No Kidding: Nina Jankowicz Admits DHS Disinfo Police Can’t Even Define Disinfo

Former director of the defunct Disinformation Governance Board (DGB), Nina Jankowicz, said President Joe Biden’s disinformation policing government does not even have a consistent definition of disinformation. Rep. Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee released the transcript of Jankowicz's sworn testimony to the committee which it gathered in April 2023. In her testimony, Jankowicz pointed out discrepancies in the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) definition of disinformation. DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency “has one definition, and one of the things that occurred to me while I was at DHS is that different entities were dealing with different definitions,” she said. But according to Jordan, CISA’s definition is merely “anything that they deem false.”  The leftist disinformation activist said that creating protocols for identifying misinformation, disinformation and misinformation “wasn’t really at the top of the list” of things to do. “And so, to get to identification, you first have to kind of have an agreement about what you're talking about,” said Jankowicz. “You can't say that something is a bear if you don't know what a bear looks like. So that's where we were.” During the interview, Jordan had Jankowicz read the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency’s definition of disinformation as noted in a CISA memorandum: “[F]alse information that is intentionally or inadvertently injected into the information environment.” Jankowicz, however, described this definition as “overbroad” and indicated that it “would be fair to say” that DHS was not even using definitions agreed upon within the Orwellian disinformation research community. She went on to provide her own definitions of mis-, dis- and mal- information. Jankowicz claimed that while mis-, and dis- information both refer to false information, disinformation is intentionally “spread with malign intent” while misinformation is not. Jankowicz defined malinformation as true information that is allegedly “injected into an information environment with ulterior motives.” During the interview, Jankowicz downplayed the role of the DGB claiming that it “had no operational authority or ability to act as an all-purpose arbiter of truth.” She claimed it merely had the power of suggestion.  However, The Twitter Files and The Facebook Files have demonstrated just how forceful the federal government’s so-called suggestions can be. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) similarly uncovered internal documents via a whistleblower that showed that the DGB was developing programs and forming relationships with social media companies. Jankowicz however maintains that meetings scheduled with Facebook and Twitter never took place. But Jankowicz, has a history of supporting censorship and organizations that prop themselves up as arbiters of truth. She was criticized heavily in 2022 for her support of Twitter’s fact-checking program “Bird Watch” and “demoting content.”  She now runs the gaslighting operation The American Sunlight Project, which specifically works to dispel allegations that “the Federal Government is overseeing a vast censorship regime in coordination with social media platforms, academic institutions, and civil society organizations.” 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 MRC Free Speech America’s  contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Reid Floats Copious Conspiracies of GOP Priming Trump ‘Dictatorship’

In Monday evening’s edition of The ReidOut, MSNBC’s Joy Reid took a stab at apparent conservative “distress,” explaining their recent actions as irrational efforts to advance an impending Trump “dictatorship.” Her chief targets included former White House Personnel Director John McEntee, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, NFL kicker Harrison Butker, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott, among others. Reid attacked McEntee’s involvement in Project 2025, labeling it as “the plan for the Trump dictatorship.” She went on to list a series of miseries that plague conservatives, whom she collectivized as “the Alitos and McEntees of the world.” These included: “out-of-control liberated women who won't marry conservative men, have babies, and give up no-fault divorce, people who keep insisting that Black Lives Matter, immigrants of course, and accurate history that doesn’t always make the white guys look good.”      McEntee wasn’t the only alleged culprit. Reid criticized Youngkin’s veto of two bills protecting access to contraception in Virginia. She failed to note, however, that Youngkin vetoed the bills because they specifically excluded parental rights in making medical decisions for their children.  In the same sentence, suggesting Youngkin’s hand in the matter, she announced the decisions of two Virginia school boards to keep the names of Confederate generals on schools. In reality, only the Shenandoah County School Board made this change and Youngkin, in a press conference four days after the decision, told a reporter he was unaware of the situation.  Reid also added her own spin on Butker’s commencement speech, hilariously oversimplifying his statements as telling “a graduating class, including scores of women, that their degrees are a lie and they should just embrace their true vocation of making their husbands a sandwich.”  In Butker’s actual words, he first congratulated the female graduates on their accomplishment, adding that “Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.” She further commented on Abbott’s recent pardon of Daniel Perry, a man convicted of shooting and killing a Black Lives Matter activist. Reid didn’t bother to explain that the pardon was granted on the basis of Texas’ “Stand Your Ground” law, which protects the right of self-defense using deadly force.  The MSNBC host falsely asserted that Perry, an Uber driver, simply “[drove] his car into a group of pedestrian marchers,” though he actually stopped his car when he reached the intersection blocked by protestors and allowed some of them to cross. It was then that Garrett Foster, one of the activists, allegedly raised his weapon, an AK-47, prompting Perry to fire his own revolver. Reid summed up the entire situation by stating it occurred “Because in Texas, the only thing actually illegal is trying to vote while black and on parole.” Foster was white. Reid closed out the segment by tying the stories together as an “answer to the Alito question,” mockingly pondering “Who do MAGA believe is in distress, such that they need a King Trump to put things right again?” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s The ReidOut 5/20/2024 07:52:58 PM ET JOY REID: John McEntee is a big part of Project 2025, the plan for the Trump dictatorship, and he would be in charge of personnel again in a new Trump administration. McEntee is the kind of guy who is in distress, in the MAGA mind. And the cause of the distress for the Alitos and McEntees of the world, are out-of-control liberated women who won't marry conservative men, have babies, and give up no-fault divorce, people who keep insisting that Black Lives Matter, immigrants of course, and accurate history that doesn’t always make the white guys look good. And John McEntee and his friends at Project 2025 aren’t the only ones with a plan to fix it. Just in the last week, Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed two bills that would protect access to contraception in Virginia and two Virginia school boards put the names of Confederate generals back onto schools, meaning black students in the schools will be forced to venerate men who enslaved their ancestors while not being allowed to learn true facts about slavery or read books by a number of black authors. NFL kicker and "fashion pics with Bible quotes" aficionado, Harrison Butker, told a graduating class, including scores of women, that their degrees are a lie and they should just embrace their true vocation of making their husbands a sandwich. And Texas governor Greg Abbott granted a full pardon to a man who was convicted by a jury of shooting a Black Lives Matter activist dead, after threatening and racist rants on his social media that he wanted to do just that, and then driving his car into a group of pedestrian marchers. Because in Texas, the only thing actually illegal is trying to vote while black and on parole. Did I mention that if you’re pregnant, it’s illegal to get a divorce in Missouri? Scores of U.S. states allow child marriage and Project 2025 includes the national abortion ban. I know these stories don't seem obviously related, but they are. They are the answer to the Alito question. Who do MAGA believe is in distress, such that they need a “King Trump” to put things right again?

MAGA-Phobia: Politico Q&A with Totalitarianism Expert Focuses on Trump

"News" outlets are engaged in feverish speculation about just how dystopian Donald Trump's second term might be. Their fervent imaginations overrule the reality of Trump's first term, which never devolved into dictatorship.  On Sunday, Politico's Joanna Weiss conducted a Q&A with liberal Samantha Rose Hill, a scholar of totalitarianism and the author Hannah Arendt. The headline was "‘A Truer Reality Beyond Reality’: Hannah Arendt’s Warning About How Totalitarianism Takes Root." Although Stalinism and Nazism are touched upon (barely), the main focus was Orange Man Bad. Weiss somehow manages to go two paragraphs of the interview before latching on to Trump:  Samantha Rose Hill is a professor at the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research and a leading interpreter of Arendt’s thinking, particularly as it relates to loneliness. She notes that The Origins of Totalitarianism became a bestseller in 2016 because it helped explain an aspect of Donald Trump’s election: how economic and social conditions create feelings of loneliness and rootlessness and lead people to seek out belonging and meaning in political movements. Today, Hill says, Arendt might have connected loneliness not just to the rise of Trump, but also the actions of groups like Moms for Liberty on the right and the fervor of identity politics on the left. Arendt died almost 50 years ago, but Hill can somehow conjure up her spirit to tell us how she would have thought about Trump? How very, very convenient. Oh, and would it be too much to expect the interviewer to ask the interpreter of Arendt's thinking what Arendt might have thought about the state employing partisan lawfare to suppress and interfere with their opponents in an election year? And here we have "evidence" for the authoritarian cult of Trump based on weather reports:  Ideology teaches people that there is a truer reality beyond reality. Think of QAnon, Pizzagate and the many Americans who believe Donald Trump won the last presidential election. Another example that comes to mind is Trump’s inauguration. It was very clearly raining. You could see the rain. People were holding umbrellas. And yet, Trump said, “It isn’t raining.” Many people affirmed his statement, because the point of the statement wasn’t to reflect upon the experience as it was, but to assert his ideology of dominance. Hey Politico! How's this for an alternate reality? The CIA narrative fed to you that you enthusiastically recited in 2020, "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say." But wait! The rain! The rain! Finally they speculate about Trump being merely being in the authoritarian stage before he finally achieves true totalitarianism. Weiss asks: When people object to Trump or a politician like him, it seems what they’re often concerned about is authoritarianism, as opposed to totalitarianism. What’s the relationship between the two? Does totalitarianism lead to authoritarianism? Or is it the other way around? To which self-styled Arendt thought interpreter Hill answers: In Arendt’s account, it would be the other way around. She distinguishes between authoritarianism, fascism, tyranny and totalitarianism. Totalitarianism, she argued, depended upon the radical atomization of the whole, the absolute elimination of all spontaneity. One lived in absolute fear all the time, even those in the party, and the aim of totalitarianism was total world domination. Within an authoritarian system, you still have limited political freedom. There isn’t a totalizing state of fear, but there is domination: domination that aims at political control within a state, without the means of persuasion. So if we were to think of Trump trying to overturn the election results of 2020, that I think we can read as a kind of authoritarian grab. Sniff! You mean Donald Trump still has not quite reached totalitarian level yet? So how would Hannah Arendt as conjured up by her 2024 thought interpreter regard the massive governmental lawfare being used against Trump? Politico thinks you can never suggest Democrats might engage in authoritarian behavior as they claim they're just "safeguarding democracy."

The Left's Fondling Fetish Freaks: Pride Month is On the Horizon

Welcome to Woke of the Weak, where I’ll update you about the most woke, progressive, insane and crazy clips and stories that the left thinks is tolerable and well, point out why exactly they’re nuts. This week, we witnessed some of the worst examples of how far out of touch with reality so much of the left is. It seems that with pride month being on the horizon, the left has stepped up its insanity. Two parents need to have their custody revoked this week. One was a queer individual who snuggled up to his child that he conceived in a petri dish. A different father shared a video where he and his son matched eyeshadow. Apparently that wasn’t grooming, but instead was a way of supporting his kid… Next up was a person who explained that she (?) wasn't a man, used he/him pronouns but was also trans-nonbinary and liked her boobs but not her butt. If you’re confused, same! After that was a grown man who was given a microphone and stage time to moan into a microphone and shake not only his upper body but his private parts, too. The left has no decency! Speaking of a lack of decency, two transgender men - so women - showed off their mastectomy scars. To close out, we heard from a man who lives in America and was at a beach, in America, and complained that he saw American flags. While he seemed pissed off, he didn’t seem near as mad as the final clip which showed a group of absolutely unhinged ladies in the woods screaming and crying. That’s what’s up on this week’s Woke of the Weak!

WATCH: Former Home Depot CEO Shreds Biden’s Atrocious ‘Wrecking Ball’ Economic Policies

Former CEO of Home Depot Bob Nardelli made clear how the policies of President Joe Biden will continue to damage the American economy in the near future. During the May 20 edition of Fox Business’s Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, Nardelli agreed that further inflation was ahead due to Biden’s policies, especially his climate change-obsessed energy policy. “Day one of this administration they started the war on fossil fuel. And what I've seen over the past three-and-a-half years is that there's a series of debacles and missteps have created a tremendous pressure on the fault lines, if you will, of our economy and they're about ready to crack,” Nardelli said. He effectively suggested that the dismal American economic situation is teetering on being an irreparable catastrophe, regardless of who wins the U.S. presidential election in November: “Whoever gets the next stint in the White House is going to be hit with a wrecking ball in trying to correct the missteps and the overspending of this current administration, Maria, so we’re in for a rough time I would say.”  Nardelli and Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo were responding to a brutal report from The Wall Street Journal that highlighted an embarrassing factoid for Biden: “Adjusted for inflation, net worth was up just 0.7% through Biden’s first three years, compared with 16% through Trump’s first three years.” Biden has also presided over the devastation of Americans’ savings and declining wages, while prices continue to spike.  Nardelli also went after Biden’s absurd regulatory warfare on the American auto industry, warning that Biden’s eco-extremist energy policies would ultimately strain the grid. “They've been shutting down coal plants because of this war on fossil fuel and the grid is in a very very fragile state. And it will take years to improve the sustainability and durability of this grid,” Nardelli said.  He went on to criticize the president for pushing for electric vehicles, adding to electrical grid demand even as Biden’s regulations threaten the coal and natural gas that fuel the grid. Nardelli didn’t mince words about how “the hypocrisy and the ambiguity of this administration challenges common sense.” Conservatives are under attack! 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.

Behar Admits She Self-Censors Criticism of Biden Lest It Elect Trump

The cast of ABC’s The View has made it clear for a while now that they’re in the tank for President Biden. But while they denounced even the Democrats who challenged him, co-host Joy Behar admitted to guest comedian Bill Maher on Tuesday that she self-censors her criticism of Biden because she was afraid she could help elect former President Trump by pointing out the truth. Behar was in a bit of disbelief that Maher would dare to call out “the crazy stuff on the left” and admits she was afraid to do so: BEHAR: I'm nervous about saying anything against Biden because I feel – not that I have so much power and you have some more than I do obviously, but -- MAHER: oh, I don't know about that. BEHAR: Are you afraid that you might influence the people who are on the fence? Maher argued that if you don’t call it like you see it, “you lose all credibility.” “My bond with my audience has always been I don't pull a punch. My bond with my audience is you're not going to like everything I say but you know I'm saying what I really think is true,” he said. He went on to lament that “Biden just presents as old. It's not really fair.” Recalling a recent speech Biden gave, he described the President as “cadaver-like.” “But his brain is good. He’s still great,” Behar clownishly pushed back.     Earlier in the show, before Maher was on the set, Behar proclaimed that people who wore MAGA hats should “put a swastika on the hat.” Maher decried the idea because it involved hating half the country and he didn’t want to do that: Look, I'm not going to defend Donald Trump ever but I would never say that we should put the swastika on the cap because I think you can hate Donald Trump. You can't hate everybody who likes him. It's half the country. I don't want to live in that country. I don't want to live in the country where I hate half the country. And I don’t hate half the country. “How dare you disagree with me in public,” Behar quipped. Coming to Behar’s defense later in the show, Maher said: “Joy is a wonderful human being and she should not be afraid that people are going to attack her because she said the thing about the swastika on the cap. She does not think that all -- as you said to me in the break, you do not think that all the people who are for Trump are Nazis.” Behar said that she didn’t think all of Trump’s supporters were Nazis, but she wanted “them to pay attention to words like ‘vermin’ and ‘poisoning the blood.’ And the Third Reich. That’s all. That's really what I'm asking.” “You can hate Trump. You can't hate everybody who likes him. It is half the country,” Maher reiterated. “I have some in my family. I don't think they're Nazis,” Behar added. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 21, 2024 11:09:43 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: By the way out there, that hat that you keep wearing – that red hat that says Make America Great Again, that tells people that you go along with this so might as well put a swastika on the hat. (…) 11:27:26 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: I'm nervous about saying anything against Biden because I feel, not that I have so much power and you have some more than I do obviously, but -- BILL MAHER: oh, I don't know about that. BEHAR: Are you afraid that you might influence the people who are on the fence? MAHER: I think you lose all credibility. I do. My bond with my audience has always been I don't pull a punch. My bond with my audience is you're not going to like everything I say but you know I'm saying what I really think is true. BEHAR: Right. MAHER: And that's – [Applause] Okay. And, look, Biden just presents as old. It's not really fair. BEHAR: No. MAHER: Because he's almost the same age -- Trump is almost the same age as him but Trump doesn't present that way. You look at somebody right away, you can kind of just sum them up. We are not young, but we don't present as old? Biden does. I saw him yesterday making that speech. I mean, I'm sorry, he's cadaver-like. BEHAR: But his brain is good. He’s still great. (…) 11:30:00 a.m. Eastern MAHER: Look, I'm not going to defend Donald Trump ever but I would never say that we should put the swastika on the cap because I think you can hate Donald Trump. You can't hate everybody who likes him. It's half the country. I don't want to live in that country. I don't want to live in the country where I hate half the country. And I don’t hate half the country. BEHAR: How dare you disagree with me in public. [Applause] [Laughter] (…) 11:43:46 a.m. Eastern MAHER: Joy is a wonderful human being and she should not be afraid that people are going to attack her because she said the thing about the swastika on the cap. She does not think that all -- as you said to me in the break, you do not think that all the people who are for Trump are Nazis. BEHAR: No, I don't. I don’t. I just want them to pay attention to words like “vermin” and “poisoning the blood.” MAHER: Of course. BEHAR: And the third Reich. That’s all. That's really what I'm asking. MAHER: They see Trump as a comedian. They see him as a clown who says crazy things. BEHAR: They saw Hitler like that. MAHER: Right, okay, but – You can hate Trump. You can't hate everybody who likes him. It is half the country. BEHAR: I have some in my family. I don't think they're Nazis. (…)

Tomlinson Misrepresents Butker on Women, Mourns His Pro-Life Stance

CBS’s After Midnight is sold as a different kind of late night comedy show. Host Taylor Tomlinson typically guides her guests in various internet content-inspired improv question and answer games, but on Monday she began like a typical late night host and gave a monologue in defense of President Joe Biden’s stance on abortion while attacking Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker’s recent commencement address to Benedictine College. Tomlinson began by misrepresenting the most talked-about portion of Butker’s remarks, “The biggest story over the weekend was the social media uproar over the commencement speech given by Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker.”     After some booing from the audience, she continued, “Hey, this is an important story to know if you want to fight with your dad this week. In it, he said that women should focus on being wives and mothers instead of having careers.” Butker never said women shouldn’t have careers, as Tomlinson’s clip showed, “Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children he will bring to this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabel, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. Tomlinson reacted, “Wow, I can't believe a guy who kicks for a living had a bad take. First off, he said 'vocation' so many times there's no way he didn't just learn that word. He praises his wife, who he met in band class in middle school. This speech upset me because as a girl who played clarinet for six years, that could have been me. Once I get a football player to bang me, I will ditch this TV show so fast. I’m serious. I'm only killing time until ‘My life truly begins.’” If Tomlinson wants to criticize Butker for glossing over the fact his wife can more easily afford to be a stay-at-home mom than the average mother because he makes millions of dollars being a professional football player, that would be one thing, but it is not an excuse to misrepresent what he told the graduates. She also lamented, “A lot of people are focusing on the homemaker part and not the pro-life and homophobia parts.” Butker was shown speaking about Biden and Pride Month, “He has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I'm sure it appears that you can be Catholic and pro-choice [jump cut] Not the deadly sin sort-of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it.” Again, Tomlinson reacted as if Butker was just some cranky old man, “Yeah. So we can't be gay, we can't have jobs, we can't have abortions. Who is this guy, my uncle at Thanksgiving?”  Tomlinson has always had a bit of a Freudian sense of humor, but thus far, she hasn’t really merged that with politics or religion in the way some others have. That has started to change over the last couple of episodes and now with the added monologue, she risks becoming just like the other late night hosts. Additionally, After Midnight is produced by another supposedly devout Catholic: Stephen Colbert. Here is a transcript for the May 20-taped show: CBS After Midnight 5/21/2024 12:38 PM ET TAYLOR TOMLINSON: The biggest story over the weekend was the social media uproar over the commencement speech given by Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker. Hey, this is an important story to know if you want to fight with your dad this week. In it, he said that women should focus on being wives and mothers instead of having careers. HARRISON BUTKER: Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children he will bring to this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabel, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. TOMLINSON: Wow, I can't believe a guy who kicks for a living had a bad take. First off, he said "vocation" so many times there's no way he didn't just learn that word. He praises his wife, who he met in band class in middle school. This speech upset me because as a girl who played clarinet for six years, that could have been me. Once I get a football player to bang me, I will ditch this TV show so fast. I’m serious. I'm only killing time until "My life truly begins." A lot of people are focusing on the homemaker part and not the pro-life and homophobia parts. BUTKER: He has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I'm sure it appears that you can be Catholic and pro-choice [jump cut] Not the deadly sin sort-of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it. TOMLINSON: Yeah. So we can't be gay, we can't have jobs, we can't have abortions. Who is this guy, my uncle at Thanksgiving? 

Macho Joe Scarborough: If I Were Judge Merchan, I'd SHACKLE Trump And Jail Him!

Muy Macho Joe Scarborough has once again proven himself the toughest hombre this side of Nantucket. Among several past displays of his sizzling manliness, Scarborough once boasted he'd force a tourist to eat his camera if he found him snapping pics inside the Capitol somewhere Scarborough didn't approve.  Macho Joe was back at it on today's Morning Joe. Discussing the situation at Trump's hush money trial yesterday in which Judge Merchan gave a tongue-lashing to defense witness Robert Costello for an exasperated "Jeez" and then an exasperated sigh over Merchan's rulings. Scarborough claimed that in his young-lawyer days in Florida, "if a witness acted toward a judge the way this defense witness acted yesterday, judge would have cleared the courtroom, called in the bailiff, sent him to jail, say, we're going to take a recess and let the witness think about this in jail in 24 hours. And take him out in cuffs, and bring him back the next day." Willie Geist performed his usual sidekick remarks: "Judge Merchan making it clear that whatever you are doing to perform for President Trump right now, whatever you're trying to do to signal that you are continuing to be sort of a tough guy, a thug on behalf and in defense of President Trump, it's not going to work in this courtroom." Scarborough replied "Exactly, And he's playing, like the clowns behind him that all come in with their cyborg red ties, to an audience of one." Macho Joe found no irony that he was wearing a blue blazer, a white shirt, and a red tie -- full cyborg! -- or that he does his own daily show for an audience of one, namely Joe Biden.  As for Costello, Scarborough declared that: "If he were to do it again, he needs to be sent to jail. He needs to be sent to jail immediately." Scarborough then trained his macho sights on Trump. Joe said that Judge Merchan has shown "restraint" in the face of Trump "going out and, and attacking him personally, suggesting that he's corrupt, suggesting that the court system is rigged, making it extraordinarily personal toward him and members of his family."      Scarborough then declared: "I don't care who the defendants were. If I were the judge, they're going to jail. I would bring them in shackles day in and day out. I  don't care if it were a Democrat, a Republican, whether it was a steel worker, at teacher, or the President of the United States." No word from Joe whether he'd order Trump to spend "a night in the box," a la Cool Hand Luke.  For good measure, Scarborough claimed the notion that Trump is the victim of a double standard in which he's being prosecuted for actions others wouldn't be is " just bullshit. Rank bullshit." Yup. Real men go barnyard scatological on national TV. Right, Macho Joe? Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/21/24 6:02 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: I will tell you if, and I'll just say it again, in, in most courtrooms in  America, certainly in courtrooms that I grew up around as a young attorney in northwest Florida, if a witness acted toward a judge the way this defense witness acted yesterday, judge would have cleared the courtroom, called in the bailiff, sent him to jail, say, we're going to take a recess and let the witness think about this in jail in 24 hours. And take him out in cuffs, and bring him back the next day. But obviously, the judge is balancing a lot of different things. We'll get to that in a minute. . . .  WILLIE GEIST: So, an extraordinary moment, and Judge Merchan making it clear that whatever you are doing to perform for President Trump right now, whatever you're trying to do to signal that you are continuing to be sort of a tough guy, a thug on behalf and in defense of President Trump, it's not going to work in this courtroom. SCARBOROUGH: Well, exactly. And he's playing, like the clowns behind him that all come in with their cyborg red ties, to an audience of one. And that makes his disrespectfulness toward the judge, but far more importantly, toward the court, toward the court system itself, all the more maddening. And why if he, if he, if he were to do it again, he needs to be sent to jail. He needs to be sent to jail immediately. Just, let's take a step back. And Judge Merchan has had to show restraint while, every day, you have a defendant going out and, and attacking him personally, suggesting that he's corrupt, suggesting that the court system is rigged, making it extraordinarily personal toward him and members of his family.  And I suppose -- I wouldn't do it. I don't care who the defendant were [sic.] If I'm tthe judge, they're going to jail. And I would bring them in shackles day in and day out. I don't care if it were a Democrat, a Republican, whether it was a steel worker, a teacher, or the President of the United States. You have to respect the judge, because the judge represents the, the, the judicial system. And I understand the balancing act that this judge is in the middle of, Willie, but you take everything in its totality. Maybe it's harder to send a former president to jail for contempt when any other American, any other American, any other American would be sent to jail. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: That is correct. SCARBOROUGH: This double standard stuff, that somehow Donald Trump is on the wrong end of the double standard, that's just, as Aristotle used to say when he was debating Socrates, that's just bullshit. Rank bullshit.

Who Would Do That? Nets Ignore Reuters Report on Vanishing Aid in Gaza

In a story penned Monday and updated Tuesday morning, Reuters’s Michelle Nicholas explained things haven’t exactly gone swimmingly (pun intended) for aid coming from a U.S.-constructed pier into Hamas-controlled Gaza as 11 out of 16 trucks on Saturday never made it to their intended destinations (and thus, being able to reach storage) as they were raided along the way. As such, by Monday afternoon, no delivers came through since Saturday. Not surprisingly, the pro-Hamas liberal networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC omitted this from coverage of the war in their flagship Monday night and Tuesday morning newscasts. “Food and medicine for Palestinians in Gaza are piling up in Egypt because the Rafah crossing remains closed and there has been no aid delivered to a U.N. warehouse from a U.S.-built pier for two days, U.N. officials warned on Monday,” Nicholas said in her lede. Of course, the story had to have an anti-Israel tilt as the next graph cited a United Nations official to kvetch there’s been “insufficient supplies and fuel to...Gaza as they endure Israel's military onslaught against Hamas militants.” But why is that? Nicholas provided one of the answers a few lines later: “Egypt said on Monday that the crossing is closed due to the threat posed to aid work by Israel's military operation.” After again blaming Israel, she arrived at the heart of the matter with the pier: The U.N. agreed to assist in coordinating aid distribution from the floating pier, but has remained adamant that deliveries by land are the best way to combat the crisis. The U.N. said that 10 truckloads of food aid - transported from the pier site by U.N. contractors - were received on Friday at a World Food Programme warehouse in Deir El Balah in Gaza. But on Saturday, only five truckloads made it to the warehouse after 11 others were cleaned out by Palestinians during the journey through an area that a U.N. official said has been hard to access with humanitarian aid. (....) The U.N. did not receive any aid from the pier on Sunday or Monday. The reactions on Twitter didn’t disappoint. Foundation for the Defense of Democracies senior fellow Bill Roggio tweeted that “[t]he Gaza aid pier may be the most expensive piece of performance art ever created. This was destined to fail. Our tax dollars hard at work.  For Hamas.” Free Beacon contributor Noah Pollak brought more of the facts to bear: “The US taxpayer-provided $320m Gaza pier is an ongoing terror finance violation by the Biden administration and administered by CENTCOM. We ship aid to Hamas that it ‘steals’ and sells in Gaza to finance its terror war. There should be hearings.” Longtime Florida political reporter Marc Caputo (now with the Bulwark) had perhaps the best take: “Well, we can’t say for sure Hamas stole this aid[.] I mean, should we suspect a terrorist group that staged a murder, rape & kidnapping raid —only to then hide among civilians in one of earth’s densest urban areas— of stealing from the very population it rules through fear?”

‘Feminist Hags’ Blast Butker’s Pro-Woman Speech: MRCTV’s Mandelburg on OANN

On Monday, MRCTV’s Tierin-Rose Mandelburg appeared on One America News Network’s In Focus with Alison Steinberg to talk about Kansas City Chiefs Kicker Harrison Butker's speech at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. Since his speech on Saturday, May 11, in which Butker emphasized Christian principals and noted that a woman feels particularly satisfied with life when she starts a family, feminists and social justice warriors have come out of the woodwork to share their distaste and frustration with Butker’s pro-America, pro-woman, pro-Christ, and pro-life references. As Steinberg noted, an op-ed published in the Kansas City Star suggested that Butker be replaced with a female kicker as a way to prove to him that women can be successful in careers outside of the home.  The thing is, Butker never said women couldn't have successful careers; he simply noted, with which most normal women would agree, that most women desire marriage, tradition, and starting a family. Butker also never said it was one or the other - but remember, the left thinks anything that has the slightest bit of Jesus or tradition rooted in it needs to be shut down. Two ladies, or “feminist hags” as Mandelburg called them, insisted that what Butker said was “disrespectful” to women.  “I hope that he is canceled to hell and back and I feel so sorry that his wife has to sleep with him,” one of the old ladies on the “I’ve Had It Podcast” exclaimed. Related: Kansas City Star: ‘Make A Statement' Replace Butker With Female Kicker Both Mandelburg and Steinberg agreed that the take against Butker was “truly laughable," noting that it was insane for women to bash a man praising a woman for literally growing and birthing life. Mandelburg said that the “feminist hags" are professional victims who spend their lives doing nothing more than virtue signaling and complaining, and their complaints against Butker are rooted in jealousy. Funnily enough, as Steinberg noted, the NFL sold out of Butker's women’s jerseys shortly following his speech. Check out the segment! Follow us on Twitter/X: 🙏 pic.twitter.com/0bO8SrkhNU — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 20, 2024

Amanpour Invites Power-Mad ICC Prosecutor To Trash GOP

During her Monday interview with International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan that first aired on CNN International and later on PBS’s Amanpour and Company, Christiane Amanpour opened up the floor to Khan to trash Republicans for their criticisms of him. Naturally, Khan portrayed himself as a man of deep principles fighting against GOP politicians who only care about appeasing their base, but the fact that the interview existed in the first place cast doubt on such assessments. The interview was Khan’s way of announcing he is seeking arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Amanpour mostly spent the interview asking him to explain himself. However, in one instance, Amanpour recalled: As we know, the United States is not a party to the ICC, nor is Israel. Recently, when word came out that this may be happening at some point, U.S. senators and U.S. congresspeople, mostly Republicans, wrote you a letter signed by Senator Tom Cotton, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and others. This is the quote. ‘Target Israel and we will target you. If you move forward with the measures indicated in the report, we will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees and associates, and bar you and your families from the United States. You have been warned.’"     She then asked, “Is that a threat?” Sen. Lindsey Graham recalled that Khan told him that he was going to go to Israel to discuss the allegations with the Israeli government, but instead he showed up on CNN. Graham says he “was lied to.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who is very much not a Republican, didn’t use the L-word, but might as well have, “The Prosecutor’s staff was supposed to land in Israel today to coordinate the visit. Israel was informed that they did not board their flight around the same time that the Prosecutor went on cable television to announce the charges. These and other circumstances call into question the legitimacy and credibility of this investigation.” Clearly, there is bipartisan consensus that Khan is “drunk with self-importance,” but nevertheless he replied, “I think that's the plain meaning of it in English. But you know, there's hotheads everywhere, and there's people that are mature statesmen and stateswomen and leaders. There are those that have fidelity to something greater than themselves, whether it's their constitutions, but ultimately, it's the rule of law.” He further cited working with the Biden Administration on “a range of situations, whether it's in Ukraine or Darfur, and I've said to distinguish members on the Hill and to the administration that Rome Statute values are quintessential American values. It's against bullying. It's against the untrammeled power against the most vulnerable. It's the rights, the dignity of the individual is the protection of babies. I mean, these are fundamental American values that should engender bipartisan support.” Who’s bullying who? The U.S. worked with Khan on Ukraine because it was invaded in an act of naked imperial aggression built around the premise that the Ukrainian state and separate identity were a mistake. Israel, on the other hand, didn’t just wake up one day and decide to invade Gaza. Khan knows this because he is also seeking warrants against Hamas leaders, he just doesn’t care. Khan wrapped up his answer by again portraying himself as justice incarnate, “This court is the legacy of Nuremberg. This court is a sad indictment of humanity. This court should be the triumph of law over power and brute force. Grab what you can. Take what you want. Do what you will. And we're going to simply be—we're not going to be dissuaded by threats or any other activities because, in the end, we have to fulfill our responsibilities as prosecutors, as the men and women of the office, as judges, as the registry, to something bigger than ourselves, which is the fidelity to justice.” Khan’s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, also overstepped her authority by announcing investigations into U.S. troops in Afghanistan and afterwards landed a nice position as The Gambia’s high commissioner to the United Kingdom. What kind of future does Khan think he deserves for trying to appease the world’s Israel haters? Here is a transcript for the May 20 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 5/20/2024 CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: I'm going to read you some heavy criticism that you've received from the United States. As we know, the United States is not a party to the ICC, nor is Israel. Recently, when word came out that this may be happening at some point, U.S. senators and U.S. congresspeople, mostly Republicans, wrote you a letter signed by Senator Tom Cotton, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and others. This is the quote. "Target Israel and we will target you. If you move forward with the measures indicated in the report, we will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees and associates, and bar you and your families from the United States. You have been warned." Is that a threat? KARIM KHAN: I think that's the plain meaning of it in English. But you know, there's hotheads everywhere, and there's people that are mature statesmen and stateswomen and leaders. There are those that have fidelity to something greater than themselves, whether it's their constitutions, but ultimately, it's the rule of law. The good news is, I think, for the last two and a half years, we've had very positive engagement with the Biden administration in the United States. We're working across a range of situations, whether it's in Ukraine or Darfur, and I've said to distinguish members on the Hill and to the administration that Rome Statute values are quintessential American values. It's against bullying. It's against the untrammeled power against the most vulnerable. It's the rights, the dignity of the individual is the protection of babies. I mean, these are fundamental American values that should engender bipartisan support. Now, of course, this situation, unfortunately lies on the San Andreas fault of international politics and strategic interests. And, of course, I've had some elected leaders speak to me and very -- you know, be very blunt. This court is built for Africa and for thugs like Putin, was what one senior leader told me. We don't view it like that. This court is the legacy of Nuremberg. This court is a sad indictment of humanity. This court should be the triumph of law over power and brute force. Grab what you can. Take what you want. Do what you will. And we're going to simply be -- we're not going to be dissuaded by threats or any other activities because, in the end, we have to fulfill our responsibilities as prosecutors, as the men and women of the office, as judges, as the registry, to something bigger than ourselves, which is the fidelity to justice. And we're not going to be swayed by the different types of threats, some of which are public and some maybe are not.

Trump’s Sun Belt Hopes and Rust Belt Needs

Donald Trump’s first election redrew the map of American politics; suddenly Pennsylvania and Michigan were in the Republican column for the first time since the 1980s. But they didn’t stay there: The Rust Belt states that made Trump president in 2016 sent Joe Biden to the White House in 2020. That second Trump election also redrew the map, this time forfeiting two Sun Belt states that had been Republican for decades, Arizona and Georgia, to the Democrats. Which map will Trump draw this time? Polls show him ahead in the Sun Belt and Rust Belt alike, and indications that Black and Hispanic voters are trending Trump’s way have Republicans giddy. Will this election upend political demographics the way the last two shook up electoral geography? The prospect is real — but Trump’s experience in 2020 contains a warning. He can’t afford to be complacent about the Rust Belt no matter how dazzling the Sun Belt and its demographics seem today. Yet it’s hard not to look on the bright side. Trump is up five points in Arizona according to a CBS News poll released Sunday. That fits with the six-point lead the latest New York Times/Siena poll found a week before. Even more encouraging, the same NYT/Siena survey showed Trump up 13 points over Biden in Nevada, a state Republicans haven’t won in a presidential contest since 2004. Georgia, too, is going red; no poll has shown a lead for the Democrat there since the Trump-Biden rematch got booked. After four dour years of continual crises abroad and inflation at home, does sunshine now remind voters of Trump? Two of Biden’s weaknesses are a special source of the Republican’s Sun Belt strength. First, the incumbent can’t evade the blame for the mess on the southern border and his administration’s inability, or brazen unwillingness, to control immigration. Arizona’s electorate is acutely conscious of the border situation, of course, but immigration is an urgent issue in Nevada and Georgia as well. Georgia even recently passed legislation to crack down on local officials who shirk their duty to enforce immigration law. Second, contrary to progressives’ expectations, the ethnic diversity of these Sun Belt states is starting to work to Trump’s advantage. Black and Latino voters are defecting from Biden in droves, according to repeated rounds of NYT/Siena polling, which most recently found Trump virtually even with the Democrat among Hispanics. Trump has a long way to go before he can equal Biden with Black voters, but for the incumbent to lose any support with a constituency that voted 92% for him in 2020 is a fire alarm. Biden’s worried enough that he’s made recent appearances before Black audiences — including a commencement address at the historically Black Morehouse College on Sunday — occasions to sell himself hard to voters he would normally count on. Even at Morehouse, the president is dogged by divisions his policies toward Israel cause in his own coalition. Before Biden spoke, the graduating class’s valedictorian, DeAngelo Fletcher, drew applause for demanding "an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip." When Biden took the stage, some of the class turned their backs or walked out. The crackup of the Democratic coalition doesn’t automatically put Trump back in the White House, however. If he sweeps Arizona, Nevada and Georgia, the Republican still won’t have the Electoral College votes he needs unless he flips at least one more state. The Rust Belt battlegrounds of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are his best prospects. In these states, the white vote will likely decide the outcome. Trump lost ground with whites nationwide in 2020, a fact that’s drawn less attention than Biden’s troubles with Blacks and Latinos. According to a June 2021 Pew analysis, in 2020 Biden drastically cut into Trump’s support among suburban white voters compared to 2016, narrowing the Republican’s lead with them from a commanding 16% margin down to just 4%. Even among whites without college degrees — a core component of Trump’s base — Biden made gains relative to Hillary Clinton’s performance in 2016, raising the Democrat share of non-college whites from 28% to 33%. Because white voters nationally are still a majority, these declines in his 2020 white support were fatal to Trump’s reelection, more than counterbalancing gains with Hispanics. And whites make up a larger majority in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin than they do in the country at large. Trump should do everything he can to win the Sun Belt, and Black and Hispanic voters, away from Biden. But his priority must be to win back the Rust Belt states and white voters he lost in 2020. The Rust Belt map Trump drew in 2016 is still the one that leads to victory. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com

CBS’s O’Donnell Abets Pope Francis’s Leftist Takes On Migration, Climate

At long last, CBS aired its special featuring anchor Norah O’Donnell’s interview of Pope Francis which, as predicted, ran through the entire leftwing media policy pupu platter. A substantial portion of this interview was devoted, predictably, to the propagation of leftwing talking points on migration and climate change. Watch as O’Donnell leads Francis into advocating for an open border (click "expand" for transcript): NORAH O’DONNELL: In St. Peter's Square sits this monument to migrants. On top of a boat, a young boy fleeing the Irish famine. A Jewish man escaping Nazi Germany. A woman departing the Syrian Civil War. Unveiled by the Pope in 2019, calling on the faithful to "welcome, protect, promote and integrate."  This is a big story in the United States, because there have been so many migrants this year. I've been to the border and many times it is mothers with children who are fleeing violence. And they walk thousands of miles with their families for a better life. And yet, there is a discussion about closing the border, limiting migration. POPE FRANCIS (VIA INTERPRETER): The solution is migration, to open the doors to migration. For an immigration policy to be good, it must have four things. For the migrant to be received, assisted, promoted, and integrated. This is what is most important, to integrate them into the new life. O’DONNELL: I grew up in the state of Texas, which is right on the border with Mexico. The state of Texas is attempting to shut down a Catholic charity on the border with Mexico that offers undocumented migrants humanitarian assistance. What do you think of that? POPE FRANCIS: That is madness. Sheer madness. Over there in Texas, there is a great bishop, Bishop Seitz. He’s right there at the border. That man does the impossible to help the migrants, right? O’DONNELL: We met Bishop Mark Seitz at Annunciation House, a Catholic charity in El Paso Texas, where they are challenging the state's attempt to shut them down for allegedly shielding undocumented migrants from law enforcement. BISHOP MARK SEITZ: This type of accusation puts fear into the hearts of anyone who generously gives of their time because of the Christian concern for people who are truly the poorest of the poor among us, people who have no place to go, nothing to eat, no clothes. The media generally tend to treat faith like a combo menu, picking and choosing the parts they elect to propagate while denigrating those who believe those aspects thereof that the media don’t like. As Exhibit A, I give you the still-ongoing Harrison Butker kerfuffle.  The media had no choice but to cover Butker’s comments because they quickly went viral, as opposed to simply ignoring Francis when he says similar things on family, life, and marriage. Inasmuch as Francis’ stance on migration (open borders) is aligned with the Regime, Francis gets maximum exposure. This is why the interview, which encompassed such matters as… Gaza/Ukraine College campus protests Migration Climate Change Ordination of women Surrogacy/IVF Transgender/LGBTQ issues Blessing LGBTQ individuals versus same-sex couples Sex abuse scandal Francis’ health, intent to retire …featured ZERO questions on abortion. O’Donnell broached the issue of Life by coming at it from the surrogacy and IVF angle, wherein Francis’ harshest denunciation was reserved for the for-profit surrogacy industry. Abortion never made it on the air. On this issue, Pope Francis is not convenient to the Regime. Which leads us back to migration. Here again, O’Donnell frames the issue in a light most likely to tug on Francis’ heartstrings. Hence, the evocation of mothers and children arriving at the border as opposed to hordes of military-aged men from hostile countries.  There is also the verbal sleight of hand related to the Catholic charity currently being sued by the Texas AG. O’Donnell complains to Francis about the Texas AG trying to shut down the charity “that offers humanitarian assistance”. When introducing the bishop in charge of Annunciation House, she then clarifies that it’s “for allegedly shielding undocumented migrants from law enforcement”. But Annunciation House is accused of failing to comply with Texas law regarding access to facilities and production of documents, in addition to the charges of (at minimum) abetting human trafficking.  The interview trudges on before doing a hard segue from migration to climate change, that other issue where the media gleefully echo Francis (click "expand"): CBS's Norah O'Donnell segues into Pope Francis' obligatory climate homily by linking climate to migration. We pollute, therefore we must open the border pic.twitter.com/pKjAoJYa90 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 21, 2024 O’DONNELL: One factor driving an increase in migration is global warming. How worried are you about climate change? FRANCIS: Unfortunately, we have gotten to a point of no return. It's sad, but that's what it is. Global warming is a serious problem. Climate change at this moment is a road to death. A road to death, eh? And it is an artificial climate change, no? Something provoked, not the normal climate change, right? O’DONNELL: You have placed blame on wealthy countries. POPE FRANCIS: In great measure, yes, because they are the ones that have more of an economy and an energy based on fossil fuels that are creating this situation, right? They are the countries that can make the most difference, given their industry and all, aren't they? But it is very difficult to create an awareness of this. They hold a conference, everybody's in agreement, they all sign, and then bye-bye. But we have to be very clear. Global warming is alarming. O’DONNELL: So alarmed, he put the imagery of the climate crisis on full display and is the first Pope to issue official Vatican documents warning in his words that the world in which we live may be, quote, "nearing the breaking point."  What do you say to the deniers of climate change? POPE FRANCIS: There are foolish people, and even if you show them the statistics, still the fool will not believe. Why? Generally, it is either because they don't understand the situation or out of a vested interest. But climate change is real. The warming of the Earth has already increased by two degrees. That is a lot. O’DONNELL: You've talked about what St. Francis called "Sister Mother Earth." That protecting our planet is the most pressing issue today? POPE FRANCIS: Yes, because it is the future, it is life. We say, at the most, "Stepsister Earth," not "Sister." Protecting the planet. How many young people today will not get to see so many things? It is a lack of conscience to use a plastic bottle and then throw it to the sea. This makes the sea unhealthy. We have to be conscientious about repurifying nature. Here, again, is an issue where Francis’ stances align with those of the Regime, unlike abortion and same-sex marriage (individual non-couple benedictions notwithstanding). More curious minds would have presented Francis with the idea of climate advocacy as a Malthusian enterprise, and asked him to square that with his pro-life positions and teachings.  But the Regime can’t have that. Nor can its Media. Which is how we end up with this interview.  

BIDEN BORDER CRISIS: Eight Heinous Illegal Immigrant Crimes ABC/CBS/NBC Are Hiding

In just the last month, eight heinous crimes occurred that shouldn’t have happened — because they were committed by lawbreakers who wouldn’t even be in the country, if the Biden administration was doing its job of protecting the border.   Arrests of illegal immigrants in crimes ranging from sexual assaults to fatal car crashes have made news in their local communities but have gone COMPLETELY unreported by the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks. This continues a trend that the MRC reported on back in April.  Back when the House sent articles of impeachment to the Senate to try Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, NewsBusters reported on cases of innocent victims killed by illegal immigrants during the Biden administration that ABC, CBS and NBC buried.  Tragically, more people have been added to that list.  The following are eight more heinous crimes committed by illegal immigrants (in just the last month) that the networks have censored:   1. Woman Saved From Sexual Assault By Illegal Immigrant Who Drove “Rape Dungeon on Wheels”         On May 15,  Los Angeles Fox Affiliate FOX11 reported:  In a dramatic rescue in a remote area of the San Gabriel Mountains, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies saved a woman from a sexual assault inside a van described as a “rape dungeon on wheels,” sources tell FOX 11.  The incident occurred approximately six miles north of Azusa, near mile marker 21 along Highway 39, according to officials with LASD. Sources said the alleged “serial rapist” had taken his 26-year-old victim to a dark turnout just off the highway.  Eduardo Sarabia was arrested on May 13. Deputies said he’s a transient and an illegal immigrant from Mexico. Sarabia has been charged for two counts of forcible rape, for the incident during which he was allegedly caught, and another alleged incident the day before.… Deputies described Sarabia’s van as a “rape dungeon on wheels,” that was “disgustingly outfitted for rape.” Sources said that because of the nature of the crimes, deputies believe there may be other victims. Anyone with information about these crimes was asked to contact the LASD's Special Victims Bureau. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   2. Illegal Immigrant Charged with Kidnapping, Sexual Assault Was Previously Let Loose By Federal Agents         On May 7, FoxNews.com reported:  A Guatemalan illegal immigrant who is now charged in Florida with the kidnapping and sexual assault of a child, had been freed into the U.S. with a court date for 2027, officials said this week. The Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office announced that Marvin Perez Lopez, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, was arrested on Saturday for kidnapping a minor under 13 and sexual assault. Detectives learned that he arrived in January after crossing into the U.S. via Mexico and turned himself into Border Patrol. Authorities say he was given a court date for some time in 2027 and released into the U.S. He is currently being held in the county jail on no bond, the office said.  Perez Lopez is alleged to have grabbed an 11-year-old girl and forced her into his van, according to the arrest report, reported by CBS 12. The girl’s mother is said to have spotted them and started banging on the door, before the suspect jumped out of the van and fled, according to sheriff’s deputies. When deputies arrived at his apartment, Perez Lopez is alleged to have fled into an alleyway before he was eventually caught. “Here’s a Guatemalan, who came into the country illegally, was stopped by the border people, released, and made his way to South Florida. And now he commits a crime where he held an 11-year-old girl against her will and sexually assaulted her," Sheriff Ric Bradshaw told the outlet. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.    3. Illegal Immigrant Mother Allegedly Hired Hitman to Kill Witnesses to Son’s Crime  On May 7, the Daily Caller reported:  Police arrested an illegal immigrant mother of a boy sentenced to prison for attempting to hire a hitman to kill cooperating witnesses in her son’s case, according to the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. Josefina Cardona-Cardona was arrested on Monday after allegedly agreeing to pay an undercover agent to kill two witnesses who were testifying in her son’s 2022 fatal stabbing case, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office announced. She now faces two counts of solicitation to commit murder and will be subject to deportation following the completion of her prosecution. Cardona-Cardona is the mother of Manuel Marcos Cardona, who was recently sentenced to 15 years in prison for a stabbing death at a birthday party in Lake Worth Beach, Florida, according to local reports. Marcos Cardona was at a 5-year-old’s birthday party on June 22, 2022 when a fight broke out, according to the arrest report. The victim stepped in to break the fight up, but was then stabbed five times and died the following day at a local hospital. Marcos Cardona was 14 years old at the time of the crime, but was charged as an adult. He was handed a 15-year prison sentence following a plea deal. “In April, we learned that the mother of Manuel Marcos Cardona was planning a heinous act,” the sheriff’s office said in a Tuesday statement. “Our detectives, along with undercover agents, conducted a thorough investigation, during which the defendant, Josefina Cardona-Cardona, agreed to pay an undercover agent to carry out the crime.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   4. Illegal Immigrant in Fatal Crash Had Alcohol Level Nearly Four Times the Legal Limit     On May 10, Mobile, Alabama Fox affiliate WALA reported:    The driver who caused a fatal crash in Semmes last month was speeding in the wrong direction and nearly four times past the legal alcohol limit when he slammed into a teenager’s car, prosecutors said Friday. … Speaking slowly and intermittently so that an interpreter could relay his words to the defendant, who was watching via video link from Mobile County Metro Jail, Blackwood said prosecutors were moving for the detention order “due to the egregious nature surrounding this crash” and a prior DUI conviction. Blackwood also noted that Rodas is in the United States illegally and tried to leave the country following the wreck. Will Phillps, an attorney hired to represent the victim’s family, said after Friday’s hearing that Rodas cut short the life of 19-year-old Adam Luker. On that Sunday afternoon on April 28, Luker was on his way to meet some friends to go tubing at Escatawpa Hollow Park & Campground. “He had a lot of great things going in his life and a wonderful family,” Phillips said. “He had a job on a tugboat. He had a lot of friends and had a great life.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   5. Illegal Immigrant Killed Maine Woman in Fatal Car Crash      On May 8, the Blaze.com reported:  An illegal alien is allegedly responsible for a recent car crash in Maine that left one woman dead and her husband critically injured. Around 8:40 a.m. on April 26, 23-year-old Oguzhan Cildir, a Mexican national in the U.S. illegally, was allegedly driving a Toyota Prius on I-95 in Wells, Maine, just south of Kennebunkport, when he suddenly crashed into a minivan and a pickup truck. The pickup truck then “rolled over several times,” a police report said, before coming to a stop. … The Maine Wire reported that at least five witnesses told police that Cildir had been driving “erratically” just before the crash, weaving in and out of traffic. Moreover, Cildir reportedly does not have a driver's license. How he came into possession of the Prius and who its owner might be are both unclear. Multiple outlets reporting on the fatal crash described Cildir as a Massachusetts resident, but the Maine Wire reported that the agents who arrested him at the scene immediately contacted a local Customs and Border Protection official because of Cildir’s immigration status. He is believed to have crossed from Mexico into the U.S. illegally sometime in January. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   6. Illegal Immigrant Who Was Supposed to Be Deported 7 Years Ago, Allegedly Attacked Pregnant Teen On May 12, West Palm Beach ABC affiliate WPEC reported:  A man slated to be deported nearly seven years ago was arrested in Florida on Friday and is accused of attacking a pregnant teen, according to police. Jail records show Heber Amador Guerrero was booked into the Palm Beach County jail around 7 p.m. on counts of aggravated battery on a pregnant victim, as well as domestic battery by strangulation. Additionally, Amador Guerrero, 26, faces a single count of sexual battery on a 16 or 17-year-old victim by someone 24 years old or older in a separate case. Little information about the attack or the sexual assault has been made available, either through court records or in the statement released by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office when it announced his arrest. PBSO noted that Amador Guerrero had crossed into the United States illegally from Guatemala. In May 2017, an order was issued to deport him, but that never happened, the sheriff’s office statement said. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   7. Illegal Immigrant Apprehended in Massachusetts, Wanted for “Serious Crimes” Committed in Colombia    On May 13, FoxNews.com reported:  A Colombian national who was apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Massachusetts this week, and is wanted in his home country for aggravated homicide, was released into the U.S. last year. The unnamed 49-year-old national was arrested in Colombia in 2014 and charged with aggravated homicide, aggravated theft and possession of a weapon. He was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison in 2016. But in a press release, ICE said he was apprehended by Border Patrol near San Luis, Arizona, in November 2023 after entering illegally. But he was issued a notice to appear before an immigration judge and released into the U.S. on his own recognizance. ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) operations in Boston arrested him in Pittsfield on May 6, and he will now remain in custody, ICE said. “This Colombian national is wanted in his home country for some very serious crimes,” ERO Boston Field Office Director Todd Lyons said in a statement. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds   8. Illegal Immigrant Accused of Sexual Assaulting Two Girls Had a Visa That Expired in 2021 On April 25, FoxNews.com reported:  A Mexican illegal immigrant whose visa expired in 2021 is now charged with the sexual assault of two young girls in Michigan after allegedly breaking into their mobile home, authorities say. Miguel Hernandez-Ruiz was arraigned Friday on one count of home invasion and two counts of first-degree criminal sexual assault against a person under the age of 13. Officials said he is in jail with no bond and has an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer placed on him. Ruiz is a Mexican national living in Sturgis, and came to the U.S. on a temporary work visa, officials told reporters at a press conference. But that visa expired in December 2021, and he remained in the U.S. illegally after that time. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.

Colbert Slaps 'Nazi' Label On Alito Family

CBS’s Stephen Colbert reacted on Monday’s edition of The Late Show to the story that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s wife Martha-Ann flew an upside-down flag at their home in response to neighborly abuse by accusing the couple of being Nazis. Colbert declared that “when it comes to January 6th cases argued before the Court, Alito has been highly sympathetic to the mob. That's like when your couples therapist is wearing a shirt that says, "Team David." There's no possible justification for a Supreme Court justice displaying a symbol of insurrection at his home.”     There’s no evidence Alito has sympathy for the January 6 rioters’ cause, but Colbert rolled right along, failing to see the difference between blaming and explaining, “Which is why, when this photo was published, Alito immediately did the right thing, owned up, and blamed his wife, saying in a statement that he had 'No involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag.' And 'It was briefly placed by his wife, Martha-Ann.' So he dropped a dime on his gal, citing the landmark case of Me Just Tryna Live My Life v. Ladies Be Crazy, Amirite?'" Colbert did concede that there was context beyond January 6, “Crazy! Alito excused his wife's desecration of the flag that our forefathers died for at Iwo Jima, because he says she only did it because a neighbor displayed a "[bleep] Trump" sign on their lawn, and when Mrs. Alito confronted the neighbor about it, they say the neighbor addressed his wife using vulgar language, ‘Including the C-word.’” However, Colbert then took a leap into the logical abyss by trying to claim that the Alitos sided with the rioters as a way to get back at their neighbors, “Okay, that is not nice. But if someone calls you the C-word, putting up an insurrection flag is not the response. ‘Oh, you were rude to my wife? Well, we're Nazis now.’ So, are you happy? So Martha-Ann runs up the January 6 flag, and then Sam comes home from work, sees it, and is like, ‘Honey, I understand you're upset, but we have to take that down immediately. For Pete's sake, I'm a justice of the Supreme Court,’ is what would have been nice to have happened.  Instead, Colbert lamented, “neighbors confirmed the display stood for several days before being taken down. So, Alito clearly knew about this, because he came and went for several days, and, to paraphrase my favorite Spangled Banner, ‘the flag was still there.’” Speaking of paraphrasing, Monday gave proof through the night that Colbert was still doing the clown nose on-clown nose off routine. He insists that Alito is essentially a Nazi sympathizer who is delegitimizing the Court, but he himself is a simple jester. Here is a transcript for the May 20 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/20/2024 11:39 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: And when it comes to January 6th cases argued before the Court, Alito has been highly sympathetic to the mob. That's like when your couples therapist is wearing a shirt that says, "Team David." There's no possible justification for a Supreme Court justice displaying a symbol of insurrection at his home. Which is why, when this photo was published, Alito immediately did the right thing, owned up, and blamed his wife, saying in a statement that he had "No involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag." And "It was briefly placed by his wife, Martha-Ann." So he dropped a dime on his gal, citing the landmark case of Me Just Tryna Live My Life v. Ladies Be Crazy, Amirite?" Crazy! Alito excused his wife's desecration of the flag that our forefathers died for at Iwo Jima, because he says she only did it because a neighbor displayed a "[bleep] Trump" sign on their lawn, and when Mrs. Alito confronted the neighbor about it, they say the neighbor addressed his wife using vulgar language, "Including the C-word." Okay, that is not nice. But if someone calls you the C-word, putting up an insurrection flag is not the response. "Oh, you were rude to my wife? Well, we're Nazis now." So, are you happy? So Martha-Ann runs up the January 6 flag, and then Sam comes home from work, sees it, and is like, "Honey, I understand you're upset, but we have to take that down immediately. For Pete's sake, I'm a justice of the Supreme Court," is what would have been nice to have happened.  But instead, neighbors confirmed the display stood for several days before being taken down. So, Alito clearly knew about this, because he came and went for several days, and, to paraphrase my favorite Spangled Banner, “the flag was still there.”

CBS’s Red Lobster Story Buries Inflation Despite Being About Inflation

The story of Red Lobster’s bankruptcy, as reported by CBS, is ultimately about inflation. But that lede gets buried a minute into the report, in the hopes that the viewer won’t notice at all. Watch the blink-and-you’ll miss it reference to inflation, which came a full minute into the report: NIKKI BATISTE: In its bankruptcy filing, Red Lobster blamed failed or ill-advised strategic initiatives and increased competition within the restaurant industry. Red lobster's downfall comes at a time when eating out is more expensive than ever, with restaurant prices climbing higher and faster than grocery costs. In an effort to bring back inflation-weary consumers, McDonald's is planning to offer a $5 meal this summer, and Target has dropped prices on 5,000 items. JILL SCHLESINGER: If you are in the business of luring people into kind of, “have a little bit of splurge”, these are not the times where people feel like they can splurge. In a sense, the Red Lobster bankruptcy serves almost as a vehicle with which to introduce the McBidenomics Unhappy Meal and announce Target’s price cuts. All are stories related to inflation, as is Red Lobster's bankruptcy.  Think about it, a restaurant chain was brought down in large part by an all-you-can-eat shrimp special. Because people saw value in that rather than going to other restaurants where the menu prices were more in line with inflation or ordering from Red Lobster’s regular menu. I know this to be true because the report featured people stuffing their faces with $20 endless shrimp and bragging about it on social media.   There are times when there is more to the story than just the story. Such is the case of CBS’s report on Red Lobster's bankruptcy filing, which is really about the ongoing devastating effects of inflation on the American public.    Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on the CBS Evening News on Monday, May 21st, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: America's largest seafood restaurant chain, Red Lobster, is in a serious financial pinch- and filing for bankruptcy protection. CBS’s Nikki Battiste reports on why the once-popular chain has struggled to reel in customers. NARRATOR: Live Maine lobster, just the way you like it. NIKKI BATISTE: After a 56-year cultural climb  JINGLE: ♪♪ Red Lobster for the seafood lover in you… ♪♪ BATISTE: Seafood giant Red Lobster is having trouble staying afloat.  CUSTOMER: Hopefully, they’ll just reorganize and be back on their feet soon. BATISTE: The casual dining hot spot has struggled since the pandemic. It’s lost 30% of its customers and has had at least four CEOs in the last five years. NARRATOR: Ultimate endless shrimp is here. BATISTE: Also, an attempt to lure more customers in with $20 endless shrimp backfired, costing the company $11 million. Diners would share their tallies on social media. INFLUENCER 1: 61, wow. If you are a shrimp lover… INFLUENCER 2: It's a pretty good deal. INFLUENCER 3: Me, I set a new record at my local Red Lobster. BATISTE: In its bankruptcy filing, Red Lobster blamed failed or ill-advised strategic initiatives and increased competition within the restaurant industry. Red lobster's downfall comes at a time when eating out is more expensive than ever, with restaurant prices climbing higher and faster than grocery costs. In an effort to bring back inflation-weary consumers, McDonald's is planning to offer a $5 meal this summer, and Target has dropped prices on 5,000 items. JILL SCHLESINGER: If you are in the business of luring people into kind of, “have a little bit of splurge”, these are not the times where people feel like they can splurge. BATISTE: There are about 550 restaurants across the U.S., so far at least 93 have closed. Red Lobster says it hopes to keep open as many locations as possible through the bankruptcy process. Norah. O’DONNELL: All right. Nikki Batiste, outside a Red Lobster. Thank you.  

NewsBusters Podcast: Eek, The Alito Bandito Flies the Flag Upside-Down

The New York Times considered it front-page material that leftist neighbors snitched on Supreme Court justice Sam Alito. A flag flew upside-down in his yard in the days after January 6. This same Democrat rag published an assassination threat to Justice Kavanaugh two years ago on Page A-20. Liberal or leftist neighbors of the Alitos showed their photos of the flag to the Times, and were rewarded with anonymity by reporter Jodi Kantor: "The half-dozen neighbors who saw the flag, or knew of it, requested anonymity because they said they did not want to add to the contentiousness on the block and feared reprisal." Wait -- they didn't want to "add to the contentiousness on the block" while they shared photos of their neighbors to The New York Times. The networks launched critical stories. On PBS, NewsHour anchor Geoff Bennett brought it into their Friday night Week in Politics segment. That’s fascinating. Because on June 10, 2022, the NewsHour couldn’t devote that segment to assassination threat against Justice Kavanaugh! NPR didn’t have a Friday night feature on Alito, but they did discuss Alito on Weekend Edition Saturday, your breakfast treat for liberals. Remember, NPR never aired a feature story on the assassination threat against Justice Kavanaugh. That was simply skipped, or spiked. ABC anchor David Muir started swiping at the top of the show: Justice Alito "under fire" for flying flag upside down "for days" after the January 6 riot. "He's now blaming his wife!" Reporter Terry Moran claimed Alito was "embroiled in controversy" (and they're the embroilers). Moran found "Legal experts say" it's a real appearance of conflict of interest! CBS turned to Capitol Hill reporter Scott MacFarlane, whose entire job seems to be rehashing January 6. The upside-down flag meant Alito could be lumped in with "rioters and election deniers." Justices "should not be swayed by partisan interests," CBS lectured in its report that was aiming to please their won partisan interests.  Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts:   

PBS's Washington Week Sees Dangerous GOP, Is Sad Hunter Trial May Make Joe Unhappy

It was a livelier-than-usual roundtable on Friday’s Washington Week with The Atlantic, as the import of former President Trump’s polling strength in the face of multiple trials seemed to be causing panic among the press corps. Moderator Jeffrey Goldberg led the feisty journalists in the discussion, including Laura Barrón-López of PBS NewsHour, Eugene Daniels of Politico, Susan Glasser of The New Yorker, and Steve Inskeep of National Public Radio. Susan Glasser of The New Yorker suggested it was only Republican members of Congress who were "play to the crowd" and "the cameras": Institutions are unraveling, not just the institution of the U.S. Congress, in fact, you see the Trumpification arguably of the Senate Republican conference, where the traditions have held up across-aisle-civililty much stronger until more recently. I think that this is, we’ll talk more about the Supreme Court, we’re seeing not only the hyper-politicization of our institutions but a kind of constant playing to the crowd, to the cameras, to the social media, and Marjorie Taylor Greene is a very effective example of this strand of our politics. It’s not going to go away.”     Glasser found it tacky for Congressional Republicans to travel to New York to support Donald Trump on trial. Then she really went low: GLASSER: ….not only is it Trump's party, but they even dress up like Donald Trump now. And that was something that -- for me, that is a visual marker, in some ways, of just what the decline of the Republican Party has been in many ways into a kind of a cult of personality, right? So, it's not only that the Republican Party is going to have as their nominee, someone who might well be convicted of felony crimes, who's even essentially acknowledged already in a court of law to be a sexual assaulter. GOLDBERG: He is a civilly adjudicated sexual offender? GLASSER: Yes. You know, this is a phrase that you used and I thought it was really notable. I don't think it's broken through to most people, a civilly adjudicated sexual offender is going to be the third time in a row the nominee of the Republican Party, and here they are dressing up like him. Meanwhile, Democratic President Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit while president in 1998. He spoke to the 2000 Democratic National Convention as president and at every convention since then, so he’s not yet a party pariah, not even after the #MeToo era. As for dressing up in solidarity for a cause, surely Glasser recalled the Democratic leadership dressing and kneeling wearing kente cloth to support police-reform legislation after the killing of George Floyd. She can read her own magazine for some pungent criticism of the stunt. Eugene Daniels of Politico was worried that average people weren’t as scared of Trump as the smart journalists who were paying attention, harping on a tweet from Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) in support of Trump: “Standing back and standing by, Mr. President”: DANIELS: …the folks that are paying attention right now are were all kind of nervous about it, but the American people really aren't making those kinds of connections, right? When you talk to the American people, they say Congress is broken versus the Republican Party is, you know, all going on the Acela up to New York to dress the same, to defend Donald Trump, to do all the things he can't do, and also to wink and nod to the most dangerous aspects of the Republican Party, the most dangerous aspects of the Trump base, that, hey, we may need you to do something here. And this would be hyperbolic if the insurrection hadn't happened on January 6th…. GOLDBERG: Steve [Inskeep], I just want to ask you to switch subjects to another trial that is coming next month -- the Hunter Biden trial, gun possession. Now, Hunter Biden is not running for president, there is a big difference. But the question is, how is this going to affect the mood and happiness and effectiveness of Joe Biden? Hmm. WAs that really the big question? There was no speculation or even a hint regarding President Biden’s own possible culpability, even though the president was allegedly heavily intertwined with his son Hunter’s financial mis-dealings. For journalists, it’s always only about the president’s personal anguish of seeing his son on trial. Inskeep also kept the issue on a personal, not legal, level for the President: “…he’s gonna take it personally because he takes this personally.” Goldberg somberly stated: “He's a father and it’s gonna affect him.”

Strange Bedfellows? Opposing Parties Work to Fast-Track Legal Challenge to TikTok Ultimatum

ByteDance may be suing the Department of Justice (DOJ), but the two have now joined forces in an effort to fast-track the company’s legal challenge to a potentially imminent TikTok ban.  TikTok, and its parent company ByteDance, along with a separate group of eight TikTok creators announced lawsuits against the federal government last week in TikTok Inc. v Garland and Firebaugh v. Garland. The petitioners of the two cases joined forces with the target of the lawsuits, the DOJ, and filed a motion to expedite the legal challenges to a law that forces ByteDance to divest itself from TikTok or exit the United States market. Together, they requested that the Court come to a decision about the case by Dec. 6, 2024 to allow the company to act before Jan. 19, 2025 when the law is set to take effect.  In the expedition request, the petitioners argued that the law demanding that TikTok shed its Chinese control “is subject to substantial challenge,” and due to TikTok’s large user base, “the public at large has a significant interest in the prompt disposition of this matter.” The motion also echoed ByteDance and TikTok’s joint lawsuit, which claimed that “‘qualified divestiture’” of TikTok as defined in the statute is not “commercially, technologically, or legally feasible.” The social media company added that “TikTok Petitioners maintain that the possibility of a 90-day extension under the Act will not be available to them because it would require the President to determine that ‘significant progress’ has been made toward a ‘qualified divestiture’ which is not feasible.” Given the high stakes, all parties asked that opening briefs begin as early as June 20 with oral arguments beginning in September and a decision by December. “To ensure that there is adequate time before the Act’s prohibitions take effect to request emergency relief from the Supreme Court if necessary, the parties respectfully ask this Court to issue its decision on the merits of these actions by December 6, 2024,” the motion reads.  This comes after the company feined devotion to freedom of speech and concern for its users' rights being allegedly violated. “There is no question: the Act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere,” TikTok wrote in its lawsuit against the DOJ. But TikTok did not seem to care much about the freedom of speech of its users before it found out it might be banned. A Sept. 2022 MRC Free Speech America study found that TikTok permanently banned 11 pro-free speech organizations including Live Action, Judicial Watch and The Babylon Bee. Federal Communications Commissioner called TikTok out on its unserious understanding of the purpose of the law.  “While TikTok trots out the expected grab bag of arguments, it adopts a strange strategy of ignoring the reason for the law,” Carr stated in an X post. “TikTok wants this to be a case about the content of its speech. It is not. It is about TikTok's malign conduct - conduct the Constitution doesn't protect.” 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 MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Maryland K-5 Parents Forced to Let Kids Learn LGBTQ Curriculum

After a years-long battle with the school system and Maryland parents, a federal court has decided that despite parents' concerns and religious conflicts, parents are not allowed to choose to opt their children out of learning about progressive ideologies and topics in schools. Remember: to the left, your children belong to them. Last, parents from the Montgomery County Public School (MCPS) started publicly fighting back against the progressive lessons being taught to their elementary-aged students. In March of 2023, the school district essentially declared that they wouldn’t tell parents prior to teaching lessons or reading books to students about progressive ideologies or agendas. Kids in the school system are now being read books like “The Pride Puppy,” “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” and “Born Ready: The True Story of a  Boy Named Penelope,” as Fox News reported. They’re also being exposed to themes like drag queens, furries and other queer crap. Parents insisted, and rightfully so, that these books and the ideologies they promote were inappropriate for young kids, and forcing them to listen to or read them would violate said children’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by intentionally teaching them ideologies that are antithetical to the tenets of their religion.   “The parents had argued that refusal to provide an opt-out from their children’s exposure to LGBT-themed books and related discussions violates federal and state law,” Fox News reported. The plaintiffs, one Muslim and two Christian, worked with The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty to sue MCPS. Late last week, the Court of Appeals decided in a 2-1 vote that simply exposing kids to these progressive ideologies isn’t enough to constitute a breach of the First Amendment.  “The board argues that exposure to ideas contrary to one’s faith is not enough of a burden to implicate the First Amendment,” the court decision read, adding, “the board contends that exposure to issues that one disagrees with, even for religious reasons, is part of the compromise parents when choosing to send their children to public schools.” So essentially, they’re our kids now. Homeschool if you don’t like what we’re teaching.

WATCH: CNBC’s Joe Kernen Warns of ‘Stagflation’ in Joe Biden’s America

A restaurant owner minced no words on the immense costs that are devastating his business as inflation continues to harm both owners and customers under President Joe Biden.  During the May 20 edition of Squawk Box, co-anchor Joe Kernen pointed to a specific case succinctly illustrating inflation’s devastating impact on Americans’ wallets. He prefaced his point by saying his guest Will Restaurants Investments Group Founder Brian Will’s “food costs have increased by more than 20% since 2023 and he has had to raise menu prices three times in the last year.” Will noted that the inflation crisis spurred a 24 percent rise in his food costs, a 20 percent rise in his labor costs and a whopping 50 percent rise in maintenance costs. Kernen responded, “You’re like a microcosm. So costs are up and revenues down. It sounds like, it almost sounds like stagflation.”     In fact, this inflation isn’t just hitting restaurant owners. Americans are paying far more when they go out to eat. Compared to last year, eating out cost 4.1% more in April.  Overall, Americans have dealt with a horrifying average of 5.5% inflation over the last 39 months of Biden’s presidency, compared to an average of 1.9% inflation under former President Donald Trump.  During the interview, Will made clear that raising prices three times in the last year was a very necessary choice: “Overall revenues are down 11% even after raising prices 20%. So if we hadn't raced the prices the revenues would be down even more.” Will emphasized just how hard the higher costs were hitting him, saying that repairing a restaurant fryer with current maintenance prices was more costly than replacing it. Will stated that it would take “111 tables just to pay to replace the first fryer.”  Conservatives are under attack! 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.

ABC Ditches ‘Hardline’ Label After Confirmed Death of Iranian President

Over the weekend, the world was spared the rule of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi (a.k.a. The Butcher of Tehran) after the helicopter he was riding in became a smear on a mountainside in northern Iran. But after accurately calling him a “hardliner” during Sunday’s World News Tonight coverage of the search for the crash site, ABC’s Good Morning America ditched the label after his death was confirmed Monday morning. Foreign correspondent Lama Hasan delivered the report for World News Tonight. Nearing the end of the pre-recorded portion, Hasan noted: “Elected in 2021, President Raisi, a hardliner, is the second-most powerful figure in Iran. Seen as the top contender for replacing Ayatollah Khamenei.” While she did accurately use a negative label to describe Raisi, Hasan omitted the darker nature of his presidency. “Now, Raisi is an extremely divisive president. He was elected in the lowest turnout in the country's history. He’s a conservative hardliner who’s overseen a violent crackdown on dissent,” correspondent Ian Lee said for CBS Weekend News. Over on NBC Nightly News, correspondent Keir Simmons recalled that anchor Lester Holt pressed Raisi last year on the Americans held hostage by Iran. “[Iran’s] leadership has seen a brutal crackdown during mass protests after the death of a 22-year-old Iranian woman,” he noted.     But even that simple mention of “hardliner” was apparently too much information to share for Good Morning America since correspondent Britt Clennett dropped its use during her Monday report. “President Raisi took office in 2021, the country’s second-most powerful figure was considered a top contender for one day replacing Ayatollah Khamenei,” she stated. The only other political context she added around Raisi’s demise was that “The crash comes as turmoil grips the Middle East with the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, the militant group backed by Iran.” Simmons kept the pressure on during NBC’s Today. “Ebrahim Raisi ran a government at launched missiles and drones at Israel just last month, and in 2022, brutally crushed protests over the death of a young woman Mahsa Amini,” he recounted. Even CBS senior correspondent Holly Williams had criticism of The Butcher of Tehran. “President Raisi took office in 2021 after an election that excluded more moderate candidates,” she said. “In 2022, his government carried out a deadly crackdown on mass protests by women, many tearing off their compulsory Islamic head coverings as they demanded greater freedom.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America May 20, 2024 7:06:28 a.m. Eastern MICHAEL STRAHAN:  And we are going to turn now to the breaking news overnight. Iranian President Raisi was declared dead, as well as the foreign minister, after their helicopter crashed Sunday. Foreign correspondent Britt Clennett has the story for us, at this crucial time in the region. Good morning, Britt. BRITT CLENNETT: Good morning, Michael. In a region where tensions are already running high, the news that Iran's President Ebrahim Raisi was killed in a helicopter crash along with the foreign minister. [Cuts to video] This morning, Iranian officials confirming the death of President Ebrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian, and several others after their helicopter crashed in Iran's mountainous northwest, forced to make a hard landing in heavy fog. Iranian Red Crescent rescue teams seen in new video from Iranian state media carrying bodies from the crash site. Drone footage released by the IRC shows the crash site on a steep wooded hillside. Iranian state TV broadcasting from what appears to be the charred wreckage. A massive search operation to locate the helicopter lasted more than 12 hours. Hampered by poor weather. Raisi seen in the helicopter with other top officials coming from the border with Azerbaijan, where he just opened a new dam he just opened. Images show the helicopter leaving the site. COL. STEPHEN GANYARD (UMSC, Ret.): We don't know if it was some sort of a mechanical issue. But whenever we see mountains, bad weather, low visibility, the first cause that we look to is probably weather-induced mishaps. CLENNETT: President Raisi took office in 2021, the country’s second-most powerful figure was considered a top contender for one-day replacing Ayatollah Khamenei. The crash comes as turmoil grips the Middle East with the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, the militant group backed by Iran. [Cuts back to live] And Iran's supreme leader, he has expressed his condolences. He's appointed the first vice president to serve as the country's acting president until elections are held in the next 50 days. George? GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Britt. Thanks.

CBS Joins in, NBC Ups Anti-Family Hate for ‘Controversial’, ‘Firebrand’ Butker Speech

On Friday, CBS finally joined the virulently anti-family liberal media’s rhetorical lynch mob fighting to convict Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker in the court of public opinion with a discussion during CBS Mornings and, while ABC moved on, NBC’s Today upped the intensity of its disgusting and hypocritical venom toward a speech about the importance of the family. In other words, Butker stood up for something the three co-hosts on Today have personally and repeatedly discussed is paramount to their lives. Instead of scorning him, they could have mentioned the numerous charities Butker has supported, include Foster’s Outriders charity (which our Craig Bannister explained here).     CBS roped Butker into their “Talk of the Table” segment with fill-in featured co-host Nancy Chen claiming Butker “seemed to dismiss women with career goals.” Oof. We’re already off to a bad start. Butker said, in fact, nothing of the sort of instead argued many of the female graduates would come to see motherhood and marriage as their greatest accomplishment. Co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King and co-host Nate Burleson went first, opining Butker shouldn’t lose his job. “I think everybody has the right to be wrong or hold opinions that others feel are wrong, but he has a right to say what he believes. But it is — it is — was very antiquated thinking, I think, in 2024. But a lot of people — a lot of people feel the way he does. The fact that he got a standing ovation, I think, says a lot,” King added. Co-host Tony Dokoupil made the necessary and obvious point: A Catholic guy at a Catholic college expressing deeply Catholic views...free speech...free religion, free assembly. I mean, when — inclusion in America includes that kind of American as well. And no one speaks up for the traditional family in public life that often...It’s a voice we had not heard in that way. Burleson weighed in again: “[F]ree speech also applies to the criticism that he’s facing because you’re speaking on that platform...[O]ver the 11 years I spent in the NFL, we h and inclusive organizations. And I would hope that the views of athletes represent what I felt in the ave had diverse locker room which we were accepting of everybody.” Burleson and company closed by proving they hadn’t read, watched, or understood the speech (click “expand”): BURLESON: Now, as far as women graduating and getting promotions and leading companies, I fully do support that. I think it was somewhat dismissive, saying that every woman is thinking about marriage and kids — KING: Yeah. BURLESON: — cause they might not. KING: They’re not. BURLESON: Cause women, yes, they can do — CHEN: Yes. BURLESON: — they can be at home. CHEN: Absolutely. BURLESON: They can also be bad asses in the corporate world. CHEN: Yes, yes, yes. Well said. DOKOUPIL: Absolutely and I’m defending his right to say what he said. I’m not —  KING: Yes. DOKOUPIL: — agreeing with him, to be clear. KING: Exactly. BURLESON: Yeah, no. For sure. DOKOUPIL: Yeah. BURLESON: For sure. I think we’re all on the same page here. Over on NBC, Today co-host Savannah Guthrie reveled in tease over the “new outrage” and “uproar grow[ing] over that controversial graduation speech” with “[w]omen inside the NFL now weighing in.”  Guthrie had a second tease and doubled down by calling Butker’s speech about God and parenthood — something Guthrie has written and spoken about extensively — a “firestorm”. Co-host Craig Melvin, a Christ follower who recently released a children’s book in part about parenthood, began the segment by touting the “new fallout surrounding that controversial commencement speech by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker.” Correspondent Liz Kreutz had the report and immediately (and falsely) labeled Butker’s pro-family, pro-God remarks a “firebrand speech” triggering “growing backlash” for“encouraging women to become what he says is one of the most important roles, homemaker.” Kreutz conceded the wife of the current Chiefs owner voiced support for Butker by saying his remarks weren’t “bigoted”, but pushed her aside in favor of TikTok videos and referred to the Chargers by their former city, San Diego (click “expand”): KREUTZ: But others associated with the game have expressed outrage at Butker’s comments, including the wife of a fellow NFL player. ALLISON KUCH: My life didn’t start when I married my husband. KREUTZ: And a former Chiefs cheerleader. TIKTOKER USER “STEFHILLS”: When you say stay in your lane ten plus times, brah take your own advice. KREUTZ: The San Diego [sic] Chargers taking the opportunity to mock Butker in its schedule release video, showing the player in a kitchen in a simulated video. While for the catholic community, the debate is real. Some support — TIKTOK USER: A Catholic men encouraging Catholic beliefs to Catholic students is a         breath of fresh area. KREUTZ: — but his words rubbed some Catholic students the wrong way. Mary Oger (sp?) graduated from benedictine college in 2019. [TO OGER (sp?] What offended you about his remarks? MARY OGER (sp?): It’s disheartening — [JUMP CUT] — and all of that would boil down to I bet you’re most excited to go out and start a family. Kreutz even found — no joke — a so-called trans Catholic to pile on: KREUTZ: Some in the LGBTQ community saying his comments don’t reflect everyone in the Catholic Church. TRANSFORMATIONS BOARD MEMBER DONATO FATUSEI: I know from my personal experience growing up in the Catholic Church that I was loved on and affirmed as a trans person. To see the relevant transcripts from May 17, click here (for CBS) and here (for NBC).

Misgendering Is Now Considered 'Harassment' in the Workplace

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published harassment guidelines late last month indicating that it would be a punishable offense to misgender someone. Yup. Now, if you don’t call a person who wants to use “ze/zir” pronouns by those made-up pronouns, it would be considered harassment in the workplace. The new rules note that prohibited harassment includes “repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity (misgendering) or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.” Related: Peru Classifies Transgender People as ‘Mentally Ill’ The regulations also state that employees cannot “out” other employees - meaning that if a co-worker is a closeted freak, they must reveal that publicly on their own terms. The rules also state that employees must be allowed to use whichever bathrooms or “other sex-segregated” areas that they choose, even if their gender identity is not consistent with their biological sex. Included in the regulations were also possible scenarios to use as examples in order to understand what is and isn’t appropriate.  Here’s one creators used regarding gender identity: Chloe, a purchase order coordinator at a retail store warehouse, is approached by her supervisor, Alton, who asks whether she was 'born a man' because he had heard a rumor that 'there was a transvestite in the department.' Chloe disclosed to Alton that she is transgender and asked him to keep this information confidential. After this conversation, Alton instructed Chloe to wear pants to work because a dress would be 'inappropriate,' despite other purchase order coordinators being permitted to wear dresses and skirts. Alton also asks inappropriate questions about Chloe’s anatomy and sexual relationships. Further, whenever Alton is frustrated with Chloe, he misgenders her by using, with emphasis, “he/him” pronouns, sometimes in front of Chloe’s coworkers. Based on these facts, Alton’s harassing conduct toward Chloe is based on her gender identity. Cry me a freakin’ river, Chloe. Alfredo Ortiz, CEO of Job Creators Network, a conservative U.S. advocacy group, was not a fan of the new guidance and called it an “overreach.” Here’s what Ortiz told Just the News: The guidance is a solution in search of a problem, as the overwhelming majority of employers already provide their employees with a respectful working environment, no matter what their backgrounds. While the Biden administration is focused on using the correct pronouns, small businesses are suffering under the weight of resurgent inflation, high energy costs, and a credit crunch due to Democrats' bad policies. Rules about how to treat transgender employees amount to another headache for employers at the worst possible time. Honestly, this is ridiculous. The fact that we are even having this conversation is absolutely outrageous. Our country has much bigger fish to fry than hurting people’s feelings regarding their delusional sense of identity. Follow us on Twitter/X Woke of The Weak: The Left Continues To Push Their Fetishes On Normal People We used to have places to put these people. pic.twitter.com/Q9I8qK0qXD — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 7, 2024

Politico TILT: North Idaho Is Extremist, Far-Right, Ultra-Conservative

You can tell Politico is firmly on the Left by how outraged it is by "ultra-conservatives" limiting abortions in red states. Politico's Magazine posted an article by freelancer Cassidy Randall reporting on the alleged craziness of northern Idaho. No one expects this kind of an article from the congressional districts of "Squad" members. The headline:  North Idaho Has Drifted to the Extreme Right. One Republican Thinks It’s Hit Its Limit. One candidate is testing the power of a moderate coalition to stand up to extremism in a region that has been powerless to its advance. Including the headline, Politico offered 28 uses of "extreme," "extremist," or "extremism" on the right, and 14 uses of "far right." This does include the uses in quotes, which are selected by the reporter. They saved "ultra-conservative" for tweets:  Ultra-conservative policy on a range of issues like abortion dominates in north Idaho — but this Republican candidate thinks a new moderate coalition is ready to take a stand against extremism in his own party.https://t.co/RI82aKSoP7 — POLITICO Magazine (@POLITICOMag) May 19, 2024 Sometimes, the "far-right" and the "extremist" would overlap....suggesting overkill. "The political shift happening in north Idaho is taking place just as the rest of the country is seeing increasing extremism in state legislatures and far-right brinksmanship in Congress." (Politico links to The New Yorker!) The star of this story is Jim Woodward, a state senator who beat his rival Scott Herndon in 2018. But in 2022, Herndon ran again, and it "became personal and attack-driven, with mailers and local ads calling Woodward 'Liberal Jim,' showing him wearing a mask, claiming he would 'control your kids by turning schools into ‘woke’ indoctrination centers' and that he supported critical race theory and allowing transgender children to compete in school sports." Woodward told Politico he was blindsided by the “the viciousness of it.” He "hadn’t campaigned all that hard in retaliation, figuring that as the four-year incumbent in a small community, people knew him well enough to dismiss Herndon’s claims." Politico accepts Woodward at face value, but Herndon's website lists Woodward's liberal votes. So what about people who support abortion on demand, at any time and for any reason? Isn't that extreme? Not to Politico or Democrat donor Cassidy Randall. They're presented as "left-leaning."  Openly working across party lines is a fraught venture on both sides — which is why, says Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman, Idaho state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, the trend is mostly underground. “Moderate Republicans may not think that left-leaning support will help their cause, and left-leaning organizations don’t want to hurt the chances of a moderate Republican by being public with their support,” she says.  In liberal-media reports, it has forever been the case that you can be somehow a "moderate Republican" who's totally pro-abortion. Being extremist in favor of abortion is popular, they say!  “People are starting to see that reproductive rights are wildly popular,” DelliCarpini-Tolman continued.  How can you be an "extremist" if you're wildly popular? Welcome to the liberal media. 

New York Times Nudges 'Conservative' Christians Into a 'Truce in the Gender Wars'

On the front page of Saturday’s New York Times came the headline “Some Christians Seek Truce in the Gender Wars.” A better headline: “Some Christians Seek Surrender in the Gender Wars.” Online, the Times headline is trying to suggest that the surrendering Christians are still “conservative” somehow as they “create space”: Some Conservative Christians Are Stepping Away From the Gender Wars Far from the shouting, Christian therapists, writers, parents and their trans children are trying to create a space within conservative circles to acknowledge differences in how people experience gender. The overwhelming theme of this Ruth Graham article is that the conservative Christians need to “Embrace the Journey” away from traditional Christianity, to cite a group that’s prominently featured. The story began with the journey of evangelicals Andrew and Debbie James and their trans “daughter” and how they had to leave the church they were in. The Times pitched the war as “vociferous opposition” versus quiet, “earnest searches for understanding.” Apparently, the Left can never be "vociferous." They are "far from the shouting." Some Christians have fought against expanding gender norms with vociferous opposition to everything from drag shows to hormone treatments. In churches and Christian schools, transgender people have been mocked, kicked out and denied communion. Transgender young people from conservative Christian families have shared stories of being banished from homes and relationships, often with devastating effects on their mental health. In many ways, conservative Christians have become the face of the American anti-trans movement. But in the quieter spaces of church sanctuaries, counseling offices and living rooms, there are earnest searches for understanding. The story is almost unanimous with counselors and LGBTQ "Christians" pushing transgenderism against tradition. Mary Rice Hasson is the only nod to actual conservatism, surfacing in paragraph 26: “You can see something happening that’s shaping how we understand the nature of the human person,” said Mary Rice Hasson, a senior fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, where she directs a program whose aim is in part to help parents “counter gender ideology.” Ms. Hasson, who is Catholic, described recent cultural shifts around gender as upending fundamental assumptions about the universe: “Can you trust your senses? When you see something, can you name it, does it have an objective reality? Or is there no truth?” Before that, Graham acknowledges where the Bible is clear about God's creation of male and female, but also goes looking for wiggle room:  Christian advocates for transgender people point out that the Bible depicts a surprising range of gender diversity without apparent judgment. Jacob, a patriarch of the nation of Israel, is described as a “smooth” young man who stays in the family’s tent and is favored by God over his more traditionally masculine brother, the hunter Esau. Jesus says in the Gospel of Matthew that some men are born eunuchs. The Times sees their mission as leading the formerly conservative Christians like Andrew and Debbie James into a compassionate sense of confusion. The story ends like this:  Their worries now are about the political climate hostile to their daughter, and the fact that both their children have walked away from Christianity. For so long, “we were good little soldiers,” Mrs. James said. Now, “we live in the gray.”

Regime Media Unable To Say Morehouse Grads TURNED THEIR BACKS At Biden

The Regime Media, which at one time falsely foisted “Don’t Say Gay” upon the American public in protest of Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act, now suddenly find themselves in a similar pickle thanks to President Joe Biden’s commencement address at Morehouse College. Watch NBC correspondent Aaron Gilchrist’s interesting choice of words whilst covering the address, as aired on NBC Nightly News on Sunday, May 19th, 2024: HALLIE JACKSON: And, Aaron, President Biden was where you are at Morehouse College in Atlanta today to deliver a commencement speech. Given what we’ve seen at other graduations, any protests? AARON GILCHRIST: Well, this was a speech that was mostly well received here at Morehouse, Hallie. In his salute to the class of 2024, President Biden talked about faith, and leadership, and democracy among other things. He also faced the Israel/Hamas war issue head-on, calling for an immediate cease-fire and the return of the hostages taken by Hamas. He also said he supports peaceful protests and told the graduates, “I hear you”. Now, a handful of graduates turned around in their seats during the president's remarks. Others wore symbols of support for the Palestinian people. The class valedictorian did not directly address President Biden, but he did call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza as well. Hallie. JACKSON: Aaron Gilchrist. Thank you.  “Turned around in their seats”, says Gilchrist. If only there were some way to more succinctly describe the physical act of turning at a precise 180 degrees from one’s interlocutor as a form of protest. Might ABC’s Selina Wang have found the right words with which to describe this turning around in protest?  SELINA WANG: Students silently protesting the president's handling of the war in Gaza. Turning their chairs away from Biden, staying seated during standing ovations, and a faculty member standing with her fist raised. Morehouse's valedictorian delivering a message of his own. Alas. Wang’s reporting was worse, as it is more ambiguous what with the “turning the chairs away from Biden”. Were they turned 45 degrees away? Were they facing East? As is the case with Gilchrist, Wang is unable to articulate that a number of Morehouse graduates TURNED THEIR BACKS on President Biden as he delivered his commencement address.  The Regime Media is not so much at a loss for words as it is willing to lose words, so long as doing so can Protect the Precious. Contrast that with the media’s willingness to echo made-up activist talking points when it suits them, such as during the fake “Don’t Say Gay” controversy.  In fairness, it should be noted that in this case, “Regime Media” excludes CBS, as the CBS Weekend News was preempted for the PGA Championship. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Sunday, May 19th, 2024: LINSEY DAVIS: Tonight, President Biden is appealing to a crucial part of his base in a commencement address at historic Morehouse College. The president, trying to win over young black voters, particularly men- a crucial voting bloc. ABC’s Selina Wang is in Georgia tonight. SELINA WANG: Tonight, President Biden reaching out to black college students. JOE BIDEN: Many of you graduates don't know me, but check my record… WANG: As he tries to reverse eroding support from black voters, a key bloc he needs for his reelection. The president delivering the commencement speech at Morehouse, the historically black college for men. JOE BIDEN: We know black men are going to help us lead us to the future. WANG: The president speaking directly to students for the first time since protests have flared on campuses across the country.  BIDEN: What’s happening in Gaza and Israel is heartbreaking.   WANG: Students silently protesting the president's handling of the war in Gaza. Turning their chairs away from Biden, staying seated during standing ovations, and a faculty member standing with her fist raised. Morehouse's valedictorian delivering a message of his own. DEANGELO FLETCHER: It is my stance as a Morehouse Man, nay, as a human being, to call for an immediate and permanent cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. BIDEN: That's why I have called for an immediate cease-fire. I'm working to make sure we finally get a two-state solution. WANG: Morehouse students divided on the president's performance. CARLEON OUTLAW: It was pretty silent amongst the students. It was a bit eerie. STUDENT: I appreciate the fact he came to speak at our commencement. WANG: Our latest ABC News/Ipsos poll shows 85% of black voters over the age of 50 support Biden, but that number drops to 64% for voters under the age of 50. Meanwhile, Trump picking up a key endorsement this weekend from the National Rifle Association. Vowing to roll back gun regulations Biden put in place. STUDENT: I think my vote will swing for Biden in a sense, but I still- I really don't know. STUDENT: We'll see what November holds. WANG: And Linsey, President Biden tonight campaigning in another battleground state, Michigan, then speaking to the NAACP. The president is wrapping up a week of outreach to black voters. He's trying to boost enthusiasm with this key voting bloc that he needs to win the White House again. Linsey.  DAVIS: Selina, thank you.  

FLASHBACK: When Univision Platformed A LITERAL Insurrectionist

Much of the media’s runup to the 2024 presidential election has consisted of moralistic hand wringing about Democracy Itself being on the line, an echo of President Joe Biden’s own talking points. However, some of us remember a not-too-distant time ago, when some of today’s loudest outlets platformed an ACTUAL insurrectionist. This is the moment, broadcast on Univision seven years ago today, when Jorge Ramos, senior anchor and host of political affairs show Al Punto, asked Oscar Lopez Rivera whether he is comparable to Nelson Mandela. Watch as former congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) responds by comparing Lopez Rivera to George Washington: JORGE RAMOS: Congressman Gutierrez, come compare Oscar Lopez to a Puerto Rican Nelson Mandela. Others, because he belonged to a group that placed bombs, would call him something different. How do you believe that history will remember the man (seated) next to you? LUIS GUTIERREZ: Like Ramon Emeterio Betances. Like Eugenio Maria de Hostos. Like Jose Marti. Like all the great forefathers and heroes of the struggle for the homeland and for their nation. That is where he will be placed. Look- if this were the American Revolutionary War, the 13 colonies, Oscar Lopez-Rivera, in the London newspapers, they would have said the same things (about him) that they said about George Washington. Look, the struggle for independence is a struggle that all peoples have a right to unto themselves, and have a duty, as Oscar has said, to carry out. Three days before the end of his presidency, President Barack Obama commuted the prison sentence of Oscar Lopez Rivera, a convicted FALN terrorist who was serving a lengthy sentence for seditious conspiracy against the United States. Lopez Rivera was cast by the media as a kindly grandpa who was oversentenced simply for believing in the independence of Puerto Rico. As we noted at the time: López Rivera was NOT imprisoned for believing in independence for Puerto Rico, but for the violent means through which he and others sought to further that otherwise respectable cause. Having failed to persuade their fellow Puerto Ricans to support their particular brand of a Marxist-Leninist independence, López Rivera and others sought to advance independence through bombings and other violent acts, such as the ambush of a group of U.S. Navy personnel just outside the base at Sabana Seca, P.R., which resulted in the deaths of four sailors. (Speaking of bombings, it is worth noting that one of the sites bombed by López Rivera's FALN was the Fraunces Tavern in New York City, an historic site that once housed Alexander Hamilton's office. In what is a cruel twist of fate, playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda has promised López Rivera a command performance in Chicago (presumably once he's done sobbing). Perhaps Miranda might further honor López Rivera by staging a prop bomb at any scene set at the Fraunces Tavern. But I digress.) Not only did Jorge Ramos platform a violent terrorist who sought to overthrow the United States from a territory, but he allowed a supporter to gush over him on the air. Univision saw fit to broadcast this terrorist apologia. Fast forward to today, and the network’s editorial line on “democracy” looks increasingly hypocritical.  

NBC’s Welker LIES, Says Media Did Not Censor Hunter Biden Laptop Story

During a contentious interview on NBC’s Meet the Depressed with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), host Kristen Welker went full Regime Media by falsely stating that the media covered Hunter Biden’s laptop during the 2020 election. Shamelessly, and in the face of volumes of evidence to the contrary. Watch this exchange, which has to be seen to be believed, as it aired on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. May 19th, 2024: MARCO RUBIO: What undermines elections is when Meet the- when NBC News and every major news outlet in America in 2020 censored the Biden laptop story which turned out to be true, not Russian misinformation. Unprecedented. Only you couldn't even talk about it on social media, they would deplatform you. People look at all this. They look at what happened in Arizona. 200,000 ballots that had…  KRISTEN WELKER: Senator… RUBIO: …that the signatures didn’t match. People lose confidence… WELKER: Senator…hold on… RUBIO: …and it opens the door to this. It does. WELKER: Senator, I have- I have to jump in here. Senator, you voted to certify the election and, of course, nothing was…  RUBIO: Because at that stage in the process you have no options. WELKER: Senator…Senator. You voted to certify the election. Nothing has been censored on this program. Hillary Clinton did concede… RUBIO: Did you guys cover that laptop for- Joe Biden in 2020? The Biden- WELKER: Absolutely we covered the laptop… RUBIO: It was banned, you couldn’t even talk about it in…social media…   WELKER: …and Hillary Clinton did concede. But bottom line- Chris Krebs, the top election official, said it was…Chris… RUBIO: You couldn't talk about it on social media, you’d be deplatformed. You couldn’t even talk about it it because you were called- they said it was Russian disinformation-  WELKER: Senator- Senator Rubio… RUBIO: And voters, in many cases, didn’t ever hear about it.  WELKER: We did… RUBIO: Because it was blacked out by the media. In fact, the Hunter Biden laptop story was blacked out by the media. And Rubio was correct in saying that the media’s suppression of the story was critical in voters not even knowing about the Laptop from Hell. An MRC study conducted at the time confirms as much- textbook election interference by the media in conjunction with Big Tech.  Multiple MRC studies confirmed the media’s ill appetite for the Hunter Biden laptop scandal (see here,and here for a brief sample). We are also reminded that Wekler herself did her level best to steer conversation away from Hunter’s laptop while acting as a presidential debate moderator. She was in on the suppression. Here's a video of @kwelkernbc *personally* trying to stop Trump from bringing up the Hunter Biden laptop at a 2020 debatehttps://t.co/h7SnJcNa6v pic.twitter.com/RZa6g0ifoE — Brian Anderson (@AZBrianAnderson) May 19, 2024 The interview also featured contentious exchanges on abortion, as well as on immigration. Rubio thoroughly schooled Welker on each of the points, exposing her as having nothing once the talking points are exhausted: Most notable from this exchange on immigration on NBC's Meet the Depressed: Welker has nothing for Rubio on immigration once he blows past her attempted tu quoques and appeals to authority. Note she does NOT contest Rubio on pathway to citizenship pic.twitter.com/6wv5FOicOh — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 19, 2024 The most important here to be observed is Rubio not letting Welker frame a response, and hammering the point on what the failed Senate bill did in terms of expanded asylum as a backdoor to a potential pathway to citizenship. Welker, notably, did not respond to that point. Whether on abortion, immigration, or election security: the Regime Media may try, but they can’t cover for Biden forever. Welker tried today, and failed.  

New York Times Journo Compares GOP Backers in 'Trump Uniform' to Saddam Loyalists

On Saturday's Chris Wallace Show, the CNN host couldn't help making fun of Republicans turning up at the Trump trial all wearing navy blazers, white shirts, and red ties. On screen, the mocking caption was "WHO WORE THE TRUMP UNIFORM BEST?" But New York Times reporter and podcaster Lulu Garcia-Navarro took it to another level comparing the Republicans to bootlickers of Iraqi madman Saddam Hussein.  “This is not the United States of America,” @lourdesgnavarro of @NYTimes opines of the “Trump uniform” red tie uniformity. “This reminds me of Saddam Hussein and the good old days when you had the big mustache.” Too much even for CNN panel, so she claimed: “It was a joke.” pic.twitter.com/z7LQ3EQQaO — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 18, 2024 CHRIS WALLACE: Lulu, who were the Trump uniform best? LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, Vivek Ramaswamy said a true thing here, which is this is not the United States of America. Since when is it in the United States of America that people have to wear the Trump uniform in order to show fealty and loyalty? This reminds me of Saddam Hussein and the good old days when you had the big mustache, when they were sitting around the table. REIHAN SALAM, NATIONAL REVIEW: That's a little strong. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Oh, come on. Come on. Let me -- it was a joke. It was a joke. But to be clear, the idea that you are having to dress up as this man in order to show how close you are to him, how you care for him, it's embarrassing. GOP strategist Kristen Soltis Anderson made the point that this isn't far off from the normal Republican "uniform." Saddam dressed in military garb, which would give off a different vibe. The colloquy continued: WALLACE: Reihan, let me ask you this, to take Lulu's point. Is it a little demeaning that you have all these people rushing not only to go out and attack the witnesses and support Trump, but to feel they need to dress up like him? SALAM: I think that Donald Trump is a very unique, idiosyncratic figure. He really, really likes folks who are going out on a limb, traveling -- Doug Burgum has a real job. He's the governor of North Dakota. But here he is in New York City backing up the president. This clearly looks coordinated as a team effort, much like say, the Houston Astros all wearing orange ties to the White House. When all the leftist women team-dress in white as a pro-abortion sentiment, the media laud it. As for Garcia-Navarro trashing Republicans as Saddam-ites of a sort, she sounded much more like a devotee of a dictator in 2016 when she was a reporter at National Public Radio. The occasion was the death of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro's brother Ramon, and Lourdes/Lulu described meeting him in 2004. “I walk into this lush, beautiful villa, and I am introduced to Ramon Castro,” Garcia-Navarro said on air. “And it's kind of jarring because even though he was Fidel's older brother, he looks a lot like him. As he's presented to me, he leans over and gives me a kiss on one cheek and says, this is from Raul, kisses me on the other cheek and says, this is from me, and then he kisses me on the forehead and says, this is from Fidel.” Then came the jaw-dropper: “It was kind of like getting the blessing of the Holy Trinity.” Fidel Castro is comparable to God, but the Trump-backing Republicans are painted as the autocrat-worshippers...

As United Methodist Church Empties Out, PBS Celebrates LGBTQ vs. 'Heteronormativity'

The latest example of taxpayer-supported celebration of the gender alphabet came on Friday’s PBS NewsHour. Anchor Geoff Bennett set the scene of a Christian denomination in crisis. Geoff Bennett: We turn now to a seismic shift within the United Methodist Church. It recently voted to lift bans on LGBTQ clergy and same-sex marriages….In late April, hundreds of delegates from around the world gathered in Charlotte, the first such meeting since 2019….They voted overwhelmingly to end the church's bans on same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ clergy. Bennett ran down the evolution of the church’s teachings on gay matters, including most recently a 1996 prohibition on churches officiating gay marriages, but explained the rules weren’t always enforced, resulting in conservative branches leaving the denomination, even before this year’s vote to end the church’s gay bans: “By 2022, the United Methodists had 5.4 million members in the U.S., less than half their peak in the 1960s. The recent departures have seen that number drop even further.” But after laying out those grim facts, Bennett didn’t grill his guest, Rev. Valerie Jackson, about the mass exodus from the denomination. He certainly didn’t invite an opposing religious conservative voice into the debate. There was no debate about the import of LGBTQ acceptance in the churches. Instead he asked about how lifting the bans in 2019 had “resonated with her” personally. No surprise, given the NewsHour’s documented 90% favoritism toward the “alphabet movement” of gender self-expression. Jackson, lead pastor of a United Methodist church in Denver, appeared remotely, clad in a rainbow scarf and basking in the latest LGTBQ triumph within the religious hierarchy, complete with calling straight couples “heteronormative” and other flaky comments. Rev. Valerie Jackson’s response was rambling and odd. Rev. Jackson: I didn't think I was really feeling the oppression of the rule until it was lifted. And then, once it was lifted, I became aware of how much I embodied that oppression. And it surprised me that, on the last day of the conference, I so freely danced. And I don't do that. I don't do that in public anyway. I danced freely by myself in the middle of the assembly hall on the last day of general conference. It was beautiful. There was a single, gently phrased rebuttal to the culturally leftist happy talk: Bennett: What do you say, Reverend Jackson, to those conservative Methodists who argue that the church is now buying into the culture, that the Bible hasn't changed, but the church has changed? What's your reaction to that? Jackson: The church is changing, and thank God. The church is becoming aware of who God is, in comparison to who writers throughout generations have said about God and who those religious leaders that have been dear to us throughout the generations have also declared that God is…. When Bennett asked what the move meant “for the future of the United Methodist Church” Jackson replied with the thought of LGBTQ couples holding hands in church, “just like those who are heteronormative,” and looked forward to “a church where all people will get to thrive in love, life and liberation.” So much for that old-time religion. This “religious left” segment was brought to you in part by Cunard. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 5/17/24 7:21:57 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: We turn now to a seismic shift within the United Methodist Church. It recently voted to lift bans on LGBTQ clergy and same-sex marriages. I spoke to a Methodist pastor about these changes, but, first, a bit of background. Woman: And the results should now appear on the screen. Geoff Bennett: It was described as the most consequential meeting of the United Methodist Church in more than half-a-century. In late April, hundreds of delegates from around the world gathered in Charlotte, the first such meeting since 2019. Woman: The affirmative has it, and the motion is adopted. Geoff Bennett: They voted overwhelmingly to end the church's bans on same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ clergy. Bishop Tracy Malone, Council of Bishops President, United Methodist Church: And these decisions that have been made over these last few days is a testimony that we are claiming that we are a church where everyone belongs. We are a church with open hearts, open minds and open doors. Geoff Bennett: In 1972, the Methodists adopted language that "the practice of homosexuality was incompatible with Christian teaching." In 1984, they banned clergy who are "self-avowed practicing homosexuals." And, in 1996, the church prohibited clergy from officiating same-sex marriages. Man: We will not leave this church of Jesus Christ. Geoff Bennett: After heated discussions at a conference in 2019, delegates voted to uphold those bans. But in the years that followed, some 7,600 U.S. conservative Methodist congregations located mostly in the South left the church over its lack of enforcement of the anti-LGBTQ policies. By 2022, the United Methodists had 5.4 million members in the U.S., less than half their peak in the 1960s. The recent departures have seen that number drop even further. For more on the significance of these changes, I spoke recently with the Reverend Valerie Jackson, the lead pastor at Park Hill United Methodist Church in Denver. She joined the Methodist Church from the Baptist Church years ago. I asked Reverend Jackson how the church lifting its bans has resonated with her. Rev. Dr. Valerie Jackson, Leader Pastor, Park Hill United Methodist Church: I didn't think I was really feeling the oppression of the rule until it was lifted. And then, once it was lifted, I became aware of how much I embodied that oppression. And it surprised me that, on the last day of the conference, I so freely danced. And I don't do that. I don't do that in public anyway. I danced freely by myself in the middle of the assembly hall on the last day of general conference. It was beautiful. Geoff Bennett: When you say that you were embodying the oppression, help us understand what that means. How did that show up in your life? Rev. Dr. Valerie Jackson: What that means is, even though I had the privilege of living in a conference, in a region where being LGBTQ was not criminalized, that, somewhere deep within me, I still knew that I was at risk, that my ordination was at risk, that a claim could be filed against me, that I could go to trial. Somewhere deep within me, I knew that. And so it's almost like looking over your shoulder unconsciously or subconsciously all day, every day, 365 days a year. That's a lot of pressure. Geoff Bennett: Nearly a quarter of the United Methodist Church broke away. What is the impact of that on the church and really on the faith? Rev. Dr. Valerie Jackson: Well, it's multilayered, right? So the impact is grieving the loss of United Methodist siblings. Even though we did not have the same theology or the same values, they were family. And so you grieve the loss of family members. On the other hand, it was liberating because it's like being in a marriage where you grow apart and you don't share the same vision for the lives that you have or the future that you're living into. And so, when you finally make that courageous decision to separate and go your different ways, it's freeing, it's liberating, and it gives the space for people to live into being who they really are. It's tiring to code-switch depending on who you're talking to and who is in the space. Think about the time that it takes for the mind to take in, in seconds who is in the room and what you are allowed to say and what you should not say. And to live like that is so profoundly tiring. Geoff Bennett: What do you say, Reverend Jackson, to those conservative Methodists who argue that the church is now buying into the culture, that the Bible hasn't changed, but the church has changed? What's your reaction to that? Rev. Dr. Valerie Jackson: The church is changing, and thank God. The church is becoming aware of who God is, in comparison to who writers throughout generations have said about God and who those religious leaders that have been dear to us throughout the generations have also declared that God is. I know what it's like as a former Baptist to be indoctrinated with a particular teaching and to not be able to see anything beyond that teaching. I know what that's like. I know how difficult it is to break through that. So we are not responsible for the systems that we are born into, but we are accountable and responsible for the decision to remain in those systems. And so I pray for my siblings, and I pray that they will one day be liberated and set free and come to experience the liberating, unconditional love and grace of God. Geoff Bennett: Lastly, what does all of this mean for the clergy, for your congregants, and for the future of the United Methodist Church? Rev. Dr. Valerie Jackson: We are looking forward to preserving a church for the future, for those who are coming behind us that will not have to worry, can they walk through the doors? Will they be loved? Will they be accepted? Will they be seen? We look forward to leaving a church where those who are in the LGBTQ community can walk into the church holding hands, can sit in the pews in each other's arms, just like those who are heteronormative? There are so many things about being LGBTQ that we have to give up that those who are heteronormative never have to think about. So we look forward to a church where all people will get to thrive in love, life and liberation. Geoff Bennett: The Reverend Dr. Valerie Jackson is lead pastor at Park Hill United Methodist Church in Denver. Thanks so much for your time and for your insights this evening. We appreciate it. Rev. Dr. Valerie Jackson: Thank you so much for having me.

FLASHBACK: Leftist Media HATED Republicans Long Before Trump

It’s one of those rhetorical devices you often hear on the liberal networks: media condemnations of “today’s Republican Party,” suggesting that if only Ronald Reagan, George Bush, or Mitt Romney were in charge instead of Donald Trump, journalists would be brimming with respect for the Grand Old Party. “Much of today’s Republican Party has been permeated by extremism,” CNN’s Fareed Zakaria blasted in 2021 as he called for an “exorcism” to purge the evil spirits. MSNBC’s Mike Brzezinski was more directly partisan: “The Democratic party is the world’s last, best, hope against fascism,” she railed in 2022, “against an extreme, autocratic anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-contraception, anti-freedom collection of fascists, who dominate the Trump wing of today’s Republican Party.” It’s all convenient revisionism; the same media aggressively trashed yesterday’s Republican party and old-fashioned traditional conservatives, too. “Republicans have been truly despicable on race,” Newsweek’s Joe Klein fulminated in 1994. Two years later, Time’s Jack E. White insinuated “cynical conservatives” were the real culprits behind a cluster of church burnings in 1996. “They may not start fires, but they fan the flames.” When Obama ran in 2008, Newsweek’s writers deplored online conservatives as “merchants of slime and sellers of hate.” In 2010, a Washington Post columnist likened the anti-tax Tea Party to the segregationist mobs in the 1950s who wanted to lynch a girl just for trying to attend high school. In 2012, an MSNBC host accused Mitt Romney — Mitt Romney! — of a cynical strategy of “niggerization” against President Obama: “He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama.” “Today’s Republican party is not just far from being the party of Lincoln: It’s really the party of Jefferson Davis,” accused another Washington Post columnist in early 2015, when Jeb Bush was seen as the likely GOP candidate for president. “It is the lineal descendant of Lee’s army, and the descendants of Grant’s have yet to subdue it.” So don’t believe the revisionist spin that liberal journalists respected Republicans and conservatives before Donald Trump and MAGA came along and ruined everything. Here are a dozen quotes that show otherwise: ■ “Traditionally — at least since Nixon’s ‘southern strategy’ — Republicans have been truly despicable on race, and there are more than a few stalwarts who continue to bloviate disingenuously in support of a ‘colorblind’ society, by which they mean a tacit relapse into segregation.”— Newsweek’s Joe Klein, writing in the magazine’s June 24, 1994 issue. ■ “Over the past 18 months, while Republicans fulminated about welfare and affirmative action, more than 20 churches in Alabama and six other Southern and Border states have been torched....There is already enough evidence to indict the cynical conservatives who build their political careers, George Wallace-style, on a foundation of race-baiting. They may not start fires, but they fan the flames.”— Time national correspondent Jack E. White, March 18, 1996 issue. ■ “The Republican Party has been successfully scaring voters since 1968, when Richard Nixon built a Silent Majority out of lower- and middle-class folks frightened or disturbed by hippies and student radicals and blacks rioting in the inner cities....The real question is whether he [Sen. John McCain] can — or really wants to — rein in the merchants of slime and sellers of hate who populate the Internet and fund the ‘independent expenditure’ groups who exercise their freedom in ways that give a bad name to free speech.”— Richard Wolffe and Evan Thomas in an eight-page cover package touting “The O Team,” May 19, 2008 Newsweek. ■ “The angry faces at Tea Party rallies are eerily familiar. They resemble faces of protesters lining the street at the University of Alabama in 1956 as Autherine Lucy, the school’s first black student, bravely tried to walk to class. Those same jeering faces could be seen gathered around the Arkansas National Guard troopers who blocked nine black children from entering Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957. ‘They moved closer and closer,’ recalled Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine. ‘Somebody started yelling, “Lynch her! Lynch her!”’”— The Washington Post’s Colbert King in a March 27, 2010 column. ■ “Tonight, we start with the party of hate. The Republican Party in this country has been running on hate and division for the last 50 years....What black person, gay guy or girl, immigrant or Muslim American in their right mind would vote for the Republican Party? They might as well hang a sign around their neck saying, ‘I hate myself.’”— Fill-in host Cenk Uygur on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, August 26, 2010.     ■ “You notice he [Mitt Romney] says ‘anger’ twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama. The other-ization, he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing to say. I don’t say it lightly. But this is niggerization, ‘You are not one of us,’ and that ‘you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.’”— Co-host Touré on MSNBC’s The Cycle, August 16, 2012. ■ “A Romney takeover of the White House might well rival Andrew Johnson’s ascendancy to the presidency after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in 1865….A Romney win would be worrisome…because of his strong embrace of states’ rights and his deep mistrust of the federal government — sentiments Andrew Johnson shared….Johnson stood by as Southern states enacted ‘black codes,’ which restricted rights of freed blacks and prevented blacks from voting. Romney stood by last year as Republican-controlled state legislatures passed voter-identification laws, making it harder for people of color, senior citizens and people with disabilities to exercise their fundamental right to vote.”— Washington Post editorial writer Colbert I. King in his November 3, 2012 column, “Mitt Romney could be the next Andrew Johnson.” ■ “Why do we have so many know-nothings in the Congress who deny not just mankind’s history, or the obvious evidence of climate change, but the fiscal arithmetic that stares us in the face?...What do you call this, this dangerous zig-zagging toward the abyss... while the zealots of the right wing scream louder and louder that victory lies in catastrophe — Kool-Aid for everyone, and defeatists will be shot!”— Chris Matthews opening MSNBC’s Hardball, October 7, 2013. ■ “The story of this political crisis is really, you know, the culpability not just of the Republican crazies, but of the Republican non-crazies. I mean, how did we get to the point where Mitch McConnell is Rand Paul’s bitch?... Where’s the heroism in your own party? I mean, why aren’t the moderate Republicans, you know, fighting back? We’re always saying why don’t, you know, the moderate Muslims fight jihad, but, you know, this is jihad.”— The Daily Beast editor-in-chief Tina Brown interviewing Senator John McCain on October 10, 2013 for her Web site’s annual “Hero Summit,” a clip of which was shown later that day on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports. ■ “The essence of this Tea Party is a racist institution. It is born of the fact that they cannot stand the fact that a black man is President of the United States. But it also shows me that despite what happened in Virginia — right? — this Republican Party hasn’t learned one lesson. They still will go as far right as they can, as extreme on the extreme fringe of the Republican Party. That’s who’s leading the party today.”— Former CNN Crossfire co-host Bill Press on MSNBC’s PoliticsNation, December 16, 2013.     ■ “There are a few things I hate more than the NRA [National Rifle Association]. I mean truly. I think they’re pigs. I think they don’t care about human life. I think they are a curse upon the American landscape.”— Former NBC and CBS morning news host Bryant Gumbel in an interview with Rolling Stone posted January 20, 2015. ■ “Fueled by the mega-donations of the mega-rich, today’s Republican Party is not just far from being the party of Lincoln: It’s really the party of Jefferson Davis. It suppresses black voting; it opposes federal efforts to mitigate poverty; it objects to federal investment in infrastructure and education just as the antebellum South opposed internal improvements and rejected public education; it scorns compromise. It is nearly all white. It is the lineal descendant of Lee’s army, and the descendants of Grant’s have yet to subdue it.”— Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson, April 8, 2015. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.                          

Politico Media Critic: Fox News Coverage of Trump Trial's Somehow a 'Brownout'

Politico senior media writer Jack Shafer argued on Saturday that Fox’s coverage of the Trump trial in Manhattan exposed a propaganda network -- while CNN and MSNBC going into gavel-to-gavel overdrive does not? The headline: Fox News Is Flipping Trump’s Trial Coverage on its Head The conservative network is curating its coverage to boost Trump. The liberal networks are curating their coverage to damage Trump – except it seems to help him instead. The liberals think of their obsession as the definition of "normal" news judgment. How could anyone dissent from their journalistic wisdom and think there are other stories to tell?  Shafer suggests this is an effort to “coddle Trump-loving viewers,” as if the others aren’t coddling Trump-hating viewers. Then he claims “the numbers don’t lie.” Which numbers? They are sketchy numbers. According to database calculations provided by Roger Macdonald of the Internet Archive TV News, from April 15 through May 17, the Trump trial has been mentioned about half as often on Fox than either of its primary rivals, CNN and MSNBC. (What’s measured: Number of 15-second blocks of airtime times in which both the words “Trump” and “trial” are spoken.) Meanwhile, at the same time Fox has devoted less attention to the trial itself, it has extended near-blanket coverage to the alternative proceedings taking place in the same location — Trump’s open soliloquies to the press from the courthouse lobby where he lashes enemies inside and out of the courtroom. Fox conducted 33 live broadcasts of Trump statements to the press compared with 19 live statements aired on CNN and just three on MSNBC. The Fox “brown out” has been obvious to close watchers of the trial. Wait, wait -- if Fox is mentioning the Trump trial "about half as often" as CNN or MSNBC, how is that defined as a "brownout"? Shafer explains some Reuters reporters noted Fox was reporting on anti-Israel campus protests -- like there's other news in the world. One selected hour of The Faulkner Focus only had ten minutes on the trial. Outrageous! Shafer pleases his Politico audience by arguing Fox is "less a news station than a purveyor of conservative propaganda, after all." Naturally, to undergird his view, Shafer turns to Fox-trashing David Folkenflik: NPR media reporter David Folkenflik, a close Fox observer and biographer of Murdoch, notes in an interview that by showing Trump repeatedly outside the courtroom, the network makes it appear as if it is adequately reporting on the intricacies of the trial — even if its coverage is scant. [!] He adds that the TV airtime Fox has given to the Trump congressional surrogates lined up outside the courtroom to testify for their man provides a similar impression. “This is one of the classic modules or templates that Fox has to offer, the simulacrum of news rather than the actual coverage,” Folkenflik says. It's a "simulacrum" when you let Trump's backers speak out against this Democrat DA and Democrat judge. Point and laugh at David calling half as much trial coverage as CNN "scant." Half of complete obsession is "scant." Shafer added: "What’s significant about the lopsided Fox coverage is that it implies the real news — and the real trial — isn’t happening inside the courtroom." Shouldn't both be newsworthy? Doesn't airing both qualify you as less propagandistic? MSNBC only broadcast three of Trump's outside-the-court reactions, while Fox had 33, and Jack and David didn't identify that as "scant." 

MSNBC Crickets As Jerry Nadler Flip-Flops On Providing Arms For Israel

Watching Rep. Jerry Nadler [D-NY] on Saturday's edition of MSNBC's The Weekend, I was struck by how relaxed and comfortable he looked. As well he should be, knowing that his hosts would never challenge their fellow liberal. And so it was that there was not a peep out of Symone Sanders Townsend, Alicia Menendez, or Michael Steele when Nadler laid out his support for cutting off crucial military supplies to Israel should it go into Rafah. The hosting trio either didn't know or didn't care that Nadler's position is diametrically opposite to the one he passionately advocated when Donald Trump was president. Here was Nadler explaining his vote against a bill proposed by Republicans to assure continuing military aid to Israel: "The president is, in my view quite properly, withholding certain very heavy ordinance--2000-pound bombs, etcetera, from Israel, if they go into Rafah. The only use of those weapons is to try to destroy tunnels deep underground. But in so doing, your destroying everything above ground. The kill radius of a 2000-pound bomb is 400 yards. And the president is quite properly withholding that.." So that is Nadler now. But here was Nadler in 2019, when Donald Trump was president [emphasis added]: Aid to Israel: Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) tells Jewish Insider’s Jacob Kornbluh that Democrats who have expressed support for leveraging aid to Israel are “wrong.” Nadler stressed that “We have a $38 billion committment over 10 years for military aid to Israel. The Israelis need it for defense. Whether we approve or disapprove of specific policies, we shouldn’t use military aid as a pressure point on specific policies — because Israel’s security is paramount.” So, Nadler used to adamantly oppose using military aid as a "pressure point" on Israel to coerce it on policy issues. But now, that is precisely what Nadler is proposing. Threaten Israel with withholding badly needed munitions should it go into Rafah.   Nadler condemned as "nonsense" Israel's plan to eliminate Hamas now, once and for all. Instead, Nadler expressed his support for Biden's fantasy-land solution in which Arab countries would send their military forces to occupy Gaza, and perhaps 12 years down the road, a representative Palestinian organization could be created. So Hamas would continue to exist, and Arabs would be fighting Arabs for 12 years in Gaza.  Now, that is true "nonsense!" Before expressing his support for threatening to withhold military aid to Israel, Nadler went on a long-winded explanation of his vote against the Republican-sponsored Antisemitism Awareness Act. Indeed, Nadler bragged of having "led the opposition" to the bill. So let's summarize. Nadler votes against a bill opposing antisemitism. He votes against a bill assuring continued military aid to Israel. He supports leaving Hamas in place in Rafah. He calls Netanyahu the worst Jewish leader in 2,000 years. And none of the show's liberal hosts say boo. Here's a thought: perhaps Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez could make Jerry an honorary member of The Squad! Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Weekend 6/18/24 8:54 am EDT MICHAEL STEELE: Congressman, I want to broaden the scope a little bit, internationally. You voted no on two pieces of legislation this week. The Antisemitism Awareness Act, in which you put out a statement saying we need tangible solutions to this crisis, not political grandstanding and showmanship. That's why last week, I led the opposition to a bill that, despite it deceptive title, would chill constitutionally protected speech while do nothing to fund the programs that actually protect college campuses and houses of worship. So you have that piece. And then you had also the, the weapons bill for Israel in which you noted, you voted against another cynical partisan attempt to politicize the U.S-Israeli relationship. . . . JERRY NADLER: The president is, in my view quite properly, withholding certain very heavy ordinance--2000-pound bombs, etcetera, from Israel, if they go into Rafah. And they say they're going to Rafah. The only use of those weapons is to try to destroy tunnels deep underground. But in so doing, your destroying everything above ground. The kill radius of a 2000-pound bomb is 400 yards.  STEELE: Right. NADLER: Which means, if you're standing here and the bomb drops, it could be fatal to, I think, 36th Street. SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: Oh my goodness.  NADLER: And the president is quite properly withholding that. Now, Netanyahu -- who I think is the worst Jewish leader since antiquity -- is saying that, well, there were 12 battalions, 12 Hamas battalions. We took care of eight of them up north. Now we have to take care of the other four. That is nonsense. There may be 12, 12 battalions, but they're fighting up north again.The more you bomb them, you're just radicalizing more people -- STEELE: -- More and more people. NADLER: -- and you're creating it. We should have learned that lesson in Mosul.  And if you want to follow an intelligent policy, you have to do what the president suggested. Bring in various Arab countries. Have them -- you have them, have their military forces occupy the territory. They rebuild it, and you do that for maybe a dozen years, and then you stand up a, a representative organization that can represent the Palestinians.   STEELE: All right. Congressman Jerry Nadler. Thank you so much. Really appreciate you bringing that to us. Really appreciate it very much. 

PBS NewsHour Wrecks Texas for Abbott Pardon, Pressured by 'White Right-Wing Conservatives'

The PBS NewsHour on Friday questioned Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s pardon of “convicted killer Daniel Perry” as a sop to “white right-wing conservatives.” Host Geoff Bennett loaded his lead to tar Abbott’s decision right from the start. Geoff Bennett: Texas Governor Greg Abbott has pardoned a man convicted of fatally shooting a Black Lives Matter protester in the summer of 2020. Abbott had faced pressure to issue the pardon from white right-wing conservatives, including then- Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Reporter Stephanie Sy also loaded her description, complete with an extraneous mention of the white victim’s “black fiancé,” but barely mentioning that the BLM-supporting victim, Garrett Foster, was also armed and allegedly raised his weapon at Perry. (An AK-47 rifle no less, a tool feared by the liberal media.) Sy: Yesterday, the Texas State Parole Board, whose members are appointed by the governor, unanimously recommended the release of convicted killer Daniel Perry and the restoration of his firearm rights. He walked free just hours after the pardon was issued. Perry was serving a 25-year prison sentence for the murder of Garrett Foster, an armed white man who was attending a racial justice protest with his black fiance. In court, Perry argued he shot Foster from his car in self-defense. Prosecutors argued he sought out the encounter, and the jury ultimately agreed. For more on what led to Perry's pardon, we're joined by KVUE and Austin-American Statesman investigative reporter. Tony Plohetski. Tony, welcome to the NewsHour. The board said it did a meticulous review of this case. But critics say this is politics, and you had right-wing pundits like Tucker Carlson calling for this for a year. What was the biggest justification Governor Abbott gave for this pardon? The pardon power was once strongly embraced by liberals, but no longer, at least when Republican presidents and governors use it. Tony Plohetski, Austin-American Statesman: Well, to your point, while the parole and pardons board issued this statement saying that they had done a meticulous review, what was absent from their statement was any sort of legal rationale, in terms of recommending that the governor issued this pardon. In a separate proclamation, the governor, however, says that Texas has a very strong, one of the strongest, in his words, self-defense, stand-your-ground laws here in Texas. And so he saw this as upholding that law, and that the conviction of Daniel Perry in this case were, in his words, a travesty of justice. Sy immediately suggested Abbott was guilty of hypocrisy:  Sy: How does this fit into Abbott's broader record on pardons? Is this a governor who has shown mercy to others who have been convicted of such serious crimes? Plohetski: Well, certainly this adds fuel to the already burning fire between Republicans here in Texas and progressive district attorneys like district attorney Jose Garza here in Austin. There has been a lot of back-and-forth discussion about what crimes get prosecuted and what crimes don't get prosecuted here in Austin. But with regard to the governor's record with regard to pardons, over time, the governor has issued precious few of these pardons, usually doing so at the end of the year…. Sy read from a hysterically strong letter from Foster’s fiancé, entering it into the media record: With this pardon, the governor has desecrated the life of a murdered Texan and U.S. Air Force veteran and impugned that jury's just verdict. He has declared that Texans who hold political views that are different from his and different from those in power can be killed in this state with impunity. Sy tried to make Plohetski say the pardon was out of bounds: "Pardons, as you know, Tony, are often political. Does this pardon go beyond a norm? Does it set a new precedent?" Plohetski hinted agreement, citing concern among “the criminal justice community in Austin” that future similar moves would risk “further upending the criminal justice system.” This segment was brought to you in part by Cunard. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 5/17/24 7:15:42 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: Texas Governor Greg Abbott has pardoned a man convicted of fatally shooting a Black Lives Matter protester in the summer of 2020. Abbott had faced pressure to issue the pardon from white right-wing conservatives, including then FOX News host Tucker Carlson. Stephanie Sy has the story. Stephanie Sy: Yesterday, the Texas State Parole Board, whose members are appointed by the governor, unanimously recommended the release of convicted killer Daniel Perry and the restoration of his firearm rights. He walked free just hours after the pardon was issued. Perry was serving a 25-year prison sentence for the murder of Garrett Foster, an armed white man who was attending a racial justice protest with his Black fiance. In court, Perry argued he shot Foster from his car in self-defense. Prosecutors argued he sought out the encounter, and the jury ultimately agreed. For more on what led to Perry's pardon, we're joined by KVUE and Austin-American Statesman investigative reporter Tony Plohetski. Tony, welcome to the "NewsHour." The board said it did a meticulous review of this case. But critics say this is politics, and you had right-wing pundits like Tucker Carlson calling for this for a year. What was the biggest justification Governor Abbott gave for this pardon? Tony Plohetski, The Austin-American Statesman: Well, to your point, while the parole and pardons board issued this statement saying that they had done a meticulous review, what was absent from their statement was any sort of legal rationale, in terms of recommending that the governor issued this pardon. In a separate proclamation, the governor, however, says that Texas has a very strong, one of the strongest, in his words, self-defense, stand-your-ground laws here in Texas. And so he saw this as upholding that law, and that the conviction of Daniel Perry in this case were, in his words, a travesty of justice. Stephanie Sy: And he also had criticism for Travis County's DA's handling of the case, right? But how does this fit into Abbott's broader record on pardons? Is this a governor who has shown mercy to others who have been convicted of such serious crimes? Tony Plohetski: Well, certainly this adds fuel to the already burning fire between Republicans here in Texas and progressive district attorneys like district attorney Jose Garza here in Austin. There has been a lot of back-and-forth discussion about what crimes get prosecuted and what crimes don't get prosecuted here in Austin. But with regard to the governor's record with regard to pardons, over time, the governor has issued precious few of these pardons, usually doing so at the end of the year. We're talking, Stephanie, only about a handful per year, most of them nonviolent offenders who were convicted, some of them after serving years or in some cases even decades in prison. This pardon, however, stands very distinct from that, in that Daniel Perry has only been in prison a little more than a year. Stephanie Sy: I want to read a statement from Whitney Mitchell, Garrett Foster's surviving fiancee. She was at the protest that night. She testified during the trial. And she said through her attorney — quote — "With this pardon, the governor has desecrated the life of a murdered Texan and U.S. Air Force veteran and impugned that jury's just verdict. He has declared that Texans who hold political views that are different from his and different from those in power can be killed in this state with impunity." Pardons, as you know, tony, are often political. Does this pardon go beyond a norm? Does it set a new precedent? Tony Plohetski: I can tell you that that is certainly the concern, not only here in the criminal justice community in Austin, but really across the state, what this might lead to with regard to other cases that are on dockets, not only in Austin, but across the state, whether or not Governor Abbott may lend support to those offenders, should they be convicted sometime down the line, and, in the minds of some people here in Texas, further upending the criminal justice system. Stephanie Sy: How else are you hearing reaction from this, particularly from the family and Black Lives Matter protesters? Tony Plohetski: Well, I can assure you that the reaction of Whitney Mitchell is consistent to a lot of feelings here in Austin. Austin has a very strong community with regard to activism and demonstrations. And so they were alarmed the night that Garrett Foster was killed. But let me assure you that, elsewhere in the state, a deeply conservative state, others view this, other loud voices, including, for example, the attorney general, view this as righting a wrong, that a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case. And so they see this as the governor using his authority, legally using his partner authority to right that wrong. But, again, the reaction really does range, depending on who you talk to, not only in Austin, but across the state of Texas. Stephanie Sy: Tony Plohetski with The Austin-American Statesman, thank you so much for joining the "NewsHour." Tony Plohetski: Thanks for having me.

The CNN Presidential Debate: A Trump Trap?

The inevitable quadrennial debate announcement has been made. There will be two presidential debates, and Donald Trump let Joe Biden set the rules. This time around CNN will host the first, and ABC the second. And the CNN selection -- with the announcement of moderators as CNN’s own Jake Tapper and Dana Bash -- raises a curious question. That would be: Is the selection of CNN a “Trump Trap”? A trap set by the former President himself? To start, consider the lay of the political land right now. As this is written, the former president is on trial in New York, the trial in the hands of decided Trump haters. The judge is on record as having contributed to President Biden’s re-election campaign. The judge’s daughter Loren Merchan is a left-wing activist actively involved with a digital marketing and fundraising agency that caters to Democrats. The Manhattan District Attorney who brought this case is an elected Democrat. So too the New York State Attorney General, the latter openly campaigning on a promise to get Trump. This is all before we get to the Fulton County Democrat DA Fani Willis and the soap opera that is her prosecution of Trump. And not to be left out is the Biden Justice Department’s Special Counsel Jack Smith, prosecuting Trump over the storage of classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate discovered in a raid on the former President’s home. Notably, President Biden has been revealed to similarly have boxes of classified documents stored, haphazardly, in his Wilmington garage -- with, curiously, no surprise raid. He had time to er, "adjust." Whatever the legal results are to be, without doubt all of this taken together has backfired, and backfired big time. Look no further than the crowd said to be 100,000 strong that turned out for Trump’s recent appearance in, of all places, the very blue state of New Jersey.  Then there’s the lineup of Republican members of Congress showing up at the New York courthouse where Trump’s trial is taking place. Suffice to say, any given Member of Congress is a highly political being, and they would never in a blink show up to so obviously support Trump if they thought they would be losing votes by doing so. All of which is to say, the former President has become the very symbol of a President being targeted by the American political and legal Establishment. And the attacks on him have backfired and backfired big time, politically speaking. Along with the attacks from the political and legal establishments, so too, famously, has the liberal “mainstream” media targeted Trump. That would decidedly include CNN. And, safe to say, the American people get it and have reacted with a decidedly negative view. CNN’s ratings have not been good. Leading, among other things, to this barb from the Tonight Show’s Jimmy Fallon, "Biden and Trump will meet on June 27 on CNN, and one of Biden's debate conditions was not having an audience, so that explains why it's on CNN." Which brings us round to the “Trump Trap” that may be the CNN debate. Full disclosure: CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, the debate moderators, are former colleagues. I like and respect both. But the point here is what is certainly obvious. There is one video clip after another here at NewsBusters of Jake deriding Trump, calling his presidency a “nightmare” and worse. Dana, plainly, is no Trump fan either. God Bless America -- I believe in free speech for Jake, Dana and every other American. Yet the fact here is that this debate will quickly be seen by millions of Americans as Trump versus not just President Biden, but against two left-leaning, Trump-despising members of the Trump despising “mainstream” liberal media as well.  In other words, this debate can be seen as being set up as a “Trump Trap.” Putting the former President on a debate stage with, as noted, not one opponent, but three. And in the current, decidedly heated political environment where Trump’s antagonists at his New York trial as well as his other trials have ignited a tidal wave of support for the former President. His treatment at the hands of Jake Tapper and Dana Bash in this debate could easily do even more of the same. For Trump, this might be similar to the CNN "town hall" with Kaitlan Collins constantly interrupting -- and you know how much CNN staffers and viewers were inflamed over that "platforming" of Trump. Which means? This debate just may turn out to be a well-planned -- by the former President -- “Trump Trap”.  Snaring CNN’s anti-Trump moderators and letting them, in full view of millions of Americans, just be their anti-Trump selves. Only adding to the backfire of support for Trump that is already on display, as in New Jersey just the other day. So prepare the popcorn. This debate will be a fun and instructive night.

PolitiFact Spins For Democrats On Late-Term Abortion

There are three things certain in life: death, taxes, and self-styled fact-checkers defending Democrats on late-term abortion. The latest example came on Friday from D.L. Davis, who gave Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson a “false” label for claiming “Every Senate Democrat has voted to support unlimited abortions up to the moment of birth.” Johnson’s office cited the Democrats’ 2022 Women’s Health Protection Act and Davis took exception to the use of the word “every,” writing “[Sen. Joe] Manchin, R-W.Va. [sic], voted no along with Republican senators on the measure. The vote was 49 Yes and 51 No." It’s ironic that Davis tried to shame Johnson for saying “every” Democrat voted for it when the truth is everyone, but one did and Davis and his editors couldn’t even get Manchin’s party letter label correct. Regardless, Davis also cited Johnson's office for claiming “the measure ‘would enshrine abortion into law up until the moment of birth and block state laws with protections against late-term abortions.’" Davis simply replied, “That’s wrong.” He also added, “On the contrary, the measure — which has not become law — protects the right to an abortion up until the point of fetal viability, which is roughly reached at 24 weeks of pregnancy.” He further writes, “After that point, the legislation protects the right to abortion only "when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health," according to the bill's text.” If one were to try to be as neutral as possible, as all good fact-checkers should, Davis could reasonably say the bill did not mandate the reversal of state laws banning late-term abortions, but to say the bill does not protect “abortion into law up until the moment of birth” is also wrong. The bill allows blue states to permit it, which some do. For Davis, such concerns are not important, “‘Abortion ‘up to the moment of birth’ simply doesn’t happen.' [Washington Sen. Patty] Murray said in an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin. ‘Abortions later in pregnancy are extraordinarily rare and occur essentially only when a pregnancy is nonviable and the mother risks severe injury or death by remaining pregnant.’” Talking points about late-term abortion being rare do not refute claims that a bill permits it. If late-term abortions are so rare and only done for legitimate medical reasons, why is it so hard for national Democrats to write in a provision to their bills banning elective abortions after viability?

The War on Jerry Seinfeld, Explained

Some stars float on a bed of pure adulation. Dolly Parton comes to mind, as do Denzel Washington, Sandra Bullock and Betty White before her passing in 2021. Jerry Seinfeld just got bumped from that list. The 70-year-old comedian is best known for his self-titled sitcom, a sensation still felt in 2024 thanks to the streaming revolution. He’s worked sporadically since then, both on “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee” and the stand-up circuit. That all changed when he gave a blunt interview to The New Yorker’s podcast.     Seinfeld, now starring in the Netflix comedy “Unfrosted,” blasted the “extreme Left” for hurting comedy. The comments immediately drew the media’s ire, although the think pieces aimed at rebutting his charge fired blanks. All his critics could do is say he’s too old, too white or too out of touch. Imagine lecturing Jerry Seinfeld on comedy. Bottom of Form Yes, there’s something wrong with that. His statement changed the way media outlets viewed the New York-based comic. The press adulation faded. In its place, a brand “reassessment.” The Hollywood Reporter fretted that Seinfeld’s new, outspoken mien could hurt his career, something John Nolte rightly noted is never mentioned when a star veers to the Left. CNN cranked out a think piece centered on the author’s “growing unease” over the clean comic. Slate worried aloud with a piece dubbed, “What’s the Deal with Jerry Seinfeld?” …he’s even started embracing his Judaism more publicly, and in December traveled to Tel Aviv to visit the families of Hamas hostages. Who can fault a Jewish celebrity for calling attention to the dead and missing of Israel? Yet he’s notably not commented on the Netanyahu government, condemned the war, or discussed the suffering of Gazans… Funny, nearly every celebrity not named Rapaport, Heaton, Messing or Schumer continues to ignore the Israel hostages held by the terrorists in Hamas without any Slate-approved hand-wringing. But we digress. That Slate piece wouldn’t exist had the comedian not accurately mocked the “extreme Left” for hurting comedy. The latest attack on the genial comic speaks volumes of today’s culture. Roughly 30 pro-Palestinian students protested Seinfeld’s Duke University commencement address Sunday. The walkouts got plenty of media attention, but they didn’t stop Seinfeld from sharing some advice to those about to enter the “real world.” “Whatever you’re doing, I don’t care if it’s your job, your hobby, a relationship, getting a reservation at M Sushi,” the comedian said. “Make an effort. Just pure, stupid, no-real-idea-what-I’m-doing-here effort. Effort always yields a positive value, even if the outcome of the effort is absolute failure of the desired result. This is a rule of life. Just swing the bat and pray is not a bad approach to a lot of things.” Why protest Seinfeld? The comedian is Jewish and he supports Israel’s right to defend itself against the worst terrorist attack in decades. The documentary “Screams Before Silence,” mostly ignored by film critics, captures the Oct. 7 atrocities by the Hamas terrorist group/government. For that, select students felt Seinfeld wasn’t an appropriate choice to greet the graduates. And it’s not the first time Seinfeld endured heckling for his pro-Israeli views. Protesters shouted at him when he left a New York event in February featuring The Free Press founder Bari Weiss. Seinfeld remains a beloved figure to many. They’ll always appreciate the laughter “Seinfeld” brought into their lives. Others embrace a comedian who sticks to his squeaky-clean image in our troubled times. Seinfeld still isn’t political by nature, and his off-screen life rarely intersects with the Beltway. That doesn’t matter. Like J.K. Rowling, he’ll never be viewed the same way by the hard Left and the press, two groups with sizable overlap. For Rowling, defying the trans movement earned her a Scarlet Letter of sorts for her former defenders. Seinfeld’s willingness to pin comedy’s decline on the far-Left similarly stained him with that movement. Rowling, once revered for her progressive views and positive impact on children’s reading habits, is now a pariah on the Left. That won’t change unless she attempts an extended apology and becomes an “ally” for the trans cause. And the author isn’t budging. Neither she nor Seinfeld will be treated as a beloved icon again, at least in certain quarters. The Daily Beast dredges up an embarrassing chapter from Seinfeld’s past to keep the attacks. coming. The comedian’s romance with a 17-year-old “resurfaced” on social media, and the far-Left Beast happily amplified the narrative. The comic was 38 at the time, and while the courtship fueled the gossip pages it wasn’t the worst attack on him. That came courtesy of Howard Stern. The shock jock invited folk singer Janis Ian on his show to sing an updated version of her hit song “At Seventeen” to mock Seinfeld.

ABC, Once Again, Helps The Left Smear Alito

After not-so cleverly trying and failing to get Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from important Supreme Court cases related to January 6, the left and the media have moved on to try to not-so cleverly get Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself based on a photo of an upside-down flag outside his home that was said to show support for the rioters. On Saturday’s Good Morning America, ABC White House correspondent MaryAlice Parks omitted key details from Alito’s side of the story as she also hyped that even the appearance of bias can undermine the Court’s credibility. It was ABC’s second day in a row of echoing the smear and co-host Whit Johnson showed the picture and introduced Parks by noting, “This morning Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is under fire. The New York Times obtaining this photo of an American flag flying upside down reportedly at Alito's home in the days just after the January 6th riot. ABC's White House correspondent, MaryAlice Parks, joins us now from Washington with more. MaryAlice, good morning.”     For Parks, “The central question here is whether Justice Alito or someone from his family was trying to show solidarity with those who wanted to subvert the 2020 Election results or even with those who stormed the Capitol on January 6th. Now, according to the New York Times, the American flag flew upside down for days at the Alito House right before President Biden's inauguration. Flags, of course, are never supposed to be flown upside down unless to signal great distress, but former President Trump’s supporters had adopted it as a symbol, some even carrying it as they stormed the Capitol.” If it is really “the central question,” then some discussion on Alito’s record on the 2020 Election would be appropriate, but Parks wasn’t interested in that. Instead, she recalled, “Justice Alito did not reply to our request but blamed his wife in a comment to the Times and has downplayed the incident. Still, the leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dick Durbin, is calling for Alito to recuse himself from all January 6th-related cases. The Court is expected to rule on two cases related to the attack on the Capitol in the next few weeks, including one about whether Trump has immunity for his actions.” Parks completely misrepresented and omitted key details of Alito’s side of the story. He was not blaming his wife, he was simply explaining she was on the receiving end of abuse from nasty neighbors who blamed her for January 6 and used vile language, including the C-word. For all the media complaints about Harrison Butker, the media sure seems to be upset that Alito and Thomas don’t sufficiently control their wives. Still, Parks played the “people are saying” card, “Now, since the news broke, several legal scholars have been questioning whether Alito showed bias here and damaged his credibility. Of course, even the perception of a conflict of interest could be problematic and undermine faith in the courts. Janai.” Co-host Janai Norman agreed, “And that is one of the concerns, MaryAlice. Thank you.” What is the ideological bent of these “legal scholars?” Could it be that they have political axes to grind? Could they be ginning up controversy to pressure the Court to rule a certain way or delegitimize it if it rules another? Again, Parks wasn’t interested. Here is a transcript for the May 18 show: ABC Good Morning America 5/18/2024 7:09 AM ET WHIT JOHNSON: This morning Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is under fire. The New York Times obtaining this photo of an American flag flying upside down reportedly at Alito's home in the days just after the January 6th riot. ABC's White House correspondent, MaryAlice Parks, joins us now from Washington with more. MaryAlice, good morning. MARYALICE PARKS: Yeah, Whit, good morning. The central question here is whether Justice Alito or someone from his family was trying to show solidarity with those who wanted to subvert the 2020 Election results or even with those who stormed the Capitol on January 6th. Now, according to the New York Times, the American flag flew upside down for days at the Alito house right before President Biden's inauguration. Flags, of course, are never supposed to be flown upside down unless to signal great distress, but former President Trump’s supporters had adopted it as a symbol, some even carrying it as they stormed the Capitol. Now, Justice Alito did not reply to our request but blamed his wife in a comment to the Times and has downplayed the incident. Still, the leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dick Durbin, is calling for Alito to recuse himself from all January 6th-related cases. The Court is expected to rule on two cases related to the attack on the Capitol in the next few weeks, including one about whether Trump has immunity for his actions.  Now, since the news broke, several legal scholars have been questioning whether Alito showed bias here and damaged his credibility. Of course, even the perception of a conflict of interest could be problematic and undermine faith in the courts. Janai. JANAI NORMAN: And that is one of the concerns, MaryAlice. Thank you.

PBS 'News Judgment': Upside-Down Alito Flag Bigger Than Potential Kavanaugh Assassin

On Friday’s PBS NewsHour, the Week in Review segment dove into the New York Times “scoop” that the flag flew upside down for a few days in January 2021 outside the home of Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito. This was Big News? Two years ago, when a man showed up outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house intending to assassinate him, the NewsHour didn’t find that worthy on Friday June 10, 2022. Of course, the Big News then was slobbering over the Pelosi-picked January 6 Committee, just as this Alito story is a January 6 echo.  CAPEHART: This is outrageous. And it's outrageous because this is a Supreme Court justice who, at the time that flag was flown, was sitting in judgment of a particular case involving the — still, at that point, the sitting president. The other thing is, could you imagine what would have happened if that flag was flying like that on the property of Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Ketanji Brown Jackson, someone from the liberal wing on the bench of the Supreme Court? They would have been impeached. And so the idea that we're supposed to accept Justice Alito's rationale here that, oh, my wife did it, it's unacceptable. And I think it just feeds into the erosion of the trust and the standing of the Supreme Court with the American public. Capehart and PBS and all their leftist media colleagues are actively trying to erode trust in the Supreme Court, because they’re not in charge of it right now. Washington Free Beacon editor Eliana Johnson subbed in for David Brooks, which means you get an actual conservative viewpoint for a change. JOHNSON: I don't think that the good liberal readers of The New York Times or viewers of this network would be willing to argue with a straight face that the views of a woman — and she has not come out to say that she didn't do this — are derivative of her husband's views. My husband has nothing to do with the things I say on this network, and you can't have it both ways. You cannot say that women are strong and should be out and employed and have their own views and that their husbands are responsible for everything they then go and do. Capehart then repeated his point: "And if that had happened, again, to RBG, they would be raining thunder calling for her resignation. And I wouldn't — I would have a hard time arguing with them." Earlier, Capehart made snippy points against Trump as he and the president agreed to debates: "Even though Donald Trump did agree to these two debates, I will believe it when I see it. I don't think he actually shows up." When anchor Geoff Bennett asked why Trump would lower expectations of Biden's debating skills at this point, Capehart hissed: "But we're talking about Donald Trump, who never misses an opportunity to belittle someone he's afraid of, but just to belittle anyone."

MSNBC Spews Fake News About Butker Speech To Warn About GOP 'Misogyny'

MSNBC’s Alex Wagner continued the media tradition of spreading fake news about what exactly Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker told a Catholic college during a recent commencement address. Wagner falsely reported that Butker told the women graduates “their rightful place was in service to men” as her guest, law Prof. Leah Lithman, urged viewers to vote against GOP “misogyny.” What makes Wagner’s falsehoods even worse is that she previously played the clip of Butker saying that while some of them may get fancy jobs and promotions, he ventured to guess they were mostly looking forward to the families they would raise. That someone would value their family more than their job is not exactly a radical position, but Wagner still lamented, “On Saturday, during a commencement speech at Benedictine College, a Catholic school in Kansas, Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker railed against abortion and IVF, he called birth control ‘unnatural,’ diversity, equity and inclusion ‘tyranny’ and queer pride a ‘deadly sin.’ Then he addressed the women graduates directly telling them that their rightful place was in service to men.”     Wagner rolled on, “Butker verbalized a decades-long conservative project, one that has manifested into real life policy. Already there are 21 states with abortion bands, 31 states where anti-DEI measures have been either passed or introduced and 12 states with anti-LGBTQ laws. The anti-feminist Christian Nationalist agenda is alive and well and it is gaining ground.” What do “anti-DEI” or “anti-LGBTQ laws” mean? Nobody knows because Wagner didn’t specify. Instead, she introduced Litman and asked, “just to put into perspective the things that Harrison Butker was talking about, I want to read this line from the inimitable Jessica Valenti, this is what she’s writing about, ‘Butker’s remarks weren't ‘fringe’ or radical’ she says ‘they're the law, he was simply saying out loud what Republicans have already codified, that women's role in this country is to bear children and support men who are the actual stars of the show.’ What do you make of that?” Litman replied, “I think that is a really terrifying statement that captures the current political moment we are living in, the district judge in the case that ordered the nationwide ban on medication abortion, is a judge, who before he became a judge, railed against no fault divorce laws, that actually allow people to get divorced.” She also lamented, “You have Republican political operatives ginning up theories that would allow them to revive an 1873 Victorian-era law, the Comstock Act, that would prohibit abortion nationwide. These theories are not fringe, they are being propounded by Republican politicians, at the state, local, and federal level and these are the stakes in the upcoming election and likely all future ones as long as the Republican Party leans into the movement for Christian nationalism and the misogyny that underlies it.” If Wagner were to ask Butker if he viewed being a husband and a father as more important or satisfying than being a professional football player, he would almost certainly say yes, but asking it would upset the narrative. Here is a transcript for the May 17 show: MSNBC Alex Wager Tonight 5/17/2024 9:55 PM ET ALEX WAGNER: On Saturday, during a commencement speech at Benedictine College, a Catholic school in Kansas, Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker railed against abortion and IVF, he called birth control "unnatural," diversity, equity and inclusion "tyranny" and queer pride a "deadly sin." Then he addressed the women graduates directly telling them that their rightful place was in service to men. Butker verbalized a decades-long conservative project, one that has manifested into real life policy. Already there are 21 states with abortion bands, 31 states where anti-DEI measures have been either passed or introduced and 12 states with anti-LGBTQ laws. The anti-feminist Christian Nationalist agenda is alive and well and it is gaining ground. Joining me now is Leah Litman, law professor at the University of Michigan and one of the co-hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast. Leah, thank you for joining me, just to put into perspective the things that Harrison Butker was talking about, I want to read this line from the inimitable Jessica Valenti, this is what she’s writing about, “Butker’s remarks weren't ‘fringe’ or radical” she says “they're the law, he was simply saying out loud what Republicans have already codified, that women's role in this country is to bear children and support men who are the actual stars of the show.” What do you make of that? LEAH LITMAN: I think that is a really terrifying statement that captures the current political moment we are living in, the district judge in the case that ordered the nationwide ban on medication abortion, is a judge, who before he became a judge, railed against no fault divorce laws, that actually allow people to get divorced. There are many states that now restrict divorces in cases where people are pregnant. You have Republican politicians on the Supreme Court debating whether states can prohibit abortion in cases where denying women an abortion would jeopardize their bodily organs and major bodily functions.  You have Republican political operatives ginning up theories that would allow them to revive an 1873 Victorian-era law, the Comstock Act, that would prohibit abortion nationwide. These theories are not fringe, they are being propounded by Republican politicians, at the state, local, and federal level and these are the stakes in the upcoming election and likely all future ones as long as the Republican Party leans into the movement for Christian nationalism and the misogyny that underlies it.

EU Warns Media Platforms Can Be Fined for Slovakian PM Shooting 'Disinformation'

Are you posting about the shocking assassination attempt on Wednesday upon the Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico? Well, a warning. You and the Big Tech platform you are posting on can be punished for spreading "disinformation' if the European Commission, the increasingly authoritarian cabinet government of the European Union, has its way. On Thursday, Bloomberg published the warning of impending EU censorship on this topic in an article by Peter Chapman and Samuel Stolton in "EU Monitoring ‘Spread of Disinformation’ on Fico Shooting." The story subtitles also provide these ominous censorship warnings: "Regulators can punish platforms that fail to stem fake news" "EU’s new Digital Services Act imposes tough rules on Big Tech" And please be warned that the European Commission could be actively "monitoring" YOU: The European Commission said it’s “actively monitoring” the spread of fake news about Wednesday’s shooting Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and warned it can slap Big Tech platforms with fines for failing to tackle disinformation. Fake news aka disinformation is information that the mainstream media and censors in various countries do not want you to see. Do you remember when suggesting that there might have been a Wuhan lab leak was considered to be "disinformation?" Ditto the Hunter Biden laptop. The regulator “is equipped with wide-ranging investigatory and supervisory powers, including the power to impose sanctions and remedies,” it said in an emailed statement....Violations could be punished under the European Union’s tough new Digital Services Act, which forces online platforms to put into place measures to tackle illegal content and disinformation, uphold user rights, and protect user’s health and wellbeing. Oh please, please protect our health and wellbeing from dangerous Thoughtcrimes! Under the Digital Services Act, the bloc has singled out multiple online platforms and search engines last year as large entities worthy of scrutiny. That includes X, Meta Platforms Inc., Alphabet Inc. and others with more than 45 million monthly active users in Europe. Which of the Big Tech platforms will abide by the dictates of the Orwellian Digital Services Act? Looking at you, YouTube! Russian state media has claimed that the political motivation behind the shooting was Fico’s criticism of pro-Ukrainian aid. The alleged perp was recorded loudly protesting Fico's criticism of Ukraine aid, so does that mean the platforms carrying that video will be fined or otherwise punished by the self-styled arbiters of "truth?"

NewsBusters Podcast: Lawrence O'Donnell's Cheesy Trump Trial Diaries

Part of the endless Trump trial coverage on MSNBC was The Last Word host Lawrence O'Donnell reading what sounded like bad diary entries on courtroom happenings. Porn star Stormy Daniels dressed loosely in black, which "suggested the modesty of a nun." How bizarre.  Days later, O'Donnell mocked Trump's appearance in court. He "leaves his face, with his eyes closed, in tortured elderly shapes when he drifts off into his closed-eye space, his mouth shifts from its preferred scowl to the look of a collapsing old building." Ever have that feeling of "collapsing building mouth"? On MSNBC, Brian Stelter told Ari Melber the GOP's in terrible shape, with all these Trump bootlickers showing up at his trial in Manhattan. "I’m just trying to imagine if any Democrats are going to show up at the trial of Bob Menendez, the senator, or or the trial of Joe Biden's son Hunter -- both of which are gonna happen in the next few weeks! And we’re not gonna see any of this, and that tells you everything you need to know about the differences between these two parties in 2024." To which there is an obvious rejoinder: We’re just trying to imagine if any Democrat-servant networks are going to show up at the trials of Senator Menendez or Hunter Biden. No one expects they will be doing gavel-to-gavel coverage for those trials, and that tells you everything you need to know about the Democrat-servant networks. Speaking of MSNBC, The New York Times devoted nearly 3,000 words by Jim Rutenberg and Michael Grynbaum to explain “How MSNBC’s Leftward Tilt Delivers Ratings, and Complications.” What's complicated? The unintentionally funny part is when NBC News suggested MSNBC was ruining its branding as "straight news." Who believes that any more? Lester Holt made it clear "fairness is overrated." We were a little stunned at how angry the networks became over Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker's commencement address at Benedictine College. It wasn't surprising: a Catholic speaker talked about Catholic issues to Catholic graduates. But the Butker critics who aren’t Catholics pulled out little snippets they could not abide. First, they hated that Butker paid tribute to his wife Isabelle for making him successful, for assuming “one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.” That is like a curse word to the feminists. They can’t allow the notion that children might benefit from having a parent in the home. Lester Holt's NBC Nightly News featured a student who inaccurately summarized it: "Getting married and having kids is not my ideal situation right now. It definitely made graduation feel a little less special, knowing I had to sit through that and get told I'm nothing but a homemaker.' Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

PBS Takes Pro-Hamas Line on Israel, Nakba: 'Mass Expulsion' of Palestinians in 1948

Wednesday’s edition of the PBS NewsHour forwarded pro-Hamas historical talking points to paint Palestinians as endless victims of yet another war they launched against Israel, matching up with the network’s consistently slanted coverage of the current Israel-Hamas war. It’s been 76 years since Arab countries attacked the fledgling state of Israel en masse in 1948 to strangle the Jewish homeland in its crib, but were repelled. PBS portrayed the al-Nakba, or “catastrophe,” using the Palestinian rhetoric of “mass expulsion,” with no caveats or actual historical explanation given. Host Geoff Bennett stirred in the anniversary to portray Palestinians as endless victims of unjust Israel aggressions, based on two wars begun by Arab/Islamic entities. The full report: Bennett: In the Middle East, there's been intense fighting across the Gaza Strip, including in the southern city of Rafah. An Israeli government spokesperson said today that Israel will eliminate the four remaining Hamas battalions there, but not necessarily every Hamas fighter. Separately, an Israeli airstrike hit a residential building in the Jabalia refugee camp near Gaza City. Medics say at least three people were killed and 20 others injured. This all comes as Palestinians marked 76 years since the Nakba, or catastrophe, which refers to their mass expulsion from what today is Israel. Some displaced Gazans say the war now is even worse. Faridah Abu Artema, Displaced Palestinian (translation): My mother and father told me about the Nakba, but this here is worse. This is destruction. What we have seen, no one else has seen. Every day is a catastrophe, the catastrophe of hunger, the catastrophe of illness. Every day, we move from place to place. The children are sick. I don't know what to say. Bennett: The U.N. says more than 80 percent of Gaza's population have fled their homes since the start of the war. Many have relocated more than once. The historical reality: In 1948 Britain partitioned the Palestinian Mandate, cleaving out a Jewish state and an Arab state, with the Jews accepting statehood but the Arabs refusing to live alongside the Jews in the region. Several Arab countries then launched a failed war on Israel they day it declared independence. PBS managed to out-do the slanted description from Wednesday’s CBS Evening News. These pro-Hamas talking points were brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular.

Genocide, Butker, Alito, & Scheffler: The Best and Worst of This Week’s WH Briefing

This week marked a rare occasion in which President Biden remained at the White House all five weekdays and thus allowed for five press briefings from the ever-inept press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre (and John Kirby only serving as a crutch on Friday). The questions were, not surprisingly, all over the place given the lunacy of the week, ranging from accusing Jews of genocide to harassment at the FDIC to Biden’s unpopularity to fact-checking Biden to smearing Harrison Butker (one exchange we wrote about separately here), and Justice Samuel Alito. Below are some of the smartest and dumbest questions of the briefing, presented in chronological order.   Of Course the Al-Jazeera Reporter Asks About Genocide in Israel “I looked up Francesca Albanese, the Special U.N. Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine presented one in March. Her — she presented it in Geneva. The three criterion she used, citing international law, three acts: Israel’s intent to destroy national ethnic, racial, or religious groups; serious bodily or mental harm to a group; inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring physical destruction, in whole or in part, with imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group; process of erasure of the native Palestinians. So, those three things are happening.  How can you say genocide is not being committed?” — Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett, May 13, 3:10 p.m. Eastern. A Question No Liberal Wants to Answer: Will You Stop Spending Money? Fox Business’s Edward Lawrence: “So, Warren Buffett this month said that taxes will have to be raised to pay for the national debt. He said the government may want to decrease spending. So, with — we've had announcement after announcement of — of taxpayer money being doled out — we’ve seen almost weekly now. Is the federal government spending too much money?” Jean-Pierre: “So, let me just say a couple things that Warren Buffett did say that we certainly agree with and I'll quote him: “The wealthy are definitely under taxed, relative to the general population,” which is why the President has a plan to make sure that wealthiest among us, the billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share and we've been very clear about that. They pair — the pay their fair share in order to pay for — for his investments in America and cut the deficit by $3 trillion and it — and Buffett also said it “doesn't matter bother him to pay taxes” and so it has been very clear — the President has said that he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000. That is what the President has said. Warren Buffett pretty much agrees with us. We agree, obviously, with him, and this is very different than what Republicans want to do. They put out their plan. They put out what they want to do. They want to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid give tax breaks to billionaires and corporations. We do not agree with this and what we want to do is continue to make sure that we're lowering cost for Americans for families, whether it is Big Pharma — fighting Big Pharma, lowering health care costs, making sure that we go after corporation as we — as we — you hear us talk about junk fees. Those are the ways that we want to move forward. That's what our focus is.” — Q&A on May 13, 3:18 p.m. Eastern. Ducking Biden’s ‘Fire on Spot’ When It Comes to FDIC Harassment     Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann: “There's new reporting in The Wall Street Journal found that the FD — FDIC director Martin Gruenberg, disrespected, disparaged and treated unfairly officials there and he was known to be someone who can control his temper. Obviously, President Biden said early on in his administration that he would fire on the spot anyone who bullied or unfairly belittled coworker. So, has the President seen those reports and — if those reports proved to be accurate. Will he take action?” Jean-Pierre: “So I don't have any personal announcements to make at this time. The FDIC administrator — chairman to be exact — made, apologized, and spoke to this. And so, certainly I would — I would send you there. The FDIC is independent agency, so would refer you to them as to anything else coming out from the FDIC on this particular matter, but I just don't have any policy — personnel announcement to make at this time.” — Q&A on May 13, 3:22 p.m. Eastern. Sorry, Folks, We Know This Is a Reelection Ploy for the Rust Belt Lawrence: “So, this is an election year. Why did it take three years to impose these tariffs?” U.S. Trade Ambassador Katherine Tai: “So, this is where I put my lawyer hat back on. Under the 301 statue, in the fourth year of the tariffs, if there is a stakeholder that has benefiting from the tariffs, who asked us to keep them, we keep them. That is what happened in 2022 because the tariffs first went on in 2018. As a result of that, in the fall of 2022, we started a process. We opened up a portal that was open, I think, in the end of 22 to the very beginning of 23, notice and comment. We wanted to hear from all of our stakeholders, their views on the tariffs, the pros and the cons — please inform us. That — that elicited, I think, about 1,600 comments. So, that's at the beginning of 2023. And then, we started a whole of government, interagency review within the Biden administration. That process has taken us to today and the unveiling of this finalized package which the President approved.” Lawrence: “So, it took three years to figure out the Chinese were flooding the market and stealing technology? I mean, it's pretty evident that they've been doing that all along.” Tai: “No, it took — it took a year and a half for the course of the review. You will see the amount of care that we put into our investigation and our findings. Yes, there continue to be problems, but then the question is: What do you do about the tariffs? For this administration, it is extremely important that we approach a relationship like the one between the U.S. and China and these issues around the industries and the jobs of the future with discipline. That's what takes so long — is the design and the architecture of the tariff defense system that you will see.” — Back and forth on May 14, 1:29 p.m. Eastern. Wow: NBC Reporter Calls Out Biden Flip-Flop on Tariffs “You said that the President has been consistent on this issue, but back in 2019, when he was a candidate, he said that “any freshman economics student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs”, referring to his opponent at the time. And he also said that he would reverse what he called ,senseless policies’. Why’d he change his mind?...Previously, he called them “senseless”. They're no longer senseless? — White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez’s questions to Tai, May 14, 1:33 p.m. Eastern. Doocy Time Asks KJP Why Americans Have the Sads With Ole Joe “Why do you think Americans are so down on President Biden right now?...I know you don't like to talk about polls, like, the five of six swing states that he is losing right now to somebody who is a criminal offender. But, more broadly, it doesn't seem like anything you guys are doing, is making him more popular. Why do you think that is?” (....) “So, more broadly then, have you considered in the White House that some of President Biden's recent policy positions could be a turn off to the people that used to like him?” — Doocy, May 14, 1:55 p.m. Eastern. FBN’s Lawrence SCHOOLS KJP on Biden’s Inflation Lies FBN’s @EdwardLawrence: “I wanna ask you about how the President talks about inflation. So, two times over the past two weeks, the President said inflation was nine percent when he came into office. Is the President misleading Americans on that? Or does it — just not realize that… pic.twitter.com/2XzQyUsBY3 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 15, 2024 — Back and forth on May 15, 2:43 p.m. Eastern. ABC, AP Throw Hardballs at KJP Over Biden Blocking Release of Hur Tapes “President Biden decided to block the release of the audio interview with the special counsel. And, obviously, the letter from the White House counsel laid out the reasons about the concerns of being used for political purposes. But that seems to imply that the White House is concerned that these could be politically damaging. So why not just release that, especially with this White House’s commitment to transparency?...But does the White House feel that the recording — the audio could be politically harmful since that point was also raised in the letter?” — AP’s Seung Min Kim, May 16, 2:20 p.m. Eastern. “Just to follow up on what Seung Min was asking for. Speaker Mike Johnson said that President Biden is ‘apparently afraid for citizens to hear’ his interview with special counsel Robert Hur. How is the White House responding to that criticism?...You talked about transcripts being released, but as you know, hearing something and reading it is very different and if the transcript is already out there, why is it different to have the audio there? — ABC senior White House correspondent Selina Wang, 2:22 p.m. Eastern. Leftist Coordination: ABC, AP, CBS Team Up to Invite to Smear Justice Alito “Does the President, who is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed with the current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Justice Alito should recuse himself from 20 cases involving the 2020 election or January 6 because of the reporting of the upside down flag flown outside of this house?” — AP’s Darlene Superville, May 17, 3:12 p.m. Eastern. “So, given the flag incident, does President Biden believe that Justice Alito can rule in — with impartiality for all the cases involving January 6?” — CBS’s Weijia Jiang, May 17,  3:15 p.m. Eastern. “So the President concerned that having a Supreme Court justice who is it such a high position of power, displaying a flag in his house in such a way that that could fuel more extremism and division in this country?” (....) “[W]hat is the sense here about the wive’s role here? Whether it is a Supreme Court justice, whether the senator or president, should she be able and entitled have our own political opinions and views without having them tied to her husband or not?” — Wang, May 17, 3:22 p.m. Eastern. Doocy Steps Up to Ask KJP About Scheffler’s Shocking Arrest     Doocy: “President Biden think about the world's number one golfer, Scottie Scheffler, being cuffed and then hauled in for a mug shot for what appears to be a misunderstanding at a traffic stop?” Jean-Pierre: “So I — I've seen the reports of — uh — Mr. Shuff — Scheffler’s arrest. I just want to say that our hearts go out to the individual that was killed.” Doocy: “Unrelated.” Jean-Pierre: “No, let me finish in the auto — in the auto accident that preceded his arrest. Obviously, someone did die. Someone was killed, preceded his arrest that, obviously, he was not involved in. Uh — so, I want to make sure that we share our condolences to that family and their loved ones. Anything else as specifics to his arrest, that would be something for local authorities to speak to.” Doocy: “I think — just — I — you guys have spent a good chunk of this week —” Jean-Pierre: “Yep.” Doocy: “— talking about how you don't want anybody to ever go to jail again for possessing marijuana. Do you think that somebody who was involved in what appears to be a misunderstanding of a traffic stop should be facing 10 years in prison?” Jean-Pierre: “There — we've seen the reports. There — there's a process there. We have to let the legal authorities do — go to their — you know — process and how this all works. I can't comment from here, from the lectern about something that's being looked into by local authorities. I got to be mindful about that, but let's not forget. Someone lost their lives [sic]. Not obviously — that preceded this, but there was an individual that was killed and there's a family that’s mourning a death of a loved one. And so, we want to be sensitive to that as well.” — Back and forth on Scheffler’s arrest, May 17, 3:19 p.m. Eastern. CNN Reporter Tries to Get KJP to Have Butker Banned From WH “Can we still assume that the Kansas City Chiefs will be visiting the White House this year celebration of their Super Bowl victory?” (....) “So, can you confirm — you said everyone on the team is obviously invited. Is the Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker welcome at this White House?” (....) “Given his recent comments, is he specifically welcome at this White House?” — CNN’s MJ Lee, May 17, 3:31 p.m. Eastern. Taxpayer-Funded Journo: Does Biden Know African-Americans See Themselves in Gazans? “[I]s the President mindful of how black students were protesting in campus might see a parallel of their experience of injustice between themselves and the Palestinians? Has he [OTHER REPORTER COUGHS] input about this? Is he sympathetic to that?” — Voice of America’s Patsy Widakuswara, May 17, 3:35 p.m. Eastern.   To see the relevant transcripts from this week’s briefings (including even more questions), click here (for May 13), here (for May 14), here (for May 15), here (for May 16) and here (for May 17).

No Evidence! Joe Scarborough Accuses Justice Alito of Leaking Dobbs Draft

Evidence? Joe Scarborough don't need no stinkin' evidence. On today's Morning Joe, the Biden phone buddy and informal adviser felt entitled to make a very grave--and entirely evidence-free--accusation against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Thus it was that in a segment devoted to a New York Times story skewering Alito for permitting the flying at his home of an upside-down American flag, Scarborough accused Alito of having leaked the draft of the Dobbs opinion [which Alito wrote], overturning Roe v. Wade. This flag defense was an odd take from this show -- which not too long ago let their contributor Mara Gay complain it was "disturbing" to see so many American flags (flown by Trump supporters) when she visited Long Island on D-Day.  That wasn't his only slam of Sam Alito. As Scarborough—who went from having perfect pro-life ratings as a congressman from Florida's conservative panhandle to sounding like a Planned Parenthood fanboy now that he's at MSNBC—put it: "For a Supreme Court Justice, and I will say—my opinion only—but the guy most likely to have had something to do with the leaking of the Dobbs decision. Leaking it to the Wall Street Journal, or somebody connected to him leaking it to the Wall Street Journal, because he wanted to keep Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett frozen in place. I think history will show that." Scarborough later said that with respect to both Alito's explanation of the flag flying, and his denial of being responsible for the leak of the draft Dobbs decision, "nobody believes him." Perhaps "nobody believes" Alito in the liberal cocoon of MSNBC, or amongst Scarborough's summering buddies on liberal-elitist Nantucket. But Joe, you need to get out more. Let's play a thought game. Alito has said that he had no involvement in flying the flag, and that it was his wife who did so in response to objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs that a neighbor had put up.  Now imagine that the wife of a conservative Justice is a liberal. In response to a pro-life sign put up by a conservative neighbor, she puts an "Our Bodies Our Choice--Hands Off Roe!" sign in their front yard -- only to have her husband order her to take it down.  Which would be the more likely reaction from liberals?  Would they applaud the Justice for standing up for judicial independence? Or would they condemn the Justice for patriarchal infringement on his wife's freedom of expression and accuse the Justice of attempting to turn his wife into a Handmaid, and his home into a mini-Gilead [labels with which MSNBCers have slurred Justice Amy Coney Barrett]? Note: Alito has said that he thinks he knows who leaked the Dobbs draft. But unlike Scarborough, given the lack of evidence, he didn't point a finger at any individual. Alito did make a good case, though, as to the motivation behind the leak: He said he was sure the leak “was a part of an effort to prevent the Dobbs draft … from becoming the decision of the court. And that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside — as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court.” Alito said the theory that the draft was leaked by someone on the right to lock in the five votes necessary to overturn Roe “is infuriating to me.” “Look, this made us targets of assassination,” Alito told his interviewers. “Would I do that to myself? Would the five of us have done that to ourselves? It’s quite implausible.” Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/17/24 6:03 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: I will tell you, growing up, one of my friend's fathers was a federal judge! I had no idea until I got older whether he was Republican or Democrat. And that was the case in northwest Florida, a very conservative place. The federal judges kept themselves beyond reproach. They never talked politics, ever. In the privacy of their homes, if you ask their opinion, they would just say, not my job, right? I'm a judge. They actually took their oaths seriously! And for a Supreme Court Justice, and I will say—my opinion only—but the guy most likely to have had something to do with the leaking of the Dobbs decision. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. SCARBOROUGH: Leaking it to the Wall Street Journal, or somebody connected to him leaking it to the Wall Street Journal, because he wanted to keep Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett frozen in place. I think history will show that.  But that aside, for a guy who is a Supreme Court Justice, that let that happen at his own home, in one of the most fraught times in American history since, since the Civil War, it's just, it's just sad. And it shows how little respect he has for the institution. It shows how little respect he has for the law. It really does. It's disgusting. . . . WILLIE GEIST: I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag, Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to the Times. It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs. Joe, there you have it. MIKA: Wait. Wait a minute. SCARBOROUGH:  So you're going to hate on America because of something a neighbor did? MIKA: You're going to blame your wife? SCARBOROUGH:  Blame your wife? MIKA: And make up that excuse? SCARBOROUGH: What, what is this? MIKA: My wife was mad at a neighbor. SCARBOROUGH: Blaming wives. Anybody care to jump in here? MIKA: Bu I want to know, what, what person, let alone woman, wife, would do that in response to a problem with a neighbor. SCARBOROUGH: Eugene, a neighbor, a neighbor upsets me, comes outa, makes fun of me because the Rays beat the Red Sox last night. And the Red Sox really suck. And so, I'm mad. I'm not gonna hang my flag upside down. EUGENE ROBINSON: Right. Right. SCARBOROUGH: None of this -- this is dumb as what I heard about the Dobbs leak. Nobody believes him.

Biden Administration Wastes Time Celebrating Another Gay Holiday

“Happy International Day Against homophobia, biphobia, & transphobia” … said no right minded person ever. Though May 17 may be a regular day for you and me, for the left, May 17 marks International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia. Since the gays apparently need ANOTHER made-up holiday, the left, our administration especially, celebrated the occasion on social media.  On May 17, 1990, the World Health Organization (WHO) decided that homosexuality is no longer classified as one of the items on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Apparently now, the alphabet mafia has taken it over to celebrate themselves and fight back against anyone who disagrees with their delusional sense of identity. Taking over Easter and celebrating Transgender Day of Visibility seemingly wasn't enough for the White House. Starting off strong, our very own President Joe Biden said, “On the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia, my Administration stands in solidarity with LGBTQI+ people around the world as they seek to live lives free from hate-fueled violence and discrimination." He also noted that "It’s a matter of human rights, plain and simple” on Friday afternoon. Funnily enough, someone brought up Biden’s past statements where he indicated, using his “devout Catholic” beliefs, that “marriage is between a man and a woman.”       Vice President Kamala Harris, an alleged Christian, shared essentially the same thing as her boss adding, “Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and accepted for who they are.” The U.S. Department of State shared an image of the Pride flage and wrote, “LGBTQI+ persons deserve recognition of their universal human rights and human dignity. On #IDAHOBIT and every day, the United States stands with LGBTQI+ persons around the world." The department's head, Secretary Antony Blinken, insisted that he supports “promoting the safety and dignity of LGBTQI+ persons” and noted that it’s a “key component of advancing our nation’s interested.” Sure, sir, as long as the nation’s interests are to promote delusion and confusion and make the idea of a nuclear family cease to exist. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security shared a graphic with a giant rainbow on it and wrote that it plans to defend “DHS employees and each one of our citizens, promoting equality, dignity, and respect for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.” While I don’t think that any one of us wants to conduct any harm or have any malicious intent towards people who don’t agree with us, I can’t help but wonder what was not being done in our country while our administration was so heavily focused on a made up holiday for gender and sex? Don’t we have huge things to worry about, like the border, abortion and the economy to name a few? Not to mention two wars raging overseas?!  Geez louise, our country’s gotta get our priorities (and our people) straight.

Not Okay: Biden’s Demonstrably False Claim in Softball Yahoo! Finance Interview

Despite receiving a flattering question from an interviewer, President Joe Biden still faceplanted in his response.  During a May 14 interview with Yahoo! Finance, Biden falsely claimed that inflation had been wildly higher under his predecessor. His interviewer, who had promoted Bidenomics in his question, did not correct Biden. “I think inflation has gone slightly up. This was at 9% when I came in and it's now down about 3%,” Biden astonishingly said.  But it was not. In fact, inflation in January 2021 stood at only 1.4% but skyrocketed under Biden’s watch, reaching an average of 5.5% from February 2021 to April 2024. To make matters more absurd, Biden made this demonstrably false statement in response to a misleading question flattering his economic record.  The interviewer, Yahoo Finance Executive Editor Brian Sozzi, entirely failed to mention the impact of COVID-19 shutdowns while giving Biden credit for creating 15 million jobs: “Mr. President, over 15 million jobs have been created under your watch, the unemployment rate under 4% for 27 straight months, the stock market at a record high. Why don't households feel wealthy right now?” While Biden chose to lie about inflation in response to this easy question, the fibs didn’t stop there.  The 81-year-old president also told Yahoo! Finance that wages were outpacing inflation, claiming, “But the fact is that I think people are just uncertain and that's why we got to be steady, stay the course and continue to produce these incredible jobs and the job—and by the way the pay for the jobs are, are outpacing the inflation rate they pay.” Real wages have actually fallen under Biden. Americans’ median weekly real earnings have declined from $373 in the first quarter of 2021 to $365 in the first quarter of 2024.   ICYMI: Bidenomics after 39 Months: Six Charts the Media Don’t Want You to See The White House has struggled to spin the president’s ludicrous statements as more and more bad economic news comes in.  During the May 16 edition of Your World with Neil Cavuto, White House Economic Adviser Jared Bernstein wildly ducked and dodged when confronted with Biden’s claims of taming 9% inflation.  See More: White House Economic Adviser Jared Bernstein Can’t Defend Biden Biden’s brief but disastrous Yahoo! Finance interview came the same day as the news that inflation had increased 0.5% in April, exceeding expectations.   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. 

Oversight Board Member Admits Meta Doesn’t Prioritize First Amendment

A Meta Oversight Board member recently confirmed the obvious: Meta might be an American company, but it certainly doesn't prioritize the First Amendment in its policy decisions.  Kenji Yoshino, a New York University Constitutional law professor and member of the Meta Oversight Board, asserted that the U.S. Constitution is not the baseline for the tech company’s free speech policies. “Our baseline here is not the US Constitution and free speech, but rather international human rights norms,” he said at a National Constitution Center town hall event.    Yoshino noted that America is an “outlier” when compared with other countries because it has such strong legal protections against censorship. He explained that as Meta became a global company “it could not simply default back to U.S. jurisprudence.” The Meta Oversight Board member claimed that Meta looks at “striking a balance” between international values like “safety” and “dignity” and the U.S. Constitution. However, he admitted, “oftentimes that calculus comes out differently than it would if the baseline were First Amendment norms.”  Yoshino contrasted the two different attitudes toward freedom of speech, explaining that in the U.S. “the [protecting] the speech we hate doctrine, is part of an expansionist and rigid vision that is intensely speech protective.” In Europe, however, the attitude is “much more tilted toward equality and dignity than it might be toward speech.”  But the European standard is far from perfect. For example, multiple European countries, including Scotland, France and England, criminalize alleged “hate speech.”  Applying European standards to Americans can lead to anti-First Amendment censorship. This is especially problematic as U.S. government agencies have reportedly resumed coordination with tech companies, indicating actions directly violative of the First Amendment. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at (650) 308-7300 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “misinformation” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

We ‘Need to Fix’ It: Behar Decries the Constitution as ‘Un-American’

Joy Behar, the same co-host of ABC’s The View who thought the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was the military alliance that defeated Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, was back with more of her wisdom during Friday’s show. According to her, two elements of the U.S. Constitution – both present since the founding – were “un-American.” “These lifetime assignments [to the U.S. Supreme Court] have got to stop and they need to fix the Electoral College also because that's un-American,” she shrieked. Behar was triggered by newly released, years-old photos of an inverted American flag allegedly outside the home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito several days AFTER the riot at the Capitol. The latest smear campaign against conservative justices suggested – without evidence – that it was to show solidarity with the rioters. Ignoring or ignorant of the meaning of an inverted flag, Behar declared it was something wholly invented by “MAGA people”: Now, in case you don't know, this is something that the MAGA people have adopted as a stop the steal symbol. In other words, when you see that flag upside down, that means stop the steal, which they imagine happened even though Joe Biden did win legitimately. We all know it. Everybody who’s not crazy knows it.     Faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin contributed to the misinformation by misquoting the U.S. Flag Code. According to her: “…the American flag should not be flown upside down except in moments of national – dire national distress.” The code actually says: “The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.” Historically, an inverted flag has been used my American ships to signal such distress. Farah-Griffin added that what the Alito’s did was “un-American” and “disturbing” especially since it was allegedly done “days after a riot at the Capitol!” But her argument didn’t make much sense either since she, and many in the liberal media, had suggested that January 6 was a day of dire national distress; much like what she said was the only correct time to fly the flag inverted. She and the rest of the cast played a round of whataboutism and pretended as though they would be equally upset if a liberal justice did it: FARAH GRIFFIN: But I would note this to my conservative friends defending this, let's just say if Justice Sotomayor had hung a flag upside down after Donald Trump was elected we would call for her resignation. BEHAR: That’s right! HOSTIN: We sure would! Since The View didn’t care to criticize Sotomayor when she refused to recuse herself and issued a ruling that directly involved her book publisher, it’s safe to say they wouldn’t have anything to say on the matter. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 17, 2024 11:15:42 a.m. Eastern JOY BEHAR: So, the Supreme Court – very iffy these days – is getting ready to deal with cases involving presidential immunity and obstruction charges against Trump. Okay? The January 6th insurrectionists also, they're ready to deal with all those cases. But a photo has just emerged from days after the Capitol Riot on January 6th showing an upside down American flag flying outside – wait for it – Justice Alito's house. Now, in case you don't know, this is something that the MAGA people have adopted as a stop the steal symbol. In other words, when you see that flag upside down, that means stop the steal which they imagine happened even though Joe Biden did win legitimately. We all know it. Everybody who’s not crazy knows it. SUNNY HOSTIN: It was proven. BEHAR: It was proven over and over and over again. Yet Justice Alito has this upside down flag. Now, he claims his wife did it. Thank you, Senator Menendez, another one. In a dispute with neighbors saying she did it because she was disputing with neighbors about their anti-Trump signs on their lawn, even that -- even that annoys me that the wife is worried about anti-Trump signs in her neighborhood. Do you believe his answer to the thing that his wife did it and he has nothing to do with stop the steal? HOSTIN: I do believe it. How about Clarence Thomas and Ginni Thomas. Ginni Thomas sent a bus to the January 6 insurrection and Clarence Thomas is sitting on that court listening to insurrection cases. He’s listening to election fraud cases. It's ridiculous! You know, what upsets me so much about it as an attorney is that the Supreme Court has always been sort of the bastion of the law. Right? It’s where we look to for guidance and now 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court. Never has the Supreme Court been so -- and they do, right? 60 percent. [Applause] It hurts me to my core. And, you know, Justice Sotomayor has said over and over and over again, she said, “will this institution survive” – this is after the Mississippi abortion case – “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” I don't see how it is possible. If you have a Supreme Court justice, even if his wife did it, for days and days and days having that sign there, that is a political expression that has no place! ANA NAVARRO: I think it's incredibly sad how -- how dysfunctional -- we've seen the dysfunction in Congress and now dysfunction in the Supreme Court. So, Americans have to be watching this and just having this crisis, existentialist crisis of faith in our most important institutions and, look, I think John Roberts has lost control of this court. HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: Maybe he agrees with them. NAVARRO: Well, I don't know if he does or not but he has a duty to the American people as chief justice to make sure that this Supreme Court is at a certain level of decorum and you have Ginni Thomas and Clarence Thomas accepting all sorts of gifts from billionaires and hearing some of the cases and you've got this. I mean, it’s an embarrassment. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I don't even know -- I don't buy this description. So the U.S. Flag Code states that the American flag should not be flown upside down except in moments of national – dire national distress. I think pointing the finger – If my husband put a flag upside down, I’d say, “what are you doing?!” This is un-American, it’s disturbing. But I would note this to my conservative friends defending this, let's just say if Justice Sotomayor had hung a flag upside down after Donald Trump was elected we would call for her resignation. BEHAR: That’s right! HOSTIN: We sure would! FARAH GRIFFIN: It’s so, un-American in days – HOSITN: We sure would. FARAH GRIFFIN: In days after a riot at the Capitol! SARA HAINES: It also speaks to—When you’re married to a Supreme Court justice and you are well aware of that, elevate yourself. When responding to yard signs in your neighborhood, you're telling me you're triggered too easy. He's a Supreme Court justice. You're going to hear things. The fact that that was the act she took because she had to get her word in? It’s a really pathetic example – NAVARRO: Sounds like she belongs in Congress. HAINES: And your stat is worse, Sunny. It's worse. It's 44 percent of Americans support – have faith in the Supreme Court. HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: These lifetime assignments have got to stop and they need to fix the Electoral College also because that's un-American. FARAH GRIFFIN: They need a code of ethics. (…)

Sex W/ Jesus, Foursomes & Oral: Even A Board Member Protests 'Evil' Sexually Explicit Books

A disgusted school board member read the contents of a book titled “Triangles,” which explained, in extremely graphic detail, a foursome. This book, along with other books like it, is available to students at middle and high school libraries in North East San Antonio, Texas. The book by Ellen Hopkins talks about three different women’s sex lives. According to booklooks.org, a website dedicated to exposing these sexually explicit books given to children, the book “has sexually obscene sexual activities including sadomasochism; sexual nudity; profanity; alcohol abuse; drug use; controversial religious commentary; and alternate sexualities.” GRAPHIC LANGUAGE WARNING: Bonny Wallace, read page 368 from the book at the May 13 board meeting: I move my mouth to taste her nipples. They are larger than mine. Luscious. My partner’s hands pull me backward to lie across the table. He kisses Lorraine as Micah’s tongue finds the sweet spot between my legs. It all becomes a heady mix of men. Tongues. Hands. Gingers. The unique brine of women. The heat of c**k. Condoms. Don’t forget those. And, God, orgasm. Mine. Hers. Theirs. I think other people are watching. Touching themselves because this foursome is amazing. Beautiful people doing incredibly sensual things. Segue to dirty, nasty things.  At that point the woman left the podium to head back to her seat. Before she could make it all the way back to her chair, board member Diane Villareal interrupted saying: “I’m sorry, I’m gonna ask a question now because I was under the impression that these books had been removed from our schools. What the heck is going on?” The audience erupted in applause at her shock.  “This is revolting,” Villarreal continued, “I wouldn’t even expect to read this in Penthouse if they still published that trash and this is in our schools!?” The video, posted originally by Sarah Fields, president for Coalition Texas, and shared by Libs of TikTok, has almost 800,000 views on X.   In the full video of the nearly two-hour long board meeting titled “Parental Advisory Explicit Content,” concerned parents acknowledged the disturbing content in books that are made accessible to students.  One father talked about his daughters who go to Churchill High School in the school district. He noted that many “vulgar” books in the library are things he’d never want his daughters to be able to have access to, adding that there's nothing that has any “educational” value in them. A woman who is the Texas ambassador for Moms for Liberty noted that the material is “harmful” for children. She read an excerpt from the book called “The Empire of Storms” which is available at every middle school in the district. Related: Oral, Abortion, and Sex With Jesus: Mom Reads Shocking Excerpts From Book Found In a Local High School “His teeth gazed over her nipple and her eyes drifted closed, a moaning slipping out of her, his tongue flipped against her nipple and her head tipped back, her fingers digging into his shoulders,” she read. The woman went on but I’ll spare you the details. All you need to know is that it was erotic content that is provided to young kids in school.  A pastor read an excerpt from the book “What Girls are Made Of” which talked about giving “Jesus head” and “having sex with Jesus.” One more read an “evil” book that kids have access to which read “Daddy put his pee pee smelling thing in my mouth.” Like one of the pastors said, these books have no place in schools. They belong in the “pits of hell.” Follow us on Twitter/X: MRCTV’s Eric Scheiner joins @AlisonOAN to talk about what the leftist media really means when they talk about “democracy.” pic.twitter.com/zZe9fUkCZo — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 15, 2024

MRC UnCensored: Erik Prince Unveils Solution to Unplug Big Tech’s ‘Pervasive Surveillance’

As Big Tech companies continue to expand their control over Americans’ cellphone data, one businessman has stepped up, providing an alternative and delivering a powerful message: enough! This was the sentiment of Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, former NAVY Seal and owner of the Unplugged tech startup, during an exclusive interview on MRC UnCensored with host and MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider. In the interview, Prince touted his one-of-a-kind Unplugged Smartphone, which he said is designed to combat Big Tech’s censorship and what he described as the “pervasive surveillance of Big Brother." Referring to the “enormous power” of Big Tech companies, Prince mentioned that Americans have become the “product” of Big Tech, as these companies control “everything you do digitally, every call you make, everywhere you go, what you browse, what you buy [and] who you interact with.” He recounted witnessing the rampant censorship conducted by Big Tech during the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, when censors “were canceling certain voices that they didn't like that were opposed to their big government narrative.” But Prince had enough, he told Schneider, recalling the launch of UP Phone, which, unlike any other device, does not rely on Google software. Similar: MRC President Bozell to Patrick Bet-David: Google Is Picking Winners and Losers Taking matters into his own hands, Prince explained, “I basically had an angry phone call with a couple of friends of mine saying, ‘What the hell are we going to do? We're not going to change Big Tech by b****ing about it. We're only going to change it by competing.’” Prince suggested that the smartphone, launched in 2022, is even more relevant nowadays after Congress re-authorized controversial portions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s (FISA) Section 702. “With Congress just a couple weeks ago passing not just a FISA extension, but a massive FISA enlargement, because what the federal government has been doing is have a very cozy relationship with Big Tech, all too cozy,” he said. The infamous spying tool allows the federal government to collect a massive trove of emails from U.S. persons to foreign countries of interest without a warrant.  “It basically allows the federal government, any agency can go to Big Tech and demand they turn over that data,” he continued. “Any messages, photos, anything they have without a warrant and without probable cause.” Expanding on his remarks, Prince added, “Just one federal investigator … with a bone to pick wants to go on a fishing expedition to dig into your life. They have carte blanche to do it. This is the only thing that protects that kind of digital sovereignty.” 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.

'Jesus Was Gay': CBS Yucks It Up With Anti-Jesus 'Comedy'

CBS’s late night comedy game show After Midnight went off rails on Thursday as host Taylor Tomlinson and her fellow comedian guests yucked it up with some cheap and flippant anti-Jesus and “Jesus was gay” laughs. Tomlinson set up the round by introducing a TikTok video, “Life is full of surprises. As M. Night Shamalayan once said, 'Never let them know your next move.' This is exemplified in this TikTok from @julianprospers where he asks a stranger about his relationship status.”     The video showed the following discussion: MAN: We've been on and off for, like, 10, 15 years, maybe, but got really serious the past few months. JULIAN PROSPERS: So, is this a woman that you think that it’s not a— MAN: It's not a woman. PROSPERS: It’s not a woman. MAN: No. PROSPERS: It's a man.  MAN: Yeah. PROSPERS: So you're gay. MAN: No, no, it's our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, brother. Tomlinson replied, “I don't want to be cynical, but I was once in a relationship with Jesus Christ, and it didn't work out long-term. It's not Him, it's me. Let's save this TikTok guy some heartache. As Jesus, break up with this guy.” Jay Jurden buzzed in first, “I'm sorry, my dad kind of hates gay people. Have you seen the signs?” Next was Todd Barry, “I have to break out with you. You've never been really good about texting back.” Finally, there was Bassem Youssef, who, when he’s not on After Midnight, is on CNN and PBS telling allegedly serious journalists that Israel needs “to go F itself.” Now, Youssef feigned political correctness, “I don't know if I can actually touch this because whatever I would say would be blasphemous. Also, I didn't know that Jesus was gay. Oh, [bleep].” Jurden then returned to add, “Man shall not live by [bleep] alone. Was that too far?” and Youssef tacked on, “Oh, can I do one more? Can I do one more?” While it got lost in Tomlinson’s many guffaws, Prospers appears to be someone who believes in using social media to spread his faith. As evident by his video description, the video was a skit about people refusing to commit to Christ, not a genuine man on the street interview with a stranger as Tomlinson portrayed. People can judge for themselves if it hit the comedic sweet spot or not, but After Midnight definitely didn’t. Here is a transcript for the May 16-taped show: CBS After Midnight 5/17/2024 12:41 AM ET TAYLOR TOMLINSON: Life is full of surprises. As M. Night Shamalayan once said, "Never let them know your next move." This is exemplified in this TikTok from @julianprospers where he asks a stranger about his relationship status. MAN: We've been on and off for, like, 10, 15 years, maybe, but got really serious the past few months. JULIAN PROSPERS: So, is this a woman that you think that it’s not a— MAN: It's not a woman. PROSPERS: It’s not a woman. MAN: No. PROSPERS: It's a man.  MAN: Yeah. PROSPERS: So you're gay. MAN: No, no, it's our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, brother. TOMLINSON: I don't want to be cynical, but I was once in a relationship with Jesus Christ, and it didn't work out long-term. It's not Him, it's me. Let's save this TikTok guy some heartache. As Jesus, break up with this guy. Jay. JAY JURDEN: I'm sorry, my dad kind of hates gay people. Have you seen the signs? TOMLINSON: Todd. TODD BARRY: I have to break out with you. You've never been really good about texting back. TOMLINSON: Big texter, Jesus. Bassem? BASSEM YOUSSEF: I don't know if I can actually touch this because whatever I would say would be blasphemous. Also, I didn't know that Jesus was gay. Oh, [bleep]. JURDEN: Oh, can I do one more? Can I do one more? TOMLINSON: Sure, yeah, yeah. JURDEN: Man shall not live by [bleep] alone. Was that too far? TOMLINSON: Bassem. YOUSSEF: We have a full trinity, we don’t need a fourth.

ABC, NBC Giddily Tout ANOTHER Far-Left Smear of Conservative Supreme Court Justice

ABC’s Good Morning America (GMA) and NBC’s Today eagerly touted in faux serious tones early Friday a new front in the left’s war to delegitimize, shame, and even attempt to remove conservative judges as The New York Times published a screeching story about an upside down flag flying at the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in January 2021. Liberal journalist Jodi Kantor typed this up on behalf of the liberal Borg and even appeared in the GMA segment, arguing Alito signed with the flag he’s a far-right conspiracy theorist.     “We turn now to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito under fire after The New York Times published a picture of an upside down flag flown outside his home in 2021 just days after the January 6 riot,” fill-in co-host Rebecca Jarvis began. Longtime Supreme Court correspondent Terry Moran was in need of a fainting couch as he huffed Alito’s been “no stranger to controversy” with this new story “stunning and unprecedented”. “Flying the flag upside down is meant to be a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger, according to the U.S. flag code. It’s also been used as a symbol of protest...and, after the 2020 election, some of Donald Trump supporters adopted the upside down flag to object to Biden’s victory,” he added. Moran also pointed to Kantor having obtained e-mails from fellow leftist quacks — aka Alito’s neighbors — whining “the flag was flying for multiple days” and were concerned about this “political statement”. On-screen, Kantor made this seem like a national scandal: “They were incredulous because one of the bedrock rules of being a federal judge is that you’re not supposed to take part in politics.” Moran only briefly focused on Alito’s denial to Kantor: “I had no involvement whatsoever. It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” Earth to Terry and Jodi: What signs did Alito’s neighbors have? To what degree did they harass the Alitos? Heck, what’s the political stance of Alito’s neighborhood? And does Brett Kavanaugh and the man who wanted to assassinate him and his family Nicholas Roske jog your memories? Moran also falsely accused Alito of being somehow unprecedented in being political and also lied about Alito “heckl[ing]” Barack Obama in 2010 (when he only mouthed displeasure and thus no Joe Wilson) (click “expand”): MORAN: Justice Alito has a history of stirring political controversy, unusual for Supreme Court justices. The author of decisions that overturned Roe vs. Wade, he mocked criticism of the ruling that ended a federal right to abortion. ALITO: I had the honor this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders. [CROWD LAUGHTER] MORAN: And Alito famously heckled President Obama at the 2010 State of the Union when Obama criticized the court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision. Alito calling out, “not true,” at Obama. And one possible concern about that upside down flag at Alito’s house, there are still cases before this Court stemming from January 6, including former President Trump’s claims of absolute immunity for his actions at that time. And one more thing: There has been no statement from Mrs. Alito, whom Justice Alito blames for the incident.  All told, that segment was a whopping three minutes and 30 seconds. Meanwhile, NBC’s Today had a 52-second news brief via co-host Hoda Kotb that she too tried to make into an affront to humanity: “Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is responding this morning to a report in The New York Times that, in 2021, he had an American flag hanging upside down outside of his home.” Kotb continued by noting “this was the photo taken on January 17, 2021” and “[t]he upside down flag was a symbol associated with former President Trump’s false claims of election fraud.” Along with reading the statement Alito gave to The Times, Kotb proclaimed all this has “rais[ed] concerns” — by whom, she wouldn’t say — “about Alito’s impartiality”. Like with Justice Clarence Thomas, the liberal media will stop at nothing to either force out or remove Alito, Thomas, and any other jurist who doesn’t kowtow to a certain ideology. As we’ve seen when leftist freaks have plopped themselves outside the homes of right-leaning justice, the liberal media have little regard for the children, spouses, and loved ones of the justices. To see the relevant transcripts from May 17, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC).

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Gets Melty Over NYT Poll— MRC’s Hamill Reacts on Newsmax

MRC contributing writer Stephanie Hamill was a guest on Thursday’s The Balance on Newsmax with host Eric Bolling and former Michigan gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon where they discussed MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough’s latest tizzy over a New York Times/Siena poll showing former President Donald Trump leading President Joe Biden in five out of six swing states. On Wednesday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough accused the Times of rigging the polls against Biden, so that they could generate more traffic with ‘clickbait stories.’ LOL. "I'm young enough to remember when these same people would get really excited when conservatives or Trump would question polling, the 'fake news polls' if you will. It's hilarious to see them get their tinfoil hats out," Hamill said. "The New York Times isn't doing Trump any favors."    WATCH:    Heilemann: I'm not saying it's not close. I'm not going to carry water for the New York Times or the methodology of this poll. I would keep going back to the thing that I try to say every time we talk about these things. Which is, that I'm really interested in -- and I know you know this. What are the polls showing us directionally about the race? Scarborough: I understand. There's a difference, though, with the New York Times/ Siena poll, and you know this. It's given disproportionate impact. This year, this cycle, it is skewed wildly in Donald Trump's direction. [Heilemann tries to speak.] Hold on. And the New York Times feasts on it with clickbait stories, like, a dozen at a time. Heilemann: And I, what I'm trying to focus on is what I think people should pay attention to [tries to continue]-- Scarborough: -- [Interrupting] But what I'm trying to focus on is, the New York Times right now is actively shaping the election cycles, where this poll comes out on a Sunday, and on Monday, people go, oh -- and I heard it! And I'm sitting there going, don't be so stupid. That's why we're doing this. [Heilemann tries to respond. Scarborough shouts.]  Hold on. No! No! Hold on a second. Hold on. No, no, no, no,. Hold on.

'I'm Sorry, What?" Acosta Whines Butker Not 'Banned' Like Kaepernick

CNN host and self-appointed guardian of truth Jim Acosta welcomed sports reporter Rachel Nichols to Friday’s CNN Newsroom for a factually-challenged segment about Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker’s commencement address to Benedictine College, where he declared that female graduates may get more satisfaction from their family lives than their careers. For Acosta, it was obvious Butker is benefiting from a double standard that the ostracized Colin Kaepernick is not. Acosta rambled, “Well, and is there a double standard here? I mean Colin Kaepernick. I mean, he takes a knee to protest police brutality and gets banned from the NFL, can't get a job in the NFL. Harrison Butker gives this speech, goes wide right so to speak and the NFL says, 'well, you know he was on his day off when he gave this speech, no big deal.' I'm sorry, what?”     Like Butker’s field goals, there are three points worth mentioning. First, Kaepernick didn’t just “protest police brutality.” He went to Miami, of all places, and praised Fidel Castro and compared getting paid millions of dollars for a voluntary job to slavery. Second, the NFL went out of its way to appease him. You can’t watch an NFL game today without seeing something like “It takes all of us” or “end racism” on the back of the end zones. Finally, Kaepernick began his refusal to stand for the national anthem in August 2016, but he was benched for poor play the previous season and later that same season. As for Nichols, she was not much better, “The NFL will tell you that they didn't ban Colin Kaepernick and there's been no official ban on Colin Kaepernick. Of course, anyone paying attention would tell you that unofficially teams sort of feel that he cannot be touched and it is a double standard. There's no question about it.” Nichols lamented, “Many times in professional sports and frankly, particularly in the NFL, if you deliver results, a lot is excused and in this case, Butker was a key part of winning that Super Bowl for them. He's got the longest kick in Super Bowl history. He's very good at his job and he does have some support.” She also tried to undercut Butker’s message, “Of course, there's also voices on the other side who are pro-family, pro-religion, pro-God, who are making the point, you can still be all of those things and support women's rights. There are certainly plenty of men in this country who are equal partners in raising their children, some as single dads who would argue with his comments, even if they are dedicated church members.” At this point, it should be noted what Butker actually said: For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. Butker never said men should be absent from their children’s lives, as Nichols suggested. He never told the women in the audience that they should stay in the kitchen. He affirmed their achievements, acknowledged that some of them will get fancy titles and promotions, but declared that they will feel “most excited” about their families. What’s so radical about that? Here is a transcript for the May 17 show: CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta 5/17/2024 10:31 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: Well, and is there a double standard here? I mean Colin Kaepernick. I mean, he takes a knee to protest police brutality and gets banned from the NFL, can't get a job in the NFL. Harrison Butker gives this speech, goes wide right so to speak and the NFL says, “well, you know he was on his day off when he gave this speech, no big deal.” I'm sorry, what? Yeah. RACHEL NICHOLS: The NFL will tell you that they didn't ban Colin Kaepernick and there's been no official ban on Colin Kaepernick. Of course-- ACOSTA: Yeah. NICHOLS: -- anyone paying attention would tell you that unofficially teams sort of feel that he cannot be touched and it is a double standard. There's no question about it. Many times in professional sports and frankly, particularly in the NFL, if you deliver results, a lot is excused and in this case, Butker was a key part of winning that Super Bowl for them. He's got the longest kick in Super Bowl history. He's very good at his job and he does have some support. Of course, there's also voices on the other side who are pro-family, pro-religion, pro-God, who are making the point, you can still be all of those things and support women's rights. There are certainly plenty of men in this country who are equal partners in raising their children, some as single dads who would argue with his comments, even if they are dedicated church members.

Joe Biden as a Political Pinwheel

Joe Biden is not a person of principle or character. He is a lifelong politician who has spent decades shifting his positions on nearly every major issue. If one had to define Biden's political worldview, it would be simply this: Follow the Democratic herd, and desperately attempt to place yourself dead center in the middle of it. Joe Biden is, in short, a political pinwheel, taking note of the prevailing winds in his own party and seeking to channel them in his favor. This strategy made Biden a career also-ran. After all, who wants to follow a follower? Biden never achieved any level of national popularity on his own: His presidential runs imploded in embarrassing fashion in 1988 and 2008. His saving grace was, in fact, his blandness and inoffensiveness: Thanks to those peculiarly counterintuitive qualities, Barack Obama made him his vice president. There, Biden thrived as a vice president who presided over little actual policy but happily floated trial balloons for the administration and acted as a rah-rah cheerleader for his more popular boss. Obama himself had so little faith in his vice president that he passed him over in 2016 in favor of the widely reviled Hillary Clinton. After Clinton lost, Biden threw his hat in the ring -- and thanks to the extraordinary incompetence of some of his opponents (Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar), the extraordinary dilettantism of others (Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg), and the befuddled racialism of still others (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) -- he prevailed by simply fulfilling two conditions: First, he was alive (barely); second, he wasn't any of the other clods. So Joe Biden became president. He posed as a political moderate. But there is a difference between principled moderation and simply bobbing, corklike, about the eddies of internal Democratic politics. Moderation sometimes requires a Sister Souljah moment -- a moment when you push away the radicals and embrace the mainstream. Acting as a political pinwheel encourages no such strength. In fact, it encourages the opposite: caving to every interest, at all times. And thus, Joe Biden has tried to be everything to everyone -- and has ended up as no one to anyone. Biden has zero passionate fans, because his positions are all ersatz; he barely even has passionate enemies, since so few of his opponents believe that he believes anything he says in the moment. His constant waffling has earned him little loyalty and no victories of note (and no, spending trillions of dollars on wasteful boondoggles isn't a victory; it's just the way government is now done). Biden's waffling has cost Americans dearly. Stuck between a Modern Monetary Theory left and more fiscally moderate liberals, Biden has halved the baby, opting for big spending and interest rate increases. Trapped between a post-American left and traditionally interventionist Wilsonian liberals, Biden has hedged between militaristic support for Ukraine and slow-walking aid. Caught between an Israel-hating left and Israel-supportive liberals, Biden has declared his support for Israel in its goals of extirpating Hamas and then pressured Israel to leave Hamas in place by promoting Hamas propaganda and embargoing critical weaponry. It turns out that the presidency is a bad place for pinwheels. The closest thing to a pinwheel president we've had over the past few decades was Bill Clinton -- but even Clinton knew to pursue a course once the course had been charted. Biden flips radically between positions -- even from day to day -- leaving the rest of the world confused and discombobulated. Americans don't like it. In fact, they don't like it so much that polls show that Joe Biden would be a one-term president if the election were held today -- and that he would lose to the man he declares a threat to democracy. Why? Because there is one character aspect on which Donald Trump outpolls Biden by leaps and bounds: leadership. As it turns out, there's no substitute for leadership. And Joe Biden has never been a leader.

New York Times Admits 'MSNBC's Leftward Tilt,' But Presents NBC News Shows as Neutral!

The New York Times devoted nearly 3,000 words by writer-at-large Jim Rutenberg and media reporter Michael Grynbaum to a topic rarely acknowledged: Media bias from the left, in “How MSNBC’s Leftward Tilt Delivers Ratings, and Complications.” (Right-leaning Fox News, by contrast, is a constant target of the paper’s hostility.) But what does it say about the paper’s own tilt when its reporters constantly appear on the left-wing airwaves of MSNBC? The story began: MSNBC placed a big bet on becoming comfort TV for liberals. Then it doubled down. Time slots on the cable network once devoted to news programming are now occupied by Trump-bashing opinion hosts. The channel has become a landing spot for high-profile alumni of President Biden’s administration like Jen Psaki, who went from hosting White House press briefings to hosting her own show. On Super Tuesday, when producers aired a portion of a live speech by former President Donald J. Trump, Rachel Maddow chastised her bosses on the air. The moves have been a hit with viewers. MSNBC has leapfrogged past its erstwhile rival CNN in the ratings and has seen viewership rise over the past year, securing second place in cable news behind the perennial leader, Fox News. The unintentionally funny part is when NBC News suggested MSNBC was ruining it branding as "straight news." Who believes that any more?  But MSNBC’s success has had unintended consequences for its parent company, NBC, an original Big Three broadcaster that still strives to appeal to a mass American audience. NBC’s traditional political journalists have cycled between rancor and resignation that the cable network’s partisanship — a regular target of Mr. Trump — will color perceptions of their straight news reporting.  NBC faced "tensions" in an election year, on "how to maintain trust and present neutral, fact-based reporting in a fractionalized era when partisanship carries vast financial and cultural rewards." The report talked about how they tried to take some of the hyperpartisan tone out in the last decade by moving Al Sharpton to weekends, bringing Greta Van Susteren over from Fox, and creating a daily version of Meet the Press. But then Donald Trump showed up, and even those cosmetic shifts were scuttled: Then, Mr. Trump’s ascent shocked the Democratic base and spiked viewership of Ms. Maddow and other left-leaning hosts, whose programs became a kind of televised safe space. MSNBC’s ratings surged. The story centered on NBC News boss Cesar Conde and how he's tried to bring Republican voices on NBC, including the brief Ronna McDaniel Debacle, and Kristen Welker's incredibly combative interview with Donald Trump on her debut at Meet the Press host. The Left has a fit any time NBC interviews Republicans, and so the interviewers end up sounding fiercely oppositional.  At least, Rutenberg and Grynbaum acknowledged that MSNBC was “tightly embracing its partisan direction” by hiring Biden press secretary Jen Psaki and another Biden aide, Symone Sanders: “It was the kind of revolving-door hiring that liberal pundits used to criticize when it happened with Fox News and the Trump administration.” Left out of the long story were any mentions of the myriad Times reporters (including authors Rutenberg and Grynbaum themselves) that have appeared as guest talent on the "comfort food for liberals" channel during the Trump era and beyond, presumably contributing to what the Times itself calls the network’s “leftward tilt.” some with contributor contracts. A partial list of Times journalists who’ve appeared on MSNBC in recent years would include Susan Craig, Nicholas Kristof, Nicholas Confessore, Katie Benner, Jeremy Peters, Annie Karni, Carl Hulse, Michael Schmidt, Nicholas Confessore, Jeremy Peters, Mike Isaac, Megan Twohey, as well as the story’s authors Jim Rutenberg and Michael Grynbaum (the article contained no disclosure of their previous MSNBC appearances). Appearances by Times scribes are much thinner on right-leaning Fox News, though ex-NYT staffer Nellie Bowles did appear on America’s Newsroom on Wednesday to promote her eyebrow-raising criticism of wokeness, including some bizarre anecdotes from her days at the Times.

How Can Jake Tapper Moderate CNN Debate? He Trusts Hamas Propaganda

Alongside the concerning announcement, this week, that CNN would be hosting the first general presidential debate next month was the equally concerning announcement that Jake Tapper would be tapped to be one of the moderators. The expectation of moderators to fact-check the candidates made Tapper’s selection was particularly concerning. In addition to his left-wing bent, Tapper has exhibited a truly disturbing lack of discernment of who to trust for sourcing facts, including claiming that propaganda from Hamas was trustworthy. As NewsBusters reported last year, just 10 days after the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas against innocent Israeli civilians, Tapper openly suggested that “there’s no reason to doubt” Hamas figures about the death toll in Gaza. “Let's go to a major story developing right now in Gaza, what the Palestinian government is calling a war crime, the government in Gaza says the Israeli Defense Forces struck a hospital in the center of Gaza City, the al-Ahli Baptist hospital,” he announced on October 17. The purported attack was less than a few minutes old but Tapper was rushing to parrot Hamas claims that the number of people killed was “between 200 and 300” with “many more innocent people still trapped under the rubble.” His colleague Anderson Cooper would later note that it could have been a Hamas rocket that fell short, but Tapper quickly shot back: “Yeah, I know. I mean, this is always a very difficult situation, because right now, we have reports of hundreds killed and there's no reason to doubt that.”     But in the light of day, it was clear we had every reason to doubt that. Not only was it a rocket that was fired from Gaza, it landed in the parking lock and only blew out the windows of the hospital, and the casualties were minuscule compared to upwards of 300 or more. Tapper largely avoided accountability for his defense of the propaganda number put out by Hamas, but more recently (May 13) he did a segment on The Lead highlighting how “the United Nations quietly revised downward its numbers on fatalities for Palestinian women and children.” Omitting the specific detail that the number was 50 percent lower, Tapper relied on correspondent Jeremy Diamond to spin the revelation as just some necessary bookkeeping (Click “expand”): We'll Jake, this isn't about saying that fewer Palestinian women and children have been killed during this conflict. This all has to do with where the United Nations is pulling its data from. The United Nations is now listing women and children who have been killed, but only those who have been whose identities have been fully documented. That means that they you know, the names, the dates of birth, the identity card numbers of those individuals. But that brings the United Nations to more than 7,000 children who have been killed, about 5,000 women. But there are thousands more women and children that the Palestinian Ministry of Health says have been killed in this conflict since October 7. But in many of those cases, they don't have someone who has identified them by name with a specific date of birth, for example. That brings the Palestinian Ministry of Health to about 15,000 children, about 9,900 women who have been killed. Diamond went on to defend the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health by arguing that “both U.S., as well as United Nations and other humanitarian aid agencies, these officials have all said that the Palestinian Ministry of Health figures have checked out in previous conflicts.” “Right. The Palestinian Ministry of Health, obviously run by Hamas itself, and they don't distinguish between fighters and innocent civilians,” Tapper added, essentially suggesting the number was accurate and it just included Hamas fighters. But the next day (May 14), Tapper struck a far more skeptical tone regarding reports from the Israeli Defense Forces that they had struck a Hamas “war room” in a U.N. school. “Israel says it killed more than ten terrorists, though CNN cannot independently confirm Israel's claim,” he declared. Tapper was suspicious of IDF claims that Hamas was in U.N. school while we know multiple U.N. workers took part in the October 7 attack and accounts from former hostages show U.N. workers aided the terrorists. Meanwhile, we’re supposed to believe Tapper is an honest broker of facts for a presidential debate? The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s The Lead May 13, 2024 5:38:32 p.m. Eastern (…) JAKE TAPPER: Jeremy, though, of course we can see the horror on the ground, clearly. It's been harder to get an accurate estimate of how many Palestinians have been killed since October 7 in Gaza. Last week, the United Nations quietly revised downward its numbers on fatalities for Palestinian women and children. Tell us more about that. What led to the change? JEREMY DIAMOND: We'll Jake, this isn't about saying that fewer Palestinian women and children have been killed during this conflict. This all has to do with where the United Nations is pulling its data from. The United Nations is now listing women and children who have been killed, but only those who have been whose identities have been fully documented. That means that they you know, the names, the dates of birth, the identity card numbers of those individuals. But that brings the United Nations to more than 7,000 children who have been killed, about 5,000 women. But there are thousands more women and children that the Palestinian Ministry of Health says have been killed in this conflict since October 7. But in many of those cases, they don't have someone who has identified them by name with a specific date of birth, for example. That brings the Palestinian Ministry of Health to about 15,000 children, about 9,900 women who have been killed. And it's important to note that both U.S., as well as United Nations and other humanitarian aid agencies, these officials have all said that the Palestinian Ministry of Health figures have checked out in previous conflicts. But, of course, there is a difference between how the Palestinian Ministry of Health sees the casualty figures in Gaza and what the Israeli government is saying. We've heard from Israeli government officials, including the Israeli prime minister now saying they believe that about 14,000 plus militants have been killed and about 16,000 civilians. That's obviously a very big discrepancy with the numbers coming from the Palestinian Ministry of Health. TAPPER: Right. The Palestinian Ministry of Health, obviously run by Hamas itself, and they don't distinguish between fighters and innocent civilians. (…) May 14, 2024 5:50:29 p.m. Eastern TAPPER: And we’re back with our world lead. Israel's military claims that it struck a Hamas war room in central Gaza in its effort to root out the terrorists group following the October 7 attack on Israel. The war room, Israel says, was imbedded inside a school in Nuseirat. That's the town. And operated by the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, or UNRWA. Israel says it killed more than ten terrorists, though CNN cannot independently confirm Israel's claim. It’s clear the IDF is pounding that area. (…)

ABC's 'Grey's Anatomy' Says Texas Not 'Safe' for Trans Kids

Last night, ABC's Grey's Anatomy described the state of Texas as dangerous for its opposition to trans mutilation of minors. In the episode, "Blood, Sweat and Tears," on Thursday, a "trans" child named "Caroline" flies all the way from Texas to Grey-Sloan Memorial Hospital in Seattle for neurosurgery on a tumor. She and her mother consider Texas too hostile to trust doctors there. Caroline's family knows Dr. Monica Beltran (Natalie Morales), one of Grey-Sloan's doctors, because Beltran previously practiced in Texas. Caroline needs surgery on a neurofibroma, which is "a spontaneous growth in the nerve tissue" that can damage the nerve. The surgery itself does not relate to the child's trans identity, but the mother and child are uncomfortable with Texas doctors operating on her for anything at all. Last year, Texas banned puberty blockers, hormone "therapy" and other medicalized transgender harm against minors. During a conversation between Beltran and her colleague, Dr. Amelia Shepherd (Caterina Scorsone), Beltran describes Texas as a place where transgender children fear for their lives. Shepherd: They came a long way to see you. That must be flattering.  Beltran: It's enraging. Caroline shouldn't have to travel to see a doctor who treats her with respect.  Shepherd: You didn't want to stay in Texas, try to help more kids there?  Beltran: You know, as much as I hate it, I think maybe it is safer for them to come see me here. I mean, it's just gotten so hostile. [ Sighs ] Forget the awkward stares and the micro-aggressions. One family was talking about putting a bulletproof vest on their son, just to come see me, because he's trans.  Shepherd: That is... [ Sighs ]  Beltran: Yeah, there's no words to describe it. In reality, trans-identified radicals have been targeting the lives of those they oppose, with multiple shootings at Christian targets in particular. Hollywood consistently portrays opponents of the radical LGBTQUIA+ agenda as ticking time bombs when the reverse has been shown to be true. Grey's Anatomy has been a far-left show throughout its almost twenty years on the air, fear-mongering about everything from pro-life state laws to climate change. Apparently, there's an audience for such polarizing drama, because the series has had staying power for nearly two decades. Its hostile attitude towards political opponents will likely ramp up even more next season with an upcoming election. Inexplicably, audiences will also probably continue to watch.

ABC Reporter, KJP Team Up to Trash Butker for Pro-Life, Pro-Family Speech

ABC reporter Karen Travers used her round of Q&A during Thursday’s White House press briefing to invite a willing accomplice in Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre to join the liberal media mob against Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker for his alleged crime of giving a pro-family, pro-life, pro-parenting commencement address at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. “I want to ask you about the topic that's getting a lot of attention,” Travers began, adding Butker’s “facing criticism for his recent commencement address where he told female graduates that the most important title a woman can hold is homemaker.”     Fact-check: Pants on fire. Butker did not, in fact, say that. Here’s a transcript of his full speech, but here’s a key line: “Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.” Travers’s softball wasn’t done: “He was critical about surrogacy, IVF, and Pride Month, and he also criticized the President for being a Catholic who supports abortion rights. Has the President seen those comments? Does he have a reaction to that?” Jean-Pierre had the gall to initially bat it down by saying Biden’s “been pretty busy today, so I haven't had a chance to — to focus on this particular issue” and she herself had only seen “some reports on it.” Nonetheless, Jean-Pierre pivoted to implicitly torching Butker and argued Biden won’t “back away from supporting women and reproductive rights, reproductive health care” because “it is important to fight for all of our freedoms”. She obviously had to throw in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade and argued pro-lifers support putting women “in a position to not get the health care that they need” and “causing chaos”. Jean-Pierre’s rant dragged on, tying Butker to “extreme Republican” (click “expand”): And then you have extreme Republicans that continue to talk about — to talk about how they want to put national abortion ban. It's causing chaos. It's causing chaos for women. It’s causing chaos for families. When you're saying that a family can't make a decision on IVF, that's not what this President is about. He wants to make sure that women have the right to make these incredibly difficult decisions about their health care, so families could make a decision about how they want to build and — and move forward with building a family.  And so I can't — I can't speak to those direct comments, but what I can speak to is what the President has committed to, and he has shown that over and over again and you have a Vice President that has toured the country talking exactly about that, about how we have to protect our freedoms and freedoms of — of — obviously, reproductive health as — as we're speaking right now. Travers offered a follow-up to further attack Butker and implicitly accuse him of being a partisan tool: “As the President gets ready to give his own commencement address, does he think a message like that is appropriate at a commencement address?” Jean-Pierre stuck to the same pattern with this second answer, first insisting she hadn’t “heard this in context” other than seeing “some reporting” then tearing into Butker without saying his name by arguing Biden — unlike the Chiefs kicker — views “commencement day as such an important moment for not just the students, but for their families, obviously, their loved ones” The press secretary gave a whopper of a garbled mess as she said in part that Biden wants “to talk about the future, to talk about how — how they — how in the world that we are in — that — in the world that we're in now, how do we move forward? And you’re [sic] hear with themes from this President on that particular message, and he understands how critical and important that have those messages — especially a message from the President of the United States, how much it matters.” To see the relevant transcript of the May 16 briefing, click “expand.” White House press briefing [via ABC News Live subfeed] May 16, 2024 2:32 p.m. Eastern KAREN TRAVERS: I want to ask you about the topic that's getting a lot of attention. The Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker is facing criticism for his recent commencement address where he told female graduates that the most important title a woman can hold is homemaker. He was critical about surrogacy, IVF, and Pride Month, and he also criticized the President for being a Catholic who supports abortion rights. Has the President seen those comments? Does he have a reaction to that? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: You know — ah — the President's been pretty busy today, so I haven't had a chance to — to focus on this particular issue. I think I've heard some reports on it. Look, the President is not going to back away from supporting women and reproductive rights, reproductive health care. It is important to do that. It is important to fight for all of our freedoms, and that's what you're seeing the President do. He's not going to back away from that and look, I can't speak to this specific thing because I haven't heard it in — in — in its entirety. But, look, you know, you have a former administration that — uh — that had said — a former President that said, over and over again that they were going to do everything they can to get rid of Roe v. Wade, was successful in doing that, by putting forward judges that made that happen. We saw the Dobbs decision in 2022 and what that caused is chaos. It caused women to — to have to — do — you know — to have — you know, be in a position to not get the health care that they need. I mean, that's — should not be where we are as a country. It should not be. And then you have extreme Republicans that continue to talk about — to talk about how they want to put national abortion ban. It's causing chaos. It's causing chaos for women. It’s causing chaos for families. When you're saying that a family can't make a decision on IVF, that's not what this President is about. He wants to make sure that women have the right to make these incredibly difficult decisions about their health care, so families could make a decision about how they want to build and — and move forward with building a family. And so I can't — I can't speak to those direct comments, but what I can speak to is what the President has committed to, and he has shown that over and over again and you have a Vice President that has toured the country talking exactly about that, about how we have to protect our freedoms and freedoms of — of — obviously, reproductive health as — as we're speaking right now. TRAVERS: I know you said can't speak to the comments. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. TRAVERS: As the President gets ready to give his own commencement address, does he think a message like that is appropriate at a commencement address? JEAN-PIERRE: From — from this particular — TRAVERS: Yes. Mmhmm. JEAN-PIERRE: — look again, I haven't heard — I haven't heard this in context. I — I saw some reporting, so want to be super mindful. Look, the — the President sees commencement day as such an important moment for not just the students, but for their families, obviously, their loved ones to talk about the future, to talk about how — how they — how in the world that we are in — that — in the world that we're in now, how do we move forward? And you’re [sic] hear with themes from this President on that particular message, and he understands how critical and important that have those messages — especially a message from the President of the United States, how much it matters. I don't want to get ahead of the President. He's going to, obviously, layout and speak to his commencement address on his own, but he's done this many times before. He's done — he's done this when — he's — given commencement address as a senator, has done it, obviously as Vice President, and now President, and this is an incredible important, impactful — impactful moment.

Column: Boos and Hisses for the Kansas City Chiefs Kicker

On May 14, Kansas City Chiefs placekicker Harrison Butker gave the commencement address at Benedictine College, a Catholic school in Kansas. Within 48 hours, the media elites were ablaze with outrage. There’s a “growing uproar,” warned NBC’s Hoda Kotb. A Catholic speaker talked about Catholic issues to Catholic graduates. But the Butker critics who aren’t Catholics pulled out little snippets they could not abide. First, they hated that Butker paid tribute to his wife Isabelle for making him successful, for assuming “one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.” That is like a curse word to the feminists. They can’t allow the notion that children might benefit from having a parent in the home. He said to the female graduates that “some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. But I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.” He didn’t say they shouldn’t have careers. He did suggest that many women – especially Catholic women – put motherhood first. Butker also inflamed the Left with a brief allusion to “the deadly-sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it.” None of us should have pride in our sins, but the libertine left is allergic to the entire concept of sorrow for sin. Personally, this was my favorite political passage: “Our own nation is led by a man who publicly and proudly proclaims his Catholic faith, but at the same time is delusional enough to make the sign of the cross during a pro-abortion rally. He has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I'm sure to many people it appears that you can be both Catholic and pro-choice.” Lapsed Catholics and non-Catholics have no grasp of how the Catholic Church defines “scandal.” Catholics like Joe Biden, who aggressively support the exact opposite of church teachings, confuse both religious and non-religious people about what Catholics are called to believe -- like abortion is by its nature a deadly sin. But simplistic reporters don’t want anyone calling Biden a phony, any more than they want you to proclaim he's a divider, not a uniter. Jonathan Beane, the chief “diversity” officer of the NFL, put out a statement that “Harrison Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity. His views are not those of the NFL as an organization. The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which only makes our league stronger." It never stops being comical to tout “inclusion” when you’re telling a conservative Catholic to shut up about “Pride Month.” One can never dissent from the “diversity and inclusion” cops, who blatantly imply only the leftist side of the cultural debate defines their most precious words. Bobby Burack at Outkick pointed out that the NFL had no public statement of objection for Butker’s Kansas City teammate Rashee Rice, who was recently arrested on eight felony charges concerning a hit-and-run accident “while drag-racing his Lamborghini at 119 mph on a Dallas highway.” Reckless Rice is also under investigation for allegedly punching a photographer at a nightclub in Dallas, “leaving the accuser with noticeable swelling in his face.” The NFL has no comment.   Butker’s speech predictably prompted a Change.org petition calling for him to be fired by the Chiefs. Once again, it’s the Left that claims conservatives will “end democracy” and crush freedom of speech, while they demonstrate their absolute intolerance of an opposing point of view.  They can't achieve true "progress" until dissenters are heckled and banned.

CBS Equates Illegal Immigration With Historic Civil Rights Struggle

CBS Evening News commemorated the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the historic Supreme Court opinion that reversed Plessy v. Ferguson and ended official segregation, by equating the historic struggles of black Americans to illegal immigration. I couldn’t believe it myself either the first time I watched, but see for yourselves: WATCH: CBS Evening News commemorates the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education by equating illegal immigration with the historic struggle for civil rights pic.twitter.com/4iMgeiFmVP — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 17, 2024 JANET SHAMLIAN: The historic district is transforming once again. This time opening its doors to refugees and migrants. PILAR MEJIA: Just because somebody doesn't speak English doesn't mean they are less valuable to a community. SHAMLIAN: Students from more than 40 countries have enrolled. MEJIA: We have clothing, we have… SHAMLIAN: Director of Cultural Innovation Pilar Mejia welcomes each one.  Without this program, where do you think some of these families would be right now? MEJIA: It would be tragic. They might end up in either not being able to come, um- stay in situations in their countries that are dire. SHAMLIAN: Is there any connection you can draw there between what’s happening now with these kids and the situation at the time? ANDERSON: The connection is they are all looking for a better and brighter future. They’re all hoping for something better for their lives. We’re dealing with families who want more for their children. SHAMLIAN: It’s that better, brighter future that was fought over 70 years ago in the schools of Topeka. Janet Shamlian, CBS News, Topeka, Kansas. The report began innocuously enough, and initially appeared to have been a straight commemoration of Brown v. Board. There was the profile of the district’s first-ever black school superintendent, and a spotlight on some of the reforms she’s instituted in service of the community.  But it is at that point that the report goes off the rails: The hardships resulting from the choice to come into this country outside our lawful immigration system is not even within the same galaxy of comparability as enduring the horrors of slavery and/or the post-Reconstruction regimes endured by descendants of the formerly enslaved. The old Jim Crow regime is, in fact, nothing at all like illegal immigration, no matter how much the left or CBS correspondent Janet Shamlian would like to make it so.  To suggest as much in a news report is a grievous insult, both to history and to human decency. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on the CBS Evening News on Thursday, May 17th, 2024: MAURICE DUBOIS: President Biden met today with two of the original plaintiffs in the Brown v. Board of Education case, decided 70 years ago tomorrow. It outlawed segregation in schools, an important step in the fight for racial equality. Tonight, Janet Shamlian introduces us to the woman now running the Topeka schools, guided by the legacy of that Supreme Court decision. TIFFANY ANDERSON: I heard you had a birthday. JANET SHAMLIAN: Home delivered birthday gifts and cake aren’t generally part of a school curriculum. ANDERSON: Good morning! SHAMLIAN: But Topeka schools superintendent Tiffany Anderson rarely sticks to a lesson plan when there is a child in need. ANDERSON: If we don't do it, who will? SHAMLIAN: The district at the center of the 1954 Brown v Board of Education ruling outlawing racial segregation in schools… STUDENT: In the past, they had turned to "Separate but equal"... SHAMLIAN: …is now helmed by its first black female superintendent.  70 years later, do you live with the burden of their hope and dreams? ANDERSON: I think 70 years later, I live with the privilege to help their hopes and dreams come to life. I’m standing on their shoulders. SHAMLIAN: High school graduation rates have skyrocketed from near 70% to 91% during her eight year tenure. She's established morale-boosting programs, like graduation ceremonies for students in the nearby state correctional facility. ANDERSON: So have faith that you will make it through and be out of this space. SHAMLIAN: In a district where almost half of students qualify for subsidized lunch, she put washers and dryers in schools, as well as food and clothing pantries. ANDERSON: It's not really hard to get people on board when they know that you care and they know they can be part of something pretty incredible and transformational. SHAMLIAN: Why isn't it happening somewhere else? ANDERSON: Sometimes fear. Fear can make you choose not to accept other people. Fear can shut down systems in a way like nothing else can. SHAMLIAN: The historic district is transforming once again. This time opening its doors to refugees and migrants. PILAR MEJIA: Just because somebody doesn't speak English doesn't mean they are less valuable to a community. SHAMLIAN: Students from more than 40 countries have enrolled. MEJIA: We have clothing, we have… SHAMLIAN: Director of Cultural Innovation Pilar Mejia welcomes each one.  Without this program, where do you think some of these families would be right now? MEJIA: It would be tragic. They might end up in either not being able to come, um- stay in situations in their countries that are dire. SHAMLIAN: Is there any connection you can draw there between what’s happening now with these kids and the situation at the time? ANDERSON: The connection is they are all looking for a better and brighter future. They’re all hoping for something better for their lives. We’re dealing with families who want more for their children. SHAMLIAN: It’s that better, brighter future that was fought over 70 years ago in the schools of Topeka. Janet Shamlian, CBS News, Topeka, Kansas.  

NBC Nightly News MELTS DOWN Over Harrison Butker’s Commencement Speech

In fairness, the entire media are swirling in a meltdown vortex over the commencement address delivered by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker at Benedictine College in Kansas. But NBC Nightly News’ report on the “controversy” was easily the most ridiculous. Watch the report in its entirety, as aired on NBC Nightly News on Thursday, May 16th, 2024 (click “expand”): NBC's dopey report on Harrison Butker's commencement speech pathetically attempts to bait Taylor Swift into reacting to this manufactured "controversy". pic.twitter.com/U31pRgLRZQ — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 17, 2024 LESTER HOLT: We'll turn now to the growing controversy over a graduation speech at Catholic college given by a kicker for the Kansas City Chiefs. Some critics saying it was sexist and homophobic, and calling on the team to cut him loose. Here is Liz Kreutz. LIZ KREUTZ: Tonight, the NFL on defense after growing backlash over that controversial graduation speech given by one of their star players, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker. HARRISON BUTKER: I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. KREUTZ: In this speech at Benedictine College, the 28-year-old Super Bowl champ criticizing LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, IVF and surrogacy, while encouraging the young women graduates to focus on being a homemaker. BUTKER: Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. KREUTZ: Despite a standing ovation from the crowd, many slamming the speech as homophobic and sexist. STUDENT: Getting married and having kids is not my ideal situation right now. It definitely made graduation feel a little less special, knowing I had to sit through that and get told I'm nothing but a homemaker. KREUTZ: The NFL, which is coming off a year of record female viewership amid hype over Taylor Swift's relationship with Butker's teammate, Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, now distancing themselves from Butker. The league saying in a statement, Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity. His views are not those of the NFL. And more than 140,000 people have now signed a petition calling on the NFL to remove Butker from the Chiefs. So far neither Benedictine College, the Chiefs, or Butker himself have commented. Lester. HOLT: Liz Kreutz. Thank you. Generally speaking, the media’s reaction to Butker’s speech is the verbal and audiovisual equivalent of the “Soyjak Pointing” meme. Case in point, Ali Vitali’s reaction to the address, which sought to gin the Swifties up into a cancellative fury- as did Liz Kreutz’ report. Sure, NFL was stoked about all the new fans Taylor Swift brought to the game. Not sure how they’re gonna feel tho when Swifties start pushing back on some of the men that make up the league. Tip of the iceberg: https://t.co/jQzZFm8nCz — Ali Vitali (@alivitali) May 16, 2024 Coverage of Butker’s address boils down to, literally, Acela Media types getting mad at a Catholic that went to a Catholic school and said Catholic things. And you know that this is so because what galls them the most is the fact that Butker’s speech was well received within Benedectine College, a point also made on ABC World News tonight: STEPHANIE RAMOS: There is a change.org petition demanding the Chiefs release Butker. So far, no comment from the team. And despite the headlines surrounding this speech, Butker did receive a standing ovation, David. The media’s coverage of the speech is, at best, misdirective. I know this to be true because there is no mention of Butker’s criticism of President Joe Biden at the outset of his address: Our own nation is led by a man who publicly and proudly proclaims his Catholic faith, but at the same time is delusional enough to make the Sign of the Cross during a pro- abortion rally. He has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I'm sure to many people it appears that you can be both Catholic and pro-choice. The media, ever protective of Biden, dared not address this criticism specifically- instead hiding it within the abortion catch-all. Nor is there mention of Butker’s calls to embrace such things as masculinity and tradition.  One does not have to be an adherent of the Roman Catholic Church to see and understand what so enraged the media about Butker’s address, which is well worth reading in its entirety. The call to embrace faith, tradition (including traditional gender roles), and family over today’s toxic societal mores was enough to drive the left into a frenzy.  Furthermore, Butker proves that if there is indeed such a thing as a culture war, it is the left who are the aggressors seeking to impose their values upon others. An exposed media lashes out. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Thursday, May 16th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: We turn to the controversial graduation speech. Tonight, the Super Bowl champion Chiefs’ kicker Harrison Butker under fire tonight, after what he said about women and their roles, and what he said about the LGBTQ community. And what he suggested to women graduates about their roles moving forward. Here's Stephanie Ramos. STEPHANIE RAMOS: Tonight, the NFL responding to that commencement speech from Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, and his controversial comments about women, abortion, and the LGBTQ community. HARRISON BUTKER: I have gained quite the reputation for speaking my mind. RAMOS: The Super Bowl winner delivering the commencement address Saturday at Benedictine College, a conservative Catholic liberal arts school in Kansas. Butker addressing the female graduates, saying that while they may go on to have successful careers, he guesses the majority are most excited to be wives. Mothers. BUTKER: I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now, about to cross this stage, and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. RAMOS: Conservative sports commentator Clay Travis coming to his defense. CLAY TRAVIS:  I saw people saying, "You got to cut him, how dare he say --" I didn't even see him say anything remotely controversial. RAMOS: Butker then referring to Pride month as a deadly sin. BUTKER:  …not the deadly sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it, but the true, God-centered pride that is cooperating with the Holy Ghost to glorify Him. RAMOS: The advocacy group GLAAD outraged. SARAH KATE ELLIS: I couldn’t believe it was such an outdated, antiquated view on LGBTQ people and women- and using religion, in a way… RAMOS: The NFL stating, "Harrison Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity. His views are not those of the NFL as an organization. The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which only makes our league stronger." There is a change.org petition demanding the Chiefs release Butker. So far, no comment from the team. And despite the headlines surrounding this speech, Butker did receive a standing ovation, David. MUIR: Stephanie Ramos on this tonight. Stephanie, thank you.  

Biden Buddy Scarborough Brags: Campaign 'Supremely Confident, Holding Four Aces'

On Thursday's Morning Joe, not content to boast about his insider status with the Biden campaign, Joe Scarborough disparaged his panelists for their inferior sources. Said Scarborough: "Just for people at home, it's important for them to kind of see what's behind the scenes. I have, for six months, since people have been freaking out about Biden's team. I'm telling you, every time I go in and talk to anybody that's running the campaign, the big part of the campaign. I don't know what they're telling you and what they're telling other people. They're like, they act like people that are holding four aces.  . . . They're supremely confident." Yes, Scarborough doesn't know what his colleagues are being told by the envelope lickers in the Biden campaign, but when Joe "goes in," he talks to the people running "the big part of the campaign." Impressive! In addition to letting us know that the Biden people are "supremely confident," and act like they're holding "four aces," Scarborough confided that the top campaign people "know something that I think a lot of us don't know." Joe Scarborough plays the super insider. Don't worry about Trump, folks, Team Biden is "supremely confident!" pic.twitter.com/JAokVcBmYg — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 17, 2024 This sounds a lot like Scarborough trying to buck up the morale of Biden voters -- and donors -- in light of the recent New York Times/Siena poll showing Biden losing in five out of six swing states.  Yesterday, we noted Scarborough's frantic effort to tear down that poll, going so far as to claim that the Times intentionally rigged it against Biden in order to be able to write multiple clickbait stories on the results. Bonus Coverage: Morning Joe Airs Jimmy Fallon Imagining Trump Having To Get Parole Officer's Permission For Debate As is its wont, Morning Joe opened today's show with a clip from one of the liberal late-night hosts. In this case, it was Jimmy Fallon, imagining Trump accepting Biden's offer to debate "assuming it's okay with my parole officer."  That won raucous laughter from Fallon's audience, and presumably as well from most Morning Joe viewers.  But it amounts to an admission that the multiple trials entangling Trump, led by Democrat prosecutors, do indeed make campaigning difficult for him. Fallon might find that hilarious. But it could well elicit sympathy for Trump from many voters. We'll see who has the last laugh, Jimmy. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/15/24 6:09 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: It's a dead heat now. Again, my reaction's not so much to the Times. And I'm dead serious here. It's to people who freak out disproportionately on the Times, and then the Times doing 15 stories on their poll. Fox will not do 15 stories on their Fox poll [which shows Trump leading Biden by one point.] Morning Consult won't. But it's become this cottage industry for people on the other side of the Chinese wall that Mara is not on. So she had nothing to do with this. Please, do not direct any comments or tweets to her. Just for people at home, and I, I, it's important for them to kind of see what's behind the scenes. I have, for six months, since people have been freaking out about Biden's team. I'm telling you, every time I go in and talk to anybody that's running the campaign, the big part of the campaign. I don't know what they're telling you and what they're telling other people. They're like, they act like people that are holding four aces.  [Imagining conversation between himself and confident Biden aides] Well what about this? Yeah, it's pretty bad. What about this? Yeah, yeah, well, that looks really tough. Yeah, boy, Trump. They really -- MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Is this a criticism or -- SCARBOROUGH: No! I'm telling you, they know something that I think a lot of us don't know. And they look at numbers and they see where things are going. They've had a theory of the case, that when people realize Donald Trump is going to be getting into the race, things are going to start gelling better for him.  They understand that you win politics by raising money and organizing on the ground. They understand Donald Trump's numbers are way down in every way in fundraising. And they'll [the Trump campaign] say, oh, we're gonna -- No they're not. They're not gonna -- they're never going to catch Joe Biden.  And as far as organization goes, we all know, anybody who's been involved in a political campaign, if you're tearing up, like, stakes in April and May, you're not gonna put them back down in July and August. Donald Trump is going to be pounded on the ground. The blocking and the tackling, the Biden people feel great about. And they have about a thousand clips of Donald Trump that, every day, they're like, which one are we going to use today? Boop. And it just makes him look horrible. JONATHAN LEMIRE: The Biden campaign -- SCARBOROUGH: They're supremely confident. LEMIRE: Yes. They are cognizant -- MIKA: Makes me nervous. LEMIRE: That it will be very close. They're confident, but they know it's gonna be tight.

ABC, NBC RAGE at Butker’s ‘Controversial’ Speech, Cheer ‘Growing’ ‘Backlash’

On Thursday, ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today seethed with disgust at Christians and anyone who values being a parent over their careers (or any other accomplishment or trait) in light of the Benedictine College commencement address by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, which they deemed “controversial” and worthy of “backlash” and “growing outrage” for going “too far” by stressing the inherent importance of parenting. “Commencement controversy. Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker under fire for his message to women during a graduation speech...Inside the growing uproar he sparked,” scoffed Today co-host Hoda Kotb in a tease in between a clip of Butker saying he’d “guess...the majority of” female graduates before him are “most excited about” marriage and parenting than “successful careers” they might lead.     Kotb — who’s had a long, public journey to parenthood and adoption — apparently was incensed by Butker’s remarks. In a second tease, co-host (and best-selling Christian author) Savannah Guthrie boasted of “growing outrage” against Butker for the “controversial graduation speech” and correspondent Kaylee Hartung whined the kicker’s “remarks have stunned many”. Early in her full report on the faux controversy, Hartung bragged that “many” saw his support for Catholicism and strong families as having gone “too far”. Check out how Hartung was enraged by the notion that someone would argue being a parent is a high calling (click “expand”): HARTUNG: In a controversial commencement speech at Benedictine College over the weekend, three-time Super Bowl champion Harrison Butker railing against everything from President Biden to Pride Month to IVF and speaking directly to the women in the audience. BUTKER [on 05/14/24]: Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring. HARTUNG: Invoking his own family — BUTKER [on 05/14/24]: My beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as mother. [SCREEN WIPE] That all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school — [CRIES] would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all, homemaker. HARTUNG: — Butker also criticizing gay rights when telling the students to take pride in their school — BUTKER [on 05/14/24]: Not the deadly sin sort of pride that has the entire month dedicated to it. HARTUNG: — and had a message for the men. BUTKER [on 05/14/24]: Be unapologetic in your masculinity, fighting against the cultural emasculation of men HARTUNG: The NFL responding saying “Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity” and “his views are not those of the league”. Hartung snidely added that “[w]hile outrage builds online...some pointing out the Georgia native’s own mother is a physicist in the Department of Oncology at Emory.” Of course, Butker said nothing of the sort about women being barred/discouraged from the workforce. Follow this link to read his full speech. After melting down about Butker throwing in a Taylor Swift reference, she attempted to claim “some students” were “left hurt by the experience” based on a single TikTok video and lamented “Butker hasn’t responded to the firestorm” he “ignited.” Hartung even seemed to voice support for this mob rule by gushing “the court of public opinion is in session.” Co-host Craig Melvin reacted to this by kissing up to longtime liberal NBC journalist Maria Shriver: “I would encourage folks to check out the Maria Shriver rebuttal posted online.” Kotb concurred: “[T]hat may be the — the best takedown if you’re looking for that.” Irony alert: Melvin released a children’s book two weeks ago that focused on — yes — the joy of having children. ABC’s Good Morning America co-host Robin Roberts made her intentions clear in a tease: “Kansas City chiefs kicker facing backlash for his commencement speech remarks on gay rights, abortion and women’s role in society.” With the chyrons “Chiefs Kicker Under Fire for Commencement Speech” and “Faces Backlash for Comments on Abortion, Gay Rights & Women”, correspondent Stephanie Ramos kvetched that he made “headlines for remarks off the field” and “sound[ed] off about working women” and “referr[ed] to Pride Month, which celebrates the LGBTQ community, as a deadly sin.”     Ramos even brought in Kate Ellis, the CEO and president of GLAAD — the far-left organization that believes biological men can be women if they feel like it — to denounce Butker for voicing “such an outdated antiquated view on LGBTQ women and women and using religion in a way.” Ramos also pointed to the supposed outrage from Taylor Swift fans, but had the decency to concede Butker “did receive a standing ovation from the graduates — from many graduates and some attendees there.” The almost always self-centered Roberts then had the gall to complain “usually, the commencement address is about the graduates, not about your personal views”.  That’s interesting since Roberts talked about herself in 2015 when giving the Emerson College commencement address. Or that, later in the show, the team approved of Jennifer Coolidge talking about her career journey at the Washington State University commencement. Since the joy and significance of parenthood should be at least downgraded behind, say, one’s career, then why did they have subsequent segments about Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner co-parenting despite no longer being together, Olivia Munn discussing freezing her eggs before a hysterectomy in the face of a breast cancer diagnosis, and gushing over David Beckham talking about how much his wife and children mean to him? To see the relevant transcripts from May 16, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC).

The Worst of Tapper and Bash: CNN Debate Moderators Lurch Left

[LANGUAGE WARNING] On Wednesday it was announced that CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash will moderate the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden on June 27.   Based on their reporting and analysis over the years at CNN, Republican supporters of Trump should expect Tapper and Bash to question not just his policy positions, but his judgment and even behavior.  Both had harsh reviews for Trump’s performance after the first presidential debate in 2020.  Tapper blasted Trump: “That was a hot mess, inside a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck….worst debate I have ever seen….it’s primarily because of President Trump.” Bash agreed: “You just took the words out of my mouth. You used some high-minded language. I’m just going to say it like it is: that was a shitshow!” On Election Night 2020, Tapper provided a nasty epitaph to Trump’s presidency: “For tens of millions of our fellow Americans, their long national nightmare is over.” On the other hand, both have profusely praised Biden.  After Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address, Tapper prompted his colleague: “Dana Bash, what did you think? You’ve been to a lot of State of the Union addresses. Do you think that President Biden met the moment?” Bash giddily affirmed: “He certainly met the moment….[Democrats] wanted him to be a fighter and….did he deliver.” Bash can’t believe Biden isn’t trouncing Trump, even bringing Rep. Nancy Pelosi on her show to incredulously ask: “Inflation, it looks good when you look at the numbers….Wages are up….There’s a lot for President Biden to tout. So the question is about why Americans don’t seem to be giving him the credit?” Here’s a brief montage by NewsBusters Media Editor Bill D’Agostino of Tapper and Bash at their worst:      The following is a small sampling of the most liberal moments of Tapper and Bash’s time at CNN, via the MRC archives:  DANA BASH   “Dumpster Fire” “Shitshow” Debate Was Trump’s Fault     CNN State of the Union host Jake Tapper: “That was a hot mess, inside a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck. That was the worst debate I have ever seen. In fact, it wasn’t even a debate. It was a disgrace. And it’s primarily because of President Trump, who spent the entire time interrupting not abiding by the rules he agreed to, lying, maliciously attacking the son of the Vice President.”…Correspondent Dana Bash: “You just took the words out of my mouth. You used some high-minded language. I’m just going to say it like it is: that was a shitshow!”...Tapper: “The President does not think he’s going to win this election. And he wants to bring the rest of us down with him.”— CNN’s Debate Night in America, September 29, 2020.   Biden “Met the Moment”     CNN anchor Jake Tapper: “Dana Bash, what did you think? You’ve been to a lot of State of the Union addresses. Do you think that President Biden met the moment?”CNN anchor Dana Bash: “He certainly met the moment that his members of his party, those who are really upset and worried about this coming election year and frankly, what would happen if he didn’t win another time because of their concerns about who’s on the other side of the ticket. They wanted him to be a fighter and — boy — fight, did he deliver.”— CNN’s live coverage of the State of the Union address, March 7, 2024.   Blaming Trump Rhetoric for New Zealand Shooting     “The question is can he [President Trump] and will he do more to bring together – try to bring together people. That’s the opposite of what we saw in Charlottesville and it is the opposite of what we see when the political calendar gets close to election day. When he knows what riles up his base and the problem is riling up the base using terms like ‘invaders’ in ads that he tweets out also reaches people who are nut jobs.”— Chief political correspondent Dana Bash discussing New Zealand shooting as aired on CNN New Day, March 15, 2019.   Taken Aback by Trump’s “Flip Comment” at Debate “Not to sound too corny, but what makes this country different from countries with dictators in Africa or Stalin or Hitler or any of those countries with dictators and totalitarian leaders, is that when they took over, they put their opponents in jail. To hear one presidential candidate, say — even if it was a flip comment, which it was — ‘you’re going to be in jail’ to another presidential candidate on the debate stage in the United States of America, stunning, just stunning.”— Correspondent Dana Bash during post-presidential debate coverage on CNN, October 9, 2016.   Should Trump Receive Intelligence Briefings?  “I want to ask about the idea that Donald Trump is now the presumptive Republican nominee for president. U.S. intelligence agencies are reportedly preparing to share classified briefings with him. You’re, of course, a former ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Speaker of the House. Should Donald Trump receive intelligence briefings?”— Host Dana Bash to Rep. Nancy Pelosi on CNN’s State of the Union, March 17, 2024.   Inflation “Looks Good,” Why Isn’t the Public Giving Biden Credit?      “I want to ask about the economy. Inflation, it looks good when you look at the numbers. Inflation is down to just 3 percent. The labor market is steadily adding jobs. Wages are up. Consumer sentiment is the highest since September of 2021. So there’s, a lot for President Biden to tout. So the question is about why Americans don’t seem to be giving him the credit. A Quinnipiac poll this week found nearly six in 10 Americans still disapprove of his handling of the economy. Why is that? And what does he have to do to turn that around?”— Host Dana Bash to Rep. Nancy Pelosi on CNN’s State of the Union, July 23, 2023.    Trying to Provoke a GOP Food Fight: Did Trump “Go Too Far?” “Governor Bush, Mr. Trump has suggested that your views on immigration are influenced by your Mexican born wife. He said that, quote, ‘If my wife were from Mexico, I think I would have a soft spot for people from Mexico.’ Did Mr. Trump go too far in invoking your wife?”— CNN debate moderator Dana Bash to Gov. Jeb Bush at GOP Primary Debate, September 16, 2015   Bash to Ramaswamy: How Dare You Point Out Democratic Racism?     “You took issue with comments from Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley. She reportedly said, quote, ‘We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice.’ About that, you said, ‘These are the words of the modern grand wizards of the modern KKK.’ You know, I’m sure, the KKK was responsible for more than a century’s worth of horrific lynchings, rapes, murders of black people. How in any way are the views you’re talking about comparable to the views and atrocities committed by the KKK?”— Host Dana Bash to GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy on CNN’s State of the Union, September 10, 2023.   Praising “Badass” Pelosi “In many ways, Nancy Pelosi is the original Badass Woman of Washington.” — November 13, 2018 tweet (from CNN’s official Twitter account) promoting correspondent Dana Bash interview with Rep. Nancy Pelosi.   Adoring AOC     “Being Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez means being a celebrity and looking like one, red lips and all. She was featured on the cover of Vanity Fair in 2020 and even shot this tutorial for Vogue on her beauty routine....You sometimes take heat for your celebrity status, for being glamorous....You embrace the power?...How do you use that power, the power of femininity, as you describe it?”— Host Dana Bash on CNN’s Being...AOC, August 9, 2021.   JAKE TAPPER   Trump Era of  “Cruelty” and “Meanness” Is “Coming to an End”      “It has also been a time of extreme divisions. Many of the divisions caused and exacerbated by President Trump himself....It has been a time where truth and fact were treated with disdain. It is a time of cruelty where official inhumanities such as child separation became the official shameful policy of the United States. But now the Trump presidency is coming to an end, to an end, with so many squandered opportunities and ruined potential, but also an era of just plain meanness. It must be said to paraphrase President Ford, for tens of millions of our fellow Americans, their long national nightmare is over.”— Host Jake Tapper on CNN election coverage, November 7, 2020.   When Did Airing “Untrue Things” Stop CNN Before? “We’re not carrying his [Donald Trump] remarks live because frankly he says a lot of things that are not true and sometimes potentially dangerous.”— Host Jake Tapper on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, June 13, 2023.   Boffo Review for Biden Convention Speech     “I’ve heard Joe Biden give, I don’t know, dozens, hundreds of speeches over the years. I have to say this was one of the best, if not the best performance I’ve ever seen.”— Host Jake Tapper on CNN’s live coverage of the Democratic National Convention, August 20, 2020.   Hailing a Republican (Jeff Flake) For Standing Up to Trump “You know Joe McCarthy started in the late forties his crusade of indecency and smears and lies. And you know President Trump and Joe McCarthy are very different historical figures, but there is something similar....People are gonna look back at this era and say what were you doing with all – it’s not McCarthyism but it’s something else – all this indecency and all these lies, what did you do during that time?” — CNN host Jake Tapper discussing former Sen. Jeff Flake’s denunciations of Trump as aired on CBS’s Late Show with Stephen Colbert, October 24, 2017.   Tapper Questions Disabled Vet’s “Commitment” After No Impeachment Vote     “Congressman Brian Mast, a Republican from Florida, who lost his legs, by the way, fighting for democracy abroad, although I don’t know what his — I don’t know about his commitment to it here in the United States.”— CNN anchor Jake Tapper during live impeachment coverage, January 13, 2021.

Historic German Church Hosts Worship Service Ft. Taylor Swift Songs

That’s certainly an interesting way to get young people to church. The Church of the Holy Spirit in Heidelberg, Germany, put on a service titled “Anti-Hero — Taylor Swift Church Service,” over the weekend in an attempt to get young people into church. According to Deutsche Welle, the pop singer tie-in resulted in bringing more than 1,200 people on Sunday to listen to Taylor Swift’s music. The 600-year-old church, which is now a Protestant church, set up the event to “attract younger people, as well as to focus on the profound religious convictions expressed in many of Swift’s songs.” Pastor Christof Ellsiepen said the following about his intentions with helping set up the service: “The Church of the Holy Spirit has always been a place of encounter and exchange. That's why a pop-music religious service fits so perfectly. With it, we are giving space to the questions and issues that occupy the younger generation." The German congregation insisted that there were Christian themes in Swift’s music.  Parish Pastor Vincenzo Petracca noted that for Taylor Swift, her “faith and action are inseparable” and said that “theologically speaking, she points to the justness of God.” The church, which held two of these stupid services, also left out a gay sign on stage behind its musicians noting that “all sizes, all [colors], all cultures, all sexes, all beliefs, all religions, all ages, all types, all people” were welcome at the congregation. Naturally though, the services were mostly filled up with young females who likely came to the service for the T-Swift sing-a-long rather than to develop a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Among the six total Swift songs performed by Tine Weichmann, a singer from the area, was the song, “Soon You’ll Get Better,” written for Swift's mother who was battling cancer. In it, Swift notes “each night I pray to you / Desperate people find faith, so now I pray to Jesus, too.” Related: WATCH: Taylor Swift, Social Media Slaves & Entitled Invaders Pastor Petracca noted that during that song, many in the congregation teared up.  Yet, even in that line, Swift is implying that she only prayed to save her mom as if to say “desperate times call for desperate measures,” and that she doesn’t regularly pray like actual Christians do. Of course, the performers also sang “Shake It Off,” which allegedly “brought the entire congregation to their feet, singing and dancing before breaking into furious applause.” But remember, they weren't jumping with joy for the son of God but for Taylor Swift's song. In another one of her songs, “Bigger Than the Whole Sky,” which many speculate is about a miscarriage, Swift sings the line, “Did some force take you because I didn't pray?” Where, if speculations are true, she’s insisting that some sort of higher being - God - took her baby away because she wasn’t praying. While Taylor Swift may use lines that point out God or some sort of religious practice, they’re not worship songs and by no means a role model of accurate theology. But, leave it to progressive “Christianity” to take Taylor Swift who arguably doesn’t practice religion that closely or at all, and use her as a role model for a religious leader for young girls. Follow us on Twitter/X: MRCTV’s Eric Scheiner joins @AlisonOAN to talk about what the leftist media really means when they talk about “democracy.” pic.twitter.com/zZe9fUkCZo — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 15, 2024

Haines Smears Butker: Claims He's in an 'Extremist' 'Cult-Like' Religion

ABC’s The View was pulsing with anti-Catholic bigotry during Thursday’s show, as pretend-moderate co-host Sara Haines lashed out and smeared Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker and his Catholic faith as “extremists” and “cult-like.” His crime? Giving a commencement address at Catholic, Benedictine College where he talked about – among other things – how some women find fulfillment in being homemakers. In addition, “comedian” Joy Behar claimed he had “big mother issues.” Haines’s bitter anti-Catholic hatred gushed like a firehose. She claimed that Butker was a member of “a very extreme religion” because he attended “the traditional Latin mass,” which she treated like a separate sect of Catholicism. Without evidence, she claimed he was practicing something “cult-like and extremist like some religions in the Middle East and Asia.” She then proceeded to lecture Butker about how he doesn’t “walk with Jesus” and oppressed people: So, what I can say to him, as a Christian, is if you're using this to oppress people or hold them down you're not walking with Jesus. If you are using the religion, if you're more obsessed with the religious rituals and practices than you are with the word of Jesus, you're not walking with Jesus. And if you’re using it for the judgment of others and as a weapon to beat people down you're also not walking with Jesus. “So, I would really encourage him, really encourage him to find the best parts of faith and not diverge into extremist beliefs,” she chided.     Faux-conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin got in on the Butker bashing (likely because he also made a joke about her idol Taylor Swift, referring to her as ‘my teammate’s girlfriend’). She chastised him for daring to talk about politics in his commencement address, as many speakers do. She decried how he called out President Biden, but then she turned around and whined that he didn’t say anything against former President Trump: ...he steps further by wading into the political. He took a swipe at Joe Biden, he brought up DEI, which has nothing to do with anything I’ve ever read in scripture, and then he leaned really heavily into talking about, like, the ideal man and being a godly man, an example; missed the opportunity to talk about the man who might be the leader of the free world, Donald Trump, and his many shortcomings. Behar chimed in to diagnose Butker with Freudian “mother issues.” Without evidence, she claimed he was big “angry” because his “super-duper,” “very accomplished physicist” mom was “probably” not home “because she was busy with her career.” Also, without evidence, she claimed he had “nothing but disdain” for Swift because he told the joke. “So get a therapist!” she shouted. Their cognitive dissonance was deafening. Later in the show, they brought on actor Nick Offerman and his female farmer friend. They praised how she went from working in the world of fine art to being a farmer and… a homemaker. “Her masterpieces are on the dinner table or in their kids' values rather than on a canvas," Offerman touted, after mocking Butker earlier in the interview.   Cognitive dissonance: After denouncing Butker for promoting women being homemakers, The View promotes a woman who studied fine art then became a farmer after she became a mom with four kids. "Her masterpieces are on the dinner table or in their kids' values," Nick Offerman adds. pic.twitter.com/aGL1bQrx5D — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 16, 2024   Shockingly, the only person making a lick of sense on the entire set was moderator Whoopi Goldberg. She pointed out the obvious that Butker was “at a Catholic College. He’s a staunch Catholic. These are his beliefs and he's welcome to them.” Goldberg compared Butker with the saga of former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. “The same way we want respect when Colin Kaepernick takes a knee, we want to give respect to people whose ideas are different from ours,” she argued. “So, I'm okay with him saying whatever he says and the women who were sitting there, if they take his advice, good for them, they'll be happy. If they don't, good for them, they'll be happy a different way. That's my attitude,” she declared. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 16, 2024 11:04:58 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So, the NFL released a statement that he gave this speech in his personal capacity and they do not -- the NFL does not share his views. So, you know, listen, I like when people say what they need to say. He’s at a Catholic College. He’s a staunch Catholic. These are his beliefs and he's welcome to them. I don't have to believe them. I don't have to accept them. The ladies that were sitting in that audience do not have to accept them. The same way we want respect when Colin Kaepernick takes a knee, we want to give respect to people whose ideas are different from ours, because the man who says he wants to be president, you-know-who. He says the way to act is take away people's right to say how they feel. We don't want to be that. We don't want to be those people. So, I'm okay with him saying whatever he says and the women who were sitting there, if they take his advice, good for them, they'll be happy. If they don't, good for them, they'll be happy a different way. That's my attitude. [Applause] SARA HAINES: I agree with you and I disagree with you. GOLDBERG: That's okay. HAINES: So, I agree with you that – in the spirit of freedom speech, I don't want people shut down or fired for things they’re willing to say. I will break with you on the comparison to Colin Kaepernick, for this reason: Colin Kaepernick was standing up for the rights of many and saying in a social justice moment, this is a reminder that we're not there yet. What this man is doing is not just a devout Catholic, this is someone who’s practicing something called the traditional Latin mass, which is divergent to the majority of Catholics. It’s compared to being cult-like and extremist like some religions in the Middle East and Asia. So, this is a very extreme religion. And what bothers me about that, as a Christian, is that when people abuse Christianity, they often not only cherry-pick from the Bible, they misinterpret and lie by omission, by taking out parts that would have explained something a little better. So, what I can say to him, as a Christian, is if you're using this to oppress people or hold them down you're not walking with Jesus. If you are using the religion, if you're more obsessed with the religious rituals and practices than you are with the word of Jesus, you're not walking with Jesus. And if you’re using it for the judgment of others and as a weapon to beat people down you're also not walking with Jesus. So, I would really encourage him, really encourage him to find the best parts of faith and not diverge into extremist beliefs. [Applause] GOLDBERG: But if this is -- if this is his belief system, there are many Catholics who are staunch this way. HAINES: A small, small percentage go to the Latin mass. GOLDBERG: I’m just telling you there are many people who believe this way and I'm simply saying rather than write a petition to get him fired because this is – HAINES: Don't get him fired. GOLDBERG: That's what I'm talking about. HAINES: The Pope discourages it. Just so you know, In the Catholic Church the Pope diverges from this belief. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Just one thing, if I may. I don’t know if you guys now this, I went to a very religious college [Patrick Henry College] and a lot of what he was talking about here was largely Christian Catholic orthodoxy, but he steps further by wading into the political. He took a swipe at Joe Biden, he brought up DEI, which has nothing to do with anything I’ve ever read in scripture, and then he leaned really heavily into talking about, like, the ideal man and being a godly man, an example; missed the opportunity to talk about the man who might be the leader of the free world, Donald Trump, and his many shortcomings. (…) 11:11:14 a.m. Eastern JOY BEHAR: I was going to say something completely out of the field. I don't think that this is a political issue. I think he has mother issues. [Laughter] HAINES: He may! SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes! Yes! He Does! BEHAR: Wait. His mother is a very accomplished physicist. HAINES: Went to Smith College. BEHAR: I mean super-duper accomplished woman. His mother, now he probably was left alone because she was busy with her career. He's angry. HOSTIN: Do the therapy. Do the therapy. BEHAR: This is my armchair therapist. I agree. I'm not a professional therapist but I play one on TV. And I think that's the real issue. He has big mother issues. He refers to Taylor Swift as that so-and-so. What did he say? FARAH GRIFFIN: His teammate's girlfriend. BEHAR: Another hugely accomplished woman he has nothing by disdain for, because of mommy! So get a therapist! (…)

Brian Stelter: So SAD the Trump Trial Shows the GOP Is a Cult That Repeats Fox Talking Points

As part of MSNBC’s never-ending Trump trial coverage, former CNN host Brian Stelter arrived on The Beat with Ari Melber on Tuesday to mock all the politicians and Fox News hosts showing up at the courtroom. Brian tweeted out his proudest soundbite. I'm just trying to imagine if any Democratic lawmakers are going to show up at the trial of Senator Bob Menendez – or the trial of Joe Biden's son Hunter. pic.twitter.com/zGjqRajjDv — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) May 16, 2024 STELTER: I’m just trying to imagine if any Democrats are going to show up at the trial of Bob Menendez, the senator, or or the trial of Joe Biden's son Hunter -- both of which are gonna happen in the next few weeks! And we’re not gonna see any of this, and that tells you everything you need to know about the differences between these two parties in 2024. To which there is an obvious rejoinder: We’re just trying to imagine if any Democrat-servant networks are going to show up at the trials of Senator Menendez or Hunter Biden. No one expects they will be doing gavel-to-gavel coverage for those trials, and that tells you everything you need to know about the Democrat-servant networks.  Stelter is trying to argue that Trump has a "cult" of celebrity, but it's also true that the leftist media's obsessive coverage makes it a more high-profile event for Trump supporters to show up and be seen. No Democrats will want to add any sliver of news-worthiness to the Democrat trials.  Trump has tried to turn these partisan prosecutions around, as he did with endless scandal probes while he was president. He doesn't have the luxury of a broad media establishment that will bury embarrassing stories.  Stelter can’t wait for Showtime or HBO to do a Trump-trial movie: “I can't wait to see the actual real-life movie that's going to be made of this trial. Because today was the stuff of actual drama! And people should see it. It's a shame we don't have cameras!” Once again, Showtime and the rest aren’t making a Biden docudrama. He continued: STELTER: But I do think the Republicans suddenly belatedly showing up to support Trump is in some ways the most interesting thing that happened today. Where were they for the last three weeks? Where were Trump’s friends? People are focused on why isn't his family coming? None of his friends showed up until this week. Now all of a sudden, they're all popping up, whether it's for the veepstakes or because he's pressuring them to be there. But it is so revealing and so sad about the state of the Republican party that they're all belatedly showing up. Did you see what Lisa Murkowski said today? One of these establishment Republican senators? She was asked why aren't you going to New York City to be at the trial. She said, don't we have something better to do around here than to watch stupid boring trials? And the reality is, Ari, no. The GOP lawmakers have nothing better to do, right? Than to sit around, and take their talking points from Fox. Stelter added that "far right" networks like Fox News tried to ignore the trial, but the "big story" coverage of networks like MSNBC have forced them to acknowledge this is big. Once again, just like with the Pelosi-Picked Panel on January 6, Fox is going to carry some of the same "big stories" as the leftist press with a different spin. It's a little harder to skip stories that 37 national media outlets are obsessing over. PS:  MSNBC's Ari Melber really HATES anyone (accurately) saying the judge's daughter Loren Merchan is a Democrat fundraiser. He thinks Trump is Geppetto and all his GOP minions are Pinocchios. He wants the Gag Rule to extend to all Republicans for their "scurrilous" attacks on Loren. pic.twitter.com/kockYAYL30 — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 16, 2024

Ruhle Shames Romney For Citing The Border as an Area Where Biden Has Failed

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle once again assumed the role of President Biden’s top defender on Wednesday’s edition of The 11th Hour as she interviewed Utah Sen. Mitt Romney. The former GOP nominee did not exactly prove to be a hostile interview, but Ruhle still didn’t appreciate him condemning Biden’s record on the border or refusal to affirm that Biden is simply the greatest. Ruhle wondered, “President Biden ran as a bipartisan president. He’s worked with you on a number of things and gotten a lot done. The infrastructure law, the CHIPS Act, lowered healthcare costs, the list goes on, but the country remains polarized and getting more divided. If he would have a second term, do you think there is something he could do to actually bring people back together? Because he's got a lot of policies under his belt that he has done for the country, and work with you.”     Romney could’ve pointed out that this supposedly great unifier once told a black audience that he was going to put them back in chains, but he didn’t. Instead, he simply declared that there is more to unifying people than giving speeches, leading Ruhle to complain, “But President Biden isn't just giving a good speech, infrastructure law is now the law. The CHIPS Act is bringing jobs back, is bringing manufacturing back. Those aren't speeches, those are policies.” Romney replied by citing two big areas where Biden has failed, “Number one, the fact that things cost more than they did before. Inflation is still there. People somehow think the prices are going to go down. No, when you beat inflation, prices don’t go down, that would be deflation, they just stabilize, and they’re getting stabilized, but the fact that people are paying more is a real concern to them.” The second is “the border. Look, people have been screaming about the border for all three-and-a-half years Joe Biden has been president and he has not done anything to solve the problem at the border. That’s a huge issue for President Trump. I can't understand why President Biden didn't tackle this from the very beginning.” That didn’t sit well with Ruhle, “What has Congress done? Because it's Congress who sets the laws.” Romney recalled, “Well, the Republicans have put forward our plan. The House put out a border plan, and that’s what Congress did. The president said no, that wasn't acceptable. Then they began working on a bipartisan basis. But you know what? This was not a problem when President Trump was president. The reality is—” Ruhle interrupted to try to argue that Trump is actually the reason the border is such a mess, “The border has been a problem for years, sir, and a plan was just put together and it was Donald Trump, who is not currently in office, who blocked it.” While not countering Ruhle’s assessment that Trump blocked the bipartisan bill a few months ago, Romney reiterated that the border is still worse under Biden than it was under Trump, “Yeah, he blocked the plan, in part, I'm sure, because he wants to keep this issue hot and alive for his election, but don't forget, when he was president, he did a lot of things that sounded really ugly, but we didn't have anywhere near the number of people that have come into the country illegally as we have under President Biden and that is something he should have done everything in his power.” For Stephanie Ruhle, nothing is Joe Biden's fault, it's either Republicans or some foreign power that wants to elect Republicans that are to blame for the country's woes. Here is a transcript for the May 15 show: MSNBC The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle 5/15/2024 11:18 PM ET STEPHANIE RUHLE: President Biden ran as a bipartisan president. He’s worked with you on a number of things and gotten a lot done. The infrastructure law, the CHIPS Act, lowered healthcare costs, the list goes on, but the country remains polarized and getting more divided. If he would have a second term, do you think there is something he could do to actually bring people back together? Because he's got a lot of policies under his belt that he has done for the country, and work with you. MITT ROMNEY: Yeah, the way to bring people together is not just to give a good speech, nice as that is. The way to get people together is to tell the truth. To let them know what the real challenges are that you're concerned about, and how you are going to honestly deal with them. RUHLE: But President Biden isn't just giving a good speech, infrastructure law is now the law. The CHIPS Act is bringing jobs back, is bringing manufacturing back. Those aren't speeches, those are policies. ROMNEY: No, there’s no question that President Biden accomplished a number of things, but don't forget, in politics very few people care about what you’ve done, they care about what you're going to do, alright? And right now there are a couple of things that are very much on people's mind. Number one, the fact that things cost more than they did before. Inflation is still there. People somehow think the prices are going to go down.  RUHLE: That’s deflation. ROMNEY: No, when you beat inflation, prices don’t go down, that would be deflation, they just stabilize and they’re getting stabilized, but the fact that people are paying more is a real concern to them and number two, the border.  Look, people have been screaming about the border for all three-and-a-half years Joe Biden has been president and he has not done anything to solve the problem at the border. That’s a huge issue for President Trump. I can't understand why President Biden didn't tackle this from the very beginning. RUHLE: What has Congress done? Because it's Congress who sets the laws. ROMNEY: Well, the Republicans have put forward our plan. The House put out a border plan, and that’s what Congress did. The president said no, that wasn't acceptable. Then they began working on a bipartisan basis. But you know what? This was not a problem when President Trump was president. The reality is— RUHLE: The border has been a problem for years, sir, and a plan was just put together and it was Donald Trump, who is not currently in office, who blocked it. ROMNEY: Yeah, he blocked the plan, in part, I'm sure, because he wants to keep this issue hot and alive for his election, but don't forget, when he was president, he did a lot of things that sounded really ugly, but we didn't have anywhere near the number of people that have come into the country illegally as we have under President Biden and that is something he should have done everything in his power. Frankly, take some actions that maybe the courts would have stopped. They had a better argument saying hey, “Congress needed to act.” But he never did that. And as a result the American people are saying hey, I want something else.

NBC Nightly News Cheers for Dems Filibustering for Missouri Abortion ‘Rights’

NBC Nightly News ran a segment celebrating the Missouri Democrats who held a more than 50 hour marathon filibuster trying to block a bill that would restrict abortion. The outlet praised the “supporters of abortion rights” who wanted to “protect” a woman’s “right” to kill her kid. Presently in Missouri, Republicans are trying to pass a bill that would make it more challenging to amend the Missouri constitution. Democrats are fighting for the option to amend the state constitution, in order to eventually include abortion until fetal viability. NBC loved this idea.   “Tonight, Democrats are fighting back,” against “one of the strictest” bans on abortion in the country, NBC News Washington Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor said.  “Supporters of abortion rights say they’ve gathered enough signatures for a separate ballot measure in November that would protect access to abortions,” Alcindor said excitedly. “But if the Republican proposal is passed before November,” she added, “enacting the abortion amendment would not just require a simple statewide majority but also majorities from five of the state’s eight districts,” making it harder to pass certain things, especially for Democrats, given that Missouri is traditionally more red. NBC then played a clip from State Senator Lauren Arthur (D-Mo.) who said, “The reason Republicans are so committed to silencing people’s voices at the ballot box is because they’re afraid that Missourians are going to come out in support of restoring their reproductive rights and their access to abortion in Missouri." It’s extremely obvious which side of this debate NBC stands on with this puff piece. It’s just a shame that it's the side that celebrates and advocates for more baby death.

MRC’s Bozell Warns of Soros-Funded ‘Fascistic’ Plot Amid 2024 Election

Leftist billionaire George Soros is “behind an all-out effort to shut down” free speech in the United States, MRC President Brent Bozell declared on Thursday. Bozell’s scorching remarks came in response to an MRC report that exposed Soros as one of the financiers of an anti-free speech cartel beseeching Big Tech platforms to censor Americans ahead of the 2024 presidential election. “I think Americans really need to be worried about this man,” Bozell said during an interview on Fox Business’s Varney & Co. “I think he's the greatest threat to democracy — not just in this country, but worldwide — and the things he's doing are frightening.” Read the Bombshell! George Soros Fueled $80M Into Groups Calling for Big Tech Censorship in Lead-Up to 2024 Elections At the center of Bozell’s warning is a media group’s letter pressuring social media platforms to censor content under the auspice of “implement[ing] election-integrity policies to protect democracy worldwide.” The letter, which Bozell lambasted for its “really fascistic attitude toward democracy,” was signed by over 200 groups and was led by the Soros-funded media group Free Press (not to be confused with journalist Bari Weiss’s The Free Press). In it, these groups pressed for “swift action” to allegedly protect democracy by keeping a “safe and healthy” environment for users. That is, by suppressing content that goes against their ideologies. But here’s the kicker: MRC research found that a large portion of these anti-free speech cartel non-profits have been bankrolled by none other than Soros.  “Of those 200 organizations, 45 of them were funded by George Soros … to the tune of $80 million — 45 that we know of. It’s probably more than that,” Bozell declared.  Reiterating the MRC’s findings, Bozell warned that these left-wing organizations “went to everybody in Big Tech whether it was Meta, TikTok, Google, YouTube” to call for the censorship of “conservatives, censor faith-based groups, censor Donald Trump yet again, shut down any, any debate over climate change.” More on Soros: Is He Buying Universities’ Silence on Anti-Semitic Agitators? 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.

Colbert Is 'Surprised' Biden Will 'Dignify Trump' By Debating

CBS’s Stephen Colbert had two distinct reactions to the news that former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden have agreed to debate each other on Wednesday’s installment of The Late Show. On one hand, he adored Biden’s announcement video, going so far as to break out the “Damn! Cam.” On the other, he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos he “was surprised that Biden would dignify Trump by offering to meet him.” Of course, Biden’s announcement didn’t come out of nowhere, as Colbert acknowledged when he introduced a clip of Biden, “Trump has been challenging President Biden for months now, and today, Biden accepted by releasing this video, where he took a swipe at Trump's court schedule.”     The video showed Biden telling viewers that, “Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020 and since then, he hasn't shown up for a debate. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. So, let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays.” The two men have decided on Thursday, June 27, and Tuesday, September 10. Nevertheless, Colber reacted with glee, “For my reaction to that, join me over at the ‘Damn! Cam.’ Damn!” Later, Stephanopoulos joined the show to hype his new book and Colbert started to ask, “Let’s talk about debates. Okay, you’ve moderated debates—” Stephanopoulos interrupted to lament, “Yes, it did happen. I think because I’m being sued, I’m not going to be moderating this one this time around.” Trump is suing Stephanopoulos for defamation, but even if that lawsuit didn’t exist, the former Clinton operative’s out of left field question to Mitt Romney about banning birth control is enough to disqualify him from moderating any future debate. Regardless, Colbert continued, “Are you surprised? Because I was a little surprised they were going to happen. I was surprised that Biden would dignify Trump by offering to meet him.” Stephanopoulos replied, “I was surprised, especially after you were talking about it before, that Chris Wallace debate four years ago, just the worst presidential debate in American history. I was surprised it's going to happen again. Interesting move by Biden, kind of a bold move by Biden. I do think the rules he's put in place could make a difference.” Colbert interjected to add, “I love them. No audience. In studio. When your time is up, the mind goes off. That's a loss of power.” Stephanopoulos agreed, “Yeah, and it will be interesting to see, I mean, I know both sides have accepted now. I wonder if at the end of the day, with those rules, if those rules are really in place, if the debate really happens, but I think those rules are essential.” Many in the media are making a bigger deal of the agreed upon rules than they should. For instance, in every past presidential debate there has been an audience, but it has been required to remain silent and the cutting of mics could hurt the mumbling and rambling Biden just as much as Trump. Here is a transcript for the May 15 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/15/2024 11:38 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Trump has been challenging President Biden for months now, and today, Biden accepted by releasing this video, where he took a swipe at Trump's court schedule. JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020 and since then, he hasn't shown up for a debate. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. So, let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays.  COLBERT: For my reaction to that, join me over at the "Damn! Cam." Damn! … COLBERT: Let’s talk about debates. Okay, you’ve moderated debates— STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, it did happen. I think because I’m being sued, I’m not going to be moderating this one this time around. COLBERT: Are you surprised? Because I was a little surprised they were going to happen. I was surprised that Biden would dignify Trump by offering to meet him. STEPHANOPOULOS: I was surprised, especially after you were talking about it before, that Chris Wallace debate four years ago, just the worst presidential debate in American history. I was surprised it's going to happen again. Interesting move by Biden, kind of a bold move by Biden. I do think the rules he's put in place could make a difference. COLBERT: I love them. No audience. In studio.  STEPHANOPOULOS: The mic goes off. COLBERT: When your time is up, the mind goes off. That's a loss of power. STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah, and it will be interesting to see, I mean, I know both sides have accepted now. I wonder if at the end of the day, with those rules, if those rules are really in place, if the debate really happens, but I think those rules are essential. 

MRC’s Houck Reacts on FNC to Biden/Trump Debate Plans; ‘Watch Out for Shenanigans’

NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck returned to the Fox News Channel Wednesday on Fox News @ Night to react to the sudden agreement between the Joe Biden and Donald Trump campaigns to hold presidential debates on June 27 with CNN and September 10 with ABC. Speaking to host Trace Gallagher, Houck urged caution on the part of the Trump team and be prepared for the debates to be rigged. Asked by Gallagher to explain why he doesn’t “think that CNN moderators” Jake Tapper and Dana Bash “will give Trump a fair shake,” Houck explained “you got to watch out for shenanigans” and said it was reminiscent of what this site warned ahead of the “infamous CNBC debate back during the 2016 election cycle.”     “Jake Tapper, he received awards for pushing the fake Trump Russia collusion case. So, as you point out in your Common Sense [commentary], and Erin [Perrine] and Amber [Duke] pointed out as well [in the previous segment], you know, the demands that President Trump is willing to meet, yeah, you want to see these debates happen, but did you do that at the expense of a fair show for you,” he added. Gallagher then went to former local TV anchor Dee Sarton with similar warning from a piece by our friend Eddie Scarry at The Federalist: “Trump, along with every other Republican should at least have a guarantee that there won’t be any more Chris Wallace or Candy Crowley moments where the moderator takes liberty to run interference for the Democrats.” Sarton concurred with Houck and Scarry, saying her “stomached turned when I heard...who moderators were going to be” and Biden may “have turned the tables a little bit with” his goating video Wednesday morning. “You got to really think about the Americans...who would really love to see these two men side by side, who maybe are still a little bit undecided in this. What do they need to hear? And try to cut through that...[T]he guy is pretty smart..But it’s going to take a lot of work to be ready for that night,” she argued. Houck followed up with more concerns about this CNN debate, such as the possibility they’ll engage in “live fact-checking” with the sniveling Daniel Dale “and who knows about snarky chyrons.” To remove the possibility of any nonsense being fed to the moderators, Houck also suggested “Dana Bash and Jake Tapper and then, Lindsey Davis and David Muir and ABC shouldn’t be wearing earpieces” in order to keep the debate as organic and “free flowing” as possible. All they would need to keep things moving, Houck argued, would be clocks (which are standard below most camera rigs in TV studios). “There is just so many factors, especially with CNN that we really, really got to watch out for. And just real quickly, on substance, Peter Doocy is exactly right, that — it’s very clear this is to distract away from the issues, considering Biden has been dragged on issue after issue,” Houck concluded. Before the segment wrapped, Sarton spoke from experience of moderating debates about the dynamics between having an audience versus none at all: I’ve heard some people say today, oh, well, Trump, you know, he feeds off the audience. He needs that audience. I’m not sure I agree with that. I think he can bring it without an audience, even though obviously, it helps. I’ve done debates when the room is empty, and it really does suck all the light out of the room...I don’t think the lack of an audience is going to be nearly as damaging to President Trump. To see the relevant transcript from May 15, click “expand.” FNC’s Fox News @ Night with Trace Gallagher May 15, 2024 11:09 p.m. Eastern TRACE GALLAGHER: Let’s get media analysis from NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck, and the host of A Home That Heals podcast, the queen of Idaho Television, former TV news anchor Dee Sarton. Thank you both for coming on. To you first, Curtis, because you don’t think that CNN moderators will give Trump a fair shake. Explain that for us. CURTIS HOUCK: Yeah, I think you got to watch out for shenanigans, Trace. We, at NewsBusters said this when there was that infamous CNBC debate back during the 2016 election cycle. Jake Tapper, he received awards — GALLAGHER: Mmhmm. HOUCK: — for pushing the fake Trump Russia collusion case. So, as you point out in your Common Sense, and Erin and Amber pointed out as well, you know, the demands that President Trump is willing to meet, yeah, you want to see these debates happen — GALLAGHER: Right. HOUCK: — but did you do that at the expense of a fair show for you? GALLAGHER: Yeah. And Dee, Eddie Scarry at The Federalists, wrote the following here, quoting, “Trump, along with every other Republican should at least have a guarantee that there won’t be any more Chris Wallace or Candy Crowley moments where the moderator takes liberty to run interference for the Democrats.” I mean, we have learned that moderates can — moderators, rather, Dee, can really sway the jury. I mean, you have worked the debates. So, you know, what’s going on here. If you were advising Trump, about these debates, is there anything you would advise or add? DEE SARTON: Oh, boy, I’ll tell you, my stomach turned when I heard, you know, who the moderators were going to be? And yeah, it’s a — it’s a tough situation. I feel like he came out so strong and said, any place any time. GALLAGHER: Yeah. SARTON: That was sort of his power play, and now they have turned the tables a little bit with this. And so, I am a little bit worried about that. And I guess my advice would be boy, you got to really think about the Americans — the Americans that — that I’m around all the time, who would really love to see these two men side by side, who maybe are still a little bit undecided in this. What do they need to hear? And try to cut through that. But that’s got to be tough, but I kind of can’t imagine when you’ve got the — all of that going against you, how that happens. GALLAGHER: Yeah. SARTON: But the guy is pretty smart, and I think he can figure it out. But it’s going to take a lot of work to be ready for that night and in a way that the underdecides will hear his message. GALLAGHER: Yeah. It seems, Curtis that the Biden team wants this debate to be as controlled as possible. You know, that’s why you control as much as you can. And hopefully, you can contain any errors or any you know, bad looks. HOUCK: Yeah, exactly. I mean, and then, there is the question, as you pointed out, as well about live fact-checking, is Daniel Dale going to be there? GALLAGHER: Yeah. HOUCK: I saw someone on X today argue that maybe, you know, the Dana Bash and Jake Tapper and then Lindsey Davis and David Muir and ABC shouldn’t be wearing earpieces, so they are not being fed things in their ear. You know, they can have clocks there like we do in our studios for keeping time. But other than that, I mean, it should just be free flowing. GALLAGHER: Yeah. HOUCK: And who knows about snarky chyrons? There is just so many factors, especially with CNN that we really, really got to watch out for. And just real quickly, on substance, Peter Doocy is exactly right, that — it’s very clear this is to distract away from the issues, considering Biden has been dragged on issue after issue. GALLAGHER: Yeah, and it really is a big gamble, Dee, because you look at this and you think, okay, they can control this, they can cut the microphone to Donald Trump, and cut Biden’s microphone and, maybe even kind of limited the moderators, but the bottom line is, is that there’s no teleprompter. And if you’re an 81-year-old president, who is known to kind of speak out of turn, this is something that they cannot control and it’s not the State of the Union speech. I mean, you can do whatever you want to but you have to speak off the cuff for a lot of this. SARTON: Right, you really do. And, you know, I was thinking about this earlier today. It’s a situation where people — I’ve heard some people say today, oh, well, Trump, you know, he feeds off the audience. He needs that audience. I’m not sure I agree with that. I think he can bring it without an audience, even though obviously, it helps. I’ve done debates when the room is empty, and it really does suck all the light out of the room. But I do you think it’s going to be tough. From what we have seen of President Biden, I just kind of can’t imagine what that’s going to be like. GALLAGHER: Yeah. SARTON: And not having those support systems in place for him, I think that’s going to be the Achilles heel for him. I don’t think the lack of an audience is going to be nearly as damaging to President Trump. GALLAGHER: Yep, it is. I mean, you’re the President. You are alone and you are flying blind for a short time there. Dee Sarton, Curtis Houck, thank you both. HOUCK: Thanks.

CNN's Jennings Takes a Minute to Undo CNN's 24/7 Trump Trial Hype -- No Minds Will Change

Before we get to the substance of their dialogue, let's begin by observing that in introducing Scott Jennings on her CNN This Morning panel Tuesday, host Kasie Hunt described Jennings as a "conservative columnist." It said the same on screen.  Question: when's the last time Hunt or any CNN host introduced someone as a "liberal" columnist? Yeah, I can't think of such a time, either. Meanwhile, Kasie Hunt offered no identifiers for Elliot Williams (eight years serving President Obama), reporter Molly Ball (Nancy Pelosi apple-polisher) or "Republican" Sarah Matthews (who really wants Trump to lose). Conservative people are fine with being called conservative. What's ridiculous is that everyone who agrees with CNN is presented as nonpartisan or objective. Okay, on to the discussion. In the context of the Stormy Daniels hush money trial, Hunt challenged Jennings: "It's reminding everyone of what we went through as a country when he was President of the United States. Uh, and: I'm just kind of curious. How do you feel about defending him with these allegations out there?" Translation: aren't you ashamed of defending this reprobate? This, from the Clinton News Network that defended all of Bill's #MeToo antics. Jennings, over the course of the discussion, made the obvious point: that this trial reveals nothing new about Trump, and is therefore unlikely to change many votes. As he facetiously put put it in conclusion: "October of 2016. No one knew that Donald Trump had had sex with lots of women out there, some of whom were not his wife. No one could have possibly known!" JENNINGS (on Republicans): But they would say things like, this case should have never been brought. This is a terrible court. This prosecutor is a partisan hack -- whatever. And they would also say this: I don't care about sex paperwork, but I do care about that the president has driven as to an inflationary crisis and is going wobbly on our ally, Israel. You're going to see Republicans all over the country make that argument. And I think whether he is convicted, whether the jury is on or whether he's acquitted, I think this will move the needle for virtually no one. This amounted to a small dissent from the 24/7 Trump-trial hype on CNN, including the dramatic readings of court transcripts.  Note: Jennings in turn challenged Hunt to describe what the crime is that Trump is alleged to have committed. Hunt had to admit, "I understand that you are technically correct," i.e., that no one can describe a crime other than a paperwork snafu. Note: As to Hunt saying that the trial is "reminding everyone of what we went through as a country when he was President of the United States," millions of Americans are thinking, Yeah, reminds me that when Trump was president, I could afford to fill my gas tank and shop for groceries, and we weren't involved in foreign wars. Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 5/14/24 6:03 am EDT KASIE HUNT: Our panel's here: former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams, Molly Ball, senior political correspondent at at the Wall Street Journal, conservative columnist Scott Jennings, and Sarah Matthews, [disgruntled] former deputy White House press secretary under President Trump. Welcome all! . . .  Scott Jennings, this is a guy that, you know, he's the presumptive Republican nominee for president. It's [the Stormy Daniels hush money trial], it's reminding everyone of, kind of, what we went through as a country when he was President of the United States. And I'm just kind curious: how do you feel about defending him with these allegations out there? SCOTT JENNINGS: Well, nothing new has happened here. I think what you're seeing, such a muted reaction from people, is because it's already priced in, it's baked into his candidacy, it's baked into who he is. Nothing -- we know all of this. And I don't have to, no Republican really has to defend anyone's personal behavior to make this -- HUNT: Well, there are a bunch of Republicans standing up behind him. JENNINGS: Well, but they're not necessarily defending his personal behavior. But they would say things like, this case should have never been brought. This is a terrible court. This prosecutor is a partisan hack: whatever. And they would also say this: I don't care about sex paperwork, but I do care about that the president has driven as to an inflationary crisis and is going wobbly on our ally, Israel. You're going to see Republicans all over the country make that argument. And I think whether he is convicted, whether the jury is on or whether he's acquitted, I think this will move the needle for virtually no one. SARAH MATTHEWS: You don't think if he's convicted, it's not going to make a difference at at all? I mean, there was a CNN poll that showed that 24% of Trump backers said that if there is a conviction, that they would reconsider their support. I will admit, that doesn't mean that they are going to change their support, but they would reconsider. And I mean, on an election that's going to be on the margins, then, I think you would be worried about every vote. JENNINGS: If you are someone who -- I'm trying to envision the voter who would go to the polls, say, you know, I was going to vote for Donald Trump, but then I found out he got the paperwork wrong because he had sex with somebody. I don't know who that person is. I don't know who that person is! HUNT: I don't think that paperwork-wrong thing is, is. I mean, to Sarah's point, I mean, he would be convicted for -- the perception is not going to be paperwork. JENNINGS: What's he being convicted for, then? If it's not a paperwork, what's he being -- HUNT: I understand that you are technically correct. I just think -- can anyone consume this -- it's like -- JENNINGS: The problem with this case is, no one can actually explain what he's being convicted for. It was obvious that the case was brought so they could put people on the stand to try to personally embarrass him. That's what it is. HUNT: They were paying her to keep quiet so that voters, particularly women, wouldn't think badly of Trump before the election, right? JENNINGS: [Facetiously] October, October of 2016: no one, no one IIknew that Donald Trump had had sex with lots of women out there, some of whom were not his wife. No one could have possibly known!

BBC Runs Hit Piece on Slovakian Prime Minister Hours After He's SHOT in Assassination Attempt

There is a time and place to be critical of a political leader if you are a news organization. However, the time to be critical of such a person is most definitely NOT just hours after an assassination attempt in which such a person lies in a hospital in critical condition from multiple bullet wounds. And yet the BBC, with the soul of a ghoul, went ahead on Wednesday and did just that hours after the Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico was shot multiple times. BBC Prague correspondent Rob Cameron somehow thought the very day of Fico being the gravely wounded victim of an assassination attempt would be a good time to write up this hit piece, "How Robert Fico rose to dominate Slovak politics." First came the smear in Cameron's story followed by a medical description of the one he just smeared just a sentence earlier. Robert Fico's ability to reinvent himself has kept him at the top of Slovakia’s politics despite repeated scandals. Now surgeons are battling to save his life after an assassination attempt that followed a government meeting in a small town. Class act, Rob. And true to form, Cameron reverted immediately to smear mode the very sentence after revealing his life threatening situation in the hospital. His most recent fall from grace was in 2018, when mass protests forced his resignation in the wake of the murder of investigative journalist Jan Kuciak and his fiancée. What followed in the rest of the article was a cascade of slams directed at Fico fighting for his life in the hospital: During the six months he has been in office this time, he and his coalition allies have taken a sledgehammer to Slovakia’s institutions. Reform of the criminal justice system included abolition of the Special Prosecutor’s Office, set up 20 years ago to investigation serious crime and corruption. ...The national broadcaster – RTVS – is to be shut down in June and replaced with a new body with a new director. Mr Fico says RTVS cannot be objective as it is in permanent conflict with his government, and this ‘unsustainable’ situation can only be rectified by replacing it. Observers – including the opposition, the European Commission and the European Broadcasting Union – have warned the move would be a blow to media freedom in Slovakia. "Public broadcasters" don't object when European governments dismantle "far-right public media," as NPR lauded Poland for well, "taking a sledgehammer" to the critical public broadcaster there.  ...However if 59-year-old political veteran Mr Fico pulls through, he will likely draw new strength from this attempt on his life. Amid the calls for calm and an end to the hateful rhetoric, his closest political allies are already laying the blame squarely on the liberal opposition and the media. One coalition ally – deputy prime minister Andrej Danko – said the country was heading for "political war". The political temperature has certainly risen in Slovakia since he formed what is his fourth administration in October. Okay, BBC, we get that you have a great deal of antipathy towards Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, who doesn't want to aid Ukraine. But on the very day of an assassination attempt upon him which left him critically wounded in a hospital, is it too much to expect you to give your hate a rest?

HAMAS MEDIA: CBS Evening News Observes ‘Nakba Day’

As pertains to the ongoing war in Gaza, CBS News continues to solidify its reputation as the most pro-Hamas among the networks. A brief report on the Biden administration’s request for new military assistance for Israel quickly turned into an opportunity to echo pro-Palestinian points and observe “al-Nakba”, which loosely translates to “Catastrophe Day”.  Watch the aforementioned report in its entirety, as aired on the CBS Evening News on Wednesday, May 15th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: Turning now to the war in Gaza. The Biden administration is pushing Congress for a new billion-dollar weapons package for Israel, as so much humanitarian aid could be arriving within days for millions of Palestinians. A floating pier built by the U.S. military is now being moved into position off the Gaza coast. Food and supplies can't come soon enough for Palestinians, who today marked al-Nakba. That’s the Arabic term for the displacement of more than 700,000 Palestinians during the creation of Israel 76 years ago. There is a lot of actual information that was omitted from the report so that Norah O’Donnell could have the time to read the pro-Hamas talking points off of the teleprompter. For example, it is unclear when the billion-dollar military assistance package will actually arrive to Israel. But O’Donnell made sure to juxtapose that assistance with humanitarian aid due to arrive for displaced Palestinians. Compare O’Donnell’s observance of al-Nakba with that of Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-The Squad). Their language is practically identical: As we mark the 76th anniversary of the Nakba, we honor all the lives lost since the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians began, and the Palestinians who were forced from their homes and violently displaced from their land. — Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) May 15, 2024 That is certainly one reading of history. The other is that when the British partitioned Mandatory Palestine, they created both a Jewish state and an Arab state, with the Jews accepting statehood and the Arabs refusing to live alongside the Jews. And that the real catastrophe (or nakba) happened when five Arab countries failed to expel Israel after they declared their independence a day before the start of what is now known as the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. Whatever displacement happened, happened as the result of an eliminationist war waged against the Jewish state. Hamas’ barbaric October 7th attack has, unfortunately, triggered further needless displacement and death. This, unfortunately, is more nuance than can be crammed into a 30-second brief intended to elicit empathy for Palestine rather than to report facts.  

2024 Presidential Debate Host ABC News Falsely Casts Biden As Issuing Debate Challenge

The Regime Media kicked off their respective evening newscasts by hyping the upcoming presidential debates, which were just agreed to by President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. But ABC News, aggressively Biden-servile and an announced debate host, chose to disinform the public by insisting on casting Biden as the one who challenged Trump to a debate, when the record reflects the exact opposite. Watch as ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir, who will co-moderate the September 10th debate with Lindsey Davis, falsely depicts Biden as the aggressor before throwing over to Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce, who promptly does the same: DAVID MUIR: Early today, president Biden issuing the challenge. Trump, who refused to debate his primary opponents, saying yes. And within hours, two debates were set, one in June, the other in September, right here on ABC. Our Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce leading us off at the White House tonight. MARY BRUCE: Tonight, in a true campaign surprise, President Biden and Donald Trump agreeing to two one-on-one debates, the first just a few weeks from now, at the end of June, the earliest general election showdown in American history. Trump has been pushing for debates for months. DONALD TRUMP: I'm trying to get him to debate. BRUCE: This morning, Biden with this surprise challenge. JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then, he hasn't shown up for a debate. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. BRUCE: Biden then taunting Trump, referencing the one day a week that he's not tied up in court. BIDEN: So let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays. Note the sleight-of-word here: Right after Biden is said to have issued the challenge, Trump is depicted as “pushing for debates for months”. Biden is then again presented as the challenger. Why insist on pushing such a blatant and easily refutable falsehood? Because it is the only way to cast Biden in a favorable light, as opposed to reporting that the incumbent President of the United States responded to his challenger after months of baiting.  CBS’s Nancy Cordes took a less obvious but similar approach on the CBS Evening News: NANCY CORDES: President Biden threw down the gauntlet at 8:00 A.M. Eastern, in a video posted online. On the other hand, Cordes is more transparent about Biden doing the debate as a way to inject life into his flagging campaign: CORDES: So why are these two debating in June, more than four months before the election? Well, the campaigns say it’s because so many people now vote early, but the Trump team is also looking for a way to turn the page after his criminal trial ends, while Biden, who is trailing in many polls, could use a strong head-to-head performance to remind voters why they went for him over Trump in 2020.  NBC Nightly News was easily the most transparent of the three major networks: PETER ALEXANDER: Tonight the stage is set for the first TV confrontation between President Biden and former President Trump in more than three years. The agreement punctuating a dizzying day of deal-making. The president posting this video responding to weeks of pressure from Mr. Trump for a debate. … Both sides bypassing the Commission on Presidential Debates' proposal for three fall showdowns. President Biden's decision comes after former President Trump repeatedly challenged him to debate. DONALD TRUMP: You can see, we have an empty podium right here to my right. You know what that is? That's for Joe Biden. I'm trying to get him to debate. The clear and unequivocal truth is that Trump forced the issue on debates, and Biden accepted his challenge. Reporting the truth would not have changed much in the way of ABC’s report (and, to a lesser extent, CBS). But ABC insisted on casting Biden in the most favorable light, even at the expense of the truth. If this is how ABC reports the debate announcement, how will they actually moderate the debate?   Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective evening newscasts on Wednesday, May 15th, 2024: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT DAVID MUIR: We do begin tonight with this presidential debate showdown now coming. President Biden and former President Trump both agreeing to two debates. The first in just a matter of weeks on CNN, before the conventions, the earliest debate ever for a general election. It will be the first debate stage faceoff, Biden versus Trump, since 2020, when they met twice. Early today, president Biden issuing the challenge. Trump, who refused to debate his primary opponents, saying yes. And within hours, two debates were set, one in June, the other in September, right here on ABC. Our Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce leading us off at the White House tonight. MARY BRUCE: Tonight, in a true campaign surprise, President Biden and Donald Trump agreeing to two one-on-one debates, the first just a few weeks from now, at the end of June, the earliest general election showdown in American history. Trump has been pushing for debates for months. DONALD TRUMP: I'm trying to get him to debate. BRUCE: This morning, Biden with this surprise challenge. JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then, he hasn't shown up for a debate. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. BRUCE: Biden then taunting Trump, referencing the one day a week that he's not tied up in court. BIDEN: So let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays. BRUCE: Trump firing back, "Just tell me when. I'll be there. Let's get ready to rumble." TRUMP: I really think he has to debate. He might as well get it over with. Probably should do it early so that he can -- you know, because -- he's not going to get any better. BRUCE: A short time later, the debates were set, the first on June 27th hosted by CNN, before either candidate is declared the official nominee at their party's convention. And the second on September 10th hosted by ABC News, just weeks before voters head to the polls. There will be no live audience, just the moderators and the candidates themselves a television studio, face-to-face.  And tonight, inside the campaigns, they are well aware the stakes are extremely high here. Both men confident that they can outperform the other. Donald Trump, of course, has been pushing for this for months. President Biden eager to show the stark differences between the two of them and jump-start this race. They both are now looking forward to this, of course, the first debate now coming, we know, June 27th on CNN. The second debate, at a key moment in the fall just weeks before the election, and ABC News will be having that debate on September 10th. And ABC News tonight is announcing the moderators of that debate, David Muir and Linsey Davis. David? MUIR: We will all be very busy in the months ahead. Mary Bruce, among the team here covering this. Mary, thanks so much again. September 10th here on ABC. CBS EVENING NEWS NORAH O’DONNELL: The stage is set. The dates are picked, and President Biden and Donald Trump are already throwing jabs ahead of two presidential debates that are now on the calendar. Until today, it was unclear if there would be any general election debates, but that all changed this morning when the two men, who can't agree on anything, agreed in a matter of hours that they would face off on June 27th and September 10th. The first date, now just 43 days away, will be the earliest televised presidential debate in American history. CBS's Nancy Cordes starts us off tonight from the White House on how it all came together. NANCY CORDES: President Biden threw down the gauntlet at 8:00 A.M. Eastern, in a video posted online. JOE BIDEN: Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. CORDES: He even tossed it a dig at Trump's trial schedule, which currently keeps him in court four days a week. BIDEN: So let’s pick the dates, Donald. I hear you’re free on Wednesdays. CORDES: Nevertheless, within half an hour, Trump said he was in.  DONALD TRUMP: I‘ve accepted the two, 100%. CORDES: He added an insult of his own. TRUMP: Probably should do it early so that he can, you know, he's not going to get any better. CORDES: Just after 11:00 A.M., Trump's campaign upped the ante, calling for four debates over the next four months. By noon, both campaigns had accepted invitations for one debate in late June, and another in mid-September, though the Biden team appeared to turn down a third debate invitation that came from Fox News. MICHAEL TYLER: The president has said he is willing to debate twice. CORDES: Michael Tyler is communications director for the Biden campaign.  CORDES: …think that President Trump wouldn't show up? TYLER: Well, he certainly does have a history of complaining about debates, skipping out on debates. CORDES: The two men squared off twice in 2020. BIDEN: You are the worst president that America has ever had. TRUMP: I’ve done more than you’ve done in 47 years, Joe. CORDES: Those debates were so hostile, many wondered if there would be a sequel this year. BIDEN: Will you shut up, man? TRUMP: Listen, who is on your list, Joe? BIDEN: This is so… CHRIS WALLACE: Gentlemen  BIDEN: This is so unpresidential. CORDES: We asked voters in Philadelphia if they plan to watch this time. VOTER: I might watch part of it. But I think it’ll just annoy me so much. VOTER: I doubt it. I might, but I doubt it because I know what each one is going to say. CORDES: So why are these two debating in June, more than four months before the election? Well, the campaigns say it’s because so many people now vote early, but the Trump team is also looking for a way to turn the page after his criminal trial ends, while Biden, who is trailing in many polls, could use a strong head-to-head performance to remind voters why they went for him over Trump in 2020. Norah. O’DONNELL: Will be interesting. Nancy Cordes, thank you so much. NBC NIGHTLY NEWS LESTER HOLT: Good evening and welcome. Not one but two presidential debates are on the books tonight after an exchange of verbal taunts more akin to a prizefight promotion. President Biden and former President Trump have agreed to televised one-on-one debates, the first happening June 27th and notably without a live audience. The second one, September 10th. The arrangement first proposed by President Biden was quickly accepted by Mr. Trump, who refused to take part in this year's Republican primary debates. The first of the showdowns timed by the Biden campaign to take place before early voting begins. In the time being, the debate among pundits will likely be over which candidate has the most to gain or maybe lose. White Hhouse correspondent Peter Alexander now with how it all came together. JOE BIDEN: Before I get started, I want to… PETER ALEXANDER: Tonight the stage is set for the first TV confrontation between President Biden and former President Trump in more than three years. The agreement punctuating a dizzying day of deal-making. The president posting this video responding to weeks of pressure from Mr. Trump for a debate. JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then he hasn't shown up for debates. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. ALEXANDER: The president taunting his rival over his Manhattan hush money trial that’s kept him in court four days a week. BIDEN: So let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays. ALEXANDER: There are traditionally three debates. The president offering two. Mr. Trump, who refused all of the primary debates, quickly saying yes and pushing for more writing, “I am ready and willing to debate crooked Joe at the two proposed times. I would strongly recommend more than two debates and, for excitement purposes, a very large venue. Just tell me when, I'll be there”. Within hours, a pair of debate dates were set- one in late June, another in September. Both sides bypassing the Commission on Presidential Debates' proposal for three fall showdowns. President Biden's decision comes after former President Trump repeatedly challenged him to debate. DONALD TRUMP: You can see, we have an empty podium right here to my right. You know what that is? That's for Joe Biden. I'm trying to get him to debate. ALEXANDER: The June 27th face-off with no audience will come at a critical moment in the race, with recent polls showing Mr. Trump in a strong position in some key battleground states, and shortly after the former president's criminal trial is expected to wrap up. Today Senator Mitt Romney, a fierce Trump critic, arguing the president should have pardoned Mr. Trump. MITT ROMNEY: I would have immediately pardoned him. I'd have pardoned President Trump. Why? Oh, because it makes me, President Biden, the big guy and the person I pardon the little guy. ALEXANDER: The debate is certain to be a bitter battle with the president and his predecessor trading insults. TRUMP: The worst presidents-- take ‘em, give me the ten worst names. They haven't done the damage to our country that this total moron has done. ALEXANDER: And from Mr. Biden just today: BIDEN: The guy has sort of lost his mooring. He seems like the guy who just doesn't know what the hell he's doing anymore. ALEXANDER: In an already unprecedented campaign, the first crucial clash now the earliest in modern history. HOLT: ANd Peter, to be clear, this means this happens before the conventions? ALEXANDER: That's right- likely even before Mr. Trump has picked his vice presidential nominee here. The former president is now saying that he accepted an offer for a third debate in October. The Biden campaign, though, they are brushing that off, Lester, telling me no more games, no more chaos and their words: President Biden will do TWO debates.  HOLT: All right. Peter, thanks very much.  

NewsBusters Podcast: Ad Nauseam Trump Trial, SHOCKING Debate Agreement

The hush money trial of former President Trump is the only event happening in the world, according to the liberal cable news outlets perched outside the New York City courthouse like vultures. At least The View has their cracked courthouse correspondent inside the courtroom with a pair of binoculars trained on Trump. And just before Curtis Houck and I sat down to record; BREAKING NEWS across the wires: Presidential debates were announced! I give the rundown on Sunny Hostin’s clownish and narcissistic coverage of the Trump trial. According to her, feverishly documenting every muscle twitch, eye glance, and whisper to counsel was not being don’t any other reporter in the room except for her. And no, she wasn’t joking. Curtis gives us an update on his tally of the network coverage of the trial and the embarrassing fact-check of former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s new book proving that she lied about President Biden NOT looking at his watch during an inappropriate moment. HINT: NewsBusters was on the bleeding edge of that story! We also discuss the plans for the upcoming debates and how the coordinated icing out of the presidential commission on debates could have the democracy the liberal media purports to defend. Enjoy the podcast below or wherever you listen to podcasts.

PBS Drools Over Dem Success on Abortion Issue: 'Could You Ever Vote Republican Again?'

The PBS NewsHour on Monday attempted to bolster the struggling Biden re-election campaign by focusing on a purported Democratic issue, abortion -- or as PBS labels it, “reproductive health care” -- in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in all 50 states. It’s a partisan tactic they’ve tried several times before both on weekdays and the weekend edition. Monday’s story featured the program’s most biased reporter, political correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez, complete with labeling bias. Besides the euphemistic references to “reproductive health care” and the “right to choose” a "procedure," the reporter used the term "conservative" twice, but no liberal or even “progressive” ones. Amna Nawaz: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, Republicans have banned abortion in 14 states and restricted it in more. But, when given the chance, voters have overwhelmingly supported ballot initiatives to protect access to the procedure. This election year, abortion will again be a defining issue. Laura Barron-Lopez reports from the battleground of Michigan, where Democrats plan to keep reproductive health care front and center. Annie Sharkus, Michigan Voter [to her child]: You got it? Great job. Laura Barron-Lopez: Raised in a deeply religious and conservative household, Annie Sharkus stayed out of politics, until the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Sharkus: I gathered signatures. We organized, like, a rally. I gave a speech at one, started going to, like, coffee hours and things like that with our local politicians, just getting more involved, because I didn't want my kids to look back at this point in time and say, like, OK, well, what did you do, and I couldn't tell them that I did nothing. Sharkus told PBS she doesn’t “specifically identify as Democrat or Republican,” but if you can't ever imagine voting for Republicans again, you sound like a Democrat.  Barron-Lopez: Do you think that you could ever vote Republican again? Sharkus: I don't think that I would with the current direction that the Republican Party is going. I am so far from identifying with what they want to happen that I don't see it ever happening. Barron-Lopez: Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin wants to keep women like Annie squarely in the Democratic column. Her message to voters, abortion will always be on the ballot. ...When voters turned out for abortion rights in Michigan in 2022, it was a victory for Democrats. In 2024, they're trying to replicate that success here and in states across the country. Slotkin, now running for the U.S. Senate, is one of many down-ballot Democratic candidates trying to maintain urgency. Shanay Watson-Whittaker of Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) combined belief in God with the “right to choose” abortion. Slotkin has been endorsed by this abortion lobbying group, and boasts a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record. But neither Slotkin nor the abortion lobby are apparently "liberal" or "leftist." Even the conservative in the story sounded liberal on the issue, not wanting to make it a federal issue. Barron-Lopez: Nolan Finley is the conservative opinion editor at The Detroit News. What exactly would you like to see either the presidential nominee, Donald Trump, lay out or other Republicans across the board in terms of the specific policy towards abortion? When asked by the reporter to pin down a time frame during the pregnancy, Finley was amenable to a ban after 20 weeks, far past the first trimester of pregnancy. Finley: Fifteen, maybe twenty, wherever -- somewhere in that range where people can settle and say, this is fair. This allows people time to make their decision…. There were a couple of a Trump soundbites as well, so it wasn't completely one-sided. After soundbites from two other pro-abortion voters, Barron-Lopez huddled up again with Rep. Slotkin and gave her the last word, sounding the “wakeup call for Democrats” against the party’s previous “complacency” on the issue. This pro-abortion, pro-Democratic segment was brought to you in part by Cunard. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 5/13/24 7:24:01 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, Republicans have banned abortion in 14 states and restricted it in more. But, when given the chance, voters have overwhelmingly supported ballot initiatives to protect access to the procedure. This election year, abortion will again be a defining issue. Laura Barron-Lopez reports from the battleground of Michigan, where Democrats plan to keep reproductive health care front and center. Annie Sharkus, Michigan Voter: You got it? Great job. Laura Barron-Lopez: Raised in a deeply religious and conservative household, Annie Sharkus stayed out of politics, until the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Annie Sharkus: I gathered signatures. We organized, like, a rally. I gave a speech at one, started going to, like, coffee hours and things like that with our local politicians, just getting more involved, because I didn't want my kids to look back at this point in time and say, like, OK, well, what did you do, and I couldn't tell them that I did nothing. Laura Barron-Lopez: Now abortion access is protected in Michigan, but voters are still thinking about it. Even though it's not on the ballot in Michigan this time around, do you still think that it is a top issue for a lot of voters? Annie Sharkus: Even if we're not worried about it in our state in particular, yes, it's definitely something that people are using to gauge how they're voting. Laura Barron-Lopez: The stay-at-home mom of two, who lives in the suburbs of Detroit, isn't excited to vote for Joe Biden. But Annie thinks he will ultimately make access to abortion safer. Annie Sharkus: With voting for Joe Biden, it is hard, because I'm not a single-issue voter. I don't specifically identify as Democrat or Republican. While I will vote for him, I wish that there was another option. Laura Barron-Lopez: Do you think that you could ever vote Republican again? Annie Sharkus: I don't think that I would with the current direction that the Republican Party is going. I am so far from identifying with what they want to happen that I don't see it ever happening. Laura Barron-Lopez: Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin wants to keep women like Annie squarely in the Democratic column. Her message to voters, abortion will always be on the ballot. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI): The other side has made this a central issue for them for 50 years. Their actions speak louder than words. And their actions are currently, like, as we speak, trying to threaten a woman's right to choose, and people see that. Laura Barron-Lopez: When voters turned out for abortion rights in Michigan in 2022, it was a victory for Democrats. In 2024, they're trying to replicate that success here and in states across the country. Slotkin, now running for the U.S. Senate, is one of many downballot Democratic candidates trying to maintain urgency. Rep. Elissa Slotkin: We have to understand that most people see this as a kitchen table issue. A decision about whether to have a child or not is the most profound kitchen table issue that we have. It's not separate from inflation. It's not separate from the economy. It's like your whole family trajectory and whether you are going to be able to afford that life. Laura Barron-Lopez: What happened in Michigan became a blueprint for how to organize around abortion effectively. Ohio followed suit in 2023. Now the right to an abortion will be on the ballot this November in three states, including Florida, which currently bans any kind of termination after six weeks of pregnancy. And similar initiatives could end up on the ballot in up to nine other states this year, including the battlegrounds of Arizona and Nevada. Shanay Watson-Whittaker, Reproductive Freedom for All: What happened in 2022 wasn't an anomaly. Laura Barron-Lopez: Back in Michigan, state activists like Shanay Watson-Whittaker, who works for the nonprofit Reproductive Freedom for All, were instrumental in mobilizing voters in 2022. Two years later, she's sharing that strategy. Shanay Watson-Whittaker: Michigan, for a lot of folks, has been like a North Star. We specifically and intentionally had conversations with Black clergy, with clergy from other denominations, sat them down and talked about reproductive freedom. What people forget are that clergy are humans. They have experienced loss — miscarriage loss. They have had abortions. We believe in God and we believe in Jesus. And,at the same time, we believe that government should not interfere with a woman's right to choose. Laura Barron-Lopez: Meanwhile, Republicans who cheered the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe are struggling to find their footing. In March, the presumptive GOP nominee, Donald Trump, spoke favorably of a national 15-week abortion ban. Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: People are really — even hard-liners are agreeing, seems to be — 15 weeks seems to be a number that people are agreeing at. Laura Barron-Lopez: Then, last month, he flip-flopped, saying states could decide for themselves. Donald Trump: The states will determine by vote or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land, in this case, the law of the state. Laura Barron-Lopez: Still, some top Republicans in Congress support the national 15-week ban and measures that would make it a crime to transport minors across state lines for an abortion without parental consent. Donald Trump: Thank you, Wisconsin. Laura Barron-Lopez: More recently, Trump told "TIME" magazine he'd allow states to both monitor pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. Nolan Finley, Opinion Editor, The Detroit News: Republicans keep handing Democrats this issue every election cycle. It never seems to be out of the political picture. Laura Barron-Lopez: Nolan Finley is the conservative opinion editor at The Detroit News. What exactly would you like to see either the presidential nominee, Donald Trump, lay out or other Republicans across the board in terms of the specific policy towards abortion? Nolan Finley: Well, I would like them to stay away from a federal policy. I think that's what's the point of the Dobbs ruling. But I think the Nikki Haley solution of let's all sit down and find out where we can agree in terms of a point in the pregnancy where were going to say you have had time to make your choice. Laura Barron-Lopez: Whether it's six, 15 weeks? Nolan Finley: Fifteen, maybe 20, wherever — somewhere in that range where people can settle and say, this is fair. This allows people time to make their decision. This allows you to deal with rape and incest, et cetera, but it also prevents something I think most people would be opposed to, and that is abortion in the last month or so of pregnancy. Laura Barron-Lopez: For voters we spoke to in Lansing, they're heeding calls that abortion is an issue to turn out for in November. Matt Allswede, Michigan Voter: Michigan voters, they recognize that this is an issue that goes beyond the borders of the state of Michigan. Susan Anderson, Michigan Voter: I think we have all found out that we cannot rest on our laurels, that we must come out and vote for the right people. Laura Barron-Lopez: Ultimately, Roe was a wakeup call for Democrats like Congresswoman Slotkin, one that she says exposed their party's complacency. Rep. Elissa Slotkin: I think we let ourselves get comfortable, that we didn't believe the other side when they said, we're coming for Roe v. Wade and we want to overturn it. We saw all that happening, but we just had a failure of imagination. What I want to do is say publicly to the whole country that we have a 10-year plan to get back to a federal right to an abortion. We're not going to let it just be a state issue. We're actually going to organize and mobilize to do the thing we didn't do for 50 years, which is pass a piece of federal legislation to codify Roe. Laura Barron-Lopez: The results in November could determine if Slotkin's plans takes 10 years or another 50. For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Laura Barron-Lopez in Michigan.      

Deeply Disturbed Scarborough Accuses New York Times Of Rigging Polls AGAINST Biden!

As we've noted in the past, Mika Brzezinski has expressed concerns over the fragile psyche of her husband and co-host Joe Scarborough, at one point ordering him to take an extended break from the show. Mika might be inclined to give Joe another long time-out after his disturbed and disturbing performance on Wednesday's Morning Joe. Scarborough absolutely freaked out [see screencap and Mika's stone-faced reaction] over a New York Times/Siena poll showing Trump leading in five out of six swing states. Note that the show never actually displayed the bad-for-Biden poll results in question on screen, no doubt not wanting to provide them any additional publicity. Scarborough began by saying that he believed in conspiracy theories, and believed that the Times had entered into a conspiracy with psychiatrists in blue states to split the profits on psychiatric care in return for the Times using skewed methodology in Trump's favor. Joe was - at least we hope - kidding about that. But Scarborough was dead serious when he accused the Times of rigging the polls against Biden in order to write clickbait stories about them: Maybe they're trying to make up for '20, when they skewed in Biden's direction by about four or five points? But every one of these New York Times/Siena polls have been wildly skewed when you compare them to other polls that come out at the same time. (...) And by the way, people are calling Mika, saying this is a just reaction to one poll. No. You can go back. You can look at the tape. We do this every time when the New York Times/Siena poll comes out. It's always an outlier, and the New York Times always gets 15 or 16 articles out of them that everybody rushes to, because it says, Earth ends at 5:00. Hit link at New York Times, 15 times, and they keep writing articles about it.      At one point, an incredulous John Heilemann put it to Scarborough: "You're saying the New York Times is systematically putting these polls out in a way to try to amplify them to drive the news cycle?" Responded Scarborough: "Yes. Yes, I am saying that." Scarborough rudely shouted down Heilemann, who had very politely and cautiously tried to differ ever so slightly in his take (Click "expand"): HEILEMANN: I'm not saying it's not close. I'm not going to carry water for the New York Times or the methodology of this poll. I would keep going back to the thing that I try to say every time we talk about these things. Which is, that I'm really interested in -- and I know you know this. What are the polls showing us directionally about the race? SCARBOROUGH: I understand. There's a difference, though, with the New York Times/ Siena poll, and you know this. It's given disproportionate impact. This year, this cycle, it is skewed wildly in Donald Trump's direction. [Heilemann tries to speak.] Hold on. And the New York Times feasts on it with clickbait stories, like, a dozen at a time. HEILEMANN: And I, what I'm trying to focus on is what I think people should pay attention to [tries to continue]-- SCARBOROUGH: -- [Interrupting] But what I'm trying to focus on is, the New York Times right now is actively shaping the election cycles, where this poll comes out on a Sunday, and on Monday, people go, oh -- and I heard it! And I'm sitting there going, don't be so stupid. That's why we're doing this. [Heilemann tries to respond. Scarborough shouts.]  Hold on. No! No! Hold on a second. Hold on. No, no, no, no,. Hold on. We recently noted evidence that wife and co-host Mika Brzezinski was getting fed up with Scarborough's insolent, incessant interruptions of her. Combine that with Scarborough's intemperate big-footing of Heilemann today, and his explicitly expressed belief that the New York Times—of all media outlets—was manipulating its polls against Biden, and serious questions arise about Scarborough's mental state. Note: Scarborough mentioned that when NPR looked into some of the people quoted in Times articles saying they voted for Biden in 2020 but are now switching to Trump, it was found that they had never voted before. Could be. But ask yourself: when asked by a reporter or pollster about their presidential preference, who was the average person less likely to admit they prefer? Good Ol' Joe Biden, or Trump, whom the media consistently portrays as a monster who will end democracy forever? The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC Morning Joe 5/15/23 6:11 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: I have said for the past couple of days, as I've said for the past couple of months, that -- and I believe now that there is a conspiracy. And I do believe in conspiracies. I think psychiatrists in blue states have conspired with the New York Times/Siena pollsters and said, listen: we'll split the profits on psychiatric care if you guys will, will, will have the craziest methodology, which they always have. Maybe they're trying to make up for '20, when they skewed in Biden's direction by about four or five points? But every one of these New York Times/Siena polls have been wildly skewed when you compare them to other polls that come out at the same time. . . .  And by the way, people are calling Mika, saying this is a just reaction to one poll. No. You can go back. You can look at the tape. We do this every time when the New York Times/Siena poll comes out. It's always an outlier, and the New York Times always gets 15 or 16 articles out of them that everybody rushes to, because it says, Earth ends at 5:00. Hit link at New York Times, 15 times, and they keep writing articles about it.  There are, and NPR has found some of these voters that said, well you know, I voted for Biden before. And they said, but wait. This guy, we checked the voting rolls. He has never voted. Other news organizations offer three, four more examples. Not just of people in the surveys but people the New York Times quoted in their article: "Well, here's one of many people we interviewed who said he's disillusioned and is going to vote for Trump." No record of him voting. JOHN HEILEMANN: Yeah. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Okay? HEILEMANN: You know -- MIKA: Are you feeling something, John Heilemann, that you want to say? HEILEMANN: I think sometimes as a general matter, there's maybe an overreliance on voters telling the truth about things in general. Hate to say it. Reporters find this occasionally that reporters lie. Here is what I say about this poll. If I were to ask you this question, Joe: do you know anybody on either side who doesn't think that it's the case that of the battleground states, that Joe Biden is stronger in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin than he is in Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia? SCARBOROUGH: It sounds about right. I've seen some polls that show Georgia's very close. Greg Bluestein actually had an article that says the CNN poll is wildly off. HEILEMANN: I'm not saying it's not close. I'm not going to carry water for the New York Times or the methodology of this poll. I would keep going back to the thing that I try to say every time we talk about these things. Which is, that I'm really interested in -- and I know you know this. What are the polls showing us directionally about the race? SCARBOROUGH: I understand. There's a difference, though, with the New York Times/ Siena poll, and you know this. It's given disproportionate impact. This year, this cycle, it is skewed wildly in Donald Trump's direction. [Heilemann tries to speak.] Hold on. And the New York Times feasts on it with clickbait stories, like, a dozen at a time. HEILEMANN: And I, what I'm trying to focus on is what I think people should pay attention to [tries to continue]-- SCARBOROUGH: -- [Interrupting] But what I'm trying to focus on is, the New York Times right now is actively shaping the election cycles, where this poll comes out on a Sunday, and on Monday, people go, oh -- and I heard it! And I'm sitting there going, don't be so stupid. That's why we're doing this. [Heilemann tries to respond. Scarborough shouts.]  Hold on. No! No! Hold on a second. Hold on. No, no, no, no,. Hold on. What I hear is after these Siena polls come out, every time: oh, well, everything that Joe Biden's done since the, since the State of the Union address, all these, all this money he has put out. All of the campaigning is for naught.  No, it's not! No, it's not! There's one poll that's wildly skewed every time. And it does shape -- if it's a New York Times poll versus a Morning Consult poll and the New York Times then amplifies it 15, 16, 17, times, it, it, it warps reality and everybody responds to that in the media and in the political world. HEILEMANN: So if you're -- all I'd say about this is that I agree with you. That the problem to me, unless you want to speculate, unless you want to suggest you think there is a conspiracy at the Times about this which you're -- SCARBOROUGH: Their methodology is bizarre and Larry Sabato said this, Wall Street [Journal] said that. HEILEMANN: Joe, you're saying something more than that. You're saying the New York Times is systematically putting these polls out in a way to try to amplify them to drive the news cycle. SCARBOROUGH: Yes. Yes, I am saying that. HEILEMANN: And I'm  saying, I'm not, I'd like to know,  I'm curious, as somebody who understands your level of sophistication about reading the media, why you think that's true. What I'm trying to say is, I agree with you. The best bulwark against any polls, outliers or anything else, is for people who are actually consumers of this information, is to not let these -- any given news outlet, or any given poll, shape your perception of the race unduly. SCARBOROUGH: But John, that's not realistic. And I'll tell you why it's not realistic. Because, and I'll say to you, I know people come up to you after every New York Times/Siena poll comes out. It completely changes the political battlefield out there for about a week, week-and-a-half. It distorts the questions that are asked of the White House. It distorts the questions that are asked of Donald Trump. It distorts all of the opinion. It distorts everything.  And that keeps happening every month when this comes out. And then finally, about two weeks later, after the residue of the New York Times/Siena poll leaves, people go, I think Joe Biden's on a winning streak. And then two weeks later it comes out again, and it's garbage. It's an outlier. And yes, the New York Times,  when they have all of these experts questioning the methodology. When they're calling about 20% of the people likely voters who have never voted before, or didn't vote in the last two primaries. When they're even quoting people who say they're switching their vote from Joe Biden, who have never voted before? I'm sorry! The New York Times has to know what they are doing!

Dorsey Spills on Twitter’s ‘Problematic’ Collusion with Gov’t Censors

Jack Dorsey, the founder and former CEO of Twitter (now X), admitted that Twitter’s relationship with the government was (and potentially still is) “problematic.”  Mike Solana, editor-in-chief of Pirate Wires, sat down for an interview with Dorsey, and the pair discussed some of the problems that arise from governments worldwide attempting to censor speech on social media. Since the release of the Twitter Files, there has been much scrutiny surrounding the relationship between Big Tech and the Federal Government. Dorsey called the collusion between these entities “problematic.” However, he also claimed, unbeknownst to the public, that there was some pushback from Twitter employees to the government’s censorship instructions. “I also don't think the people who got called out in the Twitter Files get enough credit for pushing back on government requests,” Dorsey said. “The U.S. is certainly one of them.” The U.S. government was by no means the only government hounding Twitter and now X to censor.    According to Dorsey, Twitter (now X) has traditionally complied with government censorship requests to some extent. However, he alleged that Musk is more willing to ban accounts at the request of foreign governments.  There are certain loopholes, however.  “You can take the content down within the country, but it's still available to the rest of the world,” said Dorsey. “But if someone in that country has a VPN, they can still see it. And I think governments are wise to this now, so today they're asking to take content down in every single market.”  Dorsey cited the recently relevant example of Australia. “But what you saw with Australia recently, is the prime minister asked Twitter and Elon to take some content down everywhere, instead of just within the Australian market,” Dorsey said. “I think you'll see more and more of that stuff.” When asked if there’s a chance social media companies will survive this effort, Dorsey said, “There’s absolutely no way.” He added, “You’ll have phases, but that doesn’t exist forever. Elon will fight in the way he fights, and I appreciate that, but he could certainly be compromised. Or something could happen to him, and then what happens to the whole platform?” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

The View Cheers Debate Limitations: Having an Audience ‘Doesn't Serve’ Biden

Shortly before ABC’s The View went to air, word was finally announced that both the Biden and Trump campaigns agreed to two debates; one with CNN in June and one in September with ABC. But it was two demands made by Team Biden that had captured most everyone’s interest: no audiences and mics would be cut off. Of course, the liberal ladies of The View cheered the rules with one saying the quiet part out loud and admitting that an audience would hurt President Biden. After spending several minutes bragging about being at a Disney party the previous night, the cast finally got around to talking about the debate. And the first thing they did was share how relieved they were that Biden’s demands were agreed to: WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Here's what I really appreciate. Biden is saying, no audience. JOY BEHAR: Good. GOLDBERG: And that the mics must be cut once - SARA HAINES: I love this. GOLDBERG: -- the time to answer the question has expired. SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes. [Cheers and applause] No one questioned the suspicious timing of the announce since it came shortly after the Biden campaign put out a highly edited video of the President challenging Trump to exactly two debates. But faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin proclaimed, “It was smart of Biden to get ahead of this by challenging Trump and I think it's a recognition that they're neck and neck in the polls.”     Of course, she was completely ignoring the fact that Trump had challenged Biden to debate weeks ago after becoming the presumptive Republican nominee. But who’s counting? Farah Griffin praised the “roadblocks” as “critical” and argued that “cutting off the mics is the most important or it can descend into absolute chaos.” Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) proclaimed that “Biden clearly has the edge” because he could cite the charges brought against Trump by Democratic D.A.s and his Justice Department: HOSTIN: Every answer starts with, “well, my opponent, who has been criminally convicted.” BEHAR: That's right. HOSTIN: Or, “Well, my opponent who’s facing--” BEHAR: Impeached. HOSTIN: “Who has been twice impeached.” “My opponent, who is facing three other criminal trials.” I mean, it's gold. It's very easy. Co-host Joy Behar was confused and didn’t seem to understand that Trump had already agreed to the debates. “I don't think that Biden should have projected that he wants no audience and the mic should be cut off,” she fretted. “But it gives [Trump] a way to get out of it by saying ‘Look, I’m not doing it without an audience.’”   Here's 2 1/2 minutes of Joy Behar not understanding that there will not be an audience at the CNN debate and that Trump already agreed to it. She declared Trump is "going to stack the audience with Trumpers." The rest of the cast had to repeatedly tell her Trump already agreed to… pic.twitter.com/JSElATKAKl — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 15, 2024   The rest of the cast had to repeatedly tell her Trump already agreed to it, but it didn’t sink in for a couple of minutes (Click “expand”): BEHAR: We were talking about the debates and I wanted to say that I don't think that Biden should have projected that he wants no audience and the mic should be cut off. HAINES: Oh, I do. I think so. BEHAR: I think that CNN should have said to the two them, “this is the debate.” GOLDBERG: You know they're not going to do that. BEHAR: “We’re not telling you-” and also no audience. An audience distracts everybody. GOLDBERG: Yes. Well, that's what Biden – FARAH GRIFFIN: But Trump agreed to it, so that what’s happening. GOLDBERG: So, it'll be interesting. HAINES: But Biden needed to get out in front of it. I would actually disagree with Joy and say he had to project that, because if they arranged it for the best TV moment and all been in those times it doesn't serve him. BEHAR: But it gives him a way to get out of it by saying “Look, I’m not doing it without an audience.” FARAH GRIFFIN: He agreed to it. HAINES: He agreed to it. BEHAR: We'll see. Despite the insistence from the rest of the cast that were would be no audience, Behar was still leery that Trump was "going to stack the audience with Trumpers." “It’s like you have Bozo the Clown on one side and you’ve got a statesman on the other who has had years under his belt of being in the Senate. He knows what he's talking about,” she predicted. Someone get Joy a mirror. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 15, 2024 11:07:01 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Here's what I really appreciate. Biden is saying, no audience. JOY BEHAR: Good. GOLDBERG: And that the mics must be cut once - SARA HAINES: I love this. GOLDBERG: -- the time to answer the question has expired. SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes. [Cheers and applause] GOLDBERG: And I kind of -- I think it's fair and I don't -- I think it's at CNN. SARA HAINES: It is. BEHAR: CNN. GOLDBERG: So it's CNN. And I'm hoping us because the last time -- I don't know if it was CNN that was moderating it but when they -- when the moderators allowed him to go behind Hillary Clinton -- HOSTIN: The stalking. GOLDBERG: --and stalk her and they didn't say, “hey-- HOSTIN: “Get back to the podium.” GOLDBERG: -- get back to the podium.” This is -- people always say, what was it -- what was the crowning thing where -- because I always said he's gonna. He's gonna win when he was running against Hillary. I always said it was never a doubt. I said, when I saw people recognize her getting stalked and didn't stop it. BEHAR: Yeah. HAINES: Yeah. BEHAR: There were a lot of signposts. GOLDBERG: There were a lot of signposts that for me said -- then there were the people who were saying, you know, I love him because he knows what he's doing. I watch his show. BEHAR: Yeah, yeah. GOLDBERG: There was a lot of that and so we're all -- I'm hoping this debate happens. I think it's a good idea. It's good for us, you know, and D.T. will have to get his poop together. [Crosstalk] ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: It was smart of Biden to get ahead of this by challenging Trump and I think it's a recognition that they're neck and neck in the polls. And I think the Biden team is recognizing maybe the trial isn't breaking through in the way that having Donald Trump in every American living room answering tough policy questions head-to-head with him will remind them who he is, what his second term will look like. I think it's critical that they do have these roadblocks in place, cutting offer the mics is the most important or it can descend into absolute chaos. And I remind folks, I've been for debates always. I understand he's ridiculously unfit for office but this is for the Americans whether we -- GOLDBERG: For us. FARAH GRIFFIN: Who are undecided still. They need to see it. They need to hear it and need answers to questions. I think it's good for democracy. HOSTIN: I think it's good for democracy. The only thing is, if you look at the statistics, you know, a lot of people don't watch the debates and a lot of people don't make their decision based on the debates so that's a little bit disappointing but I will say this, I mean, Biden clearly has the edge. Every answer starts with, “well, my opponent, who has been criminally convicted.” BEHAR: That's right. HOSTIN: Or, “Well, my opponent who’s facing--” BEHAR: Impeached. HOSTIN: “Who has been twice impeached.” “My opponent, who is facing three other criminal trials.” I mean, it's gold. It's very easy. BEHAR: Yeah, but a lot of people out there feel like – that identify with him. They think he's a victim now. I was reading about this. (…) 11:15:19 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: You, do you remember what you were talking about? BEHAR: We were talking about the debates and I wanted to say that I don't think that Biden should have projected that he wants no audience and the mic should be cut off. HAINES: Oh, I do. I think so. BEHAR: I think that CNN should have said to the two them, “this is the debate.” GOLDBERG: You know they're not going to do that. BEHAR: “We’re not telling you-” and also no audience. An audience distracts everybody. GOLDBERG: Yes. Well, that's what Biden – FARAH GRIFFIN: But Trump agreed to it, so that what’s happening. GOLDBERG: So, it'll be interesting. HAINES: But Biden needed to get out in front of it. I would actually disagree with Joy and say he had to project that, because if they arranged it for the best TV moment and all been in those times it doesn't serve him. BEHAR: But it gives him a way to get out of it by saying “Look, I’m not doing it without an audience.” FARAH GRIFFIN: He agreed to it. HAINES: He agreed to it. BEHAR: We'll see. [Crosstalk] GOLDBERG: You're also right with this. BEHAR: I think so. HOSTIN: That he’ll back out. GOLDBERG: You know, that -- he is a backer-outer anyway. HOSITN: He is. FARAH GRIFFIN: He said he would testify in the trial. BEHAR: He’s going to come across as the low information candidate that he is! HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: That is it. He doesn't know what he's talking about. GOLDBERG: No. BEHAR: Not for nothing, President Biden has been in the Senate. GOLDBEGR: He's going to study. He's going to study. He's going to study and then he's going to get pissed and off the rails. [Crosstalk] BEHAR: It’s like you have Bozo the Clown on one side and you’ve got a statesman on the other who has had years under his belt of being in the Senate. He knows what he's talking about. So all this guy can do is stump it. Stump it. Like he did to poor Hillary that day. (…)

Peru Classifies Transgender People as ‘Mentally Ill’

America should take notes… On Tuesday, the Peruvian government officially categorized both transgender and intersex people as “mentally ill.”  The decree, signed by President Dina Boluarte, notes that “transsexualism, dual-role transvestism, gender identity disorder in childhood, other gender identity disorders and fetishistic transvestism” are now all recorded as mental illnesses in Peru, as Daily Mail reported. The Peruvian government insisted that this will help make “psychological treatment” more freely available to those struggling with these identity and ideology disorders. Now in Peru, people who experience confusion when it comes to their body and identity can receive free health services for said confusion. The shift “categorically reaffirms respect for the dignity of the person and their free actions within the framework of human rights, providing health services for their benefit.” The move, as Daily Mail indicated, came out just days before the 34th anniversary of when the World Health Organization (WHO) removed “homosexuality” from the list of International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Additionally, the word “transexuality” was removed from the list in 2019. But to Peru, those identity terms are now considered mental health illnesses. A report from Yahoo News included a quote from Percy Mayta-Tristán, a medical researcher at Lima’s Scientific University of the South. “You can’t ignore the context that this is happening in a super-conservative society, where the LGBT community has no rights and where labeling them as mentally ill opens the door to conversion therapy,” he said. Critics noted that this new policy would open the door to conversion therapy. But that begs the question, if you’re converting from a delusion, isn’t that good? In response to the news, users on X seemed to be supportive of the move. “I never thought I would see the day Peru was more advanced then the US,” a user wrote on X, while another wrote, “truth hurts.” A different user noted that Peru is “making public what most people are thinking” and said “Good for Peru” Similarly, others said things like “they’re right” and “well done Peru.” I wonder when, if ever, the United States will do the same.

Pro-Life Activist Sentenced to 57 Months in Prison for Protesting Abortion

Lauren Handy, 30, was sentenced to 57 months in prison as well as three years probation on Tuesday for trying to save babies from abortion at an abortion facility back in 2020. The court however, deemed that Handy violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act). On October 22, 2020, Handy, along with a number of other pro-life activists, was arrested for allegedly blocking access to the Washington Surgi abortion clinic in Washington, D.C. Prosecutors insist that Handy instructed other pro-lifers at the scene to link themselves together with locks and chains while they sang hymns and prayed for the moms and babies who were set up for abortions.  JUST IN: Pro-lifer Lauren Handy sentenced to nearly 5 years in prison for "blockading" a Washington abortion clinic in 2020. After she was indicted, police found 5 fetuses in her Washinton home. According to prosecutors, Handy instructed co-defendants to chain themselves… pic.twitter.com/WMyeEVPxrz — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 14, 2024   Handy’s already been in jail since August of 2023 when she was convicted of conspiracy against rights and for violating the FACE Act. She was the first of the pro-life group to be sentenced. William Goodman received 27 months and John Hinshaw will have to serve 21 months. according to Tuesday's results. Heather Idoni and Herb Geraghty are waiting for their sentences after pleading not guilty. They face up to 11 years in prison. This is the same clinic where Handy and another pro-life activist, Terrisa Bukovinac, found the bodies of five preemie babies as well as the parts of 115 aborted babies, that the clinic had planned to send to Maryland to be incinerated and used as renewable energy. It’s also the same clinic where late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo admitted that if a child was accidentally born alive from a botched abortion, he’d leave the child to die slowly and painfully rather than give him or her medical attention. Other pro-life groups and individuals were dumbfounded that Handy will have such a harsh penalty for simply attempting to save babies from the evils of abortion. “30-year-old pro-life activist Lauren Handy has just been sentenced to 57 months in federal prison for handing roses and resources to women at an abortion facility, Meanwhile, abortionists who dismember and kill children walk free. A grave injustice,” LiveAction president Lila Rose said.  Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) wrote, “Protestors can block roads, airports, public transit, take over college campuses, and fight police without consequences, but if you pray, sing hymns, and try to convince women to not have their unborn babies killed then you go to prison for YEARS!!!" “Three weeks ago a judge let a woman walk who smothered her child to death while on meth. Today a judge sentenced a pro life activist (Lauren Handy) to nearly 5 years in federal prison for a peaceful sit in at an abortion clinic,” a different user wrote on X. One more user said, “Thanks to the weaponized DOJ, this woman will spend the next 5 years in prison! If she’d been an environmental activist, she’d have probably  gotten a misdemeanor! But, she’s a pro-life advocate, so this admin used the FACE Act to prosecute her." The leftist media are describing Handy as some sort of villain and insist the 57 month jail sentenced isn’t sufficient.  Daily Beast called Handy a “zealot” who “harassed and directly denied health care access to at least two women who were seeking medical care” (medical “care” being abortions). Similarly The Associated Press called Handy an “anti-abortion activist who led a clinic blockade.” Handy shared some words on the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising’s X page alluding to the fact that she doesn’t regret her decisions back in 2020 that led her to where she is now. “It has been close to 9 months since I was abruptly ripped from my community. This has led me to think long and hard on what to say about my sentencing today in federal court” she said in part one of a four part thread on X. “Yes, this time has been challenging but I refuse to be jaded. Why? Because life goes on … even in jail,” she wrote adding, “today I am at peace with myself and my future” before signing her note “Choose Courage Over Comfort.”

PBS Repeats Debunked Hamas-Published Child Casualty Statistics

PBS/CNN host Christiane Amanpour likes to say that journalists should “be truthful, not neutral,” but when she welcomed author Reza Aslan to Wednesday’s Amanpour and Company to promote his new children’s book on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, she could not be bothered to fact-check his debunked casualty estimates from Gaza. Ironically, the whole segment was a violation of Amanpour’s dictum, as the duo portrayed the conflict as a massive tragedy between two sides who refuse to understand that they both have legitimate aspirations and historical grievances against each other. Amanpour began, “So, you know, it just seems to be such a daring thing to do right now, to write a children's book about the hottest conflict, well, obviously Russia and Ukraine as well, but one of the most difficult ones to broach and to think about. So, just tell me why you did it and who actually you're targeting.”     Aslan began, “Well, as you know, over the last seven months of this conflict, since the attacks of October 7th, which led to the death of 1,300 Israelis, including 33 children, some 14,000 children have been killed in Gaza. That's more children than in all the other global conflicts around the world since 2019.” Critics have long argued that Hamas’s numbers cannot be relied upon and recently they were proved correct as the U.N., which relies on Hamas for its reports, halved its estimates. Specifically, it revised the female casualty estimates from 9,500 to 4,959 and from 14,500 to 7,797 for children. Amanpour didn’t step in to correct the record, nor did she point out the truth once Aslan was done speaking. Instead, Aslan broadly summarized the book: And when you're, you know, confronted with that kind of devastation, that kind of horror, I could understand why, as parents, we want to shield our children from it. But I truly do believe, as a parent of four children myself, that this conflict is actually an opportunity to teach our kids and give them the tools necessary to cultivate compassion and empathy, the critical thinking skills, because, yes, this war has been devastating for the children of Israel and Palestine, but children all around the world, including here in the United States, have also been impacted by this conflict. They're inundated with these images of destruction and despair. It's unavoidable, Christiane. And as parents, I get it. Most of us feel like we ourselves barely understand this conflict. I do it for a living and I barely understand it. And so, what I wanted to do was provide a text that would allow caregivers, parents to have the meaningful conversations necessary with their children that could give them context, a sense of understanding about where we are in this conflict. And most importantly, to counter some of the stereotypes and the prejudices that are just flooding them from all sides. If Aslan wants to portray the conflict as tremendously complicated and argue that starting the process of solving it requires both sides to look in the mirror, he cannot use the fake statistics that one side uses to hurl libelous charges of genocide. Here is a transcript for the May 14 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 5/14/2024 CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: So, you know, it just seems to be such a daring thing to do right now, to write a children's book about the hottest conflict, well, obviously Russia and Ukraine as well, but one of the most difficult ones to broach and to think about. So, just tell me why you did it and who actually you're targeting. REZA ASLAN: Well, as you know, over the last seven months of this conflict, since the attacks of October 7th, which led to the death of 1,300 Israelis, including 33 children, some 14,000 children have been killed in Gaza. That's more children than in all the other global conflicts around the world since 2019. And when you're, you know, confronted with that kind of devastation, that kind of horror, I could understand why, as parents, we want to shield our children from it. But I truly do believe, as a parent of four children myself, that this conflict is actually an opportunity to teach our kids and give them the tools necessary to cultivate compassion and empathy, the critical thinking skills, because, yes, this war has been devastating for the children of Israel and Palestine, but children all around the world, including here in the United States, have also been impacted by this conflict. They're inundated with these images of destruction and despair. It's unavoidable, Christiane. And as parents, I get it. Most of us feel like we ourselves barely understand this conflict. I do it for a living and I barely understand it. And so, what I wanted to do was provide a text that would allow caregivers, parents to have the meaningful conversations necessary with their children that could give them context, a sense of understanding about where we are in this conflict. And most importantly, to counter some of the stereotypes and the prejudices that are just flooding them from all sides.

WATCH: MRC’s Dan Schneider Takes Blowtorch to Election-Interfering Big Tech Giants

MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider blew the lid off the gargantuan election interference that leftist Big Tech platforms have been engaging in for years. During the May 13 edition of The Unusual Suspects podcast, host Rob Garguilo asked Schneider which Big Tech companies are actively suppressing election-related speech. “Every single one of them,” replied Schneider. He added that the leftists in the C-Suites of these censorship-obsessed tech companies, “have the idea that anytime that we disagree with them, that that is disinformation or misinformation or mal-information and harmful to what they think is democracy so we have to be silenced.” Schneider concluded that the “biggest offender” was Google, which was shown through MRC Free Speech America research to have grossly interfered in US elections since 2008.  Schneider broke down some of the MRC’s past findings illustrating specifically how Google has manipulated the U.S. election process to serve its own left-wing political ends. “For about three months we ran about the same two sets of search queries [Republican presidential campaign websites and Democrat presidential campaign websites], and we ran them before each one of the Republican presidential campaign debates.” The results damningly showed that Google actively suppressed President Joe Biden’s political opponents, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But of course, as Schneider analyzed, this is just one of the many glaring examples of Google’s malfeasance. MRC Free Speech America counted no less than 41 times that Google has worked to ensure that its favored leftist candidates won their respective elections.  Schneider stressed that there are “very practical things” citizens could do to fight against Google’s bias. “If you have to use Google, don’t bother with the first page of search results. Go to the second or third page of search results, if you actually want a balanced view.” Schneider also suggested other search engine platforms like Tusk and DuckDuckGo as viable alternatives to the Google monopoly. Garguilo summarized MRC’s Big Tech research as “terrifying when you hear what’s going on with election interference.” He added that part of the problem is a lack of awareness of the issue. “We’ve traded freedoms for ease of convenience,” Garguilo said. “You know why people don’t use DuckDuckGo? It’s not as easy to use as Google. I never even knew Tusk existed. So I’m walking away knowing that now there is a different search engine.”   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 MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

BREAKING: Biden, Trump Agree to Presidential Debates in June on CNN, September on ABC

UPDATE, 11:58 a.m. Eastern: In addition to the CNN debate on June 27, former President Donald Trump and President Biden revealed on their respective social media accounts that they’ve both agreed to a second presidential debate for Tuesday, September 10 on ABC. The move was also confirmed by ABC News. In turn, this fulfills the two debates requested for June and September by the Biden campaign with moderators only to be selected from liberal media networks ABC, CBS, CNN, or Telemundo. As of this update, no word on whether Team Biden will agree to the Trump campaign’s request for two additional debates in July and August. The original post continues below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following a flurry of developments Wednesday morning that publicly began with the Biden campaign’s lengthy statement and cut-filled video of President Biden goating former President Donald Trump, the two sides agreed just before 11:00 a.m. Eastern to an audience-less presidential debate for Thursday, June 27 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern inside CNN’s newly-minted Atlanta, Georgia compound in Techwood. CNN’s invitation came curiously not long after the Biden regime’s essay-lengthy demands, most notably calls for debates in June and September with the vice presidential debate in July and that moderators could only come from ABC, CBS, CNN, or Telemundo. “CNN will host an election debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald J. Trump on June 27, 2024 at 9pm ET from the crucial battleground state of Georgia. The debate will be held in CNN’s Atlanta studios. To ensure candidates may maximize the time allotted in the debate, no audience will be present,” the network said in a press release. It added that, in an important tidbit for this website and readership, “[m]oderators for the debate and additional details will be announced at a later date.” Time to start taking bets. Fake News Jim? Jake Tapper? Anderson Cooper, who co-moderated one of the Trump-Hillary Clinton 2016 debates? Erin Burnett, who just conducted a softball interview with Biden? Late-night liberal hack Abby Phillip? Or do they run it back with Chris Wallace? While it then alluded to requiring candidates fulfilling all constitutional qualifications, sufficient appearances on state ballots, and polling benchmarks, this arrangement as a result of informal talks between the two campaigns would appear to have been done to cut out the Presidential Commission on Debates and thus exclude third-party candidates, including the high-polling independent bid by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. An on-air announcement came during Acosta’s hour of CNN Newsroom to coincide with a CNN Public Relations tweet. “Alright, more on the breaking news right now, Former President Donald Trump has accepted CNN’s invitation for debate with President Biden. That is setting up a June showdown...[T]his is going to happen very quickly if — if all a plays out the way it’s happening right now,” Acosta proclaimed to CNN’s resident Biden apple polisher, Arlette Saenz. Saenz then relayed what her side of the aisle wanted out of this debate, noting the lengthy Biden regime’s list of “very specific” demands “about what they want to see” such as “the microphones can only be on when each candidate is expected to speak, potentially eliminating some of that very intense back-and-forth that we saw in the very first debate between Biden and Trump back in 2020.” #BREAKING: CNN announces that both President Biden and Donald Trump have accepted their invitation for a presidential debate on Thursday, June 27 at CNN's Atlanta studios at 9:00 p.m. Eastern, no studio audience. pic.twitter.com/YIaBwSDqSr — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 15, 2024 Acosta and chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny then discussed more of the details, including how this will be a throwback to the first-ever presidential debate on TV in 1960 between future Presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon (click “expand”): ACOSTA: CNN will host and election debate between Biden and Trump on June 20, at. 9:00 p.m. in the Atlanta studios of CNN. Our new studios, not at the old building, but the new building. ZELENY: The historical Techwood studios. ACOSTA: The Techwoods campus and it says here, “to ensure candidates may maximize the time a lot in the debate, no audience will be present”. ZELENY: Right. ACOSTA: That’s interesting. ZELENY: And that is — it really takes us back, Jim, to those first televised debates in 1960, of course, in CBS news and Chicago. ACOSTA: Oh, yeah. ZELENY: On ___ street clerk shirt at WBBM as you well know. ACOSTA: My old stomping ground, yeah. ZELENY: And it’s certainly is designed, at least the Biden campaign is hoping, that it will focus on the issues, on the candidates, and the contrast port. And also that it’s an Atlanta. Obviously, Georgia is a central battleground in this election. It’s some — state that has really been the subject of so much conversation. Donald Trump claimed he won it. He did not win it, of course court cases, et cetera, but it is a key battleground as well. But this is a fast moving development and the point is, you can tell I didn’t k-mean has been working on this for awhile. ACOSTA: Oh yeah. ZELENY: And clearly, they’ve been preparing for the idea of a debate, but it could just happen weeks after the first criminal trial’s in. ACOSTA: That’s right. ZELENY: So, certainly the outcome of that will also be hanging over this debate. Minutes after this announcement, a Trump campaign memo was made public by campaign co-managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles arguing “there should be more than just two opportunities for the American people to hear more from the candidates themselves.” In turn, they announced they agree to not only the Biden campaign’s proposals for the September showdown and the vice presidential candidate sparring session, but two additional debates in July and August because “[w]e believe the American people deserve more than what the Biden administration has to offer.”

'When Does The Stoning Begin?': Colbert Bizarrely Attacks Johnson's Faith

Speaker Mike Johnson traveled to New York on Tuesday to support Donald Trump at his trial, which led CBS’s Stephen Colbert to accuse him of hypocrisy and launch a bizarre attack on his faith on The Late Show. Colbert began by putting up a photo of a chagrin-looking Johnson, “Trump got some moral support today from Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, seen here after accidentally thinking about the word ‘nipple.’" Amidst the guffaws from the liberal audience, Colbert added, “Just the word, not even the image, just the word ‘nipple.’ It's too titillating and don't get him started on the word titillating.”     Finally getting to his substantive point, Colbert continued by portraying the 52-year old Johnson as some sex-confused weirdo, “Johnson is a hyper-conservative Biblical literalist, but today, he took a day off from performative holiness to attend Trump's hush money trial. Now, I'm no fan of Johnson, but no one should be subjected to 30 years of sex education in one day.” Colbert also played a video of Johnson declaring, “I'm an attorney. I'm a former litigator myself. I am disgusted by what is happening here.” Afterwards, Colbert returned to add, ‘“I've heard things today that disgust me! Woman layeth with man outside holy wedlock? When does the stoning begin? I brought my lucky rock.’” Colbert is trying to paint Johnson as a hypocrite for citing the Bible as the basis for his political beliefs while supporting a candidate who allegedly paid hush money to cover up an affair with a porn actress, but that is not what Trump is on trial for and Colbert knows it. Besides, as a supposedly devout Catholic himself, Colbert also surely knows one can be a “hyper-conservative Biblical literalist” and opposed to stoning, but admitting these truths would ruin the joke, such as it is. Here is a transcript for the May 14 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/14/2024 11:42 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Trump got some moral support today from Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, seen here after accidentally thinking about the word "nipple."  Just the word, not even the image, just the word "nipple." It's too titillating and don't get him started on the word titillating. Johnson is a hyper-conservative Biblical literalist, but today, he took a day off from performative holiness to attend Trump's hush money trial. Now, I'm no fan of Johnson, but no one should be subjected to 30 years of sex education in one day.  That's like taking an Amish kid to Epcot. "Goodness, English. Mexico is beside France is beside space?"  Now, outside the courtroom, Johnson made it clear what he won't stand for this charade. MIKE JOHNSON: I'm an attorney. I'm a former litigator myself. I am disgusted by what is happening here. COLBERT: "I've heard things today that disgust me! Woman layeth with man outside holy wedlock? When does the stoning begin? I brought my lucky rock.” 

Fix Social Security With Ownership, Not More Government

The trustees for Social Security have just issued their annual report. And, as we have learned annually over recent years, the system cannot meet its obligations. According to this latest report, the Social Security system will not be able to meet its obligations to retirees by 2035. In 2035, the system will be adequate to meet just 83% of its obligations. This is supposedly good news because the projected shortfall occurs one year later than reported last year. But the change simply reflects the fact that the system is so massive -- it's the single largest government program, with annual expenditure of $1.2 trillion -- that small changes in assumptions in the planning model produce big changes in the projected results. Young people today start working and immediately have 6.2% of their paycheck deducted in payroll tax for Social Security, with their employer matching this with another 6.2% -- all paid into a system that is bankrupt. Our political leaders, to the extent they choose to speak about this issue, reiterate their commitment to “save the system.” But “saving the system” means just taking a bad situation and making it worse. Who wants to “save the system” by raising taxes, raising the retirement age or cutting benefits? Many still believe that Social Security is some kind of retirement investment program, but it's not. It is a government tax and spending program. Individuals are forced to pay the payroll tax. And those payroll taxes are used to pay retirement benefits for those currently retired. Even if you think this is a good idea, it no longer works. When the system began in the 1930s, there were over 40 working Americans per retiree. Today, because of longer life spans and declining birthrates, there are just a little over three working for each retiree. Worker's taxes soon won't be enough. I have been writing for years that the system should not and cannot be saved, and I make this same declaration now. It is quite reasonable for the government to insist that individuals take steps to secure their future in retirement. But it is not reasonable for government to step in and take away an individual freedom on how to take care of themselves. Individuals should be allowed to take ownership of the payroll tax they are forced to pay and use these funds to invest in their own personal retirement account. The benefits of giving individuals freedom to take ownership of their own earnings and invest are huge. For one thing, putting funds into the equity markets over a 45-year working life yields far higher returns than Social Security provides. In one study, done a number of years ago at the Cato Institute, they looked at a theoretical average-income couple that retired in 2009, one year after a huge crash in the stock market. Despite a 37% market decline in 2008, the cumulative returns they received since they started investing when they were 21 in 1965 yielded savings of $855,175. This is based on the actual market returns over those years, not theory. This is 75% more than what they would have gotten from Social Security, per the study. Lack of ownership in stocks greatly accounts for the huge difference in household wealth between Black households and white households. Whereas, per the Federal Reserve, 65.6% of white households own stocks, only 39.2% of Black households do. As a result, average household wealth in assets among white households is approximately $1.5 million compared to $297,000 among Black households. Plus, investing gives everyone “skin in the game” to limit government and keep our American system of capitalism alive and healthy. No move could do more to restoring economic vitality and individual freedom in our country than transforming our broken Social Security system into a nationwide personal investment program.

George Soros Fueled $80M Into Groups Calling for Big Tech Censorship in Lead-Up to 2024 Elections

A massive effort spearheaded by a censorship-obsessed group financed by leftist billionaire George Soros is looking to incorporate global pressure to push Big Tech platforms to juice their censorship operations before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Free Press, a Soros-funded media group that claimed responsibility for helping get former President Donald Trump banned from Twitter, is at the helm of a new push to restrict free speech online. “More Than 200 Groups Urge Leading Tech Platforms to Implement Election-Integrity Policies to Protect Democracy Worldwide,” Free Press blared in its Apr. 9 press release on a new co-signed letter by groups around the world.  In the letter, the anti-free speech groups raged at social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter (now X) and YouTube for reducing “interventions necessary to keep online platforms” allegedly “safe and healthy” and demanded “swift action” to protect so-called democracy. MRC research unveiled that at least 45 of the signatories have had their coffers packed with Soros cash to the tune of a whopping $80,757,329 between 2016 and 2022 alone.  The letter was distributed to top executives at Big Tech platforms at Discord, Google, Instagram, Meta, Pinterest, Reddit, Rumble, Snap, TikTok, Twitch, YouTube and X (formerly Twitter). The document attempted to justify that it was written with reducing “real-world harms” and “the rise of extremism and violent attempts to overthrow democratic governments” in mind. However, it appears that its true design is to pressure Big Tech companies to silence speech the left despises as 60 countries across the globe gear up for their elections in 2024. But even more disturbing was the letter’s implication that its primary target is interfering in the 2024 U.S. election. This development is directly in line with Soros’ brand, who has dedicated millions of his ungodly fortune to groups looking to interfere in elections by stifling online speech.  The first of six so-called “interventions” called for by the coalition involve investment “in greater platform integrity by reinstating election-integrity policies, inclusive of moderating content around the Big Lie,” which the Soros-funded co-signatory William J. Brennan Center for Justice defined as the idea that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. The letter also condescended how in “2020, Black people and other people of color, women, and non-English speakers were — and continue to be — disproportionately targeted with online election lies.” The statement linked out to an Associated Press article pertaining specifically to so-called 2020 election “disinformation” in the U.S. election and how 2024 will be allegedly “worse.”  Nora Benavidez, the senior counsel and director of Digital Justice and Civil Rights at Free Speech, railed in a statement, “‘The tech industry’s refusal to safeguard their platforms is already having a dangerous impact on democracies around the world.’” Her disingenuous pontificating ended in hyperbole: “‘Today, hundreds of civil-society groups are putting these companies on notice: Failure to uphold and enforce sound election-integrity policies and expand non-English staffing to monitor disinformation, political deepfakes and other harmful content will be catastrophic to free and fair elections worldwide.’”  The explicit push for speech controls is especially disturbing in light of the stated vision of one of Free Press’s founders. Leftist Free Press co-founder Robert W. McChesney once made a Marxist call to action in 2000 to “overhaul” the American press: “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.” He published his comments in the Monthly Review, a self-described “independent socialist magazine.” It appears Free Press is living up to its founder’s principles.  The signatory that received the most Soros funding in MRC’s tally was none other than the climate change-obsessed Global Witness, which is already on record pressuring Facebook and TikTok to increase censorship operations before the 2022 midterm elections. The Soros empire funded the group with a massive $20,338,270 between 2016 and 2022. The group’s “digital threats” campaign, for example, is specifically focused on pressuring governments to regulate speech on social media. “The Big Tech companies are not too big to be made to change, and change does not rely on significant numbers of us having to stop using the digital products these companies provide,” Global Witness claimed.   Another one of the more dangerous groups listed in the letter is the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), which received $3,149,863 from Soros between 2017 and 2022. The leftist group was recently exposed in a House Judiciary Committee investigation for co-authoring a “hate groups” blacklist with the Soros-funded Global Disinformation Index (GDI) targeting “conservative” and faith-based organizations. This list was later disseminated by law enforcement to several financial institutions. The discovery was part of a broader congressional investigation that uncovered federal law enforcement circulating documents to private financial institutions to jawbone them into giving up sensitive customer data. The customers caught up in the federal dragnet didn’t even necessarily have to be suspected of committing any crimes. ISD disturbingly lists the U.S. Department of State and Department of Homeland Security as funders. The fact that Free Press is at the tip of this Soros-tied spear should concern every American. Free Press’s obsession with censorship and gaining control of the Internet cannot be overstated. This is the same group that boasted how it was “involved in direct talks that pressured Google and Amazon to boot the dangerous” pro-free speech platform Parler from their platforms because of so-called “election lies.”  Free Press’s 2015 annual report celebrated how it was also responsible for influencing the Obama-era FCC into adopting draconian “Net Neutrality” rules that arbitrarily sanctioned massive government regulation of the Internet. Free Press praised how the FCC reportedly cited the Soros-funded organization “close to 70 times” in its final order on the matter. The adopted FCC rules empowered government officials to review, approve or reject Internet service provider rates. What they actually did, according to the Cato Institute, was guarantee “ISPs government enforced market protection and profitability, in exchange for regulators ensuring that ISPs won’t be too profitable.” In other words, the FCC rules proposed by former President Barack Obama and Free Press in 2015 sought to regulate the Internet as a public utility. Then-FCC commissioner Ajit Pai stated that the move gave the agency “broad and unprecedented discretion to micromanage the Internet,” in a 2015 press release on the proposed rules. Americans beware. The Soros network is coming after your free speech just in time for the U.S. elections — again. 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 MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

Column: Hillary Clinton’s Conspiracy Privilege

It’s hard to watch the incessant gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Donald Trump trial in Manhattan without feeling like you’re traveling in a time warp back to 2016. We’re back reliving the “Access Hollywood” tape and talk of how Trump would have never been elected except porn star Stormy Daniels accepted a six-figure check to keep quiet. The richest vein of hypocrisy on this adultery-mangles-electability question flows through the Clintons. Hillary Clinton appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" to denounce Trump for squashing the bimbo stories. It was typically shameless. She said: “I think the defendant, the former president, knew exactly what he was doing when he went to such great lengths to try to squash, bury, kill stories, pay off people, because he understood the electoral significance of them.” The cast of “Morning Joe” treated Hillary Clinton as a therapist for their Trump angst, and no one interrupted and asked about all the squashing, burying, and killing of stories that Hillary Clinton engaged in when they first sought the White House in 1992. On the cusp of the Gennifer Flowers allegations breaking in January of that year, Hillary Clinton was telling Margaret Carlson of Time magazine “My marriage is solid, full of love and friendship, but it’s too profound to talk about glibly.” But after Flowers asserted she had a 12-year affair with Bill Clinton, they appeared on “60 Minutes,” and Hillary Clinton claimed women being questioned about their relationship with Bill were her friends. “We reached out to them. I met with two of them to reassure them they knew they were friends of ours. I felt terrible about what was happening to them.” In retrospect, one can smell what Hillary was cooking. She was pressuring potential accusers to stay quiet, but pitching it on national TV as just chatting things over with friends. One can only imagine how Melania Trump processed the Stormy Daniels tale, but paying a non-disclosure agreement isn't exactly maintaining your innocence. That's why the Democratic prosecutors in New York are pumping this out on CNN and MSNBC, hour on the hour. The Left thinks those religious conservatives are bothered by this, and it should cause them to vote for someone else, preferably that "devout Catholic" Joe Biden. But Hillary has always waged war on anyone who would seek to damage her and Bill's future in politics, and the media have always gushed over her warfare. At the end of the Year of Our Intern in 1998, Time magazine was aglow. Reporters Nancy Gibbs and Karen Tumulty oozed that "as she pursued the private rescue of a marriage and the public rescue of a presidency, she was the one person who seemed to see the larger story and shaped its telling." The "larger story" was the "vast right-wing conspiracy." In this election cycle, Democratic prosecutors lobbed 91 felony charges at Trump, and the networks largely refuse to even describe them as Democrats, let alone a vast left-wing conspiracy. Time managing editor Walter Isaacson even wrote that they wanted to name her "Person of the Year" in 1998 for her, um, "dignity." That's how they describe Hillary lying for months that Bill didn't have sexual relations with That Woman. "Her strength and her almost surreal ability to assert her dignity were remarkable to some and mystifying to others." This kind of copy is why most Americans don't trust the "mainstream media." They don't report stories as much as they "shape" them for the benefit of their political allies.

We Regret To Inform You All That CNN Is Still Performing Dramatic Readings Of Trump Trial Transcripts

Generally speaking, CNN’s coverage of the so-called Trump “hush money” trial has taken such an onanistic turn that reasonable people may question whether Jeffrey Toobin is now in charge of the once-revered Cable News Network. The most ridiculous iteration of this coverage? Dramatic readings of the trial transcripts. Watch as yet another night of dramatic readings kicks off tonight’s episode of CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip, as aired on CNN on Tuesday, May 14th, 2024: ELLIOT WILLIAMS (AS TODD BLANCHE): You referred to President Trump as a “Dictator Douche Bag”, didn't you?  MARCUS CHILDRESS (AS MICHAEL COHEN): Sounds like something I said. WILLIAMS: And on that same TikTok, so again on April 23rd, you referred to President Trump when he left the courtroom, you said that he goes right into that little cage, which is where he belongs in an effing cage like an animal. Do you recall saying that?  CHILDRESS: I recall saying that. LAURA COATES: Mmm. That’s a dramatic reading, Abby. ABBY PHILLIP: Yeah. I mean, that's kinda how it went down, intonation and all, Marcus. Thank you for that. Also with us…  COATES: No New York accent, though!  PHILLIP: No New York accent, but… COATES: Where are the New York accents? What are you doin’?! WILLIAMS: You guys know I can’t do that. COATES: All right. ALL: (laughter) I can’t imagine the trajectory that leads these guys to law school, build careers, serve respectively in the Obama administration and on the House January 6th Committee, only to be brought on CNN and be made to read “Dictator Douche Bag” as well as Michael Cohen’s hangdog responses, and then be berated by Laura Coates for insufficiently performing these dopey readings in a comedic Noo Yawk accent. Nor can I imagine the galaxy-brain calculations that result in performing this schtick now for a second night in a row, thinking this is good television. Or journalism. But here we are. Were it not for the fact that this trial is the fruit of an ongoing effort to weaponize state and federal government against the leading opposition presidential candidate, it would almost seem wholly appropriate to cover this joke of a trial and underlying charges in a comedic manner.  There are many words that come to mind with which to describe the nonsense running on CNN air (or MSNBC’s, for that matter), but journalism is not one such word. CNN’s creepy, cheerleady coverage of this trial is the furthest thing from journalism, and embodies the worst excesses of Regime Media.  

Network PM Newscasts AVOID NYC Mayor Adams’ Racist ‘Swimmers’ Remarks

The evening network newscasts leave us, once again, to imagine what coverage might have been had a Republican elected official attested to migrants making great lifeguards due to their being “excellent swimmers”, as did New York Mayor Eric Adams. The wild stereotyping and casual racism are all there for the taking but the networks took a pass, leaving reasonable individuals to conclude that there’s a (D)ifference in how such stories are covered. Beyond the conservative media ecosystem, only NBC News Now has dared to cover the story. Here’s how Tom Llamas opened his report on his eponymous show:   TOM LLAMAS: Back here in New York City, Mayor Eric Adams sparking controversy over remarks he made about migrants, appearing to suggest they could fill the city's lifeguard shortage because they are, quote, “excellent swimmers”. Take a listen. ERIC ADAMS: If we had a migrant and asylum seeker plan that states those jobs that we are in high demand, we could expedite. How do we have a large body of people in our city and country that are excellent swimmers and at the same time, we need lifeguards? And the only obstacle is that won’t give them the right to work to become a lifeguard? That just doesn't make sense. LLAMAS: That quote really doesn't make sense. Adams’ administration has faced criticism over its handling of the estimated 180,000 migrants who have arrived in the city since 2022, many of them ending up in the city’s already overwhelmed shelter system. Llamas would go on to interview a local migrant advocate who blasted Adams for his dual discourse when it comes to migrants, and for his view that the migrant crisis will destroy New York City. Llamas continued to blast Adams for his remarks, and questioned whether his factual basis for calling migrants “excellent swimmers” is the notion that they swam across the Rio Grande, or perhaps the Florida Strait- lamenting the lack of outrage over Adams’ remarks in a “progressive” city. WATCH as Tom @LlamasNBC RIPS Mayor Adams over wildly racist "excellent swimmers" remark, decries lack of outrage in "progressive" NYC. No nightly network newscast covered this story- not ABCWNT, CBSEN, or NBCNN. There's clearly a (D)ifference in coverage versus if a GOP said it. pic.twitter.com/4HXjUpYDsn — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 15, 2024 TOM LLAMAS: But I also want to talk about just sort of painting with a very broad brush that the migrants in New York are all great swimmers. Where would he get that from, unless it had something to do with crossing the Rio Grande, or because some of them may come from places like Cuba or Haiti, or another island? Regardless, it's incredibly racist and I am shocked and really upset that there hasn't been more sort of outrage in this city. A city that claims to be progressive, a city that claims to protect people from all nationalities and no one really cares about this. It’s true, and the record will reflect that included within the “no one” that cares about Adams’ remarks: his own colleagues across the dial and including at his own network. None of the evening network newscasts reported on this story.  And how could they, when reporting on the casual racism of the Mayor of New York would have surely forced them to cut their gushing stories on Caitlin Clark and the highly anticipated start of the WNBA season? Shockingly, neither did “Latino advocate” networks Univision or Telemundo. This is a stark departure from their normal custom, which is to dedicate three minutes of A-block to the occasional TikTok of a random Karen screaming “speak English” to illegals at some indeterminate local retail establishment. It goes without saying that had a prominent Republican said anything close to what Adams said, there would be a multi-day cycle and some enterprising White House correspondent would’ve already gotten President Joe Biden to mumble “something, something, Cesar Chávez.”  But Tom Llamas learned the hard way, and on a personal issue, what we’ve already known: that there is a (D)ifference as to how these stories are covered. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as streamed on NBC News Now’s Top Story With Tom Llamas, on Tuesday, May 14th, 2024:   TOM LLAMAS: Back here in New York City, Mayor Eric Adams sparking controversy over remarks he made about migrants, appearing to suggest they could fill the city's lifeguard shortage because they are, quote, “excellent swimmers”. Take a listen. ERIC ADAMS: If we had a migrant and asylum seeker plan that states those jobs that we are in high demand, we could expedite. How do we have a large body of people in our city and country that are excellent swimmers and at the same time, we need lifeguards? And the only obstacle is that won’t give them the right to work to become a lifeguard? That just doesn't make sense. LLAMAS: That quote really doesn't make sense. Adams’ administration has faced criticism over its handling of the estimated 180,000 migrants who have arrived in the city since 2022, many of them ending up in the city’s already overwhelmed shelter system. For more on Adams’ remarks, the state of the migrant crisis in New York City, I'm joined now by Power Malu, he is the executive director of Artists, Athletes, and Activists, it’s a grassroots organization that connects migrants here in the city with key services including shelter, food, medical care and legal support. Power, I want to thank you for joining me. I want to start with the mayor's comments there. I know how I interpreted that- those comments, how did you interpret them? POWER MALU: Once again, we have an administration that’s deflecting attention off of their incompetency and mismanagement, and pointing the finger at the migrants. At any given press conference, you’ll have this administration blame the migrants for the financial woes of the city and in the same breath, they’ll praise and say the migrants should be allowed to work because they can help us. LLAMAS: Yeah, I get that, but I also want to talk about just sort of painting with a very broad brush that the migrants in New York are all great swimmers. Where would he get that from, unless it had something to do with crossing the Rio Grande, or because some of them may come from places like Cuba or Haiti, or another island? Regardless, it's incredibly racist and I am shocked and really upset that there hasn't been more sort of outrage in this city. A city that claims to be progressive, a city that claims to protect people from all nationalities and no one really cares about this. MALU: Yeah, we have an administration that is constantly doing things like this and it gets brushed under the rug. Also, this mayor says that people attack him because he is black or African-American. So what we are having here is just excuse after excuse as to why you’re not dealing with the migrant crisis. And I want to say is that there are plenty of grassroots organizations that have been supporting since Day One, and this administration has constantly said that there is no resources, but they are abundant. There’s abundance of resources. LLAMAS: Do you think a mayor who could make a comment like that has an understanding of who these people are and where they come from? ‘Cause they really come from all over the world. MALU: Absolutely. This is stereotypes. This is, you know, a mayor that is not in touch with what's going on. We’ve been on the ground since Day One. There are people that cross from Africa, from Afghanistan, from Latin America, they are from all over the world. So to just say that people that are here are great swimmers, it's a poor comment.  LLAMAS: Do you think it was literally connected to them crossing the Rio Grande? Do you think that’s where the logic came- I don't even know where the logic comes from. MALU: So you’re talking about a mayor who said that these migrants are the issue that’s going to crush New York City. That's what he said at another townhall meeting. So you can't listen to the things that he says because this administration are spin masters. They always try to find a way to deflect attention. Where do you get migrants are great swimmers and they are going to save the situation with the pools and the beaches? You should've been thinking about this a year ago when that problem existed. Yes, of course they are skilled when they come here and they are looking for work and they deserve work but it doesn't happen by osmosis. Our organization has been helping them file for work authorization and asylum and they can't even get their mail because they're constantly being moved from shelter to shelter. Let's deal with the root of the problem. LLAMAS: All right, Power Malu. I also want to say that we’ve- we reached out for comment to the City of New York and to Mayor Adams, I think we’re still waiting on that comment. But anyways, Power, we appreciate you.  

See You In Court! New ‘Victory’ for AG Paxton’s Free Speech Lawsuit

A federal judge secured an “important victory” and denied the Biden censorship regime’s attempts to quash a free speech lawsuit. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, The Daily Wire and The Federalist are jointly suing the State Department for weaponizing foreign counter-propaganda efforts to censor Americans. The Biden administration filed a motion to dismiss the case or move it to a likely more sympathetic Washington, D.C. court. But U.S. District Judge for Texas’s Eastern District Jeremy Kernodle denied the request. He also granted the plaintiffs’ request for an “expedited discovery” as they seek to “to determine the full scope” of the Biden administration’s nefarious actions. The lawsuit centers on the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which funded censorship projects like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) and NewsGuard. Both projects blacklist media outlets–particularly right-leaning media–and use those blacklists to discourage potential advertisers from working with them. Similar: Not So Fast: Biden Signs NDAA Calling Out NewsGuard … Then Issues Disclaimer  Margot Cleveland, an attorney for the New Civil Liberties Alliance who is litigating the suit, noted in a statement just how nefarious the government’s actions truly are. “The State Department and its Global Engagement Center lost sight of the Constitution’s foundational principles, executing a secretive censorship scheme that funded, tested, and promoted technologies that demonetize American media outlets and silence the speech of ordinary Americans,” she said. Paxton also tore into the State Department for its “reprehensible attempt to censor the American press with funding intended to monitor foreign propaganda, aiming to repress viewpoints the federal government disagreed with.” He added that “[a]busing taxpayer money, Biden repurposed a government agency into a censorship apparatus. It must stop, and I am proud to lead the Nation’s fight to save the First Amendment.”  Both GDI and Newsguard have actively worked to dry up ad revenue streams for media plaintiffs The Daily Wire and The Federalist.  GDI listed both The Daily Wire and The Federalist in its list of the “riskiest sites” for advertisers to show their products on in an October 2022 report. NewsGuard has similarly worked to discredit the two media sites. The ratings firm gave The Daily Wire a rating of 49.5 out of 100, indicating that users and advertisers should “proceed with caution.” NewsGuard similarly gave The Federalist one of its lowest ratings coming in with a 12.5 out of 100 and a warning to “proceed with maximum caution.” This comes after the plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction to halt GEC’s funding of NewsGuard and GDI during the course of the ongoing court proceedings. Late last year, MRC Free Speech America and the Free Speech Alliance also called for the two groups to be defunded through the National Defense Authorization Act. Related: MRC, Pro-Free Speech Allies Call on Congress to Block NewsGuard Funding in NDAA MRC Free Speech America Contributor Christian Baldwin contributed to this report. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand government agencies and 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.

‘Shocked’: TV Host Blasts TikTok, Instagram for Blocking Pro-Israel Content

A NewsNation host slammed communist Chinese government-tied TikTok and Meta-owned Instagram for censoring content on one of the most hotly debated topics online. On May 3, NewsNation founder and host Dan Abrams declared himself “shocked” by censorship of his pro-Israel content on two popular social media platforms. These are just the latest cases of bias and censorship related to the Hamas-Israel conflict. Dan Abrams discussed the censorship of his content with his father Floyd Abrams during the Dan Abrams Live show. The NewsNation host played a clip of him challenging a pro-Palestinian professor on why anti-Israel protesters “call for a Hamas ceasefire proposal, if ceasefire was their true goal.” According to the host, this content was censored on Instagram for allegedly promoting a dangerous organization.  Dan Abrams also touched on TikTok’s ties to the communist Chinese government and compared the differing standards he said the app used in censoring content challenging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu versus the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.  “I mean, look, on TikTok, I guess I wasn’t as surprised, that they are, it’s owned by China, right? ... The content that they censored from me was when I was questioning the numbers from the Gaza Health Ministry, and I had an expert on who was saying that the numbers can’t make sense,” the NewsNation host said. “They wouldn’t let me share that. But then, when I asked tough questions of Netanyahu’s spokesperson, oh, that was fine to distribute.” Dan Abrams’s father appeared to agree. “It is really unforgivable for an entity that relies on free speech, that purports to defend free speech, to engage in that sort of content-centric, ‘you have to be on our side’ censorship,” the lawyer slammed TikTok.  TikTok is owned by Chinese ByteDance. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. Previously, actor Nate Buzolic also accusedInstagram and TikTok of censoring his pro-Israel, anti-Hamas content. TikTok even openly bragged about removing over 500,000 pieces of content relative to the ongoing Hamas-Israel conflict. 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 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.

De Niro Goes on Profanity-Laced Tirade, Claims Trump Is 'Already' Hitler/Mussolini

Between co-host Sunny Hostin saying there were too many white people in Trump’s courtroom and George Stephanopoulos praising the Deep State, the Tuesday edition of ABC’s The View was already stacked with outrageous moments before Trump-hater and actor, Robert De Niro took the stage late in the show. The bitter aging actor went on an unhinged and profanity-filled tirade against the former President and asserted that he was “already” like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. “I don't understand why people are not taking him seriously [as a threat],” De Niro decried, “because you read about it historically in other countries that they didn't take the people seriously. Think of Hitler and Mussolini. They were fools and clowns. Well -- and I hear -- some people -- I mean, who does not think that this guy is going to do exactly what he says he's going to do? He's done it already.” De Niro predicted that, if Trump got elected again, at some point he and other people against Trump would be able to say, “We told you so.” He then lashed out at Trump’s supporters with a deluge of profanity that caused executive producer Brian Teta to mute the entire show, not just De Niro: DE NIRO: It's going to happen. If he gets elected it's going to change this country for everybody and they might think that it's going to make their life better or just want, excuse my French [Show mutes as De Niro curses] [Cheers and applause] Literally. Those people who support him with anger and hate because that's what he's about, they're going to see. I mean, I used to see these things -- I didn't understand how he and Rosie O’Donnell used to get – I didn’t really care. I see what a hateful, mean-spirited awful thing he is.     Wallowing in hypocrisy, De Niro argued that he wanted to punch Trump in the face because Trump once said he wanted to punch a person who was disrupting one of his rallies during the 2016 election: And why will he not do that in this country? He's already done it. Why would he not -- when I say I want to punch him in the face, it’s cause what he said to a person, a bystander, or somebody in one of his rallies, he wants to punch him in the face. You don't talk that way to people. “What kind of person does that?” De Niro asked. Well, Robert, you do. What does that say about you? De Niro would go on a much longer profanity-filled tirade, causing the show’s audio to break in and out multiple times: DE NIRO: He's done everything. What more do you need? It's almost like he wants to do the worst that he could possibly do to show this country [Show mutes as De Niro curses] His Slau [Show mutes as De Niro curses] I [Show mutes as De Niro curses] [Cheers and applause] As they were nearing the end of the segment, moderator Whoopi Goldberg chimed in to claim – without evidence – that Trump planned to take over the country and not relinquish power until he died. “Listen, he's not going to not stop being president! You understand this?! His idea is to stay in until he drops dead!” she screeched. “That's it! He's not even conceding it now so imagine if he actually did win the election. It's over!” De Niro agreed. “We're going to have such civil strife. All the things he says because everybody is now on to him where he projects what he's saying. It's what he wants, what he envisions the world to be, which is chaos and craziness, total craziness.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 14, 2024 11:50:55 a.m. Eastern (…) ROBERT DE NIRO: I don't understand why people are not taking him seriously, because you read about it historically in other countries that they didn't take the people seriously. Think of Hitler and Mussolini. They were fools and clowns. Well -- and I hear -- some people -- I mean, who does not think that this guy is going to do exactly what he says he's going to do? SUNNY HOSTIN: Right. DE NIRO: He's done it already. JOY BEHAR: Worse. [Applause] DE NIRO: And then what? We're going to sit around and say, “What? We told you so” or whoever, “I told you so?” It's going to happen. If he gets elected it's going to change this country for everybody and they might think that it's going to make their life better or just want, excuse my French [Show mutes as De Niro curses] [Cheers and applause] Literally. Those people who support him with anger and hate because that's what he's about, they're going to see. I mean, I used to see these things -- I didn't understand how he and Rosie O’Donnell used to get – I didn’t really care. I see what a hateful, mean-spirited awful thing he is. BEHAR: He was vicious to her. DE NIRO: He's vicious. BEHAR: Vicious. DE NIRO: And why will he not do that in this country? He's already done it. Why would he not -- when I say I want to punch him in the face, it’s cause what he said to a person, a bystander or somebody in one of his rallies, he wants to punch him in the face. You don't talk that way to people. What kind of person does that? [Applause] BEHAR: Makes fun of the physically challenged. He makes fun of people who have physical challenges. DE NIRO: He's done that too. He's done everything. BEHAR: Trashes the military. He says people who go to war are losers. Wake up! DE NIRO: He's done everything. What more do you need? It's almost like he wants to do the worst that he could possibly do to show this country [Show mutes as De Niro curses] His Slau [Show mutes as De Niro curses] I [Show mutes as De Niro curses] [Cheers and applause] WHOOPI GOLDBERG: And the other thing is if he becomes president again, he is never -- listen, he's not going to not stop being president! You understand this?! His idea is to stay in until he drops dead! DE NIRO: That's it. He's not even conceding it now so imagine if he actually did win the election. It's over. We're going to have such civil strife. All the things he says because everybody is now on to him where he projects what he's saying. It's what he wants, what he envisions the world to be, which is chaos and craziness, total craziness. GOLDBERG: But what isn't crazy is the fact that we love when you come here. (…)

Go Figure: Liberal Media Lie Their Pants Off on Katie Britt’s Pro-Life Proposal

Last Thursday, Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) teamed up with fellow Republican Senators Kevin Cramer (ND) and Marco Rubio (FL) to unveil the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) Act aimed at giving pregnant women a federally-backed “clearinghouse” of resources — called Pregnancy.gov — for “expecting and postpartum moms, as well as those with young children,” and create grants for caregiving organizations helping women enter the world of parenting. Along with expanding child support to include a woman’s pregnancy, a press release from the senators said the MOMS Act would “provide critical support to women during typically challenging phases of motherhood – prenatal, postpartum, and early childhood development – and bolster access to resources and assistance to help mothers and their children thrive.” Not surprisingly, the far-left, abortion-loving liberal media have decided to be as focused on defeating this pro-life bill with misinformation as they were about pushing women to murder their unborn children. In story after story, the liberal media have claimed the bill would create a database of women currently pregnant for the federal government - in some liberal dystopia/twisted fantasy - to surveil women to prevent abortions. The problem? It’s all voluntary and shy from divulging one’s location. The Guardian went full send with a headline beyond parody: “Katie Britt proposes federal database to collect data on pregnant people; Republican US senator from Alabama best known for delivering widely ridiculed State of the Union speech in March”. Writer Léonie Chao-Fong doubled down with a disregard for biology, claiming without evidence the bill “create[s] a federal database to collect data on pregnant people” by having them “enter their personal data and contact information.” Chao-Fong also whined: “[t]he bill specifically forbids any entity that ‘performs, induces, refers for, or counsels in favor of abortions’ from being listed in the database, which would in effect eliminate swaths of OB-GYN services and sexual health clinics across the country.” Yes, Léonie, the point is to give women facing sudden pregnancies options beyond abortion. NBCNews.com and longtime Rachel Maddow producer Steve Benen piled on in a story whining about the bill giving federal funds to pro-life pregnancy crisis centers and pedaled the lie about HHS becoming a surveillance agency (click “expand”): This is, to be sure, standard GOP fare. Republican officials tend to be uncomfortable with the idea that the party’s sole focus in this area is imposing abortion restrictions, and the MOMS Act appears designed to package familiar GOP measures on the issue. The fact that these senators intend to extend grants to so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” is part of the conservative agenda, and a reminder of why the legislation doesn’t have — and won’t have — any Democratic support in the chamber. But a HuffPost report noted that the Pregnancy.gov provisions in the bill are drawing additional scrutiny because they allegedly raise the prospect of “a federal database storing information on pregnant people.” It was against this backdrop that Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington joined with 10 other Senate Democratic women to denounce Britt’s bill, saying it would, among other things, “create a new government-run website to collect data on pregnant women and direct them to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.” To be sure, Britt’s office has thoroughly rejected the idea that the legislation is designed to create some kind of “registry,” but the press release from the 11 Senate Democratic women added that under the Pregnancy.gov plan, the website would “encourage users to provide their contact information, ‘which the Secretary may use to conduct outreach via phone or email to follow up with users’ — meaning that pregnant women would be encouraged to provide data to a potential Trump administration and potentially allow a government bureaucrat to follow up with them about the status of their pregnancy.” The tools at HuffPost did the same in a piece with the headline “Critics Rip Sen. Katie Britt For Celebrating Moms With ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Like Proposal” and hilariously then referred to women as “pregnant people”. Yahoo! News promptly cross-posted this under the same headline. Salon and Raw Story weren’t going to be left out either. Cue the laugh tracks for the latter’s headline: “Katie Britt shredded for ‘Handmaid’s Tale’-type proposal to ‘register’ pregnant women”. At Salon, they melted down at women even being told groups that support women and babies exit: “The bill also outlines the creation of a database of ‘pregnancy support centers,’ or crisis centers, which critics say provide women with misleading information in an effort to keep them from having abortions.” Someone call GLAAD on HuffPost, NBC, Raw Story, and the like for using the term “pregnant women!” Now, for the facts. Here was a piece from the (now digital-only) Alabama newspaper conglomerate AL.com: Britt spokesman Sean Ross said users are not required to register or log in to the site to search for resources. The website will not ask for the user’s pregnancy status or for personally identifiable information. “These social media posts are intentionally, flagrantly false,” Ross said. Website users could voluntarily enter their contact information if they wanted personal follow up from a staff member at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Those services would also be available to friends and family members who are not pregnant if an individual was worried about sharing her information with the website. The website would invite users to take an assessment and provide consent to be contacted. The website would not require people to take the assessment to receive more information about local resources, Ross said. “Through the website, anyone can view the relevant resources in a given locale without disclosing any personally identifiable information to the government,” Ross said. The headline, however, only met Britt halfway with a scoffing headline: “Claims that bill would create registry of pregnant women ‘flagrantly false,’ says staff for Alabama Sen. Katie Britt.”

The Biden Lies the Liberal Media Want You to Forget

As the 2024 election approaches, the left-wing corporate media have lost all interest in President Biden’s frequent lies about his life and career. In the past, these journalists have paid brief attention to the one of President’s latest tall tales, but rarely have they ever bothered to revisit them when the moment has passed. No matter how frequently Biden may lie, the media refuse to see a pattern. As NewsBusters executive editor Tim Graham has noted, prominent Biden fact-checkers spend a great deal of time disputing negative claims about Biden, yet they show little interest in fact-checking the man himself. Thanks to this favoritism, the President has gotten away with telling a host of utterly false or unproven stories about his own life. Some of these stories are less than a month old, while others have popped up multiple times throughout Biden’s decades-long political career. See for yourself how many of these fibs the media would prefer we all conveniently forget:  

‘Packed With Patriots’: George Stephanopoulos Praises ‘the Deep State’

Appearing on Tuesday’s edition of The View to hawk his new book The Situation Room: The Inside Story of Presidents in Crisis, ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos not only admitted to the existence of the Deep State, but he also praised them as “packed with patriots.” He went on to push a conspiracy theory against President Ronald Reagan which was debunked long ago by a congressional commission. The former lackey to President Bill Clinton was teed up to praise the Deep State by faux-conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin. She gushed about how the Deep State were the ones who make the history of America: “My favorite thing is that you interviewed Situation Room staff. I’ve always said that it's White House staff whose names you'll never know that are the writers of history. They’ll tell us so many details.” Stephanopoulos went on to lionize the unelected, busybody bureaucrats who often injected themselves into matters of the nation to influence and control what happened in the country: You know, that was my favorite part about doing the book. I interviewed about a hundred duty officers from the White House – and these are people that come – relatively young people who come from all over the government: the CIA, the DIA, Defense Department, military. And, you know, some people like to call those people the Deep State. He went on to declare “that the Deep State is packed with patriots” who supposedly “don't care about political parties” and were only “there to serve the presidency and institution” and not a particular president.     Quoting one member of the Deep State he spoke to, Stephanopoulos claimed they “serve in silence.” Meanwhile, he put a name to the quote: Mike Seelie. So much for being silent. In the second block of the interview, Stephanopoulos and moderator Whoopi Goldberg pushed a conspiracy theory against Reagan he tried to revive in his book. Falsely claiming “there’s no question about it,” Stephanopoulos asserted – without evidence – that Reagan had worked with Iranian extremists to prolong the Iranian Hostage Crisis to help him win the election against President Jimmy Carter: The Iranians decided to hold the hostages until after -- they waited until the moment that Ronald Reagan took the oath of office. You know, one of the things we also learned in the last year was there have always been questions about whether or not somehow the Reagan campaign had tried to influence the Iranians to hold; and the congressional commission said no, but last year it did turn out that John Connelly had gone to the Middle East and had meetings about it that at least suggested that something might have happened. Even Stephanopoulos admitted that a congressional commission debunked what he was peddling; and yet, the ABC “journalist” was still pushing the lies anyway so that he could sell his book and make money. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 14, 2024 11:19:58 a.m. Eastern (…) ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I also love – The book is so good! My favorite thing is that you interviewed Situation Room staff. I’ve always said that it's White House staff whose names you'll never know that are the writers of history. They’ll tell us so many details. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, that was my favorite part about doing the book. I interviewed about a hundred duty officers from the White House – and these are people that come – relatively young people who come from all over the government: the CIA, the DIA, Defense Department, military. And, you know, some people like to call those people the Deep State. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: The Deep State. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the big thing I learned doing this book is that the Deep State is packed with patriots. FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes. STEPHANOPOULOS: People who go to work every single day on the front lines of the most intense crises the country faces and go it to serve their country and serve the presidency, not the president. They don't care about political parties. They're there to serve the presidency and institution. SUNNY HOSTIN: And they're doing it anonymously. FARAH GRIFFIN: Exactly. STEPHANOPOULOS: Absolutely. As one of them told me, Mike Seelie said, “we serve in silence.” (…) 11:28:42 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: George, one of the things that I learned in the book was that Jimmy Carter initially thought that, you know, he was going and he had nothing to do with bringing the folks home, but in your book -- STEPHANOPOULOS: The hostage crisis. GOLDBERG: You talk about the fact that he did find out the hostage crisis maybe went on a little longer to -- for him to get out of office so Reagan could take the—the – the glory. STEPHANOPOULOS: There’s no question about it. The Iranians decided to hold the hostages until after -- they waited until the moment that Ronald Reagan took the oath of office. You know, one of the things we also learned in the last year was there have always been questions about whether or not somehow the Reagan campaign had tried to influence the Iranians to hold; and the congressional commission said no, but last year it did turn out that John Connelly had gone to the Middle East and had meetings about it that at least suggested that something might have happened. (…)

CNN Doc Claims There's No Evidence Transgender Athletes Have Advantage

CNN aired a special documentary entitled The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper: The Battle Over Transgender Athletes on Sunday that purported to be a nuanced look at the issue of transgenderism’s relationship with women’s sports. However, the program clearly had a preferred side, as it claimed there’s no evidence that men who think they are women have an athletic advantage despite showing examples of people climbing the leaderboard and setting records after their transition. Despite his name being on the title, Cooper barely appeared during the show, instead, the documentary bounced around to various subjects who each said their own piece. In one clip, former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines was denouncing the movement in a speech, “A lot of world leaders, the message that they're sending is that we as women don't matter. Our safety doesn't matter. Privacy: forget it.”     Now, speaking directly to the camera, Gaines added, “When you have males who have gone through male puberty, it takes away that fairness. We can't neglect fairness and safety in hopes to be inclusive.” CNN then put up text on the screen for viewers to read, “Research on whether transgender athletes have an advantage is limited. A 2017 Sports Medicine study concluded there is ‘no direct or consistent research’ showing that transgender people have an athletic advantage.” But, we have real-world evidence. One of the sob stories CNN chose to highlight was that of Meghan Cortez-Fields, who, elsewhere in the documentary, claimed to be aware that he was really a she at age five. Cortez-Fields recalled switching from the men’s swim team to the women’s, “Once I'm in that race, it's just I got to go. My mom would be proud of me. So no matter what, I will always try my hardest. I'm just afraid for the reception that I will get if I try my hardest in six feet. And I was afraid that if I was able to win, all of my success would be discredited because I was trans.” Again, CNN put up some graphics, “In February 2024, Meghan broke two school records and placed 2nd in the 100-yard butterfly at a championship meet, the last of her career.” It then played a clip of Fox’s Gillian Turner and John Roberts with the former reporting, “After transferring from the men's team over to the women's, Meghan Cortez-Fields smashed Ramapo College's 100-yard butterfly record.” Roberts added, “Like Lia Thomas, gets into the women's category and starts blowing records away.” There are other examples as well, but CNN insists there is no evidence. Perhaps, Sports Medicine should update their study. Here is a transcript for the May 12 show: CNN The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper: The Battle Over Transgender Athletes 5/12/2024 8:34 PM ET RILEY GAINES: A lot of world leaders, the message that they're sending is that we as women don't matter. Our safety doesn't matter. Privacy: forget it. When you have males who have gone through male puberty, it takes away that fairness. We can't neglect fairness and safety in hopes to be inclusive. GRAPHICS: Research on whether transgender athletes have an advantage is limited. A 2017 Sports Medicine study concluded there is "no direct or consistent research" showing that transgender people have an athletic advantage. … MEGHAN CORTEZ-FIELDS: Once I'm in that race, it's just I got to go. My mom would be proud of me. So no matter what, I will always try my hardest. I'm just afraid for the reception that I will get if I try my hardest in six feet. And I was afraid that if I was able to win, all of my success would be discredited because I was trans. GRAPHICS: In February 2024, Meghan broke two school records and placed 2nd in the 100-yard butterfly at a championship meet, the last of her career. GILLIAN TURNER: After transferring from the men's team over to the women's Meghan Cortez-Fields, smashed Ramapo College's 100-yard butterfly record. JOHN ROBERTS: Like Lia Thomas, gets into the women's category and starts blowing records away. IRENEBRITUSA [YOUTUBE PERSONALITY]: And the woman who came second has to just accept it. CORTEZ-FIELDS: Something has definitely become a battleground for this disagreement.

Race-Obsessed Hostin: Too Many White People in Trump Trial Courtroom, Needs 'a Little Color'

The staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host of ABC’s The View, Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) was again allowed into the New York courtroom for former President Trump’s hush money trial and reported back to the Cackling Coven her shocking findings. Last week, she was startled by Trump’s “radioactive orange” face. This time, she was rocking brand new “binoculars” with which she deduced that there were too many white people in the courtroom. According to the race-obsessed co-host, there were too many white people and her job was to “give a little color to the courtroom.” Even moderator Whoopi Goldberg wanted her to walk it back: HOSTIN: I was! I was in the courtroom again yesterday. Yes, thank you. [Applause] Thank you. What I want to do is give a little color to the courtroom, because a lot of people – GOLDBERG: Oh, redo that. HOSTIN: No, no, a little color. I mean that literally and figuratively. It’s worth noting that Hostin took a lot of pride in having been in the courtroom; but when the audience didn’t clap for her, she cued them to do so by declaring “thank you” to a silent room. Even though every major news outlet had multiple reporters in the courtroom reporting on every twitch, gesture, and eye movement from the former President, Hostin clownishly and narcissistically claimed "no one" had reported what was physically happening in the courtroom except for her.     "I now have access to binoculars," she bragged (pictured above). Hostin bloviated that “[w]hile other reporters are zooming in on the documents, I'm zooming in on [Trump]!” She even defended her clownish analysis when pressed by co-host Sara Haines: HAINES: Is this your serious legal analysis?! HOSTIN: Yes, it really is! It really is! Because people have been reporting that he is asleep. He is not asleep. He is enraged. And that’s why I think he’s so orange because it think it’s red underneath. To justify her use of binoculars to watch a television screen watching Trump, she started mimicking some of the facial and body movements he exhibited while listening to the testimony of his former fixer, Michael Cohen. Even though Cohen had been convicted for lying under oath and served time for it, Hostin insisted the jury found him to be a credible witness. The reason why? He spoke with a New York accent: And I will tell you there were reporters falling asleep in the courtroom, not the jury. Not the lawyer with the legal pad. He is feverishly taking notes. I think Michael Cohen came off credibly. He was charming. [Puts on a New York accent] He’s a New Yorker. This is a New York jury. He speaks like a New Yorker. Hostin also walked back her falsehood from last week when she erroneously suggested that there were “several” legal professionals on the jury, admitting there were only two. She didn’t correct her lie about there being more women than men. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 14, 2024 11:04:45 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Sunny was sitting there. So, what did you hear? SUNNY HOSTIN: I was! I was in the courtroom again yesterday. Yes, thank you. [Applause] Thank you. What I want to do is give a little color to the courtroom, because a lot of people – GOLDBERG: Oh, redo that. HOSTIN: No, no, a little color. I mean that literally and figuratively. Because a lot of people are reporting what was said in the courtroom, right? But no one has really reported about what you see when you're actually there. And I said the other day that he appeared orange, very -- in an unnatural way. I've never seen anyone that orange before. I now have access to binoculars in the courtroom. And so, I'm using the binoculars. JOY BEHAR: Why? Is it such a big courtroom? HOSTIN: Yes, it is a huge courtroom and they have a camera directly on Donald Trump because we are behind him, so we can't see his face, but we can see his face on the screen. So, while other reporters are zooming in on the documents, I'm zooming in on him. SARA HAINES: Is this your serious legal analysis? HOSTIN: Yes, it really is! It really is! Because people have been reporting that he is asleep. He is not asleep. He is enraged. And that’s why I think he’s so orange because it think it’s red underneath. I saw him during Michael Cohen’s testimony sort of going like this – [makes faces] – and I said, “oh, here he's sleeping” and he went – [makes faces and convulses] [Laughter] That is what's happening. BEHAR: You know, my dog does that when he's sleeping. HOSTIN: When he’s sleeping? BEHAR: Yeah. HOSITN: He’s not sleeping. So, that's one of my first observations. The other observation is: I learned more about the jurors from some of my now-friends in the courtroom. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: She’s going to be vacationing with these people. HOSTIN: I basically am. There are two lawyers on the jury. Two male lawyers, one is a civil litigator, the other one is a retired wealth manager. The foreperson is in sales. There's an investment banker, and a corporate attorney. What is so interesting about this jury is that – this is a documents case, let's all remember, it is not about an affair necessarily, it's about documents and payment to a porn star and the hiding of those business records. These guys understand documents. And I will tell you there were reporters falling asleep in the courtroom, not the jury. Not the lawyer with the legal pad. He is feverishly taking notes. I think Michael Cohen came off credibly. He was charming. [Puts on a New York accent] He’s a New Yorker. This is a New York jury. He speaks like a New Yorker. BEHAR: Yeah. HOSTIN: And they were giggling at him a little bit. He also talked about his love for his daughter – and, Sara, you'll get into this. He has a text message – they showed a text message change with his daughter who’s at the University of Pennsylvania and she sort of – ‘you're going through this with Donald Trump?’ and he says “Don't worry, I'll take care of it. I love you” and she says “I love you” and he says, “I love you more.” What parent can't identify with that? So, they humanized him. He was very credible. (…)

CBS Hypes The Daily Show Giving 'People The Information They Need'

This week’s host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, Desi Lydic, joined the cast of Monday’s CBS Mornings to promote her upcoming episodes. Throughout the segment, Lydic and her hosts would hype the fellow Paramount property as a place that people can go to get not only entertaining, but informed takes on politics, and also start conversations they wouldn’t otherwise have. It all sounded nice, but was completely disconnected from The Daily Show that exists in the real world. Co-host and Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition cover model Gayle King began the segment by introducing Lydic, “Viewers know her for her dry sense of humor and clever takes on politics and current events. She is hilarious. She joined the Emmy Award-winning show in 2015. Recently, she poked fun at Nebraska for being one of only two states that splits its electoral votes by congressional district rather than the winner takes all.”     In the clip that CBS showed, Lydic was actually arguing that Nebraska’s system is better than a winter-take-all and condemning those who sought to switch to such a system. Her main point, however, was that the Electoral College should be done away with and replaced with the popular vote, which King eagerly embraced, “I think she might be onto something.” Later, co-host Nate Burleson asked Lydic, “When it comes to comedy, especially during these times, I feel like there's an appetite for intelligent, political comedy because it gives the people the information they need while making them feel comfortable about the chaos that they are currently living in. Not that this hasn’t always been here, but nowadays I feel like there is a bigger stage for entertainers like you. Do you feel like that's the case?” Lydic claimed a special ability to build cross-aisle bridges: Well, it does feel like things are so polarized and people are getting the news from the sources that reflect back their own opinions. You know, it feels like we're all kind in echo chambers and, you know, I personally am certainly more on the left-leaning side. The Daily Show tends to be a more progressive show, but I grew up in Louisville, Kentucky. My parents are Republicans, have been Republicans for quite some time, so, you know, those conversations can be challenging, and humor at its best can be sort of disarming and maybe start conversations that wouldn't happen otherwise. That sounds nice, but speaking of Kentucky, last year, Lydic took a field trip to the state with the Washington Post’s Perry Bacon Jr., who used the interview to urge people to harass Republicans at church and the grocery store. In the same interview, Lydic reveled in Sen. Rand Paul getting his “ass kicked” by his neighbor. Regardless, Lydic did Jon Stewart’s classic clown nose on, clown nose off routine as she added “So, we want to entertain people. We’re not out to change the world.” Burleson was not prepared to let Lydic sell herself short, “But that helps when you write, that you understand both perspectives.” Lydic agreed, “I think it's important to get curious about what other people feel and if you're at odds, you know, ask questions. Have a little empathy. Try to have a meaningful conversation about it.” Again, that sounds nice, but Lydic doesn’t put her money where her mouth is. She could interview a conservative, but that is not scheduled to happen. Instead, we’ll probably get more claims like “having a vagina does not make you a woman” or that Jesus would approve of Transgender Visibility Day. Here is a transcript for the May 14 show: CBS Mornings 5/14/2024 9:42 AM ET GAYLE KING: Our next guest, Desi Lydic is hosting The Daily Show alongside Jon Stewart and The Daily Show news team. Viewers know her for her dry sense of humor and clever takes on politics and current events. She is hilarious. She joined the Emmy Award-winning show in 2015. Recently, she poked fun at Nebraska for being one of only two states that splits its electoral votes by congressional district rather than the winner takes all. DESI LYDIC: Nebraska should really truly keep the system, though, because it's certainly a more fair way to divide up the votes than winner take off. What if everybody did that like Nebraska by district or maybe even by person, you know, then whoever whips the most persons would be president. That would be pretty popular. Oh, we could call it the popular vote. I don't know. I'm just spitballing. KING: I think she might be onto something, that Desi Lydic joins us in the studio. Hello, Desi. We're so glad you're here today. … NATE BURLESON: You know, when it comes to comedy, especially during these times, I feel like there's an appetite for intelligent, political comedy because it gives the people the information they need while making them feel comfortable about the chaos that they are currently living in. Not that this hasn’t always been here, but nowadays I feel like there is a bigger stage for entertainers like you. Do you feel like that's the case? LYDIC: Well, it does feel like things are so polarized and people— BURLESON: Yeah. LYDIC: -- are getting the news from the sources that reflect back their own opinions. You know, it feels like we're all kind in echo chambers and, you know, I personally am certainly more on the left-leaning side. The Daily Show tends to be a more progressive show, but I grew up in Louisville, Kentucky. My parents are Republicans, have been Republicans for quite some time, so, you know, those conversations can be challenging, and humor at its best can be sort of disarming and maybe start conversations that wouldn't happen otherwise. BURLESON: Yeah. LYDIC: So, we want to entertain people. We’re not out to change the world. BURLESON: But that helps when you write, that you understand both perspectives. LYDIC: That's right. KING: Which you do, which you do, yeah. LYDIC: I think it's important to get curious about what other people feel— BURLESON: Yeah. LYDIC: -- and if you're at odds, you know, ask questions. Have a little empathy. Try to have a meaningful conversation about it.

MRC Backs Religious Lawsuit Against NPR-Favoring Government Rate Scheme

The Media Research Center is calling on the federal government to stop discriminating against religious broadcasting companies and right-leaning talk radio. On Monday, MRC filed an amicus brief this week in support of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)’s petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case pertaining to religious broadcasting companies challenging the Biden-led Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which is a federal entity responsible for regulating royalties and copyright licenses. In the brief, MRC argued that the CRB violated the First Amendment religious liberty and free speech rights by not providing the same deal to religious broadcasters it entered into with leftist National Public Radio (NPR). The legal battle began in 2021 after the CRB inexplicably refused to extend a favorable NPR deal, including low fees, to the National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee (NRB), a non-profit representing various religious communicators and broadcasting companies. The ADF wrote in February that the CRB established a statutory license for companies, including NPR and NRB, to pay royalties to the copyright holders of songs played on their stations. Instead of offering the same rates granted to NPR, the CRB demanded that religious broadcasting companies pay 18 times the royalty fees of NPR if they have over 200 listeners. This was in contrast to the CRB's deal with NPR, a secular, taxpayer-funded company at the center of controversy for bias. Related: Here Are the Best & Worst Moments From the House NPR Hearing with MRC’s Graham “Here, the Board created a content-based, tiered rate structure that required religious broadcasters to pay far more than NPR stations to communicate with an audience above a mere 218 people,” the MRC brief read, alluding to the notable discrepancies in the deals offered to NPR and the NRB. Further addressing the court, the MRC wrote that this discriminatory practice “forces religious broadcasters to pay royalty rates 18 times higher than those to which NPR will be subject.” The religious broadcasting companies took the CRB to court in 2021. Regrettably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the federal government. “This unlawful discrimination forces some noncommercial religious stations to stay small and restrict their listener reach so they can afford to stream online,” the ADF added. “The Copyright Royalty Board is violating federal law and the U.S. Constitution, and so we are urging the Supreme Court to take this important case and rule on the side of religious liberty and free speech.” 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.

Michael Knowles Mauls Biden’s Ridiculous Defense of Bidenomics on CNN

The Daily Wire host Michael Knowles attacked President Joe Biden for his incoherent response to questions from a CNN anchor.  During the May 10 edition of The Michael Knowles Show, Knowles responded to President Biden’s befuddled defense of Bidenomics, noting that Biden’s “failures on the economy were most likely to destroy Democrats in November.” To emphasize just how bad things are for Biden, Knowles played a clip of “Erin Burnett of CNN grilling Biden for his economic failures” during which Biden made a vain attempt to save face.  On May 8, CNN Anchor Erin Burnett, to her credit, confronted President Biden with both his low polling on economic issues and bad economic statistics. “Voters by a wide margin, trust Trump more on the economy,” Burnett told Biden. She went on to cite polls and statistics that spell out Biden’s devastating failures:  “The cost of buying a home in the United States is double what it was when you look at your monthly costs from before the pandemic. Real income, when you account for inflation is actually down since you took office, economic growth last week, far short of expectations. Consumer confidence, maybe no surprise, is near a two-year low. With less than six months to go to election day are you worried that you're running out of time to turn that around?” Absurdly, Biden responded, “We’ve already turned it around.” Biden referenced a poll to support this point before veering off in a very different direction. “The polling data has been wrong all along. You guys do a poll at CNN, how many folks do you have to call to get one response?”  Knowles roasted the president for his incoherent response. “Biden is not as swift as he used to be and he just gave two answers that contradict each other,” Knowles said.  He ripped Biden for simultaneously questioning the bias of unfavorable polls while also pointing to one solitary favorable poll. Knowles pointed out the absurdity of anyone on the left arguing that the polls or the media are biased against them.  “Democrats have the media on their side. So when a Republican says ‘the fake news coverage is slanted against us’, that’s different from the Democrats saying that because Republicans don't really have news outlets and Democrats have all of the news outlets, same goes for polling, same goes for any aspect of American political propaganda,” Knowles said.  The Daily Wire host went on to say that when polls are actually wrong, they tend to overestimate Democrats rather than Republicans. “So when you’ve got polls coming out, economic indicators coming out, statistics from all the social scientists coming out that do not look good for Democrats and you hear this being reported by Democrat liberal news outlets, you know these people are really, really in trouble,” he said. He added that the media “have every single incentive to paint the Democrats in as good a light as possible and that’s just not going to cut it these days because everyone knows that the economy is in the doldrums.”  The economy is in the doldrums. While the devastating statistics listed by Burnett proved too much for Biden to address, they aren’t the only bad numbers. Burnett also could have mentioned that Americans have dealt with 5.5% average monthly inflation under the Biden administration. She also could’ve addressed how gas prices have skyrocketed from $2.42 a gallon in Jan. 2021 (when Biden took office) to $3.54 in March. 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.

Editor’s Pick: WashTimes Showcases Report on How Few of Today’s Immigrants Work

In a front-page story for Tuesday’s print edition and published Monday online, The Washington Times’s intrepid reporter Stephen Dinan shared the findings of a new Center for Immigration Studies report that said only 46 percent of recent immigrant arrivals — both illegal and legal — are holding down jobs and contributing to the American economy. “The Center for Immigration Studies, using Census Bureau numbers, calculates that 46% of immigrants who arrived over the past two years are employed. That challenges a key selling point from immigration advocates that the stream of newcomers is critical to the U.S. economy,” he explained, pointing out this means even though “[s]ome immigrants say they are looking for work...most...are out of the labor force.” He cited this key quote from CIS officials Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler: “Immigration clearly adds workers to the country, but it just as clearly adds non-workers who need to be supported by the labor of others.” Dinan later went through the push and pull of whether mass, persistent immigration benefits an economy: One persistent issue has been whether immigrants are a net benefit or a drain. The Congressional Budget Office says that taken as a whole, the economy grows faster with more people. The reason is simple: More potential workers means a more productive total economy. The CBO says the average worker is slightly worse off. Again, the reason is simple: The pie may be bigger, but it is divided by even more people. The CBO says the population has a large range of outcomes. Those at the higher economic rungs come out better off with higher immigration levels, while those on the lower rungs, who are more likely to compete with less-educated newcomers, end up worse off. (....) The CIS said the unemployment rate among immigrants from Latin America, overlapping heavily with illegal immigrants, without a college education is 10%. That rate has held steady for several decades. The Biden administration is trying to get official work permits for newly arrived illegal immigrants who are caught and released into the interior. Immigrant rights advocates say that will allow the migrants to support themselves and stop using government assistance. To read Dinan’s story, click here.

Report: DHS Preparing to ‘Protect’ Democracy Ahead of 2024… Sounds Familiar?

USA Today once again raised the specter of election interference to justify the Department of Homeland Security’s latest foray into election meddling in its latest sycophantic interview. On May 8, USA Today’s Josh Meyer released a new “exclusive” interview with DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The theme of the interview was how DHS was dealing with an “unprecedented array of election threats.”  He opined, “The right to vote and the integrity of the right to vote – and therefore of the election itself – is a fundamental element of our democracy.” Mayorkas was careful to stress, of course, that the effort was wholly “nonpartisan,” a label that was also applied to the anti-constitutional Disinformation Governance Board (DGB). “This is a nonpartisan effort,” he claimed. “And, in fact, all our efforts across this department are nonpartisan.” Despite Mayorkas’s assertions of nonpartisanship, the USA Today piece paints the initiative as primarily a response to anti-democratic forces on the right.  “Democrats also fear violence from those who would reject election results showing Joe Biden being reelected,” the leftist newspaper reported. Mayorkas stressed that DHS would use its power to combat the “threat of disinformation,” just like the short-lived DGB, infamously known as the Ministry of Truth. According to USA Today, the coordination between the DHS and local election officials has been run out of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). “We’re providing best-practice security guidance to these stakeholders, and that’s where we unpack threats, but also and most importantly provide them with recommendations for what they can actually do to mitigate those threats,” said Cait Conley, senior advisor to CISA director Jen Easterly and leader of the initiative. In order to fight these “threats,” characterized by USA Today as a result of “unsubstantiated claims of election fraud,” CISA launched Protect24, a new website that proliferates materials for local and state election officials. The website has several pages related to “disinformation actors.” One page, titled “Tactics of Disinformation,” identifies common “tactics” used by supposed malactors. “Disinformation actors capitalize on conspiracy theories by generating disinformation narratives that align with the conspiracy theory worldview,” the brochure reads.  The brochure also targets “alternative platforms,” that is, platforms that don’t censor their user base, as tools of subversive elements. “Disinformation actors may seek to take advantage of platforms with fewer user protections, less stringent content moderation policies, and fewer controls to detect and remove inauthentic content and accounts than other social media platforms,” the brochure says. Another page, titled “Election Security Rumor vs. Reality,” tries to debunk concerns around expanded voting procedures like mail-in-balloting and unsupervised ballot drop boxes. Before the 2020 election, CISA also used its power to quash skepticism regarding voting practices such as universal mail-in-ballots. CISA worked through the Election Integrity Partnership, run out of Stanford Internet Observatory, to nudge social media companies to censor accounts that questioned election procedures.  According to Mike Benz, founder of Freedom for Freedom Online, the EIP flagged 27 million tweets to be deleted by social media companies and used DHS infrastructure to do so.  In leaked emails, Alex Stamos, the leader of SIO, described the effort as a way for the federal government to coordinate censorship. “The EIP’s true purpose was to act as a censorship conduit for the federal government,” wrote Stamos in a Nov. 2020 email. In another email to the social media app Nextdoor, Stamos described EIP as “a one-stop shop for local election officials, DHS, and voter protection organizations to report potential disinformation for us to investigate and to refer to the appropriate platforms if necessary.” 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

'He'd Be So Rattled': Kimmel And Meyers Dream Of Trolling Trump At Trial

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! has the week off, but that did not stop the eponymous host from traveling across the country to New York and NBC’s Monday edition of Late Night with Seth Meyers. Together, Meyers and Kimmel would fantasize about trolling Donald Trump at his trial and dream about him being convicted. The duo was discussing their histories with Trump when Meyers observed, “You actually got mentioned in the proceedings because there was some texts and it was because you had Stormy Daniels on your show.” While Kimmel took pride in that, he claimed it didn’t live up to Meyers’s experience, “I appreciate that. It doesn't compare to making so much fun of him at the White House Correspondents' Dinner that he actually ran for president.”     After Meyers wanted to forget the whole thing, “No, no, let's talk about yours,” Kimmel continued, “Which was your fault. But it was exciting even though you put in—you know, you put in the work, and it really pays off. I was excited to be mentioned. I don't know why I was excited to be mentioned, but I was definitely excited to be mentioned.” Meyers then wondered, “But you would want to go down to the courthouse? If you lived in New York full-time, do you think you'd go down?” Kimmel replied, “No, I want to go down with you” before recalling, “I think—because, listen, we know he hates us… Do you remember the first time you found out he really, really hated us? I was on a weeklong camping trip, where there were no motors, or phones, or anything allowed. And when I got off the river, my phone clicked on, and I just got message after message after message about Trump bashing us. And I thought, ‘Oh, I'm back in civilization.’ But what I would love to do is for you and I to go down there, and maybe as a -- because, you know, he's in some legal trouble.” He then suggested, “As a gesture of goodwill, because we are human beings… I think we should bring him a whole bunch of little bottles of ketchup. Because you're not allowed to eat in the courtroom. You're not allowed to drink in the courtroom. Ketchup falls in that kind of gray area.” Kimmel then turned the dynamic around and asked Meyers, “How close do you think we could get to him? And I mean emotionally.” Meyers then imagined a scenario where, “I mean, based on the amount of people there, we could just go and wait in line and get in. And it would be -- he'd be so rattled if we were there. It would be like that SNL sketch where all of a sudden, Kenan realized Beavis and Butthead are there. He'd have the same reaction.” He then wondered, “Have you thought about what would happen if he actually was convicted?” Kimmel admitted that “I have thought about this. I dream about it. I really hope it happens.” Maybe Kimmel could give the flowers he held in his lap during the interview to Alvin Bragg, that would certainly cement the late night comedian’s relationship with the Democratic Party. Here is a transcript for the May 13-taped show: NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 5/14/2024 12:59 AM ET SETH MEYERS: I wanted to congratulate you. You actually got mentioned in the proceedings.  JIMMY KIMMEL: Thank you. MEYERS: Because there was some texts— KIMMEL: Well. MEYERS: — and it was because you had Stormy Daniels on your show. KIMMEL: I -- thank you. I appreciate that. It doesn't compare to making so much fun of him at the White House Correspondents' Dinner that he actually ran for president.  MEYERS: No, no, let's talk about yours. KIMMEL: Which was your fault. But it was exciting even though you put in -- you know, you put in the work, and it really pays off. I was excited to be mentioned. I don't know why I was excited to be mentioned. MEYERS: Yeah. KIMMEL: But I was definitely excited to be mentioned. MEYERS: But you would want to go down to the courthouse? If you lived in New York full-time, do you think you'd go down? KIMMEL: No, I want to go down with you. MEYERS: Okay. KIMMEL: I think -- because, listen, we know he hates us. MEYERS: 100 percent. KIMMEL: 100 percent. Do you remember the first time you found out he really, really hated us? I was on a weeklong camping trip, where there were no motors, or phones, or anything allowed. And when I got off the river, my phone clicked on, and I just got message after message after message about Trump bashing us. MEYERS: Yes. KIMMEL: And I thought, “Oh, I'm back in civilization.” But what I would love to do is for you and I to go down there, and maybe as a -- because, you know, he's in some legal trouble. MEYERS: Yeah. KIMMEL: And as a gesture of goodwill, because we are human beings. MEYERS: Sure, empathetic human beings, no less. KIMMEL: Nice people. I think we should bring him a whole bunch of little bottles of ketchup. MEYERS: Uh-huh. KIMMEL: Because you're not allowed to eat in the courtroom. You're not allowed to drink in the courtroom. Ketchup falls in that kind of gray area. MEYERS: Condiments are allowed, yeah. KIMMEL: That I think he could get away with a little bit of that. How close do you think we could get to him? And I mean emotionally. MEYERS: Well I -- the funny thing is we could -- I mean, based on the amount of people there, we could just go and wait in line and get in. And it would be -- he'd be so rattled if we were there. KIMMEL: Oh, yeah, he would. MEYERS: It would be like that SNL sketch where all of a sudden, Kenan realized Beavis and Butthead are there. He'd have the same reaction. KIMMEL: Except even Beavis and Butthead-ier than that, yeah. MEYERS: Now, what do you think would -- have you thought about what would happen if he actually was convicted? KIMMEL: If he is convicted -- yeah, I have thought about this. MEYERS: Okay. KIMMEL: I dream about it. MEYERS: Okay. KIMMEL: I really hope it happens.

What Trump Sees in Doug Burgum

Donald Trump knows how to run a talent show. He’s built a career out of them — in addition to careers as real estate mogul and president of the United States. What he learned from Miss Universe beauty pageants and the breakout success of “The Apprentice” he’s now applying to the tryouts for vice president. No one watches if competition isn’t tense: Contestants all need a moment to shine, even if their chances are dim. Dark horses make a good storyline — underdogs an even better one. So now the spotlight turns to a contender nobody would have guessed would be under serious consideration: the governor of North Dakota. Who? Is that the one who shot the dog? No, that’s Kristi Noem, governor of the other Dakota. And her hopes are as dead as that poor pooch. The governor on the rise is Doug Burgum. Who — or rather, why? Burgum ran for president last year and participated in the Trumpless Republican debates nobody watched. He had so little support he offered $20 gift cards for $1 donations just to keep up his donor numbers to qualify for the debates. He dropped out when even that wouldn’t cut it anymore. Burgum’s unknown to anyone but nerds and North Dakotans, and his state isn’t in danger of defecting to Joe Biden. If Tim Scott or Marco Rubio might just help Trump with Black or Latino voters, or a woman might get more women to vote Republican, what does Burgum bring? Ohio is safely red, but Sen. J.D. Vance reinforces Trump’s populist rhetoric and could boost him in rust-belt battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Michigan. But Doug Burgum? Yet he’s getting an audition — even a push, appearing alongside Trump at a huge New Jersey rally last Saturday. Trump sees personal, ideological and financial angles to the North Dakota governor. The last is most obvious: Burgum is rich in his own right and does more for the ticket’s bottom line than any other VP contender. It’s hard to know just how rich the governor is, but the most modest estimates put him above $100 million, and he could easily be worth many times that. Trump was outspent in 2016 and 2020, and Biden’s fundraising has far outpaced his this cycle. The endless civil suits and criminal cases lodged against Trump haven’t torpedoed his polling, but they’ve drained him of dollars his election effort can’t spare. Burgum wouldn’t be the first running mate added to a ticket for the millions he can personally contribute: The Libertarian Party nominated the billionaire David Koch for vice president in 1980, hoping his money would propel presidential nominee Ed Clark to victory, or at least a respectable showing. That hope was in vain: neither Ronald Reagan nor Jimmy Carter, nor the electorate, took notice of the Clark-Koch ticket, which won about 1% of the popular vote. This year another contender outside the two-party system, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is pursuing a similar strategy. His running mate, Nicole Shanahan, the ex-wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin, is estimated to be worth several hundred million dollars — not enough to buy the election but plenty to help an independent like RFK over the costly hurdles involved in getting ballot access. Do Burgum’s bucks bring enough bang for Trump? The ideological rationale for considering the governor is simply that he reassures the GOP’s capitalist wing, which is troubled by Trump’s populist tendencies and extravagant personality. Eight years ago, Trump picked Mike Pence to cement the loyalty of evangelicals and old-guard conservatives who’d had reservations about the New York tycoon throughout the primaries — Republicans more excited by Ted Cruz than Trump. Today Trump expects enthusiastic evangelical turnout. So he might look to secure his flank on the other side of the party, with libertarian-minded and business-oriented Republicans. And on a personal level, Trump likes old-fashioned archetypes of executive authority — military men and corporate leaders, like his ill-fated first secretary of state, the ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson. Trump’s an impresario, but when the cameras are off, he wants to be surrounded by suits and uniforms, not wannabe celebrities. Burgum’s a vice president for corporate America; Trump’s the only star his administration needs, as far as the man at the top is concerned. Even so, Burgum probably won’t be Trump’s pick. Yet he’s plausible enough to extend the season an episode or two. The contest isn’t really about the contestants anyway; it’s about investing the audience in the drama of choosing and the man making the choice. Every hopeful gets his or her moment, but the hour belongs to Trump. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com

MSNBC’s Jen Psaki, Having Not Yet Apologized For Smearing Families of the Kabul 13, Now Smears Alabama

One feature of wall-to-wall coverage on leftwing cable is that it is unscripted. And on unscripted, not-as-tightly-produced television where you have to fill multiple hours of “analysis” of a single event, such as on this occasion, the trial of former President Donald Trump in New York City, people’s real opinions sometimes just fall out. Such an occasion happens here, during MSNBC’s Maddow block. Watch as former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki- fresh off of smearing Gold Star parents, now smears the entire State of Alabama as “crazy” (click “expand”): JEN PSAKI: The most intere-- and you touched on this and went over it, and this is the thing that stuck out to me so much about today is this sort of sideshow, but it's not a sideshow of these senators. It's so strange seeing J.D. Vance and Tommy Tuberville in New York. It was like a Where's Waldo moment? Like there they are. Oh, there they are in back of him at this press conference. But it tells you so much because as you said, not only did they stand there, they went out afterwards and then they put out things on social media because they're looking for approval from Trump. And that adds to what we've seen over the last couple of weeks which is, one: people who want to be the vice presidential running mate or in the Cabinet saying- confirming they don't think Trump lost the election in 2020. Two, we've started to see a number of people recently in the last couple of weeks on a number of shows suggest they might not respect the outcome of the election in 2024. That's replaying the game again. And this is the third piece. I mean, we're going to see Vivek tomorrow. How crazy will that be? I don't know yet. We will see. But that is a piece of this that tells you so much about his own political power, even if we're not clear about where the polls between the two candidates are going to be at the end of this trial yet. RACHEL MADDOW: And can I just -- I mean if you, like, imagineer a world in which Republican politics is not rotating around the axis of Donald Trump, what are the politics? What's the political impact of these sitting senators and very ambitious Republican politicians making sure that they are seen inside of what they are decrying as a very depressing New York City courtroom? I mean, they're putting themselves in state criminal court as a way of trying to get themselves before the American people so that this is where we imagine them. I mean this is just -- it may be one thing to try to get Trump's favor. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. MADDOW: But this exists in its own right in terms of how they are displaying themselves, what they- how they want us to think of their milieu in politics, and how they want us to think of them when it comes to criminal defendants in the criminal process. PSAKI: Well, they think it's a winner for them politically to some degree, to hug and to align themselves with Trump. And perhaps in their states, it is. Uh, you know, J.D. Vance, he's not up for re-election this year. Tommy Tuberville, he does a lot of crazy things, but he’s- he’s Alabama- Trump is quite popular there. Right? This sort of thing used to be amazing to watch- the left’s sneering condescension and contempt for the unwashed Deplorables, especially across the South, as embodied by Psaki during her rant against the electeds that accompanied Trump during Michael Cohen’s testimony. Saying that Tuberville “is Alabama”, and therefore crazy, is quite the look. But this is not unexpected. As of this writing, Jen Psaki has not yet apologized to the families of the Kabul 13, our brave service members killed during ISIS-K’s terrorist attack against the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan.  In fact, Psaki hasn’t offered anything in the way of self-reflection beyond what she told Fox News when she said that "the story on Afghanistan is really about the importance of delivering feedback even when it is difficult, told through my own experience of telling President Biden that his own story of loss was not well received by the families who were grieving their sons and daughters”. There’s no apology there, and one wonders whether one might come at all. After all, the inmates have proven themselves capable of running the asylum at MSNBC, given the aftermath of the Ronna McDaniel fiasco.  What indication is there that Psaki will face any accountability for smearing Gold Star families? Time will tell, but it sure does seem, at least preliminarily, that MSNBC has made its peace with welcoming a professional smear merchant as a conquering star.  

Regime Media Continue To HIDE Education Secretary Cardona's Massive FAFSA Fail

The Education Department’s ongoing meltdown due to its failed implementation of its new website for its Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) should, on the merits, be an ongoing major national story. But the Regime Media have chosen only to cover the story in a very sparing manner, shielding those responsible for the FAFSA meltdown from any scrutiny or accountability. Watch the oddly detached introduction to the report filed by Meg Oliver for the CBS Evening News: NORAH O’DONNELL: Nearly two weeks after what is traditionally College Decision Day, many students are still unable to commit to a school. That's because of computer glitches plaguing the Education Department's newly overhauled financial aid system. CBS’s Meg Oliver has an important update. MEG OLIVER: With high school graduation just weeks away, anxiety was mounting for senior Jojo Henderson. The 18-year-old from Pittsburg, Texas couldn't commit to college without knowing his financial aid. JOJO HENDERSON: I’m frustrated, because it’s just like- you do everything that you're supposed to do and then you have to wait on the government to catch up. The FAFSA meltdown is presented as just a singular misfortune that happened spontaneously. Like a tornado, perhaps, or a volcanic eruption- and most certainly not as the result of massive bureaucratic incompetence. This ongoing disaster falls squarely in the lap of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, who is far more focused on making sure men compete in women’s sports, change in women’s locker rooms and pee in women’s restrooms than in ensuring that college-bound students are able to access federal financial aid. Had this happened during the Trump administration and under Betsy DeVos’ watch at the Department of Education, the media’s collective hair would be on fire. This story would be national, running near-daily on A-block and with wall-to-wall coverage of any related congressional hearings, with someone hounding DeVos the entire time. Instead, Cardona has benefited from the privilege of serving in an administration with such lightning rods as Alejandro Mayorkas and Pete Buttigieg, therefore mostly escaping scrutiny.  The Regime Media have certainly earned their title. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on the CBS Evening News on Monday, May 13th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: Nearly two weeks after what is traditionally college decision day, many students are still unable to commit to a school. That's because of computer glitches plaguing the Education Department's newly overhauled financial aid system. CBS’s Meg Oliver has an important update. MEG OLIVER: With high school graduation just weeks away, anxiety was mounting for senior Jojo Henderson. The 18-year-old from Pittsburg, Texas couldn't commit to college without knowing his financial aid. JOJO HENDERSON: I’m frustrated, because it’s just like- you do everything that you're supposed to do and then you have to wait on the government to catch up. OLIVER: Henderson filled out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, known as FAFSA, almost five months ago. He finally received his financial information last week, after some college decision deadlines. Typically, the Department of Education releases the forms on October 1st, then sends the students’ data to colleges within one to three days of submission to calculate aid. This year, the application forms came out three months late. It's estimated more than a quarter of colleges have still not sent aid packages. OLIVER: Did you think of giving up? Maybe not going to college? JAELYN JAMES: Yeah, many times actually. OLIVER: Really? JAMES: Um, I was just, like- so tired of waiting. OLIVER: New Jersey high school senior Jaelyn James finally received her aid package close to the decision deadline. SARA URQUIDEZ: My biggest advice is to not give up. OLIVER: Sara Urquidez oversees counseling for thousands of public school students in the Dallas area. URQUIDEZ: Ask for extensions, ask if deposits for housing are refundable, ask for anything they possibly can to help make a decision but don't opt out at this point in the process. OLIVER: A FAFSA fiasco that's still not finished. Meg Oliver, CBS News, Wayne, New Jersey.  

NewsBusters Podcast: Reagan-Hating Networks Cite Reagan to Help Biden

Ronald Reagan is suddenly a topic in the liberal media, but only as a lame defense of President Biden’s betrayal of our ally Israel. ABC, CBS, and NBC all offered this talking point. The most energetic rebuttal of this pro-Biden theme came from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on CBS’s Face the Nation. Jorge Bonilla explains the Sunday spin, including that CNN State of the Union host Dana Bash did. She didn't throw Reagan spin at Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), but she suggested Donald Trump was an anti-Semite -- in part for his suggestion that Jews voting against him “should be ashamed.” That's an interesting spin, since Democrats routinely suggest that blacks and Hispanics that vote for Republicans are "race traitors," or aren't demonstrating a tribal loyalty. They don't expect that shaming with Jews. CBS's Sunday Morning aired a puffball interview with comedian Bill Maher, letting him claim he speaks for the "normies" and he's not ideological. On his Friday night program on HBO, Maher lamented that the Democrats "blew it" in all their legal warfare on Trump.  What was amazing in this profile was CBS reporter Robert Costa imploring Maher to lay off mockery of the Left, just shine the spotlight on the right-wingers! He asked: "What do you say to your [leftist] critics, though, who say that you should just focus on them, Bill, if they’re more alarming to you than the Left. And why not shine the spotlight on them only?" It's like he wants Maher to be exactly like CBS's own Stephen Colbert.  We conclude with questions Jorge knows from his places of residence: why would Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) claim black kids in the Bronx don't know the word "computer"? And why would the press ignore it? Then there is the very short-lived attempt by "Queers for Palestine" to block an exit to Disney World in Orlando. Enjoy the podcast below or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Meta AI Bends Over Backwards to Defend Censorship

Meta’s new artificial intelligence chatbot claims there’s a “valid” argument to be made for censoring legal free speech. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp, proudly announced a new AI assistant on April 18, simply called Meta AI, but the AI chatbot appears to have been programmed with a disturbing bias against free speech. When MRC researchers asked Meta AI if speech, especially so-called “hate speech,” should be censored, the chatbot provided arguments both for and against censorship, but without mentioning that the established U.S. principles of freedom of speech stem from the Constitution. The AI asserted, “That's a complex and sensitive topic! Social media censorship is a debated issue, with valid arguments both for and against.”  “It should come as little surprise that leftist-trained AI have adopted the same tired, vague, fear-based approach to censorship,” said Director of MRC Free Speech America Michael Morris. “Time and again, the left has shown that it is all too willing to bend U.S. standards on speech, often citing potential harms and mis- or disinformation as justifications for silencing their opposition. But the clear and obvious answer to bad speech has always been and will forever continue to be more speech, not less.” Meta AI listed what it titled “Arguments for censorship,” including, “Hate speech and harmful content: Social media platforms have a responsibility to protect users from hate speech, violence, and harmful content that can cause real-world harm.” The chatbot then referred to “Disinformation and misinformation,”  terms frequently applied by leftists to silence opinions they dislike or disagree with. Meta’s AI continued, “Censorship can help prevent the spread of false information that can influence public opinion, elections, and critical decision-making.” The AI chatbot didn’t only list arguments for censorship, noting also that censorship curtails “Freedom of speech and expression” and that “[c]ensorship can be biased.” Meta AI totally omitted any reference to the constitutional right to free speech in America. In fact, even its admission about freedom of expression contained a caveat: “Social media platforms should allow users to express themselves freely, without fear of censorship, as long as they're not promoting harm or violence.”  But the American company is not following the American standard for legal free speech and is instead using these vaguely defined objections to justify censorship. The chatbot even doubled down on the importance of limiting “hate speech,” a subjective term that can be very easily misapplied. “Hate speech is a complex issue, and opinions on censorship vary,” Meta AI alleged. The chatbot then proceeded to list out reasons to censor so-called hate speech specifically:  1. Protection from harm: Hate speech can contribute to a hostile environment, incite violence, and perpetuate discrimination against marginalized groups. Censorship can help prevent real-world harm. 2. Promoting inclusivity: By censoring hate speech, social media platforms can create a more inclusive and welcoming environment for diverse users. The AI did, however, acknowledge “Free speech concerns” and “Difficulty in defining hate speech.” Meta platforms have displayed bias and censored so-called hate speech before. For instance, both in November and May 2023, Facebook removed a meme labeling some 30 LGBTQ “genders” as “Mental Disorders.” Facebook accused the users of “Hate speech.” Also in May 2023, Facebook reportedly prevented The Tennessee Conservative from sharing an article about funding additional voting machines in Williamson County claiming it went “against our Community Standards on hate speech.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at (650) 308-7300 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “misinformation” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

‘I Got a Contract’: Whoopi Decries Meme About Her Leaving the Country

The View moderator Whoopi Goldberg took umbrage with former President Trump during Monday’s show, because he apparently helped to spread an internet joke on his social media platform that she was moving to Canada. But despite her bitter ranting to the contrary, she had - in fact - threatened to leave the country the first time Trump was elected. In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote, “Canada doesn’t want you Whoopi, NOBODY DOES!!!” The image included a heavier Goldberg with the caption: “I’m moving to Canada for sure this time!” It’s worth noting that the words were not in quotation marks.     “You know what I'm a little agitated about? That man had something to say to me,” Goldberg decried on the show. “He saw a meme, you know who, saw a meme that said I was leaving the country. People always see these crazy memes that I'm going to leave the country if he gets in there. Somebody else thought I was leaving, was sending suggestions for people to take my place.” Goldberg snapped at Trump, calling him a “little snowflake” while she hypocritically melted down over the meme: Look, I'm not going anywhere. Okay? [Applause] And it's not for the reason, you little snowflake, it's not for the reason you think. He said nobody wanted me. Honey -- “We want you, Whoopi,” staunchly racist and anti-Semitic ABC co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) interjected. An audience member also shouted: “We love you, Whoopi!”     Goldberg argued, “It wouldn't matter if no one here wanted me… because I got a contract. So, I'm going to be here where I'm wanted for the next couple of years.” Saying you’re “not going anywhere” “for the next couple of years” because you “got a contract” and are being paid loads of cash is not the repudiation you think it is, Whoopi. Goldberg lost her cool after the 2016 elections when people were calling her out for not moving out of the country when she previously alluded to it. She’s repeatedly denied that she ever threatened to leave the country, but that’s not true. She’s on the record as saying this about Trump’s campaign message in early 2016: The minute you start pointing and saying that person is a rapist and a murderer, it pisses me off because I’ve been part of that when they just use a blanket statement to talk about black people or when they use a blanket statement to talk about white people or women or any other group. I don’t think that’s America. I don’t want it to be America. Maybe it’s time for me to move, you know. Goldberg had either chickened out or it was all bluster to begin with. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 13, 2024 11:18:47 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: You know what I'm a little agitated about? That man [former President Donald Trump] had something to say to me. He saw a meme, you know who, saw a meme that said I was leaving the country. People always see these crazy memes that I'm going to leave the country if he gets in there. Somebody else thought I was leaving, was sending suggestions for people to take my place. Look, I'm not going anywhere. Okay? [Applause] And it's not for the reason, you little snowflake, it's not for the reason you think. He said nobody wanted me. Honey -- SUNNY HOSTIN: We want you, Whoopi. GOLDBERG: Well, you know what? It wouldn't matter if no one here wanted me. AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Whoopi! GOLDBERG: Thank you! [Applause] But I know where I'm going to be because I got a contract. So, I'm going to be here where I'm wanted for the next couple of years. We'll be right back.

Following Trans Scandals, Planet Fitness Offers FREE Membership for Teens

Earlier this year, Planet Fitness came under fire after numerous reports of transgender women in the women’s locker rooms or bathrooms surfaced across the nation. On Monday, word spread that the company, begging for members, announced a new campaign that would give teenagers free summer passes.  Great, now the gym giant wants kids to be subject of the transgender freaks in the bathrooms! “High school summer pass is here,” the commercial stated before noting that from June 1 to August 31 teenagers aged 14 to 19 years old “can work out at Planet Fitness totally free!” BREAKING: Planet Fitness announced that they are giving away free summer passes to kids. This is the same company that lets men enter the women's locker rooms and expose themselves to women and girls while simultaneously allowing a culture of perverted and degenerate behavior in… pic.twitter.com/JP1dXs5Fji — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 13, 2024 “Come in and get energized,” the commercial added, “with tons of cardio and strength equipment, all in the judgment free zone, find your big fitness energy with the high school summer pass.”  While encouraging kids to stay active during the summer is a great idea, having them stay active at Planet Fitness is a horrible idea. In March, an Alaskan woman was using the locker room facility at a Planet Fitness location when a “queer” person that was a biological man, began using the women’s area mirrors and shaving his face. There was a roughly 12-year-old girl in the locker room when the man was present and reports indicate the child was “kind of freaked out.” Around the same time, #BoycottPlanetFitness began trending on social media with many people going into their local Planet Fitness to cancel their memberships. Additionally, the company’s stock price dropped. Less than a month later, Christopher Allan Miller stripped naked in the ladies locker room at a Planet Fitness location in North Carolina. While Miller was arrested, the woman who reported him had her gym membership revoked by Planet Fitness after the gym insisted that she wasn’t being inclusive of Miller’s transgender identity. After that fiasco, Planet Fitness’ value plummeted around $400 million. Even still, Planet Fitness has remained firm in its commitment to the delusions of trans people and insists that anyone can use any bathroom that they feel matches their gender identity, even if it means that creepy old men will share spaces with young girls. It’s no wonder the gym is begging for new clients and marketing their membership to teens who are unlikely to either know about these trans policies or too naive to recognize the repercussions they could hold. The information on the website states that teens who are 19-years-old can sign up online or in person without a parent or guardian. For those who are under 19-years-old, a parent or guardian is needed to sign up in person or online. But in filing out the form, there doesn't seem to be any reason a child can't fill it out for his or her parent. So essentially, any kid can sign up online without their parent knowing.   As an aside, on the form, Planet Fitness offers the gender option of "non-binary" for teens to select if they don't identify with male or female. As Libs of TikTok noted in it’s post, “Parents, beware! Do not allow your kids in PF. They are desperate for new customers after seeing mass cancellations. Protect your children!” A user on X wrote how “disturbing” Planet Fitness’ new scheme is, “They’re overtly preying on children now. Planet Fitness allows men in women’s bathrooms and wants kids to now be thrown into the mix,” and insisted that the company is a “threat” to innocent children. “What point is there allowing pervs in the locker rooms unless there is a good supply of kids?” another account sarcastically added. If you are watching this play out and are still thinking the left, and now, Planet Fitness especially, isn’t after your kids, open your eyes.

Haines DEMANDS Media DO MORE to Help Reelect Biden, Air Camp Events

Sara Haines is the co-host of ABC’s The View who’s supposed to be the voice of “independent” voters in the middle. But while she has defended conservatives on some things, the mask has slipped plenty of time. Such was the cast on Monday’s show when she grew frustrated with “the media” for not doing enough to help reelect President Biden – like airing his campaign events – because they were obsessed with the hush money trial of former President Trump. “I actually blame the media slightly,” she huffed talking about Biden’s slumping poll numbers. Her solution was to stop sitting outside the New York City courthouse and start airing Biden’s campaign events. Throwing away the illusion of being an independent, she particularly wanted them to focus on the events that were about “a winning issue for Democrats”: We talked last week a lot about how I don't think people are able to watch this Trump trial 24/7, like all the time. It's a still shot. It's a picture of a door. It's all this stuff. Now, we're talking about we're in a campaign. We should be hearing more. We say, why don't we hear from the Biden administration? I don't leave that all on the Biden administration's door. The media needs to cover things. For example, abortion is a winning issue for Democrats. Women's reproductive health. Vice President Harris did an event last week. I couldn't find any coverage on it. And that's a Democrat's winning stance.     “I also think that there was an asylum regulation decided on with the border. Everyone has agreed the border's a problem. Didn't see any coverage on that because we're busy watching the Donald Trump door not opening,” she decried. Haines also whined that after Biden’s speech condemning anti-Semitism last week, “They cut to the speech, came back and talked about Donald Trump.” She described the whole thing as “Donald Trump is Donald-Trumping us. It's Deja Vu from 2016, and the coverage.” “It's ridiculous!” she said of the media covering Trump. The segment was kicked off by moderator Whoopi Goldberg lashing out at CNN’s Fareed Zakaria for calling attention to new polling showing a 25-point swing in Trump’s favor on competency. His warning that it was “a reflection of people's sense that the President's age is affecting his capacity to govern. And there's very little that Joe Biden can do now to change that perception,” triggered her. “Well, what's the point of having a conversation if you're saying it's a done deal? You know, you can't do that,” she denounced. Fake-Republican Ana Navarro agreed with Haines. According to her, “you don’t have a choice” of who to vote for other than Biden because “This is a binary choice America has between good and evil…” Faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin admitted it was “hard to wrap our heads around” the fact that “a lot of voters attribute the pre-pandemic economy to Donald Trump. They don't blame him for the global phenomena that was the pandemic.” “Joe Biden has objectively achieved a lot on the economy,” Farah Griffin proclaimed while saying Biden’s messaging was too dismissive of Americans’ discontent with high inflation. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 13, 2024 11:02:43 a.m. Eastern (…) FAREED ZAKARIA: The one that troubles me the most is on the question of who was the more competent. Joe Biden led Donald Trump by nine points in 2020. But Trump now leads by 16 points in January 2024. That 25-point shift could be a reflection of people's sense that the President's age is affecting his capacity to govern. And there's very little that Joe Biden can do now to change that perception. [Cuts back to live] WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Well, what's the point of having a conversation if you're saying it's a done deal? You know, you can't do that? And it's not a done deal until the people of the United States vote. That's when it's a done deal. But, you know, we have this conversation, what, twice a week. So, you know the question. What do you think? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: So, I've got to say I agreed with a lot of Fareed Zakaria's take. And I want to underscore: I want Trump to lose! So, it's important to me six months out with this platform that we have to talk about some very real trends and signs that Donald Trump may be far stronger than we think he is. It may be hard to wrap our heads around. I personally – as someone who has testified against him, has talked about how unfit he is – it's hard to believe he has as much support as he does. One thing he talked about was the economy. And I was trying to make sense of this because, obviously, he left office in 2020; the economy was in freefall, massive unemployment. But what I think it is is a lot of voters attribute the pre-pandemic economy to Donald Trump. They don't blame him for the global phenomena that was the pandemic. Joe Biden has objectively achieved a lot on the economy. He did the infrastructure package as well. He has things to brag about. But my problem is this: he did an interview with Erin Burnett and he said, ‘actually, you're better off than you think you are.’ That's a bad message. When people's grocery prices are up 30 percent, you're saying believe me rather than what your bank account is telling you. He's got six months to come up with an inspiring, forward-looking message and get out there and talk about it. And for us, I think it’s important – I engage Trump voters and I don't do it to make them feel shamed or to attack them for where they are but to talk about what a second term could look like and how dangerous it is. I think that's how we need to be using our voices. And the campaign – the Biden campaign just has to get more active. SARA HAINES: Yeah. I would say when you say, ‘the Biden campaign has to get more active,’ I actually blame the media slightly. We talked last week a lot about how I don't think people are able to watch this Trump trial 24/7, like all the time. It's a still shot. It's a picture of a door. It's all this stuff. Now, we're talking about we're in a campaign. We should be hearing more. We say, why don't we hear from the Biden administration? I don't leave that all on the Biden administration's door. The media needs to cover things. For example, abortion is a winning issue for Democrats. Women's reproductive health. Vice President Harris did an event last week. I couldn't find any coverage on it. And that's a Democrat's winning stance. I also think that there was an asylum regulation decided on with the border. Everyone has agreed the border's a problem. Didn't see any coverage on that because we're busy watching the Donald Trump door not opening. GOLDBERG: And don't forget Nikki Haley, her win. Didn't he win? Didn’t she pick up a whole lot – FARAH GRIFFIN: Yeah. She got like 150,000 – HAINES: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. But also you’ve got, last week, our incumbent president stepped in to do a speech on anti-Semitism. They cut to the speech, came back and talked about Donald Trump. So, what's happening here is Donald Trump is Donald trumping us. It's Deja Vu from 2016, and the coverage -- the irony is the people covering that news thinks they're getting one up on Donald Trump while they're handing him a lot of votes because of the coverage. It's ridiculous! ANA NAVARRO: I’ve been saying – I agree with you. I’ve been saying from the beginning I actually think this trial is somewhat helping Donald Trump because it's keeping him off the trail and because we are not focusing on the stupid stuff he says on a daily basis. And that is helping him. On Biden, look – You know, at first it was people saying, we don't like our choices. What else? What third candidate? Well, no third candidate. No knight in shining armor appeared. Now, I'm hearing people say, is there a way in the convention they can change the candidate? That's not going to happen. I'm going to say it until I'm blue in the face. I'm going to say it until the day of election, this is a binary choice. This is a binary choice America has between good and evil, between decency and havoc, between indicted and 88 counts and not. I mean, you know? They're both old. If that's what's keeping you at night -- up at night -- you don't have a choice. (…)

Transgender Kills Civilian: Runs Him Over, Stabs Him & Kisses Him

The left still likes to tell you that transgender people aren’t struggling mentally …  Karon Fisher, a transgender woman in Houston, Texas, allegedly crashed into the body of 64-year-old Steven Anderson earlier this month, before stabbing him to his death, kissing him and prancing over his body. Co-Owner of Trending Politics, Collin Rugg, posted a video of the incident which looks like it was obtained from someone’s outdoor security camera. NEW: Man killed by transgender driver who plowed into him, backed over him and stabbed him 9 times before kissing him and prancing over his body. Absolutely horrific. 20-year-old suspect Karon Fisher is a man according to court papers. After trying to flee the scene in a car,… pic.twitter.com/XuG8KcPIZw — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 11, 2024 According to reports, Anderson was outside getting the mail from his mailbox when Fisher rammed right into him with a vehicle. Fisher allegedly then reversed the car in order to hit Anderson again while witnesses called 911. The video shows Fisher, who was wearing what looked like a bra and underpants, flip over Anderson’s limp body before straddling and kissing him. Reports indicate that Fisher then stabbed Anderson a total of nine times before prancing over his body like a gazelle and walking away “as if nothing had happened.” Neighbors were terrified at the sight, rightfully so. “It’s very disturbing. I have kids here; they could have been out here playing,” a neighbor told ABC13 while another noted how shocking it was that the murder happened in “broad daylight” saying “it happened right under our noses.” The suspect previously was on community supervision for five years over evading arrest in 2023 and in 2021 was charged with prostitution. The same day Fisher allegedly killed Anderson, reports indicate that he assaulted a staff member at the hospital. He’s being held on a two million dollar bond.  Twitter CEO Elon Musk summed it up simply but perfectly when he responded “terrible” to this horrific story.

VCU Students Walk out of Graduation to Protest Youngkin's Speech

Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) graduates walked out of their graduation ceremony Saturday morning as a way of protest when Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin began to deliver the commencement address. The walkout, participated in by dozens of students, was supposed to be a way to show support for Palestine and protest against some of Youngkin’s Republican policies. The VCU chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) urged VCU officials to rescind the invitation to Youngkin this week prior to the graduation ceremony. When their urges were unsuccessful, they, along with other students, said they planned to walk out when Youngkin began speaking — and that’s exactly what they did Saturday morning.  Students, many of whom were wearing masks, stood up and stormed out when Youngkin began his opening statements. Many students held kaffiyeh scarves and signs reading things like “Teach Black history” and “Book bans [do not equal] respect for learning.” Related: Youngkin Promotes Parental Voice Over Children’s Gender And Pronouns Previously Youngkin has proved that he doesn’t want woke crap in schools and emphasized that “parents matter” when it comes to what is and isn’t taught to their kids in school. To the left however, likely many of those who protested at the graduation, that sort of transparency is seen as a threat to the indoctrination and grooming goals of many progressives. NEW: @VCU students walk out of their own commencement to protest @GlennYoungkin #valeg They will not be allowed back into the ceremony but don’t seem worried. “My families going to be mad, but it’s worth it for what he’s done to bBack and trans ppl” - said by a student outside https://t.co/zA9RvvC1Vz pic.twitter.com/wOvgl1lVVK — BK (@BradKutner) May 11, 2024 Other students and protestors marched around the school holding signs and shouting things like "No books, no peace, let knowledge increase" with plans to all meet up at Abner Clay, a local park. The walkout at @VCU graduation is underway. pic.twitter.com/VFOoe5jc2B — Megan E. Pauly (@Megan__Pauly) May 11, 2024 The temper tantrum by the VCU grads was met with mixed reviews from social media users. One user on X gave “kudos” to the students saying “Glenn Youngkin weaponized Black people to win the race for governor with fearmongering over critical race theory and stirring up white parents’ angst. I can’t think of anyone more deserving of a commencement walkout at a historically black university.” A different user said the walkout “warm[ed] her heart.” On the contrary, one user said it wasn’t “courageous” at all, but rather that it was “an insult to their fellow graduates.” Similarly, a user wrote “Pathetic!! Small few inconsiderate fools ruin it for rest of Graduates & families Like so many activists they only care about themselves. What did they really accomplish? Nothing!” I agree with the latter sentiments. Regardless of your personal view of a particular person, there’s something called basic human respect and that’s something I think all those who walked out could benefit from learning about. Follow us on Twitter/X: Wacky Moments of Leftist Extremism: The Media Freak Out Over Trump's Trial Falling Apart The ladies on The View are furious that the court system isn't just throwing Trump in prison without a trial. pic.twitter.com/IDdcOlk35T — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 10, 2024

Turning into a Noem: Psaki to Alter Book After Lying About Biden, Afghanistan

Axios White House reporter Alex Thompson flagged on Monday former Biden White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s new memoir Say More will have an altered passage in future printings following the revelation that it falsely claimed President Biden never looked at his watch during the August 29, 2021, dignified transfer of remains for the 13 Americans murdered in Kabul during the U.S.’s disastrous retreat from Afghanistan. Thompson highlighted the key passage in which she claimed Biden has been a victim of “misinformation” aimed to make “him appear insensitive” when, in her (alternate) reality, “the president looked at his watch only after the ceremony had ended. Moments later, he and the First Lady headed toward their car.” Of course, it flew in the face of live footage from the scene and professional photographers. Psaki quoted friendly media with a (fake) fact-check via USA Today, but she couldn’t even get that right as she attributed it to The Washington Post. Thompson also noted that Psaki’s claim “contradict[s] news photos and firsthand accounts of Gold Star families” At the time, our Nick Fondacaro torched these partisan tools for “drag[ging] those grieving families through the mud” by downplaying what they had seen with their own eyes. And, over on the broadcast networks, Fondacaro noted they ignored it completely in the news cycle after it happened.   It's true. Joe Biden checked his watch during the dignified transfer of the servicemembers killing in Afghanistan at the airport. You can see him jerk his left hand to pull the watch out from under his sleeve, then look down at it. pic.twitter.com/M3QVzJbTIm — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) August 29, 2021   Psaki cowardly “initially declined to comment”, but emerged only after Thompson’s story was posted to admit a “detail in a few lines of the book about the exact number of times he looked at his watch will be removed in future reprints and the ebook”. Further, Psaki channeled her former boss to both Axios and our friend Brian Flood at FoxNews.com by making it about — wait for it — Beau Biden: The story on Afghanistan is really about the importance of delivering feedback even when it is difficult told through my own experience of telling President Biden that his own story of loss was not well received by the families who were grieving their sons and daughters The rest of Thompson’s piece emphasized in broad strokes the reality as we barrel toward the November presidential election that Afghanistan remains one of if not the biggest stain on the President.

Australian Federal Judge Weighs in Favor of Free Speech with This Move

An Australian federal judge has swooped in to defend free speech by siding with Elon Musk in the tech billionaire’s latest spat with Australia’s Ministry of Truth. On May 13, Federal Court Justice Geoffrey Kennett blocked the application for the extension of an injunction issued by Australia’s e-Safety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The injunction ordered X to censor a video depicting an Australian Bishop being stabbed while delivering Mass in Sydney.  It is expected that the Justice will issue an explanatory statement later in the day, reported SkyNews Australia. Musk responded to news of the ruling by re-expressing his continued commitment to the cause of free speech globally. “Not trying to win anything,” Musk posted on X. “I just don’t think we should be suppressing Australia’s rights to free speech.” Grant issued the injunction on April 16 ordering X to suppress the video even for users outside of the United States. She also threatened the company with a daily fine of $785,000 AUD if it didn’t comply with the order.  X’s Global Government Affairs Team challenged Grant’s authority, citing her lack of jurisdiction over non-Australian users. X’s lawyers also argued before the Justice that the video in question was not overly graphic and, contrary to the Australian Government’s characterization, did not glorify violence or terrorism. Related: WATCH: Bishop’s Powerful Response to Censorship Demands of Stabbing Video On April 28, Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, the victim of the vicious stabbing, made a public statement in favor of free speech as a cornerstone of Western civilization and a fundamental natural right.  Musk has faced a lot of pushback and even legal threats for his bold stance in favor of free speech. Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie called for Elon Musk’s arrest. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese singled out X as being so-called uncooperative with the Australian government’s censorship initiatives and claimed that Musk was going against the will of Australians. 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.

Joe Scarborough's Mother's Day Brag: I Was A Multi-Sport Star!

Regular Morning Joe viewers are all too familiar with Joe Scarborough's annoying habit of working the fact that he used to be a congressman into conversations. But for a bragging change of pace, Scarborough somehow managed to slip into his Mother's Day reminiscences that in high school, he apparently was a multi-sport star.  In baseball: "I played baseball. All-Star, had a high average, all this stuff." In basketball: "I was scoring like 30, 35 points a game." Honk if this makes you think of another famous Joe who brags about being a football legend in high school in Delaware. The irony is that, for Scarborough, on those rare occasions when he failed in sports, his mother was anything but sympathetic. When he struck out to end a game, she told him: "If you can't do any better than that, Joey, you'd be doing yourself and the family a great service by never playing baseball again." And when his team lost a basketball game, her reaction was: "You know, it would have been so great if God would have given us at least one natural athlete." Yikes! Scarborough also shared this poignant memory: that his mother really didn't want to have him at all! She didn't want a third child, who was Joe. Though Scarborough claimed she eventually got over it and that he was even the apple of her eye.  I'm reminded of the joke about the two mothers chatting, and one brags to the other: "My son pays his psychoanalyst $375/hr., and all he talks about is me!" Paging Dr. Freud to Scarborough's rescue...Or perhaps, Stuart Smalley. Repeat after us, Joe: "I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And doggone it, people like me." And sure, feel free to throw in: "Did I ever mention that I used to be a Member of Congress?" Far be it from me to delve into Scarborough's psyche. But could it be that the scars of his mother's tough love, and knowing that, at least at first, she was disappointed to give birth to him, in some way account for his penchant for bragging, be it about what a macho man he is, having been a congressman, and now, about having been a high school multi-sport star? Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 5/13/24 6:03 am EDT JOE SCARBOROUGH: You know, it's so interesting. I, um, everybody loves to talk about their moms. Oh, she was so sweet and the most loving, she was an angel. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Mary Jo. SCARBOROUGH: As you know, Mary Jo loved Joey. She loved me so much. And some people would say, like, that I was the apple of her eye after she got over having me. She wasn't really pleased to have a third, a third child, but she eventually did. She was there every step of theway and was the biggest supporter.  But, you know, there was another side of my mom that, that people don't talk about. And I know this sounds weird. This is only, like, 20, 30 seconds, but I saw Ed Sheeran on Howard Stern's show last year, and it explains the success of my mom in being a mom. Here's Howard Stern talking to Ed Sheeran. ED SHEERAN: You learn nothing from success, nothing. You learn everything from the failures. And this is the thing that annoys me about the state that the world is in at the moment. No one talks about failureanymore. It's like shame.Like, failure is shame, like, let's just bury that and not talkabout it. No one goes, oh, what did we learn from this? Whereas with success, everyone shouts about it. But there is nothing in success. Success happens from failing hundreds of times. SCARBOROUGH: So the reason that reminds me of my mom is one of -- I think one of her best moments was, I played baseball.  And, you know, All-Star, had a high average, all of this stuff. Bases loaded, and a key game, and I struck out. Threw my bat down, walked to the car. I was so angry. I got in the back seat, and I said, I said, I'm just going to quit. My mom, you know, drives off. And she quietly says, Well, if you can't do any better than that, Joey, you'd be doing yourself and the family a great service by never playing baseball again.  MIKA: Oh, ouch. SCARBOROUGH: Right? So I sit back, and I'm like, what? That's not what a mom is supposed to say! Guess what? It made me go out and practice harder. It was unconditional love. MIKA: Aww/ She knew you. SCARBOROUGH: But man, she was tough. She was a tough mother, and she never -- like, no time for, like, sympathy for, you know, if we messed up. She let us know. And that, that combination of love and toughness, I think, it makes all the difference. . . .  SCARBOROUGH: And when we lost, my mom let us know. Like, I lost a basketball game. I remember, again, back seat, you know, and I was, I was scoring, like, 30, 35 points a game. We still lost, and my mother turns to my dad in the front seat, so her three children can hear it in the back. She goes, You know, it would have been so great if God would have given us at least one natural athlete." MIKA: Aw, come on. SCARBOROUGH: Who says that? No! No! So, what happens, we get home, I get the basketball out, and I'm shooting for, like, the next two hours.  This is parenting! I mean, it's not just hugging people and being -- you know, Mika, that term, snowplow parents, where we, we want to do everything for our kids and we don't want our kids to ever feel any discomfort. No! That's not what's being a good parent is about.

Tolerance for Me, But Not for Thee! 'Hateful' Conservative Man on ABC's 'Station19' Needs Rescuing by Gay Liberal Sister

As if ABC’s Station 19 didn’t shove their liberal opinions down our throats enough by championing kids attending over-sexualized gay pride parades and portraying anyone who doesn’t toe the LGBTQ line as hateful bigots, the show decided to revisit last month’s storyline in their latest episode, “Give It All.” Apparently, Shonda Rhimes hadn’t given it her all in the previous episode, “True Colors,” and she had some more liberal preaching to do. If you remember, in the previous episode, a crowd of angry, white, conservative men (of course) were protesting at a pride parade in which Station 19 was participating, including bi-sexual character Maya Bishop (Danielle Savre) who saw her brother among the men. Now, four episodes later, Maya’s brother is back to again teach viewers, “Conservatives bad! White men bad! Liberals good!” I mean, they could at least try to come up with a unique storyline instead of ripping off tired old tropes from other shows. Maya shows up at the home her brother Mason (Cameron Cowperthwaite) is sharing with his fellow protesters whom he considers family, and she’s already moody and agitated from hormones she’s taking for IVF treatment: Mason: What do you want, Maya? Maya: I don't know. After seeing you at Pride, I just wanted to talk. I mean, what the hell, Mason? Mason: Is that a question? Maya: Do you believe this crap? Is this who you are now? Mason: "Now" is a weird qualifier. Maya: I've known you my entire life, Mason. You're just confused or… Mason: You don't think I can form my own opinions? I can't think for myself? Maya: You're not a person who… Okay, you're not full of hate. We grew up together. I know you. Mason: You don't know me. You know yourself. That's all you've ever cared about. Maya: Is that one of yours? Mason: Yeah. Maya: Fine. Tell me who you are then. I want to understand. Mason: I'm not doing this. Maya: No, I'm not leaving until we talk. So we nee… Mason: Come on, Maya, enough. Just leave me alone. Damn it. Maya: I'm sorry. Let me... Mason: Just please leave! Maya: No, I can help, okay? Let me help. Poor Maya is trying so hard to save her brother from his conservative self. What’s a liberal girl to do? #EyeRoll As their argument continues, Mason becomes every Hollywood production’s caricature of how they see conservatives - angry, cruel and hateful: Mason: At least I can contribute. Maya: To what? This boys' home for deplorables? Mason: We uphold the traditions of our country and the people who built it. Maya: What does that even mean? Mason: A man used to be able to raise a family on one salary. We're losing out on jobs because of identity politics, immigration. Maya: Mason, you are brainwashed. Mason: This is the stupidity… This is the stupidity my brothers warned me about. Men like us are despised. Maya: What are you talking about? How are you despised? You were the group shouting at innocent people at… Look, I'm just confused, okay? The Mason I knew was a kid who made up stories with me. You remember that? He was the kid who insisted on having a funeral for the dead mouse in the garage. He is extremely talented. Mason: Talented? Why didn't you ever tell that to Dad when he was burning my art? Where were you when I wanted to go to art school? All the money went to your Olympic training. These people are my brothers. Okay? They helped me get clean. They hung my art on the walls. I matter to these people. No one ever told me that I mattered before. Maya: You matter to me, Mason. Just let me get you out of this place and see how it feels. Mason: And go where? Maya: Move in with me. Mason: You want me to come and live with you? Maya: You don't know what real family feels like. Let me show you. Deplorables? Okay, Hillary. And Maya doesn’t think straight, white men are despised in our culture? Hollywood really does exist in a bubble. Maya is a great example of so many on the left who mistakenly believe conservatives and Christians must give up their deeply held beliefs (which Maya refers to as brainwashing) to love them. Do the writers not realize she’s being just as sanctimonious and holier-than-thou as Mason is? She just cloaks her bigotry in “love” and a savior complex: Maya finally admits to Mason she’s bisexual which takes him by complete surprise: Maya: You could go to school and study art and get a job. Mason: You want me to pay rent? Maya: I mean, no. You could, but I don't need you to pay rent. Mason: You really want me to come and live with you? Maya: I just… I want to show you that there's another way. Mason: I didn't need your saving when I was on the streets, and I don't need it now. Maya: These people don't care about you. Mason: These people are my family. Maya: Who harass innocent people at a parade. Was that your family? Mason: Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Why are you so obsessed with that? Why do you care so much about a stupid gay parade? Maya: Because they're my people, Mason. You're harassing me and my community. Her revelation just brings out more of Mason’s hatred: Mason: You're telling me you're... gay? Maya: Yes. I'm bisexual. Mason: Oh, so you're confused. And you have daddy issues. Maya: I have a wife. We're trying to adopt a son. I am building a family. Mason: You have a wife and a kid? And you want me to move in with you? Call your wife. Tell her. God knows that fatherless kid is gonna need a male role model, especially when the little weirdo tells all the other kids at school about his two mommies. No, go on. Call her. Tell her Uncle Mason's coming. I'll pack my bags. Right. Maya: I want you to be a part of my life, Mason, but I can't do that if you don't… Mason: So, you want me to accept you and your "choices," but you don't have to accept me and mine? Maya: I can agree to disagree about everything except my humanity, Mason. I'm just trying to exist, and your "brothers" hate me for it. Mason: Because you are poisoning this country. And you shouldn't be allowed to do that. You shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Maya: Oh, my God. You're Dad. You've become Dad. Mason: Don't pull that crap with me. Maya: No, actually... You're not him. You're worse. I came here trying to save you or something. But now I get it. That's not possible. You can never be a part of my life, Mason. Not like this. You're not allowed to touch the beautiful life that I've created, because you would ruin it. I have love that we never knew existed as kids, and I wanted you to have that, too, but...You don't want it. And I won't risk losing it, so... As a conservative Christian with a transgender family member, I have lived this experience. My family member is one of the most kind, loving people you could ever hope to know. My husband and I have gay family members, as well. What’s beautiful is they love us and allow us to be ourselves without shaming us for our faith. They know we don’t think any less of them or judge them, and they don’t think any less of us or judge us. We just…love each other. Unfortunately, I have lost close friends who are gay once they’ve learned about my Christian, conservative beliefs, and it’s honestly broken my heart. I was willing to love them just as they are, but they couldn’t do the same for me. Because just as Maya says she can agree to disagree on everything but her humanity, the same can be said for conservatives and Christians who are hated and criticized for who we are. Sadly, Maya cuts Mason out of her life and the two never find any common ground to cling to. There’s only judgement and hate on both sides: Beckett: May I help you? I used to help my ex-wife with hers. Maya: I found my brother. He's so hateful. Like, I thought a little piece of him was still left, but he's gone. Oh, my God. I cut him off. How could I do that? Beckett: Maya... Maya: I'm a horrible person. Beckett: Maya, you did what you needed to do. Maya: Why does it feel like somebody died or something? Beckett: That's actually apparently a real thing. Hughes said it's called "ambiguous loss." Can I? Maya: Yeah. Beckett: It hurts like hell. But you had to make a choice. It was either him or you. Maya: Yeah. Yeah. Beckett: It's okay. It's okay. You ready? Alright. And, Bishop... Maya: Yeah? Beckett: For what it's worth you're already a great mother. Maybe if Hollywood would ever allow conservatives and Christians onto their writing teams to consult the way they do pro-abortion and leftist activists, they could come up with a decent storyline in which two family members actually express their love and devotion to each other unconditionally, no matter their differences. And neither must conform to the others’ beliefs in order to be “rescued.” Yeah, I’m not holding my breath, either.

New York Times Roots for Pro-Hamas Competition: 'Al Jazeera Finds Fans On Campus'

The radical leftists on campus don't trust newspaper like The New York Times for their coverage of the Israel-Hamas war, but the Times doesn't mind. On the front of Monday's business section, they offered a laudatory look at the pro-Hamas, Qatar-funded network Al Jazeera, under “Why Al Jazeera is the Go To News Source for Student Protesters.” Santul Nerkar, a young journalist at the paper, never used terms like "leftist" or "radical" or even "progressive." They're just "pro-Palestinian." The print headline: “Al Jazeera Finds Fans On Campus.” He began: Nick Wilson has closely followed news on the war in Gaza since October. But Mr. Wilson, a Cornell student, is picky when it comes to his media diet: As a pro-Palestinian activist, he doesn’t trust major American outlets’ reporting on Israel’s campaign in Gaza. When conservatives say they don’t trust the mainstream press to cover Republicans fairly, they’re often smeared as ignorant or racist or McCarthyite. (The Times certainly doesn't respect the right-leaning New York Post.) Yet when leftists readers spout distrust, journalists from those same outlets under attack sound supportive. Strange how that works. Instead, he turns to publications less familiar to some American audiences, like the Arab news network Al Jazeera. “Al Jazeera is the site that I go to to get an account of events that I think will be reliable,” he said. Nerkar listed a few freak-show outlets, including Jewish Currents, which spouts about “Israel war crimes and “genocide,” as reliable reportorial options. Many student protesters said in recent interviews that they were seeking on-the-ground coverage of the war in Gaza, and often, a staunchly pro-Palestinian perspective -- and they are turning to alternative media for it. There’s a range of options: Jewish Currents, The Intercept, Mondoweiss and even independent Palestinian journalists on social media, as they seek information about what is happening in Gaza. .... Israel’s recent ban on the local operations of Al Jazeera has only elevated the network’s status among many student protesters. They prize coverage from reporters on the ground, and Al Jazeera has a more extensive operation in Gaza than any other publication. Students also noted the sacrifices it has made to tell the story there. Two Al Jazeera journalists have died since the start of the war. What didn’t make it into this report: Al-Jazeera’s pro-terrorist coverage like throwing a “birthday party” with cake and fireworks in 2008, to celebrate the release of a Lebanese terrorist who killed four in Israel, including a four-year-old girl. Al Jazeera reporters Ismail Abu Omar and Mohamed Washah were caught moonlighting as Hamas commanders. In February, The Times of Israel reported that "the IDF revealed a trove of images" that showed Washah in a Hamas uniform training fighters how to shoot rocket-propelled grenades, build warheads, and operate drones armed with an RPG. Nerkar oddly described Hamas as "armed resistance," not as engaged in the slaughter of civilians and hostage-taking. Critics say its coverage veers into support of the armed resistance to Israel. The Israeli government, which has accused Al Jazeera of acting as a “mouthpiece” for Hamas, last Sunday seized its broadcast equipment and shut down its operations in the country for at least 45 days. This is apparently Al Jazeera’s idea of balance: Terrorist videos as well as Israeli government news conferences. Al Jazeera called the government’s accusation “baseless” in a statement, adding that it has broadcast every news conference held by the Israeli cabinet and representatives for the Israel Defense Forces, in addition to videos from Hamas. …. The protesters rattle off a list of mainstream American publications as having coverage they find objectionable, including CNN, The Atlantic, the BBC and The New York Times, among many others. Nerkar approached the truth when he quoted scholar Hussein Ibish that the show’s “distinctly anti-American bent” had found a new fanbase on American college campuses: “There’s a third-worldist, anti-imperial point of view, and that’s also the view that many college kids have adopted.” Can’t disagree with that.

CNN’s Dana Bash Hits Trump With A Smear Within A Smear

While forwarding the smear of former President Donald Trump as an antisemite due to his suggestion that Jews voting against him “should be ashamed”, CNN’s Dana Bash falsely suggested that Trump’s dinner with noted antisemite Nick Fuentes was intentional. Watch as Bash levels that smear towards the end of her exchange with U.S. Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) on Israel: J.D. VANCE: We have to remember, Donald Trump is very direct here…  DANA BASH: Well, you said he was right. VANCE: …and he hasn't singled out Jewish-Americans. He singled out a lot of people for voting for Joe Biden and suggesting they've got to wake up and elect him as president in 2024. So I don't think there's any effort to single out Jewish-Americans, and just on that particular question about tropes, I mean, look, we know that Jewish-Americans and non Jewish-Americans care about our ally, Israel. We know that Jewish-Americans and non Jewish-Americans care a lot about these ridiculous protests. I actually have a friend of mine whose brother was graduating from Columbia, who had the graduation ceremony canceled. And that's a non-Jewish person who cares a lot about these anti-semitic protests. So I think the fact that Donald Trump is talking about Jews in that particular context does not mean he doesn't think the same lessons apply to a whole host of American citizens. BASH: Yeah, because he did say that any Jewish person who voted for Joe Biden should be ashamed of themselves. I want to move on.  VANCE: But he’s made similar comments about a lot of different groups of people, Dana. I don't think anybody could look at the presidency and the conduct of Donald Trump and say, this is a person who's somehow anti-semitic. And I think whether you're Jewish or not, you should be looking at the record of Joe Biden BASH: He had dinner with Nick Fuentes, who is an avowed anti-semite.  VANCE: Dana, you should look at the record of Joe Biden and recognize that, whether you’re Jewish or not, his presidency has been a disaster for the American people. The interview started out with a discussion on President Joe Biden’s decision to withhold military assistance from Israel . To Bash’s credit, that particular portion of the interview featured no appeals to the authority of Ronald Reagan. The interview then shifts to the accusations of anti-semitism against Trump. Earlier, we noted the emergence of this weird reclassification of a shopworn appeal to interests as an “anti-semitic trope”.  Irrespective of one’s feelings over Trump’s statements, they do not rise to anything more than an opinion. Black and Hispanic conservatives get excoriated by the left all the time for “voting against their self-interest”, and no one ever accuses those leftists of being anti-Black or anti-Hispanic, nor do such statements ever draw any media scrutiny. Reasonable individuals are left to won(D)er why that is.  Bruce’s fabrication of an anti-semitism where there is none smacks of media firefighting, intended to protect President Biden not just from the fallout of the munitions block, but from his own recent “very fine people” moment, as well as appearing weak on Israel.  The broader adoption of this talking point confirms our thesis. But Bash adds a new wrinkle, bolstering the fake trope with another event falsely packaged as proof evident of Trump’s alleged antisemitism: noted antisemite Nick Fuentes crashing Mar-a-Lago for dinner with Kanye West. Bash confidently uttered “He had dinner with Nick Fuentes, who is an avowed anti-semite” as a definitive tu quoque despite multisource confirmation that Trump was blindsided by Fuentes. Per then-NBC reporter Marc Caputo: Trump has since said he didn’t know Fuentes or his background when they dined together, a claim Fuentes confirmed in an interview, but others at the crowded members-only club figured out his identity. Why let the truth get in the way of a good smear? The interview moves on to the ongoing New York trial and closes with Bash trying to corner Vance on the 2024 election. As this interview demonstrates, if we didn’t have Regime Media we’d have no media at all. Click “expand” to view the transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on CNN State of the Union on Sunday, May 12th, 2024: DANA BASH: I want to ask about something that Donald Trump said in- on social media. He said, “what Biden is doing with respect to Israel is disgraceful. If any Jewish person voted for Joe Biden, they should be ashamed of themselves. He's totally abandoned Israel”. You tweeted that Donald Trump was right about that. So I just wanted to be clear. Do you think that Jewish people who voted for Joe Biden should be ashamed of themselves? J.D. VANCE: What I think, Dana, is that people should look at the record here and recognize that Donald Trump has actually been really good for the State of Israel. We had peace and prosperity in our country, and we had a very stalwart ally of the Israelis. Now, Joe Biden as president, the Israelis have been attacked, you've got these terrible campus protests with a lot of anti-semitic overtones all over our country, and you also have him trying to micromanage the Israeli response to them being attacked. Do I think it's reasonable to look at this situation and say that if you're a Jewish-American who cares about the State of Israel, who cares about these anti-semitic riots and say, you should be on the side of Republicans in 2024 because they govern effectively on some of the issues that you care about? I think it's a totally reasonable argument to make, and I think that Donald Trump's going to keep on making it.  BASH: You know, historically, the notion of saying to Jews, “you should put Israel first and what happens in Israel first”, and not sort of consider them American citizens first has been used as an anti-semitic trope. Do you- do you recognize that there and perhaps that language isn't exactly on point when you're talking about something that is very, very sick- it’s a tinderbox right now. VANCE: We have to remember, Donald Trump is very direct here…  BASH:: Well, you said he was right. VANCE: …and he hasn't singled out Jewish-Americans. He singled out a lot of people for voting for Joe Biden and suggesting they've got to wake up and elect him as president in 2024. So I don't think there's any effort to single out Jewish-Americans, and just on that particular question about tropes, I mean, look, we know that Jewish-Americans and non Jewish-Americans care about our ally, Israel. We know that Jewish-Americans and non Jewish-Americans care a lot about these ridiculous protests. I actually have a friend of mine whose brother was graduating from Columbia, who had the graduation ceremony canceled. And that's a non-Jewish person who cares a lot about these anti-semitic protests. So I think the fact that Donald Trump is talking about Jews in that particular context does not mean he doesn't think the same lessons apply to a whole host of American citizens. BASH: Yeah, because he did say that any Jewish person who voted for Joe Biden should be ashamed of themselves. I want to move on.  VANCE: But he’s made similar comments about a lot of different groups of people, Dana. I don't think anybody could look at the presidency and the conduct of Donald Trump and say, this is a person who's somehow anti-semitic. And I think whether you're Jewish or not, you should be looking at the record of Joe Biden BASH: He had dinner with Nick Fuentes, who is an avowed anti-semite.  VANCE: Dana, you should look at the record of Joe Biden and recognize that, whether you’re Jewish or not, his presidency has been a disaster for the American people.  

NPR Loves Far-Left Tik-Tok Effort to Punish Celebrities For SILENCE on Gaza

Chloe Veltman, a correspondent on National Public Radio’s “Culture Desk” who last year celebrated the “Nation's first 'drag laureate,'" is still guarding the far-left ramparts of U.S. culture for NPR with Saturday’s “The Met Gala has fueled backlash against stars who are silent about the Gaza conflict.” She demonstrated, as if any more evidence was needed, the tax-supported network’s rigid adherence to a left-wing worldview that offends at least half its intended audience. Even as other outlets are trying to rein in the woke left and open public debate back up with more tolerance of opposing views, Veltman went all-in in support of anti-Israel (i.e. pro-Hamas) social media-fueled cancel culture targeting the outlandish Met Gala in NYC. A collective effort on TikTok and other social media platforms to push celebrities to speak publicly about the conflict in Gaza went into overdrive this week after The Met Gala. Creators on TikTok have earned millions of views for videos they've made linked to hashtags like #celebrityblocklist, #letthemeatcake and #blockout. Many of these posts list the names of actors, musicians and other high-profile figures whom the video creators say had not yet spoken out against Israel's attacks on the region -- or hadn't spoken out sufficiently -- and therefore should be blocked. And there's been a special push in recent days to name those who attended the opulent, star-studded annual Met Gala on Monday. They're not punishing celebrities speaking out for Israel. They're for punishing celebrities who say nothing about Israel or Gaza. This doesn’t sound sinister at all: "I made a Google Doc of every celebrity that attended the Met Gala, and now I'm going through and writing if they've been silent, or if they've been using their platform to speak up about the genocide in Gaza," said one TikTok user in a video displaying a long list of celebrity names against a black background with the word "SILENT" in red next to some, including Zendaya, Nicki Minaj, Keith Urban and Andrew Scott…. (There’s an unrelated “Zionist authors” version of this sort of hate-list as well.) Veltman the NPR culture journalist sounded precisely like Veltman the far-left activist: Calls on social media to boycott celebrity silences have been on a slow burn for months. But the fact the New York event, with its unchecked display of privilege and wealth, took place at around the same time as thousands of Palestinians were being forced to flee Rafah at less than 24 hours notice as Israeli troops took control of the Gaza territory's border crossing with Egypt, fanned the glowing embers into full-on flames. …. The rationale behind the calls on social media to block celebrities, thereby negatively impacting their advertising revenue, is to put pressure on them to use their massive influence to try to stop the violence in Gaza. The journalist concluded her taxpayer-supported segment celebrating the destructive, ultra-online temper tantrums for somehow helping “Gaza” (though calling for Israel to stop its war on Hamas would benefit the terrorists who run Gaza). And even if the many, much-viewed videos aimed at canceling celebrities don't help to bring about a change for the people of Gaza, there's at least an emotional reward for those doing the canceling. "It does provide some sense of agency," said the University of Michigan's Collins. "A sense that I've done something to influence other people to do something that perhaps maybe might make a difference. Because in the minds of those folks, it's better than doing nothing."

SHAMELESS: Sunday Shows Pull Reagan Appeal To Authority Card On Pro-Israel GOPs

Much has changed in America over the years, but one tradition remains; the use of hymnals on Sundays. Not in churches, though- but by the Regime Media who on the Lord’s Day will often squawk out the same talking point. Today’s media hymn: the clumsy appeal to authority citing Ronald Reagan, as justification for President Joe Biden’s decision to withhold munitions shipments to Israel in protest of the Rafah offensive. Watch as Sen. Tom Cotton absolutely SHUTS DOWN Margaret Brennan’s attempt at an appeal to Reagan’s authority on CBS Face the Nation, as aired on Sunday, May 12th, 2024: MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you more broadly, because people like Senator van Hollen, who is going to be on here, will talk about the principle and the spirit and the meaning of U.S. law. And you know that past presidents have withheld military aid to Israel to force changes in behavior. President Reagan did that. President Bush did that. Why do you have a problem with President Biden doing that? TOM COTTON: Well- first off, when you talk about the principle and the spirit of U.S. law, it seems to me like they're not talking about the letter of U.S. Law, because Tony Blinken's own report concluded they did not violate U.S. law. Ronald Reagan’s decision to pause the delivery of fighter jets in the '80s was totally different from what happens here- what’s happened here. Israel is fighting a war of survival against a terrorist group that committed the worst atrocity against Jews since World War II. In the 1980s, an Israeli ambassador had been targeted for assassination. Ronald Reagan knew that the pause of fighter jets would not interfere with Israel's fighting, because they had plenty of fighters. They did not pause munitions. Joe Biden is not sending munitions in the middle of a shooting war that’s a war of survival, and look at the broader context. Israel knew that Ronald Reagan had its back in the region. He sank half of Iran's navy. Joe Biden has consistently given Iran hundreds of billions of sanctions relief that exactly funded groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. BRENNAN: And you know that they dispute that and they are still sending weapons. The Regime Media are either disgusted by Ronald Reagan and hate everything he stands for, or too young to remember Reagan but know just enough to reflexively hate him because he is still revered by conservatives. Regardless of individual circumstance, the deployment of the appeal to Reagan’s authority is intended to serve the same purpose: to cow Republicans into compliance with whatever issue the Regime Media is advocating for on any given day: in this instance, Biden’s aforementioned hold on munitions transfers to Israel. In Brennan’s case, her hollow attempt at an appeal to Reagan’s authority is so thoroughly shut down by Cotton that she has little choice but to revert to White House talking points.   NBC’s Kristen Welker attempted the same tactic with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on NBC’s Meet the Depressed, with similar results: NBC’s @kwelkernbc also suddenly found wisdom in Ronald Reagan, relaying a Democratic talking point she attributed to “historians.” To @LindseyGrahamSC: “Historians would say ‘why is it okay for Reagan to do it and not President Biden?’” #MTP pic.twitter.com/jM9BR1GFVh — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 12, 2024 So incensed is Graham at the empty appeal to authority that he stomps all over Welker’s use of a variant of “critics say”- “military officials say”. What military officials were these, precisely? And how were these unnamed military officials able to preemptively react to Graham’s answer on the decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan? One suspects that Graham was knowingly addressing “General Tristan Melker” here.  And on ABC This Week, we get Martha Raddatz using Reagan’s decision on fighter jets as an “aha” against House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX): ABC’s @MarthaRaddatz sees wisdom in Reagan to defend Biden. To @RepMcCaul: “You regularly invoke...Reagan. You heard Sen Coons bring up the fact he paused weapons to Israel as well. You constantly ask yourself,what would Ronald Reagan do? That’s what Ronald Reagan did” #ThisWeek pic.twitter.com/EpNTpXC1cg — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 12, 2024 The media despise Ronald Reagan and everything he stood for, including and especially the principles of Peace through Strength as pertains to American foreign policy. But they are unafraid to use Reagan against today’s Republicans in an attempt to score points in support of the Biden administration. Remember Alinsky’s Rule Four: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Today the Alinskyites in the media failed, and did so miserably. Click "expand" to view transcripts of the aforementioned interview segments as aired on their respective programs on Sunday, May 12th, 2024: NBC MEET THE PRESS: KRISTEN WELKER: But let me ask it this way, because President Biden is not the first president to use armed shipments to try to influence Israeli policy. As you know former president Ronald Reagan on multiple occasions withheld weapons to impact Israel's military actions. Did President Reagan show that using U.S. military aid as leverage can actually be an effective way to rein in and impact Israel's policy? LINDSEY GRAHAM: When you're telling the world you’re gonna restrict weapons delivery to the Jewish state who is fighting a three-front war for their survival, it embowdens Iran, it emboldens Hamas. (Yahya) Sinwar is probably juiced up on the idea there’s daylight between the United States and Israel. The hostage deal is harder. This the worst decision in the history of the U.S.- Israel relationship, to deny weapons at a time the Jewish state can be destroyed, so here's what I would say. There is some hope we can get over this. Non-negotiable, the destruction of Hamas. Nobody in Israel will allow Hamas to be standing militarily or politically when this is over. How we get there is subject to negotiation. My problem is not with the weapons that Israel is using. My problem is with the tactics that Hamas is using, and the idea that America would not send a nickel of aid echoed by a United States Senator when all of the Jews are trying to be killed by radical Islamic groups tells us where we are at as a nation. The Republican Party is with Israel without apology. WELKER: But historians would say, “why is it OK for Reagan to do it and not President Biden, but let me ask you about the big deal” GRAHAM: Well, why is it OK- can I say this? Why is it OK for America to not two- to drop two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end their existential threat war? Why was it OK for us to do that? I thought it was OK.  WELKER: Senator?  GRAHAM: So Israel, do whatever you have to do to survive as a Jewish state. WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO DO. (CROSSTALK) WELKER: Senator- again, military officials say the technology has changed. But let me ask you about how all of this could impact the-- let me ask-- let me ask you something. GRAHAM: Yeah, these military officials that you’re talking about are full of crap. ABC THIS WEEK: MARTHA RADDATZ: You regularly invoked- or invoke former President Ronald Reagan. You heard Senator Coons bring up the fact that he paused weapons to Israel as well. You constantly ask yourself, “what would Ronald Reagan do?” That’s what Ronald Reagan did. MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, I think- look. I think in this case to say, look. I'm all for the humanitarian piece here, and that can be done. But I am not for saying -- what the president said is different. He said, I- if they go into Rafah, I'm not supplying the weapons, period. He didn't say something else. That's what he said, and I have to go by his words because you know what? They're not giving us any information. The State Department, this administration, have been- not been transparent- they’ve been hiding the 8-ball, and that’s what he said.  

CBS's Robert Costa Begs Bill Maher to Stop Mocking Lefties, Just Mock Republicans

CBS reporter Robert Costa put together a puffball interview for HBO Real Time host Bill Maher on their show Sunday Morning. They let him claim he's not ideological and didn't laugh when he said  “I speak for the normies. I speak for that vast middle that is tired of the partisanship. I don’t want to hate half the country, and I don’t hate half the country.” Bill Maher represents the "vast middle," the "normies"? Conservatives across America would make a face at that. At bottom, Maher is a bit of shock jock, so that when Democrats are in power he's going to mock them as well, just as he suggested on Friday night that the Democrats "blew it" in all their legal warfare on Trump.  What was amazing in this profile was Costa imploring Maher to lay off mockery of the Left, just shine the spotlight on the right-wingers!  Robert @costareports pressed @BillMaher on @CBSSunday: If “left irritates you,” but “the right often alarms you,” then “what do you say to critics who say you should just focus on them if they’re more alarming to you than the left, then why not shine the spotlight on them only?” pic.twitter.com/5glVpJQsFQ — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 12, 2024 COSTA: You write a lot of throughout this book that the left irritates you, frustrates you at times, but the right often alarms you. MAHER: Yes. They’re very alarming. They’re extremely alarming. More alarming. COSTA: What do you say to your critics, though, who say that you should just focus on them, Bill, if they’re more alarming to you than the Left. And why not shine the spotlight on them only? MAHER: The truth isn’t one-sided like that. The Democrats constantly are,running against Trump with the idea ‘You people out there couldn’t possibly vote for this guy.’ And people are saying, ‘Watch me. Hold my beer. Watch me vote for him again.’ Earth to Bill: Your "news" people at CBS and ABC and NBC and PBS do believe the "truth is one-sided like that." Maher then insisted Trump is a massive liar and literally crazy with malignant narcissism. CBS ran a clip of Maher citing the Glenn Kessler "lie counter" at The Washington Post: "Trump made over 8,000 false or misleading statements as president. Nothing like this has ever happened before." What has never happened before (or since) was the Post doing a database of "false or misleading statements" by one politician. They refused to follow through with Biden. Maher could have asked Costa when he and Bob Woodward were going to do one of those investigative books on President Biden. Woodward did four on Trump. They're just like Kessler: "why shine the spotlight" on Biden?  Speaking of false statements, Maher talked about how he was willing (despite leftist protest) to interview former Trump Attorney General William Barr, in part because he found it very important that Barr was willing to say Trump lost the election. Then Maher also took after ”Bill Barr's, I thought, horrible behavior when the Mueller Report came out and he basically lied about it.” Costa didn't ask: What's the lie? It was more about spin as the collusion case fizzled. At the time, Democrats were furious because Barr announced Mueller would not indict Trump, but they wanted wiggle room. Mueller then offered verbal flatulence to Congress, "We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime." But the scandal was over.

FLASHBACK: When ABC News Buried Top Anchor’s Ethical Scandal

Nine years ago this week, ABC News was roiled by a journalistic scandal: Their top political anchor had refused to disclose his big dollar contributions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time he used ABC’s airwaves in an attempt to discredit an anti-Clinton author, an obvious favor to the just-launched Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign. Yet after a few days of bad headlines, and a pair of on-air apologies, George Stephanopoulos simply resumed covering politics as if nothing had happened. ABC’s casual attitude matched the blind eye the network had turned to the anchor’s obvious bias over two decades as a pundit, correspondent and anchor. Stephanopoulos first achieved celebrity status as a staffer on Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, later spending four years at the White House as a spokesman and senior advisor. After Clinton’s re-election in 1996, the thoroughly partisan Stephanopoulos jumped to ABC News — first as a liberal commentator, but later as a supposedly neutral news anchor. “If I were biased, I don’t believe I would have gotten the job,” Stephanopoulos bragged to Newsday in 2002, after he was tapped to helm ABC’s Sunday morning show, soon to be re-named This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Of course, Stephanopoulos is completely biased; one only needed to look at his on-air utterances to see it plainly. Yet to maintain the illusion of objectivity, Stephanopoulos needed to at least superficially conform to journalists’ norms — such as NOT donating tens of thousands of dollars to the pet causes of the Democratic partisans he was supposed to be covering objectively. The immediate problem: Stephanopoulos had gone on the attack on the April 26, 2015 edition of This Week, grilling investigative author Peter Schweizer over a book showing massive foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, all while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and then a leading presidential candidate. (Hillary had declared her candidacy just two weeks earlier, on April 12.) Stephanopoulos impugned Schweizer as biased because he had worked for Republicans and received funding from a conservative source. “You used to work for President Bush as a speech writer. You are funded by the Koch brothers,” Stephanopoulos lectured Schweizer in an unusually hostile interview. But Stephanopoulos — who had an even more partisan pedigree — hadn’t told viewers about the $75,000 he had donated the Clinton Foundation as recently as 2014. In mid-May, the Washington Free Beacon called ABC News, asking for comments about these contributions. With the story about to break, ABC appears to have tipped the information to a friendlier reporter, Politico’s Dylan Byers, who broke the news on Thursday, May 14, 2015. Byers quoted from an e-mail statement from Stephanopoulos: “I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize.” Byers’ Politico colleague, Jack Shafer, blasted it as “unbecoming” for a news organization like ABC to punish the Free Beacon by handing their scoop to another outlet. “Government and business play this retaliatory game all the time when journalists surprise them with a request for comment. What’s unbecoming is that a news organization might engage in this practice.” Yet, as Shafer acidly noted, it’s “precisely the type of thing you can imagine the Stephanopoulos-era Clinton administration doing without compunction.” Later that day, Stephanopoulos took the minimal step of bowing out as moderator of a February 2016 debate among GOP presidential candidates — as if the Republicans would have showed up if he was in charge. “I won’t moderate that debate,” Stephanopoulos assured Politico’s Byers. “I want to be sure I don’t deprive viewers of a good debate.” Critics were unimpressed. “This blunder by Stephanopoulos is so severe that it really threatens to undo what he’s accomplished in his 18 years at ABC News,” FNC’s Howard Kurtz exclaimed that Thursday night. “For him, as a top ABC anchor, to give this money to the Clinton Foundation while covering the story is in itself a grave error in judgment. But then to not tell his bosses at ABC News, to not disclose it to the viewers, it’s unthinkable.” “It is quite obvious Stephanopoulos should have recused himself from that interview” with Peter Schweizer, NewsBusters editor Tim Graham argued that same day on FBN’s Varney & Co., “or he should have had the decency and the ethics to announce to the audience that he had donated tens of thousands of dollars to the foundation that he very much looked like he was defending.” Schweizer agreed, telling Bloomberg Politics that Stephanopoulos’s failure was a “massive breach of ethical standards....He fairly noted my four months working as a speech writer for George W. Bush. But he didn’t disclose this?” But ABC News wouldn’t concede a thing. “He’s admitted to an honest mistake and apologized for that omission. We stand behind him,” the network said in a statement to Politico. Stephanopoulos offered formulaic apologies on the two shows he anchored: Good Morning America and This Week. “Over the last several years, I have made substantial donations to dozens of charities, including the Clinton Global Foundation,” Stephanopoulos announced on the May 15 Good Morning America. “Those donations were a matter of public record. But I should have made additional disclosures on-air when we covered the foundation and I now believe directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake.” Two days later, This Week viewers saw a nearly identical apology. “I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. I apologize to all of you for failing to do that.”     As Stephanopoulos was mouthing his first apology, ABC alumnus Geraldo Rivera was on Fox & Friends, pointing out that when he was fired in 1985, the reason given was a mere $200 contribution to a non-partisan mayoral campaign. But a key difference, according to Rivera: “George Stephanopoulos is the darling of ABC News management so they will treat him with kid gloves.” Perhaps the last word on the topic (at least on ABC’s airwaves), came the following month, when Stephanopoulos scored an interview with the just-announced candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination, Donald Trump. Stephanopoulos asked Trump what he thought about Hillary Clinton. “Of course, you shouldn’t be talking to me about that, in all fairness,” Trump tweaked, in obvious reference to Stephanopoulos’s conflicts of interest. “You shouldn’t be asking me those questions, but I don’t mind.” For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.                          

Ex-NPR Editor Uri Berliner Mocks New NPR CEO Katherine Maher for Skipping House Hearing

NPR whistleblower Uri Berliner, who penned a bombshell expose on the woke one-sidedness of the "public" radio network's news product, knocked new NPR CEO Katherine Maher for failing to show for Wednesday's House hearing on the leftist bias of her new employer. She claimed she had a Board of Directors meeting all day. Instead, Maher submitted written testimony NPR is “bringing trusted, reliable, independent news and information of the highest editorial standards” to tens of millions of listeners. Eli Lake at The Free Press, which ran Berliner's piece, talked to Berliner about the no-show. “Why isn’t she there? Is she the right person for the job at this time?” he asked, adding that her written statement “sounds like a pledge drive.” This question could be turned around on Berliner, who surely was invited to testify by the House Republicans. Berliner also called BS on Maher’s claim that she doesn’t interfere in NPR’s editorial content. “She said she was on the other side of the firewall that separates the newsroom from the CEO,” he told The Free Press in a phone interview. “However, when my story came out, after I had already been suspended for five days without pay, she told editorial staffers in a public statement on the NPR website they had been hurt, demeaned, and disrespected by what I wrote. That’s knocking down the firewall right there.” He added, “She doesn’t address how NPR’s audience has shifted dramatically over time, from roughly reflecting America to a much narrower progressive slice of the country.” He insisted “NPR needs real leadership now...The board will need to decide whether Katherine Maher is the right person for the job.” Clearly, they decided Katherine Maher matched NPR's wokeness nicely, with the donations to election-denying Stacey Abrams and the tweets in defense of looting, which perfectly matched NPR's vibe. Fox News media reporter Joseph Wulfsohn reported on Berliner's comments last weekend at the Dissident Dialogues festival in New York [photo credit: Fox News]. Berliner revealed that one of the "big factors" that motivated him to go public about NPR's groupthink was Maher's arrival in March. He hoped the new CEO could "turn a new leaf" for the outlet. "As I said in my essay, we're welcoming a CEO, I'll be rooting for her because I thought, okay, maybe this is the time to bring this up. We've got new leadership. Maybe this is the time we could really tackle these things," Berliner said. Berliner then pivoted to the memo Maher penned to staff publicly rebuking him:  "Questioning whether our people are serving our mission with integrity, based on little more than the recognition of their identity, is profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning." "Supposedly there's what's called a firewall in the newsroom," Berliner said. "There's the newsroom, the editorial team, and there are people who run the business, the CEO. And I think basically in one of her first acts, if not her first act, she crossed over that firewall to criticize me as a journalist. And that I found especially troubling given her views on the First Amendment, free expression."  Meanwhile, this is the kind of contempt NPR reporters show for their critics: Brian Mann is the guy who I testified failed to cover Hunter Biden's laptop in October 2020 in favor of a story titled “Experts Say Attack On Hunter Biden's Addiction Deepens Stigma For Millions.” NPR is facing a ton of criticism rn from people who either aren't actually listening to our reporting or who are just making #%#@ up. Which makes it harder to focus on real questions and critical feedback about our journalism. https://t.co/EOVKMb4ugk — Brian Mann (@BrianMannADK) May 7, 2024

NPR Hearing: Our NewsBusters Opening Statement for the Congressional Record

It was an honor and a privilege to testify before Congress on the bias at National Public Radio. It was my second turn. In 1999, I testified about the bias at PBS. Nothing has changed much in the overall tilt of public broadcasting, even if it's grown more intense with social media and the Trump phenomenon. I collated examples of NPR bias by using the NPR topic tag on NewsBusters -- remember you can isolate individual networks or journalists or politicians to evaluate the media's performance. After preparing an opening statement for several days, your time is limited to five minutes, but your remarks as submitted to the committee are placed in the Congressional Record. I knew not every sentence could make the televised hearing, but the statement is often read by members and staffers before the hearing begins. So in case people wanted to get the entire statement as submitted, it is posted below:  ---    Good morning, I represent the Media Research Center, America’s preeminent conservative media watchdog organization. It was founded in 1987, and I joined the center in 1989. We monitor national media outlets on a daily basis and provide daily coverage of the media’s tilt at NewsBusters.org.  We are eager to testify with many examples on this hearing’s intention to examine accusations of bias on National Public Radio. NPR and PBS have for their entire existence made a mockery of language in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that mandated “objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.”     On its website, NPR has a statement of principles, including this: “We know that truth is not possible without the active pursuit of a diversity of voices, especially those most at risk of being left out.” I would say after decades of listening, the voices most at risk of being left out are the conservatives. They are talked about, but they don’t get to do much talking. We would make the same argument about PBS, from the NewsHour to the Frontline documentaries. Roughly half the taxpayers of America donate to a public-broadcasting system that considers them unworthy of inclusion. NPR never lives up to their evening newscast title, All Things Considered.     After senior editor Uri Berliner recently testified about NPR’s bias on the internet, NPR chief news executive Edith Chapin proclaimed, "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world." The obvious rebuttal to that is: So why did Berliner write his expose? And why did he resign after NPR employees refused to work with him?     Berliner suggested this bias became more pronounced when Donald Trump ran for president. We can tell you NPR has demonstrated a leftist bent much longer than that. NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg destroyed the Douglas Ginsburg nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987, then tried again with Clarence Thomas in 1991. They energetically channeled the accusers of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and when a man arrived in an Uber on Kavanaugh’s street two years ago with weapons and plans to assassinate Kavanaugh, NPR failed to file a single feature story on it. Nina Totenberg could not be found. NPR, a supposed source of civility, didn’t demonstrate that she cared one bit about this potential political violence. But in March, between Morning Edition and Fresh Air, Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford was granted an hour of taxpayer-funded air time to reproduce her unproven charges of teenaged sexual assault.     This kind of pattern underlines Berliner’s recent statement on NewsNation: ”NPR has a lot of soul searching to do about representing the country at large. Being a publicly funded news organization and really trying to represent this country in all its great diversity and viewpoints.”     NPR isn’t soul searching. NPR isn’t seriously trying to achieve a diversity of sources or an independent news agenda. Instead they are serving their own left-leaning donors, major and minor. As Berliner reported, by 2023, 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. Apparently, you don’t want to upset them with an opposing view. This network lives in an airless bubble, or a silo, pick your metaphor.      Both PBS and NPR repeat the leftist media’s resistance to an opposing side on contentious issues like climate change and transgender ideology. Our study of seven months of PBS NewsHour found they gave over 90 percent of the air time to the Left on gender ideology stories. NPR displayed its take in 2022 by interviewing transgender Biden HHS appointee Adm. Rachel Levine to argue “There is no argument about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care. There is no argument.” NPR reporter Selena Simmons-Duffin underlined: “Gender-affirming care is not harmful. It's lifesaving, she explains.” No dissent was allowed.     NPR clearly doesn’t fear congressional oversight of its aggressive biases, on air and online. They had a fit when Elon Musk defined them on Twitter as “state-affiliated,” like somehow taxpayer funding doesn’t affiliate you with the state. They know Congress isn’t going to want to police their content. It doesn’t just upset the public broadcasters. It infuriates the so-called “mainstream media.” But the only thing that seems to concentrate the attention of public broadcasters on this subject is the threat of defunding. Even then, it might cause a “course correction” for a few weeks or months, before returning to the mean-spirited mean against Republicans. I would suggest NPR should have to come to Congress and defend its content choices at least once a year.     Their choices can be very questionable.  A glaring Exhibit A is the New York Post series on Hunter Biden’s laptop in October of 2020. Most of the so-called “mainstream media” tried to dismiss this story – falsely – as Russian disinformation. But NPR stood out.     NPR’s Public Editor Kelly McBride quoted Terence Samuel, NPR's Managing Editor for News. “We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don't want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” He dismissed the Post stories as a “politically driven event.” That’s interesting, since you could argue Nina Totenberg’s hostile reporting on Supreme Court nominees created “politically driven events.”     Instead of seeking to investigate the Biden family’s influence-peddling, NPR’s Morning Edition broadcast a story titled “Experts Say Attack On Hunter Biden's Addiction Deepens Stigma For Millions.” There wasn’t one word in it about Hunter Biden’s business practices involving his father, which was the point of the Post stories.     The pattern continues today. When the House Oversight Committee had a hearing in March where Hunter Biden was supposed to appear, NPR’s All Things Considered wouldn’t consider a feature story on it. NPR covered the Pelosi-picked House January 6 Committee live for every minute, and then ignored the Biden impeachment inquiry.     Instead, NPR’s homepage was topped the next morning by their hot story: new details on Rupert Murdoch’s British phone-hacking scandal of 2011. NPR had a Biden mention on their homepage. White House reporter Deepa Shivaram had a TikTok-like video shoot on President Biden grabbing a trendy boba tea in Las Vegas under the headline “Food stops can tell you a lot about a campaign.”     There are other egregious examples of imbalance that encourage chaos and disorder in society:     On August 27, 2020, NPR's blog "Code Switch," with the slogan "Race In Your Face," posted an interview promoting a new book titled In Defense of Looting. Natalie Escobar promoted author Emily Osterweil's view that “looting is a powerful tool to bring about real, lasting change in society.”     On The NPR Politics Podcast on July 17, 2021, NPR reporter Danielle Kurtzleben brought on Yale law professor Elizabeth Hinton to promote her book on the acceptability of violence as a protest tactic against police. Kurtzleben called this book “excellent” and explained: “You talk about these clashes as rebellions -- and quite pointedly, not as riots. It's a very meaningful choice.”     On NPR’s Fresh Air on April 15, 2023, their movie critic John Powers praised the movie How to Blow Up a Pipeline, hailing it as “hugely timely” when “people are frustrated by society's inability, indeed unwillingness to even slow down ecological disasters like climate change.”     Notice no one is presented in these segments to object to these advocates of criminality and violence. So when people think NPR is that place for civility on the radio, they would be wrong. They can devote their resources to getting behind looting, rioting, and blowing up pipelines.     But NPR presents the Republicans as uniquely extreme. They were quite the welcome wagon in this Congress. On January 18, 2023, the NPR interview show Fresh Air headlined their show, “How will the hard-right Republicans in Congress wield their newfound power?” Gross began: “Now that Kevin McCarthy has assumed his new role as speaker of the House, a position he won after making concessions to the far right of his party, what can we expect?” Between host Terry Gross and her guest, New York Times reporter Catie Edmondson, they labeled the House Republicans as “far right” or “hard right” 32 times. Democrats apparently don’t have an extreme.     Nine days later, on Morning Edition, host Steve Inskeep laid out the red carpet for House Democrat leader Hakeem Jeffries to announce on the debt-ceiling debate, “We are not going to pay a ransom note to extremists in the other party." Republicans were suicidal in their opposition, Inskeep suggested: “You'd say to Republicans, "Drive the car off the cliff. We are not going to grab the wheel." Jeffries replied: "We're not going to let the car go off the cliff even though there are people who are willing to do it."      On the PBS NewsHour, NPR White House reporter Tamara Keith said last October “what's happening in the House is a reflection of a broader divide in the Republican Party, where there's maybe like 20 percent or 30 percent of Republicans who don't want to burn it all down.”     To NPR, the only “election deniers” are Republicans, and they won’t remind anyone that Hakeem Jeffries and the star Democrats on the January 6 Committee argued Trump wasn’t actually elected, that maybe he was installed with the help of the Russian government. Berliner pointed out how Congressman Adam Schiff was on 25 times to push the Democrat line. Fox News found the number of segments was actually 32.     NPR offered live coverage of every minute of the House January 6 Committee, in daytime and in prime time, a committee where Speaker Pelosi would not allow the opposing party to choose their own committee members. This year, hearings of the Biden impeachment inquiry or the Mayorkas impeachment received zero live coverage, despite Democrats being allowed to choose their own committee members.  It suggests Democratic-run hearings are “historic” and “newsworthy” and even nonpartisan, while Republican-organized hearings should be buried as serving no public purpose whatsoever.     NPR is a hub of the leftist argument that the current election is all about the survival of democracy, and that electing Republicans is the end of democracy. This leads to a serious tilt in the media. On the NPR-distributed weekly talk show Left Right & Center, the alleged “Center” of the show, former NPR anchorman David Greene, proclaimed: I think the bind that a lot of journalists are in is, how can we be passionate believers in democracy and not be biased in a presidential election?” Greene said he knows “voters get to decide,” but “Can you believe in democracy without being pro-Biden?”     At least in this case, Republican voice Sarah Isgur answered Yes. I would also answer yes, that in a democracy, conservatives and Republicans deserve to be half a debate, and the so-called defenders of democracy sound like the squashers of debate and democracy. They silence opposition by claiming every one of us conspires to end democracy.     The people who are opposed to independent, fact-based journalism in this debate are not the conservatives. It is NPR itself that refuses to operate in a nonpartisan manner that allows both sides to speak and is willing to cover stories and hearings that the Democratic Party would rather avoid. They take our money, and use it to smear us without rebuttal.

CNN, Media Freak When GOP's Rep. Scott Perry Accurately Ties KKK History To Democrats

Amazing. As my NewsBusters colleague Curtis Houck colleague Curtis Houck headlined:  Election Interference: CNN Uses Audio of Private Briefing to Falsely Smear GOP’s Scott Perry In which Curtis notes CNN’s Annie Grayer has a story based on audio of a private meeting involving, full disclosure, my very own Pennsylvania Congressman, Republican Scott Perry. In which it is alleged that “Perry told colleagues in a closed door briefing that: The KKK in modern times, a lot of young people think somehow it’s a right-wing organization when it is the military wing of the Democratic Party. Decidedly, unabashedly, racist and antisemitic,” Perry said according to the recording. Grayer added that “The KKK is not affiliated in any way with the modern Democratic Party.” Grayer was not alone in flipping out at Perry’s remarks. The Philadelphia Inquirer, the New Republic and The Daily Beast  and others in the liberal media jumped on this as well. The New Republic termed Perry’s remarks “bizarro” while The Daily Beast settled for “bonkers.” In the Inquirer story the reporter quoted "Matt Jordan, director of the Pennsylvania State University News Literacy” who said that after its founding in 1865 by Democrats “it became an extra-legal terror organization that was never the wing of any political party.” Where to start with this wildly ignorant understanding of basic American history? The hard historical fact, per, among many, Columbia University historian Eric Foner is that the KKK was in fact “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease’s description of the Klan was as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.” Indeed, the Klan was so tied to the Democrats that the party’s 1924 Convention in New York City has been dubbed the “Klanbake” because so many of the delegates were Klan members.  The Klan’s favorite for the presidential nomination that year was one William Gibbs McAdoo, who had served Democrat - and Klan supporter  - President Woodrow Wilson as Secretary of the Treasury. Wilson, recall, was such a staunch Klan supporter that he hosted a White House screening of the pro-Klan, decidedly racist Hollywood blockbuster Birth of a Nation. The Klan hosted a massive convention rally for McAdoo across the Hudson River in New Jersey, replete with burning crosses. When one delegate had the temerity to introduce a resolution for the party platform condemning the Klan, it failed.  Historian Linda Gordon, in her book The Second Coming of the KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920’s and the American Political Tradition writes:  The results suggested not only how many supported the Klan but how many feared antagonizing it.   In very recent American history, the late Senator Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, was the longest serving member in the entire history of the Congress. Byrd was also the “Exalted Cyclops” of the Klan. He was elected to lead Senate Democrats as both Senate Majority Leader and, in the minority, as Senate Minority Leader.  In 1944, history records that Byrd wrote in a letter to a fellow segregationist Democratic Senator that:  I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. And who gave the eulogy at Byrd’s funeral? That would be his friend, Delaware Senator Joe Biden. All of which is to say, Congressman Scott Perry was 110% right to mention the tie between the Klan and the Democrats. In fact, segregation, a staunch pillar of the Klan’s platform, was nothing more than what is now quaintly called “identity politics.” Identity politics is, as it were, the son of segregation.

Bill Maher Has Video: Stormy Daniels Was a 'Bad Witness,' Flip-Flopped to Victim

On Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, the host complained about how the Democrats from Merrick Garland on down "blew it at every turn" on creating legal problems for Trump, so now before the election, "it's Stormy or bust." Even there, Maher argued porn star Stormy Daniels is a "bad witness" because she has changed her story in front of this jury, from empowered porn actress to victim. On HBO @BillMaher frets Dems had multiple chances “to put Trump on trial...but blew it at every turn,” then points out it’s “Stormy or bust” but she’s “a bad witness” because what she claimed this week at the trial is “quite in variance with what she said to me in 2018” #RealTime pic.twitter.com/C5WdqErsaV — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 11, 2024 Maher said: "Let me show you a little video. This is when I had Stormy on in 2018 and first I asked her about why she had sex with trump. Listen to that, and then listen to what she says after that and we’re going to talk about the trial because it's quite at variance with what she said to me in 2018." First she said “I have no idea” why she allegedly had sex with Trump. Maher said “you said this is not a #MeToo case,” and she agreed: “I wasn't attacked or raped or coerced of blackmailed… they tried to shove me in the #MeToo box to further their own agenda. First of all, I didn't want any part of that because it's not the truth and I'm not a victim in that regard.” Maher said “That’s not what she’s saying now. She's talking about he was bigger and blocking the way. It's all the #MeToo buzzwords. She said there was a power, an imbalance of power for sure. My hands were shaking so hard. Said she blacked out. Blacked out? She's a porn star!" New York Times columnist Frank Bruni tried to joke he might black out with Trump, too. Maher crudely said she has sex with strangers routinely. New York Post columnist Douglas Murray agreed with Maher: “Everyone who is hanging on the hope of Stormy Daniels being the way to get Trump in prison is going to have another disappointment coming.” Later, Maher applauded New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn’s comments about not being Pravda for Team Biden. Bruni agreed that reporters shouldn’t "sugar coat” Biden’s flaws or just feed voters “baby bird style.” But Murray said everyone can see through the media, that in 2020 they suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story "because they wanted to get their guy in."  In the end, Bruni came around to the real Times viewpoint, you can't fail to present Trump as a threat to democracy:  But here’s thing we can’t do. We need to be honest about them both, we do not ignore and sugarcoat Biden's shortcomings. But we also can’t do this ‘Here's one that story about Trump, here's one bad story about Biden.' We can't enforce this mathematical equivalence, right?  You’ve got one candidate who has delusions or aspirations to a quasi-fascist state. You have another who's going to mix up the names of world leaders and need a midday nap. It’s not eenie-meanie-miney-mo.

Late Night Shame: ‘SNL,’ Colbert Can’t Condemn College Antisemitism

“Saturday Night Live” had a second chance to address the raging antisemitism on today’s college campuses. Swing, and a miss! The new skit, inspired by the violent protests at Columbia University, proved as toothless as the last one. The former, targeting the Ivy League presidents who couldn’t condemn antisemitism on their campuses, trained its firepower on the GOP politician grilling them.     The just-released sketch shows parents of college students grappling with the latest round of protests. Veteran “SNL” player Kenan Thompson draws some chuckles as a Columbia University parent, but the material sidesteps the violence and morally warped behavior engulfing the New York campus.     It gets worse. The show’s “Weekend Update” segment soft-pedaled both the antisemitism on display at Columbia University and the unchecked violence which trashed a campus building.   🚨#BREAKING: Protesters have just stormed and overtook the Hamilton Hall at Columbia University Sparking Riot as They Barricade Inside and Break Windows⁰⁰📌#Manhattan | #NewYork⁰⁰At this very moment, hundreds of students and pro-Palestine protesters have just forcefully… pic.twitter.com/PbU04sHSI9 — R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) April 30, 2024   Co-anchor Michael Che tut-tutted said violence during his comments Saturday night. Officials at Columbia University complained that protesters broke windows and destroyed property …But, so what? College kids also do that when they win the Final Four … Also, if you don’t want students to freak out, stop telling them the truth. No word about the Jewish student beaten by protesters earlier this month. Che and co-anchor Colin Jost also couldn’t be bothered to trace the liberal dark money behind the protests, the promotion of Hamas talking points and other toxic campus trends. The show couldn’t mock viral videos showing how clueless many protesters are throughout the country.   The anti-Israel protesters at UCLA just held a press conference where they said they were victims of a “life threatening assault” at the hands of “Zionists” last night. They complained that police didn’t do enough to intervene, however, their demands include “abolish policing”. pic.twitter.com/bt5aQY3NZf — Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) May 1, 2024   Also ignored? The Jewish student blocked by pro-Palestinian protesters from attending his own college. And that doesn’t include the pro-violent chants, students praising North Korea and other moral indignities. “SNL” failed on every level. And they had company. Late-night comedians are also doing their best to ignore the raging protests. Nothing to see here. Move along. They’ve been doing just that for months, even when Jewish students were told to hide in the attic during one violent protest. Nothing. Stephen Colbert finally addressed the raging anti-Israel protests in his backyard last week on CBS’s “The Late Show.” He suddenly found himself caring about free speech on college campuses following the Columbia University riots. Colbert yawned when conservative after conservative got shouted down, canceled or physically attacked on campuses nationwide. Now, with some college protesters getting arrested for illegally occupying buildings and destroying property, suddenly Colbert found his “Truth to Power” voice. And it’s not just at Columbia. Yesterday, cops arrested at least 100 protesters at UT Austin. This morning they arrested at least 30 protesters at UNC Chapel Hill. Yes, college administrators are using the classic de-escalation tactic of sending in heavily armed police and threatening to call the National Guard. Seth Meyers wasn’t much better. The former “SNL” star attacked the police summoned to quell the riots, not their violence or antisemitic nature. As a New Yorker, I just want to say I really appreciate knowing that this is where my tax dollars are going: using drones to round up co-eds rather than, say, keeping libraries open or building affordable housing or making sure the F train isn’t a total piece of s*** Now, imagine if a single black student was beaten by Pro-Life protesters. Or, even worse, MAGA hat types. Would late-night comics be similarly silent? Of course not. When Jewish students are targeted, harassed and attacked, late-night comedians can’t rally to their defense. Why? Wrong party. The protesters are uniformly Left-of-Center, and the Democrats need them to vote early and often come November. Yes, they’re chanting “Genocide Joe” today, but they won’t support GOP candidates up and down the ticket. And, if properly coddled, they’ll likely return to the Democratic camp. It’s why President Joe Biden waited so long to finally stand up for Jewish students on campus, knowing his far-Left friends in Michigan may not rally to his side if he defends Israel or its people. This is the same president who based his 2020 campaign run on the Fake News that Donald Trump called Nazis “very fine people.” Actual Nazis now stalk college campuses. This also explains late-night’s morally warped response to hate, violence and more from the far-Left. It’s all about politics. Period.

ABC Omits Vital Details, Hails 'Damning' State Dept. Report On Israel

The State Department released its report on whether Israel has been violating international law and its weapons agreement with the U.S. on Friday, and it read like a politician desperately trying to appease two irreconcilable factions of his base. Nevertheless, ABC White House correspondent MaryAlice Parks told Saturday’s Good Morning America that the report was “damning.” Both Parks and her NBC Today counterpart, Aaron Gilchrist, omitted information that paints Israel’s actions in a very different light. In studio, Parks declared that “this is a damning report, the strongest criticism that we've heard from the Biden Administration, saying Israel likely violated international law in Gaza, but the report stopped short of drawing any final conclusion or requiring any change in U.S. policy, saying that more information is needed.”     Now doing a voiceover for a pre-recorded report, Parks added, "Overnight, a new State Department report finding Israel may have violated international laws in Gaza and likely used American-supplied weapons to do so. The report saying Israel has the knowledge and means to mitigate civilian harm, but the high level of civilian deaths ‘raises substantial questions about whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases.’” Parks also hyped that “given Israel's reliance on American-supplied weapons, it is ‘reasonable to assess’ that some U.S. weapons have been used in instances inconsistent with Israel's obligations under international law. International laws Israel has agreed to requires nations to protect civilian lives, allow humanitarian aid into war zones, and avoid excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure. The report says more information is needed, details hard to assess given the conflict and accuses Israel of a lack of transparency.” Gilchrist was marginally better, he didn’t use breathless words like “damning,” but he also didn’t provide the full context, “The U.S. will continue to provide weapons to Israel, that’s one of the top lines from that  highly anticipated State Department assessment of how Israel is using American weapons in Gaza. Now, the report says it’s “reasonable to assess” that Israel may have violated international law, but that the country has not broken the terms of the U.S. weapons agreement. Now, this report calling the assurances Israel provided credible enough to continue the flow of weapons.” Someone who did provide a fuller context was D.C. correspondent Natalie Brand on CBS Saturday Morning. After going through the same details as Parks and Gilchrist, she asked Middle East Institute senior fellow Brian Katulis, “So, what message does this report send Israel?” Katulis was more honest, “It sends a muddled message because it's inconclusive.” After going through several clips of GOP condemnation of Biden’s weapons and halt and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin defending it, Brand touched on a different aspect of the report, “The new report also mentions Israel has a number of ongoing active investigations pending and notes military experts describe Gaza as being as difficult a battle space as any military has faced in modern warfare. Now, in a new statement this morning, Israel says it's in complete compliance with the laws of armed conflict.” The part about military experts’ take on the Gaza battle space should be included in every report about civilian misery in Gaza because people with no knowledge of military matters, but who have agendas cast moral judgements and lob all kinds of incendiary accusations at Israel do so without this context. ABC and NBC leaving it out was pure dishonesty. Here is a transcript for the May 11 shows: ABC Good Morning America 5/11/2024 7:09 AM ET JANAI NORMAN: Now to the Israel-Hamas War and the release of a long awaited report on whether Israel has violated international law in its use of U.S. weapons in Gaza. ABC's MaryAlice parks joins us live in studio with more. Good morning to you, MaryAlice. We've heard the Biden administration stepping up its rhetoric but this is a new level. MARYALICE PARKS: Yeah, absolutely, good morning, Janai. This is a damning report, the strongest criticism that we've heard from the Biden Administration saying Israel likely violated international law in Gaza, but the report stopped short of drawing any final conclusion or requiring any change in U.S. policy, saying that more information is needed.  Overnight, a new State Department report finding Israel may have violated international laws in Gaza and likely used American-supplied weapons to do so. The report saying Israel has the knowledge and means to mitigate civilian harm, but the high level of civilian deaths "raises substantial questions about whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases."  Adding, that given Israel's reliance on American-supplied weapons, it is “reasonable to assess” that some U.S. weapons have been used in instances inconsistent with Israel's obligations under international law. International laws Israel has agreed to requires nations to protect civilian lives, allow humanitarian aid into war zones, and avoid excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure. The report says more information is needed, details hard to assess given the conflict and accuses Israel of a lack of transparency. *** NBC Today 5/11/2024 7:05 AM ET AARON GILCHRIST: The U.S. will continue to provide weapons to Israel, that’s one of the top lines from that  highly anticipated State Department assessment of how Israel is using American weapons in Gaza. Now, the report says it’s “reasonable to assess” that Israel may have violated international law, but that the country has not broken the terms of the U.S. weapons agreement.  Now, this report calling the assurances Israel provided credible enough to continue the flow of weapons. That news coming just days after President Biden acknowledged that U.S. weapons killed innocent Palestinians. He also acknowledged he paused a new shipment of 3,500 bombs to Israel last week and he warned he would suspend further weapons shipments if Israel carries out a large-scale assault on Hamas in Rafah where we know more than a million civilians are holed up now. The president’s warning during an interview this week drew praise and criticism from Republicans and Democrats. Progressives calling it a positive step in holding Israel accountable, conservatives blasted Biden, though, calling the pause a reward to Hamas.  Pennsylvania Democrat Senator John Fetterman called that decision “deeply disappointing” and even as the U.S. questions how effective Israel has been at limiting the civilian harm in Gaza, the administration has sent other defensive weapons and small arms to Israel. *** CBS Saturday Morning 5/11/2024 8:05 AM ET NATALIE BRAND: However, it says it's not able to reach definitive conclusions on whether U.S. supplied weapons were "used in the actions alleged as violations of" humanitarian law, but it goes on to say, "given Israel's significant reliance on U.S.-made defense articles, it's reasonable to assess" that weapons may have been used by Israel's military in instances, quote, "inconsistent" with international law.  So, what message does this report send Israel? BRIAN KATULIS: It sends a muddled message because it's inconclusive. It leaves open the question of what's the best way for the United States and Israel to try to bridge the gaps that now have become so apparent between the two of them on this particular Rafah operation. BRAND: The report comes the same week as the Biden administration's decision to pause the delivery of thousands of bombs to Israel, a move blasted by Congressional Republicans. JONI ERNST: And he is turning his back on Israel. TOM COTTON: The president is only emboldening Hamas. BRAND: President Biden says he will not supply offensive weapons that Israel could use in a large-scale military operation in Rafah. LLOYD AUSTIN: If the question is, is it possible to conduct effective operations and protect civilians? Absolutely, it's possible. BRAND: Defense secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters Friday there have been far too many civilian casualties since the Israel-Hamas War began. AUSTIN: We would like to see that trend change, so that's really our focus. BRAND: The Biden administration says it's also watching with concern what the U.N. calls a worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The State Department's report says while the overall level of aid reaching Palestinians remains, quote, “insufficient,” it goes on to say it doesn't "currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or restricting delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance."  The new report also mentions Israel has a number of ongoing active investigations pending and notes military experts describe Gaza as being as difficult a battle space as any military has faced in modern warfare. Now, in a new statement this morning, Israel says it's in complete compliance with the laws of armed conflict.

PBS Slights Non-Protester Rights on Campus: 'No Right to...Most Convenient Path to Library'

Tuesday’s PBS NewsHour actually brought on a critic of the pro-Hamas protesters currently infesting college campus quads across the country, which so far have gotten a nearly free ride from scrutiny (there’s certainly been little scrutiny of the pro-Biden groups funding them). New York Times columnist David French is certainly no hard-core conservative -- he's pretty close to PBS regular David Brooks -- but his opinion that the “camping” protesters posed a threat to other students and should be removed was a strong counterpoint to PBS’s knee-jerk support of the agitators and its exquisite sensitivity to the radicals’ demands. That was too much for NewsHour reporter and interviewee Lisa Desjardins, who found bizarre ways to excuse the mobs, which have often targeted Jewish students in disgusting ways. She introduced French as someone "who says colleges are not doing enough to crack down" on protests. Journalists have been terrible at distinguishing peaceful protests and occupying public or private spaces.  Desjardins suggested to French he's weak on injustice:  "Protesters do say they see an injustice overseas and America tied to that injustice some — they say, through its support of Israel. They see this as a life-and-death cause. They're talking about nothing less than starvation, violent deaths of civilians. What should protesters be doing when they see injustice like that, in your view?" FRENCH: Well, they should absolutely lift up their voices in protest, and the schools should absolutely provide an avenue and a place for people to protest. They can engage in their own boycotts. They can engage in all kinds of constitutionally protected activities to lift up this issue. But they do not have the ability, under American law, to violate the rights of others because they think it's for a good cause. That is not the way this works. You cannot — my First Amendment rights and my rights to study, to sleep, to receive the benefit of an education do not depend on whether or not another group of students consider that a cause is important enough to disrupt my rights. That's not how this works. Desjardins lectured that non-protesting students shouldn't complain about little inconveniences: "As you know, there's not the same kind of right to free speech on private college campuses as there is on public, but many embrace that ideal. But I also don't know that there is an espoused right to sleep or right to have the most convenient path to the library….the Founders themselves espoused rebellion, not just their own.” Jew checkpoints on campus aren’t exactly the same thing as a “convenient path to the library." Bonus coverage: In the previous segment, NewsHour congressional reporter Laura Barron-Lopez claimed Donald Trump had “demonized Palestinian refugees” at a campaign rally. What awful thing did Trump say? Her clip: Donald Trump: Your towns and villages will now be accepting people from Gaza, lots of people from Gaza, because, under chain migration, they can bring everybody they ever touched. Under no circumstances should we bring thousands of refugees from Hamas-controlled terrorist epicenters like Gaza to America. We just can't do it. This segment was brought to you in part by Certified Financial Planner. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 5/7/24 7:32:27 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: Protests against the war in Gaza continue on a number of campuses across the country. As part of our ongoing coverage, Lisa Desjardins has a conversation tonight about the wave of crackdowns at some colleges and universities and how they are being justified. Lisa Desjardins: Amna, the past day shows more action and reaction. Police made dozens of arrests as they broke up an encampment at the University of California, San Diego. At the University of Chicago, police disbanded another encampment. But, at MIT, pro-Palestinian protesters refused to move, despite the threat of academic suspension. Today, in his own speech recognizing Holocaust Remembrance Day, House Speaker Mike Johnson charged that many schools are hostile places for Jewish people and have — quote — "succumbed to an antisemitic virus." Last night, we looked at the idea that colleges have themselves fomented these protests. Our guest tonight says colleges are not doing enough to crack down on them. David French is an opinion columnist for The New York Times. And, David, what do you think universities are getting wrong here? David French, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times: Yes, what they're getting wrong is, they're ignoring their own reasonable time, place and manner restrictions that should allow all parties to have equal access to campus facilities. This is something that universities who have tens of thousands of students often, but not — they don't have the public spaces big enough to encompass everybody who might want to engage in free expression. So, when you have a time, place and manner restriction, what that does is, it says everyone's going to have equal access to the campus, and also that place and manner restriction means that people can't disrupt the actual educational process of the school. And so what's happening is that many of these protests, particularly encampments, are occupying space on the quad. They're, by necessity, excluding others who might want to use it. And then, with the nature of the protests, they're interfering with the students' ability to study, to learn, sometimes even to sleep. And some of these Jewish students are finding that their access to campus is limited by the protests as well. And so by blowing through these time, place and manner restrictions, the protesters are actually violating the rights of other students. And in that circumstance, the university has to step in. Lisa Desjardins: Some of these protests, as you say, have raised a lot of concerns, but so has the idea of calling in police. Police have more power than students. How do you see the idea that perhaps how do you make sure that a get-tough approach doesn't go too far? David French: Well, the bottom line is that these universities have a legal obligation to protect the rights of all of the students and also to protect the Jewish students on campus from antisemitic harassment. So, when these encampments violate the rights of others and they refuse to leave, then, sometimes, there's no option but to bring in law enforcement. Now, that doesn't mean that law enforcement can do whatever it wants. It should be disciplined. It should be restrained in its use of force. But when a group of students is violating the rights of other students, there are legal obligations that attach to the university to defend the rights of others. And so if these students won't move, the university is, in many ways, their hands are tied, because they cannot continue to consent to the violation of other students' rights. Lisa Desjardins: Let me get at this idea of what is civil disobedience and what is actually problematic, unlawful conduct, as you're saying. For example, if there was a sit-in at a diner… David French: Right. Lisa Desjardins: … and those conducting the sit-in were preventing the business from conducting its own business and preventing other patrons from entering, is that something that you see in the same kind of light? And is it civil disobedience or not? David French: Well, when we saw the civil rights movement, what you saw was protesters violating unjust laws, like prohibiting Black Americans from eating in the same diners as white Americans. That's violating an unjust law and then accepting the consequences. So you accept the consequences of your legal violation, which upholds the rule of law. But that's the key. There's an unjust law that you violate, and then you accept the consequences, and you do it all peacefully. Here, in many ways, what they're doing is, they're violating just laws. In other words, they're actually in violation of laws that protect the rights of others, and then they're refusing to accept the consequences. They're covering their faces to avoid detection. They're often in outright defiance of the police when the police try to move them. And that's when you're moving from civil disobedience, which is honorable and respects the rule of law, to outright lawlessness, where they're violating just laws and refusing to accept the consequences. Lisa Desjardins: Protesters do say they see an injustice overseas and America tied to that injustice some — they say, through its support of Israel. They see this as a life-and-death cause. They're talking about nothing less than starvation, violent deaths of civilians. What should protesters be doing when they see injustice like that, in your view? David French: Well, they should absolutely lift up their voices in protest, and the schools should absolutely provide an avenue and a place for people to protest. They can engage in their own boycotts. They can engage in all kinds of constitutionally protected activities to lift up this issue. But they do not have the ability, under American law, to violate the rights of others because they think it's for a good cause. That is not the way this works. You cannot — my First Amendment rights and my rights to study, to sleep, to receive the benefit of an education do not depend on whether or not another group of students consider that a cause is important enough to disrupt my rights. That's not how this works. Students have ample opportunity to express their views, and they also have opportunity to engage in true, genuine, peaceful civil disobedience. But what we're seeing on many campuses, not all, but many campuses is something an order of magnitude beyond that. Lisa Desjardins: As you know, there's not the same kind of right to free speech on private college campuses as there is on public, but many embrace that ideal. But I also don't know that there is an espoused right to sleep or right to have the most convenient path to the library. All of this is sort of weighing with something you pay attention to, our founders. You're an originalist. You pay attention to their intention here. The founders themselves espoused rebellion, not just their own. How do you weigh that idea of this sort of American tension between, yes, speak up, even do rebellious acts for something you believe in, but also perhaps follow the law? David French: In many of these campuses, if you're talking about people in their own dorms, in the comfort of their own dorms, there is a right to some peace and safety and security here. And it is in fact violation of federal law, anti-harassment law, in particular, when, in particular, Jewish students can't have full access to campus, can't have — can't sleep, can't rest. These things actually violate federal law when it rises to that level. And in that circumstances, these universities have to do something to protect the rights of other students. The right to rebellion, I would say that that was seriously diminished after the loss in the Civil War by the Confederacy. I don't think there's any real concept of a right to rebellion. In this circumstance, if you have an actual rebellion against authority on campus, where people move beyond these reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, they're violating the rights of others. And I'm sorry, the law protects all of us. It doesn't just protect a small cohort of people who decide to occupy part of a campus. Lisa Desjardins: David French, part of a national conversation here, we appreciate your time.

Capehart Dismisses Biden's Israel Critics: 'Haven't Been Paying Attention'

Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart told Friday’s PBS NewsHour that anyone who believes that President Joe Biden is playing politics by withholding aid from Israel hasn’t “been paying attention.” Unfortunately, for both Capehart and Biden, the latter’s previous comments about Israel and its enemies are resurfacing and they put that claim very much in doubt. Capehart was reacting to The Daily Beast columnist and David Brooks fill-in Matt Lewis, who was asked by host Amna Nawaz, “Matt, is it clear to you where President Biden's red line is on this?”     After rejecting the premise that the U.S. should be drawing red lines on allies, Lewis pointed out that by trying to appease young progressives, who are probably unappeasable anyway, Biden runs the risk of also alienating not just mainstream, pro-Israel Democrats, but also anti-Trump Republicans, “Keep in mind, Nikki Haley, just this week, got 21 percent of the vote in a Republican primary in Indiana. There are people out there who were open to voting for Joe Biden. And I think they're less likely today than they were a week ago.” Nawaz then turned to Capehart and wondered, “On the domestic politics front, Jonathan, was the tough talk for Bibi Netanyahu, the pausing of some weapons deliveries, was that President Biden bending to political pressure here at home?” Capehart quickly dismissed the idea, “No. No. I mean, Matt, love you to pieces, but anyone who thinks that there are domestic political considerations on the part of the president that's driving his decisions hasn't had — you haven't been paying attention to Joe Biden.” He recalled, “We have to remember this is a man who's been on the world stage for 50 years. During — during those years, he was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He knows — he's known Prime Minister Netanyahu for 50 years.” Further trying to prove his point, Capehart added, “He is about getting to — he's about using the power of diplomacy to bring about a resolution. He's done a lot of things on the world stage that domestically have hurt him, the withdrawal from Kabul and how disastrous that was. But he stood by that decision because it was the right thing to do.” Afghanistan is a bad analogy. That is a policy decision that Biden has chosen to defend, even if it is unpopular. On Israel, Biden has reversed not just his initial post-October 7 beliefs, but decades of positions about Israel and its enemies. During the Democratic Primary in 2019, Biden told then-NewsHour host Judy Woodruff that cutting off aid to Israel would be “Absolutely preposterous. It's just beyond my comprehension why anyone would do that.”   In 2019 Joe Biden understood the distinction between ally and adversary: "The idea that we would cut off military aid to an ally, our only true, true ally in the entire region, is absolutely preposterous. It's just beyond my comprehension why anyone would do that." pic.twitter.com/vHPo9WzBCr — Mike (@Doranimated) May 10, 2024   Likewise, in 2006 during the George W. Bush Administration and Israel’s war with Hezbollah, he mused about Hezbollah transporting its missiles in the aisles of commercial aircraft and labeled Hezbollah “cowards” for hiding amidst the civilian population, including in hospitals.   Extraordinary 2006 video (found by @phillyrich1) of Senator Biden discussing (responding to @SharylAttkisson) the proper reaction when civilians are hurt when Israel must fight Hezbollah or Hamas https://t.co/fbQTKLBXgH pic.twitter.com/NojEyqRaSR — David Shor (@DYShor) May 10, 2024   In 1992, Biden angrily attacked George H.W. Bush, “There’s no incentive for the Arabs to compromise if they know they must only wait — for USA will do their bargaining for them.”   Biden speaking in 1992 on how bad it was that Pres. Bush was pressuring Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir to make peace with the Arabs “There’s no incentive for the Arabs to compromise if they know they must only wait — for USA will do their bargaining for them” pic.twitter.com/wn6eYIS6CV — Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 16, 2024   Biden has either changed his mind for the worse or he is playing politics. Capehart can deny it all he wants, but the proof is right there. Here is a transcript for the May 10 show: PBS NewsHour 5/10/2024 7:35 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ:  Matt, is it clear to you where President Biden's red line is on this? MATT LEWIS: Well, first, I think we should be drawing red lines on our enemies, not our allies, right? But I think Biden has a problem right now and it is a political problem. It is axiomatic in politics that if you try to please everybody, you will end up pleasing nobody. And, up until now, I think that, domestically, in terms of domestic politics here in America, Joe Biden had a problem certainly with, kind of, young progressives who were unhappy that he was standing firmly with Israel. I think now that has become muddied. And I think we're now in a position where, number one, it's unlikely that these young progressives who are calling him things like Genocide Joe are going to come around to liking Joe Biden and voting for him. He also, though, risks alienating, number two, Democrats who are pro-Israel, kind of the mainstream Democrats. And the other thing that I think isn't really being talked about is the impact this may have on never-Trump conservatives. We saw people like Liz Cheney, Nikki Haley, Mitt Romney come out and strongly condemn Joe Biden's comments about Rafah. Keep in mind, Nikki Haley, just this week, got 21 percent of the vote in a Republican primary in Indiana. There are people out there who were open to voting for Joe Biden. And I think they're less likely today than they were a week ago. NAWAZ:  On the domestic politics front, Jonathan, was the tough talk for Bibi Netanyahu, the pausing of some weapons deliveries, was that President Biden bending to political pressure here at home? JONATHAN CAPEHART: No. No. I mean, Matt, love you to pieces, but anyone who thinks that there are domestic political considerations on the part of the president that's driving his decisions hasn't had — you haven't been paying attention to Joe Biden. We have to remember this is a man who's been on the world stage for 50 years. During — during those years, he was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He knows — he's known Prime Minister Netanyahu for 50 years. He is about getting to — he's about using the power of diplomacy to bring about a resolution. He's done a lot of things on the world stage that domestically have hurt him, the withdrawal from Kabul and how disastrous that was. But he stood by that decision because it was the right thing to do. And I think that the president doing what he's doing, from carrots and sticks with Netanyahu, he is doing it because he's — for him, the resolution is a cease-fire deal, however he can get it.

NewsBusters Podcast: Hillary's Hot Talk of Hitler and Bimbo Eruptions

Hillary Clinton was the big guest Thursday on MSNBC's Morning Joe. MSNBC’s headline on their YouTube video was "Joe Biden is the only choice for women who value freedom. Isn’t that just perfect for that network and that show? Abortion = freedom.  Hillary pleased the MSNBC crowd by saying there’s no choice for voters between Biden and Trump: "One is yes, old and effective, has passed legislation that I think is going to put America on such a strong footing for the future....The other is old and dangerous. I mean, why is that a hard choice for people?" Hillary also thought she should have been way ahead in 2016. Now we're reliving 2016 in a Manhattan courtroom, and Stormy Daniels was the star witness this week. The richest vein of hypocrisy was Hillary accusing Trump on hush money. He "went to such great lengths to try to squash, bury, kill stories, pay off people, because he understood the electoral significance of them." As if the Clintons never tried to squash and kill stories by female accusers!  Then Joe Scarborough descended into his Nazi parallels with Trump again, goading Hillary to unload all the "Trump is Hitler" talk. She said he's a dictator who will end democracy, and Republicans are "people who care more about a future tax cut than the sanctity of the Constitution." Together, they've spending almost eight years spreading this bizarre notion that eventually everyone will listen to them and agree with them, as long as the media keeps hammering away at the "fascist." They’re going to keep being disappointed. The press is constantly failing unless and until Trump is ruined. They're quite a fun bunch to watch. At the end, we notice Kamala Harris cackling over saying the word "Ovaries!" at a group of male reporters while she's visiting an abortion clinic as a campaign stop. It sounds sexist, like men don't know women's body parts. And The NPR Politics Podcast underlines why NPR obsessed this week over Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and her failed attempt to boot Speaker Mike Johnson. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

YouTube Jumps into EU Election Interference

Google-owned YouTube is jumping on the bandwagon of election censorship. In a May 9 blog post, YouTube detailed its plans to target and censor certain election-related content ahead of the European Union (EU) elections this June. This includes removing content and terminating channels that YouTube considers to be spreading “disinformation” online. “Our global team of reviewers combine with machine learning technology to apply these policies at scale, 24/7,” the platform boasted. YouTube’s blog came soon after the Meta Oversight Board urged all tech companies to engage in election censorship. YouTube listed various efforts to provide pop-ups and links to EU election information but also included a lengthy description of censorship policies. “We have strict policies against hate speech, harassment, incitement to violence, and certain types of elections misinformation,” YouTube bragged. “For example, we remove content that misleads voters on how to vote or encourages interference in the democratic process.”  [Emphasis added]. The platform, indeed, admitted in the new blog that its election interference interest extended beyond its own platform. “Our Intelligence Desk has also been working for months to get ahead of emerging issues and trends that could affect the EU elections, both on and off YouTube,” the platform announced proudly. It also claimed that it is investing in artificial intelligence (AI) to crush free speech even more quickly and efficiently. YouTube boasted that in the fourth quarter of 2023 most allegedly violative content was censored before viewers were ever able to see the content. “[F]or every 10,000 views on YouTube, between 11 and 12 were of content that violated our Community Guidelines,” the platform explained.  YouTube’s announcement follows a call from the Meta Oversight Board for “basic global platform standards for elections everywhere” and “sufficient resources [dedicated] to moderating content before, during and after elections.” MRC Free Speech America rankedYouTube among the Big Tech censors with the worst instances of crushing free speech in April censoring a video of Independent U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This latest censorship is simply a continuation of YouTube’s long history of censorship. For instance, the platform removed a Republican National Committee podcast in 2022 featuring Donald Trump calling the 2020 election “rigged.” Could YouTube display the same bias for the 2024 EU elections? Conservatives are under attack. Contact YouTube here 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.

Teacher on Bail for Raping One Student, Has Baby With a Different Student

Here’s the 7,325,793,257th reason I plan to homeschool my children. Rebecca Joynes, a math teacher in Manchester, UK, just had a baby with a teenager she slept with. She did so while out on bail for sex with a different one of her students. I guess raping one kid just wasn’t enough for Miss Joynes. Manchester Evening News reported that Joynes gave the first boy ten digits of her phone number and had him try to guess the 11th. Joynes then coerced the boy with a shopping trip, which CCTV footage confirmed, where she bought him a Gucci belt after picking him up at his house. That evening Joynes allegedly brought the student back to her apartment to rape him two times when he spent the night at her house.  As the New York Post indicated, Joynes was “laughing” while having unprotected sex with the student after he “told her he was too young to even drive.”  “She said, ‘Oh shut up’ … ‘Stop saying that,’” the 15-year-old student said. Joynes admits to going to the shop with the boy, and that he visited her house, but denies any sexual activity. While Joynes appeared in court for that case, she was allegedly sleeping with another minor! Joynes was suspended from work over the first instance and apparently thought that her time off from teaching made it somehow okay to have sexual relations with a different young boy.  Supposedly, she and this minor chatted via Snapchat, kissed once and then, as prosecutors mentioned, their relationship became sexual in nature.  As the Manchester Evening News noted, Joynes allegedly told the child it was “almost impossible” for her to conceive since she had polycystic ovarian syndrome. Yet, a baby girl was conceived. Apparently, Joynes gave the baby’s father an item that had “I love you daddy” written on it. On the same night, reports seem to indicate Joynes also “put rose petals down” and had a “scratchcard” from Victoria’s Secret with different sex positions on it for the two to try.  Joynes tried to justify her actions by claiming that she wasn’t a teacher at the time of the rape of this second boy and that he was 16, which is the age of legal consent in UK. However, when it involves a child and a figure of authority, that age is raised to 18. “Ms Joynes, of Pensby Road, Wirral, denies four counts of sexual activity with a child, and two counts of sexual activity with a child by a person in a position of trust,” Manchester Evening News indicated. While this story takes place over in Europe, the U.S. is no stranger to this kind of behavior. A 24-year-old Wisconsin elementary teacher was recently arrested for allegedly “making out” with one of her fifth-grade students. In California, a teacher just pled no contest after being accused of raping a 14-year-old student on his eighth grade graduation. A Minnesota teacher had sex with one of her 18-year-old students and pleaded guilty in February. Earlier that month a different teacher pleaded guilty to sneaking into a 14-year-old student’s home and bed to rape him. A teacher in Iowa pleaded guilty to sex acts with numerous minors like sending nude images to them and “fondling or touching” at least one of them. Mrs. Phillips from Kentucky admitted to having sex with “numerous teenage boys” during her time as a teachers assistant and a Louisiana teacher was arrested in January after allegedly “sexting” a 15-year-old student from her school. Yup, and the worst part is, that’s all only from the first few months of 2024. All that to say, this type of behavior, where someone who’s supposed to be a trusted adult, coerces, grooms and abuses children, has got to come to an end.

ABC Whines Tear Gas Used to Stop Pro-Hamas Mob Trying to Ruin Graduation

With commencement season ramping up, some universities have decided to protect the rights of the vast majority of their students and put swift ends to the anti-Semitic/pro-Hamas mobs that were trying to ruin the special day their classmates had worked toward by calling in the police to break them up. But ABC’s Good Morning America took exception to their efforts and whined that police were using tear gas on the unruly crowds of terrorist sympathizers. “We’re going to turn now to the new clashes on college campuses across the country including the arrests just moments ago at the University of Pennsylvania,” co-anchor Michael Strahan clutched his pearls at the top of the segment. Correspondent Victor Oquendo put the focus on the University of Arizona and decried the cops’ use of tear gas, treating the situation as though the police gassed the crowd with chemical weapons of war: Let's start at the University of Arizona were they are gearing up for their graduation ceremony later today. Law enforcement spring what appears to be teargas on roughly 100 protesters gathered by the university's main gate. This is the second time this month that chemical irritants have been used to disperse protesters on campus.     Along the spectrum of his reaction to the different campus news, Oquendo seemed to hype the mob at George Washington University who were “shutting down traffic and setting up tents” outside the home of the university’s president. “And this comes just one day after police cleared the encampment on campus there,” he added. He also didn’t seem to have a problem with the students of the University of Southern California having their commencement ceremonies canceled: And here in Los Angeles, the University of Southern California canceled the official graduation opting instead to what they called “a celebration” at the L.A. Coliseum. Students there instead of walking and getting their diploma onstage, they were treated to a drone and fireworks show. Over on NBC’s Today, foreign correspondent Richard Engle huffed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat down with Dr. Phil for a “non-confrontational interview” and “took aim” at the students siding with terrorists. “You have a lot of ignorant people there whose sense of history, at best, goes back to breakfast, not even that,” the Prime Minister mocked them. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America May 10, 2024 7:05:13 a.m. Eastern MICHAEL STRAHAN: We’re going to turn now to the new clashes on college campuses across the country including the arrests just moments ago at the University of Pennsylvania. Victor Oquendo is tracking the very latest for us. Good morning, Victor. VICTOR OQUENDO: Good morning, Michael. Around the country this morning, tensions ratcheting up across college campuses. Let's start at the University of Arizona were they are gearing up for their graduation ceremony later today. Law enforcement spring what appears to be teargas on roughly 100 protesters gathered by the university's main gate. This is the second time this month that chemical irritants have been used to disperse protesters on campus. Over to George Washington University in D.C., hundreds of protesters gathering on a street that includes the home of the president of the university, shutting down traffic and setting up tents. And this comes just one day after police cleared the encampment on campus there. And here in Los Angeles, the University of Southern California canceled the official graduation opting instead to what they called “a celebration” at the L.A. Coliseum. Students there instead of walking and getting their diploma onstage, they were treated to a drone and fireworks show. Whit. WHIT JOHNSON: All right. Victor Oquendo for us. Thank you.

CBS, NBC Blames ‘Defiant’ Netanyahu for No Ceasefire, Argue He Wants War to Avoid Jail

On Friday, CBS Mornings and NBC’s Today bellyached about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the wake of President Biden abandoning Israel and argued Netanyahu has not only “already cross[ed] President Biden’s red line” on Rafah with limited strikes by the Israel Defense Forces, but he’s holding up ceasefire talks and prolonging the war so as to avoid jail time. Foreign correspondent Ramy Inocencio returned to the well of former Israeli national security adviser Chuck Freilich for the second day in a row to suggest without evidence that Netanyahu’s kept Israel’s war against Hamas going for personal gain. Right on cue, Inocencio pointed out Freilich was referring to indictments against Netanyahu “for fraud, bribery, and breach of trust”: Netanyahu derangement syndrome on 'CBS Mornings' as they imply the Israeli Prime Minister is only keeping the war going so he can stay in power and out of prison pic.twitter.com/XJRsNQucjw — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 10, 2024 Over on NBC’s Today, chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel also had some Netanyahu bashing, but first some classic sob story propaganda for Hamas: The U.N. announced that, as of this morning, more than 100,000 Palestinians have fled the city of Rafah in southern Gaza. Many civilians had originally been ordered by Israel to come here for their safety. Now, they say, they have nowhere to go. We are tired, says this man. Either they should kill us all at once and send us up to God or they stop the war.  Engel bemoaned that “Netanyahu is determined to press on with an offensive against Rafah” with tough talk about Israel being willing to go it “alone” and has “much more than our fingernails”. In an act of irony, Engel had the gall to complain about Netanyahu sitting for “a lengthy and nonconfrontational interview with talk show host Dr. Phil” that ripped “protests on college campuses in the U.S.” IRONY ALERT: NBC's 'Today' complains about a 'nonconfrontational' interview Netanyahu gave to Dr. Phil. Gee, what were all those Jimmy Carter and Kennedy family interviews over the years? Also, notice how Richard Engel argues Israel has "already cross[ed]" Biden's "red line" pic.twitter.com/SsGlzUwYpA — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 10, 2024 Engel doled out more sob stories on Gazans and openly wondered if Israel has “already cross[ed] President Biden’s red line” with limited strikes on Rafah, which he claimed NBC’s Gazan stringers have proven “already” “attack[ed] Rafah’s main population centers” He also concluded by suggesting Israel — not Hamas — is why there’s no ceasefire/hostage deal: “The Rafah operation has also derailed hostage negotiations and talks to achieve a cease-fire with one senior diplomat telling NBC News the talks have effectively collapsed.” To see the relevant transcripts from May 10, click here (for CBS) and here (for NBC).

Heritage Economist on Target Pride: DOJ Should be ‘Suing Them Into Oblivion’

Heritage Economist E.J. Antoni saw right through retailer Target’s attempt to once again push summer LGBT propaganda while avoiding a repeat of the backlash they faced in 2023.  During the May 10 edition of Newsmax’s The National Report, Antoni ripped Target, which made headlines in 2023 for selling “pride” apparel from a Satanic designer and “pride” gear for children. On May 9, Target published a statement on its 2024 “pride” collection, which the retailer said, “Will be available on Target.com and in select stores, based on historical sales performance.” While some celebrated that Target would place LGBT propaganda in fewer stores, Antoni was not appeased.  “Well, let's be perfectly frank here, what Target has done and is continuing to do is nothing less than the sexualization of children,” he said. “It's a disgrace. If we had a DOJ in this country that was more concerned with protecting the innocent than prosecuting them, then they would be all over Target and would be suing them into oblivion.” Related: ROUNDUP: Media Shill for Target Bending Knee to Satanic Wokeism In its statement, Target also promised to “continue to support LGBTQIA+ organizations year-round, including Human Rights Campaign, Family Equality and more.” Strikingly, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is a radical organization that applies ESG ratings to companies based on their willingness to embrace radical gender theory.  The HRC’s “Corporate Equality Index” (CEI) judges companies based on factors such as whether they included “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” in their nondiscrimination policies. It also questions whether companies have “trans-inclusive” bathrooms and “health coverage for transgender individuals without exclusion for medically necessary care.” In 2022, the HRC gave Target a perfect CEI score of 100 but downgraded its perfect score to 95 for 2023. On their website, the HRC thanks Target and a number of other companies “for their generous support of the work of the Human Rights Campaign.” The HRC refers to Target as a “National Corporate Partner” and a “platinum partner,” the highest possible level of supporter.  According to the anti-woke non-profit 1792 Exchange, “Target forces employees to undergo multiple ideological trainings and uses its reputation, corporate funds, and political influence to support controversial sex and gender ideologies, organizations, and legislation.”  Target also uses “sex and gender ideology criteria” for hiring, choosing vendors and marketing. The 1792 Exchange also states that Target horrifically covers “transgender medical procedures for covered employees and dependents, including children.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they cover Target’s continued support for the radical HRC.

Target Announces Its 2024 'Pride' Plan

Another year, another example of Target missing the bullseye. On Thursday evening, Target Corprate released its 2024 fact sheet about how it will commit to the gays during "Pride month" this upcoming June. Among the ideas on how to be more supportive of the LGBTQs were events to educate people about the gays, community events around the nation celebrating the gays, products that represent the gays, support of overtly gay organizations, and spotlighting gay brands in Target stores. Essentially, Target wants to barf the rainbow all over everything for the month of June, and throughout the rest of 2024 as well. “At Target, we know our business thrives when we create experiences that foster a sense of belonging. That’s why we support and celebrate the LGBTQIA+ community during Pride Month and year-round,” the company wrote in its “Plans for Pride 2024” announcement. Here’s the details in full: Our Pride+ Business Council will host internal events and experiences where interested team members can learn, reflect, celebrate and connect. It’s complemented by the year-round resources and benefits we provide to our LGBTQIA+ team members, reflecting our culture of care for all 400,000 people who work at Target. We’re joining local Pride events in our hometown of Minneapolis and around the country. We’re offering a collection of products including adult apparel and home and food and beverage items, curated based on consumer feedback. The collection will be available on Target.com and in select stores, based on historical sales performance. We continue to support LGBTQIA+ organizations year-round, including Human Rights Campaign, Family Equality and more. Target also spotlights LGBTQ-owned brands in our assortment during Pride Month and throughout the year in our stores and online. It’s no surprise that Target is excited to roll out its gay crap. Afterall, the store cares more about pushing an agenda than just about anything else, and this fad isn’t new.  For example, for Easter this year, Target ignored the fact that the holiday was in celebration of Jesus' resurrection and instead focused on pastel flowers, bunny rabbits and eggs in its candy selection. During the Christmas season, Target released a “gay Nutcracker” as well as a pride snowglobe, a fabergé pride Santa, and pride Christmas drinking glass among many other rainbow-washed merchandise - and of course last year’s pride display was also nuts. It featured “tuck-friendly swimsuits” and merch from a pro-Satan transgender designer. Related: Target SLAMMED Over ‘Gay Nutcracker’ Christmas Decorations The odd part about Target’s re-commitment to "pride" this year is that last year, while it attempted to use the pride crap to cater to inclusivity and garner more sales, the scheme did the exact opposite.  In August, Q2 results for Target’s earnings indicated that the company had declined 5.4 percent from the year before. As a matter of fact, quarterly sales declined for the time in six-years according to that report. These results initially caused Target executives to re-think all the pride displays yet now, just a few months later, it seems that the liberal shopping giant has learned nothing from its past mistakes. Catch me avoiding the store at ALL COSTS this June and beyond. Follow us on Twitter/X: Hosts of The View have a bizarre conversation about the color of Trump's skin pic.twitter.com/TWnQPasUwS — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 10, 2024

UnHerd, Shellenberger Unmask Censorship Industrial Complex, Reveal Sinister Origins

Journalist/author Michael Shellenberger joined forces with UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers and Tablet Magazine Senior Writer Jacob Siegel to discuss the inner workings of censorship in the West. On Thursday, UnHerd released an interview featuring the three men, who discussed the complex web of NGOs and state agencies that make up the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” the origins of the industry and the techniques it uses, as well as the underlying ideology driving the players behind it.    Shellenberger did not hold back in his criticism of these entities, describing their mission as driven primarily by a sense of bigotry and religious zeal.    “But the other one is in this mania to — which I really think is driven by intolerance and dogmatism — censor and disparage different voices, dissident voices, they end up widening the circle too broad,” Shellenberger said. “So you end up censoring people for things that are factually true.” Shellenberger concluded that the drive for “misinformation” really came into being as a way to counter undesirable political ideologies that saw a resurgence in 2016, notably with the election of Donald Trump.  “But when you see all these people working together over time, you get a much clearer picture that this is what we would consider counter-populism,” Shellenberger observed. “This was clearly [an] orchestrated event after the revolutions of 2016 to fight against populism.” According to Sayers, the convoluted nature of the censorship industry makes it very difficult to avoid and leads companies and online advertisers to inadvertently support censorship, such as with the Global Disinformation Index, a non-profit that creates advertising blacklists designed to starve “harmful” news sources and dissident voices of ad revenue. Related: Not So Fast: Biden Signs NDAA Calling Out NewsGuard … Then Issues Disclaimer “I actually corresponded with Elon Musk about it,” Sayers said. “Twitter is apparently using GDI via something called ‘Integral Ad Services,’ which is another one of these ad buyer platforms, and now he was on Twitter saying, ‘GDI should be shut down and the miscreants should be published.’ So you’ve got this weird situation where the heads of these companies don’t even understand the beast that is happening further down.” GDI was exposed last month by UnHerd for placing the outlet on a “dynamic exclusion list” of news sources to be boycotted by advertisers.  GDI’s 2022 report featured a list of “the ten riskiest” online news outlets that exclusively included right-leaning and libertarian news outlets while “the ten lowest-risk” list was filled exclusively with hyper-partisan leftist outlets like Buzzfeed and NPR. According to UnHerd, the GDI is funded by many governments including the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (until 2023), the European Union, the German Foreign Office and Disinfo Cloud, a body created and funded by the U.S. State Department. You May Also Like: A Defiant State Department Threatens to Obstruct Censorship Investigation Responding to external pressures raised by UnHerd’s reporting, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron sent a letter on May 8 to Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch declaring that the UK government will no longer fund the GDI. Cameron wrote, “The FCDO has not funded GDI since 2023, and there are no current plans to do so.”  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

More of This, Please! More in the Media Need to Replicate NewsNation’s Border Special

In an hour-long primetime special Thursday night called Crisis on the Border, NewsNation did something the liberal media — and TV news in general — needed to emulate, which was a more accurate, consistent, and raw depiction of the Biden border crisis from the side of law enforcement and the dangers unfettered illegal immigration posed to the public.  Hosted by Dan Abrams, it featured three different reporters live in the field, new reporting, facts about the border, and interviews with four police chiefs on how open-border policies have harmed their communities. Abrams opened by declaring this won’t be “about politics.” Instead, NewsNation’s goal was to inform viewers “about what is actually happening at our southern border and maybe — maybe — even spur some change.”     From there, the special took on the feeling of an episode of his other show, Reelz’s On Patrol: Live (and its predecessor in spirit, A&E’s Live PD) as Abrams immediately tossed to indefatigable correspondents Ali Bradley and Brian Entin (click “expand”): ABRAMS: But we have some — some breaking news because just, as we’ve been preparing for the show, Ali Bradley NewsNation’s border correspondent on the front lines has been there when they just found three migrants trying to hide there and they’ve been arrested in Hidalgo County, Texas. Ali, what just happened? BRADLEY: Yeah, hey, Dan. So we’re out here, we’re actually embedded with an elite brush team with Texas DPS. They are working in conjunction with Border Patrol, so we’ve got state and federal partners working together and we have the chopper in the air. Let me show you what we just witnessed. So, we pulled three people out of this, look at how hard it is down here. This is what they’re up against, so they had to get down in there. That’s basically a canal, a drainage ditch of sorts, pulled these three individuals out, one young man from Honduras, telling us that he was on the hook with the cartel to pay $16,000 to get to Virginia. And guess what Dan? They’re actually working another two people that are in the canal further up. So, we’re gonna go up there, I’m going to send it back to you here. We’re going to keep our feet on the ground. And we’re gonna go after these other two people that are in the water up there.” ABRAMS: Alright, so remember. This is just happening live down there. And we’re going to be staying with Ali Bradley. We’re going go back to her in — in a moment. Ali, thank you for that reporting. You know what? Let’s go now to Pinal County in Arizona. Our senior national correspondent Brian Entin is live patrolling there, what they call smugglers highway Brian, what are you seeing? ENTIN: Yeah, it’s I-10 the nickname — Smugglers Highway. Just a minute ago, we pulled over a semi with Sheriff Lamb here — a semi that’s been reported stolen. I’m not sure exactly — he’s been talking to the driver. Figure out what’s going on. Sheriff Lamb, have you — is this immigrant involved? What have you been able to figure out? PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA SHERIFF MARK LAMB: We’re going check the back right now. It’s a stolen — it’s stolen trailer. So, we’re going to check the back. We’ve seen ‘em in — in trailers before. (....) ABRAMS: I mean, look, you can just tell based on what we just showing you, right? We have two correspondents at the border who, in the last 10 minutes, have seen major activity related to migrants and the border. That’s why it’s important to be there and to be there live. You don’t get that sense without actually watching the stuff as it happening? All right. So we were just with Ali Bradley. Alright? And she said — she is — she’s going to be going back out to that scene following that story that we were just watching, but she’s the one who got this exclusive interview with this current border agent. And again, that is the video — oh, actually that video is just coming in, ok?  So that is the video now of up to of the three migrants who were just arrested there hiding in that area and, literally in the last 10 minutes that came in. The reason we weren’t able to show that to you a moment ago is because we just got the video into us. It happened moments before we went on the air. And you heard that Ali Bradley had actually talked to — talked to one of them as they were as they were there. And again, you know, this is a quite common occurrence at the border. Bradley also taped a bombshell interview with an anonymous border agent, who told her what Americans don’t realize was “we do not control the border, the cartel controls the border” and “[e]verything that we do is a reaction to things that they have planned” with those apprehended merely “pawns while the kings and queens are doing whatever they want.” They added “[n]o one” from the government will be able “to protect you” since “[e]ven at the local law enforcement level, we’re seeing them be defunded and overwhelmed to where your life has to be threatened for them to make you a priority.” In part two, Bradley asked if they’re “scared to do your job.” The agent said while they are from “a more earthly” perspective with “policies changed” that endanger agents and place “illegals...before us,” they’re a Christian who knows God “has my back”. Bradley’s last question about whether they’re more scared of the government or the cartels drew a surprising answer:  Look at the way you have me presented to do an interview when I’m off-duty. I’m terrified to talk to the media because I’m sacred of what, you know, the government could do, which obviously, would be losing my job, right, which I don’t think is fair. At three different points, Abrams brought out charts about apprehensions, gotaways, and key border sectors to show “what our border patrol agents are up against” with the first showing “2.5 million encounters for the whole of last year,” “up from 1.7, just two years before” and 1.3 million already this year. Bradley came back near the bottom of the hour with a fascinating segment about a so-called “cartel kit” and how, in many places, the cartels controlled the desert:     It wasn’t just Bradley and Entin with Abrams as the NewsNation host also spoke with Border Report correspondent Salvador Rivera, who provided two liveshots from San Diego (where an allegedly Peruvian family gave themselves up to Border Patrol), the four police chiefs, and interviewed Texas DPS Lieutenant Chris Olivarez on the state role. The hour concluded with a tense chase as Bradley and Olivarez raced to catch up and assist Border Patrol with five people who’ve breached the border wall in hopes of apprehending them before they can reach a cartel/smuggler’s getaway car and thus prevent “a high-speed chase.” They arrived to find only two of the five captured, but then were dispatched to join in another pursuit seconds later (click “expand” to see a transcript from some of the key moments):     BRADLEY: [W]e just pulled over here. We’re tracking that group that we were telling you about. So there’s a couple individuals here. Some single adults here that were just picked up by border patrol. I — we just arrived on scene. Lieutenant Olivarez, let’s talk a little bit about kind of what’s unfolding here. We literally just arrived, so we have not talked to Border Patrol, so we don’t know much about these individuals. OLIVAREZ: Actually, we got to go. We’ve got some more. We’ve got to go. You’ve got to go get some more guys. All right. Let’s go! (....) BRADLEY: You actually see a Border Patrol motorcycle dirt bike over here to our left. So, we’ve got activity out here. We’re following a Border Patrol car. A lot activity here right now down, Dan. So again, out here, you have ATVs, you have horseback, you’ve got helicopters, we have different lights over here. We’ve got another law enforcement vehicle that’s searching in this area, so it looks like they kind of believe that somebody might be on foot in this area that we are — we are that we are traveling along. And we’ve got our windows down, we’re looking out we’re trying to find if there’s anybody out here, this is what we’re up against. So, like, Lieutenant Olivarez says, these individuals are reaching this wall so quickly, a matter of seconds, and it is basically off to the races for these individuals and they’re hiding in this very thick brush. And look at this, this industrial — there are buildings everywhere. There are so many places to hide before these individuals are really picked up by these load vehicles, so that’s what they’re contending with down here like Lieutenant Olivarez says, it’s a very dynamic situation. So, again, we have multiple agencies on the ground right no. We are embedded with this elite brush team that, as you can see, they have to pivot and go in the vehicles and go after individuals that are getting into these smuggling vehicles before it can become a pursuit and a bigger problem for law enforcement and also for the community. It’s very dangerous when these pursuits go through these communities. (....) BRADLEY: [This] is what they’re doing every single night down here. This is what we did last night as well. But right now, we are looking for people that are we are on foot that just breached the border wall and we’re trying to get them before they get into a loaded vehicle — a smuggling vehicle and then end up basically going north toward San Antonio and then north from there into whatever stash house or whatever other area they kind of disappear into in the interior of our country. With time having run out on the hour, Abrams summarized this as just “happen[ing] to be a Thursday”: “That’s about all that makes today special and we just decided it’s important to see what’s happening at the border on a typical day. And we’ve got a little taste of it. That’s all. That’s all we saw. Just a little bit.” By giving viewers a raw, live sense of what a day on the border looked like (as opposed to a sanitized, pro-illegal-alien perspective), it was an absolute home run by NewsNation. To see the relevant transcript from the May 9 special, click here.

Reid and Hasan Claim Biden Critics 'Support The Killing Of Kids In Rafah'

When MSNBC’s Joy Reid meets with former colleague Mehdi Hasan to discuss the Israel-Hamas War, it is guaranteed that the viewer will end up dumber than they were at the beginning of the segment. Yet, even by their standards, Thursday’s edition of The ReidOut was especially noteworthy because the duo somehow managed to be both incredibly outrageous and unintentionally hilarious. Reid began the segment by laughing at people who are comparing President Joe Biden’s decision to withhold weapons from Israel to Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial. She also got in a historically illiterate cheap shot at Sen. Tom Cotton, “President Biden is facing blowback for saying that he will stop sending bombs and artillery shells to Israel if it launches a major invasion on the city of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. Senator Tom Cotton, of slavery was the best bad option thing, has called on the House to impeach Biden for withholding weapons to Israel, even comparing Biden's actions to the charges in Trump's first impeachment, in which Trump was accused of strong-arming Ukraine to get dirt on Joe Biden or get no military aid. Yeah, really not the same thing at all.”     First, Cotton was referencing an obvious historical fact that the Founders were presented with two options: one nation born in liberty that had slavery or multiple nations that had slavery with no such ideals to appeal to. They correctly chose the first. Second, Trump was impeached for abuse of power, defined as using American foreign policy to advance your own personal interest at the expense of the national interest. The “dirt on Joe Biden or get no military aid” was just the details. Ironically, when Hasan joined, he would hail Biden’s decision to withhold the aid precisely because it was good politics. The man who once apologized for once being pro-life declared that anyone who disagrees supports killing kids, “Look, what I would say is put aside the morality of not wanting to support the killing of kids in Rafah, put aside international law which is against this stuff. Just from a practical domestic political perspective, it would be in Joe Biden's and Democratic Party's interest to have this war end.” The idea that international law prohibits Army X from attacking Army Y simply because Y encamps itself in a dense urban environment is not only insane, it’s factually wrong (see Article 51, Section 7 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions). Taking Hasan’s point to its logical conclusion would require freedom-loving nations to simply cede major cities to the enemy. After going through what Hasan considered to be Biden’s “good message on the domestic front,” Reid declared that “it does seem to me that what [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] wants is for the war to go on. Forever would be perfect.” Biden is demanding that Israel slow down and come up with an elaborate plan before attacking Rafah, but because Netanyahu has thus far listened to him, Reid and Hasan attack him for prolonging the war. As for Netanyahu’s motivations, Reid claimed, “for him, his fate, like Donald Trump's, in terms of staying out of prison and keeping and retaining power… So, Netanyahu has no interest in the thing Joe Biden needs, which is peace.” Reid and Hasan would go on to add that Netanyahu doesn’t care about the hostages and cited Israelis protesting as their evidence, but people like Reid and Hasan always conveniently leave out the fact that the leader of the opposition, Benny Gantz, is part of the war cabinet. Also, what “Joe Biden needs”? How about what America needs? If Reid and Hasan are the good two state solution-supporting, peace-loving progressives they claim to be, maybe they can next explain how Israel and the Palestinians are supposed to come to a peaceful solution with Hamas still in power. Here is a transcript for the May 9 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 5/9/2024 7:52 PM ET JOY REID: President Biden is facing blowback for saying that he will stop sending bombs and artillery shells to Israel if it launches a major invasion on the city of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. Senator Tom Cotton, of slavery was the best bad option thing, has called on the House to impeach Biden for withholding weapons to Israel, even comparing Biden's actions to the charges in Trump's first impeachment, in which Trump was accused of strong-arming Ukraine to get dirt on Joe Biden or get no military aid. Yeah, really not the same thing at all. … MEHDI HASAN: Look, what I would say is put aside the morality of not wanting to support the killing of kids in Rafah, put aside international law which is against this stuff. Just from a practical domestic political perspective, it would be in Joe Biden's and Democratic Party's interest to have this war end.  REID: Yes. HASAN: Right? Joe Biden has a good domestic record to run on. He has record falls in crime, you know, record low unemployment. He’s taken a good move on marijuana. He’s got a good message on the domestic front.  REID: Yeah. Yeah. HASAN: It’s getting blotted out because he wants to stick with Netanyahu and I am glad there is now some distance between him and Netanyahu. It needs to increase. REID: Let's talk about Netanyahu because it seems to me— HASAN: Do we have to? REID: —We must talk about him. It does seem to me that what he wants is for the war to go on.  HASAN: Yes. REID: Forever would be perfect, because for him, his fate, like Donald Trump's, in terms of staying out of prison-- HASAN: Yeah. REID: -- and keeping and retaining power-- HASAN: Yeah. REID: -- it is all tied to the war continuing. So, Netanyahu has no interest in the thing Joe Biden needs, which is peace. HASAN: Netanyahu’s counting down the days to a Trump presidency.  REID: That’s it. HASAN: Where he knows he’ll have much more freedom. He knows he has a trial coming up. This is about him personally— REID: Absolutely. HASAN: Like Trump, he cares about himself more than anything else. He’s got a coalition that will collapse if he agrees to any kind of ceasefire and he’s abandoned the hostages, Joy. Like, I always hear people saying “you don't care about the hostages.” You know who doesn't care about the hostages? Benjamin Netanyahu.  REID: And their families say so because they’re literally protesting— HASAN: Their families are getting assaulted by Israeli police.  REID: Absolutely. Absolutely.  HASAN: Their families stood outside Netanyahu’s house earlier this week and said "there's blood on your hands." So, when I hear people in America saying “oh, you don’t care about the hostages” go to Israel-- REID: Yeah. HASAN: -- see what the hostages are saying, they want a deal. They want an end to the conflict, they want their people home, as we all should want.

Hostin Attended Trump Trial, Startled By ‘Radioactive Orange’ Face

Apparently, someone allowed staunchly racist and anti-Semitic ABC co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) into the hush money trial of former President Trump and she reported back during Friday’s edition of The View. She said it was “shocking” to see Trump in person for the first time because his face was “radioactive orange.” She also lied about the composition of the jury and attacked one of the witnesses as “part of the Trump cult” because she had good things to say about her former boss. The liberal ladies of The View were so excited to “cross-examine” Hostin and get the “tea” of what she witnessed. Moderator Joy Behar’s first pressing was about Trump’s skin tone and since Hostin was an obsessed race baiter, she was more than happy to oblige: BEHAR: So, my first question is, what shade of orange is his face? HOSTIN: I have to tell you! I have to tell you! BEHAR: Was he like more a tangerine or more of a burnt sienna? Give us some specifics. HOSTIN: It is a burnt sienna. I have never seen him in person. I didn't realize he was that orange. Like, you know, Ana has been making jokes about how orange he is. BEHAR: Yeah. Yeah. Is it like her dress? HOSITN: You’ve said he’s orange. It’s a lot like this [points to Ana Navarro’s dress]! Yes! It's almost like a radioactive orange and it’s shocking to see in person.     Noting that “cases are won and lost with jury selection,” Hostin boasted about the jury and painted it as bad news for Trump. She claimed the jury was made up of “several lawyers” and was excited that it was a “pretty female-skewed jury.” “There are many more women on the jury than there are men,” she said. But neither of those statements were true. According to Spectrum News NY1, a local news station: “Twelve jurors tasked with deciding the outcome of former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial have been seated. The panel consists of seven men and five women.” They also note that only two had careers in the legal field. Lying about the composition of the jury meant none of Hostin’s claims about Trump’s behavior in the courtroom could be trusted. According to her dubious assertions, Trump was acting like a child: He's stretching out like this. He's like fist-bumping with attorneys. He’s like stretching. He took a little nap. Like, most defendants do not do that. They are instructed to sit there, pay attention, look with some humility. That's not Donald Trump. Hostin also lashed out at Madeline Westerhout, Trump’s former executive assistant who worked in the White House. Westerhout was supposedly “part of the Trump cult” because she enjoyed working for him and said he would wave to his wife. “She is part of the Trump cult, for sure. She described him as one of the best bosses she ever had. She described him as being very loving with Melania, that they would, like, text each other and wave to each other outside of the window. I never expected anything like that,” she scoffed. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 10, 2024 11:02:03 a.m. Eastern JOY BEHAR: So, yesterday Stormy Daniels got back on the stand at Trump's hush money trial and was grilled in a cross-examination by Trump's attorneys. BUT, listen to this, our own little Sunny Hostin was in the courtroom yesterday. So, we're going to – [Applause] We're going to cross-examine her. SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes. BEHAR: So, my first question is, what shade of orange is his face? HOSTIN: I have to tell you! I have to tell you! BEHAR: Was he like more a tangerine or more of a burnt sienna? Give us some specifics. HOSTIN: It is a burnt sienna. I have never seen him in person. I didn't realize he was that orange. Like, you know, Ana has been making jokes about how orange he is. BEHAR: Yeah. Yeah. Is it like her dress? HOSITN: You’ve said he’s orange. It’s a lot like this [points to Ana Navarro’s dress]! Yes! It's almost like a radioactive orange and it’s shocking to see in person. It really is, because he’s a tall person. And he’s also a little thinner now. I don't know if he’s taken the shot. BEHAR: He's on Ozempic, you know it! HOSTIN: He's actually looking thinner. But let me set the stage because I think people that haven't been in the courtroom don't understand the gravity of it. You know, you've got this very large courtroom and it's an older courtroom and you've got a “In God We Trust” seal next to it. The American flag – across from the American flag, the New York State flag, a judge presiding with gray hair right in between these flags. And then in front of them a former sitting president in front of all of that for the first time in U.S. history. So, that gives you a little bit of the gravity that actually I felt. But then, here's the tea. Okay? So, he is unlike any defendant sitting in a courtroom that I've ever seen. BEHAR: Because? HOSTIN: He's stretching out like this. He's like fist bumping with attorneys. He’s like stretching. He took a little nap. Like, most defendants do not do that. They are instructed to sit there, pay attention, look with some humility. That's not Donald Trump. BEHAR: So, out of all the dwarfs – the Seven Dwarfs is his Grumpy, Sleepy, or Dopey? HOSTIN: I think he’s Sleepy and Dopey combination. BEHAR: Okay. HOSTIN: That was my impression. The other think I would say – ANA NAVARRO: And allegedly farty. HOSTIN: I did not smell the farting. BEHAR: Were you sitting downwind? HOSTIN: Yeah. I was sitting downwind but I did not smell the farting yesterday. I will also say this-- NAVARRO: Windy. HOSTIN: I think that cases are won and lost with jury selection. There are several lawyers on the jury. That was very striking to me. It's a very diverse jury. There are many more women on the jury than there are men. BEHAR: Uh-oh. Not good for him. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I think there’s – HOSTIN: Even including the alternates. I mean, I couldn't tell which ones were the alternates but there are 18 people and the majority of them are women. So, that was interesting to me. Because if people drop out it's a pretty female-skewed jury. The other thing I will say is it's one of the most engaged juries I've ever seen. SARA HAINES: How was the testimony? HOSTIN: I'm talking notes and everything. The testimony, I wanted to ask Alyssa about something. Because something interesting to me there was a woman that testified, Madeline Westerhout and she was his executive White House assistant. Right? And she sat right outside the Oval Office. She is part of the Trump cult, for sure. She described him as one of the best bosses she ever had. She described him as being very loving with Melania, that they would, like, text each other and wave to each other outside of the window. I never expected anything like that. (…)

Desperate NY Times: Valid Soros Criticism Equals 'Republicans Echo Antisemitic Tropes'

As pro-Hamas campus protesters scream end-of-Israel slogans on college campuses and President Biden cuts off weapons to Israel, the New York Times put its investigative journalism to a very political task, neutralizing any attempt by Republicans to campaign against antisemitism:  How Republicans Echo Antisemitic Tropes Despite Declaring Support for Israel Prominent Republicans have seized on campus protests to assail what they say is antisemitism on the left. But for years they have mainstreamed anti-Jewish rhetoric. The Times spent some 3,500 words and used Artificial Intelligence and four staffers (Karen Yourish, Danielle Ivory, Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, and Alex Lemonides) to try to paint the GOP as the true anti-semitic party. Their methodology?  The Times used a variety of methods to examine the extent to which federal politicians have used language promoting antisemitic tropes. Reporters examined official press releases, congressional newsletters and posts on X (formerly Twitter) of every person who served in Congress over the past 10 years that contained the words “Soros,” “globalist” or “globalism” — terms widely accepted by multiple historians and experts on antisemitism as “dog whistles” that refer to Jews. The paper’s ideologically motivated thesis rests heavily on the false assumption being that criticism of left-wing ideological financier George Soros is by definition anti-Semitic. Some “seizing” occurred on the “largely peaceful” (really?) campus protests, which the Times severely underplayed. Amid the widening protests and the unease, if not fear, among many Jews, Republicans have sought to seize the political advantage by portraying themselves as the true protectors of Israel and Jews under assault from the progressive left. While largely peaceful, the campus protests over Israel’s bombardment of Gaza that has killed tens of thousands have been loud and disruptive and have at times taken on a sharpened edge. Jewish students have been shouted at to return to Poland, where Nazis killed three million Jews during the Holocaust. There are chants and signs in support of Hamas, whose attack on Israel sparked the current war. A leader of the Columbia protests declared in a video that “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” Debate rages over the extent to which the protests on the political left constitute coded or even direct attacks on Jews. But far less attention has been paid to a trend on the right: For all of their rhetoric of the moment, increasingly through the Trump era many Republicans have helped inject into the mainstream thinly veiled anti-Jewish messages with deep historical roots. The conspiracy theory taking on fresh currency is one that dates back hundreds of years and has perennially bubbled into view: that a shady cabal of wealthy Jews secretly controls events and institutions contrary to the national interest of whatever country it is operating in. The Times will not tolerate any criticism of leftist financier George Soros. The current formulation of the trope taps into the populist loathing of an elite “ruling class.” “Globalists” or “globalist elites” are blamed for everything from Black Lives Matter to the influx of migrants across the southern border, often described as a plot to replace native-born Americans with foreigners who will vote for Democrats. The favored personification of the globalist enemy is George Soros, the 93-year-old Hungarian American Jewish financier and Holocaust survivor who has spent billions in support of liberal causes and democratic institutions. The reporters extrapolated wildly to make standard political rhetoric “hate-filled speech of the extreme right.” This language is hardly new -- Mr. Soros became a boogeyman of the American far right long before the ascendancy of Mr. Trump. And the elected officials now invoking him or the globalists rarely, if ever, directly mention Jews or blame them outright. Some of them may not immediately understand the antisemitic resonance of the meme, and in some cases its use may simply be reflexive political rhetoric. But its rising ubiquity reflects the breaking down of old guardrails on all types of degrading speech, and the cross-pollination with the raw, sometimes hate-filled speech of the extreme right, in a party under the sway of the norm-defying former, and perhaps future, president. The reporters spared a few paragraphs of their diatribe to note left-wing anti-Semitism, referencing the campus protests and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) “for her statements after the Hamas attack, including ‘from the river to the sea.’” The Times repeated the same snotty “In fact…” formulation for the pro-Hamas protests. An “indirect” connection is still a connection, no matter how often the press throw around “anti-Semitism” in Soros’s defense. In fact, Mr. Soros’s connection to the protests is indirect: His foundation has donated to groups that have supported pro-Palestinian efforts, including recent protests, according to its financial records….

CNN Claims This 'Sordid Detail' from Stormy Daniels Will Hurt Trump With Women Voters

On CNN This Morning, CNN senior political analyst Mark Preston said that porn star Stormy Daniels claiming in court that Donald Trump didn't use a condom ("protection") during their alleged sexual encounter constitutes a "sordid detail" that will hurt Trump with women voters in swing states.  Preston: I assume now that there are women in these five or six states that we're looking at now, whether it's Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Nevada, Arizona, or Georgia who perhaps would have thought about voting for President Trump. But then they, see this, and not to be very sordid. But this is pretty sordid. I would assume if I cheated on my wife, I mean, she'd kill me, but that would be one thing. She'd probably kill me twice. There's, another thing, though, to, I believe to cheat on your wife and then have it publicly come out that you didn't use protection. And I think that that is -- I'm telling you though -- that is something that I think will hit home. Host Kasie Hunt gleefully agreed with Preston, chuckling as she said, "It's all very sordid." No qualifiers from anyone on the panel about the porn star's claims being "alleged." The veracity of her testimony was seemingly taken as a given. And CNN has been gavel-to-gavel "sordid" during Stormy Daniels Week. Meghan Hays, a former Biden aide, was also only too happy to agree, saying that come September and October, those sordid "details" would be highlighted in TV ads targeting moderate women voters. Preston should know a thing or two about sordid sexual details in the lives of prominent politicians. He's a former aide to . . . Sen. Ted Kennedy. Note: When Preston said that his wife would "kill" him if he cheated on her, a laughing Hunt interjected, "I would hope so." Fine. Now imagine the reaction if a woman on the panel said that her husband would kill her if she cheated on him.  Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 5/10/24 6:06 am EDT MARK PRESTON: We're seeing what's happening in the courtroom right now, and we're paying a lot attention to these sordid details. In the court of law, I don't think the sordid details are going to matter, and perhaps could backfire, what have you. Court of public opinion, though. I mean, we are talking about trying to -- I assume now, that there are women in these five or six states that we're looking at now, whether it's Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, you know, who perhaps would have thought about voting for President Trump. But then they, see this, and, and, and not to be very sordid -- but this is pretty sordid.  KASIE HUNT: [Chuckling] It's all very sordid.  PRESTON: I would assume if I cheated on my wife, that would, I mean, she'd kill me, but that would be one thing.  HUNT: I would hope so [laughs.] PRESTON: She'd probably kill me twice. [Extended Hunt laugh.] There's, another thing, though. To, I believe, to cheat on your wife and then have it publicly come out that you didn't use protection. And I think that that is -- I'm telling you though -- that is something that I think will hit home. You're laughing, Meghan, but it's true. I think that that is something that, there's a trust level. There's the moralistic level, you know, issue, that people wrestle with. I'm wrestling with that right now on TV. HUNT: I am too, for the record. MEGHAN HAYS: To your point about these five or six states that they're trying to play to. Those are the Nikki Haley voters that are these moderate women in suburban cities that are going to vote. Who are they going to vote for? They are the undecided.  And these are the things that are going to come up. And these are the ads that the Super PACs and other people are going to put forth come September and October to remind these women of these details.

Stewart Labels GOP 'F****** Children' For Blasting Biden's Weapons Halt

Jon Stewart shook things up this week as he hosted Comedy Central’s The Daily Show on Thursday instead of Monday, but one thing that did not change was Stewart’s habit of confusing snark for substance as he labeled GOP senators condemning President Biden’s halt on weapons shipments to Israel as “[bleep] children.” Stewart’s musings came at the end of a long line of diatribes where he accused conservatives and Republicans of freaking out about things that do not need to be freaked out over, “All this false outrage is starting to make me cynical about America’s media ecosystem. Is there anything else going on that does merit a DEFCON 1 freak-out?” That led to a clip of Fox News’s Sean Hannity declaring, “In the end, this is a sad day for America, a moral failing of a magnitude we can't even begin to calculate.”     Referencing back to preceding controversies, a sarcastic Stewart wondered, “Oh, my god, a moral failing we can't even begin to calculate? Perhaps it's a combo failing? An appliance that changed its name to be more inclusive? Is Mr. Coffee now They/Them Coffee? Is that -- is that the danger we now face?” Stewart then played two clips of NBC’s Savannah Guthrie and Andrea Mitchell reporting on the news that Biden has halted bomb shipments to Israel with a third clip of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin telling Congress, “We paused one shipment of high payload munitions.” If anything, Stewart felt the decision was too little, too late, “Oh, my god! The Biden Administration has paused one shipment of 3,500 munitions, of the over 300,000 munitions Israel has already dropped on Gaza, to try and prevent the Israelis from attacking the area where all the refugees of this war are currently sheltering. I mean, oh, my god! Or to put that another way.” That led to a montage of various GOP senators condemning the move. One clip featured Texas’s Ted Cruz declaring, “Joe Biden has been the greatest friend to Hamas and Hezbollah that there is on planet Earth,” to which Kansas’s Roger Marshall responded by giving him a high five and adding, “Amen! Damn, he's good.” Stewart responded, “Yes, nothing says gravitas like, [goofy laughing] ‘He's a terrorist sympathizer –[indistinguishable muttering]’ ‘The only thing we have to fear is fear itself [indistinguishable muttering].’ You people are [bleep] children. That came out wrong, but I am curious, why would Biden halt that shipment now?" In a clip, Biden was shown claiming that “I have made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet they're not going to get our support if, in fact, they're going into these population centers.” Stewart replied by unwittingly undermining his own position, “If they go into the population centers? The whole place is a population center! They've been in the population center for six months! Gaza’s all population center! You know what you never hear around Gaza? ‘Yeah, I don't live in the populated area. I live in upstate Gaza. I live by the lakes! It is really quiet there.’”  The logical conclusion of Biden and Stewart’s position is that if the bad guys hold a city, it's theirs. If Israel could fight Hamas out in the open, it would, but for all the IDF’s technological superiority, it has not managed to create magical fairy dust. Here is a transcript for the May 9 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 5/9/2024 11:08 PM ET JON STEWART: All this false outrage is starting to make me cynical about America’s media ecosystem. Is there anything else going on that does merit a DEFCON 1 freak-out? SEAN HANNITY: In the end, this is a sad day for America, a moral failing of a magnitude we can't even begin to calculate. STEWART: Oh, my god, a moral failing we can't even begin to calculate? Perhaps it's a combo failing? An appliance that changed its name to be more inclusive? Is Mr. Coffee now They/Them Coffee? Is that -- is that the danger we now face? SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: President Biden threatening to withhold more military aid if the Israeli military carries out an all-out assault on the city of Rafah. ANDREA MITCHELL: President Biden halting a weapons shipment of 3,500 bombs to Israel. LLOYD AUSTIN: We paused one shipment of high payload munitions. STEWART: Oh, my god! The Biden Administration has paused one shipment of 3,500 munitions, of the over 300,000 munitions Israel has already dropped on Gaza, to try and prevent the Israelis from attacking the area where all the refugees of this war are currently sheltering. I mean, oh, my god! Or to put that another way. RON JOHNSON: And now what the Biden administration has done is they become the primary protector of Hamas. JONI ERNST: He absolutely is siding with the terrorists. LINDSEY GRAHAM: The only reason they aren't dancing in Iran is because they don't believe in dancing. TED CRUZ: Joe Biden has been the greatest friend to Hamas and Hezbollah that there is on planet Earth. ROGER MARSHALL: Amen! Damn, he's good. STEWART: Yes, nothing says gravitas like, [goofy laughing] "He's a terrorist sympathizer –[indistinguishable muttering]” "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself [indistinguishable muttering]."  You people are [bleep] children. That came out wrong, but I am curious, why would Biden halt that shipment now? JOE BIDEN: I have made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet they're not going to get our support if, in fact, they're going into these population centers STEWART: If they go into the population centers? The whole place is a population center! They've been in the population center for six months! Gaza’s all population center! You know what you never hear around Gaza? "Yeah, I don't live in the populated area. I live in upstate Gaza. I live by the lakes! It is really quiet there." 

Column: CNN Deploys a 'Fact Checker' for Trump, Not for Biden

On May 8, President Biden took the very unusual step of submitting to an interviewer who was an actual journalist (not a Howard Stern or Drew Barrymore). It wouldn’t be long before he started mangling his record – and Donald Trump’s. CNN's Erin Burnett began with how Trump’s promises of new jobs in Wisconsin didn’t come true: “Why should people here believe that you will succeed at creating jobs where Trump failed?” Biden bragged: “He's never succeeded in creating jobs and I have never failed. I have created over 15 million jobs since I have been president.” He did it all by himself! He claimed other than Herbert Hoover, Trump's "the only other president who lost more jobs than created in his four-year term.” There’s a massive asterisk – the global Covid pandemic. Trump’s employment record in the first three years of his presidency was strong. The raw number of employed Americans reached new records. In October 2018, it had reached more than 165.6 million. The unemployment rate hit record lows across demographics: for women, blacks, Latinos, Asians, and youth. Obviously, the severe lockdowns during the pandemic – most aggressively pushed by the Democrats and their media allies – drove massive job losses. Non-farm payroll employment in the United States declined by 9.4 million in 2020. So Democrats blame that on Trump, and when the pandemic was over, they took credit for the economy climbing out of that hole. But that wasn’t Biden’s worst mangle. He claimed to CNN that “no president's had the run we have had, in terms of creating jobs and bringing down inflation. It was nine percent when I came to office, nine percent.”  That’s ridiculous! It’s a bald-faced lie. Inflation was 1.4 percent, again, due to the pandemic. Burnett didn’t check his facts, during or after the interview. She pushed him to acknowledge inflation was bad, but she didn’t suggest he was lying. Fox News contributor Joe Concha tweeted: “And of course, CNN makes sure its pious fact-checker is nowhere to be found afterward.” That would be Daniel Dale, who's almost entirely deployed on TV to “fact check" Trump. Since Trump’s Manhattan trial began in mid-April, Dale has appeared nine times  to "check" him. He has not appeared to check anyone else. On April 18, Jake Tapper said “he’s handy to have around at times like this.” Some of these fact checks are “brag checks.” Trump will say he’s ahead in all the polls, when he’s ahead in most polls. But Dale sounds most exasperated when Trump blames Biden for his legal troubles. On April 18, Dale decried “his false conspiracy theory that essentially that Joe Biden is behind this case, which was brought by a locally elected district attorney.”  Dale can’t even disclose DA Alvin Bragg is a Democrat. He acknowledged Trump’s lead prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, was a Biden Justice Department official, and then joined Bragg’s team. A “conspiracy theory” between Democrat lawyers looks obvious here, and declaring it “false” is lame spin. On May 7, Dale threw a penalty flag at Trump for saying Bragg is a “Soros-backed” prosecutor….and Trump didn’t say that in the remarks they’d just aired. Dale turned on the spin machine by saying Soros is “a frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories,” and then claimed “at best” the money was indirect:  Soros donated to the Color of Change PAC, and then the PAC backed Bragg. If a conservative DA received big money from a pro-Trump PAC, CNN would call him or her “Trump-backed” without hesitation. CNN deploys Dale not as a “fact checker” as much as a spin spoiler.

ABC’s Mary Bruce Invents Weird New ‘Anti-Semitic Trope’ With Which To Smear Trump

In what appears to be a desperate attempt to shield President Joe Biden from the fallout of his decision to block munitions shipments to Israel, ABC Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce has crafted a strange new “antisemitic trope” with which to smear former President Donald Trump. Watch as Bruce uncorks this so-called trope during her coverage of Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza: MARY BRUCE: Tonight, many Republicans now accusing Biden of abandoning a critical ally, including Donald Trump, who today repeated an anti-semitic trope questioning Jewish voters who stand by the president. REPORTER: Mr. President, any comment? DONALD TRUMP: If any Jewish person voted for Joe Biden, they should be ashamed of themselves. He's totally abandoned Israel. Irrespective of one’s feelings over Trump’s statements, they do not rise to anything more than an opinion. Black and Hispanic conservatives get excoriated by the left all the time for “voting against their self-interest”, and no one ever accuses those leftists of being anti-Black or anti-Hispanic, nor do such statements ever draw any media scrutiny. Reasonable individuals are left to won(D)er why that is.  Bruce’s fabrication of an anti-semitism where there is none smacks of media firefighting, intended to protect President Biden not just from the fallout of the munitions block, but from his own recent “very fine people” moment, as well as appearing weak on Israel.  Efforts to smear Trump’s callouts as antisemitic are no different than trying to smear as antisemites those who are critical of George Soros’ funding of radical left causes and domestic destabilization. Far from being rooted in any desire to protect Jews from discrimination or worse, they seek to shield leftists from scrutiny in the public square. Mary Bruce shamefully crossed over into White House crisis comms, far beyond her usual Biden sycophancies.  Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Wednesday, May 9th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: Tonight, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defiant, saying, “we will stand alone”, after President Biden's threat to withhold U.S. weapons if there's a full-scale invasion of Rafah. And these tense talks over a cease-fire halted amid fury over Rafah, with so many hostages still being held by Hamas. Mary Bruce at The White House tonight. MARY BRUCE: Tonight, as President Biden threatens to further withhold U.S. weapons from Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu defiant. "If we have to stand alone, we will stand alone," he said today. Firing back after Biden, in his most direct warning yet, said the U.S. would not provide Israel with weapons to attack Rafah. JOE BIDEN:  I've made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet, they're not going to get our support, if in fact they go in these population centers. BRUCE: It comes after the president has warned Netanyahu for weeks not to invade Rafah, where more than a million civilians are seeking refuge. But those warnings have been ignored. Netanyahu already launching what he says are limited operations inside Rafah, choking critical humanitarian aid. Biden already halting the shipment of 3,500 U.S. bombs, fearing American weapons could be used to kill more innocent Palestinians. Tonight, many Republicans now accusing Biden of abandoning a critical ally, including Donald Trump, who today repeated an anti-semitic trope questioning Jewish voters who stand by the president. REPORTER: Mr. President, any comment? DONALD TRUMP: If any Jewish person voted for Joe Biden, they should be ashamed of themselves. He's totally abandoned Israel. BRUCE: The Biden campaign quick to condemn those comments, as the president insists U.S. support for Israel's defense remains ironclad. Now, the president says the U.S. will continue to provide for Israel's defense, even as he threatens to halt sending offensive weapons to them. And tonight, those cease-fire talks are now stalled. The sticking point, we’re told, is Rafah. Israel insisting that any temporary ceasefire deal exclude their operations in what they say is a Hamas stronghold. David. MUIR: All right, Mary. Mary Bruce again tonight, thank you.  

CBS Is The Only Network To Cover Denial of Hunter Biden Dismissal Motion

n a normal world with normal media, breaking developments on the legal woes of the son of the sitting President of the United States would draw significant coverage. But we neither live in normal times nor have a normal media.  Therefore, the decision issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upholding District Judge Noreika’s denial of a motion to dismiss drew minimal coverage, and only on the CBS Evening News. Watch the full report, as aired on Thursday, May 9th, 2024:    NORAH O’DONNELL: The trial against Hunter Biden on federal gun charges is on track to begin next month after a federal appeals court declined to dismiss those charges today. Hunter Biden is accused of falsifying a federal firearms form, and illegal possession of a firearm while using a narcotic. The president's son also faces federal tax charges in California, and is scheduled to stand trial later in June. He has pleaded not guilty in both cases. It goes without saying that if it were Donald Trump, Jr. who got busted on gun charges, the charges being falsely affirming one is not a drug addict on ATF 4473 for purposes of a gun purchase while smoking industrial amounts of crack, then the coverage would be significant and constant- on the gun charges, on Burisma, on everything.  CBS only mustered a scant 26 seconds on the matter but it was still 26 seconds more than ABC and NBC, which didn’t even bother to cover the story. Again, if it were Don, Jr.  Here’s some of the detail missing from CBS’s teeny-tiny report, via Politico: A federal judge in Delaware denied Hunter Biden’s bid to throw out his felony gun charges on Thursday, rejecting arguments from the president’s son that the federal prohibition on owning guns while using illegal drugs is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Separately, a federal appeals court panel ruled against Biden earlier Thursday in another bid to have the charges against him tossed. The two decisions appear to clear the way for his case to head to trial on June 3, though his defense team can still pursue further appeals. Last year, Biden was charged with illegally buying a gun while using illegal drugs and with lying on a government form about his drug use when he made the purchase –– two separate criminal charges. Special counsel David Weiss alleges that Biden bought a gun in October 2018, a time when he was frequently using crack cocaine. Biden has spoken publicly about his struggles with drug addiction. CBS doesn’t even mention the district court denial of Hunter Biden’s Bruen defense against the gun charges, which puts many Second Amendment advocates in the unusual position of being sympathetic to the younger Biden.  The Regime Media only managed to muster a grand total of 26 seconds on Hunter Biden. If it weren’t for CBS, there’d be none at all.  

RFK Jr. Admits to Supporting ‘Full Term’ Abortion

It’s absolutely jaw dropping to me that people openly support what can be summed up as nothing less than infanticide. In an interview with podcaster Sage Steele, Democratic Presidential nominee Robert Kennedy Jr. was asked about his ideas when it comes to abortion restrictions. Kennedy, very confidently, insisted that all abortion decisions should be made by a mother and that he supports abortion “even if it’s full term.” The interview, released Wednesday as part of The Sage Steele Show, already has over 21,000 views on YouTube. LifeNews.com released a less than 30 second clip of the show and it already has more than 154,000 views on X with hundreds of retweets and comments. BREAKING: Robert Kennedy Jr. endorses abortions up to birth. "Even if it's full term."https://t.co/2VFOBxzChb pic.twitter.com/1xkzmDkwKt — LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) May 9, 2024 Steele asked if Kennedy, if elected, would keep abortion laws at the federal level as is, “Keeping it as is, with Roe versus Wade having being overturned and leaving it up to the states to determine if and when a woman can have an abortion?” “No, I wouldn’t leave it to the states,” Kennedy said. “We should leave it to the woman,” he added, a few moments later insisting that he’d not place any federal protections on innocent life but rather leave it up to a woman. “We shouldn’t have government involved,” he said. Steele pushed back in order to get Kennedy to clarify his stance: “Even if it’s full term?” What Kennedy said next shocked me. “Even if it’s full term,” he said, meaning that he’d support a woman’s decision to abort her child, even if it is fully formed and merely a few inches up the birth canal. LifeNews.com did indicate that even though Kennedy claims that he “may not support late-term abortions personally, his answer makes it crystal clear that his political policy would allow late-term abortions with no limits.” In response to the clip, many pro-lifers were stunned and heartbroken. Sean Feucht, a Christian singer who recently led worship at a pro-Israel march said, “No Bible-believing, Jesus-following Christian should come remotely close to endorsing this guy for President.” TPUSA president Charlie Kirk said RFK Jr. was “affirming his commitment to China-style full-term abortion, without limits, nationwide.” Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts shared that sentiment when he said, “The real radicals on abortion are those, like Robert Kennedy, who support full-term abortion. What a grotesque and evil concept.” I pray for the day that pro-aborts either wake up or stop ignoring the realities of what abortion is. Until then, that population, the most vulnerable population in our society, is under eminent risk with mindsets like Kennedy’s.  

Pro-Israel Protestors Rally & March Outside USC Campus: ‘Bring Them Home’

Pro-Israel students at the University of Southern California (USC) gathered together on Wednesday to march for the return of the innocent Israelis still held captive by Hamas, standing in stark contrast to the pro-Palestine protests that have erupted across college campuses around the nation, wreaking havoc, causing graduation ceremony cancellations, and bringing violence to school grounds. Pursuit Church teamed up with Christian worship artist Sean Feucht to hold the “United for Israel March” on Wednesday, where hundreds of both local and traveling pro-Israel marchers gathered by USC to stand in solidarity with those who lost their lives on October 7, as well as those still being held by Hamas terrorists. Feucht led worship songs at the start of the event before the march began. Later, marchers gathered outside the front gates of USC as the school's four-day long graduation ceremony series began. USC students in particular have been relatively vocal about their anti-Israel stance. In April more than 90 people were arrested during a protest at the campus after setting up illegal encampments on the school grounds. During the same month, USC even canceled its official commencement ceremony amid concerns of violence and noted that the valedictorian speech, which was set to be given by an outwardly pro-Palestine activist, was canceled, too. In the same vein, back in November, a Jewish professor at USC was banned from teaching on campus for the rest of the fall semester after comments he made against Hamas went viral. Hence why the location of this rally was of vital importance. Related: Indoctrination Nation: YOUNG Missouri School Kids Protest for Palestine - 'Zionism has Got to Go!' Rally-goers peacefully raised their hands to God and prayed for His protection over the Israeli citizens prior to the march. “The significance of us gathering on this University campus is to say, 'anti-semitism will be defeated,'" Feucht told the crowd before launching into a chant of, “Jewish hate must go!” Attendees included both Jews and Christians. USC 🚨: A Christian converted Muslim man from Iran, and Christian converted Jewish woman from Israel take communion together in symbolic peace between Muslims and Jews, and prayer said over the Middle East. pic.twitter.com/JckFzJOtnc — Anthony Cabassa (@AnthonyCabassa_) May 9, 2024 When the singing and prayer ended, attendees began marching down the streets of Los Angeles chanting things like, "Bring them home” while carrying both the Israeli and American flags.   Your daily dose of good news: At USC hundreds of pro israel supporters march at usc after an pro palestinian encampment was removed. Quite a difference with your average pro hamas crowd pic.twitter.com/zMrbYlLRU8 — Brian BJ (@iamBrianBJ) May 9, 2024 A plane even flew over the University with a banner behind it that read, “Israel is forever. Jewish Lives Matter.” Staff and members of the group Concerned Women for America, which seeks to "protect and promote Biblical values and Constitutional principles through prayer, education, and advocacy," attended the event and held signs that read “CWA Stands with Israel!” Paige Nelson, CWA’s Executive Assistant to the VP and Development Project Manager, issued a statement to MRCTV after attending the event herself: It is no secret that since October 7, 2023, antisemitism in the United States has spiked, specifically targeting Jewish students and faculty at some of our most esteemed institutions. Pro-Hamas protests are breaking out, coating these campuses in violence and hysteria, and creating dangerous environments for the Jewish community to exist. Yesterday’s march was the complete opposite and a testament to our God not being finished with His people. Christians and Jews gathered together in prayer and worship - acknowledging that we serve the same good Father and have power in numbers. The march was filled with joy and laughter, unity and peace. There were no arrests, blocking traffic, or disgracing the American flag. Instead, hundreds gathered to show support for our Jewish brothers and sisters and to spread the good news that our Lord has already won the battle, He has conquered death, and that He will not give up on the promised land. This event stands in stark contrast to the types of protests taking place across the nation, where pro-Hamas students and demonstrators have set up camp at various schools calling to "liberate" Palestine. “Hamas is Me! Hamas is You! Hamas is our Family,” one black supremacist at George Washington University yelled on Tuesday before pledging to destroy Israel. Students from Princeton went on what they called a “hunger strike,” voluntarily denying themselves food in an attempt to show their solidarity with Gaza, and the Latino Institute at UCLA attempted to place blame on police officers for terminating their violent and outrageous protests - and that’s all within just the last week. Like Nelson said, the violence many of the pro-Gaza protestors exude is not necessary, as demonstrated by the pro-Israel group. “There were no arrests, blocking traffic, or disgracing the American flag,” she said about Wednesday’s march. Maybe those pro-Palestine protestors should take a look at how advocating for what you believe in should actually be done. Follow us on Twitter/X: MRCTV's @Schineman joins One America News to talk Biden refusing interviews, Google censorship, and Maxine Waters' hypocrisy. pic.twitter.com/y4tXzsFlWY — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 9, 2024  

ABC Relieved Biden Abandoning Israel as Trump Leads War ‘Trust’ Poll

For weeks, the liberal media have had their eye on November as they’ve been trying to get President Biden to abandon Israel in hopes of getting the pro-Hamas votes in swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin. ABC’s Good Morning America seemed relieved on Thursday as they hyped Biden’s threat to stop sending weapons to Israel if they attacked Hamas’s final stronghold. They even noted the threat came as their latest poll showed former President Trump edged out on trust to handle the war. “This is President Biden's most direct warning to Israel since the start of this war and it could set up a historic clash with this critical ally,” boasted Biden’s chief apple polisher, ABC chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce. Biden’s latest comments about Israel also scratched ABC’s anti-American itch, because it allowed them to suggest that America had teamed up with the bad guys: BRUCE: For weeks, Biden warned Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not to invade Rafah where over 1 million civilians are seeking refuge. And he's already taking action, halting a shipment of 3,500 U.S. bombs, fearing American weapons could be used against civilians. Something Biden now concedes has already happened. BIDEN: Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers. On the timing of the threat, Bruce noted that “Biden's stark warning comes as he faces growing criticism at home over his steadfast support for Israel. Our latest poll finding voters now trust Donald Trump more to handle this war.”     To the question “Trust more to handle Israel-Hamas War,” Trump led with a plurality of 37 percent to Biden’s 29. Meanwhile, 33 percent responded “neither.”  The poll, which was conducted between April 25-30 had a margin of error of two percent. Bruce concluded the segment by trying to have her cake and eat it too: Now, the President says the U.S. will still continue to provide for Israel's defense, like the Iron Dome missile system. But after months of urging Israel to do more to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, President Biden is adamant: if Netanyahu invades Rafah, the U.S. will not supply offensive weapons to Israel. There was similar hype for the threats against Israel on CBS Mornings, where foreign correspondent Ramy Inocencio seemed to revel in how “angry reactions are flying from Israel’s far-right politicians to President Biden.” He also seemed to tout how others say “Israel may have already lost in terms of its international standing” and that it was “an incredible achievement for Hamas.” Over on NBC’s Today, Gabe Gutierrez marveled: “For weeks the White House has said that it opposes a large-scale assault on Rafah, but President Biden is now taking a much harder line, threatening to withhold more weapons from Israel…” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 9, 2024 7:10:26 a.m. Eastern MICHAEL STRAHAN: Now to President Biden delivering a warning to Israel saying he'll stop some weapons shipments as Israel invades the city of Rafah. Our chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce has the latest for us. Good morning, Mary. MARY BRUCE: Good morning, Michael. This is President Biden's most direct warning to Israel since the start of this war and it could set up a historic clash with this critical ally. President Biden now threatening to halt the shipment of additional U.S. weapons to Israel, which he acknowledges have been used to kill innocent civilians. [Cuts to video] This morning, President Biden is calling out the Israeli government. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: It's just wrong. We're not gonna supply weapons and the artillery shells used. BRUCE: Making it clear in his sharpest criticism yet that the U.S. will not provide Israel with weapons to attack Rafah. BIDEN: I have been made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet. They're not going to get our support if, in fact, they go into these population centers. BRUCE: For weeks, Biden warned Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not to invade Rafah where over 1 million civilians are seeking refuge. And he's already taking action, halting a shipment of 3,500 U.S. bombs, fearing American weapons could be used against civilians. Something Biden now concedes has already happened. BIDEN: Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers. BRUCE: Biden's stark warning comes as he faces growing criticism at home over his steadfast support for Israel. Our latest poll finding voters now trust Donald Trump more to handle this war. As some Republicans now accuse Biden of undermining Israel. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): This is obscene. It is absurd. Give Israel what they need to fight the war they can't afford to lose. BRUCE: But Biden insisting U.S. support for Israel remains iron clad. BIDEN: We're not walking away from Israel's security. We're walking away from Israel’s ability to wage war in those areas. [Cuts back to live] BRUCE: Now, the President says the U.S. will still continue to provide for Israel's defense, like the Iron Dome missile system. But after months of urging Israel to do more to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, President Biden is adamant: if Netanyahu invades Rafah, the U.S. will not supply offensive weapons to Israel.

Rumble CEO Reacts to Being Banned in Russia, Unveils Pressures against Rumble to Censor

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski reacted to Rumble being banned from Russia over its adamant free speech stance. On May 7, Pavlovski addressed an X Spaces hosted by social media personality Mario Nawfal. During the Spaces, Pavlovski was asked to explain why his platform was banned from Russia as well as his company’s experiences with other countries demanding censorship. Strikingly, Rumble has been criticized in the past for platforming Russian media and was even forced to leave France after that country demanded that the platform ban Russian news programs.  Similar: Russia Blocks Video Platform for Refusing Censorship “One thing that’s really striking to me right now is if you guys remember back … two years ago, we were banned, well, we left France, they threatened to shut us off at the local level, so we decided to make the decision to leave the country entirely,” Pavlovski said. “And we did it because they wanted us to shut down Russian, news sources that come from Russia, so we denied that request, and we ended up leaving France. And every single paper in the United States and Canada covered how we were allowing Russian news sources on Rumble, and we were, they called me every name in the book.” https://t.co/rgqHcq5wSj — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 7, 2024 Pavlovski pointed out the bitter irony that Rumble had previously been banned for platforming Russian voices and that the legacy media, previously so critical of Rumble for being “pro-Russia,” is now conspicuously silent on Rumble being banned. “It might have happened a month ago, but we confirmed that Russia has put Rumble on a blocked list, and we are completely inaccessible within  Russia entirely,” Pavlovski explained. “And not a single news source, not a single news source that covered us prior, what we did in France, is covering this situation.” Pavlovski revealed that Rumble was banned after it refused to comply with censorship orders from the Russian government. He mentioned that one of the accounts was banned over a marijuana related issue. “Another account seemed to be some conspiracy channel, but I’m not sure because it was in a different language … and the other channel seemed to be an Arabic channel that was political in the Arabic language,” Pavlovski added. “Those were the types of channels that they wanted us to remove, and we didn’t see that they violated any of our terms of service, so we ignored the orders, and then they shut us off at the IP level.” Pavlovski was also asked if he received similar requests from Western governments. While he denied receiving any direct orders, Pavlovski pointed out that censorship in the West is conducted using an entirely different model from traditionally autocratic countries. “The way the U.S. market tries to impose censorship is by using media organizations to try to do hit jobs on your company,” Pavlovski said. “So they’ll bring up this person or that person or this piece of content, and they’ll write up a whole article about one video that they found on your platform out of millions, so the way censorship moves in America is through using media organizations. The media organizations are the entities that push censorship across all the Big Tech platforms.” He added that “the Big Tech platforms are scared shitless of the media organizations, and that’s what gets them to buckle.” 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.

Will the Media Hold NY Gov. Hochul Accountable for Racist Remarks? MRC’s Hamill Reacts on Newsmax

MRC contributing writer Stephanie Hamill was a guest on Tuesday’s The Balance on Newsmax with host Eric Bolling where they examined recent racist remarks made by New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) during a forum in California where she said there are black kids growing up in the Bronx who ‘don’t even know what the word computer is.’  KATHY HOCHUL: In fact, I talk to a lot of other people who say, “I wish my governor had thought of that first”, and I say, “No no, this is New York. We like to be first, with all due respect to people from other states. It's sort of- it's sort of our attitude. You know, “we will be the best- we will be the first”. And I want others to follow because right now we have, you know, young black kids growing up in The Bronx who don't even know what the word “computer” is. They- they don't know- they don't know these things, and I want the world to open up to all of them because when you have their diverse voices innovating solutions through technology, then you're really addressing society's broader challenges. While most of the major mainstream media outlets initially covered her remarks and apology this week, it appears many have moved on as there haven't been any follow-ups.  One could only imagine what the coverage would look like if it were a Republican who said what she said. One could assume there would be wall to wall news coverage or even calls for her to resign.

Nets Play Propagandists for Biden in Wisconsin, Bemoan ‘Stubborn’ Economy

On Wednesday night and Thursday morning, the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC dutifully complied with suckling coverage of President Biden’s trip to Racine, Wisconsin as part of Microsoft announcing a new headquarters for its artificial intelligence (A.I.) division and bemoaning how the economy’s remained a “stubborn challenge” for Biden to break through to Americans who’ve stupidly been “nostalgic” for the Trump economy. ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News each served up a full report on Wednesday with the former, of course, turning to chief White House correspondent and chief Biden apple polisher, Mary Bruce.     “President Biden traveling to the critical battleground of Wisconsin today, where a new poll has him leading Donald Trump by the slimmest of margins. Biden there to announce Microsoft will build a $3.3 billion artificial intelligence center on the very same site of a failed Trump era project that was supposed to create tens of thousands of jobs, but never got off the ground,” Bruce began, sounding as though she were handed a script from Karine Jean-Pierre. Bruce cited all the key talking points about Microsoft’s alleged plans and how it will be positioned in the same spot that a largely failed Foxconn deal hawked by then-President Trump in 2018 fell through. “But the project fizzled. The field where Trump once broke ground with golden shovels now empty,” Bruce bragged, adding her President is “eager to sell his economic accomplishments to skeptical voters.” “Now, work on this new Microsoft project, we’re told, is already underway. President Biden certainly well aware of that new poll out today showing him leading Donald Trump in Wisconsin 50 percent to 44 percent in a two-way race,” she concluded. NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt also parroted the trip as Biden “work[ing] to sell voters on his economic achievements and the strength of the U.S. economy”, but fretted “he is still facing plenty of skepticism.” NBC White House correspondent Peter Alexander started off much like Bruce with the fluff:  President Biden tonight in Wisconsin, his fourth visit to the crucial battleground this year, announcing the creation of a multibillion dollar A.I. datacenter. Microsoft promising to bring thousands of jobs. (....) The President also trying to cast a contrast here at the same site where then-President Trump announced a $10 billion electronics factory, but that massive project never materialized. After a softball soundbite from a union worker who attended the event, Alexander put up the idea of skepticism by admitting “Biden has a lot of convincing to do” with “[a] poll this week shows Americans trust Mr. Trump over the President on the economy and inflation by double digits while two-thirds of Americans say they’re living paycheck to paycheck.” He also spoke to an ice cream shop owner who expressed frustration that “everything costs more” and “four years ago,” she “could just go to work — right — come home, not really have to worry about so much.” Thursday’s CBS Mornings gave CBS its puff ball piece. Fill-in co-host Natalie Morales played the opening stenographer: “President Biden is highlighting his record on the economy as he tries to deflect criticism over high inflation, and he underlined that message to voters in a campaign trip to the battleground state of Wisconsin where he praised a multibillion dollar project by Microsoft.” Chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes whined the economy’s been “a stubborn challenge” and seemed perturbed voters would say they wanted a return to the Trump economy when, in 2020, they said it was poor. Gee, wonder what happened that year (click “expand”): CORDES: You know, 80 percent of voters tell us in polls that the economy is a major factor for them in this election. It is the biggest issue and, when it comes to the economy, many voters say they’re nostalgic for the past, so President Biden is getting more aggressive about contrasting his record with former President Donald Trump’s. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: On my watch, we make promises, and we keep promises. [CHEERS AND APPLAUSE] CORDES: President Biden paid a visit to this site in Racine, Wisconsin, Wednesday, not only because it’s the future home of a $3 billion Microsoft data center, but also because it’s where his predecessor wielded a golden shovel seven years ago to tout a project that ended up falling flat. DONALD TRUMP [in June 2018]: Really something, thank you, fellas. CORDES: Back then, the Taiwanese electronics giant Foxconn was promising a plant with 13,000 jobs, but later, Foxconn scaled that number back by 90 percent. BIDEN: Foxconn turned out to be just that, a con. [LAUGHTER] Go figure. CORDES: Biden is trying to tackle a stubborn challenge. In the battleground state of Wisconsin, 62 percent of voters think the economy was better under Trump even though only 36 percent of Wisconsin voters actually rated the economy as good when Trump was President in 2020. BIDEN [on CNN]: We have the strongest economy in the world. CORDES: In his interview with CNN yesterday, Biden touted the nearly 15 million jobs created since he took office as the nation bounced back from the pandemic. BIDEN [on CNN]: He’s never succeeded in creating jobs, and I’ve never failed. NBC’s Today had a partial segment on Biden’s roadtrip with senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez conceding “[r]ecent polls show Americans trust Mr. Trump over Biden on the economy”, but noted the President jabbed the American people on CNN by saying “they have the money to spend.” To see the relevant transcripts from Mary 8, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC). For transcripts from May 9, click here (for CBS) and here (for NBC).

Brain Worm Aficionados: The View Spouts Off on RFK Jr.'s Diagnosis

Masters of the subject, the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View kicked off their Thursday show by sounding off on independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his past diagnosis of having a dead worm in his brain. The irony that they, of all people, were going to mock someone else for having a parasite in their brain was completely lost on the cast. Following a soundbite of Kennedy explaining that he got the parasite while in India and that he had made a full recovery, moderator Whoopi Goldberg scoffed at his confidence. “Really? But he insists he's still up for the gig, and even tweeted – and I don't know why – that he could eat five more worms and still beat you-know-who and Biden in a debate,” she said. Co-host and “comedian” Joy Behar suggested – without evidence – that the brain worm was “the reason for his irrational behavior,” but wanted to know: “what is Trump's excuse?” “Does he also have a worm in his brain?” she quipped. “We know he suffers from narcolepsy. He's always falling asleep.” Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) was worried about Kennedy’s “cognitive function.” Pretend-independent Sara Haines reminded Hostin that Kennedy “did not have this treated;” and despite it being Kennedy’s body and his choice, Hostin bloviated that she was “uncomfortable with the worm being there.”     Faux-conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin and Behar played off of each other to suggest brain problems were what Kennedy and Trump supporters wanted: FARAH GRIFFIN: It's crazy but before you roast RFK too hard it's now showing that he may actually take more votes from Donald Trump than Joe Biden. BEHAR: Well sure, because they both have weird brains. So it makes sense. It makes sense. Kennedy might have a dead worm in his brain, but how does The View cast explain the things that come out of their mouths? In 2022, Goldberg claimed the Holocaust “isn’t about race.” She described the Holocaust as “white people doing it to white people. So, this is y'all go fight amongst yourselves.” Back in February, Behar claimed NATO was the military alliance that defeated Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. “Because I know history,” she ironically proclaimed in her rant. “And Putin will not stop at Ukraine if they don't -- if we don't help them. And Trump is saying he'll pull out of NATO. These are allies. We were all in this together in World War II, and now he’s going to pull out of this?! Outrageous!” Just last month, Hostin asserted that “climate change” was to blame for the solar eclipse and earthquakes. And in March, Haines declared: “Everyone belongs at a drag show!” As for The View’s fake Republicans, Farah Griffin cried that “sexism” was to blame for then GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley’s lack of endorsements. And while co-host Ana Navarro wasn’t on set to rip Kennedy, she’s denied the existence of his candidacy in the past and defends allegedly corrupt Democratic Senator Bob Menendez (NJ). The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 9, 2024 11:02:35 a.m. Eastern (…) ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Parasites are very common in India where I had done a lot of environmental work, and it comes from eating undercooked pork. [Transition] PODCAST HOST: So, you've made a full recovery. Is that fair to say? KENNEDY: Yeah. [Cuts back to live] WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Really? [Laughter] But he insists he's still up for the gig, and even tweeted – and I don't know why – that he could eat five more worms and still beat you-know-who and Biden in a debate. JOY BEHAR: Well, Whoopi. Now we know the reason for his irrational behavior, but what is Trump's excuse? [Laughter] Does he also have a worm in his brain? We know he suffers from narcolepsy. He's always falling asleep. GOLDBERG: It's crazy. He had a worm that died in his brain and I guess atrophied and is now part of his brain matter. SUNNY HOSTIN: It’s part of his brain! BEHAR: To make fun of the other two candidates, Biden and Trump, he's not exactly Arnold Schwarzenegger and now we know he has these ailments. He had other stuff years ago. (…) 11:04:25 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: That worm doesn’t die – well, it dies in your brain and then calcified and it stays there forever. GOLDBERG: Didn't I say that just a minute ago? HOSTIN: I thought – [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: To hear Sanjay say it, for me, was sort of like – that worm is there, and I don't know how your cognitive function is still -- SARA HAINES: He did not have this treated, by the way. He did not have this treated. HOSTIN: No. HAINES: So, his is still in there like you're saying and it’s like a tumor. HOSTIN: Although, Sanjay sais sometimes you don’t have to – Now, I'm like quoting Sanjay. But Sanjay said you don't have to get it treated but he has treated it. But that worm is still there. I'm uncomfortable with the worm being there. (…) 11:05:11 a.m. Eastern ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: It's crazy but before you roast RFK too hard it's now showing that he may actually take more votes from Donald Trump than Joe Biden. BEHAR: Well sure, because they both have weird brains. So it makes sense. It makes sense. (…)

Russia Blocks Video Platform for Refusing Censorship

Russia reportedly blocked a video platform for taking a strong stand on free speech. Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski announced on May 7 that the Russian government had blocked his video-hosting platform after refusing to comply with censorship demands. The report comes as Big Tech companies and governments around the world step up their efforts to suppress free speech, even here in America. In a post to X (formerly Twitter), Pavlovski explained, “Russia has officially blocked Rumble because we refused to comply with their censorship demands. Ironically, YouTube is still operating in Russia, and everyone needs to ask what Russian demands Google and YouTube are complying with?” MRC Free Speech America just highlightedGoogle-owned YouTube as among the worst Big Tech censors of April for targeting Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Pavlovski testified before Congress this week, listing multiple countries where his platform faces legal challenges and government pressure to censor certain content. These countries include Brazil, France, New Zealand and Australia, according to Fox News coverage of Pavlovski’s prepared testimony for the House Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations. “Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the cornerstones of a democratic society,” the CEO said, adding that he finds it “extremely troubling” that “these fundamental rights are being threatened” by the American government too. The pro-free speech tech company also emphasized free speech when it released Rumble Cloud in March. At the time, Pavlovski explained that the cancellation of alternative social media Parler by Amazon Web Services drove Rumble’s decision to start Rumble Cloud. The goal is to shield businesses from Big Tech censorship. 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.

MRC's Tim Graham on Fox Biz: NPR's CEO Should Be Afraid of Us and Our Evidence

After his boat-rocking testimony before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on the leftist tilt of National Public Radio on Wednesday, NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham appeared on The Bottom Line with Dagen & Duffy on Fox Business. Host Sean Duffy said it was unfair to make taxpayers fund a "radical liberal machine.". NPR CEO Katharine Maher declined an invitation to the hearing, and Graham said "Maybe she didn't want to show up because we had all of the examples today.... NPR likes books like In Defense of Looting. NPR likes the movie How to Blow Up a Pipeline and then it's everything they have to say about the Republicans, being 'hard right' Republicans who want to drive the country off a cliff. I don't know how you can defend all that. We had Democrats today trying to claim what NPR does is objective, you just don't like objective reporting, which is comedy. You can't provide a laugh track when they say that, because it impolite. But you sure wanted to."   Co-host Dagen McDowell suggested the Democrats don't listen to NPR so they can be "blissfully ignorant" when they call it unbiased, so they "can stay that without laughing." She called NPR a "sewage lagoon." They discussed how NPR claims they only receive one percent of the budget from the federal government, but in reality, the government funds the local affiliates, who send money back to Washington in "programming fees." So a defunding would be dramatic for them.  Tim said "What they really need to do is just take that threat, and say we getter go back to what we are supposed to be doing, which is allowing both sides to speak, let both parties speak. That is not what they are doing, they have softballs for Democrats and hardball for Republicans -- when they get a chance [to be interviewed]." See highlights from Tim's hearing here. 

With No Evidence, Reid Claims Trump Bribed Judge In Classified Docs Case With SCOTUS Seat

MSNBC’s Joy Reid took a break from covering former President Donald Trump’s hush money case in New York on the Wednesday installment of The ReidOut’s to discuss his classified documents case and the news that Judge Aileen Cannon has postponed the trial indefinitely while she considers all the pre-trial motions and other issues related to the case. Reid responded by putting on her tinfoil hat and declaring, with no evidence whatsoever, that Trump has implicitly bribed her with a future Supreme Court appointment. Reid asked legal analyst Joyce Vance, “If you're Jack Smith, do you try to somehow appeal it to the 11th Circuit and get her booted?” Vance gave a long, rambling answer that ultimately suggested such a move would, from her perspective, unfortunately not go anywhere, “You know, the best hook that Jack Smith has for an appeal would be if Judge Cannon were to make rulings that he didn't like when it comes to whether Donald Trump can use classified information at trial. He's got a right to appeal those. Of course, we're in that pre-trial phase where the government needs a special hook to take an interlocutory appeal. Most sorts of issues have to wait until afterwards. So, I think what Jack Smith has been waiting for has been these rulings on the classified information.”     Cracking herself up, Reid interrupted, “She's never going to rule.” Vance continued, “And that is one of the issues -- right. She suspended that this week. Those responses were due this week. Out of the blue, she gave Trump a continuance and so, for Jack Smith, I suspect he's now regretting the fact that he did not try to recuse her early on when he could have.” With absolutely zero evidence, Reid echoed an idea she floated on April 10 by following up with Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, “As the great Lawrence O’Donnell says, Eugene, the bribe is implied. She wants to be on the Supreme Court. She thinks she can get on if Donald Trump wins. She's going to kill this case. Catch and kill as one might say.” Also cracking himself up, Robinson began, “I know, but Aileen Cannon on the Supreme Court, come on. I mean, you know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know—” Reid insisted, “It's Trump. She's done him favors.” Robinson tried to start again, “Look, I know, I shouldn't put anything beyond the realm of possibility.” Interrupting again to take a cheap shot at another woman Trump appointed, Reid declared that “she has about as much experience as Amy Coney Barrett.” Robinson then lamented, “Well, yeah, but Amy Coney Barrett's a lot smarter than Aileen Cannon. I mean, look, this is an illustration of when a case goes before a federal judge, federal judges have enormous power. The federal judge is in charge of that case and so, this story that this case will not come to trial before the election, this story was written the day the case was assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon and it was” In New York, whenever the judge rules against Trump it is hailed as proof that nobody, not even a former president, is above the law or rules that govern court cases, but when something doesn’t go Jack Smith’s way, it is treated as a great scandal. Here is a transcript for the May 8 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 5/8/2024 7:23 PM ET JOY REID: If you're Jack Smith, do you try to somehow appeal it to the 11th Circuit and get her booted? JOYCE VANCE: You know, the best hook that Jack Smith has for an appeal would be if Judge Cannon were to make rulings that he didn't like when it comes to whether Donald Trump can use classified information at trial. He's got a right to appeal those. Of course, we're in that pre-trial phase where the government needs a special hook to take an interlocutory appeal. Most sorts of issues have to wait until afterwards. So, I think what Jack Smith has been waiting for has been these rulings on the classified information. REID: She's never going to rule. VANCE: And that is one of the issues -- right. She suspended that this week. Those responses were due this week. Out of the blue, she gave Trump a continuance and so, for Jack Smith, I suspect he's now regretting the fact that he did not try to recuse her early on when he could have. REID: As the great Lawrence O’Donnell says, Eugene, the bribe is implied. She wants to be on the Supreme Court. She thinks she can get on if Donald Trump wins. She's going to kill this case. Catch and kill as one might say. EUGENE ROBINSON: I know, but Aileen Cannon on the Supreme Court, come on. I mean, you know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know— REID: It's Trump. She's done him favors. ROBINSON: Look, I know, I shouldn't put anything beyond the realm of possibility. REID: She has about as much experience as Amy Coney Barrett. ROBINSON: Well, yeah, but Amy Coney Barrett's a lot smarter than Aileen Cannon. I mean, look, this is an illustration of when a case goes before a federal judge, federal judges have enormous power. The federal judge is in charge of that case and so, this story that this case will not come to trial before the election, this story was written the day— REID: Absolutely. ROBINSON: -- the case was assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon and it was.

Seven Blatant Biden LIES ABC, CBS, NBC Refuse to Report

It’s not just the gaffes that keep coming, it’s also the lies! President Joe Biden can barely open his mouth without a blatant falsehood falling out.  He dropped multiple fibs in just one Howard Stern Show appearance late last month. Did ABC, CBS or NBC fact check any of them? Of course not! From falsely claiming he was arrested during a desegregation protest to pretending he used to drive an “18-wheeler,” the following are seven Biden lies that ABC, CBS and NBC have refused to cover.  Here’s a brief montage via NewsBusters Media Editor Bill D’ Agostino:     1. Biden (Without Proof) Says He Was Arrested Standing on a Porch with Black Family During Desegregation Protest   On April 26, CNN.com reported:  President Joe Biden went on “The Howard Stern Show” on Friday and repeated his familiar story about the time he supposedly “got arrested” trying to defend the civil rights of Black Americans. As in the past, Biden told the story on Friday while recounting what his mother supposedly said while urging him to accept Barack Obama’s 2008 offer to be his running mate. His mom, he said, did not want him to turn down a man who was vying to become the first Black president. Biden told Stern: “She said, ‘Joey, let me — remember’ — true story, she said — ‘Remember when they were desegregating Lynnfield, the neighborhood…suburbia — and I told you — and there was a Black family moving in and there was — people were down there protesting; I told you not to go down there and you went down, remember that? And you got arrested standing on the porch with a Black family? And they brought you back, the police?’ And I said, ‘Yeah, Mom, I remember that.’” Facts First: There is no evidence Biden ever got arrested during a civil rights protest, as The Washington Post and PolitiFact found when they looked into this claim in 2022 — and Biden has at least twice told the story of his supposed presence at this particular Delaware protest without mentioning any arrest, instead claiming that the police merely took him home that day. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   2. Biden (Falsely) Boasts That He Made a Most Eligible Bachelors List       On May 2, the Washington Post reported:  Three times in recent weeks — at an April 16 campaign event in Scranton, Pa., to supporters in New York on April 25, and to Stern — Biden said he was on a list of 10 most eligible bachelors after his first wife was killed in a car accident in 1972. Biden has made this claim at least twice before, saying last year that he was on the list for five years. He married Jill Biden in 1977. No such list can be found. The closest thing is a reference in a 1974 Washingtonian profile that quoted a press aide as saying that reporters kept seeking an interview with Biden after the tragedy: “A few weeks after Neilia’s death we got a call from Sally Quinn of The Post. She wanted to do a story on the Senator as Washington’s most eligible bachelor. Naturally we said no but it wasn’t easy because she kept calling all the time.” ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   3. Biden Claims He Was Sent “Salacious” Pictures From Women, Forwarded to Secret Service  On April 24 the New York Post reported:  President Biden recalled Friday that “lovely women” mailed him “very salacious pictures” when he was a young and unmarried senator — and that he handed the images over to the Secret Service — in a bizarre interview with Howard Stern. “A lot of lovely women — but women would send very salacious pictures and I’d just give them to the Secret Service. I thought somebody would think I was…,” the 81-year-old president said before trailing off. It’s unclear why the Secret Service, whose role is to protect the president and investigate counterfeiting and fraud, would have any interest in amateur soft-core porn sent to Biden while he was an unmarried senator from 1973 to 1977. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   4. Biden Tells Wisconsin Crowd One of His Catholic School Teachers Was a Green Bay Packer – FALSE!      On May 8, the New York Post reported: President Biden blurted Wednesday that one of his childhood Catholic school teachers was drafted by the Green Bay Packers — an assertion disproven by a simple check of publicly available NFL records. The 81-year-old president shared the false claim as he boasted of his connection to Wisconsin sports fans during a trip to the swing state. “My theology professor at the Catholic school I went to was a guy named Reilly — last name — and he had been drafted by the Green Bay Packers,” Biden said in Racine, south of Milwaukee. “And he decided to become a priest before that, so he didn’t go. But every single solitary Monday that Green Bay won, we got the last period of the day off.” According to Pro Football Reference, the Packers have only drafted a single person with the last name “Riley,” “Reily,” or “Reilly” since the NFL began its annual college draft in 1936. University of Colorado quarterback Maurice “Tex” Reilly was selected with the 202nd overall pick in the 22nd round of the 1947 draft — after his education was interrupted by World Word II, during which he commanded bombing missions over the Pacific, according to a 2002 article in the Denver Post. Instead of playing professional football, the Bronze Star recipient rejoined the US Air Force in October 1947 as a civil engineer and was deployed to Japan and later Spain. Reilly also served as an instructor at bases in Ohio and Alabama before retiring as a major general, according to a military biography. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   5. Biden’s (Inaccurate) Memory of Him Being a Football Legend On May 2, the Washington Post reported:  Biden was a football player in high school, but he exaggerated his record when he appeared on [Howard] Stern’s show. “By the way, I don’t think a lot of people know that you were a star receiver in high school. Star receiver! You were like the first-string guy. You were the guy who caught the ball,” Stern said. “Runner-up in state scoring, you know,” Biden replied. “What the heck? But I was a runt.” Biden made the same boast during a campaign event in Michigan in February and twice on the same day in December. But Biden is exaggerating. The Wilmington News-Journal reported that in 1960, Biden placed fourth — with four touchdowns and 24 points — in a five-school conference for private schools in Delaware. His high school, Archmere Academy, did place first in the league and was the state’s only undefeated team, while Biden was the team’s leading scorer. A season preview in the News-Journal described Biden, who was nicknamed “Dash,” as “one of the best pass receivers on the team.” When nonconference games are included, Biden earned a total of 60 points. But that was good enough only for fifth place in the state, according to a season wrap-up in the News-Journal. The state’s top scorer earned 108 points. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   6. Biden Boasts About All the Lives He Saved as a Lifeguard  On April 26, The Daily Wire reported:  Speaking on Friday on “The Howard Stern Show,” Biden told the host he had “saved” a “half dozen” kids from drowning back when he was a lifeguard. When Stern followed up and asked him if he had saved any other lives and if he was still lifeguarding when he was “in law school,” the president said, “Yeah, people just need help sometime.” These are lies, as noted on X by one journalist, who included clips of Biden’s comments from the show. ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.   7. Biden Recalls the Time He “Used to Drive an 18-Wheeler,” It Never Happened On April 24, CNN.com reported:  President Joe Biden has revived a debunked tale about his past – his fictional claim that he used to drive an 18-wheeler truck. Biden has repeatedly embellished or invented biographical tidbits. In 2021, he claimed during a tour of a Mack Trucks facility: “I used to drive an 18-wheeler, man,” then added, “I got to.” At a separate 2021 event, he told college students studying truck technology, “I used to drive a tractor-trailer,” adding, “I only did it for part of a summer, but I got my license anyway.” Biden’s claims were fact-checked at the time as false. But on Tuesday, during a campaign event in Florida, Biden said it again. A supporter told him, “The only reason I have a pension is because of you.” (The supporter appeared to be referring to the Biden administration’s $36 billion in aid to prevent steep pension cuts for more than 350,000 union workers and retirees, including truck drivers.) Biden responded: “Well, we did get that done. Anyway. Besides, I used to drive an 18-wheeler.” Facts First: Biden’s claim remains untrue. There is no evidence he ever drove an 18-wheeler. When CNN inquired about the claim in 2021, the White House noted that Biden once had a part-time job driving a school bus (which is not an 18-wheeler or a tractor-trailer) and that, as a US senator in 1973, he spent a night riding in a cargo truck (not driving it). ABC, CBS, NBC evening and morning show coverage: 0 seconds.

Lawsuit Where? Feds Reboot Big Tech Censorship Collusion, Report Says

Two major government agencies have reportedly rebooted their collusion with social media companies despite looming Supreme Court scrutiny for potential First Amendment violations. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-VA) broke the news during a press briefing at the tech-tied RSA Conference, according to tech outlet Nextgov/FCW. At the event, the senator reportedly conceded that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) are back to their old work of coordinating censorship of free speech ahead of the 2024 presidential election. An FBI representative admitted the resumed Big Tech communications to The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood. CISA would not confirm the report, however.  “The FBI remains committed to combating foreign malign influence operations, including in connection with our elections,” the bureau’s representative claimed, as reported by The Federalist. “That effort includes sharing specific foreign threat information with state and local election officials and private sector companies when appropriate and rigorously consistent with the law.” Further expanding on its response, the representative added, “In coordination with the Department of Justice, the FBI recently implemented procedures to facilitate sharing information about foreign malign influence with social media companies in a way that reinforces that private companies are free to decide on their own whether and how to take action on that information.” The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, a major free speech case that exposed an alleged massive network of government and Big Tech censorship collusion. Legal challenges reportedly limited government activity, but that is no longer the case, according to Warner and Nextgov/FCW. “There seemed to be a lot of sympathy that the government ought to have at least voluntary communications with [the companies],” Warner said, according to the tech outlet. The Democrat senator then urged the Biden administration to “call out” other nations for potential election meddling, asserting Russian interference in the 2016 election as a precedent. Yet Warner did not apparently address the issue of social media interfering in U.S. elections through censorship under U.S. government pressure. Warner announced an upcoming Senate hearing on election security, according to Nextgov/FCW. “If the bad guy started to launch AI-driven tools that would threaten election officials in key communities, that clearly falls into the foreign interference category,” Warner scare-mongered. The FBI and CISA are among the agencies accused of violating First Amendment rights. Notably, the FBI is tied to election interference, since Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that his company censored the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election after FBI pressure. According to a poll conducted by the Media Research Center in November 2020, 17 percent of individuals who voted for then-presidential candidate Joe Biden admitted that they would not have done so if they had been aware of the scandals involving both Biden and his son, Hunter. These scandals were censored by Big Tech and the legacy media. Murthy v. Missouri is a historic case challenging alleged government collusion with major tech companies to censor Americans’ free speech. The complaint filed for the suit cited MRC Free Speech America’s unique and exclusive CensorTrack.org research. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, 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.

Morning Joe Mocks Trump In Bomber Jacket: Biden/Obama, Hello?

Morning Joe had great fun today mocking Donald Trump over hosting a dinner at Mar-a-Lago last night for purchasers of his NFT trading cards, which feature Trump in a variety of heroic images. He's George Washington on the Delaware, he's Elvis Presley in a black jumpsuit with shades. But those weren't the ones they mocked. "MSNBC Republican" Elise Jordan singled out one image for particular ridicule: "The bomber jacket. Now, that is really quite a -- what did they do? Take Tom Cruise, and then just put Trump's head on it? I mean, that is actual, just complete propaganda." It apparently didn't occur to Jordan or any of the other panelists that Trump is not the only president with an affinity for bomber jackets. The difference is that people at MSNBC actually worship the coolness of Obama. Do the images below refresh your memory, Elise? CBS News, 2019: "Barack Obama goes viral in custom '44' jacket at Duke-UNC game." GQ, 2019:  "Barack Obama's Bomber Jacket: The Inside Story:The most exciting part of last night's Duke-UNC game took place off the court." Esquire, 2020: "The Story Behind Obama's (Extremely Good) Three-Point Bomber Jacket: The suddenly stylish former President has been rocking one particularly enviable pick from Lululemon." A replica Obama bomber jacket is actually on sale to the public. No word on whether Barack gets a piece of the action.  You can easily Google some embarrassing Obama-Adoration bomber jackets for sale. But apparently, that's on brand for MSNBC.  As long as we're on the subject, may we point out to Jordan that Tom Cruise was also a fictional fighter pilot? It's a mark of how popular culture is more real to some people than actual historical figures, fighter pilots like Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover -- John McCain! -- among others.   Trump's sale of pieces of the suit he wore for his iconic mugshot in the dubious Fani Willis prosecution in Georgia was also the object of great mirth and hilarity, with Scarborough exclaiming "Oh my God! What the holy F is going on here?" And the normally even-handed Willie Geist flatly declared that the pieces of the mugshot suit for sale are "undoubtedly" not from that suit.  Evidence, Willie—or are all accusations against Trump fair game? He may not rival Obama in the movie-star worship, but even Joe Biden fans can buy the "Joe Biden Aviation Jacket" in leather. And don't miss the opportunity to get your own "Biden Harris Peace Love Equality Hope Diversity" bomber jacket on eBay. Elise Jordan should have one of those. The Biden-Harris website seems to prefer those "Dark Brandon" products with the shiny red eyes.  Kamala Harris superfans can just go to the National Archives Store for their "Madam Vice President" polo shirt and cap in pink, not to mention the cartoony "Madam Vice President" socks. Merchandise is bipartisan.  

Can’t Make This Up: WashPost Cites Debunked Study to Push DEI

Two writers for The Washington Post tried to make the case for discriminatory diversity equity and inclusion initiatives (DEI) in an article about DEI’s rebranding. However, they relied on debunked research to do it.  A May 5 article by The Post referenced a pro-DEI study by management consulting firm McKinsey & Company on the “business case for DEI” in response to the increased condemnation aimed at the infamous leftist acronym.  Strikingly, these studies, which linked greater diversity to profitability, had already been ripped to shreds long before May 5. In March 2024, UNC-Chapel Hill Professor of Accounting John R. M. Hand and Texas A&M Associate Professor of Accounting Jeremiah Green exposed these studies, noting that they could not replicate McKinsey’s work.  Green and Hand wrote that their “inability to quasi-replicate [McKinsey’s] results suggests that despite the imprimatur given to McKinsey’s studies, they should not be relied on to support the view that US publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives." The Post reporters Taylor Telford and Julian Mark not only ignored Green and Hand’s research but went ahead and cited McKinsey anyway.  “Many large companies see a correlation between a diverse workforce and financial success, and routinely tout the ‘business case’ for DEI,” they wrote. “Companies with the highest racial, ethnic and gender representation are 39 percent more likely to financially outperform, according to a 2023 study by McKinsey & Co. involving more than 1,200 firms worldwide.” Telford and Mark went on to mention that, “In his annual letter to shareholders this year, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon emphasized that DEI ‘initiatives make us a more inclusive company and lead to more innovation, smarter decisions and better financial results for us and for the economy overall.’” But where did Dimon get that idea? McKinsey—of course. JPMorgan leaned on McKinsey’s published fig leaves for discrimination. To this day, JPMorgan cites one of these McKinsey studies “Diversity Matters” on their website: “According to a study conducted by McKinsey & Company diversity creates increased client orientation and a diverse talent pool, which fosters creativity, improves collaboration and results in enhanced employee performance.” When JPMorgan Asset Management CEO George Gatch called diversity, equity and inclusion “critical to our success” in a video, McKinsey once again showed up in the footnotes.  Telford and Mark are correct that many corporate leaders embraced McKinsey’s DEI propaganda. The Daily Wire host Matt Walsh recently went after the former CEO of Intel and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban for using McKinsey as an excuse to push DEI.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on the dangers of leftist DEI ideology infecting corporate America.

Psaki Claims Being An Ex-Biden Official Makes Her a Better MSNBC Host

Former Biden White House Press Secretary and current MSNBC host Jen Psaki took her book tour to the Wednesday taping of CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, where she declared that her history as a Democratic official makes her more qualified to be a host. Meanwhile, she also praised her former boss for halting weapons shipments to Israel. Colbert asked, “I watch your show, I mean, I enjoy it. I just—I would just imagine that, especially as we get closer to the election, that tension's going to be greater for you to stay objective, even if you actually believe in the objectives of the president of the United States.” Psaki downplayed the concerns because her views are well known, “That’s true, but I don't think my views of Donald Trump are a secret. I don't think yours are either, if I'm being honest.”     Wondering if there was a difference, Colbert retorted, “But, I’m not a journalist and I’m not—you know, I’m a professional clown.” The late night comedians have this bit where they want to be political influencers and view their jokes as a more entertaining and thus more effective way to make a political point than a 5,000-word essay that nobody reads, but whenever someone calls them out on it, they revert back to the clown posture. Ironically, Psaki undermined this conceit, “Yeah, I think you’re way more than that, you’re informing the public.” Getting back to her own show, she continued, “I think people who are watching my show, I hope, and this is the North Star we always talk about on our team is, do people come away with a better understanding of a person?” She also claimed, “I don't think it’s a secret, I don’t try to make it a secret. I worked for not just Joe Biden, I worked for Barack Obama, I worked on three presidential campaigns. That’s part of my story. I think I can bring a lot of insights to the public about how these things work, about how campaigns work, and also what’s actually at stake in this election.” Colbert wondered if she could be critical of Biden, but naturally he chose an issue from Biden’s left, “Is there something that you could inform the audience about that might be something that you feel like the Biden Administration is not doing correctly right now? … Much is being made of the fact young voters are turned off to President Biden, especially in light of his continued support of Netanyahu with the tragedy that’s going on in Gaza right now in response to the tragedy of October 7.” Psaki hailed recent news that Biden is halting weapons supplies to Israel, “I do think that there is some leverage we are all seeing being used. Should it have been used earlier? I think the answer is yes to that, but we are seeing them hold back on the sending of weapons. That’s actually a significant sign given that the United States and Israel has a long-standing connection on military support where the United States is a big provider of that.” After Colbert asked if that has happened before, Psaki rolled on, “Not many times before. It has happened before, but not many times before, but that is a significant step. Prime Minister Netanyahu, I would say, is someone who Joe Biden has had a tricky, challenging, difficult relationship with for some time.” Challenging? Yes, but because Netanyahu refuses to outsource Israel’s security to Biden’s Israel-hating base that he is now desperately trying to appease and because Democrats have gotten mad at Netanyahu for the war's length despite their demand he not attack Hamas in Rafah. Here is a transcript for the May 8-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/9/2024 12:05 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: I watch your show, I mean, I enjoy it. I just—I would just imagine that, especially as we get closer to the election, that tension's going to be greater for you to stay objective, even if you actually believe in the objectives of the president of the United States. JEN PSAKI: That’s true, but I don't think my views of Donald Trump are a secret. I don't think yours are either, if I'm being honest. COLBERT: But, I’m not a journalist and I’m not—you know, I’m a professional clown. PSAKI: Yeah, I think you’re way more than that, you’re informing the public. I think— COLBERT: Then I’m not doing my job very well. PSAKI: I think people who are watching my show, I hope, and this is the North Star we always talk about on our team is, do people come away with a better understanding of a person? Maybe it’s Joe Biden, someone running for office, maybe it’s a governor, and an issue, and/or an issue. So, is there an issue misconstrued out there that I can help explain? I don't think it’s a secret, I don’t try to make it a secret. I worked for not just Joe Biden, I worked for Barack Obama, I worked on three presidential campaigns. That’s part of my story. I think I can bring a lot of insights to the public about how these things work, about how campaigns work, and also what’s actually at stake in this election, so— COLBERT: Is there something that you could inform the audience about that might be something that you feel like the Biden Administration is not doing correctly right now? Some constructive information that they wouldn’t even mind hearing from you. For instance, how about outreach to young people right now. Much is being made of the fact young voters are turned off to President Biden, especially in light of his continued support of Netanyahu with the tragedy that’s going on in Gaza right now in response to the tragedy of October 7. PSAKI: Well, I would say, obviously I haven't been in there in two years, but I have worked in diplomacy, I worked for the former secretary of State. I do think that there is some leverage we are all seeing being used. Should it have been used earlier? I think the answer is yes to that, but we are seeing them hold back on the sending of weapons. That’s actually a significant sign given that the United States and Israel has a long-standing connection on military support where the United States is a big provider of that. COLBERT: Has the United States done that many times before? Withheld the weapons? PSAKI: Not many times before. It has happened before, but not many times before, but that is a significant step. Prime Minister Netanyahu, I would say, is someone who Joe Biden has had a tricky, challenging, difficult relationship with for some time.  People don't always see that, that it isn’t often talked about, but in terms of, to go back to your original question about what they could be doing differently, it’s very hard and difficult to explain the nature of diplomacy. It’s just very hard to talk about what’s happening behind the scenes sometimes because if you do, you’ll ruin the diplomatic talks and the conversations, but outreach and connection and listening to young people and hearing from them is certainly an important part of that. He is going to talk to Morehouse University, he is going to do the commencement address there in a couple weeks. That’s a good step. They could be doing more of that and I think that’s an important part of their outreach that they’ll have to do over the next couple months.

Election Interference: CNN Uses Audio of Private Briefing to Falsely Smear GOP’s Scott Perry

With Republicans holding a razor-thin House majority and President Biden struggling to build momentum against former President Trump, there’s no limit to how far the liberal media will go into interfere in the presidential election. Such an odious example came up on Wednesday as CNN.com eagerly published an account using audio from a private House Oversight Committee meeting to falsely paint Congressman Scott Perry (R-PA) as a racist. Typing unofficially on behalf of her liberal sources hellbent on ousting Perry, Annie Grayer bragged of “audio of Perry’s comments shared with CNN” that alleged Perry told colleagues “in a closed door briefing...on Tuesday that the Ku Klux Klan is the ‘the military wing of the Democratic party’ and that migrants coming to the US ‘have no interest in being Americans.’” Grayer further kvetched in the second graph that Perry’s “a right-wing Republican who has repeated elements of the anti-immigrant and antisemitic replacement theory before.” Nowhere in her smear job did Grayer allude to how Perry’s comments came about, what they were in response to, or that private briefings and hearings are meant to be secret with lawmakers and staff largely abiding by that in the name of this thing called trust. It took until a fourth paragraph for Grayer to even quote entire sentences from Perry, which she clearly tried to paint as inaccurate: “The KKK in modern times, a lot of young people think somehow it’s a right-wing organization when it is the military wing of the Democratic Party. Decidedly, unabashedly, racist and antisemitic,” Perry said according to the recording. The KKK is not affiliated in any way with the modern Democratic Party. Ah, splitting hairs, she is! Someone needs a history lesson like we had to provide to USA Today back in 2020. And we should also ask at this point: Will Grayer release the audio? And was what was said before Perry included? Funny how it works with the liberal media and anonymous sources. Grayer then deceptively argued Perry somehow brought up replacement theory out of the blue when one could almost certainly bet it was first invoked as a taunt by a House Democrat (click “expand”): Perry then defended replacement theory, which is the idea that white people are being slowly and intentionally replaced by minorities and immigrants. “Replacement theory is real” Perry said according to the recording shared with CNN. “They added white to it to stop everybody from talking about it.” While Perry said he is happy to accept people “that are here legally,” pointing to his ancestors who migrated to the US, he has an issue with migrants that are “un-American.” “What is happening now is we’re importing people into the country that want to be in America … but have no interest in being Americans, and that’s very different and to disparage the comments is to chill the conversation so that we can continue to bring in more people that we never met that are un-American,” Perry said, according to the recording. Earth to Annie: What part(s) of this are inaccurate? For example, since President Biden took office, there have been 7.5 million border encounters with illegal immigrants and an educated guess of another 1.7 million people who escaped detainment. That certainly doesn’t indicate attempts are made to stem the flow! Grayer also dishonestly refused to note the tail end of her quotation indicated Perry was addressing someone who had attacked him and/or those critical of illegal immigration. Who was that? Follow this link for a list of the Democrats on the committee. Take your best guess! Only at the bottom did she provide a statement from Perry excoriating “the radical Left” for “twist[ing] facts in order to silence conversation about its own crimes and Biden’s intentional failures to enforce laws and close or regulate our borders.” Grayer had no shame as she implied Perry supports mass murders and is even anti-Semitic: Replacement theory is the idea that white people are being slowly and intentionally replaced by minorities and immigrants. The xenophobic and racist rhetoric associated with the theory has found its way into the mainstream of American politics and elements of it appear to have motivated some of the most heinous recent mass murders in the US and around the world. There are specific antisemitic elements of the unfounded theory as well, that Jews specifically are organizing a flood of non-white immigrants.

Bud Light Still an Epic Failure Since Transgender Mulvaney Scandal

Just over one year following Bud Light’s terrible decision to hire transgender influencer and professional toddler Dylan Mulvaney to promote its once pro-America beer, the company's sales are plummeting. Again. According to the first-quarter earnings report released Wednesday, Anheuser-Busch, Bud Light’s parent company, has decreased 9.1% in revenue in the U.S. The news comes more than a year after Mulvaney dressed up as a wannabe Katherine Hepburn with black gloves, pearls and red lipstick in an attempt to help Bud Light sell more beer. Mulvaney was also gifted a custom Bud Light can with his face printed on it, which he drank in a bathtub before posting a video of it to social media last April. Given that the beer is usually consumed by pro-America, country-lovin’ men, the fake girl’s attempt backfired. Bud Light ended up being canned by millions of drinkers across the country and ended up costing the company more than $1 billion in sales. In February, Bud Light attempted to make a comeback with its Super Bowl ads focusing on patriotism and humor - but, as Fox Business pointed out, the company is “still suffering.” Aside from the 9.1% decrease in revenue in America, “sales to retailers in the U.S. were down 13.7%” in the first-quarter earnings," Fox News reported. Essentially, distributors don’t want to buy Bud Light to sell because they know that consumers won't buy it! As former Anheuser-Busch President of Operations Anson Frericks said, “They haven’t done a good job climbing out of this ditch at all,” when talking about how much the wokeness has failed Bud Light. “I think the biggest problem is that they’ve lost trust with their customers,” he added, “and they still haven’t gone out and personally asked for their customers to come back to them and until they restore that trust, I don’t think that this brand is gonna turn around and get back to growth anytime soon.” Honestly, I agree with Frericks. Brands that get" woke" end up going broke, and true comeback stories are few and far between. Related: Trans TikToker Dylan Mulvaney Becomes Bud Light's Newest Spokesperson - No, Really Look at Disney, which started implementing more and more woke crap into its parks, branding and programing and now, is suffering immensely with lack of customer interest and buy-in. Doritos Spain hired a transgender freak to promote its chips and received a ton of pushback. Sports Illustrated recently adopted a more "body-positive" approach to its issue covers and ended up cutting tons of its employees due to the lack of revenue from the failed attempt at appealing to audiences. Even fashion brands that have attempted to gender-neutralize their lines have been canceled. The truth is, people don’t want this woke crap ruining our perfectly good brands, and Bud Light is learning that the hard way. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: The Left Continues To Push Their Fetishes On Normal People We used to have places to put these people. pic.twitter.com/Q9I8qK0qXD — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 7, 2024

PBS NewsHour: Trump's Wild Gestapo Remarks vs. Biden Faces 'Jaded Electorate'

The “Politics Monday” segment of the PBS NewsHour, as hosted by substitute anchor William Brangham, was spicier than usual. Brangham found “controversy” on Trump’s side (no surprise there) but President Biden eluded blame for his poor polling -- blame a “jaded electorate” instead. Brangham: It's already shaping up to be a busy political week, as Republicans navigate the fallout from controversial remarks made by former President Trump at a fund-raiser over the weekend. Meanwhile, six months out from the election, President Biden continues to deal with a jaded electorate, as he wrestles with the political ramifications of the war in Gaza. He was joined by the usual Monday political duo, Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and NPR White House correspondent Tamara Keith. Brangham huffed: Six months out, as I just mentioned, from this election, this weekend, Donald Trump was at this campaign event and he made these comments where he basically equated the Biden White House with the Nazis, saying that they are running a -- quote – ‘Gestapo administration.’ Now, this is, obviously, Amy, the -- just the latest in a long history of Trump saying things like this. But one of his fellow Republicans, one who's vying to be the number two on the Trump ticket, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, came out and defended Donald Trump. Here's what he had to say. Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND): The majority of Americans feel like the trial that he's in right now is politically motivated. And if it was anybody else, this trial wouldn't even be happening. So I understand that he feels like that he's being unfairly treated. In sarcasm mode, Brangham interjected his own thought. "So feeling like a trial is unfair is equivalent to being part of the Nazi secret police."  As if Democrats haven’t been calling Trump or all the other Republican presidential candidates some form of “fascist” for time immemorial. Walter lamented how Republicans must suck up to Trump to be his vice presidential candidate, as if that’s a novelty. Kamala Harris didn't have to demonstrate loyalty? Walter: What we are seeing as well, as you pointed out, Doug Burgum reportedly on the short list to be a vice-presidential candidate, is that loyalty to Donald Trump is always important. I think, in a Trump 2.0, it will be very, very top priority in picking who is around him. And so, when we talk about, what are the constraints or what are the restraints or the guardrails around a Trump presidency for things that he says or does, who's going to maybe rein him in, stand up and say no in the way that the vice president, Mike Pence, did, these folks are not saying that they would like to… Brangham: They're saying: I won't do that. Don't worry, boss. NPR’s Keith explained a sort of running mate beauty contest in Palm Beach. She mocked it as comparable to the soapy reality show The Bachelor: Tamara Keith: They brought all of these candidates, potential vice-presidential picks in, and then many of them went out on the Sunday shows. And what they had to do was show their loyalty to former President Trump. As Amy said, he does not want another vice president who will be loyal to him only up until when it matters and when the Constitution is on the line. He wants someone who will go out there and prove and tie themselves in knots, like Senator Tim Scott did on Meet the Press, just tie themselves in knots to stick with the reality that is Trump's reality, even if it is not true. Then Brangham ran the infamous clip from NBC’s Meet the Press of host Kristen Welker hassling Republican Sen. Tim Scott, a possible Trump VP choice, asking him SIX times if he would accept as valid the results of a presidential election that hasn’t taken place yet. No panelist admitted their fellow journalist's questioning was hackishly excessive, though both Keith and Walter agreed it went on “for a long time,” and the PBS clip skipped the part when Scott finally said in frustration, “This is why so many Americans believe that NBC is an extension of the Democrat Party.” The panel then turned to Biden’s poor polling. This snotty segment was brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 5/6/24 7:45:57 p.m. (ET) William Brangham: It's already shaping up to be a busy political week, as Republicans navigate the fallout from controversial remarks made by former President Trump at a fund-raiser over the weekend. Meanwhile, six months out from the election, President Biden continues to deal with a jaded electorate, as he wrestles with the political ramifications of the war in Gaza. Following this all closely is our Politics Monday duo, Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report With Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR. So nice to see you both. Happy Monday. Six months out, as I just mentioned, from this election, this weekend, Donald Trump was at this campaign event and he made these comments where he basically equated the Biden White House with the Nazis, saying that they are running a — quote — "Gestapo administration." Now, this is, obviously, Amy, the — just the latest in a long history of Trump… Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report: Yes. Yes. William Brangham: … saying things like this. But one of his fellow Republicans, one who's vying to be the number two on the Trump ticket, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, came out and defended Donald Trump. Here's what he had to say. Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND): A majority of Americans feel like the trial that he's in right now is politically motivated. And if it was anybody else, this trial wouldn't even be happening. So I understand that he feels like that he's being unfairly treated. William Brangham: So feeling like a trial is unfair is equivalent to being part of the Nazi secret police. Amy Walter: Well, first, let's talk about the majority of Americans, as the governor said right there, feel that this is unfair, which, according to the most recent poll, the NPR/PBS/Marist poll, that is not true; 54 percent in that poll thought that it's fair. Now, 46 percent think it's unfair. So there are a lot of people… William Brangham: Right. Amy Walter: … who think the way the North Dakota governor does. But if we think that this candidate Trump or a Trump 2.0 president is going to look any different than the candidate we have known since 2016 or the person who was president for four years, you're going to be sorely mistaken. This is the reality of — this is just who Donald Trump is, how he's going to operate, how he is going to speak and behave. What we are seeing as well, as you pointed out, Doug Burgum reportedly on the short list to be a vice presidential candidate, is that loyalty to Donald Trump is always important. I think, in a Trump 2.0, it will be very, very top priority in picking who is around him. And so, when we talk about, well, what are the constraints or what are the restraints or the guardrails around a Trump presidency for things that he says or does, who's going to maybe rein him in, stand up and say no in the way that the vice president, Mike Pence, did, these folks are not saying that they would like to… William Brangham: They're saying: I won't do that. Don't worry, boss. Amy Walter: I'm pretty good with — I'm pretty good with the way that Trump is going to operate. Tamara Keith, National Public Radio: Yes. Right now, we are in the audition phase of the vice presidential pick contest… Amy Walter: Yes. Tamara Keith: … or, like, an episode of "The Bachelor" or something. And he — they had this event in Palm Beach. They brought all of these candidates, potential vice presidential picks in, and then many of them went out on the Sunday shows. And what they had to do was show their loyalty to former President Trump. He — as Amy said, he does not want another vice president who will be loyal to him only up until when it matters and when the Constitution is on the line. William Brangham: Right. Tamara Keith: He wants someone who will go out there and prove and tie themselves in knots, like Senator Tim Scott did on "Meet the Press," just tie themselves in knots to stick with the reality that is Trump's reality, even if it is not true. William Brangham: Let's take a look at what Tim Scott had to say, because he was asked about, will you accept the election results, regardless of who wins? Here's what he had to say. Kristen Welker, Moderator, "Meet the Press": Well, Senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024, bottom line? Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC): At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump. And I'm excited to get back to low inflation, low unemployment, and… (Crosstalk) Kristen Welker: Wait, wait. Senator, yes or no, yes or no, will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter who wins? Sen. Tim Scott: That is my statement. William Brangham: I mean, Kristen Welker went back and forth about this multiple times. Tamara Keith: For a long time. Amy Walter: Yes, for a long time. Tamara Keith: And this is relevant because former President Trump is still denying the results of the last election. He is going to Wisconsin and Michigan and saying, oh, no, I actually won here, when he didn't. So, it's entirely relevant whether you will accept the results of the 2024 election. He has also said in that "TIME" magazine interview that — it came out last week — that he doesn't think that there will be violence or any issues, as long as the election is fair. But, at the same time, he is saying that the last election, which was fair, wasn't. William Brangham: Fair meaning, "I won." Tamara Keith: Generally speaking, yes. (Crosstalk) Amy Walter: Yes. William Brangham: Amy, meanwhile, Biden has got polling that again showing not great news for his campaign. We want to put up this graphic here. A majority of the U.S. adults, 54 percent, disapprove of Biden's performance. That is a 3 percent jump since March. Now, that's within the margin of error. Amy Walter: Yes. William Brangham: But it is his worst rating since 2019. I mean, how panicked should that campaign be? Amy Walter: Well, he is deeply unpopular, but he's not that much more unpopular than Donald Trump is. And the poll that you're citing are — the Marist poll. So, Donald Trump's overall approval rating is 42 percent, the president being at 40 percent. Where we sit right now is really fascinating. It feels like we have been — this campaign has been going on for about 100 years, because it basically has. (Laughter) Amy Walter: We're rerunning 2020. William Brangham: You both look great for 100-year-old people. (Laughter) Amy Walter: Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. But the focus right now is on Joe Biden. He's the president now. Obviously, four years ago, it was Donald Trump. If the question is, should we go — which president do you think did a better job in his first term, right now, Trump is winning that argument. And you see in poll after poll when they ask questions about what do you think — who you did a better job on the economy, whose policies do you think have helped you the most, Biden or Trump, Trump is beating Biden on those matters. But if you talk about a campaign, which is about the future, that's the conversation that we haven't really gotten into yet. And that's why you saw even the Tim Scott interview. You hear the surrogates, as well as Donald Trump, talk a lot about, remember back in the days, let's bring us back to those days of four years ago… William Brangham: Right, booming economy. Amy Walter: … when the economy was great and inflation was low. So, remember, remember how great those times were. It's up to the Biden campaign to make the case that — not so much to fight about whether those times were great, but to talk about the next four years and what an administration of Biden's would look like and his policies and compare them to Donald Trump's. Tamara Keith: Which is why the Biden campaign continues to highlight all of the things that Trump says… Amy Walter: Yes. Tamara Keith: … like the Gestapo comments and everything else that he has said, while also really trying to amplify what he is saying he would do… Amy Walter: That's right. Tamara Keith: … and, in particular, on abortion rights, where he is trying not to say what he would do, and on any number of policy matters. In that "TIME" magazine interview, again, where he talked about wanting to round up migrants and… William Brangham: Right, deploy the military inside the U.S. Tamara Keith: Yes. And then he was asked, well, but the military being used on civilians? And he said, oh, no, they're not civilians, which is a pretty significant departure from norms. William Brangham: Right. Amy Walter: Yes. And this — the case hasn't really been prosecuted yet. Tamara Keith: Yes. Amy Walter: Believe it or not, we are still, which feels like either six months, you think, is a long time from now or a very short time from now. I tend to think of it as a short time. I think most normal voters think, well, we're a long way away from the election. William Brangham: So they just haven't dialed in yet. Amy Walter: Yes. And the — and both candidates soon enough will be on the airwaves making their case to voters. Theoretically, there will be debates between these candidates, where the differences between the two will become more of the conversation. William Brangham: Theoretically, on those debates. Amy Walter, Tamara Keith, so nice to see you both. Thank you. Amy Walter: You're welcome. Tamara Keith: Thanks, William.

CBS Only Network To Report Indictment of Laken Riley’s Killer

The murder of University of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley shook the nation, and hammered home the real dangers to which the nation became exposed when the border was flung open on January 20th, 2021. The media has been reluctant to cover the story because it casts Democrats (generally) and President Joe Biden (specifically) in a very bad light. That reluctance continues to this day. CBS Evening News was the only national network newscast to report on the indictment of the illegal alien that murdered Laken Riley. Here is that brief report in its entirety, as aired on Wednesday, May 8th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: The 26-year-old man accused of murdering Georgia nursing student Laken Riley has been indicted by a grand jury on ten new charges, including kidnapping and being a peeping Tom. The suspect, a migrant from Venezuela, is charged with killing the 22-year old while she was jogging on the University of Georgia campus in February. That brief comes in at 20 seconds. Scant, to be sure, but still 20 seconds more than ABC or NBC could muster up. The details are harrowing. Per Fox News: A Georgia grand jury on Tuesday indicted Jose Ibarra, the suspect charged in Augusta University student Laken Riley's murder, on 10 counts, court documents show. Ibarra, a 26-year-old illegal immigrant from Venezuela, is accused of killing Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student, while she was out for a run along dirt trails on the University of Georgia campus in Athens on Feb. 22. The grand jury indicted Ibarra on counts of malice murder, two counts of kidnapping with bodily injury, two counts of aggravated assault with intent to rape, two counts of aggravated battery, obstructing or hindering a person from making a 911 call, tampering with evidence and being a "peeping Tom." Ibarra is accused of causing Riley's death by inflicting blunt-force trauma to her head and "asphyxiating her in a manner unknown to jurors," the indictment states. The report goes on to say that Ibarra, who is known to have ties with the murderous Tren de Aragua transnational gang, is suspected of going to the apartment of another person, a UGA staffer, to spy on her as well. The story just gets worse as details emerge. The national news media, bent on protecting Biden, will do everything they can to avoid covering this story, which hammers home the dangers of imposing open-borders policies upon a nation that wants nothing to do with them.  

Yep, the Much-Hyped CNN-Biden ‘Interview’ Was in Fact a Tongue Bath

CNN’s press release announcing anchor Erin Burnett’s sit-down with President Joe Biden promised an interview. Clearly, that didn’t happen. Instead, we got pure, unadulterated Regime Media sycophancy.  Burnett opens the interview with a thematic softball fresh off of Biden’s visit to Microsoft’s new AI data center, to be built on the site of the former Foxconn project in Wisconsin. Biden was allowed to mumble through his talking point set-pieces, with little to no follow-through. You'll be SHOCKED to discover that the former CNBC anchor offers NO pandemic recovery pushback on Biden's job creation whopper. Biden is just allowed to mumble his talking point set pieces unchecked. pic.twitter.com/F9kCD2L3uj — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 8, 2024 About those “100,000” jobs that Burnett and Biden throw around here- it should be noted that the actual site itself expects to generate 2,300 construction jobs and 2,000 permanent jobs. It’s right there on CNN’s writeup: The new center aims to create 2,300 union construction jobs and 2,000 permanent jobs over time, according to Microsoft. Microsoft said it will use the center to train about 100,000 workers across the state on generative AI by 2030, thanks in part to a partnership with United Way Wisconsin, United Way Racine and other community partners. It also plans to open a lab on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to help companies and manufacturers infuse the technology into their businesses. Watch for more of the “100,000 jobs” sleight-of-hand, small potatoes for a media that, with the recent and notable exception of Katy Tur, already let Biden get away with claiming pandemic recovery as his creation of 15 million jobs. Watch next, as Burnett frets that Biden might not have enough time to turn the economy around, to which Biden responds “I’ve ALREADY turned it around.” CNN’s @ErinBurnett empathizes with President Biden on economy: “With less than six months to go to Election Day, are you worried that you’re running out of time to turn that around?” pic.twitter.com/598wDxQVxW — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 8, 2024 The biggest and most easily verifiable whopper of the night? Biden claiming that inflation was at 9% when he took office. It was, in fact, at 1.4%, a fact that HAD to have been top of mind for the former CNBC anchor with a background in economics. But alas, no pushback or correction. Simply inexcusable. Another unchecked whopper: Biden claims the inflation rate was 9% when he took office. Inflation was in fact 1.4% in January 2021. pic.twitter.com/hLWJfwjUQa — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 8, 2024 Moving off of the economy, Burnett offered Biden a bridge from which to pander to “the youth vote”, assuming they interrupted their “free Palestine” chants at college campuses and “Little Gaza” encampments in order to watch the interview: Channeling hate agenda of terrorist-supporting anti-Semites. @ErinBurnett to Biden: “Mr. President, signs at college campuses, some say ‘Genocide Joe.’ Many of us who have gone to those campuses, sometimes we hear that chant. Do you hear the message of those young Americans?” pic.twitter.com/7WnPGehQRU — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 8, 2024 Biden also announced the holdup of weapons shipments to our ally Israel over concerns they may be used in Rafah: Beyond 2,000 lb. bombs, Biden has held up artillery shipments to Israel over Rafah concerns. pic.twitter.com/i7nZyZIhuM — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 8, 2024 Now for the January 6th nostalgia portion of the interview: Another softball from @ErinBurnett to Biden to cue up his talking points: “How seriously do you take” Trump’s “threat” to not accept election results? Biden: “The guy is not a democrat with a small d.” pic.twitter.com/JgDYrLff5v — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 8, 2024 And, finally, some Obama revivalism. What advice might the god-king offer Biden these days? “Keep doing what I’m doing”, says Biden. In her last question, @ErinBurnett relays Democratic concerns, noting Barack Obama “has said that this is an ‘all hands on deck moment,’” so “what’s his advice to you when you talk to him?” Biden: “Keep doing what I’m doing.” pic.twitter.com/5528QUrFst — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 8, 2024 Most notably from the panel discussion, Scott Jennings and David Axelrod get into it over the parallels between Biden’s hold of military assistance to Israel, arguably over political considerations (see the aforementioned “youth vote” and the 18% “Uncommitted” vote in the Michigan Democrat primary), and former President Donald Trump’s call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy- which triggered an impeachment.  .@ScottJenningsKY rightly notes parallels between Biden weapons hold and first impeachment of Trump. And, yes, the Michigan primary and 18% uncommitted vote happened AFTER Gaza City and Khan Younis offensives. pic.twitter.com/Jxhj1pWTWX — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 8, 2024 We were promised an interview. Instead, we got a tongue bath from a Regime Media bent on protecting The Precious at all costs.

NewsBusters Podcast: A Fun Day on Capitol Hill Truth-Telling About NPR

The House Republicans on the Energy & Commerce Committee invited me to testify on Wednesday about allegations of bias at National Public Radio. The expose by former NPR business editor Uri Berliner galvanized the Republicans to introduce several bills about defunding NPR after more than 50 years of taxpayer support. Is there any hope that NPR will change its biased ways? Don't be wildly optimistic. However, I told them they should hold more hearings and press new NPR CEO Katharine Maher to explain how their content serves all the public, and not just the Democrat fraction. Maher declined this invitation, insisting she had an previously schedule all-day board meeting. We'll hope this committee can find a date to ask her to justify all the tilt we've been exposing.  I reminded Congress that supposedly civil NPR has in the last few years endorsed the book In Defense of Looting, called a book "excellent" that claimed anti-police riots should be called "rebellions," and hailed a movie called How to Blow Up a Pipeline. Then there is their attack on Republicans.  On January 18, 2023, the NPR interview show Fresh Air headlined their show, “How will the hard-right Republicans in Congress wield their newfound power?” Gross began: “Now that Kevin McCarthy has assumed his new role as speaker of the House, a position he won after making concessions to the far right of his party, what can we expect?” Between host Terry Gross and her guest, New York Times reporter Catie Edmondson, they labeled the House Republicans as “far right” or “hard right” 32 times. Democrats apparently don’t have an extreme. Nine days later, on Morning Edition, host Steve Inskeep laid out the red carpet for House Democrat leader Hakeem Jeffries to announce on the debt-ceiling debate, “We are not going to pay a ransom note to extremists in the other party." Republicans were suicidal in their opposition, Inskeep suggested: “You'd say to Republicans, "Drive the car off the cliff. We are not going to grab the wheel." Jeffries replied: "We're not going to let the car go off the cliff even though there are people who are willing to do it." On the PBS NewsHour, NPR White House reporter Tamara Keith said last October “what's happening in the House is a reflection of a broader divide in the Republican Party, where there's maybe like 20 percent or 30 percent of Republicans who don't want to burn it all down.” Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

Morning Joe Expert: Stormy Daniels' Testimony Hands Defense 'Major Issue' For Appeal

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos has once again proven himself to be an independent thinker, someone who calls them as he sees them and doesn't dutifully toe the liberal media line. In the past, we've noted Cevallos saying that Roe was ripe to be overturned, because there was no constitutional basis for it. More recently, he called a Hunter Biden plea deal not merely a sweetheart deal, but a "gift from Heaven." Cevallos was back at his iconoclastic truth-telling on today's Morning Joe. He repeatedly called Stormy Daniels' testimony in Donald Trump's hush money trial a "major issue" available to the defense for the appeal of any possible conviction, which could lead to it being overturned. The notion was that her testimony was excessively prejudicial to Trump. Cevallos analogized the situation to the recent overturning of one of Harvey Weinstein's convictions on the grounds that overly prejudicial testimony had been admitted. Cevallos mentioned that even though trial judge Juan Merchan had rejected a defense motion for a mistrial based on Daniels' testimony, he did acknowledge that some of her testimony perhaps should not have been allowed. Said Cevallos: "If you're a defense attorney, you're marking your notebook, and now you have your first major issue." Concluded Cevallos: Concluded Cevallos: "So if two years from now, we're back here saying, the conviction got overturned: this is terrible! Well, this might be what we look at. And we can say, well, the prosecution took a calculated risk, and it's yielded benefits in the last 24 hours. But maybe in a couple years, those benefits will not have been worth the risk.        Bonus Coverage: Scarborough Bigfoots Mika Again -- And Again! Amid a press report that Mika is fed up with the incessant interruptions of Joe Scarborogh -- her husband co-host -- Scarborough was back at his bigfooting of Mika in the very first minute of today's show. It was clear from Mika's facial expression and body language that she was not pleased. Mika even emitted a "wow" in reaction to Joe's rude recidivism. Scarborough acknowledged that his latest interruption was sure to incite lots of email criticism. And despite asking Mika to forgive him, just three minutes later Scarborough cut Mika off yet again! Mika has forged a side career based on her "Know Your Value" books and conferences. The notion is to encourage and empower women to stick up for themselves in their careers. So, not a good look for Mika to permit herself to be regularly trampled by Bully Boy Scarborough.  View Rude Joe in action here.

Here Are the Best & Worst Moments From the House NPR Hearing with MRC’s Graham

On Wednesday, the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters executive editor Tim Graham testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations during a hearing on the decades-long liberal boondoggle that is National Public Radio (NPR). Not surprisingly, he came armed with examples of their virulent bias and hate for conservatives. Joined by Americans for Tax Reform’s James Erwin, the American Enterprise Institute’s Howard Husock, and Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron, Graham took questions from lawmakers that fell into all-predictable camps of Republicans recognizing the problem and Democrats not only denying reality, but accusing critics of NPR of putting the lives of journalists in danger. Before we dive into the highlights and lowlights, here was Graham’s opening statement, which included examples dating back to the 1980s of NPR’s shameless partisan hackery (click “expand”):     I represent the Media Research Center, America’s preeminent conservative media watchdog organization. It was founded in 1987, and I joined up in 1989. We monitor national media outlets on a daily basis and provide daily coverage of the media’s tilt at NewsBusters.org.  Uri Berliner obviously tried to make the point that media bias became a bigger problem when Donald Trump ran for president. We are here to tell you this has been a problem for a very long time. NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg destroyed the Douglas Ginsburg nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987, then she tried again with Clarence Thomas in 1991. They energetically channeled the accusers of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and when a man arrived in an Uber on Kavanaugh’s street two years ago with weapons and plans to assassinate Kavanaugh, NPR failed to file a single feature story on it. Nina Totenberg could not be found. NPR, a supposed source of civility, didn’t demonstrate that cared one bit about this potential political violence. But in March, between Morning Edition and Fresh Air, Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford was granted an hour of taxpayer-funded air time to reproduce her unproven charges of teenaged sexual assault. Now, most of us, what we remember best has been mentioned. The Exhibit A here of NPR’s bias is the New York Post series on Hunter Biden’s laptop in October of 2020. Most of the so-called “mainstream media” tried to dismiss this story – falsely – as Russian disinformation. But NPR stood out. NPR’s Public Editor Kelly McBride quoted Terence Samuel, NPR’s Managing Editor for News. He said: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” He dismissed the Post stories as a “politically driven event.” That’s interesting, since you could argue Nina Totenberg’s hostile reporting on Supreme Court nominees created “politically driven events.” Instead of seeking to investigate the Biden family’s influence-peddling, NPR’s Morning Edition broadcast a story titled “Experts Say Attack On Hunter Biden’s Addiction Deepens Stigma For Millions.” There wasn’t one word in it about Hunter Biden’s business practices involving his father, which was the point of the Post stories. The pattern continues today. When a House Oversight Committee had a hearing in March that Hunter Biden where he was supposed to appear, NPR’s All Things Considered wouldn’t consider a feature story on it. NPR covered the Pelosi-picked House January 6 Committee live for every minute, and then it couldn’t do a two-minute story on the Biden impeachment inquiry. Instead, the next morning NPR’s homepage was topped the next morning by their hot story: new details on Rupert Murdoch’s British phone-hacking scandal of 2011. NPR’s website did have a Biden mention. White House reporter Deepa Shivaram had a TikTok-like video shoot on President Biden grabbing a trendy boba tea in Las Vegas under the headline “Food stops can tell you a lot about a campaign.” NPR, that network of civility, also has encouraged chaos and disorder in society: On August 27, 2020, NPR’s blog “Code Switch”, with the slogan “Race In Your Face,” posted an interview promoting a new book titled In Defense of Looting. On The NPR Politics Podcast on July 17, 2021,they promoted a book by Yale law professor Elizabeth Hinton saying that protests against policy should not — they shouldn’t be called riots. They should be called “rebellions”. On NPR’s Fresh Air on April 15, 2023, their movie critic John Powers praised the movie How to Blow Up a Pipeline, hailing it as “hugely timely”. You know, this is what NPR is doing. They can devote our taxpayer dollars to getting behind looting, rioting, and blowing up pipelines . And yet, NPR represents the Republicans as uniquely extreme. We’ve seen this throughout this Congress where they come on and say, “oh, the hard right Republicans are ruining everything.” Um, they were doing this morning discussing Miss Taylor Greene, but they have had several sappy interviews with Hakeem Jeffries. Steve Inskeep at one said — said, “you say to Republicans drive the car off the cliff. We are not going to grab the wheel.” This is the way they treat Republicans, basically as nutballs who are gonna drive the car off the cliff. You might understand that’s why we might get a little upset. Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) was on the flip side, accusing those investigating NPR’s political tilt of a “disturbing” return to “the dark days of McCarthyism” when, instead, the House should crack down on private “right-wing media organizations that have a long history of peddling misinformation, disinformation, promoting partisan agendas and sowing fear and division.” “Public cynicism about the media doesn’t come from NPR. It comes from the right-wing media,” he added as if to suggest NPR hasn’t done anything itself to harm its reputation. Congresswoman and full committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA) was the first member in the Q&A to speak with Graham, which afforded him the chance to call out Ranking Member Cathy Castor’s (D-FL) for claiming media critics are akin to Russia’s Vladimir Putin and those in the Chinese Communist Party: .@HouseCommerce Chair @CathyMcMorris on @NPR: “Mr. Graham, I’ll start with you. As you’re aware, Mr. [Uri] Berliner, in — wrote this op-ed, and in it, quote, he says, “By 2023, the picture was completely different. Only 11% describe themselves as very or somewhat conservative,… pic.twitter.com/QO7TTwvlMX — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024 As the Democratic witness, Aaron served as a stand-in for NPR and lamented to Pallone that the motives of journalists would be questioned. This led Pallone to argue adversarial critiques of the news media are acts of political intimidation. Aaron agreed and said sustained (and outside) criticism of journalists made them “more timid, more cautious, more unwilling to ask hard questions” and thus it’s not only “harder for them to do their job”, but their lives are on the line. Moments later, Congressman Jeff Duncan used his time to lambaste NPR as “a Democrat propaganda machine funded by U.S. tax dollars” and mock the idea they’re providing “objective reporting”: GOP @RepJeffDuncan on @NPR in @HouseCommerce hearing: “You know, I used to drive 65,000 miles a year in my truck and like Mr. [@TimJGraham], I used to listen to NPR a good bit. In fact, I enjoyed All Things Considered. But unfortunately all things aren't considered now. The… pic.twitter.com/11JKUZq1bR — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024 Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) went to Graham after noting “there’s a hunger in our society for just plain, unbiased news” that also doesn’t send blood pressures soaring. She asked Graham about what’s needed “to ensure NPR provides impartial coverage and serves a broader audience”:     And, in response to a question from Lesko, Erwin brought up what precipitated the last congressional hearing about NPR (that Graham also testified at), which was “a scandal where local affiliates were sharing donor lists with Democratic Party operatives” and suggested a remedy of allowing taxpayers to opt out of funding NPR (and PBS) on their tax forms. Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL) astutely focused on the connection public broadcast has to far-left foundations: .@USRepGaryPalmer at @HouseCommerce hearing on @NPR: “I'd like to respond to my Democratic colleagues concerns about local media and the role that NPR plays in that. There was an article that pointed out that traditional outlets like The New York Times have moved so far to the… pic.twitter.com/pZFCMJKtWf — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024 Later, Congressman Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Aaron fretted it’s “very dangerous” to be “attacking the media” because that’s how “democracies” die:     Sanity was restored when Congressman John Joyce (R-PA) acknowledged that “my constituents in south Central and southwestern Pennsylvania would be a target audience for NPR” with large, rural swaths dependent “on radio for news for emergency alerts and more”, but aren’t as NPR’s squandered away their trust with their liberal biases. Graham explained how NPR has strayed from its mission of representing all voices by explaining how, oftentimes, stories will claim to feature a Republican voice, but said voice will be from, say, Liz Cheney. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) closed out the hearing by adding his voice to what were a parade of voices on the Republican side denouncing NPR CEO Katherine Maher from declining to appear before the committee. He then asked Graham about NPR’s future with Maher (click “expand”):     CRENSHAW: [Y]ou’ve collected a pretty impressive assortment of NPR’s failures on — and — and failures to have unbiased reporting. Give us your thoughts on that and is Ms. Maher a good — a good fit to change course? GRAHAM: Oh, I don’t think there’s any intention to change course. I think that’s why she was selected. It would be interesting to hear her try to explain, you know, what it is that they’re trying to do, because when we listen to this radio network on a regular basis, it’s quite clear. You can understand why the Democrats don’t want to have a hearing about this. It works very, very well for them, right? You can understand why the gentleman from Free Press has to say he’s not here to represent public broadcasting, but they’re very closely affiliated and fight for the funding together. You know, obviously, Democrats like the system exactly as it is right now. CRENSHAW: Yeah. GRAHAM: And so, the very least we can do is — yes, have the CEO in and try to explain who in there is doing anything to suggest maybe we should have a more balanced set of interviews. CRENSHAW: Yeah. GRAHAM: Let’s — let’s have a more balanced set of journalists. You won’t see anybody from Fox News on NPR. CRENSHAW: No, and you would think that’s what the whole point — if you’re gonna do unbiased media, then it has to be unbiased. Biased media is okay. You know, just — just admit it, though. MSNBC does not try to claim that it’s unbiased. I don’t even think Fox tries to claim it’s unbiased anymore. It’s just not right. It’s we’ve had. We’ve had biased media in this country since their founding, but if you’re going to be a taxpayer-funded media company, you actually have to adhere to the principles of — of unbiased news broadcasting or say the quiet part out loud and maybe that’s the benefit of the new CEO. She has said the quiet part out loud, pretty clearly. And so, there can be no — there can be no question about what direction NPR is headed and it — and it can be simply written off and maybe we should — we should look at ways to defund it. How — how would we in Congress, perhaps, some suggestions on how we would change course in NPR? To see the relevant transcript from the hearing on May 8, click here.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Says TikTok Legal Filing 'Gives Away the Game'

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr roasted TikTok’s “arrogance” as it attempts to escape severing its ties with the communist Chinese government. Last month, President Joe Biden signed a bill that would force TikTok’s Chinese-controlled parent company, ByteDance to divest itself from TikTok, or risk being banned from the U.S. market entirely. On Tuesday, TikTok responded to the bill with a legal challenge, claiming that divestiture is “impossible” and “infeasible.” But Carr is not buying it. “While TikTok trots out the expected grab bag of arguments, it adopts a strange strategy of ignoring the reason for the law,” Carr stated in an X post. “TikTok wants this to be a case about the content of its speech. It is not. It is about TikTok's malign conduct - conduct the Constitution doesn't protect.” Carr further addressed some of TikTok’s ludicrous claims in a follow-up post in which he said that “TikTok's legal filing gives away the game in several ways” and noted the platform’s continued hypocrisy as it is once again caught red-handed. “Despite claiming independence from Beijing, TikTok now concedes that it is the CCP (not TikTok) that controls the fate of its algorithm and foreign commercial transactions,” Carr noted.  Indeed, in its legal filing, TikTok admitted as much when it claimed that China’s regulation of exported technologies would prevent divestiture. “[T]he Chinese government has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is key to the success of TikTok in The United States,” the platform wrote in its legal complaint launched against Attorney General Merrick Garland. Carr similarly drew attention to TikTok’s claim that it would be “impossible” to transfer its source code to a new owner. “Despite claiming for years that TikTok's national security threat could be addressed by having U.S.-based engineers inspect its millions of lines of code, TikTok now says that outside engineers would be unable to understand the complex code,” Carr wrote. In a third post, the FCC commissioner summed up the communist Chinese government-controlled platform’s flagrant and consistent pattern of claiming one thing and doing another as “arrogance.” “Arrogance is saying that U.S. user data doesn't even exist in China while TikTok's internal communications show ‘everything is seen in China,’” Carr declared. “Arrogance is claiming that TikTok U.S. is independent while former employees have made clear that Beijing-based personnel are calling the shots,” he later added. Carr went on ultimately concluding: “Arrogance is believing that TikTok could present a clear and present danger to U.S. national security and America would simply allow that threat to persist. Our Constitution compels no such result.” Arrogance is saying that U.S. user data doesn't even exist in China while TikTok's internal communications show "everything is seen in China." Arrogance is denying that TikTok illicitly surveilled the locations of Americans (and deriding the reporting as lacking "journalistic… https://t.co/qB0Gx7Ws9v — Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) May 8, 2024 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.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Says TikTok Legal Filing 'Gives Away the Game'

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr roasted TikTok’s “arrogance” as it attempts to escape severing its ties with the communist Chinese government. Last month, President Joe Biden signed a bill that would force TikTok’s Chinese-controlled parent company, ByteDance to divest itself from TikTok, or risk being banned from the U.S. market entirely. On Tuesday, TikTok responded to the bill with a legal challenge, claiming that divestiture is “impossible” and “infeasible.” But Carr is not buying it. “While TikTok trots out the expected grab bag of arguments, it adopts a strange strategy of ignoring the reason for the law,” Carr stated in an X post. “TikTok wants this to be a case about the content of its speech. It is not. It is about TikTok's malign conduct - conduct the Constitution doesn't protect.” Carr further addressed some of TikTok’s ludicrous claims in a follow-up post in which he said that “TikTok's legal filing gives away the game in several ways” and noted the platform’s continued hypocrisy as it is once again caught red-handed. “Despite claiming independence from Beijing, TikTok now concedes that it is the CCP (not TikTok) that controls the fate of its algorithm and foreign commercial transactions,” Carr noted.  Indeed, in its legal filing, TikTok admitted as much when it claimed that China’s regulation of exported technologies would prevent divestiture. “[T]he Chinese government has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is key to the success of TikTok in The United States,” the platform wrote in its legal complaint launched against Attorney General Merrick Garland. Carr similarly drew attention to TikTok’s claim that it would be “impossible” to transfer its source code to a new owner. “Despite claiming for years that TikTok's national security threat could be addressed by having U.S.-based engineers inspect its millions of lines of code, TikTok now says that outside engineers would be unable to understand the complex code,” Carr wrote. In a third post, the FCC commissioner summed up the communist Chinese government-controlled platform’s flagrant and consistent pattern of claiming one thing and doing another as “arrogance.” “Arrogance is saying that U.S. user data doesn't even exist in China while TikTok's internal communications show ‘everything is seen in China,’” Carr declared. “Arrogance is claiming that TikTok U.S. is independent while former employees have made clear that Beijing-based personnel are calling the shots,” he later added. Carr went on ultimately concluding: “Arrogance is believing that TikTok could present a clear and present danger to U.S. national security and America would simply allow that threat to persist. Our Constitution compels no such result.” Arrogance is saying that U.S. user data doesn't even exist in China while TikTok's internal communications show "everything is seen in China." Arrogance is denying that TikTok illicitly surveilled the locations of Americans (and deriding the reporting as lacking "journalistic… https://t.co/qB0Gx7Ws9v — Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) May 8, 2024 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.

Whoopi to Trump: ‘If You Didn't Do It, Why Are You in the Court?’

The View has championed so-called “criminal justice reform” efforts, praised cases of convicted criminals getting rulings overturned, and condemned former President Trump for his past calls to convict the Central Park Five. But on Wednesday’s edition of The View, moderator Whoopi Goldberg lashed out at Trump and proclaimed that he wouldn’t be in court if he didn’t commit the crimes he was accused of. Goldberg’s bitter rant came at the conclusion of their first segment when they reacted to the court testimony of porn star Stormy Daniels. Just before going to a commercial break, she popped off about how Trump being in court was all the evidence needed to prove he was guilty: GOLDBERG: You know, I just think if you didn't do it, why are you in the court? (…) GOLDBERG: Why are you there? (…) GOLDBERG: You brought this on yourself. You did this to you. Nobody did this to you. You told the untruth. You took stuff. This is on you. This isn't them. It isn't the judge. This is yours. Faux-conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin suggested that Trump’s refusal to testify also proved his guilt and “comedian” Joy Behar added that “O.J. didn’t take the stand either.”     Earlier in the segment, Farah Griffin whined that “This whole trial” was giving her “the ick.” She was “so frustrated it's the first trial that we're seeing of Trump and potentially only before the election.” Farah Griffin lamented that Daniels’ testimony was a “mixed bag.” She claimed the porn star, who has lied publically, was “a credible person” but “hurt her credibility” by giving “salacious details” about her alleged affair with Trump. “We all met her. We had her on the show,” she reminded the rest of the cast. “I would have liked to hear from Stormy who is a mom, who wants to live a private life, wants to put this behind her, has been exploited by countless men in her life, Donald Trump, Michael Avenatti. And she’s there under subpoena just to confirm what she's able to.” Always able to prioritize the important things, Behar spouted off about how she didn’t “trust” Trump with the nuclear codes because he allegedly didn’t “think to wear a condom when he's having sex with a porn star.” Without evidence, Behar also decried the documents case in Florida getting pushed back by claiming Trump “could have given [the documents] to any dictator in the world!” “He may not go to jail for this but the American people can see what he is. He's a despicable person and we have to remember that,” she tried to calm herself down. What was actually worth remembering was that last year, The View decried the legal notion that Trump was entitled to a fair trial. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 8, 2024 11:04:58 a.m. Eastern (…) ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: This whole trial is giving me the ick. I'm so frustrated it's the first trial that we're seeing of Trump and potentially only before the election. Here’s my thing. Stormy’s testimony was a mixed bag for me. So, we all met her – JOY BEHAR: It was a what? FARAH GRIFFIN: Mixed bag. We all met her. We had her on the show. I actually don’t believe she needed to into salacious detail. I would have liked to hear from Stormy who is a mom, who wants to live a private life, wants to put this behind her, has been exploited by countless men in her life, Donald Trump, Michael Avenatti. And she’s there under subpoena just to confirm what she's able to. SUNNY HOSTIN: She said some of that. FARAH GRIFFIN: But I think if you're a juror – cause then she is showed to have lied on Jimmy Kimmel and then she gets into these salacious details. I think it hurt her credibility and she is a credible person. I absolutely believe that this affair took place. BEHAR: I thought it was very – go ahead. FARAH GRIFFIN: But my two things. There’s two things they have to prove: the campaign finance side of it. I think that's been proved. I think a consideration was how it would affect his campaign. But the falsifying business records, that’s tough. HOSTIN: Why? Why do you think it’s tough? FARAH GRIFFIN: He signed some things but he’s going to say, “I run an organization with thousands of employees, I make a lot of money, I sign things all the time my attorneys put in front of me.” (…) 11:07:25 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: I don't trust a guy with the nuclear codes who doesn't think to wear a condom when he's having sex with a porn star. I'm sorry. I think that it may – as you say, the other one down in Florida Cannon, that judge needs to be taken to task because she keeps kicking the can down the road on that whole trial – HOSTIN: It's indefinite now. BEHAR: - with the documents, which he could have given to any dictator in the world! And we’re not going to see that until after he's in office and then he’ll probably get rid of everybody who disagrees with him! But – He may not go to jail for this but the American people can see what he is. He's a despicable person and we have to remember that. (…) 11:10:47 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: You know, I just think if you didn't do it, why are you in the court? FARAH GRIFFIN: Or testifying. BEHAR: Get on the stand! FARAH GRIFFIN: He won’t. GOLDBERG: Why are you there? FARAH GRIFFIN: Because he will not be able to say “I did not have sex with that woman.” BEHAR: O.J. didn’t take the stand either. GOLDBERG: You brought this on yourself. You did this to you. Nobody did this to you. You told the untruth. You took stuff. This is on you. This isn't them. It isn't the judge. This is yours. BEHAR: Look in the mirror. GOLDBERG: We'll be right back.

Peterson, Elon Musk Have Choice Words About ‘Most Orwellian’ Law

Clinical psychologist and podcast host Jordan B. Peterson and X owner Elon Musk were flabbergasted by Canada’s latest infringement on civil liberties, anti-hate speech bill C-63. On May 7, Musk and Peterson responded to Canada's proposed “hate” speech bill. The bill, called. “Online Harms Bill C-63,” would implement fines of up to $50,000 on individuals who post “content that foments hatred” or “that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.”  Musk initially responded to an X post by user Camus, who pointed out that C-63 would enable ex post facto fines for “hate speech” on social media. “This sounds insane if accurate!” wrote Musk. This sounds insane if accurate!@CommunityNotes, please check https://t.co/RB1Ea0upTk — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 7, 2024 Jordan Peterson seconded Musk’s sentiments and expressed his alarm over the bill, saying it was reminiscent of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Mr. Musk@elonmusk It's much much worse than you have been informed: plans to shackle Canadians electronically if accusers fear a "hate crime" might (might) be committed. It's the most Orwellian piece of legislation ever promoted in the West:https://t.co/oSqX3pxiBB — Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) May 7, 2024 “It’s much much worse than you have been informed: plans to shackle Canadians electronically if accusers fear a ‘hate crime’ might (might) be committed,” Peterson posted at Musk. “It’s the most Orwellian piece of legislation ever promoted in the West:” Peterson has previously been very critical of the new bill and even dedicated a nearly two-hour interview with TRIGGERnometry host Konstantin Kisin and Canadian lawyer Bruce Pardy to point out why it is dangerous. “It is the most totalitarian Western bill I’ve ever seen,” said Peterson during the April 22 interview.  C-63 would create a new Digital Safety Commission to maintain compliance with the law by “social media operators” and to work with said companies to develop new regulations that would define government-sanctioned speech.   The bill would mandate that social media operators allow users to flag content as harmful. It would also require operators to designate a “resource person” to process claims against harmful content and “direct users to internal and external resources to address their concerns” including “the [Digital Safety] Commission or a law enforcement agency.” Under the bill, social media companies must create “digital safety plans” to be shared with the Digital Safety Commission. Social media operators that refuse to comply or hinder the Commission would be subject to heavy fines of “not more than 8% of the operator’s gross global revenue or $25 million, whichever is greater…” 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

Levin NUKES ‘Linguini’ Biden, Media ‘Censorship’ Downplaying Oct. 7, Touting Hamas

Back on Saturday during his Fox News Channel Show Life, Liberty, & Levin, our friend and conservative talk radio legend Mark Levin used his opening monologue to torch President Biden and his allies in the liberal media for downplaying the animalistic October 7, 2023 terror attacks by Hamas on innocents in Israel the further we get from the attacks to commiserate with Gazans (despite their reported widespread support for their government’s attacks). Levin began by tearing into Biden’s brief May 2 speech about the pro-Islamic terrorism college students, calling it “not so much a speech” and instead “a statement” by a “pathetic” man with “linguini for a spine” and who’s “ so thoroughly pathetic” with “no moral center”.     Biden continued, taking issue with the media’s refusal to show (or even return to) the graphic footage from the attacks: How many news organizations, how many news platforms have played for you the video of what took place on October 7? Well, a lot of it. It’s on the internet. We have a lot of it because the monsters who perpetrated those heinous crimes of inhumanity, they took the video. They are very proud of it. The video was captured by the IDF, the Israelis. As I say, it is online. There’s a 47-minute video that shows in excruciating detail how the Islamist Hamas Nazis murdered people, raped people, butchered people, burned them alive, decapitated them, cut off their breasts, shot them in the groin. Oh, there’s all kinds of stuff — mass rape. Have you ever seen it on TV? Cable or network. No, you haven’t. Why? You haven’t even seen video that doesn’t show the worst of it, video where the terrorists are just going through the Nova festival field showing — showing of the kids they murdered, shot in the back, shot in the chest, shot in the head. Have you seen any of that on TV? No, you haven’t seen any of it. “[W]e don’t get video in our media, our main media of October 7. Oh, it is too gruesome. Instead, we get these looped videos over and over again of buildings in Gaza that have been destroyed because Hamas either destroyed them or they had the terrorists there, or they had their munitions there, and of course, it’s Israel’s fault,” he lamented. Levin dropped the hammer: “[Y]ou won’t see the video that exists. Why is that? It’s called censorship. That’s why. The American media is censoring what took place on October 7. Again, you can see it online, but the mass media where most people go for their news, you won’t see it. It is being covered up.” Levin expanded on this contrast and the lengths General Dwight D. Eisenhower went to ensure the horrors left behind were broadcast (click “expand”): When soldiers of the Fourth Armored Division entered the camp, they discovered piles of bodies, some covered with lime, others partially incinerated on pyres. The ghastly nature of their discovery led General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe to visit the camp on April 12th, with Generals George S. Patton and Omar Bradley.And after his visit, Eisenhower cabled General George C. Marshall, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from Washington, describing his trip to the death camp. He said, “the things I saw beggar description...The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering so as to leave me a bit sick...I made the visit deliberately in order to be in a position to give firsthand evidence of these things, if ever in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’” Eisenhower’s cable to Marshall on April 19, 1945, and I quote: “We continue to discover German concentration camps for political prisoners, which conditions of indescribable horror prevail.” From Eisenhower to General Marshall for eyes only. “I visited one of these myself, and I show you that whatever has been printed on them today has been understated. If you would see any advantage and asking about a dozen leaders of Congress and a dozen prominent editors to take a short visit to this theater in a couple of C-54s, I will arrange to have them conducted to one of these places, where the evidence of bestiality and cruelty is so overpowering, as to leave no doubt in their minds about the normal practices of the Germans in these camps. I am hopeful that some British individuals in similar categories will visit the northern area to witness similar evidence of atrocities.” And then Eisenhower the same day received this response: “Your proposal has been cleared and approved by the Secretary of War and the President.” — Truman — “Plans are being formulated and you will be kept advised.” This is what Eisenhower wrote in “Crusade in Europe” in its pages in his book: “The same day, [April 12, 1945], I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I’ve never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face-to-face with the indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I’m certain however, that I’ve never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock. I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at firsthand about these things in case they ever grew up at home, the belief or assumption that the stories of Nazi brutality were just ‘propaganda’. Some members of the visiting party were unable through the ordeal to go through it. I only did so, but as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening, I’d sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany, a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that will leave no room for cynical doubt.” He said: “Of all these displaced persons, the Jews were in the most deplorable condition. For years, they’d been beaten, starved, and tortured.” And in Ike, the Soldier: As They Knew Him, Merle Miller quotes Eisenhower speaking on April 25, 1945 to members of Congress and the journalists who had been shown Buchenwald the day before. He said: “You saw only one camp yesterday, there are many others. Your responsibilities, I believe, extend into a great field at informing the people at home of things like these atrocities is one of them...Nothing is covered up. We have nothing to conceal. The barbarous treatment of these people received in the German concentration camps is almost unbelievable. I want you to see for yourself and be spokesman for the United States.” Back in 2024, Levin noted the lack of (constant) focus on the horrors on October 7 by the liberal media is because “they are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists to Iran, to Hamas, to Hezbollah, to the Houthis, to the PLO” as well as “their front organization, Students for Justice in Palestine, the Jewish Vote, CAIR” and “the Marxist and Islamist professors”. Later, Levin powerfully concluded that not only will history look poorly on Biden, but the President and his allies in academia who’ve “given aid and comfort to the modern Nazis, in Iran, Hamas, and in our own country, the Hitler Youth and the imams that spew their hate” will be remembered like those in the 1930s and 1940s who “gave aid and comfort to Nazi Germany”. To see the relevant Fox transcript from May 4, click here.

Acosta Practically Begs IDF Spox To Give Up Fight Against Hamas

IDF spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner admirably managed to calmly, but firmly educate CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta on Wednesday that there is “no magic wand” that will force Hamas to surrender amid Acosta’s pestering and insistence that enough is enough. As a White House correspondent during the Trump years, Acosta portrayed himself as an uncompromising fighter for truth. Now, in May 2024, Acosta put that aside for the idea that if a position is popular, it must be valid, “But Colonel Lerner, you must know, that there’s tremendous— there is tremendous condemnation that is coming in from all corners across the world that the cost to the civilian population in Gaza is too high. You must know that.”     He further added, “I understand what you're saying in terms of taking out leaders of Hamas and achieving these military objectives, and of course, what they were responsible for on October 7 is heinous, but don't you think you've reached a point now where, I mean, when you're hearing this kind of condemnation coming in from all corners across the globe that the price that is being paid by civilians is so high? There's just, there's just so much you can do — what you're doing right now.” Lerner began his response by mourning, “The price of the civilians, Israelis and Palestinians, are paying for this war are both horrific and tragic. There is no magic prescription to wish Hamas away. There is no magic wand that will make them miraculously disappear. If that could happen, that would be the chosen way of operations.” He continued, “Unfortunately, for us to achieve our goals of changing the security reality for Israelis and Palestinians alike, there is only one way that Hamas goes and is through the military action, you don't see them raising a white flag. You see them conducting a counteroffer to a deal that Israel, a generous deal—” Acosta then interrupted, “The civilians are saying the civilians—the civilians, folks at the World Food Program, members of Congress here in Washington, have essentially been pleading with you to please change these tactics because the cost of the civilian population is too high and Hamas is not coming out waving the white flag, but you are hearing—” As Acosta was repeating his argumentum ad populum, Lerner asked, “So, are you suggesting—are you suggesting Israel surrenders to Hamas?” Ignoring that critical question, Acosta rolled on, “You’re hearing from around the world that suffering is at a point that, that has just become too much.” Lerner then repeated his own question, “The suffering on both sides is terrible, the suffering, the reality on both sides is terrible and indeed we wish for a peaceful resolution, but unfortunately, our enemies that are bent on our destruction have no intention on living side-by-side in peace with Israel so what should we do? Surrender to Hamas and hope they don’t do it again when they promised that they will do it again and again and again given the chance?” Neither Acosta nor any of the groups he cited as a good answer to that. They have no knowledge, let alone, expertise, in military matters, but feel they get to lecture Israel on precisely that. They claim Hamas shouldn’t rule Gaza and then demand Israel stop its war on Hamas. They add that the suffering has gone on for too long and then demand Israel adopt policies that would prolong the war and hence, the suffering. It’s enough to drive a lesser man than Lerner insane. Here is a transcript for the May 8 show: CNN Newsroom 5/8/2024 11:26 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: But Colonel Lerner, you must know, that there’s tremendous— there is tremendous condemnation that is coming in from all corners across the world that the cost to the civilian population in Gaza is too high. You must know that. I understand what you're saying in terms of taking out leaders of Hamas and achieving these military objectives, and of course, what they were responsible for on October 7 is heinous, but don't you think you've reached a point now where, I mean, when you're hearing this kind of condemnation coming in from all corners across the globe that the price that is being paid by civilians is so high? There's just, there's just so much you can do — what you're doing right now. PETER LERNER: The price of the civilians, Israelis and Palestinians, are paying for this war are both horrific and tragic. There is no magic prescription to wish Hamas away. There is no magic wand that will make them miraculously disappear. If that could happen, that would be the chosen way of operations. Unfortunately, for us to achieve our goals of changing the security reality for Israelis and Palestinians alike, there is only one way that Hamas goes and is through the military action, you don't see them raising a white flag. You see them conducting a counteroffer to a deal that Israel, a generous deal— ACOSTA: The civilians are saying the civilians—the civilians, folks at the World Food Program, members of Congress here in Washington, have essentially been pleading with you to please change these tactics because the cost of the civilian population is too high and Hamas is not coming out waving the white flag, but you are hearing—” LERNER: So, are you suggesting—are you suggesting Israel surrenders to Hamas? ACOSTA: -- You’re hearing from around the world that suffering is at a point that, that has just become too much. LERNER: The suffering on both sides is terrible, the suffering, the reality on both sides is terrible and indeed we wish for a peaceful resolution, but unfortunately, our enemies that are bent on our destruction have no intention on living side-by-side in peace with Israel so what should we do? Surrender to Hamas and hope they don’t do it again when they promised that they will do it again and again and again given the chance?

ABC, CBS Ignore TikTok Admitting They’re Controlled By the Chinese Gov

During their Wednesday newscast, ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS Mornings boasted that TikTok was talking the American government to court because the company refused to comply with American law. The networks boosted TikTok’s claims in their legal filing that the law violated the First Amendment and their suggestion that members of Congress were hypocrites for having TikTok accounts, but what they failed to disclose to their audiences was the fact that those same filings proved that the Chinese Communist Party controlled TikTok. In their filing, TikTok admits: “Third, the Chinese government has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is a key to the success of TikTok in the United States … By doing so, the Chinese government clearly signaled that it would assert its export control powers with respect to any attempt to sever TikTok’s operations from ByteDance, and that any severance would leave TikTok without access to the recommendation engine that has created a unique style and community that cannot be replicated on any other platform today.” ABC senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott trumpeted that “TikTok is taking on the federal government, setting up a showdown in court over free speech and national security.” Ignoring the fact the filing admitted they were taking orders from the Chinese government, Scott framed their lawsuit as an act of brave defiance. “TikTok's parent company is making it clear they cannot and will not be selling the platform,” she proclaimed. Scott concluded her report by touting: “The bottom line, TikTok will remain available in the United States as this plays out in the courts.”     Over on CBS, correspondent Scott MacFarlane parroted TikTok’s talking points that “it's being asked to do the impossible -- to be divested or sold to an approved buyer by their China-based owner ByteDance within months or face a ban in the United States.” “They say that's a violation of the First Amendment and that they're being singled out because of their ties to China,” he added. While ignoring the part of TikTok’s filing that admitted that they were controlled by the Chinese Government, MacFarlane quoted another: In their new legal petition, they say, “There's no question the act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19th, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere.” “The company denies those allegations and has asked a court to delay or stop enactment of this law. And they note in their legal petition many of the members of Congress who passed the law, Natalie, have and use TikTok accounts themselves,” he chided. Meanwhile, on NBC’s Today, correspondent Savannah Sellers quoted the damaging part of the filing but failed to connect the dots: TikTok and ByteDance arguing the law’s requirement to divest “disregarded less extreme alternatives” and “is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally.” Going on to say: “The Chinese government has made it clear it would not permit a divestment...” Lawyers also arguing that TikTok is protected under the First Amendment's guarantee freedom of expression. The networks still refused to mention that TikTok users had threatened to kill a U.S. Senator and commit suicide after TikTok directed their users to contact their congressional representatives. The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America May 8, 2024 7:13:43 a.m. Eastern ROBIN ROBERTS: Now to TikTok suing the federal government over the law that would force its Chinese owners to sell the video-sharing app. Our senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott has the latest. Good morning to you, Rachel. RACHEL SCOTT: Hey, Robing. Good morning to you. TikTok is taking on the federal government, setting up a showdown in court over free speech and national security. It has been two weeks since the President signed that bipartisan bill into law that forces TikTok's Chinese parent company to either sell the app or face a total ban in the United States. Well, this morning, TikTok's parent company is making it clear they cannot and will not be selling the platform. So, on one end of this, you have a bipartisan group of lawmakers, even the President, they are arguing that TikTok poses a national security risk and that by using the platform the Chinese government could have access to your data, including your browsing history, even your location. TikTok denies those allegations. They say it would take years for them to find a new set of engineers to figure out how to program the platform and that it would force a shutdown of the app here in the United States by January of next year. They also argue a ban infringes on the rights of 170 million Americans who use the platform here in the United States. In this lawsuit, TikTok also points out that the Biden campaign continues to use the platform even after the President signed that bill into law. They insist that completely undermines their argument that it poses a risk to Americans’ safety. The bottom line, TikTok will remain available in the United States as this plays out in the courts. Michael. MICHAEL STRAHAN: All right, Rachel. Thank you very much for that. CBS Mornings May 8, 2024 7:24:21 a.m. Eastern NATALIE MORALES: TikTok is going to court to try to stop a new law that could lead to a nationwide ban on the social media giant. It says the law demanding that it sever ties with its China-based parent company would stifle free speech. However, supporters of the measure say it is essential for national security. Scott Macfarlane is on Capitol Hill. Scott, good morning. SCOTT MACFARLANE: Natalie, good morning. TikTok says it's being asked to do the impossible -- to be divested or sold to an approved buyer by their China-based owner ByteDance within months or face a ban in the United States. They say that's a violation of the First Amendment and that they're being singled out because of their ties to China. In their new legal petition, they say, “There's no question the act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19th, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere.” Congress overwhelmingly and swiftly passed this law arguing TikTok’s ties to China are a national security concerned and risk the private data of its users. One House committee chair says TikTok is like a spy balloon in your phone. The company denies those allegations and has asked a court to delay or stop enactment of this law. And they note in their legal petition many of the members of Congress who passed the law, Natalie, have and use TikTok accounts themselves. MORALES: So interesting. All right, Scott. We'll be following this one.

Media Panic that Pro-Hamas Campus Protests May Hurt Biden, 'Like 1968'

After weeks of defending pro-hams campus protests, the media are now panicking that those same protests might hurt biden’s re-election chances. In the past week, a slew of political commentators have written articles comparing the current situation on college campuses to the anti-war protests of 1968, and warning that a summer of radical leftism may clinch the 2024 election for Donald Trump. CNN’s Jake Tapper put it best during the April 29 edition of The Lead: When you look at these protests, these images, when you see the controversies about the ones that have an antisemitic element, and on and on, just like what you’re seeing on the side of your screen right now. Do you think to yourself... “Wow, this is a real in-kind contribution to Donald Trump.” The corporate media are certainly aware that these protests are unpopular. But rather than condemn them outright, their focus is instead on what that means for their preferred Presidential candidate. Watch:

Macklemore New Song: 'Screamin' Free Palestine 'Til They're Home At Last'

It seems that celebrities will do absolutely anything to remain relevant. In Macklemore’s latest attempt to stay at least somewhat popular, the 40-year-old rapper released a song called “Hind’s Hall,” which is all about the liberation of Palestine.  “Block the barricade until Palestine is free,” the first verse of the song reads, as well as the line “f**k the police.” Macklemore continues with his pro-Palestine rhetoric in verse two, calling out the elites who aren’t pro-Palestine with: “Seen the rubble, the buildings, the mothers and the children and all the men that you murdered, and then we see how you spin it.” How they spin it? Like how Macklemore is spinning the narrative to insist that Palestine is some innocent country that played no part in the brutal terrorist attack involving kidnaping, rape and murder of innocent Israeli citizens? Sure, Macklemore. “Screamin’ “Free Palestine” ‘til they’re home at last (Woo),” he said. Macklemore also calls out President Joe Biden in the third verse, which begins with, “Claimin’ it’s antiSemetic to be anti-Zionist / I’ve seen Jewish brothers and sisters out there and ridin’ in," and ends with, “The blood is on your hands, Biden, we can see it all / And f**k no, I’m not votin’ for you in the fall.” Related: Terrorists in Training: Pro-Hamas 'Protesters' Vandalize WWI Memorial in Central Park, Burn American Flag In the last portion of the song, Macklemore insists that he’s glad he’s an independent artist, suggesting if he belonged to a label, he’d probably be dropped.  “I’d be fine with it ‘cause the heart fed my page / I want a cease fire, f**k a response from Drake," he raps. The music video for the song featured police officers dealing with violent pro-Palestine protestors, Palestinian flag-waving, and a video montages of  legislators - I assume ones who Macklemore thinks could do more for the Palestinian people. HIND’S HALL. Once it’s up on streaming all proceeds to UNRWA. pic.twitter.com/QqZEKmzwZI — Macklemore (@macklemore) May 6, 2024 In response to Macklemore’s attempt of a roast in a song, both those in support of his message and those against it responded. Fox News freelance opinion editor Dan Gainor condemned Macklemore, telling him, “You support gang rape and murder,” pointing out the number of innocent Israeli citizens who’ve fallen victim to Hamas attacks.  “Just deleted every song I ever had of yours,” a different user wrote, while investigative journalist Laura Loomer called Macklemore “a straight up retard” and a “f**king moron.”  Others disagreed, writing things like, “as a Palestinian we appreciate this” and “this has a great lyrically message.” Ultimately, while Macklemore is entitled to his opinion, can’t he just stick to writing music about girls or something instead of virtual signaling until ends meet?! Seriously, this is not even entertaining. Follow MRCTV on X: Things That Need To Be Said: I Don't Care Leftists cry and scream about "freedom for Palestine," but these entitled brats have no idea the real problems facing America. pic.twitter.com/MuAuXPt4x2 — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 6, 2024

Worst Censorship of April: Are Meta Platforms Stepping Up Censorship?

Spring was in the air and snow melting in April, but Big Tech platforms — especially Meta’s — continued to freeze free speech. Utilizing its unique CensorTrack.org database, which has logged 6,745 cases as of publication, MRC Free Speech America tracked censorship across multiple platforms in April. Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram seemed particularly determined to suppress free speech, targeting content that included an anti-communist meme and criticism of President Joe Biden’s border crisis. Google-owned YouTube, meanwhile, continued its election interference by censoring a high-profile Independent presidential candidate.  And while Meta’s censorship only made up 9 out of a total of 28 cases in April, the Zuckerberg-led platforms’ speech suppression packed more of a punch.  Below are the worst cases of censorship from April. Humorless Meta targets memes. Both Facebook and Instagram censored satirical memes this past month. Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), a “pro-liberty organization on America's college campuses,” posted a meme on Facebook of horses standing under an immense table and chairs in a field with the caption, “This farm owner was denied a council permit to build a horse shelter. Fortunately, you don't need a permit to build a table and chairs.” YAL commented, “What a nice table.” Facebook slapped a fact-check label on the post calling it “partly false” and linked to articles from Check Your Fact and Lead Stories. Reportedly, the German farmer wasn’t denied a permit but did build the table shelter to avoid regulations.  Instagram, meanwhile, put a sensitive content filter on an Atlas Society post of a meme showing Care Bears with the caption, “What communists think they do.” The next image was of a firing squad with text saying, “What they actually do.” Instagram asserted the meme “may contain graphic or violent content," and required users to click through in order to view the meme. Facebook has found that users fail to click through similar interstitials 95 percent of the time. Instagram attempts to restrict followers of an account critical of LGBTQ ideology. On April 17, 2023, users started sharingscreenshots of an Instagram notice that popped up when users tried to follow Libs of TikTok. “Are you sure you want to follow libsoftiktokofficial? This account has repeatedly posted false information that was reviewed by independent fact-checkers or went against our Community Guidelines,” the notice read. The notice disappeared by April 18, and no clarification was offered on the platform’s reasoning. Google-owned YouTube censors one of President Joe Biden’s opponents. YouTube imposed a fact-checking label on a video of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appearance on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation show. Kennedy aimed to “clarify [his] position on January 6” during the appearance. YouTube slapped a context label on the video with a link to the Wikipedia page for the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The label asserted, “On Jan. 6, 2021, the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., was attacked by a mob of supporters of then-U.S. president Donald Trump, two months after his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.” Facebook disabled the account of a show host for criticizing radical Islamic terrorists. Daniel Greenfield, a journalism fellow for FrontPage Magazine’s David Horowitz Freedom Center, declared on April 15 that Facebook had disabled FrontPage Editor Jamie Glazov’s account as of April 4 for discussing Islamic terrorism. Facebook reportedly objected to a “Glazov Gang” interview headlined  “Oct. 7 Coming to the USA?” The platform alleged that the interview, which discussed terrorists crossing into America through the open southern border, violated its “community standards” and threatened “the security of people on Facebook,” according to Greenfield. Glazov’s account appears to have been restored by Facebook. Instagram censors critique of IRS for no clear reason. The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) posted an image of a Hanna Cox tweet on its Instagram page, stating, “There are 724 billionaires in the US and 87,000 new IRS agents. They're not going after the rich, cupcakes. They're coming for you.” Instagram then imposed a “Missing Context” label on FEE’s post, asserting, “The same information was reviewed by independent fact-checkers in another post.” Clicking on the warning, though, only brought up the message, “This information is not available.”

I TOLD YOU SO: CBS’s Latest Trump Smear Unraveled In Less Than A Week

One of the risks inherent to Regime Media, as opposed to performing legitimate fact-based journalism, is that their Trump Derangement Syndrome drives them to say things that are easily debunkable or quickly proven wrong. Take, for example, CBS’s Chief White House Correspondent Nancy Cordes. During her report last week fretting the effect the pro-Hamas campus protests might have upon President Joe Biden’s reelection prospects, she threw in a 15-second non-sequitur accusing former President Donald Trump of making an “unfounded claim about campus demonstrators”- a fancier and more succinct “without evidence”. We flagged it the time, and memorialized it via X in anticipation of the inevitable: Laying down this marker for when it is discovered that at least ONE (1) foreign-born student and/or outside agitator was paid by some radical oligarch-funded organization. pic.twitter.com/kR0GYRjIU0 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 3, 2024 As we said when covering her broader report: Cordes’ shootdown of Trump’s statement so early into the protest fallout is arrogant to the point of recklessness. All it takes is ONE paid foreign student/agitator in order to make Cordes look like a total fool. Well, you’ll never guess what inevitably happened next. It turns out that there, in fact, are foreign-born outside agitators funded by outside organizations most charitably classified as “woke philanthropy”. As Joe Simonson reported in the Washington Free Beacon: A New York City nonprofit that received more than $12 million from Goldman Sachs' charitable arm encouraged anti-Israel activists to re-create the violent protests of  "the summer of 2020," just hours before rioters stormed and occupied a building on Columbia University’s campus. More than 100 masked and keffiyeh-clad activists convened in the People’s Forum’s Manhattan office Monday evening to plan their next moves as anti-Israel protests reach a fever pitch across the country. The meeting, which was scheduled to start at 6:45 p.m., was delayed to give protesters from Columbia time to make it downtown. Once the Columbia protesters arrived, People’s Forum executive director Manolo De Los Santos urged the group to "give Joe Biden a hot summer" and "make it untenable for the politics of usual to take place in this country." Los Santos praised Columbia students for "decid[ing] that resistance is more important than negotiations," and urged those assembled at the People’s Forum to "support our students so that the encampments can go for as long as they can." Sounds very outside agitation-y. Who funds The People’s Forum, you ask? Well: The People’s Forum’s operations are made possible in large part by a $12 million donation from Goldman Sachs’s charitable arm. The source of that money is likely Neville Roy Singham, a communist who has "long admired Maoism." Singham, an American businessman who lives in China, reportedly helps finance the Chinese Communist Party’s "propaganda worldwide," according to the New York Times. His wife, Jodie Evans, is the leader of the activist group Code Pink. Under her leadership, the group has celebrated China as "a defender of the oppressed and a model for economic growth without slavery or war." So we have woke-funded outside agitation. Where, might one ask, was this gentleman born? Per The New York Post: Manolo De Los Santos, the 35-year-old leader of the Midtown-based nonprofit The People’s Forum (TPF), came to The Bronx from his native Dominican Republic at age 5 and has made a career of spurring protests on the streets of New York City. He first traveled to Cuba in 2006 and was there as recently as March to demand an end to the US blockade against the socialist state which has been in place since 1962. Well, there you have it. A foreign-born outside agitator funded by nonprofits. As an added bonus, he got himself arrested at a campus encampment last night:  🚨BREAKING! Multiple leaders of the ALL OUT FOR RAFAH march in NYC were arrested by the NYPD while they led over a thousand pro-Palestine demonstrators in the streets of Manhattan. We will not stand for the intimidation of the NYPD. The more they try to silence us the louder we… pic.twitter.com/DlAqq5ZXH7 — The People's Forum (@PeoplesForumNYC) May 7, 2024 Will Nancy Cordes retract her smear of Trump or issue an apology? Probably not, as that would distract from her ongoing battle with ABC’s Mary Bruce for most Biden-sycophantic White House correspondent. The cost of being Regime Media is that, more often than not, you are going to be made to look ridiculous. 

Dale Claims Soros Is a 'Target Of Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories'

After former President Donald Trump gave some remarks to reporters assembled outside of his New York trial on Tuesday, CNN’s host of The Lead, Jake Tapper, brought on the network’s resident fact-checker, Daniel Dale, to assess the accuracy of Trump’s claims. In one instance, Dale shamed Trump for calling D.A. Alvin Bragg a Soros-backed prosecutor, even going so far as to claim Soros is a frequent victim of anti-Semitism. Tapper began, “Let's bring in CNN's Daniel Dale, who fact-checks what we just heard from Donald Trump. He started off criticizing the case, what happened on the case. Daniel, then he turned to protests on college campuses, then he turned to inflation, then back to the case. What's -- what caught your notice?”     For his first fact-check, Dale chose a topic of questionable importance: is Trump leading in all the polls or merely most of them? He declared, “There was a lot there. Some of it was subjective opinion. I won't try to fact-check, but a few things to fact check. One, he claimed again that he's leading in all the polls. No, he's slightly leading in national polling averages, but he's trailing in a good number of polls, especially those that have come out in the last week or so. There are at least a few.” Dale then went off the rails, “He refers frequently to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor behind this case, as a Soros-backed district attorney. Now, I'd say there's some arguable basis for that, but I think it's important to clarify the facts.” He elaborated, “So, Mr. Soros, who's a liberal billionaire philanthropist, also a frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, did not make any direct contributions to Mr. Bragg's election campaign. He also says he's never spoken once to Mr. Bragg. What did happen was he donated to a liberal PAC that then in turn donated to Mr. Bragg's campaign, as well as other reform-minded prosecutors. So, this is at best a one-step removed relationship.” As Dale would say, “there was a lot there.” First, with anti-Semitism surging on college campuses, labeling criticisms of Soros’s political donations to far-left causes, including those anti-Israel encampments, as anti-Semitic is as nonsensical as it is appalling. Second, Dale wants to pretend as if Soros giving money to an organization, which in turn donates it to a candidate, is somehow evidence that Soros doesn't financially support Bragg. Soros doesn’t need to have spoken to Bragg to support him. Plenty of people donate to organizations, who in turn donate to candidates because they support those groups’ missions and trust them to donate to candidates who support that mission. Soros just does so in great quantity. Third, “reform-minded” is a convenient way of hiding their soft-on-crime progressivism. Here is a transcript for the May 7 show: CNN The Lead with Jake Tapper 5/8/2024 4:35 PM ET JAKE TAPPER: Let's bring in CNN's Daniel Dale, who fact-checks what we just heard from Donald Trump. He started off criticizing the case, what happened on the case. Daniel, then he turned to protests on college campuses, then he turned to inflation then back to the case. What's -- what caught your notice? DANIEL DALE: There was a lot there. Some of it was subjective opinion. I won't try to fact-check, but a few things to fact check. One, he claimed again that he's leading in all the polls. No, he's slightly leading in national polling averages, but he's trailing in a good number of polls, especially those that have come out in the last week or so. There are at least a few. He refers frequently to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor behind this case, as a Soros-backed district attorney. Now, I'd say there's some arguable basis for that, but I think it's important to clarify the facts. So, Mr. Soros, who's a liberal billionaire philanthropist, also a frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, did not make any direct contributions to Mr. Bragg's election campaign. He also says he's never spoken once to Mr. Bragg. What did happen was he donated to a liberal PAC that then in turn donated to Mr. Bragg's campaign, as well as other reform-minded prosecutors. So, this is at best a one-step removed relationship.

PLOT TWIST: Soros Comrade Condemns Bidenomics: ‘I’d Give Them an F’

The former managing director at Soros Fund Management panned President Joe Biden’s management of the economy during a CNBC appearance.  During the May 7 edition of Squawk Box,  Stanley Druckenmiller, billionaire investor and former chairman and president of Duquesne Capital, gave his frank assessment of Bidenomics — and it was not positive, to say the least. In the interview, CNBC anchor Joe Kernen asked Druckenmiller about the nation’s overspending under President Biden. In response, Druckenmiller seemed overcome by disgust before telling Kernen, “If I was a professor, I would give [Biden] an F." This is an incredible election-year statement coming from a man who once managed money for leftist billionaire George Soros. Earlier in the interview, Druckenmiller criticized Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the Biden administration for the state of the economy. He said, “The day Powell pivoted, gasoline was $2. It went to $2.80. It's now at $2.55.” Druckenmiller also suggested that the current state of affairs would be politically damaging for Biden, adding, “the average American cares more about gasoline prices than they do about stock prices and they are getting hurt.” He went on to mention economic difficulties previously highlighted by CNBC: “There was an interview earlier on your show about people being priced out of the housing market.” This is true,  Biden’s policies are taking a toll on the average American. Since January 2021 (when Biden took office), the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate has risen from 2.77% to 6.8% on April 4, 2024.  Druckenmiller also mentioned that “Inflation is 21% higher than it was in 2019. To me, even politically, that's more consequential than keeping the markets up than trying to nail the soft landing and not having a recession.”   Indeed, Americans have been brutalized by 5.5% average monthly inflation under the Biden administration.  The former Duquesne Capital president went beyond the impact of Bidenomics on struggling Americans, suggesting that Biden’s missteps would have horrible ramifications for the future.  “All government needed to do was get out of their way and let them innovate. Instead, they have spent and spent and spent,” Druckenmiller said. “And my new fear now is that spending and the resulting interest rates on the debt that’s been created are gonna crowd out some of the innovation that otherwise would have taken place. We’ve got a 7% budget deficit at full employment. It’s just unheard of.” 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 fairly on how Bidenomics is crippling the American economy.

Column: PolitiFact Shames Talk of 'Outside Agitators' at College Protests

You can tell when the PolitiFact website is going to negotiate around the facts. On May 7, their top headline on the home page asked: “Are ‘outside agitators’ co-opting campus protests?” This isn’t quite the right question. The media have presented these events as “student” protests, so if half the participants aren’t college students, how would they describe the non-students? PolitiFact writers Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu and Loreben Turquero offered this summary: 1. Police, city and university officials nationwide have blamed “outside agitators” for campus protests but have provided little evidence for their claims. 2. Law enforcement experts say police often consider “outside agitators” to be people who move from city to city and are paid to be agitators. 3.  Historians say government and law officials commonly use the “outside agitator” narrative to delegitimize protesters and their demands. First, the “little evidence” is a weird claim, when PolitiFact’s article acknowledges facts like the New York Police Department reported that 32 out of 112 people arrested at Columbia’s private campus were unaffiliated with the university. At nearby City College, 102 out of 170 people arrested were not students. Add it up, and 134 out of 282 protesters were not students. So when Mayor Eric Adams complains about “outside agitators,” he’s not in need of a “fact check.” They even scolded leftist Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) over their “agitator” concerns. They did not mention the recent story of an outside agitator named James Carlson, who was part of the army who briefly occupied Hamilton Hall at Columbia University. He’s a 40-year-old trust fund heir who owns a townhouse in Brooklyn worth $3.4 million. PolitiFact typically seeks out “experts” to match the narratives it wants to underline. They don’t like people suggesting these protesters aren’t local and they might be paid to protest. They found William & Mary law professor Timothy Zick to define the outside agitator spin: "It was used as sort of a phrase that would link protesters, no matter how peaceful they were, to Communists and other infiltrators who were causing disruption." The term is used to cast doubt on protester “sincerity.” Angus Johnson, "historian of student activism" at Hostos Community College in New York, explained, "The idea behind the concept of the outside agitator is that dissent can never be coming from the people who are expressing that dissent.”  They also turned to Johnston to underline, “Some experts have been quick to note the main goal of a protest is to get others to join in.”    This spin is nothing like how the media spun the Tea Party protests against ObamaCare legislation. They sought to discredit them as donor-funded “Astroturf” (not grass-roots). They went looking for the most racist or ignorant-sounding sign they could find, to present protesters as a kooky “fringe” movement.  NBC’s Chuck Todd decried “town hall madness.” The front page of The Boston Globe lamented the “quarrelsome masses hollering questions downloaded from activist websites." MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann ranted, “The truth is out about the societal sabotage dressed up as phony protests against health care reform...When Hamas does it or Hezbollah does it, it is called terrorism.” That looks pretty funny right now, since these protesters are a much better match for that Hamas spin. All of this was about "delegitimizing protesters and their demands." Protests are covered in wildly divergent ways, depending on whether the activists are on the Left or the Right. This is just as true for liberal “fact checking” organizations as it is for liberal media outlets. 

Networks Mourn Indefinite Postponement of Trump Classified Docs Trial

Across the dial, the network evening newscasts closed their coverage of the Trump business records trial in New York with coverage of another matter- the classified documents trial in Florida federal court. Specifically, a collective mourning over the fact that this trial won’t go before the 2024 presidential election. Most emblematic of the coverage: ABC, with its lengthy (for a brief) anchor introduction and framing question. Watch the full report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Tuesday, May 7th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: And meanwhile, there's another breaking headline involving the former president tonight. The judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case at Mar-a-Lago has now indefinitely postponed that trial. Is there any chance this now happens before Election Day? Let's get right to our Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas, live in Washington. Pierre, what have you learned? PIERRE THOMAS: David, the likelihood there will be a trial in the classified documents case before the election is fading fast. Judge Aileen Cannon has officially taken a May 20th trial date off the calendar, saying there were too many pretrial motions and legal issues to resolve before trial could go forward. Some of the issues have sat for months, and some are not even scheduled for hearings until later this month or June. The special counsel tonight declining to comment. But David, this delay makes it all but certain the classified documents case will not go to trial before the election. MUIR: Pierre Thomas tonight with us as well. Pierre, thank you. ABC Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas felt compelled to provide a full rundown as to the procedural reasons why the classified documents trial isn’t going forward, complaining that “some of the issues have sat for months”. Thomas then whines that this case will not go to trial before the election. A similar tone was struck at CBS, as far as whining over a lack of a trial before the general election. Below is the transcript of the full report as aired on CBS Evening News on Tuesday, May 7th, 2024: NORAH O’DONNELL: And Robert, I do need to ask you about a separate trial involving that classified documents. What have we learned today about that trial? ROBERT COSTA: Norah, a stunning development late today. Florida federal judge Aileen Cannon has now decided to indefinitely postpone that classified documents trial that was looming on the horizon for the former president, raising a real question about whether Trump will ever face a trial on that front before the election, or even this year. O’DONNELL: Robert Costa, thank you. Despite Costa’s hysterics, the development is not all that stunning. Not mentioned in these reports is that at least some of the hangup in the classified documents case is due to the procedures governing discovery under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), which governs discovery in this trial. Costa might not have been so stunned, perhaps, had he read CBS’s own primer on CIPA.  Fun fact, per the report: the CIPA bill was originally introduced by Senator Joe Biden. Finally, on NBC, the same lamentations citing the same complex motions, with one added bonus: Lester Holt and Laura Jarrett work in the January 6th trial, which is also on hold pending the Supreme Court’s opinion on presidential immunity. Below is the transcript of the full report as aired on NBC Nightly News on Tuesday, May 7th, 2024: LESTER HOLT: And Laura, at the top of the newscast, I mentioned a big development in another Trump case, this, the classified documents case in Florida. What happened? LAURA JARRETT: Yes, Lester, the judge tonight making official what was already widely expected, putting that trial date officially on hold, wiping it away, saying essentially there are too many unresolved issues and complex motions left to resolve here, Lester. HOLT: And one more federal case, the one focusing on election interference. Where does that stand? JARRETT: Lester, that one too also in limbo, with no trial date as we await a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court about whether the former president is in fact immune from prosecution at all, making this case in New York, Lester, perhaps the only case that will be complete before the November election. Lester. HOLT: All right. Laura Jarrett, thanks. Laura Jarrett closes her report by noting that the New York trial may well be the only one to conclude before the 2024 presidential election, thus forcing the left to settle for one quarter of its originally-scheduled judicial election interference- much to the chagrin of the Regime Media.  

NYT's Hypocritical Horror Over Al-Jazeera Ban: Tried to Kick Murdoch Out of AUS, UK

The New York Times came out stridently in defense of pan-Arab news network Al-Jazeera after the Israeli government temporarily shut down its local operations, claiming it was threatening Israel’s security by serving as a “mouthpiece” for Hamas. The paper was highly aggrieved over the “anti-democratic” move while ignoring Al-Jazeera’s history as a virulently anti-Israel outlet Arab news network. Of course, wartime censorship is not unheard of even in democracies (including Ukraine) or the Arab world in general, and Israel is existentially vulnerable surrounded by enemies and with elite opinion firmly on the side of the pro-Hamas demonstrators on college campuses throughout America. Five reporters in all contributed to The Times' report, “Israeli Cabinet Votes to Shut Down Al Jazeera’s Operations in the Country,” in Monday’s edition. Israel moved on Sunday to shut down local operations of Al Jazeera, the influential Qatari-based news network, in an unusual step that critics denounced as anti-democratic and part of a broader crackdown on dissent over Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Al Jazeera, a major source of news in the Arab world that has often highlighted civilian suffering in Gaza, of harming Israel’s security and inciting violence against its soldiers. Israeli officials did not immediately provide examples of Al Jazeera content it claimed posed a threat. In a statement, Al Jazeera called the decision a “criminal act” and said that “Israel’s suppression of the free press to cover up its crimes has not deterred us from performing our duty.” …. Pointing to the government’s diminishing tolerance for freedom of expression, Ms. Touma-Sliman noted that in November, she was suspended from all parliamentary activities for two months after publicizing press reports about Israeli forces attacking Gaza’s main hospital. The military had denied the accounts. Meanwhile, reporter Steve Lohr found “media experts” to condemn the only democracy in the region as a censor: “Media experts condemn Israel’s move against Al Jazeera.” The Israeli government’s decision to shut down Al Jazeera’s operations in that country and block its reports there was condemned by American media and free speech experts as a troubling precedent and further evidence that Israel was engaging in a harsh wartime crackdown on democratic freedoms. There was no criticism of Al-Jazeera from the Times itself, which merely relayed accurate Israeli criticism in a dismissive tone, even though Al-Jazeera has shown terrorist sympathies like throwing a “birthday party” with cake and fireworks in 2008, to celebrate the release of Lebanese terrorist, who killed four in Israel, including a four-year-old girl (see MEMRI’s clip). The Times also failed to mention that Al Jazeera reporters Ismail Abu Omar and Mohamed Washah were caught moonlighting as Hamas commanders. In February, The Times of Israel reported that "the IDF revealed a trove of images" that showed Washah in a Hamas uniform training fighters how to shoot rocket-propelled grenades, build warheads, and operate drones armed with an RPG. "Abu Omar infiltrated into Israel and filmed from inside Kibbutz Nir Oz during Hamas’s onslaught," they noted.   #عاجل #خاص في الصباح صحفي في قناة #الجزيرة وفي المساء مخرب في حماس! @AJArabic ⭕️خلال نشاط لقواتنا قبل عدة أسابيع داخل احدى معسكرات حماس في شمال قطاع غزة تم ضبط كمبيوتر متحرك يعود إلى المدعو محمد سمير محمد وشاح من مواليد 1986 من البريج حيث يتضح من المستندات ان محمد وشاح هو قائد… pic.twitter.com/s8CX1kOfvP — افيخاي ادرعي (@AvichayAdraee) February 11, 2024   By contrast, the Times has eagerly highlighted moves to squash outlets run by media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s supposedly dangerously right-wing news outlets. Censorship fever (from another media outlet!) ran particularly high in late 2020 and 2021, with the Times attacking Murdoch on bogus issues like climate change or spreading extremism. In February 2021, London bureau chief Mark Landler’s obsessive hostility toward Murdoch’s media empire was on display in his coverage of two fledgling right-of-center news outlets, in “Murdoch to Challenge U.K.’s Fairness Statute With Fox News Playbook.” He began with a tiresome attack against the “poisonous political culture” of Fox News, then suggested Murdoch could be banned in Britain, “where television news is regulated to avoid political bias.” In October 2020, Times reporter Isabella Kwai filed on an online petition in Australia targeting Murdoch, posted by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, asking “the government to establish a Royal Commission, the country’s highest form of inquiry, into the dominance of Australian media by Mr. Murdoch’s News Corp.” Rudd called “Murdoch “an arrogant cancer on our democracy.” An impartial voice for sure! In January 2021, columnist Nicholas Kristof launched a quest to ban Fox News from basic cable packages (just for a start) in order to “stop supporting networks that spread lies and hatred, and cable companies should drop channels that persist in doing so….” But now that a left-wing anti-Israel outlet is being temporarily suspended during wartime, the Times conveniently morphs back into free-speech absolutists.

Hypocrisy: TikTok Cries Censorship in Ultimatum Lawsuit — Despite Banning Others

Communist Chinese government-tied TikTok is seemingly desperate to hold onto both its China ties and the American market. Last month, President Joe Biden signed legislation that would force TikTok into either divestment from its Chinese parent company ByteDance or a ban in America due to national security concerns. TikTok has now sued, claiming economic harm to creators and a free speech violation, according to Bloomberg. This argument is paradoxical because TikTok itself has an infamously anti-free speech track record. Bloomberg noted that the lawsuit marks the first legal challenge since the legislation was enacted. TikTok is claiming the legislation could suppress free speech and harm the business owners and users who benefit financially from the app, alleging an “illegal punishment without due process”, the outlet added. “There is no question: the Act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere,” the company reportedly complained in the court filing. Experts have emphasized TikTok’s national security risks. Moreover, multiple former TikTok employees recently confirmed close ties between TikTok and Chinese ByteDance. As MRC founder and President Brent Bozell emphasized, “TikTok must divest itself from China if it wants to do business in the United States.” TikTok must divest itself from China if it wants to do business in the United States. We at the MRC have been consistent from the beginning. TikTok is a national security threat. @BrentBozell pic.twitter.com/FfSh1futU3 — Media Research Center (@theMRC) March 12, 2024 In April, the same month that the ban legislation was signed, TikTok announced a counteroffensive to suppress alleged “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories.” The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. The CCP-tied app has repeatedly targeted free speech, making its free speech arguments incongruous. According to leaks, TikTok has censored content to please the CCP in the past, including videos about the independence movement in Tibet and the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Last year, the app boastedabout removing over 500,000 videos related to the Hamas-Israel conflict. In 2022, MRC revealed that TikTok had “permanently banned” eleven pro-free speech organizations. 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.

Free Speech Alliance Members Applaud House Hearing on Leftist Tilt at Tax-Funded NPR

The House Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight Subcommittee is holding a hearing on Wednesday morning to address the political tilt of taxpayer-subsidized National Public Radio. NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham is one of the experts who will testify.  Members of the MRC-led Free Speech Alliance sent a letter to committee chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) applauding the hearing and insisting taxpayers "should not be compelled to pay for a politicized media outlet whose primary objective is to undermine American ideas and ideals." The letter argues PBS and NPR have made a mockery of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which mandates “objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” Therefore, "NPR must not be rewarded for its unlawful behavior and anti-American objectives." Signatories include MRC founder and president Brent Bozell, Young America’s Foundation President Governor Scott Walker, American Values President Gary Bauer, and American Principles Project President Terry Schilling.  The letter is below:  Dear Chair McMorris Rodgers, We applaud your decision to investigate National Public Radio (NPR). Its politicized leadership and programming have once again been brought into the spotlight, but its history of biased reporting is legendary. It long ago abandoned even the appearance of abiding by its statutory mandates in favor of pursuing a leftwing agenda.  Taxpayers should not be compelled to pay for a politicized media outlet whose primary objective is to undermine American ideas and ideals, including our First Amendment free-speech rights as well as the economic system that creates the wealth that NPR feeds off of.  It is critical that this hearing expose NPR’s unlawful conduct and how its leadership and reporters have used its resources to pursue political outcomes.  For its entire existence, NPR and its sister organization, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), have made a mockery of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which mandates “objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” NPR must not be rewarded for its unlawful behavior and anti-American objectives. Many argue that no media outlet should be subsidized with US tax dollars, but NPR has certainly lost the moral authority to demand our continued support.  We encourage you to thoroughly investigate how NPR uses its talent and resources in contravention of the law. The Committee should determine the following:  With thousands of alternative media outlets now available to the public, has NPR outlived its usefulness? Are NPR’s hiring practices designed to prevent diversity of viewpoints in its programming? Has NPR used its power, reach and resources to interfere in elections, including the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections? Half of Americans are conservative or lean right in their political views; how does NPR attempt, if at all, to address the interests of this swath of Americans? In 1967, Congress determined that funding NPR and PBS, both entities under the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), was necessary since there were only three broadcasters on television and only a small number of news-oriented radio stations across the country. Today, the internet has allowed countless alternative news sources to flourish. There are tens of thousands of online media sites and countless podcasts where the public access news daily.  Black-and-white televisions have been replaced with 5G technology and most radio stations now have apps to compete with audio streaming services. Why should taxpayers continue to finance PBS and NPR now that there’s CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Spotify, Pandora, Sirius XM, iHeart Radio, Amazon Prime, Apple Music, and countless others?  Thank you for holding this important hearing. We look forward to learning how the Committee intends to reform NPR and the role taxpayers play in funding its operations.  Sincerely, L. Brent Bozell III Founder and President Media Research Center   J. Christian Adams President and General Counsel Public Interest Legal Foundation   Saulius “Saul” Anuzis President The American Association of Senior Citizens    Brent Baker Vice President for Research and Publications Media Research Center   Gary L. Bauer President American Values   Ryan Bomberger CoFounder & Chief Creative Officer Radiance Foundation   David N. Bossie President Citizens United   Floyd Brown Founder The Western Journal   The Honorable T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr. Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs President Ronald Reagan   Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II   Elaine Donnelly President Center for Military Readiness   Steven Ertelt Editor LifeNews.com   Kevin Freeman Founder NSIC Institute   Mark J. Fitzgibbons President of Corporate Affairs American Target Advertising   Lady Brigitte Gabriel Founder & Chairman ACT For America   Paul Gessing President Rio Grande Foundation   Tim Graham Executive Editor NewsBusters   Mike​​​​ Gonzalez Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation   Mike Hill  Former Member  Florida State House   Phil Kerpen President American Commitment   Kelly M. Kullberg General Secretary American Association of Evangelicals    Jim Lakely Vice President & Director of Communications The Heartland Institute   George Landrith President Frontiers of Freedom   John Pierce  Chairman National Constitutional Law Union   Richard Manning President Americans for Limited Government   Josh Manning Deputy Managing Editor The Western Journal   Mr. Edward Martin President Phyllis Schlafly Eagles   James L. Martin Founder/Chairman  60 Plus Association   Christie-Lee McNally President Raven Strategies   Cleta Mitchell, Esq. Founder Election Integrity Network   C. Preston Noell III President Tradition, Family, Property, Inc The Honorable George K Rasley Jr Managing Editor ConservativeHQ.com   Khadine L. Ritter, Esq. Chairman Eagle Forum of Ohio   Craig Shirley Chairman and CEO Shirley & McVicker Public Affairs   Terry Schilling President American Principles Project   Cameron Sholty Executive Director Heartland Impact   Dan Schneider  Vice President for Free Speech Media Research Center   Jon Schweppe Policy Director American Principles Project   Sharon Slater President  Family Watch International   Sean Spicer Host The Sean Spicer Show   James Taylor President The Heartland Institute   Tim Throckmorton  President Lifepointe Ministries   Kristen A. Ullman President Eagle Forum   Governor Scott Walker President Young America’s Foundation   Gavin Mario Wax President New York Young Republican Club   Deborah Weiss, Esq.,  President, Vigilance, Inc   Tim Wildmon President American Family Association  

West Point Teaches Army Recruits About Cross Dressing & Gender Norms

Nope, this isn’t satire. Former Congressman Scott Taylor was recently sent an image of classes given to Army recruits at the U. S. Military Academy at West Point. One of the classes was titled “Uniformed Perspectives: The Evolution of Cross-Dressing in the Military and Gender Norms." The United States Military Academy was founded on March 16, 1802. It’s a four-year college that “builds, educates, trains, and inspires the Corps of Cadets to be commissioned leaders of character committed to the Army Values and ready for a lifetime of service to the Army and Nation,” its website states. It’s long been respected as the premiere institution for military and academic training. Now however, I have a feeling that once pristine reputation  - may be tarnished. The class, taught by Morten Ender, Professor of Sociology and co-chair for Diversity & Inclusion Studies, is an obvious indicator that our military training strategies are going woke. Other than the cross-dressing/gender norms class, Ender also plans to hold one called “Do My Leaders ‘Get’ Me?: Unpacking the Importance of Representation in the Military.” This was sent to me, classes at @WestPoint_USMA Quite sure China and Russia are not teaching this nonsense to their officers. Fix yourself. #dod #army pic.twitter.com/QrhEuG8nHb — Scott Taylor (@Scotttaylorva) May 4, 2024 In response to Taylor’s post about the classes, users on X were pissed that THIS is what our U.S. Military is prioritizing. “I expect China and Russia military schools have this up as a motivational poster, no longer fearing the U.S. military” one user wrote. Another user said, “For those that think the military will not be used against us, think again. This is not the military of old. This is the woke military.”  Others called the class “disgusting” and asked “what can we do?” This isn’t the first indicator that the U.S. Military is heading down a path of wokeness. Last month a member of our military posted a TikTok video in his camos shaking his booty for the camera. Last year the Navy appointed a drag queen for help in recruitment in order to attract a “talented” and “diverse workforce.” Similarly, oftentimes around pride month in June, multiple branches share their solidarity with LGBTQ people. In 2022 the U.S. Marines posted a helmet with rainbow pride bullets lodged in it, the U.S. Air Force wrote #CelebratePride in a post and the U.S. Space Force posted a graphic with the words “QUEER SPACE” on it and an astronaut holding a pride flag. Thing is, when our foreign threats see things like these, see that our eventual troops are learning about queer crap and cross-dressing instead of how to protect our nation, those foreign threats are going to have no fears of coming in and demolishing us. We need to facilitate a military of strong warriors, not woke social-justice warriors.

UPDATED: Facebook: We ‘Mistakenly’ Blocked Biden Opponent's Video… We Swear

UPDATE: After the publication of this piece, Facebook a Meta spokesperson responded to MRC Free Speech America's request for comment saying "The link was mistakenly blocked and was quickly restored once the issue was discovered." Meta has once again deemed Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ideas too dangerous to be allowed on Facebook and Instagram. Kennedy’s Super PAC American Values 2024 (AV24) announced Sunday that it will file a lawsuit against Facebook and Instagram’s parent company after the platforms suppressed links to Kennedy's newly released documentary, “Who is Bobby Kennedy?”  “Facebook is putting its thumb on the scale this election,” Kennedy posted on X. “Please help me understand how this Woody Harrelson film about my life violates Facebook’s community standards?”   Kennedy uploaded the 30-minute film to Facebook on May 3.  But when Facebook users tried to share links to the film’s website, the platform claimed the content violated its “Community Guidelines” and would not allow users to post. Instagram users had a similar experience when trying to post the link in Instagram stories, according to screenshots included in a TikTok video that Kennedy’s team posted on May 5. The Kennedy Beacon, the substack newsletter of AV24, alleged that Facebook and Instagram labeled the documentary as “spam,” and accused the film of  showing “support or praise of terrorism, organized crime or hate groups,” “solicitation of sexual services,” and “sale of firearms or drugs.” AV24 also alleged that Facebook and Instagram have shadowbanned the film, citing low engagement numbers as evidence.  Tony Lyons, the founder of AV24, lambasted Facebook and Instagram for their actions infringing on the rights of the American voter. “When social media companies censor a presidential candidate, the public can’t learn what that candidate actually believes and what policies they would pursue if elected,” Lyons told The New York Times. “We are left with the propaganda and lies from the most powerful and most corrupt groups and individuals.”  Meta has since claimed that the video being labeled spam was a mistake rather than overt censorship.  “It was mistakenly blocked and corrected within a few hours,” said Meta spokesman Andy Stone told The Times. When asked for comment, a Meta spokesperson said that the link was blocked by mistake. "The link was mistakenly blocked and was quickly restored once the issue was discovered," said the spokesperson.    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.

Time For a Reality Check: The Left Loves Furries, Trans People & Fetishes

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. The left has a toxic tendency to think that it’s the arbiter of truth - that whatever progressives say is not only their truth but gospel truth and should not only be respected but widely accepted and spread throughout the nation. If you ask me, however, the left - well, most of it - is living in fantasyzland and needs nothing more than a reality check. This week we took a look at some of those examples of delusion. For starters, one teacher bragged about teaching his students about transgenderism. A different professor showed up to teach at UC Berkeley as a furry! At the same time, over at Columbia and Harvard, med students made cringey music videos to encourage students to attend their programs. I certainly hope that none of the “doctors” wasting their time making those videos become my physician anytime soon.   While thinking about people I don’t want to interact with, I’d also never like to interact with the man in the yellow dress and a sunhat who insisted that he deserved to use the women’s restroom. A different set of freaks held a pride event in Utah where kids were invited to check out the BDSM and fetish gear. Yup, that actually happened. Towards the end of the episode, we heard from a lady who explained that you were a bigot if you didn’t want to date an obese person, we saw a lady with lip injections the size of Texas and even a “demi-sexual trans lesbian.” Can’t make this crap up!

The Slow Decline of the United Methodist Church

“O never give me over to my own heart’s desires, nor let me follow my own imaginations!”– John Wesley There are many reasons for the modern church’s loss of its prophetic voice, politics being just one of them. As in ancient times, trying to embrace what the rest of the world is doing has diminished the power of the church to address what used to be called “sinful behavior.” The latest, but surely not the last example, is what the United Methodist Church did last week at their convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. Delegates voted 523 to 161 to replace the definition of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman and will now allow gay Methodist ministers to be ordained and perform same- sex marriages. They dropped language that said homosexual practice “is incompatible with Christian teaching.” African delegates voted against the change. What do they know that others have forgotten? Marriage between a man and a woman IS compatible with Christian teaching. The majority of delegates should read and obey the Scriptures that John Wesley, the founder of their denomination, preached without compromise. In Genesis, it says: “A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two will become one flesh.” The idea is to express love through mutual pleasure and produce children. (Genesis 2:24) Jesus quotes that verse in the New Testament, affirming traditional marriage (Matthew 19:5-6) In Judges, it says: “In those days Israel had no king. Everyone did as he saw fit” (Judges 21:25). We see that reflected in today’s attitudes about sex, marriage and so many other things. Paul writes that in the end times, “to suit their own desires, they will gather round them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Timothy 4:3). We have entered that age and not just when it comes to faith. It’s the same with politics and politicians, too many of whom are telling us what we want to hear, rather than what we need to hear. There are numerous warnings about what will happen – and has happened – if especially religious leaders ignore Scripture. The ancient Israelites were severely punished for doing just that and now too many Christian denominations are climbing into the same boat. But the boat is sinking, as reflected in the number of people who have left these churches. As The New York Times reported about Methodism three years ago, “ America’s second-largest Protestant denomination is in the final stages of a slow motion rupture that has so far seen the departure of a quarter of the nation’s roughly 30,000 United Methodist churches, according to the denomination’s news agency.” It has only gotten worse since then. What else should be expected if the preaching and teaching reflects what the secular world believes? Why attend these churches? Many congregants are fleeing to other denominations, spending their Sunday mornings at a local coffee shop or staying home. To put things on a secular level, most businesses that lose customers would change their way of doing business to win them back. Not the Methodists, Episcopalians, United Presbyterians, and a branch of Lutherans among others. They are doubling down. Strongly evangelical churches that believe and preach Scripture are growing. Heresy is a bad “business model” for the church. Martin Luther said: “Peace if possible, truth at all costs.” If we can’t agree on truth, then anything goes. Historically, the church has been a moral voice when it stood for what Scripture calls “righteousness.” It affirmed doing right things and opposed wrong things. It was a major influence in ending slavery, promoting the right to vote for women and civil rights. While there was opposition to all these, the right prevailed. If the church has lost its voice, who will speak up against wrong things? Who will listen?

‘Prove a Point’: The View Wants Trump in Gitmo for Violating Gag Order

No one has ever accused the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View of having rational, measured responses to political happenings. Last year, they decried the legal notion that former President Trump was entitled to a fair trial; then on Tuesday, they wanted him sent to “Guantanamo Bay” with the terrorists because he violated the gag order for his hush money trial and was held in contempt of court. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg had a bit of a breakdown after playing a soundbite of Trump outside the New York City courthouse condemning the gag order as a violation of his constitutional right to free speech. “When did you read the Constitution?” she screeched. “You know, you could’ve had – you had four years to read the Constitution and figure it out,” she added before her words broke down into indiscernible animal noises: “But I – He just read it now. He just read it. It’s a ba gah [gags and hisses].” Feigning high-mindedness, staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) bloviated that she was “conflicted over whether or not he should be held in contempt and … put in jail for it.”     Hostin came down on the side “put him in the clink” in order to “prove a point” about how it’s the judge who controls the trial and not Trump: HOSTIN: The other thing I will say. We all saw, many of us are old enough to have seen the O.J. case. Remember how Judge Ito lost complete control of the courtroom. And I think that had a lot to do with the win. You cannot let Donald Trump be a runaway train in that courtroom. GOLDBERG: No. No. HOSTIN: It's not his courtroom. It's the judge's courtroom. And so, I think to make a point, to prove a point, put him in the clink! Why not? Put him in the clink! This turn in the conversation got Goldberg so excited she started doing a little peepee dance.   peepee dance pic.twitter.com/0Y88TA05wz — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 7, 2024   “But which prison would be best?” Goldberg wanted to know. “Rikers” Island was “number one” for both Goldberg and Hostin (the latter was so excited they were on the same page that she did her own unhinged convulsions). Goldberg then floated some other prisons including reopening Alcatraz and the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay: GOLDBERG: But you know, I'm okay if he goes to Alcatraz and they re-open it. HOSTIN: Maybe. GOLDBERG: You know? What about Guantanamo Bay? Okay. (…) That's right! What about Supermax? Supermax would be interesting. El Chapo was in Supermax, you know, hey now, he wants to be with the hip people, come on. Faux-conservative Ana Navarro loved the idea of sending Trump to Gitmo because it “would be close to Mar-a-Lago. Melania can come and visit.” She followed that up with mocking laughter. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 7, 2024 11:18:20 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: When did you read the constitution? [Laughter] You know, you could’ve had – you had four years to read the Constitution and figure it out. [Applause] But I – He just read it now. He just read it. It’s a ba gah [gags and hisses] – SUNNY HOSTIN: Even if he read it, it didn't matter to him. Right, Whoopi? I'm sort of conflicted over whether or not he should be held in contempt and put in pri -- he's already been held in contempt but put in jail for it. But I do think that 71 percent of Americans have said that he should be put in jail if he is convicted. The other thing I will say. We all saw, many of us are old enough to have seen the O.J. case. Remember how Judge Ito lost complete control of the courtroom. And I think that had a lot to do with the win. You cannot let Donald Trump be a runaway train in that courtroom. GOLDBERG: No. No. HOSTIN: It's not his courtroom. It's the judge's courtroom. And so, I think to make a point, to prove a point, put him in the clink! Why not? Put him in the clink! [Applause] GOLDBERG: Ooh, ooh, oh! If – I don't want this to sound like I'm doing wishful thinking. HOSTIN: Yes. GOLDBERG: But which prison would be best? [Laughter] HOSTIN: I know which one. GOLDBERG: I’m going to give you— HOSTIN: Rikers. GOLDBERG: Well, that’s what I – That’s number one; is Rikers! But you know, I'm okay if he goes to Alcatraz and they re-open it. HOSTIN: Maybe. GOLDBERG: You know? What about Guantanamo Bay? Okay. ANA NAVARRO: Oh, that would be close to Mar-a-Lago. Melania can come and visit. [Mocking laughter] GOLDBERG: That's right! What about Supermax? Supermax would be interesting. El Chapo was in Supermax, you know, hey now, he wants to be with the hip people, come on. So, these are my suggestions in case anybody wants to know. (…)