TikTok’s Last-Ditch Effort Amid US Ban: Recruiting Nuns, Veterans and Ranchers

Fazed by a looming ban in the U.S., TikTok has deployed what appears to be a desperate, last-ditch effort to gain support from conservative Americans through propaganda-like ads. According to The New York Times, the communist Chinese-owned social media platform has funneled over $3.1 million on a marketing campaign in three weeks alone, coinciding with the Senate's evaluation of a major anti-TikTok bill. The bill aims to give the US President the authority to force TikTok to divest from its Chinese-based parent company, ByteDance.  As reported by The Times, the multi-million dollar ad campaign might be part of a broader effort by TikTok to pander to conservatives. Disturbingly, the multi-million dollar ad is taking place in Pennsylvania, Nevada and Ohio—all battleground states in 2024. The individuals participating in the campaign are none other than nuns, ranchers and veterans. One of last month's ads features Brian Firebaugh (“the Cattle Guy”), a rancher with almost half a million TikTok followers. In the ad, Firebaugh is seen outside the U.S. Capitol holding a sign: “TikTok changed my life for the better.” Echoing these words and wearing a cowboy hat and boots, he claimed in the ad, “There is no doubt that I would not have found the success that I have today without TikTok.” But ranchers are not the only demographic currently on TikTok’s target list. TikTok also recruited U.S. Navy Veteran Kenny Jary, popularly known to his 2.7 million TikTok followers as “Patroitc Kenny.” In a campaign ad, Jary and his neighbor Amanda (who also serves as his producer) are seen touting TikTok after their videos went viral. “I didn’t know nothing about TikTok,” he said. “Once I got involved with TikTok, I loved it.”   In another ad, Sister Monica Clare, an Episcopal nun, claimed she used TikTok to promote religion. “Because of TikTok, I’ve created a community where people can feel safe asking questions about spirituality,” she said. In remarks to The Times, she defended the campaign aid, claiming: “It’s very smart of TikTok to say no, that’s not what we are — we’re a lot more than that.” Despite TikTok’s unsuccessful attempts to brainwash Americans, the social media platform came under fire after the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act on March 13. The proposed law would prevent ByteDance-owned applications, including TikTok, from operating in the U.S. unless they divest from their parent company. President Joe Biden claimed he would sign the law if the Senate were to pass it. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has not specified when (or if) he will bring such a bill to the Senate floor. 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.

WATCH: ABC’s GMA Fails to Mention ‘Biden’ When Covering Crippling Grocery Prices

Who’s the current U.S. president? ABC’s premier morning news show clearly didn’t let viewers know when covering the crippling food prices Americans are confronting at the grocery store.  During the April 5 edition of Good Morning America, co-anchor Michael Strahan and correspondent Rebecca Jarvis broached the issue of daunting food prices, but did their best not to go as far as making Biden look bad. Strahan acknowledged, “Prices for hundreds of food items have jumped more than 50% since 2019.” However, neither Strahan nor Jarvis mentioned Biden or his out-of-control stimulus policies that exacerbated the price spikes.     Jarvis did visually demonstrate the massive difference between what a consumer could afford in 2019 versus 2024. She said, “The visual is what really creates the contrast. So this is 2019. This is what you got in 2019 for $100. Come over here. This is current day — what you get. And you see, there's an entire section that's missing because you're getting about 30 percent less these days for your money.”  But Biden’s inflation-stimulating policies had nothing to do with this, right Jarvis? Jarvis added, “Back then you could have done the frozen foods, some meat, some hot dogs, some steaks, some strawberries. You see that's missing from over here because $100 then will now cost you about $130.” She continued: “So you want to buy all of that then? Today it would cost you $130. If your budget is $100 then you're sticking to $100, but you’re getting less.” But any discussion of the reason Americans may be forced to make these hard choices with their money today was missing from the entire segment.  Monthly inflation has averaged 5.6% from Feb. 2021, the first month after Biden’s inauguration, to Feb. 2024. But Strahan and Jarvis apparently didn’t find this newsworthy, since this runaway inflation contrasts sharply with 1.9% average monthly inflation under the prior administration. Likewise, consumer prices have risen 18.5% from Feb. 2021 to Feb. 2024.  Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni has repeatedly belabored the point that it is high government spending that has driven inflation, which GMA seemed intent on ignoring.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News at (818) 460-7477 and demand it tell the truth about the Bidenomics disaster.

Liberals Love the Minimum Wage — Though It Hurts People Liberals Love

On April 1, the new California $20-per-hour minimum wage for fast-food workers went into effect. In signing the bill, California Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected the view that such a wage hike — 25% above the state’s current minimum wage — hurts teenagers who disproportionately benefit from fast-food jobs and for whom this becomes their entry into the job market. Newsom said: “That’s a romanticized version of a world that doesn’t exist.  We have the opportunity to reward that contribution, reward that sacrifice, and stabilize an industry.” In 2019, The New York Times editorial board echoed the theme: “The simplistic view that minimum-wage laws cause unemployment commanded such a broad consensus in the 1980s that this editorial board came out against the federal minimum in 1987, calling it ‘an idea whose time has passed,’ and citing as evidence a virtual consensus among economists.’ The old critique is still put forward regularly by the restaurant industry and other major employers of low-wage workers ... “A groundbreaking study published in 1993 by the economists David Card and Alan Krueger examined a minimum-wage rise in New Jersey by comparing fast-food restaurants there and in an adjacent part of Pennsylvania. It found no impact on employment.” The 2019 New York Times editorial board has done a 180-degree turn from what its board wrote in a 1987 opinion headlined “The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00": “... there’s a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market ... “A higher minimum would undoubtedly raise the living standard of the majority of low-wage workers who could keep their jobs. That gain, it is argued, would justify the sacrifice of the minority who became unemployable. The argument isn’t convincing. Those at greatest risk from a higher minimum would be young, poor workers, who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs.” In a 1973 interview, Nobel Economics Prize winner Milton Friedman said, “I’ve often said the minimum-wage rate is the most anti-Negro law on the books.” Now the “groundbreaking” Card-Krueger study referred to in The New York Times 2019 editorial did refute the consensus among economists that government-imposed minimum wage increases cause unemployment and higher prices and give added incentive to cut labor costs through automation. But about the study, The New York Times’s own columnist, economist, and Nobel winner Paul Krugman, wrote: “Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card, and Alan Krueger, found that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages, but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages ‘do,’ in fact, reduce employment. ...” (Krugman now supports a minimum wage.) Other economists attacked the “groundbreaking study” noting that its researchers simply asked employers whether they hired more or fewer workers post the minimum wage hike. When, however, the same employers were asked to provide payroll records, it turned out that the state with the higher minimum wage saw lower employment relative to the adjacent state that did not raise its minimum wage. This confirmed the consensus view that those hurt the most are the so-called unskilled, and that many of these would-be workers are the very black and brown liberals like The New York Times editorial board purports to care about. Ohio University economist Lowell Galloway examined the study and denounced it: “The Card-Krueger study is still cited because it is useful politically. ... It still has legs because the minimum-wage notion is an idea that just will not die. You cannot put it to rest by any amount of evidence demonstrating its problems. Whenever people want to believe something strongly enough, any study that supports that belief -- no matter how bad it is -- will be accepted.” But enough about Gov. Newsom and The New York Times.

PBS Blames Churches Following The Bible For 'Politicization Of Religion'

Correspondent Sarah McCammon joined her NPR colleague Michel Martin on Thursday’s Amanpour and Company on PBS to discuss her book, The Exvangelicals: Loving, Living, and Leaving the White Evangelical Church because public broadcasting networks stick together. Naturally, Evangelicals’ relationship with Donald Trump and the “politicization of religion” was a big part of the conversation, but McCammon made it clear that her definition of politicization was that Christians do not bend their beliefs to appease the LGBTQ crowd. McCammon, who also appeared on NewsHour back in March to promote the book, recalled that “we saw most people, frankly, as lost, as fallen. We believe that, you know, there are verses in the Bible about only, you know, a narrow path to heaven, and we really believed in that literally, and we believed that most people were not on that path, and it was our job to help them find it.”     That is standard Christian teaching, but McCammon tried to make it into something political, “And so, for me, you know, and I should say that Evangelicalism is a very big movement. A lot of different types of churches fall into that, and it's -- there's a spectrum of belief in practice, and so what I'm saying might not apply to everyone. But I think most of the Evangelical kids at my generation grew up with similar influences, a similar sort of concept of the world, similar views of human sexuality.” With that as background, Martin later asked, “Fast forward, when did you see cracks in the dam? When did it start to break for you?” McCammon cited her grandfather coming out as gay in the 80s after her grandmother died and the tension that created in her family, “you know, this was, again, a time when, you know, the moral majority was on the rise, the Christian right was rising. My parents were very influenced by people, by, you know, right-wing leaders like James Dobson and Gary Bauer and Ralph Reed and others, and, you know, people who were fighting against same-sex marriage and fighting against abortion rights.” She added, “But I think over time, as I thought more about that and really just kind of felt a pull to have a relationship with my grandfather, and also through, you know, interactions with other kids here and there who were not evangelical Christians.” Additionally, McCammon would remember feeling that Christian ideas of salvation—which is standard Christian doctrine, not right-wing politicization—are too rigid after she met and befriended an Iranian Muslim immigrant as a kid. Towards the end, Martin asked her if so-called Exvangelicals could be a political force going forward. McCammon theorized they could be, but again, proved that many of the objections to Christianity have nothing to do with Trump and are not confined to problems with Evangelical Protestantism, “I think people who have left religion in part because of disaffection with some of the politicization of religion, both ex-evangelicals and some former Catholics, they form a pretty big group of people and there's a host of reasons why people leave.” Christian teaching on sexuality has remained constant for centuries, but for McCammon not changing truth to appease young left-wing political sensibilities is actually politicizing the faith, “A lot of it -- some of it has to do with just simply not believing the things that their churches teach. But the polling I've seen from groups like the Public Religion Research Institute suggests that particularly the treatment of LGBTQ people by much of the Christian right is a major factor for particularly a lot of younger people disaffiliating from their churches.” It would be one thing to discuss potential political excesses in the Evangelical Church, but to do that, PBS would need somebody who actually believes in Christian doctrine, not somebody who thinks doctrine itself is political. Here is a transcript for the April 4 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 4/4/2024 SARAH MCCAMMON: We saw most people, frankly, as lost, as fallen. We believe that, you know, there are verses in the Bible about only, you know, a narrow path to heaven, and we really believed in that literally, and we believed that most people were not on that path, and it was our job to help them find it. And so, for me, you know, and I should say that Evangelicalism is a very big movement. A lot of different types of churches fall into that, and it's -- there's a spectrum of belief in practice, and so what I'm saying might not apply to everyone. But I think most of the Evangelical kids at my generation grew up with similar influences, a similar sort of concept of the world, similar views of human sexuality. And, you know, we were taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, that the rise of gay rights was sort a sign of a falling away of the country from being a Christian nation. Certainly, abortion rights and the changing roles of women were part of that and that was something that many evangelicals in my community were actively fighting against and that message was very much tied up with the spiritual and religious message that I was hearing in church and in my Christian school, for example. … MICHEL MARTIN: So, fast forward, when did you see cracks in the dam? When did it start to break for you? MCCAMMON: You know, people often ask me this, like, what was the moment? And there wasn't one moment and I think for many of the people there were many moments. There are many little things that just kind of felt like they didn't add up or moments of exposure to people who were different, who didn't quite fit the mold of what we were told the world should be like or was like. And again, my grandfather was a really big part of that for me. I always struggled with the idea that there was something wrong with him, you know, both because he wasn't a Christian and also because, as I talk about in the book, he had come out -- after my grandmother passed away in the '80s, he'd come out as gay, late in life. And that was a source of a lot of conflict and tension in my family. You know, this was, again, a time when, you know, the moral majority was on the rise, the Christian right was rising. My parents were very influenced by people, by, you know, right-wing leaders like James Dobson and Gary Bauer and Ralph Reed and others, and, you know, people who were fighting against same-sex marriage and fighting against abortion rights. And so, the idea that my own grandfather was living in this "lifestyle," I think was very difficult for my parents. It really clashed with their beliefs. And it meant that we were -- my siblings and I didn't spend a lot of time with him because he was seen as sort of a threatening figure. But I think over time, as I thought more about that and really just kind of felt a pull to have a relationship with my grandfather, and also through, you know, interactions with other kids here and there who were not evangelical Christians. … MCCAMMON: I think they could be. I think it's early to say, and I think people who have left religion in part because of disaffection with some of the politicization of religion, both ex-evangelicals and some former Catholics, they form a pretty big group of people and there's a host of reasons why people leave. A lot of it -- some of it has to do with just simply not believing the things that their churches teach. But the polling I've seen from groups like the Public Religion Research Institute suggests that particularly the treatment of LGBTQ people by much of the Christian right is a major factor for particularly a lot of younger people disaffiliating from their churches.

Hostin: The Rock Has ‘an Obligation’ to Endorse Biden for ‘Democracy!’

It’s very anti-democratic and hypocritical to demand someone endorse and vote for the candidate you were supporting all in the name “dEmOcRaCy,” which was why it came out of the mouth of The View’s staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) during Friday’s show. She was supported by the far-left ABC audience that booed and jeered Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson for going on Fox News and informing everyone he would not be endorsing President Biden this cycle. The audience proved how rabidly partisan and fickle they were throughout the segment, cheering wildly when his name was first mentioned and then pivoting to obnoxious revulsion when he wouldn’t back Biden (Click “expand”): BEHAR: So, this morning, besides the earthquake going on, on Fox & Friends, Dwayne "The rock" Johnson was asked about – [Audience hoots and hollers] BEHAR: He was asked about -- are his relatives here? What? (…) JOHNSON: The endorsement that I made years ago with Biden was one I thought was the best decision for me at that time. [Transition] Am I going to do that again this year, that answer is no. I'm not going to do that. Because what I realized what that caused back then was something that tears me up in my guts. Back then and now which is division. [Cuts back to live] BEHAR: So, a couple of questions. First of all— [Audience booing and jeering] ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Maybe they're not his relatives.     Moderator Joy Behar’s take was that he shouldn’t be listened to because he went on Fox News for an interview. And with absolutely ZERO self-awareness, she rhetorically scoffed at listening to celebrity endorsements period. “So, first of all, should I pay any attention to who gives an interview on Fox where they lie every day? Number one. Number two, should celebrities publicly endorse public figures?” she asked the table.  “Now, is the time if you have a platform, you must be active. You must speak out…if you have a platform, you have an obligation,” she shouted. Self-proclaimed independent Sara Haines had the sane take. She argued that entertainers were not obligated to take sides and recalled comments from Country artist Reba McIntyre on keeping politics out of her performances: Reba McIntyre was the one, I think, who said once, “I don't want to speak about my politics because what I do is music and it's unifying. And when I go to a concert,” she goes, “I want everyone to feel welcome and together. I don’t want to divide anyone.” She also dismissed the idea that celebrity endorsements were required, arguing: “…it's so vapid to imagine just because someone says ‘I'm going to vote for this,’ that the sheep will fall in line and follow. That minimizes voters everywhere.” Co-host Ana Navarro also defended Johnson, proclaiming he’s “entitled to do whatever the hell [he] want[s].” She recounted when, during the 2000 election cycle, Johnson made appearances at both the Republican and Democratic conventions with the goal of promoting voting in general. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 5, 2024 11:15:10 a.m. Eastern JOY BEHAR: So, this morning, besides the earthquake going on, on Fox & Friends, Dwayne "The rock" Johnson was asked about – [Audience hoots and hollers] SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: He was asked about -- are his relatives here? What? [Laughter] He was asked about putting his weight behind Joe Biden in the last election. So, watch. [Cuts to video] DWAYNE “THE ROCK” JOHNSON: Am I happy with the state of America right now? Well, that answer is no. Do I believe we're going to get better? I believe in that. I'm an optimistic guy and I believe we can get better. [Transition] The endorsement that I made years ago with Biden was one I thought was the best decision for me at that time. [Transition] Am I going to do that again this year, that answer is no. I'm not going to do that. Because what I realized what that caused back then was something that tears me up in my guts. Back then and now which is division. [Cuts back to live] BEHAR: So, a couple of questions. First of all— [Audience booing and jeering] ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Maybe they're not his relatives. HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: So, first of all, should I pay any attention to who gives an interview on Fox where they lie every day? Number one. Number two, should celebrities publicly endorse public figures? [Audience shouting “no”] Or they should keep their politics to themselves? ANA NAVARRO: If they want to. I mean, celebrities are U.S. citizens – are American citizens with a -- you don't lose your rights as a citizen because you are a celebrity. But, you know, I remember -- I'm so old like I was telling Molly today, I said I remember being at a Republican convention where The Rock spoke and I remember him being at the DNC. It was in the year 2000 in Philadelphia and when he spoke, he wasn't there. It was George W. Bush that was getting the nomination. He wasn't there endorsing. He was there raising awareness for voting and getting young people and his followers to be involved. BEHAR: Like Taylor Swift is -- NAVARRO: Yeah. So look. I think for him the cause of division aspect is a real one. He also went to the DNC that year. And I think everybody is entitled to do whatever the hell they want. HOSTIN: And I think – You know, he's been quite political. I agree with you and he's been very engaged and very involved. I do think we're living in a time where we have someone running for president that is an existential threat to democracy. Right? [Audience cheering, shouting “yes”] That is where we are at, someone who has been -- has 88, you know, criminal charges, four indictment, someone that has vowed to be a dictator on the very first day he takes office. Now, is the time if you have a platform, you must be active. You must speak out. That's how I feel, and I generally don't – [Applause] I generally don't think that celebrities should be forced to be politically active. BEHAR: Not forced. You have a platform. – HOSTIN: But right now, if you have a platform, you have an obligation. SARA HAINES: Reba McIntyre was the one, I think, who said once, “I don't want to speak about my politics because what I do is music and it's unifying. And when I go to a concert,” she goes, “I want everyone to feel welcome and together. I don’t want to divide anyone.” BEHAR: She can do it at the end of the show. [Laughter] HAINES: Point is there are activists people who are entertainers, Kerry Washington, is a self-proclaimed “I’m an activist.” You have Jane Fonda, activist. When you're not an activist and happen to have a big platform I think encouraging people to vote is the most important part, because I think it's so vapid to imagine just because someone says ‘I'm going to vote for this,’ that the sheep will fall in line and follow. That minimizes voters everywhere. So, I don't think it matters who they're voting for. Its public participation is the important part. [Applause] (…)

Survey Finds Young Women Prefer Femininity Over Feminism

One of the only things that wake me up every day is the idea that one day I’ll get to homeschool my kids, honor God and serve my husband. Though that more biblical role is frowned upon by progressives who think women have to work a 9-5 to be worth anything, many women are waking up to what our natural, God-designed role as women is supposed to be. A survey conducted by the Clare Boothe Luce Center for Conservative Women and steered by GOP campaign consultant Kellyanne Conway’s company KAConsulting, LLC, indicated that young women nowadays prefer femininity and tradition over feminism.  The Clare Boothe Luce Center surveyed 800 young women between the ages of 18-24 years old, only to find 82% of them admitted that they consider themselves more aligned with “femininity,” and only 50% consider themselves "feminists." Additionally, 79% agreed that women who are stay-at-home moms can be “just as successful as a woman who chooses to be in a professional field.” The survey also asked participants about their top political issues, what they seek in life, and about equality. Thirty-two percent of women surveyed said that abortion was the top issue for them, followed by the economy and inflation. The survey also found many women say they're seeking marriage, buying a home, having children and the prioritization of time with friends and family. One more interesting component of the survey was that a vast majority of women, regardless of political party affiliation, agreed that it is unfair to have biological males compete in female sports. Take that Lia Thomas! Related: What's a 'Tradwife,' And Why Is It So Popular? This study comes at the foothills of a recently re-popularized phenomenon. The idea of a “tradwife” is trending on social media because women are waking up to the fact that traditional roles for men and women prove to be incredibly beneficial. Just look at the pros: a mom doesn’t have to work an eight-hour shift just to cover the cost of child care, they can have a say about what is taught to their children, and can serve their families better with the flexibility of being at home, among many other pros. While this lifestyle isn’t for everyone and some girls are destined to be professional boss babes, this traditional sense of life, with femininity at its core is really making a comeback - and honestly, I couldn’t be happier. Follow us on Twitter/X: MRCTV's @tierin_rose joins OAN to talk The White House's transgender Easter celebration, grandpa's chestfeeding, and Lizzo's retirement. pic.twitter.com/ohZmKlr7jg — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 3, 2024

‘Come on Now!’; Doocy, Kirby Tangle in Tense Battle Over Biden Turning on Israel

While the liberal media spent Thursday’s White House press briefing in a state of amazement and curiosity over the Biden administration’s hard pivot away from Israel by warning of unspecified moves if more isn’t done to placate to Hamas-run Gaza, Fox’s Peter Doocy called out this possible abandonment of a democracy in favor of Islamic terrorists holding innocents hostage.  As a result, things got tense with the National Security Council’s John Kirby.  Doocy started with a question about who warned Israel about alleged and specific threats to Israel’s security from Iran in the next 48 hours, but then made the pivot with this hardball: “On October 7, President Biden said, ‘my administration’s support for Israel’s security is rock solid and unwavering.’ That is not true anymore, correct?” Kirby claimed “still true today”, which left Doocy incredulous: “[H]ow support unwavering, but you’re also reconsidering policy choices?”     Things quickly grew tense with Kirby having a look of utter disgust that left the liberal press corps laughing at Doocy: KIRBY: Both can be true. DOOCY: They cannot be true. They’re — they’re completely different things. KIRBY: No, no, no. I just — DOOCY: He is — KIRBY: — I’m sorry. DOOCY: — he is wavering. KIRBY: Ah, now, now, now. Come on, Peter. Get out. DOOCY: How is he not? [REPORTERS LAUGH] KIRBY: Ah, come on. Come on now.  Doocy then let Kirby drone on for a little bit about how “both things are true” that “the manner in which they’re defending themselves...needs to change” and “our support for Israel’s self defense remains ironclad” given “[t]hey face a range of threats”. Kirby even went as far as to say the Biden regime’s backing of Israel is “not gonna waiver” other than “some policy changes that we might have to make”. Having let him go on long enough, Doocy interjected to lambaste Kirby for his use of the phrase “not gonna waiver”: “How is that unwavering? It sounds like you guys are trying to have it both ways here. You support Israel but we are going to make all these changes because we don’t support Israel?” In the midst of that, either another reporter or White House staffers chided Doocy, yelling out his name! For Kirby’s part, he insisted he “didn’t say we’re going to make changes” and then went personal to sarcastically presuming Doocy doesn’t see innocent people starve and face slaughter.  When Doocy pointed out “nobody wants to see that” and kept pressing, Kirby had an unfortunate flub by saying, “[o]n October 7, we didn’t see thousands and thousands of innocent people killed” (click “expand”): KIRBY: I said, we need to see how Israel’s responds to the humanitarian crises in Gaza and how they respond to protection of aid workers. I think we can all agree. I think you would agree. You don’t want to see innocent civilians killed and targeted, do you? You don’t want to see Gazans starve. You don’t want to see famine in Gaza, do you? DOOCY: Nobody wants — KIRBY: Of course not. DOOCY: — to see that, but — KIRBY: So — DOOCY: — you’re a policy maker and you’re talking about policy changes. KIRBY: — so — DOOCY: That is not what you were talking about on October 7 — KIRBY: — because things have — DOOCY: — when it was solid and unwavering. KIRBY: — on October 7, there wasn’t near famine in Gaza. On October 7, there wasn’t, um, a diminution of trucks getting into Gaza. On October 7, we didn’t see thousands and thousands of innocent people killed. Uh, I mean, I could go on and on. We’re talking about a conflict there which is dang near at six months here this weekend, six months, and it has changed over time and the — what the President’s message today was we need to see some changes in the way Israel is dealing with that threat. DOOCY: And — KIRBY: That’s — that’s what two good friends and allies can discuss. This isn’t about un — this isn’t about changing our support to Israel or the security of the Israeli state, and I — I just have to take issue with the premise of the question. Doocy wrapped with what should have been asked way earlier in the Q&A, not at almost the 30-minute mark: “Where is President Biden on any of this? When he wants to talk about how angry he is or frustrated he is about the high cost of insulin, he comes out and gives an impassioned speech. Where is he on any of this?” Kirby tried to play cute: “He’s been talking about this. He’s been issuing statements on this.” Doocy noted that’s something concocted in “private”, but again Kirby played it off by saying presidential statements are “public”. Only after a third time did Kirby change his tune: “I’m sure you’ll continue to hear from the president about this, and many other national security issues.” Fast-forward to the end of his turn at the podium and HuffPost’s S.V. Dáte asked an important question (albeit gently) that correctly pointed out the Biden administration’s dramatically increased opposition to Israel and demands for a ceasefire would lead one to think they’re no longer prioritizing Hamas returning the remaining hostages. Kirby said this wasn’t the case, but with only a mere throwaway line in his last sentence about hostages: HuffPost’s S.V. Dáte: “Admiral, could you clarify on the — the — the ceasefire language that the President used the statement? He says that, uh, that there should be a ceasefire, um, and then the next — after a comma, it’s ‘he urged Prime Minister to empower negotiators to… pic.twitter.com/0qbFCOrZIV — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 4, 2024 To see the relevant transcript from the April 4 briefing (including questions about EVs, TikTok, and a report of a sexual harassment scandal in the White House), click here.

‘American Awakening’: Neb. Senator Crosses Party Lines After Dems Forced Pro-Abort Stance

Nebraska state senator Mike McDonnell just announced his switch from a Democrat to a Republican after being forced for years to support abortion and pro-abortion policies, despite being a man of the Catholic faith. Sebastian Gorka, former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump, posted a video of McDonnell’s shift. “In 1984 I decided to register as a Democrat,” McDonnell said. “I was a Christian, member of the Roman Catholic Church, and I was proud of that and I was pro-life." McDonnell explained that he’s tried hard to stick with those principles throughout his time as an elected official but that it’s become increasingly hard given that his beliefs don’t align with the policies that the left likes to push. “I asked the Democratic Party in Douglas County to respect that I’m pro-life, that I’m a member of the Roman Catholic Church and [that] my beliefs are based on that. But as county Democrats, instead of respecting that, they decided to punish it,” McDonnell said, claiming his colleagues insisted he couldn’t participate as a delegate with his morals and convictions. Nebraska State Senator Mike McDonnell has crossed party lines and today became a Republican. Why? Because the Democrats demanded he be pro-Abortion, despite being a Catholic. #AmericanAwakeningpic.twitter.com/9mjyOYueeC — Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) April 4, 2024 Looks like people are starting to wake up to reality and see how controlling the left is. “After 40-years of being a registered Democrat, having your grandfather tell you when you’re 10 years old, 'What are we? We’re Irish, we’re Catholic and we’re Democrats.’ That kinda stuck with me,” McDonnell said through a sad smile, noting that this decision wasn’t easy, but that the support of his staff helped him through the process. The state senator said that thanks to his switch, “The greatest thing about it is now I can participate again." “Today I’m announcing I am now going to be a registered Republican in the state of Nebraska," he announced to the crowd at an event this week. The applause for McDonnell’s decision didn’t stop at the event. Users on X praised him for his decision. Related: Mass. Hospital Will No Longer Auto-Report Babies Born With Drugs In Their System, For 'Racial Equity' “Values over party … love to see it,” a user wrote, with others adding, “He did the right thing,” and “bless him." Others pointed out the hypocrisy of our very own president Joe Biden who regularly touts and praises pro-abortion policies yet calls himself a devout Catholic.  “Dear Joe: Here’s how you do it ‘devout Catholic.’” a user wrote. In all, it’s reassuring to see that the tides are turning and people are starting to wake up to the anti-life, anti-religion, and overall anti-American ways of the left. Follow us on Twitter/X: MRCTV's @tierin_rose joins OAN to talk The White House's transgender Easter celebration, grandpa's chestfeeding, and Lizzo's retirement. pic.twitter.com/ohZmKlr7jg — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 3, 2024

Detransitioner Chloe Cole Puts Disney on Blast: ‘You Are the Ursula’

Famous detransitioner Chloe Cole recently partook in Disney’s annual shareholder meeting. During the open line portion of the call, Cole put the company on blast for paying and advocating for transgender treatment but neglecting to support those who choose to de-transition after realizing that they made a mistake. “Disney pays for gender transition interventions but not detransitioning care,” she began. “Therefore, the company discriminates based on gender identity under EEOC regulations.” Cole was advocating that the board vote in favor of proposal number seven for the company in regards to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The proposal would force Disney to cover de-transitioning care in its benefits package. Cole then began sharing her own personal experience that led to her activism in this area. Cole was born a girl and began transitioning into a boy starting at age 12. She received hormone replacement therapy and even had a double mastectomy by age 16. Now, after realizing that changing her gender was a mistake and didn’t cure her insecurities, but instead put her life at risk and caused life changing complications, she’s become an avid spokeswoman for people like her. She wants to help those who were “manipulated” and “physically harmed at a young age by gender ideology.” Just got off the phone from the @Disney annual shareholders meeting. I needed to call out Bob Iger and the rest of the board’s hypocrisy and the dangerous lies they feed to us through the media. Here is what I said: pic.twitter.com/OxQOgPNvoi — Chloe Cole ⭐️ (@ChoooCole) April 3, 2024 “As a result,” Cole continued, “I am suing those professionals who steered me into taking these destructive steps that have permanently scarred me. But Disney, in its arrogance, has responded to our proposal by stating that I am only trying to generate attention for a limited agenda. “ Before concluding her statement on the phone, Cole called out Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, directly. Mr. Iger, Disney, under your watch, is pushing the limited agenda of gender ideology, Disney has become the Ursula that is stealing the voices of thousands of little Ariel’s across the world by telling us that we can be something that we can never become. The lawsuits are coming, sir. It’s only a matter of time before current or past employees whose bodies and lives have been irreversibly harmed, will show up at your door looking for justice and restitution. Mic drop. Disney very obviously supports the leftist agenda and, in it’s so-called attempt to be inclusive of those who are struggling with their identity, is in fact excluding people who are also struggling. The only difference is the ones Disney favors are the ones who are believing a delusion, whereas their negligence is against those who actually have a handle on reality.  Time will tell what happens with Disney’s decision on this proposal. Until then, I won’t be planning any new trips to the house of mouse.

Wild-Eyed Scarborough: Netanyahu Intentionally Starving Gaza, Like STALIN Starved Ukraine

Joe Scarborough is notorious for his incessant Trump = Hitler analogies. Now, for purposes of smearing Benjamin Netanyahu, Scarborough has devised an analogy to another mass-murdering dictator. On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough began by claiming that Netanyahu "had a plan to force famine on the Palestinian people, on the Gazan people." Scarborough then upped the ante, claiming that Netanyahu's plan is "calculated, and let me say, it's calculated just like Stalin's starvation of Ukrainians was calculated. This is calculated by Benjamin Netanyahu." Scarborough's mention of Stalin's starvation of Ukraine was a reference to the Holomodor, a famine imposed on Ukraine in 1932-33 by Stalin in which an estimated 3.9 million Ukrainians perished. As the maxim goes, in war, truth is the first casualty. Various anti-Israel organizations have accused Israel of intentionally starving Gazans, but hard facts are hard to find. Often, headlines are cleverly couched: starvation "looms," starvation is "stalking." Consider that here at home, left-wing groups regularly push nonsenical notions like "More than 44 million people in the US face hunger, including 1 in 5 children." In fact, in the Unites States, as worldwide, by far the bigger health threat is not hunger, but obesity. Note that Scarborough offered no evidence in support of his scurrilous accusation that Netanyahu is intentionally starving Gazans. By implication though, he could be buying into the insinuation that MSNBC's Jonathan Lemire made on Morning Joe earlier this week, that Israel's strike on the World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza was intentional. And Scarborough also repeated today his cynical twist on a phrase fashioned by those seeking the total destruction of Israel, which we noted yesterday, that Netanyahu's plan is for an Israel, "from the river to the sea."  Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 4/5/24 6:17 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: It is increasingly looking like Benjamin Netanyahu had a plan to force famine on the Palestinian people, on the Gazan people, to amp up the pressure on Hamas. Of course, it seems to me that the hostages aren't even secondary in his mind because, of course, and people say, well, Hamas could release hostages. Yeah, they could! They're terrorists! They're terrorists! And they're not going to release the hostages unless the conditions are right. Which the conditions most likely are a cease fire and the allowing of the worst terrorists to escape out of Gaza with their lives. But, but this whole idea that if we starve the Gazan people, that's going to somehow help Israel in the long run, that's going to help the hostages? No! It's hurting the hostages, it's hurting Israel. And of course you're, you're starving women and children in Gaza, and as Katty said yesterday, they're now having to grind up dog food and cat food and, and eat that, and, and drink salt water. I mean, it's savage conditions, and it's calculated.  And let me say, it's calculated just like Stalin's starvation of, of, of Ukrainians was calculated. This is calculated by Benjamin Netanyahu, and somebody needs to ask me, why the hell the United States shouldn't intervene with a guy that has a 20% approval rating and knows that when the war is over, he could be going to jail.

PREVIEW: After Much Whining, Joe Biden Finally Gets His Univision ‘Softball’ Interview

Former President Donald Trump’s November sit down with Televisa anchor Enrique Acevedo, which aired on Univision in the United States, triggered a Chernobyl-style meltdown among the left. Part of the underlying rationale for the meltdown was a feeling that Acevedo didn’t come off the top rope on Trump, preferring instead to conduct a “normal” interview without performatively interrupting and pestering the 45th President of the United States. Many on the left derided the interview as a “softball”. However, everything is fine now that President Joe Biden has scored his own Univision “softball”.  As Adrian Carrasquillo reports for Vanity Fair:  Enrique Acevedo, Vanity Fair has learned, was in Phoenix to prepare for an interview this week with Biden, a major get for the Spanish-language giant as it works to reestablish its footing as a fair arbiter during the 2024 cycle. The interview, set to be pretaped on Thursday at the White House, according to two Bidenworld sources familiar with the details, will be part of a coverage package from Acevedo that will also feature an interview with campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez, as well as two questions he already asked Biden in Phoenix, where he was given a total of four minutes with the president. It is always interesting to get Carrasquilo’s perspective given his standing as unofficial scribe of the Professional Latinx. As we’ve documented extensively, the idea that Univision was ever a “fair arbiter” to begin with is laughable on its face. It is even more ridiculous that Univision would lose this pretend fair arbiter standing by virtue of a single one-off interview orchestrated by corporate headquarters in Mexico City, wherein the entirety of Univision’s news division was cut out of the booking and editorial process. But such is the left’s sense of entitlement to the Hispanic community, specifically the flow of information to those who speak mostly or only Spanish, that the Trump interview was completely out of bounds.  But those criticisms of Univision were unfair and unwarranted, given that the network never stopped being a Democrat talking point regurgitator. Shortly after the Trump interview, Univision performed an interview of Vice President Kamala Harris that was so soft and servile, that to characterize it as a softball would be an egregious insult to softballs. As I said at the time: This interview should’ve elicited the same outrage for the same reasons, but didn’t, because Kamala Harris got to air unchallenged talking points in front of a nice anchor who seemed happy to be there and didn’t ask any tough questions. And so the left, the Professional Latinx, the Immigration Industrial Complex, and the Acela Media all bit their tongues at this embarrassment of an interview, which might as well be an in-kind contribution to Biden-Harris 2024. A double standard isn’t really a standard at all.   Back to the Biden interview: it will be significantly different from the Trump interview, where Acevedo and crew simply set up shop at Mar-a-Lago and let it rip. Both from Carrasquillo’s reporting and from Acevedo himself, we can glean that this interview will have significant choreography (as one would expect given that Biden comms consigliere Anita Dunn set the whole thing up). The interview, then, is really an assemblage of mini-interviews at multiple locations, interspersed with an interview of Biden campaign manager Julie Chávez Rodriguez (a reminder that Biden has very little to offer in terms of Hispanic engagement other than a noun, a verb, and Cesar Chavez).  The interview will be heavily edited, especially in light of Sage Steele’s allegations and firsthand experience with Biden’s cognitive decline. Between the editing and the voice dubbing provided by the GOAT interpreter Vicente de la Vega (who does all presidential dubbing for Univision), Biden is going to sound like a million bucks, thirty years younger, and most of the cognitive decline will be hidden from view. We’ll see whether they run the interview in English with subtitles on sister network UniMás, as they did with Trump.  Then there’s Acevedo. How does he play the interview? Does he play it straight up like he did with Trump and just let Biden talk? Or does he cave to the activist left’s pressure to compensate? Mark my words, the left and the Professional Latinx will go nuts if Acevedo dares ask Biden a follow-up question or challenge him on anything. The most dangerous scenario for the left here is that Biden actually gets the same interview that Trump got. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I don’t think that this interview will be a needle-mover for Biden in the same way that it may have been for Trump because no one watching Univision had ever seen a normal interview with Trump before. Univision interviewing a Democrat is just more of the same, and I expect that no one will resign in protest over this interview. In the end, no matter how deferential the interview, the Acela Media and Professional Latinx are highly likely to come away unsatisfied. Univision, having raised crows, must now endure getting its eyes plucked out.  

Daily Show: Trump a 'Pathetic Worm' For Potential Electoral College Rule Change

Some in Nebraska have tried, and ultimately failed, to change the way the state awards its electoral votes and bring it in line with 48 other states. Among those in favor of moving away from a proportional allocation to a winner-take-all system is Donald Trump, which led Comedy Central’s Desi Lydic to label him a “pathetic worm” on Thursday’s edition of The Daily Show. Lydic is also not a fan of the electoral college itself, as she claimed, “The president is decided by the electoral college, the incredibly overcomplicated system that our founders came up with as a prank on future generations.”     It really is not all that complicated, Lydic just doesn’t like it because she views it as disadvantageous to liberals. Still, Lydic elaborated, “Most states award all their electoral votes to whoever wins the state, but Nebraska splits theirs up by district. And in 2020, that meant Joe Biden received an electoral vote from liberal Omaha. Because as it turns out, every state has a Brooklyn. But now Donald Trump has realized that he wants that vote, and that could make all the difference.” Lydic then played a montage of clips about the news, the last of which was of state Sen. Megan Hunt, who claims to be an independent, declaring that “Pathetic worm Donald Trump thinks that he knows what's best for Nebraska and what Nebraskans want [jump cut] but this man [jump cut] obviously wants this electoral vote because he's so scared he can't win the presidency without it.” Hunt is the kind of independent whose Twitter bio reads, in part, “Bi queen. She/her. Free Palestine.” She’s also a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. As for Lydic, she feigned outrage, “Excuse me, ma'am, whatever happened to decorum? That's former President Pathetic Worm.” After further lamentations about how a change could cost Biden the election, Lydic urged that the electoral college be done away with, “Nebraska should really, truly keep this system, though, because it's certainly a more fair way to divide up electoral votes than winner take all. In fact, what if every state split up their votes like Nebraska by district, or maybe even by person, you know. Then, whoever wins the most persons would be the president!” Meanwhile, over at CBS and The Late Show, host Stephen Colbert was also lamenting possible changes to Nebraska’s system, “Trump himself is taking every angle he can to try to weasel his way back into the White House. He's even pressuring the state of Nebraska to change how it awards electoral votes. Always a bad sign when your campaign strategy is to bully individual states.” He further declared that “Nebraska's electoral system matters because many believe the election will be so close it could be decided by the single electoral vote from Nebraska's second district. Okay, in other words, this is a complete and total –”   Colbert was then interrupted by writer Brian Stack. Colbert and Stack have a recurring gag where the latter pretends to be unaware that Colbert is taping. This time the bit was that the two don’t know enough about Nebraska to offer up a good punch line, but Stack showed a little self-awareness about the show’s audience, “We'll put our noodles together, get ya something great. Big laughs, major joke, write-up in HuffPo for sure. I'll be back in one hour!”  Here are transcripts for the April 4 shows: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 4/4/2024 11:40 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Trump himself is taking every angle he can to try to weasel his way back into the White House. He's even pressuring the state of Nebraska to change how it awards electoral votes. Always a bad sign when your campaign strategy is to bully individual states. "Hey, more like old Hampshire, you dusty bitch. Now, gimme all your electoral votes, and go back to 69-ing Vermont. Oh! I bet Ben and Jerry like to watch."  Nebraska's electoral system matters because many believe the election will be so close it could be decided by the single electoral vote from Nebraska's second district. Okay, in other words, this is a complete and total –  BRIAN STACK: Hey, Steve?  COLBERT: Oh, hi, Brian. It's my writer Brian Stack, everybody. Brian, what's up?  STACK: Well, I couldn't help but notice you were talking about Nebraska. You know what they say about Nebraska? COLBERT: What's that, Brian?  STACK: No. I'm asking. Do you know what they say about Nebraska? 'Cause the writers and I are trying to cook up a real crackerjack joke and if you know anything about Nebraska, we could probably write the joke to play off of that. You know, for your monologue.  COLBERT: Brian, I'm doing the monologue right now.  STACK: Perfect-o. We'll put our noodles together, get ya something great. Big laughs, major joke, write-up in HuffPo for sure. I'll be back in one hour!  *** Comedy Central The Daily Show 4/4/2024 11:03 PM ET DESI LYDIC: As you know, the president is decided by the electoral college, the incredibly overcomplicated system that our founders came up with as a prank on future generations. Most states award all their electoral votes to whoever wins the state, but Nebraska splits theirs up by district. And in 2020, that meant Joe Biden received an electoral vote from liberal Omaha. Because as it turns out, every state has a Brooklyn. But now Donald Trump has realized that he wants that vote, and that could make all the difference.  ERIN BURNETT: Could the election all come down to Nebraska? Donald Trump thinks so. He and his allies convincing Nebraska's Republican governor to support a major change in the way the state has been doling out its electoral college votes for the past 32 years.  REPORTER: Governor Jim Pillen says, it's time for Nebraska to speak with one unified voice by making the popular vote be the one that counts for all five delegates. Former President Trump applauds that effort, but Democrats pushed back.  MEGAN HUNT: Pathetic worm Donald Trump thinks that he knows what's best for Nebraska and what Nebraskans want [jump cut] but this man [jump cut] obviously wants this electoral vote because he's so scared he can't win the presidency without it.  LYDIC: Excuse me, ma'am, whatever happened to decorum? That's former President Pathetic Worm. Yeah, but the implications here are huge. Biden's easiest path to the white house is to win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, plus that one Nebraska vote. If he gets that, he can lose every other swing state and still win the election. But if Nebraska makes this change, the election could end up in a tie and you might be wondering what happens in that case? Well, it's simple, really: Have you seen The Purge movies? It's like that. Nebraska should really, truly keep this system, though, because it's certainly a more fair way to divide up electoral votes than winner take all. In fact, what if every state split up their votes like Nebraska by district, or maybe even by person, you know. Then, whoever wins the most persons would be the president!

ABC's 'Grey's Anatomy' Celebrates In-Utero Life-Saving Surgery on Pre-Born Baby

ABC's Grey's Anatomy is one of the most rabidly pro-abortion shows on television, but last night's episode spotlighted life-saving surgery on an unborn baby. On Thursday's episode, "Baby Can I Hold You," Dr. Arizona Robbins (Jessica Capshaw) announces to a room full of interns that the hospital will be performing a unique brain surgery on a growing baby in the womb. The plotline is based on a real, first-of-its-kind surgery performed in the United States last year. Robbins: Correct, and in utero the baby is typically sheltered by mom and the placenta, but then after delivery and the cord is clamped, what happens? Yes? Adams: The baby's heart and lungs become overwhelmed with the massive overflow of blood.  Robbins: Which can lead to heart failure, seizures, and possibly death.  Shepherd: Standard procedure has been embolization after delivery, but many babies do not survive. And if they do, the child often has major brain injury.  Bailey: So that's when I called Dr. Robbins.  Robbins: So, a few months ago I started a clinical trial with a team of interventional neuroradiologists in which we operate on the baby's brain before delivery.  Yasuda: In-utero brain surgery? Sick.  Millin: Ugh. I hate babies. Kwan: Technically a fetus.  Millin: What did I say about talking to me? Millin hates babies, and Kwan is nitpicking about the Latin word for offspring, but the lead doctors are genuinely excited about saving the unborn child. Bailey feels the hospital's interns should not be allowed in the operating room to observe because they are too immature. Robbins disagrees, insisting the surgery is too important a moment for the budding doctors to miss. "Bailey. We might fix a baby's brain inside a womb. That is magic," she says.  As Robbins begins the surgery, she tells her colleagues, "Every second puts mother and baby in more danger, so let's make them count. " She also talks to the unborn child while working on her. "Alright, calm down, baby girl, calm down," she whispers when the baby moves. The surgery is successful. Doctors let the pregnant mother know that her unborn baby now has a good prognosis but will have to spend some time in the NICU after she is born. Grey's Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes is one of the most radically pro-abortion writers on network television.  Her abortion-pushing shows include a famous episode of Scandal in which a woman has an abortion to the tune of "Silent Night." Grey's Anatomy itself has been a relentless fount of extreme abortion propaganda.  How does one explain the cognitive dissonance between an episode about live-saving in-utero surgery and episodes promoting killing children in the womb? Many abortion proponents no longer bother to deny that an unborn child is a baby. Activists on Twitter/X have even gone so far as to post cakes mocking their unborn babies' deaths. The unborn girl in "Baby Can I Hold You" only matters to the writers because the mother wants her, not because of her innate value as a human being. This one episode may have highlighted an unborn life, but Grey's Anatomy remains an abortion-loving show.

Why Do Americans, UN Support Hamas Terrorists?

Most recent Gallup polling in March shows that 36% of Americans “approve of Israeli military action in Gaza” and 50% disapprove. Last November, a month after the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel that claimed the lives of more than 1,200 innocent Israeli civilians, 55% approved of the military action that Israel initiated. What has happened over the last few months that now barely more than a third of Americans support the clear case of the right of Israel to defend its country? We might also ask why only 55% last November supported Israel’s military action to defend itself. Let’s again recall that Americans were strongly united to condemn and retaliate against the horror of the terrorist attack against our own country on Sept. 11, 2001, that took the lives of almost 3,000 American citizens. The 1,200 Israeli victims of terror, in that tiny country of some 9.5 million, equates to more than 40,000 in our country of over 330 million. Why is it not equally clear that Israel must defend itself as we must defend our homeland? Per Brown University’s Costs of War project, total casualties in Afghanistan, and subsequently in Iraq, as result of U.S. retaliatory military action in the war against terror, amounted to 177,000, some six times greater than casualties reported in Gaza. We must also note, again, that we’re not just talking about murder, regarding the 1,200 Israelis that were killed. We’re talking about subhuman brutality, documented in video, in which rape, beheadings and desecration of bodies occurred. The Hamas terrorists celebrated with joy every Israeli murder and atrocity. Hamas has long been recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization. Why are Americans not united in condemning the sickening murder and brutality of the Hamas terrorists, demanding the release of the now estimated 130 hostages they still hold, which include six U.S. citizens? How could our country abstain in the recent United Nations Security Council vote demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, with no condemnation of Hamas terrorism and with no demand of unilateral release by Hamas of the hostages they hold? What is the disconnect that can explain the absence of uniform support among Americans for clear-cut action by Israel to defend itself against brutal terrorists, committed to the destruction of its state and homeland? Freedom House is a nonpartisan Washington, D.C.-based organization that issues an annual report of the state of freedom around the world. Freedom House, in this annual report, grades countries worldwide regarding the extent to which they are free. Per Freedom House’s methodology, each country is graded on a scale of 1-100, based on political rights and civil liberties in that country. In the Middle East region, there is only one country that Freedom House scores as free -- Israel. Out of a possible 100, Israel scores 74. For perspective, the United States has a score of 83. Looking at the Middle East neighborhood where Israel exists, we see it standing alone as free in a sea of unfree countries. Freedom House scores for Israel’s neighbors: Jordan 33, Egypt 18, Lebanon 42, Syria 1, Iraq 30, Saudi Arabia 8. Why does the clear lack of freedom across the Middle East not seem to bother anyone while the only free country in the region elicits protests and condemnation? Why, 76 years after Israel’s founding, and its miraculous emergence as a modern thriving nation -- a world center of innovation and technology, boasting 13 Nobel prize winners -- do many still reject its right to exist? Amid this craziness, let’s recall, again, that Israel is the only Jewish country in the world. There are 49 countries with majority Muslim populations. There are 15 million Jews in the world and 1.8 billion Muslims. Yet, worldwide, there remains antipathy to this lone, tiny yet successful-way-beyond-its-size Jewish country. Something is wrong. Very wrong.

Column: PBS 'News' Hounds Are OK with Biden's Inflammatory Rhetoric

They call themselves the PBS NewsHour, but if you watch them routinely, you might call them the PBS Opposition Research Hour. They often sound like a Democrat consulting firm as they analyze Donald Trump as a dangerously extreme figure. Then they can turn around and proclaim that Joe Biden is very bipartisan in negotiating “objectively historical achievements,” as PBS anchor Amna Nawaz claimed at the State of the Union address. On April 2, PBS aired a segment titled “Analyzing Trump’s use of inflammatory rhetoric on the campaign trail.” Two days later, it was changed to “Anatomy of a Trump speech." They decided to watch all the scary passages in Trump’s recent speeches with Jennifer Mercieca, who reporter Lisa Desjardins blandly described as “an author and Texas A&M professor who specializes in political and Trump rhetoric.” PBS didn’t note that Mercieca wrote a book in 2020 titled Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump. (It was shown on screen.) Its dust cover promises to explain “how a bombastic pitchman emerged as America’s authoritarian P.T. Barnum, using nothing more than his weaponized words to transform a polarized and dispirited nation into his own reality TV show.” Does this expert shopping sound fair and balanced to anyone? As Trump denounced Biden for a “border bloodbath,” Desjardins explained he’s attacking “anyone who calls it a humanitarian crisis.” Mercieca lamented “it can’t be neutral. It can’t be a situation at the border. It has to be violent. It has to be an invasion. It has to be a bloodbath.” Seriously? Last October, their anchor Nawaz wasn’t neutral as she compared separating children from their families at the border under Trump as “one of the darkest chapters in our modern history” that echoed slavery and the internment of Japanese-Americans.   Naturally, Desjardins repeated the Democrat spin that “there’s no evidence of a bloodbath for Americans living there” (at the border), and “multiple studies show that migrants are actually less likely to commit crime than others here.” Trump lamented, “if we don’t win on November 5, I think our country is going to cease to exist. It could be the last election we ever have.” Desjardins explained Mercieca’s thesis: this is “what separates Trump,” it’s not “political razzle-dazzle, but dangerous, hyperbolic fearmongering.” If that “last election” talk is dangerous, will PBS rewind to Joe Biden’s first campaign speech back on January 5. Biden said of Trump: “He’s willing to sacrifice our democracy, put himself in power…. Trump’s assault on democracy isn’t just part of his past. It’s what he’s promising for the future…. We’re living in an era where a determined minority is doing everything in its power to try to destroy our democracy for their own agenda.” These “public” broadcasters know what Biden has said in his campaign speeches, and they’re fine with it. No one thinks it’s a lie or that it’s dangerous. Mercieca acknowledged, “All presidents run as heroes. It’s not uncommon. Joe Biden is running as a hero right now. He’s running as a hero to save democracy.” But she claimed “Donald Trump is running as a different kind of hero.” How so? Desjardins concluded the segment with this about Trump: “When he’s saying the situation is dire, when he’s saying democracy will end if I’m not elected, he is implying to some of his followers, violence may be okay.”   Biden is saying democracy will end if he’s not elected, but PBS can’t imagine his followers would ever believe “violence may be okay.” PBS makes “news” by Democrats, for Democrats. But it’s subsidized involuntarily by tens of millions of allegedly democracy-squashing Republicans. 

Scarborough: Netanyahu Wants An Israel 'From The River To The Sea'

Every time the issue of Israel's war with Hamas arises on the Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough touts his pro-Israel record. But now that Biden's support for Israel is costing him in battleground states and among certain demographics, Scarborough has become a fierce critic of Israel's conduct of the war, and of Benjamin Netanyahu in particular. During a long, angry, rant on Thursday's Morning Joe, Scarborough, in a grotesque variation of the slogan of those calling for the destruction of Israel, claimed that Netanyahu's vision is for "an Israel from the river to the sea." Careful, Joe: Rashida Tlaib might sue for copyright infringement! And speaking of Squad members, Scarborough is sounding increasingly like them, as he also accused Israel of "the systematic killing of [Gaza] civilians." What's next, Joe: accusing Israel of genocide? Macho Joe Scarborough also put in an appearance. First, after warning parents to put earmuffs on their kids, Scarborough declared that it is time for Biden and others to "call bull----" on the choice that Netanyahu is supposedly offering.  Next, Scarborough said that anyone disagreeing with his recommended approach on Israel "can go straight to Hell." Then, commenting on Israeli minister Ron Dermer reportedly yelling at U.S. officials during a virtual meeting yesterday, Scarborough said: "I'll tell you what, yell at me on the phone, and I'm a U.S. official -- I hang up on you. Seriously. They can call back and apologize and keep talking." Tough talk, Macho Joe! Scarborough did stop short, though, of claiming that he would have reached through the ether and made Dermer eat his phone, as Joe once claimed he'd do if he found a Capitol tourist taking photos somewhere Scarborough didn't like. It's been reported that Scarborough has become a frequent Biden phone buddy, and an informal adviser to the president. Do we think Scarborough advised Biden to break out the "river to the sea" line against Bibi? Wonder how that'd go down? Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 4/4/24 6:31 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: His dream has been an Israel from the river to the sea. You know, Israelis rightly, Israeli rightly are offended when people talk about the need for a Palestine that's from the river to the sea, because it's talking about wiping out Israel. Well, the shoe's on the other foot here. Because this is Benjamin Netanyahu's vision, to push Palestinians out, and have Israelis from the river to the sea. And he presents the United States a false choice. You either support my twisted vision of what I'm doing in Gaza and what I've been doing in the West Bank now for over a decade, robbing Palestinians of their homes. Allowing religious extremists to set up illegal settlements. Running roughshod over all Palestinian rights in the West Bank, because it helps Benjamin Netanyahu politically with those religious extremists.  Either do that, or you're not a true defender of Israel. It is time, moms, dads, please, put earmuffs on your children right now. It is time for Joe Biden! It is the time for the United States Congress. It is time for Americans to call bullshit on that. Because that has led us to where we are today. And enough is enough. We can have two things at once.  You know, if Netanyahu wants to do this, he has his choice. If he wants to continue taking Israel off a cliff. He has a choice. He can do that. But we Americans, we have a choice, too. And our choice is not defined by what Benjamin Netanyahu says our choice is. Our choice is to say, we will continue to support Israel, but we're not going to continue to support the systematic killing of civilians. And if you want our support, you're going to need to do this, this, and this. And anybody that says, after what we've seen, Willie, over the past couple months. Anybody who says that that's anti-Israeli, they can go straight to hell, because they're dead wrong. . . . You know, Ron Dermer was the guy yelling on the phone yesterday at administration officials. I'll tell you what, yell at me on the phone, and I'm a U.S. official -- I hang up on you. Seriously. They can call back and apologize and keep talking.

ABC Still Mad Over Documents Trial Despite Judge Ruling Against Trump

The Mar-a-Lago classified documents case continues to sore vex the folks over at ABC News. Judge Cannon’s ruling against former President Donald Trump’s arguments doesn’t appear to be enough. The mood is still…salty. Here’s how ABC World News Tonight covered Judge Cannon’s ruling and response to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s filing, as aired on Thursday, April 4th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: Back in this country, and a major setback for Donald Trump tonight. A Florida judge rejecting Trump's attempt to have the classified records case thrown out. Here's Pierre Thomas.  PIERRE THOMAS: Tonight, a Florida federal judge rejecting Donald Trump's effort to get the classified documents case against him thrown out of court. Trump had argued the Presidential Records Act gave him the right to take those classified documents and that the case should be dismissed. Judge Aileen Cannon, who Trump appointed to the bench, ruling that the case should go forward. But in her ruling, the judge also takes a swipe at Special Counsel Jack Smith, rejecting his call to explain her controversial suggestion that she might instruct the jury to consider Trump's claims that the classified documents were his personal property. Smith called that notion "fundamentally flawed" and "wrong," insisting it "would distort the trial." He demanded that the judge clarify her intentions. Tonight, Judge Cannon refusing to do so, writing, "The court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust." Judge Cannon suggesting she's in no rush to resolve a potential clash over jury instructions, telling the special counsel he can try to force her hand if he wishes, by appealing, David. MUIR: Pierre, thank you. Just last night, correspondent Pierre Thomas was channeling the Special Counsel’s office, complaining about Judge Cannon’s consideration of issuing a jury instruction with regard to the Presidential Records Act. Thomas laid out the good old “critics say” with which to smear Judge Cannon and suggest that she’s automatically in the tank for Trump. Today, she throws the Presidential Records Act argument out the window. And yet Thomas is still mad.  The tone of this coverage comes off as outrage over the fact that this Trump-appointed judge would dare refuse to allow herself to be led around by the nose by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Thomas closes his report out by reminding everyone that Judge Cannon is, in his view, taking her sweet time on a series of rulings, among them her decision on jury instructions. But make no mistake. What ultimately underlies this coverage of the Mar-a-Lago documents case is outrage. Outrage over the fact that the case will not go to trial in time to influence the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.

NY Post’s Nelson Draws Out Angry KJP Over Report of WH Sexual Harassment

Near the end of a tense White House press briefing Thursday dominated by questions about Israel, the New York Post’s Steven Nelson drew terse replies from Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre over his recent reporting on powerful White House aide Anthony Bernal being accused of “bull[ying] and verbally sexually harass[ing] colleagues over more than a decade.” Not only has Bernal has vehemently denied the allegations in Nelson’s heavily-sourced story, but Chief of Staff Jeff Zients went on the record to defend him and Bernal could be viewed as unfirable given he’s so close to First Lady Jill Biden she’s reportedly called him her work spouse. Nelson began with that description of Bernal, adding “[t]hree former colleagues have made allegations of sexual harassment against him, building on prior reports of bullying” and not only have “[s]ome of these sources have worked with you,” but “you’d find them credible.” Given that, Zients’s statement and his “sources” being “alarmed...it could chill sexual harassment and bullying reports”, he wondered “[h]ow can the White House...possibly justify not...investiga[ing] these allegations.” Jean-Pierre stepped in before he could finish with the well-known declaration from Biden in 2021 that he’d fire on the spot anyone who mistreats a colleague, scoffing that she doesn’t “know who your sources are, so....I can’t speak to that” since “they’re blind sources.”     Adding she won’t ever speak about “personnel investigations”, she sang Bernal’s praises as someone she’s “known...for more than a decade” and counts him as both “a friend” and “a colleague” she’s “worked closely with”. To Nelson’s credit, he eventually stepped in despite Jean-Pierre’s continued filibustering: “I just gotta press you on this because the President said he would fire people for disrespecting colleagues and there’s no investigation.” Jean-Pierre continued to screech and make Nelson’s point, insisting this is all “unfounded” claims. Nelson tried a third time by noting there certainly seems to be “special status” granted to Bernal given what seems to be “the First Lady shielding him as some sources believe.” Jean-Pierre again rallied around Bernal one last time (click “expand”): JEAN-PIERRE: Steven, I’ve answered the question. I’ve answered the question. Bernard [sic] — Anthony Bernal spoke for himself. You heard from our chief of staff — our chief of staff — and gave your publication a statement, obviously. And you’ve heard from me. I — I’m — I don’t have it. NELSON: Is that going to have a chilling — JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t — NELSON: — effect, though, on people who suffer — JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything else — NELSON: — sexual harassments or bullying. JEAN-PIERRE:— to share. I don’t have anything else to share on that. Before asking about Bernal, he brought up both the ongoing legal odyssey of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the bipartisan push to make the PRESS Act law. Not surprisingly, Jean-Pierre all but ignored the former to only talk about the latter (click “expand”):  NELSON: [O]ur government appears to be closer to potentially extraditing Julian Assange. Press freedom groups say this case threatens to criminalize or professional, so I’m wondering what the White House is thinking is regarding that matter and potential threat to press freedom. Does the White House have a stance on the depending federal press shield legislation that passed the House and that Senator Schumer told me he hopes reaches President Biden’s desk here? JEAN-PIERRE: You’re talking about the press acts — NELSON: Yes. JEAN-PIERRE: — more specifically? Look, and I said this — I said this many times — I said this last week where journalism is not a crime. We’ve been very clear about that. Uh, and as it relates to this particular legislation, I haven’t reviewed. It would have to talk to our Office of Leg Affairs on that particular legislation. But I do want to say, back in October of 2022, the Justice Department codified a policy to ban subpoenas of journalist records. The President strongly supports the right of free and independent press. That is something that the President talked about when he was at the Gridiron. The president talked about this at the last White House Correspondents Dinner. He has been very consistent about this, and I’ll just quote him for a second: “A free press is a pillar of any free society and while we may not always agree with certain coverage or admire it, we do admire the courage of the free press.” Journalism, again, is not a crime. NELSON:  Before moving on, just to confirm, no stance yet on the Press Act that you’re aware of? And the Assange matter, is there concerned about that? JEAN-PIERRE: Ah. You know, I don’t have much more to share besides what I just laid out here, so I would just leave it as what I just stated to you. A few minutes before Nelson, the Fox Business Network’s Grady Trimble called out the Biden administration’s failed attempts to make fetch happen and force Americans to buy electric vehicles (EVs). Jean-Pierre, appearing prepared for the question threw out a littany of numbers in attempt to make it seem like EVs are both afforable and exploding in popularity: Fox Business’s @Grady_Trimble: “Ford said today it's delaying production on an electric SUV. Tesla, earlier this week, said its sales are plunging. Do these types of developments make the administration rethink their EV policy?” KJP: “No, not at all. Look, you know, when it… pic.twitter.com/kkRwTWO4gD — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 4, 2024 Thankfully, Trimble followed up on this gobbledygook: “So, is it realistic to go from about seven or eight percent of sales to 50 percent of sales in eight years if the automakers themselves are cutting back pro — on production?” It was here the Jean-Pierre we’ve come to know emerged as she fumbled through with claims “that— that U.S. manu — U.S. manufacturing jobs have increased” and “[j]obs have indeed increase [sic] and when you see a boom like this, that means you need auto workers, right? It can’t happen on its own...and we want to see a manufacturing industry that’s for the future of this — of this country”. Trimble’s other subject concerned President Biden’s hypocrisy on Chinese-owned TikTok: “If President Biden is concerned enough about TikTok to bring it up on a call with the president of China, why is he and why is the Vice President — why are they still making videos for TikTok?” Though Jean-Pierre isn’t adept at many things, one thing she does know what to do is what she did here: punt to the reelection campaign. To see the relevant transcript from the April 4 briefing (including questions about Israel), click here.

Is There a Global Assault on Free Speech? Latest Twitter Files Suggest So

A new installment of the Twitter Files has revealed a government campaign in Brazil to coordinate political censorship with Big Tech. Journalist Michael Shellenberger deplored the “sweeping crackdown on free speech” occurring in Brazil, particularly against supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro. The Twitter Files identify Alexandre de Moraes, head of Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court (TSE) and member of its Supreme Court (STF), as the alleged prime culprit in a congressional and judicial effort to crush political opponents’ speech, Shellenberger reported.  “De Moraes has thrown people in jail without trial for things they posted on social media,” Shellenberger revealed on the Twitter Files, also co-written by Brazilian journalists Eli Vieira and David Agape. “He has demanded the removal of users from social media platforms. And he has required the censorship of specific posts, without giving users any right of appeal or even the right to see the evidence presented against them.” According to Shellenberger, the Brazilian government had requested users’ data from major social media companies including Google, Facebook, Uber, WhatsApp and Instagram. He noted that these companies provided registration data and phone numbers without court orders and legal justification for such requests. Twitter’s Brazilian legal counsel Rafael Batista consistently tried to fight court orders for private information, Shellenberger explained. Unfortunately, compliance from other tech companies, particularly Google, in providing information to the government undermined Twitter’s stand. In response to these disturbing findings, Dan Schneider, the MRC Vice President for Free Speech, did not hold back, saying: “Brazil’s Supreme Court is authoritarian and a serial abuser of individual rights. Americans have a hard time understanding this since the Brazilian government is structured so differently, but it is no surprise that its Supreme Court is again silencing conservatives and trying to lock up those who criticize it.” Expanding on his response, Schneider added: “That Google would help support such an authoritarian monster is also not a surprise. Google has a long history of cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party while simultaneously refusing to work with our own Defense Department.”  While Twitter did push back against a criminal investigation and various suits, it did acknowledge censorship of an “extreme right” individual for COVID-19 content, per Shellenberger.  When Jair Bolsonaro supporters began criticizing TSE and STF, the government entities behind the alleged free speech assault, the courts aimed to have the users demonetized and suppressed online. Jair Bolsonaro and his son Carlos Bolsonaro were among the targets.  Shellenberger quoted Twitter’s Head of Legal Diego de Lima Gualda, “There is a strong political component with this investigation and the court is trying to put pressure for compliance.” The government not only sought to obtain information but also pushed to reduce interaction with specific content and “certain types of trending hashtags.” Twitter argued the latter was illegal. By November 2021, however, an appeals court demanded global Twitter removal of “specific URLs related to the plaintiff.” Shellenberger posted that even Brazil’s Federal Police (FBI equivalent) were involved in the TSE investigation by March 2022.  “On March 30, 2022, the day after de Moraes took office as president of the TSE, the TSE mandated Twitter to, within a week and under the threat of a daily fine of 50,000 BRL (US$ 10,000), supply data on the monthly trend statistics for the hashtags,” Shellenberger explained. IP addresses and subscription information were also requested ahead of the 2022 election. Even congressional members were targeted. Brazilian attorney Hugo Freitas told Shellenberger the pre-election pressure from TSE was “clearly abusive.” Despite this, Twitter eventually complied with de Moraes’ censorship requests. The government continues to escalate its efforts even now with proposed “Fake News” censorship legislation, Shellenberger added. “TSE’s censorship is an attack on the democratic process,” he concluded. “Elections can remain free and fair only if the public is able to debate and question election laws, systems, and results. If there ever is electoral fraud in Brazil, nobody will be allowed to talk about it, if de Moraes gets his way.” MRC Assistant Editor for Business and Free Speech America Luis Cornelio contributed to this report. 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.

Jim Jordan Uncovers Familiar Faces in Ad Boycott Plot Against Right-Leaning Outlets

Guess what entities House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has unveiled as key players in a major advertising boycott of right-leaning outlets? On March 26, Jordan demanded documents from several high-profile companies participating in a disturbing initiative of the World Federation of Advertisers, a global advertising association.  At the time, Jordan asked five major companies about their prominent role as a “steer team” in the WFA’s Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative. In an April 2 article, Daily Wire reporter Luke Rosiak wrote that the GARM initiative served to push advertisers away from “disfavored” publications. He also described the initiative as a “coordinated” attempt that could bankrupt any targeted organizations. Disturbingly, the GARM initiative has held up biased organizations such as NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index as examples of good organizations for identifying misinformation. As reported by the Daily Wire, this massive coalition has tipped its hand on how to judge which news outlets deserve advertising and which deserve to be starved of revenue. Rosiak also wrote that GARM wished to police so-called “misinformation.”  To put it lightly, MRC Free Speech Vice President Dan Schneider doesn’t trust GARM to do that. “The left will stop at nothing to upend our elections and our democracy. They don’t want people to get their news from reliable right-of-center news outlets,” Schneider said. “This is why they’re now colluding with advertisers and advertising firms to choke off funding. This is not only illegal it's also undemocratic and it must stop.” Who decides what is considered misinformation? Those who believe men can become women? Rosiak notes that questioning the publicly stated origins of COVID was considered misinformation. GARM held up the work of NewsGuard, the Global Disinformation Index and the Journalism Trust Initiative as useful guides for determining whether a news outlet was safe to advertise with.  Putting the future revenue of news outlets on the right in the hands of a biased firm like NewsGuard is a death sentence. The Media Research Center has repeatedly demonstrated through studies that NewsGuard routinely gives more favorable ratings to left-wing publications than the firm gives to those on the right. In Dec. 2023, an MRC study showed a 26-point disparity between NewsGuard's average “credibility” rating for publications on the left and the right. To be specific, NewsGuard gave publications on the “left” and publications that “lean left” an eye-popping average of 91/100, while consigning publications on the “right” and publications that “lean right” to a D grade (65/100).  NewsGuard’s obvious bias is not a recent phenomenon, as two prior MRC studies showed disparities of 25 and 27 points in favor of publications on the left.  According to Rosiak, Jordan doesn’t plan on letting them get away with it. The Daily Wire reporter wrote, “The House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether major advertisers ran afoul of antitrust laws by coordinating about which news outlets to blackball.” 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.

Who Wants to Be House Speaker?

Mel Brooks said it’s good to be the king — but is it good to be speaker of the House of Representatives? You’re the most powerful legislator in Congress, if not the world, and just two heartbeats away from being president. If you’re a Republican, though, your task is thankless and possibly hopeless. It looks that way for Speaker Mike Johnson right now. With the barest Republican majority in the House, another resignation or sudden death could throw control of the chamber to the Democrats and hand the speakership to Hakeem Jeffries well ahead of November’s election. Even if the GOP suffers no attrition before Election Day, Johnson could lose his head at any time to another revolt within the party’s ranks. House Republicans were unruly enough when they enjoyed a majority of almost 60 seats under Speaker John Boehner nearly a decade ago. Donald Trump wasn’t a factor back then, and Barack Obama gave Republicans an opponent to unite against — yet they still couldn’t cohere as a party. Boehner finally gave up and resigned the speakership in 2015, letting Paul Ryan take over. The Wisconsin congressman was until then a rising star in the GOP, but after three years as speaker, he was done with politics and bowed out of Congress altogether. Kevin McCarthy knew what he was getting into when he grabbed the gavel after Republicans most recently took back the House, but he overestimated his odds of survival. Rebellious backbenchers overthrew him nine months into his speakership; then he, too, quit Congress. How long will Johnson last — and who would want to succeed him? Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise vied to replace McCarthy, but the same factional instability that prevented either of them from securing the votes they needed would have poisoned the prize even if one of them had been able to win it. Johnson was nobody’s first choice for speaker, and that’s partly why he got the job; he wasn’t loved enough to be hated either. But now Johnson gets the blame when the House passes continuing resolutions that keep the government open, at the cost of failing to use the threat of a shutdown to wring policy concessions from Biden. Of course, if the speaker did allow a shutdown, he and the GOP would get blamed by the media for the mess — and probably by voters, too. Politically it’s a lose-lose proposition for the party, though in 2011 a Republican House resolved such a standoff by limiting both domestic and defense spending with a law that came to be known as “the sequester.” It worked — but it was equally unpopular with those House and Senate Republicans who wanted to spend more on national defense and with their Democratic counterparts who craved more money for projects at home. Now neither party wants to try that again. Spending is grease for the gears of Congress, which is one reason why Democrats dominated the House for 60 years from the Great Depression to the Gingrich Revolution, with only two non-consecutive two-year terms of GOP control from 1931 until 1995. House majorities are traditionally held together by logrolling and pork-barrel spending — buying the votes of your colleagues with taxpayers’ dollars. That approach still works well for the party of the New Deal and the Great Society; it doesn’t work for the party of Ronald Reagan or even Donald Trump. Conservative Republicans oppose drunken-sailor spending, but without it, what incentive is there for party discipline? In the old days, challenging a speaker or a committee chairman would jeopardize the earmarks on which individual congressmen depended for paying off voters back in their districts. It was a corrupt system, and conservatives were determined to reform it. After Republicans won the House for the first time in four decades in the 1994 midterms, the new speaker, Newt Gingrich, set about changing the way Congress worked. But 30 years later, government is bigger than ever, and deficits are dizzying. Weakening House committees had the paradoxical effect of concentrating power in leadership and making the speaker more important in setting the majority’s policy direction — which only turned the speaker into the focus of every member’s discontents and created stronger opposition to him within the party. The solution to the otherwise intractable problem every Republican speaker now faces begins with putting more responsibility back on committees. The speaker is too much of a monarch; Congress can only operate on the republican principle of divided power and mediating institutions. Committees are the institutions that mediate between the speaker (and leadership in general) and members. It’s good to be the king if you’re Mel Brooks. If you’re speaker of the House of Representatives, though, take heed of Shakespeare: “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com

Winner Take All: CNN Panics Over Nebraska Looking to Join 48 States

CNN’s Inside Politics was in a panic on Thursday over the “entirely possible” scenario that President Biden’s reelection (and thus the fate of America, the world, the known universe, the multiverse, and humanity’s re-admittance into Eden) hinged on one electoral vote in Nebraska. Meanwhile, the state’s proposed shift to a winner-take-all system for electoral college votes would put it in line with 48 other states, or 96 percent of states. “Now, imagine this: a 269 to 269 tie in the electoral college that could become much more likely if Nebraska changes how it awards electoral votes. This week, Donald Trump and his allies are pressuring state lawmakers to do just that,” host Dana Bash fretted, trying to stoke fear in viewers. Breaking down why she was so paranoid, Bash explained that Nebraska and Maine were the only two states in the union that proportioned electoral college votes based on congressional districts. “Switching to a winner-take-all system could strip Biden of an electoral vote that he won in 2020. And this election could very well come down to that single electoral college vote,” she said, betraying that her fear was a victory for former President Trump. CNN national political reporter Daniel Strauss tried to talk Bash off the ledge by noting that advocates for the switch were struggling with a number of procedural hurdles (Click “expand”): Just that this is a big hurdle for advocates of changing the way Nebraska allocates delegates are trying to overcome. And part of it is just the very fact that this is how they've done it in Nebraska for a while now. It's very apparent to Democrats that there is a scenario where this election is super close and it comes down to how Nebraska allocates votes. And they obviously don't want to give an advantage to Donald Trump, that would swing the election against them. At the same time though, this bill is just running into all kinds of legislative and very technical hurdles, including that it wasn't blessed with a priority cert label that in the Nebraska legislature is acquired at this point in their cycle for moving a bill forward.     “This is really important because Democrats and Republicans have been saying throughout this cycle, ‘This can be a very close election.’ It really could come down to just a few electoral votes,” he added. Insisting it was “not out of the realm of possibility at all,” Bash put up a couple of electoral maps to spook viewers about a 269-269 split: If Joe Biden wins, that Nebraska vote, that one electoral vote and he wins back again, wins the so-called blue wall, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, you have 270 to 268, so he wins the presidency. Now, let's see this scenario where that Nebraska law is changed. 269 to 269, an electoral college tie. Seemingly unfamiliar with the constitutional rules about an electoral college tie, Strauss lamented that such a situation “goes to a whole different arena and it puts us into a morass that we don't usually experience in electoral and campaign politics. Uh, that's why -- And this is entirely possible.” What they seemingly didn’t want to disclose to viewers was that in the event of a tie, House delegations vote to elect the president. And according to 270ToWin, “Republicans hold a 26-22 edge in House delegations.” “We've seen in the past few election cycles at the blue wall is breachable and that states that are usually Republican-leaning can be flipped: Arizona and Georgia,” Strauss added. “So, it really could come down to a few electoral votes. And it could come down to one congressional district in Nebraska.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s Inside Politics April 4, 2024 12:44:19 p.m. Eastern DANA BASH: Now, imagine this: a 269 to 269 tie in the electoral college that could become much more likely if Nebraska changes how it awards electoral votes. This week, Donald Trump and his allies are pressuring state lawmakers to do just that. Right now, it is one of two states that awards some of its electoral votes by congressional district. The other is the state of Maine. Switching to a winner take all system could strip Biden of an electoral vote that he won in 2020. And this election could very well come down to that single electoral college vote. CNN's Daniel Strauss is digging into this. Daniel, what are you learning? DANIEL STRAUSS: Just that this is a big hurdle for advocates of changing the way Nebraska allocates delegates are trying to overcome. And part of it is just the very fact that this is how they've done it in Nebraska for a while now. It's very apparent to Democrats that there is a scenario where this election is super close and it comes down to how Nebraska allocates votes. And they obviously don't want to give an advantage to Donald Trump, that would swing the election against them. At the same time though, this bill is just running into all kinds of legislative and very technical hurdles, including that it wasn't blessed with a priority cert label that in the Nebraska legislature is acquired at this point in their cycle for moving a bill forward. Look, Dana, though. This is -- This is really important because Democrats and Republicans have been saying throughout this cycle, “this can be a very close election.” It really could come down to just a few electoral votes, a few thousand votes in states that otherwise really aren't – haven't been attended to by either the big campaigns. BASH: Let's give our viewers a scenario here that is, again, not out of the realm of possibility at all. If Joe Biden wins, that Nebraska vote, that one electoral vote and he wins back again, wins the so-called blue wall, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, you have 270 to 268, so he wins the presidency. Now, let's see this scenario where that Nebraska law is changed. 269 to 269, an electoral college tie. STRAUSS: Right. Which goes to a whole different arena and it puts us into a morass that we don't usually experience in electoral and campaign politics. Uh, that's why -- And this is entirely possible. We've seen in the past few election cycles at the blue wall is breachable and that states that are usually Republican leaning can be flipped: Arizona and Georgia. So, it really could come down to a few electoral votes. And it could come down to one congressional district in Nebraska. BASH: Absolute – Absolutely fascinating. And we are gonna be watching to see what the Nebraska legislature does. Thanks so much for bringing this to us. Appreciate it.

LISTEN: Mark Levin Rips CNN ‘Hack’ Dana Bash for Whitewashing Biden's Censorship Regime

Syndicated radio host Mark Levin tore into prominent CNN Biden flack Dana Bash for trying to gaslight viewers on the dangers of the White House censorship regime. Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told CNN anchor Erin Burnett April 1 — to her dismay — that it was in fact President Joe Biden’s censorship regime, not former President Donald Trump, that presented the bigger “threat” to America. Kennedy pointed out the Biden administration’s history of jawboning Big Tech companies like Twitter and Facebook to go after the president’s political opponents. Bash, clearly triggered, pathetically tried to “fact-check” Kennedy the next day on CNN’s Inside Politics. Her argument pretty much amounted to excusing Biden because he supposedly wasn’t personally involved in directing his agencies to pressure social media companies and the censorship collusion was only engineered towards fighting so-called "false information" about COVID-19. Yes, you read that right. Levin wasn’t having it during the April 2 edition of his radio show: “[Bash is] a hack mouthpiece who burps up the usual left-wing, Democrat Party talking points.”  Nothing to see here, claimed Bash during her segment repudiating Kennedy: “Joe Biden wasn’t setting out to censor Kennedy’s speech or his political critics.” Rather, Bash brazenly whitewashed, “His administration was encouraging social media sites to monitor and take down [censor] false information about the COVID-19 pandemic. There’s no evidence that Biden himself was involved,” as if agencies censoring on Biden’s behalf by proxy is somehow any better and absolves the president’s culpability. Levin took Bash to school. “What kind of a stupid comment is that,” he rebuked. “Did you [Bash] sit in on all the meetings? Is Biden going to say, ‘Yeah I told them to do that’? What kind of a stupid comment is that?”  Listen to Mark Levin ripping apart CNN's gaslighting on Biden's censorship regime below! Levin flipped Bash’s argument on its head. “If Biden didn’t want [the government censorship] to happen — and he has newspapers and briefers and press people all around him — he could have stopped it. But he didn’t,” the radio host said. Despite Bash’s assertions to the contrary, Biden did go after Kennedy’s speech, as Levin pointed out. “What [Bash] is not saying is that when you censor the entire discussion [on COVID-19] you certainly are censoring Robert Kennedy Jr. and others,” he said. But there’s more. Bash must have memory-holed the spectacle of former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki going on camera during a 2021 press briefing to regurgitate the findings from a report by the dystopian fanatics at the leftist Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which explicitly named Kennedy as one of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen” on COVID-19. “There’s about twelve people who were producing 65 percent of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms," said Psaki parroting CCDH’s targeting of Kennedy and others. "There's about 12 people who are producing 65% of vaccine misinformation on social media platforms." After our research was used by the @WhiteHouse @PressSec, we joined @CBS @CBSThisMorning with @GayleKing to explain how social media is a misinformation super spreader 👇 pic.twitter.com/GcKLtLy9y7 — Center for Countering Digital Hate (@CCDHate) July 16, 2021 Bash’s own colleague, Senior Media Reporter Oliver Darcy, released a story in 2021 with a headline that completely upended her gaslighting: “Facebook takes action against ‘disinformation dozen’ after White House pressure.” Oops. But Biden didn't target Kennedy’s speech, right Bash? [Emphasis added.] Levin continued to rip apart Bash’s so-called “fact-check,” which he dismissed as “pretty funny:” “So Dana Bash, I’m going to fact-check you. Number one: Joe Biden was in fact trying to censor people. Why else would he set up that [Disinformation Governance] Board at DHS,” Levin pointed out. “Number two: Yes, [Biden’s] departments and agencies were working with Twitter, Facebook, Google and others to try and prevent political speech —political speech — and that includes the [Hunter Biden] laptop issue.”  Levin also noted Bash’s apparent ignorance to the court preliminary opinions from Louisiana District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the ongoing Murthy v. Missouri controversy outlining the terrifying political censorship regime in the Biden administration that the CNN anchor pretended wasn’t a threat. Doughty, in his opinion, wrote that the “evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario,” adding that during the COVID-19 pandemic the U.S. government “seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’” “You make it sound so harmless Dana,” Levin remarked. No kidding. 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.

Amanpour Tries to Hide Smiling at Israel Being Told 'To Go F Itself'

PBS’s Amanpour and Company is, apparently, where irony goes to die. On the Wednesday show, first aired on CNN International, host Christiane Amanpour welcomed alleged comedian Bassem Youssef, who has family in Gaza, to lament double standards in media coverage on Israeli and Palestinian suffering while the latter told Israel “to go F itself,” something no media personality would ever have any guest say about Palestinians. Amanpour recalled that “we spoke to Queen Rania on this program several times. In fact, she was actually the first leader to come out and talk about double standards, and her interview with us was incredibly widely seen. And she said, similar to you, that, you know, there is a double standard in the way Palestinian suffering has always been reported and continues to be reported. It is really hard to hear you say and hear others say that they don't look at us as people.”     There is a double standard, just not the one Amanpour thinks. The media runs story after story on Palestinian suffering, even more so than they run stories on Ukrainian suffering and unlike Hamas, Ukraine didn’t start that war, while trying to claim Hamas has nothing to do with ordinary Palestinians. The media uncritically repeats Hamas’s casualty propaganda numbers and people like Amanpour interview people like Youssef. As for Youssef, he declared, “Because they were deemed animals, terrorists, Hamas sympathizers. The thing is Israel reminds me a lot with Trump. Remember when Trump was saying lie after lie, one atrocious thing after the other, and by the time people deal with this, he's already moved on, the people are like, all right, that's Donald Trump?” Ignoring all the Hamas weapons and fighters found at various hospitals in Gaza, Youssef continued, “Israel is doing the same. You know, they're doing -- remember when we were out all the rage about like babies killed in incubators, then baby killed with hangers, and then people killed stampede. And then, it's old news now. Remember when we were talking about, did Hamas or did Israel bombed the Ali Hospital and since then, Israel bombed 36 hospitals? It's just, they move too fast.” Youssef added “And by the time you just like catch up and you corner them was like, well, ‘I'm entitled.’ They were like, ‘if you talk about it, you're anti-Semitic. I am doing this to protect myself.’ Here's the thing, every time Israel say like “Israel have the right to defend itself, Israel had the right to exist,” and I want to say like Israel have the right to go F itself. As Youssef cracked himself up, Amanpour sat there silently, unsuccessfully trying to hide the smile she knew that she, as a supposedly truth-telling journalist, was not supposed to have. Instead of calling Youssef out on his lies or observing that, despite all the talk about how Israelis benefit from double standards, she would never have on an Israeli comedian to tell the Palestinians “to go F” themselves, she offered up a weak “That's your stand-up. It's not your stand-up, actually.” Here is a transcript for the April 3 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 4/3/2024 CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: You know, we spoke to Queen Rania on this program several times. In fact, she was actually the first leader to come out and talk about double standards, and her interview with us was incredibly widely seen. And she said, similar to you, that, you know, there is a double standard in the way Palestinian suffering has always been reported and continues to be reported. It is really hard to hear you say and hear others say that they don't look at us as people. BASSEM YOUSSEF: Because they were deemed animals, terrorists, Hamas sympathizers. The thing is Israel reminds me a lot with Trump. Remember when Trump was saying lie after lie, one atrocious thing after the other, and by the time people deal with this, he's already moved on, the people are like, all right, that's Donald Trump? Israel is doing the same. You know, they're doing -- remember when we were out all the rage about like babies killed in incubators, then baby killed with hangers, and then people killed stampede. And then, it's old news now. Remember when we were talking about, did Hamas or did Israel bombed the Ali (ph) Hospital and since then, Israel bombed 36 hospitals? It's just they move too fast. And by the time you just like catch up and you corner them was like, well, “I'm entitled.” They were like, “if you talk about it, you're anti-Semitic. I am doing this to protect myself.” Here's the thing, every time Israel say like “Israel have the right to defend itself, Israel had the right to exist,” and I want to say like Israel have the right to go F itself. AMANPOUR: That's your stand-up. It's not your stand-up, actually. YOUSSEF: It's not.

Potpourri: Doocy Time Leaves KJP Fumbling, Taxpayer-Funded NPR Bashes Israel

Given Wednesday’s White House press briefing ran less than 40 minutes, its abbreviated state largely made it uneventful aside from a truly comical Doocy Time having left the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre even more incoherent than usual and, on the other end of the spectrum, taxpayer-funded National Public Radio’s (NPR) Asma Khalid pled for Israel to suffer “consequences” for its war against Hamas. Fox’s Peter Doocy first question dealt with a little-discussed but important topic to national security: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).  “[S]o, you guys started draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try and help with ‘the Putin Price Hike’ a few years ago. Said You were going to refill it. But now it doesn’t seem like that’s happening. Why,” he asked. Jean-Pierre’s stammering, stumbling answer was one for the ages: Well, from — I believe the Department of Energy is — is responsible for — for that particular component — is refilling — refilling that, so I would refer to the Department of Energy. I know there are certain components to that and how they were going to move forward and refilling — refilling it. Uh — I — they would have had more specifics on that for you. Doocy’s remaining time focused on the Biden border crisis, starting with this query that left Jean-Pierre playing dumb and asking for more information: “And why isn’t federal immigration law tougher on border crossers who come here and are accused of serious crimes?”     Given Jean-Pierre’s befuddlement, Doocy explained more: “There’s this story in New York — an eight-person crew of border crossers found with drugs and guns. Six of them now are out on bail. Does President Biden think policies like that are making the country safer?” Jean-Pierre ducked, citing this example as being “an active case, so don’t want to comment on an active case, but anyone found guilty — and we’ve been very clear about that — anyone found guilty of a crime should be held accountable” and that the Biden regime has “been very, very clear about that.” Doocy last question touched on the left’s pro-crime tendencies: “So, more generally then, do you guys think that some big cities in this country have liberal DAs that are too soft on crime?” Of course, Jean-Pierre also refused to answer other than reiterating her previous answer and declining “to speak to every state or city here.” Khalid immediately followed Doocy and made sure to represent the pro-Gaza, anti-Israel (so, pro-Hamas) voice that applies to a small subset of the country: Your tax dollars at work..... NPR's Asma Khalid: “[Y]ou heard the President being outraged strike on aid workers. In the past, the president has also referred to indiscriminate bombing. I'm wondering if you can articulate why, thus far, there has been no consequences [for… pic.twitter.com/QgF4A6adkp — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 3, 2024 Khalid wasn’t satisfied, so she kept pressing (which was more than NPR would on caught dead doing for a conservative or Republican cause) (click “expand”): KHALID: Can you articulate why there have been no consequences thus far for any types of behavior that the President has been outraged by? JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, look, we’ve had — we are having conversations with the Israeli government. We’ve been very clear about that. Those conversations have been tough. We’ve been very public about those conversations. On this particular instant [sic], there will be an investigation. There is an investigation currently happening. The President has said he wants it to be swift. He wants it to be comprehensive, and he wants to be there — to see accountability — to bring account — account — right — to bring accountability. He said that in his statement, and he wants to make sure that it is public. So, we’re going to let that process move forward and, you know, You said it yourself. The President also has been publicly clear here about what — how he feels about what he has seen. We do not want to see innocence civilians die here. We do not want that and we’re going to continue to be clear and have those conversations from the President on down with our counterparts in in the Israeli government and those conversations — iditions are tough, right? You think about Rafah — the Rafah operations. We’ve been clear about that how — where we stand that a military operations [sic] is not the way to go. There are alternative ways of getting those Hamas operators in Rafah. That’s why we had a meeting — a virtual meeting on Monday. That’s where we’re going to have an in-person meeting with Israeli government. The person take — the President takes this very seriously. He wants to make sure that innocent civilian lives are protected, including those humanitarian aid workers who are out there and, yes, he’s outraged and he’s heartbroken by what happened yesterday and we’re going to have those conversations with the Israeli government — as we have been. It’s going to continue. This back-and-forth went on a few more rounds as Khalid even interrupted to whine she’s “privately” asked Biden officials about as to whether Biden has personally met with anyone who had been to Gaza since October 7. Gee, what happened then, Asthma? And whose fault is it that Gaza looks far different than it did prior to October 7? Jean-Pierre offered plenty of platitudes about the Arab American “community” but wouldn’t say yes or no out of respect for “private” meetings. To see the relevant transcript from the April 3 briefing, click “expand.” White House press briefing [via ABC News Live subfeed] April 3, 2024 1:25 p.m. Eastern PETER DOOCY: First, the — so, you guys started draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try and help with “the Putin Price Hike” a few years ago. Said You were going to refill it. But now it doesn’t seem like that’s happening. Why? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Well, from — I believe the Department of Energy is — is responsible for — for that particular component — is refilling — refilling that, so I would refer to the Department of Energy. I know there are certain components to that and how they were going to move forward and refilling — refilling it. Uh — I — they would have had more specifics on that for you. DOOCY: Okay. And why isn’t federal immigration law tougher on border crossers who come here and are accused of serious crimes? JEAN-PIERRE: So — um — are you speaking of a specific case? DOOCY: There’s this story in New York — an eight-person crew of border crossers found with drugs and guns. Six of them now are out on bail. Does President Biden think policies like that are making the country safer? JEAN-PIERRE: So I want to be really careful. That’s an active case, so don’t want to comment on an active case, but anyone found guilty — and we’ve been very clear about that — anyone found guilty of a crime should be held accountable. We have been very, very clear about that and if they if a person poses a danger to the community, they should be detained pretrial. DOOCY: So, more generally then, do you guys think that some big cities in this country have liberal DAs that are too soft on crime? JEAN-PIERRE: Look, what I will say is, I’m not going to speak to every state or city here. I — it’s not for me to speak to. We have been very clear about this. Anyone who commits a crime and is found guilty needs to be held accountable. That’s what this President believes, and we are certainly very much. We welcome local law enforcement support and cooperation and apprehending and removing individuals in this country who pose a risk to our national security or also public safety. If they are found guilty. They should be held accountable. That’s our — that’s where we stand on this. [TO KHALID] Go ahead. ASHMA KHALID: Thank, Karine. Two questions, one is you heard the President being outraged strike on aid workers. In the past, the president has also referred to indiscriminate bombing. I’m wondering if you can articulate why, thus far, there has been no consequences and why there are no consequences? So, beyond — JEAN-PIERRE: So I want to be clear. It’s — it’s not me, referring to that. this is the President’s statement. I’m just lifting up the statement from last night where he says — KHALID: Yeah, and I understand that. JEAN-PIERRE: — I am outraged and heartbroken. The first — the first — basically — line — part of the first line of the President’s — President’s statement from last night, and it speaks for itself and he talked about — how he talked about how there’s more that needs to be done to protect innocent civilians in Gaza. KHALID: Can you articulate why there have been no consequences thus far for any types of behavior that the President has been outraged by? JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, look, we’ve had — we are having conversations with the Israeli government. We’ve been very clear about that. Those conversations have been tough. We’ve been very public about those conversations. On this particular instant [sic], there will be an investigation. There is an investigation currently happening. The President has said he wants it to be swift. He wants it to be comprehensive, and he wants to be there — to see accountability — to bring account — account — right — to bring accountability. He said that in his statement, and he wants to make sure that it is public. So, we’re going to let that process move forward and, you know, You said it yourself. The President also has been publicly clear here about what — how he feels about what he has seen. We do not want to see innocence civilians die here. We do not want that and we’re going to continue to be clear and have those conversations from the President on down with our counterparts in in the Israeli government and those conversations — iditions are tough, right? You think about Rafah — the Rafah operations. We’ve been clear about that how — where we stand that a military operations [sic] is not the way to go. There are alternative ways of getting those Hamas operators in Rafah. That’s why we had a meeting — a virtual meeting on Monday. That’s where we’re going to have an in-person meeting with Israeli government. The person take — the President takes this very seriously. He wants to make sure that innocent civilian lives are protected, including those humanitarian aid workers who are out there and, yes, he’s outraged and he’s heartbroken by what happened yesterday and we’re going to have those conversations with the Israeli government — as we have been. It’s going to continue. KHALID: Yeah and if I can also go back to something that was asked earlier about the presidential meeting with any aid workers or anybody who’s been inside of Gaza since October 7. I mean, it is a question of also privately posed to some of your colleagues and it feels like a yes or no question whether or not he’s actually met with somebody who’s been inside. And the reason I’m asking is a number of people at the meeting said, to their knowledge this was the first time the President had actually spoken to anybody who’s been inside of Gaza since October 7. And [inaudible] — JEAN-PIERRE: Here’s what I can tell you. He’s met with community leaders who are obviously from the Muslim community, the Arab community, the Palestinian community. I would let them speak for themselves on if they’ve been to Gaza. You know, I don’t have any — we don’t have any information to share about that. We want to be really mindful that the — this meeting and many meetings that we’ve held had have been private. We want to respect that and so, just going to leave it there. I think what is important, though — like, I understand the question. KHALID: [Inaudible] updates — JEAN-PIERRE: Wait. No, no. No, no, no. KHALID: — from, you know, what the situation tangibly looks like. JEAN-PIERRE: — no, I — I understand, right? I —  I get what you’re saying — the importance of hearing from folks who have been on the ground in Gaza. I totally understand that, but I think it’s also important that the President is hearing directly from the community — directly from the community — who are — some of them — are personally affected by what’s happening in Gaza, right? And so, the fact that senior White House officials are having those conversations — tough conversations — is important — that the fact that the President has done so as well is important. But I — I hear your question, but we are also hearing from folks from the community having these sit-down conversations. the community leaders that were here yesterday — and met with the President and the Vice President — they asked for a working-group conversation and we listened and we made that happen and the President heard directly from them what they are going through, what they see, how painful it has been for them. So, I think that’s important as well. We can’t — we can’t — not — you know — um — lift that up as well.

WATCH: Glenn Beck BASHES Pete Buttigieg for Covering Up Government EV Coercion

Blaze Media CEO and podcast host Glenn Beck called out Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for his wildly manipulative remarks on his boss’s insane electric vehicle push. During the April 3 edition of Glenn Beck TV, Beck tore into Buttigieg for ignoring the devastating effects of President Joe Biden’s authoritarian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation against gas-powered cars.  Buttigieg had shamelessly claimed during a Fox News interview that the auto industry was naturally moving towards EVs and compared gasoline vehicles to landline phones, to which Beck retorted: “He says the automotive sector is moving away from combustion engines. No, they are not, they’re not. The people are not and it’s the government pushing them into that direction. And the people are saying, ‘I don’t want that.’” Beck is right on target, polls show. Only 30% of Americans support phasing out gas-powered vehicles and even fewer (21%) support restrictions on gas-powered vehicles, according to a 2023 Yahoo Finance/Ipsos poll. The poll made clear that breaking down the results by education and age still showed a consistent majority against both ideas. Similarly, a  2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 59% of voters opposed phasing out gas-powered cars.  No, Pete Buttigieg. The automotive sector isn’t “moving toward” EVs and away from gas cars like we did from landline phones. The government is FORCING the industry to move away. pic.twitter.com/hVxVtR10NL — Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) April 3, 2024 Beck’s withering response followed a series of absurd claims from Buttigieg on the April 2 edition of Fox News’ America Reports. “Let’s be clear that the automotive sector is moving towards EVs and we can’t pretend otherwise. Sometimes when these debates happen, I feel like it’s the early 2000s and I’m talking to some people who think we can just have landline phones forever,” Buttigieg said. On his podcast, Beck scorched Buttigieg for this dumb comparison. “It’s not like they were pushing cell phones and everyone was like, ‘Oh I gotta, I mean it's just getting crazy to have a cell phone, I don’t really have a choice soon.’ It's not like even incandescent light bulbs,” Beck said. “We went to the cellular service because everyone started having it.” Buttigieg went on to suggest during his interview that the nation’s national security depended on a quick transition to electric vehicles, claiming: “The reality is that the automotive sector is moving towards EVs and the U.S. can either fall behind China or we can claim the lead.” He must have missed The Wall Street Journal reporting from two days before his interview detailing how the U.S. electrical grid will become more vulnerable to enemy exploitation as the infrastructure to support electric cars is expanded. Beck wasn’t the only one to call out Buttigieg for his out-of-touch remarks. On the April 3 edition of The Big Money Show on Fox Business, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA) also condemned Buttigieg’s deception. “This is another example of the American liberals and their agenda pushing this. Anytime the federal government picks winners and losers consumers are going to lose,” Rep. Carter said. “That's what is happening now with the administration trying to pick winners and losers, trying to force people to buy EVs. The Secretary of Transportation making a mockery out of this and the American people and I take offense to that and I think a lot of Americans take offense to that. We don't need to be told what we need to buy,” he continued. MRC Business Associate Editor Joseph Vazquez contributed to this report. 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.

Daily Show Suggests Jesus Would Approve of Transgender Visibility Day

The cast of Comedy Central’s Wednesday installment of The Daily Show managed to hit all the wrong notes as it reacted to conservative criticism of President Joe Biden recognizing Easter Sunday as Transgender Visibility Day. Temp host Desi Lydic tried to suggest that Biden had nothing to do with his own proclamations and butchered multiple Biblical references, while correspondent Michael Kosta claimed Christians should be happy because the controversy brought attention to Easter that it normally doesn’t receive because it is just “shitty Christmas.” Lydic didn’t see what the big deal was, “Yes, by total coincidence, Trans Visibility Day happened to fall on Easter this year. Which seemed like, I don't know, a good fit to me. I mean, Jesus did identify as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So, live your truth, queen! Now you wouldn't think Easter falling on a holiday that's been on March 31 for 15 years would be that big of a deal, but conservatives processed this like a child meeting the Easter Bunny: By losing their [bleep] minds.”     Two things. First, Lydic is spreading heresy to own the cons because God the Son never claimed to be God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Second, nobody forced Biden to issue a proclamation recognizing Transgender Visibility Day. He could have simply ignored it, but he chose not to. Later in her diatribe, Lydic claimed that “I’m not here to pick a fight with Easter, Easter's great, probably our best holiday featuring a bunny who crawled out of a nightmare, but the level of outrage over this is totally out of proportion to what, ultimately, was an innocuous scheduling conflict. I just-- I wish I knew the real reason they were upset. Luckily, they left us some Easter eggs.” A clip of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Fox was then played where he declared that “It's absurd and Joe Biden should be ashamed of himself. And all these people say, ‘yeah, but this is the day we've always recognized Transgender Visibility Day.’ Well, recognize it another day, not on Easter Sunday. It's an affront to the Bible and, quite frankly, it's an affront to biology. There are two genders. People can't just go in and out of one like a revolving door. It's not normal.  In response, Lydic added, “Ah, there it is. Thank you, least interesting man in the world, for saying the quiet part out loud. They don't think Transgender Visibility Day should be moved. They think trans people shouldn't be visible at all. Trans Day of Visibility could have been on National Pasta Day and they'd be like, ‘This is an affront to fettuccini!’” She also claimed “there's a false premise at the heart of this entire controversy, which is that there's even a conflict between trans people and Christianity to begin with. There isn't! In fact, the Bible doesn't say anything about trans people. It does, however, say to love thy neighbor, to not judge other people, and perhaps the most famous of Bible verses, please do not sell me for $59.99 to pay off your rape fines.” The Trump whataboutism aside, loving your neighbor does not mean affirming destructive behavior, and not judging people does not mean throwing logic out the window.  Further on in the segment, Lydic welcomed Kosta, who referenced another clip of Fox’s Jesse Watters confusing Good Friday with Resurrection Sunday, “Desi, this was good for both holidays. When was the last time you saw people this fired up about Easter, AKA, shitty Christmas? But now, thanks to this controversy, everyone, and I mean everyone, except for Jesse Watters, knows what Easter is really about.” And The Daily Show, because nobody who knows “what Easter is really about” would label it “shitty Christmas.” Here is a transcript for the April 3 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 4/3/2024 11:01 PM ET  DESI LYDIC: Yes, by total coincidence, Trans Visibility Day happened to fall on Easter this year. Which seemed like, I don't know, a good fit to me. I mean, Jesus did identify as the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit. So, live your truth, queen! Now you wouldn't think Easter falling on a holiday that's been on March 31 for 15 years would be that big of a deal, but conservatives processed this like a child meeting the Easter Bunny: By losing their [bleep] minds.  … Look, I’m not here to pick a fight with Easter, Easter's great, probably our best holiday featuring a bunny who crawled out of a nightmare, but the level of outrage over this is totally out of proportion to what, ultimately, was an innocuous scheduling conflict. I just-- I  wish I knew the real reason they were upset. Luckily, they left us some Easter eggs.  MIKE HUCKABEE: It's absurd and Joe Biden should be ashamed of himself. And all these people say, “yeah, but this is the day we've always recognized Transgender Visibility Day.” Well, recognize it another day, not on Easter Sunday. It's an affront to the Bible and, quite frankly, it's an affront to biology. There are two genders. People can't just go in and out of one like a revolving door. It's not normal.  LYDIC: Ah, there it is. Thank you, least interesting man in the world, for saying the quiet part out loud. They don't think Transgender Visibility Day should be moved. They think trans people shouldn't be visible at all. Trans Day of Visibility could have been on National Pasta Day and they'd be like, "This is an affront to fettuccini!"  And for what it's worth, there's a false premise at the heart of this entire controversy, which is that there's even a conflict between trans people and Christianity to begin with. There isn't! In fact, the Bible doesn't say anything about trans people. It does, however, say to love thy neighbor, to not judge other people, and perhaps the most famous of Bible verses, please do not sell me for $59.99 to pay off your rape fines.  … MICHAEL KOSTA:  Desi, this was good for both holidays. When was the last time you saw people this fired up about Easter, AKA, shitty Christmas? But now, thanks to this controversy, everyone, and I mean everyone, except for Jesse Watters, knows what Easter is really about. 

Oregon Sex Ed Curriculum Leaked: Gender & Sex Differ

This is one of the primary reasons I plan to homeschool my kids. A portion of the sex ed curriculum from an Oregon school was just leaked after Libs of TikTok posted photos obtained by a parent. The images indicate that gender identity is not the same as sex and provided a graphic detailing where on the body these terms come from. Naturally, users on X are outraged by the blatant grooming done by the lesson. According to Libs of TikTok’s post, an Oregon parent asked his child’s school for a copy of the curriculum used in sex ed class. The school refused to send it but instead instructed the parent that he could come into the school and view the curriculum on a school computer. When the parent went down to the school he took a photo of two of the pages of a particular lesson in the class.  The pages show a drawing of a person with various graphics that correlate to terms. The brain is correlated with “gender identity.” The description for gender identity is “a person’s sense of self in relation to gender.” AKA, it doesn’t have to match a person’s sex. There was a little fire emoji right at the top of the person’s chest which was linked with “sexual orientation.” The description had three parts: “1. Orientation: Who a person is sexually attracted to 2. Behavior: How a person behaves sexually 3. Identity: What a person calls themself.”  A parent in Oregon allegedly asked for a copy of his kid's school's S*x Ed curriculum and the school refused to send it. They only allowed him to see it within the school walls on a school computer where he snapped these screenshots. Why are schools hiding lesson plans from… pic.twitter.com/rWvEWf7YHR — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 3, 2024 Below the fire emoji was a heart which linked to “Romantic Orientation” which was described as “Who a person is romantically attracted to.” Over on the left was a tab that said “Assigned Gender/Sex at Birth” and it was connected with an arrow to a green star over the person’s crotch. “The gender/sex assigned at birth based on a person’s genitals,” the description read. Finally, the last tab was linked to the orange outline of the person and was called “Gender Expression: How a person presents themself (i.e. style, actions, demeanor, and more). This graphic could have very easily been done, and would have been more accurate, with a quarter of the amount of information. There’s no such thing as “assigned gender” or “gender identity.”  You’re either a male or a female. That’s it. The second page of the lesson captured gave an example of a person named Casey with the pronouns “they/them.” That page indicated how much on the spectrum of each category Casey felt. Apparently "they" was intersex and felt neither male nor female for his gender identity, had no sexual orientation or romantic attraction and felt, in terms of "them's" "gender expression," mostly feminine, somewhat masculine and a portion of “other” so God only knows how this thing is dressing at this point. In response to the graphic, users were outraged that the Oregon school would teach such nonsense and peeved that the school wasn’t transparent about the content.  “If schools are not freely sharing all curriculum with parents then the curriculum isn’t appropriate. This is so basic. Parents should immediately pull their kids out if their kid’s school is hiding anything from parents. Yet another reason to homeschool,” one user wrote. Another individual wrote, “School should be shut down for teaching this psuedoscience.”   A different user pointed out the fact that if schools didn’t have anything to hide, why weren’t they transparent about the lesson from the get go? “If there were nothing wrong, there would be no reason to hide anything? Aren't we always told that? So clearly, they feel what they are doing would not be received well by the parents who send their children there. They would be right. This is wrong,” the user wrote. All I can say is that kids at this school need to be homeschooled and fast!

NBC News FREAKS OUT Over Offsite Bible Education For Public School Kids

At long last, NBC News has found and reported on content it deems objectionable for public school kids. Not porn-adjacent or grooming-adjacent materials, or lurid novels with graphic descriptions of rape…but Bible education that is held offsite so as not to conflict with existing rules.  Of course, it’s Antonia Hylton:  ANTONIA HYLTON: As classmates head to the library, this group of Whitehall School District students in Ohio put on matching shirts and board a bus and head half a mile down the road to church. There, elementary students like Emanuel and Savannah Brady pray --  CHILDREN: Amen. HYLTON: And study Scripture. This is LifeWise academy, a nonprofit bringing the Bible back into the public school day.  CHILD: The learning really helps you learn about Jesus and what happened in the past.  HYLTON: How popular would you say it is at school?  CHILD:  Mainly, like, the whole class is, like, over at LifeWise. HYLTON: LifeWise started in 2018 with two schools. Today it partners with more than 300 schools in a dozen states. It's funded by private donations, and it's legal, so long as it's optional, off campus, and not during essential classes like math. Though to some it represents an increasingly blurry line between the separation of church and state. Doug Shoemaker, a Whitehall administrator, says the district has allowed this kind of program for decades. DOUG SHOEMAKER: We neither discourage participation or reward or encourage it. HYLTON: Dad Darryl Brady says LifeWise lessons positively motivate Emanuel and Savannah. Do you think church has a place in school? DARRYL BRADY: I mean, we're trying to bring churches back into schools for a long time. HYLTON: Some of these sessions take place when library periods would be happening in school. Are you worried about your kids missing out on that experience?  BRADY: Not at all. I mean, there’s 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament.  “Bringing the Bible BACK into a public school day” is a bridge too far for Hylton, who in the past, and among many other things, has: Misrepresented public school industry advocates as “concerned parents” for purposes of cheapshotting Prager U Protested policies implemented by duly elected conservative school board members Triggered a federal investigation into a conservative school district Protested the removal of inappropriate LGBTQ-themed books from school districts Never mind that privately-funded LifeWise is busing the students offsite, and does their instruction so as not to conflict with core subjects such as reading or math. The idea of exposing elementary school students to something other than 57 genders and graphically-illustrated how-tos appears to be a bright red line for Hylton. The clear tell here is in her protestations of the students doing LifeWise during library periods, which is exactly where students are most likely to get exposed to the groomy stuff. Hylton goes on to decry the nefarious tactics resorted to by LifeWise in order to incentivize growth and further attendance, such as…ice cream and popcorn parties? What we witnessed, and watched so you don't have to, is not serious journalism. This is leftist indoctrination advocacy disguised as journalism- and a tantrum over the left’s ongoing loss of influence in public education.  Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on NBC Nightly News on Tuesday, April 2nd, 2024: LESTER HOLT: Back now with our NBC News exclusive. A group in Ohio has been allowed to bring Bible study to public school students during the school day, but there are critics who fear it's eroding the boundaries between church and state. Here is Antonia Hylton. ANTONIA HYLTON: As classmates head to the library, this group of Whitehall School District students in Ohio put on matching shirts and board a bus and head half a mile down the road to church. There, elementary students like Emanuel and Savannah Brady pray --  CHILDREN: Amen. HYLTON: And study Scripture. This is LifeWise academy, a nonprofit bringing the Bible back into the public school day.  CHILD: The learning really helps you learn about Jesus and what happened in the past.  HYLTON: How popular would you say it is at school?  CHILD:  Mainly, like, the whole class is, like, over at LifeWise. HYLTON: LifeWise started in 2018 with two schools. Today it partners with more than 300 schools in a dozen states. It's funded by private donations, and it's legal, so long as it's optional, off campus, and not during essential classes like math. Though to some it represents an increasingly blurry line between the separation of church and state. Doug Shoemaker, a Whitehall administrator, says the district has allowed this kind of program for decades. DOUG SHOEMAKER: We neither discourage participation or reward or encourage it. HYLTON: Dad Darryl Brady says LifeWise lessons positively motivate Emanuel and Savannah. Do you think church has a place in school? DARRYL BRADY: I mean, we're trying to bring churches back into schools for a long time. HYLTON: Some of these sessions take place when library periods would be happening in school. Are you worried about your kids missing out on that experience?  BRADY: Not at all. I mean, there’s 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament.  HYLTON: Founder Joel Penton said he saw a growing need, including those unable to afford private Christian schools. In this area about 50% of the students take part in LifeWise. What do you think that means for the other 50%? Do I don't think they feel left out?  JOEL PENTON: I wouldn't characterize it that way. Kids go different directions all the time. On the playground, some kids play kick ball. Other kids will go to the monkey bars.  HYLTON: This is a little different because these kids are going to physically be gone. PENTON:  Sure. I mean, hopefully LifeWise is an attractive thing that people will want to participate in, but we certainly don't ever want to put any undue pressure. HYLTON: But Ohio mom Sarah Meyers says that LifeWise does exert pressure. She’s a Christian with a daughter in a school partnering with them. She won't ever let her take part, though.  SARAH MYERS: It is all above board until it's not. No school staff person does anything until they do.  HYLTON: Chapters promised ice cream or popcorn parties if kids got their friends to sign up. Another Ohio mom sent NBC News this note her child received from a classmate on LifeWise letterhead, prewritten to say "My favorite part of class is…,writing, “everything”, and inviting the child to join LifeWise. LifeWise told NBC news that like many youth groups, they offer incentives for students and families to learn more, and that they are no different from other organizations that advocate for the policies they believe in. What do you think LifeWise is trying to do? MYERS: Influence, slant, if you will, public schools.  HYLTON: Joel says he pays little attention to critics. PENTON: In the United States, there are 13,000 public school districts. There are 50 million public school students. HYLTON: And he hopes to make Biblical lessons available to every one of them. Antonia Hylton, NBC News, Columbus, Ohio.  

Tapper Takes on Role of Dem Party Strategist, Urges Abandoning Israel for Votes

Radio host Mark Levin said it best Wednesday night when he noted that “the Democrat Party will sell its proverbial soul for 10,000 votes.” Much was the case on that evening’s edition of The Lead with Jake Tapper on CNN, when Tapper took on the role of party campaign strategist to urge the Biden administration to abandon Israel in its war against genocidal Hamas terrorists in order to secure pro-Hamas voters in Michigan and Wisconsin. In an interview with Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, Tapper was in a panic over the 46,000 pro-Hamas voters who cast “uninstructed” protest votes against President Biden earlier in the week. Tapper was particularly concerned that those protest votes would carry over to November, hurting Biden in the general election and possibly handing former President Trump the victory. He warned Wikler that those people could vote for a third-party candidate; and with a rhetorical but rather obvious wink-wink-nudge-nudge, Tapper declared that “privately” he and Wikler were on the same page: So, let me posit another theory, maybe there's 46,000 people, because they are super engaged, they would turn out and vote basically a protest vote, even though President Biden is going to be the nominee, they didn't need to do that, but there are motivated and they're engaged as you say. Let's say they go and they vote for Jill Stein or Cornell West or Robert Kennedy Jr. I take your point they're not going to vote for Trump, but I if I were you and I'm sure you're very smart guy and well-respected. I'm sure. Privately, you agree with me, at least. These 46,000 or not necessarily going to vote for Joe Biden.     “Oh, no one’s saying anyone's necessarily voting for anyone. I don't think any candidate should take any voter for granted,” Wikler stated. “So, there's absolutely work to do to show voters that their voices are for being heard. And most importantly, addressed the wrenching humanitarian crisis that's playing out before our eyes on CNN and everywhere else.” Later in the show, Tapper praised far-left extremist and CNN colleague Nina Turner for her radical analysis that Biden needed to abandon another Middle East ally to terrorists: Let's talk about that because former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner today posted on X regarding the Wisconsin primary and what I was talking with Mr. Wikler about. Yesterday, she wrote, “Over 47,000 voters in Wisconsin went to the polls and voted uninstructed.” That's 47,000 Democratic voters, we should note. “President Biden won Wisconsin in 2020 by a little over 20,000 votes. This president must decide if loyalty to Netanyahu is worth delivering Trump the election in November. He must decide.” “I love her,” he proclaimed. “She's a firebrand, she's a progressive. But there are moderate Democrats saying that privately, too.” Tapper also suggested that the Biden campaign should be courting Never Trump Republicans and former GOP candidates and have them join him on the campaign trail. “Um, shouldn't the Biden campaign and the White House be going after people like Liz Cheney and like I understand, you know, and saying I know you don't agree with me on 99 percent of these issues, but you agree with me on democracy,” he argued. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s The Lead April 3, 2024 5:06:28 p.m. Eastern (…) JAKE TAPPER: So, let me posit another theory, maybe there's 46,000 people, because they are super engaged, they would turn out and vote basically a protest vote, even though President Biden is going to be the nominee, they didn't need to do that, but there are motivated and they're engaged as you say. Let's say they go and they vote for Jill Stein or Cornell West or Robert Kennedy Jr. I take your point they're not going to vote for Trump, but I if I were you and I'm sure you're very smart guy and well-respected. I'm sure. Privately, you agree with me, at least. These 46,000 or not necessarily going to vote for Joe Biden. BEN WIKLER (Wisconsin Democratic Party, chair): Oh, no one’s saying anyone's necessarily voting for anyone. I don't think any candidate should take any voter for granted. So, there's absolutely work to do to show voters that their voices are for being heard. And most importantly, addressed the wrenching humanitarian crisis that's playing out before our eyes on CNN and everywhere else. The thing that will bring voters together is changed on the ground in Israel and Palestine. (…) 5:09:24 p.m. Eastern TAPPER: Um, shouldn't the Biden campaign and the White House be going after people like Liz Cheney and like I understand, you know, and saying I know you don't agree with me on 99 percent of these issues, but you agree with me on democracy. I mean, isn't there a case to be made? MATT GORMAN (fmr. Tim Scott pres. Campaign advisor): It would seem natural in a way. Jonathan Martin's piece might have blown it a little bit because now he has to wait a little bit. He can't go right afterwards because it's like, well, I'm taking cues from Jonathan Martin. But I think it would probably be a smart thing. I don't think it would be receptive if Nikki Haley did it or if it was two Nikki Haley per se, Chris Christie. Liz Cheney, on the other hand, maybe so. (…) 5:10:28 p.m. Eastern TAPPER: Let's talk about that, because former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner today posted on X regarding the Wisconsin primary and what I was talking with Mr. Wikler about. Yesterday, she wrote, “Over 47,000 voters in Wisconsin went to the polls and voted uninstructed.” That's 47,000 Democratic voters, we should note. “President Biden won Wisconsin in 2020 by a little over 20,000 votes. This president must decide if loyalty to Netanyahu is worth delivering Trump the election in November. He must decide.” Nina Turner, I love her. She's a firebrand, she's a progressive. But there are moderate Democrats saying that privately, too. (…)

He Did What? Biden Hands Out AI Green Cards Despite Espionage Report

The day after DHS unveiled the Biden Administration’s plan to attract, and grant permanent residence to, foreign Artificial Intelligence (AI) experts, Axios published a report warning how “international spies posing as employees” are increasingly infiltrating the U.S. to steal AI technology secrets. On March 18, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published its first-ever “Artificial Intelligence Roadmap,” in order to comply with Pres. Joe Biden’s October 2023 executive order dictating “the development and use of artificial intelligence.” In its Roadmap, DHS details its plan to bring AI experts, as well as their family members, into the U.S. and provide them “immigration pathways” to remain in the country: “DHS will streamline processing times of petitions and applications for noncitizens who seek to travel to the United States to work on, study, or conduct research in AI or other critical and emerging technologies.” … “DHS will also clarify and modernize immigration pathways for such experts, including those for O-1A and EB-1 noncitizens of extraordinary ability; EB-2 advanced-degree holders and noncitizens of exceptional ability; and startup founders using the International Entrepreneur Rule.” On March 19, Axios published “Insider threats are AI developers next hurdle,” an article warning that “U.S. artificial intelligence companies are likely already prime targets for nation-state adversaries' espionage campaigns.” Because the U.S. has one of the world’s most advanced AI industries, it is has become a prime target for espionage, the article explains: “But this advantage places more pressure on U.S. technology companies to track and detect insider threats — which can include international spies posing as employees and employees pressured into spying by their authoritarian home countries.” … “Experts predict that AI developers could become even bigger targets than chip manufacturers and biotechnology companies.” Axios cites the Justice Department’s recent indictment of an ex-Google software engineer for stealing AI technology secrets and sharing them with two Chinese companies, as an example of the threat. In its Roadmap, DHS reveals that it plans to use the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency to “adjust” the status of AI experts and their families to “lawful permanent residents”: “USCIS continues to work on rulemaking to enhance the process for noncitizens, including experts in AI and other critical and emerging technologies, as well as their spouses, dependents, and children, to adjust their status to lawful permanent residents.” Additionally, the Roadmap says DHS will make “USCIS enhancements” – one of which would exacerbate the very threat exposed by Axios: employment of foreign nationals at America’s AI companies: “USCIS will publish updated policy guidance for international students, including how F-1 visa holding students seeking an extension of optional practical training OPT based on their degree in a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) field may be employed by startup companies.”   Editor's Note: This article was originally published on MRCTV.org.

One More Try at Reducing the Debt

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be.”– Polonius to his son Laertes in “Hamlet” It may be too late given the number of Americans who have willingly allowed themselves to become dependent on government more than themselves, but it’s worth trying. Our $34 trillion debt is unsustainable, according to most economists. If we don’t act soon, we will be worse off than we are now. Our economy could collapse. The economic future is not bright if we continue down our current path. According to Statista Research,“ By 2034, the gross federal debt of the United States is projected to be about $54.39 trillion.” President Biden wants to raise taxes again on “the rich” and corporations without cutting spending. Revenue is not in short supply. Fiscal discipline is. A change in spending will require a change in attitude about what government should and should not do. The U.S. has experienced a fiscal year-end budget surplus five times in the last 50 years, most recently in 2001. Debt is bipartisan and it will take a bipartisan approach to reduce or eliminate it. During President Biden’s term, national debt has increased by $4.7 trillion (he wants to spend more), a rise of 16.67 percent as of last September. During Donald Trump’s one- term presidency, the national debt increased by $8.18 trillion, a 40.43 percent boost. Part of that was spending to fight Covid-19, part was the fallout from tax cuts for the wealthy. Still, this was less of an increase than Barack Obama (69.98%) and George W. Bush (105.8%), but each of them served two terms. Part of Bush’s spending was on Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/ 11. Only 14 of 45 American presidents have overseen a decrease in debt. Calvin Coolidge was the last one. That was 15 presidents ago. Coolidge said: “… a good many proposals are made by people that have very excellent things that they would like to have the Government do, but they come from people that have no responsibility for providing ways and means by which their proposals can be carried out. I don’t think in all my experience, which has been very large with people that come before me in and out of Government with proposals for spending money, I have ever had any proposal from anyone as to what could be done to save any money.” Why not form a group of consultants I would call a “what works coalition.” Invite historians, scientists, economists, people of good character and others who love America and ask them to examine government spending, separating the “wheat from the chaff,” the necessary from the unnecessary. They could issue a report to the public and Congress ridiculing wasteful and needless spending and pressure our elected representatives to end those underperforming or nonperforming programs, earmarks and agencies as a patriotic gesture. And yes, Social Security and Medicare must be reformed to save it for the future. The media could help if they would. Weaning people from addiction to government will take time, though some have been able to go “cold turkey” when it comes to other addictions. Most importantly, what is needed is a change in attitude back to the view some previous presidents, the Founders and the public had toward government. Just as we don’t see a doctor when we are having car trouble, neither should we look to government to solve problems best dealt with individually. Government can encourage good choices and penalize bad ones (lower taxes on the successful is one reward and allowing people to suffer the consequences of bad choices – within reason — is another). Government should not subsidize bad choices, as if good and bad are equal. That will ensure more bad choices and fewer good ones. If we don’t start making good choices now and seriously reduce our debt there may be no way back. History teaches us that lesson. Look it up.

Race-Baiting Comedy ‘grown-ish’ Returns to Promote More Anti-White Racism: ‘I Only Buy Black’

The last of Anthony Anderson’s -ish franchises, grown-ish, has returned to finish out its sixth and final season, and they’re making sure to go out with an anti-white, racist bang. It's not surprising considering their long, ugly history of hatred towards white people, which can be found in every -ish show ever made. Wednesday’s episode, “Lost Ones,” featured two main storylines, both of which were sure to include anti-white dialogue. The first centered on main character Andre’s (Marcus Scribner) desire to prove to his father that he can be successful as a talent manager. When a Banksy-like artist starts tagging buildings on his college campus, Andre is determined to figure out his identity so he can represent him. But while conversing with his friends, they determine the artist must be a white person because they damaged public property: Andre: No. No. The Squid is a street artist who recently inked the Business School building. Cole: The anonymous Cal U artist. They're going by "The Squid"? Andre: Yeah. The Squid is their tag. Their identity is unknown. Friend: Wait, but how do you make money off of graffiti? Andre: Well, a ton of prominent artists got their start in graffiti. I think The Squid has the potential to become the next Banksy. I could manage the next Banksy. I could be a cultivator of taste worldwide. I could be like the DJ Khaled of the art world. Another one. Cole: Alas, what happens when an unstoppable manager meets an unknowable force? Friend 2: That's deep. Andre: Cole, are you The Squid? Cole: Well, that doesn't make sense, considering the fact that you just told me they exist. Friend: Yeah, I mean, The Squid is clearly white-- you know, damaging public property and all. All: Mm-hmm. Friend 2: And they got to be a woman. Friend: What? Friend 2: I can't elaborate for fear of sounding sexist. Andre: This is the teamwork we need, though, if we're gonna find The Squid, so let's keep it up, boys. Let's put our heads together. Cole: Hey, guys, I'm all-in. You know I love a good mystery, all right? I don't know if you guys know this, but I actually read every Agatha Christie book, even the original racist versions. She would hate me, but I love her. Friend 2: Then it's settled. Let's go find this white lady! All: Let's do it! Friend 2: Any ideas? Where are we looking first? Friend: Starbucks. All (overlapping): Let's just go with it. Starbucks. That's a good place to go. Did you catch the joke? Andre’s friend didn’t want to explain why he thought the artist might be a woman, because he didn’t want to appear sexist. But the other friend had no problem sounding racist by claiming it must be a white person because of the destruction of property. What’s confusing, however, is that white people aren’t known for destroying property. Need anyone mention all the property destroyed during the 2020 Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots and the smash and grab robberies happening in stores across the country? The culprits have mostly been black, though I suppose they could be referring to left-leaning, liberal white Antifa activists who also participated in the BLM riots. Still, it would be racist to believe the artist must be black or white based on this stereotype, so it should never have been said at all. The other storyline featured Aaron (Trevor Jackson) and Doug (Diggy Simmons), who are on the hunt to find Doug’s stripper friend who's majoring in psychology so they can ask her for advice about their love lives. Despite being single and wanting to find a girlfriend, Doug can’t be bothered with anyone who isn’t black, which Aaron is in full support of because he “only buy(s) black.” Aaron: All right, well, all this searching has got me hungry, dog. So, I'm gonna come over here. Doug: Do your thing. Aaron: All right, Doug-y boy, you go get yourself a lap dance, while me and this shrimp scampi and scrambled eggs-- we're gonna stay on the lookout for Rebecca. Doug: I love a dance, man, especially when I have no one to go home to. Aaron: Well, there's plenty of shrimp in the sea. It should be easy. Doug: Bro, like, look at this Asian one right here, right? Aaron: Love her. I love her. Doug: Gorgeous. Aaron: Nice. Doug: But she's not black. I like to keep it in the black community.   Aaron: Who you telling? I only buy black. Way to promote segregation and increase the racial divide, grown-ish. There was one last, subtle anti-white stereotype the writers used for laughs when Andre sees his client Deanna’s latest TikTok on his phone: Deanna: Hello, my celiac kings and queens. You've been asking, so here it is-- part 12 of my kale-salad series. Andre: Oh, my God. Enough with the kale. Enough with the racism! Can you imagine if they were using anti-black food stereotypes for jokes instead? That would obviously be incredibly wrong and definitely not worthy of laughs. So, why do the writers think it’s okay to do it to white people? Their double standards are tiresome. But, as we all know, if Hollywood didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

Ex-ESPN Host Spills: Executives Carefully Scripted Her Questions to Biden, 'No Deviation!'

Joseph Wulfsohn at Fox News has a new report that underlines once again how interviews with President Biden are very, very scripted and structured to make it easy for him. Former ESPN anchor Sage Steele told Wulfsohn the top ESPN executives crawled all over the particulars of the questions to Biden. “This was about two months after he took office,” she said. “That was an interesting experience in its own right because it was so structured. And I was told, ‘You will say every word that we write out, you will not deviate from the script and go!’" Clearly, Biden couldn’t be surprised with anything improvised. They said "To the word. Like Every single question was scripted, gone over dozens of times by many executives,  editors and executives, absolutely. I was on script and was told not to deviate. it was very much ‘This is what you will ask. This is how you will say it. No follow-ups, no follow-ups. Next!" She said, "I knew this was a lot bigger that just the wonderful editors I worked with. This went up to the fourth floor, as we said, where all the bosses, the top executives, the decision-makers are, the president of our company, the CEO, where they all worked." BREAKING: Sage Steele admits that her entire interview of Biden was carefully scripted by network executives: "Every single question was scripted and gone over dozens of times by multiple editors and executives." pic.twitter.com/drXHFZNZVt — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 3, 2024 Wulfsohn said most of the ESPN-scripted questions pertained to sports leagues returning to normalcy after the Covid pandemic, but the interview made headlines at the time when Biden supported the MLB's All-Star game boycott of Atlanta following the passage of Georgia's election-integrity law. He added that Steele said her interview with Biden was "heartbreaking," referring to his mental acuity.  "I think it's really heartbreaking that the people who love Joe Biden and say they truly care about him have allowed it to get to this point," Steele said. "So I'm not even looking at this from a political angle or my beliefs in anything. This is the human side of it. And when someone is struggling, we allow them to continue to be in the spotlight and put them out there in the first place when they knew there were issues? Of course, they had to know. So it's a humanity thing with me where I don't care where anyone stands and what they vote for or who they believe in. Do you really care about that person? As a father, as a husband, as an everything." "It was satellite, it wasn't in person. We're having a technical issue. And so I had to, like, BS. I had to chitchat waiting for us to start rolling," Steele said. "Well, what he started to do, of course he has someone next to him and they keep a black, like, curtain over the lens of the camera, so you can't see him until the last second, but you can hear and we're chitchatting… So I can hear him and he goes, ‘What is this for?’… And he's, like, ‘Who am I talking to? Wait—what's her name?'" "I was going, ‘Oh, my God!'" Steele exclaimed. "And then he said, ‘SportsCenter. ESPN.’ And he goes, ‘Oh, ok.’ And so I said, you know, what do you say? ‘Hi, Mr. President. Nice to meet you.’ And so I'm trying just to fill time. And he said, ‘You know, I used to play football'… And so he started to tell football stories of his greatness. And again, I can't see him. You can see the curtain… He goes, ‘And I have the best hands.’ What do you say to that?" She later continued, "And then I said, ‘Oh, so you were a receiver.’ And he started to explain it. And here's the saddest thing — his voice just trailed off. He said, ‘I was good,’ and then he went silent, and he goes, ‘Uhh… never mind.’" Steele was attacked in 2021 for mocking biracial Barack Obama, which caused then-MSNBC host Tiffany Cross to accuse her of sounding like a "modern-day minstrel show" for white people. 

Meyers Demands Biden Stop Arming Israel To Save Country From Trump

Ever since October 7, the network late night comedians have largely stayed away from the Israel-Hamas War, but that changed on Wednesday when NBC Late Night host Seth Meyers demanded that President Joe Biden stop supplying weapons to Israel for the sake of his own re-election effort. Meyers failed to see that he was urging Biden to do exactly what Donald Trump was impeached for. Meyers expressed sympathy with the Democratic primary voters who refuse to vote for Biden “And yet voters still went to the polls to submit blank ballots. They are understandably upset Biden keeps claiming he's frustrated with Netanyahu's handling of the war while simultaneously sending weapons to support that war against the wishes of a majority of Americans.”     It was clear that Meyers has no idea how ceasefire negotiations work. It takes two to tango, and throughout the segment, he constantly confused wanting something with actually achieving something, “Back in February, Biden said he hoped to see a ceasefire within days and I remember him saying that because despite my best efforts, I was standing right [bleep] there. That ceasefire did not happen when Biden was asked again just a few days after that, he made it sound like there wasn't much he could do.” After playing a clip of Biden on February 29 telling reporters he was “hopeful” that there would be a ceasefire by the following Monday, an unhappy Meyers responded, “But, what do you mean you're hopeful? You're the most powerful man in the world and you're talking about it like you're the manager of the New York Mets. ‘I mean, I hope -- I hope we win a few games, but you know, if it keeps raining, we might not lose that many.’” Meyers then demanded, “You're the president. You can just say, no more funding. No more weapons. You call for a ceasefire. That's what a majority of Americans want. Including the tens of thousands of Democrats who are registering protest votes in key battleground states.” He added that “Thousands of Israelis also took to the streets this week to protest the Netanyahu government and called for a ceasefire deal to free the hostages. As we said on the show before, there must be an immediate lasting ceasefire and the safe return of all hostages. That's the loud and clear message of these protest votes, and Biden must listen, otherwise he's at risk of losing to someone whose presidency was a –” The sentence was completed with a callback clip of Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying “a complete disaster.” Speaking of Trump, he was impeached because Democrats judged that denying weapons to an ally facing a grave threat of invasion was an abuse of power because Trump put his own personal interests above the national interest by tying the aid to an investigation into the Bidens. How is denying weapons to another ally at war for the sake of your poll numbers any different? Meanwhile, CBS’s Stephen Colbert also touched on the war to an extent he had not previously on The Late Show when he urged Israel to end it. Discussing the World Central Kitchen incident, Colbert lamented, “Now, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed it was a mistake, but he wasn't exactly apologetic.” After a translated clip of Netanyahu explaining that sometimes “this happens in wartime,” the noted non-military expert Colbert shot back, “Nothing just happens. You are responsible. If your answer is, ‘This happens in war,’ then maybe consider ending the war because this is not an isolated incident. On top of the thousands and thousands of innocent lives that have been lost, more than 200 aid workers have been killed in Gaza since the war began.  Even if Hamas agreed to end the war and release the hostages, something neither man cared to think about beyond wishful thinking, ending the war now would not solve anything. It would just create a pause of an unknown duration between this war and the next one. Here are transcripts for the April 3-taped shows: NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 4/4/2024 12:48 AM ET SETH MEYERS: And yet voters still went to the polls to submit blank ballots. They are understandably upset Biden keeps claiming he's frustrated with Netanyahu's handling of the war while simultaneously sending weapons to support that war against the wishes of a majority of Americans.  Back in February, Biden said he hoped to see a ceasefire within days and I remember him saying that because despite my best efforts, I was standing right [bleep] there. That ceasefire did not happen when Biden was asked again just a few days after that, he made it sound like there wasn't much he could do.  REPORTER [FEBRUARY 29]: Do you still expect a cease-fire is possible by Monday, sir?  JOE BIDEN [FEBRUARY 29]: Hope springs eternal. I was on the telephone with the people in the region. I'm still -- probably not by Monday, but I'm hopeful.  MEYERS: But, what do you mean you're hopeful? You're the most powerful man in the world and you're talking about it like you're the manager of the New York Mets. "I mean, I hope -- I hope we win a few games, but you know, if it keeps raining, we might not lose that many."  You're the president. You can just say, no more funding. No more weapons. You call for a ceasefire. That's what a majority of Americans want. Including the tens of thousands of Democrats who are registering protest votes in key battleground states.  Thousands of Israelis also took to the streets this week to protest the Netanyahu government and called for a ceasefire deal to free the hostages. As we said on the show before, there must be an immediate lasting ceasefire and the safe return of all hostages. That's the loud and clear message of these protest votes, and Biden must listen, otherwise he's at risk of losing to someone whose presidency was a –  SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS: A complete disaster. *** CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 4/3/2024 11:55 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Now, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed it was a mistake, but he wasn't exactly apologetic.  BENJAMIN NETANYAHU [ENGLISH TRANSLATOR]: Unfortunately, in the last day there was a tragic case of our forces unintentionally hitting innocent people in the Gaza Strip. This happens in wartime.  COLBERT: Nothing just happens. You are responsible. If your answer is, "This happens in war," then maybe consider ending the war because this is not an isolated incident. On top of the thousands and thousands of innocent lives that have been lost, more than 200 aid workers have been killed in Gaza since the war began. 

ABC News Is Most Displeased With Pace of Trump Documents Trial

The folks over at ABC World News Tonight appear to be vexed and frustrated with the pace of the Trump documents trial, and are beginning to voice their frustrations over it. Worse, they are echoing what seem to be Biden talking points in the process. Watch the report/venting in its entirety, as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Wednesday, April 4th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: We turn now to Donald Trump tonight, and Special Counsel Jack Smith signaling his frustration with the Florida judge overseeing the classified documents case. Smith calling a key decision by the judge, quote, “fundamentally flawed”. Here's Pierre Thomas. PIERRE THOMAS: Tonight, in an extraordinary filing, Special Counsel Jack Smith increasingly frustrated with the Florida judge's handling of the classified documents case, urging her to move the trial forward. Smith bluntly telling Judge Aileen Cannon -- who was appointed by Donald Trump -- that her decision to even consider Trump's claim that he could just declare classified documents to be his personal papers was "fundamentally flawed." Smith's unusually critical language came in response to Judge Cannon's suggestion that she might instruct the jury to take into account Trump's claims that the classified documents were his personal property. Smith writing that such a "legal premise is wrong" and "would distort the trial." And he's urging Judge Cannon to explain her position as soon as possible, making it clear he’s ready to appeal to a higher court. Critics of the judge wonder if she's delaying on purpose to help Donald Trump. An example of just how long some of these decisions are taking -- there was a hearing 34 days ago to discuss when the trial should begin. David, Judge Cannon still has not announced a decision.  MUIR: You’ll continue to follow it for sure. Pierre Thomas, tonight. Pierre, thank you.  The script for this report might as well have come from the Special Counsel’s office. There are the multiple expressions of Jack Smith’s frustration. There’s the early mention of Judge Cannon as a Trump appointee. Notice also the criticism of Judge Cannon’s rulings- but there is no legal expert brought in to go over the factual bases that underlie such an objection.  The entire focus of this report is on the thoughts and feelings of one Jack Smith. ABC News would like you to know that Smith is frustrated, Smith is critical, Smith is urging the judge to rule in his motions and not liking the Judge’s rationale for not yet having done so. All of this is before Pierre Thomas says, “Critics of the judge wonder if she's delaying on purpose to help Donald Trump.” Once again, the old “critics say” dodge rears its ugly head. As we always say: If it weren’t for regime media, there would be none at all.  

NewsBusters Podcast: A Fevered, Frenzied, Frazzled Media War on Trump

Once again in 2024, journalists need to justify treating Trump as a deadly bubonic plague, an impending Hitler. Treating him as one side of an election is dangerous when he is the End of Democracy. Then they claim they only have a bias in favor of Truth. Yes, they're totally not favoring the Democrats with this foam-flecked Evil Trump coverage. On April 1, the New York Times podcast The Daily tackled the "Trump Problem," which they defined as this: Why must we deal with business executives who want us to treat Trump and his voters like they are normal citizens and not a Death Star for Democracy? Host Michael Barbaro asked Times political reporter Jim Rutenberg about the impression Republicans have that the media are wearing a "jersey" for Team Biden in all of their hostility to Trump. Rutenberg's reply was simply awful: “No one wants to be wearing a jersey on our business. But maybe what they really have to accept is that we’re just sticking to the true facts, and that may look like we’re wearing a jersey, but we’re not. And that may, at times, look like it’s lining up more with the Democrats, but we’re not. If Trump is lying about a stolen election, that’s not siding against him. That’s siding for the truth, and that’s what we’re doing." This podcast airs on more than 300 "public" radio stations, which underlines how NPR is one big liberal sandbox. It wasn't even the only NPR talk program making this preposterous argument. Over on 1A [for First Amendment, get it?] from northwest D.C. at WAMU-FM, co-host Todd Zwillich offered a similar awful spin: “I think that you're seeing increasingly, luckily, journalists who cover politics realize they're not in the old game anymore, that neutrality doesn't only not serve them anymore, but doesn't serve the public anymore. It doesn't mean being partisan. It doesn't mean you're for one side. It means you're for truth.” Meanwhile, Joy Reid is comparing Trump and his followers to apocalyptic cults from David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Charles Manson. Is that what they mean as being "for truth"?  Both shows never touched on the Hunter Biden laptop or any other issue where the media suppressed and disparaged true stories. When they couldn't suppress it, they lied about it, claiming it had "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation." Then, in 2022, the New York Times and other leftist outlets admitted the laptop was a real thing. This apparently isn't supposed to dent their "we're not for Democrats, we're for truth" spins. Right before the election, NPR executive Terence Samuel infamously dismissed the Hunter scandal: “We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories.” It was a “pure distraction.” It was, he said, a "politically driven event." As if all of their wild caricatures and speculations about Trump aren't "politically driven"?  Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.  

CNN Panel Melts Down When Conservative Brings Up Obama’s Cult of Personality

Wednesday’s CNN This Morning twice devolved into hysterical bewilderment among the three liberals on-set when conservative strategist and former Tim Scott 2024 adviser Matt Gorman responded to the left’s pearl clutching around fervent support for Donald Trump by reminding them of the cult of personality that surrounded Barack Obama. Host Kasie Hunt premised the discussion around a New York Times piece from reporter Michael Bender that claimed Trump supporters belong to the “Church of Trump” that views Trump as a deity and the repugnant smear of non-Democrat Christians by Tim Alberta in his finger-wagging book.     Gorman said he saw this whole take “a little bit different”, but Hunt tried to have him badmouth Republican voters by wondering what he made of “people view[ing] Trump as a seemingly — or treat him like a seemingly Christ-like figure when..the Bible specifically says, like, you’re not supposed to do that.” Gorman then dropped the truth bomb: “But I will say this though, in a — in a secular sort of way, not in an evangelical directly away, you saw Obama treated like this.” Having left a grimacing look of disgust from liberal Washington Post reporter Toluse Olorunnipa and liberal panelist Karen Finney mumbling in disagreement, Gorman further unspooled: [Y]es, absolutely. Absolutely. There was a sort of — people — not an — not an evangelical, religious way...But, look, I will say this, when you are president of your party and you’re a leader of your party, there is among — a base where it is a social — it is a secular deification in a way. It is. Yes. In contrast, Finney went the way Hunt wanted by repeatedly invoking Alberta’s book and arguing Trump’s “perverting the words of God” with his rhetoric in this campaign having turned “frightening” after, in 2016, merely running to appease “a cadre of voters who were afraid of a changing America...by demonizing...black and brown people and immigrants”. “Well, he has said in the past that has favorite Bible verse is an eye for an eye, which is firmly in the Old Testament, not the New,” Hunt replied. The conversation then changed to a cockamamie narrative that, because there’s comparisons that have been made between Trump and Jesus, that Christian women will abandon Trump.  Thankfully, Gorman wasn’t having any of this and lambasted Finney for this absurdity that, after having been on the political scene for nearly a decade, a whole block of voters will abandon Trump (click “expand”): FINNEY: And you can see that they were — that — in the Iowa caucus we did see that that — the ad that we’ve played here before, that was likening the birth of Trump to the birth of Jesus — right — where he literally compared it — HUNT: Right. FINNEY: — there have been evangelicals who have said, Okay, that’s too far. And Tim Alberta, in his book, talks about how some in the evangelical movement have — had — are uncomfortable with this fusion and perversion of the teachings. HUNT: Matt, do you agree? GORMAN: No, because, look, like I — FINNEY: Of course not.  GORMAN: — look, I — no, no — FINNEY: You’re a Republican. Why would you agree with me? GORMAN: — of course not. But like — but I think the ad in the Republican primary, where there’s a trust among Republicans is a little different. When you get to a general election, that — that choice will fuse. I don’t think you’re going to see Biden evangelical votes in Iowa suddenly gaining steam here. Look, he’s not going to — FINNEY: Yes, but I think they could not vote for him. GORMAN: — he’s not going to lose — he’s not going to lose any votes off that. You know, I think it’s — that’s a winning issue for us? HUNT: You don’t think he’s going to lose any votes off that? GORMAN: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. That is a winning issue for him and press that advantage if you’re Trump. FINNEY: So you think suburban women — let’s go back to them — GORMAN: Yes. FINNEY: — are comfortable with Donald Trump comparing — GORMAN: Those — FINNEY: — no, no, no, let me finish —  GORMAN: Yes. FINNEY: — are comfortable with him — literally saying, I’m your god.  GORMAN: I want to meet those — FINNEY: I don’t think so. Please show me those voters. GORMAN: — those are suburban women who all of a sudden see that — that one thing, like, you know what, now I’m turned off. They — after almost a decade of this, that’s going to break it? FINNEY: No, it’s not just that. GORMAN: Yeah. FINNEY: What that shows is someone who will do anything to win, who has no boundaries, who has no sense of decency, who has no sense of what’s appropriate, what’s not appropriate. He will do anything to win. If it means comparing himself to God, that’s what he’ll do[.] (....) GORMAN: [W]e’ve been having the same conversation for a decade. Like, again, we talk about meanness. This is the same sort of thing that Hillary Clinton talked about. I just suddenly wonder that, you know, suddenly, in the year 2024, after Donald Trump’s been on the — for — this for a decade that people are going to wake up and be like, you know what? Now he’s too mean. You know what? I was going to vote for him, but, you know what? That one thing, no. This thing is big.  Hunt returned back to the cult of personality, granting it to Trump supporters because he’s “treated....totally different than other political candidates” but not for Obama because while “people got — were very excited about Obama, but — but it was secular and political”. Spoken like a former Obama Zombie herself, Finney concurred the support for Obama “was hopeful” and what that warm fuzziness “said about the country, that maybe we had moved to a [better] place” whereas Trump’s movement has been “about grievance and retribution”. Hunt called this “definitely objectively true” as “hope and change is not the same as” a movement of “grievance.” Gorman closed with what should be a basic observation of history and politics that “popular presidents...always have a certain cult of personality around them” (and especially in their own parties), so no one should “act like this suddenly” is new with Trump voters. Hunt had said Gorman would have the last word, but she took that back to defend Obama’s honor: “Yeah, but the shoot — you know, his — I could shoot people on Fifth Avenue and my base would still be with me. There is something about him that is different from Reagan and Obama.” To see the relevant CNN transcript from April 3, click here.

Taibbi’s Warning to NBC: Here’s Evidence Uncovering the Censorship Industrial Complex

Independent journalist Matt Taibbi has taken on deniers of government-private partnerships against free speech in a recent Twitter Files report. Taibbi issued the new report in response to NBC News smears accusing Taibbi, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk of shutting down vital government “disinformation” efforts with a “conspiracy theory.” Despite NBC News’s claims, Taibbi provided alleged documentation which showed clear and defined partnerships between federal agencies and private entities to coordinate censorship with social media platforms. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) were among those federal agencies. On March 27, Taibbi wrote in his Racket News piece, “Three separate investigations took over a year to nail down the case that government agencies were improperly censoring by proxy. Forced by courts to stop, they're desperately trying for a reboot.” His expose comes soon after a CBS News’s 60 Minutes segment tried to argue that private entities did not collude with the government to censor speech. The segment included comments from government censorship proxy Kate Starbird. Taibbi posted screenshots on X to support his case. These included evidence of the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), with which Starbird was involved, flagging content seemingly on behalf of the government for social media to censor. A message to DHS/CISA employee Brian Scully (the sender was unspecified) expressed regret “you won’t be joining us at Twitter.” This makes sense in light of earlier 2020 emails, one of which, from Twitter’s legal executive Stacia Cardille, declared “DHS want [sic] to establish a centralized portal for reporting disinformation.” Scully, who was cited as having ties to multiple federal agencies, was apparently a key player on the subject, which specifically aimed to undermine election-related information. The FBI was also implicated in many ways, per Taibbi, including through an email from agent Elvis Chan telling then-trust and safety head at Twitter Yoel Roth to set a date to share certain information. Roth promised, “We’ll discuss and get back to you.” In another message Taibbi shared, Roth voiced reservations about sharing information that he deemed more appropriate for a congressional investigation than an FBI request. Roth also protested the proposed DHS portal as “high-risk.” A congressional finding, Taibbi did not say from where, showed that DHS was involved with the portal behind the scenes. There was also an FBI letter to Twitter demanding information on metrics and how the platform “limit[ed] the scope of your analysis of the domestic, scam, foreign state, official propaganda, and white supremacist actors.” 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.

PBS Pampers Whitmer, Talks of Democrats 'Fantasizing' About Her Replacing Biden

The PBS NewsHour interviewed Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-Michigan) on Monday night, and the mild online headline was “Gov. Whitmer discusses Democrats’ efforts to protect reproductive rights.” Anchor Amna Nawaz’s questions, if they were at all challenging, sounded like a worried Biden voter that there’s low enthusiasm and not enough courting of the party’s hard left. On abortion, Nawaz channeled the Planned Parenthood crowd and their laments Biden doesn’t proudly use the A-word: NAWAZ: You clearly and other Democratic leaders also believe this is a key issue in mobilizing Democrats, also independents. You have said previously that maybe President Biden should speak about reproductive rights and should say the word abortion more frequently than he does. He's displayed some discomfort with that, changing the language even in the State of the Union to avoid saying that word. If this is such a key issue for Democrats, does his reluctance to say that word hurt him politically? Then the anchor with Pakistani origins picked up the Israel-hating leftist voters who chose “Uncommitted” in Michigan’s primary and call the president “Genocide Joe.” Nawaz asked if Biden could “overcome some of the weaknesses we have seen President Biden displayed so far, especially with those more than 100,000 people in the primaries voting uncommitted?” Then she followed up: "As you know, those more than 100,000 people, though, were voting as a protest to oppose President Biden's stance in Israel, their conduct in the war in Gaza. They were doing it to send a message. I guess, as one of the co-chairs of the Biden/Harris reelection campaign, where would you point those protesters to say 'they heard you, they see you?'" She didn't ask" "Some imams in Dearborn have said they want to kill all the Jews? Are you proud to have their votes?" The funniest Whitmer answer came when Nawaz touted a New York Times columnist forwarding “fantasizing” that Whitmer could replace Biden this year: NAWAZ: As you know, Governor, you're seen as a rising leader in your Democratic Party. There was a recent New York Times column by Michelle Goldberg I want to ask you about, because she wrote this. She said — quote — "There are many reasons that people regularly fantasize about Whitmer replacing Biden on this year's ticket and, assuming that doesn't happen, see her as a likely presidential prospect in 2028. She insists she's not interested, but few seem to believe her" — end quote. I want to ask you, how much of that speculation do you think is fueled by what we know is low enthusiasm and dissatisfaction for the Democratic candidate in President Biden right now? And how does that change before November? WHITMER: You know, I don't know. I didn't read the article. Yeah, sure, you didn’t read the article! (Push the Lie buzzer!) Like Kamala Harris, Whitmer made noises about how proud she is to be by Biden’s side. What might a Republican ask Whitmer? That’s a good way to figure out what PBS was never gonna ask!

Pro-Terror? Sunny Hostin Demands U.S. Abandon Israel, Give Hamas the W

The View’s staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) came off as rather pro-Hamas during Wednesday’s edition of the show as she demanded that the United States abandon Israel and allow them to lose the war; giving the win to the genocidal terrorists. The ABC co-host also didn’t seem to care about the Israeli and American hostages being held hostage by Hamas. Hostin’s anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism flared during a discussion where the rest of the cast was commending Hillary Clinton for telling the pro-Hamas voters in Michigan and Wisconsin to get over themselves and vote for President Biden. Speaking “as an Arab-American,” faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin didn’t like Clinton’s verbiage but argued: “[Y]ou really think Donald Trump would handle Gaza better than Joe Biden? If he thought, it was politically advantageous he would level Gaza without a second thought.” Co-host Joy Behar warned that the Trump administration negotiated peace in the Middle East via “the Abraham Accords and he moved the United States embassy to Jerusalem. So, he is the most pro-Israel president running right now, more than Biden.” What Hostin took issue with was how the rest of the cast thought it was an easy decision for the pro-Hamas voters to side with Biden over Trump. “I don't think you can tell people whose families have been killed; whole entire lines of their families have been murdered, over 32,000 people, women and children, the majority that, ‘well, but if Trump wins it would be [worse],’” she decried.     Siding with the United Nations against America and Israel (and citing them as if they had any moral authority on anything), Hostin insisted the U.S. was “complicit” with “murder.” “[T]hat is because the United States sends $3.8 billion worth of aid to Israel and that also including arming them,” she whined. Citing unnamed “social sciences,” Hostin argued that, “if the United States stopped providing that aid, the war would be over…in three days.” The outcome she was advocating for in that scenario would allow Hamas to survive, regroup, and essentially give them a victory. In a surprisingly snappy rebuttal, Behar shot back with: “You know when the war would be over? If Hamas would release the hostages. That's when the war would be over, Sunny.” Hostin did see hope for her anti-Israel fantasy: “I think Joe Biden is listening, because now at the U.N., my understanding is that while they have voted for a ceasefire, the United States instead of vetoing that vote, they just abstained. And so there is movement. I think that pressure is working.” Questioning the “humanity” of those who disagreed with her, Hostin also falsely claimed the Israeli Defense Forces were intentionally targeting and killing humanitarian aid workers. “We had Jose Andres on our show who said, food and water is a human right. His very foundation was targeted by the Israeli government and seven people died,” she falsely shouted. “They weren't targeted…That's actually a mistake,” co-host Sara Haines pushed back. Haines also praised Clinton’s chides of Biden’s critics. “It is really nice to watch Hillary Clinton not hold back,” she boasted. “So, I get what she's saying but at this point it is ‘get over yourself!’ It's a bipartisan system and you cannot change it!” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 3, 2024 11:03:46 a.m. Eastern (…) ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Here's the thing, based on Michigan and Wisconsin results we know that the protest vote, the sort of ceasefire kind of votes in Michigan, were more than the margin of victory that Joe Biden won Michigan in 2020. So, this is very real. And I think you have a right, I believe a protest vote is part of democracy. I think it's a good way to make your voice heard, but I would say to these folks and these are Democrat, I'm a Republican, take it or leave it. But as an Arab-American you really think Donald Trump would handle Gaza better than Joe Biden? If he thought, it was politically advantageous he would level Gaza without a second thought. And I think, unfortunately, we live in a binary world. I’m conflicted right now because I don't like either option. But you have to think what are the long-term repercussions for what matters most to you. And I think it would be a mistake for these folks to sit it out because it’s not in their interest. JOY BEHAR: People need to understand he [Donald Trump] negotiated the Abraham Accords and he moved the United States embassy to Jerusalem. So, he is the most pro-Israel president running right now, more than Biden. So, these people on the left who are protesting that they should, at least, know that which is what you're saying and I'm just reiterating it. FARAH GRIFFIN: And I just want to correct; it's approaching Biden's margin of victory in Michigan. It's 100,000 votes. (…) 11:07:04 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: Now, these people who are on the fence, what are you thinking?! This is what Hillary is trying to say to people. What are you thinking?! There is no choice here! You have a man, Joe Biden is a good person. He understands grief. He's lost a child. He's lost two children. He lost a wife. He's compassionate. He feels for Americans. This guy [Trump], he's a psychopath. SARA HAINES: It is really nice to watch Hillary Clinton not hold back. And for this reason, we are seeing more actual Hillary Clinton since she stopped running and actively participating as a candidate herself. She’s literally saying, obviously, like it's a privilege to have more parties – I as an independent really wish we had more parties in general, not this election. So, I get what she's saying but at this point it is ‘get over yourself!’ It's a bipartisan system and you cannot change it! FARAH GRIFFIN: I don't think that's going to work with Michigan with really, really angry voters. And I'm on the other side of the conflict. HAINES: But the point you made about Trump being pro-Israel – really quick, Sunny. He also wouldn't send aid at all. So, it's not just that he would annihilate Gaza and everywhere else, he would be saying don't even put trucks in there so they will get -- anyone pushing back on Biden's take is going to get ten times worse with Donald Trump. SUNNY HOSTIN: That's right but I don't think you can tell people whose families have been killed; whole entire lines of their families have been murdered, over 32,000 people, women and children, the majority that, ‘well, but if Trump wins it would be better.’ The problem here is – HAINES: It would be worse. BEHAR: It would be worse. HOSTIN: It would be worse. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Worse. HOSTIN: The problem here is that they are making themselves known. Michigan has about 200,000 Muslim voters. They are losing their family members. And the United States, the U.N. has found is complicit in that; and that is because the United States sends $3.8 billion worth of aid to Israel and that also including arming them. Social sciences have found that if the United States stopped providing that aid, the war would be over – FARAH GRIFFIN: To be clear, the Israelis are – HOSTIN: Let me just finish this. The war would be over in three days. BEHAR: You know when the war would be over? If Hamas would release the hostages. That's when the war would be over, Sunny. [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: No. But the issue is, those votes matter -- will matter, and I think Joe Biden is listening, because now at the U.N., my understanding is that while they have voted for a ceasefire, the United States instead of vetoing that vote, they just abstained. And so there is movement. I think that pressure is working. And I think if you have any shred of humanity, you must understand that those people are losing their entire families, lines and lines of families, and it's a humanitarian crisis. We had Jose Andres on our show who said, food and water is a human right. GOLDBERG: Yes. HOSTIN: His very foundation was targeted by the Israeli government and seven people died. HAINES: They weren't targeted. [inaudible] That's actually a mistake. (…)

Checking the Black Box

Two men with decidedly different political outlooks have been my go-to sources on race in America. They are Dr. Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr., professor and director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University. Dr. Gates has just published his latest book, “The Black Box.” The title is a reference to a box on hospital forms for newborns which one must check to confirm their race. Gates rightly calls this an “absurdity,” largely because there are no racial “purebreds,” and regardless of how we look on the outside, we are all equal on the inside. My first reaction upon reading his book was surprise that I didn’t learn much of what he writes about in high school or college. My second reaction was anger because I didn’t. One reason, I think, is that all of my teachers were white and textbooks sanitized the past in order to promote a “my country right or wrong” patriotic narrative. Dr. Gates uses the black box as a metaphor for how African Americans were once “locked in” when it came to expressing themselves in writings and, in some instances, locked themselves in by accepting this type of racial censorship as “the way it is.” As with his other books and PBS films, Dr. Gates exposes not only the thoughts and beliefs of some of the nation’s Founders, but of equal importance he uncovers the works of African American slaves and other Black people who were often censored by white society. It is hard to believe in today’s world that the writings of some Black authors had to be validated by committees made up of white people, the rationale being that many believed “Negroes” too dumb to be able to express themselves. The opposite, of course, is true as the author brilliantly shows us. Practically everyone knows about Thomas Jefferson’s flaming phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” but how many know Jefferson’s beliefs about Black people? In his “Notes on the State of Virginia” (1785), Jefferson claimed their racial features, intellect and morals were “fixed in human nature” and so must necessarily be ruled over “by the fine mixtures of red and white.” There’s more from that work and it’s even worse. “Consider this paradox,” Dr. Gates writes: “Blackness was an arbitrary category invented by Europeans and Americans in the Enlightenment to justify the horror show of Black subjugation … the very concept of race is the child of racism.” Thanks to advances in DNA research, “what we popularly call ‘race’ is a social construct.” As has been said by others, the only true race is the human race. About “The Philosophy of History,” published in 1837, Dr. Gates writes, “G.W.F. Hegel wrote that Africa ‘is no historical part of the World; it has no movement or development to exhibit.’” Hegel claimed – falsely – “that Africa lacked a tradition of writing, either in European languages or indigenous African languages … (like others) He ignored the Black written tradition in Arabic at the University of Timbuktu. It didn’t fit his thesis.” It didn’t fit his thesis could be said about supporters and practitioners of the slave trade and Jim Crow laws that kept Blacks from voting in the South. “The Black Box,” along with the writings of Thomas Sowell, ought to be mandatory reading in every high school and American University, in large part to make up for the suppressed writings of talented and intelligent Black people of the past. They deserve the attention and praise most were denied in their time.

Citation Needed: Reid Claims Oklahoma Doesn't Want To Teach Tulsa Massacre

MSNBC’s Joy Reid closed out the Tuesday edition of The ReidOut by welcoming Damario Solomon-Simmons, an attorney representing survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre who are seeking reparations. During the interview, Reid claimed, without any evidence, that Oklahoma is seeking to ban teaching about the massacre. Reid claimed that “Oklahoma is a state that is not exactly in favor of telling all of the history, as that justice made it clear, they don't do that.” She then asked, “What do you make of the fact that even now you have some Oklahoma officials who are trying to ban history that would include the history of the Tulsa massacre, even as your case is going on?”     The Tulsa Race Massacre has been part of Oklahoma education standards since 2002. In 2019, the state made those requirements even more specific. What Reid is probably trying to say, in her usual dishonest way, is that anti-Critical Race Theory laws that ensure that today’s students are not made to feel responsible for yesterday’s crimes are somehow stifling teachers, which makes no sense given the standards explicit mention of the massacre. For his part, Solomon-Simmons tried to portray this fake controversy about history in schools to real struggles for civil rights in previous decades: You know, Joy, I remember 20, 25 years ago, when I was in college, a freshman, myself in college, I was thinking man, I wish I was born, you know, during the 60s and fight those fights. I never thought I'd be fighting the same type of things today and that’s what we are actually doing and it's sad and, you know, I speak to my 88-year-old father-in-law, who just turned 88 a couple of weeks ago, Aubrey Winston and I was saying ‘man, can you believe we are still dealing with the stuff you were dealing with growing up in the 40s and 50s’ and, you know, it’s, kind of, disheartening but, at the same time, I'm blessed to stand on the shoulders of the ancestors who have gone through so much more.  The comparison was crazy enough that Solomon-Simmons implied that he didn’t actually believe it, “I mean, your great new book Medgar Evers and the love with his beautiful wife, Mrs. Evers, I’ve reading that just thinking about this man with fighting in Mississippi in the 50s and the 60s when houses were being bombed, people were getting shot at, he was assassinated, so as hard as it is right now for us, it really pales in comparison of our ancestors.” The duo deciding to lament non-existent history bans suggests they missed the day when their teachers went over the importance of citing your sources. Here is a transcript for the April 2 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 4/2/2024 7:59 PM ET JOY REID: You obviously, Oklahoma is a state that is not exactly in favor of telling all of the history, as that justice made it clear, they don't do that. What do you make of the fact that even now you have some Oklahoma officials who are trying to ban history that would include the history of the Tulsa massacre, even as your case is going on? DAMARIO SOLOMON-SIMMONS: You know, Joy, I remember 20, 25 years ago, when I was in college, a freshman, myself in college, I was thinking man, I wish I was born, you know, during the 60s and fight those fights. I never thought I'd be fighting the same type of things today and that’s what we are actually doing and it's sad and, you know, I speak to my 88-year-old father-in-law, who just turned 88 a couple of weeks ago, Aubrey Winston and I was saying “man, can you believe we are still dealing with the stuff you were dealing with growing up in the 40s and 50s” and, you know, it’s, kind of, disheartening but, at the same time, I'm blessed to stand on the shoulders of the ancestors who have gone through so much more.  I mean, your great new book Medgar Evers and the love with his beautiful wife, Mrs. Evers, I’ve reading that just thinking about this man with fighting in Mississippi in the 50s and the 60s when houses were being bombed, people were getting shot at, he was assassinated, so as hard as it is right now for us, it really pales in comparison of our ancestors and I’m glad to stand on their shoulders to try to make life better for African-Americans and for this entire country.

Canadian Man Wants To Travel to Tex. To Get a Vagina, Still Wants to Keep Penis

Have you ever desired to have both a penis and a vagina? An Ontario man referred to as K.S. is seeking to undergo a vaginoplasty while also keeping his penis intact at a gender-affirming hospital in Austin, Texas. Being that he’s “literally a mix” of genders, the man is in the middle of a court battle to force his Ontario insurance to pay for the procedure. According to the National Post, the case “reflects a small but growing demand for niche surgeries for people who identify as non-binary, meaning neither exclusively female nor exclusively male.” K.S. presents more as a female but says he doesn’t feel fully female, hence why he wants to keep his penis. In 2022, when K.S. initially requested the procedure, his Ontario’s Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) denied his request for a penis-sparing vaginoplasty that would be performed at the Crane Center for Transgender Surgery in Austin. He could get it done, but the insurance wouldn’t fund it. Related: Celebrating Sin: Drag Jesus, Transgender Bunnies & LIES Obviously, this wasn’t the answer K.S. hoped for, so he complained to Ontario’s Health Services Appeal and Review Board which insisted that OHIP was wrong in its decision. The board ruled that “a vaginoplasty is among the 11 external genital surgeries listed for public coverage, and that it shouldn’t inherently include a penectomy,” the National Post added. K.S., who is now 33, has apparently struggled with his identity since he was a teen and “doesn’t completely align with either the male or female genders.” His doctor noted how important it was for K.S. to have both a penis and a vagina.  “It is very important for [K.S.] to have a vagina for her personal interpretation of her gender expression but she also wishes to maintain her penis,” the doctor wrote in a letter to OHIP adding that K.S. "is transfeminine but not completely on the ‘feminine’ end of the spectrum [and] for this reason it’s important for her to have a vagina while maintaining a penis.” I don’t even know how that would work - but then again, I don’t want to have to visualize anything to try and find out.  “K.S. argued that forcing a non-binary person to undergo binary surgery — male to female, or female to male — would only exacerbate her gender dysphoria and would be akin to an act of conversion therapy,” the National Post reported. Additionally, K.S. wants to keep his penis out of concern for the “urological rerouting.” Kinda funny that K.S. is worried about possible complications, given that walking into this sort of elective procedure is asking for complications. The case has now been moved up to Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice, but no official decision has been made about whether or not K.S.’s desires will be covered by insurance. I’m absolutely flabbergasted that this is even a story and dumbfounded at the fact that it isn’t made up, but instead that someone is so delusional and out of touch with reality that they think this is a normal desire. Follow us on Twitter/X: MRCTV's @tierin_rose joins OAN to talk The White House's transgender Easter celebration, grandpa's chestfeeding, and Lizzo's retirement. pic.twitter.com/ohZmKlr7jg — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 3, 2024

Guthrie: NBC Hiring McDaniel Crossed 'The Line,' Bosses Admitted 'Mistake'

NBC’s Today anchor Savannah Guthrie traveled to CBS and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Tuesday to promote her new book, but before that, Colbert couldn’t help but ask about Ronna McDaniel-gate.  Guthrie claimed that the NBC brass “acknowledged a mistake” in hiring the former RNC chairwoman because “there’s a line and the line is truth.” A half-sincere, half-joking Colbert asked, “Well, one of the big stories about NBC and about NBC News recently was the hiring of and firing of Ronna McDaniel, who used to be head of the RNC, and so my question for you is why did you, Savannah Guthrie, personally make that decision to hire her? I want you to answer for your crimes. Why did you think that was the best idea?”     After some crosstalk and jests where Guthrie insisted she was still employed by NBC and therefore not going to say anything too crazy, she recalled, “No, I mean, look, it was an unpleasant few days at our network. No question about it.” Colbert followed up by wondering, “Did you know this was going to happen?” After Guthrie replied “absolutely not,” he repeated himself, “So, there was no, like, company-wide email saying 'oh, heads-up, tomorrow we're going to announce this?'” Guthrie recalled, “No, no, no, I was not in the know. I knew nothing about it and, look, the bosses made a decision, they reversed that decision, they acknowledged a mistake, and we moved on, and the only thing I'll say about it is number one, I didn't have anything to do with it.” Paying lip service to the idea that outlets like NBC should have a variety of voices, Guthrie continued, “But look, I think the instinct to try to have a diversity of opinions and a diversity of perspectives and voices as we cover an election is the right instinct, and it's complex, and it's made more complex by the politics that we have right now, but, you know, I went to law school. In law school, we learned that if you didn't engage the counterargument, if you didn't know what all sides were saying, your own position was quite weak.” However, she was still glad to see that McDaniel was eventually let go, “So, I feel that particularly in mainstream media, we need to include an array of voices. But there's a line, and the line is truth. The line is facts and the line is you have to be someone upholding our democracy and that’s to me where the line is.” That would be more credible if NBC/MSNBC followed up by hiring at least one consistent conservative voice or didn't spread false information on a regular basis, if the media didn’t routinely freak out about conservative hires, or didn’t play nice with Democratic election deniers. The Late Show, meanwhile, never has any conservative voices unless Colbert ends up getting more than he bargained for when speaking to Liz Cheney. Here is a transcript for the April 2 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 4/3/2024 12:06 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Well, one of the big stories about NBC and about NBC News recently was the hiring of and firing of Ronna McDaniel, who used to be head of the RNC, and so my question for you is why did you, Savannah Guthrie, personally make that decision to hire her? SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: I’m glad that you— COLBERT: I want you to answer for your crimes. Why did you think that was the best idea?  GUTHRIE: I'm glad you have given me this platform— COLBERT: Thank you. GUTHRIE: Let me see if I can make this as boring as possible, this answer and I do still work there, you know that, right?  COLBERT: Sure, yeah. I do. I do. GUTHRIE: Do you have any openings around here? COLBERT: Yeah. So, yeah. GUTHRIE: No, I mean, look, it was an unpleasant few days at our network. No question about it. COLBERT: Did you know this was going to happen?  GUTHRIE: Absolutely not.  COLBERT: So, there was no, like, company-wide email saying “oh, heads-up, tomorrow we're going to announce this?” GUTHRIE: No, no, no, I was not in the know. I knew nothing about it and, look, the bosses made a decision, they reversed that decision, they acknowledged a mistake and, we moved on, and the only thing I'll say about it is number one, I didn't have anything to do with it.  But look, I think the instinct to try to have a diversity of opinions and a diversity of perspectives and voices as we cover an election is the right instinct, and it's complex, and it's made more complex by the politics that we have right now, but, you know, I went to law school. In law school, we learned that if you didn't engage the counterargument, if you didn't know what all sides were saying, your own position was quite weak.  So, I feel that particularly in mainstream media, we need to include an array of voices. But there's a line, and the line is truth. The line is facts and the line is you have to be someone upholding our democracy and that’s to me where the line is. 

VILE: WH Reporters Gang Up to Smear Israel Over World Central Kitchen Tragedy

Sadly, the virulently anti-Israel pockets of the White House press corps took center stage on Tuesday during the first briefing since what appeared to have been a horrible, tragic accident in which Israeli airstrikes killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza. Naturally, numerous reporters took the opportunity to claim without evidence that the ever-unrepentant Israel purposefully targeted these innocents in defiance of international law.     ABC’s Selina Wang was first to stray into this territory, though she was nowhere near as explicit as the others.  After first asking Kirby for his “reaction to” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying these kinds of tragedies happen in war (and Kirby saying the U.S. will look forward to a full investigation from Israel), Wang shot back by implicitly opining Netanyahu can’t be trusted and questioned why the U.S. “continue[s] to send aid to Israel without any conditions.” Kirby hit back at this take by noticing “we’ve had this discussion, you and me, quite a bit” and “you want us to hang some sort of condition over their neck”. He also told her Israel’s “still under a viable threat of Hamas” and the U.S., like Israel, believes another October 7 can’t “happen again”. To throw a bone to the anti-Israel left, Kirby reiterated “[t]hat doesn’t mean we’re — whistling past graveyard” and “not paying attention to — to the civilian casualties or the civilian suffering” in Gaza. Unlike Wang, The Hill’s Niall Stanage has been more explicit in his hate of Israel. He’s also from Northern Ireland, so it’s never been all that surprising when he tees off:  Just wanted to follow up with a question that came from the front row about the conditions of military aid and you said that the questioner wanted you to hang some conditions over their necks, that [of] the Israelis, and your tone suggested you wouldn’t do that. Why not? Kirby had to have recognized Stanage as a frequent flier as he showed a tinge of attitude as he replied in part “I’ve already answered this question a whole bunch of times”. Stanage then flew off the handle by arguing without evidence Israel engaged in premeditated murder of the World Central Kitchen workers in “violation of international humanitarian law”. As any sensible person would, Kirby wasn’t having it and slammed Stanage for claiming with “no evidence” this “was a deliberate strike” (click “expand”): STANAGE: But on the point of conditions, the President, on February 8, issued a memo and it said — you already know this, but just for context — it said that it was the policy of this administration to prevent arms transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. Is firing a missile of people who live in food and killing them not a violation of international humanitarian law? KIRBY: Well, the Israelis have already admitted that this was a mistake that they made. They’re doing investigation. They’ll get to the bottom of this. Let’s not get ahead of that. Your — your question presumes, at this very early hour, that it was a deliberate strike, that they knew exactly what they were hitting, that they were hitting aid workers and did it on purpose and there’s no evidence of that. I would also remind you, sir, that we continue to look at incidents as they occur. The State Department has a process in place and, to date as you and I are speaking, they have not found any incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law. And, lest you think we don’t take it seriously, I can assure you that we do. We look at this in real time. STANAGE: They have never violated international humanitarian law — ever — in the past five to six months? KIRBY: I’m telling you the State Department has looked at incidents in the past and has yet to determine that any of those incidents violate international humanitarian law. Always willing to openly promote Hamas propaganda, an angered Nadia Bilbassy of Saudi-funded Al Arabiya came next and had the gall to condemn Israel for killing Hamas leaders. She argued that Israeli strikes on Hamas officials in Lebanon and Syria, along with the World Central Kitchen tragedy “debunk[s]” his “theory and defense of Israel that it is difficult for them” to completely avoid civilian casualties “because Hamas embedded with the civilian population where they can go after Hamas leaders in the heart of the civilian population[s]”. While Jean-Pierre, Jake Sullivan, or Biden might budge, Kirby largely didn’t by saying he’s “talked about this for months now that fighting in an urban, high — highly populated, condensed environment like that’s tough” and the IDF has “successfully taken strikes against Hamas leaders in Gaza”, but an investigation will get to the bottom of what went wrong this time. Fast-forward to the end of the Kirby block and The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg demanded Kirby refute the assertion that, based on reporting from the left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the three strikes that hit the World Central Kitchen convoy were proof the workers “were targeted with the intent of killing everyone in that convoy.” Kirby remained level-headed as Feinberg twice pushed the claim this was intention and Israel should face “criminal penalties” (click “expand”): KIRBY: First of all, there’s an investigation going on, so why don’t we let it get done and why don’t we see what they find in terms of the decision making process that led to this terrible outcome? Prime Minister and the IDF have noted that it was their error. If you don’t like the word mistake, their error. They’re investigating it. Let ‘em do that work and let ‘em see what they come up wit and then we’ll go from there. FEINBERG: Sorry, one — one more, John. Two years ago, the IDF killed an Al Jazeera journalist. They said that that was a —a mistake, that she was wearing a mark press vest. She was shot anyway in that. KIRBY: They investigated it and they released the findings — their investigation which found that they were at fault. Go on. FEINBERG: They did, but my — my question, sir, is — in that case, these Israelis did not initiate any criminal proceeding. In this case if it’s found that marked convoy was deliberately targeted, if not with the first shot, but the second two shots, would the U.S. support criminal penalties? KIRBY: As I said, we would expect that, should there be a need for accountability, that account — accountability be properly put in place for whoever may be responsible for this, but again, that’s going to — a lot of that’s gonna depend on the investigation. To see the relevant transcript from the April 2 briefing, click here.

WATCH: Chris Plante Wrecks Biden’s Wildly Expensive, Deathly Slow EV Charger Rollout

Newsmax host Chris Plante took a look at how woefully unprepared President Joe Biden has left America with his forced green economic transition. On the April 1 edition of Chris Plante The Right Squad, Plante pointed out that the Biden administration had spent a fortune on electric vehicle chargers, but had almost nothing to show for it. “It’s been nearly two and a half years now since Joe Biden signed the bipartisan infrastructure law that allocated -- listen to this now -- $7.5 billion American taxpayer dollars to build electric vehicle charging stations across the country. And The Washington Post reported today that, to date as of today, just seven EV charging stations with a total of 38 spots in four states are now operational, according to the Federal Highway Administration,” Plante said. He summed up the brutal statistics: “So $7.5 billion  — two-and-a-half years — they've got seven charging stations and 38 plugins at I believe $197 million each.” Yikes.   One of Plante’s guests also went after the Biden EPA. Spectator Political Reporter Matthew Foldi told Plante that this slow rollout isn’t the first EV humiliation for the Biden Administration. “Remember Jen Granholm, the energy secretary's failed road trip? She couldn't charge. The cops were called,” Foldi said, before adding, “The Wall Street Journal reported on how EVs and other digital-controlled products open extra access to the grid, which enemies can exploit. There are huge problems.”  Foldi brought up the ridiculous dichotomy of the Biden Administration pushing the nation towards electric vehicles while failing to take into consideration the possibility of enemy threats. “There are huge problems we're not even thinking about if you make a massive push towards vehicle electrification, which they're sprinting to, but failing to do,” Foldi concluded. The Post reported that the $7.5 billion in funding ought to support “20,000 charging spots or around 5,000 stations,” rather than the 38 charging spots and 7 stations that have been created in reality. The newspaper, true to its leftist form, mourned that “the sluggish build-out could slow the transition to electric cars.” At the same time that the Biden Administration is failing at building electric chargers, the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) still plans to implement Biden’s destructive and tyrannical electric vehicle mandate. In a post on X, Forbes Media chairman and editor-in-chief Steve Forbes called out the Biden administration for its push to ban Americans’ preferred vehicles through emission regulations: “Make no mistake, @EPA’s rule will ultimately ban gas-powered cars by mandating 50% EV sales by 2032.” 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.

MSNBC's Jonathan Lemire Suggests Israel's Strike On Gaza Aid Workers Was Intentional

"This 'mistake' hit comes a day after the precision strike that killed the Iranian general in Syria. It's hard to reconcile those two things." That was Jonathan Lemire on today's Morning Joe. In saying that it's hard to "reconcile" Israel's "mistake" hit on the World Central Kitchen aid workers with the "precision" hit on the Iranian general, Lemire is hinting strongly this wasn't a mistake at all, but rather, an intentional act by Israel. As Israel has acknowledged, the strike was a "grave mistake." But while Lemire focused on the vehicles being well-marked with logos, he failed to mention that the strike happened at night -- when logos would be less visible, if visible at all.   MSNBC Republican Elise Jordan reacted angrily after Lemire said that, behind the scenes, Biden is furious at Netanyahu.  Said a visibly upset Jordan: "I'm so sick of hearing how upset President Biden is. The buck stops with him. If he wants to stop arms sales, if he wants to stop the bombs that are indiscriminately killing civilians, he can. He has the power. We don't need him and his aides going to reporters and talking on background about how upset they are." Meanwhile, Joe Scarborough claimed he was staunchly pro-Israel and then called for a "permanent cease-fire," while also calling for two things that a permanent cease-fire would make unlikely: the release of hostages and the elimination of Hamas.  If a permanent cease-fire were declared, the pressure on Hamas to release hostages would dissipate. And how would Scarborough expect Hamas to be eliminated if a permanent cease-fire—which would leave about one-quarter of its battalions intact—were declared?  Scarborough also called for a two-state solution. That is another practical impossibility, given the implacable rejection of the idea by an overwhelming proportion of Palestinians.  Just two days ago, the New York Times published an op-ed by Tareq Baconi, the president of the Palestinian Policy Network, entitled: "The Two-State Solution Is an Unjust, Impossible Fantasy."  Baconi ended his piece by declaring that the only solution is "A single state from the river to the sea." That equates to a call for the total destruction of the Jewish state of Israel. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 4/3/24 6:08 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: Israel, and the supporters of Israel, which I am, have been, always will be, will be fooling themselves if they don't think that the overwhelming number of Americans agree with Jose Andres, that this is just enough, and they need to focus on, on a permanent cease-fire. They need to focus, focus on getting the hostages home, and they need to focus on creating a world moving forward, without Hamas, and of course in Israel it will be without Benjamin Netanyahu, and maybe, just maybe then, we can take the first step of a thousand steps toward a two-state solution. . . .  JONATHAN LEMIRE: Those vehicles couldn't have been better marked. In fact, it looks like, from the footage of the destroyed van, one of the missiles went right through the logo of the World Central Kitchen. [Image of van displayed] Right there, and just killed everyone inside. And it should be noted to Richard's point earlier, this mistake hit comes a day after the precision strike that killed the Iranian general in Syria. It's hard to reconcile those two things. . . .  And now, Elise, we have a moment where the president, and this has been bubbling up behind the scenes for a while. President Biden, frankly, is furious at Prime Minister Netanyahu. But yet, still, his administration has not conditioned sales, weapons sales, has not conditioned aid. They haven't done it yet. Now, maybe,  this is the moment that comes. This also happens, we think, a week or two perhaps before this Rafah offensive, which really could be a flash point. ELISE JORDAN: Okay, I'm so sick of hearing how upset President Biden is. The buck stops with him. If he wants to stop arms sales, if he wants to stop the bombs that are indiscriminately killing civilians, he can. He has the power. We don't need him and his aides going to reporters and talking on background about how upset they are. What happened yesterday is still going to happen. 

Kyra Sedgwick and The View Hosts Worry About Climate Change over Drag Shows

I seriously wonder how this show is still running. On April Fools Day, the joke of the show that is ABC's The View had on actress Kyra Sedgwick to talk about her upcoming projects, voting, and her love of drag shows. Sedgwick and the hosts agreed that complaining about drag shows - even drag shows for kids - is not important but what is important is fighting against climate change. Keep in mind, it’s highly likely Sedgwick, who splits her time between her homes in L.A., Connecticut, and NYC, didn’t just walk to the set of The View in New York City. I wonder how her car, plane or train impacted our climate? Before the midpoint of the hour-long episode, host Ana Navarro told Brooklyn Nine-Nine’s Sedgwick that she’s “perfect.” “As if you weren’t perfect enough, you and I share a common interest: drag shows,” Navarro said before insisting that drag queens are under attack and added, “We just heard that you took your son to his first drag show when he was eight years old and they [drag shows] are under attack. How are you feeling about it right now?”     First of all, anyone who brings a minor, especially one that’s only eight freakin' years old, to a drag show should have their kids taken away from them. Introducing children to sexually explicit dances by men in fishnets is child abuse.  But not to the women on The View - or to Sedgwick, apparently. “I mean, it's so confusing to me. It's so shocking. It's just like one of the many things where I'm, like, really? This is the fight we're having?” Sedgwick said. Related: Celebrating Sin: Drag Jesus, Transgender Bunnies & LIES Then she went on to insist that we shouldn’t worry about drag queens indoctrinating, grooming, and traumatizing our kids when we’ve got climate change to fret about, saying, “Our planet is dying, like, we've got many other issues and fish to fry. It just seems so confusing to me. Who cares?”  Uh…those of us who care about the innocence and lives in general of kids care… Of course, the hosts and audience roared in approval of Sedgwick's conclusion.  I know. It's crazy to me and it's such a stunning art form and it's so beautiful and so joyful too. The reason why we took Travis is because it was so fun and funny and joyful and inclusive. Isn't that what we want for everybody? Men grinding on the floor in thongs, collecting dollar bills from little kids and sticking out their tongues in sexual manners is the furthest thing from “beautiful” that there is, and is absolutely not “joyful. It’s getting awfully sick that celebrities like Sedgwick are trying to convince people the opposite and that places like The View are giving her the platform to do it. Follow us on Twitter/X: The UK is discussing plans to force old people to sell their homes if they're deemed "too big" for them. If you think this level of tyranny can't come to the U.S., you're wrong. pic.twitter.com/3QdYbXuZMs — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 3, 2024

Daily Show Hypes Abortion, Allows For Fake News In Interview With Cruz Challenger

If you are a Democrat who wants a softball interview and the ability to spread fake news unchallenged, you go on a late night comedy program like Rep. Colin Allred going on Tuesday’s edition of The Daily Show to hype his campaign against Sen. Ted Cruz. Throughout the interview, host Desi Lydic would lob him easy questions about abortion and leave unchallenged his claims that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote, ban books, and ban certain hairstyles. Lydic wondered, “Texas was one of the first states to criminalize abortion. What would be your plans to protect and restore women's reproductive rights?”     Allred began his lengthy defense of abortion with a combination of strangeness and callousness as he cited the birth of his two sons, “My wife and I, we’ve had two boys in Dallas in the last five years. I went to every ultrasound appointment, every genetic testing and, you know, those rooms, when you're having those conversations with your doctor, they are too small to have somebody like Ted Cruz in there with you.” He also lamented that 26,000 babies were not given the death penalty for the sins of somebody else, “What's happening in Texas is really, it’s a tragedy. We've had 26,000 women who've had to give birth to their rapist's child since the laws have gone into place.” After some additional abortion promotion from Allred, Lydic hoped the issue might propel him to victory, “Voter turnout is going to be critical for you to flip the seat. It's been estimated that 9.5 million registered voters didn't vote in the last election. How will you encourage Texans to get out and vote and does it rhyme with ‘Schmashmortion’?”  Allred switched topics and instead suggested Republicans are trying to suppress the vote “As you mentioned, I was a civil rights lawyer, but I was a voting rights lawyer specifically before I ran for Congress and to me, there is nothing more important to getting, you know, Texans and our fellow Americans engaged in our democracy and in Texas, we make it way too difficult to vote, but I want folks to know, there's a reason why they're trying to make it harder for you to vote. Why are they trying to take your voice away? Why are they trying so hard to make it difficult for you to be engaged?” Despite his lamentations about alleged voter suppression, Allred also suggested that older voters’ opinions should not be taken as seriously as younger ones “? And to our young people, one of those things where you would not let your grandparents pick your playlist for the next six years. Don't let them pick your senator, right?” Lydic loved that analogy, “That is such a great way to put it. Yes.” Allred continued in his conspiracy theorizing, “They've taken away women's right to choose, the ability to make your own decisions about your body, they’re banning books, kicking kids out of school because of their hairstyle.” Nobody is banning books, and as for the hairstyle controversy, that was a school district—not the state—and the suspended student defended himself by citing a state law, although a judge ultimately ruled the school district acted legally, arguing it is permissible to regulate male hair length.   Not that Lydic cared, “I so appreciate the work you do and I so appreciate you being on the show tonight. I wish you the best of luck.”  Here is a transcript for the April 2 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 4/2/2024 11:26 PM ET DESI LYDIC: Texas was one of the first states to criminalize abortion. What would be your plans to protect and restore women's reproductive rights?  COLIN ALLRED: My wife and I, we’ve had two boys in Dallas in the last five years. I went to every ultrasound appointment, every genetic testing and, you know, those rooms, when you're having those conversations with your doctor, they are too small to have somebody like Ted Cruz in there with you.  What's happening in Texas is really, it’s a tragedy. We've had 26,000 women who've had to give birth to their rapist's child since the laws have gone into place. We've had stories of Kate Cox, a mother of two who had a pregnancy, she had to go to the emergency room four times. Her doctor said she did a medically necessary abortion and she asked her state, “can I have it close to home because I have a one and a 3-year-old at home” and they said, no and they didn't just say no, they said if you do this, we we’re going to prosecute you, your doctor, your hospital. We've counties saying you can't drive through the county, if you use the roads to access an abortion. I mean, that doesn't sound like freedom to me. I know one thing about us as Texans is that we believe in freedom and so to me, the only way we can restore this right to Texas women and families is at the federal level by codifying Roe v. Wade.  LYDIC: Voter turnout is going to be critical for you to flip the seat. It's been estimated that 9.5 million registered voters didn't vote in the last election. How will you encourage Texans to get out and vote and does it rhyme with "Schmashmortion"?  ALLRED: As you mentioned, I was a civil rights lawyer, but I was a voting rights lawyer specifically before I ran for Congress and to me, there is nothing more important to getting, you know, Texans and our fellow Americans engaged in our democracy and in Texas, we make it way too difficult to vote, but I want folks to know, there's a reason why they're trying to make it harder for you to vote. Why are they trying to take your voice away? Why are they trying so hard to make it difficult for you to be engaged? Don't let them do it. Right? And to our young people, one of those things where you would not let your grandparents pick your playlist for the next six years. Don't let them pick your senator, right?  LYDIC: That is such a great way to put it. Yes.  ALLRED: So, I mean, I think it’s also true that we have to talk about what's at stake. To me, in Texas, what is at stake is our fundamental freedoms. They've taken away women's right to choose, the ability to make your own decisions about your body, they’re banning books, kicking kids out of school because of their hairstyle.  I mean, to me, this is fundamentally about who we are as Texans and as Americans and we have to restore freedom in Texas and across this country and I think folks are going to come out and stand up for that.  LYDIC: I so appreciate the work you do and I so appreciate you being on the show tonight. I wish you the best of luck. 

Left-Wing Terrorists Kill 'Far Right' Conservatives on CBS's 'FBI'

On last night's episode of CBS's FBI, the villains were left-wing terrorists who had participated in anti-police riots. Tuesday's episode, "Behind the Veil," began with a bombing at a speech by fictional congresswoman Carol Jones. The bomb kills the congresswoman and much of her audience, as well as a child on the street outside the venue.   "Carol Jones. She's far-right, controversial," says an FBI agent who arrives at the scene of the crime. Any use of the words "far-right" on a network show is eye-rolling, because Hollywood thinks all conservatives are "far right." That makes the description meaningless. FBI is unique in that a past episode showed innocent conservatives being targeted by violent left-wing activists. In this week's episode, FBI analysts discover that the bomber, Gary Smalls, "served time for striking a cop in Portland during the George Floyd riots." Elise: But he's roughly 5'10", and I see the hand. Isobel: 1920. That's pretty specific. Jubal: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Check NCIC. Any matches? Kelly: Several, but only one that fits the bill. Gary Smalls, age 30. Served time for striking a cop in Portland during the George Floyd riots. Jubal: He's an anarchist, member of the so-called Revolution Front. Kelly: And according to court records, that tattoo is actually a reference to the bombing of Wall Street that happened that year. Jubal: Which killed 30 people. All right, does this bomb loving anarchist have an address?  During the 2020-2021 television season, network shows portrayed BLM "protests" as peaceful and righteous. After crime skyrocketed, those same dramas rarely spoke of the movement again. "Behind the Veil" is distinctive for discussing the violent George Floyd riots in the context of terrorism. Smalls streams a live video post on social media. "The revolution has just begun. And my action is just the first shot across the bow of the fascist right. And I am not alone. There's more to come before we achieve justice. Gotta go. The brain trust of the revolution is just...." His stream is cut short when he is shot dead by someone off camera. The shooter turns out to be a foreign agent, a Russian spy named Marina Kostova, who groomed Smalls. "Well, Kostova convinced some American idiot to detonate the bomb and then killed him. It's a false flag operation straight out of the active measures handbook. They're trying to make it look like Americans are killing each other, trying to create even more political dissension and hate," lead agent Isobel Castille tells a State Department representative. The bomb materials were stolen from a local construction company. The construction company owner is a conservative who is shocked when he learns explosives were taken from his inventory. "You know, I was planning on voting for Carol Jones. I'm a proud conservative," he tells agents. After arresting the thief who sold the bomb-making materials on the black market, the FBI learns that another bomber is planning an attack. This second bomber is a former schoolteacher who "lost his job after chaining himself to a fence at Cop City." Violent Cop City activists attempted to shut down construction of a law enforcement training center in Atlanta last year. The second bomber's target is a rally for a group called the "God and Liberty Alliance," which an agent describes as "hard-right." Jubal: What's at the Expo? Elise: There's a speed date event, gemologist convention, and a rally for a group called the God and Liberty Alliance. Isobel: The God and Liberty Alliance? That's hard-right. That's the perfect target for an anarchist. Jubal: It's a double down. Russia's trying to provoke a reaction, cause the right wing to retaliate with the elections coming up. Isobel: Creating a cycle of violence that none of us can stop. What time does that rally start?  Even in an episode about left-wing terrorists, the writers still had to include dialogue implying that the American right is as potentially dangerous as the left. Never mind that the radical left, composed of communists and anarchists, have been stoking violence in the United States for well over a century. At the end of the episode, FBI agents tackle a Russian operative before he can detonate the bomb remotely. FBI deserves credit for being one of the rare shows to create multiple episodes around left-wing terrorism. It's too bad this episode also stoked fear of conservatives and attached "far" or "hard" in front of any mention of the right-wing side of the aisle.

AP Lobs INSANE Softball Cheering Illegal Immigration as Doocy Brings Heat on Crisis

For the second day in a row, the Associated Press opened the questioning Tuesday of the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre by lobbing a puke-tastic softball so she could bash Donald Trump. This time, it was the insane claim that illegal immigration makes America...well, great. And, in contrast to all this, Fox’s Peter Doocy stood alone on the border crisis. AP White House reporter Will Weissert had the hot take on Monday about Sunday’s Transgender Day of Visibility, but it was his colleague Josh Boak who this time opened the Jean-Pierre portion by inviting her to explain why illegal immigration has helped create a roaring American economy. Boak first alluded to Trump’s latest application of the word “bloodbath” — this time, to describe illegal immigrant crime under President Biden — before putting a positive spin on the tens of millions who’ve illegal crossed the border and roam freely: [O]n Friday, we’re going to get jobs figures and past jobs reports have shown that immigrants are helping the U.S. economy. Is the view of this administration that the inflow of immigrants do more to strengthen the United States or hurt the United States? Does it do more? Yes, that’s right. Boak wants you to think this has made America great.     Jean-Pierre’s initial response was a classic indication that what Boak fired off was a joke: “So, Josh, I appreciate that question, and I think it’s an important question.” Adding there’s been “clearly awful rhetoric from the other side”, Jean-Pierre’s lengthy word salad also conflated illegal immigration with legal immigration as she proclaimed Biden and his regime “know immigrants strengthen our country and our economy” and said Biden believes we need “an economy that works for everyone”, presumably including illegals. Doocy actually set the tone before Boak and Jean-Pierre as he asked John Kirby this: “John, there’s another case of somebody who was in this country illegally allegedly murdering the young woman, this time in Michigan. Her name was Ruby Garcia. Donald Trump is out there now calling this Biden’s border bloodbath. What do you call it? Kirby did get political by invoking the Senate deal and blaming Republicans for not holding a vote, but he at least conceded while he hadn’t heard of Garcia, “that’s just terrible news and our thoughts and prayers obviously go to the family of Miss Garcia” as “that’s kind of news no family ever wants to get ever.” This led Doocy to point out the obvious, which was the Senate deal is dead. A brief back and forth ensued with Kirby attempting to play Captain Optimist, but Doocy wasn’t having it because “there are real problems at the border” with 140,000 known gottaways posing a national security threat. Doocy wrapped with this: “[A]s the person in charge of presenting — preventing a terrorist attack in the homeland, does President Biden think that some of these border crossers could be in the United States right now plotting a terrorist attack against Americans?” Kirby gave the standard answer one would expect any presidential spokesman to give: “The President’s confident that....we’re doing everything we can to be as vigilant as we can to ensure the safety and security of the American people here at home.” With Jean-Pierre, the bloodbath hubbub returned after Boak with softballs from CBS’s Nancy Cordes (click “expand”): CORDES: Going back to the bloodbath question, the former President used that terminology a week or two ago, but is talking about it again today. What’s the White House reaction to the use of that term bloodbath? JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to be really mindful here because it is — president — the — the — obviously, the former president is also a candidate here, so wanna follow the law with the Hatch Act — but we have to denounce our responses. We have to denounce any — any violent rhetoric that we hear, certainly from our leaders — right — that tears our country apart. It could tear up our country apart and puts our fellow Americans in harm’s way — in danger, so we have to denounce that. And look, you know, I think and we think that the American people wants [sic] to see the country coming together. that’s what they want. They want to — they want to make sure that we respect our democracy. They want to make sure that we respect the rule of law. That’s what they want. And so, that is what the President’s going to continue to fight for. I — we’re going to any type of violent rhetoric, we’re going to denounce that. It doesn’t matter who it comes from. We’re going to denounce it. CORDES: Does the White House believe that there is a bloodbath taking place or a wave of migrant crime? JEAN-PIERRE: Look — um — we’ve been very clear about — I just laid out to Josh, when it comes to immigrants, how important they are to the fabric of this country, how important they are to the strength of this country, to our economy, and that continues to — to be true, right? That’s something that this President believes, and we’ve always called out any — if there is any form of — of violence that — that could be caused by one person — right — that we may have seen, we call that out as well — and — and that is always important to do. But, in this instance, it is used to — in the way that this violent rhetoric is being used, it is being used to tear our country apart. That’s how it’s being used, and we have to — we can’t allow that, right? This is not what Americans want to see. Americans want to see us bringing the country together and — and so, that form of rhetoric it is. It’s not helpful to us, so we’re going to continue to call that out, and we’re going to be very, very clear about that. But this — you know, if — if a violent act is — it happens, as we have seen — um and someone is killed, we want to make sure that — that You know, we’ve got to condemn that and want to make sure that the law comes into place and we let the law enforcement on the ground deal with that, but to denounce entire community, we can’t allow that. We have to denounce that any type of violent rhetoric. Having sat through these softballs, Doocy dropped a devastating receipt: “So, when Donald Trump is talking about a bloodbath, it is violent rhetoric. What was it when Joe Biden said in 2020, we — ‘what we can’t let happen is let this primary become a negative bloodbath’?” Try and follow this mess of an answer from Jean-Pierre: “So, I’m going to be really mindful and careful about Donald Trump, but if you read — because he is a — he is a candidate — we’re talking about the 2024 election. You should read — hit — what he said in its context, so you got to read what he said in context.” Doocy clapped back with a helping of attitude: “Bloodbath is an ugly word when Trump uses it. What is it when Biden uses it?” Jean-Pierre instructed Doocy that he should have “asked me the question in context of what it was said — right — and what the — what it was said when he said that — right — in his remarks in his speech, right?” Thus, she argued, he was “being disingenuous.” An incredulous Doocy returned fire then showed respect by letting Jean-Pierre drone on. Her impeccably lazy defense as to why Joe Biden is allowed to use the word “bloodbath” but Donald Trump can’t? January 6 (click “expand”): DOOCY: I’m reading a direct quote from Joe Biden. “What we can’t let happen is let this primary become a negative bloodbath.” JEAN-PIERRE: He’s talking about — he was talking about a group of people — a group of people. That’s what he’s talking about. What the President was talking about during the primary was not to allow it to be — the words — and — and the primary and that election to become negative. Two different — two different things. DOOCY: Okay! JEAN-PIERRE: They’re not the same. They’re not the same — and your question is disingenuous. And so, look, I’m going to be really mindful here. I’ve got to be really careful. We have to denounce violent rhetoric, which — wherever it comes from — a former leader, we have to denounce that because we saw what happened on January 6. We saw what happened there — when you have a mob of 2,000 people go to the Capitol because they didn’t believe in free — the free and fair election that just happened months prior because of violent rhetoric. You got to denounce that. That’s not what leaders should be doing. To see the relevant transcript from the April 2 briefing (as well as anti-Israel questions about the deadly strikes that left numerous World Central Kitchen workers dead), click here.

Column: Journalists Boast They're Not for Democrats, They're for 'True Facts'

National Public Radio may be funded by taxpayer dollars, but its audience is firmly on the Left. It’s literally New York Times Radio, as The Daily podcast from The Times airs on almost 300 NPR stations every weekday. Inside this airless liberal silo, they can grow very arrogant about how they Save Democracy. On April Fools Day, host Michael Barbaro brought on Times political reporter Jim Rutenberg to discuss “Ronna McDaniel, TV News, and the Trump Problem.” Rutenberg should be best known for his infamous 2016 front-page editorial announcing objectivity was officially going in the trash can (as if it was vibrantly observed before).   Rutenberg described the Trump Problem: "If you're a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation's worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?" Rutenberg proclaimed the “objective” media must now be “oppositional.” Then The Times unfurled the arrogant motto “Truth. It’s More Important Now Than Ever,” and put it on T-shirts. This created another “Trump problem." The Republican half of the country would dismiss them as Democrat messengers (if they weren’t dismissed before). Republican listeners could break out a middle-fingers salute at the end of this podcast. They discussed how temporary CNN boss Chris Licht thought CNN “put on a jersey, took a side,” which they obviously did. Barbaro concluded after NBC's Ronna McDaniel debacle, “a network like NBC perhaps doesn’t put a jersey on, but accepts the reality that a lot of the world sees them wearing a jersey.” Rutenberg implausibly claimed, “no one wants to be wearing a jersey on our business. But maybe what they really have to accept is that we’re just sticking to the true facts, and that may look like we’re wearing a jersey, but we’re not. And that may, at times, look like it’s lining up more with the Democrats, but we’re not. If Trump is lying about a stolen election, that’s not siding against him. That’s siding for the truth, and that’s what we’re doing.” What these men are really saying is that liberal journalists want to have their cake, and eat it, too. They want to launch their flagrantly righteous takes against Trump and his voters, and they want to be celebrated as nonpartisan at the same time. “We’re wearing True Facts jerseys!” Incredibly, this wasn’t the only NPR program on April Fools Day preaching this sermon. On 1-A out of D.C. station WAMU, host Todd Zwillich also disparaged Licht’s approach, especially the Trump town hall with Kaitlan Collins. “I think that you're seeing increasingly, luckily, journalists who cover politics realize they're not in the old game anymore, that neutrality doesn't only not serve them anymore, but doesn't serve the public anymore,” Zwillich proclaimed. “It doesn't mean being partisan. It doesn't mean you're for one side. It means you're for truth.” They seize on Trump's election denial as if it's the only issue. Both shows never touched on the Hunter Biden laptop or any other issue where the media suppressed true facts. NPR executive Terence Samuel infamously said “We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories.” It was a “pure distraction.” Then The Times and other liberal outlets acknowledged the laptop was real…in 2022. This never came up because both shows failed to include any conservative guests. Because when you’re for the “true facts,” why should the “lying” side get any airtime on tax-funded radio? 

HOPE AND CHANGE: ABC Banks On Abortion To Flip Florida For Biden, Dems

Florida’s Supreme Court rulings enabling both the heartbeat bill and the ballot question which would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution has triggered a wave of media wishcasting, centered around the hope that abortion will lift President Joe Biden to victory in November, retaking the state for the Democrats. ABC News, as usual, has distinguished itself among the corporate wishcasters. Here’s how tonight’s campaign roundup opened, with hope of the state being “put in play” for 2024:  DAVID MUIR: We turn now to the race for the White House. Abortion rights front and center, and will it put the state of Florida in play? Tonight President Biden blasting Florida's new 6-week abortion ban, one of the strictest in the country, before many women know they’re pregnant. The president calling it outrageous. Former President Trump on the campaign trail today saying suburban housewives like Trump. Rachel Scott in Wisconsin.  RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight, President Biden denouncing the Florida state Supreme Court's ruling clearing the way for the state to ban abortion at six weeks, before most women even know they're pregnant, calling it now outrageous. The president saying the law puts the health and lives of millions of women at risk. But Biden's campaign now seizing on the Court's other major decision, allowing Florida voters a chance to protect abortion rights on the November ballot. The campaign saying that now puts Florida in play for the presidential election. As is often the case, especially at ABC News, news items are measured by their effect on the electoral prospects of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. Immigration bad! Abortion very good!  Abortion is so highly valued as a turnout driver and potential factor in flipping the state for Biden that the corporate media, and ABC here specifically, have failed to mention that there is another initiative hitting the November ballot: for recreational marijuana.  This report brings little value to viewers beyond echoing Biden campaign talking points, whether on the heartbeat bill, the ballot initiative, or on immigration- in keeping with ABC News’ role as chief Biden sycophants. Lacking anything in the way of facts, this story is driven by little more than hope. Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Tuesday, April 2nd, 2024: DAVID MUIR: We turn now to the race for the White House. Abortion rights front and center, and will it put the state of Florida in play? Tonight President Biden blasting Florida's new 6-week abortion ban, one of the strictest in the country, before many women know they’re pregnant. The president calling it outrageous. Former President Trump on the campaign trail today saying suburban housewives like Trump. Rachel Scott in Wisconsin.  RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight, President Biden denouncing the Florida state Supreme Court's ruling clearing the way for the state to ban abortion at six weeks, before most women even know they're pregnant, calling it now outrageous. The president saying the law puts the health and lives of millions of women at risk. But Biden's campaign now seizing on the Court's other major decision, allowing Florida voters a chance to protect abortion rights on the November ballot. The campaign saying that now puts Florida in play for the presidential election. They're keenly aware abortion rights has won in all six states where it has been on the ballot, including in conservative states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio. Donald Trump often boasts about appointing three of the justices who voted to overturn Roe versus Wade, but today, he didn't want to talk about the Florida court ruling.  DONALD TRUMP: We'll be making a statement next week on abortion. SCOTT: Today, in battleground Michigan, Trump making his own appeal to women voters.  TRUMP: You know, the suburban housewives actually like Donald Trump. You know why? Because I'm the one who is going to keep them safe. They like to say, well, the suburban housewives, I don't know -- I think I do great with the suburban housewives, because they want to remain safe.  SCOTT: Trump trying to turn the focus to the border, and what he's now calling migrant crime.  TRUMP: Every state is now a border state. Every town is now a border town, because Joe Biden has brought the carnage and chaos and killing from all over the world and dumped it straight into our backyards.  SCOTT: But in fact, data shows undocumented immigrants are actually less likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens. The Biden campaign pointing out that Trump himself pressured congressional Republicans to block the toughest bipartisan border security bill in generations because he wanted to run on the issue in November. President Biden urging Republicans to support the measure.  JOE BIDEN: Look, folks, we have a simple choice. We can fight about fixing the border, or we can fix it. I'm ready to fix it. Send me the border bill now.  SCOTT: David, back to the issue of abortion rights. We know it will be on the ballot in Florida. Tonight, advocates say they have enough support to put it on the ballot in Arizona, as well. You could see the same thing could happen in nearly a dozen other states including battlegrounds like Nevada and Pennsylvania. David.  MUIR: So abortion rights could be on the ballot in Arizona this November. We can hear you barely over the campaign rally behind you. A sign of the times, Rachel. Thank you.  

PRO-BIDEN FIREFIGHTING: Network Newscasts Deploy Identical Migrant Crime Talking Point

What are the odds that three network newscasts would spit out the same talking point on migrant crime while covering a Trump campaign event? It turns out the odds are pretty good if the media need to firefight for President Biden on immigration, as they did tonight. Watch, for example, as ABC’s Rachel Scott works the “migrants are less likely to commit crime than American citizens” talking point into the immigration part of her abortion-heavy campaign roundup: RACHEL SCOTT: Trump trying to turn the focus to the border, and what he's now calling migrant crime.  DONALD TRUMP: Every state is now a border state. Every town is now a border town, because Joe Biden has brought the carnage and chaos and killing from all over the world and dumped it straight into our backyards.  SCOTT: But in fact, data shows undocumented immigrants are actually less likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens. The Biden campaign pointing out that Trump himself pressured congressional Republicans to block the toughest bipartisan border security bill in generations because he wanted to run on the issue in November. President Biden urging Republicans to support the measure.  JOE BIDEN: Look, folks, we have a simple choice. We can fight about fixing the border, or we can fix it. I'm ready to fix it. Send me the border bill now.  When Scott mentions that Trump is “trying to turn the focus to the border”, she means off of abortion, which was the focal point of her report. And sandwiched between Trump and Biden quotes is the infamous line so often cited about migrants and crime. But the rote incantation of this talking point, for years confined to Univision’s Jorge Ramos, is irrelevant within the migrant crime debate. An increase, even at a reduced rate versus historical averages, is still a net increase. These crimes are still being committed and there is zero proof that these criminals displaced American criminals ready, willing, and able to do crime.   Furthermore, they are crimes committed by people who did not enter into the country illegally or, in some of these instances, who entered into the country as a result of immigration changes imposed by President Biden.  Here's CBS's Nancy Cordes: CBS’s Nancy Cordes echoed the same point in her campaign roundup, which was also heavy on abortion: DONALD TRUMP: Joe Biden’s border bloodbath -- and that is what it is, it’s a bloodbath. NANCY CORDES: Despite criticism from both sides, former President Trump used the word "bloodbath" again today, this time to describe crimes committed by migrants. DONALD TRUMP: Democrats say please don't call them animals, they are humans. I said no, they are not humans. They are not humans. They are animals.  CORDES: It was two and a half weeks ago, while talking about the future of the U.S. auto industry, that Trump warned of a bloodbath if he isn't elected in November. Today, his campaign went a step further, launching an immigration-related website, though there is no evidence that undocumented migrants commit violent crimes at higher rates than U.S. citizens. Here we see the same talking point on migrant crime data, wrapped around hand-wringing over Trump’s renewed use of the word “bloodbath”. Finally, there’s NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez: GABE GUTIERREZ: A new survey shows 64% of Americans disapprove of President Biden's handling of the border, including three in ten Democrats.  VOTER: You don't have a border, you've got problems. And they're importing them all over the country.  GUTIERREZ: But studies suggest migrants don't commit crimes at higher rates than American citizens, and Democrats argue Mr. Trump is trying to exploit Garcia's death. They blame the former president for killing a bipartisan border security bill in Congress. These billboards are now going up in the crucial swing states.  For those keeping score at home, that’s three network newscasts, filing three separate campaign roundups but going to the same talking point on migrant crime. As Biden’s immigration numbers continue to drag him down, you can expect the media to go to this talking point more frequently. If it weren’t for regime media, we’d have no media at all. Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective network evening newscasts on Tuesday, April 2nd, 2024: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT: DAVID MUIR: We turn now to the race for the White House. Abortion rights front and center, and will it put the state of Florida in play? Tonight President Biden blasting Florida's new 6-week abortion ban, one of the strictest in the country, before many women know they’re pregnant. The president calling it outrageous. Former President Trump on the campaign trail today saying suburban housewives like Trump. Rachel Scott in Wisconsin.  RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight, President Biden denouncing the Florida state Supreme Court's ruling clearing the way for the state to ban abortion at six weeks, before most women even know they're pregnant, calling it now outrageous. The president saying the law puts the health and lives of millions of women at risk. But Biden's campaign now seizing on the Court's other major decision, allowing Florida voters a chance to protect abortion rights on the November ballot. The campaign saying that now puts Florida in play for the presidential election. They're keenly aware abortion rights has won in all six states where it has been on the ballot, including in conservative states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio. Donald Trump often boasts about appointing three of the justices who voted to overturn Roe versus Wade, but today, he didn't want to talk about the Florida court ruling.  DONALD TRUMP: We'll be making a statement next week on abortion. SCOTT: Today, in battleground Michigan, Trump making his own appeal to women voters.  TRUMP: You know, the suburban housewives actually like Donald Trump. You know why? Because I'm the one who is going to keep them safe. They like to say, well, the suburban housewives, I don't know -- I think I do great with the suburban housewives, because they want to remain safe.  SCOTT: Trump trying to turn the focus to the border, and what he's now calling migrant crime.  TRUMP: Every state is now a border state. Every town is now a border town, because Joe Biden has brought the carnage and chaos and killing from all over the world and dumped it straight into our backyards.  SCOTT: But in fact, data shows undocumented immigrants are actually less likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens. The Biden campaign pointing out that Trump himself pressured congressional Republicans to block the toughest bipartisan border security bill in generations because he wanted to run on the issue in November. President Biden urging Republicans to support the measure.  JOE BIDEN: Look, folks, we have a simple choice. We can fight about fixing the border, or we can fix it. I'm ready to fix it. Send me the border bill now.  SCOTT: David, back to the issue of abortion rights. We know it will be on the ballot in Florida. Tonight, advocates say they have enough support to put it on the ballot in Arizona, as well. You could see the same thing could happen in nearly a dozen other states including battlegrounds like Nevada and Pennsylvania. David.  MUIR: So abortion rights could be on the ballot in Arizona this November. We can hear you barely over the campaign rally behind you. A sign of the times, Rachel. Thank you. CBS EVENING NEWS: NORAH O’DONNELL: Now to the 2024 race for the White House. President Biden's campaign is hitting the airwaves with a hard-hitting political ad focusing on abortion rights, and they are using Donald Trump's own words in an effort to warn voters. CBS's Nancy Cordes reports the former president is on the campaign trail in the Midwest, where he’s focusing on another wedge issue: Immigration.  DONALD TRUMP: Joe Biden’s border bloodbath -- and that is what it is, it’s a bloodbath. NANCY CORDES: Despite criticism from both sides, former President Trump used the word "bloodbath" again today, this time to describe crimes committed by migrants. TRUMP: Democrats say please don't call them animals, they are humans. I said no, they are not humans. They are not humans. They are animals.  CORDES: It was two and a half weeks ago, while talking about the future of the U.S. auto industry, that Trump warned of a bloodbath if he isn't elected in November. Today, his campaign went a step further, launching an immigration-related website, though there is no evidence that undocumented migrants commit violent crimes at higher rates than U.S. citizens. What's the White House reaction to the use of that term, "bloodbath?"  KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Our response is we have to denounce any violent rhetoric that we hear, certainly from our leaders, right?  CORDES: The Biden campaign was focused today on abortion, launching this new ad one day after Florida's Supreme Court cleared the way for a six-week abortion ban to go into effect in the state next month.  JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump doesn't trust women. I do. CORDES: The state court also allowed an abortion-rights measure to appear on Florida ballots come November. The Biden camp hopes that will help drive Democrats there to the polls, just as similar initiatives have in other states. FLORIDA VOTER: I will be voting this November. If I have to be in there with my crutches or my wheelchair, I will be there.  CORDES: Trump was campaigning in another key state: Michigan, where he brought up the $175 million bond he just posted in his New York civil fraud case.  TRUMP: I'm the only one that has to put up a bond, you know, I put up a bond -- I didn't do anything wrong.  O’DONNELL: Nancy Cordes is with us. $175 million, a lot of money. What do we know about the man who gave Trump this financial lifeline?  CORDES: Norah, he is a Los Angeles billionaire, his name is Don Hankey. He is known as the king of subprime auto loans. And this isn't the first time he has come to Trump's financial rescue when many others wouldn't. It has happened at least twice before, when Trump was overleveraged, including in 2022, when he gave Trump a loan to refinance Trump Tower. O’DONNELL: Nancy Cordes, following the money. Thank you. NBC NIGHTLY NEWS: LESTER HOLT: Former President Trump was in key battleground states in the Midwest highlighting the border crisis as he is dealing with new fallout from his legal cases, including an expanded gag order from a judge. Gabe Gutierrez reports.  GABE GUTIERREZ: Tonight, former President Trump on a battleground blitz with this rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin.  DONALD TRUMP: Do I have your word you're going to go out and vote?  GUTIERREZ: And this stop in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Both states President Biden narrowly won four years ago. Mr. Trump zeroing in on the border crisis, highlighting the murder of 25-year-old Ruby Garcia here last month. Authorities say the suspect, her romantic partner, an undocumented immigrant who had previously been deported during the Trump administration. TRUMP: Not one more innocent life should be lost to Biden migrant crime.  GUTIERREZ: Mr. Trump slamming President Biden for rolling back restrictive Trump border policies.  TRUMP: Under the Trump administration, we had a tough policy of getting the bad people out.  GUTIERREZ: A new survey shows 64% of Americans disapprove of President Biden's handling of the border, including three in ten Democrats.  VOTER: You don't have a border, you've got problems. And they're importing them all over the country.  GUTIERREZ: But studies suggest migrants don't commit crimes at higher rates than American citizens, and Democrats argue Mr. Trump is trying to exploit Garcia's death. They blame the former president for killing a bipartisan border security bill in Congress. These billboards are now going up in the crucial swing states.  HILLARY SCHOLTEN: Donald Trump has not wasted any time in grandstanding and clamoring for the camera to come here.  GUTIERREZ: The former president also fighting legal battles on multiple fronts. The judge in his hush money trial just expanded the gag order against Mr. Trump, to include the relatives of court staff after Mr. Trump on social media attacked the judge's adult daughter, who is a political consultant for Democrats. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump just posted a reduced $175 million bond in his New York City civil fraud case, preventing his properties from being seized while he appeals the case.  TRUMP: I had to put up a bond this morning for $175 million. I did nothing wrong.   

Joy Reid 'Losing Her Mind' Christian Conservative Trump Supporters Exist

According to Joy Reid, host of MSNBC’s The ReidOut, MAGA groups are not only committing idolatry by supporting Donald Trump, but additionally, Trump was a cult leader similar to Charles Manson, David Koresh, and Jim Jones. Sadly, this was not an April Fools prank. Reid spouted paraphrases of Bible stories like the sermon on the mount, the crucifixion of Christ, and the golden calf to emphasize her theory that Trump supporters were heinously sinning by idolizing him and joining his cult. While some obsessed Trump supporters might go so far as to treat Trump as a celebrity, it was preposterous to liken MAGA to the cults created and fostered by mass murderers like Manson, Jones, or Koresh. And, without evidence, Reid suggested Trump was calling himself God: It’s kind of David Koresh. It's kind of Jim Jones. Because those two men started by saying, “You need to come to Jesus.” They started as Christian evangelizers. But eventually, their evangelism said, “No, I get to have your wife. No actually, I get to tell you to kill these federal agents that are outside. I'm asking you to pick up a machine gun and shoot them because I don't want to go to jail.” This is Manson stuff, where you stop saying “Worship God” and you start saying “I am God.” “I am God” is what Trump is saying to his followers. Why are they believing it? Had an acclaimed conservative reporter of the same standing as Reid made such connections of these cults to former President Barack Obama or current President Joe Biden, the reporter probably would have been canceled and fired.     The hilarity of Reid’s accusations was that she continually quoted the Ten Commandments as if calling Trump a cultist resonated with the majority of Christians within the U.S. who not-shockingly happen to be conservative. One of Reid’s guests included Former U.S. Representative [R] David Jolly, who apparently also considered himself an expert on religion. This self-proclaimed Christian boldly asserted that only “people of weak faith are concerned about the actions of government.” Jolly was referring to the outcry from Christians offended by Biden’s recognition of International Trans Day on Easter. How dare Christians allow their faith to impact their political views! Oh, except, according to Jolly, all religions operate this way. Because any person of “strong faith” will put his trust in his invisible deity, he therefore doesn’t need to worry about the actions of the government, since his deity will control the future: The whole notion of faith, of Christian faith, Muslim faith, whatever it might be, is that you are putting your trust in something you cannot see, and you are walking by faith and not by sight. And what Donald Trump is doing is saying, “Wait a minute, let me show you all these reasons you should doubt your faith and you should trust me, and you should follow me.” That is dangerous. I mean, take the trans proclamation, for instance. It is a weakening of faith to suggest that the Christian world should be concerned about that. People of weak faith are concerned about the actions of government. People of strong faith yesterday know they have put their faith in a deity that they have entrusted their lives and the future of the world to regardless of one's faith, it's a concept that is easily understood, this idea of faith. It’s hilarious that Reid would condemn MAGA Christians for supporting Trump and then invite such a “religious expert” like Jolly to speak on this topic, even though he’s somehow unaware that a person’s religion could practically affect her life. “It's making me lose my mind to watch people who call themselves Christians fall down on their knees and worship this man,” Reid said. According to Reid, Trump was also guilty of calling himself the “emperor god,” and being “the head of Rome;” for forcing his followers to follow him instead of Jesus. “He's saying ‘I am the emperor god.’ He's the head of Rome, not Jesus! But he's literally gotten his people to melt down their gold into a calf and worship it,” Reid claimed, without evidence. “Don’t forget the Ten Commandments,” warned Reid, who suddenly became so preoccupied with everyone’s salvation, that is until about ten minutes later when she ignored the sixth commandment to not murder in order to justify her positive position on abortion. How to rectify these contradictions was not really explained, but don’t worry, she ended the conversation with a great one-liner: “Wake up, people, and stay woke!” The full transcript can be read here.  MSNBC's The ReidOut 04/02/24 7:11:29-7:16:36 (…) JOY REID: You know, the difference between religion and a cult is in religion your savior dies for you, as Jesus did. In a cult, you're asked to die for your savior. And, you know, what Donald Trump is doing, it's equal parts the power of positive thinking, which is the church to the extent it's a church he grew up in, but it's also, it’s kind of David Koresh. It's kind of Jim Jones. Because those two men started by saying, “You need to come to Jesus.” They started as Christian evangelizers. But eventually, their evangelism said, “No, I get to have your wife. No actually, I get to tell you to kill these federal agents that are outside. I'm asking you to pick up a machine gun and shoot them because I don't want to go to jail.” This is Manson stuff, where you stop saying “Worship God” and you start saying “I am God.” “I am God” is what Trump is saying to his followers. Why are they believing it? DAVID JOLLY: Yeah, Joy. In a lighthearted way, you’d simply say Donald Trump is jealous of Jesus. All the attention given to Jesus Christ by the Christians of the world yesterday. But look, this conversation is going pretty deep, and I think you put your thumb on something in this conversation very important. Donald Trump is preying, with an “E Y” on the fallibility of faith. Right? The whole notion of faith, of Christian faith, Muslim faith, whatever it might be, is that you are putting your trust in something you cannot see, and you are walking by faith and not by sight. And what Donald Trump is doing is saying, “Wait a minute, let me show you all these reasons you should doubt your faith and you should trust me, and you should follow me.” That is dangerous. I mean, take the trans proclamation, for instance. It is a weakening of faith to suggest that the Christian world should be concerned about that. People of weak faith are concerned about the actions of government. People of strong faith yesterday know they have put their faith in a deity that they have entrusted their lives and the future of the world to regardless of one's faith, it's a concept that is easily understood, this idea of faith. And Donald Trump seizes on the fallibility and creates doubt and then suggests he's the one, he alone can fix all the problems you face, when it requires an abandonment of the deity that you have previously put your trust in for those fixes. REID: Right, because democracy is about we collectively fix the problems through a government we elect. He's saying no, that's not the way you do it, Jim Wallis. The irony of all of this, of trying to compare yourself to Jesus, and the Christ is not his last name, it means the Messiah. The reason that when the people that he was ostensibly hoping to lead, you know, or even not even asking to lead, but was saying I am an exemplar to my people, one of the reasons they rejected him on the cross is he was not a warrior god. He was a God who said that, “I worship my father God, not the Roman emperor god.” And because he wouldn't renounce the idea that the empire, the emperor was god, and that he said, “No, my father is God,” they said “Well, we're going to kill you, we’re going to crucify you.” Donald Trump is the opposite of that. He's saying “I am the emperor god.” He's the head of Rome, not Jesus! But he's literally gotten his people to melt down their gold into a calf and worship it. Another sin of people who, if you believe that people should’ve followed Jesus and didn't, that was the other thing, “We can't see your works, you're not a visible God. We want a visible god.” Trump is saying “No, I'm a visible god.” He's literally an idolater, Jim! It's making me lose my mind to watch people who call themselves Christians fall down on their knees and worship this man. JIM WALLIS: This is where we have to understand bad religion has always distorted politics. And some say the only answer to bad religion is no religion. I think the answer to bad religion is true faith. And so, what I'm trying to do is say what did Jesus say? He said, “You'll know the truth and the truth will set you free.” The opposite of truth there for Jesus is not lying but captivity. And so many people you talk about here are just captive. They're stuck. They're embedded in this false religion. Jesus said, you know, “we are made in the image of God.” God said, Genesis Ch. 1, first book of the Bible, which means any attempt to take away the vote of anyone because of the color of their skin or anything else, is an assault on imago dei. So, I want to get back to what the text says. I want to let Jesus do the talking. And then I want to say, do you believe it? Or not? REID: That's right. Amen. And let's—don't forget the Ten Commandments, which Jesus did not refute, the Old Testament, the Torah. The Ten Commandments start with “I am God and thou shalt have no other god before me.” And if you actually are a Christian, you should have no other god before God. Donald Trump is not God. He's not Jesus. He's just a politician who doesn't want to go to prison and he's selling you crap sneakers to make you pay his legal bills when he's supposedly a billionaire. It is a scam; it is a cult. Wake up! [Claps hands] People and stay woke! (…)

2020 Trump Spokesman Tim Murtaugh Recalls ICY Interviews with CNN, MSNBC Partisans

Brian Flood at FoxNews.com reports on how Trump 2020 campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh discusses his scrapping with CNN and MSNBC hosts in his new book, Swing Hard in Case You Hit It. First came CNN host Brianna Keilar, who in June 2020 pressed Murtaugh on Trump's remark that they should slow down COVID testing to get fewer positive results. "I think it would be accurate to conclude that Keilar had decided that she didn’t like me before I ever appeared on her show." Murtaugh claimed Trump was joking, and he said Keilar responded that over 120,000 Americans had died from COVID before asking, "I do not think that is funny. Do you think that is funny?" Murtaugh wrote that "Keilar decided that she would claim moral superiority and declare humor off limits, while dishonestly suggesting that the president and his campaign were laughing at the people who were dying of COVID-19." "The whole thing was a reminder that I needed to anticipate their partisanship more and treat them as though they were the political opposition, because they clearly were," Murtaugh concluded. Then there was CNN anchor Jim Sciutto, a former Obama administration official, a fact Murtaugh liked to remind CNN viewers about. "Every time I appeared on his show, he attacked aggressively from the very first word. He quite clearly viewed me as a political adversary and conducted interviews in what I felt was a condescending and accusatory manner." (Alex Christy captured it for NewsBusters.) "One day in August 2020, I appeared on his show, and he repeatedly asked me if President Trump accepted responsibility for all the American deaths attributable to COVID-19. This, obviously, was an unanswerable question in a political sense, which is exactly why he asked it," he recalled. "If I said that the president did accept responsibility, then I would have agreed with the false narrative that Trump was responsible for the effects of a virus that came from China. Additionally, I’d have handed CNN the very soundbite it was looking for," he wrote. "If I said he did not accept responsibility, it might sound callous and inconsistent, because we were simultaneously looking for credit for the president’s overall response to the pandemic, and so we would be wanting the good without taking the bad." Murtaugh explained that "any observer could see clearly that CNN’s goal was not to be a mere journalistic outlet covering current events, but that it wanted to be an active participant in the political campaign." In October of 2020, Murtaugh wrote, he was scheduled to do an interview with MSNBC’s Katy Tur, but they "demanded" he wear a mask during the live shot. "Mind you, it was a bright and sunny day, and I was standing outside, easily more than six feet away from any crew the network could have been concerned about. Tur herself was in a studio somewhere else. After it was confirmed that the mask was a condition of the live shot, I huddled over the phone with some of the campaign team back in Virginia to discuss whether I should proceed. As a group we decided that it was better to participate in the hit than to skip it, so I went through with it," he wrote. Murtaugh recounted that Tur cited the names of people who had recently died from COVID in order to criticize a tweet Trump had sent that said, "Don’t be afraid of COVID. Don’t let it dominate your life." (She started with video of Amanda Kloots, whose husband died from the disease, calling Trump "beyond hurtful.") "That wasn’t journalism. It was the ghoulish exploitation of the deaths of real people so that Katy Tur could thrill the MSNBC audience by attacking someone from the Trump campaign. It was juvenile and a bad-faith effort to specifically blame one person—President Trump—for deaths caused by a global pandemic that began in China," Murtaugh wrote. Not every cable-news host was thoroughly hostile. Murtaugh said then-CNN host Chris Cuomo came across as sincere when he told the Trump spokesperson, "I respect your effort because that’s the game," after a fiery interview in which Murtaugh mocked the anchor’s infamous on-air COVID antics with his brother Andrew, then governor of New York. Nick Fondacaro wrote about one of those interactions.

Biden's Trans Easter, Chestfeeding & Lizzo:MRCTV's Tierin-Rose Mandelburg on OANN's In Focus

On Tuesday, MRCTV’s Tierin-Rose Mandelburg appeared on One America News Network’s In Focus with Alison Steinberg. And though it was April Fools Day, the content the girls talked about was nothing to laugh about, considering how it all showed the moral and mental decline of our nation. Steinberg asked Mandelburg about Joe Biden’s obvious prioritization of transgender people over Easter this past weekend, after the White House declared a "Transgender Day of Visibility" coinciding with the most significant holiday on the Christian calendar. They concluded that his goal was to virtue signal and convince Christians that they should deny and ignore one of the holiest of holy days in order to praise and promote transgenderism.  Needless to say, his second goal failed. All his attempts to erase the meaning of Easter just made Christians celebrate the day more intently and pray more intensely for these fallen souls. Speaking of the devil's accomplices, Mandelburg and Steinberg talked about a transgender woman who breastfed “her” grandchild after researchers at Duke University pumped the 50-year-old man with hormones so he could “lactate” and feed his grandkid.  It was very obvious that the mental delusions of the grandfather were prioritized over the child’s best interests. In happier news, pop singer Lizzo said that she may be quitting music. Though it’s unlikely she’ll actually follow through with it, the thought of seeing less of her naked butt shake online is exciting! Check out the clip!   Related: Damning Dichotomy: Happy Easter … I Mean Transgender Day of Visibility Follow us on Twitter/X: Things That Need To Be Said: Pride Has Turned Every Day Gay The Alphabet mafia have turned the whole calendar into a Pride celebration; even Easter isn't safe anymore. pic.twitter.com/qbWXeuL3bm — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 1, 2024