Column: Hyperbolic MSNBC's Ronna McDaniel Debacle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MSNBC Tries To Use Rapes By Drug Cartels To Dunk On Pro-Life States

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

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

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

TikTok Censors Warning About Harmful Hormonal Birth Control Pill

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

Fairfax VA Board of Supervisors Celebrate Transgenders over Jesus

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

The View Gets TRIGGERED By a Guest Who Argues Against Racism

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

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

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

After Souring on Lemon, X Eyeing Real Journalist Catherine Herridge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The President’s War Against the Jews

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

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

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

Philly Uses Drag Queen Story Hour Recording for Tourism Video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRC’s Dan Schneider RIPS Google for Dodging ‘Historic’ Hearing Against Big Tech Election Interference

MRC Free Speech Vice President Dan Schneider condemned Google for hiding from accountability and further exposed years of Big Tech election interference. During a March 28 hearing before the West Virginia State Election Commission, Schneider called out Google for brazenly ignoring a subpoena to answer for putting its thumb on the political scale.  “I do just want to address the fact that Google has refused the subpoena to appear today,” Schneider said. “Google and the parent company Alphabet is the third largest publicly traded corporation in world history. Its market capitalization of nearly 2 trillion dollars is 400 times the size of the West Virginia budget, yet out of 182,000 employees at Google, not a single one can spare even 10 or 15 minutes to appear today, to talk about this important issue.” Schneider, along with renowned psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein, Heritage Foundation Senior Research Associate Daniel Cochrane and Facebook Whistleblower Ryan Hartwig testified before the West Virginia SEC on the topic of Big Tech censorship and Free Speech. Schneider praised the “historic” nature of the hearing, pointing out that the Thursday hearing likely marked the first time a state election commission aimed to address the issues of Google’s and Big Tech’s election-meddling censorship.  The MRC Free Speech vice president pointed out that Google has not just stonewalled the commission’s hearing, but also the Media Research Center following the release of a scathing report detailing 41 times Google interfered in elections since 2008. Schneider laid example after example of Big Tech’s partisan election activity from 2020, 2022 and 2024.  Similarly, Schneider called out Big Tech, among them Google, for swaying the 2020 presidential election, brandishing a nationwide survey demonstrating that then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden would have lost 4.1% of his voters absent Big Tech suppression of the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story. “That is obviously a huge portion of the voting population,” Schneider said. “That effort alone shows that it swayed the election for Joe Biden,” he added, referring to Big Tech. As for the 2022 midterm elections, Schneider highlighted Google’s apparent favoritism towards Democratic senate candidates in close races. “Google, in almost every case, put the Democrat campaign websites right at the top” of search results, Schneider said of MRC Free Speech America’s findings. This was the case in the Georgia Senate race between NFL star Herschel Walker and pro-abortion “pastor” Raphael Warnock.  In 2022, the MRC not only exposed Google for burying the campaign websites of Republican senate candidates relative to their Democratic opponents but also uncovered Google aiding Warnock in the runoff by hiding Walker’s campaign website in key areas. Schneider also noted that Google interfered yet again during the 2024 presidential primaries.  Voters could easily find the campaign page of President Joe Biden and even little-known candidates such as Democrat Marianne Williamson and Republican Will Hild, while prominent candidates such as former President Donald Trump, Governor Ron DeSantis and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley were far more difficult to find.  [SEE MORE: 41 Times Google Has Interfered in US Elections Since 2008] Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that the State Department be held to account to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and that Big Tech mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Rasmussen Poll: Dem Voters Least Concerned About Gov’t Censorship of Online Political Dissent

Democrat voters are the least worried that the government will use the guise of fighting misinformation and hate speech to censor political dissent on the Internet and social media, a new national survey reveals. Nearly half (47%) of all U.S. likely voters are “very concerned” that “to protect against misinformation and hate speech, the government might censor political dissent on the Internet and social media,” according to a Rasmussen Reports survey conducted March 21 and 24-25. Likewise, 51% of both Republican and “Other” voters say they’re very concerned the government will censor online political dissent. In contrast, only 39% of Democrat voters are very concerned. Among voters who “strongly approve” of Democrat Joe Biden’s job performance as president, just 31% are “very concerned” the government might censor political dissent on the Internet and social media. Meanwhile, of those who “strongly disapprove” of Biden’s performance, 64% are “very concerned” about government censorship of online dissent. Among all U.S. likely voters, about three-fourths (76%) are at least “somewhat” concerned the government will use misinformation and hate speech to justify censorship of political dissent. Here, too, fewer Democrats (71%) than Republicans (77%) or “Other” voters (79%) are at least somewhat concerned. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that the State Department be held to account to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and that Big Tech mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.    

Jordan Peterson: ‘Communist’ Climate Agenda ‘Devastating’ for World Poor

Renowned psychologist Jordan Peterson ripped the crazy beliefs and goals of climate-crazy global organizations and elites for the “communist” monstrosities that they are. Peterson dropped the hammer on the insane eco-extremist agenda and the harm that it is causing people everywhere in the name of Gaia during a March 26 debate with commentator Steven Bonnell II, also known as Destiny, on The Jordan Peterson Podcast. Peterson laid out the ridiculous agenda in his description of it: “[The climate change movement]has this guise of compassion. ‘Oh, we’re going to save the poor in the future.’ It’s like, that’s what the bloody communist said!” Peterson also ripped into elites and organizations that obsessively shove the climate change narrative down the plebeians’ throats, , such as the  World Economic Forum (WEF). “The alternative to [the climate agenda] is to stop having global-level elites plot out a utopian future,” Peterson said.     Peterson listed reason after reason why the global warming narrative pushed by environmentalists can’t be trusted. To sum it all up, Peterson exclaimed that the narrative “isn’t data. This is guess! And there’s something weird … that isn’t oriented towards human beings underneath it.” No kidding. Further, Peterson said that the eco-extremists would let countless poor people starve now in order to supposedly save people from supposed climate disasters years from now. The climate radical’s logic is as follows, according to Peterson: “If we have to wipe out a few hundred million of them now, well that’s a small price to pay for the future utopia.” Peterson noted that global “food privation” has skyrocketed in the past five years around the world due to anti-oil policies adopted by the WEF. “That’s a major price to pay for a little bit of progress on the climate front that’s so narrow that it can't even be measured,” Peterson said. Peterson summed up his drubbing of the climate agenda and the elitists behind it. “The elites in the West have decided that, ‘Well, it was okay for us to use fossil fuels so that we wouldn't have to starve to death and so that our children could have opportunities, but maybe the starving masses that are too large alone for the world anyways shouldn't have that opportunity.’ And that's direct policy from the UN, fostered by organizations like the WEF,” Peterson said. Conservatives are under attack. Contact ABC News at (818) 460-7477, CBS News at (212) 975-3247 and NBC News at (212) 664-6192 and demand they tell the truth about the climate agenda and the leftists who propagate it

PBS Sees Trump Ending CRT, Trans Ideology in School as McCarthyite Anti-LGBTQ ‘Purge’

The Wednesday edition of the PBS NewsHour featured perhaps the outlet's most radical member, White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez, launching a paranoid broadside against the Trump campaign and the Heritage Foundation’s collection of presidential policy proposals known as “Project 2025.” Guest anchor William Brangham set up Barron-Lopez’s radical take, conflating privileges that fly in the face of biology and common sense (boys on girls’ sports teams, genital surgery for minors) under the misleading banner of “civil rights”: BRANGHAM: On the campaign trail, Trump has been talking about what he plans to do if elected in November, and that includes rolling back the rights of millions of LGBTQ people. It's part of a wider playbook to undo many modern civil rights advances for minority groups. White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez has been following this, and she joins us now. So, on LGBTQ rights, what has Trump said he wants to do? BARRON-LOPEZ: Since launching his campaign, former President Donald Trump has targeted LGBTQ people, transgender people. He's attacked gender-affirming care for minors, as well as their ability to play in sports. And he says that he plans quick action if elected.     Barron-Lopez explained that Trump’s “allies have drafted a sweeping document titled Project 2025...by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation" and stoked fear that the plan acknowledged biological science: Specifically on restricting LGBTQ rights, what that details is reinstating a transgender military ban, limiting LGBTQ workplace discrimination protections. Currently, under the law, sexual orientation, and gender identity are protected. It would rescind health-care protections for transgender people and urge Congress to define gender as male and female, fixed at birth….this plan also is trying to stop any and all acknowledgement of an acceptance of gender identity and LGBTQ people, period…. Also on Trump’s “chopping block”: eliminating DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) from government mandates and banning federal funding for teaching Critical Race Theory. It sounds like a mainstream backlash to recent radical overstepping by the identity-obsessed left, but one which tax-funded PBS greeted with alarm.  Barron-Lopez described the authors as “roughly 100 right-wing organizations led by the Heritage Foundation,” including some former Trump administration officials" BARRON-LOPEZ: Professor Thomas Zimmer at Georgetown, who studies authoritarian regimes…explained that Trump wasn't necessarily able to institute this in 2017, when he first took office, because he didn't have the amount of loyalists that he plans on having across the board. And with these new loyalists, Zimmer said, he can advance a white Christian evangelical ideal of American society. (...) THOMAS ZIMMER (Georgetown University): It is opposed to egalitarian democracy because it fundamentally does not agree that all people are equal or deserve to be treated as equal citizens. Only those who belong to the "true people," to real America, deserve that. And so everyone else needs to either be purged from the nation or, at the very least, accept their sort of lesser place in society. Barron-Lopez didn’t blink at that hysterical take but simply forwarded that apocalyptic spin: Professor Zimmer added that that type of purging he's talking about takes roots in the McCarthyism of the early 1950s, where they essentially tried to sweep away anyone across American society that would deviate from perceived norms. Truly bizarre. This segment of left-wing paranoia was brought to you in part by Raymond James. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 3/27/24 7:17:09 p.m. (ET) William Brangham: On the campaign trail, Trump has been talking about what he plans to do if elected in November, and that includes rolling back the rights of millions of LGBTQ people. It's part of a wider playbook to undo many modern civil rights advances for minority groups. White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez has been following this, and she joins us now. Hi. Laura Barron-Lopez: Hi. William Brangham: So, on LGBTQ rights, what has Trump said he wants to do? Laura Barron-Lopez: Since launching his campaign, former President Donald Trump has targeted LGBTQ people, transgender people. He's attacked gender-affirming care for minors, as well as their ability to play in sports. And he says that he plans quick action if elected. Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: On day one, I will sign a new executive order to cut federal funding for any school pushing Critical Race Theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto our children Laura Barron-Lopez: That promise you just heard, William, has become a staple of former President Donald Trump 's campaign rallies. William Brangham: How much of that, though, is just campaign rally rhetoric? I mean, we know that kind of language excites a certain slice of his base. How much of that is just him talking versus what he actually plans to do? Laura Barron-Lopez: Well, it's not just campaign rhetoric. And his allies have drafted a sweeping document titled Project 2025. It's led by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, and it details a blueprint for a second term for Trump. Specifically on restricting LGBTQ rights, what that details is reinstating a transgender military ban, limiting LGBTQ workplace discrimination protections. Currently, under the law, sexual orientation, and gender identity are protected. It would rescind health care protections for transgender people and urge Congress to define gender as male and female, fixed at birth. Trump has repeatedly said, also, William, that he would ban gender-affirming care for minors. And this playbook makes pretty clear that his plan — this plan also is trying to stop any and all acknowledgement of an acceptance of gender identity and LGBTQ people, period. And so, throughout this blueprint, there's some pretty striking language where government — saying that government officials should only recognize marriages between a man and a woman and that a man and a woman are the ideal natural family structure. Also, in addition to that, William, Trump has outlined a number of policies that essentially help minority groups and that they would be on the chopping block. So, when it comes to Project 2025 cuts to diversity, what the plan would do is delete diversity, equity and inclusion from every piece of legislation, remove diversity, equity, inclusion offices from federal agencies, curtail the teaching of race and racism, and urge Congress to ban federal funds for Critical Race Theory training. Essentially, William, Trump has vowed on the campaign trail to terminate all DEI programs. William Brangham: Are all of those things that you listed, are those within the purview of the president? Can he legally just go ahead and do those things? Laura Barron-Lopez: So, technically, this relies on Trump, if he is reelected, enacting a legal concept known as the unitary executive theory, and that's outlined in Project 2025. And it essentially suggests that Trump could basically just work around or ignore congressional oversight. And we spoke to Kim Wehle — she's the professor — a law professor at the University of Baltimore — about Trump's ability to carry out Project 2025. Kimberly Wehle, Former U.S. Associate Independent Counsel: With Donald Trump , the question isn't so much what the law authorizes. It's that if he has an army of employees that are willing to be loyal to whatever he wants and they implement what he directs, then the question is, is there going to be pushback through Congress, through the courts, through the voters? If there's no accountability and pushback, then the answer to your question is, yes, then these things can happen, because there's nothing to stop him. Laura Barron-Lopez: As you heard Professor Wehle say there, this plan really relies on loyalists being installed across the board in government for him to be able to carry this out. William Brangham: I mean, as you and others have reported, I mean, this — these LGBTQ changes, proposed changes, are pretty sweeping. But Project 2025 has a lot of other things. Who is it — you mentioned it's Heritage, but who else is behind this project? Laura Barron-Lopez: So this draft blueprint playbook was created by roughly 100 right-wing organizations led by the Heritage Foundation. And a number of these authors are actually people that worked in Trump's administration when he was president, including Peter Navarro, a former White House official, Roger Severino of the Health and Human Services department, and Ken Cuccinelli at the Homeland Security Department. They have all contributed to drafting this. They're contenders for a future Cabinet if Trump were to win reelection. This is a 180-day manual of sorts, William, that outlines the ability for former President Trump to consolidate power under the presidency. And I spoke to Professor Thomas Zimmer at Georgetown, who studies authoritarian regimes, and he explained that Trump wasn't necessarily able to institute this in 2017, when he first took office, because he didn't have the amount of loyalists that he plans on having across the board. And with these new loyalists, Zimmer said, he can advance a white Christian evangelical ideal of American society. Thomas Zimmer, Georgetown University: This is not going to beat Trump presidency part two, just more of the same. This is qualitatively something very, very different. It is opposed to egalitarian democracy because it fundamentally does not agree that all people are equal or deserve to be treated as equal citizens. Only those who belong to the — quote, unquote — "true people," to real America, deserve that. And so everyone else needs to either be purged from the nation or, at the very least, accept their sort of lesser place in society. Laura Barron-Lopez: Professor Zimmer added that that type of purging he's talking about takes roots in the McCarthyism of the early 1950s, where they essentially tried to sweep away anyone across American society that would deviate from perceived norms.

ABC World News Tonight SQUEES Over Biden-Obama-Clinton Fundraiser

There are many reasons that underlie why we often refer to the corporate news media as “Regime Media”. Chief among them, their willingness to propagate Democrat talking points and obsequiously report things in a light most favorable to whatever Democrat is in power. ABC World News Tonight’s coverage of the much-ballyhooed three-president fundraiser in New York City certainly exemplifies “Regime Media”. Watch as anchor Linsey Davis and ABC Chief Biden Apple Polisher….errr…White House Correspondent Mary Bruce open up the propaganda-adjacent report: LINSEY DAVIS: Now, to the race for the White House, and four U.S. Presidents in New York. President Biden, holding a $25 million fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall tonight, with some high profile support from former presidents. Former President Obama hitching a ride to New York on Air Force One with President Biden. He'll be joined by former President Clinton on the stage tonight. Former President Trump also nearby at the wake for a fallen police officer, just three weeks until the start of his Manhattan criminal trial. ABC's Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce here in New York.  MARY BRUCE: Tonight, President Biden calling in the heavy hitters to give his campaign a jolt. Biden and former President Barack Obama touching down today in New York City. Teaming up tonight with former President Bill Clinton for what the campaign is touting as a record-shattering fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall. The Biden campaign billing the star-studded night as a massive show of force. If Washington D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people, as some say, then tonight’s event was the equivalent of a star-studded red-carpet premiere for a big-budget film. This certainly explains ABC’s coverage of the celebrity-laden fundraiser. Mary Bruce seemed like an entertainment reporter more than a chief White House correspondent. But there’s little discernible difference between those two beats nowadays. Linsey Davis was sure to set the tone in her intro, including the cheap shot at Donald Trump. Although the Stormy Daniels trial is certainly a newsworthy event, one struggles to see what it had to do with Trump’s visit to the wake of fallen NYPD officer Jonathan Diller. The answer is: absolutely nothing, beyond a common general geography. What’s more disgusting, it appears that this is the first mention of Officer Diller on ABC World News Tonight- wholly unavoidable because of who attended his wake, but unmentionable beforehand because his death makes the various Democrats in power look bad.  The report ends with Bruce sounding like a Biden communications staffer as she goes through the fundraising totals, contrasting Biden’s campaign haul with Trump’s legal expenses.  Days like this, if it weren’t for Regime Media we’d have no media at all. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Thursday, March 28th, 2024: LINSEY DAVIS: Now, to the race for the White House, and four U.S. Presidents in New York. President Biden holding a $25 million fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall tonight, with some high profile support from former presidents. Former President Obama hitching a ride to New York on Air Force One with President Biden. He'll be joined by former President Clinton on the stage tonight. Former President Trump also nearby at the wake for a fallen police officer, just three weeks until the start of his Manhattan criminal trial. ABC's Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce here in New York.  MARY BRUCE: Tonight, President Biden calling in the heavy hitters to give his campaign a jolt. Biden and former President Barack Obama touching down today in New York City. Teaming up tonight with former President Bill Clinton for what the campaign is touting as a record-shattering fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall. The Biden campaign billing the star-studded night as a massive show of force. A conversation with three presidents and musical guests, including Lizzo and Queen Latifah. The event expected to rake in an historic $25 million, more money than rival Donald Trump raised all last month. Tickets for the sold out fundraiser run from $225 to half a million dollars. Select high dollar donors can get their photo taken with all three presidents by famed photographer Annie Leibowitz. Outside the event in New York, pro-Palestinian protesters demanding a cease-fire. Biden and Trump are running neck and neck in national polls, with the race now tightening in key battleground states. Trump today making his own visit to New York, invited by the family to the wake of slain NYPD officer Jonathan Diller, a young father gunned down during a routine traffic stop. It comes as Trump is eager to put crime front and center in this election.  DONALD TRUMP: We have to stop it. We have to get back to law and order, we have to do a lot of things differently, because this is not working. This is happening too often. BRUCE: Now, the Trump campaign is claiming they have their own record-shattering fund-raiser coming up next week. They say that will bring in some $33 million, but the former president has already had to spend at least $60 million in political contributions to pay his legal bills. The bottom line here, Linsey, the Biden campaign is far outraising the Trump campaign, as the former president is still being weighed down by his legal woes. Linsey. DAVIS: Mary Bruce for us in New York today. Thank you, Mary.  

OMISSION: ABC World News Tonight Pretends FAFSA Disaster Doesn’t Exist

There is disaster brewing due to changes in the way college students file their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Delays in transmission of application data due to the rollout of a new application website may potentially affect millions of students, and in some cases, delay or cost them their financial aid. But this story, the most disastrous rollout and implementation of a government website since healthcare dot gov, does not appear to be newsworthy enough for ABC World News Tonight. It’s not like they’re completely unaware of the story. Here’s how the network covered the initial rollout of the application changes on Saturday, December 30th, 2023: WHIT JOHNSON: The process for applying for college financial aid could soon become a bit easier. The Education Department is expected to debut its new online FAFSA form, which allows families and students to provide financial information to schools. The revamp is supposed to simplify the process, but it will also include new ways that aid is calculated, meaning a change in how much in some students that they could receive.  Alas, the process was not made easier. And the glitches are ongoing, to this day. Per the Twin Cities’ Fox affiliate: WASHINGTON - The Department of Education disclosed an error in its evaluation of federal student aid, potentially leading to extended delays for thousands of applicants.  This situation puts numerous students who have sought federal aid for college funding at risk of indefinite postponements, particularly as enrollment deadlines approach. The Federal Student Aid office, which manages the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), announced on March 24 that its system failed to incorporate all necessary data fields to accurately compute aid based on students' reported assets.  Consequently, applicants must have their submissions reprocessed and presented to educational institutions. … The Department of Education stated that the miscalculation has been rectified without specifying the time frame for reprocessing the impacted applications.  However, it acknowledged that the agency had disseminated inaccurate information. Approximately 200,000 applications were affected out of the over 1.5 million already processed in a year, where at least 6 million FAFSAs have been submitted thus far. The current issue arises amidst a significantly delayed system as officials rush to address technical malfunctions in the online form, handle application processing, and expedite the distribution of financial aid packages.  You would think that a major foulup such as this, which has already drawn demands for a congressional investigation, would garner significantly more network evening news air time than a minute and 55 seconds on CBS (2/29), two minutes and 14 seconds on NBC (3/1), and zero minutes on ABC, and yet here we are.  As Erick Erickson rightly notes, this SHOULD be a major national news story. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, who has devoted significant portions of his tenure to defending the advancement of the sexualization of children in schools as well as the right of men to compete in women's sports, has escaped the kind of scrutiny that DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has drawn over his handling of the border and that Transportation Secretary Peter Buttigieg has drawn over, well…everything else.  And when you stop to consider whether the story of the FAFSA disaster has truly gone underreported, ask yourself: what would the coverage be like had this happened under Betsy DeVos? Once again, the Regime Media go out of their way to avoid reporting a story that makes the Biden administration look bad.   

Column: Jon Stewart, the Tribeca Trickster of Real Estate

On March 25, The Daily Show host Jon Stewart uncorked a typical not-so-funny sermon about how Donald Trump overvaluing real-estate properties was not a “victimless crime.” Trump has been found liable for fraud despite no banker or financier ever claiming Trump victimized them. Then the New York Post reported talk-show host Tim Pool tweeted that in 2014, Stewart sold his 6,280-square-foot Tribeca duplex to financier Parag Pande for $17.5 million. But according to 2013-2014 assessor records obtained by the Post, the property had an estimated market-value at only $1.882 million. The actual assessor valuation was even lower, at $847,174. “Records also show that Stewart paid significantly lower property taxes, which were calculated based on that assessor valuation price,” the Post reported, “precisely what he called Trump out for doing in his Monday monologue.” In his original tenure at Comedy Central, Stewart was making an estimated $25-30 million dollars a year for his satirical labor. Stewart tried to mock people for comparing the two overvaluations and alleged under-taxpaying. His sarcasm was over the top: “OMG!! I've been caught doing something not remotely similar to Trump! I guess all I need to do now is start a fraud college, steal classified docs, bankrupt casinos, pay hush money, grab pussies, discriminate in housing, cheat at golf and foment insurrection and you'll revere me!” Liberal journalists energetically went to work on Stewart’s behalf, proclaiming it’s all “apples and oranges.” But Stewart clearly felt he could pompously mock Trump and no one would ever notice how he made out like a bandit. Why would Parag Pande pay so much more for a property than its assessed value? (Pande sold it in 2021 at a 26 percent loss.) Is it because he’s a Democrat who’s donated to Joe Biden and Cory Booker? The liberal elites didn’t care. Jon Stewart is always beyond suspicion. Comedians are their most honored spin soldiers. Conservative media outlets are making a point. New York Attorney General Letitia James is an elected Democrat, elected on a platform of ruining Trump. She’s not fair or objective. New York Post columnist Miranda Devine reported on James landing on the exact opposite side of a dispute where the American Irish Historical Society dramatically overvalued its building, but James is intervening on their behalf. What Letitia James and Jon Stewart and the entire Democrat messaging machine are doing is prosecuting Trump for something they wouldn’t do for anyone else. Politics explain why Trump is being prosecuted by elected Democrat Tish James, by elected Democrat Alvin Bragg, by elected Democrat Fani Willis, and by Democrat-appointed prosecutor Jack Smith. Do you remember the 1990s, when anchormen like Dan Rather couldn’t say the name Kenneth Starr without calling him a “Republican” independent counsel? The networks are now completely incapable of describing the Democrats prosecuting Trump as Democrats. They pretend all of these prosecutions have no political motives whatsoever. That is simply misinformation.  So remember when Jon Stewart makes fun of oafish millionaires and billionaires, and how they couldn’t possibly know what it’s like to be an average American who can’t exploit their wealth. Stewart never looks in the mirror. Add the dittos for the other Democrat millionaire jesters – John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, and so on.  All the Democrat messaging machine tells us is how Stewart is such an admirable advocate for military veterans and 9-11 first responders. They’re all on the same team, and they are all about doing PR spin for each other. The most atrocious spin is that these outlets are the “fact-based” media in the “mainstream” of America. 

Reid, Steele Fawn Over Biden-Celebrity Fundraiser: Trump 'Can't Do This'

MSNBC’s Joy Reid and her favorite Republican, Michael Steele, oohed and awed on Thursday’s The ReidOut over President Joe Biden’s fundraiser with former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and a cast of celebrities, including CBS’s Stephen Colbert. Not only did they fawn over Biden, they thought the fact that Donald Trump “can’t do this” and that George W. Bush won’t do it for him deserved to be some election-defining revelation. Steele was joined by Columbia University journalism dean, Jelani Cobb, whom Reid referenced when she gushed, “But I think, to Jelani’s point, it's just the fact that Joe Biden can gather former presidents to himself. The fact that he can gather a celebrity presence to himself. These are things that whatever else Donald Trump can do, he can gather Marjorie Taylor Greene to himself, he can't do this.”     Steele agreed, "Yeah, it's, you know, I'm sitting here looking at this, and, you know, realizing, we've got one former living president in Donald Trump. That's what we got and you sit there and say, ‘hmm, what do you do with that?’” Most people would say nothing because liberal celebrities endorsing liberal presidents isn’t exactly earth-shattering news, but Michael Steele is not most people, “George Bush is not coming to an event for Donald Trump. George Bush is not going to get out there and bring a celebrity cadre and donors to Donald Trump and that speaks volumes about this moment for the Republican Party. When the former president who led this party is not a factor on behalf of Donald Trump in his effort to regain the White House.” Put Trump aside, Bush couldn’t get celebrities to come out for anyone he would support because, again, celebrities, especially the ones MSNBC likes, are overwhelmingly liberal. Celebrities, like Colbert, weren’t exactly big fans of him either. Nevertheless, Steele continued to try to make the fact there is no Republican equivalent to the Biden-Obama-Clinton-celebrity fundraiser a big deal, “And there's a reason for that and it's not just, ‘oh, he's a RINO.’ It is substantively the point both you and Jelani are making about summoning the power of the office. Galvanizing that image for the country in a way that solidifies the reality and the power and the influence, but most importantly, the importance of the presidency as we understood it growing up, right?  He continued, “And Donald Trump is all about tearing all that ish down because it-- he doesn't like it, because it requires of him something he cannot summon within himself and that's discipline, focus, presidential temper, he's just a whacked out two-bit carnival barker who happened to luckily wind up in the right place at the right time to become president.” While The ReidOut fawns over lavish and elite fundraisers, it won’t be long until it tries to portray Trump and his supporters as the rich, out-of-touch elitists.  Here is a transcript for the March 28 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 3/28/2024 7:07 PM ET JOY REID: And it's also about the contrast, Michael, because, I mean, look, you do need cash.  I mean-- in presidential campaigns, cash helps, you know, money helps and they're going to have $25 million, and again, Joe Biden doesn't have to spend that on legal fees, you know, it's not being siphoned off to go toward lawyers. But I think, to Jelani’s point, it's just the fact that Joe Biden can gather former presidents to himself. The fact that he can gather a celebrity presence to himself. These are things that whatever else Donald Trump can do, he can gather Marjorie Taylor Greene to himself, he can't do this.  MICHAEL STEELE: Yeah, it's, you know, I'm sitting here looking at this, and, you know, realizing, we've got one former living president in Donald Trump. That's what we got and you sit there and say, “hmm, what do you do with that?” George Bush is not coming to an event for Donald Trump. George Bush is not going to get out there and bring a celebrity cadre and donors to Donald Trump and that speaks volumes about this moment for the Republican Party. When the former president who led this party is not a factor on behalf of Donald Trump in his effort to regain the White House.  And there's a reason for that and it's not just, "oh, he's a RINO." It is substantively the point both you and Jelani are making about summoning the power of the office. Galvanizing that image for the country in a way that solidifies the reality and the power and the influence, but most importantly, the importance of the presidency as we understood it growing up, right?  REID: Yeah. And Donald Trump is all about tearing all that ish down because it-- he doesn't like it, because it requires of him something he cannot summon within himself and that's discipline, focus, presidential temper, he's just a whacked out two-bit carnival barker who happened to luckily wind up in the right place at the right time to become president.  Even his biographers and his supporters know, oh, he didn't expect to become president.  REID: Yeah, he did not. STEELE: And that tells us a lot and it should tell his supporters a lot.  REID: Yeah. STEELE: But more importantly, it should tell the rest of the country a lot about what their priorities should be when it comes to salvaging us away from a Donald Trump and yes, as Liz Cheney said, she and I have profound differences with this president on policy and I am very happy to have that debate when he's re-elected this November. 

Grampy Milk! Transgender Woman Breastfeeds Grandkid

Men can’t breastfeed. End of story. A transgender woman, with the help of Duke University researchers, breastfed “her” grandchild. In plain English, researchers gave the biological man an experimental hormonal drug so that he could feed his grandkid through his hairy man boobies. Talk about a dystopian universe! The transgender woman had five children of his own and when his grandkids came around and he identified as a she, the individual had a strong desire to breastfeed since he couldn’t with his own kids, Daily Mail reported. Researchers, who published their study in the journal Breastfeeding Medicine, helped the patient accomplish his dream. “The patient first expressed the unique desire to breastfeed her expected grandchild at an appointment with her endocrinologist in the spring of 2022,” researchers wrote, later adding, “Her primary motivation for inducing lactation was to experience the bond from breastfeeding that she had not been able to experience with her own five children.” Apparently, after taking galactagogue domperidone, the 50-year-old trans woman was able to produce 30mL of milk at a time after being on the hormonal treatment for four weeks. “The patient had modifications to her hormone therapy with estrogen and progesterone while remaining on antiandrogen therapy with spironolactone,” the abstract of the study indicated. The patient breastfed her grandchild for two weeks.  “She was moved to tears by the experience,” Daily Mail reported before adding that the experience “had the added benefit of affirming her female gender and making her breasts larger.” Apparently, he also developed a “special bond” with his grandchild after forcing the baby to suck from his man nipples.  This is freakin’ weird if you ask me. I mean, imagine being breastfed by your grandpa. Ew. Just ew. “Babies cannot consent to being participants in a study which sets aside biological reality to define treatment protocols relating to so-called ‘gender medicine,’” Maya Forstater, executive director of campaign group Sex Matter, said. “Men should not be permitted, still less supported, to get between babies and their mothers, or to use babies as props to validate their beliefs that they are women.” Couldn’t have said it better myself. This is absolutely disgusting and is abusive to the baby all for the sake of affirming your delusion? How utterly sick.

Ohio English Teacher Resigns After OnlyFans Content is Leaked

Jennifer Ruziska resigned from Springfield High School in Ohio after being put on administrative leave when sexual content from her OnlyFans, Fansly and Instagram accounts were leaked. Guess you shouldn’t try to teach kids English and work as an online porn star at the same time. Ruziska, 50, was an English teacher for 9th graders at the school, as well as the cheerleading coach and yearbook advisor, local news station WTVG reported. She served nearly 30 years with the school and made $74,720 annually. But apparently that wasn’t enough, so she supplemented her income with her online porn work. Her Instagram account was called “jenniferssecrets” and the profile picture was her kneeling down in the bathroom in a red undie/bra set. The bio on the social media account, which has a link to her page, read, “If you like what you see but want more of me, check me out on Fansly and be one of my best kept secrets." Superintendent Matt Geha sent a letter to Ruziscka when her images and accounts began to spread. He told Ruziscka in an email that “an online account which is open and available to the public for view that is maintained by you and includes sexualized images and videos of you.” Geha said that Ruziscka violated the Licensure Code of Professional Conduct for Ohio Educators, Sections 1, 8 and 9 (h). As Daily Mail noted, “Section 9, which is labeled ‘Appropriate and Responsible Use of Technology’ stated: ‘While maintaining their constitutional rights, educators recognize that when using technology, the words they choose and the context of their statements can reflect negatively on the positions, schools and the profession.'” Yeah, I’d say Ruziscka’s posts are in violation of that… She was placed on administrative leave as of Monday, January 29 with her last day in the classroom being the Friday before, January 26. In a February 2 letter to the Ohio Board of Education, Geha said that he became aware of the poor conduct on January 26 when he got word that Ruziscka was operating a “pornographic/sexually explicit website.”  Ruziscka had a disciplinary hearing set for January 31, but ended up resigning before the hearing. Here’s what Ruziscka said in a statement she told WTOL 11, another local news station.  In William Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, as Juliet laments Romeo being a Montague, the only son of her family's great enemy, she recognizes, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Likewise, people can label me anything they want to; however, it doesn't change the commendable level of dedication and exemplary work ethic I execute as an educator.  Regardless of what I do in my private life for the sake of keeping a roof over my family's head and a car parked in the garage, I remain one of the greatest English teachers ever to serve in the Springfield Local School District. My students learn to value their personal and academic growth in my classroom, which is an environment where they are embraced for their individuality, they are engaged to apply their talents, and they are enlightened about their true potential. The numerous accolades and recognition I have earned over the 28 years I spent in SLS is evidence of that. The fact that this educator was acting in such a way is really disturbing considering the authority and influence she had over kids. But the fact that she seemed to express no guilt or remorse is even more troubling.

Dr. Robert Epstein Blasts Google’s Election Interference: ‘Democracy’ in US Is ‘Illusion’

Renowned psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein blew the lid off the sheer power of leftist Big Tech giant Google and its ability to manipulate American voters without them even knowing it. “What this does is it makes a free and fair election into an illusion, into almost a joke,” Epstein remarked during a March 29 West Virginia State Election Committee hearing on Big Tech election interference and campaign contributions. During this hearing, Epstein elucidated the scary amount of information that Big Tech collects on its users in order to make a fortune and even re-engineer American society from the shadows. “Democracy at the moment, in the United States of America, is an illusion.” The hearing came in the aftermath of MRC Free Speech America’s latest groundbreaking study documenting 41 instances of Google manipulating its algorithms to interfere in elections since 2008 to benefit leftist candidates. For example, Google was exposed actively suppressing the websites of President Joe Biden’s political opponents during the 2024 election cycle.  Epstein unveiled his own research that reportedly uncovered Google was giving biased search results that were catered around Google’s preferences rather than the users. Google did not recommend conservative content even in heavily conservative states like Montana, he said.  “In all 50 states, Google is sending liberally biased content,” Epstein stated. “They’re not sending content based on people’s interests. They’re sending content based on their interest.”  Google uses its algorithm and an alarming amount of surveillance and data collection to selectively target voters to vote in manners that the Google social conditioners want. Epstein pointed out that Google sends vote reminders to liberal voters at a much higher rate than to conservative voters. “Imagine this, Google is sending register reminders to liberals at about two and a half times the rate at which they’re sending register-to-vote reminders to conservatives,” Epstein remarked. He also highlighted that this strategy was used by Google against conservatives in the 2022 Florida midterms.  “On Election Day, in 2022, liberals were getting go vote reminders from Google all day long,” Epstein noted. “100 percent of liberals were getting go vote reminders from Google. 59 percent of conservatives were getting those reminders.” According to Epstein, this strategy alone can shift the votes of millions of people. He suggested that just Google was able to flip the 2020 Election, prevent Kari Lake from winning the 2022 Arizona gubernatorial race and prevented the Republicans from taking a larger majority in the House of Representatives in 2022.         Epstein asserted that Google is able to achieve all of this through a massive and intrusive spying network that it has created through its technologies and subsidiary companies. “Google alone—if you’ve been using the internet for the past 20 years, Google has more than three million pages of information about you,” Epstein warned. “They’re not only monitoring everything you do if you use Gmail or if you’re foolish enough to use Chrome or Android, that’s all Google, or if you’re foolish enough to use YouTube,” he said.  MRC Free Speech America Associate Editor Joseph Vazquez 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, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.   

NBC’s Most Well-Spoken Democratic Party Policy Pusher Departs Network

The cast of NBC’s Today were in tears Friday as they bid human interest reporter (and former longtime CBS anchor) Harry Smith a fond farewell as he would be leaving the network to teach a college course and write books; essentially retiring from journalism. But we at NewsBusters know Smith as more than just the buttery smooth voice that shared tales of human experiences. Throughout his stop at NBC, he’s used that voice to promote, sell, and spin the policy proposals of the Democratic Party to millions of Americans. “I have nothing but gratitude. Every time I would come on this show I was always welcomed so generously, so generously, I've had just this unbelievable array of phenomenal experiences since coming to NBC and so I'm really full of nothing but gratitude,” Smith told the Today co-hosts. As for his plans for the future, he said he would be returning to his alma mater, Central College Iowa to teach a course on “curiosity.” But when it came to reporting on politics, Smith seemed to be exclusively curious about what was going on with Democrats. As NewsBusters reported during the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, specifically the Democratic primary, Smith helmed two complimentary and exhaustive series that were designed to present the policies of the Democratic candidates in a way that didn’t stoke contention between them, nor promote pushback or alternative Republican proposals: “My Big Idea” and “What Matters.” Smith used it as a way to make the wide Democratic field palpable to the audience and increase their chances of unseating then-President Trump. It was a concerted effort that was not repeated when a large Republican field was competing to unseat President Biden. NBC kicked off their Democratic campaigning in June of 2019 with their so-called “My Big Idea” series, giving themselves plenty of time to highlight and showcase the breadth of the Democratic field long before primary voters were cast. “And tonight, we're launching a series with our Harry Smith to let candidates tell you the idea they say separates them from the vast field of contenders. We're calling it ‘My Big Idea,’” NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt boasted at the time. The network dedicated a segment to every major Democratic candidate in the race, even those who didn’t stand a chance. They started with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-NH), then-California Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Housing Secretary Julian Castro, Governor Jay Inslee (WA), Senator Cory Booker (NY), former congressman Beto O’Rourke (TX), Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), businessman Andrew Yang, Governor Steve Bullock (MT), and Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN). Conveniently, Smith managed to cram all of those reports into a two-week time frame leading up to the first Democratic debate. And he pulled it off again with the partner series “What Matters,” where Smith sat down with the remaining candidates to discuss “what matters” to Democratic voters ahead of the second Democratic Party debate; conveniently hosted by NBC News. Beyond his work for Democrats during the 2020 election cycle, Smith was one of the liberal media folks in 2007 who praised Al Gore’s global-warming-alarmist film An Inconvenient Truth; he even tried to pin a campaign button on Gore during an interview. In 2008, Smith was so excited that then-candidate Obama got the coveted endorsement from the Kennedy family that he called him “the heir of Camelot.” Smith moped when Obama left office, cited scripture to stick it to Republicans, decried “gun rights defenders,” and bashed Americans as uncaring during the pandemic. While his NBC colleagues shed tears for his retirement, NewsBusters says good riddance.

YouTube Potentially Signals Continued Commitment to Censorship Ahead of 2024 Elections

YouTube has disclosed the company’s four new focus areas ahead of the 2024 presidential election. To many, these guidelines look like a policy of further censorship on the video-sharing platform.  As reported by Reclaim The Net on Thursday, YouTube has released a new video on its blog discussing its four new areas of focus with its new chief product officer, Johanna Voolich.  During the interview, published on Wednesday, Voolich noted that “responsibility” is one of the three areas she focuses on when developing products. She said, “We want to do this in a way to make sure that YouTube is a responsible actor in society.” Voolich’s remarks raise some serious questions about what the policy creators and moderators at YouTube believe being a responsible actor would look like, particularly in the lead-up to a presidential election. YouTube has defined what the term means for its policies in the past, Reclaim The Net reported.  According to a blog published on Sept. 3, 2019, YouTube has 4R’s of responsibility: “1. Remove content that violates our policy as quickly as possible.  2. Raise up authoritative voices when people are looking for breaking news and information.  3. Reward trusted, eligible creators and artists.  4. Reduce the spread of content that brushes right up against our policy line.” To some, this signals that YouTube’s policies advocate for censorship and that suppression of alternate views on the platform will likely continue or even escalate in this election year. Vice President of Free Speech America Dan Schneider believes this to be the case.   “The closer we get to the November elections, the more censorship and propagandizing we are going to see out of YouTube and Google,” Schneider commented.  “We’ve predicted it, we know it, and we’re gonna see more of it.” YouTube’s parent company Google has also come under fire over the issue of censorship and election interference. A March 18 report by the MRC Free Speech America revealed 41 instances of Google using its gigantic influence and algorithms to influence elections to boost its preferred candidates and suppress unfavorable candidates. Relating to the 2024 election, Google was caught burying the campaign websites of former President Donald Trump and former Democrat candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. (now running as an Independent) and many others while prominently displaying the campaign websites of President Joe Biden and Democrat presidential primary candidate Marianne Williamson. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.     

Matt Walsh RIPS CBS News for Pushing Biden’s EV Propaganda

The Daily Wire host Matt Walsh hammered a major television network for trying to sell an unconstitutional Environmental Protection Agency power grab to the American public.  On the March 27 edition of The Matt Walsh Show, Walsh went after both the EPA and CBS News for defending President Joe Biden’s push to “phase out all gas-powered vehicles.”  After playing a CBS News segment on the EPA power grab that was announced on March 20th, Walsh noted that both EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan and the cast at CBS pushed an illusion of choice on Americans, insisting that the EPA’s new regulation was not truly an electric vehicle mandate.  “The reporter assures us this EPA rule isn’t anything like an EV mandate because it doesn’t strictly require that automakers only manufacture EVs. Technically, they can make hybrids, they can make hydrogen cars,” Walsh said, going through a list of cars that did not include the gas-powered vehicles that most Americans drive. Walsh’s comments followed a March 21 CBS Mornings segment, obsequiously reporting on the mandate announced the day before.  Walsh pointed out that similar to CBS, Regan is also trying to hoodwink Americans as the Biden administration takes away their choices. “[Regan] claimed that the agency is simply expanding consumer choice by telling us things that we can’t have and can’t drive, they’re actually expanding our options,” Walsh said sarcastically. “It’s addition by subtraction apparently, because of course in reality, rather than expanding our choices they’re doing the opposite and that talking point completely obscures what’s really happening here.”   The Daily Wire host laid Biden’s plans bare with none of CBS’ careful language. “The Biden administration is using the EPA, using a bureaucracy, using unelected bureaucrats to effectively pass a law banning the sale of most gas cars without ever consulting the voters and without ever getting the legislative branch of government involved at all,” Walsh said. He also noted that the law-making responsibility usurped by the EPA belongs to Congress. He went on to discuss the rule itself. “Specifically, the EPA’s new rule demands that car manufacturers slash emissions on all new passenger cars, SUVs, crossovers, minivans, light trucks and pickups by roughly 50% by the year 2032. And by the EPA’s own estimates that means that up to 56% of new vehicles will have to be EVs and at least 13% will need to be plug-in hybrids. That is a massive reduction on the number of gas-powered cars that will be allowed on the road.”  This unconstitutional power grab will be a disaster for American drivers and the auto industry. Draconian regulations like the Biden EV mandate aren’t working in California. CBS News knew this before they ran their recent propaganda segment. On Feb. 26, CBS Mornings documented the difficulties that drivers in California and large cities across the nation face charging their electric vehicles.  [See More: Matt Walsh on the Radical Environmentalism of the Biden Administration] 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.

Politico: White House Reporters Steal From Air Force One

White House reporters like to portray themselves as the guardians of democracy who hold the powerful accountable, but if a Thursday Politico report by Eli Stokols, Lauren Egan, and Ben Johnson is true, they are also a collection of thieves who steal things from Air Force One. Theft is apparently so rampant aboard the presidential aircraft that the authors describe it as “shockingly common — a rite of passage where the thieves proudly discuss and display their stolen goods.” They report that the president of the White House Correspondents' Association, NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, had to remind her colleagues that such behavior is not permitted and does not reflect well on the press corps. The sleuthing trio continues, “For years, scores of journalists — and others — have quietly stuffed everything from engraved whiskey tumblers to wine glasses to pretty much anything with the Air Force One insignia on it into their bag before stepping off the plane.” One anonymous reporter told Politico that “on my first flight, the person next to me was like, ‘You should take that glass.’ They were like: ‘Everyone does it.’” Several reporters also recalled that “one former White House correspondent for a major newspaper described them hosting a dinner party where all the food was served on gold-rimmed Air Force One plates, evidently taken bit by bit over the course of some time.” Additionally, “reporters recalled coming down the back stairs after returning to Joint Base Andrews in the evening with the sounds of clinking glassware or porcelain plates in their backpacks.” Back in February, the White House started to clamp down on the thieves, offering those who had “inadvertently wound up taking something off the plane by mistake” the chance to make “a quiet return.” One former official told Politico it is not “a massive amount of theft. It was just a petty, chronic grift.” Yet, Politico reports that only one pillowcase snatcher took them up on the offer.

Nets Celebrate ‘Star-Studded’ Biden Fundraiser, ABC SLAMS Trump for Visiting NYPD Wake

On Friday, ABC, CBS, and NBC displayed proverbial thrills up their legs as they celebrated President Biden’s “high-powered”, “splashy”, “star-studded”, and “unprecedented” Radio City Music Hall fundraiser featuring “heavy hitters” from Hollywood and Democratic party politics (former Presidents Clinton and Obama) with tickets going for half a million dollars. In contrast, the three downplayed former President Trump’s visit to the wake of fallen NYPD officer Jonathan Diller and ABC’s Good Morning America even bashed this visit as rank hypocrisy, arguing Trump doesn’t actually support police since his supporters attacked police officers on January 6, 2021.     Fill-in co-host Eva Pilgrim basked in the “high-powered fundraiser” as having “raise[d] millions” with [f]ormer Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama having “join[ed] forces with the [current] President”. Chief White House correspondent and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce fawned over the “unprecedented” and “critical night for” her dear President, who brought in “the heavy hitters and some star power to give his campaign a boost.” “This morning, the Biden campaign is celebrating what it’s touting as a historic night. A star studded fundraiser at New York’s Radio City Music Hall raising a whopping $26 million in a single night,” she added. Adding “big name stars [came] out too”, Bruce said “all three presidents made the case that Trump presents a dangerous threat to American democracy” and “tried to energize voters around Biden’s record”. By night’s end, Bruce bragged, “[t]he record-breaking event” hauled “in more money than Trump raised all last month.” Bruce threw a bone to the pro-Hamas crowd who repeatedly interrupted the event, describing them as “protesters...calling calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and accusing the Biden administration of aiding genocide” Pivoting to Trump, senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott seemed burden in having to share that “Trump was eager to try to draw a contrast with President Biden and that star-studded fund-raiser just a few miles away, meeting with the family of an NYPD officer who was killed in the line of duty.” Scott then questioned Trump’s motives for going and even dismissed any and all Americans concerned about crime by deeming it a figment of their imaginations. And, on Trump, she argued Trump doesn’t actually support police: The former President attended the wake for Diller but also used it as an opportunity to call for a crackdown on violent crime, telling reporters the country has got to get back to law and order. Trump did not provide any specific details on how he would combat crime if he were to be reelected and FBI data does show a drop in violent crime nationwide. It is also worth noting as the former President continues to push for law and order, he also has expressed deep support for the rioters that stormed the Capitol on January 6th. Many of whom were convicted for brutally attacking police officers that day. And, of course, Trump himself is now being charged with 88 criminal counts On CBS Mornings, co-host Tony Dokoupil proclaimed Bidne’s event was “splashy” and filled with “star power” featuring CBS colleague and Late Show host Stephen Colbert while, on the other side, Trump “visit[ed] with the family of an NYPD officer killed in the line of duty on Monday.” Campaign correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns framed this “star-studded fundraiser” as having underlined Biden’s “one advantage over his rival and that is cash” despite “protesters over war in Gaza” making “their voices heard”. She continued (click “expand”): HUEY-BURNS: The event, headlined by former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, brought in, according to the campaign, a record $26 million, cash Biden will need as he trails former President Donald Trump in many general election polls. PRO-HAMS PROTESTERS: [inaudible] with genocide! HUEY-BURNS: As the Presidents arrived, so, too, did protesters, in opposition to the administration’s handling of the war in Gaza, a major issue with a key voting block. And inside, there were several disruptions as protesters were escorted out. Despite President Biden’s low approval rating, his campaign has $71 million in the bank compared to the Trump chain’s $34 million. Trump’s legal troubles have been draining resources. A Super PAC supporting him has spent $8.5 million on legal fees so far this year, including $5.5 million just last month. Meanwhile, Trump was also in New York to attend the wake of fallen NYPD officer Jonathan Diller, who was fatally shot Monday during a traffic stop. A visit made to send a campaign message. TRUMP: We have to stop it. We have to get back to law and order. We have to do a lot of things differently because this is not working. This is happening too often. HUEY-BURNS: And Trump plans a fundraiser of his own in Palm Beach next week and that’s just a couple of days after he’s due to post that $175 million bond in a civil fraud case. And he’ll be back here in New York again in just two weeks when his first criminal trial is due to begin. NBC’s Today was also gleeful. Co-host Savannah Guthrie and senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez both deployed the “star-studded” label and only referred to the pro-terrorist crowd as “protesters”. Gutierrez offered up all the key White House talking points and only a single sentence on Trump (click “expand”): GUTIERREZ: [T]he Biden campaign is trying to build momentum after the State of the Union. The former President was in also in the New York area for a last-minute stop, setting up yet another split screen moment. Overnight, a trio of presidents inside Radio City Music Hall. Presidents Biden, Obama, and Clinton presenting a united front as the race for the White House against another former President, Donald Trump, kicks into high gear. The star-studded fundraiser featuring late-night host Stephen Colbert. (....) GUTIERREZ: The event also included performances by Lizzo, Queen Latifah, and Ben Platt. The Biden campaign, which did not allow reporters to record video inside the event, said it raised more than $25 million, a record haul. Actress and comedian Mindy Kaling joked about the price to get in. MINDY KALING: It is such an honor to be in this room with so many rich people. GUTIERREZ: Earlier in the day, former President Obama arrived with his one-time Vice President on Air Force One. NBC gained access to livestream early where the three presidents sat down for a pretaped campaign interview. BIDEN: And we’re just getting started, so let’s keep going. Let’s win in November. GUTIERREZ: Inside Radio City, the fundraiser interrupted a few times by pro-Palestinian protesters. PRO-HAMAS PROTESTER: You’re funding genocide in Palestine! GUTIERREZ: — while outside the iconic venue, demonstrators blasted President Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war. (....) GUTIERREZ: Also, in the New York area, former President Trump attended the wake of NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller, who was shot and killed this week during a traffic stop, meeting with his wife and one-year-old son. TRUMP: We have to get back to law and order. We have to do a lot of things differently because this is not working. To see the relevant transcripts from March 29, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

Biden Commits Train Brain Fart, PolitiFact Sprays Spin Against the Plain Truth!

President Biden obviously misspoke on Tuesday when he implied he went over Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge commuting by train or by bar. Because obviously, there were no train tracks over the Key Bridge. The facts mangled here are in Biden's sentence. But the unofficial Biden press secretaries at PolitiFact somehow pretended that Biden wasn't in the wrong. He was wronged.  There was no "Truth-O-Meter" rating for anybody, which would suggest these Poynter Institute functionaries know they're messing around. Their target is a Twitter account called @CensoredMen (which seems to be "pro-Palestinian," as the media politely say). It was archived as shared on a Facebook group page titled Gavin Newsom Is a Douche. The tweet is factual:  #BREAKING: Joe Biden says he's commuted over the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore many times via train. The problem is that the bridge features no train tracks... PolitiFact's Ciara O'Rourke, who often "checks" crazy anti-Biden items on social-media platforms and spins in Biden's favor (such as he is, in fact, a human being), jumped in with the pro-Biden/not-factual spin. The either/or in this sentence just can't be stretched:  Here’s what he said March 26 at the White House:  "At about 1:30, a container ship struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which I’ve been over many, many times commuting from the state of Delaware either on a train or by car." The White House clarified Biden’s comments to the New York Post, which ran a story headlined: "Biden claims he commuted over collapsed Baltimore Key Bridge by train’ many times’ —  but it doesn’t have any rail lines." "The President is clearly describing driving over the bridge while commuting between Delaware and (Washington) D.C. during his 36-year Senate career," the New York Post quoted White House spokesperson Robyn Patterson saying in a statement. Biden has a long history of commuting to the capital.  In other words, "the President is clearly describing what he MEANT to say, not what he actually said." O'Rourke followed up with more irrelevant blather about how Biden loved taking Amtrak trains.  PS: Our Maryland friends have pointed out you'd be a doofus to exit off I-95 to commute over the Key Bridge on I-695. Google Maps shows that route from Wilmington to Washington just looks like you're trying to delay your arrival: 

NewsBusters Podcast: The 'Democratic Party' Aims to Squash 'Spoilers'

 The Democratic Party turns out to be a pretty funny name, because they’re really interested this year in keeping everyone else off the ballot. Third-party "spoilers" like RFK Jr. must be treated by the media as a "threat" to democracy, since democracy and the Democrats are treated as synonymous.  Kennedy's announcement of running mate Nicole Shanahan -- a lawyer and ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Brin -- drew only brief notice on Tuesday night. PBS NewsHour offered 45 seconds, CBS 30 seconds, and NBC? Just eight seconds.  Alex Christy found Trump's 2020 primary opponents drew 115 TV interviews on the liberal networks, but Biden's 2024 primary opponents drew only 25. While he ran as a Democrat, RFK Jr. had two. Over on ABC's The View, Nick Fondacaro reported Joy Behar became unglued as she ranted about how “Somebody has to ask him: why are you doing this! Why do you want to destroy the election and hand it to Trump if possible?!”  She also claimed he was doing a disservice to the family name, saying: “He's a Kennedy. His forefathers are rolling over in their graves with this. His own family is telling him to get out. We already have one clown in the race. Do we need two of them?” Moderator Whoopi Goldberg really bought into the conspiracy theories, claiming Kennedy’s trying to “buy the election.” This at least came before Biden raised $25 million plus in one night next to Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Stephen Colbert. Then we revisit the scene of the Ronna McDaniel debacle, and how "mainstream" media reporters are now trying to claim hiring partisan pundits just doesn't make sense any more. Which might sound like "don't replace Ronna with a different Republican." Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts!   

PBS Attacks NBC's 'Gigantic Mistake' Of Hiring Ronna McDaniel

New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor and MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart came together on Friday’s PBS NewsHour to lament NBC’s “gigantic mistake” of hiring former RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, whom they promptly fired after backlash from Capehart and his colleagues. Host William Brangham set the stage by asking Brooks, “there was a revolt amongst many NBC anchors, who said, we can't have someone who actively tried to undo the last election be on our payroll and be on our airwaves. How do you — what do you — what do you make of how that played out?”     Brooks began, “I was glad they had the instinct to get more Trump-supporting people on the air. I think that's something we all need to work on.” However, things then went off the rails, “But here was someone clearly over the line. Like, to be on our air and our newspapers, you got to have some intellectual credibility. You have to have some primary commitment to the truth and the truth above partisanship and she was someone who clearly fails that test. I'm so old-fashioned that our founder here, Jim Lehrer, didn't vote. Like, he just thought, journalists, we don't do that.” How about the intellectual credibility of portraying yourself as the conservative half of Brooks and Capehart while routinely siding with him? Brooks did acknowledge that being a contributor who is paid to give opinions is different than someone who is supposed to be a straight news person, but he also displayed some double standards, “Now, there are people who have gone from being a politico to being a journalist. George Stephanopoulos comes to mind and lots of people.” He wrapped up his thoughts by adding, “You got to realize it's a different job with a different set of priorities, a different set of ethics. And to get somebody right off the RNC on the air as an analyst strikes me as just a gigantic mistake.” Jen Psaki came directly from the White House to be Capehart’s colleague at MSNBC, but Brangham didn’t ask either man about that. Instead, he turned to Capehart and wondered, “You are an employee of NBC and MSNBC and an anchor on one of — the wonderful show on that network. How did you respond to this?” Capehart proudly recalled, “I sent an e-mail — from my team. I wrote in response, I want to be clear, she will never be on our show, for the exact reasons David talked about.” He added, “this is not a partisan issue. This was a democracy issue. Every week, Saturday and Sunday, there's at least one block on my show where we talk about either the threats to democracy, how democracy is at risk, the role Trump is playing at putting our democracy at risk.” Continuing with his self-righteous ramblings, Capehart declared, “To have someone come on my show, where my — first and foremost, no matter who's watching, my duty is to present the facts. The privilege I have is to be able to say, as an opinion writer and as a prospective host on MSNBC, is I get to say what I think about those facts that I’ve reported. It would do the show no good and it would do my viewers no favors and would be a disservice to put someone on like Ronna McDaniel.” Apparently, Capehart is trying to get into comedy. Here is a transcript for the March 29 show: PBS NewsHour 3/29/2024 7:42 PM ET WILLIAM BRANGHAM:  OK, my next question. I want to talk about what happened with Ronna McDaniel at NBC. For those who are not following this, she was hired by NBC to be an on-air contributor. She's the former chairperson of the Republican National Committee and there was a revolt amongst many NBC anchors, who said, we can't have someone who actively tried to undo the last election be on our payroll and be on our airwaves. How do you — what do you — what do you make of how that played out? DAVID BROOKS: I was glad they had the instinct to get more Trump-supporting people on the air. I think that's something we all need to work on. But here was someone clearly over the line. Like, to be on our air and our newspapers, you got to have some intellectual credibility. You have to have some primary commitment to the truth and the truth above partisanship and she was someone who clearly fails that test. I'm so old-fashioned that our founder here, Jim Lehrer, didn't vote. Like, he just thought, journalists, we don't do that. I don't go as far as Jim did. But I do think there's a difference between being a politico, which is, I admire them, and what we do. They — we talk of — we're supposed to be — represent the truth first and foremost and criticize the parties. And their job is to criticize them as to be partisan. Now, there are people who have gone from being a politico to being a journalist. George Stephanopoulos comes to mind and lots of people. BRANGHAM: Sure. BROOKS: But you got to have — you got to realize it's a different job with a different set of priorities, a different set of ethics. And to get somebody right off the RNC on the air as an analyst strikes me as just a gigantic mistake. BRANGHAM: I mean, you are an employee of NBC and MSNBC and an anchor on one of — the wonderful show on that network. How did you respond to this? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, let's be clear that the Ronna McDaniel hiring was an NBC News hire. I'm at MSNBC. I'm not at NBC News. And when the announcement was made, e-mail came into the inbox. I sent an e-mail — from my team. I wrote in response, I want to be clear, she will never be on our show, for the exact reasons David talked about. It is — I have no — this is not a partisan issue. This was a democracy issue. Every week, Saturday and Sunday, there's at least one block on my show where we talk about either the threats to democracy, how democracy is at risk, the role Trump is playing at putting our democracy at risk. To have someone come on my show, where my — first and foremost, no matter who's watching, my duty is to present the facts. The privilege I have is to be able to say, as an opinion writer and as a prospective host on MSNBC, is I get to say what I think about those facts that I’ve reported. It would do the show no good and it would do my viewers no favors and would be a disservice to put someone on like Ronna McDaniel.  

Reid Accuses Thomas Of Selling Out For 'A Fabulous Lifestyle'

On Monday, MSNBC’s Joy Reid claimed that her objection to NBC hiring former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel was not because she was a Republican and that she has no problem welcoming them to her show. The rest of the week discredited that notion, and Friday’s edition of The ReidOut was just the latest example of Reid living in her bubble as she suggested Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has sold out for “a fabulous lifestyle.” Reid’s dislike of the Supreme Court goes beyond Thomas, as she addressed her panel of SiriusXM host Dean Obeidallah and author Clay Cane, “The Supreme Court is very clear that some of them are just like ‘we want Trump back.’”     Trying to come up with some proof for her claim, she added that “they also just want Republicans to win. The Supreme Court has slow walked an illegal Congressional map in South Carolina, they’re like ‘No, y’all got to vote on that map. You have to use that map because we can’t be bothered to get ourselves together to fix it.’” That assumes there’s something that needs fixing, as Obeidallah admitted when he condemned the Court for not having ruled on the map. “Yeah, and just to inform people, you know, about a year ago, a three panel—federal judges said the map where Nancy Mace represents is an illegal gerrymander. It dilutes the votes of black people. They argued before the Supreme Court last fall and this Supreme Court, GOP Court has not delivered an opinion. The result is a practical matter. They’re going to run the election on illegal maps.”  For Obeidallah, a Supreme Court that rules against him is a “GOP Court,” but one that would rule for him is simply “the judiciary,” and he demanded Democrats pack the court as a result, “And they still—this GOP Court, everybody has to view it the same way, it’s part of the GOP. It is not in the judiciary,it’s part of the apparatus. So, Democrats have to make expanding this Court and bringing judiciary to the judiciary one of the big things because they’re delaying the immunity case. The only thing they were fast on was the 14th Amendment case to make sure Trump got back on the ballot.“ Of course, that was a 9-0 case, but some narratives are allowed to supersede facts at The ReidOut. On Thomas specifically, Reid turned to Cane, whose book is about how terrible black conservatives are, and asked him, “You did write The Grift, explain Clarence Thomas, why is Clarence Thomas?” If Reid was serious about her Monday claim about hearing Republican perspectives, she could’ve brought on an actual conservative or former Thomas clerk, but instead Cane offered up a quite lazy, but satisfying for MSNBC response of “And Ginni Thomas. I call her a 10th member of the Supreme Court. That’s what I call her. Hey, listen, he put in a blueprint. He’s etched it in stone and he is—it’s been profitable for him. I guess he’ll be on more yachts from Harlan Crow—.” For Reid, it is unfathomable that Thomas could possibly disagree with her, “He’s essentially trading and I don't know if he believes this stuff or not, but essentially his votes are traded for a fabulous lifestyle that he couldn’t get from a job and the irony is he couldn’t get the job you wanted to be a rich lawyer because of racism.” For someone who claims to place a great emphasis on facts, Joy Reid sure does do a lot of projecting and motive questioning. Here is a transcript for the March 29 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 3/29/2024 7:51 PM ET JOY REID: The Supreme Court is very clear that some of them are just like “we want Trump back.” DEAN OBEIDALLAH: Yeah. REID: And they also just want Republicans to win. The Supreme Court has slow walked an illegal Congressional map in South Carolina, they’re like “No, y’all got to vote on that map. You have to use that map because we can’t be bothered to get ourselves together to fix it.” So, it seems to me that at this point the Supreme Court is in the business of trying to get Trump and Republicans elected.  OBEIDALLAH: Yeah, and just to inform people, you know, about a year ago, a three panel—federal judges said the map where Nancy Mace represents is an illegal gerrymander. REID: Yeah. OBEIDALLAH: It dilutes the votes of black people. They argued before the Supreme Court last fall— REID: Yeah. OBEIDALLAH: — and this Supreme Court, GOP Court has not delivered an opinion. The result is a practical matter. They’re going to run the election on illegal maps.  REID: Yeah. OBEIDALLAH: And they still—this GOP Court, everybody has to view it the same way, it’s part of the GOP. It is not in the judiciary— REID: Exactly. OBEIDALLAH: — it’s part of the apparatus. So, Democrats have to make expanding this Court and bringing judiciary to the judiciary— REID: Yeah. OBEIDALLAH: —one of the big things because they’re delaying the immunity case.  REID: Yeah. OBEIDALLAH: The only thing they were fast on was the 14th Amendment case— REID: Yeah. OBEIDALLAH: — to make sure Trump got back on the ballot.  REID: Get him back on the ballot. You did write The Grift, explain Clarence Thomas, why is Clarence Thomas? CLAY CANE: And Ginni Thomas. I call her a 10th member of the Supreme Court. REID: Yeah. CANE: That’s what I call her. Hey, listen, he put in a blueprint. He’s etched it in stone and he is—it’s been profitable for him. I guess he’ll be on more yachts from Harlan Crow—. REID: He’s essentially trading and I don't know if he believes this stuff or not, but essentially his votes are traded for a fabulous lifestyle that he couldn’t get from a job and the irony is he couldn’t get the job you wanted to be a rich lawyer because of racism. 

Studio Mocks Christians to Promote Sydney Sweeney’s Nun Movie ‘Immaculate’

Imagine a movie studio promoting a film by amplifying Islamic outrage against it. You can’t. It’s impossible. The same holds for most major religions. Antisemitism is flaring on the far-Left, meaning a movie studio would be loathe to target that community at this point. Christians? It’s fair game. Always. Neon, the distributor of the new Sydney Sweeney horror film “Immaculate,” is weaponing Christians offended by it to promote the indie shocker.     Here’s the film’s official description: Sydney Sweeney stars as Cecilia, an American nun of devout faith, embarking on a new journey in a remote convent in the picturesque Italian countryside. Cecilia’s warm welcome quickly devolves into a nightmare as it becomes clear her new home harbors a sinister secret and unspeakable horrors. Sweeney’s character ends up pregnant during the film without the benefit of intercourse. It’s standard horror stuff, given recent films that also blended faith and shocks. Think “Nefarious,” the “Nun” franchise, “The Conjuring” series and “Deliver Us.” The Hollywood Reporter says Neon pounced on select social media outrage following the film’s release. With a premise like that, naturally, Immaculate is drawing ire from Christian and conservative communities. The very end of the film in particular seems to be striking a nerve. Rather than issue any sort of statement or apology, Neon — the studio behind the project — has decided to lean into the controversy as a part of its marketing strategy.   https://t.co/yeLO06oTnP pic.twitter.com/Sz3G6WIiCS — NEON (@neonrated) March 23, 2024             View this post on Instagram                       A post shared by NEON (@neonrated)   Hollywood’s relationship with Christianity is complicated. It’s been that way for some time. The rise of small, faith-based hits like “God’s Not Dead” and “War Room” showed the industry there’s profit to be found in Christian crowds. In recent years major studios like Sony and Lionsgate began courting this sizable community. “The Chosen” remains one of the most popular TV shows across the globe. Amazon and Netflix recently announced news deals with faith-friendly stories. The industry still views the community with enough disdain to mock it in the open. The right-leaning Bounding into Comics dismissed “Immaculate” in its review. Immaculate is a retread of the same Catholic formula that we have seen done to death over the last several years. Art is subjective. Always. Artists can tell the tales they wish in a free society. It’s still fascinating to see a Hollywood studio insult Christians to score marketing points. That attitude will only help rising platforms like Angel Studios when they reach out to Christian audiences with love, not mockery.

PolitiFact Slaps 'False' Rating On Babylon Bee Joke About Pete Buttigieg

The professional fact-checking industry has run into problems with The Babylon Bee before and some have responded better than others. Some outlets, like Snopes and USA Today, have a “satire” label. For PolitiFact, on the other hand, a satirical joke about Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is no laughing matter as it rated a Wednesday Bee article about him “false.” A Friday PolitiFact headline read, “Satirical headline about Pete Buttigieg and the Key Bridge taken out of context.” Ciara O’Rourke added more details, “A recent Facebook post shared a headline from a satire website but not everyone got the joke.” She continued, ‘“Buttigieg praises cargo ship for helping dismantle racism in American roads,’ the headline said alongside photos of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and the cargo ship that crashed into Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge.” The post “was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed,” meaning that the account that shared the Bee’s image is now considered the same threat to truth as those who think Donald Trump and Joe Biden are dead.  Incredibly, the Facebook post that was flagged clearly includes a box that urges people to “read the article at BabylonBee.com.” Not only did O’Rourke flag the Facebook user, she also joke-checked the Bee itself, “Comments Buttigieg made in 2021 are being taken out of context since the Key Bridge’s collapse. PolitiFact debunked another social media post that claimed the transportation secretary blamed the bridge’s collapse on ‘racism.’” O’Rourke explained that “Rather, in a 2021 interview, Buttigieg said racism has sometimes factored into highway planning and construction.” Yes, that’s the joke. It is a callback to Buttigieg’s earlier comments and the perception that the secretary of Transportation is actually the secretary of Woke Transportation. Satire, whether its from The Babylon Bee or The Onion, relies on readers being sophisticated enough to understand unmentioned facts or memories, like the roads comment, to comprehend the point of the joke. If the Bee mentioned the roads comment, it wouldn't be satire, it would just be another anti-Buttigieg editorial. O’Rourke concludes by proclaiming that “We rate claims that Buttigieg actually praised a cargo ship for helping to dismantle racism in American roads False.” If PolitiFact wants to point out that people fall for satirical headlines, it should create a satire label. In response to criticism, Snopes finally made the change five years ago. There’s no reason for PolitiFact to still be treating satire as if it is on the same level as unironic claims.

The Ronna Romney Revolt at MSNBC Echoes the Tom Cotton Times Turmoil

The turmoil at MSNBC over the hiring of former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel says everything Americans need to know about this cable "news network." This episode echoes the earlier craziness inside the woke walls of The New York Times. A staff revolt forced an ejection. Recall: The Times Op-Ed page editor, one James Bennet -- the brother of liberal Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) -- allowed a submitted op-ed from Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to be published. The piece called for sending in National Guard troops to quell the riots that had broken out in hundreds of American cities in the wake of the death of George Floyd involving a Minnesota police officer. The staff of the Times went crazy. They demanded Bennet’s head -- and they got it, with the Times publisher forcing Bennet out. Now comes MSNBC.  Parent company NBC, the oldest major broadcast network (1926) in America - once home to people who spoke of the need for objectivity and fairness, like Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert, hired now-former Republican National Committee chair Ronna Romney McDaniel to be a commentator. It's pretty standard practice in the world of television news. See former DNC chair Donna Brazile, for example. But all of a sudden, as at the Times, the staff of on-air talent openly, loudly and live on-air…. rebelled. They castigated their bosses for hiring “election denier” McDaniel, who had questioned the 2020 election results in her home state of Michigan. They threw such a tantrum that McDaniel, after one 20-minute grilling by Kristen Welker on Meet the Press, was abruptly canned. After his own dismissal, Times editor Bennet penned a behind-the scenes tale of what happened in the Cotton Op-Ed episode, publishing it here at The Economist. His headline:  When the New York Times lost its way America’s media should do more to equip readers to think for themselves Among other things Bennet said this: Are we truly so precious?” Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times, asked me one Wednesday evening in June 2020. I was the editorial-page editor of the Times, and we had just published an op-ed by Tom Cotton, a senator from Arkansas, that was outraging many members of the Times staff.  …The next day the Times’s union—its unit of the NewsGuild-CWA—would issue a statement calling the op-ed “a clear threat to the health and safety of the journalists we represent." In other words? In other words whether it’s The New York Times or MSNBC, both are staffed not by serious journalists but rather far left-wing activists masquerading as journalists. They aren’t about just-the-facts journalism with discussion provided by various players of the day on all sides. They are in fact about authoritarian-style far left-wing activism. And if they don’t for some reason get their way, then there will be hell to pay. Their "safety" was endangered. One and all involved in these episodes are clueless that in their aggressive intolerance of an opposing viewpoint, they have seriously damaged their own reputations as supposed “journalists.” The MSNBC episode is particularly hilarious. They decried McDaniel because she was a supposed “election denier” about some of the results in 2020.  Yet these are the self-same people who spent endless hours as themselves “election deniers” of the 2016 results. They spent the Trump years repeatedly declaiming that there had been a Trump-Russia collusion that stole the 2016 election and that Trump was, in Hillary Clinton’s words, an “illegitimate president.” In the day, National Review headlined this of MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough:  Scarborough Calls Russiagate Skeptics ‘Useful Idiots,’ Suggests They’re on the Kremlin Payroll  In capital letters PoliticusUSA headlined:  RACHEL MADDOW EXPLAINS TRUMP’S RUSSIA COLLUSION CRIME And there was MSNBC’s Chuck Todd writing this: Trump-Russia collusion “remains one of the biggest political scandals in generations.” In other words, true to the MSNBC form, Scarborough, Maddow and Todd were thorough-going “election deniers.”  Raising the obvious question: If Ronna McDaniel had to be fired for being an “election denier” - why not Scarborough, Maddow and Todd? Election deniers one and all - and for years. They would answer with January 6. It didn't matter that McDaniel denounced the rioting. These people are still there because in the world of left-wing activism anything and everything that questions Trump is heroic, whether or not it's accurate. In fact, the reason Republican McDaniel is not allowed on the air but supposed “Republicans” like Michael Steele (himself a former RNC Chair) and ex-Bush White House aide Nicolle Wallace are is because they are Never Trumpers. In short, whether it’s The New York Times or MSNBC and doubtless other supposedly “mainstream media” outlets they aren’t about journalism at all. They are, as noted, nothing more or less than far left-wing activists. And ohhh so precious. Not to mention it looks authoritarian. And in the case of MSNBC?  Over at the Daily Beast was this headline: MSNBC’s On-Air Revolt Did Little to Boost Ratings. And why might that be? Maybe because half the country won’t sit still and watch left-wing activists do a poor imitation of serious journalism.

PBS Rejoicing: Biden 'Came Out Swinging' Against GOP's 'False Advertising' on Age

The tax-funded PBS weekly political roundtable Washington Week with The Atlantic continued to provide support for the Democratic candidate during the runup to the November election, tempting fate and more after-the-fact embarrassment by again defending Joe Biden’s mental acuity and vigor, even attacking Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report again. Host and Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg was joined by his Atlantic colleagues Adam Harris and Mark Leibovich, along with CNN senior political analyst Nia Malika Henderson and Reuters White House correspondent Jeff Mason. Jeffrey Goldberg: Let's go to the finances, and Jeff, you have been traveling all week with Joe Biden. He’s -- you just got here, actually, from endless flying around the country with Joe Biden. He’s doing very well in the fundraising. And it’s a superficial contrast, but $26 million and Radio City Music Hall with Presidents Obama and Clinton versus selling sneakers and the Bible. Is Trump in trouble on the fundraising compared to Joe Biden? No more liberal media qualms about bigtime fundraising or calls for campaign finance reform (remember campaign finance reform?) Jeff Mason was perhaps most enthusiastic for Biden, rejecting host Goldberg's relatively hesitant take on Biden's new vigor. Jeff Mason: Well, [Trump]’s certainly struggling compared to Joe Biden when it comes to fundraising, and it is a measure of your campaign`s health. And I think that sign of fundraising strength was something that Obama wanted to help Biden with and Clinton wanted to help Biden with. But, in general, the Biden campaign wanted to say, we have enthusiasm and look, here it is in the numbers. And President Biden is saying a lot in some of his fundraisers now that he’s seeing a turn in polling. He walks out and says, I feel the enthusiasm, and this is Exhibit A. The enthusiasm is manifesting and having a pretty strong set of numbers. Goldberg: It’s a little bit too early to talk about a turn in polling, no? Mason: Well, I mean, it`s post-State of the Union, right? So, the State of the Union -- I think the campaign will probably go back and look at his fiery State of the Union Address as being a turning point. And we’ll see how long that lasts. Goldberg: Fiery as a relative concept. Mason: Yes, but robust, right? I mean, he came out swinging, and it came after a period of time when he had been taking a lot of hits for his age. The special counsel report came out, and he, I think, tried to put some of that to bed with that speech. And he`s seeing, at least the way they describe it, an enthusiasm-sort-of-upturn as a result. Nia-Malika Henderson saw “a bit of momentum in some of these swing states, particularly Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.” Or, perhaps not? The New York Times political analyst Nate Cohn summarized recent polling data under the subhead “No shift after State of the Union.” After Mark Leibovich and his colleague Goldberg mocked Dean Phillips, Biden’s would-be Democratic primary rival, and suggested he wasn’t worthy of news coverage, Goldberg switched to defending Biden. Goldberg: …And then he comes out at the State of the Union and is peppy. Mason: And in addition to that State of the Union, there was also the transcript of the interview with the special counsel, which turned out not to be as damning in terms of his memory as the report suggested that it was. And so I think there`s that and there’s the perhaps false advertising that you’re referring to by some Republicans that is just not entirely bearing out. That doesn`t mean age isn`t still going to be a weakness for President Biden…. Goldberg: So, you’ve been following him all week on the trail. Give us your firsthand impressions of his energy level, cogency, enthusiasm. Mason went on an extended gush (click “Expand.”) Mason: Enthusiasm, very high, energy, very high, cogency, pretty good. I mean, he’s -- the truth is Joe Biden has good days and bad days. We all do, right? But his -- at his fundraisers, he’s trying out some new lines. One of the recent ones that I was at, one of his aides came up to me and a couple other traveling reporters right before he started speaking and said, pay attention. He’s got a new riff tonight. And his new riff, ladies and gentlemen at the table, was to talk about President Trump saying, are you better off than you were four years ago? And Biden says, “I’m glad you asked that, man,” and then starts going into a comparison of how things are now compared to March of 2020, when COVID was in full swing and hospitals were struggling and the economy was cratering. So, that was the new riff, but it is sort of a sign that they’re pumping up his campaign speeches. And he seems energetic and he seems enthused. This segment was brought to you in part by CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER.

After Ronna, New Lefty Spin: Aren't Paid Pundits 'More Trouble Than They're Worth'?

In the wake of NBC’s Ronna McDaniel debacle, “mainstream” media reporters have begun to argue that partisan pundits aren’t useful any more. We can’t ignore that this is a very useful spin if you want to prevent any more paid Republican contributors in this election cycle. In The New York Times, reporter James Poniewozik set the tone: Can you really rely on well-connected partisans to give you unvarnished analysis about their once and perhaps future colleagues? Would viewers be better served by news networks’ seeking out a wide range of voices than hearing predictable takes from regular panelists? Isn’t it better to leave the reputation-laundering to Dancing With the Stars? That show had a link to Poniewozik insisting Trump press secretary Sean Spicer shouldn't be allowed to "tap dance out of infamy." NPR media reporter David Folkenflik noted NBC executive Cesar insisted they would "redouble our efforts to seek voices that represent different parts of the political spectrum."(We won’t hold our breath.) Folkenflik threw cold water on paid GOP pundits: “There are more than 330 million Americans and thousands of political professionals. Why pay for the right to interview them? Does anyone think Newt Gingrich will boycott television appearances if he's not paid?” We would think unpaid contributors would be freer to speak their mind, but everyone appearing on a “mainstream” network run by Democrats fears they’ll never be invited again if they’re too, well, free-spirited in their dissent. The fullest argument against paid partisan punditry came from Associated Press media reporter David Bauder, whose headline wondered: “Network political contributors have a long history. But are they more trouble than they’re worth?” Bauder turned to several leftist experts to underline the new thesis. Mark Lukasiewicz, a former NBC executive who is now dean of Hofstra University’s communications school, argued you cannot challenge the credibility of leftist media on leftist media. That’s somehow advocating for that network ….not to exist? “Journalists in a lot of newsrooms are starting to think more about the stakes, thinking about the costs of delivering a large audience and a platform to someone who doesn’t fundamentally believe in a system that allows that platform to exist,” Lukasiewicz said. “I think there is a higher bar for somebody who is on the payroll of a journalistic institution, rather than just somebody you interview.” Bauder also turned to radical Jay Rosen, who explicitly argued the Republicans are the antonym of “public service.” “To remain itself, the MAGA movement has to practice election denial, minimize the events of Jan. 6, and treat the news media as a hate object for pointing this out,” said Jay Rosen, a New York University professor and author of the Pressthink blog. “Extending the hand of welcome is just too costly for a self-respecting newsroom with a public service charter, as NBC learned this week.” Networks should retire this category of contributors and switch to a system relying on their own journalists and vetted, unpaid experts, he said. "Vetted experts" is code for "Republicans who we don't hate," which means "Michael Steele Republicans."

FLASHBACK: The Liberal Media’s Slanted Farewell to Pope John Paul II

Today is Easter Sunday, a good time to reflect on the liberal media’s coverage of the passing of Pope John Paul II, 19 years ago this week (April 2, 2005). While the media praised John Paul for his “charisma” and “magnetism,” journalists rejected what they characterized as his “extremely conservative” policies, as if long-standing Catholic Church doctrines were merely one Pope’s personal opinions that could be discarded on a whim. American journalists had long separated any admiration for John Paul as an inspirational world leader from their opposition to teachings that ran afoul of modern secular tastes. “There are some who say he would have been more comfortable in the 5th century, but some theologians say that, really, some of the 5th century Popes were more progressive than John Paul II,” reporter Jerry Bowen snarked on the August 15, 1993 edition of CBS’s Sunday Morning. “There are 60 million Catholics in America, and for many of them he also speaks with the voice of a conservative crank,” the Washington Post’s Henry Allen scoffed in an October 2, 1995 Style section story. So as the Pope’s health deteriorated to the point that his death seemed imminent on April 1, 2005, network news coverage reflected journalists’ longstanding hostility to what they saw as “rigid” Church policies. “Most of his views, you’d have to say, are extremely conservative,” NBC’s Matt Lauer asserted that Friday morning on Today. “He was, of course, controversial here,” ABC’s Peter Jennings intoned on World News Tonight. “Some American Catholics have chafed at his insistence that they follow the Church’s traditional social doctrine.” “Abortion, birth control, women priests,” reporter Dean Reynolds listed. “It’s all driven a wedge between the Vatican and America, regardless of the Pope’s standing in the world.” “He was responsible for appointing almost all of the 117 cardinals eligible to vote,” CNN’s Paula Zahn pointed out that same night, “making it very likely that the next Pope will share Pope John Paul II’s conservative stances on issues like abortion and the role of women in the church.” The next morning, as the media vigil continued, NBC’s Lester Holt again channeled the dissatisfaction of American Catholics. “Some believe his unyielding stance alienated American Catholics,” Holt argued on Today. “Pope John Paul II’s legacy in the world’s most powerful country may be that of a house divided, a man who changed the world, but in many ways, was unwilling to change his Church.” That Saturday afternoon, the Vatican announced the Pope’s death, with live coverage on all of the broadcast networks. While most of the coverage was respectful and positive, there was an obvious yearning for a more liberal Pope. Anchoring ABC’s coverage, Bob Woodruff asked Atlanta’s Archbishop Wilton Gregory about how “many believe...that perhaps this particular Pope has been too conservative socially for many Catholics in the United States.” Over on MSNBC, Chris Matthews directed the next Pope to approve the use of condoms. Discussing the AIDS epidemic in Africa, Matthews instructed: “A new Pope is going to have to grab that one and grab it hard, and he’s got to get to people to say ‘You may not like condoms, they may not be, but they’re a lot better than HIV/AIDS.” “John Paul found himself at odds with millions of Catholics in the United States and Europe who considered him reactionary and out of touch,” CBS’s Martha Teichner sniffed the next day on Sunday Morning. On Monday night, CBS treated the upcoming selection of a new Pope as akin to a popular election, reporting on a poll of American Catholics demanding more liberalization. On the April 4 CBS Evening News, anchor Bob Schieffer cited the Associated Press survey: “American Catholics hope whoever succeeds the Pope will make some changes in the church.” “The next Pope will have to work hard to gain back the support of many Catholics who were put off by the policies of the very Pope that so many have come here to mourn,” anchor Brian Williams, in Vatican City, agreed on Wednesday’s Nightly News. Correspondent Bob Faw continued the theme: “Embraced by multitudes....John Paul also alienated others. Lifelong Catholic Serra Sippel was so angered by his teachings she quit going to mass.” Faw then ran a soundbite from an American critic of John Paul on the issue of women priests. Rea Howarth, of Catholics Speak Out, sniped: “This Pope didn’t care to learn from the likes of women.” Make no mistake: much of the coverage of Pope John Paul that week was positive, a testament to the powerful inspiration he provided to the world throughout his long tenure. But in discussing the issues that divide Catholics, the media couldn’t resist skewing their coverage in the direction of those who would reinvent the John Paul’s Church to better match the world view of secular liberals. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.                  

‘The Chosen’ Actor Opens Up About Getting on Knees, Giving Life to God

From broke and hungry to being the face of Jesus Christ in a major television series. In early 2024, Jonathan Roumie, the actor who played Jesus in the hit series The Chosen, appeared on ABC’s The View to promote the fourth season of the show and opened up about being at his lowest moment in life and turning his life, everything over to God… and then he got the call. Familiar with Roumie’s story, co-host Sara Haines noted that some of his gigs “weren't paying the bills” and he was thinking about “giving up on” acting, and wanted to know: “How did you decide to stay the course?”     Roumie recounted that he got his start in the movie industry as a location scout in New York City, but his first acting gig was as a voice actor in MTV’s Celebrity Deathmatch. After dipping his toe in the acting pool, he dove in and moved to Los Angeles. But then the 2008 financial crisis hit and Roumie couldn’t make ends meet: And fast forward to the housing market collapsing in 2008. I had booked a few other jobs, I started booking television, and I thought, “Okay, this is an opportunity to see if I can actually make this work.” So, I moved to L.A. and for eight years, I didn't have the safety of the job that I left in New York, it's a different unions and all sorts of complications to do the same thing in L.A., but that's not what I was going to L.A. for. So, I had to do all these other jobs, side jobs, I drove rideshare, I worked in catering, all these things I never had done before and gotten to the point where I was broke, I was out of money, I was out of food, I was out of even government assistance for food. “And the only thing I hadn't done at that point was the thing that was left to do which was to get on my knees and surrender my entire life and my career, and everything that I had up to that point over to God, because there wasn't anything I realized I could do on my own,” he said, receiving loud applause from the studio audience. Co-host Joy Behar asked him: “Were you a believer before that?” Roumie explained he was “raised with the faith from a child but it really wasn't until after that moment,” which was six years prior. Then, his personal miracle happened. “I just said, ‘Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.’ And that day, I received this incomprehensible financial miracle that changed my life and three months later I booked The Chosen,” he said, again getting raucous applause (including from moderator Whoopi Goldberg). God is good. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View January 30, 2024 11:48:21 a.m. Eastern (…) SARA HAINES: But those jobs weren't paying the bills so considered at some point to kind of giving up on this. How did you decide to stay the course? JONATHAN ROUMIE: Well, I worked here in New York City after college in production. I was a location scout and that was how I made a decent living. But I had starting working – MTV’s Celebrity Deathmatch was the first acting job I ever had. So, from that point I always had a curiosity about, like, “I wonder what it would look like if it went further. And fast forward to the housing market collapsing in 2008. I had booked a few other jobs, I started booking television, and I thought, “Okay, this is an opportunity to see if I can actually make this work.” So, I moved to L.A. and for eight years, I didn't have the safety of the job that I left in New York, it's a different unions and all sorts of complications to do the same thing in L.A., but that's not what I was going to L.A. for. So, I had to do all these other jobs, side jobs, I drove rideshare, I worked in catering, all these things I never had done before and gotten to the point where I was broke, I was out of money, I was out of food, I was out of even government assistance for food. And the only thing I hadn't done at that point was the thing that was left to do which was to get on my knees and surrender my entire life and my career. [Applause] And everything that I had up to that point over to God, because there wasn't anything I realized I could do on my own. BEHAR: Were you a believer before that? ROUMIE: Yeah. Yeah, I was raised with the faith from a child but it really wasn't until after that moment – It was about almost six years ago now, where I just said, “Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.” And that day, I received this incomprehensible financial miracle that changed my life and three months later I booked The Chosen. BEHAR: Wow. [Applause]

HAPPY EASTER: CNN’s Dana Bash, Sen. Warnock Defend Biden’s Celebration of ‘Transgender Day of Visibility’

On this fine Resurrection Day, CNN chose to come out and defend the Biden administration’s decision to elevate Transgender Visibility Day. The method of choice was via an appeal to authority, with the authority being Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA), who is pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. Bash chose Transgender Visibility Day as the topic with which to close their Easter-themed interview. Here is that particular segment of the aforementioned interview, as aired on CNN State of the Union on Sunday, March 31st, 2024: DANA BASH: Republicans are attacking President Biden for recognizing today as Transgender Day of Visibility. I want to be very clear that this day, this Transgender Day of Visibility, is always on March 31st. Has been since 2009. This president has marked it every year since he's been in The White House. The date of Easter changes year to year. I don't need to tell you that. The House Speaker called Biden's announcement abhorrent and said he betrayed the central tenet of Easter. What do you say to that? RAPHAEL WARNOCK: Well, apparently the Speaker finds trans people abhorrent, and I think he ought to think about that. The fact of the matter is, as you said, March 31st has been a date to lift up transgender people who endure violence and bigotry. Easter, the date changes every single day, but this is just one more instance of folks who have- who do not know how to lead us trying to divide us. And this is the opposite of the Christian faith. Jesus centered the marginalized. He centered the poor and in a moment like this, we need voices, particularly voices of faith, who would use our faith, not as a weapon to beat other people down, but as a bridge to bring all of us together. That is what Martin Luther King, Jr. did. And I'm honored to preach from that pulpit every single day. It is a faith that guides me in my work as a United States Senator trying to cap the cost of insulin so folks can afford it. Trying to make sure first-time homeowners can buy a home and that our children are not so awashed in student debt that they have a mortgage before they have a mortgage. This is how my faith informs me every single day.  DANA BASH: Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock. Thank you so much for being here again, especially on this holy day. Appreciate it. Happy Easter. WARNOCK: Thank you. Take notice of the smear of Speaker Mike Johnson that goes unacknowledged, unchecked, and uncorrected. Here is what Johnson actually said, which echoes the sentiments of millions of Christians who object to this White House’s deliberate and, yes, abhorrent provocation. Johnson tweet Johnson is clearly talking about the abhorrence of the White House’s banning of religious decorations and imagery from their Easter egg decorating contest while at the same time elevating and promoting Transgender Day of Visibility. To distill that into “the Speaker finds trans people abhorrent” betrays a lack of pre-show preparation, a lack of reading comprehension, a lack of honesty, or some combination of all of the preceding.  Bash just sits there and blinks as Warnock merchandises this lie, wraps it within both the pieties of his liberationist “Matthew 25 Gospel” and the name of Dr. Martin Luther King, and then proceeds to rattle off some policy pieties.  The Easter-themed interview kicked off the show and was really little more than a thematic imposition of the various liberation ideologies that are in line with the modern left. The early tell, several seconds in, is when Warnock told Bash that he will be putting “the timeless message , Easter message of hope and resurrection into a contemporary context”.  Bash then facilitated the “timeless…Easter message of hope and resurrection” by asking Warnock about the Trump Bible and about “Christian Nationalism”.  You’ll be shocked (or not) to learn that this interview in fact featured zero discussion of the resurrected King, who actually had something to say about those who cause harm to children, including the sort of irreversible harm that The White House celebrates today (Matthew 18:6).    

Christianity: Not Exactly Something Normal

Christianity is a weird religion. Other religions have a version of the "Golden Rule." Other religions have a watery creation. Other religions have sacrifice. Other religions have mercy. Other religions have a lot of what Christianity has. But they are all so much more the same, and Christianity itself is so divergent it is not exactly something normal or something we would make up. Most other religions would tell you not to do to others what you do not want them to do to you. But Christ insisted we actually actively do to others what we want done to us. More importantly, we are to do those positive things even if the other person does not reciprocate. We are to love our neighbor and surrender our right to retribution. Christians are to turn the other cheek and let God handle it. Other religions have sacrifices and have heroes who laid down their lives. The Romans persecuted the Christians in part because the Romans believed all gods must be dead. The Christians said their God conquered death and was alive. The other religions sacrifice people, babies, animals. God Himself, however, died in Christianity and rose again from that death. Some believe the Egyptians’ Osiris did the same. But no credibly Egyptologist claims that; it is a more modern, post-Christian invention. Other religions have paths to salvation. Those paths, in all those faiths, have you participate in your salvation. Weirdly, Christians believe there is literally nothing you can do to keep yourself from going to Hell. Only God Himself can spare you and all you must do is put your faith in Christ. You repent and be baptized and God starts working in you through a process of sanctification. There’s no reincarnation. There are no special pilgrimages to do. God’s got this. You let Him work. The religions are all pretty much the same except Christianity, which is so different and divergent. The ancient religions all had their gods coming up out of water -- a metaphor for the nothingness or chaos that existed before. The Jews, from whom Christians came, showed the Spirit of the Lord hovering over the water. All the other religions believed the gods came into existence. Jews and Christians say God was always there. The other ancient religions claimed the stars and planets were gods. Moses declared them objects in the sky not to be worshipped. The other religions all have concepts of mercy or the gods sparing you from what you deserve. Jesus Christ offered grace -- giving you something you do not deserve. It is a uniquely Christian concept. All other religions have been anchored to a geographic place. Christianity spread so easily around the world because the faith is anchored in the living God of all Creation. The faith convicts all of us of our sins, treats all of us equally and gives us all salvation through belief in Jesus. Two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ came into the world a baby and went out like a lamb to slaughter. An innocent man hailed as a king on Palm Sunday was rejected in favor of a murderous insurrectionist on Good Friday. All but one of Jesus’ friends was executed. His whole blood line was hunted down and exterminated. His followers were used as human torches to light the streets of Rome. And the faith kept growing. Christianity and its ethics freed slaves, liberated captives, provided a path to reconciliation between the aggrieved and ordered Western civilization. The post-Christian world abhors Christianity. The things of the world always hate the things of God. But, as the West rejects it, chaos, contempt, malice and hatred have filled its void. The West is back to child sacrifice and families are collapsing. Many would say we need to return to a cultural Christianity, but Christianity needs Christ. The good news is that the carpenter from Nazareth got up in His tomb on Sunday morning 2,000 years ago and walked out. By conquering death, He gives us life. And all we have to do is put our trust in Him. Easter is coming and with it comes joy in the morning.

REGIME MEDIA: NBC’s Welker Dismisses Trump Claims of Election Interference As False

In the wake of its Ronna McDaniel fiasco, NBC News tries extra hard to prove just how “cohesive and aligned” they really are. Unfortunately, this now means “cohesive and aligned” with the fringe elements running the show at MSNBC and, by extension, the entire news operation. Watch this nugget from Kristen Welker’s open to Meet The Press, wherein she categorically dismisses former President Donald Trump’s claims of judicial election interference via multiple state prosecutions as false: KRISTEN WELKER: And now Trump is asserting that none of the trials should, quote, “take place during my campaign”, falsely calling the criminal proceedings “election interference”. It is yet another reminder that we are covering this election against the backdrop of a deeply divided nation.  Welker, in dutiful Regime Media mode, rushes to defend the idea that the various state and federal indictments, timed precisely to yield a conviction ahead of the 2024 presidential election, are in fact not election interference. Without evidence.  What evidence we do have from the media is that of ongoing frustration over the pace at which these various trials are proceeding, both on cable TV and in print and online. The latest instance of which comes from The New York Times: In 2021 it was “simply inconceivable,” said one former Justice Department official, that Mr. Trump, rebuked by many in his own party and exiled at his Florida estate Mar-a-Lago, would regain the power to impose his timetable on the investigation. “I think that delay has contributed to a situation where none of these trials may go forward,” Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, said in a recent interview on CNN, citing the Justice Department’s approach as a factor. “The department bears some of that responsibility.” The Supreme Court’s decision to review Mr. Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in the case has now threatened to push the trial deep into the campaign season or beyond, raising the possibility that voters will make their choice between Mr. Trump and President Biden in November without Mr. Trump’s guilt or innocence being established. It has resurfaced a question that has long dogged Mr. Garland: What took so long? … Officials in the Biden White House have long expressed private consternation with Mr. Garland’s pace. The select committee established by the House in 2021 to investigate what led to the Jan. 6 riot made it an all-but-explicit goal to force the Justice Department to pursue the case more aggressively, and in Georgia, a local prosecutor was going head-on at Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss even before Mr. Garland was sworn in. This is where the media energy is- laundering the Biden administration’s preference for ramming these trials through as quickly and possible and subsequent discontent with Garland for not doing so. And in so parroting those preferences, as Welker does here, the media ratify Trump’s theses that these are, in fact, the sort of political prosecutions one would expect from Latin American dictatorships.  Exquisitely timed, both here and over there, to interfere with a presidential election. Notwithstanding Welker’s protestations to the contrary.  

Moscow Massacre: Could It Happen Here?

A mass shooting at a concert hall in Moscow killed more than 130 people. With many others seriously or gravely wounded the number of dead is likely to rise. The Islamic state released a statement claiming “credit” for the incident. Eleven suspects have been arrested. Early reports suggested the U.S. Embassy in Moscow had advance warning of the attack. The Daily Mail reported White House Strategic Communications Coordinator John Kirby said: “Right now we don’t know to what extent this warning [from the US Embassy in early March] and this attack are related. But we had some concerns about the possibility of a terrorist attack in and around Moscow earlier this month.” The question that must be asked, as it has been suggested for some time, due to our open southern border, is this: Could it happen here? The answer must be an unequivocal yes. In fact, it has already happened here on Sept. 11, 2001. Does anyone seriously think America’s enemies would not be encouraged by that previous attack and the Moscow atrocity to conduct a repeat operation in America? With such easy access to the country and with so many fanatical beliefs floating around the world, what would deter them? The Cato Institute has noted t hat since 2017, “US Border Patrol has apprehended 342 border crossers who were on the Terrorist Screening Dataset, also known as the terror watchlist. Those numbers have shot up in recent years to 169 in FY2023 and 49 to date this fiscal year. Last month, The Daily Caller reported that Border Patrol apprehended an al‐​Shabaab terrorist and released him into the United States in March 2023 after a mismatch on the watch list. Later, the government discovered that he was on the watchlist, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested him within 48 hours. The Daily Caller’s headline was “ICE Confirms It Finally Nabbed Terrorist Allowed To Roam Free For Almost A Year.” FBI Director Christopher Wray has testified several times before congressional committees about his belief that a national security threat exists because of the 1.8 million “known gotaways.” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is unable to confirm that every suspected terrorist who crosses t he border without proper documentation has been detained by Border Patrol. It doesn’t take many as we saw on 9/11 and have seen in the Moscow concert hall incident to produce mayhem. While 9/11 was predictable – Osama bin Laden and other members of al-Qaida issued fatwas calling for attacks on the U.S. and American citizens and declared war on the United States and the terrorists trained in how to takeoff in airplanes, but not land – so the warning signs will have been seen should infiltrators pull off another 9/11, or worse. If that happens, count on the Biden administration to blame Republicans as they are currently doing for refusing to vote for a bill that would legalize 5,000 migrants per day coming to America. In 2003, Tom Clancy published a timely novel titled “Teeth of the Tiger.” The plot in part is about Islamic terrorists who make a deal with Colombian drug smugglers. Crossing the U.S. border, they head for four shopping malls in Middle America where they murder innocent civilians. Again, it doesn’t take much to wreak havoc, tank the economy and strike fear into the hearts of everyone. It could happen again here and likely will unless this or a new administration moves quickly to find the suspected terrorists who have already snuck in before they can activate a plot worthy of a Tom Clancy’s novel.

NPR Host Still MAD at 'Cowardly' Biden Team for Folding on Nina Jankowicz Censorship Board

National "Public" Radio has a nasty tendency to believe in "free speech for me, and not for thee." Every night it airs All Things Considered, which fails to consider granting conservative rebuttals to all its left-wing propaganda. So it's natural it's all in favor of vigorous censorship of troublesome social-media speech. Remember its 2020 lecturing that the Hunter Biden laptop wasn't at all a story. They also complain that the 2024 election is too important to allow free speech.  On March 21, NPR's On Point aired a program on "How disinformation 'sabotages America'" with MSNBC contributor Barbara McQuade. Host Meghna Chakrabarty went on a surprising tear about how the Biden administration was "cowardly" for discontinuing its "Disinformation Governance Board" and its crusading leftist chief Nina Jankowicz. Meghna is still down with Nina.  MEGHNA CHAKRABARTY:  There are those who recognize our freedoms and our open society and are using those things to exploit us. For example, in this country, we all revere our First Amendment right to free speech. And that's true whether you're on the left or the right or anywhere in between. And there's a reason for that. Free speech is what allows us to speak out against our government when we see something that we disagree with, or we see something that's wrong, or we want to advocate for something different and better. So it's a cherished right for everybody. But I think it makes the word censorship a powerful weapon. Because anything that in any way tries to regulate speech can be labeled censorship, and everyone immediately backs down from it. The Biden administration had set up a disinformation agency run by Nina Jankiewicz, who is a disinformation scholar, and immediately the far right started calling it the censorship bureau, a censorship board. And so they closed it up. They closed up shop. That was a failure of the Biden administration. I will say just because some critics are saying it's a censorship board. I think the Biden administration, cowardly, it was a cowardly act for them to shut it down. So do I blame the people for criticizing the administration? No, I actually hang the blame right on the Biden administration for that. This overt critique of Team Biden made the MSNBC contributor uncomfortable, but she tried to play along: McQUADE: Sure. But they didn't want to take the political hit. Because the word censorship is so loaded that they didn't want to even be accused of engaging in censorship. Right now, there is a case argued before the Supreme Court the other day. I don't think the justices are going to have any of it. Based on their questioning, a lawsuit filed suggesting that when the Biden administration merely goes to social media companies and flags for them false claims about quack COVID remedies that are life threatening and says, "Hey, you might want to take that down. That's dangerous to public safety and human life." That is a violation of the First Amendment rights of the people who are making up these false claims about COVID remedies. Don't mention that some "false claims" about COVID, like it likely emerged from a Chinese laboratory, were heavily censored, even though they are now considered legitimate information. Unsurprisingly, Meghna said she's spoken with Nina "many times" on NPR, so she's mad her radio buddy got the boot, and then reached for the reliable "she got death threats" defense: I completely agree with you about the pressure the Biden administration was under regarding its disinformation board. And in fact, Nina Jankowicz, who was supposed to head that board, we have spoken with her on this show many times, and one of the times was not long after the administration shut down that disinformation board, and she made it clear that one of the reasons was she was, speaking of threats that you mentioned earlier, Barbara, she was receiving direct threats, which were definitely a danger to her safety, her being and her family. So it wasn't just like people screaming on social media. There was adequate concern that her life could be in danger, and I don't want to dismiss that. I want to repeat that. That, in and of itself, it makes sense that anyone would step back from that. At the same time, you're exactly right when we don't necessarily want to blame the Biden administration for all the disinformation in our information ecosystem now. But simultaneously, and I respectfully say this, no one expects Donald Trump to step back from the disinformation carnival that he's been powering around the United States for the past many years, that's just not going to happen. No one expects all the foreign actors who are using disinformation to influence American thought. They're not going to step back from it either. All that's left for us who care deeply about a functioning American democracy is to expect more of the people in power who do want to protect democracy. And I just wanted to offer that to you as the reason why I do look to the Biden administration to try to do more. They have all the power right now in terms of proposing new legislation or cases that they want to bring to court, et cetera. So I wanted to hear what you thought about that is it not fair to expect more from people like, like you and me, like you said, like the Biden administration, even people at the state level who have a place in our society. To do more, to say more about protecting democracy. McQUADE: Yeah, I'd like to see some of this come from Congress in terms of initiating legislation. CHAKRABARTI: Congress, yes. McQUADE: Where Joe Biden is, I think, vulnerable is the fact that Donald Trump is also his political rival. And so anything that he offers in an effort to neutralize Donald Trump's disinformation, I think it's spun as disinformation, as solely a political effort to neutralize his political opponent. And so it makes it very politically fraught for him as a direct opponent of Donald Trump. But sure, I think everybody in leadership should be working against this threat. Because it is so great. I think it is something that our justice department should be working on. I think it's people at the federal, state, and local levels should be working on, because it is so corrosive to our society.

Univision's Jorge Ramos Whines About Biden Describing Illegals As ‘Illegals’

In a recent opinion column, Univision anchor and Senior Editorial Advisor to the CEO Jorge Ramos complained, yet again, about the use of the word “illegal” to describe people who are in the country illegally. This is a new version of a column written several times before, but that begins to acknowledge the realities of the immigration debate in 2024. Another twist is that Ramos seemingly absolves President Joe Biden from using the term during his State of the Union address. In his column, titled “No human being is illegal”, Ramos writes: What is really important is not that the president of the United States referred to an undocumented migrant as an “illegal.” What does worry is that this comment normalizes the language, attitudes and policies of the most anti-immigration groups in the country. It is true that Biden sent Congress, on his first day as president, a proposal to legalize millions. But when the principal promoter of an immigration reform starts to use the words of his enemies, it signals that things are not going well. Biden used the word “illegal” during his recent State of the Union address, when he referred to the Venezuelan immigrant accused of killing Georgia student Laken Riley. The next day he said the man was “technically not supposed to be here.” And he told NBC later that he “should not have used the word. It’s undocumented.” The correction is welcome.  Ramos has long sought to be the language police when it comes to immigration, and how illegal immigrants are addressed. What is interesting from this column is the shift away from Biden. Ramos is supposed to be the one to stand opposed to power- that’s been his whole gimmick since Donald Trump came down the gilded escalator. Had Trump said it, the tone of the column would be different. I know, because he wrote a version of this column in 2018, titled “People are not illegal”: With Trump in the White House, the anti-immigrant cli­mate in the U.S. has changed for the worse. There are frequent verbal attacks on foreigners, coupled with the perception that any undocumented person can be deported at any time, regardless of past compliance. Further, several local police forces, operating with the explicit support of their respective mayors, have begun to act like ICE agents. The sense of fear is palpable. Different president, different tone. Here, it's more adversarial towards Trump. Biden, in turn, almost gets a pass for saying “illegal” and quickly apologizing. Ramos also concedes that the open-borders side of the ongoing immigration argument has lost the debate, and that is a first. Ramos wrote an identical column in 2012, titled: “Nobody is illegal”. Here, again, the language policing: I have no doubt that this path will eventually be created for the millions of workers who contribute so much to the American economy and the nation’s well-being. The country was wonderfully generous to me when I arrived; I hope that it will be equally generous to those who came after me, regardless of their status. But to move forward we must win this war of words. We must not allow the national conversation on immigration to be dominated by those who would label an entire group of people as criminals and who say that establishing a future for millions of immigrants is “amnesty.” Changing reality starts with changing our language. The first step is accepting that no one is illegal. The same self-righteousness, the same references to Elie Weisel, this column seems to write itself every six years. But Ramos knows that the tide has shifted, and that the public has soured on lax immigration enforcement policies as a result of the ongoing border disaster.  Hopefully, the immigration issue is resolved by the time the next column rolls around.  

MSNBC Analyst Fantasizes Trump Reading His God Bless The USA Bible In Prison Next Easter

What better way for the Trump haters at MSNBC to celebrate Easter than to fantasize about Donald Trump spending next Easter in "a prison cell," reading his God Bless the USA Bible? As we've noted here, former MSNBC host Tiffany Cross loved to fantasize about Trump being subjected to a COPS-style arrest: "dragged out on the White House lawn," and his head pushed down to shove him into the back seat of a cop car. On Easter Sunday's episode of The Weekend, MSNBC legal analyst Kristy Greenberg perpetuated Cross's inglorious tradition. Discussing Trump's criticisms of Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over Trump's trial in the Stormy Daniels hush money case brought against him by far-left Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, and Mercham's daughter, Greenberg said: "It's just so dumb for this defendant to antagonize judges. He got a $464 million judgment against him the last time he tried it. And now, he's antagonizing a judge who could, you know, have his liberty at stake.  Next Easter, he could be looking at reading his -- having nothing to do but read his God Bless the USA Bible in a prison cell if he keeps this up." Greenberg's snarky shot about the God Bless America Bible that Trump has been promoting reflects her animus, and the anticipatory schadenfreude she was experiencing at the prospect of Trump behind bars. Co-anchor Michael Steele was sadly pessimistic that any judge would have the courage to jail Trump, demanding to know, "at what point do we say enough is enough?" Later, co-anchor Symone Sanders-Townsend suggested that Trump should be accosted by the Secret Service in connection with his posting of an image of President Biden tied up in the back of a pick-up truck. She also called on Senate Democrats to take related action against Trump. Tim O'Brien, another MSNBC analyst, agreed, saying "what he says isn't just speech, and it isn't just criticism. In a sense, he is inciting people to commit violence and to erode the system of governance and the rule of law, and he should be held accountable immediately." Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Weekend 3/31/24 8:01 am EDT ALICIA MENENDEZ: Let's start this hour with MSNBC political analyst and Bloomberg senior executive opinion editor Tim O'Brien. Also joining us, former federal former prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Kristy Greenberg. Good morning to you both. SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND: Good morning, guys. Look, I think what was most concerning for me in the most recent post from Donald Trump is that the post that we -- and we obviously didn't put this up on the screen, but the post that we showed, he also included pictures of the judge's daughter there. And the question that I had is why? Why would he include the photos of his daughter? Why does Donald Trump continuously attack the judge? And it, perhaps it just boils down to that he is trying to intimidate them. Intimidate the judge. Intimidate the court and legal system. But that's just my theory. Kristy, what say you?  . . .  KRISTY GREENBERG: So, I think what you'll see is the imposition of a condition to his pre-trial release, saying you cannot threaten or incite violence against anyone. And if you violate that pre-trial condition, then you are going to get the stiffest sanction that I can impose, and that would include jail time. I mean, again, it's just so dumb for this defendant to antagonize judges. He got a $464 million judgment against him the last time he tried it. And now, he's antagonizing a judge who could, you know, have his liberty at stake.  Next Easter, he could be looking at reading hus -- having nothing to do but read his God Bless the USA Bible in a prison cell if he keeps this up. . . .  MICHAEL STEELE: Tim, on that last point, I'm sorry, I just don't believe it. I don't believe Donald Trump, none of these judges are gonna put this man in jail. I mean, for me, at what point do we say enough is enough? . . .  SANDERS-TOWNSEND: We brought up the Secret Service a couple of times. And I think it's worth noting that this is -- and someone can, feel free to fact check me on this but I feel confident in stating, this is the first time that it is a current protectee the of the United States Secret Service, i.e., Donald Trump, who is issuing the real threats against another protectee of the United States Secret Service, the current President of the United States, Joe Biden. And I would just note, the Secret Service doesn't have to go visit Donald Trump, because he is currently under Secret Service protection. Now, the folks on his detail, those are the people who are with him all the time, you cannot possibly expect his own detail to reprimand him. But I think this begs the question, what is the director the Secret Service, the folks at the top, what are they doing? Because Joe Biden is the President of the United States of America. Not Donald Trump. It is Joe Biden, the President of the United States, who is being directly threatened by someone that -- sure, you can say Donald Trump is not going to carry out the attack, but someone else potentially could. And they have visited folks for less. So, like, Tim, I don't know what the view is from Trump -- you know Trump world better than anybody that I know here. What do you think the view is from Trump world on this, and frankly, do you think we're going to see anything from the director of the Secret Service? Congress maybe should place a call? Hello: calling Dems in the Senate. . . .  TIM O'BRIEN: We should just be very clear that given his power, his rank, and his past, what he says isn't just speech, and it isn't just criticism. In a sense, he is inciting people to commit violence and to erode the system of governance and the rule of law, and he should be held accountable immediately.  

Bill Maher Implies Ronna McDaniel's More Dangerous Than the Communists

On Friday night's Real Time, somehow the discussion of NBC/MSNBC hiring and quickly firing former RNC boss Ronna McDaniel turned into a discussion of the Communist Party. Bill Maher implied that McDaniel was more of a danger to democracy than the Communist Party USA ever was. Maher's opening question to columnist Fareed Zakaria and former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper: “How do you represent this large part of the country that does not believe the election was legitimate? How do you say to people ‘we want to include you, but we can't deny that what you think is stupid’?” This depends on the polling question. You can believe Biden was elected, that he won the Electoral College, and still say “no” if the question hinges on “legitimate.” Because the media and Big Tech suppressed damaging stories like the Hunter Biden laptop – which our MRC poll showed could have swung the swing states to Trump. This is especially important when they’re discussing freedom of speech, because powerful forces worked to suppress free speech right before the election. Zakaria said Bill Clinton lied under oath and he can be on MSNBC, and Stacey Abrams was an election denier. Esper agreed. Maher rejected this line:  Ronna McDaniel worse than a communist? @BillMaher suggests so, contending he’s “not sure “ Gus Hall was for “the violent overthrow of the United States” because “you can elect a communist government. Italy did it all the time.” #RealTime pic.twitter.com/OAMr8IBXBr — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) March 30, 2024 BILL MAHER: I’m not with you on the idea that a lie is a lie. Bill Clinton's lies, Obama's lies, whoever lies are different from the election doesn't count when our guy doesn't win, that is a separate thing. I get that point of view. FAREED ZAKARIA: I agree but my point is you have to recognize that the end of the day if you're in favor of free speech – look, you say these are lies, they are against the American system. We've had communists run for the presidency of the United States. When I was in college I invited Gus Hall, the communist party candidate, he believed in the violent overthrow of the United States. Fine! In a liberal democracy you get to say your piece and we get to debate it. By the way, it would be good TV to have Rachel Maddow ask her some of the questions. MARK ESPER: that’s right. MAHER: I'm not sure he was for the violent overthrow of the United States, ZAKARIA: He was for the overthrow. MAHER: He wanted communism which is a form of government. ZAKARIA: Which is not liberal democracy. MAHER: No, it is not. ZAKARIA: You would have to overthrow the government to get to it, right? MAHER: No! You can elect a communist government, Italy did it all the time. [Laughter] ZAKARIA: Gus Hall was a little more hardline than the Italian communists, who were basically communists in name. Some Italian communists gained office in local elections, but Italy never had a national communist government. How is it that Maher can suggest Gus Hall is a more legitimate "democrat" than Ronna McDaniel? Gus Hall ran a party that was aligned with (and financially supported by) the Soviet Union, America's greatest adversary. Their goal was to spread communism worldwide, and end democracy. Maher implied that since Trump is presently leading, that implies half the country thinks Trump won last time. That's an energetic stretch. It's likely there are Biden voters who are switching in current polls due to Biden's mismanagement of the country. They're hardly "election deniers." The real sticking point here is that Trump supporters who violently rioted at the Capitol on the day the presidential election was certified have given evidence to the Left that anyone who opposes Biden is "anti-democratic." Our media thinks that if you rig the election the right way, you haven't rigged the election, you "fortified" it. You saved democracy by rigging it. 

Take The April Fool's Facebook Fact-Checkers Quiz

It is April 1 which means the news consumer must be extra aware for hijinks, tomfoolery, and other assortments of fake news. While some may have great fun with tales of pitchers who can throw 168 mile an hour fastballs while wearing a hiking boot on one foot and being barefoot on the other, the fact-checkers that are part of Facebook’s anti-disinformation campaign may beg to differ. Facebook’s program of third-party fact-checkers exists, so they tell us, to prevent the spread of fake news and disinformation, to save democracy, and hold the liars, spinsters, exaggerators, and satirists accountable. On this April Fool’s Day, we have collected a series of headlines from Facebook’s fact-checking partners at PolitiFact, USA Today, AP, Factcheck.org, Reuters, AFP, and Lead Stories from the first three months of 2024. Your task is to go through the following test and pick the real, democracy-saving headline from the one that we made up.  Loading… How did you do? Did you help save democracy? On a more serious note, the thing about conspiracy theorists is that fact-checking websites will not convince them that they are wrong. Instead, if a fact-checker claims the conspiracy is false, the theorist will claim that is just proof that the conspiracy is true because “that’s just what they want you to believe” or “that’s just what somebody who is in on it would say,” so even the most obvious fact-checks that 99 percent of people agree with, do not actually help combat fake news, but they might help perpetuate it by playing to the conspiracy theorist’s paranoia and sense of possessing some bit of forbidden knowledge.

ABC’s ‘Station 19’ Promotes Children Attending Pride Parades, Touts ‘Ethical Non-Monogamy’

The seventh (and final) season of ABC’s liberal drama Station 19 has begun, and only three episodes in, it’s already pouring on the leftist propaganda. Thursday’s “True Colors” episode centered on “Fabruary-Seattle Winter’s Pride,” which the fire station is participating in and inserted a child into the planning. One of the show’s many gay characters, Travis (Jay Hayden), asks a smart question…“How many Prides do we need,” adding, “…It feels a little excessive to me. I mean, we're here, we're queer…We don't need to look like a box of Lucky Charms year-round to prove that.” Travis’s wise insight ends up being borne from internalized shame, as we later find out, which he carries because his father Paul (Robert Curtis Brown) was cruel to him when Travis came out because Paul was secretly gay himself. Of course. At the parade, Travis introduces his boyfriend Eli (Rob Heaps) to Paul and meets his father’s boyfriend Kyle who he’s in an open relationship with (which they call “ethical non-monogamy”). Paul originally had an affair with Kyle while he was married to Travis’s mother: Eli: You okay? We don't have to do this if you don't want to. Travis: No, I want to. Eli: Yeah? Travis: I want you to meet him. Also, it'll be a good buffer. Dad! Paul: Travis! Hey! Guys, come here. How are you? Travis, this is my pastor, Emmanuel. Pastor, this is my son, Travis. Travis: Nice to meet you. Oh, uh, Dad, this is Eli. Eli, this is my father, Paul Montgomery. Eli: Hi. It's very nice to meet you, sir. Paul: Great to meet you, as well. Kyle! Kyle, this is my Travis and his boyfriend. Eli: Dr. Martin! Kyle: Eli Stern. Eli: What are the chances? Dr. Martin's been my dentist for years. Kyle: Yeah, I'll take full responsibility for that killer smile. Travis: Thought you said he was a DJ. Paul: Oh, he is, on the weekends. Travis: Right. Kyle: You know, Travis, it is so great to finally meet you. Your dad has told me so much about you. Travis: Yeah, I think it would have been a bit inappropriate for us to meet back when you two first got together, though, right? Kyle: Maybe you're right. Better late than never. Excuse me for a second. Travis: He seems great. Paul: He is. He is. Travis: You okay with that? Paul: With what? Travis: Dad. That. The guy feeling up your boyfriend. Who is that? Paul: Oh, yeah. I'm okay with it. We have an understanding. Travis: Oh, wait. Are you two in an open relationship? Eli: Travis! Paul: We like to call it, uh, ethical non-monogamy, but yeah, we are. Travis: Well, if you have to put "ethical" in front of it... Kyle: Well, it may be a little unconventional, but it works for us. Travis: I bet it does. Eli: Yeah, well, as long as it works for you two. I totally understand the utility of open relationships. I'm such a serial monogamist myself, I could never really do it. Oh, isn't Travis so intolerant?! How dare he have any moral standards?! As the parade begins, the show made sure to feature children watching in the crowd as a drag queen dances sultrily and shows off his/her “booty.” Other than that, the parade was very G-rated, unlike real pride parades where fetishes and kinks are on full display to children, as well as body parts they should never be exposed to. And, of course, they included angry protesters to make it appear that anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong and anyone who is concerned about children being groomed and exposed to vile sexual scenes at real pride parades are all just cruel, violent, hateful bigots: Andy: I love your rainbow butterflies. Here you go. That is perfect. Alright, you're all set. Protesters: Let men be men! Make America straight again! Let men be men! Make America straight again! Protester: Hey, pedo, hands off the kid! Protesters: Pervert! Pervert! Andy: What'd you call her? What'd you say? Say it again. I would leave a kid with that woman any day. You? Never. Sullivan: Andy. Andy, Andy, Andy – Andy: What, you think that makes you a man? Sullivan: Andy. Andy. Andy: Men don't hide behind masks and scream at little kids. You're a coward. Oh, you want to throw something? Sullivan: Andy. Hey, Captain! Andy: Throw something again. I dare you. Sullivan: Captain Herrera! Calm down. You need to calm down. Protesters: Let men be men! Make America straight again! Let men be men! Andy: They're just trying to incite fear and scare everyone. Who do they think they are? Sullivan: Look, you're right, you're right, alright? But we cannot engage. Andy: Bishop, what's wrong? Maya: I think I just saw my brother. Andy: What? Protesters: Make America straight again! To be clear, screaming vile words at children is the exact opposite of what anyone who is truly concerned about children would do. And it goes without saying that hate and violence are never okay. But shows like Station 19 have a clear agenda of painting anyone opposed to their way of thinking with the same brush as these raging protesters in the hopes of tarnishing our reputation and diminishing our beliefs. Meanwhile, when Travis apologizes to Eli for cheating on him twice, Eli responds, “What part are you sorry for? Being a cheater and a hypocrite? Or are you sorry for being a judgmental prick who overcompensates 'cause he's uncomfortable with his own sexuality? I mean, you even chose the most hypermasculine career known to man, to prove yourself…You are a real piece of work and the most repressed man I have ever known. And I work in politics, so that's saying something. But hey...like father, like son, huh?” Travis complains about Eli’s harsh words to his co-worker Vic (Barrett Doss), who ends up agreeing with Eli. During their discussion, a car backfires, sending everyone at the event into a panic thinking it was gunshots: Protesters: Let men be men! Make America straight again! Let men be men! Make America straight again! Travis: I mean, I get what I did was wrong, but where does he, like, get off saying I'm like my father? You know, a man he just met an hour ago. A man whose lifeblood at one point was rampant, internalized and externalized homophobia. Vic: Okay, so what did you say? Travis: Well, I mean, I didn't dignify it with a response. But I -- you know, I cheated, and that was terrible. But he doesn't know what he's talking about. Vic: Okay. Travis: Okay. Why do you keep saying okay? Vic: I don't know, Travis. You spent the entire morning complaining about Pride and rainbows, and Herrera had to make you put on that shirt. Travis: What does that have to do with anything? I don't have issues with masculinity, Vic. I've done drag. Vic: Yeah. Once. For Halloween. Travis: Say what you want to say. Vic: Maybe his delivery was wrong, but he wasn't. Travis: Oh, no! Vic: What the hell?! Security: Just drive. There's an exit up ahead on the left. Ross: Those weren't gunshots. That was a car backfiring. Security: You sure about that? Ross: Of course, I'm sure! I was trained to know the difference. Why weren't you? Stop the car! Security: Go! Go, go, go! Back at the firehouse, the crew discusses the protests and claim that gay people are being doxxed, trans women are being harassed and they lament that armed men are showing up at voter drop boxes. Another gay character, Maya (Danielle Savre) is told to go home to yet another gay character, her wife Carina (Stefania Spampinato), and their baby after seeing her brother with the protesters: Maya: My brother was one of the protesters. Andy: You don't know that. Maya: I do. I saw him again without his gaiter. You know, maybe I shouldn't be surprised, given how we grew up. But to see him like that, like one of them, I don't know. Andy: Go home. Go be with your wife and your baby. That's an order. Okay. We're not doing this. We're not giving them this much power. This is exactly what they want. Vic: Well, I'd say mission accomplished. Beckett: I expected it to turn into a circus, but I didn't expect fascists to be part of the show. Andy: Why can't they just leave other people alone? Sullivan: Intimidation. That's their one and only tactic. Ben: It's infuriating. I mean, at what point does the doxxing, the -- the harassment of trans women, the -- the armed men at voter drop boxes, when does it stop? This is what they do. They show up, put everyone on edge so that the slightest provocation sets everyone off. Andy: There's got to be something we can do. We can't just let them win. Travis: No, we can't. I have an idea. I just need to call in a favor from my dad. Umm, wasn’t it WaPo’s liberal reporter Taylor Lorenz who doxxed the woman behind the X account “Libs of TikTok?” *Checks notes* Yes. Yes, it was. Projection, much? Travis finally realizes he hasn’t been woke enough by the end of the episode and calls his dad to set up a pride dance party at the fire station with Kyle as the DJ. The two share a conversation about how his dad being secretly gay affected Travis: Paul: Thanks for getting Kyle and me out of there. Travis: That's the least I can do for acting like such a jerk all day. Paul: It's not your fault. It's hereditary. Travis: Maybe we have more in common than I realized. Paul: That's got to be one of my biggest regrets. Pushed a lot of my hang-ups onto you. Travis: Dad, we don't have to get into all that. Paul: I don't think I realized how much it affected you. In my eyes, you were always so brave. As a kid, you were fearless. I remember the day you came out to me. I was terrified. So, I taught you to be ashamed, to bury it deep down, not let anyone see it, like I had always done. That shame you're holding on to... that shame that tells you you can't be your whole imperfect, messy self... That doesn't belong to you. That's mine. And it's time for you to let it go. You're an incredible man, Travis. And I am so proud to be your father. It's good that you did this. Travis: If they want to be loud, we got to be louder. We really should go dance, Dad. Paul: Yeah, we really should. Let's go. Come on. Music: ♪ Release the love, forget the rest…You won't break my soul ♪ ♪ You won't break my soul ♪

Trespassers Welcome: How the Law Protects Squatters

What if you come home and find strangers living in your house? I assumed you order the squatters out, and if they resist, call the police, and they will kick them out. Wrong. Pro-tenant laws passed by anti-capitalist politicians now protect squatters. If a squatter just lies about having a lease, the police won’t intervene. “It’s a civil matter,” they’ll say. “Sort it out in court.” Great. Court might cost $20,000. Or more. And courts are so slow, eviction might take years. In my state, New York, homeowners can’t even shut of utilities to try to get the squatter out. That’s illegal. Worse, once a squatter has been there 30 days, they are legally considered a tenant. This month, NYC police arrested a homeowner for “unlawful eviction” after she changed locks, trying to get rid a squatter. “Squatter rights,” also known as “adverse possession” laws, now exist in all 50 states. As a result, evicting a squatter legally is so expensive and cumbersome that some people simply walk away from their homes! Flash Shelton may have a better idea. His mom wanted to sell their house after his dad died. But while they were selling it, squatters moved in. Shelton did what I would have done -- called the police. But the police said there was nothing they could do. So he tried a new tactic: out-squat the squatter. “I just felt, if they can take a house, I can take a house,” Shelton says in my new video. “I could go in as the squatter myself, (and) gain possession of the property.” When the home invader left for a few hours, Shelton went in and changed the locks. Only then did the squatters leave. Now Shelton’s started a business, SquatterHunters.com, where he tries to help others get their houses back. “People think of squatters as homeless, destitute,” I say. “They are not homeless,” answers Shelton. “They’re criminals ... people taking advantage of the system. In fact, one squatter he pushed out was Adam Fleischman, who started the Umami Burger restaurant chain. Fleischman told Shelton, “I’m a victim here.” He even called the cops. “He felt that since he had possession of the house,” says Shelton, “That he had the right to call law enforcement and have me removed.” I tried to reach Fleischman to hear his side of the story. No luck. “Where does he hear that he has this right to squat?” I ask Shelton. “The city was telling him this,” says Shelton. But now Shelton was a squatter, too, so he was protected by the same pro-“tenant” law. Still, only when Shelton threatened to bring friends to the house as backup did Adam Fleischman leave. In Los Angeles, a woman claimed to be a “caretaker” for an elderly homeowner, who said she didn’t want the woman in her home. So, she gave Shelton a lease. While the squatter was out, Shelton changed the locks. “But the squatter is still there?” I ask Shelton. “Still there,” he says, “Climbing through the window because she doesn’t have access to the main house.” She’s now been there for two years! Shelton says his team will move in and get rid of the squatter. “How do you know that will work?” I ask. “Because once I take possession,” says Shelton, “Then she’ll have to fight in court to try to get back in. Most likely she won’t do that.” Why do squatters feel entitled to other people’s property? Probably because people hate landlords. They listen to silly people like Marxist New School professor Miguel Robles-Duran, who calls landlords “parasites” who “provide no social value.” Popular TikTok socialist Madeline Pendleton adds that landlords have “guaranteed forever incomes, without having to put in any labor.” No labor? Who does she think buys the land; pays lawyers to decipher the excessive regulations; hires architects, carpenters, plumbers and electricians; pays the taxes; manages the property, etc.? It’s infuriating! I’m glad people like Flash Shelton fight back.

Damning Dichotomy: Happy Easter … I Mean Transgender Day of Visibility

Easter this year ironically fell on one of the left’s made up holidays: Transgender Day of Visibility. Unfortunately, the left chose to celebrate a holiday based on delusion rather than Jesus’ death and resurrection. Starting off strong, our very own President Joe Biden shared a White House press release indicating his and his administration’s commitment to transgender people. “On Transgender Day of Visibility, we honor the extraordinary courage and contributions of transgender Americans and reaffirm our Nation’s commitment to forming a more perfect Union — where all people are created equal and treated equally throughout their lives,” the March 29 statement read before proclaiming March 31 as the trannie day. “Today, we send a message to all transgender Americans: You are loved. You are heard. You are understood. You belong. You are America, and my entire Administration and I have your back,” it said.  The statement in full was 639 words. Unironically, Biden’s Easter message was only a whopping 94 words.  There’s no coincidence there. There's a clearly one message he likes mumbling about. Related: Fairfax VA Board of Supervisors Celebrates Transgenders over Jesus Vice President Kamala Harris followed suit with her post on X. “We see you. We stand with you. We won’t stop fighting for you,” she wrote when adding a graphic that stated “Trans rights are human rights.” There was no vibrant colored graphic for her Easter post and as a matter of fact, she never even said the words “Jesus” or “resurrection.” The group End Wokeness noticed that these trannie messages from the White House were available only on the English version of the account. On the Spanish-language account, there were zero references to Trasngender Day of Visibility. I don’t have the answer as to why they’d do that  - but comedian Tim Young’s statement that “manipulation and division is the name of the Democrat game,” couldn’t be more true.   What do you call someone who prioritizes gender ideology over Easter, and who bans Christian imagery on the holiest day of the year? ... A "devout Catholic," apparently. pic.twitter.com/qtCdReE81h — Bill D'Agostino (@Banned_Bill) March 31, 2024 Assistant secretary for Health and Human Services, transgender Rachel (Richard) Levine, promoted the day in a video. “On This Transgender Day of Visibility, we must continue to make focused and ongoing efforts to end inequities, eliminate the impacts of injustice and improve access to care to care for everyone,” he said and the official government X page for the Health and Human Services posted a graphic with a bunch of he/she’s to honor the day. It’s disgusting that one of the holiest of holy days was ignored this year and that instead, a day about transgender people was propped up and promoted. The left will do anything to mock faith and Sunday’s events proved that. Luckily, I’m not the only one who was utterly disturbed by the twisted morals of the left. Even LGB’s themselves were irritated by the move. Caitlyn Jenner, formerly Bruce Jenner, wrote, “I am absolutely disgusted that Joe Biden has declared the most Holy of Holy days - a self proclaimed devout Catholic - as Transgender Day of Visibility. The only thing you should be declaring on this day is ‘HE is Risen.’” Similarly, Gays Against Groomers wrote how stupid the day was. “There is no need for Transgender Day of Visibility. We think the 'LGBTQIA+' community has just about enough days as it is… and quite frankly, those aren’t needed either. What happened to wanting to integrate into society? This isn’t how you do it,” the group wrote and provided a video of all of the LGBTQ community calendar days. To say there was more than enough would be an understatement and yet, they're still trying to claim more. This move, honored by the left, is absolutely evil and is a mockery of Christianity. They should be ashamed.

The View: The Poors Need to Stop Caring About Affording Food

No, it wasn’t an April Fool’s joke. During Monday’s pre-taped edition of ABC’s The View, the liberal ladies whined about average Americans who worried about making ends meet and being able to afford food under the weight of Bidenomics. They seriously argued that Americans were better off under President Biden than they were under President Trump, and brought on a millionaire actress to downplay the struggles of average Americans. The cast was triggered by a Republican Party campaign message asking the electorally famous question: “are you better off than you were four years ago?” The question was meant to have people ponder how well things had improved from the start of a president’s first term. But since four years ago was the heart of the pandemic, The View pounced. “So, why is it that some people are having short memory issues? There are plenty of other reasons to feel good about where we actually are. So, why isn't that tracking?” moderator Whoopi Goldberg lamented to the rest of the table. Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin proclaimed that “Republicans are committing malpractice” by daring to ask if things were better under Biden than her old boss. “Four years ago we were literally hoarding toilet paper, like let’s just remember that!” she huffed. She eventually admitted that the GOP message was in regards to “pre-pandemic” America. “They think, I had more money in my 401K, the economy was doing well, there were market gains. As juxtaposed to now,” she said, before quickly trying to appease the cast by proclaiming: “the economy is objectively doing better by most macro measures.”     Adding: “…but there's this huge issue of grocery price that voters feel. So, that’s kind of what’s going on there.” Running cover for the Biden administration, pretend independent Sara Haines tried to suggest she understood what average Americans were going through in struggling to put food on the table, but suggested inflation was out of Biden’s hands: I know that the economy, again, day-to-day, especially for people living check-to-check, you're not going to feel the recovery even though the numbers are on the way up, because even after the Great Depression, it took 11 years. People recover faster than economies do. It takes a long time. This is a global problem. It's not unique to the U.S. right now. Of course, she never addressed the obvious cognitive dissonance that: if inflation was out of Biden’s control, why should he be given credit for the improvements that were supposedly happening? The other faux conservative, Ana Navarro parroted the New York Times’ smear that Americans had “amnesia” about the Trump presidency and boasted: “...the Republicans asking this question gave an opening for Democrats to remind the country where we were four years ago.” The four-years-ago conversation spilled over into their interview with actress Kyra Sedgwick who insisted: “...we are better off than we were four years ago.” She proceeded to downplay the struggles of average Americans and demand that they vote for Biden anyway. “Yes, I know certain things, you know, inflation, are still, like, an issue for people,” she bemoaned. “But we've got some serious issues on the line here, and should it go the other way, I feel like we're in trouble.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 1, 2024 11:03:57 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So, why is it that some people are having short memory issues? There are plenty of other reasons to feel good about where we actually are. So, why isn't that tracking? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Well – By the way, that triggers me to see the injecting bleach press conference. At some point, I'll tell you guys the back story of how I tried to stop that in the West Wing. But listen, Republicans are committing malpractice here. Four years ago we were literally hoarding toilet paper, like let’s just remember that! But to put on my Trump-Republican hat, I think when Republicans – GOLDBERG: Wait a minute, you. [Blows air at Farah Griffin, to blow off the figurative hat] FARAH GRIFFIN: Blow it off! Blow it off! Okay, my Republican hat. SUNNY HOSTIN: Just-Republican hat. GOLDBERG: Your Republican hat. FARAH GRIFFIN: Republicans talk fondly about the Trump era. They're talking pre-pandemic. They think, I had more money in my 401K, the economy was doing well, there were market gains. As juxtaposed to now – were the economy is objectively doing better by most macro measures, but there's this huge issue of grocery price that voters feel. So, that’s kind of what’s going on there. But I would say this: when I was watched that ad, it just brings back to mind the single greatest accomplishment of the Trump administration was Operation: Warp Speed and getting the vaccine, and he doesn't talk about it because he wants to appeal to anti-vaxxers on the right and not take credit for what helped us get out of the pandemic. (…) 11:06:12 a.m. Eastern ANA NAVARRO: There was an article the other day that said -- that asked, does America have amnesia? And so, I think the Republicans asking this question gave an opening for Democrats to remind the country where we were four years ago. And do you know what I think they should do? You said they should do more. They should allow people to download their own videos as to where they were four years ago. SARA HAINES: Yes! (…) 11:07:52 a.m. Eastern HAINES: I know that the economy, again, day-to-day, especially for people living check-to-check, you're not going to feel the recovery even though the numbers are on the way up, because even after the Great Depression, it took 11 years. People recover faster than economies do. It takes a long time. This is a global problem. It's not unique to the U.S. right now. (…) 11:24:36 a.m. Eastern KYRA SEDGWICK: I think we all need to get really busy. I think we all need to inspire each other, help to tell the story that we are better off than we were four years ago, many of us in many different ways. Yes, I know certain things, you know, inflation are still, like, an issue for people, 100 percent. But we've got some serious issues on the line here, and should it go the other way, I feel like we're in trouble. (…)

'Good Parenting'? : Tex. Court Permits Un-Checked Trans 'Care' for Kids

This is the absolute furthest thing from what’s in the best interest of kids. On Friday, just two days before the left obnoxiously celebrated Transgender Day of Visibility instead of Easter, a Texas appeals court upheld a lower court’s injunction blocking the state from investigating parents who help their kids transition with “gender-affirming care.” The decision is contrary to Governor Greg Abbot’s plea to stop these procedures and hold parents accountable for abusing their kids. Back in February 2022, Abbott ordered Texas Department of Family Protective Services (DFPS) to “carry out child abuse investigations into families whose children were receiving puberty-blocking treatments,” U.S. News reported. Shortly after, a lower court imposed an injunction to block Abbott’s move insisting that “the probes endangered children and their families.” Now, more than two years later, the appeals court in Austin, Tex., agreed with that lower court and insisted that parents who abuse their children via puberty-blockers, cross-sex hormones and gender mutilation surgeries shouldn’t be investigated for child abuse. The lower court, back in 2022 insisted that Abbott’s care for children and their well-being could cause “irreparable injury” to families.  If you want to talk about “irreparable injury,” look at the irreversible, risky and life threatening procedures and surgeries the left likes putting kids through in order to affirm a delusional sense of identity. That’s the definition of “irreparable injury!” “This is a much-needed victory for trans youth and those who love and support them,” the American Civil Liberties Union wrote on X. Similarly, a group called Gender Champion, celebrated the verdict and insisted that these harmful medical procedures are “gender-empowering medical treatments.” A group called Love to the Max even released an official statement on its advocacy website. Here’s what the group insisted: Today’s ruling by the Third Court of Appeals is a tremendous relief for our family and for the thousands of families like ours across Texas. The Texas Department of Family Protective Services, at the behest of the Governor and Attorney General, cannot investigate loving families of transgender youth for doing nothing more than loving our kids unconditionally and providing them appropriate care in all aspects of their lives. That’s not child abuse. That’s good parenting, full stop. Nothing about harming your kids in these ways signifies “good parenting.” Full stop. Luckily, some agreed with that sentiment and recognize how abusive it is to chemically or surgically harm your children. “Just to be clear, this means that if a parent with Munchausen’s by Proxy wants to sterilize their kid, or give them hormones that will prevent them from ever having a complete adult life the authorities may not act. Okay…that’s an interesting ruling,” a user wrote in response to the news. A different user wrote, “This is not a win for the youth, just the parent groomers and doctors profiting from social manipulation and lies” and one more called out the obvious when they wrote, “Injecting children with cancer causing synthetic hormones isn’t gender affirming care.” Telling your son he’s your daughter is abusive. Stopping his body from going through the natural process of puberty is abusive. Giving your son estrogen so he grows boobs is abusive. Cutting off his balls to turn them into a make-shift vagina is abusive and to think that these procedures are anything other than abusive is insane. Prayers go out to the kids in Texas who’ll be subject to abuse like this by their parents.    

CNN Women Praise Burgum PR Man for Being 'Evolved' on the Press and Female Coaches

Aww: isn't he sweet? Good boy! On Monday's CNN This Morning, CNN's Dana Bash and Kasie Hunt gave Republican Lance Trover a pat on the head for being "evolved" about the supposedly disparate press treatment of male and female sports coaches. The matter arose in the context of a long Washington Post profile of LSU women's basketball coach Kim Mulkey. After noting that the article "details her kind of pugnacious coaching personality,"  Hunt skeptically wondered: "Would we talk about that with a male coach? I don't know." Republican strategist Lance Trover, who recently toiled for Doug Burgum for President, replied:  "I completely agree with you  . . . I read it and I thought, man, would a man have gotten the same treatment, right?" That warmed the feminist cockles of Bash's heart.  But first, she had to double-check Trover's truthfulness: "Did you really read that and think to yourself, would this be written about a man?" When Trover confirmed that he actually did, "absolutely," think that, Bash responded: "That is very 2024. The fact that you did that. I mean, I want to be hopeful to think that other men are as evolved as you are. But the fact that you did is pretty cool." Hunt pitched in: "Yeah, for sure: props for that." So Hunt and Bash are skeptical that articles profiling the pugnacious style of male coaches would be written? Hello?  For starters, for every such Mulkey article, there have surely been many more ripping the late Indiana basketball coach Bobby Knight for his pugnacious/combative style. Even upon his death last year, prominent sports columnist  Mitch Albom wrote that the normal rule of not speaking ill about the dead should be waived!   Indeed, trashing the allegedly unpleasant personalities of male coaches has become a sport in itself, the subject of many listicle articles, as in: 20 Most Despicable Coaches, The 20 Angriest Coaches in Sports, and The 10 angriest coaches in college basketball. And every single coach mentioned in those articles was of the XY chromosome ilk. To offer some examples, would the names of these oft-reviled coaches ring a bell with Hunt and Bash: Bill Belichick, Lane Kiffin, Nick Saban, Billy Martin, Woody Hayes, Earl Weaver? The patronizing condescension of the CNN pair was off the charts. Imagine the feminist outrage if a couple of male sportswriters had similarly condescendingly congratulated a female political operative on her understanding of, say, the intricacies of the infield fly rule? Note: Bash even managed to somehow work in a shot at Donald Trump, saying that Mulkey's approach of preemptively criticizing the WaPo article before its publication represented the "Trumpization" of dealing with such situations. Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 4/1/24 6:54 am EDT KASIE HUNT: Mulkey has been out there, Lance, basically pushing back ahead of a story that came out over the weekend which was in the Washington Post, was a long profile of her and looking at her personality in away that clearly Mulkey thought, she ahead of time called it a hit piece, attacks the journalist in the Washington Post. I think if you read the story, I'm not sure that the things that she said might be in there ended up being in the story. It was kind of a portrait of how Mulkey came to be. But, you know, I kind of go back and forth, because on the one hand, it details her kind of pugnacious coaching personality. Would we talk about that with a male coach? I don't know. On the other hand, we are getting a massive profile in a national publication of a women's basketball coach. And I actually think that's pretty good. LANCE TROVER: I completely agree with you on both counts. I sometimes, I read it and I thought, man, would a man have gotten the same treatment, right? But at the same time, it's bringing attention to it. I also think this is a lesson, PR 101 in 2024. Get in front of a story that's coming that you think is bad, and if you don't like what's in it, get out there and talk about it. Look what happened. She got a [inaudible.] DANA BASH: I mean, it is the Trumpization of the way to approach--and I'm sure you think about this in your line of work all the time. But the way to approach something that's coming is just to get out there and own it, and, frankly, appropriate it and, or to try to quash it in this case. I just want to co-sign, as the kids say, what you said about the fact that we're talking about women's basketball and women's sports in general. I mean this is really great. HUNT: I freaking love it.  BASH: It really great. It's the Caitlin Clark of it all. It's -- LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: They're making money. They have fans. They have controversies [laughter]. HUNT: It's happening, it's happening. Guess what? It's just like men's, but again, I mean, look Lance, I'm sorry, you're the you're the man at this table for TROVER: I'm all in! BASH: What Lance said, what Lance said: that you actually. Did you really read that and think to yourself, would this be written about a man? TROVER: Yes, I did. Yeah, absolutely. BASH: First of all, that is very 2024. The fact that you did that. I mean, I want to be hopeful to think that other men are as evolved as you are. But the fact that you did is pretty cool. HUNT: Yeah, no, for sure. Props for that.

Gag: NBC’s Roker Shills for Bidens in Another Puffball Easter Egg Roll Interview

On Monday, NBC’s Today sent co-host Al Roker for yet another softball interview with President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden ahead of the 2024 White House Easter Egg Roll and, while it wasn’t as infamously ludicrous as 2023, Roker still did his part channeling North Korean state-run TV news anchors by wondering how he’ll get Americans to “engage and get out there to vote” for his reelection.     Something Roker wouldn’t be caught dead covering during the Trump years, he began the nearly five-minute chat by asking them how their Easter went. This led to the first of many Biden answers consisting of slurring his words and sudden whispers: ROKER: Happy day after Easter. How was Easter for you guys? PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Great. We spent it up at Camp David as a whole family. My dad used to say family is the beginning, middle, and end. We had them up there. We went to Mass on Saturday and we had a great Easter egg hunt. We actually take these plastic eggs and put some dollars in them. ROKER: Oh, nice! A little cash. JILL BIDEN: We’re still missing one. Roker shifted to the First Lady with a softball about the Egg Roll: “[W]hat’s the theme this year? This is something close to your heart.” After Jill Biden said it was again “Egg-ucation” with stations on the South Lawn covering school subjects like reading, physical education, and science, Roker went back to President Biden: “When you think back on — on this time so far, what are one — some of your favorite memories, Mr. President?” This gave the President the chance to go full creep: “Well, my favorite memories are a little girl who was having trouble with her egg, looked at me — she’s three-years old, said, ‘can you help me, Mr. President.’ So, I gave it a push. That’s my favorite.” Following an out-of-touch Biden answer about how he loves “opening up” the White House so he can see “average Americans just walking around”, Roker went full Democratic National Committee staffer with a puffball query about how Biden will win this “final campaign”and have the right “message to people about why they’ve got to engage and get out there to vote coming up.” Biden bumbled his way through that sounded as though he wasn’t running as the incumbent and in charge for the last four years (click “expand”): PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I think people are going to surprise people again. They’re going to engage. It’s an overwhelming response when we’re out on the road. Look, we have tens of thousands of people contributing five, $10 a — a — a pop. We’ve opened up 100 headquarters. We have people waiting to get engaged. I mean, I just think people are so tired of the negativity that is propagated that they just — they just want to get engaged. They want to change things, and I’m optimistic, I really am. ROKER: When — when people are saying, you know, but Mr. President, I’m feeling — I’m feeling, you know, my buck isn’t going as far, what do you say to those folks about the economy and what’s going on? PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Well, I say we have the best economy in the world. We got to make it better. We really do have the best economy in the world. Jobs are up more than they’ve ever been. We’re in a situation where the lowest unemployment in 50 years is maintained. We have people who are just — but people — look, I think we’re going to find out that what happened is consequence of the crisis we had in health is going to have a lasting effect. I mean, we’ve got to get people to move again. We’re — we’re ready. I think the country is ready to come together in a way that I never — I mean that sincerely. I’m — I’m truly optimistic. ROKER: Yeah. And how are you feeling going into this last campaign? JILL BIDEN: I feel great. You know, I’ve been traveling across the country. People are ready to go and we’re going to win this. Roker concluded by inviting the Bidens to join him for lunch at Ben’s Chili Bowl, but he had one last eye roll of a question for the President about what it’s been like to live in the White House (which elicited another creepy answer): ROKER: And — and as far as — you know, your — your memories of this house, you know — I mean we’re assuming, I don’t know what — what the future holds, but what are your favorite memories about this place? PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Our kids jumping in bed with us. Our grandkids when they’re down here. Just sneaking up and jumping in bed with us. That’s my favorite memory here. They love it. They love wandering through the halls. They love — there’s two floors upstairs. A lot of bedrooms. It’s a private residence and they just love coming down. To see the relevant NBC transcript from April 1, click here.

Stephanopoulos Uses Kennedy Cult Doc to Campaign Against Trump/RFK Jr.

The Kennedy family has a cult following in the Democratic Party and an endorsement from them has been viewed as critical in the primaries, hence the left’s concern with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. running for president as an independent against President Biden. This meant that irony levels were off the charts on Monday’s Good Morning America when ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos utilized Rory Kennedy’s cult documentary to campaign against former President Donald Trump and her brother Bobby. On the show to hawk her new HBO documentary about the Synanon cult, Stephanopoulos queued Kennedy to draw parallels between the cult’s founder, Charles Dederich Sr., and Trump. “And you also say that we are seeing the kind of dynamic we saw in Synanon with a cult-like leader playing out in our politics today,” he stated. Of course, Kennedy obliged: Well, I think so. I think we are seeing the cult personality. And what I have learned in making this documentary [The Synanon Fix] is that in times where there's uncertainty and it feels precarious, the world around us, that people are drawn to alternative models. There are supposedly 10,000 cults in the United States today. So, I think there's a lot of people who are drawn to different leadership and being pulled into ideas that maybe aren't consistent with their moral compass. “And I think we can learn a lot from this program about what's happening in the world today,” she added.     It’s incredibly hypocritical for a Kennedy to chide others for “cult-like” behavior. The Kennedys have been treated like royalty in the Democratic Party for decades and their political endorsements, handed out from the family compound, have been coveted. The media put a lot of weight on them to, trumpeting their endorsements of candidates Obama and Biden like a new pope was selected. And for the liberal media, describing something as a “cult” was actually good when it was used for Democrats. In 2019, NPR anchor Audie Cornish praised Obama as the “ultimate cult of personality candidate.” For his final question, Stephanopoulos teed Kennedy up to attack her brother’s campaign. “Your brother, of course, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running for president right now. You say this is the most important election of our lifetime and that a vote for your brother is actually dangerous?” he wondered. “Well, my biggest concern with Bobby's run is that he is going to take votes away from Biden,” Kennedy said. “And I think this election is going to come down to a handful of votes and a handful of states. And I am concerned that voting for Bobby is going to take votes from Biden and lead to a Trump election. And I am very concerned what that will do to our country and to the world over the ensuing four years.” Stephanopoulos’s enthusiasm to for the cult mudslinging was rich in its own right since he was a lackey for President Clinton. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America April 1, 2024 8:42:52 a.m. Eastern (…) GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And you also say that we are seeing the kind of dynamic we saw in Synanon with a cult-like leader playing out in our politics today. RORY KENNEDY: Well, I think so. I think we are seeing the cult personality. And what I have learned in making this documentary [The Synanon Fix] is that in times where there's uncertainty and it feels precarious, the world around us, that people are drawn to alternative models. There are supposedly 10,000 cults in the United States today. So, I think there's a lot of people who are drawn to different leadership and being pulled into ideas that maybe aren't consistent with their moral compass. And I think we can learn a lot from this program about what's happening in the world today. STEPHANOPOULOS: One other question about what's happening in the world today, before you go. Your brother, of course, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running for president right now. You say this is the most important election of our life time and that a vote for your brother is actually dangerous? KENNEDY: Well, my biggest concern with Bobby's run is that he is going to take votes away from Biden. And I think this election is going to come down to a handful of votes and a handful of states. And I am concerned that voting for Bobby is going to take votes from Biden and lead to a Trump election. And I am very concerned what that will do to our country and to the world over the ensuing four years. STEPHANOPOULOS: Rory, thanks for coming on today.

CBS Host Ed O'Keefe Prods DC Archbishop to Categorize Biden as a 'Cafeteria Catholic'

On Easter Sunday, CBS’s Face the Nation turned to two prominent Washington religious leaders: Cardinal Wilton Gregory, the Catholic archbishop of Washington and Rev. Mariann Budde, Bishop of Washington for the Episcopal Church, which is politically a better fit for Biden. White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe was the substitute host, and he seemed most interested in underlining how Biden faithfully attends Catholic services, and not so much whether he’s in complete contradiction with Catholic teaching on the hot-button social and sexual issues. He kept pressing the Cardinal on if Biden “resonates” with Catholic voters: ED O'KEEFE: In the case of the president, do you get a sense that his regular attendance and adherence to the faith resonates with American Catholics? CARDINAL GREGORY: I could say that he's very sincere about his faith, but like a number of Catholics, he picks and chooses dimensions of the faith to highlight while ignoring or even contradicting other parts. There is a phrase that we have used in the past, a cafeteria Catholic, you choose that which is attractive and dismiss that which is challenging. REV. BUDDE: Or, as Thomas Aquinas would say, you allow your conscience to guide you. Gregory has been very careful in his public remarks on the president, so even dropping the “cafeteria Catholic” line was a bit surprising – more surprising than Budde’s Biden boosterism. O’Keefe played dumb about Biden contradicting the church aggressively on abortion and on this day, promoting a “Transgender Day of Visibility” on social media. ED O'KEEFE: Is there something on the menu he's not ordering, in your view, so to speak? WILTON CARDINAL GREGORY: Well, I would say there are things, especially in terms of the life issues, there are things that he chooses to ignore or he uses the current situation as a political pawn rather than saying, look, my church believes this – Budde interrupted: BUDDE: It's also possible to be a practitioner of the faith as a public leader and not require everyone that you lead in your country to be guided by all of the precepts of your faith, right? O'KEEFE: And in my coverage of him, it seems that is what he believes. BUDDE: That's what I would interpret. There’s a point that a Catholic president shouldn’t impose every Catholic teaching into public policy. But O’Keefe and Budde are seeking to have it both ways: Biden’s a “devout Catholic” and a devout Democrat, and never mind how much they can’t logically coexist. O’Keefe kept pressing on Biden’s “resonance.” ED O'KEEFE: Is there any Biden effect in the pews, perhaps? GREGORY: I would not put a lot of emphasis on that. ED O'KEEFE: Okay. GREGORY: He does attend church regularly with great, you know, devotion. But he also steps aside some of the hot-button issues or uses the hot-button issues as a political tool, which it's not – it is not the way I think we would want our faith to be used. Budde then gushed over how she "admires tremendously" Biden's attendance at funerals at their Washington National Cathedral, pretending it's amazing that a politician would stay for the whole service.  PS: Earlier in the show, O'Keefe pressed Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) to criticize Donald Trump for ads selling a "God Bless the USA" Bible:  "I got to ask, President Trump this past week unveiled what he calls the God Bless the USA Bible, which not only has the words of scripture in it, but also the text of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a few other things. Do you think it's appropriate for the former president, for the likely Republican nominee to be selling such a product?" When Turner detoured around an answer, O’Keefe pressed again: "Okay but you wouldn't buy a copy of this Trump Bible, would you?" Turner said "I'm not writing a check for that."

Law Prof Warns SCOTUS Decision in Key Case Could Be Undoing of Free Speech Online

One legal expert is telling Americans that abridgment, not coercion, is the standard in a landmark free speech rights case. Philip Hamburger, a Columbia University legal scholar and CEO of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, took on what he argued is an incorrect standard for a landmark case. As the free speech case, Murthy v. Missouri, is before the U.S. Supreme Court, George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin argued for Reason Magazine that government “coercion” is the standard in determining constitutional violations. Hamburger, however, who represents most of the case’s individual plaintiffs, explained in a piece in Reason that the standard is abridgment, and the government does not have the power to violate Americans’ free speech, even if provable coercion is not involved. The “First Amendment bars government from ‘abridging’ the freedom of speech, and thus bars reducing that freedom,” Hamburger explained. He also noted that the amendment bars the federal government from “prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. Thus, abridgment and prohibition are distinct and separate standards. Indeed, Hamburger argued, “freedom of speech is violated by a mere reducing of that freedom, whether or not through coercion.” Some verbs in the Constitution are “generic,” but the First Amendment language is not, he wrote. Hamburger also cited past scholarship on abridgment language about freedom of speech. The specificity seems deliberate and important. Therefore, if the government and Big Tech did collude to reduce free speech, that is a constitutional violation, even without specific coercion, according to Hamburger. Hamburger also expressed concern about the apparent lack of understanding of this distinction in the Murthy v. Missouri case. “The Supreme Court's overemphasis on coercion has invited censorship,” he wrote, arguing that this emphasis “leaves government confident that it can suppress speech simply by working not too coercively through private parties.” Yes, much of the online censorship involves “cooperation” between the government and Big Tech companies, and thus the danger of focusing only on coercion. Even looking at previous Supreme Court cases, Hamburger added, “consensual arrangements can violate the First Amendment.” This is especially significant, the professor noted, because “there's also a longstanding constitutional principle that government cannot use private parties to do its dirty work.” Hamburger further stated that any government “policy of any sort to suppress lawful speech — whether because it is false or offensive — is forbidden” by the First Amendment. And he concluded,  “The coercion-consent measure of free speech is utterly mistaken. It is wrong about coercion, it is wrong about consent, and it practically invites government censorship. So, if the Supreme Court takes such an approach in Murthy v. Missouri, the case will stand out as one of the most abysmal First Amendment decisions in the nation's history.” Somin had argued that the Supreme Court should focus on coercion and that government “persuasion” to censor does not necessarily violate the First Amendment. Murthy v. Missouri oral arguments were heard at the Supreme Court March 18. 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.

Recapturing Our Lost and Disillusioned Youth

Our nation’s Declaration of Independence begins with the famous statement that “all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” But according to the latest Gallup World Happiness Report, Americans’ success in the “pursuit of happiness” is diminishing. For the first time since the annual report was first compiled in 2012, the United States is not among the top 20 happiest countries in the world. In this latest 2024 report, the United States ranks 23 in the world, down from number 15 in 2023. A large factor influencing the drop in happiness in the United States is particularly bad results among young Americans. For those age 30 and below, the United States ranks 62 in the world. This compared to those age 60 and above, for whom the United States ranks number 10. What’s going on with our youth? A recent Wall Street Journal article about so-called Gen Z, those born between 1997 and 2012, identifies members of Gen Z who are 18 and up as “America’s Most Disillusioned Voters.” The headline continues, “Young adults are now more skeptical of government and pessimistic about the future than any other living generation before them.” Per Wall Street Journal polling reported in the article, “More than three-quarters of voters under 30 think the country is moving in the wrong direction -- a greater share than any other age group. Nearly one-third of voters under 30 have an unfavorable view of both Biden and Trump, a higher number than all older voters. Sixty-three percent of young voters think neither party adequately represents them.” In the 18-25 age group, 28% say they have “hardly any confidence” in the Supreme Court, 34% in Congress, 37% in the executive branch and 52% in the press. A young USA Today columnist named Sara Pequeno shared her views about what’s going on and why. The explanations she ticks off are a generation coming of age during the Covid pandemic, an explosion of the worst inflation in years and, she adds, the impact of the Supreme Court overturning of Roe v. Wade, which she calls “the loss of a right that our parents had -- the right to an abortion nationwide.” She sites Gallup showing that 89% of those 18-29 years old support legal abortion under any or certain circumstances. We’re talking here about our nation’s future, and this dismal picture should trouble us all. Let me suggest a different perspective on this problem. This youngest generation is also coming of age during a time of unprecedented expansion of government, meaning an unprecedented incursion into the individual freedom of every American. The federal government is now taking one-quarter of the American economy. Federal debt, equal to our entire GDP, is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to keep growing. This is all on the shoulders of these young Americans. Regarding the impact of the Covid pandemic, a new study published by the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, authored by scholars from the Hoover Institution, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Chicago and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, shows the costs of the shutdowns in the way of added deaths, massive economic costs and damage caused by school shutdowns overwhelm any benefits that were gained. Regarding abortion, we must note that these young Americans are growing up in an environment of the collapse of the American family, traditional marriage and birth rates. Let’s be aware, as we enter the season of Easter for Christians and Passover for Jews, that the growth of government tracks the diminishing of faith. To go back to the Declaration of Independence, the rights the founders noted were sourced in our Creator. The founders who signed the Declaration did so “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” This was meant to be a free nation under God. As we destroy these conditions, we are losing our young people.

Sound of Freedom Producer on MRC UnCensored: Media, Hollywood ‘Tried to Silence Us’

Actor and producer Eduardo Verastegui spoke out against the hatred and censorship campaigns his films Cabrini and Sound of Freedom have faced from Hollywood, social media and legacy media.  During the March 29 episode of MRC’s UnCensored, Verastegui said that both he and his films had been censored. When host and MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider asked Verastegui about attacks from media outlets like The New York Times and Hollywood’s opposition to his movies, Verastgui answered emphatically: “They tried to silence us.” MRC Uncensored: Angel Studios Cabrini Overcomes Hollywood's Darkness With The Light of Truth MRC's @Schneider_DC joins Cabrini Executive Producer @EVerastegui to share about his new movie's powerful place in Hollywood. pic.twitter.com/nFAIUGGPVb — MRCTV (@mrctv) March 29, 2024 Verastgui told Schneider that he doesn’t make movies for Hollywood or media elites, but “for the people.” As for his elite critics, Verastgui said, “They tried to silence us, it’s not only in the United States, this is a global problem … I’m from Mexico. They tried to silence my movie, Sound of Freedom as well.” He went on to mention that his latest film, Cabrini, was facing similar attacks.  “They are going to try and silence this movie as well. The feminist movement that doesn’t have God at the center of their lives, whatever they touch is destroyed, they already started a movement in Mexico not to see Mother Cabrini,” said Verastgui, before alleging that some protesters were demonizing Cabrini as “Christian propaganda” and were trying to burn posters of the film.  The Sound of Freedom producer also said that he had been censored on social media and that the film itself suffered blowback after he announced a campaign for president in Mexico. “At the moment I announced that I was going to register and then raise one million signatures so I can be officially an independent candidate, they silenced our film, they removed our film from theaters, all the billboards of the film, they were removed,” said Verastgui.  According to El Universal entertainment journalist Mariel Lopez Duran, Sound of Freedom appeared on 2,000 screens in Mexico during its opening week. The film made $7,477,850 in Mexico from Sept. 1 through Sept 10. Verastgui announced his presidential run on Sept. 7, 2023. Sound of Freedom earnings fell drastically over the weeks following the announcement. It is not apparent how many theaters were showing the movie during that time.  He went on to mention that Instagram had discouraged users from following his account, “They canceled me on Instagram, on social media, for those 120 days, my Instagram, if you want to follow me, ‘Are you sure you want to follow Eduardo Verastgui who provides false information?’ The attacks were all over from every angle.” In other words, users were not only forced to take an extra step to follow Verastgui but were also strongly cautioned not to do so by the app.  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.

AP Reporter, KJP Link Up to Smear ‘Hateful’ GOP Over Transgender Visibility Day

On Monday, the day-after-Easter White House press briefing began on a hacktastic note as the Associated Press reporter on duty asked about what could generously be described as hubbub surrounding Easter Sunday falling on March 31 and President Biden issuing a presidential proclamation for Sunday as Transgender Day of Visibility. AP reporter Will Weissert could have asked about this in any number of productive ways, such as why was this tweeted from the White House’s main account, but not their Spanish-language profile, or why did Biden use only half of Genesis 1:27 to endorse transgenderism when the second, omitting portion would show God vehemently opposes it. Instead, Weissert did this: “So, the criticism over the Transgender Day of Visibility, the White House said that the President wouldn’t abuse his faith for political purposes. Does the President think that’s what Republicans are doing on this?”     Despite having notes, Jean-Pierre still stumbled (see the video above) in expressing surprise at “the misinformation...out there”, explaining while Easter changes every year, Transgender Day of Visibility is always March 31. Arguing the backlash was “misinformation done on purpose”, the Biden flack seemed to imply Biden — who celebrates transgenderism and believes they’re some of the bravest people he knows — was a real Christian while those who feel differently aren’t and thus possess “cruel, hateful, and dishonest rhetoric”: And, as a Christian who celebrates Easter with family, President Biden stands for bringing people together and upholding the dignity and freedoms of every American. Now, sadly — and it’s not surprising — right — it is actually unsurprising that politicians are seeking to divide and weaken our country with cruel, hateful, and dishonest rhetoric. It is dishonest what we have heard the past 24 hours. It is untrue. Jean-Pierre then cited a 2021 Fox network tweet endorsing that year’s Transgender Day of Visibility and ironically proclaimed “President Biden will never abuse his faith or — for political purposes or for profit”. Like a loyal foot soldier, Weissert didn’t ask any follow-ups, but offered Jean-Pierre a “thank you.” Fox’s Peter Doocy, in contrast, brought the heat and asked actual questions. While he didn’t ask about the Transgender Day of Visibility, Doocy started with the disturbing development in the disturbing March 21 incident at the U.S.-Mexico (captured by our friend Jennie Taer of the New York Post): “Most of the border crossers accused of beating up Texas National Guardsmen in a riot last month were released on their own recognizance Sunday. How does that make people in this country any safer?” Jean-Pierre told Doocy to speak with Departments of Homeland Security and Justice before retreating to her talking points praising the Border Patrol for having “act[ed] quickly” and attacking Republicans for “put[ting] politics ahead of the American people” by refusing to address the “challenge at the border” with the proposed Senate deal. Like a good reporter responding to word salad, Doocy followed up: “So, does President Biden wish that Republicans in Congress would help him make a law that made it easier to deport people?” Jean-Pierre more or less said he wouldn’t want that because, instead, she said “[w]hat the President wants to see is....congressional Republicans to pass, to move forward with a bipartisan border security agreement”. Doocy pivoted to wondering what the administration made of the rise in squatting with some localities even having laws allowing the homeless (or anyone) to seize homes that aren’t theirs (click “expand”): DOOCY: Totally different topic. How worried do Americans need to be about squatters? JEAN-PIERRE: About squatters? DOOCY: Well, here’s a lot of stories out there. Homeowners are showing up at places that they own where the locks have been changed. Some squatter has moved in, and the homeowner has no rights. Does President Biden think that is right? JEAN-PIERRE: So, if — if my understanding is that this is, obviously, a local issue, we are certainly tracking that issue. The rights of property owners and renters must be protected and we believe that, you know, ultimately, what needs to happen is the local government needs to make sure that they address this and they take action.  And so, everyone in their community, in this country wants the same thing, right? They all want the same thing. They want their families to be safe, and that’s what we want as well. We want to make sure that Americans and their families feel safe. DOOCY: In Florida, there’s a new law where victims of squatting can call the cops and have the squatters removed. Would President Biden support something like that? JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into — into — into hypotheticals from here. What I can say is that, ultimately, this is a local issue.  And it is critical that — that local governments take action to address it. Again, everybody wants the same thing. They want to feel safe in their communities. That’s what they want. We certainly are tracking these stories. And, as is usually the case, pro-Hamas reporter Nadia Bilbassy of Saudi-funded Al-Arabiya was up to her usual theatrics: As always, Arab reporter Nadia Bilbassy of Saudi-funded Al-Arabiya used the WH briefing to peddle the Hamas propaganda of the day, claiming the IDF went into Al Shifa hospital to slaughter innocent doctors and babies. KJP plays right along. If this were a Republican… pic.twitter.com/qs2k5TBI8O — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 1, 2024 if this were a Republican presidency, you’d best believe Bilbassy would be absolutely torched with missives such as that. To see the relevant transcript from the April 1 briefing, click here.

NewsBusters Podcast: Biden Lays an Egg on Transgender Day of Easter

The hot item of the Easter weekend on conservative social media was President Biden's "compassionate" embrace of Transgender Day of Visibility when it coincided with Easter. Biden chose his woke-left voters over church-going Christian voters. The media rushed to Biden's defense. Managing Editor Curtis Houck reviews the hot takes on Biden and Trump on TV. When conservatives began tweeting, the Stelters of the world started the so-called "fact checking." The date of Easter moves around and our Transgender Day does not! So they didn't put their Transgender Day on Easter on purpose! but Biden chose to honor it.  This should be a sticky wicket for Biden, but it wasn’t. It was a no-brainer on the Left.  Meanwhile, the cable networks quickly broke out the latest Trump attack, that he spent the Christian holy day unloading his Truth Social messages. Suddenly Easter was too holy for Trump, but Biden didn't clash with the Christians. At the White House press briefing, Curtis tweeted this unbelievable tee-ball question to KJP from AP reporter Will Weissert: “So, the criticism over the Transgender Day of Visibility, the White House said that the President wouldn't abuse his faith for political purposes. Does the President think that's what Republicans are doing on this?” NBC News put out a Biden-defense piece titled "Conservatives shell long-standing White House Easter egg contest."  They  lamented a flyer circulated by the adjutants general of the National Guard inviting children of National Guard members to submit Easter eggs to the White House contest caused a controversy, with "outlets like Fox News and The Daily Caller writing stories saying the administration is banning religious themes in this year's contest." They admitted this year's flyer does say that the decorated Easter egg submissions "must not include any questionable content, religious symbols, overtly religious themes, or partisan political statements." But the White House insisted the American Egg Board's "standard non-discrimination language" has been in use for 45 years. Deputy press secretary Andrew Bates said it was "unsurprising" that some "are seeking to divide and weaken our country with cruel, hateful, and dishonest rhetoric." "President Biden will never abuse his faith for political purposes or for profit," Bates added, noting that Biden is "a Christian who celebrates Easter with family." On MSNBC, former Republican congressman David Jolly trashed Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson on Rev. Al Sharpton's show:: “The Jesus they celebrate today would be inclusive of the transgender community” Jolly implies Jesus thinks the Father is wrong to assign genders at birth. He should let the little children pick their own genders. On Monday, Morning Joe regular Donnie Deutsch explained “Here’s why I think Republicans so heinously seize on the trans issue. Obviously the numbers are not there. The amount of trans athletes competing is, men with women, 0.0001%." Republicans pouncing on men in women's sports is "tragic and it's disgusting."  Gregory on CBS with Marianne Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington. Ed O Keefe was guest-hosting really wanted to drive the point that Biden is a devout Catholic in his attendance at Mass. Cardinal Gregory is a very measured prelate. Being the church’s shepherd in DC ends up being very political, and the bishops in general have acted very gingerly about Biden. The cardinal stipulated that Biden is “very sincere about his faith," BUT he said the words “cafeteria Catholic.” Biden rejects the pieces of Catholic teaching that get in the way of seeking hardcore leftist Democrats. We shared how it's funny that "heinous" describes complaining about men entering women's sports, but it's not "heinous" to terminate a baby in the third trimester. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. 

Spanish-Language Nets HIDE White House ‘Transgender Day of Visibility’

The White House’s celebration of the Transgender Day of Visibility was an “English Only” event, with no mention whatsoever on any of its Spanish-language social media platforms and feeds. So much for diversity! But rather than covering this shameless pander, the nation’s corporate Spanish-language media enabled it. Watch as Univision’s morning anchor Satcha Pretto delivers a report on Transgender Day of Visibility…in Mexico City, as aired on Univision’s Despierta América on Monday, April 1st, 2024: SATCHA PRETTO: And hundreds of protesters marched in the Mexican capital. This, to commemorate the International Transgender Day of Visibility, and draw attention to the discrimination they suffer. Many of them are members of the LGBTQ community and demand a law that protects their rights. And Mexico has recorded four murders of transgender people so far this year. Talk about misdirection. The networks, in order to maintain their Corporate Equality Index scores, indeed covered Transgender Day of Visibility- just not the event that is swirling in controversy- and there are two reasons why this is the case. First, due to its obsequious commemoration by the nation’s second Catholic president despite falling on the same day as Resurrection Sunday. Second, due to its being withheld from the Hispanic community, at a time when Biden is hemorrhaging Hispanic support. Instead, the networks covered the transgender parades in Mexico City. In hindsight, a very easy choice. All of the agenda signaling with none of the messy and inconvenient domestic politics. This is the route that Telemundo also took: OCTAVIO PULIDO:  Meanwhile, hundreds of protesters gathered yesterday to commemorate the International Transgender Day of Visibility. During the protest in the capital of Mexico, attendees demanded a law that protects the rights of these people. Many of them, members of the LGBTQ community, marched down the city's iconic Reforma Avenue, from the Senate building, to denounce the discrimination they commonly face. And in so doing, both Univision and Telemundo actively aided and abetted the Biden White House in covering and concealing its promotion of Transgender Visibility Day. Time and again, we’ve established that these networks are not representative of the Hispanic community. Rather, they represent the liberal media to the community.

Biden, Pontius Pilate Both Weak and Divisive

Note from MRC President Brent Bozell: I came across this op-ed one day after Easter. No matter. It is important to the entire NB family, so we reprint it now. Morality and courage come in many forms. As Americans, we’ve seen it often. From the morality and courage of President Ronald Reagan to the spineless behavior of Joe Biden. May we learn from both examples as we learn about the courage and perfection of Jesus Christ. And as the Bible says, "Be strong and take heart, all you who hope in the Lord," Psalm 31:24. We were sitting in church on Maundy Thursday when I had a sudden revelation — in a manner of speaking; Joe Biden is the Pontius Pilate of the 21st century. Like Pontius Pilate, Biden sold his soul for the sake of the crowd. He has also forsaken his principles much like Judas sold out Christ for 30 pieces of silver. Ethics were foreign to Pilate. Biden has sold out Israel, placating the left-wing antisemites on college campuses. He certainly sold out millions of unborn babies as a pro-abortion rights president. The result? He has traded trading human lives for a few measly votes. Now, to add insult to injury — especially during global observances this past Easter Sunday, he more-than-seemingly went out of his way to honor, not Jesus and the Resurrection, but alternative lifestyles.   Understandably conservatives, especially Christians, were outraged. Ask yourself this: "How does this truly unify our nation?"  Returning to Pilate, many all-too-well remember his role in history. He's the weakling politician who bowed to the angry crowd and allowed Christ to be crucified, even as Pilate knew Christ was innocent, earning him a large place in history as a cowardly career bureaucrat. Biden demonstrates his weakness every day. Christ spent years preaching and proselytizing, harming no one, but was an anti-establishment threat to the twin power structures of the Roman Empire and business interests in Jerusalem. His message of "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others" was winning converts and he developed his own following of disciples and acolytes. Pilate, the career politician was, unlike Christ, born to wealth and was an elitist.. He was the chief defender of the status quo. Clearly, Christ was a threat to that status quo. In symbolically "washing his hands" of how to deal with Christ, the gutless politician would neither save Christ — earning him the enmity of history — nor take on the responsibility of killing him, much like the cowardly Biden. Cowards, Shakespeare said, die many times before they actually die. Pilate died ignobly, purportedly by suicide. His grave long forgotten. His only claim to fame was the notice which comes when a politician takes the spineless way out when confronted with the life of an innocent man. In due course Biden will also depart this earth — as we all will, but he will be remembered most for his weak, divisive presidency — notable for being a coward, of lacking even the semblance of a soul. Biden will shortly shuffle of this mortal coil, towards that undiscovered country, unloved, with few mourners, a miserable figure of history. Even in the face of Biden’s eventual unremarkable passing, Gandhi said, "In in the midst of darkness, light persists."   Craig Shirley is the Chairman of Citizens for the Republic, as well as a Ronald Reagan biographer and presidential historian having written six books on Reagan. He's also written The New York Times bestseller, "December, 1941" and also published the companion book, "April, 1945." He's also the author of the book "Mary Ball Washington," which won the People’s Choice Award from the Library of Virginia. His book on the 1980 presidential campaign, "Rendezvous with Destiny" was named by The Wall Street Journal as one of the five best campaign books of all time.

WATCH: Glenn Beck Wields MRC Study to Smack Leftist NewsGuard Around

Blaze Media host Glenn Beck emphasized the utter ridiculousness of leftist website traffic cops like NewsGuard masquerading as unbiased truth gatekeepers, and relied on original MRC Free Speech America research to do it. Beck ripped into the discredited NewsGuard that has been outed as a leftist operation targeting the advertising dollars of right-leaning media sources during the March 27 edition of Glenn TV. In his X post promoting the segment, Beck referred to NewsGuard as “propaganda” for continuing to behave like an Orwellian arbiter of truth, despite the glaring evidence of its so-called ratings system consistently being shown to favor left-leaning media while punishing the right.  “An analysis by the Media Research Center found that NewsGuard rates left and left-leaning news outlets an average of 27 points higher than conservative news outlets,” said Beck citing MRC's first NewsGuard analysis conducted in 2021. “But never mind that. I’m sure NewsGuard’s ratings are perfectly fair and balanced,” Beck mocked. What’s more terrifying about NewsGuard’s reach in light of MRC’s research, as Beck noted, was that it was being used by more than 800 libraries across the globe and the radical American Federation of Teachers union to indoctrinate children on the newspeak concept of so-called “media literacy” in order to inoculate the next generation against certain news sources, which in NewsGuard’s world typically indicates sources generating from the right. The study Beck referenced was the first of three MRC investigations into NewsGuard's extreme bias conducted over three consecutive years.  MRC’s analyses utilized a media bias list compiled by AllSides that classifies publications based on their “right” to “left” bias in order to determine how NewsGuard rated the outlets listed. The results found over three years of analysis have been nothing short of damning. In 2021, As Beck stated, the average NewsGuard score for the “left” and “lean left” outlets — which included leftist outlets like The New York Times, Politico and Washington Post — was 93/100. While the average rating for “right” and “lean right” outlets — which included Fox News, The Washington Times and New York Post — was a low 66/100, reflecting a 27-point disparity.  Have you heard about Microsoft’s partnership with “misinformation” watchdog NewsGuard on a “media literacy” program? It includes a browser extension (used by over 800 libraries) that warns your child if they visit a "bad" news outlet. That’s not media literacy. That’s propaganda. pic.twitter.com/6QziMvy2tr — Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) March 28, 2024 NewsGuard's acute level of bias remained consistent over the next two years. In the second study, released Jan. 6, 2023, the bias has barely budged. The average score for “left” and “lean left” outlets was a 91 while the average for “right” and “lean right” outlets was still a low 66/100, a 25-point disparity. Then, in the third study released Dec. 12, 2023, MRC found that NewsGuard’s treatment of right-leaning media got even worse. “Left” and “lean left” outlets maintained their stellar average of 91/100, while the average for “right” and “lean right” outlets dipped to an outrageously abysmal 65/100, indicating a 26-point disparity.  EDITOR’S NOTE: Readers should be aware that MRC’s NewsGuard studies only use the AllSides media bias list to analyze NewsGuard ratings of outlets considered by AllSides to be “left” and “lean left” or “right” and “lean right.” It does not necessarily reflect MRC’s characterizations of these outlets. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that the State Department be held to account to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and that Big Tech mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.      

Trump Hunts for a VP Close to Home

It’s the new season of “The Apprentice,” only this time Donald Trump isn’t looking for the next business whiz, he’s in the market for a running mate. He has his eyes on several possibilities close to home — his original and adopted home states of New York and Florida, that is. Lee Zeldin, the former congressman whose campaign for governor of New York two years ago helped Republicans around the state overperform expectations, is one VP contender who hasn’t received as much attention from the national media as he’s getting from Trump advisers. Florida Rep. Byron Donalds is in the same category. There’s been more open buzz about New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, and many grassroots conservatives dream of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis making the ticket — a possibility that well-informed sources say hasn’t been ruled out, despite lingering tensions between the governor and Trump over DeSantis’ bid for the presidential nomination. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s name has also come up in recent press speculation — though my sources discount his chances. Why are so many New York and Florida prospects on Trump’s list? Neither state is up for grabs in November. No Republican has come within 15 points of winning New York in a presidential election since 1988. Florida is much more competitive, and after North Carolina it was the state Trump won in 2020 by the smallest margin — less than 4 points. Yet any scenario in which Joe Biden can win Florida in 2024 is one in which he almost certainly won’t need it, as he’ll also have prevailed in the more closely contested battlegrounds that put him over the top in 2020. By the time Florida comes into play, the Republican ticket will be facing not only defeat but a crushing humiliation. Trump, however, only looks on the bright side — which is both the secret of his success and the source of some of his biggest troubles. It was inconceivable to him that he could lose in 2020. Even after he won in 2016, Trump believed the magnitude of his victory was much greater than official numbers gave him credit for. He bounced back from a series of bankruptcies in his business career the same way he’s hoping to bounce back from a presidential defeat — through the power of positive thinking on a scale that mere mortals find delusional. Does he really think he can win New York? Or is it that the best way to achieve success is to aim too high rather than settling for what merely appears realistic? There’s a method to what others see as madness, at least where these VP calculations are concerned. Conventional thinking in both parties obsesses over identity politics, which factors into the New York and Florida talent search. But Trump also wants a partner fiercely loyal to him — which is why if he wants a Black running mate, he might prefer Byron Donalds, one of his staunchest defenders in Congress, to Sen. Tim Scott, whose all-in enthusiasm for Trump is a recent development. Zeldin and Stefanik have likewise impressed Trump with their outspokenness on his behalf. Both have an identity-politics angle; Stefanik might help with women, while Zeldin would give Trump a Jewish running mate at a time when the Democrats’ coalition is cracking along Israel-Palestine fault lines. But Zeldin also demonstrated with his gubernatorial campaign what a disciplined GOP effort can accomplish in a blue state short of actually winning it. A Trump-Zeldin ticket might not win New York or other Democrat strongholds, but it would maximize the Republican vote in those places, improving the party’s odds in down-ballot races with control of Congress hanging in the balance. Trump takes personal pride in being a New Yorker: ambitions of winning his native state, however implausible, may keep his morale up in the midst of an arduous national campaign. Morale is also the consideration — for the whole party — with Ron DeSantis. The governor excites conservatives who are willing but not eager to vote for Trump. Eight years ago, Trump picked Mike Pence as a running mate who’d reassure conventional conservatives. Now Pence won’t so much as endorse Trump, and while the former VP has no following himself, there is a spectrum of Reagan Republicans, Christian conservatives and policy-minded right-wingers who harbor doubts about Trump. DeSantis could do for them what Pence did in 2016, and perhaps, given his youth and policy successes, a lot more. But if Trump chooses anyone from Florida, he or his running mate would have to pick a new state of residence: the Constitution penalizes tickets with presidential and VP candidates who hail from the same state. Trump has residences in several places, including his native state — which means there’s more than one way the GOP could wind up with a New York-Florida ticket this November. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com

‘Dangerous’ and ‘Deranged’ Trump Vs. Best Version of Biden ‘Ever!’

The 2024 race is officially on and it’s being billed (by the leftist media) as a rematch between a “dangerous” and “deranged” Donald Trump versus the “best” “version” of Joe Biden “ever!” That’s right. According to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, the gaffe-prone President Biden everyone sees today is the “version of Biden intellectually, analytically” that is “the best Biden ever.”  Meanwhile his MSNBC colleague Joy Reid warned her audience that the “dangerous and clearly deranged” Trump was the conservative movement’s “useful scary clown.”  This past month also saw journalists deliberately take Trump’s economic “bloodbath” comment out of context. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Jon Karl called the “incendiary” speech “dark and menacing.” Hollyweird also attacked Trump. Robert DeNiro raged: “The guy is a total monster….He’s such a mean, nasty, hateful person. I’d never play him as an actor because I can’t see any good in him.” The following are just some of the worst outbursts from journalists and celebrities from the last month:    Best Version of Biden Ever!     “You talk to him [Joe Biden] for hours at a time. Is he slower? Does he move slower? Yeah, he moves slower. Is he stiffer? Yeah, he moves stiffer. Does he have trouble walking sometimes? Yeah, so did FDR. We get out of the Depression, we won a G.D. war….against Nazism…Start your tape right now, because I’m about to tell you the truth. And f-you if you can’t handle the truth. This version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close second. And I’ve known him for years. The Brzezinskis have known him for 50 years. If it weren’t the truth, I wouldn’t say it.”— Co-host Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, March 6.   Reid Rants: “Dangerous,” “Deranged” Trump is Conservatives’ “Useful Scary Clown”     “As dangerous and clearly deranged as [Donald] Trump is, we have to start asking not just what’s wrong with a society that produces so much support for this chaos theater, but also who is it that so badly wants Trump to be President?…Men of great wealth, who have long sought to return to a time where people like them didn’t pay income taxes or face regulation over their businesses and didn’t have to worry about labor unions, workers’ rights, or competitions from women or blacks….They could call themselves good Christians and never think twice about dirty words like diversity, history, accountability, or equity. These are the men behind organizations like Project 2025, the Claremont Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and whatever Leonard Leo is up to at any given time. Trump, in many ways, is just their useful scary clown.”— Host Joy Reid on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, March 19.    Taking Trump’s “Bloodbath” Comment Out of Context     “There was at least one person who testified, a police officer, that she was literally slipping in pools of blood on January 6th. So the question of whether he meant actual blood seems a bit besides the point at this point. But what’s much more important is what this maniac is actually vowing to do if elected again….This mad man, whose brain is clearly addled and little more than a ball of smooth clay at this stage of its deterioration, makes these promises to feed chum to a base that has been drilled by right-wing media to now care more about stopping migrants — even if they themselves live thousands of miles from the southern border — than about the economy or inflation or literally anything else.”— Host Joy Reid on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, March 18. Co-host George Stephanopoulos: “We’re going to get the latest now on the race for the White House and the incendiary speech from Donald Trump at a rally over the weekend with praise for the January 6 convicts, attacks on immigrants as subhuman, and a warning of a bloodbath for the country if he’s defeated. Chief Washington correspondent Jon Karl has the story.”...Correspondent Jonathan Karl: “Good morning, George. Even by Trump standards, Donald Trump’s speech over the weekend was dark and menacing.”— ABC’s Good Morning America, March 18.   Former Clinton Defender Tries to Rape-Shame Rep. Nancy Mace For Endorsing Trump     Moderator George Stephanopoulos: “You’ve endorsed Donald Trump for president. Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape. How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw?”Rep. Nancy Mace: “Well, I will tell you. I was raped at the age of 16, and any rape victim will tell you — I’ve lived for 30 years with an incredible amount of shame over being raped. I didn’t come forward because of that judgment and shame that I felt, and it’s a shame that you will never feel, George. And I’m not going to sit here on your show and be asked a question meant to shame me about another potential rape victim. I’m not going to do that.”...Stephanopoulos: “Doesn’t it make it harder for women to come forward when they’re defamed by presidential candidates?”Mace: “It makes it harder when other women joke about it, and she's joked about it. I find it offensive. And I also find it offensive that you are trying to shame me with this question.”— ABC’s This Week, March 10.   Biden Should Denounce Trump as “Rapist, Racist, Fascist”  “If he’s [Donald Trump] going to be shameless, which is his greatest asset, the shamelessness of him, then Biden has to get in there very hard and go ‘rapist, racist, fascist,’ over and over and over again. And then the trials are happening at the same time. He’s just had to pay — he’s just $93 million poorer right now, and just hammer it in with those three things — ‘rapist, racist, fascist.’”— Former Wall Street Journal reporter/current podcaster Kara Swisher on CNN’s The Chris Wallace Show, March 9.   Not the Answers She Was Fishing For     Correspondent Weijia Jiang: “President Biden has called Trump a threat to democracy and made it a central part of his campaign. Is democracy on the ballot in 2024?”Arizona voter Steve Macias: “I don’t buy that argument.”Arizona voter Raquel Glowden: “I don’t, either.”Macias: “To me, now, that's just another talking point. Every time I hear it, I just kind of tune it out….It’s something that, you know…some focus group came up with, and now they’re just using it to death.”Glowden: “I really don’t think they understand what democracy is when they say that. You know — the fact that there is a ballot is democracy.”— CBS Evening News, March 20.   “We Could Be a Dictatorship Next Year” If Trump Wins      “This [State of the Union Address] is a real historical moment. We could be a dictatorship next year if Donald Trump is elected and carries through on his threats and carries through on his threats to suspend the Constitution. That’s what’s at stake. So Joe Biden could finesse it and talk about other things or he could confront the elephant in the room and say, you know, ‘This is a year when we Americans have to choose whether we’re going to live as a democracy, as a republic, or as an authoritarian system.’”— Presidential historian Michael Beschloss previewing State of the Union address on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, March 7.   “Bully” Trump Has “Affection For Strongmen”  Host Chris Wallace: “What’s with [Donald] Trump’s affection for strongmen?”Former Wall Street Journal reporter/current podcaster Kara Swisher: “He’s watched Godfather too many times. I don’t know. He’s just a bully and so he likes bullies and he’s not as good as it as they are. So he’s cos-playing bullying. He likes that. Dictator-y.”— CNN’s The Chris Wallace Show, March 16.   Things They Never Said When MSNBC Hired Jen Psaki      New York Times columnist David Brooks: “Here [Former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel] was someone clearly over the line. Like, to be on our air and our newspapers, you got to have some intellectual credibility. You have to have some primary commitment to the truth and the truth above partisanship and she was someone who clearly fails that test….To get somebody right off the RNC on the air as an analyst strikes me as just a gigantic mistake.”...Washington Post Associate Editor/MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart: “When the announcement was made….I wrote in response, ‘I want to be clear, she will never be on our show,’ for the exact reasons David talked about….This is not a partisan issue. This was a democracy issue.”— PBS NewsHour, March 29.   Racism Motivates Conservative Evangelicals “I’ve just been, like, very interested in the roots of how evangelicals became such a potent political force. It was 1980 and it was really school desegregation efforts and it was the Bob Jones fight against the IRS that brought evangelicals into the movement.....Not abortion, not busing, but really desegregation was the thing that brought evangelicals into political movement of the right-wing….Really, at its core, it was race….We think about evangelicals and Trump as being so different….these godly, you know, faithful people, and this unfaithful person who’s been found guilty in civil trials of sexual assault — the issue of race animates Donald Trump. The issue of race has long animated the evangelical movement. And, in some ways, it makes perfect sense that you are seeing the unity that you are today.”— MSNBC’s Alex Wagner Tonight host Alex Wagner during live Super Tuesday coverage, March 5.   Those Silly Voters Worrying About Illegal Immigration     MSNBC host and former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki: “If you look at some of these exit polls — I mean, I live in Virginia. Immigration was the number one issue.”...MSNBC host Rachel Maddow: “Well, Virginia does have a border with West Virginia. Very contested area.”MSNBC host Joy Reid: “Build the wall!”Psaki: “But you’re thinking like — what? When I was in New Hampshire, people were talking about the northern border as a threat because Trump has indoctrinated people with this fear of people who do not….look like them — being a threat to them.”— During MSNBC’s live Super Tuesday coverage, March 5.    Want Another Election After ‘24? Better Vote Biden     “Americans will have to face the fact that this is, in the words of a dear friend of this show, do-you-want-to-have-any-more-elections, election. Where voters are not just choosing between two candidates, but making critical decisions about the basic fundamentals of our democracy.”— Host Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC’s Deadline: White House, March 5.   SCOTUS Libs Not Left Enough for Kooky Keith “The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the ‘court’ has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved.”— March 4 X post (formerly twitter) by former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann.    Clarence Thomas “Traded” His Votes for a “Fabulous Lifestyle”     “I don’t know if he [Justice Clarence Thomas] believes this stuff or not, but essentially his votes are traded for a fabulous lifestyle that he couldn’t get from a job and the irony is he couldn’t get the job you wanted to be a rich lawyer because of racism.”— Host Joy Reid on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, March 30.   2024 = A Choice “Between Freedom and Democracy or World Wide Slavery and Dictatorship”     “We’re not only facing….a domestic authoritarian threat from Donald Trump and people who want to see this a dictatorship next year, but at the same time, he is connecting with dictators abroad: Viktor Orban, [Vladimir] Putin, perhaps the leader of Turkey, possibly elements in China and elsewhere. These people are going to lock arms….Americans have to make a choice. We have to, essentially, choose between freedom and democracy, or worldwide slavery and dictatorship. Any other year, that would be an overstatement.”— MSNBC presidential historian Michael Beschloss on MSNBC’s The Weekend, March 4.   Americans Who Live on “Stolen Land” Should Stop Griping About Crime Epidemic “America is a sticky-fingered nation built on stolen land, and its current moral panic is about shoplifting.”— Washington Post features reporter Maura Judkis in March 1 story.   Trump’s “Bloodbath” Comment = Genocidal “Rhetoric” From WWII     “It [bloodbath comment] scared me, honestly, you know? I didn’t think ever in my lifetime I would see that….He [Donald Trump] is using that kind of World War II rhetoric that led to the deaths of six — the murders of 6 million people.” — Co-host Sunny Hostin on ABC’s The View, March 18.   “Biden Has Accomplished More In Three Years Than Every Other President In The Last 50” “When we talk about — you know when the pundits and the press talk about ageism, it’s not ageism, it’s weak-ism. Right? It’s the perception of weakness and it taps into the sick, primitive, scared monkey, caveman DNA that’s in us. Right? So when we look at him [Joe Biden] we go ‘Ooh. Chief weak. He no hunt mammoth. We no eat. Bad chief.’ And that’s really what they’re talking about. And the people who know better need to cut that out. Because if he was so weak how could he accomplish more in three years than every other president in the last 50?”— Author Max Brooks on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, March 8.   Constitution To Blame for Possible “Mess” of Trump Being Re-Elected “Tell me about how we got into the mess [Possibility of Donald Trump being re-elected]. The Constitution is really our, you know, touchstone. Is that the document that actually got us into this mess?”— Host Jon Stewart to Harvard Professor Steven Levitsky on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, March 11.    DeNiro Worried “Mean, Nasty, Hateful” Trump Will Start a “Dictatorship”     “The guy [Donald Trump] is a total monster….He’s such a mean, nasty, hateful person. I’d never play him as an actor because I can’t see any good in him…If he wins the election, you [Bill Maher] won’t be on this show anymore, he’ll come looking for me. They’ll be things that happened that none of us can imagine. That’s what happens in that kind of a dictatorship which is what he says, let’s believe him, take him at his word.”— Actor Robert DeNiro on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, March 8.

Tax-Funded NPR Thrice Harps on Fake News: Bill Kristol Is a 'Conservative'... for Biden

One of the ways that taxpayer-funded NPR and PBS shows abuse their involuntary conservative funders is by pretending people who earnestly back Joe Biden over Donald Trump can still be defined somehow as "conservative." You can be an anti-Trump conservative, but you can't be a Vote-for-Biden conservative.  On Monday's Morning Edition, NPR anchor Michel Martin harped twice on the fake news that pro-Biden pundit Bill Kristol is still a "conservative." Martin explained "Democrats hope there are enough disaffected Republicans out there to give President Biden a boost." After airing a free snippet of a Biden ad with audio of Trump attacking Nikki Haley as "Birdbrain," Martin introduced the interview this way: But is that message getting through? We're going to ask conservative writer and editor Bill Kristol about this. He previously served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, both Republicans. Good morning, Mr. Kristol. Martin repeated the falsehood at the end:  Okay. That is conservative writer, former Republican Bill Kristol, who served in the George H.W. Bush and Reagan administrations. Mr. Kristol, thanks so much for joining us. Make that three labels if you count the online summary: "Democrats are trying to win over Republican voters reluctant to vote for former President Donald Trump in 2024. Conservative writer Bill Kristol joins the program to see if the effort will resonate." But this notion fell apart in the actual interview:  MARTIN: And here's where I put you on the spot. As a person who has made your distaste for the former president clear, for many, many, many reasons, are you going to vote for Joe Biden? KRISTOL: Oh, yeah, I am. I did last time, and I did some work for him, and I'll do that again this time. But the key is the former Trump supporters, I think, and Trump administration members who you mentioned, getting them out there. Look, I've been against Trump since 2015. I don't have that much credibility, perhaps, with those swing voters anymore. But I think the people who do are people who said, I voted for Trump twice, or, I worked for Trump, and I saw him up close, and that's where Mike Pence and Mark Esper and people like that are so important. MARTIN: And before we let you go, do you still consider yourself a Republican? KRISTOL: No, not really. An ex-Republican. Kristol hopes Mike Pence or Mark Esper can seal the deal with those Nikki Haley voters, like Mike Pence would back Biden? PBS also recently tried to brand Kristol as a Republican on the March 14 Amanpour & Co. show:  ISAACSON: You are among the Republicans who've led the resistance to Donald Trump. Now, that he's apparently the nominee, there's no stopping him, what are you going to do? KRISTOL: I mean, I've been an ex-Republican, honestly, for a while… We can guess that the very minute a Democrat comes out against voting for Biden, no one on NPR or PBS would describe them as a "Democrat" or a "progressive."

Fallon, Clinton Implore People To Back Biden: 'Get Out There And Vote'

NBC’s Jimmy Fallon welcomed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Monday’s edition of The Tonight Show to not only promote her new Broadway play about the women’s suffrage movement but also give those watching who may not be fans of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden a pep talk on the need to fall in line behind the latter. Fallon asked, “I mean, it’s Biden versus Trump. We know that. What do you say to voters who are upset that those are the two choices?” Showing all the lack of ability to connect with voters that she did in 2016, Clinton told such voters to “Get over yourself, those are the two choices.”     Fallon agreed, because even the least partisan of the four broadcast network late night talk show hosts is willing to turn his show into The DNC Show on occasion, “Yeah, love that. Yeah, good.” Clinton continued, “And, you know, it's kind of like one is old and effective and compassionate has a heart, and really cares about people. And one is old and has been charged with 91 felonies… I don't understand why this is even a hard choice, really.” Three of those were recently dismissed, but details aside, Clinton kept rolling, “I don't understand it, but we have to go through the election, and hopefully people will realize what's at stake, because it's an existential question. What kind of country we're going to have, what kind of democracy we're going to have, and people who blow that off are not paying attention because, it's not like Trump, his enablers, his empowerers, his allies, are not telling us what they want to do. I mean, they're pretty clear about what kind of country they want.” Thinking the whole discussion was an appropriate segue to discuss the play, Fallon urged people to “get out there and vote which is a good—” Clinton cut him off to echo his sentiment, “Get out there and vote. Well, that's what this is really about. Get out there and vote.” She likewise then transitioned to talk about the play and the history surrounding it.  Here is a transcript for the April 1 show: NBC The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon 4/1/2024 11:59 PM ET JIMMY FALLON: I mean, it’s Biden versus Trump. HILLARY CLINTON: Yes, it is. It is. FALLON: We know that. What do you say to voters who are upset that those are the two choices?  CLINTON: Get over yourself, those are the two choices.  FALLON: Yeah, love that. Yeah, good.  CLINTON: And, you know, it's kind of like one is old and effective and compassionate-- FALLON: yeah. CLINTON: -- has a heart, and really cares about people. And one is old and has been charged with 91 felonies.  FALLON: Yeah, okay.  CLINTON: I mean.  FALLON: Okay, interesting.  CLINTON: I don't understand why this is even a hard choice, really. FALLON: Yeah. Yeah. CLINTON: I don't understand it, but we have to go through the election, and hopefully people will realize what's at stake, because it's an existential question. What kind of country we're going to have, what kind of democracy we're going to have, and people who blow that off are not paying attention because, it's not like Trump, his enablers, his empowerers, his allies, are not telling us what they want to do. I mean, they're pretty clear about what kind of country they want.  FALLON: Yeah, get out there and vote which is a good--  CLINTON: Get out there and vote. Well, that's what this is really about. Get out there and vote. 

MRC’s Houck Joins Newsmax to Slam New Anti-Trump Outburst From RFK Jr.’s Sister

In a truncated segment on Monday’s Eric Bolling The Balance (due to the previous segment with GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson), NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck said the meltdowns from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s sister Rory Kennedy and others over his independent presidential campaign are proof the press have decided they can only fear-monger voters into casting ballots for Biden not in support of him, but against Kennedy and Donald Trump. Speaking to the aforementioned Newsmax host, Houck highlighted Rory Kennedy’s appearance on ABC’s Good Morning America where, along with co-host and former Clinton flack George Stephanopoulos, they compared the Synanon cult (the subject of her new documentary) to Trump supporters.     This, Houck said, was an odious comparison and an example of how liberals have decided “they would much rather cast aspersions” on those who think differently and “get people to vote against Donald Trump” versus “trying to understand why people are voting the way they do” or “convince people to vote for you or your policies.” Conservative author and Spectator contributing editor Chadwick Moore was also alongside and, for his part, he said the meltdown from liberals over RFK Jr.’s candidacy was “symptomatic of not necessarily that our elites are all a bunch of far left communists...but it's a crisis in their own confidence in themselves.” “I mean, we have a ruling class now that doesn't really know who they are ideologically. They don't have any strong convictions of any strong values and to top it all off, their extremely riddled by guilt. They actually hate themselves...[T]hey're really intimidated by people who are confident and political movements who are competent and coherent in their beliefs and I think that's what we see a lot when these lefties having absolute meltdown,” he added.

Colbert, Meyers Mock Concern Over White House's Transgender Easter Proclamation

Stephen Colbert, Biden fundraiser and host of The Late Show on CBS, demanded on Monday that those who condemned President Biden for issuing a proclamation on Easter Sunday recognizing Transgender Day of Visibility get over it because Biden, apparently, has nothing to do with his own actions and because Easter sometimes falls on different days. It was a sentiment echoed by NBC Late Night host Seth Meyers as both men claimed conservatives are hypocrites for not being outraged that Easter sometimes falls on April Fools' Day. Colbert was up first, and he, a supposedly devout Catholic, didn’t see what the big deal was, “Over the weekend, Trump also attacked Biden over the fact that Easter, this year, coincided with Transgender Day of Visibility. So what? And Biden had nothing to do with that. Since 2009, International Transgender Day of Visibility has been held annually on March 31. The date of Easter, meanwhile, changes from year to year.”     Sure, Biden didn’t have anything to do with the selection of March 31, but he absolutely had something to do with the proclamation. Nobody forced the White House to do that. However, Colbert was just getting started, “I've got some bad news for people who are upset that another thing was celebrated on Easter this year because it's gonna keep happening. In 2029, Easter is going to fall on April Fools' Day. Oh! So my religion is a big joke to you? Is that what it is? Or are you claiming that Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead? It was all a big prank on the apostles. You got Jesus'd! And smoke 'em if you got 'em, because just next year, Easter falls on 4/20.” If Biden issued a proclamation celebrating drug use on Easter, that would also be wrong. April Fools' Day, on the other hand, is a fun day that is not contrary to Easter. Transgenderism, on the other hand, relies on the premise that God made a mistake in creating someone male or female. If God makes mistakes, He is not perfect. If he is not perfect, He is not God. If He is not God, He could not have rose from the dead on that first Easter Sunday.     Later, on NBC, Meyers introduced a series of news clips from Fox and CNN of the conservative pushback to Biden’s proclamation, “But Trump's lunacy is not an aberration within the GOP. It's the norm. They spent all weekend furious about the fact that Transgender Day of Visibility just happened to fall on the same day as Easter this year, and they blamed it on Joe Biden rather than the real reason, the calendar.” After the montage, Meyers took the opportunity to do some “but Trump” whataboutism. Referencing a Trump post on Truth Social, Meyers huffed, “Yeah, we should have a more respectful Easter proclamation that puts the emphasis where it's deserved. Evil Fani Willis, Sick Jack Smith, and the corrupt judges and prosecutors who despise America. Not only did Trump not mention religion in his screed, everyone who read it took the Lord's name in vain. Jesus [bleep] Christ with this guy.” Like Colbert, Meyers also tried to suggest that Biden had nothing to do with his own proclamation and that Transgender Day of Visibility is analogous to April Fools' Day, “I can't believe I have to explain this, but sometimes two things happen on the same day. For example, in 2018, Easter and April Fools' were the same day, and I don't recall any Republicans going on Fox and claiming, the sacred resurrection of Christ has been sullied by all these frivolous pranks and goofs, although who can forget when Mary Magdalene rushed to Jesus' tomb, discovered it was empty, and told Peter and John, ‘My dudes, I think we've been pranked.’"  Indeed, two things can happen on the same day, such as two late night hosts completely missing the point. Here is a transcript for the April 1-taped shows: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 4/1/2023 11:41 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: But in the world of made up outrage, there's always Plan B. Over the weekend, Trump also attacked Biden over the fact that Easter, this year, coincided with Transgender Day of Visibility. So what? And Biden had nothing to do with that. Since 2009, International Transgender Day of Visibility has been held annually on March 31. The date of Easter, meanwhile, changes from year to year. Of course everyone knows the formula for setting the date of Easter.  AUDIENCE: The first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox.  COLBERT: See? I've got some bad news for people who are upset that another thing was celebrated on Easter this year because it's gonna keep happening. In 2029, Easter is going to fall on April Fools' Day. Oh! So my religion is a big joke to you? Is that what it is? Or are you claiming that Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead? It was all a big prank on the apostles. You got Jesus'd! And smoke 'em if you got 'em, because just next year, Easter falls on 4/20.  *** NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 4/2/2024 12:45 PM ET SETH MEYERS: But Trump's lunacy is not an aberration within the GOP. It's the norm. They spent all weekend furious about the fact that Transgender Day of Visibility just happened to fall on the same day as Easter this year, and they blamed it on Joe Biden rather than the real reason, the calendar.  VICTOR BLACKWELL: Republicans are criticizing the White House over a statement that acknowledges today, March 31st, as the Transgender Day of Visibility. Their issue is that today is also Easter.  AMARA WALKER: This year the two days only coincided by chance. The Day of Visibility is held every year on March 31st while the date for Easter changes year to year.  LUCAS TOMLINSON: House Speaker Mike Johnson rebuked Biden, saying, quote, "The Biden White House has betrayed the central tenet of Easter, which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, banning sacred truth and tradition while at the same time proclaiming Easter Sunday as Transgender Day."  LISA BOOTHE: Well, this is a clear effort and a coordinated effort to remove God from our society and to replace God with false gods, and in this instance, it's the trans community.  MEYERS: Yeah, we should have a more respectful Easter proclamation that puts the emphasis where it's deserved. Evil Fani Willis, Sick Jack Smith, and the corrupt judges and prosecutors who despise America. Not only did Trump not mention religion in his screed, everyone who read it took the Lord's name in vain. Jesus [bleep] Christ with this guy.  I can't believe I have to explain this, but sometimes two things happen on the same day. For example, in 2018, Easter and April Fools' were the same day, and I don't recall any Republicans going on Fox and claiming, the sacred resurrection of Christ has been sullied by all these frivolous pranks and goofs, although who can forget when Mary Magdalene rushed to Jesus' tomb, discovered it was empty, and told Peter and John, "My dudes, I think we've been pranked." 

RFK Jr.’s Sobering Response to CNN’s Gaslighting of Trump as ‘Threat to Democracy’

Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. provided a fresh perspective on CNN, lambasting President Joe Biden’s vast censorship enterprise.  RFK Jr. appeared for an interview on April 1 with CNN anchor Erin Burnett. The third-party presidential candidate was asked if he really thought that Biden was a worse threat to democracy than former President Donald Trump. “Listen, I can make the argument that President Biden is a much worse threat to democracy, and the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, to censor his opponent,” Kennedy said. “I can say that because I just won a case in the federal court of appeals and now before the Supreme Court that shows that he started censoring not just me 37 hours after he took the oath of office, he was censoring me.” After describing Biden’s actions as dangerous, Kennedy stated that these pro-censorship measures cannot be compared to any of Trump’s.  “No president in the country has ever done that,” Kennedy insisted. “The greatest threat to democracy is not somebody who questions election returns but  a president of the United States, who uses the power of his office to force the social media companies—Facebook, Instagram [and] Twitter—-to open a portal and give access to that portal to the FBI, to the CIA, to the IRS, to CISA, to NIH, to censor his political critics.” To stress the gravity of the threat of such attacks on free speech, Kennedy cited the arguments of the Founding Fathers, who considered the First Amendment to be the linchpin on which all of the other rights of citizens depend. Kennedy further argued, “The First Amendment is the most important. …. [John] Adams and [Alexander] Hamilton and [James] Madison said we put the guarantee of freedom of expression in the First Amendment because all of our other Constitutional rights depend on it.” The presidential contender also issued a dark warning about what other horrors government censorship can lead to. He warned, “If you have a government that can silence its opponent, it has license for any atrocity.”   Biden’s censorship regime has been challenged for violations of the First Amendment in a series of lawsuits, including by Kennedy.  Judge Terry A Doughty, a U.S. district court judge, recently ruled that Kennedy likely proved that the Biden administration indeed violated the plaintiff’s constitutional right to free speech. Doughty also issued an injunction preventing the federal government, including the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI from communicating with social media companies to suppress or remove protected speech.  Various federal agencies and even the White House have targeted Kennedy for posts he made relating to COVID-19. On Jan. 22, 2021, White House official Clark Humphrey emailed Twitter (now known as X) demanding that RFK Jr. be censored for a tweet calling attention to a “wave of suspicious deaths'' that were occurring in patients who received COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy specifically cited the death of baseball Hall of Famer Hank Aaron, who died shortly after publically receiving the Moderna vaccine to encourage mass vaccinations among black Americans.      Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.    

Editor’s Pick: WashTimes Exposes Biden Regime Allowing ‘X’ as Gender for Citizenship

In another jaw-dropping story for Tuesday’s print front-page of The Washington Times, the indefatigable Stephen Dinan revealed the Biden administration’s latest chicanery endorsing the false and dangerous idolatry surrounding gender manipulation as those seeking U.S. citizenship will have options other than male or female as their listed gender. “The government introduced a citizenship form Monday that allows immigrants to select X as their gender, giving them a new option beyond male and female. The Biden administration saw the move as a step toward inclusiveness for immigrants who feel they don’t fit cleanly into either of the two sexes,” Dinan explained. He added that on “[t]he new citizenship form, known officially as the N-400 Application for Naturalization, offers the options of Male, Female and Another gender identity as checkboxes” with that third option resulting in “documents that reflect their gender as X.” The Department of Homeland Security’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said this “third gender option helps ensure that secure identity documents and biographical data are accurate and helps both external stakeholders and individuals requesting immigration benefits” and mimics a State Department directive to allow passport holders to select “X” as their gender instead of what they actually are (male or female).  Responding directly to Dinan, USCIS insisted they’re “committed to the integrity of the immigration system” and that allowing someone to play make believe with their gender won’t affect “key identity verification – such as biometrics submission and fraud prevention procedures.” For those who went through with naturalization prior to this change, Dinan said “must wait for updates to other forms, which are still in the works” while those in the midst of the immigration process “can submit a request for a gender change”. To read Dinan’s full story, click here.

The View Defends Decapitating Trump, Decries Hog-Tied Biden Decal

In their first live show after the Easter weekend, the leftist extremists of ABC’s The View kicked off their Tuesday show enraged that former President Trump reposted a “violent image” of a truck decal featuring a fake image of President Biden alive and hog-tied in the bed. But in the midst of their pearl-clutching, the cast defended their friend Kathy Griffin’s photoshoot holding up an effigy of Trump’s bloody severed head; suggesting she simply “did what she does as a comic.” “You-know-who spent the most sacred weekend on the Catholic calendar posting rants about the judge in his New York fraud case making false claims about the judge's daughter and reposting a violent image of President Biden that we are not going to show you here today,” moderator Whoopi Goldberg indignantly proclaimed. She demanded to know: “Why does he keep getting away with it?” She called the truck decal “so violent” and asked: “What's the difference between what Kathy Griffin did and what he did? I don't understand.” Realizing they were essentially attacking their friend, who was on the show just last week, co-host Joy Behar argued that “it’s worse” for Trump to share such images because Griffin was just “a comedian.” Goldberg also defended Griffin’s ‘comedy’ and suggested that Trump should get a visit from the Secret Service like she did. Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) hinted that anything less was somehow evidence of a two-tiered justice system:     GOLDBERG: She did what she does as a comic but are the Secret Service going to be visiting him and giving him a warning about putting violent imagery? SUNNY HOSTIN: Well, they should. GOLDBERG: Why wouldn't they? HOSTIN: Everyone should be treated equally under the law. GOLDBERG: We keep saying that. HOSTIN: And we keep on saying that. The View cast still refused to explain what the punchline to Griffin’s so-called “joke” was, much like when Behar claimed liberal extremist Jane Fonda was “just kidding” when she called for the “murder” of all pro-lifers on the show. Hostin went on to lament how “We're missing…the Obama statesmanship” and how “Trump has given people permission, license to be politically violent.” In reality, The View encouraged their fellow liberal extremists to target the homes of the conservative justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, which culminated in an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh and his family. They then decried calls for increased security after the attack. They’ve also downplayed terrorist attacks against pro-life organizations. The audience was also treated to another one of Behar’s revisionist history lessons when she claimed: “...if you know history political violence precedes a fascist dictatorship,” as if when communists came to power it was a peaceful transition. Even the American Revolution had political violence in the form of the tar and feathering of British officials. In February, Joy “I know history” Behar claimed NATO was the military alliance that fought Hitler and the Nazis. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 2, 2024 11:02:13 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: You-know-who spent the most sacred weekend on the Catholic calendar posting rants about the judge in his New York fraud case making false claims about the judge's daughter and reposting a violent image of President Biden that we are not going to show you here today. These rants violate the court's gag order, so why does he keep getting away with it? I mean, that image is so violent. What's the difference between what Kathy Griffin did and what he did? I don't understand. [Applause] JOY BEHAR: It's worse for him really. GOLDBERG: Well, I mean – BEHAR: She's a comedian. GOLDBERG: She did what she does as a comic but are the Secret Service going to be visiting him and giving him a warning about putting violent imagery? SUNNY HOSTIN: Well, they should. GOLDBERG: Why wouldn't they. HOSTIN: Everyone should be treated equally under the law. GOLDBERG: We keep saying that. HOSTIN: And we keep on saying that. And that's what I was supported of the bond he got sort of being – uh-oh. Someone is speaking to us. The lights are flickering. GOLDBERG: Does anybody else see the lighting flickering? Okay. Okay. HOSTIN: I was supportive of the fact that his bond -- did you do anything bad this weekend, Whoopi? What's going on? [Laughter] I was very supportive of the fact that the bond was lowered because I think that that's how you would treat everyone equally, you know, bonds are supposed to not be punitive. But I will say this, you know, Trump has given people permission, license to be politically violent. BEHAR: Yeah. HOSTIN: And this is from the very, very beginning. He was campaigning for the presidency. He even said somewhere I think if you find him, you know, hurt that person. Punch them, punch the hell out of them and I will pay for it. I will pay for your defense. And so what we're missing now is this -- the statesmanship that we've always been used to, you know, the presidential office being above reproach. We're missing, in my opinion, the Obama statesmanship, we’re missing the Clinton statesmanship, the Hillary Clinton statesmanship and its behavior that seems to come from the top down. People are saying, “Well, it's the January 6th folks.” It's even worse when it comes from the president or the potential president of the United States of America. [Applause] BEHAR: Well, it seems to me if you know history political violence precedes a fascist dictatorship. GOLDBEGR: Always. BEHAR: I mean, just look at World War II and you will a see. The Nazi thugs were beating up Jews in the street and everyone just looked the other way, and then we had Hitler and millions were killed. I'm not saying that's going to happen here but I'm just saying that there's political violence does precede a fascist country. (…)

CNN: Focusing On Illegal Immigrant Murders Demonizes 'Brown Folks'

In the world of CNN, Donald Trump and conservative media’s focus on illegal immigrant murderers is just an attempt to blame “brown folks” for all of the country’s problems. Inside Politics host Dana Bash and national politics correspondent Eva McKend’s Monday assessment came as Trump traveled to Michigan, where a young woman was recently murdered by an illegal immigrant. Before the table discussion, correspondent Alayna Treene was in Michigan to set the scene, “And as part of that crime push, he's actually invited the family of a woman named Ruby Garcia to his Michigan event who, Ruby Garcia, was recently killed here in Michigan by an undocumented immigrant, and police authorities say that it was a domestic dispute.”     That is a sanitized version of what happened. Not only was the man previously deported, but the murder also took place during a carjacking. Still, Bash accused Trump and conservatives of cherry-picking, “The fact that Trump is going to be pushing what you just heard him talking-- he's trying to call it an epidemic. It's, you know, there are certainly some high-profile examples of some violence. He's calling it migrant crime. I call it high-profile because in many ways, conservative media is trying to focus on a couple of really horrible events and make it as if it's perhaps more brought, not perhaps make it sound like it is more broad than it is. Fact.” The media cherry-picks all the time to fit their narratives, whether it’s the relationship between minorities and the police, guns, women seeking abortions, the morality or intelligence of certain Trump supporters, or any other topic that might make conservatives look bad, but an issue where liberals look bad is where Inside Politics decides to draw the line and insist that anecdotes not be confused for trends.  As for McKend, she managed to be even crazier, “Yeah, Dana, the playbook is largely going to remain the same. He wants to continue to demonize immigrants. He wants to continue to try to argue to Americans, ‘these brown folks, they are the real reasons for your problems.’"  McKend also ignored polls that show immigration is becoming a crucial issue for voters when she tried to dismiss Trump’s focus on the issue as unwise, “The issue, though, when I speak to voters, is that, by and large, this is not where the anxieties lie. So, voters will often address the economy, stagnant wages, high grocery prices, buying a home as all real concerns, but because he is using this playbook again of punching down on immigrants, we'll have to see if-- how this plays.” How calling attention to the fact that someone with the last name Garcia was murdered by somebody who snuck across the border is “punching down on immigrants” or “brown folks” was something that McKend never cared to explain. Here is a transcript for the April 2 show: CNN Inside Politics with Dana Bash 4/2/2024 12:03 PM ET ALAYNA TREENE: And as part of that crime push, he's actually invited the family of a woman named Ruby Garcia to his Michigan event who, Ruby Garcia, was recently killed here in Michigan by an undocumented immigrant, and police authorities say that it was a domestic dispute. … DANA BASH: The fact that Trump is going to be pushing what you just heard him talking-- he's trying to call it an epidemic. It's, you know, there are certainly some high-profile examples of some violence. He's calling it migrant crime. I call it high-profile because in many ways, conservative media is trying to focus on a couple of really horrible events and make it as if it's perhaps more brought, not perhaps make it sound like it is more broad than it is. Fact.  EVA MCKEND: Yeah, Dana, the playbook is largely going to remain the same. He wants to continue to demonize immigrants. He wants to continue to try to argue to Americans, "these brown folks, they are the real reasons for your problems."  The issue, though, when I speak to voters, is that, by and large, this is not where the anxieties lie. So, voters will often address the economy, stagnant wages, high grocery prices, buying a home as all real concerns, but because he is using this playbook again of punching down on immigrants, we'll have to see if-- how this plays. 

Ex-Biden Flack Bedingfield on CNN: Israel Bombing Aid Workers Is 'Good' for Biden

"I personally think it's good for them." Kate Bedingfield couldn't possibly have meant what that sounded like, even though she's a communications professional--Biden's former communications director. Surely she's not so heartless as to describe the deaths of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza in an Israeli strike as being "good for" the Biden administration. But however she meant her shocking line, one thing was clear: Bedingfield did see the tragedy as a good opportunity for the Biden administration [read, campaign] to distance itself from Bibi Netanyahu and his policies. As Bedingfield put it in an appearance on Tuesday's CNN This Morning: "Every instance of horror like this gives the Biden administration more opening to put clear contrast between what they're trying to do, what they would argue they're trying to do responsibly in the region, and what Netanyahu has been unwilling to do.  I, I personally think it's good for them." Even seen in the most forgiving light, that is some stone-cold realpolitik. Could the vulture not have waited a bit longer before swooping down to exploit the tragedy for its maximum political benefit for her former boss?  Far from pushing back on Bedingfield's callous take, Hunt accused Israel of "starv[ing]" Gaza's population. Panelist Jonah Goldberg refuted Hunt's accusation, saying, "It's very difficult to feed a population that is being used as essentially human shields by a terrorist organization," and that "there's this expectation that Israel should be actually carrying more about Palestinians than the supposed leadership of Gaza. And that expectation puts Israel in an impossible situation."  Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 4/2/24 6:14 am EDT IDF SPOKESMAN DANIEL HAGARI: The work of WCK is critical. They are the front lines of humanity. We will get to the bottom of this, and we will share our findings transparently. KASIE HUNT: Well, the IDF launching an investigation into the death of seven aid workers from José Andrés' World Central Kitchen. They were killed in an Israeli air strike, in an Israeli strike, excuse me, in central Gaza. The organization says that they had coordinated their movements with the IDF, and that they were in marked vehicles with their logo on them.  World Central Kitchen is one of the few aid organizations providing desperately needed food to those in Gaza. The organization now pausing operations there. The White House this morning calling this tragedy deeply troubling. . . .  Kate Bedingfield, I want to start with you, because look, this, the World Central Kitchen, José Andrés' operation, has become world renowned for showing up in the moments when humanity is having some of its toughest experiences, and helping people. They are known throughout the country in this way it, it's clear from that video that we showed at the top, the IDF just put that out as this is unfolding, that they understand just how horrible this is. And certainly just how horrible also that it looks.  KATE BEDINGFIELD: Oh yeah. HUNT: What is the impact here for the Biden administration? Because the politics of this are already so tough for them. BEDINGFIELD: Yeah, well look, obviously this is a horrific tragedy, a true humanitarian disaster, I mean, it's fair to say. You know, for the Biden administration, obviously, this is an incredibly fraught issue. I think the more space they can continue to draw between themselves and Bibi Netanyahu, and Netanhyahu's government, the better for them politically. From a policy perspective, I think they've been trying to drive toward a longstanding, sort of post-conflict plan. I think Bibi's own domestic politics have made it so that he is unwilling to engage in that in a serious way. And so every instance of horror like this gives the Biden administration more opening to put clear contrast between what they're trying to do, what they would argue they're trying to do responsibly in the region, and what Netanyahu has been unwilling to do. I, I personally think it's good for them. So, I think they need to be clear that this was unacceptable. It was horrific. They need to move to support Israel's investigation into what happened happened, and to take a very tough line on this. And I think this is a moment for them to do that.

Celebrating Sin: Drag Jesus, Transgender Bunnies & LIES

Welcome to Woke of the Weak, where I’ll update you about the most woke, progressive, insane, and crazy clips and stories that the left thinks is tolerable and well, point out why exactly they’re nuts. On Sunday, Christians around the world celebrated Easter by going to church, spending time in prayer and thanking Jesus for dying on the cross for our sins. Lefties on the other hand, our current administration included, honored transgender people instead. Easter happened to fall on the same day as Transgender Visibility Day this year, and President Joe Biden posted a nearly 650 word press release about it. He also shared multiple social media posts honoring transgender people this past Sunday. At the same time, his Easter press release was less than 100 words and he made it very clear that on Sunday, it was more important to celebrate delusion than Jesus.  Similarly, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and his wife posted about trans people and their commitment to loving them and Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services Rachel Levine (a tranny) explained how trans people should be proud of all their accomplishments.  I noted that some of those so-called “accomplishments” apparently include burning down churches, shooting up schools and teaching kids that mutilating their genitalia is good. Remember, delusion is “normal” for these people. Speaking of delusion, we saw two different bunnies celebrate Easter - one was a drag queen and another was covered in fake (I hope) blood and held a chainsaw. I prayed that their sins and delusions would be washed away and they’d repent, but not with the help of the reverend in the next clip who celebrated Transgender Visibility Day. Another example of blaspheming Jesus was done by two different drag queens who dressed up as him by wearing various costumes including a crown of thorns. Finally, we saw a transgender person place a crucifix in between a gay pride flag and a transgender flag while doing the sign of the cross.  Oh, and Biden called Easter bunnies “oyster bunnies.” All that crazy in just one weekend!

Soros-Backed 'Fake News' Queen Visited Biden WH Nearly 20 Times

A prominent Soros-funded purveyor of Democratic propaganda has been a frequent guest at the Biden White House. Tara McGowan, the founder of the Soros-funded group ACRONYM, the parent company of Courier Newsroom made 17 trips to the White House, visitor logs showed. McGowan held 19 meetings with President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris in addition to White House staffers during these 17 trips. Notably, McGowan met with Biden’s senior adviser for digital strategy ahead of the 2024 election.  McGowan’s ACRONYM has received Soros' cash for both its open and its more subtle election interference efforts. Soros’ Democracy PAC fueled ACRONYM’s super PAC, PACRONYM, with $2,750,000 in the 2020 election. Soros’ Open Society Foundations gave $390,000 to ACRONYM in 2019. Courier News, which ACRONYM claimed ownership of on a 2019 tax return, brings leftist messages to local communities.  According to Open Secrets, “Websites affiliated with Courier Newsroom that appear to be free-standing local news outlets are actually part of a coordinated effort with deep ties to Democratic political operatives.” Open Secrets has referred to Courier News as a “fake news” organization. McGowan, whose Twitter bio previously contained the phrase “weaponizing truth to get Trump TFO,” put her (Soros’) money where her mouth is in the 2020 election, as Courier Newsroom pushed anti-Trump narratives at the local level, according to Open Secrets.  The prominent leftist propagandist also sat down with Patrick Stevenson, the Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor for Digital Strategy Patrick Stevenson in November 2023.  The new head of the Open Society Foundations, Alex Soros, has also been a frequent guest at the White House, meeting with officials from the Biden White House 27 times during 22 visits, according to White House visitor logs.  Soros and McGowan both met with Associate Director for Domestic Personnel at the Presidential Personnel Office Nina Srivastava, Special Assistant to the President Jordan Finkelstein and former Advisor to the White House Chief of Staff Madeline Strasser.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on Biden and his staffers meeting with a Soros-backed propagandist. 

The Biden Middle East Delusion

This week, the Biden administration took the first step toward what appears to be an inevitable break with Israel in Israel's war to extirpate the terrorist group Hamas from the Gaza Strip. Since Hamas' vicious terror assault on Israel on Oct. 7 -- an attack that killed at least 1,200 Israelis and left 250 Israeli hostages in Hamas' hands -- Israel has taken extraordinary measures to protect civilian life in Gaza while destroying Hamas' military capacity. In the process, Israel has lost nearly 300 of its own soldiers, with thousands wounded. Despite total air superiority, Israel's care on the ground has meant a successful terrorist-to-civilian kill ratio unprecedented in the history of modern warfare. Nonetheless, the Biden administration has been champing at the bit to hamstring Israel in its efforts to defend itself. In the last two weeks, the Biden White House has activated Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to call for the ouster of the sitting Israeli government; deployed Vice President Kamala Harris to publicly warn Israel about the dangers of a military operation in the last Hamas stronghold, Rafah; and abstained from a United Nations Security Council resolution separating calls for a ceasefire from calls for a hostage release. None of this makes sense if the United States wishes Israel to finish off Hamas. It all makes perfect sense if the Biden administration is seeking to placate its far-left wing, particularly the pro-Hamas voters in Dearborn, Michigan. Biden is currently losing Michigan handily to Republican nominee Donald Trump. If he loses Michigan, he almost certainly loses the election. And Biden believes that he cannot win if he does not outperform among the state's approximately 200,000 Muslim American voters. By polling data, 49% of Muslim Americans believe Hamas' rationale for the Oct. 7 terror attack was valid; 21% of Muslim Americans approve of the Oct. 7 attacks themselves. But Biden isn't losing Michigan because he's losing Muslim American voters. Those voters will overwhelmingly vote for him, because the alternative is the most pro-Israel president in American history, Donald Trump. Not only that: Michigan is home to approximately 105,000 Jewish voters, and millions of Christian voters, many of whom Biden is risking by undercutting Israel in its existential war. But Biden has been captured by his left flank. He has been told that he must pander to the most radical members of his coalition, getting them out to vote, rather than reaching out to political moderates and independents. That's idiocy. The real reason he's losing Michigan isn't his lack of popularity among blue-collar voters -- the same lack of popularity that explains his lagging poll numbers in states with lower Muslim populations like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Nevada. All of this foolish political manipulation is the result of a Democratic myth fostered by Barack Obama's successful 2012 campaign: the myth that Democrats can win simply by appealing to their minority coalition, along with hard-left white women in the suburbs. Obama was able to push that coalition to victory because he was a unique candidate; Democrats ever since have been attempting to mimic that strategy, to their electoral detriment. Here's the reality: Joe Biden will never be a favorite among leftist radicals. It was his supposed moderation that lifted him to victory in 2020. Abandoning that moderation likely means that he will find himself out of a job come January 2025.

Carville: ‘Idiotic’ for Biden Care, Modify Plans for Slain NY Officer

Democratic strategist James Carville was spinning his wheels on NewsNation Monday night as he tried to defend President Biden’s callus neglect of slain NYPD officer Jonathan Diller who was being laid to rest not far from his star-studded, elitist fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall. In trying to defend Biden from the rather tame criticism from host Chris Cuomo and correspondent at-large Geraldo Rivera, Carville proclaimed it would be “idiotic” for Biden to do anything in response to the officer’s death that evening. After literally laughing at Rivera’s criticism of Biden, Carville proclaimed it “idiotic” for Biden to think about modifying his plans for the fundraiser. His reasoning? He had money to collect and cops get shot all time: Well, I think I think it’s idiotic. And I'll tell you why. They have a fundraiser scheduled. They have Radio City Music Hall, they’re out there raising money, they got guest lists, they got everything, done. Unfortunately, it happens about 120 times a year, a police officer was shot. And you’re really saying they just should un-ring the entire bell? Okay. Interestingly, on Tuesday, NewsNation highlighted a 2024 press release from the National Fraternal Order of Police that put the number of officers shot in the line of duty in 2023 at more than triple Carville’s estimate. “Instead, 378 officers were shot in the line of duty in 2023, the highest number the FOP has ever recorded,” the press release said.     Carville was determined to paint critics as unreasonable; putting words in Cuomo and Rivera’s mouths by suggesting the only solution was to just call of the fundraiser entirely. Cuomo pushed back by noting how easy of a “layup” modifying his plans would have been, but Carville had a meltdown: CARVILLE: So, you really think that should just call the fundraiser off? Just called it off? It’s insane. Of course not. CUOMO: No, no, no, James. That was an easy one. It’s a layup. The answer is both. You stop by. You see the family. You give them some private moments. You get back in the car. You go to the fundraiser. That's the that's not a stretch. And I get it. I get why they didn’t do it. I get it James, I get it. CARVILLE: I profoundly disagree. I understand. CUOMO: I totally get it. CARVILLE: You’re a free speech guy. You want your guests and free speech. I think the entire thing about the fundraiser and a transgender thing is just borderline idiotic. Certain events – you have confluence events campaigns don’t control everything. Rivera’s “minimal effort” idea didn’t even involve Biden going to see the family, but just sharing his condolences at the fundraiser, which he didn’t care to do either. “It would have been so easy. James, you could have crafted it easily,” he tried to stroke Carville’s ego. Carville bizarrely retreated to using the number of cops killed in the line of duty as some sort of morbid defense. “Again, unfortunately, it is not uncommon for peace officer to be killed in the line of duty. Okay?” he huffed. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: NewsNation’s Cuomo April 1, 2024 8:10:30 p.m. Eastern (…) CHRIS CUOMO: James. When you're done laughing. JAMES CARVILLE: Well, I think I think it’s idiotic. And I'll tell you why. They have a fundraiser scheduled. They have Radio City Music Hall, they’re out there raising money, they got guest lists, they got everything, done. Unfortunately, it happens about 120 times a year, a police officer was shot. And you’re really saying they just should un-ring the entire bell? Okay. And this whole thing about March 31st every year it's on March 31st. And I think there this whole outrage machine and this whole false equivalency machine that says we – [indiscernible noises]. By the way, when you get mocked Saturday Night Live, I don't know Geraldo, that a pretty culturally significant program to me. (…) 8:12:27 p.m. Eastern CUOMO: It is April Fool's Day, and I have to tell you I never thought— CARVILLE: So, you really think that should just call the fundraiser off? Just called it off? It’s insane. Of course not. CUOMO: No, no, no, James. That was an easy one. It’s a layup. The answer is both. You stop by. You see the family. You give them some private moments. You get back in the car. You go to the fundraiser. That's the that's not a stretch. And I get it. I get why they didn’t do it. I get it James, I get it. CARVILLE: I profoundly disagree. I understand. CUOMO: I totally get it. CARVILLE: You’re a free speech guy. You want your guests and free speech. I think the entire thing about the fundraiser and a transgender thing is just borderline idiotic. Certain events – you have confluence events campaigns don’t control everything. I don't even think anyone knew about the transgender proclamation. I worked in the mayor's office, they have proclamations every other day. Same thing in the White House. I mean, that's just not the way the world works. And the idea a sleet Biden is come kind of cultural liberal. CUOMO: James, it has to be the way the world works because it's happening right now. [Crosstalk] GERALDO RIVERA: Stephen Colbert – Here’s how you fix it with minimal effort and you make people feel better. Stephen Colbert opens the program, “New Yorkers are in mourning now we have lost one of finest. We obviously we didn't know this tragedy was going to happen when we scheduled is event. But President Biden, do want to say something about law and order, crime and punishment, the risk that police officers and their families endure?” It would have been so easy. James, you could have crafted it easily. CARVILLE: I – you know – Again, unfortunately, it is not uncommon for peace officer to be killed in the line of duty. Okay? That's just one of these – Actually, think it's a little bit down now, but I looked at the statistics and it doesn’t happened every day but – [Crosstalk] CUOMO: But James, it was an opportunity. CARVILLE: Okay. All right. Seriously, were outrage is missed – You know, I can tell Stephen Colbert how to do its job. [Stammering] CUOMO: James, you’re among friends. CARVILLE: I think the whole thing – CUOMO: You’re welcome to disagree. CARVILLE: I understand. CUOMO: I am happy that you are disagreeing. CARVILLE: But I am totally unpersuaded that there was anything wrong with this. That’s all. CUOMO: I understand. CARVILLE: We’ll agree to disagree. CUOMO: Perception is reality. (…)

Google Censors Magazine for Daring to Publish Anti-Islamic Terror Content

Front Page Magazine says tech giant Google was censoring the outlet for reporting on Islamic terrorism. Daniel Greenfield, journalism fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, revealed in the organization’s flagship publication how Google AdSense was unusually explanatory when rejecting the Center’s application for the ad program. The Big Tech company reportedly cited a Front Page article discussing a terrorist attack and the radical Islamic beliefs of the perpetrators as objectionable. Google’s rejection of the application, wrote Greenfield, “told us what we could do to make our way into the good graces of the company that dominates online search and advertising, controlling what much of the country and the world sees.”  Specifically, Greenfield continued, “[a]ll we had to do was stop talking about Islamic terrorism.”  Google first accused Front Page, and especially Horowitz, of generally writing and hosting “dangerous or derogatory content.” Google referenced the 2021 piece, “Remember The San Bernardino Fourteen” by author Lloyd Billingsley. The piece provided details about a devastating and deadly 2015 terror attack in California, but also argued that the terrorists’ radical Islamic beliefs were a key factor. The article also criticized Kamala Harris, then California attorney general, for claiming the attack was not to be blamed on Islam, joined by terrorist-linked organization CAIR.  Greenfield rebuked Google for effectively defending radical Islamists: “Google would rather that you not remember the 14 victims or the Islamic terrorists who killed them.” Instead, wrote Greenfield, Google “has told us that we ‘must fix’ this and numberless other articles that it objects to. But what would it like us to ‘fix’ here? What else except the truth about Islamic terrorism[?]” “Billingsley’s article laid out the complicity of other family members of the Muslim terrorists in the attack, and the silence of Biden and Kamala about Islamic terrorism, and closed by urging, ‘remember the 14 innocents murdered by Islamic terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik on December 2, 2015, in San Bernardino, California, USA.,’” Greenfield wrote. Apparently, such framing was verboten for Google.  Google not only accused the San Bernardino Fourteen piece of being “derogatory” and “dangerous” but also containing “unreliable and harmful claims.” But Greenfield pointed out Google and other tech companies have a sordid history of foolish censorship, such as when Martin Luther King Jr.’s  “Letter From Birmingham Jail” was allegedly and ludicrously suppressed for containing the “n word.”  Running cover for radical Islamists and others considered protected groups by leftists appears to be par for the course for Google. MRC Free Speech America caught Google covering for jihadis as well, including its Gemini AI originally downplaying evidence of Hamas-inflicted rape. In a previous Supreme Court case, Gonzalez v. Google, Google argued that it could not be held liable for its YouTube algorithms promoting content from jihadis because of Section 230 immunity, yet Google appears to be actively covering for jihadis. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Google at 650-253-0000 and demand it be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

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

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.

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! (…)

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.   

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.  

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? 

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.

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.

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. 

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

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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

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.

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.

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. (…)

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!

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.

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.

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.  

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.  

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. (…)

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.  

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!

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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!

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.  

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.

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.

‘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

‘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.

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

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] (…)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Worst of March: Big Tech Companies Renew Censorship-Heavy Ways

March closed with Resurrection Day (Easter or Pascha), the Christian celebration of Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead and renewal. Yet the most obvious thing Big Tech companies have renewed this past month are their censorship-heavy ways. From communist Chinese government-tied TikTok’s censorship of contraceptive-critical content to Google-owned YouTube terminating a therapy group channel for criticizing homosexuality, Big Tech went to bat for the woke, sexual and anti-pro-life ideology of the left in March. Facebook, Instagram and YouTube also “fact checked” content without any clear or defensible justification. Below are the worst examples of Big Tech censorship from this past month. 1) Communist Chinese government-tied TikTok censored content exposing side effects associated with contraceptives. The Washington Post released a report attempting to discredit women discussing the well-known side effects listed on the sizable warning label that comes with oral contraceptives. The Post bragged that it pressured TikTok to censor five videos after its inquiries about alleged “misinformation,” including videos by The Daily Wire commentator Brett Cooper, who hosts The Comments Section, and TikTok influencer Nicole Bendayan. The Post identified one censored video as being a clip from Cooper’s May 2023 appearance on the Iced Coffee Hour podcast, during which Cooper highlighted contraception’s worrying impact on weight gain, fertility, regular hormone function and romantic attraction.  Absurdly, while lashing out at “conservative[s]” for warning about the potential side effects of birth control, The Post neglected to mention its own reporting on oral contraceptive pill users’ increased risk for cervical cancer in 1977. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also documented substantial evidence of serious side effects from taking hormonal “birth control.” But no mention of that information either from The Post. The clip of Cooper garnered “219,000 ‘likes’ before TikTok removed it following The Post’s inquiry,” according to The Post. The TikTok video links now bring up the message, “Video currently unavailable.” A TikTok spokesperson claimed to The Post that the videos had “inaccurate, misleading or false content that may cause significant harm to individuals or society.”  It is key to note that the anti-American Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, and has reason to suppress and censor certain helpful American or CCP-related content. 2) Facebook fact checks paid ad for college course on globalist “Great Reset” movement. Hillsdale College ran a paid Facebook advertisement on the Meta platform to promote a free video class. "Are you aware of the idea of an economic reset? We discussed this at a recent CCA event and packaged the conversations into a free online video series so you can learn more about this economic reset and its effect on America today,” the ad read. Facebook imposed a “False Information” label, which appears either over or under the image. The label links to a warning: “False information. Independent fact-checkers say this information has no basis in fact. You can choose whether to see it.” Facebook bases this label on a Lead Stories fact check titled “‘The Great Reset’ Is NOT A Secret Plan Masterminded By Global Elites To Limit Freedoms And Push Radical Policies.” Hillsdale explains the Communist China-like “goal of the Great Reset.” The fact check merely cites the goals of the globalist World Economic Forum, originator of the Great Reset project, none of which refute Hillsdale's interpretation. 3) Google-owned YouTube accuses therapy group channel of “hate speech” against homosexuals. YouTube terminated the new channel for a therapy group critical of homosexuality. YouTube previously deleted the group’s channel in 2022 based on a hit piece from the same leftist group that again attacked the late Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s Reintegrative Therapy Association for alleged “conversion therapy.” The Daily Signal reported that Nicolosi’s son, who was in charge of the channel, received multiple communications from YouTube regarding a video in which the book “The Sissy Boy Syndrome: The Development of Homosexuality” was referenced. YouTube removed the video, claiming so-called “hate speech,” and another video the following day. YouTube initially admitted March 10 to the younger Nicolosi that the content did not violate the platform’s rules, but nevertheless, the next day, YouTube terminated the channel altogether. YouTube alleged “severe or repeated violations of [its] hate speech policy” and refused to alter its position after an appeal. 4) YouTube bafflingly fact checks news podcast. YouTube imposed a fact-checking label on Cumulus News Talk's March 14, 2024 video episode of the Rich Valdes America at Night Podcast. YouTube imposed a label on the video — “William Jacobson, Joseph Vazquez, & Nicole McCaw” — that linked to the “The Great Replacement” Wikipedia entry. The note’s summary pontificated, “The Great Replacement, also known as replacement theory or great replacement theory, is a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory espoused by French author Renaud Camus.” Vazquez stated that Valdes only mentioned the Great Replacement to say a leftist organization had accused him of promoting the theory.  5) Meta’s Instagram pushes fact checks of royal family photo. UK Princess of Wales Kate Middleton posted a photo of herself and her three children on the official Instagram page for “Prince and Princess of Wales” for UK's Mother's Day. Instagram imposed an interstitial on the photo, saying, “Altered photo/video. The same altered photo was reviewed by independent fact-checkers in another post.” The “See Why” link asserted that “Independent fact-checkers say the photo or image has been edited in a way that could mislead people, but not because it was shown out of context.” Middleton did state that she had attempted amateur photo-editing on the picture, though Instagram’s assertion that this “could mislead people” is not explained. According to Facebook, Instagram's sister-site, users fail to click through similar fact-check interstitials 95 percent of the time. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

The Cut Flowers Civilization

This week, famed atheist Richard Dawkins explained that he was a “cultural Christian.” Praising his civilization, Dawkins stated, “I do think that we are culturally a Christian country. I call myself a cultural Christian. I’m not a believer. But there is a distinction between being a believing Christian and being a cultural Christian. And so you know I love hymns and Christmas carols, and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos. I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense.” Dawkins went on to praise Christianity as a “fundamentally decent religion in a way that I think Islam is not.” Dawkins’ case for Christianity -- a case made on the basis of utility -- is nothing new. It was made long ago by acidic critic of the church Voltaire, who famously averred, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” But the problem with the utilitarian case for religious belief is that it doesn’t animate religious believers. It is simply impossible to build a civilization on the basis of Judeo-Christian foundations while making the active case as to why those foundations ought to be dissolved. In fact, Western civilization has doomed itself so long as it fails to reconnect to its religious roots. Philosopher Will Herberg wrote, “The moral principles of Western civilization are, in fact, all derived from the tradition rooted in Scripture and have vital meaning only in the context of that tradition. ... Cut flowers retain their original beauty and fragrance, but only so long as they retain the vitality that they have drawn from their now severed roots; after that is exhausted, they wither and die. So with freedom, brotherhood, justice and personal dignity -- the values that form the moral foundation of our civilization. Without the life-giving power of the faith out of which they have sprung, they possess neither meaning nor vitality.” We are a cut flowers civilization. And eventually, cut flowers die. That has never been more obvious than this week, when the Biden administration decided to honor the newly invented Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter Sunday. Gender ideology is a symptom of our society’s reversion to gnostic paganism, in which unseen, chaotic forces buffet us about, and in which nature is directly opposed to the freedom of our disembodied essences. It is no wonder that gender ideology is opposed by every mainstream traditional religion. Yet claiming that this magical holiday could not be moved, the White House issued a variety of statements in celebration of radical gender ideology, including the deeply insulting statement from the president of the United States citing the book of Genesis to the effect that transgender people are “made in the image of God” -- ignoring the last half of the Biblical verse, which reads, “male and female he made them.” What better time than Easter, the holiest day in the Christian calendar, to pay homage to an entirely new religion? Richard Dawkins is obviously correct that a civilization rooted in church is better than a civilization rooted in an alternative set of values. But in reality, the churches cannot be empty; they must be full. The cathedrals that mean Britain to Dawkins must ring with the sounds of hymns in order to maintain their holiness and their importance; otherwise, they are merely beautiful examples of old architecture, remnants of a dead civilization preserved in stone. But our civilization must live. And that means more than cultural Christianity. It means reengaging with the source of our values -- the Scriptures that educated our fathers and grandfathers.

Cuomo: 'Hostages Have Become an Afterthought' to Biden, 'Unforgivable'

NewsNation primetime host Chris Cuomo dropped some major truth bombs on his eponymous show Thursday night; directly addressing the folks in the White House he’s been told “monitor” what he says and calling out how the American and Israeli hostages stolen by Hamas terrorists “have become an afterthought” to President Biden, who dropped them below reelection as a priority. He called it all “unforgivable.” At the top of his show, Cuomo noted “that people in the White House monitor what I say” and warned that since officials “won't come on the show,” he was “forced to speak at you rather than to you. This is not my choice.” Cuomo chided the Biden administration for their “half-speak” and “treating the war against Israel as if it were another political point of compromise.” He said the White House was using "appeasement in a situation that is not about balance” but “about realities.” “And I get how worried you are that you're not going have the same base year the last time. But that is not an excuse to be weak,” he directly shouted at Biden, who he declared had “forgotten” the hostages by not making their release the first condition of a ceasefire: There's a primary reality, okay? And we seemed to have forgotten it. Hamas is a terror organization. You designated them as that! They stole people. They need to give the people they stole back to us, to Israel, first! The hostages have become an afterthought! And that is wrong! And the reason it has happened is even more wrong! The reason it has happened is because other political exigencies and agendas have overtaken the relevance!     Cuomo rightfully dubbed the hostages “the most wrongfully injured victims in the entire situation,” and pointed out that Biden’s capitulation was evidence that Israel was receiving the short end of a double standard that benefited Hamas; one that the U.S. would not stand for if it was in Israel’s position (Click "expand"): Now. If Hamas gives back the hostages, which you would likely require as a sine qua non – without this nothing – in any other situation. Certainly if it were you in Israel's position. Then you have leverage. You have a basis for an exchange of wants. Not, “Stop, ceasefire, expose yourself, and then we hope to get the hostages back.” You wouldn't do that. You're asking Israel to do what you never would. And I don't know who else has: Pulling back under threat – existential threat, meaning they want you exterminated. And, by the way, you don't get your people back first. And it does feed the idea. I know you hear this, especially you, Tony. And I know I hear it cause I know who's talked to you about it. That it feeds this malignancy that Jews are treated differently. That Hamas is given more of a break, than your main ally. Why even mention ceasefire before they give back the hostages? The shellacking didn’t stop there. Looking directly into the camera, Cuomo declared that Biden was treating the war “like it's a debate about the debt ceiling. Like it’s brinksmanship. Lie it’s a fake deadline.” “There is too much blood on the floor for this to be about a typical compromise and you know it!” he exclaimed. Throughout his opening monologue, Cuomo spelled out how Biden was putting Israel in an impossible situation with his misplaced expectation for a ceasefire (Click "expand"): So stop treating this as if Israel should be the bigger person. They are convinced they were targeted for extermination. (…) You can provide no assurance that Israel would not be hit immediately because that's what Hamas has promised. That's what Hezbollah is doing. And the other Iranian proxies – now be honest – you have ignored. You have given Iran a pass. You have given them back billions of dollars. If you're going make Israel take on Iran for you, then at least give them a chance to be successful. (…) Enact a ceasefire immediately? Why, when they're not going to be safe? Cuomo kept the focus on the hostages, noting they “deserve the attention” and it’s “unforgivable” how they’ve been forgotten by the Biden administration. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: NewsNation’s Cuomo April 4, 2024 8:03:32 p.m. Eastern CHRIS CUOMO: I know that people in the White House monitor what I say. Good. And because President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken won't come on the show, I am forced to speak at you rather than to you. This is not my choice. I understand. Talk to people within your party at very high levels elected and unelected all the time. I know that the war in the Middle East is a major concern for you in the election. And I think that explains why you misplayed it the way you did today. Okay? You gave a mixed message. You talked tough in what sounded like a threat to your main ally in the region and then you said you're giving them more weapons. You're treating the war against Israel as if it were another political point of compromise. This is wrong, but this is wrong and we need to do better here in the has to be change and blah blah blah ceasefire. A lot of words. A lot of conditional language. A lot of half speak. A lot of appeasement in a situation that is not about balance. It is about realities. And I get the pressure from the left. I get it and I get how tight the race is. And I get how worried you are that you're not going have the same base year the last time. But that is not an excuse to be weak. There's a primary reality, okay? And we seemed to have forgotten it. Hamas is a terror organization. You designated them as that! They stole people. They need to give the people they stole back to us, to Israel, first! The hostages have become an afterthought! And that is wrong! And the reason it has happened is even more wrong! The reason it has happened is because other political exigencies and agendas have overtaken the relevance! The aid workers being hit. Horrible. Matters, of course. Deserves attention, absolutely. But also makes the lack of attention to the hostages apparent. Hitting the aid workers, angels among us is, of course, an acceptable. Everybody knows that. It also must be explained and you should have called for that explanation today, because, you know, they already know the reason this is a very sophisticated organization at the IDF. How can you focus on the aid workers who bravely took the risk to be there – angels among us. That's why I and the team are willing to risk going there to see their work in action so people can see the need. But if you're going to say that what happened to them demands action. How do you not start with the return of the hostages as the most wrongfully injured victims in the entire situation. Every time you speak about what must happen and you do not begin with, “Hey terrorists, give back who you stole,” you are giving terrorists a pass. Every time you don't start there, you lose the Israeli ear. Now. If Hamas gives back the hostages, which you would likely require as a sine qua non – without this nothing – in any other situation. Certainly if it were you in Israel's position. Then you have leverage. You have a basis for an exchange of wants. Not, “Stop, ceasefire, expose yourself, and then we hope to get the hostages back.” You wouldn't do that. You're asking Israel to do what you never would. And I don't know who else has: Pulling back under threat – existential threat, meaning they want you exterminated. And, by the way, you don't get your people back first. And it does feed the idea. I know you hear this, especially you, Tony. And I know I hear it cause I know who's talked to you about it. That it feeds this malignancy that Jews are treated differently. That Hamas is given more of a break, than your main ally. Why even mention ceasefire before they give back the hostages? Now, there's an obvious reason. Too much death in Gaza. Too many innocence dying in Gaza. Children dying, starving in Gaza. You are right. We must all agree. But what has the best chance of motivating a mitigation? Threats to Israel? Never. Political pressure on Bibi? He loves it. All the more reason to force the main want: get the hostages back. You know what response I get to this? “Yeah. You know, but Hams, they don't want to give them back. You know, they’re bad guys. They need the leverage.” Really? So, instead you want to force Israel to relent. Imagine how much stronger the message to Bibi would be if you came in saying, “We told Hamas they have until X to hand over the hostages or else. And when they do. You need to do X, Y, and Z.” The people in Gaza are calling for the release of the hostages more vehemently than you are. They know Hamas has put them in this Hell. What do you know? Then you have a basis for telling Israel there has to be change. Otherwise you're basically asking Israel to give Hamas the win and withdraw. It will not happen. You know this, which means you went in today saying those things to Bibi, having them reported when, you know, it's not going to happen, not under Bibi – Not under any one, if the surveys are to be believed. So stop treating this as if Israel should be the bigger person. They are convinced they were targeted for extermination. Stop treating this like it's a debate about the debt ceiling. Like it’s brinksmanship. Lie it’s a fake deadline. There is too much blood on the floor for this to be about a typical compromise and you know it! The place to push is obvious: Hostages. And with Israel: aid. Several reasons. It's the right thing to do as a moral authority. People are starving. It's bad and it makes Israel look bad. There is a less aid getting in them before October 7th and there is more need for it than ever. You are making a generation ready for radicalization and that's understandable. If all, you know, is a life of squalor in death. What do you think is going to happen? And they're going to blame America's much as Israel. This is also a chance to widen the role of other allies to make this more regional with players and more stakeholders, even if they're only monitoring and securing aid, which you can argue Israel should not be in sole control. And then you will have more reason to have peace because there's much more precedent of an international coalition monitoring humanitarian aid, than there is for asking for a withdrawal without any assurance of safety. You can provide no assurance that Israel would not be hit immediately because that's what Hamas has promised. That's what Hezbollah is doing. And the other Iranian proxies – now be honest – you have ignored. You have given Iran a pass. You have given them back billions of dollars. If you're going make Israel take on Iran for you, then at least give them a chance to be successful. This is not ending anytime soon. And you should tell the American people. It will likely get worse. And you should tell the American people. Aid is the place that makes the most sense that is most needed and has the best chance of making a positive difference. What you are saying today was a mixed message that made nothing better. It may have pleased your left flank that is hyper-sympathetic to the suffering in Gaza and there's nothing wrong with seeing the humanity in that. But that's not your job. Your job is to do something about it. And if you want to help it, stop deal with the suffering and do it smart. That's why you're running for office. And if you keep it like today, you're right. This issue may beat you. So, this is the news, right? Biden first call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since the aid workers were killed. And now they're saying, “strong rebuke.” What strong rebuke?! Enact a ceasefire immediately? Why, when they're not going to be safe? Look, I get it. I love the idea. Let's stop today, everybody go back to your corners, let's try to be reasonable. It's not going to happen. But the hostages deserve the attention. It is unforgivable how we have forgot. (…)

PBS Host Geoff Bennett Favorably Quotes Trump to Own a Florida Pro-Life Leader!

On Tuesday, PBS NewsHour interviewed a pro-life activist. But that’s not the term anchor Geoff Bennett wanted to use. He began: “Lynda Bell is president of Florida Right to Life, one of the state's largest anti-abortion groups, and she joins us now.” Conservatives are routinely “anti”-everything. Liberals are usually “pro”-wonderful things. Bennett warned: “Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has now signed two major abortion bans, initially one starting at 15 weeks and more recently one starting at six weeks, before most women even know that they're pregnant.” Most? Is that right? One study quoted by NPR in 2022 asserted it was one out of five, not “most.” The anchor pressed on:  “And Donald Trump has described a six-week ban as — quote — ‘a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.’ Why can't Republicans and anti-abortion advocates find consensus on an acceptable path forward, when overturning Roe had been a decades-long pursuit among conservatives and anti-abortion activists?”   Bell pushed back on Bennett's repeated use of antis: “Well, we pro-lifers — we like to be called pro-lifers, rather than anti-abortion. But we are pro-life. Now, the anti-life community, they want abortion. It doesn't matter. They don't care. They want abortion through birth. So they want unfettered access.” Oh, now you’ve done it! Bennett fought back: “Ms. Bell, that's not true.” Pro-abortion journalists need to be handed the 2020 Democrat platform, and find where they suggest any barrier they favor. They don’t: Democrats oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights. We will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and protect and codify the right to reproductive freedom…. Democrats oppose restrictions on medication abortion care that are inconsistent with the most recent medical and scientific evidence and that do not protect public health. Bell pointed out that the current abortion referendum on the ballot says everything it to be determined by the health-care provider: BELL: So the health care provider, when it says viability, what that means is, it's going to be determined by the health care provider. So abortion literally could go through birth. That is absolutely a fact. Now, jumping into your specific question, the six-week bill provided for rape, incest, life of the mother, medical emergency, fetal anomaly. So there were very many exceptions in there for women who needed to have an abortion procedure in these very dangerous situations for them, because we're not just pro-baby. We're pro-woman. And we don't want any woman to experience anything that would be dangerous for them. So we in the pro-life community, we love them both. We love both the babies and their moms. Then Bennett asked a question that collapses upon itself: BENNETT: Well, let me ask you this, because the data is clear that states with more abortion restrictions have higher rates of maternal and infant mortality. How are those outcomes consistent with your organization's stated goal of protecting the sanctity of life? BELL: Well, I don't know that that data is absolutely correct, and so I'd love to challenge that data as well. In fact, I'm going to look into that data. BENNETT: It's from the Commonwealth Fund. It's an independent research organization focused on health policy. First of all, how much chutzpah does it take for pro-abortion journalists to cluck at pro-lifers about infant mortality? Aren't they for the right to choose infant mortality? Second, when a journalist calls something an "independent research organization," don't bet on it. Their mission statement proclaims in its DEI section: "The Commonwealth Fund has made a commitment to become an antiracist organization." In its 2022 study, The Commonwealth Fund cites pro-abortion researchers and repeats pro-abortion terms, just like PBS. Expand below:  Introduction In anticipation of a U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, a number of states passed “trigger laws” that would ban all, or nearly all, abortions once national abortion protections ended. In the months since the Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022, several of these states have in fact banned abortion in most instances. Other states have enacted bans or severe restrictions since then, and others may do so in the coming months or years... For our analysis, we compared health status and health care resources in the 26 states that the [pro-abortion] Guttmacher Institute has identified as having “restrictive,” “very restrictive,” or “most restrictive” policies on abortion — which we refer to as “abortion-restriction states” — to those in the 24 “abortion-access states” that, along with the District of Columbia, have not instituted bans or new restrictions on abortion.... Conclusion Compared with their counterparts in other states, women of reproductive age and birthing people in states with current or proposed abortion bans have more limited access to affordable health insurance coverage, worse health outcomes, and lower access to maternity care providers. Making abortion illegal risks widening these disparities, as states with already limited Medicaid maternity coverage and fewer maternity care resources lose providers who are reluctant to practice in states that they perceive as restricting their practice. The result is a deepening of fractures in the maternal health system and a compounding of inequities by race, ethnicity, and geography.... Increased federal funding for reproductive health care, family planning, maternity care, and care delivery system transformations also could mitigate the impact of the Dobbs decision and state abortion bans on people’s lives. State, congressional, and executive branch actions are all needed to protect the health of women and birthing people and ensure optimal and equitable outcomes for mothers and infants.

Soros-Funded Fact-Checkers: Who Cares About Free Speech, Our ‘Facts’ Are What Matter

A fact-checking network funded by leftist billionaire George Soros is trying to shift emphasis from free speech to pre-approved “facts.” Leftist Poynter Institute and its International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) only mentioned free speech once in its 2023-2024 Impact Report — and such a mention was only to highlight an individual’s award. Rather, Poynter emphasized “Facts on the global stage,” setting itself up as an arbiter of truth online. Poynter openly boasted about its work to suppress speech on social media platforms. Significantly, this report comes after Poynter Institute received $492,000 in grants from Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) between 2016 and 2019. Poynter only mentioned “freedom of expression” when it highlighted the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Filipina journalist Maria Ressa for defending free speech. Tellingly, Ressa now trains fact-checkers, which is the work Poynter aimed to highlight. Ressa’s news organization Rappler was a beneficiary of Poynter funds, as was USA Today, among others. “In 2023, Poynter’s IFCN awarded $1.875 million in grants to 55 different news organizations through IFCN’s GlobalFact Check Fund,” the group announced. “Poynter will award up to $4 million in additional grants in 2024.” In the report, Poynter highlighted its fact-checking work for Big Tech companies on its PolitiFact website. “PolitiFact checks claims on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok,” Poynter announced. “In 2023, we initiated fact-checking for native Spanish speakers and will launch a Spanish-language website in 2024.”  Poynter then bragged about its partners Stanford University (a U.S. government censorship proxy) Meta and Google-owned YouTube “to level a playing field full of misinformation.” As widely reported by MRC, misinformation is a common leftist catchphrase to justify censorship of free speech. In the same report, IFCN Director Angie Drobnic Holan raised the alarm that “[m]isinformation is on the march” and that “fact-checkers and other journalists face attack and harassment simply for doing their jobs.” Ignoring the fact that anti-free speech actions are a major factor in reducing trust in media, Holan then claimed, “We are on the side of truth. We are on the side of information integrity.” An example undermining Holan’s claims of objectivity is a 2020 article and Facebook fact-check still available on the Poynter-owned PolitiFact website. The article pushed the claim that “Russian operatives used a series of ‘active measures’ to hack campaigns, spread disinformation and sow discord in an effort to sway the election in favor of President Donald Trump.” PolitiFact cited and linked to the since-discredited Mueller Report, which actually found no evidence of “Russia collusion” with Trump. As former reporter and ex-Lake Elsinore Mayor Thomas Buckley noted in an April 5 Brownstone Institute piece, Poynter is anti-free speech and is not objective. “To the contrary, ‘fact-based expression’ demands both self and external censorship, a political, social, and cultural censorship that will drown out and drone on,” he wrote. 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.

NewsBusters Podcast: Mark Levin Hammers CNN's Bash and Tapper

CNN is perennially offended at the thought that Donald Trump is still politically viable despite all its dirty work for Democrats. On his radio show this week, Mark Levin hammered Dana Bash for "fact checking" RFK Jr and tackled Jake Tapper's pleading for Democrats to pander harder to pro-Hamas voters.  Mark Levin took after CNN host Dana Bash for rushing to say RFK Jr. had "NO EVIDENCE that Biden himself was involved" in censoring RFK's speech. He called her a mouthpiece that burps up the Democrat talking points. Listen:  Then there was Tapper pressing the Wisconsin Democrat chair Ben Wikler about how they needed to pursue the pro-Hamas voters, where 46,000 people in the Democrat primary picked the line “Uninstructed." That's more than double Biden's victory margin in Wisconsin last time. Tapper lectured "This president must decide if loyalty to Netanyahu is worth delivering Trump the election in November. He must decide.”  In late-night comedy, NBC host Seth Meyers also lectured the president about how he needs to push around the Israelis and push a ceasefire. CBS host Stephen Colbert decided to put pressure on Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu instead. And ABC's Jimmy Kimmel was dazzled by how clean the bathrooms were in Japan and said the Japanse must say about America, "‘Oh, the garbage people! Yes, the Americans, garbage, yes!’" We also discuss the White House briefing, where NPR reporter Asma Khalid pressed Karine Jean-Pierre about punishing Israel for any of their military mistakes: "Why, thus far, there has been no consequences and why there are no consequences?" AP's Josh Boak tossed this softball: "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?" Enjoy the podcast below or wherever you listen to podcasts.   

Reid Gets Triggered By D.C.'s Reagan And Dulles Airport Names

MSNBC’s Joy Reid and The ReidOut’s assembled panel reacted on Friday to the efforts by some Republicans to name D.C.’s Dulles International Airport after Donald Trump and Democrats’ response of trying to name a federal prison after him by getting triggered at the eponyms currently on D.C.’s two airports: John Foster Dulles and Ronald Reagan. Reid even admitted that she refuses to call Reagan National by its name. Reid opined, “Let’s talk a little about this idea of renaming Dulles. Now, Dulles is not the best airport, it might be the worst airport in America. The Republicans are like, 'let’s name it after Donald Trump.' I love the fact that it's named after one of the most diabolical secretaries of State who destroyed Iran and a bunch of Central America.”     Ali Veshi chimed in to add, “But, let's make that worse.” Echoing the sentiment, Reid continued, “Let’s make it worse. Also, the Democrats have said, 'Instead, let's name a prison after Trump.' Thoughts? Thoughts? Thoughts? Name a prison in Miami?” Velshi loved the troll move, labeling it “fantastic,” but the table then went on a digression about prison names. When the digression ended, Reid returned to Dulles, “I think this is a great opportunity for the nerds of the table just to talk about Allen Dulles and also his brother, it was John Foster Dulles, I think, and Allen Dulles and both of them were involved in destroying Guatemala and Iran.” No, that would be the ayatollahs whose oppressive domestic regime and foreign policy escapades have destroyed a once proud civilization. Still, there was one more D.C. airport to discuss. Political Science Professor Christina Greer added, “Well, I mean, we've— they've already renamed National, Reagan which I refuse to call it Reagan.” If the professor can’t even bring herself to say “Reagan Airport,” one can only wonder what kind of education Fordham University political science majors are getting. Reid, however, would fit right in, “Yeah, I just call it DCA.” Here is a transcript for the April 5 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 4/5/2024 7:51 PM ET JOY REID: Let’s talk a little about this idea of renaming Dulles. Now, Dulles is not the best airport, it might be the worst airport in America. The Republicans are like “let’s name it after Donald Trump.” I love the fact that it's named after one of the most diabolical secretaries of State— ALI VELSHI: Right. REID: -- who destroyed Iran and a bunch of Central America. VELSHI: But, let's make that worse.  REID: Let’s make it worse. Also, the Democrats have said “Instead, let's name a prison after Trump.” Thoughts? Thoughts? Thoughts? Name a prison in Miami?  VELSHI: That is a fantastic— … REID: I think this is a great opportunity for the nerds of the table just to talk about Allen Dulles and also his brother, it was John Foster Dulles— VELSHI: Yup. REID: -- I think, and Allen Dulles and both of them were involved in destroying Guatemala and Iran.  VELSHI: Yeah. REID: So, I feel like that's important and that’s given me the opportunity, so thank you Republicans. CHRISTINA GREER: Well, I mean, we've-- they've already renamed National, Reagan which I refuse to call it Reagan.  REID: Yeah, I just call it DCA.

Kimmel Mocks Concern Over Illegal Immigrant Murderer In Michigan

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel is a strange man. On his Thursday show, Kimmel wondered why Donald Trump would travel to Michigan to talk about border security since the state borders Canada, while also accusing Trump of exploiting the death of Ruby Garcia, a Michigan woman recently murdered by an illegal immigrant. Kimmel was also not a fan of Trump’s new campaign message, “Somehow, in the middle of all these prosecutions, Trump has been on the road doing rallies, where you know, when you think back on all the presidents, there are so many great lines throughout history. Like, ‘Yes, we can’ and ‘Tear down the wall,’ ‘The buck stops here’ and this, new slogan from Donald Trump, ‘Stop Biden's border bloodbath.’”     Thinking he had come up with some great “gotcha moment,” Kimmel continued, “he unrolled that one in Michigan. The only border Michigan shares is with Canada, but why get bogged down with details?” Kimmel isn’t actually dumb enough to think that illegal immigrants who commit crimes are confined to states along the Southern border, he just wanted a cheap joke about Trump being the dumb one, even if it made no logical sense.  Kimmel proved he knew better when he accused Trump of “shamelessly trying to exploit the murder of a young woman in Michigan, who was allegedly killed by a man she was dating, and who also happened to enter the country illegally.” He further accused Trump of liking the story, “This is the kind of story he loves because it furthers the false narrative that immigrants commit more crimes here than Americans do. So, he grabs on to this very sad story about this woman named Ruby to use it to get elected.” Not only did Kimmel leave off the “illegal” adjective, and not only did he ignore the fact that the man should never have been in the country in the first place, if there is one person in the media who should not be condemning others for using anecdotal evidence in support of a particular policy, it is Jimmy Kimmel, whose reputation as a political comedian is built off such claims. Here is a transcript for the April 4 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 4/4/2024 11:37 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: Somehow, in the middle of all these prosecutions, Trump has been on the road doing rallies, where you know, when you think back on all the presidents, there are so many great lines throughout history. Like, "Yes, we can" and "Tear down the wall," "The buck stops here" and this, new slogan from Donald Trump, "Stop Biden's border bloodbath."  "Stop Biden's border bloodbath and beyond," is in fact is the-- he unrolled that one in Michigan. The only border Michigan shares is with Canada, but why get bogged down with details? Trump has been shamelessly trying to exploit the murder of a young woman in Michigan, who was allegedly killed by a man she was dating, and who also happened to enter the country illegally. This is the kind of story he loves because it furthers the false narrative that immigrants commit more crimes here than Americans do. So, he grabs on to this very sad story about this woman named Ruby to use it to get elected. 

No, ‘Civil War’s’ Fascist President Isn’t Donald Trump

Few films have stirred the cultural pot quite like “Civil War.” The April 12 release envisions a near-future America at war with itself.     Kirsten Dunst leads an ensemble cast including “Parks and Recreation” standout Nick Offerman as the U.S. president. Much of the film’s story has been kept under wraps. The film’s SXSW Film and TV Festival debut let some light shine on the narrative. Offerman’s president, for example, has fascistic tendencies and is currently serving his third term. It must be Trump. Of course. If Hollywood has taught us anything over the past seven-plus years it’s that it can’t stop referencing the 45th president. And, almost every time said commentary is unflattering. To be kind. That’s exactly what journalists were hoping from “Civil War.” It’s why they’re trying to get the film’s stars to admit it. So far, they’re striking out. Offerman spoke to a Hollywood Reporter journalist at length about the project during the red carpet premiere. The actor, who famously played a libertarian on “Parks and Recreation,” is a liberal in real life. He still didn’t take the reporter’s bait. He shoos away any suggestion his character is Trumpian to the core.     “There’s obvious comparisons to Trump here and our political climate,” the unnamed reporter asks Offerman. “How closely did you want to play that?” The veteran star doesn’t bite. “Honestly, it didn’t even come up,” Offerman responds. “[The movie] is so unrelated to any actual factions or politicians. That’s what I think is so brilliant about this film. Everybody on any side of the aisle or any faction has a lot to say and we’re all immediately divisive and partisan in our conversations. “Everybody’s mad about those other jerks, and this movie transcends that. it’s about all of us. And I’m so grateful for that.” His views echoed those of writer/director Alex Garland. The “Ex-Machina” creator has repeatedly said his film is bipartisan. The big picture he wants to share? Let’s stop attacking each other before it’s too late.             View this post on Instagram                       A post shared by Civil War (@civilwarmovie)   Over at the far-Left Variety, its reporter tried to do the same with co-star Dunst. Mission: Unaccomplished. But it’s impossible to watch “Civil War” without being reminded of this year’s presidential election — you know, the one where democracy and maybe the fate of the free world hangs in the balance? … For instance, Dunst won’t admit [emphasis added] that the film’s president, played by Nick Offerman as a narcissist with an authoritarian streak, resembles the 45th, and perhaps 47th, Oval Office occupant. 'It feels fictitious to me,” she says of any connection between Offerman’s character and Donald Trump. “I don’t want to compare because that’s the antithesis of the film. It’s just a fascist president. But I didn’t think about Nick’s character being any certain political figure. I just thought this is this president, in this world, who will not abide by the Constitution and democracy.' “Won’t admit” … it’s almost as if the reporter has an agenda and is annoyed that the film’s star won’t play along.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer's 'True North' Is Truly False

Well, isn’t this interesting. One Chris Quinn, the Editor at the Cleveland Plain Dealer, has taken the time to pen a “Letter from the Editor” to the paper’s readers. The topic: the paper’s coverage of former President Donald Trump. The letter is designed to set the apparent critics of the paper’s Trump coverage straight. Coverage that, it seems, strikes Plain Dealer Trump-supporting readers as -- shocking, I know -- biased against the former president. The letter, found here, is a classic of thinking from inside the liberal media bubble. Lacking any self-awareness and, in the name of “truth” making utterly untrue comments. Let’s take a look. Says Quinn: “The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information.” Then he quickly spins out…untruth. Examples? Quinn:  The truth is that Donald Trump undermined faith in our elections in his false bid to retain the presidency. He sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power. No president in our history has done worse. This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw, but our eyes don’t deceive. (If leaders began a yearslong campaign today to convince us that the Baltimore bridge did not collapse Tuesday morning, would you ever believe them?) Trust your eyes. Trump on Jan. 6 launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it. Journalists who are in no way objective still proclaim "This is not subjective." Journalists who sound exactly like Democratic strategists proclaim Trump uniquely undermined faith in our elections...after they spent most of Trump's presidency implying daily that he stole the election in a conspiracy with the Russians. That was a "yearslong campaign" to convince us Hillary Clinton's bridge didn't collapse. There's the usual hype that this was the worst threat since the Civil War, and these people have claimed with a straight fact that January 6 was much more serious than September 11. That's flabbergasting. There have been problems with American elections long pre-dating Trump. Trump was not needed to undermine faith in our elections.  In 2022, for example, CNN ran this headline on my own state of Pennsylvania:  Ex-Democratic congressman sentenced to prison in yearslong Pennsylvania election fraud scheme CNN begins its reporting this way:  CNN  — Expelled former Democratic congressman Michael “Ozzie” Myers has been sentenced to 30 months in prison for federal election fraud dating back to 2014, the Justice Department said Tuesday, and was immediately taken into custody. Myers, 79, pleaded guilty in June to conspiracy to deprive voters of civil rights, bribery, obstruction of justice, falsification of voting records, and conspiring to illegally vote in a federal election as part of scams to stuff ballot boxes for certain Democratic candidates in Pennsylvania elections between 2014 and 2018, the DOJ said in a news release. Prosecutors said some of the candidates were running to be judges and had hired Myers, who would use portions of “consulting fees” from his clients to pay others to interfere with election results.” And the source for this story was not what Quinn refers to as "news sources of no credibility.” The source was the United States Department of Justice, as seen here in a DOJ press release. And the headline from the DOJ release:  Former U.S. Congressman and Philadelphia Political Operative Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison for Election Fraud In addition to the problem cited above involving Pennsylvania elections in the five elections between 2014 and 2018, the New York Times ran this headline on its front page all the way back in 1994:  Vote-Fraud Ruling Shifts Pennsylvania Senate The Times began its story by reporting:  Saying Philadelphia's election system had collapsed under ‘a massive scheme’ by Democrats to steal a State Senate election in November, a Federal judge today took the rare step of invalidating the vote and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate. In making such a sweeping move, the judge, Clarence C. Newcomer of Federal District Court here, did for the Republicans what the election had not: enable them to regain control of the State Senate, which they lost two years ago. Judge Newcomer ruled that the Democratic campaign of William G. Stinson had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia's Second Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason -- like a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city -- to do so. Talk about “undermining faith in our elections”! Note well. This story about a “massive scheme” that resulted in a stolen election was reported in 1994 - a full 21 years before Donald Trump ever ran for president.  Like his many colleagues in the liberal media, Quinn takes Trump's failure to concede defeat and exaggerates it into “an insurrection” on January 6th. Here’s a fact Quinn chooses to ignore. This is subjective. This is energetic spin, not a matter of law. In the charges brought by Biden DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith, not one charges Trump - or anybody else - with insurrection, and insurrection is in fact a chargeable crime. It hasn’t happened. So for Quinn to tell Plain Dealer readers that Trump “sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power” isn't true in a legal sense -- or he would have been charged by Special Counsel Jack Smith for doing so.   Completely ignored by Quinn is that President Joe Biden is the very first president in American history whose administration has gone out of its way to prosecute his political opponent to keep himself in power. Biden is behaving in the fashion of a third world banana Republic dictator in his treatment of his political opposition -- and Trump is the problem? Amusingly and illustrating a complete lack of self-awareness, Quinn says that “ the media landscape has been corrupted by partisans.” Seriously? A media landscape “corrupted by partisans”?  Like at MSNBC? Or maybe, closer to home, by partisans like Chris Quinn and the Cleveland Plain Dealer? The real fact here is that the Editor of the Plain Dealer has in fact made it plain that his highly subjective - and decidedly false - “true north” portrayal of Trump will be running the paper’s coverage of the 2024 election. It doesn’t get much more fake news than that. Note to readers of the Plain Dealer? Look elsewhere for true north coverage in 2024.

Authoritarianism! PBS NewsHour Uses Poll to Imply January 6 Energy of Trump Voters

In the Brooks & Capehart pundit segment on Friday's PBS NewsHour, anchor Amna Nawaz broke out the latest NPR/PBS poll showing Biden leading Trump 50-48 (and left out the wider result -- Biden 43, Trump 41, RFK Jr. 11. Stein 2, West 1). They are using taxpayer money to do polling for their tilted narratives. Nawaz wanted the pundits to talk about their provocative question about violence being necessary: NAWAZ: In one question, we asked Americans if they felt that Americans have to resort to violence to get the country back on track. A majority, 79 percent, disagreed or strongly disagreed, but 12 percent of Democrats, 28 percent of Republicans and 18 percent of independents agreed violence might be necessary. Couple that with another question we asked about whether they wanted to see a president or a leader who's willing to break the rules to set things straight, and some 41 percent of Americans agreed with that. That includes 56 percent of Republicans, 28 percent of Democrats, and 37 percent of independents. When PBS and NPR ask this question, it's loaded. It's obviously a January 6 question, and they want January 6 to hang over this election, so they can push their Republicans-hate-Democracy spin. Many Republicans may be thinking about the 2020 rioting after George Floyd's death, which was deadlier than January 6. At least 19 Americans were killed in the first two weeks of violent protest. Six percent of Republicans strongly agreed violence may be necessary, and 22 percent agreed. Now look at other demographics Amna Nawaz could have highlighted that are similar or greater than Republicans, including on the "strongly" agree number (on page 23): Household income under $50,000: 24 percent (9 strongly agree/15 agree) Under 45: 30 percent (9/21) Age 18-29: 42 percent (14/28) Parents with children under 18: 25 percent (7/18) Blacks: 25 percent (14/11) Latinos: 27 percent (5/22) Jonathan Capehart made the obvious point that violence shouldn't be necessary, but he wasn't worried he was going to be asked about race or age:  CAPEHART: It should be zero percent who say that violence is necessary. But that didn't concern me as much as the break the rules, someone who is willing to break the rules to get the country back on track. I think, when people hear, break the rules, they're not thinking ransack the Capitol. They're thinking what they might view as little things. That's all — that's the Trump election — that's the Trump campaign right there, just wants to break the rules to get the country back on track. I broke the rules coming to the studio today. People break rules all the time… But when you're talking about Donald Trump, breaking the rules is breaking law and order, breaking social — breaking norms, and breaking democracy. As always, the lefties skip over how prosecuting Trump all over the country and trying to get his name ripped off ballots is "breaking norms." Brooks almost entirely seconded that Capehart emotion:  BROOKS: I had the exact same reaction as Jonathan. I'm not a big fan of that would you resort to violence, because I don't know what that means. I don't know what violence means in that context. And so people — when people answer that question, that they're really saying, how upset are you about the way things are going? But the breaking the rules thing, that is, to me, also much more upsetting, because that really is the seedbed of authoritarianism. And it's mostly on the right. Trump is scaring a lot of people that we have to break the rules, but it's a little on the left. You hear people say we need to bust up the system, we need to tear down the system. And that way lies authoritarianism.  And you can see it in the Philippines, you can see it in Hungary, you can see it in Poland. Whenever you have a rise of authoritarianism, it's because people think that breaking the rules is somehow OK to make the streets safe. It's sort of like the Dirty Harry defense.And, to me, it's just — that's the most worrying part of our survey. PS: The PBS NewsHour website has an article by their polling producer Laura Santhanam that reeeaaaally drives home the Trump-loathing point:  During recent reelection campaign rallies, presumptive Republican nominee and former President Donald Trump has questioned the humanity of immigrants, referred to a much debated “blood bath for the country” if he does not get reelected and describes people who have been convicted for Jan. 6 criminal offenses as “hostages.” READ MORE: Why Trump’s alarmist message on immigration may be resonating beyond his base His speeches often attempt “to convince people the country is going downhill, that things are awful and only he can fix them,” said Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and author of Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America.  These latest poll results suggest “to some extent, these strategies are working” and highlight that “we need strong voices pushing back,” said McQuade, who served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. “It’s an incredibly dangerous place to be,” she said. McQuade added that authoritarians across history have deployed this tactic, conjuring fear to manipulate people’s emotions.

No Symone, Trump Didn't 'Promise' American Carnage—He Promised To Stop It!

Was Symone Sanders Townsend woefully misinformed—or was she intentionally trampling the truth? On Saturday's edition of MSNBC's The Weekend which she co-anchors, Sanders Townsend said: "In his remarks during his inauguration, [Trump] promised American carnage. He is now making -- he tried to make good on that promise throughout his presidency, on January 6th after he lost. And now, if he is afforded another term by the American people, he is going to triple down on that. " Sanders Townsend then asked: "Am I making it up?" Answer: Yes, Symone: you were making it up. Because what Trump actually said during his "remarks during his inauguration" [otherwise known as his Inaugural Address], was the absolute, diametrical, total and complete OPPOSITE of what you claimed! Rather than "promising" American carnage, Trump promised to "stop" the carnage--"right here and right now." And the carnage Trump promised to stop was that of "mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities," of our "young, beautiful students" being poorly served by our education system, and crime that has "stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential." In other words, Trump was expressing the desire to help, above all, the very Americans that Sanders Townsend would most want to see helped. Both of the guests on the show dutifully agreed with Sanders Townsend's egregious misrepresentation of Trump's statement on carnage. Rashawn Rae, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland, replying to Sanders Townsend's "am I making it up?," assured her, "not at all." Later, substitute co-anchor Alexi McCammond said: "Symone's right. From that inauguration speech, we all were like, wow, American carnage! This is what we all signed up for." Note: For the edification of Sanders Townsend, or anyone else unfamiliar with Trump's inaugural address, here's the complete transcript. His promise to stop carnage right here and right now comes in the fifth paragraph. Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Weekend 4/6/24 8:14 am EDT MICHAEL STEELE: Donald Trump is leaning into a dark and dystopian version of America. And his distorsion of reality is reaching a new low when it comes to immigration. He's now embracing the word bloodbath to falsely blame migrants for crime waves that, guess what?, just not happening. And he described President Biden's economic record as, quote, a migrant job fair. . . .  SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: When Donald Trump announced -- not even that, when he, on his inauguration, we're just steps from the Capitol, um, over here. In his remarks during his inauguration, he promised American carnage. He is now making -- he tried to make good on that promise throughout his presidency, on January 6th after he lost. And now, if he is afforded another term by the American people, he is going to triple down on that.  STEE{E: Who's that to? SANDERS TOWNSEND: Anybody! Cause I'm -- am I making it up? STEELE: Who do you want to send that to? RASHWAN RAE: Not at all. . . .  JOE WALSH: Immigration's a big issue. And the Biden team needs to know that. And Trump is going to go lower and lower and lower to appeal to the worst of us. This is not normal. And Biden's gotta call that out. ALEXI MCCAMMOND: I'm curious what you think, or Dr. Ray. It's certainly perpetuated by Donald Trump. I mean, he is saying the craziest stuff. Symone's right. From that inauguration speech, we all were like, wow, American carnage! This is what we all signed up for.

FLASHBACK: Celebrating Liberal Justice Jackson, the ‘American Dream’

Exactly two years ago today (April 7, 2022), the U.S. Senate voted 53-47 to confirm federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as the newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, replacing retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. Eighteen months earlier, liberal journalists fumed when a nearly mirror-image Senate vote (52-48) elevated federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Court, rebuking it as a “power play” and “the most partisan confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice in American history.” But Jackson’s confirmation was a time for “celebration,” as reporters applauded a new Justice who “represents excellence” and the “American Dream.” The media’s effusive praise of Jackson began as soon as President Biden announced her selection on February 25, 2022. “From the beginning, the federal appeals court judge was the frontrunner, with stellar academic and legal credentials and a compelling life story,” CBS’s Jan Crawford touted on the CBS Evening News. Over on CNN, legal analyst Laura Coates pronounced Jackson “almost a legal deity.” Two days later on Meet the Press, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell proclaimed: “She has extraordinary credentials.” In March, as the Senate Judiciary Committee began its hearings, NBC’s Yamiche Alcindor assured viewers Jackson was ready: “I was texting with one of her closest friends today and they told me yesterday was very, very emotional, but that they believe that their friend is like an Olympic athlete who has been training for this her whole life.” If the media presented Jackson as the hero of the hearings, they left no doubt the Republican Senators were to be seen as the villains. “Tom Cotton was thuggish....Lindsey Graham was screamy and weird,” MSNBC’s Joy Reid erupted on the March 22 The ReidOut. During a CNN panel discussion, the Grio’s Natasha Alford blasted Ted Cruz as a “clown” while legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin derided Cruz’s line of questioning — on Critical Race Theory — as “a trip to the surreal.” Referring to the Republican Supreme Court nominee who in 2018 was smeared by Democrats as a rapist, the Washington Post’s lead editorial on March 23 exclaimed: “Republicans boast they have not pulled a Kavanaugh. In fact, they’ve treated Jackson worse.” Jackson’s biggest flub of the hearings came on March 23, when Senator Marsha Blackburn asked if she could “provide a definition for the word woman?” A four-year old could have answered such a simple question, but Jackson preferred to evade: “I am not a biologist.” That night, ABC and CBS aided the nominee by refusing to even show the exchange during their evening news recap of the hearings. The headline in the next day’s USA Today exemplified the media’s attempt at damage control: “Marsha Blackburn asked Ketanji Brown Jackson to define ‘woman.’ Science says there’s no simple answer.” “The Republican manhandling of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson this week was convincing evidence that the Senate’s Supreme Court confirmation process is irredeemably broken,” the New York Times’s Carl Husle scolded in a front-page new story on March 24. On CBS Mornings, correspondent Nikole Killion said the hearing consisted of “searing attacks on the first black woman who is likely to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.” Co-host Gayle King fretted: “It was very painful to watch.” “Watching her sit there, as we’re looking at that picture right now, I felt as if I was watching a relative go through hell,” the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart rued on PBS’s NewsHour that Friday (March 25). “We work so hard as African Americans to get to these spots and to stay in these spots... to have to jump through these hoops and be questioned by people who aren’t even at our level.” The hearings changed no votes (do they ever?), with all Senate Democrats (plus three Republicans) voting to officially confirm Jackson roughly two weeks later (April 7). Glass ceiling metaphors abounded. “The star debater from Miami Palmetto Senior High School responsible for lots of shards of glass today, as she smashes through now, this ultimate ceiling in the legal world,” anchor Linsey Davis exulted during ABC’s live coverage. “This moment, of course, is 233 years in the making and she is shattering a double-paned glass ceiling as a black woman,” correspondent Yamiche Alcindor echoed during NBC’s special report. “For the first time in history, four of the nine justices will be women, and white men will be in the minority,” ABC congressional correspondent Rachel Scott announced on World News Tonight. “It was a moment of historic celebration,” CBS’s Nikole Killion enthused the next day (April 8) on CBS Mornings. “Cheers erupted from the Senate floor, to watch parties across the country.” “It’s a very proud moment for a lot of people today,” beamed co-host Gayle King. That afternoon, President Biden held a political event at the White House to further advertise Jackson’s confirmation. Gone was the bitterness with which the media approached the confirmation of Justice Barrett a year-and-a-half earlier. “It feels a little bit like a party here at the White House,” a smiling Mary Bruce recounted during ABC’s live coverage. “This is actually the biggest celebration I’ve seen so far during the Biden administration, and this is a very happy, excited crowd.” “She has achieved so much. She represents excellence to so many people,” ABC’s Deborah Roberts enthused a few minutes later. “Yes, she’s the first black woman, but I don’t think for a lot of people that is really what this is about. This is a woman who just represents excellence....She’s the American Dream.” Certainly, any judge who makes it to the Supreme Court should be celebrated for having reached the pinnacle of their profession. It’s too bad that the media can’t be equally effusive when the high-achieving judge who reaches the Court has been appointed by a Republican president. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.               

'Black-ish' or SICK-ish? ABC Star Jenifer Lewis Goes NUTS About Whites on Radio Show

Fox News writer (and NewsBusters alum) Gabriel Hays reported on some wildly spicy baloney from actress Jenifer Lewis from ABC’s Black-ish on the Sirius XM radio show Mornings with Zerlina. She offered some sick-ish talk about how the white people are scared of brown people and want to “put those n------ in their places and get those wetbacks out of this country.” Lewis was clearly trying to scare minority voters into turning out to vote for Biden, because Trump is “Hitler” and will “punish” Democrat voters. "We spend half our lives choosing, trying to make a choice on bulls---. What movie tonight? Let me sit here for a half hour. No bombs going off. And we do nothing. We sit on our couches. ‘Oh, I don't believe in voting.’ You f------ idiot. If that man gets in, as soon as he takes the oath, he will have generals walk down the steps of the Capitol." Her warning grew even more dire, as she said, "He will take a hammer and break the glass where the Constitution is, and he will tear it up in our faces and say, 'Now I'm the king of the f------ world. You will bow down, b------' He will punish everybody that didn't vote for him." Lewis explained why she’s so convinced this will happen, telling host Zerlina Maxwell she recognizes his "mental illness." She yelled into the mic, "I know it because I know what mental illness looks like. That mania is unstoppable. See, this mother----- is Hitler. He didn't come to play." She added, "That mother----- will have us in camps… because we sat our fat a---- on the couch." "Black people don't want to fight you. All we want to do is feed our children and be equal," she insisted, telling Maxwell, "Honey, White people are scared. They're becoming a minority. The world is brown." The expletive-laden rant continued, with Lewis describing further punishment "White" people will seek to inflict on minorities, referring to them with racial slurs. "And they're going to do everything they can to stay in those gated communities, not pay taxes, and put those n------ in their places and get those wetbacks out of this country. We own this, b----." "You will not win because love is the answer," she added before continuing with more violent imagery. "We built this country for free while you raped us in your barns. While you whipped us. While you lynched us and cut babies out of our stomachs while we hung from f------ trees.  And you got something to say?" she asked.

WITH ALLIES LIKE THESE: Former DNC Chair Brazile Complains ‘When (Biden) Speaks, Nobody Listens’

“Be careful what you wish for”, the old fable warns, lest it may come true. But with all respect due to Aesop, some exceptions apply. Especially when the wish in question is that President Joe Biden’s statements be accorded more media coverage, as opposed to the media’s preference of much less. Watch as former DNC Chair Donna Brazile, in a singular demonstration of elite lack of self-awareness, chastises the media for not sufficiently covering Joe Biden, as aired on ABC This Week on Sunday, April 7th, 2024: MARTHA RADDATZ: Donna, I want to go to you first and just quickly. Alex (Burns, Politico) made the point that President Biden doesn't talk about the wars very often. Should he?  DONNA BRAZILE: Absolutely. Not just in Israel, Ukraine. We’re a super power. He is the Commander-in-Chief, absolutely. He should speak out more. And also, we should cover what he’s saying. Because often, when he speaks, nobody listens.  This exchange was part of the broader panel discussion which was dedicated to the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and in reaction to Politico News Director Alex Burns’ observation that Biden has held many closed-door discussions, such as with the Muslim Arab communities in Michigan elsewhere, and with relatives of the remaining Israeli hostages Biden’s speaking out plenty enough, and perhaps that’s the problem, contrary to what Brazile suggests here. And the reason that Biden’s statements seem uncovered and “nobody listens” is because the firefighters in the media don’t actually want the American public to hear the things that fly out of Biden’s mouth. Our very own Geoff Dickens accounted for eight Biden gaffes that went uncovered by the media. Eight botches that the corporate media deliberately suppressed from the viewing public. The most recent of those, for example, was when President Biden said that he frequently commuted over Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge while in the Senate, despite the fact that the bridge had no train tracks and that the Wilmington-D.C. Acela cuts through downtown Baltimore. As we noted at the time: Unsurprisingly, none of the major evening newscasts covered this egregious fabrication. Facts and accuracy seem to only matter when covering Republicans. Biden, on the other hand, can make stuff up with impunity- secure in the fact that the media will more often than not provide cover for his fabrications and increasingly frequent cognitive lapses. Setting aside the horrendous optics of a former DNC chair saying that nobody is listening to the President of the United States, and the signal that this conveys beyond the elite D.C. bubble. It’s not that “nobody listens” to Biden. More often than not, it’s that nobody really knows what Biden actually says on any given topic. One expects that, deep down, Brazile knows exactly why that is.  

Former DoJ Spox: Maybe Americans NEED To View 47-Minute Hamas Atrocity Video

There was much hand-wringing across the Sunday dial, specifically over President Biden’s vacillating response to Israel’s war against Hamas, in response to the atrocities committed on Black Sabbath six months ago today. Against this backdrop, former Department of Justice spokesperson Sarah Isgur delivered clarity as to what remains at stake. Watch as Isgur suggests that perhaps viewing the 47-minute Hamas atrocity reel could serve as a reminder of what happened that day, as opposed to pro-forma comparisons to 9-11, as aired on ABC This Week on Sunday, April 7th, 2024:     SARAH ISGUR: There are 129 hostages still being held by Hamas that were taken on October 7th. I think that Netanyahu at this point should offer a very simple cease-fire option. By the way, the Hamas side has rejected the six-week cease-fires that have been offered time and time again by Israel. Offer a simple cease-fire. Return all of the hostages, they actually hold 133, in exchange for a cease-fire- because you know what? Hamas will either reject it or they will violate it immediately, because don’t forget there was a cease-fire on October 6th. This is the problem. This isn't like 9/11. They are holding Israelis. They're holding Americans for that matter. So yes, Israel is going to keep prosecuting that war until every single one of those people are home. And that 47-minute video that they have of what Hamas did on October 7th is something that, frankly, Americans shouldn’t have to watch- but maybe they need a reminder for what happened that day. Because it wasn’t like 9/11. They shot parents and burned their children in front of them.  Those who have viewed the 47-minute video, a compendium of bodycam and social media videos depicting the depraved inhumanities committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians on October 7th, are barely able to describe the horrors cataloged therein. And it is often the case that this part of the Gaza equation is absent when politicos and journos gather for weekly tapings of their Sunday struggle sessions wherein they wring their hands over the effect that the war in Gaza may have upon the electoral prospects of one Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior. Always Protect the Precious. And Isgur hammers home several points that often go unsaid: there remain American hostages held by Hamas in some as yet undiscovered subterranean dungeons. Hamas violated a ceasefire on 10/7. Children were burned, among other unspeakable horrors. Israel will likely prosecute this war until all the hostages are returned.  At a time when so much of the coverage of the conflict centers around its effect on the 2024 presidential campaign, Isgur brought an important message of moral clarity.   

Is The New ‘Civil War’ Movie Another Hollywood Exercise In Leftist Propaganda?

“Civil War” has played it extremely close to the ideological vest in its trailers and promotion, but CBS Sunday Morning may have let the cat out of the bag. If true, a promising film may in fact yet be another exercise in Hollywood leftist projection.   Watch as CBS Sunday Morning contributor Ben Mankiewicz gives away a major plot point: that the authoritarian president has, in this instance, abolished the Federal Bureau of Investigation (as aired on Sunday, April 7th, 2024): BEN MANKIEWICZ: The audience will certainly be talking about the film's president, who we learn is serving a third term and has abolished the FBI.  PRESIDENT: Some are already calling it the greatest victory in the history of military campaigns.  MANKIEWICZ: He is played by Nick Offerman, who says the character was not inspired by any Commander-in-Chief, past or present. Offerman does say the film offers a warning that given today's political climate, Americans need to heed.  NICK OFFERMAN: Our ego and our history wants to allow us to believe that we are above such things, that, you know, lesser countries around the world may engage in, but we're Americans, you know. We drink the finest cola beverages. We are immune to such things.  ALEX GARLAND: There’s an underlying truth with anything difficult, which is: nobody’s immune.  The lack of Hollywood condemnation as trailers were released was, in hindsight, an early tell. We heard nary a peep in this instance. And now we know why.  Writer/director Alex Garland intentionally attempted to dissuade people from trying to glean ideology from the early trailers. He admits as much by writing the rebel forces as being from both Texas and California. But abolition of the FBI these days is a hard ideological lean in one direction. Whatever post-9/11 reservations the left may have had about the FBI are long gone now, given its embrace of the deployment of those anti-terrorism tools against United States citizens in the political opposition. Federal law enforcement seems to be at the locus of every action taken against American internal dissidents, whether it be pro-life protesters such as Mark Houck, the broad campaign to suppress political speech online, or federal agents showing up at people’s homes over social media posts, among many other intrusions.  Nowadays, only one side of the political spectrum regards the FBI as the instrument of a weaponized federal government, and it isn’t the left.  Reasonable people can thus be skeptical of a major motion picture, released ahead of a presidential election, that depicts a runaway authoritarian president who abolished the FBI and brought the country to civil war. The Trumpian braggadocio about military victory is just the cherry on top. I really hope to be wrong about this, and hope that this is really an independent, thought-provoking nonpartisan film about the perils of political polarization. That is, as opposed to the "Democracy is on the ballot" equivalent of what "The Day After Tomorrow" did for the climate cult. But Hollywood’s track record on these things indicates otherwise. For the time being? I’m not buying it.  

Brent Bozell Explains the Media War on Trump on Fox's 'Life, Liberty & Levin'

On Sunday's episode of Life, Liberty, & Levin on the Fox News Channel, Media Research Center founder and president L. Brent Bozell explained to Mark Levin how the media are relentlessly negative in their coverage of Donald Trump, and focus largely on his legal troubles and avoid covering how President Biden is failing on the issues from inflation to immigration to crime.  Levin asked Bozell: "What do you make of the media's coverage of Biden's war on Donald Trump?" Bozell began with Trump's presidency: "Over a four year period we looked at that media's coverage of Donald Trump when he was president. And found that on average every month it was 90% negative coverage they gave. No matter what his successes and his successes, you cannot argue his successes. But they just didn't cover them." BOZELL: So we started doing it again. In February the number has gone down. It is now 89% negative, [down] from 90%. What are they covering? They are covering exactly what Joe Biden wants covered. They want his trials covered. They want those 91 felony counts covered, and they are covered and slanted against him. This is exactly what the Biden campaign wants! Why? Because if you're not going to cover the trial, you've got to cover the issues. If you are going to cover the issues you are going to look at inflation. You're going to look at interest rates. You're going to look at the border. That's out of control. You're going to look at our American cities where crime is running rampant. You're going to look at those issues and every single time they fall in favor of Donald Trump. So this is the playbook the left had. It is with the Biden campaign and it is with the news media to do nothing but focus on trials and legal woes and do it from a negative perspective. And you can't argue the numbers I just gave you -- 89 percent!  Levin then noted the media want to compare Trump to Hitler, just as they did to Barry Goldwater, to Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. They engage in character assassination. Bozell agreed, and added the "end of democracy" spin. BOZELL: The most recent one is anti-democracy. Where did that word come from? This is a talking point, I think it came out of the Biden administration. Now everybody on the left is using it. That Donald Trump, if you elect Donald Trump you will have the end of democracy as we know it. This is the height of hypocrisy.  Bozell said NBC fired Ronna McDaniel a few days after they hired her because she was an "election denier," after they denied that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 for years, with their empty charges that Trump colluded with the Russian government to steal the election. They denied George W. Bush won in 2000, and even in 2004, when he won bigger. Stacey Abrams denied losing the gubernatorial race in Georgia, and they celebrated her as they mangled the facts. They only want "liberal Republicans" on NBC, he said. Earlier, Bozell and Levin discussed how the media tilt toward Hamas in their war on Israel, using Hamas body counts like they were wonderfully precise. Bozell also mentioned how our Dan Schneider pointed out that Google's AI chatbot refused to answer questions about Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, and wouldn't answer when asked: what is the capital of Israel?

6 Myths About Globalization, Trade, Jobs, and ‘Buy American’

Leaders of both parties agree: We must reduce globalization. “China is ripping us on trade,” says Donald Trump. Our trade deficit is “an immorality,” says Nancy Pelosi. But it’s not. In my new video, Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute points out, “Selling us stuff is hardly ripping us off.” He’s right. Our video debunks common misunderstandings about trade. Myth No. 1: America is “losing.” People often say that because America runs a trade deficit. But trade doesn’t need to balance. I have a trade deficit with my supermarket. They get more of my money every year. So, what? I don’t “lose.” I get food without having to grow it myself. That’s a win for me and the food producer regardless of whether the food was grown locally or came from Mexico. “Imports are great,” says Lincicome. “It means I can focus on what I want to do for a living and not go make my own food or make my own clothes. I can use those savings and buy other things that makes me better off.” As long as trade is voluntary, trade is a win for both parties. It has to be; neither side would agree to it unless they think they get something out of the deal. Myth No. 2: Imports take jobs from Americans. Globalization “moved so many jobs and so much wealth out of our country,” says Trump, “Workers have seen the jobs they love shipped thousands and thousands of miles away.” I say to Lincicome, “Some people do lose jobs.” “True,” he replies, “We lose about 5 million jobs every month.” But trade isn’t the main reason. “Jobs are lost due to ... changing consumer tastes and from innovation. We make more stuff with fewer workers. That’s productivity.” Productivity increases are good. Trade and productivity improvements are reasons why the number of Americans who do have jobs has risen. “We’re at historically high manufacturing job openings,” says Lincicome, “Manufacturers in the United States say they can’t find enough workers.” Trade lets Americans focus on what we do best. Sixty percent of America’s new jobs come from companies engaged in international trade. But Trump says, “We don’t make anything anymore!” President Joe Biden agrees, “American manufacturing, the backbone of our economy, got hollowed out!” That’s Myth No. 3. Manufacturing output in the U.S. is near its all-time high. We make more than Japan, Germany, India and South Korea combined. Fortunately, real life ignores politicians’ ignorance. Myth No. 4: Trade and open markets create “a race to the bottom.” That’s how Jon Stewart decries globalization on his show, saying, “Globalization allowed corporations to scour the planet for the cheapest labor and loosest regulations!” That is true; companies do that. But Lincicome replies, “This ‘race to the bottom’ is a myth. We Americans are spoiled. We look upon jobs in the developing world, factory jobs, and say, ‘Oh, how terrible this is that these people work for such low wages.’ But the reality is that their alternatives are far, far worse ... subsistence farming ... sex work.” Trade is what lets people in poor countries escape subsistence farming and sex work. And child labor, too. “No parent wants his kid to go into the factory or farm,” Lincicome points out. “They do it because they have no choice. As we get wealthier, child labor disappears. ... Factory owners in Vietnam now complain that kids these days ... don’t want to work in the textile factory. That’s not great for that factory owner, but it’s great for those workers!” Myth No. 5: Globalization destroys the environment. “It’s undeniably true that as a nation starts along its development path, that it’s going to pollute more,” concedes Lincicome. “But as countries get wealthy, they become better environmentally.” Only when people get wealthy enough to think beyond their next meal do we start to care about the environment. It’s why pollution is dropping in America and other capitalist countries. “The best thing that we can do for the developing world is to help countries get rich,” says Lincicome. “Globalization is part of that recipe.” Trade is a win-win. It brings us more stuff at lower prices. The more we trade, the better off we are.

MEMECLIPSE: TIME Mag Ludicrously Calls Trump Meme Video ‘Bizarre Campaign Ad’

Have you ever heard of the old expression, “The left can’t meme?” Well, apparently TIME magazine is so broken with Trump Derangement Syndrome it can’t even figure out what a meme is.  TIME railed against former President Donald Trump for posting on Truth Social what the leftist magazine described as a “new and bizarre campaign ad” of his “head tak[ing] the place of the moon and block[ing] out the sun in a nod to Monday’s solar eclipse.” Making it seem like the video was an actual campaign ad, the magazine continued: “It shows an image of the glowing sun as astonished crowds gather to watch the solar eclipse with protective eyewear on.” Here’s the problem: The so-called “campaign ad” was just a meme, and the magazine clearly didn’t get it and spent nearly 400 words of column space writing it up. The joke video even had a watermark by the pro-Trump meme account il Donaldo Trumpo, but even that flew over the magazine editors’ heads. This is how il Donaldo Trumpo describes his work on his Patreon website, making TIME look even more ridiculous in hindsight: Welcome to a place full of Love, Decency and Goodnesso. If you´re tired of all the negativity en social media, this is a place to relax and have a laugh, share your thoughts, BE YOURSELFO!!! Every single one of mis Patriotos en our Patreon Familia is soooo awesome you will know you´re finally Home.  il Presidento will keep doing everything and then some to make your day a little brighter with some laughs and a whole lotta Love!!! But TIME still attempted to loop “Sunday’s video campaign” as “the latest in a string of unusual statements the former President has made recently.” The cringe is strong with this one. H/t @PapiTrumpo for completely breaking the @TIME editors' brains. https://t.co/D9tSx7n7vO pic.twitter.com/Cv4UHonSWq — Joseph Vazquez (@JV3MRC) April 8, 2024 The magazine doubled down on letting everyone know the joke went clearly over its head when it decided to post its fake news on X with the following caption: “Trump posts bizarre solar eclipse campaign ad, with his head blocking out the sun.” Podcast host Benny Johnson trolled the magazine for not catching how badly it played itself: “🚨BREAKING: @Time does not know what a meme is.”  Talk about taking a massive “L.” Sheesh. Conservatives are under attack. 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.  

Sunny Hostin Claims the Solar Eclipse, Earthquake Caused by ‘Climate Change’

The liberal media loved to portray conservatives, Republicans, Trump supporters, and pretty much anyone right of center as crazy conspiracy theorists who shouldn’t be allowed a platform anywhere. But during Monday’s edition of The View, staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) proved just how dim she was when she asserted in all seriousness that Monday’s solar eclipse, Friday’s earthquake, and the coming cicada breeding season were all caused by “climate change.” Hostin’s unhinged conspiracy theories may have been the wildest, but they were not the first during the episode. Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin rhetorically scoffed at the idea that the Friday earthquake in New Jersey was a sign that Jesus was returning, but suggested former President Trump’s gold club had something to do with it: So, what’s kind of crazy is with the earthquake on Friday and then the eclipse today, people are having all sorts of conspiracies about the end of the world. And then I read online that the earthquake epicenter was actually at Bedminster in New Jersey. Fun fact. So it originated with Trump. Hostin, a self-proclaimed devout Catholic, laughed about how their studio makeup artist “put on her coat” and “ran down the hallway” during the earthquake saying “Jesus is coming” and “the rapture is here.” She also bloviated about how it was the first time in 100 years that two different cicada broods were emerging for their mating seasons at the same time.     Apparently, all the pieces were on the table and only Hostin was smart enough to put them together, and “climate change” was the answer. “All those things together would maybe lead one to believe that either climate change exists, or something is really going on,” she proclaimed. You knew things were bad when Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg were the voices of reason. “Except earthquakes are not at the mercy of climate change. It's underground. It can’t,” Behar pushed back. But Hostin wouldn’t listen to reason. “How about the warming of the planet?” she huffed in what she seemingly thought was a checkmate, without evidence of how it would cause earthquakes miles below the earth’s surface. “No, it happens. And the eclipse, they've known about the eclipse coming because eclipses happen and they actually can say when these things are going to happen,” Goldberg argued. She also went off on how God would not give a warning about when the end times would occur: So, all these folks who are saying, “You know, it's a sign from God,” God doesn't give you warning. Okay? You think he gave people at the Tower of Babble warning? “Oh, I'm about to jack y'all up.” No. God does stuff and then you figure, “Oh, that's probably because I just – uh” [pretends to die]. You know? Goldberg and Hostin also got into it over the cicada brood emergences occurring because of climate change. Goldberg noted that their breeding cycles have been known for a while and they’re sticking to it (Click “expand”): HOSTIN: Cicadas. For the first time in like 100 years, there’s two different kinds – GOLDBERG: No. No. No. No. No. No, No. No. That’s not – No. No. HOSTIN: Well, that is what I read. Two different kind of -- GOLDBERG: There's two different kinds of cicadas coming. HOSTIN: Yeah, two different times are coming. BEHAR: The good cicadas and the bad cicadas. GOLDBERG: No. HOSTIN: This is for the first time in many, many years. GOLDBERG: No. Every 17 years this happens. Hostin’s defense basically came down to “that's not what I read” online. It’s worth mentioning again that The View is under the ABC News umbrella. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 8, 2024 11:03:39 a.m. Eastern (…) ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: So, what’s kind of crazy is with the earthquake on Friday and then the eclipse today, people are having all sorts of conspiracies about the end of the world. And then I read online that the earthquake epicenter was actually at Bedminster in New Jersey. JOY BEHAR: Right! FARAH GRIFFIN: Fun fact. So it originated with Trump. [Laughter] SUNNY HOSTIN: I know, right? I have to say, Karen Dupiche our wonderful makeup artist, when the earthquake was happening, she put her coat on and she was, “Like, Jesus is coming. I'm out. I’m leaving. We got a solar eclipse. We got the earthquake.” SARA HAINES: She ran down the hallway. HOSTIN: She ran down the hallway. FARAH GRIFFIN: The rapture is here. HOSTIN: The rapture is here. And then also, I learned that the cicadas [mispronunciation] are coming. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Cicadas. [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: Cicadas. For the first time in like 100 years, there’s two different kinds – GOLDBERG: No. No. No. No. No. No, No. No. That’s not – No. No. HOSTIN: Well, that is what I read. Two different kind of -- GOLDBERG: There's two different kinds of cicadas coming. HOSTIN: Yeah, two different times are coming. BEHAR: The good cicadas and the bad cicadas. GOLDBERG: No. HOSTIN: This is for the first time in many, many years. GOLDBERG: No. Every 17 years this happens. HOSTIN: Well, that's not what I read, but maybe, you know, maybe you know better. GOLDBERG: But either way -- HOSTIN: All those things together, would maybe lead one to believe that either climate change exists, or something is really going on. BEHAR: That’s more on point. FARAH GRIFFIN: Or Jesus is returning. BEHAR: Except earthquakes are not at the mercy of climate change. It's underground. It can’t. HOSTIN: How about the warming of the planet? GOLDBERG: No, it happens. And the eclipse, they've known about the eclipse coming because eclipses happen and they actually can say when these things are going to happen. So, all these folks who are saying, “You know, it's a sign from God,” God doesn't give you warning. Okay? You think he gave people at the Tower of Babble warning? “Oh, I'm about to jack y'all up.” No. God does stuff and then you figure, “Oh, that's probably because I just – uh” [pretends to die]. You know? I mean – It's -- No, but the cicadas come -- we have them every 17 years. There are some we get every 20-some-odd years and they just go under and they come back up, and now there's BEHAR: What do they do? GOLDBERG: They make noise and they have sex. SARA HAINES: And sing. HOSTIN: And this time both types are coming. BEHAR: They have sex? GOLDBERG: Yes. They make new cicadas. BEHAR: What's the noise when they’re having sex, “Oh god?” (…)

Study Re-Affirms That Puberty Blockers Harm Kids

I hate to say we told you so, but… A new study conducted by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory concluded that puberty blockers are harmful for kids. Specifically, the study found that puberty blockers for "transgender girls" impact the testicular cell state and function of the biological boys they're given to. The study used samples from the Mayo Clinic’s Pediatric Testicular Biobank for Fertility Preservation to examine what happens to testicular specimens when a boy under age 18 is prescribed puberty blockers. Results indicated that the boys who identified as transgender and had been on puberty blockers for between three months and four years could not properly ejaculate, whether because of reluctancy or physical inability.  As the Washington Stand pointed out, two of those transgender patients “exhibited noticeable testicular ‘abnormalities.’” The same article reported the study found that "those who had been prescribed puberty blockers ‘showed abnormal testicular development’” and “abnormal testicular cell development.” This isn’t the first time we’ve been warned about the negative impacts of puberty blockers. Even the New York Times warned about some of the risks back in February. Individuals who take puberty blockers have experienced hemorrhaging. Puberty blockers have also been found to impact a child's normal brain, bone, and reproductive system development. “When adolescents are using blockers, bone density growth flatlines,” New York Times wrote in a piece in November 2022. Not to mention, this damage is often irreversible and does nothing to help depression or anyone struggling with their true identity. Related: England Bans Puberty Blockers for Kids in Almost All Instances The MRC has reported on other groups sounding the alarm on these treatments. In July, the National Institutes of Health(NIH) acknowledged that puberty blockers have the potential to cause sterility, though that group continued to advocate for using tax dollars to fund said treatments. In March of this year, the National Health Service (NHS) in England banned puberty blockers for minors, citing studies that found that they do all harm and no good. The governmental agency insisted that their decision prioritizes the “best interests of the child.” More and more red flags on these treatments are being raised, and this study by the Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory simply adds to the list. Let’s hope it's what people need to realize what we’ve been saying for years: this is not helpful for kids in any way, shape or form, and should be considered a form of child abuse. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: Prominent lefists spend Easter celebrating sin and mocking Jesus's resurrection. Oh how far America has fallen pic.twitter.com/f06xnYbfqr — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 2, 2024

'Weak,' 'Deeply Disappointed': Pro-Lifers SLAM Trump’s Abortion Statement

On Monday, former President Donald Trump released a statement regarding his stance on abortion in which he insisted the issue of abortion should be left to states, instead of showing support for a federal ban on the brutal destruction of innocent life. The former president, who is the current frontrunner for the Republican nomination heading into the 2024 election, added he supported "exceptions" to infanticide restrictions, including in cases of rape, incest, and the ever-subjective "life of the mother."  As a result, numerous pro-life individuals and groups slammed the “weak” statement. Here’s a video of Trump’s statement in full: WATCH: Trump releases new statement on abortion policy, saying abortion restrictions should be left to states. Do you agree? pic.twitter.com/hCv13xgt1h — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 8, 2024 Whatever states decide - including those that choose not to restrict elective abortions at all - “must be the law of the land, in this case, the law of the state,” Trump said before claiming that “this is all about the will of the people.” The phrase, “Do what’s right for your family, and do what’s right for yourself, do what’s right for your children,” seemed pretty “pro-choice-y” for the man who has previously made much stronger pro-life statements - hence, the backlash he received. Related: ‘American Awakening’: Neb. Senator Crosses Party Lines After Dems Force Pro-Abort Stance “So weak,” radio and TV personality Jenna Ellis said. “Trump punts on the issue of pro-life and pledges to support whatever states decide, including blue states that will allow abortion until the moment of birth. ‘Follow your heart’ is a Hallmark card, not strong conservative principled policy." Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America released an official statement from its president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, who condemned Trump’s remarks: We are deeply disappointed in President Trump’s position. Unborn children and their mothers deserve national protections and national advocacy from the brutality of the abortion industry. The Dobbs decision clearly allows both states and Congress to act. Saying the issue is ‘back to the states’ cedes the national debate to the Democrats who are working relentlessly to enact legislation mandating abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. If successful, they will wipe out states’ rights. With lives on the line, SBA Pro-Life America and the pro-life grassroots will work tirelessly to defeat President Biden and extreme congressional Democrats. On the other hand, Students for Life Action released a statement indicating that while they of course wan’t a more pro-life approach heading into the 2024 election, Trump’s remarks were “a step in the right direction.” Kristan Hawkins, Group president said: The Pro-Life Movement is united that abortion is a federal issue, and we won’t stop working until every child, in every state, is protected in life by law and service. Your state lines should never mean the beginning or end of your human rights. We clearly have some work to do to educate the GOP on the lawlessness of a predatory IVF industry, whose own sloppiness has caused the painful headlines we all have seen. It’s an industry in need of regulation and change, even as we understand the desire and passion for a family. We want to compassionately embrace families who want children as well as the children turned into a disposable commodity by predatory and negligent businesses. But Pro-Life Generation can work with an administration preparing to welcome the next generation, rather than fast-tracking their deaths by abortion.  Trump also received criticism for not specifying a particular cut-off for elective abortions, and that he said he supports abortion in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of a mother. The first two of that list are red flags for pro-lifers, who believe that no matter how a baby is conceived, he or she is worthy of dignity, respect and the chance at life. As for "life of the mother" exceptions, critics have pointed to the subjective definition of what constitutes a threat to a woman's health or life under any given law, as a woman's psychological and emotional distress are often used as justifications for murdering her innocent child. Live Action founder Lila Rose criticized Trump’s preview of his statement that he released Sunday evening.  Related: Vatican Blasts Gender Surgery & Theory, Surrogacy: ‘Violations of Human Dignity’ “There’s no ‘salvation of our Nation’ while we are permitting killing children. This includes helpless children conceived in rape,” Rose wrote on X. Former Vice President Mike Pence, who served for four years with Trump, called Trump’s statement a “slap in the face,” and insisted that “Republicans win on life when we speak the truth boldly and stand on the principle that we all know to be true – human life begins at conception and should be defended from womb to tomb.” Time will tell how this plays out when the pro-life generation shows up to vote in November. My hope and prayer is that whoever is elected sees the innate value of every human life and works to encourage a culture that is all-in on protecting unborn babies. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: Prominent lefists spend Easter celebrating sin and mocking Jesus's resurrection. Oh how far America has fallen pic.twitter.com/f06xnYbfqr — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 2, 2024

NAIA for Small Colleges BANS Transgender Women From Competing in Female Sports

We’ll take a win when we can get it.  The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), which many smaller schools are part of, announced Monday that only biological women will be allowed to compete in women’s sports. CBS Sports reported the news Monday afternoon and indicated that the “NAIA’s Council of Presidents approved the policy in a 20-0 vote” following a survey from December that indicated “widespread support for the move.” The NAIA is a national athletic governing body for 249 colleges across the country who aren’t part of the NCAA’s three divisions. NAIA covers mostly private schools. This is huge for protecting both fairness and safety in schools, and NAIA president Jim Carr agreed with that sentiment. “For us, we believed our first responsibility was to create fairness and competition in the NAIA. ... We also think it aligns with the reasons Title IX was created. You're allowed to have separate but equal opportunities for women to compete.” Carr pointed out that the decision doesn’t stop anyone from playing in the men's category as that is open to anyone, regardless of sex or gender identity. That makes sense since the men who want to compete in the women’s categories are often the ones who couldn’t rank in the men’s category. I mean look at Penn State’s Lia Thomas who failed epically as Richard Thomas but became a champion when competing against girls. NAIA Council of Presidents chair and St. Ambrose University president Amy Novak said, “With this policy, the NAIA has made its best effort to allow for the inclusion of transgender athletes in any way which does not impact the competitive fairness of women's sports. Our priority is to protect the integrity of women's athletics and allow them equal opportunity to succeed.” As CBS News pointed out, the “NAIA is believed to be the first national college governing body to mandate that athletes compete according to assigned sex at birth.” Hopefully the NCAA follows the steps of the NAIA and recognizes how unfair and unsafe it is to have biological men in women’s sports.

UPDATE: Are You Paying Attention? Brazil Escalates Major Free Speech Assault

UPDATE 4/9/24 9:48 a.m. – On Monday, MRC Free Speech America reached out to the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court for comment on Elon Musk's remarks against de Moraes, but a spokesperson did not respond. Instead, the spokesperson directed MRC to Moraes’s criminal referral to the attorney general, asking them to investigate Musk's pro-free speech actions pertaining to the previous orders. You can find the referral (in Portuguese) here. ------ The battle between an infamous left-wing Brazilian judge and X owner Elon Musk has taken yet another dark twist that could put Brazil an inch closer to becoming a totalitarian regime, critics warn. On Sunday, Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes launched a criminal investigation into Musk after the tech mogul dared to defy a contentious court order demanding what has been described as the unwarranted censorship of some X users.  X’s Global Government Affairs announced that de Moraes ordered the social media platform to ban certain popular users over so-called disinformation. Tellingly, the judge ordered the platform to not disclose the order. In response, Musk ordered the platform to unban these accounts, arguing that de Moraes has no legal basis for the requested censorship. Such a defiant act seemingly triggered de Moraes to launch a probe into Musk for potential obstruction of justice, criminal organization and incitement of crime, Forbes reported on Monday. Journalist Michael Shellenberger, an individual who often breaks stories out of Brazil, tweeted on Monday that the criminal probe into Musk may lead to the closure of X’s operations in the Central American country. I say, “Tell me, Alexandre, is the disinformation in the room with us now?” https://t.co/yhvOmrysaZ — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 8, 2024 “De Moraes has taken Brazil one step closer to being a dictatorship,” Shellenberger wrote. “What’s more, the events of the last few weeks make clear that Elon Musk is the only thing standing in the way of global totalitarianism. Without free speech, there can be no democracy.” Earlier this week, Musk accused de Moraes of threatening to arrest Brazil-based X employees and imposing hefty fines. De Moraes imposed a fine of nearly $20,000 per day for each account not banned, according to Forbes. “As a result, we will probably lose all revenue in Brazil and have to shut down our office there. But principles matter more than profit,” Musk wrote on Saturday. In follow-up posts, Musk directly addressed Moraes, including calling for a public debate on the orders and suggesting that the orders may be carried out in a bid to support political affiliation. “X supports the people of Brazil, without regard to political affiliation. Does Judge @Alexandre?” Musk questioned on Monday. De Moraes did not immediately respond to MRC Free Speech America’s request for comment. 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.

NBC News NOW, William Shatner Tie Solar Eclipse to Need to Fight Climate Change

On NBC News’s streaming platform NBC News NOW ahead of Monday’s total solar eclipse across large swaths of the U.S., correspondent Maura Barrett had to make the once-in-a-generation event political by invoking climate change alongside Star Trek legend William Shatner.  Barrett reported from Bloomington, Indiana where Shatner would “be narrating the moments leading up to totality” and he “made a climate connection, that I think’s important to point out here” with the supposed argument about the solar eclipse drawing attention away from...climate change?!     “I asked him about people that are concerned, you know, shouldn’t we be focused on tackling climate here on Earth rather than going out and exploring space? And he said, you know, we can do both,” she explained. Having set up this false dichotomy so as to invoke a far-left pet cause, she then played two soundbites from Shatner wondering “what’s the point of going into space, you can’t come back and you are overcome by the fumes” with the Earth now “in a dire situation”: Well, you can do both. I mean, there’s a — but you have to have a focus on the most important part, which is staying alive. I mean, what’s the point of going into space, you can’t come back and you are overcome by the fumes. No — we are in a dire situation. [SCREEN WIPE] We’ve got to do both. We’ve got to clean up the environment and our curiosity and our ambition. Back live, Barrett was satisfied: “So, that’s just something to think about.” Barrett was back almost two hours later on NBC and she made sure to praise his “interesting observation” that seemed all too convenient.     “Basically, he's so interested in space exploration...and he said what's the point to explore space if you can't come down to a healthy planet. So he talked about the — the need to do both and exploring, what we’re looking at around us, understanding the universe, but also keeping our planet healthy and taking the climate crisis,” she gushed. Tossing back to NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt, she reemphasized how it was such “an interesting perspective with — from William Shatner.” How embarrassing for NBC, especially considering the fact that even CNN and the rest of the liberal TV networks (except ABC’s The View) were able to keep it together and not go woke. To see the relevant NBC News NOW transcript from April 8, click “expand.” NBC News NOW April 8, 2024 12:33 p.m. Eastern MAURA BARRETT: I actually spoke with William Shatner, who played Captain Kirk in Star Trek. He’s going to be narrating the moments leading up to totality. He talked about how magical it’s going to be to see celestial bodies lineup long each other. But he also made a climate connection, that I think’s important to point out here. I asked him about people that are concerned, you know, shouldn’t we be focused on tackling climate here on Earth rather than going out and exploring space? And he said, you know, we can do both. Here is some of our conversation.  WILLIAM SHATNER: Well, you can do both. I mean, there’s a — but you have to have a focus on the most important part, which is staying alive. I mean, what’s the point of going into space, you can’t come back and you are overcome by the fumes. No — we are in a dire situation. [SCREEN WIPE] We’ve got to do both. We’ve got to clean up the environment and our curiosity and our ambition. BARRETT: So, that’s just something to think about. We also talked about how this is going to be such an emotional, unifying experience as thousands of people all look up to the sky at the same time. Again, Shatner leading into the total eclipse — we’ll be watching from here and then Jan — Janelle Monae will be doing a concert to wrap it all up your in Bloomington, Vicky. VICKY NGUYEN: Pretty star-studded out there. NBC News correspondent, Maura Barrett. Maura, thank you. (....) NBC’s Total Eclipse 2024 April 8, 2024 2:25 p.m. Eastern BARRETT: And I actually got the chance to speak with William Shatner just before as he’s going to be doing a spoken word performance leading up to totality and he spoke to that, that this is an emotional experience, it's huge that we even know why an eclipse happens, let alone can experience it all together like this across the continent of North America and he also made an interesting observation that I think’s important to note. Basically, he's so interested in space exploration — these were the oldest people to ever go up into space – and he said what's the point to explore space if you can't come down to a healthy planet. So he talked about the — the need to do both and exploring, what we’re looking at around us, understanding the universe, but also keeping our planet healthy and taking the climate crisis. And so, I thought that an interesting perspective with — from William Shatner, along with an astronomer I spoke with here at Indiana University, talking about how this event will connect us to the universe in a way that we have not been able to — we can’t do frequently and how it gets us even closer to nature. 

The View ‘Stopped Asking’ Trump to Be on Show, Expect Biden Appearance

In an interview with Deadline published last week, Brian Teta [pictured right], the executive producer of ABC’s The View, admitted that they have “stopped asking” former President Trump to be on the show, and requests would resume on a “case-by-case” basis depending on who he picked as vice president. On the flipside, Teta expected President Biden to make an appearance to get a tongue bath from the co-hosts sometime before the election. Unironically, he claimed their main sticking point was “disinformation” and “misinformation” making its way onto the show. Deadline broached the subject by way of NBC’s snafu with former RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. “Would you have on as a guest a [Trump] true believer, maybe even McDaniel?” Deadline wondered. “You know, I have to look at it,” Teta said. “But we made the choice not to consider election deniers when we did our co-host search. The disinformation part of it is something to consider always.” On whether or not they planned to have Trump on the ABC News program, Teta admitted that they’ve “stopped asking” him to come on the show because he keeps declining, but also added that his “misinformation” played a key role in their decision too: DEADLINE: Given that we’re getting further and further into the election year, are you considering having Trump or any of his surrogates on the show? TETA: Again, it’s case by case. We’ll see who the VP is, when they’re announcing. We’ve invited Trump to join us at the table for both 2016 and 2020 elections, and he declined, and at a certain point, we stopped asking. So I don’t anticipate that changing. I think he’s pretty familiar with how the co-hosts feels about him and doesn’t see himself coming here. There’s no question we reach an important audience. This season we had Tim Scott on. We’ve had prominent Republicans on often and will continue to. We had Ted Cruz on last year. That’s what the show is. That’s the genius of what Barbara Walters and Bill Geddie put together here, a show of different perspectives. And I think that it’s an important thing for us to do that. But at the same time, we’re not going to put people on there to [spread] misinformation. In another part of the interview, Teta claimed that The View was still held to ABC’s “news standards.”“Even though we’re an opinion show, we’re governed by news standards, so we would call out anything like that in real time [sic],” he defended the show. Apparently, the spreading of “disinformation” and “misinformation” on the show was something reserved for the co-hosts to do. In regards to Monday’s solar eclipse and the previous week’s earthquake in New Jersey, staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) asserted, without evidence, that both were caused by “climate change.” She said the same thing about the coming cicada mating season despite them being on a known breeding schedule [video below].     The show’s other forays into “disinformation” and “misinformation” in recent weeks included claiming Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was trying to “buy” the election, pushed the “bloodbath” hoax against Trump, claimed migrant women don’t get raped in or near the U.S., Hostin claimed former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley didn’t really miss her deployed husband, and Joy Behar claimed NATO was the military alliance that beat Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Just to name a few. Being on top of The View’s lies and calling out their hypocrisy like this was important because, as the Deadline article noted: “The show has been up 3% in total viewers season to date, and has continued to top daytime talk shows and news programs in viewership and households.”

CNN's Smerconish Accuses GOP of 'Demonizing All Immigrants'

On his eponymous Saturday morning show, CNN host Michael Smerconish blurred the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants as he asserted that conservatives will "demonize all immigrants" in response to a new RNC website that documents crimes committed by illegal aliens. After recalling that President Donald Trump recently coined the slogan "Stop Biden's Border Bloodbath" as part of his presidential campaign, Smerconish fretted about the RNC starting a website called "Bidenbloodbath.com." And, although the site lists examples of crimes by illegal aliens in the U.S., the CNN host described them simply as "migrants," and recalled studies finding that "immigrants" generally have a lower crime rate than American citizens. The CNN host related: And the RNC launched a new website called Bidenbloodbath.com. Go to that site, and you're going to read a diatribe against President Biden, claiming that, quote, "Lives of everyday Americans have been shattered as a direct result of Biden's open border policies." And then there are tabs for 13 states which seek to track crimes committed by migrants. This despite the fact that researchers at Stanford found that migrants coming into the United States are actually 30 percent less likely to be incarcerated when compared to white American citizens. He then added: The study debunks any claims that immigration leads to more crime and concludes that, quote, "Recent waves of immigrants are more likely to be employed, married with children, and in good health. Far from the rapists and drug dealers that anti-immigrant politicians claim them to be, immigrants today are doing relatively well and have largely been shielded from the social and economic forces that have affected low-educated U.S.-born men." But, in fact, Republicans and mainstream conservatives highlight specific crimes committed by illegal aliens, not legal immigrants. The process of legal immigration screens out non-citizens who already have criminal backgrounds whereas those who cross the border illegally, even if they are apprehended by Border Patrol, do not receive background checks that would include crimes committed in their home countries. Those who cross the border illegally are therefore a greater security risk than those who enter the country through the proper channels. Additionally, if one reads the study by Stanford, it is clear that the research does not specifically study illegal aliens but instead immigrants generally when it concludes that "immigrants" have a lower crime rate than American citizens. But, as previously documented by NewsBusters, a study by the libertarian CATO Institute -- which holds very liberal views on immigration -- admitted that illegal aliens have a higher rate of committing crimes than do legal immigrants, thus confirming that a disproportionate percentage of immigrant crime is committed by those who are illegal. The CNN host soon fretted that, because of the "sheer volume of the people coming into the United States," there will inevitably be more crimes committed by some of them which Republicans will then be able to exploit: "But the sheer volume of the people coming into the United States almost guarantees that that bloodbath website that the RNC has assembled, it's going to continue to have content. And some of those encounters are going to be high-profile." After listing several examples of illegal immigrants who have recently committed murders, Smerconish concluded: "Yet, because of the sheer volume of those crossing the border, such examples will inevitably keep cropping up, and they'll be weaponized to, however unfairly, demonize all migrants because politically it is very potent." The CNN host also gave the impression that there are only a small number of murders committed by illegals each year even though numbers previously released by both the Barack Obama administration and Trump administration suggested that around 1,000 to 2,000 illegals are deported each year after committing homicides. In 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, the Trump administration deported about 1,500 non-citizens each year who had been convicted of homicides, plus several hundred more who had been charged. Transcript follows: CNN's Smerconish April 6, 2024 9:41 a.m. Eastern MICHAEL SMERCONISH: As the campaign season hits stride, each side has a strong get-out-the-vote issue -- the border and abortion. First, on the border, Donald Trump has turned his offhand bloodbath remark into a campaign slogan. You'll recall Trump caused conniptions back on March 16 when he used the word "bloodbath" at a rally near Dayton, Ohio. I said at the time that context mattered. He used the word after a rant about trade, the Chinese, and the auto industry, and said that there would be a bloodbath if he were not elected. Now, given the events of January 16 (sic), many ignored the context, and they feared that it was yet another call for civil unrest. When he first said "bloodbath" in Ohio, it seemed unscripted, it seemed extemporaneous, but now he's owning it and in a different scenario. Trump was in the battleground state of Michigan this week, appearing in an event at Grand Rapids that was called, "Stop Biden's Border Bloodbath." And the RNC launched a new website called Bidenbloodbath.com. Go to that site, and you're going to read a diatribe against President Biden, claiming that, quote, "Lives of everyday Americans have been shattered as a direct result of Biden's open border policies." And then there are tabs for 13 states which seek to track crimes committed by migrants. This despite the fact that researchers at Stanford found that migrants coming into the Untied States are actually 30 percent less likely to be incarcerated when compared to white American citizens. The study debunks any claims that immigration leads to more crime and concludes that, quote, "Recent waves of immigrants are more likely to be employed, married with children, and in good health. Far from the rapists and drug dealers that anti-immigrant politicians claim them to be, immigrants today are doing relatively well and have largely been shielded from the social and economic forces that have affected low-educated U.S.-born men." But, politically speaking, volume is on Trump's side. Think about it. The U.S. Border Patrol had nearly 250,000 encounters with migrants coming into the United States from Mexico in December of 2023. That's according to government statistics. "Encounters" means both apprehensions and expulsions. And for comparison the population of Cincinnati is 300,000 people. It was the highest monthly total on record, easily eclipsing the previous peak of about 224,000 encounters in May of 2022. I think the vast majority of migrants coming to the United States are hardworking people seeking a better life for themselves and their families and/or asylum. I don't think that Mexico is sending us their rapists. Obviously, I need to underscore this: We need to tighten our border -- it's porous. But the sheer volume of the people coming into the United States almost guarantees that that bloodbath website that the RNC has assembled, it's going to continue to have content. And some of those encounters are going to be high-profile. I hope that I'm wrong, but human factors say otherwise. For example, 25-year-old Ruby Garcia, killed by an undocumented immigrant she was romantically involved with. Garcia's body found on the side of a highway in Grand Rapids, Michigan, last month. The 25-year-old suspect, later arrested, charged with murder. Or the case of Laken Riley -- the 22-year-old nursing student from Georgia who was killed on a college campus by someone who entered the country illegally. The suspect had been arrested back in 2022 but later released according to ICE. And in Maryland a toddler killed during a shootout between two groups over a drug dispute. One of the suspects charged in connection to the boy's killing was also here illegally and arrested last year for theft charges. Finally, an undocumented migrant acquitted -- you'll remember this case -- for the 2015 death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco -- will be deported to Mexico again. The high-profile case drew national attention after the public learned the suspect had been deported back to Mexico five times in the past. Yet, because of the sheer volume of those crossing the border, such examples will inevitably keep cropping up, and they'll be weaponized to, however unfairly, demonize all migrants because politically it is very potent.

NewsBusters Podcast: The Leftist Media Often Can't 'Get Religion'

As the media bring their leftist lens to the "culture wars" and religion in politics, they're prone to simplifying everything and only covering religion when it intrudes on the new orthodoxy of wokeness. Terry Mattingly operated the site GetReligion for 20 years, and he explains how he assesses the media's handling of religion stories. We know several things from years of study. First, the media report very few religion stories. Second, the religion stories they choose to do typically focus on when churches are interjecting into the political arena (which secular reporters don't like). Third, since reporters are generally not religiously observant people, they show their ignorance of internal church matters, and bored with controversies like Catholics struggling with the Traditional Latin Mass, or religious concepts like sin and repentance. Then we focus on some recent controversies. On Monday, the Vatican released a document with a strong critique of "gender theory" and what non-religious reporters call "gender-affirming surgery." Mattingly says the media embrace of nonsensical terms like this underline they are orthodox believers, but in an opposing orthodoxy to traditional religions. Mattingly suggests Pope Francis seems to side with Biden against those American Catholics who would propose excommunication.  This broad acceptance leads to Biden and the media presenting the president as a "devout Catholic." He may attend church, but he is dramatically rejecting his church's teaching on abortion and sexuality. We explore the clash between Easter Sunday and the Transgender Day of Visibility, which pro-Biden reporters wanted to dismiss that there was any ideological or theological clash in these celebrations. There was Donald Trump promoting a "God Bless the USA Bible," and how everyone knows his personal behavior can't be seen as "Christ-like." But reporters try to suggest that Trump can't pigeonhole Biden as an opponent of Christianity, since he attends church services.  Mattingly wraps up with 3 Big Questions for religious people facing a screen-obsessed culture, and he says churches need to engage with their flocks on these measures of your faith: 1. How do you spend your time? 2. How do you spend your money? 3. How do you make decisions? Enjoy the podcast below or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

NBC Hopes Biden Student Loan Bailout Will Attract Disaffected Youth

Under normal circumstances, a new student loan bailout program would garner significant evening newscast airtime. But with Eclipsemania ongoing, only NBC Nightly News made time to talk about Biden’s new schemes, and only then as a device with which to segue to the real story: that the youths are extremely dissatisfied with President Joe Biden. Watch the report in its entirety, as aired on NBC Nightly News on Monday, April 8th, 2024 (click “expand” to view transcript): LESTER HOLT: And for his part, President Biden was courting young voters whose support for the president is slipping, according to polls. The White House announcing a plan to wipe out student debt for millions more Americans. Gabe Gutierrez is in Wisconsin with more.  SETH MCCLURE: It felt almost impossible.  GABE GUTIERREZ: Former public school teacher Seth McCclure had been paying off his student loans for more than 20 years, until $15,000 were forgiven in November. And he's praising the president.  MCCLURE: Surprise, gratitude. I honestly didn't think it was actually going to happen, and it did.  GUTIERREZ: He's one of the now 30 million Americans the White House says will have at least some of their federal student debt eliminated.  JOE BIDEN: Today too many Americans, especially young people, are saddled with unsustainable debts in exchange for a college degree.  GUTIERREZ: Today's announcement in battleground Wisconsin the largest one yet since the Supreme Court struck down the president's earlier attempt to forgive student loans. The White House is now using a different legal justification. But Republicans say taxpayers who did not go to college or already paid back their loans should not have to bail out the 13% of Americans with federal student debt.  PROTESTERS: Genocide Joe has got to go!  GUTIERREZ: The president making the move as he faces mounting outrage from some younger voters over the Israel-Hamas war.  STUDENT: If Biden is supporting genocide, there is no lesser evil than that. So we won't vote for him.  GUTIERREZ: In the 2020 NBC News exit poll, candidate Biden led former President Trump by 24 percentage points among voters under 30. But an NBC survey in January had president Biden up by just eight percentage points among that group. Another poll last month showed Mr. Trump ahead by 18 points among voters under 30.  Are you excited to vote for President Biden?  HAILEY RUDE: I would personally say no.  GUTIERREZ: Hailey Rude and Maya Cohn are both sophomores at the University of Wisconsin Madison.  MAYA COHN: I'm excited to vote for someone that's not Trump. But I wouldn't say that it is -- I'm excited for Biden. GUTIERREZ: Even if the president ends up winning back some younger voters before November, a small change from 2020 could swing the election. Lester. HOLT: All right, Gabe Gutierrez. Thank you. The sequence is simple to follow, because anchor Lester Holt gives it away with the frame of Gabe Gutierrez’ video package. The student loan bailout is framed as a courtship of young voters. Cut to Gutierrez and the very grateful former teacher who had $15,000 of his debt paid off by the American taxpayer. Surprised and grateful.  Gutierrez then gets into the student loan bailout, but not very deeply. He says that The White House is using a different legal basis than the one that got shot down by the Supreme Court, but with no explanation as to what that is. Gutierrez cites unnamed Republicans as being opposed to the bailout, but doesn’t say which ones.  As a matter of comparison, PBS did find the time to get into these things: LISA DESJARDINS: Now let's talk about the future of this in the courts. As soon as this rule comes out, do you think there could be an injunction against it filed immediately? Do you think that this is clear — clearly on strong legal grounds? What's going to happen? DANIELLE DOUGLAS-GABRIEL: I mean, certainly, it's on stronger legal grounds, from what experts are telling me, than the previous rule, because it's backed by a different authority.The Higher Education Act, which governs pretty much all of higher ed in terms of financial aid and all of those things, is the anchor for this, whereas the other rule was based on a 9/11 kind of emergency power rule that the Supreme Court didn't really think met the smell test. So, in this instance, I think it will be a little harder to see an immediate injunction because this went through a negotiated rulemaking process. The rule is going to come online next July, regardless of who's in office. There will likely be challenges. And it's certainly — if the Trump administration were to win, they could choose not to enforce the rule. They could also choose to try to rescind the rule. The student loan bailout is likely another authoritarian distribution scheme, but seemingly paired with a law that might make it more difficult to contest in court. But there wasn’t enough time for NBC to talk about this. There was disaffected youth to talk about instead. The youth that Biden intends to court but is currently protesting the Biden administration’s Gaza policy. The report closes with polling showing major youth vote shrinkage, and with the two disaffected sophomores who are not thrilled about voting for Biden in the general election.  Like so many stories running these days, the focus is not on the thing itself but on that thing’s effect on the electoral prospects of Joe Biden. Whether on Gaza or on student loan bailouts of dubious constitutionality, the focus is the same: Protect the Precious.  

Networks HIDE ‘Death To Israel And America’ Chants on American Soil

“Death To Israel And America” chants broke out on Al-Quds Day, a day instituted by the Ayatollah Khomeini to protest against America and Israel. Had these protests happened throughout the Middle East, it is highly likely that they would’ve garnered significant airtime across the evening network newscasts. But the chants in question happened on American soil, and so there was no coverage whatsoever, despite White House condemnation of the chants. As the Daily Caller’s own Reagan Reese reports: The White House condemned protesters who were caught on video at an Al-Quds Day rally in Dearborn, Michigan, chanting “death to America,” in a Monday statement to the Daily Caller. The chants broke out after one activist, Tarek Bazzi, spoke at the event about past criticism the Al-Quds Day rallies have received for being “anti-America.” Bazzi then went on to add that America was one of the “rottenest countries” to ever exist in the world. The White House reacted to the anti-American language in a Monday statement to the Daily Caller. “The White House condemns these abhorrent and Antisemitic remarks in the strongest terms. As President Biden has said, America is the greatest nation on Earth and a beacon to the world,” Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson, told the Daily Caller. Watch some of the footage that drew this rare White House condemnation, thanks to the stellar work by our friends at MEMRI: At International Al-Quds Day Rally in Dearborn, Michigan Protesters Chant “Death to America!”; Speakers at the Rally: America Is One of the “Rottenest Countries” on Earth; Israel Is ISIS, Nazis, a Cancer pic.twitter.com/B6hMlaKfi5 — MEMRI (@MEMRIReports) April 7, 2024 Really, the video had it all. It wasn’t just the casual anti-American and anti-Israel expression. There was also the reference to “Genocide Joe”, the denunciations of Israel as “ISIS”, “Nazis”, “fascists” and “racists”. And finally, the indoctrination of children into this cult of hatred. Specifically, the child aged no more than 4 leading the crowd in “From the River to the Sea” and “Free, Free Palestine” chants. And yet where were ABC, CBS, and NBC on this story? Had the protests been in London or elsewhere? All over it. But in Dearborn? Out to sleep. Not a single mention of any of this on any of their network evening newscasts. Another story suppressed so as to shield President Biden from any additional scrutiny over his Gaza policy, especially in places like Michigan, where he drew a large amount of protest votes in the state’s presidential primary. The omission is all the more glaring when you consider the amount of times that network correspondents, often White House correspondents, have flown into Dearborn to talk to the local Arab population, to see whether they can be swayed into coming “home” to Biden.  Here, again, the media show that their interest in a story (or lack therein) is directly related to its effect upon the electoral prospects of Joe Biden. And with this glaring omission, the media have intensified the Protect the Precious mode they routinely find themselves in.  

Vatican Blasts Gender Surgery & Theory, Surrogacy: ‘Violations of Human Dignity’

On Monday, the Vatican clarified its stance on surrogacy, gender surgery and gender theory  indicating that all three are “violations of human dignity.” The Vatican’s doctrine office released a 20-page declaration titled “Infinite Dignity” that was approved by Pope Francis on March 25 and announced Monday. The document contains the Vatican’s official stances on a number of issues and brings in biblical as well as just moral principle reasoning.  In addressing some of the many grave violations of human dignity today, we can draw upon the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which emphasized that “all offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, and willful suicide” must be recognized as contrary to human dignity. Furthermore, the Council affirmed that “all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures,” also infringe upon our dignity. Specifically, regarding surrogacy, The Church insists that it “takes a stand against the practice of surrogacy.” First and foremost, the practice of surrogacy violates the dignity of the child. Indeed, every child possesses an intangible dignity that is clearly expressed—albeit in a unique and differentiated way—at every stage of his or her life: from the moment of conception, at birth, growing up as a boy or girl, and becoming an adult. Because of this unalienable dignity, the child has the right to have a fully human (and not artificially induced) origin and to receive the gift of a life that manifests both the dignity of the giver and that of the receiver. Moreover, acknowledging the dignity of the human person also entails recognizing every dimension of the dignity of the conjugal union and of human procreation. Considering this, the legitimate desire to have a child cannot be transformed into a “right to a child” that fails to respect the dignity of that child as the recipient of the gift of life. The document claims that surrogacy also violates the dignity of the woman who is carrying someone else's child as she becomes “detached from the child growing inside her” and is merely the vessel to help others reach “gain or desire.” Oddly enough, the document didn’t mention the Bible, Christ or God in its reasoning against surrogacy - when surrogacy, in and of itself, is an attempt to play God and artificially create life. When it came to gender theory, the Church insisted that “biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated” and therefore hedged against any attempts to be something other than what you actually are.  This principle carried into the next section regarding sex change where the document insisted that any sex change, or attempts to do so, “risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception.” These positions aren’t new for the church, but the rise in the popularity of these issues is however, hence the official statement. Let’s hope this redirects and keeps people on the track of sanity!

Bravo Show ‘The Valley’: Being Called a Republican in LA is a ‘Death Sentence,’ ‘Social Suicide’

“You better be on the (down low) if you're a Republican (in LA) because you're not getting invited to anything.” That was the message from Bravo’s new reality show The Valley - a spinoff of Vanderpump Rules (home of the infamous “Scandoval” cheating drama that swept the nation several months ago) - just three episodes into its season premiere. Politics rarely, if ever, come up on the original, but just three episodes into The Valley things turned very political, and very ugly, with one cast member proclaiming it’s a “death sentence” and “social suicide” to be a Republican in Los Angeles, while others insinuate that being a Republican automatically makes you a racist. As with most reality shows, gossip, drama, and arguments are a main focus, so you’ll have to bear with us as we trudge through all the “likes” randomly thrown into conversations and the 'he said, she said' banter as the cast plays out a game of Telephone over a rumor. The drama started on the episode “Doubting Doute” when Vanderpump alum Kristen Doute repeated a rumor she claims was told to her by Zack in which Janet supposedly warned Jasmine, who is black, that Michelle is secretly Republican and thus, a racist. I know, I know. It’s confusing and ridiculous. But the accusations are very serious, with real life ramifications, so just try to stay focused on those. Another Vanderpump alum, Brittany, explains the situation to her husband Jax while Michelle discusses with her husband Jesse how those “two words” (“Republican” and “racist”) affected her: Brittany: Kristen starts bringing up that Janet told Jasmine Michelle was a racist and a Republican and all this crap. Kristen (Flashback): What am I stirring up? The truth that Janet told you Michelle is, like, probably a Republican, so she's probably racist. This is the (bleep) that Janet was saying. Jasmine: You know what, Kristen? I swear to God, you are not-- look at me. You are not gonna (bleep) say that Janet told me that she was a racist. Brittany: You know, she's like, no, no, no, actually… Kristen: That is what Zack told me. Zack: I never said that! Michelle: It’s not (bleep) true, Kristen. Jax: Listen. That's not gonna fly. Brittany: I can't-- I'm wondering how Michelle is feeling today, like, after she brought that up in her own home and said that about her. Michelle: I haven't slept. You have no idea what happened last night. The first time in my life I've ever heard my name associated with these words. And she said, Janet said Michelle is a racist and a Republican. Jesse: She said, a racist and a Republican? Michelle: Yes, I'm still shocked, to be honest with you, like, completely shocked. Jesse: What the (bleep) Is wrong with her? I know. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Michelle: Stop saying that word. Jesse: It's in my vocabulary. Michelle: We have a daughter. You can't use those anymore. Because she starts saying it. Jesse: Shh, no, no, no. We don't say that word. I'm sorry. Daughter: You say that every day. Jesse: I know. When you say it, it's funny. When I say it, it's wrong. Michelle: I'm really upset because Janet wouldn't say that or else she wouldn't be my friend. And hello, I'm the one that's first generation Mexican, first-generation Persian. I was just so shocked and confused by the whole thing. Jesse: You should call Janet and be like, did you (bleep) say this? They did redeem themselves somewhat when Jesse remarks, “What does being a Republican have to do with it?” Michelle answers, “Like, I'm not a Republican, which, by the way, even if I am, who gives a (bleep)?” But things devolved again as the show progressed. Janet explains in a confessional that the rumor apparently began over the falsely labeled “Don’t Say Gay” law in Florida, which Michelle rightly stated protects children. Janet then self-righteously explains how wrong Michelle is to believe that, and that she, “maybe got swept into an algorithm that maybe is teaching her some things that are not true.” So, Janet was hoping if it came up again, it could be a “teachable moment” for Michelle: Janet: She threw me under the bus, she threw Zack under the bus, and Jasmine under the bus all in one swoop! I said something small, and Kristen made it, like, so big. And she didn't just run with it. I mean, she ran a marathon with it. Michelle, Brittany, and I were at dinner a few months ago. And Michelle said something along the lines of, "Don't Say Gay" laws protect children. And I'm like, “No, no, no. Like, that's… you're wrong.” I know Jasmine is, like, read up on this and knows, you know, how some stuff can be baked in to be harmful to certain communities. I just said to Jasmine, who I guess said to Zack, I said, “We were talking about this bill, and I think she might support it.” But I'm like, I don't know. I was like, “But, you know, since it's related to the LGBT community, if you happen to hear her talking about it and sense the same thing I did, it might be like a teachable moment.” I've never once thought that Michelle was racist. I wouldn't be her friend if I did. I thought that she maybe got swept into an algorithm that maybe is teaching her some things that are not true. Somehow that got twisted. Well, if she believes in "Don't Say Gay" laws, then she must be a Republican and Republicans are racist, is from what I understand, how Kristen got there. How kind Michelle’s friends are to give her the benefit of the doubt and believe she’s just ignorant and that they can educate her if a “teachable moment” comes up. Such a prime example of the bubble Hollywood lives in, thinking their beliefs are the only correct ones, and if anyone thinks or votes differently, they’re a bad person. As the friend group meets for a dinner party, the topic is brought up again, and Kristen claims Zack insinuated that being a Republican equals “racism and/or…homophobia”: Michelle: Now I think everybody’s involved so, we might as well all speak publicly because I think I'm tired of she said, he said. So, if we're all in one table, then we can all be on the same page. Janet: I agree. Kristen decided at Michelle's to say that I said Michelle was racist, which I have never thought in my life, let alone said out loud. And I don't know where that came from, but I am so disgusted by it. Kristen: It came from Zack. Zack: It did not come from me. Kristen held all this information. Got all of it completely mixed up. You want to talk about a (bleep) stew, like, there was no recipe. She was just grabbing numbers out, like they were (bleep) the Powerball. Kristen: The game of telephone was, to Janet, to Jasmine, to Zack, to me and Luke, that you were telling Jasmine that she should be cautious of Michelle because she's a, quote, unquote, "Republican." And what Zack insinuated at my house to Luke and I was that that would equal racism and/or slash and/or homophobia. Jasmine: Take my name out of it because guess what, I never had a conversation with this one about anybody in this table ever. So that's what I'm upset about. I'm black. So like, I have experienced racism. So, to have, like, a friend just throw it out so lightly, like it's nothing, it's like, that's not fair, you know, and it's not fair for Michelle. It's not fair for me. It's not for the whole group, you know.   Zack: I've known Michelle for a while. She is not homophobic. And I love her to pieces. And I really hate that, unfortunately, this got said. Kristen: What I want to immediately apologize to Michelle for is that I felt cornered, and I should not have ever said those things out loud, especially at your home. Jesse: Why don't you say what you did and you lied? Call it a lie and don't call it anything else. Kristen: I did not lie. Zack ends up admitting the truth in his confessional about how Republicans are seen and treated in Los Angeles, calling it a “death sentence,” and “social suicide” if anyone is called a Republican in the extremely liberal city: Michelle: Zack has said he did not say that. Janet said she did not say that. I believe that everybody in this table would not be my friend if they thought that. Kristen: I don't think that, Michelle. Michelle: That's not what I just said. Zack: I don't know how it became like I said that Janet said that because that is completely not the truth. But I will tell you this. If you call someone a Republican in LA, that's a death sentence right there. That is a social suicide moment. You better be on the DL if you're a Republican because you're not getting invited to anything. Jesse: You disrespected my family name. We have a business that we run together. If something like that gets out, you're ruining lives. Michelle: Not only that… Jesse: Michelle, please. You were thrown off the (bleep) show for being an actual racist. Kristen: What the (bleep) did you just call me? I know that I made a mistake by roping Michelle into something that didn't have to do with her. But Jesse, he's just trying to ruin my name by bringing up the most painful thing that I've ever gone through. Jesse: Did you not? Is that not a true statement? Kristen: I understand why Michelle is upset. It is the worst thing in the world to be labeled as anything, let alone a racist. And nobody knows better than me because it happened to me, and I was canceled. It was probably the hardest time of my entire life thus far. Yeah. I'm not proud of what I did. And I'm sorry that I hurt people. But I've learned from my mistakes. These are my friends sitting here. They know my past. And all I want to do is pick up the pieces and move on with my life, be a good person. It's like people finally gave me a chance again. And now it's like brought up all over again. And I'm going to have to relive it again. Hope that my whole life doesn't fall apart again. Yes, ironically, Kristen was fired from Vanderpump Rules over accusations of racist behavior. That’s another long, dramatic story which we won’t get into, but you can read about it here. And if living in LA is anything like the ridiculous, convoluted drama displayed on both Vanderpump Rules and The Valley, Republicans aren’t missing out on much by not being welcome there.

On Abortion, MSNBC Star Joe Scarborough Slurs 'Old, Fat, White Men In Mississippi'

UConn has notched a notable double: back-to-back NCAA men's basketball championships. But that achievement pales in comparison to the quintuple-header that Joe Scarborough has pulled off. On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough slammed, for what he called their radicalism on abortion: "old, fat, white men in Mississippi." Let's see: in one phrase, Scarborough managed to engage in ageism, fat-shaming, racism, sexism, and negative Southern stereotyping! Even for the liberal media, that could represent a landmark first! Somewhere, Joy Reid is dying of envy! Scarborough also seemed to say that back in the day, it was easy for him to call himself pro-life, since he knew Roe v. Wade was in place to prevent his views from being made into law. In other words, Scarborough was thus admitting to being a cheap, unprincipled, political opportunist. Scarborough suggested that seeing the aftermath of the overturning of Roe has in effect turned him into being pro-choice. Yet he has the chutzpah to condemn Trump for being an opportunist on the issue? Note: Mika described the taking away of abortion rights as "a matter of life and death."  The irony is lost on her that yes, it's a matter of life and death . . . for the unborn child. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 4/9/24 6:16 am EDT MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Support for abortion was always there, and it was growing over the past decade. I think, since the overturning of Roe, it has crystallized the issue for anybody who was on the fence about it, or didn't feel they had any, any men, perhaps, who didn't feel as connected with it.  Now, we are seeing the consequences of these rights being taken away. 50 years of rights that our daughters and sons, as families, don't have. And, they're brutal; they're very specific. They're a matter of life and death. And Donald Trump is on the wrong side of every position that exists, practically, on this. In a moment, we're going to show you -- JOE SCARBOROUGH: Can I go to Charlie real quickly on this before we go, go to the Lindsey clips? MIKA: Oh, yes, okay. SCARBOROUGH: Charlie, really quickly. I'd just say, and Mika is so right. There are so many people that now are, are -- that were pro-life before Dobbs that now understand the importance of Roe because of the radicalism in the states.  I always, you know, it cost me nothing to just take the position, yeah, yeah, I'm pro-life, and da-da-da, because there was that right there [via Roe]. And when, when I formulated my thoughts over it, the governors were like George Voinovich in Ohio, Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, Jeb Bush in Florida. And the thought was, well, you know, maybe it'll be 15, 16, 17 weeks with exceptions. That's just not the world we live in anymore. And I must say, this is post Dobbs, you look and you see the radicalism of—I'll just say it— these old, white, fat men in Mississippi or somewhere else that, that are driving women out of, out of, out of medical care. Because they want to appeal to the most extreme elements of their base.  Yeah, there are a lot of people, and I would guess you're like me, there are a lot of people who, who have really been transformed by the radicalism of the last three, four years.

Joe Rogan on Musk: ‘He May Have Very Well Saved Humanity in Some Way’ Buying Twitter

Podcast host Joe Rogan spoke up about the impact of X owner Elon Musk breaking the leftist censorship monopoly on major social media platforms.  During the April 6 edition of The Joe Rogan Experience, fellow podcaster Andrew Schultz expressed his hope that Musk’s purchase of X and decision to “uphold this soapbox of free speech” would lead to “a civil society where ideas can permeate freely.” Rogan went a step further, telling his guest that “[Musk] may have very well saved humanity in some way” by buying Twitter and reversing much of the insane censorship practices of the Old Regime. Rogan, who survived a campaign to drive him from Spotify for his speech on vaccines, is not the only person that feels this way.  Satire site The Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon spoke at length on April 5 about what his satire website went through on social media before Musk and the awful effects of censorship on the ability to speak freely online. Dillon recounted his company’s experience when The Bee got locked out of Twitter for making a joke about transsexual Assistant Secretary for Health "Rachel" Levine being the site’s “Man of the Year.” He mentioned that chief editor Kyle Mann anticipated that the site would be censored for this. “They count on this by the way, they know if they can make you afraid of being deplatformed, you’ll do their job for them and censor yourself,” Dillon said. He added: “For every case of hard censorship where they take down user content, there are thousand cases of soft censorship where users bite their own tongue knowing they won’t be allowed to speak freely. But we don’t do that here. We refuse to censor ourselves.”  Editor’s Note: The Babylon Bee is a member of the MRC Free Speech Alliance.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact Twitter at (415) 222-9670 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

PolitiFact's 'Truth-O-Meter' Has a Dramatic Democratic Party TILT

  For International Fact-Checking Day on April 2, Eric Litke, the leader of the USA Today fact-checking squad, asked who should be fact-checking the fact checkers? His answer: “Everyone.” He argued: “Proper fact-checking requires critical thinking, deep reporting, precise writing and an obsession with fairness. But most importantly, it requires transparency.” As a website, PolitiFact is fairly transparent, but studying its work does not lead everyone to find an “obsession with fairness.” Instead, we have repeatedly found in its articles the implication of the old Stephen Colbert joke that “reality has a liberal bias,” and therefore the liberals are routinely more honest and factual than the conservatives. A NewsBusters analysis of the first three months of this year's PolitiFact articles that evaluated a named politician or public official with a “Truth-O-Meter” ruling reveals that the site fact-checks Republicans more often than Democrats and is much harsher in its opinions of the GOP side. It broke down like this: REPUBLICANS (63 fact checks) True/Mostly True: 8 (12.7 percent) Half True: 8 (12.7 percent) Mostly False/False/ Pants On Fire: 47 (74.6 percent) In the month of March, it's especially emphatic: one on the True side, 15 on the False side. Now compare it to the other Party: DEMOCRATS (39 fact checks) True/Mostly True: 22 (56.4 percent) Half True: 7 (18 percent) Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire 10 (25.6 percent) Donald Trump was fact-checked 18 times (six in each month), and none were on True side, one was Half True, and the other 17 were Mostly False or worse, including four “Pants on Fire” rulings. Joe Biden was checked 12 times, and the dominant ruling was “Half True” (six of those, or 50 percent). There was a True, a Mostly True, two Mostly False, and two False. Biden drew zero “Pants on Fire” warnings, and has only seven of those in the entire history of PolitiFact going back to 2007. Trump currently has 187. These 2024 numbers do not include articles that they chose not to evaluate on their “Truth-O-Meter,” and that would include their ridiculous article on March 27 attempting to say it wasn’t “Pants on Fire” when Joe Biden referred to the collapsed bridge in Baltimore this way: “I’ve been over many, many times commuting from the state of Delaware either on a train or by car." PolitiFact helpfully relayed that the White House “clarified” it by saying that’s not what he meant. If the count was expanded to include conservative-leaning opinion leaders, there were nine blogs about them and all nine of them were ranked as False. That includes three on Elon Musk, two on Tucker Carlson, as well as one for Franklin Graham, Sean Hannity, Benny Johnson, and Jesse Watters. That would drive the conservative/Republican total to 56 of 72 fact checks being Mostly False or worse (77.7 percent). There were no named liberal opinion leaders in this first quarter. This is why we have an ongoing tag for "Fact-Checking the Fact Checkers." This doesn't mean we're hostile to Facts. It means the "fact checkers" are not "independent." They have all the same biases and messaging tendencies as liberal reporters. 

Stewart Compares Israel To Russia, Appears To Blame It For Iranian Revolution

On Monday’s edition of The Daily Show on Comedy Central, Jon Stewart declared that Israel is not that different from Russia, which would make its American defenders hypocrites. Later, Stewart welcomed CNN/PBS’s Christiane Amanpour, where he further accused Israel of being a bad history student, but it was clear that it was Stewart who needed to reread his history books. Stewart’s dishonest Israel-Russia comparison included a clip of White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre condemning Russia’s targeting of journalists, which led him to react by dishonestly reporting, “You hear that, Russia? We condemn, in no uncertain terms, any repression of a free press! I think you all know what's coming next. More journalists have been killed in Gaza in six months than anywhere else in the world and a new Israeli law says they can ban media outlets they consider a threat.” An onscreen graphic of a CNN headline on the news made it clear that Stewart omitted the adjective “international.”     Attacking Jean-Pierre from the left, he then played a clip of her reacting to the Israeli law “So as it relates to Al Jazeera, specifically, we've seen the reports, if it is true, if it is true, a move like this is concerning.” Al Jazeera is hostile, foreign propaganda. A more appropriate analogy for Israel would be Ukraine banning RT. Still, Stewart rolled along, “Oh, we're concerned again? How about, "If it's true, we condemn it"? And by the way, is it true? Feels like you can probably just call someone and be like, "Is this true?" And if they're like, "Yes," you can be like, "That's concerning! Not condemning, but concerning." Well, you know what, perhaps those are peripheral issues. What about the bedrock rule of international law, no taking land by force? When Russia does it, we're pretty clear!” After a clip of President Biden denouncing Russia’s war on Ukraine, Stewart again compared Israel to Russia, “Ish, See, this is where Israel's actions get interesting. Because you might say Israel's war is different than Ukraine's. Israel is responding to an attack and a hostage crisis. But in the midst of that, they pulled a little something in the West Bank on March 22 that might be notable.” Stewart then played a clip of a French reporter relaying the news that “the Israeli government announced that it was declaring state land, nearly 2,000 acres of land, in the occupied West Bank.” The United States has never recognized the West Bank as sovereign Palestinian territory, so comparing it to unquestionably Ukrainian land is simply more bad analogy formulation.     Later, Stewart told Amanpour that Israel is not learning from its own history, “You were covering these types of events from 1983, we all remember that was the occupation in Southern Lebanon…then there was a Lebanese Civil War, the rise of Hezbollah in that occupation. There was the Islamic Revolution in Iran. We’re watching these stories play out redundantly.” The Israeli invasion of Lebanon began in 1982, but that is a small error. Claiming the Iranian Revolution, which happened in 1979, was somehow tied to the war in Lebanon is a massive factual error. Amanpour agreed, “Yeah, you know, there’s two things, obviously. One is that, you know, history is not always a great teacher but the other is that, you know, leadership matters and we are in a crisis of leadership around the world.” She went on to argue that for all of its failures, at least the peace process existed in the 1990s, “there have been instances where peace can be forged, where both sides can come together and it depends on the leaders, you know.” Here is a transcript for the April 8 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 4/9/2024 11:08 PM ET STEWART: You hear that, Russia? We condemn, in no uncertain terms, any repression of a free press! I think you all know what's coming next. More journalists have been killed in Gaza in six months than anywhere else in the world and a new Israeli law says they can ban media outlets they consider a threat.  KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: So as it relates to Al Jazeera, specifically, we've seen the reports, if it is true, if it is true, a move like this is concerning.  STEWART: Oh, we're concerned again? How about, "If it's true, we condemn it"? And by the way, is it true? Feels like you can probably just call someone and be like, "Is this true?" And if they're like, "Yes," you can be like, "That's concerning! Not condemning, but concerning." Well, you know what, perhaps those are peripheral issues. What about the bedrock rule of international law, no taking land by force? When Russia does it, we're pretty clear!  JOE BIDEN: The entire world has a stake in making sure that no nation, no aggressor, is allowed to take a neighbor's territory by force. The American people will never waver in our commitment to those values.  STEWART: Ish, See, this is where Israel's actions get interesting. Because you might say Israel's war is different than Ukraine's. Israel is responding to an attack and a hostage crisis. But in the midst of that, they pulled a little something in the West Bank on March 22 that might be notable.  FRANCE24 REPORTER: As the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made his latest visit to Israel, the Israeli government announced that it was declaring state land, nearly 2,000 acres of land, in the occupied West Bank.  This latest Israeli appropriation is the largest land transfer since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993.  STEWART: 1993 and that's not even Gaza! That's the West Bank. So you can't say it has anything to do with defending yourself against Hamas. Let's see if America upholds its rule against taking land!  … STEWART: You were covering these types of events from 1983, we all remember that was the occupation in Southern Lebanon. It was right –  CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: The Israelis invaded Beirut, they were after the PLO. They wanted to show Arafat out-- STEWART: Right, then there was a Lebanese Civil War, the rise of Hezbollah in that occupation. There was the Islamic Revolution in Iran.  AMANPOUR: Yeah. STEWART: We’re watching these stories play out redundantly.  AMANPOUR: Yeah, you know, there’s two things, obviously. One is that, you know, history is not always a great teacher but the other is that, you know, leadership matters and we are in a crisis of leadership around the world, I genuinely believe and even as bad as it was in the 1990s, 1979, and the 1980s, all that, there is a period, let's say, in this part of the world, and the Middle East, in the '90s where there was an actual peace process. Now, we can poo poo it, we can laugh at it, we can say that it failed but it failed because the people responsible for enacting it didn’t do it and actually sabotaged it. So, there have been instances where peace can be forged, where both sides can come together— STEWART: Right AMANPOUR: -- and it depends on the leaders, you know.

CBS, NBC Ignore ISIS-Inspired Terror Plot Targeting Idaho Christians

One would think the liberal broadcast networks would be eager to give President Biden a counterterrorism win during an election year, or at least praise the FBI for finally stopping an ISIS-inspired terrorist attack before it happened. But during Tuesday morning’s newscasts, CBS News and NBC News ignored the story of the FBI foiling a plot to target Christian parishioners in multiple Idaho churches last weekend. Instead of talking about the Christians who were in the crosshairs of a radical Islamic terrorist, NBC’s Today freaked out about A.I.-generated images in advertisements. Meanwhile, CBS Mornings was lauding the removal of a dam to boost salmon numbers. ABC’s Good Morning America was the only broadcast network to dedicate any time to the story; not only did they cover it, but they led their newscast with it. “First the arrest of an Idaho man on charges of plotting to carry out deadly attacks on churches in support of ISIS. The FBI director calls it a truly horrific plan,” co-anchor George Stephanopoulos announced at the top of the show. While the attack wasn’t planned for the recent Easter services, chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas noted that the plot was planned around a Muslim holiday. “The suspect was arrested on Saturday just hours before the alleged planned assault on Sunday. Authorities say he had picked a specific church where he would start his attack, set for the end of Ramadan,” he reported.     Thomas showed a picture of the alleged terrorist, Alexander Mercurio posing with an ISIS flag. He was allegedly planning to attack “multiple churches in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.” “The FBI says his plot involved a murderous rampage using knives and firearms to kill parishioners. He also planned to set their houses of worship on fire, going from church to church until he was killed by police. It's a plan eerily similar to that ISIS assault on that concert hall in Moscow,” Thomas added. In addition to the evidence of Mercurio buying the supplies to start the fires, there’s also a recording of him pledging his allegiance to ISIS. The recent ISIS attack on the Moscow concert hall was apparently an event that got law enforcement officials in the U.S. nervous about other Islamic radicals with delusions of grandeur: Mercurio's arrest comes at a state of heightened alert by U.S. law enforcement. Authorities have been concerned about rage ignited by the Israel/Hamas War, and late last week they sent out an urgent bulletin warning that ISIS was trying to use their horrific attack on that Moscow concert to inspire radicals here to conduct U.S. attacks. “In announcing this arrest last night, we received statements from both the attorney general and the FBI director, both expressing deep concern. Their statements a sign of just how serious this case is and just how dangerous the threat environment is right now,” Thomas concluded. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America April 9, 2024 7:03:02 a.m. Eastern GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: First the arrest of an Idaho man on charges of plotting to carry out deadly attacks on churches in support of ISIS. The FBI director calls it a truly horrific plan. Chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas has the latest. Good morning, Pierre. PIERRE THOMAS: George, good morning. The suspect was arrested on Saturday just hours before the alleged planned assault on Sunday. Authorities say he had picked a specific church where he would start his attack, set for the end of Ramadan. [Cuts to video] This morning, the FBI claims this 18-year-old was on the verge of conducting a terror plot involving attacks on multiple churches in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Alexander Mercurio, seen here knife in hand, expressing his allegiance to ISIS. The FBI says his plot involved a murderous rampage using knives and firearms to kill parishioners. He also planned to set their houses of worship on fire, going from church to church until he was killed by police. It's a plan eerily similar to that ISIS assault on that concert hall in Moscow. BRAD GARRETT (former FBI special agent): He talked about using knives, fire, and possibly weapons. And so the combination of all three if, in fact, he did launch that, had the possibility of harming a lot of people. THOMAS: According to criminal charges unsealed last night, Mercurio had bought a number of items for his attacks including butane canisters for setting fires. And those charges say, on Saturday, Mercurio sent an audio file to an FBI confidential informant; 20-seconds long, it says in part: “I'm answering the call for the Islamic State for jihad…and to kill.” The charges against Mercurio lay out a chilling plan where he would quote, “incapacitate his father, retrain him using handcuffs and steal his firearms to use for maximum casualties in his attack.” Sources tell ABC News his father had dozens of weapons including an AR-15 style assault rifle. Mercurio's arrest comes at a state of heightened alert by U.S. law enforcement. Authorities have been concerned about rage ignited by the Israel/Hamas War, and late last week they sent out an urgent bulletin warning that ISIS was trying to use their horrific attack on that Moscow concert to inspire radicals here to conduct U.S. attacks. [Cuts back to live] In announcing this arrest last night, we received statements from both the attorney general and the FBI director, both expressing deep concern. Their statements a sign of just how serious this case is and just how dangerous the threat environment is right now. Michael. MICHAEL STRAHAN: We’re happy they were able to stop him though. Pierre, thank you very much for that.

Mark Levin Scorches ‘Soros’ Puppet’ Antony Blinken for Rampant Election Interference

Syndicated radio host Mark Levin demonstrated Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s multi-generational connection to leftist billionaire George Soros and how the cozy relationship shaped American policy towards Albania. On the April 4 edition of The Mark Levin Show, Levin referred to Blinken as “Soros’ puppet” and said he was “doing Soros’ bidding.” Levin detailed how the State Department has acted against an enemy of Soros in Albania to the benefit of Soros-ally Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, before noting the connection between Soros and the Blinken family. “Antony Blinken is [Soros’] pawn. Antony Blinken is his boy in the Department of State,” Levin said, before moving on to Blinken’s parents, “Donald Blinken was the former U.S. ambassador to Hungary. I guess under Obama. His wife Vera funded the Vera and Donald Blinken Open Society archives at the Central European University in Budapest founded and funded by Soros.”  Levin added, “This is what’s going on behind the scenes in the shadows, ladies and gentlemen.” ‘ The radio legend cited a New York Post article by columnist Miranda Devine on the tense relationship between Soros and a friend of former president George W. Bush, Sali Berisha, who has served as both president and prime minister in Albania. Devine noted that Secretary Blinken moved quickly to put sanctions on Berisha and his family, purportedly to fight corruption and protect Albanian democracy.  Coincidentally, Blinken’s State Department and Soros’ Open Society Foundations Albania are both donors to the Center for the Study of Democracy and Governance, which seeks “radical transformation of the democratic processes in Albania.” The center also frequently hosts events discussing corruption, the fig leaf Blinken used to justify sanctioning Berisha.  Coordination between Soros and the State Department to intervene in favor of Rama’s interests dates at least as far back as the Obama administration.  During his show, Levin also mentioned that “Alex Soros, the son, of George Soros is repeatedly in the White House.” The host suggested that Alex Soros frequently visited the State Department as well. Alex Soros has visited the White House at least 22 times. During those visits -- sometimes meeting with White House officials multiple times -- the younger Soros met with President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and various White House staffers a total of 27 times.  Notably, the younger Soros also frequently meets with Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama—whom Alex Soros called his “brother”—posting no less than 24 pictures with Rama on Instagram from 2017 to 2024. In one of these posts, Alex Soros suggested Albania had come a long way, possibly due to Rama’s efforts, “Congrats to my brother @ediramaal on such a successful tourist season! A long time coming for what was once Europe’s North Korea.” Alex Soros also lauded Rama as a “renaissance man who has become a symbol of liberal democracy in Albania” and praised his “inspirational leadership.” Soros has also called him a “renaissance man” and a “visionary” on other occasions and congratulated Rama on transforming Albania’s capital Tirana for the better. Rama, who recently made headlines for shoving a female journalist, also takes radical positions on regional issues. When former Kosovo President Hashim Thaçi was put on trial for war crimes, Rama complained that it was not right to try a man praised by President Joe Biden. “Are those who lead their people towards freedom against brutal regimes now to be considered criminals?” Rama asked.  A prosecutor told The Associated Press that Hashim Thaçi would be exposed for presiding over “hundreds of murders and illegal detentions” and that his men slaughtered their own people under suspicion of being “collaborators and perceived traitors including political opponents.” Rama also went after a Greek-Albanian candidate for mayor, who was thrown in prison after winning his election. Rama called Himara mayoral candidate Fredi Beleri, “illiterate,” “scum,” and said that he had “an ugly face that would scare.” The Albanian prime minister claimed in an interview that he was unaware that the candidate would be arrested when he insulted him this way. While Beleri sits in prison, a member of Rama’s party who lost to Beleri had been permitted to serve as mayor until recently.

Make It Make Sense: Online Censors Demand Trust Despite Stifling Free Speech

Big Tech censors work to violate Americans’ constitutional rights and then turn around and demand implicit trust from those same Americans. This was evident from two recent events. Soon after Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi warned Americans to pay attention to the “mass censorship” occurring online thanks to public and private partners, a “disinformation” expert called on Americans to believe only “trusted” and pre-approved sources for election-related content.  Yet the very sources considered trustworthy by legacy media and social media platforms are the sources complicit in the suppression of free speech, particularly around elections. Indeed, Big Tech fact checks operate as a form of censorship, penalizing content to promote certain “trusted” viewpoints and outlets. For instance, during an April 2 panel for investigative media group Spotlight PA, Beth Schwanke, the executive director of the Pitt Disinformation Lab, recommended trusting biased, legacy media over free speech online debate.  “One thing everyone can do to make sure they are seeing accurate information is to use trusted sources,” Schwanke pontificated, according to a transcript by Reclaim the Net. “So in elections that means using the Department of State, that means using your county elections office, it means using media organizations that follow, that adhere, to professional journalism standards like … your local NPR affiliate.” She further scoffed, “And it doesn’t mean you know, ‘doing your own research’ and just asking questions and sharing, you know, posts from — I don’t know, in my case, it’s Uncle Joe, right?”  Yet, undercutting her claims, both government agencies and media outlets have supported or actively facilitated censorship, sometimes of accurate information. This is the Censorship Industrial Complex uncovered by the Twitter Files, created by government and Big Tech and defended by legacy media. Hence, Taibbi had a warning on March 25 at RealClearPolitics’ Samizdat Prize award ceremony.  Taibbi specifically cited the 2020 censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, censorship which swayed the presidential election for Democrat Joe Biden, according to a Media Research Center poll. While researching the Twitter Files, “we did find within days a whole galaxy of things that said, ‘Flagged by FBI,’ ‘Flagged by DHS,’ ‘Flagged by HHS,’ ‘Flagged By Treasury,’” Taibbi stated. The government was coordinating censorship of certain content with Twitter. “We realized there was this huge operation that spanned the entire federal government to pressure not just Twitter, but two dozen at least internet companies to suppress different kinds of information,” Taibbi added.  Certain journalists’ accounts were even flagged for censorship. “[We] were all caught up in this story of mass censorship that until very recently was hidden. This has to be out in the open more, people need to know more about it,” Taibbi insisted. Indeed, Big Tech platforms have fact-checking partners, often biased third-party censors or legacy media outlets. Meta-owned Facebook and Instagram and Google-owned YouTube all made MRC Free Speech America’s worst censorship of March list for preposterous fact checks.  The platforms impose labels that greatly reduce interaction with content based on the fact checks. X (formerly Twitter) Community Notes is somewhat different in approving users that can choose to fact check content, but the company still imposes demonetization and other penalties on posts that receive the Notes.  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.

HA! NewsGuard FINALLY Downgrades NYT After MRC Repeatedly Called It Out

NewsGuard discovered that The New York Times was never worth its flawless 100/100 score, but apparently only after MRC Free Speech America repeatedly called it out.  NewsGuard finally downgraded The Times’ perfect score Feb.1 to a lukewarm 87.5/100. NewsGuard’s beef with the legacy leftist publication was that it “no longer meets NewsGuard standards for handling the difference between news and opinion responsibly.” Wow, what a revelation! Has the dystopian website traffic cop been living under a rock?  The head-turning move by the media ratings firm came after MRC released three studies of NewsGuard’s ridiculously skewed ratings system across three consecutive years consistently showing NewsGuard heavily favoring left-leaning publications like The Times over right-leaning media. MRC has repeatedly called NewsGuard out for attempting to legitimize The Times as an effectively flawless, balanced outlet, despite mountains of evidence showing otherwise. MRC even released a mini-documentary in February 2023 on the firm’s bias. “The New York Times has been the same left-wing rag for decades,” said MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider in a statement. But suddenly, said Schneider, after MRC research led Congress to get serious about “preventing the Department of Defense from funding the NewsGuard censorship regime, the folks at NewsGuard finally found some religion and are starting to better reflect what The Times has always been: An extreme, left-wing biased outlet.” MRC specifically called out NewsGuard on October 20, 2023 for continuing to dole out perfect 100s to The Times and other media entities for wantonly taking the word of the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry to falsely blame an Israeli airstrike for the infamous al-Ahli hospital bombing, which sparked international furor and mass protests. NewsGuard, in its update of The Times Nutrition Label under the “Credibility” section, finally mentioned the scandal. NewsGuard conceded that “American and other international officials, as well as subsequent forensic analyses by media organizations, concluded that evidence suggested the rocket came from Palestinian fighter positions.” But even NewsGuard’s critical update, published over three months after MRC’s criticism, sugarcoated the full severity of the scandal. Not only did The Times run a glaringly false headline — “Israeli Airstrike Hits Gaza Hospital, Killing 500, Palestinian Health Ministry Says” — the outlet used a photo of the wreckage of a completely different structure, not al-Ahli hospital. The Dispatch’s Jeryl Bier excoriated the leftist newspaper for the blatant deception: “[T]he accompanying photo was not even of the hospital, but rather of a building in a city some 15 miles to the south.” Bier also concluded that The Times’s framing, bolstered by its misleading imagery, would “likely” lead Times readers to believe that the depicted carnage was of the “hospital in question.” The original, false story was plastered on the front page of the newspaper’s website with the misleading photo prominently displayed. None of this context was mentioned in NewsGuard’s update. But NewsGuard, in its recent update, did manage to depart from its leftist bent enough to highlight “conservative” impressions of The Times’ inherent leftist bias, despite the publication’s downplaying to the contrary. Exhibit “A” for NewsGuard was none other than The Times magazine’s racially charged and discredited 1619 Project spearheaded by insufferable activist Nikole Hannah-Jones.  Yes, you read that right. NewsGuard actually used one of the newspaper’s most notorious, anti-American projects as an example of how the paper doesn’t properly distinguish between news and opinion:   Nonetheless, an impression of partisanship lingers, especially among conservatives. There may be no better example than when the magazine’s ‘1619 Project,’ which was not labeled as opinion, sought, as it told readers, ‘to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.’ The view was derided by prominent historians, including Gordon Wood, professor emeritus at Brown University, and James McPherson, professor emeritus at Princeton University, initially in interviews with the World Socialist Web Site and, later, in a request for corrections sent to the magazine and joined by three other academics. Talk about a cold day in hell. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.