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election in 2020. She questions Jim Jordan about questioning the 2020 election, but not about the pro-Biden suppression. Stahl also wasn't going to tell you that her expert Kate Starbird worked from a National Science Foundation grant from the Biden administration and donated to many Democrats.  WATCH: 60 Minutes profiled a misinformation academic researcher named Kate Starbird a "leader of a misinformation research group" that tried to get Big Tech companies to silence conservatives during the 2020 election. 60 Minutes failed to point out that Starbird is a serious… pic.twitter.com/ygogCh9ybr — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) March 25, 2024 Stahl asked her alleged nonpartisan expert "Did your research find that there was more misinformation spread by conservatives?" Starbird said "Absolutely," that in the 2020 election "there was more information spread by people that were supported by Donald Trump or conservatives. And the events of January 6 underscore this." The tweets from the CBS show weren't subtle:  After Elon Musk took over X, most fact-checkers were fired. The site is now rife with trash talk and lies. "The toothpaste is out of the tube," says Darrell West of the Brookings Institution. https://t.co/ShSbzksR7L pic.twitter.com/2y9pvdgcJT — 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) March 24, 2024 Jordan insisted to Stahl that the American people are smart enough to figure out what's misinformation, but of course, liberals think the American people are idiots when they don't vote for liberals. The best part of the segment was Jordan marveling at how he's supposedly the chilling effect! His probe is "intimidating" The poor "nonpartisan" researchers!  Lesley Stahl asks Rep. Jim Jordan: Is his goal to chill misinformation researchers? https://t.co/rlNyIsbg8R pic.twitter.com/Ls8Hu8yQbk — 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) March 24, 2024

Colbert Fails to Get Breyer to Affirm SCOTUS Is Influenced by Politics

CBS’s Stephen Colbert has used The Late Show to routinely condemn Supreme Court rulings after it rejected his legal theories from way out in left field. On Monday, Colbert welcomed former liberal Justice Stephen Breyer to the show to promote the latter's new book and seek affirmation that his views of the Court are correct. Unfortunately for him, Breyer refused to play along. In the first segment with Breyer, Colbert asked, “Do you, former Justice Breyer, believe that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office? Do you think, does that seem like a natural yes from you?” Breyer may be retired, but he has not shaken the idea that a judge should not comment on a case before the court, “That seems like a general idea.”     Colbert tried again, “It, that is a general idea. Do former presidents have absolute immunity? It's not specific about one person. Would any president have that? I'm just curious, what you, snap judgment, don't think about it. Go.” Holding firm, Breyer repeated himself “I agree that you have a general idea. I can't go farther. I can't because of the—” Switching tactics, Colbert tried a case that the Court has already heard, “You're no fun, but I'll ask you something that I think you can answer. What do you think the purpose of the Insurrection Clause was…Why does it need an actuating law or action by Congress to impose the sanction for insurrection? Do you have any thoughts on them?” Again, Breyer offered no opinion on the case that went 9-0 against Colbert, ultimately declaring, “I am tempted to say something like ‘But I wasn't there when it was written.’ My grandchildren think I was. But in fact, I wasn't and really what I'm doing is avoiding the question.  After a commercial break, Colbert observed that “Politico says only 24 percent of people trust SCOTUS to issue a fair and nonpartisan ruling.” He then wondered, “Is the fear that the public has of political influence on the Court valid? And is the Court's fear that the public will no longer believe they are impartial about?” Breyer answered “That's why I wrote this book… I've been for 40 years with other judges and 28 on the Supreme Court, I think the people who try to get them appointed may have a lot to do with politics, but they want a judge who will think that the law really requires those things that then they then politically like, but the judge's point of view is he or she is deciding according to law and that's why I write this.” Instead of politics, “it is a question of what approach you use. You say, do you just read text? Or do you look back to the values and purposes and consequences of the Constitution or what we're about in this country? Which of those do you choose and I think that's important and does make a difference and that's what people should focus on.” Colbert then tried one more time, “But to believe that there is no partisan backing a judgment into the result you want. If they were always consistent on their judicial philosophy and always consistently textualists. Do you find that to be the case that your fellow justices are consistent in the lens that used to judge the constitutionality of a case?” Breyer answered that “You aim at it and you never know if you get there.” Surely, those weren’t the answers Colbert was hoping for. Here is a transcript for the March 25 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 3/26/2024 12:07 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Do you, former Justice Breyer, believe that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office? Do you think, does that seem like a natural yes from you?  BREYER: That seems like a general idea.  COLBERT: It, that is a general idea. Do former presidents have absolute immunity? It's not specific about one person. Would any president have that? I'm just curious, what you, snap judgment, don't think about it. Go.  BREYER: I agree that you have a general idea. I can't go farther. I can't because of the-- COLBERT: You're no fun, but I'll ask you something that I think you can answer. What do you think the purpose of the Insurrection Clause was?  BREYER: I haven't looked at-- well.  COLBERT: It's in the Constitution. It's an excellent little read.  BREYER: Yes, it is. COLBERT: It's only the 14th Amendment. Tell me you read that far. Okay, there it is. Okay, all right. Someone's got a Constitution all the time. All right. All right, but so, anyway, you know this document. I'm just curious why does it include no definition of what insurrection is? Do you have any idea? Because it does say how someone could be reinstated and it says that someone who committed insurrection can't run for office. Why does it need an actuating law or action by Congress to impose the sanction for insurrection? Do you have any thoughts on them?  BREYER: I am tempted to say something like "But I wasn't there when it was written." My grandchildren think I was. But in fact, I wasn't and really what I'm doing is avoiding the question.  … COLBERT: Politico says only 24 percent of people trust SCOTUS to issue a fair and nonpartisan ruling. Okay. Is the fear that the public has of political influence on the Court valid? And is the Court's fear that the public will no longer believe they are impartial about?  BREYER: I think of that is a very good question for a particular reason. That's why I wrote this book. It is. Because I wanted to show people that what most think, that this is all politics, that is not my experience. You never say zero about anything, but when I've been for 40 years with other judges and 28 on the Supreme Court, I think the people who try to get them appointed may have a lot to do with politics, but they want a judge who will think that the law really requires those things that then they then politically like, but the judge's point of view is he or she is deciding according to law and that's why I write this.  Because I want to say it isn't a question of what the judge just likes or doesn't like. It isn’t a question of just politics, it is a question of what approach you use. You say, do you just read text? Or do you look back to the values and purposes and consequences of the Constitution or what we're about in this country? Which of those do you choose and I think that's important and does make a difference and that's what people should focus on and that's why I try to explain here what that consists of, how they might focus on it, and why it might make a difference to your life and my life and a life of every American and I hope for the better.  COLBERT: I would hope for the better too. And my follow-up, your honor, is that I agree that I'm sure that justices have a judicial philosophy through which they read the Constitution. But to believe that there is no partisan backing a judgment into the result you want. If they were always consistent on their judicial philosophy and always consistently textualists. Do you find that to be the case that your fellow justices are consistent in the lens that used to judge the constitutionality of a case?  BREYER: You aim at it and you never know if you get there. Of course people are influenced by their backgrounds, of course they’re influenced by the lives they've had, by the philosophy they have. But suppose that you, and not you, it wouldn't be you personally, but that you were an unpopular person. Impossible, but suppose you were.  COLBERT: Can't be done but go ahead, yes. BREYER: But an unpopular person is in front of a judge for trial— COLBERT: Yes. BREYER: -- you don't want that judge to be influenced by how the public feels about that person. You don't want a judge to be influenced by popular opinion when he's judging the case, but what Professor Freund said, great professor said at Harvard Law School, a great professor, and he said the way that politics works in the Court is this: no judge, not you or me or anyone else, should ever be influenced by the political temperature of the day. Every judge will and probably should be influenced by the climate of the era. A little profound, a little obscure, but the more you think about that phrase, the more it sort of rings a bell in my mind. 

'Taking Down Trump' Author Wails on MSNBC After Trump Bond Reduced to $175 Million

Monday was a tough day for liberals. In the wave of wailings over a New York appeals court ruling that reduced Donald Trump's bond from $454 million to $175 million, few were more plaintive than the meltdown emanating from the author of Taking Down Trump. Tristan Snell is a former assistant Attorney General of New York and MSNBC analyst. It was so bad that it seemed as if another type of analyst would be needed to get him over the emotional toll the appeals court decision handed him. Contrast the wailing Snell on MSNBC below to the smug, smirking Snell who back in January was already gloating in anticipation over the financial strain that Judge Arthur Engoron imposed upon Trump in the infamous victimless fraud trial.   MSNBC guest has an on air meltdown over Trump’s bond being reduced. Can you imagine election night if Trump wins? I’m giddy just thinking about how amazing it will be: pic.twitter.com/YbSRY8Xpyl — Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) March 25, 2024 Honestly, this is so infuriating I don’t even know what to do. I don’t even know if I care what the process is that these judges are arriving at. Whatever it is, it’s flawed. I can tell you that much. David put it well. This is a different process for this person. We have decided that he gets his own private court of justice. He has a private plane. He has private clubs that he lives in. He basically has fashioned himself his own private militia to try to take over the Capitol. Now he’s getting his own private system of justice. This is an absolute travesty. His own private system of justice? Snell somehow can't see an entire justice system politically weaponized against Trump with multiple trials in order to use lawfare, rather than the ballot box, to keep him from returning to the White House. Snell followed up his MSNBC meltdown with a flurry of entertaining X (which everybody will forever still call "Twitter") meltdowns:   There’s a good chance that $175 million is still too much for Trump to come up with He probably doesn’t have the cash (despite what he says) — and he’s too much of a credit risk for that big of a bond Watch him ask for more time or for the amount to be lowered even more — Tristan Snell (@TristanSnell) March 25, 2024   We should just build Trump his own courthouse now — a cupcake court. Shaped like a giant orange cupcake. Filled with his own cupcake judges handing down cupcake decisions since His Cupcakeness is apparently already above the law. — Tristan Snell (@TristanSnell) March 25, 2024   BREAKING: NY’s justice system Appellate judges hand Trump a gift, cut bond down to $175 million, give him 10 extra days Imagine a basketball team down by 40 points, and with 1:00 left in the game, refs give the losing team 5 more minutes — and lower the hoop from 10ft to 6ft — Tristan Snell (@TristanSnell) March 25, 2024   Donald Trump has a private jet. Donald Trump lives in private clubs. Donald Trump assembled a private militia to attack the Capitol. Now he gets his own private system of justice — available to him alone. NO ONE ELSE would get the special treatment he gets. NO ONE should. — Tristan Snell (@TristanSnell) March 25, 2024 Perhaps poor Tristan Snell should change the title of his book to "Taken Down By Trump."

Ahead of SCOTUS Hearing, NBC News Promotes Abortion Pill Mills

As we mentioned previously, the media are desperately seeding narrative ahead of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on whether the FDA violated the law when it issued emergency approval for Mifepristone, framing the issue instead as a matter of “access”. But NBC has taken that advocacy one step further.  Watch this segment from correspondent Dasha Burns’ latest dispatch, from what can charitably be called an abortion pill mill: DASHA BURNS: In this basement in upstate New York, one group is giving abortion access to thousands in states where it's illegal. We're not showing faces because they fear repercussions.  Where's a lot of this medication going? ANONYMOUS: The medication is going to all the states that the pharmacy will not send to. So I would say the majority are going to Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia.  What else do you call a center that dispenses pills in a manner so as to skirt questions of illegality? That was certainly appropriate when the discourse centered around opioids, so why wouldn’t it be the case now? This is a follow-up to Burns’ previous item on Mifepristone, wherein she visited a Planned Parenthood in Miami and received several testimonials on the convenience of abortion pills. The whole play here is to build sympathy around the access argument. But the hearing before the Court isn’t at all about access or the availability of abortion pills. Rather, it is about administrative law and a runaway federal bureaucracy. Credit to Burns for at least showcasing the perspective from a pro-life advocate who made this very point, which is something that usually doesn’t make it into the media’s advocacy for unrestricted abortion. We’ll see what coverage looks like after oral arguments. Nonetheless, I predict coverage will continue to center around access to abortion rather than the runaway federal bureaucracy. Especially if the Supreme Court rules against the FDA come June. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on NBC Nightly News on Monday, March 26th, 2024: LESTER HOLT: Back now with the abortion pill battle. While it's banned in 14 states, some activists have taken it upon themselves to mail it to women in those places. But as Dasha Burns explains, that could all change with a case that goes before the Supreme Court tomorrow.  DASHA BURNS: In this basement in upstate New York, one group is giving abortion access to thousands in states where it's illegal. We're not showing faces because they fear repercussions.  Where's a lot of this medication going? ANONYMOUS: The medication is going to all the states that the pharmacy will not send to. So I would say the majority are going to Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia.  BURNS: New York is one of six states operating under new shield laws when it comes to telehealth, which protect providers doing this from prosecution. For now.  How many prescriptions are you mailing out today?  ANONYMOUS: Today we're doing 112. BURNS: Dr. Linda Prine prescribes pills from New York City. What is the scale of this operation?  LINDA PRINE: So before we had the shield law, we were mailing pills to the blue states. After we passed our shield law, the first month we sent about 4,000 pills into restricted states. And now we're up to around 10,000 pills a month BURNS: Anti-abortion rights groups taking notice. KATIE DANIEL: The fact remains that just because you are sitting in California does not mean that you are not violating the laws of Florida, Texas and 30 other states. So I think they have a false sense of security about this. BURNS: But that access in question. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments tomorrow in a case that could prohibit prescription of abortion pills via telemedicine and prevent providers from mailing them. What action do you want the Supreme Court to take? DANIEL: We hope that the Supreme Court will agree with the two lower courts who have already found that it's likely that the FDA broke federal law and its own rules when it brought the abortion drugs to market.  ANONYMOUS: I think what we're talking about is really ways to work around whatever scenario comes up so that we can continue to get these medications to patients. BURNS: Dasha Burns, NBC News, New Paltz, New York.  

PSHAMELESS: Jen Psaki Knocks NBC Hiring of Former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel

One might reasonably believe, given her brazen negotiation with NBC while still serving as White House Press Secretary, that Jen Psaki would be the absolute last person to run her mouth over the Peacock Network’s hiring of former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel. But, alas, these are not reasonable times.  Psaki did, in fact, weigh in on the McDaniel hire in a self-indulgent and fundamentally unself-aware editorial on tonight’s broadcast of Inside with Jen Psaki. Here it is, in its two minutes of smug, gaslighting entirety (click “expand” to view transcript): JEN PSAKI: You may have seen some news over the last few days about the hiring of former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel as an NBC News contributor. And some, mainly in the right-wing ecosystem, have made the comparison to others who have come from government or politics into the media- including me. And that is a comparison I felt like I had to address. I got into public service for the same reason that many people do. To serve the American people. I worked on my first political campaign when I was just 24 years old. When I was 28, I packed my bags and moved to Chicago to work for Barack Obama. He wanted to make the country a better place, and I wanted to help him. I wanted to work on behalf of the American people to try and make their lives better. That's why I did campaigns and a few years later, I would do the same thing for President Biden when I went to work for him in the White House. I was in the room for tough debates, for difficult decisions, for the messy and at times, incredibly grueling process of governing. And that experience is something that I am extremely proud to bring to this table and to this network. And there are many others who have followed a similar path who I have a great deal of respect for. But here's the thing. That kind of experience only matters and only has value to viewers, all of you, if it is paired with honesty and with good faith. Those qualities are especially important right now at a time when our institutions are under attack and when our democracy is in danger. And our democracy is in danger because of the lies that people like Ronna McDaniel have pushed on this country. To quote Liz Cheney, “Ronna facilitated Trump's corrupt fake elector plot and his effort to pressure Michigan officials not to certify the legitimate election outcome. She spread his lies and called January 6th ‘legitimate political discourse’”. Look, this isn't about Republicans versus Democrats. This isn’t about Red versus Blue. This is about truth versus lies. Service to the country versus service to one man committed to toppling our democratic system. That is the kind of experience that Ronna McDaniel brings to the table. And that experience does not get us to a deeper understanding of anything in the public debate. We’ll be right back. I suppose Psaki deserves a modicum of credit for somewhat cutting to the chase, unlike Rachel Maddow’s opening monologues. Nonetheless, the gaslighting began right after Psaki softened viewers up by boring them with her biography. Seriously, nobody cares.  We know full well that there is an incestuous, revolving door between (almost exclusively Democratic) politics and the media. MSNBC hired Psaki, as Chuck Todd intimated during his own meltdown, purely for access. What Psaki brings to MSNBC’s viewers is a peek into the inner workings of the Obama and Biden administrations. As does Symone Sanders-Townsend. This is the access that MSNBC paid for.  MSNBC provides its viewers with many other unique insights. There are the insights, for example, of former Republicans cashing in on Never Trumpism such as Michael Steele and Nicolle Wallace. There are the insights of racial arsonists with blood on their hands such as Al Sharpton, Russia Hoax conspiracy theorists such as Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, elite legacies such as Alicia Menéndez, and so on.  What distinguishes Psaki from the rest of this lot is that none of them babbled about honesty and good faith after having exited a career distinguished by its dishonesty and bad faith. Most people in this position just take the bag and go on about their business without the moral preening, especially when they lack the moral standing to preen in the first place. Most egregiously, Jen Psaki admitted to lying in order to advance the Iran Deal and then deleting video evidence of that admission while serving as State Department spokesperson. Her tenure as White House Press Secretary wasn’t much better, as evidenced by our colleague Curtis Houck’s rundown of her worst moments.  I will not apologize for being unimpressed by one political hack, among many, decrying the hiring of another political hack at a network known for its political hackery. Congratulations to Psaki on cashing in, I guess, but just spare us. And if there is to be a next moral lecture, try to deliver it without shamelessly ripping off Barack Obama’s 2004 “Red States, Blue States” speech.  Click here for the full NewsBusters Jen Psaki archive.   

NewsBusters Podcast: Angry Peacocks Prance Against Ronna McDaniel Joining NBC

From NBC's Meet the Press to MSNBC's Morning Joe, the liberal bubble is in a furious revolt against ex-RNC boss Ronna McDaniel joining their team as a commentator. They want her fired before she begins. But they're all for ideological diversity....yeah, right. They can't stand anyone who defends Donald Trump or who would vote for him. Chuck Todd appeared on his old show to demand the NBC brass apologize to Kristen Welker for the embarrassment of having to interview the new NBC commentator. She grilled her for 20 minutes. Todd said some mockable things in his Sunday sermon.  First, that McDaniel's party apparatus was guilty of "character assassination" of the press. Earth to Chuck:  Have you never engaged with the possibility that Republicans think YOU and your network do LOTS of character assassination of Trump, and of anyone remotely associated with Trump, as in everyone who’s ever voted for Trump? Then we can laugh at Chuck taking umbrage that “we gave her NBC News’s credibility." Credibility? In the public eye? What the media's approval rating? It’s lower than Congress. It’s lower than Biden. Then there’s the final kicker: Chuck reassuring Welker that they've assembled around the table to “bolster that editorial independence.” Editorial independence? This is coming out of Chuck Todd, who with his wife Kristian Denny Todd hosted a dinner party in 2015 to honor Hillary Clinton campaign communications director Jen Palmieri. Here at NewsBusters, I broke the story that Mrs. Chuck Todd’s Democrat consulting firm made $2 million off the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign. But Todd could never muster the editorial transparency to tell viewers about this financial conflict on the many occasions he interviewed Bernie Sanders. The obvious comparison to McDaniel is former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, who waltzed right out of the Biden White House into hosting a Sunday show on MSNBC, which debuted about a year ago. Four months later, they loved that enough to give her the Monday night Chris Hayes hour at 8 pm Eastern. You can also cite Symone Sanders-Townsend, who also ambled right into hosting a weekend show on MSNBC out of the Kamala Harris  PR shop. McDaniel isn't hosting a show. She's being paid to take all the abuse that these Democrats can muster. On Morning Joe, the comedy continued. Mika Brzezinski insisted they're all for NBC bringing conservatives on TV, but not the Trumpian "election deniers." Joe Scarborough then laughably claimed he's a conservative now, more conservative than all those Trump stooges he battles.  The ladies of The View uniformly protested the McDaniel gig. The hilarity there was Alyssa Farah claiming "I feel very strongly, obviously, that there needs to be Republican representation in media." As if that's what she's doing?  Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts. 

PBS Roundtable: Just How 'Authoritarian' Is Trump, Anyway? Let's Ask Jonathan Karl

Jonathan Karl is chief Washington correspondent for ABC News and author of Tired of Winning: Donald Trump and the End of the Grand Old Party. It’s his third expose of Trump’s one-term presidency, and he even admitted to writing this one as a warning to voters. Naturally, on Friday, PBS’s tax-supported political roundtable Washington Week with The Atlantic invited Karl on to plug his book. Host Jeffrey Goldberg praised the “extraordinary book” and with snide help from his panelists, Atlantic journalist Franklin Foer and Washington Post journalist Anne Applebaum, throwing around “authoritarian” accusations, Karl made his case for the prosecution against Trump’s re-election in November.     The insults begin with Karl chuckling that Trump suffered from “straight-up admiration for Vladimir Putin.” Whatever odd fondness Trump may have expressed toward Russia’s dictator, his administration was pretty tough on Russia. Goldberg insulted Israeli’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in an existential war with Hamas terrorists, before moving on to Netanyahu’s fellow “autocrat” Trump: "Both men, Trump and Netanyahu, have autocratic tendencies. You`ve written about this. It`s somewhat surprising that they don`t get along better." Goldberg encouraged Karl to tell “the Merkel story” from the book, a third-hand account of a weird comment about Adolf Hitler’s rallies purportedly made by Trump (Click "expand): KARL: Yes. This is a story that he told one very senior member of Congress told me this, that it happened twice with Trump. There was a lot of stories that Merkel had nothing but contempt for Trump. So, Trump told this member of Congress, you know, she actually -- she can't believe the size of the crowds I get. She says, in fact, there's been only one leader in history that's ever got crowds as big as mine. And the leader is thinking, you know who she's talking about, right? You know the chancellor of Germany is talking about. Goldberg: Did he understand, based on your reporting? KARL: I mean, that is the great -- I think he understood. GOLDBERG: You think he understood? KARL: I think he understood exactly. GOLDBERG: You think he understood. I mean, based on your own reporting, do you feel that we’re talking about a true authoritarian? KARL: I mean look, he is campaigning right now on the idea that literally the president United States is above the law. He is talking about undermining the Constitution, suspending certain provisions of the Constitution if necessary. I think. it’s not necessarily in the pursuit of any grander ideology or any policy proposal. It’s in pursuit of his own elevation and is exalting himself, proving that he never lost. But I think he’s got all of those authoritarian tendencies. Karl had made similar claims about Trump’s authoritarian instincts and lack of any political agenda before. So, why did Karl feel the need to write a third anti-Trump tome? As he explained on CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in November: There’s discontent with Joe Biden and I think there’s some superficially a sense like ‘Look, if we could only go back to four years ago, the world was relatively at peace, inflation was low, everything was --’ I think there is some of that and that’s why I wrote this book because if people are going to go into this next election thinking about that, they also need to be thinking, not just about what Trump was, but what he is now and what he is proposing and planning to do, what a second Trump administration would look like. And I don’t think people have come to terms with that at all. This segment was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular. A transcript is below. Click “expand” to read: PBS Washington Week with The Atlantic 3/22/24 Jeffrey Goldberg: Ukraine. Since you brought up Ukraine, let me bring in the world's leading expert on Ukraine, Anne Applebaum. But is this -- you're not only an expert on Ukraine, you actually understand Republican and conservative politics very, very well. What portion of the Republican Party does Marjorie Taylor Greene represent in her position on Ukraine? Anne Applebaum, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: It's very hard to tell, because some of the people who are opposed to aid for Ukraine seem to have real motives. I mean, it's too much money or America first or something like that, and that might be genuine. Some of them seem to be acting performatively on behalf of Donald Trump. And I think Mike Johnson might be one of those. Trump has decided that he doesn't want money to go to Ukraine, and he wants Ukraine to be weaker. There's a lot of different speculation about why that would be. Maybe he has some deal in his head that he's going to do if he wins. Maybe he imagines some kind of partition. I mean, there's a lot of -- I don't want to scare everybody with the details, but he's been very, very clear that he doesn't want the House to pass this money. And there are enough people in the House who either support him or are afraid for their own seats, they're afraid of being primaried, that they have gone along with it. And I think that, more than anything else, explains where we are. I mean, it's really an extraordinary moment. And we have an out-of-power ex-president who is, in effect, dictating American foreign policy on behalf of a foreign dictator or with the interests of a foreign dictator in mind. And I don't think we've been through this before. Jonathan Karl: And I have to say, I mean, I think that it's getting close to half of the House Republicans that are actually in this America first quasi-isolationist camp of not wanting to give any more money to Ukraine. Mike Johnson is not in that camp. Mike Johnson tells people that Vladimir Putin must be stopped or he'll move through Europe. He sounds a lot like Lindsey Graham, who is also in this position of trying to find a way to placate the real leader of the Republican Party, who wants to pull the plug entirely and turn Ukraine over to Putin. So, that's why you have them with some of these ideas like we're going to do it as a loan. We're going to try to do it in some way. But, I mean, the real problem here is exactly what Anne said, it's Donald Trump. Nikole Killion: And he did put out a statement today saying, you know, going into the recesses, you know, Congress will be out for the next two weeks, that he will move forward with a supplemental. But to Jon's point, it may look a little different than what we saw on the Senate side. Jeffrey Goldberg: Frank, what do you think is Trump's ultimate motivation on Ukraine? Franklin Foer, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: I think that there's so many grudges, so many layers of grudges that are left over from his first impeachment trial. I think he's always had this innate sympathy to Vladimir Putin, who he's admired as a strong man. And then I think there are things that go back to his commercial history in Russia, that he always was attracted to Russians. He was always enticed by the idea of doing business in Russia. Michael Cohen in the middle of -- Jeffrey Goldberg: His former lawyer. Franklin Foer: He had talked about how -- even during the first campaign in 2016, they were they were trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. And so in Trump's mind, all of these things, the grudges, the commercial interests, the political interests, they all get the narcissism and the ego all swirled together into this motivation that is sometimes quite obtuse to those of us on the outside. Jonathan Karl: And straight up admiration for Vladimir Putin. Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes. Well, this is about -- this is a broader issue about an attraction to authoritarians, and we're going to get to that when I pivot elegantly to the Middle East in a minute. But I just want to stay with this Ukraine question just for one more second with Anne, because you alluded to a kind of bargain possibly that Trump and Trumpists have imagined that if Trump comes back to power, obviously, we understand that China and Russia would prefer Trump as president to Biden, I mean, I think that's a fair statement, that somehow Trump will force a settlement that looks good from Putin's perspective. Anne Applebaum: He said that in this somewhat incoherent way, right? He said, when I take power, the war will be over in one day. You know, there will be a deal. And people around him have talked a little bit more in detail about a deal. And, of course, I don't want to speculate about things that we don't really know and might never happen, but, you know, there is some idea that we would have like a new Yalta. We would divide Europe, maybe. I mean, there is something like that that's in the air. He has some idea about it affecting oil prices and you get oil prices going down. I mean, I don't -- you know, I can't prove that. But I mean, it's certainly not that farfetched. I mean, he is someone who thinks like that. He thinks transactionally. He doesn't think in terms of what's good for Europe or what's good for America. I mean, the loss of Ukraine, for Ukraine to have been seen as a failure, if we give away Ukraine, if Kyiv becomes a Russian satrapy, you know, the United States will be seen as a receding power and that will have all kinds of economic and political consequences that we haven't even imagined yet in terms of arms sales and energy supply sales and an America's position in trade talks and all kinds of -- the idea that America is the security guarantor for Europe is very, very important and fundamental to how America is perceived in Europe and around the world. Trump is not interested in that at all. He doesn't care. He doesn't know why it matters. Franklin Foer: Meanwhile, this is not just a Washington story. This is a Ukraine story, and I think Anne could speak to this better. But each delay that we go through has real consequences for the Ukrainian army and for the Ukrainian society, which is thoroughly demoralized by the way that Washington has treated the cause, our ally. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Let me turn to the Middle East, stay with you, Frank, for one second. You know, we -- all of us around this table have covered the relationship since Benjamin Netanyahu has been prime minister of Israel longer than anybody in Israeli history. We've seen him with different presidents at different times. I'll start by making this observation. It's very hard for an Israeli prime minister to anger Joe Biden, who loves Israel, and yet it seems as if we're there that somehow Netanyahu and Biden are so crossways right now, that the relationship is almost ruptured. Put this in context, and I'll ask other people to jump in as well. Put this in historic context. We all remember the Obama-Netanyahu relationship. Is this gotten worse? Franklin Foer: Yes, of course it has. And if you flash back to the rupture during the Obama administration, Joe Biden was always the person who stepped in and tried to find a way to make it better. Biden's relationship with the state of Israel and his telling goes back to his father. And he's been a million times. When the war started, he wrapped his arms around Israel. When Benjamin Netanyahu was missing on the scene, he stepped in. It was essentially prime minister of Israel, so much so that when he went to visit, I think, 10 or 11 days after October 7th, he sat in the Israeli war cabinet, asking them the questions that a prime minister should be asking about strategic objectives. And the questions that he’s asking of Benjamin Netanyahu are actually reasonable questions. What is your long-term plan? What is going to happen on the day after the war? If you go into Rafah, which, by the way, I don't think is imminent for many reasons, including the fact that Israel would need to call up and re-mobilize a good number of its troops in order to invade Rafah in a way, but these are questions that are reasonable to ask about what would happen to the million people who live in Rafah. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. So, Jon, we were just talking about Ukraine being a domestic political issue. Israel is the ultimate example, often, of a foreign country becoming a domestic, political hot potato. Is Israel becoming a partisan issue in a way that has never been before? Jonathan Karl: I mean, look, you've just had the Republican presumptive nominee say that if you vote Democratic and you're Jewish, it means you hate your religion. I mean, he's doing everything in his power to make it a partisan issue, and it's becoming a partisan issue. You look at the response when Chuck Schumer came on the Senate floor and effectively called for new elections in Israel, effectively called for a regime change in Israel, new elections in Israel. And the way it was denounced by Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader and Republicans across the board, I mean, it is becoming more of a partisan issue. And let's face it, you have a growing group within the Democratic Party that is emphatically not pro-Israel. And so this is definitely contributing to it. Jeffrey Goldberg: So, I want to -- you mentioned this extraordinary statement that Donald Trump made about American Jews. I want you to listen to that for a minute, and I want to get Frank's comment on it after we listen. Donald Trump (R), Former U.S. President, 2024 Presidential Candidate: Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, Frank, I'm not going to ask you to speak on behalf of the Jews, and please don't ask me to speak on the behalf of the Jews, but that's a fairly extraordinary statement. It's not extraordinary in the context of Trump's discourse, but it's an extraordinary thing to put out there. I mean, what is the reaction, I mean, to the extent that you've gauged it among American Jews, the majority of whom traditionally vote Democratic, the vast majority of them? Franklin Foer: First, it should be said that there is a long tradition of leaders, especially authoritarian-minded leaders, of dividing Jews into good Jews who are loyal to state and bad Jews are not loyal to the state. And, historically, when those distinctions get made, the Jews were deemed to be the not good Jews end up being targeted in some sort of way. And it's somewhat scary, I think, for American Jewry, because of the way in which Trump tends to talk about the people he demonizes, and it comes in this larger context where we're seeing an incredible surge of anti-Semitism, not just from the right, but also from the left. And to hear a potential president of the United States talk in a sort of way, even if he's talked in a way before, is very triggering. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Nikole, there -- I don't know the degree to which this is going to become a reality. Maybe you could enlighten us. But Speaker Johnson is thinking about bringing Netanyahu to the Hill. What would that look like? You know, we remember years ago a number of Democrats sat out, boycotted when Netanyahu came and spoke the last time, mainly around the subject of Iran. I'm feeling like this is going to be a whole other level of carnival. Nikole Killion: Yes. Well, you're already seeing a pretty significant divide, not only between Republicans and Democrats on this, but within the Democratic Party itself, where many Democrats have suggested they may boycott, others say they may go. You know, we have leader Hakeem Jeffries, who tried to put some distance there, saying, look, Speaker Johnson hasn't even asked me about this. So, until he does, I am not going comment. I mean, we did also hear from Leader Schumer this week on the issue, saying, you know, despite his comments last week, that he would welcome the opportunity so long as it's done in a bipartisan fashion. And we did see some Democrats boycott when President Herzog addressed a joint session of Congress about a year or so ago. But that being said, it is. It's starting to become a wedge issue, the political hot potato, and I think one that could potentially be inflamed if the prime minister does come to visit. But the speaker has made clear this is something that he would like to do. He would like to extend that invitation, so I think we'll have to see how it plays out. Jonathan Karl: I don't think it's actually going to happen. It may -- I mean, Netanyahu did this exact same playbook with Obama when he came in 2015, and the issue there was the Iran nuclear program. He wanted to go over Obama's head effectively and make the case to Congress against the deal. I don't anticipate it playing out this time. But it's remarkable that Netanyahu wants to effectively play to Trump because he's hit a wall with Biden. But, I mean, Trump hates Netanyahu. He's toyed with him. He resented the fact that Netanyahu came out and congratulated Biden just days after the 2020 election. Jeffrey Goldberg: It was kind of a pro forma congratulations. Jonathan Karl: It was, but he absolutely resented it. And it wasn't just that. If you remember, Netanyahu visited Washington, came to the White House while he was campaigning for his own re-election, and Trump saw him as a showboat. And, you know, that's a terrible thing in Trump world. Jeffrey Goldberg: When Trump thinks you're a showboat. Jonathan Karl: Yes, yes. I mean, because he came in and he was using Trump's stage to make the case. He spoke longer than Trump. He's spoke more emphatically than Trump and he also blindsided the Trump administration with a new announcement on settlements. So, it's risky strategy, but Netanyahu needs to stay in power to stay -- Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. One thing they have in common, they're both under indictment in their own countries, Trump and Netanyahu. Jonathan Karl: They both want to be in power to avoid potentially going to jail. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right, which, bottom line, might be what's going on here at the deepest level. I want to get to the -- Frank, I'll come back to you in a second, but I want to get to something else that might be operating at the deepest level. Both men, Trump and Netanyahu, have autocratic tendencies. You've written about this. It's somewhat surprising that they don't get along better. Anne Applebaum: I mean, they're very similar in some ways. I think some of the root of the discomfort with Netanyahu in the Democratic Party, and maybe even more broadly, there was a sense that we support Israel because it's a little democracy in a region where there aren't a lot of democracies. And we have something in common with them, that means we have a special bond, and so on. I think a lot of Democrats, I'm sure that's what Joe Biden thinks about Israel. He remembers its founding and the role that we played. Jeffrey Goldberg: The older the Democrat, the more likely they are -- Anne Applebaum: The more likely they are to think that. Netanyahu has systematically chipped away at that image, both by putting extremists into his government, by using kind of authoritarian propaganda to run election campaigns, most recently, over the last year, before the war, by passing or trying to pass a series of judicial reforms that would have politicized the judiciary in Israel, much very following a similar pattern that's been used elsewhere in Hungary and Turkey. So, he lost the image of the Democrat, and he therefore won a lot of enmity in the Democratic Party and actually won a lot of admirers on the right, including in the anti-Semitic right. I mean, Viktor Orban, who made George Soros as a kind of Jewish billionaire into a hate figure in Hungarian politics, feels very close to Netanyahu. They seem very similar. They have similar ideas about how to undermine institutions. So, I mean, maybe Trump doesn't like him personally, but the Republican Party likes him a lot. Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. That's right. Jon, let me ask you, in the couple of minutes that we have left, to talk about your extraordinary book. There's one story I need you to tell everyone, which is the Merkel story, which relates directly to this. Can you give us the 20 second version of that? Jonathan Karl: Yes. This is a story that he told one very senior member of Congress told me this, that it happened twice with Trump. There was a lot of stories that Merkel had nothing but contempt for Trump. So, Trump told this member of Congress, you know, she actually -- she can't believe the size of the crowds I get. She says, in fact, there's been only one leader in history that's ever got crowds as big as mine. And the leader is thinking, you know who she's talking about, right? You know the chancellor of Germany is talking. Jeffrey Goldberg: Did he understand, based on your reporting? Jonathan Karl: I mean, that is the great -- I think he understood. Jeffrey Goldberg: You think he understood? Jonathan Karl: I think he understood exactly. Jeffrey Goldberg: You think he understood. I mean, based on your own reporting, do you feel that we're talking about a true authoritarian? Jonathan Karl: I mean look, he is campaigning right now on the idea that literally the president United States is above the law. He is talking about undermining the Constitution, suspending certain provisions of the Constitution if necessary. I think it's not necessarily in the pursuit of any grander ideology or any policy proposal. It's in pursuit of his own elevation and is exalting himself, proving that he never lost. But I think he's got all of those authoritarian tendencies. Jeffrey Goldberg: So, Nikole, I will give you the last word on this. I have been in a search for an understanding of Republican foreign policy. But is Republican foreign policy just whatever -- at this point, whatever Trump feels at a given moment, even though he isn’t even in office right now? Nikole Killion: Well, certainly we've seen many take that America first isolationist approach, and we know that the former president continues to have a lot of sway over congressional Republicans. But at the end of the day, you know, they also have their own minds, too. So, again, I think, as we move forward with some of these key issues, it continues to be something to watch. And these very issues that we're talking about that were once bipartisan, you know, is there the prospect for that to be the case again or will we see that further partisan divide, particularly as this election cycle goes on? So, to be continued.

MSNBC Cuts Away from Trump Decrying Trial as 'Election Interference'

Former President Trump was in a New York City courtroom to deal with the hush money case against him, on Monday, but when he stepped out of the courthouse to speak to the press, he threw MSNBC into a tailspin. The liberal network frantically cut off his audio and threw it back to 12:00 p.m. host Andrea Mitchell because he dared to say the case was “election interference.” Before Trump appeared outside the building, Mitchell was speaking with correspondent Vaughn Hillyard, who was outside the courthouse. Both were eager to hear what Trump had to say. “I can see him now!” Mitchell excitedly announced. HILLYARD: We are seeing him walk out here. He’s then going to make remarks. I’ll just step aside here, Andrea. MITCHELL: Yeah, Vaughn, let's listen. “Now, they're fighting over days because they want to try to do it during the election. This is election interference, that’s all it is. It is election interference. And it's a disgrace,” Trump said before MSNBC could cut the feed. “But this is a pure case of voter intimidation and election interference. And it shouldn't be allowed to happen. This case could have been brought by the D.A., but they didn’t want – [Audio cuts out]”     The disruption was so abrupt that Mitchell seemed caught off guard and struggled to find the word to dismiss Trump’s assertions. “And we’re going to – The former President is repeating what he has said often, that this is a case of election interference, which is arguably not the fact,” she proclaimed. Mitchell was still fumbling around when she handed it off to NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson to decry Trump for “spinning a lot of this”: MITCHELL: Mara Liasson, let’s – let’s – you jump in here, as well. They're talking about the way that he has been successfully spinning a lot of this. LIASSON: Spinning and delaying. So, there's tactics and there’s strategy. The tactic is to delay as long as possible, hopefully past the election. The strategy is to destroy American's faith in the justice system, so that whatever the result of these trials, Donald Trump can dismiss them or say that they're phony just like he tried to do with the election. And that's why you hear him saying election interference, voter intimidation. You know, he is casting this as if the justice system itself is on trial, not him. Mitchell went on to blame Trump for New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg waiting until 2023 to bring the case against Trump, knowing that it could conflict/complicate an election year: And he said that this is a case that could have been brought three and a half years ago, and they're now fighting over days. This is election interference. Of course, a lot of the delay in bringing the case, at least under, you know, prosecutor Bragg, not the previous investigation, had to do with the delays caused by all of the defense motions. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports March 25, 2024 12:17:43 p.m. Eastern (…) VAUGHN HILLYARD: Donald Trump, we expect him to head -- ANDREA MITCHELL: I can see him now! HILLYARD: -- down the road to his skyscraper. We are seeing him walk out here. He’s then going to make remarks. I’ll just step aside here, Andrea. MITCHELL: Yeah, Vaughn, let's listen. DONALD TRUMP: Now, they're fighting over days because they want to try to do it during the election. This is election interference, that’s all it is. It is election interference. And it's a disgrace. Well, obviously, we appeal it. But this is a pure case of voter intimidation and election interference. And it shouldn't be allowed to happen. This case could have been brought by the D.A., but they didn’t want – [Audio cuts out] MITCHELL: And we’re going to – The former President is repeating what he has said often, that this is a case of election interference, which is arguably not the fact. Mara Liasson, let’s – let’s – you jump in here, as well. They're talking about the way that he has been successfully spinning a lot of this. MARA LIASSON: Spinning and delaying. So, there's tactics and there’s strategy. The tactic is to delay as long as possible, hopefully past the election. The strategy is to destroy American's faith in the justice system, so that whatever the result of these trials, Donald Trump can dismiss them or say that they're phony just like he tried to do with the election. And that's why you hear him saying election interference, voter intimidation. You know, he is casting this as if the justice system itself is on trial, not him. (…) 12:21:09 p.m. Eastern MITCHELL: Now, he's also said, while we were talking just now, that this is a case of clear election interference and voter intimidation, that this decision today is something he will appeal. And he said that this is a case that could have been brought three and a half years ago, and they're now fighting over days. This is election interference. Of course, a lot of the delay in bringing the case, at least under, you know, prosecutor Bragg, not the previous investigation, had to do with the delays caused by all of the defense motions. (…)

Elected Officials Condemn Biden’s Tyrannical EV Regulation: This Is ‘Unrealistic’

Elected officials across the country have condemned President Joe Biden’s EPA for massively overstepping its mandate by forcing electric vehicles (EVs) on the American public. On the March 20 edition of Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) told Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo that Biden’s decision to force electric cars on Americans would have serious consequences. Moore Capito panned Biden’s goal of over 50 percent EV ownership by 2032 as “unrealistic” before adding: “We’re now telling the consumer what to buy. The electric grid will falter under the demands of the electric vehicles.” Moore Capito’s warning is not just for future Americans. In 2022 in Gavin Newsom’s California, electric vehicle owners were given instructions on when to charge their electric vehicles to avoid threatening the grid. The West Virginia senator went on to list further potential issues for electric cars such as performance in different types of weather. The senator said, “How does this perform on the highway in terms of guardrails and other issues? So there's a whole host of issues, not the least of which the consumer can't afford them, doesn’t want them and they don’t fit the patterns of many consumers across the country.” Moore Capito was not alone. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) and Sens. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Bill Hagerty (R-TN) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) all condemned the EPA regulation in posts on X. Hagerty put together a thread taking down the Biden Administration regulation while pointing out how the current push towards electric vehicles will make Americans more reliant on the Communist Chinese government. Mullin bashed the EV mandate as “costly” and “reckless.” Tuberville pointed out that Biden’s attempt to force Americans to choose electric vehicles was not only expensive for the government but also for the average car buyer. Tuberville wrote, “The average small car costs approximately $24,500. The average cost of an EV is $55,000, and that’s after THOUSANDS in government subsidies. Americans are already going broke thanks to Joe Biden’s inflation. We CANNOT afford the radical left’s climate agenda.” Clyde spoke up for Americans’ freedom to make their own choices about the vehicles they drive. “American consumers should decide what car they purchase and drive. Yet Joe Biden is doubling down on his radical EPA rule that institutes a de facto EV mandate on our country. Congress must stop this insanity," Clyde wrote. Even CNN acknowledged the ugly ramifications of this tyrannical regulation. During the March 25 edition of CNN This Morning, CNN co-anchor Kate Bouldan asked former Special Assistant to President Biden Meghan Hays to her face: has Biden thought this through?  Bouldan said, "If these companies are forced to produce more EVs and hybrids to meet the demands of this new regulation, there is a world where it could push up prices for combustion engine cars that some Americans are still gonna need." Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News at 818-460-7477, CBS News at 212-975-3247 and NBC News at 212-664-6192 and demand they hold Biden and his cronies accountable for attempting to restrict fossil fuel production and Americans’ choices.

CNN’s Lee, WH’s KJP Team Up to SLAM NBC for Hiring McDaniel, Demand Censorship

Thanks to CNN leftist hack M.J. Lee and the ever-inept White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, Monday’s White House press briefing featured a not-so-subtle call for censorship in the news media and suggestions that Trump-friendly voices — such as Ronna McDaniel being hired by NBC News — be allowed “in the national political discourse” due to the aftermath of the 2020 election and the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. Lee brought up NBC as the liberal media — and the peacock network writ large — are in the throes of a infantile public meltdown after NBC News brass chose to bring McDaniel in for a reported $300,000 (triple what most elite commentators make — which isn’t chump change). The CNN hack’s softball showed how she (and her colleagues) felt about all this: I wanted to ask you about former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel being hired by NBC News. Given that this is a White House that has condemned lies about January 6, condemned allies about the 2020 election, what do you make of the network hiring somebody who participated in a phone call — um — you know, pressuring Michigan officials to not certify certain votes. A former MSNBC contributor herself, Jean-Pierre disingenuously proclaimed “we’re always very mindful about personnel decisions...made by a media organization”, but nonetheless went into great detail lecturing NBC executives about the need to hue towards supporting the administration and educating the public on the supposed dangers of voting elsewhere.     Jean-Pierre cited Biden’s remarks at the ultra-elite Washington event The Gridiron Dinner as having addressed the “critical role that journalists play and — and they have — and protecting our democracy by making sure that the public knows the truth, that the public knows the facts.” “[H]e said...we need you. Democracy is at risk, and the American people need to know, in fractured times, they need a context and a perspective. They need substance to match the enormity of the task. It is a big task that journalists have, and we understand that and the facts and the truth are critical here,” she added before reiterating her faux qualifier she wasn’t making a judgment one way or another. Lee had a blunt follow-up, wondering whether Trump supporters should be allowed to speak on TV: “[D]o you — does this White House, does the President believe that that — um — kind of voice — that voice like hers — that there’s room for her in the national political discourse?” Jean-Pierre implied the answer was no, citing January 6 as proof that those who oppose Biden behave violently when they don’t get their way and thus “it is important” the media and White House “are very clear to the public about the facts, that we are very clear to the public about the truth, and we understand the burden that you all have.” In contrast, CBS’s Ed O’Keefe grilled National Security Council official and frequent Jean-Pierre crutch Kirby on the U.S. abstaining on the latest resolution from the anti-Israel United Nations about the war in Gaza.  He also correctly noted it’s ironic for some U.S. officials to rip Israeli officials facing domestic political pressure to stay resolute when it’s Biden who’s adopted a more aggressive line against Israel to assuage Democratic voters (click “expand”): O’KEEFE: You say it’s not a shift in policy by voting for this today. Get specific with us as to why again and to the charge that, by even abstaining — because, normally, I mean, there may be some attempt at the U.N. Security Council or the U.N. overall to condemn Israel every so often for whatever reason, the U.S. usually stands up and vetoes those resolutions. Here now, for the first time in a while, the United States is at least abstaining and allowing it to go through. So, the perception broadly is that the U.S. is no longer got Israel’s back when it comes to conversations like this at the U.N. KIRBY: No, that’s just not true, Ed. Nothing could be further from the truth, quite frankly. Of course, we still have Israel’s back. I mean, as you and I are speaking, we are still providing tools and capabilities — weapons systems so that Israel can defend itself against which we — what we agree is still a viable threat to Hamas again. No change by this non-binding resolution what Israel can or cannot do in terms of defending itself. But, you know, the other day Friday when I was up here, Brian was asking me about, you know how — how come it was okay for, uh, or not okay for Russia and China to veto a resolution that we drafted on Friday when we vetoed similar ones prior to it. And — and — I — my answer, then is going to be my answer today because of the substance of it. The ones we veto didn’t condemn Hamas. This one didn’t condemn Hamas, which is why we couldn’t support it, but we didn’t veto it because, in general, unlike previous reser — resolutions, this one did fairly capture what has been our consistent policy, which is linking hostage deal in the release of those men and women with, of course, uh — uh — a temporary ceasefire. O’KEEFE: There are U.S. officials today saying Netanyahu’s acting this way because he’s facing some domestic political pressure — there’s domestic political issues going on. Aren’t there also domestic political pressures facing President Biden and that’s part of the reason why y’all are allowing this to happen today? KIRBY: I — I can’t speak for — O’KEEFE: You’ve got members of the Democratic Party, saying he’s doing this wrong. You’ve got the general public suggesting his support for Israel is [inaudible]. Is that part of why this is going through today? KIRBY: — no, absolutely not. And I got to take issue with the premise of the question. The President makes decisions based on the national security interests of the United States, and this decision to abstain on this resolution is in keeping with the national security interests of the United States and quite frankly, it’s in keeping with the national security concerns of the Israeli people. O’Keefe also touched on the border crisis: CBS’s @EdOKeefe: “The Customs and Border Policy [sic] — er, Border Patrol chief yesterday suggested in an interview that the situation in the southern borders and national security threat because of the roughly 140,000 known gottaways, or those that crossed the border and were… pic.twitter.com/9mzkqRV0U9 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 25, 2024 Serving as a stand-in for Peter Doocy and Jacqui Heinrich, Fox’s Rich Edson pressed Kirby on both the U.N. resolution abstention and the border crisis. Here was his exchange on the former: Fox's @RichEdsonDC: “John, on this resolution that the U.S. abstained for — abstained to today that was within the power of the United States to block, the — the Prime Minister said ‘it gives Hamas hope the international pressure will allow them to accept a ceasefire without the… pic.twitter.com/7Ab40JiPy8 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 25, 2024 To see the relevant transcript from the March 25 briefing, click here.

Ex-Google Employees Come Forward with Disturbing Allegations on DEI Pandering

Leftist Big Tech giant Google seems unable to catch a break—and rightfully so! In remarks to media start-up The Free Press and Fox Business, former Google employees raised the alarm about the extent to which left-wing ideology has been embedded in the tech giant, corroborating widespread concerns that Google is actively peddling woke diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) through its products. At least four former Google employees blew the whistle on DEI becoming “part of every single thing” in the Alphabet subsidiary. Even more telling was their statements that Gemini — Google’s infamous No Whites Allowed artificial intelligence chatbot — was the direct byproduct of the left-wing ideology at Google. Speaking to The Free Press, Shaun Maguire, a former partner at Google Ventures, declared not being “shocked at all” after critics—including MRC Free Speech America—caught Gemini bafflingly generating ethnically diverse photos of black Nazis, black George Washington and a woman Pope, among others. However, Maguire warned that “‘what happened was not a one-off incident’” but is rather “‘a symptom of a larger cultural phenomenon that has been taking over the company for years.’” Related: Is Google’s AI Racist? Product Lead’s Tweets Give Us an Indication Echoing Maguire’s remarks, a former AI researcher at Google Brain told Free Press anonymously: “‘The model is just a reflection of the people who trained it. It’s just a series of decisions that humans have made.’” James Damore, a former Google software engineer, issued a contentious memo in 2017 dubbed “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” In it, he called out Google’s inherent discriminatory practices against men to increase the recruitment of women. According to The Free Press, Google fired Damore just a month after the memo. David Kiferbaum, a former Google business manager, said that his superiors at the tech giant pressured him into hiring minorities after Damore’s ouster. “We’re really looking for diverse candidates for this role,” Kieferbaum recounted being told by Google, prompting his shock. “I was like, ‘Whoa, I can’t believe this person is saying this out loud,’” he said. The Free Press’s sources echoed the remarks of a former high-level Google employee cited by Fox Business on March 21. The former employee exclaimed that the tech company is pushing “‘diversity’” in an alleged partisan attempt to appease the current political environment. The source said that as soon as President Joe Biden was elected, “‘it was diversity everything.’” The former employee stated that the bigger question went far beyond whether Google is simply pushing a certain agenda. “‘The question is, why do companies get to decide in the first place? Why does Google get to decide what I get access to based on what they think is right or wrong,’” he asked. According to the Fox Business source, Google plays “whatever political side of the fence” whenever convenient, which given Google’s recent actions overwhelmingly indicates its sordid favor for the left. The source further elaborated, “‘What these companies do is they follow the climate of the environment that their app is operating in.’” The Fox Business source alleged that the current push for DEI is traceable to 2020, which followed the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests. The source alleged that Google had been pushing DEI philosophy since then. Fast forward to 2024, and now there is Gemini. 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.

TikTok Unleashes Desperate ‘Youth Council’ Amid Ban Threats

Under pressure after the passage of bipartisan House legislation, toxic and anti-free speech TikTok has a strange new strategy: turn teenagers into decision-makers. TikTok has come under fire for its ties to the communist Chinese government, harmful algorithms for young users, bias and censorship. Amid the backlash, the app is attempting to assuage fears with various tactics, including a new “Youth Council” for teenagers to give input. But will any root problems be addressed? A March 25 press release from TikTok explained the Youth Council comprises 15 teens aged 15 to 18 from around the world. The council is reportedly prioritizing “teen well-being and inclusion.” Moreover, TikTok is redesigning both its Youth Portal feature, which provides resources, and advertising its parental controls, especially for concerned U.S. parents. The press release did not address the fact the Chinese government-tied app has been involved in bias and censorship for years. MRC Free Speech America ranked TikTok among the worst censors of 2023 for its boastful removal of hundreds of thousands of videos about the Israel-Hamas war. In February, TikTok continued this policy trend by establishing a team of thousands of “content moderators” (i.e., censors) to suppress free speech ahead of upcoming European Union elections. TikTok is also increasingly under fire for its security risks. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. A 2023 lawsuit alleged that a “backdoor” through ByteDance enabled the CCP to access U.S. user data. Bipartisan TikTok-banning legislation passed the House but has yet to pass the Senate. President Joe Biden voiced his willingness to sign the bill if it did pass. Besides the national security risks, there are also the mental health risks for the very teens TikTok claims to promote. By late 2023, evidence indicates that a few hours on TikTok turned up potentially harmful content for mental health in one out of two videos in automated accounts. The new TikTok release claimed a focus on addressing bullying and body image issues. Repeated mentions of U.S. parents and kids throughout the press release indicated TikTok’s endeavors to appease Americans amidst ban threats. TikTok quoted a 15-year-old American Youth Council member enthusing, “I found the first meeting to be super exciting and positive.” TikTok’s Youth Council does not address the app’s deepest dangers for Americans, however. Conservatives are under attack. Contact TikTok via email at communitymanager@tiktok.com and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment and provide transparency. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Fla. ‘All-Ages’ Pride Event: Rainbow Penises, Bare Butts & Bouncing Boobies

How many times do we have to say that there’s no such thing as a “family-friendly” event that includes sex toys, booties, and tits? Tampa, Florida hosted a pride event over the weekend. It was advertised as an “all ages family-friendly” event, yet featured not only numerous sexually explicit individuals dancing and trotting around for kids to see, but even had sex toys and erotic merchandise for sale. The event was facilitated by a group called Tampa Pride. The group works “To organize year round events, culminating in an annual Pride event that celebrates members of the LGBTQ+ community in Tampa and the surrounding areas – championing our shared experiences, honoring our differences and strengthening our community,” according to its website. Apparently, that also means indoctrinating, grooming and traumatizing little kids in the process. A video was shared by Gays Against Groomers bashing the event and explaining how pride is “not for kids.” In it, numerous disturbing sites from the event were displayed. Scenes from yesterday’s Pride in Tampa, FL. Does this look kid friendly to you? It might… if you’re a groomer. PRIDE IS NOT FOR KIDS! Shame on any parent who brought their children there. #GaysAgainstGroomers pic.twitter.com/zJnW9DmHXc — Gays Against Groomers (@againstgrmrs) March 24, 2024 One example was an image of an overweight drag queen on a parade float. He was wearing a pink striped flapper dress with a masquerade mask and carried what looked like a stuffed mouse in his hand. He also had his two bare boobies hanging out, nipples and all. Though they were obviously fake, they shouldn’t have been in the eyesight of little kids yet, they were. His accomplice dressed a little differently. Similarly, however, he was also way too exposed. This dude had on a strappy top that covered absolutely nothing and really just drew attention to his nipples that were strategically positioned in triangle cut-outs of his top. As for his bottoms, or lack thereof, he wore a black and purple thong that accentuated not only his junk in the trunk but his junk in the…uh…engine?  In one image of this groomer, you could see a little girl standing what looked like only a few feet away from him and his barely covered genitalia.  If you ask me, I consider that child abuse. At the vendor section of the event, numerous displays of inappropriate merchandise were exposed. At one tent, a fan that read “MAKE ME CUM AGAIN” was displayed for all to see.  Another tent from "My Practice Candy," offered lollipops shaped like genitalia. The vendor had all different size penises and vaginas in various fruity flavors.  A sign that Gays Against Groomers posted indicated four special items that were for sale: a “Lickety Split,” which was a vagina shaped lollipop, the “Average Joe” which was a six-inch penis pop, the “OMG!” which was seven-inches and then an eight-inch long “Mandingo” pop. Kids who passed by likely/hopefully didn’t realize that the lollipops were shaped like genitalia, but the bright, vibrant colors were undoubtedly enough to at least catch their attention. Again, that’s abusive and grooming. Speaking of abusive, Gays Against Groomers also shared an image of a little boy, who couldn’t have been more than three-years-old, holding a transgender flag in one hand and a bisexual flag in another, walking down the street. It really is heartbreaking that events like this are even happening, that adults think this behavior is okay to be shown in public and with confidence, and that kids were subject to it.  Lord, please send your Son again.

The View Hypocrites RAGE at NBC Hiring Former RNC Chairwoman McDaniel

The revolving door between American politics and the media only becomes an issue when the wannabe gatekeepers don’t like who comes through. The mean girls of ABC’s The View had their knives out for former Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel on Monday after she was hired by NBC News to be a commentator. And their infamous hypocrisy was on full display as they decried her for doing what many of their friends did to get into the business, including some of the cast members themselves. Following a clip of NBC chief political analyst Chuck Todd melting down on Meet the Press over the weekend, faux conservative Ana Navarro lacked self-awareness when she decried McDaniel as “a shapeshifter” who “says and does what's convenient for her to say and do when it's convenient.” Navarro commended Todd for being “very right” for “calling into question on the air” the decision of NBC to hire McDaniel. She then proved just how part of the swamp she was by bragging about being personal friends with the boss of NBCUniversal News Group and scolding him: The head of NBC News is a good friend of mine from Miami, Cesar Conde. I've known him for over 20 years. I think this was a mistake because you're allowing somebody who was part of the machine – right? -- a figurehead, a household name, reinvent herself. And I do think that there's credibility issues, and it's up to the hosts, the journalists, the staff, the viewers to make it known if they are unhappy about it. Her comment about McDaniel being a “household name” was also evidence of just how far removed Navarro was from average Americans, who didn’t make their money spewing hate about political figures on TV. And speaking of former Trump supporters who were allowed to “reinvent herself” (as Navarro whined), useless Republican Alyssa Farah Griffin refused to mention criticism of NBC’s ethically dubious hire of former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who was fielding questions from NBC reporters when it was publically know she was destined to get a show on the network. Psaki was even taking questions from then-White House correspondent Kristen Welker, who Farah Griffin praised as “an incredible journalist.”     And as if there weren’t already enough Never Trump Republicans at NBC and MSNBC, Farah Griffin suggested that they hire more people like her: I feel very strongly, obviously, that there needs to be Republican representation in media. We represent 50 percent of the country, but there are incredible Republicans who never dabbled in this dangerous lie that Joe Biden didn't legitimately win the election who would be far better served for NBC, could offer the same expertise, but with more credibility. I think if people like Chris Christie, Chris Krebs, Sarah Matthews, Mick Mulvaney, Will Hurd. “There were other sketchy things that happened, and [McDaniel] was a direct part of it. You know, I think, when journalism is shrinking, especially on linear television, to pay a woman like that $300,000 is obscene,” kvetched staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners). Psaki had her own sketchy history that Hostin didn’t want to mention. When she was the spokeswoman for the Obama State Department, video was deleted of her getting called out and admitting to misleading the press (and thus the American people) about President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Co-host Sara Haines agreed that the media did “need to represent more voices” but added that “you cannot have election deniers being given these types of roles in major network news.” Meanwhile, The View welcomed and defended election deniers like White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre who tried to cast doubt on the fact former President Trump won the 2016 election. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg defended Jean-Pierre, by proclaiming she was “doing her part.” In, fact, Hostin admitted that she herself pushed election denialism in the same episode. Goldberg defended her too: “But that's how you felt! You had every right to say it!” Of course, this was all said on ABC News. The same network that took President Clinton’s former hatchetman George Stephanopoulos and turned him into their chief news anchor. And around and around the revolving door went. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 25, 2024 11:18:10 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So I leave it to y'all. What do you think? ANA NAVARRO: Look. I think she's a shapeshifter and she says and does what's convenient for her to say and do when it's convenient. She's from Michigan where the name Romney, which is her name; she used to use -- when she was in Michigan, she was a Romney. When she became the RNC chair and it was under Trump, who didn't like Romney, she took out the word – the name Romney. When it was convenient for her to amplify things that Donald Trump was saying, to amplify the conspiracy theories, to gaslight journalists, to malign journalists, she did that. Now that she's on NBC, she's changed her tune. So, I think that Chuck Todd is very right in calling into question on the air – and by the way, kudos to NBC for having Chuck Todd -- that Chuck Todd had the freedom or felt he had the freedom to say that on the air just following that. The head of NBC News is a good friend of mine from Miami, Cesar Conde. I've known him for over 20 years. I think this was a mistake because you're allowing somebody who was part of the machine – right? -- a figurehead, a household name, reinvent herself. And I do think that there's credibility issues, and it's up to the hosts, the journalists, the staff, the viewers to make it known if they are unhappy about it. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Kudos to Kristen Welker, who didn’t – We didn't see all the interview, but she did a great job challenging her. She's an incredible journalist. And one point in that interview Ronna McDaniel starts talking about all these election officials who felt intimidated because they didn't want to certify the election. What she failed to mention is the countless of us who told the truth about the election and faced intimidation and harassment; and people with a lot more power than myself like Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman and Rusty Bowers, who we know of, who simply did their job to move forward with the election and had their lives torn apart because of it. I feel very strongly, obviously, that there needs to be Republican representation in media. We represent 50 percent of the country, but there are incredible Republicans who never dabbled in this dangerous lie that Joe Biden didn't legitimately win the election who would be far better served for NBC, could offer the same expertise, but with more credibility. I think if people like Chris Christie, Chris Krebs, Sarah Matthews, Mick Mulvaney, Will Hurd. To give her this platform when she was such a contributor. She hosted that insane RNC press conference where they blamed Hugo Chavez, who is no longer with us, for stealing the election. Like, there's such a credibility factor, and I think it was a mistake. [Crosstalk] SARA HAINES: NBC said -- sorry, Sunny. When they announced the hire, they said, we do need to represent more voices. I agree with that, but you cannot have election deniers being given these types of roles in major network news. She was someone that, you know, continues to actually plant, while saying she believes President Biden was elected fairly, also kind of toeing the line with some stories about things that weren't right. And when you have 60 court case that is say there was no evidence otherwise, you have to -- questioning an election is fine. Denying every result that proves you wrong is not fine. So, I think that the only sketchy thing that happened in the election was when the former President asked the secretary of state of Georgia to find 11,000 votes. So, let's come clean on what was sketchy about the election and she should not have gotten [inaudible] – SUNNY HOSTIN: There were other sketchy things that happened, and she was a direct part of it. You know, I think, when journalism is shrinking, especially on linear television, to pay a woman like that $300,000 is obscene. And let's remember that she was the person involved in the 2020 phone call to pressure Michigan county officials to not certify the vote from the Detroit area in particular. Detroit -- the Detroit population is 77.8 percent black. So, she was involved in actively suppressing -- or attempting to suppress the black vote. She also, as you mentioned, said while she was being interviewed by Kristen Welker – and I think there could have been more pushback, but she said, but there were problems with the vote. So, she is still pushing the same exact narrative. She is being rewarded for basically trying to take away the votes of Americans. And I think it's a despicable decision, and Joe and Mika -- Joe Scarborough just this morning said, and Mika said, we hope NBC reconsiders its decision. And I hope they do as well. NAVARRO: Yeah and, you know, one of the things that Chuck Todd says is sometimes we hire folks like this for access, and I don't know what access she has because -- HOSTIN: She got thrown out of the RNC. NAVARRO: Trump threw her out of the RNC and replaced her with an even bigger sycophant. Right? His daughter-in-law. And most of the people who worked with Ronna McDaniel – Ronna Romney McDaniel (…) have gotten thrown out as well. So, I’s not sure what access does she have other than $300,000? GOLDBERG: Well, I'm sure this isn't the end of that story. So, we'll -- when we know more, we'll come back and talk more about it, but not right now because now we're going to break.

STUDY: PBS 'Washington Week' Journalist Roundtable Routinely Hates Republicans

Washington Week with The Atlantic, public television’s taxpayer-funded weekly political roundtable analyzing the major news stories of the week, is brazen enough to tout itself as "objective….known for its depth, balance, and civil discourse.”  But a review of six months of episodes after the launch of Washington Week’s partnership with The Atlantic magazine (August 11, 2023 -- February 9, 2024) proved liberalism still reigns over the public airwaves. Key Findings: More than half (88) of the 157 topics addressed focused on Republicans, over twice as many as those focused on Democrats (38). The panelists spent 149 minutes opining about Republicans, nearly 90% in negative fashion. The Democrats received just 66 minutes of opinionated commentary, split much more evenly (57% negative vs. 43% positive). Republicans were branded as “extreme” 11 times over the study period, Democrats none. Meanwhile, Joe Biden was praised for being “mentally…quite acute.” One reason for the ideological imbalance: The exclusion from these weekly discussions of journalists from any conservative media outlet, such as Fox News, The Washington Times, New York Post, Washington Examiner, Washington Free Beacon, or Daily Caller.   What Topics Were Covered? A related way liberal slant revealed itself was topic choice. 157 separate topics were covered within the 27 episodes comprising the study period (average episode length 23 minutes). Of those, 88 were focused on Republicans, compared to just 38 for Democrats (21 featured both parties, while 10 dealt with non-partisan subjects like the fighting in Ukraine). That’s a ratio of 2.3 to 1 of Republican-focused stories compared to Democrat-focused stories during the six months we examined.  At first glance those numbers may sound favorable for Republicans. But Washington Week is a political roundtable, not a straight newscast, and emphasizes topical controversies, concerns, and scandals involving political personalities, not in-depth examinations of issues, meaning the one-sided GOP numbers were the opposite of a campaign favor to the Republican Party. When the show did touch on issues such as abortion, immigration, Israel, or Ukraine, it was often focused on how those issues could affect the 2024 elections.  Bias By Omission: Democratic Scandals Ignored Democratic Party scandals and problems, when not being downplayed, were often omitted entirely. There was no scrutiny of the progressive-activist “Squad” members recently elected to Congress, though several added fascinating scandals to their names during the period under study:  Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) was convicted of pulling a House fire alarm to delay a vote. Later, old blog posts from Bowman resurfaced, promoting 9-11 conspiracy theories he wrote before taking office. Rep. Cori Bush’s (D-MO) allegedly committed campaign finance violations involving security payments to her then-boyfriend. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) spouted anti-Semitic comments in the wake of the October 7 Hamas invasion of Israel, for which she was censured by Congress. Topics devoted to those Democratic scandals on Washington Week? Zero. Not a single mention. Even when a scandal involving a Democrat did break through, coverage was sparse. Sen. Bob Menendez’s (D-N.J.) corruption scandal, involving media-friendly details like gold bars, was relegated to a single brief segment on December 1, 2023, and a three-second reference on January 5, 2024, for a total of 34 seconds. Yet viewers heard more about kerfuffles involving Republican officials, like Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) threatening to go mano-a-mano with a Teamsters union president during hostile testimony (1 minute 44 seconds) and accusations by Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) that former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had sucker-punched him in the back (46 seconds). Partisan Spin The numbers reveal the show’s strikingly negative treatment of Republican figures and entities, coupled with a marked disinterest in stories involving Democrats besides President Biden. Comments about Republicans, of which there were 149 minutes worth, tilted strongly negative, with evaluative statements nearly 90% negative versus just 10% positive for the GOP. Panelists described Republicans as “extreme” or “extremist” 11 times over the study period, often in reference to the right flank of House Republicans. There were zero references to Democratic extremism. Within the smaller universe of Democratic-focused topics, scandals involving Democratic politicians were mostly ignored. Coverage of President Biden himself, while not wholly positive when it came to voters’ concerns about his age, or ideological challenges from his left flank on immigration or Israel, often either criticized his Republican opponents or rallied to his defense. Worth noting: Retired Utah Sen. Mitt Romney comprised over a quarter of the GOP’s positive coverage (4 minutes), portrayed as a moderate hero for blasting his Trump-loving party’s alleged slide into “authoritarianism.” If one removes Romney’s coverage from the count, the anti-GOP slant was further strengthened to 92.4% negative versus 7.6% positive. While Donald Trump’s legal woes and courtroom controversies garnered the most opinionated airtime, Republicans in Congress also received plenty of coverage, and near-universal condemnation, with a staggering 99% of commentary skewing negative, whether it was criticism of the dysfunctional House of Representatives or Sen. Tommy Tuberville (AL) holding up military promotions to protest abortion-related expenses for servicewomen.  Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley was the beneficiary of some positive coverage, especially as a potential moderate competitor to Trump in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Democrats fared far better with the panelists, covered less often (66 minutes) and far more positively, with only 57.2% negative commentary and 42.8% positive commentary -- close to an even balance.  Here’s how Washington Week panelists treated the top five most-discussed Republican political personalities/groups over the six-month study period: Donald Trump: 72 total minutes, 67 minutes negative, 5 minutes positive: 92.6% negative coverage  Republicans in Congress: 46 total minutes, 45 minutes negative, 28 seconds positive: 99% negative coverage  House Speaker Mike Johnson: 492 total seconds, 472 seconds negative, 20 seconds positive, 96% negative coverage Nikki Haley: 370 total seconds, 88 seconds negative, 282 seconds positive, 23.8% negative coverage Sen. Tommy Tuberville: 276 total seconds, 276 seconds negative, 100% negative coverage The chatter on the Democratic side was far less robust. After President Joe Biden, who received relatively generous coverage (39% positive) compared to his once and likely future Republican opponent Donald Trump (7.4% positive), comments on Democratic politicians and controversies were hard to come by. The show even managed to spin up some sympathy for Hunter Biden, cast as a victim of a “political hit job” in its sparse coverage of his scandals. President Joe Biden: 57 total minutes, 22 minutes positive, 35 minutes negative, 61% negative Democrats in Congress: 253 total seconds, 208 seconds positive, 45 seconds negative, 17.8% negative Hunter Biden: 104 total seconds, 75 seconds positive, 29 seconds negative, 27.9% negative Gen. Lloyd Austin: 50 total seconds, 18 seconds positive, 32 seconds negative, 64% negative Sen. Bob Menendez: 34 total seconds, 34 seconds negative, 100% negative   What They Said: ‘Extremist’ Republicans, ‘Mentally, He’s Quite Acute’ Biden The Washington Week-Atlantic partnership got off to a biased start on August 11, 2023, with Goldberg and company casting Florida governor and then-GOP candidate Ron DeSantis as an extremist autocrat.  Following a clip of DeSantis saying that when he became president, “We’re going to have all these Deep State people, we’re going to start slitting throats on Day One,” Moderator Goldberg asked PBS NewsHour reporter Laura Barron-Lopez: “Laura, let me turn to you, because you’ve covered extremism. Talk about the relationship between rhetoric like that and the threat of violence in our society.” The NewsHour’s White House correspondent did not disappoint: “…when you talk to historians, especially those who study authoritarianism, they will tell you that that is a classic tactic used by authoritarian figures, autocratic figures, to try to rally their base around them and they know exactly who they’re speaking to.” On the August 25 edition, Barron-Lopez, serving as guest host, made it clear her preferred Republican candidate in the then-crowded field, the “rational” Nikki Haley, who was “trying to get Republicans to contend with reality” on liberal issues like climate change and abortion, while bluntly saying of conservatives, “They're feeling more emboldened to say racist things in some cases.”  In a segment that didn’t, ahem, age well after Biden’s disastrous classified document-related press conference in February, Mark Leibovich of The Atlantic came huffily to the defense of the octogenarian president in this now-notorious exchange on September 1, 2023:  Leibovich: Can I just actually just point out, though, that, I mean, it’s not just making an issue of Biden’s age, it’s lying, it’s saying he’s senile, saying he’s demented, saying he’s out of it. I mean, I think it’s important to sort of state for a fact that a lot of these are just -- Goldberg: Right. Mentally, he’s quite acute. Leibovich: It seems like it. In contrast, the November 24, 2023 edition treated taxpaying viewers to how the Republican “anger caucus” was “willing to blow things up” in Washington, while new House Speaker Mike Johnson was a “deeply, deeply religious conservative” who had, according to NewsHour’s congressional reporter Lisa Desjardins, “dehumanized the LGBTQ population in this country.” Perhaps most revealing was the December 29, 2023 episode dedicated to the latest issue of The Atlantic, wholly devoted to the dangers of Donald Trump, with a roundtable of Atlantic-only magazine staff taking over the taxpayer-supported airwaves to fret over a second-term Trump administration that threatened to usher in “authoritarianism.”  Who’s Talking? Besides chief moderator (and Atlantic editor-in-chief) Jeffrey Goldberg, who mediated 24 of the 27 episodes, the show features a rotating panel of journalists from various outlets. New York Times’ White House correspondent Peter Baker, National Public Radio White House correspondent Asma Khalid, and PBS NewsHour White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez each appeared around the table five times, the most of any journalist. Liberal and even left-wing outlets dominated, making for a plethora of agreed-upon liberal-leaning opinions and interpretations of fact with no conservative rebuttals. Staff from The Atlantic itself were the most frequent guests, with 22 total appearances (Goldberg counting as a single appearance). The public airwaves were also well represented, with reporters from NPR and the PBS NewsHour appearing frequently alongside liberal media stalwarts like the Washington Post and Politico. In all, eighteen separate media outlets were represented by a total of 57 individual panelists, some of whom made multiple appearances.  By contrast, there was not a single appearance made by a member of a conservative media outlet: Not a single staffer for Fox News, Washington Times, New York Post, Washington Examiner, Washington Free Beacon, or Daily Caller appeared. (Note: Similar taxpayer-funded slant involving the PBS NewsHour program’s choice of guests was documented in 2023.) CONCLUSION: The publicly funded Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) that airs Washington Week was launched in 1969 by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was born with a congressional mandate to maintain "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” Yet judging by our findings -- an unbroken line of liberal-leaning panelists providing blatant anti-Republican spin on anti-Republican topics -- the tax-funded Washington Week with the Atlantic is a gross failure on the fairness front. METHODOLOGY: We tallied all explicitly evaluative comments from Washington Week panelists (e.g., colorful, mocking, or ideologically loaded descriptions, either critical or supportive) regarding Democrats or Republicans. Straightforward descriptions of the issue at hand were not included. We also counted the topics covered and assigned them a value based on partisan emphasis, if any (Democrat/Republican/both/neither). We also counted and sorted the media affiliation of the panelists. The top five topics involving each party were then ranked based on the total amount of time in which they were evaluated, along with a percentage figure documenting the resulting spin, positive or negative. Note that the study period encompassed the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, and thus includes evaluations of the state of the presidential “horse race.”

Minn. State Rep. Pushes For Tax-Funded 'Refuge' To Castrate Trans Kids

A video from earlier this month is going viral on X showing Minnesota State Rep. Leigh Finke, a biologically male "transwoman," stating that he/she wanted to devote more Minnesota tax money toward making the state a refuge for kids who “are transgender" and to help train more doctors on how to provide sex change surgeries and puberty blockers for minors. During the nearly one-hour long presentation at the United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities on March 8, Finke advocated for “legal action on trans and nonbinary rights.”   Finke represents District 66A in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He’s Vice Chair of the Legacy Finance Committee and also serves on the Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy, Human Services Policy, and Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committees. Most notably, he’s also Chair of the Queer Caucus in the state. No surprises there. “If you promise trans refuge then you need to increase the number of people who are offering gender affirming care because we already have a shortage," Finke said in the video clip, which was shared on Sunday,  Trans Minnesota State Rep. Leigh Finke says he wants to use tax money to make Minnesota a trans refuge for kids and train more children’s doctors on s*x change surgery and puberty blockers. pic.twitter.com/onZ9qeilkr — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 25, 2024 Finke is one of those people who believes that "gender-affirming care” includes chemically poisoning a child's body with cross-sex hormones, stopping the natural processes of puberty, and surgically removing, adding, or “changing” the appearance of gender-specific genitals - all of which often lead to deep regret, worsened depression, infertility, and physical and mental health complications, and none of which actually do any gender changing. Nonetheless, Finke wants taxpayer money to go toward luring kids into Minnesota as refuge to get these procedures done. Finke also wants to lure gender-affirming “care” providers from other states. We have some money, hopefully we can pass, to help entice people to move from those states who also practice gender-affirming care. If you live in Missouri and all your clients can no longer access care, well, if they’re leaving, you might also be interested in coming with your clients and going to a place where you can serve without prosecution. He even explained that he wanted to implement internship and fellowship programs for providers to learn how to groom and ruin the lives of kids … though he called it “gender-affirming care.” In response to the video which has more than 600,000 views so far, users were perturbed. Related: 'Queer Power': First Trans Queer ‘Woman’ Elected For MN House “How is this person allowed to be a representative of the people while putting kids in danger?” a user asked.  “It’s disgusting how he uses the word 'care' as a euphemism for sęx change surgery and puberty blockers. There’s nothing caring about pushing gender ideology onto children and then mųtilating them in its name. That should get any adult who’s involved life in prison,” another said while others called Finke a “pedophile,” a “cockroach” and a “POS.” While I can’t comment on whether or not I agree with those users' analysis on Finke (*hint hint, *wink wink, *nudge nudge) I can say that any surgeries or procedures that harm kids, or harm anyone for that matter, shouldn’t be considered “care,” shouldn’t be part of healthcare, and certainly shouldn’t be covered by taxpayer funds. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: Dylan Mulvaney's Idea of A Woman Is Just Disgusting Stereotypes Men cosplaying as women are not women. pic.twitter.com/948c9thOtZ — MRCTV (@mrctv) March 19, 2024

Morning Joe To NBC: Fire Ronna McDaniel! We'll Never Have Her On The Show!

It wasn't enough for Mika Brzezinski to declare that Ronna McDaniel would never darken Morning Joe's doorway.  On today's episode, Mika, on behalf of the show, called on NBC to fire McDaniel. Or as Mika couched it, "we hope NBC will reconsider its decision," to have hired former RNC chair McDaniel as a political commentator. MIKA: To be clear, we believe NBC News should seek out conservative Republican voices to provide balance in their election coverage. But it should be conservative Republicans, not a person who used her position of power to be an anti-democracy election denier. And we hope NBC will reconsider its decision. It goes without saying that she will not be a guest on Morning Joe in her capacity as a paid contributor. Morning Joe hasn't attempted to have any actual conservative "balance" in years. Noah Rothman attempted to walk that "balance" line, but where did he go? Hilariously, Scarborough seemed to claim he was a conservative again. Nobody who's watched this show in the "Biden is obsessed with Joe" phase should buy that, but there he was:  SCARBOROUGH: It's not about not wanting conservatives on the air. I'm conservative. And, check my record, I'm probably more conservative, I'm a lot more conservative than so many people that criticize me from the Trump right. And, but I was in politics. I'm here. Jon, you help the president from time to time with speeches. You're here. We've had other people on that are involved. Jen Psaki is. Of course, Nicolle Wallace is, worked for George W. Bush. MIKA: They bring value to the table and expertise. SCARBOROUGH: And they bring value to the table. So, yeah. Again, we encourage people to be partisan and fight for what they believe in.   Let's review the other people who "bring value to the table." Value....for the leftist MSNBC base. Jon Meacham. Who serves as an occasional Biden speechwriter. Jen Psaki. A former Biden press secretary. And Nicolle Wallace! Scarborough had the chutzpah to describe her as having worked for George W. Bush -- as if that established her conservative bona fides. Scarborough knows full well that if Wallace was ever a conservative -- a dubious proposition -- she has turned into a flaming liberal and perhaps MSNBC's most ardent Trump antagonist! Meacham responded to all this talk of election denial by again proclaiming "I think there is a moral duty, if the choice is between Donald Trump and President Biden, to vote for President Biden, despite any policy disagreements you might have." These brave anti-Ronna dissidents at NBC and MSNBC have a very broad definition of "election denier" -- you can't say Biden won, but the election wasn't fair. You can't complain about Big Tech squashing the Hunter Biden laptop story, and you can't complain about ZuckerBucks flowing into liberal areas for turnout, or loosening all the voter eligibility rules for the pandemic.  If Joe wanted actual conservatives on the show -- the kind who would criticize Democrat policies in general, and Biden in particular, without being MAGA members, they abound. CNN, for example, managed to find and hire Scott Jennings, an actual non-Trumpian conservative. He's rare, but he's there.  Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 3/25/24 6:13 am EDT MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Let's talk about the hiring of former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, she was on Sunday's Meet the Press. It was her first appearance since NBC News hired her as a political analyst. I know you won't be surprised to know that we've been inundated ith calls this weekend, as have most people connected with this network, about NBC's decision to hire her.  We learned about the hiring when we read about it in the press on Friday. We weren't asked our opinion of the hiring, but if we were, we would have strongly objected to it for several reasons, including but not limited to, as lawyers might say, Ms. McDaniel's role in Donald Trump's fake elector scheme, and her pressuring election officials to not certify election results while Donald Trump was on the phone. MIKA: To be clear, we believe NBC News should seek out conservative Republican voices to provide balance in their election coverage. But it should be conservative Republicans, not a person who used her position of power to be an anti-democracy election denier. And we hope NBC will reconsider its decision. It goes without saying that she will not be a guest on Morning Joe in her capacity as a paid contributor. . . .  SCARBOROUGH: She really summed up the sickness in the Republican party. When asked by Kristen Welker, why did you go along with the whitewashing of political violence? Why didn't you speak out against those who tried to overturn American democracy, those who beat the hell out of cops, those who rioted at the United States Capitol at the instruction of Donald Trump, the guidance of Donald Trump, the inspiration of Donald Trump? Why not? She said, sometimes you have to take one for the team. . . .  JON MEACHAM: Taking one for the team is the problem. Because the team is not as important as the rule of law, the Constitution. . . .  SCARBOROUGH: The team, I guess it's how we define the team. For me, the team is a pyramid. It's God, country, Constitution, for me, conservatism. For others, it's being progressive. It's liberalism. That's how it goes. Politicians and parties, for me, have always been at the bottom of -- of that list.  And for some reason, it's been inverted. So instead of God, country, Constitution, conservatism, and then politicians and party, it's been inverted. And now, it is Donald Trump. MIKA: Personality. SCARBOROUGH: It's Donald Trump. And everything flows from that. So when -- I guess I shouldn't -- when I hear that, again, very clarifying, I guess I should -- I guess I shouldn't be staying up trying to figure out what happened to them. This is what happened to them. They completely -- their value system flipped, and Donald Trump's on top. And everything that's done goes through that filter. And everything is justified. Everything he does is justified. Political violence is justified. His lifestyle is justified. His hatred is justified. His racism is justified. All the things my friends would have spoken out about when I was growing up. When Bill Clinton was president, when they were so shocked, stunned, and deeply saddened by Bill Clinton. Now, the pyramid is flipped. . . .  MEACHAM: I believe -- and I never thought I would say this -- I think there is a moral duty, if the choice is between Donald Trump and President Biden, to vote for President Biden, despite any policy disagreements you might have. Because whatever else you want to say about President Biden, he believes in the Constitution. . . .  SCARBOROUGH: It's not about not wanting conservatives on the air. I'm conservative. And, check my record, I'm probably more conservative, I'm a lot more conservative than so many people that criticize me from the Trump right. And, but I was in politics. I'm here. Jon, you help the president from time to time with speeches. You're here. We've had other people on that are involved. Jen Psaki is. Of course, Nicolle Wallace is, worked for George W. Bush. MIKA: They bring value to the table and expertise. SCARBOROUGH: And they bring value to the table. So, yeah. Again, we encourage people to be partisan and fight for what they believe in.

Editor’s Pick: Washington Times Exposes Govt. Funding Bill Filled With Pro-Trans Earmarks

In a story published Saturday online and appearing on the front page of Monday’s print edition, The Washington Times’s Valerie Richardson detailed a sampling of the far-left earmarks inside Friday’s spending package to keep the government open that would assist groups in helping underage children become transgender, fund drag shows, and hospitals that conduct abortions. The earmark-laden bill sailed through the House 286-134 (with 101 Republican yes votes) and 74-24 in the Senate (with 25 Republicans in support) and included what Richardson said in her lede were “millions of dollars for woke causes, including groups that host drag shows and provide teens seeking to change their sex with gender-affirming hormones and underwear.” Richardson passed on the credit to “conservatives” for having “flagged a bevy of earmarks for pet congressional causes in the 1,012-page minibus that cleared the Senate on Saturday,” including perhaps the most appalling one of all offered by New Jersey’s two Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Bob Menendez: “$400,000 for Garden State Equality in New Jersey, which promotes ‘FREE gender-affirming garments.’” Yes, that would consist of “chest binders, used to flatten female chests, and gaffs”. As for the drag shows, there was “$845,000 was for Envision: You of Denver, an LGBTQ mental health organization that has hosted drag shows”. Another one first highlighed by “Advancing American Freedom, a conservative group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence” was “$400,000...earmarked by Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin Democrat” for Briarpatch Youth Services, which has a “Teens Like Us LGBTQIA2s+ program offers counseling and ‘gender-affirming clothing,’ according to an Advancing American Freedom screen grab, and emphasizes that youths ‘do NOT need parent/guardian permission to join.’” This went on for graph after graph, including “$850,000 earmarked for LGBTQ senior housing in Massachusetts” and a $1.8 million earmark by Rhode Island’s Democratic senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse “for Women & Infants Hospital in Providence, which performs surgical abortions up to 22 weeks into pregnancy.” To see Richardson’s full story, click here.

CREEPY Capehart Lusts for New York AG Letitia James to Take Over Trump Tower!

PBS and MSNBC are sometimes hard to tell apart. On Friday night's PBS NewsHour pundit panel, former MSNBC personality Geoff Bennett raised the unprecedented, norm-shattering $454 million civil bond hanging over Donald Trump from the civil-fraud trial of Democrat Attorney General Letitia James. Bennett played a Fox News clip where host Martha MacCallum asked Trump lawyer Alina Habba if Trump would go to foreign leaders for money, like Joy Behar is claiming. Habba evaded an answer.  PBS, showing a Fox News clip? But they hate Fox. Here's the thing: MSNBC played this clip on eight different programs on Wednesday and Thursday, starting with Joy Reid. Jimmy Kimmel also played the clip in his monologue.  PBS pundit -- and MSNBC weekend host -- Jonathan Capehart said going to foreign governments would be dumb: "I think someone who's running for president of the United States should automatically say, yes, I owe a half-a-billion dollars. I'm not going to go to foreign governments, because that would open me up, as president of the United States, to foreign interference and foreign influence." This is how shameless these leftists are, that they can inveigh against taking many millions of dollars in foreign influences and not think of the Biden family's millions of dollars in foreign influence-peddling all over. But then Capehart overtly expressed his lust for New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat who campaigned on ruining Trump, to take Trump Tower and a golf course. That's "accountability." CAPEHART: But we're not talking about any old, regular person. And, of course, he's going to take the money from wherever he can get it. That's been his entire career. And I have to disagree with David. No, take the properties. If any of us at the table were in that situation, we would be in serious trouble. And it would be within the right of the attorney general to say, you know what, we're going to take your golf club or we're going to take your tower. And, quite honestly, I would love to see the A.G., the New York attorney general, do that, because then it would be the most tangible sign for the nation, the world, and for Donald Trump that you have been held accountable. Earlier, David Brooks stipulated for a moment that this enormous fine has no precedent: "I have a few problems with the seizure. The Associated Press did a good survey. They looked like at 70 years of cases like this. And in cases where there was no clear victim, they have never seized assets before. And so if the people who claim a lot of this is a political witch-hunt, I think that Associated Press, I found it kind of alarming that the Trump case is not being treated like the other cases." But then, surely to keep the leftist audience at PBS from fainting, he leaned into the foreign-influence idea: "you take what a desperate Donald Trump is likely to do, do what his son-in-law did, go to the Saudis and get some money, and it just opens up for a desperate Donald Trump all sorts of corrupt possibilities." The NewsHour is funded by you, the American taxpayer, and by American Cruise Lines. 

Univision’s Jorge Ramos Gets SHUT DOWN On Immigration, Border Crisis

The most pro-open borders anchor in television got shut down on his own Sunday show on borders and immigration, and it wasn’t even close. Time and time again, Jorge Ramos was forcefully rebutted on the narratives he’s served his viewership for decades.  Watch as Ramos gets absolutely handled by San Antonio-area talk show host and old friend of MRC Latino George Rodriguez: JORGE RAMOS: Trump has called some immigrants “animals”. He says that certain immigrants poison the blood of the United States. Do you agree with Trump? GEORGE RODRIGUEZ: No, I don’t agree with many of the things Mr. Trump says because, well, sometimes he gets out of control. I don't know how to describe it. But I support what he wants to do. He wants to defend the nation. He puts... Look, we have to understand that there are many Latinos like me, who are third or fourth-generation Americans of Latino descent and the thing is that we are Americans first and we want to defend, we want to take care of our nation. THIS is our nation. RAMOS: But your family is immigrant just like mine, George. And to call immigrants- to say that they poison the blood of the United States, that is absolutely false. This country was made thanks to immigrants. RODRIGUEZ: Well, not all immigrants. We have to... Again, we have to be careful that when we talk about immigrants- are we talking about legal immigration or are we talking about out-of-control immigration, illegal immigration? There is a difference. We cannot say that all immigrants are simply immigrants. There are immigrants who have followed the immigration laws and there are those who have not. Ramos first tried running the “animals” hoax past Rodriguez, that is, that hoax which alleges that Trump refers to all immigrants as “animals” on the occasions he has made such utterances, as opposed to criminals and gangsters. This media hoax originally ran in 2019 when Trump referred to MS-13 as “animals”. Most recently, in reference to criminal aliens such as Laken Riley’s killer.  The “animals” hoax is one example of how Spanish-language news media disseminates disinformation into the community. Per a 2022 Bienvenido/WPA Intel study, 69% of Spanish-language news consumers believe that Trump referred to all immigrants as “animals”. Rodriguez moved off of the “animals” question and on to stating the case that Latinos are Americans, as opposed to some separate, alien other. And this prompted Ramos to go into a variant of “we are a nation of immigrants”, plus the appeal to immigrant origins despite Rodriguez having made clear his family has been here for generations and he is rooted in this country. Here again, Rodriguez shut Ramos down by shutting down the conflation between legal, vetted immigrants following the process versus unvetted, potentially criminal migrants streaming across the border. There is a clear shift in the immigration debate that is playing out on Spanish-language TV. Advocates for open borders used to dominate the debate but, as we saw today, this is clearly no longer the case. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on Univision’s Al Punto on Sunday, March 24th, 2024: JORGE RAMOS: There are certainly many people in Texas who support SB-4. One of those people is George Rodriguez, a volunteer spokesman for the Texas Republican Party and conservative broadcaster. George, thank you for being here with us. GEORGE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much for inviting me. RAMOS: George, you believe in the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution clearly states that the issue of immigration is (the role) of the federal government, not of Texas. But you believe otherwise. RODRÍGUEZ: No, I totally believe in the Constitution. I believe that a section of the Constitution allows the state to defend itself when there is an invasion, when there is a problem, and that is what we are seeing here in Texas. We have seen- look at what happened on Thursday in El Paso, the avalanche of people who crossed- who tried to forcefully cross the border. That's what we're seeing right now. Thousands of people are crossing every day and we have to do something to protect citizens and property, given that the federal government is not. RAMOS: George, you just said that it is an invasion, but there is no invading country. You know perfectly well that Mexico does not want to conquer the United States and the perception that the majority of immigrants who cross are criminals is false. That is not true. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, it's true. Not that we say the majority, but we don't know who they are. They have caught terrorists. They caught- this past week, they caught a Venezuelan who was fleeing the law in Colombia. We don't know who's coming. More than anything, it's out of control. The people who are entering. Migration. It’s out of control. There is no control. They are entering and after that, they are applying to emigrate, to stay in the United States. That's the opposite of what it should be. They must first apply, and then enter. RAMOS: Well, a Stanford study, you know it perfectly well, establishes that immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens of the United States, they are imprisoned less. Even the Texas Department of Public Safety concludes that immigrants are less dangerous than United States citizens. So, again, the idea that criminals and terrorists are coming in, that's not the whole story. RODRIGUEZ: Well, many people may say that it is not the whole story, but how many are we going to tolerate? How many criminals? How many terrorists are we going to tolerate? Just because they say, "Well, there aren't many." As long as one comes in, as long as two come in. That's enough for me. And that’s enough for us here in Texas. We must not have any criminals. We shouldn't have any terrorists coming in. RAMOS: Trump has called some immigrants “animals”. He says that certain immigrants poison the blood of the United States. Do you agree with Trump? Rodríguez: No, I don’t agree with many of the things Mr. Trump says, because well, sometimes he gets out of control. I don't know how to describe it. But I support what he wants to do. He wants to defend the nation. He puts... Look, we have to understand that there are many Latinos like me, who are third or fourth-generation Americans of Latino descent and the thing is that we are Americans first and we want to defend, we want to take care of our nation. THIS is our nation. RAMOS: But your family is immigrant just like mine, George. And to call immigrants- say that they poison the blood of the United States, that is absolutely false. This country was made thanks to immigrants. RODRIGUEZ: Well, not all immigrants. We have to... Again, we have to be careful that when we talk about immigrants- are we talking about legal immigration or are we talking about out-of-control immigration, illegal immigration? There is a difference. We cannot say that all immigrants are simply immigrants. There are immigrants who have followed the immigration laws and there are those who have not. RAMOS: Let me finish with this, George. Texas police and law enforcement officials are neither trained nor prepared to detain undocumented immigrants or deport them. This would cost billions of dollars. Who is going to pay for this? RODRIGUEZ: Look, the police are not going to stop just anyone. They are not going to stop someone just because they are Latino. They are going to stop, more than anything, people who are crossing, who are hunting for people who are crossing illegally, who are not crossing on the bridge, who are not introducing themselves to the Border Patrol, those are the people who are going to be caught. And those people- they’re going to have to see who they are, for what reason they come. Those are the people. People in big cities are very busy. The police are too busy to stop so-and-so just because they are Latino. That is a falsehood that Democrats and liberals are proposing. RAMOS: George Rodríguez, thank you for being with us. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much.  

ABC’s Jon Karl Tries To Veep-Shame Marco Rubio, Gets SCHOOLED

While behind the moderator desk at ABC This Week, noted January 6th hysteric Jon Karl tried to “gotcha” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on several fronts during a broad-ranging interview, attempting to embarrass him over his prior primary against Donald Trump as Rubio is now under consideration, per reports, to be Trump’s 2024 running mate. Instead, Karl got shut down at each turn. Watch as Karl tries to shame Rubio for considering the offer to join Trump on the ballot “an honor”:  JON KARL: There was some reporting this week that you are possibly under consideration to be Donald Trump's running mate. I don't put a lot of stock in this reporting right now. We're early, but you said it would be an honor to be offered a spot on his ticket. Really?  MARCO RUBIO: Yeah. I think anyone who is offered the opportunity to serve this country as vice president should be honored by the opportunity to do it if you are in public service. I'm in the Senate because I want to serve the country. Being vice president is an important way to serve the country. But I've also been clear. I've never talked to Donald Trump, I’ve never talked to anybody on his team or family or inner circle about vice president. That's the decision he's going to make. He has plenty of really good people to pick from.  KARL: I mean, the reason why I ask is- look what happened to the last guy. I mean, a mob stormed the Capitol, literally calling to hang Mike Pence. RUBIO: Listen, I- KARL: And Trump defended those chants of “hang Mike Pence”. RUBIO: I will tell you this, that when Donald Trump was president of the United States, this country was safer, it was more prosperous. We had relations for example, in a part of the world I care about called the Western Hemisphere, that were very strong and we had a lot of good things done there. I think the country and the world was a better place when he was president. And I would love to see him return to the White House in comparison to the guy who's there now, Joe Biden, who's been a disaster economically. Look at the world- every single day we wake up to a new crisis, a new conflict. Everything has gone on fire since the time Joe Biden took over. Afghanistan's gone down, Ukraine has been invaded. Now the Philippines and the Chinese are on the verge of something bad every single day, not to mention the threats to Taiwan. We have this blowup in Haiti going on in our very own hemisphere. We wake up every day- terrorist attacks and 9 million people across the border.  KARL: But- but- but- but-  RUBIO: I mean, that’s what matters to me. KARL: I mean, you're not suggesting that's all happening because of Biden.  RUBIO: Absolutely, I am. Absolutely I'm suggesting it's happening because of Biden. He's president and his weakness --  KARL: It’s because of Biden that Russia invaded Ukraine? RUBIO: Absolutely.  KARL: It’s because of Biden that Haiti…  RUBIO: Absolutely. I mean, Putin is sitting there saying, these guys can't even stand up to the Taliban and they have to fly people hanging off the wings of these airplanes. Now's the time to go. Really?, asks Karl, in reaction to Rubio’s answer, and then immediately dives back into January 6th hysteria. The underlying sentiment behind Karl's faux incredulousness is that somehow it would not be an honor to be on the presidential ticket. Rubio easily swatted away both the question joining the ticket and on J6 bait, and went into a detailed indictment of President Joe Biden’s policies and how they’ve been detrimental to the country. As a result, Karl was quickly left sputtering when he saw where the conversation was headed. Shortly thereafter, Karl tried to take another shot at embarrassing Rubio for being considered to join the Trump ticket, airing portions of his “con man” speech from the 2016 GOP primary. Here, again, Rubio forced Karl to backtrack. After opening this line of questioning by saying, asking for this “trip down memory lane”, Karl drifted to presidential immunity after getting shut down again: KARL: Can we take a quick trip down memory lane when we’re talking about this? This was you in 2016.  RUBIO: What we are dealing with here, my friends, is a con artist. He is a con artist. First of all, he runs on this idea that he is fighting for the little guy, but he has spent his entire career sticking it to the little guy. If you all have friends that are thinking of voting for Donald Trump, friends do not let friends vote for con artists. KARL: Friends don’t let friends vote for con artists…  RUBIO: It was a campaign.  KARL: You know I could’ve gone on. I could’ve played more. RUBIO: Yeah, but- so, so why didn't you play the clip of Kamala Harris basically insinuating that Joe Biden was a segregationist on the debate stage, and she’s now his vice president?  KARL: We’ve played that, but let me ask you...  RUBIO: But you didn't play it now. KARL: That was then.  RUBIO: Yeah, that was then. But it was a campaign.  KARL: Okay, okay, but let me ask you right now. Where we are right now. Donald Trump is making the case, and he's going to do it before the Supreme Court, that the President of the United States should have absolute immunity, should effectively be above the law for virtually anything that a president does while in office. You don't agree with that, do you?  Karl didn’t like how the stroll down Memory Lane ended, hence the pivot to immunity with a dash of the New York civil trial, which Rubio handled. Anyone under consideration to join Trump on the 2024 ballot can expect the same from the corporate media, with varying degrees of intensity and success: disqualifying questions, attempts to pull up some past statement of opposition to Trump (especially true of former primary challengers), and generalized January 6th hysteria. In other words, more of the same nonsense that the media have burped out for the last 8 years. Click “expand” to view the cited portions of the aforementioned interview as aired on ABC This Week on Sunday, March 24th, 2024: JON KARL: I want to turn to politics. There was some reporting this week that you are possibly under consideration to be Donald Trump's running mate. I don't put a lot of stock in this reporting right now. We're early, but you said it would be an honor to be offered a spot on his ticket. Really?  MARCO RUBIO: Yeah. I think anyone who is offered the opportunity to serve this country as vice president should be honored by the opportunity to do it if you are in public service. I'm in the Senate because I want to serve the country. Being vice president is an important way to serve the country. But I've also been clear. I've never talked to Donald Trump, I’ve never talked to anybody on his team or family or inner circle about vice president. That's the decision he's going to make. He has plenty of really good people to pick from.  KARL: I mean, the reason why I ask is- look what happened to the last guy. I mean, a mob stormed the Capitol, literally calling to hang Mike Pence. RUBIO: Listen, I- KARL: And Trump defended those chants of “hang Mike Pence”. RUBIO: I will tell you this, that when Donald Trump was president of the United States, this country was safer, it was more prosperous. We had relations for example, in a part of the world I care about called the Western Hemisphere, that were very strong and we had a lot of good things done there. I think the country and the world was a better place when he was president. And I would love to see him return to the White House in comparison to the guy who's there now, Joe Biden, who's been a disaster economically. Look at the world- every single day we wake up to a new crisis, a new conflict. Everything has gone on fire since the time Joe Biden took over. Afghanistan's gone down, Ukraine has been invaded. Now the Philippines and the Chinese are on the verge of something bad every single day, not to mention the threats to Taiwan. We have this blowup in Haiti going on in our very own hemisphere. We wake up every day- terrorist attacks and 9 million people across the border.  KARL: But- but- but- but-  RUBIO: I mean, that’s what matters to me. KARL: I mean, you're not suggesting that's all happening because of Biden.  RUBIO: Absolutely, I am. Absolutely I'm suggesting it's happening because of Biden. He's president and his weakness --  KARL: It’s because of Biden that Russia invaded Ukraine? RUBIO: Absolutely.  KARL: It’s because of Biden that Haiti…  RUBIO: Absolutely. I mean, Putin is sitting there saying, these guys can't even stand up to the Taliban and they have to fly people hanging off the wings of these airplanes. Now's the time to go. It’s- and, by the way… KARL: Trump's the one saying that-- suggesting that there should be a deal that effectively gives Putin what he wants in Ukraine, but can we take a quick--  RUBIO: That's not true. What he said is he wants the conflict to end which is striking to me that people- why wouldn't people want peace? What I’ve said is, there is going to be a negotiated (settlement). Russia's not going to take all of Ukraine… KARL: Can we just… RUBIO: …and Ukraine's not going to push Russia back to the- where it was in 2014. I want Ukraine to have the upper hand in any negotiation. KARL: Can we take a quick trip down memory lane when we’re talking about this? This was you in 2016.  RUBIO: What we are dealing with here, my friends, is a con artist. He is a con artist. First of all, he runs on this idea that he is fighting for the little guy, but he has spent his entire career sticking it to the little guy. If you all have friends that are thinking of voting for Donald Trump, friends do not let friends vote for con artists. KARL: Friends don’t let friends vote for con artists…  RUBIO: It was a campaign.  KARL: You know I could’ve gone on. I could’ve played more. RUBIO: Yeah, but- so, so why didn't you play the clip of Kamala Harris basically insinuating that Joe Biden was a segregationist on the debate stage, and she’s now his vice president?  KARL: We’ve played that, but let me ask you...  RUBIO: But you didn't play it now. KARL: That was then.  RUBIO: Yeah, that was then. But it was a campaign.  KARL: Okay, okay, but let me ask you right now. Where we are right now. Donald Trump is making the case, and he's going to do it before the Supreme Court, that the President of the United States should have absolute immunity, should effectively be above the law for virtually anything that a president does while in office. You don't agree with that, do you?  RUBIO: Well, so- I don't think that in the case of immunity, there's two separate issues here. One is: can the president do anything? Can he go out and basically kill, you know, one of the members of the staff overnight inside the White House? Obviously, that's an absurd outcome and that's a common crime. But I do think there's a legitimate issue here that we need to talk about writ large, especially after what we've seen the last three years, is: do we want to live in a country where basically the opponents of a president can extort them, can have leverage over them during their entire presidency and say, “Don’t worry, once you're out of office, we're going to prosecute you, we’re going to come after you, we’re going to charge you for this crime and that crime?  KARL: Yeah, but he’s saying- he’s saying absolute immunity. I mean- RUBIO: I mean- we'll see. KARL: Okay. RUBIO: You know this goes before the Supreme Court. There are going to be oral arguments.  KARL: I'm saying a guy that wants to run for president.  RUBIO: He's not representing himself at the Supreme Court. Lawyers will make that argument, but we're living in a country now where basically if you are president, now you have to think to yourself, “I've got to be careful what I do as president, not even legal or illegal, even on policy because if I upset the wrong people, as soon as I leave some state prosecutor’s going to…”  KARL: You should be careful not to break the law as president.  RUBIO: Well, but look at these prosecutions that are coming about. You've got this lady- clear partisan in New York- who's basically prosecuting the president over loans, something that's never been done to anybody before. The banks… KARL: (Unint)  RUBIO: …who are supposedly victims of what they claim  are all saying “we're don’t even rely on what the president's statements are. We do our own internal investigation to see if the properties are worth what they're worth”, and you've got a judgment on him. That's one example of trying to bankrupt him and jail him.  KARL: OK, but give me this. You don't think the people who attacked the Capitol are “absolute patriots” like Trump says and should be pardoned, do you?  RUBIO: No, what I do think is that people that went into the Capitol and committed crimes of violence or had, you know, zip ties and all of that- are different from someone who walked in through an open door. I think they should have prioritized and only prosecuted the people who committed acts of violence--  KARL: But these are not “absolute patriots”...  RUBIO: If you attack a police officer or go into the Capitol, no. There are people that have been charged, in some cases, egregiously charged for simply walking in. They didn't attack anybody. Why didn't they do that for the people that set all those fires in Portland?  KARL: All right, Senator Rubio. Thank you for joining us this morning. We appreciate it. RUBIO: Thank you.  

Chuck Todd Leads NBC 'Meet the Press' MELTDOWN Over NBC Hiring of Ex-RNC Boss

Internal liberal outrage boiled over into an on-air struggle session on Meet the Press. NBC just hired Ronna McDaniel immediately after she was removed as Republican National Committee leader, and so moderator Kristen Welker punched away at McDaniel for 20 minutes, and when that was finished, they had a roundtable about the horror of NBC's hiring, combined with this awkward interview, which was scheduled before the personnel move.  Everyone on set seemed blissfully unaware of how it looked to the public when NBC was negotiating with White House press secretary Jen Psaki about a position while she was still at the White House. No one's ever complained in a Sunday morning meltdown. Former host Chuck Todd began the internal decompression with a fulsome apology:  TODD: Look, let me deal with the elephant in the room. I think our bosses owe you an apology for putting you in this situation because I don't know what to believe. She is now a paid contributor by NBC News. I have no idea whether any answer she gave to you was because she didn't want to mess up her contract. She wants us to believe that she was speaking for the RNC when the RNC was paying for it. So she has – she has credibility issues that she still has to deal with. Is she speaking for herself or is she speaking on behalf of who's paying her? Once at the RNC she did say that,"Hey, I'm speaking for the party." I get that. That's part of the job. So what about here? I will say this. I think your interview did a good job of exposing I think many of the contradictions. And, look, there's a reason why there's a lot of journalists at NBC News uncomfortable with this because many of our professional dealings with the RNC over the last six years have been met with gaslighting, have been met with character assassination. So it is – , you know, that's where you begin here. And so when NBC made the decision to give her NBC News' credibility you've got to ask yourself, "What does she bring NBC News?" And when we make deals like this, and I've been at this company a long time, you're doing it for access, access to audience. Todd concluded by again praising Welker's grilling: "I think you did everything you could do. You got put into an impossible situation, booking this interview, and then all of a sudden the rug's pulled out from under you. You find out she's being paid to show up. That’s – that’s unfortunate for this program, but I am glad you did the best that you could, and that's why the three of us are on here, to try to bolster that editorial independence." They're so deep inside a Democrat bubble they have no idea half of America starts pointing and laughing when they talk about "editorial independence." NBC, the network that had Kennedy offspring Maria Shriver as a reporter for years, and then hired Chelsea Clinton as a reporter (and she'd never been a reporter).  Kimberly Atkins Stohr seconded Todd's emotion: “So her credibility is completely shot. So I have to do what Maya Angelou said, I believe what they do and not anything that she said today. And in that I know that she habitually lied, she habitually joined Trump in attacking the press – members of the press, including this network, in a way that put journalists at risk, in danger.” Stephen Hayes of The Dispatch, an anti-Trump website, began with the obvious point about conservative criticism: "if you've read some of the criticism of NBC that has come since the announcement it is very clear that some of the critics just don't want to be confronted with Republican voices or conservative arguments. So there is that. And that's bad. We should want to have a robust exchange between people who believe different things.” Then Hayes agreed with the anti-Trump feelings: “But I agree with what's been said here. I mean, that's not what Ronna McDaniel is doing. That's not what she's been doing. And she has huge credibility problems, not because she's been a partisan spinner on behalf of the Republican Party, but because she not only presided but directed, drove, the Q-Anonization of the Republican Party during her tenure.” Hayes failed to put Psaki's hiring on the table. It concluded with Todd bizarrely claiming he always cared about "ideological diversity" on his show. He did?? TODD: Look, it is important for this network and for always to have a wide aperture, okay, and covering voters that have disparate beliefs. Having ideological diversity on this panel is something I prided myself on. We take – you and I both took plenty of grief when you have ideological and political diversity. I think all of us in mainstream media do a terrible job sometimes of geographic diversity and all this stuff. But I sort of call into question and sometimes people think they understand the politics of this country when they're sort of in a very, very, very blue city. You know, this is a Washington operative who I don't think is going to bring the network what they think it wants to bring to the network. I understand the motivation, but this execution I think was poor. Then Welker turned to a liberal-bubble interview with former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, where she wanted to know all about preserving abortion rights and putting Trump in jail. If it's Sunday, it's a liberal bubble on Meet the Press. 

FLASHBACK: The Media LOST IT When Mueller Declined to Charge Trump

Five years ago this weekend, a confused and disoriented liberal media was forced to deal with the fact that Robert Mueller had ended his investigation of the Trump campaign’s alleged “collusion” with Russia without recommending any charges against the then-President. Just like that, “Russiagate” was over. Journalists had obsessed over Mueller’s investigation since he was appointed on May 17, 2017. From that date until May 21, 2019 (the night before Mueller handed in his report), the three evening newscasts alone had cranked out an unprecedented 1,909 minutes of coverage. Intense as that was, it paled beside the uncounted thousands of hours of coverage on the liberal cable networks, CNN and MSNBC. “Democrats are dreaming of a Watergate-like gotcha moment,” NBC’s Chuck Todd admitted on February 24, 2019, less than a month before the Mueller probe ended. Two weeks later, on March 10, ABC’s Terry Moran painted the stakes as high for a news media which had long assumed Trump’s guilt: “If Mueller, after two years, comes back and says, ‘I don’t have the evidence to support that charge,’ that’s a reckoning....It’s a reckoning for the media. It’s a reckoning around the country if, in fact, after all this time there was no collusion.” The liberal media’s “reckoning” came late in the afternoon of March 22, when Mueller handed in his report without recommending any additional charges. Journalists who had heavily promoted the idea of Trump’s guilt were flummoxed. “How can they let Trump off the hook?” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews wailed on Hardball. “Where’s the collusion report? Where’s the obstruction report?...I am a bit unsettled by the fact that all this investigation has yielded so far no indictments about collusion.” The next morning, MSNBC’s Joy Reid was spinning conspiracy theories. “It feels like the seeds of a cover-up are here,” she sourly suggested. One of Reid’s guests, AboveTheLaw.com editor Elie Mystal, blamed racism: “Look, if I’m the Trump children, I’m having a party tonight. Right? They won the white privilege regatta....There’s not an African American person in this country that could have been investigated for 22 months, had their family investigated for 22 months and come away scot-free.” On Sunday morning’s Reliable Sources, CNN’s Brian Stelter said the previous two years of nasty coverage was all Trump’s fault: “The press is just following a trail that Trump created. He has proven time and time again that he cannot be trusted....Trump’s daily deceptions have given this country ample reason to be suspicious.” On the same program, Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein agreed with Stelter’s absurd spin: “I think the media, the press has done one of the great reporting jobs in the history....Look, let’s look at where disinformation and mistakes and lie have come from. Hasn’t come from the press, it’s come from the President of the United States and those around him.” That afternoon (March 24), Attorney General William Barr publicly released a letter detailing Mueller’s major findings, while lawyers worked on creating a declassified version of Mueller’s lengthy report (which would be released the following month). Some reporters opted to play it straight, relaying the plain meaning of the report. “So, this vindicates the President on collusion,” MSNBC’s Katie Tur decided that afternoon during live coverage. “It’s an all out win for the President and consistent with what he’s been saying since day one,” ABC’s Dan Abrams acknowledged that evening on World News Tonight. But too many others insisted on clinging to their fantasy of a premature end to Trump’s presidency. “Now, while the Mueller investigation may be over, plenty of others are not,” correspondent Hallie Jackson reassured liberals on Monday morning’s Today show. “Does this conclusion make it more likely that Democrats will move to impeach the president,” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough conjectured on Morning Joe that same day. CNN’s Laura Coates complained that while Mueller hadn’t charged Trump with any wrongdoing, he hadn’t exonerated him either. “I happen to look at that as kind of ‘a Mueller maybe,’ which to me is really atrocious....I’m completely unsatisfied.” Coates was part of a CNN echo chamber that zealously hammered the idea that Trump wasn’t “exonerated.” NewsBusters’ indefatigable video editor Bill D’Agostino looked at 24 hours of CNN coverage after Barr’s summary was released, and found the networks’ talking heads peddled that phrasing an astonishing 120 times, an average of five times per hour. Watch:     That night, Trump ally Rudy Giuliani confronted CNN’s Chris Cuomo: “You guys on this network have tortured this man for two years with collusion and nobody’s apologized for it! So, before we talk about obstruction, apologize for the overreaction to collusion!” “Not a chance. Not a chance. Not a chance,” Cuomo responded. “Never.” But New York Times columnist David Brooks thought an apology was deserved. “If you call someone a traitor and it turns out you lacked the evidence for that charge, then the only decent thing to do is apologize,” he wrote in his March 25 column. But MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough wasn’t in the mood for decency. “There’s some people I respect that write for these papers that have actually written columns condemning the media’s behavior: Be ashamed of yourself. Be ashamed of yourself,” he sneered on Tuesday’s Morning Joe, seeming to refer to Brooks. “A lot of you who were bitching and moaning last night and being morally self-righteous: you are the bad actor. So save your breath, all right?” he theatrically declared. “No, we’re not going to divert our eyes! Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead, follow the story where it leads us.” “If the President was so damn innocent, why does it take two years to get cleared of collusion?” Chris Matthews growled on Tuesday night’s Hardball. But ask it the other way: if the Trump-bashing media were so damn correct, why couldn’t a two-year investigation from well-funded prosecutor with subpoena power prove it? Perhaps because too many in the media had let their anti-Trump imaginations run away with them. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.               

NO BLOODBATH FRENZY: On CNN, James Carville Talked Up 'Wet Work' (Murdering) Trump

At FoxNews.com, our old MRC colleague Alexander Hall reported a double standard in the use of political metaphors this week. After all of the leftist media hyperventilating over Donald Trump using the word "bloodbath" to describe the economy in a second Biden term, CNN brought on "Ragin' Cajun" James Carville to describe how Team Biden needs to do the "wet work" on Donald Trump. That's slang for an assassination. But Carville apparently has rhetorical immunity. He gets to use violent metaphors, and that's fine.  Cooper played a clip of Joe Biden exaggerating what Trump said about the "Latino community," as if illegal immigrants and the "Latino community" were the same. It was Trump's opening campaign speech in 2015 about Mexico not "sending their best," and some immigrants are criminals and rapists. Cooper offered the floor to Carville: "You are a proponent of the President and all his spokespeople in the campaign doing that more and more." "Yeah, not so much him," Carville responded. "I mean, to be candid, Anderson, President Biden is not the best attack politician I've ever seen in my life, and I'll leave it at that. But there are a lot of people to do what I call 'the wet work.'" "Sounds like a mob hit," Cooper replied. "Well, it's kind of, but it's paid TV and stuff like that. But yes, that's a CIA term," Carville said. "Take a guy out." He continued, "But he doesn't need to do the wet work. People like me and other groups in the party need to do that. He's not very good at it. I don't think people want to hear from that. And then he can, you know, cruise along here at a better altitude. But this has got to be done, and they've got to press this advantage right now when they have it." Hall noted this is standard operating procedure for Carville, and no one takes exception. In January, when asked by MSNBC's Jen Psaki how Biden and his spokespeople should go after Trump, Carville said "I would tell the president and his campaign just, we got your back, dude. We are going after him with a meat cleaver, okay? A rhetorical meat cleaver, if you will, but that's what we're going to do." During that same segment, Carville added boot-on-your-neck imagery: “We do what we got to do. And that’s where we are right now. We have to keep the foot on this guy, right on his neck, take our heel, and twist it.” In late February, Carville brought the violent metaphors to CNN anchor Jim Acosta, "I’m a big believer in politics, when you got somebody down, you just kick the living you know what out of 'em. And I think that’s what the White House needs to do, and I think Democrats around the country need to jump on this early and tank them."

NYT Scribe Loathes Righty Activists: Don't Edit Clips and Badger People, That's Our Job!

New York Times reporter Ken Bensinger covers “right-wing media and national campaigns,” and the hostility and clear revulsion he felt toward right-wing figures, and credulity toward the story of every single migrant he encountered, is evident in every word of “How the Right Shapes the Immigration Debate from Panama,” his long expose that led Thursday’s paper.  Online, the headline was "Chasing Clicks in the Jungle: Right-Wing Influencers Descend on the Darién Gap" Descend! Bensinger's story began: Ayub Ibrahim had just walked out of the jungle. His feet still ached. A month earlier, he had left his home in Somalia, fleeing a civil war, he said, traveling first to Turkey, then Brazil and finally crossing on foot through a 66-mile expanse of wilderness known as the Darién Gap. Resting in the sweltering San Vicente migrant camp in Panama with hundreds of other recent arrivals, he suddenly found himself surrounded by a half-dozen Americans with video cameras. “Do you guys like Ilhan Omar?” one person asked. “What do you think about Joe Biden?” Mr. Ibrahim, 20, answered the questions. He said he liked and admired Ms. Omar, the first Somali-American to serve in Congress. He doesn’t follow American politics, he added, but thinks Mr. Biden is a good president. When asked if Mr. Biden or former President Donald J. Trump would be better for immigrants, he chose Mr. Biden. Bensinger would never dare suggest the anti-Semitic Omar actually deserved any criticism. Later, Mr. Ibrahim would say he had felt ambushed and confused by the questions. He hadn’t intended to make a political statement. But by then, it was too late. Too late for what? Anyway, it's good to see the Times come out against ambush journalism, which the mainstream media has practiced for years. But this time, it's a MAGA influencer: One of his questioners, Laura Loomer, a right-wing activist and former Republican candidate for Congress, had already posted an edited video of the conversation online. It had rocketed around the internet, amassing nearly two million views on X. As if the news networks (and the Times itself) have never edited a video in a way that alters the meaning of what was said. As immigration becomes a dominant issue in the 2024 presidential race, right-wing media has been awash in gritty and often deceptive videos of migrants emerging from the Darién Gap, a roadless stretch of Panamanian jungle that has become a bottleneck for thousands of people on their way to the United States. The clips are presented as proof of what Republicans often describe as an “invasion” of Muslim terrorists, Chinese spies and Latin American criminals. Posted widely on social media, the videos blame President Biden for the migration and suggest, falsely, that Democrats are encouraging it to create new, illegal voters. International aid organizations are cast as profiteers making money off human misery. The New York Times traced much of that content to the work of Michael Yon, a former Green Beret who over the past three years has become the go-to tour guide for right-wing journalists, politicians and social-media influencers wanting to see the Darién Gap firsthand. The Times did its own sneaky investigative reporting on rival border influencers. The Times followed one group as it toured camps on the edge of the Darién Gap, observing and recording as participants, interviewed migrants and shot video. The reporters, producers and influencers gravitated toward migrants from Africa, China and the Middle East, barraging them with politically loaded questions. Again, this all sounds like standard operating procedure by the media. They just don’t like it when it's done by non-liberals. When asked whether he had been given money by the United Nations or humanitarian groups, Mr. Ibrahim said he had not. He also said that as a Muslim he supported equal rights for women and was opposed to discrimination against gay people. Those portions of the interview were cut from the version posted online and missing from Ms. Loomer’s later accounts. The reporter tried to quell U.S. security fears: Hey, Panama is screening migrants for criminal or terrorist connections! The reporter stacked the deck against his subjects, tarring them as dangerous in his readership's eyes, noting the presence of Yon (“A swaggering Special Forces veteran”) outside the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

USA TODAY Canonizes St. Al Gore in Sappy Interview: 'Climate Icon Talks Hope and Regrets'

USA Today can often sound like a large advertisement for the Left, and never more so than on Monday’s front page celebrating the wisdom and compassion of former Democrat Vice President Al Gore. The infomercial headline: “Climate icon talks hope and regrets.” There's no acknowledgment Gore paid for this message, but it sounds like he did.  McPaper’s national climate reporter Dinah Voyles Pulver was like most environmental journalists – extremely one-sided activists, always treating the climate panic as climate “reality.” That's what Gore's group is called, the "Climate Reality Project." Pulver began: In an era when mounting disasters made worse by the warming climate raise fears for the Earth’s future, Al Gore could simply say “I told you so.” Instead, the silver-haired grandfather regrets not pushing even harder to raise awareness during his more than four decades of trying to warn the world about the dangers of climate change. “I guess I could have done more, wish I had done more I guess,” Gore told USA TODAY in an exclusive interview last week. Derided by climate change skeptics and pundits for decades, and subjected to memes making light of his concern about global warming, Gore soldiers on. Then came a list of questions that sounded like they were written by a Gore staffer on his “Climate Reality Project.” She began by asking what’s the “greatest need” to address public perception on climate? Gore said more activists in your local community, but added some biblical panic: Of course Mother Nature is the most powerful advocate. I often say that every night on the TV news is like a nature ride through the Book of Revelation and indeed almost every day now we see these extreme climate-related events all around the world. When asked "What's your biggest frustration?," Gore said Big Oil's shameless lies: Well, that we haven't made more progress, and that some of the fossil fuel companies have been shameless in providing, continuing to provide lavish funding for disinformation and misinformation.... I was pretty slow to recognize how important the massive funding of anti-climate messaging was going on. I underestimated the power of greed in the fossil fuel industry, the shamelessness in putting out the lies.… They are continuing to do similar things today to try to fool people and pull the wool over people's eyes just in the name of greed. "Anti-climate messaging" is typically skipped in "objective" media reporting -- it's loaded with Gore's "Book of Revelation" doom and rarely balanced in any way by dissent. Gore demanded the world bow to his will and cut carbon emissions in half by 2030, and words like "radical" or "extreme" are never used. 

MSNBC Blames 'Anti-Muslim Racism' For Rejection of Biden Judicial Nominee

President Biden nominated Adeel Mangi for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit -- the level just below the Supreme Court. But Senators Joe Manchin and Catherine Cortez Masto have announced they will not support him, and in a 51-49 Senate, it looks bad.  On Saturday morning's The Weekend show on MSNBC, they came rushing to Mangi's defense. They ran a clip of Sen. Cory Booker ranting "No matter what happens to his nomination, this is [voice breaks] a great American who should be proud of his work!" Co-anchor Symone Sanders-Townsend decried "politics is fueling a lot of the vitriol and misinformation against this nominee." MSNBC.com writer Hayes Brown said it's just "racism against a Muslim candidate."   HAYES BROWN: I mean, absolutely. Well, quickly, I just want to say that I love when Cory Booker gets on the pulpit. I love when he is on a mission to try to convince his colleagues about what right is. He does it amazingly. But yeah, this is a matter of politics. The fact that there any Democrats that are unwilling to support this nominee is about being afraid, really. Afraid of the sort of backlash that, oh, you supported this candidate for xyz when none of the rumors and vitriol that are being spread are actually true.  It's really just a matter of racism against a Muslim candidate that we are seeing. And that is something Senator Booker is standing up against. And I think all Democrats in the Senate should be willing to stand up against. Neither Brown, nor Sanders-Townsend cited any facts in an attempt to refute the allegations against Mangi. Fortunately, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) has laid out, chapter and verse, the case against Biden's nominee. The full record is here, but among the lowlights -- Mangi is on the advisory board of the Alliance of Families for Justice. "One of the Alliance’s founders was convicted of murdering police officers in cold blood. . . . Now the Alliance [of] Families for Justice—on whose board Mr. Mangi [sat]—advocates for the release of people who kill cops.” -- Mangi also served on the advisory board of the Center for Security, Race and Rights. On the 20th anniversary of 9/11, the group held an event entitled: "Whose narrative? 20 years since 9/11." The purpose of the event was to blame America for 9/1 The director of the Center says she's "in awe" of the Palestinian's struggle against Israel and "Israeli settler colonialism." Could Mangi have been honestly unaware of the director's views? After all, she personally recruited him to serve on the advisory board. -- And when Sen. Tom Cotton [R-AR] asked Mangi whether Israeli Jews are "colonial settlers," Mangi made the lamest dodge, claiming he "didn't feel qualified to opine on that because it's not a region whose history I've studied, or where I'm from."   Riight.  Q. Mr. Mangi, is it raining?  A. Hey, who do you think I am—Jim Cantore? So Democrats are afraid for their careers, of the "backlash"? Cortez Masto is on the ballot this fall. But is Brown aware that, four months ago, Joe Manchin, the other Democrat opposed, announced that he wouldn't be running for re-election? If there's one thing Manchin doesn't have to worry about, it's backlash! Brown and Sanders-Townsend claimed that "politics" were behind the rejection of Mangi. Of course, politics had nothing to do with the Democrats' shameful attacks on Brett Kavanaugh.  And going back to 1991, there was a certain Democrat chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who angrily confronted Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. No politics there! Note: MSNBC describes Brown's job as "help[ing] frame the news of the day for readers." Now you've got us afraid! Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Weekend 3/23/34 8:23 am EDT SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND: Hayes, I want to play Senator Cory Booker last night or this morning, however you'd like to parse it.  The Biden administration has confirmed a record number of judges with diverse backgrounds and a number of firsts. And one of the firsts, Adeel Mangi, who would have been the first Muslim American on a federal appeals, on this particular federal appeals court, his nomination was imperilled because of a number of attacks. And this is Sen. Booker in defense of him, but I would also argue, celebration. CORY BOOKER: No matter what happens to his nomination, this is [voice breaks] a great American who should be proud of his work. We should celebrate him whether we vote for him or not. We should cherish a moment like this that makes history. SANDERS-TOWNSEND: Hayes, I have to wonder if the nomination of this particular nominee would be in danger if it were not an election year, and if were not so many things happening across the pond, if you will, particularly in the Middle East when it comes to the war between Israel and Hamas. And if politics is fueling a lot of the vitriol and misinformation against this nominee. HAYES BROWN: I mean, absolutely. Well, quickly, I just want to say that I love when Cory Booker gets on the pulpit. I love when he is on a mission to try to convince his colleagues about what right is. He does it amazingly. But yeah, this is a matter of politics. The fact that there any Democrats that are unwilling to support this nominee is about being afraid, really. Afraid of the sort of backlash that, oh, you supported this candidate for xyz when none of the rumors and vitriol that are being spread are actually true.  It's really just a matter of racism against a Muslim candidate that we are seeing. And that is something Senator Booker is standing up against. And I think all Democrats in the Senate should be willing to stand up against. SANDERS-TOWNSEND: I should have noted, it is two Democrats, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and, uh, West Virginia's senator who have noted they are not supporting the nomination. 

China Hawk Donald Trump and the Bloodbath of Media Credibility

Watching on television as former President Trump spoke at an event in Dayton, Ohio, as I did, his speech made perfect sense. Politically, that neck of the American woods is filled with autoworkers in nearby Michigan. And the idea of China flooding the American market with cars or anything else and causing economic mayhem is all too believable.  China is never far from Trump’s thoughts. All the way back there in the stone age of 2014 I interviewed private citizen Trump in his Trump Tower office. And one of the subjects that he raised with no prompting was the US relationship with China, focusing on trade. He was an emphatic China critic. Thus there was no surprise the other day as I listened to him say this in his speech:  China now is building a couple of massive plants, where they're going to build the cars in Mexico and … they think that they're going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China. If you're listening, President Xi, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal, those big, monster car manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now, and you think you're going to get that, you're going to not hire Americans, and you're going to sell the cars to us, no. We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole, that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That'll be the least of it. But they're not gonna sell those cars. Crystal clear, no? Trump is saying that “those big, monster car manufacturing plants” China was building in Mexico without American workers were going to flood the country with foreign made cars if allowed to proceed. And in doing that “It's going to be a bloodbath for the country” - clearly meaning a flooded American market. Not hard to understand. Unless, of course, you’re the liberal media and despise Trump. As noted here from Fox News:  Politico's headline stated, ‘Trump says country faces 'bloodbath' if Biden wins in November.’ An NBC News headline stated, ‘Trump says there will be a 'bloodbath' if he loses the election.’ The headline for CBS News stated, "In Ohio campaign rally, Trump says there will be a ‘bloodbath’ if he loses November election. These headlines were so wildly not even close to accurate.   Yet when challenged over the obvious misinterpretation - trying to make it seem as if Trump had threatened violence if he loses in November -  the liberal media instantly turned to denial. The headline on that Fox story read:  MSNBC, ABC, others vigorously defend Trump ‘bloodbath’ coverage: ‘We did not miss the full context’ But conservatives suspected that the liberal media did not simply “miss the full context” of his words. The media, it was suspected, was quite deliberately trying to portray Trump as advocating violence in the streets. A “bloodbath” if he did not win. And saying this to slam Trump. This, of course, follows on the heels of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. A media manufactured “scandal” that dogged Trump through most of his term in the White House. Both of which, individually not to mention collectively, has painted a portrait of the media as so determined to take down Trump that they will say and do anything - make that print or broadcast anything - that targets Trump. The problem here is that in doing this the media has effectively targeted …. its own credibility. In the long ago hit movie based on the Tom Clancy bestseller The Hunt for Red October, a too-smart-for-his- britches Russian sets in motion a torpedo which turns around and targets his own submarine. To which a horrified and angry crewmate snaps: “You arrogant ass, you’ve killed us.” Make no mistake, the liberal media is not dead. But coming as this “bloodbath” controversy does in the Trump era where the former President is the repeated target of media stories that are - shall we say- less than truthful? It reinforces the belief that the liberal media has increasingly less credibility for truth-telling and reporting facts. It's a problem that effectively increases the popularity of conservative media, whether on television or talk radio. 

PolitiFact Warns Properly Defining Gender May 'Lead To Discrimination'

As state legislatures across the country deal with the ramifications of the gender ideology’s movement to redefine gender and differentiate it from sex, PolitiFact’s resident “LGBTQ issues” staff writer Grace Abels warned on Friday that those opposed to this redefinition are persuing bills that will “lead to discrimination.” For Abels, it is a fact of life that the two words are different, “Today, medical experts understand biological sex assigned at birth as more complex and consider it distinct from gender identity.” Despite this, Abels also spends several paragraphs going over the recent history of the word “gender.” She writes, “In the 1950s and ’60s, psychological research emerged that differentiated biological sex from "gender." Researchers coined terms such as "gender roles" as they studied people born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that didn’t fit the typical definitions of male or female and observed how children sometimes developed identity distinct from their biological sex.” That not everybody conforms to stereotypical depictions of their sex is not exactly a profound insight, the question is whether that 1950s definition is correct or politicized, and Abels, wittingly or not, shows that it is the latter, “Feminists saw the term as useful for describing the cultural aspects of being a ‘woman’ as different from the biological aspects, he said.” Additionally, “Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who argued sex discrimination cases before the court in the 1970s, said that she intentionally used the term ‘gender discrimination’ because it lacked the salacious overtones 'sex’ has.” She also writes, “After the 1980s, gender’s term usage rose rapidly, moving beyond academic and activist circles. In common American English, ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ began to be used more interchangeably, including in state law — sometimes even in the same section of the law.” Abels never explained why she started her history lesson in the 50s. She did write that prior to the 1970s “the word ‘gender’ was rarely used in American English,” but that doesn’t mean it was never used because when it was, it was used as a synonym for “sex.” If there is one thing Abels got right, it is that the truth matters when it comes to what is gender’s proper definition because whatever definition politicians come up with will have profound consequences. Unfortunately, she got it wrong for the sake of the transgender narrative. Earlier, she wrote, “Transgender rights advocates say that requiring IDs to match the sex a person was assigned at birth can expose transgender Americans to discrimination.” On the issue of red states seeking to stop the verbicide, Abels claims that “Transgender rights advocates say access to identification that matches an individual’s identity and presentation is important. ‘If you can’t update the gender marker on your ID, you are essentially outed as transgender at every turn,’ said Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality to PolitiFact for a previous story on drivers licenses in Florida.” Abels did manage to briefly cite Iowa GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds claiming such bills are necessary to protect “women’s spaces and rights,” but given that she took the side of the gender activists, it is possible Reynolds or those who agree with her could one day find themselves on the wrong side of the truth-o-meter for speaking the truth.

Bill Maher, John Cleese Trash The New York Times for Leftist Tilt and Serious Omissions

John Cleese visited Bill Maher’s “Club Random,” this week, and the conversation quickly went woke. By “woke,” we mean the comedians took turns trashing the far-Left movement. Nothing surprising there. Both comic superstars have spoken at length against the cultural scourge. They might be the movement’s most vocal critics. What proved far more shocking is how the progressives tag-teamed against the Old Gray Lady. The New York Times has been an integral part of liberal life for decades. The paper always leaned to the Left, and for many that perspective proved comforting. It embraced their world view and told a reasonable facsimile to the truth. Not anymore, each lamented.     Maher brought up a recurring section of the paper where readers sound off on various subjects. That feedback left Maher reeling. “We’re f***ed,” Maher said to Cleese with a smile. “They’re just saying the dumbest s***, and it’s printed in the New York Times.” The quip led to a larger discussion about the paper. “Well, I used to think that was a great newspaper, and I don’t anymore,” Cleese said. “I don’t, either,” Maher responded. “It’s sad because it was on my breakfast table when I was a kid.” “It was what they called the ‘newspaper of record,'” Cleese added. “Certainly, it’s more successful than ever,” Maher continued, and both agreed the paper still has a few “great” columnists.”  “What is annoying about it is, it’s not just ‘give me the facts.’ There’s way too much editorializing on the front page, the way the articles that are just supposed to be the facts articles are slanted one way, and I’m not necessarily for the other side,” Maher said. “I just want somebody to tell me the whole truth…” Cleese jumped in. “That’s it,” Cleese added. “You can lie by what you omit,” Maher said, not knowing that the day the episode went live many news outlets omitted critical context in a Donald Trump speech to frame him as promoting violence. Including The New York Times.   We are witnessing the invention of the "bloodbath" hoax in real-time Unfortunately for them, we have 𝕏 Media narrative: Full context: pic.twitter.com/jaYDvtGomn — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 17, 2024   Speech with full contextpic.twitter.com/7ly7Cf3fEG — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 17, 2024   “Both sides do it,” Cleese said of media chicanery. “Trying to get a really accurate picture of something has gotten harder and harder and harder.”

Swisher Decries Lack Of Serious Debate, Yet Labels Murdoch 'Uncle Satan'

Liberal journalist and podcaster Kara Swisher took her book tour to HBO and Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday to offer up several contradictory claims. Swisher claimed to be for debate while defending collusion between the government and social media companies and labeled Rupert Murdoch “Uncle Satan” while lamenting the lack of serious debate. Maher told Swisher, whose book is about the tech industry, “We should have been able to argue about whether it came from a lab which we weren't, things like that, natural immunity, whether it was better to go to the beach and get sun and fresh air, as I would have said as opposed to sitting home and day drinking and putting on weight. They never mention that obesity was the biggest factor. They have a lot to answer for.”     Swisher claimed to understand Maher’s concerns but ultimately downplayed them, “They do, but you're in the middle of a plague in a debate people don't know and so you’re going to have to—” After Maher interrupted to claim that proved his point, Swisher continued to evade “Yes, you should, but this is not—the moment was not—people make mistakes and science says it makes mistakes.” Maher then brought up a lawsuit brought by: Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, they’re from Stanford and Harvard…they’re not radicals, they were saying we're going too far with school closures. Again, I think, has been proved right. My question always was why are your doctors more important than my doctors, the ones I want to listen to, and the social media companies were in the tank with the government as opposed to what you were just saying before, about you’re the watchdog and you have been, they did the bidding of the government, that's what the lawsuit's about.  Swisher again dodged the question, “It is about that but it's whether they can talk to each other reasonably and be coerced… if the government knows about, say, a major threat and it doesn't talk to these companies, we get into all kinds of trouble.” She then tried to change the topic: So, I think what’s happened is reductiveness, like, everybody has got to be ‘you were wrong, I was right’ and stuff like that and what's happening in this culture and I think it’s because of three things: social media, gerrymandering, and Rupert Murdoch, I think pretty much if I had to pick three things whom I call—I know, it’s an easy clap, right— I call him Uncle Satan in the book because he's avuncular yet bad, but one of the things that has happened is social media has caused us to-- we talk about our grievances with each other all the time and we don't tell stories about each other anymore.  What does the lack of intelligent debate on social media have to do with shutting down debate on school closures? Additionally, while Swisher referred to Murdoch as Uncle Satan, she also attacked Elon Musk for being an unserious debater, “Mark Cuban… did an amazing series on DEI… it was really smart and the response from Elon was ‘you're a moron.’ Oh, that's debate -- well done, highest level of Oxford.” Claiming scientists make mistakes while defending scientific censorship of lockdown critics while also labeling Murdoch, and presumably Fox News, Uncle Satan is not exactly Oxford-level thinking either. Here is a transcript for the March 22 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher 3/23/2024 10:18 PM ET BILL MAHER: We should have been able to argue about whether it came from a lab which we weren't, things like that, natural immunity, whether it was better to go to the beach and get sun and fresh air, as I would have said— KARA SWISHER: Okay. MAHER: -- as opposed to sitting home and day drinking— SWISHER: Right. MAHER: -- and putting on weight.  SWISHER: Look, Bill, I’m going to— MAHER: They never mention that obesity was the biggest factor.  SWISHER: I get it. MAHER: They have a lot to answer for. Anyway— SWISHER: They do, but you're in the middle of a plague in a debate people don't know and so you’re going to have to--  MAHER: Yes, so you should be able to debate it, this is medicine. SWISHER: Yes, you should, but this is not—the moment was not—people make mistakes and science says it makes mistakes.  MAHER: Well, this is what the lawsuit is about— SWISHER: Okay. MAHER: -- because there were two doctors, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, they’re from Stanford and Harvard— SWISHER: Right. MAHER: -- and they said “we, you know, we were shut down -- not always fully but there are ways to do that”— SWISHER: Right. MAHER: -- and they’re not radicals, they were saying we're going too far with school closures. Again, I think, has been proved right. My question always was why are your doctors more important than my doctors— SWISHER: Right. MAHER: -- the ones I want to listen to and the social media companies were in the tank with the government as opposed to what you were just saying before, about you’re the watchdog and you have been— SWISHER: Right. MAHER: -- they did the bidding of the government, that's what the lawsuit's about.  SWISHER: It is about that but it's whether they can talk to each other reasonably and be coerced and I think the Supreme Court’s going to go against it because social media companies also have first First Amendment rights, by the way and so, I think the issue is what is the government talking to these companies about? Is coercing them or is just having reasonable discussions, if the government knows about, say, a major threat and it doesn't talk to these companies— MAHER: Well. SWISHER:-- We get into all kinds of trouble. So, I think what’s happened is reductiveness. Like, everybody has got to be “you were wrong, I was right” and stuff like that and what's happening in this culture and I think it’s because of three things: social media, gerrymandering, and Rupert Murdoch, I think pretty much if I had to pick three things whom I call—I know, it’s an easy clap, right— I call him Uncle Satan in the book because he's avuncular yet bad, but one of the things that has happened is social media has caused us to-- we talk about our grievances with each other all the time and we don't tell stories about each other anymore and that's what happened, it's reductiveness, so you don't get a debate and someone has to top to each other and dunk each other and this is why I have a problem with Elon Musk owning X because all he wants to do is dunk— MAHER: Right. Right. SWISHER: Right? Instead of, like, Mark Cuban— MAHER: Yeah. SWISHER: -- who, both of you and I know, did an amazing series on DEI— MAHER: Right. SWISHER: -- Right? When he did it, I wrote him, I go “godspeed, you’re going over there. Good luck” and he did it and it was really smart and the response from Elon was “you're a moron.” Oh, that's debate -- well done, highest level of Oxford. 

Wild Dana Bash Contrast: Scary Trump Praises Hitler vs. Biden's 'March Madness' Bracket

On Thursday, Drew Holden of the Washington Free Beacon tipped everyone on an amazing contrast of "accountability modes" toward Donald Trump and Joe Biden in the last minutes of Inside Politics in the noon hour. Trump has kind words for genocidal Nazi maniacs, but hey, have you seen Biden's March Madness bracket?   First, Bash interviewed Trump-despising pundit Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark, and repeated her fellow CNN host Jim Sciutto's hot quotes from his new book that former Trump chief of staff John Kelly said Trump spoke positively of Adolf Hitler in the context of whether John Kelly is the kind of Republican who can get behind their mission of re-electing Biden. CNN 'Inside Politics' host Dana Bash promoted her colleague Jim Sciutto's quotes from John Kelly about Trump's positive comments about Hitler, an easy Q for Sarah "Big Bucks" Longwell. After a Q on a possible No Labels run for Chris Christie, she touted Biden's NCAA bracket. pic.twitter.com/cHxD54gPax — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) March 21, 2024 BASH: I mentioned John Kelly, who was the former president's chief of staff, Defense secretary James Mattis, they've been very forceful in speaking out against Donald Trump. John Kelly told Jim Sciutto even that Trump has something positive to say about Hitler he said we -- well, but Hitler did some good things. I said, well, what, and he said, well, Hitler rebuilt the economy, but what did he do with that rebuilt economy? He turned it against his own people and against the world. I said, sir, you can never say anything good about the guy. Nothing. Is someone like him, John Kelly, a person who you can get into your new tribe as you call it? LONGWELL: Yes, I think so. Look, I think it is critically important that the country hear from the former Trump officials who are sounding the alarm about how unfit Donald Trump is to serve. And I think there's some people -- so John Kelly has made some striking comments and it's incredibly notable that Donald Trump's own vice president, who served with him, is not going to endorse him this time. But we need to hear from Jim Mattis. We need to hear from so many of the cabinet officials that they have maybe said something off the record, or maybe they've a quote here and there. They need to sound the alarm and explain to the country what they saw, why Donald Trump cannot return to office, and because we might think it doesn't matter to voters, but to this critical slice of voters who will make the margin, the decision in 2024, they can make a difference. I promise. After a few words of warning about whether Chris Christie would run on a third-party "No Labels" ticket, Bash went to commercial with an entirely different approach to President Biden, what we might joke is CNN's Obama Mode, promoting Biden as a sports junkie:  "And the games are already underway. President Biden is getting all in on March Madness fun. We'll show you his brackets and break them down after a quick break." Is Biden granting an interview to ESPN to explain his Final Four picks? No, that might underline how much he's really following college hoops, and someone might ask about the border or something.  Here is CNN's Dana Bash following her "Trump Speaks Well of Hitler" story (punctuated with an ad break) with puffery about Joe Biden's March Madness bracket with Coy Wire, who also picked U-Conn to win it all. (Hat tip: @DrewHolden360) pic.twitter.com/ETSKforkmD — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) March 21, 2024 BASH: President Biden has entered the March Madness chat. He's going with the pros and picking tournament favorite UConn to win the Men's NCAA tournament. And North Carolina, Tennessee and University of Houston rounding out the final four. The games kicked off about an hour ago, 64 teams are hoping for their one shining moment. CNN's Coy Wire is here. Coy, good to see you. What do you make of the president's bracket? COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Well, Dana, it is safe or is it? He said he went with three one-seed and a two-seed to make to the final four. Of course March Madness is so magical and fun to watch because there are always upsets and Cinderella overlooked teams almost every year making a run. So going with UConn to repeat his champs might seem like a safe pick because they are the overall favorites to win it all. But there have only been two repeat champs since 1974, Dana. I too have UConn repeating. I am doing it because Coach [Dan] Hurley wears the same lucky underwear every game and washes them by hand. That's a mad scientist in my opinion. How can you not pick a coach and team like that? BASH: I'm a superstitious person and I love that detail. That's fantastic. Dana Bash has no Bash in her Biden coverage. It's more like Dana Blush. 

Ignore 'Stupid March Polls!' Joe Scarborough Goes Baghdad Bob For Biden

"I reassure you the Biden campaign is safe. There is no presence of the Trump campaign in the streets of America. None at all."  That paraphrase of Saddam spokesman Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf, aka "Baghdad Bob," at the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003, with American tanks rumbling into Baghdad, could have been Joe Scarborough on Friday's Morning Joe. Scarborough claimed that Trump's financial travails "are the sort of things that may not show up in stupid polls in March." He rolled tape of Never Trumper Stuart Stevens analogizing the Trump to a bag filled with water. It might not be leaking, but there'd come a time when it would catastrophically collapse!  Scarborough said Stevens analogized the race to 1980 race between Carter and Reagan. It was considered a toss-up till the very end, until Reagan broke away in the last weekend. Which is really weird, because Biden is no Ronald Reagan. Biden is very much like Jimmy Carter: a man presiding over inflation and foreign-policy fecklessness.  Scarborough was clearly feeling defensive about his shameless shilling for Biden. At the end of his spiel, he imagined people out there saying, "he's whistling past the graveyard." "No I'm not," insisted Joe. "You look at the fundamentals! It doesn't make sense that, that Donald Trump is going to pull this out at the end." Riight. Bet Scarborough can't wait for that next call from his phone buddy Biden, praising his latest effort on behalf of the team. Note:  Jen Palmieri, a former Obama communications director who performed the same function for Hillary's 2016 campaign, committed some unintentional humor.  She kvetched that the media isn't sufficiently covering the facts that Trump has been having financial problems, and that he has been indicted 91 [sic, now 85] times! In fact, there has been wall-to-wall MSM coverage, brimming with schadenfreude, of Trump's difficulties in raising the half-billion bond in the NY civil fraud case. And it seems a virtual MSNBC requirement that any segment on Trump be prefaced with a description of him as the "twice-impeached, defendant in four criminal trials,  facing 91 [recently reduced to 85] felony charges, found liable for sexual assault" former president. But the media is going too easy on Trump. Yeah, that's the problem, Jen! Democrats think the media is "underdoing it" until they have a massive lead in the polls. They expect the media to magically make it "right." Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 3/22/24 6:03 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: What a nightmare. I'm dead serious here. What a nightmare it has to be, being a part of Donald Trump's campaign, being grossly underfunded, and knowing that Trump has put his family in charge of the RNC, for being a Republican candidate down ballot. I've been one of those before. You're just praying that the RNC can help you out. And knowing all of that money is going for a guy who's just completely beyond cash strapped. I mean, for a  lot of legitimate reasons. Again, we said this yesterday. There are a lot of billionaires that wouldn't have $500 million lying around. But they really are, he has along, but they're really leveraging his campaign for his personal use. And it's -- these are the sort of things that may not show up in stupid polls in March. This is the shhh-- stuff [laughter on set] that as you make that final turn after Labor Day, this is when things -- and I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I thought Stuart Stevens had good a pretty good insight. Said everybody's talking about how this race looks right now, he said. To Stuart, and he knows a thing or two about campaigns, he says it's looking like 1980 in reverse. Where, you know, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, all year, too close to call. And things just flipped near the end. And that's what Stuart says. And if you look how things are lining up, we don't know what's going to happen the next six months, but, man, if, if you look any of the fundamentals about politics, this is -- this looks like -- this looks like Stuart may be onto something.  And Alex told me they got Stuart's bite here. Play Stuart real quick, and we'll talk about it. STUART STEVENS: My image of the Trump campaign is somebody walking around with a paper bag full of water. I don't think it's going to leak, but when this thing goes, it is going to go quickly.  And I think there's a good chance we're going to have a situation like 1980 in reverse, where Carter was tight with Reagan until the middle of October, and then kind of the bottom fell out for Carter.  . . .  JEN PALMIERI: You know, I think that we don't talk enough about Trump's weaknesses, and the fundamentals of his campaign are very weak. You know, it's like, he doesn't have any money. He has 91 counts against him, four indictments, trials that he's like trying to balance, and he can't raise any money. He's got to raise half-a-billion dollars by Monday.  And then, with the Biden, I think we need to brace for the -- I bet you'll agree with this. Like, the polls might not change in Biden's favor until the fall. SCARBOROUGH: Right! PALMIERI: Like, that's when people are going to start to pay attention. SCARBOROUGH: And just so people understand, we went into the final week, and I'm old enough to remember this. And I know Donny is. Final weekend. There was I think, you know, Time magazine came out, back when we had magazines, when we were younger people and had magazines to read. The Friday before the Tuesday election in 1980, nobody knew if Jimmy Carter was going to win or Ronald Reagan was going to win. And [blows out air], just a collapse over the weekend.  And you look [pounds table] at the fundamentals. You look at the fundamentals. You look at the economy. And wee're going to show an ad. Are you better off than you weref our years ago? Damn straight you are, unless you're Donald Trump. Like, the fundamentals in every way. The money, the economy, you name it. This week, we find out Jay Powell's doing three interest rate cuts.  And by the way, people are like, if anybody's out there going, he's whistling past the graveyard. No I'm not. I'm just telling ya. You look at the fundamentals! It doesn't make sense that, that Donald Trump is going to pull this out at the end.

NewsBusters Podcast: A Sappy Rerun for Christine 'No Evidence' Ford

Christine Blasey Ford provided what they call “no evidence” to back up her 2018 claim that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her when they were teenagers. Kavanaugh fiercely denied the charge. Her "witnesses" didn't see it her way. But CBS and ABC and NPR have provided sappy publicity for her new book – which provides no new evidence of her story. Interviewers sympathetically asked why she would go through this "trauma" again -- ignoring that there was money to be made. Ford claimed this was for all the other victims.Ford's new book is published by St. Martin's Press....which is the same Manhattan publisher that issued E. Jean Carroll's book What Do We Need Men For?, the 2019 book where she accused Donald Trump of sexual assault in a department store, only she couldn't remember which year it happened. No reporter asks about the payout.  When women accuse Democrats of sexual assault -- as Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick did against Bill Clinton -- they found no book deals. Kathleen Willey authored a book for World Net Daily books. The major publishers at Manhattan aren't interested. In every venue, interviewers failed to ask Ford how she perceived the other accusers of Justice Kavanaugh, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. The media believe Ford is the most plausible accuser, so the others are buried in the past.  At least CBS reporter Tracy Smith offered a few seconds of balance by displaying the 2018 testimony of both Ford and Kavanaugh. Smith also gets credit for pressing Ford with the Kavanaugh camp’s pushback -- that no one in that teenage circle recalls this party she’s talking about. NPR sucks. CBS 'Sunday Morning' interviewed Christine Blasey Ford, aired Kavanaugh's denials of her unproven sex assault claims. CBS's Tracy Smith underlines no one recalls that night as she does. NPR aired two Ford interviews and there was no pushback on her story. At all. pic.twitter.com/jRaN2to7Td — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) March 22, 2024 National "Public" Radio did not present any Kavanaugh soundbites of denial. Morning Edition co-host Michel Martin mentioned at the beginning that Kavanaugh "vehemently denied" the accusation. On Fresh Air with Terry Gross, Gross never mentioned Kavanaugh's denials. She began by warning "As a heads up to our listeners, the introduction I'm about to give describes a sexual assault." Not an "alleged assault." Gross asked: "How did you write your book without retraumatizing yourself?" Ford replied "I did retraumatize myself." This interview lasted for almost an hour (including the promotional breaks). ABC's The View also celebrated Ford for her great "courage." Donald Trump sued ABC News this week and their Sunday host George Stephanopoulos for claiming a jury held Trump "liable for rape." (That's not accurate.)  We discuss this and the networks and newspapers who completely skipped the hearing on Hunter Biden this week. Enjoy the podcast below or wherever you listen to podcasts.   

FNC’s Doocy, ABC’s Parks Battle KJP on Border Overrun After She Blames Abbott

Friday’s White House press briefing was largely dominated by anti-Israel-leaning questions directed toward John Kirby, but there was still time for the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre to make a fool of herself with exchanges such as ones with ABC’s MaryAlice Parks and Fox’s Peter Doocy over the viral video from our friend Jennie Taer at the New York Post and freelance videographer James Breeden of illegal immigrants overrunning a border fence. To her credit despite being a lefty, Parks went first as the second reporter called on: “Has the President seen that dramatic video of migrants surging past National Guardsmen in Texas — in El Paso?”     Jean-Pierre not surprisingly admitted she had “not spoken to the President about that video”, but what she would say was it’s the fault of Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX) because Biden “has worked with Congress...about getting an immigration bill done” whereas Abbott has “politicize[d] this” and the reason the border has become “chaotic” and “dangerous”. She even seemed to take disgusting and classless potshots at Texas National Guardsmen as weaklings. Parks wouldn’t push back on this, but wondered if this means Americans should “continue to” accept another “standoff” (click “expand”): JEAN-PIERRE: I do want to say we are grateful for the Border Patrol’s quick work to get the situation under control and apprehend the migrants, so that’s important, but congressional Republicans need to move on this what they’re doing instead, and this is the bipartisan agreement, obviously, is listening to the former President — President Trump tell them not to get involved in moving forward with this bipartisan agreement because of his own personal politics, because it will help this President. You all reported that. It’s not coming from us. You all reported that. And it is on full — unfortunate that Congress — Republican [sic] are not getting on board with what majority of Americans care about and you have a governor in — in — in Texas — Governor Abbott who is continuing to make this — make this sadly a dangerous situation a chaotic situation. Let’s not forget who they pass by to — to — to pass by the razor wires. They passed by the Texas National Guards that the Republican governor put — put — put at the border. PARKS: But are — are you saying that Americans should just expect that they will continue to be a standoff between the — JEAN-PIERRE: There shouldn’t be — PARKS: — National Guardsmen and the border agents? JEAN-PIERRE: — but — but — PARKS: What is the resolution there? JEAN-PIERRE: The resolution is — is pushing forward with the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate with Republicans and Democrats. That’s the solution. When Parks called her out for pushing something that’s not “going anywhere”, a flustered Jean-Pierre reiterated her previous answer. Thankfully, Parks gave it one more try: “[I]t sounds like, right now, the White House and the President, the administration is not considering anything else to stop future events like that right now. The blame is to the Texas Governor and Congress.” Jean-Pierre upped her rhetoric, twice saying it’s a “fact” that Abbott “has politicized this issue” and the White House doesn’t care about partisanship but instead “helping the American people.” A few minutes later, it was a textbook Doocy Time, starting with this short and biting but respectful and important question: “[W]hat does President Biden think should happen to adult men who are assaulting and overpowering U.S. National Guardsmen?” Jean-Pierre refused to denounce the attacks on American soldiers, solely because they serve in Texas under a Republican governor. Instead, she thanked “Border Patrol agents for their — to — quickly — to quickly work and get the situation under control and apprehend the migrants” and again blamed Abbott for “politicizing” the border. Doocy then called out the Biden administration for “talk[ing] so much about having a more humane immigration system,” but the video showed the opposite with “adult men landing haymakers on U.S. troops in uniform” as opposed to “helpless women and children begging for a safe place to come in”. “If that was happening anywhere else in the world, wouldn’t President Biden sent reinforcements,” he asked. When Jean-Pierre initially replied “[e]veryone was apprehended,” Doocy followed up: “Were they deported?” Of course, Jean-Pierre refused to answer (because, as Taer reported Friday morning, they were released into the U.S.) other than more Abbott blaming. Doocy pivoted last to the latest example of how Chinese-owned TikTok and its algorithm interfere with our national security: “There is a Venezuelan migrant with half a million followers on TikTok, who’s telling border crossers they can live in empty houses in this country. Would President Biden support a law that would make that kind of squatting illegal?” Jean-Pierre didn’t bit, saying she had “not seen that...so I can’t comment”. In between Doocy and Parks, a reporter in the McClatchy Newspapers seat lobbed a softball at Jean-Pierre to attack Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) (click “expand”): MCCLATCHY REPORTER: Today, Governor Ron DeSantis said that he’s also looking at implementing also like Texas that would allow Florida to arrest migrants as soon as they cross the Florida border. Are you concerned that other governors will be looking into kind of stricter immigration laws like this? JEAN-PIERRE: I’m concerned about the politics that’s being played here, instead of dealing with the issue. Instead of the governor in Florida, saying, “hey, senators — my senators in my state, we need to work on the issue at hand here. There is a bipartisan agreement that is in your chamber right? That is in the Senate that was agreed upon in a bipartisan way. Can you guys move forward with that, instead of playing politics?” That’s what we want to see. We want to see an issue actually dealt with that majority of Americans care about. There is a bi — I cannot say this enough. There is a bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate. Republicans were asked to reject it because of the former President — because of — helping his own politics. That’s not how we should be moving forward as a country. That is just not. And that’s not what the President believes. To see the relevant transcript from the March 22 briefing, click here.

PBS Blows ‘Bloodbath’: ‘Latest Example of Donald Trump Using Violent Rhetoric’

By now everyone has heard that former President Donald Trump threatened U.S. democracy or something by predicting a “bloodbath” if he didn’t win re-election in November. Trump didn’t actually do that, as we know: His “bloodbath” comment, delivered at a campaign rally in Ohio, referred to tariffs on Chinese electric cars potentially being made in Mexico, as a brief perusal of what Trump actually said at the rally in Ohio will confirm. But that didn’t stop PBS NewsHour co-anchor Amna Nawaz from stating Monday evening: “A look at former President Donald Trump’s violent language on the campaign trail.” PBS thought the fake “bloodbath” worthy of two segments, both taking Trump far out of context, just like the Biden campaign wanted. Co-anchor Geoff Bennett launched his own segment thusly: Former President Donald Trump is under fire again for comments made during a controversial speech at a campaign event for a Republican Ohio Senate candidate. Extremism experts say it's the latest example of Donald Trump using violent rhetoric to appeal to his supporters. Bennett, who worked the Monday-Friday evening shift, wasn’t available to comment on Trump’s remarks on Saturday evening, which was for the best, as the truth of what Trump said slowly seeped into the mainstream press coverage, so that by Monday night Bennett was obliged to hedge, at least in comparison to the insanity on the networks’ newscasts. But even in playing Trump's comments in full context, Bennett still clung to narrative: BENNETT: As his use of the word bloodbath during an extended riff on the auto industry and Chinese automakers sparked fresh controversy and criticism. TRUMP: We're going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line. And you're not going to be able to sell those cars -- if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it, It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it. BENNETT: In a social media post today, Mr. Trump said his threat had been taken out of context and turned the defense of his comments into a fund-raising appeal. Former President Trump also facing criticism for his dehumanizing anti-immigrant rhetoric at that same rally. TRUMP: If I had prisons that were teeming with MS-13 and all sorts of people that they have got to take care of for the next 50 years, right, young people, they're in jail for years and, if you call them people. I don't know if you call them people. In some cases, they're not people, in my opinion. Does Bennett really want to defend the humanity of murderous MS-13 gang members? Bennett even used a professor’s comment that admitted Trump was using a metaphor into a danger. BRENDAN NYHAN (Dartmouth College): In this case, it may have been a metaphor. It's hard to tell, with him. He was using that language in the context of a discussion of the auto industry, but his meaning was ambiguous. Given the way he so frequently calls for or endorses violence, I think it's appropriate to be concerned when he invokes it even in a seemingly metaphorical way. It's with noting that PBS’s own reporter Paul Solman referred to “a bloodbath for the economy” in a May 2020 story on the collapse of U.S. retail due to COVID edicts. PBS NewsHour co-anchor Amna Nawaz piled on during the “Politics Monday” segment that followed, taking another tack: Republicans who defend Trump’s statement are as awful as Trump himself.     She spoke to Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report, and was even more aggressive than her co-host Bennett. NAWAZ: So, you saw Geoff's report earlier on that violent rhetoric we're hearing from former President Trump. Even after Mr. Trump is confronted about the fact that some of his language echoes, the language of Hitler, in an interview, he doubles down. This weekend, he said there would be a bloodbath if he didn't win….Speaker Mike Johnson said that Mr. Trump was just referring to the auto industry, and that he's 100 percent correct and Americans agree with him. The decision by fellow Republicans to not unequivocally call out violent rhetoric, what does that say to you? These grossly misleading anti-Trump segments were brought to you in part by BDO.

As 2024 Elections Loom, Biden Admin Worked with Anti-Free Speech ‘Digital Brownshirts’

Newly released documents confirm that the Biden administration coordinated with a UK group to trample free speech. The Biden White House “partnered with” the UK- and US-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) as part of its strategy to combat alleged “domestic terrorism.” New emails obtained by America First Legal (AFL) expose the administration’s Orwellian project to crush online content with which it disagrees. It seems it was no coincidence that former White House press secretary Jen Psaki used a CCDH report, the “Disinformation Dozen,” to insist on increased COVID-19 censorship in July 2021. Biden’s “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” endorsed the anti-free speech Christchurch Call to Action and turned to research conducted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the CCDH, the initially UK-based group that is now also incorporated in America, AFL explained. CCDH calls itself a “not-for-profit” NGO that “works to stop the spread of online hate and disinformation.” Leftist British politician Imran Ahmed is the CEO. As a Labor Party staffer, Ahmed reportedly coordinated with leftist outlet The Guardian to accuse UK Conservative Party figure Grant Shapps falsely of editing his Tory rivals’ Wikipedia pages, according to Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi. After CCDH released the “Disinformation Dozen” report, the Biden White House used it to urge Big Tech companies, especially Facebook, to deplatform the highlighted COVID-19 vaccine critics.  The co-chair of the now-defunct Disinformation Governance Board (DGB), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under secretary Robert Silvers, also took an interest in the organization. Silvers messaged Eva Hartshorn-Sanders, who at the time was CCDH’s Head of Policy, to arrange a meeting to discuss the organization’s work, AFL noted. He was then invited to CCDH’s Global Summit by Hartshorn-Sanders, who has pushed anti-free speech legislation. But the Biden administration’s ties to CCDH do not end there. CCDH also met with Biden officials after the White House Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse debuted, per AFL. CCDH submitted recommendations to the task force on addressing “gender-based violence.” When the White House released a 2023 blueprint on “Online Harassment and Abuse,” Hartshorn-Sanders claimed credit for policy development. Twitter Files journalist Michael Shellenberger slammed the government censorship collusion revealed by AFL. He accused CCDH of “hyp[ing] hate” to “demand Facebook and other social media platforms to remove content and people they don't like.” He added, “For the government to decide what is extreme is a way of labeling someone as a potential terrorist threat.” Ultimately, Shellenberger argued, “There is no reliable connection between people's beliefs and violence. Attempting to stop violence by censoring speech is totalitarian and Orwellian. It effectively criminalizes speech and creates a whole new category of pre-crime.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an 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.

Bongino CALLS OUT Major ESG Entity Exploiting Americans

Syndicated radio host Dan Bongino called out a major financial advisory group for promoting Environmental, Social and Governance-related (ESG) investing after the group was confronted about it on national television.  During the March 21 edition of The Dan Bongino Show, Bongino went after the ESG-Obsessed Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) for their apparent abuse of shareholder’s trust. Bongino highlighted a moment when CNBC’s Squawk Box co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin pressed ISS Head of Governance Lorraine Kelly on her agencies’ work using shareholders to push ESG. Bongino directly blamed ISS for making companies “go woke,” before identifying how this ESG racket operates.  “Do you want to see why we’ve been losing the culture wars and we’ve only recently turned it around?” Bongino said, before declaring that ISS and a similar group “basically control every public company.” Bongino ripped Kelly’s attempted denial before adding: “A lot of this DEI stuff is because these pensions that invest major money go to these two companies and they got to speak out against this stuff.”               According to The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board, ISS and Glass Lewis control a horrifying 97% “of the proxy advisory market.” The Editorial Board also provided evidence that this dominant market position translated into the power to control a substantial amount of shareholder votes. The editorial further demonstrated these entities’ support for environmentalism and “equity” at major companies.   Bongino similarly summed up how these agencies wield power through shareholders. “There are these agencies out there that proxy vote,” Bongino said. “The long story made really short is this: These two rating agencies influence U.S. corporate policy because a lot of people don’t have time if they invest in stock to go and vote for board members and stuff like that so they take the advice of these two agencies. A lot of what’s happening in America right now — in corporate America [and] this ESG/DEI crap — is because of these two agencies.” 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 ESG.

More Election Interference? Google Drops Elections-Focused Announcement in Europe

Google doubled down on its election-related censorship operations just after MRC released a special report on Google’s election interference efforts over the past 16 years.  MRC Free Speech America released a report finding 41 examples of Google’s election interference efforts between 2008 and 2024. And yet, Google is going full speed ahead with its election efforts in Europe. Google announced its efforts to control information through partnerships with so-called fact-checkers and media literacy organizations in a blog post on Thursday.  “Today, we’re excited to announce a €1.5 million contribution to the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), a newly created association representing European fact checking organizations, to launch Elections24Check,” wrote Google. The Elections24Check project, according to Google, is “working together to fact check the European Parliamentary Elections” through a database of articles “fact-checking,” “debunking” and “prebunking” claims made by European political candidates.  The database “will offer an early detection system of online misinformation for the entire continent,” claimed Carlos Hernández-Echevarría, Chair of the EFCSN Governance Body. He added that it will cover the EU and neighboring countries, emphasizing that “misinformation travels widely across borders especially around the upcoming elections.” Cracking down on alleged “misinformation” is a euphemism that leftists have used worldwide to silence their political opposition online. Google once again emphasized its so-called pre-bunking and media literacy efforts, which it claims “teaches audiences how to spot common manipulation techniques, so they can better recognize mis- and disinformation online.” Google added that “[t]he campaign, which kicks off this spring, will focus on techniques used to advance disinformation including decontextualization, scapegoating and discrediting … .”  A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Rob Roos told MRC Free Speech America that this push to censor and control so-called “misinformation” is not coming out of nowhere. “With the Digital Services Act, the European Union is forcing big social media platforms to ‘fight misinformation’ online,” he said. “But who decides what is misinformation and what isn't? In a democracy, it is essential that ideas can be discussed freely.” Roos, who also serves as Vice President of the think tank founded by Margaret Thatcher, the New Direction Foundation, aptly added that in many cases, anti-free speech laws are only a piece of the equation. “Even without the DSA, most Big Tech companies have proved to be eager to engage in censorship and in tampering with the algorithm to decrease the reach of conservatives,” the MEP said. “This is blatant corporate election interference, and this interference poses the true danger to democracy.” Although these so-called fact checkers have every right to express what they claim to be true, Google has long elevated fact checks that are often biased against conservative ideas. The company openly admitted this in a December 2019 blog post. “Google has highlighted fact checks in Search and News for almost three years as a way to help people make more informed judgments about the content they encounter online,” the company wrote. “Fact checks from authoritative sources are highlighted on Google Search and are labeled in Google News.” This comes just after Google pumped the brakes on its AI chatbot Gemini’s willingness to answer election-related questions. “Out of an abundance of caution on such an important topic, we have begun to roll out restrictions on the types of election-related queries for which Gemini will return responses,” Google told CNBC on March 12. 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.

A COLD DAY IN HELL: Snopes Actually Fact Checks Biden Admin’s ‘15 Million’ Jobs Added Claim

It was always asinine for President Joe Biden’s administration to claim that they “nearly” added 15 million jobs since the pandemic, and it apparently stank so much that even leftist fact-checker Snopes didn’t let it pass the smell test. In a shocking twist, Snopes analyzed that the Biden administration’s propagandized claim on how star-spangled awesome its job creation numbers were was “misleading” in a March 21 fact check.  According to Snopes, “About 9 million of those jobs were lost during the pandemic, so the net jobs gain from pre-pandemic levels was 5.5 million.” In other words, the “15 million” claim was bunk. But even the 5.5 million number is way too generous, but more on that later. The author of the fact check, Anna Rascouët-Paz, addressed the Biden propaganda on her personal Twitter account: “Did the US economy really add 15 million jobs under Biden? *squinty face* mmmm let's not push it.” No kidding. However, Rascouët-Paz stopped short of outright calling the Biden administration liars by still dubbing their claim a true/false “mixture” because the U.S. economy technically “gained 14.9 million jobs in total” from the pandemic recovery. Yes, the very claim that Rascouët-Paz deemed “false” was spun to seem like it still contained a modicum of honesty.  But for an outlet that routinely goes to bat for Biden, protecting him from most any scrutiny, “Mixture” is about as close as we can hope Snopes will get to red-flagging a leftist president’s economic falsehoods. The Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni told MRC Business in an exclusive interview that “[t]he word ‘added’ implies an increase over the preexisting trend, but we’ve had precisely the opposite.” Did the US economy really add 15 million jobs under Biden? *squinty face* mmmm let's not push it. https://t.co/JVjYWz8DWR — Anna Rascouët-Paz (@rascouet) March 21, 2024 Rascouët-Paz attempted to throw Biden a bone by drawing readers’ attention to the supposed “Signs of a Strong Economy,” claiming that the “data shows [sic] that the U.S. economy has been strong overall under Biden.”. She waved around the February jobs report showing that the economy allegedly added 275,000 jobs, the 3.9 percent unemployment rate and 3.1 percent 2023 GDP growth as data points, but conveniently left out important context that blew up her pro-Biden spin.  Rascouët-Paz failed to mention the inconvenient little factoid that the February jobs report was drastically undercut by the simultaneous news that the previously robust January jobs numbers had been downwardly revised by more than a whopping 35 percent, from 353,000 to 229,000. If that wasn’t bad enough, the February jobs report also reduced the December 2023 jobs numbers from 333,000 to 290,000, totaling a 167,000-job overestimate for December and January combined. In addition, new data from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve showed that the U.S. economy added two-thirds fewer jobs in the third quarter of 2023 than previously reported by the BLS report, according to The Daily Caller. Antoni told MRC Business that any attempt to sugarcoat the decrepit state of the jobs market under Biden as Rascouët-Paz did is downright ludicrous. “There are a variety of ways to measure how” far the labor market is below its pre-pandemic trend, he said, “but each of them shows that we’re missing at least 4.8 million jobs.” In fact, argued Antoni that “it seems more accurate to say Biden is short jobs than he has added them.” But that isn’t the only area where Rascouët-Paz dropped the ball. A chunk of the so-called “growth” in 2023 that she praised as a win for Biden happened because the federal government debt exploded by over $6.6 trillion against a nominal GDP increase of $5.6 trillion, as Antoni pointed out in a February X post. Antoni argued that the government was effectively “borrowing to create the illusion of ‘growth,’ and getting only 89 cents on the dollar… .” Reiterating this point to MRC Business, Antoni concluded, “[T]he only thing keeping both consumer and government spending levels afloat is debt. The government basically borrowed over $800 billion last quarter to ‘buy’ $300 billion of GDP ‘growth.’”  And the argument that the U.S. is experiencing healthy growth gets even worse when one tears off the false veneer, as Antoni revealed: Likewise, consumer debt is through the roof as people attempt to maintain their standard of living amid the sharp drop in real earnings over the last 3 years. Furthermore, many people, especially the young, have turned to doom spending. This is where they give up on ever being able to own a home or other big ticket items, so they stop saving for a down payment and other investments, and spend that money instead. That’s increasing consumer spending today, but also killing savings and long-run growth. Indeed, the savings rate today is less than half the pre-pandemic level, and that’s after the government handed out thousands of dollars to everybody. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Snopes and tell it to stop trying to save the Biden administration from the political fallout of the falsehoods it peddles on the state of the economy.

British TV Promotes Having Sex With Trees & Masturbating in Waterfalls

Have you ever had sex with a tree? While that question alone seems absolutely insane to anyone normal, there are apparently more than 100,000 people worldwide who consider themselves “ecosexual” and are sexually attracted to nature. This sexuality was recently promoted and explained via an animated infomercial on Britain's Channel 4 show called “Naked Attraction.” A clip of the show, which aired Wednesday, March 13, now has nearly two million views on X. The premise of the show is to “evaluate the contestants who are willing to bare all in the name of love,” LAD Bible reported Monday. The way it works is that there is a host, Anna Richardson, who asks questions to a panel of naked contestants to help someone else who is “looking for love.” Toni, a 25-year-old from London, was the subject last week on the dating show and engaged in a Q and A with the panel to see which naked person she may be compatible with.  “The 'body-positive content creator' revealed how she likes to write erotic fiction in her spare time and six naked people were giving it their all to win her over,” LAD Bible added. Here is a @Channel4 clip about ‘Ecosexuality’. This is a new sexual orientation for people who “find nature sexy”, “treat nature as a sensual partner” and includes having “sex with trees”. Society is doomed. pic.twitter.com/QzXqVsEZsp — James Esses (@JamesEsses) March 21, 2024 One task was for contestants to come up with a one liner to win Toni over. “Toni pens erotic fiction. If you were going to be writing your own dirty novel, what would you call it and why?” Richardson, the host asked. Here’s when the show got even more odd (if you can believe it).  One naked contestant answered, “Vaginal wonder in the willows because I like to explore people in nature.”  Toni responded, “Oh, so you’re an exhibitionist?” “Kind of. I’d say more an ecosexual," the contestant said.  Naturally, Richardson and Toni were confused, as was I when I saw the clip. “Someone who find’s nature sexy,” the nude contestant with purple eyebrows and a purple mohawk confessed. The Channel 4 show then played a cartoon infomercial narrated by Richardson talking about all the people around the world who find nature sexy. “How a person expresses their equal, sexuality ranges widely from ceremonies where you can marry mother nature, to sex with trees and even masturbating underwater falls,” Richardson said as the video showed each of those instances in graphic detail. Though the clip that is trending on X cut off there, according to LAD Bible, Richardson went on to warn that having sexual encounters in and with nature could “land you with a stiff fine.” Toni wasn’t as disturbed as I was when hearing about the contestant’s sexual fantasies with grass and said she was “up for anything!” Though I am slightly glad that the show didn’t air actual video footage of a man humping an oak tree, the animated video targets kids. All animated content with the bright, vibrant colors that are almost always used in animations, are attractive to kids and is rather worrisome, especially considering the fact that this show is "being promoted to millions on British TV,” independent journalist Ian Miles Cheong wrote. James Esses, an anti-woke social commentator, said “society is doomed,” when he shared a clip of the episode on X. Others said things like “degeneration of society on tv for all to see,” “I just can’t any longer,” “​​If I see someone having sex with a tree - they obviously identify as a tree - so I can use them for target practice,” and another sarcastically wrote, “Do the trees give informed consent.  If not, it's r*pe.” All in all, this is just another attempt to virtue-signal by the ecosexual freak and another attempt by the media to normalize fetish behavior.

CBS Hamas Sympathizer Gets Excited About U.S. Ceasefire Resolution

CBS senior foreign correspondent Holly Williams positively beaming on Friday when she shared the news that the Biden administration would be putting forward a resolution in the United Nations Security Council calling for a ceasefire in the Israel/Hamas War. Of course, Williams was less concerned about the Israeli and American hostages being held in Hamas captivity than she was about getting Israel to stop killing terrorists. In leading into the segment co-host Tony Dokoupil tried to ensure that the hostages remained a central part of the equation but Williams seemingly wasn’t interested; keeping her focus on getting Israel to stop their campaign to eradicate Hamas. Williams admitted she didn’t know if Biden’s resolution would amount to anything substantive, but she was hyped that it seemed like he was starting to abandon Israel: DOKOUPIL: We're hearing that there is optimism about a potential ceasefire and hostage release. How quickly could it happen? WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know the answer to that. But what we are seeing is a kind of change in the U.S.'s approach and language. So, we've seen the U.S. previously veto three separate U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire. Now, the U.S. has drafted its own cease-fire resolution that's expected to be voted on later on today. And it used much stronger language than we've seen previously from the U.S.: “an immediate and sustained ceasefire.” “That said, we have every reason to be skeptical,” she tempered her excitement.     Dokoupil responded by pointing out that the terrorists have “been rejecting deals” the entire time while Israel had only rejected the most recent one Hamas had countered with. “What about this resolution would potentially move either party closer to yes?” he wondered. Williams still didn’t have an answer, but she found comfort in the U.S. beginning to turn on Israel: Well, I guess one of the questions is like -- why has the U.S. position changed? Right? And how much influence will that have? I guess when it comes to the why, maybe it's the kind of horrific images that we're seeing coming out of Gaza on an almost daily basis now. The World Health Organization says that up to 60 percent of children under the age of five in Gaza are now malnourished. “Now, no matter who you ultimately blame for that, and people have different positions, it's deeply distressing. And it ups the pressure on the U.S. to do something,” she proclaimed, trying to distance Hamas from the responsibility for starting the war. Williams also seemed to be shocked or possibly disheartened by Israeli resolve to eradicate Hamas: I don't think that many people in the U.S. government thought back in October that we would still be here in March, that the war would still be ongoing, and that Blinken would be in the Middle East for the sixth time since the war began. She also called for rewarding Hamas for October 7 by giving Palestinians their own country and pushed Hamas propaganda about a pre-war “occupation” in Gaza (Israel had left Gaza in the early 2000s and in response, Palestinians elected Hamas to rule them): …there needs to be a two-state solution. That the Palestinians need their own state in Gaza and the West Bank because it gives them, you know, hope for a better future. And the argument is that when Palestinians suffer the daily humiliations of occupation, it helps kind of push them into arms of Hamas. What she didn’t care to admit was that international law was a fallacy and a U.N. resolution calling for a ceasefire didn’t really mean anything. For a ceasefire to take effect both sides needed to agree, and in this case, both sides seemed to be playing for keeps this time. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS Mornings March 22, 2024 8:02:15 a.m. Eastern TONY DOKOUPIL: We’re going to begin with new U.S. pressure on Israel to pause its war in Gaza. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is in Israel today pushing for alternatives to a ground offensive in the city of Rafah. And he says they're getting closer to a potential temporary ceasefire deal which could include the release of Israeli hostages. At the same time, the U.S. is sponsoring a resolution at the U.N. calling for an immediate and sustained ceasefire after vetoing previous ceasefire resolutions. Our senior foreign correspondent Holly Williams has been covering this conflict since it began in October and is here in studio with us. Holly, so great to have you here. You've been reporting on this for months now. We're hearing that there is optimism about a potential ceasefire and hostage release. How quickly could it happen? HOLLY WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know the answer to that. But what we are seeing is a kind of change in the U.S.'s approach and language. So, we've seen the U.S. previously veto three separate U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire. Now, the U.S. has drafted its own cease-fire resolution that's expected to be voted on later on today. And it used much stronger language than we've seen previously from the U.S.: “an immediate and sustained ceasefire.” That said, we have every reason to be skeptical. DOKOUPIL: Well, because you got Hamas which has apparently been rejecting deals, you got Israel which is apparently unwilling to accept the deal as it currently stands. What about this resolution would potentially move either party closer to yes? WILLIAMS: Well, I guess one of the questions is like -- why has the U.S. position changed? Right? And how much influence will that have? I guess when it comes to the why, maybe it's the kind of horrific images that we're seeing coming out of Gaza on an almost daily basis now. The World Health Organization says that up to 60 percent of children under the age of five in Gaza are now malnourished. Now, no matter who you ultimately blame for that, and people have different positions, it's deeply distressing. And it ups the pressure on the U.S. to do something. NATE BURLESON: Okay. Speaking of that pressure, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he promised a major ground incursion of the southern Gaza city of Rafah. President Biden says that would be a mistake. How would that impact the relationship between Israel and the U.S.? WILLIAMS: Look, it's a really tricky one, isn't it? I mean, the U.S. is not just Israel's most important ally. It's the most powerful country in the world. So, you assume that there's a lot of leverage there. That said, I don't think that many people in the U.S. government thought back in October that we would still be here in March, that the war would still be ongoing, and that Blinken would be in the Middle East for the sixth time since the war began. So, there are limits to U.S. leverage. MICHELLE MILLER: You know, Holly, you've spoken to both sides, Israelis, Palestinians. What are they saying about this in the midst of it all going on? WILLIAMS: So, look, this current war was sparked by the horrors perpetrated on October 7th. But these two sides have been locked in a cycle of violence for decades. And many people on both sides when they've experienced violence, when they've lost loved ones, they're pushed to more extreme positions and more extreme behavior. So, how do you get out of that cycle of violence, right? Now, the U.S. position -- and this is shared by a lot of countries, a lot of people -- is there needs to be a two-state solution. That the Palestinians need their own state in Gaza and the West Bank because it gives them, you know, hope for a better future. And the argument is that when Palestinians suffer the daily humiliations of occupation, it helps kind of push them into arms of Hamas. But when you look at recent polls, it is a minority of people on both sides who actually want a two-state solution. You know, and those numbers are way down from ten years ago. DOKOUPIL: Wow. WILLIAMS: So, it seems as if what people on both sides actually agree on is that they're kind of resigned to violence. DOKOUPIL: Wow. BURLESON: Good to see you here at the table. Your coverage has been incredibly eye-opening. Thank you.

Mornings Nets Bemoan ‘Dramatic’ Border Attack, Fret ‘Desperation’ by Illegal Immigrants

After showing no interest on Thursday’s CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News, Friday’s CBS Mornings and NBC’s Today chose to cover the disturbing, viral video from our friend Jennie Taer at the New York Post showing a mob of illegal immigrants storming and tearing down a fence just over the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas. Having had time to marinate on this story, the networks all got their ducks in a row with CBS in particular bemoaning Taer’s video as “likely to add fuel to the political showdown over immigration and border security” and illustrative of how illegal immigrants are driven by “a tragic combination of a broken system and desperation” to pour into the U.S.     “A chaotic scene in El Paso as migrants storm a fence at the border briefly overwhelming the National Guard,” announced co-host Nate Burleson in the show’s “Eye Opener”, which was followed by a soundbite of Taer telling El Paso’s ABC affiliate KVIA she heard “yelling” and “banging” and she “didn’t know what was happening to those guardsmen.” All three networks included a graphic crediting the Post, but co-host Tony Dokoupil was the only journalist on any of the networks to credit them out loud, saying it was “taken by a New York Post journalist shows a group of migrants pulling razor wire fencing aside and then pushing past members of the Texas National Guard.” Dokoupil, however, lamented that the “dramatic video from the southern border” was “likely to add fuel to the political showdown over immigration and border security.” Far-left CBS News immigration reporter Camilio Montoya-Galvez first griped the “images clearly illustrate the humanitarian crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border that, by every measure, is unprecedented in nature” before giving a brief description of the video. Montoya-Galvez clearly wanted to convey to viewers this wasn’t a time to be angry or horrified about this mob scene, but feel sadness for illegal immigrants showing “desperation” and that they were deprived of their rights to be “process[ed] and vet[ted]” by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (i.e. that they can be released into the U.S. and disappear): [T]he Texas National Guard is setting up razor wire and barriers to not only deter migrants from crossing the Rio Grande illegally but to block them from accessing federal border patrol agents, which are legally required to process and vet migrants who are physically on American soil and also to refer them to asylum judges and immigration — asylum officers when there is an arrival of a migrant on U.S. soil and the international boundary in Texas is actually in the middle of the Rio Grande, so these migrants were already on American soil. They had to be processed, Tony, under federal law. Bottom line, Tony, is that these images clearly show that there’s a tragic combination of a broken system and desperation at the border. ABC’s Good Morning America also had a tease and full report. Co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos had the former: “Caught on camera. Migrants storm across the southern border, overwhelming Texas guards. What do we know and the reaction this morning.” Co-host Michael Strahan tossed to correspondent Mireya Villarreal by describing the story as “dramatic video showing a group of migrants breaching a barbed wire fence, overwhelming Texas National Guard troops.” Villarreal first provided a description of the “dramatic” and “tense” scene that unfolded after actually “several hours of...back and forth” and seemed to suggest Taer’s work was misleading: But the incident shown from another angle tells a different story, appearing to show National Guard troops apprehending a handful of migrants. Sources tell ABC News U.S. Border Patrol agents took them into custody for processing. U.S. Customs and Border Protection issuing a statement after the incident, assuring ABC News that “all migrants from this group have been moved from the site. Additional personnel have been deployed to the scene”[.] In the first comments on one of NBC’s flagship newscasts, Today co-host Craig Melvin teased a segment on the “[c]lash at the border” with “[d]ramatic new video of a tense struggle in Texas, dozens of migrants pushing through a security barrier” that’s become “the newest flashpoint in the battle over immigration.” Correspondent Priscilla Thompson had the full report on the “dramatic” and “chaotic scene”, but also rehashed the court fight over Texas bill SB4 and touted Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro (D) bragging about not sending Pennsylvania National Guard members to Texas because it’d only contribute to a “political squabble.” To see the relevant transcripts from March 22, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

MRC President Bozell Details Startling Reality About Google: It Has ‘Power to Define’ Truth

MRC President Brent Bozell reiterated the dire threat posed by Google’s years-long interference in U.S. elections — as revealed by an MRC Free Speech America Special Report that compiled 41 times the tech giant meddled in elections in the past 16 years. Speaking to WICS ABC 20 on Thursday, Bozell delivered a straightforward and unequivocal fact on Google: “Their algorithms are being tinkered with so that they can advance the left in America. … Google has the power to define what is and what isn’t truth.” Bozell’s remarks came during a significant segment with ABC 20, an Illinois-based television station affiliated with ABC and owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, one of the largest broadcasting companies in the U.S. with 185 television stations in 86 markets affiliated with all the major broadcast networks. Kayla Gaskins, a Capitol Hill-based national correspondent for Sinclair, succinctly explained the crux of the MRC findings: “The latest allegations of election interference don’t point fingers at Russia or China but at American-owned Google. … The conservative watchdog group, Media Research Center, publishing a Special Report accusing the tech company of meddling with major U.S. elections 41 times over the past 16 years, tipping the scales in favor of the candidates they prefer.” Read the Special Report here! 41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008 Speaking to Gaskins, Bozell described the implications of such actions, saying, “When 92 percent of all searches worldwide go through Google, Google has the power to define what is and what isn’t truth.” Gaskins echoed the findings unveiled in a 16-page bombshell report compiling Google’s election meddling since the rise to power of former President Barack Obama. Fast forward a few years, and Google appears to be helping the scandal-laden re-election of President Joe Biden.  The tactics involved hiding the campaign websites of Republican candidates, allowing Google “bombs” to go unchecked and censoring positive information about the relatively less leftist candidate. The latter was the case in the 2008 election when Google reportedly censored support for then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, who at the time was deemed less radical than Obama, her opponent and eventual victor. You May Also Like: MRC President Brent Bozell Challenges Google to Disprove Election Interference Activity Bozell further explained burying the campaign sites of Republican candidates off of the first page of search results: “Less than one percent of the public ever goes to page two. That was done deliberately. So, people looking at Google, looking for information, never saw the Republican.” 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.

Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Makes Abortion March Madness Bracket?!

On Thursday evening, Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota Peggy Flanagan (D) posted images of her selections for March Madness. This year, however, Flanagan made her picks in one of the sickest ways possible.  If you didn’t know, March Madness is an annual tournament that takes place in March where NCAA fans pick and essentially bet on who they think will win the basketball championships. This year, Flanagan picked her choices for the NCAA mens and women’s teams based on which colleges are in states/areas that promote abortion. “I filled out my brackets based on whether those schools are located in a state that protects access to abortion care,” Flanagan wrote in a tweet on X. “By this measurement, it’s only fair that Minnesota didn’t make the tournament because they’d have been a favorite for the title.” I filled out my brackets based on whether those schools are located in a state that protects access to abortion care. By this measurement, it’s only fair that Minnesota didn’t make the tournament because they’d have been a favorite for the title. pic.twitter.com/nFQ5FKwFHG — Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan (@LtGovFlanagan) March 21, 2024 For the ladies teams, Flanagan, who was named one of USA Today's Women of the Year, selected Stanford to go against Southern California with Southern California being her winning pick. In California, very few abortion restrictions exist. As a matter of fact, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) was recently on NBC News’ "Meet the Press" where he defended unrestricted abortion, meaning abortion through all nine-months of pregnancy. As for the mens teams, Flanagan set the final two as Connecticut’s UConn team and and Washington State’s Gonzaga University. Connecticut ranks rather high on the Guttmacher Institute’s scale of who does and doesn’t “protect” abortion. The small northeastern state helps pay for abortions, allows them do be done by just “healthcare professionals” instead of actual abortion doctors, and in certain cases, allows abortions to take place through all nine-months of pregnancy. On the other side of the nation where Gonzaga University lies, similar laws are in place. But ultimately, Flanagan thinks Connecticut is more pro-abort, hence her top pick being UConn. In the same thread where Flanagan shared her picks for March Madness, she explained how she used Planned Parenthood’s abortion access tool to pick who she wanted to win the championship. “In situations where both teams were from states that guarantee abortion access with little to no restrictions, I picked the higher seed as a tie-breaker. I did the same if there was a matchup of teams from states that have banned abortion,” she wrote adding, “In the end, I picked a Final Four of teams from states that guarantee abortion access, with UConn winning the men’s title and USC winning the women’s. I look forward to the day when there’s universal abortion access and this method is obsolete. Let’s go.” If I had it my way, there would never be “universal abortion access.” Establishing a “right” to kill an innocent child should never be a goal. Others online agreed with me and roasted Flanagan for her post.  “Democrats love killing babies,” one user wrote about Flanagan’s brackets. Others replied directly on Flanagan’s post saying things like, “You pathetic person. Celebrating death as a joke,” “You are an embarrassment to God fearing and loving Minnesotans.” More posts critical of Flanagan said things like, “This is about as pathetic a virtual-signaling play can possibly be,” "'Abortion care' is one of the most evil euphemisms I’ve heard in a while,” and “Absolutely shameless, aren’t you? Celebrating murder and trivializing it. Just awful.” They’re right. This move by Flanagan not only shows how adamantly pro-abort she is, but how little class she has too.  She should be ashamed of herself.

CNN Scoffs 'World Is Upside Down' As Michigan Poll Shows Trump Up 20 On Israel/Gaza

CNN’s Dana Bash took time on Friday’s edition of Inside Politics to discuss some of the network’s latest polling data that showed Donald Trump with a 20-point lead over Joe Biden on who would do a better job on the issue of Israel and Gaza. Bash simply couldn’t believe as she scoffed that “the world is upside down.” Addressing nobody in particular on her assembled panel, Bash declared, “Then you look at other issues: U.S and world affairs, economy, immigration, Israel/Gaza, Trump has an advantage and it's actually, if you look at the Israel-Gaza question, the fact that Trump has a 20-point advantage in Michigan. I mean, the world is upside down.”     Is it? There are more voters in Michigan than the ones who voted uncommitted in the state’s primary and independent voters who support Israel could be turned off by Biden’s attempts to appease them. However, political director David Chalian sought to make sense of the data, “But I think that finding probably explains a lot of Joe Biden's troubles in Michigan right now as well. I mean, it's obviously an issue that we saw in the primary where the uncommitted vote against him, we see young voters, independents, people who have been affiliated with this, calling for a ceasefire movement, very frustrated with the president and his policies. And so that's clearly partly at play here in Michigan.” Bash then returned to add, “Yeah. No question. But it's hard to imagine that Donald Trump will be any more sympathetic to what's going on in Gaza than Joe Biden is, which is what is so surprising.” Chalian followed up by claiming, “It has nothing to do with their actual policy positions, right, necessarily or what he’s proposing.” “Nothing” is strong word. Sure, there are the Rashida Tlaibs of the world who think that Biden and Trump are essentially the same on the issue and they may tell the pollster that they don’t trust either man, but not every undecided voter wants to spare Hamas and that might explain why Trump has a large lead on the matter. Here is a transcript for the March 22 show: CNN Inside Politics with Dana Bash 3/22/2024 12:27 PM ET DANA BASH: Let's just dig into some of the issues that could turn this race looking ahead in these two states. First of all, on abortion and democracy, these are the two issues where Biden has an advantage. The only two issues where Biden has an advantage in both states. Then you look at other issues: U.S and world affairs, economy, immigration, Israel/Gaza, Trump has an advantage and it's actually, if you look at the Israel-Gaza question, the fact that Trump has a 20-point advantage in Michigan. I mean, the world is upside down. DAVID CHALIAN: But I think that finding probably explains a lot of Joe Biden's troubles in Michigan right now as well. I mean, it's obviously an issue that we saw in the primary, where the uncommitted vote against him, we see young voters, independents, people who have been affiliated with this, calling for a ceasefire movement, very frustrated with the president and his policies. And so that's clearly partly at play here in Michigan. BASH: Yeah. No question. But it's hard to imagine that Donald Trump will be any more sympathetic to what's going on in Gaza than Joe Biden is, which is what is so surprising.  CHALIAN: It has nothing to do with their actual policy positions, right, necessarily, or what he’s proposing.

MRC’s Dan Schneider Says Google ‘Far More Effective’ at Censorship Than Facebook, Twitter

MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider addressed Google censorship in the wake of a new bombshell MRC report exposing the tech giant’s years-long election interference to benefit Democrats. Schneider ripped Google apart for putting its thumb on the election scales during an appearance on Washington Watch with Tony Perkins on March 21. “One of the really dangerous things about Google is how it does it, all of this censorship, behind the wall within its dark box of algorithms,” Schneider commented. “When Facebook or Twitter has deplatformed people, it’s been obvious to others. Google is far more effective at doing this in secret ways.” MRC Free Speech America uncovered 41 instances of Google manipulating its algorithms to benefit the most left-wing candidates in elections going back to 2008. It is also actively involved in using its monopolistic control of the search engine market to help President Joe Biden in the 2024 election. To back up his claims, Schneider emphasized the overwhelming evidence illustrating how  Google search results were skewed to help Democratic Presidential primary candidates that were favorable to Google, while downgradingRepublicans and other candidates that ran afoul of Google’s principles.  For example, an Aug. 24, 2023 MRC Free Speech America study of Google search results for “Democrat presidential campaign websites” showed Joe Biden right at the top of the search and also showed Marianne Williamson prominently. However, the website of notable Democratic rival Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was suppressed . Even more absurd was that Google searches for “Republican presidential campaign websites,” on the other hand, yielded only two results: the campaign website for Williamson, a Democrat, and Will Hurd, a Republican candidate who consistently polled below 1% support. “This is how Google operates,” Schneider told Perkins. “It withholds information from the public that is valuable. It promotes information that is bad for Republicans, good for Democrats, or in some cases, when it is a Democrat that opposes their candidate of choice like RFK Jr.”   Schneider also noted that the scope of Google censorship expanded far beyond the election issue: “And then, it’s not just on elections, it’s on policy issues like elections. In Google News, Google links to 97% of their links on elections links to liberal sites, 0% to conservative sites. And on cultural issues, Google skews it far to the left as well.”  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

Dem's Job Creation Talking Point Reveals PolitiFact's Double Standards

Professional fact-checkers love to add context to their articles to argue why the claim made by whoever they are checking is more complicated than the claimant is suggesting. This can also be evidence of double standards. On March 14, PolitiFact gave GOP Wisconsin GOP Senate hopeful Eric Hovde a “half-true” rating for a factually correct statement about Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s spending record. It justified itself by claiming the issue of the national debt is more nuanced, but on Thursday it gave Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg a “mostly-true” rating for stating that 96 percent of jobs have been created under Democratic presidents since 1989, despite also providing several caveats that portrayed the issue as more complicated. Louis Jacobson writes that “a 2014 paper by Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson found a performance gap between the parties that was "startlingly large" over a wide variety of economic metrics.” Jacobson further cites Binder, who was on Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, but Jacobson didn’t mention that, as saying, "The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real (gross domestic product) and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns,’ Blinder and [Mark] Watson wrote. ‘Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics.’” Jacobson then provides several reasons why Rosenberg could be accused of spinning, “Attributing job creation to policies or presidents isn’t as clear as it might seem. The Republican Congress of 1995 to 2001 might deserve a share of the credit for the job growth under Clinton.” Democrats also supported the lockdowns that caused so many job losses under President Donald Trump, as Jacobson notes “In crises especially, the parties have historically worked together. When faced with the 2008 financial crisis and the coronavirus pandemic, George W. Bush and Trump 'chose the policy responses that Democrats favored,' said Dan Mitchell, a libertarian economist.” Jacobson also accuses Rosenberg of cherry-picking, “If you go back to the first president to serve a full tenure during the modern age of employment statistics — Republican Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s — the economy has added 107.7 million jobs. Of those, 70% emerged under Democratic presidents and 30% under Republican presidents. That’s not as dramatic an edge as the 96% to 97% over the past 35 years, but it’s still a better than 2-1 margin for Democrats.” Even then, Jacobson claims Democratic presidents benefited from things that have nothing to do with their economic presidents. Specifically, he cites Harry Truman benefiting from World War II demobilization and Lyndon Johnson benefiting from the baby boomers entering the job market. Meanwhile, Trump was hurt by the aforementioned COVID shutdowns and Biden has benefited from them ending. Additionally, George W. Bush had to deal with the 2008 financial crisis. Jacobson writes, ‘“Particularly the pandemic and the financial crisis were global in nature, and you can’t pin their roots on the president or even the U.S. as a whole,’ said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right American Action Forum. ‘The numbers are what they are, but the implication that somehow the Democrats deserve full credit is a bit too facile.’"  Holtz-Eakin and Mitchell get ideological labels, but Blinder does not. Just like a Democrat missing all sorts of context still gets a “mostly-true,” but a Republican only gets a “half-true.”

Kimmel Suggests DEI Critics Are The New Confederates

An intellectually unsophisticated Jimmy Kimmel reacted to Alabama’s new anti-DEI bill during his Thursday monologue on ABC by claiming that those in favor of it do not like reading and are some sort of Confederate dead ender. Kimmel began by reporting, “In Alabama, they just passed a bill that will ban Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs at all public schools and universities and it also requires universities to get rid of gender-neutral bathrooms.”     For Kimmel, the idea that you would not teach children that they are responsible for the sins of the past or that meritocracy is racist or sexist is just a cover for not wanting children to read, “The sponsor of the bill is a Republican named Will Barfoot, who has been very anti-reading ever since he realized he had the word ‘Barf’ in his name.”  Kimmel wrapped up by invoking the not-so glorious aspects of Alabamian history, “The bill was signed into law yesterday by Governor Kay Ivey. She's terrific. Her motto is, ‘if at first you don’t secede try, try, again.’” By contrast, Jimmy Kimmel’s motto is “if you can’t win the argument on the merits, just project nasty motives onto Republicans.” At least that motto would be accurate. Here is a transcript for the March 21 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 3/21/2024 11:44 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: In Alabama, they just passed a bill that will ban Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs at all public schools and universities and it also requires universities to get rid of gender-neutral bathrooms. The sponsor of the bill is a Republican named Will Barfoot, who has been very anti-reading ever since he realized he had the word "Barf" in his name. The bill was signed into law yesterday by Governor Kay Ivey. She's terrific. Her motto is, “if at first you don’t secede try, try, again.”

Cling to Christ: Pause the Politics, Dwell on the Resurrection

The world is headed into Holy Week, the holiest of times for the worlds more than 2 billion Christians. Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth entered Jerusalem as a king on Palm Sunday; was tortured, crucified, killed and buried on Friday; and rose again on Easter Sunday. It is one of the defining weeks in human history. As we head there, it is an appropriate time to pause the politics and dwell on this. The resurrection either happened or did not. There is ample circumstantial evidence. Christians believe “by faith,” but their “hope,” as referenced in the New Testament, is better phrased as their “profound certainty” in a resurrection backed by evidence. Many Christians in the United States are fretful of the nations current state. A growing number have fixed their eyes not on a cross or empty tomb but on a ballot box. They are convinced that if they give enough, cheer enough and vote enough, they can save their nation. What they forget is that this is not their home. In elevating politics above the gospel, they have harmed their witness. Going so far into the world of politics, they reflect the world to the world instead of reflecting Christ. God is sovereign. He needs no man to do. The Spirit does. The Spirit moves through men, and men might act. But many have decided there is no reason to wait on the Spirit, or they become deluded, thinking God told them to act in ways and with behaviors that do not reflect a love of their neighbor. The books of the Old Testament are filled with false prophets who claimed to speak for God but were only speaking for themselves, often out of a sense of nationalist fervor. In my 48 years, many of which were as a conservative activist convinced of my own righteousness and driven by a zeal more for a win in politics than for the gospel, I have learned a very simple lesson. Gods got this. There is nothing you or I can do to alter the end of the story. Gods got this. He is sovereign and on his throne. For reasons Christians cannot offer a full answer -- another proof of the authenticity of the faith, because cults have answers for everything and Christians do not -- before the world itself began, God set in motion events that would ultimately lead to His son coming into the world, dying a terrible death and conquering death that we might have an eternity with God after all things are made new. The worries and fears of the present age and what might come if we do not act will pass away. So, too, with the country. The country will continue for some time, but not for long with a group of Christians, to quote C.S. Lewis, “hag-ridden by the Future -- haunted by visions of an imminent heaven or hell upon earth -- ready to break (God)s commands in the present if by so doing (he) think(s) he can attain the one or avert the other -- dependent for his faith on the success or failure of schemes whose end he will not live to see.” Gods got this. There is no reason to ruin relationships over an election. There is no reason to break Gods commands in the present, including hating your neighbor, to save a temporary world. There is no reason to be so invested in politics that you alienate yourselves from others or fail to glorify God. Your vote for a lesser of two evils does not advance Gods Kingdom. God advances Gods Kingdom. As we head into the general election season, we pass through Palm Sunday, where crowds cheered the arrival of Jesus into Jerusalem. By Friday, many of the same people who had cheered Jesus were calling for His execution and the liberation of Barrabas, a political prisoner who, I kid you not, had participated in an insurrection. Pilate, who could not recognize the truth, let the murderous insurrectionist go and handed the innocent Christ over to be executed. But even this was all part of the plan. You do not have to cling to the world. You can cling to Christ.

Column: Media Go AWOL on Holding the Bidens Accountable

For the first two years of Joe Biden’s presidency, the partisan Democrats of our “legacy media” treated the Pelosi-Picked Panel on January 6 as a dominant story, worthy of hundreds of hours of television coverage, both live coverage of the hearings and breathless cycles of previews and reviews. Once Republicans took over the House, would we have predicted this kind of committee oversight coverage would go from Hero to Zero? On March 20, the House Oversight Committee held public hearings that were supposed to feature live testimony by Hunter Biden. The GOP-led committee titled the hearing “Influence Peddling: Examining Joe Biden’s Abuse of Public Office,” which was already a turn-off for Biden-voter reporters. That night NBC offered two minutes. ABC and CBS did nothing. In January, Hunter Biden pulled a stunt by showing up and demanding a public hearing, and the networks covered that. On February 28, Hunter showed up for a hearing behind closed doors, and the networks covered that. But when Hunter skipped the public hearing he allegedly wanted, they skipped the story? Even those prestigious national newspapers – with the slogans about "All the News That’s Fit to Print," and "Democracy Dies In Darkness" – offered a big fat zero in their print editions. Nothing on Joe Biden's abuse of office was published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal. Then consider “public” broadcasting – the ones who have automatic and undeserved prestige because of their “for the people” branding. The PBS NewsHour offered nothing, not ten hot seconds. They offered eight minutes on a potential government shutdown, so their journalists were working on Capitol Hill.  The taxpayer-funded hour also carried five minutes on the “controversial” Texas border-enforcement law, five minutes on the Biden administration setting a timeline for ending the gasoline-powered automobile, and almost seven minutes on a Mississippi police “goon squad” that brutalized some black men. “Systemic racism,” always a staple. National “Public” Radio was a bad joke, as in their evening news show All Things Considered never considered a story on the Biden Abuses Office hearing. NPR’s homepage was topped the next morning by their hot story: new details on Rupert Murdoch’s British phone-hacking scandal of 2011. Their media reporter David Folkenflik files a hostile story on Murdoch or Fox News on a regular basis, like he was an operative being paid by MSNBC and CNN. NPR had a Biden mention on their homepage. Their young White House reporter Deepa Shivaram had a TikTok-like video shoot on President Biden grabbing a trendy boba tea in Las Vegas under the headline “Food stops can tell you a lot about a campaign.” Shilling Shivaram cheerfully explained “Asian-Americans make up a critical voting bloc in Nevada," and "Experts on food and politics say that Biden ordering this could also send a message to people who think he’s too old for the job.” I scrolled all the way down the homepage looking for a Biden-hearing story, to no avail. At the very bottom, there was this news from the insect world: “Scientists studied how cicadas pee. Their insights could shed light on fluid dynamics.” This makes it easy to describe the quality of NPR’s coverage of the Biden family scandals. It’s a warm bucket of cicada urine.  

REGIME MEDIA: ABC Whirled News Tonight Gushes Over Record Dow Close

They are what we thought they were. The regime media, in their zeal to act as Biden propagandists, maximize every opportunity to tout some sliver of positive economic news that might offset years of suck in the view of the American electorate. Such is the case with ABC’s irrationally exuberant coverage of the recent spate of record stock market highs. Watch as anchor David Muir and correspondent Erielle Reshef breathlessly proclaim the good news of the Dow pushing towards 40,000, as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Thursday, March 21st, 2024: DAVID MUIR: We turn now to the economy tonight, and another record day for the stock market, in fact, the Dow tonight nearing a remarkable new milestone. The Dow gaining 269 points today, finishing the day at 39,781, closing in on that 40,000 milestone. The Dow more than doubling its value in the last four years, bringing some good news tonight for 401(k)s after Covid and the economic strain that came with it. Let's get right to ABC's Erielle Reshef, she’s live on Wall Street tonight, as the Dow nears 40,000. Erielle?  ERIELLE RESHEF: Hey, David. For the second day in a row, the market surging into record territory. The Fed just yesterday holding interest rates steady and signaling that three cuts could be coming by the end of the year. Some analysts predicting that the first cut could come as early as June. And, of course, that could help offset the cost of credit card debt, as well as car loans, but Americans are already feeling the stock market surge in their retirement accounts, with 401(k)s averaging- they’re up about $12,000. And I want to show you just how far we've come since the stock market crashed at the top of the pandemic. The Dow nearly doubling over the course of the past four years, of course, reason to hope, and positive signs of encouragement for so many Americans feeling the pinch, David.  MUIR: Erielle Reshef live on Wall Street, and of course we’ll be watching it again tomorrow. Erielle, thank you. See that? Muir promises to watch the Dow tomorrow, and this is on the heels of oddly tying yesterday’s record Dow to the Fed’s decision to keep rates as they are: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20th, 2024:   DAVID MUIR: To the economy tonight, and to another record day in the stock market, following the Federal Reserve's decision to leave interest rates unchanged for now, and signaling it expects to cut rates three times this year. The Dow gaining more than 400 points, hitting a new record high of 39,512. The S&P 500 hitting a new record as well, closing at 5224. About the Fed: Little was said in that report about the reasons why the fed funds rate went untouched. No mention whatsoever. What could the reason have possibly been? From, uh…ABC News: The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady on Wednesday, opting to keep rates highly elevated as progress toward lower inflation has stalled. The move pushes back rate cuts that the central bank expects to make some time this year. But the Fed stuck to its previous projection of three rate cuts by the end of 2024. The Fed Funds rate remains between 5.25% and 5.5%, matching its highest level since 2001. The decision arrives roughly a week after fresh inflation data showed inflation ticked up in February, the latest sign that progress toward cooling prices had struck a rough patch. Ah. Inflation rears its ugly head yet again. Just not on Whirled News Tonight- that might harsh Muir’s stock market vibe. A similar tone is struck by Erielle Reshef, touting “how far we’ve come”, “the Dow nearly doubling over the course of the past four years”, “reason to hope”, and “positive signs of encouragement for so many Americans feeling the pinch”. This so-called news report is indistinguishable from a Biden campaign press release, and stands in stark contrast to how positive financial news was covered during the Trump years.  If it weren’t for regime media, we’d have none at all.  

CBS Evening News Was Sole PM Newscast to Report Border Overrun at El Paso

We have often chronicled the national corporate media’s aversion to coverage of any story that would reflect poorly on the Biden administration; hence our occasional moniker “Regime Media”. One such story is today’s incident at the southern border in El Paso, Texas. National Guardsmen were overrun as hundreds of illegal migrants ripped the razor wire fence open and rushed through. CBS Evening News stood alone in reporting this event to their audience. Watch the full report in its entirety as aired on Thursday, March 21st, 2024: JERICKA DUNCAN: Well, a chaotic scene today at the border in El Paso. Video shared by The New York Post shows a group of migrants pushing past Texas National Guard troops and rushing through a razor wire fence. In an exclusive interview with CBS News, Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens says the U.S. needs tougher policies to deter illegal crossings.  JASON OWENS: Naturally, they’re going to choose to come between the ports of entry. We need to take that off the table and make sure everybody is coming through the front door, through the port of entry.  DUNCAN: Texas Governor Greg Abbott says authorities quickly regained control and reinforced the barrier. Kudos to CBS for showing up, I guess, as opposed to ABC and NBC. Credit is also due for reaching out to Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens. However, a lot more happened than some migrants pushing through a razor wire fence. Per our friends at The New York Post, who initially broke the story: A group of over 100 migrants attempted to enter the US illegally by rushing a border wall Thursday, breaking through razor wire and knocking over guards in the process. The Post had earlier witnessed around 600 migrants amassed at the international border, as part of a ‘spring surge’ of migrants arriving and hoping to gain access to the US. The Texas National Guard were attempting to organize them into smaller groups, but the situation grew tense after some women and children were separated from adult males by the guardsmen. Video taken by The Post showed one set of migrants, mostly single men, then rushing the Texas troops. A group of men with hoodies, gloves and winter jackets could be seen pulling fencing away and dashing through the concertina wire, as a group of five guards formed a defensive position to fill the gap. It is disgraceful that most of the media would look the other way as the southern border continues to be overrun. And by showing up and doing a 37-second brief, CBS merely distinguishes themselves as the best of a bad lot. Do better next time. For those keeping score on the El Paso border overrun story: CBS: 37 seconds ABC: 0 seconds NBC: 0 seconds  

PBS Fangirls for Biden's TikTok Tactic: 'Unvarnished, Relatable, and Genuine'

On the PBS NewsHour Tuesday evening, White House reporter Laura Barron-Lopez gushed over the Biden 2024 campaign’s social media push on TikTok and YouTube, a desperate attempt to get hip with the kids, in “How social media influencers are playing a role in the presidential election.” The headline aside, the segment itself was almost completely dedicated to gushing over Biden's social media strategy, with pro-Trump efforts tacked on as a throwaway at the end. (Annoying young influencer Harry Sisson was a particular focus.) Anchor Geoff Bennett: Social media influencers are playing a key role in President Biden's reelection campaign. It's a way of connecting to younger voters who are harder to reach through traditional advertising. Here's Laura Barron-Lopez. [Harry Sisson, Digital Content Creator, on TikTok clip: All right, everybody. Joe Biden's about to pull up in the motorcade, so I'm going to get a clip for you guys.] Laura Barron-Lopez: Twenty-one-year-old Harry Sisson had a special view of President Biden on the night of the State of the Union address, up close and personal from the White House. [Sisson on TikTok clip: President Biden needs four more years in that house.] Barron-Lopez: And his videos capturing behind-the-scenes moments were broadcast to more than 830,000 followers. Harry is just one of dozens of social media personalities and influencers that the Biden administration and, more importantly, the Biden campaign is courting, from special invites to White House briefings to State of the Union watch parties, all to get out their message and the vote on platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Oh, joy. Barron-Lopez couldn't bring herself to note the hypocrisy that the Biden campaign is actively posting on TikTok after Biden promised he would sign a bill requiring the Chinese owners divest their stake. Barron-Lopez: TikTok and YouTube are the two most popular digital platforms among young people. Almost a third of young people under the age of 30 get their news regularly from TikTok. Recent polling shows Biden is struggling with young voters, a key part of the Democratic base, his approval with voters under 30 sitting at 30 percent. Now they're trying to meet young voters where they are, on the grid. [Guy in TikTok clip: But you know who's having a bad day? Mike Johnson and his House Republican Caucus. I will tell you why.] …. Barron-Lopez: Despite the ongoing scrutiny around TikTok, including legislation that could ban the app if it fails to separate from its Chinese parent company, the Biden campaign is cranking out viral content. But do the Biden clips really qualify as “viral content” the way influencers use the term? PBS doesn’t provide any viewing figures. After speaking over a few brief clips from Biden’s TikTok campaign, including one of Biden shaking hands with a black family, the PBS reporter played nauseating fangirl for the Biden campaign. Yuck! Barron-Lopez: Since their TikTok launch on Super Bowl Sunday, the campaign has been leaning in….Capitalizing on pop culture moments and filming with regular people are all part of the strategy, unvarnished, relatable, and genuine. [Male voice-over on TikTok clip: The president came to my house to have dinner.] Barron-Lopez talked to former Obama campaign digital director Terry Goff, who more or less admitted TikTok’s leftist tilt, even if PBS itself won’t. Goff: ….especially for young people, but for an increasing number of old people, their perception of the war in Gaza, their perception of LGBTQ rights and all these other issues are being shaped by the experience that they're having on TikTok…. Barron-Lopez made a vague feint toward the perils of “disinformation,” far from the alarmism the NewsHour usually spreads about social media, while letting Goff neutralize the concern. Barron-Lopez: As long as campaigns remain on social media, there is a lurking threat of disinformation. But it's a threat that Goff says is best confronted head on. The Donald Trump campaign was an afterthought. Barron-Lopez: ….his campaign points to what they call an organic ecosystem of social media loyalists like Joe Rogan, Libs of TikTok, and Diamond and Silk that have grown over the years, especially on YouTube. This partisan segment was brought to you in part by Raymond James Financial Inc. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 3/19/24 7:22:40 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: Social media influencers are playing a key role in President Biden's reelection campaign. It's a way of connecting to younger voters who are harder to reach through traditional advertising. Here's Laura Barron-Lopez. Harry Sisson, Digital Content Creator: All right, everybody. Joe Biden's about to pull up in the motorcade, so I'm going to get a clip for you guys. Laura Barron-Lopez: Twenty-one-year-old Harry Sisson had a special view of President Biden on the night of the State of the Union address, up close and personal from the White House. Harry Sisson: President Biden needs four more years in that house. Laura Barron-Lopez: And his videos capturing behind-the-scenes moments were broadcast to more than 830,000 followers. Harry is just one of dozens of social media personalities and influencers that the Biden administration and, more importantly, the Biden campaign is courting, from special invites to White House briefings to State of the Union watch parties, all to get out their message and the vote on platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Harry Sisson: I know, in my circle, even just friends, a lot of people are persuaded daily by stuff on TikTok. They will see a clip of Biden or Trump saying something, and that will change their minds. Laura Barron-Lopez: The Biden campaign told "NewsHour" that they aren't currently paying influencers for their content. Harry Sisson: I don't think that young people are picking up the phone when a campaign person is making a call. I don't think the young persons are really going to political rallies unless they're really interested in politics. Hearing from the candidate in a digital space, not a physical space — and the reach on TikTok is just remarkable. It is the best way for candidates to get in touch with young people. Laura Barron-Lopez: TikTok and YouTube are the two most popular digital platforms among young people. Almost a third of young people under the age of 30 get their news regularly from TikTok. Recent polling shows Biden is struggling with young voters, a key part of the Democratic base, his approval with voters under 30 sitting at 30 percent. Now they're trying to meet young voters where they are, on the grid. Man: But you know who's having a bad day? Mike Johnson and his House Republican Caucus. I will tell you why. Laura Barron-Lopez: They're hoping that, by partnering with beloved online personalities, the algorithm might work in their favor. Hannah Murphy, Financial Times: They are on social media. Laura Barron-Lopez: Hannah Murphy is a reporter at Financial Times covering technology and social media. Hannah Murphy: There's a general wariness, a distrust of traditional media, of politicians themselves. And this is a way of really reaching out to the people that young people relate to, who look like them, who they trust above all, so finding sort of trusted messengers to speak on your behalf. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): Mr. Speaker, I think… Laura Barron-Lopez: Despite the ongoing scrutiny around TikTok, including legislation that could ban the app if it fails to separate from its Chinese parent company, the Biden campaign is cranking out viral content. Man: Trump or Biden? Joe Biden, President of the United States: Are you kidding? Joe Biden: Biden. Laura Barron-Lopez: Since their TikTok launch on Super Bowl Sunday, the campaign has been leaning in. Man: Look over here. Woman: Joe. Laura Barron-Lopez: Capitalizing on pop culture moments and filming with regular people are all part of the strategy, unvarnished, relatable and genuine. Man: The president came to my House to have dinner. Laura Barron-Lopez: In 2024, celebrities with millions of followers have arguably less sway than the micro-influencer who has earned the trust of their smaller base. Hannah Murphy: Working with micro- and nano-influencers — these are folks with thousands of followers, tens of thousands, rather than the millions. You can really target a particular demographic. You can geotarget in the battleground state whether the race is really tight. You could say, I want to find farmers in Wisconsin to put out a particular message. Laura Barron-Lopez: Former President Obama revolutionized how once-nascent social media platforms could turn out the vote. Now there are communications agencies dedicated to partnering campaigns and politicians with influencers as an integral part of their digital strategy. Veteran Democratic operatives like Teddy Goff see this move as a natural next step. Teddy Goff, Former Obama Campaign Digital Director: You know, I think, especially for young people, but for an increasing number of old people, their perception of the war in Gaza, their perception of LGBTQ rights and all these other issues are being shaped by the experience that they're having on having on TikTok. And I think it behooves politicians to be there if they want to have a voice in that conversation. Woman: President Joe Biden! Laura Barron-Lopez: As long as campaigns remain on social media, there is a lurking threat of disinformation. But it's a threat that Goff says is best confronted head on. Teddy Goff: I think there's even more danger in not being on it. I mean, if you're President Biden, disinformation about you can be spreading on TikTok whether you're on it or not. And so you're going to stand a better chance of combating that disinformation if you're on it. Laura Barron-Lopez: I mean, how do you know that what you are putting out there on social media is actually persuading voters or is influencing any voters at all? Teddy Goff: It's really tough to know that. I think, for that matter, it's really tough to know that with television ads too and with speeches. You can measure whether people are getting to the end of your video, let's say, or dropping off halfway through your video. So there are all these proxy metrics for efficacy. But I think, ultimately, what you — you can't know that each individual post is effective. Laura Barron-Lopez: Former President Trump isn't on some mainstream platforms like TikTok, instead using his own social media platform, TRUTH Social, which he founded after getting kicked off X, formerly known as Twitter, in the aftermath of January 6. And his campaign points to what they call an organic ecosystem of social media loyalists like Joe Rogan, Libs of TikTok, and Diamond and Silk that have grown over the years, especially on YouTube. Woman: These people are so scared of President Trump. First off, they know they can't beat him. Laura Barron-Lopez: Only the November result will reveal whether the investment in influencers translates to votes. For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Laura Barron-Lopez.

CNN Normalizes AOC’s Illiteracy in Simple Legal Jargon

By now, you've probably seen Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) shouting “RICO is not a crime!" during a House impeachment hearing of President Biden. If a Republican lawmaker or former President Donald Trump had made that declaration about the RICO charges filed against the latter in Georgia, they would've been ridiculed by CNN for making such a ridiculous statement. But during Thursday's CNN This Morning, host Kasie Hunt had no such ridicule for Ocasio-Cortez. Instead, they seemed to hype it up. Hunt’s focus on the interaction between Ocasio-Cortez and Hunter Bidne's former business partner, Tony Bobulinski was mostly about how the impeachment inquiry “does seem to have hit this wall.” She praised that there has been zero evidence provided of “criminal wrongdoing by the President,” and explained to viewers how esteemed Democratic Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez was forced to “repeatedly” ask Bobulinski which crime President Biden had committed.     Hunt tried to convey the New York Representative as a professional, delivering competent lines of questioning. However, the clip of the inquiry that CNN aired embarrassingly revealed less than a minute of Ocasio-Cortez snidely interrupting Bobulinski’s response. Ocasio-Cortez not only refused to let Bobulinski answer her questions, she also exposed her idiocy by proclaiming that RICO was not a legitimate crime, only a category of crime. OCASIO-CORTEZ: It is simple. You name the crime. Did you watch him steal something? BOBULINSKI: Corruption statutes, RICO, and conspiracy— OCASIO-CORTEZ: What is it? What is, what is the crime, sir? Specifically? [Transition] BOBULINSKI: RICO, you’re obviously not familiar with. Corruption statutes— OCASIO-CORTEZ: Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. RICO is not a crime. It is a category. What is the crime— RICO, which stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, was, in fact, a statute that describes over thirty types of crimes that could be constituted as racketeering. But, as a congressional representative, Ocasio-Cortez should have been aware of this; but then again, she was just a former bartender and didn't attend law school. While CNN feigned ignorance over this incident, the news organization proved that it was apparently very aware that RICO was a crime when it hosted disgraced former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe only two hours later. In a laughable turn of events, McCabe used the term RICO to describe the charges that Aryan Knight member, Harlan Hale, received in 2021: In 2021 there, the head of their organization, a man named Harlan Hale was actually convicted and pled guilty to a RICO account offense, which is significant because it's a public acknowledgment of the fact that he was running a criminal enterprise, the Aryan Knights, and he is now serving a life sentence in a federal penitentiary. If CNN thinks the average American will understand the term “RICO” without any explanation of its meaning, then Ocasio-Cortez should be able to figure it out. Alternatively, she could invest in a dictionary. The full transcript can be read here: CNN This Morning 03/21/24 5:31:02-5:32:52 KASIE HUNT: A Republican-led impeachment inquiry does seem to have hit this wall. They’ve produced no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President. Democratic Congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, repeatedly asked Bobulinski what crime he had witnessed President Biden commit. [Cuts to video] REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): It is simple. You name the crime. Did you watch him steal something? TONY BOBULINSKI (Hunter Biden business partner): Corruption statutes, RICO, and conspiracy— OCASIO-CORTEZ: What is it? What is, what is the crime, sir? Specifically? [Transition] BOBULINSKI: RICO, you’re obviously not familiar with. Corruption statutes— OCASIO-CORTEZ: Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. RICO is not a crime. It is a category. What is the crime— [Transition] OCASIO-CORTEZ: Please name— BOBULINKSI: You want me to name the exact statute on RICO? [Transition] OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yes! I reclaim my time— BOBULINSKI: I’ll leave it up to you guys to define the exact statute— OCASIO-CORTEZ: Ok, thank you, sir, I reclaim my time. [Cuts back to live] HUNT: Okay…Joining me now, Margaret Talev, Director of Syracuse University’s Democracy Journalism Citizenship Institute, and Mica Soellner, congressional reporter for Punchbowl News. Uh, Margaret, what was that? MARGARET TALEV: Very convincing. So, this thing looks like it's coming to an end and now sort of the question—without anything. And the question is sort of “now what.” There is, uh, Republicans are talking, Chairman Comer is talking about calling President Biden to testify. The White House is calling it a stunt, “will he subpoena him.” Presidents don't normally show up and talk to congressional committees, I mean it’s happened before, but it's pretty rare. It just doesn’t seem like one of those times. Or, is this really about trying to wrap this up? Maybe, try to do a criminal referral? Put it in your pocket and wait for a different president to have a justice department? In any case, to your point, it's, it has not delivered as originally promised.   CNN News Central 03/21/24 7:09:16-7:09:34 (…)  ANDREW MCCABE: In 2021 there, the head of their organization, a man named Harlan Hale was actually convicted and pled guilty to a RICO account offense, which is significant because it's a public acknowledgment of the fact that he was running a criminal enterprise, the Aryan Knights, and he is now serving a life sentence in a federal penitentiary. (…)  

WARNING: Biden’s Feds Stepping Up Tech Collusion Before 2024 Election

Even as the U.S. Supreme Court hears a landmark case challenging Big Tech-government censorship collusion, Biden’s henchmen are wasting no time stepping up their dystopian actions before the 2024 election.  The Court heard oral arguments in the Murthy v. Missouri free speech case this week, which details how federal government entities pressured social media platforms to suppress speech.  But the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) cyber intelligence, and other intel agencies are undeterred. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency (NSA) are also among the agencies determined to interfere with this year’s election under the guise of cybersecurity, according to The Washington Times. “U.S. intelligence agencies are turning to cybersecurity companies like never before for help protecting various forms of infrastructure,” The Times announced. For example, The Times quoted NSA Cybersecurity Collaboration Center’s Morgan Adamski. “We started with one partner about four years ago. As of today, we have over a thousand different partners that we talk to 24/7 through 800 collaboration platforms at any given time,” Adamski bragged at a CrowdStrike summit. While Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) claims U.S. intelligence wasn’t privately coordinating with social media at least as of mid-January, per The Times, the feds are turning increasingly to cybersecurity companies to accomplish their tech interference. That cybersecurity work still involves social media. The senator reportedly mourned that collaboration on “misinformation and disinformation” had been reduced, using typical leftist catchphrases to justify censoring speech of which the left doesn’t approve. One project for a potential online diagnostic tool that failed due to lack of funds also aimed to target alleged misinformation and disinformation, however, The Times noted. The CIA, the FBI, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) are all meddling in the election, and NSA and U.S. Cyber Command have a special “election security” group to address foreign threats, The Times reported. The focus continues to be online information and debate, an effort to control free speech. The Deep State’s obsession with trying to infringe upon free speech online is very telling in light of the current Murthy litigation before the Supreme Court. Apparently, Biden’s administration isn’t waiting around for the Court to give them a favorable ruling. The complaint filed for Murthy v. Missouri cited MRC Free Speech America’s unique and exclusive CensorTrack.org research on how Big Tech censored to help Biden 646 times between March 2020 and 2022 alone. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an 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.

Shameless Tools: Nets Shovel Biden PR on Microchips Visit, Student Loans Handout

The “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC used their flagship newscasts on Wednesday night and Thursday morning to giddily promote the hundreds of millions far-left New York has ordered former President Trump to pay in multiple partisan prosecutions. In contrast, they eagerly played groupies for the Biden regime with puff pieces on Biden’s microchips visit to Arizona and a new tranche of student loan forgiveness. The eye-rolling hackery began with Biden’s trip to the swing state of Arizona to promote the CHIPS and Science Act. ABC’s World News Tonight anchor David Muir sounded like a White House press secretary in a tease: “The race for the White House tonight. President Biden in Arizona, a key battleground, revealing $20 billion in investments in American jobs, bringing computer chip-making back to America from Taiwan and elsewhere.”     After a similar spiel in the segment, senior White House correspondent Selina Wang beamed over “Biden taking on the top issue for voters — the economy — announcing a major deal to bring computer chip-making back to America” with “nearly $20 billion to fund production of semiconductor chips in four states”. Adding that such “[c]hips...power everything from your phone to your car” and a few mangled Biden soundbites later, she touted Biden “drawing a clear contrast with” Trump. Wang also tacked on the Biden team “unveiling the strictest car emissions in history” that would force “most new cars sold in America” to “be electric” come 2032 and would “combat climate change” even if it’d be “a political loaded move.” NBC Nightly News had the other microchips press release. Anchor Lester Holt sounded like Muir: “A big announcement from President Biden in battleground Arizona. Billions in tech grants that will bring tens of thousands of new jobs at a time when many voters say the state needs an economic jump start.” Chief business correspondent and former longtime CNN host Christine Romans went to Arizona for the “multibillion dollar delivery” that included “$8.5 billion in grants and 11 billion more in loans to semiconductor manufacturer Intel, money from the bipartisan CHIPS Act passed in 2022” “Here in Chandler, Arizona, 6,000 construction workers are building two CHIPS Plants known as FABs projected to host 3,000 manufacturing jobs. Intel’s CEO Pat Gelsinger says the government investment is essential to competing with China,” she added before using a nearby restaurant to promote the economic benefits. Romans later conceded housing and general costs of living in states like Arizona have soared, but concluded on a hopeful note that this was “why he’s highlighting bills like the bipartisan CHIPS Act”. Shifting to Thursday, all three morning shows excitedly promoted Biden’s new handout to voters. ABC had Wang back on the case for Good Morning America and cheered Biden being “eager to show this core group of voters that he has not given up” on them (click “expand”):     GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: To Washington now where the Biden administration is announcing a new round of student debt relief for tens of thousands of borrowers who currently work in public service. Senior White House correspondent Selena Wang has the details. Good morning, Selina. WANG: Hey, good morning George. So, the President is announcing more student loan relief, focusing on key campaign promise. This morning, the President — he’s canceling nearly $6 billion in student debt for 78,000 public service workers. Now, these are nurses, teachers, firefighters, and others who are currently enrolled in the public service loan forgiveness program. And they’ll soon be getting an e-mail from the President telling them about this relief. Now, with this latest move, the White House says this administration has canceled a total of $144 billion in debt for nearly four million Americans and they say that another nearly 400,000 public service workers — they are on-track to have their student loans forgiven in the coming two years. Now, last year, remember, the Supreme Court had struck down Biden’s original plan to cancel $10,000 for all borrowers making less than $125,000 a year. But the President has found ways around that to cancel more student debt for borrowers. Now, with the general election heating up, this President is eager to show this core group of voters that he has not given up yet. This morning, again vowing to use the tools he can to cancel more student debt for more Americans and borrowers[.] CBS Mornings had senior White House and campaign correspondent Ed O’Keefe relay administration talking points, noting Biden’s upcoming e-mail to those close to debt forgiveness was “a sign of how the President’s trying to take a little more credit for the program in a tough election year” with the broader forgiveness moves “the kind of thing that helps mobilize voters in November.” Clearly trying to paint the Biden economy as a winner, co-host Nate Burleson paired that with “more good economic news” in the form of record stock market highs and a possible cut in interest rates later this year. NBC’s Today made it three-for-three on Biden’s attempted buying of votes thanks to a 29-second news brief from weekend co-host Laura Jarrett (and daughter of longtime Obama family confidant, Valerie Jarrett) touting what “Biden says” was “relief that [borrowers] were entitled under the law.” To see the relevant transcripts form March 20, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC). To see the relevant transcripts form March 21, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

Sharpton Laughs at Trump's Financial Woes, Scarborough Grows Skeptical of Letitia James

On today's Morning Joe, Al Sharpton gloated over Donald Trump's financial travails, and the prospect that he could be forced to declare bankruptcy. "Couldn't happen to a nicer guy," exulted Sharpton. Whatever happened to Christian charity, Rev? Meanwhile, Joe Scarborough expressed surprising skepticism about the civil fraud trial brought by elected Democrat New York Attorney General Letitia James that has put Trump in the unprecedented position of having to post a half-billion-dollar bond. Scarborough noted: 1. James ran on a promise of going after Trump. 2. Her case relies on an arcane, little-used, law. 3. A billionaire friend of his said that he wouldn't be able to come up with a half-billion in cash on such short notice. 3. "What goes around comes around" -- Scarborough imagined the possibility of someone like Texas AG Ken Paxton putting Biden on the hook for half-a-billion after he leaves office.   SCARBOROUGH: Okay. Should he, should he have to sell properties and do all these other things just to reserve the right to go on appeal? HAASS: Couple things. One is, it reinforces the sense that's central to his campaign, that he's a victim. SCARBOROUGH: Is he, is he in this case? HAASS: I think the idea that he is being asked to come up with such a large amount of cash in such a relatively small amount of time. I don't know about you, Joe, what's the percentage of your investments that are liquid, as opposed to long-term, private equity. SCARBOROUGH: [Holds up coffee mug] This is the only thing I have to sell, this coffee mug now on sale for $15. By the way, I actually talked to a billionaire. I said, could you come up with this money? He goes, no!  HAASS: Of course not. SCARBOROUGH: It doesn't matter how much money you have, you're, you're not going to be able to come up with $500 million cash for a bond. Scarborough's worth $15? This from the guy who, together with wife Mika, reportedly makes something like $16 million per annum. But Haass agreed: "I think it's unrealistic to ask for that amount of cash in that small amount of time, yes." Scarborough [semi]-joked that he only dared criticize the James prosecution because he wasn't in the same studio as Mika, who later joked it was questionable whether Joe would "get to come home." Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 3/21/24 6:19 am EDT AL SHARPTON: I think he would rather do anything than file bankruptcy, but it may be the only option he has. We are talking about Monday, three days away, and the state Attorney General, Tish James, has said, I'm coming after him. And he knows that's no joke.  And you have to remember, he has to deal with this, and pay for lawyers and other legal expense, in four criminal cases. This is not even one of the criminal cases. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Right. SHARPTON: This is a civil case. So he has a lot he's got to do, because by the time he finishes arguing with the civil attorneys about try another entity to lend me money, he's got four different legal teams calling him saying, "And we need some more money for this court papers that we have to file. We need some more money." SCARBOROUGH: Right. SHARPTON: He's in a tough spot. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. SCARBOROUGH: Richard [Haass], let me go from one uncomfortable question about the [New York football] Giants to another uncomfortable question. What to you say to some Trump supporters but also some legal observers that say that you had an attorney general who ran, saying, "If I run [sic, win?], I'm going after Donald Trump?" She's gone after Donald Trump. The New York Times had an article saying that she's used an old law to go after him in this case. Now, he's not the first. She also went after Exxon and, and a couple of other entities. But because it's a bit unusual, there's  some people, some legal scholars, that say, he's got a good chance on appeal to at least, either, if not have the decision overturned, to at least modify the penalties as being excessive. So, should he have to pay that entire bond, should he have to start selling properties? I see you smirking. RICHARD HAASS: I'm not smirking. SCARBOROUGH: Okay. Should he, should he have to sell properties and do all these other things just to reserve the right to go on appeal? HAASS: Couple things. One is, it reinforces the sense that's central to his campaign, that he's a victim. SCARBOROUGH: Is he, is he in this case? HAASS: I think the idea that he is being asked to come up with such a large amount of cash in such a relatively small amount of time. I don't know about you, Joe, what's the percentage of your investments that are liquid, as opposed to long-term, private equity. SCARBOROUGH: [Holds up coffee mug] This is the only thing I have to sell, this coffee mug now on sale for $15. By the way, I actually talked to a billionaire. I said, could you come up with this money? He goes, no!  HAASS: Of course not. SCARBOROUGH: It doesn't matter how much money you have, you're, you're not going to be able to come up with $500 million cash for a bond. HAASS: Most people who are that wealthy are going to have their money, either like Trump -- SCARBOROUGH: It's going to be spread out. HAASS: Or things that are locked up: private equity, hedge funds, whatever. They're not, they're basically not keeping it in their JP Morgan banking, you know, checking account. It's not necessarily in stocks. So, yeah, I think it's unrealistic to ask for that amount of cash in that small amount of time, yes. SCARBOROUGH: Another way to ask it, would you be comfortable if, let's say, Joe Biden, former President Joe Biden was, was sued in Texas by the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, after he got out of the White House, put in a position to have to come up with $500 million in bond money? HAASS: So let me make a -- the answer is two things. One, I am slightly uncomfortable at all these state things. They make up a larger --  SCARBOROUGH: I'm really uncomfortable about the state things. Mika's not going to talk to me. I could nnever say this when I'm, like, in the same studio with Mika, because she won't talk to me for a week. But I'm very uncomfortable with the state cases, because what comes around goes around. . . .  Mika, I've been saying this, especially in the federal cases, he appears to be above the law. Again, I do have some question about the state cases, but I'm sure at the end of the day, I'll defer to you, honey. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: If you even, you know, get to come home, but that's okay. SCARBOROUGH: Ooh, wow. That is -- MIKA: This has been fun. SCARBOROUGH: She does not like talking about the state cases. HAASS: That's cold. SCARBOROUGH: That is cold. I'm a little -- ooh, ooh. MIKA: I mean, you put it out there.

Bozell: Google’s Election Interference Is ‘Deliberate,’ and ‘They’re Getting Away with It’

MRC President Brent Bozell went on Rich Valdés’s show America at Night to discuss MRC’s groundbreaking report exposing Google’s election interference efforts over the last 16 years. MRC researchers documented 41 examples revealing Google’s election interference efforts between 2008 and 2024 to benefit the most liberal candidates, including former President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden. “We found it over and over and over again. This is deliberate,” Bozell told Valdés. “These people do not care about the rule of law.”  Read the Special Report Here: 41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008 The pair discussed the report in detail noting that Google suspended the accounts of bloggers who supported then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election. Again in 2012, inconsistent with its stated policy, Google refused to resolve a search engine manipulation prank that smeared then-leading Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. The company has also been shown to favor its candidate of choice in its search results, autofill options and its Google News and AI chatbot results.  Bozell specifically drew attention to a 2022 MRC Free Speech America report that showed how Google search results buried the campaign websites of 10 of 12 Republican Senate candidates in highly competitive races. He also noted that Google Search results have censored “every candidate except for Joe Biden a total of 112 times.” As he pointed out the interference, has the potential to cause election-altering damage to candidates’ campaigns.  “Surveys are now showing that up to five percent of the American people make their decision on of  who to vote for based on a Google search,” Bozell said. “So when you are one of those five percent and you don’t even see a Republican – less than one percent go past page one – then that five percent is being pushed right into the Democratic camp.” The MRC president accused Google of making undisclosed contributions through the technological advantages it offers certain candidates. “One could argue – and I would definitely argue – that these constitute illegal campaign contributions because a corporation is not allowed to make a campaign contribution to a federal campaign,” Bozell said. “So indeed these are deliberate blatant attempts to put the thumb down on the election process in the United States.” He went on to shred Google and the double standard set out for similar tech companies that make such contributions. “If you had a government that truly wanted to uphold the rule of law, where you have campaign contribution laws on the books, where if your radio station gave money to Donald Trump, it would be breaking the law,” he said. “And yet Google is deliberately participating in this by doing the kind of censorship they’re doing, which is a campaign activity, and they’re getting away with it.” You can read more of in the Special Report below: https://cdn.mrc.org/static/pdfuploads/MRC%20Google%20Election%20Interference%20Report.pdf-1710439680476.pdfConservatives 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.

ESPN Host Condemns Fabricated ‘Bloodbath’ Outrage: Trump ‘Is Whipping Y’all A**’

ESPN First Take host Stephen A. Smith lit up the legacy media like they were a Skip Bayless hot take for blatantly distorting former President Donald Trump’s “bloodbath” comment.  During the March 18 edition of The Stephen A. Smith Show, Smith tackled not only media bias but also the absurd fact that he was labeled a Trump defender, just for telling the truth about the “bloodbath” remark. Smith gave his viewers a look at Trump’s full thoughts on protecting the American auto industry and suggested that the media could pay a price for obvious lies to the American public.  “Trump is handing it to y'all,” Smith exclaimed, referring to Democrats. “I'm sitting here and pointing out to you that you're getting in your own way by trying to fabricate or embellish stories in such a fashion where you could easily get caught, exposed for your miscalculations or your flat-out lies and something that he is going to use this advantage to get reelected.”  Smith scolded the legacy media for taking Trump’s comments on threats to the auto industry out of context to suggest that the president was calling for violence. Several legacy media outlets and their guests, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), spent March 17 promoting this idea. The following morning, ABC’s The View and all three of the Big Three networks went after Trump for his comments, pushing the same false narrative. ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel went even further, attacking Fox News for attempting to explain the context of the remarks.  Smith didn’t appreciate this media blitz, suggesting it would backfire. The First Take host, a self-declared non-political aficionado and anti-Trump liberal lambasted Democrats for depending on President Joe Biden in his eighties and for not having a “d**n soul” who can take on Trump. Trump “is whipping y’all *ss—and that is a fact,” Smith declared. In the same remarks, he warned legacy media that distorting the former president’s remarks might be a major fumble.  Referencing several elite athletes, Smith made clear that the Democrats were on a trajectory to wind up short of the goal line: “Right now [Trump]'s giving it to y'all. It's worse than what LeBron James and Steph Curry do to opponents or what Patrick Mahomes just did to a bunch of people. Trump is doing that to the Dems because in the year 2024, the liberal side of our political stratosphere, the ones whom some are called progressives are relying on an 82-year-old to come save the day and I'm saying, ‘What if the momentum continues to show this?’  Y'all just gonna stand there and let Biden fall? Y'all ain't going to do anything? Y'all ain't going to get [Vice President] Kamala Harris in as your nominee? You ain't going to get [California Governor] Gavin Newsom in as your nominee? You going to get somebody else in as your nominee?” Smith further elaborated, “Do something, anything, if it was anybody else in any other profession y'all would say try something, anything. Y'all just standing still again getting your *ss kicked.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News at (818) 460-7477, CBS News at (212) 975-3247 and NBC News at (212) 664-6192 and demand they cease spreading fear by lying about Trump’s comments on the auto industry.

Pro-Lifers Celebrate World Down Syndrome Day: 'An Extra Chromosome' Still Deserves Life

March 21 marks World Down Syndrome Day. This year specifically, due to the fact that many on the left think children with Down syndrome aren’t worthy of life, pro-life groups and individuals used the opportunity to share the blessing that are individuals with Down syndrome.  Co-Host for Fox & Friends weekend Rachel Campos-Duffy kicked off the celebration while talking about her own daughter, Valentina, who has Down syndrome. “We don’t talk enough about what they do for others,” Campos-Duffy said before talking about how much more joyful people who are surrounded by individuals with Down Syndrome become. “I see it everyday in my own children. They are more patient, they are more loving [and] they are more tolerant of people who are different than them, because they have Valentina in their life,” she said on Fox News Thursday. "90% of people who have a diagnosis in utero of Down Syndrome, they end in abortion. And as you can see Valentina is not a defect, she is human being with capacity to love and be loved." @RCamposDuffy speaks out about her daughter on World Down Syndrome Day. pic.twitter.com/aTcmRHe1Ch — Media Research Center (@theMRC) March 21, 2023 Campos-Duffy then got into the point that many other pro-life individuals and groups harped on during World Down Syndrome Day.  “Ninety percent of people who have a diagnosis in utero of Down syndrome, they end in abortion. And as you can see, Valentina is not a defect, she is human being with capacity to love and be loved,” she said. “Let’s take the fear out of that diagnosis.” The Family Research Council, a non-profit group that focuses on championing faith, family and freedom in public policy and culture, echoed Campos-Duffy’s statement in a post on X.  The group noted that “Abortion is systematically eliminating people with Down syndrome. In the United States, 67% of babies prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. In Denmark and Iceland, over 95% of babies with Down syndrome are aborted.” Related: MTG EXPOSES Baby Organ Harvesting In Abortion Industry: Selling Livers & Profiting Off Lies Oftentimes, mothers will terminate their pregnancies if they find out that their child has Down syndrome. God forbid a baby that doesn’t meet “perfect” standards is given a chance at life, a chance that would undoubtedly bring endless joy to anyone he or she encounters.  The pro-life diaper brand EveryLife shared a video of what that joy could look like in its post on X about World Down Syndrome Day. Today is World Down Syndrome Day! A day always celebrated on 3/21 to symbolize 3 copies of the 21st chromosome. Sadly, nearly 80% of prenatal Down syndrome diagnoses in the U.S. result in abortion, EveryLife is committed to changing the narrative by highlighting the beautiful… pic.twitter.com/WY8fWxAMYF — EveryLife (@everylife) March 21, 2024 “Children with an extra chromosome are blessings and are deserving of live, protection and celebration,” the video said throughout clips and images of children with Down syndrome enjoying life: playing, smiling, eating, laughing and very obviously bringing joy to whoever is behind the camera. Live Action shared a video in which a sweet little boy with Down syndrome said affirmations with his mom in front of the mirror. Every life is beautiful. Every life has dignity. Every life is deserving of love. Today, on #WorldDownSyndromeDay and every day, let’s reaffirm that every individual, regardless of their abilities or differences, adds immeasurable value to our world. pic.twitter.com/FwuImMu9MB — Live Action (@LiveAction) March 21, 2024 March for Life also shared a few tweets surrounding the day. “An extra chromosome doesn’t determine someone’s humanity,” the group wrote on X, later tweeting “Babies with Down Syndrome shouldn’t be aborted. They deserve to live.” I wish that the celebrations of World Down Syndrome day and the idea that kids with Down syndrome shouldn’t be aborted were shared among leftist groups too, because the lives of children shouldn’t be something divided by politics. The whole world should honor, celebrate and protect the most vulnerable of our society, including those with a genetic difference. Follow us on Twitter/X: *Warning Graphic Imagery of murdered unborn children* Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene holds a hearing exposing Planned Parenthood for their disgustingly evil organ harvesting of babies they've murdered. pic.twitter.com/dHNQEYpAMk — MRCTV (@mrctv) March 20, 2024

Remember ‘15 Days to Slow the Spread’? Don’t Let Them Off The Hook!

Four years ago, government officials told us, “Stay home!” We have “15 days to slow the spread.” Days turned into months and then years, while officials chipped away at our freedoms. I have long been wary of politicians, but even I was surprised at how authoritarian many were eager to be. Some demanded police to go after people surfing. They took down the rims of basketball hoops. Children’s playgrounds were taped up like crime scenes. They told people in rural Utah and Wyoming to stay in their homes. In the name of safety, politicians did many things that diminished our lives, without making us safer. They complied with teachers unions’ demand to keep schools closed. Kids’ learning has been set back by years. Politicians destroyed jobs by closing businesses. Some shutdown orders were ridiculous. Landscaping businesses and private campgrounds were forced to shut down. Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden sharply increased government spending. Trump’s $2.2 trillion “stimulus” package, followed by Biden’s $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan,” led to so much money-printing that inflation doubled and then tripled. This week, the fourth-year anniversary of “15 days to stop the spread,” my new video looks back at politicians’ incompetence. First, government probably killed people with its endless red tape. At least the Trump administration broke FDA rules to speed vaccine approvals. But FDA rules kept perfectly good American Covid test kits off the market because they hadn’t gone through its multiyear approval process. Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Whitmer banned “public and private gatherings of any size.” Residents were told they could not see friends or relatives. Many of her rules seemed random. She banned motorboats and jet skis, but allowed kayaks and canoes. She closed small businesses, but exempted big-box stores if they blocked off aisles offering plant nurseries and paint. Why? Even the CDC’s “six-foot rule” under Trump was arbitrary, says former FDA commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb. Covid travels in aerosols that flow much farther than six feet. When some Americans became fed up and protested, they were vilified for “threatening the public.” Some were fined. A few were arrested. It’s clear now that restrictive rules were not the best way to protect people. Sweden took a near opposite approach. They mostly left people alone. Swedish officials encouraged the elderly and other at-risk people to stay home. But beyond that, they let life carry on as normal. Sweden didn’t impose lockdowns, school closures or mask mandates. They followed standard pre-Covid wisdom that the best protection is what epidemiologists call “herd” or “collective” immunity. Once a critical mass of people are infected and recover, collective immunity will reduce the total number of infections. Arrogant American politicians and media “experts” sneered at Sweden’s approach. NBC “reported” on what it called, “Sweden’s failed experiment. How their dangerous Covid gamble went wrong.” CBS confidently stated, “Sweden becomes an example of how not to handle COVID.” Time Magazine headlined: “Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster.” But the media’s experts were just wrong. Swedish health officials were right. Yes, at the beginning of the pandemic, Sweden suffered high numbers of Covid deaths, but as predicted, over time, herd immunity protected people. Sweden’s excess death rate was the lowest in Europe. Sweden’s economy got through the pandemic much healthier than other countries. Because Swedish schools never closed, Swedish students didn’t suffer the learning losses that American kids did. Four years later, have media blowhards who were wrong apologized? Corrected their stories? No. Have American politicians apologized and begged forgiveness for their arrogance, for destroying jobs, restricting our freedom and needlessly pushing us around? No. Let’s not give politicians power like that again.

ABC, NBC Take Ad Money from TikTok, Omit User Threatening to Kill Senator

On Wednesday, North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis released a disturbing voicemail his office received from a radicalized TikTok user who threatened to kill him and chop up his body. Despite the disturbing nature of the message, none of the Big Three broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) decided to give the story any airtime on their Wednesday evening and Thursday morning flagship newscasts. They refused to cover the threat, and yet, ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today took money from the controversial spying and social engineering app and aired advertisements talking about how great TikTok was. Each ad lasted 30 seconds and featured feel-good, manipulative, user testimonials. ABC’s shared the story of Jasmine Vega who used the embattled, China-owned social media network to help her family’s restaurant. NBC’s had the story of Sarah Escherish whose grandma used the app at her senior living facility to make videos. What they refused to share with viewers was this message left for Tillis: “Okay, listen. If you ban TikTok I will find you and shoot you. [Laughter] That's people's jobs. And that's my only entertainment. And people make money off there too, you know. I’m tryin’ to get rich like that. Anyways, I will shoot you and find you and cut you into pieces. [Laughter] Bye!”   This is a voicemail my office received last night. TikTok's misinformation campaign is pushing people to call their members of Congress, and callers like this who communicate threats against elected officials could be committing a federal crime. The Communist-Chinese aligned… pic.twitter.com/X9uW03neqw — Senator Thom Tillis (@SenThomTillis) March 20, 2024   The silence from the broadcast networks on the story was a continuation of their blackout from earlier this month, when they refused to report on other death threats and threats of suicide members of Congress were receiving from TikTok users. In sharp contrast to the broadcast networks, Fox News Channel’s Special Report ran an entire segment on the threat and the congressional proposals to ban apps not divested from countries with adversarial relationships with America. “You know, we have been hearing a lot of stories from Senate offices about some TikTok users calling and threatening these senators. Well tonight, Senator Thom Tillis is actually releasing audio of a voicemail he received from what appears to be a young woman threatening to kill him if he bans TikTok,” announced congressional correspondent Aishah Hasnie as she shared parts of the audio.     She also included comments from Tillis. “Does it actually help their case? It hurts their case. [Transition] Shame on TikTok for not discouraging it,” the Senator told the press in a gaggle. In a reply to Tillis, TikTok claimed they did not support what the caller did. “Threats like this are unacceptable and we condemn this in the strongest possible terms,” they said on X. Hasnie added that the fate of TikTok in America was still up in the air as Congress was still plotting the course: Well, right now the Senate is moving cautiously on that House bill which requires the app divorce its Chinese owner ByteDance or face a ban. Today, senators got a classified briefing on TikTok and we could see soon CEO Shou Chew on the hill again as Chairwoman Maria Cantwell of the Commerce Committee says she wants a TikTok hearing, too. Her concern is whether the bill can hold up against lawsuits. (…) But Bret, nobody, not even Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is giving anyone any clues about when we could finally see some action on the floor. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: Fox News Channel’s Special Report March 21, 2024 6:06:14 p.m. Eastern BRET BAIER: Tonight, we’re getting a close look how seriously some fans of the social media app TikTok are taking the congressional effort that could result in its banishment. Congressional correspondent Aishah Hasnie is on Capitol Hill this evening with this story. Good evening, Aishah. AISHAH HASNIE: Good evening to you, Bret. You know, we have been hearing a lot of stories from Senate offices about some TikTok users calling and threatening these senators. Well tonight, Senator Thom Tillis is actually releasing audio of a voice mail he received from what appears to be a young woman threatening to kill him if he bans TikTok. Listen to this. [Cuts to video] TIKTOK USER: Okay, listen. If you ban TikTok I will find you and shoot you. [Laughter] That's people's jobs. And that's my only entertainment. [Transition] Anyways, I will shoot you and find you and cut you into pieces. [Laughter] Bye! SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Does it actually help their case? It hurts their case. [Transition] Shame on TikTok for not discouraging it. [Cuts back to live] HASNIE: So, TikTok is responding to this tonight, posting on X: “Threats like this are unacceptable and we condemn this in the strongest possible terms.” Adding, that users who do want to speak out should do in a respectful manner. Well, right now the Senate is moving cautiously on that House bill which requires the app divorce its Chinese owner ByteDance or face a ban. Today, senators got a classified briefing on TikTok and we could see soon CEO Shou Chew on the hill again as Chairwoman Maria Cantwell of the Commerce Committee says she wants a TikTok hearing, too. Her concern is whether the bill can hold up against lawsuits. [Cuts to video] SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA): The whole issue is constitutionality, making sure it upholds in court. We want our government to have a very strong tool to stop nefarious actions, so the question is how do we get that? The House has one proposal. We’re going to look at all of these. [Cuts back to live] HASNIE: But Bret, nobody, not even Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is giving anyone any clues about when we could finally see some action on the floor. Bret. BAIER: Aishah Hasnie live on the hill. Aishah, thanks.

Man Allowed in Women's Restroom at Planet Fitness, Company Stock Drops

Planet Fitness has recently come under fire after word broke that an Alaska location of the gym chain allowed a man to shave in the women's bathroom. Now the gym’s stock has plummeted after it canceled the membership of the woman who complained. The incident took place earlier this week when a former gym member, Patricia Silvia, encountered a man in the women’s locker room. The man was reportedly shaving his face. Silvia also claimed that there was “a little girl sitting in the corner” who was likely around 12-years-old, “in a towel, kind of freaked out,” in a written post online, Daily Mail reported. The man reportedly told Silvia that he was queer.  When Silvia went to Planet Fitness management to complain, instead of issuing an apology that Silvia had to be exposed to a man in a place that's supposed to be safe for women, they revoked her membership because she took a photo of the man in the women’s locker room. Apparently Silvia breaking a gym rule about photography was grounds for dismissal, but a man entering the ladies locker room wasn’t?! Cray cray. Since the event, public support for Silvia has poured out. Earlier this week the gym giant trended on X while many users wrote “#BoycottPlanetFitness” after finding out how the gym stood by the queer freak.  Additionally, as the New York Post reported, Planet Fitness’ stock price was traded at a monthly high of $66.92 on March 7. As of Tuesday of this week, that price was down to $56.46 and is projected to keep plummeting. Even so, Planet Fitness has remained firm in its stance to punish Silvia rather than the queer man. “Our gender identity non-discrimination policy states that members and guests may use the facilities that best align with the sincere, self-reported gender identity,” the gym said in a statement. “If it is confirmed that a member is acting in bad faith and improperly asserts a gender identity, they may be asked to leave and their membership may be terminated.” What’s odd about this whole thing is that the queer man didn’t even look like he was trying to be a lady. No makeup, no wig, no dress like many of the trans women often deck themselves out in. Honestly, it looked like the man just entered the locker room willy nilly, and when he got caught, insisted that he identified as a woman.  In a separate video, Silvia insisted that she felt like she "was in an unsafe space" after noticing a "man with a penis" in the women's locker room. She noted that Planet Fitness prioritized said "man with a penis" over a young child who had witnessed the incident. As the New York Post also noted, this type of thing isn’t new for Planet Fitness. In 2015, a Michigan woman, Yvette Cormier, sued the gym after complaining about a transgender woman (a man). A judge ruled against Cormier. While it’s sad that Silvia had to be part of such a violating incident, at least it seems like nobody is on Planet Fitness' side in this!

STUDY: Media Loved Interviewing Trump's 2020 Opponents, But Not Biden's 2024 Rivals

In 2020 and 2024 respectively, GOP President Donald Trump and Democratic President Joe Biden each faced three longshot primary challengers, but the media coverage of these campaigns was vastly different, a NewsBusters study has found. Analysts analyzed all programming on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC of Trump challengers from April 15, 2019 to March 18, 2020, and of Biden challengers from March 4, 2023 to March 6, 2024, and found that the Republican challengers of former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, former Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, and former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford got 115 interviews during the campaign. By contrast, the 2024 Democratic challengers of self-help author Marianne Williamson, environmental lawyer and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips received only 25. During the 2020 Republican Primary, MSNBC interviewed a Republican 62 times. Throughout the 2024 Democratic Primary, it only gave four interviews to Biden’s challengers. CNN came in at a 47:16 Republican-to-Democrat ratio. For PBS, the ratio was 4:0. The three main networks were more even. NBC had a 1:1 ratio, while ABC and CBS actually featured more Democrats at 1:3 and 0:1, respectively. Weld led all candidates with 64 interviews, followed by Walsh with 32, and Sanford with 18. The three Republicans also appeared jointly on the September 23, 2019, edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe. On the Democratic side, Phillips led with 19 interviews, while Williamson got four, and Kennedy received two. The media also agreed with the GOP challengers’ assessment of their party’s incumbent.  On February 9, 2020, MSNBC Live host Ali Velshi asked the pro-abortion Weld, “What levers have thinking, principled Republicans got at this point to try to wrest control from a Republican Party in which 94 percent of the people support Donald Trump?” Referencing Trump, on April 19, 2019, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle told him that “the only way you beat a bully is to face off against him.” During Trump’s first impeachment, CNN’s Brian Stelter told Walsh, “I was thrilled you could join me because you've been calling this out, saying that this alternative reality is something that the Americans need to understand.” On the aforementioned joint Morning Joe appearance, none of the regular cast seemed to care that Weld suggested that Trump be executed for treason.     Four years later, the tone shifted as Phillips was grilled if he was hurting Biden. On January 23, 2024’s edition of CNN This Morning, Poppy Harlow asked him, “So do you think that this bid, what you've done, has made President Biden stronger? Because that was one of your goals, if it's not going to be you, make him stronger. Have you succeeded in that?” Additionally, the type of coverage varied greatly, even if the time counts were not wildly different. The Republicans received 14 hours, 55 minutes, and 6 seconds of time devoted to their campaigns, while the Democrats received 10 hours and 57 minutes. On the GOP side, the amount of time each candidate received was correlated to the length of their campaign. The percentage breakdowns came in at 45 percent for Weld, 34 percent for Walsh, and 21 percent for Sanford.  However, during the 2024 Democratic cycle, RFK Jr. received a vastly disproportionate amount of coverage as anchor after anchor warned their potentially disillusioned liberal audiences that, despite the family name, Kennedy was and is a dangerous anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist and Russia apologist, the left, including 2020 Williamson, and the media’s prior record of vaccines and Russia notwithstanding. For instance, on June 20, 2023’s edition of CNN Tonight, Abby Phillip asserted, “As expected, he made a lot of wild and, frankly, dangerous claims” on The Joe Rogan Experience. The percentage breakdowns for Democrats were 71 percent for Kennedy, 21 percent for Phillips, and just eight percent for Williamson. None of the six challengers ever had a realistic chance of dethroning their party’s incumbent, but the difference between how the media treated Trump’s challengers and how they treated Biden’s was a proxy for how they treated the two men themselves. NOTES AND METHODOLOGY: All programming on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC from April 15, 2019-March 18, 2020, and March 4, 2023-March 6, 2024 was analyzed. Coverage was defined as anything related to the issues of the campaign, but not polling analysis, primary election night vote counting analysis, or passing acknowledgments of the campaigns’ existence. Timeframes for Weld, Walsh, Sanford, Kennedy, and Phillips were from campaign launch dates through the day they suspended their campaigns. Williamson’s end date was defined as Super Tuesday or March 5, 2024. Kennedy’s count was based only on his time campaigning as a Democrat.

Rep. Garcia Decks out Door With Woke Garbage: Pro-Abort, Pro-Trans, Pro-BLM

On Wednesday, Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raichik posted an image of Representative Lorena Garcia’s (D-Col.) door at the Colorado House of Representatives district 35. Given that Garcia is an avid woke warrior, her door was adorned with 19 different posters, most of which promoting far-left ideologies. “Protect Kids Not Guns,” the sign at the top of the entryway read. I assume Garcia’s sign is alluding to her support for gun control. Maybe she’s forgetting the fact that if we ban guns, killers are still going to kill. The only difference is that people won't be able to protect themselves and kids from killers. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.  Another sign on her door read “Keep Families Together.” .@RepLorenaGarcia’s door. Yes this is real pic.twitter.com/XcFzj1WHYK — Chaya Raichik (@ChayaRaichik10) March 20, 2024 It’s rather ironic that Garcia is advocating for keeping families together while at the same time insisting that “trans rights are human rights.” There’s been cases all across the nation where schools have helped kids transition and have driven a wedge between students and their parents. Kids have been manipulated and indoctrinated into not only believing and adopting leftist ideologies, but distancing themselves from their parents if they aren’t on board. That does the opposite of keeping “families together” like Garcia’s door insists and is certainly not helping with one of her other signs which read “don’t fail our children.” Of course Garcia’s also displayed a “Black Lives Matter” poster to show her solidarity with the marxist machine that single-handedly lied to the public about it’s intentions so that it’s organizers could buy giant mansions. Similarly the door had a “Use Your Privilege to Fight for Justice” poster with an individual taking a knee. Likely this represents the idiot lefties who think that kneeling for performances of the National Anthem is some sort of way to say they’re not racist. Really it’s just disrespectful to the country. As a cherry on top of Garcia’s pile of wokeness, she had two signs that touted her support for abortion. “Reproductive Freedom” was one and “Abort the Court” was another. The left loves trying to insist that killing a baby is part of “reproductive freedom.” Funnily enough, when a baby is in utero, “reproduction” already took place. The pro-life movement doesn’t want to limit anyone’s ability to reproduce otherwise we’d be out here insisting mass sterilization. Pro-Lifers simply don’t want you to be able to end the life of an innocent baby.  As for “Abort the Court,” that slogan became popular in the summer of 2022 when Roe v. Wade was overturned. Naturally, since the Supreme Court didn’t vote in favor of what pro-abortionists wanted, their reaction was to protest and fight for the court to no longer exist.  In all, it says a lot about a person when they attempt to virtue signal as hard as Garcia did with her door. While she may have been trying to prove how cool she is, all she really did was prove how out of touch with reality is.     

NBC’s Jarrett – Daughter of Obama Official – Bemoans Alabama Law Banning DEI Programs

On Wednesday, not only was NBC Nightly News the only broadcast network evening newscast to pout over Alabama joining Florida (and other states) in banning far-left Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across government agencies and public university, but they had senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett — daughter of longtime Obama family confidante Valerie Jarrett — do the report.  Ah-mazing. Anchor Lester Holt had the quick set-up with a chyron of “Diversity Programs Crackdown” over his shoulder: “Alabama today became the latest state to target diversity programs at public colleges and other state agencies.” Jarrett (seen in the photo on the left) kept it simple off the top: “Tonight the governor of Alabama signing a new law banning all diversity programs across the state’s public universities and government agencies.” Jarrett then noted this only “passed with overwhelming Republican support” and would “to face legal headwinds soon for its broad sweep” that could take effect on October 1 and would bar any agency, place of learning, or program from “receiv[ing] state funding” if it features “any program” with a “divisive concept”. After a reading off part of a statement from Governor Kay Ivey (R-AL) saying banning DEI would keep “taxpayer funds” from boosting anyone’s “liberal political movement” and a mangled soundbite from a state representative, Jarrett pivoted to her team: “But civil rights advocates arguing it tramples on the constitutional rights of students and faculty.”     Unsurprisingly, she trotted out a representative from the ACLU of Alabama to warn folks will “get scared” by this “incredibly vague” law and will thus “have a direct impact on DEI offices across the state.” Notice how nowhere did Jarrett explain why there’s been a push to defund/ban DEI initiatives. Care to share any examples from workshops, Laura? Thankfully, we have people like Christopher Rufo and LibsOfTikTok to show us examples. Fast-forwarding past her acknowledgment of Alabama only being the latest red state to join this crusade, she touted old footage from March 6 of students “making their voices heard” with one white student proclaiming “DEI has never made me feel threatened” or “hurt.” “Alabama schools tonight now trying to sort through the implications of how to comply with this new law and still teach,” Jarrett concluded. To see the relevant NBC transcript from March 20, click “expand.” NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt March 20, 2024 6:37 p.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Breaking news; Diversity Programs Crackdown] LESTER HOLT: Alabama today became the latest state to target diversity programs at public colleges and other state agencies. Senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett has late details for us. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Breaking News; Alabama Latest State to Ban Diversity Programs] GOVERNOR KAY IVEY (R-AL): Agendas — LAURA JARRETT: Tonight the governor of Alabama signing a new law banning all diversity programs across the state’s public universities and government agencies. UNIDENTIFIED ALABAMA STAT SENATOR: SB-129 passed. JARRETT: It passed with overwhelming Republican support, but likely to face legal headwinds soon for its broad sweep. As of October 1, any program that involves a, “divisive concept” cannot receive state funding. Republican Governor Kay Ivey saying today, “I refuse to allow a few bad actors on college campuses — or wherever else for that matter — to go under the acronym of DEI using taxpayer funds to push their liberal political movement.” The law coming after days of debate in the state legislature. ALABAMA STATE REPRESENTATIVE BROCK COLVIN: Everyone in this room is created equal, so I thank you for bringing this, now that we have — can no longer taxpayer money go to programs to teach us that we are actually different. JARRETT: But civil rights advocates arguing it tramples on the constitutional rights of students and faculty. ACLU OF ALABAMA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JATAUNE BOSBY GILCHRIST: When you have a bill like this and it's incredibly vague, folks get scared. This is going to have a direct impact on DEI offices across the state. JARRETT: Alabama only the latest in a line of states taking sharp aim at diversity programs. Florida’s Stop WOKE Act preventing companies from requiring diversity trainings, now tied up in legal challenges.  PROTESTERS N-O, NO! N-O, NO! JARRETT: But back in Montgomery, students have been making their voices heard all month. UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA STUDENT SEAN ATCHISON: DEI has never made me feel threatened, hurt. JARRETT: Alabama schools tonight now trying to sort through the implications of how to comply with this new law and still teach. Laura Jarrett, NBC News.

Velshi Compares Anti-DEI Efforts to George Wallace and Segregation

Alabama doesn’t want to teach its children that they are responsible for the sins of others in the past or that meritocracy is racist or sexist. For MSNBC’s Alex Wagner Tonight Wednesday guest host Ali Velshi, not only does this mean teaching the history of segregation just became more difficult, but those in favor of such a law might as well be George Wallace himself. Velshi began by playing a clip of Samford University student Akeem Tims opposing the law, “History shall not and will not repeat. The time has come for a new wave of activists and empowered individuals to speak up and spread justice and equity in every way possible.”     Instead of pointing out that Tims’s claims of what would happen under the bill were completely illogical and false, Velshi indulged him, “The bill he referenced was a new Alabama Senate bill restricting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts in public schools, universities, and colleges, and the history Akeem Tims referenced included this: spring 1963, thousands of students gathered to protest segregation in Alabama. They faced fire hoses, police dogs, and arrests while calling for the diversification of classrooms and one of the most segregated cities in the country?” Velshi then falsely stated, “That was just 61 years ago and today it became that much harder to learn that history and diversify classrooms in Alabama.” We know Velshi was spreading fake news because Velshi himself then read two portions of the bill, “Despite student protests, today Governor Kay Ivey signed that new anti-DEI bill into law. The bill, which takes effect October 1, prohibits the teaching of quote ‘divisive concepts' including 'that individuals are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past’ or ‘that meritocracy is racist or sexist.’” How in the world does prohibiting teachers from telling students that they are responsible for something that happened decades before they were born or that meritocracy is racist or sexist prohibit them from teaching about fire hoses and police dogs? Velshi also mourned that, “It also bans schools and agencies from sponsoring DEI programs and it bans trans people from using restrooms aligning with gender identity.” He additionally parroted some outlandish comments from Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin, who “wrote, ‘if supporting inclusion becomes illegal in the state, hell, you might as well stand in front of the school door like Governor Wallace.’ Governor Wallace, the former Alabama governor, who in 1963 stood in a doorway to block black students from attending classes at the University of Alabama. He’s the one whose inaugural promise was quote ‘segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.’”  If Velshi has his way, MSNBC will spread fake news now, spread fake news tomorrow, and spread fake news forever. Here is a transcript for the March 20 show: MSNBC Alex Wagner Tonight 3/20/2024 9:41 PM ET AKEEM TIMS: History shall not and will not repeat. The time has come for a new wave of activists and empowered individuals to speak up and spread justice and equity in every way possible. ALI VELSHI: That was Samford University student Akeem Tims gathered with hundreds of Alabama student protesters earlier this month and the bill he referenced was a new Alabama Senate bill restricting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts in public schools, universities, and colleges, and the history Akeem Tims referenced included this: spring 1963, thousands of students gathered to protest segregation in Alabama. They faced fire hoses, police dogs, and arrests while calling for the diversification of classrooms and one of the most segregated cities in the country?  That was just 61 years ago and today it became that much harder to learn that history and diversify classrooms in Alabama. Despite student protests, today Governor Kay Ivey signed that new anti-DEI bill into law. The bill, which takes effect October 1, prohibits the teaching of quote “divisive concepts including that individuals are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past” or “that meritocracy is racist or sexist.” It also bans schools and agencies from sponsoring DEI programs and it bans trans people from using restrooms aligning with gender identity.  Criticizing the bill, Birmingham Mayor Woodfin wrote, “if supporting inclusion becomes illegal in the state, hell, you might as well stand in front of the school door like Governor Wallace.” Governor Wallace, the former Alabama governor, who in 1963 stood in a doorway to block black students from attending classes at the University of Alabama. He’s the one whose inaugural promise was quote “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” 

Dark Times: 'Quiet on Set' Documents Years of Child Exploitation at Nickelodeon

No matter how much you hate Hollywood, it is not enough. This week, the 4-part docuseries Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV aired on Investigation Discovery (ID) and was available for streaming on Max. The program chronicles years of horrors at Nickelodeon that included multiple convicted pedophiles on set, creepy sexual innuendo in television shows and interviews with former child actors who are still processing traumas. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Nickelodeon was a cultural juggernaut. The television station launched huge tween and teen television stars, from Amanda Bynes to Ariana Grande, and premiered reliable hits. Nickelodeon's biggest hitmaker was a creator named Dan Schneider. In the early years of his Nickelodeon career, Schneider was sued for discrimination and sexual harassment by two female writers, Christy Stratton and Jenny Kilgen. Their complaints included an accusation that he demanded Stratton simulate sodomy in front of the male writers in the room. Nickelodeon settled with the women, then proceeded to give Schneider even greater power and control over more shows. Schneider's scripts included using child actors in scenes and scenarios with obvious sexual connotations. The documentary's clips from episodes of All That, The Amanda Show with Amanda Bynes, Victorious with Ariana Grande and many others are jaw-dropping. You have to wonder who in Hollywood greenlit some of the scenes back then. One of the actors, now an adult, describes his discomfort as a child at wearing a penis-decorated costume while squirting liquid in a woman's face.   Then there are the clips of an underaged Ariana Grande in suggestive situations for the show Victorious.   What sort of a middle-aged guy writes such scenes for a teen girl? The documentary also covers the rise of Amanda Bynes under Schneider's wing. Schneider created a character named "Penelope Taynt" for Bynes' series The Amanda Show. According to Stratton and Kilgen, the name "Taynt" was an inside sexual joke by Schneider, playing on the word for the perineum.   The most horrifying parts of the documentary involve the convicted pedophiles who worked on the sets of Nickelodeon shows. Pedophiles included a production assistant named Jason Handy who targeted child guest stars. After being found with thousands of copies of child pornography in his home, he was sentenced in 2003 to six years in prison. Then there is child molester Brian Peck, who played "Pickle Boy" in the show All That.    Peck repeatedly raped Nickelodeon actor Drake Bell, who starred in All That, The Amanda Show and Drake and Josh. Police officers recorded Peck confessing his crimes while on the phone with Bell. According to Bell, Peck's side of the courtroom was filled with Hollywood industry supporters at his sentencing in 2004. Oddly, the scandal of multiple convicted pedophiles targeting child actors at a major studio received comparatively little Hollywood press back then. I wonder why. After Peck completed his jail sentence, Disney hired him to work on their tween hit The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. The company only fired him after media exposure, claiming they were unaware of Peck's criminal background. Actors like Bell and Bynes would go onto have years of destructive behavior in adulthood. Bynes spent time in a mental hospital and much of her adult years under a conservatorship. Bell has grappled with addiction, bankruptcy, and multiple convictions of his own, including for child endangerment. It is impossible to walk away from this documentary without feeling rage at a Hollywood system that endangers children. Tinseltown's long history of child exploitation has continued for nearly a century from Judy Garland to Brooke Shields to the actors chronicled in Quiet on Set. Nickelodeon fired Schneider in 2018. At that point, his shows no longer dominated tween pop culture anyway. Nickelodeon itself is no longer culturally relevant, which is probably why a documentary like this finally happened. If Dan Schneider and Nickelodeon were still churning out money-making hits, Hollywood would still be playing a game of "see no evil, hear no evil" in all likelihood. Hollywood has always been a cesspool behind the scenes, but after watching this documentary I also wonder how adults in the broader culture ignored the flashing red flags during these decades. Did parents not notice the way these popular shows sexualized the kids in them? Why did the lives of the young actors on the screen not matter? Long before TikTok transmitted sludge into developing adolescent brains, channels like Nickelodeon were inserting troubling images into children's homes. The cultural war against childhood innocence goes back generations.

SPIKED: NY Times, WashPost, and Wall St. Journal Have NO Hunter Story in the Paper

How much do the "professional" journalists hate reporting on Biden scandals? A deep dive into the newspapers that arrived at our headquarters on Thursday finds that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal have NO article on the contentious House hearing on Wednesday over the Biden family business scandal. It's on the front page of The Washington Times, a report by Susan Ferrecchio:  Two former Biden family business associates testified Wednesday that President Biden, his son Hunter Biden and his brother James Biden lied when they claimed Mr. Biden was not involved in their business deals dating back to his days as vice president. Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner, said Mr. Biden’s involvement in the deals was so important that it drew the attention of Chinese President Xi Jinping, according to a 2017 electronic message from Hunter Biden that was read aloud at an impeachment hearing of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee. Ferrecchio noted Hunter Biden was invited but refused to testify, so they left an empty chair for him at the witness table. The slavishly pro-Biden media promoted Hunter's demands for a public hearing, and then skipped the actual hearing, just like Hunter.  What was on the front pages today? The Wall Street Journal had Biden administration PR: "Carmakers Get More Time to Phase Out Gas Engine." The top of The New York Times is border-focused, with a story on "Nail-Biting Wait as Texas Statute is Reconsidered: U.S. Is Furiously Trying to Block the State's New Migrant Law." But this one is worse: "Seeking Clicks, And Influence, In Jungle Pass: Right-Wing Backdrop for Migrant Debate. Reporting from Panama, Ken Bensinger is offended as "right-wing activist" Laura Loomer is asking a Somali migrant if they support Ilhan Omar and Joe Biden. (The answer was Yes.) This one's also remarkably partisan: Rebecca Davis O'Brien reports on the "Democratic Party" trying to keep third parties off the ballot: "It amounts to a kind of legal Whac-a-Mole, a state-by-state counter-insurgency plan ahead of an election that could hinge on just a few thousand votes in swing states." The top of The Washington Post is also Biden's plans to phase out gas-powered cars, and the Texas border-enforcement case. Below the fold, there is an interesting piece headlined "Gaza War protests snarls Democrats' messaging." These newspapers don't typically  "snarl" Democrat messaging. They enhance Democrat messaging.  Follow this story by Ashley Parker and Tyler Pager inside to A-10, and there's this funny headline: "Protests seen by some as 'part of the democratic process.'" By some? The Post finds recent polls "ominous for Biden" and expresses alarm that "Some Democrats are also growing anxious about the party's convention this summer in Chicago and the prospect of mass protests interfering with the four-day event." Echoes of 1968??

CNN’s Fake News Jim Convenes Legion of Dumb to Decry Trump’s ‘Bloodbath’ Line

In an unfortunate move for the country, CNN’s morning programming reshuffle has meant subjecting their tens of viewers to an hour of Fake News Jim Acosta (as opposed to stashing him for a few hours on weekends). In turn, we’re stuck with segments like one on Wednesday in which he convened rule of experts fan Tom Nichols (who won’t say whether Taiwan is a country) and cockamamie professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat for what one could only describe as a meeting of the Legion of Dumb to spew apocalyptic bile about Donald Trump. I know none of you noticed yesterday because no one watches CNN (except CNN staffers and people like us at @theMRC), but Fake News Jim hosted a meeting of the Legion of Stupid (or Dumb, take your pick) yesterday to promote the bloodbath hoax pic.twitter.com/jk9F9NfBQY — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 21, 2024 It all began when Acosta gleefully said it’d be a “terrific conversation we’re going to have” and went first to Nichols to say there’s no doubt Trump said America will be a literal bloodbath “for the country” if he loses in November. “[H]e has not earned any benefit of the doubt about what his words mean considering that he uses terms like, you know, vermin and other incendiary terms, but the other thing is that whenever he’s trapped are backed up against the wall, he just doubles down,” Nichols replied. Nichols then tried to argue “no one” really uses the word bloodbath...unless they mean violence. “[I]f you’re presidential candidate talking about a social bloodbath, these are things that, in a — in a more rational time would have ruled him out of contention for dog catcher,” he huffed. Acosta went to Ben-Ghiat with both the bloodbath line as well as Trump’s controversial comment that Jewish people who vote Democrat are going against their own interests and identity. Ben-Ghiat quickly dispensed with the latter to circle back to bloodbath, arguing the “real intent” is for Trump “to get people riled up enough to either commit violence for you — January 6 — or accept your violence” by moving “them into a state of existential fear and dread.” “With strongmen, it’s always me or the abyss, me or the apocalypse. So, when he’s talking about social slaughter, he’s telling people that they have to defend themselves and he’s done this many times in his rallies and now with his campaign. This is part of his message to keep people,” she added. Earth to CNN: Aren’t you projecting just a little? Do any of you ninnies here yourselves, warning about democracy being on the ballot or constant hyperbole about America as we know it ending if Republicans win anything? Acosta and Nichols kept up the rhetoric, proclaiming Trump’s bloodbath line was a call to “riot” and commit “violence” against liberals (click “expand”):  ACOSTA: Yeah, I mean, Tom, he’s — he’s saying the riot part out loud. It seems. NICHOLS: Of course, and he’s been doing it for awhile. He’s been, I think, preparing his followers for violence. He’s been preparing them not to accept any electoral result that isn’t in his favor or favor of anybody he wants. He does this — and — and Ruth’s point is really important here. He — he gets us used to these words that they become second nature, that the kind of level of violence in that language and the dread in that language just gets woven into your daily life so that, after a while, you just start to accept that violence and, you know, bloodbaths and — it’s just part of the way we talk which was not the way we conducted political debate in American until now, but, you know, this is all about trying to motivate people to fight for him because we have to remember that for him, this is not a political campaign. He is running as hard as he can to get into the Oval Office to try to escape accountability and justice. ACOSTA: Yeah. And I didn’t want to talk to both of you about Trump and Putin. I mean, he’s — Trump is putting himself on par with Putin, saying go to toe to toe with a dictator, come out on top. I mean, this seems to be a recurring theme in addition to how he shows affection for dictators[.] Ben-Ghiat then claimed Trump’s positive vibes toward dictators Kim Jong-un is really a four-dimensional chess move in “conditioning Americans” to accept this in our country as well as to believe “that democracy doesn’t work.” Once again, earth to CNN: Don’t you guys hear yourselves? Isn’t that what you say about our system of government? What a giant billboard-sized case of projection. The segment wrapped with the comical claim from Acosta that not only would Trump want to emulate Russian dictator Vladimir Putin by killing his opponents, but also rigging elections so he can stay in power indefinitely via sham elections where, like Putin, he wins with a farcical 87 percent (click “expand”): ACOSTA: [T]he scary thing is, is that we just saw a so-called election in Russia and there was no credible opposition allowed. You know, they were talking about 87 percent support for Vladimir Putin. I mean, that’s — that’s — that’s laughable. You have people like Alexei Navalny killed in prison. It — this, I mean, how, how can you even pretend that that’s a democracy going on in Russia? And if Putist [sic] — if Trump is continuing to speak with admiration and putting himself on an even keel with the likes of Vladimir Putin, I mean, that should be disturbing to — to a lot of folks out there. NICHOLS: It is disturbing and, you know, the idea that he’s gone toe to toe with dictators, he is absolutely in all of these people. And as we saw in their first meeting years ago at Helsinki, he isn’t going toe-to-toe with them. He is kissing their ring. I mean, he is a — very — a lot of — a lot of what Trump does, I think projects fear and insecurity, which, you know, makes sense in an authoritarian bully, but the idea that somehow, you know, Putin is to be emulated, I mean, it’s almost inconceivable to have an American President and an American presidential candidate — again, talking about how much he admires someone who just had — I have to do the air quotes, “an election”, you know, at 87 percent. But that’s — Trump wants to — you know, we were just talking about the aspirational nature of this. This is Trump’s aspiration, to be someone who has unchallengeable power, huge amounts of wealth, and can do anything he wants and still rig elections to get 87 percent. I mean, that’s — you know — that’s — that’s Trump’s dreamworld: To be the richest man in the world — which Putin is one of the richest and — and to be unaccountable. Having been wholly satisified and with possible a few white liberal wine moms now hiding under their bedsheets in fear of the Orange Man, Acosta brought the meeting to a close by trumpeting their “great discussion” and “insights” that he hopes “keep[s] the conversation going” elsewhere. To see the relevant CNN transcript from March 20, click here.

ABC, CBS AVOID Covering Hunter Biden’s No-Show To Impeachment Inquiry

This is how you know we have a Biden regime media: two of the three major networks avoided providing any evening newscast coverage to the House Oversight Committee’s hearing in furtherance of its impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. And the one that did cover the hearing did its level best to make sure viewers heard nothing substantial- a smother job. Here’s a representative sample of the report- lots of noise, nothing substantial: LESTER HOLT: Fireworks today at a house hearing in the impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Republicans pressing former Hunter Biden business associates, but one witness accusing them of peddling Russian propaganda. Ryan Nobles has late details for us from the Capitol.  RYAN NOBLES: Tonight, a fiery inflection point in the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. (CROSSTALK) GERRY CONNOLLY:  Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. This is -- Mr. Bobulinsky, this is my time.  NOBLES: House Republicans holding a hearing designed to feature Hunter Biden, who had asked to give public testimony but declined to appear. Instead, the committee heard from a pair of former Hunter Biden business associates, who testified despite President Biden's denials he was involved in his son's businesses. TONY BOBULINSKI: He was an active, aware enabler who met with business associates such as myself to further the business. For crying out loud, this wasn’t even the fireiest of the fireworks at the hearing: AOC - "RICO is not a crime." pic.twitter.com/YcTusJAaP4 — MAZE (@mazemoore) March 20, 2024 In AOC’s defense, perhaps RICO is too Suave to be a crime. Sorry, Tim, I’ll show myself out now.  But seriously, even that would’ve been too much for NBC, which wanted to air NO instances whatsoever of Bobulinski talking about crimes committed by anyone named Biden. Speaking of which, where was Hunter? Much was made of Hunter Biden’s previous demand for a public hearing on the date of his first scheduled private hearing before the House committees. Hunter’s “impromptu” remarks delivered on the Senate grounds, a grandstanding exhibition made possible by (alleged) public flatulator and Chinese spy fornicator Eric Swalwell. NBC only mentioned Hunter’s failure to appear in passing; CBS and ABC none at all. Then there was the strange interview with Lev Parnas, which seemed to serve no other purpose than to raise the specter of Russian propaganda operations.  All in all, NBC’s report on the hearing was an outright smother job. But the smother job is tons more than what ABC and CBS mustered- which is a big, fat nothing. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on NBC Nightly News on Wednesday, March 20th, 2024: LESTER HOLT: Fireworks today at a house hearing in the impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Republicans pressing former Hunter Biden business associates, but one witness accusing them of peddling Russian propaganda. Ryan Nobles has late details for us from the Capitol.  RYAN NOBLES: Tonight, a fiery inflection point in the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. (CROSSTALK) GERRY CONNOLLY:  Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. This is -- Mr. Bobulinsky, this is my time.  NOBLES: House Republicans holding a hearing designed to feature Hunter Biden, who had asked to give public testimony but declined to appear. Instead, the committee heard from a pair of former Hunter Biden business associates, who testified despite President Biden's denials he was involved in his son's businesses. TONY BOBULINSKI: He was an active, aware enabler who met with business associates such as myself to further the business. NOBLES: They say Joe Biden participated in person and on speakerphone in meetings and dinners with Hunter's foreign business partners. Hunter's former business associate Jason Golanis testifying from prison. JASON GOLANIS: The vice president said hello, and some pleasantries and then “I hope you had safe travels”, and then said, quote, “OK, you be good to my boy”.  NOBLES: But Democrats firing back saying there was no evidence of a crime. JAMIE RASKIN: With any luck, today marks the end of perhaps the most spectacular failure in the history of congressional investigations, the effort to find a high crime or misdemeanor committed by Joe Biden and then to impeach him for it. NOBLES: Democrats invited Lev Parnas, a onetime associate of former President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, who testified that he was tasked with digging up dirt on Biden business ventures in Ukraine.  LEV PARNAS: I found precisely zero evidence of the Bidens' corruption in Ukraine.  NOBLES: In an exclusive interview, Parnas accused Republicans of being willing accomplices of the Kremlin.  PARNAS: They’re not getting down to the truth. All they're doing is pushing the same Russian narrative of propaganda.  NOBLES: And tonight, the Oversight Committee chairman James Comer saying he will invite President Biden to testify at an upcoming hearing. Lester.  HOLT: Ryan Nobles, thanks.  

OOF: Arizona Latinos LAUGH At Weijia Jiang’s Question On January 6th

Talk about a disconnect between the media and the general electorate. Imagine flying all the way to Arizona to do the obligatory panel on Biden’s decline in the polls amongst Latinos, and having your January 6th question laughed off by the panel. That’s exactly what happened to CBS’s Weijia Jiang in Arizona. Watch: WEIJIA JIANG: President Biden has called Trump a threat to democracy and made it a central part of his campaign. Is democracy on the ballot in 2024?  STEVE MACIAS: I don't buy that argument.  RAQUEL GLOWDEN: I don’t, either.  MACIAS: To me, now, that's just another talking point. Every time I hear it, I just kind of tune it out. GLOWDEN: I know. MACIAS: It’s something that, you know…some focus group came up with, and now they're just using it to death. GLOWDEN: I really don't think they understand what democracy is when they say that. You know- the fact that there is a ballot is democracy.  That J6 question was a capper to a brutal panel- brutal for a member of the regime media trying to understand why a key 2020 Biden constituency has turned on him. It was also indicative of the broad disconnect between the elite Acela Media and the general public, Latino or otherwise. The panel reveals that Biden’s most glaring weaknesses are his handling of the border and of the economy- same as everyone else. And even those who had issues with Trump's rhetoric admitted to Jiang’s face that things were better when he was in office. JIANG: The economy is also a factor in how they'll vote.  GLOWDEN: It used to be that we could go out and do things, you know, go to dinner, you know, once or twice a week. Now, no, that's not happening. We have to budget everything down to -- down to the finest thing.  JIANG: Do you think the economy was better under trump?  GLOWDEN: I do.  MACIAS: Um…yeah, yeah, absolutely, I would say so.  During the exchange on immigration, Jiang repeated the “animals” hoax, which conflates all immigrants with criminal migrants for purposes of whenever Trump calls criminal migrants “animals”, as he did in 2019 with MS-13 and last weekend in Ohio, in reference to Laken Riley’s murderer, among others. Pity the Acela journalist traveling all the way to Phoenix, only to get reality-mugged by an electorate that Biden is supposed to have well in the bag. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on CBS Evening News on Wednesday, March 20th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: President Biden and former President Donald Trump cruised to victory last night in the primary elections in the battleground state of Arizona. But in tonight's "Listening to America," CBS's Weijia Jiang hears from voters who aren't happy with their options in the general election.  WEIJIA JIANG: Republican business owner Steve Macias voted for Donald Trump in 2020, but he's not sure if he will do so again. STEVE MACIAS: I- I really still have trouble trying to figure out who I'm going to vote for.  JIANG: The same goes for Democrat Paulina Flores. PAULINA FLORES: In 2020 I voted for Biden. JIANG: And independent Raquel Glowden.  RAQUEL GLOWDEN: I voted for Donald Trump.  JIANG: What happened in the past three years, or didn't happen, that you are still so undecided about who to vote for?  FLORES: It's almost like there's too many chefs in the kitchen, or there isn't a main chef in the kitchen.  MACIAS: On the Biden side, you know, I was thinking, well, okay, good, he is the adult in the room, at least. He's been through this. This will be calm. And it hasn't.  JIANG: Since winning Arizona in 2020, support for President Biden, who spoke outside Phoenix today, has softened among Latino voters. The Latino vote helped Biden clinch wins here in Arizona. Do you think he’s done enough to maintain that lead here?  MACIAS: I think his Latino numbers will go down. JIANG: In part because they say Biden has not done enough to deal with issues at the southern border.  GLOWDEN: He put his vice president in charge of the border czar, and then what happened? She just disappeared. So does he really care about it?  JIANG: But they can't get behind Trump's divisive rhetoric, recently calling migrants animals.  MACIAS: I mean come every time I think, maybe there is a chance I will vote for him, stuff like that comes out and like, ehhhh.  FLORES: And then he says something like, “Ooh, I shouldn’t have said that, dude.”  GLOWDEN: Makes you cringe.  JIANG: The economy is also a factor in how they'll vote.  GLOWDEN: It used to be that we could go out and do things, you know, go to dinner, you know, once or twice a week. Now, no, that's not happening. We have to budget everything down to -- down to the finest thing.  JIANG: Do you think the economy was better under trump?  GLOWDEN: I do.  MACIAS: Um…yeah, yeah, absolutely, I would say so.  JIANG: President Biden has called Trump a threat to democracy and made it a central part of his campaign. Is democracy on the ballot in 2024?  MACIAS: I don't buy that argument.  GLOWDEN: I don’t, either.  MACIAS: To me, now, that's just another talking point. Every time I hear it, I just kind of tune it out. GLOWDEN: I know. MACIAS: It’s something that, you know…some focus group came up with, and now they're just using it to death. GLOWDEN: I really don't think they understand what democracy is when they say that. You know- the fact that there is a ballot is democracy.  JIANG: In our conversation, age also came up as a major issue. And that’s why the voters said they are paying close attention to Vice President Kamala Harris and to whoever Trump chooses as his running mate. They said it could be a deciding factor, Norah. O’DONNELL: Weijia Jiang for us in Arizona. Thank you so much.  

NewsBusters Podcast: Search Lurch, or Google Tilts Internet to the Left

A new study by Free Speech America found that Google was guilty of election interference on 41 occasions from 2008 to today. Dan Schneider, vice president of the MRC's Free Speech America project, explains all their findings. In 2008, Google endorsed the radical Sen. Barack Obama just after he joined the Senate in 2005, and censored support for Sen. Hillary Clinton. They'll suppress Democrats who are opposing Google's favorite candidate. They tend to support the most radical Democrat who they feel can win. In 2016, Google employed both its algorithm and its “partners” in futile attempts to push Hillary Clinton over the finish line. Shortly after the election of Trump, at a company-wide meeting, Google’s CFO Ruth Porat promised Google employees that the company would use its “great strength and resources and reach” to advance its leftist values.  During the 2020 Democratic primary, The tech giant disabled then-presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s Google Ads account just as she became the most searched candidate following the first Democratic Party primary debate. Again, Democrats going against Google's grain were suppressed just like conservatives are. We also discuss the Left's overwrought writing about the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 to help staff a potential second Trump administration. Journalists assume that since most long-serving establishment Republicans have walked away from Trump, anyone who would serve in his executive branch now must be a brain-dead cultist amateur who will destroy the government from the inside. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.   

PBS Panics Over Dip in LGBTQ Support As 'Queers' 'Assert Their Rights'

PBS again went to bat for the “LGBTQ-Plus” warriors on the PBS News Weekend Sunday, lamenting a slight dip in America’s gushing over the alphabet folks in “U.S. support for LGBTQ+ rights is declining after decades of support. Here’s why.” In the show introduction, anchor John Yang fretted over “declining support for LGBTQ-plus rights, reversing years of increasing support,” then cut to pollster Melissa Deckmant to blame (who else?) Republicans: "And I think what`s happening is that you see many Republican leaders and red states really trying to amp up the volume, so to speak, on LGBTQ rights, and really trying to claw back some of those rights across the country."     Already the scene had been set -- you know which side to take and who to boo and hiss at, courtesy of your tax dollars. Yang had the new alphabet down pat in this story, which overhyped a downward wiggle in polling data (based on new research from a left-wing polling firm, the Public Religion Research Institute, or PRRI, of which Deckman was the CEO). Reporter William Brangham boasted about the question they used to measure “gender identity”: “What sex were you assigned at birth on your original birth certificate?” Adding: "The survey showed for the first time support fell for key policies regarding LGBTQ rights, backing for same sex marriage dropped two percentage points, support for non-discrimination protections dropped four points and opposition to people refusing services based on religious grounds dropped five points." Brangham talked to Deckman about the results, “the first time you`ve seen it a downward tick in those numbers. What how do you explain that?” Acceptance of LGBTQ was not enough -- unanimous approval was required by the gender-obsessed left and Republicans were the problem: DECKMAN: We saw much deeper declines, for example, among Republicans in terms of their support for these issues, whereas Democrats tended to stay relatively stable. And I think what’s happening is that you see many Republican leaders in red states, really trying to amp up the volume, so to speak, on LGBTQ rights, and really trying to claw back some of those rights across the country. And I think that`s had a spillover effect nationally in terms of the attitudes of Republicans, especially on issues with respect to LGBTQ rights. Brangham’s suggested explanation for the decline – of persecuted LGBTQ people merely beginning to “assert their rights” -- was a pretty benign description of the media-supported revolution that’s taken place the last several years, including “Bake the cake, bigot!” extremists on the gay-marriage front, and successfully pressuring social media outlets and real-life institutions to deplatform users and fire employees for the crime of “misgendering” biological men. (And threatening Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling with arrest under new “hate crimes” law in Scotland.) "I mean, is it perhaps also possible that as people start to identify more publicly and assert their rights and take a more prominent place in society, that we could be seeing the traces of a backlash here?," Branham wondered. Deckman blamed Christians: "As you might imagine, Americans who have a tendency to support Christian nationalism are far less likely to support the rights of LGBTQ Americans, in part because of the theological opposition to the idea of really homosexuality and being queer to begin with…" And since it was a presidential election year, a call to activism was proclaimed: BRANHAM: For people who are LGBTQ or work to help solidify their rights, what does this survey data tell you about what work lies ahead for them? DECKMAN: ….There's now a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. And there's indication that the rights of same-sex marriage are going to be on the line you're going to have legal challenges from conservative groups are going to be fighting to rollback those rights. And I think that this is just a good reminder that those rights shouldn't be taken for granted that it's going to take political organizing, and that elections have consequences. And so the word went out over the tax-funded airwaves: Vote Biden! This segment was brought to you in part by BNSF Railway. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Weekend 3/17/24 7:12:50 p.m. (ET) JOHN YANG: For the last few decades, the story of LGBTQ plus rights in America has been one of increasing public support. But now a new survey finds that for the first time in years, there`s a slight decline in that support. William Brangham takes a closer look. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Throughout 2023, the Public Religion Research Institute, or PRRI, interviewed over 22,000 adults for what it calls its American Values Atlas. Last week, the Organization released its findings on views about LGBTQ rights in the US. The survey showed for the first time support fell for key policies regarding LGBTQ rights, backing for same sex marriage dropped two percentage points, support for non-discrimination protections dropped four points and opposition to people refusing services based on religious grounds dropped five points. To help us understand this data, we are joined by CEO of PRRI Melissa Deckman. You`ve been doing this survey for years. And this being the first time you`ve seen it a downward tick in those numbers. What how do you explain that? MELISSA DECKMAN, CEO, Public Religion Research Institute: Yeah, we were somewhat surprised to see after several years of increasing support among Americans for LGBTQ rights, that we saw a decline. But I think if you look under the hood, so to speak, and look at the data more closely, it`s really largely driven by party polarization. And so we saw much deeper declines, for example, among Republicans in terms of their support for these issues, whereas Democrats tended to stay relatively stable. And I think what`s happening is that you see many Republican leaders in red states, really trying to amp up the volume, so to speak on LGBTQ rights, and really trying to claw back some of those rights across the country. And I think that`s had a spillover effect nationally in terms of the attitudes of Republicans, especially on issues with respect to LGBT rights. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In your survey, you`re talking to people who both affiliate with a particular religion and also non-religious people as well, correct? MELISSA DECKMAN: That`s right. So our surveys are done among Americans nationally. One great thing about the ABA is we also have enough data to look at opinions in all 50 states. But essentially, we get a snapshot of all Americans, including people of faith and people who are unaffiliated. I think it`s also important to bear in mind that despite these declines that we`ve seen, the vast majority of people of faith continue to support the rights of LGBTQ Americans, especially with respect to same sex marriage and non-discrimination laws. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So for someone who might look at this and think, Oh, what a 2 percent decline or a 5 percent decline is not that substantial. What Why does this really stand out to you? MELISSA DECKMAN: I think it stands out. Because with respect to LGBT rights, we`re generally there has been a growing increase in support among Americans. And part of that is a reflection of the fact that more Americans, especially younger Americans, are identifying as LGBTQ. So younger Americans, more Americans have friends who are LGBTQ, they themselves are LGBTQ, they have colleagues. So there has been this assumption that as we become more, I think, accepting of LGBT Americans in our daily lives, that it would just naturally lend itself to people being more supportive of protecting the rights of LGBTQ Americans. But I think this data shows you that that`s not necessarily an assumption that is true. And so it`s something important to monitor and keep aware of. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, is it perhaps also possible that as people start to identify more publicly and assert their rights and take a more prominent place in society, that we could be seeing the traces of a backlash year? MELISSA DECKMAN: I think that`s exactly what you`re seeing. One of the things that we analyze in the report is we look at the relationship between Christian nationalist views and support for LGBTQ rights. As you might imagine, Americans who have a tendency to support Christian nationalism are far less likely to support the rights of LGBTQ Americans, in part because of the theological opposition to the idea of really homosexuality and being queer to begin with. And so I think that there`s that important relationship there that we have to really keep in mind. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You`re talking about are there other below the top lines here other data points that really that were of interest to you? MELISSA DECKMAN: We were really surprised in our findings that younger Americans have trended downward with respect to support for LGBTQ rights. If you look at our data, we find that roughly one in five Americans aged 18 to 29 identify as LGBTQ. But yet what`s happened over the past couple of years is that there`s been a slight decline among younger Americans. I think the assumption was that because younger Americans are more likely to identify as queer that we`d always have younger Americans being more supportive. Again, though, you have to look under the hood. It`s really party polarization that is driving down support among younger Americans for same sex marriage, for example. So one number really stands out to us. If you look at young Americans attitudes about same sex marriage, and 2020 among Republicans, two thirds supported same sex marriage rights. But in last year`s data among young Republicans aged 18 to 29, it`s less than half, that`s a really big cratering of support. I think there was often an assumption among many political analysts that younger Republicans would moderate the party with respect to things like LGBTQ rights, or even abortion rights or climate change, et cetera. But what we`re finding in this data is that younger Republicans are very conservative socially. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So interesting. For people who are LGBTQ or work to help solidify their rights, what does this survey data tell you about what work lies ahead for them? MELISSA DECKMAN: Well, I think there`s the survey data, it really points, as we like to say, the canary in the coal mine idea that you can assume that such rights are going to be held in perpetuity or will increase. And you can also assume just because the vast majority of Americans support these rights, that those rights are going to be legally protected, especially in wake of the Dobbs decision.

Biden Admin Tries to Justify ‘Constant Pestering’ of Big Tech to Censor in New SCOTUS Case

An exchange between a U.S. Supreme Court justice and a U.S. Deputy Solicitor General unveiled the Biden administration's utter disregard for free speech.  Justice Samuel Alito challenged U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher, who argued the federal government’s case during oral arguments for the free speech case Murthy v. Missouri on Monday. While Fletcher seemed to argue that a person’s access to his First Amendment rights is partially dependent on circumstances, the justice had a different view.  Alito accused the federal government of using “constant pestering” to coerce Facebook and other Big Tech platforms to censor content, noting that such behavior would be considered unacceptable if targeted at print media. Ultimately, Alito argued, “the federal government has got Section 230 and antitrust in its pocket,” so “these big clubs” can help it treat Facebook et al. “like they’re subordinates.” Section 230 allows social media companies to be absolved from liability for what users post on their platforms. It can also be used, however, as a cudgel by government to pressure tech companies into censoring certain content.  Alito not only highlighted the issue of antitrust and Section 230, but also the fact that the federal government seemed to argue that states do not have First Amendment rights. When pressed on the matter, Fletcher acknowledged the free speech rights of state officials and claimed that state attorneys general should not litigate on behalf of their own citizens’ free speech rights, since in this particular case,  “[the U.S. government] think[s] that’s an end run around the limit on … standing.” When Alito challenged Fletcher as to whether print media is “on the same team as the federal government, partners,” as social media appeared to be, the U.S. Deputy Solicitor General made a disturbing argument. “So potentially in the context of an effort to get Americans vaccinated during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic,” he said. “There was a concern that Americans were getting their news about the vaccine from these platforms” and receiving “bad information.”  Fletcher argued that even the social media companies recognized their “responsibility” to provide what the government deemed accurate information, and insisted that government-media partnerships are not unusual or problematic, despite the Constitutional emphasis on a free press. He did not address the fact that social media is essentially the public town square now and even seemingly argued that government pressure to censor information and violate free speech rights is permissible in a health emergency. “The platforms [were] not being transparent about the scope of the problem,” Fletcher complained, trying to justify the “anger” government officials displayed toward tech executives whom they thought were not censoring enough. Alito suggested that the idea that government officials can “call [media] up and curse them out and say … why don’t we be partners” and hypothetically allow government to edit content beforehand is problematic. Yet that would seem to have been the attitude of the federal government and particularly the Biden administration when dealing with Big Tech companies. The complaint filed for Murthy v. Missouri cited MRC Free Speech America’s unique and exclusive CensorTrack.org research. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an 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.

Dear Anti-Free Speech Bureaucrats, Rep. Hageman Would Like a Word: MRC UnCensored

Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) conveyed to MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider her plans to protect free speech on the latest episode of MRC Uncensored. Hageman and Schneider discussed the congresswoman’s new bill empowering Americans to hold government officials accountable when their First Amendment rights are infringed upon. “[O]ur government has been weaponized against us. And one of the most obvious examples of that is the attack on the First Amendment,” she told Schneider. Hageman’s new bill, the Censorship Accountability Act, would allow citizens to sue federal executive branch employees personally when they take actions that encroach upon American liberties. She outlined how much the First Amendment has been trampled on in recent years, explaining: “All of the things that we’re seeing is a government that has determined that our ability to exercise our First Amendment rights – specifically our freedom of speech and the free exercise clause, our freedom of religion – is something that the government has been targeting. But there has been no mechanism by which we have a private class of action to hold the people doing this accountable.” Schneider noted that Hageman’s bill is based on U.S. Code 42 Section 1983, which allows citizens to take civil action against state and local officials when deprived of their rights. Hageman’s new bill intends to help citizens hold government employees on the federal level personally liable when they censor Americans. The Wyoming lawmaker gave the examples of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas – whose agency set up the Disinformation Governance Board and was found to be funding censorship – and Lois Lerner, the former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit for the Internal Revenue Service, who was accused of unfairly granting tax-exempt status to various organizations and targeting conservative groups. “Mayorkas is acting fully within the scope of his employment but he is doing something illegal under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” she denounced. “Right now I have no mechanism to hold him accountable for that.” She added that if her bill passes “then I could sue him, we, the people who were targeted by Lois Lerner, they could have sued her individually. They could have sued her personally and not only received damages and an injunction but also attorney’s fees.” Schneider added, “We have seen it over and over and over where federal employees have initiated grant programs to silence us, created artificial intelligence to silence us, calling us domestic terrorists to try and stop us under anti-terrorism statutes.” He then pointed out that Hageman’s bill would not only incentivize good behavior from top officials but also from rank-and-file executive branch employees who are often asked to do the heavy lifting. “This legislation will empower those lower-level, mid-level employees to be able to say to their bosses, to the cabinet secretaries and others, ‘I cannot do this. I cannot do what you are asking me to do. I cannot take this action that will deprive somebody of their constitutional rights because I might get sued.’” 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.

Elon Musk: 'The Bedrock of Democracy Is Freedom of Speech'

Tech mogul Elon Musk unloaded about the importance of free speech and the challenges he has faced dealing with the prior regime at X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.  During a live conversation with Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey on March 18, Musk stressed that Americans have an unparalleled right to freedom of speech that must be protected on social media. “No country has the protection of speech that the United States does, not even Canada,” he said on X Spaces (formerly Twitter Spaces). “So that’s something we should really take pride in and seek to preserve. I think that the bedrock of democracy is freedom of speech.”  Going live with @elonmusk in just over an hour. You won’t want to miss this conversation. https://t.co/eQ7FyGEanz — Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) March 18, 2024 Musk emphasized the importance of free speech by discussing what motivated the Founding Fathers to write the First Amendment. “[The First Amendment] exists because people came from countries where they could not speak freely, where if they did speak their mind they would be imprisoned or killed,” Musk explained. “That’s why they were so concerned about freedom of speech. It's because they didn’t have it in the countries they came from. In many places of the world, maybe most places, you don’t have freedom of speech.” Musk warned about political “constraints on speech” before calling out Twitter’s extreme bias under its former CEO Parag Agrawal. Musk said that there were roughly “ten voices on the right suppressed for every one on the left” on Twitter before he took over the company. Musk described the past regime as having a “very big thumb on the political scale.”  Although Musk’s influence has appeared to decrease overt censorship on the platform, there are still outside entities that try to sabotage free speech on X. Musk discussed some of his struggles with advertisers being pressured to pull their ads from X. He explained that “pressure groups” and various organizations “will get together” to “attack advertisers, who advertise on the X platform or some other platform, in order to starve the companies of revenue.” He later added that this kind of pressure campaign effectively “ becomes a boycott.” Musk stated that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg had resisted this pressure for a while before ultimately giving in when it had cost him billions of dollars. Musk said that these pressure groups have so much power because “household name brands” like Facebook want to avoid any “strife” and many advertisers would rather make concessions than deal with bad press.  Musk said that these advertiser boycotts had cost X two-thirds of its American advertising revenue and that the company would not have survived without significantly reducing costs. “If we had not been able to reduce our costs dramatically, X, formerly Twitter, would have gone bankrupt. And that’s fully what they were trying to do. They were trying to drive the company into bankruptcy, which obviously is major suppression of free speech.”  The X Space unfolded two days after Bailey, who hosted the interview, had his landmark free speech case heard by the Supreme Court. The Murphy v. Missouri case pitted Americans’ free speech on social media against collusion between Big Tech and the federal government.  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.

Princess Kate and Democracy’s Discontents

Unelected pundits unceasingly tell us democracy is in danger. Yet as voters grit their teeth for a Biden-Trump rematch, they might wonder whether democracy is such a great thing in the first place. Was it all a mistake to ditch George III for this? The U.K. has free elections just as we do. But when a prime minister is as unpopular as, say, Rishi Sunak is right now, nobody worries that Britain is in a cultural civil war. Prime ministers come and go, but the head of state, the king or queen, can be consistent for decades — and, in the case of a monarch like Elizabeth II, can be consistently beloved. Our citizens are only slightly less fascinated by the royal family than their subjects are. The plight of the missing princess has certainly captured Americans’ attention. The former Kate Middleton — now Catherine, Princess of Wales — has hardly been seen since Christmas. She went under the knife in January for "planned abdominal surgery," and spokesmen said she wouldn’t resume public duties until Easter. This was vague enough to pique rather than allay concerns. They intensified when her husband — the heir to the throne, Prince William — backed out of attending the funeral of his godfather, King Constantine of Greece, because of a sudden "personal matter." What could stop gossip about the princess’s health? Publicists at Kensington Palace, and evidently Kate and William, hit on the idea of releasing a photograph of the princess, smiling and surrounded by her children, for the U.K.’s Mothering Sunday on March 10. Only the photo they released was faked — badly, boldly and baldly. Little Princess Charlotte’s sweater sleeve disappeared on her wrist. The pattern on Prince Louis’ sweater was off-kilter, as were tiles on the ground behind him, among a plethora of other oddities. On closer look, it even seemed Kate’s head had been stitched in from another source. The Associated Press, Reuters and other agencies pulled the pic from circulation. Statements under the unseen princess’s name asserted, "like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing." That’s as charming as it is implausible. The manipulation was more than a touch-up, and releasing the image was calculated to quell conspiracy theories — which, of course, it only fueled. But the ineptitude of the whole thing emphasized how low the stakes really are. There’s a prurient, tabloid interest in prying into the princess’s health, but there’s also genuine sympathy on the part of many Brits, who see the royal family as the nation’s family, too. That’s not the way we Americans do, or should, think about our elected leaders. The monarchy is more a focus of reverence for the British than the Church of England is. It’s a reminder of something in common above politics and away from ideology — a family spirit. Of course, royal families are as flawed as every other kind. Yet in democratic times, public awareness of royal scandals can make the family seem more representative — even relatable. It certainly adds a soap-opera emotional investment to figures whose social status would otherwise make them feel remote. This does have a parallel in American politics: Bill Clinton and Donald Trump both mastered the art of involving the public in their passions. That helps a politician hog the headlines and keeps him going even when those headlines are outraged. Tabloid attention can get a royal killed, in the extreme case of an earlier Princess of Wales — Diana, William’s mother, the betrayed first wife of the now-King Charles, harried to death by paparazzi in a Paris tunnel. Yet Diana’s death ultimately reaffirmed the British public’s sympathy for the monarchy. When presidents or prime ministers encounter life-or-death circumstances, on the other hand, the lives on the line are usually others’, and on a large scale. Questions of war and peace often produce a nation’s deepest divisions. The British monarchy no longer decides such questions — which is one reason it remains loved; it is innocent of the most serious choices. American presidents, by contrast, bear the reputational cost for the power they wield at home and abroad. Does this mean America has no unifying figurehead untainted by polarizing choices? The closest thing we have to a constitutional monarch is the Constitution itself, which like a modern king or queen makes no policy and disinterestedly stands above those who do. But it’s hard to make the Constitution as exciting as a flesh-and-blood royal family — it has nothing like the Princess of Wales, so the human drama of our democracy comes from the men who also make its deadliest decisions. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com.

Study Shows More than 60% of Abortions are Done by Harmful and Deathly Abortion Pill

Abortion pills are probably the most dangerous way to kill your kid in the womb. A recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, an overtly pro-abort group, indicated that of all the abortions that took place in 2023, more than 60 percent of them were conducted through chemical abortions induced by the abortion pill. This study comes just before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments surrounding mifepristone, one of the two pills involved in the abortion pill regimen.  The uptick in abortions using pills rose after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June of 2022. With SCOTUS pushing decisions on abortion laws back to the states, many areas used the opportunity to broaden abortion access while others took the decision to push more pro-life laws and protect innocent life.  “As abortion restrictions proliferate post-Dobbs, medication abortion may be the most viable option - or the only option - for some people, even if they would have preferred in-person procedural care,” Guttmacher principal research scientist Rachel Jones said.  Mifepristone and misoprostol, the two-pill regimen used to terminate a baby inside the womb and force a woman to deliver the dead baby, became widely accepted. Distributors began delivering them via mail to ladies all across the nation. Pharmacy chains like CVS and Walgreens stocked their shelves with them and recently, New York City became the first in the country to launch what it called “Virtual ExpressCare” for women to virtually visit with a doctor and get the pills shipped and delivered ASAP. All that to say, there’s been intense moves by the left to distribute as many abortion pills as possible.  According to the Guttmacher Institute’s report of the Monthly Abortion Provision Study, there were approximately 642,700 medication abortions in the United States in 2023 alone. This is a roughly ten percent increase in the number of medication abortions that took place in 2022.  Sadly, that isn’t even the all-encompassing number. “The medication abortion counts for 2023 do not include self-managed medication abortions that take place outside of the formal health care system or abortion medication mailed to people in states with total abortion bans,” the report noted. That means that more than 642,700 babies were killed by just one method of abortion in 2023. How sick! An important thing to note is that the abortion pill is not safe. The pills not only promote abortion as something that’s casual but they put women at extreme risk and, if successful, kill at least one human being. As a matter of fact, medication abortion has been reported to be “four times more dangerous” than surgical abortions and has reportedly increased abortion-related ER visits by 500 percent from 2002-2015. Next Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear a case between the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, which will likely point out the FDA’s negligence in researching these pills and how dangerous they really are.  The Guttmacher Institute’s report puts a number to the reality of how influential these drugs are. It’s a sad, scary and harsh element of what pro-lifers are up against. The Guttmacher Institute insisted that “it is critical to ensure access to medication abortion” but I think it’s actually most critical to facilitate a culture that doesn’t think pregnancy is a disease that needs to be treated with pills or that babies' lives have no value.  That’s what’s really critical.

MSNBC Fears TX Border Security Law Will Allow 911 Calls to Be Refused

The fearmongering from MSNBC was out of control during Wednesday’s Andrea Mitchell Report. Amid a legal battle over another Texas border security law, host Andrea Mitchell seemingly suggested that the law (now put on hold) would allow 9-1-1 dispatchers to “refuse” certain calls if they suspected it came from an illegal immigrant. She was also joined by two activists for illegals, who claimed the law was meant to allow the cops to just roundup and deport anyone who wasn’t “a white individual or white-passing person.” Speaking to Jennifer Babaie, the director for advocacy and legal services for Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, Mitchell scoffed at Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s (R) assurances that he would not direct the State Troopers to target “longtime residents,” as she put it. She also suggested he would have them use “racial profiling” as they go after “legal residents, longtime residents,” and other who “just might get caught up in this on somebody's suspicion.” “It is so important to be aware that the law is written so broadly as to encompass the entire state of Texas. There's nothing in the writing of this law that focuses it only on the borderland,” Babaie whined, ignoring the fact the Biden administration had bused illegal all over the state. She speculated, without evidence, that the law would be used to arrest people who were in the U.S. legally. The other guest was Marissa Limon Garza, the executive director of the same organization. In addressing her, Mitchell insisted that Abbott wasn’t concerned about the Houston Police Department and “the law threatening the connections they have built over the years with the immigrant communities, the trust.”     It’s worth noting that Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center was the organization that sued Texas over the law, and when Mitchell shared that fact she had a big smile on her face. Mitchell’s follow-up question to her racial profiling one seemed to predict that the law would lead to 9-1-1 dispatchers refusing to send help to people. She feared “someone” would “someone refuse a 9-1-1 call” or people would “not call 9-1-1 when they really need help for fear of being arrested.” “Of course. You know, we are all human beings looking out for the safety and well-being of our families, our neighbors, and our friends. And so, in light of attacks like this by our own state, it definitely has a chilling effect and makes people question, is this peace officer someone I can actually trust?” Garza agreed. Earlier in the segment, Garza asserted that the “goal” of the law was “a chilling effect, a bit of psychological warfare, a bit of panic and insecurity.” “And the reality is that it was always designed to be political theater, and it was designed to score political points,” she added. She also claimed, without evidence, that the law was also motivated by racism. “If you’re basically anything other than perhaps a white individual or white-passing person, this law could very easily affect you,” she said. “And it's important that the larger United States understand that what's happening in Texas is really a push against the multiracial democracy that this state already is.” Mitchell praised Garza and Babaie as she ended the segment, butchering both of their names in the process: “Marissa Limon Garcia [sic], Jennifer Ababaie [sic], thank you so much. You bring so much important insights to this argument. We appreciate it.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports March 20, 2024 12:08:44 p.m. Eastern ANDREA MITCHELL: And representatives from one of the groups that filed suit against Texas is joining me now. Melissa Limon Garza, she is the executive director of the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the daughter of immigrants from Mexico; and Jennifer Babaie the center's director for advocacy and legal services. So, welcome both of you. So Marissa, first to you. You work closely with asylum seekers; you’re so familiar with the community. How worried are people about this confusing -- first of all about the law and all the back and forth with the courts? MARISSA LIMON GARZA: So, both SB4s that we have before us have caused already a great deal of harm, whether it's a chilling affect, a bit of psychological warfare, a bit of panic and insecurity. And so, I think that's actually the law's goal. I know that we are talking that there's no there there in terms of how this would be actually put into action. And the reality is that it was always designed to be political theater, and it was designed to score political points. And so, Yes, asylum seekers and other folks all throughout the state – because this is a statewide law -- if you’re basically anything other than perhaps a white individual or white-passing person, this law could very easily affect you. And it's important that the larger United States understand that what's happening in Texas is really a push against the multiracial democracy that this state already is. MITCHELL: And Jennifer, you’re an attorney, an advocate on behalf of migrants. I don't know if you had a chance to track the arguments that have been going on by Zoom for the past hour down there. But what stands out to you in terms of this argument and what the Supreme Court decided? JENNIFER BABAIE: I think first and foremost, it's the chaos even within the state. What's coming out from the arguments, I was able to listen in earlier today, and there is confusion as to -- similar to what several county sheriffs and officers have already made public statements about. No one knows the details of how this law is going to go into effect and who will be captured by it. And so, that human cost is too high. One person arrested under this law is too high. And that is what was made clear this morning during the hearing. MITCHELL: And Jennifer, the governor says that state troopers won't be targeting longtime residents. But talk to me about racial profiling and if there's concern that people will -- legal residents, longtime residents, just might get caught up in this on somebody's suspicion. BABAIE: It is so important to be aware that the law is written so broadly as to encompass the entire state of Texas. There's nothing in the writing of this law that focuses it only on the border land. And just to take a step back and recall that whether or not someone is a legal permanent resident, a U.S. citizen, perhaps they’re here on a student visa, neither of those things are crimes. And so, one individual mistakenly arrested under this – under this law, who would then be placed in county jail while they were interrogated about their legal status, is just unacceptable. It's unconstitutional. And that's why we are fighting it. MITCHELL: And Marissa, some of the issues that may not bubble up to the governor's concerns are things like Houston Police Department. They’re concerned about the law threatening the connections they have built over the years with the immigrant communities, the trust. You know, would someone refuse a 9-1-1 call, an emergency call for fear -- or not call 9-1-1 when they really need help for fear of being arrested. GARZA: Of course. You know, we are all human beings looking out for the safety and well-being of our families, our neighbors, and our friends. And so, in light of attacks like this by our own state, it definitely has a chilling affect and makes people question, is this peace officer someone I can actually trust? Or are they instead going to be forced by the state to interrogate me, my loved ones, and potentially jail me or deport me? That gives people great pause. And again, this is really the goal of this legislation, which has now become law, is designed to really disenfranchise and silence communities of color throughout the state of Texas. MICHELL: Marissa Limon Garcia [sic], Jennifer Ababaie [sic], thank you so much. You bring so much important insights to this argument. We appreciate it.

Lead CBS, NBC Shows Ignore House Hearing on Biden’s Deadly Afghanistan Withdrawal

On Tuesday afternoon, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing with retired Generals Mark Milley and Frank McKenzie on the Biden administration’s deadly and disastrous 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, which included the murders of 13 American soldiers by Islamic terrorists at the Kabul airport. In a cowardly move, CBS and NBC saw no reason to tell viewers about this push for accountability on their flagship newscasts on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. The only broadcast network mention on one of the leading newscast’s came Tuesday on ABC’s World News Tonight with a measly 32-second brief from anchor David Muir.     “On Capitol Hill today, two former top military commanders were grilled before House lawmakers over the deadly U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. 13 U.S. Service members and 170 Afghan civilians were killed in a suicide bomb attack at the airport in Kabul, that was back in August of 2021,” Muir began. Muir added both men “placed blame on the State Department for waiting too long to order evacuations” with Milley also saying “he doesn’t know the exact number of Americans or Afghans who helped the U.S. trying to escape the Taliban who were left behind.” CBS thought they could hide it on one of their overnight/early morning shows, CBS Morning News (which often airs at 4:00 a.m.) (click “expand”): ANNE-MARIE GREEN: Harsh criticism from two former U.S. generals over how the Biden administration handled the 2021 chaotic military withdrawal and evacuation from Afghanistan. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley and U.S. Central Command retired General Frank McKenzie oversaw the evacuation as Afghanistan fell to the Taliban. Well, yesterday they told a House committee the administration did not adequately plan for the evacuation and did not order it in time. MILLEY: It was a pretty consistent assessment by me and other members of the uniformed military up to and including the Secretary that the withdrawal of the military forces and the contractors in the NATO forces that went with it would ultimately, as I said in my opening statement, to a general collapse of the NSA and the government. GREEN: Thirteen U.S. service members were killed by a suicide bomber at Kabul’s airport in the final days of the war. In contrast, multiple Fox News, NewsNation, Newsmax, and even liberal cable networks CNN and MSNBC acknowledged it. For example, the Fox News Channel’s lead newscast, Special Report, had it as the second story on their rundown (after the legal wrangling over Texas’s immigration law). Host Bret Baier called the “fiery House hearing” was “a difficult and contentious reexamination of President Biden’s U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan” with “[t]op military officials expressed their regret over the disastrous exit”. Correspondent Aishah Hasnie had the story from the Hill and said both McKenzie and Milley “blast[ed] the Biden administration for the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.” “The generals telling lawmakers Afghanistan would not have collapsed if the White House had followed the Pentagon’s assessments to keep U.S. troops on the ground...They also blame the State Department for ordering an evacuation too late,” she added. She went onto have more sound from the hearing, including how most Democrats callously saw no reason to even participate in this, showing little regard for American life. She also touched on the presence of Gold Star families at the hearing (click “expand”): CONGRESSMAN MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX): And that [decision by the State Department] was too little too late. MILLEY: It was my judgment that it was far too little, far too late. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Blame Game; Democrats Say Failure Falls on Past Policy] HASNIE: The few Democrats who attended the hearing say the failure lies in 20 years of American policy, including that of former President Trump, and they wondered why the generals even showed up today. CONGRESSMAN GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): So, there’s not really anything new that was learned today because you’ve testified to it before. MILLEY: I’ll leave that to you all to determine. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Arrest Aftermath; Gold Star Father Still Facing Charges] HASNIE: Some loved ones of the 13 U.S. service members who died during the attack at Abbey Gate were also in the room like Steve Nikoui, who was arrested for shouting during President Biden State of the Union Address. [TO NIKOUI] Will those charges get dropped? STEVE NIKOUI, GOLD STAR FATHER: I have no idea. No, no charges got dropped. HASNIE [TO NIKOUI]: So, you’re still facing charges? NIKOUI: Yeah. HASNIE: Really? And nobody from the administration has tried to intervene or help? Thankfully, Wednesday morning brought news that charges would, in fact, be dropped against Nikoui. Instead of showing reverence for these fallen soldiers, Tuesday’s NBC Nightly News fretted the impending cutting down of a beloved cherry blossom tree in the Washington D.C. Tidal Basin due to seawall reconstruction (with climate change being blamed). And, on Wednesday’s CBS Mornings, the gang had not one but two segments with Lil Jon ahead of his meditation album.

CNN Labels Trump's 15-Week Abortion Proposal 'Very Callous'

Donald Trump is contemplating endorsing a 15-week abortion ban and Wednesday’s Inside Politics on CNN was eager to denounce it as extreme. In particular, senior political analyst Nia-Malika Henderson portrayed it and Trump’s language on the issue as “very cavalier” and “very callous.” Host Dana Bash hyped the idea that Democrats want Trump to endorse such a plan because they could use it against him “In states like Michigan, for example, where in 2022, the last election, they put a constitutional right to an abortion on the ballot and it won.”     She continued, “What you're going to see from Democrats in a swing state like that is 'oh, you know, you voted your, you each voted for this right, and now you're going to have a president if you elect Donald Trump, who is going to supersede that with a national law.' And they think, Democrats think that kind of fear will get people out to the polls.” Capitol Hill reporter Melanie Zanona began her response with a curious claim, “And Trump also is taking credit for overturning Roe v. Wade. So, he's had to try to have it both ways.” How so? The Mississippi law before the Supreme Court in Dobbs was a 15-week ban because such restrictions were not permissible under Roe or Casey. That error aside, Zanona echoed Bash’s sentiment about Democrats seeking to portray 15-weeks as extreme, “It's interesting though, because privately he has said, according to our colleagues, that he does not see abortion as a political winner. So, it's interesting to hear him now laying the groundwork for taking a stance, but you're so right Dana, no matter what he does, Democrats are going to try to seize on this issue and try to link all Republicans to a national federal abortion ban, which they believe is not going to play well for Republicans.” Of course, there is a difference between a “national federal abortion ban” and restricting abortion to 15 weeks, but Democrats are also probably betting that the media will help them obscure that difference. Henderson then jumped in to condemn Trump for his stance, “part of it is just the way he talks about abortion, right? I mean that it's this big deal when, you know, you get an abortion at 13 weeks, well maybe it's 14 weeks, I mean this is people's lives, right?” Dismissing any discussion about week limitations would make Henderson the radical, but she continued in her efforts to portray Trump as the cold-hearted extremist, “These are women. It's women's bodies. And they feel some kind of way about these politicians who are trying to enter into these very private, private decisions about whether or not they want to start a family or have a bigger family and so I think it's his language, it's very cavalier. It's very callous.” If thinking through how many weeks abortion should be permitted is “callous,” the logical end point is that there should be no limits at all, which the media is constantly telling us is a strawman. Here is a transcript for the March 20 show: CNN Inside Politics with Dana Bash 3/20/2024 12:12 PM ET DANA BASH: In states like Michigan, for example, where in 2022, the last election, they put a constitutional right to an abortion on the ballot and it won. So, it is now in Michigan law. What you're going to see from Democrats in a swing state like that is “oh, you know, you voted your, you each voted for this right, and now you're going to have a president if you elect Donald Trump, who is going to supersede that with a national law.” And they think, Democrats think that kind of fear will get people out to the polls.  MELANIE ZANONA: And Trump also is taking credit for overturning Roe v. Wade. So, he's had to try to have it both ways. It's interesting though, because privately he has said, according to our colleagues, that he does not see abortion as a political winner. So, it's interesting to hear him now laying the groundwork for taking a stance, but you're so right Dana, no matter what he does, Democrats are going to try to seize on this issue and try to link all Republicans to a national federal abortion ban, which they believe is not going to play well for Republicans. NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON: You know, and part of it is just the way he talks about abortion, right? I mean that it's this big deal when, you know, you get an abortion at 13 weeks, well maybe it's 14 weeks, I mean this is people's lives, right? These are women. It's women's bodies. And they feel some kind of way about these politicians who are trying to enter into these very private, private decisions about whether or not they want to start a family or have a bigger family and so I think it's his language, it's very cavalier. It's very callous. And no matter what he is still the architect of this mess of abortion policy that we have around the country at this point. 

Dan Bongino Cites ‘Devastating’ MRC Report to Warn Viewers of Google’s Election Interference

Syndicated radio host Dan Bongino had quite a bit to say about Big Tech behemoth Google, warning that the company presented a dire threat to the ability of voters to get access to true information.  Bongino wielded MRC Free Speech America’s latest groundbreaking report showing 41 instances of Google wielding its power to manipulate elections since 2008 to benefit left-wing candidates during the March 19 edition of The Dan Bongino Show.  Given the looming 2024 election in November, Bongino heavily emphasized that Google’s pattern of  attempts to control the narrative should be taken very seriously. Bongino called the MRC report “devastating.” “Folks, Google for the last ten plus years I would argue has been a swat team in the information war out there for the left controlling what you’re able to see online and what you’re able to process this information,”  Bongino argued. He highlighted Google’s “monopoly on search where they can hide the information they don’t like that threatens their preferred left-leaning, Communist-syle candidates that at least the left-leaning employees at Google want.”  One of the glaring instances Bongino highlighted of Google trying to put its thumb on the electoral scale involved leaked internal documents uncovered by then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The documents revealed Google was making a “silent donation” to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election by paying voter registration non-profit Voto Latino to mobilize Hispanic voters in key swing states by giving them free rides to the polls and developing ad campaigns promoting said rides.  Bongino also underscored the importance of algorithms to explain how Google was using biased search results to warp the minds of eligible voters. “You see how you can brainwash and manipulate people? You see how by ranking pages as ‘trash news’ when really a lot of these sites are truth-telling conservative sites makes people, you know, brainwashes people into seeing an information set that’s not complete.”  Bongino is right on target. Analysis provided by media solutions company AllSides demonstrated how Google News specifically — supporting Bongino’s point — had become notorious for overwhelmingly promoting news from left-leaning sources over right-leaning ones for years. In its latest study, AllSides monitored Google News' homepage over a two-week period in 2023 and revealed that a whopping 63 percent of 494 articles came from sources “on the left.” By contrast, only a negligible six percent came from sources “on the right.” AllSides also analyzed stories generated through Google News’s search results based on specific prompts like “Economy” and “Abortion,” which likewise produced heavily skewed results favoring the left. MRC Free Speech America has repeatedly shown how Google has been using its search algorithm to suppress opponents of President Joe Biden in the days leading up to the 2024 election.  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.  

WATCH: Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary Praises Business Climate in Red States

Where is the American Dream still alive despite President Joe Biden’s decrepit economy? According to Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary, aka “Mr. Wonderful,” those seeking opportunity should look to several dynamic red states.  O’Leary responded to a segment of Americans discussing the American Dream and the struggling American economy under Joe Biden during the March 18 edition of The Story With Martha MacCallum. When Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum suggested that O’Leary believed the American Dream was alive in “certain parts of the country” and certain states, O’Leary heaped praise on several red states. “I think you have to look at the governor of each state setting the tone. They are the CEO of the state, the senators are important, but the governors are the CEO of the state so they set the policy up. So the states I'm doing business in now, Montana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, West Virginia; they have very stable policy.”  O’Leary made clear that the way red state governors were running their respective states had a positive impact on the investment climate. “We used to fly over them and I didn't do anything there. I'm closing all kinds of deals right now in North Dakota with remarkable companies that I'd never even seen before,” O’Leary said. He pointed out some of the qualities that made these states good for business courtesy of their governors: “Really strong work ethic, really, really focusing on building business outside of the state and by doing this I bring in other capital from outside as well, and tell the story. That’s [Governor] Doug Burgum’s state and [Governor] Kevin Stitt in Oklahoma. I mean these men care about the state.” All four of these states are run by Republican governors. This is not the first time that O’Leary has drawn this distinction. O’Leary has sharply contrasted pro-business red states with out-of-control blue states such as New York and California on Fox News before. He has also sat down recently with Governor Jim Justice (R-WV) and Governor Stitt recently to discuss investing in their states, while also traveling to South Dakota.  Governor Stitt responded to O’Leary’s praise in a post on X, writing, “Kevin O’Leary gets it. Oklahoma is the most business-friendly state in the nation.” Kevin O’Leary gets it. Oklahoma is the most business friendly state in the nation. pic.twitter.com/mdRud3OcYl — Governor Kevin Stitt (@GovStitt) March 18, 2024 Conservatives are under attack. Contact ABC News at (818) 460-7477, CBS News at (212) 975-3247 and NBC News at (212) 664-6192 and demand they tell the truth about the Bidenomics disaster

MRC President Brent Bozell Challenges Google to Disprove Election Interference Activity

MRC President Brent Bozell responded to Google’s weak attempt to save face amid the release of a Media Research Center bombshell showing that the tech giant has interfered in U.S. elections a staggering 41 times since 2008. In a Tuesday interview with WMAL-FM host Larry O’Connor, Bozell challenged Google to debunk where MRC Free Speech America showed how the tech giant exerted its power to help the most left-wing candidates. “Mr. and Mrs. Google out there, I challenge you to debunk a single one of the 41 examples we came up with — just one!” Bozell told O’Connor about the impact Google had on elections in each example listed in the MRC study. “I’ll buy you lunch or I’ll buy stock.” Bombshell: 41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008 Bozell’s response came after Google chastised MRC, albeit unsuccessfully, for its findings, asserting that the information presented was “nothing new” and a “recycled list of baseless, inaccurate complaints that have been debunked by third parties.”  Despite its assertions, Google has not disproved the report’s finding. “The fact of the matter is that they can’t because the evidence is there,” Bozell added. “They’re doing it repeatedly.” You May Also Like! Google Denies, But Fails to Disprove Breadth of Election Interference in MRC Exposé The implications of the MRC report are harrowing, Bozell implied during the interview. He cited a poll showing roughly five or six percent of Americans determine who they vote for based on Google searches.  As unveiled by MRC Free Speech America in several studies, Google has been caught burying the campaign sites of Republican candidates off of the first page of search results.  “Why is that important?” Bozell asked rhetorically. “Because less than one percent of the public ever goes to page two—and that, folks, is being done deliberately.”  Later in the interview, Bozell highlighted the admission from Jenn Gennai, the director of Google’s Responsible Innovation Team, who told Project Veritas in 2019 that the tech giant had the power to prevent “the next Trump situation.” She later said, “If not us, then who.” 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.

MTG EXPOSES Baby Organ Harvesting In Abortion Industry: Selling Livers, Ripping off Legs, & Lies

Representative Marjorie Taylor Green (MTG) held a hearing on the investigation of the black market of baby organ harvesting on Tuesday. MTG (R-Ga.) along with witnesses David Daleiden from The Center for Medical Progress and Progressive Anti-Aboriton Uprising founder Terrisa Bukovinac, talked about the “D.C. Five” as well as how pro-abortionists harvest and sell organs of aborted babies. The hearing was a heartbreaking look into what the reality of abortion is. As MTG noted at one point, Planned Parenthood’s ads are almost always phrased with things like “we take care” of "women in crisis,” this is to “help” women etc. Yet,  that 's not the truth “when we get behind closed doors” MTG said. “You have uncovered what the real truth is," MTG said to Daleiden who’s uncovered many of the horrors of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry, “The real truth is it’s all for profit off of harvesting the organs and body parts of these unwanted babies, these unwanted human beings, and that’s the real truth.”    Daleiden talked about the baby scalping experiment at the University of Pittsburgh. The school was taking scalps of aborted babies (many who likely would have lived if given the chance) and transplanting them to the backs of rodents in an attempt to grow hair on the backs of the animals. Daleiden also discussed his controversial undercover work. He claims when he spoke with Planned Parenthood staff, abortionists confessed that they partake in baby harvesting. They admitted that with enough financial incentive, they’d be happy to skirt around any laws or rules in order to harvest and sell baby organs.  He heard about one aborted baby who was five-months old gestationally, whose liver was sold for $17,000 to a “taxpayer funded laboratory.” The Chief Medical Officer and VP of abortion access of a Planned Parenthood location in Texas insisted that they’d like to set up a contract to sell aborted babies. They admitted that they often break babies apart right before pulling them out of the woman’s body so that they die before they pull them all the way out, not after, and that they try to keep the torso in tact so that they “get a good sample” of the baby’s body to sell.   “Did I just hear her say that if she can get a leg or if she can dismember the baby in any way possible, then she’s past the federal law?” MTG asked before saying “So if she can pop off a leg, it’s no longer illegal?” Daleiden noted that “Justice has not been done,” regarding the people in these videos but instead he’s been charged 25,000,000 in legal fees and even had his apartment raided in an attempt to get these videos away from Daleiden and hidden from the public.  One more video clip that was played during the hearing was the sound of cheering, laughing and applause when a late term abortionist confessed that one time, a baby’s eyeball fell into an abortionist’s lap when she was trying to kill the child. This story was told at a pro-abort conference where 200-300 late term abortion doctors laughed and applauded at the idea of a baby’s eyeball falling onto a doctor's lap during his abortion. The line of questioning for Bukovinac surrounded the “DC Five” babies that were discovered by her and her friend Lauren Handy as well as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Back in 2022 the bodies of five preemie babies as well as the parts of 115 aborted babies were discovered before heading to their set destination, the Curtis Bay Medical Waste Services in Baltimore, Maryland to be incinerated and used as renewable energy. They were found outside the Washington Surgi Clinic in Foggy Bottom, D.C., led by Cesari Santangelo, an active third-trimester abortion advocate and performer.     Bukovinac played a video of a baby boy that they found in the bucket that was going to be incinerated. It showed Handy taking the child out of solution and audibly weeping over the heartbreaking reality of what happened. The two, after noticing that the baby boy didn’t have any visible wounds to him, was likely born alive and then “placed in the solution that we found him in.” Experts believe the baby boy was roughly 33-weeks gestation at the time he was killed. “There aren’t words to describe that video,” MTG confessed. “What we just saw in the video is not tissue or a clump of cells as so many women tragically believe when they go to have an abortion.” Bukovainac also talked about the harms of the FACE act and how it targets pro-lifers. Handy is currently in jail and set to be sentenced in May. She faces up to 11-years in federal prison for trying to encourage women to not kill their babies. Handy, according to MTG, did not violate the FACE Act and needs to be freed. Planned Parenthood, our government, and our justice system have shown, as evidenced by this hearing, that they do not care about women. They care about making money. Most specifically, they care about taking taxpayer money and using it for the brutal murder of innocent babies and making profit off of their tiny baby body parts.  This should break your heart. Towards the end of the hearing, MTG expressed the importance of sharing these stories, these facts and these truths of the abortion industry to expose it for what it is: evil. “This is genocide. This is something we all need to oppose,” Bukovainac noted. “There’s so many options, and there’s so many resources, and there’s so many people willing to help,” MTG said, “the opportunities are endless when women choose life’’ before thanking the witnesses for their bravery for speaking up and being so courageous in this fight.  “There should be no baby slaughtered in their mother’s womb, or partially born and slaughtered, barbarically, for their body parts to be sold,” MTG said. “I can’t imagine any American disagreeing with that.”  

CBS's 'FBI' Portrays an Illegal Alien Dad Desperate to Save His Daughter

Network television regularly portrays illegal aliens as sympathetic characters. Last night's episode of CBS' FBI did exactly that. In the episode, "Sacrifice," the FBI is called in on a kidnapping case. The victim is Matthew Sawyer (Christian Conn), director of a New York City shelter housing "migrants."  "Migrants" is deceptive left-wing code for illegal aliens. The mayor's office called the FBI because the "migrant thing's a hot button issue for them." Footage of the overcrowded shelter had been leaked to the press, embarrassing the mayor, so cameras outside the shelter were disabled. Virtue-signaling as a sanctuary city has its costs.  The FBI's first suspect in the case is a white veteran named James Dunn (Quinn M. Johnson). Dunn stalked Sawyer. FBI analyst Kelly Moran (Taylor Anthony Miller) gives lead agent Jubal Valentine (Jeremy Sisto) a summary of Dunn's profile. The dialogue is a left-wing fanfiction caricature of open border opponents. Valentine: Kelly, what are you reading? You think this guy is a viable threat? Moran: Based on his hate-filled social media posts, I'd say yes. Over 100 in the past two weeks. Most about immigration being the left's way of destroying white America.  Agents Stuart Scola (John Boyd) and Tiffany Wallace (Katherine Renee Kane) bring Dunn in for interrogation and discover that his girlfriend was robbed and killed by illegals two months earlier. Wallace: We've seen your social media posts. Scola: You specifically said he must pay for what he's done. Dunn: He should. Everyone associated with the problem should. They're the reason my girlfriend's dead. Scola: How's that? Dunn: She was robbed and shot by illegals a couple months ago. They were staying at the migrant center. Wallace: So, you abducted Sawyer as revenge? Dunn: No. No, I wouldn't waste my time on that clueless bastard. Scola: You just stalk him for months. Dunn: He doesn't deserve to live in peace. He--I want him looking over his shoulder at all times. But I'm not a killer. And I'm done talking. I want a lawyer.  The episode at least gets a point for acknowledging violent illegal alien crime, if only for a few seconds of dialogue.  Dunn has an alibi and is soon crossed off the list of suspects. The kidnapper is instead one of the shelter's "migrants," a man named Hector Ramirez (Nick Gomez). Ramirez is holding the shelter director and his wife hostage in their suburban home. Despite being a hostage-taker, his character is ultimately shown in a heart-wrenching, pitying light. It turns out Ramirez is desperate to save his beloved 13-year-old daughter. She was kidnapped from the shelter by a man who looks similar to Sawyer. Ramirez filed a missing person's report, but nobody cared. He wants law enforcement to find his girl. The FBI investigates and quickly learns that a white American linen worker with a long rap sheet of child predation took Ramirez' daughter from the shelter. We also learn that Ramirez was a police officer in Mexico, and his wife was beheaded because he fought the cartels. The writers created an illegal alien character who fought the very cartels that illegally smuggle people over the U.S. border. Illegal alien children are also regularly sex trafficked by said cartels and their enablers, but this episode ignores the larger forces involved in trafficking.  When Ramirez learns that Sawyer is not involved, he releases the director and his wife in exchange for an agent, Maggie Bell (Missy Peregrym), and holds her until the Bureau finds his daughter. While waiting for his daughter's rescue, Ramirez tells Bell that he came to America to protect his child. Ramirez: That's why we come here to America. It's for her. It's for her future. I can't lose her. [Crying] I can't. Bell: Okay, we're so close to finding her. Ramirez: Yeah, that's what I would say. I've worked sex trafficking cases. You either find the girl right away or-- [sobbing]  Criminals sex offenders crossing over our wide open border is one of the most disturbing consequences of unvetted illegals. This episode turns that problem on its head -- the illegal immigrant is instead a former cop who fought sex offenders.  Television procedurals almost never use true stories of sex criminals illegally entering the U.S as a plot device. Such horrors go against the open borders narrative and must be suppressed. The show ends with agents shooting the pedophile and safely rescuing Ramirez' daughter. The audience naturally feels pity for Ramirez and hopes he and his daughter will be reunited. The episode dutifully follows Hollywood television rules on illegal immigration: an illegal must be a sympathetic character whose situation tugs at your heart strings and the villains must be American white guys. In trying to manipulate an audience, FBI checked all the left-wing boxes this week. 

Reid: Trump Is 'Useful Scary Clown' For Racist, Sexist, Tax-Haters

MSNBC’s Joy Reid brought out all the usual pejoratives on Tuesday’s edition of The ReidOut as she sought to explain why anyone would support Donald Trump. Reid came to the conclusion that it has to be because they are a racist, sexist, tax-hating rich guys who claim to be a Christians while longing for the days when there were no child labor laws, and Trump is simply their “useful scary clown.” After playing a clip of Trump’s “bloodbath” remarks where he was clearly talking about trade policy, Reid tried to make herself sound smart by using some Latin, “As dangerous and clearly deranged as Trump is, we have to start asking not just what's wrong with a society that produces so much support for this chaos theater, but also who is it that so badly wants Trump to be president, not just at the bottom, but at the top. There's a term in Latin, cui bono, it means ‘who benefits?’”     As Reid tells it, sure, there are those “angry masses who want to luxuriate in the punishment of migrants, women, trans kids, and black collegians,” but “the real beneficiaries would be the ones the late, great comedian George Carlin called the owners of the country, men of great wealth.” These men allegedly “have long sought to return to a time where people like them didn't pay income taxes or face regulation over their businesses and didn't have to worry about labor unions, workers’ rights, or competitions from women or blacks. They could employ child labor or work their employees way past a 40-hour work week and reap unlimited profits and leave vast estates to their heirs tax free.” Lumping in opposition to the estate tax with racism, sexism, child labor laws, or 40-hour work weeks is logically absurd, and no amount of Latin can change that.  Unfortunately, Reid was not done, “They could call themselves good Christians and never think twice about dirty words like diversity, history, accountability, or equity. These are the men behind organizations like Project 2025, the Claremont Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and whatever Leonard Leo is up to at any given time. Trump, in many ways, is just their useful scary clown.” If anybody knows anything about being a useful clown, it is Joy Reid. Here is a transcript for the March 19 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 3/19/2024 7:43 PM ET  JOY REID: As dangerous and clearly deranged as Trump is, we have to start asking not just what's wrong with a society that produces so much support for this chaos theater, but also who is it that so badly wants Trump to be president, not just at the bottom, but at the top. There's a term in Latin, cui bono, it means “who benefits?” Because beyond the angry masses who want to luxuriate in the punishment of migrants, women, trans kids, and black collegians, the real beneficiaries would be the ones the late, great comedian George Carlin called the owners of the country, men of great wealth, who have long sought to return to a time where people like them didn't pay income taxes or face regulation over their businesses and didn't have to worry about labor unions, workers’ rights, or competitions from women or blacks. They could employ child labor or work their employees way past a 40-hour work week and reap unlimited profits and leave vast estates to their heirs tax free.  They could call themselves good Christians and never think twice about dirty words like diversity, history, accountability, or equity. These are the men behind organizations like Project 2025, the Claremont Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and whatever Leonard Leo is up to at any given time. Trump, in many ways, is just their useful scary clown. 

MRC’s Stephanie Hamill Weighs In On MRC Google Election Interference Exposé On Fox

MRC contributing writer Stephanie Hamill was a guest on Tuesday’s Fox News at Night with host Trace Gallagher to weigh in on MRC Free Speech America’s latest study exposing Google’s election interference efforts over the last 16 years.  MRC researchers found 41 examples revealing Google’s election interference efforts starting in 2008 to present day, benefiting the most liberal candidates.  Hamill: It's incredible how it always seems to work one way, which is usually favoring the left. It never seems to favor Republicans, or Republican candidates –– although you did note that there were instances where it appeared Google was actually favoring the most liberal of the candidates and I found that point to be very intriguing. In 2008, Google was allegedly boosting Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. You have to wonder if that had played a role in helping him get over the finish line. You know, this is tremendously important to the American people because so many people trust Google. They are unsuspecting, assuming they are just getting information, not realizing that there are powerful people behind the algorithm, 'Google overlords' who are potentially trying to influence the way you think and vote.  She also reacted to the media's latest Trump 'bloodbath' hoax.  

Column: CNN's Darcy Rips Elon Musk, Sinking Into the 'Right-Wing Fever Swamps'

Everything CNN does now underlines how Chris Licht's doomed attempts to calm it down are almost completely forgotten. On September 18, Oliver Darcy's "Reliable Sources" newsletter was topped by the headline "Elon's Reality Escape." Because CNN defines what "reality" is, and "reality" has a virulent leftist bias. That bias makes you "Reliable."  Darcy's screed began: "Elon Musk is showing the world how radicalized he has become. The billionaire, one of the most consequential figures to walk the Earth, spent another weekend swimming in the right-wing fever swamps of X." The occasion was Don Lemon's arrogant and ignorant interview of Musk, which caused Musk to pull his funding of Lemon's program. Lemon made all kinds of strange demands of Musk, especially his demand to have some control of the platform's "content moderation" policies.  "He's not used to having to answer to anyone," Lemon said in a Q&A with People magazine after his self-destructive debacle, "especially someone like me who doesn't share his worldview, who doesn't look like him." Darcy lamented: "Musk appears to be growing more intolerant of other viewpoints. While elevating right-wing extremists, he simultaneously seeks to destroy trust in credible news sources." This is rich, since Darcy is intolerant of the "right-wing extremist" viewpoints and has openly advocated deplatforming Fox News and other conservative networks. CNN's opinions aren't opinions, they're "facts." Conservative opinions are "misinformation" and "hate speech."  Therefore, Darcy expressed horror that in his Lemon interview, "Musk equated moderating dangerous and appalling hate speech to 'censorship'." But what is "appalling hate speech"? In his next clause, Darcy complained Musk "bashed the press for legitimate reporting." Was this like CNN reporting breathlessly that Donald Trump was elected by colluding with the Russian government? Did that turn out to be "legitimate"? The horrors kept coming. Musk agreed with a user who wrote "Fake News is the Enemy of the People," said the press is "basically the Biden cheering squad," accused the news media of "lying" about Trump's "bloodbath" comments, called NPR a "nice version of Pravda," and "alleged Google "manipulate[s] their search results with left-wing bias." That certainly does sound like the conservative critique, even if we won't describe pro-Biden news outlets as "enemies of the people." Is Darcy not suggesting conservatives are enemies of all that is good?  In the midst of a cascade of purple prose, Darcy concluded: "At this juncture, calling Musk a right-wing s**tposter is no longer provocative. It's simply accurate." Musk is simply too powerful to be a conservative malcontent: "In his ownership of X alone, Musk controls one of the world's most important communications platforms, spitting corrosive venom into the public discourse at a faster speed than his SpaceX rockets hurtle into orbit." Conservatism equals "corrosive venom." Darcy found only a sad decline into madness: "In effect, Musk has become self-radicalized on the very website that he was forced to purchase for $44 billion, sliding deeper into the darkest and most unsavory corners of the platform that has served to only reinforce his own worldview with an echo chamber of conspiracy theorists and ego-stoking sycophants that regularly fawn at his every move no matter how outrageous or preposterously false." When his rant was ended, he turned to Kara Swisher for support on "Elon's X-tremism." She wrote: "My takeaway is that he has devolved into a very ill-informed thinker on a number of complex topics." When you think a conservative critique of liberal media is "ill-informed," you're suggesting that reliable "information" is liberal information and "misinformation" is conservatives trying to ruin routinely flawless liberal information. Who sounds "intolerant of other viewpoints"?

The Media Are Planting Narrative Ahead Of SCOTUS Abortion Pill Hearing

There will soon be another high-stakes Supreme Court hearing on abortion and the media have already chosen the narrative terrain on which they wish to engage the matter, framing the argument as over access to abortion pills. The most succinct version of this frame comes via Norah O’Donnell on the CBS Evening News:  NORAH O’DONNELL: The number of abortions in the U.S. topped 1 million last year for the first time in over a decade. More than 60% were medication abortions, using a 2-pill regimen to terminate early pregnancies. The increase is despite the 2022 Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade that allowed 13 states to ban abortion with few exceptions, forcing many women to travel out of state. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next week, in a case that puts access to one of those medications used in abortions at stake.  Short and sweet: the report faithfully cited the Guttmacher Institute statistics on medication abortions, noted the increase in abortions despite the historic Dobbs opinion, and laid the “stakes” framework for the Supreme Court hearing on Mifepristone. ABC World News Tonight avoided the subject matter for now, but expect a report soon.  NBC Nightly News delivered the same information as CBS did, but with more flourish. Correspondent Dasha Burns went to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Miami, where the friendly neighborhood abortion doctor touted the convenience of pill abortions. She then found a convenience testimonial from a podcaster. Burns then got the pro-life attorney to preview some of his Supreme Court strategy before making the dramatic “stakes” argument: The high court now holding the future of this in-demand drug in its hands. The convenience testimonials were sprinkled with the same Guttmacher Institute statistics cited by CBS’s O’Donnell, which seem to have made the rounds.  Both reports framed the issue as one of access and convenience. But that’s not what is at issue before the Supreme Court.  As Vivek Ramaswamy explained during his December town hall with CNN’s Abby Phillip, the Mifepristone hearing is about administrative law and a runaway bureaucracy that appears to have rushed to allow Mifepristone to be dispensed via mail. Watch as Ramaswama resists Phillip’s attempts at steering the debate away from administrative law and towards “ban” language (click “expand”): ABBY PHILLIP: Let me ask you about a little bit of news. The Supreme Court announced that it would hear a case this term that could potentially restrict access nationwide to a widely used abortion drug called Mifepristone. You oppose abortion, but: do you believe that the court should limit the distribution of this drug nationwide?  VIVEK RAMASWAMY: So I think this is a question -- it's the job of the Supreme Court- who would’ve ever thought-  to judge the law. This is a case about administrative law, actually. This is less about the abortion question and it's more about, did the FDA exceed the scope of its statutory authority when it approved Mifepristone on an emergency basis? And these emergency approvals are generally reserved for life saving therapies that need to be brought to market quickly. So this is a symptom, Abby, of what's going on in the administrative state. The people who we elect to run the government, they’re not even the ones who actually run the government right now. It's the bureaucrats in those three-letter agencies that are pulling the strings today. So the most important Supreme Court case of our lifetime- and I want people to understand this- came out last term. It's West Virginia versus EPA. That said, if Congress did not expressly give an agency the right to write a regulation, then that's unconstitutional. And so it is my opinion -- it’s the Supreme Court’s that’ll matter but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court will come down where I am on this. That the FDA exceeded its statutory authority in using an emergency approval to approve something that doesn't fit Congress’ criteria for what actually counts as an emergency approval. So, yes, I hope they follow the law. I hope that's where they come down. And if the people of this country disagree with that, we have a mechanism for that. It’s called the democratic process. Do it through the front door of Congress.  (APPLAUSE) And there's one thing I’m going to do as the next president: it’s to shut down that fourth branch of government, rescind those unconstitutional federal regulations that Congress never actually passed. And yes, lay off 75% of the federal employee headcount. That’s the answer. PHILLIP: I want to get to our question, but just before we do that, just so that everyone is clear, you do believe that the Supreme Court should ban mifepristone?  RAMASWAMY: I believe that the Supreme Court should put the FDA back in its place. That’s- that’s the… PHILIP: As it relates to… RAMASWAMY: …question that’s before the Court. PHILLIP: But as it relates to this question --  RAMASWAMY: So I believe they should rule on the law.  PHILLIP: As it relates to this particular drug… RAMASWAMY: And as it relates to this particular drug… PHILLIP: Do you believe that will ultimately result in Mifepristone being banned nationwide? And that’s the correct ruling? RAMASWAMY: I believe it will result in Mifepristone being taken off the market until they go through the process that’s ordained for every other drug that doesn’t go through emergency approval.  PHILLIP: Okay. RAMASWAMY: The FDA should follow the law if the rest of us do, too. It’s a simple thing to ask. Keep this exchange in mind as the regime media ramp up their abortion advocacy ahead of another pivotal Supreme Court hearing. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on NBC Nightly News on Tuesday, March 18th, 2024: LESTER HOLT: We're back now with the battle over the abortion pill. A new study revealing use of the pill has soared since Roe v. Wade was overturned, just as the Supreme Court prepares to hear another case that could limit access to it. Here’s Dasha Burns. DASHA BURNS: Tonight, new data revealing there were more than a million abortions in the U.S. last year, the highest number in more than a decade. A big part of that: medication abortion. Research from the Guttmacher Institute shows they accounted for 63% of abortions in 2023, up 10% from 2020. Dr. Charisse Felix has witnessed this first hand at this Planned Parenthood clinic in Miami. CHARISSE FELIX: You're able to schedule that around your job, around other family obligations, and then there is also the whole added benefit of it not being an- you know, an invasive procedure. BURNS: The FDA has approved the drug for use at up to ten weeks of pregnancy. And under current rules, allows for providers to prescribe it via telehealth and send it to patients in the mail. That's exactly how CEO and podcast host Erin Gallagher was able to access the abortion pill. ERIN GALLAGHER: It arrived in my mailbox, and from there it was up to me to decide when and if I wanted to take it. And as I made the decision to do it, it removes so many barriers.  BURNS: But all that could soon change because of a case before the Supreme Court that could restrict the mailing of abortion pills, require that the drug be provided in-person at a doctor's office, and limit its use up to seven weeks' of pregnancy. FELIX: Most of our patients are finding out that they're pregnant around seven or eight weeks.  BURNS: The group behind the lawsuit, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine which is against abortion rights, believes the FDA exceeded its authority when it made the drug more accessible.  What do you intend to argue before the Supreme Court next week? ERIK BAPTIST: We're going to explain to the Court, and show how the FDA has unlawfully and recklessly removed commonsense safeguards for women and girls who take abortion drugs. And in particular, we're going to highlight the dangerous nature of what the FDA did in 2021 to authorize mail order chemical abortion without any medical intervention or screening. BURNS: In court filings, the government states this drug has been deemed safe and effective since 2000, and says the FDA updated the drug's approval as decades of experience have further confirmed the drug’s safety. The high court now holding the future of this in-demand drug in its hands. Dasha Burns, NBC News, Miami, Florida.  

NPR Owns the Pro-Lifers: Suck It, Study Finds Abortions in America Are UP!

The Supreme Court’s repeal of the Roe v. Wade decision in 2022 was greeted as a calamity by people who champion the right to abortions, which certainly includes the national media. But now National Public Radio found some happy news: the number of abortions in America is up! That’s according to the Guttmacher Institute, a former Planned Parenthood project that now describes itself as a “global action-oriented think tank dedicated to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights.” That makes them automatically reliable to the press, although pro-life advocates will also use their data to make their points (since it’s already treated as the primary source). On Tuesday's Morning Edition, NPR’s feminist journalist Selena Simmons-Duffin filed a perfect press release for the pro-abortion forces. There was no pro-life dissent allowed. Inside their taxpayer-funded liberal bubble, NPR believes conservative arguments are overwhelmingly “bad faith” arguments that make America worse.  Guttmacher scientist Isaac Maddow-Zimet told NPR they estimate there were 1,026,700 abortions in 2023. By their measurement, that's the highest number in over a decade, and the first time there have been over a million abortions provided in the U.S. formal health care system since 2012 Taking pills to kill the babies is all the rage. The Guttmacher report also found that “medication abortions” rose to 63 percent of all abortions in 2023, up from 53 percent in 2020. There’s no praying protesters to face in your mailbox. Abortion pills procured through “tele-medicine” appointments over the internet are up, but there’s also an increase in “medication abortions” at “brick and mortar” clinics as well. Dr. Anitra Beasley of Baylor – who didn’t take part in the study, but is a donor to Democrats in Texas, including Robert “Beto” O’Rourke – told NPR "This is probably an undercount because they are not looking at abortions that happen outside of the formal health care system," like getting abortion pills from a friend, or acquiring them from Mexico. Stealthy abortions evade the statisticians. The pro-life side was briefly mentioned, since “anti-abortion rights plaintiffs” will argue at the Supreme Court that the Food and Drug Administration incorrectly decided to “simplify access” to mifepristone, one of two drugs in the pharmaceutical abortion cocktail. Maddow-Zimet underlined the abortion lobby’s preference for describing murders as “care.” The Court could “create potentially more of that confusion and difficulty for people both providing care and needing to access care." The baby isn’t accessing “care” in an abortion.  

‘Smooth Clay’ Brain: MSNBC Claims Trump to Deport All Non-White People

During Monday’s The ReidOut, MSNBC host Joy Reid fear-mongered her audience by distorting practically everything former President Donald Trump said during his infamous “bloodbath” speech. In addition to spewing the “bloodbath” hoax, she also spun lies about his proposed immigration and deportation policies, suggesting he was just going to deport any brown or black person they came across in the street. She said all this while unironically mocking Trump for supposedly having a brain made of “smooth clay.” Initially, Reid acknowledged that it would be “useless speculation” to assume Trump’s dramatic rant was about him spilling real blood. However, she suddenly contradicted herself, arguing that “since he is actually being prosecuted at the state level and at the federal level for fomenting an actual insurrection that caused a lot of blood,” he might now mean it literally, despite the fact he was talking about combating China’s undercutting of the automotive industry.     Her infuriation at Trump the “maniac” was furthered by his promise in the speech to “begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” Trump’s allusion to Eisenhower’s deportation project in his presidency catapulted Reid into a frenzy about how this meant Trump was going to roundup “anyone who looks like an undocumented migrant.” She insinuated that groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers would be “deputize[d]” to “spot suspicious looking brown people.” She then warned all Hispanic people to watch out for this day, cautioning “if you are, or look, Hispanic, heads up even if you are a citizen and even Latin MAGA.” To further her “all brown people will be locked up” point, she cautioned Proud Boys leader, Enrique Tarrio, to watch out for Trump, even though he’s a U.S. citizen. “Enrique Tarrio, if I were you, I’d be doubly careful so you don't wind up back where you started and then also deported,” she said. Reid continued her incitement of fear about Trump by framing his plan to send the military to “blue cities” as a sort of tyrannical abuse of police power. However, she purposefully omitted the fact that many illegals reside in those cities and some were currently engaged in criminal activity. “Trump's minions, like Stephen Miller, are gleefully bragging that Trump will unleash the U.S. military in blue cities like Philadelphia, New York, and Chicago,” she warned. Trump’s plan to send the military into these cities to deport illegal immigrants wasn’t Reid’s only shocking discovery. She was also appalled to learn that U.S. citizens who don’t live near the border might actually be concerned about illegal immigrants. It’s almost as if there were illegals who live away from the border. Her distortion of Trump’s border plan also spread to her coverage of Trump’s unlikely plan to imprison college students who actively support the terrorist organization, Hamas. Reid instead claimed that Trump was planning to “round up and deport anyone who has participated in protests against Israel's siege of Gaza,” when it was actually about canceling the visas of foreign students who were supporting the terrorist group Hamas. While peddling her distorted stories, Reid dared to call Trump a “mad man, whose brain is clearly addled and little more than a ball of smooth clay at this stage of its deterioration.” Reid should probably be careful calling anyone smooth-brained when she admitted on live television that she thinks Trump was going to round up all the brown people. As her mangled interpretation of Trump’s speech finally came to a close, Reid claimed “Trump has added to his previous Nazism’s about vermin and poisoning the blood of the country, the idea that black and brown migrants are not even people.” Except, Trump was not referring to all “black and brown migrants,” he was referring to the gang members of MS-13. I would do the same thing, if I had prisons that were teeming with MS-13 and all sorts of people that they’ve got to take care of for the next 50 years…if you call them people. I don't know if you call them people. In some cases, they're not people, in my opinion…These are bad, these are animals.  Which, of course, was part of her continuation of downplaying the danger of the gang. The full transcript can be read here:  MSNBC: The ReidOut 3/18/2024 7:03:46-7:07:32 (clip of Donald Trump speech) DONALD TRUMP: We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line. And you're not going to be able to sell those. If I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath. That's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they're not going to sell those cars. [Transition] If this election isn't won, I'm not sure you'll ever have another election in this country. JOY REID: Which led to a weekend of useless speculation about whether he actually meant real blood, which is kind of beside the point at this point, since he is actually being prosecuted at the state level and at the federal level for fomenting an actual insurrection that caused a lot of blood. That actually caused the deaths of at least five people. There was at least one person who testified, a police officer, that she was literally slipping in pools of blood on January 6th. So the question of whether he meant actual blood seems a bit besides the point at this point. But what's much more important is what this maniac is actually vowing to do if elected again. (cut to Donald Trump speech) DONALD TRUMP: On day one, my administration will terminate every open border policy of the Biden administration. We will begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. Larger than that, by far, of Dwight Eisenhower. You know, Eisenhower had a similar problem, but peanuts by comparison. (cut back) REID: What he isn't telling you is Eisenhower's plan was actually labeled with the iconically racist term “Operation Wetback.” It actually led to a lot of human rights abuses and actual deaths. And that is what Trump is promising us in 2025. A mass round-up targeting anyone who looks like an undocumented migrant, and Trump's minions, like Stephen Miller, are gleefully bragging that Trump will unleash the U.S. military in blue cities like Philadelphia, New York, and Chicago. Or maybe he'll get creative and use the Insurrection Act to deputize his gang affiliates and the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Boogaloo Bois, and the three-percenters. Stand back and stand by. Am I right? I mean, who better to spot suspicious looking brown people. So, if you are, or look, Hispanic, heads up even if you are a citizen and even Latin MAGA. Enrique Tarrio, if I were you, I’d be doubly careful so you don't wind up back where you started and then also deported. Trump is also threatening to round up and deport anyone who has participated in protests against Israel's siege of Gaza, which is something to note. And this mad man, whose brain is clearly addled and little more than a ball of smooth clay at this stage of its deterioration, makes these promises to feed chum to a base that has been drilled by right-wing media to now care more about stopping migrants, even if they themselves live thousands of miles from the southern border, than about the economy or inflation or literally anything else, according to Gallup. We are literally becoming Hungary. And to continue to entertain his super fans and keep their blood pressure sufficiently high, that they'll run to the polls on the single day of voting that he has decreed in November. Trump has added to his previous Nazism’s about vermin and poisoning the blood of the country, the idea that black and brown migrants are not even people.  (cut to Donald Trump speech) TRUMP: I would do the same thing, if I had prisons that were teeming with MS-13 and all sorts of people that they’ve got to take care of for the next 50 years. Right? Young people, they're in jail for years, if you call them people. I don't know if you call them people. In some cases, they're not people, in my opinion. [transition] These are bad, these are animals…[Clips cut off].

Soros-Funded Brennan Center’s Dystopian Take on Free Speech Case Bastardized Its Namesake

Imagine a radical law organization financed by George Soros lurching so far to the left on the free speech issue that it ends up bastardizing the very philosophy of the liberal U.S. Supreme Court associate justice it's named after. Enter the Brennan Center for Justice. The Brennan Center — which has espoused insane ideas like abolishing the Electoral College because of its so-called “racist origins” and defunding the police — published a nutty take on the ongoing case Murthy v. Missouri, currently before the Supreme Court. The case involves the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana suing the Biden administration for colluding with Big Tech companies to censor free speech. “Supreme Court Case Could Be Disastrous for Detecting Election Misinformation,” read the Brennan Center’s headline, shilling for the government forces seeking to erect a dystopian speech control cabal with Silicon Valley. Tellingly, Soros funneled at least $4,800,000 into the Brennan Center’s coffers between 2016 and 2021 alone. The Brennan Center panned the lawsuit seeking to halt the back-channel collusion between federal entities and Big Tech platforms as part of a “larger legal and political effort to silence those working to detect or counter election rumors and falsehoods.” [Emphasis added.] Yes, the Soros-funded organization attempted to make it seem like the federal government — not the American public — was the victim of censorship in this case; never mind how the Biden administration has already been repeatedly exposed for targeting Christians and conservatives who don’t toe the line on approved left-wing talking points.  The organization ended up saying the quiet part out loud by specifically advocating for the federal government to focus its efforts on “domestic” speech on elections — meaning by American citizens — in addition to foreign “interference operations,” because voters could potentially be too stupid to tell fact from fiction on their own: The United States needs to be on alert and ready to protect the 2024 election against foreign interference and domestic election falsehoods — both of which can confuse voters or contribute to threats and harassment of election officials,” [emphasis added]. The Brennan Center bemoaned how the initial lawsuit has effectively “stood in the way” of the Orwellian goals of the leftist speech police. Uh, good? “[F]ederal agencies and others with expert knowledge should be sharing relevant information with social media companies for them to use as they apply and update their policies on how to handle falsehoods,” the Soros-funded group continued.  The so-called “wrong” ruling in Murthy, at least according to the Brennan Center’s view, “could deal a crippling blow to the ability of the government to identify election disinformation campaigns for social media companies, or even provide them with accurate election information.” How terrible that government officials with a political axe to grind could potentially not have the ability to pressure Big Tech platforms to suppress speech.  On the contrary, the Brennan Center claimed the federal government was just being benevolent in grooming tech platforms to nix information that it despised: None of the communications related to voting, election processes, or election security cited by the lower courts were coercive communications that should have converted the platforms into state actors under the law. They were almost entirely informative and did not include attempts to dictate decisions about how to handle users’ posts. Naivete or straight-up propaganda? Take your pick. The Brennan Center’s argument is the very kind of justification that the late Justice William J. Brennan Jr. himself repudiated when he wrote the Court’s opinion for the landmark case Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963). That case wrestled with the question of whether government entities could strongly urge — not directly ban — bookstores from housing certain titles due to their objectionable content. Whether through jawboning — which is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “the use of public appeals (as by a president) to influence the actions especially of business and labor leaders” — or through explicit coercion, Brennan found that both the suggestive and coercive means carried the same end, which was chilling, illegal government censorship: It is true that appellants’ books have not been seized or banned by the State, and that no one has been prosecuted for their possession or sale. But though the [Rhode Island Commission) is limited to informal sanctions -- the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation -- the record amply demonstrates that the Commission deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed 'objectionable,' and succeeded in its aim. We are not the first court to look through forms to the substance and recognize that informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief. Justice Brennan would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the organization named after him supporting the very kind of censorship in Murthy that he opposed in Bantam Books. The Brennan Center is effectively taking the complete opposite approach to the censorship issue, which is ridiculous given that the group itself was founded by Justice Brennan’s former law clerks. It would appear then that the Brennan Center is now more keen on taking its cues from one of its most notorious leftist financiers in Soros — who’s been on a multimillion-dollar vendetta against so-called mis- and disinformation for years — than the philosophy of the very liberal judicial icon whose name it carries with gusto.  Go figure.  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.

Supreme Court Justice Outrageously Complains First Amendment ‘Hamstringing’ Gov’t Censorship

As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a landmark free speech case, one Democrat-appointed justice expressed concern that the First Amendment restricts government control of speech. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to side with the Biden administration that nominated her to the U.S. Supreme Court when the court heard arguments for the landmark free speech case Murthy v. Missouri. She  prioritized government censorship over cConstitutionally protected speech and whined that the First Amendment, as described by respondents’ representative Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga, is “hamstringing the federal government.” For Jackson, it seems, the government’s agenda and potentially biased narratives are more important than the Bill of Rights. Jackson addressed Aguinaga, who was arguing on behalf of the original complaint brought by the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general. “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” the Supreme Court justice outrageously complained. She added, “And so, I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.” In a separate part of the oral arguments, Justice Jackson suggested that the federal government should in fact “encourage or require this kind of censorship.” But government coercion to censor speech, particularly on COVID-19 and other closely held leftist narratives, was not Jackson’s worry. “I'm really – I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems," Jackson rambled. Jackson’s comments drew critiques and backlash from free speech advocates, who argued that the First Amendment was indeed aimed at protecting free speech from government control. “The very essence of the First Amendment is to ‘hamstring[] the government in significant ways’ in order to protect Americans' free speech liberties,” MRC Free Speech America Director Michael Morris wrote in an X post. “How did our nation get to the point where it has a SCOTUS justice that does not understand this obvious point?” Murthy v. Missouri is a historic case challenging alleged government collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans. The complaint filed for the suit cited MRC Free Speech America’s unique and exclusive CensorTrack.org research. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an 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.

The Left Sings the Praises of Fake Women & Falsehoods

Welcome to Woke of the Weak where I’ll update you about the most woke, progressive, insane, and crazy clips and stories that the left thinks is tolerable and well, point out why exactly they’re nuts. This week, we were insulted by what transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney thought girlhood was all about. He released a song that equated the meaning of being a girl to popping pills, wearing mini skirts, taking bubble baths, shopping and having one-night stands.  While it’s clear to see how this is NOT what girlhood is about and that Mulvaney is NOT a girl, users online played defense trying to stand up for him.  One tranny insisted that critiques on Mulvaney’s song were just bullying from transphobes. Another insisted that women can’t relate to Mulvaney’s song not because he's trans but because Mulvaney is rich and white.  No. The video isn’t relatable, because it’s a mockery of women and is so far from the truth.  The next few clips were also not relatable. One featured a girl telling viewers to “meow” with her. Another clip featured a man walking around in knee-high socks and an American flag skirt. It was uncomfortable to say the least. Next up was a transgender woman (so a man) who insisted that he was a Christian and also just started practicing Islam.  I noted that if he were transgender in a predominantly Islamic country, his pronouns would be was/were, because they absolutely don’t put up with that. Finally, we heard from a girl who insisted that if you’re a girl and you won’t date a bisexual man then you’re biphobic. Really, I just don’t want a gay boyfriend. Is that so hard to get?! In all, these people see a line - the line of reality versus delusion - and not only step over it but run full force over it, adopting insanity and madness for reality and defending anyone and everyone who does the same.

ABC, CBS, NBC Let Hunter Biden Get Away With Dodging Public Testimony

Hunter Biden talked a big game about wanting a public testimony but it looks like he’ll be a no show at tomorrow’s scheduled hearing and the broadcast networks are letting him get away with it, as they continue to cover for him and the Biden family business.   At least Hunter’s longtime business partner Tony Bobulinski is expected to show up and answer questions at Wednesday’s hearing but if recent history suggests don’t expect any bombshells from that testimony to see any airtime on ABC, CBS and NBC. Even a mention of Bobulinski’s testimony would be stunning, given his revelations have been almost completely ignored. When Hunter delivered his closed-door testimony on February 28 he lied, evaded or contradicted himself on at least five separate occasions. At that time the networks played defense for Team Biden as NewsBusters’ Jorge Bonilla noted: “The network newscasts fell in formation today, focused on protecting the Bidens and disqualifying the proceedings.” The following are those five instances (via Breitbart) and how they were covered or more precisely not covered on ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening, morning and Sunday roundtable shows:  1. Hunter Contradicts Himself On Text Sent to Chinese Business Partner [Hunter] Biden could not recall texting a Chinese business partner in 2017 when he said, “I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled.” However, Hunter said in his deposition that he was certain Joe was not next to him when sending the text. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds. 2. Hunter Contradicts Himself on Message to Business Partners Tony Bobulinski, James Gilliar and Rob Walker  Biden could not recall sending a message to Tony Bobulinski, James Gilliar, and Rob Walker. Hunter stated in the message that “my chairman gave an emphatic no” regarding Tony Bobulinski’s suggested board structure to the CEFC China Energy Co. deal. However, Hunter did recall that the “chairman” he referenced was CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds. 3. Hunter Stumped On Joe “Chairman” Biden Claim [Hunter] Biden claims the “chairman” in the message was not Joe Biden. Hunter could not explain why Rob Walker, his friend and business partner of over two decades, told the inquiry the “chairman” that Hunter referenced was Joe Biden. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds. 4. Hunter Can't Recall Email on 10 Percent for “The Big Guy” Biden claimed that he never fully read an email from James Gilliar regarding the equity structure of a joint venture with CEFC in which it was suggested that Hunter Biden hold 10 percent equity for “the big guy.” Nevertheless, Hunter did respond to that email without opposing or questioning the ten percent stake for “the big guy.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds. 5. Hunter Inadvertently Admits Joe Was “The Big Guy” Hunter could not confirm or deny that Joe Biden was “the big guy.” Hunter did, however, deny Joe Biden was slotted for a ten percent cut of the deal. “The agreement, the executed agreement, the executed agreement to create a company that was never operated, that’s what happened. That’s the evidence you have. You have the evidence of the executed agreement between Hudson West Three, me, and Mr. Ye. You have that. Nothing to do with my dad, zero,” Hunter said. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds. This is just the latest example of network reporters desperately trying to clear these scandals off the table for Team Joe 2024.

The Smell of Mendacity Down in Georgia

“What’s that smell in this room? Didn’t you notice it, B rick? Didn’t you notice a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room? There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity. You can smell it. It smells like death.”– (Big Daddy in “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”) Court decisions can sound complicated because they sometimes contain legal language that is difficult for a layperson to understand. That’s not the situation in the case of Fulton County, Georgia’s District Attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade. Judge Scott McAfee gave Willis a choice – either dump Wade, with whom she’d had a romantic relationship, as prosecutor in the case against Donald Trump, or leave the case herself. Wade quickly tendered his resignation. It’s hard to see how anyone except the most strident anti-Trumper will see the outcome of a trial with Willis on the case as fair. The judge’s ruling contained a word one rarely hears used these days. McAfee wrote that while a conflict of interest wasn’t proved, “an odor of mendacity remains.” For those who didn’t get far with vocabulary in high school English class, mendacity is defined as “ untruthfulness; tendency to lie.” Most people are familiar with the courtroom oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Judge McAfee concluded Willis and Wade were not telling the whole truth, but the case could go forward anyway even while their relationship carried “the appearance of impropriety.” If one is engaging in behavior that appears inappropriate to a judge, doesn’t that potentially taint the outcome of a case in the public’s eyes? Judge McAfee’s ruling is reminiscent of two other cases. FBI Director James Comey declined to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of classified information while she was secretary of state. The New York Times reported: “Comey rebuked Mrs. Clinton as being ‘extremely careless’ in using a private email address and server. He raised questions about her judgment, contradicted statements she has made about her email practices, (and) said it was possible that hostile foreign governments had gained access to her account.” Then there was what Special Counsel Robert Hur said about Joe Biden’s careless handling of classified documents during his time in the Senate, as vice president and until he became president. After five hours of interviewing Biden over two days, Hur concluded that Biden didn’t break the law and besides, a jury in heavily Democratic Washington would be unlikely to convict him because he would be viewed as a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Biden wasn’t elderly when he began stashing documents in unsecured locations. Under the law he was not supposed to have them and didn’t have the power in his previous posts to declassify them. Is this the new standard for high government officials who violate laws that are supposed to protect classified documents? If so, Congress needs to re-write the laws and include the rest of us under their protection. These cases will only fuel the growing belief that there is a two-tiered justice system in America. It also further undermines what is becoming a cliché – that “no one is above the law.” One does not have to be a supporter of Donald Trump, as his former vice president Mike Pence announced last week he is not, to have the view that Trump is being treated “unfairly,” as he likes to say, and that the 91 felony charges he must fight with his own money, as opposed to the endless cash governments can spend, has placed him at a disadvantage. No one seems to mind that mendacity, while always present in the political arena, appears to be increasing everywhere. If allowed to spread it will create a “smell like death” in our legal system.

Fox Business Guests Call for Google to Be Held Accountable After BOMBSHELL MRC Report

Fox Business’s Mornings with Maria and Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends provided extensive coverage of MRC Free Speech America’s latest study digging up Google’s election interference efforts over the last 16 years. Guests on both shows lambasted the leftist tech giant and called for it to finally be held accountable.  MRC researchers found 41 examples revealing Google’s election interference efforts between 2008 and 2024 to benefit the most liberal candidates including former President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden. Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo and her guests discussed whether Google should have to disclose its apparent in-kind donations to the political candidates it appears to favor. Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt and guest commentator Kurt “The Cyberguy” Knuttsson stressed the significance of Google’s autofill search suggestions that seemed to favor one candidate.  “A Media Research Center study finds Google interfered with U.S. Elections 41 times of the last 16 years,” Bartiromo said. “MRC finding that from 2008 to February 2024 Google, quote, utilized its power to help push to electoral victory the most liberal candidate while targeting their opponents for censorship.”  Bartiromo also noted that Google’s response to MRC’s report “pushing back, saying it has [a] business incentive to keep both sides happy and safeguards ensure non-biased and accurate search results,” despite evidence to the contrary.  New York City Council Minority Leader Joe Borelli reacted to the story and found Google’s response laughable. “You really have to be in a hole or a cave to think that social media companies, tech platforms aren't biased towards the left. We saw this happen in real-time,” Borelli said. Borelli went on to suggest that Big Tech companies should be required to disclose their contributions to campaigns given in the form of online technological advantages. “If any one of these companies, just for an example, put up a giant billboard on their headquarters and said ‘Vote for Joe Biden,’ they would have to file a campaign disclosure, they’d have to say they're doing some sort of campaign expense to help a certain candidate. They are doing that,” Borelli said, referring to Big Tech companies that aid political candidates behind the scenes.  “They're doing it on their tech platforms, and yet they're not required to do any of that disclosure. This is something that I think needs significant, significant investigation and oversight,” he continued. Over at Fox & Friends, Knuttsson told Earhardt that the algorithms unfairly curate the flow of information. “This is just another example of why algorithms like the one that operates the Big Tech beast, Google, should be transparent,” he said. “It should be not left up to one group to control what we see, when we see it, and they're just passing around the megaphone to whoever they choose and that is how this works. It’s not fair to everybody.”  Knuttsson also noted the significance of Google autofill filtering. “That autofill thing is very important,” he said. “You and I  go, we start searching and you know how it completes it for us? Well it might complete it in a way that steers our mind in a completely different direction.”   In its recent study, MRC Free Speech America noted instances of election interference every presidential election cycle since 2008, impacting candidates from both political parties: 2008: Google suspended the accounts of bloggers who supported Hillary Clinton and later its CEO endorsed Obama. 2012: Inconsistent with its stated policy, the tech giant refused to correct a “Google bomb” that smeared then-leading GOP primary candidate for president Rick Santorum. The platform had previously fixed the same issue when it impacted Obama years earlier.  2016: Google used its algorithm to exclude autofill results potentially damaging to Clinton while not doing the same for then-candidates Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. 2018: Researchers accurately predicted that Google’s “significant pro-liberal bias” would be “enough, quite easily, to have flipped all three congressional districts in Orange County California from Republican to Democrat.” 2020: Google targeted then-Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) when it disabled her Ads account just as she became the most searched candidate following the first Democratic Party primary debate. The tech giant also suppressed news sources critical of Biden and reportedly blocked GOP fundraising emails from reaching users’ inboxes. 2022: Google buried most Republican campaign websites for 12 of the most competitive Senate races (10 of 12 did not make the top 6 search results and 7 did not even make the first page of search results). 2024: Google has been aiding Biden’s reelection campaign by burying in its search results the campaign websites of every one of his significant opponents (including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Trump and every other Republican polling at or above 1%. When searching for “Republican presidential campaign websites,” Google returned Democrat Marianne Williamson, but not Trump, DeSantis, Haley, etc.). You can read the full report here:    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.

The View Fawns for Blasé Kavanaugh Accuser Who Collaborated With Dems

Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who rose out of obscurity in a bid to smear and ruin the life of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, was out with a new book (surprise, surprise). Her book tour took her to the set of ABC’s The View on Tuesday, where she was treated to gooey praise and an uncritical look at her baseless accusations. Ford even admitted that she “collaborate[d]” with Democratic senators to sink his nomination, but the cast lamented she couldn’t do it from a position of anonymity. “Well, the book is fantastic and I know it will help people and I, like Whoopi, I applaud you on your courage and your bravery. That was a very brave thing that you did,” staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) gushed. In boasting about what Blasey Ford did, Hostin didn’t want to “rehash the details,” likely because her story had no corroborating evidence and shifted to suit her convenience. Hostin tried to claim Blasey Ford brought her accusations to the FBI for an investigation, but Blasey Ford admitted she was “trying to collaborate” with Senate Democrats: HOSTIN: But you also write in the book that you didn't think -- you thought you could maybe just go to the FBI or go to someone. You didn't think you would ever be called in front of Congress. BLASEY FORD: Right, I never thought I would have that day on television. I thought I would share the information with the senators and they would do with it what they felt was necessary. So, I thought I was being helpful, I was trying to collaborate with them, and it was a three-month process of working up to that day on TV. Of course, there was sno mention of Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) sitting on Blasey Ford's allegations until the 11th hour before Kavanaugh was get to be confirmed.     Faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin was as useless as ever; at no point did she point out the inconsistencies in Blasey Ford’s tall tale. Instead, she wanted to talk about the “most fascinating” part of her book: Blasey Ford’s naiveté and idealism about coming forward. According to Farah Griffin’s summary, Blasey Ford wanted “to stay anonymous and the story would blow over in 24 hours, and that Trump may even nominate someone else to avoid the embarrassment – which he didn't.” Farah Griffin and Blasey Ford lamented about having to go before the Judiciary Committee and share her accusations in a place they could be scrutinized (Click “expand”): FARAH GRIFFIN: And you didn't find out until you were walking into the hearing that it would be televised. What was that moment like for you? (…) FARAH GRIFFIN: No, just what was the mindset when you realized it was going to be televised. BLASEY FORD: So, I was very adamant that I didn't want a camera cause I'm a little afraid of the camera. And they said, well, we need to have one camera so that all the senators will be able to see you and they were telling me that when I was walking down the hallway and it was too late to worry about it at that point. So, they said it would be on C-SPAN and I was just telling myself, “Okay, nobody is going to swatch C-SPAN. My friends are all at work. None of my friends are going to see C-SPAN at work, fine.” And then they said, well, something about people have the rights to pick up C-SPAN if they would like to and clearly they did. Sorry, Christine and the rest of The View. We know you’d like it to be a kangaroo court, but that’s not how the justice system works in America. You can’t just destroy someone’s life with baseless accusations without showing yourself. Defendants have the right to face their accuser. Pretend-centrist Sara Haines called Blasey Ford “a highly credible witness” and decried that “even today some people remain skeptical of your story.” Co-host Joy Behar asserted that what Blasey Ford did was “speaking truth to power.” And despite the fact their guest was making big bucks from the book she was there to hawk and speaking fees, Behar suggested that smearing Kavanaugh “came at a tremendous cost to you.” “You say that there was a smear campaign against you, that you experienced death threats, and they basically made your life miserable and had you to go into hiding,” she declared, ignoring the fact that a Democrat assassin showed up at Kavanaugh’s house to kill him and his family. “So, how do you make sense of the fact that you were forced into hiding, people were threatening your life and your family's lives while he is elevated to the nation's highest bench making incredibly consequential decisions about lives, our lives, for example, and yours, particularly women's rights?” Behar also suggested that Kavanaugh’s anger during the hearing didn’t have anything to do with the fact he was falsely accused, but rather because Ford “called him out.” “He was so angry with you for calling him out and ruining his pristine reputation,” she chided in a mocking tone. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 19, 2024 11:26:55 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: Well, the book is fantastic and I know it will help people and I, like Whoopi, I applaud you on your courage and your bravery. That was a very brave thing that you did. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD: Thank you. HOSTIN: So, let's remind everyone. You've accused now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting you at a high school party in the 1980s saying you were afraid he might accidentally kill you. Now, we're not going to rehash the details, okay, cause of the alleged attack but you have largely stayed silent about it for decades. Tell us about the moment you realized, “Oh, my goodness, he is going to be on the Supreme Court, I need to come forward with my story.” BLASEY FORD: So, I realized that as soon as Justice Kennedy retired that it was a possibility and I started to be concerned about it when I saw his name on -- in the news on the short list and I thought it was imperative that I shared -- share the data. (…) 11:28:06 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: But you also write in the book that you didn't think -- you thought you could maybe just go to the FBI or go to someone. You didn't think you would ever be called in front of Congress. BLASEY FORD: Right, I never thought I would have that day on television. I thought I would share the information with the senators and they would do with it what they felt was necessary. So, I thought I was being helpful, I was trying to collaborate with them, and it was a three-month process of working up to that day on TV. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: So, that's what was most fascinating to me in the book, you said you were idealistic about the process and you thought you'd be able to stay anonymous and the story would blow over in 24 hours, and that Trump may even nominate someone else to avoid the embarrassment – which he didn't. And you didn't find out until you were walking into the hearing that it would be televised. What was that moment like for you? BLASEY FORD: Okay, well, first of all, being idealistic. Yes, I was definitely -- people called me naive and I was very idealistic growing up in Washington, D.C. and revering all those institutions and thinking, that's the place we send the very best of people. So, that idealism served me because if I had been cynical or concerned I don't think I would have never made it to -- WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Yeah. Yeah. BLASEY FORD: I never would have left the beach in Santa Cruz and left to see my congressperson. But the second part of your question I haven’t answered, I’m sorry, I forgot. FARAH GRIFFIN: No, just what was the mindset when you realized it was going to be televised. BLASEY FORD: So, I was very adamant that I didn't want a camera cause I'm a little afraid of the camera. And they said, well, we need to have one camera so that all the senators will be able to see you and they were telling me that when I was walking down the hallway and it was too late to worry about it at that point. So, they said it would be on C-SPAN and I was just telling myself, “Okay, nobody is going to swatch C-SPAN. My friends are all at work. None of my friends are going to see C-SPAN at work, fine.” And then they said, well, something about people have the rights to pick up C-SPAN if they would like to and clearly they did. JOY BEHAR: Again, thank you for what you did. I think speaking truth to power has an enormous cost as we all know, particularly with men in power at that level, which is a very high level. So, this all came at a tremendous cost to you. You say that there was a smear campaign against you, that you experienced death threats, and they basically made your life miserable and had you to go into hiding. So, speak about that a little bit without upsetting yourself, though, because it's upsetting to think that people are out to get you for speaking the truth. (…) 11:32:15 a.m. Eastern SARA HAINES: Well, you've been called a highly credible witness and you have a Ph.D. in psychology, you're a professor, you teach at Palo Alto and Stanford universities, but even today some people remain skeptical of your story. And you write that during the hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham wouldn't even make eye contact with you. (…) 11:40:52 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: Yeah, so Brett Kavanaugh, he has continued to deny that he ever assaulted you. But you say, this is interesting, you say that the anger on his face during the hearings is imprinted on you forever. He was so angry with you for calling him out and ruining his pristine reputation [mocking tone]. So, how do you make sense of the fact that you were forced into hiding, people were threatening your life and your family's lives while he is elevated to the nation's highest bench making incredibly consequential decisions about lives, our lives, for example, and yours, particularly women's rights? (…)

Kimmel Cherry Picks In Order To Portray Trump Voters As Stupid

The Monday edition of ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! unwittingly revealed a truth about comedy shows: you can’t trust their man on the street segments. This particular segment saw the show head to South Carolina for a Trump rally in an attempt to portray Trump supporters as stupid, but the interviewer disallowed a correct answer because someone away from the microphone and camera already said it. The interviewer began by asking, “what is the supreme law of the land?” and none of the people being interviewed gave the correct answer: the Constitution. Likewise, nobody knew that there are 27 amendments to the Constitution.     She then asked “What are the first three words of the Constitution?” One man said “In God we trust,” while another guessed, “Life, liberty, and happiness.” The second man’s friend then jumped in, “No, it's we the people.” The interviewer was not happy, ‘“Cause that guy said it walking past you. You heard. You cheated! You cheated like Joe Biden!”  The idea for the segment was that Trump supporters claim to want to make America great again and wrap themselves in the flag, so Kimmel wanted to know just how patriotic they really are. The joke was supposed to be that the answer is “not very,” but the fact that the Trump supporter who was not shown on camera knew the answer to the basic question shows that Jimmy Kimmel Live! was cherry-picking who they did show on tape for the sake of the narrative. Furthermore, Biden supporters also wrap themselves in the flag, claiming that democracy itself is on the ballot this November. Why doesn’t Kimmel send someone to a Biden rally and see what kind of results he gets there? How many Jimmy Kimmel Live! viewers or Biden voters knew there are 27 amendments to the Constitution prior to the show putting the answer at the bottom of the screen? Surely the lack of civics education is not unique to one side. Here is a transcript for the March 18 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 3/19/2024 11:48 PM ET FEMALE INTERVIEWER: We're out here today asking real Americans if they could pass the citizenship test. Do you think you could do it?  WOMAN 1: Sure.  MAN 1: Maybe.  GROUP OF YOUNG MEN: Easily.  FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Number one, what is the supreme law of the land?  MAN 2: I don’t know. MAN 3: No! MAN 4: Guns, liberty, and justice.  MAN 1: I have no idea.  MAN 5: We might fail the citizenship test. MAN 6: Good question. Well, I'm not going to answer that one right now.  FEMALE INTERVIEWER: How many amendments does the Constitution have?  MAN 1: Thirty-two. MAN 5: Thirty-two. WOMAN 2: Ten? MAN 7: No. I don't know.  WOMAN 1: 20-something I think. Maybe 13. I'm not real sure on that. I worry about number one and number two.  FEMALE INTERVIEWER: What are the first three words of the Constitution?  MAN 6: In God we trust.  FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Okay, so that's four.  MAN 8: Life, liberty, and happiness. Is that-- MAN 2: No, it's we the people.  FEMALE INTERVIEWER: 'Cause that guy said it walking past you. You heard. You cheated! You cheated like Joe Biden! 

‘When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife’; WH Official’s Reply Leaves Doocy FLOORED

With the lone possible exception of Friday, Monday marked perhaps the week’s lone White House press briefing and Biden National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan certainly made waves for his decidedly anti-Israel pivot to help his boss President Biden stave off further hemorrhaging of pro-Hamas Arab voters (such as arguing Jews meddle in U.S. elections) and telling Peter Doocy his question was akin to the phrase “when did you stop beating your wife”. The question that drew Sullivan’s pompous bit concerned an NBCNews.com story about how Biden has reportedly felt increasingly angry about the state of his reelection fight. Doocy relayed one passage revealed that “when President Biden was told his handling of the war between Israel and Hamas was starting to affect his poll numbers, the quote is, ‘he began to shout and swear.’”     “So, when he does that, is he shouting and swearing about Netanyahu or about Hamas or about his poll numbers,” Doocy asked. The snide foreign policy hack immediately went personal: “This is the ‘when did you stop beating your spouse’ question because I don’t think he ever did that.” Reacting as most would to this sudden turn, Doocy reacted with an incredulous look on his face and an, “excuse me?” Of course, no one followed up on Sullivan’s arrogant answer that runs counter to the years of reporting about Biden having a less-than-clean mouth: [W]ell, you — you used that as the premise of your question, which is when he does that, he — I’ve never seen him do that. Shout or swear in response to that. So, from my perspective, that particular report is not correct. Doocy’s other question prior to this was relatively benign: “Why did President Biden wait so long — why did he let 32 days pass between phone calls with Prime Minister Netanyahu?” Sullivan brushed this aside, arguing “our teams are in contact every single day at every level” with Biden being briefed “daily — twice daily, sometimes nine times daily update on what is going on, and he reserves his calls for the prime minister for when he believes there’s a key strategic moment that needs to come forward” and “has never declined a phone call from Prime Minister Netanyahu.” The Biden aide had assistance in peddling anti-Israel nonsense during the briefing, such as these questions wondering why America’s making it “so hard” to stand up to Israel, asking “[w]ho is responsible” for starving Gazans, and inquiring as to the Biden regime’s message to Muslims as they mark Iftar during “this particularly difficult year” (click “expand”): NADIA BILBASSY: The head of UNRWA, [inaudible] Lazzarini, said today that he was denied entry to Gaza, the day, as you mentioned, the report that Northern Gaza is facing imminent famine. So, is this an issue that you’re raising with the Israelis? And on another question, there is 5,000, according to the ICRC, prisoners that’s been missing. Nobody knows anything about them. They’re being held by the Israelis, including doctors and journalists, and the arrest of one of our colleagues at Al Jazeera this morning as well. What can you do to push the Israelis to at least declare where are these prisoners so their families know where they are? Because most of them, according to our knowledge, there are civilians. (....) UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So, why is it that it seems so hard for this administration to stand up more firmly to Benjamin Netanyahu? He has been ignoring many of your requests. He’s now threatening to launch an offensive in Rafah and the answer from the White House so far has been pretty soft, and the U.S. are still sending weapons to Israel. So, it seems like there is a big cautiousness from the White House. (....) AURELIA END: Coming back to Israel and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We are now — we have now 1 million people faced with the risk of starvation, and aid is not getting in at the levels necessary to help those people. Who is responsible for that? And during this call, has — was there any kind of commitment from the part of the Israeli Prime Minister to let more aid come into Gaza? (....) ANITA POWELL: [W]hat is the White House planning for Iftar this year? And what is your message to Muslim Americans about this particularly difficult year? Doocy’s Fox colleague Edward Lawrence had the penultimate exchange of the briefing with questions to the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre: “When will the President hold another news conference so we can ask a question of him without having helicopter noise or jet noise in the background?” Jean-Pierre fumbled her way through what should have been a simple no: I don’t have anything to — for you to share. Obviously, the president — President, As you just say — as you was [sic] just saying, the President takes questions pretty regularly, enjoys having engagement with all of you. I don’t have a press conference to lay out for you at this time. “But is there — is there talk of one,” Lawrence wondered, to which Jean-Pierre doubled down. On a different topic, the press corps were so bent out of shape concerned about Gazans (and the Hamas members embedded in their population) that it took until the 29-minute mark (29:27) of the nearly 54-minutes briefing (53:49) for anyone to bring up the roughly 1,000 Americans trapped in the hellscape that is Haiti. Worse yet, 12 reporters — ABC (x2), AFP, Al-Arabiya, AP, Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, Reuters, Today News Africa, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and one we couldn’t identify — passed on Haiti. Thankfully, NBC’s Allie Raffa broke that by raising this concern to Sullivan (click “expand”): RAFFA: The State Department announced this weekend that more than 30 Americans had been evacuated from Haiti, but they were evacuated from a northern city, not Port-au-Prince. And today, the State Department said that more than a thousand U.S. citizens have reached out asking about their options for departing the island. Are there plans for the U.S. to do more specifically out of the Port-au-Prince area? SULLIVAN: So, first, my understanding is that more than 1,000 Americans have been in touch with the embassy to seek more information. Some number of those have asked for information about departing. Others have asked for information about how to remain safely or, if they choose to depart in the fu — in the future, how they might do so. So, the thousand is really a broad universe that encapsulates a number of different categories. Second, as you noted, we did have our first evacuation flight out of Cap-Haïtien. More than 30 U.S. citizens were on it. And we will look to continue to operate out of Cap-Haïtien for people to be able to leave from there and then, third, of course, if we determine that there is a secure way to move American citizens who want to leave Haiti out of the Port-au-Prince airport or out of some other route, we will do so. There’s active planning for that. There’s a- — active analysis of — of the risks of doing so. But we will stay in close touch with every American citizen who wants to be in touch with us in Haiti and continue to look for options to ensure their safe passage out of the country should they choose to leave. To see the relevant transcript from the March 18 briefing (including an important question about White House/Big Tech coordination from ABC’s Selina Wang in light of a Supreme Court case argued Monday), click here.

Pompous Comedian Worth $140M Browbeats Struggling Americans in Biden’s Economy: ‘Cheer the F*** Up’

Liberal milquetoast HBO comedian Bill Maher became the latest leftist media talking head to attempt slapping around Americans for not being more cheery in the nightmare world of Bidenomics.  During the March 15 edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher vented about Americans’ panning of the Biden economy. After asking the absurd question “Why are Biden’s approval ratings so low when things are generally good,” Maher lashed out at ordinary Americans: “Cheer the f*** up! Stop acting like life in America in 2024 is unbearable. Biden’s ratings are in the toilet, not because he’s doing a bad job but because a lot of Americans like to live with their head in the toilet.” That’s easy for a pompous prima donna like Maher to say, given he’s worth about $140 million. The rest of the people living in Middle America, on the other hand, have been hamstrung by the day-to-day struggles of an increasingly unbearable cost-of-living environment due to a years-long battle with inflation stimulated by President Joe Biden’s outrageous spending policies.   It was an absurd question when they asked it, but Maher has come up with an even more absurd response. Maher started by praising the state of the economy, “Wages are rising, unemployment is negligible, the stock market is soaring. We somehow brushed off both a Trump presidency and a pandemic.” Maher’s partisanship is showing, as Americans were notably better off during Trump’s presidency than under Joe Biden. Despite Maher’s claim of rising wages, real wages have fallen under President Biden, while they rose significantly over the course of Trump’s presidency.  After median weekly real wages rose from $352 to $373 under President Trump, this progress came to an abrupt halt under President Biden as median weekly real wages fell to $371 by the end of 2023.  Maher admitted that inflation was still an issue, but then went down the condescending route again. To sum up: Sure, the price spikes for everyday necessities like food are daunting, according to Maher, but Americans should still be grateful because they  have access to — *checks notes*— “porn on the phone,” in addition to “stuffed crust pizza,” “legal weed,” and “next day shipping.” Talk about cringe.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact HBO at 513-435-0750 and demand they distance themselves from Bill Maher’s browbeating of Americans

Atlantic Magazine Begs Justice Sonia Sotomayor to Retire from Supreme Court

Imagine being not yet seventy years old and being told, not exactly politely, that in the interest of liberalism you have to be put out to pasture. When that message went out to Justice Stephen Breyer in 2021, he was at least over eighty when the leftists told him his time was up on the Supreme Court. With Justice Sonia Sotomayor, despite being over ten years younger than Breyer when he retired, Josh Barro writing for The Atlantic announced that it was time for her to withdraw in the interest of liberalism as you can see in "Sonia Sotomayor Should Retire Now." As you read Barro's plea for Sotomayor to split the Supreme Court scene you can sense his irritation with her for not voluntarily leaving as yet of her own accord as a personal sacrifice for the greater cause of liberalism: Justice Sonia Sotomayor will turn 70 in June. If she retires this year, President Joe Biden will nominate a young and reliably liberal judge to replace her. Republicans do not control the Senate floor and cannot force the seat to be held open like they did when Scalia died. Confirmation of the new justice will be a slam dunk, and liberals will have successfully shored up one of their seats on the Court—playing the kind of defense that is smart and prudent when your only hope of controlling the Court again relies on both the timing of the death or retirement of conservative judges and not losing your grip on the three seats you already hold. But if Sotomayor does not retire this year, we don’t know when she will next be able to retire with a likely liberal replacement. It’s possible that Democrats will retain the presidency and the Senate in this year’s elections, in which case the insurance created by a Sotomayor retirement won’t have been necessary. But if Democrats lose the presidency or the Senate this fall—or both—she’ll need to stay on the bench until the party once again controls them. That could be just a few years, or it could be longer. Democrats have previously had to wait as long as 14 years (1995 to 2009). In other words, if Sotomayor doesn’t retire this year, she’ll be making a bet that she will remain fit to serve until possibly age 78 or even 82 or 84—and she’ll be forcing the whole Democratic Party to make that high-stakes bet with her. Barro justifies his rather impolite desperation by citing his liberal nightmare of a 7-2 court: If Democrats lose the bet, the Court’s 6–3 conservative majority will turn into a 7–2 majority at some point within the next decade. If they win the bet, what do they win? They win the opportunity to read dissents written by Sotomayor instead of some other liberal justice. This is obviously an insane trade. Democrats talk a lot about the importance of the Court and the damage that has been done since it has swung in a more conservative direction, most obviously including the end of constitutional protections for abortion rights. So why aren’t Democrats demanding Sotomayor’s retirement? And now Barro basically tells Sotomayor to get the hell off the court. Some Democrats close to the Biden administration and high-profile lawyers with past White House experience spoke to West Wing Playbook on condition of anonymity about their support for Sotomayor’s retirement. But none would go on the record about it. They worried that publicly calling for the first Latina justice to step down would appear gauche or insensitive. Privately, they say Sotomayor has provided an important liberal voice on the court, even as they concede that it would be smart for the party if she stepped down before the 2024 election. This is incredibly gutless. You’re worried about putting control of the Court completely out of reach for more than a generation, but because she is Latina, you can’t hurry along an official who’s putting your entire policy project at risk? If this is how the Democratic Party operates, it deserves to lose. Yeeesh! It appears that Josh Barro has no problem about appearing to be gauche or insensitive by demanding that Sotomayor resign and any pretense in support of their sacred diversity be ditched in the interests of the greater liberal good.

Kimmel Attacks Fox For Putting Trump in Context, Says It Doesn't Matter

With much of the media rushing to take Donald Trump’s comments about an impending “bloodbath” in the auto industry, Fox & Friends declared that this is why viewers should trust them to cover the news accurately instead. This did not sit well with ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, who accused them on Monday of both sides-ing the issue and ultimately proclaimed that the truth doesn’t actually matter. Kimmel was going through a series of clips from Trump’s recent rally when he teed up a clip of the “bloodbath” remarks, “But of all the very disturbing things he said, this was probably most disturbing.”     What makes Kimmel’s hot take about Fox even more ridiculous is that he played the part of the clip where Trump was very clearly talking about his trade policy, “We're going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line and you're not going to be able to sell those to us if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it.” Kimmel responded, “The longer this election goes, the more he talks like Thanos. He’s saying ‘bloodbath’ -- so after the bloodbath remark, people went, ‘oh, that's not great.’ So, Trump went into spin mode, saying he was only talking about a bloodbath in the auto industry. He had to post an explanation on Truth Social, which is on fire, by the way. They even had to activate the Fox & Friends to do damage control.” In a clip of Monday morning’s Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy was shown declaring, “And with Donald Trump, you have to watch and don't let people report what they think he said. Context is always important, and we try to give you as much of it as we possibly can.” Fellow co-host Ainsley Earhardt added, “And if you watch a mainstream media outlet, you don't get the whole story.” Doocy added, “Just watch us. We'll tell you both sides,” to which Earhardt agreed, “So true.” Mocking Earhardt, Kimmel returned, “So true. Not just true, so true. There are-- listen, there are very fine people on both sides of the bloodbath.” Kimmel then claimed that the actual context doesn’t matter, the fact that there’s a debate around what he said is problematic enough, “The truth is, the context we should be considering isn't whether or not Trump meant that bloodbath literally. What we should--is that he’s such a lunatic, we actually have to debate if he meant it literally. We have to ask ‘Was that totally crazy or just kind of crazy?’"  If it is true that in politics perception is reality, then context absolutely matters because taking something out of context alters people’s perception of political candidates. Somebody who claims to have a rigorous fact-checking process for his jokes should understand that.   Here is a transcript for the March 18 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 3/18/2024 11:43 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: But of all the very disturbing things he said, this was probably most disturbing.  DONALD TRUMP: We're going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line and you're not going to be able to sell those to us if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it.  KIMMEL: The longer this election goes, the more he talks like Thanos. He’s saying “bloodbath” -- so after the bloodbath remark, people went, “oh, that's not great.” So, Trump went into spin mode, saying he was only talking about a bloodbath in the auto industry. He had to post an explanation on Truth Social, which is on fire, by the way. They even had to activate the Fox & Friends to do damage control.  STEVE DOOCY: And with Donald Trump, you have to watch and don't let people report what they think he said. Context is always important, and we try to give you as much of it as we possibly can.  AINSLEY EARHARDT: And if you watch a mainstream media outlet— LAWRENCE JONES: Right. EARHARDT: -- you don't get the whole story.  DOOCY: Just watch us. We'll tell you both sides.  EARHARDT: So true.  KIMMEL: So true. Not just true, so true. There are-- listen, there are very fine people on both sides of the bloodbath. The truth is, the context we should be considering isn't whether or not Trump meant that bloodbath literally. What we should--is that he’s such a lunatic, we actually have to debate if he meant it literally. We have to ask "Was that totally crazy or just kind of crazy?" 

The Networks Still Pushing The Bloodbath Hoax, Now Wrapped Around January 6th

With The Bloodbath Hoax having been so swiftly and thoroughly debunked, the evening network newscasts had to scramble to find ways to keep this narrative alive. It appears that they’ve settled on wrapping this latest hoax around the Capitol Riot of January 6th, thus magically eliminating the need for context. No surprise here, the most hysterical report comes via ABC World News Tonight and Jon Karl, who acknowledged that former President Donald Trump’s remarks were in fact about the automotive industry, before making them about January 6th: JON KARL: Today Donald Trump is defending comments he made at a rally in Ohio warning of a quote, “bloodbath” if he doesn't win the presidential election in November. Trump made the comment as he was talking about the auto industry, vowing to impose 100% tariffs on some imported cars.  DONALD TRUMP: We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars- If I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That'll be the least of it.  KARL: Today, Trump insisted he wasn't talking about political violence at all, saying, quote, “I was simply referring to imports allowed by Crooked Joe Biden, which are killing the automobile industry.” But the world saw what happened the last time Trump lost a presidential election, as Trump's supporters violently attacked the Capitol on January 6th. There has been a tactical evolution here. Trump’s remarks are now acknowledged as being about Chinese electric cars potentially built in Mexico (a grossly underreported story, as I said to Tim Graham on the NewsBusters Podcast), but here’s the new switcheroo: the full quote has Trump bracketing the “bloodbath” quote with remarks on the automotive industry. Chopping that last part off, even when restoring context in the beginning of the quote, keeps everything vague enough to keep the Bloodbath Hoax plausible and duct-tape January 6th onto it. Now there’s a fresh angle. And for Karl, perhaps, a fourth Trump book. NBC ran The Bloodbath Hoax as part of its recap of Trump stories as opposed to a standalone item, but with the same basic play: GARRETT HAAKE: And tonight the presumptive GOP nominee also pushing back, saying Democrats, quote, “pretended to be shocked at my use of the word bloodbath” during this riff about Chinese car makers.  TRUMP: We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line. And you're not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.  HAAKE: Mr. Trump saying he was referring to President Biden allowing imports he says are killing the auto industry. Late tonight, calling Democratic attacks, quote, “misinformation”. TRUMP: The word “bloodbath”, I used it about trade, essentially auto trade, because we're getting ripped off with Biden's really dumb auto policy. HAAKE: The Biden campaign rejecting that it was about only cars.  MICHAEL TYLER: Every single day, Donald Trump is promoting and endorsing and encouraging political violence on the stump. The slightly expanded quote with a bit of context but maintaining plausibility, the (indirect) tie-in to January 6th- it’s all there, with a few more quotes with which to provide the illusion of balance. CBS’s Robert Costa runs the exact same play within his Trump recap, albeit with a slightly different angle. Wash, rinse, repeat: ROBERT COSTA: Meanwhile, the former president has ramped up his incendiary rhetoric on the campaign trail.  DONALD TRUMP: We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line and you're not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. COSTA: Trump insists he was referring to a potential bloodbath in the automobile industry. In the past, Trump has warned of bedlam if Biden wins, suggesting there will be anger if he is convicted of a crime. TRUMP: There will be bedlam in the country. It's a very bad thing. It's very bad precedent, as we say, it’s the opening of a Pandora's box.  The strategy may have evolved in order to provide a smidgen of context, but it remains as shameless and as reliant on multiple suspensions of disbelief as ever. The title of “regime media” is well earned here. Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the reports respective as aired on their respective evening newscasts on Monday, March 18th, 2024: ABC World News Tonight DAVID MUIR: Back here at home tonight, and to the race for the White House, on the campaign trail, Donald Trump warning of a, quote, “bloodbath” if he loses the election. Tonight, his campaign and what Trump meant by that. The Biden campaign pointing to January 6th. The country and the world seeing what can happen amid dangerous rhetoric. And the moment Trump played the national anthem to honor those who are behind bars for January 6th. Here's Jon Karl. JON KARL: Today Donald Trump is defending comments he made at a rally in Ohio warning of a quote, “bloodbath” if he doesn't win the presidential election in November. Trump made the comment as he was talking about the auto industry, vowing to impose 100% tariffs on some imported cars.  DONALD TRUMP: We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars- If I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That'll be the least of it.  KARL: Today, Trump insisted he wasn't talking about political violence at all, saying, quote, “I was simply referring to imports allowed by Crooked Joe Biden, which are killing the automobile industry.” But the world saw what happened the last time Trump lost a presidential election, as Trump's supporters violently attacked the Capitol on January 6th. And in Ohio, Trump paid tribute to those arrested for their actions on that day.  ANNOUNCER: Please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages (The Star-Spangled Banner) KARL: He saluted during a rendition of the National Anthem that was recorded by people in prison for what they did on January 6th. Trump called those now serving prison sentences hostages and patriots, suggesting he'd pardon them as soon as he gets back in office. Today, the Biden campaign condemned Trump's prediction of a bloodbath, accusing him of having an "affection for violence" and a "thirst for revenge" and alleging Trump wants "another January 6th." Not long after Trump paid tribute to the people who attacked the Capitol as, quote, “unbelievable patriots", he posted multiple statements calling for Liz Cheney and other members of the January 6th committee to be prosecuted and sent to jail. In other words, David- Trump wants to pardon those who attacked the Capitol, and he wants to prosecute those who investigated his actions on January 6th.  MUIR: Jon Karl, covering the campaign for us. Jon, Thank you.   NBC Nightly News LESTER HOLT: His criminal cases may be caught up in a cycle of delays, but things may have moved too quickly for former President Trump in the wake of that stunning civil fraud judgment against him last month. In a court filing today Mr. Trump's attorneys saying they have been unable to secure the $464 million bond due next week, saying a bond in the full amount is a practical impossibility. The former president, who built his professional reputation in part on his wealth, was held liable last month for fraudulently overstating the value of assets. Today's development potentially opens the door for New York's state attorney general to seize and sell off Trump assets while Mr. Trump appeals. Meantime, the former president is on the political defensive tonight over some remarks he made over the weekend. Garrett Haake has our report.  GAARETT HAAKE: Tonight the fate of former President Trump's most famous properties could be up in the air, with Trump attorneys telling a judge he's unable to secure bond in the $464 million civil fraud judgment against him, asking a judge for an emergency stay. Guarantors won't accept real estate as collateral but want nearly a half billion dollars in cash, which Trump's company doesn't have, his lawyers say. If he cannot post bond for the full amount by next week, Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James could start seizing his assets, potentially even his Trump Tower penthouse. In their filing, Trump attorneys argue the penalty is grossly disproportional when there were, quote, “no victims, no damages and no actual financial losses” in the case. It comes as the Trump campaign also faces blowback amid Mr. Trump's new inflammatory rhetoric against what he calls criminal migrants.  DONALD TRUMP: They're not people in my opinion. But I'm not allowed to say that because the radical left says that's a terrible thing to say. These are animals. Okay? HAAKE: Mr. Trump has vowed to bring back his Remain in Mexico policy that keeps migrants waiting outside the U.S. until courts decide their asylum cases. The Biden administration is releasing 85% of migrants into the U.S. while they wait for asylum decisions. And tonight the presumptive GOP nominee also pushing back, saying Democrats, quote, “pretended to be shocked at my use of the word bloodbath” during this riff about Chinese car makers.  TRUMP: We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line. And you're not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.  HAAKE: Mr. Trump saying he was referring to President Biden allowing imports he says are killing the auto industry. Late tonight, calling Democratic attacks, quote, “misinformation”. TRUMP: The word “bloodbath”, I used it about trade, essentially auto trade, because we're getting ripped off with Biden's really dumb auto policy. HAAKE: The Biden campaign rejecting that it was about only cars.  MICHAEL TYLER: Every single day, Donald Trump is promoting and endorsing and encouraging political violence on the stump. HOLT:  And Garrett, NBC News also has new reporting tonight about President Biden showing some growing frustration about his re-election campaign. What do we know? HAAKE: Yeah, that's right, Lester. President Biden shouted and swore about falling poll numbers in a January White House meeting, and has felt cocooned by staff, eager to move more aggressively in campaigning against Mr. Trump, sources tell NBC News. Lester. HOLT: All right, Garrett Haake. Thank you.    CBS Evening News NORAH O’DONNELL: We're going to begin tonight with Donald Trump facing a cash crunch. The former president is on the brink of being forced to surrender some of his most valuable real estate properties to help pay that $454 million civil fraud judgment in New York. He's already admitted that he doesn't have the nearly half a billion dollars in cash, and today, his lawyers revealed that more than 30 firms that they were unable to or , quote, "unwilling" to accept the risk associated with such a large bond. The clock is now ticking with that bond due next week. It's worth remembering the civil judgment stems from a ruling that Trump falsely valued parts of his real estate empire for financial gain. And then on the campaign trail, Trump is also defending himself after a series of disturbing remarks about migrants, January 6th defendants, and warning of a, quote, "bloodbath" if he loses in November. It was all while discussing tariffs on Chinese-made cars. CBS's Robert Costa is here and he'll start us off tonight. ROBERT COSTA: Former President Donald Trump could soon be facing a financial crisis. His lawyers today revealing in a court filing that Trump has failed to obtain a $454 million bond, calling it a practical impossibility. It’s due in just one week and without it, New York Attorney General Letitia James could freeze his bank accounts and seize his prized properties, including Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street.  DONALD TRUMP: The bottom line is, this is rigged. COSTA: Trump, who was unable to reach agreement with more than 30 companies that provide appeal bonds, is also scrambling to raise money for the general election. CBS News has learned Trump is considering enlisting his former 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, a convicted felon who was found guilty of committing several financial crimes in 2018 and later pardoned by Trump. Meanwhile, the former president has ramped up his incendiary rhetoric on the campaign trail.  TRUMP: We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line and you're not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. COSTA: Trump insists he was referring to a potential bloodbath in the automobile industry. In the past, Trump has warned of bedlam if Biden wins, suggesting there will be anger if he is convicted of a crime. TRUMP: There will be bedlam in the country. It's a very bad thing. It's very bad precedent, as we say, it’s the opening of a Pandora's box.  COSTA: Over the weekend, Trump also referred to migrants as animals, and described those convicted for crimes related to January 6th as hostages and patriots. That remark drawing criticism from both sides of the aisle. MIKE PENCE: It's just, it's just unacceptable.  JAMIE RASKIN: A hostage is someone who is being held by a criminal group or a terrorist group for a financial or political ransom. That's got nothing to do with people who have been criminally charged and given due process.  COSTA: Meanwhile, former Trump White House advisor Peter Navarro will likely be headed to jail. Today the Supreme Court rejected Navarro's push to stave off his sentence for refusing to comply with the congressional subpoena and he is now set to report to a correctional facility tomorrow in Florida, Norah. That is some big news. Robert Costa, thank you.  

SEIZENFREUDE: Nets Cheer Trump Cash Crunch Ahead Of Appeal Deadline

The network evening newscasts engaged in a feeding frenzy over breaking news that former President Donald Trump faces difficulties in putting together the monetary bond required in order to appeal his New York civil judgment. All three major networks giddily opened their newscasts with this story, bumping the Bloodbath Hoax off of the top spot. Of the three, ABC’s report was the lengthiest, a standalone as opposed to part of a broader recap as was the case with CBS and NBC. Here’s how Aaron Katersky began his video package for World News Tonight: AARON KATERSKY: He has long promoted himself a billionaire -- DONALD TRUMP: I'm really rich…  KATERSKY: But tonight, Donald Trump telling a New York appeals court he cannot cover the $464 million bond he must post one week from today, as he appeals the civil fraud judgment against him. Trump's lawyers saying they face "Insurmountable difficulties." They approached more than 30 insurance companies for help and were rejected by each one. The main reason? Trump does not have enough cash, and the insurance companies were unwilling to accept his real estate assets as collateral. Trump and his eldest sons were found liable for fraudulently inflating the value of their real estate to get favorable bank loans. If Trump does not secure a bond by next week, New York Attorney General Letitia James can ask the court to seize his properties, which she told me she is willing to do.  You're prepared to have the state move to seize Trump's assets?  LETITIA JAMES: We are prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers.  Katersky dug up footage from his recent interview with New York Attorney General Letitia James which, as we noted at the time, ended with a live shot in front of 40 Wall Street- one of the iconic properties that could be seized as part of an enforcement of the civil fine if an appeal is not granted. As we also observed at that time: The report, of course, gives no voice to those skeptical of the verdict or concerned over its potential far-reaching (and unintended consequences). There is only a platform for James and for confiscation. This is still true today. Over at NBC, the cash crunch story led but was part of a broader compilation on all things Trump including the Bloodbath Hoax. Lester Holt’s frame seemed more aggressive than usual: LESTER HOLT: His criminal cases may be caught up in a cycle of delays, but things may have moved too quickly for former President Trump in the wake of that stunning civil fraud judgment against him last month. In a court filing today Mr. Trump's attorneys saying they have been unable to secure the $464 million bond due next week, saying a bond in the full amount is a practical impossibility. The former president, who built his professional reputation in part on his wealth, was held liable last month for fraudulently overstating the value of assets. Today's development potentially opens the door for New York's state attorney general to seize and sell off Trump assets while Mr. Trump appeals. Meantime, the former president is on the political defensive tonight over some remarks he made over the weekend. Correspondent Garrett Haake notes that Trump’s Tower penthouse could be up for grabs before quickly moving on to “bloodbath” and the other controversies of the day.  Over at CBS, Norah O’Donnell’s frame was more encompassing of the various issues: NORAH O’DONNELL: We're going to begin tonight with Donald Trump facing a cash crunch. The former president is on the brink of being forced to surrender some of his most valuable real estate properties to help pay that $454 million civil fraud judgment in New York. He's already admitted that he doesn't have the nearly half a billion dollars in cash, and today, his lawyers revealed that more than 30 firms that they were unable to or , quote, "unwilling" to accept the risk associated with such a large bond. The clock is now ticking with that bond due next week. It's worth remembering the civil judgment stems from a ruling that Trump falsely valued parts of his real estate empire for financial gain. And then on the campaign trail, Trump is also defending himself after a series of disturbing remarks about migrants, January 6th defendants, and warning of a, quote, "bloodbath" if he loses in November. It was all while discussing tariffs on Chinese-made cars. More of the same here, the story led within a broader recap of the varied Trump stories of the day. It should be noted that none of the networks had anyone on to express concern over how the trial went, the conduct of the parties, or anything else. In terms of this judgment, the media’s concern was centered on whether Trump’s assets would be seized. Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the reports respective as aired on their respective evening newscasts on Monday, March 18th, 2024: ABC World News Tonight DAVID MUIR: We do begin tonight with Donald Trump. Tonight, Trump's lawyers revealing he doesn't have the money. Telling the court Trump is unable to secure a bond for $464 million after the civil fraud judgment against him in New York. Saying Trump is facing, quote, “insurmountable difficulties”, claiming 30 insurance companies were unwilling to underwrite the bond. Tonight, New York state Attorney General Letitia James signaling she will try to seize some of Trump's properties if he's unable to pay the judgment. ABC's senior investigative correspondent Aaron Katersky leading us off. AARON KATERSKY: He has long promoted himself a billionaire -- TRUMP: I'm really rich…  KATERSKY: But tonight, Donald Trump telling a New York appeals court he cannot cover the $464 million bond he must post one week from today, as he appeals the civil fraud judgment against him. Trump's lawyers saying they face "Insurmountable difficulties." They approached more than 30 insurance companies for help and were rejected by each one. The main reason? Trump does not have enough cash, and the insurance companies were unwilling to accept his real estate assets as collateral. Trump and his eldest sons were found liable for fraudulently inflating the value of their real estate to get favorable bank loans. If Trump does not secure a bond by next week, New York Attorney General Letitia James can ask the court to seize his properties, which she told me she is willing to do.  You're prepared to have the state move to seize Trump's assets?  LETITIA JAMES: We are prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers.  KATERSKY: There's also the possibility that Trump could put his buildings up for sale now to raise quick cash. But his lawyers say that kind of fire sale would result in irrecoverable losses if his appeal succeeds. So, bottom line, Trump wants the court to let him post a smaller bond. His lawyers say securing anything close to $464 million "is a practical impossibility." There's no telling when the appeals court may rule, but David, if Trump is unable to post a bond, the attorney general could begin to take ownership of Trump's properties. We're not sure that means padlocks and stickers on the door, but she told us she is determined to make sure Trump pays. David? MUIR: Hard to know what to expect. In the meantime, Aaron, the other breaking headline. There's also news in one of the criminal cases against Donald Trump tonight. The hush money trial scheduled to get under way next month. And we learned tonight that key witnesses and a piece of video that the country will remember will be allowed in this upcoming trial?  KATERSKY: David, the judge just ruled that two key witnesses will be allowed to testify. The recipient of the hush money, porn actress Stormy Daniels, and Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen. The judge will also allow the Manhattan district attorney's office to refer to the "Access Hollywood" tape. The one on which Trump explains how he grabbed women. David?  MUIR: Aaron Katersky leading us off here on a Monday night. Aaron, thank you.   NBC Nightly News LESTER HOLT: His criminal cases may be caught up in a cycle of delays, but things may have moved too quickly for former President Trump in the wake of that stunning civil fraud judgment against him last month. In a court filing today Mr. Trump's attorneys saying they have been unable to secure the $464 million bond due next week, saying a bond in the full amount is a practical impossibility. The former president, who built his professional reputation in part on his wealth, was held liable last month for fraudulently overstating the value of assets. Today's development potentially opens the door for New York's state attorney general to seize and sell off Trump assets while Mr. Trump appeals. Meantime, the former president is on the political defensive tonight over some remarks he made over the weekend. Garrett Haake has our report.  GAARETT HAAKE: Tonight the fate of former President Trump's most famous properties could be up in the air, with Trump attorneys telling a judge he's unable to secure bond in the $464 million civil fraud judgment against him, asking a judge for an emergency stay. Guarantors won't accept real estate as collateral but want nearly a half billion dollars in cash, which Trump's company doesn't have, his lawyers say. If he cannot post bond for the full amount by next week, Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James could start seizing his assets, potentially even his Trump Tower penthouse. In their filing, Trump attorneys argue the penalty is grossly disproportional when there were, quote, “no victims, no damages and no actual financial losses” in the case. It comes as the Trump campaign also faces blowback amid Mr. Trump's new inflammatory rhetoric against what he calls criminal migrants.  DONALD TRUMP: They're not people in my opinion. But I'm not allowed to say that because the radical left says that's a terrible thing to say. These are animals. Okay? HAAKE: Mr. Trump has vowed to bring back his Remain in Mexico policy that keeps migrants waiting outside the U.S. until courts decide their asylum cases. The Biden administration is releasing 85% of migrants into the U.S. while they wait for asylum decisions. And tonight the presumptive GOP nominee also pushing back, saying Democrats, quote, “pretended to be shocked at my use of the word bloodbath” during this riff about Chinese car makers.  TRUMP: We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line. And you're not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.  HAAKE: Mr. Trump saying he was referring to President Biden allowing imports he says are killing the auto industry. Late tonight, calling Democratic attacks, quote, “misinformation”. TRUMP: The word “bloodbath”, I used it about trade, essentially auto trade, because we're getting ripped off with Biden's really dumb auto policy. HAAKE: The Biden campaign rejecting that it was about only cars.  MICHAEL TYLER: Every single day, Donald Trump is promoting and endorsing and encouraging political violence on the stump. HOLT:  And Garrett, NBC News also has new reporting tonight about President Biden showing some growing frustration about his re-election campaign. What do we know? HAAKE: Yeah, that's right, Lester. President Biden shouted and swore about falling poll numbers in a January White House meeting, and has felt cocooned by staff, eager to move more aggressively in campaigning against Mr. Trump, sources tell NBC News. Lester. HOLT: All right, Garrett Haake. Thank you.    CBS Evening News NORAH O’DONNELL: We're going to begin tonight with Donald Trump facing a cash crunch. The former president is on the brink of being forced to surrender some of his most valuable real estate properties to help pay that $454 million civil fraud judgment in New York. He's already admitted that he doesn't have the nearly half a billion dollars in cash, and today, his lawyers revealed that more than 30 firms that they were unable to or , quote, "unwilling" to accept the risk associated with such a large bond. The clock is now ticking with that bond due next week. It's worth remembering the civil judgment stems from a ruling that Trump falsely valued parts of his real estate empire for financial gain. And then on the campaign trail, Trump is also defending himself after a series of disturbing remarks about migrants, January 6th defendants, and warning of a, quote, "bloodbath" if he loses in November. It was all while discussing tariffs on Chinese-made cars. CBS's Robert Costa is here and he'll start us off tonight. ROBERT COSTA: Former President Donald Trump could soon be facing a financial crisis. His lawyers today revealing in a court filing that Trump has failed to obtain a $454 million bond, calling it a practical impossibility. It’s due in just one week and without it, New York Attorney General Letitia James could freeze his bank accounts and seize his prized properties, including Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street.  DONALD TRUMP: The bottom line is, this is rigged. COSTA: Trump, who was unable to reach agreement with more than 30 companies that provide appeal bonds, is also scrambling to raise money for the general election. CBS News has learned Trump is considering enlisting his former 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, a convicted felon who was found guilty of committing several financial crimes in 2018 and later pardoned by Trump. Meanwhile, the former president has ramped up his incendiary rhetoric on the campaign trail.  TRUMP: We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line and you're not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. COSTA: Trump insists he was referring to a potential bloodbath in the automobile industry. In the past, Trump has warned of bedlam if Biden wins, suggesting there will be anger if he is convicted of a crime. TRUMP: There will be bedlam in the country. It's a very bad thing. It's very bad precedent, as we say, it’s the opening of a Pandora's box.  COSTA: Over the weekend, Trump also referred to migrants as animals, and described those convicted for crimes related to January 6th as hostages and patriots. That remark drawing criticism from both sides of the aisle. MIKE PENCE: It's just, it's just unacceptable.  JAMIE RASKIN: A hostage is someone who is being held by a criminal group or a terrorist group for a financial or political ransom. That's got nothing to do with people who have been criminally charged and given due process.  COSTA: Meanwhile, former Trump White House advisor Peter Navarro will likely be headed to jail. Today the Supreme Court rejected Navarro's push to stave off his sentence for refusing to comply with the congressional subpoena and he is now set to report to a correctional facility tomorrow in Florida, Norah. That is some big news. Robert Costa, thank you.    

NewsBusters Podcast: Bombast Over 'Bloodbath' Reflects Biden PR Points

On Saturday, Donald Trump spoke out against China's attempt to build electric vehicles in Mexico. "We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected," the former president said. "Now if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole – that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country." He didn't need to use a violent metaphor, but the media overreacted, as if he had said "If I don't win, we're gonna kill some people." The Biden-Harris campaign put out a cartoon of a statement that Trump “wants another January 6, but the American people are going to give him another electoral defeat this November because they continue to reject his extremism, his affection for violence, and his thirst for revenge”. They also claimed he "doubles down on his threats of political violence." NewsBusters evening-news watcher Jorge Bonilla joins the show to recount just how this speech was wrenched out of context on the Sunday morning and evening "news" shows. On ABC's This Week, writer Susan Glasser claimed "Donald Trump is attacking in a broad brush sense, the basic pillars of American democracy, period, full stop." On Sunday night, ABC White House reporter Mary Bruce was anchoring the news, and described the speech as "Trump warning, while discussing the economy, that there would be a quote, “bloodbath” if he is not re-elected in November." She threw in that Trump's former Veep Mike Pence (who isn't endorsing Trump) replied that this was about electric-car factories.  We also discuss an NPR podcast asking in regard to how to cover the presidential campaign, "Can you believe in democracy without being pro-Biden?" And PBS pundit Jonathan Capehart ripped the idea of Biden taking executive action to stop the border surge. "It depends on whether you want the president to engage in theater or you want the president to actually do something that can help solve the problem." Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.   

PBS ‘Pregnant People’ Propaganda: Catholic Hospitals ‘Restrict Reproductive Health Care’

Sunday’s edition of PBS News Weekend ran yet another propagandistic take on how the lack of access to abortions and treatment of related pregnancy complications was the fault of Catholic hospitals: “Investigation finds policies at Catholic-run hospitals restrict reproductive health care.” (That’s progressive-speak for “abortion.”) From the introduction by weekend anchor John Yang: Tonight on PBS News Weekend, with hundreds of thousands of Americans relying on Catholic hospitals, why some people are facing barriers to reproductive health care…." Aren’t “people” who get pregnant generally referred to as women? Yang later got specific with the silly woke terminology, a religious bow to the trans movement as well as denial of 5th-grade biology: “Pregnant people.” (And Yang has done it before.) Yang: Every year, more than 3.6 million babies are born in the United States. And according to KFF Health News, more than a half million of them are about 16 percent are delivered in Catholic run hospitals. In most cases there no complications and the birth is much like one in any hospital. But if there's an emergency, pregnant people can find themselves caught between accepted medical standards and the religious-based policies of Catholic-run facilities. KFF Health News found that for nearly 800,000 Americans, there’s little choice. They have only Catholic or Catholic-affiliated birth hospitals within an hour’s drive. KFF Health News reporter Rachana Pradhan is one of the writers of the story…. (Would PBS prefer no Catholic hospitals – i.e. no care -- at all?) Pradhan, a reporter for KFF Health News, relayed a hard case from her reporting. Rachana Pradhan: ….One in particular involves a nurse midwife who spoke with me who used to work, do deliveries at a Catholic hospital in Maryland .She encountered a woman who showed up at this hospital because her water had broken before her fetus was viable, so the baby would not survive outside of the womb. And what she told us was, this patient expressed a desire to terminate the pregnancy because she knew that there was little chance of survival. And what happened was, as this nurse midwife told us, the doctor said that they couldn't do anything, because there were still detectable fetal-heart tones. And so their hands were totally tied. That is not often what would happen in a non-Catholic hospital, and goes against accepted medical standards for treating that kind of pregnancy complication. Yang: What are some of the sort of the range of medical choices that clinicians and healthcare providers would want to make or have wanted to make at a Catholic-run hospital but have not been allowed to because of the hospital’s policies? Pradhan: ….what we found based on talking to clinicians, reading research, and also talking to patients are that these very fraught and difficult situations in which someone's pregnancy goes awry, in which a complication happens that’s quite serious and could obviously threaten the viability of that baby. In situations like that, these ethical and religious directives that apply to Catholic health-care facilities, essentially, what they say is that these hospitals are prohibited or limited in doing certain procedures that the Catholic Church finds to be immoral….Because these Catholic health-care standards, the baby is still alive. And so that would constitute an abortion and they are obviously opposed to abortions. Prodded by Yang, Pradhan noted the Catholic Health Association “took issue with our story. After it came out, they released a statement that said that it perpetuates myths about Catholic health care.” Pradhan “stood by her reporting.” Yang forgot the required LGBTQ recitation for a second. Yang: For women who feel that they were not treated properly or didn’t receive the proper medical treatment at these hospitals, is there any legal recourse for them? What ever happened to “pregnant people”? This segment was brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Weekend 3/17/24 7:05:36 p.m. (ET) JOHN YANG: Every year, more than 3.6 million babies are born in the United States. And according to KFF Health News, more than a half million of them are about 16 percent are delivered in Catholic run hospitals. In most cases there no complications and the birth is much like one in any hospital. But if there`s an emergency pregnant people can find themselves caught between accepted medical standards and the religious base policies of Catholic run facilities. KFF Health News found that for nearly 800,000 Americans, there`s little choice. They have only Catholic or Catholic affiliated birth hospitals within an hour`s drive. KFF Health News reporter Rachana Pradhan is one of the writers of the story, which is the product of almost two years of reporting. Rachana, you talked to a lot of women who had complications while being treated in Catholic run hospitals. What did they tell you? What is there a story, one particular story that sort of emblematic to you? RACHANA PRADHAN, Reporter, KFF Health News: Absolutely, John. And I will say that, in particular, talking to clinicians, like physicians and nurse practitioners and other medical clinicians that treat patients in these hospitals, really were the ones that shared incredible stories with us. One in particular involves a nurse midwife who spoke with me who used to work, do deliveries at a Catholic hospital in Maryland, she encountered a woman who showed up at this hospital because her water had broken before her fetus was viable, so the baby would not survive outside of the womb. And what she told us was, this patient expressed a desire to terminate the pregnancy because she knew that there was little chance of survival. And what happened was, as this nurse midwife told us, the doctor said that they couldn`t do anything, because there were still detectable fetal heart tones. And so their hands were totally tied. That is not often what would happen in a non-Catholic hospital, and goes against accepted medical standards for treating that kind of pregnancy complication. JOHN YANG: What are some of the sort of the range of medical choices that clinicians and healthcare providers would want to make or have wanted to make at a Catholic general hospital but have not been allowed to because the hospitals policies? RACHANA PRADHAN: I think, in particular, what we found based on talking to clinicians, reading research, and also talking to patients are that these very fraught and difficult situations in which someone`s pregnancy goes awry, in which a complication happens that`s quite serious and could obviously threaten the viability of that baby. In situations like that, these ethical and religious directives that apply to Catholic health care facilities, essentially, what they say is that these hospitals are prohibited or limited in doing certain procedures that the Catholic Church finds to be immoral. So overarchingly what this can affect is care during pregnancy complications, it can affect birth control the availability of birth control at these facilities. And in situations like the one I just talked about, it means that the pregnancy terminations may not be offered. Because these Catholic healthcare standards, the baby is still alive. And so that would constitute an abortion and they are obviously opposed to abortions. JOHN YANG: Do these hospitals have any policies on referrals, referrals to other facilities that might be able to do those things? RACHANA PRADHAN: Yes. So the Catholic health directives do address referrals. And this doesn`t only apply to pregnancy terminations, but other types of care too, namely, procedures that can prevent pregnancy. So both men and women, frankly, vasectomies, or let`s say, a woman who wants to get her fallopian tubes removed because she does not want to have any more children. They`re also restricted from making referrals. Because in the eyes of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is the organization that crafts these directives, and the church, a physician referring for a procedure or care that they have deemed immoral, that also goes too far. And so it can limit the ability for a patient to receive care at another facility, or at the very least, they have to take it much more upon themselves to figure out where they might be able to go because the Catholic health care facility cannot get so involved. JOHN YANG: to the church leaders like the diocesan Archbishop`s, did they have a role in the medical policies of hospitals? RACHANA PRADHAN: So the ethical and religious directives are really broad guidelines. And what we learned is that, depending on a particular Bishop of a particular diocese, sometimes policies will apply more strictly in certain places than others. And so I think that`s actually, at least based on the conversations we have with clinicians, I think that`s actually part of the frustration is that these things are not black and white. And they can change depending on who essentially is in charge. And the bishops obviously have a role in this. They`re not based on what we learned. They`re not the ones who are making these difficult calls in certain situations to provide health care, but they are responsible for overseeing enforcement of the directives broadly. JOHN YANG: What do Catholic hospitals say? Or how did they they responded or reacted to your reporting? RACHANA PRADHAN: Well, the Catholic Health Association, who we spoke with for our story before it published, they say that the ERDs, as they are known, do not prevent physicians from providing medically indicated care, especially in these situations involving very serious potentially life threatening pregnancy complications. And they also took issue with our story. After it came out, they released a statement that said that it perpetuates myths about Catholic health care. I will say that we stand by our reporting, as you noted, we worked on this for nearly two years and talk to many, many, many people, including patients, doctors, nurse practitioners, midwives, and others who have really studied this field a lot, and could very clearly state what the impacts are on patients. JOHN YANG: For women who feel that they were not treated properly or didn`t receive the proper medical treatment at these hospitals. Is there any legal recourse for them? RACHANA PRADHAN: So broadly speaking, most of the states in the country, we found have liability shields for hospitals, when they refuse to perform certain types of care because of moral or religious objection. And those laws exist all over the US. And they apply to at least some hospitals in every not every state, but really the vast majority. For other types of medicine for a whole host of procedures, you could potentially take up a medical malpractice case against an individual provider or a hospital. But in these situations, basically what state law says in the states is that the hospitals are shielded from being held liable in these types of situations. JOHN YANG: Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News, thank you very much. RACHANA PRADHAN: Thank you, John, for having me.

ABC, CBS Bury NY Post Bombshell on Suspected Terrorist Caught at the Border

Published Sunday online and on the front page of Monday’s print edition, our friend Jennie Taer at the New York Post dropped a bombshell that an illegal immigrant recently detained at the border told Customs and Border Protection officials only is he a member of the Lebanon-based, Iranian-linked Islamic terrorist group Hezbollah, but he wanted to travel New York to carry out a terror attack with a bomb. Not surprisingly, none of this was mentioned on Sunday night or Monday morning by the major broadcast networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC on their flagship morning or evening news shows. On Monday evening, it was the same story with ABC and CBS, but NBC Nightly News broke ice -- albeit with a short, 45-second report. The Post’s Taer explained that the 22-year-old named Basel Bassel Ebbadi “was caught by the US Border Patrol on March 9 near El Paso, Texas” and “[w]hile in custody, he was asked what he was doing in the US, to which he replied, ‘I’m going to try to make a bomb,’ according to a Border Patrol document exclusively obtained by The Post.” According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement documents, Ebbadi claimed to have “trained with Hezbollah for seven years” and “guard[ed] weapons locations for another four years.” In a bizarre caveat, Taer noted that, citing more ICE documents, Ebbadi said “he had been trying to flee Lebanon and Hamas because he ‘didn’t want to kill people’ and said ‘once you’re in, you can never get out.’” Taer also explained Ebbadi apparently hop-scotched his way around the world by using a fake birthday and name as well as fake countries of orIgin, but “didn’t have documents when he entered the US, claiming he was robbed ‘with a knife’ in Costa Rica”. She also sadly said his future is uncertain in terms of where he’d be deported to and that, in just “the first four months of 2024, 59 people have been apprehended, according to federal data” with “98 encounters with terror watchlisted individuals at both the northern and southern borders in fiscal year 2022, and almost twice as many, 172, in fiscal year 2023, which ends Sept. 30.” While the flagship network morning shows kept this hidden from viewers, one of ABC’s overnight shows curious had it as one of their top stories and gave it a tease off the top. The half-hour show America This Morning made this the third story covered, after spring break shootings and the ongoing collapse of Haiti.     Fill-in co-host Derek Dennis and ABC News multimedia reporter Perry Russom had the details (in a piece that ended with Trump’s “animals” line from Saturday about some illegal immigrants), but declined to give Taer and the Post credit for the first report (click “expand”): DENNIS: New security concerns along the southern U.S. border after a migrant from the Middle East was taken into custody with alleged ties to a foreign terrorist organization. ABC's Perry Russom is here with the details. Perry, good morning to you. RUSSOM: Derek, good morning. The migrant detained at the border claims he was heading to New York to make a bomb. And he allegedly said he was trained by the militant group Hezbollah. This morning, ABC News has confirmed a Lebanese man apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol has acknowledged being a member of Hezbollah, considered one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in the world. ABC NEWS PRODUCER QUINN OWEN: We don't know for sure, what level of threat this individual may pose. There may be mental health concerns at — at issue here. RUSSOM: Documents show the man tried to cross into Texas from Mexico March 9, telling border authorities he was heading to New York, where he hoped to, “make a bomb.” According to internal documents, the 22-year-old was slated for deportation, but it was unclear where to. OWEN: These types of unauthorized migrants are detained by federal authorities, often referred for further investigation or even prosecution, if warranted and that whole process can take time.  RUSSOM: Texas governor Greg Abbott blamed president Biden's policies, calling them “a magnet for this type of terror.”   PRESIDENT BIDEN [on 03/07/24]: What are you against? RUSSOM: Biden has defended his immigration policy, blaming House Republicans for killing a bipartisan security deal. FBI Director Christopher Wray just last week warned of dangerous people crossing the border.  FBI DIRECTOR CHRIS WRAY: [on 03/11/24]: 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. In contrast, there was plenty of attention on cable with multiple mentions on the Fox Business Network, the Fox News Channel, Newsmax, and especially NewsNation. To NewsNation’s credit, they not only cited Taer’s story on Sunday night, but they mentioned it on four of their shows on Monday (as of this blog’s publication). For example, the 9:00 a.m. Eastern edition of NewsNation Live with Marni Hughes had a full, two-minute-and-41 second report from Hughes and correspondent Dray Clark.     Along with Hughes saying this was “an alarming arrest” who “had some pretty disturbing plans”, Clark stated the obvious that this “raised eyebrows because this was a self-proclaimed terrorist who said he wanted to pull off an attack here in New York City.” Clark pointed out NewsNation had been able to independently confirm Taer’s details (click “expand”): CLARK: [M]ultiple Custom Border Protection sources tell NewsNation Ebbadi wanted to use that bomb right here in New York. Sources also telling us that he claimed to be a member of the terrorist group Hezbollah and trained with the group for seven years. Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed terror group who, like Hamas, recently launched missile attacks against Israel and Ebbadi told investigators he used fake names and documentation in other countries while making his way to the U.S.-Mexico border. However, investigators did not say if his name is on the terror watch list. Meanwhile, Border Patrol agents arrested 169 people on the watch list in 2023 at both the southern and northern borders. And so far this year, there have been 49 apprehensions. Now, this was a statement from Customs and Border Protection: “If an individual poses a potential threat to national security or public safety, we deny admission, detain, remove, or refer them to other federal agencies for further vetting, investigation and/or prosecution as appropriate.” Now, the authorities here in New York say they certainly are aware of this arrest, but they are not immediately alarmed mainly because that suspect is now in custody in Texas, being held in isolation. We also know that, at some point in time, Ebbadi will be deported. As to what country that will be, we’re not exactly sure at this point, Marni. HUGHES: Yeah. Just glad that they were able to get him and hopefully learn more information in the process. While these networks (and Taer) were doing their jobs, ABC’s Good Morning America was too busy promoting President Biden’s executive order on women’s health, CBS Mornings had a recap of Sunday’s NAACP Image Awards, and NBC’s Today had not one (as ABC and CBS did) but two segments on the latest tea surrounding the British royals photo scandal. Thankfully, NBC decided to have the wherewithal to cover this. Acting as though viewers had already heard of this story, Nightly News anchor Lester Holt announced a segment on “that alleged Hezbollah bombmaker caught crossing the southern border who said he wanted to travel to New York.” Justice correspondent Julia Ainsley outlined the basic details of what Taer, NewsNation, and the rest had confirmed hours earlier before acknowledging “[o]fficials I've spoken to said it is highly unusual for someone to voluntarily disclose that information.”     And while it’s unknown whether “Ebbadi was on the terrorist watch list,” Ainsley added “[o]ver 160 migrants crossing the border last year were on that list” and has thus “been a major criticism of Biden border policies by Republicans.” UPDATE, 8:39 p.m. Eastern: This post has been updated from its original publication at 6:27 p.m. Eastern to include coverage from Monday’s NBC Nightly News.

ABC Bashes Trump, Plays State-Run Media for Biden on Womens Health Executive Order

ABC’s Good Morning America went head-first on Monday into promoting the “bloodbath” hoax against former President Trump, melting down over their claims that he said America will be a “bloodbath” if he loses (when he was referring to what a flood of Chinese-affiliated electric vehicles would do to U.S.-based workers).  But at the same time they were bashing Trump’s “dark”, “incendiary”, and “menacing” speech, they were eagerly fluffing Team Biden’s pillows with the regime’s propaganda of the day on women’s health.     Less than ten minutes after the show lambasted Trump, co-host Robin Roberts proclaimed at the start of the 66-second report: “Now to President Biden set to issue a wide range executive order to promote research on women’s health.” The chyron was even dumber, as if the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre or way too online Andrew Bates wrote it for the Disney network: “Breaking News; New Push for Women’s Health; President Biden Issuing Executive Order on Women’s Health Research”. Senior White House correspondent Selina Wang did her best channeling colleague and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce, bragging of what the White House has deemed “the most comprehensive action by a president to advance women’s health research.” There wasn’t a scintilla of pushback. Instead, it was all fluff. Wang continued: Now, this officials say, the goal here is to make sure that women get the answers they need about their health since, for too long, medical research has focused on men and left women out. Now, the President — he is directing federal agencies to collect more data on women’s health, and this also adds $200 million in new funding for new research. This inquires around menopause and conditions like osteoporosis that are more likely to occur after menopause. She closed by going from unofficial White House press official to unofficial Biden/Harris 2024 press official as she gushed about Biden “trying to position himself as a champion of women’s health and blaming Donald Trump for taking away women’s reproductive rights.” “But President Biden — he’s also urging Congress to step into close at medical research gap. He’s urging Congress to approve $12 billion in new funding for women’s health research,” she concluded. Co-host Michael Strahan stated his approval before moving on: “That’s good news for women there.” As we’ve written about in the past, Good Morning America in particular has had a penchant for going even beyond the bias on its competition (CBS Mornings and NBC’s Today) to outright propaganda with these puffball pieces peddling whatever the White House’s daily messaging. To see the relevant transcript from March 18, click “expand.” ABC’s Good Morning America March 18, 2024 7:12 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Breaking News; New Push for Women’s Health; President Biden Issuing Executive Order on Women’s Health Research] ROBIN ROBERTS: Now to President Biden set to issue a wide range executive order to promote research on women’s health. Our senior White House correspondent Selina Wang has those details for us. Good morning, Selina. SELINA WANG: Hey, good morning, Robin. The White House is calling this the most comprehensive action by a president to advance women’s health research. Now, this officials say, the goal here is to make sure that women get the answers they need about their health since, for too long, medical research has focused on men and left women out. Now, the President — he is directing federal agencies to collect more data on women’s health, and this also adds $200 million in new funding for new research. This inquires around menopause and conditions like osteoporosis that are more likely to occur after menopause. All of this, Robin, coming amid an election year — as the election heats up and the President — he’s trying to position himself as a champion of women’s health and blaming Donald Trump for taking away women’s reproductive rights. But President Biden — he’s also urging Congress to step into close at medical research gap. He’s urging Congress to approve $12 billion in new funding for women’s health research, Michael. MICHAEL STRAHAN: That’s good news for women there. Selina, thank you so much.

Google Denies, But Fails to Disprove Breadth of Election Interference in MRC Exposé

Big Tech censorship giant and chronic election meddler Google issued a pathetic response to an MRC Free Speech America report exposing its 16-year scheme manipulating U.S. elections to benefit the most liberal candidates. After Fox News reported on the Media Research Center’s findings, a Google spokesperson claimed that there was “absolutely nothing new” in the report. The tech giant described the findings as a “recycled list of baseless” and “inaccurate complaints," but cited scant evidence to dispute them. Nice try, Google. In response to Google’s claims, MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider declared: “Google has censored every candidate, from both sides of the aisle, seeking to replace Joe Biden a whopping 112 times, but it has not censored Biden a single time. And now Google wants us to believe that the same company that manipulated search prompts to create a black George Washington or an Asian Adolph Hitler does not manipulate its search results. Google used to get away with this obfuscation, but the American public is now wise to its ways. Nobody is buying Google’s claims anymore.” On Monday, MRC released a comprehensive report headlined “41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008.” The 16-page report highlights the harrowing power and influence Google has exerted on elections to aid the left since the rise of former President Barack Obama in 2008. Tellingly, Google has transformed its search manipulating tactics into high gear in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election. To this day, Google has not even attempted to deny MRC Free Speech America’s studies showing that it has actively hidden the campaign websites of President Joe Biden’s opponents. Even more telling, Google appeared to have specifically censored the websites of some of its worst critics. Google told Fox News that it has an “incentive” to keep the whole political spectrum of users happy. “We have a clear business incentive to keep everyone using our products, so we have no desire to make them biased or inaccurate and have safeguards in place to ensure this,” the spokesperson claimed.  Yet Google’s assertions directly contradict growing evidence demonstrating that the tech company has indeed manipulated its products to be used as weapons favoring the most liberal candidates and ideals.  Take Google’s artificial intelligence Gemini, for example. The AI chatbot became notorious for its explicit refusal to generate images of white individuals while propping up racially diverse images, demonstrating the lengths to which the tech giant is willing to go to manipulate search results. But that’s just scratching the surface.  In an interview with tech outlet Pirate Wires, a Google engineer admitted that he and his colleagues spent “probably half” of their engineering time on funneling diversity commands in Gemini. Related: Is Google’s AI Racist? Product Lead’s Tweets Give Us an Indication Despite Google’s denial, prior comments from Jen Gennai, the director of Google’s Responsible Innovation Team, tell a different story. In a bombshell video released by Project Veritas in 2019, Gennai admitted that Google has the power to prevent “the next Trump situation,” seemingly implying it would use that power against the former president’s 2020 campaign. “If not us, then who,” she said in the video. 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.

Media’s Favorite Drag Queen Accused of Multiple Sexual Assaults

Yeah…we could’ve told you that was gonna happen. The media took every opportunity it could to rant and rave about Darius Pierce, also known as Shangela from "RuPaul's Drag Race," that it could in the last few years. Now, however, numerous sexual assault allegations have surfaced damaging the once “crowning glory” reputation Shangela was given. Four separate people spoke with Rolling Stone and alleged that Pierce “either sexually assaulted them or attempted to have sex with them when they were too inebriated to consent. A fifth person claims Pierce attempted anal penetration in a bathroom closet despite rejecting his advances.” I guess this queer may be one to fear! The five allegations “mirror” a recently settled lawsuit where Pierce was accused of raping Daniel McGarrigle, who worked on the production team of a TV show he was on. The lawsuit alleged that the rape happened after Pierce purchased “several drinks” for the production assistant.  Nonetheless, according to a letter submitted on behalf of Pierce to Rolling Stone, the allegations are “false and unsupported by any evidence or reliable witness testimony” and Pierce, “adamantly denies ever engaging in nonconsensual sex.” Common denial phrase for a rapist. McGarrigle alleged that he woke up after getting drunk and throwing up to Pierce “rubbing his penis against his buttocks, attempting to insert himself into his anus,” Rolling stone indicated. Rolling Stone provided more details about the five individual alleged cases of assault, all of which likely knew Shangela from his Drag Queen career as they have “participated in or watched drag shows” themselves. All of the victims were between 18 and 23 years-old at the time of the alleged assault. “All five said that Pierce, nearly double their age and fresh off headline-grabbing spots on the silver screen and awards-show red carpets, drank with them through the late hours of the night and into the morning,” Rolling Stone reported. One individual claimed they “got so drunk” that they puked in a hotel bed, the same bed that they were then allegedly sexually assaulted in. Many shared the alleged experience of getting drunk with Pierce and waking up to Pierce (and sometimes another man) attempting to penetrate them. Victims report to being in and out of consciousness and not being able to stop Pierce, even with clear “nos.” One victim said Pierce even dressed up as Shangela for the alleged rape. “She had gotten me so drunk that I couldn’t say no, and I was in no way mentally OK enough to feel strong or demand her to stop what she was doing,” Rolling Stone indicated. “I remember I woke up, felt so nasty, and just got in the shower and walked out of that hotel thinking it was my fault for being drunk and staying the night.” This alleged rapist is the same one the media has praised for years! In January of 2023, Pierce guest starred on "Good Morning America" to talk about his queerness. Hosts praised him for advocating for LGBTQ garbage across the nation and congratulated Pierce for the tour he was part of at the time. “We need that right now,” one of the GMA hosts confessed. Pierce also plugged the “We’re Here” TV show he was part of. The same show he allegedly raped the production assistant on.  In 2022 Shangela was also on "Dancing With The Stars" (DWTS) as the first Drag Queen to star on the show. "DWTS," which airs on none other than Disney+, raved about Shangela. One judge called him a “showstopping sensation,” at the time and show producers gave him ample time to promote drag queens and queerness. In another episode, the "DWTS" host told Shangela his presence on the show was “absolutely groundbreaking.” Then of course back in 2011, Shangela was invited to teach young little girls, literally ages 6-10 how to act and dance like a drag queen on Lifetime's "Dance Moms." Now, am I gonna sit here and say that every drag queen or queer person is a rapist? No, of course not! But, living and believing a delusion certainly gives you the propensity to act in ways that are not morally sound as well as believe that you can be whoever you want and do whatever you want, just like many of the alphabet mob do. Time will tell if enough evidence finds Shangela guilty of all these alleged assaults. Until then, hide yo kids, hide yo wife and hide yo husband too. 

I Want It Now! Salty Don Lemon Demanded a Cybertruck, Piece of X from Elon Musk

Disgraced media figure Don Lemon reportedly viewed billionaire Elon Musk, and his social media platform X, as a goose that would lay him a golden egg after CNN ousted him. According to reports, Lemon had made exorbitant and ridiculous demands in his negotiations to air his show on X. And when the deal fell apart after Musk pulled the plug, the billionaire compared Lemon to spoiled brat Veruca Salt from the movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. According to reporting from Ariel Zilber of the New York Post, Lemon’s “astronomical wish list to Elon Musk” included “a free Tesla Cybertruck, a $5 million upfront payment on top of an $8 million salary, an equity stake in the multibillion-dollar company,” and the ridiculous demand to have “the right to approve any changes in X policy as it relates to news content.” Those demands sounded like a far cry from Lemon’s claims to CNN last week that his agreement with X was just a “distribution” deal. The Post also reported that Lemon wanted X to pamper him and his fiancé: Lemon — who was expected to air an interview with Musk for next week’s debut episode on X — had also demanded a private jet flight to Las Vegas, a suite for him and his fiance, and that the company pay for their day drinking and massages, a source with knowledge of the situation said. Musk agreed to do the interview with Lemon despite the fact that he was aware of some of Lemon’s outlandish demands, sources told The Post. The vice chairman of the “talent” agency Lemon utilized, United Talent Agency, denied the allegations. “This is absolute, complete utter nonsense without an iota of truth to it,” Jay Sures told The Post. It’s worth noting that The Post viewed documents that backed up their reporting. In a post on X roughly an hour after the newspaper published their article about Lemon’s demands, Musk took a swipe at Lemon by comparing him to the spoiled girl from Willy Wonka who demanded a golden-egg-laying goose and an Oompa Loompa.   Don “Veruca Salt” 🍋 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 16, 2024   Given what’s been leaked about Lemon’s demands, perhaps the negotiation meetings sounded something like this: I want a ball I want a party Pink macaroons And a million balloons And performing baboons and Give it to me now! I want the world I want the whole world I want to lock it All up in my pocket It's my bar of chocolate Give it to me now!  

NY Times Tech Guy Sees ‘Bigots’ on Social Media, Gets Touchy When He’s Smeared Too

New York Times tech reporter/columnist Kevin Roose is notorious here at NewsBusters for hailing a gay-Marxist activist who successfully “demonetized” a conservative comedian’s YouTube account, and for nudging social media platforms toward anti-conservative censorship. While Roose surely surprised readers with his reluctant approval of a TikTok ban in his Friday piece, “TikTok Is Its Own Worst Enemy,” his reasoning was unintentionally amusing and revealing of hypocrisy. I was really rooting for TikTok. In 2020, when the Trump administration first tried to force TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell the app or risk having it shut down, I argued that banning TikTok in the United States would do more harm than good. Why? Partly because TikTok seemed like a convenient scapegoat for problems -- invasive data collection, opaque content policies, addictive recommendation algorithms -- that plagued all the big social media apps, and partly because I never bought the argument that the app was a Chinese spying tool hiding in plain sight. …. But over the past few weeks, as a bipartisan bill that would force ByteDance to sell TikTok hurtled toward passage in Congress, I’ve warmed up to the idea that banning TikTok, or forcing its sale, is probably a good idea. What changed his mind? For one, a TikTok executive suggested Roose was an anti-Chinese “bigot.” Mostly, TikTok tried to keep its head down, while privately suggesting that anyone who dared to question the company’s ties to the Chinese government was engaging in paranoid, and perhaps racist, fear mongering….the company also wielded accusations of xenophobia against good-faith skeptics who simply wanted to know how an app owned by a Chinese tech conglomerate could be free of Chinese influence, given Beijing’s track record of meddling with its tech companies. (I’ll never forget the time a few years ago when a TikTok executive suggested that I was a bigot for raising questions about whether Mr. Chew -- who, importantly, was also serving as ByteDance’s chief financial officer at the time -- felt pressure to adhere to Chinese censorship laws.) Yet this same reporter has filed some dozen stories referencing the need to crack down on the “bigots and trolls” infesting social media platforms. A small sampling: From July 2020’s “Goodbye to the Wild Wild Web.” The internet giants’ unwillingness to make rules (and then, later, their inability to enforce them) empowered a generation of bigots and media manipulators who are now among our most influential public figures. From a June 2020 story: Twitter has been a supporter of Black Lives Matter for years -- remember Mr. Dorsey’s trip to Ferguson? -- but it, too, has a problem with racists and bigots using its platform to stir up unrest….these companies’ own products -- Facebook, Twitter and YouTube -- have been successfully weaponized by racists and partisan provocateurs, and are being used to undermine Black Lives Matter and other social justice movements. From October 2022: It’s possible that, as Mr. Musk suggests, relaxing Twitter’s rules could revitalize it, or bring lapsed users back to the platform. It’s also possible that it could empower bigots and trolls, and undo years of work that made the platform safer for users and more attractive to advertisers…. Perhaps Roose’s most obnoxious report was his unswerving February 2020 hagiography of gay Marxist activist Carlos Maza for demonetizing conservative comedian Stephen Crowder: Carlos Maza believes that YouTube is a destructive, unethical, reckless company that amplifies bigots and profits off fascism. Now it’s also his meal ticket.

The View Defends Media’s Trump ‘Bloodbath’ Hoax, Claims It’s in Context

Over the weekend, the liberal media went hog-wild with a grossly out-of-context soundbite of former President Trump claiming that he was going to bring a “bloodbath” to America if he wasn’t reelected. ABC’s The View kept the falsehood going Monday morning by airing a deceptively edited clip of Trump and repeatedly insisting that he was completely in context. Only one of them dared to get close to the truth and even then, they only played footsie with it. Ahead of their defense of the media’s lies about the clip, The View aired a deceptively edited video of Trump’s speech stripping out all references to China undercutting American manufacturing: In some cases, they're not people in my opinion. [Transition] These are bad -- these are animals. [Transition] We're going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it, but they're not going to sell those cars. “So, he says his bloodbath comment was referring to the auto industry. Now, I don't know if that's how y'all heard it, but that's not how it sounded to me,” moderator Whoopi Goldberg scoffed. Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin wasn’t concerned with the fact that the media companies she sold her soul to (ABC and CNN) were lying to the American people about the context of the context. Instead, she was more concerned with Republicans pouncing: I do think it matters. So, I know how Republican voters think, and the average person doesn't probably consume media -- political media especially as much as we do, and my worry is this. The bloodbath comment over the weekend was wall-to-wall coverage, and a lot of Republicans are going to see the headline and then see what he said and say, “Oh, wait. He's talking about autoworkers,” but what they don't hear is the other part that we played there. January 6th hostages, playing an alternative national anthem. That is so un-American. “But look, we've already seen what Donald Trump's words are capable of, who they're capable of triggering. Right? We have seen January 6th. We've seen that he's led an insurrection,” the other fake conservative, Ana Navarro bloviated. And in spite of the fact that Trump was talking about China undercutting U.S. manufacturing in the auto industry, she insisted: “We're not taking it out of context because the context is his history and his life.”     She also blamed Trump for a mass shooting at an El Paso, Texas Walmart and suggested that if Trump was reelected, he’d would call for an open hunting season on Latinos (Click “expand”): And I will never forget, and I think we have to remember it over and over again, the 23 people that were killed in the Walmart in El Paso because a white supremacist was triggered by words like invaders, by wanting to go target people who look like me, and probably sound like me, even though 13 of them were Americans like I am. So, I want to say to my, you know, Latino friends, some of them who might be thinking of voting for Trump. When Trump talks about poisoning the blood of America, and he's talking about migrants, when he refers to them as animals and he's talking about my migrants, and when he's referring to them as not people, as invaders. Let me tell you. People who hate folks like that, they're not going to stop and ask you if you have a U.S. citizenship or a U.S. passport. They're going to shoot first and then ask questions. So I think he's putting a target on all of our backs. “It scared me. It scared me,” staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) proclaimed about Trump’s “bloodbath” comment. The overwrought pearl-clutching continued with her suggesting that it reminded her of a WWII TV show she was watching where they mentioned the Holocaust: And he is using that kind of World War II rhetoric that led to the deaths of 6 -- the murders of 6 million people, and now he is otherizing brown people. He is otherizing black people. He is saying things like this: “I don't think you're going to have another election if I don't win or certainly not an election that's meaningful.” He's saying the loud -- the quiet part out loud: “If I am not elected, we are going to see January 6th again.” “And I think we need to be on guard to make sure that we preserve our democracy so that our country looks the way that it should look, like all of us! It's a diverse country! That's what America was built upon!” she shrieked. The only one to get anywhere close to admitting the full context of Trump’s “bloodbath” comment was left-of-center co-host Sara Haines. She said she was shocked by media headlines but admitted that after she watched it, she “had a slightly different context because he is speaking all about cars and tariffs and auto industry.” Haines hedged by arguing that it was reasonable for the media to take him out of context because he was “incoherent” and thus wasn’t “too far of a stretch that the media was running with it.” “I do think some people then calling for, this is the sound of a new insurrection and all of this. They were running a little far,” she added. She then criticized Trump, saying: “[H]e invites this criticism because this is the language he invokes. He's always dropping little whistles into everything he says, and the problem there is, regardless if you try to give him context, regardless if you try to give him benefit of the doubt, the people that are looking for those sound like you're mentioning, Ana, are hearing them.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 18, 2024 11:03:02 a.m. Eastern (…) DONALD TRUMP: In some cases, they're not people in my opinion. [Transition] These are bad -- these are animals. [Transition] We're going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole -- that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it, but they're not going to sell those cars. [Cuts back to live] WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So, he says his bloodbath comment was referring to the auto industry. Now, I don't know if that's how y'all heard it, but that's not how it sounded to me, but I mean, what do you think about -- do you care? Because he does this every week now, every three or four days, he says something outrageous, and then we flock to talk about it. What's your thoughts? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I do think it matters. So, I know how Republican voters think, and the average person doesn't probably consume media -- political media especially as much as we do, and my worry is this. The bloodbath comment over the weekend was wall-to-wall coverage, and a lot of Republicans are going to see the headline and then see what he said and say, “Oh, wait. He's talking about autoworkers,” but what they don't hear is the other part that we played there. January 6th hostages, playing an alternative national anthem. That is so un-American. (…) 11:05:02 a.m. Eastern ANA NAVARRO: But look, we've already seen what Donald Trump's words are capable of, who they're capable of triggering. Right? We have seen January 6th. We've seen that he's led an insurrection. So, no. We're not taking it out of context because the context is his history and his life. And I will never forget, and I think we have to remember it over and over again, the 23 people that were killed in the Walmart in El Paso because a white supremacist was triggered by words like invaders, by wanting to go target people who look like me, and probably sound like me, even though 13 of them were Americans like I am. So, I want to say to my, you know, Latino friends, some of them who might be thinking of voting for Trump. When Trump talks about poisoning the blood of America, and he's talking about migrants, when he refers to them as animals and he's talking about my migrants, and when he's referring to them as not people, as invaders. Let me tell you. People who hate folks like that, they're not going to stop and ask you if you have a U.S. citizenship or a U.S. passport. They're going to shoot first and then ask questions. So I think he's putting a target on all of our backs. (…) 11:06:25 a.m. Eastern SUNNY HOSTIN: It scared me. [Applause] It scared me, honestly, you know? I didn't think ever in my lifetime I would see that. I’ve been watching this show called The New Look, and it goes over what designers were doing in Paris during World War II during the Nazi occupation. And one character says to another, you know, “We took all the things that the Jews had. We took their homes. We took their jewelry. We took all of those things. And now the next step is to dehumanize them, to make sure that they have -- to show people that they have no soul, that they are not human.” And he is using that kind of World War II rhetoric that led to the deaths of 6 -- the murders of 6 million people, and now he is otherizing brown people. He is otherizing black people. He is saying things like this: “I don't think you're going to have another election if I don't win or certainly not an election that's meaningful.” He's saying the loud -- the quiet part out loud: “If I am not elected, we are going to see January 6th again.” And I think we need to be on guard to make sure that we preserve our democracy so that our country looks the way that it should look, like all of us! It's a diverse country! That's what America was built upon! SARA HAINES: Yeah. Well so, when I first heard this speech, I read the headlines and was, like, “Oh my gosh. What is he saying now?” And then I went in and watched it, and I had a slightly different context because he is speaking all about cars and tariffs and auto industry. But the problem is he also sounded slightly incoherent because he then veered -- the way he has lately in a lot of these rallies. HOSTIN: He has a limited vocabulary. HAINES: Well when he say, like “Yeah, and if I don't get elected” you can start to follow his irrational thought process of, “Ahhh there'll be a blood bath.” So, I don't think it was too far of a stretch that the media was running with it. I do think some people then calling for, this is the sound of a new insurrection and all of this. They were running a little far. Because I don’t think he’s -- you can't just claim coherence when you like what he says, meaning you can run with kind of his narrative. But he invites this criticism because this is the language he invokes. He's always dropping little whistles into everything he says, and the problem there is, regardless if you try to give him context, regardless if you try to give him benefit of the doubt, the people that are looking for those sounds like you're mentioning, Ana, are hearing them. And he has to stop talking about hostages. (…)

Joe Scarborough: You Lie! Hamas Will 'Never Ever' Regain Power in Gaza, So Skip Rafah

Joe Scarborough: not just a TV talking head anymore. Now, perhaps the world's greatest military strategist and oracle.  On today's Morning Joe, "General" Joe repeatedly called it a "lie" that Israel needs to conduct a ground invasion of Rafah. Why? "Because that's the lie right now that you hear. Oh, if they don't go in and kill another 10,000 civilians, Hamas is going to come back to power. It is a lie. Hamas will never regain power in Gaza, ever. That's over." How many Israeli lives is Scarborough willing to bet on his prediction?  In his interview with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union yesterday, Netanyahu said that about 1/4 of Hamas' battalions remain intact, and are located in Rafah. He asked: should the Allies not have invaded Berlin, since 3/4 of Hitler's battalions had been destroyed? Why would Scarborough possibly think it's a good idea to let Hamas hold on to 1/4 of its power, festering there in Rafah, and slowly rebuilding itself? Joe, since you have been endowed with an other-worldly ability to peer into the future, how about giving us Scarborough's Stone-Cold NCAA Bracket Locks? This came after Scarborough ripped Netanyahu for failing to prevent the October 7 attack, just like the liberals tried to blame George W. Bush for being asleep at the switch on 9/11. Somehow that oracle Scarborough didn't see well enough into the future to see Hamas and its merciless slaughter.  And talk about chutzpah! James Stavridis, MSNBC analyst and former NATO high muckety-muck, said that as a friend of Israel, "we need to tell them what they need to do next."  I'm sure millions of Israelis would be happy to tell Stavridis--and the horse he rode in on--what they need to do! Stavridis also called Schumer's speech calling for Israeli regime change "incredibly appropriate," and repeatedly mumured his agreement with Scarborough's assertion that Hamas will never regain power in Gaza. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 3/18/23 6:47 am EDT: JAMES STAVRIDIS: As friends of Israel, we need to tell them what they need to do next. And it is not go in heavy in a massive ground campaign in Rafah.  JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, and again, you know, they can try to turn friends into enemies. Benjamin Netanyahu supporters and right-wing extremists in the United States can try to turn Israel's lifelong friends into enemies.  I mean, I'm a lifelong friend of Israel, I have been my entire life. I was in Congress. I have -- AIPAC would have me go give speeches to help the cause, and I did that through the years. And I have always supported Israel.  But I don't support Benjamin Netanyahu's, um, um, um, um, reign to, to, to, to, in the midst of just the worst attack against Israel in their history.  MIKA BRZEZINSKI: He's turning the tide of international support.  SCARBOROUGH: Well, he's, he's under -- you know, friends don't let friends drive drunk, as they say. And friends also don't let friends have a leader destroy the country's standing on the globe, in the shadow of the worst attack against Jews since the Holocaust! And we're supposed to just stand by here as we watch somebody like Netanyahu, desperately clinging to power, when what he's doing is not in the best interest of Israel?  MIKA: So many questions.  SCARBOROUGH: And the lie that Hamas is ever going to reconstitute and run Gaza again, is a lie. And he knows that!  And we, we, we, we're gonna get back to this in a second. Because we have Keir Simmons that we're going to go to Moscow.  But I want to get back to this, because that's the lie right now that you hear. That, oh, if, if they don't go in and kill another 10,000 civilians, Hamas is going to come back to power. STAVRIDIS: No way. SCARBOROUGH: It is a lie. Hamas will never regain power in Gaza, ever. That's over. STAVRIDIS: Correct. 

OLD GRAY KAREN: NYT Publishes 3,984-Word Eulogy Decrying Death of Gov’t-Big Tech Collusion

The Old Gray Lady continues to behave like a Karen triggered by people’s ability to express their opinions about elections freely online. Darn that pesky free speech! The New York Times effectively wrote what amounted to a 3,984-word eulogy for the death of the dystopian thought police. The Times mourned that former President Donald Trump’s “Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation.” The newspaper — acting like a speech gatekeeper — bemoaned that Trump and free speech absolutists “have successfully stymied the effort to filter election lies online.” But the same outlet that’s whining about “disinformation” and “election lies” is the one that uses its own platform to gaslight struggling Americans on how President Joe Biden’s inflation-rattled economy “looks sunny.” But who's keeping track, right?  The disgruntled publication attempted to justify Big Tech’s collusion  whipped out the Capitol Hill riot on January 6, 2021 to justify government officials jawboning Big Tech platforms to censor speech. The newspaper dubbed the dystopian collusion a “groundswell built in Washington to rein in the onslaught of lies that had fueled the assault on the peaceful transfer of power.”  But alas, cried The Times, Trump and his pro-free speech cohorts have “unquestionably prevailed” in their “counteroffensive” to block “what they viewed as a dangerous effort to censor conservatives.” How horrible that “conservatives” aren’t exactly keen on their government being weaponized against them because of their opinions! But The Times, which developed a penchant for openly advocating for censoring political views on elections, couldn’t stand the fact that free speech could possibly be, er, free: Waged in the courts, in Congress and in the seething precincts of the internet, that effort has eviscerated attempts to shield elections from disinformation in the social media era. It tapped into — and then, critics say, twisted — the fierce debate over free speech and the government’s role in policing content. The newspaper even went as far as to say the quiet part out loud by boo-hooing the Biden administration “abandoning” its collusion with Big Tech platforms following political and legal blowback because it “helped cut a path for Mr. Trump’s attempt to recapture the presidency.”  Ah, so Biden will have to win without his bag of Orwellian censorship tricks weaponized against Trump and his allies? Heaven forbid! “Mr. Trump’s allies have succeeded in paralyzing the Biden administration and the network of researchers who monitor disinformation,” The Times continued.   Cry more. 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 at the CensorTrack contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

Nets Pitch Hissy Fits Over Trump’s ‘Controversial’, ‘Incendiary’ ‘Bloodbath’ Comment

Like a cat chasing a flashlight, former President Trump had the liberal media in the palm of his hand. As our Jorge Bonilla noted on the Sunday morning political talk shows and Sunday night on ABC, the liberal media were losing their noodles over Trump’s Saturday remarks warning of a “bloodbath” for the U.S. auto industry if President Biden succeeded in pressing through electric vehicles assembled in or with help from China.  Naturally, the press claimed he meant America would become a literal “bloodbath” if he lost the November election. And, unfortunately, the lies about this “incendiary” and “controversial” remark dragged into the flagship Monday morning shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC.     ABC’s Good Morning America co-host and former Clinton tool George Stephanopoulos denounced Trump’s rally as an “incendiary speech” outlining his “vision of America” that included “praise for the January 6 convicts, attacks on immigrants as subhuman, and a warning of a bloodbath for the country if he’s defeated.” Chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl — a three-time bestselling anti-Trump author who’d benefit from a second Trump term — huffed from a proverbial fainting couch about how, “[e]ven by Trump standards, [his] speech over the weekend was dark and menacing.” After starting with Trump’s January 6 comments, Karl screeched at Trump “call[ing] some of the undocumented immigrants...animals” before shifting to “bloodbath”: “He also vowed to impose a 100 percent tariff on some imported cars, then making an ominous warning about what would happen if Biden wins reelection.” Karl played the full clip in context, but then demanded viewers “listen again” to imply he thinks Trump predicted America will be a literal bloody mess if he loses. Incredibly, he closed by suggesting it didn’t really matter what Trump meant, but that it was dangerous (click “expand”): KARL: The Biden campaign quickly seized on Trump’s comments, accusing him of having a “affection for violence” and a “thirst for revenge” and alleging he wants “another January 6.” The Trump campaign defended Trump’s use of the word bloodbath. Senior adviser Jason Miller saying Trump was referring to “the auto industry,” not political violence. It’s true that Trump started out talking about cars, but listen again. He then explicitly says, that will “be the least of it.” TRUMP [on 03/16/24]: Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. KARL: Speaking at the Gridiron Dinner in Washington over the weekend, President Biden laid out what believed what is at stake in the election, saying, “there is a toxic cycle of anger and conspiracy,” adding, “freedom is under a sold, to vote, the freedom to choose, and so much more.” Whether or not Trump was solely talking about cars or about the broader economy when he used the word “bloodbath,” it wasn’t the only dark morning that he made about what would happen if he loses in November. He also said that, if Biden wins, “I don’t think that you’re going to have another election in this country”[.] Shifting to NBC’s Today, weekend co-host Laura Jarrett (daughter of Obama confidant, Valerie Jarrett) was filling in on a weekday and, naturally, parroted Team Biden’s talking points by boasting of “Trump sparking controversy at a rally, saying there will be a ‘bloodbath’ if he loses in November.” Trump campaign correspondent Garrett Haake also took his marching orders from his leftist pals by contrasting Trump’s comment “drawing a lot of attention” and “debate” about “what [Trump] actually said and what he may have meant” with Biden’s “record fundraising haul”. “Donald Trump on the attack this weekend in Ohio, lashing out at some of his favorite targets from the criminal cases against him....to what he claims are the criminal migrants crossing the southern border and destroying the country,” Haake added. He then fed the “bloodbath” hoax, which he celebrated as having “creat[ed] new headlines and headaches for his campaign” with “[t]he Biden campaign seizing on the remark and rejecting the Trump campaign’s claim that it was about only cars.” Haake did, however, concede that “[e]lected Republicans” were “largely shrugging off the comment”. While he played up a manufactured Trump controversy, he played stenographer for Biden by cheering his campaign’s “record fundraising haul” having left “the campaign flush with $155 million” and Biden appearing at the ultra-elite D.C. event the Gridiron. CBS Mornings got in on the fun too. Co-host Tony Dokoupil had a quick tease in the “Eye Opener” with the chyron “Trump rhetoric” as he noted Trump was “pick[ing] up some new attention for controversial comments if he loses”. Dokoupil also led off the full segment: “The presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, is taking heat for the language he used at a rally in Ohio over the weekend where he lashed out at migrants and defended January 6 criminals.” Senior White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe largely focused on former Vice President Mike Pence’s Face the Nation interview and Trump’s January 6 comments at the rally, but he stayed out of the “bloodbath” hubbub (even though he ended as Haake did with Biden fluff) (click “expand”): O’KEEFE: Trump went on to stoke fear about criminals coming across the southern border — TRUMP [on 03/16/24]: But I don’t know if you call them people. In some cases, they’re not people, in my opinion. O’KEEFE: — and speaking about the auto industry and cars manufactured abroad, he said — TRUMP [on 03/16/24]: We’re going to put 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line. [CHEERS AND APPLAUSE] And you’re not going to be able to sell those cars, if I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it, it’s going to be a bloodbath. O’KEEFE: The Biden campaign criticized Trump’s use of the word “bloodbath”, saying he was doubling down on “threats of political violence.”[CHEERS] The Trump campaign hit back, saying the comment was taken out of context. As for President Biden, he celebrated St. Patrick’s Day here at the White House yesterday while also celebrating a record $53 million fundraising total in February. This week, he’s headed west for stops in the battleground states of Nevada and Arizona, which he won in 2020 and will be critical in November. He’ll also be making some stops in Texas to raise money[.] To see the relevant transcript from March 18, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

Study Finds 'Woke' People Are More Unhappy, Anxious & Depressed

This is absolutely not surprising. A study conducted by psychological researchers in Finland and published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology suggests that individuals who have a commitment to wokeness have poorer mental health and overall happiness levels. I guess believing and living in a delusion isn’t all that the left makes it out to be. The study surveyed 5,000 adult participants in Finland and found that those who are “woke” are more depressed, have more anxiety and lack happiness. As reported, “Being more anxious and depressed and less happy was more pronounced in” those who consider social justice to be a huge issue. “I had been paying attention to a development in American universities, where a new discourse on social justice became prevalent in the 2010s,” study author Oskari Lahtinen said, hence her desire to investigate.  The study identified seven truisms of woke people: “If white people have on average a higher level of income than black people, it is because of racism.” “University reading lists should include fewer white or European authors.” “Microaggressions should be challenged often and actively.” “Trans* women who compete with women in sports are not helping women’s rights.” (reverse scored) “We don’t need to talk more about the color of people’s skin.” “A white person cannot understand how a black person feels equally well as another black person.” “A member of a privileged group can adopt features or cultural elements of a less privileged group.” (reverse scored) Those that agreed with the scale had a high prevalence of anxiety and depression. As New York Post summarized, “More broadly, they found that those who identified as left-wing were most likely to report lower mental well-being.” The study noted that these attitudes are way more common in American society but have slowly been adopted by other geographical areas and countries. Lahtinen suggested that U.S. researchers conduct a similar study to see how their results compare. Related: George Mason Prof Claims Marriage Promotes 'White Supremacy'  “I encourage colleagues in the United States to study the prevalence of these attitudes in the country where they originate from,” Lahtinen said. It makes total sense that those who put their identity in worldly things, like the left does, are unhappy. They’re putting their worth in something that is artificial rather than something, or someone (Hint: GOD)!  No wonder why they’re miserable. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: The Left Celebrates International Women's Day With Dylan Mulvaney The trans community always manages to make everything about themselves. pic.twitter.com/OxnDgIggPC — MRCTV (@mrctv) March 12, 2024

Editor’s Pick: WashTimes EXPOSES Illegals Cheating Biden ‘Parole’ System

On the front page of Monday’s Washington Times, the great Stephen Dinan had an exclusive on how wannabe illegal immigrants in Nicaragua have been gaming the Biden administration’s so-called parole program that, for a mere $5,000 (in other words, a bribe to smugglers), they could apply and come to the U.S. As usual with such reporting from The Washington Times, Dinan’s story has fallen on deaf ears across the liberal media despite the fact that, as Dinan noted, the alleged murder of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley “was admitted through parole at the border” along with the alleged rapist of “a 15-year-old fellow migrant at a state-run migrant shelter in Massachusetts” (in screenshot to the right). Dinan explained that “scammers charge would-be migrants $1,000 upfront, which buys them contact with an American willing to fill out the forms promising financial support” and then another “$4,000 to the scammers” for a journey to the U.S. once approved by the Biden Department of Homeland Security. He added a source “who saw the scam in operation in Nicaragua” told him that this process “is being sold on the open market.” Dinan said this is as “the CHNV program,” which is “Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ special treatment for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.” After being unveiled in 2022 for Venezuelans, it was extended last year to include Cuba, Hait, and Nicaragua (hence the acronym)  He continued with more background on the CHNV program: The CHNV program allowed up to 30,000 people a month to bypass the border and fly directly into airports in the interior of the country, where they are granted a two-year pass under Mr. Mayorkas’ power of parole. The key requirement is that they have either a person or entity in the U.S. who promises to support them financially should they be unable to do so themselves. That is where the sales come in: Would-be migrants who don’t have family or other connections can pay to link up with a sponsor. The Biden administration, in response to questions from The Times, said migrants are “not encouraged” to strike those sorts of deals but did not say they are against the rules. Despite assurances from Biden immigration officials that they run “every prospective supporter through a series of fraud- and security-based screening measures”, Dinann showed the facts reveal it’s less-than rigorous with an overall approval rate of about 96 percent for sponsors and then an inspection upon arrival “by Customs and Border Protection officers” was “roughly 97 percent.” “For Nicaraguans, the financial approval was 94% and CBP approval on arrival was 95%,” he added. To read Dinan’s full story, click here.

41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008

Google has been getting away with election interference for at least 16 years, and it is showing no signs of stopping. MRC Free Speech America researchers compiled 41 times Google was caught interfering in U.S. elections, beginning in 2008, intensifying in 2016 and continuing into 2024. MRC researchers found carefully crafted studies and numerous reports (from 2008 through February 2024) that have consistently demonstrated the tech behemoth’s election meddling.  MRC founder and President Brent Bozell highlighted just how dangerous Google’s election interference is. “Google’s massive and deliberate efforts to interfere in U.S. elections for the past 16 years is unacceptable and the biggest threat to American democracy today,” said Bozell.  Over the years, Google has repeatedly used its power to help push the most liberal candidates to electoral victory while targeting their opponents. In 2008, the company used a light touch helping then-Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL), its favored primary candidate, and undermining his opponent, then-Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).  But after Democrats took a devastating loss in the 2016 election, evidence collected by MRC shows that election interference became part of its mission. As one Google executive let slip in a secretly recorded interview, the company was working to actively “prevent[] the next Trump situation.” After Donald Trump became president, the tech behemoth’s election interference went from making an appearance every four years to rearing its ugly head every two years. Each time it attempted to dismiss the issue and downplay its nefarious actions. But when viewed together as a historical whole, Google’s election interference has been consistent and has only grown more and more expansive.   Below are some of the highlights of MRC’s findings.  In 2008, Google endorsed the radical, young Sen. Obama and censored support for Sen. Clinton. Journalist Simon Owens reported at the time that the tech giant suspended the accounts of writers who wrote pro-Clinton blogs critical of Obama. “[N]early all of [the censored bloggers] had three things in common,” Owens wrote. “Most were pro-Hillary Clinton blogs, all were anti-Barack Obama, and several were listed on justsaynodeal.com, an anti-Obama website.” Google allowed users to smear then-leading GOP candidate for president Rick Santorum. Google refused to correct a “Google bomb” that smeared Santorum. Google “bombing” used to be a way for users to manipulate Google’s algorithm and associate websites and names with undesirable search terms. Google Search would connect the sites and terms if enough websites placed the same hyperlink over the same term or terms. The Big Tech company previously claimed that it had ended the popular internet pranks and had even corrected the issue when it impacted the White House’s webpage for Obama. But when Santorum’s team brought the issue to Google’s attention, the platform flat-out refused to resolve it, once again favoring Obama. In 2016, Google employed both its algorithm and its “partners” in futile attempts to push Clinton over the finish line. One study by SourceFed found that Google’s algorithm excluded potentially damaging autofill results for searches inquiring about Clinton’s alleged crimes and possible indictment during her scandalous tenure as Secretary of State. Google hid her flaws and instead suggested that users search for things like “Hillary Clinton crime reform” and “Hillary Clinton India” but did not do the same for other contentious searches for candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The platform also worked with “partners” to bolster Latino votes, in the hopes of propping up Clinton, according to internal emails uncovered by then-Fox News primetime host Tucker Carlson. A leaked email chain showed one employee explaining how Google made a “silent donation” by working with its partner Voto Latino to pay for Latino voters to get rides to the polls in “key states.” The tech giant also “helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides.” These and similar methods of election interference and censorship likely contributed to the 2.6 million votes that Google shifted in 2016, according to data scientist and research psychologist Robert Epstein.  Just as the election categorically changed the country's political temperature, 2016 changed things at Google. Shortly after the election, at a company-wide meeting, Google’s CFO Ruth Porat promised Google employees that the company would use its “great strength and resources and reach” to advance its leftist values. The company kept that promise, and after 2016, Google’s censorship grew in scale. Researchers uncovered clear evidence of election interference in 2018. Research showed Google’s “significant pro-liberal bias” would be “enough, quite easily, to have flipped all three congressional districts in Orange County from Republican to Democrat.” Indeed, all three flipped blue. That same election cycle, Google labeled “Nazism” as one of the California GOP’s ideologies when users searched for the political party. AllSides, a firm that rates news outlets for political bias, found that just five percent of the stories that Google linked on its Google News homepage came from right-leaning media outlets. In turn, the platform pushed 15 times as much content from media outlets that AllSides identifies as left-leaning. Similarly, a search in the News tab for “Trump” displayed more than seven times as much content from media outlets that AllSides labels as left than those it deems as from the right on the first page of results.  In 2020, Google picked its favored and disfavored candidates and continued its biased censorship spree. During the 2020 Democratic primary, The tech giant disabled then-presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s Google Ads account just as she became the most searched candidate following the first Democratic Party primary debate. “Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values,” Gabbard said responding to the incident in a statement to The New York Times. The tech giant was also accused of blocking GOP fundraising emails from reaching users’ inboxes and sending out “go vote” reminders only to Democrats. These, and similar methods of election interference, likely contributed to the at least six million votes that Google shifted in 2020, according to research. In 2022, Google placed its thumb on the scale by censoring candidates in key races, and it continued censoring media. An MRC Free Speech America study found that Google buried 83 percent of the Republican campaign websites for the most competitive Senate races. Ten of the 12 candidates did not make the top 6 search results and 7 did not appear on the first page of search results at all. In similar searches, MRC Free Speech America examined how Google treated 10 politicians known for criticizing Big Tech, either legislatively or vocally. Researchers found that Google buried the campaign websites of all 10 politicians and seven of them did not appear at all on the first page of the results. MRC Free Speech America analyzed searches conducted in Georgia during the 2022 Senate run-off race between Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) and Herschel Walker (R). In a very telling revelation, Google’s results favored Warnock in a swing precinct where greater proportions of undecided voters likely reside. The platform scrubbed Walker’s website from the first page of results altogether. AllSides also once again found Google News bias in 2020. The firm found that 61 percent of the stories included on the Google News homepage linked to leftist media outlets. Meanwhile, only three percent linked to right-leaning media outlets–a 20 to 1 disparity.  The 2024 election cycle is upon us, and Google has already begun interfering. MRC Free Speech America found that Google buried the campaign websites for every significant opponent of incumbent President Joe Biden (RFK, Jr. plus 15 Republican candidates). When searching for “Republican presidential campaign websites,” Google returned Democrat Mariane Williamson, but not former President Donald Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy and others.) Additionally, Google's artificial intelligence Gemini (formerly Bard) has refused to answer prompts questioning two of Biden’s biggest weaknesses: the president’s mental health and the ongoing border crisis. The chatbot instead suggested the queries were election-related, which they are. “Elections are a complex topic with fast-changing information,” Gemini claimed in response. "To make sure you have the latest and most accurate information, try Google Search.” Given the consistent nature of Google’s election interference and censorship prowess, the Big Tech giant must be made to come to heel. MRC Free Speech America recommends that Congress, State legislatures and American citizens take action to investigate Google and begin curbing its power to interfere in American democracy. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) should direct relevant committees and committee chairmans to investigate Google for abridging people’s constitutional rights; for coordinating with government to violate freedom of speech; for interfering in elections by making unreported in-kind contributions; and for defrauding its users by failing to meet its Terms of Service.  State legislatures should resolve any question of whether Google is a common carrier, which it is; and they can follow the lead of Texas and Florida to ensure that Big Tech cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination.  Americans should stop using Google products, particularly Google Search and instead opt for one of the many alternatives. From our research, alternatives appear to produce better, less biased results. You can read the full study here:   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.

CNN Host on PBS: Gen. Kelly Says Trump 2nd Term 'Would Be Fundamentally a Catastrophe'

Taxpayer-funded PBS may seem in all its public relations as a bland and civil oasis on public affairs programming, when in reality it's just another red-hot anti-Trump channel like the rest. When the leftists at The Atlantic magazine gained editorial control of the longtime PBS Friday night show Washington Week, it turned more intensely into a leftist hootenanny. So now you can turn to PBS for bitter former Trump administration employees to denounce him as a brainless Hitler fan whose second term would be devastating to America. CNN host Jim Sciutto has a new book out called Return of the Great Powers, and he was allowed to promote the book on PBS on Friday night’s show. The book carries a promotional quote by a "Republican," former congressman Adam Kinzinger. So it's not surprising that Sciutto is touting the tales of "lifelong Republicans" who are delighting PBS and The Atlantic (not to mention CNN).     LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: But, Jim, you also spoke to multiple former Trump officials for your book, including retired Marine General John Kelly, who was also former chief of staff to then-President Trump. And Kelly told you that a second Trump -- a second term with him, speaking about Trump, particularly when he would not be worrying about re-election, it would be fundamentally a catastrophe for us. What are the stakes of a second Trump term? JIM SCIUTTO: Think of this. He served 40 years as a Marine general. He's a Gold Star father. This is a serious man who loves his country, and, by the way, largely [?] a lifelong Republican saying Trump is unfit for office, fundamentally a catastrophe. That's a remarkable appraisal to hear from a former chief of staff to a former U.S. president. John Bolton told me, and, again, I'm quoting from him directly here, that 'Trump doesn't have enough of a brain,' his words, to articulate a China policy. You couple that with former Vice President Pence saying today he cannot, in good conscience, endorse him. These are people who worked with him for four years, advised him at the highest levels, were in the room with them as he was making consequential decisions about this country, and they judged that decision-making and his priorities to be fundamentally problematic for this country, it's remarkable. And I don't think there's any precedent for that. So, when -- you know, those appraisals are not coming from journalists, they're not coming folks on the left or the Democratic Party or RINOs or whatever. They're coming for folks who served in the Trump administration. And we should take pause. We should pause. If you weren't convinced John Kelly wanted to help Sciutto damage Trump, the hits kept coming:  SCIUTTO: John Kelly, by the way, also described to me multiple instances where Trump expressed praise for Adolf Hitler, which is just a remarkable thing to be discussing in the 21st century. BARRON-LOPEZ: Right, praised Adolf Hitler, praised a number of other dictators. SCIUTTO: Putin, Kim, Xi Jinping, you name it. Sciutto left his job at ABC News and revolved into the government in 2011, and spent a year and half in the Obama administration as chief of staff to Gary Locke, a former Democrat governor who became the U.S. Ambassador to China. So no one should be shocked that he's earnestly helping his old Obama colleague Joe Biden keep his job. PS: Barron-Lopez then turned to what she called the "developments that we saw this week across Trump's criminal cases." CBS congressional correspondent Scott MacFarlane lamented "One thing is consistent. The clock is ticking in all of them and they don't seem to be getting anywhere." He seemed especially fond of a Trump trial on the January 6 riot. On PBS, CBS January 6-obsessing reporter Scott MacFarlane wants that Trump trial this year: "There is something CATHARTIC for Americans and the victims among Capitol Police and congressional staff to just see a trial." The trial "resonates." We're "viscerally connected" to it. pic.twitter.com/4lz7bhMzy4 — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) March 17, 2024

REGIME MEDIA: ABC World News Tonight Advances The Bloodbath Hoax

Despite clear, documented context to the contrary, ABC continues to push the discredited piece of Biden campaign propaganda known as the Bloodbath Hoax, and ties it to the Capitol Riot. Additionally, ABC promoted a 2024 version of an immigration narrative that was trotted out both in 2015 and 2019. Watch as ABC’s Chief Biden Apple Polisher Mary Bruce broadcasts campaign disinformation from behind the anchor desk, framing correspondent Maryalice Parks’ video package:     MARY BRUCE: We begin tonight with the race for The White House and former President Trump's campaign now on the defensive, after his fiery rhetoric at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, on Saturday night. Trump warning, while discussing the economy, that there would be a quote, “bloodbath” if he is not re-elected in November. This after the former president kicked off the event by paying tribute to those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. President Biden's campaign swiftly denouncing those comments as threats of political violence. But even Republicans like former Vice President Mike Pence, who says he will not endorse Trump, are defending his “bloodbath” comment, saying he was referring to imports hurting the automobile industry. As I said during my recap of the Sunday shows, 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. The ABC team also did Team Biden a solid by referring to the violent immigrants Trump called “not people” as “certain migrants”- an obvious rehash of TWO immigration hoaxes. First in 2015 when Trump referred to certain illegal immigrants as “criminals and rapists” and in 2019 when Trump referred to MS-13 as “animals”. The hoax being that Trump smeared all immigrants, when he was clearly referring to a specific criminal element. In so doing, ABC attempts to conflate legal, lawful immigrants with the violent criminals that killed Laken Riley, raped a teenager in Virginia, raped and murdered an 11-year-old girl in Texas, and beat New York cops down right in the middle of Times Square, among many other such cases too numerous to list here. ABC’s furtherance of The Bloodbath Hoax is a most vivid example of the willingness of the corporate media to misinform its public in furtherance of a partisan political agenda- a pursuit to which the truth is secondary. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Sunday, March 17th, 2024: MARY BRUCE: We begin tonight with the race for The White House and former President Trump's campaign now on the defensive, after his fiery rhetoric at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, on Saturday night. Trump warning, while discussing the economy, that there would be a quote, “bloodbath” if he is not re-elected in November. This after the former president kicked off the event by paying tribute to those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. President Biden's campaign swiftly denouncing those comments as threats of political violence. But even Republicans like former Vice President Mike Pence, who says he will not endorse Trump, are defending his “bloodbath” comment, saying he was referring to imports hurting the automobile industry. ABC’s Maryalice Parks leading us off tonight from Washington. MARYALICE PARKS: Tonight, Republicans forced to defend former President Donald Trump's controversial comment while discussing economic tariffs, that there would be a bloodbath if he lost the 2024 election. DONALD TRUMP: We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not gonna be able to sell those guys, if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole, that's going to be the least of it.  PARKS: Trump's campaign pushing back saying he was only talking economics. Writing, Joe Biden's insane EV mandate will slaughter the American auto industry. Even Mike Pence, who says he will not endorse his former boss, coming to Trump's defense.  MIKE PENCE: The president was clearly talking about the impact of imports devastating the American automotive industry, so…  MARGARET BRENNAN: Was that clear to you? Because it was a little muddled.  PENCE: I think it was. PARKS: But Trump's remark did not come in a vacuum. He started the Ohio event Saturday telling the audience to stand and pay tribute to those who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, trying to stop the certification of Biden's election win. Many of whom have been convicted of serious crimes ranging from assaulting officers to seditious conspiracy. TRUMP: And they were unbelievable patriots.  PARKS: Biden's campaign firing back.  MICHAEL TYLER: What I heard was a continuation of the same rhetoric, the same endorsement of political violence we’ve seen from Donald Trump for years.  PARKS: Trump also ramping up his dehumanizing rhetoric toward certain migrants, with the border battle a major election issue.  TRUMP: If you call them people, I don't know if you call them people, in some cases, they're not people in my opinion. But I'm not allowed to say that because the radical left says that's a terrible thing to say.  PARKS: Trump doubling down on his comments today. TRUMP: If you don't use certain rhetoric, if you don't use certain words and maybe are not very nice words, nothing will happen.  PARKS: Now Mary, the Biden campaign also today said that it raised $53 million with the Democratic National Committee in February. That they now have more than $150 million in cash on hand. That's interesting because it's a considerable fund-raising advantage compared to Trump and the Republican National Committee. They haven't released their February numbers but had about $40 million cash on hand in January. Mary.  BRUCE: And the general election just getting started. Maryalice, thank you.  

SURPRISE: Sunday Shows Push The Bloodbath Hoax

By “surprise”, of course I mean none whatsoever. Once again, the media have taken a quote from former President Donald Trump, stripped it of context, and forwarded a false narrative. In this case, the media took Trump’s threat of 100% tariffs against Chinese electric cars manufactured in Mexico, and falsely turned it into a threat of political violence unless he is elected. Ergo, The Bloodbath Hoax. What Trump said was actually quite clear, as he discussed the potential economic calamity to the domestic automotive industry from unfettered Chinese electric cars manufactured in Mexico:  Media narrative: Trump just called for a bloodbath if he loses the election Trump is predicting a bloodbath in the automobile industry if he loses: pic.twitter.com/uO8DTwbp4Z — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 16, 2024 But the Biden campaign and the media combined to push just the 9 seconds where Trump says, “now, If I don’t get elected, that's going to be the least of it. It'll be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.” Team Biden pushed it to the media, and the media ran with it throughout Saturday night.  Enter the Sunday Shows. Each show, in their own way, promoted and forwarded the Sunday Hoax. The most egregious example was on ABC This Week. Watch as Susan Glasser of The New Yorker promotes The Bloodbath Hoax, gets shut down by former Department of Justice spokesperson Sarah Isgur, only to continue to press ahead (click “expand” to view transcript): SUSAN GLASSER: Donald Trump, it seems to me, it's very hard eight years into this. We still struggle with how to cover him as journalists, but in a way, the unhinged, rambling rants that you see from the former President of the United States are baked in. And I think in a way, we are all desensitized and inured to the extraordinary, remarkable, and very at times, un-American, and threatening things that the former president is saying. I'm not saying it's easy to understand how to cover it, but I think we have to cover it when the former president, who's already incited violence among his followers, says that there's going to be a bloodbath. After the election if he does not win. He is telling us what he is going to do.  SARA ISGUR: Let me just disagree a little. ‘Cause I'm having super 2016 deja vu over the bloodbath news cycle. This is what Donald Trump does. We’re sitting here talking about a word he used that four days ago, we were all using to talk about what happened at the RNC, that’s in headlines about the markets on Wall Street. And now we're not talking about his 100% tariff policy, which is bonkers. We're talking about whether he used the word “bloodbath” to mean this or that, whether he means violence. We all know what it can be used… MARTHA RADDATZ: So what do you do, ignore it? RICK KLEIN: No. I think very much not. And, look. I think- I think the idea that one comment is going to change the minds of Trump voters, I think we've seen that before, and to Sarah's point, we've long passed that news cycle. But the policies need to be focused on as well, and that's what the campaign is going to be, and continues to be about.  GLASSER: I’m sorry. I just have to say something, like, Donald Trump is attacking in a broad brush sense, the basic pillars of American democracy, period, full stop. If that's not news to you, it's not about tariffs. That's not the reason why millions of Americans are supporting Donald Trump. Let’s be real about that. In Glasser’s view, and despite being reminded about the context by Isgur, it was a broad attack on American democracy. In other words, “bloodbath” is being narratively stretched out and reshaped into another January 6th. The record reflects that moderator Martha Raddatz did nothing to encourage clarification of any kind. Over on CBS’s Face The Nation former Vice President Mike Pence, who was there to not endorse Trump, imploded Margaret Brennan’s attempt to push The Bloodbath Hoax. Also, Brennan made weird, confused dog-like faces again while trying to pretend to not understand Trump’s proposed tariff policy: "I commend you for putting that into context": Mike Pence aw-shuckses CBS's Margaret Brennan attempt to further The Bloodbath Hoax into oblivion. Brennan makes confused faces when introing the Trump video. pic.twitter.com/JYIZDEBZCj — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 17, 2024 On CNN’s State of the Union, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi mentioned The Bloodbath Hoax within a broader rant about Trump and intelligence briefings, with no pushback or fact-checking from host Dana Bash: “Should Donald Trump receive intelligence briefings” – @DanaBashCNN to @SpeakerPelosi #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/1l0u3oE6jM — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) March 17, 2024 Over on NBC’s Meet The Depressed, Kristen Welker asks, if “...that comment, even in the context of talking about the auto industry, does it cross a line for you? You heard what the Biden administration said, they say it’s another sign that he’s using terms related to political violence?”  Louisiana’s @SenBillCassidy gently chides @kwelkernbc on her upset over Trump’s rhetoric: “Sometimes the mainstream media, whether they want to or not, can’t resist and they go just a little bit too far which distracts from what could be the impact.” #MTP pic.twitter.com/xRJ9QG6i8M — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) March 17, 2024 Welker knew that the proper context of “bloodbath” was about the automobile industry, but she wanted to push “the Biden administration’s” talking point. It was excruciating to watch Brennan and Welker both pretend to not know that Trump was indeed talking about a potential economic calamity to come from a potential BYD plant in Mexico. It takes several significant suspensions of disbelief to accept the idea that people who ply their trade in words and are among the elite in their industry are suddenly unable to comprehend plain English as spoken by Donald J. Trump. There is no other explanation for The Bloodbath Hoax except shameless dishonesty from a media that, as Isgur observed on This Week, has learned nothing from 2016. It may well be that Ana Marie Cox of The New Republic was the most forthright when discussing The Bloodbath Hoax on MSNBC. Who cares about stuff like context and factual accuracy, when ill motive can be imputed to Trump's supporters (and therefore to Trump himself)? Ana Marie Cox justifies The Bloodbath Hoax: We can't take him- you know, look at what he is saying and think "oh, well, we're going to be accurate for this, we're going to say he was referring to the auto industry" when I think we know how his supporters interpret these things. pic.twitter.com/ihtbf1J5K9 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 17, 2024

PBS: Blame Conservative Crackdown on DEI for ‘Chilling Effect’ on Black Female Professors

Thursday’s edition of the PBS NewsHour featured another way for the taxpayer-supported news outlet to section off certain subjects from balanced discussion -- a “Race Matters” segment on the alleged struggles black women face in academia had no dissenting voices, just the host and the guest agonizing over the purported problem. The story was driven by the suicide of a college administrator in Missouri and also, more puzzlingly, by the travails of black academic Claudine Gay, who resigned as president of Harvard after her offensive performance failing to condemn anti-Semitism on her campus, followed by proven instances of plagiarism in her academic work. Was it because she was black? That’s what PBS wants you to consider. Anchor Geoff Bennett: The death of an administrator at Lincoln University in Missouri earlier this year has sparked outrage and broader concern about the treatment of black women in higher education. Antoinette Candia-Bailey died by suicide in January and left scathing letters where she alleged a pattern of bullying and harassment at the hands of the university's president, John B. Moseley. He is now on paid administrative leave pending an investigation. That came just weeks after Harvard's former president, Claudine Gay, resigned under pressure, all of it leading to a dialogue in academia about the particular challenges and pressures that black women face. We spoke to a few women about this as part of our ongoing coverage of Race Matters, and here's part of what they told us. Three black female academics appeared as talking heads to make rote complaints about “microaggressions” and lack of institutional support, though frankly it’s hard to believe liberal academia wouldn’t bend over backward to help black professors succeed. Bennett: Let's talk more about the particular stresses that black women in academia face. Dr. Bridget Goosby is professor of sociology and co-director of the LifeHD Health Disparities Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin….Two consistent themes we heard from the professors who spoke with us, the sense of isolation and a lack of support. How does that square with what you found in your own research? Goosby: That is definitely commiserate with what we're finding in the work that we're doing right now, collecting data on black women faculty on the tenure track, that they do experience forms of isolation, feeling like they are left out. Networks are not available to them. They're available to their colleagues…. Bennett: And we should say that academia can be a high-pressure, high-stress, intense, some might say toxic environment no matter one's background. What are some of the particular pressures that black women face in higher education? Academia is especially toxic for political conservatives, but don’t expect that to make the NewsHour anytime soon. The stilted segment format allowed Bennett to suggest conservatives were hurting black female academics without being challenged. Bennett: How has the conservative crackdown on DEI initiatives, diversity, equity, and inclusion, how has that affected the effort to attract and retain black women in higher education? Dr. Bridget Goosby: So, this is, we're still in the nascent stages of this, but I will say that it is definitely something that's going to continue to have a chilling effect on the ability to recruit and retain black women in academia. As was mentioned, can you really advise women to go into -- black women to go into these spaces, when we're being publicly kind of singled out and discredited, and now without the kind of protections of DEI, which was -- as a system, was there to kind of help with increasing diversity and inclusion overall being gone? This means that this could be a complicated situation for black women to be in, without having the kinds of protections that might have been put forward by DEI previously. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives have recently demonstrated their uselessness in actually protecting minorities who are truly disadvantaged on college campuses -- Jewish faculty and students. That's another topic that won’t make tax-funded PBS. This segment was brought to you in part by BNSF Railway. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 3/14/24 7:31:07 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: The death of an administrator at Lincoln University in Missouri earlier this year has sparked outrage and broader concern about the treatment of black women in higher education. Antoinette Candia-Bailey died by suicide in January and left scathing letters where she alleged a pattern of bullying and harassment at the hands of the university's president, John B. Moseley. He is now on paid administrative leave pending an investigation. That came just weeks after Harvard's former president, Claudine Gay, resigned under pressure, all of it leading to a dialogue in academia about the particular challenges and pressures that black women face. We spoke to a few women about this as part of our ongoing coverage of Race Matters, and here's part of what they told us. Kecia Thomas, University of Alabama at Birmingham: I'm Kecia Thomas. I'm at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Candace Parrish, University of North Carolina, Wilmington: My name is Dr. Candace Parrish, and I am currently a visiting assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington. Chaya Crowder, Loyola Marymount University: My name is Chaya Crowder and I am an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Kecia Thomas: I certainly had not been exposed to a case as tragic as Dr. Bailey's, although, for those of us in higher ed, especially those of us who are in senior positions or leadership positions, it is often a conversation around the chronic stress that we experience, the burnout that is experienced, but also the isolation that has followed us for our entire careers. Candace Parrish: I was very sad that it had gone so far and that she felt like she did not have the resources or what she needed to overcome this sort of situation. And it just got me thinking about how many more people like myself actually experience the sort of travesties in academia. Chaya Crowder: I have absolutely experienced microaggressions with regard to the intersection of both my race and gender. In my entire time in my Ph.D. program, there was never another black person above me or below me in American Politics. And so it was a very isolating experience. Kecia Thomas: I have had those experiences, as have my colleagues, and it's not simply within our career. It starts in college and graduate school, and some of us even earlier. And so many of us see our education as an investment in our future and the futures of our families. Candace Parrish: In my Ph.D. Program, it was a very, very tough experience in which there were several periods where I almost quit. There was a lack of support and there were people who are in charge of my academic destiny as a Ph.D. student who were manipulating things to go against my favor. Chaya Crowder: With everything happening in the world right now, when there are coordinated efforts on the part of individuals and institutions to attack the credibility of your academic work, and that's already something that brings anxieties, it can be particularly distressing. Kecia Thomas: Some of what we have talked about today, I have heard similar complaints from colleagues in law, in medicine, industries across the board. I think higher ed is different because oftentimes we are so severely underrepresented. Candace Parrish: I have actually stopped recommending academia as a valid job and community position to young people who want to pursue Ph.D.s in teaching. I cannot vouch for their experiences, knowing the horrible things that I have gone through and how much emotional time and space it has taken. Geoff Bennett: Let's talk more about the particular stresses that black women in academia face. Dr. Bridget Goosby is professor of sociology and co-director of the LifeHD Health Disparities Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. Thanks so much for being with us. Dr. Bridget Goosby, The University of Texas at Austin: Thank you so much for having me, Geoff. Geoff Bennett: Two consistent themes we heard from the professors who spoke with us, the sense of isolation and a lack of support. How does that square with what you found in your own research? Dr. Bridget Goosby: That is definitely commiserate with what we're finding in the work that we're doing right now, collecting data on Black women faculty on the tenure track, that they do experience forms of isolation, feeling like they are left out. Networks are not available to them. They're available to their colleagues. And the experiences of this lack of support that they have is definitely something that we're seeing in the work that we're doing. Geoff Bennett: And we should say that academia can be a high-pressure, high-stress, intense, some might say toxic environment no matter one's background. What are some of the particular pressures that Black women face in higher education? Dr. Bridget Goosby: This speaks to what the women in the interviews were already saying, which is that we tend to be underrepresented. We make up 3.7 percent of overall of tenure track faculty in the United States. And so, when we think about the high pressure of the positions of being faculty members, this means that, on top of the stress and demand of being researchers, productive researchers, successful teachers, we also are in a space where people may not even recognize that we are the onlys, and that our experience is unique, and that we are more likely to experience racism and sexism, the intersections of those things in those spaces. We're also more likely to be cut out of networks because we don't fit necessarily because we are so underrepresented. So, there are a litany of different situations that make our experience as Black women unique in the stressful conditions that we face as tenure track faculty or faculty in higher education. Geoff Bennett: What do viable solutions look like at this point? Dr. Bridget Goosby: Well, viable solutions would be, one, identifying the stressors that Black women are facing and trying to mitigate the situations that they're in, protections for women who are experiencing racism, harassment, discrimination in these spaces, recognizing the fact that we come from a historically disadvantaged group and are underrepresented, which means that, in these spaces, we are experiencing a lot of these kinds of stressors without the kinds now — increasingly, possibly without the kinds of protections that we would like to see more of moving forward. Geoff Bennett: How has the conservative crackdown on DEI initiatives, diversity, equity, and inclusion, how has that affected the effort to attract and retain Black women in higher education? Dr. Bridget Goosby: So, this is — we're still in the nascent stages of this, but I will say that it is definitely something that's going to continue to have a chilling effect on the ability to recruit and retain Black women in academia. As was mentioned, can you really advise women to go into — Black women to go into these spaces, when we're being publicly kind of singled out and discredited, and now without the kind of protections of DEI, which was — as a system, was there to kind of help with increasing diversity and inclusion overall being gone? This means that this could be complicated situation for Black women to be in, without having the kinds of protections that might have been put forward by DEI previously. Geoff Bennett: Dr. Bridget Goosby, we appreciate your insights and your time this evening. Thank you. Dr. Bridget Goosby: Thank you.

MSNBC's Symone Sanders Warns: If Trump Wins, Women Will Dress Like Handmaids

Say what you might about Donald Trump, but one thing he is not is a Puritan. This is the man whose romantic escapades filled the pages of New York tabloids for decades. For gosh sakes, Trump's the former owner of the Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants, where contestants paraded in swimsuits! So Symone Sanders-Townsend's attempt to scare voters by claiming that if Trump is elected, America will be turned into a dystopian world in which women are forced to wear long, loose dresses, and cover their hair with hoods, was ludicrous. On Sunday's edition of The Weekend, the MSNBC show she co-anchors, Sanders was responding to Michael Steele, who quoted his wife as saying she longs for the day when she doesn't have to think about, talk about, or see Trump in the news. Sanders argued it was necessary to talk about Trump since he's running for president: "And if people are not paying attention, and we do not tell people what he's saying . . . he will get re-elected, and then y'all are going to be surprised when, again, the ladies are walking around in red dresses with those little white hoods, like The Handmaid's Tale." Note: What is it with MSNBC anchors and their fascination with The Handmaid's Tale? Back before MSNBC fired her, Tiffany Cross said on her Cross Connection show that Justice Amy Coney Barrett is "an actual, real, live 'Handmaid' on the Supreme Court." Not only was Cross's comment insulting, it was utterly wrong. Coney Barrett a mind-numbed Stepford Wife? Coney Barrett graduated from her undergraduate college magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. She graduated from Notre Dame law school ranked first in her class and summa cum laude. She became a professor at Notre Dame Law, where she received the "Distinguished Professor of the Year" award three times. She went on to a distinguished judicial career, culminating in being confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court.If Coney Barrett were a liberal, she would be a Ginsburgian hero to the left, as the very epitome of a strong, accomplished woman! But she's a conservative Catholic, so "Stepford Wife." Note: Sanders has been on quite the roll of absurd comments. Yesterday, we caught her describing the investigation into Fani Willis as being "a little sexist and a little racist." Even staunch Trump antagonists like Donna Brazile have acknowledged that Willis's romantic relationship with a member of her prosecution team was a serious lapse of judgment. 

REWIND: Riding to Obama’s Rescue, After Wright’s Radicalism Exposed

Sixteen years ago this weekend, Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was in real trouble, after ABC publicized excerpts of sermons delivered by Obama’s longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The video showed Wright, in the pulpit, rationalizing the 9/11 attacks as justified (“America’s chickens are coming home to roost!”) and blasting America as the “U.S. of K.K.K.A.” Obama, who had built his campaign around the idea of unity, had attended Wright’s church for two decades, so there could be no suggestion that the Democratic candidate was unfamiliar with his pastor’s rabidly anti-American views. At the time, Obama had only the slightest advantage over New York Senator Hillary Clinton, so any whiff of scandal could lead Democratic voters to abandon the freshman Senator in favor of the former First Lady. Liberal journalists, however, adored Obama, so over the next several days the media elite became the candidate’s personal rapid-response team. The first line of defense: Wright’s radicalism was a phony issue that voters should ignore. “All this seems to have nothing to do with actual issues that the country is facing, which these candidates should be talking about and we probably should be talking about,” CNN anchor Anderson Cooper groaned on March 13, 2008, a few hours after ABC’s Brian Ross broke the story on Good Morning America. “I don’t even know how these candidates can talk about policy,” MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell complained to The New Republic’s Michael Crowley the next afternoon (March 14). “How do we get away from this?” That weekend, the Obama campaign decided that the way to end the discussion of Rev. Wright’s hatefulness was for Obama to start a broader discussion of race in America. The candidate spoke on Tuesday, March 18, 2008, and journalists instantly declared it the best speech of their lifetimes. On ABC’s World News, anchor Charles Gibson saluted it as “the seminal speech of his presidential campaign...an extraordinary speech.” George Stephanopoulos decreed it was honorable that Obama should not repudiate Wright for his anti-American views: “By refusing to renounce Reverend Wright, that was in many ways an act of honor for Senator Obama.” “It was daring,” fill-in anchor Campbell Brown exclaimed on CNN’s AC360. “Quietly, but clearly with great passion, he walked the listener through a remarkable exploration of race from both sides of the color divide, from both sides of himself.” “It was a very blunt, very honest, very open speech that really put out into the open the furtive conversations and furtive thoughts on both sides of the racial divide that have been going on for generations,” the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart opined on NBC Nightly News, calling the speech “a very important gift the Senator has given the country.” “A speech worthy of Abraham Lincoln,” crowed MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, calling it “the best speech ever given on race in this country....I think this is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract. Something that you just check in with, now and then, like reading Great Gatsby and Huckleberry Finn....One of the great speeches in American history.” “Most people will never hear the elegant complexity of Obama’s speech in full...though they certainly should,” Time’s Joe Klein enthused in his “Swampland” blog. “It was the best speech about race I’ve ever heard delivered by an American politician.” The next morning (March 19), ABC’s Stephanopoulos was still thrilled: “As a speech, it was sophisticated, eloquent. Barack Obama is as fine a writer as you’ll find in a politician,” he touted on Good Morning America. “It’s being called a defining cultural moment in America...It was without question a defining moment in American political history,” CBS’s Maggie Rodriguez echoed on The Early Show. In that morning’s New York Times, a “news analysis” by Janny Scott suggested the candidate’s remarks belonged on a hypothetical Mount Rushmore of presidential addresses: “In a speech whose frankness about race many historians said could be likened only to speeches by Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln....” On Easter Sunday, March 23, the media were still raving about Obama’s greatness. “He gave a great speech. I think it was a brave speech,” ABC’s Claire Shipman applauded on This Week. A few months later, Shipman’s husband (Time correspondent Jay Carney) would go to work for the Obama administration as Joe Biden’s first press secretary. “Obama really won over his base, he won over the American media. They loved that speech,” quipped Politico’s Roger Simon on CBS’s Face  the Nation. Indeed, a sympathetic media was crucial to the success of Obama’s strategy. Journalists’ glowing coverage transformed an exercise in crisis damage control into a campaign triumph. The episode undoubtedly helped to seal his victory over Hillary Clinton. All with a little help from his friends. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.                  

Fox News Highlights Illegal Alien Repeat Offender in New York, Not Deported

Liberals hate Fox News because they focus on crime by illegal immigrants, which they would rather dismiss as insignificant. Earlier in the week, Fox News highlighted an example of how far the New York City has fallen in taking violent crime seriously as the network informed viewers of an illegal immigrant who has repeatedly been arrested for assaulting women but has been neither deported, nor sentenced to significant time in prison. On Monday morning's Fox & Friends First, co-host Todd Piro recalled the case of Edward Johnson, who has a history of assaulting women who work in hospitals: "An illegal immigrant back on the streets of New York City after spending less than a year in jail for the latest of a series of arrests where he's accused of attacking female hospital workers dating all the way back to 2019. And victims are speaking out about the dangers they face every day working in the ER and having to treat people that are violent repeat offenders." After showing viewers a photograph of a nurse, Chelsea Mora, who was attacked in a Bronx hospital in January, he brought her aboard to discuss her experience. Mora recalled that she was examining the patient when "he struck my face with his fists, leaving me with a corneal hematoma and PTSD after the incident." Regarding the state's current weak crime policies, she soon complained: It seems to be a severe problem in New York City now. I think these soft on crime laws that are being implemented aren't helping us -- like citizens of New York -- aren't helping health care staff in dealing with these types of criminals. This one particular gentleman has over 20 open cases, and he's out on the streets abusing and assaulting people. Mora then recounted that when staff are assaulted, they are often encouraged not to press charges but that, even when they do, perpetrators receive little punishment: ...usually when one of us does get assaulted -- whether it's a doctor or nurse -- we're kind of discouraged to not press charges. When we actually do press charges and things go up to the court level, things are just dropped -- charges are dropped, and these criminals are back on the street. They maybe serve one or two months in jail, and then they're back out doing the same thing. So it seems to be a reoccurring theme. On Tuesday morning, Fox's America's Newsroom also covered the issue, and informed viewers that the perpetrator was released after a few hours and is now considered on the lam with a warrant out for his arrest. Correspondent Alexi McAdams further related that he has had at least 46 arrests since he illegally entered the country. It was also mentioned that, according to Mora, the prosecutor's office in the Bronx had tried to get her to lessen the charges: According to the New York Post, Dana, Johnson is in the country illegally, entering the U.S. about 10 years ago. Since then, he's committed at least 46 crimes. Although Mora's injuries have healed, she says mentally she's still in pain, and she's pretty angry because she says the Bronx D.A.'s office has asked her two times to lessen the charges against Johnson, but she refused. We reached out to the Bronx D.A.'s office who tells us now, "We would like to present it to a grand jury for felony charges." Transcript follow: Fox & Friends First March 11, 2024 5:17 a.m. Eastern TODD PIRO: An illegal immigrant back on the streets of New York City after spending less than a year in jail for the latest of a series of arrests where he's accused of attacking female hospital workers dating all the way back to 2019. And victims are speaking out about the dangers they face every day working in the ER and having to treat people that are violent repeat offenders. Look at that picture right there. One of them is Chelsea Mora -- that's her in the photo. She was attacked by this suspect in January, and Chelsea joins me now. Chelsea, walk us through what this guy did to you. CHELSEA MORA, NEW YORK CITY NURSE: Hi, so my name is Chelsea. I'm an ER nurse in Jacobi hospital -- I've been a nurse for seven years, and this one incident on January 13 occurred when I was approaching the patient to do his vitals, and he struck my face with his fists, leaving me with a corneal hematoma and PTSD after the incident. PIRO: Why do you think this is happening to not just you, but others who are trying just help people and do their jobs? MORA: It seems to be a severe problem in New York City now. I think these soft on crime laws that are being implemented aren't helping us -- like citizens of New York -- aren't helping health care staff in dealing with these types of criminals. This one particular gentleman has over 20 open cases, and he's out on the streets abusing and assaulting people. PIRO: The guy's name is Edward Johnson -- illegal immigrant -- but he's not alone, to your point. What else have you and your colleagues experienced not just from the gentleman on our screen but in your years working on the ER? MORA: I think there's an internal push. I'm not sure what the agenda is, but usually when one of us does get assaulted -- whether it's a doctor or nurse -- we're kind of discouraged to not press charges. When we actually do press charges and things go up to the court level, things are just dropped -- charges are dropped, and these criminals are back on the street. They maybe serve one or two months in jail, and then they're back out doing the same thing. So it seems to be a reoccurring theme. PIRO: How much of the blame do you place on the border crisis for these attacks? MORA: A certain percentage definitely should be blamed on the border crisis. I had no idea this particular patient's migration status, but it was pretty disheartening to find out that he was illegally here in this country and that he's been given so many chances. (...) Fox's America's Newsroom March 12, 2024 9:58 a.m. Eastern DANA PERINO: A New York City nurse speaks to Fox News about the moment a patient attacked her. He repeatedly punched her in the face when she tried to treat him. The suspect -- an illegal immigrant -- was arrested but freed, and now he's on the run. Alexis McAdams is live outside of Jacobi Medical Center where the attack happened. Hi, Alexis. ALEXIS McADAMS: Hey, Dana. I had a chance to talk to that nurse who tells me she was left with a black eye after this absolutely vicious attack inside of that hospital in the Bronx right behind me. And listen to this. This was not the suspect's first attack he was arrested for, but he's on the run, and there's now a warrant out for his arrest. CHELSEA MORA, NEW YORK CITY NURSE: This kind of failure from our government officials, like just allowing these people to roam the streets. Meanwhile, our taxpayer dollars are being used to fund their security, but then where's ours? McADAMS: And Chelsea Mora says this all happened in January while she was working in the ER here at Jacobi Medical Center in the Bronx. She tells me she was punched in the face by this guy, Edward Johnson, while she was just trying to help him. Johnson was arrested for assault, but, just hour later, he was back out on the streets. Police telling Fox News that Johnson had already been busted for attacking a female doctor at another hospital twice. According to the New York Post, Dana, Johnson is in the country illegally, entering the U.S. about 10 years ago. Since then, he's committed at least 46 crimes. Although Mora's injuries have healed, she says mentally she's still in pain, and she's pretty angry because she says the Bronx D.A.'s office has asked her two times to lessen the charges against Johnson, but she refused. We reached out to the Bronx D.A.'s office who tells us now, "We would like to present it to a grand jury for felony charges." MORA: I think mayors, senators, governors need to come together and make stronger laws that will keep these people inside of the prison.

NPR Host on Media Bias: 'Can You Believe in Democracy Without Being Pro-Biden?'

Former NPR All Things Considered anchor David Greene performed a very pompous rhetorical dance on the latest podcast Left Right and Center out of Santa Monica NPR station KCRW. Greene is supposedly the “Center,” but he’s a typical leftist, as you can see. The topic? “This election season, will media learn from past mistakes?” We can all guess what that means: Will the media finally defeat Trump and stop hurting the Democrats? Greene led off by claiming in 2016,  people didn’t take Trump seriously, and so “the focus was really on Hillary Clinton, this career politician running a flawed campaign, and the flaws were put on full display in the media.” People actually claim Trump wasn't facing an all-out media war as they labored to protect and promote Mrs. Clinton.  But 15 minutes in – that’s where the pomposity broke out: DAVID GREENE:  Here’s my question. I, as a journalist, believe in democracy. I support democracy. I am a -- SARAH ISGUR, THE DISPATCH: Good for you! (giggles quietly) GREENE: I believe in a free press. I believe in democracy. I believe that Donald Trump is very transparently and pretty brazenly, um, acting anti-democratic in a lot of ways right now -- when he talks about his plans to dismantle institutions, to pack the federal bureaucracy with people who support him. I mean, he has praised authoritarian leaders around the world. So I think the bind that a lot of journalists are in is, how can we be passionate believers in democracy and not be biased in a presidential election? This is a restatement of Jim Rutenberg’s infamous piece on the front of The New York Times in 2016, that the danger of Donald Trump ruined journalistic objectivity, that the threat of Trump required “being oppositional.” Greene tried to claim as a believer in democracy, he knows “voters get to decide,” but he thinks reporters have to describe the “stakes” of this election (code: the end of Democracy). So he wondered: Can you believe in democracy without being pro-Biden? Greene, like the vast majority of journalists covering politics, clearly believes the answer is No.  Isgur, the titular "Right" side, said America has survived dangerous presidencies before – she picked Woodrow Wilson. But she nailed the rebuttal, gently: ISGUR: I would just say that it’s important to have a certain amount of intellectual humility, that the moment you’re living in and the thoughts that you’re having, the existential crisis you think you’re in, may not be what you think it is.  It might be. Intellectual humility isn’t ‘I’m probably wrong.’ It’s just ‘I might be wrong,’ being open to the possibility that you’re wrong. After his “I’m for democracy and a free press, and I think I need to be pro-Biden,” Greene claimed “I’m a big believer in intellectual humility, obviously.” She pushed ahead: It is hard to earn back credibility, so when you thought the sky was falling with George W. Bush who was a racist, and then McCain, and then Romney, you’ve already lost credibility, and the media did that. When the media hyperventilated in 2016 and 2020, and  I’m not even saying that was not well-deserved, but you lose credibility – it’s already gone. Even the “Left” of this show, Democrat strategist Mo Elleithee, disagreed with Greene: “The second you say Donald Trump is anti-democratic, you immediately are going to feed into this narrative” of a biased press. He said just describe what Trump wants to do, and let the voters decide without the Trump Scare lingo.

MSNBC's Symone Sanders: 'A Little Sexism, Racism' Behind Fani Willis Investigation

The French have an expression: what had to happen, has happened. It was inevitable that the race-and-gender cards would be played in defense of Fani Willis.  And sure enough, on the Saturday episode of MSNBC's The Weekend that she co-anchors, Symone Sanders claimed that "If Fani Willis was a man named Frank who hired Susie, " an investigation like the one into Willis wouldn't have happened. Sanders admitted to being "very animated" on the matter--which, if you view the video, you'll see was a considerable understatement! And just as she was about to yield the floor to other panelists, Sanders snuck in "It's a little sexist. It's a little racist." Well, he wasn't named Frank, but has Sanders perhaps heard of Peter Gersten, the two-star general who was fired from his command position and demoted to colonel for having a sexual relationship with a female subordinate? And then there was the heavily-covered case of David Petraeus, another male person of pallor. The New York Times has described him as "the best-known military commander of his generation." A man touted as a possible future president. But all that fame and prestige didn't prevent Petraeus from being convicted of a crime for sharing classified documents with a girlfriend while he was CIA director.   These are just two of many cases of people in positions of trust punished for romantic relationships with someone on their staff. During Symone's spiel, Michael Steele repeatedly murmured "right," in agreement But Steele also made the point that in the New York prosecution of Trump over payments to Stormy Daniels, there's nothing to hang on DA Alvin Bragg, because, unlike Willis, he didn't make the poor decision to have a relationship with a member of his prosecution team.  Co-anchor Alicia Menendez stayed out of the conversation. But at the very end, she announced, "I'm so happy you raised this." Yes, Alicia, daughter of Senator Bob, knows all about blameless public servants being hounded and persecuted! Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Weekend 3/16/24 9:08 am EDT SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND: You know, they tried to steal an election! The former President of the United States of America and his little friends, as my mother would say, tried to steal an election. And the D.A., Fani Willis, is seeking to hold them accountable. And because she sought that accountability, they, the former president and his little friends, allies, Ashley Merchant, the attorney for one of those individuals, they then tried to distract us with salacious gossip. Because that is what this is. Because, if there were facts, we would have found them. And it worked so much so, that very well-meaning people are just, who know a lot, lots of smart lawyers in this country, are walking around and sitting up on television being like, well, I don't know if Fani Willis could stay on this case. This was a distraction.  MICHAEL STEELE: Alvin Bragg doesn't have that problem in New York. And that's my point.  SANDERS-TOWNSEND: This is a distraction. Because they haven't [inaudible] to distract them with this. STEELE: They don't have anything to hang on Alvin Braggs' head in New York.  SANDERS-TOWNSEND: They didn't have anything about Fani Willis. And I'm so animated about this. I'm sorry. I'm very animated about this because this is, we all have a duty, I think, to remind people about what this is really about. And frankly, if Fani Willis was a man named Frank, I don't believe that they would have been able to distract us with the, the salacious gossip about, oh, well Frank hired Susie, so that Frank could financially benefit from Susie being on the case.  ALICIA MENENDEZ: I'm so happy, I'm so happy you raised this.  SANDERS-TOWNSEND: It's a litle sexist. It's a little racist. 

A New York Times Editorial And Its Trump Derangement Syndrome

It never ceases to amaze watching the so-called “mainstream media” (aka the far left press) foam at the reality someone who is an outsider to the conventional politics of the day - aka in this case Donald Trump - is ascending to the presidency. Again. This time around - again! - there is the redoubtable editorial board of the far left New York Times foaming and spewing over the fact that former President Trump has clinched the 2024 GOP nomination. It is Trump Derangement Syndrome at its finest. Let’s take a tour through this circus. The headline:  Trump’s Conquest of the Republican Party Matters to Every American And why, per chance, does this matter to every American? Let us count the ways. First, says the Times:  This is a tragedy for the Republican Party and for the country it purports to serve. And why is that? Well, explains the Times:  In a healthy democracy, political parties are organizations devoted to electing politicians who share a set of values and policy goals. They operate part of the machinery of politics, working with elected officials and civil servants to make elections happen. The paper said that in normal elections the winner “also accepts that defeated rivals and their competing views have a place within the party.”  Hello? With the solitary exception of Nikki Haley, Trump has reached out to former rivals with names like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, both of whom have endorsed him. Indeed, Mr. Ramaswamy will be in Pennsylvania in early April to appear at the conservative Pennsylvania Leadership Conference as a surrogate for the former President. As to Haley, her choice not to endorse her winning rival is….her choice. Then there’s this:  Some of the Republicans who are no longer welcome — such as Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney — tried to hold their party’s leader accountable to his basic duty to uphold the law. Really? Perhaps the Times missed this recent news headlined:  Liz Cheney, J6 Commitee, Hid Evidence Exonerating Trump’s Call For Guard Troops  The story reports: The January 6 Committee, led by Rep. Liz Cheney, is accused of suppressing exculpatory evidence in their investigation of the Capitol riot. Specifically, the committee withheld testimony from a Secret Service official that said former President Trump had pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to be deployed in DC on January 6th. This directly contradicts the committee’s claims that no evidence supported the White House seeking more security. Not a word of this decidedly revealing news of game-playing by Cheney and the J6 Committee is mentioned in the Times editorial. Then the Times rants because Trump demanded America’s NATO allies pay up - pay their dues - “or face his threats to encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to them, (and) many Republican leaders said nothing.” One can only shake one’s head at the lack of knowledge on this issue displayed by the Times. Trump is decidedly not the first president to be upset with NATO allies for not paying their dues. Historian Stephen Ambrose wrote two decidedly detailed biographies of President Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower, both as post World War II General and President, played a central role in creating NATO in the first place.  And quite specifically Ambrose records Eisenhower - like Trump today - was livid that the NATO allies were not paying their dues. Wrote Ambrose, quoting Ike: I get weary of the European habit of taking our money,' the President wrote, “resenting any slight hint as to what they should do, and then assuming, in addition, full right to criticize us as bitterly as they may desire. In fact, it sometimes appears that their indulgence in this kind of criticism varies in direct ratio to the amount of help we give them.' In fact, the whole thing made him mad as hell, and “makes me wonder whether the Europeans are as grown up and mature as they try to make it appear. So too did Eisenhower’s successor, Democrat John F. Kennedy, who insisted, per his biographer and ex-White House staffer Arthur Schlesinger, that the European allies had to bear their “share of common responsibilities.” Which is to say, Trump is, as with predecessors Eisenhower and JFK, well within the mainstream of history in demanding European allies kick in for their “common responsibilities.” And on goes this Trump-phobia nonsense. The real bottom line here is that Trump continues to question the norms of Establishment sensibilities - and it drives the New York Times and other elites crazy. Hence an editorial exactly like this one from the Times. Not only is this not a surprise, it is a snapshot of the core issue of Establishment media versus average Americans, with Trump Derangement Syndrome a driving force. There will be more media “coverage” like this coming. Count on it. Buckle in.

Mace Calls Out Stephanopoulos For 'Rape Shaming' Her Despite Working For Clinton

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace joined Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday’s edition of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher where she tussled with the pair over her take on her Sunday interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Mace accused Stephanopoulos of “rape shaming” her for supporting Donald Trump, which she had no patience for considering he is “a guy who covered for the Clintons.” Mace, who was raped when she was 16, gave her take on the interview where she was asked about Trump, her support of him, and E. Jean Carroll: So, it takes a lot of courage, but then to feel like he was weaponizing my own rape for a political hit job and it was wrong and my daughter was there, it was awful, I felt bullied, the least they could have done was ‘hey, we’re going to talk about this, but we’re going to lead with it’ and it was my ten minute interview about my own rape, it was completely, I think, wholly inappropriate. I will answer the tough questions, I have talked about it, but that video, that speech I give-- gave triggers me. I know I gave it publicly, but it’s hard.     Maher thought the question was not as unexpected, “I mean, there was a reason. It didn't come out of left field, there's a reason why he asked the question—” Mace interjected to add, “It was a political hit job,” as Maher continued, “it was related to something with Donald Trump and Donald Trump—I mean, you went to The Citadel, right?” After confirming that she did, Mace added, “I will say George Stephanopoulos wouldn't last 30 seconds at The Citadel, that place made me tough, I will answer all the questions—” Earlier in the segment, Khanna expressed admiration that Mace has been willing to tell her story, but still believed Stephanopoulos’s question was fair, and he would repeat himself “I think in a time, I know we share a view of the First Amendment, I mean, journalists are supposed to ask basic questions and not just of Nancy but of any Republican -- I think here's a fair question, should you support someone as a president who has a civil conviction of sexual assault, and who didn't concede the January 6 election? Every Republican should be asked that.” Mace felt blindsided by Stephanopoulos’s question, but beyond that, she also claimed that he was the worst possible person to ask it, “But asked by a guy, asked by George Stephanopoulos, who covered for Bill—” That response was drowned out by Khanna’s continuing defense, “We have got to get in this country not only that we can talk to each other, but we aren't censoring people asking tough questions. You know, being a member of Congress is, like, one of the most privileged things in human history. You’re .0001 percent privileged, so you go and get asked the tough question, that's the job of journalists. That’s what we—anyway.” Khanna’s ramblings complete, Mace was able to more clearly repeat her earlier point, “It was more than that, and you know it was, it was a political hit job, it was bullying and it was rape shaming was what it was. Asked by George Stephanopoulos, a guy who covered for the Clintons for years and called women ‘bimbos.’ Like, no, thank you. No, thank you.” Mace’s appearance on Real Time showed she was willing to answer questions about Trump and Carroll, but it also shows why ABC hiring a former Clinton operative to be their main newsman is fraught with all sorts of problems. Here is a transcript for the March 15 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher 3/15/2024 10:36 PM ET NANCY MACE: So, it takes a lot of courage, but then to feel like he was weaponizing my own rape for a political hit job and it was wrong and my daughter was there, it was awful, I felt bullied, the least they could have done was “hey, we’re going to talk about this, but we’re going to lead with it” and it was my ten minute interview about my own rape, it was completely, I think, wholly inappropriate. I will answer the tough questions, I have talked about it but that video, that speech I give-- gave triggers me. I know I gave it publicly, but it’s hard. BILL MAHER: I mean, there was a reason. It didn't come out of left field, there's a reason why he asked the question— MACE: It was a political hit job. MAHER: -- it was related to something with Donald Trump and Donald Trump—I mean, you went to The Citadel, right?  MACE: Yeah, and I will say George Stephanopoulos wouldn't last 30 seconds at The Citadel, that place made me tough, I will answer all the questions— MAHER: I’ll bet. Oh, I’ll RO KHANNA: I think in a time, I know we share a view of the First Amendment, I mean, journalists are supposed to ask basic questions and not just of Nancy but of any Republican -- I think here's a fair question, should you support someone as a president who has a civil conviction of sexual assault, and who didn't concede the January 6 election? Every Republican should be asked that. MACE: But asked by a guy, asked by George Stephanopoulos, who covered for Bill— KHANNA: And I think whether its-- you know, I go on Fox, Nancy goes on MSNBC— MACE: On Bill Maher. KHANNA: -- Bill Maher.  MAHER Yeah. No, true. KHANNA: We have got to get in this country not only that we can talk to each other, but we aren't censoring people asking tough questions. You know, being a member of Congress is, like, one of the most privileged things in human history.  MACE: It is. It is KHANNA: You’re .0001 percent privileged, so you go and get asked the tough question, that's the job of journalists. That’s what we—anyway. MACE: It was more than that and you know it was, it was a political hit job, it was bullying and it was rape shaming was what it was. MAHER: Okay. MACE: Asked by George Stephanopoulos, a guy who covered for the Clintons for years and called women “bimbos.” Like, no, thank you. No, thank you.

Reuters Ignores Biden, Fact Checks Babylon Bee

The Babylon Bee lives rent-free in the minds of too many journalists. How else do you describe constant fact checks on a site that churns out satirical news stories a la The Onion? USA Today once fact-checked a Bee piece saying President Joe Biden sold Alaska to Russia. PolitiFact ran to the scene after a Bee article claimed, “ISIS Lays Down Arms After Katy Perry’s Impassioned Plea To ‘Like, Just Co-Exist’”   Great work USA Today. Nothing like wasting your time. The Left has no sense of humor. But, they love anger. Incredible:USA Today fact checks The Babylon Bee's "claim" that Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death was overturned by 9th circuit court https://t.co/H48mZUjVSG via @Not_the_Bee — Kevin Sorbo (@ksorbs) September 29, 2020   Snopes routinely holds the Bee accountable for creating Fake News stories meant to make us laugh and think. Now, it’s Reuters’ turn. The once-neutral outlet reached out to the Bee’s Editor-in-Chief, Kyle Mann, to see if the site’s story about ballot boxes being placed along the U.S.-Mexico border was true. Mann shared the back-and-forth exchange with his X followers.   Reuters sent us an email to find out if our @TheBabylonBee story about ballot boxes being installed along the border wall was true. I tried to help 'em out. pic.twitter.com/lBsuoGMscG — Kyle Mann (@The_Kyle_Mann) March 6, 2024   His response? We went down to the border and took that picture. So it’s true. Hope this helps. Mann kept the running gag alive days later.   Next they'll be checkin in on this one pic.twitter.com/LaCKAWNSKH — Kyle Mann (@The_Kyle_Mann) March 6, 2024   And it’s not the first time Reuters fact-checked the Bee. In 2021 it assured readers that a Bee story saying Rep. Nancy Pelosi “Thanks Millions of Babies For Sacrificing Their Lives For Women’s Rights” wasn’t accurate.   This is why nobody takes the Media or “fact checkers” seriously The Babylon Bee posted the satirical headline ‘Child Grooming Content On X Reduced By 83% After Disney Pulls Ads’ A Reuters employee was paid to fact check this (they even reached to Disney for comment 😂) pic.twitter.com/gPsJd2MdUY — Ashley St. Clair (@stclairashley) December 12, 2023   Reuters also targets other right-leaning voices over satirical posts.   Does Reuters not have any editors? They actually did a serious fact check over clear joke tweets from @SirajAHashmi, @redsteeze etc. over whether Biden is actually POTUS.https://t.co/zbuVTMGR6P — AG (@AGHamilton29) November 20, 2021   Does anyone remember a fact-checking organization treating The Onion the same way? It, too, serves up Fake News stories for satirical effect. (The fact that it’s no longer funny and can’t speak truth to power when Democrats are in charge is a separate matter.) If examples do exist, please share them in the comments section below. Do fact-checkers ever keep Stephen Colbert honest? Jimmy Kimmel? “Saturday Night Live?” Actually, some fact-checkers did correct “SNL” once. The show dared to mock President Barack Obama, and journalists snapped into action. There’s a method to the corrupt media’s war on The Babylon Bee and, to a lesser extent, conservative humor. Facebook once flagged a Bee story saying CNN purchased an industrial-sized washing machine to spin the news as “misinformation.” Why does that matter? Social media giants lean on so-called “fact checkers” to make sure they’re sharing trustworthy information on their platforms. Share enough “misinformation,” and a site like The Babylon Bee could get purged from social media giants.  That would directly impact the company’s bottom line. The Bee generates revenue via traffic streams, and Facebook users aggressively post and share their stories. Fact Checks Won’t Keep the ‘Big Guy’ Honest There’s a much bigger problem afoot. Fact-checkers too often ignore the current Commander-in-Chief, a leader whose trail of whoppers could circumvent the planet.   Ask why he's able to keep doing it without a single question or correction or fact check about it. https://t.co/lhxogGHMUY — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) October 12, 2022   So what DOES Reuters fact check? Here’s a sample of recent fact-checks from the news outlet taken from the last seven days. Time Magazine’s 1938 ‘Man of the Year’ choice not a Hitler endorsement Posts don’t show evidence of ‘fraudulent’ Maricopa County mail-in ballots Fabricated Rep. Greene post about shutting down government is parody N.Y. Governor did not threaten to seize trucker bank accounts, homes Report on Disney’s Cinderella Castle burning down stems from satire Posts on Keanu Reeves refusal to present award to Whoopi Goldberg stem from satire Note: This reporter typed in, “Biden Reuters Fact Check” into Google. The first page of results all showed checks that defended Biden. None of the first-page results featured stories fact-checking his statements. Why burn so many calories with fact checks tackling conservative comedy? It’s simple. Comedy matters. It’s why late-night programs avoid mocking Democrats and skewer Republicans. The right sketch, joke or punch line can leave viewers feeling differently about a candidate or political position. It also explains why liberal fact checkers select certain targets over others. For them, holding the Bee accountable sometimes matters more than keeping the leader of the free world honest.

Washington Post Feminist Touts New No-Evidence Memoir by Christine Blasey Ford

Washington Post “gender columnist” Monica Hesse made a splash on the front page of Friday’s Style section celebrating Christine Blasey Ford’s new memoir. She made a pile of unsubstantiated allegations of attempted teenage rape against Brett Kavanaugh when he was up for the Supreme Court in 2018. With time to reflect, Ford still doesn’t have any substance to her charges, like a time or a place for her alleged victimization: Readers looking to “One Way Back” for a magic bullet to prove Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence are out of luck. Ford doesn’t remember anything more than she’s already publicly recalled; there are no new witnesses or unearthed diary entries. What she gives instead is a thoughtful exploration of what it feels like to become a main character in a major American reckoning — a woman tossed out to sea and learning that the water is shark-infested, or at the very least blooming with red tide. It's a "reckoning"? Kavanaugh said he never met Ford, and he never assaulted a woman. But Hesse began by insisting Ford had nothing to gain (other than being a leftist wanting to ruin a conservative man’s reputation and nomination, perhaps): “Can you name all 59 women who came forward against Cosby?” a user named Feminist Next Door posted. “Cool so we agree that women don’t make rape accusations to become famous.” Smearing Kavanaugh – again – by comparing him to an actual rapist is what a Democrat-rag newspaper does. Hesse uncorks an unintentionally laughable sentence about a woman seeking to destroy a man’s nomination without it being an actual legal proceeding, that would require real evidence: “One Way Back” is a blisteringly personal memoir of a singular experience. But it was most piercing to me as a memoir of the past half-decade, when long-buried wounds were tried in the court of public opinion as much as in the court of law, and when sexual assault allegations were treated as though they were about scoring political points more than settling psychic trauma. The Democrats were scoring political points by creating a story of psychic trauma that was never proven. The “long-buried wounds” are allegations. Hesse never mentions the other Kavanaugh accusers, and their wild and unproven tales. No, only one accuser is still a heroine. Hesse concluded: If you believed Ford in 2018, “One Way Back” will give you a deeper appreciation for the woman behind the headlines. If you didn’t — well, I don’t know if the book will change your mind. But it might wiggle your mind a little bit. Because it’s impossible to picture why someone would lie to achieve the kind of fame that has been bestowed upon Ford. It’s hard enough to picture why someone would put themself through that nightmare to tell the truth. Feminists just assume Ford is telling the truth -- because she's on the "Right Side of History." Accuse a Democrat of sexual assault? The liberal media paints you as a "Dogpatch Madonna" (Paula Jones).  Hesse highlights all the alleged death threats sent to Ford (and that would be wrong)...but does NOT ever mention the man who showed up in Kavanaugh's neighborhood in 2022 with a plan to murder him and his family. Instead, we get this:  From time to time, she writes, people still asked her whether she thought she ruined Kavanaugh’s life, and she reacted with incredulity: “Despite the fact that Brett ultimately got the job. Despite the fact that he sits on the Supreme Court while I still receive death threats.” Hesse mentions that Ford was invited over to Oprah's house, and to the widow of Steve Jobs' widow, and to backstage at a Metallica concert. She balanced it out with the death-threats stuff. PS: Here are the celebrity blurbs on her memoir:  “I was engrossed [at her testimony]….what I heard in Ford’s voice and choice of words was a commitment to tell the truth.” ―Anita Hill "I applaud the courage of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford to come forward to share her story." ―Nancy Pelosi "It was striking to see someone questioned before the Senate that actually answered questions."―Jimmy Kimmel "[Ford's] amazing and a true patriot." ―America Ferrera

ABC Paints Willis Controversy As A 'Bizarre Detour Through Her Personal Life'

ABC senior investigative correspondent Aaron Katersky responded to Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis being allowed to stay on Donald Trump’s Georgia prosecution provided her former lover Nathan Wade resigns on Saturday’s Good Morning America by labeling the whole situation as “bizarre” and simply part of her “personal life.” Katersky began his report in studio by declaring that Willis’s “ex-boyfriend is now off the case, but the district attorney who is prosecuting Donald Trump in Georgia for election interference remains after a rather bizarre detour through her personal life and a really unflattering report from the judge.”     During his recorded report, Katersky reported, “This morning, Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis survives a two-month attempt by Donald Trump and some of his co-defendants to get her disqualified. They argued her romance with another prosecutor she hired for the case created a conflict of interest. Judge Scott McAfee decided ‘Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices,’ but made clear he thought Willis dating Nathan Wade showed a ‘tremendous lapse in judgement’ and created such ‘a significant appearance of impropriety’ he required Wade to withdraw if Willis wanted to stay.” Katersky also reported that “Hours later, Wade resigned ‘to move this case forward as quickly as possible.’ But there is no trial date set and defense attorney Scott Grubman told ABC affiliate WSB there could be an appeal.” If there is a conflict of interest or a “significant appearance of impropriety,” then it is not a “bizarre detour” into Willis’s “personal life.” She made her private life public by hiring Wade. The defense didn’t force her to do that, she made a choice, and if that causes the trial to be delayed, then she has nobody to blame but herself. Here is a transcript for the March 16 show: ABC Good Morning America 3/16/2024 7:09 AM ET AARON KATERSKY:  Good morning, Whit. Her ex-boyfriend is now off the case, but the district attorney who is prosecuting Donald Trump in Georgia for election interference remains after a rather bizarre detour through her personal life and a really unflattering report from the judge.  This morning, Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis survives a two-month attempt by Donald Trump and some of his co-defendants to get her disqualified. They argued her romance with another prosecutor she hired for the case created a conflict of interest. Judge Scott McAfee decided “Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices,” but made clear he thought Willis dating Nathan Wade showed a “tremendous lapse in judgement” and created such “a significant appearance of impropriety” he required Wade to withdraw if Willis wanted to stay.  Hours later, Wade resigned “to move this case forward as quickly as possible.” But there is no trial date set and defense attorney Scott Grubman told ABC affiliate WSB there could be an appeal. 

Capehart Hails Schumer's 'Incredible Speech' Trashing Netanyahu

On Friday’s PBS NewsHour, Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart hailed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s “incredible speech” where he trashed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an obstacle to peace and called for new Israeli elections. His counterpart, New York Times columnist David Brooks, tried to have it both ways, claiming he agreed with Schumer, but also that Schumer was helping Hamas. Host Amna Nawaz asked Capehart, “Jonathan, you interviewed the president last week. You asked him about his red lines. Has a red line with Netanyahu now been crossed?”     Capehart claimed that he did, and “If you take Majority Leader Schumer's incredible speech, put that on top of what the president told me last week, which was, yes, if Netanyahu crosses over into Rafah, that would be a red line for him, and that on top of the now very vocal opposition to Netanyahu that's been coming from the administration, from the secretary of State and other senior officials in the administration.” For Capehart, the issue with American-Israeli relations isn’t that Joe Biden feels the need to appease voters in Michigan, but Netanyahu, “We are seeing a widening break, not between the United States and Israel, but between the United States and Prime Minister Netanyahu, who the Biden administration from the president on down view as an obstacle not just to peace, but to some sort of resolution to what's happening in the Israel-Hamas war, but especially a resolution to the humanitarian crisis that's happening in Gaza.” Nawaz then turned to Brooks, “David, how big a shift is this in the U.S. approach?” Brooks began with a wishy-washy assessment of Schumer’s speech, “For Chuck Schumer, it's pretty big. He's been very pro-Israel. And so I do think it's a big shift. I agree with everything he said about Bibi Netanyahu. I still think he shouldn't have said it. He shouldn't certainly have said it that way. A, it's just not becoming to try to interfere in another democracy's electoral process, especially if you're a major figure in the American election.” He then pointed out the strategic problem with Schumer’s behavior: Second, I worry about how it's being received by Hamas. So, Hamas's strategy is to get as many Palestinians killed as possible and hoping that the ensuing outrage is going to cause the international community to crack down on Israel and Israel will have to relent. And they see Chuck Schumer doing that, and they think, which they already think, which is they're winning. And, frankly, when they see what President Biden told to Jonathan about the red line, it was a little fuzzy the way he said it. Was he against a Rafah invasion, or only if the Israelis don't really improve their humanitarian record?” Brooks also pointed out the problem with Capehart’s logic of blaming Netanyahu for the politicizing of relations between the two countries: But if he's against the — Rafah — any kind of incursion into Rafah, as Benny Gantz, the Defense secretary of Israel, said, when you're fighting a fire, you can't only fight 80 percent of the fire. And the hostages and a significant chunk of Hamas forces are in Rafah. And if you let them win, if you let them stay there, there will never be a two-state solution, because there will never be a two-state solution as long as Hamas is in power. And so I mostly worry about the dynamic on the spiritual battlefield, where Hamas suddenly feels emboldened. Brooks is right to point out that Gantz, a big Netanyahu rival, agrees with Netanyahu’s policy, but then why did he say he agreed with Schumer and the only problem was saying it out loud? Here is a transcript for the March 15 show: PBS NewsHour 3/15/2024 7:48 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, you interviewed the president last week. You asked him about his red lines. Has a red line with Netanyahu now been crossed? JONATHAN CAPEHART: I think so. If you take Majority Leader Schumer's incredible speech, put that on top of what the president told me last week, which was, yes, if Netanyahu crosses over into Rafah, that would be a red line for him, and that on top of the now very vocal opposition to Netanyahu that's been coming from the administration, from the secretary of State and other senior officials in the administration. We are seeing a widening break, not between the United States and Israel, but between the United States and Prime Minister Netanyahu, who the Biden administration from the president on down view as an obstacle not just to peace, but to some sort of resolution to what's happening in the Israel-Hamas war, but especially a resolution to the humanitarian crisis that's happening in Gaza. NAWAZ: David, how big a shift is this in the U.S. approach? DAVID BROOKS: For Chuck Schumer, it's pretty big. He's been very pro-Israel. And so I do think it's a big shift. I agree with everything he said about Bibi Netanyahu. I still think he shouldn't have said it. He shouldn't certainly have said it that way. A, it's just not becoming to try to interfere in another democracy's electoral process, especially if you're a major figure in the American election. Second, I worry about how it's being received by Hamas. So, Hamas's strategy is to get as many Palestinians killed as possible and hoping that the ensuing outrage is going to cause the international community to crack down on Israel and Israel will have to relent. And they see Chuck Schumer doing that, and they think, which they already think, which is they're winning. And, frankly, when they see what President Biden told to Jonathan about the red line, it was a little fuzzy the way he said it. Was he against a Rafah invasion, or only if the Israelis don't really improve their humanitarian record? But if he's against the — Rafah — any kind of incursion into Rafah, as Benny Gantz, the Defense secretary of Israel, said, when you're fighting a fire, you can't only fight 80 percent of the fire. And the hostages and a significant chunk of Hamas forces are in Rafah. And if you let them win, if you let them stay there, there will never be a two-state solution, because there will never be a two-state solution as long as Hamas is in power. And so I mostly worry about the dynamic on the spiritual battlefield, where Hamas suddenly feels emboldened.

HUH? On PBS, NPR Reporter Says DeSantis Law's Both 'Gutted' AND 'Very Much In Effect'

In Florida, both Gov. Ron DeSantis and leftist gay activist groups touted a settlement over the Parental Rights in Education Act as a win for their side. On the PBS NewsHour on Thursday night, they turned to Danielle Prieur, a reporter for NPR station WMFE in Orlando. She couldn’t make up her mind on what had happened: The law was both “gutted” and “very much in effect” at the same time. Co-host Stephanie Sy nudged Prieur to explain what happened. She said this first: DANIELLE PRIEUR: So it actually clarified the language of the law. The law was quite vague. And moving forward, as we heard in your clip, parents and teachers and students will be able to speak freely and write freely about gender identity and sexuality in classroom discussions, on essays, on projects. Kids can read books again with gay characters. Teachers can put safe space stickers up and also have gay-straight alliances and other kind of LGBTQ clubs at schools. So it really gutted large parts of the law and clarified it. Then Sy sought to clarify on that: “But, Danielle, the law does still remain in effect. What restrictions are still in place?” Then she fell back to “very much in effect: PRIEUR: Yes, so the law still bans outright instruction about gender identity and sexuality here in Florida. So that would include like a class or a book or even a unit in a section of a textbook that would instruct people in any way about gender identity and sexuality. So the law is still in effect, as well as a lot of the policies that were kind of inspired by the law, things like banning AP African American history because there was a queer-theory unit, or making it so that sociology is no longer a core curriculum course for undergrads here because it talked about human sexuality. So a lot of the law and the policies around the law still are very much in effect here in Florida. Sy contended that both sides can't really claim victory here, but Prieur stuck to believing two things at once:  PRIEUR: So that's a win for the governor and for his party. This was a big win for his conservative base in 2022, when it was passed. But it's also a big win for LGBTQ advocates, folks who have lived under this law for two years and were afraid to be out publicly in the school system, fearing what might happen if you said the wrong thing or as a teacher maybe have the wrong book in their classroom. Notice how PBS, like other liberal outlets, breaks down the two sides as "conservatives" vs. "LGBTQ advocates."  The DeSantis team strongly protested the liberals calling this the "Don't Say Gay" law, which doesn't match the language of the legislation. So now the lefties are proclaiming victory when they feel you can "say gay" in schools, which was also true after the law was signed. You're just not supposed to indoctrinate students with gender ideology or "queer theory."

NewsBusters Podcast: Pinning 'Exoneration' on Robert Hur (He/Him)

The networks finally paid some attention to special counsel Robert Hur when he came to testify before the House about his investigation into Joe Biden's possession of classified documents from when he was vice president (and a senator). Democrats claimed Hur's failure to charge Biden with a crime was an "exoneration," which Hur rejected several times. Bill D'Agostino, our video editor and senior research analyst, brought around a video from 2019, when special counsel Robert Mueller failed to charge Trump with a crime in the Russian collusion investigation. Like Hur, Mueller stated that this was not an exoneration, but Trump went out and proclaimed himself "fully exonerated." Bill's video lines up all of the liberal journalists repeating and repeating Mueller's words that Trump was not exonerated. In both of these special counsel probes, the media tap-danced on the Democrat line. Bill and I discuss his study of about nine months of Hur's probe in 2023. From February 1 through November 20 of last year, the Big Three networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) could only muster four minutes and 52 seconds of coverage of Hur. Almost all of that time was on ABC.  By contrast, Bill and our Rich Noyes counted 2,092 minutes of coverage of Trump and alleged Russian collusion from January 20, 2017 through December, 2018. That's a dramatic contrast.  Bill made another clip package on Monday, on what makes Democrats mad. Illegal immigrants killing Americans, that’s not so outrageous. What’s outrageous is calling them "illegals." New York Times podcast host Lulu Garcia-Navarro was mad at Biden on CNN: “We normally don’t use that word because people are not illegal.” While filling in as a host for Ayman Mohyeldin’s MSNBC show, Paola Ramos, the daugher of Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, declared sternly: “To be clear, no human being is illegal.” They think this word is dehumanizing. We reply: you know what’s the most dehumanizing? Murder. Because this has long been Donald Trump’s signature issue, it’s doubly or triply fraught with danger to sound like you're repeating Trump's argument. They felt Biden repeated what Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was throwing at him.  We end by answering the question that Ed Morrissey of Hot Air posted on Twitter: "Name a movie you're pretty sure you like more than 99% of other people." Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.         

CNN's Tapper Touts U.S. Citizen Living in Gaza Calling for Ceasefire

On Wednesday afternoon's The Lead, CNN host Jake Tapper did his part to undermine Israel's war effort by showing a pre-recorded piece highlighting the story of an American citizen living in Gaza who has a "resounding message" for President Joe Biden about why he was allowing her to suffer even though she chooses to live there.  Tapper teased the story before a commercial break: "An American teacher trapped for hours under rubble after her home in Gaza was hit. Her message for President Biden as she watches neighbor after neighbor being buried. That's next."     A few minutes later, Tapper set up the report by noting that there had been what he called a "strike" on a United Nation's facility as he recalled that Secretary of State Antony Blinken was pushing for Israel to allow more aid into the war zone. He then added: "But all of this serves as a stark reminder of how hard, if not impossible, it is for aid workers to do their jobs in Gaza. CNN's Nada Bashir shares for us now, the story of an American woman in Gaza who, after barely surviving a strike on her home, has a resounding message for President Biden." London-based CNN correspondent Nada Bashir recalled the airdrops of humanitarian aid amidst the war zone and then brought up the case of an American school teacher who lives in Gaza: Deborah, an American woman living in central Gaza, says she has lost count of the number of wars she has lived through in the besieged strip. But this time, she almost did not survive. An Israeli strike, she says, left her crushed in the ruins of her home for hours. Rescued and treated without anesthesia, she now wants answers. Then came a soundbite of Deborah Droll, the Gazan they were talking about, pushing the i incorrect suggestion that, because she was a civilian, the area where she lives could not be a legitimate military target even though the location of Hamas weapons or personnel was what made a target legitimate: "I'm not throwing bombs -- I'm not shooting anyone -- why did they come and target me? I need an answer for that. Joe Biden, I need an answer. Why are you letting them target Americans in Gaza?" The report then concluded: BASHIR: The English teacher says there is nowhere safe left in Gaza. Some of her neighbors being buried as she speaks. DROLL: Yes, I could run. I could go back to America, but I would feel like it was not right to do that. I should stand beside them. I should try to help them. BASHIR: A voice of solidarity with those in Gaza trying to survive the unthinkable. Nada Bashir, CNN, London. What about the Israeli and American hostages? The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN's The Lead March 13, 2024 5:23 p.m. Eastern JAKE TAPPER (before commercial break): An American teacher trapped for hours under rubble after her home in Gaza was hit. Her message for President Biden as she watches neighbor after neighbor being buried. That's next. (commercial break) 5:27 p.m. TAPPER: Back with our "World Lead" now, this afternoon U.S. secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the Israel government and military must do more to get aid into Gaza. Blinken also addressed today's strike on a United Nation's facility in Rafah in Gaza. That strike killed five people according to a doctor there. Secretary of State Blinken said an investigation is ongoing, but all of this serves as a stark reminder of how hard, if not impossible, it is for aid workers to do their jobs in Gaza. CNN's Nada Bashir shares for us now, the story of an American woman in Gaza who, after barely surviving a strike on her home, has a resounding message for President Biden. NADA BASHIR: Small but vital -- pockets of peace above war-torn Gaza. Yet another round of humanitarian airdrops from international donors. Civilians, on the brink of famine, desperately scramble to see what has arrived today. Yet, amid each delivery, the war continues, more homes destroyed, more people killed. Deborah, an American woman living in central Gaza, says she has lost count of the number of wars she has lived through in the besieged strip. But this time, she almost did not survive. An Israeli strike, she says, left her crushed in the ruins of her home for hours. Rescued and treated without anesthesia, she now wants answers. DEBORAH DROLL, AMERICAN LIVING IN GAZA: I'm not throwing bombs -- I'm not shooting anyone -- why did they come and target me? I need an answer for that. Joe Biden, I need an answer. Why are you letting them target Americans in Gaza? BASHIR: The English teacher says there is nowhere safe left in Gaza. Some of her neighbors being buried as she speaks. DROLL: Yes, I could run. I could go back to America, but I would feel like it was not right to do that. I should stand beside them. I should try to help them. BASHIR: A voice of solidarity with those in Gaza trying to survive the unthinkable. Nada Bashir, CNN, London. TAPPER: And our thanks to Nada Bashir for that report.

Doing Biden’s Bidding? Nets HID Inconvenient Truth on Job Numbers Revision

The Big Three networks have been caught playing the game they so often do: burying facts that destroy their narrative. This time, the evening newscasts at NBC News, CBS News and ABC News hid the fact that the Bureau of Labor Statistics revised the January jobs numbers far below what it had initially reported. When the original January jobs numbers were released earlier this year, leftist news outlets jumped up and down in support of Biden, even claiming that the inflation-ravaged economy was “booming.” The downward revision, released on March 8 with the February numbers, dropped the total nonfarm jobs created in January by more than 35 percent, from 353,000 to 229,000.  The March 8 release also reduced the December 2023 jobs numbers from 333,000 to 290,000, totaling a 167,000-job overestimate for both December and January. But of course, this seismic overestimate didn’t fit the story that the legacy media wanted to shove in the faces of Americans struggling with high prices and debt. It’s simple: the media announces the overly high jobs numbers, praising Biden all the way. Yet when the revision and more context are revealed, the media keeps quiet in a seemingly desperate attempt to maintain the narrative. To ignore any mention of the revisions, ABC World News Tonight, in its March 8 show, touted the numbers in the February jobs report, which were lower than the original January report. On March 11, along with the other networks, ABC wasted oodles of time covering a supposedly photoshopped picture of Kate Middleton. On March 12, the network hoped that the Fed would cut interest rates this summer despite the increasing inflation rate. CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News also reported on completely unrelated stories. CBS Evening News celebrated Barbie dolls on their March 8 broadcast. On March 11, CBS Evening News ran a segment on the Oscars, and the next day, focused on the reopening of Babies’R’Us.  Meanwhile, NBC Nightly News covered the appearance of toy unicorns all over Providence, Rhode Island on March 8 and publicized a phone hotline for cool springs in California on March 13. Conservatives are under attack. Contact ABC News at 818-460-7477, CBS News at 212-975-3247 and NBC News at 212-664-6192 and demand they report truthfully on the condition of labor in America.

US Ambassador Denounces Hungary’s Orban at Soros' University While Gov’t Interferes in Elections

U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman attacked the Hungarian government during a contentious speech at a Soros-funded university, just as the State Department prepares another deluge of dollars for anti-government media in Hungary.  On March 14, Ambassador Pressman attended an event hosted by Central European University (CEU) where he attacked the NATO ally with whom it is his job to negotiate. Soros had funneled at least $1,058,676,021 to CEU’s coffers between 2016 and 2022 alone and founded the university himself. Pressman took issue with several Hungarian measures to combat foreign influence. These included Hungary’s “Defense of Sovereignty Act” and the Hungarian government’s struggle against the enormous influence of Soros’ Open Society Foundations and CEU.  During his speech, Pressman launched into a shameless diatribe against the Hungarian government, accusing the country’s officials of equating  “independence” with “opposition.” Outrageously, the Department of State has recently funneled money to leftist media outlets handpicked by Soros-funded organizations. “Independent media in Hungary gets labeled opposition media. Independent non-governmental organizations get labeled political partisans,” the ambassador claimed. Pressman’s claims come against the backdrop of the Soros-funded Ökotárs Foundation and media watchdog Mérték Media Monitor preparing a second round of taxpayer-funded grants to Hungarian media outlets. This round of the infamous grant program had a Feb. 29 deadline. Like Pressman, these Soros-funded organizations use the phrase “independent media” to describe the leftist media outlets they choose to shower money on. While the new recipients have not been announced, Ökotárs Foundation and Mérték Media Monitor have a troubling record. Earlier this year, these same two organizations gave $320,000 in taxpayer dollars to 15 anti-government media outlets in Hungary. At least five of these media outlets had also specifically taken money from Soros. Notably, the Ökotárs Foundation indicates that this will not be the final round, as these two organizations will be handling applications until Aug. 31.  Earlier in his speech, Pressman gushed over his host declaring that CEU was full of “the best and brightest students, studying at the preeminent university in all of Central Europe.” Pressman lamented CEU’s move from Hungary to Vienna without mentioning Soros.  “While I won’t spend much time on the saga of what the Hungarian government put this university through, over the objections of the previous U.S. Administration,” Pressman said, neatly sidestepping the leftist billionaire founder, “I think it is fitting to mention because it epitomizes the sacrifice of something great in exchange for – honestly, it is hard for me to understand.  In exchange for political points?  For talking points?  Whatever was gained, it is clear that Hungary lost when it lost these promising students.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News at (818) 460-7477, CBS News at (212) 975-3247 and NBC News at (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on the State Department letting Soros-funded groups award taxpayer dollars abroad.

Pop Star Olivia Rodrigo No Longer Allowed to Distribute Plan B Pills At Concerts

She shouldn’t have been allowed to in the first place! “Driver License” singer/songwriter Olivia Rodrigo will no longer be allowed to pass out Plan B contraceptives at her concerts during her GUTS tour. This move comes after tons of pro-life individuals and groups condemned Rodrigo’s (whether she facilitated it or she simply didn't stop it from happening) distribution of something that has the potential to abort a child.  An image captured by a fan and shared online showed the goodybag attendees received. Concertgoers were given two boxes of “emergency contraceptives” as well as numerous little cards advocating abortion and asking for donations. One note was a little heart that said “We can help you find abortion care.” They were assembled in part by the National Network of Abortion Funds who put up booths at every stop of Rodrigo’s North American tour. The image gained more than 12.7 million views on X alone. free planb at @oliviarodrigo in st. louis tonight 💓 thank you @MOAbortionFund ✨ pic.twitter.com/41sc65XxLx — kin ⸆⸉ (@cowboylikekin) March 12, 2024 Individuals were disgusted by Rodrigo allowing something like this to be passed out at her concerts, especially when her target demographic is teenagers. No wonder! Emergency contraceptives work by either preventing a pregnancy from occuring or by ending a new pregnancy. Essentially the drug gives a woman a bunch of hormonal birth control (often referred to as “the pill”) at one time to suppress ovulation.  “Killing babies doesn’t pass the vibe check,” an avid pro-lifer wrote. “Putting poison into your body to kill your child and celebrating it is pretty wild,” another said while others called the move “evil.”  March for Life tweeted about what Rodrigo permitted on Wednesday: Olivia Rodrigo handed out Plan B pills at her concert in Saint Louis. Plan B is an abortifacient. Young fans, especially young women, deserve support during a pregnancy, not a drug that will violently end it. Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk said, “Liberalism is a creepy anti-child death cult,” and Students for Lifepointed out that Rodrigo was “too dedicated to abortion to notice that she’s killing off her future fan base.”  This isn’t the first time this year that Rodrigo shared her undeniable support for abortion. In February she shared that a portion of the GUTS World Tour proceeds would go towards killing babies. Specifically, Rodrigo allocated the money for groups who pay for travel and lodging expenses for women who seek illegal abortions across state lines. Luckily, pro-life backlash halted Rodrigo’s distribution of the “morning-after” pills. Pro-abort organizers told Variety that “after widespread media attention, local abortion funds were told Thursday afternoon that they were no longer allowed to hand out free emergency birth control pills and other reproductive health resources at the concerts.” Abortion isn’t a “health resource.” It isn’t something for your “health” at all actually. Supposedly Rodrigo and her team are no longer allowed to pass out “lubrication, condoms and Plan B because ‘children are present at the concerts,’” Variety reported.  Organizers disagreed and were not pleased with the announcement.  Jade Hurley from the DC Abortion Fund insisted “The reality is that youth have sex, and youth need access to birth control and emergency contraception. What we’re doing is completely legal in all 50 states.” Prairie Abortion Fund’s Destini Spaeth “strongly disagrees with the decision.”  “There is something really positive about a 16- or 15-year-old having a Plan B and a few condoms in her dresser to use as she needs it,” Spaeth told Variety before calling abortion pills like Plan B a “sexual health tool.” Unfortunately, it seems that pro-aborts are ruthless about getting these drugs to young concert goers. Hurley even admitted that if she can’t pass them out inside the concert venue, she’ll stand on the sidewalk and hand them out to fans as they go in. If you don’t think this is a blatant and targeted attack to not only brainwash young girls into thinking abortion is normal and casual but also to continue killing babies, your eyes must be shut.

In Venomous Rant, Scarborough Supports Schumer's Call For Israeli Regime Change

For my sins, over the years I've suffered through countless Joe Scarborough rants. In recent times, Donald Trump has, of course, been Scarborough's favorite target. But for sheer anger and vitriol, it would be hard to match Scarborough's tirade against Benjamin Netanyahu at the opening of today's Morning Joe. Scarborough attacked Netanyahu for purposes of defending Chuck Schumer's shocking speech on the Senate floor yesterday, calling for regime change in Israel and the ejection of Netanyahu as Israeli Prime Minister. Scarborough had the chutzpah to depict himself as the virtual True Defender of Israel, a veritable modern-day Judah Maccabee. He bragged about being "somebody who supported Israel my entire life. A guy who's spoken before AIPAC my entire life. My God." After the massacres of October 7, Scarborough claimed "Benjamin Netanyahu should have resigned the day after...There's no doubt. Netanyahu has damaged Israel in a way no prime minister has damaged Israel since 1948!" He decried a "sad dynamic, because there's some people in America on the far right who are more interested in helping Benjamin Netanyahu than Israel....this is a disastrous path that Netanyahu's on. And they know! The far-right extremists who are defending Netanyahu right now know. He's doing everything he can do to stay in office." So, while Joe was bravely chowing down on Glatt kosher chicken at AIPAC dinners, what has Netanyahu ever done to put himself on the line for Israel? What has his family ever sacrificed? Well, as an 18-year-old living in a comfortable Philly suburb, Netanyahu chose to return to Israel to enlist in the IDF. He became a combat soldier, and served for five years in the Sayeret Matkal, the famed special forces unit. He was wounded in combat on multiple occasions, and participated in many missions, including the rescue of hijacked Sabena flight 571. Oh, and Netanyahu's brother Yonatan was killed leading Sayeret Matkal during the 1976 Entebbe Raid, the rescue of hostages in Idi Amin's Uganda. So, what explains Scarborough's unusually venomous attack on Netanyahu, and his defense of Schumer's despicable speech? Take it is a sign of the desperation of the Biden campaign, and lackeys like Scarborough. They see the 2024 election slipping away, as key elements of the Biden base -- Muslim/Arab-Americans and young voters -- move away in reaction to what they see as Biden's excessive support of Israel in its war with Hamas. Biden is in a bind. He knows he must do something to cater to those groups' anti-Israel animus. But cutting off military aid to Israel would be a disaster. Since deserting Israel is off the table, Biden has settled for second choice: attacking Netanyahu. He's a convenient punching bag, offering Biden the opportunity to make a symbolic attack on Israel that he is prevented from making directly.  Biden's message to Muslim and Arab-Americans and to young voters is clear: "See? The real problem here isn't Israel. It's Netanyahu. And I detest him! Want him gone! Just like you do!" And Scarborough utterly failed to address the trenchant point that Mitch McConnell made in response to Schumer's speech: “It is grotesque and hypocritical for Americans who hyperventilate about foreign interference in our own democracy to call for the removal of a democratically elected leader of Israel.” Grotesque and hypocritical. If the shoe fits, wear it, Scarborough! As for Schumer, why did he agree to act as Biden's dupe? He has made a reputation as Israel's strongest defender in the Senate. At this stage of his career, what does the 73-year-old Schumer have to gain by debasing himself in this way? He's already Senate Majority Leader.  And as Commentary editor John Podhoretz has pointed out, in a column entitled, "The Shame of Chuck Schumer," Netanyahu's defenestration wouldn't change war policy: "Israel’s populace and its politicians are in alignment. Its government is a unity government in which the prime minister’s most formidable rival is sitting alongside the majority coalition. defene "The current Israeli government, the one Schumer says he wants to see replaced, unquestionably represents a consensus view of the Israeli electorate on the most important issues, and that view is shared by something like 75 percent of Israeli voters. "Moreover, when it comes to the war in Gaza, Netanyahu is not the decision-maker; he is one of three. Bibi, opposition leader Benny Gantz, and defense minister Yoav Gallant make up a “war cabinet” troika, and all policy moves are the result of a majority vote among them." Schumer and Scarborough surely know this. All of which demonstrates that their impassioned condemnation of Netanyahu and call for his removal have nothing to do with changing the course of Israel's war with Hamas. Schumer and Scarborough are simply Biden flunkeys, hoping to help Ol' Joe feed a sop to some key voter blocs. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 3/15/24 6:01 am ET MIKA BRZEZINSKI: And the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in the United States is calling for changes in Israel, now five months into its war with hamas. We'll play for you what Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It's something. JOE SCARBOROUGH: And, my gosh, if you heard the reaction from the far right, from the Trump right, you would have forgotten for a second that Benjamin Netanyahu was the guy that let Israel's defenses down, was the guy that knew in 2018 where all of the illicit funding was for the Hamas terror organization, was the guy who gave Hamas money through Qatar with a couple of weeks left to go, and had the attack plans a year before, from Hamas, did absolutely nothing. Actually had evidence that morning -- MIKA: Yeah. SCARBOROUGH:  -- what was happening. Again, did absolutely nothing. But, my God. Benjamin Netanyahu, you'd think he was, think he was George Washington. The attacks just absolutely unbelievable. Benjamin Netanyahu should have resigned the day after, when it took five, six, seven, ten hours to bring aid to children who had seen their parents shot to death in front of their eyes, or babies shot -- I could go on and on, but seriously, the, the outrage, the faux outrage is such garbage. It's why Americans hate politics. It really is. There's no doubt. Netanyahu has damaged Israel in a way no prime minister has damaged Israel since 1948! And they know it! So -- Willie, really, I mean, God, reading some of the editorials, reading some of the tweets, some of the garbage from the far right really is nauseating, as somebody who supported Israel my entire life. A guy who's spoken before AIPAC my entire life. My God.  I mean how much do they want to politicize this? Some of us, I know this is radical. Some of us actually want what's best for Israel, and not what's best for Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump. Some of us actually give a damn about the safety and security of Israel, not just now, but fiv eyears from now, 50 years from now. WILLIE GEIST: Yeah. All of that is true, but no less an extraordinary moment to hear Chuck Schumer, Democrat, who represents the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel, in the state of New York, to say explicitly it's time for a change of leadership. Something a lot of people have been thinking, as you said, but something we're not accustomed to hearing from a leader, such a high-ranking leader in American politics, that it's time for a change. Leader Schumer did put out a statement later, saying this is up to the people of Israel, this is how I view this. The people of Israel need t odecide that. But you're right. There was a huge reaction from the right. A huge reaction from inside Israel, from the Netanyahu government as well.  Just a fascinating dynamic here as we see our own president, President Biden, not just Chuck Schumer, stepping up his criticism of Netanyahu and the way he's conducted this war as well. SCARBOROUGH: Well you know, it's a sad dynamic. A sad dynamic, because there's some people in America on the far right who are more interested in helping Benjamin Netanyahu than Israel. I mean, I guess that's just the sad reality. I mean, there are a lot of us that are a lot more concerned about the Israeli people, and Israel's security, and Israel's -- MIKA: The hostages. SCARBOROUGH: The hostages. Israel's long-term support. MIKA: 135 days. SCARBOROUGH: The support, which just continues to erode in the United States, and across the globe. So some of us that have always supported Israel, but yeah. We're concerned about what's going on. More than a little concerned about what's going on in Israel. What went on October 7th. What's been going on on college campuses across this country. The antisemitism that's been sweeping the world now for --oh, I don't know, 2000 years or so. So, but again, this is a disastrous path that Netanyahu's on. And they know! The far-right extremists who are defending Netanyahu right now know. He's doing everything he can do to stay in office. It's not for the best interests of -- MIKA: For him. SCARBOROUGH: -- the Israeli people. It's in the best interests of Benjamin Netanyahu. They. Know. That. And yet they spew lies.

WOMP, WOMP! CNN’s Fake News Jim, Panel Melt Down Over Judge Ripping Willis

While the first hour of CNN’s Friday morning coverage on Fulton County, Georgia Judge Scott McAfee’s ruling allowing District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on the 2020 election case against Donald Trump and his 18 co-defendants was fairly restrained, the same couldn’t be said about the second hour as Fake News Jim Acosta arrived for his hour of CNN Newsroom. Between Acosta and his not-so-merry band of fellow leftist analysts and journalists, CNN viewers were treated to a meltdown about how Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade’s romantic relationship was proof of Donald Trump “sow[ing] distrust in the criminal justice system” and “played the system like a fiddle” and that even discussion of their affair was “sickening.”     Chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid had that first zinger, claiming this case was Trump “sow[ing] distrust in the criminal justice system” via...McAfee? Wait, so Wade and Willis having an inappropriate relationship is somehow Trump’s fault? Shortly after Reid seemed to suggest Willis needed to keep the case because “trust in the judicial system” is “at stake”, chief legal analyst Laura Coates kvetched that McAfee handed Team Trump “ammunition to try to attack her credibility and taint...the jury pool”. However, as she repeatedly tried to do, she sought to cheer viewers up by reminding them Trump could still be prosecuted. Acosta then lambasted McAfee ripping Wade and Willis’s lack of ethics as having “having to do with” the Trump case because he’s the one who’s supposed to be “on trial”.  Legal analyst Elliot Williams backed up him, arguing McAfee was out of line and “taking a pot shot” at the former lovers in a ruling that didn’t pan out as Trump and his co-defendants had hoped. In other words, Williams was comparing McAfee to former Biden Special Counsel Robert Hur. Acosta and Trump 2024 correspondent Kristen Holmes proceeded to bellyache about how Trump will “take advantage of” and “run wild with this” and his supporters will “eat this up”. Instead of keeping the focus on Wade and Willis’s lack of common decency not to mix work and pleasure (and luxury vacations), they whined this would be another instance of Trump “tak[ing] this nugget of truth” and “blow it up” so it helps him November (click “expand”): ACOSTA: Yeah, and this is happening in the middle of a political campaign, obviously, Kristen, and Trump is going to run wild with this. He’s already been doing it out on the campaign trail at these rallies, talking about Fani Willis and Nathan Wade. HOLMES: Yeah, he’s obsessed with Fani Willis. ACOSTA: It almost sounds like Strzok and Lisa Page. It’s the same thing. HOLMES: Right, it’s very, very similar. (....) HOLMES: So, when I look through this, I see how Donald Trump’s team is going to take advantage of it...[W]hen you actually look at how they’re going to use this, Donald Trump is going to repeat some of these lines in rallies. ACOSTA: Oh yeah. HOLMES: And...Donald Trump is going to use this and his supporters are going to eat this up...[T]his is what I’ve seen for the last several years. Donald Trump takes this nugget of truth. (....) HOLMES: So, Donald Trump takes a nugget of truth from this report and then he will blow it up and his people will believe him. And not just his people, he will be able to reach other people by using this because that is the tactic he has used since 2016. Following a commercial break, Acosta went full-speed ahead into complete idiocy, first whining to CNN legal analyst Michael Moore (no, not that Michael Moore) that he feels “sicken[ed] to the stomach” the personal lives of Wade and Willis “got thrown into all of this” and, as a result, done “damage” to nabbing Trump. Here again, no condemnation for Wade and Willis with all the scorn saved for anyone who thought potential conflicts of interest were more than a gadly-sized issue.  Acosta then huffed to senior legal analyst Elie Honig he could “hear some of our viewers at home saying, ‘why do I know more about the personal life of Fani Willis and Nathan Wade than I do about the details of this case of Donald Trump and these alleged co-conspirators trying to overturn election results in Georgia?’ I mean, is there some unfairness there[?]” Following more happy talk from Coates for her fellow hardcore leftists that implied Atlanta residents will remember they were “impacted by the alleged actions of Donald Trump and the co-defendants”, Holmes played Debbie Downer by citing texts from Trumpworld sources who believe McAfee’s ruling was “a win for us”. To this, Acosta joked like the petty fool he is: “They said they won before when they didn’t win, but anyway — yeah. If anyone remembers that.” This prompted Williams to reemphasize the restlessness on the left that, time again, Trump could once again “tak[e] a fact — there’s a kernel of legal truth to it”, spin it, then toss “it like chum in the water and confus[e] the public.” “[T]his has been my observation throughout this entire process that he has been able to play the legal system of this country like a fiddle,” Acosta replied. After a comical aside between Acosta and Coates insisting this decision demanding Wade step down if Willis wants to continue was proof there’s no two-tiered justice system as some claim, Reid and Williams concluded the discussion by fretting “Trump...getting help” from the legal system will allow him to fill “people’s heads with misinformation, disinformation, facts that simply are not true” (click “expand”): REID: I mean, Trump is getting help. It’s not just that there is a criminal mastermind sort of delaying everything. They’re getting help with judges, justices, and apparently prosecutors or whatever the heck happened last night. In New York with this evidence that just came out of nowhere. So the Justices of the Supreme Court, they, they could have resolved this issue of immunity months ago. They opted not to. They’re going to hear arguments. It’s not expect he’s going to win on the merits, but that’s helping him with delay. Again, even Judge Mcafee, the things that he said today, helping this strategy of undermining trust, but also delay. It took them awhile, right? He had time to do interviews. Probably could have done this a few days ago. ACOSTA: Well, and the Justice Department — REID: And also the prosecutors in New York. It’s not just them. They have a lot of help delaying this. ACOSTA: — I mean, it’s not me saying it. A lot of legal experts have said the Justice Department took way too long — WILLIAMS: Yeah. ACOSTA: — to appoint a special prosecutor in Jack Smith, do the documents case to go after the January 6 case. Elliot, any final thoughts? WILLIAMS: No, just my final thought is, I think — I — and I’m just going to sort of repeat the point. I think the great tragedy in all of this is that whenever any of these matters go to trial, you’re going to have to find 12 people who can sit fairly in judgment and the process of tainting a jury pool, getting in people’s heads with misinformation, disinformation, facts that simply are not true about cases can be a many years long process and like your point, Jim, the former President has played the system like a fiddle and gotten in people’s heads. And will in this case too, making it very hard to find 12 or 14, with alternates, Americans who can sit in judgment of his actual conduct and not have all this nonsense and lies and untruth — ACOSTA: Yeah. WILLIAMS: — kicking around in their heads. You know, as he saw, frankly from the text messages, Kirsten got, it’s already starting and they’re doing it again. To see the relevant CNN transcript from March 15, click here.

Jake Tapper LIES About Aaron Rodgers Defending Sandy Hook Conspiracy

CNN’s Jake Tapper and Pamela Brown launched a smear campaign against New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers this week after it was revealed he was on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s shortlist for VP; accusing him of believing the conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook school shooting was fake. And when Rodgers denied their allegations, Tapper took to his show, The Lead on Thursday to falsely claim Rodgers was not only refusing to deny the allegations but was actively defending the conspiracy theory. Following the publishing of CNN’s hit piece, Rodgers released a statement saying: As I’m on the record saying in the past, what happened in Sandy Hook was an absolute tragedy. I am not and have never been of the opinion that the events did not take place. Again, I hope that we learn from this and other tragedies to identify the signs that will allow us to prevent unnecessary loss of life. My thoughts and prayers continue to remain with the families affected along with the entire Sandy Hook community.   As I’m on the record saying in the past, what happened in Sandy Hook was an absolute tragedy. I am not and have never been of the opinion that the events did not take place. Again, I hope that we learn from this and other tragedies to identify the signs that will allow us to… — Aaron Rodgers (@AaronRodgers12) March 14, 2024   Despite Rodgers clearly saying he had “never been of the opinion that the events did not take place,” Tapper was intent on gaslighting his viewers and insisted that Rodgers was not denying the allegations he smeared him with; he even suggested Rodgers was not addressing their story at all. “Plus, speaking of dangerous conspiracy theories, New York Jet Aaron Rodgers is responding –kind of – to reporting that we broke here yesterday…” Tapper deceptively announced in a tease. “How could he possibly defend such a thing? We’ll tell you next.” Tapper repeatedly tried to cast doubt on Rodgers’ clear denials of their reporting throughout multiple teases over the course of his show’s two hours. “Plus, Aaron Rodgers responds kind of, kind of response to our reporting that in the past he has shared fake Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, including with our own Pamela Brown. What he had to say, that's coming up,” he said.     When it finally was time to cover Rodgers’ response, Tapper admitted that politics was his motivation for targeting Rodgers now despite the alleged conservation with Brown happening 11 years ago. “Now these comments, of course, are troubling, but they're especially important because he's on Robert Kennedy Jr.’s shortlist for vice president. Normally, who cares what a quarterback says in private conversation?” he proclaimed. There was also a very small possibility that Tapper was also still salty over the Jets stomping his Philadelphia Eagles last year. In teeing up and analyzing Rodger’s response, Tapper blatantly lied that Rodgers was not denying the allegations: Now today, Aaron Rodgers is responding to our story kind of. He does not deny saying what we reported. He said, but he or a representative for him tweeted the following statement, quote, “As, I'm on the record saying in the past, what happened in Sandy Hook was an absolute tragedy. I am not and have never been of the opinion that the events did not take place. Again, I hope that we learned from this and other tragedies to identify the signs that would allow us to prevent unnecessary loss of life. My thoughts and prayers continue to remain with the families affected along with the entire Sandy Hook community,” unquote. Again, if you read that statement, you Rodgers does not deny those comments that he made the Pamela Brown and to the other source. “This is where we are as a nation where we have actually as a subject for debate whether or not a vice presidential prospect thinks a massive shooting actually happened,” Tapper bitterly vented. But that’s not true. In the hours following Tapper’s false reporting, Rodgers supporters and Tapper fact-checkers flooded the zone with evidence that blew up CNN’s Hail Mary attempt to damage the RFK Jr. campaign. For instance, there’s a picture of Rodgers with a Sandy Hook memorial sticker on his helmet just days after the school shooting while at an away game versus the Minnesota Vikings. Brown claimed Rodgers made the comments to her while at the 2013 Kentucky Derby. The derby was held on May 4 that year, but a Fox6 News Milwaukee report posted to YouTube two months later on July 11 showed Rodgers’ using similar language echoed in his denial: I hope that we can learn from this and look for the signs more and not ever have something like this happen, and keep this on our minds because these are things that affect all of us directly or indirectly. This needs to be something that we learn from.”     It’s worth noting that Tapper and Brown didn’t have stellar histories when it came to discerning claims made by sources. Back in October, Tapper defended the death toll numbers being provided by the Hamas Ministry of Health by insisting “there’s no reason to doubt” their claim that hundreds were killed by Israel intentionally bombing a hospital. Both the death toll number and the alleged source of the explosive turned out to be disinformation and Hamas was the perpetrator. Brown was one of three reporters who penned an explosive article in 2017 that claimed they had anonymous sources that claimed the FBI had a FISA warrant to wiretap then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. That too turned out to be false. The transcript is below. Click "expand to read: CNN’s The Lead March 14, 2024 4:01:10 p.m. Eastern [Tease] (…) JAKE TAPPER: And, Rogers’s response. NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers with a new post Twitter today, kind of alluding to the exclusive reporting we broke here on The Lead yesterday, that he had privately shared with the least two people we know of deranged conspiracy theories about the 2012 sandy hook school shooting not being real (…) 5:00:01 p.m. Eastern [Tease] TAPPER: Plus, speaking of dangerous conspiracy theories, New York Jet Aaron Rodgers is responding –kind of – to reporting that we broke here yesterday on The Lead with the NFL quarterback in the past has claimed in private conversation stations that the Sandy Hook massacre, in which 20 kids and six adults were viciously murdered was actually a government inside job, and the kids and the parents were all just actors. He said it to our own Pamela Brown, among others. How could he possibly defend such a thing? We’ll tell you next. (…) 5:09:49 p.m. Eastern [Tease] TAPPER: Plus, Aaron Rodgers responds kind of, kind of response to our reporting that in the past he has shared fake Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, including with our own Pamela Brown. What he had to say, that's coming up. (…) 5:31:32 p.m. Eastern TAPPER: In our politics lead, an update to the exclusive reporting we brought to you yesterday about one of RFK juniors, vice presidential prospects, Aaron Rodgers. You might remember we reported on the unhinged conspiracy theories that New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers has shared in private that the 2012 very real Sandy Hook school shooting was not real, that it was a fake, despite the fact that 20 children and six adults were murdered that day. Now these comments, of course, are troubling, but they're especially important because he's on Robert Kennedy Jr.’s shortlist for vice president. Normally, who cares what a quarterback says in private conversation? Yesterday, on his ESPN show, Pat MacAfee said that Rodgers was apparently at a retreat in Costa Rica taking the psychedelic drug Ayahuasca when the news broke about the – about the his being on the shortlist for vice president for RFK junior. Yesterday, here on The Lead, we reported that Aaron Rodgers had shared these frankly disturbing views about the Sandy Hook shooting not being real. He shared them 11 years ago with CNN's Pamela Brown. She was covering the Kentucky Derby for CNN in 2013 and met him there. CNN, I have also spoken to another person, one who would like to remain anonymous in order to avoid harassment, who also had a similar encounter with Aaron Rodgers; saying that Rodgers claimed that quote, “Sandy Hook never happened. All those children never existed. They're all actors,” unquote. When asked about the grieving parents, whom I met and their grief is real. The source says that Rodgers said, quote, “They're all making it up. They're all actors,” unquote. Now today, Aaron Rodgers is responding to our story kind of. He does not deny saying what we reported. He said, but he or a representative for him tweeted the following statement, quote, “As, I'm on the record saying in the past, what happened in Sandy Hook was an absolute tragedy. I am not and have never been of the opinion that the events did not take place. Again, I hope that we learned from this and other tragedies to identify the signs that would allow us to prevent unnecessary loss of life. My thoughts and prayers continue to remain with the families affected along with the entire Sandy Hook community,” unquote. Again, if you read that statement, you Rodgers does not deny those comments that he made the Pamela Brown and to the other source. Last night on Fox, RFK junior was asked about Aaron Rodgers. [Cuts to video] ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr. (D): I really like Aaron because our appeal to young people. [Transition] Aaron Rodgers is battle-tested. He’s stood up, he’s been hammered by the press. Stood up for things to be believed, and I like that part of his character. He's a critical thinker. [Cuts back to live] TAPPER: “Critical thinkers” is now, obviously what we're calling conspiracy theorists. Kennedy was not, in an interview, perhaps not surprisingly, they asked about the comments that we reported Aaron Rodgers made to Pamela Brown and someone else about Sandy Hook not having actually happened. Today, a spokesperson for RFK Jr.’s campaign did address those comments responding to CNN in a statement saying, quote, “Mr. Kennedy believes the Sandy Hook shooting was a horrific tragedy. The 20 children and six adults that died December 14, 2012 brought the entire country together and grief. Let us honor their memory.” This is where we are as a nation where we have actually as a subject for debate whether or not a vice presidential prospect thinks a massive shooting actually happened. Should RFK Jr. select Aaron Rodgers as his running mate again, somebody describes as a battle-tested critical thinker, it might cost him. Mediaite reporting that donors have voiced their discontent directly with the campaign pledging to withdraw their support from Kennedy if he chooses, Rodgers, in particular, RFK R. is expected to announce his pick on March 26th. (…)

Degrowth: How to Make the World Poorer, Polluted and Miserable

The left has a new goal: degrowth. We should “buy less stuff,” forgive debts, grow our own food, etc. They say this will “build a more just and sustainable society” and “save the planet” from “climate chaos.” This idea is popular with capitalism-haters. One at a ChangeNow “eco conference” says, “A smaller, slower economy could also be a sweeter economy.” A sweeter economy? What nonsense. We already unintentionally experimented with “degrowth.” During the pandemic, frightened politicians closed businesses and ordered people to stay home. Growth stopped. “Did that save us?” asks Swedish author Johan Norberg in my new video. “No. It was a terrible tragedy. Sixty million people were thrown into extreme poverty.” Yet some “degrowth” activists call the pandemic a good thing. “Did a lot of environmental good,” says one on Al Jazeera. “Pollution has been radically cut, emissions have plummeted,” says another. It’s true. The pandemic did reduce carbon emissions. “But by no more than 6%!” says Norberg. “If we wanted to reduce global warming,” he says, “We would need one pandemic every year. And that would be a terrible disaster for human life and health.” Sure would. Climate change may be a serious threat. But reducing global growth won’t help. It would make things worse. Growth and that much-hated capitalism are our only hope to create the wealth that may help us better adjust to climate change. Norberg points out, “If we didn’t have any economic growth since the 1950s, we would have slightly less global warming, but around half a million more people would die because of climate-related natural disasters. The risk of dying has declined by some 90%, and that’s not because we have fewer disasters. ... It’s because we’ve had economic growth. It means that we improve construction, improve early warning systems, improve health care ... we can deal with disasters in a better way.” Over time, even a little growth makes a huge beneficial difference. “If Sweden, my own country, had had just one percentage point lower economic growth per capita, then Sweden today would be as poor as Albania.” “What’s wrong with Albania?” I ask. “Albanians are a quarter as rich as Swedes,” responds Norberg, “That shows in everything from life expectancy and child mortality to working conditions.” Albania’s growth was stunted by years of communism. Because of that, today Albanians risk their lives to try to reach capitalist countries. “That’s what you need to know about different economic and political systems,” says Norberg. “Look at where the refugees go. They always go from more socialist economies to capitalist economies. People risk their lives to get to freedom and prosperity.” The no-growth advocates don’t acknowledge that. They despise capitalism, and don’t see its benefits. We invited more than a dozen of them to come on Stossel TV to explain the evils of capitalism and describe how degrowth is better. Not one would. I wish one would come to my studio to argue. I’d ask what he thinks about the claim Norberg makes in his newest book, “The Capitalist Manifesto.” He says, “The global free market will save the world.” “That’s grandiose,” I tell Norberg. “But it is saving the world,” he says. “Bit by bit, step by step. Every day over the past 20 years, more than 130,000 people were lifted out of extreme poverty!” That means economic growth freed millions from stoop labor, from burning manure for heat, from lives where they die young. Not only did free markets release people from miserable poverty, when they did, they created conditions where people want to take care of the environment. It’s why capitalist countries are less polluted than socialist ones. Only when you aren’t worried about your next meal can you start thinking about preserving nature. On top of that, growth may give us the technology to reduce pollution and adjust to climate change. Degrowth would leave the world poor, miserable and polluted.

Reid Defends Schumer, Claims Netanyahu Is 'An Adjunct' Of The GOP

MSNBC’s Joy Reid welcomed The Daily Beast columnist David Rothkopf to the Thursday edition of The ReidOut for a profoundly unserious discussion on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for new Israeli elections under the guise that Netanyahu is no longer fit to lead the country. While, Netanyahu has never interfered in American elections like Schumer did, the hacktastic duo still blamed him for politicizing the U.S.-Israel alliance. During the conversation, Reid naturally had to set the stage by repeating Hamas propaganda, “And this is the largest number of children killed in all of the wars that are taking place across the globe combined at this point. I mean, the number of dead Palestinian children is so breathtaking, the U.N. can barely believe it.”     She also claimed, “But the other thing I think that's happened is you—it feels to me, you can tell me if I'm wrong, is that Benjamin Netanyahu has done more than any other Israeli prime minister to politicize Israel and politicize support for Israel, not that either—both parties, Democrats and Republicans, don't support Israel, but he's made it very political.” Reid’s evidence for this claim was extremely underwhelming. On Schumer’s speech, she recalled, “You saw Republicans come out and say one thing and Democrats come out and say another. He's kind of made his government sort of an adjunct of the Republican Party, no?” Republicans and Democrats having different takes is proof Netanyahu is at fault? That makes no sense. A neutral take would be that the two parties simply disagree. However, that would still be a false equivalence. Schumer didn’t just wrongly accuse Netanyahu of putting his personal interests before Israel's thereby ignoring Israel's unity on the current war, he also stuck his nose in Israel’s domestic business by calling for new elections. As many Republicans pointed out, Democrats routinely freak out about foreign interference in our politics, yet have no problem interfering in another country’s democracy, but for Rothkopf it is actually Republicans who are the hypocrites: Yeah, absolutely. In fact, when Mitch McConnell used the words grotesque hypocrisy, which is something he knows about, he was talking about a situation today that is exactly the same as what Netanyahu started to do nine years ago. Everybody must remember, Netanyahu came to the U.S., addressed the Congress, did so around the Obama Administration, threw in with Trump, essentially made himself a MAGA surrogate before Trump and during the Trump Administration, and now McConnell is upset that people are politicizing this. This is nonsense. And his already decaying credibility was undermined further by saying that.  There is so much fake news in there. First, Netanyahu addressed Congress about a specific policy that has had disastrous consequences. Second, Netanyahu did not endorse Trump or anything like it. In 2016, he met with both Trump and Hillary Clinton like a responsible adult, and, in 2020, sidestepped opportunities to trash Joe Biden.  The Israeli equivalent of Schumer’s Democratic Party hasn’t held power in almost a quarter century. Electorally, it is pretty much a non-factor. Reid and Schumer could ask themselves why that is, but why would they do that when they need to win Michigan and want to feel good about themselves while being thousands of miles away from the dangers Israelis of all political stripes face every day? Here is a transcript for the March 14 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 3/14/2024 7:44 PM ET JOY REID: And this is the largest number of children killed in all of the wars that are taking place across the globe combined at this point. I mean, the number of dead Palestinian children is so breathtaking, the U.N. can barely believe it. But the other thing I think that's happened is you— it feels to me, you can tell me if I'm wrong, is that Benjamin Netanyahu has done more than any other Israeli prime minister to politicize Israel and politicize support for Israel, not that either— both parties, Democrats and Republicans, don't support Israel, but he's made it very political. You saw Republicans come out and say one thing and Democrats come out and say another. He's kind of made his government sort of an adjunct of the Republican Party, no?  DAVID ROTHKOPF: Yeah, absolutely. In fact, when Mitch McConnell used the words grotesque hypocrisy, which is something he knows about, he was talking about a situation today that is exactly the same as what Netanyahu started to do nine years ago. Everybody must remember, Netanyahu came to the U.S., addressed the Congress, did so around the Obama Administration, threw in with Trump, essentially made himself a MAGA surrogate before Trump and during the Trump Administration, and now McConnell is upset that people are politicizing this. This is nonsense. And his already decaying credibility was undermined further by saying that. 

Financial Officials Call on Woke State Street to Give Shareholders Non-ESG Policy Option

Financial officials from 16 states are calling on State Street Global Advisors, one of the largest asset management firms, to stop deceptively pushing on shareholders only proposals that advance the ideological Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) agenda, at the expense of their clients’ best financial interests. In a letter to State Street CEO Ronald O’Hanley, sent Thursday and obtained by The Daily Caller, the officials urge the firm to honor its fiduciary responsibility to its clients: “Our purpose in this letter is to encourage State Street to promote traditional fiduciary duty (advancing all clients’ objective economic interests), instead of serving the demands of global bodies and a subset of clients whose interests align with anti-fiduciary actions.” While State Street has a fund designated “non-ESG,” all of its policy options provided to shareholders for approval deceptively incorporate elements of ESG, the officials write: “This use of non-ESG-denominated funds to push ESG issues makes those non-ESG fund denominations at very least inapt, if not a demonstration of the provision of material misinformation.” The officials also express concerns about commitments State Street has made to advance ESG by favoring, or shunning, companies based on their ESG adherence, rather investing based on their profit potential. By doing so, State Street isn’t just threatening the country’s market-based system, but is also violating U.S. fiduciary standards, they warn: “State Street’s signature on these commitments is obviously playing out in its voting and engagement actions and presents a clear violation of United States fiduciary standards. Promoting partisan, non-economically based, financially immaterial, or divisive social issues threatens our market-based system.” In closing, the officials make two requests of State Street. First, they ask State Street to “treat all proposals objectively and treat all similar risks in the same way,” instead of “privileging ESG.” Second, they ask that shareholders be provided “at least one voting choice option that endorses ‘pro-fiduciary’ proposals while opposing ESG-supporting proposals.” Editor's Note: This article was originally published on MRCTV.org. 

Free Speech Alliance Members Urge Senate Action on Communist Chinese Gov’t-Tied TikTok

Members of the MRC-led Free Speech Alliance are urging the Senate to follow the House of Representatives' lead and vote on a bill forcing TikTok to divest itself from its communist Chinese government ties, or risk being banned from the U.S. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate RepublicanLeader Mitch McConnel (R-KY), members of the Free Speech Alliance praised the House for passing The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act and encouraged the Senate to follow suit. “We are pleased that the House has taken action and passed H.R. 7521 to protect the national security interests of Americans,” the letter reads, later adding, “We write to urge you to schedule a floor vote on the companion bill as soon as possible.” The alliance began by noting that the bill “would prohibit TikTok from operating in the United States unless the Chinese Communist Party is divested of control.” The letter also highlighted the significance of this ultimatum. “Not only does the bill prevent the Chinese from operating surreptitiously in America, it still gives Americans the opportunity to use TikTok in the future in a manner where our privacy is protected and our sensitive data is shielded,” the alliance wrote. Twenty-seven free speech advocates signed the letter to the U.S. Senate leadership. Included among the signees are the Media Research Center President Brent Bozell, Young America’s Foundation President Governor Scott Walker, Conservative Partnership Institute Chairman Sen. Jim DeMint, and American Principles Project President Terry Schilling.  Bozell explained his support for the bill. “It is absolutely correct and necessary for TikTok to divest itself of any control from the communist Chinese government in China if it wants to do business in the United States,” Bozell said. “I support this bill. I support reining in TikTok. I support stopping the communist Chinese from influencing the United States subversively.” The House passed H.R. 7521 in a bipartisan landslide Wednesday with 352 representatives voting in favor and 65 opposed. The bill will now go to the Senate, where it must pass before having a chance of becoming law. Biden pledged to sign the bill if both houses of Congress pass it, despite his avid use of TikTok for his re-election campaign. Despite banning over 4 million federal employees from using the app on federal devices, Biden has now posted 71 TikTok videos to date. You can read the letter below:  

No Shame: TikTok Openly Brags About US Influence Despite Ban Threats

Communist Chinese government-tied TikTok bragged about the billions of dollars it allegedly “contributed” to the U.S. economy even as Congress advances legislation aiming to ban it. TikTok unashamedly announced its contribution of $24 billion to the U.S. economy in 2023, according to a press release that referenced an Oxford Economics study (the press release appears to have been taken offline since). But this announcement came as controversy surrounds TikTok’s China ties. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. The app has enforced extensive censorship before, even bragging that it had removed hundreds of thousands of videos related to the Hamas-Israel conflict. Notably, MRC Free Speech America rated TikTok as one of the worst Big Tech censors of 2023. The House of Representatives passed on Wednesday a bill that would force TikTok to divest itself from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or risk being banned from the United States. No matter how much money TikTok provides the economy, it is still a national security threat, critics warn. As MRC president and founder Brent Bozell emphasized, “TikTok must divest itself from China if it wants to do business in the United States.” Echoing Bozell’s sentiments, MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider explained on Newsmax 2 that the CCP can mine potentially sensitive U.S. data from TikTok while the app simultaneously propagandizes to Americans. “Chinese have already been forcing TikTok to promote Chinese propaganda and to promote the policies of the Chinese Communist Party,” he said. “Right after the Hamas attacks on Israel, we saw this where the Chinese Communist Party policies were being pushed onto TikTok viewers.” Ultimately, TikTok cannot be trusted as long as it is Chinese-owned, with its data potentially accessible to the Communist Chinese government. Conservatives are under attack. Contact TikTok via email at communitymanager@tiktok.com and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment and provide transparency. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

OnlyFans Model Quits Porn Career After Finding Jesus, ‘Giving It All Up for Christ’

Now this is exactly what redemption looks like! Earlier this week, a video creator named Nala posted her testimony to her Instagram page, which has over 1,300,000 followers, describing how she quit her career as an OnlyFans model after finding Jesus.  Nala spoke about her experience being raised as a pastor's kid and feeling “trapped” after being homeschooled and surrounded by so much church culture.  “My life truly felt like a cage,” she said in the video, adding, “I’m not saying Christianity is a cage - I’m saying religionwas the cage.” She later turned to a career as a sex worker on OnlyFans creating pornographic content, where she found success - only to later realize it was entirely from the devil.  “About four years ago I started my OnlyFans” she confessed before later adding, “I climbed to top .01%. I’m not saying that to brag. I’m saying that the devil can truly give you things in this life. He has a budget though, he can only go so far.” OnlyFans model reveals she has given up online modeling after finding Jesus and realizing her value as a woman. “I am now giving it all up for Christ.”pic.twitter.com/kMyVwaHEba — Oli London (@OliLondonTV) March 15, 2024 Nala also noted that she was not using her “gifts and talents” in the right way while doing pornography, but was saying and doing “crazy” things online.  She then explained how she met her boyfriend who “truly showed me God’s love. He was sending me Bible verses, praying over me,” she said, later adding that “the Holy Spirit was truly working and moving.” Related: OnlyFans Mother Outraged Over Interrupting Work to Care for Sick Son She confessed that she believed the lies of the devil at that time and convinced herself that God and her family didn’t love her and that she was essentially too far gone for salvation, but then shared how her mindset shifted and she realized the reality of God's love. “I am now giving it all up for Christ. I am now truly a believer. I would never take it back. God radically saved me from this darkness and let me tell you again, the devil has a budget but God does not. God literally made you. He made this world, He made the heavens. What makes you think that God can’t bless you with anything?” Nala said, adding that the temporary satisfaction of money and worldly success is nothing compared to the love and joy that the Lord provides.  “God has a better plan for your life,” Nala said. “I have felt and started living that plan.” She also talked about the lavish lifestyle she used to have with expensive bags, shoes and trips, noting that ultimately, none of mattered.  “At the end of the day, do you wanna go to heaven or do you wanna go to hell?” she asked. Nala concluded by insisting that “we all have a mission" on earth “and that’s to preach the word of God.” What an incredible example of how the Lord can and does change lives. It takes a strong, bold person to recognize that things of this world are meaningless, and an even stronger person to confidently and radically proclaim the message of the Gospel to millions of people like Nala did.  This story should be an encouragement to all of us.  Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: The Left Celebrates International Women's Day With Dylan Mulvaney The trans community always manages to make everything about themselves. pic.twitter.com/OxnDgIggPC — MRCTV (@mrctv) March 12, 2024

MSNBC Labels Trump a Hypocritical 'Fascist' As Judge Rules Willis Can Stay

Georgia Judge Scott McAfee ruled on Friday that Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis can remain on the Trump-Election RICO case provided she sack Nathan Wade. MSNBC’s Morning Joe reacted to the news by breathing a sigh of relief, accusing the Trump team of hypocrisy, and labeling him a “fascist.” After reading from McAfee’s decision that said in part “the appearance of impropriety remains and must be handled as previously outlined before the prosecution can proceed, co-host Mika Brzezinski lamented, “And there is where the Trump team can feast on the words inside these decisions.”     The job of a defense lawyer is simply to defend your client, but Brzezinski tried to make some political argument about hypocrisy, “Of course, this is a team that is defending a man whose words were heard on Access Hollywood saying he can grab women by the genitals, a man who has been accused of rape multiple times and, by E. Jean Carroll, found guilty in a civil court—liable, liable, I should say—of sexual assault.” She added, “The judge defining the actions, though, actually tantamount to rape and also hush money payments not just to one—one is in an indictment, a criminal indictment—, but there are reportedly hush money payments to many other women. This is the man this team will be going after, defending as they go after Fani Willis’s improper behavior and they will run with that.” About half an hour later, Brzezinski welcomed legal analysts Danny Cevallos and Andrew Weissman to the program and informed the cast that, “There is a Trump statement on the breaking news.” Co-host Joe Scarborough threw journalistic ethics out the window as he interrupted, “Yeah, I don’t care. Danny, what are your thoughts on the judge's decision? Really, seriously, like, I don't want to read fascist propaganda.” The actual statement from Trump’s lawyer was a perfectly normal response, respectfully disagreeing with McAfee’s decision while promising to appeal:   Comment of Steve Sadow, lead defense counsel for President Trump in the Fulton County, GA case, on the Court's disqualification ruling: "While respecting the Court’s decision, we believe that the it did not afford appropriate significance to the prosecutorial misconduct of… — Steve Sadow (@stevesadow) March 15, 2024   Later, The.Ink publisher Anand Giridharadas echoed Brzezinski’s earlier claims, “I just want to put it in perspective. This is a mistake around a loving, consensual relationship in a case against the guy who has been found liable for rape and who has been credibly accused in many circumstances of non-consensual relations with women.” The problem wasn’t that Willis had an affair. It was that she abused her power by hiring the man she was having the affair with so she could reap a financial benefit. By keeping Willis on the case, but insisting she remove Wade, the judge tried to come up with a middle approach, but Carroll’s lawsuit against Trump has no bearing on whether or not Willis abused her power. Here is a transcript for the March 15 show: MSNBC Morning Joe 3/15/2024 8:56 AM ET MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Going back to Lisa Rubin, Lisa, page 23, sort of summing it up and summing up the problem here moving forward, “after consideration of the record established on these motions, the court finds the allegations and evidence legally insufficient to support a finding of an actual conflict of interest. However, the appearance of impropriety remains and must be handled as previously outlined before the prosecution can proceed. The defendants’ motions are therefore granted in part and denied in part.” And there is where the Trump team can feast on the words inside these decisions and, of course, this is a team that is defending a man whose words were heard on Access Hollywood saying he can grab women by the genitals, a man who has been accused of rape multiple times and, by E. Jean Carroll, found guilty in a civil court—liable, liable, I should say— of sexual assault.  The judge defining the actions, though, actually tantamount to rape and also hush money payments not just to one—one is in an indictment, a criminal indictment—, but there are reportedly hush money payments to many other women. This is the man this team will be going after, defending as they go after Fani Willis’s improper behavior and they will run with that.  … 9:31 AM ET BRZEZINSKI: That's Fani Willis back in January, a speech that she made right before MLK Day and that speech, the judge in his order criticized, among other things, in terms of how she conducted herself and this relationship, questions it raised, but in end in this order, the judge concludes he will be keeping her on the Georgia election case. Joining us now, MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos, also with us NBC News legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissman. There is a Trump statement on the breaking news.  JOE SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, I don’t care. Danny, what are your thoughts on the judge's decision? Really, seriously, like, I don't want to read fascist propaganda.  … 9:48 AM ET SCARBOROUGH: I would argue if this is a racketeering case to end democracy, which I believe it is, then you've got to take extra care, right?  ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Yeah, I agree with that. I just want to put it in perspective. This is a mistake around a loving, consensual relationship in a case against the guy who has been found liable for rape and who has been credibly— SCARBOROUGH: Right. GIRIDHARADAS: --accused in many circumstances of non-consensual relations with women. So, again, they-- SCARBOROUGH: And also a guy, as you said, who is trying to end American democracy.  GIRIDHARADAS: Correct.  SCARBOROUGH: Let's just say trying to end American democracy, period. 

Column: Who Is Robert Hur? How Would We Know?

“Both sides furious” was one reporter’s summary when special counsel Robert Hur testified in a congressional hearing to explain his decision not to prosecute Joe Biden for willfully retaining classified documents, not just from his vice-presidential years, but from his Senate career. The network TV stories that night were the closest thing to “fair and balanced” we’ve seen in a long time. The Republicans decried the double standard, that Trump is being prosecuted, and Biden is not. The Democrats complained Hur’s report made Biden look feeble-minded (like nobody’s drawn that conclusion). But let’s take a look at the bigger picture. While Hur was conducting his investigation, we joked that you should put his face on a milk carton. He was missing from the press. Hur was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in January 2023. Bill D’Agostino reported at NewsBusters that over about nine months of morning and evening news coverage -- from February 1 through November 20, 2023 -- ABC, CBS, and NBC spent just four minutes and 52 seconds on Hur’s inquiry. But then there’s the breakdown. ABC aired 204 of those 292 seconds, or 70 percent of that air time. NBC barely offered a minute (64 seconds) and CBS offered one paltry 24-second news brief. That’s not the way they covered Russian collusion and Robert Mueller, is it? They obsessed almost daily over that probe. From January 20, 2017 through December 31, 2018, NewsBusters reported the Big Three evening newscasts alone aired 2,092 minutes on investigations of Trump’s alleged collusion with the Russian government. It should not be surprising that this was the single most-covered topic in their coverage of Trump in that time frame. Here’s some rough math: Trump was punished with 858 overwhelmingly negative minutes on Russiagate in 2018, while Biden drew less than five Hur minutes over most of 2023. Very roughly, that’s about 170 to 1.  But remember, the 858 number is only the evening newscasts. If Trump was “scandal-plagued,” the newscasters were the plague. If they made the political weather, it was a daily hurricane for Trump, while Biden was rewarded with Mostly Sunny. That doesn’t mean Trump was damaged. In 2018, Trump’s approval rating actually improved, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average. But that’s not how the anti-Trump media designed it. These numbers underline the fraudulence of former Washington Post editor Martin Baron’s slogan, when he claimed “we’re not at war, we’re at work.” Metaphorically, they were at war under Trump as the Scandal Police, and now they spend most days at the donut shop. This is why the media has a major trust problem with anyone who’s not a Democrat. Trump gets Scandal Police brutality. Biden scandals are avoided until they cannot be avoided, and then reporters often repeat the taunting mantra “no evidence, no evidence.” As if it’s not their job to look for evidence.   This bifurcated media approach to scandal presents each and every Democrat prosecutor of Trump – whether elected or appointed by Biden – as nonpartisan and apolitical. Well, unless someone like Hur spurs a bad news cycle for Biden – then he’s a “Trump appointee” – ahem, before he became a Biden administration appointee. The Biden Justice Department is also treated like it’s as pure as newly fallen snow. People see through this. But journalists keep thinking the people are stupid when they don’t accept their preaching. Their eternally smug self-righteousness insures they will never be trusted again. 

ABC Aids And Abets Chuck Schumer’s Interference In Israeli Elections

In fairness, each of the network evening newscasts covered Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s unprecedented and repulsive foray into foreign election interference. But, as usual, it is ABC Whirled News Tonight that consistently prove themselves most willing to carry that Biden water. Note the repetition and echoes as David Muir frames the story and then goes to correspondent Matt Gutman’s video package:  DAVID MUIR: We turn next to Israel, and to a rare and stunning rebuke of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu right here in the U.S., and it came from the highest ranking Jewish official in the U.S. government. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, suggesting elections be held in Israel, and saying Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace. Matt Gutman from Israel tonight. MATT GUTMAN: Tonight, that stunning rebuke from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, calling for Israel to hold new elections because he believes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace.  CHUCK SCHUMER: As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me the Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7th. GUTMAN: In a 40-minute speech, Schumer, the highest ranking Jewish official in the U.S., saying Israel has lost its way, and demanded it do more to protect civilians in Gaza.  Note what Muir and Gutman drill into viewers’ heads within the first minute: “stunning rebuke”, “highest ranking Jewish official in the U.S.”, “Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace”, and the call for new elections. The water was effectively carried. Gutman even found the time, after parroting the prescribed talking points, to performatively confront an IDF commander and try to play gotcha on the semantics of whether there is hunger in Gaza, using the ever-reliable UN as reference. As for Schumer, we can’t say we’re surprised at this new low. What's a little foreign election interference once you’ve threatened sitting Supreme Court justices with violence? In which Chuck Schumer threatens TWO sitting Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. pic.twitter.com/pA3mryeVK2 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 4, 2020 No more crying about the norms, though. Not anymore, and not after Schumer’s grotesque stunt performed at the behest of The White House, amplified by his apple polishers at ABC News, solely intended to placate “Undecided” voters populating such places as Dearborn, Hamtramck, and Minneapolis among others.  Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Thursday, March 14th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: We turn next to Israel, and to a rare and stunning rebuke of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu right here in the U.S., and it came from the highest ranking Jewish official in the U.S. government. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, suggesting elections be held in Israel, and saying Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace. Matt Gutman from Israel tonight. MATT GUTMAN: Tonight, that stunning rebuke from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, calling for Israel to hold new elections because he believes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace.  CHUCK SCHUMER: As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me the Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7th. GUTMAN: In a 40-minute speech, Schumer, the highest ranking Jewish official in the U.S., saying Israel has lost its way, and demanded it do more to protect civilians in Gaza. Netanyahu's Likud party criticizing the speech, saying, "Israel is not a banana republic, who's leader can be swapped out”. The Israeli military now says it’ll evacuate 1.4 million displaced people there before it attacks. The president has said such an operation without sufficient consideration for humanitarian concerns will be crossing a red line that could be met with the withholding of military aid to Israel. And tonight, a senior Israeli official telling ABC News the U.S. has recently slowed supplies of ammunition, which, today, the White House denied. But with Gazans facing famine, the White House and Democrats under increasing pressure for a cease-fire and for increased aid into Gaza. Today, at a border crossing not far from Rafah, we spoke to the Israeli commander responsible for allowing aid into Gaza. Israel blaming the U.N. for failing to distribute aid.  Specifically, are you saying that there's no hunger, or that there is no starvation in the north of Gaza?  IDF COMMANDER: I’m saying… GUTMAN: Because the U.N. Is about to declare a famine.  IDF COMMANDER:  I'm saying that there is no starvation, there are challenges. There are challenges of accessibility also.  GUTMAN: David, here in Israel, Senator Schumer's remarks cheered by some including the head of Israel’s opposition but, despite the fact that Netanyahu is deeply unpopular in Israel, even some of his staunchest opponents said it should be only Israeli citizens who decide their prime minister. David. MUIR: Making global headlines tonight. Matt Gutman. Thank you.  
❌